The Alphabet

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Alphabet The Alphabet Alan Millard 1. Writing in Canaan 1.1. Egyptian and Babylonian When Israelites occupied Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1250–1150 bce), they took over a land where writing had been known for almost two thousand years. In the south, potsherds bearing Egyptian hieroglyphs for the name of pharaoh Narmer have been found at Arad and Tell el-ʿAreini, while seal impressions with names of other early pharaohs and officials were discovered atʿ En Besor. Those signs of authority were recognized in Early Bronze Age Canaan (ca. 3500–2200 bce), whether or not local people could read them. Although Babylonian cuneiform was current in Syria during the latter part of the third millennium bce, the earliest cuneiform texts found in Canaan belong to the Old Babylonian period or Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1550). They are seven incomplete tablets and two liver models, which imply a local readership, and part of an inscribed stone jar, all from Hazor; perhaps a letter from Shechem; an administrative text from Hebron; and a fragment from Gezer (the dating of the last three between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, ca. 2000– 1200, is debatable). The few inscribed cylinder seals did not originate in Canaan, and their legends were not necessarily read there. At the same time, numerous Egyptian scarabs circulated, many bearing the names of officials often with funerary formulas, but they functioned principally as amulets, so their legends were not necessarily more meaningful than magic signs. Egyptian and Babylonian writing are better attested from the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200), when Egypt made Canaan a prov- ince. Pharaohs had inscriptions engraved throughout the region on rock faces and stelas, while Egyptian officials who resided in various places erected monuments for themselves or their pharaonic masters (e.g. at Beth-Shan, Gaza, and Jaffa).1 Their control involved collecting taxes, and 1 See Alan Millard, “Ramesses was here . and others, too,” in: Mark Collier and Steven Snape (eds.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen (Bolton: Rutherford DOI 10.1515/9781934078631.14, ©2 017 Alan Millard, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. The Alphabet 15 a few ostraca bearing hieratic texts relating to that activity hint at a much greater amount of recording done on papyrus. However, the Babylonian system remained the vehicle used by many local rulers for communicat- ing with Egypt. Rulers in at least eighteen places on either side of the Jordan River sent letters to Egypt, which survive among the El-Amarna letters, and cuneiform tablets have been found at some of those and at three others. The fifteen tablets and fragments at Tell ʿTa annek and two at Shechem prove the use of Babylonian cuneiform for local administra- tion and correspondence; legal deeds are not included: presumably any that were written were written in other scripts. Canaanite scribes had to learn Babylonian script and language, and a few fragmentary tablets from Aphek and Ashkelon show the process of writing lists of words, in one case with Canaanite equivalents.2 1.2. Alphabetic writing 1.2.1. The Canaanite linear alphabet Early in the second millennium bce an unknown genius, acquainted with Egyptian writing, had the revolutionary idea of drawing a sepa- rate sign for each major sound alone in his Canaanite language, adding no others to indicate syllables or categories of words. The signs were evidently selected on the acrophonic principle, the initial sound of the name of the sign being its value (e.g. m from mêm ‘water’). As no word began with a vowel, no sign was created to mark a vowel, and the lan- guage could be written with sufficient clarity without vowel notation, as in ancient Egyptian, and as remains true for Arabic and Hebrew. The progress of the signs of the linear alphabet can be traced through the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in Canaan from the scanty specimens Press, 2011), 305–312; and Stefan J. Wimmer, “A new stela of Ramesses II in Jordan in the context of Egyptian royal stelae in the Levant,” in: Proceedings of the Third Interna- tional Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Paris, 2002 (forthcoming). 2 Alan Millard, “The knowledge of writing in Late Bronze Age Palestine,” in Karel Van Lerberghe and Gabriela Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Cross- roads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm: Proceedings of the 42nd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Louvain: Peeters 1999): 317–326. For the cuneiform texts, see Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth Sanders, Cuneiform in Canaan: Cu- neiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006); Eilat Mazar, Wayne Horowitz, Yuval Goren, and Takayoshi Oshima, “A cuneiform tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 60 (2010): 4–21. 16 Alan Millard scratched or painted on stone, metal, and pottery. In the early stages, the script probably consisted of twenty-six letters, each representing a differ- ent phoneme, although the identification of some is uncertain. They are ʾ b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k š l m d n (ẓ) s ʿ p ṣ q r t ġ t.3 Egyptian influence meant that papyrus was the normal¯ writing material;¯ consequently most texts are lost to modern scholarship. That loss is alleviated by the situation to the north of Canaan where scribes were trained in Babylonian and so were accustomed to writing on clay. 1.2.2. Cuneiform alphabets Seeing advantages for themselves in the alphabetic system, those scribes created a cuneiform alphabet. At Ugarit scribes wrote their dialect with the cuneiform alphabet of twenty-seven signs, arranged basically in the order known in Phoenician and Hebrew in the Iron Age (ca. 1200–600 bce), with three additional signs to help them record the non-Semitic Hurrian language adequately: ả b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k š l m d n ẓ s ʿ p ṣ q r t ġ t and ỉ ủ s̀ . ¯ The three ʾaleph signs supplied in some cases the vowel signs ¯lacking from the linear alphabet, being used to indicate vowels alone, without the value of the ʾaleph.4 Another arrangement of the cuneiform letters is attested on one tab- let from Ugarit and one from Beth-Shemesh. It follows the order known in southern Arabia in the first millennium bce and later: ḥ l h m q w š r b t s k n ḫ ṣ ś f ʾ ʿ ḍ g d ġ ṭ z d y t ẓ. As yet these two tablets, listing the signs, are the only examples of¯ this¯ type of cuneiform alphabet. While the twenty-seven-letter script was normal at Ugarit, the scribes were aware of a shorter one, with only twenty-one signs, which is at- tested in slightly different forms at other Levantine sites as far south as Tell Taʿannek: ʾ b g d h w z ḥ ṭ y k l m n ṣ ʿ p q r š t. Although variations suggest it is likely that the scribes were adapting the principle of the cuneiform alphabet to different dialects, they may also have been reflect- ing varieties of the linear alphabet. In each case the number of phonemes represented was clearly reduced from the twenty-seven known at Ugarit and in the earlier form of the alphabet. Alphabetic cuneiform tablets from Ugarit cover almost the whole range of ancient writing and allow 3 See Gordon J. Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph 40) (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Asso- ciation of America, 2006). 4 Compare the writing mrỉả, ‘fattened’, inKTU 1.4 VI:41–42 with mrả in 1.4 V:45. The Alphabet 17 the deduction that scribes farther south could have applied the linear alphabet similarly.5 2. Writing at the beginning of the Iron Age 2.1. Diverse alphabets The upheavals at the end of the Late Bronze Age brought new peoples to settle in the region, so new kingdoms began to be established, many based on tribal groups, covering larger areas than the city-based prin- cipalities of the Late Bronze Age – the Aramaean kingdoms, Israel and Judah, Ammon, Edom and Moab, the Philistines. Only along the coast did Late Bronze Age kingdoms survive among the Canaanites’ descend- ants, the Phoenicians in Tyre and Sidon, Byblos, Arvad, and other towns. These changes almost extinguished Babylonian influence and severely diminished Egypt’s role in the Levant. The new West Semitic kingdoms that arose found the twenty-two-letter Canaanitelinear alphabet readily available and suitable for recording their languages.6 Through the twelfth and eleventh centuries the letters continued to develop in shape and stance, displaying several variations, without any clear local forms appearing. From those centuries there are a few graffiti on pottery, an in- scribed bronze spatula, and two clay cones found at Byblos; and several dozen inscribed arrowheads. The graffiti include part of a bowl from Qubur al-Wulaydah, near Gaza, dated about 1200 bce, scratched after firing with an owner’s name and another name, perhaps marking a votive gift.7 There are a few other 5 See Alan Millard, “Alphabetic writing, cuneiform and linear, reconsidered,” Maarav 14 (2007): 83–93. 6 Most Hebrew texts are quoted from Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), vol. 1: Johannes Renz, Die althebräische Inschriften (1995); vol. 2/2, Wolfgang Röllig, Siegel, Gewichte und weitere Dokumente der althebräischen Epigraphik (2003), by reference num- bers which can be identified from the index on pp.
Recommended publications
  • Planning and Injustice in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa Urban Segregation in Tel-Aviv’S First Decades
    Planning and Injustice in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa Urban Segregation in Tel-Aviv’s First Decades Rotem Erez June 7th, 2016 Supervisor: Dr. Stefan Kipfer A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Student Signature: _____________________ Supervisor Signature:_____________________ Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract .............................................................................................................................................4 Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: A Comparative Study of the Early Years of Colonial Casablanca and Tel-Aviv ..................... 19 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Historical Background ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TAU Archaeology the Jacob M
    TAU Archaeology The Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities | Tel Aviv University Number 4 | Summer 2018 Golden Jubilee Edition 1968–2018 TAU Archaeology Newsletter of The Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities Number 4 | Summer 2018 Editor: Alexandra Wrathall Graphics: Noa Evron Board: Oded Lipschits Ran Barkai Ido Koch Nirit Kedem Contact the editors and editorial board: [email protected] Discover more: Institute: archaeology.tau.ac.il Department: archaeo.tau.ac.il Cover Image: Professor Yohanan Aharoni teaching Tel Aviv University students in the field, during the 1969 season of the Tel Beer-sheba Expedition. (Courtesy of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Photo retouched by Sasha Flit and Yonatan Kedem. ISSN: 2521-0971 | EISSN: 252-098X Contents Message from the Chair of the Department and the Director of the Institute 2 Fieldwork 3 Tel Shimron, 2017 | Megan Sauter, Daniel M. Master, and Mario A.S. Martin 4 Excavation on the Western Slopes of the City of David (‘Giv’ati’), 2018 | Yuval Gadot and Yiftah Shalev 5 Exploring the Medieval Landscape of Khirbet Beit Mamzil, Jerusalem, 2018 | Omer Ze'evi, Yelena Elgart-Sharon, and Yuval Gadot 6 Central Timna Valley Excavations, 2018 | Erez Ben-Yosef and Benjamin
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of L2/18-276
    A Critique of L2/18-276 Abe Meyers* November 30, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Multiple incompatible representations 2 2.1 <gimel-daleth-yodh> + <shin> vs <aleph-heth> + <aleph-heth> 3 2.2 <Fixed-aleph> + <gimel-daleth-yodh> vs <fixed-gimel-daleth-yodth> + <aleph> ............................. 3 2.3 <gimel-daleth-yodth> + <gimel-daleth> vs <samekh> . 3 2.4 <pe> vs <sadhe> ......................... 4 3 Miscellaneous issues 4 3.1 Joining of <aleph-heth> ..................... 5 3.2 Missing alternate form of <gimel-daleth-yodh> . 5 3.3 Inclusion of <HE> ......................... 5 3.4 Joining of <zayin> ........................ 5 3.5 Old lamedth . 5 4 The dogma of shape-shifting and the problem of good-enough 5 5 Bibliography 6 1 Introduction It has been a source of delight that after a dormant period of four years, since the submission of my proposal to encode Book Pahlavi in the Unicode *abraham.meyers AT orientology DOT ca 1 standard, there has been some renewed activity in the community. The recent preliminary proposal by Dr. Anshuman Pandey (L2/18-276) might therefore signal a resurgence of activities towards the noble goal of encoding of Book Pahlavi in the Unicode standard. I started reading the work of Dr. Pandey with enthusiasm and in antic- ipation of further improvement and suggestions and perhaps discovery of new characters. It was indeed pleasant to see a relatively thorough classica- tion of the visual joining of the stem of the characters of Book Pahlavi, while taking the base-line into consideration. Such studies will be very benecial for the future type designers of Book Pahlavialthough I have doubts about the applicability of this study to the level of abstraction pertaining to the Unicode standard.
    [Show full text]
  • The Personal Name Here Is Again Obscure. At
    342 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA 1. 10 : " his conduct " ? 1. 11 : " and also his sons." 1. 12 : the personal name here is again obscure. At the end of the line are traces of the right-hand side of a letter, which might be samekh or beth; if we accept the former, it is possible to vocalize as Pavira-ram, i.e. Pavira-rdja, corresponding to the Sanskrit Pravira- rdja. The name Pravira is well known in epos, and might well be borne by a real man ; and the change of a sonant to a surd consonant, such as that of j to «, is quite common in the North-West dialects. L. D. BARNETT. THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA I must thank Mr. F. W. Thomas for his great kindness in sending me the photograph taken by Sir J. H. Marshall, and also Dr. Barnett for letting me see his tracing and transliteration. The facsimile is made from the photo- graph, which is as good as it can be. Unfortunately, on the original, the letters are as white as the rest of the marble, and it was necessary to darken them in order to obtain a photograph. This process inti'oduces an element of uncertainty, since in some cases part of a line may have escaped, and in others an accidental scratch may appear as part of a letter. Hence the following passages are more or less doubtful: line 4, 3PI; 1. 6, Tpfl; 1. 8, "123 and y\; 1. 9, the seventh and ninth letters; 1. 10, ID; 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Conquests of Canaan
    ÅA Wars in the Middle East are almost an every day part of Eero Junkkaala:of Three Canaan Conquests our lives, and undeniably the history of war in this area is very long indeed. This study examines three such wars, all of which were directed against the Land of Canaan. Two campaigns were conducted by Egyptian Pharaohs and one by the Israelites. The question considered being Eero Junkkaala whether or not these wars really took place. This study gives one methodological viewpoint to answer this ques- tion. The author studies the archaeology of all the geo- Three Conquests of Canaan graphical sites mentioned in the lists of Thutmosis III and A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Shishak and compares them with the cities mentioned in Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence the Conquest stories in the Book of Joshua. Altogether 116 sites were studied, and the com- parison between the texts and the archaeological results offered a possibility of establishing whether the cities mentioned, in the sources in question, were inhabited, and, furthermore, might have been destroyed during the time of the Pharaohs and the biblical settlement pe- riod. Despite the nature of the two written sources being so very different it was possible to make a comparative study. This study gives a fresh view on the fierce discus- sion concerning the emergence of the Israelites. It also challenges both Egyptological and biblical studies to use the written texts and the archaeological material togeth- er so that they are not so separated from each other, as is often the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN on INFIĀL and IFTIĀL These Two Verb
    CHAPTER EIGHTEEN ON INFIʿĀL AND IFTIʿĀL These two verb types are intransitive. Conjugational patterns of .הִבָנֵה ,הִשָׁחֵט ,הִמָלֵט ,.the type of inʿāl do not contain a taw, e.g A conjugational pattern of the type of iftiʿāl has a taw that nev- -The taw of iftiʿāl does not oc .הִתְאַמֵץ ,הִתְמַכֵר er disappears, as in cur between radicals, unless the #rst radical is a samekh, a ṣadi or a shin. Other letters do not come before the taw, as do samekh, ,(Micah 6:16) וישתמר חקות עמרי ,(Eccl. 12:5) ויסתבל החגב ,.ṣadi and shin, e.g and similar cases. An exception to this is one word beginning in a -Jer. 49:3), in which the taw occurs be) והתשוטטנה בגדרות ,shin, namely fore the shin. As for ṣadi, they said that the people of the lan- guage substituted a ṭet for the taw after the ṣadi in order to ease ומה ,(Josh. 9:4) וילכו ויצטירו ,(Josh. 9:12) חם הצטידנו אותו ,.pronunciation, e.g .(Gen. 44:16) נצטדק Take note that the taw of iftiʿāl cannot be confused with the fu- ture pre#x taw, because the taw of iftiʿāl is stable in the entire paradigm, but the future pre#x taw is not. Moreover, the vocali- sation of the taw of iftiʿāl is a shewa in all cases when it does not occur between the #rst and the second radical. But the pre#xes can be vocalised with a shewa or other vowels. Moreover, a א֗ ֗ י ֗ נ ת֗ word can never begin in the taw of iftiʿāl, but another letter must come before it, be it a heh, a mem, or a future pre#x.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Old Persian Prods Oktor Skjærvø
    An Introduction to Old Persian Prods Oktor Skjærvø Copyright © 2016 by Prods Oktor Skjærvø Please do not cite in print without the author’s permission. This Introduction may be distributed freely as a service to teachers and students of Old Iranian. In my experience, it can be taught as a one-term full course at 4 hrs/w. My thanks to all of my students and colleagues, who have actively noted typos, inconsistencies of presentation, etc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Select bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 9 Sigla and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 12 Lesson 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Old Persian and old Iranian. .................................................................................................................... 13 Script. Origin. .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Script. Writing system. ........................................................................................................................... 14 The syllabary. .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Logograms. ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Elamite
    L2/20­192 2020­09­21 Preliminary proposal to encode Proto­Elamite in Unicode Anshuman Pandey [email protected] pandey.github.io/unicode September 21, 2020 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Overview of the Sign Repertoire 3 2.1 Sign names . 4 2.2 Numeric signs . 4 2.3 Numeric signs with extended representations . 5 2.4 Complex capacity signs . 6 2.5 Complex graphemes . 7 2.6 Signs in compounds without independent attestation . 10 2.7 Alternate or variant forms . 11 2.8 Scribal designs . 11 3 Proposed Encoding Model 12 4 Proposed Characters 13 4.1 Numeric signs . 13 4.2 General ideographic signs . 17 5 Characters Not Suitable for Encoding 110 6 References 110 7 Acknowledgments 111 1 Preliminary proposal to encode Proto­Elamite in Unicode Anshuman Pandey 1 Introduction The term ‘Proto­Elamite’ refers to a writing system that was used at the beginning of the 3rd millenium BCE in the region to the east and southeast of Mesopotamia, known as Elam, which corresponds to the eastern portion of present­day Iran. The name was assigned by the French epigraphist Jean­Vincent Scheil in the early 20th century, who believed it to be the predecessor of a ‘proper’ Elamite script, which would have been used for recording the Elamite language, simply on account of the location of the tablets at Susa, which was the capital city of Elam. While no ‘proper’ descendent of the script has been identified, scholars continue to use the name ‘Proto­Elamite’ as a matter of convention (Dahl 2012: 2). Proto­Elamite is believed to have been developed from an accounting system used in Mesopotamia, in a manner similar to the development of ‘Proto­Cuneiform’.
    [Show full text]
  • Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom
    Radiocarbon, Vol 00, Nr 00, 2019, p 1–18 DOI:10.1017/RDC.2019.5 © 2019 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona LACHISH FORTIFICATIONS AND STATE FORMATION IN THE BIBLICAL KINGDOM OF JUDAH IN LIGHT OF RADIOMETRIC DATINGS Yosef Garfinkel1* • Michael G Hasel2 • Martin G Klingbeil2 • Hoo-Goo Kang3 • Gwanghyun Choi1 • Sang-Yeup Chang1 • Soonhwa Hong4 • Saar Ganor5 • Igor Kreimerman1 • Christopher Bronk Ramsey6 1Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 2Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University, USA 3Seoul Jangsin University, Korea 4Institute of Bible Geography of Korea, Korea 5Israel Antiquities Authority, Israel 6Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, UK ABSTRACT. When and where the process of state formation took place in the biblical kingdom of Judah is heavily debated. Our regional project in the southwestern part of Judah, carried out from 2007 to the present, includes the excavation of three Iron Age sites: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Lachish, and Khirbet al-Ra’i. New cultural horizons and new fortification systems have been uncovered, and these discoveries have been dated by 59 radiometric determinations. The controversial question of when the kingdom was able to build a fortified city at Lachish, its foremost center after Jerusalem, is now resolved thanks to the excavation of a previously unknown city wall, dated by radiocarbon (14C) to the second half of the 10th century BCE. KEYWORDS: Iron Age, Kingdom of Judah, Khirbet al-Ra’i, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Lachish, radiometric chronology. INTRODUCTION The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age is one of the central controversies in the current scholarship of the archaeology of the southern Levant as well as biblical studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Scripts
    The Unicode® Standard Version 13.0 – Core Specification To learn about the latest version of the Unicode Standard, see http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trade- mark claim, the designations have been printed with initial capital letters or in all capitals. Unicode and the Unicode Logo are registered trademarks of Unicode, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The authors and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this specification, but make no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained herein. The Unicode Character Database and other files are provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine applicability of information provided. © 2020 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission must be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction. For information regarding permissions, inquire at http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. For information about the Unicode terms of use, please see http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. The Unicode Standard / the Unicode Consortium; edited by the Unicode Consortium. — Version 13.0. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-936213-26-9 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Writing
    History of Writing On present archaeological evidence, full writing appeared in Mesopotamia and Egypt around the same time, in the century or so before 3000 BC. It is probable that it started slightly earlier in Mesopotamia, given the date of the earliest proto-writing on clay tablets from Uruk, circa 3300 BC, and the much longer history of urban development in Mesopotamia compared to the Nile Valley of Egypt. However we cannot be sure about the date of the earliest known Egyptian historical inscription, a monumental slate palette of King Narmer, on which his name is written in two hieroglyphs showing a fish and a chisel. Narmer’s date is insecure, but probably falls in the period 3150 to 3050 BC. In China, full writing first appears on the so-called ‘oracle bones’ of the Shang civilization, found about a century ago at Anyang in north China, dated to 1200 BC. Many of their signs bear an undoubted resemblance to modern Chinese characters, and it is a fairly straightforward task for scholars to read them. However, there are much older signs on the pottery of the Yangshao culture, dating from 5000 to 4000 BC, which may conceivably be precursors of an older form of full Chinese writing, still to be discovered; many areas of China have yet to be archaeologically excavated. In Europe, the oldest full writing is the Linear A script found in Crete in 1900. Linear A dates from about 1750 BC. Although it is undeciphered, its signs closely resemble the somewhat younger, deciphered Linear B script, which is known to be full writing; Linear B was used to write an archaic form of the Greek language.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2
    oi.uchicago.edu i THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS NUMBER 2 Series Editors Leslie Schramer and Thomas G. Urban oi.uchicago.edu ii oi.uchicago.edu iii MARGINS OF WRITING, ORIGINS OF CULTURES edited by SETH L. SANDERS with contributions by Seth L. Sanders, John Kelly, Gonzalo Rubio, Jacco Dieleman, Jerrold Cooper, Christopher Woods, Annick Payne, William Schniedewind, Michael Silverstein, Piotr Michalowski, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Theo van den Hout, Paul Zimansky, Sheldon Pollock, and Peter Machinist THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS • NUMBER 2 CHICAGO • ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu iv Library of Congress Control Number: 2005938897 ISBN: 1-885923-39-2 ©2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 2006. Printed in the United States of America. The Oriental Institute, Chicago Co-managing Editors Thomas A. Holland and Thomas G. Urban Series Editors’ Acknowledgments The assistance of Katie L. Johnson is acknowledged in the production of this volume. Front Cover Illustration A teacher holding class in a village on the Island of Argo, Sudan. January 1907. Photograph by James Henry Breasted. Oriental Institute photograph P B924 Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infor- mation Services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. oi.uchicago.edu v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]