« Aaaah! Isn't That Sweet?
Main
A Note on an Abnormal Interest »
February 9, 2007
On Early Phoenician and the Early Phoenicians
Eric Welch at Revelee reports on the second meeting of his graduate archaeology seminar at Harvard. The focus of the seminar is on the Phoenicians. It sure sounds interesting. I wish I were sitting in on this seminar. If his reports continue and are as good as this one, I will not need to sit in to get a lot out of it. I found one thing he said of particular interest.
While there is continuity with the LB and Iron I material culture in "Phoenicia" it is not until the 10th century when we see a language and cursive script.
What struck me were the words, "it is not until the 10th century when we see a language and cursive script."
[If you see squares, rectangles or something else that is incorrect please install the Charis SIL font.]
Below is the text in transliteration of an "inscription." If you don't know, you'll see why the word "inscription" is in quotes in a little while.
1) ’gnn z p‛l yd
2) nb‛l z l ḥdš b‛l[h?
I translate this text,
1) An amphora, which Yiddinba'al made
2) for Chudash, his lord. (or 'for Chudashba'al')
Now let's look at a couple of other texts,
(KAI 1:1a) ’rn z p‛l (’)tb‛l bn ’ḥrm mlk gbl l’ḥrm ’bh
A sarcophagus, which Ittoba'al son of Ahiram, king of Byblos, made for Ahiram his father.
(KAI 6:1-2a) mš z p‛l ’lb‛l mlk gbl . . . [lb]‛lt gbl ’dtw
A Statue which Eliba'al, king of Byblos, . . . made for the Mistress of Byblos, his lady.
Now, no one would dispute that KAI 1 and KAI 6 were examples of the Phoenician language. Both are from Byblos and both are written in the linear "cursive script" to which Eric eludes. Both show a set of vocabulary and syntactical elements that are associated with the Phoenician language but not seen in other Semitic languages.
But, what about my "inscription"? It uses z as a relative pronoun in the same way as do KAI 1 and 6 and it uses the verb p‛l in the same way they do. The first personal name on my example contains ba‛al as a theophoric element just like in Ittoba'al and Eliba'al in KAI 1 and 6. While one might wonder about the construction z l in line 2, one would almost certainly think that my "inscription" was in the Phoenician language also. In a previous post, I attempted an explanation of the z l construction. In fact, over a year ago I dedicated a post and a PDF file to this text whose full nature I have not as yet disclosed here. But it is time to disclose my little secret if you haven't figured it out already.
In 1972, James Pritchard found a jar handle with my "inscription" written on it at Sarepta in Lebanon. The handle is Sar 3102 and the text is now most commonly referred to as KTU 6:70. The writing is in the short cuneiform alphabet (as opposed to the longer cuneiform alphabet commonly used at Ugarit). Prichard dated this handle to the beginning of the 13th century BCE. In other words, it is from the Bronze Age. In my previous post on the text, I indicated why the language could not have been Ugaritic. It isn't (proto) Hebrew either! The language sure seems to me to be Phoenician. I happen to think that a couple of the other texts in the short cuneiform alphabet are also in the Phoenician language but none of them have as clear a set of diagnostic elements seen in KTU 6:70. My previous post and related PDF files have a fairly complete bibliography for this text. Also, if you checkout the previous post, you'll see that I cleaned the transliteration up a little bit for this post, but I don't think I seriously distorted the text, its language or meaning.
So what is one to make of something like KTU 6:70 if it is indeed in the Phoenician language? Or should we call it the Canaanite language? Certainly, it needs to join the Bronze Age evidence for the continuity of the material culture when a discussion of the earliest history of the Phoenicians is attempted. We also need to remind ourselves that language and script do not necessarily indicate the same thing. And of course, the pseudo-hieroglyphic script from Byblos is likely indicative of this same phenomenon but represented by still a different script.
Update: February 10, 2007
Fixed typo in transliteration of KAI 1:1
Posted by Duane Smith at February 9, 2007 6:54 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2020
Comments
Great post! Thanks for the interaction. Now you have me thinking. I'm trying to sort out the implications of having an earlier date for a Phoenician language and how they play out in the quest for historical boundaries for Phoenicia, but I have enough work to do today that it will have to wait until I'm laying in bed unable to sleep tonight.
As far as trying to keep up with these posts go, I'll give it my best shot. It may just be my class notes that I retype while on the train, but there should be something weekly. Thanks again.
Eric Welch
Posted by: Eric Welch at February 10, 2007 7:53 AM
Historical boundaries are always somewhat fuzzy; this is particularly true when based on language. Remember, there are still people speaking Assyrian. But the problem is interesting.
Posted by: Duane at February 10, 2007 8:52 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.