Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear all,

Directly relevant to our recent discussion, is an article that just came to
my attention: Itzhaq Shai and Joe Uziel, "THE WHYS AND WHY NOTS OF WRITING:
LITERACY AND ILLITERACY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT DURING THE BRONZE AGES",
KASKAL (Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico)
Volume 7 (2010), pp. 67-83.

I've copied the conclusions below:


A state does not necessarily need to invent or adopt literacy (Goody 1986,
92). Illiteracy does not prevent administration, as seen at Sussa and Uruk
IV (Larsen 1995, 183-84) and Pictland (Driscoll 1995, 218-20). The
preservation of the history, religion, and legacy of a people is also
independent of writing, as seen in the oral traditions kept by the Inca
(Larsen 1995, 184-85), and in Africa, where writing only followed the rise
of urbanization (Gugler _ Flanagan 1978, 20-21). However, if a society is
already exposed to various writing systems, as was the case in the southern
Levant of the Bronze and Iron Ages, one would expect that writing would be
embraced as an innovation that simplifies administration and bureaucracy.
The reasons behind the rejection of writing must be viewed within a social
context, independently supported in each period by different explanations. 
In the Early Bronze Age, the people of the southern Levant chose not to
adopt any writing system. It seems that administration was based on seals
and other signs. This was a byproduct of the interaction between the
Egyptian Empire and Canaan, and its core-periphery relationship. Thus, the
rejection of writing during this period was a form of resistance against the
Egyptians and their culture. 
Although written documents dating to the Middle Bronze Age were discovered
in the southern Levant, they are limited. Writing here was not utilized as a
control or administrative tool, as it was during the same period in Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Moreover, the cultural similarity between Syria and
the southern Levant, as well as the relationship between Egypt in the Middle
Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, and Canaan in the Middle Bronze
Age, would suggest the adoption of writing. Considering the innovative
nature of this society and the possibility that portions of the population
came from literate regions, it is surprising that they refrained from
writing. It seems that this was due to social reasons, in an attempt to
create an ideal of cultural unity, witnessed in other aspects of Middle
Bronze Age culture. It may also be that the cultural unity expressed in the
southern Levant was linked to differentiating themselves from the northern
Levant, a hierarchal and literate society.
In the Late Bronze Age, a number of writing systems (Akkadian, Hieratic and
alphabetic) appear. The scope of writing is more limited than in other
societies, although governing forces did write. Akkadian was used for
international communications and administration, while alphabetic script was
adopted by a small and marginal portion of society, a reflection of an
alternate way of life. The rise of literacy in the southern Levant is
essentially a development of the Iron Age, and the ethnic groups which came
to be during this period (Schniedewind 2004, 41, 45). This is attested to by
region-wide use of the alphabet, numerous written documents, evidence such
as bullae that attest to more documents, and differences in the language and
script in various territories. Literacy during this period crosses classes,
as seen in the use of letters as potters' marks (Hess 2006, 344;
Schniedewind 2004, 51-52).



If anyone would like a pdf copy please contact me offlist.

Yigal Levin