CANAANITE VARIETIES IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC: CAN WE DISPENSE WITH ANACHRONISM?

Introduction In a paper delivered at the meeting of the team of the forthcoming new edition of The Dictionary of Northwest Semitic Inscriptions (DNWSI) in Leiden at the end of 2001 (Izre'el 2003), I tried to set up a methodology for marking out West Semitic words in cuneiform texts from the Canaanite region. In that paper I dwelt on primary identification of Canaanite glosses, basically discussing the writing system and scribal traditions. The following are the main points to be considered: • Cuneiform writing does not separate between words, and thus signs can be attributed to strings on either side. • Cuneiform signs can be interpreted either as syllabic signs or as logograms. • Cuneiform signs are polyphonic and can bear different, sometimes quite remote values. Also, cuneiform signs have different values in different areas and periods, and must be interpreted according to their assigned scribal traditions. • When a sign is not inscribed carefully or the surface upon which it was inscribed has been damaged, there are many more options for reading and restoration than in alphabetic or consonantal, linear or pictographic script. • Non-Akkadian phonemes that form part of the Semitic stock and could have been part of the phonological system of the languages of the Levant in the second millennium BC (d, t, z, g, d, g,, h, h, o) are not represented faithfully by the cuneiform writing system. Laryngeal and pharyngeal consonants can be indicated in spelling only indirectly; in many cases such consonants are in effect ignored. In order to represent o, Canaanite scribes used the cuneiform u series.1 • Consonantal doubling is not always manifested in cuneiform writing, and it is less common in Amarna texts than others. However, when it is manifested, it