A reexamination of the early evidence of alphabetic script

W . Rollig

Tubingen University - W . Germany

A R E E X A M I N A T I O N of the E A R L Y E V I D E N C E of A L P H A B E T I C S C R I P T

E v e r y b o d y will have been informed v e r y early in school about the fact that the alphabetic script, used b y the Greeks, was borrowed b y them from the Phoenicians and ' P h o i n i k i k a grammata' was the first invention of an alphabet. There exists a very early tradition about this fact and until now it has been believed to be correct. B u t t o d a y the question must be raised, whether this tradition is to be followed b y us in the light of the new discoveries about the history of the alphabet.

N o w it has become clear that there exists no single w a y to an alphabe­

tic script, but that some preliminary stages were developed and trial-phases not in the Phoenician proper, b u t at different places in the whole area. O n the other h a n d it can be shown that in some regions special developments occurred and so local traditions were founded which later have been chan­

ged in favor of the k i n d of script at least developed in Phoenicia. I t is i m p o ­ ssible to demonstrate this process here and n o w b u t some outlines which derive on just pub ished or republished material can be sketched here. M a n y questions connected w i t h the whole complex of scientific research

and the complicated state of our present knowledge cannot be discussed in a satis­

factory w a y here, b u t I will in short give y o u an idea of the problems which are now under consideration

1. T h e connection between the E g y p t i a n scripts and alphabetic writing is much disputed. O n the one hand it seems probable that the system of alphabetic writing, the v e r y new and successful! idea of writing a purely consonantal script without ideograms and determinatives, was influenced b y the special kind of Egyptian writing of foreign words, well k n o w n now as the 'Gruppenschrift'. O n the other hand there have been from the beginning of the discussion about alphabetic origins m a n y theories about the connection between hieroglyphic signs and early alphabetic signs. T h e not yet fully deciphered inscriptions from Sinai gave support to the hieroglyphic origins of the alphabetic script, but proof until now is lacking. T h e problem is not to be solved w i t h respect to the hieroglyphs, which were used in official inscriptions and therefore could scarcely be the prototype of alphabetic signs. I n consequence Wolfgang Helck

combined the ideas of the borro­

wing not of the hieroglyphic script b u t of the more cursive version named

'hieratic' and of using principles of the 'Gruppenschrift', familiar i n Syria and Palestine in the time of t h e New K i n g d o m of E g y p t . He argues that the commercial connections between the Canaanite states and the Egyptians were accompanied b y a good knowledge of the principles and the sign-form of the 'Gruppenschrift', and so this k i n d of script was chosen as an example of typical writing and represents the earliest stage of Canaanite writing.

B u t i n fact proof of this very simple and not implausible theory is lacking until now and I do not believe that proof for i t can be found. Helck adds a list of hieratic signs and their phoenician counterparts, b u t it is obvious in a very brief glance at the table that the choice of the hieratic and especially of the phoenician sign-forms is v e r y subjective. I t m a y be that one d a y a full repertoire of signs will be available from both sides and a comparison will be easier, but I doubt that exact proof of a connection will solve the problems of the borrowing of the very specific E g y p t i a n writing system into Canaanite.

2. T h e second vexing problem is the chronology of the different stages of Canaanite script and the very beginning of this system. I t is well known that the Ugaritic writing system is alphabetic and it is also accepted world­

wide that the invention of the Ugaritic script followed an alphabetic system which was developed before some

. I t goes without saying that even sign- forms of Ugaritic have been influenced b y the Canaanite script and some specimens of Ugaritic going from the right to the left point to a specialisa­

tion of the alphabetic script in contrast to cuneiform

. (Outside of Ugarit we have now seven places where this script also has been used, a hint for the wide - spread knowledge of the alphabetic principle of writing

). I t deserves mention that two of these places are typical later phoenician settlements which yielded alphabetic script also (Sarepta and T a l l Soukas), and that at K a m i d el-Loz in the Beqa' have been found sherds w i t h a very old alphabetic script, connecting the northern and the southern branches, besides one Ugaritic alphabetic text.

( O f special interest is Sarepta. I t is said that the short text in Ugaritic cuneiform script which has been found here contains phoenician language

). B u t I think that this claim is unt 1 now not absolutely convincing. T h e sherd is very small, the inscription short, and it can demonstrate only that Ugaritic cuneiform has been used here. Besides this text has been found another one, which also is v e r y short, but the script of this fragment is 'proto-Canaanite .)

So it seems clear that both script forms, the Ugaritic-cuneiform and the proto-Canaanite form, could exist side b y side and so an interconnection is confirmed, I f the Ugari­

tic script in some w a y is dependent on a canaanite alphabetic script, it is fairly sure that the alphabetic script was developed earlier than the invention of the Ugaritic cuneiform script, that is between the 14th and the

13th centuries B . C.

— 166 —

3. N o w it is well k n o w n that the alphabetic script in a readable form does not yet go back to such an early date. There are inscriptions of earlier times the Gezer sherd, the Sinai inscriptions, the Lachish dagger

) - which resist decipherment. T h e y can be dated in the long period between the 17th century and the 14th century B.C. T h e y m a y be first steps in the direction of an independent canaanite script, b u t they were without success. T h e same is true for the so-called hieroglyphs from Byblos, which are even later

.

Through archaeological context the sherds f r o m K a m i d el-Loz are dated in the 13th century, but their shortness does not allow far reaching conclusions. Nevertheless they demonstrate that not only at coastal sites or in Palestine an alphabetic script existed. A n d t h e y also prove to m y satisfaction the fact that a v e r y close connection between the northsemi- tic and the southsemitic script existed i n this early time

).

Now we have an increasing number of early inscriptions from Palestine and Syria, and we is can ask some questions for them in the hope of finding satisfactory answers. One question must be: Is a centre to be found where alphabetic writing has been introduced and m a y have developed? Another one is : Can we find speoific pecularities which can be used for dating and localyzing the objects often found b y chance or in the antiquities m a r k e t ? A t the moment we are confronted w i t h the situation that most of the early alphabetic inscriptions come from Palestine. T h e situation is not surprising because archaeological activities there have been v e r y intensi­

ve. I t can be expected that in the course of similar activities in the adjoi­

ning countries more material from other sites will be produced so that the picture will change. N o w we k n o w around 14 documents from the centuries between the 14th and late 11th centuries B . C . : T h e B e t h Shemesh - ostra- con, the Lachish ewer, the Lachish bowl, the j a r - handle from R a d d a n a , the Tell el-Hesi sherd, the Megiddo bracelet, the sherd from Qubur W a l a - y d a h , the sherd f r o m Izbet Sartah, the arrow-heads f r o m el-Hadr and the Manahat sherd

). Most of these inscriptions are v e r y short and have a few letters only. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish two different kinds of writing. There is a clearly recognizable province in the south, repre­

sented b y the famous sherd from Izbet Sartah w i t h its abecedary and b y the just published sherd f r o m Qubur W a l a y d a h , 10 K m . south of Gaza. I t is characterized b y a special k i n d of lamed, which is curled from right to the left, and b y an aleph, standing nearly upright and w i t h a rounded head.

This type of aleph also occurs on the jar-handle from R a d d a n a and all the three specimens should be dated in the late 12th century.

Quite suprising is the shape of the m i m in the Qubur W a l a y d a h ins­

cription. I t cannot be compared with the Izbet Sartah sherd, which is not

so clear a t t h i s p o i n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d i t r e s e m b l e s v e r y m u c h t h e a r c h a i c f o r m o f t h e S i n a i i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h e r e i t f o l l o w s i n a n a c r o p h o n i c w a y t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e w o r d mayim ' w a t e r ' w i t h t h e p i c t u r e o f a w a v e . I t is c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e letter s h i n , w r i t t e n n o m o r e i n t h e s n a k e - l i k e s h a p e o f t h e I z b e t S a r t a h s h e r d , b u t w i t h s h o r t , s t r a i g h t s t r o k e s as i n l a t e r P h o e n i c i a n s c r i p t , n o t y e t h o r i z o n t a l , b u t v e r t i c a l i n d i r e c t i o n . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e s a m e f o r m o f t h e l e t t e r s h i n a p p e a r s also i n t h e s o - c a l l e d a r c h a i c B y b l o s i n s c r i p t i o n B1 3) , w h e r e a r e a d i n g m i m , p r o p o s e d b y T e i x i d o r 14), c a n n o t b e e x c l u d e d . F r o m t h i s a n d f r o m o t h e r f e a t u r e s i n t h e s h o r t i n s c r i p t i o n i t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t t h i s is t h e o l d e s t o f t h e t w o i n s c r i­ p t i o n s , w h i c h F . M . Cross r e p u b l i s h e d a n d d i s c u s s e d a d e q u a t e l y . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e t w o a l e p h - s i g n s i n t h e s e o l d B y b l o s i n s c r i p t i o n s s h o w t h e t y p i c a l e a r l y p h o e n i c i a n s t y l e w i t h o u t t h e r o u n d e d p e a k o f t h i s s i g n i n i n s c r i p t i o n s f r o m o t h e r sites.

I t s h o u l d b e stressed t h a t o n t h e o n e h a n d e v e r y a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n p a l a e o g r a p h y m u s t c o m e f r o m t h e s h a p e o f t h e s i g n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d j u s t n o w F . M . Cross h a s m a d e t h e r e m a r k a b l e s t a t e m e n t 15). « W e s h o u l d u n d e r l i n e t h e f a c t t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n f o r m i n t h e d r a w i n g o f g r a p h e m e s w a s s t i l l p e r m i s s i b l e . « S o i t s h o u l d b e k e p t i n m i n d t h a t f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m a s i n g l e p i t o f e v i d e n c e c a n n o t b e d r a w n . T h i s is t r u e also w i t h r e s p e c t t o s o m e p e c u l a r i t i e s o f t h e e a r l y i n s c r i p t i o n s . F . M . Cross h i m s e l f a r g u e d o f t e n t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e w r i t i n g i n b o u s - t r o p h e d o n , - o n e l i n e f r o m t h e r i g h t t o t h e l e f t , t h e n e x t o n e i n t h e o p ­ p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n , - w a s u s e d u n t i l t h e 1 1 t h c e n t u r y B . C . a n d t h e n l o s t . B u t I t h i n k t h a t i t c a n b e s h o w n t h a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f w r i t i n g i n e a r l y t i m e s h a d n o t b e e n f i x e d - a p a r t f r o m o n e - l i n e or m o r e t h a n o n e - l i n e i n s c r i p t i o n s , - a n d t h a t t h e w r i t i n g d i r e c t i o n w a s free. Y o u w i l l r e m e m b e r t h a t t h i s p r i n ­ c i p l e also is f o l l o w e d i n s o m e U g a r i t i c t e x t s , e s p e c i a l l y f r o m s y r o - p a l e s t i n i a n cities.

A g a i n s t t h e s o u t h e r n P a l e s t i n i a n g r o u p o n e m a y set t h e r e s t o f t h e e a r l y a l p h a b e t i c t e x t s , w h i c h h a v e p e c u l a r i t i e s w e J l k n o w n f r o m t h e y o u n ­ ger p h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s . R e m a r k a b l e is t h e h o a r d o f a r r o w h e a d s w h i c h h a s b e e n f o u n d i n e l - H a d r n e a r B e t h l e h e m . F i v e pieces are n o w p u b l i s h e d b e a r i n s c r i p t i o n s , a n d all o f t h e m s h o u l d b e f r o m t h e s a m e w o r k s h o p a n d t h e s a m e t i m e 16) . W i t h o u t k n o w i n g t h i s , w e w o u l d b e i n c l i n e d t o see a d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e f o r m s , e s p e c i a l l y o f t h e l e t t e r s l a m e d a n d a l e p h , b u t t h i s is i m p o s s i b l e . S o w e h a v e t o r e c o g n i s e t h a t a t t h e s a m e m o m e n t ' a r c h a i c ' f o r m s c o u l d e x i s t n e x t t o m o r e d e v e ' o p e d s i g n s , w h i c h r e m i n d o n e o f t h e real e a r l y p h o e n i c i a n s h a p e s .

I t is also r e m a r k a b l e t h a t i n n o r t h e r n P a l e s t i n e a n d also i n t h e c o a s t a l

— 168 —

region of Lebanon the development of the sign forms toward the well-known Phoenician script continues. N o w we have a lot of monuments, through external evidence, which allow a view over a longer process of development at one place. Byblos is here the for most site where a considerable number of inscriptions have been found. I a m absolutely sure of the fact that the famous A h i r a m inscription should be dated in the 10th century and not as G. Garbi proposes again, i n the 12th century B.C.

) This is self - evident in a brief giance at a tab with the sign forms of the early B y b l o s inscrip­

tions, where the evolution is shown b y letters such as aleph, waw, m i m , etc.

T h e next question could be the diffusion of the phoenician script in this developed form through the Mediterranean, but this question is to far-reaching. One example should be mentioned: T h e early Nora inscripti­

ons. F . M. Cross tried to show that these inscriptions belong to the 11th century B.C.

) This would be quite exceptional because we do not have archaeolog cal evidence of such an early invasion or intrusion of the Phoeni­

cians in Sardinia. There is no doubt that both inscriptions, the smaller and the longer one, are f r o m a early date. B u t in comparison w i t h the Byblos inscriptions it seems clear to me that they are to be dated to the second half of the 10th century; they fit v e r y well into the picture of the increasing use and world-wide spread of the alphabetic script

).

I n the course of the spread of his script special shapes also devloped such as the Aramaic shapes or the early Hebrew shapes

). There was no direct connection between the early stages of alphabetic script for example in southern Palestine or the B i q a and the scripts later used in these regions.

Historical reasons m a y be responsible for this astonishing process: T h e tra­

dition at separate places ceased as a result, of the invasion of thesea-peopJes

and the devastation of the commerical centres. I n Phoenicial the centres

survived in a diminshed number and recoveredearler and so took the lead

in the evolution. I n this sense t is right to speak of an invention of the

alphabet b y the Phoenicians.

NOTES

1. See for example W . Rollig, Die Alphabetschrift, i n : U . H a u s m a n n , Handbuch d. Archaolo- gie B d . 1 :Allgemeine Grundlagen der Archaologie (1969) 289-302. - F . M. Cross, E a r l y Alphabetic Scripts. Symposia Celebrating the 75 th Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Resarch 1 (1979). - G. Garbini, Storia e problemi dell'epigrafia semitica, Suppl. 19 to A I O N (1979). - J . Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet (1982).

2. Helck, zur Herkunft der sogenannten« Phonikischen Schrift», Ugarit-Forschungen 4 (1972) 4 1 - 4 5 .

3. Cf. R . R . Stieglitz, The Ugaritic Cuneiform and Cananite Linear Alphabets, J N E S 30 (1971) 135-139.

4. See in general M. Weippert, Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalastinaVereins 82 (1966) 312ff.

T h e textual evidence is Gordon, U T N o 57 ; 94 ; 500 ; 501.

5. T h e y are : 1. T h e knife from T a b o r - 2 . T h e Beth-Semes-tablet. - 3. T h e Taanach-tablet.

- 4. T h e Sarepta-sherd. - 5 . T h e Tell Soukas-fragment, cf. A A S 11 (1960) 141. - 6. T h e K a m i d el - Loz fragment, cf. G. W i l h e l m , U F 5 (1973) 284 f. - 7. Tell Nebi Mend cf. A . R . Millard, U F 8 (1976)

459 f.

6. See note 5 and cf. G. Mansfeld, Scherben m i t altkanaanSischer Schrift v o m Tell K a m i d e l - L o z , Saarbucker Beitrage 7 (1970) 29-41; B M B 22 (1969) 67-75; G . Garbini, A I O N 32 (1972) 95 - 9 8 .

7. J . Teixidor in J . B . Pritchard : Sarepta. A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Museum Monographs 1975 Fig. 30, 4. 55,2;p. 102 ff. Cf. E . L . Greenstein, Journal of the Ancient Near Eas­

tern Society 8 (1976) 49-57; M . G. Guzzo A m a d a s i , R i v i s t a di Studi Fenici 5 (1977) 98; P. Bord- reuil, U F 11 (1979) 63-68.

8. J . Teixidor, loc. cit. 101 and fig. 55,1; F. M. Cross, E a r l y Alphabetic Scripts (1979) 97 f. 113.

9. Gezer - sherd see G. R . Driver, Semitic Writing (1976) p. 98 and Fig. 41. Dagger from Lachish: G. R . Driver, loc. cit. 98 f. Fig . 43. - Proto-Sinaitic-Inscriptions: W . F . Albright, The Protosinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment, Harvard Theol. Studies 22 (1966); M. Scnycer, Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible V I I I (1972) 1384vl395.

10. M. D u n a n d , Byblia Grammata (1945), cf. H . H . Sobelman, Journal of Semitic Studies 6 (1961) 226-245; M. Martin, Orientalia 30 (1961) 46-78; 31 (1962) 197-222; 332-338; G. Posener, Melanges de la Universite Saint Joseph 45 (1969) 225 - 239.

11. W i t h respect to this peculiar problem cf. G. Mansfeld-W. Rollig, Zwei Ostraka v o m Tell K a m i d - e l - L o z u n d - n e r Aspekt fur die Entstehung des kanaanaischen Alphabets, W O 5 (1969-70) 265-270; G. Garbini, Storia e problemi dell'epigrafia semitica (1979) 40 ff. 69 ff.

12. Cf. for 1. Beth-Shemesh: D . Diringer, Le iscrizioni antico ebraiche palestinesi (1934) 311f.

pi. 28,6 ; Fig. 29. - 2. Lachish Ewer: O. Tufnell et al., Lachish I I (1940) 49-54; pi. L I A : 286. B ; 287; L X 3. - 3. Lachish Bowl : J . L. Starkey, P E F Q S 1935 pi. X V I ; O. Tufnell et al., Lachish I V (1958) 129; pi. 4 3 - 4 4 . - 4. Raddana J a r Handle: F. M. Crossi D . N. Freedman, B A S O R 201 (1971) 19-22. - 5. Tell el - Hes/Sherd: W . F . Albright, A f O 5 (1928) 150-152. - 6. Megiddo Bracelet : P . L . O . G u y - R . M . Engberg, Megiddo Tombs(1938) 173-176. - 7. Qubur el - W a l a y d a h Sherd: F. M. Cross, B A S O R 238 (1980) 1 - 4 ; Fig. 1.2. - 8. Izbet Satah. Ostracon: M. K o c h a v i , Tel A v i v 4 (1977) 1-13.

- 9. el-Hadr Javelin Heads: F.M. Crossi J . T . Milik, B A S O R 134(1954) 3 - 1 5 . - 10 Manahat potsherd:

L . E . Stager, B A S O R (1969) 45-52.

— 1,0 -

13. M. Dunand, Fouilles de Byblos II (1950) 1933 -38, F. M. Crossp. K . McCaster, Rivista di Studi Fenici 1 (1973) 3-8.

14. J . Teixidor, BASOR 225 (1977) 70f.

15. F. M. Cross, BASOR 238 (1981) 7b.

16. See F. M. Cross, Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, BASOR 238 (1981) 4 ff. and the just published javelin head of Zakarba'al king of Amurru:J. Star- cky, Archeologie au Levant. Recueil R. Saidah (1982) 179-186.

17. See recently:W. Rollig, Die Ahirom-Inschrift. Bemerkungen eines Epigraphikers zu einem kontroversen Thema, Praestant Interna, FS U. Hausmann (1982, 367-373.

18. F. M. Cross, Leaves from an Epigraphist' Notebook, CBQ 36 (1974) 486-494, see also ibid. Early Alphabetic Scripts (1979 103 ff. ; BASOR 238 (1980) 15.

19. W. Rollig, Palaographische Beobachtungen zum ersten Auftreten der Phonizier in Sardin- ien, Antidoron Jurgen Thimme (1982) 125-130.

20. See now J . Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet (1982).