

Canaanite and Aramaic seal inscriptions are short texts engraved on personalseals andbullae used in theancient Near East during thefirst millennium BCE. Written primarily inPhoenician,Hebrew andAramaic, the inscriptions typically record personal names,patronymics, titles, or brief formulas. They are an important source for the study of widerCanaanite and Aramaic inscriptions,palaeography andonomastics.
Seals in the region were initially associated with protective or symbolic functions, and later became administrative tools used to authenticate documents and property. Most arestamp seals, often ofscaraboid form, and many are decorated with figural or symbolic motifs in addition to inscriptions.
Most such stamp seals date approximately from the 9th to the 5th centuries BCE.[1]
The inscriptions are usually brief, most commonly giving the name and patronymic of the seal owner. In some cases, titles, the name of a superior, or a blessing formula are included. The seals also theophoric naming practices, including divine elements such as-yahu and-baʿal, and contribute to the study of ancient Near Eastern glyptic art.[1]
The scholarly study of Semitic seal inscriptions began in the late nineteenth century, with pioneering publications by scholars such asCharles Clermont-Ganneau,Eugène-Melchior de Vogüé, andMoritz Abraham Levy. Early corpora relied heavily on museum collections and the antiquities market, often without secure archaeological provenance.[1]
Forgery is a significant concern in assessing the corpus, as there has been significant demand among collectors, and the items are small and forgery is difficult to detect. Questions of authenticity have played a significant role in the study of seal inscriptions.[2] From the nineteenth century onward, scholars debated whether certain seals represented genuine ancient objects or modern forgeries, especially when seals combined iconographic elements from different cultural traditions.[3]
The numbers of known seals allocated by "nationality" is significantly different from the wider corpus of knownCanaanite and Aramaic inscriptions; Hebrew forms a large majority of the seals and bullae, whereas for wider inscriptions, Hebrew is a small minority and Phoenician and Aramaic are the majority.[4]
Writing in 2014, Philippe Bordreuil suggested that we can be certain only of the 164 seal inscriptions which were known prior to the publication of notable monumental descriptions that could be easily copied, as well as those found subsequently in controlled archaeological excavations:[5]
The table below lists all the inscribed seals published before 1850, ordered by the date they were found.[6]
| Language | Image | Inscription | WSS No. | Century BCE | Material | Known Since | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phoenician (disputed) | lʾbybʿl | 1122 | 8th | Sardonyx scaraboid | 1726 | Gori, 1726[7] | |
| Phoenician | lʾḥtmlk ʾšt yšʿ | 1102 | 8th | Agate scaraboid | 1791 | ||
| Phoenician | bnʾw/r | 728 | 6th | White stone scaraboid (unknown location) | 1791 | Tassie and Raspe 1791[8] | |
| Aramaic | lhwdw sprʾ | 754 | 7th | Green jasper scarab | 1791 | Tassie and Raspe 1791[9] CIS II 84 | |
| Hebrew | lbnyhw bn šḥr | 108 | 7th (?) | Onyx scaraboid | 1812 | Clarke 1813[10] | |
| Moabite | lkmšṣdq | 1036 | 8th | Porphyry scarab | 1826 | ||
| Aramaic | lmrʾ hd | 809 | 7th | Carnelian scarab | 1828 | Hamaker, 1828 | |
| Hebrew | lnʾhbt bt dmlyhw | 39 | 7th | Burnt carnelian scaraboid | 1837 | ||
| Aramaic | lsrgd | – | Late 9th | Quartz cylinder seal | 1837 | Gesenius 1837[11] | |
| Aramaic | lnbrb | 817 | Mid 7th | Agate scaraboid | 1837 | ||
| Aramaic | lʿzy | 1116 | Late 8th / early 7th | Agate scaraboid (missing) | 1837 | Lajard 1837,[12] CIS II 90 | |
| Phoenician | lbʿlytn ʾšʾl mʾš lmlqrt bṣr | 719 | 5th–4th | Chalcedony scaraboid | 1843 | ||
| Hebrew | lʿbdyhw bn yšb | 290 | Late 8th / early 7th | Jasper scaraboid | 1846 | ||
| Aramaic | lpltḥdn | – | 8th | Carnelian cylinder seal | 1847 | Lajard 1847[13] | |
| Aramaic | lmmh | – | 8th | Unknown scaraboid (missing) | 1847–49 | Lajard 1847–49[14] | |
| Aramaic | ḥnky | 795 | Early 6th | Chalcedony octagonal conoid | 1849 | Lajard 1847–49[15] | |
| Hebrew | lntnyhw bn ʿbdyhw | 279 | Early 7th | Chalcedony conoid | 1849 | ||
| Ammonite | ltmkʾl bdmlkm | 853 | 6th | Octagonal conoid | 1849 |
The Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (WSS) states that, at the time of its publication in 1997, approximately 1,591 West Semitic inscribed seals, sealings, and related stamped objects were known when cylinder seals are included, or about 1,511 when they are excluded. Within this larger body, the WSS defines a principal working corpus of 1,189 stamp seals used for detailed study. Of these, 180 are recorded as having secure archaeological provenance, or 85-88 securely provenanced seals excluding a small number of unrepresentative large hoards.[16]
The WSS explains that “nationality” is the primary principle used to classify seals, determined by a combination of script, language, names, and iconography, though palaeography "outweigh[ed] all others". Some have been revised and reclassified, or remain uncertain. The authors emphasise that the classification remains provisional: "we are still far from achieving a definitive classification".[17] According to Avigad and Sass: "There is a great similarity among the scripts and the onomasticon of the various West Semitic peoples, making it difficult to distinguish between the different groups of seals."[1]
The core WSS corpus is as follows:
| Unprovenanced | Provenanced | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Seals | Bullae | Handles | Total | Seals | Bullae | Handles | Total |
| Hebrew | 399 | 262 | 50 | 711 | 29 | 57 | 46 | 132 |
| Phoenician | 36 | 2 | 38 | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Aramaic | 97 | 8 | 2 | 107 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 14 |
| Ammonite | 148 | 1 | 149 | 10 | 1 | 11 | ||
| Moabite | 41 | 1 | 42 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Edomite | 7 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Philistine? | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Hebrew-Phoenician | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Hebrew-Aramaic | 5 | 5 | ||||||
| Hebrew-Ammonite | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Hebrew or Moabite | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Moabite or Edomite | 7 | 7 | ||||||
| Phoenician or Aramaic | 21 | 21 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Aramaic or Ammonite | 18 | 18 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Undefined | 70 | 70 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| Pseudo-script | 5 | |||||||
| Doubtful and forged | 21 | |||||||
| West Semitic? | 2 | |||||||
| Total | 859 | 277 | 53 | 1217 | 63 | 69 | 48 | 180 |
The 88 core provenanced seals and bullae (excluding handles), excluding LMLK seals, the Avigad hoard and the City of David hoard is:
| Region | Site | Hebrew | Phoenician | Aramaic | Ammonite | Moabite | Edomite | Philist.? | Misc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine (51) | Acre (2) | 716, 732 | |||||||
| Aroer (1) | 1055 | ||||||||
| Arad (5) | 70, 71, 72, 111, 132 | ||||||||
| Ashdod (1) | 1065 | ||||||||
| Atlit (1) | 777 | ||||||||
| Beersheba (1) | 661 | ||||||||
| Beit Shemesh (2) | 52, 293 | ||||||||
| Beth Zur (1) | 412 | ||||||||
| Dan (3) | 669, 692 | 1165 (Undef.) | |||||||
| En Gedi (2) | 94, 172 | ||||||||
| Tell el-Far'ah (South) (1) | 1069 | ||||||||
| Gibeon (2) | 220 | 757 | |||||||
| Tell el-Hesi (1) | 568 | ||||||||
| Tell Jemmeh (1) | 1068 | ||||||||
| Jerusalem (6) | 35, 147, 150, 210, 261, 326 | ||||||||
| Tell Judeideh (2) | 536, 639 | ||||||||
| Kiriath-Jearim (1) | 212 | ||||||||
| Lachish (6) | 59, 350, 360, 385, 405, 498 | ||||||||
| Tel Megiddo (4) | 2, 85, 160 | 1124 (Undef.) | |||||||
| Tel Michal (1) | 162 | ||||||||
| Tell en-Nasbeh (2) | 8 | 800 | |||||||
| Revadim (1) | 1067 | ||||||||
| Samaria (3) | 419 (W. Daliyeh), 711 | 1078 (He-Mo) | |||||||
| Shechem (1) | 224 | ||||||||
| Transjordan (15) | Amman (5) | 859, 916, 944, 973 | 1011 | ||||||
| Busaira (1) | 1050 | ||||||||
| Deir Alla (1) | 988 | ||||||||
| Tell el-Kheleifeh (2) | 1051, 1054 | ||||||||
| Tell el-Mazar (2) | 872 | 1109 (Ar-Am) | |||||||
| Umm el-Biyara (1) | 1049 | ||||||||
| Tall al-Umayri (3) | 860, 886, 977 | ||||||||
| Phoenicia & the West (4) | Byblos (1) | 990 | |||||||
| Carthage (1) | 185 | ||||||||
| Cádiz (1) | 267 | ||||||||
| Tharros (1) | 745 | ||||||||
| Syria (5) | Carchemish (1) | 774 | |||||||
| Hama (2) | 760, 768 | ||||||||
| Til Barsib (1) | 1100 (Ph-Ar) | ||||||||
| Zincirli (1) | 750 | ||||||||
| Mesopotamia (12) | Babylon (1) | 1048 | |||||||
| Khorsabad (3) | 743 | 755, 843 | |||||||
| Nimrud (1) | 1154 (Undef.) | ||||||||
| Nineveh (2) | 796, 837 | ||||||||
| Nippur (1) | 815 (rig. Susa) | ||||||||
| Susa (1) | 759 | 1020 | |||||||
| Ur (2) | 975 | 1034 | |||||||
| Egypt (1) | Elephantine (1) | 788 | |||||||
| TOTAL (88) | 40 | 4 | 14 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 | |
Sass is well aware of the possible presence of forgeries in the collection, and consequently he exercises caution by drawing few statistical conclusions. Several of his remarks speak to the issue (e.g., pp. 15, 465, 552). Notably, his final comment on this serious matter appears directly above his name at the end of the volume. It clearly mirrors his deep concern: "The possibility that our mostly unprovenanced material contains forgeries should always be borne in mind, for the impact of such items on works like the present one is inestimable" (p. 552). Given Sass's legitimate concern over authenticity, it is surprising that he did not divide the main catalogue by separating objects derived from controlled archaeological excavations from those acquired by other means.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)