THE CANAANITE INSCRIPTIONS OF LACHISHAND THEIR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

Emile Puech (CNRS)*

The British and Israeli excavations at Tel Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) have both yieldedwritten documents not only of the first millennium, mainly from the time of the JudeanMonarchy (Lachish I; Lachish III:331-359; Lachish V:19-25; Ussishkin 1978:76-91;1983:155-165), but also specimens of the scripts and languages in use at the site duringthe second millennium B.c. In addition to the Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic textsfound on other than scarabs and scaraboids (Lachish IV:131-133; Gilula 1976; Giveon1983; Goldwasser 1984:85-87), there are also a number of documents in the Canaanitealphabetic scripts of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. This survey will not take intoaccount the so-called Lachish prism (Lachish IV: 128, Oblong Seal)1and other fragments(ibid.: 130, Lachish Sherds No. 6).2The Canaanite inscriptions are discussed below as faras possible in chronological order, except that Inscription 5 might be fairly late in theseries, perhaps contemporary to Inscription 7.

Inscription IThus far, the earliest evidence of alphabetic writing at Lachish remains the short

inscription engraved on a dagger blade, which was retrieved from Tomb 1502 by theBritish expedition (Lachish IV: 128; see Fig. 1:I). Judging from the contents of the tomb,this object most probably dates to the 17th century, or ca. 1600 B.C. It is best readvertically as (rnz. The resh (head) and nun (snake: nahas) are certain, while the (et andzayin are probable (Albright 1969:10; Puech 1983:576). Albright suggested that thismight be a name, Tur-anza, already attested in the 15th century at Alalakh (IV) andNuzi. Recently, Lundin (1986) suggested dating the dagger in the 12th-11th century andto read the Irnz, "appartient a Arnuzu," Arnuzu being a well-known Hurrian name. Butthe lamed is very difficult.

Inscription 2Next, according to our dating of these inscriptions, comes a sherd discovered in the

casemate fill of Palace A (Locus L. 12:1057of the British expedition, northeast corner ofthe palace). This was read by D. Diringer (Lachish IV:131; Lachish Sherd No.7) fromright to left as la'uth (['wt), and dated to the lith century We propose a vertical positionfor the sherd, which produces ]b'lt[ (which may be understood l]b'lt[), with the bet only

* Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.1 This was correctly identified as EgyptianptlJ-nfr by Hestrin, Sass and Ophe11982.2 These fragments do not seem to be written in a Canaanite script but in an Egyptian one. Tomb

571 is adjacent to Tomb 570, where an anthropoid sarcophagus with hieroglyphic signs wasfound.

13

Tel Aviv 13 (1986)

.: .;

~.'..".' ...

~

2 3

f

4

5

Fig. 1. 1: Inscription 1 (dagger blade); 2: Inscription 2 (Lachish Sherd No.7); 3: Inscrip-tion 5 (bowl fragment from Late Bronze Age temple; renewed excavations); 4:Inscription 4 (censer lid); 5: Inscription 3 (Lachish Bowl No.2)

14

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

partially preserved but quite possible in a rectangular or square shape (note the begin-ning of a curve on the right in Fig. 1:2). Since there is no photograph, we have to rely onthe drawing (Lachish IV: PI. 44:7). However, the lozenge-like 'ayin is virtually certain.Yadin (1959) arrived at the same result,3 but read the text horizontally, from right to left,and dated it to the 13th century. This seems to me to be too late by at least a century. Thepalaeography and content of our reading affiliate this small piece with the Proto-Canaanite (or better, Proto-Sinaitic) corpus of inscriptions. Accordingly, it must bedated around 1500 B.c. (Puech 1986:184-185).

On the one hand, it is not surprising to encounter the name of the goddess Ba'alat(pro bab1y Astarte) on a fragment uncovered in the southeast area of the Late Bronze Agetemple. This is also the provenience of the gold plaque depicting Qudshu-Astarte (orAsherah-Astarte) and of the stone fragment with a drawing of the god Reshef (Ussishkin1978:10-25; Clamer 1980). Several additional figurines of these deities were recovered bythe British expedition: Reshef (Lachish II:66-68; Pis. 26:31-32; 28:2(?) [Fosse Temple];Lachish IV:82-83; PI. 25:69 [debris east of the palace]); Hathor (Lachish II: Pis. 21:46;28:6); Astarte (Lachish IV: PI. 49: 1). On the other hand, just northeast of the Late BronzeAge temple on the mound, but in a somewhat earlier level (Level P3, Room 5079) thelarge spouted bowl (the base of a bellows) and the probable remains of a metallurgicalinstallation were recovered (U ssishkin 1983:108). These data point to a relationship withthe Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions of Serabit el-Khadim, where a similar bellows and manyremains of mining activities were found (Beit-Arieh, Giveon and Sass 1978:175-176).Moreover, all of these elements - bellows, metallurgical installations, a sherd withvertical writing at Lachish, Proto-Canaanite inscriptions normally in vertical writing atSerabit el-Khadim and mining activities in the region - are apparently contemporaryand have to be dated to around 1500 B.c.

Inscription 3The bowl fragment from the area of the Fosse Temple (Lachish II:55; PI. 29:12;

Lachish IV: 130, Lachish Bowl No.2) cannot be attributed to a structure and thereforecannot be dated by its archaeological stratum (from the 16th to 13th century B.c.). Theinscription, written in black ink, consists of ten or eleven signs, of which the first andperhaps the last do not seem to be letters. No consensus has been reached regarding thereadings of any of the signs, or even regarding the direction of the writing.

At first the inscription was regarded as a foreigner's clumsy attempt to imitate hieraticwriting. This has been discussed by Gaster (Lachish II:55-57) and it is not necessary toreview this subject.

We propose here to read the text from right to left, with the centre of the inner face ofthe bowl pointing downwards (upside down of what is published in Lachish II:55). In thisway, it is possible to identify letters and to read the following: a broken long stroke,shin(?), yod (or the number 30 in hieratic), 'ayin with a dot (better than pe), bet, resh(?),

3 At the time of writing this note, I was not aware of Yadin's article.

15

Tel Aviv13(1986)

lamed, lamed, lamed and a broken stroke or letter (Fig. 1:5). This would result in thereading: ].(?)sy(?)'brll/.(?)[, or ].(?)s 30(?)'brll/. (?)[.

There is more than one way to interpret this sequence: ]sy 'br ll/(?)[ or ]s y'br ll/ (?) [ or]s 30 'br Ill[; 'br + I-ND may have the meaning of "to offer, to dedicate." This would besuitable for an inscription found in the area of a temple (the Fosse temple): "]an offer-ing/ or sheep, he had offered to In[."

The divine name II is attested in the Ugaritic texts (Grondahl 1967:282; Tarragon1980:166). But the name is sometimes interpreted as "night" (see Herdner 1978:26-30, RS24.250 + 259, 27; 41-44, RS 24.291, 17: Herdner 1963, CTA 34,12; 37,9; 38,7), althoughthe deified Mount Luli could as well be understood in CT A 2, I, 14 and 20 (Caquot,Sznycer and Herdner 1974:128, n. 1).4

In one case II was supposed to be associated with Reshef (Ras Ibn Hani tablet 77, 4 +11). Line 1 reads l]rS'p.wIll[ (J3ordreuil and Caquot 1979:301).5 As noted above, Reshefwas well known at Lachish. The connection between rsp and II (night or nocturnaldivinity?) might reflect the association of 'rqrsp/ 'rsrsp (Panamuwa inscription). 'Ar~u ispartner to Venus at Palmyra; she is Ru<;la'of the Arabs, since the god who welcomes thesun into the underworld at night is already associated with a god of the evening.6 In thiscase, II would be related to night, not to a mountain.? But Ras Ibn Hani tablet 77,l]rS'p. wIll[ might be understood in another way: "to] Reshef. And at night[ ... " (Levine1983:472)8.

This explanation seems better than a reading Il(yX..!, "LiIH," (li/flu in Akkadian andLilit at Ugarit), which is a demoness or a disease, although it is true that rS'p is considereda demon or a plague in Deut. 32:23-24; Job 5:7; Ps. 78:40).9 To be sure, the reading ofthedivine name is not quite certain; it could be either II or ll(fAt. We prefer the firstpossibility, while the explanations leI (night) or Luli (name) remain a matter of debate.

The above interpretation is presented as an attempt to understand this difficult andpoorly preserved inscription. If the readings were more certain, we would suggest a date

4 Be it "night" or "Mount Luli," is not this divinity's name to be sought in the hypocoristic nameof the king ofTyre, Luli (729-694 B.C.), quoted in the Assyrian annals of Sennacherib?Luli wasthe predecessor of king Baal 1. Flavius Josephus would have "hellenized" the name as"Eloulaios."

5 Among the anthroponyms of the Ras Ibn Hani texts of 1983, there is also a bn 1/ (Bordreuil1984:425).

6 It is well known that Reshef = Nergal. The association of Reshef and "evening" was alreadynoted by Fulco (1976:45 ff.) through 'rqrSp - RUQll',followed on this point by Lipinski(1983: 17 ff.). The association of Reshef with the setting sun is wellknown; Reshef is described asthe gate keeper of the Sun Goddess in Ugaritic text PRU II: No. 162, lines2-4: 'rbl sps tgrh rsp,"the Sun setting, Resheph being her porter."

7 Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner 1974:128, n. I, following M. Pope (1955:68 f). However, Lipinski(1971 :43) prefers lei, "night," for ir 1/, "mountain of night."

8 Levine (1983:472) proposed for will in the Ugaritic ritual texts the reading I pn 1/. "beforeevening!night," parallel to w b urm, "in the morning."

9 See Caquot (1956) where he also discussesSong 8:6 and the biblical references to qtb and dbr.

16

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

for this fragment in the 14th century or even in the 15th century B.c. (see bet, lamed, reshand yod in Fig. 3).

Inscription 4The censer lid from Tomb 216 was dated by Tufnell to the 14th century (Lachish IV:

128,232-235; Pls.44:l; 47:5). Of the preserved letters, written in red paint apparently onthe reverse face, only the yod is certain (Fig. 1:4). By analogy with the hieratic inscribedbowls from Lachish, we are tempted to read a date here and to interpret it asb(?)yr(?)h(?), followed by a number in the shape of a zayin like the hieratic numbers ofthis period. Alternatively we might read zayin, and above it in boustrophedon: bet(?),'ayin(?) and lamed, = b'l (Fig. 1:4).10Ba'al, well known as a divine name or (part of) apersonal name, could be preceded by an effaced lamed. Hence we propose to read:b(?)yr(?)h(?) (number) or z[w(?), l(?)]b'l??? For z[w, Ziv, see 1 Kgs. 6:1. The script is verysimilar to that of the Beth-Shemesh ostracon. For yrh, see Inscription 7 below. A date inthe 14th century for the tomb may therefore be too early. The inscription gives anindication of the time of use of the bowl, not the date of its manufacture.

Inscription 5On a bowl sherd discovered in the main hall of the Late Bronze Age temple in the

renewed excavations at Lachish, there are some red painted signs on the inner face. Theexcavator originally considered them to be part of a Proto-Canaanite inscription(Ussishkin 1978:20-21) and quoted the opinions of Cross and Naveh in this respect. Henow prefers however to understand them as purely decorative (personal commu-nication).

Nevertheless, the lack of symmetry in the preserved portion of the red-painted signs(Fig. 1:3) indicates a text rather than a decoration. The text is broken only on the rightside and is written in a dextrograde direction, as was the case on the Lachish ewer (No. 6below). We could readily readpdy[. For pe, see this letter on the ewer, and for dalet, seethe Sarepta inscription. The yod would not be surprising (Puech 1986: Fig. 8). The wordpdy[ could very well be a proper name, well known, for instance, at Ugarit during thisperiod. For a proper name, the reading pdy is just as good as gdy (Ahlstrom 1983:47).11The inscription may be dated to the end of the 13th century, or ca. 1200.

Inscription 6The red-painted inscription on the shoulder of a ewer from Fosse Temple 11(Lachish

//:49-54; Lachish IV: 130, Duweir Ewer) should be read from left to right, starting withthe connection of the handle. It was written after the decoration of plants and animalshad been applied and above it (Fig. 2:2). The best reading to date is that of Cross(1954:19-21): mtn.sy r[1 [rb]ty 'It, "Mattan. An offering to my lady 'Elat." However, I

10 In a previous study, I tried to present a dextrograde reading (Puech 1986:177).11 Ahlstrom's interpretation of gdy ("my Gad") as the name of a divinity whose cult might be

located in the temple of Lachish seems very problematic.

17

Tel Aviv 13 (1986)

should like to add two remarks to this interpretation: (1) the restoration of the centrallacuna is too long for the space available and the traces of painting do not particularlysuit a lamed in that position in I [rb]; (2) at the right end, after the break, it is possible toread pe, and after 'It, there are perhaps the remains of a resh or of a decor. In this spacethere is enough room for two letters or for a decoration. We therefore propose: [rSJp orr[SJp (see Puech 1983:570). Tentatively, we might also suggest the possible reading: mtn.sy r[b]ty 'It r[SJp or sy I(?)[b]ty 'It r[SJp for 'It-rS'por 'It(w)rsp. The presence of the godReshef at Lachish has been noted above (see Lachish I/:66; PI. 26:31-32). The objectwould best be dated to the second half of the 13th century B.c.

Inscription 7More or less contemporary is a bowl found in Tomb 527,12which has a white painted

line of writing· on the outside (Lachish IV: 129, Lachish Bowl No.1). This incompletelypreserved line could have originally covered three-fourths of the circumference, and amaximum of six letters would then be missing. The first part of the sinistrograde writinghas been correctly read as bSlst., but for the following, less well preserved sequence, manysolutions have been proposed. We accept that of Bauer and Dussaud, ym.yrh.[ (as listedby Diringer in Lachish IV: 129), which takes into consideration what is still visible (Fig.2:1).

Apparently the phraseology of this text is similar to that of the bowls from Lachishinscribed in hieratic on the inner and outer faces. It is also known in Ugaritic texts of thisperiod (see Herdner 1978:21; RS 24.256, line 10: [b]sb' ym. hdl, "Ie septieme jour de laneomenie ...", = KTU 1.112, 10). We therefore read bSlst ym yrhL followed most proba-bly by the name (or number) of a month (and/ or perhaps a sum and an abbreviation:"On the third of the month [X (Y?]."

On palaeographic considerations, I would suggest lowering the date of this inscriptionto the 13th century (second half?). The orthography slst conforms with that of theProto-Sinaitic inscriptions, sis or III (Albright 1969:28, No. 375) and the SS or U of theShechem plaquette (Puech 1986:185-187); shin is written with the sign of the bow,contrary to the Ugaritic script, which uses the starred sign. So, for s/ lY (ewer) andbSlst! btllt (bowl), there is no means of knowing whether it is a south Canaanite peculiar-ity or if the phoneme l (bow) had already assimilated and replaced the phoneme s (star).We only know that on the Beth-Shemesh ostracon (reverse) the reading sm'n with s(bow) seems to demonstrate that the reduction of the two phonemes to one (l = S) hadalready taken place in the 13th century B.C. (Puech 1983:568; 1986:175-177). The letterhet had already assimilated the phoneme IJainyrh (Puech 1983; 1986), as in the name 'z'hon the Beth-Shemesh ostracon. Thus it seems to me that the phonemes sand l have beenreduced to one.

12 The ceramics of Fosse Temple 11 are similar, but the other pottery objects found with thisbowl seem contemporary with Structure 111.Tufnell (Lachish IV: 129) dated the bowl to theend of Structure 11or beginning of Structure 111.

18

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

''''',

2

3

Fig 2. 1: Inscription 7 (Lachish Bowl No.1, Tomb 527); 2: Inscription 6 (Lachish ewer); 3:Inscription 8 (bowl sherd from pit in Area S, renewed excavations).

19

Tel Aviv 13 (1986)

Inscription 8Finally we come to a bowl fragment with a Proto-Canaanite inscription discovered in

Pit 3867 of Level VI, Area S in the renewed excavations at Lachish (Ussishkin 1983:155-157; Fig. 25). Typologically, the bowl is characteristic of Level VI. The inscription,written in black ink below the rim, consists of at least two horizontal lines. Althoughbroken, it was inscribed on the bowl when it was still intact.

Since the first line seems to end at midpoint of the following line, Ussishkin tried toread the inscription from left to right. This is correct for the first line, but the first andthird letters cannot be het, which is always written in vertical stance with three horizontalcrossbars. The only possibility is aiel, in the inversed shape of the "broad-nosed" alef ofthe Raddana handle, as Cross (1984:71-72) correctly understood. This line is broken onthe left side and seems to end with a vacat (Fig. 2:3), which is why Ussishkin and Crossread the last sign as a word divider.

The second line was read from left to right by Ussishkin but from right to left (boustro-phedon) by Cross (1984). This is the only way to give meaning to this sequence of signs.After bet, from the right hand, the letter is clearly yod, written in three strokes. Its shapeis very similar to the yods of the bowl (Inscription 7), the censer lid (Inscription 4) atLachish and other examples, such as the Tell Nagila and Qubur Walaydah inscriptions(Cross 1984:72) and the Beth-Shemesh and Tell Halif sherds (Puech 1986:175). It cannotbe resh, because of its thin, angular and open head.

The next letter was read as "GfP" by Ussishkin (1983:157) or as a clear [fade (Cross1984:74), but this raises difficulties. The letter looks like a cross with a small apex on theleft side (sinistrograde writing), a shape very similar to the second taw (dextrogradewriting) of the Lachish ewer. Then follows a letter read qofby Ussishkin but as a dotted'ayin by Cross. In fact, instead of either of them, we would read waw with an "open" headcomposed of two oppositely facing curved lines and an unpreserved vertical stroke forthe "tail." This waw, like the other one in the same line, is identical to that of the TellNagila sherdl3 and marks a step further in the evolution of the Proto-Sinaitic form. Itprefigures the later open-headed waw-

Between the taw and the waw, there is an upper dot, near the apex of taw, which wewould understand as one of two or three dots in a vertical line for the word divider(compare the three dots on the Lachish ewer, for instance).

The next letters have been rightly read by Cross (1984:74) as hwsb. The last broken signon the left does not seem to be a divider stroke but a broken letter: aiel, bet, dalet, forexample. Word dividers were not used consistently in this period. It seems to me thatthere are faint remains of a third line below the waw-he of hwsb, for het or somethingsimilar.

Thus, line 2 is quite intelligible: ]byt. whwsb?(. The verb, hifil of ysb /wasabu, appearswith an uncontracted diphthong as does the substantive, byt. So both of them already

13 This letter also has an open head, pace Cross (1984:74); see Puech 1986:184.

20

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

have what will become characteristic of the Judean dialect in the first millennium, ascompared to the northern Israelite or Canaanite dialects. This is of no little significancewith respect to the origins of the two branches of the Hebrew language. It shows thatthese dialects are not the result of developments during the period of the dividedmonarchy, but are rooted in ancient traditions of the Canaanite sphere that developedduring the second millennium. The verb ysb, as noted by Cross (1984:75), is very wellknown in contexts pertaining to the installation (of images) of deities or other objects inthe temples.

The first line contains the name of a divinity, 'l'b, Il'ib or Il'ab, well known from Ugaritand other sources. The latest example comes from the Philistine sphere: the nameappears on the seal of a servant of Mittinti of Ashkelon, l'bd'l'b / bn sb't / 'bd mtt bn /$dq', dated to the second quarter of the 7th century B.C. (Naveh 1985:9). In Ugaritictexts, Il'ib with the Akkadian rendering DINGIR a-bi (Nougayrol 1968:44-48) andHurrian eni attani (Laroche 1968:520)heads the pantheon lists and may be interpreted as"God - Father" or "God the Father" (see NougayrolI968:44-48, followed by Tarragon1980:154-156), or perhaps "the divine (dead) ancestor" (Cross 1973:14-15). Further-more, the god Elab was known also at Mari and in old Akkadian texts, where Shamashis associated with Ilaba, so that later Ilaba will be identified with Shamash, both beingdivinities of justice (Lambert 1981).

This invites us to look again at the first line. We have noted that the stroke/worddivider was suspicious (note the dots on line 2 of our Fig. 2:3). In fact, this stroke seemsto have a bulge at the top, like the head of a letter. Could it be a waw? Above the yod-bet,line 2, on the published photograph (Ussishkin 1983: PI. 40:2), it is possible to discernsome wavy lines, like those of a badly preserved mem. If these considerations are valid,we might read here w(S]m(s. This is the name of a well known god in the northwestSemitic sphere, especially in the vicinity of Lachish, as for example at Beth-Shemesh,where (as the toponym shows) a temple was dedicated to Shamash. This possibilitywould reduce the difficulties of the boustrophedon decipherment, since there would nolonger be a vacat, difficult to explain in itself. Since a new sentence begins with the wawafter the dots (whwsb ...), this leaves an excessively long part of a sentence to be suppliedbefore byt (line 2), making the sequence of lines 1 and 2 as a boustrophedon reading verydifficult. Nevertheless, this is the only possible solution. We therefore prefer to assumethat the right end of line 1 was effaced and to supply the reading w(?)(S]m(S???,for twodeities already associated as noted above, followed by the mention of a temple in line 2.

From the palaeographic point of view, the letters can be dated to the end of the 13thcentury or ca. 1200 B.c. The sherd, which is characteristic of the Level VI assemblage,might be dated to the beginning of that leveL

21

Transliteration1. ]'1'b w(?)(s]m(?)(s ...2 ]byt.whwsb?( ...3 ]?( ...

Translation1. ]Il'ab and (?) (She]me(sh (?)...2 ]temple and he installed.( ...3 ].[ ...

Tel Aviv 13 (1986)

(dextrograde)(sinistrograde)

SummaryThese more or less fragmentary or complete second millennium inscriptions from

Lachish are important from many aspects: palaeography and writing, linguistics anddialectology, history and religion.

Not only do they demonstrate the antiquity of alphabetic writing in southern Canaanbut their chronology (much more complete than at Gezer, for example) presents a goodexample of the evolution of the linear alphabet in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages inthis region (Fig. 3). As we have shown, the uncontracted diphthongs in Inscription 8 (byt,hwsb) are evidence for the existence of dialectal differences in southern Canaan and serveto explain the origin of this well known phenomenon of the first millennium. TheHebrews (in this case Judeans) and the Philistines(?) apparently adopted the writing inuse and the spoken dialect that they encountered upon their arrival in the country (Naveh1985:16). It is also important to note the relationship between some items from Lachishdating to around 1500 B.c. (e.g., bellows, metallurgical installations, b'lt) and the find-ings from Serabit el-Khadim of the same period, where Ba'alat occupies a primary placein the Canaanite alphabetic inscriptions and where bellows and metallurgicalinstallations were also found. This points towards a southern Canaanite origin for theworkers at Serabit el-Khadim.

Summing up, we shall briefly consider the religious significance of these short inscrip-tions that contain the names of various deities. The first one is Ba'alat (Hathor), very wellknown at Serabit el-Khadim, here represented by Inscription 2, the decorated goldplaque (Astarte), several figurines and probably a temple in the city, near the palace. Thesecond one is Reshef, portrayed on stone and by figurines, and most probably mentionedalso on the ewer from the Fosse Temple (Inscription 6). Then comes 'Elat (consort of El)on the same ewer and 'Il'ab (Inscription 8), the first in the lists of the Canaanite pan-theon, who is an important link, chronologically and geographically speaking, betweenUgarit and the anthroponym from Ashkelon (ca. 700 B.C.). It shows that this god wasalso worshipped in the southwest. Shamash, who may also be attested in association with'Il'ab, is already known by the toponym of nearby Beth-Shemesh. Ba'al, as a divinity orproper name, seems to be attested on the censer lid (Inscription 4). Finally the deity (?) II(Luli or lel?) is probably mentioned on a document (Inscription) that is more or lesscontemporary with those of Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani. The name Gad in the possible

22

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

¢ Ri~::·;::··:·:n () ~ rJ. . " ~ 171L~ b 0:1

bt,r/

~.-cr ~i

f ~

\F4~

\1-"::: --:-': ?

-6-~-r----------

C)~ fA ~ r ( ,~ r.......

I~~~"

~ 0 ii---, -

,~ J 'iM-- ?:, ., ......

!'Q.-","", / I

',Q~ ~

~? L I....:... In G '~1 (:j~: f)~~,:'i--,\

Lv ~ 3~ W I

~ I+~ + l'" JL_

J~,l',

Fig, 3. Evolution of the linear alphabet in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in southern Canaanaccording to Inscriptions 1-8 (columns 1-8).

23

Tel Aviv 13 (1986)

anthroponym gdy (Inscription 5), is not included in this summary, because the readingpdy may be as good, if not better. We have to note the fortuitous (?) absence of Canaa-nite El (but note his consort, 'Elat) at Lachish. Since no pantheon list has so far beenfound at Lachish or elsewhere in southern Canaan, these inscriptions and archaeologicalartifacts help to fill the gap in our knowledge and tell us something about religious life inthis important Canaanite city.

REFERENCES

Ahlstrom, G.W. 1983. Was Gad the God of Tell ed-Duweir? PEQ 115:47-48.Albright, F.W. 1969. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment. Cam-

bridge (Mass.).Beit-Arieh, I., Giveon, R. and Sass, B. 1978. Explorations at Serabit el-Khadim 1977. Tel

Aviv 5:170-187.Bordreuil, P. and Caquot, A. 1979. Les textes en cuneiformes alphabMiques decouverts

en 1977 a Ibn Hani. Syria 56:295-315.Bordreuil, P. 1984. Un lot d'archives administratives. In: Bordreuil, P. a. o. Les decou-

vertes archeologiques et epigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983. ComptesRendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 398-438.

Caquot, A. 1956. Sur quelques demons de l'Ancien Testament (Reshep, Qeteb, Deber).Semitica 6:53-68.

Caquot, A., Sznycer, M. and Herdner, A. 1974. Textes ougaritiques I: Mythes etlegendes. Introduction, traduction, commentaire. (Litteratures anciennes duProche Orient 7). Paris.

Clamer, C. 1980. A Gold Plaque from Tel Lachish. Tel Aviv 7:152-162.Cross, F.M. 1954. The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet. BASOR 134:15-24.Cross, F.M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the

Religion of Israel. Cambridge (Mass.).Cross, F.M. 1984. An Old Canaanite Inscription Recently Found at Lachish. Tel Aviv

11:71-76.Fulco, W.F. 1976. The Canaanite God Re§ep. New Haven.Gilula, M. 1976. An Inscription in Egyptian Hieratic from Lachish. Tel Aviv 3: 107-108.Giveon, R. 1983. An Inscription of Rameses III from Lachish. Tel Aviv 10:176-177.Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera' in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv

11:77-93.Grondahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome.Herdner, A. 1963. Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques decouvertes a Ras

Shamra - Ugarit de 1929 a 1939. (Mission de Ras Shamra 10). Paris.Herdner, A. 1978. Nouveaux textes alphaMtiques de Ras Shamra - XXIVe campagne

1961. In: Ugaritica VI/eMission de Ras Shamra 18). Paris:I-74.Hestrin, R., Sass, Band Ophel, A. 1982. The Lachish Prism Inscription: Proto-

Canaanite or Egyptian? IEJ 32: 103-106.

24

Puech: The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish

Lachish I. Torczyner, H. a.o. 1938. Lachish I: The Lachish Letters. London.Lachish II. Tufnell, O. a.o. 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London.Lachish III. Tufnell, O. a.o. 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age. London.Lachish IV. Tufnell, O. a.o. 1958: Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. London.Lachish V. Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Resi-

dency (Lachish 11). Tel Aviv.Lambert, W.G. 1981. Old Akkadian Ilaba = Ugaritic !lib? Ugarit Forschungen

13:299-301.Laroche, E. 1968. Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra. In: Nougay-

rol, J. a.o. Ugaritica V (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris:447-544.Levine, B. 1983. The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Func-

tional Features of the Genre. In: Meyers, c.L. and O'Connor, M. eds. The Wordof the Lord Shall Go Forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebra-tion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Philadelphia:467-475.

Lipinski, E. 1971. El's Abode. Mythological Traditions Related to Mount Hermon andto the Mountains of Armenia. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. 2:13-69.

Lipinski, E. 1983. The God 'Arqu-Rashap in the Samallian Hadad Inscription. In:Sokoloff, M. ed. Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition. RamatGan:15-21.

Lundin, A.G. 1986. Poignard de Lakich a inscription protosinaYtique. Palestlnski Sbor-nik 28(91): 178-182.

Naveh, J. 1985. Writing and Scripts in Seventh Century B.C.E. Phi1istia: The NewEvidence from Tell Jemmeh. IEJ 35:8-21.

Nougayrol, J. 1968. Textes sumero-accadiens des archives et bibliotheques priveesd'Ugarit. In: Nougayrol, J. a.o. Ugaritica V (Mission de Ras Shamra 16).Paris: 1-446.

Pope, M. 1955. EI in the Ugaritic Texts. (VTSup 2.). Leiden.Puech, E. 1983. Quelques remarques sur l'alphabet au deuxieme millenaire In: Atti del I

congresso internazionale di studifenici e punici, Roma 1979. Rome:563-581.Puech, E. 1986. Origine de l'alphabet. I: Documents en alphabets lineaire et cuneiforme

du lIe millenaire. RB93:161-213.PRU II. Virolleaud, C. 1957. Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit II (Mission de Ras Shamra 7).

Paris.Tarragon, J.-M., de. 1980. Le culte a Ugarit d'apres les textes de la pratique en cunei-

formes alphabetiques. Cahier de la RB: 19. Paris.Ussishkin, D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973-1977, Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv

5:1-97.Ussishkin, D. 1983. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978-1983, Second Preliminary Report.

Tel Aviv 10:97-175.Yadin, Y. 1959. Note on a Proto-Canaanite Inscription from Lachish. PEQ 91:130-131.

25