Saturday, September 04, 2021


 You have arrived, but this site is now too "secure" to be navigated. I could imagine that I am being silenced.

If you can help me fix this problem, I am listening.....

To activate the frozen links (in this blog, and in the index) start from here, where Cryptcracker started, though it will probably not respond, and will not even allow you to paint it in blue and copy it : 

Or google cryptcracker, and you might find a similar link to a specific site, which would be more cooperative; the older posts seem to be more amenable than these two new ones.

Or retype laboriously the one at the top (as I said, it will probably resist copying).

However, I recommend this one as a simpler port of entry, via Crete (copy it into the search-slot); at the end it awards you a gold ring, and so it would be worth while scrolling right through it while you are there, as it is a very important report on the reign of King Minos and his Semitic Kaptarians:

The first two essays in the series (this one, on YRB`L, and the next one, on Lakish inscriptions), in which I state my grand unifying theory, are available right here (in a frigid and rigid state), but the one further down (on syllabic and consonantal inscriptions from Lakish, Tel Lachish) should be studied first.

If you have reached this spot by simply asking for cryptcracker, you probably have both essays delivered together; but here is its proper address:

This YRB`L one is reproduced on another site, searchable and findable with this:
However, the page you are now reading is constantly being uodated.

The Khirbet al-Ra`i  inscription (LYRBB`L) 

Prepare to be shocked as I bring to light more of the unintentional errors  that are being committed in the chaotic field of ancient West Semitic epigraphy by its honest labourers; lampooning is my word, in the added sense of shining a smiling lamp on the follies of scholars, and I will indeed be making fun of my ideas and theirs (if I restrained from laughing about them, I would be weeping uncontrollably), but with respect and gratitude for the services my colleagues  have rendered to me.
   This essay follows on from the one on Lakish inscriptions, and they form a combined statement of my life's work in this research area:

   Here is yet another new inscription, although not from Tel Lachish but from another ruin-mound in its vicinity, namely Khirbet al-Ra`i (er-Ra`i). (Note the variations in spelling; and I prefer Lakish rather than the Anglo-Hebrew Lachish.) Three fragments of an inscribed pot (possibly a jug holding 1 litre) were rescued from a silo, which had apparently become a pit for rubbish; these were the only pieces of the artefact that could be identified among the debris.Wherever Yosef Garfinkel excavates, important ancient inscriptions will turn up, as has happened at Khirbet Qeiyafa (Sha`arayim) and Tel Lachish (Lakish, LKYSh, Tell ed-Duweir). Yossi is not an epigrapher, he confesed to me when I told him that his Qeiyafa ostracon mentions a giant (`anaq) named Guliyut, and a "servant of Elohim" named Dawid, he rejected the counsel of this "elder" and turned to the "young men" (yladim, "lads") "who had grown up with him" (namely Misgav and Sass), as did King Rehab`am, son of Solomon, when he lost the northern tribes to Yerob`am, and was left with only the territory of Yehuda (Judah) as his kingdom (1 Kings 12:6-17). Actually, this is what happened to Yossi Garfinkel, as he was stranded with a Qeiyafa and two inscriptions belonging impossibly to a King David of a kingdom of Yehuda, instead of King Saul (of the tribe of Binyamin) and his son Eshbaal, reigning over a united kingdom of Israel (1 Samuel 9-31, 2 Samuel 1-4).
   This time Christopher Rollston was the epigraphist who studied the latest Garfinkel inscription, and, according to his lights,  he has published it efficiently but not sufficiently, as no consideration is given to the possibility that it is syllabic rather than  Early Alphabetic (the all-embracing term covering a multitude of signs, to counterfeit a phrase from Holy Writ).

   Inscriptions are arriving in rapid succession, before I have had time to successfully settle my interpretation of the previous ones, but I will drop everything to confront this interesting triptych (notice that it has three parts). It is touted as bearing the name of one of the Judges (charismatic saviours of early Israel, before kingship was established).  That is true, or half-true, since there is no indication that this actually belonged to the character we know from the Bible (Judges 6-9). It apparently has the name  YRB`L (Yerubba`al, reading right to left), but for full identification purposes  it would need to say "YRB`L H' GD`N" (Judges 7:1), "Yerubba`al, that is, Gid`on",  and with his surname added, GD`N BN Y'Sh, Gid`on ben Yo'ash (Judges 6:29, 8:29-30), which is dreadfully anglicised as "Jerubbaal, that is Gideon son of Joash". His name also occurs in a sanitised form, Yerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21), where Ba`al is replaced by a word for "shame" (usually bosheth), as happened to the son of Saul named 'ShB`L (on the Qeiyafa consonantal inscription),  and 'Eshba`al in 1 Chronicles 8:33, but 'Îsh-Bosheth (Man of Shame) in 2 Samuel 2-4.
   We do not know the original name of the town that is now "The Ra`i ruin" (Khirbet ar-Ra`i); Garfinkel would like it to be Ziklag (s.qlg), the town given to young David when he was working for the Philistian King of Gath (1 Samuel 27:5-6); we could have hoped for the toponym to be written on these sherds, but it seems to be a personal name, or perhaps a prayer extolling Baal.
   Let us assume, for argument's sake, that the hypothetical YRB`L sequence of letters on this pot is referring to the Judge Gid`on Yerubba`al son of Yo'ash of the tribe of Manasseh (Judges 6:11, 15, 32) who for his achievements in driving out the Ishmaelite invaders (Judges 8:24), including "Midianites and Amalekites, and the people of the East" (bny qdm) (6:33),  was offered dynastic kingship over Israel, but he is said to have declined this honour, affirming that Yahweh was already the King of Israel (Judges 8:22-23), though he subsequently lived like a ruler, with a harem of women, and produced dozens of sons, one of whom he named Abimelek (8:31), possibly meaning "My Father is King"; and this Abimelek slew all but one of his brothers (Yotam) and seized kingship for three years, until he was killed by a woman who dropped a millstone on him (Judges 9; 2 Samuel 11:21).
   In support of the hypothesis that the correct reading of the inscription on the pot is YRB`L, and that this is the Yerubba`al of the Book of Judges,  the dating seems to be right (late 12th C - early 11th C BCE), and the names Gid`on and Yerubba`al  are unique, within the Bible. On the other hand, Yerubba`al is associated with the town of Oprah (6:11), where he erected an altar to Yahweh (6:24), and destroyed an altar of Ba`al, and cut down an Asherah (6:25-32); and it was then that he received his new name Yerubba`al, said to mean "Let Ba`al (himself) plead (or contend)" against him for pulling down the altar (6:32), rather than leave it to the immediate judgement of the lynch mob that confronted Gid`on after this act of sacrilege. However, with regard to the meaning of the name, we could look for a connection with RB, "great" or "much, many", and the verb for "multiply" in Genesis 1:28 ("Be fruitful and multiply") producing perhaps "Ba`al is magnificent", or "Ba`al gives increase"; Ba`al was the god of the clouds, who provided the fertilizing rain; his name was Haddu or Hadad, Thunderer, but he is commonly known by his title, Ba`al, meaning Lord, and this epithet could conceivably be applied to Yahweh, who sent the rain in its season to Israel; but the prophets (particularly Hosea, 2:16-17) ended this confusion, and names with Ba`al went out of fashion. One might expect yerub ba`al to mean "he opposes Ba`al", of course.
   After his battles with the eastern invaders, "Yerubba`al son of Yo'ash" settled down in his own city, `Oprah (8:29); and when he died he was buried in the family tomb at `Oprah (8:32). It would be helpful if `Oprah could be identified with Tell al-Ra'i (between Gath and Lakish), but `Oprah (`Ophrah) must be further north, and Khirbet `Awfar, 6 km SW of Shekem, has been suggested (Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 139-140); Shekem (Shechem) was where Gid`on had a concubine, who gave birth to his wicked son Abimelek (8:31).
   The discomfiting of the invaders took place in the Valley of YZR`'L (Jezreel), in the north, and the strategy that caused the panic in the enemy camp involved smashing pots containing lighted torches, leaving a mess of sherds on the ground. Yerubba`al became a celebrated hero, and a visitor to the battlefield may have found these three souvenirs and taken them home; remember, no other piece of this pot could be found in the silo. This vessel (for one litre of liquid?) was perhaps too small for this purpose. Or, Yerubba`al could have become a favourite name to give to boys after the hero's victory. Whatever the truth of the matter, this inscription could refer, in some way or other, to the Warrior-Judge named Gid`on Yerubba`al.
   Conversely, we could turn the text upside down or downside up; Rollston (page 11) has tried the possibility that it could be L`BRY, "for `bry", if read backwards, that is, dextrograde rather than sinistrograde); and with the text inverted, the L and the `ayin are acceptable, the B looks much more natural, the Yod is passable, and the R is now a door with its post; hence L`BDY, "for my servant", and with `BD we have an echo of the Lakish rectangular proto-syllabic sherd (working the garden), and a pre-echo of the Qeiyafa neo-syllabic ostracon (my servant, the servant of God, Dawid). Of course, we do not need to invert the inscription to get that reading; just change the direction of reading it.
   If we are really desperate, we could take `BR as a variant form of `Oprah, and reject any other identification of the place.

   Time now to examine more closely the ink-marks on the three sherds. The two large pieces have been satisfactorily joined, uniting the two parts of the dotted circle; the third portion has been left separate, but it seems to be pleading with us to place it in the gap below the circle-sign, where its marks could join up with those below the eye-sign; nevertheless Rollston insists (8): "the third fragment does not form a join". There are apparently ink marks at the the left end  of the united pair, but we search in vain for GD`N among the incomplete letters. Proceeding from that point, we can be confident that we are looking at a coiled Lamed, and this would tell us that the text is not proto-syllabic, since the proto-syllabary derives its LA-syllabogram from the mystical night-symbol of Egypt (see Photos 9, 13, 14 in the essay on Lakish inscriptions), and, presumably by coincidence, the proto-syllabary sign resembles the modern square Hebrew Lamed, starting with the vertical stroke at the top. However, this 6-shaped letter can be LA in the neo-syllabary, reversed when traveling from left to right, the normal direction for the neosyllabary. Therefore we are watching a contest for recognition between the neo-syllabary and the neo-consonantary. If these neologies are new to you, they have been explained at length in my examination of the various inscriptions from Lakish. In summary, West Semitic writing began with the proto-syllabary (the Byblos/Gubla logo-syllabary), out of which came the proto-consonantary (the long proto-alphabet), which was reduced to the neo-consonantarty (the short proto-alphabet), out of which another syllabic system emerged, the neo-syllabary; after that, the Phoenician alphabet (a short consonantary) held sway, and was remoulded into the Greco-Roman true alphabet, with letters representing the vowels.
   Next in our backward movement comes the dotted circle; the possibility of this being a sun-symbol and proto-syllabic SHI or proto-consonantal Sh is remote (though a tiny projection at the top and ink marks at the bottom suggest a serpent), but if these details are set aside it would be  `ayin (eye with pupil) in the neo-consonatary and `A in the neo-syllabary.                                                                        
   B for Ba`al is expected, and a house with an open door awaits us; the diagonal line has lost its ink, but it is discernible, and it constitutes an unusual Bet, being an inverted form of the B on Lakish bowl 08, but quite different from the  type on Lakish bowl 05 (at the end of each line). Incidentally, all four of those Lakish texts exhibit a yod (or two), all basically the same, but different.


However, an exact counterpart of the B (well not exactly exact) is found on the proto-consonantal abgadary from Thebes (top right), and to its left is a door (D), looking like the alleged R in the new inscription, but here the R is situated centre left, horizontal stance, and it has an eye and a hair-line.

Looking at the faded oblique Q (--o<), lower centre (below the fish, Samek), I am compelled to re-examine the dotted circle on the pot-fragments, and consider whether it is Q. It has two protruding matks at the top, which could be the ends of the stick and the cord, and it has ink marks which could be remains of a stem. I have encountered two kinds of doubling dots: a pair of dots above the letter (see the Theban tablet reproduced further below, double Q); one dot inside the letter (examples in the Sinai inscriptions), and here the dot could produce BQQ, (1) devastate, (2) proliferate. Even more devastating and proliferating is the possibility of seeing a D for dalt (door), instead of R for rosh (head), producing DBQ, "join together", as with the first human couple (Genesis 2:24); if nothing else, this chimes in with our problem of making a unity of our three sherds. In either circumstance, YRB`L drops out of the picture. Without the entire inscription (though I will eventually contend that the three pieces constititute a complete text of six letters: LYRB`L) we have to cling (dbq) to Gid`on Yerubba`al as our judge and saviour from devastation (bqq). 

   Before I can complete the case that is already mapped out in my mind, I have to confront the nuisance of a variant opinion, which suggests that the first letter in the name is not Y but Z. 
   Nevertheless, while this valuable Theban document is here before us, displaying the letters of the proto-consonantary, we can brush up our expanding knowledge of the consonantograms, particularly the ones that disappear in the shortened neo-consonantary (I have to warn you that extreme self-discipline is required for success in this mental exercise, and you need to refer constantly to my chart at the end of this essay, and you must contrive to make a printed copy of it for yourself).

  The rarest (and here the faintest) graphemes are situated to the right of the Q we have just identified, and they are G (vine with grapes, eventually to be absorbed in `Ayin, eye, which is in the bottom left area with a K on top of it) and Z. (sunshade,  look for an umbrella) which will yield to S.adey, the tied bag, rejected as such on the establisment sign-tables, but  seen on the Lakish dagger, and here). Incidentally, a tall (o-+ not (+), cross inside circle) is on the other side of the Qaw.
(tad breast, vertical) is to the right of the Q, and Sh (sun-serpent, with or without the sun-disc) is bottom right, below H (hank); and Sh will coalesce with Th (this human breast will eventually become Greek Sigma and Roman S), and H will be lost in, the mansion with a courtyard (h.z.r), in the opposite corner.
   Observe the clear instance of D (=) in that top left area of the tablet, and then find the large Z (|><|) in the opposite corner; I admit that it escaped my notice for years, but it is certainly there; its top triangle is snaller than its triangular base; the problem is that two of its four lines have lost their ink (as with the Q; and we may have this phenomenon in our YRB`L inscription). On another tablet from Thebes we see the D and Z together (with an unmistakable P-mouth, and a cord-on-stick Q, but without the string poking out at the top, and notice the two doubling dots above it):

     Concerning the name of Q: whereas I maintain that the dominant sign was Qaw (cord), in all four types of ancient West Semitic writing (syllabic and consonantal), nevertheless its current name is Qop (monkey), and I have seen evidence that sometimes a drawing of this animal was employed  for Q; this is not the case in the set of tablets from Thebes that we are studying here, but this important new document from a Theban tomb has the monkey, I suspect.

   My ongoing preoccupation with identifying the letters is recorded here

 Returning now to Khirbet er-Ra`i, new readings are being offered to its inscription.

 It is not unreasonable to question whether the first letter on the right is really Y (Yod), since its top part is missing; I have already considered the possibility that the `ayin is Qaw, and after looking at that Theban abgadary, I have asked whether the R is a door (D) rather than a human head. The sparring among experts that the reporter Ruth Schuster is highlighting (in her newspaper article) does indeed concern the first letter, and it may have been preceded by other lost letters, everyone must allow, though I will suggest that half of the missing letter is there, below the two vertical parallel lines, and the rest of it is on the third sherd, together with the arm (yad, Yod) that has been separated from its amputated hand.
   Howbeit, we must settle this disturbance of our peace. David Vanderhooft of Boston College admits that the letter in question is possibly a Yod, but he prefers a Zayin (| |); and Christopher Rollston  responds by conceding this possibility, but he adds authoritatively: "I work heavily in this script, and so I am very comfortable with the way we are reading it". Yossi Garfinkel gives his support to Rollston's reading,  judging him to be "the leading epigrapher in this field". Of course, some of Rollston's failings have been  revealed,  in the course of our previous journey through the "Early Alphabetic" inscriptions, and if this text is syllabic he will be perplexed.
   In the present instance, the error that Vanderhooft and Rollston have unwittingly made is asserting that the pair-of-lines letter (=) is Z, when I have been painstakingly pointing out that it represents D, and the true Z is a couple of triangles (|><|), as we saw on two Theban tablets (immediately above). Albright and Hamilton rightly have = as D, so this is a serious lapse of concentration. We should not expect to see this consonantogram in the Iron Age; it is a product and a protagonist of the proto-consonantary in the Bronze Age; it is not in the neo-consonantary or the neo-syllabary; the double triangle replaces it, and |><| eventually becomes |--| (vertical or horizontal).
   Once again we see scholars from the field of Iron Age epigraphy and palaeography (covering the Phoenician consonantary and its offshoots, the national alphabets) showing their lack of expertise with regard to the West Semitic scripts of the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age. Here comes another one into the fray, from Texas, and he is quick on the draw: "Prof. Doug Petrovich, an expert on ancient Hebrew epigraphy and the alphabetic script of the second millennium BC"; I would be tempted to add the word "novice" to this testimonial. Notwithstanding, Douglas is standing with me beyond the pale, looking over the fence at the antics of the consensus contestants on the field of mock battle. Some time ago  he approached me for a crash course on the proto-alphabet, and in the twinkling of an eye (yes, one eye) he stormed into the most ancient West Semitic inscriptions from Sinai and Egypt; he also published an article on the Ophel pithos inscription from Jerusalem (PEQ 147, 2015, 130-145) which involved (as with the Yerubba`l pot) reconnecting a severed hand with its arm (two arms and hands already) to restore YYN (wine), an idea first suggested by Gershon Galil, and provisionally accepted with modifications by myself.
   At that stage, Douglas was happy to publish the current form of my table of signs (also appended here, below; it has my name on it but not the copyright symbol, so I am happy to see it freely and widely divulged); he reproduced it in his article, but then re-produced it in a revised version in a thoroughly personal account of the origin of te alphabet, for Fox News and other outlets (including a paper delivered at the ASOR annual meeting in 2016, which was received with horror, I am told; the OR in ASOR stood for "Oriental Research", but this had to be changed to indicate "outside America", and "Overseas" was chosen, rather than "Outlandish" in its archaic meaning): "Hebrew as the world's oldest alphabet" was the enigmatic title of the Petrovich article, explicated as a study of "the proto-consonantal inscriptions of Egypt's Middle Kingdom", based on the supposition that Israelites resident in Egypt at that time turned hieroglyphs into alphabetic letters; and this intriguing idea was hastily expanded into a book, and this un-infallible and un-inerrant tome is now pleading for funds to be reprinted, though I can see that it needs drastic revision. Well, I notice that he seems to be recognizing the proto-consonantary, but he makes a short alphabet of it! Nevertheless, as I gaze with awe at his table of signs, I feel gratified that someone has listened to me: the door is D, the fish is S, the mouth is P, the bag is S. (Sadey), the cord on the stick is Q, the nefer symbol is T. (+-o); all these are missing in action on the consensus establishment's honour-roll, but this is a cause for dishonour in their camp.      
   There are a few anomalies on the Petrovich table that are nonetheless correct! His dilemma is that he has painted himself into a corner of the room that he has built for his grand parsimonious scheme: "The number of original alphabetic letters is 22, which conflicts with the long-held conjecture that originally there were 27 letters, probably the result of incorrect extrapolation back from Ugaritic, a Semitic language with more than 22 consonants". Most readers would be baffled by this dogmatic declaration of faith, and I happen to know from long experience and experiment that it is a falsehood. His table of signs (published with an unfortunate misprint as "Chart of Pro-Sinaitic signs and alphabetic letter equivalents") belies his unfounded assertion: it has 24 letters! Incidentally, the later Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters representing 23 consonants (at least), since the penultimate letter has two forms (with a migrating dot) to indicate Shin or Sin; he takes no account of this in his counting, but he should have distinguished Shimsh (sun) and Thad (breast), as we did when we examined the Thebes tablets, which are conveniently ignored in his presentation; but his gross error is perceiving the sun-signs as breast-signs, and  relating all Shimsh and Thad signs to Hebrew shadayim, "breasts"; and by sleight of hand he duplicates (makes double) the Egyptian hieroglyph (D27) so that it is double-breasted; but there is no corresponding hieroglyph that I can find for Thad; the alphabetic breasts are simply drawn according to the personal knowledge of each writer (\/\/ for example). Douglas Petrovich is making the same basic error as Gordon Hamilton: insisting that every alphabet letter was a borrowed Egyptian hieroglyph; my table has a gap in this department for Waw, Taw, and Thad. Neither of these otherwise intelligent scholars consider the previous life of the consonantograms as syllabograms in the West Semitic proto-syllabary, and this is a grave sin of omission (a religious concept they would both understand).
   Never mind, we can still itemize some more good things about the Petrovich system, which can help us rehearse the correct identifications: he has two allographs (alternative consonantograms for a single sound) alternating for he has accepted my H.Z.R (court) for h., but according to his sacred laws every acrophonic source must be represented in the Hebrew Bible, and the consonant Z. (as in, shade, Hebrew s.el) never existed in the holy alphabet, so he has (1 Kings 6:36, referring to the Temple); the hank of thread is also h. (as it is when it functions as hieroglyph V28 in Egyptian texts), but it is actually the Semitic consonant h and the letter H, and another item must be added to the illegitimate tally of 22 that Petrovich has imposed on the data.
   When Petrovich says that the number of original alphabetic letters is 22, he must be referring to sounds rather than signs, and even then he seems to have forgotten about the consonant Sin; he has offered no letter representing it, and neither have I; it is supposed to be a Proto-Semitic consonant, but where is it in the early writing systems? Actually, he has a place for it, though it is located in a fanciful spot of his own fabrication, in his Samek section (where the name Samek is strangely avoided). For that sibilant, we both have the same two letters: fish and -|-|-|; my interpretation of the fish is the Semitic word samk (best known in Arabic); as there is no Biblical support for such a word, he invokes the rare root sarah. II, used for putrefaction; and so he chooses "stink" as the characteristic of the fish; true enough (after three days, guests and fish start to stink), but deep in a sea of improbability for being what the inventor of the proto-consonantary had in mind. For the other sign, I lean to the Egyptian djed pillar, a spinal column, and relate it to smk "support". Moving from the ocean of improbability into the ethereal realm of impossibility, he relates -|-|-| to the enigmatic hieroglyph (D3) for hair, which only has strokes on one side of its stem, and is thus disqualified; for the acrophonic word he adduces, se`ar (hair), which has initial Samek in later Hebrew, but Sin in the Bible (and Sh in Ugaritic). This digression allows me to mention in passing that the word for "field" in Sinai 353 is ShD (sun, door) as in Ugaritic, but with initial Sin in Biblical Hebrew. Notice also that Petrovich is retrojecting Massoretic Hebrew across thousands of years to the Bronze Age, and someone should tell him he is being ridiculous.  A reminder is in order here: the cuneiform alphabet (from Ugarit and Beth-Shemesh, and elsewhere) has both Samek signs, and one of the Theban abgadaries  has a djed above a fish, and the other (see above) has a space with faint marks on its right side (which is partly cut off in Petrie's photograph); we would naturally assume that they originally referred to separaate sounds, perhaps S and "Tsch", or Samek and Sin.
   Ultimately, it does not matter what hieroglyphs and Hebrew words Petrovich has used in his acrophony games; the main thing is the corrrectness of the sound-values he has allotted to the signs; and from my viewing point (with vastly more specimens at my disposal than has been gathered by anyone else in this field) his system is basically correct, and could be used to read the inscriptions. Unfortunately, Petrovich's interpretations of Sinai proto-alphabetic texts are marred by his dismissal of contextual clues related to mining, metallurgy, and horticulture, which epigraphy and archaeology have provided (outlined  in Colless 1990, and disdainfully disregarded in the literature); instead, he introduces extraneous scenarios and characters from the Bible. His results have been critiqued by Aren Wilson-Wright, who has also propagated non-canonical exegesis of several of the Sinai scriptures. By good fortune, I have just been sent Wilson-Wright's summary of his attempt (failed) at reading the writing on Sinai 345, the bilingual sphinx; yesterday I was sent his full essay (failed again) from the same source (ACADEMIA, let the reader understand). We will attend to this in due course, but I want to see what Doug has done with the sun-sign on the Wadi el-Hol vertical (or oblique) inscription.
   Waiting in my box is a handy little essay by Ryan Davis, on  various proposals for identifying the two examples of this sign, and he genially cites my Cryptcracker site and my shimsh acrophone, and he even offers a reproduction of my drawing. For ready reference, I will convene both texts to the party (they are in fact about celebration banquets for the goddess `Anat, who is depicted, and named in letters 6-8).

 Wadi el-Ḥôl Inscription 2 and The Early Alphabetic Graph *ǵ, *ǵull-, ‘yoke’
Our ongoing sub-theme is David Vanderhooft's reading of the ar-Ra`i inscription, but he has also made a pronouncement on this letter (2 and 11 on the top diagram, indexed as Sh, using a diacritical mark not available to me here). Ryan Davis evokes the Eureka ("I have found") moment that Vanderhooft experienced, when he saw a double ox-yoke, and plausibly connected it in his mind with this sign, and with the West Semitic word `l "yoke", which would originally have had initial Ghayin, as in Arabic; but I have to tell him that he will now find his Ghayin gone. First, each instance of the sign has a larger circle on the left; but the yoke has equal-sized rings. Second, Gh has already been identified in those informative Thebes tablets, from ghinab "grape" (a vinestand with grapes), which can be matched in the Arabian scripts, and I think I can find it on the proto-alphabetic plaque from Puerto Rico, bottom left corner); but it is not attested in a text yet. In my first published article on the origin of the Alphabet (Abr-Nahrain, 26, 1988, p. 63) I suggested Ugaritic GNB "grapes", taken together with the South Arabian letter G, and the Egyptian vine-hieroglyph (M43).   On a scale of frequency of use (measurable in Ugaritic texts) Ghayin is in position 24,  as opposed to 11 and 12 for Sh and Th; therefore the improbability of Ghayin appearing twice in a short inscription is patent; the two words that are proposed to justify its presence are suspect, and one of them has the throwstick as P instead of G. The pair of oxen and their yoke are dead, and it is pointless to go on goading them. Fortunately a double yolk was not thrown into the ring, or one could be left with egg on one's face.
   My 1988 essay cleared the weeds from the ground, and planted the right seeds (I had recognized the overlooked garden, gn, in the Sinai texts); they came to fruition in my 1990 (Sinai) and 1991 (Canaan) publications; they made no impact on the confounded (not a swearword) consensus. Then I started sorting out the proto-syllabary and its relation to the proto-consonantary, working from Mendenhall's published decipherment (1985). The proto-alphabet was found to be a logo-morpho-consonantary: as in the Egyptian system the glyphs could be logograms and ideograms and rebuses (rebograms or morphograms); examples are lurking in the Hol inscription.
   The Hol consonantogram under review corresponds to a Middle Kingdom symbol of the god Ra`(sun-disc with one serpent); but its South Arabian counterpart is generally o--o (vertical stance,  sometimes with a curved line resembling the original) and representing Th (t), whereas Arabian Sh goes with the breast \/\/ (vertical stance, like its model, letter 10 on the horizontal Hol inscription); this is obviously a reversal (perhaps compare Hebrew shalom and Arabic salaam, for another change of sibilant, and the shibboleth versus sibboleth story, Judges 12:6); but it seems to indicate that the introduction of the proto-consonantary to Arabia was very early, as this variant of the sun-symbol was rare; it does occur on an unprovenanced and undated cylinder seal, together with the breast-sign (Hamilton, Origins, 2006, 397f, though he does not notice this; he sees it as the Sadey sign, which the consensus misidentifies as Q, a queer case of the falling domino effect).
   I would like to know how Petrovich views this sun-symbol, given that he has Thad but not Shimsh in his reduced scheme; curiously, we find it on his K-row; with his egyptologist's mental set, he plumps for the ka (k3, soul) symbol, hieroglyph D28, two arms with hands reaching upwards or outwards; he relates it implausibly to kap (palm of hand); but again we have to account for one hand being bigger than the other, and an arc connecting them instead of a straight line; he shares this clearly erroneous idea with Orly Goldwasser, a Jerusalem professor of egyptology, whose thoughts on the origin of the alphabet have been rejected, refuted already,  in two dozen aspects, in my own essay (2014) on "The origin of the Alphabet".
    Arrived at last. What is Prof. Petrovich's response to Associate Professor David Vanderhooft's proposition to read Z instead of Y in the YRB`L inscription? He offers precise but inaccurate statistics from the Middle and New Kingdom of Egypt for the use of "zayin (originally ze`ah, for eyebrows)". Pause for refreshment. It is getting hot in here, and I am transpiring like a horse. I happen to know that Doug uses the word "transpire" in the American manner, to mean "happen"; I was taught the Australian meaning "come to light", in the mantra "What transpired did not happen"; and to win a bet you use "transpire" to mean "sweat", and when challenged you open your dictionary to them, and then hold out your bushman's hat, with corks dangling on strings to discourage flies, and you collect the takings. Doug's word ze`ah means "transpiration"; this takes us back to the primeval garden (Genesis 3:19), where the sinner-man is told that in future he will make a living by the sweat of his face, or, as we would say, the sweat of his brow; from here it is a short but gigantic leap for Man from brow to eyebrows; this is typical of the Petrovich reasoning process, and the reader will recognize that it has remarkable affinity with my own mode of thinking.
   Well now, if you consult my 1988 article, you will find me arguing for = as zayp (late Hebrew for "bristle" or "eyebrow"), and, because the Aramaic cognate also has z and not d, I had to differ from the majority, and put Z not D on my first table of signs. I am still caught on this dental-buzz dilemma, but I am almost certain = is equivalent to the hieroglyph for "eyebrow" (D13); support for this comes from the Thebes abgadaries: one has the two strokes not quite parallel (as we have seen), and the other has an eyebrow above an eye. Even so, Hamilton's ingenious suggestion for the name Zayin merits mentioning: dayn, "these two", alongside *zayn, "weapon", specifically an ax; he gives a (false) instance on Sinai 345, the bilingual sphinx statuette. For his part, Doug asserts that Z (=) always has "horizontal pitch", and so he concurs with Chris Rollston that the letter is Yod on the ar-Ra`i inscription.
   Here is part of Sinai 345 displaying a vertical D, I do believe (tentatively, of course).
   My unprejudiced decipherment of all this sphinx's inscriptional utterances is now nettable worldwidely, first published in print in 1990, to universal disclaim and disregard:

   2013 Interpreting the Sinaitic Inscriptions in Context: A New Reading of Sinai 345 -
   Aren Wilson-Wright, as already noted, has published a definitive reading of this enigmatic line of writing, but it proves to be indefinite, because he abides by the consensus traditions, as defined and refined by Hamilton. The second half of the text is no longer a mystery, since Alan Gardiner decoded it admirably in 1916; it says LB`LT, "to (l) the Lady (b`lt); Ba`alat is the feminine form of Ba`al, "Lord", and she is also recognized elsewhere on the statuette as the Egyptian goddess Hat-Hor.  Wilson-Wright constructs the first half  thus, starting with a happy straw man created out of scratches detected by Hamilton: [H]ND WZ. "this inscription" (wz being a loanword from Egyptian). This does not ring true, I think we receive a more likely message along these lines: N (snake), D (| |), Q (qaw, cord wound on stick), Y (yad, arm with thumb and fingers viewed from the side). We are fortunate in having here the two letters competing for choice ("Pick me!") on the ar-Ra`i inscription, namely Y (erroneously said to be Zed [zayin, ax] by GJH and AW-W), and D (Dh, mistakenly called Z by some of the spectators). I am sorry, but we need to clean up this mess, which is characteristic of the plethora of excreta that litters this field; so it really will be a labour of Herakles, a herculean task, like shoveling horse-manure (and I did a lot of that when I was a boy, in preparation for this moment). Have I mentioned that I published a nice interpretation of this and the other Sinai inscriptions. in 1990? Hamilton cites my article, but goes his own way (333, 410, The Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions of Sinai. AbrN 28:1-52; he corrects my "Sinai" to "the Sinai", and positions my five articles quasi-alphabetically after Collon, on ancient dance). All the argumentation I am engaging in here should be in an appendix, separated from the main body of the essay; but my appendix is still inside my body, and this is an important matter, so the contest continues here (the link to the Cryptcracker post on this subject is provided above, with the photograph of the sphinx).
   The Y-shaped glyph is W for AW-W, and a doubtful snake for GJH (presumably a horned viper for N, with a cobra N preceding it on the other side of the D). It is clearly Q (an impossible identification for the consensus cabal, under the leadership of Frank Moore Cross, Jr; Albright had read NS.B as NQB, and this  belief  became set in stone). We keep seeing Q in all the old familiar places, but Thebes and Sinai are our favourite rendezvous (plural); and so there are two Q conspiracies in America at present in the Trump era (let the percipient reader understand). Look at the letter Q/q as we now delineate it; this form is more likely to have descended from a character with a stem (--o- or --o<) than a tied bag (Oo or O<); the Arabian forms of S. and Q sort this out for us (refer to the Arabia column of my table of signs). It's a cinch! However, we fervently hope the Arabian Semites did not do another reversal, as with Th and Sh.

   Here on the sphinx, we see the New Kingdom alternative hieroglyph (V25) which shows the end of the string (or the "spun fibre" as Douglas Petrovich and James Hoch would have it) projecting leftwards from the small circle that represents the bulk of the cord; this detail helps us date the inscriptions of Sinai 345 (on other grounds, Hamilton rightly puts it "ca. 1700-1500 B.C."). On our tablets from Thebes we see both forms. Here the reading is surely: Dh NQY LB`LT, "This is my offering to Ba`alat"; "my" (-y) is presumably referring to the person whose name appears in the monogram above the Q here: I read it as ox-head and fish, 'Asa (found in three other Sinai inscriptions).   

   Incidentally, but relevantly and importantly, on the corresponding area on the opposite side of the sphinx, the recurring expression "beloved of Ba`alat" is engraved, again with reference to 'Asa; but whereas the Middle Kingdom inscriptions had M'HB B`LT, it is here given only one B, but it has a dot in it, to indicate doubling (as also in other Sinai texts from the New Kingdom era). Note that the final T is missing, having disappeared with the piece that was broken off. The other inscription is Egyptian, "Beloved of Hat-Hor" (the Egyptian goddess identified with Semitic Ba`alat).
   We should remind ourselves how lucky we are to have these age-old documents from Egypt and Sinai. The six from Thebes were first published by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1912, and left to languish in idleness; it now transpires (through the sweat of my brow) that the coded information recorded on them is ruinous to the consensus paradigm that flourished unfruitfully in the 20th century. We could blame Alan Gardiner for not relating them to the Sinai inscriptions that were subsequently provided to him by Flinders Petrie, and for which he offered a set of keys for their decipherment, in 1915, in a lecture delivered in the presence of Petrie, who was not convinced; but Petrie himself did not make this connection in his elaborate theory of the Formation of the Alphabet, the title of the monograph in which these photographs were included as a frontispiece.
    Let us revel in their riches once again. The sound we hear in the background  is the death-knell of the consensus fraud. Verily I say unto you, this  fraudulence, albeit innocent and honest, must come to an end.
   As we have already seen, the Q (cord wound on stick) with two dots for doubling is in the middle of this text, conveniently positioned beside a Waw to assist us in distinguishing each of them (no stroke at the top of its circle), with triangular Z, and = Dh/D, an open-mouth P, apparently a shepherd's crook for Lamed, and a stylized hand for Kap, all possibly adding up to an instruction to a craftsman: "To (l) refine (zqq), and (w) as (k) fine gold (pd)". The presence of D (and Z) shows that this is a proto-consonantal text, as might be expected, given that three of its companion tablets are abgadaries displaying the letters of the proto-consonantary (but not in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma order).

   We are searching for Q, but we will remind ourselves of other identifications along the way. Focus on the somewhat unfocussed bottom right corner (the additional photograph below gives a better reproduction of this tablet): definitely a circle on a stem, but apparently not Q or W, because it has a cross-stroke (or two?), and so it would be consonantal or syllabic T.A.

We now have to answer the compulsory question, whether the text is syllabic or consonantal. The adjacent glyph represents an altar (mizbah.) and this can only be proto-syllabic MI. Notice the sun-sign in the middle of the upper line; it shows the sun-disc with a serpent on each side; this could be Sh or SHI, but in this context it must be a syllabogram; the cosensus-trained epigraphers would be at a loss to explain this (a bow should shoot an arrow, not a cannonball), and they are equally perplexed by the two examples with a single snake on the Hol vertical inscription (examined above). Remember that the two tablets in the middle of the sextet display the letters of the proto-consonantary. I have just noticed, contrary to my expectations, that both have the djed-pillar (spinal column) for Samek (or Sin?); the smaller tablet  has its djed second from the left, above the fish (also Samek); the other tablet has a djed in its bottom line, partly faded, below a fractured double helix (twisted thread); on its right we see Thad (breast) and Shimsh (sun, without disc). To the left of all these, is a prone Q, with a dot for the cord, and one end of it projecting; this is the same as the Q on the sphinx; on the tablet at the top, the Q has a circle for the cord and no projection (--o-); its two dots are for doubling.

   As we proceed further along the line of writing of our new inscription, we could consider this resting place for the third piece of the puzzle.

   If we attach the stray piece to the other end, it fits nicely, and its top curve completes the Yod (compare the similar Yod on the sphinx, above, and look for this type on the Qeiyafa ostracon), and its bottom arc produces a Lamed; this l could be a preposition, "for" or "(belonging) to" the person named. Actually, given that the two short vertical lines of the Yod (thumb and finger of the hand) are not connected to the short curved line below them, this curve could be linked to the semicircle, and allowing that the ink has been washed away along the edge of the larger sherd, we could reconstruct a form of L as on the third sherd (notice the faded diagonal line in the B for an analogy, and the two dots possibly showing that the R originally had a longer stem).
   We have seen a doubling dot in a square B on the Sinai sphinx, and a closer inspection of the B here reveals a dot, just like the one in the adjacent `Ayin, but faded like the cross-bar to its left; this supplies the double B for the name Yerubba`al. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible the Bet coincidentally (or even historically connectedly) has a dagesh-dot for doubling.
   Next, if you apply your measuring instrument to the clear and whole L at the end, and then to the eviscerated phantom  L at the beginning, you will find that they have exactly the same width (or length). However, if there are two different forms of L, then we have a syllabary on our hands, but I would need more of this text to establish this. In any case, we now have LYRBB`L, "For Yrbb`l"; and following that, the ink marks could produce an angular throwstick for G, as in Gid`on, above a triangular D; but we must lift up our heads, and withhold our speculative gaze, and just be grateful for the things that have been vouchsafed to us in these troubled times.
   Despite my hesitance, the categorization of this inscription must be attempted:
   Proto-syllabary: the L and the Y disqualify it from this classification; they are not attested as syllabograms.
   Proto-consonantary: the only letter-form it shares with the Thebes proto-consonantal abgadary (refer to the photographs of each reproduced together, above) is the unique inverted B; it does not have any of the distinguishing letters of this category (the recognition of Dh in the || of the Yod is fallacious, in the light of the new join with the small third fragment).
   Neo-consonantary: this is a likely but not demonstrable choice; its letters are different from the Phoenician style, and also the various Lakish forms.
   Neo-syllabary: the shapes and stances of the characters could be matched fairly well with examples on my unpublished table of signs collected from four main neo-syllabic inscriptions; the presumed G and D could be read as GIDI; the L might be LA; the `Ayin as `A; the R as RU; the Y could be YU (with -u as shewa); the B does not have a partner.  This could produce Yurubba`ala Gidi[`unu], preceded by the preposition la ("for", remembering that the inscription was written before the vessel was baked). Against this is the direction of the line of writing; our main neo-syllabic texts (Izbet Sartah, Qeiyafa, Qubur Walayda) run from left to right, although the Beth-Shemesh ostracon has boustrophedon columns, proceeding from right to left.

   Gid`on Yerubba`al seems to be a possible candidate for identification with the slightly uncertain reading on the three ar-Ra`i sherds, and he is certainly the model for my mission, that is. exploiting shock tactics: I am overthrowing  the false idols that are blinding the eyes of my collegial community, and smashing the containers that are concealing the light.

Inscribed spear-head

As a final free-will offering, here is another example of the inscriptions people send me, and ask whether I can read it for them; I have not been told where it is from (so it is "unprovenanced"), and I do not know for certain what it is; I think it is a spearhead, rather than an arrowhead; the markings certainly look like early West Semitic writing. Please understand that the photograph I am working on is better than this reproduction (at least the upper half is legible here). We will endeavour to establish which of the four syllabic and consonantal categories it belongs to, and also find its meaning, and translate it into English.

 Reading from the bottom (trusting that the entire inscription is contained in the photograph):
H. B T. P K B L ` M SS  ` D
The pisces pair (SS) are clear enough, and they vote against the proto-syllabary, as also the at the bottom (a square house with a round courtyard), and the Lamed in the middle (a crook); so we can say immediately that this is "early alphabetic", cashing in on a currency coin of phrase. If the proposed D, a pair of parallel strokes,  could be separated from the trunk of the enigmatic tree (not a letter known to me in West Semitic writing, but present in Cretan scripts) it would indicate the proto-consonantary. On the other hand, if the was representing an original H, it would confirm the presence of the neo-consonantary; we should keep that in mind.
   The only contextual clue that we have is that the artefact is apparently the head of a spear. We have encountered an ancient example of such a weapon in the Tuba tomb of a man, woman, and child; it was there for protective purposes, but it was ineffective under the circumstances, and their remains were violated. The Lakish dagger in a hero's resting place, carried a warlike caption: "Foe flee!"(Photo 15)
Speaking from a position of hindsight, I predict that this spear aimed at us has a similar warning  inscribed on it.
   Gathering the two fishes in our net, we may notice that they are in a watery environment, swimming synchronisationally over the water (M, logogram for mayim, water) from a spring (`ayin, logogram, eye or fount). Incidentally, these selfsame logograms (though they are merely consonantograms here, I hasten to declare) both function in these logographic ways in Sinai 357, which is all about watering a garden (gn) <SINAI IRRIGATION (357)>.
   We have seen some ancient West Semitic methods of showing doubled consonants: two dots (Photo 8) or one dot (Photo 13; and Sinai 345 <SINAI SPHINX SPEAKS (345)>). Here we put the same graphemes alongside each other: two fishes for SS.
   A sequence of significant signs now presents itself for our consideration: MSS`. In troubled moments like these the Bible is our ever-present refuge and resource, especially the comforting book of 'Iyyob (Job 41:18/17): an array of weapons is listed as being unable to pierce the hide of Leviathan, including massa`; this sounds like a missile, and the Greek Septuagint translation has doru, "spear", though this word basically means tree, then cut timber, including the shaft of a spear, and ultimately the weapon itself; this is all by the way, but I am clutching at twigs to explain the tree depicted on this spearhead; at least we now know what our artefact is; in the Bible verse our massa` is preceded by the word h.nyt, "spear", LXX longkhe, "spear-head" or "lance". As regards the SS in this word, the scribes have inserted into the round body of the Samek a doubling dot (a dagesh, as it is known in the trade, and appropriately it means "piercing",  as with a sword, but I can only find this root in a Syriac dictionary).
   Below this, in a tightly knit group, is a combination of a square (house), a crook, an eye, producing BL`, "swallow", either past tense "swallowed", or imperative mood "Swallow!". Next to the square is a hand, possibly; and below them a mouth (larger than the two eyes we  have seen for `ayin) , providing PK, "your mouth".
   The remaining three letters are (house with rounded courtyard, obscure but detectable), B (simple square house), (+-o). The verb H.BT. involves applying pressure, and opening forcibly (Jastrow, 417).
   H.BT. PK BL` MSS`
   "Open up your mouth and swallow the spear"
If there is a letter = at the top, and not simply a portion of the drawing of a tree, then we would add D, and say "this spear". That would be an indication that the inscription is proto-consonantal, not neo-consonantal, so this leaves me up in the air, suspended from a spear-point.
"Open up your mouth (and) swallow the spear".
   Presumably the victim would be expected to read this message as the missile neared him.
   Finally, what decision can we make about the script?
   B T. P K ` M could be syllabic or consonantal.  
   H. and S are only consonantal.
   If D is there, this would definitely be the proto-consonantal script, otherwise it could be neo-consonantal or proto-consonantal, but still in the Bronze Age, closer to the Lakish dagger than the arrowheads from the Levant <ARROWHEADS>.
   As already mentioned, one possibility for the provenance of the artefact is a Bronze-Age tomb of a warrior, as was the typical case of the Lakish dagger, and the spear in the grave where the Tuba amulets were found. I have also heard of a tomb with a dagger, a spearhead (shaft decomposed?), and a donkey.
   The table of signs provided here is proving its worth as a paradigm for interpreting proto-consonantal and neo-consonantal texts; complete tables for the proto-syllabary and neo-syllabary are under construction, as new inscriptions come to light. Tuba, Thebes, and Lakish have added to the proto-syllabic treasure-trove from Byblos; and the YRBB`L (Yurubba`ala) inscription has apparently increased the small neo-syllabic hoard. The unsound category "Early Alphabet" must be replaced by "Early West Semitic Scripts", with the proviso that West Semitic texts could also be transmitted in a variety of foreign systems.
 Alphabet evolution table:


Thursday, April 29, 2021



Photograph [1] Rectangular Lakish Sherd
Credit: Felix Höflmayer et al., 2021 (figure by J. Dye, which is clearer in its original setting)


The first thing I must say is this: many scholars are named in this exposition, and I am not meaning to make personal attacks on any of them; they are respected colleagues. My criticism is directed at the flawed tradition they are upholding, and the errors that they and I commit with our damaged implements, when we are studying ancient West Semitic inscriptions. If the reader detects lampooning in this exposé, please keep in mind that I personally use the word "lampoon" to signify "shining a lamp on a thing to show up its silliness". However, I am still free to satirize my own self and its failings.
   This is work in progress; I am posting it at this constructional stage so that you can see where I am coming from, and where I am going to, and how I arrive at my destinations, and reach my provisional conclusions; I want to set up sign-posts (an apt metaphor under the circumstances of surveying significant signs) to show others the right paths to proceed along, and also offer a compass to guide us in the right directions; accordingly, a typology of categories is being presented here to encompass the corpus of early West Semitic scripts and inscriptions.
   I hope I will not spoil your search for truth if I tell you now that I am trying to demonstrate ("prove" and end with QED, quod erat demonstrandun) that the script on this sherd is not consonantal alphabetic, as is widely and unthinkingly claimed, but syllabic; and the same applies to the talismanic
cylinders from Tuba (Tell Umm el-Marra in Syria), which have also been given warranted publicity, but unwarranted interpretation.
   If you have fallen into the trap of "pan-alphabeticism", an obsessive compulsion disorder, and you can only see "Early Alphabetic" in ancient West Semitic syllabic and consonantal texts alike, then I am here to help you out of this pandemic affliction; with your compunction and our shared compassion, this ailment can be cured, and the masks concealing shamefaced countenances can be removed. However, this journey is a long and arduous trek, tortuous and torturous, with a profusion of  details to be absorbed, and so you may prefer to just look at the pictures and try to recognize some of the scary characters: logograms, syllabograms, consonantograms, acropictophonograms, rebograms. Or perhaps you will be happy to take my word for it: practitioners in this field are blithely and blissfully unaware of the disgrace they are  heaping upon themselves by blindly disregarding the presence of the early West Semitic proto-syllabary as the constant companion of
its own offspring, the proto-consonantary (that is, the proto-alphabet). This is an opportunity for me to give an overall summary of my system, and enshrine my ideas on the Worldwide Web, allowing them to hover over the closed dark grottoes where the early alphabet ìnvalids feed on the fetid flesh of inválid fallacies and fantasies; and when I have departed to even higher realms, in my original form as stardust, the rock ceilings may collapse under the weight of this knowledge, and the healing waters may cleanse the sick, and the illuminating light restore them to the health of truth; meanwhile, methinks I need a remedy for my hyperbolic colic.
   Confession: I have been working on this project since April 2021, and I still can not say that I have definitively deciphered the message in this inscription; I would be disappointed if I had to conclude that the scribe was merely practising random letters. However, on the 14th of June 2021 I came to a tentative conclusion that the message on the sherd contains the verb `BD (work, transitive) and the noun GANNAT (garden), and it says: "I am cultivating the garden".
   More news: on my 85th birtthday anniversary, 12th of July (shared with the Battle of the Boyne) I received another "(Proto-)Canaanite" inscription, from Khirbet al-Ra`i, which is situated near Tell Lachish.; apparently it bears the name YRB`L, an alias of Judge Gid`on in the Bible (Judges 6-9); and it is also being hailed as a "missing link"; but I am still waiting for an "unmissing link" to be discovered.

   Pass through the turnstile here, and embark on the lechery cruiser for your voyage of uncovery (a printer's devil or diabolical gremlin has interfered with this pious ejaculation, I fear).
   This is your ticket, your worler's pass permitting you to labour in a particular garden.

Here we go again: from the ruin-mound of ancient Lakish (modern Tel Lachish in Israel, Arabic name Tell ed-Duweir) a sherd with yet another antique West Semitic inscription has been brought to light, and published aptly in the journal Antiquity, and also conveniently put on open internet access  by Cambridge University Press. (15 April 2021)


We can see from these two titles that the four authors are promoting it as "the missing link" in the early development of the alphabet; I  think that it might be a piece from a different series, and not the alphabetic chain they have in mind. However, they argue that the Carbon 14 method of dating is now more reliable, and so they can assert: "Dating to the fifteenth century BC, this inscription is currently the oldest securely dated alphabetic inscription from the Southern Levant, and may therefore be regarded as the ‘missing link’."
   Regrettably, from my viewing point, some "fake news" and "alternate facts" are lurking here, although this was not the intention of the authors; what I mean is that the epigraphist Haggai Misgav and the rest of the team (Felix Höflmayer, Lyndelle Webster, Katharina Streit) have jumped to the incorrect conclusion; in football terms, Misgav has scored an own goal, by mistakenly kicking the ball into the wrong net, and losing a point for his side; in plain language, they have not asked the crucial question: Is this text syllabic or consonantal? Complying with the deplorable practice in the infertile field of West Semitic epigraphy, they have simply assumed that it is alphabetical, that is, consonantal, where each letter represents a consonant;  but it might be a syllabic text, in which each character is a syllabogram, representing a syllable (consonant plus one of three vowels: BU, BA, BI). Consequently, their identifications for its letters could be entirely erroneous, and their attempt to determine its place in the early history of the alphabet will be replete with alternative facts, in the sense of irrelevant data, including a swarm of speculations, causing them to gamble recklessly, and back the wrong horse on the wrong course; pardon my coarse language. Needless to say, no mention is made of any published research results with the name Colless attached to them; this is a regrettable oversight, but the times are changing. It is still my mission to speak out when academics inadvertently cross the line between truth and error, and  to tell them that they are innocently guilty of a serious transgression: promulgating incorrect information about the four early West Semitic scripts.
   On the scale of merit, in their review of "other potential early alphabetic examples from the area" ("Historical context") they do not include any syllabic inscriptions; in contrast, Christopher Rollston's survey of the evidence (in his essay cited immediately below) is heavily on the demerit side, unable to distinguish syllabic from consonantal, and it will be my task to arrange his monomial list of plants (an unhealthy monocultural crop) into four separate garden-beds (this metaphor is appropriate, because Semitic words for garden will have an important part to play in my discussion of the data).

Coincidentally, a claim has also been made for some inscribed clay objects from a tomb in ancient Tuba (Tell Umm el-Marra in Syria, east of  the antediluvian but still newsworthy city Aleppo): these tiny artefacts allegedly have the oldest examples of alphabetic writing known to us. This is a stupendous claim, or perhaps a stupid idea, if the writing is actually syllabic. I can see the mother (umm) of all alphabets in these specimens of writing, but not the proto-alphabet itself. This Arabic word for “mother” reminds me to tell you that I will be using the term West Semitic (covering the scripts and languages of the region that extends from Syria down to the Arabian peninsula, but excluding East Semitic Mesopotamia), rather than North-West Semitic (referring only to Syria-Palestine, also known as the Levant), and this is because Arabia was also involved in the development of the early alphabet.

[2] Tuba tubular amulets, with West Semitic proto-syllabic writing

"Tell Umm el-Marra (Syria) and Early Alphabetic in the Third Millennium: Four Inscribed Clay Cylinders as a Potential Game Changer" (Christopher Rollston, George Washington University)
This article by Colin Barras has been published in New Scientist (24 April 2021) page 15 (and that is where I studied it, not being a subscriber with access to their website, although I buy this magazine at my local shop every week). Three scholars were asked for their opinion: Aaron Koller (Yeshiva University, New York) was doubtful, as he could not fit this evidence into "our current theories about the invention of the alphabet" (but the current theories are faulty, and it has a primary place in my theory; I thought he knew that from our past correspondence); Benjamin Sass (Tel Aviv University) does not know what the script is, but these objects do not challenge his ideas of the alphabet's invention (in fact they do affect his ideas, which are constantly moving further away from reality); John Darnell (Yale University) was more open, suggesting that these signs could represent "a proto-history" of the alphabet (and he is right, but he would not know why, even though we have discussed his discovery of really early alphabetic writing in the Wadi el-Hol in Egypt, and he has responded favourably to my interpretation).
   Glenn Schwartz, one of the archaeologists who found these objects, is Professor of Archaeology at Johns Hopkins University; his colleague P. Kyle McCarter, now W. F. Albright Professor Emeritus, is listed as one of his consultants; McCarter works in the field of West Semitic epigraphy and is reputedly an expert on the origin of the alphabet; he should have been able to assist Schwartz in identifying this writing system, but he is a member of the American school of thought that only countenances an "early alphabetic" category, and  (on pain of loss of tenure and reputation) they ignore the parallel line of "early syllabic", even though this is fundamental to the other. Their university was formerly the base of the great William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971, the polymath who practised Biblical Archaeology alongside philology. Albright was an unashamed orientalist, and he is my guru for Ancient Near Eastern studies. Albright certainly recognized the significance of the inscriptions from Byblos ("the Canaanites had invented a syllabary of their own, clearly modeled to some extent after the Egyptian hieroglyphic system"); he thought that this would have happened before the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, in the time of "the Old Empire" (1961, 334); the writing on the Tuba cylinders could fit into this framework. Disappointingly, although Albright acknowledged that the proto-alphabet was "the direct progenitor" of the later Phoenician alphabet, he averred  that "there is little reason to believe that it was directly influenced by the earlier syllabic script of Byblos" (1961, 339f) . Unfortunately, Albright's opinion on the syllabary, and his defective detective work on the early alphabetic inscriptions, culminating in his faulty table of signs and values, have severely corrupted "archaeological research", in its wider sense.                                    
   In his book on  Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (1942, 1968, p. 36) Albright states that he is using the term "archaeology" in its inclusive sense, covering all written documents and unwritten materials; but occasionally he restricts it to its narrower meaning, which excludes  "philological investigation". Glenn Schwartz, the archaeologist, certainly has a philological side encompassing languages and literature, having studied Assyriology with Benjamin R. Foster, and he was probably expecting to find cuneiform texts on clay tablets in his excavations, but instead he discovered linear markings on little clay cylinders. Glenn has been mulling over the script for years, and has now plumped (in an injuriously  heavy fall) for earliest alphabetic, even though I told him long ago (when the fragments were first publicised on the expedition's website) that it was the West Semitic syllabary (or Canaanite syllabary, or Byblos script), which I now call the West Semitic proto-syllabary,  and I maintain that it was the predecessor and progenitor and companion of the early alphabet.
    In his "Potential Game Changer" essay (cited above), Rollston supports Schwartz, and in so doing he has become another of the  epigraphists who can not differentiate the proto-syllabary from the proto-alphabet, a benighted band who will never be knighted (well, they are nearly all US Americans). On the other hand, we could admit that Rollston and Schwartz are approximately one-third right, since most of the letters of the Phoenician consonantal alphabet (which has no signs to represent vowels) and the subsequent Greco-Roman vocalic alphabet (with vowel-letters) were originally in the West-Semitic syllabary; they were borrowed from the proto-syllabary for the new consonantal writing system, and continued on into the European alphabets. So a mistake like this would seem to be excusable. However,  an examination mark of 33% is a D-grade, and in the realm of failure. As you can see, I am trying to write this so that university students can understand, since my hopes are invested in them, that they will understand this elementary (LMN-T) theory, which has already been verified by experiments, but is incomprehensible to established academics, because (1) they did not think of it, so it must be wrong, and (2) it is not what their teacher taught them, and (3) it is propagated by three marginal scholars (Colless, Mendenhall, Hoch), who are dying or dead. For my part (alone and the one in the dying category), desperation could be creeping in; but inconstant continents were eventually but reluctantly allowed to drift, by hidebound scientists; and syllablic-consonantal paradigms can shift, too, if scholars take their blindfolds and blinkers off. By the way, the considerable number of shared signs in the syllabary and the consonantary will be an important aspect of our interpretation of the new Lakish inscription.
   I would like to clarify this matter  here and now, at the very outset. By rehearsing all the background details, I will strengthen my own case in my own mind, and hopefully teach the reader how to interpret early West Semitic writing. For those outside this subject area, my presentation may be funny ha-ha (take note, there is our first syllabogram, and HA is represented by the ground-plan of a temple when you are looking for it); for those professionally involved in this area it may possibly be funny-peculiar and offensive to boot. 
   Here beginneth the first lesson. George Mendenhall and myself each compiled tables of sound-values for the syllabograms in the collection of inscriptions from Gubla/ Gebal/ Byblos; mine was based on his, and I have been applying it to many other texts, such as these Tuba examples.

A better view possible at: (The West Semitic Proto-Syllabary)
Glenn Schwartz does not find my views on his cylinders convincing (he graciously gave me a footnote in 2010: "this interpretation does not seem persuasive"); but his ideas are based on mystical meditation on the Indus script (by the way, the lotus position is known in that civilization), and external inspection of a few samples from Byblos for comparison, without internal investigation of the proto-syllabic system in all its manifestations around the ancient world, including Atlantic Europe and Transatlantic America. He has now dived in deeply out of his depth, suggesting that the characters are early alphabetic letters; he thinks he can find versions of  A, L, O, and K, but he can not identify any words.

[3] Tuba tubular amulets with proto-syllabic writing

    A would not be the vowel a, but rather 'Alep/Alpha (glottal stop in Semitic) and represented by the head of an ox, still visible to us today if the A is inverted; he must be referring to the glyph in the middle of the second piece; in his 2010 drawing he omitted the clear vertical stroke, and included the faint horizontal line at the top, to produce a vaguely bovine head; no, it is not a short-horned bull, but probably WA (waw, a hook or nail) and that is certainly carried over from the proto-syllabary into the the proto-consonantary (the early alphabet) as W.
    O would be `Ayin, an eye, which certainly appeared in the Phoenician alphabet as a circle (sometimes with a central dot), in the Iron Age, and went vocalic as O in the international alphabet; but the circle (with or without the dot that is present here) was the sun in the Bronze Age, standing for the syllable SHI and the consonant Sh (from shimsh "sun").
    must be at the right end of the top piece, but I take that to be `U, `Ayin plus U; or else the curved line at the left end of the bottom fragment, but that is NI, a tusk, which was surplus to requirements in the proto-alphabet, and the snake that was NA and which became simple N is at the end of the lower piece; at the start of the top fragment is a bee (nubtu > NU) every scribe struggled with drawing this character, and there was no standard form; and when the consonantal alphabet was constructed, the snake (NA) told the bee (NU)  to buzz off, and take the tusked elephant (NI) with her. Hey, it's a jungle out there, and a jungle book in here. This knowledge is for children, too, so I am reaching out to them, trusting them to pass it on to their elders.
    K.  Yes.  OK. That tripodic figure is KA (actually three fingers of a hand, apparently, or think of it as a thumb with the four fingers in a V-form, or the three main fingers shown with the thumb and fourth finger embracing behind), and by sleight of hand it slipped into the alphabet as K; we will meet it again in an early alphabetic inscription from Thebes; but the story of the letter K is complicated.
   In case you have missed my point, I am arguing that Schwartz has no idea how he should interpret these early examples of West Semitic writing; but you may also detect uncertainty in my identifications for the characters.

[3] Tuba tubular amulets

   What have we overlooked? There is one more letter awaiting our attention at the end of fragment 1, and a portion of something at the broken end of fragment 2. The latter sign is difficult to discern
   HI could easily go unnoticed (to my eternal shame I overlooked it in my early research on these texts); we focus on the end of the top piece and see a reversed E; this syllabogram is indeed the ultimate origin of E (Epsilon not Eta); the middle stroke has a short extension that might well be complemented by the short stroke on the small piece, pictured below, on the recapitulation of Photo 2; in any case, the other end of this stem seems to have a circle, for a head, and the whole character represents a person in jubilation (hillul, as in Halleluyah).
   The other mysterious marking may in fact be complete; thus a curved line with two crossbars can be GU (gupnu "vine"); the word gu means "voice", which would be reminiscent of the term "true of voice" for deceased persons who have passed the judgement of the heart and gained entry to the realm of Osiris, the god of resurrection. A circle with one crossbar at the top of the stem would be Egyptian `Ankh, a symbol of life (the top vertebra of a bull) and produce H.I (h.iwatu "life"). A circle with two crossbars on its stem is the nefer symbol of goodness and beauty, which combines with Semitic t.abu ("good") to render syllabic T.A and alphabetic T. (and finally Theta). We could break our bee (NU) into two pieces, and discover `Ankh.  It so happens that these two logograms denoting "good" and "life" appear in another proto-syllabic inscription (mistakenly published as early alphabetic) on an amulet against sickness, from Egypt.
   NA. We now need to scrutinize the two serpents at the end of each NIKAWANA sequence (see the photographs below). There is no doubt that the snake (NA) passed into the alphabet to act as the letter N (note that the head is on the right side in Roman N); in the proto-alphabet the snake for N could be a reposing cobra (Egyptian hieroglyph I10) or a prone viper (I9), but the syllabary preferred the erect cobra (I12); and that is what we are looking at here; examining the tail of each serpent, we see that it is not flat on the ground but has a curve or an angle (as in the hieroglyph); this feature occurs consistently in the Byblos syllabic texts (though I have not made this detail clear on my various tables). We need to grasp this rearing reptile by the tail and hold on to it till the very end; this is the key component in my argumentation. Of course, you can steer off course and look fore or aft at the Lakish sherd and see my sneaky snaky point, and expend no more energy on this journey.
   Here I need to say that my readings are tentative, according to the Colless principle that the only person who knows the intended meaning of an inscription is the person who wrote it. Accordingly we can commiserate with Glenn Schwartz as he attempts to make sense of  his great discoveries; but these texts are early syllabic not earliest alphabetic; he was arguing from the wrong premiss (like the two women in their respective apartments shouting at each other across their alley; a passing philosopher observed that they could never agree because they were arguing from different premises). I intend to prove to you that my premiss is the right one in this case.

[2] Tuba tubular amulets
 Top left: nu-shi-`u, "saved"
Bottom left and top right: ni-ka-wa-na, "established"

Glenn Schwartz could not identify any words in these markings. You want woids? How about this pleasant plethora of verbose verbiage. Imagine the triumphant headline: "Oldest missing link for the Semitic root that gave us the name Jesus found on an ancient lucky charm for salvation and resurrection in a luxurious élite tomb in war-torn Syria is a potential game changer".
   In this regard, Glenn thinks his artefacts could be amulets, and I would support this idea; and the two words I have detected (nu-shi-`u, "saved"and ni-ka-wa-na, "established") seem appropriate to dead people undergoing judgement before entering the next world. This could mean that the three occupants of the tomb were believers in the Egyptian view of the afterlife, and their minuscule documents were equivalent to the Book of the Dead that an Egyptian man or woman carried with them into the judgement hall. As I see it, the man, woman, and child were comfortably installed in their resting place, with plenty of pots providing sustenance for their sojourn, and a spear to protect them; subsequently their tomb became a crime scene: they were victims of posthumous murder!
   The grave was a double square rectangle, with the north and south walls twice as long as the west and east sides. The male body was centered at the west wall, right next to a collection of unbroken pots in the northwest corner. The female bones were in the corner of the west and south walls, and her jewelry was still there, suggesting that robbery was not the foremost motive in the mind of the tomb-raider. The child's body was further down the south wall. This arrangement could imply that they were all headed westwards, to a paradise. There is a line of three smashed pots, running SE from the NW corner, and the four cylinder fragments were found in their vicinity. If these were talismans, threaded on a string, they could have been on the bodies, and the destroyer tore them away and shattered them, in the belief that these tickets to eternity would now be inválid; but they could conceivably have been strung around the three broken jars, which contained the most important organ of each person, namely the heart; the placing of the heart in a vessel is in accordance with Egyptian funeral customs; it was not the brain that would be judged, but the heart, because it contained the memory, and the record of the person's actions and experiences in life would be recorded on the tablets of the heart (learned by heart, as the saying still goes).
   Further discussion on the identification of the characters is given elsewhere: my 2007 recognition of the script on these cylindrical objects has now been updated here:
This assessment is reported in my article on "The origin of the alphabet" in Antiguo Oriente 12, 71-104, Colless 2014:78, n. 22), and "The Mediterranean Diet in Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions", Damqatum 12, 3-19, Collesss 2016:4-5); so it has been published in academic journals, and both articles are available at:

[3] Tuba tubular amulets

  Yes, the Umm el-Marra/Tuba texts can be confidently regarded as the oldest-known West Semitic inscriptions written in a West Semitic script, but it is the proto-syllabary not the proto-consonantary. Christopher Rollston is quite wrong in asserting that these Tuba inscriptions are "Early Alphabetic".     
   To bolster his case for  widespread employment of the alphabet, Rollston  presents a list of "Early Alphabetic" inscriptions, which is actually an unsorted jumble of four different categories of syllabic and consonantal texts (it is reproduced and rearranged at the end of this essay). I think it is scandalous that the people who work professionally in this field can allow themselves to ignore the so-called Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic syllabary (the West Semitic proto-syllabary); sadly, it amounts to an undeclared and unintended conspiracy, and it must be recognized and remedied.

   Now, before we study the new Lakish inscription, let me lay down the foundations again. The first basic thing is that I do not believe anything. Why? because all human knowledge is tentative (merely a messy mass of attempts to make sense of all the phenomena around us), and provisional (with multiple provisos attached to it, open to alteration by new evidence and fresh insights). However, I give a large amount of credence to my theory of the origin of the alphabet; and I am encouraged by the number of people who are  looking at my essay on the subject, in these two places:

     I weep with Cassandra. "When will they ever learn?" Complicated writing systems with hundreds of characters (such as Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic) have been successfully deciphered; but the simple little proto-alphabet is ravaged by all who lay hands on her; and her mother the proto-syllabary is not difficult to deal with, and yet she is shunned.  Such a state of affairs is disconcerting and disgraceful, and all my efforts to remedy it have failed, it would seem. My credentials are derived from eighty years of wrestling with the writing systems of humankind, starting with the most intractable of them all: English alphabetic orthography.
    This is an opportunity for me to expound my ideas and discoveries relating to the evolution of the alphabet, comprehensively but concisely. These are the facts (tentative, but tenable, not tenuous):
the West Semitic syllabary, alias the proto-syllabary, was the predecessor and progenitor and companion of the consonantal alphabet; and this non-syllabic pictorial alphabet engendered two more consonantaries and another syllabary; one outcrop of these, the Phoenician consonantary, provided the resources for the construction of the Greco-Roman alphabet.

Rollston kindly gives us the chronological dates and data: the Tuba script (recognizable to me as the proto-syllabary) is Early Bronze Age (more precisely the 24th Century BCE, in the Old Kingdom period of Egypt); and the early alphabet (Sinai, and Egypt) is Middle Bronze Age (possibly 19th Century BCE, Egyptian Middle Kingdom period). This shows that the proto-syllabary preceded the proto-consonantary (the proto-alphabet); but it did not predecease it.

The proto-syllabary was not only the predecessor of the alphabet, but also its procreator; the number of genes or graphemes that they share proves their common lineage, and even parentage on the part of the forerunner. First notice that the proto-syllabary (according to my research calculations) has signs representing slightly less than two dozen (XXIV) consonants, apparently twenty-two (XXII), which is the same number as in the later consonantary (the Phoenician alphabet, from which the Greco-Roman alphabet was fashioned), whereas the proto-alphabet has slightly more than two dozen consonants (XXVII at least). Focusing on the Phoenician alphabet (which developed out of the proto-alphabet), we can see that most of its twenty-two consonantal graphemes (consonantograms) already functioned as syllabic signs (syllabograms) in the West Semitic proto-syllabary; additionally, the gestation of the proto-consonantary (proto-alphabet, with twenty-seven consonants) involved creation of some new "members" on the body (namely D, H, T,
G, Z.).

The two genetically related systems operated side by side; the syllabary did not die in giving birth to the consonantary. The mother and the daughter traveled together over lands and seas, in the 2nd Millennium BCE (Middle and Late Bronze Ages): they both left their traces in Egypt,
Sinai, Canaan, and Scandinavia; and also in the ancient trans-Atlantic continent (Texas, for example) and islands (Jamaica), and notably Puerto Rico, where we find figurines with proto-syllabic and proto-alphabetic inscriptions, and a plaque exhibiting the letters of the proto-alphabet. (Rollston had been consulted about the marks on the figurines, but he did not notice their significance.)


[4] Puerto Rico figurines

Left figurine: 9 syllabograms of consonants `Ayin, H, T
(note crucifix-cross for a T- syllable,
and the 9-shaped HA, temple, which I promised)
Right figurine: The sun-sign Sh stands in the centre
(2 serpents guarding the disc)

Incidentally, it has now been proved that Mediteranean ships could have crossed the ocean to the Americas.
This fellowship of syllabary and consonantary can also be observed at a silver mine in Norway.
  The largest collection of proto-consonantary inscriptions is at the Sinai turquoise mines (Colless 1990).

Three new related systems came into existence, not simply by evolution but through human intervention; I classify them with these technical terms:
neo-consonantary, a shorter consonantal alphabet;
cuneo-consonantary, a cuneiform alphabet, with characters made up of wedge-shaped components;
(3) neo-syllabary, a syllabary constructed from the letters of the neo-consonantary.

(1) First came the neo-consonantary: the pictorial characters became stylized, and the number of letters was reduced; the resulting short alphabet (neo-consonantary) can be distinguished from the long alphabet (proto-consonantary) by the presence of any of the five additional consonantograms listed above, especially >ooo (H), and = (D); at the same time, if we find in the text
a word that originally had H (for instance) but has (example: h.wh. "hole" in Hebrew, but with h in Arabic) then we have an indication of the short alphabet. By the same token, if any of these three additional proto-alphabet signs (= D, >ooo H --|) Z.) appear in a text, then it could not be proto-syllabic, because those consonants are not recorded in the syllabary; the breast sign (\/\/) is an exception, because it functions as SHA (from thad / shad, "breast") in the proto-syllabary, but it is T (Th only) in the proto-consonantary, and then it covers Shin (Sh/Th) in the neo-consonantary (the short alphabet); and the proto-consonantogram G (ghanab, "grape") is a vine-stand, but acts as a T- syllabogram in the proto-syllabary. These are some of the complications of categorizing West Semitic inscriptions, when a  new example comes to our attention. "Early Alphabet" monomania prevents other practitioners from following these proper procedures.

(2) The cuneiform alphabet (cuneo-consonantary) was invented in the Late Bronze Age, modeled on the characters of the proto-alphabet, and it likewise had long and short versions. We have much more evidence of this West Semitic system (most of it from Ugarit), because its clay tablets were less perishable than parchment and papyrus.

[5] Cuneiform consonantary             

               'A B G Kh D H W Z H. T. Y K Sh L
                M Dh N Z. S ` P S. Q R Th
                Gh T 'i 'u `S  
I have a facsimile of this object, purchased at the museum in Damascus, many years ago. Let me demonstrate briefly my idea that the inventor of this partly syllabic cuneiform consonantary (!) tried to represent the pictophonograms of the proto-consonantary with wedge-shaped (cuneiform) components: B a square house constructed with four wedges; G a throwstick, and early versions showed the angle at the top clearly; H (Kh) has the three loops of the hank of thread; D a door, apparently with its post at the bottom; H has the arms and head, but not the body, as with its descendant E; W is a hook; Z has its two triangles represented;,, and Sh have a small wedge on an angle, denoting a circle, and representing the round courtyard of H.; the heart in the nfr/t.ab symbol of beauty (+o); the sun-disc with a serpent or two; Q also has a circle, being a cord wound on a string (--o<); T (+) is a cross, but has only one wedge; the Samek spine-sign (-|-|-|) is clearly represented at the end.

 (3) Another innovation was the neo-syllabary: the alphabetic letters were used as syllabograms, with three syllables (-a, -i, -u) for each consonant, as in the proto-syllabary (and there is a partial analogy in the cuneo-consonantary with its three characters for 'Alep representing these three vowels); generally speaking, the various syllables for each consonant were marked by a change in stance or shape for the usual character. This time the roles have been reversed: a consonantary engenders a syllabary.

[6] Izbet Sartah (Ebenezer) neo-syllabic ostracon  

Pictured is the amazing ostracon from Izbet Sartah, ancient Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4:1); the scribe is demonstrating how the new syllabary works; the alphabet at the bottom is apparently intended to exhibit the syllables with the vowel -a ('a, ba, ga, da etc.); the text shows the letters in different stances ('Alep in line 1, Taw [+ x] in line 2 and elsewhere); he uses signs as logograms: example, the `Ayin early in line 2, a dotted circle, represents the word `ayin, "eye".; the `Ayin at the end of the first line says "see", as an ideogram. "I am learning the signs; I see that the eye gives the breath of a sign to the ear through a stylus on clay..." See the full presentation at the collesseum website.
   Again, the new syllabary and the new consonantary operated together. This is conveniently demonstrated in the two inscriptions from  Shaaraim (Khirbet Qeiyafa, Sha`arayim, 'dual gates", the two-gated fortress overlooking the Elah Valley, where David confronted Goliath): the Qeiyafa ostracon is syllabic; it is an oracle from Yahu concerning David's defeat of the `anaq Guliyut; we finally have inscriptional evidence for David from his own lifetime, as "the servant of Elohim", though this is before he became King David; the legend on the Qeiyafa jar is consonantal; it includes the name Eshbaal, a son of King Saul; he eventually became King of Israel, but he was presumably the governor who lived in the palace in this military base. A remarkable feature of this pair of texts is that the -i syllabograms (examples: BI, GI, DI) usuually have the same forms as the corresponding consonantograms in the  Phoenician consonantary, but the Eshbaal inscription does not employ any of these.
   Examples of all five of these early West Semitic varieties could be lurking in the ruins of Lakish (Tel Lachish), and we will  test this idea when we come to examine the new sherd from that city.

[7] Thebes inscriptions
Meanwhile, here is another example of the togetherness of the proto-syllabary and the proto-consonantary:  six inscribed pieces of stone from Thebes in southern Egypt (the top two are only peeping into the picture, but they will not be overlooked). They were published in a book on The Formation of the Alphabet by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1912, and are of immense significance; and yet they have been ignored by the academicians in this field of endeavour. The two tablets in the middle and the one above them actually display all the letters of the proto-alphabet, and they are studied in detail here.
   Above left is an important proto-alphabetic inscription, which has much to teach us; it would be upside down if I had included it in this photograph, though actually it was the only one of the six that was right way up in Petrie's published photograph, as the frontispiece of his book; all the others were unwittingly inverted.

[8] Thebes proto-consonantal inscription
 Notice the D sign (=) at the end of the line (running from left to right), which indicates that this is the long proto-alphabet (proto-consonantary); its counterpart Z (which will eventually swallow it up, in the short alphabet) is the second sign (double triangle with the three strokes of Greco-Roman Z hiding in them); the mouth-sign above the D is functioning as P, a truth that is ever denied in favour of an angle-sign, which  is really a boomerang, representing G; the obvious Q (--o-) is in evidence, but goes unrecognized in other accounts of the early alphabet, because the bag-sign for Sadey is wrongly identified as Q. All this may be news to you, but I wish to reassure you that this is not false information, and it displays the chaos that prevails in "Early Alphabetic" research. Another major error on the standard alphabetic charts is the equating of the fish-sign as D (hypothetically from dag "fish") whereas it is S (samk "fish"); the door-signs (for D, which still shows it is a picture of a door) are wrongly identified as the letter, and the true is mistakenly classified as a variant of B. The falling domino effect goes even further than this, and so the upholders of this broken cistern-system can not flush out its impurities and read the inscriptions. This text actually speaks of refining metal: LZQQT.KPD; the doubling of the Q is achieved by the two dots above it; there are other examples of doubling dots in the proto-alphabetic literature, but you will not read about this in the academic manuals on the subject; the Q would be puzzling to the establishmentarians, as it is a discovery I have made, and they have ignored or dismissed it,  even though the South Arabian alphabet (an obvious descendant of the proto-consonantary, but we will set it aside for the most part in this discussion) has this same form for its Q, and our Q/q still shows its origin: it was a cord wound on a stick, qaw, "line", with its own Egyptian hieroglyph to confirm that ancient and modern builders alike use this instrument (though in my lifetime the string is wound on a flat pencil); as already intimated, the standard (but wrong) sign for Q on charts of the early alphabet is a tied bag (unrecognized as such) for the letter S.adey (S., emphatic S). The next letter in the text is the Egyptian nefer symbol, signifying "good and beautiful", and it was amalgamated with Semitic t.abu (good)  for T.A in the proto-syllabary (see the following inscription from the same bunch) and T. ( in the proto-alphabet; it became Theta, eventually; here it might be a logogram; the expected crossbar (o-|-) is not clearly evident; so it could be W. The K is patently obvious, and we can see how it will develop into the form K. The word PD means "fine gold". My literal interpretation would be: "To (l) refine (zqq) good (t.ab) as (k) gold (pd)".
   It so happens that a similar statement has been found in a syllabic inscription at a silver mine at Kongsberg in Norway.

[9] Kongsberg silver mine proto-syllabic inscription  
The text runs left to right: LA HU ZA QA QI "To be refined"

   Again we encounter the root zqq "refine" (compare Hebrew nip`al or hop`al infinitive). The last sign is new to me; I am presuming it is a wall, qir, hence QI. The ZA is an animal tail (zanab) which usually has a bend at the end, as we shall see; the HU is from hudmu "footstool"(also the second sign in the Thebes inscription below). The first syllabogram is very important; it looks like a snake but it is a somewhat deformed version of the Egyptian hieroglyph for "night", and Semitic layl gives the syllable LA; note that it has a horizontal bar at the top; if you want to jump ahead, you can see examples on the two proto-syllabic inscriptions from Lakish; it is an important indicator of the syllabary.

   Let us put my derailed train of thought back on its track. (Notice the railway lines that the scribe of this inscription has laid for his train of syllable wagons to run along.)

[10] Thebes proto-syllabic inscription

In this fabulous collection of a half-dozen gems from southern Egypt, the odd one out is the proto-syllabic inscription at the bottom of the composite picture (originally published at the top, and unwittingly inverted, but reproduced here clearly and correctly).  

[11] Thebes inscriptions
 The small one beside it  is apparently consonantal;  at its centre, at the end of a line of writing, it has a door sign (a rectangle with a doorpost, the same as the letter Dalet on the Lakish sherd) which would say D /d/; the accompanying syllabic inscription (running from left to right) also has a door-sign, with two panels, and as a syllabogram it would say DA (from dalt "door", Greek Delta). The alphabetic tablet apparently has (at the start of its "D for door" line) a D (=); if so. this should indicate that it is neither proto-syllabic nor neo-consonantal, but proto-consonantal, since that sign was not in the Byblos repertoire, though I have seen it in one inscription functioning as ZA; the usual ZA is an animal's tail, as on the Lahun Heddle Jack, and in the silver-mine inscription (above).  If the inscription is proto-consonantal the 3-shaped letter beneath the door would be Th (thad "breast"), which becomes Sh in the neo-consonantary, and ultimately Greek Sigma and Roman S. The consonantal sign for Sh was the sun (shimsh "sun"), and it represented SHI in the syllabary, while the breast was SHA. The sun-sign was basically a circle, sometimes with a dot in the centre, or with one or two protective serpents, as in the accompanying syllabic inscription. For the alphabet, the widely held origin of Th/Sh is a "composite bow" (from an imagined word *tann), a wild guess, but it contrives to shoot arrows of error all over the landscape.  Actually, the shimsh-sign (with serpent or serpents but no sun-disc) is probably holding sway in the top right corner.  If we go back to Photograph 7, and inspect the middle right tablet, we will find Thad (lower centre) and Shimsh (far right); they are very similar in appearance, but still distinguishable.
   Incidentally, on the spatula tablet, to the right of the D is a 3 with an extra peak, representing three water-waves; this is the letter M. I confess I can not read this
text, and I am uncertain about its classification, whether syllabic or consonantal, but I suspect the D is a logogram for "door" (as also on its accompanying proto-syllabic tablet, where the Dalt has two door panels).
   An apposite aside: with regard to his tiny artefacts, Glenn Schwartz observes that “given the small number of sign values attested, it is difficult to ascertain whether the system was logographic, syllabic, alphabetic, or a combination of these” (Schwartz 2021, 258). The same cautionary remark could apply to our new Lakish sherd.  However, the important point is the possibility of "a combination" of functions for an ancient writing system. The art of writing began with logograms (or we might say pictologograms for the earliest examples): the character expressed the word (in any language) that the sign depicted; then the sounds of the word could be used as syllabograms (single or multiple syllables) to represent the sounds of other words. When the acrophonic principle was put into service, in the new and original West Semitic syllabary and consonantary, the sign would represent the first syllable of the pictured word, or the first consonant. It is not generally accepted, but my contention is that the proto-syllabary and the proto-consonantary retained the older functions alongside their acrophonic roles; for example, a snake-sign can say NA in the proto-syllabary, or N in the proto-alphabet, but in either system it can represent the full word NAKhASh  ("snake"), and even stand for a word with the same sounds, in this case "copper".

[10] Thebes proto-syllabic inscription

   Gazing again at our syllabic inscription from Thebes, I propose that the door-sign is here acting as a logogram and so it says DALTU ('door") followed by the sign for HU (hudmu "footstool"), hence "his/its door".
   The next grapheme is possibly WI (apparently a copper ingot, connected not with the NKhSh word mentioned above, but with East Semitic weru "copper"); this might be a logogram, and the sentence is stating that "its door is copper", and it may be referring to a temple or tomb in the Valley of the Kings; presumably the six inscriptions were produced there by West Semitic workers in the Late Bronze Age.

   The next syllabogram depicts a rainstorm (Hebrew h.aziz), hence H.A.

   Thereafter, a very important character, a symbol of the sun with two serpents, standing for ShIMSh "sun", and the syllable ShI; this is also a feature of the proto-consonantary, as Sh, though the sun-disc is usually omitted there; the disc can stand alone, or with one serpent, or with two (as here).

   A problematic triangular glyph follows: I suggest DU, from DUDU "jar". The sequence H.AShIDU  does not lend itself to an easy resolution; given that the preceding ingot stands for copper, H.AShI mighr be a phonetic complement to make it clear that the word for copper (see the sentence above the illustration) is to be supplied, while DU is a relative pronoun (also DU and ZU in Semitic languages), resulting in "Its door is of copper that is orange-coloured (TRG, the next sequence of signs). However, if we compare
H.AShIDU with Hebrew H.ASID, "pious", and consider its connotations of "faithful" and "loyal", then we might contemplate "genuine copper"; but the idea of "solidarity" in Hebrew H.ESED, and the Arabic verb H.AShADA, "gather together, mass, concentrate" might support "solid copper" (rather than timber covered in copper sheeting).
   Then we see a pair of musical semiquavers, but this is the grapevine Taw (TA or TU?) that we saw on a Puerto Rico figurine earlier. The next glyph is a bird, a vulture, RU, which we will meet again at Lakish. Then a throwstick, with an acute angle, GA (there is one of these on the new Lakish sherd). 

   We now have the root trg, which refers to citrus, and the colour orange. Josephus (Jewish War 5.5.3) likewise describes the gates of the Jerusalem Temple, plated with gold and silver, and one of Corinthian khalkos (copper, brass). One possible interpretation would thus be: "Its door is solid/genuine orange copper".

   Moving on to the remaining two letters, whose sequence is unsure, but the rectangular sign is one of the indicators of the proto-syllabary, representing an altar, MIZBAH.U, for the syllable MI; the circular character is apparently the Egyptian nfr glyph (o-||-), used for Semitic T.ABU (good), and the syllabogram T.A, and the consonantogram T.; as ever, only the writer knew what it all meant; it might say "a fine altar" or "the altar is fine" (though the adjective should have a final t to mark the feminine gender); if t.ami is equivalent to Hebrew t.ame', then the copper door is "unclean"; or we retain "good" for the copper or the door, and MI is "from" (as with Corinth in the Josephus text) and assume that the name of the place has been washed away, and it could have said Alashiya (Cyprus) or Tarshish (Tartessos in Spain?). If we allowed the GA to be united with the MI, we would have a word for papyrus (I have seen an inscription with this combination, GAMI; cp. Hebrew gome`). Or could Hebrew gam "also" be invoked, saying "also good".

   Where are we? That was a test for the Mendenhall-Colless decipherment of the West Semitic syllabic script, with my additional praxis of looking for logograms; in the absence of the person who wrote the message long ago I can not verify my multifarious interpretation, but the characters are certainly recognizable as belonging to the proto-syllabary.

   At the same time it was a presentation of my typology of four categories of (non-cuneiform) West Semitic scripts, and their developments, in the Bronze Age (before 1200 BCE) and the Iron Age (after 1200 BCE):

[1] PROTO-SYLLABARY (Early Bronze to Early Iron) acro-picto-phonograms > syllabograms; also logograms, rebograms
[2] PROTO-CONSONANTARY (Middle Bronze to Late Bronze)
acro-picto-phonograms >  consonantograms; also logograms, rebograms
[3] NEO-CONSONANTARY (Late Bronze to Early Iron) reduced number of consonantograms; also logograms, rebograms

[4] NEO-SYLLABARY (Early Iron) neo-consonantal signs adapted to produce a syllabary, including the three vowels -u, -a, -i;
also logograms, rebograms

Before I continue with this presentation of my own system, focusing on the wealth of material from Lakish, we should consider the failings of my learned colleagues seated on the other side of the House,  and ask what the loyal opposition in this parliament of unintentional fools is saying about the same material. Their deficiency is simply that they are all exponents of "die althebräische (or more grammatically der althebräischen) Grammatik", relating to the Iron Age; they innocently apply the principles that they follow in that field to the complex area of Bronze-Age West-Semitic scripts; consequently and ineluctably they experience infelicitous failure; though they are blithely unaware of their lack of success as they bathe in the bliss of ignorance. I can speak in this judgemental way because I know I have a considerable modicum of support for my position, but scepticism towards it is rife, as befalls every new paradigm in science (in my case we could say 'articultural science').
   Gordon Hamilton has been productively prolific in publishing studies on West Semitic inscriptions of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, notably in his book The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts (2006), and in his essay on Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts, in An Eye For Form (F. M. Cross
Festschrift, 2014). Additionally, Gordon has enriched the field by bringing many early West Semitic inscriptions to light, with photographs, especially of those that Flinders Petrie published with only drawings (Lahun heddle jack, Ajjul spouted cup); but he has overlooked the six immensely important documents from Thebes (highlighted here), which would force him to rethink some of his erroneous ideas; the two abgadaries in that collection should have been the starting point and foundation of his Harvard thesis, but he simply asserts the identity of each proto-alphabetic letter according to the tradition laid down by W. F. Albright (which was to some extent based on guesswork), as transmitted by F. M. Cross, supervisor of the thesis, though GJH insists he had differences of opinion with FMC; but he has certainly departed from the scheme offered by Romain F. Butin (to whom Hamilton's book is reverently dedicated), the foundation on which my system is built.  For my part, I can honestly say that Hamilton does cite my publications scrupulously in his book, though he apparently does not believe what I am saying; but he has no place for me in his chronology article, and that is understandable, because I have not yet published my ideas on dating-criteria for early alphabetic inscriptions.
   The approximate dates that Hamilton assigns to the Sinai inscriptions are generally helpful; in his book (Chapter 3.III) he rightly divides the corpus among three periods; we both agree that it is not a question of either Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom, but both MK and NK.  In his palaeograhical essay, he sets up three Early Alphabetic periods:
 A (c. 1900 - 1400 BCE), B  (c. 1400 - 950), C (c. 1050 - after 900).
   However,  he is unable to recognize syllabic inscriptions and valiantly jousts with them to unseat them from their rightful status; then he forces them to falsely confess, consonantally and not syllabically; three examples of proto-syllabic texts that have been tortured with his inquisitional instruments are: Lahun heddle jackRifeh amulet, Megiddo gold ring.  

 [12a] Lahun heddle jack
     Here is the heddle jack, from Egypt (Middle Kingdom); it is pictured on the far left of the drawing (please ignore the oversized letter I have drawn on it); Hamilton's consonantal reading is at the bottom; the D seems secure, since we have seen that door elsewhere in Egypt (in a syllabic inscription, 10); the oval sign in the middle is taken to be an eye, hence `ayin, but I prefer it as a mouth, hence P (or PU), but Hamilton has formulated a firm law that there is no mouth-sign in the alphabet (we refuted that earlier, in the Thebes inscriptions); the character on the far right certainly looks like a bovine head, hence 'alep, but another choice is available. 
 [12b] Lahun heddle jack
 From this perspective the supposed 'Alep ox-head becomes an eye, viewed from the side to show the white (LUBNU > LU); the presumed B (a wide-open house, and closer to the modern Hebrew Bet than any example from the Bronze Age) is an animal's tail (ZANABU > ZA), and we saw a curtailed version of that at the silver mine in Norway [9]; the cross  (taw) has to be T- (but I am uncertain whether it is TU or TA). As a West Semitic syllabic text, it reads:
Using a West Semitic (Hebrew) dictionary I can forcefully extract a meaning such as this: 
   "This (ZA) is a weaving (DALU) instrument (TUPU)"
Applying vocabulary from an East Semitic lexicon, I can offer:
    "This (ZA) tiny (TAPU) partner (DALU)  (of mine)"
Both are attractive interpretations, but it seems that we need to be seeking other possibilities.
Further details here:
    Analysing the data in this inscription, we see three graphemes that could be either syllabic or consonantal (door D, mouth P, cross T), and two distinctly syllabic characters (white of eye LU, tail ZA) which verify the syllabic nature of the text. When we examine the new Lakish sherd we will need to employ this kind of analysis. 

Megiddo gold ring    
The Megiddo signet ring is one of the “tripods” (a term used for the documents that confirmed the Ventris decipherment of the Cretan Linear B syllabic script) that authenticate the Mendenhall-Colless decipherment of the West Semitic proto-syllabary:
“Sealed (nu-h.u-ta-ma) the sceptre (shubt.u, logogram) of (sha) Megiddo (magaduda).
Of the ten graphemes in this text, only three (SHA =Th/Sh, GA=G, DA=D) can be construed as consonantal. Nevertheless, Hamilton twists it out of shape, then melts it in his fiery crucible, and turns its syllabic and logographic gold into consonantal dross. 
 Examples of the various types of scripts,  from Tel Lachish

Our new Lakish inscription may not have enough graphemes for us to classify it definitively, but the ruin-mound of the city has provided several examples of the script categories, which may assist us in our quest.

 (1) The proto-syllabary 

Here are two more inscriptions on sherds from Lakish (written in ink); they were published in the journal Tel Aviv 3 (1976) 107-108, 109-110, and Plate 5. Both objects were found in Palace A in 1973. They each include letters that are known to me as exclusively proto-syllabic, together with signs that could be syllabic or consonantal. Many years ago my son Michael in Sydney made me a photocopy of these articles, thinking they might be useful to me, and they have languished ever since in an unstudied state, but have now miraculously and serendipitously revealed themselves at exactly the right time.

[13] A proto-syllabic inscription from Lakish
the pentagonal sherd

[14] A second proto-syllabic inscription from Lakish
the triangular sherd

   The inscription on the pentagonal bowl-fragment was studied by Mordechai Gilula, who thought it was "Egyptian hieratic", comparable to examples from the 19th and 20th Dynasties, and in line with Ramesside inscriptions found in Lakish.

[13] Lakish pentagonal sherd
The top line was read confidently as "Tenth regnal year"; the supposed number 10 sign is at the right end of the line; it is a truncated oval (without a base), but here its right-hand side is admittedly not complete; it so happens that this symbol has a place in the proto-syllabary as `U (from `ushru "ten, tithe"); looking closely at its remains here, it seems to have a crossbar, producing a character like A, but with the angle rounded or flattened, and thus being an example of the M used to show mimation (-m) without a vowel at the end of words; or it is simply a small square, BA (from bayt "house") and it is in contact with the tail of the previous sign; if indeed we have a proto-syllabic text before us, then I would favour this interpretation, that this square represents the syllabogram BA; but it could be BU (reed), shaped like Roman F/f, and I will propose that the faded second sign in the line is also BU. 

] Lakish triangular sherd
The triangular sherd was examined by André Lemaire, who thought that the original pot and the letters belonged to the Iron Age, and he characterized it as a schoolboy's exercise, using letters of the alphabet; Y. Aharoni added an editor's note, questioning Lemaire's interpretation, and suggesting the presence of hieratic numerals (10+1) at the end of the top line. We can start with the first sign in the top line, on the left: it is an eye with three vertical strokes emanating from it, representing tears flowing; this is known to be the syllabogram BI (bikitu, 'weeping'); another one, apparently, stands at the end (right side) of the third line; and there is one in the middle of the top line of the pentagonal sherd

[9] Kongsberg  proto-syllabic inscription
Look again at the proto-syllabic inscription at the Kongsberg silver mine in Norway: the first letter in the left-to-right text is LA; we can find it as the first letter in the second line of the Lakish triangular sherd, and a more angular version in the upper line of the pentagonal sherd. This seems promising, as the LA-sign is distinctive, and it was not the prototype for alphabetic Lamed; it is a simplified form of the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol (N2) for "night", Semitic layl, hence LA. The next sign in the Scandinavia mine inscription is probably a misshapen HU (footstool), and I think it may have an angular counterpart in the bottom left corner of the square sherd; we also saw it on the syllabic inscription from Thebes (second on the left, reversed).
[10] Thebes proto-syllabic inscription
Comparing the signs on the Lakish pentagonal sherd: the bird-sign RU (eagle vulture) occurs between the grapes and the throw-stick at Thebes, and at the start of the first line of the Lakish inscription (left side).

[13] Lakish pentagonal sherd
Staying with this Lakish five-sided sherd, we may now attempt to read it as proto-syllabic. On the bottom line in the right-corner, there is a boomerang (GA from gamlu), as also in the Thebes text, in a different stance, in the top right corner; incidentally it is also among the letters on the new sherd from Lakish, but remember it can be GA in the syllabary and G in the consonantaries (and GI in the neo-syllabary). I suspect that the direction of writing has changed from dextrograde (L -> R) to sinistrograde (L <- R), that is, the boustrophedon (ploughing ox) manner. The next letter is a dotted circle with a squiggle attached; this might be NU (a bee, nubtu) or NA (a snake, like the cobra above it in the top line). This is followed by a cross (TU or TA) though the bar is short on the right-hand side); but it conforms to the prevailing style whereby the proto-syllabic cross has a long stem (as seen markedly on the figurine from Puerto Rico, [4]), while the proto-consonantal T has equal-length strokes (+). Finally, as mentioned earlier, we have, perchance, a very faint HU (footstool, hudmu). The sum total is either GANATUHU or GANUTUHU. Setting aside the HU ('his'), the choice before us is between GANAT and GANUT, which seem to correspond to Hebrew gannat ('garden') and gannot ('gardens'); my preference is for gannat ('singular number', gramatically speaking). In Bronze Age West Semitic, 'garden' could be gan (masculine gender) or gannat (feminine gender); in the proto-alphabetic inscriptions at the Sinai turquoise mines, the word GN (referring to a vegetable garden) occurs five times (; gan appears in association with the name Eden in the second chapter of the Hebrew Bible, you will recall, and a vegetable garden is mentioned in Deuteronomy 11:10; but this obvious entity generally remains unseen in the Sinai inscriptions, because everybody abandons Butin and follows Albright in reading P for the boomerang-sign, supposing it to be a 'corner'; this is one of the many fatal errors that lead to the false claim that the Sinai proto-alphabetic inscriptions are 'undeciphered'. Notice that the feminine form gannat (Numbers 24:6) has double n; it is possible that the dot in the head of the snake on this square sherd has the function of doubling the NA, and NANA would be read as nna, with the first -a not sounded, according to a rule about 'dead' vowels; we can see  instances of this in consonantal writing in Sinai texts, on the bilingual sphinx, for example; in the phrase M'HB B`LT ('beloved of Baalat') only one B is written (as a square, representing a house) but it has a doubling dot at its centre.

[13] Lakish pentagonal sherd
Now, for the top line we have tentatively established (reading from the left) the syllables RU (vulture), BU (reed), LA (night), BI (weeping), NA (snake, with a head, and an angular tail); and PA (not quite the panu 'face' as known hundreds of years previously; at Byblos it was mostly a conjunction, 'and', and I suspect it has the same reference here); then BA (a square, clearer on the photocopy I have, but not certain). There is another faint letter, above the BI and the NA: it is YA, and looks remarkably like a Y, though it was not in the proto-alphabet; a clearer example stands in the middle of the second line on the triangular sherd. Whether the marks leading down to the bottom line are significant or not, the identified syllables could run in this sequence:
  Abundance (rubu) for (la) my son (binaya) and (pa) in (ba) his garden (gannatuhu
This reminds me of the little pieces of paper with prayers in Hebrew placed in the interstices of the Western Wall at the site of the Jerusalem temple; sherds were the equivalent of scrap paper in the olden days. This reading, although tentative, provides a clue for the interpretation of the triangular sherd, though the new rectangular sherd may not fit this pattern.
   Returning now to the triangular sherd, our task is made difficult by its murkiness. Another impediment is that there may be some syllabograms that were not attested in the Byblos texts, on which the Mendenhall-Colless decipherment is based; we certainly need to find such signs, but it is hard to discern even the characters we already know in this time-ravaged document.

   [14] Lakish triangular sherd
We begin at the fourth  line, which has three faded letters visible; but the previous lines begin (or end?) close to the left edge, and here the first presumed letter is barely detectable, though it may be a circle, SHI; next is a cross, T-;  then a snake, with the typical angular tail, NA; finally the weeping eye, like the one in the top left corner, BI; this latter combination gives us NABI, and this takes us to Lakish Letter 3 (Hebrew) in the period of the Babylonian invasion, where HNB' ('the prophet') is mentioned; note the 'Alep (glottal stop) at the end, and if this is essential we might have 'I ('iratu breast with nipple) beneath the snake, and below it possibly ZA (tail), thus producing "this prophet" (NABI' ZA), corresponding to "the prophet" in the cited military dispatch; above the proposed BI is (in line 2, or 3?) a possible 'U (a rodent head with ears, for 'uznu ear, and apparently also with eyes in this instance).  The SHI-TU could be compared to Hebrew sét or s'ét, with Sin not Shin, from the root NS', "lift", meaning "elevation, raising, lifting up, exaltation, majesty". The pentagonal sherd seems to be a prayer, and this may be an oracle delivered by a prophet; the Qeiyafa Ostracon belongs in this category, as a recorded utterance of a deity (Yahu Elohim).
   Does the second line suit the oracular genre? LA (night) DA (door) RA (head) YA: "to/for my circle, family, generation, dwelling"; but if the dot in the head is for doubling (rather than depicting an eye) , then this could say "for liberation" (Hebrew dror) with regard to slaves and captives. Another BI follows the YA, perhaps, and  then the 'U (ear); this sequence produces a possible verb, yabi'u, "brings" (root BW' "come"); the ink blob at the end of the line looks lihe a fish, which should not trespass into the proto-syllabary, but if we allow it, the preceding sign is a circle,  SHI (sun) and with the SA (fish) the root ShSS (plunder) emrges.
   Can the top line reveal a theme we can grasp? The first letter is the familiar  BI, (eye with three tears); next perhaps a dotted circle, SHI (sun), but it is more like a quadrilateral diamond figure, and thus H.U (h.udshu, new moon, or month), and this suggests that a date is being given; then we are confronted by a small square (BA, house?), but it has an upper part, making it as tall as the BI, and a dooor with two panels, denoting DA. At the midpoint of the line we have a mess of smudged letters requiring long consideration ....
   One line of thought would involve the direction of the writing: the letters on the pentagonal ostracon run from west to east and then change to the opposite orientation, and produce a garden (gannat) in the process; if we start from the east side in the SHI T- NA BI line of this triangular document, and fill the gap between BI and NAT- with a boomerang (an obtuse angle of joined dots), we now have another garden (GA-NA-T-); and leaping ahead, we can also find the sequence G-N-T (likewise from right to left) on the new Lakish sherd! Moreover, if the presumed circle is a logogram, giving us "Garden of the Sun", then we have a counterpart for this on a Sinai stele (Sinai 353), referring to a vegetable garden, where provisions for the daily rations could be gathered.     SINAI HORTICULTURE (353)
   On the other hand, if the combination is simply BI-NA-T-, "daughter", parallel to the "son" (bin) on the other ostracon, then the mysterious garden and the mystical prophet disappear. However, the possibility still remains that it is a prayer.
   Even if we do not succeed in detecting the writer's intention in this triangular text, we know that it is using the proto-syllabary by the presence of the BI syllabogram (weeping eye), as also on the pentagonal sherd; and both documents have the equally distinctive LA sign (night symbol). Therefore this syllabic script was definitely employed at Lakish, and all its inscriptions need to be tested for this benign virus.

(2) The proto-consonantary

[15] Lakish proto-consonantal dagger
S.R  NS Foe flee!
The Lakish Dagger
The photograph is not helpful (the lines of the letters are lost in the pockmarks on the metal) but my drawing matches that of Hamilton (2006: Fig A.59, 390-391), though I reject his reading of the first and last signs: he divides the first character in two, producing D (||) and L, but it is a tied bag (S.adey), the letter he usually interprets as Qop (209-221), and since this instance bears no resemblance to a monkey, he resorts to desperate and divisive measures; the human head is certainly R and the snake is N; but the last sign is not T, but a spinal-column Samek, with only two crossbars, as in the proto-syllabary. His interpretation is "This is Rnt's"; mine is "Foe flee!", suitable to the context of a protective weapon in a tomb, like the spear in the Tuba tomb (see above).
   Could it be proto-syllabic? R could be RA, and S could be SA; but the syllabic snake for NA is invariably the cobra, not the horned viper; and Sadey is not attested in the proto-syllabic texts at our disposal. On the other hand, the fish is the normal Samek in the Sinai proto-consonantal inscriptions, and the Samek with two crossbars is the prevalent form in the Byblos proto-syllabic texts; only the two monumental inscriptions (A, G) have the three-bar Samek, in a form that shows its origin in the Egyptian Djed hieroglyph (R11, spinal column); the three-stroke Samek first emerges on the Lakish jar sherd (2014), and it is unique in having no protrusion of its stem at either the bottom or the top (see Photo 18 below, with discussion); again it is uncertain whether this jar inscription is consonantal (neo-consonantary) or syllabic (neo-syllabary), and whether its Samek is simply S or SI; for the neo-syllabary, SA has been identified as a vertical fish with head downwards (Izbet Sartah ostracon), SU is the fish with head upwards (Qeiyafa ostracon, line 4), and we might expect a horizontal fish for SI, but since the characters in the standardised Phoenician alphabet usually correspond to their neo-syllabic -i counterpart, we might presume that --|-|-| (but vertical) would be SI; of course, if this Lakish jar had a neo-syllabic text, then we have found the missing SI, but this argument is going round in circles and that is a prohibited practice.
   Nevertheless, in seeking to solve this mystery of the non-identical Samek twins, we can point to places where they were together. 

 [5] Cuneiform consonantary
In this long version of the cuneiform consonantary, the Djed-pillar Samek appears at the end of the last line, and the fish sign (a combination of three vertical wedges) is above it (to the north-west); presumably they represent two separate sibilant sounds. On one of the Thebes abgadaries (see Photo 7, the smallest, top left)  there is a Djed-Samek (with two cross-strokes), and it has a fish below it.
   Returning to the Lakish dagger, if it is in fact proto-syllabic ( nas, Foe flee) then we have found the syllable S.A (tied bag) to add to the table of signs, which has nothing to show for that consonant. However, that lifelike human head is troublesome, since only stylized forms of heads are found in the Byblos proto-syllabic texts. Short inscriptions such as this, and the new Lakish sherd, always make our heads spin as we endeavour to categorize them, and to extract their meaning.

(3) The neo-consantary

As an example of the neo-consonantal category, this Lakish bowl can serve our purpose, in spite of its obliterations (Sass Fig. 165; Colless 1991, Fig. 05, and 36-38 for discussion).
[16] Lakish bowl
As I see it, the upper line runs from left to right (dextrograde), has a B (house with open entrance) and two instances of (divided rectangle, but without baseline); in second place is what appears to be an incomplete dotted circle, to be compared with the undotted example on the new Lakish sherd; this could be an `Ayin, but a combination H.`H. is not likely in a Semitic language. However, if it were the remains of  a Rosh (a human head with an eye, which has analogies in other inscriptions), a sequence H.RH.B would correspond nicely to HRHB, known at the Sinai turquoise mines as the patron-deity of a vegetable garden (Sinai 355 at Mine L), and at Ugarit as "king of summer (fruit)"; he may have been the male personifcation of the sun, since West Semitic shimsh and Ugaritic shapsh are grammatically feminine. This hint of solarity for this god is strengthened by my reading of the lower line, from (right to left. sinistrograde): BYS.'H W ShBH, "at his going forth and his returning"; this may have been a ritual object for the rising and setting of the sun. Questions could be asked about the S.adey (for original Z., but apparently it is S., a collapsed version of the bag seen on the Lakish Dagger, rather than Z., a sunshade) and the Shin (for original Th; Hebrew ShWB "return", but Arabic ThWB),  to  confirm (together with the H. for H) that this text  is employing the short alphabet, that is, the neo-consonantal script.

[17] Lakish inscriptions
   Other examples, from temples:
     Lakish ostracon (or Bowl 2, Sass Fig. 258; Colless, Fig. 06, 38-39)
     sh y  ` d r  l l l 
An offering of the flock to Lel (goddess of night)

    (Did the bowl contain blood from the sacrificed animal?)   
   Lakish ewer (Sass Fig. 156-160; Colless Fig. 07, 39)
    m t n : sh y [l r b] t y  ' l t
   A gift (or Mattan) : an offering to my lady Elat
   Are they syllabic? No, since they both have the Lamed that does not have a place in the proto-syllabary; likewise the Yod. So the next question will be: Is this the longer or shorter consonantary? If we focus on the word for offering, it is thought to have Th not Sh originally, though Richard Steiner disputes this; the problem is that in the neo-consonantary the Thad (breast) consonantogram has replaced the Shimsh (sun) sign, to represent both Th and Sh, and they look very much alike (if the solar disc is not included with the serpents);
but they were sometimes distinguished by the breast being depicted vertically; the four drawings of Lakish bowl inscriptions are apparently all using the short alphabet, and two have vertical Sh/Th, and two have a horizontal version. There is much debate over the point in time when these two sounds coalesced, and the change from long to short alphabet is brought in to the discussion, and fourteenth century BCE (for example) is proposed; but we need to remember that in the proto-syllabary (Early Bronze Age!) Sh and Th were not differentiated, so the breast said SHA and the sun was SHI; but more work needs to be done on the sibilants that were represented by Sh and S signs in the proto-syllabic texts (and we require many more documents to aid us in this research).
    Lakish bowl (Fig. 08 above), found in a tomb:
    b sh l sh t | y m | y r h.
On the third day of the month
   The reading of the first of the three sections (notice the two dividing strokes) is clear: it is the number 3 (written as a word), originally th l th t, but now sh l sh t, though it is the original Th sign representing it here, and so the evidence for long or short alphabet is ambiguous; but in this case the word yrh. (moon, month) assists us; its final consonant was etymologically H, but here it is H.;  this indicates the shorter consonantary.
   A more recent sherd arrived in 2014, again from a temple: its inscription had been engraved into the jar before firing;
This inscription is not proto-syllabic, though it might be neo-syllabic, but is probably neo-consonantal. It will be examined in the next section.

(4) The neo-syllabary

As far as I can see, no example of this form of writing (an offshoot of the neo-consonantary) has surfaced at Tel Lachish yet; the Izbet Sartah and Khirbet Qeiyafa ostraca have been mentioned above, as clearly exemplifying the neo-syllabary, manifested by the variations in stance and shape applied to the letters.
   Beth-Shemesh has an interesting and amusing sherd with a local version of this system.
   Note that I am constructing a table of signs (not ready for publication yet) with three columns, one for each of the three vowels (u a i), and to the right of the -i column  another three columns of later examples of the consonantal alphabet, showing that the -i syllabograms were usually the same as their consonantal counterparts (
for example, DI = D, triangular like Delta). I was able to complete the Shu Sha Shi row with additional assistance from the Qubur Walayda bowl; that town is thought to have been a Philistian settlement, and the fact that the inscription has Baal and El names may indicate that the Philistian immigrants were Semitic, but other explanations are conceivable.

[18] Lakish jar

Some consideration should be given to this jar from Lakish, to determine its category in my fourfold scheme. (For discussion of details, go to the two cited essays.) The jar and its inscription are dated to the 12th Century BCE, so it was more recent than the new 15th-century sherd; and the text was incised before the pot was fired, when the clay was "leather hard"; it explains the purpose of the vessel, I think ("for measuring 5 hekat"). Credit must go to Sass who suggested (p. 243b) that the signs in the bottom line could "stand for a numeral or a measure", and this was confirmed by William Schniedwind's daughter, and published by him.
   If it is interpreted as neo-syllabic, the text could be read thus:

   (1) PI KI LI (2) SI PI RI (3) h.q3t (Egyptian logogram) 5
   "Jar (pik) for (li) measuring (sipir) 5 hekat (of grain)"
Note that the word pîk for "jar" is found (by a slight emendation) in Job 33:6 (David Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew); the usual word is pak, "flask". All the supposed syllabograms seem to have the same vowel (-i), and this makes the syllabic reading suspect; we will encounter a similar situation when we scrutinize the new Lakish sherd; but it is strange and unfortunate that these two brief texts have no graphemes in common; and when we look for comparisons in the other Lakish inscriptions, the R that we desperately need here is L on Bowl 2 (Fig, 06 on Photo 17 above) standing next to a human head, which is obviously R; but here the L is the third letter (6 shaped), which could be neo-syllabic LA; and so on to infinity and eternity. We must remember that we are trying to decipher personal (idiosyncratic) handwriting.

Third proto-syllabic inscription from Lakish?
The oblong sherd

[1] Lakish rectangular sherd

The first question we must ask about the new Lakish inscription is this: Is its script the proto-syllabary, or the proto-consonantary, or the neo-consonantary, or the neo-syllabary? It is obviously not the cuneo-consonantary, the cuneiform alphabet, since there are no wedge-shaped (cuneiform) components in its characters (see Photo 5 above).
    Nobody else thinks this way when confronting a new inscription, applying this four-pronged research instrument (well, I know one person in Israel. whose name is Geula,  and she has inspired me to see the proto-syllabary in this particular case); but this is the right way to go.
   Ask the question! Is this inscription syllabic (proto-syllabary or neo-syllabary) or consonantal (proto-consonantary or neo-consonantary)? In this instance, my preferred response is to say: It is always difficult to decide, because the proto-syllabary and the proto-consonantary share so many signs (since most of the consonantograms are converted syllabograms); but the neo-syllabary can probably be excluded, as it was a phenomenon of the early Iron Age, and this (allegedly) securely dated missing link is from the Late Bronze Age; also the readily recognizable D (a rectangular door) is not one that matches any of the three D-syllabograms (DU and DA are rounded, like Roman D; and DI is triangular like Phoenician Dalet and Grecian Delta).
   A significant archaeological detail needs to be inserted here: Lakish was destroyed by fire (by Egyptians, or Israelians, or Philistians?) and was unoccupied in the  Iron Age I (12th and 11th centuries BCE). In the histoy of Israel that is the period of the Judges and the reign of King Saul; by my calculations, that was also the time of the neo-syllabary. Therefore this new Lakish sherd (15th century), and the later Lakish jar sherd would not fit the category "neo-syllabic".

   The first step is an examination of the interpretation given by the editors of the text; they accomplish this in a single paragraph, and my suspicions are immediately aroused. They have not established the writer's intention, and they can not make sense of this collection of meandering characters. Their sources for identifying letters and their Egyptian prototypes are Sass, Hamilton, Goldwasser, all unreliable guides in this matter, I have to say. They discern two lines of writing, each consisting of three letters; my first choice would be to say two groups of writing, an upper and a lower, but they note the presence of two more characters to the right of the top line, and another between the two lines; my second choice would be to envisage a single line of text circling from the top right corner to the bottom right, and possibly continuing upwards to complete a circle of letters, perhaps along a piece of the right-hand side that has been broken off, though not necessarily, as there seems to be a faded letter (a serpent?) filling the gap.  Looking ahead to my ultimate decision, my third approach will be to accept two clusters of letters, separated by a dot (or preceded by a dot in each case), and read them as two words that make a statement.
   Here we shall consider the editors' identifications of the signs: the letter in the bottom right corner is seen as a snake, hence N, and it corresponds to the Nun of the Phoenician alphabet, albeit in an anomalous reversed stance, though this form is more consistent with Greco-Roman N; they identify three more snakes in the marks between the upper and lower lines of script; if this is correct, then we are confronted with three different versions of Nun (snakes in various poses), and so the script being employed in this document could be the neo-syllabary, since that is how it works, generally speaking; however, none of the snake stances visible here (including the faded one that I have mentioned) matches the N-syllabograms in the later neo-syllabic texts.  However, it seems to me at this juncture that there are only two N-serpents, both cobras in a different stance, in the bottom line. 

   Consider now the door-sign, top left; it is readily recognizable as the original Dalet ('door') and is accepted unquestionably by Misgav and his colleagues; but if their reference to Hamilton's pages on this subject are consulted, we are told that Albright had promoted the fish-sign as D (dag), though Cross and Hamilton accept both door and fish as alternatives (allographs) for D; actually others and myself see the fish (Semitic samk, which is frequent in the Sinai inscriptions, and in the Samek position on the Izbet Sartah abagadary) as an allograph of Samek (the spinal column, as on the Lakish dagger), though I wonder whether they represent exactly the same sound (s versus tsh?); incidentally, if a fish appears in an inscription it is a consonantal or neo-syllaic text, since the fish did not swim in the proto-syllabic pool.
   Below the door is their elongated snake; I suggest this is a throwstick, G (gamlu), and that the dot, which makes it look like a snake with a head, is not part of the letter; it might be a doubling dot, or an unintentional blot, or an indicator of a new word (corresponding to the dot in the top right corner). .
   Beside the door, is a rectangle, open at the bottom right corner; this is unusual, having a rectangle with an open doorway for B (bayt, house), but it has a square-shaped analogy on the Gezer sherd (hand snake house, kn B, 'temple cult-stand', where the house-sign is a logogram for '[sacred] house', and the sherd is from such a 'cult-stand', for incense or offerings); the object was found at the Gezer high place.
   Their three choices for their bottom line, naming the letters from right to left, are NPT, which could be a word for 'honey', as they point out; this idea certainly appeals to me, in this connection:
However, we must be suspicious about the first letter being N, and their identification of the second glyph as P is a desperate measure, and their quest for an Egyptian hieroglyphic prototype (corner, or a building tool) is fruitless; they do not even mention 'mouth', which is the real origin of the letter pe (see the PU on the Lahun heddle jack, above; and this character would be a very twisted remnant of a human mouth, with the bottom lip curling the wrong way.
   Finally, an obvious T (Taw); but it seems to have a long stem, and this suggests it is syllabic; we will now follow this clue.

   My tentative tally is eight letters, and none of them appears more than once, it seems; this is more likely to occur if the script is a syllabary, which would have three times the number of characters as a consonantary.  I am reminded of the daily puzzle in the local newspaper, in which nine letters are offered in a grid, and the task is to create as many words as possible; we could take that approach here and see if some of the words we find can be brought together as a coherent statement; but we still have the problem of identifying all the letters  correctly, and deciding whether they are syllabic or consonantal. We have to consider the possibility that the scribe is deliberately teasing the readers, by using signs that could be syllabic and alphabetic, and challenging us to decide which are intended.
   We begin again at the top right corner: the pair of snakes could just as well be seen as two horns on a bovine head, which could actually be complete as it stands, without invoking a missing piece of the sherd; it would represent 'Alep (the 'glottal stop' consonant); and we also have Bet (Beta), Gimel (Gamma), Dalet (Delta); this is starting to look like an abgadary, and we are thinking that a big part of this ostracon, displaying the rest of the alphabet,  has been lost; but these same letters denote 'A, BA, GA, DA in the proto-syllabary; and likewise the Taw (a cross), but at present I am agonizing over its syllabic identity, whether TA or TU. If this assemblage of letters is merely an exercise, perhaps the scribe is practising the -a syllabograms; this idea would be supported by the editors' accepting the circular sign (top, centre) as an eye, hence `Ayin, representing alphabetic `(ayin), but also possibly syllabic `A(yin). However, the circle stands for the sun in the proto-syllabary, and represnts the syllable SHI (from shimshu) rather than SHA (from shad 'breast'); to make the sign clearer one or two serpents can be added to the sun, as seen on the Thebes proto-syllabic inscription (depicted several times above, Photo 10); the Sinai proto-consonantal inscriptions invariably have the serpents but not the sun-disc for Sh; but twice on the vertical section of the Wadi el-Hol proto-consonantal inscription, we find the sun with a single serpent:

   While we have this very old inscription in our sights, we may note that it concerns a celebration for the goddess `Anat, whose name  appears next to her image. We should also ask (as is now our habitual pracmice) whether it is proto-consonantal or proto-syllabic. Running down the sequence of signs, I am surpised to see that each character could be consonantal or syllabic: water  (M or MU), sun (Sh SHI), cross (T T-), head (R RA), jubilation (H HI), eye (` `A), snake (N NA), boomerang (G GA), ox-head (' 'A), and the last letter is obviously L, but this does not have a place in the syllabary. We have met LA (night) frequently, and LU (white of eye) on the heddle jack, and LI is a head-rest; so this text is not syllabic.
   The acconpanying horizontal inscription describes the menu for the feast, including wine and sacrificial meat. The inscription runs from right to left (sinistrograde), beginning with RB WN, "plenty of wine".

The hank of thread for H is a clear indication that this text is proto-consonantal, since this character does not appear in the prior proto-syllabary or the subsequent neo-consonantary and its offshoot the neo-syllabary; of course it has a place in the cuneiform consonantary, which was modeled on the linear proto-consonantary (see the character of three vertical wedges on Figure 5 above). Even though the M and N are vertical on the horizontal line, and horozontal on the vertical line, the bovine head with the unique feature of a mouth would show the common authorship and unity of the two inscriptions; it is noticeable that neither example has a head-line between the horns, as also on our Lakish sherd, but this ox has an unusual angle for his horns, raising doubts that the letter is 'Alep/Alpha or syllabic 'A, and that the line on the left at least is a snake after all; but the analogy of the ox from the Egyptian desert tempts me to hold on to the Lakish bull by its misshapen horns. An additional feature pointing to the proto-consonantary is the vertical breast (No. 10, Th fron thad "breast"), with Sh (sun-disc and single serpent, No. 2 and 11) on the  vertical line of writing.
   Contemplate that sun-sign, and then look closely at the circle on the Lakish sherd.

I have been wondering whether there is a faded line running from the bottom of the circle, making this letter equal in size with the B and D; if indeed there is (Eureka!) then the character says Sh or SHI, and not ` or `A.
   The resultant Sh B sequence raises the possibility of "return" (originally ThWB) or "take captive" (ShBY). Here is a possible combination, involving seven of the letters:
   "I catch fish"
This would be a sign upon his door, saying ""I am catching fish", equivalent to "Gone fishing, instead of just a-wishing".
   Stop the press: there is a problem with the supposed sun-sign. As an analogy for fading of lines in letters we have the top of the adjacent B-sign; but there are a number of other faint lines on the sherd; for example, the diagonal stroke in the top left corner; and there are some marks in the top right corner. This was a milk bowl, we are told, and maybe these are stains from liquids it previously contained; or it is a palimpsest, and other writing has been washed off the surface, to make space for this inscription.
   Most damaging for the sun-and-snake sign is an arc, actually a full semi-circle, running from the left side to the right edge, passing through the door, the house, and under the eye, thereby vitiating the uraeus serpent of the sun, and ending below the ox-head, where it might have been interpreted as a NI syllabogram, like the tusks on the Tuba amulets (Photos 2 and 3). 
   Consequently my total is  eight letters, and  if the `Ayin is correct, it would support the editors' reading of their proposed top line as `BD; but rather than a noun "servant" (`bd), I would construct a verb, '`BD, "I serve", or "I till";  the utterance that emerges, with a slight rearrangement of letters in the bottom line, is not at all fishy but admirably horticultural:
   'A `A BA DA  GA NA TA
  " I cultivate the garden"
As Voltaire's Candide would say, gardening is so necessary: il faut cultiver notre jardin.
This is a response that Adam (ha-'adam, the human) might have given to his commission to cultivate (`bd) and tend (sh-m-r) the garden (gan) of Eden (Genesis 2:15).
   For NA I have called upon the character next to the cross-sign; I have already rejected it as p, the desperate measure taken by the editors; it is a cobra, in the pose that it has in the proto-syllabary, but not in the proto-consoantary; and this is my main reason for declaring this text to be syllabic, but it is tentative and fallible.

   One letter remains to be identified, in the bottom right corner: the editors reasonably saw it as n, as this is the shape of N in the Phoenician alphabet; but it is reversed (back to front); the only example I know of this form is on the Jerusalem jar, where I heitatingly suggest that it represents NU in a neo-syllabic inscription:
   In the proto-syllabary the closest letter to this is MA, from maggalu, "sickle". If we could read it on our sherd as a logogram, in some kind of "instrumental" case, it might say: "I cultivate the garden (with) a sickle". In response to this, I would raise two objections: sickles are for mowing meadows and reaping grains; sickles have short handles, and this feature is maintained on the MA characters displayed in the Byblos inscriptions, though the scribe who engraved the two examples of MA on the Megiddo ring did not restrain his stylus on this detail; but they are the reverse of the character on this Lakish sherd (though they will be the right way round when impressed in clay and reversed).


     Pursuing the horticulture theme, we encountered the word gannat (garden) on the Lakish five-sided sherd: the GA is much the same in both texts; the Taw (TA or TU?) is a cross, somewhat defective on the pentagon; there the NA snake has a head, with a doubling dot in it, hence GANNAT; the new sherd has a dot beside the GA and above the Taw, but this is distant from the NA. I will now propose that the two snake figures on our sherd, even though they are apparently looking away from each other, represent double NA (running from right to left). Having said this, I was immediately struck by a another idea: the scribe is mixing the syllabic and consonantal systems; so as to achieve the goal of writing GANNAT, without having to include a "dead vowel",  as was the case on the pentagon inscription, GA N(A) NA T (though the NANA was effected by a doubling dot in the head of the snake). Presumably the two snake signs, N and NA, were written back to back to alert the reader to interpret this sequence as N-NA.  No doubt, this will be judged as a typical bizarre conceit ejected from the Colless brain, but I dare to say that it first occurred to the mind of the Lakish scribe who wrote this with his brush and ink.
  Is the statement a vow? "I will cultivate the garden".
  There remains that dot or blob to the left of the GA: it must be a word separater; there are only two words, and that is where the division between them occurs; by the same token, the mark in the top right corner, above the 'A, indicates the starting point of the text; so it might be better to say that both markers indicate the beginning of a new word.
   What conclusion can we possibly reach in the presence of this conflicting data?
   Is it a consonatal inscription? If it is proto-consonantal, the graphemes for D and H (or the rarer G and Z.) are not there to indicate this identification.
   Is it a syllabic text? The neo-syllabary can  probably be excluded from the discussion, as it was a phenomenon of the early Iron Age (1200-1000), and this object is firmly dated around 1450 BCE. The D has no counterpart in the neo-syllabary, and likewise the B. However, the pentagonal sherd and the triangular sherd show that the proto-syllabary was employed at Lakish, but they both had recognizable proto-syllabic characters; the new sherd has only ambiguous graphemes.
   We seem to be driven to choosing between proto-syllabic or early alphabetic (whether long or short alphabet is not determinable).  Keeping in mind the fact that three quarters of the letters in the neo-consonantary are derived from the proto-syllabary, and one quarter of the syllabograms in the proto-syllabary are also found as consonantograms in the proto-alphabet, we are faced with a set of signs that seem to belong to both systems. If only the author had spoken a few more words, he might have made his system clear to us, but he might have been deliberately tantalizing his readers.
   We have to start again, examining each of the letters and comparing their form with other Lakish examples.

   From the top (the point of departure is marked by a blob in the upper right corner): the first letter is assumed to be consonantal 'Alep (glottal stop) or syllabic 'A; but the anomalous bovine horns (contrast the headless pair above the number 05  above) and the missing skull-line would drive us to see a pot (DU) or a bag (S.adey); nevertheless we have seen an analogy for the gap between the horns in the Theban desert. (Wadi el-Hol, early proto-consonantal)

Second, the circular sign on the Lakish sherd (to the left of the ox), which is sufficiently angular on each side to make it an eye with corners, and thus representing the consonant `Ayin or the syllable `A. This sequence (added to our prior knowledge of what follows) suggests an exercise in tabulating letters that have -a in the proto-syllabary. Here we need to remember that the majority of the letters of the early alphabet were derived from the proto-syllabary, and most of them were -a syllabograms. To demonstrate this, the unmistakably proto-consonantal  text from Egypt that is reproduced here in my drawing, may be transcribed as if it were proto-syllabic.
   From right to left: RA BA WA NA MI NA HI NA GA THA/SHA HI 'A PU MI (HA) RA
The hank of thread (HA) is not attested in syllabic texts, and is an indication that this inscription is not proto-syllabic, nor neo-consonantal, but proto-consonantal.
   Pausing for a moment of reflection, we may ask how the circle sign (whether dotted or not), which originally represented the sun (shimsh) became a stylized eye (again with optional dot, presumably for the pupil). I will tell you: I do not know. God alone knows the truth. However, I could invoke Matahari: the sun in the Malay language (Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Indonesia)  is  mata hari, "eye of the day"; hari, I presume, would be cognate with the fellow-Austronesian word in the Mâori  language, meaning "day" as well as "sun"; and if we only know Egyptian Ra` or Re` from crossword puzzles, we are aware of his solar connection. The reason (I ween Germanically, rather than imagine Romanically) for this widespread designation for the sun is the greeting it receives at its morning appearing: Hurrah or  Hurray (according to your social class).
   Keeping all of this in mind (though drawing a darkening veil over the latter attempt at illumination and enlightenment), we continue our analysis of the new Lakish sherd.

   The bovine `Alep is weird; and the Bayt (house) is unusual, a tall rectangle instead of a square, but it could function as B or BA.
   The Dalet (door) has a counterpart on the Thebes inscriptions, but also the type with two panels (see Photo 11); it can be D or DA. Remember, the fish-sign is never D, but always S.
    This collection of signs, if they are syllabograms, produces a first person singular verb, imperfect tense; it looks highly suspect as 'A`ABADA, but if "dead vowels" are muted and suppressed, we have 'a`bad, which is reasonable, but still questionable, and perhaps all the vowels ought to be ignored and the text regarded as consonantal writing. 
   The blob apparently indicates the start of a new sequence, beginning with the throwstick, G or GA. Here is a new thought: the scribe's intention was to have this long letter begin a new line of writing, running from right to left. The next character in his second sequence is the snake in the bottom right corner, and this should be consonantal N; if it is syllabic, it would be a misshapen MA (a sickle), but not NA. The normal proto-syllabic NA comes next: the cobra with a kink in the tail. 
   Finally we see a Taw; there is no doubt about this identification, since the cross-sign stands for the sound /t/ in all four classes of early West Semitic scripts, and beyond. From the outset the consoantal alphabet had a simple cross-sign for T/t/, consisting of two equal lines (+ or x); but in the proto-syllabary this had not been the case:  x was the syllabogram for KU, and and the Taw cross had a long stem, and consistently displayed this feature throughout the ages. Unfortunately the Tuba tubes do not have any T-syllabograms, but all the early Gubla (Byblos) texts follow this pattern, with the T- (sometimes on its side). The verified proto-syllabic inscriptions that we have presented here testify decisively to this fact:  Lahun heddle jack [12], Puerto Rico figurine [4], Lakish pentagonal sherd [13], and quite clearly on this alleged "missing link", the Lakish rectagonal sherd (well, it has one right angle, but it is technically a trapezoid quadrilateral, or vice versa).
   Case closed. QED (as promised in the prologue to this drama). The last two letters of the text (N- T-) have the forms peculiar to the proto-syllabary, therefore this must be a proto-syllabic inscription, even though the first five of the eight letters (' ` B D G) could function as either syllabic or consonantal, and the sixth is consonantal N. The transcription would thus be:
Affirmative: "I cultivate a garden"
Volitive (cohortative): "Let me cultivate the garden" (a wish or a prayer)
If this were Biblical Hebrew the verb would be, cohortative form: 'E`EBDÂ. If this is equivalent to the
'A`ABADA on the sherd (the BA syllable having a"dead" vowel, or the -a stands for shwa), an explanation would be: in syllabic writing based on the three vowels (-u, -a, -i), the vowel -e would necessarily be represented by -a syllabograms; or we may simply say that the introduction of additional vowels is a later development in Hebrew. However, the final volitive -a has apparently been recorded in the inscription, and although it could be ignored, by the rules of syllabic transcription of speech, and classed unhelpfully as a "dead" vowel, it may well correspond to the Hebrew volitive inflexion â (which is written with unpronounced -h to represent the a-vowel).
   Incidentally, this GANNATA may be the same garden as the GAN(A)NATA in the prayer on the pentagonal sherd. The question remains whether the final -a is to be retained as significamt or discarded as superfluous. In the present instance it could be indicating the accusative case, the garden being the object of the verb.

While he yet spake there came a great multitude, saying: "How judgest thou the new document from the time of the Judges bearing the name of Judge Jerubbaal?" 
He answered them not, saying: "Perverse generation, ye know now the judgements and rules of the game. First ask the question: Are you syllabic or consonantal?" 


Christopher Rollston has compiled a list of early West Semitic inscriptions from the Levant; he regards them all as "Early Alphabetic", but it is an artificially homogenized mass of proto-syllabic, proto-consonantal, neo-consonantal, and neo-syllabic. I will reproduce his miscellany here, and then attempt to untangle this entanglement, thereby exposing an unfortunate weakness in the manual that contains it:
   Rollston 2020. “The Emergence of Alphabetic Scripts.” Pp. 65-78 in Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages, ed. Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee. Wiley Blackwell.
   Note that he creditably and commendably recognizes the acrophonic principle in the making of the proto-alphabet (and its progenitor the proto-syllabary, I would add), although many wrongly discredit it; and he also highlights the pictorial aspect of the signs (his term pictographic might be replaced by my pictophonic, or even pictophonographic).
" It is also important to emphasize the usage of Early Alphabetic in the broader Levant during the second millennium BCE. At this juncture, therefore, I will summarize this point by reiterating the data which I have discussed in various previous publications (e.g., Rollston 2020, 73).  Namely, Ugaritic (13th century BCE, and wedge-shaped in nature) is not the only attested alphabetic writing system in the Levant during the second millennium BCE. Indeed, various Early Alphabetic inscriptions (which are pictographic in nature,….and are reflective of the acrophonic principle) have been discovered at a number of sites in the Levant, ranging from around the 17th century BCE through the 10th century BCE. Note in this connection the following [alphabetical order, not chronological]:
   Beth Shemesh Ostracon (Driver 1954, 100-101, and plate 40; Naveh 1987, 35 with drawing),
   Beth Shemesh Incised Potsherd (McCarter, Bunimovitz, and Lederman 2011),
   Gezer Sherd (Taylor 1930 and plate 1),
   Gezer Jar Signs (Seger 1983 and plates 1-4),
   Izbet Sarteh (Naveh 1978),
   Ophel (Jerusalem) Incised Sherd (Mazar, Ben-Shlomo, and Aḥituv 2013; Hamilton 2015, with literature),
   Lachish Ewer (Cross 1954 and literature),
   Lachish Dagger (Starkey 1937),
   Lachish Bowl Inscripton (Ussishkin 1983, 155-157, and plate 40),
   Megiddo Gold Ring (Guy 1938),
   Qubur Walaydah Bowl (Cross 1980),
   Qeiyafa Ostracon (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor 2009; Rollston 2011),
   Qeiyafa Ba’al Jar Inscription (Garfinkel, Golub, Misgav, and Ganor 2015),
   Raddana Handle (Cross and Freedman 1971),
   Shechem Plaque (Böhl 1938).
   Added to the discussion is now a new inscription from Tel Lachish (Höflmayer, Misgav, Webster, Streit 2021)."

   B. E. Colless: My fourfold classification of the evidence is as follows:

Tuba cylindrical amulets
Gubla inscriptions on copper and stone
Rifa amulet
Thebes syllabic tablet
Jamaica copper cup
Puerto Rico syllabic figurine
Norway silver mine inscription
Megiddo gold signet ring
Lakish pentagonal sherd
Lakish triangular sherd
Lakish rectangular sherd

Wadi el-Hol rock inscription
Sinai Turquoise mines inscriptions
Gezer cult-stand sherd
Thebes abgadaries
Puerto Rico abgadary

Lakish bowl sherd
Lakish ewer
Lakish bowl
Lakish jar sherd
Qeiyafa jar

 Beth Shemesh Ostracon
Izbet Sarteh Ostracon
Qeiyafa Ostracon
Qubur Walaydah Bowl
Jerusalem Jar


The ending (inflexion) -u on the end of a word indicates the subject of a sentence (nominative case); -a shows the object (accusative case); -i is for the indirect object (genitive case); these are the three vowels that are found attached to consonants in the proto-syllabary and the neo-syllabary.