Joseph Naveh’s classic work constitutes ‘an attempt to survey the Aramaic epigraphic material from its very beginnings until the third century B.C.E. It examines the development of the Aramaic script in its various styles on the basis of the dated inscriptions.’
Although the discipline and the discoveries upon which it is privileged to apply its scholar exertions have, respectively, advanced and multiplied since this work’s publication, there remains great value in Naveh’s cautious explanation of how epigraphers work. The development of a script is evolutionary, the author reminds us. It is the product of both conservative and progressive forces and does not, therefore, amenable to simple, straight-line description (I, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1-7).
Lapidary writing is conservative but is influenced by developments in non-lapidary writing. Rapid writing seeks shortcuts. Novices and inscribers do not. Yet these latter are influenced by the script-inflecting tendencies of the rapid writer.
Pedagogical value resides in Naveh’s brief summations. For example:
Though the clerk, the cultured person and the craftsman all used basically the same cursive script, there were decided stylistic differences. These may be classified as sub-styles of cursive and can be termed:
(a) extreme cursive—that of the cultured person;
(b) formal cursive—that of the professional scribe; and
(c) vulgar cursive—that of persons of limited schooling.
This scheme of terminology serves to emphasize the unrestricted development of the first sub-style, whereas the others were influenced by it, but lagged behind it in development. Lapidary script (print, in modern terms), though much much more stable, is also influenced by cursive. Thus, though lapidary gave birth to cursive, the offspring grew up to influence its parent; similarly, the extreme cursive influenced the formal. In other words, older, more conservative forms are constantly being influenced by younger, freer forms.
In his second chapter, Naveh alerts us to the fact that the earliest available inscriptions belong to the ninth and eight centuries B.C.E. (II, ‘The Earliest Aramaic Inscriptions’, pp. 7–15). Clear graphics present exemplars of the letters found in these inscriptions. An historical assessment of the scripts’ evolution accompanies the presentation:
To sum up, the Phoenician script was adopted for writing Aramaic, apparently in the tenth century B.C.E. During the following hundred and fifty or two hundred years, Aramaic was written in Phoenician script. During the ninth and the first half of the eighth centuries, there is no evident distinction between Phoenician and Aramaic script; apparently, the Phoenician-Aramaic lapidary script was used for writing in ink as well. In the mid-eighth century B.C.E. Aramaic script begin to develop an independent cursive …. The beginnings of Aramaic cursive and its rapid development are undoubtedly connected with the rise of the Aramaic language and script as an international means of communication.
Naveh’s approach, wherein he surveys the examples of Aramaic script available to us in a given period, the relating of that period to the political and imperial considerations that served as the motor of the widespread dissemination of the Aramaic language and script, the case-by-case consideration of exemplars written on different material, and the graphic presentation of typical letter forms, continues in chapter III (‘The Aramaic Script in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C.E’, pp. 15–21).
When the author comes to the period in which the hegemony of the Persian empire made the Aramaic script virtually ubiquitous (IV, ‘Aramaic Cursive in the Fifth Century B.C.E.’, pp. 21–43), his presentation continues to be enriched by methodological asides. For example:
A scribe’s handwriting does not develop with his age; an elderly scribe could write in a script that he had evolved in his youth. Thus, it may be assumed that a less developed script could continue to appear over several decades, and it is therefore desirable to ascertain as far as possible, the time of the initial appearance of each new form. Even so, it should be remembered that new forms do not immediately replaced older forms.
Naveh mentions throughout his appreciation for the great Harvard epigrapher Frank Cross, a sentiment that seems to increase with the inventory of available materials (V, ‘Aramaic Cursive in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.’, pp. 43–51; VI, ‘Aramaic Lapidary Script’, pp. 51–64).
The author’s final chapter allows him to present his conclusions in synthetic form (VII, ‘Comparative Aspects of the Aramaic Script’, pp. 64–69):
The development of the various scripts can be graphically expressed as a family tree of which three branches—the Phoenician, the Hebrew and the Aramaic—stem from a common bough, i.e. the proto-Canaanite script. In Sect. II we observed how the Hebrew script in the ninth century B.C.E. developed in a manner different from that of the Phoenician; we saw, too, that in the ninth century the Aramaic script was in reality still Phoenician, and that is independent development in a cursive form began in the middle of the eighth century B.C.E. … It should be remembered that the independent development of the Aramaic script began a hundred years after that of the Hebrew, and that in spite of this the Aramaic script developed further, reaching, so to speak, a sort of shorthand. The Phoenician script is further developed than the Hebrew, but even so, much less than the Aramaic. If we assume that the development of the Phoenician script was normal, then the development of the Aramaic script was extremely accelerated, whereas the Hebrew script developed at a snail’s pace.
Naveh speculates that the Aramaic script’s relatively stellar pace is a function if its widespread use devoid of individual ‘sentiment’, whereas the conservative development of the Hebrew script is owing to the more isolated and mountainous environment in which it was in practice.
That Naveh’s little monograph is still quote-worthy and continues to serve as a point of reference nearly forty years after its publication is testimony to the care with which it was produced.