IV. THE MOABITE SEALS No script chart is available for the study of the devel­ opment of Moabite inscriptions. From those seals that included names having the km4 theophoric element it was pos­ sible to designate certain seals as Moabite; with the general tools of typological development and on analogy with other related national scripts, a sequential arrangement could further be posited, which, within our narrow chronological confines, can be loosely dated. Both Hebrew and Moabite paleography appear together on the Mesha Stele from the L 9th c. The Hebrew script which developed from those forms should be seen as the norm for the indigenous south Palestinian script, the course of which Moab­ ite also seems to have followed until strong Aramaic elements were brought into the Trans-Jordanian scripts, possibly by the Assyrian conquests, in the Mand L 8th c. (the same period of the Arnrnonite borrowing). Interestingly enough, this seems to have happened only on some letters in Moabite, notably the ~ade, samek, sin, <ayin, lamed, and yod, while others kept their original south Palestinian forms (illustrated by their similarity with Hebrew): mem, nun, he, pe, kap, ~et, and pos­ sibly qop. Other letters witness alternating bi-forms from each tradition, such as the JaZep, taw, rel, and possibly the bet. The rest of the letters do not occur on our seals. When the Aramaic elements came into Moabite, they began their own development, not far removed from the Arnrnonite developments. The <ayin was squared and most likely did not open until very late in the 7th c., as would seem to have been the case with the re§ and possibly the daZet. This means that, like Arnrnonite, the Moabite seals cannot be dated by the Aramaic development, nor for that matter, by the Hebrew, since the letters retaining the south Palestine forms now begin a development more-or-less independent of the forms in their sister script. Some unique letters which occur on our seals can usually be ascribed only to Moabite, such as the two-stroke shaft 153 154 on the JaZeps of the lm~ (no. l) and kmJm>J (no. 2) seals (Ammonite may have just a slight hint of such a form). The daZet, without a leg on the kms~dq seal (no. 5), is close to the forms on the Mesha Stele and probably represents a typical Moabite form, conserved unaltered, while the Hebrew form developed its leg. There are other slight idiosyncrasies of Moabite letter forms, such as the large head on the mem and nun, but these will be brought up in the discussions of the seals themselves. A very tentative discussion of some typological develop­ ments may be mentioned: among them is the tendency to make the curves on the leg of the mem, nun, kap, and probably the pe, bolder as time progressed. The letters seem to have become more squat as they developed: compare the ms<J seal (no. 6), which we date to the first half of the 6th c., with the kms<m seal (no. 4) from around 700. As noted above, a development similar to Ammonite on the <ayin, bet, and res (possibly the daZet as well), which saw them opening, seems to have occurred late in the tradition. In a tradition combining two separate elements, bi-forms are not an unexpected aspect. If the b<Zntn seal (no. 8) is Moabite, an Aramaic taw is present along with the indigenous Moabite •x"-form on the kmlntn seal (no. 3). The JaZep of the Jm~ seal (no. 1) has three strokes for the horizontals, as do certain Hebrew forms from around 700. However, the archaic form is also present (the kms<m seal--no. 4) as well as a Moabite development of the Aramaic "star" JaZep (the msU seal--no. 6). In the discussions of the individual seals below, we will talk about two script traditions: the Hebrew and the Aramaic. the "Hebrew" represents that tradition which is the indigen­ ous south Palestinian script to which Moabite adhered prior to the "Aramaic" entrance. 1. Moabite Seal Jm!I hspr First half of 7th c. Bought: Cairo Israel Musuem IR, no. 16. Note the combination of Aramaic and Hebrew forms. The .