We may assume that the deeper we go into
the past, the simpler the languages, vocabularies, and concepts become,
at least the written ones. The first languages had very few words, only the
essential to everyday life. For the sake of linguistic comparisons, linguists
have produced lists of as few as 100 concepts, or less, for which names can be
safely presumed to have universally existed from the dawn of culture (Swadesh 1955; Starostin 1991; List, Cysouw, and Forkel 2016).
These lists usually include parts of the human body, generic foods (meat, fish,
leaf, root, etc.), common environmental elements (day, night, stone, water,
etc.), some everyday actions (to eat, drink, die, walk, etc.), and some more
abstract but universal concepts such as negation, deixis, time, or family
relations. But the writing systems were complicated. People writing in the cuneiform script (Fig. 3.1.1), for
example, initially used about 1500 graphemes, later reduced to about six
hundred. Today, the Unicode Consortium has standardized more than nine hundred
cuneiform signs (Unicode 2020a), presumably attested with reasonable
confidence in the archeological record.
Figure
1. A large trilingual cuneiform inscription found on Van Castle hill, near
the lake Van, in the ancient Achaemenid province of Armenia, today in eastern
Turkey, with detail is inserted. The text is attributed to the Persian king Xerxes I (486 to
465 BC). Artwork by Bjørn
Christian Tørrissen. Creative
Commons license.
Figure
2. Some o the earliest writings from Mesopotamia. Cretan hieroglyphs
and Linear A signs are shown on the margins for comparison. A: Uruk pre-cuneiform tags with a drawing of goat or sheep and a number;
Al-Hasakah, Sumer, Iraq, circa 3300–3100 BC, on display at British Museum,
London. Artwork by Paul
Hudson. Creative
Commons license. By flipping the token upside down, we obtain the Linear A
sign A355 found on the PH10 tablet from
Phaistos, Crete, dating from the Neopalatian MMIIB period (1750–1700 BC). The
left side token reminds the Greek letter π (Pi). B: The Kish tablet, the oldest
known example of early cuneiform, pictographic writing on a limestone tablet
from Kish, Iraq, dated to 3500 BC; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Artwork by Locutus
Borg. Marked as public domain. C: The Uruk III pre-cuneiform tablet AO19936 rwk P1150884, from the 4th millennium BC (Cunningham, Reich, and Fichner-Rathus 2014); Louvre Museum, Paris. Artwork by Lawrence S. Cunningham, John J. Reich, Lois
Fichner-Rathus. Creative Commons
license.
In the earliest times of writing, signs
were figurative pictograms. Some pre-cuneiform signs from Mesopotamia and
adjacent regions and similar Cretan hieroglyphic or Linear A signs are shown
in Fig. 2. Most signs meant what they
looked like, at least at first glance. A hand figure primarily meant a
hand, and whatever a hand evokes. An eye meant an eye, a falcon meant a falcon,
a circle meant a circle. Minoans from 2000 BC Crete would likely understand the
signs written in Mesopotamia more than a millennium earlier because they used
the same. There were probably as many pictograms as there were concepts that
merited communication. When figurative drawing turned from fine art to
utilitarian writing, much detail was no longer needed. A human head silhouette can be interpreted the same way as the head with all its features. The
trouble is that different scribes would represent a human head differently, and
the number of distinct signs for a concept could be inflated. Would a triangle
pointing left be semantically different from a triangle pointing up?
Another
problem is with signs representing objects that ceased to exist. Such signs
would be challenging to interpret. Furthermore, according to the medium and the
tool used for writing, graphemes could change the relative size, curves could
become angles, and angular lines could curve. Fig.
3.1.3 shows an example of such evolution. Frankly, nobody would recognize the
final form (7) of the SAG sign as a human head, had the intermediate forms –
particularly 2 and 3 – were not attested, but the sign still meant the human head.
Figure
3. Evolution of the cuneiform sign SAG, meaning head from a pictogram
of a human head, circa 3000 BC (1), through rotation around 2800–2600 BC (2),
different abstractions for later monumental (3) or clay (4) writings, and
different ductus adopted by Hittites (5) or Assyrians (6) in early 2nd
millennium BC, to reach a final simplified form (7) around 1000 BC. Artwork by Tdi K. Creative
Commons license.
The symbols were phonetically and
semantically polyvalent and could read in many ways (Finkel 2019). Transliteration requires
individual reading choices. The reader must decide which of the several
possible meanings of each sign the writer intended in the original document and which of the several possible phonetic values a sign had in each context.
Each sign should only be interpreted in the light of what precedes and what follows. Usually,
three signs in a row begin to make sense. A fourth sign is easier to interpret
if we have interpreted the other three.
These principles hold in today’s alphabetic writing systems to a certain extent. The meaning of the letter I, for example, is
modulated by the following symbols. When followed by a space, the I
signifies the personal pronoun I in English. If it is followed by an S and a
space (is), it is pronounced differently and makes up an auxiliary verb. When
followed by a T and a space, it signifies a different personal pronoun (it). When followed by
an F and a space, the I gives the if conjunction. Replacement of
the space at the third position with another letter modulates and specifies the
meaning of the initial digraphs is-, it-, if-, etc., still
further. The notorious English pair though/thought shows how the seventh
letter of a series changes the sound and the meaning of the previous six. If
there is any, the meaning of a sign also depends on the preceding signs. We may
affirm either that English letters are polyvalent like were the cuneiform signs
or that the cuneiform signs were meaningless on their own like English letters
are thought to be today.
The cuneiform system was developed by
Sumerians in Mesopotamia around 3500-3000 BC. The first signs were isolated
pictorial tags drawn on pottery (Walker 1987). The first sequences of
pictographic signs that could be considered as writing appear in the city of
Uruk (Sumer, Babylonia, now Iraq) only by the end of the 4th millennium, i.e., 3000 BC (Hallo and
Simpson 1971). At the same time, the
hieroglyphics appeared in Egypt, at first, as isolated imprints on pottery from
Abydos, radiocarbon dated to 3400 BC (Mitchell 1999), then as short sequences
of readable hieroglyphic text by the 2nd Dynasty, around 2700 BC (Bard 2000). Indeed, the precise time
when an isolated image of a corn ear found on a piece of pottery ceases to be
purely decorative and begins to signify the content of the vessel is difficult
to tell.
The Egyptians used at least 800 hieroglyphs. The number of signs
decreased for a few centuries but increased to about
5000 by the Greco-Roman times. About 1120 Egyptian hieroglyphic signs are
represented in Unicode today (Unicode 2020b). Sir Alan Henderson
Gardiner (1879 –1963), an English linguist, philologist, and premier
Egyptologist, did a formidable work to classify and describe the function of
more than 700 of them in what is still considered the standard reference in the
study of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs (Gardiner 1957).
Figure 4. A rebus-style escort card from around 1865, read as ‘May I see you home my dear?’. Artwork by anonymous.
Marked as public domain.
In ancient Egypt, writing is said to have
been based on the rebus principle (Fig. 4). Incidentally, Jean-François Champollion
(1790 –1832) – a French scholar, philologist, orientalist, and a founding
figure in the field of Egyptology – interpreted the Egyptian hieroglyphs as
rebus at a place and time interpreted the Egyptian hieroglyphs as rebus at a
place and time when this kind of puzzle had reached extreme popularity.
To write down a phoneme or a syllable, the
first writers drew a symbolic glyph that evoked an object, a concept, or an
associated sound. The glyphs represent real or imaginary elements, some well recognizable in form. However, like cuneiform, Egyptian writing was
redundant. Frequently, several glyphs conveyed the same meaning, but each glyph
could be used for different purposes. The same sign could have different
meanings and phonetic values according to context. It could be a
logogram (pictorial interpretation), an ideogram (semantic interpretation;
‘determinative’), a syllable (syllabic interpretation), or a phoneme (phonetic
interpretation). Transposed to Modern English, a phonetic sign would be the
image of an eye for the letter I. A few hieroglyphs represented single
consonants, but most signs functioned as logograms; they meant what they depicted. Some glyphs represented
the first phoneme of the object’s name they depicted. The determinatives were
signs with no phonetic but semantic value. These were to facilitate
understanding by differentiating a word from its homophones. For example, the
plural was represented at the end of a term by a symbol, e.g., three strokes,
meaning multiple occurrences, like our modern ellipsis sign ‘...’. A
glyph depicting, say, a house could be used for the sememe of the house
(pictogram), for the sememe of safety because a house is safe (ideogram), as
well as for the syllable /sa/ (syllabary) or the phoneme /s/ (alphabetic)
because safe starts
with those sounds. Roughly, this is how specialists interpret hieroglyphics
today. In one of his inspiring lectures, Wesley Cecil expresses his amazement
pointing out that Ancient Egyptian is the only known language where various
writing systems coexist (Cecil 2012).
I do not know how close this theory is to
the reality of several millennia before us and how much it is a mere
projection of modern ideas about the sound and meaning of the ancient signs.
Rebus communication requires phonetic and semantic reading proficiency,
advanced reasoning capabilities, and resonance of mind between the
writer and the reader. The theory is that modern words consist of elementary semantic elements conveyed by alphabetic letters. The Chinese writing system is based on a similar pattern
of thinking. Early and modern Chinese characters are complexes of superimposed elementary
pictographic signs, each conveying a simple concept (K and Lee 2019). In contrast, ancient
cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic systems agglutinate elementary concepts in
a linear arrangement to form words. In either case, as the eye scans the pile or string
of characters, the reader can associate the elementary semantic elements into a
specific signified object.
It will, hopefully, become clear from this
analysis that post-Egyptian writing systems such as Greek, Latin, or English
are just as heterogeneous, if not more complicated, except that the elementary
signs have changed. I argue that the Greek and Latin letters are made
of elementary strokes and have recognizable forms. They were primarily used as
pictograms, conveying their form, or ideograms, to convey concepts intuitively associated with their form. Additionally, each letter was assigned
a phonetic value which was accurately or inaccurately transmitted from person
to person and from population to population. The phones correspond to
instinctive sounds that humans produce in association with the concept evoked
by the letterform. For example, [mmm…] is instinctively uttered for effort or
pain; [eee…] for jubilation; [sss…] for silence, [zzz…] for sleep, frication
for friction, etc. Sometimes the phonation representing the meaning of a letter
is more elaborate and indirect, through mouth-configurations evoking the
letterform or the concept behind, e.g., [o] for roundness.
The argument is as complex as writing
itself. To interpret A, we need to know the potential meanings of all the other
letters A combines. My hypotheses were developed over many observation, prediction, and validation cycles. Still, I have no reason to
believe that this process has an end or that my suggestions are anywhere near perfection.
I, therefore, rely upon the reader’s indulgence and patience. A couple of
tables summarize the letter meanings that I have deduced from observations
presented later in the book. I have tried to keep cross-referencing to a
minimum for the sake of readability. A linear reading should be easier, but the
reader should, sometimes, just take my word for what I claim and read on until
the evidence is presented. Also, I occasionally opt to repeat an argument
instead of inserting a cross-reference. The examples are so many that, by the
end, the meanings of the letters will hopefully have been fixed in mind, and
interpretation of letter sequences will become intuitive.
The debate of Egyptologists and Assyriologists
about who wrote first, Sumerians or Egyptians, is beyond our immediate
interests. The origin and
potential meaning of classical and modern alphabetic letters are more relevant to literal semantics. The hypothesis is
the following. If our letters were derived by gradual abstraction from Egyptian or
other pictograms, they likely retained the semantic value of their ancestral
pictograms, at least for some time when the first roots were made up. We have
the example of the cuneiform sign SAG evolving from an icon of a human head and
retaining the semantic value of the original pictogram (Fig. 3.1.3). A letter that abstracts an icon of a
fish may still mean fish no matter how it is pronounced in various languages.
Some cultures may borrow a sign for its meaning and change its sound. Others
may borrow a sign for its sound and change or forget its meaning. If alphabetic
letters were de novo inventions unrelated to older figurative signs, then the
hypothesis of iconicity would have no archaeological support. In my search to
establish evolutionary links between our alphabets and previous pictographic
systems, I will examine individual letters case by case. But we also need to
consider the history of linear writing systems that succeeded the Egyptian
hieroglyphic and Mesopotamian cuneiform scripts in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The so-called Phoenician script was first
documented by the German orientalist Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (1786
– 1842), who interpreted the glyphs as pictograms, i.e., images with
simple meaning (Robinson 1843; Peters 1901). In the 19th century, scholars believed that those glyphs derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs,
either directly (De-Rougé 1859) – let us draw a fish
differently – or through simplifications and standardizations of more ancient
Proto-Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite, or other early West Semitic scripts (Lidzbarski 1901; Gardiner 1916; Krahmalkov 2002).
The prevailing theory is that Semitic-speaking peoples from northern Egypt,
influenced by Egyptian culture, borrowed some 30 hieroglyphs to write their
language (Goldwasser 2010; 2011) – or to create a
new language, I would say. Those characters, still pictographic but somewhat
abstracted, were used in Canaan by 1400 BC (Howard 2014). The reason proposed for
this simplification and standardization was that older scripts, the cuneiform system,
and the Egyptian hieroglyphs had too many complex characters and required long
professional training to achieve proficiency (Hock and Joseph
2009). However, this reasoning does not hold for the Chinese writing system, which has survived millennia without comparable simplification.
The hypothesis of an
Egyptian-Sinaitic-Canaanite-Phoenician line of evolution for the origin of the
first alphabet did not pass without objection. In addition to the Assyrian
versus Egyptian origin of writing, a second debate built up with archaeologists
working in various regions defending the importance of their findings and
suggesting that the development of the first alphabet must have passed from
their territory of interest. Peters reviewed all those early alternative
hypotheses and remarked the absence of intermediate glyph forms between
Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Phoenician signs, as well as the enormous time gaps
between archaeological specimens that would potentially connect the Phoenician
to the Egyptian endpoints (Peters 1901). He argued that the names
of the Phoenician letters could provide more reliable information than their
forms. On these grounds, he believed that the Phoenician script derived from
the Babylonian. His argument was fair, given the poor archaeological evidence of
his time. A few years later, the discoverer of the Minoan civilization Sir Arthur Evans affirmed that alphabetic writing did derive from Egyptian hieroglyphs but the path of this evolution passed through Crete (Evans 1909). More than 120 years later, the theories must be re-evaluated
in light of the accumulated epigraphical material. In the following sections I will examine today's evidence and try to re-evaluate those early hypotheses as to where the so-called Phoenician alphabet came from, and how.
References
Bard, Kathryn A. 2000. “The Emergence of the Egyptian State.” In The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, 61–88. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cecil, Wesley. 2012. “Egyptian Civilization and Hieroglyphics.” Wescecil.Com/Languages-and-Literatures.
Port Angeles, WA, USA: YouTube.
Cunningham, Lawrence S, John J Reich, and Lois Fichner-Rathus.
2014. Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
De-Rougé, Emmanuel. 1859. “Mémoire sur
l’origine égyptienne de l’alphabet phénicien.” Comptes rendus des séances
de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 115–24.
Evans, Arthur John. 1909. Scripta Minoa: The Written Documents of Minoan Crete, with Special Reference to the Archives of Knossos. Vol. 1. Crete: Clarendon Press.
Finkel, Irving. 2019. “Cracking Ancient Codes: Cuneiform Writing.”
In Conference. London: The Royal Institution.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1916. “The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic
Alphabet.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3 (1): 1-16 (23 pages).
https://doi.org/10.2307/3853586.
———. 1957. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study
of Hieroglyphs. 3rd ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Goldwasser, Orly. 2010. “How the Alphabet Was Born from
Hieroglyphs.” Biblical Archaeology Review 36: 36–51.
———. 2011. “The Advantage of Cultural Periphery: The Invention of the
Alphabet in Sinai (circa 1840 BCE).” In Culture Contacts and the Making
of Cultures: Papers in Homage to Itamar Even-Zohar, edited by Rakefet
Sela-Sheffy and Gideon Toury, 255–321. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviuv University.
Hallo, William W., and William Kelly Simpson. 1971. The Ancient
Near East: A History. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hock, Hans Henrich, and Brian D Joseph. 2009. Language History,
Language Change, and Language Relationship. Trends in Linguistics. Studies
and Monographs. New York, NY: De Gruyter Mouton.
Howard, Michael C. 2014. Transnationalism in Ancient and
Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
K, Sofia, and Amanda Lee. 2019. “How Chinese Characters Evolved:
The Origin of Chinese Characters.” Edited by Amanda Lee. Explore Mode,
YouTube.
Krahmalkov, Charles R. 2002. “Phoenician.” In Beyond Babel: A
Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by John Kaltner
and Steven L McKenzie, 207–22. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical Literature.
Lidzbarski, Mark. 1901. Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik.
Vol. 1. Giessen: J. Ricker.
List, Johann-Mattis, Michael Cysouw, and Robert Forkel. 2016.
“Concepticon: A Resource for the Linking of Concept Lists.” In Proceedings
of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC’16), 2393--2400. Portorož, Slovenia: European Language Resources
Association (ELRA).
Mitchell, Larkin. 1999. “Earliest Egyptian Glyphs.” Archaeology.
Archaeological Institute of America., 1999.
Peters, John P. 1901. “Notes on Recent Theories of the Origin of
the Alphabet.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 22: 177–98.
Robinson, Edward. 1843. “Biographical Notices of Gesenius and
Nordheimer.” In Bibliotheca Sacra or Tracts and Essays on Topics Connected
With Biblical Literature and Theology, edited by Edward Robinson, 370. New
York, NY: Wiley qnd Putnam.
Starostin, Sergei. 1991. Алтайская Проблема и Происхождение
Японского Языка [The Altaic Problem and the Origin of the Japanese Language].
Moscow: Nauka.
Swadesh, Morris. 1955. “Towards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic
Dating.” International Journal of American Linguistics 21 (2): 121–37.
Unicode. 2020a. “Cuneiform.” The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0.0.
Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium.
———. 2020b. “Egyptian Hieroglyphs.” The Unicode Standard, Version
13.0.0. Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium.
Walker, Christopher B.F. 1987. Cuneiform. Edited by Ian
Shaw. Reading the Past. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
