From http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/Anistoriton1.gif Anistoriton Journal, vol. 11 (2009-2009), In Situ no 5 1 The Origin of the Alphabet Cosmas Theodorides Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK Current and Correspondence address: Chatzichristou 14, Athens, 11742 kosmas.theodorides@yahoo.gr Abstract The origin of our writing system, the alphabet, has been debated for centuries. I revisited the issue from a systematic viewpoint and developed a line of enquiry with particular focus on the transformation theory of Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson and contemporary systematics. I offer ten different lines of evidence supporting the theory thatthe invention of the alphabet was the result of a synthesis of forms of the Aegean Linear scripts with script(s) of the Levant. Introduction Although the ancestry of our current writing system can be traced with certainty to the Latin alphabet, the ultimate origins of the latter have been debated for centuries (1, 2). Both mono- and polygenic theories have been proposed, but none has met universal acceptance (1-4). The ancient sources seem unequivocal that the invention of the alphabet was the result of major interaction of different cultures of the Mediterranean, albeit with great differences on the details (5, 6). Contemporary studies have made surprisingly little headway on the issue. With some exceptions, much of the Anglophone literature follows Herodotus in suggesting that the Greek alphabet was an adaptation of a Phoenician script (7, 8). Tree-like diagrams connecting the various scripts are often produced but without any explicit methodology and only rarely is it mentioned that this parentage scheme is in fact conjectural and untested (9). Apart from disagreements on dating of various archaeological findings, theories on the origin of the script are marred by the lack of a solid reference framework for quantitative assessment, a situation strongly reminiscent of the state of biological systematics before the advent of phylogenetic algorithms. In recent decades, however, a powerful toolbox of methodologies and philosophical concepts has been developed for systematics of organisms (10). Although scripts are not organisms in the current sense of the word in English, they are organomena (organized systems) and as such, well within the scope of implementation of systematic methodologies. These are currently being used for the study of relationships of languages (11) and manuscripts (12), and could provide the robustness of phylogenetic and statistic analyses hitherto lacking in the study of other organized systems.
A great number of theories that have been offered in the course of the centuries on the origin and historical development of the alphabet, often driven by religious, ideological or even racial motives (2, 13). Three have enjoyed revival and/or significant support in the 20th century: the Egyptian, the Cretan and the Sinaitic, with a significant party of undecided scholars. The derivation of the alphabet from Egyptian hieroglyphics is nowadays advocated only in relation with the Sinaitic theory, which suggests that Egyptian writing formed the inspirational basis of the inscriptions found in Sinai mines. Consisting of a small number of texts known as the Proto-Sinaitic, they are dated towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age -ca 1500 BC (8). These are supposed to have been the first texts in the Proto-Canaanite which, in turn, gave rise to the Phoenician at ca 1050 BC (14). The Cretan theory, advocated by Sir Arthur Evans proposes that the Cretan scripts, earliest findings of which go back to the late 3rd millennium BC, were taken from Crete to Palestine by the Philistines and formed the basis of the alphabet (2). Both theories have been criticized for their many difficulties. The Cretan theory, proposed well before the decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris (15) was based on superficial similarity and does not appear to have currently any supporters. The Proto-Sinaitic theory still attracts attention not least because of its Biblical connotations; more sober analysis makes it all but impossible to accept (8).
Since most of the theories hitherto proposed have been strongly influenced by non-grammatological constraints, I tried to examine the situation using independent scientific methodology. I reviewed, from a systematic viewpoint, evidence concerning all the scripts involved in these theories, in order to assess possible interconnections and systematic relationships.
Homologies and morphological similarities
The first concern was to establish whether phonetic equivalence of symbols had any correspondence to morphological similarities, in order to assess homologies that would allow a systematic analysis. In essence the first question to ask was: do similar forms represent similar sounds? Comparison of the various systems revealed significant similarities (see SOM {link to file 4}, section 3 for individual symbol forms and D’Arcy Thompson tropes describing potential transformation series) for symbols from the Vinča signary, Linear A, Linear B, Linear C, Levantine Protolinear, Phoenician abjad and Greek alphabet. Egyptian hieroglyphics did not show more than occasional superficial similarity, nor did most Proto-Sinaitic symbols. Although similar Vinča symbols can be easily provided for all letters, they were excluded as there is no generally accepted decipherment or agreement on their relationship with other scripts and hence homology, a primary consideration for systematics, could not be established. Much fewer Proto-Sinaitic symbols showed significant morphological similarity and given that a convincing decipherment is also lacking, no meaningful comparison could be established for the majority of letters apart from superficial similarities. In total, four scripts have direct phonological links to symbol morphology (Linear B, Linear C, Levantine Linear/Phoenician and alphabet), while Linear A is both very close morphologically and broadly accepted as a close relative of Linear B and hence could be included in the analysis.
Taxon relationships and symbol onomastics
A summary of the comparisons of the outlines of different homologous forms is provided in Figure 1 {link to file 1}. As it immediately becomes apparent there is a striking morphological similarity of symbols of the Linear syllabaries, the early alphabet and the Phoenician abjad. Simple D’Arcy Thompson tropes of morphological transformations, which often occur in writing systems, can lead to successively linked morphologies (SOM {link to file 4}). Further evidence for script interrelationships is provided by symbol names. Previously, these have been often linked to word meanings in order to support theories of origin. It is elementary to find such links in specific languages, let alone language families like Indo-European or Semitic (see also SOM {link to file 4}). It is impossible to independently assess or compare these speculative connections, and I therefore consider them of little value. The symbol onomastics appear much more straightforward: the letters of the Greek alphabet (and indeed much of the Phoenician, as reconstructed from the Hebrew) mostly share the syllabic value of the related Linear B or Linear C syllabogram either as their name or part thereof (Figure 1 {link to file 1} and supporting material {link to file 4}).Linear forms persisted in the Aegean while systematic analyses reveal an eastern connection
Further evidence of the interrelationship of the archaic Greek alphabet with the Aegean syllabaries in particular is provided by the fact that forms not found in Phoenician or the Levantine Proto-linear but present in Linear B and Linear C persisted in local alphabets into the classical years. Nine such forms or variants thereof can easily be distinguished (Figure 1 {link to file 1}): B2, three–line F, I2, M1, Ξ1, horizontal Ξ2, R1/R, P2/P and Y, indicating continuity or overlapping of Linear writing and the alphabet in the Aegean. Additionally, the alphabet encodes vowels like the Aegean scripts but unlike the Phoenician abjad. When the morphological data were submitted to systematic analyses however, both in cladistic (parsimony) and phenetic (distance) terms, the alphabet was found to be more closely related to Linear C and the Phoenician, both in the Eastern Mediterranean rather than the Aegean Linear B. The tree topology was highly supported in both cases (Figure 2 {link to file 2}). This is a crucialresult that is in agreement with the ancient reports on the origin of the alphabet in an eastern context as well as its different nature to the syllabaries. The alphabet does not appear to have been just the next step on a gradual development of the Aegean syllabaries. A major transformation in organization has taken place, reducing the 70-90 symbols of the syllabaries to just 23 of the archaic alphabet found in the Doric islands and Crete (16).
The question of symbol order
The question remained about how the order of these 23 symbols was devised. Following Diodorus Siculus’ narrative (6), I considered Syrian candidates as probable sources for phoneme order and in particular one of the Ugaritic cuneiform scripts. Ugarit, in present day Ras Shamra in Syria, found opposite the Cape St Andreas of Cyprus on the Syrian coast, was a metropolis of the Bronze Age with well-established relations with both the Aegean and the Asian hinterland (17). Although the cuneiform script is written in a different way, with resulting drastically different morphology, there is a striking similarity in phoneme order that has been previously suggested as an influence for or by the Phoenician and/or its ancestors. Subsequent comparison revealed that the alphabet shares 7 domains (Figure 3 {link to file 3}, domains i-vii) of similarity with the Ugaritic, while the Phoenician and related abjads share 6. Hence rather than the alphabet coming from a single progenitor, these observations would suggest that the emergence of the new semiotic system was a result of plexis or interweaving of different cultural organomena from the Aegean (form) and the Levant (order)Internal evidence indicates that the alphabet was an invention
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu