5.10: Correlations of Technique, Material and Script

In many contexts of use, there would appear to be some correlation between the properties of different materials and the way in which writing was applied to them; however craft and scribal training, cultural preference in tool use and expediency may also have been factors in the choice of writing technique (Figures 13–14). The traditional and most common application of cuneiform and alphabetic cuneiform scripts, whatever the language, was to impress it into moist clay using a stylus capable of producing wedge-shaped marks (e.g. Figure 6). As such, it had to be added during the manufacture of an object. In many cases, the object was created solely as a surface for the writing and so was inseparable from it. Yet cuneiform and alphabetic cuneiform were also applied to stone surfaces and to ceramics after the clay had hardened or been fired. The technique then became one of incision. In the case of cylinder seal and stone vessel inscriptions the signs were carefully cut to imitate the characteristic wedge-shape of the impressed version, even though different tools were in use and the material does not naturally lend itself to this kind of effect, suggesting that the script itself carried with it certain visual expectations, whatever the medium. Only occasionally is this convention ignored, as seen on a bronze knife from Nahal Tabor, where the alphabetic cuneiform signs have a more triangular head, comparable to inscriptions on metal artefacts at Ugarit (Horowitz et al. 2006: 163, n. 3; Yon 2006, 171, cat. 63). Another example is the postfiring inscription on a jug from Hazor, where the writer has abandoned the wedge-shaped letters of their Akkadian cuneiform for a simplified, linear effect (Horowitz et al. 2006: 65–66, Hazor 1).

In other scripts, the links between material, writing tool and sign form appear to be more consistent. Hieratic was a cursive script, and is predominantly applied using what is assumed to be a reed pen and ink on ceramic surfaces (Figure 9). There is a single example of a hieratic inscription being added to a ceramic vessel before firing, by dragging a pointed tool or stylus through the moist clay (Maeir et al. 2004: fig. 6). The difference may well be one of context, with the major- ity of texts being added by individuals outside the pottery workshop. This may in turn reflect a stronger degree of separation between craftspeople and those with scribal training. In the case of hieroglyphs, however, the two groups must have often worked closely together in the production of objects such as monumental sculpture, architectural components, scarabs and stone vessels, where the primary method of inscription was through different techniques of cutting (e.g. Figure 7b–c), or faience vessels, where the scribe had to work with moulds and glazes (Figure 7a). On other occasions, the texts could have been supplied to workshops ready made, as when cartouche stamps were used to impress ceramic vessels prior to firing (Figure 3). Finally, Proto-Canaanite scribes, like those using other cursive or pictorial scripts, tend to draw their signs freehand rather than applying jabbed impressions. A pointed tool is either dragged through clay before a vessel is fired, or cuts into the surface afterwards, or paint or ink is applied, most probably using a brush (Figure 4). In only one case was an inscription impressed, and then this seems to have been done using a carved stamp, similar to Egyptian practice (Sass 1988: fig. 271). The one writing technique that finds favour across all scripts in the region is that of incision, as it can be applied across a wide range of different materials and be done anywhere, using tools that need not be specific to the scribe. Its use may show the desire to modify existing objects by adding texts at a later date, and a need for flexible settings in which this may be done.