« New Science on an Old Problem
Main
For a Minute, I Thought He Had Gotten the Message »
January 25, 2006
Opening a Can of Wedges
Does 
look like 
?
One of the major problems in interpreting the alphabetic cuneiform text on the tablet from Tell Taanak (KTU 4.767) involves knowing how to read some of the letters themselves. Of particular difficulty is the last sign in the first line. Hillers (1964), 47-48, who was the first to try, simply used a __, and said, "The present writer is unable to identify the last sign or signs."
Cross (1988), 44, read the sign as an "m." In their 1974 (first edition) publication of KTU Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin, read the sign as a "z2" but more recently (1995, second edition), 477, they read "s" which they take to stand for /s/ or /ş/. (I know this is not quite the right way to write the sound of a şadê but it is the best I can do with my current font options to assure compatibility with your web browsers.) Dijkstra (1986), 122, n 7, read "s2" which he understands in the same way as Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin (1995), 477 and Dietrich, Loretz (1988), 250 understand "s".
Of course, how the sign is seen in the context of the word itself and in the larger surrounding context is crucial to its reading, but I would like to just focus on the sign at this point. Here is my shaded tracing of the sign from a photograph of the tablet published by Rainey (1969), 90: . And this is my tracing of the fifth sign in this line that, while not undisputed, is very likely a "s2" or "s" as explained above: . See any difference? Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 252, explain the difference by noting that the scribe was at the edge of the tablet and had to squeeze the third wedge under the second one. Of course, this is not at all impossible. However, in the second line of the tablet the scribe seemed to feel no constraint about wrapping a whole letter (an "l") around the edge and onto the reverse of the tablet.
Now take a look at this sign from KTU 4.710:7: 
. This is what most, including myself, have called "ţ2" and it can stand from /ţ/ (Again, by "ţ" I mean to indicate ţet or /ţet/. For the uninitiated, a letter between /s stands for the sound of that letter. ) Do I think it looks exactly like the last letter in the Tell Taanak tablet? Well, not exactly. And it is even more different than your eye might tell you because KTU 4.710 is written from right to left while the Tell Taanak tablet is written from left to right. But there is another issue when analyzing these images of signs. The images I am using from the Tell Taanak tablet are my shaded tracings, the image from KTU 4.710 is from Bordreuil's, (1981), 31, transcription. They inevitable have different styles. All I am saying at this point is that the last sign in the first line of the Tell Taanak tablet () looks as much like as it does like and very little like any other sign that I know of in the whole alphabetic cuneiform corpus.
For those who are interested the "normal" "ţ" in the long cuneiform alphabet looks something like this: 
. The letter I am worrying about doesn't look much like that either. But if it is rotated 900 counterclockwise, so the "normal" vertical wedge is now horizontal and pointing in the direction one would assume in a text written from left to right, it would look like this: 
. Now that is somewhat more like the sign in the Tell Taanak tablet. Not exactly to be sure, but closer. At least all the wedges are in the right position if not quite the right shape. Note that it is also closer to the sign in KTU 4.710. Is there evidence that such rotations took place in other alphabetic cuneiform signs? Well, not a whole lot in the cuneiform alphabet. One might cite the "š" in KTU 4.226:6 as a rotation of sorts but the other "š"s in this text, even in the same line, are "normal." The "l" in the Beth Shemesh abecedary (KTU 5.4 ) may be rotated 1800 from the "normal" if one follows Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 290, but not if one follows Sass (1991), 326 and the "z," if it is a "z" as thought by Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 290, looks like it is rotated 900. But Sass (1991), 326, can read no letter at all. Both Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 290 and Segert (1993), 3, see a "s" that is rotated 900 on the Tell Shemesh tablet but Sass (1991), 326 can not read anything at that point either. On the other hand, 900 rotations are common and very well documented in linear alphabetic traditions.
So what does the "ţ" look like in the Beth Shemesh abecedary cuneiform tablet? The problem here is that scholars can't even agree on which letter is the "ţ", in part because the tablet is so badly broken in the neighborhood where one might expect it. In addition, nothing in this neighborhood looks much like any other known "ţ." Compare (if you have time and inclination), for example, the reading of Sass (1991), 326, with that of Dietrich and Loretz (1988), 290.
So why spend so much time on this? If I am allowed to read a "ţ" here rather than something else, I think a rather smooth, consistent and interesting understanding of the text of the Tell Taanak tablet emerges. You may remember that I offered the following "working translation": "When (in) pain, gather a stalk of henna. It consumes sickness." If I'm allowed to read a "ţ" and also allowed a couple of other modifications from the previous understanding, I am tempted to render the text,
When (in) pain, a wrapping of henna cures. It consumes the sickness.
Now I have some work to do to defend this translation should it turn out to be defendable at all. There are some serious issues no matter which way one goes. But I will leave all that to my formal post on the KTU 4.767. If it turns out that I can't defend this interpretation, I will add a update to this post saying that some or all of this is a crock of wedges.
If you want to look up the references go to my bibliography on this subject.
Posted by Duane Smith at January 25, 2006 1:24 PM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1548
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.