Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transmission
the
On
to
the
Aegean
of
Before
the
1400
Alphabet
B.C.*
MARTIN BERNAL
Department of Government
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
This article argues that Rhys Carpenter's date of ca. 700 and Naveh's of the 11th
century B.C.for the transmission of the Semitic alphabet to Greece, are both far too
low. New finds of early inscriptions in North Arabic scripts, notably that at Kamid
el-Loz, revive the hypothesis proposed by Praetorius at the beginning of the
century, that the so-called "new letters" in the Greek alphabet derive from ones
found in Thamudic and Safaitic, for consonants that merged in Canaanite. As these
letters seem to have disappeared from the Phoenician coast by the 14th century
B.C., it is argued that the alphabet must have been transmitted to Greece before
then. Further, the hypothesis of an earlier date removes many anomalies of the
present schemes and makes possible a general theory for the many alphabets and
alphabetically-based scripts that are found around the Mediterranean and beyond.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARTIN BERNAL
BASOR 267
Major efforts were made to isolate the borrowing of the alphabet and to diminish its importance. First, a categorical distinction was drawn
between consonantal and vocalized alphabets. The
latter were considered a Greek invention (for
doubts on this, see below), the implication being
that developing vocalized alphabets was beyond
the capacity of Semites (Carpenter 1933: 20). A
second effort was made to remove the place of
borrowing as far as possible from mainland
Greece. Carpenter suggested Crete, Rhodes, and
later Cyprus (1933: 29; 1938: 68). In the late
1930s, however, Woolley proposed that there had
been an eighth-century Greek colony at Al Mina
on the Syrian coast. Despite the tenuousness of
this claim and the complete lack of early Greek
inscriptions within 500 miles of the site, classicists
and archaeologists including Carpenter enthusiastically accepted this as the point of transmission
(Jeffery 1961: 10, n. 3; 11, n. 3).
It is curious that Carpenter, who so strongly
needed attestation when it came to time, should
have been so lax in regard to place. One reason
was that he saw it as more in the "dynamic"
Greek character to have taken the alphabet from
the Middle East rather than to have received it
passively in the Aegean. Jeffery, who was Carpenter's leading successor, has summarized another
reason. "The second point was well brought out
by Professor Carpenter:that only in an established
bilingual settlement of the two peoples, not merely
a casual Semitic trading post somewhere in the
Greek area, will the alphabet of one be taken over
by the other" (Jeffery 1961: 7).
In this reconstruction, it is axiomatic that
Semitic colonization was categorically more casual
and temporary than that of the Greeks, a contention for which there is little ancient authority. The
reason for insisting on the small scale and transitory nature of Phoenician settlements seems
largely ideological. They had to be so if Greece
were to remain the racially pure childhood and
quintessence of Europe. As Bury wrote in his A
History of Greece, which was still standard until
the 1970s, "The Phoenicians doubtless had marts
here and there on coast and island; but there is
no reason to think that Canaanites ever made
homes for themselves on Greek soil or introduced
Semitic blood into the population of Greece"
(Bury 1900: 77).
Thus alphabet transmission was unwelcome in
Greece because it would require substantial Phoe-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
YY
Nrt
h-Y
/
/V
-9
4q
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARTIN BERNAL
Late
Proto-Canaanite
Variation
Archaic
Greek
Variation
Classical
Greek
Latin
1200-1050 B.C.
' VA
c94
'A>
A7
4
A
B
r
A,
D
E
a i1
B H
?
G'
H
10
12
13
A
N
14
16
17
1 1
18
Mt
19
20
21
L
M
o o
15
.a
*9
,?f
't'
P'
99
t T
22
S
T
(D Y0
c Yt aX
W
vy
;! A
1 14
11
BASOR 267
;K't'X
u,v.w
-
C)
XI
Y
Z
'G is variationof C.
2Xfrom GreekE.
Fig. 2. Late Canaanite and Archaic
(from Naveh 1982: 180, fig. 162).
Greek alphabets
and the sarcophagus were 13th century, the inscription was later; while Porada (1973: 354-65)
maintained that the tomb was 13th century but
the sarcophagus was introduced in the tenth.
In 1977 Garbini tackled the problem in the light
of archaeology, art history, epigraphy, language,
and historiography. He showed that there is
nothing in the epigraphy to prevent a 13th century
date. Even more impressive, he demonstrated that
the language of the inscription shares many
features of Ugaritic not present in the biblical
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
Orhon Yanissey
Hungarian
Ls
Numidian
TF
Tifineh
Key:
Ar
At
B
BT
C
D
E
Arcadian
Attic
Boeotian
Bastulo Turdetanian
Corinthian
Dorian
Euboean
GI
IS
KL
L
TF
Greco-Iberian
lonian
Izbet Sarteh
Kamid el Loz
Lemnian
Tel Fekheriye
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARTIN BERNAL
BASOR 267
Messapic
Etruscan
t N
oo?
rnLr
'1
?TCa
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
Common
Germanicrunes
Rune
kkh
A
netic
runes9th- value
I
vaue 9th- th 10thcents.
centuries
u,ow
g, r
IM IL
h
.n
r
.ngr
$
I
Mn
pi
O cao1
N H
II A
itr
rei
k,g,ng
kaun
hagall
na.
n
"
I, C
iss
tI
tY,k/s -2,-,B
S
fp
hlc}1/1
I,t,
w
Na
iq,,d
KR
P P
SwedishNorwegian Phonetic
~ a<asd
R R
(<
I\
(2
runes
HH
?B
sol
t, d, nd
tyr
p, b, mb
bjarkan
ypq
T
1
I,t
I ,gr
9(nig)
I,
,k.
/I
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
8
MARTIN BERNAL
Orhon
Ycnisey
l4
Phonctic
value
Orhon
a (a)
Yenisey
>P
m
n'
i i
Phonetic
value
rf
It
oU
D
ad6
du
Oo
f
i'
.> 0
J33
b'
bl
bs
'r
33 I
nj
nd nj
nt nd
d'
qi
4J
1'
di
tr
VI
Jv
ql
9I'
to
d'
OA
ATro A
hh
It
/frP
h h1
+?^^
qt
oq u9
9o qu
rl*
r'
'f
i
It
'
Id lt
BASOR 267
completely unable to cope with the Spanish syllabaries. These are made up of alphabetic vowels,
liquids, and sibilants. The stops are vocalized: ba,
be, bi, bo, bu, etc. These are made up of vowels,
liquids, and sibilants. Most of the letters and a
few of the syllables can be identified with Phoenician and Greek letters but many cannot. This
peculiarity has led some scholars to hypothesize a
native script onto which an alphabet was grafted
(Jensen 1969: 38). The dominant school, however,
sees the older elements as having come from
oriental syllabaries during the second millennium
(Maluquer de Motes 1968: 15). The theory is
based on the progressivist assumption that syllabaries must precede alphabets. It seems more
likely in this case, however, that the opposite took
place. Both Etruscan and early Roman writers
tended to use redundant letters syllabically (Jensen
1969: 525). In both Spain and Italy these were
plentiful: the dominant languages had merged their
stops into a single series. In Spain there seem to
have been still further resources in archaic letters
no longer used in Phoenician and Greek. Hence
the Iberian be from the ancient p. Similarly its te
and to could well have come from an outmoded
"open tet."
Historians dispute the date of the Phoenicians'
first settlement in Spain. Classicists still prefer a
low date but Semiticists and Spanish historians
now go as high as the 1lth century B.C.(Maluquer
de Motes 1968: 17; 1970: 71-76; Blazquez 1975:
11-58; Cross 1979: 108-11). Thus the older
Spanish signs probably antedate the 11th century
B.C. A similar situation exists in North Africa.
Neither the Numidian alphabet nor the Tifineh
still used by the Tuaregs in the southern Sahara
resembles Phoenician or Punic (fig. 8). These too,
may come from a substratum earlier than the 11th
century.
All of this evidence mitigates against an 11th
century date of transmission for Greece. Such a
date cannot contain major anomalies in Anatolia
and Italy and it is completely unable to handle the
more remote alphabets.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES
To provide a better and more comprehensive
scheme, changes of both model and time scale are
proposed here.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
Iberico~I
Iberico
_
'n--
Bastulo Turdetano
4
Iberico
Bastulo Turdetano
4
Pr
b~
6L
bo
m*
bu
a&.
RP?P
E5
-
O09
t
~.
+X+
rA/i
I
\V US LU
qq
q~r
c,o AAC
ml/i
YYVuT
r
I
<
(r4
I
$^ be rTr
I
c Q
bo,
ca
)I
A DaG(4(
CO
co o
O
CA<
(po(f
1962: 75).
New Model
The diffusion of alphabets should be seen as a
series of impulses from a first center in the Levant
and other epicenters crossing and overlapping each
other. It is impossible to plot such developments
on a "tree." Thus it is more useful to trace-as
with linguistic isoglosses-the "isographs"for particular letter forms, stances, directions, etc. This
has been attempted above with p and t.
New Time Scale
The latest period for the initial spread is the
middle of the second millennium B.C. This could
be linked to Egyptian expansion in the Middle
Kingdom 2100-1750 B.C., but more plausibly to
the Hyksos, Egypto-Canaanite conquests in the
Aegean which, according to the ancient model,
formed the basis of Mycenaean civilization (Bernal
1987: 16-46, 84-103). In Italy it would be associated with the considerable Aegean influence in the
Late Bronze Age (Pugliese Carratelli 1976: 24361) and in Spain with the arrival before 1500 B.C.
of the El Argar people, who clearly had Anatolian
and Aegean connections (Cerda 1979: 381-86;
Daniel and Evans 1975: 756-69).
In accord with McCarter's thesis (1975: 123-26)
two major waves of Levantine influence are postulated here; but their dates are seen as several
hundred years earlier. The second major wave
would have come with the Phoenician expansion
from the 10th to the 9th centuries, hence before,
not after, the Greek, Italian, and Iberian urbanization on the Phoenician pattern. It is hypothesized that new letters were introduced during this
period and that major alphabetic reorganizations
were undertaken.
Disadvantages of the New Hypotheses
Adopting these new hypotheses has a number
of disadvantages. First, the wave model is less
simple and elegant than that of a tree. However,
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10
MARTIN BERNAL
Numldian
phonetic
Berber
hortz.
Brber
horz.
OD
DC nuA
lill
1111
II
HI
d
h
I:
.
II8
n
s
El
s2
111
?1,
g (y)
p(f)
XX6
z
z
11
30
value
perp.
II
9 (alpha)
phonetic
Numidlan
value
perp.
h
t
00
?:E 3 Z
O -4=D Lul
0
m
3 EW t,t d
-z NZ 3
1t
k
q
g
r
t
t2
> hfi
b nn
c Do
i1
n
0
oo
ct
d" ^q
h yy
W 098B0
Z T1
h rnm'I
YY
U
u
a)
H
ea
mT
mrM3
[Dm
rT
4*H
Y
Q)
(D
Standard
Ethiopic
k fl
I 91L
m
n
J)
il
4*'
17
o<
8~
Ih
n
0
4 cp)A(p)T
S Alf
d
)(
t
t
+
s
S.
ES
)t
x
o--o
BASOR 267
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
11
extremely uncertain. In any event we are concerned here not with the Uralphabet but with the
alphabet or alphabets in use on the Phoenician
coast in the middle of the second millennium. The
best indications seem to come from the Ugaritic
and Thamudic alphabets. The former contains
almost the whole inventory of protosemitic consonants. It is generally recognized that although
Ugaritic was stamped in cuneiform, it was based
on a linear alphabet. Thus, although its letters
cannot indicate the precise forms of their prototypes, some may provide rough approximations
of them. (Fevrier 1934: 13-16; Gordon 1967: 4.2)
An Ugaritic abecedary gives information on letter
order; a partial list of letter names helps in this
area, too.
The Thamudic alphabet belongs to a group
generally known as South Semitic. This forms by
far the most informative sector of the periphery.
These alphabets are particularly conservative,
partly because many of them were used in remote
deserts but more because the Arabic and south
Arabian languages they represented seem to have
been closer than any others to those spoken in the
Levant in the early second millennium B.C. Thus
their letters have better phonetic correspondences
to those of the original forms than do those of
Canaanite, Greek, and Anatolian.
It used to be thought that the South Semitic
alphabets were enlargements of the "original"
22-letter Phoenician alphabet, but expanded to
accommodate greater consonantal ranges. This
theory has now been discounted because the
"extra" letters in the archaic South Semitic alphabets are known now to be independent forms, not
Phoenician or Canaanite ones with diacritical
marks, and also because, unlike the vocalized
'aleps and an anomalous s, the "extra"consonants
were fully integrated into the Ugaritic abecedary.
Thus, linguists now generally concede that the
22-letter alphabet is a reduction of a larger one of
27 or 28 letters (Garbini 1979: 38, n. 24; Naveh
1982: 30-32). The best known South Semitic alphabets are the Ethiopic ones and the Sabaean or
Minaean one of the great kingdoms of south
Arabia. While there is no doubt that theyespecially the Ethiopic-have many archaic features, scholars agree that the North Arabic and
South Semitic scripts are still more ancient (Jensen
1969: 337-52).
From 1930 to 1970, scholars tended to see the
origins of these alphabets in the seventh or sixth
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12
MARTIN BERNAL
BASOR 267
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
13
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14
MARTIN BERNAL
BASOR 267
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
A B E I K
1700
on 9
15
cXpQ
1600
1500
1400
I
I
1300
I
I
1200
1100
1000
900
Fig. 10. Selected Greek letters.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16
MARTIN BERNAL
BASOR 267
JI tallies well with these. Thus it is probable that the most recent, precisely because they are the
the creators of its linear prototype used an archaic closest to Phoenician. Ionia and Aeolis were the
w to represent the consonant's vocalic reflex 'o/u. regions least affected by Phoenicians and Dorians
This would explain the derivation of omega.
in the Early Iron Age. The Ionians took great
With Q we complete the scheme for a Semitic pride in preserving their Bronze Age traditions.
origin for all the Greek vowels except for eta and Thus once one concedes that the alphabet was
the "new letters." Figure 10 sets out the corre- introduced in the second millennium, it becomes
spondences between the coastal Levantine letter obvious that the Ionians would have been the
forms and the early Greek ones. The solid lines people most likely to have retained the earlier
suppose a Byblian transmission and the broken forms.
ones suppose a transmission from hypothetical
There are other indications that the Ionian
conservative dialects in Phoenicia, although not in alphabet was the most ancient in Greece. It was
the alphabet of the Homeric epics and it was
Syria and Palestine.
To summarize, dating for the letters discussed is adopted as the pan-Hellenic alphabet at the
as follows:
beginning of the fourth century. It is usual for
scripts to spread with economic, political or miliB, D,X, T, Q: before1400B.C.
tary power. But by no stretch of the imagination
A, E, I, O, n-, E: before1300B.C.
can the Ionians be said to have triumphed in the
K, M: after 1000 B.C.
Persian and Peloponnesian wars. The reasons for
their alphabet's success were clearly cultural. Not
The other letters provide insufficient evidence only was it that of Homer but it was seen as the
on which to determine dating.
most ancient form, and this was considered reason
From this and the principle that a script is as to establish it as the standard form. This view is
old as its oldest letter, it is evident that the confirmed by the passage from Herodotus quoted
alphabet must have been transmitted before 1400 at the beginning of this article, in which he deB.C. On the other hand, the late K and M are not
scribes the "Cadmean letters" as being "most of
the only indications that there was a major re- them not very different from the Ionian" (1:58).
If Herodotus were being tricked, the forgers
organization in the first quarter of the first millennium. The alphabetic and numerical orders are believed that the Ionian was the most ancient
clearly based on the Canaanite and Phoenician alphabet. It would seem more probable, however,
ones and the o's in iota and rh6 indicate that that the inscriptions were genuine and that they
Greek letter names are Canaanite or Phoenician were examples of 14th century inscriptions with
rather than early west Semitic-or for that matter, vowels and "new letters."
Aramaic.
To conclude, it would seem that if we use all
the information at our disposal, in a relatively
logical and detached way, we will arrive at very
CONCLUSIONS
much the same conclusion as Herodotus and his
The discussion makes it clear that far from contemporaries: that the Phoenician or Levantine
alphabet was transmitted westward around the
being the earliest-as is commonly supposed-the
south Aegean alphabets of Crete and Thera are middle of the second millennium B.C.
NOTES
'This was discoveredafterthe publicationof Jeffery, Semitic Alphabet before 1400 B.C., forthcoming.
3Thisis arguedat morelengthin CadmeanLetters.
1961.Jeffery,does, however,illustrateit in 1982:825.
4SeeCadmeanLetters.
2I have completed studies of the other letters in
5SeeCadmeanLetters.
Cadmean Letters: The Westward Diffusion of the
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Astour, M. C.
Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural
1967
Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean
Greece. Leiden: Brill.
Bass, G.
1967
Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck.
Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 57, pt. 2. Philadelphia, PA: American
Philosophical Society.
Bernal, M
Black Athena Denied: The Tyranny of Ger1986
many over Greece and the Rejection of the
Afroasiatic roots of Greece 1780-1980. Comparative Criticism 8: 3-69.
Black Athena I: The Fabrication of An1987
cient Greece 1785-1985. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers.
In Press First Land then Sea: Thoughts About the
Social Formation of the Mediterranean and
Greece, in Geography in Historical Perspective, eds. E. Genovese and L. Hochberg.
New York: Blackwell.
Binford, L. R.
Behavioral Archaeology and the "Pompeii
1981
Premise." Journal of Anthropological Research 37, 3: 195-208.
Blazquez, J. M.
Tartessos y los origenes de la colonizacion
1975
fenicia en occidente. Acta Salmanticiensia,
Filosofia y Letras 58, 2nd ed. Salamanca:
University of Salamanca.
Brixhe, C. and Drew-Bear, T.
1982
Trois nouvelles inscriptions paleo-phrygienne
de Cepni. Kadmos: 21: 64-87.
Bundgaard, J. A.
1965
Why Did the Art of Writing Spread to
the West? Reflections on the Alphabet of
Marsiliana. Analecta Romana Institute
Danici 3: 1-72.
Buonamici, V. G. (comp.)
1939
Fonti di storia etrusca, tratte dagli autori
classici. Rome. Olschki.
Bury, J. B.
A History of Greece to the Death of Alex1900
ander the Great. London: Macmillan.
Carpenter, R.
1933
The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet. American Journal of Archaeology 37: 8-29.
1938
The Greek Alphabet Again. American Journal of Archaeology 42: 58-69.
Cerda, F. J.
1979
Tartessos y la cultura del Argar. Pp. 381-86
in Actas del ll colloquio sobre lenguas y
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18
MARTIN BERNAL
Frankfort, H.
1970
The Art and Architecture of the Ancient
Orient 1st paperback ed.: Harmondsworth,
Penguin. (first ed. published 1954).
Friedrich, J.
1957
Extinct Languages. Trans. F. Gaynor, from
German. New York: Philosophical Library.
Garbini, G.
1977
Sulla datazione dell' iscrizione di Ahiram.
Annali dell' Istituto Orientale di Napoli, vol.
37. N.S. 27: 81-89. Naples: Istituto Orientale
di Napoli.
1979
Storia e problemi dell' epigrafia semitica.
Supplemento(19) agli Annali Istituto Orientale di Napoli. vol. 39. N.S. 29 Naples:
Istituto Orientale di Napoli.
Gardiner, A. H.
1964
Egypt of the Pharaohs, New York: Oxford
University.
Gardner, E. A., and Cary, M.
1925
Early Athens. Pp. 571-97 in Cambridge Ancient History. vol. 3. The Assyrian Empire.
1st ed., eds. J. B. Bury, F. A. Adcock, and
S. A. Cook. Cambridge Eng.: Cambridge
University.
Gates, H.
1984
On the Ahiram Sarcophagus. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Oriental Society, Chicago.
Gomez-Moreno, M.
1962
La escritura bastulo-turdetana (Primitiva
hispdnica). Madrid: Revista de Archivos
Bibliotecas y Museos.
Gordon, C. H.
1966
Evidence for the Minoan Language. Ventnor
N.J.: Ventnor.
1967
Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in
Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Analecta Orientalia: Commentationes Scietificae de rebus Orientis Antiqui:
38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Haas, O.
Die Herkunft der runenschrift. Orbis. 14:
1965
216-36.
Hammarstrom, M.
1931
Review of Sommer, Das lydische und etruskische F-Zeichen, Gnomon 7: 92-95.
Harris, Z. S.
1939
Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An
Investigation of Linguistic History. American
Oriental Series 16. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Helm, P. R.
"Greeks" in the Neo-Syrian Levant and
1980
Assyria" in Early Greek writers. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
BASOR 267
Hopkins, S. A.
1976
Semitic Writingfrom Pictograph to Alphabet. Original by G. R. Driver. London:
Oxford University.
de Hoz, J.
1983
Algunas concideraciones sobre los origenes
del alfabeto griego. Pp. 11-50 in Estudios
Metod6ligos sobre la lingua griega, ed. J. A.
Fernandez Delgado. Caceres, Spain: Instituto de ciencias de la educaci6n de la Universidad de Extremadura.
Jacoby, F., ed.
1923- Fragmenta der griechischen Historiker. Ber1929
lin: Weidmann.
Jamme, A.
1969
Inscriptions from Hajar Bin H(H)umeid. Pp.
331-54 in Investigations at a Pre-Islamic
Site in South Arabia. G. W. Van Beek et. al.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Jeffery, L. H.
The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A
1961
Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet
and its Development from the Eighth to the
Fifth Centuries B.C. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford
University.
1982
Greek Alphabetic Writing. Pp. 819-33 The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3. pt. 1,
2nd ed., eds. J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards,
and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University.
Jensen, H.
1969
Sign, Symbol, and Script: An Account of
Man's Efforts to Write,trans. George Unwin,
from German. New York: Putnam.
Kaufman, S. A.
Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilin1982
gual from Tell Fakhariyeh. Maarav 3, 2:
137-75.
M.
Lejeune,
A-t-il existe un syllabaire tyrrhenien? Revue
1967
des Etudes Grecques 80: 40-59.
1970
Les inscriptions de Gordion et l'alphabet
Phrygien. Kadmos 9: 51-74.
de
Maluquer Motes, J.
1968
Epigrafia prelatina de la peninsula iberica.
Institute of Archaeology and Prehistory,
Occasional Publications, 12. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
1970
Tartessos: La ciudad sin historia. Barcelona:
Destino.
Mansfeld, G.
1970
Scherben mit altkanaanaischer Schrift vom
Tell Kamid el Loz. Pp. 28-41 in Kamid el
Loz-Kumidi: Schriftdokumente aus Kiimid
el-Loz., eds. D. O. Edzard et. al. Bonn:
Habelt.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1987
McCarter, P. K.
1975
The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and
the Early Phoenician Scripts. Harvard Semitic Museum, Harvard Semitic Monographs
9. Missoula, MT: Scholars.
Millard A. R., and Bordreuil, P.
A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and
1982
Aramaic inscriptions. Biblical Archaeologist
45, 3: 135-41.
Montet, P.
1928- Byblos et l'Egypte, quatres campagnes de
1929 fouilles a Gebail, 1921-1922-1923-1924.
Paris: Guethner.
Moran, W. J.
The Hebrew Language in its Northwest Sem1961
itic Background. Pp. 54-72 in The Bible and
the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Naveh, J.
1973
Some Semitic Epigraphical Considerations
on the Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet.
American Journal of Archaeology 77: 1-8.
1982
Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Pfiffig, A. J.
War die erste Schrift der Etrusker eine
1963
Silbenschrift Kadmos 11: 142-49.
Pittioni, R
Zur frage nach der Herkunft der Runen und
1941
ihrer Verankerung in der Kultur der europaischen Bronzezeit. Beitrage zur Geschichte
der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 65:
373-84.
Porada, E
1973
Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram. Columbia University Ancient Near Eastern
Studies Journal 5: 354-65.
Praetorius, G. F.
Zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets.
1902
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft. 56: 676-80.
G.
Carratelli,
Pugliese
1976
Per la storia delle relazioni micinee con
l'Italia. Pp. 243-61 in Scritti sul mondo
antico: Europa e Asia. Espansione Coloniale
Ideologie e Istituzioni Politiche e Reliogiose.
Naples: Gaetano Macchioroli.
19
Ray, J. D.
An Approach to the Carian Script. Kadmos
1981
20, 2:150-62.
Rollig, W., and Mansfeld, G.
1970
Zwei Ostraca vom Tell Kamid-el-Loz und
ein neuer Aspekt fur die Entstehung des
kanaanaischen Alphabets. Die Welt des
Orients 3.2.265-70.
N.
Schmidt,
1920
Bellerophon's Tablet and the Homeric
Question in the Light of Oriental Research.
Transactions of the American Philological
Society 51: 56-70
de Selincourt, A.
1972
Herodotus: the Histories. Harmondsworth,
Eng.: Penguin.
Slotty, F.
1952
Silbenpunktieren und Silbenbildung im Altetruskischen, Beitrage zur Etruskologie 1:
24-40.
Sommer, F.
1930
Das lydische und etruskische F-Zeichen. Sitzungberichte der bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften: Philosophische-historische
Abteilung: 1-7.
Sznyzer, M.
1979
L'inscription phenicienne de Tekke pres de
Cnossos. Kadmos 18: 89-93.
Taylor, I.
1883
The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin
and Development of Letters, 2 vols. London:
Kegan Paul.
Ullman, B. J.
1934
How Old is the Greek Alphabet? American
Journal of Archaeology 38: 359-81.
Ward, W. A., and Martin, M. F.
1964
The Balua Stele, a New Transcription.Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
8-9: 5-28.
Wetter, I.
1936
Die Herkunft des venetischen Punktiersystems. Glotta 24: 114-33.
Whatmough, J.
1933
The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy, Vols. II,
III, Cambridge MA: Harvard.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions