Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Canaanite in Cuneiform

Bibliographic Data

ID3963285
AuthorsEva Von Dassow (corresponding author)
Year2004
Volume124
Issue4
Pages641
Publication date2004-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of the American Oriental Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0003-0279 • E-ISSN: 2169-2289
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/4132111
OpenAlexW2316158640
LanguageEN
Citations received4

It has become a truism that Akkadian, the principal Semitic language of ancient Mesopotamia, was the lingua franca of the Near East during the second millennium B.C.E. This is stated, more or less in so many words, in any number of works on the ancient Near East, which usually offer the Amarna letters, the trove of correspondence between Egypt and other states that was found at the site of Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna), as the parade example of Akkadian as lingua franca.1 But is the truism true? The idea that Akkadian was in common use as a written language throughout the ancient Near East, Egypt included, tacitly assumes the exact identity of writing with language: it assumes, that is, that what people write represents at face value the language in which they mean to communicate. According to this theory, if a scribe in Hatti or Egypt, Canaan or Cyprus, writes in cuneiform using sign sequences that spell Akkadian words, he means to write in the Akkadian language, regardless of whether what he writes exhibits features of his own or another language as well as errors in Akkadian. But this idea conflates the modality of encoding linguistic expression with linguistic expression itself. It need not be the case that the signs with which a text is written directly represent the language in which it is written, and to assume that this is the case is inherently problematic when the writing system in question is one such as cuneiform, which tends to employ a variety of frozen graphic sequences (e.g., logograms) dissociated from language-specific referents. When such a writing system is borrowed from one language community into another, the assumption that the language of a text is directly represented by the writing of the text becomes so problematic that it should be treated as a proposition requiring demonstration rather than an axiom to be taken for granted

Ancient history · Cuneiform · Ancient Egypt and Archaeology · Ancient Near East History · History · Linguistics and language evolution

  • The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine

    Ryan Byrne•Bulletin of the American Schools…•2007

  • Contact Languages of the Ancient Near East – Three more Case Studies (Ugaritic-Hurrian, Hurro-Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian)

    Open Access•Alexander Andrason, Juan‐Pablo Vita et al.•Journal of Language Contact•2015

  • Negotiating Imperialism and Resistance in Late Bronze Age Ugarit

    Open Access•Philip J Boyes•Cambridge Archaeological Journal•2019

  • Canaanite Literary Culture Before the Bible, a View from the Canaanite Amarna Letters

    Open Access•Alice Mandell•Religions•2025

Unique citing works4
Citations per year0,21
Citation span2007 - 2025 (19)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 3

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae