Benjamin Sass | Tel Aviv University (original) (raw)
Books by Benjamin Sass
Inscriptions de prestige et ecriture du quotidien : Ie corpus epigraphique en hebreu ancien au mi... more Inscriptions de prestige et ecriture du quotidien : Ie corpus epigraphique en hebreu ancien au miroir de son contexte ouest-semitique Fran~oise Briquel-Chatonnet 75
Papers by Benjamin Sass
In the following I propose to correct and augment the understanding of ten names and words in sea... more In the following I propose to correct and augment the understanding of ten names and words in seal-legends of the eighth, seventh and fourth centuries, eight of them in the Corpus of West Semitic stamp seals (WSS), 1997, and two that were published later. 1
![Research paper thumbnail of 2021 [2022]. Finkelstein I. & Sass B. The exceptional concentration of inscriptions at Iron IIA Gath and Rehob and the nature of the alphabet in the ninth century. In T. Römer et al. eds. Oral et écrit : ... colloque ... Paris, ... 2015 (OBO 291). Leuven – Paris – Bristol CT: Peeters, 127-173.](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/86257761/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](10 Rehov jar 2 and the 1939 sherd, respectively. Reluctantly included in Finkelstein & Sass 2013,... more 10 Rehov jar 2 and the 1939 sherd, respectively. Reluctantly included in Finkelstein & Sass 2013, 161, two further items, Rehov sherds 1 and 3 (Figs. 48, 49), seem to us problematic in retrospect; we cannot be sure that they are alphabetic (for the possibility that sherd 3 bears a hieratic sign, see Appendix 2). Hence, they do not figure in Table 1. 11 Ṣafi items 747028/1, 450313/1, 1491025, 340165 and D15BS047. 12 The Tel Batash sherd and the Tel Zayit abecedary. 13 The Gezer calendar and the Beth-shemesh game board. 14 Rehov 4-10.
, to Sass B. 2021. Can a unique letterform clinch the authenticity of the Shapira leather manuscr... more , to Sass B. 2021. Can a unique letterform clinch the authenticity of the Shapira leather manuscripts? A rejoinder to Matthieu Richelle. Semitica 63, 223-242. My palaeographical validation of the genuineness is centred on the Graphic's drawing of 16 letters, its zigzag yod in particular, and on Guthe's two touching letters. Both drawings have parallels in Samaria and Ajrud (discovered much later), so that they may qualify as facsimiles. In Shapira's day there was no documentation yet of some of the letterforms in question, forms that a purported forger could otherwise exploit. This lucky coincidence clinches authenticity despite the loss of the manuscripts themselves. Indeed M. Richelle attempted no direct rebuttal of the Samaria and Ajrud links in his Semitica paper, nor in a text he newly posted on Academia. Instead, he emphasized all the other text drawings (my Fig. 1a-c), in fact very different, that do not resemble any known set of letters. Richelle took them for facsimiles of forgeries, whereas I rationalized as best I could why they may be considered approximations of texts presumed authentic.
A comparison with Ginsburg's largely inexact drawings of the Mesha and Siloam letterforms leads m... more A comparison with Ginsburg's largely inexact drawings of the Mesha and Siloam letterforms leads me to conclude that the drawings of Shapira's manuscripts by Ginsburg and most other 1880s scholars are also unlikely to be facsimiles. Hence these drawings of the lost manuscripts are unsuited for confirming or denying authenticity. The sole exception is the zigzag yod of The Graphic. The potential for genuineness of that yod has a soundness of its own: Taken at face value, the combined Samaria, Rehov and Haror comparisons show this letter, hence the Shapira manuscripts at large, to be genuine. For if not, how could a forger in the 1880s foresee a letterform, the next attestation of which, at Samaria, lay three decades in the future? To be sure, excusing away The Graphic's meandering yod as clumsy (Richelle), or incidental, or immaterial, is no option, as noted below; the clearly drawn form is too highly diagnostic to be unintended. Résumé. Une comparaison avec les dessins largement inexacts réalisés par Ginsburg des inscriptions de Mésha et de Siloé m'amènent à conclure que les dessins des manuscrits Shapira faits par Ginsburg et par d'autres spécialistes dans les années 1880 ne sont pas des facsimilés. Il en découle que ces dessins ne peuvent confirmer ou infirmer l'autenticité de ces manuscrits. La seule exception est le yod en forme de zigzag attesté dans The Graphic. Le potentiel d'authenticité de ce yod est à lui seul convaincant : la comparaison avec Samarie, Rehov et Haror montre que cette lettre, et donc les manuscrits Shapira dans leur ensemble, sont authentiques. Sinon, comment un faussaire des années 1880 aurait-il pu prédire une forme attestée seulement trois décennies plus tard à Samarie ? Écarter ce yod sous prétexte qu'il serait maladroit (Richelle), incidentel ou immatériel est impossible : la forme clairement tracée est trop distinctive pour être involontaire.
Frankfort also denied the Luwian continuity at Malatya and Carchemish after the fall of the Hitti... more Frankfort also denied the Luwian continuity at Malatya and Carchemish after the fall of the Hittite empire (compare n. 66 below). 7 FRANKFORT 1954, 159. 8 "Though we may go perhaps a little too far in calling the age of Solomon "the Golden Age of Hebrew literature" it may be affirmed with confidence that during his reign Hebrew prose took the literary form which remained classical in the subsequent history of Judah" (ALBRIGHT 1940, 224-225). 9 2 Samuel 5 4; 1 Kings 11 42.
![Research paper thumbnail of 2020. Niederreiter Z. and Sass B. [Cylinder seals 59, 61 and 65 with alphabetic inscriptions.] In Z. Niederreiter. Catalogue of the cylinder seals in the Royal Museums of Art and History [Brussels], volume I. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods (circa 1000–500 B.C.). Budapest, 144–154, 163–170.](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/65434886/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](This new catalogue by Zoltán Niederreiter includes four items with alphabetic legends, two of the... more This new catalogue by Zoltán Niederreiter includes four items with alphabetic legends, two of them Arabian and two Aramaic, three in Brussels, and one iconographic parallel in a Dutch museum. You will find here the catalogue articles of these four items, their imagery addressed by Z.N. and their legends by B.S. The article on no. 65 was first published separately in: Niederreiter Zoltán and Sass Benjamin 2018. On a Neo-Assyrian period cylinder seal with a cult scene and an unusual Aramaic legend. Semitica et Classica 11, 219–226.
All four seals are unprovenanced.
Not long ago, the known texts of Iron Age IIA (ca. 950-800 BCE) chiefly comprised inscribed monum... more Not long ago, the known texts of Iron Age IIA (ca. 950-800 BCE) chiefly comprised inscribed monuments created at the end of the period. It is only in the last 15 years or so that non-monumental Iron IIA inscriptions began to emerge, most of them in excavations at Tel Reḥov and Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, primarily on pottery vessels, and they have transformed much of our former understanding of the alphabet's development prior to the 8th century BCE. In 2013, Israel Finkelstein and I published a first synthesis of these stratified inscriptions, and in due course followed it with several additional works (all available on "Academia"). On Aharoni Day, I presented a 12-point summary of the results of this endeavor and their contribution to the debate on the chronology of the alphabet in the early first millennium BCE. Of these 12 points, I present here three that are fundamental. (1) The key outcome of our studies is the dating of the alphabet's transition from pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite to the cursive alphabet-variants (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Phoenician) around the transition from early Iron IIA to late Iron IIA. It is the first time that this dating, ca. 900 BCE, can be gauged on the strength of stratified inscriptions. Further to this, we propose the attribution of this remarkable leap forward to the contemporaneous foundation of numerous West Semitic states (well attested by Assyrian sources), with their accelerated development of the alphabet in administrative ink documents. (2) A resulting insight is that the monumental inscriptions on stone in the West Semitic alphabet cannot be earlier than ca. 900 BCE, since some letter-shapes in each one of them (often most shapes) betray cursive models. (3) Lastly, as the total of letter-forms at each site implies, the Gath cursive in the 9th century BCE may have been a Phoenician-Hebrew hybrid (just as the long-known alphabet variant of Philistia in the 7th century BCE), and the cursive of 9th-century BCE Tel Reḥov-an Aramaic-Hebrew hybrid. Iron IIA-late. Tel Reḥov inscription 7, cursive: 'lṣdq šḥly (from ErIs 30: 304, reproduced by permission of A. Mazar, Tel Reḥov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Inscriptions de prestige et ecriture du quotidien : Ie corpus epigraphique en hebreu ancien au mi... more Inscriptions de prestige et ecriture du quotidien : Ie corpus epigraphique en hebreu ancien au miroir de son contexte ouest-semitique Fran~oise Briquel-Chatonnet 75
In the following I propose to correct and augment the understanding of ten names and words in sea... more In the following I propose to correct and augment the understanding of ten names and words in seal-legends of the eighth, seventh and fourth centuries, eight of them in the Corpus of West Semitic stamp seals (WSS), 1997, and two that were published later. 1
10 Rehov jar 2 and the 1939 sherd, respectively. Reluctantly included in Finkelstein & Sass 2013,... more 10 Rehov jar 2 and the 1939 sherd, respectively. Reluctantly included in Finkelstein & Sass 2013, 161, two further items, Rehov sherds 1 and 3 (Figs. 48, 49), seem to us problematic in retrospect; we cannot be sure that they are alphabetic (for the possibility that sherd 3 bears a hieratic sign, see Appendix 2). Hence, they do not figure in Table 1. 11 Ṣafi items 747028/1, 450313/1, 1491025, 340165 and D15BS047. 12 The Tel Batash sherd and the Tel Zayit abecedary. 13 The Gezer calendar and the Beth-shemesh game board. 14 Rehov 4-10.
, to Sass B. 2021. Can a unique letterform clinch the authenticity of the Shapira leather manuscr... more , to Sass B. 2021. Can a unique letterform clinch the authenticity of the Shapira leather manuscripts? A rejoinder to Matthieu Richelle. Semitica 63, 223-242. My palaeographical validation of the genuineness is centred on the Graphic's drawing of 16 letters, its zigzag yod in particular, and on Guthe's two touching letters. Both drawings have parallels in Samaria and Ajrud (discovered much later), so that they may qualify as facsimiles. In Shapira's day there was no documentation yet of some of the letterforms in question, forms that a purported forger could otherwise exploit. This lucky coincidence clinches authenticity despite the loss of the manuscripts themselves. Indeed M. Richelle attempted no direct rebuttal of the Samaria and Ajrud links in his Semitica paper, nor in a text he newly posted on Academia. Instead, he emphasized all the other text drawings (my Fig. 1a-c), in fact very different, that do not resemble any known set of letters. Richelle took them for facsimiles of forgeries, whereas I rationalized as best I could why they may be considered approximations of texts presumed authentic.
A comparison with Ginsburg's largely inexact drawings of the Mesha and Siloam letterforms leads m... more A comparison with Ginsburg's largely inexact drawings of the Mesha and Siloam letterforms leads me to conclude that the drawings of Shapira's manuscripts by Ginsburg and most other 1880s scholars are also unlikely to be facsimiles. Hence these drawings of the lost manuscripts are unsuited for confirming or denying authenticity. The sole exception is the zigzag yod of The Graphic. The potential for genuineness of that yod has a soundness of its own: Taken at face value, the combined Samaria, Rehov and Haror comparisons show this letter, hence the Shapira manuscripts at large, to be genuine. For if not, how could a forger in the 1880s foresee a letterform, the next attestation of which, at Samaria, lay three decades in the future? To be sure, excusing away The Graphic's meandering yod as clumsy (Richelle), or incidental, or immaterial, is no option, as noted below; the clearly drawn form is too highly diagnostic to be unintended. Résumé. Une comparaison avec les dessins largement inexacts réalisés par Ginsburg des inscriptions de Mésha et de Siloé m'amènent à conclure que les dessins des manuscrits Shapira faits par Ginsburg et par d'autres spécialistes dans les années 1880 ne sont pas des facsimilés. Il en découle que ces dessins ne peuvent confirmer ou infirmer l'autenticité de ces manuscrits. La seule exception est le yod en forme de zigzag attesté dans The Graphic. Le potentiel d'authenticité de ce yod est à lui seul convaincant : la comparaison avec Samarie, Rehov et Haror montre que cette lettre, et donc les manuscrits Shapira dans leur ensemble, sont authentiques. Sinon, comment un faussaire des années 1880 aurait-il pu prédire une forme attestée seulement trois décennies plus tard à Samarie ? Écarter ce yod sous prétexte qu'il serait maladroit (Richelle), incidentel ou immatériel est impossible : la forme clairement tracée est trop distinctive pour être involontaire.
Frankfort also denied the Luwian continuity at Malatya and Carchemish after the fall of the Hitti... more Frankfort also denied the Luwian continuity at Malatya and Carchemish after the fall of the Hittite empire (compare n. 66 below). 7 FRANKFORT 1954, 159. 8 "Though we may go perhaps a little too far in calling the age of Solomon "the Golden Age of Hebrew literature" it may be affirmed with confidence that during his reign Hebrew prose took the literary form which remained classical in the subsequent history of Judah" (ALBRIGHT 1940, 224-225). 9 2 Samuel 5 4; 1 Kings 11 42.
This new catalogue by Zoltán Niederreiter includes four items with alphabetic legends, two of the... more This new catalogue by Zoltán Niederreiter includes four items with alphabetic legends, two of them Arabian and two Aramaic, three in Brussels, and one iconographic parallel in a Dutch museum. You will find here the catalogue articles of these four items, their imagery addressed by Z.N. and their legends by B.S. The article on no. 65 was first published separately in: Niederreiter Zoltán and Sass Benjamin 2018. On a Neo-Assyrian period cylinder seal with a cult scene and an unusual Aramaic legend. Semitica et Classica 11, 219–226.
All four seals are unprovenanced.
Not long ago, the known texts of Iron Age IIA (ca. 950-800 BCE) chiefly comprised inscribed monum... more Not long ago, the known texts of Iron Age IIA (ca. 950-800 BCE) chiefly comprised inscribed monuments created at the end of the period. It is only in the last 15 years or so that non-monumental Iron IIA inscriptions began to emerge, most of them in excavations at Tel Reḥov and Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, primarily on pottery vessels, and they have transformed much of our former understanding of the alphabet's development prior to the 8th century BCE. In 2013, Israel Finkelstein and I published a first synthesis of these stratified inscriptions, and in due course followed it with several additional works (all available on "Academia"). On Aharoni Day, I presented a 12-point summary of the results of this endeavor and their contribution to the debate on the chronology of the alphabet in the early first millennium BCE. Of these 12 points, I present here three that are fundamental. (1) The key outcome of our studies is the dating of the alphabet's transition from pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite to the cursive alphabet-variants (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Phoenician) around the transition from early Iron IIA to late Iron IIA. It is the first time that this dating, ca. 900 BCE, can be gauged on the strength of stratified inscriptions. Further to this, we propose the attribution of this remarkable leap forward to the contemporaneous foundation of numerous West Semitic states (well attested by Assyrian sources), with their accelerated development of the alphabet in administrative ink documents. (2) A resulting insight is that the monumental inscriptions on stone in the West Semitic alphabet cannot be earlier than ca. 900 BCE, since some letter-shapes in each one of them (often most shapes) betray cursive models. (3) Lastly, as the total of letter-forms at each site implies, the Gath cursive in the 9th century BCE may have been a Phoenician-Hebrew hybrid (just as the long-known alphabet variant of Philistia in the 7th century BCE), and the cursive of 9th-century BCE Tel Reḥov-an Aramaic-Hebrew hybrid. Iron IIA-late. Tel Reḥov inscription 7, cursive: 'lṣdq šḥly (from ErIs 30: 304, reproduced by permission of A. Mazar, Tel Reḥov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Cet article porte sur la légende arabique, jusqu'alors non identifiée, et sur l'im-agerie remarqu... more Cet article porte sur la légende arabique, jusqu'alors non identifiée, et sur l'im-agerie remarquable d'un sceau-cylindre acquis par A. H. Layard en Mésopotamie au milieu du XIXe siècle.
Abstract. The paper treats the Arabian legend, hitherto unidentified, and the remarkable imagery on a cylinder seal acquired by A.H. Layard in Mesopotamia in the mid-19th century .
Le présent article met à jour certains points de vue évoqués par Sass (2005) et Finkelstein & Sas... more Le présent article met à jour certains points de vue évoqués par Sass (2005) et Finkelstein & Sass (2013) quant à l'écriture alphabétique monumentale, notamment à Byblos. * Deux facteurs justifient cette mise au point : (1) la découverte que la transition du proto-canaanéen à la cursive doit être datée ca. 900 avant notre ère, et (2) une meilleure compréhension des racines cursives du ductus monumental ouest-sémitique. * Sass 2016: 207-215 s'intéresse aux plus anciennes inscriptions monumentales araméennes.
The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon was found in a stratum well set apart stratigraph-ically, and its re... more The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon was found in a stratum well set apart stratigraph-ically, and its relative dating around the Iron I–II transition is more or less settled. For the 14 C dating the first two thirds of the 10 th century seem to be preferable, further considerations probably pinpointing the Iron I–II transition to the middle decades of the century. The contents of the ostracon, except for a few words or parts of words, remain undeciphered, and the nature of the text cannot be determined. Despite various attempts, the biblical name of the site remains unknown. The issue of the site's affiliation – ethnic and political, presents numerous open questions, to which conflicting answers have been offered – Philistine, Canaanite, Judahite (and Davidic), Benjaminite (and Saulide)… While some proposals may be more plausible than others, the speculative nature of all is clearly manifest, hence my feeling that the debate about Qeiyafa's affiliation is currently adrift in over-interpretation. The aim of the paper thus is to review all the above open questions and a few more, while emphasizing the limitations of the data. An excursus addresses the architectural décor of the Qeiyafa limestone ark or model shrine.
