An Eye for Form”: Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross 9781575068879

Citation preview

“An Eye for Form”

Frank Moore and Elizabeth Anne Cross on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, 20 June 1997 (photo courtesy of Edward Gindele).

“An Eye for Form” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross

Edited by

Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2014

© 2014 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data “An eye for form” : epigraphic essays in honor of Frank Moore Cross / edited by Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht.    pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-303-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Inscriptions, Semitic.  2.  Inscriptions, Ancient.  I.  Hackett, Jo Ann, editor of compilation.  II.  Aufrecht, Walter Emanuel, 1942– editor of compilation.  III. Cross, Frank Moore, honoree.  IV.  Machinist, Peter, Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross. PJ3091.E94 2014 492′.041—dc23 2014011285

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™

Contents Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   vii Preface   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xii Peter Machinist Response by Frank Moore Cross to the Presentation of an 80th Birthday Volume of Essays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xix Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx Prolegomenon to the Study of Northwest Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 Christopher A. Rollston A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 André Lemaire Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Gordon J. Hamilton The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 John L. Ellison The Iron Age Phoenician Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Christopher A. Rollston Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions . . . 100 Walter E. Aufrecht Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . 107 David S. Vanderhooft On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals . . . . . . . . . 127 Pierre Bordreuil† Phoenician Seal Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Philip C. Schmitz Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Larry G. Herr Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Larry G. Herr v

vi

Contents

Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Christopher A. Rollston Scripts of Post–Iron Age Aramaic Inscriptions and Ostraca . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 André Lemaire Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Scripts of the Persian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Gordon J. Hamilton The Aramaic Papyri Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Ryan Byrne Punic Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo Paleography of the Semitic Judean Desert Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Esther Eshel Northwest Semitic Scripts on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John W. Betlyon

352

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Index of Authors  363 Index of Ancient Sources  369 Index of Place-Names  379 Index of Subjects  381

Contributors Dr. Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, Via Teodoro Monticelli 2, Rome 00197 Italy (mariagiulia​ [email protected]) Dr. Walter E. Aufrecht, The University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4 Canada ([email protected]) Dr. John W. Betlyon, Jewish Studies Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 U.S.A. ( [email protected]) Dr. Pierre Bordreuil, Institut d’études sémitiques du Collège de France à Paris and Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (now deceased) Dr. Ryan Byrne, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 204 W. 21st St. F9400, Austin, Texas 78712-0527 U.S.A. ([email protected]) Dr. John Ellison, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 U.S.A. ( [email protected]) Dr. Esther Eshel, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel; mail to: 17 Arlozorov St., Jerusalem 92181 Israel ([email protected]) Dr. Jo Ann Hackett, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 204 W. 21st St. F9400, Austin, Texas 78712-0527 U.S.A. ([email protected]) Dr. Gordon J. Hamilton, Faculty of Theology, Emeritus, Huron University College, 1349 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 1H3 Canada ([email protected]) Dr. Larry G. Herr, Canadian University College, College Heights, Alberta T4L 2E5 Canada ([email protected]) Dr. André Lemaire, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris–Sorbonne; mail to: 21 bis av. de Stalingrad, Palaiseau F-91120 France (andrelemaire@hotmail​.com) Dr. Peter Machinist, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. ([email protected]) Dr. Christopher A. Rollston, Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A. (christopher​ [email protected]) Dr. Philip C. Schmitz, Department of History and Philosophy, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 U.S.A. ([email protected]) Dr. David S. Vanderhooft, Department of Theology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467 U.S.A. ([email protected])

vii

Preface At the first meeting of his class in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy at Harvard, Frank Cross would inform students that one of the things each of them needed was an “eye for form.” By that, he meant the ability to recognize typological or evolutionary change in letters and scripts. One year, immediately thereafter, a student went from store to store in Harvard Square searching for an “eifferform.” He was unable to obtain the object. The story sounds apocryphal, but it is nonetheless true, and Frank himself delighted in telling it. In a tribute to his teacher William Foxwell Albright, Frank noted that Albright was a master of typological method (Cross 1970: 9; 1975: 16). So was Frank Cross. A few examples must suffice. His first published paper (Cross 1947; 1961; 1968) presented a typological study of the development of the priestly tabernacle. His magesterial Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973; 1997a; 1997b), detailed the typological development of the origin and history of the religion of Israel. And of course, typology is the dominant feature of his epigraphic work, from the origins of the alphabet to the development of the scripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, he has written about the importance of typology itself, illustrating how the typology of human creations has an imitative aspect (1982: 127; 1998: 238–39; 2003: 347): “I can think of nothing so imitative as an adolescent daughter in the selection of wearing apparel—unless it be an Ivy League professor choosing his wardrobe.” Because Frank Cross has so dominated the study of the ancient Near East in the last 60 years, Aufrecht once asked him what he considered his primary field of study to be. Without hesitation, he said, “Epigraphy.” It seemed, therefore, that a volume about the field that he loved and to which he contributed so much should be the subject of a Festshrift in his honor. At his 80th birthday party, surprised by the first draft of the essays collected here, he made the observation, “I’m thankful that somebody has finally recognized what I do.” In fact, many of us have recognized for a long time what Frank Cross accomplished. The problem has been that his work was so inventive and ground-breaking, that it is difficult to appreciate except by scholars with the necessary training; and even for these lucky scholars, it has been quite a task to keep up with him and impossible to move ahead of him. His bibliography lists his many articles on epigraphy. But it is not only the number of articles that overwhelm; it is their breadth and depth. Indeed, it takes 13 specialists in this volume to cover the material that Frank controlled by himself. The discerning reader will notice that our authors sometimes differ in their interpretation of particular inscriptions; or use different nomenclature for describing letter forms; or have different dates for periods or inscriptions; or have changed their minds ix

x

Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht

from previously published work. We have consciously avoided harmonizing or calling attention to these differences; we wanted the essays to ref lect the dynamism of our field. Behind the scenes, we may argue with each other over every “jot and tittle,” but this is the name of the game: knowledge advances in argument. In fact, the similarities among our international cast of authors are much more remarkable than the differences, and we are constantly cooperating with each other by sharing ideas and information. This volume is a testament to that cooperation and to our mutual respect. Frank Cross is the model of this behavior for epigraphers, and we do our best every day to emulate him. It is no secret that this volume has taken a long time to see publication. The delay is entirely due to the editors. The authors and, above all, our honoree understand (understood) why it has taken so long to appear, and we are grateful to them for their patience and their willingness to stick by us through thin and thinner. Although this could be a memorial volume, and we have included the touching remarks to this effect by Peter Machinist, we have decided that, since the essays were written for a Festschrift, we would keep this format for the volume. In this spirit, we celebrate the wonderful scholarship of a wonderful man. We are happy to acknowledge with appreciation and affection the special help given to us by John Huehnergard, Patrick Sisk, Margaret Cook, Sidnie Crawford, Ellen and Ted Gindele, Mark Smith, Christopher Rollston, and especially Dylan Johnson, who expertly indexed the volume. Finally, we are deeply grateful to Jim Eisenbraun, our publisher, for his encouragement, wise counsel, and patience; and to Beverly McCoy, our gifted editor at Eisenbrauns, who improved this book in countless ways and made us look better than we deserve. This volume has been a labor of love by all concerned. For the editors, it has been this and more: it is the opportunity to honor a teacher and friend who has profoundly inf luenced our lives. If this volume has a similar, albeit smaller effect on the reader, it will have been well worth the labor and the delay. Jo Ann Hackett Austin, Texas  and

Walter E. Aufrecht Lethbridge, Alberta

  13 July 2013

Preface

xi

References Cross, F. M. 1947 The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach. Biblical Archaeologist 10: 45–68. 1961 The Priestly Tabernacle. Pp. 201–28 in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. G. E. Wright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1968 The Priestly Tabernacle. Pp. 39–67 in Old Testament Issues, ed. S. Sandmel. New York: Harper. 1970 William Foxwell Albright: Orientalist. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200: 7–11. 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1975 William Foxwell Albright, Orientalist. Pp. 14–18 in The Published Works of William Foxwell Albright: A Comprehensive Bibliography, ed. D. N. Freedman. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1982 Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts. MAARAV 3: 121–36. 1997a Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, trans. I. Koshiishi. Tokyo: The Board of Publications, The United Church of Christ in Japan. [ Japanese] 1997b Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays on the History of the Religion of Israel, 9th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [paperback] 1998 Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts. Pp. 233–45 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003 Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts. Pp. 344–50 in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross Peter Machinist

Frank Moore Cross, one of the premier biblical scholars of the past century, died October 17, 2012. He was 91. Cross had been Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus at Harvard University, where he taught for 35 years before retiring in 1992. 1 Born on July 13, 1921, the son and grandson of Protestant ministers, Cross was educated at Maryville College (B.A., 1942), where he studied chemistry and philosophy and was a competitive swimmer, diver, and track star; and at McCormick Theological Seminary (B.D., 1946). A harbinger of his future career in biblical and related studies was his essay, written during his senior year at McCormick, on the “Priestly Tabernacle of Biblical Israel.” This won him the Nettie McCormick Fellowship for doctoral study in biblical and, more broadly, ancient Near Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University and became his first scholarly publication (1947). The judge of the competition was the renowned Hopkins ancient Near Eastern scholar William Foxwell Albright, who considered the essay to have the sophistication and knowledge of a doctoral thesis, and it was Albright, then, who became Cross’s mentor at Hopkins. There Cross joined a group of outstanding students, including David Noel Freedman, George Mendenhall, and William Moran, and quickly took his place as one of the most important, receiving his doctorate in 1950. For his degree, he worked closely with fellow student Freedman, collaborating with him on two joint dissertation volumes—highly unusual, if not unique in the annals of humanistic scholarship. The first was Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (1952). The second was Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, not published until much later (1964, 1975, 1997). Leaving Hopkins, where he had been a junior instructor, Cross went on to teach at Wellesley College (1950–51) followed by McCormick Seminary (1951–57), before coming to Harvard in 1957, first as Associate Professor and then, on the death of Robert Pfeiffer, as full professor in the Hancock Chair in 1958. Cross had a broad and deep command of the study of the Hebrew Bible and its multiple historical contexts, and achieved distinction in several areas of this field, with publications that numbered over 300. He was an expert in the interpretation of biblical literature, making lasting contributions to the understanding of biblical poetry, of the compositional development of the great historical narratives of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, and of biblical prophecy and apocalyptic. 1.  A slightly different version of these remarks appeared in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369 (2013) 1–4.

xii

An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross

xiii

His two joint dissertations with Noel Freedman, for example, plus a number of subsequent articles, laid out a powerful case for a corpus of “archaic poetry” in the Hebrew Bible, building on the work of their teacher Albright; and although critical reactions have—inevitably—emerged, their case remains an imposing one. Similarly, Cross’s work on the Deuteronomistic History and his argument for a two-stage process in its composition, in the Josianic and Babylonian Exilic periods, offered a new perspective on this major work of biblical historiography and inspired a whole generation of scholarship. Cross was also in the forefront of those investigating the history and culture of ancient Israel from which the Hebrew Bible emerged, and of its relationships to the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures around it. Especially incisive and important here was his work on the character and history of ancient Israelite religion, emphasizing its background in and adaptation of beliefs and practices from its Canaanite neighbors and forebears. The work bore fruit especially in his two volumes Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (1973, 1997) and From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (1998). The essays in these volumes covered a very wide range, from the origins of Israelite religion in Bronze Age Canaan through the apocalyptic world of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late Second Temple period. Among the topics and motifs that Cross explored, arguably the most striking—and one not without controversy—was his effort to marry the study of literature with the study of religion. For Cross, as adumbrated in the title of the first of these volumes, mythic tales were a characteristic literary form of the pre-/non-Israelite cultures of Canaan, speaking to a world view that tended to emphasize the cosmic movements of the gods. Already in early Israel, however, this mythic literature and its world came to exist in a perennial and unrelaxed tension . . . [with] the historical. . . . Israel’s religion emerged from a mythopoeic past under the impact of certain historical experiences which stimulated the creation of an epic cycle and its associated covenant rites. . . . Israel’s choice of the epic form to express religious reality, and the elevation of this form to centrality in their cultic drama, illustrates both the linkage of the religion of Israel to its Canaanite past and the appearance of novelty in Israel’s peculiar religious concern with the “historical.” (Cross 1973: viii–ix)

A third area of Cross’s mastery was the ancient Semitic languages and their interrelationships, particularly the West Semitic group, from the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, which included Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Punic. In these languages and their inscriptions, he achieved special recognition as an epigrapher and paleographer, and one may observe his achievement especially in the volume Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (2003), in which he gathered and revised the bulk of his published work. As an epigrapher, he was regularly consulted by scholars from all over the world for his uncanny skill at deciphering and making sense of these inscriptions. As a paleographer, he produced meticulous studies of the scripts in which the inscriptions were written, reconstructing the chronological developments of these scripts and

xiv

Peter Machinist

thus providing a vastly improved foundation for dating the inscriptions on the basis of the type and character of the script used. His paleographical studies moved from pioneering inquiries into the origins and early development of the alphabet on through all the West Semitic scripts of the first millennium b.c.e. and early first millennium c.e. Easily the most famous and inf luential of these studies was his work on the scripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, originally completed in 1958, and with only minor adjustments, still the essential resource for the analysis and dating of these important texts. Cross was also a major specialist in the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible; his research on the ancient manuscripts and versions of the Bible yielded new and far-reaching conclusions as to how the biblical text was composed and transmitted. More particularly, his theory, based especially on his Dead Sea Scroll work, of three major textual traditions that comprised the history of the Hebrew Bible underlying the emergence of the Masoretic Text—Egyptian/Greek, Palestinian, and Babylonian— became a benchmark for scholars who came after, even when they felt compelled to modify it or move in another direction. Perhaps most well known was Cross’s scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls—the texts from the last centuries b.c.e. and 1st century c.e. that came from a dissident Jewish community that had gone into the Judean wilderness to await the end of history and the coming of a new age. Cross was one of the core members of the original team of experts assembled in Jordanian Jerusalem in the early 1950s to piece together and decipher the often fragmentary scrolls; and while familiarizing himself with all aspects of them, he came to focus on the biblical manuscripts from Cave 4. His numerous publications, however, were not restricted to manuscript editions but covered many topics, including an early and path-breaking synthesis of the Dead Sea Scroll community in its entirety, The Ancient Library of Qumrân. The latter went through three English editions and one German from 1958 to 1995 (1958, 1961, 1967, 1995) and may still be read with considerable profit. Cross’s final Dead Sea Scrolls publications centered on his magisterial presentation of the fragments of the books of Samuel from Cave 4 (Cross et al. 2005), fragments that he had studied for 50 years since his initial work with the team of decipherers. In this volume, composed especially with his former student and colleague, Richard Saley, Cross offered a comprehensive edition of the fragments, providing in close and abundant detail the evidence for the multiple textual traditions that these fragments represent and that, as he showed, is crucial for untangling the very complex textual history of the books of Samuel altogether. To the fields of mastery just described, one may add yet another: archaeology. To be sure, Cross was not a regular field excavator, nor did his publications regularly include the standard stuff of archaeologists: site reports and analyses of non-inscribed objects, buildings, and stratification. But his studies at Hopkins with Albright, many years of travel, residence, and inspection of digs in Israel, Jordan, and elsewhere in the Middle East, coupled with his long association with the Jerusalem schools of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion—all gave Cross a serious familiarity with the methods and data of Near Eastern, especially Syro-Palestinian, archaeology. And, yes, there was also field experience of a more direct sort: with expeditions to Punic Carthage, the coast of

An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross

xv

Sardinia, and Ashkelon, particularly as epigrapher, and as the codirector with J. T. Milik of a survey and partial excavation of several Iron Age II forts with associated farms in the Buqeiʾah Valley, just west of the major Dead Sea Scroll site of Qumran. This Buqeiʾah project was carried out in 1955 when Cross and Milik were otherwise engaged as members of the original Dead Sea Scroll research team, and it made them, in the words of Lawrence Stager (Cross’s student and then Harvard colleague, who went on to develop the project), “pioneers in the archaeology of frontier desert agriculture” (Stager 2012). If one could stand back and take a broad look over this scholarship, one would observe several distinguishing features. In the first place, it shows Cross preeminently as a historian, concerned to understand the phenomenon of ancient Israel and its immediate legacy in its wider Near Eastern and Mediterranean settings and to do so especially but not exclusively through its principal witness, the Hebrew Bible. Although theological interests are not absent from Cross’s work, they do not surface frequently, and when they do, they are often tempered to the historical task he saw. Second, there was his combinatorial talent: his ability to bring to bear on a particular problem an integrated range of skills, linguistic, literary, historical, archaeological, and philosophical. Cross also was able to move in a f luent dialectic between the painstaking examination of minute details and a vision of the larger issues and structures to which the details could belong. In these respects, his study on “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob” (Cross 1988; 1998: 53–70) is an excellent example, bringing together for close study a wide variety of biblical, epigraphic, and archaeological data to demonstrate how they interlock into a portrait of the tribe of Reuben, dominant in the earliest phase of Israelite history, only to disappear sometime in the 11th century b.c.e. before the beginning of the United Monarchy. Throughout his work—and this is the third point—Cross was guided by a historian’s conviction that every phenomenon, institution, or idea has a preexisting context or contexts from which it develops, organically, in certain patterned ways. The search for these patterns is a search for how types of phenomena develop sequentially; indeed, typology was arguably the major intellectual and methodological leitmotif in his scholarship. This conviction, as Cross saw it, was particularly important in the study of ancient Israelite religion and the Hebrew Bible, in which too often claims for their utter uniqueness, their sui generis character can be found. Or as Cross put it himself, The empirical historian must describe novel configurations in Israel’s religion as having their origin in an orderly set of relationships which follow the usual typological sequences of historical change. This is not to denigrate the importance or majesty of Israel’s religious achievement. It is rather to study it under the discipline of a particular scientific method, a historical method governed by established postulates which, if legitimate, must be applied universally to historical data. (Cross 1982: 131; 1998: 241; 2003: 348)

In these concerns, it should be added, Cross drew even as he expanded on his teacher Albright, whose championing of typology and, more generally, bent for a scientific approach to humanistic subjects appealed to Cross’s initial interests in chemistry and philosophy.

xvi

Peter Machinist

As a final point, one cannot forget Cross’s skill at communication: the explanations were always lucid, if at times complex, and in a chiseled prose that could manage in a few pages what others would need many more to express. A most forceful illustration is the book The Ancient Library of Qumrân, which achieves its comprehensive coverage of the Dead Sea community in under 200 pages (so, the 3rd edition) of closely packed, yet smoothly f lowing writing. There is another point here, and this is Cross’s preference for communicating in essays. To be sure, Ancient Library and his two joint volumes with Noel Freedman on Orthography and Ancient Yahwistic Poetry were real books, in the sense of volumes of integrated chapters around a central theme. But all his later volumes, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, From Epic to Canon, and Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook, are collections of essays, most of them revised from their original publication as separate articles. Like the great German historian of ancient Israel, Albrecht Alt, Cross appears to have become most comfortable with the essay format, in which he could use his scrutiny of a particular ancient text or phenomenon as a window on a much larger issue of biblical, Israelite, or other ancient Near Eastern history and culture. The features here outlined that characterized Cross’s scholarship in many ways also distinguished his teaching. His courses introducing the Hebrew Bible and on the history of ancient Israelite religion became staples for a large and broad range of students from beginners to more advanced. At the doctoral level, students came to him from North America and beyond and were put through the exacting rigors of biblical exegesis, Ugaritic, classical Hebrew linguistics, and West Semitic epigraphy, not to mention the (in)famous fall seminar, Hebrew 200r, which Cross shared with his colleagues on topics in the history and religion of ancient Israel and which promoted the very combinatorial approach that was his hallmark. All told, in his three and a half decades at Harvard, he was the primary director of over 100 doctoral students and their dissertations, serving many more as a member of their dissertation committees—a record unsurpassed and probably unequalled internationally in his field. Many of the dissertations began from leads he provided from his own research and publications, which the students then elaborated, developed, and modified. In all of this, Cross was never less than a demanding teacher, setting the bar high in terms of technical competence and broad, humanistic learning. He also had a remarkable knack for taking his students to the very frontiers of knowledge in the field and imbuing them palpably with the excitement of standing at the brink of new discoveries. To be sure, Cross could at times appear formal, formidable, even fearsome, but beneath the austerity was a warm human being who followed his students’ careers long after they had graduated and who loved hearing as much as telling good jokes. Humor was indeed a deep part of his character and Mark Twain one of his favorite authors. Equally important to him was another passion—for horticulture: he was an expert cultivator especially of orchids. The honors that came from such a record of achievement were numerous. Perhaps foremost in his eyes was the success of many of his legion of students, who now hold senior positions in the biblical and related fields in universities, colleges, and seminaries, especially in the United States and Canada but also in Great Britain and Israel. In addition, one must note: seven honorary doctorates from universities, colleges, and

An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross

xvii

seminaries in the United States, Canada, and Israel (Albright College, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Maryville College, Miami University, The University of Lethbridge, and University of Pennsylvania); elections to several scholarly academies, including the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society; the presidencies and directorships of several of the major professional organizations in his field, including the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research; cofounder and cochair of the Hermeneia Biblical Commentary Series and editor or editorial board member of other major series and journals; several major awards for scholarship, including the Percia Schimmel Prize in Archaeology of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem; the William Foxwell Albright Award in Biblical Scholarship from the Society of Biblical Literature; the Medalia de Honor de la Universidad Complutense of Madrid, Spain; and the Lifetime Award in Textual Studies from the National Foundation for Jewish Culture; four volumes of studies in his honor (Festschrifts) by colleagues and former students; and a retrospective on his career and work in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

References Cross, F. M. 1947 The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach. Biblical Archaeologist 10: 45–68. 1958 The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1961 The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. Revised edition. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. 1967 Die Antikebibliothek von Qumran und die moderne biblische Wissenschaft, trans. C. Burchard. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reprinted in paperback, 1997] 1982 Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts. MAARAV 3: 121–36. 1988 Reuben, the First-Born of Jacob. Zeitchrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft: Supplement 100: 46–65. 1995 The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. 3rd revised and extended edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / Minneapolis: Fortress. 1997 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, trans. I. Ko­shiishi. Tokyo: The Board of Publications, The United Church of Christ in Japan. 1998 From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cross, F. M., and Freedman, D. N. 1950 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Ph.D. dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University. 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.

xviii

Peter Machinist

1964 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Ann Arbor, MI: University Photoprint. [Ed. note: the title page lists only the name Frank Moore Cross, Jr.] 1975 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature. [with postscriptum] 1997 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / Livonia, MI: Dove. [with new introductions and postscriptum by the authors] Cross, F. M.; Parry, D. W.; Saley, R. J.; and Ulrich, E. 2005 Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–2 Samuel. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 17. Oxford: Clarendon. Stager, L. 2012 Remembrance of Frank Moore Cross. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/the-end-of-an-era/.

Response by Frank Moore Cross to the Presentation of an 80th Birthday Volume of Essays To Wally Aufrecht, Jo Ann Hackett, and all who have assembled at this meeting on Palaeographical Studies in the Ancient Near East, 1 I should like to say that you cannot imagine the depth of my disappointment at not being with you in person this afternoon. At 80, one’s health sometimes takes over—in my case, a back damaged by a series of episodes of folly, notably, falling out of a tree when a limb I was sawing suddenly broke. At the moment, I can be vertical or horizontal in posture, but anything in between causes spasms of exquisite pain. I have no idea what Professors Aufrecht and Hackett may have said to you about me. I guess, however, that for the most part their remarks have been favorable. If so, I thank them heartily. Professor Aufrecht is one of Canada’s extraordinary richness of distinguished scholars in this field, more per capita than in any other colony of England. And although Professor Hackett began her scholarly journey at Indiana, she properly came to Harvard where, among other things, she has won its prize for teaching and become its second-best epigraphist. I have seen the material in the volume. I am very proud of it. The title Eye for Form sounds mildly titillating. The subject matter, while exciting, does not quite live up to the suggestive title. I must express heartfelt thanks to all of you here, and especially to those who are former students of mine in epigraphy, a number now my colleagues, of whom I am inordinately proud. I am also indebted to colleagues abroad who labor in our esoteric discipline and to other academic friends who have contributed to my Festschrift. It will be a volume I shall turn to often in my ripening years when I am low and need a lift. 1.  Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 2001.

xix

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross 1947  1. “The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach.” Biblical Archaeologist 10: 45–68 [see nos. 64, 103 below].   2. “A Note on Deuteronomy 33:26.” With D. N. Freedman. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 108: 6–7. 1948   3. “The Blessing of Moses.” With D. N. Freedman. Journal of Biblical Literature 67: 191–210.   4. “Review of The Westminster Study Edition of the Bible.” McCormick Speaking 2/3: 12–13. 1949   5. “The Newly Discovered Scrolls in the Hebrew University Museum in Jerusalem.” Biblical Archaeologist 12: 36–46. 1950   6. “Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 117: 19–21.  7. “Review of H. Wallis, The Bible and Modern Belief (Durham, NC: Duke University, 1949).” Religious Education 45: 121–22. 1951   8. “The Third-Person Pronominal Suffix in Phoenician.” With D. N. Freedman. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10: 228–30 [reprinted, pp. 276–77 in no. 302 below].   9. “Review of T. Meek, Hebrew Origin (New York: Harper, 1950).” Journal of Bible and Religion 19: 156. 10. “The Blessed Poor.” McCormick Speaking 5/3: 7–10. 1952 11. Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. With D. N. Freedman. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. 12. “Ugaritic DBʾT and Hebrew Cognates.” Vetus Testamentum 2: 162–64. 13. “Notes on the Revised Old Testament.” McCormick Speaking 6/2: 7–10. 14. “Review of G. R. Driver, The Hebrew Scrolls from the Neighborhood of Jericho and the Dead Sea (London: Oxford University Press, 1951).” Church History 21: 273. 15.

1953 “Josiah’s Revolt against Assyria.” With D. N. Freedman. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12: 56–58.

xx

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxi

16. “A Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving: 2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18.” With D. N. Freedman. Journal of Biblical Literature 72: 15–34. 17. “Reviews of K. M. Kenyon, Beginning in Archaeology (London: Phoenix, 1952); and M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Grenzgebiete der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (2nd ed.; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1953).” Biblical Archaeologist 16: 43–44. 18. “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12: 274–77. 19. “A New Qumrân Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 132: 15–26 [see no. 92 below]. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

1954 “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves.” Biblical Archaeologist 17: 2–21 [see no. 24 below]. “Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine.” With J. T. Milik. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 134: 5–15 [reprinted, pp. 303–8 in no. 302 below]. “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 134: 15–24 [reprinted, pp. 309–12 in no. 302 below]. “Notes on Recent Research in Palestine.” McCormick Speaking 7/8: 11, 14. “Les rouleaux de la Mer Morte.” Evidences 6/41: 5–12 [French translation of no. 20 above]. “Review of G. E. Wright, The Biblical Doctrine of Man in Society (London: SCM, 1954).” McCormick Speaking 8/2: 16. “The Banquet of the Kingdom.” McCormick Speaking 8/3: 7–10.

1955 27. “Inscriptions: Ancient Hebrew and Related Syro-Palestinian.” Pp. 560–62 in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. L. A. Loetscher. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. 28. “Writing: Ancient Hebrew.” Pp. 1191–92 in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. L. A. Loetscher. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. 29. “Yahweh.” Pp. 1194–95 in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. L. A. Loetscher. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. 30. “Scrolls from the Judean Wilderness.” The Christian Century 72: 889–91. 31. “The Scrolls and The Old Testament.” The Christian Century 72: 948–50. 32. “The Essenes and Their Master.” The Christian Century 72: 954. 33. “The Scrolls and the New Testament.” The Christian Century 72: 968–71. 34. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumrân.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74: 147–72 [see nos. 91, 156 below]. 35. “Geshem the Arabian, Enemy of Nehemiah.” Biblical Archaeologist 18: 46–47. 36. “Archaeological News and Views.” Biblical Archaeologist 18: 79–80. 37. Translation with J. S. Hazelton, of J. Starcky, “The Nabateans: A Historical Sketch.” Biblical Archaeologist 18: 82–106. 38. “From Manuscripts Found in a Cave.” Review of E. Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955). New York Times Book Review, October 16. 39. “The Song of Miriam.” With D. N. Freedman. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14: 237–50. 40. “A Footnote to Biblical History.” McCormick Speaking 9/2: 7–10 [see no. 41 below].

xxii 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross 1956 “A Footnote to Biblical History.” Biblical Archaeologist 19: 12–17 [reprint of no. 40 above]. “A Report on the Biblical Fragments of Cave Four in the Wâdī Qumrân.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 141: 9–13. “The Scrolls from the Judaean Desert.” Archaeology 9/1: 41–53 [see no. 96 below]. “La lettre de Simon ben Kosba.” Revue biblique 63: 45–48. “La travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân.” Revue biblique 63: 49–67 [see no. 54 below]. “Chronique archéologique: El Bouqeiʿah.” With J. T. Milik. Revue biblique 63: 74–76. “Explorations in the Judaean Buqeiʿah.” With J. T. Milik. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 142: 5–17. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Significance to Religious Thought: A Symposium.” The New Republic, April 9, 12–25. “Qumrân Cave I.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75: 121–25. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah.” With G. Ernest Wright. Journal of Biblical Literature 75: 202–26. “Review of J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954).” Archaeology 9: 150–51. “Lachish Letter IV.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 144: 24–26 [reprinted, pp. 133–34 in no. 302 below]. “McCormick’s Rehnborg Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls.” McCormick Speaking 10/4: 7–10. “Editing the Manuscript Fragments of Qumrân.” With P. Benoit et al. Biblical Archaeologist 19: 75–96 [English translation of no. 45 above]. “A Typological Study of the El-Khadr Javelin and Arrowheads.” With J. T. Milik. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3: 15–23.

1957 56. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 645–67 in vol. 12 of Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951–57. 57. “Review of G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957).” Biblical Archaeologist 20: 79–80. 1958 58. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Doubleday [see nos. 66, 95, 181, 254 below]. 59. “Epigraphik, semitische.” Pp. 523–26 in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, ed. K. Galling. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). 60. “Will You Lie for God?” Convocation Address Delivered at the Memorial Church (of Harvard University) on September 24, 1958. Harvard Divinity School Bulletin Occasional Publication [see no. 62 below]. 1959 61. “Report from the Dead Sea Scrollery.” McCormick Speaking 13/2: 20–23.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxiii

1960 62. “Will You Speak Falsely for God?” Pp. 92–105 in Contemporary Accents in Liberal Religion, ed. E. Bradford. Boston: Beacon [reprint of no. 60 above]. 63. “A Ugaritic Abecedary and the Origins of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet.” With T. O. Lambdin. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 160: 21–26 [reprinted, pp. 313–16 in no. 302 below]. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

1961 “The Priestly Tabernacle.” Pp. 201–28 in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. G. E. Wright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday [revision of no. 1 above; see no. 103 below]. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pp. 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. New York: Doubleday [reprinted in nos. 180, 275, and 331; and pp. 3–43 in no. 302 below]. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor [revision of no. 58 above; see nos. 95, 181, 254 below]. “The Study of the Old Testament at Harvard.” With G. Ernest Wright. Harvard Divinity School Bulletin, April–July, 14–20. “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., I: A New Reading of a Place Name in the Samaria Ostraca.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163: 12–14 [reprinted, pp. 114–15 in no. 302 below]. “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., II: The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-Yam.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165: 34–46 [reprinted, pp. 116–24 in no. 302 below]. “An Inscribed Seal from Balâtah (Shechem).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 167: 14–15. “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs.” Harvard Theological Review 55: 225–59 [see nos. 89, 188 below; revised and expanded, pp. 3–75 in no. 132 below]. Editor, with K. Stendahl, of “Studies in Memory of Arthur Darby Nock.” Harvard Theological Review 55: 211–366. “An Archaic Inscribed Seal from the Valley of Aijalon [Soreq].” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 12–18 [reprinted, pp. 299–302 in no. 302 below]. “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., III: The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 18–23 [reprinted, pp. 125–28 in no. 302 below]. “Excursus on the Palaeographical Dating of the Copper Document.” Pp. 217–21 and fig. 12 in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân, ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, R. de Vaux, and H. W. Baker. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3. Oxford: Clarendon [reprinted, pp. 47–50 in no. 302 below].

1963 76. “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri.” Biblical Archaeologist 26: 110–21 [see nos. 77, 119 below]. 77. “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri.” Christian News from Israel 14: 24–35 [reprint of no. 76 above].

xxiv

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

1964 78. “The Name of Ashdod.” With D. N. Freedman. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175: 48–50. 79. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. With D. N. Freedman. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University, 1950. Ann Arbor, MI: University photoprint [see nos. 160, 267 below]. 80. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” Harvard Theological Review 57: 281–99 [see nos. 90, 157 below]. 81. “The Ostracon from Nebi Yunis.” Israel Exploration Journal 14: 185–86, pl. 41H. 1965 82. “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet.” Pp. 17–19 in The Nineteenth Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. [Hebrew] 83. Editor, Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea: Catalogue of the Exhibit. With M. E. Stone. Berkeley: University of California Press [see nos. 84, 166–67 below]. 84. “The Dead Sea Scrolls of Jordan.” Pp. 3–30 in Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea: Catalogue of the Exhibit, ed. F. M. Cross and M. E. Stone. Berkeley: University of California Press [see no. 83 above; nos. 166–67 below]. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

1966 “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult.” Pp. 11–30 in Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations, ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [revised and expanded pp. 79–111 in no. 132 below]. “The Contribution of the Discoveries at Qumrân to the Study of the Biblical Text.” Israel Exploration Journal 16: 81–95 [see nos. 139, 158, 186 below]. “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times.” Harvard Theological Review 59: 201–11 [see nos. 221, 227 below]. “An Aramaic Inscription from Daskyleion.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184: 7–10 [reprinted, pp. 181–83 in no. 302 below]. “Yahvé y el dios de los patriarcas.” Selecciones de teología 17: 56–60 [Spanish translation of no. 71 above]. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” Pp. 77–95 in Readings on the History of the Bible Text in Recent Writing, ed. S. Talmon. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Institute of Jewish Studies [reprint of no. 80 above]. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumrân.” Pp. 217–42 in Readings on the History of the Bible Text in Recent Writing, ed. S. Talmon. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Institute of Jewish Studies [reprint of no. 34 above]. “A New Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint.” Pp. 243–54 in Readings on the History of the Bible Text in Recent Writing, ed. S. Talmon. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Institute of Jewish Studies [reprint of no. 19 above].

1967 93. “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet.” Eretz-Israel 8 (Sukenik Volume): 8*–24* [reprinted, pp. 317–29 in no. 302 below]. 94. “Piety and Politics.” Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly, June, 28–29.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxv

95. Die Antikebibliothek von Qumran und die moderne biblische Wissenschaft, trans. C. Burchard. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag [German translation of no. 66 above].   96. “The Scrolls from the Judean Desert.” Pp. 157–67 in Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land. New York: Crowell [reprint of no. 43 above]. 1968  97. “The Early Kingdoms of Asia and Africa: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria–Palestine, and Anatolia.” Pp. 27–50 in An Encyclopedia of World History, ed. W. L. Langer. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miff lin.   98. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 115–17 in An Encyclopedia of World History, ed. W. L. Langer. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miff lin.   99. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic History.” Pp. 9–24 in Perspectives in Jewish Learning: Annual of the College of Jewish Studies [now the Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, Chicago]. 100. “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth.” Journal for Theology and the Church 5: 1–25 [revised and expanded, pp. 112–44 in no. 132 below]. 101. “The Canaanite Cuneiform Tablet from Taanach.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 190: 41–46. 102. “The Early History of the Qumran Community.” McCormick Quarterly 21: 249–64 [see no. 110 below]. 103. “The Priestly Tabernacle.” Pp. 39–67 in Old Testament Issues, ed. S. Sandmel. New York: Harper [reprint of no. 64 above]. 104. “The Phoenician Inscription from Brazil: A Nineteenth Century Forgery.” Orientalia 37: 437–60 [reprinted, pp. 238–49 in no. 302 below]. 105. “Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona.” Israel Exploration Journal 18: 226–33 [reprinted, pp. 286–89 in no. 302 below]. 1969 106. “Judaean Stamps.” Eretz-Israel 9 (Albright Volume): 20*–27*, pl. 5 [reprinted and updated, pp. 138–45 in no. 302 below]. 107. “New Directions in the Study of the Apocalyptic.” Journal for Theology and the Church 6: 157–65. 108. “A Christian Understanding of the Election of Israel.” Pp. 72–85 in The End of Dialogue and Beyond, ed. S. Seltzner and M. Stackhouse. New York: Friendship. 109. “Papyri of the Fourth Century b.c. from Dâliyeh.” Pp. 41–62, figs. 34–39 in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. D. N. Freedman and J. Greenfield. New York: Anchor. 110. “The Early History of the Qumrân Community.” Pp. 63–69 in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. D. N. Freedman and J. Greenfield. New York: Anchor [reprint of no. 102 above]. 111. “Epigraphic Notes on the Ammân Citadel Inscription.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 193: 13–19 [reprinted, pp. 95–99 in no. 302 below]. 112. “Two Notes on Palestinian Inscriptions of the Persian Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 193: 19–24. 113. “An Ostracon from Heshbon.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7: 223–29, pl. 25. 114. Associate editor and translator, “1–2 Samuel.” With P. W. Skehan. The New American Bible. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild.

xxvi 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross 1970 “The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei.” Pp. 299–306 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday [reprinted, pp. 166–70 in no. 302 below]. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 117–19 in vol. 7 of Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century b.c. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria.” With R. J. Saley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 197: 42–49 [reprinted, pp. 265–69 in no. 302 below]. “William Foxwell Albright: Orientalist.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200: 7–11 [see no. 150 below]. “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri.” Pp. 227–39 in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. 3, ed. E. F. Campbell Jr. and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday [reprint of no. 76 above].

1971 120. “An Inscribed Jar Handle from Raddana.” With D. N. Freedman. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 201: 19–22 [reprinted, pp. 297–98 in no. 302 below]. 121. “Buqeiʿah.” Pp. 99–100 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada [Hebrew; see nos. 161, 245 below]. 122. Editor, with John Strugnell. “Studies in Memory of Paul Lapp.” Harvard Theological Review 64: 129–450. 123. “The Old Phoenician Inscription from Spain Dedicated to Hurrian Astarte.” Harvard Theological Review 64: 189–95 [reprinted, pp. 273–75 in no. 302 below]. 124. “‫[ אל‬ʾEl].” Pp. 259–79 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G.  J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Berlin: Kohlhammer [German; see nos. 136, 141 below]. 125. 126.

127.

128. 129. 130. 131.

1972 “The Stele Dedicated to Melcarth by Ben-Hadad of Damascus.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 205: 36–42 [reprinted and updated, pp. 173–77 in no. 302 below]. Editor, with D. N. Freedman and J. A. Sanders. Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, from Photographs by John C. Trever. Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and The Shrine of the Book [see no. 143 below]. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–5 in Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I : The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, from Photographs by John C. Trever, ed. F. M. Cross, D. N. Freedman, and J. A. Sanders. Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and The Shrine of the Book [see no. 144 below]. “Some Observations on Early Hebrew.” With D. N. Freedman. Biblica 53: 413–20. “An Interpretation of the Nora Stone.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208: 13–19 [reprinted, pp. 250–53 in no. 302 below]. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2: 108–26 [see no. 159 below]. “William Foxwell Albright.” Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society: 110–15 [see no. 151 below].

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxvii

1973 132. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [see nos. 264, 269, 292, 313 below]. 133. “Heshbon Ostracon II.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 11: 126–31. 134. “Two Archaic Inscriptions on Clay Objects from Byblus.” With P. K. McCarter Jr. Revista di Studi Fenici 1: 3–8. 135. “W. F. Albright’s View of Biblical Archaeology and Its Methodology.” Biblical Archaeologist 36: 2–5. 136. “‫[ אל‬Dios].” Pp. 256–75 in vol. 1 of Diccionario teológico de Antiquo Testamento, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad [Spanish translation of no. 124 above]. 137. “Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from Tell Sīrān.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 212: 12–15 [reprinted, pp. 100–102 in no. 302 below]. 1974 138. Editor of posthumous article by W. F. Albright. “The Lachish Cosmetic Burner and Esther 2:12.” Pp. 25–32 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 139. “The Contribution of the Qumrân to the Study of the Biblical Text.” Pp. 334–49 in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader, ed. S. Z. Leiman. New York: Ktav [reprint of no. 86 above]. 140. “Prose and Poetry in the Mythic Texts from Ugarit.” Harvard Theological Review 67: 1–15. 141. “‫[ אל‬ʾEl ].” Pp. 242–61 in vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans [English translation of no. 124 above]. 142. “George Ernest Wright: A Tribute to Him at His Death.” Harvard Divinity School Bulletin 5/1: 4, 6. 143. Editor, with D. N. Freedman and J. A. Sanders. Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, from Photographs by John C. Trever. Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and The Shrine of the Book [student edition of no. 126 above]. 144. “Introduction.” In Scrolls from Qumrân Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, from Photographs by John C. Trever, ed. F. M. Cross, D. N. Freedman, and J. A. Sanders. Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and The Shrine of the Book [student edition of no. 127 above]. 145. “Inscriptions from Idalion in Greek, Cypriote Syllabic, and Phoenician Scripts.” Pp. 77– 81 in American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus. First Preliminary Report: Seasons of 1971 and 1972, ed. L. E. Stager, A. Walker, and G. E. Wright. Supplement to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 18. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research [partially reprinted, pp. 279–81 in no. 302 below]. 146. “Leaves from an Epigraphist’s Notebook, 1: A Second Phoenician Incantation from Arslan Tash; 2: The Oldest Inscription from the Western Mediterranean; and 3: A Forgotten Seal.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34: 486–94 [“A Second Phoenician Incantation from Arslan Tash,” revised, pp. 270–72 in no. 302 below; “The Oldest Inscription from the Western Mediterranean,” revised, pp. 64–74 in no. 216 below; “A Forgotten Seal,” reprinted, pp. 103–4 in no. 302 below].

xxviii

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

147. “Coins.” Pp. 57–60, pl. 80 in Discoveries in the Wâdī ʾed-Dâliyeh, ed. P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 148. “The Papyri and Their Historical Implications.” Pp. 17–29, pls. 59–63 in Discoveries in the Wâdī ʾed-Dâliyeh, ed. P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research [partially reprinted, pp. 44–46 in no. 302 below; see no. 171 below]. 149. “Scarab.” Pp. 59–60, pl. 81 in Discoveries in the Wâdī ʾed-Dâliyeh, ed. P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1975 150. “William Foxwell Albright, Orientalist.” Pp. 14–18 in The Published Works of William Foxwell Albright: A Comprehensive Bibliography, ed. D. N. Freedman. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research [reprint of no. 118 above]. 151. “William Foxwell Albright (1891–1971).” Pp. 19–23 in The Published Works of William Foxwell Albright: A Comprehensive Bibliography, ed. D. N. Freedman. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research [reprint of no. 131 above]. 152. “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94: 4–18 [see no. 153 below]. 153. “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” Interpretation 29: 187–203 [revision of no. 152 above; revised and expanded, pp. 152–72 in no. 277 below]. 154. “Ammonite Ostraca from Heshbon.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 13: 1–20, pls. 1–2 [revised and expanded, pp. 70–99 in no. 302 below; and no. 327 below]. 155. Editor, with S. Talmon. Qumrân and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [see nos. 156–59 below]. 156. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumrân.” Pp. 147–76 in Qumrân and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [reprint of no. 34 above]. 157. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” Pp. 177–95 in Qumrân and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [reprint of no. 80 above]. 158. “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text.” Pp. 278–92 in Qumrân and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [reprint of no. 86 above]. 159. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pp. 306–20 in Qumrân and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [reprint of no. 130 above]. 160. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. With D. N. Freedman. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press [reprint of no. 79 above. With postscriptum written in 1975; see no. 267 below]. 161. “El-Buqeiʿa.” Pp. 267–70 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada [English translation of no. 121 above; see no. 245 below]. 162. “Presidential Report to the American Schools of Oriental Research.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 219: 1–3. 1976 163. “Heshbon Ostracon XI.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 14: 145–48.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxix

164. Editor, with P. D. Miller Jr. and W. E. Lemke. Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 165. “The Olden Gods in Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths.” Pp. 329–38 in Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, P. D. Miller Jr., and W. E. Lemke. Garden City, NY: Doubleday [revised pp.76–83 in no. 277 below]. 1977 166. Editor. Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea. Claremont, CA: School of Theology [revision of no. 83 above; see no. 167 below]. 167. “Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea.” Pp. 3–10 in Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea, ed. F. M. Cross. Claremont, CA: School of Theology [revision of no. 84 above; see no. 166 above]. 168. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the People Who Wrote Them.” Biblical Archaeology Review 3/1: 1, 23–32, 51 [see nos. 172, 324 below]. 169. “George Ernest Wright.” With P. D. Hanson, W. L. Moran, and K. Stendahl. Harvard University Gazette 72/27, April 15. 1978 170. “David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151: 3–4.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 231: 69–71. 171. “The Historical Importance of the Samaria Papyri.” Biblical Archaeology Review 4/1: 25– 27 [abridged version of no. 148 above]. 172. “The People Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Jewish Digest 24/2: 63–70 [reprint of no. 168 above]. 1979 173. Editor. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 174. “Early Alphabetic Scripts.” Pp. 95–123 in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975), ed. F. M. Cross. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research [reprinted, pp. 330–43 in no. 302 below]. 175. “A Newly Published Inscription of the Persian Age from Byblus.” Israel Exploration Journal 29: 40–44 [reprinted, pp. 283–85 in no. 302 below]. 176. “Problems of Method in the Textual Study of the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 31–54 in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, ed. W. D. O’Flaherty. Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union. 177. Editor, with K. Baltzer and L. J. Greenspoon, of W. Zimmerli. Ezekiel I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, trans. R. E. Clements. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress. 178. “Phoenicians in Brazil?” Biblical Archaeology Review 5/1: 36–43 [abridged version of no. 104 above]. 179. “Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of ʿArad.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 235: 75–78 [reprinted, pp. 290–92 in no. 302 below].

xxx

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

180. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pp. 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprint of no. 65 above]. 1980 181. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker [reprint of no. 66 above. With supplement; see no. 254 below]. 182. “The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSama.” Pp. 105–19 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies—Vienna, ed. E. Tov. Jerusalem: Academon. 183. “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1–20 [reprinted, pp. 213–30 in no. 302 below]. 1981 184. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” Pp. 169–80 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College [see no. 200 below; expanded version pp. 84–95 in no. 277 below]. 185. “Forward.” Pp. vii–viii in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, by David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 186. “Der Beitrag de Qumranfunde zur Erforschung des Bibeltextes.” Pp. 365–84 in Qumran, ed. K.-E. Grözinger. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft [German translation of no. 86 above]. 187. “An Aramaic Ostracon of the Third Century b.c.e. from the Excavations in Jerusalem.” Eretz-Israel 15 (Aharoni Volume): 67*–69*, pl. 4:2 [reprinted, pp. 188–89 in no. 302 below]. 188. “Javé e os deuses dos patriarchos.” Pp. 75–102 in Deus No Antigo Testamento, ed. E. Gerstenberger. São Paulo: Associação de Seminários Teológicos Evangélicos [Portuguese translation of no. 71 above] 1982 189. “Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts.” MAARAV 3: 121–36 [reprinted, pp. 233–45 in no. 277 below; and pp. 344–50 in no. 302 below]. 190. “‫[ ”שומרונים‬The Samaritans]. Pp. 164–73 in vol. 8 of Encyclopedia Biblica, ed. E. L. Sukenik et al. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950–88. [Hebrew] 1983 191. “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions.” Pp. 13–39 in Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Criticism, ed. R. Friedman. Harvard Semitic Studies 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press [expanded version pp. 22–52 in no. 277 below]. 192. “The Seal of Miqnêyaw, Servant of Yahweh.” Pp. 55–63, pls. 9–10 in Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte. North Ridge, CA: Undena [reprinted and updated, pp. 107–13 in no. 302 below]. 193. “The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from I Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela.” Pp. 148–58 in History, Historiography, and Interpretation:

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxxi

Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes. 194. “Samaria and Jerusalem: The Early History of the Samaritans and Their Relations with the Jews.” Pp. 89–94 in The History of the Jewish People: The Restoration, Days of Persian Rule, ed. H. Tadmor et al. Jerusalem: Alexander Peli [Hebrew; revised and expanded version pp. 173–202 in no. 277 below]. 195. “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of Lamentations 1:1–22.” Pp. 129–55 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [expanded version pp. 99–134 in no. 277 below]. 196. “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Song of Jonah.” Pp. 149–67 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Essays in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, ed. H. H. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [expanded version, pp. 99–134 in no. 277 below]. 197. “An Inscribed Weight.” Pp. 27–30 in The Excavations at ʿAraq el-Emir, ed. N. L. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 47. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprinted, pp. 146–48 in no. 302 below]. 198. “A Note on a Burial Inscription from Mount Scopus.” Israel Exploration Journal 33: 245– 46 [reprinted, pp. 190–91 in no. 302 below]. 199. “Phoenicians in Sardinia: The Epigraphical Evidence.” Pp. 53–66 in Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, ed. M. S. Balmuth and R. J. Rowland. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 200. 201. 202. 203.

1984 “Phoenicians in the West: The Epigraphic Evidence.” Pp. 116–30 in Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, vol. 2, ed. M. S. Balmuth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press [reprinted and updated, pp. 254–59 in no. 302 below]. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” Pp. 91–105 in The Temple in Antiquity, ed. T. G. Madsen. Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [revision of no. 184 above; revised and expanded, pp. 84–95 in no. 277 below]. “An Old Canaanite Inscription Newly Found at Lachish.” Tel Aviv 11: 71–76 [reprinted, pp. 293–96 in no. 302 below]. “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus.” Israel Exploration Journal 34: 260–64 [reprinted, pp. 178–80 in no. 302 below].

1985 204. “Samaria Papyrus I: A Slave Conveyance of 335 b.c.e. Found in the Wâdī ed- Dâliyeh.” Eretz-Israel 18 (Avigad Volume): 7*–17*, pl. 2. 205. “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research, I: The Text behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Bible Review 1/2: 12–25 [see nos. 235, 251, 279 below; expanded version, pp. 206–18 in no. 277 below]. 206. “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research, II: Original Biblical Text Reconstructed from Newly Found Fragments.” Bible Review 1/3: 26–35 [see no. 252 below]. 207. “Biblical Archaeology: The Biblical Aspect.” Pp. 9–15 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

xxxii

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

208. “Discussion [on Ammonite paleography].” Pp. 367, 369 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 209. “The Origins of the Alphabet.” Pp. 276–78 in Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria, ed. H. Weiss. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 210. “A Literate Soldier: Lachish Letter III.” Pp. 41–47 in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Ivry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauer. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprinted, pp. 129–33 in no. 302 below]. 211. “An Ammonite King List.” Biblical Archaeologist 48: 171. 212. “New Directions in the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Brigham Young University Studies 25: 3–11. 1986 213. “Mercanti e coloni fenici nel mediterraneo.” Pp. 21–30 in Recirca sugli antichi insediamenti fenici. Sardinian Coastal Study Project 1. Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali soprintenza archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano. 214. “A New Aramaic Stele from Taymāʾ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48: 387–94 [reprinted, pp. 184–87 in no. 302 below]. 215. “An Unpublished Ammonite Ostracon from Heshbon.” Pp. 475–90 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies, ed. L. Geraty and L. G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. 1987 216. “The Oldest Phoenician Inscription from Sardinia: The Fragmentary Stele from Nora.” Pp. 65–74 in Working With No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb and S. T. Hollis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [see no. 146 above; reprinted, pp. 260–64 in no. 302 below]. 1988 217. “A Report on the Samaria Papyri.” Pp. 17–26 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 40. Leiden: Brill. 218. “Reuben the First Born of Jacob.” Zeitchrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Supplement 100: 46–65 [expanded version pp. 53–70 in no. 277 below]. 219. “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Light on the Text and Canon of the Bible.” Pp. 7–19 in A Sign and Witness: 2,000 Years of Hebrew Books and Illuminated Manuscripts, ed. L. S. Gold. Studies in Jewish History. New York: New York Public Library / Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989 220. “The Contribution of William Foxwell Albright to Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography.” Pp. 17–31 in The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright: An Appraisal, ed. G. W. Van Beek. Harvard Semitic Studies 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 221. “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times.” Pp. 49–59 in Emerging Judaism: Studies on the Fourth and Third Centuries b.c.e., ed. M. E. Stone and D. Satran. Minneapolis: Fortress [reprint of no. 87 above]. 222. “The Redemption of Nature.” [The Alexander Thompson Lecture, 1989], The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 10: 94–104.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxxiii

1990 223. “The Invention and Development of the Alphabet.” Pp. 77–90 in The Origins of Writing, ed. W. M. Senner. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 224. “A Response to Zakovitch’s ‘Successful Failure of Israelite Intelligence.’ ” Pp. 99–104 in Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore, ed. S. Niditch. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 225. Editor of M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1991 226. Editor of S. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992 227. “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times.” Pp. 199–206 in Samaritaner, ed. F. Dexinger and R. Pummer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft Buchgesellschaft [reprint of no. 87 above]. 228. “Nahman Avigad: In Memoriam.” Biblical Archaeology Review 18/3: 46, 48, 78. 229. “Newly-Found Inscribed Arrowheads of the Eleventh Century b.c.e.” Israel Museum Journal 10: 57–62. 230. “Wâdī ed-Dâliyeh.” Pp. 3–4 in vol. 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday. 231. “Frank Moore Cross: An Interview, Part I: Israelite Origins.” Bible Review 8/4: 20–32, 61–63 [reprinted, pp. 11–30 in no. 249 below]. 232. “Frank Moore Cross: An Interview, Part II: The Development of Israelite Religion.” Bible Review 8/5: 18–29, 50 [reprinted, pp. 32–54 in no. 349 below]. 233. “Frank Moore Cross: An Interview, Part III: How the Alphabet Democratized Civilization.” Bible Review 8/6: l8–31, 58 [reprinted, pp. 56–94 in no. 349 below]. 234. “The Historical Context of the Scrolls.” Pp. 20–32 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. H. Shanks. New York: Random House [see no. 278 below]. 235. “The Text behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 139–55 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. H. Shanks. New York: Random House [reprint of no. 205 above]. 236. “Light on the Bible from the Dead Sea Caves.” Pp. 156–66 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. H. Shanks. New York: Random House [see no. 280 below]. 237. “An Inscribed Arrowhead of the Eleventh Century b.c.e. in the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem.” Eretz-Israel 23 (Biran Volume): 21*–26* [reprinted, pp. 203–6 in no. 302 below]. 238. “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies.” Pp. 1–14 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, vol. 1, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. V. Montaner. Leiden: Brill / Madrid: Editorial Complutense. 239. “Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 361–62 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. P. H. Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan. 1993 240. “On the History of the Photography.” Pp. 21–22 in The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: Companion Volume, ed. E. Tov and S. J. Pfann. Leiden: Brill. 241. “A Suggested Reading of the Horvat ʿUza Ostracon.” Tel Aviv 20: 64–65.

xxxiv

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

242. “Review of B. Mazar, Biblical Israel: State and People ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992).” Biblical Archaeological Review 19/4: 4. 243. “Newly-Discovered Inscribed Arrowheads of the 11th Century b.c.e.” Pp. 533–42 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities [reprinted, pp. 207– 12 in no. 302 below]. 244. Editor of J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. 245. “Buqeiʿa, El-.” Pp. 267–69 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada [revision of no. 161 above]. 1994 246. “The Ammonite Ostraca from Tell Hesbân.” With L. T. Geraty. Pp. 169–74 in Heshbon after 25 Years, ed. D. Merling and L. T. Geraty. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. 247. Editor, with J. H. Charlesworth, J. Milgrom, E. Qimron, L. H. Schiffman, L. T. Stuckenbruck, and R. E. Whitaker. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 248. “Appendix: Paleographical Dates of the Manuscripts [of the Serek hay-yaḥad from Cave 4, Qumrân].” Pp. 57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 1, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, F. M. Cross, J. Milgrom, E. Qimron, L. H. Schiffman, L. T. Stuckenbruck, and R. E. Whitaker. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 249. Frank Moore Cross: Conversations with a Bible Scholar, ed. H. Shanks. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society [includes reprints of nos. 231–33 above]. 250. “A Phoenician Inscription from Idalion: Some Old and New Inscriptions Relating to Child Sacrifice.” Pp. 93–107 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press [reprinted, pp. 231–37 in no. 302 below]. 251. “The Text behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 148–61 in Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review, vol. 1, ed. H. Minkoff. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society [reprint of no. 205 above]. 252. “Original Biblical Text Reconstructed from Fragments.” Pp. 162–69 in Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review, vol. 1, ed. H. Minkoff. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society [reprint of no. 206 above]. 253. Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 12. With E. Ulrich, J. R. Davila, N. Jastram, J. E. Sanderson, E. Tov, and J. Strugnell. Oxford: Clarendon. 1995 254. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. 3rd rev. and extended ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / Minneapolis: Fortress [see nos. 58, 66, 181 above]. 255. “Palaeography and the Tell Fahariyeh Bilingual Inscription.” Pp. 393–404 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies Presented to Jonas Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprinted and updated, pp. 51–60 in no. 302 below].

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxxv

256. “Toward a History of Hebrew Prosody.” Pp. 298–309 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays Presented to David Noel Freedman on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. B. Beck, A. H. Bartheld, P. R. Raabe, and C. A. Franke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans [reprinted, pp. 135–47 in no. 277 below]. 257. Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 14. With E. Ulrich, S. W. Crawford, J. A. Duncan, P. W. Skehan, E. Tov, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Oxford: Clarendon. 258. “A Note on a Recently Published Arrowhead.” Israel Exploration Journal 45: 188–89. 259. 260.

261. 262.

263.

1996 “A Philistine Ostracon from Ashkelon.” Biblical Archaeology Review 22/1: 64–65 [reprinted, pp. 164–65 in no. 302 below]. “A Papyrus Recording a Divine Legal Decision and the Root rhq in Biblical and Near Eastern Legal Usage.” Pp. 311–20 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox, V. A. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, M. L. Klein, B. J. Swartz, and N. Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprinted, pp. 63–69 in no. 302 below]. “The Arrow of Suwar, Retainer of ʿAbday.” Eretz-Israel 25 (Aviram Volume): 9*–17* [reprinted, pp. 195–202 in no. 302 below]. “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumrân and the Extra-canonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246).” Pp. 1–13 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995, ed. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. Leiden: Brill / Madrid: Editorial Complutense. “In Memoriam: Benjamin Mazar.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301: 1–3.

1997 264. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, trans. I. Koshiishi. Tokyo: Board of Publications, United Church of Christ in Japan [ Japanese translation of no. 132 above]. 265. “Because They Can’t See a Difference, They Assert No One Can.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23/2: 44. 266. “Paleo-Hebrew vs. Old Hebrew: The Long and the Short of It.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23/2: 45. 267. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. With D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / Livonia, MI: Dove [reprint of no. 160 with new introductions and a postscriptum by the authors]. 268. “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân.” With E. Eshel. Israel Exploration Journal 47 (1997) 17–28 [see nos. 271, 273–74, 285 below]. 269. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays on the History of the Religion of Israel, 9th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [paperback edition of no. 132 above]. 270. Qumran Cave 4. X: The Prophets. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 15. With E. Ulrich, R. E. Fuller, J. E. Sanderson, P. W. Skehan, E. Tov, C. M. Murphy, and C. Niccum. Oxford: Clarendon. 271. “The ‘Yahad’ (Community) Ostracon.” With E. Eshel. Pp. 39–40 in A Day at Qumran: The Dead Sea Sect and Its Scrolls, ed. A. Roitman. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum [abridged version of no. 268 above]. 272. “A Preliminary Edition of a Fragment of 4QSamb (4Q52).” With D. W. Parry. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 306: 63–74.

xxxvi

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

273. “A New Ostracon from Qumran.” With E. Eshel. Qadmoniot 30/2: 134–36 [Hebrew translation of no. 268 above]. 1998 274. “The Missing Link: Does a New Inscription Establish a Connection between Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls?” With E. Eshel. Biblical Archaeology Review 24/2: 48–53, 69 [revision of no. 268 above]. 275. “Palaeography and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 379–402, pls. 9–14 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1, ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill [reprint of no. 65 above]. 276. “In memoriam Marvin Hoyle Pope (1916–1997).” Zeitchrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110: 325–26. 277. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press [see nos. 153, 165, 184, 191, 194–96, 201, 205, 218, 256 above, and no. 293 below]. 278. “El contexto histórico de los manuscritos.” Pp. 63–76 in Los manuscritos del Mar Muerto: El principal descubrimiento contemporáneo sobre el judaismo, el christiano y la Biblia, ed. H. Shanks. Barcelona: Paido [Spanish translation of no. 234 above]. 279. “El arquetipo del texto de la Biblia hebrea.” Pp. 205–24 in Los manuscritos del Mar Muerto: El principal descubrimiento contemporáneo sobre el judaismo, el christiano y la Biblia, ed. H. Shanks. Barcelona: Paido [Spanish translation of no. 205 above]. 280. “La Luz que arrojan sobre la Biblia las cuevas del Mar Muerto.” Pp. 225–36 in Los ma­ nuscritos del Mar Muerto: El principal descubrimiento contemporáneo sobre el judaismo, el christiano y la Biblia, ed. H. Shanks. Barcelona: Paido [Spanish translation of 236 above]. 1999 281. “King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery.” Biblical Archaeology Review 25/2: 42– 45, 60 [see no. 282 below]. 282. “A Bulla of Hezekiah, King of Judah.” Pp. 62–66 in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr., at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams and T. Hiebert. Atlanta: Scholars Press [reprint of no. 281 above]. 283. 284.

285.

286.

2000 “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumrân and the Canonical Text.” Pp. 93–104 in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran, ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Richland Hills, TX: Bibal [see no. 316 below]. “An Ostracon in Literary Hebrew from Horvat ʿUza.” Pp. 111–13 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, ed. L. E. Stager, J. A. Greene, and M. Coogan. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprinted, pp. 135–37 in no. 302 below]. “1. Khirbet Qumran Ostracon.” With E. Eshel. Pp. 497–505, pl. 33 in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts, ed. S. J. Pfann; and Miscellanea, Part I, ed. P. Alexander et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon [with no. 286 below, updated version of no. 268 above]. “Excursus.” Pp. 505–7 in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts. ed. S. J. Pfann; and Miscellanea, Part I, ed. P. Alexander et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

xxxvii

287. “2. Khirbet Qumran Ostracon.” With E. Eshel. P. 508, pl. 34 in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts, ed. S. J. Pfann and Miscellanea, Part I, ed. P. Alexander, et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon [with no. 285 above, updated version of no. 268 above]. 288. “Palaeography.” Pp. 629–34 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. 289. “Reminiscences of the Early Days in the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 932–43 in The Dead Sea Scrolls 50 Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 290. Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16. With E. Ulrich, J. A. Fitzmyer, P. W. Flint, S. Metso, C. Murphy, P. W. Skehan, E. Tov, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Oxford: Clarendon. 291. “111. 4QLam.” Pp. 229–37, pls. 27–28 in Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, J. A. Fitzmyer, P. W. Flint, S. Metso, C. Murphy, P. W. Skehan, E. Tov, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16. Oxford: Clarendon. 292. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pp. 79–94 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprint of pp. 274–89 in no. 132 above]. 293. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press [paperback edition of no. 277 above]. 2001 294. “A Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David.” Israel Exploration Journal 51: 44–47. 295. “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls I: Castor Oil.” With K. L. Rasmussen, J. van der Plicht, F. H. Cryer, G. Doudna, and J. Strugnell. Radiocarbon 43/1: 127–32. 2002 296. “The Hebrew Inscriptions from Sardis.” Harvard Theological Review 95: 3–19 [reprinted, pp. 149–54 in no. 302 below]. 297. Editor, with J. H. Charlesworth. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 298. “Testimonia (4Q 175).” Pp. 308–27 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and F. M. Cross. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 299. “Samaria and Jerusalem in the Era of the Restoration.” Pp. 45–70 in Book of the Samaritans, ed. E. Stern and H. Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Tzvi and Israel Antiquities Authority. [Hebrew] 300. “Phoenician Tomb Stelae from Akhziv.” Pp. 169–73 in The Ahkziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations 1941–1944, ed. M. Dayagi-Mendels. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 2003 301. “The Structure of the Apocalypse of the ‘Son of God’ (4Q246).” Pp. 151–58 in Ema­ nuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov,

xxxviii

302.

303. 304. 305. 306. 307.

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, W. W. Fields, and E. Ben-David. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [see nos. 8, 21, 22, 52, 63, 65, 68–69, 73–75, 88, 93, 104–106, 111, 115, 117, 120, 123, 125, 129, 137, 145–46, 148, 154, 174–75, 179, 183, 187, 189, 192, 197, 198, 200, 202–203, 210, 214, 216, 237, 243, 250, 255, 259–61, 284, 296 above; see nos. 304, 327, 337 below]. “Notes on Psalm 93: A Fragment of a Liturgical Poem Affirming Yahweh’s Kingship.” Pp. 73–77 in A God So Near: Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, Jr., ed. B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [-âw].” Eretz-Israel 27 (Miriam and Hayim Tadmor Volume): 18*–24* [reprinted, pp. 351–56 in no. 302 above]. “The Alphabet on a Late Babylonian Cuneiform School Tablet.” With John Huehnergard. Orientalia 72: 223–28. “Notes on the Forged Plaque Recording Repairs to the Temple.” Israel Exploration Journal 53: 119–23. “Are the (Super 14) C Dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls Affected by Castor Oil Contamination? [reply to Carmi].” With K. L. Rasmussen, J. van der Plicht, G. Doudna, and J. Strugnell. Radiocarbon 45/3: 497–99.

2004 308. “Contrasting Insights of Biblical Giants: BAR Interviews Eli Wiesel and Frank Moore Cross,” ed. H. Shanks. Biblical Archaeology Review 30/4: 28–36. 309. “Michael E. Stone: An Appreciation.” Pp. xxiii–xxiv in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Judaism and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements. Leiden: Brill. 310. “Introduction to the Study of the History of the Religion of Israel.” Pp. 8–11 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East—Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, ed. J. Kalter and L. Stulman. London: T. & T. Clark [see no. 314 below]. 2005 311. Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–2 Samuel. With D. W. Parry, R. J. Saley, and E. Ulrich. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 17. Oxford: Clarendon. 312. “Preface.” Pp. xii–xiv in Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–2 Samuel, ed. F. M. Cross, D. W. Parry, R. J. Saley, and E. Ulrich. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 17.Oxford: Clarendon. 313. “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel.” Pp. 35–55 in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr., ed. J. T. Strong and S. S. Tuell. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprint of pp. 195–215 in no. 132 above]. 314. “The History of Israelite Religion.” Biblical Archaeology Review 31/3: 42–45 [slight revision of no. 310 above]. 315. “Statement on Inscribed Artifacts without Provenience.” Biblical Archaeology Review 31/5: 58, 60. 2006 316. “Biblical Scrolls from Qumrân and the Canonical Text.” Pp. 67–75 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, vol. 1:

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

317. 318. 319. 320.

321. 322. 323. 324.

xxxix

Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press [revision of no. 283 above]. “A New Reconstruction of 4QSamuela 1 Sam. 24:16–22.” Pp. 77–83 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill. “Statistical Analysis of the Textual Character of 4QSamuela (4Q51).” With R. J. Saley. Dead Sea Discoveries 13: 46–54. “Personal Names in the Samaria Papyri.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 75–90. “Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon.” With L. E. Stager. Israel Exploration Journal 56: 129–59. 2007 “Two Aramaic Ostraca from En-Gedi.” Pp. 377–80 in En Gedi Excavations I, Conducted by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevsky: Final Report (1961–1965), ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society [see no. 325 below]. “Foreword.” Pp. vii–viii in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, ed. by S. Malena and D. Miano. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. “A Homily on the Book of Jonah.” Pp. 45–49 in Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation—Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, ed. K. F. Kravitz and D. M. Sharon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the People Who Wrote Them.” Pp. 30–41 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society / Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature [reprint of no. 168 above].

2008 325. “Two Aramaic Ostraca from a Tannery in ʿÊn Gedî.” Pp. 565–69 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. C. Cohen, V. A. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, Y. Muffs, B. J. Schwartz, and J. H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [reprint of no. 321 above]. 326. “Inscriptions in Phoenician and Other Scripts.” Pp. 333–72 in Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), ed. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2009 327. “Ammonite Ostraca from Tell Hesban.” Pp. 29–56 in Hesbon 12—Small Finds: Studies of the Bone, Iron, Glass, Figurines, and Stone Objects from Tell Hesban and Vicinity, ed. P. J. Ray Jr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press [revised and expanded no. 154 above; reprint of pp. 70–94 in no. 302 above]. 328. “Telltale Remnants of Oral Epic in the Older Sources of the Tetrateuch: Double and Triple Proper Names in Early Hebrew Sources, and in Homeric and Ugaritic Epic Poetry.” Pp. 83–88 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 329. “The Phoenician Ostracon from Akko, the Ekron Inscriptions and ‫אשרתה‬.” Eretz-Israel 28 (Kollek Volume): 19*–28*.

xl

Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross

2010 330. [Editions of 4Q13 = 4QExod , 4Q17 = 4QExod-Levf, 4Q51 = 4QSama, 4Q52 = 4QSamb, and 4Q111 = 4QLam.] The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Transcriptions and Textual Variants, ed. E. Ulrich. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 134. Leiden: Brill. 331. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pp. 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns [paperback edition of no. 180]. 332. “An Aramaic Apocalypse of the ‘Son of God’ (4Q246).” The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 7, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. b

2013 333. “Singular Readings in 4QSamuel and the Question of Rewritten Scripture.” With R.  J. Saley. Dead Sea Discoveries 20: 1–16. a

2014 334. “Response by Frank Moore Cross to the Presentation of an 80th Birthday Volume of Essays.” P. xix in “An Eye for Form”: Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Forthcoming 335. “The Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 5, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al. Tübingen: Mohr / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 336. “Foreword.” In A Heap of Broken Images: Essays in Biblical Archaeology, ed. L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 337. “Inscriptions from Tel Seraʿ.” In Excavations at Tel Seraʿ, ed. E. Oren [reprint of pp. 155– 63 in no. 302 above]. Festschrifts 1981 Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1987 Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1999 Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies, vol. 26: Frank Moore Cross Volume, ed. B. A. Levine, P. J. King, J. Naveh, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. 2014 “An Eye for Form”: Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Prolegomenon to the Study of Northwest Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy Christopher A. Rollston

The premise of the field of paleography (as with all the typological sciences) is that things which human beings create develop (evolve or devolve) through time; and that this development can be discerned in an empirical fashion, described, and used as the basis for typologies (Cross 1982; Rollston 2003: 150–57). New finds serve to augment, refine, and revise typologies for a script series as much as for a pottery sequence. The focus of Northwest Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy, based on the most pristine extant ancient evidence, is the establishment of: (1) the morphology of the letters of a script series, relative size of the letters, letter environment (e.g., horizontal proximity and relative vertical positioning of the letters), stance and ductus of the letters, as well as the relationship of the various letters to the ceiling line; (2) determinations regarding the similarities and differences between the various components of a script series, such as lapidary and cursives of a script series; issues of media and writing instrument must be factored in as well (e.g., ink on pottery, chiseled in stone); and (3) the diachronic development and synchronic variation within a script series, including things such as script innovations, preservations, and individual scribal idiosyncrasies. In this connection, it should be noted that within a script series, different letters can (and do) develop at different paces. That is, within a script series of a certain chronological horizon, some letters in this series will develop rapidly, but some letters will develop very slowly. The pace of development can be cataloged and factored into paleographic typologies. Paleographic analyses made on the basis of a larger number of letters will be more secure than those made on the basis of a lesser number of letters: thus, the longer an inscription is, the more precise and secure the paleographic analysis can be. Note that the amount of the provenanced epigraphic data is of critical importance for the science of paleography (and, of course, for epigraphy in general). That is, statements made on the basis of a large number of inscriptions for a script series are more definitive than statements made on the basis of modest amounts of data: that is, because the extant epigraphic remains of a script series are a fraction of the epigraphic material produced, larger sample sizes permit more definitive conclusions. 1

2

Christopher A. Rollston

Also of great importance is the general quality of the data. Inscriptions (or exemplars of letters within an inscription) that are clear (i.e., not very faded or abraded) are the most valuable. Note that, often within an editio princeps, hand drawings of faded or abraded letters are included (i.e., drawn). This is appropriate. However, hand drawings of faded or abraded letters should not be the basis of a script typology because of the poor quality of the data: a script typology must be based on the clearest exemplars of a script series. Inscriptions that (1) contain a date formula or (2) were found in a primary stratigraphic context (or are datable via some other means), or (3) contain historical data revealing the date or era of composition are most helpful in establishing chronological “benchmarks” for a script typology. Multiple inscriptions found in secure primary contexts in sequential strata of the same site are often of particular import (because the chronological sequencing is arguably more secure). It should be noted that (with rare exceptions), it is methodologically imprudent to use unprovenienced inscriptions as the basis for paleographic typologies (Rollston 2004). Finally, the geographical and chronological distribution of the data must be factored into the assessment. That is, analyses of the “targeted” script series that are based on paleograpic data from various sites and multiple horizons provide the best window on the diagnostic features, developments, and variation within a script series. Based on these cumulative data, a reliable script typology can be developed for a script series. It should be noted that the more sophisticated the analysis and the more rigorous the method, the more reliable the conclusions; that is, not all paleographic analyses are equal. Of course, on some occasions, an ancient inscription will nuance epigraphic knowledge (e.g., script typologies, orthography, etc.) in rather dramatic ways. This was the case with the Tell Fakhariyeh bilingual inscription (Cross 1995; Naveh 1987). Data such as these are not problematic but, rather, serve to complement previous conceptions. It is interesting that some archaeologists (and linguists) consider paleographic typology to be very imprecise, or even “smoke and mirrors,” but nevertheless affirm the substantial accuracy of pottery (or language) typologies. The fact of the matter is that paleographic typologies can be as reliable as pottery or language typologies. Obviously, the amount of extant pottery of a specific horizon within a pottery series (or the number of exemplars of a phase of a language) is exponentially larger than that of the epigraphic remains of a specific horizon within a script series; but the paleographic and epigraphic evidence for the horizons of many script series is not negligible, and (most importantly) the innumerable intricacies of the morphology of the letters of a horizon of a script series contain enormous amounts of data that can be analyzed and documented in an empirical manner by a trained paleographer. It is also intriguing that some nonpaleographers will refer to variation in the writing of a modern script (e.g., the Latin cursive used in American English) by noting the presence of radical variation that is often present in the modern exemplars and assume that this is a relevant means of evaluating the accuracy of paleography. This is hardly a compelling argument. Analyses of an ancient script series must be based on the extant ancient evidence of a series and the synchronic variation and diachronic development attested for that ancient

Northwest Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy

3

series. Modern analogies of variation for a modern script series are of negligible value, especially since more script variation is tolerated in the modern period. Two primary categories can be posited for certain ancient Near Eastern linear alphabetic scripts: lapidary and cursive. The dominant features of a lapidary script are its graphic arrangement, graphemic clarity, uniformity of graphemic form and size, and general conservativeness (i.e., retarded pace of development). Lapidary inscriptions are normally found on surfaces that were carefully prepared, and in general, they were intended to be permanent. The primary features of cursive scripts are the rapidity with which they can be written and their adaptability. For a cursive script, variations in graphemic form and size are common, stroke curvature tends to be more prominent, letter spacing is more compact, semiligatures are more common, and development occurs more rapidly. Based on the work of Cross (1961; 1962a; 1962b), Naveh (1968; 1982: 6–8) and others, it is now possible to distinguish in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy at least three cursive script types: (1) formal cursive (variously called “conservative,” “chancellery,” or “professional”), the handwriting of the professional scribe; (2) semiformal cursive (variously called “extreme” or simply “cursive”), the handwriting used by the educated upper classes; and (3) free cursive (or “vulgar”), the handwriting adopted by the less well educated. 1 For both lapidary and cursive series, writing instruments and media are also of fundamental importance but not always determinative, because cursive scripts can be employed on stone (e.g., Siloam Tunnel Inscription). Note that the plus or minus range for a lapidary script is normally larger than for a nonlapidary script because of the slower development that is the norm for a lapidary script. 1.  For examples of Hebrew texts written in each of these scripts, see Naveh 1968.

References Cross, F. M. 1961 Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., I: A New Reading of a Place Name in the Samaria Ostraca. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163: 12–14. [Republished in Cross 2003: 114–15] 1962a Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., II: The Murabbʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165: 34–46. [Republished in Cross 2003: 116–24] 1962b Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., III: The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 18–23. [Republished in Cross 2003: 125–28] 1982 Alphabets and Pots: Ref lections on Typological Method in the Dating of Human Artifacts. MAARAV 3: 121–36. [Republished in Cross 2003: 344–50]

4

Christopher A. Rollston

1995 Palaeography and the Date of the Tell Faḥariyeh Bilingual Inscription. Pp. 393–409 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. S. Gitin, M. Sokoloff, and Z. Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [Republished in Cross 2003: 51–60] 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Naveh, J. 1968 A Palaeographic Note on the Distribution of the Hebrew Script. Harvard Theological Review 61: 68–74. 1982 Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill. 1987 Proto-Canaanite, Archaic Greek, and the Script of the Aramaic Text on the Tell Fakhariyah Statue. Pp. 101–13 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Rollston, C. A. 2003 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests. MAARAV 10: 135–93. 2004 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic. MAARAV 11: 57–79.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy André Lemaire

The first Northwest Semitic inscription was published at the beginning of the 17th century. It was a Greek-Palmyrene bilingual found in Rome and published by Jan Gruter in 1616, in his Inscriptionum Romanarum Corpus. At the end of the same century, William Halifax traveled to Palmyra and copied 6 Palmyrene inscriptions there (1698). In 1753, J. Dawkins and R. Wood added 13 new items to this small group of enigmatic inscriptions written in the same script. The following year, on 12 February 1754, Jean-Jacques Barthélemy gave a lecture at the Parisian Académie royale des Inscriptions entitled “Réf lexions sur l’alphabet et sur la langue dont on se servoit autrefois à Palmyre” and proposed the first serious interpretation of this small group of inscriptions. At about the same time (and independently), John Swinton (of Oxford) achieved practically the same results. These discoveries and interpretations were the beginning of a new branch of knowledge: Northwest Semitic epigraphy. This new field developed quickly. Four years later, on 12 April 1758, Barthélemy presented another paper at the French academy entitled “Réf lexions sur quelques monuments phéniciens et sur les alphabets qui en résultent.” After the publication of the first Phoenician inscription (from Malta) by F. Giuseppe Claudio Guyot de Marne in 1735, and of those of Kition, Cyprus, by Richard Pococke in 1745, as well as the first essay on decipherment by Swinton (1750), this new script and language was well introduced to the field of Northwest Semitic epigraphy. New Phoenician inscriptions were soon found in the islands and around the Mediterranean Sea in the second half of the 18th century. The decipherment of Palmyrene and Phoenician was made possible thanks to the bilinguals as well as a comparison with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. However, it was necessary to study this new field on its own. In his Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, Ulrich Friedrich Kopp (1819–21) established the basis of the paleographical development of the Northwest Semitic scripts and, after a systematic study of all the known Phoenician inscriptions, Wilhelm Gesenius published his famous reference book Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt (1837). He also set the foundation for South Arabian epigraphy in Über die himyaritische Sprache und Schrift (1841). The political history of Western countries inf luenced the development of this new discipline. After the taking of Algeria by the French army in 1830, many new Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions were discovered in North Africa and published in 5

6

André Lemaire

various French journals and books. France itself produced an important Punic inscription, a sacrificial tariff discovered in the harbor of Marseille, while in Phoenicia itself, in Saïda, after the discovery of the sarcophagus of Eshmunazor, Phoenician king of Sidon, the Duke de Luynes signed an agreement with the local pasha and sent the black sarcophagus to the Louvre Museum in Paris. It was the first Phoenician inscription discovered in its motherland. By this time, Félicien de Saulcy in France and M. A. Levy in Germany (see his Phönizische Studien, 1856–70; and Siegel und Gemmen, 1869) were the main scholars working in the field of Northwest Semitic epigraphy, while the synthesis of F. K. Movers, Die Phönizier (1841–56) showed how the study of these new inscriptions could be used for our historical knowledge of an old civilization. Actually, in the 1850s and 1860s, many new, mainly Phoenician and Palmyrene but also Nabatean, Aramaic, and a few Old Hebrew inscriptions were discovered and published by various scholars, such as the French Melchior de Vogüé and the German Paul Schröder (see his Die phönizische Sprache: Entwurf einer Grammatik nebst Sprach- und Schriftproben, 1869). However, at this time, short ancient Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions were still often being confused with Phoenician inscriptions because of the somewhat similar shape of their scripts. In 1860, Phoenician civilization became the target of the expedition to the Levant directed by Ernest Renan (see his Mission de Phénicie, 1864). Renan, already famous for his Histoire générale et système comparé des langues sémitiques (1885), realized that many new Northwest Semitic inscriptions were published in various journals and books that were often difficult to find in libraries. The quality of these publications was quite uneven, sometimes being written by people without sufficient knowledge of Northwest Semitic languages or with a lack of method, trying to read biblical texts into these inscriptions. Thus, in order to provide the field of Northwest Semitic epigraphy with a scientific standard, it was necessary to collect all the inscriptions and to present them systematically with the same objective approach. Such a large endeavor could only be undertaken by an academic institution that would ensure its continuity. At Renan’s suggestion, in 1867, the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres decided to start publishing a Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum containing all the ancient North- and Southwest Semitic inscriptions. It was decided to publish it in Latin, the international scientific language of that time. The following year, in 1868, an Alsatian missionary, F. A. Klein, discovered at Dhiban, east of the Dead Sea, a lengthy inscription of 33 lines carved on a black basalt stone in the possession of the Beni Hamideh tribe. This discovery was reported to Professor H. Peterman, then Consul of the Northern German Confederation at Jerusalem, who succeeded in raising 100 napoleons to buy this stela for the Royal Museum in Berlin. However, the Bene Hamideh changed their minds and asked for 10 times that amount and finally broke the stone into pieces, perhaps thinking that there was a hoard of treasure inside; or more likely, out of hatred for the Turkish administration of the pasha of Nablus who, on the suggestion of the German diplomats, ordered them to turn it over. Meanwhile, the news of the discovery had reached Charles Warren, who was working for the Palestine Exploration Fund, and Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Dragoman at the French consulate of Jerusalem. Clermont-Ganneau had obtained a

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

7

very sketchy drawing of the inscription and sent three Arabs to make a squeeze of the stela. Although taken away wet and torn, this squeeze was still readable, and ClermontGanneau sent another messenger to try to buy the stela. He arrived too late: the stone was already broken into pieces that were being used as amulets in the granaries of the Bene Hamideh. When Peterman left Jerusalem, Clermont-Ganneau tried to buy as many pieces as possible and succeeded in purchasing about two-thirds (613 letters) of the original stone, while Warren bought a few others (59 letters). Clermont-Ganneau sent his fragments to the Louvre where, by reference to the squeeze and with the addition of the Warren fragments transmitted by the Palestine Exploration Fund, the stone was restored and exhibited. This novel and complicated story of the discovery as well as the competition between German and French scholars made this stone famous. However, it was even more famous because it was the earliest and longest West Semitic inscription that had been discovered and because engraved by the Moabite King Mesha known from the Bible (2 Kgs 3:4), it mentions Israel, Yhwh, and the Israelite King Omri. Only about 30 years after the monumental publication by Gesenius, the project of a Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum and the discovery of the Mesha Stela revealed the blooming state of Northwest Semitic epigraphy. This success aroused envy and imitations. In 1872, new Moabite inscriptions on pots appeared; they were sold to museums, especially in Berlin. However, after investigating their origins, Clermont-Ganneau showed that they were forgeries. A few years later, in 1883, the antiquities dealer Moses William Shapira tried to sell portions of a manuscript of Deuteronomy, telling the museums of Berlin and London that it had been found in Moab and was of an exceptionally early date. There was some debate about its authenticity, but Clermont-Ganneau (1885) showed that they were forgeries, the leather having been cut from old synagogue scrolls. Discredited, Shapira committed suicide in 1884. However, forgeries were not unique to Moabitica: in 1873, in the Brazilian review O Mondo Nuovo, L. Netto published a so-called Phoenician inscription that told the story of a Sidonian ship that had sailed to Brazil ca. 6th–5th centuries b.c.e., claiming that the inscription had been discovered in Joao Pessoa (northern Brazil)! From the very beginning, Northwest Semitic epigraphers have had to beware of the problem of forgeries, and experienced epigraphers have needed to be able to distinguish genuine from fake inscriptions. During this period, more new, important Phoenician inscriptions were found in Phoenicia: in 1869, the inscription of Yeḥawmilk, king of Byblos; in 1885, Maʿasub; in 1887, the sarcophagus of Tabnit, king of Sidon; and in Cyprus in 1874/5, an inscription on bronze bowls that mentioned a “servant of Hiram, king of the Sidonians” (Masson 1985; Sznycer 1985); and various other inscriptions from Larnaca, Dali, Frangissa (Tamassos), Lapethos, and other sites. Around the western Mediterranean Sea, the number of new Punic inscriptions was even more impressive. Thus, in 1874, the excavations in Carthage by Picot de Sainte-Marie, French Consul in Tunis, brought to light 2,170 votive inscriptions with many personal names. Although not as numerous, Aramaic inscriptions were no less important. In 1876– 78, Charles Doughty (1884) discovered Nabatean funerary inscriptions in Medain-Salih

8

André Lemaire

(Hegra) and Aramaic inscriptions in Taymaʾ. In 1884, these inscriptions were further studied by Charles Huber and Julius Euting. Finally, after the Aramaic Taymaʾ Stela (ca. 5th century b.c.e.) was sent to the Louvre, Northwest Arabia became an area of study for the field of Northwest Semitic epigraphy, along with Aramaic and Nabatean inscriptions. Another new branch of Northwest Semitic epigraphy was opened more to the north, east of the Amanus: important royal Phoenician (Kulamuwa) and Aramaic (Bar-Rakkab) inscriptions were discovered in the countryside at and around Zinçirli during surveys and excavations directed by F. von Luschan (1828–1902), shedding some light on the history of the Kingdom of Samʾal in the 9th to 8th centuries b.c.e. with the attestation of a new Old Aramaic dialect, Samalian (inscriptions of Hadad, Panamuwa, Katumuwa, and Ördekburnu; von Luschan et al. 1893–1943; Dion 1974; Tropper 1993; Pardee 2009; and Lemaire and Sass 2012; 2013). In Syria itself, the main discovery was the stela of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luʿash, discovered in 1903 and published by H. Pognon (1907–8: 156–78). For the later Aramaic traditions, new Palmyrene inscriptions were discovered (de Vogüé 1868– 77), among them the famous fiscal tariff by the Russian prince Abamelek-Lazarew (1881), which comprises 160 lines and is now located in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. In Palestine, Northwest Semitic epigraphy looked poorer; however, the discovery of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription in 1880, produced a reference point for the paleography of the early development of the Hebrew letters. Later, in 1910, the American excavations in Sebaste–Samaria brought to light about 100 Hebrew ostraca from the first half of the 8th century b.c.e. (Reisner et al. 1924: 227–46, pl. 55c–e). Farther to the south, the first Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions were discovered in the Sinai Peninsula by Edward H. Palmer in the Wadi Magharah in 1868–69 but were not published until 1904 (Weill 1904). Other inscriptions of this type were discovered by W. M. Flinders Petrie at Serabit el-Khadem in 1905 (Petrie and Currelly 1906; Gardiner and Peet 1917). By 1915, Alan H. Gardiner was able to present the first accepted reading and interpretation of a group of signs from these inscriptions: lbʿlt ‘(belonging) to Baʿalat’, revealing an early alphabetic writing system to be dated between the 18th and 15th centuries b.c.e. (Gardiner 1916). Subsequent discoveries enlarged the corpus of these inscriptions (Sznycer 1972). Around the turn of the 20th century, many new Aramaic papyri and ostraca from the Persian period were discovered in Elephantine in southern Egypt and dispersed to various museums and collections (Sayce and Cowley 1906; Sachau 1911). In approximately 1900, Northwest Semitic epigraphy was recognized as an academic field, with teaching positions in high schools and universities, mainly in Germany and France. In Paris, besides de Vogüé, J. Derenbourg (of the École Pratique des Hautes Études) and J. Halévy (same place), who was editor of the Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne (1893–1913), dealt mainly with North- and Southwest Semitic epigraphy. Moreover, P. Berger (Collège de France) and, primarily, Charles Clermont-Ganneau (same affiliation) published and explained many of the new inscriptions (see his Études d’archéologie orientale and Recueil d’archéologie orientale). Under their direction, the publi-

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

9

cation of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (abbreviated CIS) was accomplished: the first fascicle, containing Phoenician inscriptions (Pars prima), was published in 1881, soon followed by other fascicles, among them the first fascicle of Aramaic inscriptions (Pars secunda) and the first fascicle of Himyaritic and Sabean inscriptions (Pars quarta) in 1889. The scholarly quality of this publication was high, and the text, translation, and commentary were accompanied by excellent photographs and drawings that are still referred to today. In 1900, the Académie realized that many new studies had been published on inscriptions in the CIS and so, to integrate the scholarly contributions, it was decided to publish a Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique (abbreviated RES, 1900–). Among the German writers were J. Euting of Strasbourg, which was then in Germany (1883; 1885; 1889); E. Sachau of Berlin (1911); the great semitist T. Nöldeke, also of Strasbourg; and Mark Lidzbarski, clearly the most important of them all. His Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik (1898) with full bibliography, systematic treatment of epigraphy, presentation of inscriptions and vocabulary is still useful, and his numerous publications in his Kanaanäische Inschriften (1907) and Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik (1902–15) are always a model for their methodological approach and accuracy. In England, recognizing that “the bulk of scientific work within recent years has been done by the scholars of France and Germany,” G. A. Cooke published his excellent Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions (1903), which is still unsurpassed today in English for Punic and Neo-Punic, Nabatean, and Palmyrene inscriptions. The First World War (1914–18) changed the landscape of West Semitic epigraphy. Germany lost most of its cultural inf luence in the Levant; and West Semitic epigraphy lost its position in the German universities. Even though some research was maintained by biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt (1883–1956), Otto Eissfeldt (1887–1973), and Martin Noth (1902–68), they generally did not publish new inscriptions but restudied the interpretation of published inscriptions and their historical impact. In France, the publication of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum slowed down and was mainly dedicated to Phoenician/Punic and Aramaic/Palmyrene, thanks to J.-B. Chabot (1918; 1922; 1947), and to South and North Arabic (Pars quinta, 1950–), thanks to G. Ryckmans. Furthermore, mainly because of the steady work of Chabot, several fascicles (II–IV) of the Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique were published. Because of the French Mandate in Syria, French archaeologists and epigraphers were very active there. In 1929, they discovered on Tell Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) new alphabetic cuneiform writing from the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 13th century b.c.e.). Although it was a Northwest Semitic language, the paleography of this script was completely different from the other Northwest Semitic scripts. It became a special field for Semitists and, because of the prompt publications by Charles Virolleaud, who was editor of the Revue des études sémitiques (1934–45), many scholars could soon propose their own interpretations of the myths and economic texts. Among the many new Northwest Semitic inscriptions found between the two World Wars, one should mention the Byblos royal inscriptions of the 10th century b.c.e., mainly published by René Dussaud (1924; 1925), then the leading figure in Northwest Semitic epigraphy of the Levant, while J. Cantineau specialized

10

André Lemaire

in Palmyrene (1930–36; 1935) and Nabatean (1930–32) inscriptions and languages. During this period, as usual, the main discoveries were also a matter of chance: in May and June of 1930, three Aramaic stelae from the first half of the 8th century b.c.e. appeared on the antiquities market. They were said to come from Sudjin, 1.3 km northeast of Sefire, 25 km southeast of Aleppo, and brought to light the longest ancient Aramaic inscriptions. Although two were published by P. S. Ronzevalle (1930–31), their reading and interpretation remained problematic. At this time, the British Mandate in Palestine led to many excavations, but they produced only a few inscriptions, among them several short, incised alphabetic inscriptions dating to the second millennium b.c.e. (Gezer sherd, Shechem plaquette, Lachish dagger, jar, and bowl). The most important finds, however, were the Lachish ostraca discovered in 1935–38 and promptly published by H. Tur Sinai [Torczyner] (1938), while a few new Phoenician inscriptions were found in Cyprus and published by A. M. Honeyman (1938; 1939). Small collections of all the inscriptions in one limited field were published by A. Cowley (Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b.c. [1923], which is an excellent synthesis and became the classic reference for Egyptian Aramaic) and David Diringer (who produced all the ancient Hebrew inscriptions in one book [1934], which was all the more useful because the Pars Tertia [Hebraica] of the CIS never appeared). Before, during, and after the Second World War, Northwest Semitic epigraphy found its way to the United States via the prolific work of W. F. Albright (1891–1971), archaeologist, epigrapher, and historian of the ancient Near East. Even though some of his tentative deciphering of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions (1969) is still disputed (Puech 1986; Sass 1988; 1991), he published many articles on Northwest Semitic inscriptions from the Ugaritic tablets to the Qumran texts and trained several students at The Johns Hopkins University. Actually, soon after the Second World War, two discoveries of new inscriptions— both unexpected—stimulated a revival of the field. First, in 1946 and 1947, an expedition from Istanbul University directed by H. Bossert discovered lengthy Phoenician and hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions on orthostats and statues in Karatepe (ancient northern Cilicia, modern southern Turkey). The 177 lines of the Phoenician inscriptions, the longest examples known so far, were published in an unusual way. With his second preliminary report, Bossert included copies of the inscriptions (but without photos) and sent them to some 15 scholars in Europe and America; and in 1948, 8 tentative translations were published, among them the work of A. Dupont-Sommer (1948). Finally, after an excellent philological synthesis by F. Bron (1979), the editio princeps with very good photos was published in 1999 (H. Çambel and W. Röllig 1999: 50–81). Second, from 1947 on, Hebrew, Aramaic, Nabatean, and Greek manuscripts from the 3rd century b.c.e. to ca. 135 c.e. were discovered in the caves of Qumran, northwest of the Dead Sea, as well as at Masada and in several other caves in the Judean Desert. At Qumran itself, the mostly very fragmentary ±900 manuscripts (among them, more than 200 containing biblical texts) were revealed to be the remains of a library, while the archives discovered elsewhere in the desert (e.g., Murabbaʿat and

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

11

Naḥal Ḥever) were mainly contracts and letters. The publication of these rich but difficult finds in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) was very slow. After more than 60 years, these extraordinary discoveries are now fully published, including most of the fragmentary Nabatean manuscripts (Yardeni 2000: 1.265–99; Yadin et al. 2002). Both discoveries aroused the interest of junior as well as senior scholars. Among the latter, André Dupont-Sommer (1900–1983) distinguished himself in turning out rapid translations of the Karatepe texts (1948) and the first published Qumran texts (1950; 1964). Furthermore, after a short synthesis about the Arameans using the ancient Aramaic inscriptions (1949), he succeeded in presenting a coherent interpretation of the Sefire inscriptions that had the value of an editio princeps (1956; 1958). Editor of the journal Semitica (1948–), which contained many articles on West Semitic inscriptions, and professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études and at the Collège de France, he was one of the leading figures of the revival of Northwest Semitic epigraphy in the Levant for more than 30 years (Lemaire 2003). One of his last achievements was the publication of the famous trilingual inscription from Xanthos (Lycia; 1979), which aided the decipherment of Lycian, just as the Phoenician Karatepe inscriptions had aided the decipherment of hieroglyphic Luwian. Unfortunately, the discovery of the bilingual Etruscan-Punic inscriptions from Pyrgi (Italy) were not as helpful with the decipherment of Etruscan (Dupont-Sommer 1964b). However, at the same time, Dupont-Sommer’s colleague at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, J. G. Février (1895–1976), specialized in Palmyrene (1931a; 1931b), Punic, and Neo-Punic epigraphy (1918), as well as the history of the alphabet (1948). In Italy, the second half of the 20th century was marked by the figure of Sabatino Moscati (1922–97). He initially followed in the footsteps of Diringer with his book L’epigrafia ebraica antica 1935–1950 (1951) but then turned to Phoenician studies (1966) and founded the Institute of Phoenician and Punic Studies in Rome, coordinating research and excavations in southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, with his own journal, Rivista di studi fenici (1973–), and from 1979 on, international congresses about every five years. He soon became the head of an “Italian School” of Northwest Semitic studies, exemplified by the numerous publications of Giovanni Garbini (1979; 1980; 1986; 1993; 2006). In this context, epigraphy was generally associated with archaeological projects around the Mediterranean Sea as shown by the research of Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo on Phoenician inscriptions in Cyprus (Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1977; Amadasi Guzzo 2004) and Malta (Amdadasi Guzzo 2011), Punic inscriptions in Cyrenaica (Levi della Vida and Amadasi Guzzo 1987) and the western Mediterranean (Amadasi Guzzo 1967; 1986; 1990; Friedrich et al. 1999), and the history of the alphabet (Amadasi Guzzo 1987). Working mainly on Ugaritic and other Northwest Semitic texts of the Levant as well as history of religions (Xella and Zamora 2003), Paolo Xella (1981; 1991) also founded the journal Studi epigrafici e linguistici (1984–). Phoenician and general Northwest Semitic studies also developed in the countries producing new Phoenician and Punic inscriptions: Lebanon, with H. Sader (1984; 2005) and G. Abousamra (2005; Abousamra and Lemaire in press); Tunisia, with

12

André Lemaire

M. Fantar (1993) and A. Ferjaoui (1992; 2007; 2010); and Spain, with J.-L. Cunchillos (Cunchillos and Zamora 1997), J.-A. Zamora (2003), and J. P. Vita (Vita and Zamora 2006). Furthermore, two recent German books have been devoted to Phoenician inscriptions (Lehmann 2005; Mathys 2008). Another important center for Northwest Semitic research was established with the creation of the state of Israel, because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as various Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions. In this country, archaeology and Hebrew epigraphy were often associated, as evidenced in the works of Yigael Yadin (1962; 1963; 1965; 1969; 1983) and those of his Tel Aviv colleague Yohanan Aharoni (1981), or in the recent publications of the inscriptions from Mount Gerizim (Magen et al. 2004; see also Dušek 2012) and Horvat ʿUzza (Beit-Arieh 2007: 122–87). This was also true for Nahman Avigad who, besides the publication of a Dead Sea scroll with Yadin (1956), dedicated part of his scholarly work to Northwest Semitic sigillography (1976; 1986) and was the first to distinguish Ammonite from Hebrew seals (1952). His life’s work, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seal, was published post­ humously by Benjamin Sass (1997) who, himself, has tried to trace the origins and early diffusion of the alphabet (1988; 1991; 2005). Avigad’s pupil and successor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Joseph Naveh, conducted his main research in the field of Aramaic epigraphy with a short but excellent manual of paleography (1970), the publication of numerous Aramaic ostraca from the 4th century b.c.e. (Naveh 1973; 1979; 1981; Ephʿal and Naveh 1996), the publication of later inscriptions (Naveh 1992; 2009) and an early history of the alphabet (Naveh 1982). His pupil, Ada Yardeni, collaborated with Bezalel Porten to analyze again all the Egyptian Aramaic inscriptions (Porten and Yardeni 1986–99), as well as with editors of Qumran manuscripts or more or less contemporaneous inscriptions (Cotton et al. 2010; Yardeni and Elizur 2007; on the stone inscriptions, see also Henze 2011). Her detailed Hebrew and English two-volume Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material (2000) is a reference work about the paleographical development of Judeo-Aramaic and Nabatean cursive scripts from the 4th century b.c. to the 2nd century c.e. Another excellent handbook for the earlier period (9th6th centuries b.c.e.) was published by S. Aḥituv (2008): although dealing mainly with Judean and Israelite Hebrew inscriptions, it also contains the main Philistian, Edomite, Ammonite, and Moabite inscriptions, with an appendix on the Aramaic Tel Dan inscription and discussion of the—archaic Aramaic, in my view—Book of Balaam, son Beor (see earlier, Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1991: 44–49, 96–97, 158–64). Moreover, hundreds of short Northwest Semitic inscriptions—especially seals and bullae— appearing on the market or in private collections have been published by R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer (1994; 1995; 1997; 1999; Deutsch 1999; 2003; 2011; see Deutsch and Lemaire 2000; 2003; see also Lubetski 2007; Lubetski and Lubetski 2012). The development of Northwest Semitic epigraphy in the United States during the second half of the 20th century was dominated by the figure of Frank Moore Cross (see bibliography at the beginning of this volume). Throughout all of his work, he insisted on the importance of the paleographic development of linear alphabetic scripts, from Proto-Canaanite to Judeo-Aramaic. Several of his students wrote their

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

13

dissertations in the field of epigraphy: Richard S. Hanson (1963; 1976; 1985), Byron L. Haines (1967), Ivan Kaufman (1967), J. Brian Peckham (1968), P. Kyle McCarter Jr. (1975; 1996), Larry G. Herr (1978), Jonathan Rosenbaum (1978), Mark D. McLean (1982; 1992), Jo Ann Hackett (1984), Gordon J. Hamilton (1985; 2006), and Douglas M. Gropp (1986; 2001; see also now Dušek 2007) with a special mention of the study of the early alphabetic inscriptions by P. Kyle McCarter (1975; 1996; Tappy and McCarter 2008). One of McCarter’s students, Christopher A. Rollston, is now the editor of the journal MAARAV, as well as several studies and a general introduction to Northwest Semitic Epigraphy (2010). During the same period, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., another student of Albright, specialized in Aramaic inscriptions, whether early (Fitzmyer 1995; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992) or late (Fitzmyer and Harrington 1978). In Chicago, before specializing in Ugaritic (1985; 1988; 2000; Bordreuil and Pardee 2004; 2012), Dennis Pardee published a study edition of ancient Hebrew letters (1982). At Eastern Michigan University, Philip C. Schmitz pursues work on Phoenician and Punic epigraphy (2012) In second half of the 20th century, Egyptian Aramaic continued to be an important part of Northwest Semitic studies. New documents were published by Emil G. Kraeling (1953), G. R. Driver (1954), E. Bresciani and M. Kamil (1966), as well as J. B. Segal (1983), and new translations of a selection of the texts were presented by Pierre Grelot (1972). Now all these texts are easily accessible because Porten and Yardeni (1986–99) checked them again systematically and republished them with facsimiles, new readings, and Hebrew and English translations. To this textbook, one must now add the ostraca from the Clermont-Ganneau collection published by Hélène Lozachmeur (2006; Lemaire 2007). Assembled in Paris in 1971, under the patronage of Dupont-Sommer, a team dedicated to West Semitic epigraphy was directed by André Caquot, Maurice Sznycer, and Javier Teixidor. After dealing with Palmyrene and Hatrean inscriptions, the first two worked in the field of Ugaritic (1974; Caquot et al. 1989). However, following Fev­rier, Sznycer’s main research has been dedicated to Phoenician (Masson and Sznycer 1972; Sznycer 1980; Yon and Sznycer 1991), Punic, and Neo-Punic inscriptions (Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987). Teixidor (1986) produced useful summaries of West Semitic epigraphy in general but dealt mainly with Palmyrene inscriptions (Teixidor 1965; Bounni and Teixidor 1975). In this field, he followed the path of Jean Starcky (1949; Ingholt et al. 1955) and J. T. Milik (1972), who also published many Qumran manuscripts (1976; see DJD 1–3, 6, 13, 18) as well as Nabatean inscriptions. Qumran texts were also the primary concern of M. Baillet (DJD 3, 7) and, later on, of É. Puech (DJD 25, 31); while Ugaritic is part of the research of Pierre Bordreuil (Bordreuil and Pardee 2004; Bordreuil et al. 2012), including sigillography (1986) and Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions (Abou-Assaf et al. 1982). Basile Aggoula specialized in late Aramaic inscriptions (1985) and published an Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (1991), while F. Bron, whose main field is South Arabic, Punic, and comparative Semitic lexicography, presented an excellent synthesis of the longest Phoenician inscriptions, those of Karatepe (1979). I myself have worked primarily on Hebrew (1973), Aramaic (Lemaire 1996; 2001; 2002; Lemaire and Durand 1984), and Phoenician epigraphy

14

André Lemaire

(Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000; Abousamra and Lemaire in press), as well as West Semitic sigillography (Deutsch and Lemaire 2000; 2003). Dedicated mostly to Phoenician and Aramaic during the last 30 years, Edouard Lipiński of Leuven has been the editor of many volumes of the series Studia Phoenicia, as well as of the first Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique (1992), and has published many studies in both fields. His contributions to Aramaic epigraphy are especially important, as shown by his three volumes of Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics (1975; 1994; 2010), the last of which includes his preliminary publication of the Aramaic tablets in the Royal Museum of Brussels. During the last 40 years, Lidzbarski’s and Cooke’s textbooks needed updating. In Germany, in addition to the works of Franz Rosenthal (1939; 1967) and Klaus Beyer (1984; 1994; 1998) on Aramaic, the several editions of Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3 (1971) by Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig have become the classical reference of the field, well known by the abbreviation KAI. However, it does not contain Palmyrene and Nabatean inscriptions and, after his ancient Aramaic grammar (1969), Rainer Degen published the Neue Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik with W. W. Müller and W. Röllig, but it comprised only three volumes (1972–78). In English, John C. L. Gibson published a selection of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician inscriptions in his three volumes of the Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (1971–82, abbreviated TSSI). However, this new textbook is much more limited than Cooke’s was: it does not contain later Northwest Semitic inscriptions (Punic, Palmyrene, Hatrean, and Nabatean). The first Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques in French by Charles-F. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer (1965) proved to be very useful, and this reference book was completely updated and rewritten in English by Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling (1995). In addition, K. Jongeling and R. M. Kerr have collaborated on the study of late Punic epigraphy (2005; Kerr 2007; 2010; Jongeling 2007; see also Mendleson 2003), while Roberto Bertolino (2008) has published a textbook of Hatrean epigraphy. Now, about 260 years old, the status of Northwest Semitic epigraphy may tentatively be described in five summary statements: (1) The field is vast and hardly unified. On one hand, Ugaritology (Wyatt 1999) and Qumranology have tended to become fields on their own, with abundant bibliographies and their own journals (Ugarit-Forschungen, Revue de Qumran, The Qumran Chronicle, Dead Sea Discoveries). On the other hand, scholars tend also to specialize according to periods: for instance, later Canaanite and Aramaic dialects tend to be a different field from the study of earlier Northwest Semitic inscriptions. In this context, for instance, one may interpret Gibson’s textbook (TSSI) as taking into account the fact that some Semitists are only interested in the earlier periods. Moreover, progress has been made in distinguishing more and more clearly between the various dialects. For instance, among the Canaanite dialects, Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, and Philistian (Lemaire 2000) are distinguished from Hebrew and Phoenician. (2) This field is still fragile because of its unstable position in universities, even in Jerusalem! So, on the one hand, it has developed with the help of national centers for academic research in France, Italy, and Spain; and on the other hand, because finding a job in this field is an adventure, the number of students is always small. For some

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

15

university administrators, small numbers present problems unless, as at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), there is a tradition of specialization in fields with few students. The danger of this situation is that students will not be seriously and methodologically prepared to do research in this field. In a way, research ends up being carried by more or less clever amateurs. (3) Discoveries of Northwest Semitic inscriptions are generally unexpected; therefore, it is practically impossible to plan for the future of this field. Among the most recent discoveries, one can mention a Philistian royal inscription found at Tel Miqne– Ekron during the last season of excavations (Gitin et al. 1997); a royal Aramaic inscription at Tel Dan, discovered after the end of official excavations (Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995; see also Hagelia 2009); a monumental Aramaic inscription from near Bukan in Azerbaijan (Lemaire 1998); a royal Phoenician inscription from Çineköy, Cilicia, discovered by chance during plowing (Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000); as well as more than 1,700 Aramaic ostraca from Idumea, west of Hebron, which have appeared on the antiquities market and in private collections (Ephʿal and Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1996; 2002); or, after the status quaestionis of F. M. Fales (1986), several dozen Aramaic tablets also from the antiquities market (Lemaire 2001; Lipiński 2010) or from the excavations of Tell Sheikh Hamad, in northeastern Syria (Röllig 1999); or several dozen Phoenician ostraca and inscriptions on gypsum plaques from Idalion in Cyprus (Hadjicosti 1997); or Aramaic parchments from the 4th century b.c.e., which appeared on the market in 2000 and were probably found near the border between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan (Naveh and Shaked 2012). So the discovery of new inscriptions generally is not the responsibility of the epigrapher. (4) However, the epigrapher’s responsibility is the scholarly publication of the inscriptions that have been found. Unfortunately, one must admit that some of the Northwest Semitic inscriptions are only published in a preliminary way: this is still the case for the famous Mesha Stela, the editio princeps of which Clermont-Ganneau never produced. This is also the case for the Persepolis Aramaic tablets discovered before the Second World War or the Phoenician ostraca and inscriptions on gypsum plaques from Idalion. Other inscriptions took a great deal of time to be published: more than 35 years for the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions (Meshel 2012), and more than a century for the Clermont-Ganneau ostraca (Lozachmeur 2006). In this context, textbooks of Northwest Semitic epigraphy should stress the importance of publishing new inscriptions quickly, with at least good photographs, even if (or especially when?) their reading is difficult and their interpretation debatable. The experience with the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that publishing good photographs is one way to accelerate the editio princeps of difficult fragmentary inscriptions. (5) The publication of the general Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum has practically been put into neutral. Actually, the older way of publishing such a corpus appears outdated because of the general use of computers. Several mini-corpora have already been published with their help: for instance, W. E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (1989; cf. 1999; in press), G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance (1991; 2004), J. F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih (1993), J. Renz and W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vols. 1, 2/1, and

16

André Lemaire

3 (1995), D. R. Hillers and Eleanora Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (1996), as well as the corpus of Ugaritic texts (Cunchillos 1993; Cunchillos and Vita 1995; Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1995 [CAT]). So far, these publications have only dealt with texts. However, it is now possible to publish digital photographs of good quality, so that one can imagine a new general, computerized Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, perhaps based on the conventions of the Banco de Datos Filológicos Semíticos Noroccidentales (BDSFN) of Madrid. It would have the great advantage of being updatable so that, for example, concordances and other research tools could be produced as needed. A project of this scope requires international collaboration of experienced epigraphers and an appreciation of developments in computer technology.

References Abou-Assaf, A.; Bordreuil, P.; and Millard, A. R. 1982 La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. Abousamra, G. 2005 Bénédictions et malédictions dans les inscriptions phénico-punique. Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit 48. Kaslik, Lebanon: CEDLUSEK. Abousamra, G., and Lemaire, A. In press  Nouvelles stèles funéraires phéniciennes (Collection Adra). Beirut. Aggoula, B. 1985 Inscriptions et graffites araméens d’Assour. Annali dell’istituto orientali di Napoli Supplement 43. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1991 Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 139. Paris: Geuthner. Aharoni, Y. 1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Aḥituv, S. 2008 Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta. Albright, W. F. 1969 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment. Harvard Theological Studies 22. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Allegro, J. 1965 The Shapira Affair. London: Allen. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1967 Le iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente. Studi Semitici 28. Rome: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente. 1986 Scavi a Mozia: Le iscrizioni. Collezione di studi fenici 22. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1987 Scritture alfabetiche. Rome: Levi. 1990 Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche in Italia. Ministerio per i beni culturale e ambientali, itinerari 6. Rome: Libreria dello stato. 2004 Mise à jour bibliographique des inscriptions publiées dans Kition III (1977). Pp. 205– 15 in Kition dans les textes: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions, ed. M. Yon. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

17

2011 Il santuario di Astarte di Malta: Le iscrizioni in fenicio da Tas-Silǵ. Rome: La Sapienza. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and Karageorghis, V. 1977 Fouilles de Kition, vol. 3: Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Zavallis. Aufrecht, W. E. 1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. 1999 Ammonite Texts and Language. Pp. 163–88 in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Younker. Leiden: Brill. In press A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Avigad, N. 1952 An Ammonite Seal. Israel Exploration Journal 2: 163–64. 1976 Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive. Qedem 4. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 1986 Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Avigad, N., and Yadin, Y. 1956 A Genesis Aprocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Jerusalem: Magnes. Barthélemy, J.-J. 1759 Réf lexions sur l’alphabet et sur la langue dont on se servoit autrefois à Palmyre (lu le 12 février 1754). Mémoires de l’Académie royale des Inscriptions 26: 577–97. 1764 Réf lexions sur quelques monuments phéniciens et sur les alphabets qui en résultent (lu le 12 avril 1758). Mémoires de l’Académie royale des Inscriptions 30: 405–26. Beit-Arieh, I. 2007 Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Bertolino, R. 2008 Manuel d’épigraphie hatréenne. Paris: Geuthner. Bertrandy, F., and Sznycer, M. 1987 Les stèles puniques de Constantine. Notes et documents des Musées de France 14. Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, Editions de la Réunion des Musées nationaux. Beyer, K. 1984 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1994 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1998 Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Biran, A., and Naveh, J. 1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81–98. 1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1–19. Bordreuil, P. 1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. Bordreuil, P., and Pardee, D. 2004 Manuel d’ougaritique. 2 vols. Paris: Geuthner.

18

André Lemaire

Bordreuil, P.; Pardee, D.; and Hawley, R. 2012 Un bibliothèque au sud de la ville, vol. 3: Textes 1994–2002 en cunéiforme alphabétique de la maison d’Ourtenou. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Bounni, A., and Teixidor, J. 1995 Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, vol. 12. Damascus: Direction Générale des Antiquités. Bresciani, E., and Kamil, M. 1966 Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli. Atti della Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie 8–9: 375–428. Bron, F. 1979 Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. Hautes Études Orientales 11. Geneva: Droz. Çambel, H., with the collaboration of Röllig, W. 1999 Karatepe-Aslantaş. The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cantineau, J. 1930–32  Le nabatéen. Vols. 1–2. Paris: Leroux. 1930–36  Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Vols. 1–9. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique. 1935 Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Caquot, A., and Sznycer, M. 1974 Textes ougaritiques, vol. 1: Mythes et légendes. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 7. Paris: Cerf. Caquot, A.; Tarragon, J.-M. de; and Cunchillos, J.-L. 1989 Textes ougaritiques, vol. 2: Textes religieux et rituels. Littératures Anciennes du ProcheOrient 14. Paris: Cerf. Chabot, J.-B. 1918 Punica. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1922 Choix d’inscriptions de Palmyre. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1947 Recueil des inscriptions libyques. Paris. Imprimerie nationale. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. 1870 La stèle de Mesa, roi de Moab 896 avant J.C.: Lettre à M. le Cte de Vogüé. Paris: Baudry. 1885 Les fraudes archéologiques en Palestine suivies de quelques monuments phéniciens apocryphes. Paris: Leroux. 1887 La stèle de Mésa, examen critique du texte. Journal asiatique, ser. 8, vol. 9: 72–112. 1895–97  Études d’archéologie orientale. Vols. 1–2. Paris: Bouillon. 1888–1924  Recueil d’archéologie orientale. Vols. 1–8. Paris: Leroux. Cooke, G. A. 1903 A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Clarendon. Cotton, H. M.; Di Segni, L.; Eck, W.; Isaac, B.; Kushnir-Stein, A.; Misgav, H.; Price, J.; Roll, I.; and Yardeni, A. 2010 Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae: A Muli-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad, vol. 1: Jerusalem, part 1: 1–704. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cowley, A. 1923 Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b.c. Oxford: Clarendon. Cunchillos, J.-L. 1993 Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales, vol. 1: Datos ugaríticos. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filologia.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

19

Cunchillos, J.-L., and Vita, J.-P. 1995 Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales, vol. 2: Concordancia de palabras ugaríticas en morfología desplegada. 3 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas / Zaragoza: Institucion Fernando el Católico. Cunchillos, J.-L., and Zamora, J.-A. 1997 Gramática Fenicia Elemental. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología. Davies, G. I. 1991 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, vol. 2: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dawkins, J., and Wood, R. 1753 Les ruines de Palmyre, autrement dite Tedmor, au désert. London: Miller. Dearman, J. A. 1989 Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Degen, R. 1969 Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Degen, R.; Müller, W. W.; and Röllig, W. 1972–78  Neue Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Vols. 1–3. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Deutsch, R. 1999 Messages from the Past: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah through the Destruction of the First Temple. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. 2003 Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. 2011 Biblical Period Epigraphy: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection: Seals, Bullae, Handles. Vol. 2. Yaffo/Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Archaeological Center. 1995 New Epigraphical Evidence from the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1999 West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millenium bce. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. 2003 The Adoniram Collection of West Semitic Inscriptions. Geneva: Archaeological Center. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; and Sanmartín, J. 1995 Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dimant, D., ed. 2012 The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 99. Leiden: Brill. Dion, P.-E. 1974 La Langue de Yaʾudi. Waterloo, ON: Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses. Diringer, D. 1934 Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi. Florence: Le Monnier. 1968 The Alphabet. Vols. 1–2. London: Hutchinson.

20

André Lemaire

Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Doughty, C. M. 1884 Documents épigraphiques recueillis dans le nord de l’Arabie. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Driver, G. R. 1954 Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century b.c. Oxford: Clarendon. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1948 La grande inscription phénicienne de Karatepe. Revue archéologique 42: 161–88. 1950 Aperçus préliminaires sur les manuscrits de la mer Morte. Paris: Maisonneuve. 1964a Les écrits esséniens découverts près de la mer Morte. Paris: Payot. 1964b L’inscription punique récemment découverte à Pyrgi (Italie). Journal asiatique 252: 289–302. 1971 Jean-Jacques Barthélemy et l’ancienne Académie des inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Paris: Institut. 1974 Un dépisteur de fraudes archéologiques: Charles Clermont-Ganneau (1846–1923), membre de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 4. Paris: Institut. 1979 IIIe partie: L’inscription araméenne. Pp. 129–78 in Fouilles de Xanthos, vol. 6: La stèle trilingue du Letôon, ed. H. Metzger. Paris: Klincksieck. Dušek, J. 2007 Les manuscripts araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–432 av. J.-C. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 30. Leiden: Brill. 2012 Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 54. Leiden: Brill. Dussaud, R. 1924 Les inscriptions phéniciennes du tombeau d’Aḥiram, roi de Byblos. Syria 5: 135–45. 1925 Dédicace d’une statue d’Osorkon I par Elibaʿal, roi de Byblos. Syria 6: 101–17. Ephʿal, I., and Naveh, J. 1996 Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century bc from Idumaea. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Euting, J. 1883 Sammlung der Carthagischen Inschriften. Vol. 1. Strasbourg: Trübner. 1885 Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien. Berlin: Reimer. 1891 Sinaitische Inschriften. Berlin: Reimer. Fales, F. M. 1986 Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Studi Semitici n.s. 2. Rome: Università degli studi “La Sapienza.” Fantar, M. 1993 Carthage: Approche d’une civilisation. 2 vols. Tunis: Alif. Ferjaoui, A. 1992 Recherches sur les relations entre l’Orient phénicien et Carthage. Carthage: Beit el-Hikma. 2007 Le sanctuaire de Henchir el-Hami: de Baʿal Hammon au Saturne africain, Ier s. av. J.-C.– IVe s. ap. J.-C. Tunis: Institut national du patrimoine. 2010 Carthage et les autochtones de son empire du temps de Zama: Hommage à M. H. Fantar— Colloque international organisé à Siliana et Tunis du 10 au 13 mars 2004, ed A. Ferjaoui. Tunis: Institut national du patrimoine.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

21

Février, J. G. 1931a La religion des Palmyréniens. Paris: Vrin. 1931b Essai sur l’histoire politique et économique de Palmyre. Paris: Vrin. 1966 Inscriptions puniques et néo-puniques. Pp. 81–132 in Inscriptions antiques du Maroc, vol. 1, ed. L. Galand, J. Février, and G. Vajda. Paris: Conseil National de Recherche Scientifique. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1995 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sef îre. 2nd ed. Biblica et Orientalia 19. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fitzmyer, J. A., and Harrington, D. J. 1978 A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts. Biblica et Orientalia 34. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fitzmyer, J. A., and Kaufman, S. A. 1992 An Aramaic Bibliography, part 1: Old, Official, and Biblical Aramaic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Friedrich, J.; Röllig, W.; and Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1999 Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Garbini, G. 1979 Storia e problemi dell’epigrafia semitica. Annali dell’istituto orientali di Napoli Supplement 19. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1980 I Fenici, storia e religione. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1986 Venti anni di epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1965–1985). Rivista di Sudi Fenici Supplement 14. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1993 Aramaica. Studi Semitici n.s. 10. Rome: Università degli studi “La Sapienza.” 2006 Introduzione all’epigrafia semitica. Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico 4. Brescia: Paideia. Gardiner, A. H. 1916 The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3: 1–16. Gardiner, A. H., and Peet, T. E. 1917 The Inscriptions of Sinai, vol. 1: Introduction and Plates. Memoire of the Egyptian Exploration Fund 36. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. Gesenius, W. 1815 Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift. Leipzig: Vogel. [Reprinted, Hildesheim: Olms, 1973] 1837 Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt. Leipzig: Vogel. 1841 Über die himyaritische Sprache und Schrift. Halle. Gibson, J. C. L. 1971–82  Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Gitin, S.; Dothan, T; and Naveh, J. 1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 1–16. Grelot, P. 1972 Documents araméens d’Égypte. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 5. Paris: Cerf. Gropp, D. M. 1986 Slave-Sale Deeds from Samaria. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. 2001 Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 28. Oxford: Clarendon. Gruter, J. 1616 Inscriptionum Romanarum: Corpus absolutissimum. Heidelberg: Bibliopolio Commeliniano.

22

André Lemaire

Guyot de Marne, F. G. C. 1735 Lorenese dell’ ordine Gerosolimitano sopra un inscrizione punica, e graeca. Pp. 25–34 in Saggi di dissertazioni accademiche publicamente lette nella nobile accademia Etrusca dell’antichissima città di Cortona, vol. 1. Cortona: n.p. Hackett, J. A. 1984 The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā. Harvard Semitic Monograph 31. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Hadjicosti, M. 1997 The Kingdom of Idalion in the Light of New Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 49–64. Hagelia, H. 2009 The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research. Sheffield: Phoenix. Haines, B. L. 1967 A Palaeographic Study of Aramaic Inscriptions Antedating 500 b.c. Th.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Halévy, J. 1874 Mélanges d’épigraphie et d’archéologie sémitique. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Halifax, W. 1698 A Relation from a Voyage from Aleppo to Palmyra in Syria. Philosophical Transactions 19: 83–110. Hamilton, G. J. 1985 The Development of the Early Alphabet. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. 2006 The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. Hanson, R. S. 1963 A Paleographical Study of Hebrew Inscriptions of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. 1976 Jewish Paleography and Its Bearing on Text Critical Studies. Pp. 561–76 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1985 Paleography. Pp. 15–23 in D. N. Freedman and K. A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research. Healey, J. F. 1993 The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih. Journal of Jewish Studies Supplement 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henze, M., ed. 2011 Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation. Early Judaism and Its Literature 29. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Hillers, D. R., and Cussini, E. 1996 Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K. 1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Hoftijzer, J., and van der Kooij, G., eds. 1991 The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989. Leiden: Brill.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

23

Honeyman, A. M. 1938 Larnax tês Lapethou: A Third Phoenician Inscription. Le Muséon 51: 285–98. 1939 The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Cyprus Museum. Iraq 6: 106–8. Ingholt, H.; Seyrig, H.; and Starcky, J. 1955 Recueil des tessères de Palmyre. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 58. Paris: Geuthner. Jean, C.-F., and Hoftijzer, J. 1965 Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques. Leiden: Brill. Jongeling, K. 2008 Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Jongeling, K., and Kerr, R. M. 2005 Late Punic Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Kaufman, I. 1967 The Samaria Ostraca: A Study of Ancient Hebrew Palaeography. Th.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Kerr, R. M. 2007 Latino-Punic and Its Linguistic Environment. Ph.D. Dissertation. Leiden University. 2010 Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kopp, U. F. 1819–21  Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit. 2 vols. Mannheim: n.p. Kraeling, E. G. 1953 The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lehmann, R. G. 2005 Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern, vol. 1/2: Die Inschrift(en) des Aḥīrōm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos). Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Lemaire, A. 1977 Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. 1: Les ostraca. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 9. Paris: Cerf. 1996 Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au musée d’Israël. Supplément à Transeuphratène 3. Paris: Gabalda. 1998 L’inscription araméenne de Bukân et son intérêt historique. Comptes rendus de l’Aca­ démie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 142: 293–99. 2000 Phénicien et Philistien: Paléographie et dialectologie. Pp. 243–49 in Actas del IV Congresso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, eds. M. E. Aubet and M. Barthélemy. Cadiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad. 2001 Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Hautes Études Orientales 34. Geneva: Droz. 2002 Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée, vol. 2: Collection Moussaieff et divers. Supplément à Transeuphratène 9. Paris: Gabalda. 2003 André Dupont-Sommer et l’épigraphie sémitique. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 147: 1403–13. 2007 Review of H. Lozachmeur, La collection Clermont-Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois (2 vols.; Paris: Boccard, 2006). Transeuphratène 34: 177–83.

24

André Lemaire

Lemaire, A., and Durand, J.-M. 1984 Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu. Hautes Études Orientales 20. Geneva: Droz. Lemaire, A., and Sass, B. 2012 La stèle d’Ördekburnu: Vers la solution d’une énigme de l’épigraphie ouest- sémitique. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 227–40. 2013 The Morturary Stele with Samʾalian Inscription from Ördekburnu near Zincirli. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369: 57–136. Levi della Vida, G., and Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1987 Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitania (1927–1967). Monografie de archeologia libica 22. Rome: L’Erma. Levy, M. A. 1856–70  Phönizische Studien. 4 vols. Breslau: Leuckart / Schletter, Skutsch, and Sander. 1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit aramäischen, phönizischen, althebräischen, himjarischen, nabathäischen und altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Skutsch. Lidzbarski, M. 1898 Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, nebst ausgewählten Inschriften. 2 vols. Weimar: Felber. [Reprinted, Hildsheim: Olms, 1962] 1907 Altsemitische Texte, vol. 1: Kanaanäische Inschriften (moabitisch, althebräisch, phönizisch, punisch). Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann. 1902–15  Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. 3 vols. Giessen: Ricker / Alfred Töpelmann. Lipiński, E. 1975 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics. Vol. 1. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 1. Leuven: Peeters. 1992 Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Turnhout: Brepols. 1994 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics. Vol. 2. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 57. Leuven: Peeters. 2010 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics, vol. 3: Maʿlānā. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 200. Leuven: Peeters. Lozachmeur, H. 2006 La collection Clermont-Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois. 2 vols. Mé­ moires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 35. Paris: Boccard. Lubetski, M., ed. 2007 New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform. Hebrew Bible Monograph 8. Sheffield: Phoenix. Lubetski, M., and Lubetski, E., eds. 2012 New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Luschan, F. von; Schrader, E.; Sachau, E.; Humann, C.; Koldewey, R.; and Jacoby, G. 1893–1943  Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. 4 vols. Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen der königlichen Museen zu Berlin 11–15. Berlin: Spemann / Reimer / de Gruyter. Luynes, H. de 1846 Essai sur la numismatique des satrapes et de la Phénicie sous les rois achaeménides. Paris: Diclot. 1856 Mémoire sur le sarcophage et l’inscription funéraire d’Esmunazar, roi de Sidon. Paris: Plon.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

25

Magen, Y.; Misgav, H.; and Tsfania, L. 2004 Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Judea and Samaria Publication 2. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology–Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Masson, O. 1985 La dédicace à Baʿal du Liban (CIS I, 5) et sa provenance probable de la région de Limassol. Semitica 35: 33–46. Masson, O., and Sznycer, M. 1971 Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Hautes Études Orientales 3. Paris: Droz. Mathys, H.-P. 2008 Das Astarte-Quadrat. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. McCarter, P. K. 1975 The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and the Early Phoenician Scripts. Harvard Semitic Monograph 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1996 Ancient Inscriptions: Voices from the Biblical World. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. McLean, M. D. 1982 The Use and Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. 1992 Hebrew Scripts. Pp. 96–97 in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Mendleson, C. 2003 Catalogue of Punic Stelae in the British Museum. British Museum Occasional Paper 98. London: British Museum. Meshel, Z., ed. 2012 Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Horvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Milik, J. T. 1972 Recherches d’épigraphie proche-orientale, vol. 1: Dédicaces faites par les dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 92. Paris: Geuthner. 1976 The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Moscati, S. 1951 L’epigrafia ebraica antica 1935–1950. Biblica et Orientalia 15. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1966 Il mundo dei Fenici. Rome: Saggiatore. Movers, F. K. 1841–56  Die Phönizier. 4 vols. Berlin: Dummler. Naveh, J. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1973 The Aramaic Ostraca. Pp. 79–82 in Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons, ed. Y. Aharoni. Beer-Sheba 1. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. 1979 The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-Sheba (Seasons 1971–1976). Tel Aviv 6: 182–98. 1981 The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Arad. Pp. 153–76 in Arad Inscriptions, ed. Y. Aharoni. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1982 Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes / Hebrew University.

26

André Lemaire

1992 On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem: Magnes. [Hebrew] 2009 Studies in West-Semitic Epigraphy: Selected Papers. Jerusalem: Magnes. Naveh, J., and Shaked, S. 2012 Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century bce) from the Khalili Collections. London: Khalili Family Trust. Pardee, D. 1982 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 15. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1985 Les textes hippiatriques. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. 1988 Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). Ras Shamra–Ougarit 4. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. 2000 Les textes rituels. 2 vols. Ras Shamra–Ougarit 12. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. 2009 A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 356: 51–71. Peckham, J. B. 1968 The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Harvard Semitic Studies 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Petrie, W. M. F., and Currelly, C. T. 1906 Researches in Sinai. New York: Dutton. Pococke, R. 1743–45  A Description of the East, and Some Other Countries. 2 vols. London: Bowyer. Pognon, H. 1907–8  Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Porten, B., and Yardeni, A. 1986–99  Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Puech, É. 1986 Origine de l’alphabet. Revue biblique 93: 161–213. Reisner, G. A.; Fischer, C. S.; and Lyon, D. G. 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria: 1908–1910, vol. 1: Text. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Renan, E. 1855 Histoire générale et système comparé des langues sémitiques. vol. 1. Paris: Calman-Levy. 1864 Mission de Phénicie. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1867 Rapport . . . projet d’un Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Journal asiatique ser. 6, vol. 9: 398–409. Renz, J., and Röllig, W., eds. 1995 Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­ gesellschaft. Röllig, W. 1999 Aramaica Haburensia III: Beobachtungen an neuen Dokumenten in “Aramaic Argillary Script.” Eretz-Israel 26 (Cross Volume): 163*–68*. Rollston, C. A. 2010 Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

27

Ronzevalle, P. 1930–31  Fragments d’inscriptions araméennes des environs d’Alep. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 15: 237–60. Rosenbaum, J. 1978 A Typology of Aramaic Lapidary Script from the Seventh to Fourth Centuries b.c.e. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Rosenthal, F. 1939 Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldeke’s Veröffentlichungen. Leiden: Brill. 1967 An Aramaic Handbook. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sachau, E. 1911 Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-Kolonie zu Elephantine. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Sader, H. 1984 Les états araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces assyriennes. Tübingen: Köhler. 2005 Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de arqueología mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Bellaterra. Sass, B. 1988 Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millenium b.c. Ägypten und Altes Testament 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1991 Studia alphabetica: On the Origin and Early History of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic and Greek Alphabets. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis102. Freiburg: Universität / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2005 The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 bce. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets. Tel Aviv Occasional Publication 4. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Saulcy, F. de 1847 Mémoire sur une inscription phénicienne déterrée à Marseille en juin 1845. Pp. 310– 47 in Mémoire de l’Institut royal de France. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 17/1. Paris. Sayce, A. H., and Cowley, A. E. 1906 Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan. London: Moring. Schlottmann, K. 1874 Die sogenannte Inschrift von Parahyba. Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 28: 481–87. Schmitz, P. C. 2012 The Phoenician Diaspora: Epigraphic and Historical Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schröder, P. 1869 Die phönizische Sprache: Entwurf einer Grammatik nebst Sprache- und Schriftproben. Halle: Waisenhaus. Segal, J. B. 1983 Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Starcky, J. 1949 Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Vol. 10. Damascus: Direction Générale des Antiquités. Swinton, J. 1750 Inscriptiones Citieae, sive in binas inscriptiones Phoenicias, inter rudera Citii nuper repertas, conjecturae. Oxford: Academicis.

28

André Lemaire

1754 An Explication of all the Inscriptions in the Palmyrene Language and Characters Hitherto Published. Philosophical Transactions 48: 690–756. Sznycer, M. 1972 Protosinaïtiques (Inscriptions). Cols. 1384–95 in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 8. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. 1980 La partie phénicienne de l’inscription bilingue gréco-phénicienne de Cos. Archeion Deltion 35: 17–30. 1985 Brèves remarques sur l’inscription phénicienne de Chypre, CIS I, 5. Semitica 35: 47–50. 1999 Retour à Cos. Semitica 49: 103–16. Tappy, R. E., and McCarter, P. K., eds. 2008 Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Teixidor, J. 1965 Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Vol. 11. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie. 1986 Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique (1964–1980). Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 127. Paris: Geuthner. Tekoğlu, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 144: 961–1006. Tropper, J. 1993 Die Inschriften von Zencirli. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tur-Sinai [Torczyner], H. 1938 Lachish, vol. 1: The Lachish Letters. London: Oxford University Press. Vita, J. P., and Zamora, J.-A., eds. 2006 Nuevas perspectivas I: La investigación Fenicia y Púnica. Cuadernos de arqueología mediterránea 13. Barcelona: Bellaterra. Vogüé, M. de 1868 Mélanges d’archéologie orientale. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1868–77  Syrie centrale: Inscriptions sémitiques. Paris: Baudry. Watson, W. G. E., and Wyatt, N., eds. 1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 39. Leiden: Brill. Weill, R. 1904 Recueil des inscriptions égyptiennes du Sinaï: Bibliographie, texte, traduction et commentaire, précédé de la géographie des établissements égyptiens de la péninsule. Paris: Société nouvelle de librairie et d’édition. Xella, P. 1981 I testi rituali di Ugarit, vol. 1: Testi. Studi Semitici 54. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1991 Baal Hammon. Collezione di studi fenici 32. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Xella, P., and Zamora, J.-A., eds. 2003 Epigrafia e Storia delle religioni. Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 20. Verona: Essedue. Yadin, Y. 1962 The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. London. Oxford University Press.

A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

29

1963 Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1965 The Ben Sira Scroll from Massada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1969 Tefillin from Qumran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1983 The Temple Scroll. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yadin, Y.; Greenfield, J. C.; Yardeni, A.; and Levine, B. 2002 Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yardeni, A. 2000 Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Materials. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Ben-Zion Dinur Center, Hebrew University. Yardeni, A., and Elizur, B. 2007 A Prophetic Text on Stone from the First Century bce: First Publication. Cathedra 123: 155–66. Yon, M., and Sznycer, M. 1991 Une inscription phénicienne royale de Kition. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 791–821. Zamora, J.-A., ed. 2003 El hombre fenicio: Estudios y materiales. Serie Arqueológica 9. Rome: CSIC / Escuela Española de Historía y Arqueología en Roma.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts Gordon J. Hamilton

The scholarly consensus about the periods of early alphabetic scripts has virtually collapsed during the last decade. The previous consensus conceived of early alphabetic writing as having just two periods: a first, from the beginning of that script tradition until ca. 1050 b.c.e., variously termed Proto-Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite, Old Canaanite, or Early Alphabetic; and a second, usually called Early Linear Phoenician, beginning in ca. 1050 b.c.e. (developed in several works by Cross, especially 1954; 1967; 1979; 1980). 1 Three major issues become apparent in this breakdown of consensus: whether there was a significant change in early alphabetic scripts from the time that it began until ca. 1050 b.c.e. (contrast Sass 2004–5; Hamilton 2006: 4); whether there was a time when both multidirectional and single-directional writing overlapped (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 246); and how to characterize the last period, when alphabetic texts show a significantly lower number of forms and stances of letters that were arranged in one direction (Rollston 2008a: 72–89; 2010: 11–12; 2011: 76–77). In this essay, I propose that there were three periods of one continuous tradition of alphabetic writing to be designated with the most neutral identifiers available: Early Alphabetic A, ca. 1900–1400 b.c.e.; Early Alphabetic B, ca. 1400–1000/950 b.c.e.; and Early Alphabetic C, ca. 1050–after 900 b.c.e. (or to the rise of distinctly national scripts). Early Alphabetic A may be characterized as a semi-pictographic or semicursive script, the forms of almost all of the letters of which can now be traced to either Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic prototypes. The letters of Early Alphabetic A could be arranged either as vertical columns or as horizontal lines written in either direction, although vertically arranged texts are much more frequently attested. Most of the extant witnesses to this earliest stage were inscribed on stone. Early Alphabetic B shows a transformation from a semi-pictographic into a predominantly linear stage Author’s note: A version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature; I am grateful to members of the panel on Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and Ugaritic as well as to some individuals who attended that session for their suggestions to improve various aspects of it. That which is well reasoned in this essay seeks to honor Frank Moore Cross, who, from my perspective, did more for the disciplined study of the early alphabet than any other individual in the 20th century. 1.  For an overview of the publications by Cross on early alphabetic scripts and specific texts, see Hamilton 2002: 37–38.

30

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

31

Fig. 1.  Wadi el-Ḥol Text 1. Horizontal, right to left (see Darnell et al. 2005: 85). Drawing by the author.

of handwriting. Many of the simplified forms of the letters during this second stage come to resemble geometric or other basic shapes. Texts arranged as horizontal lines are attested much more commonly during Early Alphabetic B, as are inscriptions written with paint or ink on ceramic. Early Alphabetic C witnesses a direct continuation of the earlier forms of the letters but shows considerably less variety in terms of their shapes or stances. During this third stage, inscriptions come to be arranged exclusively as horizontal lines written from right to left (as witnessed by a growing number of discoveries from sites in Palestine as well as examples found long ago at Byblos). Following Misgav (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 249), one needs to posit an overlap between the end of the multidirectional Early Alphabetic B and the emergence of the one-directional Early Alphabetic C at the end of Iron Age I or the beginning of Iron Age II, at least in Palestine—an overlap that could have lasted 50 years (or slightly less), ca. 1050–1000 b.c.e., or as long as a century, from ca. 1050 to 950 b.c.e.

Early Alphabetic A, ca. 1900–1400 b.c.e. The fairly recent publication of a pair of early alphabetic texts incised on a rock wall at Wadi el-Ḥol, Egypt (figs. 1–2) and the rediscovery of an inscribed wooden heddle jack from Lahun, Egypt (fig. 3) have provided two firm starting points about the origins of early alphabetic writing: when it began and the nature of its script.

32

Gordon J. Hamilton

Fig. 2.  Wadi el-Ḥol Text 2. Drawing by the author.

When Early Alphabetic Writing Began Early alphabetic writing began in the Middle Bronze Age, in all likelihood near the beginning of that period. 2 Two early alphabetic texts found by John and Deborah Darnell were incised on prime locations of the rock wall at Wadi el-Ḥol, 3 the Egyptian inscriptions of which date mostly to late in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate period (ca. the first half of the second millennium b.c.e.; Darnell et al. 2005: 74, 86). One of those Egyptian texts also records the presence of the general of a West-Semitic-speaking 2. See Hamilton 2006: 11–12 for an overview of previous estimates by scholars for the beginning of consonantal alphabetic writing, ca. 2000–1550 b.c.e. (to which one may add the radical redating advocated as a working hypothesis by Sass [2004–5: 149], ±1300 b.c.e.; see my critique of this hypothesis [Hamilton 2009: nn. 4, 5, 54, 57]). 3.  For a select bibliography on these Wadi el-Ḥol rock inscriptions, see Hamilton 2006: 324, 327–28, to which may be added Sass 2004–5; and 2008.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

33

Fig. 3.  The inscription on a small-scale heddle jack from Lahun, Egypt. Horizontal, reading from right to left when in use (see Quirke in Cartwright et al. 1998: 92). Drawing by the author.

military group at Wadi el-Ḥol late in the Middle Kingdom (Darnell 2003: 170–71; Darnell et al. 2005: 87–90, 102–6). These two contextual considerations would recommend assigning the early alphabetic horizontal Text 1 and the vertically arranged Text 2 to near the end of the Twelfth Dynasty or early in the Thirteenth, ca. 1850– 1700 b.c.e. (Darnell et al. 2005: 90; Dobbs-Allsopp 2006: 495–96). 4 A wooden weaving instrument called a heddle jack that is inscribed with early alphabetic letters from a major urban site farther north in Egypt, rightly called Lahun (sometimes erroneously called Kahun), was recently rediscovered in The British Museum. 5 Because this represents the earliest alphabetic inscription written on an organic artifact, this heddle jack was tested for 14C content determined by AMS technique. The calibrated results came back with an early date, 2140–1940 b.c.e. (95.4% probability; Hamilton 2006: 298). This date provides an estimate of when the tree, probably of the subspecies Abies, “fir,” which is not native to Egypt (Cartwright et al. 1998: 96–99), was cut down before its wood was imported into Egypt. The date of the inscription on this artifact might be somewhat later, but this short inscription can still be placed early in the Middle Bronze Age. Egyptian hieratic documents, some with pharaonic regnal years (Luft 1993: 291–97; Hamilton et al. 2007: 30–31), also record a significant number of people bearing West-Semitic names at the pyramid site of Lahun during the Twelfth Dynasty (ca. 2000–1800 b.c.e.; Lahun had virtually no habitation during the centuries immediately following). Moreover, heddle jacks were used in conjunction with the horizontal looms of the Middle Kingdom, not the vertical looms of the New Kingdom (Cartwright et al. 1998: 92). Based on artifact type, the documented presence of significant numbers of West Semites at Lahun, the floruit of this site, and an interpretation of the radiometric results for the wood on which this text was inscribed, I agree with the estimation of the date for this inscription given by Quirke: ca. 1850–1700 b.c.e. (Cartwright et al. 1998: 92). 4.  Darnell et al. (2005: 85–86) were hesitant in offering a translation of most of the wording in these two short texts; they are still not securely translated, despite numerous attempts. 5.  Credit is due S. Quirke, Curator of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London, for correlating the earlier epigraphic study by Dijkstra (1990) with the actual object (Cartwright et al. 1998: 92). For publications on this heddle jack, see Hamilton 2006: 330–31, to which one may add Hamilton et al. 2007, including the first published photographs of its inscription, pls. 1–4.

34

Gordon J. Hamilton

The chronological estimates for the rediscovered Lahun and the two new Wadi el-Ḥol inscriptions, ca. 1850–1700 b.c.e., recommend a date of ca. 1900 b.c.e. (±50 years) for the invention of consonantal alphabetic writing (concurring with Darnell 2003: 296; Darnell et al. 2005: 90; Dobbs-Allsopp 2006: 495–96) after one factors in a relatively short period to allow for some minor changes to the forms of signs that West Semites reused as the letters of their new writing system (Hamilton 2006: 289–99) and allowing some time for the dissemination of this new system of writing. The Nature of the Script of Early Alphabetic A When the preceding new epigraphic evidence from Egypt is put together with texts from the western Sinai and Palestine, most of which were published long ago, it is clear that West-Semitic speakers borrowed the preexistent forms of a limited number of Egyptian signs to write texts in the consonants of their own language. Darnell et al. (2005: 86–87) were the first to point out in print that the forms of some of the letters derive from Egyptian hieroglyphic antecedents, while the forms of other consonantal graphemes derive from specifically hieratic prototypes. (The early alphabetic letters did not derive from just hieroglyphic models, as had been proposed by many scholars [most recently, Goldwasser 2006: esp. p. 135], or just hieratic models, as has been advocated by some [most recently, Goedicke 2006: 124, 126–27]. 6) It was a mixed script, rightly described as being semi-pictographic by Gardiner in 1962 (similarly, McCarter 1976: 17). Darnell et al. (2005: 97 n. 104) also noted that it was during the Middle Kingdom that Egyptian inscriptions were most frequently composed of a mixture of hieroglyphic and hieratic signs (the two streams usually being kept discrete in other periods), thus providing a model in the parent script for the semi-pictographic nature of the earliest stage of alphabetic writing found at sites in Egypt, the Sinai, and Canaan. 7

Early Alphabetic B, ca. 1400–950 b.c.e. The shapes of many of the early alphabetic letters morphed early in the Late Bronze Age from a semi-pictographic sort of handwriting into a more cursive or linear script in which few pictographic features can be recognized. Complex details found in some of the letters of Early Alphabetic A, such as depictions of eyes in the profiles of 6. See Hamilton 2006: 7 for a survey of the earlier major proponents of each of these lines of derivation. 7.  I developed a detailed typology of Early Alphabetic A scripts in 2006. This represents a “bottoms-up” revision of chaps. 1–2 of my doctoral dissertation (Hamilton 1985), supervised by F. M. Cross. Cross was incredibly generous with his time, meeting with me for 60–90 minutes each week for almost two years. Cross taught me about “doing epigraphy” or “having an eye for form” more than I could ever have asked or imagined. In the beginning, he was at best lukewarm to the idea that more than three or four of the earliest forms of the letters go back to Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic prototypes, going further on a case-by-case basis only when each potential borrowing was substantiated and evaluated as being certain, probable, or possible. In terms of methodology, the key shift was to work forward from typologically earlier forms to more-developed forms (and not to work chronologically backward from the Byblian scripts of the 10th and late 11th centuries b.c.e. to seemingly earlier and earliest letter shapes, ending with their potential sources in Egyptian scripts [see Hamilton 2006: 15–16]).

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

35

Fig. 4.  The spouted cup from Tell el-ʿAjjul showing the prepainted decorative panels inside of which most of the letters were written. Missing spout reconstructed after a comparable teapot-shaped form from Megiddo (Gonen 1992: 101, fig. 11c [direction reversed]).

Fig. 5.  The inscription painted around the spouted cup from Tell el-ʿAjjul. Top: line drawing in Petrie (1932: pl. 30:37A5). Bottom: line drawing by the author after the cup was cleaned. Horizontal, right to left (Hamilton 2010: 135–42).

bulls heads (see figs. 1–2), were dropped in Early Alphabetic B (see figs. 8–9). During this second stage, letters also tended to develop simpler, sometimes more-geometric shapes, often consisting of triangles (fig. 9), circles (fig. 6), or spirals (letter 3 in fig. 5 and the middle column of fig. 9), and earlier forms of letters composed of shallow or deep zigzags and crosses were continued. While multidirectional writing was retained (see fig. 6), horizontally arranged texts are much better attested in Early Alphabetic B. And whereas most of the inscriptions from Early Alphabetic A that have survived were incised on stone, many of the inscriptions belonging to Early Alphabetic B were written on ceramic, often in paint or ink (either whole vessels or parts that were used as ostraca). The Beginning of Early Alphabetic B Three inscriptions demonstrate that the change from a semi-pictographic into a largely linear script was already well under way early in the Late Bronze Age: the

36

Gordon J. Hamilton

almost complete inscription painted below the outside rim of a spouted cup from a tomb at Tell el-ʿAjjul; three letters incised inside a fine carinated bowl from Tell elḤesi; and the legend of the unprovenanced Grossman Seal. The inscription painted below the rim of a spouted cup from Tell el-ʿAjjul Tomb 1109 (fig. 4) is the most important of the three texts that show a transitional semi-pictographic-linear script because it is the longest and was written on a vessel type with parallels from stratigraphic contexts that can be dated securely. This inscription around the shoulder of the small, teapot-shaped cup was only properly examined, and its full text (about twice the length originally published) rephotographed at the UCL Archaeological Institute in 2009 (Hamilton 2010: pls. 1–8). Eight of its 11 letters can be identified securely, based on their close or very close resemblances to letter forms on other early alphabetic inscriptions (following the numbering in fig. 5, letter no. 2, n; 3, l; 4, y; 5, r; 6, ṣ; 8, k; 9, n; 11, y). Two other letters are more damaged, but their consonantal identities can be established with some degree of confidence (letter no. 1, ḏ/w; 7, ʾ ). Only one letter is too badly effaced to allow someone to read it (letter 10). As might be expected from an inscription written with paint, the shapes of the letters are f luid, indeed cursive (a quality already observed by Diringer [1943: 29]). Since the forms of two of the letters, ṣ (letter 6) and the final y (letter 11), go back to specifically Egyptian hieratic prototypes (Hamilton 2010: 120 n. 42; 130), they continue linear forms that are already attested in the script of Early Alphabetic A. But at least four of the other securely identified letters on this short text have developed into linear forms as well; letters 4 and 5 cannot be recognized as pictographs of human body parts (yod ‘hand’; reš ‘head [in profile]’), nor can letters 2 and 9 be recognized as contrasting depictions of snakes. With some effort, one might be able to recognize letter 3, lamed, as a pictographic representation of a coil of rope or letter 8, kap, as the depiction in writing of the open palm of a hand (but the inclusion of only three fingers might make the latter identification difficult for some). Simply put, the text of the Tell elʿAjjul spouted cup was written in a largely nonpictographic alphabetic script. Six of the eight clearly identifiable letters have linear forms. Since this type of vessel ceased to be made ca. 1300 b.c.e. (Hamilton 2010: 109–10, with parallels supplied by Sparks), this decorated cup provides solid evidence that early in the Late Bronze Age the early alphabet was already morphing into a kind of handwriting consisting of lines rather than a script that includes recognizable drawings of features of architecture, the human body in whole or part, weapons, animals, fiber implements, or plants (Hamilton 2006: 320–21). When the paleographic analysis of the letters on this inscription is combined with an analysis of the archaeological context in which the spouted cup form was found (Hamilton 2010: 132–34), I recommend a date of ca. 1400 b.c.e. (±100 years) for this decorated and inscribed vessel (leaving a fairly wide margin for the possibility of error). 8 The very short inscription written inside fragments of a carinated fine-ware bowl found long ago by Bliss at Tell el-Ḥesi also witnesses the transformation from 8.  I have also proposed a linguistic decipherment of this almost-complete text ḏ lyrʾ kn[ʿ ]y, ‘This (belongs) to Y r ʾ, (the) Can[aan]ite’. The reading of the first three words is secure, but the last represents only the most plausible reconstruction available (Hamilton 2010: 107–8, 135–42).

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

37

Fig. 6.  Fragments of a carinated fine-ware bowl from Tell el-Ḥesi. Inscription incised inside the bowl. Drawing by the author.

a semi-pictographic into a linear alphabetic script in the Late Bronze Age. I did not know that this inscription, composed of the letters b, l, and ʿ, was incised inside the bowl until I examined the original at the offices of the Palestine Exploration Fund in London in 2009. The letters were arranged as a vertical column, since that is how they would have been viewed when the bowl was complete and sitting in an upright position (contrast Sass 1988: 96, figs. 243–47). Paleographically, each of the three letters in this text shows a linear form; in all likelihood, the highest letter represents a developed form of bet that descends from a hieratic form of the Egyptian sign O1, a source of b that is well attested in Early Alphabetic A (Hamilton 2006: 41, fig. 2:6); the middle letter is a lamed with a boxy head that also can be traced back to an Egyptian cursive progenitor (Hamilton 2006: 129, fig. 2:37); and the lowest letter constitutes the first instance of the letter ʿayin morphing from the original pictographic outline of a full eye into the shape of a circle (Hamilton 2006: 183, fig. 2:56). I take this circular form as an illustration of the movement toward geometric shapes in the predominantly linear scripts of Early Alphabetic B. In short, all three of the letters incised on the remnants of this fine bowl are linear forms. These incised fragments are probably to be dated to ca. 1350 b.c.e. (±50 years); their discovery near a jar handle stamped with hieroglyphs of Amenhotep/Amenophis II, a reading that can no longer be verified (Hamilton 2006: 310 n. 41), suggests the earlier part of this chronological window, while parallels to this type of ceramic recommend the later part. Jonathan Tubb of The British Museum kindly reviewed these ceramic fragments for me (since their dating has been debated [Sass 1988: 97; 2004–5: 160]) and compared them to other carinated fine ware of the Late Bronze Age (not Assyrian ware, as proposed by some). 9 9.  Tubb’s estimate was contained in an e-mail (3 April 2009), “My own feeling is that this is definitely an LB piece—nothing whatever to do with Assyrian Palace Ware! It looks to me as if it comes from one of the quite extreme carinated forms common in the southern Levant in the late 14th–13th century bc.” My thanks to him for examining these fragments for me and granting his permission to communicate his findings.

38

Gordon J. Hamilton

Fig. 7.  The unprovenanced Grossman Seal. Drawing by the author.

I would place the script on the legend of the Grossman Seal in approximately the same period, ca. 1400 b.c.e.(±100 years), treating it last because it has no known provenance. The iconography on this cylinder seal has always been considered genuine (see especially Buchanan 1966: 213), but some have asserted that its inscription was added by a modern forger (see, most recently, Millard 2007: 90 n. 22). I think that the alphabetic writing here is genuine, for two reasons. First, some of the letters on this seal (l, b, r, q) were unknown when it was first published (Goetze 1953); a similar form of bet has since been attested on an inscription found in a controlled archaeological dig at Lachish (Cross 1984: 72; Hamilton 2006: 309). Second, this seal was purchased in London by Mr. and Mrs. E. Grossman of St. Louis for the sum of £2 (revising the figure in Hamilton 2006: 397, after finding a photocopy of the sales slip). Even given the changes in the valuations of currencies since this seal was purchased in 1951, two pounds sterling is too low a sum to have made it worthwhile for a forger to have created the legend on this seal (after having sold it to an antiquities dealer for presumably an even lesser sum). 10 Cui bono? Us. The Grossman seal is a genuine artifact with a genuine legend composed of Early Alphabetic B letters. Five of its letters have developed into linear forms: the short form of l; the b with a rounded head; the slightly damaged but clearly angular ṯ/š (note that the two halves of this letter do not connect, making any identification of it as the pictograph of a bow impossible); an r with a block head, pointing upwards; and a reduced form of q. The letter ʿayin has retained its pictographic form on this seal (although its size has diminished from earlier writings); the highest letter in the right-hand column, yod, may also be a recognizable depiction of a human hand. In sum, five of the seven letters in the legend of this nonprovenanced seal have developed into nonpictographic forms. 11 Assessing when a semi-pictographic alphabetic script has morphed into a linear type of handwriting might seem to be a subjective endeavor to some nonspecialists, given the broad range of dates assigned to this change by specialists in this field. We 10.  Although converting the worth of currencies from one era to another is fraught with difficulties, one assessment of the purchasing power of £2 in 1951 is that it had the same value as £51.55 in 2013 (www.measuringworth.com; many thanks to the editors of this volume for referring me to this site) or was the equivalent of $76.75 (U.S.) at current exchange rates. 11.  I agree with Albright (1966: 11) and Cross (1954: n. 24) in their joint reading of this inscription in a boustrophedon fashion as ‘(Belonging) to Bṯ/š, the Arkite’.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

39

Fig. 8.  The inscribed bowl fragment from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi. Horizontal, right to left (Maeir et al. 2008: 55). Drawing by the author.

now have, however, hard but admittedly minimal evidence, some of it very new, that this change had almost certainly occurred fairly early in the Late Bronze Age. Let me state it in terms of numbers: 14 of the 18 letters on these three early Late Bronze Age texts do not have identifiably pictographic forms. By the end of Early Alphabetic B, only one or two vestiges of pictographic elements would remain: a dot in the center of some writings of ʿayin ‘eye’ (see fig. 9 below) and perhaps some particularly wavy forms of mem ‘water’ (similarly Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 246). 12 The End of Early Alphabetic B The date of the end of Early Alphabetic B needs to be lowered, given two recent discoveries, the fragment of a small, shallow bowl from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi and the ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafa (discussed below in the order of their publication). Maeir et al. (2008) published an inscribed bowl fragment from a well-stratified late Iron Age I–early Iron Age IIA context at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi, which they identify as biblical Gath. The vessel type of this sherd and especially the densely hand-burnished dark-red slip that covers it also belong to that period, the latter distinctively so (Maeir et al. 2008: 47–48). The letters on this sherd were fashioned by using a sharp-tipped instrument to prick through the red slip to expose the lighter ceramic underneath (Maeir et al. 2008: 48). Written from right to left, the inscription on this fragment shows some letter forms (for example, the spiral-shaped lameds) and the stance of one letter (the “A”-like posture of ʾalep) that clearly belong to early alphabetic handwriting (with Maeir et al. 2008; contra Cross and Stager 2006: 152), specifically, its second 12.  For recent listings of other inscriptions belonging to this period, see Millard 2007: 90–91 and McCarter 2008: 48–49, to which one might add the 2001 Beth-shemesh ostracon (McCarter et al. 2011).

40

Gordon J. Hamilton

Fig. 9.  The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon viewed as a series of vertical columns (an alternative arrangement posited by Demsky 2009: 126). Drawing by Haggai Misgav (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 245, fig. 14.3). Reproduced courtesy of Haggai Misgav.

phase. 13 Maeir et al. (2008: 48) made a good case that the alphabet had passed into a Philistine site in the Iron Age I–Iron Age IIA transition period, giving a range of dates for this inscription “from the late eleventh until the first half of the 10th century b.c.e. according to the modified conventional chronology.” Radiometric dating of four olive pits found at Khirbet Qeiyafa recommends a similar date for a long ostracon discovered near one of the two gates at that site, the late 11th or early 10th centuries b.c.e. in chronological terms: after calibration, the dating is 1026–975 b.c.e. (59.6%) or 1051–969 b.c.e. (77.8%; Garfinkel and Ganor 2008: 3). 14 The handwriting on this ostracon is interesting: the approximately 40 leg­ 13.  Care must be taken with this inscription in particular to differentiate between the numerous and sometimes sensationalistic statements made about it before the first edition was published and those made following the appearance of the full scholarly treatment in the editio princeps. 14.  The literature on this new inscription is already very large. In addition to the first edition (English: Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009) and the three responses by Yardeni (2009a), Aḥituv (2009), and Demsky (2009), see the new interpretations by Galil (2009), Puech (2010), and Millard (2011). The methodological musings primarily on the classification of the language of this text by Rollston (2011) are extremely important. See as well the overview of previous paleographic treatments contained in Achenbach (2012), a new suggestion for the identification of the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa by Levin (2012), and a critique of the dating of the gates of this site by Finkelstein and Fantalkin (2012). Each of these studies contains additional bibliographical references.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

41

ible letters show a blending of some newer shapes of letters even while retaining some older forms of them (a blending also seen on the ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah Ostracon from an Iron Age I horizon). I emphasize that the paleographic and linguistic decipherment of the Qeiyafa Ostracon is still in its early stages. 15 For example, even though the editio princeps of this sherd was first rate, I strongly endorse Rollston’s observation (2011: 77) that the direction of writing on it has not yet been firmly established. Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor (2009: 245, fig. 14.3; discussion, p. 251) published it as a series of five horizontal lines that read from left to right (so too Yardeni 2009b: 259, fig. 14A1; Galil 2009; Puech 2010). 16 But Demsky is reported (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 251 n. 6) to have considered the lines of this text to have been arranged as a series of vertical columns (an alternative given in fig. 9 above). 17 Either way, this inscription provides solid evidence that multidirectional writing (either horizontal lines written from left to right or vertical columns) continued to be used later than had previously been thought (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 248). Cross (1979: 104–5) estimated that Semitic alphabetic writing came to be written exclusively as horizontal lines that read from right to left ca. 1050 b.c.e. The earliest possible date for the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon, based largely on radiometric testing (Garfinkel and Ganor 2008: 3) and the ceramic finds at that site (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 248) and for the Tell eṣ-Ṣafi Bowl Fragment, based on its stratigraphic context, vessel type, burnished red slip, and the rich ceramic assemblage found with that fragment (Maeir et al. 2008: 47–48) is late in the 11th entury b.c.e. Since the former was arranged either as horizontal lines that read from left to right or as vertical columns, while the latter was composed of Early Alphabetic B letter forms that read from right to left, they provide evidence that multidirectional texts continued to be written at two locations in the southern Levant until closer to 1000 b.c.e. The latest possible date for the Qeiyafa Ostracon is early in the 10th century b.c.e. (Garfinkel and Ganor 2008: 3). A text written either horizontally from left to right or as vertical columns may have been produced as late as ca. 975 b.c.e. The latest possible date for the Ṣafi fragment is the middle of the 10th century b.c.e. (following the high chronology; Maeir et al. 2008: 47–48). This means that a text with a distinctly Early Alphabetic B script could have been written as late as ca. 950 b.c.e. The end of this phase of early alphabetic 15.  Perhaps one of the most poignant moments in the early decipherment of this ostracon was when it was brought to Boston and examined by F. M. Cross in November 2008 (photo: Qeiyafa Ostracon Chronicle, Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon.asp). 16.  I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Misgav for granting permission to reproduce his drawing of this ostracon in fig. 9. 17.  See also the vertical arrangement of the drawing by Misgav in Demsky’s response (2009: 126). Demsky gave a more nuanced view of the directions of writing on this ostracon in his lecture “Measuring Literacy in Ancient Israel” at the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, the University of Toronto, 21 November 2012. He argued that, while the initial line was written as a vertical column, in the second line, the writer turned the sherd 90 degrees to write horizontally from left to right. His proposal for different directions of writing on this sherd is developed in Demsky 2012. I would like to express my profound gratitude to Prof. Demsky for discussing this issue with me and sending me a .PDF of his article (2012). See Hamilton forthcoming for a detailed treatment of this issue.

42

Gordon J. Hamilton

writing needs to be lowered by some 50 to 100 years from the commonly accepted estimate given by Cross. Early Alphabetic B lasted from ca. 1400 to ca. 1000/950 b.c.e. 18

Early Alphabetic C, ca. 1050–after 900 b.c.e. Writing the letters in only one direction, horizontally from right to left, transformed the face of the early alphabet. While clearly descending from earlier models, the variety of the forms of the letters lessened considerably. Above all, fewer stances were used for the letters, making learning, writing, and reading them easier. And some of the shapes of letters came to inf luence one another, particularly those that occur near one another in an abecedary (for example, mem and nun; see figs. 11a–12 below). Cross (see especially 1979: 103–5) recognized that these changes were so deep that he coined a new term for this phase of alphabetic writing, “Early Linear Phoenician.” But he saw this new phase as a direct continuation of the preceding stage of early alphabetic writing (Cross: 1980 12). He chose “Phoenician” in the name “Early Linear Phoenician” because almost all of the long inscriptions assigned to the beginning of this single-directional stage of alphabetic writing came from Byblos. 19 When he coined that term (Cross 1967: 11*), the only inscription from a site in Palestine assigned to the 10th century b.c.e. was the so-called Gezer Calendar. In parts of a series of very fine recent publications, Rollston (2008a: 72–89; 2010: 11–20; 2011: 76–77) has modified Cross’s term and understanding of the beginnings of this single-directional stage. His move is bold, simple, and well argued. Since one-directional alphabetic writing has been best attested in Phoenicia, and some apparently Phoenician forms of the letters are found in inscriptions written from right to left in Palestine, Rollston (2008a: 72–81) calls this new stage simply “Phoenician” and refers to it as the Mutterschrift ‘the mother script’, from which many others descend. A distinctly “Phoenician” script supplanted multidirectional early alphabetic writing at southern sites in Canaan/Israel. McCarter (2008) appears to have pushed back gently against Rollston’s proposal in a substantial review of the paleography of the handwriting on the Tel Zayit Stone, showing that some of the forms of the letters incised lightly on this stone descend directly from shapes attested on earlier inscriptions written in several directions, from 18. Although the basic thrust of this paragraph is deeply indebted to the groundbreaking thinking of Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor (2009), it seeks to nuance the limits of what can be said with some confidence and what may have been the latest date based on the minimal evidence available (compare one of their key conclusions: “We can conclude that some inscriptions from the tenth century b.c.e. or the Iron Age IIA were still written according to the Canaanite writing system” [Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009: 248]). 19.  This new term continues aspects of the understanding of this single-directional phase as a non-national script articulated by Cross (1980: 14–15): this does not mean that the scribes of the United Monarchy in the late eleventh or early tenth century went to Tyre or another Phoenician center and adopted a new alphabet. The term “Early Linear Phoenician” was arbitrarily devised by the writer as a designation for the alphabet which emerged in the course of the eleventh century, and was used broadly in Syria–Palestine by various national groups, including the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, and the Israelites. The center of radiation for its innovations and style was in all likelihood the chief centers of Phoenician culture and trade.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

43

b

a

c

Fig. 10.  Three Early Alphabetic C inscriptions found at sites in debris or on the surface. Horizontal, right to left. Drawings by the author.   a.  Gezer (found by Macalister in 1908)   b.  Manaḥat (Stager 1969)   c.  Tell el-Faraʿ (S) (Lehmann and Schneider    1999)

Palestine—that is, from what I have termed Early Alphabetic B (aspects of his analysis are detailed below). I will push back just a bit harder here, claiming that there is nothing distinctively Phoenician about the script of the growing number of late 11th- to early 9th-century b.c.e. inscriptions from southern sites. I would change the name “Early Linear Phoenician” to “Early Alphabetic C” to express the continuity of this third phase with preceding periods of early alphabetic handwriting and to avoid any suggestion that there were national scripts late in Iron Age I or early in Iron Age II. Inscriptions from Sites in Palestine Assigned to Iron Age IIA There is a growing number of inscriptions from sites in Palestine that are assigned mostly to Iron Age IIA that show the single direction of writing. These divide into two groups according to the situations in which archaeologists found them: out of context (in debris or on the surface; fig. 10); or in situ (usually in stratified contexts; figs. 11–12). These are treated below in the order of their publication and arranged from right to left in figs. 10 and 11 to symbolize the direction of writing used during this third phase of early alphabetic writing.

44

Gordon J. Hamilton

Three Early Alphabetic C inscriptions were found by archaeologists out of context. In addition to the long learning exercise inscribed on the small tablet found at Gezer in 1908 by Macalister (1911) in debris spanning the whole Iron Age II period (fig. 10a; most recently discussed by Tappy et al. 2006: 28 n. 44; Rollston 2008a: 80), archaeologists have found two other short but complete inscriptions out of their original contexts. Stager and Landgraf discovered fragments of a storage jar in a burial cave at Manaḥat, near the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem, inscribed with a preposition and an otherwise unattested personal name, lšdḥ ‘to/for Šdḥ’ (fig. 10b; Stager 1969; Landgraf 1971; Sass 1988: 85, figs. 216–17). And renewed excavations at Tell el-Faraʿ (S) uncovered a complete ostracon reading lʾdnn ‘to/for our lord (or Lord)’, in mixed debris that had fallen into a trench dug earlier by Petrie (fig. 11c; Lehmann and Schneider 1999; 2000; and Niemann 1999; Tappy et al. 2006: 28 n. 47). The Gezer tablet and the Manaḥat sherd are dated exclusively on paleographic grounds, the former to the 10th century b.c.e. (most recently, see McCarter in Tappy et al. 2006: 28, with references to earlier literature), the latter to the 11th century b.c.e. (Cross 1979: 103). The ostracon from Tell el-Faraʿ (S) is assigned to the early part of Iron Age IIA largely on the basis of its script, with some confirmation from the Iron Age II pottery and large amounts of brick found with it, the brick probably from the Iron Age wall that collapsed over it (Knauf and Niemann 1999; Lehmann and Schneider 1999; 2000). Eight other Early Alphabetic C inscriptions were found in secure archaeological contexts (in the order of their publication): 20 a preposition plus a personal name, lnmš ‘to/for/belonging to Nmš ’, inscribed on the shoulder of a storage jar found at Tel ʿAmal (fig. 11a; Levy and Edelstein 1972: 336, pl. 25:3; Tappy et al. 2006: 28 [with earlier literature]); ḥmš ‘five’, written on at least two of the five jars that contain a large hoard of silver found at Eshtemoa (fig. 11b; Yeivin 1987; Tappy et al. 2006: 28 n. 46); a fragmentary inscription incised below the rim of a ceramic vessel, b]n. ḥnn ‘[so]n of Ḥnn’, at Tell Batash (fig. 11c; Kelm and Mazar 1995: 111, 113, fig. 6:4; Tappy et al. 2006: 28 [with literature]); the personal name ḥnn ‘Ḥnn’, inscribed on the side of a gaming board at Beth-shemesh, viewed as a horizontal text (fig. 11d; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997: 48, 75–76; Tappy et al. 2006: 28); a fragmentary ink inscription written on a jar sherd showing five letters, the identification of only the first three of which is secure, ]lnmxx[, at Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (fig. 11e; Gal and Alexandre 2000: 134, fig. 3:111; Tappy et al. 2006: 29 n. 49); a tiny fragment with three or four letters, ]lnxx[, the third letter of which was overwritten (the first clear correction of an alphabetic text written on ceramic) at Tel Reḥov (fig. 11f; Mazar 2003: 172–74, figs. 1–2; Tappy et al. 2006: 28); and the bottom of a quern-shaped stone that was used as part of a wall after it was inscribed at Tel Zayit (fig. 12; Tappy et al. 2006; Tappy and McCarter 2008 [with a CD-ROM and the chapters contained therein]). The third-phase alphabetic writing on the Tel Zayit stone is arguably the most important of these because of its length, the stratigraphic context in which it was found, and its discovery at a border site (although the four inscriptions from Tel ʿAmal, Eshtemoa, and Beth-shemesh are 20.  I have omitted from the discussion a fragmentary inscription found in Stratum IX at Hazor (Yadin et al. 1961–89: 346–47, pl. 357.1) because I could not read it (cf. McCarter in Tappy et al. 2006: 28 n. 48; Rollston 2008a: 80–81).

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

45

a

b

c d

f

e

Fig. 11.  Seven Early Alphabetic C Inscriptions found in Iron Age II contexts. Horizontal, right to left. Drawings by the author. a.  Tel ʿAmal (Levy and Edelstein 1972) d.  Beth-shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997) b.  Eshtemoa (Yeivin 1987) e.   Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000) c.  Tell Batash (Kelm and Mazar 1995) f.  Tel Reḥov (Mazar 2003)

also particularly valuable since they are complete [see the three complete texts found out of context in the preceding paragraph]). Let us now turn to the writing on the Tel Zayit stone in a bit more detail. After reviewing 10 inscriptions found at sites in Canaan that are dated from ca. 1300 to ca. 1000 b.c.e., 21 McCarter gave a nuanced assessment of the points of continuity of 21.  One may now add a new inscription from Tel Beth-shemesh assigned to early in Iron Age I (McCarter, Bunimovitz, and Lederman 2011).

46

Gordon J. Hamilton

Fig. 12.  The Early Alphabetic C writing on the bottom of the Tel Zayit Stone (Tappy et al. 2006). Horizontal, right to left. Drawings by the author.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

47

the handwriting on these Early Alphabetic B inscriptions with the handwriting found on single-directional alphabetic texts assigned to the 10th century b.c.e., especially the Tel Zayit stone: Seen in the context of this list of archaic epigraphs from inland Canaanite sites of the last three centuries of the second millennium, the paleographic character of the script of the 10th century Tel Zayit Abecedary and its inland contemporaries (the Gezer Calendar, etc.) becomes clear, especially in relation to contemporary Linear Phoenician. Although the Tel Zayit script displays substantial conformity with coastal Phoenician, it also exhibits numerous indications of independent continuity with the antecedent scripts of the Old Canaanite epigraphs of its own region. (McCarter 2008: 49)

McCarter then demonstrated some specific points of continuity between these antecedents in his analysis of five letters on the Tel Zayit stone, contrasting contemporary forms found at Byblos (2008: 52–53) ʾ, b, y, l, and n. He also noted (2008: 56) that at least six of the letters manifest longer downstrokes in comparison with their counterparts in contemporary Phoenician scripts: “The alphabetic signs that exhibit this elongation in the Tel Zayit Abecedary include especially ʾalep, he, waw, kap, mem, nun, and (very tentatively) reš. ” McCarter has thus documented that the forms of at least five letters derive much more easily and directly from antecedents in Early Alphabetic scripts than from the scripts of the contemporary and datable royal inscriptions found at Byblos and at least six letters that show elongations whereas only short forms of those same letters are attested at Byblos. Other Points of Continuity between Early Alphabetic B and Early Alphabetic C Scripts There are other points of continuity between the preceding multidirectional stage of early alphabetic handwriting and one-directional inscriptions. Most of these concern Early Alphabetic C texts found at sites in Canaan. Some of these would cause one to modify McCarter’s categorization of some forms, especially several of those considered to show development through elongation. They may instead be continuing long variants of letters that were already present in Early Alphabetic B scripts. Other points of continuity between Early Alphabetic B and C can be seen in the continuation of two different forms or stances. Lastly, one letter form that has been taken as being distinctly Phoenician is now attested in alphabetic texts from two sites in Canaan. Four of the six letters that McCarter considered to have developed through the elongation of their downstrokes or stems in the 10th century b.c.e. may very well be continuing long variants that were present in preceding early alphabetic scripts ʾ, k, n, and r (fig. 13). I submit that the long forms of these four letters would be better moved to McCarter’s first category, letter forms that continue earlier alphabetic antecedents, than to be considered innovations of writers at sites in Palestine/Israel during Iron Age IIA. In any case, none of them is so-far attested in the Old Byblian scripts in the 10th century b.c.e. (see McCarter 2008: 52, fig. 3). Two stances of the letter nun represent another point of continuity between the scripts of Early Alphabetic B and C (fig. 13). Both vertical and horizontal stances for long(er) stemmed forms of n are attested in the second stage of early alphabetic handwriting, and both of these stances of n were continued in the scripts of Early

48

Gordon J. Hamilton

Early Alphabetic B Tell eṣ-Ṣafi

Tell eṣ-Ṣafi rotated

Early Alphabetic C Tell el-Faraʿ (S)

Gezer

ʾalep

ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah

Tel Zayit

kap, with stem

Tell el-ʿAjjul

Khirbet Qeiyafa horizontal/vertical

Ruweiseh

kap, without stem Sinai 375c

Beth-shemesh

Tel Zayit

Tel ʿAmal

nun

Gebel Tingar

Gezer

reš Fig. 13.  Other points of continuity between Early Alphabetic B and Early Alphabetic C scripts. Drawings by the author.

Alphabetic C by writers in Canaan; only the vertical posture is so-far known from Byblian scripts of the 10th through 8th centuries b.c.e. (see McCarter 2008: 52, 55, figs. 3–4), although there is reason to posit that the horizontal stance of this letter was known earlier (see the incomplete form on Byblos A in Cross 1979: 117, fig. 6).

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

49

One of the examples of a seemingly distinctly Phoenician form cited by Rollston (2008a: 78–79), a trident-shaped kap with no stem, has turned out be present in Early Alphabetic B inscriptions from two sites farther south in Canaan. Compare the short trident form on the vertically arranged inscription on a storage jar handle from Late Bronze Age Tell el-ʿAjjul plus the Early Alphabetic B script of the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon, line 4 (viewed as being written on either a horizontal or vertical text in fig. 13), with the earliest attestation of that “wrist-less” form of k on the only inscribed arrowhead with a known provenance, from the northern inland site of Ruweiseh (discussed in Hamilton 2010: 123–25). In sum, aspects of the forms or stances of seven letters found on inscriptions assigned to the late 11th to early 9th centuries b.c.e., usually from southern, inland sites can now be shown to continue features that are attested in Early Alphabetic B scripts, mostly from inscriptions that were also uncovered at locations in Canaan: ʾ, b, y, k, l, n, and r. Since the forms or stances of these particular letters differ from their counterparts found in scripts of the royal inscriptions at Byblos that are datable to the 10th century b.c.e. (see especially Rollston 2008b), one cannot derive them from that source. While not overwhelming in terms of numbers, these seven letters involve almost one-third of the 22 letters of the alphabet used at that time. The idea of calling the scripts of the 11 mostly short and sometimes fragmentary inscriptions from sites in Israel/Palestine that are assigned to early in Iron Age II “Phoenician” is problematic. From my perspective, it is much easier to posit that sometimes similar and at other times different aspects of the wide variety of forms and stances witnessed in the preceding scripts of Early Alphabetic B were continued at Byblos, inland at Ruweiseh, at 10 sites in Palestine, at other locations in the Mediterranean basin (i.e., Tekke), and probably in Aram (possibly ref lected in the archaizing script of the Tell Fakhariyeh statue). The Period of Overlap between Early Alphabetic B and Early Alphabetic C Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor (2009: 247–49) were correct in positing a period when both multidirectional texts and single-directional inscriptions were being written, at least in Palestine, based on the discovery and secure dating of the Tell eṣṢafi bowl fragment and the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon. I sought to refine this insight above (pp. 41–42), concluding that the period when both multidirectional and single-directional texts were being produced could have been as short as 50 years (or slightly less), ca. 1050–1000 b.c.e., or as long as a century, ca. 1050–950 b.c.e. (the terminus depending on when the Qeiyafa and Ṣafi texts were written). This overlapping period—whatever its exact length—was a time of transition to the newer way of writing exclusively from right to left in horizontal lines. The change from multidirectional to single-directional ways of arranging alphabetic writing probably occurred over the course of several generations; for people living in Canaan during this period of transition, no change may have been perceptible. Nothing abrupt need be envisioned—no supplanting of an indigenous script tradition by that of a close relative; no change in writing styles to imitate scribes in a distant royal court. Over the course of a half to a full century, communities from as far north as Byblos on the coast or Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit in the lower Galilee to as far south as Tell el-Faraʿ (S) arranged their writings as

50

Gordon J. Hamilton

horizontal lines that read consistently from right to left and taught the next generation to do the same at locations such as Gezer and Tel Zayit (see the writing exercises in figs. 10, 12). As Frank Moore Cross once observed (personal communication), the movement in early alphabetic scripts was from complex to simple. The semi-pictographic, multidirectional script of Early Alphabetic A evolved into the less-complex linear forms in the still multidirectional handwriting of Early Alphabetic B, which in turn morphed into the even simpler but now single-directional script of Early Alphabetic C.

Addendum Two important items appeared too late to be included in this essay. First, Mazar, Ben-Shlomo, and Aḥituv (2013) ably published an incomplete early alphabetic inscription inscribed below the rim of a large storage jar found in excavations at the Ophel. While the handwriting of this new inscription from Jerusalem clearly belongs to the end of the Early Alphabetic B phase, its date of writing is disputed; the archaeologist who found it has assigned it to the mid-10th century b.c.e. based on the early Iron Age IIA context in which it was found and its ceramic type, while some paleographers have argued for its having been written in the late 11th century b.c.e. (see especially Rollston [2013] in blog format, including a crucial new reading). Demsky (2013) has brief ly presented the most cogent linguistic decipherment yet offered for this short text, reading it from left to right. The Ophel inscription thus represents the third witness to multidirectional early alphabetic writing continuing at least until ca. 1000, if not 950 b.c.e. in Palestine. Second, Finkelstein and Sass (2013) attempted to alter early alphabetic studies in two major ways: (1) by lowering the dates for almost all inscriptions previously assigned to Iron Age I and II; and (2) by showing that early alphabetic writing was restricted to parts of the Shephelah from Late Bronze Age II until the mid-10th century b.c.e., only subsequently spreading north to the Beth-shean valley and Phoenicia and, shortly thereafter, throughout the southern Levant. The linchpin of their first change, lowering the dates of the royal inscriptions from Byblos, has already been shown to be untenable by, among others, Rollston (2008b). Their second change is equally untenable because early alphabetic inscriptions securely assigned to the Late Bronze Age are attested at two sites outside the Shephelah: two inscriptions from Tell el-ʿAjjul on the coast (Hamilton 2002: 103-48, 124 n. 26; and pp. 35–36 above; cf. Sass 1988: 101-2; 2004-5: 160 n. 99 [note his dating of the spouted cup]); and one inscription from a northern location, a tomb at Megiddo (Hamilton 2002: 38; cf. Sass 1988: 101). While some aspects of the comprehensive overview by Finkelstein and Sass overlap with those espoused in this essay, particularly in seeing a deep continuity between the traditions of alphabetic handwriting between the multi- and single-directional phases in Canaan/Israel/Philistia, most others diverge sharply.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

51

References Achenbach, R. 2012 The Protection of Personae miserae in Ancient Israelite Law and Wisdom and in the Ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Semitica 54: 9–23. Aḥituv, S. 2009 The Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription: Response C. Pp. 130–32 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers, vol. 3, ed. D. Amit, G. D. Stiebel, and O. Peleg-Barkat. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew] Buchanan, B. 1966 Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, vol. 1: Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon. Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 1997 Beth-Shemesh: Culture Conf lict on Judah’s Frontier. Biblical Archaeology Review 23/1: 42–49, 75–77. Cartwright, C.; Granger-Taylor, H.; and Quirke, S. 1998 Lahun Textile Evidence in London. Pp. 92–111 in Lahun Studies, ed. S. Quirke. Reigate, U.K.: SIA. Cross, F. M. 1954 The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 134: 15–24. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 309–12] 1967 The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet. Eretz-Israel 8 (Sukenik Volume): 8*–24*. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 317–29] 1979 Early Alphabetic Scripts. Pp. 97–124 in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975), ed. F. M. Cross. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 330–43] 1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1–20. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 293–96] 1984 The Old Canaanite Inscription Recently Found at Lachish. Tel Aviv 11: 71–76. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 213–30] 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cross, F. M., and Stager, L. E. 2006 Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found at Ashkelon. Israel Exploration Journal 56: 129–59. Darnell, J. C. 2003 Die frühalphabetischen Inschriften im Wadi el-Hôl. Pp. 165–71 in Der Turmbau zu Babel: Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift, vol. 3A, ed. W. Seipel. Vienna: Kunsthistoriches Museum. Darnell, J. C.; Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.; Lundberg, M. J.; Zuckerman, B.; and McCarter, P. K. 2005 Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-Ḥôl: New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 59. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Demsky, A. 2009 The Enigmatic Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa: Response B. Pp. 126–29 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers, vol. 3, ed. D. Amit,

52

Gordon J. Hamilton

G. D. Stiebel, and O. Peleg-Barkat. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew] 2012 An Iron Age IIA Alphabetic Writing Exercise from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Israel Exploration Journal 62: 186–99. 2013 The Jerusalem Ceramic Inscription. http://www.foundationstone.org/mazar/. [Sidebar dated 7/12/2013 in “Mazar Inscription”] Dijkstra, M. 1990 The So-Called ʾĂḥīṭūb-Inscription from Kahun (Egypt). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 106: 51–56. Diringer, D. 1943 The Palestinian Inscriptions and the Origin of the Alphabet. Journal of the American Oriental Society 63: 24–30. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2006 Asia, Ancient Southwest: Scripts, Earliest. Pp. 495–97 in Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. Second Edition, ed. K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Finkelstein, I., and Fantalkin, A. 2012 Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation. Tel Aviv 39: 38–64. Finkelstein, I., and Sass, B. 2013 The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2: 149-220. Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y. 2000 Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Galil, G. 2009 The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Netaʿim. Ugarit-Forschungen 41: 193–242. Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S. 2008 Khirbet Qeiyafa: Shaʾarayim. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 22: 2–10. www.jhsonline.org. Gardiner, A. H. 1962 Once Again the Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48: 45–48. Goedicke, H. 2006 A Bamah of the First Cataract. Pp. 119–27 in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. 2, ed. E. Czerny. Leuven: Peeters. Goetze, A. 1953 A Seal Cylinder with an Early Alphabetic Inscription. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 129: 8–11. Gonen, R. 1992 Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hamilton, G. J. 1985 The Development of the Alphabet. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. 2002 W. F. Albright and Early Alphabetic Epigraphy. Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 35–42. 2006 The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Catholic Biblical Society Monograph Series 40. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. 2009 A Proposal to Read the Legend of a Seal-Amulet from Deir-Rifa, Egypt as an Early West Semitic Alphabetic Inscription. Journal of Semitic Studies 54: 51–79.

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

53

2010 The Early Alphabetic Inscription Painted on a Spouted Cup from Tell el-ʿAjjul. MAARAV 17: 103–48. Forthcoming  A Fresh Review of the Handwriting on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon. In The Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription: Cruxes, Questions, and Some Answers, ed. B. Becking and S. Sanders. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hamilton, G. J.; Marée, M.; Lundberg, M. J.; and Zuckerman, B. 2007 Three Recently Relocated Early West Semitic Alphabetic Texts: A Photographic Essay. MAARAV 14: 27–37. Kelm, G. L., and Mazar, A. 1995 Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Knauf, E. A., and Niemann, H. R. 1999 Zum Ostrakon 1027 vom Tell Fara Süd (Tell el-Färiʿ / Tel Šaruhen). Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 247–50. Landgraf, J. 1971 The Manḥat Inscription: LŠDḤ. Levant 3: 92–95. Lehmann, G., and Schneider, T. J. 1999 Tell el-Farah (South) 1999 Ostracon. Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 251–54. 2000 A New Ostracon from Tell el-Farʿah (South). Near Eastern Archaeology 63: 11. Levin, Y. 2012 The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 367: 73–86. Levy, S., and Edelstein, G. 1972 Cinque années de fouilles à Tel ʿAmal (Nir David). Revue biblique 79: 325–67. Luft, U. 1993 Asiatics at Lahun: A Preliminary Report. Pp. 291–97 in Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti, ed. S. Curto. Turin: Tipographia Torinese. Macalister, R. A. S. 1911 The Excavation at Gezer: 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. London: Murray. Maeir, A. M.; Wimmer, A.; Zukerman, A.; and Demsky, A. 2008 A Late Iron Age I/Early Iron Age II Old Canaanite Inscription from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfï/ Gath, Israel: Palaeography, Dating, and Historical-Cultural Significance. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 351: 39–71. Mazar, A. 2003 Three 10th–9th Century b.c.e. Inscriptions from Tel Reḥōv. Pp. 171–84 in Saxa Loquentor: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. C. G. den Hertog, U. Hübner, and S. Münger. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Mazar, E.; Ben-Shlomo, D.; and Aḥituv, S. 2013 An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 39-49. McCarter, P. K. 1976 Alphabet. Pp. 17–19 in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon. 2008 Paleographic Notes on the Tel Zayit Abecedary. Pp. 45–59 in Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, ed. R. Tappy and P. K. McCarter. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. McCarter, P. K.; Bunimovitz, S.; and Lederman, Z. 2011 An Archaic Baʿl Inscription from Tel Beth-Shemesh. Tel Aviv 38: 179–93. Millard, A. 2007 Alphabetic Writing, Cuneiform and Linear, Reconsidered. MAARAV 14: 83–94.

54

Gordon J. Hamilton

2011 The Ostracon from the Days of David Found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. Tyndale Bulletin 62: 1–13. Misgav, H.; Garfinkel, Y.; and Ganor, S. 2009 The Ostracon. Pp. 243–57 in Khirbet Qeiyafa, vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008, ed. Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Petrie, W. M. F. 1932 Ancient Gaza II: Tell el-Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. Puech, É. 2010 L’ostracon de Khirbet Qeyafa et les débuts de la royauté en Israël. Revue biblique 117: 162–84. Rollston, C. A. 2008a The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy. Pp. 61–96 in Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, ed. R. Tappy and P. K. McCarter. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008b The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response to Benjamin Sass. MAARAV 15: 57–93. 2010 Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2011 The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats. Tel Aviv 38: 67–82. 2013 The Decipherment of the New ‘Incised Jerusalem Pithos,’ 11 July 2013. http.//www​ .rollstonepigraphy.com. Sass, B. 1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium b.c. Ägypten und Altes Testament 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2004–5  The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium b.c. Twenty Years Later. de Kêmi à Birīt Nāri 2: 137–56. 2008 Wadi el-Ḥol and the Alphabet. Pp. 193-203 in D’Ougarit à Jérusalem: Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil, ed. C. Rochelle. Orient and Méditerranée 2. Paris: De Boccard. Stager, L. E. 1969 An Inscribed Potsherd from the Eleventh Century. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194: 45–52. Tappy, R. E., and McCarter, P. K., eds. 2008 Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Tappy, R. E.; McCarter, P. K.; Lundberg, M. J.; and Zuckerman, B. 2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century b.c.e. from the Judaean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46. Yadin, Y.; Amiran, R.; Dothan, T.; Dothan, M.; Dunavesky, I.; and Perrot, J. 1961–89  Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yardeni, A. 2009a The Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription: Response A. Pp. 124–25 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Collected Papers, vol. 3, ed. D. Amit, G. D. Stiebel, and O. Peleg-Barkat. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]

Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts

55

2009b Further Observations on the Ostracon. Pp. 259–60 in Khirbet Qeiyafa, vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008, ed. Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yeivin, Z. 1987 The Mysterious Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa. Biblical Archaeology Review 13/6: 38–44.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script John L. Ellison

Since the discovery and rapid decipherment of the previously unknown Ugaritic script, little in the way of detailed study of the alphabetic cuneiform from Ugarit has appeared. 1 The reasons for this seem straightforward: the script is uncomplicated, consisting of 1 to 7 wedges arranged in simple patterns to create 30 signs. 2 Additionally, the script is attested in texts found predominantly at a single site 3 and can be dated to a period of less than two centuries (and perhaps, to as little as 50 years) on fairly certain archaeological grounds. 4 Because of its short life-span and certain dating, the normal 1.  The alphabetic cuneiform tablets were found at the site of ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) beginning in 1929. Since then, more than 1,800 texts and fragments have been found. For a presentation of the archaeology of the site, see Yon 2001. Notes on the tablet finds are also available from Bordreuil and Pardee 1989; and van Soldt 1991. The alphabetic tablets have been published in various articles and manuscripts. For a convenient guide to the editio princeps of the tablets published up to 1987, see Bordreuil and Pardee 1989. There are also two major collations of tablets: CTA and KTU. The latter has been updated in English = CTU. Two studies (discussed below) are devoted to close analysis of individual letters in the alphabetic script: Freilich and Pardee 1984; and Pitard 1992. 2.  Signs with more than 7 wedges do appear but are found sporadically, created for reasons that are not always clear. 3.  The majority of the alphabetic texts are from the site of Ras Shamra. The nearby port city of Ras Ibn Hani has yielded fewer than 200 texts. A few additional texts have been found at several other sites, including Beth-shemesh, Hala Sultan Tekke, Kamid el-Loz, Tell Nebi Mend, Sarepta, Tell Soukas, Tell Taʿanach, and Naḥal Tavor. The majority of the texts found outside Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani are so-called mirror texts—that is, written right to left instead of the more common left to right. For the present study, limitations in access to the tablets have prevented the inclusion of any texts found outside Ras Shamra. Additionally, because the mirror texts are themselves enigmatic, an in-depth study of these texts should proceed from a firm understanding of what is “standard” for alphabetic cuneiform—that is, the script from Ras Shamra. 4. Until recently, the alphabetic texts were thought to date to a period of approximately 150–200 years. The texts were originally dated on the basis of the identification of the scribe ʾilmlk, who is named in a colophon at the end of some of the mythological tablets (see, for example, RS 2.[009] [=  CTU 1.6]). The colophon identified ʾilmlk as working during the reign of King Niqmaddu of Ugarit, assumed to be King Niqmaddu II who ruled Ugarit in the mid-14th century b.c.e. Since other alphabetic texts could be definitively dated to the end of the city’s existence, an extended period for the use of alphabetic cuneiform was assumed. A new archive, discovered inadvertently after the Syrian army built a defensive bunker on Tell Ras Shamra, has proven significant in this question. In 1973, a tablet was found in the debris that had been removed by the army (RS 32.204). Subsequent sifting of the soil led to the discovery of additional tablets and fragments, and

56

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

57

concern of the paleographic study of Northwest Semitic scripts—that is, recording diachronic development in order to date a text—has been seen as entirely unnecessary, if not impossible. As a result, since its initial decipherment, the script has escaped the traditional scrutiny of paleographic inquiry, being all but ignored as an independent script tradition. Instead, studies of alphabetic cuneiform have concentrated almost exclusively on its relationship to other Semitic scripts and to the origin of the alphabet (Cross 1967; 1979; 1980; 1990; 1992; Cross and Lambdin 1960; Dietrich and Loretz 1988). 5 And as important as these studies are, a lack of direct paleographic research of the cuneiform script has created a number of problems for Ugaritic studies. Scholars who have chosen to examine Ugaritic texts have most often directed their study to grammatical and lexical issues, or to issues of content and meaning. When questions arose that required close examination of the script, scholars found themselves limited to published facsimiles of the tablets found in the editio princeps, most of which were drawn using a standardized script. 6 Until recently, when photographs appeared, they have not been of sufficient quality to allow for paleographic study. Scholars who wanted to propose new readings for difficult or broken texts found that the standardized script sometimes allowed for reasonable arguments based on letter forms that were thought to be subject to confusion, either in the hands of the original scribes (in the act of copying) or by later editors of the texts. 7 But by basing their analysis on these standardized forms, scholars sometimes found themselves arguing over readings that in 1986, the Mission Archéologique Française de Ras Shamra–Ougarit received permission to begin excavating at the site of the bunker. The site is now identified as belonging to a person named Urtenu, who was perhaps a major figure in the queen’s staff. Since 1986, the “House of Urtenu” has yielded over 500 tablets, making it the largest single archive to be found at Ugarit (only the palace as a whole has yielded more tablets). One of the tablets, RS 92.2016 (= CTU 9.432), is a mythological text and contained a portion of the colophon usually associated with ʾilmlk. Because the archive of Urtenu and the tablets are positively dated to just before the destruction of the city, scholars have now proposed the possibility that the king under whom ʾilmlk worked was Niqmaddu III. The result of this lower date is that all of the alphabetic texts can now be dated reliably to just before the destruction of Ugarit, ca. 1225–1185 b.c.e. For the publication of the initial tablets found in the debris, see Bordreuil 1991; for a discussion of the house, see Yon 1995; for the dating of the work of ʾilmlk to Niqmaddu III, see Bordreuil and Malbran-Labat 1995 and Dalix 1996. 5.  For a complete bibliography of Ugaritic studies to date, see Smith 2001. 6.  Standardization involves the replacement of the form of a letter found on the tablet with a form more easily drawn. The result is an almost mechanical reproduction of the script, quickly replicated and easy to present. In the act of standardization, however, many of the most important differences in a script are removed. As a result, many of the signs (or component parts of the signs) look similar. For example, the g and the vertical wedge that appears as a word divider in many Ugaritic texts look alike in standardized facsimiles and script charts, both appearing as simple vertical wedges. If they were consistent with the lexicon, one could argue that a particular example of the g might, in fact, be a word divider (or vice versa). In actuality, these signs almost always look nothing alike. 7.  The standardized forms of the letters have also become the models for the field, appearing in published script charts in individual studies and in the Ugaritic grammars (Gordon 1998: 13–15; Sivan 1997: 9; and Segert 1985: 20–21). In his recent grammar, Tropper (2000: 17–19) presented a script chart (by J. P. Vita) that more accurately presented the variant forms found in the Ugaritic script. While I disagree with some of Tropper’s comments about the alphabet, his attempt to present a more accurate understanding of the script is noteworthy. For a full presentation of the issues, see Ellison 2002.

58

John L. Ellison

were possible only in the standardized work of other scholars and not in the tablets themselves. This brought about a situation that Pitard described as “epigraphy in the abstract,” when paleographic decisions were based, not on what a text actually said, but on what the scholar thought the text should say (Pitard 1992: 263). The first notes of warning that this situation was not adequate came from members of the Mission Archéologique Française de Ras Shamra–Ougarit. In a study examining alternate readings of two epistolary texts, one proposed by the editors of KTU and the other by André Caquot, Dennis Pardee found that neither had worked from accurate representations of what was actually written on the tablets (Pardee 1982). 8 As a result, the disagreement between the scholars was not just between their variant readings but also between their readings and what was written on the tablets. This led Pardee (1982: 52–53) to declare that “no study of the Ugaritic texts may be deemed complete which is not based on first-hand study of the tablets in question,” without which “Ugaritology is resting on inadequate foundations.” 9 Pardee also noted that Ugaritology needed “a study of the various Ugaritic hands both for purposes of classification and of identification of scribes and periods” (1982: 52 n. 1). That our understanding of the script was inadequate was demonstrated when Freilich and Pardee conducted a study of two letters of the Ugaritic alphabet, the ṭ and the ẓ (Freilich and Pardee 1984). The study was precipitated by some difficult readings found in tablets, where words normally spelled with ẓ were instead spelled with ṭ. 10 What they found in their analysis was that the difficulty in these texts was not a lexical problem but a misreading of the sign forms (1984: 27). By misreading an allograph of 8. The texts were RS 17.063 (= KTU 5.10) and 17.117 (= KTU 5.11). Caquot had said (1978) that he was basing his work on the notes of Charles Virolleaud (the original editor of the texts), photographs, and cast models of the tablets. The editors of KTU, on the other hand, claimed to have collated every tablet independently, something Pardee questioned because of their misreadings (Pardee 1982: 53 n. 21). The editors of KTU later presented their methodology and stressed that they did, indeed, collate the tables themselves (Dietrich and Loretz 1991). Following their clarification, Pardee withdrew his comments about the use of photographs and accepted the errors found in KTU as the results of “hasty collation work” (Pardee 1991: 6). The classification of these two texts as “Alphabete und Schultexte” by the editors of KTU (the “5” designation was reserved for school exercises) was problematic for Pardee: while the texts contain unusual scribal techniques, they also contain clear epistolary formulas (Pardee 1982: 52 n. 1). Examining the texts carefully reveals that, while the script is “non-standard” (though this description should be used with caution since the “standard” form is not yet established), the texts are consistent in content with other letters found in the corpus. 9.  Pardee noted further (1982: 53 n. 22) that “this does not mean, of course, that Ugaritic studies must grind to a halt until definite editions are published. But Ugaritologists must be aware of the tentative nature of much of their textual basis.” Fortunately, the epigraphers of the Mission Archéologique Française de Ras Shamra–Ougarit, Bordreuil and Pardee, are preparing new and definitive editions of the texts that include nonstandardized facsimiles. 10.  For example ṯpẓ (line 3) for expected ṯpṭ in RS 24.252 (= CTU 1.108). Scholars had previously dealt with these lexical problems by positing the merging of ṭ and ẓ, positing a shift in the sounds that the scribes heard (the scribes writing ṭ or even ṣ instead of ẓ were writing down what they heard), or as “intentional archaizing” of the forms which resulted in hyper- or pseudo-corrections (Freilich and Pardee 1984: 26–27).

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

59

the ṭ as a ẓ, the lexical problems had been created by scholars. Had scholars referred to the tablets and the characteristic writing styles of the scribes, these problems should not have arisen. 11 While the study of Freilich and Pardee began the discussion, Pitard (1992) added to the conversation by closely examining the Ugaritic ʿ. By using both his own experience collating tablets and paleographic-quality photographs, Pitard demonstrated how understanding alphabetic cuneiform based only on standardized forms was inadequate. One of the issues Pitard was addressing came from certain readings involving the Ugaritic ʿ, t, and q. It had been decided by scholars working with standardized forms that the Ugaritic q looked remarkably like the combination of the t and ʿ. Because of this possible confusion, in places on the tablets where the letters created lexical difficulties, the letters could be reread, either t and ʿ as q or q as t and ʿ. 12 Scholars rereading the letters in this manner could erase some of these lexical difficulties. Pitard demonstrated, however, that the Ugaritic ʿ did not look like the right side of the q in the examples where this confusion had been posited (Pitard 1992: 264). Instead, in most cases, the ʿ was quite distinct. Once again, had the scholars who posited this confusion looked at the tablets instead of the facsimiles, these problems would not have arisen. 13 In the light of his findings, Pitard (1992: 268) agreed with Pardee’s earlier call for better publication of the Ugaritic tablets (Pardee 1982: 50–51). Pitard also added the need for paleographic-quality photographs to be included by editors in their original publications (Pitard 1992: 268). Scholars who later examined the publications would thus have greater access to the information used by the editor of a tablet when making epigraphic decisions. Many of the mistakes made in the past could thus be avoided. There are problems with the inclusion of paleographic-quality photographs, however. In order to be useful for deciding readings, the photographs need to be of extremely high detail and include differing contrasts, lighting angles, and exposures. With high film and development costs, this makes the process of obtaining the photographs very expensive. 14 And even if good photographs are included, unless there is a full understanding of the script, the photographs will not help answer the basic problem of 11.  Only one problem text remained, RS 5.194 (= CTU 1.24). In this text alone, Freilich and Pardee agreed that the confusion of the ẓ and ṭ most likely was caused by a hypercorrection (Freilich and Pardee 1984: 35). 12.  For example, in RS 3.348 (= CTU 1.20) col. 1, line 4, the editors of CTA and KTU disagreed on the reading of the wedges: CTA read the combination individually as a t and ʿ (i.e., tʿrb) whereas KTU read them together as a q (i.e., qrb). Because of the stance of the oblique wedge, they can only be read together as a q (Pitard 1992: 265). 13.  Pitard also examined several other possible areas of confusion that included ʿ (the ẓ with the p and ʿ , the ‘ with the t, and the ʿ with the ṯ). Consistent with his findings for the t and ʿ versus the q, these confusions were much less common than scholars had previously supposed (Pitard 1992: 267–68). For further discussion of these letters, see Ellison 2002. 14.  Pardee had acknowledged the benefit of good-quality photographs but also recognized the weakness of the method: “[T]o be really useful, photographs would have to be in color, with several lighting angles, and with exposures of all facets of the tablet. In other words, the publication of photographs which would be truly useful for deciding details of reading would be prohibitively expensive” (Pardee 1982: 51). Even when using photographs, one must use caution since, after all,

60

John L. Ellison

establishing readings: in order to know what is attested in the photograph, it is necessary to know what is and is not possible in the script. 15 Recently a solution to the prohibitive cost of photographing epigraphic remains has emerged. Digital photography has begun to be used in the study of artifacts, including epigraphic remains. Because digital photography does not require film and the costs associated with development, it provides an economic alternative to traditional photographic techniques. What is more, because there is no wait for development, immediate feedback is available to the scholar in order to ensure that the photograph contains the desired information. Epigraphy can also benefit from the introduction of other digital techniques. By using digital images and computer technology, one can isolate and compare individual letters of the alphabet. The images can be enhanced and the contours of the signs highlighted. Because it is also possible to compare signs from different tablets, it is easy to analyze the scripts across an entire corpus with unparalleled accuracy. One recently completed study is devoted to alphabetic cuneiform using computer technology (Ellison 2002). By making use of digital images and computer-assisted drawing programs, the study is attempting to present a complete analysis of the alphabetic cuneiform from Ras Shamra. 16 Digital technology and computer-assisted drawing techniques allow for the presentation and preservation of “anatomically” correct versions of ancient inscriptions. Detailed examples of ancient scripts can then be presented and allow scholars who do not have access to the original tablets to see the details of the script. Even though applying this technology to cuneiform writing requires some adaptation (given its three-dimensional nature), it has proven to be a particularly fruitful method of analysis. While the details of this study are beyond the scope of the present article, a brief summary of some of the preliminary findings can problems such as Pardee was addressing were in part created by dependence on photographs in place of personal inspection of the tablets. 15. While similar problems exist in photographing linear inscriptions, the two-dimensional nature of the finds (which are much easier to photograph) and their comparative scarcity have encouraged the use of photographs in publication. In cuneiform, paleographic-quality photographs are rare: the size of the corpus and the difficulty in photographing three-dimensional objects make them much more difficult to include. Logo-syllabic cuneiform is also visually complex and, because Assyriologists have long produced nonstandardized, accurate facsimiles, photographs have often been seen as unnecessary. This situation, however, is changing as scholars recognize the advantages of good photographs and, perhaps more importantly, digital technology develops to make the issue of cost much less significant. 16.  A thorough analysis of the tablets was performed between September 1997 and October 1998. All of the published Ugaritic tablets in Syria were inspected, collated where necessary, and photographed. The research in Syria was made possible by an Institute for International Education Fulbright Fellowship and by a Frederick Sheldon Traveling Fellowship from Harvard University. There is a second project using many of the same techniques that is devoted to analyzing logo-syllabic cuneiform writing. The Cuneiform Database Project was begun at the University of Birmingham, England, and is focusing on Assyrian state archive texts from central Mesopotamia. Many of the techniques used by the project are similar to those used in Ellison 2002. The project maintains a Web site with updates on the project’s status, http://www.cuneiform.net.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

61

be presented. 17 It is a great honor to present these findings regarding the Ugaritic script in tribute to Frank Moore Cross. Some features of fig. 1 require explanation. 18 Charts that appear in studies of scripts regularly record what is actually seen on a tablet or, in the case of cuneiform, representative examples. The script chart in fig. 1 takes a different path. Instead of recording what appears on the tablet, the chart reproduces the way that the scribe wrote the sign. The reason for this is simple: in cuneiform, there are characteristics that are very important for distinguishing scribal practices, but they are not usually considered when cuneiform is presented. This includes the order in which the wedges were placed and the way in which the scribe held the stylus when the wedges were impressed. By graphically illustrating how the scribe wrote the letters, one can highlight some of these features. Then, provided the peculiarities of the medium on which the letter was written is understood, every attested form of every letter should be easily recognized. To illustrate this point (and to explain the uniqueness of the script chart), one should consider the characteristics of the primary medium for cuneiform writing, clay. Clay is both solid and pliable, and as such it has unique properties that must be considered. When a stylus was pressed into the clay, the clay in the path of the stylus was not removed but only displaced, either packing in more tightly under the wedge or moving outward from it. If there was a void present near the wedge (like the void created by the insertion of an earlier wedge), the clay could move into the void and cause alterations in the shape of the void. The extent of the alterations varies depending on the pliability of the clay: the more pliable, the more pronounced the movement would be. The alterations are impossible for us to predict, however: they are dependent on factors such as the mineral content of the clay, its moisture, and the amount of pressure exerted by the scribe. Nevertheless, while we cannot predict how the clay would respond to the insertion of the stylus, we can observe it. For example, fig. 2 illustrates the construction of one exemplar of the Ugaritic letter h. The impression of the first wedge created a void that was then filled by the clay when the second wedge was impressed. Likewise, the clay also filled the second wedge when the third wedge was impressed. The movement of the clay into the first two wedges gives them the appearance of a curve, something impossible to make with the simple insertion of a straight stylus. But not every h has this same movement of clay. In many examples, the earlier wedges were simply “cut off ” by the placement of the later wedges (contrast fig. 3). If a script chart were to present the way each of the letters actually looked on the clay, it would have to incorporate almost all of the letters found on every tablet to be complete. Instead, if the property of clay were recognized, the simple presentation of the first form of the h above would suffice to show how the h was written in Ugaritic— that is, with wedges placed in the order top to bottom. 17.  There are several forms of the letters that are not presented here. These forms are rare, often appearing in only one text, and require a great deal of analysis and explanation. For a complete presentation of all forms found in all of the letters from Ras Shamra/Ugarit, see Ellison 2002. 18.  Figure 1 was produced using digital images as templates in a commercial graphics program. The letters were then “traced” so that accurate representations of the signs could be reproduced.

62

John L. Ellison

a͗ b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k

š

l m

ḏ

Fig. 1.  The cuneiform alphabetic script from Ras Shamra/ Ugarit.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

n ẓ s ʿ p ṣ q r ṯ

ġ t ı͗ u͗ s̀

•

63

64

John L. Ellison

Fig. 2 (above).  Construction of the Ugaritic letter h.

   Fig. 3 (right).  Overlapping of wedges.

The movement of the clay presents one of the most important features in cuneiform writing that is presented on the script chart: the order in which the wedges were placed. This order could vary significantly in the hands of different scribes but was generally consistent in the hand of one scribe. In signs that contained parallel horizontal wedges (e.g., h, w, k, p, r, and i͗  ), the variation was very common, but it is also attested in most other letters (see for example the š ). 19 In order to represent this feature in a two-dimensional drawing, one can apply a sequential numbering system to the wedges in the order in which they were impressed (1, 2, 3, etc.). In cases where the exact order is unclear (as often happens with oblique wedges that do not overlap), the wedges in question can share the same number. 20 An additional technique that can be used to represent the order in which the wedges were impressed is to reproduce the overlap between the wedges as it appears on the tablet. The overlap also illustrates the alignment of the wedges in a sign, something that is also known to vary between scribes and between the base forms of several of the letters. Another important feature that is often missing in cuneiform script charts is the information regarding the position in which the stylus was held when the wedges were impressed. In many wedges, this may seem to be an obvious feature (e.g., in horizontal wedges and vertical wedges), 21 but it is not always clear or predictable (see particularly oblique wedges). In some signs, it is the direction that the stylus was held when it was impressed that distinguishes different base forms (see, for example, the letter š ). The 19.  There are several methods that can be used to determine the order in which wedges were impressed. The easiest method is by observing the area of the wedges that overlap. A second method that can help to determine this feature is to observe the movement of the clay. In both cases, the shape of the earlier wedges would be altered by the insertion of later wedges. For a more detailed explanation of the importance of the order in which the wedges were placed, see Ellison 2002. 20.  See, for example, the second exemplar for the r in fig. 1. In this exemplar, the order of the sequential wedges was clearly left to right. It is unclear, however, in what order the rows of sequential wedges were placed, with either top to bottom or bottom to top being possible. In order to illustrate the order of the sequentials and also make clear that the order of the rows is unclear, the sequentials in both rows are numbered 1 and 2. Sallaberger (1996) employed this same technique in his script chart for the logo-syllabic signs found in the Tell Beydar administrative documents. 21.  But see Ellison 2002.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

65

position in which the stylus was held can be represented graphically in a script chart by a small arrow that illustrates the position of the mid-line of the wedge. The mid-line of the wedge is the point where the writing edge of the stylus made the deepest impression in the clay. The point of the arrow can be placed at the deepest Fig. 4.  Illustration of the mid-line. point of the mid-line, thus illustrating a second important feature that attests how the stylus was held. To illustrate how the positions of the mid-line and the wedge and the deepest point in the wedge relate to the way in which the scribe held the stylus, one must examine the methods used to write cuneiform signs. When a scribe impressed the stylus, the position of the writing edge of Fig. 5.  Illustration of the mid-line. the stylus affected the appearance of the wedge. 22 For example, when the stylus was held so that the body of the stylus to the right and left of the writing edge came into uniform contact with the clay, the wedge would appear to have its midline in the middle of the wedge (fig. 4). If the scribe held the stylus so that more of the surface of the stylus to the Fig. 6.  Illustration of the mid-line. right of the writing edge came into contact with the clay, the mid-line of the wedge would be to the left side of the center of the wedge (fig. 5). Conversely, if the scribe held the stylus so that more of the surface of the stylus to the left of the writing edge came into contact with the clay, the mid-line would be to the right of the center of the wedge (fig. 6). In many letters, particularly those with vertical wedges, the scribe sometimes held the stylus so that more of the body of the stylus to the right of the writing edge came in contact with the clay when it was impressed (contrast, for example, the first and last 22.  It is clear in the alphabetic cuneiform from Ras Shamra/Ugarit that the shape of the stylus used by the scribes in most tablets was square or rectangular. In order to establish this, measurements were taken of the inside angle of several wedges. In almost every case, this measurement was 90 degrees. While this does not prove that the stylus was square (it is possible to make a 90-degree angle with a stylus that has an angle less than 90 degrees simply by twisting the stylus slightly), there is additional evidence. In some wedges, the scribe impressed the stylus so deeply into the clay that it is possible to measure two of the stylus’s angles. In cases where this is possible, the measurement of the additional wedge was also 90 degrees (see Ellison 2002).

66

John L. Ellison

Fig. 7.  Illustration of the depth of the wedge.

b illustrated in fig. 1, above). By marking the position of the mid-line, information concerning the position of the stylus in the hand of each particular scribe is graphically illustrated. Marking the deepest part of the wedge also provides important information to the scholar who is evaluating cuneiform letters. The position of the deepest part of the wedge varies depending on the angle of the stylus in relation to the surface of the clay when it was impressed (see fig. 7). If a scribe held the stylus with a low angle relative to the surface of the clay, the deepest part of the wedge will be very near the head of the wedge. If, on the other hand, the scribe held the stylus with a high angle relative to the surface of the clay, the deepest point of the wedge will be farther away from the head of the wedge. By placing the point of the mid-line arrow at the deepest part of the wedge, the two-dimensional drawing can clearly present how the scribe held the stylus. 23 With the inclusion of a sequential numbering system, the reproduction of the overlap between wedges, and the mid-line arrow, the two-dimensional script chart can present some of the most important information that is available to the cuneiform paleographer. There are, of course, other features of cuneiform writing that can be easily illustrated and explained using only the script chart. One common alteration that is found in alphabetic cuneiform letters is the number of wedges that were used to write the sign. When the maximum number of wedges was already in use to write a sign, the scribe could, and often did, add additional wedges to the sign when the additional wedges would not affect the reading of the text. Examples of an alteration in the number of wedges used to write the sign can be found in the letters ḫ, d (with four verticals or four horizontals or both), h, l, n, r, ἰ, ὐ, and ̀s, all signs that have the maximum number of wedges. 24 Except for these features, the letters a͗, b, ḫ, d, h, w, z, y, k, l, m, n, s, p, ṣ, q, r, t, ἰ, and ὐ are regular and thus warrant no additional comment. While they do display certain significant variations, these variations are related to scribal idiosyncrasies, a full catalogue of which is beyond the scope of the present essay. For the remaining letters, however, the following observations are necessary (numbers in parentheses refer to examples in the script chart above). 23.  Additionally, because the deepest part of the wedge is always near the head, the mid-line arrow always points toward the head of the wedge. In some oblique wedges, the position of the head of the wedge would not otherwise be clear. 24.  The reasons for this variation might include esthetics, balance in the line, meter, grammar, syntax, etc.; all reasons are unclear to us. It is also quite possible that the scribe simply lost count when writing a text quickly.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

67

g The letter g was written using a vertical wedge. The letter was almost always written much larger than other verticals on the tablet (1–3). Consequently, statements in the Ugaritic grammars such as “words were separated by small wedge (which may sometimes be confused with gimel because of the similarity in shape)” (Sivan 1997: 11) should be reevaluated. There are frequent examples of the letter g that appear to have been written using a secondary movement of the stylus after it was impressed. In such cases, the sign appears to be written with two wedges: a single vertical wedge with a single horizontal wedge to its right (4). ḥ The letter ḥ was written with four wedges. 25 The oblique wedge to the right of the sign could be impressed with the stylus held in several distinct ways and thus the mid-lines of the wedges and their resulting appearance can vary significantly. In addition, the bottom wedge could be oblique (1), horizontal (2), or less commonly, vertical (3). A form with all four wedges oriented toward the center of the sign (resembling a cross) is also attested (4). 26 ṭ The letter ṭ most often appears as a horizontal with a crossing vertical and a single oblique wedge placed to the right. As with the letter ḥ, the oblique wedge could be impressed in several distinct ways. A distinct form is attested where the oblique wedge was placed underneath the horizontal (4). A form that had been confused with the letter ẓ, has a single horizontal wedge and two oblique wedges, one above and one below, both placed on the right side of the sign (5) (see Freilich and Pardee 1984). š The letter š has a variety of forms in the Ugaritic tablets. The forms are distinguished by the order in which the wedges were impressed and the position of the stylus when the wedge was impressed. The order in which the wedges were impressed was most often left to right; but middle left right (5) and left right middle (4) are also attested. Commonly, the right wedge was impressed so that the head of the wedge is located on top of the middle wedge (6–7). ḏ The letter ḏ has several different forms written with two wedges, both of which could be oblique, horizontal, or vertical. The second wedge could be placed in position so that it was intersecting (1) or on top of the first wedge (5). When it was an oblique wedge, the first wedge was always impressed with the stylus held so that the head of the wedge was positioned at the upper left of the sign. The second wedge, when oblique, could be impressed so that its head was positioned either to the left or right (contrast 1 and 2). ẓ There are three main forms of the letter ẓ. The first exemplar was written with two parallel horizontal wedges, placed in the order bottom to top or top 25.  The order in which the two oblique wedges were impressed is often unclear. 26.  The directions used to impress the wedges in this exemplar of the ḥ, however, are not from the center of the wedge. Instead, the scribe carefully manipulated the stylus from the right and bottom of the sign in order to position the wedges in this form. For further discussion, see Ellison 2002.

68

John L. Ellison to bottom, followed by a single oblique wedge placed to their right (1). As in the letters ḥ and ṭ above, the oblique wedge could be impressed in several distinct ways. The second form of the ẓ was written with the impression of a single horizontal wedge and a single oblique wedge, both written high on the line. A third, larger vertical wedge was impressed at the point of intersection of the first two wedges (3–4). The final form was written with two parallel horizontal wedges, placed in the order top to bottom or bottom to top, followed by a third wedge with its left corner between the two horizontal wedges (5).

ṯ There are several forms of the letter ṯ. The most common form is two wedges, with either both of the wedges oblique (1–2), one oblique and one vertical (3), one oblique and one horizontal (4), or more rarely, one vertical and one horizontal (5). The order in which the wedges were placed could also vary. A second type was created by the impression and subsequent twisting of the stylus (6–7). A third is formed by the insertion of a single oblique wedge (8–9). In some texts, this wedge is surrounded by a circular mark that appears to be scratched on the surface of the clay (10). 27 ġ The letter ġ was written with two or three wedges. In the most common form, a single horizontal wedge was impressed followed by a single oblique wedge placed on top of the horizontal wedge and followed by a secondary movement of the stylus (a lifting of the stylus at the same time it was rotated), creating the third wedge (1–4). A second form of the ġ has a single horizontal wedge and two additional horizontals placed to the right of the first (5–8). The additional wedges in the sign could be placed parallel (5) or angle away from the horizontal wedge (6). When the wedges were oblique, the top wedge was always impressed with its tail pointing upwards, while the bottom could angle downwards (6), nearly vertical (7), or directed toward the left (8). ś The variations in the letter ś are found in the number of wedges used to write the letter, the order in which the wedges were impressed, and the position in which the stylus was held when they were impressed. While the ś generally has a single vertical surrounded by a number of oblique wedges to 27.  In publications of Ugaritic texts, this type of ṯ is discussed with a sign representing the phoneme resulting from the merging of the š and ṯ in the so-called short alphabet. It is usually drawn in facsimiles as a circle with a cross inside of it. Tropper (2000: 16, §21.22) argues that the circle around the oblique wedge is the remains of a sheath in which the stylus was placed for writing. Indeed, in several cases, the circle appears to be a slightly impressed outline around the sign. Tropper’s conclusion, however, cannot be fully supported because, in many exemplars, the circle is clearly drawn on the surface, and in many cases, it is drawn with more than one stroke (see also Ellison 2002). One final form of the ṯ appears in the so-called mirror texts (see n. 3 above). This form is best described as a circle made by the stylus’s being inserted into the clay and then twisted. Because this form was not attested in the texts from Ugarit, it is not included in this study.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

69

the right and left of the vertical, forms with sequential vertical wedges instead of the oblique wedges are also attested.

• The word divider is most often described as a small, single, vertical wedge,

but it also has many variations. 28 When it is written as a vertical wedge, it might be small (1–2) or long (3–4), shallow or deep, thick or thin. It was also commonly written as a single vertical line drawn between the words (5). Often, the sign appears only as a shallow mark in the clay, something similar to a “smudge” (6–8). When compared with the wedges on the same tablet, the “smudge” might be shorter (6) or longer (7–8) than those wedges. Most importantly, it is almost impossible to confuse the word divider with the vertical wedges used to make other signs on the same tablet.

The Ugaritic scribes wrote their alphabet with precision. Indeed, in order for any script to be useful for representing a language, it is necessary for the writer to create letters forms in such a way that a reader can distinguish between the letters. While it is possible for isolated letter forms of different scribal hands to be confused, as our understanding of the script increases, such confusion will very likely cease to exist. 28.  In order to assist the reader in analyzing the forms presented in the chart, the word dividers were drawn in the context and were “filled” in order to provide the maximum contrast between them and the surrounding signs.

References Bordreuil, P., ed. 1991 Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville. Ras Shamra–Ougarit 7. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Bordreuil, P., and Malbran-Labat, F. 1995 Les archives de la maison d’Ourtenou. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres n.v.: 443–51. Bordreuil, P., and Pardee, D. 1989 La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit, vol. 1: Ras Shamra–Ougarit. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Caquot, A. 1978 Correspondance de ʿUzzin fils de Bayaya (RS 17.63 et 17.117). Ugaritica 7: 389–98. Cross, F. M. 1967 The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet. Eretz-Israel 8 (Sukenik Volume): 8*–24*. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 317–29] 1979 Early Alphabetic Scripts. Pp. 97–123 in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975), vol. 1: Archaeology and Early Israelite History, ed. F. M. Cross. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 330–43]

70

John L. Ellison

1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1–20. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 213–30] 1990 The Invention and Development of the Alphabet. Pp. 77–90 in The Origins of Writing, ed. W. M. Senner. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1992 Newly-Found Inscribed Arrowheads of the Eleventh Century b.c.e. Israel Museum Journal 10: 57–62. 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cross, F. M., and Lambdin, T. O. 1960 A Ugaritic Abecedary and the Origins of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 160: 21–26. CTA = Herdner, A. 1963 Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra–Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Paris: Geuthner. CTU = Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O; and Sanmartín, J. 1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dalix, A.-S. 1996 Exemples de bilinguisme à Ougarit Iloumilkou: La double identité d’un Scribe. Pp. 81–89 in Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle: Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien, ed. F. Briquel-Chatonnet. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O. 1988 Die Keilalphabete: Die phönizisch-kanaanäischen und altarabischen Alphabete in Ugarit. Ab­ handlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1991 Declaration of Reconciliation: Statement from Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. Ugaritic-Forschungen 23: 6–7. Ellison, J. L. 2002 A Paleographic Study of the Alphabetic Cuneiform Texts from Ras Shamra/Ugarit. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Freilich, D., and Pardee, D. 1984 {ẓ} and {ṭ} in Ugaritic: A Re-examination of the Sign-Forms. Syria 61: 25–36. Gordon, C. H. 1998 Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. KTU = Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O; and Sanmartín, J. 1976 Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit: Einschließlich der keilalphabetischen Texte auss­ erhalb Ugarits. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchiner Verlag. Pardee, D. 1982 New Readings in the Letters of ʿzn bn byy. Archiv für Orientforschung 19: 39–53. 1991 Declaration of Reconciliation: Statement from Dennis Pardee. Ugaritic-Forschungen 23: 5–6. Pitard, W. T. 1992 The Shape of the ʿAyin in Ugaritic Script. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51: 261–79.

The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script

71

Sallaberger, W. 1996 Sign List: Palaeography and Syllabary. Pp. 33–67 in Subartu II: Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995), ed. F. Ismail, W. Sallaberger, P. Talon, and K. V. Lerverghe. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. Segert, S. 1985 A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language with Selected Texts and Glossary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sivan, D. 1997 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies 28. The Near and Middle East = Handbuch der Orientalistik, part 1: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten. Leiden: Brill. Smith, M. S. 2001 Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Soldt, W. H. van 1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. Orient und Altes Testament 40. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchiner Verlag. Tropper, J. 2000 Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Yon, M. 1995 La Maison d’Ourtenu dans le quartier sud d’Ougarit (fouilles 1994). Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 1995: 427–43. 2001 The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Zuckerman, B., and Zuckerman, K. 1997 Photography: Photography of Manuscripts. Pp 336–47 in vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script Christopher A. Rollston

The Proto-Semitic alphabet consisted of approximately 29 consonants. The Ugaritic alphabet consisted of 27 consonants and 3 vowels. However, because of various consonantal mergers, Phoenician consisted of only 22 of the 29 consonants of Proto-Semitic. Thus, for example, the Proto-Semitic word ʿḏr ‘help’ (Ugaritic ʿḏr, Old South Arabic and Arabic ʿḏr) is written ʿzr in Phoenician, because Proto-Semitic ḏ had merged with zayin. Similarly, the Proto-Semitic word ḫrṣ ‘gold’ (Ugaritic ḫrṣ, Arabic ḫrṣ ) is written ḥrṣ in Phoenician, because Proto-Semitic ḫ had merged with ḥet. Likewise, the Proto-Semitic word ġlmt ‘young woman’ (Ugaritic ġlmt, Arabic ġlmt) is written ʿlmt in Phoenician, because Proto-Semitic ġ had merged with ʿayin. The end result of these (and additional) mergers was a 22-letter Phoenician alphabet. The Aramaic and Old Hebrew alphabets developed not from Early Alphabetic, but from the Phoenician alphabet. The basis for this statement is the fact that the number of consonantal phonemes in Aramaic and Old Hebrew is greater than 22, but the number of letters used to write these languages is just 22. For example, in Aramaic, the phoneme ḏ was preserved, but this letter was not present in the Phoenician script. Therefore, Aramaic used the zayin (in Old Aramaic) and dalet (in Imperial Aramaic) to signify the phoneme ḏ. The reason for this is simple: the letters zayin and dalet were available in the Phoenician alphabet, but ḏ was not. Similarly, in Aramaic, the phoneme ṯ was preserved, but in Phoenician it was not. Therefore, Aramaic used the šin (in Old Aramaic) and taw (Imperial Aramaic) to signify the phoneme ṯ. Again, the reason is simple: the letters šin and taw were present in the Phoenician alphabet, but ṯ was not. Likewise, with Old Hebrew, the phoneme ś was preserved, but this letter was not present in the Phoenician script. Therefore, Old Hebrew used the šin also to signify the phoneme ś. It might be asked why Aramaic and Hebrew did not have letters (graphemes) for all of the consonantal sounds (phonemes) present in their languages? Of course, the answer is simply that the Arameans and Hebrews adopted the Phoenician script for writing their languages, even though the alphabet was designed for the smaller number of phonemes in Phoenician (Harris 1939; Moscati et al. 1964; Garr 1985). Table 1 presents the correspondences of the West Semitic consonants. Within the field of Northwest Semitic palaeography and epigraphy, the consensus among scholars has long been that the Iron Age Phoenician script descended from the Early Alphabetic script of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages (Albright 1969; Cross 2003; Darnell et al. 2005). 1 The Early Alphabetic script consisted of a total of 1.  The script has been given different names by scholars: “Early Alphabetic” by Darnell et al. (2000); “Proto-Alphabetic” by Colless (1988; 1990; 1991); “Proto-Sinaitic” by Albright (1926: 75);

72

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

73

Table 1.  Correspondences of West Semitic Consonants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

*PS ʾ b g d h w ḏ z ḥ ḫ ṭ y k l m n s ʿ ġ p ṣ ẓ ḍ q r ś š

ṯ t

Phoenician Hebrew ʾ ʾ b b g g d d h h w (y) w (y) z z z z ḥ ḥ ḥ ḥ ṭ ṭ y y k k l l m m n n s s ʿ ʿ ʿ ʿ p p ṣ ṣ ṣ ṣ ṣ ṣ q q r r š ś š š š š t t

Aramaic ʾ b g d h w (y) z/d z ḥ ḥ ṭ y k l m n s ʿ ʿ p ṣ ṭ q/ʿ q r š š š/t t

27 letters and could be written from left to right (dextrograde), from right to left (sinistrograde), back and forth “as the ox plows” (boustrophedon), or in vertical columns. “Proto-Canaanite” by Naveh (1978: 33); “Old Canaanite” by Cross (1980: 13; 2003: 225–26); and “Northern Linear (Canaanite)” by O’Connor (1996). As pointed out by Hamilton (2006: 4), Sass (1988; 1991; 1992), Pardee (1997a; 1997b), and Lemaire (2000: 112) used the term “Proto-Siniatic” for texts and scripts from the Sinai and “Proto-Canaanite” for those from Palestine. Hamilton (2006: 4) used the terms “Proto-Canaanite” to designate the earliest alphabetic inscriptions and scripts from Egypt, the western Sinai, and Canaan dated to before ca. 1400 b.c.; and “Old Canaanite” for inscriptions and scripts that are more linear in character. See now Hamilton in this volume, pp. 30–55.

74

Christopher A. Rollston

Fig. 1.  Izbet Ṣarṭah Sherd (drawing by F. M. Cross [2003: 221]). Reproduced with permission.

The letters of the Early Alphabetic script could face to the left or right. However, various developments eventually occurred. (1) The number of consonants was reduced to 22. (2) The direction of writing was fixed from right to left. (3) The stance (direction of face) was fixed. 2 The Izbet Ṣarṭah Incised Sherd (fig. 1) is a late exemplar of the Early Alphabetic script. 3 From this point on, because of these three developments, the convention in the field of epigraphy is to refer to this stage of the script as Phoenician, rather than Early Alphabetic. Naveh ref lects the consensus of the field with his statement that the transition from Early Alphabetic to Phoenician “took place in the mid-eleventh century b.c.” (Naveh 1987a: 42). During the Iron Age, the Phoenician script f lourished. Indeed, for some time it was the international script of prestige in the Levant, used not only in Phoenicia itself but in various regions of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean because of Phoenician colonization in certain regions and general cultural inf luence in other regions. This script has been the subject of substantive analyses (Peckham 1968; McCarter 1975). Later in the Iron Age, certain daughter scripts developed from the Phoenician Mutterschrift, becoming independent “national” scripts. Among the most important are the Old Hebrew script and the Aramaic script. These script series have also been the subject of substantive analyses (Naveh 1970 [Aramaic]; Cross 1961; 1962a; 1962b 2.  Note that these changes did not occur simultaneously. For thorough discussion of each change, see Hamilton 2006. 3.  Although there has been some discussion of the direction of writing for lines 1–4, it cannot be contested that line 5 is dextrograde.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

75

Table 2.  Inscriptions and References Inscription Abda ʾAbibaʿal ʾAḥiram ʿAzarbaʿal Bar-Rakiba ʾElibaʿal Gezer Gozan Bir Hadada Honeyman Izbet Ṣarṭahb Karatepe Kefar Veradim Kilamuwa Kition Malta Nora Stone Panamuwa Ia Panamuwa IIa Seville Shipiṭbaʿal Son of Shipiṭbaʿal Tekke Tel Zayit Tell Fakhariyehd Yeḥimilk

Reference KAI 8 KAI 5 KAI 1 KAI 3 KAI 217 KAI 6 KAI 182 Cross 1995: 396; 2003: 53 KAI 201 Albright 1941: 15 Cross 1980: 8c Röllig 1999 Alexandre 2006 KAI 24 Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1977 KAI 61A KAI 46 KAI 214 KAI 215 Cross: 1971; 2003: 273–75 KAI 7 KAI 9 Sznycer 1979 Tappy et al. 2006 KAI, 5th ed., 309 KAI 4

Date (b.c.e.) late 10th / early 9th century 10th century 10th century late 11th / early 10th century late 8th century 10th century late 10th / early 9th century late 10th / early 9th century 9th century 9th century 12th–11th century 8th century early 10th century late 9th century mid-8th century late 8th century 9th century 8th century late 8th century 8th century late 10th / early 9th century late 6th / early 5th century 10th century late 10th / early 9th century 9th century 10th century

a.  The language of this inscription is Aramaic. b.  This inscription is written in Early Alphabetic characters. c.  The photograph of the inscription is absent from Cross 2003: 221. d.  The language of the linear alphabetic portion of this inscription is Aramaic.

[Old Hebrew]; Naveh 1987a [Phoenician, Old Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.]; Rollston 1999; 2003; 2006 [Old Hebrew]). For the Phoenician, Old Hebrew, and Aramaic scripts, there are distinguishing diagnostic features. The field of Northwest Semitic paleography and epigraphy has often focused on elucidating the distinctive features of these scripts (Naveh 1987a: 89–100; Rollston 2006: 58–61; 2009). The literature on Phoenician texts is quite vast. Various

76

Christopher A. Rollston

Fig. 2.  ʿAzarbaʿal Inscription. Photo: West Semitic Research; drawing: Christopher A. Rollston.

summaries, however, distill much of the essential data (Moscati 1988; Amadasi Guzzo 1995; Peckham 2001). Obviously, the focus of this article is not Phoenician literature but the Phoenician script. Table 2 shows where the inscriptions discussed below can be located. There are a number of Phoenician inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland itself that provide substantial data about the Phoenician script of the late 11th, 10th, and early 9th centuries b.c.e. Moreover, there are a number of important Phoenician inscriptions that were produced outside the borders of Phoenicia during this early period. Among the most important of the early Phoenician inscriptions is the Bronze ʿAzarbaʿal Inscription (fig. 2), often referred to as the Bronze Spatula Inscription (Dunand 1945: 155–57). This prestige object was discovered during controlled excavations at Byblos (ancient Gebal), Lebanon. Six lines of Phoenician text (often considered enigmatic) are etched into the metal. The script ref lects archaic features, such as the trident kap, mem with a strong vertical stance, samek with a short vertical shaft (i.e., not extending much below the bottom horizontal), and the box-shaped ḥet. Of import is the fact that the five strokes of mem are of the same approximate length, and the three strokes of nun are of the same approximate length (these are early features). Some have argued that this inscription ref lects the terminal horizon of the 11th century, but a date in the (early) 10th century can also be considered tenable. The Kefar Veradim Bowl (fig. 3), found in a burial cave at Kefar Veradim, Israel, is a stunning artifact, made of bronze and f luted (Alexandre 2006). 4 The inscription consists of four well-preserved words, with two word-dividers present. The excavator has stated that, according to the standard chronology, the associated archaeological 4.  Some might be surprised that a Phoenician inscription would be found in Israel. On ref lection, however, this should not be so surprising since, after all, Phoenician inscriptions are found throughout much of the Levant and the Mediterranean area. Moreover, the biblical text itself (e.g., 1–2 Kings) affirms that there was substantial cultural contact between Phoenicia and Israel. Furthermore, the archaeological remains often confirm this as well (Lipiński 1991). Thus, the fact that multiple Phoenician inscriptions have been discovered in Israel was predictable.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

77

Fig. 3.  Kefar Veradim Bowl. Photo: West Semitic Research; drawing: Christopher A. Rollston.

materials (bowls and craters, including some black-on-red ware, etc.) can be dated to the 10th century (Alexandre 2006: 31) or early 9th century (Alexandre 2006: 22–23). Alexandre contemplated the possibility that this bowl might have been an heirloom piece, but she did not come down definitively on the subject (Alexandre 2006: 31). This is an obvious prestige item, however, based on the quality of the bowl and the presence of an inscription. The script of the inscription ref lects the work of a trained, consummate scribe. Also of significance is the fact that the script ref lects the same basic script morphology as the ʿAzarbaʿal Inscription. For example, kap is trident-shaped, samek has the short vertical shaft, and the ḥet is box-shaped. Because of the medium (i.e., a bowl), it is difficult to place substantial emphasis on the stance of mem and nun. Of import, however, is the fact that the five strokes of mem are of the same approximate length (although the scribe had some difficulty incising the three strokes of the mem), and the three strokes of nun are also of the same approximate length. There can be no question that this inscription is written in the Phoenician script. I consider this inscribed bowl to hail from the same basic chronological horizon as the Azarbaʿal Inscription. Based on the script, therefore, I am comfortable with an (early) 10th-century date for this inscription. 5 5.  Sass (2005) has argued that a lower chronology should be adopted for Phoenician inscriptions (see Rollston: 2008a), and so he dated the artifacts from this tomb to the mid-9th century. Furthermore, he argued that it is not tenable to consider the inscribed bowl to be an heirloom piece (Sass 2005: 34–39, 50–74). At one point, with some deft (if problematic) rhetoric, he stated that, if the standard chronology for “West Semitic palaeography and Palestinian archaeology is applied, an absurd situation ensues: the Kefar Veradim inscription would be 200 years older than the bowl it is written on. . . . the inscription would date to the eleventh century, the tomb assemblage to the

78

Christopher A. Rollston

Fig. 4.  Tekke Bronze Bowl. Reproduced with permission from F. M. Cross 2003: 227.

Sznycer (1979) published a bronze bowl from a tomb in Tekke, Crete, inscribed in the Phoenician script (fig. 4). Although corrosion has damaged the letters, the inscription arguably consists of four words. Based on the script, Sznycer dated the inscription to ca. 900 b.c.e., although he did not wish to exclude a date earlier in the 10th century (Sznycer 1979: 91). Cross has argued that he believes there is “not a typological feature of the script which requires or even suggests a date lower than 1000 b.c.e.” (Cross 1980: 17; 2003: 229). Cross considered the bet in this inscription to date to some point prior to ca. 1000 b.c.e. Also, although Sznycer did not consider the fifth letter of the inscription to be decipherable, Cross read it as an ʿayin with a dot in it, the dot signifying the pupil of the eye, a feature that is often considered to be ref lective of an early script (Cross 1980: 15; 2003: 227; Sass 1988: 127). Cross summarized his understanding of the script in the following manner: “[T]he archaic forms of ʿayin and bet require a date no later than the end of the eleventh century (ca. 1000 in round numbers), and the remaining clear letter forms conform to this dating” (Cross 1980: 17; 2003: 229). The archaeological context of the tomb is Cretan Early Protogeometric (= Attic Late Protogeometric) and can be dated to ca. 950–900 b.c.e. (Catling 1977: 14). tenth, and the bowl to the ninth” (Sass 2005: 39). Sass’s framing of the data, though, is a chimera. After all, Alexandre considered the tomb to be 10th century, the bowl to be 10th century, and the inscription to be 10th century. Nevertheless, someone might perhaps suggest that none of the associated pottery can be dated to the early 10th century, or conversely, that all of it must be dated to the late 10th century (i.e., not the early 10th century). For various reasons, however, I think this is not a serious dilemma. First, there is always a plus or minus for pottery typologies, just as there is for palaeographic typologies. This must be factored into the composite picture. Second, I cannot agree with Sass’s strong disinclination to consider the possibility that a beautiful inscribed bowl could have been an heirloom piece (Sass 2005: 39). After all, the presence of “heirloom objects” in ancient Near Eastern archaeology is a well-attested phenomenon. For example, Marcus (following Porada) has stated that some mosaic glass vessels from Hasanlu are heirlooms (Marcus 1991). Moreover, sometimes seals are retained as prestigious heirlooms and reused. Thus, it has been argued that Dynastic seals (e.g., of the earlier Mitannian ruler Saushtatar) were retained and reused during the Late Bronze Age at Tell Brak (Matthews 1997; Stein 1989). Furthermore, a tablet from the reign of the Neo-Assyrian King Esarhaddon was sealed with three Dynastic seals from different periods—namely, a seal of an Old Assyrian king, a Middle Assyrian king, and a Neo-Assyrian king (Parker 1955; 1962; Albenda 1978). Because of the quality of the Kefar Veradim Inscribed Bronze Bowl, it would be difficult to state that it could not have been an heirloom. Ultimately, therefore, I believe that the excavator’s date in the 10th century for the tomb and bowl is cogent. Also, a palaeographic date in the 10th century is convincing. Moreover, it is entirely possible that this piece was an heirloom piece (and thus was inscribed earlier in the 10th century and then deposited in the tomb later during the 10 century). In short, the archaeological data and palaeographic data dovetail just fine.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

79

Fig. 5.  ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription (drawing by M. J. Lundberg). Line 1 = side 1; lines 2–3 = side 2.

Obviously, Cross knew that his dating of the inscription to ca. 1000 b.c.e. was rather close to the dating of the archaeological context but nevertheless slightly earlier. He noted that there are two viable alternatives. First, the inscribed bowl may have been an heirloom piece, “a half century or so older than the main deposit in the Tomb” (Cross: 1980: 18 n. 19; 2003: 229 n. 49). He drew attention to Lawrence Stager’s observation that there was a Late Minoan (LM III) lentoid seal-stone in the tomb and that it is “certainly an heirloom” (Cross: 1980: 18 n. 49). 6 Second, alternatively, Cross suggested that “the dates of the Proto-geometric series may be raised a half-century. That is to say, the inscription may furnish new evidence that our chronology is in fact low” (Cross 1980: 18: n. 19; 2003: 229 n. 49). I am sympathetic to Cross’s desire to date the bowl to ca. 1000 b.c.e. Nevertheless, I note that the morphology and stance of the Tekke bet could also be considered an acceptable 10th-century form or even an acceptable 9th-century form (compare the Nora Stone). However, the general absence of elongation of the third stroke of nun is an archaic feature, arguing for a date no later than the 10th century or early 9th century. Moreover, regarding the Tekke ʿayin, I note that the reading may not be correct, because the letter is corroded. In any case, it may be that the dotted ʿayin persisted (especially outside the Phoenician homeland) into the 10th and 9th centuries. Based on the constellation of palaeographic data, I am comfortable dating this inscription to the 10th century, although I do not think that the evidence allows more precision than this. There are several early Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. Among the most impressive of the Royal Byblian inscriptions is that of the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus (fig. 5), an inscription commissioned by ʾAḥiram’s son, one ʾIttobaʿal (Dussaud 1924). Most of this inscription is written on the lid of the sarcophagus (the length of it), but its initial component is written on the end of the sarcophagus itself (i.e., not on the lid). Most of the letters were chiseled with care and substantial precision, although there is a diminution of letter-size that is visible (and quantifiable) in the terminal portions of the inscription. The space constraints likely necessitated the diminution. The Phoenician script of the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus must be distinguished from the script of the 6.  This datum is absent from Cross 2003: 229 n. 49.

80

Christopher A. Rollston

ʿAzarbaʿal Inscription, because discernible and diagnostic typological differences are present. Those that are among the most important are the distinct lengthening of the vertical shaft of samek, the occasional lengthening of the fifth stroke of mem, the occasional lengthening of the third stroke of nun, and the lengthening of the verticals of ḥet (i.e., no longer box-shaped). Note, however, that kap remains trident-shaped. This inscription can be dated with substantial certitude to the 10th century b.c.e. (Rollston: 2008a). Sass has stated that “the Ahiram sarcophagus reliefs should play a key role in dating the inscription” (Sass 2005: 21) and concluded that various aspects of the banquet scene on the sarcophagus are ref lective of a date in “the ninth century at the earliest” (Sass 2005: 22). Not all art historians, however, would agree. For example, Porada, in her authoritative study of the reliefs, argued that “the style of the reliefs on the sarcophagus certainly fits a position between the art of the Late Bronze and Middle Iron Age periods. ʾAḥiram’s reliefs continue the iconographic traditions of Syria and Palestine as well as of the New Kingdom of Egypt, but they have assumed the simplified, heavy forms found in the reliefs of Carchemish and Ashurnasirpal II of the ninth century b.c.” (Porada 1973: 364). She considered a date of ca. 1000 b.c.e. for the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription to be reasonable (Porada 1973: 364). However, Sass contended that Porada was inf luenced too heavily by palaographers, which accounts for her dating of the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus reliefs to ca. 1000 b.c.e. Moreover, he argued that many of the parallels that Porada found are 9th-century Neo-Assyrian (Sass 2005: 21–22). However, Porada’s case is much more nuanced than Sass’s citations might suggest. Basically, Porada argued (based on some very detailed analyses of precursors and successors) that the reliefs on the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus can be placed in a chronological context between the Late Bronze Age and early Iron II. To be sure, she cited some close parallels in the Neo-Assyrian period, but she also stated that she considered the Neo-Assyrian reliefs to be perpetuating motifs that originated in Phoenician and were subsequently used in the Neo-Assyrian realm (Porada 1973: 364). Of course, in addition to this, Rehm (2004) has actually argued, on the basis of the art-historical data, for a 13th–12th century date for the reliefs! Ziffer (2005: 155, 158) also seems quite comfortable with a date in the 13th–12th centuries. Similarly, Markoe has dated the sarcophagus itself to the early 12th century b.c.e. (Markoe 2000: 144; compare Markoe 1990: 19–21). Obviously, these art historians do not consider the reliefs to be later than the 10th century and presumably would not concur with Sass’s contention that the art-historical data require a date after the 10th century. 7 Hailing also from Byblos during this same basic horizon are the Yeḥimilk Inscription (fig. 6), the ʾAbibaʿal Inscription, and the ʾElibaʿal Inscription. Yeḥimilk is a monumental inscription, chiseled into a stone tablet (Dunand 1930). The ʾAbibaʿal 7.  Sass focused rather heavily on his belief, based on the placement of the inscription, that the inscription must postdate the reliefs. However, even if one concedes this point, I do not think that this fact is necessarily of great consequence. After all, ancient Byblian artists could have carved the reliefs into the sarcophagus, and immediately thereafter Byblian scribes could have incised the inscription. Some of Sass’s arguments about the sarcophagus are epigraphic, not art-historical. I have responded to these in great detail elsewhere (Rollston 2008a).

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

81

Fig. 6.  Yeḥimilk Inscription. Drawing by Christopher A. Rollston.

Inscription is inscribed on a statue of Pharaoh Sheshonq I (reigned ca. 945–924 b.c.e.), and so it is among the most interesting and important of the early Byblian lapidary inscriptions (Clermont-Ganneau 1903). Similarly, the inscription of ʾElibaʿal (Dussaud 1925) was inscribed on a bust of Pharaoh Osorkon I (reigned ca. 924–889). 8 Also of consequence is the fact that within this inscription ʾElibaʿal provides his father’s name: Yeḥi[milk]. The inscriptions of Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, and ʾElibaʿal ref lect the same basic script typology as that of the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription. For example, the vertical stroke of ʾalep is at the leftmost extreme of the vertex of the two horizontal crossbars (this is an early feature). Moreover, kap continues to be trident-shaped (also an early feature). To be sure, some modest typological differences are present in the inscriptions of ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, and ʾElibaʿal. Among the most interesting is the length of the final stroke of mem and nun. The palaeographic data may be summarized in the following manner. Within early Phoenician, the mem consists of five oblique downstrokes, and the nun consists of three oblique downstrokes. The mems of ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, and ʾElibaʿal have strong vertical stances. Often the five strokes of the mem are all about the same length, and often the three strokes of the nun are all about the same length. Thus, the five strokes of the mem and the three strokes of the nun in the ʾElibaʿal Inscription are each about the same length, with some modest variation. The fifth stroke of mem in the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription and the Yeḥimilk Inscription and the third stroke of nun in the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus and the Yeḥimilk 8.  Note that the names in the cartouches of these statues of Sheshonq and Osorkon are those of Sheshonq I and Osorkon I. These statues are not those of Sheshonq II (ca. 890 b.c.e.) and Osor­ kon II (ca. 874–850 b.c.e.), because the readings in Egyptian of the latter two are quite different from the former two (Beckerath 1999: 185). I am grateful to James Hoffmeier for discussing this issue with me and providing this reference.

82

Christopher A. Rollston

Fig. 7.  Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription. Drawing by Christopher A. Rollston.

Inscription do (sometimes) exhibit some lengthening (i.e, the final stroke of each letter is often slightly longer than the preceding strokes). The slight lengthening of the final stroke would be classified as being slightly more advanced typologically. Significantly, the script of the Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription (fig. 7) from Byblos (Dunand 1945: 146–51) contains features that ref lect a more advanced typological development, when compared with the scripts of ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, and ʾElibaʿal. For example, the fifth stroke of mem has lengthened considerably, and it is readily apparent that some (sometimes incipient, sometimes significant) rotation of the head has begun. Furthermore, the third stroke of nun has lengthened substantially, and there is some rotation of its head as well. The Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription can be classed as the latest of the great Early Byblian Royal Inscriptions. From this chronological horizon also comes the ʿAbda Sherd (fig. 8). Note that the morphology of bet in these two inscriptions is the same; this feature was ephemeral. Because there has been some criticism of the standard dates of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions (Sass 2005), before continuing with the chronological development of the Phoenician script I must discuss brief ly the sequence of finds and the progress of scholarship during the first half of the 20th century. The ʾAbibaʿal Inscription (on a statue of Sheshonq) was published in 1903 (Clermont-Ganneau 1903), but the entire text was not deciphered (because scholars had misunderstood the archaic kap as a šin). Nevertheless, even though the text was not deciphered in its entirety, the fact that it was inscribed on a statue of Sheshonq I (ca. 945–924 b.c.e.) resulted in its being dated to the late 10th century b.c.e. The ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus was discovered in 1923 (Dussaud 1924). Because two fragments of alabaster vases in the tomb of ʾAḥiram bore the name of Ramesses II, the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription was initially believed to have hailed from that chronological horizon (i.e., the 13th century b.c.e.). However, because the scripts of ʾAbibaʿal and the ʾAḥiram were so similar, it soon began to be argued that the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription must be dated to the 10th century, not the 13th century. Two years after the discovery of the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus, Dussaud (1925) published fragments of the ʾElibaʿal Inscription, inscribed on a statue of Osor­ kon I (ca. 924–889 b.c.e.). The Phoenician script of this inscription was very similar

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

83

Fig. 8.  ʿAbda Sherd. Drawing by Christopher A. Rollston.

to that of the ʾAbibaʿal and ʾAḥiram Inscriptions. Soon thereafter, Dunand (1930) published the Yeḥimilk Inscription from Byblos. Albright had been active in the analysis of all of these inscriptions. Initially, he had dated the ʾAḥiram Sarcophagus Inscription to the 12th century, but he had subsequently lowered his date from the 12th century to ca. 1000 b.c.e. He suggested that the lowest date he would consider tenable was ca. 975 b.c.e. (Albright 1947: 153–54). When Dunand published the Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription (1945), he stated that it antedated the “autre inscriptions Phéniciennes,” arguing that this was established with absolute decisiveness on the basis of script. Indeed, he stated that it was plausible to date this inscription to the end of the 18th century b.c.e. or the beginning of the 17th century (Dunand 1945: 150–51)! Dunand had few followers, however, with regard to his early dating. Regarding this corpus of Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions, Albright stated that in his judgment, “[T]here is no need to date any of them after the beginning of the ninth century, and the group as a whole belongs to the tenth century” (Albright 1947: 154). Regarding the fact that there was initially such diversity of opinion among epigraphers and archaeologists about the dating of these inscriptions, Albright noted that “when the first documents of this category were published there was much less external evidence bearing on grammar, lexicography and spelling than there is today. All scholars made numerous mistakes” (Albright 1947: 154–55). Behind Albright’s statement is the fact that a strong scholarly consensus had emerged by or during the 1940s. Of course, Albright was among those that contributed in a substantive manner to the discussion, and his views represented the consensus. Albright’s dates (1947: 160) for the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions are as follows: (1) ʾAḥiram: ca. 1000 b.c.e.; (2) ʾIttobaʿal (son of ʾAḥiram): ca. 975 b.c.e.; (3) Ye­ ḥimilk: ca. 950 b.c.e.; (4) ʾAbibaʿal (son of Yeḥimilk?): ca. 930 b.c.e.; (5) ʾElibaʿal (son of Ye­ḥimilk): ca. 920 b.c.e.; (6) Shipiṭbaʿal (son of ʾElibaʿal): ca. 900 b.c.e. Of significance is the fact that, since Albright’s era, the dates for which he argued have normally been accepted. Thus, McCarter (1975: 34), in his detailed analysis of these inscriptions posited the following dates: (1) ʾAḥiram: f l. 1000 b.c.e.; (2) ʾIttobaʿal: f l. 980 b.c.e.; (3) Yeḥimilk: f l. 960 b.c.e.; (4) ʾAbibaʿal: f l. 940 b.c.e.; (5) ʾElibaʿal: f l. 920 b.c.e.; (6) Shipiṭbaʿal: f l. 900 b.c.e. To be sure, there had been an occasional voice of dissent (e.g., Wallenfels 1983), but the problematic assumptions on which such dissent was based were readily apparent. For this reason, there have been no major modifications in the basic chronology that Albright articulated during the middle of the 20th century. Of course, some might not wish to be as precise in assigning dates as Albright and

84

Christopher A. Rollston

McCarter, but the fact remains that a 10th-century date for the Early Royal Byblian has stood (Rollston: 2008a). At this point, it is helpful to review the reasons for the persistence of the standard chronology of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions. (1) Monumental inscriptions such as the Mesha Stela and the Tel Dan Stela can be dated securely on the basis of historical content to the 9th century. The scripts of these inscriptions are typologically later than the scripts of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions. (2) The inscription of ʾAbibaʿal was inscribed on a statue of the Egyptian King Sheshonq I. (3) The inscription of ʾElibaʿal was inscribed on a statue of the Egyptian King Osorkon I. (4) The ʾAḥiram sarcophagus refers to ʾIttobaʿal as the son of ʾAḥiram. Thus, in terms of royal chronology, it can be affirmed that ʾAḥiram was succeeded by his son ʾIttobaʿal. (5) The Shipiṭbaʿal inscription contains a three-generation genealogy: Shipiṭbaʿal, king of Byblos; son of ʾElibaʿal, king of Byblos; son of Yeḥimilk, king of Byblos. Thus, in terms of royal chronology, the following sequence can be affirmed: Yeḥimilk, then ʾElibaʿal, and then Shipiṭbaʿal. (6) In terms of script typology, the script of the Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription is definitely the most developed of all of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions. That is, the script of this inscription can be affirmed to be the latest of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions. Thus, at this juncture, there are two sets of royal sequences that can be discerned on the basis of the Early Byblian Royal Inscriptions: (1) ʾAḥiram → ʾIttobaʿal, and (2) Yeḥimilk → ʾElibaʿal → Shipiṭbʿ al. Because the script of Shipiṭbaʿal is definitively the most developed (i.e., typologically latest), it has been considered reasonable to argue that the sequence that includes Shipiṭbaʿal should be understood as the later of the two royal sequences. This then yields the following combined chronology. ʾAḥiram → ʾIttobaʿal → Yeḥimilk → ʾElibaʿal → Shipiṭbaʿal. At this point in the reconstruction, the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions of ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾElibaʿal, and Shipiṭbaʿal have been factored into the discussion. However, for the ʾAbibaʿal Inscription, there is no preserved patronymic; therefore, the question of the placement of ʾAbibaʿal in the royal sequence cannot be known with certitude. Certain things can be noted, however. (1) The script of the ʾAbibaʿal Inscription is not as late as that of the Shipiṭbaʿal inscription, so the paleographic evidence militates strongly against placing the reign of ʾAbibaʿal after that of Shipiṭbaʿal. (2) The ʾElibaʿal Inscription is on a statue of Osorkon I, and the ʾAbibaʿal Inscription is on a statue of Sheshonq I. Sheshonq I reigned before Osorkon I; therefore, it can be reasonably postulated that ʾAbibaʿal reigned before ʾElibaʿal. Although it might be tempting to suggest that ʾAbibaʿal reigned before ʾAḥiram, in light of the fact that the inscription of ʾAbibaʿal was inscribed on a statue of Sheshonq I (who was the immediate predecessor of Osorkon I), it is arguably most convincing to posit that he was the immediate predecessor of ʾElibaʿal. The sequence then is as follows: ʾAḥiram → ʾIttobaʿal → Yeḥimilk → ʾAbibaʿal → ʾElibaʿal → Shipiṭbaʿal. 9 9.  Of course, an issue that arises in this connection is the paternity of ʾAbibaʿal. Because there is no preserved patronymic, it is not possible to answer this question with certitude. However, Albright’s tentative proposal (Albright 1947: 160; compare also KAI 2:8) that ʾAbibaʿal and ʾElibaʿal were brothers (and thus both sons of Yeḥimilk) is plausible (compare Kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, both sons of King Josiah, 2 Kgs 23:30, 34). Nevertheless, the precise placement of ʾAbibaʿal within

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

85

Fig. 9.  Gezer Calendar. Reproduced from Joseph Naveh 1987: fig. 54, by permission of Joseph Naveh.

At this point, we may now abandon discussion of the Byblian inscriptions and return to our survey of the development of the Phoenician script. A small limestone “tablet” (fig. 9) was discovered in 1908 at Gezer during Macalister’s excavations, in debris from his “Fourth Semitic,” a period that Albright associated with Iron I (Macalister 1908; Albright 1943). Because the contents of the inscription revolve around seasonal agricultural activities (e.g., sowing, harvesting, and processing of f lax and barley), it is often considered to be some sort of an agricultural “calendar.” Naveh has stated that “the script of the Gezer Calendar, thought to be the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date, resembles the writing of the tenth-century b.c. Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. At this stage no specifically Hebrew characters can be distinguished, and the Hebrew followed the scribal tradition current in Canaan” (Naveh 1987a: 65). Cross considered the Gezer Calendar to be written in the Hebrew language (Cross and Freedman 1952: 46–47). Regarding the script of the Gezer Calendar, Cross has written, “[S]o similar are Phoenician and Hebrew in the tenth century that it has been difficult for epigraphists to establish whether the Gezer Calendar was written in a the sequence is not a critical component of the 10th-century dating of the Early Royal Byblian Inscriptions. Rather, in various ways, it is an ancillary component.

86

Christopher A. Rollston

Hebrew or in a Phoenician script” (Cross 2003: 226). Cross continues, “I believe that the first rudimentary innovations that will mark the emergent Hebrew script can be perceived in the Gezer Calendar, but they are faint at best. These rudimentary features include the elongation of the vertical strokes or legs of such letters as ʾalep, waw, kap, mem, and reš ” (Cross 1980: 14: 2003: 226). Nevertheless, elongation is a feature that is already present in Phoenician of the late 10th century and the early 9th century and, therefore, it cannot be considered a distinctive feature of the Old Hebrew script. 10 Moreover, features such as the pronounced curvature of kap, mem, and nun that are markers of the Old Hebrew script (Naveh 1987a: 66) are absent in Gezer. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the script of the Gezer Calendar to be pure Phoenician (Rollston 2008b: 79–89). 11 Regarding its placement within the Phoenician series, certain basic features of the Gezer Calendar’s script are typologically later than the majority of the Old Byblian inscriptions. For example, the kap is no longer trident-shaped, because the right stroke of this letter has elongated, forming a leg. 12 Although this sort of elongation (of this stroke) is attested in Phoenician of the 9th and 8th centuries, it is not even attested in Shipiṭbaʿal (from the late 10th or early 9th century). The waw of Gezer is no longer the bowl-headed form but is, rather, the more angular form (compare the similar f ledgling form in Shipiṭbaʿal). Substantial elongation is present in the final strokes of mem and nun, and the best parallels for this are in Shipiṭbaʿal and, of course, Phoenician texts from horizons after Shipiṭbaʿal. Note, however, that the stance of mem in the Gezer Calendar is still strongly vertical, more so than in Shipiṭbaʿal. Note also that the main vertical shaft of samek exhibits elongation (this elongation is attested in ʾAḥiram as well). Based on the constellation of script data, I date the Gezer Calendar to the same basic horizon as Shipiṭbaʿal—that is, late 10th century or very early 9th century. The Tel Zayit Abecedary (fig. 10) hails from an archaeological context that Tappy considers to be 10th century (Tappy et al. 2006: 5–25). The inscription was carved into a stone. Although the second half of the abecedary is quite abraded, it is certain that this is a complete abecedary. Its script ref lects typological developments not attested in the Kefar Veradim, ʿAzarbaʿal, ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, or ʾElibaʿal inscriptions. For example, kap is not trident-shaped but has developed a leg (note again that even Shipiṭbaʿal retains the trident-shaped kap). Moreover, the fifth stroke of mem and the third stroke of nun are elongated. In addition, the entire letter has begun to rotate (note, therefore, that the mem of Zayit is typologically later than that of Gezer). These sorts of typological features ref lect the fact that the Tel Zayit Abecedary is typologically later than the inscriptions of ʾAḥiram, Yeḥimilk, ʾAbibaʿal, and ʾElibaʿal (and thus, of 10.  See the discussion of the Tel Zayit Abecedary (below) for more data about the phenomenon of elongation. 11.  Of course, it is imperative to note that certain aspects of the Gezer Calendar are often argued to be indicative of the hand of a f ledgling student. This may be tenable, but the fact remains that the letter forms ref lect important typological features. Similar statements can be made about the Tel Zayit Abecedary. 12.  Note that, although there is elongation in the kap of Izbet Ṣarṭah, it is not a lengthening of the stroke on the right side.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

87

Fig. 10.  Tel Zayit Inscription. Reproduced from Christopher A. Rollston 2008b: 81, fig. 8; drawing by P. Kyle McCarter Jr. Reproduced by permission.

course, much later typologically than the ʿAzarbaʿal and Kefar Veradim inscriptions). Of course, there are a modest number of features of the Tel Zayit Abecedary that are typologically early. Among the most significant is its waw (contrast the typologically later waw of the Gezer Calendar). Preservations of typologically older forms are to be anticipated, however, at times. Based on the constellation of paleographic data, this inscription should be dated to the late 10th century or the very early 9th century, slightly later than Tappy desires to date the archaeological context. Moreover, the Tel Zayit Abecedary is a nice example of the usage of the Phoenician script in Iron Age Israel. In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the Tel Zayit Abecedary hails from the same chronological horizon as Shipiṭbaʿal and the Gezer Calendar. Regarding the script series, McCarter (in Tappy et al. [2006: 30]) has argued that the Tel Zayit Abecedary is not written in the Phoenician script but, rather, in a distinct South Canaanite script that derived from the Phoenician script. 13 Moreover, this South Canaanite script is identified as a transitional script that “in the tenth century . . . already exhibits characteristics that anticipate the distinctive features of the mature Hebrew national script” (Tappy et al. 2006: 26, 28). This is considered to be “a major watershed in the evolution of alphabetic writing in southern Canaan at the outset of Iron Age IIA, and the principal result of this phenomenon emerged as the mature Hebrew national script of the first millennium” (Tappy et al. 2006: 42, passim). Thus, 13. There is another factor that must be mentioned as well. Namely, within the Tel Zayit Abecedary we have a single example of each letter, some of which are not well preserved! Moreover, for the Phoenician series of the 10th and 9th centuries, we have modest numbers of inscriptions. Thus, I urge caution in attempting to argue that this inscription differs strongly from the Phoenician series in this or that fashion.

88

Christopher A. Rollston

within the editio princeps of the inscription, it is affirmed that the script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary is not that of the Phoenician script series but is basically a nascent Old Hebrew script. McCarter’s position regarding the script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary is important and nuanced. Nonetheless, the data may be understood differently. That is, the script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary fits nicely within the Phoenician script series. A major component of McCarter’s argument that this is not the Phoenician script is his contention that elongation is not a real feature of the Phoenician script during this horizon. To be precise, it is affirmed that “the elongation of ʾalep, he, waw, kap, mem, nun, and reš ” argues against considering this Phoenician and is evidence that it is a transitional script that anticipates the distinctive “features of the mature Hebrew national script.” Furthermore, it is argued that this resistance of elongation is “underscored by the persistence into the ninth century of a preference for compact, well-proportioned characters of the kind seen, for example, in maritime Phoenician inscriptions such as the so-called Honeyman inscriptions from Cyprus and the taršiš from Nora in Sardinia” (Tappy et al. 2006: 30). However, it would be difficult to suggest that the elongation of certain letters should be considered to be evidence for or against an inscription’s status within a script series. That is, elongation is not a distinctive marker of a particular national script series. The reasons for this are as follows: (1) The Phoenician, Aramaic, and Old Hebrew script series all ref lect elongation (Peckham 1968 [Phoenician], Naveh 1970 [Aramaic], Rollston 1999 [Old Hebrew]). Here, focus will be on elongation in Phoenician itself. (a) Note the elongation present in mem and nun of Shipiṭbaʿal. The elongation in the letters of this Early Royal Byblian Inscription is as great as that attested in the Tel Zayit Abecedary. No one would suggest (because of the elongation in mem and nun in Shipiṭbaʿal) that Shipiṭbaʿal was written in the Old Hebrew script; therefore, it stands to reason that it would be a precarious basis for suggesting that Zayit is written in the Old Hebrew script. (b) Note that the relative length of the vertical stroke of the ʾalep in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription (fig. 12 below) is as long as that of Tel Zayit, and all epigraphers would agree that the script of the Tell Fakhariyeh is Phoenician and typologically early (Cross 1995: 408; 2003: 59–60; see also Naveh 1987b). 14 Regarding the he, similar statements can be made. Note, for example, that the vertical stroke of he in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription ref lects elongation, even though this is a typologically early Phoenician script. (d) The waw of the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription also ref lects elongation. (e) Regarding kap, it is again critical to note that in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, the kap ref lects some elongation (i.e., it is no longer just the trident). Furthermore, and of fundamental importance, note that there is some significant elongation of kap in the sherd from Izbet Ṣarṭah, which is normally dated to the 11th century b.c.e. This inscription is certainly not written in the Old Hebrew script. (f ) Notice also the pronounced elongation present in the Phoenician script of subsequent centuries, as revealed in the 8th-century Kition Bowl (fig. 11). Again, then, 14. Note that Cross stated that he does not think Fakhariyeh shows much tendency “to lengthen final downstrokes” (Cross 1995: 407; 2003: 59). Nonetheless, even his drawings reveal that there is some significant lengthening of some of the downstrokes in this inscription.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

89

Fig. 11.  Kition Bowl. Drawing by Christopher A. Rollston.

it is difficult to consider elongation to be a distinctive feature of the Old Hebrew script, nascent Old Hebrew script, or a transitional South Canaanite script. (2) The curvature of the vertical downstrokes of kap, mem, nun is an important marker of the Old Hebrew script (so also Naveh 1987a: 66), but this feature is absent in the script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary. In short, the script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary is a fine Phoenician script of the late 10th or very early 9th century b.c.e. 15 The languages of the Tell Fakhariyeh Bilingual Inscription (fig. 12) are Assyrian and Aramaic. Within the field of Northwest Semitic paleography, it is the linear script of the Aramaic text that has generated a substantial amount of discussion. Namely, it has been argued that the linear script resembles the script of the 11th- and early 10th-century Phoenician inscriptions. However, various nonpaleographic data suggest a date in the 9th century. Thus, Naveh stated that the script was “reminiscent of the Proto-Canaanite script of the eleventh century b.c.e.” (Naveh 1987b: 103). To be sure, Naveh was very much cognizant of the fact that (in the editio princeps) Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil, and Millard (1982) made a strong case (on the basis of historical, orthographic, and art-historical data) for a date in the 9th century. Therefore, Naveh concluded that “the only possibility that can be taken into consideration is that we have here a very successful artificial archaizing script . . . so extraordinary and out of context in the ninth century that it can only be explained by assuming that its set of letters was copied without a single failure from a stele of the eleventh century” (Naveh 1987b: 109). 15.  For a more detailed discussion, see Rollston 2008a.

Fig. 12.  Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription. Drawing by Pierre Bordreuil. Reproduced by permission of Pierre Bordreuil.

90 Christopher A. Rollston

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

91

Regarding the script of the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, Cross has stated that it “is typologically pure Phoenician, the Phoenician character of the end of the eleventh century b.c.e.” However, with some reluctance, he was willing to concede that the text was composed in the 9th century b.c.e. In the light of this, he argued that the script should be considered a “triumph of archaism” (Cross 1995: 409; 2003: 60). Regarding the precise mechanism that resulted in the script of the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, Cross stated that a “ninth-century scribe copied earlier script models from Aramaic monuments of the late eleventh century . . . [and] ignored the Aramaic script used by contemporary [ninth-century] scribes” (Cross 1995: 408; 2003: 60). Kaufman (1982: 142–45) argued that the script of the Fakhariyeh Inscription should be understood as the Phoenician script that was used in that region in the 9th century. In order to establish this, Kaufman needed to posit that there were “Peripheral Phoenician” scripts as well as a contemporaneous “Standard Phoenician script.” Cross, however, argued that there is a problem with this proposal. Thus, after discussing various minor problems with the notion of a nonstandard script in geographical peripheries, he stated that “an even greater hindrance to the notion of a peripheral pocket of archaism is the existence of the Gozan Pedestal Inscription” (Cross 1995: 396; 2003: 53). This inscription dates to the late 10th or early 9th century and uses the standard script of the late 10th and early 9th century. Gozan (Tell Halaf ) and Tell Fakhariyeh are separated by about four kilometers. Cross believed therefore that, if this region were actually employing a peripheral script (that perpetuated archaic forms), then the Gozan Pedestal Inscription (which antedates the Fakhariyeh Inscription) should have employed the postulated peripheral script. However, because it did not employ the same archaic script as Tell Fakhariyeh, Cross affirmed that the Fakhariyeh Inscription should be considered an archaizing script, not a peripheral archaic script. Sass has also stated that he considers the Fakhariyeh Inscription to be “archaizing” (Sass 2005: 34, 52, 58). It is true that the Phoenician script of Tell Fakhariyeh is archaizing. But one may go further by stating that “archaizing” is a recognized phenomenon of ancient inscriptions, and the Fakhariyeh Inscription is a textbook case of archaizing. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence in the script itself (heretofore not sufficiently emphasized) to suggest that this inscription does not date to the 11th or 10th centuries. In other words, the case for archaizing need not be based solely on prosopographic or art-historical data. Regarding the waw of Tell Fakhariyeh, there are no parallels for this form in the Phoenician script of the 11th or 10th centuries. Rather, the horizontal base of waw in Fakhariyeh ref lects substantial typological development from the forms of waw attested in the 11th and 10th centuries (cf. Naveh 1987b: 109). Regarding the samek of Tell Fakhariyeh, the vertical downstroke intersects with the bottom horizontal but not with the top two horizontals. Striking, however, is the fact that during the 11th and 10th centuries the vertical downstroke begins at (or above) the top horizontal and thus intersects with all three horizontals. At this time, there are no parallels for the Fakhariyeh form in the Phoenician script of the 11th or 10th centuries b.c.e. Furthermore, this paleographic evidence dovetails with the orthographic evidence. That is, within the Northwest Semitic text of the Fakhariyeh Inscription, the full-blown system of

92

Christopher A. Rollston

Aramaic matres lectionis is used. This is strong evidence against a date in the 11th or 10th centuries b.c.e. Finally, the prosopographic evidence is also suggestive of a date in the 9th century, but as Cross (1995: 400; 2003: 56) pointed out, the prosopographic evidence cannot be considered decisive. The Phoenician script (and often language) continued to be used in various regions (i.e., not just in regions such as Byblos, Tyre, and Sidon). For example, from 9th-century Cyprus comes the Honeyman Inscription, a monumental Phoenician inscription (Albright 1941). The Nora Stone (fig. 13) was found on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia and can be dated with substantial certitude to the (late) 9th century (Cross 1972; 2003: 250–53). In the 8th century, the Kition Bowl (fig. 11), also found on Cyprus, demonstrates a fine Phoenician cursive (Dupont-Sommer 1970). Moreover, the Seville Statuette (Spain) dates to the second half of the 8th century and employs the Fig. 13.  Nora Stone. Drawing by Christopher A. Phoenician script. Also, the Malta Rollston. Stela, from the late 8th century, exhibits a fine Phoenician script. And among the most important of the Phoenician inscriptions from the (late) 8th century is the Karatepe Inscription (fig. 14) from ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey), where the Anatolian (Neo-Hittite) regent Azatiwada commissioned a Phoenician inscription as a parallel to his (native) Hittite Hieroglyphic rendition (Röllig 1999). It is among the longest of the Iron Age Phoenician inscriptions. The scripts of these inscriptions all ref lect developments that distinguish them from the Phoenician script of the 10th and early 9th centuries, but the differences are modest (e.g., development of a leg for the dalet, consistency of top-left stance of bet, consistent strong horizontal stance of mem and nun, and further lengthening of the top-right stroke of taw). Regarding other important Phoenician inscriptions, note that the Kilamu Inscription from the late 9th century is written in the Phoenician language (rather than the local dialect) and (arguably) the Phoenician script—that is, the prestige script and language of that chronological horizon and region. Also, the Hadad and Panamu Inscrip-

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

93

Fig. 14.  Karatepe. Reproduced from Joseph Naveh 1987a: fig. 46; by permission of Joseph Naveh, after KAI 26.

tions from Samʾal (all 8th century) are written in an Aramaic dialect but employ the Phoenician script. Moreover, the Bar-Rakib Inscription is written in the standard Old Aramaic dialect, but the script continues to be the Phoenician script (see Naveh 1987a: 79–80). Of course, a distinctive, fully developed Aramaic script is attested in the 8th century b.c.e., but it is significant that the Phoenician script (considered a “classical pres­tige script”) had been used for many inscriptions written in the Aramaic language

94

Christopher A. Rollston

(according to Naveh 1970; 1987a). At this juncture, it is of fundamental importance to emphasize that, although the Phoenician script was used across such wide geographical regions, there is substantial continuity of the Phoenician script during any given chronological horizon (regardless of the region from which it hails or, at times, even the language in which the text was written). This is because of the presence of continued cultural interchanges and the nature of the transregional PhoeFig. 15.  Son of Shipiṭbaʿal. Drawing by Christopher nician scribal apparatus. 16 A. Rollston. Obviously, the Phoenician script also continued to be used in the Phoenician homeland during these horizons and succeeding horizons and, for subsequent decades and centuries, the typological development of the Phoenician script continued. For example, the Byblian Phoenician lapidary known as the Son of Shipiṭbaʿal Inscription (fig. 15; Dunand 1939: 31–32) provides substantial data about script morphology, stance, and ductus of Phoenician of ca. 500 b.c.e. During this period, the ʾalep now normally consisted of a main vertical shaft and two ticks on the right side of the vertical (a remnant of the horizontal crossbars of previous periods), the mem consisted of four strokes (sometimes less) and it was a schematized version of the mem from previous horizons, the šin no longer consisted of four strokes (or stroke segments) but of three (and now it looked very similar to the trident-shaped kap of previous centuries). In addition, the top-left stroke of the taw became vestigial and no longer extended to the left of the top-right stroke. Furthermore, the top-right stroke had elongated substantially (vis-à-vis the early Phoenician script). That is, as time marched on, so also did the typological development of Phoenician (Peckham 1968). 17 16.  For the scribal apparatus in ancient Israel, see Rollston 2006. The epigraphic evidence suggests that a similar apparatus for scribal education was present for Phoenician. 17.  I am grateful to Frederic Husseini, the Director General of Antiquities of Lebanon, for permission to collate various inscriptions mentioned herein, and to Curator Suzi Hakimian of the National Museum in Beirut for her kind assistance. Most of the drawings in this article are made on the basis of photos by Bruce Zuckerman and Marilyn Lundberg of West Semitic Research. In addition, I would also like to thank Glenn Schwartz and Sally Dunham for providing several bibliographical references. P. Kyle McCarter Jr. and Anson Rainey read penultimate versions of this article and made a number of helpful suggestions. In addition, I am grateful to James Hoffmeier for discussing the cartouches of Sheshonq and Osorkon with me. Finally, my research assistants, Stephen Paul and Shaun Brown, have my gratitude for their assistance.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

95

References Abou-Assaf, A.; Bordreuil, P.; and Millard, A. 1982 La Statue de Tell Fekherye: Son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne, Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. Albenda, P. 1978 Of Gods, Men and Monsters on Assyrian Seals. Biblical Archaeologist 41: 17–22. Albright, W. F. 1926 Notes on Early Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphy. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 6: 75–102. 1941 New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 83: 14–22. 1943 The Gezer Calendar. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92: 16–26. 1947 The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Tenth Century b.c. from Byblus. Journal of the American Oriental Society 67: 153–60. 1969 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Alexandre, Y. 2006 A Canaanite–Early Phoenician Inscribed Bronze Bowl in an Iron Age IIA–B Burial Cave at Kefar Veradim, Northern Israel. MAARAV 13: 7–41. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1995 Les inscriptions. Pp. 19–30 in La civilization phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherché, ed. V. Krings. Leiden: Brill. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and Karageorghis, V. 1977 Fouilles de Kition, vol. 3: Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Beckerath, J. von 1999 Handbuch der aegyptischen Königsnamen. Mainz: Zabern. Catling, H. W. 1977 The Knossus Area, 1974–76. Archaeological Reports 23: 3–23. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1903 Inscription égypto-phénicienne de Byblos. Comptes rendu des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Nv: 378–83. Colless, B. E. 1988 Recent Discoveries Illuminating the Origin of the Alphabet. Abr-Naharain 26: 30–67. 1990 The Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions of the Sinai. Abr-Naharain 28: 1–52. 1991 The Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions of Canaan. Abr-Naharain 29: 18–66. Cross, F. M. 1961 Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., I: A New Reading of a Place Name in the Samaria Ostraca. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163: 12–14. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 114–15] 1962a Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., II: The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165: 34–46. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 116–24] 1962b Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c.,  III: The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 18–23. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 125–28] 1971 The Old Phoenician Inscription from Spain Dedicated to Hurrian Astarte. Harvard Theological Review 64: 189–95. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 273–75]

96

Christopher A. Rollston

1972 An Interpretation of the Nora Stone. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208: 13–19. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 250–53] 1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1–20. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 213–30] 1995 Palaeography and the Date of the Tell Faḫariyeh Inscription. Pp. 393–409 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. S. Gitin, M. Sokoloff, and Z. Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 51–60] 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cross, F. M., and Freedman, D. N. 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Darnell, J. C.; Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.; Lundberg, M. J.; McCarter, P. K.; Zuckerman, B.; and Manassa, C. 2005 Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-Ḥôl. New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Dunand, M. 1930 Nouvelle inscription phénicienne archaïque. Revue biblique 39: 321–31. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos. Paris: Geuthner. 1945 Biblia grammata, documents et recherches sur le développement de l’écriture en Phénicie. Beirut: Ministère de l’éducation nationale et des beaux-arts. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1970 Une inscription phénicienne archaïque récemment trouvée à Kition (Chypre). Mé­ moires présentés par divers savants à l’académie des inscriptions et belle-lettres 44: 275–94, pl. 1. Dussaud, R. 1924 Les inscriptions phéniciennes du tombeau d’Aḥiram, roi de Byblos. Syria 5: 135–57. 1925 Dédicace d’une statue d’Osorkon I par Elibaʿal, roi de Byblos. Syria 6: 101–17. Garr, R. 1985 Dialect Geography of Syria–Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004] Hamilton, G. J. 2006 The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. Harris, Z. S. 1939 Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Kaufman, S. A. 1982 Ref lections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh. MAARAV 3: 137–75.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

97

Lemaire, A. 2000 Les “Hyksos” et les débutes de le l’écriture alphabétique au Proch-Orient. Pp. 103– 33 in Des signes pictographiques à la’alphabet: La communication écrit en Méditerranée, ed. R. Viers. Paris: Karathala. Lipiński, E, ed. 1991 Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990. Leuven: Department Oriëntalistiek. Macalister, R. A. S. 1908 Communication. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 40: 271. Marcus, M. 1991 The Mosaic Glass Vessels from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in Large-Scale Stylistic Trait Distribution. The Art Bulletin 73: 537–60. Markoe, G. E. 1990 The Emergence of Phoenician Art. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279: 13–26. 2000 Phoenicians. Berkeley. University of California Press. Matthews, D. 1997 The Mitanni Seals from Tell Brak. Pp. 47–60 in Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods, ed. D. Oates, J. Oates, and H. MacDonald. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. McCarter, P. K., Jr. 1975 The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet. Harvard Semitic Monograph 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Moscati, S. 1988 The Phoenicians. Milan: Bompiani. Moscati, S.; Spitaler, A.; Ullendorff, E; and Soden, W. von 1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Naveh, J. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1978 Some Considerations on the Ostracon from ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 31–35. 1987a Early History of the Alphabet. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1987b Proto-Canaanite, Archaic Greek, and the Script of the Aramaic Text on the Tell Fakhariyah Statue. Pp. 101–13 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. O’Connor, M. 1996 Epigraphic Semitic Scripts. Pp. 88–107 in The World’s Writing Systems, ed. P. T. Daniels and W. Bright. New York: Oxford University Press. Pardee, D. 1997a Proto-Canaanite. Pp. 352–54 in vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Myers. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997b Proto-Sinaitic. Pp. 345–55 in vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Myers. New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, B. 1955 Excavations at Nimrud, 1949–1953: Seals and Seal Impressions. Iraq 17: 93–125.

98

Christopher A. Rollston

1962 Seals and Seal Impressions from the Nimrud Excavations, 1955–58. Iraq 24: 26–40. Peckham, B. 1968 The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Harvard Semitic Studies 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2001 Phoenicians and Aramaeans: The Literary and Epigraphic Evidence. Pp. 19–44 in The World of the Aramaeans, vol. 2: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Porada, E. 1973 Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 355–72. Rehm, E. 2004 Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern. Mainz: Zabern. Röllig, W. 1999 Appendix I: The Phoenician Inscriptions. Pp. 50–81 in Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2: Karatepe-Aslantaş: The Inscriptions, Facsimile Edition, ed. H. Çambel. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rollston, C. A. 1999 The Script of Hebrew Ostraca of the Iron Age: 8th–6th Centuries b.c.e. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. 2003 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests. MAARAV 10: 135–93. 2006 Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 47–74. 2008a The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response to Benjamin Sass. MAARAV 15: 57–93, 109–12. 2008b The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy. Pp. 61–96 in Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, ed. R. E. Tappy and P. K. McCarter. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sass, B. 1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium b.c. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1991 Studia Alphabetica: On the Origin and Early History of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic, and Greek Alphabets. Freiburg: Univeritätsverlag / Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1992 The Beth Shemesh Tablet and the Early History of the Proto-Canaanite, Cuneiform and South Semitic Alphabets. Ugarit-Forschungen 23: 315–26. 2005 The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 bce, The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. Stein, D. 1989 A Reappraisal of the Saustatar Letter from Nuzi. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorder­ asiatische Archäologie 79: 36–60. Sznycer, M. 1979 L’inscription Phénicinne de Tekke près de Cnossos. Kadmos 18: 89–93, pls. 1–2. Tappy, R. E.; McCarter, P. K.; Lundberg, M. J.; and Zuckerman, B. 2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century b.c.e. from the Judaean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46.

The Iron Age Phoenician Script

99

Wallenfels, R. 1983 Redating the Byblian Inscriptions. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 15: 79–118. Ziffer, I. 2005 From Acemhöyük to Megiddo: The Banquet Scene in the Art of the Levant in the Second Millennium b.c.e. Tel Aviv 35: 133–67.

Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions Walter E. Aufrecht

The Aramaic script diverged from its parent Phoenician script near the end of the 10th century b.c.e. (Cross 1995) and gained strength throughout the Assyrian and Babylonian periods of dominance. Ultimately, it replaced the Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite national scripts after Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Persian Empire (Rosenbaum 1978). The earliest Aramaic inscriptions are labeled “Old Aramaic.” 1 Old Aramaic is divided into groups (Kaufman 1992; 1997; Folmer 1995: 1–5; Brock 1989) as follows: (1) Standard Syrian (or Western Old Aramaic)—the language of inscriptions from the mid-9th to end of the 8th century b.c.e., with a geographical spread within a 100 km radius of Aleppo (Dion 1997); (2) Samalian—inscriptions found at modern Zinçirli in Turkey (Dion 1974; Tropper 1993); (3) the Tell Fakhariyah Inscription; 2 (4) Mesopotamian—economic and legal texts exhibiting Akkadian inf luence (Dion 1997: 22–63); (5) the Amman Citadel Inscription; 3 and possibly (6) the texts from Tell Deir ʿAlla. 4 Clearly, the script(s) of these inscriptions is important and worthy of study. However, there are no comprehensive, full-length paleographical treatments of Old Aramaic lapidary inscriptions. 5 Author’s note: I am indebted to my colleagues Paul E. Dion, John Huehnergard, André Lemaire, and Darren Joblonkay for suggestions that improved this paper in numerous ways. 1. The division of the Aramaic language into phases is useful, if somewhat arbitrary. For discussion, see especially Degen 1969; Fitzmyer 1979; Beyer 1984; 1986; and Cook 1992; 1997. One wonders if the division would be the same if it were based on paleographical criteria. Two recent treatments of Old Aramaic are Fales 2011 and Folmer 2012. 2.  The Tell Fakhariyah Inscription is written in Phoenician script, but its language is Aramaic. See Abou-Assaf et al. 1982; Aufrecht and Hamilton 1998; and especially Cross 1995. 3.  The Ammon Citadel Inscription is written in Aramaic script, but its language is Ammonite (i.e., Canaanite). See Cross 1969; Aufrecht 1989; 1999; in press; and Rollston (in this volume, p. 206), who calls the script Phoenician. 4. Some scholars relate the Deir ʿAlla Plaster Texts to Ammonite. Cross (1969b; 1986), Greenfield (1980), and Puech (1985b; 1987), for example, have suggested that these texts are written in an Ammonite script. Naveh (1967; 1979a; 1982), however, has argued that they are written in the Aramaic cursive script and in a dialect heretofore unknown (see also Hackett 1984a; 1984b). Other scholars identify the texts as Aramaic in both script and language (Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976; Lemaire 1991: 55–57; Dion 1997: 200; and Cook 1997: 181–82). 5.  This is in stark contrast to the voluminous studies of the Aramaic language in all of its aspects (Aufrecht 2001).

100

Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions

101

This is not the say that there has been a dearth of studies relating to the development of the lapidary Aramaic script. There are several important doctoral dissertations, each dealing with different aspects of the massive Aramaic corpus: Byron L. Haines (1966) concentrated on Aramaic inscriptions before 500 b.c.e.; also in 1966, Joseph Naveh completed a thesis (published in 1970) that dealt with the development of Aramaic script from its inception through its late developments in the 3rd century b.c.e.; Larry G. Herr, in his 1977 dissertation (published in 1978: 7–75; updated in this volume) focused on the Iron Age Aramaic seals (though he also outlined other typologically relevant inscriptions of the Iron Age); and Jonathan Rosenbaum (1978) established the typology of Aramaic lapidary script from the 7th to the 4th centuries b.c.e. 6 It is significant that three of these studies were done under the supervision of Frank Moore Cross and the fourth acknowledges his help (Naveh 1970: 4). A fifth dissertation, by George Athas in 1999 (published in 2003), dealt with all aspects of the Tel Dan Inscription but gave an especially long, detailed, and excellent treatment of its paleography in the context of the development of the Aramaic script (Aufrecht 2007). Naveh’s work has been especially inf luential. He characterized the Aramaic lapidary script in the 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e. as “Phoenician-Aramaic” (Naveh 1970: 51), and it was “only in the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e. that a truly stable Aramaic lapidary script is found” (1970: 52). Haines (1966) came to a slightly different conclusion: he saw the two traditions “begin to go their own ways sometime during the latter part of the 9th century b.c.,” and “by the middle of the seventh century b.c. the two traditions were widely separated” (Haines 1996: 490). Rosenbaum built on the foundation laid down by Haines. His primary goal was to establish a typology of Aramaic lapidary script (Rosenbaum 1978: 3). He was able to demonstrate that there was a “development of stable Aramaic lapidary script from its inception in the late Assyrian period through its active history in the hinterlands of the Persian Empire where the Persian chancellery hand could not overwhelm it, to its decline in the early Hellenistic period” (Rosenbaum 1978: 3). In other words, it is not the 5th century b.c.e. but the 7th century b.c.e. where one must look for a separate Aramaic lapidary script (Rosenbaum 1978: 141). And basically, this is where things have stood until the present, despite numerous studies on the paleography of individual inscriptions, many of them by Cross (2003). There are at least three reasons for the absence of an up-to-date, comprehensive, full-length treatment of Iron Age Aramaic lapidary inscriptions: first, the aforementioned size of the corpus of inscriptions; second, the variety of inscriptions; and third, the distribution of inscriptions. In the remainder of this essay, I discuss these three problems. 7 Although Franz Rosenthal’s magisterial book Die Aramaistische Forschung (1964) did not focus on paleography, it did provide a script chart listing some 30 Old Aramaic 6.  These remarks are a slight reworking of the research of Jonathan Rosenbaum (1978), who kindly provided me with a copy of his doctoral dissertation. 7.  The relationship (if any) between paleography and dialect may be worthy of study. It is a valid question whether inscriptions in totally different dialects would be the same paleographically. A good place to begin this discussion would be the issues raised by Folmer (1995: 13–20).

102

Walter E. Aufrecht

inscriptions. By comparison, Rosenbaum (1978) had collated over 50 inscriptions. Subsequently, several more inscriptions have been found: •  the stela from Tel Dan (Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995; Athas 2003; Hagelia 2006; 2009); •  an ostracon, a stela fragment, and a seal impression from Tell Afis (Cecchini 2000; Amadasi Guzzo 2001; 2005; Younger 2007: 139–40); •  2 clay tablets and a limestone fragment (of a stela?) from Tell Ahmar (Bunnens 1996–97; Bordreuil and Briquel-Chatonnet 1996–97; Lemaire 2001: 127–29; Younger 2007: 141); •  61 cuneiform contracts with Aramaic epigraphs written on the edge of tablets at Tel Šēḫ Ḥamad (Lemaire 2001; Röllig 2002; Younger 2007: 141); •  a trilingual Neo-Assyrian cuneiform/Aramaic/hieroglyphic Luwian inscription on a monumental gate lion at Arslan Tash (Younger 2007: 142); •  a stone tablet with an ink Aramaic inscription at Tell Aushariye (Younger 2007: 142); •  19 Aramaic texts from Tell Shiukh Fawqani (Fales 1996; Lemaire 2001: 123–26; Fales et al. 2005: 655–60; Younger 2007: 141); •  26 unprovenanced inscriptions from private collections (Lemaire 2001; Younger 2007: 142–43); •  3 new inscriptions from Zinçirli and its environs (Pardee 2009; Boyd et al. 2009) •  a bronze disk with a bull’s head ornamentation and inscription (Krebernick and Seidl 1997; Younger 2007: 143); •  7 tiny inscriptions on a bronze astral bowl (Lemaire 1999; Younger 2012: 143); •  a stela from Bukân (Lemaire 1998a; 1998b); •  4 dedicatory inscriptions of Hazael on bronze and ivory (see bibliography in Millard 2000: 162-63); •  and a graffito from Jordan (Ababneh 2012).

These will need to be taken into account for any comprehensive treatment of lapidary Old Aramaic paleography. The variety of inscriptions can be overwhelming. In terms of genre, there are graffiti, royal inscriptions, treaties, weights, lists, religious or magical texts, stamps, seals, labels, judicial texts, dockets, and letters. They are incised or written on different kinds of stone, ceramics, metal, and bone. Genre has a relationship to medium, and the medium has an effect on the shape and stance of the letters. It is possible to form a script typology while taking these factors into account, but it is exceedingly difficult. 8 To complicate matters further, the inscriptions are geographically disparate. They have been found in the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Rosenbaum tackled this problem, but his work is now out of date, and it must be revised in the light of the new discoveries mentioned above. For the future, it is a desideratum to have individual paleographical analyses that are geographical and 8. Also necessary for a comparative typological analysis are Aramaic cursive inscriptions (Haines 1966: 493–505); and so-called Aramaic argillary inscriptions such as those mentioned above from Tel Šēḫ Ḥamad and Tel Shiukh Fawqani. See Rosenbaum 1978: 146–50; Lipiński 1993–94; and Röllig 1999.

Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions

103

genre-specific: for example, Old Aramaic eastern argillary inscriptions, or western lapidary stone inscriptions, and so on. Then we would have a more solid foundation on which to build a comprehensive picture of the development and spread of Aramaic writing in its earliest form. At any rate, it should be obvious now why there is no study of Old Aramaic lapidary inscriptions in this volume. It would consume the volume.

References Ababneh, M. I. 2012 Ein altaramäisches Graffito aus der jordanische Wüste. Orientalia 81: 121–23. Abou-Assaf, A.; Bordreuil, P.; and Millard, A. R. 1982 La statue de Tell Fekheryé et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les Civilisations. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 2001 Une empreinte de sceau de Tell Afis. Orientalia 70: 318–24. 2005 Area 1: Il frammento di stele in basalto con iscrizione. Pp. 21–23 in Tel Afis (Siria) 2002–2004, ed. S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni. Pisa: University of Pisa Press. Athas, G. 2003 The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 360. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Aufrecht, W. E. 1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. 1999 Ammonite Texts and Language. Pp. 152–88 in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Younker. Leiden: Brill. 2001 A Legacy of Syria: Aramaic Language and Literature. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 36: 145–55. 2007 What Does the Tel Dan Inscription Say and How Do We Know It? Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 345: 63–70. In press  A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Aufrecht, W. E., and Hamilton, G. 1988 The Tell Fakhariyah Inscription: A Bibliography. Newsletter for Targumic and Cognate Studies, Supplement 4: 1–8. Beyer, K. 1984 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1986 The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Biran, A., and Naveh, J. 1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81–98. 1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1–18. Bordreuil, P., and Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1996–97  Aramaic Documents from Tel Barsib. Abr-Nahrain 34: 100–107. Boyd, S. L.; Hardy, H. H.; and Thomas, B. D. 2009 Two New Inscriptions from Zincirli and Its Environs. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 356: 73–80. Brock, S. P. 1989 Three Thousand Years of Aramaic Literature. Aram 1: 11–23.

104

Walter E. Aufrecht

Bunnens, G. 1996–97  The Archaeological Context. Abr-Nahrain 34: 61–65. Cecchini, S. M. 2000 Un bâtiment mystérieux sur l’acropole de Tel Afis. Pp. 199–212 in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th– 23rd 1998, ed. P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel, F. Pinnock. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roman “La Sapienza.” Cook, E. M. 1992 Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology. Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3: 1–21. 1997 Aramaic Language and Literature. Pp. 178–84 in vol. 1 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. Cross, F. M. 1969 Epigraphic Notes on the Ammān Citadel Inscription. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 193: 13–19. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 95–99] 1986 An Unpublished Ammonite Ostracon from Ḥesbān. Pp. 475–89 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies Presented to Siegfried H. Horn, ed. L. T. Geraty and L. G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. 1995 Palaeography and the Tell Fahariyeh Bilingual Inscription. Pp. 393–404 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies Presented to Jonas Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 51–60] 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Degen, R. 1969 Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Dion, P.-E. 1974 La Langue de Yaʾudi: Description et classement de l’ancien parler de Zencirli dans le cadre des langues sémitiques du nord-ouest. Waterloo, ON: Academic Studies in Religion in Canada. 1997 Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Historie politique et structure sociales. Paris: Lecoffre/Gabalda. Fales, F. M. 1996 An Aramaic Tablet from Tell Shioukh [sic] Fawqani, Syria. Semitica 46: 89–121. 2011 Old Aramaic. Pp. 555–73 in Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, ed. S. Weningerin, G. Khan, M. P. Streck, and J. Watson. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fales, F. M.; Radner, K.; Pappi, C.; and Attardo, E. 2005 The Assyrian and Aramaic Texts from Tel Shiukh Fawqani. Pp. 595–694 in Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998, ed. L. Bachelot and F. M. Fales. Padua: Sargon. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1979 The Phases of the Aramaic Language. Pp. 57–84 in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 25. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Folmer, M. L. 1995 The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters. 2012 Old and Imperial Aramaic. Pp. 128–59 in Languages from the World of the Bible, ed. H. Gzella. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions

105

Greenfield, J. C. 1980 Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla (Leiden: Brill, 1976). Journal of Semitic Studies 25: 248–52. Hackett, J. A. 1984a The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla. Harvard Semitic Monograph 31. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1984b The Dialect of the Plaster Text from Tell Deir ʿAlla. Orientalia 53: 57–65. Haines, B. L. 1966 A Paleographical Study of Aramaic Inscriptions Antedating 500 b.c. Th.D. Dissertation. Harvard University Press. Hagelia, H. 2006 The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on Its Palaeography and Philology. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. 2009 The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research. Recent Research in Biblical Studies 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Hoftijzer, J., and Kooij, G. van der 1976 Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla. Leiden: Brill. Kaufman, S. A. 1992 Languages (Aramaic). Pp. 173–78 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday. 1997 Aramaic. Pp. 114–44 in The Semitic Languages, ed. R. Hetzron. London: Routledge. Krebernick, M., and Seidl, U. 1997 Ein Schildbeschlag mit Bukranion und alphabetischer Inscrift. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87: 101–11. Lemaire, A. 1991 Les inscriptions sur plâtre de Deir ʿAlla et leur signification historique et culturelle. Pp. 33–57 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1998a L’inscription araméenne de Bukân et son intérêt historique. Comptes rendus de l’Aca­ démie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 293–99. 1998b Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe s. av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan iranien). Studia Iranica 27: 15–20. 1999 Coupe astrale inscrite et astronomie araméen. Pp. 195–211 in Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 2001 Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Geneva: Droz. Lipiński, E. 1993–94  Aramaic Clay Tablets from the Gozan-Harran Area. Jaarbericht “Ex oriente Lux” 33: 143–50. Millard, A. R. 2000 The Hazael Booty Inscriptions (2.40). Pp. 162–63 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill.

106

Walter E. Aufrecht

Naveh, J. 1967 The Date of the Deir ʿAlla Inscription in Aramaic Script. Israel Exploration Journal 17: 256–58. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1979 Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla (Leiden: Brill, 1976). Israel Exploration Journal 29: 133–36. 1982 The Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem: Magnes. Pardee, D. 2009 A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 356: 51–71. Puech, É. 1985 L’inscription sur plâtre de Tell Deir ʿAlla. Pp. 354–65 in Biblical Archaeology Today, ed. J. Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1987 Le texte “ammonite” de Deir ʿAlla: Les admonitions de Balaam (première partie). Pp. 13–30 in La Vie de la Parole offertes à Pierre Grelot. Paris: Desclée. Röllig, W. 1999 Aramaica Haburensia III: Beobachtungen an neuen Dokumenten in “Aramaic Argillary Script.” Eretz-Israel 26 (Cross Volume): 163*–68*. 2002 Aramäische Beischriften auf Keilschrifttexten aus Dur-Katlimmu. Pp. 22–24 in K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr Katlimmu, mit Beiträgen von Wolfgang Röllig zu den aramäischen Beischriften. Berlin: Reimer. 2009 Die Inschriften des Ninurta-bēlu-uṣur, Statthalters von Kār-Salmānu-ašarēd: Teil I. Pp. 265–78 in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, ed. M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila. Studia Orientalia 106. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Rosenbaum, J. 1978 A Typology of Aramaic Lapidary Script from the Seventh to Fourth Centuries b.c.e. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Rosenthal, F. 1964 Die Aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldeke’s Veröffentlichungen. Leiden: Brill. Tropper, J. 1993 Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, samʾalischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Younger, K. L., Jr. 2007 Some of What’s New in Old Aramaic Epigraphy. Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 139–46. 2012 Another Look at an Astral Aramaic Bowl. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71: 209–30.

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts David S. Vanderhooft

Scholars have discovered relatively few monumental Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite inscriptions from the Iron Age II (ca. 1000–540 b.c.e.). Nevertheless, a sufficient number of Moabite and Hebrew epigraphs exist to allow the epigraphist to develop a reasonably secure typological sequence for these monumental scripts. Comparative materials are increasingly plentiful and include seals (which, despite their small size, often use the monumental script) 1 as well as more-abundant cursive inscriptions. The epigraphist may also compare the Moabite and Hebrew monumental scripts with the different monumental scripts of neighboring polities, such as Phoenicia, Ammon, Philistia, and the kingdoms of the Arameans, although comparison of this sort will not be the primary focus of the present discussion. Historical evidence for the development of the Iron Age II kingdoms—the scripts of which occupy the focus here, especially Israel, Judah, and Moab—also illuminates paleographical developments. In this essay, I provide a survey of the paleographical evolution of monumental scripts in the Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite traditions in the Iron Age II. In actuality, this confines the survey to the Hebrew and Moabite traditions, since monumental inscriptions are lacking in Edomite (Israel 1979; 1987; Vanderhooft 1995). The survey focuses on paleography and mostly does not propose new or alternative readings for the inscriptions under study. It concludes with some general ref lections on the contribution of paleography to the study of scribal institutions and historical reconstruction. Author’s note: I offer these remarks with a strong sense of gratitude and good fortune. I was fortunate to have been a student in Professor Cross’s final advanced seminar in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy at Harvard University in the spring of 1994. He instilled in me and my fellow students a healthy respect for the possibilities and limitations of paleographical typology. Without it and the instruction of Professor Jo Ann Hackett, I might yet be inclined to wonder if the Siloam Tunnel Inscription is of Hasmonean origin. In any case, my gratitude for the opportunity to contribute to this volume is tempered only by the likelihood that the honoree, who did so much to shape the study of Northwest Semitic epigraphy, would have found little in it beyond minor modifications of his own analyses of Hebrew paleography. 1. Here, I do not treat the script used on seals in a systematic way; the topic will be treated in other essays in this volume. For a slightly older survey of the paleography of seals, see Herr 1978. More recent surveys include WSS; Deutsch and Heltzer 1999; and Deutsch and Lemaire 2000. For additional seal impressions and bullae, see Avigad 1986; Barkay and Vaughn 1966; and Shoham 2000b.

107

108

David S. Vanderhooft

 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  1. Gezer Calendar  2. Mesha Stela   3.  Kerak Stela Fragment   4.  Kuntillet ʿAjrud Stone Bowl  5. Ivory Pomegranate   6.  Longer Royal Steward Inscription from Silwan   7.  Shorter Royal Steward Inscription from Silwan   8.  Siloam Tunnel Inscription   9.  Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David 10.  Limestone Weight Inscription from the City of David 11.  Khirbet el-Qom Cave Inscription 12.  Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the Ophel 13.  Inscription Incised on a Jar Fig. 1.  The development of the monumental script (drawing by the author).

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

109

The “National” Scripts The earliest Moabite and Hebrew epigraphs show that these traditions originally shared a common script and that this common script diverged from its parent sometime around the early 9th century b.c.e. (Naveh 1982b: 54, 65–67; van der Kooij 1987: 113, 115; Rollston 2010: 42–44; for a different view, see Sass 2005). The Gezer Calendar (fig. 1:1; McCarter 1996: 102–3) may show incipient development of features common to this script in the first millennium (Cross 2003: 226); the calendar is most often dated to the 10th century (Albright 1943; Sivan 1998). It will be referred to in the paleographical discussion below to set off more sharply the subsequent innovations in the common Moabite and Hebrew script tradition. In 2005, Tappy recovered a two-line abecedary inscription on a hard limestone boulder at Tel Zayit in the Judean Shephelah (Tappy et al. 2006; Tappy et al. 2008). Scholars immediately began to debate its date and whether the inscription was Phoenician, Hebrew, or something else. Stratigraphy supports a date in the 10th century b.c.e. (Tappy et al. 2008: 5–25). The paleographical analysis yielded differing opinions. McCarter argued in the original publication that the script cannot simply be called Phoenician but that it represents a south Canaanite tradition that eventually emerges in the fully f ledged Hebrew tradition (Tappy and McCarter 2008: 45). Rollston, on the other hand, prefers to see the script of the abecedary as fully Phoenician, from the late 10th or early 9th century (Rollston 2010: 32–35). In any event, the common Moabite and Hebrew script is later than this and becomes recognizable in mid-9th-century epigraphs (Naveh 1982b: 54; Renz 1995: 100–102; McCarter 1996: 91; Herr 1980: 33; Rollston 2010: 42). Subsequently, after the late 9th century b.c.e., the Hebrew and Moabite scripts diverge and develop independently: Hebrew in Israel and Judah; Moabite in Moab. Edomite epigraphs only exist from somewhat later and, as mentioned, no monumental inscription is known.

“Monumental,” “Lapidary,” and “Formal”: Defining the Scripts and Corpus The present discussion focuses on inscriptions composed in a monumental style: that is, inscriptions incised on hard materials and normally intended for public display (regardless of size). The term lapidary is sometimes used for the same script style, but the term should, strictly speaking, be reserved for inscriptions on stone. Admittedly, most of the examples treated in the present essay were incised in stone but not all of them. The monumental script can also be used on ivory (fig. 1:5), clay (fig. 1:13), or metal, so the designation monumental is more inclusive than lapidary. The adjective formal is, like monumental, an inclusive term, but it can be used to describe both monumental and cursive scripts, so I will avoid its use (for a survey, see Lemaire 1992: 1001–4). The corpus of monumental inscriptions should not be construed too narrowly to include only inscriptions whose visibility by a presumed public can be verified on formal or archaeological grounds. Certainly, the corpus of monumental inscriptions includes some publicly displayed texts. In the Moabite sphere, for example, the form

110

David S. Vanderhooft

of the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2) and the Kerak Stela fragment (fig. 1:3) indicates that they were intended for display. This was also true for the fragment of a Hebrew monumental inscription excavated in the City of David (fig. 1:9; Naveh 2000: 1–2). It bears traces of plaster, which was probably used as an adhesive to ensure the text’s stability in a wall or some other display location (Cross 2001: 44). The Jerusalem Ophel Inscription fragment (fig. 1:12; Naveh 1982a) and the longer and shorter Royal Steward inscriptions from Silwan (fig. 1:6–7; Avigad 1953; 1955; Ussishkin 1993: 243–54) were also publicly accessible. The monumental script, however, was also used in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8), which commemorates the excavation of the waterway. The Siloam inscription, located inside the tunnel, could not have been intended primarily for public display. Meanwhile, private dedicatory inscriptions and graffiti in caves, such as the examples discovered at Khirbet el-Qom (fig. 1:11), Khirbet Beit Lei (Naveh 1963; Cross 1969), and several unprovenanced examples (Naveh 2001) also use a type of monumental script, or a rough version of it. Such cave inscriptions were not, presumably, intended for general public display. Conversely, inscriptions of ink on plaster composed in the cursive script could be put on public display (Kuntillet ʿAjrud [Meshel 2012]), so visibility alone does not qualify an inscription as monumental. When the common Moabite and Hebrew script emerged in the 9th century, the monumental and cursive varieties were closely related. Differences between monumental and cursive epigraphs may be accounted for in the earliest phase chief ly in technological terms: monumental epigraphs on hard materials were incised with less pliable implements than the reed brush and ink that were normally used for cursive epigraphs (for the technology of the latter, see van der Kooij 1987: 107–9). Such effects as shading or darkening of lines in the cursive were harder to produce in monumental texts. Naveh, in fact, argued against the existence of two distinct and separate script traditions, one cursive and one monumental, in the Hebrew tradition. In Naveh’s view, one basic script existed, which varied in its appearance depending on the medium on which it was inscribed: “Hebrew monumental writing emulated the cursive style used by skillful scribes, that is, the formal cursive” (Naveh 1982b: 66–69). Naveh may be correct for the earliest epigraphs, but the cursive script tends to develop new features relatively rapidly because of frequent use in administrative contexts. Monumental scripts, by contrast, tend to be used less frequently and do not uniformly or immediately incorporate emerging innovations from the cursive; monumental scripts therefore evince an overall conservatism (WSS 43; Naveh 2001: 206–7 n. 35). This conservatism, however, means that the epigraphist cannot date monumental epigraphs with as much precision as cursive epigraphs.

Absolute and Relative Dating in the Monumental Script Sequence No monumental Moabite or Hebrew inscription can be assigned an absolute date. Several inscriptions may be assigned to the reigns of specific kings, however, and they thus serve as crucial anchors for the typological dating of the rest of the monumental sequence. Two substantial Moabite monumental inscriptions, both stelae, can be dated with considerable accuracy. These are the well-known Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2;

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

111

KAI no. 181; Lemaire 1991; 1994; Dearman 1989) and the fragment of a monumental inscription from Kerak, which may also have been composed during Mesha’s reign and which apparently refers to his father, [k]mšyt mlk mʾb ‘[K]mšyt, the king of Moab’ (fig. 1:3; Reed and Winnett 1963). Historical and prosopographical considerations require a date in the second half of the 9th century for both inscriptions (see Lemaire 1987: 210–14; Naʾaman 1997). The dates for the reign of Mesha of Moab cannot be fixed with precision, but the content of his stela and of 2 Kgs 3:4–27 confirms that he was on the throne when Ahab of Israel died, ca. 853 b.c.e. Dates between ca. 850 and 810, however, have been proposed for the stela (Lemaire 1991: 147 with bibliographical references; Dearman 1989). Lemaire prefers a later date, ca. 810, arguing that the inscription was composed at the end of what was presumably Mesha’s long reign (Lemaire 1991: 149–50). Resolution of the historical and literary problems would not materially affect the typological dating of 9th-century Moabite and Hebrew monumental epigraphs since, as mentioned above, the monumental script is quite conservative. For paleographical purposes, the Moabite stelae may be assigned to about the third quarter of the 9th century b.c.e. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription more than any other serves as a linchpin in the typological sequence of Hebrew epigraphs. Long associated with Hezekiah’s resistance to Sennacherib’s third campaign in 701 b.c.e., the inscription may be assigned to the last few years of the 8th century b.c.e., if not earlier. 2 Misdirected efforts to date the text to the Hasmonean era (Rogerson and Davies 1996) were roundly and rightly rejected by numerous epigraphists (Hackett et al. 1997; Hendel 1996) and archaeologists (Cahill 1997). Other monumental inscriptions cannot be assigned dates on any basis other than a typological basis. Thus, beginning in the 8th century b.c.e., the epigraphist must use greater discretion in dating and permit a slightly wider range of possible dates for monumental inscriptions. These observations will inform the following discussion of paleographical developments. The Mesha and Siloam inscriptions anchor the sequence through the early 7th century b.c.e. and allow us to identify and refine the developments in the common Moabite/Hebrew script of the 9th century and then the Israelite/Judean script of the 8th through 6th centuries.

The Paleography of Individual Letters ʾAlep ʾAlep exhibits a quite clear evolutionary development in the Moabite/Hebrew and then Hebrew monumental scripts. In the 9th and early 8th centuries b.c.e., the vertical stroke is long and, originally, almost exactly perpendicular to the baseline. In early examples, beginning already with the Gezer Calendar, two oblique strokes form 2. For discussion of Sennacherib’s inscriptions and the history of their composition, see Frahm 1997; for a comparative treatment of the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts, see Machinist 2000; for a reconstructed chronology of the rock-cut tunnels in Jerusalem, see Reich and Shukron 2011; and, generally, King and Stager 2001: 213–23.

112

David S. Vanderhooft

a horizontal “V” and meet at a point well to the left of the vertical. In the Moabite monumental inscriptions of the mid-9th century b.c.e., the oblique strokes meet at a point, although the lower stroke in the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2) is nearly parallel to the baseline. In the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl of ca. 800 b.c.e. (fig. 1:4), the oblique strokes meet in a curve rather than at a point, an archaic feature present already in 10th-century texts. In the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8, dated on historical grounds to the end of the 8th century b.c.e.) and the longer Royal Steward Inscription (fig. 1:6, late 8th century b.c.e.), the vertical stroke of ʾalep tends to tilt slightly to the left of perpendicular. In the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, the oblique lines also have changed dramatically: now two short, almost parallel strokes meet the vertical near its top. The upper stroke breaks through to the left of the vertical, but the lower stroke does not. In a few cases in the Siloam Tunnel, it appears as though ʾalep possesses three upper strokes: two short parallel strokes to the right of the downstroke, and a third, short stroke to the left of the vertical (line 5, second ʾalep). This unique form is unattested in the later monumental script. A distinctive form of ʾalep emerged in the 8th century b.c.e. and was first recognized in a monumental inscription by Nahman Avigad; it appears in the longer Royal Steward Inscription from Jerusalem (fig. 1:6; Avigad 1953: 149). In this form of ʾalep, the vertical tilts slightly to the left. The upper two oblique strokes still form a horizontal “V” and meet at a point to the left of the vertical. The new element is a short stroke that runs down from the right edge of the lower oblique back to the vertical stroke. Cross (1962a: 36–38; 1962b: 18–19; see also Naveh 1963: 87–88; Renz 1995: 105) subsequently recognized a wider distribution of the “Avigad-ʾalep,” including in the cave inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei (Cross 1969) and, even earlier, in the Samaria ostraca from the first third of the 8th century (Reisner 1924: nos. 24, 26, 42, 43 [after Kaufman 1982: 234]; see already Cross 1962a: 36 n. 10). The “tick” on this form of ʾalep is ref lective of a wider tendency that emerged in the Hebrew script of the early 8th century b.c.e.: a short f lourish often appears on the right edge of the lower horizontal strokes in the letters zayin, yod (in the cursive, but not attested in the monumental script), samek, and ṣade. The “Avigad-ʾalep” shares this Hebrew tendency and shows that, as the cursive quickly evolved, distinctive characteristics could be imported into the monumental script (Cross 1962a: 36; Naveh 1982b: 91; Renz 1995: 106). Thus, it appears in the Royal Steward Inscription but not in the nearly contemporary Siloam Tunnel Inscription. This form of ʾalep also appears in the incised jar handles from Gibeon (Pritchard 1959: fig. 4:21). Rollston proposes (in this volume) that this cursive ref lex or tick on ʾalep is an ephemeral feature, present only in 8th- and early 7th-century b.c.e. epigraphs. Indeed, he adduces this diagnostic feature as one of the most important clues leading him to date the corpus of Gibeon jar handles to the early 7th century b.c.e. rather than to the 6th, as does Cross (1962b: 18–19). There is a problem in this reconstruction that may permit a different solution. ʾAlep is not the only letter that possesses the cursive tick; in the monumental script, zayin, samek, and ṣade do as well. Forms of these letters with the tick, cursive and monumental, definitely appear in monumental inscriptions after the 8th century b.c.e. Given that all epigraphists identify the tick as a generalized phenomenon, not restricted to ʾalep, is it reasonable to

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

113

suppose that it was lost only from the ʾalep in the early 7th century b.c.e.? More likely, the form with the tick remained a less common biform of ʾalep throughout the Iron Age II, perhaps specifically in the monumental script. If so, the dating of the Khirbet Beit Lei cave graffiti and Gibeon handles to the late 7th and early 6th centuries b.c.e., respectively, may be upheld by proposing that the conservative monumental script persisted relatively unchanged after it incorporated the cursive f lourish. Perhaps the script of the Gibeon handles, mainly incised after firing, should be considered closer to the monumental than the cursive. On Hebrew seals, the more common form of ʾalep remains the form with a nearly upright vertical, an upper oblique stroke that breaks through the vertical to the left, and a short, lower oblique parallel to the upper stroke that usually does not break through to the left of the downstroke (see Herr in this volume). Bet The bet assumes its typical form in the monumental Moabite/Hebrew tradition in the 9th century and remains quite consistent in Hebrew throughout the Iron Age II. It can be written with either four or three strokes in the monumental script (and as few as two in the cursive). The first element is the right downstroke, which tends to remain close to vertical in the monumental script (but leans to the right in the cursive). Bet possesses a triangular head formed by two separate strokes attached to the downstroke: the first stroke descends to the left from the top of the downstroke; the second closes the triangle and can be either oblique or nearly horizontal. Bet also has a “foot” that extends to the left of the downstroke from its bottom. In early forms, this foot is almost horizontal and usually extends just beyond the triangular head. In two inscriptions from Jerusalem, as Cross emphasized, the foot of bet is very long (Cross 2001: 44 n. 2) (fig. 1:9). Other examples of a lengthened foot for bet appear elsewhere in monumental or incised inscriptions: already in the 9th-century Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4); in the word bt, incised after firing on a pot found at Tell Beit Mirsim (Hestrin et al. 1973: 107, fig. 100); and in an extreme case in an unprovenanced cave inscription (Naveh 2001: 203, fig. 7). Often the elongated foot will extend below the following letter, and at times the foot will cut the downstroke of a following letter, if it has one. 3 Bet developed in several ways during the period when the monumental script was used. First, the downstroke often leans slightly to the right. Second, the triangular head of bet can be formed in one f luid, slightly rounded stroke, and thus the letter is formed in three strokes (thus the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl, fig. 1:4). And third, the foot can descend more sharply below the baseline. Even where this last trait appears in the monumental script, however, the foot remains distinct from the vertical. In the cursive, by contrast, the vertical can be formed in one stroke together with the foot, giving rise to a simple, two-stroke form of the letter: the downstroke and 3.  In the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, the scribe allows the foot of bet to cut the downstroke of a following he ([n]qbh, line 1; nqbh, line 4; gbh, line 6) or reš (dbr, line 1; hbrkh, line 5). In the monumental inscription from the City of David, however, the foot of bet is truncated before a following reš and does not cut through it, while it is long and extends beneath a following ʿayin or šin (Naveh 2000: 1 no. IN 1).

114

David S. Vanderhooft

foot penned in one stroke and the rounded head in a second. This last form does not seem to appear in the monumental script, although it does appear occasionally in Iron Age II Hebrew seals. Gimel Gimel does not bear diagnostic weight in an evaluation of the development of the monumental script. It consists of two strokes: a rather long vertical that may tilt slightly to the left; and a shorter oblique that joins the vertical at the top and descends to the left. The main variations in gimel are the length of the downstroke and the angle at which the oblique descends. There is no discernible evolutionary development in these features, although the tendency for letters to assume a left-leaning stance is typical in the Hebrew monumental script beginning in the 8th century b.c.e. Dalet Dalet is an important diagnostic letter. In the earliest monumental epigraphs, including the Gezer Calendar and the Mesha Stela, dalet has the form of a closed triangle with its bottom parallel to the horizontal baseline (fig. 1:1–2). Dalet also has a triangular form in the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl, although the bottom is not parallel to the baseline (fig. 1:4). In the Samaria Ostraca and in the 8th-century monumental inscriptions (longer and shorter Royal Steward inscriptions, Siloam Tunnel, ivory pomegranate, if authentic), the right stroke of dalet, which leans slightly to the left, lengthens and breaks through below the bottom stroke of the triangle (fig. 1:6–8). The triangular shape of the head of dalet is retained and normally remains closed, although it can be penned in one f luid, rounded stroke, as in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8). Occasionally in the monumental script, and normally in the cursive of the 7th century b.c.e. and later, the head of the triangle breaks through to the right of the downstroke (Cross 1962a: 38). He He exhibits more minor variations in form than almost any other letter in the monumental script. In the parent Phoenician script, he possesses an upright vertical with three (rarely, four) horizontal strokes attached to it on the left. In the 8th-century monumental Hebrew script and later, the vertical tilts to the left, a common tendency for the principal vertical strokes in Hebrew monumental epigraphs. The three strokes on the left of the he are slightly oblique, and the middle stroke can be slightly shorter than the other two. With time, there is a tendency for the upper oblique stroke to break through to the right of the vertical, as in numerous exemplars in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8), in the late 8th- or early 7th-century limestone weight from the City of David (fig. 1:10), and in the Ophel monumental inscription fragment of the 7th century (fig. 1:12). By contrast, the shorter and longer inscriptions from the tomb of the Royal Steward (fig. 1:6–7) and the fragment of a monumental inscription from the City of David (fig. 1:9) do not show this breakthrough. As Cross has noted, the form of he in the fragment of a monumental inscription from the City of David (fig. 1:9) and in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8) share an uncommon feature: the low-

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

115

est oblique stroke curves slightly upward (Cross 2001: 44 n. 2; and Naveh 2001: 204, fig. 9). The monumental inscription from the City of David and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, as Cross noted, share a very similar script, suggesting “a special style at home in the royal chancellery in Jerusalem,” or, he speculated, the same hand (Cross 2001: 44 n. 2). Other examples of such a he in the monumental style appear in a cave inscription published by Naveh (2001: 204, fig. 9, second he), and on an incised sherd from the City of David (Shoham 2000a: 18 no. IP 4). The Gibeon handles possess a few hes with this upward curvature or orientation of the lower horizontal (Pritchard 1959: fig. 4:5, 22; Cross 1962b: 21), which suggests that the incised Gibeon handles share features in common with the monumental script. Waw Waw in the Mesha Stela, the Kerak fragment, and the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:2–4)—all from the second half of the 9th century b.c.e.—has a vertical downstroke with crescent-shaped “arms.” Waw then evolves during the late 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e. into one of the most distinctive letters in the Hebrew script. In the 8th century b.c.e., the downstroke thickens and elongates. The left arm becomes sharply curved in a semicircle (longer Royal Steward Inscription, fig. 1:6) or is formed of two short strokes in a horizontal “V”-shape, the lower stroke attaching to the top of the vertical as in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8) and the City of David monumental fragment (fig. 1:9). The right arm becomes a straight line, sloping from right to left and breaking through, usually where the left arm and the vertical meet (Cross 1962a: 38–39). In the Khirbet el-Qom cave inscription, probably of the 7th century (fig. 1:11), the vertical stroke of waw terminates at the bottom in a sharp curve, a f lourish that can characterize the downstrokes of kap, mem, nun, and pe. Zayin Zayin appears in 10th- and 9th-century inscriptions like an uppercase “H” rotated 90 degrees. The upper and lower strokes are nearly parallel and often almost exactly horizontal. The bar joining the two parallel strokes shortens over time and can be vertical or slightly oblique. In 8th-century monumental inscriptions, the upper and lower bars become quite long, are drawn very close together, and are nearly horizontal. A short, oblique “tick” or f lourish appears on the right end of the lower bar and on the upper bar as well in the longer Royal Steward Inscription (fig. 1:6) and commonly in Hebrew seals. This “tick,” a feature seen above in the discussion of the “Avigad-ʾalep,” first developed in the cursive script. The form of zayin just described predominates throughout the Hebrew monumental script tradition of the Iron Age II. Ḥet Ḥet in the early monumental inscriptions is shaped like a box with a horizontal stroke in the middle. The left vertical extends above the top horizontal, while the right vertical extends below the bottom horizontal. In cursive epigraphs, ḥet often possesses only two horizontal bars. Among monumental epigraphs, however, three bars is the rule, although the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2) has the two-bar type, and the shorter Royal

116

David S. Vanderhooft

Steward Inscription (fig. 1:7) may have a two-bar ḥet. 4 The majority of examples in the Gibeon jar handles are of the three-bar type. Again, this suggests that the Gibeon handles use a script closer to the monumental type than to the cursive. Ṭet Ṭet appears infrequently in the monumental inscriptions. It is formed by a closed circle with an “X” inscribed inside (fig. 1:10, Jerusalem limestone weight). In the parent Phoenician script, the circle has a “+” inscribed inside, a form that is also common in Hebrew seals. Yod The form of yod varies somewhat widely in the monumental scripts. In the 9thcentury Moabite monumental inscriptions, the principal vertical stroke is nearly upright (fig. 1:2) or leans slightly to the right (fig. 1:3), while the stance is variable in the Gezer Calendar (fig. 1:1). Yod also possesses an upper oblique stroke that descends from the top of the vertical to the left. A shorter, oblique stroke parallels the upper one and joins the vertical about two-thirds of the way up the vertical. In the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2) and the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4), these two upper strokes are horizontal, while in the Kerak inscription (fig. 1:3), they are slightly oblique. This variation between an oblique and horizontal orientation of the two strokes continues in Moabite and Hebrew monumental inscriptions, although the preference is for oblique strokes beginning in the 8th century b.c.e. The fourth stroke of yod is its “foot,” which extends to the right of the vertical from its bottom. This stroke also varies as to whether it is horizontal, or angled up or down. The Gezer Calendar possesses all three forms. The Mesha Stela has a horizontal foot, as does the later inscribed limestone weight from Jerusalem. The preponderance of examples, however, slope upward. It should be noted that in cursive Hebrew epigraphs, the foot of yod sometimes possesses the characteristic “tick” or f lourish at its right end (as already in the Samaria Ostraca), like the horizontal strokes of ʾalep, zayin, samek, and ṣade. Although this f lourish appears sporadically in the monumental script for the last four letters mentioned, it does not appear with yod. Here is an example, then, where the cursive innovation was apparently not incorporated into the monumental script. This suggests, contrary to Naveh’s hypothesis, that the monumental and cursive script types really were distinct in the scribal imagination. 4.  Diringer (1934: 106, pl. 13:1 = KAI no. 191A) read the first graph as ṣade, not ḥet, while Avigad (1955) concluded it was a ḥet and that the first word should be read ḥd[r] ‘[burial]chamber’ (also see Ussishkin 1993: 250–54). Substantial evidence favors the latter interpretation, as Ussishkin showed, but all photographs I have been able to consult, including in Ussishkin 1993 (p. 251, ill. 185), suggest a ṣade similar to the form in the Mesha Stela but with an elongated lower horizontal and the characteristic Hebrew f lourish on its right end (as in the nearly contemporary Siloam Tunnel Inscription and the longer Royal Steward Inscription). If the first letter is ṣade, it would mean that Avigad’s reconstruction of the next to last letter in this inscription as ṣade may be problematic (Avigad 1955); it could be samek. In any case, the two-bar ḥet is otherwise rare if not absent from the 8th- and 7th-century monumental script; it is definitely present in Hebrew seals, although much more rarely than the three-bar type.

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

117

Kap Kap consists of three strokes. The first is a long, right-leaning, curved downstroke. In the parent Phoenician script and the Gezer Calendar, this stroke leans sharply to the right, but it is straight. In monumental Moabite and Hebrew epigraphs of the 9th century b.c.e. and later, however, the downstroke curves noticeably to the left: most obviously in the Kerak Stela (fig. 1:3) but also in Mesha (fig. 1:2) and the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4). In Moabite and Hebrew, this feature also comes to characterize mem, nun, and pe. This curvature, in fact, is a hallmark of the Moabite and Hebrew script traditions, one that sets it off clearly from contemporary Phoenician and Aramaic epigraphs. Kap also possesses two oblique strokes that form a “V,” the point of which joins the downstroke on the left near its top. This gives the letter its trident appearance. Lamed The lamed in the monumental scripts is consistently penned from well above the ceiling line. The main stroke slopes down to the left, and curves up to the right at the bottom, normally in a rounded loop, but occasionally in an acute angle ( Jerusalem Stone weight, fig. 1:10; Ophel fragment, fig. 1:12). The acute angle may be the more developed form, but lamed otherwise bears little diagnostic weight. Mem Mem possesses a long, curving downstroke like that of kap in the Moabite and Hebrew monumental scripts. The curve is most pronounced in Moabite in the Kerak Stela fragment (fig. 1:3) and occurs regularly in the Hebrew tradition. In the 9th-century Moabite inscriptions, the head of mem is formed like a “W.” In older inscriptions, such as the Gezer Calendar (fig. 1:1), this “two-check” head is rotated 90 degrees to the right. This form still appears in the longer Royal Steward Inscription from Jerusalem (fig. 1:6), which may indicate that this inscription is slightly older than the Siloam Tunnel Inscription. In the latter, the head of mem is formed by a short horizontal stroke that meets the vertical at the top and that is crossed by two short strokes, one at the left end and one in the middle. This form persists throughout the Iron Age II in the seal script. In the monumental inscription fragment from the Ophel (fig. 1:12), the head of mem is drawn schematically with three short, parallel, oblique lines above the downstroke. A similar form, with two short strokes paralleling the downstroke, appears in a Judean jar inscription dating to the late 8th or early 7th centuries b.c.e. (fig. 1:13; Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: 66, fig. 122) and then frequently in seals and bullae (e.g., WSS nos. 229, 232, 233, 251). This type represents a development from the “two-check” type of head in which the right stroke of each check is lost. This type emerges at the end of the 8th century b.c.e. and appears until the end of the Iron Age II, although the type with a horizontal stroke crossed by two verticals persists alongside it, as the seal script indicates. After the 8th century, therefore, it is not possible to make a strictly temporal separation in the monumental (or seal) script between the type with two separate parallel strokes and the type with a short horizontal crossed by two verticals. They appear together, for example, in the corpus of bullae excavated from the late 7th- and early 6th-century stratum 10B of the City of David (Shoham 2000b: 40–41, nos. B18 and B19, with parallel

118

David S. Vanderhooft

strokes; 34–35, no. B5; and 36, no. B7, with short horizontal). Both types also appear in the Gibeon jar handles (Pritchard 1959: fig. 4:26 for the type with parallel strokes). Nun Nun is formed in the monumental script much like mem but, originally, with only one “check” forming the head. This two-stroke head sometimes joins the vertical at the top, as in the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2), and the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4). The preference, increasingly, is for the head to join the vertical below its top, as in the Kerak Stela (fig. 1:3), the ivory pomegranate (fig. 1:5), the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8), and the Khirbet el-Qom cave inscription (fig. 1:11). In the Ophel inscription fragment, the nun has a head formed by two short oblique strokes above the vertical (fig. 1:12), a form that parallels mem in the same inscription. This type of nun, however, is not common in the seal script. Nun possesses the typically Moabite/Hebrew elongated, curving downstroke. Samek Samek in the Mesha Stela has a long, vertical downstroke. It also has three short horizontal strokes that cross the vertical beginning at the top. This form appears already in the Gezer Calendar but also in the longer Royal Steward Inscription (fig. 1:6), where the horizontal strokes of samek are penned above the ceiling line. The Jerusalem Ophel inscription has a similar samek, both with and without the cursive f lourish or tick on the right end of the bottom horizontal (fig. 1:12). In the Ophel inscription, the vertical stroke no longer crosses the horizontals but only descends from the bottom one—a feature that emerges already in the cursive of the Samaria Ostraca. In the cursive, the f lourish or tick on the right eventually appears on all three horizontal strokes, but this does not happen in the monumental script. ʿAyin ʿAyin is always closed in the Moabite/Hebrew monumental script and varies chief ly as to whether it is simply circular, beginning with the Mesha Stela (fig. 1:2); or more triangular, as in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (fig. 1:8), the monumental inscription fragment from Jerusalem (fig. 1:9); and an unprovenanced cave inscription published by Naveh (2001: 204, fig. 9). Both forms also appear in the Hebrew seal script through the Iron Age II. ʿAyin always “hangs” from the scribe’s ideal ceiling line. Pe Pe has the same type of long, curving downstroke as kap, mem, and nun. Its head is formed by a simple stroke that can be either horizontal or slightly oblique. The form is remarkably constant in the monumental script and shows no clear chronological development. Ṣade Ṣade shows a fairly clear typological development. In the Mesha Stela, it has a relatively short vertical stroke on the left that descends from just above the ceiling line. A short horizontal stroke meets the vertical midway down on the right. Another, shorter

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

119

vertical extends downward from the end of the horizontal. A second horizontal attaches to this vertical and extends to the right (fig. 1:1–2). This form is substantially preserved in the fragment of a monumental inscription from Jerusalem (fig. 1:9), although the short downstroke on the right is much reduced, and the lower horizontal cuts through the reduced vertical. In the Siloam Tunnel Inscription and the longer Royal Steward Inscription (and possibly the shorter Royal Steward Inscription; see above, n. 4), the horizontal strokes lengthen, and the vertical connecting them is vestigial (fig. 1:8 and 1:6). In the same two inscriptions, ṣade also has the f lourish or tick on the right end of the lower horizontal. This same form of ṣade appears in an unprovenanced cave inscription published by Naveh (2001: 199, fig. 1). Ṣade retains its “tick” in the Hebrew seal script of the Iron Age II. Qop Qop in the Gezer Calendar and the Mesha Stela consists of a long vertical stroke and a head formed by two semicircles on either side (fig. 1:1–2). In the Gezer Calendar, the head is f lat on the top. The ivory pomegranate inscription has a similar head, but the vertical does not sever it (fig. 1:5). In the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, the head of qop is formed differently: it has a short horizontal stroke meeting the top of the vertical on the left; a circular stroke extends clockwise in an arc from the end of the horizontal about 270 degrees and meets the vertical midway down on its right side (compare WSS no. 27). This form persists in the seal script of the 8th through 6th centuries (e.g., WSS nos. 54, 67, 197, 423). An identical form appears on an incised jar handle from the City of David (Shoham 2000a: 17, no. IP 2). Reš Reš possesses a long downstroke that is nearly vertical in the Gezer Calendar (fig. 1:1), the Moabite stelae (fig. 1:2–3), and the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4). The downstroke tends to lean slightly to the left in later inscriptions. In the cursive, this tendency is even more pronounced, and the vertical stroke tends to shorten and thicken. The head of reš is triangular and closed in the monumental inscriptions, although a rounded form appears in the Kuntillet ʿAjrud stone bowl (fig. 1:4) and in the longer Royal Steward Inscription (fig. 1:6). Reš differs from dalet in that it has a longer vertical stroke, and the upper stroke of the head does not break through the downstroke. Šin Šin is consistently formed by four downstrokes in the form of a “W” in the monumental script. The strokes are of nearly equal length in the Gezer Calendar (fig. 1:1) and the Moabite stelae (fig. 1:2–3). The interior strokes then tend to shorten in the 8th century b.c.e., following a similar development in the cursive (Cross 1962a: 41). In the cursive, the internal stroke on the right side of the letter often becomes practically undetectable, a development that does not inf luence the monumental script. Šin in the Gibeon handles has the form characteristic of the monumental script (Pritchard 1959: fig. 4:21).

120

David S. Vanderhooft

Taw Taw is consistently formed with two strokes in the form of an “X” in the monumental (and seal) script. Unlike Phoenician and Aramaic, the Hebrew monumental script does not develop a taw with lengthened left stroke and very short right one. In summary, the corpus of monumental Moabite and Hebrew inscriptions is richest in the period from the late 9th to the 7th century b.c.e. The latest inscriptions originate mainly in Judah. The monumental script achieved its basic shape by the late 9th century b.c.e., incorporating innovations introduced into the cursive during and before that time. The cursive, however, continued to evolve, while the monumental script remained relatively stable. Within the Iron Age II, therefore, it is often difficult to date particular monumental epigraphs precisely without additional historical or stratigraphic evidence. The anchor of the sequence remains the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, composed under Hezekiah in the last years of the 8th century b.c.e. Particular caution must be used when dating monumental epigraphs through comparison with cursive epigraphs and vice versa. It appears that the monumental script did not uniformly incorporate innovations from the cursive and that it is possible to speak of a distinct monumental script style that was used throughout the Iron Age II and was outstripped by the cursive as it developed more rapidly toward forms evident, for example, in the Arad and Lachish ostraca.

Development of the Monumental Script and Its Significance for Historical Reconstruction Before texts penned in a particular national script could appear, formal training must have existed in the polity, whether in scribal enclaves, schools, or a royal chancellery (see generally Lemaire 1981a). Cross always assumed this in his epigraphic writings and emphasized it in his teaching: distinctive national scripts do not emerge overnight but only after a sufficiently long history of use in relative independence from the scribal traditions of contiguous polities. Furthermore, the conservatism of monumental scripts slows the speed of evolution so that, once the distinctive features of a monumental national script become evident, dating epigraphs in the sequence becomes relatively more difficult. Independent historical data can narrow the range, possibly down to a few years, as in the case of the Siloam Tunnel. A corollary of these observations is that the epigraphist is compelled to posit a prehistory during which the monumental script consolidated and attained its basic form. It is of course not easy to calculate the duration of such a prehistory. In all probability, the origin of the common Moabite/Hebrew monumental script should be pushed to the first half of the 9th century at the latest and probably somewhat earlier. This would allow enough time for the script to come into formal use in the chancelleries of Moab and Israel/Judah before it appeared in the Mesha Stela and Kerak Stela fragment in the third quarter of the 9th century b.c.e. Other lines of evidence from scribal practice reinforce these observations about the emergence of the Moabite/Hebrew monumental script near the beginning of the first millennium. For example, already before the 8th century b.c.e., scribes writing in

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

121

Hebrew had begun to use Egyptian hieratic signs for numerical tabulation in administrative contexts. In Egypt, however, hieratic signs were no longer in use by the 8th century and must therefore have been borrowed earlier, in the 10th or 9th century (Goldwasser 1991; Naʾaman 1996: 170–75; also King and Stager 2002: 311). These observations about the development of the monumental script and the borrowing of Egyptian hieratic symbols bear on the discussion of the relationship between scribalism and statecraft. Some scholars have argued that the Northern Israelite Kingdom emerged as a fully-f ledged state only in the 9th century b.c.e. and the Judean Kingdom only in the late 8th ( Jamieson-Drake 1991: 138–45; Thompson 1992; Finkel­stein and Silberman 2001: 235–38, 245). Their argument rests in part on the fact that few 10th- or early 9th-century inscriptions (monumental or cursive) are known from Israel and Judah. Their argument also rests on the assumption that the emergence of an administrative apparatus connected with a royal court would be coeval with the appearance of datable inscriptions. Inasmuch as these scholars rely on paleographical evidence, however, their argument is f lawed. In the case of the Mesha Stela, not only the script but also historiographical and literary techniques had been developed that point to a well-organized royal chancellery (on the latter techniques, see Parker 1997: 43–60). Similar techniques had developed and find expression in contemporary monumental inscriptions in neighboring kingdoms. A notable example, of course, is the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan, which mentions the conquest of the “king of Israel” and of the byt dwd ‘House of David’, probably by Hazael of Damascus (Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995). Halpern has made the case that the account of David’s conquests in 2 Samuel 8 also partakes of historiographical techniques developed already in the 10th century b.c.e. (2001: 57–72, 208–26). Naʾaman has demurred and argues that, although it is likely that monumental royal inscriptions began to be composed by the late 10th century (Naʾaman 1996: 170–73), the longer, complex texts that we know from the Northwest Semitic sphere all date to the 9th century b.c.e. (Naʾaman 2000: 93–96). Halpern adduces Middle Assyrian models for the historiography of 2 Samuel 8, but Naʾaman doubts such a possibility. He thinks it likely that monumental royal inscriptions in the Northwest Semitic sphere originate instead with the inf luence of Assyrian victory stelae placed in the West beginning with the campaigns of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859). What is indisputable, according to current information, is that the Moabite/Hebrew and Aramaic monumental scripts first find expression in royal display texts in the middle of the 9th century b.c.e., within a few generations of the emergence of these kingdoms (for Aramaic, see already Naveh 1970). What is the likely locus for the appearance in the second half of the 9th century of a script that was common to the Moabite and Israelite/Judean kingdoms? Given the subservience of Moab to Israel until the middle of the 9th century b.c.e. (KAI no. 181; 2 Kgs 3:4–27), the strongest case should be made for Israel/Judah not later than the early 9th century b.c.e. A common Moabite-Hebrew monumental script, then, was in use by the second half of the 9th century b.c.e., and the distinctive Hebrew script can be identified fairly soon after this, as the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions (Meshel 1978; 2012) and the Samaria ostraca show (Kaufman 1982). The monumental script in Hebrew was largely

122

David S. Vanderhooft

fixed by the early 8th century b.c.e., and its diffusion probably first in Israel and then in Judah, with only subtle differences between the two (Renz 1997), again requires the epigraphist to postulate distinctive scribal traditions earlier. It would be dangerous, in any case, to argue that, because datable epigraphs in a distinctively Hebrew script appear only in the later 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e., the institutional correlatives of the script—a scribal chancellery or royal patronage—could only have emerged at this time (so also Dever 2001: 202–4; King and Stager 2002: 310–17). Analysis of the paleography of monumental inscriptions cautions against dating the emergence of royal institutions at the point when the first inscriptions related to these institutions appear.

References Albright, W. F. 1943 The Gezer Calendar. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92: 16–26. Avigad, N. 1953 The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village. Israel Exploration Journal 3: 137–52. 1955 The Second Tomb-Inscription of the Royal Steward. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 163–66. 1986 Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barkay, G., and Vaughn, A. G. 1996 New Readings of Hezekian Official Seal Impressions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 29–54. Biran, A., and Naveh, J. 1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81–98. 1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1–18. Cahill, J. 1997 A Rejoinder to “Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah?” Biblical Archaeologist 60: 184–85. Cross, F. M. 1962a Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., II: The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yavneh-Yam. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165: 34–46. 1962b Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries b.c., III: The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 18–23. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 125–28] 1969 The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei. Pp. 299–306 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. New York: Doubleday. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 166–70] 2001 A Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David. Israel Exploration Journal 51: 44–47. 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dearman, J. A., ed. 1989 Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

123

Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. 1999 West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium bce. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Diringer, D. 1934 Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi. Florence: Le Monnier Dever, W. G. 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N. A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press. Frahm, E. 1997 Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26. Vienna: Institut fur Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Goldwasser, O. 1991 An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18: 248–53. Hackett, J. A.; Cross, F. M.; McCarter, P. K.; Lemaire, A.; and Yardeni, A. 1997 Defusing Pseudo-Scholarship: The Siloam Inscription Ain’t Hasmonean. Biblical Archaeology Review 23/2: 41–50, 68. Halpern, B. 2001 David’s Secret Demons. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Hendel, R. 1996 The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies. Biblical Archaeologist 59: 233–37. Herr, L. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1980 The Formal Scripts of Iron Age Transjordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 21–34. Hestrin, R.; Yisraeli, Y.; Meshorer, Y.; and Eitan, A. 1973 Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. [Hebrew] Israel, F. 1979 Miscellenea Idumea. Rivista Biblica 27: 171–203. 1987 Supplementum Idumeum I. Rivista Biblica 35: 337–56. Jamieson-Drake, D. W. 1991 Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 109. The Social World of Biblical Antiquity 9. Sheffield: Almond. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002]

124

David S. Vanderhooft

Kaufman, I. T. 1982 The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 229–39. King, P. J., and Stager, L. E. 2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Kooij, G. van der 1987 The Identity of Trans-Jordanian Alphabetic Writing in the Iron Age. Pp. 107–21 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 3, ed. A. Hadidi. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lemaire, A. 1981a Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 39. Fribourg: Editions universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1981b Une inscription paléo-hébraïque sur grenade en ivoire. Revue biblique 88: 236–39. 1987 Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique. Syria 64: 205–16. 1991 La stèle de Mésha et l’histoire de l’ancien Israël. Pp. 143–70 in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, ed. D. Garronne and F. Israel. Brescia: Paideia. 1992 Writing and Writing Materials. Pp. 999–1008 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday. 1994 “House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3: 30–37. Machinist, P. 2000 The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian “Other.” Hebrew Studies 51: 151–68. McCarter, P. K. 1996 Ancient Inscriptions: Voices from the Biblical World. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. Meshel, Z. 1978 Kuntillet ʿAjrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 2012 Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Naʾaman, N. 1996 Sources and Composition in the History of David. Pp. 170–86 in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 228. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1997 King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 83–92. 2000 Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 50: 92–104. Naveh, J. 1963 Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave. Israel Exploration Journal 13: 74–92. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1982a A Fragment of an Ancient Hebrew Inscription from the Ophel. Israel Exploration Journal 32: 195–98. 1982b Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes/Hebrew University.

Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts

125

2000 Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 1–14 in Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 6: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 2001 Hebrew Graffiti from the First Temple Period. Israel Exploration Journal 51: 194–207. Parker, S. B. 1997 Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. Pritchard, J. B. 1959 Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Reed, W. L., and Winnett, F. V. 1963 A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from Kerak. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 172: 1–9. Reich, R., and Shukron, E. 2000 The System of Rock-Cut Tunnels near Gihon in Jerusalem Reconsidered. Revue biblique 107: 5–17. 2011 The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 38: 147–57. Reisner, G. A.; Fischer, C. S.; and Lyon, D. G. 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria: 1908–1910. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Renz, J. 1995 Die althebräischen Inschriften, vol. 2: Zusammenfassende Erörterungen, Paläographie und Glossar, ed. J. Renz and W. Röllig. Handbuch der Althebraischen Epigraphik 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1997 Schrift und Schreibertradition: Eine paläographische Studie zum kulturgeschichtlichen Verhältnis von israelitischem Nordreich und Südreich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rogerson, J. W., and Davies, P. R. 1996 Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah? Biblical Archaeologist 59: 138–49. Rollston, C. A. 2010 Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Sass, B. 2005 The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 bce. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets. Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publication 4. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Shoham, Y. 2000a Inscribed Pottery. Pp. 17–25 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 6, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 2000b Hebrew Bullae. Pp. 29–57 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 6, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Sivan, D. 1998 The Gezer Calendar and Northwest Semitic Linguistics. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 101–5. Tappy, R. E., and McCarter, P. K. 2008 Literate Culture and Tenth Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

126

David S. Vanderhooft

Tappy, R. E.; McCarter, P. K.; Lundberg, M. J.; and Zuckerman, B. 2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century from the Judean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46. Thompson, T. L. 1992 The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden: Brill. Ussishkin, D. 1993 The Village of Silwan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Vanderhooft, D. S. 1995 The Edomite Dialect and Script: A Review of the Evidence. Pp. 137–57 in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. D. V. Edelman. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press. WSS = Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals Pierre Bordreuil†

The number of West-Semitic inscribed seals has increased greatly since the beginning of the 1970s. The number of these documents was then at approximately 600, whereas today the number of bullae, seal impressions, and seals exceeds 1,600 (WSS p. 552). This is owing to the increasing number of uncontrolled excavations occurring in the Middle East by “amateurs” whose activities, which have been going on for well over a century now, are both a cause and a consequence of increasing demand by collectors. While collectors of the past worked for the most part from their studies, where they received their suppliers, they now must compete, in the field as it were, with travelers seeking ancient artifacts—especially inscriptions. Tiny items such as inscribed seals are relatively easy to smuggle across borders. One consequence of this strong demand has been the development of the forger’s art, and fake seals are becoming more and more sophisticated and difficult to detect. In the case of authentic seals, elements for a more precise dating (place of discovery and associated artifacts such as pottery) are of course lacking, and epigraphers can only compare them with other authentic seals, which are only too rare because great numbers do not turn up in regular archaeological excavations.

Hebrew There can be no doubt that the number of Hebrew seals has seen a truly astonishing increase, with most items coming essentially from the antiquities market. In 1997, some 400 Hebrew inscribed seals had been published. 1 Today, more than 500 have appeared (Deutsch and Heltzer 1999; Deutsch and Lemaire 2000; Avigad et al. 2000), more than half of all West-Semitic inscribed documents of this type. The disproportion of Hebrew seals is rather worrying, as the following statistics (based on WSS p. 549) show. Phoenician: 36 well-identified seals and 22 items less certainly identified, Author’s note: Many thanks to D. G. Pardee, who very kindly edited the English text of this essay. 1.  There are 399 seals that reveal characteristics of Hebrew seals and another 11 items less easily identified, or about 410 out of a total of 859 West-Semitic inscribed seals. For details, see WSS pp. 548–49. This essay will not take into account bullae and jar impressions—documents that are more plausibly authentic because they are more commonly found in excavations.

127

128

Pierre Bordreuil†

for a total of about 58; Aramaic: 97 well-identified seals, with 18 less-certain items, a total of about 115; Ammonite: 148 well-identified seals and 18 less-certain items, a total of about 166; Moabite: 41 well-identified seals and 4 less-certain items, a total of about 45; Edomite: 7 well-identified seals and 7 less-certain items, a total of about 14. How can such an large number of Hebrew documents compared with the relatively small number of Phoenician, Aramaic, and Transjordanian seals be explained? Present data indicate that Old Hebrew writing was commonly in use for only about two centuries, a brief period compared with the centuries-long persistence of Aramaic writing. Moreover, the use of Old Hebrew writing was limited to a rather small territory, which cannot be compared with the extended area of Aramaic writing before and after the 5th century b.c.e. Finally, in spite of the wealth of the cities on the Phoenician coast, Phoenician seals do not exceed a few dozen, a surprisingly small number. We do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water, however, and cast suspicion on the authenticity of every Hebrew seal purchased on the antiquities market. Nevertheless, the problem remains of an abnormal number of these documents compared with those coming from other ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Consequently, the only way to determine the characteristics of authentic Old Hebrew writing on seals is to examine all the inscribed seals unearthed during regular excavations and to base the chronological side of a descriptive paleography on the associated archaeological data: •  the famous jasper scaraboid unearthed in Megiddo that reads lšmʿ ʿbd yrbʿm dated to the middle of the 8th century b.c.e. (WSS no. 2); 2 •  two inscribed scaraboids (WSS nos. 85, 160)—the first of lapis lazuli and reading lʾsp, the second of serpentine and reading mn—were also found at Megiddo, and both dated to the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a carnelian scaraboid found in Carthage, lywʾb (WSS no. 185), taken from a woman’s marble sarcophagus of the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e., but its script can be dated paleographically to the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a limestone scaraboid from Arad reading ldršyhw (WSS no. 132), dated to the end of the 8th century b.c.e.; as is •  a steatite seal from Lachish with the inscription lʾmlk smk (WSS no. 59), though it did not appear in a stratified context.

Dated to the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century b.c.e. are: •  a banded agate scaraboid from Lachish, lšpyhw ʿšyhw (WSS no. 385); •  a limestone or steatite stamp seal, lšlm (WSS no. 360), from the same excavations but without stratification dated to ca. 700 b.c.e.; and •  at Jerusalem, a steatite (?) scaraboid, lḥgy yšʾl (WSS no. 147), from the beginning of the 7th century b.c.e. 2.  Among the documents not included in this list are three jar impressions from the same seal unearthed at Tel Dan and bearing the inscription lʿmdyhw (WSS no. 692). They are dated by the excavator to the beginning of the 8th century b.c.e. (or end of the 9th century b.c.e.) and are probably the most ancient Hebrew seal inscriptions yet discovered.

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

129

Dated to later in the 7th century b.c.e. are: •  a bone scaraboid reading lḥmyʾhl bt mnm, discovered in a tomb in the eastern part of old Jerusalem (WSS no. 35); •  a carnelian scaraboid reading lmtnyhw ʿzryhw, discovered in the excavations of the citadel (WSS no. 261); and •  from Arad, a chalcedony stamp seal, lbrkyhw bn [. . . y]hw bn šlmyhw (WSS no. 111).

The following are dated to the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th centuries b.c.e.: •  a chalcedony scaraboid, lmbn (WSS no. 224), from Shechem, without precise archaeological context; •  a limestone scaraboid, lšbnʾ ʾḥʾb (WSS no. 350), from Lachish; •  three scaraboids from Arad, two that read lʾlyšb bn ʾšyhw and a third that reads lʾlšb n ʾšyh (WSS nos. 70, 71, 72); •  a limestone scaraboid, plh, discovered in a tomb near Jerusalem (WSS no. 326); •  two stamp seals from the excavations at ʿEn Gedi, one of limestone, bšlm (WSS no. 172), the other of dolerite, lʾryhw ʿzryhw (WSS no. 94); and •  a banded agate stamp seal discovered at Tell en-Nasbeh, lyʾznyhwʿbd hmlk, dates to around 600 (WSS no. 8).

Four seals are dated to the 6th century b.c.e.: •  two scaraboids discovered in Jerusalem more than a century ago, one of black stone, lḥgy bn šbnyhw (WSS no. 150); •  the other of carnelian, yšmʿ ʾl nryhw (WSS no. 210); •  another carnelian stamp seal reading lʿdyhw ʾḥmlk discovered in a tomb at Bethshemesh (WSS no. 293); and •  a gray chalcedony conoid reading lknyhw bn hdyhw found in the Gibeon excavations (WSS no. 220).

Thus, there are 25 total items discovered in regular excavations, about 5% of the total number of Hebrew seals. It is now necessary to stress the importance of the discovery in situ more than a century ago of the Hebrew inscription in the Siloam Tunnel (KAI no. 189). Generally dated to ca. 700 b.c.e. (Renz 1995: 179), as is the Siloam Tomb (Silwan) Inscription (KAI no. 191; Renz 1995: 261), this document was the first to provide the shapes of the letters in Judean Old Hebrew script. All Old Hebrew documents unearthed to this day confirm these characteristics. Because the text was published in facsimile, these shapes could be imitated at will and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription has thus allowed forgers ever since to reproduce the Old Hebrew script that was in use in Jerusalem ca. 700 b.c.e. For this reason, it is necessary here to consider as unimpeachably authentic only the Hebrew inscribed seals that were known before the discovery and publication of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, when formal characteristics of Hebrew epigraphy were still unknown. Here is a list that probably is not exhaustive:

130

Pierre Bordreuil† •  an onyx scaraboid known since 1812, which reads lbnyhw bn šḥr (Clarke 1813: 180; WSS no. 108), dated to the 7th century (?) b.c.e.; •  a burnt carnelian scaraboid known since 1837, lnʾhbt bt dmlyhw (WSS no. 39), dated to the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a jasper scaraboid known since 1846, which reads lʿbdyhw bn yšb (WSS no. 290), dated to the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony conoid known since 1849, lntnyhw bn ʿbdyhw (WSS no. 279), beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  an ellipsoid agate stamp seal known since 1858, lʾbyw ʿbd ʿzyw (WSS no. 4), middle of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  an ellipsoid limestone stamp seal known since 1863, lšbnyw ʿbd ʿzyw (WSS no. 3), middle of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony conoid, lšmʿyhw bnʿzryhw (WSS no. 374), 8th century b.c.e.; a jasper scaraboid, lzkr hwšʿ (WSS no. 143), 8th century b.c.e.; and an amethyst scaraboid, lʿzʾ bn bʿlḥnn (WSS no. 297), beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.—all three known since 1868; •  a quartz biface scaraboid known since 1869, lʿšyhw bn ywqm (WSS no. 316), 8th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony conoid known since 1877, lbqšt bt ʿbdyr (WSS no. 34), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a hematite scaraboid known since 1880, lʿbdyhw ʿbd hmlk (WSS no. 9), end of the 8th or beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  and, finally, a quartz scaraboid, lnḥmyhw bn mykyhw (WSS no. 265), 7th century b.c.e.; and a chalcedony octagonal conoid, lḥšrr bn pnyhw (WSS no. 357), 6th century b.c.e.—both acquired in 1880 and published in 1882.

To these must be added a series of Hebrew seals published by Charles ClermontGanneau (1883), the main part of which had been acquired by museums or private collections long before 1880. Among them: •  a black and white stone scaraboid reading lḥnnyhw bnʿkbr (WSS no. 166), 8th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony scaraboid, lḥnnyhw bn ʿzryhw (WSS no. 165), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a hematite scaraboid, lzkr ʿzr (WSS no. 144), second half of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a carnelian scaraboid, pqḥ (WSS no. 1170 with different identification), 8th century b.c.e.; •  a carnelian scaraboid, yḥzq (WSS no. 193), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; •  an onyx scaraboid, ʾbšwʿ (WSS no. 49), end of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  and finally, an amethyst scaraboid, lʾbʾ (WSS no. 44), 8th century b.c.e.

The authenticity of these documents is obvious since we can be sure that the signs could not have been copied from a Hebrew inscription known before their publication. These lists certainly do not represent the entire corpus of Hebrew seals bearing authentic inscriptions: many seals that have appeared on the antiquities market since the beginning of the 20th century are surely genuine, in spite of the excessive number of

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

131

Hebrew seals as compared with other West-Semitic inscribed glyptic corpora. Nevertheless, because legitimate doubt may be entertained with regard to any given seal that cannot be proven by these criteria to be genuine, it is both reasonable and prudent to use the Hebrew seals known before 1880 and those found during official archaeological expeditions since that time to establish the authentic paleography of seals bearing Hebrew inscriptions—a total of 46, or about 10% of the total 410.

Phoenician As observed above, 36 Phoenician seals have been identified with some certainty and another 22 less reliably, for a total of about 58. None was discovered in recent archaeological excavations. In modern times, the earliest epigraphic discovery was the inscription of Eshmunazor, of which a copy was published in 1855 (van Dyck 1855a; 1855b; KAI no. 14). This may be used as a reference point, for it is difficult to imagine earlier forgers imitating paleographic and stylistic features, which came to be known only with this and later documents. Moreover, only a few Phoenician seals were known before this discovery: •  an agate scaraboid known since 1791, lʾḥtmlk ʾšt yšʿ (WSS no. 1102), 8th century b.c.e.; •  a scaraboid of white stone also known since 1791, present location unknown, bnʾw/r (Tassie and Raspe 1791: 4, no. 34, pl. 7:34; WSS no. 728), 6th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony scaraboid known since 1843, lbʿlytn ʾšʾl mʾš lmlqrt bṣr (WSS no. 719), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e.; •  a scarab of rock-crystal that was purchased in 1854, ʿb⟨dml ⟩kʾ (Bordreuil 1986: no. 29), ca. 550 b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid discovered in excavations at Khorsabad, ʿbdbʿl (WSS no. 743), 8th century b.c.e.; and another scaraboid, present location unknown, ʿbdmlk (WSS no. 744), 7th–6th centuries b.c.e.—both known since 1855.

Other seals may be considered Phoenician, but they are here presented separately because their identification as Phoenician is not universally recognized. 3 These include: •  a sardonyx scaraboid known since 1726, lʾbybʿl (Gori 1726: 70, pl. 11; WSS no. 1122), 8th century b.c.e.; •  and a stamp seal discovered in excavations at Til Barsip but about which neither its present location nor the material of which it was made are known, lšgm (WSS no. 1100), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e. 3.  The signs of the scaraboid lʿbdḥwrn (WSS no. 1041) known since 1883, show close analogies with the script of the Mesha inscription, but these similarities are not sufficient to identify the signs and the document itself as Moabite (see Lipiński 1995: 364–65). On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the sign-forms of these two texts are also good examples of what Phoenician writing looked like in the 9th century b.c.e. It may further be remarked that the iconography of WSS no. 1041 is clearly Egyptianizing and that the deity Ḥ(aw)ron is as yet unattested in the land of Moab.

132

Pierre Bordreuil†

Aramaic As noted above, the total of Aramaic seals is some 115, of which 97 are well identified and the other 18 less so. The terminus ad quem here is 1893, the publication date of the Zincirli inscriptions, especially those of Panammuwa (KAI no. 214) and Barrākib (KAI no. 215). Aramaic seals discovered during regular excavations include: •  an agate scaraboid from Khorsabad, rpty (WSS no. 843), end of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a fragmentary chalcedony conoid from Carchemish, lʾšl (WSS no. 774), 7th–6th centuries b.c.e.; •  and a silver ring from Gibeon, lmrʾ šmn (WSS no. 757 with different reading), end of the 6th century b.c.e.

The following seals were known before 1890: •  a green jasper scarab known since 1791, lhwdw sprʾ (Tassie and Raspe 1791: pl. 11:654; WSS no. 754), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a carnelian scarab known since 1828, lmrʾ hd (WSS no. 809), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a quartz cylinder seal, lsrgd (Gesenius 1837: 221–22, pl. 28:67.bis; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 203C; Bordreuil 1993: 83–84, 85, fig. 12), end of the 9th century b.c.e.; an agate scaraboid, lnbrb (WSS no. 817), middle of the 7th century b.c.e., and another agate scaraboid now missing, lʿzy (Lajard 1837: pl. 14G:13; WSS no. 1116), end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th centuries b.c.e.—all three known since 1837; •  a carnelian cylinder seal known since 1847, lpltḥdn (Lajard 1847: 352, pl. 3:4; Collon 1987: no. 464), 8th century b.c.e.; •  a scaraboid of unknown composition, present location unknown, lmmh (Lajard 1847–49: pl 36:1; Timm 1993: 178), 8th century b.c.e., and a chalcedony octagonal conoid, ḥnky (Lajard 1847–49: pl. 44:17; WSS no. 795), beginning of the 6th century b.c.e.—both known since 1849; •  and an octagonal conoid known since 1855, šmšʿdry (Blau 1855: pl. 1:6; WSS no. 848), 6th century b.c.e.

Five seals known since 1857 are: •  a chalcedony cylinder seal, lʾkrbn br gbrd srsʾ zy hqrb lhdd (Levy 1857: 24–25, no. 2, pl. 1; Herr 1978: p. 36 no. 68; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 124C), beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  another of carnelian, lmrbrk (Levy 1857: 27–28, no. 3, pl. 2; Collon 1987: no. 355; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 188C; Bordreuil 1993: 82–83, 85, fig. 11), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  yet another of carnelian, yrpʾl br hdʿdr (Levy 1857: 28–29, no. 4, pl. 3; Herr 1978: 38, no. 73; Bordreuil 1993: 93, fig. 33, 94), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony scaraboid, lhdrqy ʿbd hdbʿd (WSS no. 751), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; •  and finally, a round quartz stamp seal, lssrʾl (WSS no. 828), 8th century b.c.e.

Three seals known since 1865 are:

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

133

•  a chalcedony cylinder seal, hdtkl (Rawlinson 1865: 229, no. 4; Herr 1978: 37, no. 70; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 51C), end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a lapis-lazuli scaraboid, lsʿly (WSS no. 829), 8th century b.c.e.; •  and finally, an agate scaraboid, lʾḥmh (WSS no. 1104), 8th century b.c.e.

Eight seals known since 1868 are: •  an ellipsoidal stamp seal of unknown composition and known only by a drawing of an impression of the seal, lqtrʾ (WSS no. 1173), 8th–7th centuries (?) b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid, ʿšnʾl (WSS no. 1169 with different reading), end of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony scaraboid, lʾlbr[k] (WSS no. 888 with different identification), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; •  a quartz scaraboid, ḥwr (WSS no. 793), middle of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony scaraboid, nḥm tnḥm (WSS no. 1217), end of the 6th century b.c.e.; •  another quartz scaraboid, lʾḥlkn (WSS no. 761), 7th century b.c.e.; •  an octagonal conoid of chalcedony, lklbydšmš (WSS no. 802), 6th–5th centuries b.c.e.; •  and finally, a chalcedony conoid, lsryhb nbwsmrnd (WSS no. 831), 7th century b.c.e.

Other seals include: •  a quartz scaraboid known since 1869, lʿšyw ywqm (WSS no. 316, with different identification), 8th century b.c.e.; •  and a chalcedony conoid purchased in 1880, šnsrṣr (WSS no. 850), second half of the 6th century b.c.e.

Six seals known since 1883 include: a quartz scaraboid, lhddʿzr (WSS no. 785), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; a jasper scaraboid, lnpsy (WSS no. 821), 6th (?) century b.c.e.; an onyx scaraboid, lhkl ʿbd ʾbrm (WSS no. 752), end of the 8th century b.c.e.; another quartz scaraboid, lmrsmk (WSS no. 1094 with different identification), ca. 700 b.c.e.; •  a round chalcedony conoid, mnn (WSS no. 807), 6th century b.c.e.; •  and, finally, a scaraboid of red stone, yʿddʾl (WSS no. 801), 7th century b.c.e. •  •  •  • 

Also included are: •  a chalcedony scaraboid known since 1884, lyklʾ (WSS no. 791), 4 7th century b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid, lṣdqrmn (de Vogüé 1886: 191–92, pl. 1; WSS no. 839), 8th century b.c.e.; an ellipsoidal conoid of carnelian, lšʾʿd (WSS no. 845 with different interpretation), 7th century b.c.e.; and a round conoid of chalcedony, mnk (WSS no 806), 6th–5th centuries b.c.e.—all three known since 1886; •  an agate scaraboid, lʿbdhdd (WSS no. 832), 9th–8th centuries b.c.e.; and an agate cylinder seal, lʾlyhb (de Clercq and Menant 1888: 181, 231, pl. 30:321; Fitzmyer 4.  Cited without illustration in Castellani 1884: 124, no. 980.

134

Pierre Bordreuil† and Kaufman 1992: no. 128C; Bordreuil 1993: 82, 85, fig. 10), early 7th century b.c.e.—both known since 1888; •  a chalcedony conoid known since 1889, ddʿlh (WSS no. 784), ca. 700 b.c.e.; •  and, finally, a chalcedony round stamp seal known since 1891, lbrky (WSS no. 779), 7th century b.c.e.

These 44 examples represent fewer than 50% of the number of seals generally recognized as Aramean. 5

Ammonite The description of Ammonite glyptics was made possible by the discovery and publication in 1949 of three scaraboids—one of carnelian, reading lʾdnnrʿbd ʿmndb, WSS no. 859), another of brown limestone, reading lmnḥm bn ynḥm (WSS no. 944), a third of black and white banded onyx, reading lšbʾl (WSS no. 973)—during archaeological excavation of a mid-7th-century b.c.e. tomb in Amman. In contrast with the data furnished by Moabite seals, these from ancient Ammon mention several 7th-century b.c.e. royal names known from external sources. The following items are the most important: •  a chalcedony scaraboid known since 1883, lbydʾl ʿbd pdʾl (WSS no. 857), ca. 700 b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1891, lʾdnpṭ ʿbd ʿmndb (WSS no. 858), ca. 700 b.c.e.; •  three limestone (?) scaraboids: lšmʿ (WSS no. 977), late 7th–early 6th centuries b.c.e.; lʾlʾmṣ bn tmkʾl (WSS no. 886), 7th century b.c.e.; and ʾbgdh (Eggler et al. 2002: 276–77, no. 57), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e. (?)—found in excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayri; 5.  The following 14 Aramaic seals meet the above-mentioned criteria for authenticity but are dated later than the Iron Age: a bulla with the impression of a conoid known since 1791, present location unknown, ntn (Tassie and Raspe 1791: pl. 11:663; WSS no. 1158), 5th century b.c.e.; an ellipsoidal stamp seal of carnelian known since 1831, kwmr ʾštrʾ (Wihl 1831: 40–44; Bordreuil 1986: no. 140), Roman period; a chalcedony cylinder seal known since 1847, pgzk (Lajard 1847: pl. 25:4; Collon 1987: no. 698), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e., which Fitzmyer and Kaufman (1992) listed twice, reading wyzk (no. 54C) and pgzr (no. 254C); a conoid, present location unknown and of unknown composition, lhw/nmy (WSS no. 789), date uncertain, and a carnelian scaraboid, ḥmr znh zy mtrṣtr (WSS no. 813), 3rd century b.c.e.—both known since 1864; a round stamp seal of unknown composition known since 1868 only from a drawing, ḥtm nrgš br šrš (WSS no. 823), 5th century (?) b.c.e.; a chalcedony cylinder seal known since 1869, lʾrtym (Levy 1869: 53, pl. 1:4a; Boardman 1970: no. 843; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: nos 135C and 175C; Bordreuil 1993: 76), ca. 400 b.c.e.; a jasper cylinder seal known since 1883, blʾtn (Reichardt 1883–84: 16–17; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 36C), 5th century b.c.e.; a chalcedony scaraboid, pt (cited by de Vogüé 1886: 192; Bordreuil 1986: no. 137), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e., and a carnelian cylinder-seal, krtyr (Ward 1886: 155, no. 1, fig. 16; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: nos. 102C and 107C), Persian period—both known since 1886; a jasper cylinder seal, ḥtm mtrš br šʿy (Berger 1888: 143; Fitzmyer and Kaufman 1992: no. 77C), early 5th century b.c.e.; a quartz scaraboid, ḥrḥby (WSS no. 798), 5th century b.c.e.; and an octagonal conoid of chalcedony, lʾḥmm br bḥs (WSS no. 764 with different reading), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e.—all three known since 1888; and a chalcedony cylinder seal, ḥtm pršndt br ʾrtdtn (Lajard 1847–49: pl. 50:6; Mitchell 1988: 86, no. 46), 5th–4th centuries b.c.e., known since 1848.

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

135

•  a limestone scaraboid from archaeological excavations at Tall Dayr ʿAlla, l...nʾl bn ʾwrʾ (WSS no. 988), 7th century (?) b.c.e.; •  a chalcedony conoid, lhml štt (WSS no. 1109), 6th century b.c.e.; and a lapislazuli scaraboid, lḥmywsʾ bt smṭ (WSS no. 872), 7th century (?) b.c.e.—both found during the excavation of a tomb at Tall al-Mazar; •  a cylindrical ivory stamp seal found during the excavation of a tomb near Amman, lʾlšʿ (WSS no. 916), late 7th century b.c.e.; •  and a carnelian scaraboid from archaeological excavations at Ur, lšbʾl bn ʾlyšʿ (WSS no. 975), end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th centuries b.c.e.

To these may be added: •  an octagonal conoid known since 1849, ltmkʾl bdmlkm (WSS no. 853 with different identification), 6th century b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1857, ltmkʾl bn mqnmlk (WSS no. 985), 7th century b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1865, lnnyh b⟨n⟩ nwryh (WSS no. 1076), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a quartz scaraboid known since 1868, lṣnr bn ʾlʾmṣ (WSS no. 971), ca. 650 b.c.e.; •  a jasper scaraboid known since 1869, lʾlšgb bt ʾlšmʿ (WSS no. 871), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  and a chalcedony scaraboid known since 1882, lʾlhʿm (WSS no. 1105 possibly Aramaic), 8th century b.c.e.

Four seals known since 1883 are: •  •  •  • 

an agate scaraboid, yšʿʾl (WSS no. 937), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; a carnelian scaraboid, ltmkʾl bn ḥgt (WSS no. 983), 7th century b.c.e.; a chalcedony octagonal conoid, lʾlrm bn tmʾ (WSS no. 910), 6th century b.c.e.; and an amethyst scaraboid, lʾḥndb (WSS no. 880), end of the 7th century b.c.e.

Also included are: •  a green stone stamp seal known since 1896, lʾlʾmṣ bn ʾlšʿ (WSS no. 885), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a jasper scaraboid known since 1899, lšmʿl bn plṭ(w) (WSS no. 978), ca. 700 b.c.e.; •  a carnelian scaraboid known since 1901, lʾlḥnn (WSS no. 890), 7th century b.c.e.; •  a limestone, (?) scaraboid, ʾbgdh (WSS no. 995), end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th centuries b.c.e.; and a conoid of hematite, lʾbyḥy bt ynḥm (WSS no. 867), 7th century b.c.e.—both known since 1909; •  a chalcedony (?) conoid known since 1911, lbydʾl bn tmkʾl (WSS no. 923), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a scaraboid of hematite known since 1915, lnṣrʾl hṣrp (WSS no. 866), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1912, [ ]ʾbndb š ndr lʾšt bṣdn tbrkh (WSS no. 876), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  a limestone scaraboid known since 1923, lʾlrm (WSS no. 907), end of the 7th century b.c.e.; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1928, lšʾl bn ʾlyšʿ (WSS no. 979), 7th century b.c.e.;

136

Pierre Bordreuil† •  and finally, an agate scaraboid known since 1945, lʾlybr bn mnḥm (WSS no. 893), ca. 650 b.c.e.

Thus 34 reliably identified Ammonite seals are known today, 11 from regular excavations and 23 that were known before the 1940s.

Moabite The history of Moabite inscribed seals is quite different. In 1868, the well-known discovery of the Moabite Stela, 6 which recounts the deeds of King Mesha, provided a brilliant beginning for Moabite epigraphy, but since that time only a few new texts have come to light, none as important as the Mesha Inscription itself. There are about 40 stamp seals, but the script of most of them is significantly different from that of the Moabite Stela. 7 This fact may be attributable to the progressive inf luence of the Aramaic writing traditions on Moabite after the Assyrian invasion of 732 b.c.e. (WSS p. 372; Herr 2001: 163, 166). For this reason, the writing of Mesha cannot be used to confirm the authenticity of Moabite seals that were known before the discovery of this inscription. The seals that date to before or shortly after the discovery of the Moabite Stela are: •  a porphyry scarab acquired in 1826, lkmšṣdq (WSS no. 1036), 8th century b.c.e.; •  two onyx scaraboids, lkmšyḥy (WSS no. 1032), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; and lšwʿʾ bn špn (WSS no. 1046), 7th century b.c.e.—both known since 1864; •  a quartz scaraboid, lmnḥmt ʾšt pdmlk (WSS no. 1053 with different identification), beginning of the 6th century b.c.e.; one of carnelian, lmṣry (Bordreuil 1986: no. 65; WSS no. 1093 with different identification); and one of onyx, lyḥṣ (WSS no. 1025), 7th century b.c.e.—all three known since 1868; •  a carnelian scaraboid, known since 1969, lḥšk ʾmhl (WSS no. 1059); •  an off-white limestone scaraboid, lḥkš (WSS no. 1058 with different identification), first half of the 7th century b.c.e., and an ellipsoidal agate stamp seal, ʿbdrḥbn 8 (WSS no. 1042), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.—both known since 1883; •  an agate scaraboid known since 1884, bʿlntn (Herr 1978: 158, no. 8; WSS no. 1020), ca. 750 b.c.e.; •  a jasper or limestone (?) scaraboid, ʾmṣ hspr (WSS no. 1007), 8th century b.c.e.; and a quartz scaraboid, lmn (WSS no. 1040), 8th–7th centuries b.c.e.—both known since 1887; •  a milky quartz scaraboid known since 1889, yšʿʾ (WSS no. 1028), end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th centuries b.c.e.; •  an ellipsoidal stamp seal of agate known since 1899, lmlkyʿzr (WSS no. 1039), second half of the 8th century b.c.e.; •  and, finally, a white stone scaraboid, known since 1903, lʾḥʾ (WSS no. 1014).

It is necessary now to pose the following methodological question: since it was proposed above that the Siloam Tunnel Inscription should provide the criterion of 6.  On the circumstances of the discovery, see Graham (1989: 41–67). 7.  See above, n. 3. The evolution of Moabite writing can be observed from ca. 750 b.c.e. (Dion and Daviau 2000: 4–5; Herr 2001: 165, fig. 1). 8.  This reading was suggested to me in 1993 by S. Moussaieff.

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

137

authenticity for Hebrew seals, can we consider as genuine some of these Moabite inscriptions discovered several years after the Mesha Inscription? There are two arguments in support of allowing different criteria for Hebrew and Moabite seals. First, the writing of these seals (which may be considered Moabite because of the theophoric element Kemosh, the national deity of Moab) is quite different from that of the Mesha Stela. The latter obviously cannot, therefore, have served as a model for the creation of any of these seals. Second, but of equal importance, is the discovery that took place in 1925, during archaeological excavations of a tomb at Ur, of a round lapis-lazuli inscribed seal that reads kmšntn (WSS no. 1034). For the first time, in circumstances that leave no room for doubt, a seal with a proper name including the theophoric element Kemosh was unearthed. This leads to the conclusion that the 1925 discovery is as important for the study of the Moabite glyptic script as the Siloam Inscription is for the study of Hebrew seals. Moreover, three letters of this name, kap, mem, and nun, are characteristic of other seal inscriptions bearing names of which Kemosh is a part and which have consequently been presumed to be Moabite. The archaeological, paleographic, and onomastic data regarding this seal are perfectly consistent, and this discovery thus provides a sound basis for research on the Moabite glyptic script. For paleographic reasons, the agate scaraboid reading lplṭy bn mʾš hmzkr (WSS no. 1010) and found in official excavations may be included in the Moabite corpus, in spite of its discovery near Amman—that is, outside what is thought to be ancient Moabite territory. Thus, there are 16 seals that may be considered authentically Moabite.

Edomite Edomite epigraphy is still poorly known, and paleographical criteria for identifying an Edomite seal are not very well established. No monumental inscription has been discovered, and only a few documents bear names including the theophoric element Qaus [Qôs], who is known to have been the national deity of Edom. •  A limestone scaraboid, reading lqwsgbr [mlk ʾd]m (WSS no. 1048), was discovered during regular archaeological excavations in Babylon. Its reading has been confirmed by a bulla discovered in 1965 during archaeological excavations at Umm al-Biyara, lqwsg[br] mlk ʾ[dm] (WSS no. 1049).

To these documents may be added: •  a steatite stamp seal, lytm (WSS no. 1054), found in archaeological excavations at Tall al-Kheleifeh; 9 •  a bicolor stone conoid, lqwsʾ (WSS no. 1055), found in archaeological excavations at Aroer in the Negev; •  a scaraboid, ltw, found in archaeological excavations at Buseirah (Puech 1977: 17–18, fig. 6);

9.  About 20 seal impressions reading lqwsʿnl ʿbd hmlk (WSS no. 1051) were discovered between 1938 and 1940 in archaeological excavations at Tall al-Khalayfah; a seal impression found in 1972 during archaeological excavations at Buseirah (WSS no. 1050) bears the inscription lmlklbʿ ʿbd hmlk.

138

Pierre Bordreuil† •  a bronze stamp seal with a suspension loop, [l]šwbnqws (Beit-Arieh 1995: 264– 67), found in archaeological excavations at Ḥorvat Qitmit; •  and a stone stamp seal, mškt bn wzm, found in archaeological excavations at ʿEn Ḥatzeva (Cohen and Israel 1995: 224; WSS p. 372).

Conclusion Today, with the criterion of discovery during official archaeological excavations or the publication and/or acquisition of a seal at a date in time before that of a notable monumental inscription, we can be certain of the genuineness of at least 44 Hebrew seals, 6 Phoenician seals, 57 Aramaic seals, 34 Ammonite seals, 17 Moabite seals, and 6 Edomite seals, for a total of 164, or about 10% of the total of approximately 1,600. As indicated above, a good number of other West-Semitic inscribed seals to which these two criteria do not apply may be genuine. The best means of putting the latter documents to the test would be to submit them to a scientific microscopic study, as was done with some cylinder seals more than 20 years ago (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1979; 1983).

References Avigad, N.; Heltzer, M.; and Lemaire, A. 2000 West Semitic Seals Eighth–Sixth Centuries bce. Haifa: University of Haifa. Beit-Arieh, I. 1995 Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 11. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Berger, P. 1888 Cylindre perse avec légende araméenne. Gazette archéologique 13: 143–44. Blau, E. 1855 De Numis Achaemenidarum arameo-persicis. Leipzig: Vogelii. Boardman, J. 1970 Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. London: Thames and Hudson. Bordreuil, P. 1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. 1993 Le répertoire iconographique des sceaux araméens inscrits et son évolution. Pp. 74– 100 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C.  Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University /  Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Castellani, A. 1884 Catalogue des objets d’art antiques, du Moyen-Age et de la Renaissance dépendant de la succession Alessandro Castellani, Rome 17 mars–10 avril 1884. Paris: Imprimerie de l’Art. Clarke, E. D. 1813 Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, vol. 2: Greece, Egypt, and the Holy Land. New York: Whiting and Watson. Clercq, L. de, and Menant, J. 1888 Collection de Clercq: Catalogue methodique et raisonne. Vol. 1. Paris: Leroux.

On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals

139

Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1883 Sceaux et cachets israélites, phéniciens et syriens suivis d’épigraphes phéniciennes inédites sur divers objets et de deux intailles cypriotes. Journal asiatique 8th series  1: 123–59, 506–10. Cohen, R., and Israel, Y. 1995 The Iron Age Fortress at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva. Biblical Archaeologist 58: 223–35. Collon, D. 1987 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1999 Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium bce. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Deutsch R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Dion, P.-E., and Daviau, P. M. M. 2000 An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Hirbet el-Mudeyine ( Jordan). Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116: 1–13. Dyck, C. V. A. van 1855a Copy of an Inscription in Phoenician Characters on a Sarcophagus. The United States Magazine 1: 380–81. 1855b Sarcophagus of Esmunazer, King of Sidon. Transactions of the Albany Institute 4: 68–72. Eggler, J.; Herr, L. G.; and Root, R. 2002 Seals and Seal Impressions from Excavation Seasons 1984–2000. Pp.  234–304 in Madaba Plains Project, vol. 5: The 1989 Season at Tell el-Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, D. R. Clark, L. T. Geraty, R. W. Younker and Ø. S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. Fitzmyer, J. A., and Kaufman, S. A. 1992 An Aramaic Bibliography, vol. 1: Old, Official and Biblical Aramaic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gesenius, W. 1837 Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae: Monumenta quotquot supersunt. Leipzig: Vogelii. Gori, A. F. 1726 Inscriptiones antiquae in Etruriae urbibus existantes. Florence: Manni. Graham, M. P. 1989 The Discovery and Reconstruction of the Mesha Inscription. Pp. 41–92 in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. A. Dearman. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Gwinnett A. J., and Gorelick, L. 1979 Ancient Lapidary: A Study Using Scanning Electron Microscopy Functional Analysis. Expedition 22/1: 17–32. 1983 Seal Manufacture in the Lands of the Bible: Recent Findings. Pp. 44–49 in Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte. Malibu, CA: Undena. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 2001 The Inf luence of Syrian Iron Age Scripts on the Writing of Transjordan. Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Mesopotamian Studies 36: 163–67. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002]

140

Pierre Bordreuil†

Lajard F. 1837 Recherches sur le culte, les symboles, les attributs et les monuments figurés de Vénus en Orient et en Occident. Paris: Bourgeois-Maze. 1847 Observations sur l’origine et la signification du symbole appelé la croix ansée. Mémoires de l’Institut royal de France 17: 348–78. 1847–49  Introduction à l’étude du culte public et des mystères de Mithra en Orient et en Occident. Paris: Imprimerie. Levy, M. A. 1857 Phönizische Studien. vol. 2. Breslau: Leuckart. 1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit aramäischen, phönizischen, althebräischen, himjarischen, nabathäischen und altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter. Lipiński E. 1995 Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 64 / Studia Phoenicia 14. Leuven: Peeters. Mitchell, T. C. 1988 The Bible in the British Museum: Interpreting the Evidence. London: British Museum. Puech, É. 1977 Documents épigraphiques de Buseirah. Levant 9: 11–20. Rawlinson, H. C. 1865 Bilingual Readings—Cuneiform and Phoenician: Notes on Some Tablets in the British Museum, Containing Bilingual Legends, Assyrian and Phoenician. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1: 187–246. Reichardt, H. C. 1883–84  [Remarks concerning Seal CIS 2:92.] Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 6: 16–17. Renz, J. 1995 Die althebräischen Inschriften, vol. 1: Text und Kommentar, ed. J. Renz and W.  Röllig. Handbuch der Alt­ hebraischen Epigraphik 1/1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Tassie, J., and Raspe, R. E. 1791 Descriptive Catalogue of a General Collection of Ancient and Modern Gems. London: Tassie and Murray. Timm, S. 1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der moabitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung: Vom Maximalismus zum Minimalismus. Pp. 161–93 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vogüé, M. de 1886 Notes sur quelques intailles sémitiques. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 191–93. Ward, W. H. 1886 Notes on Oriental Antiquities: Two Seals with Phoenician Inscriptions. American Journal of Archaeology 2: 155–56. Wihl, L. 1831 De gravissimis aliquot phoenicum inscriptionibus commentatio philologico-critica. Munich: Wolf. WSS = Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Phoenician Seal Script Philip C. Schmitz

Introduction I present here a paleographic analysis of the script of seals bearing Phoenician inscriptions. 1 The corpus of Phoenician-inscribed seals is a work in progress. Factors considered in the classification of seals include provenience, material characteristics, iconography, paleography, language, and onomastics (Lemaire 1993). None of these criteria is unproblematic. Iconography, while important, can be misleading, because the iconographic and paleographic affiliations of an inscribed seal often diverge. Many seals were probably manufactured without inscriptions. The artisan later cut an inscription by request at the time of purchase, or purchasers had their own seals inscribed individually. 2 The validity of the practice of classifying script traditions according to political or ethnic history is open to question (Uehlinger 1998: 111–13), in part because the variations of letter shape and stance that distinguish Northwest Semitic script traditions have no necessary link to language, and their associations with other cultural traditions are ambiguous. The scribe’s craft was passed on through educational lineages both narrower and broader than tongue or nation. Also determinative were scribal technologies: pen cutting, which determines nib width and thickness, and writing angle, which determines the thickness and shape of strokes. 3 Given the uncertainties involved and the minute text samples represented, my judgments about the “Phoenician” character and date of some of the seals included in this corpus may not garner universal agreement. The Phoenician script styles discussed herein appear on inscribed seals that are published. 4 The corpus also includes some seal impressions or bullae. 5 For comparison, 1.  Where reasonable estimates of the ratio of inscribed to uninscribed seals from a single site are possible, inscribed seals constitute less than 5% of the total corpus. For example, Paphos, Cyprus, 278/11000 = 2.5%; Tharros, Sardinia, 9/3000 = 0.3%; Wadi ed-Daliyeh 4/128 = 3.1%. 2.  For examples of the former case, see Lemaire 1993: 7, 19. Bordreuil (1992: col. 92) discusses the latter case. 3. For a discussion more pertinent to Aramaic, see Daniels 1984. The terminology is diagrammed in G. van der Kooij 1986: 287, fig. 1 c, e, h. See van der Kooij (1987) for an application of this thesis. Yardeni (1990) describes hand motions in writing Hebrew letters; her later analysis (1997: 134–62) is considerably more detailed. 4.  I use the phrase script style to designate the letters of texts “written by different scribes of the same place and period” (Yardeni 1997: 133). On problems of provenance and authenticity, see especially Naveh 1997b: 12; 2000: 10–11; Vaughn 2000: 342; Rollston 2003; 2004. 5.  Not systematically included are Phoenician seals or fiscal bullae from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Published seals and bullae from these periods (Bordreuil 1975: pl. 1A-B; 1995a–b:

141

142

Philip C. Schmitz

I refer to the published corpus of Phoenician inscribed weights 6 and several amulets. 7 I have paid attention to coin legends, although I do not treat them systematically, because they form the subject of another chapter. 8 Were seal engravers literate? Not necessarily, although the occasional inversion of letters seems to indicate that some engravers did know how to write and that the habits of literacy sometimes produced errors. 9 Only a limited Phoenician vocabulary of engraving is currently attested. 10 Two terms, ḥtm and ṭbʿt, refer to the seal and signet ring, respectively. 11 Seal script and some coin legends provide important examples of micrography— tiny writing—also encountered, for example, on the inscribed bowl from Praeneste (Palestrina), the inscribed pendant found in the Douïmés necropolis near Carthage (KAI 73), and on Punic “magic bands.” 12

History of Research An early catalog included drawings of three Northwest Semitic inscribed seals (Tassie and Raspe 1791: pls. 7:34, 11:654, 663). One of the three seals, later studied by Gesenius (1837: 224–25, pl. 31), was probably Phoenician. 13 The excavation of Khorsabad produced a Phoenician seal, probably unearthed in the first two months of 1996; Zevit 1993; Naveh 1997a; Ariel and Naveh 2003; Kaoukabani and Bordreuil 2005) are paleographically distinctive, and their discussion requires more space than the present venue affords. 6.  Elayi and Elayi 1997. 7.  For example, Sader 1990; Schmitz 2002b. 8.  There are a number of similarities between inscribed seals and coins. The technique of coin die engraving derives in part from the technique of seal engraving, and the two products have several points in common: (1) the combination of iconography and inscription; (2) a smooth but limited field for writing; (3) the mirror-inversion of the writing (Elayi 1991: 188). Quillard (1979) explains the technical distinctions between cutting, engraving, and incising metal. 9.  Elayi 1991: 189. Homès-Fredericq (1995) surveys the techniques and technologies of seal production and engraving, and (p. 473) mentions a hoard of jeweler’s equipment from Tell Asmar (2450–2250 b.c.e.). Moorey (1999: 78–79) analyzes Akkadian terms for various stones as well as techniques of seal production (1999: 103–4). 10.  Elayi (1991: 190–91) suggests ḥrš ‘engraved’; cf. Krahmalkov 2000: 198–99, s.v. ḥrš IV ‘engraver’. 11.  Bordreuil (1992: cols. 87–89) shows that ḥtm refers to cylinder seals by etymology and to stamp seals by later usage; the word ṭbʿt refers to the signet ring; cf. Krahmalkov (2000: 200–201, s.vv. ḥtm II ‘signet-ring, seal’ and ṭbʿt ‘stamped seal on a signet ring’). 12.  Praeneste bowl: CIS I 164; Amadasi Guzzo 1967: 157–58 (App. 1, Tav. lxvii); 1990: 94 (no. 37). On KAI 73, see Schmitz 2009b. On “magic bands,” see Schmitz 2002b. E. Acquaro discusses the conceptual and methodological significance of miniaturization in Punic craftwork (e.g., Acquaro 1988: 394, 396, 402); see also Keel, Uehlinger, and Gasser 1990. Miniature Egyptian hieroglyphs also form part of the Phoenician micrographic repertoire. Culican (1974: 198) discussed at least seven examples. Gorton’s Type XV, Group B is characterized by hieroglyphic inscriptions (Gorton 1996: 43–48). Perhaps as many as 20 of these could be classed as micrographic. C. Sirat (1981: 60–66) considers methodological questions that arise in the measurement of Hebrew letters. 13.  The seal is lost. See Levy 1869: pt. 1, no. 19; Galling 1941: no. 102; Vattioni 1981: 180, no. 3. Bordreuil (1992: fig. 1004) reproduces Tassie and Raspe’s drawing. The drawing reproduced in WSS no. 728, is from Culican 1968: 75–76, fig. 8.

Phoenician Seal Script

143

1852. 14 In April of the same year, angry villagers sacked the Phoenician-Punic necropolis of ancient Tharros in Sardinia, sending several thousand scarab seals into private hands and onto the antiquities market. 15 The second half of the 19th century saw publication of several collections of inscribed seals, some of which were Phoenician. 16 In 1868, de Vogüé published 42 seals from the de Luynes collection, identifying 22 as Phoenician. 17 Levy’s 1869 collection included 23 Phoenician examples. Publication of seals by Clermont-Ganneau (1883) and Menant (1886) anticipated the catalogs of Delaporte (1910; 1920; 1923; 1928). Galling’s 1941 iconological study established the syllabus for much subsequent investigation. 18 Vattioni (1981) compiled the first inf luential list of Phoenician seals, but a number of these have been reclassified. 19 Bordreuil (1986: 19–44, nos. 1–39) included 15 Phoenician seals from Vattioni’s list of 104. 20 Gubel (1993) studied a small corpus of Phoenician seals that included several scarabs, scaraboids, and seal impressions not listed in the standard collections. Aufrecht (1995) published a Phoenician seal from the Bible Lands Museum collection in Jerusalem. 21 Bordreuil (1998) published a green jasper scarab with a six-line votive inscription. WSS nos. 712–49, parsimoniously constrained the number of Phoenician attributions. Northwest Semitic inscribed seals from the collection of the Hecht Museum in Haifa, some of which were included in WSS, are published separately (Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire 2000). The Northwest Semitic seals from the Moussaieff collection in London, the largest known private collection of inscribed seals, are also published (Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: 61–62, 14.  Place 1867–70: vol. 3, pl. 76, no. 29 (lithograph); Bordreuil (1995c: 256) favors January or February 1852, but the year could have been as late as 1854. Publications: Levy 1869: 1.3; Menant 1886: fig. 23; Delaporte 1920: K 13; Galling 1941: no. 55; Magnanini 1973: 147, Sigilli 18; Herr 1978: 49, Aram. 104; Vattioni 1981: 187, no. 56; Bordreuil 1986: 24–25, no. 8; Briquel-Chatonnet and Gubel 1989: 88 (color photograph); WSS no. 743. Excavators found the seal beneath a colossal statue f lanking a gate of Khorsabad (see further below). M. Tranchard’s calotype photograph of the gate before excavation has been republished by Dorrell (1994: 3, pl. 1). 15.  The necropolis is located near the Torre di San Giovanni on the small peninsula known as the Sinis enclosing the Gulf of Oristano on the western coast of Sardinia (see Barnett and Mendle­ son 1987: 24 and map 3, no. 19; an account of the astounding event is given by Barnett on p. 32). Barnett observes that “one of the richest archaeological complexes of Western Europe was here wrecked forever.” Gubel (1993: 106) estimates that no more than 9 of the 3,000 extant seals probably from Tharros are inscribed. 16.  On the history of sigillary studies, see Collon 1990: 55–59. 17.  Six of these are included in the corpus studied here. 18.  Bordreuil (1992: cols. 129–38) gives a more detailed history of research on seals, the chief collections, and forgeries. Lemaire (1988: 222) provides a brief summary. Uehlinger’s history of the study of the iconography of Northwest Semitic inscribed seals (in Sass and Uehlinger 1993: xi–xxiii) focuses on Galling’s work and later contributors. For a history of (primarily Bronze-Age) scarab typologies, consult Ward and Dever 1994: 9–24. 19.  Twenty-one seals from Vattioni’s list are included in the corpus studied here. 20.  Note the comments of Uehlinger (in Sass and Uehlinger 1993: xviii and n. 31). Bordreuil (1986) studied only seals from the collections of three French institutions: the Bibliothèque Nationale, the Musée du Louvre, and the Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. 21. See WSS no. 1142.

144

Philip C. Schmitz

no. 110 [Phoenician]; BPPS nos. 96–110). 22 I have selected from these publications a corpus of 63 seals, the script of which, in my judgment, can be classified as Phoenician (table 1).

Reference Alphabets Only a few Phoenician-inscribed seals can be closely dated. Paleography is a consideration in establishing the date of a seal, although rarely apart from the other criteria noted above. Monumental and stela inscriptions attest the sequence of Phoenician lapi­dary script styles from the late 9th century onward. Inscribed stelae from Lebanon (Sader 1991; 1992; Amadasi Guzzo 1993; Sader 2005) provide a reasonably reliable paleographic sequence from the 9th to the 6th century. Anatolian monumental inscriptions show significant parallels for the same period (Kaufman 2007 [Incirli]; Lemaire 1983a [Hassan-Beyli]; Mosca and Russell 1987 [CID]; Röllig 1992; 2000: 178–79; Çambel 1999: 73–81 [Karatepe]; Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000 [Çineköy]). Incised inscriptions (e.g., Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9) and graffiti (e.g., Schmitz 2002a) provide important examples of nonbureaucratic script styles. Throughout this discussion, I have attempted to adhere to the terminology established by Peckham (1968: 3–4). For Peckham’s “formal” script type, however, I have sometimes substituted linear, which in my judgment is a more suitable term. Calligraphic approaches to the study of letters distinguish between linear forms, which represent a conceptual abstraction, 23 and cursive forms, which, being written with pen and ink, show variations in their segments depending on writing angle and nib width. 24 The lapidary forms chiseled into monuments or engraved or incised into seals, weights, amulets, and coin dies may represent linear or cursive forms, or a compromise between the two. 25 The terms semiformal and semicursive describe the results of inf luence of one script style on the other. In formally comparing script styles, I have consulted script charts published by specialists and examined published photographs of inscriptions. 26 Cross (1995) has described the sequence of Phoenician letter forms prior to the 8th century b.c.e. The 22.  Millard (2001: 87 n. 29) mentions a recently published Phoenician inscription from the Ishiguro collection in Tokyo. The reading is cited as lhwrʾ. 23. Generally, “the central line running through the strokes of the actual existing form” (Yardeni 1997: 134). The phrase “skeleton-form” was apparently introduced by the calligrapher Edward Johnston (d. 1944; Johnston 1971). Daniels (1984) and van der Kooij (1986) employ Johnston’s terminology. 24.  The angle at which the nib is cut also affects stroke thickness (Yardeni 1997: 160). Phoenician and Aramaic letters combine four fundamental segments: horizontal stroke, vertical stroke inclined to the left, vertical stroke inclined to the right, and parabolic curves upward or downward (see van der Kooij 1986: 287, fig. g). 25.  I am using “lapidary” to include seal script. 26.  Script charts: Peckham 1968; Garbini 1979; 1988; Amadasi Guzzo 1986: table 2; Amadasi Guzzo and Guzzo 1986; Puech 1994; Röllig 1995a; Friedrich et al. 1999; Sader 1995: 114; Garbini 2006: 94, fig. 3.

[Text continues on p. 150.]

Phoenician Seal Script

145

Table 1.  Corpus of Selected Seals in Phoenician Script, Chronologically Arrangeda No. WSS BPPS Century

lḥdy

Bibliography and Comments

1

738

2

739

9 or 8 lḥdy

First published by WSS. Dalet like WSS no. 741, ysdʾlt. Upright yod could be as early as 10th, no later than 8th cent. (Herr 1998: 57), but zayin indicates 8th cent.

3

740

9 or 8 yzbl

Avigad 1964b; Cross 1966: 9 n. 17; IR 40; Herr 1978: 175–76, Phoen. 6; HD 31; Closest iconic parallel is Vollenweider 1983: 82–88, no. 120. Lemaire 1986: 97 Phoenician.

4

741

9 or 8 yšdʾ

Louvre AO 10882 (Coll. Lehmann); Avigad 1978: 67–68, 69, fig. 2; VSF 99; B 23; Herr 1998: 57, short leg on dalet implies Phoenician.

5 1142

9 or 8 ḥrṣ or ḥṣr

Aufrecht 1995; WSS p. 433, letters of PhoenicianAramaic appearance; Herr 1998: 72, upright reš unlikely in Aramaic; more likely Phoenician.

6 1143

9 or 8 yḥzbʿl

IMC 1 246; Avigad 1968: 49 (Phoenician); Herr 1978: 174, Phoen. 1; HD 118 (Phoenician); VSF 87; Bordreuil 1992: 164 (Phoenician); Lewitt 1995: 70 (color); Herr 1998: 75, probably Phoencian, 8th cent. The yod is paralleled in Wolfe and Sternberg 1989, crater no. 9.

9 or 8 lʾbt

Coll. Mousaieff.

7

9

Legend

96

Louvre AO 9048; Amiet 1973: 181, 184, no. 546; Avigad 1978: 67, 69, fig. 1; VSF 98; Herr 1998: 57, first half of 8th cent.(!): short leg on dalet; yod “starting to tilt”(?).

8

381

8

lšpṭ

Ben-Dor 1945–46; 1948: 64–66; Reifenberg 1950: 29, no. 5; Moscati 1951, no. 17; IR 124; HD 37; VSE 137; Herr 1978: 141, Heb. 141; Millard 1985: 113 (color photograph); Bordreuil 1992: 164, Phoenician; Herr 1998: 55, Phoenician; I think script is Phoenician.

9

730

8?

bʿlḥn

BM 117908. Giveon 1961: 42; Herr 1978: 174, Phoen. 3; VSF 75; Gubel 1993: no. 67; Herr 1998: 57, squat bet fits 8th cent.

10

713

8

lʿzm ʿbd ʿzrbʿl V 2; L Phoen. 3; Galling 1941, 14; VSF 16; B 6; Herr 1998: 56, long leg on dalet indicates late 7th cent. Long descenders are the rule in the Tambourit amphora inscription (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989:12, no. 9 [early 8th century]), but dalet is not used in the text.

11

714

8

lmwtlš hrpd

Lemaire 1991a: 135; Herr 1998: 56, m, w, t, h are Phoenician, 7th cent. I think they have good 8thcentury parallels.

a. For abbreviations, see the reference list on pp. 161–174.

146

Philip C. Schmitz Table 1 (cont.)

No. WSS BPPS Century

Legend

Bibliography and Comments

12

717

8

lʾṣy hbrk hḥtm z

Lidzbarski 1898: 486; Winckler 1899; ClermontGanneau 1900: 190–93; Diringer 1934: no. 97; Avigad 1965: 224–25; Jakob-Rost 1975: no. 185; Lemaire 1977: no. 2; not discussed by Herr 1998.

13

718

8

lʾšlthy hbrkt

VSE 398; Lemaire 1977: no. 5. Rope border, hatched exergue.

14

720

8

lmwnnš hspr hbrk hḥtm z

Lemaire 1977: no. 4; B 38; Herr 1998: 56, 7th cent. (!)

15

722

8

lnnš lbš hbrk

Rawlinson 1865: no. 17; L Heb. 10; Diringer 1934: no. 76; Avigad 1965: 224; Lemaire 1977: no. 1; VSE 76; Herr 1978: 177, Phoen. 9; Herr 1998: 57, cannot be Aramaic; late 7th, early 6th cent. I think best parallels are late 8th and early 7th. Four-stroke and three-stroke šin in same inscription indicate this period.

16

723

8

lphlpš hbrk

Lemaire 1977: no. 3; VSE 399; B 39; Herr 1998: 57, no diagnostic letters.

17

737

8

ḥb

Amrit(?). V 12; L Phoen. 11; de Ridder 1911: no. 2513; Galling 1941: 104; VSF 18; B 9; Herr 1998: 57, script is 8th cent., could be Aramaic or Hebrew.

18

742

8

lytm bn yr . . . Reifenberg 1942: 110; Moscati 1951: no. 40; Herr 1978: 176, Phoen. 7; HD 128; VSE 158; WSS p. 276, use of a patronymic implies Ammonite. L, Y, T clearly Phoenician. Cf. Frankel and Ventura.

19

743

8

ʿbdbʿl

Longpérier 1855: 422; Place 1867–70: vol. 3, pl. 76, no. 29 [lithograph]; L Aram. 3; Delaporte 1920: K13; Herr 1978: 49, Aram. 104 (Aramaic or Phoenician); VSF 56; B 8; short leg on dalet indicates 8th cent. (Herr 1998: 57). Date is no later than 706 b.c.e. (Bordreuil 1995c: 256–58).

20 1083

8

lḥnʾ

Reifenberg 1950: 45, no. 42; HD 126 (Phoenician); Herr 1978: 45–46, Aram. 93 (could be Phoenician); VSF 1083; Herr 1998: 70, script completely undiagnositic, except straight leg on nun rules out southern scripts.

21 1084

8

lḥnn

Avigad 1961: 240–41; HD 123 (Phoen.); VSF 77; cf. Herr 1998: 70, regarding WSS no. 1083.

22 1088

8

krwʾz

Rock crystal, ring-mounted. Syria? Boissier 1939: 63; Vollenweider 1967: 115, no. 145; pl. 60:1–4; Lemaire 1985: 32–33 (late 8th or early 7th cent.; Herr 1998: 70, large head on waw suggests Phoenician. I think script parallels are with Lemaire 1977, “North Syrian” group.

Phoenician Seal Script

147

Table 1 (cont.) No. WSS BPPS Century

Legend

Bibliography and Comments

23 1099

8

lrgm

Bone. B 22; Gubel 1993: no. 45; WSS p. 415, Phoenician or Ammonite. Not discussed in Herr 1998. Upward-sloping baseline of mem is paralleled in “North Syrian” seals (Lemaire 1977).

24 1139

8

lzyʾ

B 13; Gubel 1993: no. 32; Naveh 1988: 115 (unintelligible); Herr 1998: 72, script could be Phoenician or Aramaic. Inverted dextrograde inscription; zayin is reversed, yod poorly cut. Script is Phoenician.

25 1148

8

lmlk ṣrm

Louvre AO 3175, definitely Phoenician, mid8th cent. Delaporte 1923: 207, A 1140; Galling 1941: 80; VSA 108; Lemaire 1976: 89, no. 5 (mlkrm); Herr 1978: 176, Phoen. 8; B 7 (reading lmlkhrm); 1998: 73, Aramaic; Naveh 1988: 115 (mlkrm); Herr 1998: 73 Aramaic; 700–650(!). Reyes 2001: 81, no. 121 (reported lost here[?]);

26 1181

8

lšmʿ

B 21; Gubel 1993: no. 46; Herr 1998: 74, Phoenician or Aramaic, 8th cent.

8

lmlkyšʿ

Coll. Mousaieff. The mem is like the cursive mem in Nora stela inscription, line 4.

27

102

28

724

8 or 7 lʾbʿd bn zkr

V 14; only the drawing by de Vogüé (engraved by L. Daedel) is available (1868: 437). His drawings of extant inscribed seals are highly accurate. VSF 20.

29

745

8 or 7 ʿḥr

Tharros. Garrucci 1861 (WSS bibliography, 1858!); Pesce 1961: fig. 13:5; VSF 11; Hölbl 1986: 323–24; Herr 1998: 57, Phoenician, 8th–6th cent.; upright ḥet favors 8th cent. I agree.

30 1086

8 or 7 lkpr

V 17; L Phoen. 15; de Ridder 1911: no. 2514; Galling 1941: 87; VSA 29; Herr 1978: 180, Phoen. 18; B 24; Hübner and Knauf 1994: 83 (Phoenician); WSS p. 410, script could be Phoenician, Aramaic, or Ammonite; Herr 1998: 70, kap is not Ammonite. If Aramaic, 8th cent.; if Phoenician, 8th or 7th cent. I think script // WSS no. 1087; CAI 2 8b.

31 1087

8 or 7 lkpr

IMC 1 (1965): 246; HD 99 (Ammonite); CAI 107; CAI 2 107; Hübner and Knauf 1994: 83 (Phoenician); Lewitt 1995: 70 (color); Herr 1998: 70, same script as WSS no. 1086 (= B24). I agree.

32 1090

8 or 7 lmksp

Avigad 1978: 68, 69, fig. 3 (Phoenician, 8th or 7th cent.); VSF 100; Bordreuil and Gubel 1986: 429, no. 34 (Bordreuil reads mksr); Bordreuil 1992: 165 restores m[l]k[ʾ]sp; Gubel 1993: no. 51; Herr 1998: 70, samek and kap fit 8th-century Aramaic better than Phoenician. I think mem could be Phoenician; cf. WSS no. 1142, same motif (Schmitz 2009a: 70).

148

Philip C. Schmitz Table 1 (cont.)

No. WSS BPPS Century

Legend

8 or 7 lʾlʾmr

33 1124

Bibliography and Comments Megiddo. May 1935–36; Galling 1941: 15; Megiddo I, pl. 67:34; Moscati 1951: no. 14; VSE 136; Herr 1978: 180–81, Phoen. 19; Bordreuil 1992: 164 (Phoenician); Ussishkin 1994: 423–24 (10th cent.?); WSS p. 427, could be Phoenician, Aramaic, or Hebrew; Herr 1998: 72, mem fits Aramaic best [but also Phoenician; note Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: crater no. 9]; if Aramaic, late 8th or early 7th cent. Curved lamed and square mem without descender are typical of Phoenician.

34

721

7

ḥtm mnn brk bʿl

V 21; L Phoen. 14; drawing only. VSA 17; Herr 1998: 56, late 8th or early 7th cent.

35

731

7

lbʿlḥnn

BM 134887. Barnett 1967: 58; Herr 1998: 57, square ʿayin indicates 9th cent.

36

734

7

lgrmlk

De Ridder 1911: no. 2508; Herr 1978: 178, Phoen. 12; VSF 51; B 15; Herr 1998: 57, Aramaic or Phoenician, 8th or 7th cent.

37

747

7

lpṭʾs

Samaria(?). Jerusalem, IAA 44.319. Ben-Dor 1945–46; Reifenberg 1950: 31, no. 9; Moscati 1951, no. 12; HD 41 (Hebrew); VSE 134; Herr 1978: 30, Aram. 48; Lemaire 1983b: 30; Lemaire 1986: 93–94 (Phoenician); Naveh in Tigay 1986: 72 n. 45; WSS p. 278, defective writing favors a Phoenician origin; Herr 1998: 59, single-bar ṭet not diagnostic. I’m not aware of a Phoenician single-bar ṭet from the 8th cent. In 7th cent., CID.

38 1096

7

lʿglt

Elayi 1988: no. 2; Bordreuil 1992: 166 (Phoenician); Gubel 1993: no. 54; WSS p. 414, no comment on script; Herr 1998: 70, probably Aramaic, early 7th cent.

39 1174

7

lrpʾ

Reifenberg 1950: 41, no. 32: HD 121 (Phoenician); VSF 69; Bordreuil 1992: 166 (Phoenician); Herr 1998: 74, bent lamed paralleled in Hassan-Beyli. Clockwise rotation of stance could be to save space.

7

ʿbdmlk

Coll. Mousaieff. Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: no. 110; BPPS, 8th cent. Retrograde positive inscription.

7

šrb

Amrit. V 20; Levy 1869: Phoen. 18; de Ridder 1911: no. 2506; reš is reversed; Herr 1978: 179, Phoen. 14 (reading šsb); B 31: šin is reversed; WSS p. 279, šin was cut positive; Naveh 1988: 115, unintelligible. N.B. Type 3 šin; cf. WSS no. 736, also Type 3 šin.

40

100

41

749

42

726

7 or 6 lbdbʿl

Avigad 1985: 2–3; Gubel 1993: no. 25; Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire 2000: 121, no. 98; Herr 1998: 57, long leg on dalet indicates 7th or 6th cent.

Phoenician Seal Script

149

Table 1 (cont.) No. WSS BPPS Century

Legend

Bibliography and Comments

43

728

7 or 6 bn ʾk?

Tassie and Raspe 1791: pls. 7:34, 11:654, 663; Gesenius 1837: 224; Pietschman 1899: 273; Galling 1941: 102; Culican 1968: 75–76; VSF 3; Bordreuil 1992: 95–96, pl. 1004, fig. 6. Drawing only. Iconographic parallel is Reyes 2001: 112, no. 243, fig. 258.

44

733

7 or 6 grʾšmn bn ḥmlk

Uberti 1977: 37, 39–41, no. 2; VSF 93; Pernigotti 1983; Moscati 1988: 528 (color photograph); Gubel 1993: 111–12, fig. 21; Herr 1998: 57, late 7th or early 6th cent.

45

736

7 or 6 lgršd

De Vogüé 1867: 161, gdsd (drawing); Levy 1869: Phoen. 10; de Ridder 1911: no. 2756; Galling 1941: 104; VSF 26; B 26; Gubel 1993: no. 41; WSS p. 274, allegedly from Tyre. Reyes 2001: 82, no. 122, fig. 144 (“Beirut”[?]). Note the Type 3 šin.

7 or 6 lʾšnyhw

Bordreuil 1992: 139, 165; WSS p. 402, Yahwistic name in Phoenician script; Herr 1998: 69, yod and curved šin typical of 6th- or 5th-century Phoenician, although ʾalep unusual. Plasticine impression only.

46 1070

6

lmlk ṣrpt

47

712

48

725

49

727

6

lbytlpn

Virolleaud 1924: 115; Bordreuil 1992: 136. Drawing only.

50

735

6

grʿštrt

CG 15; de Ridder 1911: no. 2504; Galling 1941: 101; Herr 1978: 178, Phoen. 13; VSF 28; B 25; Gubel 1993: no. 42; Herr 1998: 57, three-stroke šin and taw with tick indicate 6th or 5th cent.

51

744

6

ʿbdmlk

Longpérier 1855: 426 (drawing only); Levy 1869: Aram. 14; Galling 1941: 25; VSF 35; Herr 1998: 57, advanced mem indicates 6th cent. Beirut ostracon Bey 003 787, 95.120 provides a mid-7th-century cursive mem (Badre 1997: 91, fig. 47d).

7 or 6 bš

Bordreuil 1991: 465–68; Elayi 1995: 43–44; Herr 1998: 56, tick on taw diagnostic for 6th cent. The letter ṣade is cut in reverse. CG 19; de Ridder 1911: no. 2507; Galling 1941: 110; Herr 1978: 180, Phoen. 17 (reading bl); VSF 31; B 28; Naveh 1988: 115 (unintelligible). Herr 1998: 57 not enough letters for good analysis; 8th or 7th cent. For iconographic context, see Beazley Archive: Gems—Classical Phoenician Scarab Corpus, no. 26/34 (http://www.beazley.ox.ac​.uk/Gems/ Scarabs/Script/Scarab3.14.htm). The enlarged image of the impression available at this site resolves the reading of the second letter as šin (Barak and Amorai-Stark 1989: 335). The letters were cut in normal sinistrograde orientation on the seal, producing a reversed impression.

150

Philip C. Schmitz Table 1 (cont.)

No. WSS BPPS Century 52

746

53

6

98

Legend ʿštrtʿz

6 or 5 mlkšmš

Bibliography and Comments CG 16; de Ridder 1911: no. 2510; RES 896 (Phoenician); Herr 1978: 179, Phoen. 16; VSF 29; B 17: (first half of 7th cent.); Lemaire 1991–92: 78 n. 67, late 9th or early 8th cent.; Herr 1998: 57, ca. 600; cf. Frankel and Ventura 1998: 46, letters 21, 33 (taw). Coll. Mousaieff. Lemaire 1990: no. 3. Initial mem is reversed (or is it yod ?). Mid-6th to early 5th cent.

54

719

5

lbʿlytn ʾš ʾlm ʾš lmlqrt ršp

De Vogüé 1867: 165 (reads lines 3–4 mlqrt rṣp); Cooke 1903: 361; Herr 1978: 175, Phoen. 5; VSF 25; Bordreuil 1992: 105–6, pl. 1006, fig. 17. Second-last letter in line 4 is a Type 3 šin (Puech 1986: 338).

55

732

5

bʿlysp

Avigad 1964a: 194; VSE 219; Herr 1978: 175, Phoen. 4; Keel 1997: Akko 1; Herr 1998: 57, 5th century.

56

5

ḥnʾ bn ʾrš

Levy 1869: 53–54, pl. 2:18; B 32.

57

5

ʿn

Herakles, Greek style. Dated by iconography. B 33.

58

5

ʿn

Hoplite, Greek style. Dated by iconography. B 34.

59

5

lʾrdy

Coll. Henri Seyrig, 1973, 1.483/3. Gold. Athanassiou 1977: 310–13, no. 197 (Aramaic), 628–29, pls. 262–63 ; B 35. Dated by Quillard (B. p. 41 n. 6). Name is Persian. Lettering is applied gold wire.

60

5

lʾlm lʿštrt rbt gbl ʾš pʿlt ʾt nʿm lʿm zʾ

Bordreuil 1998 (ca. 450 b.c.e.). No legible image available to me.

61 62 63

101

5 or 4 mrt

Coll. Mousaieff. No legible image available to me.

5 or 4 brg

Lemaire 1986: no. 1; Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire 2000: 122, no. 99. No legible image available to me.

4

hkblš

Gk. Ekbolos, “archer” (Apollo; from notes of Clermont-Ganneau), B. p. 41, no. 36.

comparative study of Judean, Israelite, and Phoenician scripts by Briquel-Chatonnet (1993) highlights broad tendencies. Amadasi Guzzo has published several important paleographical studies of Phoenician (1986 [with P. G. Guzzo]; 1987; 1990a; 1990b; 1993; 1994; 1996). Davila and Zuckerman (1993) have achieved a more precise description of the late Tyrian series. 27 27. J. Elayi (1992) has made a preliminary paleographic synthesis of Phoenician coin legends. Four additional coin hoards are cataloged in Elayi and Elayi 1996. On graffiti and countermarks on coins, see Elayi and Elayi 1993: 308–21 and, more comprehensively, Elayi and Lemaire 1998, figs. 1–14 (script charts). For inscriptions on Phoenician weights and similar objects, see Elayi and Elayi 1997: 369–77, figs. 1–9 (facsimiles); 378–79, figs. 10–11 (paleographic tables).

Phoenician Seal Script

151

Attribution and Authenticity A hard limestone scaraboid found near Kibbutz Revadim in Israel, 3 km west of Tel Miqne (IAA 80–891), could be one of the earliest Northwest Semitic inscribed seals. Giveon (1961: 38–39) dated it in the 8th or 7th century. Cross (1962) dated it on paleographic grounds to the 12th century b.c.e. Sass (1983) argued a 10th- or 9th-century date on both iconographic and paleographic grounds. 28 The seal’s findspot recommends classification as Philistine (Garbini 1986; Singer 1994: 335; WSS no. 1067; Herr 1998: 69; Lemaire 2000: 246, no. 32). The script style is historically Phoenician, but other possible parallels are discernible in Philistine inscriptions (e.g. Gitin 1993: 251, fig. 2a [ʾalep]; fig. 3b [bet]). 29 Because of its uncertain affiliation, I have not included the Revadim seal in the corpus. The 8th-century agate scaraboid from Khorsabad already mentioned (Bordreuil 1986: 24–25, no. 8; WSS no. 743) is one of the few seals with a reasonably well-documented archaeological context. Its latest possible date of manufacture is 706 b.c.e. 30 The inscription, ʿbdbʿl, is expertly engraved. 31 Its script was formerly classified as Aramaic (e.g., Levy 1869, Aramaic 3; Herr 1978: 49, Aramaic 104), but since Vattioni’s important list (1981), the script is generally classed as Phoenician. Bordreuil (1986: 25) observed the close paleographic parallels of the Khorsabad seal with the Hassan-Beyli inscription (KAI 23; Lemaire 1983). For example, the inscription on WSS no. 743 has two variant forms of the letter bet: the horizontal stroke at the bottom of the first bet is at right angles with the vertical stroke, whereas in the second bet the bottom stroke is angled downward. The Hassan-Beyli inscription shows similar variation in the form of bet (e.g., Lemaire 1983: pl. 1, lines 3–5). This is also the case with the letter bet in the Phoenician inscription from Çineköy (Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000: 1002, fig. 28 [script chart]). 32 The dalet and lamed of WSS no. 743 can also be compared with forms in the Hassan-Beyli and Çineköy inscriptions. I consider the seal’s script to be Phoenician. It is listed as no. 19 in table 1.

28.  Cross (2003: 200 n. 23) responded in detail to Sass’s lower dating. 29.  Herr (1998: 69) cites parallels for the ʾalep and bet on a bowl from Kuntillet Ajrud dating to the late 9th and early 8th centuries. The ʾalep has a possible parallel in the inscription on an unprovenanced Iron III decanter published by Deutsch and Heltzer (1999: 23–24, fig. 123). The inscription, reading lʾlyrm, dates to the 8th century b.c.e., and is classified as Hebrew by the editors. The Tel Miqne texts do not compel me to lower the date (pace Lemaire 2000b: 246, no. 32). 30.  The seal was placed as a deposit below the winged-bull colossus on the right side of the entrance to Gate 3 in the walls of Khorsabad. Bordreuil (1995c: 256–58) supports the view that the deposit was made between 715 and 706 b.c.e. The context is discussed by André-Salvini (1995). 31.  The register enclosing the inscription is about 15 mm wide and less than 3 mm high. The vertical stroke of the dalet is about 2 mm in length. The micrographic character of this and other seal inscriptions is relevant to paleographic discussions. 32.  The Çineköy inscription can probably be placed in the decade 720–710 b.c.e. (Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000: 1004–5).

152

Philip C. Schmitz

Lemaire (1977) studied five aniconic scaraboid seals with Phoenician inscriptions. 33 The five seals share five formal characteristics: absence of iconography, use of double-line horizontal dividers, division of the inscribed surface into three registers, 34 Anatolian names, the word hbrk 35 (first attested in the Karatepe-Aslantaş inscription), and paleographic similarities with Anatolian Phoenician inscriptions of the 8th century. Teixidor (1979: 370, no. 68 [= 1986: 430–31]) doubted the authenticity of the group. 36 Bordreuil (1986: 42–44, nos. 38–39), also dubious, cited paleographic parallels to seals 3 and 4 spanning nearly three centuries. 37 Lipiński (1983: 139) and Lemaire (1991: 134 n. 6) consider the seals authentic, as does Röllig (1992: 98, 100; more cautiously, 1995b: 644–45). WSS includes all five seals. 38 They are listed as nos. 12–16 in table 1. A seal in the Israel Museum (WSS no. 714 [no. 11 in table 1) has four of the same characteristics as this group, lacking only the word hbrk. 39 Lemaire classes his group of five seals as “North Syrian” (1991: 134 n. 6) and the sixth seal “Cilician” (1991: 135 n. 7). A seventh Anatolian seal (Lemaire 1997) is incised with single-line register dividers, and the script is late 7th or early 6th century. The script of these seals provokes fewer questions today than previously. Inscriptions from Incirli and Hassan-Beyli and Çineköy document the range of Anatolian Phoenician script styles of the late 8th century, and the first six seals mentioned above fall within this range. The letters bet, he, kap, lamed, and reš occur in the five seals grouped under the rubric “North Syrian.” There is no significant variation in the linear form of any of these five letters among the five seals. For example, whether the stance of bet is vertical (Lemaire 1977: nos. 2, 5) or rotated counterclockwise (nos. 1, 3, 4), the shaft drops down leftward in a foot of nearly equal length, forming an open angle. The bottom stroke of the head is level or descends slightly toward the shaft. The letter kap in the five “North Syrian” seals is a three-stroke variety with a “hooked head”; the 3rd stroke descends from the tip of stroke 2, parallel to the shaft (stroke one). 40 This variety is the most frequent form of kap in the Çineköy inscription 33.  The locations of the seals as enumerated by Lemaire (1977) are as follows: no. 1, London, British Museum (BM 102968); no. 2, Berlin (VA 2791); nos. 3–4, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (= Bordreuil 1986: 42–44, nos. 38–39); no. 5, formerly in a private collection in Paris; now undisclosed. Seals 1 and 2 had been previously published. 34.  The first three characteristics are shared with any number of Hebrew, Ammonite, and Moabite seals but are relatively infrequent in the Phoenician and Aramaic seals. 35.  On the word hbrk in these seals, see Müller 2001: 17–18 and n. 26. 36.  Seal no. 1 has two forms of š; the z and m in no. 3 appear to Teixidor to be later than the t; with all five, the ductus is more angular than in the letters of the Karatepe inscription. 37.  He considers both seals forgeries and suspects seal no. 5 also (Bordreuil 1992: col. 137). 38.  WSS no. 717 = Lemaire 1977, no. 2; WSS no. 718 = Lemaire 1977, no. 5; WSS no. 720 = Lemaire 1977, no. 4; Bordreuil 1986: 42–43, no. 38; WSS no. 722 = Lemaire 1977, no. 1; WSS no. 723 = Lemaire 1977, no. 3; Bordreuil 1986: 43–44, no. 39. 39.  Lemaire compared this seal with his “North Syrian” group (Lemaire 1991: 135). 40.  This is a cursive adaptation of the 8th-century three-stroke form (Peckham 1968: 151–52, 154; Schmitz 2009).

Phoenician Seal Script

153

(Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000: 1002, fig. 28) and is found in the Karatepe inscription (but with curved shaft) and in the Cebel Ires Daği inscription (Mosca and Russell 1987). 41 The two examples of mem (WSS nos. 717, 720) in the “North Syrian” group lean slightly to the right, and the vertical stroke is not curved. The horizontal stroke slopes upward from left to right, and the center stroke does not extend below the horizontal. 42 This last feature characterizes the 8th-century Tyro-Sidonian formal mem in both lapidary (Sader 2005: 93; Amadasi Guzzo 1993: 158 [8th century], 163) and incised script styles (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9). 43 In the Incirli inscription, mem is formal, but the center stroke does not break below the horizontal stroke. The Çineköy inscription most frequently employs the older five-stroke (saw-toothed) form but also has five examples of the semiformal mem with no right shoulder (Peckham 1968: 157–58). In four of these examples, the center stroke does not extend below the horizontal. The “Cilician” seal from the Israel Museum (WSS no. 714) shows a formal mem with level horizontal stroke; as in the “North Syrian” mem, the center stroke does not break below the horizontal stroke. The examples just adduced of the formal mem, the center line of which does not break below the horizontal stroke, are relatively recent discoveries and represent both lapidary forms from stelae and monumental inscriptions (Tyre, Incirli, Çineköy) and a less formal incised text on pottery (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9 [Tambourit]). A forger would have been more likely to reproduce readily accessible forms of formal mem with a center stroke that breaks below the horizontal, as in the Karatepe inscription, for instance. I find this feature of the script problematic for the case that these seals are forgeries. Lemaire’s seal no. 1 (WSS no. 722) appears to have both the formal four-stroke šin and the later, three-stroke šin. 44 This inconsistency could be seen as a forger’s ineptitude (Teixidor 1979: 370, no. 68 [= 1986: 430–31]; Bordreuil 1986: 44). But why would a forger introduce an inconsistency? The script of this seal probably represents a transitional script style from a period when both forms were in use. 45

41. The ez-Zib (Akhziv) funerary inscription of zkrmlk (see Peckham 1968: 107, pl. 8 [7th– 6th cent.], and p. 152; photograph in Hestrin 1973: 144, no. 142), adduced by Bordreuil (1986: 43), is too late. The Eshmun Temple fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Peckham 1968: 67, pl. 5), also cited by Bordreuil, have no clear relevance. 42.  In the Karatepe mem, the baseline is horizontal or slopes down from left to right, and the central stroke breaks below the horizontal (Peckham 1968: 156). 43.  The unprovenanced incised crater is comparable with another excavated in the Tambourit necropolis (Saidah 1977: 141, Amphora no. 10 [Tamb. 71–28]), which imitates Cypriot whitepainted ware of the Cypro-Geometric III period (ca. 850–725 b.c.e.). A cinerary urn from Tyre (Seeden 1991: 61, figs. 15–16) also offers a close parallel. 44.  On the reading of the four-stroke or W-shaped šin in line 2 of this seal, see Lemaire 1977: 30. The reading ṣade is possible but unlikely. 45. See WSS no. 719, with both rectangular šin (lines 2–3) and an older variety of three-stroke šin (line 4; Puech 1986: 338).

154

Philip C. Schmitz

The three-stroke šin developed half a century earlier than formerly thought. 46 The Iberian Phoenician graffito TDB 91001 (Cunchillos 1993: 18) dates to the first half of the 7th century or the mid-7th century b.c.e. 47 The šin is a three-stroke form, the center stroke of which meets the juncture of the first two strokes. TDB 91001 indicates that the three-stroke šin developed in the late 8th or early 7th century. 48 The “Cilician” seal (WSS no. 714) has a waw, the left stroke of which descends at about a 40-degree angle before curving to join the vertical below the midpoint. Nearly identical forms of waw are now attested (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9 [Tambouri]; Tekoğlu and Lemaire 2000: 1002, fig. 28 [Çineköy]). The sharply closed angle of the lamed in these seals is also attested (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9). From a purely paleographic perspective, the distinction between “North Syrian” and “Cilician” script styles is not warranted. Parallels link all of these seals with Anatolian monumental texts of the 8th and 7th centuries and with Tyro-Sidonian script styles of the same period. The group probably falls in the middle or late 8th century, although no. 1 may be early 7th century. 49 I have been able to resolve the reading of a green jasper scarab purchased in Tartus adorned with an archaic “Triton” figure associated with a star, crescent moon, and solar disk (WSS no. 725 [no. 48 in table 1]). 50 An enlarged digital image of the modern seal impression permits a reading of the second letter as a three-stroke šin. The first stroke, now badly worn, is visible to the left of strokes 2 and 3, which are visible in all photographs. 51 The inscription on the seal is dextrograde positive, producing a reversed impression reading bš.

46.  Peckham considered the šin of the šlmy jar from Azor to be the earliest example, dating to the late 7th century (1968: 125–27 and pl. 7:2 [pp. 106–7]). 47.  The reading, lʾšmnh/y, is unproblematic except for the final letter, which could be he or yod. 48.  Elevating the date of introduction of the three-stroke (or “tridentine”) šin may also resolve the apparent contradiction in the script of TT 91.S2 (Sader 1991: 112–16, figs. 14–15; 2005: 38–39, no. 13). This inscribed stela from Tyre shows two examples of the semicircular three-stroke šin (lines 2–3) and three examples of the cross-shaped taw (lines 1, 3). The cruciform taw fell out of use after the end of the 8th century b.c.e. (Amadasi Guzzo 1993: 163). Use of both the four-stroke and the three-stroke šin in the same inscription is not otherwise attested in Phoenician. The Çineköy inscription shows only the four-stroke šin. 49.  The formal features of the Anatolian seal type represented in these six Phoenician examples persist in a chalcedony scaraboid inscribed in early 6th-century Greek letters KARIDEMO, perhaps acquired at Gythion (Richter 1956: 9 no. 32; pl. 5:32). “The letter forms are Chalcidian” (Boardman 2001: 141). 50.  For the iconographic context, see BeazleyArchive: Gems—Classical Phoenician Scarab Corpus, no. 26/34 (http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Script/Scarab3.14.htm). Parallels come from western Phoenician sites: Ibiza, Sardinia (Cagliari, Tharros), and Carthage. I believe Boardman assigned the 6th-century date. 51.  This stroke is also faintly discernible in the photograph of the seal published by Bordreuil (1986: 37). This photograph also reveals the generally poor condition of the seal. I number the strokes right-left-center, following the order in which they were cut on the seal face.

Phoenician Seal Script

155

Paleographic Commentary We can examine the corpus of Phoenician seals with reference to the paleographic criteria established. Table 1 lists 63 seals in chronological order from the 9th century (top) to the 5th century b.c.e. (bottom). 52 Figure 1 provides a paleographic comparison of these examples in the same order. The following observations assume the comparative examples and bibliographical sources cited in table 1 and the drawings in fig. 1 (pp. 156–157). Possible 9th-century script.  The script of the following examples can possibly be dated to the second half of the 9th century: nos. 1 (WSS no. 738), 2 (WSS no. 739), 3 (WSS no. 740), 4 (WSS no. 741). 53 Probably from the late 9th century but possibly early 8th century: nos. 5 (WSS no. 1142), 6 (WSS no. 1143), and 7 (BPPS no. 96). Attested letters from this period are ʾalep, bet, dalet, zayin, ḥet, yod, lamed, ṣade, reš, and šin. The agate scaraboid inscribed lḥdy (Bordreuil 1986: 19–20, no. 1; WSS no. 738) is probably of later 9th-century date. 54 The yod is vertical in stance and rounded like the yod of the archaic Cyprus inscription (KAI 30, line 3). 55 The dalet has a short vertical stroke extending only slightly below the lower corner. The Nora stela (KAI 46) and the archaic Cyprus inscription have similarly shaped dalets. The vertical stance is probably indicative of an early date. 56 It is similar to two other examples of dalet (nos. 2 [WSS no. 739] and 4 [WSS no. 741]) in its scalene triangular shape and minimal shaft. Ninth- or 8th-century script. The join-line of zayin (nos. 3 [WSS no. 740] and 6 [WSS no. 1143]) is diagonal but does not yet extend to the ends of the horizontal strokes. Of the four examples of yod, two are curved (nos. 1 [WSS no. 738 (see previous paragraph)] and 3 [WSS no. 740]), and two are angled (nos. 2 [WSS no. 739 (damaged)] and 4 [WSS no. 741]). 57 Although the dalet in no. 4 (WSS no. 741) is archaic, the angled yod indicates the greater likelihood of an early 8th-century date. The ṣade of no. 5 (WSS no. 1142) shows cursive tendencies similar to those in the same letter of the inscribed gold medallion from the Douïmès necropolis at Carthage 52.  I have employed comparative paleographic criteria alone or primarily in determining dates of seals. Chronological distinctions of less than a century do not affect the order; rather, the numerical order of WSS is preserved where feasible to facilitate reference. In excluding possible Phoenician seals from the corpus, I have adopted a “minimalist” approach: if the script of a seal could be classified as Aramaic or another “national” script, for example, I have generally left it out of the corpus. The “comments” section of table 1 mentions some exceptions. 53.  The first number is the sequence number in table 1; the WSS or BPPS number follows in parentheses. 54.  Enlarged color photograph and impression: Gubel 1986: 219, no. 245. 55. Honeyman 1939; Masson and Sznycer 1972: 13–20; Gibson 1982: 28–30, no. 12 and pl. 1, no. 3. 56.  Earlier than the first half of the 8th century, as suggested by Herr (1998: 57). Amadasi Guzzo’s paleographic study of the Nora stela inscription (Amadasi Guzzo and Guzzo 1986) argued for a range ca. 850–750 b.c.e. Cross (1972: 18 = 2003: 253) placed the Nora stela script ca. 825 b.c.e. 57. Both curved and angled yod occur in the 8th-century inscription on a Cypro-Geometric III amphora looted from Tambourit (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9; Puech 1994: fig. 2). The stance of yod is consistently vertical. The similar craters from Tell el-Rechidiyeh Tomb IV are of Cypro-Geometric III style and are probably imports, datable to 775–750 b.c.e. (Doumet-Serhal 2003).

156

Philip C. Schmitz

Fig. 1.  Chart of Phoenician seals chronologically arranged from earliest (top) to latest (bottom).

Phoenician Seal Script

157

Fig. 1.  Chart of Phoenician seals chronologically arranged from earliest (top) to latest (bottom).

(KAI 73.4): the horizontal stroke (stroke 2) joins near the top of the left vertical stroke (stroke 2), and the right vertical stroke (stroke 3) joins the right end of stroke 2 to the left end of stroke 4. With a reasonably firm date of ca. 800–775 b.c.e. established for the Carthage medallion (Schmitz 2009b), we can ascribe a similar date to seal no. 5: late 9th or early 8th century.

158

Philip C. Schmitz

Eighth-century script.  Twenty-one seal inscriptions (nos. 8–28) can be placed in the 8th century with reasonable certainty, and another six (nos. 29–34) date to the 8th or 7th century (see table 1). From one-third to one-half of the seals in the corpus were inscribed in the 8th century. All letters of the Phoenician alphabet are attested in this 8th-century group of script styles. As with monumental lapidary texts, the largest sample is of Anatolian or North Syrian origin (see the discussion of this group of seals above). Nothing in the script styles attested in these seals is inconsistent with the monumental lapidary forms from the same period. Seven letters illustrate this generalization. Dalet.  Three examples are attested: nos. 10, 11, and 19 (WSS nos. 713, 714, 743)—all similar to each other and to the same letter in the Hassan-Beyli inscription. Waw.  Three examples (no. 11 [WSS no. 714], no. 14 [WSS no. 720], and no. 22 [WSS no. 1088]), all similar to each other and to the same letter in the Tambourit amphora inscription (Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 12, no. 9) and the Çineköy inscription (Lemaire 2000). 58 Zayin.  The four 8th-century examples (no. 10 [WSS no. 713 (reversed)], no. 12 [WSS no. 717], no. 22 [WSS no. 1088], and no. 24 [WSS no. 1139 (reversed)]) are all Z-shaped. This shape occurs in the Seville statue base inscription (Solá-Solé 1966) and in the Cebel Ires Daği inscription (Mosca and Russell 1987). Ḥet.  The three-bar form predominates. The variant with two horizontal strokes (e.g., perhaps no. 17 [WSS no. 737]; see WSS p. 274) also appears on Phoenician weights (Elayi and Elayi 1997: 378, fig. 10). From the 8th century on, the letter tends to incline leftward (no. 14 [WSS no. 720], no. 35 [WSS no. 731]). Yod.  Both angular forms (no. 12 [WSS no. 717], no. 13 [WSS no. 718]) and curved forms (no. 18 [WSS no. 742], no. 24 [WSS no. 1139], no. 27 [BPPS no. 102]) are attested. 59 The first two curved forms cited above show the counterclockwise rotation also seen in the Hassan-Beyli inscription (Lemaire 1983). Kap.  The Çineköy inscription (Lemaire 2000: 1002, fig. 28) uses at least four different types of kap. 60 The seal corpus attests the same range—although not in a single inscription. The “hooked-head” variety is exclusive to the Anatolian or “North-Syrian” group (nos. 12–16 [WSS nos. 717, 718, 720, 722, 723]); third-stroke attachment is either at the base of stroke 2 (no. 25 [WSS no. 1148]) or along the shaft of stroke 2 (nos. 30–31 [WSS nos. 1186, 1187], both 8th or 7th century). A semicursive variant on a seal probably of Anatolian origin (no. 22 [WSS no. 1088]) has a shaded triangular “head” augmented with curvature of the top and bottom edges, giving an “axe-blade” shape to the head. There is one example (no. 27 [BPPS no. 102]) of an unusual variety of three-stroke kap in which strokes 2 and 3 are short, parallel, and separated by a space slightly less than their length. 61 This variety occurs in two Punic inscriptions (CIS I 3784 [4th century]; CIS I 197 [early 3rd century]) and in late Phoenician inscriptions 58.  Lemaire (1985: 32–33) dates the script of WSS no. 1088 to the late 8th or early 7th century. 59.  The two forms do occur together in a graffito from Tambourit: see n. 57 above. 60.  On the date of this inscription, see n. 33 above. 61.  Peckham labels this variety the “ʿUmm el-ʿAmed (Tyrian)” kap (Peckham 1968: 95).

Phoenician Seal Script

159

from Umm el-ʿAmed (CIS I 7 = KAI 18) and from Malta (CIS I 122 = KAI 47). 62 The seal inscription provides an early ancestor of the form, and the form may indicate the Tyrian origin of the seal’s script. 63 Mem.  The formal mem of the “North Syrian” group is described above. The upward slope of the base found in these examples is matched in three others (no. 22 [WSS no. 1099], no. 25 [WSS no. 1148], no. 26 [WSS no. 1181]) with slight curvature of the left corner (a cursive inf luence). The archaic five-stroke mem in line 1 of no. 10 (WSS no. 713) is unique among published seals but attested in the Baʿal Lebanon inscription (CIS I 5) 64 and on a stela from Tyre (TT 91.S10, line 2 [8th or 7th century b.c.e.] in association with a formal mem in the previous line). 65 In the seal inscription, the Cyprian dedication, and the Tyrian stela, the four strokes of the head have tilted leftward to a nearly horizontal position, probably under cursive inf luence. 66 The sole example of an early three-stroke cursive mem (no. 27 [BPPS no. 102]; see previous paragraph]) emulates the five-stroke formal mem. Šin.  Only the four-stroke šin occurs in 8th-century seal inscriptions, with the exception of the “North Syrian” seal (no. 15 [WSS no. 722]) discussed above. Seventh-century script.  Six seals in this corpus (nos. 29–34) may belong to the 8th century or the 7th; another eight (nos. 20, 35–41) are more likely 7th century; six more (nos. 42–46, 48) are 7th- or 6th-century products. A more restricted set of letters is attested: he, waw, and yod once each (no. 46 [WSS no. 1070]), samek once, in an odd form (no. 32 [WSS no. 1090]), zayin, qop, and taw not at all. The three-stroke šin is chronologically indicative, as argued above. The cross-shaped taw persists into the first half of the 7th century, but the shaft shortens (Peckham 1968: 172–73). Early in the 7th century appears a form, the shaft of which is rotated clockwise; the horizontal, at about right angles to the shaft, extends only to the right of the shaft (no. 52 [WSS no. 746]), as in the Hassan-Beyli inscription. Sixth-, 5th-, and 4th-century script.  As many as 20 seals from the corpus (nos. 42– 61) could fall in the chronological range 600–301 b.c.e., although 6 of these might be 7th century (see the previous paragraph). ʾAlep.  All occurrences are formal (following Peckham 1968: 87–88; 132–33). The Egyptian iconography of seal no. 43 (WSS no. 733, from Sulcis) links its manufacture to the Egyptian Delta (Pernigotti 1983; Gubel 1993: 111–12). Bet.  The chief development is the smoothing of the oblique angle in the shaft (note no. 48 [WSS no. 725 (reversed)]; no. 62 [Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire 2000: 122, no. 99]) into a curve (e.g., Bordreuil 1986: 41, no. 36 [ca. 400 b.c.e.]). The head also rounds. Gimel.  Examples of wide and narrow varieties (no. 45 [WSS no. 736] and no. 50 [WSS no. 735], respectively) can be found.

šin.

62.  See the script charts in Davila and Zuckerman 1993: 73, nos. 3 and 4. 63.  The inscription includes an archaic cursive mem, an upright curved yod, and a four-stroke 64.  Dated 773–738 b.c.e. (Peckham 1968: 105; cf. Gibson 1982: 67). 65.  Sader 1992: 76–78, figs. 13–15. 66.  Peckham (1968: 156–59) does not describe this variant.

160

Philip C. Schmitz

Mem.  The development of the letter mem adumbrated above is borne out in later periods. In the unusual script of no. 44 [WSS no. 733], mem is semicursive. A lone cursive mem—with no left or right shoulder—provides the only variety of mem in the corpus, the center stroke of which breaks below the horizontal stroke (no. 18 [WSS no. 742]). Its precise parallel occurs on the Phoenician inscribed bronze situla from a Persian-period sanctuary on the ridge of Miṣpe Yamîm (Frankel and Ventura 1998: 42, fig. 3; 46, fig. 8, letters 12, 26). 67 Šin.  Only the three-stroke variety is attested, with squared variants (no. 54 [WSS nos. 719, 746]) and a semicircular curved variety (no. 63 [Bordreuil 1986: 41, no. 36]). As noted above (see n. 47), no. 54 (WSS no. 719, purchased in Beirut) is inscribed with both rectangular šin (lines 2–3) and an older variety of three-stroke šin (line 4; Puech 1986: 338). 68 Beirut ostracon Bey 003 787, 95.120 (mid-7th century) also has this variety of šin (Badre 1997: 91, fig. 47d; Schmitz 2002a). Taw.  The variety with a dropline, which originates as a tick on the horizontal in the 6th century (Peckham 1968: 173), is attested in a relatively early stage in the two examples from this corpus: no. 50 (WSS no. 735), and no. 47 (WSS no. 712). This variety of taw persists in later centuries (e.g., no. 61 [BPPS no. 101; 5th or 4th century b.c.e.]; Wolfe and Sternberg 1989: 10, no. 4 [3rd or 2nd century b.c.e.]). The distinctive script tradition of Byblos is represented in a green jasper votive seal from a private collection recently published by Bordreuil (1998: 1160–61, figs. 9–10). The script resembles that of the Yeḥawmilk inscription (KAI 10) and more closely the script of the Batnoʿam inscription (KAI 11), both from Byblos (Peckham 1968: 44–45, pl. 4:3–5). Bordreuil (1998: 1163) dates the script ca. 450 b.c.e. Its script style is sufficiently distinct, however, to warrant brief comment. ʾAlep.  The stance is more nearly horizontal than either Yeḥawmilk or Batnoʿam. Like the seventh letter of Batnoʿam, the upper and lower strokes meet at a point, and the shaft crosses just to the right of this juncture, leaving a small triangular head. Gimel.  The angle is open, but the left stroke is shorter and crossed by the shaft of the bet that follows (the bet seems ineptly cut). Zayin.  The angles are wider but the stance identical to Batnoʿam. Mem.  The shaft is relatively short, and the left stroke leans out to the left. The center stroke descends below the baseline about two-thirds the length of the shaft. Taw.  Unlike either Yeḥawmilk or Batnoʿam, the shaft is vertical and straight. The Byblos altar inscription (KAI 12; Peckham 1968: 44–45, pl. 4:6) has a similar taw. 69 67.  The location of seal no. 51 (WSS no. 744) is not reported, and only Longpérier’s 1855 drawing is available. However, the form of cursive mem illustrated is entirely consistent with a 6th-century date. Note that Beirut ostracon Bey 003 787, 95.120 provides a mid-7th-century cursive mem written in ink (Badre 1997: 91, fig. 47d; Schmitz 2002a). 68.  The script of line 4 is nearly twice as large as the script of the first three lines and noticeably different in ductus. Perhaps a different artisan engraved line 4. Seal cutters probably depended on congenital nearsightedness rather than lenses for magnification (note Moorey 1999: 103). We might speculate that the artisan responsible for line 4 was older, perhaps with weaker vision, and schooled in an earlier script style. 69.  On the uncertain date of the altar inscription, see Peckham 1968: 54.

Phoenician Seal Script

161

Conclusion Paleographic study of a corpus of inscribed seals classed by specialists as Phoenician leads to two general conclusions. First, paleographic classification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for identification of a seal as Phoenician. Second, the corpus defined for this study manifests paleographic features consistent with generally accepted models of the historical development of Phoenician script style series.

References Acquaro, E. 1988 Gli scarabei e gli amuleti. Pp. 394–403 in I fenici, ed. S. Moscati. Milan: Bompiani. Acquaro, E., ed. 1996 Alle soglie della classicità: Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati. 3 vols. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1967 Le iscrizione fenicie e puniche delle colonie in occidente. Studi Semitici 28. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. 1986 Scavi a Mozia: Le iscrizioni. Collezione di studi fenici 22. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche. 1987 Scritture alfabetiche. Rome: Valerio Levi. 1990a Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche in Italia. Itinerari 6. [Rome]: Libreria dello Stato, Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello Stato. 1990b Two Phoenician Inscriptions Carved in Ivory: Again the Ur Box and the Sarepta Plaque. Orientalia n.s. 59: 58–66. 1993 Osservazioni sulle stele iscritte di Tiro. Rivista di Studi Fenici 22: 157–63. 1994 Lingua e scrittura a Biblo. Pp. 179–94 in Biblo: Una città e la sua cultura. Atti del Colloquio internazionale (Roma, 5–7 decembre 1990), ed. E. Acquaro et al. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 1996 Su tre iscrizioni fenicie dall’Egitto: Formule augurali e cronologia. Pp. 1047–61 in Alle soglie della classicità: Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, ed. E. Acquaro. 3 vols. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and Guzzo, P. G. 1986 Di Nora, di Eracle gaditano e della più antica navigazione fenicia. Aula Orientalis 4: 59–71. Amiet, P. 1973 Bas-reliefs imaginaries du Proche-Orient ancien. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. André-Salvini, B. 1995 Remarques sur les inscriptions des reliefs du palais de Khorsabad. Pp. 15–45 in Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie: Actes du colloque organizé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 21 et 22 janvier 1994, ed. A. Caubet. Paris: La documentation Française. Ariel, D., and Naveh, J. 2003 Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 329: 61–80. Athanassiou, H. 1977 Rasm et-Tanjara: A Recently Discovered Syrian Tell in the Ghab, Part I: Inventory of the Chance Finds. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia.

162

Philip C. Schmitz

Aufrecht, W. 1995 A Phoenician Seal. Pp. 385–87 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Avigad, N. 1961 Some Unpublished Ancient Seals. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 25: 239–44. [Hebrew] 1964a Seals and Sealings. Israel Exploration Journal 14: 190–94. 1964b The Seal of Jezebel. Israel Exploration Journal 14: 274–76. 1968 Notes on Some Inscribed Syro-Phoenician Seals. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 189: 44–49. 1969–71  A Phoenician Seal with Dolphin Emblem. Sefunim 3: 49–50. 1978 Gleanings from Unpublished Ancient Seals. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 230: 67–69. 1985 Some Decorated West Semitic Seals. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 1–7. Avigad, N., and Greenfield, J. C. 1982 A Bronze phialē with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription. Israel Exploration Journal 32: 118–28. Avigad, N.; Heltzer, M.; and Lemaire, A. 2000 West Semitic Seals : Eighth-Sixth Centuries bce. Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Collection B. Haifa: University of Haifa. [Hebrew-English] B = Bordreuil, P. 1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. [In table 1 only. Unless otherwise indicated, seals from Bordreuil 1986 are cited by sequence number. Page references are in author-date format.] Badre, L. 1997 Bey 003 Preliminary Report: Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993–1996. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 2. [Reprinted, http:// almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/museum/baal/1997/page91.html] Barak, M., and Amorai-Stark, S. 1989 Seals and Seal Impressions. Pp. 333–38 in Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press / Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. Barnett, R. D. 1967 List of Acquisitions [ July to December 1966]. British Museum Quarterly 32: 58. Barnett, R. D., and Mendleson, C., eds. 1987 Tharros: A Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and Other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia. London: British Museum. Baurain, C.; Bonnet, C.; and Krings, V., eds. 1991 Phoinikeia Grammata: Lire et écrire en Méditerranée. Namur: Société des Études Classiques. Ben-Dor, I. 1945–46  A Hebrew Seal from Samaria. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 12: 77–83. [Hebrew; English summary, p. iii] 1948 Two Hebrew Seals. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 13: 64–67. Bergman [Biran], A. 1936 Two Hebrew Seals of the EBED Class. Journal of Biblical Literature 55: 221–26.

Phoenician Seal Script

163

BM = British Museum, London Boardman, J. 1996 The Archaeology of Jewelry. Pp. 3–13 in Ancient Jewelry and Archaeology, ed. A. Calinescu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 2001 Greek Gems and Finger-Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. New expanded ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Boissier, A. 1939 Mélanges d’archéologie orientale. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 36: 61–67. Bordreuil, P. 1975 De Arqa a Akshaph: Notes de toponymie phénicienne. La toponymie antique: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 12–14 juin, 1975. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 4. Leiden: Brill. 1978 L’estampille phénicienne d’Ibn Hani. Syria 58: 297–99. 1982 Deux épigraphes phéniciennes provenant des fouilles de Tell Rachidieh. Annales d’Histoire et d’Archéologie 1: 137–48. 1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. 1987 Tanit du Liban (Nouveaux documents religieux phéniciens III). Pp. 79–85 in Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium b.c., ed. E. Lipiński. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22; Studia Phoenicia 5. Leuven: Peeters. 1988 Appendice: Notes sur les sceaux à inscriptions sémitiques. Pp. 339–40 in Sceax déliens. Revue archéologique 2: 307–40. 1991 Les premiers sceaux royaux phéniciens. Pp. 463–68 in Atti del II Congresso internazionale de studi fenici e punici, Roma, 9–14 Novembre 1987. Collezione di Studi Fenici 30. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche. 1992 Sceaux inscrits des pays du Levant. Cols. 86–212 in vol. 12, Suppléments au Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. F. Vigouroux. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. 1995a Métropoles et metrologies poliades. Semitica 43–44: 9–20. 1995b Nouvelles inscriptions phéniciennes de la côte de phénicie. Pp. 187–92 in Actes du IIIe Congrès international des etudes phéniciennes et puniques, Tunis, 11–16 novembre 1991, vol. 1, ed. M. H. Fantar and M. Ghaki. 2 vols. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. 1995c Les sceaux inscrits phéniciens et araméens de Khorsabad et leur signification historique. Pp. 253–69 in Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie: Actes du colloque organize au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 21 et 22 janvier 1994, ed. A. Caubet. Paris: La documentation Française. 1996 Bulles et poids de Tyr. Pp. 47–58 in Alle soglie della classicità: Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, vol. 2, ed. E. Acquaro. 3 vols. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. 1997 Northwest Semitic Seal Inscriptions. Pp. 166–69 in vol. 4 of Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998 Astarté, la Dame de Byblos. Compte Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1153–64. Bordreuil, P., and Gubel, E. 1986 BAALIM III [no. 5]. Syria 63: 429. 1988 BAALIM V. Syria 65: 437–56.

164

Philip C. Schmitz

Bordreuil, P., and Lemaire, A. 1982 Nouveaux sceaux hébreux et araméens. Semitica 29: 21–34. Boussac, M.-P. 1988 Sceax déliens. Revue archéologique 2: 307–40. BPPS = Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications. Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1993 Étude comparée de l’évolution des alphabets judéen, israélite et phénicien. Langues orientales anciennes, philologie et linguistique 4: 1–30. Briquel-Chatonnet, F., and Gubel, E. 1998 Les phéniciens aux origins du Liban. N.p.: Découvertes Gallimard. CAI = Aufrecht, W. 1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. CAI 2 = Aufrecht, W. in press  A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. 2nd edition. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Çambel, H., with a contribution by Wolfgang Röllig and tables by John David Hawkins 1999 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2: Karatepe-Aslantaş. Berlin: de Gruyter. CG = Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1883 Sceaux et cachets israélites, phéniciens et syriens suivis d’épigraphes phéniciennes inédites sur divers objets et de deux intailles Cypriotes. Journal Asiatique 8th series 1: 123– 59; 506–10. [In table 1 only. Unless otherwise indicated, seals from Clermont-Ganneau 1883 are cited by sequence number. Page references are in author-date format.] CID = Cebel Ires Dağı Inscription = Mosca, P., and Russell, J. 1987 A Phoenician Inscription from Cebel Ires Dağı in Rough Cilicia. Epigraphica Anatolica 9: 1–28. CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1881 Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris: Academia Inscriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum. Paris: Reipublicae. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1883 Sceaux et cachets israélites, phéniciens et syriens suivis d’épigraphes phéniciennes inédites sur divers objets et de deux intailles Cypriotes. Journal Asiatique 8th ser. 1: 123–59; 506–10. 1885a Le sceau d’Abdhadad. Revue critique (September 7): 171. 1885b Les frauds archéologiques en Palestine. Paris: Leroux. 1888–1907  Recueil d’archéologie orientale. 8 vols. Paris: Leroux. 1900 Quatre nouveaux sceaux à légends sémitiques. Pp. 188–94 in vol. 3 of Recueil d’archéo­ logie orientale. 8 vols. Paris: Leroux. 1905 Quatre cachets israélites archaïques. Pp. 114–17 in vol. 6 of Recueil d’archéologie orientale. 8 vols. Paris: Leroux. Collon, D. 1990 Near Eastern Seals. Interpreting the Past. Berkeley: University of California Press / London: British Museum Press. Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1900–50  Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. 7 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Phoenician Seal Script

165

Cooke, G. A. 1903 A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon. Cross, F. M. 1962 An Archaic Inscribed Seal from the Valley of Aijalon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168: 12–18. 1966 An Aramaic Inscription from Daskelion. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184: 7–10. 1972 An Interpretation of the Nora Stone. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208: 13–19. [Reprinted in Cross 2003: 250–53] 1995 Paleography and the Date of the Tell Fahariyeh Bilingual Inscription. Pp. 393–409 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [Reprinted and updated in Cross 2003: 51–60] 1996 The Arrow of Suwar, Retainer of ʿAbdy. Eretz-Israel 25 (Aviram Volume): 9*–17*. 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Culican, W. 1968 The Iconography of Some Phoenician Seals and Seal Impressions. Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1: 50–103. 1974 A Phoenician Seal from Khaldeh. Levant 6: 195–98 [reprinted in Culican 1986: 385–90]. 1986 Opera Selecta: From Tyre to Tartessos. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 40. Gothenburg: Åstroms. Cunchillos, J.-L. 1993 Inscripciones Fenicias del Tell de Doña Blanca (V): TDB 91001. Sefarad 53: 17–24. Daniels, P. T. 1984 A Calligraphic Approach to Aramaic Palaeography. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43: 55–68. 1996 The Study of Writing Systems. Pp. 1–17 in The World’s Writing Systems, ed. P. T. Daniels and W. Bright. New York: Oxford University Press. Daniels, P. T., and Bright, W., eds. 1996 The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Davila, J. R., and Zuckerman, B. 1993 The Throne of ʿAshtart Inscription. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289: 67–80. Delaporte, L. 1910 Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Biliothèque Nationale. Paris: Biliothèque Nationale. 1920 Catalogue des cylinders orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental, vol. 1: Fouilles et missions. Paris: Musée du Louvre. 1923 Catalogue des cylinders orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental, vol. 2: Acquisitions. Paris: Musée du Louvre. 1928 Cachets orientaux de la collection de Luynes. Aréthuse 3/4 (fasc. 21): 41–65. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1999 Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium bce. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Diringer, D. 1934 Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi. Florence: Le Monnier.

166

Philip C. Schmitz

Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1973–79  Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften mit einem Beitrag von O. Rössler. 3 vols. 3rd/4th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Dorrell, P. G. 1994 Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doumet-Serhal, C. 2003 Jars of the First Millennium bc at Tell el Rachidieh (South of Tyre): Phoenician Cinerary Urns and Grave Goods. Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17: 42–51. Elayi, J. 1988 Inscriptions nord-ouest sémitiques inédites. Semitica 38: 101–6. 1991 Remarques méthodologiques sur l’étude paléographique des légendes monétaires phéniciennes d’époque perse. Pp. 187–200 in Phoinikeia Grammata: Lire et écrire en Méditerranée, ed. C. Baurain, C. Bonnet, and V. Krings. Namur: Société des Études Classiques. 1992 Étude paléographique des légendes monétaires phéniciennes d’époque perse. Trans­ euphratène 5: 21–43. 1995 Les sceaux ouest-sémitiques ‘royaux’: Mythe ou réalité? Numismatica e antichità clas­ siche: Quaderni Ticinesi 24: 39–71. Elayi, J., and Elayi, A. G. 1993 Trésors de monnaies phéniciennes et circulation monétaire (Ve–IVe siècles avant J.-C.). Supplèments à Transeuphratène 1. Paris: Gabalda. 1996 Nouveaux trésors de monnaies phéniciennes (CH VIII). Transeuphratène 11: 95–114. 1997 Recherches sur les poids phéniciens. Supplèments à Transeuphratène 5. Paris: Gabalda. Elayi, J., and Lemaire, A. 1998 Graffiti et contremarques ouest-sémitiques sur les monnaies grecques et proche-orientales. Collection Glaux. Milan: Edizioni ennerre. Feller, B. 1997 Geschichte und Entwicklung der Siegelforschung. Pp. 150–69 in Mit sieben Siegeln versehen: Das Siegel in Wirtschaft und Kunst des Alten Orients, ed. E. Klengel-Brandt. Mainz: von Zabern. Frankel, R., and Ventura, R. 1998 The Mispe Yamim Bronzes. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311: 39–55. Friedrich, J.; Röllig, W.; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G.; and Mayer, W. R. 1999 Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3rd rev. ed. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Galling, K. 1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palästina: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der phönizischen Kunst. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 64: 121–202. Garbini, G. 1979 Storia e problemi dell’epigrafia semitica. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli 38, Supplemento 19. Naples: Istituto Orientali. 1986 Philistine Seals. Pp. 443–48 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies Presented to S. Horn, ed. L. T. Geraty and L. G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

Phoenician Seal Script

167

1988 La questione dell’alfabeto. Pp. 86–103 in I fenici, ed. S. Moscati. Milan: Bompiani. 1994 La religione dei fenici in occidente. Studi Semitici n.s. 12. Rome: Università degli Studi, “La Sapienza.” 2006 Introduzione all’epigrafia semitica. Brescia: Paideia. Garrucci, R. 1861 Scarabeo sardo egizio con lettere fenicie. Bullettino Archeologico Sardo 7: 26–27. Gesenius, W. 1837 Scripturae linguaeque phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt. Leipzig: Vogel. Gibson, J. C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon. Gitin, S. 1993 Seventh Century b.c.e. Cultic Elements at Ekron. Pp. 248–58 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Giveon, R. 1961 Two New Hebrew Seals and Their Iconic Background. Palestine Excavation Quarterly 93: 38–39. 1978 The Impact of Egypt on Canaan. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 20. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gorton, A. F. 1996 Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs: A Typology of Steatite, Faience and Paste Scarabs from Punic and Other Mediterranean Sites. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 44. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology. Gubel, E. 1991 Notes sur l’iconographie royale sigillaire. Pp. 913–22 in Atti del II Congresso interna­ zionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 9–14 Novembre 1987, vol. 2. Collezione di Studi Fenici 30. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1993 The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic. Pp. 101–29 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gubel, E., ed. 1986 Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen. Brussels: Général de banque. HD = Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1979 Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1998 The Paleography of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312: 45–77. Hestrin, R., ed. 1973 Inscriptions Reveal. 2nd ed. Israel Museum Catalog 100. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1979 Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Hölbl, G. 1986 Ägyptisches Kulturgut im phönikischen und punischen Sardinien. 2 vols. Études preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 102. Leiden: Brill.

168

Philip C. Schmitz

Homès-Fredericq, D. 1995 Stamp and Cylinder Seal Techniques in Jordan. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 469–77. Honeyman, A. M. 1939 The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Cyprus Museum. Iraq 6: 104–8. Hübner, U., and Knauf, E. A. 1994 Review of A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions by W. Aufrecht. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 110: 82-87. Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. 1988 The Interpretation of Two Late Punic Amphora Stamps from Carthage. Pp. 113–18 in Carthago: Acta Colloquii Bruxellensis habiti diebus 2 et 3 mensis Maii anni 1986. Studia Phoenicia 6. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 26. Leuven: Peeters. IMC 1 = Israel Museum, Catalogue no. 1. Jerusalem, 1965. IR = Hestrin, R. 1973 Inscriptions Reveal. 2nd ed. Israel Museum Catalog 100. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Jakob-Rost, L. 1975 Die Stempelsiegel im Vorderasiatischen Museum. Mainz: von Zabern. [Reprinted 1997] Johnston, E. 1971 Formal Penmanship and Other Papers, ed. H. Child. New York: Hastings House. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1973–79  Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften mit einem Beitrag von O. Rössler. 3 vols. 3rd/4th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Kaoukabani, I., and Bordreuil, P. 2005 Les estampilles phéniciennes de Tyr. History and Archaeology in Lebanon 21 (Spring): 2–79. Kaufman, S. A. 2007 The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation. MAARAV 14: 7–26. Keel, O. 1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amultette aus Palästina/Israel, vol. 1: Einleitung. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 10. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1997 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amultette aus Palästina/Israel, vol. 2: Katalog, Band I: Von Tell Abu Farag bis Atlit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 13. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Keel, O.; Uehlinger, C.; and Gasser, M. 1990 Altorientalische Miniaturkunst: Die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel. Ein Blick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Kooij, G. van der 1986 Early N.W. Semitic Script Traditions: An Archaeological Study of the Linear Alphabetic Scripts up to 500 b.c.; Ink and Argillary. Leiden: n.p. 1987 The Identity of Trans-Jordanian Writing in the Iron Age. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3: 107–21. Krahmalkov, C. R. 2000 Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 90. Leuven: Peeters.

Phoenician Seal Script

169

Krings, V., ed. 1995 La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der nahe und mittlere Osten 20. Leiden: Brill. L = Levy, M. A. 1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit aramäischen, phönizischen, althebräischen, himjarischen, nabatäischen und altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter (H. Skutsch). [In table 1 only. Unless otherwise indicated, seals from Levy 1869 are cited by sequence number. Page references are in author-date format.] Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M. 1939 Megiddo, vol. 1: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata 1–4. Oriental Institute Publications 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lemaire, A. 1976 Milkiram, nouveau roi phénicien de Tyr? Syria 53: 83–93. 1977 Essai sur cinq sceaux phéniciens inédits. Semitica 27: 29–40. 1980 Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique. Semitica 30: 17–32. 1983a L’inscription phénicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsidérée. Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 9–19. 1983b Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques. Semitica 33: 17–31. 1985 Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique. Syria 62: 31–47. 1986 Divinités égyptiennes dans l’onomastique phénicienne. Pp. 87–98 in Studia Phoenicia IV: Religio Phoenicia, ed. C. Bonnet, E. Lipiński, and P. Marchetti. Collection d’études classiques 1. Namur: Societé d’études classiques. 1988 Recherches actuelles sur les sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques. Vetus Testamentum 38: 220–30. 1990 Epigraphie palestinienne: Nouveaux documents II—Décennie 1985–1995. Henoch 17: 209–42. 1991 L’écriture phénicienne en Cilicie et la diffusion des écritures alphabétiques. Pp. 133– 46 in Phoinikeia Grammata: Lire et écrire en Méditerranée, ed. C. Baurain, C. Bonnet, and V. Krings. Namur: Société des Études Classiques. 1991–92  Sept nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques inscrits. Semitica 41–42: 63–80. 1993 Les critères non-iconographiques de la classification des sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques inscrits. Pp. 1–26 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1993 Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1997 Sceau phénicien de la région de Karaman (Turquie). Epigraphica Anatolica 29: 123–25. 2000 Phénicien et Philistien: Paléographie et dialectologie. Pp. 243–49 in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos, ed. M. E. Aubet and M. Barthélemy. 4 vols. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Cádiz. Levy, M. A. 1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit aramäischen, phönizischen, althebräischen, himjarischen, nabatäischen und altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter (H. Skutsch). Lewitt, I., ed. 1995 The Israel Museum. Jerusalem: Vendome. Lidzbarski, M. 1898 Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik. 2 vols. Weimar. [Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962]

170

Philip C. Schmitz

Lipiński, E. 1983 Notes d’épigraphie phénicienne et punique. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 14: 129–65. Longpérier, A. de 1855 Notice sur les monuments antiques de l’Asie nouvellement entrés au Musée du Louvre. Journal asiatique 5th ser. 6: 407–31. Magnanini, P. 1973 Le iscrizioni fenicie dell’oriente: Testi, traduzioni, glossary. Rome: Istituto de studi del Vicino Oriente, Università degli studi di Roma. Manfredi, L.-I. 1986 Bolli anforici da Tharros. Rivista di Studi Fenici 14: 103–7. Masson, O., and Sznycer, M. 1972 Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Hautes études orientales 3. Geneva: Droz. May, H. G. 1935–36  Critical Notes: Seal of El-Amar. American Journal of Semitic Languages 52: 197–99. Megiddo I = Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M. 1939 Megiddo, vol. 1: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata 1–4. Oriental Institute Publications 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [In table 1 only]. Millard, A. 1985 Treasures from Bible Times. Tring: Lion. 2001 Review of Avigad and Sass 1997. Israel Exploration Journal 51: 76–87. Menant, J. 1886 Les pierres gravées de la Haute-Asie, vol. 2: Recherches sur la glyptique orientale. Paris: Maisonneuve Freres et Leclerc. Moorey, P. R. S. 1999 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Mosca, P., and Russell, J. 1987 A Phoenician Inscription from Cebel Ires Dağı in Rough Cilicia. Epigraphica Anatolica 9: 1–28. Moscati, S. 1951 L’epigrafia ebraica antica, 1935–1950. Biblica et Orientalia 15. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Moscati, S., ed. 1988 I fenici. Milan: Bompiani. Müller, H.-P. 2001 Ein wandernes Kulturwort? Isoglossen zu phönizisch HBRK KAI 26 A I 1. Rivista di Studi Fenici 29: 13–26. Muscarella, O. 2000 The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Studies in the Art and Archaeology of Antiquity 1. Groningen: STYX. Naveh, J. 1988 Review of Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte, by P. Bordreuil. Journal of Semitic Studies 33: 115–17. 1997a Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ʿAkko: Phoenician Seal Impressions. ʿAtiqot 21: 115–19.

Phoenician Seal Script

171

1997b Preface. Pp. 11–13 in Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, by N. Avigad and B. Sass. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. 2000 On the Hecht Museum’s Seal Collection. Pp. 10–12 in West Semitic Seals: Eighth– Sixth Centuries bce, ed. N. Avigad, M. Heltzer, and A. Lemaire. Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Collection B. Haifa: University of Haifa Press. [Hebrew-English] O’Connor, M. 1996 The Alphabet as a Technology. Pp. 787–94 in The World’s Writing Systems, ed. P. T. Daniels and W. Bright. New York: Oxford University Press. Peckham, J. B. 1968 The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pernigotti, S. 1983 Una rappresentazione religiosa egiziana su uno scarabeo con iscrizione fenicia. Pp. 583–87 in Atti del Io Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici, vol. 2. Collezione di Studi Fenici 16/3. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Pesce, G. 1961 Sardegna punica. Cagliari: Sarda, Fossataro. Pietschmann, R. 1889 Geschichte der Phoenizier. Berlin: Grote. Place, V. 1867–70  Ninive et l’Assyrie. 3 vols. Paris: Imprimierie impériale. Puech, É. 1986 Les inscriptions phéniciennes d’Amrit et les dieux guérisseurs du sanctuaire. Syria 63: 336–39. 1994 Une cratère phénicien inscrit: Rites et croyances. Transeuphratène 8: 47–73. Quillard, B. 1979 Bijoux carthaginois. 2 vols. Aurifex 2. Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain 15. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art. RAO = Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1888–1907  Recueil d’archéologie orientale. 8 vols. Paris: Leroux. Rawlinson, H. C. 1865 Bilingual Readings—Cuneiform and Phoenician: Notes on Some Tablets in the British Museum Containing Bilingual Legends (Assyrian and Phoenician). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society n.s. 1: 187–246. Reifenberg, A. 1942 Ancient Hebrew Seals III. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 74: 109–12. 1950 Ancient Hebrew Seals. London: East and West Library. RES = Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1900–1950 Reyes, A. T. 2001 The Stamp-Seals of Ancient Cyprus. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Richter, G. M. A. 1956 Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York). Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Ridder, A. de 1911 Collection de Clercq, vol. 7: Les bijoux et les pierres gravées. Paris: Leroux.

172

Philip C. Schmitz

Röllig, W. 1992 Asia Minor as a Bridge between East and West: The Role of the Phoenicians and Aramaeans in the Transfer of Culture. Pp. 93–102 in Greece between East and West: 10th–8th Centuries bc, ed. G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru. Mainz: von Zabern. 1995 L’alphabet. Pp. 193–214 in La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche, ed. V. Krings. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der nahe und mittlere Osten 20. Leiden: Brill. 2000 Aramäer und Assyrer: Die Schiftzeugnisse bis zum Ende des Assyrerreiches. Pp. 177– 86 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters. Rollston, C. A. 2003 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests. MAARAV 10: 135–94. 2004 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic. MAARAV 11: 57–79. Sader, H. 1990 Deux épigraphes phéniciennes inédites. Syria 67: 318–21. 1991 Phoenician Stelae from Tyre. Berytus Archaeological Studies 39: 101–26. 1992 Phoenician Stelae from Tyre (Continued). Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 9: 53–79. 2005 Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Publicaciones del Laboratorio de Arqueología, Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona. Saidah, R. 1977 Une tombe de l’Age du Fer à Tambourit (region de Sidon). Berytus Archaeological Studies 25: 135–57. Sass, B. 1983 The Revadim Seal and Its Archaic Phoenician Inscription. Anatolian Studies 33: 169–75. Sass, B., and Uehlinger, C., eds. 1993 Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmitz, P. C. 2002a Palaeographic Observations on a Phoenician Inscribed Sherd from Beirut. Rivista di Studi Fenici 30: 223–27. 2002b Reconsidering a Phoenician Inscribed Amulet from the Vicinity of Tyre. JAOS 122: 817–23. 2009a The Owl in Phoenician Mortuary Practice. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9: 51–85. 2009b Deity and Royalty in Dedicatory Formulae: The Ekron Store-Jar Inscription Viewed in the Light of Judg 7:18, 20 and the Inscribed Gold Medallion from the Douïmès Necropolis at Carthage (KAI 73). MAARAV 15: 165–73. Seeden, H. 1991 A Tophet in Tyre? Berytus Archaeological Studies 39: 39–82. Singer, I. 1994 Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. Pp. 282–338 in From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naʾaman. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society / Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society.

Phoenician Seal Script

173

Sirat, C. 1981 L’examen des écritures: L’oeil et la machine. Essai de méthodologie. Études de paléographie hébraique. Paris: CNRS. Solá-Solé, J. M. 1966 Nueva inscripción fenicia de España (Hispania 14). Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41: 97–108. Tassie, J., and Raspe, R. E. 1791 A Descriptive Catalogue of a General Collection of Ancient and Modern Engraved Gems, Cameos as well as Intaglios, Taken from the Most Celebrated Cabinets in Europe; and Cast in Coloured Pastes, White Enamel, and Sulphur. 2 vols. in 1. London: Tassie. Tekoğlu, R., et al. 2000 La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy. Compte Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 961–1007 [Phoenician text, pp. 990–1007]. Teixidor, J. 1979 Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique. Syria 56: 353–405. 1986 Bulletin d’Épigraphie Sémitique (1964–1980). Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 127. Paris: Geuthner. Tigay, J. H. 1986 You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Harvard Semitic Studies 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Uberti, M. L. 1977 Gli scarabei in steatite e in pasta. Pp. 37–43 in La collezione Biggio: Antichità puniche a Sant’Antioco, ed. E. Acquaro, S. Moscati, and M. L. Uberti. Collezione di Studi Fenici 9. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Uehlinger, C. 1998 Westsemitisch beschriftete Stempelsiegel: Ein Corpus und neue Fragen. Biblica 79: 103–19. Ussishkin, D. 1994 Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam. Pp. 410–28 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. V = Vogüé, M. de 1868 Intailles a legends sémitiques. Revue archéologique 9th ser. 17: 432–50. [Reprinted, pp. 105–40 in idem, Mélanges d’archéologie orientale. Paris, 1868. (In table 1 only. Unless otherwise indicated, seals from Vogüé 1868 are cited by sequence number. Page references are in author-date format.)] VA = Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum Vattioni, F. 1969 I sigilli ebraici. Biblica 50: 357–88. 1971a I sigilli, le monete e gli avori aramaici. Augustinianum 11: 47–69. 1971b I sigilli ebraici II. Augustinianum 11: 447–54. 1978 I sigilli ebraici III. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli 38: 227–53. 1981 I sigilli fenici. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli 41: 177–93. Vaughn, A. G. 2002 Review of R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium bce., and R. Deutsch and A. Lemaire, Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff

174

Philip C. Schmitz

Collection. Journal of Biblical Literature 121: 339–43. Review of Biblical Literature. http:// www.bookreviews.org/Print/9659024053-P.html. Vercoutter, J. 1952 Empreints de sceaux égyptiens à Carthage. Cahiers de Byrsa 2: 37–48. Virolleaud, C. 1924 Les travaux archéologiques en Syrie en 1922–1923. Syria 5: 113–22. Vogüé, M. de 1867 Inscriptions phéniciennes de l’île de Chypre. Journal asiatique 6th ser. 10: 85–178. 1868 Intailles a legends sémitiques. Revue archéologique 9th ser. 17: 432–50. [Reprinted, pp. 105–40 in idem, Mélanges d’archéologie orientale. Paris, 1868.] Vollenweider, M.-L. 1967 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. Catalogue raisonné des sceaux cylinders et intailles. Vol. 1. Geneva: Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. 1983 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. Catalogue raisonné des sceaux, cylinders, intailles et camées, vol. 3: La collection du Réverend Dr. V. E. G. Kenna et d’autres acquisitions et dons récents. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. VSA = Vattioni, F. 1971a I sigilli, le monete e gli avori aramaici. Augustinianum 11: 47–69. VSE = Vattioni, F. 1969 I sigilli ebraici. Biblica 50: 357–88. 1971b I sigilli ebraici II. Augustinianum 11: 447–54. 1978 I sigilli ebraici III. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli 38: 227–53. VSF = Vattioni, F. 1981 I sigilli fenici. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli 41: 177–93. Ward, W. A., and Dever, W. G. 1994 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology. Studies on Scarab Seals 3. San Antonio: Van Siclen. Winckler, H. 1899 Ein Siegel im Berliner Museum. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 2: 354. Wolfe, L. A., and Sternberg, F. 1989 Objects with Semitic Inscriptions, 1100 b.c.–a.d. 700: Jewish, Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities. Auction 23. Zurich: n.p. WSS = Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Yardeni, A. 1990 Les mouvements de la main et la direction des traits dans l’écriture hébraïque. Pp. 377– 401 in L’écriture: Le cerveau, l’oeil et la main, ed. C. Sirat, J. Irigoin, and E. Poulle. Bibliologia: Elementa ad Librorum Studia Pertinentia 10. Turnhout: Brepols. 1997 The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy and Design. Jerusalem: Carta. Zevit, Z. 1993 Two Inscribed Punic Seals from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 10: 85–91. Zevit, Z.; Gitin, S.; and Sokoloff, M., eds. 1995 Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts Larry G. Herr

It is a pleasure to contribute to a volume celebrating the massive intellectual contribution of my teacher, Frank Cross. As a Ph.D. student in the early 1970s at Harvard I took his seminar on Northwest Semitic epigraphy. For my paper, I decided to work on the paleography of stamp seals, trying to determine if there were indeed national/territorial script types, such as Avigad (1970), Naveh (1970), and Cross himself (1975) had been suggesting. At the time, I had no idea of the vast quantities of seals, and I threw myself into the project, hoping there would be at least 200–300 seals upon which to base conclusions. I had hoped to have a completed paper by the end of the semester, but I soon found that the published seals at that time numbered close to 800, and all I could possibly do in a short semester was group them into typological assemblages based on provenance and suggest a broad outline of “national” script types. Meanwhile, I had been hoping to write a thesis on pottery typology for George Ernest Wright. But when he died in 1974, Frank graciously allowed me to transfer my interest in typology from pottery to scripts by giving me permission to extend my seminar paper into a thesis (Herr 1978). At first, I think Frank was somewhat amused by my transferal of ceramic typological terminology to paleography, grouping discrete letter types from different seal inscriptions and designating them with type numbers; using such terms as “diagnostic” for letter forms that were particularly instructive (in pottery analysis, rims are more “diagnostic” than other parts of the vessel); conceptualizing the group of letter types on each seal as an “assemblage” of letters, like pottery on the f loor of a room; and talking about groups of seals with similar letter types as a “horizon” (as we compare an assemblage of pottery from one site with a similar assemblage at another site), which I then conceived as possibly coming from one scribe or scribal school and, therefore, roughly contemporary. Inscribed seals were limited primarily to the 8th to 6th centuries b.c.e. This was a time during which the national/territorial expressions of the peoples of the southern Levant were becoming increasingly differentiated in the material culture (Herr 1997). As part of this larger scenario of rising “national” awareness, local scribal schools were also vigorously developing their own distinctive “national” styles of writing. By the late 8th century b.c.e., most of the styles had become distinctive enough that we are able to recognize them. Avigad, Naveh, and Cross (see above) had noticed many of the differences between these scripts and were talking about distinctive script types, but no one had systematically documented the description and history of this development. 175

176

Larry G. Herr

To do this, I first isolated the letter forms of seals for which we knew the provenance, by numbering each letter type, making out f lash cards for each form, and listing the seals that contained this type. I also described the distinctive features of each type verbally, and then searched for similar forms on unprovenanced seals, adding them to the f lash cards. I determined provenance from findspot only and did not use iconography or onomastics, though I could use them to confirm an identification. I distinctly remember the day in the Harvard Divinity School Andover Library when, working on Ammonite seals, I first realized that, not only was the basic form of for instance Ammonite nun the same on all or most provenanced Ammonite seals, and not only were the other letters on the provenanced seals very similar to each other as well, but when I found an identical or similar nun on unprovenanced seals, the other letters matched those on the Ammonite provenanced seals, too. Each letter was its own line of confirmation, and I could be confident that I had found an unprovenanced seal that had originally been engraved by an Ammonite scribe. There were a few exceptions to these observations, but the overall consistency was more than I had expected. However, a key difference between pottery typology and paleography is that an “assemblage” of letters on a seal (or any inscription) represents the vision (paradigm) of one person (scribe), whereas an assemblage of pottery usually represents the work of several or many potters. Moreover, an inscription is written at one time, whereas the individual pots in an assemblage could have been fabricated over a period of time (especially when large vessels are involved). There is thus more conformity of vision and integrity of forms in an assemblage of letters on an inscription than in an assemblage of pottery; theoretically, this gives inscriptions a narrower time slot for the paleographer to try to identify. The date ascribed, however, must always be a paleographical date and not a precise chronological date (Herr 1998). Inscriptions from the 8th to 6th centuries b.c.e. were written in an unending variety of subtypes based on the varying hands of individual scribes (Vaughn 1999 has emphasized this). However, the goal of the paleographer is not to describe the idiosyncracies of the scribes at the level of the individual letter but to group the various letters and hands into general horizons that may usefully describe a mental paradigm common to most scribes of the time and place. We must not lose sight of the forest by focusing too closely on the trees. Moreover, during the Iron Age in the Levant, there were at least four different script types (horizons) in parallel usage. The formal script was used for monumental inscriptions, such as those on stone. At the opposite end was the cursive script, most often used on ostraca; it was intended to be written quickly and informally. Other inscriptions, such as those on some pottery vessels and some more-formal inscriptions were written in a script type that had both formal and cursive features and is thus called semiformal or semicursive. Generally, the cursive script changed more rapidly and was inf luenced by other scripts more readily. Once an alternate form had entered the cursive stream, it could inf luence the other types of script, but there may have been a lag of a generation or so, as scribes reluctantly made changes to more formal inscriptions.

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts

177

Fig. 1.  The Aramaic seal script. Interpretive drawings of letter forms on select seals. Most of the numbers accompanying the letters are the numbers of the seals in WSS. Those that are in the 100s are from BPPS.

The fourth script type was an adaptation of the formal script as engraved on seals. Like the formal script, each letter was carefully carved into a hard material and therefore fairly accurately ref lected the vision of the scribe. This may be one reason why the scripts on seals can so easily be grouped. Seals were inscribed in reverse so that, when pushed into a clay bulla, the inscription would appear in the positive. Most scribes who prepared seals (at least those that were well made) were, therefore, most likely professionals and may have limited the types of letters appearing on seals. However, some seals were more formal than others, and some seem to have used elements of cursive scripts. This may ref lect the relative sophistication of the scribe. But when one

178

Larry G. Herr

is dating seals, it is a reasonable paleographic generalization to account for a lag behind cursive developments. 1

The Aramaic Seal Scripts

There are approximately 200 inscribed Aramaic seals. 2 Most are stamp seals, but Aramaic seems to have been the only Northwest Semitic script that was written on cylinder seals as well. 3 The Aramaic script tradition contains a great variety of letter forms, making the ascription of seals to this tradition somewhat vague at times. To my knowledge, there has been no successful classification of the Aramaic script types into coherent groups that may be isolated geographically. We must still consider the complete group as a whole. Like the other “national” (or regional) script traditions, seals inscribed in Aramaic began in the 9th century but continued longer than most into the 5th century and perhaps rarely into the Hellenistic period (WSS no. 812). This was because most other scribal traditions switched to using the Aramaic script near the end of the 6th century. Thus, there are seals in the Aramaic script tradition that were made by non-Arameans—for example, the scribes of Judah and Ammon. Indeed, a few seals belonging to Ammonites were written in the Aramaic script and are included in our analysis here (e.g., WSS no. 792). Seals were also less frequent in all traditions by the late 6th century. In establishing our seal script chronology, we find it interesting that very few names on Aramaic seals can be identified with historical persons for which we have independent evidence of dating. Only one seal (WSS no. 750) can be dated on historical grounds. It is the seal of Barrakkab, the son of Panamuwa, who set up several stelae and ruled from ca. 733–727 b.c.e. On the other hand, there is a large body of welldated inscriptions in Aramaic script with which we can compare our seal script. The chronological aspects of the discussion below are based on these parallels. 4 The corpus of Aramaic seals is the most difficult to analyze paleographically with confidence, for the following reasons: (1) Although there are relatively large numbers of Aramaic seals, their inscriptions tend to be short, often containing only the name of the owner without a patronym, and sometimes even these are hypocoristica. (2) A number of the inscriptions are unclear or poorly published so that the script is too imprecise to include in this analysis. (3) Several different letter forms occur contemporaneously. (4) Inscribed Aramaic seals lasted for a long time, from the late 9th to 4th 1.  For more on the theory of seal paleography, especially the ideas of sequencing and “paleographic dating,” see Herr 1998. 2.  The largest grouping of Aramaic seals appears in WSS nos. 357 [upper line], 716, 750–68, 770–804, 806–26, 828–56, 866(?), 910, 922, 934(?), 940, 961(?), 1052(?), 1072, 1074, 1081–82, 1088, 1090–91, 1094(?), 1095–99, 1101(?), 1102–4, 1106, 1109–10, 1119, 1124–25, 1147–49, 1152, 1154, 1155(?), 1158–60, 1163, 1164(?), 1167, 1175(?), and 1188(?). Others may be found in BPPS nos. 72, 106–49, 195(?). From these, we will choose for the following analysis only those that can be ascribed to the Aramaic script tradition with the most certainty. 3. See, for instance, BPPS nos. 106, 111, 116, 121–22, and 143; and Herr 1978: 36–41 nos. 66–81. WSS did not include inscribed cylinder seals. 4. See Herr 1978 and 2001 for a list of some of them.

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts

179

centuries, restricting the size of the corpus of seals for each period. Therefore, in the script charts (see figs. 1–2), my chronological terms are intended to indicate relatively long paleographic time spans, about 75 to 100 years. Moreover, the time spans should be seen to overlap. This “fudge factor” is intentional, because it is impossible to be more precise.

Features and Development of the Aramaic Script The development of ʾalep in Aramaic seal scripts began with a sideways-“V,” the lower line of which was horizontal, crossed by a short, slanting vertical stroke near the join of the “V” strokes. Although this form remained through the 8th and 7th centuries (WSS no. 822), another form developed in which the two horizontal strokes do not meet and one, usually the lower one, stops at the vertical stroke that has become relatively long (WSS no. 756). But far more frequent was the star form, which began to develop in the 8th century—but is only illustrated in fig. 1 from the 7th century (WSS no. 791)—and continued through the 6th and 5th centuries. Early examples of bet tend to be boxy in shape and may have bottom strokes that dip (WSS no. 832) or are horizontal (WSS no. 750). During the 8th century, the top of the head on some forms begins to open (WSS no. 779), while others remain closed (WSS no. 756). The head continues to open on most examples more widely during the 7th and 6th centuries, while the join of the bottom stroke to the back curved. By the 5th century, the closed form has disappeared in favor of the open form. Two forms of gimel conservatively maintain their basic shape throughout the development of the Aramaic seal script. The boomerang shape (WSS no. 835) seems to be slightly more frequent than the form with the left stroke shorter than the right (WSS no. 126). The history of dalet is very similar to the history of bet in that the head begins to open in the 8th century and widens during the 7th and 6th centuries, while also including closed forms. However, the leg also lengthens slightly during the 8th century. The stance most frequently leans to the left, but upright forms can occur in any period. The he changes rapidly, beginning with a tall form with three parallel horizontals (WSS no. 751). The stance of the early form normally leans to the left (WSS no. 835). During the 8th century, a more squat form with only two horizontals, the “two-bar” he (WSS no. 838), begins and continues into the 7th century (WSS no. 809). Rare but degenerate examples of the three-bar form remain even in the 7th century (WSS no. 824). Probably beginning in the late 8th century, the lower horizontal of the twobar form begins to move up and slope downward (BPPS no. 143). Finally, by the 7th century it descends from the upper horizontal, looking like a brand new letter (WSS no. 831). Later forms are adaptations of this form. The development of waw is relatively conservative. Already by the 8th century, the simple form of a long vertical with a short diagonal stroke forming a head on the left has developed (BPPS no. 124). This form largely remains, with slight variations, through the 7th century. From the 6th century on, the head is made by a downward sloping diagonal stroke joining the vertical near its top, probably one reason the uneven gimel was not used after the 7th century.

180

Larry G. Herr

The movement from the “I”-beam form of zayin to the “Z”-shaped form occurred in the 8th century. Some forms as late as the 7th century exhibit a tendency to return to the more conservative form (WSS no. 791). In the 7th and 6th century, the letter becomes taller and more upright. The early form of ḥet is the well-known three-bar form with the short horizontals sloping downward to the left. The verticals do not extend very far beyond the horizontals. By the late 8th century, a two-bar form emerges (WSS no. 756), and from the 7th century on, the one-bar form is most frequent. Only a few examples of ṭet exist. Generally, rare letters do not exhibit rapid change, and this letter is no exception. The normally round form of the 8th century gradually seems to become more squat and angular through the 7th and 6th centuries. The Aramaic yod is a complex letter paleographically. The standard form of a tall letter with two leftward horizontals and a rightward tail continues on seals throughout the Iron Age. Sometimes the join of the upper horizontal and the back is curved; sometimes the tail is long or short; sometimes the stance is upright or leaning to the right; the tail can point down, up, or horizontal; and sometimes the letter can be slightly squat or elongated. These differences probably represent scribal preferences and seem to ref lect contemporary developments in cursive forms. Probably beginning in the late 8th century, but developing rapidly in the 7th century, a leftward-leaning form begins to curve the join between the upper horizontal and the back so much that the join disappears (WSS nos. 775 and 782). When the tail was left off, we have a very different looking letter (WSS no. 834) than the one with which we began. Although there are a variety of heads on kap, the basic form is conservative through the Iron Age. The vertical stroke usually remains upright. During the 8th century, an enclosed head appears, but it does not seem to have continued. Indeed, no consistent development can be seen. The same is true of lamed. Although there are always a few exceptions, the basic right-leaning stance does not change. Nor does the acute angle between the strokes, except in a few cases. One curved example (WSS no. 794) shows how infrequent the form is. In the early stages of mem, the “W”-shaped head joining the top of the leg is standard. (The diagonal head of BPPS no. 136 is not clear on the seal and should not be used without qualification.) Normally the leg is vertical through the 8th century, but a slight leftward slope or curve can occur. Probably beginning in the late 8th century, the strokes of the “W”-shaped head could also be made in ways that made them look like a double-“L” shape (WSS nos. 794 and 1148). During the 6th century, this was changed further when scribes made only one “L”-shaped stroke and drew a line through it (WSS no. 792). This became the most frequent form in the late Aramaic scripts, although more conservative forms could still exist. The nun was very conservative, with the early form retaining its essential shape throughout the centuries when seals were produced. In the 6th century, the letter is often depicted in a more squat form than earlier examples. As in the kap and mem, the legs were usually vertical but could slope or curve to the left. Although the early form of samek, with three horizontals at the top of a central vertical stroke, continues into the 6th century, other forms developed in very different ways. First, during the 8th century the vertical began to stop at the lowest horizontal

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts

181

Fig. 2.  The Ammonite seal script. Interpretive drawings of letter forms on select seals. Most of the numbers accompanying the letters are the numbers of the seals in WSS. Those that are in the 100s are from BPPS.

(WSS no. 828). Then, probably beginning in the late 8th century, scribes began to connect the horizontal strokes with ligatures, resulting in a double-“Z” pattern for the head (WSS no. 831), or more rarely, a single-“Z” head (WSS no. 775). During the 6th century, this form was further altered in very unlikely ways, with a ligature descending from the lowest horizontal (WSS no. 834). The early, ring-shaped ʿayin becomes slightly more oval in the 8th and 7th centuries and probably began to open its head during the late 8th century, if we can follow the same paradigm as bet, dalet, and reš. This is also the case on other Aramaic inscriptions as well. We certainly have the open head by the 6th century. The standard form of pe did not change at all in the Iron Age. A biform seems to have existed during the 8th century, when a curving, oblique angle connected the head to the leg (WSS no. 838; BPPS no. 108).

182

Larry G. Herr

The various forms of ṣade are so different that a coherent story cannot be told from the seals alone. Normally, the “Z”-shaped head of the letter should extend to the right, but on seals it is often on the left (WSS no. 763). Early on, during the 8th century, seal scribes shortened the head to a single or double stroke, and it seems to have remained this way. Early qop, with a vertical stroke ascending through a ring developed when scribes began to make the ring in two semicircular (or later, “V”-shaped) strokes around the upper half of the vertical. In other inscriptions, an upper tick on the left side of the head occurs as early as the 8th century but is not clearly seen on our seals until much later (WSS no. 818). Aramaic reš developed very similarly to dalet. The relatively long leg of the letter remained throughout its history, but sometimes it is very difficult to differentiate between the two letters. During the second half of the 8th century, the head began to open, while closed forms also continued. Although most heads were located near the top of the vertical stroke, some forms contain heads that joined the vertical at its top (WSS no. 822 and 825) making it similar to nun. The late forms of the letter can be confused with both dalet and waw. A variety of “W” shapes characterize šin on seals into the 7th century and later. During the 6th century, the three-stroke form, already appearing in the 7th century on other Aramaic inscriptions, began to appear (WSS no. 814). A secondary development occurred slightly later when the middle stroke moved up the left stroke (WSS no. 799). Early taw, looking like a Latin cross, was the standard form through the 7th century. Although it began much earlier in other Aramaic inscriptions, forms with a short horizontal stroke extending only to the right do not appear on seals until the 6th century or possibly slightly earlier. Overall, many Aramaic seal letters changed rapidly during the 8th century when the star ʾalep began to appear; heads began to open on bet, dalet, ʿayin, and reš; horizontal strokes began to disappear on he and ḥet; the “Z”-shaped zayin became prominent; many forms of yod began to lean to the left and become rounded; and ligatures occurred on samek. Another time when changes seem to have occurred was the late 7th or 6th century, when letters became more squat and squared; one variety of yod lost its tail; the head of mem was formed very differently; and the three-stroke šin became predominant. However, older forms could also be preserved in some late seals.

The Ammonite Seal Scripts Of the script families within Northwest Semitic inscriptions, Aramaic and Ammonite have the closest association. Indeed, it is perhaps appropriate to characterize the relationship by describing Ammonite as a localized development of Aramaic. The debate about the precise manner of the dependency of Ammonite script on Aramaic centers on the degree to which Ammonite may be seen as a fully independent script. Some see Ammonite as developing independently after it broke away from its parent Aramaic in the late 8th century (Cross 1975; Herr 1978: 55–57; Jackson 1983; Hackett 1984;

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts

183

see Aufrecht 1989: xxii, for more references, especially those by Cross). Others believe Ammonite was one form of Aramaic (Naveh 1970; 1971; 1982), adopted by scribes in the Ammonite area and then further inf luenced by it as Aramaic forms changed. The two positions are not far apart and depend to some extent on the analysis of cursive elements within Ammonite (see Rollston in this volume, pp. 202–234). From my point of view, working primarily with seals, there is very little or no Aramaic inf luence on the Ammonite seal script until the last part of the 7th century, when several of the letters began to open, as had already been the case for 100 years in Aramaic. Like Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite, the Ammonite script seems to have ceased during the second half of the 6th century, when Ammonite scribes adopted the Aramaic script, including the script used on seals (see WSS nos. 792 and 853, where the Aramaic script and language are used for obvious Ammonite names). As far as seal scripts are concerned, next to Hebrew, Ammonite is the easiest script tradition for a paleographer to isolate. Usually, it takes little more than a glance. The upright stances of many letters, the use of right angles in forming the lines of the letters, and the lack of curved legs are elements that are immediately visible and recognizable. Ammonite scribes seem to have eschewed adapting cursive elements on Ammonite seals. Other aspects of certain letters common in Ammonite but rare elsewhere include squared ʿayin, he with a two-bar head, and closed heads on bet, dalet, ʿayin, and reš. The appearance of these forms, quite common on Ammonite seals, confirms the identification. One interesting aspect of Ammonite scribal activity on seals is the scribes’ apparent fascination with abecedaries, carving far more than any other script tradition (WSS nos. 992–1005; BPPS nos. 183–84). The relatively large number of Ammonite seals, almost 200 so far, illustrates the tendency for the peoples of the southern Levant to use inscribed seals more than their northern counterparts. There are almost as many Ammonite seals as Aramaic, but both the Ammonite region and population were minuscule compared with Aram. 5 We are fortunate to have three seals that contain the names of Ammonite kings we can identify with well-dated historical persons and a fourth that we can probably attach to a historical person. The three known kings are Padaʾel (WSS no. 857, mentioned in Assyrian records dated to 701 and 675 b.c.); Amminadab (WSS no. 858, probably Amminadab I mentioned in Assyrian records in 667 b.c.); and Baʿalyashaʿ (WSS no. 860, mentioned in Jer 40:14 in events associated with 583 or 582 b.c.). The fourth possibility is another Amminadab (WSS no. 859, possibly Amminadab I or II; both lived during the early to mid-7th century b.c.e.). Ammonite script was essentially conservative, changing hardly at all over the course of the late 8th century, when it seems to have established its own identity from its Aramaic antecedents, until the late 7th century when it opened the heads of several letters (bet, dalet, ʿayin, and reš ), most likely inf luenced by Aramaic forms over a 5.  The largest collection of Ammonite seals appears in WWS nos. 152(?), 715, 748, 805, 857– 63, 865–909, 911–21, 923–39, 941–60, 962–74, 976–1005, 1076, 1105, 1112, 1114, 1116(?), 1120, 1122, 1127, 1135(?), 1176(?), 1177–78, 1180(?), and 1185. Others appear in BPPS nos. 150– 84; and Aufrecht in press.

184

Larry G. Herr

century old. Other letters have more than one basic form: ʾalep, he, ḥet, yod, mem, and taw. The conservative nature of the tradition makes it difficult to date individual seals in the 7th century. The divisions in the script chart are intended to illustrate paleographic tendencies only, and it is assumed that there is considerable overlap. The plus-minus range of the forms may comprise 75 to 100 years.

Features and Development of the Ammonite Script Ammonite seal scribes retained the early 8th-century form of Aramaic ʾalep through the 7th century. Toward the end of this century, a star form began to develop (WSS no. 863), perhaps under Aramaic inf luence and, although the conservative form crops up in the 6th century (WSS no. 887), the star form became dominant in the late 7th and 6th centuries. A very similar developmental story can be told for bet. The 8th-century Aramaic form, with horizontal or dipping baseline is retained through most of the 7th century, but the head begins to open late in the 7th century (WSS no. 946) and becomes dominant in the 6th century. Only scribal idiosyncrasies seem to explain the differences in gimel (WSS no. 1002). The history of dalet is virtually identical to that of bet. There is also a general lengthening of the leg. The normal, three-bar he occurs through the 7th century, but a new, two-bar form seems to enter the tradition early in the 7th century (WSS no. 1120) and is the most frequent form thereafter. Although two-bar forms can occur rarely in Aramaic, its frequent occurrence in Ammonite is a strong diagnostic feature of that script tradition. The “Z”-shaped zayin changes only slightly over the history of Ammonite seals, becoming slightly taller through time, although exceptions can occur (WSS no. 972). Although there seem to be several subtypes of ḥet over its history, some of the differences are due to individual scribal characteristics. Three-bar forms are virtually absent, and two-bar examples are probably earlier than the mid-7th century (WSS no. 996). Otherwise, the one-bar letter is dominant. There seems to be no consistent pattern in either the height or the direction of slope for the crossbar, though the verticals seem to become slightly farther apart in the late examples (WSS no. 997). The varieties of ṭet probably ref lect individual scribal preferences, but the opening of the top of one late example (WSS no. 969) may represent a larger trend. There are complex changes occurring with yod, probably under Aramaic inf luence. Although we do not have an example from late 8th-century seals, the classic form of yod must have been present, because it appears later (WSS no. 857). However, the most prevalent form in Ammonite has a stance that tends to lean to the left and either have a curved join at the top (WSS no. 1120), or the angle of the upper stroke to the back is oblique, with the lower horizontal joining at the angle (BPPS no. 179). In the late 7th century, the oblique angle gets larger or is curved (WSS no. 874), and the tail can shorten (WSS no. 969). The tail infrequently drops at almost any point.

Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts

185

Although the classic form of kap continues throughout the history of the Ammonite seal script, a variety of head types occur, especially in the 7th century. These include a lower stroke that descends from the upper stroke (WSS no. 886); an upper stroke that ascends from the tip of the lower stroke (WSS no. 984); and a triangular head (WSS nos. 876 and possibly 860). The lamed changes very little in the Iron Age, except perhaps to open the angle between the upright and the baseline toward the end more often than not. Most of the time there is an acute angle, but oblique angles (WSS nos. 858 and 977) and curved baselines can also occur. Two basic heads exist for mem. The “W”-shaped head is most frequent, but a shortened form (lacking the right stroke of the “W”) may also be found, especially in the earlier periods (WSS nos. 858 and 893). Although infrequent on seals, the head made of a double “L” may be found during the 7th and 6th centuries (WSS nos. 917 and 908). The nun on seals was very conservative, changing little over time. There seems to be a tendency toward the end of the tradition to widen the letter slightly. Although we do not have very many examples, samek changed considerably. From the classic shape with three horizontals in the early stages of the seal script, Ammonite scribes seem to have adopted new forms readily. A ligatured form from the middle of the 7th century (WSS no. 917) was soon shortened to a simple “Z” for the head (WSS no. 875). The only 6th-century form we have (WSS no. 869) is an adaptation of the late 7th-century form that looks like a yod with a tick at the end of the tail. The dominant characteristic of ʿayin is its square form. Like bet and dalet (and perhaps ṭet), the letter remained closed until the late 7th century, until most examples seem to have opened. The crook shape of pe remained unchanged until the end of the 7th century, when it seems to have consisted of two angular strokes. Although the earliest example of ṣade is distorted slightly, the letter appears to be another conservative form that changes little. Indeed, one of the later examples (WSS no. 885) has all the characteristics of an early form (not represented on any of our seals). The heads of the earliest examples of qop surround the upper shaft with two triangular elements. A later example is more circular. The reš has the same history as dalet except that the leg is almost always longer. However, especially short legs make it often difficult to tell whether the letter is a dalet or a reš. The only development that can be seen in the “W”-shaped šin is the relatively shallow form of some examples beginning with the late 7th century. The Latin cross shape of the taw continues through most of the history of the letter but, beginning with the 7th century, there is a tendency for the crossbar to move to the right. The Ammonite seal script is a conservative and limited expression of the Ammonite script forms. Missing are the letter forms with cursive elements that can be found in other inscriptions. Largely missing are letters with curved elements. The late 8th

186

Larry G. Herr

century forms are those of Aramaic of that time but, once formulated and adopted by Ammonite scribes, the script generally did not adopt contemporary Aramaic changes. Instead, the seal script retained earlier forms but changed some letters toward Aramaic forms at two periods of time. The first time of significant development took place toward the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 7th century and included: the introduction of the two-bar he; possibly the introduction of the one-bar ḥet; the ligatured samek; and possibly the rightward movement of the crossbar on taw. The second period of change occurred in the second half of the 7th century and included: the star ʾalep; the open heads of bet, dalet, ʿayin, reš (and perhaps ṭet); and the squat form of šin.

References Aufrecht, W. E. 1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. in press  A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. BPPS = Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Cross, F. M. 1975 Ammonite Ostraca from Heshbon: Heshbon Ostraca IV–VIII. Andrews University Seminary Studies 13: 1–20. Hackett, J. A. 1984 The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1998 The Palaeography of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312: 45–77. 2001 The Inf luence of Syrian Iron Age Scripts on the Writing of Transjordan. Pp. 163–67 in Recherches canadiennes sur la Syrie antique / Canadian Research on Ancient Syria, ed. M. Fortin. Toronto: Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies. Jackson, K. P. 1983 The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Naveh, J. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5: 1–69. 1971 Hebrew Texts in Aramaic Script in the Persian Period? Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 203: 27–32. 1982 The Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem: Magnes. WSS = Avigad, N. and Sass, B. 1997 A Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts Larry G. Herr

The three “national” paleographic groups discussed in this chapter are all related, ref lecting common origins and cultural developments. I have elsewhere called this the “South Palestinian” family (Herr 1980), although it is perhaps more appropriate now to call it the “South Levantine Family” as opposed to the “North Levantine Family,” which includes primarily Phoenician and Aramaic and related scripts, including Ammonite. It is likely that the geographical, political, social, and economic connections between the three groups fostered the script development. Israel (and later Judah) was the dominant group, and its script was most likely the script in use in all three areas before the 8th century b.c.e., when scribes developed their own tradition of writing. Published seals and seal impressions inscribed in the Hebrew script constitute by far the largest number (close to 1,000), while I can find only around 60 Moabite and approximately 20 Edomite examples. I will introduce the three scripts in a cursory fashion and then proceed to analyze the development of each letter. I have not sought out a comprehensive list of all seals and impressions but will rely on the corpus of Avigad and Sass (WSS) and, because it postdates WSS and has a significant quantity of seals, the work of Deutsch and Lemaire (BPPS). In the following, references to WSS and BPPS as well as examples in fig. 1 are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

The Hebrew Seal Script Approximately 1,000 seals and seal impressions identified as Hebrew have been published. 1 Fortunately, we can group most of them based on the similarities in their script types (Herr 1998). The oldest Hebrew seals seem to have been produced in the late 9th or early 8th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 193, 377). Their numbers gradually increased in the mid- and late 8th century b.c.e. and peaked in the 7th century b.c.e., 1.  The largest list is found in WSS nos. 1–31, 33–42, 45–67, 69–151, 153–216, 218–324, 326–65, 367–80, 382–711, 1071, 1079–80, 1123, 1126, 1172, 1200, 1205, 1208, 1210–11, and possibly 1006, 1138, 1140, 1147, 1150, 1157, 1187, and 1213–14. Many newly published examples are also to be found in BPPS nos. 1–10, 14, 17–19, 21–22, 25–50, 52–54, 59–67, 70, 75, 78–81, 83–86, 88–90, 92, and 186. Others are to be found in the four small volumes by Deutsch and Heltzer (1994; 1995; 1997; 1999), although many seals from these volumes also appear in WSS and BPPS. Partial bibliographical citations in WSS introduce the student to the hundreds of publications and scores of authors who have worked on ancient inscribed Northwest Semitic stamp seals.

187

188

Larry G. Herr

with hundreds of examples. Except for a few written in the Persian period, 2 the use of seals inscribed with writing mostly disappeared during the 6th century b.c.e. (for a couple of examples, see WSS nos. 220, 223). Generally, the seals from the 8th century b.c.e. and the first part of the 7th century b.c.e. were better made than those in the very late 7th and early 6th centuries b.c.e. Indeed, the late examples are sometimes so sloppy that they are difficult to read, or so uncertain that they cannot be included on script charts. The late scripts also suggest an unsophisticated, archaizing return to 8th-century b.c.e. forms in many cases. The crudeness of the letters mixed with clearly advanced forms make it clear that they belong to the 6th century b.c.e. rather than the 8th. The Hebrew seal script is very easily isolated from neighboring scripts during the 8th and 7th centuries, except for a few of the shortest seal inscriptions. The script belongs to and dominates the “Southern Levantine Script” (adapting my earlier term “Southern Palestinian Script,” Herr 1980). In terms of paleographic development, many Hebrew letters were somewhat static or changed only during parts of our period, especially during the late 8th to early 7th centuries b.c.e., when 8th-century cursive developments seem to have caused change in the seal script from time to time. Fortunately, all three of the letters in the theophoric element of Hebrew names changed significantly at various points in this period, probably because of frequent use, allowing us to discern paleographically diagnostic letters on most Hebrew seals. In the following descriptions of paleographic developments for each letter, I emphasize that it is the tendency in the script with which we work, not the peculiarities of individual scribal hands. However, not always does a clear tendency exhibit itself. It is assumed that not every scribe incorporated these changes at the same time and in the same ways. We must allow room for individual scribal idiosyncrasies as emphasized by Vaughn (1999). In the descriptions below, I have outlined the development of the letters based on inscriptions for which the date is largely agreed upon (Herr 1978). The result is fig. 1, which is based more on letter forms than inscriptions. Thus, one seal may provide forms for two lines of script, because the letters fit both of the periods. It is assumed that any particular writing style lasted for a period of time (Herr 1998). It should also be emphasized that our present knowledge of scripts is the cumulative knowledge of the work of many scholars—many of whom I cannot cite but whose publications are to be found in the bibliographical references in the WSS citations below.

Features and Development of the Hebrew Script Early forms of ʾalep often exhibit angular horizontals that join left of the upright (WSS no. 185, if the drawing is correct; there is no photograph). During the course of the 8th century b.c.e., the horizontals began to separate, and the lower horizontal stayed to the right of the vertical (WSS nos. 99, 171) so that, by the end of the century, the letter was made in a variety of more-or-less related forms that generally saw the top horizontal extend left of the vertical but the lower horizontal remain to the right but angle up slightly or appear somewhat curved (WSS nos. 5, 11, 39). Another alternative 2.  For example, WSS no. 419 seems to belong to the 4th century b.c.e.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

189

Fig. 1.  Most common letter forms in the seal scripts of Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite. The numbers beside the letters correspond to those in WSS except for one, prefixed with a “B,” which is from BPPS. Because of the range of dating for the letters a few seals may be used in more than one line.

has the horizontals made of three strokes, two parallel to the right of the vertical and a third to the left of the vertical and positioned between the two right strokes (WSS no. 51). The presence of several varieties ref lects different scribal forces at work as the letter changed. The most frequent type was made of two parallel horizontal strokes in which the upper stroke extended past the vertical to the left (WSS nos. 46, 67). This became the standard form in the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 6–8). Later forms, toward the end of the 7th century b.c.e. and the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e., saw the horizontals shorten while the space between them increased, so that the letter looks slightly stubbier (WSS nos. 72, 88). Another late form sees the two horizontal strokes both break through the vertical to the left (WSS nos. 49, 58, 81). The changes associated with bet are less complex. The 8th-century forms tend to be tall and upright with a 90-degree angle between the back and the horizontal baseline (WSS nos. 3, 224). Under 8th-century cursive inf luence, the stance begins to lean to the right during the second half of the 8th century b.c.e., while the baseline and orientation of the head remain horizontal (WSS nos. 5, 11, 22). This new form remains virtually static throughout the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 6, 8, 31). Toward

190

Larry G. Herr

the end of that century, the baseline drops or shows a curve (WSS nos. 19, 111, 157, 175, 187) or reverts to awkward expressions of the upright form (WSS nos. 132–33). Gimel is not obviously diagnostic throughout the period, but note how the head seems to narrow with time. The straight leg is the main characteristic that allows separation from pe. Dalet begins the period as a triangle with a short leg (WSS nos. 2–3). During the 8th century b.c.e., the leg grows (WSS nos. 4, 27) until it can almost be confused with reš, especially when they are distorted in the narrow registers of some seals (WSS nos. 34, 50). Toward the end of the 8th century b.c.e., again most likely under cursive inf luence and possibly to distinguish it from reš, the upper stroke of the head begins to extend to the right of the vertical (WSS nos. 1, 5). But this development is not regular. However, by the 7th century b.c.e., this “extended” form is paradigmatic for almost all Hebrew scribes (WSS nos. 6, 8, 10). By the 6th century b.c.e., several somewhat crude nonextended forms with large heads return (WSS nos. 81, 105, 161), along with extended versions, which also tend to have large heads (WSS nos. 131, 133, 174). A leftward-leaning stance, a moderately long vertical stroke, and three parallel and equal horizontal strokes roughly at a right angle to the vertical characterize he in the 8th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 37, 201). Toward the end of the 8th century b.c.e., several things happen, again under cursive inf luence (see the Siloam Inscription for similar developments [Hestrin 1973: 83, for example]): the upper horizontal begins to extend to the right of the vertical, the lower two horizontals are sometimes drawn so as to converge slightly with the upper horizontal to the left, and the lower horizontal can be made longer and/or curve up toward the upper horizontal (WSS nos. 11, 206, 212). Not all these features were applied at the same time (WSS nos. 126, 204, 284, 310). Variants of them are the standard 7th-century forms (WSS nos. 8, 10, 12, 20) until, toward the end of the century on less well-made seals, the stance becomes more upright, the extension often disappears, and the horizontals form a slightly acute angle to the vertical (WSS nos. 53, 55, 74). Although distorted on many seals because it is often the last letter of a line, waw develops rapidly during the 8th century b.c.e. From an open “V”- or “U”-shaped head (sometimes made with two strokes) in the late 9th and early 8th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 3, 4, 51, 377), the head moves through intermediate forms (WSS nos. 79, 143, 168), toward a form that looks similar to a backward 2 on top of a leftward leaning vertical shaft, as on the Siloam Inscription (WSS nos. 27, 91, 93). This is the form that occurs, with variants and where the head is not distorted by lack of space, throughout the 7th century b.c.e. as the standard form (WSS nos. 14, 17, 26). Sometimes the head does not curve to the right at the top (WSS nos. 53, 81, 88). This may be a late indicator or simply the result of lack of space (WSS nos. 61, 111). The upright “I”-shaped zayin in the early seals (WSS nos. 3, 193) lengthens and sometimes contains a tick on the right side of one or both of the horizontal strokes during the 8th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 5, 94). This, with the second tick almost always present, is the standard form throughout most of the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 8, 98). Toward the end of the 7th century b.c.e., the letter often shortens (WSS nos. 174, 305) but also retains the longer forms (WSS nos. 153, 175).

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

191

In the second half of the 8th century b.c.e., there are many varieties of ḥet based on stance and length of the verticals, but most sport a left-leaning stance with offsetting verticals (the left one going up, and the right one going down) that are relatively long (WSS nos. 5, 22, 34, 37). This form remains throughout the 7th century b.c.e. as the standard form (WSS nos. 33, 57, 66). The overall development does not seem to be significant until near the end of the 7th century b.c.e., when many seals show a wide, squat variety (WSS nos. 35, 52, 131, 153). But this is not consistent. Two-bar forms are rare but possible at almost any time (WSS nos. 159, 163). The rarity and apparent unchangeability of ṭet reduces its diagnostic utility. It retains its conservative form throughout the period. This conservative form distinguishes it from Moabite and Edomite, however, which contain only one interior bar. Yod begins our period in a tall, upright stance with a tendency toward right angles (WSS nos. 3, 4, 193). Some forms, especially on seals made in the North (Israel) during the 8th century b.c.e., have a tick at the end of the tail, which can often be quite long (WSS nos. 27, 51, 377, 93 [top], 316). The tendency during the 8th century b.c.e. was toward a leftward leaning stance and acute angles, similar to the semicursive script of the Siloam Inscription (WSS nos. 28, 34, 79). This remains the standard form for most of the 7th century b.c.e. but, as in he, the two upper horizontals can slightly converge (WSS nos. 6, 7, 8, 12). The stance again becomes upright and tall on most late forms, often with closely set upper horizontals (WSS nos. 18, 53, 55, 61), but this is by no means universal (WSS nos. 15, 74). Inconsistency characterizes the head of kap, but there may be a tendency, as on mem, nun, and pe, to curve the leg more in the late 8th and early 7th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 6, 8, 10, 11). This form continues with variations due to different hands throughout the 7th and 6th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 19, 74). Eighth-century lamed was most often angular (WSS nos. 2, 37) or sometimes curving (WSS no. 99), but by the second half of the 8th century b.c.e., the most characteristic feature is the upward tick at the end of the baseline (WSS nos. 4, 51). This continued (WSS no. 11) as the dominant form throughout the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 1, 6, 8, 10). Only toward the 6th century b.c.e. do we again have a variety of forms, including the type with a tick (WSS nos. 15, 36), a curving base (WSS nos. 72, 97), a stronger right-leaning stance with a round base (WSS nos. 18–19), and a simple acute angle to the base (WSS nos. 61, 74). The form with the tick is strongly diagnostic for Hebrew script but, because it lasts for almost two centuries, is not chronologically diagnostic. The head of mem can be made in many different ways in both the 8th (WSS nos. 2, 377) and 7th centuries b.c.e., most of which are not paleographically significant (WSS nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16). Most often it is made with two “V”-shaped segments next to each other and leaning slightly to the right (WSS nos. 11, 20), or sometimes the drilling of the letters makes the two strokes of each “V” overlap or extend beyond their meeting point (WSS nos. 13, 15, 16), though the right side of these segments is often not visible in photographs. Generally, the later the script the more the leg curves and/or the stance leans to the right (WSS nos. 55, 90), but this is not witnessed consistently enough to be clearly diagnostic (WSS nos. 64, 81).

192

Larry G. Herr

Nun has virtually the same history as mem. It seems to have been viewed as a mem minus one segment of the head. That is, the same variety of heads appears (WSS nos. 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18). Vaughn’s typology for this letter (1999) is consistent for the few seals he examines but does not fit the larger corpus. During the 8th century b.c.e., samek can occur in its older form (WSS no. 110), but it also develops a major tick on the right side of the lowest horizontal that often extends down to the shaft (WSS nos. 59, 79). Though it continues in the 7th century b.c.e. as the dominant form (WSS nos. 20, 22, 119), it is not consistently represented (WSS nos. 286) and often does not occur on late seals (WSS nos. 88, 227). The vertical continues up through the horizontal strokes throughout the 8th century b.c.e. but often cannot be seen in later examples (WSS nos. 227, 282, 284). The round ʿayin of the late 9th to early 8th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 2–3) develops a late 8th-century variant that turns it into a rounded triangle or pointed oval leaning to the right (WSS nos. 4, 34, 80), as on the Siloam Inscription. More rarely, it is squared (WSS no. 27). The triangular form becomes the most frequent 7th-century type (WSS nos. 6, 8, 10) with later examples becoming slightly more round again (WSS nos. 118, 133), though the triangular form also occurs frequently (WSS nos. 49, 52). The relatively short ṣade (Herr 1978: fig. 52) found on the Gezer Calendar and the Mesha Stela lengthens in the seals during the 8th century b.c.e. to the classic form (WSS 68) that continued throughout the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 29, 89) and then seems to shorten again late in that century (WSS nos. 90, 338). Early qop is shaped much like a Greek phi (WSS nos. 193, 316, 343). In the 8th century b.c.e., the right side of the head moves lower so that the circle ends at the middle of the shaft by the end of that century (WSS nos. 27, 69). The shaft also disappears from the head (WSS no. 28). The form stays this way throughout the 7th century (WSS nos. 6, 29) but can revert to crude versions of earlier forms (often with the vertical remaining below the head) late in the period (WSS nos. 177, 229). One late example restricts the head to the right of the shaft (WSS no. 307). Reš develops in no detectable way during this period. The head can be made in several different ways, and the leg can sometimes be shorter than usual, but these seem to be characteristics of the scribe rather than consistent typological features. However, the stance appears almost never to be vertical, unlike the stance in Ammonite and many examples of Phoenician and Aramaic. Changes in šin are difficult to recognize, but there is a slight tendency to make the letter somewhat shallower and longer during the late 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e. (WSS nos. 1, 11, 34). Tall forms appear again late in the period (WSS nos. 55, 155). The 9th- and 8th-century forms of taw can often be upright (WSS no. 190), as on the Gezer Calendar (Herr 1978: fig. 53), but the dominant form is “X”-shaped throughout the Iron Age. It is not chronologically diagnostic. Overall, there is a tendency for letters to change rapidly during the 8th century b.c.e. under the inf luence of cursive developments, changing from types illustrated on the Mesha Inscription (late 9th century b.c.e.) to those on the Siloam Inscription (late 8th-century semicursive forms) and then to hold steady throughout the 7th cen-

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

193

tury b.c.e. until its end, when forms become cruder and/or revert (archaize) toward 8th-century forms.

The Moabite Seal Script Approximately 60 seals and seal impressions identified as Moabite have been published. 3 The script on these seals is characterized by a combination of western (e.g., Hebrew) and northern (e.g., Aramaic and Ammonite) features. These features are not haphazard but are consistently applied to certain letters only. Because Moab was a Transjordanian neighbor of Ammon, it is possible that some of the Aramaic-like features could actually have been inspired from Ammon rather than from farther north. It is difficult to assess the development of Moabite script based on its own history. There are almost no substantial inscriptions in Moabite after the Mesha Stela from which we can construct a paleographic chart. However, the much shorter, recently-discovered incense altar inscription from Mudayana al-Thamed (Dion and Daviau 2000) represents fully developed Moabite forms, clearly separate from Hebrew. Seals are by far our best assemblage of late Iron Age Moabite inscriptions, but they are too short to create a confident typology by themselves. Moreover, virtually no seals can be ascribed to historical personages, allowing us no peg upon which to hang even a theoretical typology. This means we must use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ammonite developments to help us date Moabite seals. This creates another problem, however, because, after adopting the western and northern letters for their script, Moabite scribes may have preserved forms conservatively or altered them at different rates of development from the surrounding scripts. But this does not mean we are completely at a loss. We can play the western and northern traditions against each other to project a theoretical development from what little we have, erring on the side of conservatism, leaning toward the 7th century b.c.e., which seems to be the floruit for seals in Moab.

Features and Development of the Moabite Script Moabite ʾalep is one of the northern forms, occurring as a horizontal “V” with a vertical shaft in the 8th-century forms (WSS nos. 1011, 1017). In the 7th century b.c.e., it is most often in a “star” shape (WSS nos. 1007, 1012, 1013), but the more conservative form is also known (WSS nos. 1010, 1015). Hebrew ʾalep never had the “star” form. Though it is much better known in Aramaic circles than Ammonite, it occurs on Ammonite seals from the second half of the 7th century b.c.e. on and could have come to Moab through Ammon sometime around the middle of the 7th century b.c.e. (Herr 1978: fig. 42). 3.  Moabite seals may be found in WSS nos. 217, 1007–47, 1077–78, and 1199; possibly (though also possibly Edomite): 32, 359, 864, 1061–62, 1064; and (possibly Hebrew): 1006; and BPPS nos. 188–89, 191, 193–94, 198–99; possibly (though also possibly Hebrew): 94; and (possibly Aramaic): 125. I have used only those seals which we can attribute with confidence to the Moabite scribal tradition (WSS 372; Israel 1987b).

194

Larry G. Herr

The typical bet, another northern form, has a dipping baseline, much like Ammonite but unlike Hebrew (WSS nos. 1013, 1020, 1042). There seems to be very little consistent development of the letter. No examples of a bet with an open head can clearly be seen, although the strokes on some letters connect only weakly (WSS no. 1077; BPPS no. 194). There is thus no continued inf luence from the northern traditions. Letters such as gimel and ṭet are so rare we cannot determine diagnostic properties except to note that Moabite ḥet, unlike Hebrew, has only one interior bar (WSS no. 1011). Because Moabite dalet does not exhibit typical Hebrew features, such as the extension at the top of the head, and displays a non-Hebrew upright stance (WSS nos. 1008, 1021, 1023, 1036), it also belongs to the northern tradition. Two late examples may have a slightly open head (WSS no. 1015; BPPS no. 190), though these may simply be strokes weakly connected. Certainly, as for bet, there are no clearly open heads. If the heads do not open, there is no clear typological development throughout our period or further continuation of northern inf luence. Although 8th-century examples of he have no extension of the upper horizontal to the right of the vertical (WSS nos. 1009, 1022), most examples from the late 8th century b.c.e. on have an extension, like Hebrew forms (WSS nos. 1007, 1011; BPPS no. 191). But, unlike Hebrew, the stance is virtually upright. One form exhibits a longer, lower horizontal, like Hebrew (WSS no. 1007). The rarity of this feature suggests that, although other features of the seal look like Moabite, WSS no. 1006 = BPPS no. 187 (which has been attributed to the Moabite tradition by both WSS and BPPS) may actually be Hebrew (note also that the bet does not have a dipping baseline). Examples of waw are so rare on Moabite seals that it is hard to do more than observe that it seems to follow the western tradition rather than the northern (WSS nos. 1031, 1046). However, the lower diagonal on the head does not extend left of the vertical as it does in most Hebrew examples. The very early example in WSS no. 1041 is so early that the seal could be Hebrew or Edomite as well as Moabite. The forms of zayin tend to be tall and narrow (WSS nos. 1009, 1011, 1012), ignoring the developments in contemporary Hebrew. A few forms are slightly shorter (WSS no. 1043), but none are as long as Hebrew examples, nor do they contain the downward tick(s) so typical of the western script. It thus seems to be closer to the northern tradition, though the “Z”-shaped form in Aramaic (late 8th century b.c.e.) and Ammonite (late 7th century b.c.e.) is so far completely lacking. The letter is not diagnostic chronologically. Again, once Moabite scribes adopted a letter, they do not seem to have been inf luenced by other traditions. The letter ḥet seems to combine features of both traditions. Unlike Hebrew, which consistently has three horizontal strokes, there are almost always only two horizontals on Moabite seals (WSS nos. 1014, 1015, 1025), but like Hebrew, the verticals extend in opposite directions on either side of the letter (WSS nos. 1014–16). One example has the verticals making their extensions on the opposite sides (WSS no. 1032); it may represent scribal reversal, but the other traditions extend on either side, as well. We can trace no development in this letter throughout our period.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

195

The tick at the end of the relatively long tail of several early examples of yod (WSS nos. 1011, 1025, 1026; BPPS nos. 189, 191) suggests that it originated from the western tradition during the middle of the 8th century b.c.e., when northern Hebrew contained a feature of this sort. 4 The rather tall upright stance of these letters also suggests the 8th century b.c.e. as its point of derivation. Although the tick seems to disappear in the early 7th century b.c.e., the upright stance continues throughout this century (WSS nos. 1023, 1024, 1028, 1032), though one example leans to the left like Ammonite (WSS no. 1017) and another to the right (WSS no. 1027). The curved leg of kap clearly identifies it with the western tradition (as do all letter forms with a long leg below the line and a head to the left: kap, mem, nun, and pe). However, the large heads of all these letters and the normally strong curve of the leg identify them as a Moabite rather than Hebrew script (WSS nos. 1008–10). Although the stance of early 8th-century examples of the letter lean to the right, by the period of the seals, the stance has become more upright (Aufrecht and Shury 1997) and does not seem to change thereafter. There is normally no tick at the end of the baseline for lamed. 5 Instead, the letter is normally made of an acute angle with a right-leaning upright (WSS nos. 1011, 1015, 1021, 1025, 1032). Sometimes the shaft is straight (WSS no. 1043) or curved (WSS nos. 1014, 1040; BPPS no. 199). A few round bases also exist (WSS nos. 1036, 1041; BPPS no. 197). None of these elements seems to be chronologically diagnostic. The curved legs and large heads of mem and nun (WSS nos. 1007, 1009, 1010, 1018, 1020) are similar to the description of kap above. The head of mem is usually made of two “L”-shaped segments (WSS nos. 1007, 1009, 1010), while that of nun is made with one (WSS nos. 1011, 1020). Sometimes, as in Hebrew, the horizontal strokes of the head are not visible (WSS nos. 1011, 1013). There is nothing diagnostic for chronological purposes about these letters. The Moabite version of samek seems to carry on the late 8th-century Hebrew tradition, with three horizontal strokes on top of a vertical shaft that does not penetrate the horizontals (WSS nos. 1007, 1008, 1010; BPPS nos. 189, 191). No forms suggest the development in northern traditions of a “Z”-shaped head. Again, there is no chronological significance to a letter that remains the same throughout its use on seals. The fact that ʿayin is often squared (WSS nos. 1009, 1010, 1020, 1039) suggests that it came from the northern tradition, because that is the shape of most Ammonite forms (Herr 1978: fig. 44). However, it can also be round (WSS nos. 1012, 1021, 1031) or a combination of both (WSS no. 1028). Except for one case (BPPS no. 194), it does not appear as the western triangular oval. Indeed, in this case, it may be showing signs of opening, as it does in Ammonite (rarely) and Edomite during the 7th century b.c.e. (Herr 1978: figs. 44, 80). If the head is opening on BPPS no. 194 (which could be the result of sloppy engraving, as well), this would be the only chronological 4. Although Deutsch and Lemaire did not draw ticks on BPPS nos. 189 and 191, they are clearly visible to me on the published photos of both the seals and the impressions. 5.  An exception may be WSS no. 1022, but its script is not clearly Moabite.

196

Larry G. Herr

indicator of the late 7th or early 6th centuries b.c.e. But the fact that no other forms hint at open heads leads me to doubt that Moabite scribes ever opened the ʿayin. The story for pe is similar to that of kap, mem, and nun above. The head is relatively large, and the leg curves strongly (WSS nos. 1007, 1008, 1009, 1015). I can see no diagnostic change throughout our period. The form of ṣade, with its three strokes to the right of the left vertical, does not follow Aramaic tradition, which, by the late 8th century b.c.e., has two strokes to the right of the left vertical (Herr 1978: fig. 31). However, Ammonite retained the conservative form until late in the 7th century b.c.e. (Herr 1978: fig. 43) On the other hand, the Moabite form could simply be a relatively narrower form of the Hebrew version (WSS nos. 1007, 1025 [backward], 1036; BPPS no. 197). The absence of any “Z”-shaped form suggests that the letter is in the western tradition. However, the lack of any development throughout our period indicates that there is no chronological value. The rarity of qop makes it difficult to make any assessment. But when it occurs (WSS no. 1036), it is very conservative, with none of the Hebrew developments. This suggests that it may have been a northern element similar to the conservative Ammonite letter (Herr 1978: fig. 44). The upright stance of reš suggests that it belongs to the northern tradition (WSS nos. 1007, 1009, 1010, 1013). One example leans to the left like Hebrew forms, but it may be crowded on the seal (WSS no. 1008). The head shows no signs of opening. No developments of chronological significance take place during our period. Šin tends to be high and full (WSS nos. 1008, 1010, 1011, 1028) but does not develop during our period. Nor can it be tied to either the northern or the western traditions, because they are difficult to separate. The upright stance of taw (WSS no. 1020) is in line with the northern tradition, but it is so rare, we cannot be certain. In general, the bold, fat nature of the letters and the particular combination of northern and western traditions (outlined above) consistently applied to certain letters are the identifying features of the Moabite script. Most letters, however, are non­ diagnostic chronologically during our period. Moabite scribes seem to have been very conservative. No letters open heads in the late 7th century b.c.e., as in Ammonite and Edomite (below). The tick on yod may be limited to the 8th century b.c.e. (perhaps also the early 7th century b.c.e.); the “star” ʾalep may be limited to the late 7th to early 6th centuries b.c.e.; and the extension on he may have started only in the late 8th century b.c.e.

The Edomite Seal Script There are approximately 20 seals that have been identified as Edomite. 6 The relatively few numbers of clearly Edomite seals, upon which the following observations are made, along with the low numbers of other Edomite inscriptions make it difficult 6.  The Edomite seals are: WSS nos. 1048–51, 1053–60, 1062–63; and BPPS nos. 202–3, though the last one has such a mix of forms it may be a forgery. Others may be Moabite: WSS nos. 32, 359, 864, 1061, 1064; or Aramaic: WSS no. 1052.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

197

to form firm conclusions (but see Naveh 1966; Herr 1978; Israel 1979; 1987a; Lemaire 1993; 1995; WSS p. 387). The Edomite script is very similar to Moabite, combining features from western (e.g., Hebrew) and northern (e.g., Aramaic and Ammonite) scripts but apparently without the rigorous consistency of Moabite. There are also a few unique forms that are excellent diagnostic features of Edomite writing. The net result is that the Edomite script is slightly more oriented toward the northern traditions than is Moabite. There are a few more chronologically diagnostic features of the script than Moabite.

Features and Development of the Edomite Script The conservative northern form of ʾalep (sideways “V” with a vertical stroke) seems to continue throughout the Edomite script (WSS nos. 1053 [6th century b.c.e.], 1057 [7th century b.c.e.], 1062 [6th century b.c.e.]), but a possible western form may occur on one seal (WSS no. 1055), while another, late example contains a closely related form (WSS no. 1056); the low vertical suggests that it was not intended to be a star form. The baseline of most forms of bet is horizontal, as in the western script (WSS nos. 1048, 1050; BPPS no. 203). Another example has a dipping baseline and may display an open head, as in the northern tradition (WSS no. 1051), although all examples of this seal impression (there are over 20 of them) are so poorly impressed that it is difficult to read any of the individual letters precisely. If the head is open on WSS no. 1051, it may be diagnostic for dating, most likely limited to the late 7th and 6th centuries b.c.e. (Naveh 1966). Gimel, zayin, ṭet, and ṣade are too rare or nondiagnostic to be helpful in terms of national script type or typological development. A curious feature of dalet in Edomite is that it can appear inverted (upside-down) (WSS nos. 1050, 1051, 1053, 1062; see Lemaire 1993; 1995) but not always (WSS no. 1057). No example has an extension at the top (bottom) of the head. The form may therefore not be western, though it could have come to Edomite before the extension developed in Hebrew. However, the head does not open in the late seals (those with an open ʿayin) suggesting the Edomite scribes were not following a northern tradition either. They had apparently adopted the letter in the 8th century b.c.e. and retained that form throughout our period with little or no typological development. The letter he is very rare on Edomite seals and, when it occurs, is difficult to read (WSS nos. 1050–51). I have seen other photos of these seal impressions that suggest an extension of the upper horizontal across the top of the vertical like Hebrew forms. However, the stance is upright, unlike Hebrew. These two occurrences date roughly to the same time, disallowing suggestions for typological development. The examples of waw on the seals ref lect the northern tradition (unlike Moabite), with a curved, single-stroke head attached to a long vertical (WSS nos. 1048, 1049, 1051). One example either is very old, preserving a shallow “V”-shaped head (WSS no. 1055) or, more likely, is an adaptation of the previous form, with a shorter vertical and a head that extended to the right. With just one form, we cannot suggest typological developments.

198

Larry G. Herr

As in Moabite, the Edomite examples of ḥet have two horizontals and verticals that extend up and down on opposite sides, but they are consistently inverted; that is, the verticals go up on the right and down on the left (WSS nos. 1053, 1058, 1059). There is no visible typological development. The Edomite yod is the conservative basic form with an upright or slight rightward lean (WSS nos. 1054, 1057, 1059, 1060). There is no discernable typological development, and we cannot determine whether the letter belongs to the western or northern traditions. The leg of kap clearly curves to the left as in the western script (WSS nos. 1050, 1051, 1053, 1058), though one example may not curve because of restricted space (WSS no. 1059). Like Moabite, the head tends to be somewhat larger than Hebrew, suggesting a grouping of Moabite and Edomite into an eastern wing of the South Levantine script (Herr 1980). The letter is not chronologically diagnostic. As for Moabite, the dominant form of lamed is an acute angle with a straight baseline and upright (WSS nos. 1048, 1050, 1051, 1053), with rounded bases as a biform (WSS nos. 1049, 1054). It thus seems to belong to the northern script. Usually the stance leans right, but a few examples are upright or lean left (WSS nos. 1057, 1059). The letter is not chronologically diagnostic. The letter mem is sometimes similar to Moabite with a large head, strongly curving leg, and head made of two L-shaped segments (WSS nos. 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1059). However, another form is “inverted” (Lemaire 1993: 5; 1995: 487) with a straight leg and two “V”-shaped segments for the head (WSS nos. 1056, 1058, 1062, 1063; BPPS no. 203). The latter is not precisely “inverted” because the form is very different from the normal mem, but its upside-down stance is an excellent diagnostic form to determine national script. It also seems to appear primarily toward the end of the Edomite script in the late 7th and early 6th centuries b.c.e. There is only one occurrence of nun similar to the first variety of mem mentioned above, but with only one segment for the head (WSS no. 1051). A late example does not extend the leg above the join with the head, though examples of mem on the seal do (WSS no. 1053). This difference could be typologically significant, but it is not in other scripts. The vertical of samek seems to extend upwards through the horizontals on most occurrences (WSS nos. 1049, 1051, 1055, 1057), but on one seal it is unclear (WSS no. 1048). The letter conservatively preserves the 8th-century form and cannot be assigned to either the western or northern scripts. Nor can a typological development be proposed. When closed, ʿayin is most often squared like the northern script (WSS nos. 1050, 1060). Also like Ammonite, it opens in the second half of the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS nos. 1051, 1056, 1062; BPPS no. 203). The letter is thus diagnostic in terms of both national script and typological development within the South Levantine scripts. Only one certain pe exists (BPPS no. 203). It seems to belong to the western script, with a slightly curving leg. The other example, with a strangely curving leg (WSS no. 1063) may be a decorative feature rather than a letter.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

199

Edomite qop has a unique variety with a pointed head (WSS nos. 1048, 1049, 1051 [probably], 1057), but a f lattened head similar to a Hebrew form (but f lipped horizontally) also exists (WSS no. 1055). Neither form allows us to discern any typological development. Like bet and dalet, the one example of Edomite reš is closed. Also, as in Moabite, its stance is upright (WSS no. 1048). It is difficult to tell whether its origins are based on the western or northern tradition. Early šin may have been similar to Moabite (WSS no. 1058), but we have no clear examples. Probably late in the 7th or early 6th centuries b.c.e., a three-stroke form develops (perhaps inf luenced by Aramaic), which is the dominant form (WSS nos. 1053, 1059, 1062, 1063; BPPS no. 203). The two examples of taw, with their stance leaning to the left, seem to be in the western tradition (WSS nos. 1053–54). Seals may be attributed to the Edomite script primarily based on the several unique forms of letters, such as the inverted dalet and mem, as well as the pointed head of qop. Another diagnostic feature combines aspects of several letters and is not as rare as it may appear: an open ʿayin with closed bet, dalet, and reš can be Edomite or Ammonite; but if they are combined with other letters that align themselves with the western (Hebrew) tradition, the result can only be Edomite. Determining typological development for the Edomite seal script is the most difficult of any of the national scripts because we have so few inscriptions, and the forms are so limited. The scribes seem to have been very conservative and made few changes to letters throughout the Iron Age.

Conclusion The Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite seal scripts are all related by having letters that are similarly shaped and, at times, having a similar development. It seems clear that Hebrew was established as an independent script before Moabite and Edomite scribes developed their own special scripts. However, once established, Hebrew seems to have inf luenced the others only rarely and inf luences could come from the north, as well. There is, therefore, reason to group the three scripts in a related family, the South Levantine Script.

200

Larry G. Herr

References Avigad, N. 1970 Ammonite and Moabite Seals. Pp. 284–95 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of N. Gleuck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Aufrecht, W. E., and Shury, W. D. 1997 Three Iron Age Seals: Moabite, Aramaic and Hebrew. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 57–68. BPPS = Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Cross, F. M. 1975 Ammonite Ostraca from Heshbon: Heshbon Ostraca IV–VIII. Andrews University Seminary Studies 13: 1–22. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1995 New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1999 Epigraphic News. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Dion, P.-E., and Daviau, P. M. M. 2000 An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Hirbet el-Mudeyine ( Jordan). Zeitscrhift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116: 1–13. Herr, L. G. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monograph 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1980 The Formal Scripts of Iron Age Transjordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 21–34. 1997 The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations. Biblical Archaeologist 60: 114–83. 1998 The Palaeography of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312: 45–77. Hestrin, R. 1973 First Temple and Persian Periods. Pp. 12–158 in Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud. Jerusalem: Goldman-Schwartz Hall. Israel, F. 1979 Miscellanea Idumea. Rivista biblica 27: 171–203. 1987a Les sceaux ammonites. Syria 64: 141–46. 1987b Studi moabiti I: Rassegna de epigrafia moabita e i sigilli. Pp. 101–38 in Atti della 4a Giornata di Studi camito-semitici e indeuropei, ed. G. Bernini and V. Brugnatelli. Milan: Unicopli. Lemaire, A. 1993 Les critères non-iconographiques de la classification des sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques inscrits. Pp. 1–28 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1995 Recherches sur les ateliers sigillaires jordaniens au Fer II. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 479–88.

Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts

201

Naveh, J. 1966 The Scripts of Two Ostraca from Elath. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 183: 27–30. 1970 The Scripts in Palestine and Transjordan in the Iron Age. Pp. 277–83 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Vaughn, A. G. 1999 Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its Significance for Biblical Research. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313: 43–64. WSS = Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II Christopher A. Rollston

That Iron Age Phoenician and Aramaic had distinct lapidary and cursive scripts is readily apparent. However, it has been argued that the lapidary script failed to survive the earliest stage in the history of the Old Hebrew (i.e., Iron Age Hebrew) script so that from the beginning the Old Hebrew script possessed a single script tradition (i.e., cursive only), not separate lapidary and cursive traditions (Naveh 1970b: 279; 1987: 67). Nevertheless, the script and formatting of epigraphs such as the Israelite Stela fragment from Samaria (Crowfoot et al. 1957) and the Jerusalem Ophel Stela fragment (Ben-Dov 1994) suggest caution regarding this conclusion. In fact, it seems tenable to argue that lapidary and cursive traditions existed in Iron II Israel but that the conservative (i.e., retarded) development of the Old Hebrew script minimized the distinctiveness of its lapidary and cursive traditions (cf. Naveh 1987: 97). Even so, the presence of cursive features (e.g., shading, ticks) in the Hebrew lapidary tradition is unmistakable. A cursive script is often categorized as formal cursive, semiformal cursive, or free cursive. Although these terms will be used in this essay, it should be noted that, within the linear Northwest Semitic scripts, the cursive tradition was varied, and although the terms formal, semiformal, and free are helpful conventions, they should not be considered precise and distinct categories (Cross 1961a: 144). The focus of this article is the cursive script, but because extant lapidary exemplars normally antedate the earliest cursive Author’s note: I am indebted to P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., who read this manuscript and made helpful suggestions, and to Douglas R. Emery, who assisted with regard to various digital issues. Bruce Zuckerman and Marilyn Lundberg of the West Semitic Research Project were helpful in numerous ways. I am also grateful to the following institutions and organizations for permission to work with epigraphs and images in their collections: British Museum, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman Archaeological Museum, Jordan University Museum, Department of Antiquities of Lebanon, Eretz Israel Museum, Israel Antiquities Authority, Israel Museum, Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania. Partial funding for this research was provided by grants from the Society of Biblical Literature for research conducted on the Gibeon Jar Handles; and the National Endowment for the Humanities, for research in Jordan on Ammonite and Aramaic inscriptions; and in Lebanon on Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions. In addition, I am grateful to the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman and the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem for helping to facilitate certain components of this research. Finally, I am especially grateful to the editors for their invitation to contribute to this volume.

202

Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II

203

exemplars, reference will be made to the lapidary traditions as a point of departure for the analysis of the cursive. The scripts constituting the focus of this article have been the subject of substantial research. Frank Moore Cross has authored seminal articles on the development of the Old Hebrew script (Cross 1961b; 1962a; 1962b). One of his students, Ivan Kaufman, generated a fine comparative discussion of the script of the Samaria Ostraca (Kaufman 1966). A compendium of Old Hebrew inscriptions with paleographic analysis has been produced by Johannes Renz (1995; 1997). 1 More recently, Christopher A. Rollston (1999; 2003; 2006) has done paleographic analyses of the stratified Old Hebrew ostraca, generating quantitative data about the morphology, stance, and diachronic development of the script and the ductus of the script, and has incorporated more recent discoveries of epigraphic Old Hebrew. 2 The Old Byblian (Phoenician) script (as well as the early Phoenician series generally) has been discussed at length by P. Kyle McCar­ ter Jr. (1975), and the later Phoenician scripts have been treated in detail by J. Brian Peckham (1968). Joseph Naveh’s thorough treatment of the Aramaic scripts remains indispensable (1970a), now supplemented by the work of F. Mario Fales (1986) and Wolfgang Röllig (1999a). The comparative discussion of the Aramaic and Ammonite scripts by Jo Ann Hackett (1984: 9–19), with the script of Dayr ʿAlla as the primary focus, is fundamental, as is Walter E. Aufrecht’s synthesis of Ammonite (1999). 3 Moreover, Gerrit van der Kooij (1986; 1987) has provided detailed analyses of linear scripts, writing instruments, and media. Of course, Cross has actually authored articles on the paleography of all of these scripts, and it is his work that has been the most formative and continues to be the most authoritative (now revised and updated in Cross 2003). Therefore, it is a distinct honor to contribute this essay to a volume honoring him and celebrating his work. This article is intended to be a synoptic compendium of the target scripts (especially the major corpora of Old Hebrew), not an exhaustive discussion. Nevertheless, numerous typological features of the “national” scripts will be discussed in some detail, with the focus being a diachronic analysis of the regnant (i.e., standard) cursive forms for the various scripts. Various graphemic exemplars will be provided in the margins to augment the analyses. 4 Since the tenets of the paleographic method are discussed at length elsewhere (Cross 1982; Rollston 2003: 150–57; this volume, pp. 1–4; forthcoming), they are not reiterated here. Finally, it should be noted that the morphology 1.  Although these volumes are outstanding compendia of the Old Hebrew epigraphs with thorough bibliography and data about proposed readings, the paleographic analyses are sometimes of limited value because they are often based on hand drawings and photos in publications (e.g., the Reisner Samaria Ostraca), sometimes perpetuating erroneous drawings and incorrect understandings of the Old Hebrew script morphology. 2.  For a fuller treatment of the Old Hebrew script and its development, see especially The Art of the Scribe in Israel and Judah (Rollston forthcoming). 3.  See also CAI and Hübner 1992. 4.  Note that the stance and morphology of the forms in the margins are very precise; however, the relative size of the letters is not revealed by the drawings. For this reason, readers are also referred especially to the horizontal script charts in Cross (1961b; 1962a; 1962b), Hackett (1984), McCarter (1975), Naveh (1970a), and Rollston (1999; 2006; forthcoming).

204

Christopher A. Rollston

of certain Northwest Semitic scripts for which there are few data is not treated in this article. 5 Table 1 presents the inscriptions discussed below. Where appropriate, they are given abbreviations that are used in the text and margins, as the following examples illustrate: Gn18.1.h1 would refer to the Gibeon Jar Handle 18 (based on the number in the original publication), line 1, the first he of the line. Ar6.k1 would refer to the first kap in the 6th line of the Assur Ostracon. 6

5.  For Philistine inscriptions, see especially: Naveh 1985; Gitin 1993; Kelm and Mazar 1995: 14; Cross 1996b; 2003: 164–65; Gitin et al. 1997; Gitin and Cogan 1999; and now Cross on the Ashkelon inscriptions (2008). Unfortunately, this last work appeared too late to be incorporated into this article. Therefore, the following remarks on Philistine inscriptions must be considered provisional. First, Cross (1996b: 65; 2003: 64) has suggested that the Neo-Philistine script appears to have developed from Hebrew. Second, although this is the case, the Philistines introduced distinct morphological features into the script (so Naveh 1985: 21). For example, as Naveh has noted, the bottom horizontal of the he is sometimes considerably longer than the bottom horizontal of the Old Hebrew he. In addition, the external strokes of šin (e.g., from Ekron) tend to be more oblique than Old Hebrew, and the three-stroke šin is also present (e.g., Jemmeh no. 1). Certain features that Naveh considers distinctive, I do not. For example, he states that the right overlap of the head of gimel (e.g., from Ashdod) does “not have parallels in any script known so far” (Naveh 1985: 17); however, this feature is sometimes present in the Old Hebrew corpus (e.g., table 1: Ad40.1.g1 and Sa17a.2.g1). The script of Edomite epigraphs shares much with the Transjordanian scripts generally, but the current evidence suggests that this script is distinct as well (see the discussion by Vanderhooft 1995). Important Edomite inscriptions have also been recovered from Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995). Note also the ostracon from Elath, identified as Edomite by Naveh (1966; Gleuck 1971). Compare also the ostracon from Umm al-Biyara (Bennett 1966) as well as the epigraphs from Buseirah (Puech 1977). Finally, see also Bartlett 1989. Regarding the origin and development of the Edomite script, Naveh has stated that the Edomites initially adopted the Old Hebrew script, but from the late 8th century b.c.e. on, this script began “absorbing Aramaic elements,” and by the 6th century b.c.e. was “closer to Aramaic than to Hebrew” (Naveh 1987: 104–5). I argue, however, that the Edomite script developed from Aramaic, not Old Hebrew. Several basic features of the 7th- to 6th-century Edomite script should be noted. First, bet, dalet, and reš are open-headed, as in the contemporary Aramaic script. The head of qop can be completely open (e.g., the so-called “s”-headed qop), but use of a very archaic form also persisted within the Edomite script tradition (e.g., Qitmit no. 3). Samek ref lects strong Aramaic inf luence, with the presence of the so-called zigzag-headed form. Both waw and he ref lect Aramaic morphology and ductus. Mem possesses a very large head in the Edomite script, even in the cursive ink inscriptions from Tall al-Khalayfah and Ḥorvat ʿUzza. The two-bar ḥet is attested at Ḥorvat ʿUzza, but this feature is certainly not limited to Edomite. Note that Naveh has argued (1987: 104–5) that the large-headed mem was the “only independent feature” of the Edomite and Moabite scripts. With regard to Moabite cursive, Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee published a papyrus of uncertain provenance (1990). Cross also treated this papyrus (1996a), stating that he had no real doubts about its authenticity (see also Aḥituv 1999). Cross dated the papyrus to the mid- or late 7th century b.c.e., and he provided a brief paleographic discussion, concluding that the papyrus shows “features of the Hebrew cursives and characters of the Transjordanian cursives” (Cross 1996a: 315). Especially noteworthy is the presence of open-headed forms for bet, ʿayin, and reš. I am not convinced that this inscription is ancient. Rather, I consider it to be a probable forgery. 6.  Citations of Kuntillet ʿAjrud exemplars are not as specific, because of the nature of the publications to date.

Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II

205

Table 1.  Inscriptions and References Abb. Inscription Ac Amman Citadel Ad Arad Str. XI Arad Str. IX, VIII

CAI 59 Aharoni 1981: 5 Aharoni 1981: 8

Arad Str. VII

Aharoni 1981: 8

Arad Str. VI

Aharoni 1981: 8

Am ʾAḥiram Assur Clay Tablets Ar Assur Ostracon Br Barley Letter (Samaria) City of David IN2

Da

City of David IN3 Dayr ʿAlla Texts Dan Stela Farʿah (S.) Ostracon

Gn

Gibeon Jar Handles

Gr

Gezer Calendar

Ḥa

Ḥu

Reference

KAI 1 KAI 234–36 KAI 233 KAI 188 Naveh 2000: 2–3 Naveh 2000: 3 Hoftijzer & van der Kooij 1976 Biran & Naveh 1995 Lehman & Schneider 2000 Pritchard 1959; 1960; Frick 1974 KAI 182

Hamat Bricks Ḥisban A1 [IV]c Ḥisban A2 [XI] Ḥisban A3 Ḥisban A4 [II] Ḥisban A5 [I] Ḥisban A6 Ḥorvat ʿUzza

KAI 302–13 Cross 2003 Cross 2003 Cross 2003 Cross 2003 Cross 2003 Cross 2003 Beit-Arieh 1986; 1993; 1999a; 2007

ʿIra “Census”

Beit-Arieh 1999b: 402–5 Crowfoot et al. 1953 Röllig 1999b Dever 1969–70

Israelite Stela Karatepe Khirbet el-Qom

Script Date (b.c.e.) a Phoenician 9th century Hebrew 9th century Hebrew late 8th / early 7th centuries Hebrew late 7th / early 6th centuries Hebrew late 7th / early 6th centuries Phoenician 10th century Aramaic mid-7th century Aramaic mid-7th century Hebrew late 8th century Hebrew late 8th / early 7th centuries Hebrew mid-7th century b Ammonite ca. 700 Phoenician mid-9th century Hebrew ca. 800 Hebrew

ca. 725–675

Phoenician late 10th / early 9th century Aramaic 8th century Ammonite ca. 600 Ammonite ca. 575 Ammonite ca. 550–525 Aramaic ca. 525 Aramaic ca. 500 Aramaic ca. 500 Hebrew mostly late 7th / early 6th centuries (a few 8th century) Hebrew late 8th / early 7th centuries Hebrew 8th century Phoenician 8th century Hebrew mid- to late 8th century

206

Christopher A. Rollston Table 1.  Inscriptions and References (cont.)

Abb. Inscription Ka Kuntillet ʿAjrudd

Reference Meshel 1978; Aḥituv 2005 Kk Kerak Fragment Winnett & Reed 1963 Kn Kition Bowl Amadasi Guzzo & Karageorghis 1977 Lh Lachish 1–21 (Str II) Tur-Sinai 1938; Diringer 1953 Lachish 22 (Str II) Aharoni 1975 Lachish 23 (Str III) Lemaire 1976 Lachish 24–30 (Str II) Ussishkin 1978 Lachish 31–32 (Str II) Ussishkin 1983; 1996 Md Ḥirbat al-Mudayana Dion & Daviau 2000 Ms Masos Ostracon Fritz & Kempinski 1983 Mazar 3 CAI 144 Me Mesha Stela KAI 181 Mḥ Meṣad Ḥashavyahu Naveh 1960 Meissner Papyrus Porten & Yardeni 1989 Nineveh Lion Weights CIS I 1–14 Nimrud Ostracon CAI 47 Ophel Stelaf Ben-Dov 1994 Sn Siran Bottle CAI 78 Sa Samaria Ostraca Reisner et al. 1924 Royal Steward Avigad 1953 Sq Saqqarah Papyrus KAI 266 SilT Siloam Tunnel KAI 189 Starkey Tablet KAI 227 Yk Yeḥimilk KAI 4

Script Hebrew

Date (b.c.e.) ca. 800

Moabite mid-9th century Phoenician mid-8th century Hebrew

early 6th century

Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Moabite Hebrew Ammonite Moabite Hebrew Aramaic Aramaic Aramaic Hebrew Ammonite Hebrew Hebrew Aramaic Hebrew Aramaic Phoenician

early 6th century late 8th century mid-7th centurye mid-7th centurye early mid-8th century 7th century ca. 575 9th century ca. 625–600 late 6th century late 8th century 8th century 8th century ca. 600–650 early 8th century late 8th century ca. 600 late 8th century early 6th century 10th century

a.  Cross (1969: 14) assigned the script of the Ac to the Aramaic series. Naveh (1979a: 14–15) believes the Phoenician and Aramaic scripts to be identical during the 9th and early 8th centuries. This has implications for the scripts of various inscriptions, including the Ac and Dan Stela. I am inclined to agree with Naveh. Thus, the term “Aramaic lapidary” is a reference to the language of the inscriptions. b.  Hoftijzer and van der Kooij assigned Da to the Aramaic series and dated it between ca. 800 and 720 b.c.e. (1976: 96; van der Kooij 1991: 257). Cross (1969: 14; 1986) assigned Da to the Ammonite series and dated it to ca. 700. c.  Cross (2003) has renumbered the order of the Semitic Ḥisban Ostraca. The old numbers are given in Roman numerals in brackets where appropriate. d. The editio princeps of Ka has not appeared. e.  Although it is fragmentary, I am inclined to date Lachish Ostraca 24–32 to the earlier horizon of Stratum II (or to Stratum III). f.  The Ophel Stela fragment was found in a secondary context. The editio princeps assigns the script from the 8th to 7th centuries b.c.e., but I argue that it can be confidently assigned to the 8th century b.c.e.

Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II

207

ʾAlep The 10th-century Old Byblian (i.e., Phoenician) lapidary ʾalep consisted of two horizontal crossbars (i.e., a top horizontal and a bottom horizontal), forming a vertex (i.e., ‹) and an intersecting vertical downstroke (ʾAḥiram). 7 This same basic morphology is also ref lected in various lapidary scripts of the 9th century b.c.e., including the Mesha Stela, the El-Kerak Inscription, and the script of the Amman Citadel Inscription. 8 Nevertheless, certain features distinguish these 9th-century scripts from the 10th-century Byblian, namely, the vertical downstroke has moved to the right, and the angle of the vertex of the crossbars has begun to decrease. During the 8th century b.c.e., the Aramaic cursives (Hamat Bricks and Nimrud Ostracon) preserve various features of the 9th-century lapidary form. However, during the late 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e., the cursive form of this letter develops markedly and consists of the following strokes: a vertical, a check on the right side of the vertical and a (separate) bar on the left side of the vertical (Assur Ostracon, Assur Clay Tablets, and Saqqarah Papyrus), with the top horizontal having migrated to the right, the letter ultimately having the appearance of a “star” (Hackett 1984: 10). 9 The Ammonite script developed from the Aramaic, but the ʾaleps of the Dayr ʿAlla Plaster Texts and the Tall Siran Bottle preserve the more archaic appearance (after Aramaic had adopted the star type as the dominant form), and this may be considered an important feature of the Ammonite script. 10 Typologically more advanced forms, similar to the form of the Aramaic ʾalep of the Assur Ostracon and the Saqqarah Papyrus do, however, ultimately appear in the Ammonite series, where they are attested by ca. 600 b.c.e. (Ḥisban A1; Cross 2003: 78). The earliest extant exemplars of the cursive Old Hebrew ʾalep derive from the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions and the Reisner Samaria Ostraca. The hallmark feature of the 8th-century Old Hebrew ʾalep is the fact that the relative length of the vertical shaft has increased (compared with the classical early Phoenician forms), with the result that the vertical downstroke is normally substantially longer than the top horizontal crossbar. The ostracon 7.  For the bibliography of Old Byblian, as well as the remaining early Phoenician scripts, see McCarter (1975: 29–63). See also Rollston’s article in this volume. 8.  Note, however, that the vertical of the ʾalep on the Ḥirbat al-Mudayana incense altar was initiated at, not above, the top horizontal (Dion and Daviau 2000: fig. 2). Dion and Daviau (2000: 3) date the inscription to the early 8th century b.c.e. I concur with this dating of the script. 9. For the basic bibliography of the Aramaic lapidary and cursives, see Naveh (1970a). 10.  Naveh (1987: 109) has argued that the Ammonites used the current Aramaic script, while Cross has argued that the Ammonite script developed from Aramaic into a distinct “national” script (1973: 14) until being supplanted by Aramaic in the late 6th century b.c.e. Although slight, I believe that the extant evidence supports Cross’s position.

Am 2.ʾ4

Kk 3.ª1

Ar 6.ʾ3

Da 1.2.ʾ2

Ka.ʾ

208

Christopher A. Rollston

from Tell el-Farʿah (S.), from a secondary context, exhibits this feature; and it is also present, for example, in the Khirbet el-Qom epigraphs and City of David IN2. 11 Another important early feature found in the Reisner Samaria Ostraca is the presence of a cursive ref lex (i.e., “tick”) at the right terminus of the bottom horizontal, which descends leftward at an oblique angle (Sa2.5.ʾ1; Sa24.1.ʾ1; and Sa51.3.ʾ1). This morphological feature is also present in the ʾalep of the Royal Steward Inscription, and a variant of it is attested in the corpus of the Gibeon Jar Handles, suggesting a floruit for the tick that was rather wide, though confined to the 8th and early 7th centuries b.c.e. 12 The cursive tick is not present in the corpus of epigraphs from Arad VIII or Meṣad Ḥashavyahu; moreover, evidence from these two sites demonstrates that, during the 7th century b.c.e., the relative length of the vertical downstroke decreases, with the vertical consistently shorter than the top horizontal crossbar, often substantially so. This trend persists during the late 7th and early 6th centuries b.c.e., as demonstrated by epigraphs from the Arad VI–VII, Lachish II, and Ḥorvat ʿUzza. It is imperative to note that the cursive Old Hebrew ʾalep was normally formed with two strokes of the pen, one forming the horizontal crossbars (i.e.,