« A Little Confession
Main
We're Back! »
November 20, 2005
The Cuneiform Short Alphabet: Part 4.
Inscribed Votive Nail Head: KTU 7.60 (RS 9.496; Sryia 19, 1938, 140, CTA 206):
This is the fourth in my series of studies of the texts in the short cuneiform alphabet. You can find the first study, "Amurriyu's Sacrifice to Baal: KTU 1.77" at The Cuneiform Short Alphabet: Part 1. Along with Part 1 is a brief discussion of the short cuneiform alphabet, a discussion of methodology and a disclaimer in which I advise the reader on my qualifications or lack of same to study these texts. Please read this material. I will also be adding a table of contents and some other study related structure to The Cuneiform Short Alphabet: Part 1 post.
Before I get into the details, I want to show a picture of this artifact taken from Herdner [1963], pl. LXXXVIII. I show it rotated 180o from the way Herdner published it.
This picture, in and of itself, should give you a general idea of the problems in understanding the text on this object, if it is indeed a text in the normal meaning of the word.
I present a discussion of this text here only because it has traditionally been included among the corpus of the short cuneiform alphabet. As will be seen, there is no real evidence that it should be so included.
Chaude Schaeffer discovered the head of a votive nail on which KTU 7.60 is written in 1937 at the base of the west slope of the Acropolis at Ugarit. The writing is in two partial circular segments, each extending about a third of the way around the nail. One line is near the outer edge of the underside of the nail and the other, the inner line, is near a central circular bulge, where the point of the nail once was. As Dietrich and Loretz [1988], 169-170 pointed out, scholars are not even completely united on the direction of the writing. de Lange [1945], 209, Gordon [1965], 261, Bordreuil [1979], 63, and Puech [1986], 199, followed a suggestion by Virolleaud [1938] 140, in reading both lines from right to left. But Herdner [1963], 284, seemed uncertain and published the above photograph as if the text was to be read from left to right. Despite his discussion in the body of his article, Virolleaud [1938], 140, published his autograph with this same orientation as Herdner's picture but indicated he thought the text might be read from right to left as I have represented it. Dietrich and Loretz [1988], 170, advise caution. Note that by rotating the above picture 180o one can change the direction of the writing.
Before I offer my interpretation, let me note what others, far better qualified than I, have said about this text.
Herdner (1963), 284, says, "Contenu índetermíné"
Gordon, (1965), 185, says, "small, unintelligible text in mirror writing" and at page 261 he again says, "unintelligible mirror-writing on votive nail."
Bordreuil (1979), 63 said, "Le texte CTA 206 (=KTU 7.60) est illisible."
Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin (1995), 527, "Type of script (and language?) found only here; or playful exercise with the wedge."
It has been said of Cyrus Gordon, that if a chicken walked across a muddy road, even before the mud was dry, he would have published a grammar and glossary with selected readings and translations. The fact that Gordon used the word "unintelligible" should give anyone pause.
With that I plunge in to these dangerous waters.
Transliteration:
My reading of the outer line from Herdner's (1963), pl LXXXVIII, picture with reference to Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 170 and Virolleaud's (1938), 140, autographs is:
I make no guess as to the reading of the inner line. As Puech, oh so correctly, says about the inner line, "cette ligne reste de lecture conjecturale." And that may well be a major understatement.
My reading depends on reading the text from right to left. Please link to the accompanying PDF file to understand why I have adopted this reading of the outer line.
Translation:
With the understanding that this is in the far ranges of speculation, I hazard a translation of my reading of the outer line.
"Of which gore was given, of which was given your blood."
I want to emphasis again that I am likely being more brave than wise in even making the effort. Again, please read the PDF file for my reasons for tentatively proposing this interpretation.
Final Remarks:
Despite my, perhaps, unwise effort to understand the outer line, this text remains very difficult to interpret. To the point of these studies, only the fact that it may be written from left to right and the history of its interpretation recommend it for inclusion among the texts in the short cuneiform alphabet. Only one letter may have the unique shape associated with a text (KTU 5.28=8.1 from Beth Shamesh) in the short cuneiform alphabet. But this is disputed. Not a single sign or phonetic value, by any reading, is diagnostic of the short alphabet. Nor is there anything in the vocabulary or grammar that would indicate that it is among the short alphabet texts. For these reasons, I will join Dietrich and Loretz (1998), 107, in excluding it from further consideration.
Posted by Duane Smith at November 20, 2005 10:08 AM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1455
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.