« Following Duane's Law
Main
Brandeis to Sell Art to Pay the Bills »
January 25, 2009
An Amulet for Rakab-El
Between other projects, I've been messing around with several of the texts from Zincirli. This is in anticipation of the formal publication of Pardee's work on the new Kuttamuwa Inscription. The short text KAI 25 is as good a place to start as any.
[If you see squares, rectangles or something else that doesn't look right, please install the Charis SIL font.]
1) smr z qn
2) klmw
3) br ḥy
4) lrkbʾl
____________
5) ytn lh r
6) kbʾl
7) ʾrk ḥy
An amulet (nail) that Kilamuwa, son of Ḫaya, fashioned for Rakab-El.
May Rakab-El give him a long life.
The only real difficulty in this inscription is the first word, smr. I follow Lemaire's suggestion. One might wonder about the defective writing of z for zy, but see mz in KAI 214:3, 4 and 22. On br ḥy, "son of Ḫaya," see KAI 24:1, 4, 8. I was tempted to have some fun with this expression but was constrained by the evidence of KAI 24:1, 4, 8.
So is the language of this text Phoenician or Sam'alian (an early dialect of Aramaic) or what? On this question, there is a fairly extensive literature not all of which have I read. Quite clearly, Garr, 85, 102, 135, 173, thinks it is Sam'alian. I think that is the current consensus. But earlier scholars like Friedrich and Röllig, 23, 82, 84, treated it as Phoenician. I don't see any unambiguous indicators in the text. One might want to cite br for son but this same usage is associated with Kilamuwa (klmw br ḥy) in KAI 24:1, 4, 8. I believe KAI 24 is universally thought to be in the Phoenician language and bn is used for son(s) in KAI 24:13. I've written on this issue before.
References
Lemaire, André, "SMR dans la petite inscription de Kilamuwa (Zencirli)," Syria, 67:2, 1990, 323-327
Friedrich, Johnannes and Wolfgang Röllig, Phonizisch - Punische Grammatik, Analecta Orientallia, 46, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970
Posted by Duane Smith at January 25, 2009 4:36 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2762
Comments
Two notes:
Dialect: the form of the 3 m.s. pronominal suffix as attested in line 5 is found only in the early Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos, elsewhere in Phoenician the suffix would be either zero or y. The form without a final weak letter, however, looks more like the expected Standard Phoenician form, because the Aramaic forms (including Samalian) end in aleph or he. (Although one has to admit that the verb QNH is notoriously unpredictable across the Semitic languages.) All that to say that one cannot absolutely say either way but the evidence seems to be pointing more toward Samalian than Phoenician (cf. Tropper 1993:§22.2).
SMR: though there is a good Hebrew cognate (cf. CAD S p. 121 samrûtu for a note about the Akkadian use as a form of currency), “nail” is probably not the best translation here: the item on which the inscription was found is cylindrical but hollowed out on the inside, i.e. more like a sleeve or sheath. (If you don’t have access to a picture, I would be happy to send you a copy of the photos, Duane.)
I look forward to seeing more on this abnormal topic!
Posted by: chip at January 27, 2009 2:30 PM
Chip,
Thanks for the comments. I don't think we really disagree on this but as I said, there is nothing here that unambiguously points one way or the other.
Posted by: Duane at January 27, 2009 2:57 PM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.