2.Tartaria tablets visa writing history.Anistoriton Journal, vol. 11 (2009-2009), In Situ no 5 1

Internal evidence indicates that the alphabet was an invention

Attention is drawn to the fact that the tree-building methodology used here reveals systematic relations rather than ancestry. The reconstruction of the emergence of the alphabet needs to be based on further considerations and evidence. The first issue to be addressed and one that has been the subject of much debate is whether the alphabet was an invention or the result of a gradual process. The distribution of symbols within the archaic alphabet is not random but follows a unique arithmetic pattern that is not found in the Ugaritic script. The five vowels are distributed in intervals of 3, 4, 5 and 6 consonants indicating that the proto-alphabet was a conscious invention in a single place, at a single time. The arithmetic significance of this series aside, two further lines of evidence show that the event most likely happened in the East and was indeed an invention. First, only the five vowels of the Eastern Greek syllabic scripts (at least as we know them from Linear C) are used as opposed to the seven or more symbols for vowel phonemes present in local Linear B variants of the Aegean. Secondly these 5 vowels are arranged in a meaningful sequence (Figure 3 {link to file 3}) that could have served as a simple mnemonic device in the early days of the adoption of the alphabet by scribes used to syllabic Linear writing, if it did not have a more profound meaning to the developers of the script (in preparation). Not only can the sequence AEIOY be easily shown to be meaningful, but the same time forming a nested harmonic of vowels (29), a sequence that is obviously lacking in the Ugaritic cuneiform.

 Under this light, a hypothesis that a polyglot inventor(s) recognized the simplicity and power of the Ugaritic cuneiform and adopted it with Aegean forms and simple mnemonic devices in order to help it spread in the lands of the Linear syllabaries, is emerging as a likely scenario.

 Summarizing, the invention of the alphabet as a synthesis of forms, principles and organization deriving from Aegean syllabaries with a Levantine script in an Eastern context is supported by at least ten lines of evidence: (i) ancient literature testimonies, (ii) symbol morphological similarity, (iii) phonetic homology, (iv) letter onomastics, (v) letter variants in Greek alphabets that have counterparts in Linear B homologues but not in Eastern scripts, (vi) encoding of vowels, (vii) the internal organization of the alphabet resembling the Ugaritic but according to an arithmetic distribution, (viii) the use of the five vowel phonemes present in Eastern Greek syllabic system (as it has survived in Linear C), (ix) meaningful sequence of vowels, and (x) the systematic position of the scripts on the tree of Figure 2 {link to file 2}. Even if some of this evidence proves not to apply for a particular symbol, it is all but impossible that it all comes from a random process. This leaves little doubt for the case of conscious invention in a specific cultural and geographical area and against a gradual accumulation of small changes.

 Epilogue: a marriage of Kadmus and Harmony

 The lines of evidence presented here and the results of their analysis indicate that our script is the result of plexis of different ancestral systems, a result of synthesis and symbiosis of forms and organizing principles originating in different cultures. It also indicates that all past efforts to give credit for the invention of the alphabet to just one group, based on ethnic, linguistic or religious lines as we understand them in the 20th and 21st century, are at best, misplaced. All the more so when we are talking about an event that took place at a time when such concepts, as we understand them now, did not exist.

http://www.anistor.gr/index.html Anistoriton Journal, vol. 11 (2009-2009), In Situ no 5 5