Duane Smith has a great post on a seal that has a text in a rather odd orientation vis-a-vis the iconographic depiction. He applies this evidence in the discussion of literacy/illiteracy in the ANE. I happen to think that the western Semitic peoples were a bit more literate than the traditional viewpoint today. I think that the alphabetic script employed in west Semitic languages opened up the language to more readers than syllabic cuneiform in Akkadian or logograms in Sumerian or hieroglyphics in classical Egyptian. Rick Hess has argued along these lines from some recent discovery of abcedaries. But see Ian Young’s response in Vetus Testamentum 55:4 (2005) 565-8.
Charles,
I think you are right on in this post. In the coming years I believe that we will uncover more materials (esp. items such as inscribed pots, and abcedaries etc) that illuminate the nature of literacy in Israel (vis-a-vis Canaan). Tel Zayit – if nothing else – shows us that Israel was at least cognizant of their “letters” to borrow a Hobbit term.
Yes, I have to agree with Joe Cathey, who knows his archaeology. A piece by L. Hoppe that I was reading recently called my attention to Judges 8:13-14. How amazing that the writer of Judges holds it credible that a random youth from Succoth was able to write down such a list of names! —S. Cook
Tel Zayit and Judges are both important pieces of information that contribute to our understanding of literacy. Thanks for the comments!
One important element that is brought into this discussion all too rarely is different registers of language, especially textual. Just because someone knows their alphabet and can write a list of names or goods or a letter does not mean they have a level of literacy sufficient to read complex literature. I don’t say that to diminish the value of what we are learning, but to put it in perspective. I think these elements are critical to the discussion, because the reason for pursuing the question of literacy is a desire to have a sense of how much of the population might have been able to consume (whether that involved reading or hearing) biblical literature. As we know from Akkadian scribal schools, people did attain different levels of literacy. Knowledge of more advanced vocabulary and syntax, as well as of genres and a literary tradition have to be taken into account more than they are in our study of this question if our answers are really going to shed some light on who the consumers of biblical literature were. Incidentally, another facet of the question should be access to texts, which brings into play social and economic questions as well.
Charles:
I like your blog and your wide range of interests.
I think that Tel Zayit and the Gezer Calendar sometimes get more attention than they deserve (NB: my professor is the Zayit epigrapher). The LB evidence, I think, is stronger that the Iron late 10th century-9th material. The Tale of Wenamun describes writing on Papyrus (in Byblos, I believe) and let us not forget the Amarna corpus. The former example assumes a significant alphabetic corpus while the latter shows that people were able to handle difficult writing systems–all during LBII.
I’ve never studied the topics formally nor have I read any of the recent publications, but my suspicion is that there are two major factors: the LB/IA process of deurbanization set things back and people wrote of Papyrus. Wenamun shows that early, the Samaria Ostraca suggests more formal receipts. Even things like Arad (3?) might show widespread literacy and the Siloam Tunnel inscription with some of its more “colloquial” style. As for ancient poetry, I’m still a believer in it… but that’s another discussion!
Got any book recommendations on the topic? I’ve heard a book came out of a Chicago conference, but I have yet to glance at it.
PS. J. Baines wrote a really aweful article about literacy in Ancient Egypt that you might enjoy.
Charles,
Thanks for the link. For reasons I am developing and hope to post on soon, I think that literacy started to expand beyond professional scribes in the late 9th or early 8th century in the southern Levant. However I think if I remember correctly, I don’t have his paper in front of me, Young would point out sociological factors (and status) in literacy rather than the complexity of the writing system. Remember, literacy has been wide spread among urban Chinese for a long time. And the complexity of the Chinese system makes the Akkadian writing system look simple.
Jake is certainly correct that the Late Bronze evidence is stronger than the 10th and 9th century evidence. In other words, there is more of it. But the Late Bronze evidence certainly does not point to widespread literacy. One of the problems in the 10th and 9th century’s is the ascendance of perishable writing media. I am not so sure that the Arad letter show universal literacy.
Also Angela’s point is very well taken.
Duane
Angie, you make a great point that we need to keep in mind-there certainly were different levels of literacy. I also agree that just because one can reproduce an alphabet in greater or lesser degree doesn’t mean that you know how to read. Some of the abcedaries may have been people showing off to someone else that they knew the alphabet, this doesn’t necessarily mean they could read.
Duane and Jake, you are right to point out that LB evidence is more plentiful and Duane’s point is true that it seems more formal. I don’t know if this was just a slip of the keystroke, but Jake you said that deurbanization set things back and they wrote on Papyrus. I don’t think I would characterize writing on Papyrus as a set back. It might be from our perspective because Papyrus usually didn’t survive in Levantine environments but it was definitely an improvement over writing on clay tablets. Some have argued that his development is responsible for facilitating longer narratives. I think it might have, but we do have Mesopotamian narratives spread over many tablets as well.
I’m looking forward to your expanded post, Duane.
Apologies for my lack of clarity.
I meant Lachish (3) as a possible indication of more widespread literacy, not Arad. Sorry… late night!
Writing on papyus was not the set back, the process of deurbanization was (c. 1200-1133, depending on which chronology you use). Sorry for my confusing writing–I think papyrus simply perished and was NOT a setback. When we think about the Chacolithic to EB transition and EB III-IV transition I think that the general trend is that things were really, really set back and thus “literacy” dropped precipitously during the LB/IA transition.
I apologize if I implied that the LB material shows widespread literacy, but I do think there is more material from LB Palestine (and slight to the north, not counting Ugarit) than II2A. I think that this provides a better context for framing the question than starting from limited IA IIA material.
My Palestine literacy scenario would look something like this LB II X%; IAI X/3%, IAIIA X/2%; IAIIB X%.
I think it would be most helpful to read the Taanach Letters and to see its sophistication in both language and sign use.
Lastly, one other point that I just thought of. As I understand it, primarily oral languages tend to be the most conservative (e.g. Arabic contra Akkadian). To me the largest changes in Hebrew occur between CBH and LBH whereas Amarna Canaanite seems quite similar to bread and butter CBH. Just a thought.
I wasn’t so sure Jake was wrong in citing Arad 2. These letters to Elyashib seem to me to be “working” correspondence between merchants/distributors that likely did not need the help of a scribe to write or read them. They are also late 7th/early 6th century. But, since he meant Lachish 3, it is still very interesting. Hoshayahu is mad because Yaush assumes and/or implied he, Hoshayahu, couldn’t read. But was Yaush’ assumption statistically wrong? In other words, was it reasonable to assume that someone of Hoshayahu rank and station was illiterate and that Hoshayahu was an exception in the early 6th century? (Or was Hoshayahu responding to sarcasm on Yaush’ part?)
Jake,
Thanks for the clarification, I didn’t think you meant that papyrus was a set back but I just wanted to make sure. I agree with you that deurbanization is typically a set back to literacy.
I think that your Palestine literacy scenario is very interesting–have you formally written this up anywhere? If you haven’t I think it would be a fruitful venture.
Your comment about the oral cultures tending to be more conservative is also interesting. It definitely holds true for Arabic, I wonder about other examples?
I also agree with the largest changes in Hebrew occurring between CBH and LBH and Amarna Canaanite’s similarity to CBH–especially in Amarna’s use of waw’s. Dick Averbeck made some observations about this phenomenon in DC a few weeks ago. I don’t know if you have seen the 2005 edition of Hebrew Studies but in this volume they reproduce the proceedings of a seminar on dating biblical Hebrew texts on the basis of linguistic analysis. It is tangential to this issue, but you might like it nonetheless.
Pingback: Abnormal Interests
Charles & Jake,
Interesting blog. Hope you don’t mind if I throw in my two cents.
I think your assumptions about Arabic reflect a broad misconception. Classical Arabic is not “conservative”; rather, Arabic grammarians borrowed from a variety of pre-Islamic Arabic dialects to create a standard — Classical Arabic. In some ways, one might say that Classical Arabic is an artificial language. Its creation reflects the attempt to forge of common identity among the diverse Arab tribes (and pre-Islamic Arabic dialects). Language is frequently used to forge social identity (see any Introductory textbook on sociolinguistics for examples). There is, of course, much ideology behind the linguistic debates between medieval Arabic and Hebrew grammarians. The religious underpinnings are that Classical Arabic –the language of the Quran– is an unadulterated language. Medieval Hebrew grammarians then tried to show that Hebrew was also ancient and perfect — e.g., the triliteral root as an example of the pristine Hebrew language and so on.
Also, oral speech is not more conservative than written languages; not only is this counter-intuitive, it’s incorrect. Read any standard work on dialectology (e.g., see the works by Trudgill), and it will clarify the matter. It’s also useful to see the recent work in linguistic anthropology on the way ideology has shaped our perceptions and categorization of language (see, for example, the works edited by Kroskrity on “Language Ideology”).
The similarities between Amarna Canaanite and Standard Biblical Hebrew are interesting, and IMHO reflect the continuity between Late Bronze Age scribal institutions and the Iron Age. There is, however, a major disjunction in the scribal institutions of Israel during the Babylonian period that is reflected in the changes between SBH and LBH (see my article in the recent “Margins of Writing” volume on “Aramaic, the Death of Written Hebrew, and Language Shift in the Persian Period.”
Bill,
Thanks for the clarifications and congratulations on the Kershaw Chair! I would also agree with you concerning the continuity between Late Bronze and Iron Age scribal institutions.