EARLY ALPHABETIC SCRIPTS AND THE ORIGIN OF GREEK LETTERS

ukasz Niesioowski-Span
(Warszawa)

Lesaw Morawiecki in 2002 published an article dedicated to the origins and evolution of script in the Mediterranean World1 . Here I would like to draw readers attention to topics not particularly important for Morawiecki but well worth further exploration: the origin of Phoenician alphabetic script and the possible circumstances of its transfer to the Aegean World. The questions of when, how, where, and on what basis the first alphabetic script was born, are still disputed topics in current scholarship. Scholars agree that the beginnings of the alphabetic script must be dated to the second half of the Second Millennium BCE. In this period Mesopotamian cuneiform script and Egyptian hieroglyphs were widely used. Extant sources are scant and hardly allow scholars to propose a firm reconstruction of alphabet formation process. We must content ourselves with more or less plausible hypotheses. The character of sources and the information provided by them suggest that the origin of alphabet was a long process and not a sudden revolution. Furthermore, one can assume that the evolution was not linear but multiform and many-paths attempt. In other words, it is hardly possible to draw one line backwards, from the fully formed Phoenician alphabet (universally thought to be the last stage of script evolution in the West Semitic languages environment) to the first attempts to create alphabetic script. It is highly probable that there were many attempts to create an alphabet, and many of them led nowhere. Hence, some artefacts may not be direct ancestors of alphabetic script in astraight line but may attest to the process of work to create such. The group of undeciphered documents from Byblos, dated to the early Second Millennium BCE, can be included among such artefacts2. The script used in these inscriptions, often called pseudo-hieroglyphic, contains more than 200 signs (fig. 1). As it remains undeciphered it is impossible to detect whether this script from Byblos had influenced later attempts to create an alphabet. Furthermore, we do not know how long it was in use. The remains of Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script are too scant to judge its impact on other forms of script. However, the long existence of this script is sometimes advocated on the basis of other, younger script-remains3.
MORAWIECKI (2002), 15-38. GARBINI (1988), 88; NAVEH (1982), 21-22. 3 GARBINI (1988), 89, suggests that the inscription on the gold ring from Megiddo (13th century BCE) is an example of a late stage of the evolution of the Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script, and not, as often thought by others, an early form of alphabetic script. Cf. DRIVER (1976), 102.
1 2

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

173

Fig. 1. Pseudo-hieroglyphic inscription on the bronze plaque from Byblos (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 64, Fig. 2a).

The group of inscriptions from Byblos do not exhaust the ancient remains attesting the attempts to create the alphabetic script in Ancient Near East. A few, separate inscriptions from Gezer, Shechem and Lachish are to be dated to the second quarter of the Second Millennium BCE4. However, for the reconstruction of evolution of script in the Second Millennium BCE, obviously the most important set of evidence comes with the find from Serabit el-Khadim, in the Sinai Peninsula (fig. 2), usually dated to the 15th century BCE5. Several dozens of inscriptions were found there, and their script is called Proto-Sinaitic6 or simply Sinaitic7 . The inscriptions in question were placed on cultic objects (e.g., the Goddess Hathor statue, inside her Temple), as well as on walls of the nearby turquoise mines8. Despite the fact that the number of signs used in the inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim goes beyond 22 (the number of letters in the Phoenician alphabet), it turned out that the inscriptions were cut by people who spoke a dialect of one of the West Semitic languages9. Moreover, the influence of Egyptian hieroglyphs on the graphical form of the signs used in these Sinaitic inscriptions seems to be certain (withoMORAWIECKI (2002), 25, called them Old-Palestinian. Some scholars, against the vast majority, advocate an earlier date for the Sinaitic inscriptions, i.e., the 18th century BCE, see: KING, STAGER (2001), 302. Cf. HAMILTON (2002), 35-42. The exhaustive description of Sinaitic finds and illustrations of most of the inscriptions can be found in SASS (1988). 6 NAVEH (1982), 23-27; DRIVER (1976), 94-98. 7 DIRINGER (1948), 199-202. 8 The fact that many of these inscriptions were cut in the mines does not allow claiming that their authors were simple miners. It is hardly possible to imagine slave miners in the Second Millennium BCE to be educated and skilful in writing. 9 GARBINI (1988), 89-90; NAVEH (1982), 23-24. Cf. SASS (1991), 24-27.
4 5

174

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

Fig. 2. Three Sinaitic inscriptions (n. 345, 374 and 353) from Serabit el-Khadim (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 68, Fig. 4).

ut any correlation to phonetic values of the signs). Sinaitic inscriptions attest the surmounting of the main obstacle on the way to the creation of the alphabet: a consonantal script, in which every sign corresponded to one and only one consonant had begun to be used (fig. 3). The consensus regarding the key role of Sinaitic inscriptions was recently challenged by the new finds from Wadi el-Hl, in Egypt10. In 1999, during archaeological works along the communication routes in the desert west of the Nile, a group of artefacts suggesting the presence of people of Asiatic origins was found. The most intriguing appeared to be two inscriptions, which were written as seems certain in an early form of alphabetic script (fig. 4, 5). The glyphs on these inscriptions resemble those known as early-alphabetic letters from Sinai and Palestine. The pivotal meaning of the inscriptions from Wadi el-Hl lies in their date. The excavators and editors pointed to a date ca. 1800 BCE. On the basis of editio princeps some conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the Wadi elHl inscriptions reinforce the hypothesis about the influence of hieroglyphs, and more precisely hieratic Egyptian writing, on the form of early alphabetic letters. Secondly, the process of forming an alphabet could have started much earlier than has commonly been claimed11. Despite the importance of the inscriptions from the Sinai Peninsula, and Egypt, they are not unique artefacts allowing us to reconstruct the attempts to create alphabetic script in the II Millennium BCE. In Ugarit, where one of the dialects of the Canaanite language was spoken, the alphabetic script, based on the simplified signs that originated in cuneiform writing, was introduced in the 14th century BCE (fig. 6, 7)12. The documents attesting
DARNELL (2005), 63-124. SATZINGER (2002), 15-26; WIMMER, WIMMER-DWEIKAT (2001), 107-112. 12 NAVEH (1982), 29-31
10 11

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

175

the usage of cuneiform alphabetic script made use of 30 signs and reveal the phonetical differences between Ugaritic and Phoenician as spoken languages13. There is no doubt that the 22-letter Phoenician script, whose signs had lost their pictographical aspect, marks the pivotal point in the history of the alphabet. However, contentious discussions are still conducted in regards of the precise time, and the path of its development. Scholarly consensus has been reached that the oldest inscription with the Phoenician text, in its early, but final form, is the sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos (fig. 8). A somewhat more recent inscription of Yehimilk from Byblos follows. These inscriptions mark the border line after which a relatively uniform Phoenician script in Canaan quickly becomes clear. The Phoenician alphabet from the Ahiram inscription did not radically change during the next centuries. Despite the evolution of letter forms the script remained the same during the whole IMillennium BCE14. However, no conFig. 3. Sinaitic signs with corresponding phonetic sensus has been reached concerning the value on the left, and the group with unknown value. (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, date of these fundamental inscriptions15. Brescia 2006, p. 69, Tav. 2). Ahirams sarcophagus is usually dated 16 to 1000 BCE . This easily memorized date suggests that the creation of Phoenician script must be dated at ca. 1050 BCE. It means the terminological division of earlier forms of script, called proto-Canaanite or Canaanite (to which group the Sinaitic inscriptions belongs) and later simply Phoenician. Another hypothesis claims that Ahirams inscription should be dated to the 13th century BCE17. This hypothesis shortens the period of early alphabetic script evolution, but

13 NAVEH, (1982), 31. Cf. PUECH (1983), 365-374, concerning the silver bowl, found in Hala Sultan Tekk, at Cyprus, on which the cuneiform-alphabetic inscription was written. This artefact was found in the stratum dated to ca. 1190-1175, which could point to a longer persistence of cuneiform-alphabetic script than is often assumed. 14 PECKHAM (1968). 15 DRIVER (1976), 104-105. Cf. GARBINI (1988), 92; AVISHUR (2000), 103-104. 16 NAVEH (1982), 53-54. 17 DIRINGER (1948), 212.

176

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

Fig. 4. The Alphabetic Inscription n. 1 from Wadi el-Hl (DARNELL et al. (2005), p. 83, Fig. 16).

creates a new group of inscriptions. There are a few documents, dated to the 12th and 11th century BCE (see below), which were written with a script obviously more archaic than the Phoenician script. If Ahirams inscription is as early as 13 th century BCE, all these later, but still non-Phoenician, inscriptions belong to a separate group. They could be an example of the marginal and provincial lines of script evolution, or their particular antiquity in form could be connected to another factor. However, in both these hypotheses concerning dates, the evolution from Sinaitic script, with possible influence of Ugaritic cuneiform-alphabetic script, is presumed. The above discussion determines the role of a few artefacts dated to the late II Millennium BCE. The ostracon from Izbet Sartah (12th or 11th century) and the inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah (11th century) must be mentioned here. Scholars who claim that these artefacts are to be considered an evolutionary step from Sinaitic script to Phoenician one, often called them, along with other, older inscriptions, proto-Canaanite18. Others are inclined to explain their particularities not by their date but by their Philistine origins19. There are a few notable elements in the ostracon from Izbet Sartah (fig. 9), but the most striking is to be found in line 5, which consists of the full alphabetic sequence (22 letters), from aleph to taw, written from left to right. This feature characterizes the inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah as well (fig. 10). The left-to-right direction of script was hardly the most popular at this time, and if it was to be found from time to time in the older inscriptions, it totally disappears in the later ones. It was only in the 11th-10th century that the letter position, forms and direction of writing became stabilized and
NAVEH (1982), 36-37, dates ostracon from Izbet Sartah at the 12th century BCE. Cf. CROSS (1980). GARBINI (1988), 95; idem (1997), 231-249, dates the ostracon from Izbet Sartah at the first half of the 11th century BCE.
18 19

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

177

fixed as Phoenician script20. The direction of writing and the graphical forms of the letters, very similar to the oldest Greek letters21, suggest the particular importance of these artefacts. The number of inscriptions connected to the Philistines grew recently, thanks to adiscovery at Tel es-Safi/Gath. During the 2005 archaeological season, the pottery sherd bearing the inscription: lwt / wlt[ was found. This inscription, which is dated according to the archaeological context to the 10th-mid 9th century BCE, is interpreted as two names, of non-Semitic origins 22. From the paleographical point of view the right-to-left direction of the writing must be Fig. 5. The Alphabetic Inscription n. 2 mentioned, as well as the similarity of the from Wadi el-Hl (DARNELL et al. (2005), p.83, Fig. 16). letter forms to those from Qubur el-Walaydah (lamed and aleph) and Izbet Sartah (taw). The attribution of the artefacts from Izbet Sartah and Qubur el-Walaydah to the Philistine heritage, instead of treating them as the peripheral and parochial attempts in the way of creation of Phoenician script, opens the discussion concerning the existence and role played by the Philistine writings in general. One of the most eminent promoters of the relatively extended group of texts to be attributed to the Philistines is the Italian Semitist, Giovanni Garbini. Basing his opinion on the paleographical, archaeological (origins of the artefacts), iconographical and philological (e.g., presence of non-Semitic words) data Garbini was able to distinguish a group of Philistine writings23. Even if scholars do not agree with all the suggestions advanced by Garbini, it has become more and more widely acknowledged that there existed aspecifically Philistine sort of writing. Most of the texts which scholars are inclined to call Philistine date to the first half of I Millennium BCE, and were written in a local script with few features distinguishing it from common Semitic dialects. It is impossible to say at least based on the documents we have whether it was a separate Philistine Semitic dialect. However, it is beyond dispute that the Philistine inscriptions were written in a script, which reveals a few particular features, lacking in inscriptions of other origins. It is legitimate to say that inside the large corpus of West Semitic writings from IMillennium BCE, a group of Philistine inscriptions can be isolated24.
20 DEUTSCH, HELTZER (1999), 11-12, q.v. concerning the 51 bronze arrow-heads bearing inscriptions dated to 11th-10th century BCE. Two other arrow-heads (published in: DEUTSCH, LEMAIRE (2003), n. 1, 2) must be added to the list of artefacts belonging to this group. 21 CROSS (1980), 2. 22 Gath Inscription Evidence Philistine Assimilation, Biblical Archaeology Review, 32, n. 2 (2006), 16. 23 GARBINI (1997), 245-268. Cf. the list of five seal stamps attributed to the Philistines in: AVIGAD, SASS (1997), n. 1065-1069. 24 NAVEH (1985), 8-21; CROSS (2003a), 164-165; idem (2003b), 155-163.

178

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

Fig. 6. The Ugaritic cuneiform abecedary (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 55, Fig. 1).

As will be shown below the Philistine factor in the discourse concerning the early alphabetic script, in turn of II and I Millennia BCE, may be very inspiring. However, it is appropriate first to say a few words about the transmission of Phoenician alphabet to Greece. The Phoenician origin of Greek alphabet is obvious at first sight. It is revealed not only by Greek tradition, according to which Greeks called their letters either Phoenicians or Kadmean, but by the shape of the letters, their order, and their names25. Establishing the possible date of transmission of the alphabet from Near East to the Greeks is far from an easy task. The hypotheses advanced in this matter must based on the general time limits, i.e., the spread of the Greek alphabet in Greece (second half of 8th century BCE)26 and the creation of fixed Phoenician alphabet (as we saw above, according to the scholars the dates differ from 13 th to 11th century BCE). It is safe to assume that the data at our disposal point to the crucial role of the Semitic writing, in distinction to the lack of decisive material from the Greek epigraphy. In 1973 Joseph Naveh published an article, in which he advanced the hypothesis that the alphabet was transmitted to Greece ca. 1100 BCE27. Naveh based his arguments on the shapes of the Semitic letters in this period and their close relationship to the oldest Greek letters, as well as on the direction of script. It was ca. 1050 when the Phoenician script started to be used only in right-to-left direction. Only older inscriptions reveal the multi-directional writing, i.e., from the left, right, vertical and boustrophedon. Such multi-directional writing was typical for the oldest Greek inscriptions known to us28. Navehs hypothesis was greeted sceptically by both west-Semitic epigraphers and scholars of Aegean world. The latter pointed out the importance of argumentum ex silentio, i.e., the lack of any traces of writing in Greece for 300 years29. There were harsh critiques
25 MORAWIECKI (2002), 26, NAVEH (1982), 175-176. Cf. the suggestion advanced by KNAUF (1987), 45-48, according to which the alphabet was transmitted to Greeks not by Phoenicians, but rather by Arameans. In support of this hypothesis the anomaly of usage in Greek of Semitic tsade can be pointed out. 26 I would be inclined to think that in Greek epigraphy the most interesting feature is not the lack of written evidence from early Dark Ages, i.e., before 8th century BCE, but rather huge explosion of their number after this date. This phenomenon could be linked with general changes in Greek society which occurred when polis was introduced. 27 NAVEH (1973), 1-8. Cf. idem (1991), 143-152, and PUECH (1983), 374-395. 28 NAVEH (1982), 177-178. 29 Cf. POWELL (1991).

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

179

Fig. 7. Two Phoenician inscriptions in cuneiform alphabet: On the knife from Tabor (on the top), and on the bowl from Hala Sultan Tekke at Cyprus (below); (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 77, Fig. 8).

of Navehs hypothesis from Semitic epigraphers as well30. The strong diversification of the letter forms in early Phoenician writings (especially when the geographical aspect is considered) is the important argument against this hypothesis. From the palaeographical point of view, the transmission of the alphabet to the Aegean world could have occurred in the 11th, 10th, 9th and even in the 8th century BCE. Navehs hypothesis was accepted what was rather a separate voice by C.J. Ruijgh31. Despite the arguments against it expressed by S.R. Slings 32, Ruijghs points should be considered seriously33. One should remember, however, that as far as I can see nobody has denied the value of Navehs argument concerning the script directions. The existence of two above discussed Philistine documents (the ostracon from Izbet Sartah, and the inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah) bear on this case. They could support Navehs hypothesis of a relatively early date for the transmission of the alphabet to Greece. There is another artefact which could be interpreted to support an early date for alphabet transmission. It is a bronze bowl, found in a burial context in Tekk, in the area of Knossos on Crete. This object, for which a date of the 11th century BCE has been advanced, bears the inscription: bowl (of) m, son (of) lmn. mile Puech reconstructed the patronymicon used in this inscription as Liaminos and interpreted it as the form created from the name of the deified Cretean king-hero: Minos34. Furthermore, according to Puech, the inscription written on the bowl had to be executed on Crete, and it led the scholar to the suggestion that the Phoenicians, who were responsible for this object, had to come to Crete at least three generations before the bowl was inscribed and placed in the grave35.
SASS (1991), 94-98; RLLING (1995), 193-214; cf. NAVEH (1982), 184-186. RUIJGH (1998), 658-687. 32 SLINGERS (1998), 641-657. 33 From the diagram published by Ada Yardeni, it seems that she accepts the 11th century BCE date for transmission of the alphabet to Greece, see: YARDENI (1991), 3 (fig. 2). Cf. the rather controversial hypothesis, dating alphabet transmission to Greece before 1400 BCE, advanced by BERNAL (1990) the 2 nd edition was inaccessible to me. 34 PUECH (1983), 374-391. A similar bronze bowl with an inscription (The cup of Pesah, son of Shema) was found during archaeological works in grave in Kefar Veradim, in Galilea, see: ALEXANDRE (2002), 65-74. 35 PUECH (1983), 384-385.
30 31

180

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

The supporters of the hypothesis of an early transmission of the alphabet to Greece have received a few new arguments in recent years. The most important of the recent discoveries is undoubtedly the graffito from Osteria dellOsa, which at first was dated to ca. 775-750 BCE36, but later claimed to be before 775 BCE37. This small artefact, containing only a few letters, is proof of Greek-alphabetic scripture as early as the beginning of 8 th century BCE. The fact that the inscription was found in Italy could indicate that the Greek adoption of the script occurred even earlier. A similarly important role in determining the date of the creation of the Greek alphabet must be assigned to the scriptural findings from Phrygia, especially those from excavations in Gordion. The date of the earliest Phrygian script must consequently be moved backwards, though now it seems fairly certain that in Phrygia the local script was well developed as early as the beginnings of the 8 th century BCE. Despite the tentative dating of the Phrygian alphabet before the Greek one, and the implication of Phrygian origins for the Greek alphabet, the early findings in Phrygia reinforce the hypothesis of the early existence of the Greek alphabet. As the Phrygian alphabet seems to be closely related to the Greek one, the finding in Gordion provides another argument for seeing the beginnings of the Greek alphabet before the turn of 9th century BCE. The technically epigraphical discussion clouds an important issue connected with the process of alphabet transmission. The current consensus provides two possible explanations of the circumstances of transmission of the alphabet from Near Eastern Phoenicians to the Greeks: 1. Greek merchants, probably from Euboea, had close relationships with the Levantine cities and could have adopted the script during their many travels to Phoenicia; or 2. Phoenician merchants, who from very early times visited Rhodes, Crete and even Euboea, had brought their writing-skill to the Greeks 38. In both these hypotheses the crucial role is played by merchants, who are presumed to have occasionally lived in foreign environments for a certain time and to have worked on the cultural transmission of writing. There is, however, one weakness in these hypotheses: how the transmission of alphabet could have been accomplished by people speaking different languages. Successful trade, or even bargaining, does not require full bilingualism. However, it is hard to imagine participants in the transmission of sophisticated and rather hermetic knowledge, as writing was, to use sign language! Did the Phoenician merchants speak Greek, or the Greeks know any Phoenician? It is impossible to answer these questions either in an affirmative or negative way. The existence of early Phoenician inscriptions in non-Phoenician environments, i.e., in Northern Syria and Anatolia, could provide an argument for wide knowledge of Phoenician39. However, the inscriptions in question point out only to the fact that the Phoenician language, with the Phoenician alphabet as its vehicle, became in the early I Millennium BCE sort of lingua franca, used by the people speaking originally different languages.

SEG, XLII (1992), n. 899. SEG, XLVIII (1998), n. 1266; JOHNSTON (2003), 263-264. 38 MORAWIECKI (2002), 26; COLDSTREAM (2003), 295-302. 39 The most recent discussion of Kings Kilamuwa Inscription from Zinjerli (the second half of the 9th century BCE), and Kings Azatiwada, from Karatepe (end of the 8th century BCE) can be found in: AVISHUR (2000), 153-200. Cf. GIBSON (1982), 30-39; KAI, 24, 26.
36 37

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

181

Nevertheless, there are important reasons to assume that inscriptions in question were executed by the Phoenician scribes, for the needs of and on the order of non-Phoenician speaking kings. It is hardly a pure case of bilingualism. Archaeologists of Aegean world very often point to the traces of the continuous presence of Levantine goods, and probably even craftsmen from Phoenicia, in Greece, e.g., in Athens and Euboea, during Dark Ages. If the assumption about the continuous stay of craftsmen of Phoenician origin is correct, one can easily agree with the hypothesis of their role in transmission of the alphabet. However, there is hardly any proof of permanent Phoenician presence in Greece during Dark Ages. Some scholars interpret the artefacts in question, mostly the work of goldsmiths, to argue for the permanent existence of Phoenician inhabitants in early Dark Age Greece, who even would have created sort of professional guilds40. Others, however, deny the oriental character of the artefacts, and in consequence abandon the idea of the presence of Levantine craftsmen in Dark Age Greece41. The data at our disposal do not permit an answer to the question of the scale and character of an eastern presence in Greece, if there was any. We do not have hard evidence allowing us to claim the existence of a bilingual environment, needed as Isuggested for the process of the transmission of alphabet. There is, however, another possible place, where bilingualism can be assumed, namely Al Mina, the Greek Levantine colony, on the mouth of Orontes river42. Despite our knowledge about the Greek presence in the site, Al Mina does not look to be a good candidate for a bilingual environment. It was clearly established for purposes of trade and for a long time remained a pure Greek site, as can be seen in quantity of imported pottery for local use. It seems possible that the population of Al Mina was rather strongly differentiated from its Semitic neighbours and not integrated with it. Bilingualism would have needed closer relations and the effective mixing of cultures. In the search for a bilingual Levantine-Aegean community many scholars point to Cyprus, which is located between the two cultures, as a possible place of contact 43. There is no doubt about the presence, from the 12 th century BCE on, of people from the Aegean and the Levant, along with the autochthonic Eteocypriot population. However, even if the locale seems to be favourable for the cultural contacts, there is at least one obstacle to seeing Cyprus as the place where the alphabet was transmitted from the Levant to the Greeks44. The long persistence of Cypro-Minoan, and afterwards Cypro-Mycenaean or just Cypriot syllabic script, as well as the rather late introduction of the Greek alphabet to local usage, create a serious obstacle for the Cypriot hypothesis45. There is, however, another bilingual environment at the turn of Millennia. It is highly probable that the population of the so-called Sea People, which settled in the Levant at the end of II Millennium BCE, spoke one of the Indo-European languages, probably close to Greek. On the other hand, it is obvious that they started using the

BURKERT (1992), 22-25. MUHLY (1998), 314-329. 42 POWELL (1991), 14. 43 BURKERT (1992), 29. Cf. recently SUCHARSKI (2005), 39-45. 44 Cf. POWELL (2002), 227-248. 45 Cypriot Inscribed Stones (Picture Book No. 6), Nicosia 1971; MASSON (1983).
40 41

182

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

Fig. 8. The Inscription from the Ahiram sarcophagus, from Byblos (H. DONNER, W. RLLIG, Kanaanische und Aramische Inschriften, Bd. 3, Wiesbaden 1969, Tafel I).

language of their Levantine neighbours, Canaanite or Phoenician, very soon46. Though the origins of Sea People remains a hotly disputed topic, some secure details can be pointed out. Onomastics and a few words that can be traced back to Philistine point to the close relationship of this folk with Western Anatolia. On the other hand, the biblical connection of the Philistines with Caphtor (Crete) could be viewed as an argument supporting Aegean affiliation47. The strongest argument for this latter assumption is the material culture of Philistines, which shows close affinities with Mycenaean culture in Aegeo-Anatolian region. Typical Philistine pottery, called Mycenaean IIIC:1b, leaves little doubt about Aegean influence. The hearths dated to 12th 11th century BCE, found in Tell Qasile and Ekron have few analogues in Canaan but are closely related to the hearths in Pylos, Myceanae and Tiryns48. The Hebrew word seren, widely acknowledged as an example of linguistic borrowing from the Philistines to Hebrew (and as is highly probable derived from the same word from Asia Minor, from which Greeks created their word trannos49), is not an unique case50. Such words in Hebrew vocabulary, as plege (gr. pallaks, pallak)51, and anakim (gr. myk. wanax)52 could reinforce the hypothesis of the close relationship of the Sea People and Aegean-Anatolian culture. Arecently discovered dedicatory inscription from the temple in Ekron, dated to the 7 th century BCE53, contains another example of a word imported to Palestine from the Aegean cultural sphere. The cultic appellative term potnia (ptnyh) leaves no doubt about its western origins54.
GARBINI, (1997), passim. Gen 10:14, Deut 2:23, 1Chr 1:12. 48 DOTHAN (1995), 42-46. 49 CHANTRAINE (1968-80), 1146. 50 GARBINI (1997), 240-241; idem (1991), 516-519. 51 LEVIN (1983), 191-197. 52 DOTHAN (1993), 53-55. 53 GITIN, DOTHAN, NAVEH (1997), 1-18. 54 DEMSKY (1997), 1-5; idem (1998), 53-58.
46 47

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

183

Fig. 9. The ostracon from Izbet Sartah. The fifth line consists of 22-letters abecedary, from left to right (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 97, Fig. 18).

However, even if the number of archaeological and linguistical affinities with the Aegean World increases beyond those known to date, it would still be rather risky to call Philistines ethnically Greeks. The mycenizing material culture, as well as linguistic borrowings in the sphere of cult and power from Mycenaean vocabulary on the one hand, and strong connections with Western Anatolia on the other hand, suggest that the Philistines were descendants of the population of Western Asia Minor, remaining however under the strong pressure of Mycenaean culture. Despite doubts about the origins of Philistines, it is obvious that they could have been seen, by the Greeks, as much closer partners than any Semites. As far as the investigation about the transmission of alphabet from Levant to Greece is concerned, one must say that there are some arguments for Philistine hypothesis. Philistines knew the language of their home-land, and as newcomers in Levant, very soon became able to use the local, i.e., Semitic language and script, too. The condition of bilingualism would thus be fulfilled. As such the Philistines could be treated as serious candidates for a crucial element in cultural interchange from east to west. The Philistine writings (cf. supra the information about ostracon from Izbet Sartah), with the specific features of their local script, could be seen as the missing link55 in development of early alphabetic script. The palaeography of the oldest Philistine inscriptions permits the hypothesis that they represent the intermediate stage between early Semitic alphabetic script, or a Phoenician one, and the Greek alphabet56. The hypothesis according to which the Philistines, or other members of Sea People confederation, were responsible for the transmission of the alphabet from Levant to the Greeks is hardly new. Approximately a century ago, R.A. Stewart Macalister advanced the hypothesis about the crucial role of the Philistines not only in the transmission of
55 The term missing link has been widely used for the hypothetical intermediate script-form between proto-Canaanite and later Phoenician script. 56 GARBINI (1988), 95.

184

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

Fig. 10. The Inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah; text reads from left to right: mpl | yl | [ (G. GARBINI, Introduzione allepigrafia semitica, Brescia 2006, p. 99, Fig. 20).

alphabetic script to Greece, but in its creation, as well57. Despite the fact that the data used by Macalister are out of date now, paradoxically his hypothesis could be revived nowadays58. Christos G. Doumas recently advanced the hypothesis that the Philistines were the people responsible for transmission of the alphabet from the Near East to Greece 59. His starting point was the assertion that the mythological figure of Kadmos, to whom the process of alphabet transmission was attributed, need not be identified as the personalization of the Phoenicians, but could be seen as the symbol of a Greek-speaking population from Levant, i.e., Philistines60. According to Doumas the transmission of the alphabet did not occur because of merchants activities, but rather in a well-established bilingual society. To strengthen his hypothesis, Doumas refers to three amphoras, found in Thera, of undoubtedly Canaanite origin. Two of these amphoras are inscribed with signs, identical to the letters tet and kaf from Izbet Sartah ostracon61. Furthermore, the letter tet on one of Thera amphoras resembles the archaic Greek theta, and kaf, in trident-head form, could be the original of the later Greek kappa62. Keeping Doumas arguments in mind, one recalls again the Shema bowl from Tekk (see above). In this context, Puechs hypothesis seems less likely, and it looks more probable that Doumass hypothesis fits better the data. If this is the case, the patronimikon with element -mn inscribed on the Tekk bowl could have something to do not necessarily with the Cretan hero-king Minos, but probably with the city-God of Gaza

MACALISTER (1914), 127-130. The theory about the pivotal role of Philistines, or Sea People, in the process of alphabet transmission from Levant to Greece was recently supported by BRUGNATELLI (1999), 26, n.18. 59 DOUMAS (1998). 60 DOUMAS (1998), 133-134; cf. GARBINI (1988), 95; idem (1997), 235-238. R.S.P. BEEKES (2004a) and (2004b), has recently objected against the commonly acknowledged etymology of name Kadmos as deriving from Semitic kdm (East). 61 Cf. HIRSCHFELD (2002). 62 DOUMAS (1998), 134-135.
57 58

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

185

known from later sources: Marnas63. As Puech mentions, the archaeological context of this find could be dated to the second half of 10th century BCE; however, the palaeography of the inscription points rather to 11th century BCE64. Such a discrepancy is better explained if we assume that the object travelled from the Levant and was placed in the grave long after it was made, rather than that it was kept as a family treasure for generations in Crete. It would be easier to explain the sources at our disposal as the result of the import to Greece of artefacts and script-skills by Kadmeans, who arrived to Crete, and further Greece, and could be identical with Philistines. The hypothesis presented above finds support in the recently published conclusions of Norma Franklin65. The author analyzes masons marks from Megiddo and Samaria, dating to the 9th century BCE, and finds close similarities in their form to later Carian script. Franklin suggests that the connection between the Carians and Israel, in regard to the script and its transmission, could have anything to do with Sea People, whose Anatolian origin left clear marks in Palestine66. The serious consideration of the Philistine hypothesis could have implications for the two issues discussed above. Firstly, it could be easily incorporated with the hypothesis that the alphabet was transmitted from the Levant to Greece before 1000 BCE. One must not, however, forget that the Philistine documents allow the longer period of the alphabet transfer to Greece, namely 11th-9th century BCE. Secondly, it could be seen as an alternative for the original place where the adaptation of Semitic letters to the Greek language occurred. The controversies regarding the oldest Greek epigraphy, and the importance of local differentiation in Greek script (cf. above for information about the controversies between Ruijgh and Slings) might be judged differently, if one accepts Palestine as the place where Philistines, i.e., Greek-speaking people, adopted the Semitic script from their neighbours. Addendum: Only when this paper was already finished did I have access to the new book by Benjamin Sass67. This scholar mainly holds to his earlier positions. However, it is worth noting the way Sass deals with three particular sources in his study. The author is strongly against the hypothesis of an early transmission of the alphabet to Greece and he treats three recently found sources in this spirit. Of particular interest is the fact that Sass tries to dismiss the importance of each source which could be seen as opposing his main hypothesis. These three new sources are inscriptions from 1. Eretria, 2. Osteria dellOsa and 3. Gordion. The discovery of a few inscribed pottery sherds from the west sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephoros in Eretria was announced by Thierry Theurillat during a conference in 200468. The date of at least one of them for Middle Geometric II period
MUSSIES (1990), 2438-2447. PUECH (1983), 389. 65 FRANKLIN (2001). 66 FRANKLIN (2001), 113-114. Cf. AVISHUR, HELTZER (2003). 67 SASS (2005). 68 SASS (2005), 184. Cf. abstract of Theurillats paper at http://extras.ha.uth.gr/oropos-euboea/ abstracts_14.shtml. Sass apparently did not know the publication of the finds in: KENZELMANN PFYFFER, THEURILLAT, VERDAN (2005).
63 64

186

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN

evokes Sasss doubts. A comparable dismissal of the importance of a source can be seen in regard of the graffito from Osteria dellOsa, in Italy. This fragmentary text is difficult to interpret, but is probably written in Greek letters (cf. Sasss doubts), and dated as early as 8th century BCE. This date is so early that to keep his position Sass must reject this graffito as Greek text69. Third and most curious is Sasss treatment of new finds in early Phrygian script70. The recently found inscriptions from excavations in Gordion, dated to the first half of 8th century BCE, could undoubtedly shed new light on early Aegean and west-Anatolian writings. The usage of the same five vowel letters in Phrygian and Greek makes highly implausible the thesis that both alphabets were born independently; one must be the offspring of the other. As few of the inscriptions found in Gordion could be dated as early as first half of the 8th or even as the late 9th century BCE, Sass though not categorically is inclined to consider the hypothesis of Phrygian priority against Greeks in adoption the alphabet. Sass thus strains to save an 8th century date (or slightly earlier) for the process of adoption of the alphabet in Aegean world. His ignoring of the value of the Greek mythological tradition about Kadmos and the direct link between Greek letters and Phoenician ones must not be overlooked here. STRESZCZENIE Pocztki pisma alfabetycznego i jego droga do Grecji W tekcie omwione s najstarsze zabytki pisma pochodzce z terenw Syro-Palestyny, poczynajc od nieodczytanego do dzi pisma pseudo-hieroglificznego, z pocztkw II tysiclecia, pochodzcego z Byblos. Omwione zostay dwa moliwe rda inspiracji alfabetu fenickiego, czyli klasycznego pisma alfabetycznego, a mianowicie pismo klinowe suce do zapisu 30 gosek, stosowane w Ugarit oraz tzw. pismo (proto)synajskie. Na staroytno alfabetu powstaego na bazie wzorcw egipskich, wskazuj odnalezione wegipskim Wadi el-Hl, w 1999 roku dwie inskrypcje alfabetyczne datowane na ok. 1800 p.n.e. Analiza zabytkw okrelanych mianem protokanaanejskich, a zwaszcza napisw pochodzcych z Izbet Sartah i Qubur el-Walaydah, wskazywa moe na wan rol Filistynw (lub innych ludw wchodzcych wskad federacji Ludw Morza) w procesie rozwoju wczesnego pisma alfabetycznego. Charakter pisma fenickiego stosowanego przez Filistynw, midzy XII a X wiekiem p.n.e., wykazuje daleko idce analogie do pniejszego pisma greckiego. Zabytki pisma, ktre mona czy z kultur Filistynw, pozwalaj na przyjcie hipotezy widzcej wanie w tym ludzie porednikw przekazu kulturowego midzy Lewantem a wiatem egejskim. Filistyni mogli bowiem stanowi dwujzyczne rodowisko, ktre byo zapewne koniecznym warunkiem przekazu alfabetu. Wniosek ten pozwala sdzi, e adaptacja alfabetu przez Grekw moga nastpi jak twierdzi m.in. Joseph Naveh owiele wczeniej, ni wskazywayby na to najstarsze znane nam zabytki pisma greckiego.

69 70

SASS (2005), 155-156. SASS (2005), 146-152.

Early alphabetic scripts and the origin of Greek letters

187

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALEXANDRE Y. (2002), A Fluted Bronze Bowl with a Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscription from Kefar Veradim, [in:] Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, 65-74. AVIGAD N., SASS B. (1997), Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem. AVISHUR Y. (2000), Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. Select Inscriptions and Studies in Stylistic and Literary Devices Common to the Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible, Tel Aviv-Jaffa. AVISHUR Y., HELTZER M. (2003), Carians as Skilled Masons in Israel and Mercenaries in Judah in the Early I Millennium BCE, Kadmos 42, 87-90. BEEKES R.S.P. (2004a), The origin of the Kabeiroi, Mnemosyne 57, 465-477 BEEKES R.S.P. (2004b), Kadmos and Europa, and the Phoenicians Kadmos 43, 167-184. BERNAL M. (1990), Cadmean Letters. The Transmission of the Alphabet to the Aegean and Further West before 1400 B.C., Winona Lake. BRUGNATELLI V. (1999), Tra sillabe e alphabeti. I meccanismi della scrittura, [in:] G. Bagnasco Gianni, F. Cordana (eds), Scritture Mediterranee tra il IX e il VII secolo a.C., Milano, 17-26. BURKERT W. (1992), The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, Cambridge, MA-London. CHANTRAINE P. (1968-80), Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots, Paris. COLDSTREAM J.N. (2003), Geometric Greece 900-700 BC, London-New York (2nd ed.). CROSS F.M. (1980), Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Script, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238, 1-20. CROSS F.M. (2003a), A Philistine Ostracon from Ashkelon, [in:] idem, Leaves from an Epigraphers Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy, Winona Lake, 164-165 [previously published in BAR 22 (1996), 64-65]. CROSS F.M. (2003b), Inscriptions from Tel Sera, [in:] idem, Leaves from an Epigraphers Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy, Winona Lake, 155-163. DARNELL J.C. et al. (2005), Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-Hl. New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt, The Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 59, 63-124. DEMSKY A. (1997), The Name of the Goddess of Ekron: A New Reading, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 25, 1-5. DEMSKY A. (1998), Discovering a Goddess: A New Light at the Ekron Inscription Identifies Mysterious Deity, Biblical Archaeology Review 24,5, 53-58. DEUTSCH R., HELTZER M. (1999), West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium BCE, Tel Aviv. DEUTSCH R., LEMAIRE A. (2003), The Adoniram Collection of West Semitic Inscriptions, Geneva. DIRINGER D. (1948), The Alphabet. A Key to the History of Mankind, New York. DOTHAN M. (1993), Ethnicity and Archaeology: Some Observations on the Sea Peoples at Ashdod, [in:] Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem, June-July 1990, Jerusalem, 53-55. DOTHAN T. (1995), Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples (Philistines) Settlement in Canaan in Iron Age I, [in:] S. Gitin (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel. A View to the West. Report on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon, Dubuque (Archaeological Institute of America. Colloquia and Conference Papers, 1), 41-59. DOUMAS C.G. (1998), Aegeans in the Levant: Myth and Reality, [in:] S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean People in Transition. Thirteen to Early Tenth Century BCE, Jerusalem, 129-137. DRIVER G.R. (1976), Semitic Writing. From Pictograph to Alphabet, London (3rd ed.). FRANKLIN N. (2001), Masons Marks from the Ninth Century BCE Northern Kingdom of Israel Evidence of the Nascent Carian Alphabeth?, Kadmos 40, 107-116. GARBINI G. (1988), The Question of the Alphabet, [in:] S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians, New York. GARBINI G. (1991), On the origin of the Hebrew-Philistine Word seren, [in:] Semitic Studies: in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday, Wiesbaden, 516-519. GARBINI G. (1997), I Filistei. Gli antagonisti di Israele, Milano. GIBSON J.C.L. (1982), Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. III, Oxford. GITIN S., DOTHAN T., NAVEH J. (1997), A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron, Israel Exploration Journal 48, 1-18. HAMILTON G.J. (2002), W.F. Albright and Early Alphabetic Epigraphy, Near Eastern Archaeology 65, 35-42. HIRSCHFELD N.E. (2002), Marks on Pots: Patterns of Use in the Archaeological Records at Enkomi, [in:] J.S. Smith (ed.), Script and seal use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Boston, 49-109. JOHNSTON A. (2002), The Alphabet, [in:] N.Chr. Stampolides, V. Karageorghis (eds), Ploes: sea routes: interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th-6th c. BC: proceedings of the international symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th-October 2nd, 2002, Athens, 263-276.

188
KENZELMANN PFYFFER A., THEURILLAT T., VERDAN S. (2005), Graffiti dpoque gomtrique provenant du santuaire dApollon Daphnphoros Ertrie, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151, 51-83. KING P.J., STAGER L.E. (2001), Life in Biblical Israel, Louisville-London. KNAUF E.A. (1987), Haben Aramer den Griechen das Alphabet vermittelt?, Die Welt des Oriens 18, 45-48. LEVIN S. (1983), Hebrew {pi(y)lge}, Greek , Latin paelex: the origin of intermarriage among the early Indo-Europeans and Semites, General Linguistics 23, 191-197. MACALISTER S.R.A. (1914), The Philistines. Their History and Civilization, Oxford (The Schweich Lectures, 1911) [repr. Eugene 2004]. MASSON O. (1983), Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: recueil critique et comment, (2nd ed) Paris. MORAWIECKI L. (2002), Homo scribens, Res historica 13, 15-38. MUHLY J.D. (1998), Copper, Tin, Silver and Iron: The Search for Metallic Ores as an Incentive for Foreign Expansion, [in:] S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean People in Transition. Thirteen to Early Tenth Century BCE, Jerusalem, 314-329. MUSSIES G. (1990), Marnas. God of Gaza, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt 18.4, 2413-2457. NAVEH J. (1973), Some Semitic Epigraphical Considerations on the Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet, American Journal of Archaeology 77, 1-8. NAVEH J. (1982), Early History of the Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Paleography, Jerusalem-Leiden. NAVEH J. (1985), Writing and Script in Seventh-Century BCE Philistia: The New Evidence from Tell Jemmeh, Israel Exploration Journal 35, 8-21. NAVEH J. (1991), Semitic Epigraphy and The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet, Kadmos 30, 143-152. PECKHAM J.B. (1968), The Development of the Late Phoenician Script, Cambridge MA. POWELL B.B. (1991), Homer and the origin of the Greek alphabet, Cambridge.

UKASZ NIESIOOWSKI-SPAN POWELL B.B. (2002), Seals and Writing in the Ancient Near East and Cyprus: Observations from Context, [in:] J.S. Smith (ed.), Script and Seal use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Boston, 227-248. PUECH . (1983), Prsence phnicienne dans les les la fin du IIe millnaire, Revue Biblique 90, 365395. RLLING W. (1995), Lalphabet, [in:] V. Krings (ed.), La civilization Phnicienne et Punique. Manuel de recherch, Leiden, 193-214. RUIJGH C.J. (1998), Sur la date de la creation de lalphabet grec, Mnemosyne 51, 658-687. SASS B. (1988), The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second Millenium B.C., Wiesbaden 1988 (gypten und Altes Testament, 13). SASS B. (1991), Studia Alphabetica. On the Origin and Early History of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic and Greek Alphabets, Freiburg-Gttingen (OBO, 102). SASS B. (2005), The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium. The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 BCE. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets, Tel Aviv (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications, 4). SATZINGER H. (2002), Syllabic and Alphabetic Script, or the Egyptian Origin of the Alphabet, Aegyptus. Rivista Italiana di Egiptologia e di Papirologia 82, 15-26. SLINGERS S.R. (1998), Tsad and H: Two Problems in the Early History of the Greek Alphabet, Mnemosyne 51, 641-657. SUCHARSKI R.A. (2005), Aegaeo-Graeca. Ku problemowi greckiej cigoci kulturowej, Warszawa. WIMMER S.J., WIMMER-DWEIKAT S. (2001), The Alphabet from Wadi el-Hl A First Try, Gttinger Miszellen 180, 107-112. YARDENI A. (1991), The Book of Hebrew Script. History, Paleography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design, Jerusalem.