The Canaanite Syllabary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998) 28-46 THE CANAANITE SYLLABARY BY BRIAN E. COLLESS When George E. Mendenhall published his decipherment of what are commonly called Byblian “pseudo-hieroglyphic” inscriptions (The Syllabic Texts from Byblos, 1985), he spoke of “the Byblos syllabary” and “Byblos syl- labic characters”. In my own series of studies on these writings (entitled “The Syllabic Inscriptions of Byblos”), I have dubbed this script “the Gublaic syllabary”, using the Semitic name of the city (Gubla) rather than its Greek name (Byblos). However, the question now needs to be asked whether this writing system was exclusive to Byblos. That the Gublaic syllabic script is closely related to the Canaanite proto- alphabet is accepted by Mendenhall and myself, and proto-alphabetic in- scriptions have been found not only in Canaan but also in Sinai and Egypt. The list of texts presented below indicates that the syllabic script was in fact employed elsewhere in Canaan (Megiddo), as also in Sinai (in the same tur- quoise-mining region as the proto-alphabet), in Egypt (in the Delta and at Thebes), and possibly even in Italy. It is no longer possible to say that the syllabary was used only in Byblos, while the Canaanite proto-alphabet (also known as the Proto-Canaanite alphabet) was used everywhere else. Note, however, that the proto-alphabet has not yet been attested at Byblos, only the Phoenician alphabet (that is, the Phoenician version of the Canaanite linear alphabet). In the light of all this, are we justified in calling this system the Byblian or Gublaic syllabary? It may well be true that it was invented in Bronze Age Gubla, though this can not be demonstrated. Analogously, Ugarit used a cuneiform alphabet for writing its own West Semitic language, and this sys- tem was possibly devised in Ugarit. However, it turns up elsewhere in Syria- Palestine and beyond, in modified form. It would therefore seem appropri- ate to label this script “the West Semitic cuneiform alphabet”; but it would be more convenient to identify it as “the Canaanite cuneiform alphabet” (although Ugarit was not strictly a part of Canaan). Similarly we should speak of “the Canaanite syllabary”, even if the main “pseudo-hieroglyphic” inscriptions come from Byblos. THE CANAANITE SYLLABARY 29 Note that this article is part of a series (Abr-Nahrain XXX-XXXIV, 1992- 1996) and so the history and bibliography of this subject will not be re- peated here; the reader should refer to the previous articles for details. Of the numerous critical reviews of Mendenhall's book, the most useful is that of Giovanni Garbini (Rivista di studi fenici 16, 1988, 129-131), because it fo- cuses on specific difficulties in the decipherment; a response will be made to Garbini here, in the sections on the script and language of the docu- ments. Canaanite Syllabic Texts The inventory of texts known to me comprises about twenty inscrip- tions, most of which have been studied already. Gubla D (bronze tablet): Abr-N 31 (1993) 1-35. Gubla C (bronze tablet): Abr-N 32 (1994) 59-72. Gubla B (bronze spatula): Abr-N 33 (1995) 18-21. Gubla E (bronze spatula): Abr-N 33 (1995) 21-22. Gubla F (bronze spatula): Abr-N 33 (1995) 22-23. Gubla I (bronze spatula): Abr-N 33 (1995) 23-28. Gubla K (bronze spatula): Abr-N 33 (1995) 17-18. Gubla A (broken stela): Abr-N 32 (1994) 72-78. Gubla G (stela fragment): Abr-N 34 (1996) 42-43. Gubla H (stela fragment): Abr-N 34 (1996) 43. Gubla J (stela fragment): Abr-N 34 (1996) 43-44. Gubla L (stela fragment): Abr-N 34 (1996) 44-45. Scaraboid Seal: see below. Megiddo Ring (gold signet): Abr-N 34 (1996) 45-46 (see below). Sinai 526 (rock graffito): Abr-N 34 (1996) 47-48. Egypt Lamp 1 (spherical): Abr-N 34 (1996) 50-52. Egypt Lamp 2 (oval): Abr-N 34 (1996) 52-53. Egypt Lamp 3 (circular): Abr-N 34 (1996) 54-55. Thebes Ostrakon (limestone): Abr-N 34 (1996) 48-50 (see below). Trieste Plaque (clay tablet): see below. Other documents could be nominated for a place in the list (an inscribed simian sculpture from the Delta of Egypt, and two clay fragments from Rieti in Italy), but these will suffice for now. The additional Bronze Age texts to be considered here are a scaraboid seal of unknown provenance, and a clay tablet from Trieste in northern Italy. The gold signet ring from Megiddo and the limestone ostrakon from Thebes will be reconsidered. 30 B.E. COLLESS SCARABOID SEAL Description: G. R. Driver included this “scaraboid seal” in his collection of “early inscribed objects” (Semitic Writing, London, 1954, 102, citing A. A. Zakharov, Archiv Orientalni, VII, 36, and Th. H. Gaster, Quarterly State- ment of the Palestine Exploration Fund, LXIX, 1937, 57-58). Driver states that “its exact provenience is unknown but is vaguely said to be Asia Minor”. Depiction: Zakharov, plate 6 no 7; Driver, 102, fig. 51. Interpretation: Driver suggests that the legend on the seal is written “in a form of the North-Semitic alphabet”. He sets it beside the Megiddo ring (which he acknowledges as having affinities with “the Old-Byblian texts”), and in my view both inscriptions use the Canaanite syllabic script. Reading from right to left, the first sign is recognizable as la (the Egyp- tian symbol for night); the second is a stylized bee, nu; the third is a snake, na; the fourth is sa in a vertical stance; the fifth seems to be simply tu, a cross. la nu na sa tu If la is a preposition (“to, for, belonging to”), then nuna might be a per- sonal name, and satu a title, “lady” (Ugaritic st, also found in Sinai proto- alphabetic inscriptions 369 and 374): “Belonging to the Lady Nuna”. However, there is a problem of grammatical agreement: satu should strictly be sati, genitive case after the preposition. TRIESTE PLAQUE Description: An inscribed clay tablet discovered in a cave near Trieste in northern Italy; approximately 10 cm by 5 cm when complete; two substan- tial pieces are extant (Fausto Gnesotto, Una tavoletta con segni grafici ignoti dal Carso Triestino, Kadmos, 12, 1973, 83-92). Garbini noticed that the unknown signs had counterparts in the Byblian pseudo-hieroglyphic THE CANAANITE SYLLABARY 31 inventory, and that the underlining of some of the characters was a feature of Cypro-Minoan writing. Incidentally, Garbini published two pieces of an inscribed clay object from a Bronze Age site in central Italy (Rieti), with four marks that might belong to the Canaanite syllabary (G. Garbini, Scrittura fenicia nell'età del Bronzo dell'Italia centrale, La Parola del Passato, 225, 1985, 446-451). Depiction: Gnesotto, plate 1 (photograph), fig. 2 (drawing). Interpretation: A case can be made for identifying the dozen remaining characters on the plaque as belonging to the Canaanite syllabary. If we di- vide the text into three horizontal lines, reading from right to left we have the following result: (1) di yi… (2) bi ra… ni (3) ku ta na da pa nu The sequence ku ta na invites comparison with Ugaritic ktn, Hebrew kutonet, Greek khiton, Latin tunica, “tunic”. However, it is not possible to determine whether the language of the text is Semitic. THEBES OSTRAKON Description: One of six ostraka of unknown provenance, acquired by Flinders Petrie from a dealer in Qurneh (Thebes). The other five are proto- alphabetic, and one of them is actually a copy of the proto-alphabet, in my view. Depiction: W. F. Petrie, The Formation of the Alphabet (London 1912), frontispiece (note that the photograph is upside down). 32 B.E. COLLESS Interpretation: (1) da hu wi Ìa si du ta ru ga (2) mi †a In my previous reading of this inscription I was only able to offer a sug- gestion for the first half of the text, which I assumed to be running boustrophedon from the left side. I now think that the last character on the top line is a simple angle (ga, boomerang) rather than a harp (ti); and the last character on the right side is not just a circle with a stem (wu) but there may be a small crossbar, making it †a. Line 2 will now be tried as a continu- ation of line 1, but not boustrophedon. Four of the pictograms will be in- terpreted as logograms rather than syllabograms. (1) da(ltu)-hu wi(ru) Ìasidu taruga (2) mi(zbaÌu) †a(bu) There is no exact counterpart in the Gubla inscriptions for the seventh sign (ta?), which is a baseless square with two nodules; perhaps these append- ages represent grapes, Arabic ‘inab, Hebrew ‘enab, but Ugaritic gnb. No g signs have been detected in the Gubla texts, but there is already a character for ‘i (eyelid), which occurs frequently in Gubla text D. On the other hand, my understanding of ta is a framework for a vine (Egyptian hieroglyph M43, denoting “vine” or “wine”), hence *tarasu (“wine”), and the presumed grapes on the character under discussion could support this, making tallu (Old Akkadian word for a doorframe or part thereof) a less likely possibil- ity. The proposal for the first half is: “its door is solid copper” (cp. Josephus, Jewish War, 5.5.3, describing a gate of “Corinthian brass” in the Jerusalem Temple). What, we may ask, is the edifice which has this splendid portal? Is it a temple (the Ramesseum?), a tomb (in the Valley of Kings?), or the city (Thebes?). If we read ‘iru then “city” is the answer (cp. Hebrew and Ugaritic).