Abnormal Interests

« Server Problem
Main
I Don't Seem to Meet the Minimum Qualifications »

February 15, 2007

Some Observations on the Tel Zayit and ‘Izbet Sartah Abecedaries

I have previously written about the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary and made a few preliminary remarks about the Tel Zayit abecedary. As I indicated in my post on it, the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary was written between 1200 and 1000 BCE. On the difficulties in dating this sherd, see my earlier post. The Tel Zayit abecedary is from the tenth century BCE. See Tappy et al, 7-25, for a detailed discussion of its archeological context and date. In the transliterations below, red letters indicate letters that are not in the "canonical" order or are otherwise out of place. "?" indicates a strange or unknown letter or sign and "X" is used to indicate the location of a large if somewhat faint X like cross that can be seen in an otherwise empty space between the k and the m on the Tel Zayit abecedary.

[If you see squares, rectangles or something else that is incorrect please install the Charis SIL font.]

The Tel Zayit Abecedary (originally written from right to left using two curved lines of unequal length demarked below with a "/"):
’bgd whḥzṭylkXmnsp‛ṣ/qršt ? ?

The ‘Izbet Sartah Sherd Abecedary (line 5) (originally written from left to right on a single uneven line):
’bgdh ?ḥzṭykl[m(?)]nsp‛ṣqqšt

As I have noted elsewhere and as Tappy et al, 26, note, there is nothing too surprising about the p‛ order in the Tel Zayit abecedary. Tappy et al, 26, also suggest, on the basis of the order of the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary, that the "inversion" of the ḥ and the z in the Tel Zayit abecedary may represent an otherwise unknown tradition of the order of the alphabet. On this point, I believe they are correct. In fact, the ḥz order may slightly redeem the reputation of the ‘Izbet Sartah scribe. They, 26, are also correct that the lk order in their inscription is an error. They note that the scribe almost certainly knew that he or she had made an error and left a space in which someone, perhaps the scribe, placed a large but very faint X. They assume that the X was placed there by the scribe and that is likely the best assumption. This leaves us with the wh order seen in the Tel Zayit inscription. Tappy et al, 26, suggest that in the light of the likelihood that the ḥz and the p‛ order are part of an alternate alphabetic tradition, that the wh order may be also. I would note that the kl order, certainly an error, would dictate considerable caution in the absence of some additional evidence.

As Tappy et al, 40, say, "At the end of line two, a short distance (10-12mm) after the taw, are two apparently nonalphabetic signs. Each is drawn as a series of six or seven irregular zigzag strokes in vertical orientation." While they believe the signs were put there for a purpose, they see no parallels in other inscriptions.

Let's take a closer look at the fifth sign on the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary. I show Demsky's, 14, autograph on the left with the h before it and the ḥ after it. One would expect a w in this location. This sign does not look like either a w as read by Demsky, 14,or an "m (?)" as read by Cross, 9, 10. Nor does it look like any other sign on the first four lines of the inscription. One might see a near parallel in the third sign in line 3 (see Cross, 10) but this sign, whatever it is, begins above the line of the surrounding qs. Cross, 9, also reads it as an "m (?)" and he may just be correct in this case but we have no certain m in the abecedary from ‘Izbet Sartah. It appears to me that the sign in line 3 is more m like than the squiggle between the h and the ḥ in the abecedary. I think this squiggle functions much like the X in the Tel Zayit abecedary and serves as an indication of an error.

Now let's consider the two zigzags from the end of the Tel Zayit. I have reproduced Tappy's et al, 27, autograph of them on the left. The first thing one should note is that even though they are adjacent to each other they are not identical. The one on the left begins at a different place and direction than the one on the right and the one on the left is a bit more "cursive." The placement of the proceeding t is somewhat low when compared with the three letters before it on this, the second line of the abecedary, but it appears to me that these two zigzags extend below the line in the same way as does the squiggle in the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary. To be sure, these extensions are not as pronounced as in the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary. Both of the Tel Zayit zigzags are more modulated at the top than at the bottom. The same it true of the ‘Izbet Sartah squiggle. To be sure the ‘Izbet Sartah squiggle is less modulated and more "cursive" than either of the two Tel Zayit zigzags.

So I think both the zigzags on the Tel Zayit inscription and squiggle in the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary are sufficiently similar to suggest that they may function as placeholders for something else, whatever that something else may have been. In the case of the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary I think the squiggle is a segregate for the w which the scribe possibly didn't know how to draw or had forgotten. Perhaps he left a place for it and then went back and drew the squiggle. Remember, the "scribe" who wrote the text on the ‘Izbet Sartah sherd was short of completely literate. Note, for example the missing r for which the scribe wrote a second q. To be sure, there is some minimal commonality between the r and the q in many versions of the early Phoenician/Hebrew/Aramaic scripts. But these two qs are virtually identical. Are the two zigzags in the Tel Zayit inscription placeholders for something? While I doubt that the parallel will hold, one might note the extra letters that were added to the alphabet at Ugarit. The spacing alone may argue against any speculation in this direction. Perhaps the Tel Zayit scribe wasn't sure he was done. I am not claiming that there was an official sign at served as a placeholder. If there were, I doubt that either of these two scribes would have known it. I am claiming that making a squiggle in the face of uncertainty is a very natural thing to do.

It is interesting that both these early abecedaries appear to be produced by scribes in much the same alphabet tradition, at least when order is considered, and both seem to have struggled and failed to write the alphabet without error.

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at February 15, 2007 3:18 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2027

Comments

Posted by: G.M. Grena at February 19, 2007 9:26 PM

Posted by: Duane at February 19, 2007 9:40 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: