ABSTRACT
Chapter 2 offers a more in-depth summary of the debates around the linguistic classification of the Canaanite Amarna Letters, and it contextualizes the study of Late Bronze Age Akkadian in the relevant sociolinguistic literature. The chapter concludes with a description of Canaano-Akkadian as a scribal code which involved a set of conventions about how to write letters in cuneiform. This scribal code was neither simple nor monolithic; it was utilized in diverse ways among the many scribal groups in the Levant. This chapter ends with a comparison of EA 262 and 252, which demonstrates my approach to the analysis of the Canaanite Letters. The first letter is an example of a “maintenance” letter, which is highly formulaic and reflects memorized language learning. EA 252 is a more linguistically and rhetorically complex letter that showcases the scribe's skill in employing Canaano-Akkadian and in producing a short passage in Canaanite using cuneiform.
