Study Writing

8/21/2019 Study Writing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/study-writing 1/342

S TU D Y O F W R I T I N G

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



/MAAM^MA

A S T U D Y O F *?•

fii

W R I T I N G

R E V I S E D E D I T I O N

I . J . GELB

ho nix

Books

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C H I C G O P R E S S

oi.uchicago.edu



his book is also available

in

a clothbound edition from

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

TO THE MOKSTADS

T H E UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO LONDON

The University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada

Copyright

1952 in the

International Copyright

Union All rights

reserved Published 1952

Second

Edition 1963 First Phoenix

Impression 1963 Printed

in the

United States

of

America

oi.uchicago.edu



P R E F A C E

T

H E

book contains twelve chapters, but i t can be

bro ken up s t ructural ly in to f ive pa rts . Firs t , the place

of w ri t ing am ong the various systems of h u m an inter

communication is discussed. This is followed by four

chapters devoted to the descript ive and comparat ive t reatment

of the various types of writ ing in the world. The sixth chapter

deals with the evolution of writing from the earliest stages of

picture wri t ing to a ful l a lphabet . The next four chapters deal

with general problems, such as the future of wri t ing and the

relat ionship of writ ing to speech, art , and rel igion. Of the two

final chapters, one contains the first attempt to establish a full

terminology of wri t ing, the oth er an extensive bibl iogra phy .

T h e a im of this study is to lay a foun dation for a ne w science

of wri t ing which might be cal led grammatology. While the

gen eral histories of w rit ing trea t indiv idu al writ ings m ainly

from a descriptive-historical po int of view, t he new science

attempts to establish general principles governing the use and

evolut ion of wri t ing on a comparat ive-typological basis . The

importance of this study l ies in i ts being the first systematic

presentation of the history and evolution of writ ing as based

on these principles. Some specific results of the new reconstruc

t ion ar e: Elim ination of the so-called w ord writ ing s an d the ir

replacement by the word-syl labic type; assignment of the so-

called Sem itic alp ha be t to the syllabic typ e; plac ing th e so-

called M ay a and Aztec wri t ings no t un de r wri t ings pro pe r

b u t un de r forerunners of wri t ing; conclusion tha t the m ysterious

Easter Is land inscript ions do not represent wri t ing but formal

designs for magical purposes.

Let i t be clearly understood from the start that the work here

presented is not a comprehensive history of writ ing. This work

is concerned only with those writ ings that are representative

of certain types or are crucial for the understanding of certain

developments. One would look in vain, therefore, in this study

for a discussion of Latin writ ing through ancient, medieval ,

and modern t imes, because that system represents nothing new

an d im po rtan t for the theory of wri t ing. Gen eral ly speaking, we

v

oi.uchicago.edu



P R E F C E

write to-day the way the ancient Romans did, and the ancient

Latin writ ing is identical in principle with that of the Greeks,

from whom i t was borrowed.

Much of the theoret ical reconstruct ion of wri t ing as pre

sented in this study may sound heretical to some scholars,

especially to those philologists who, being imbued with sacred

traditions in their narrow fields of specialization, feel reticent

about accepting conclusions drawn from a comprehensive view

of writ ing. Indicative of this at t i tude is the request of one of

my colleagues not to quote his name in acknowledgement for

help I had received from him in matters pertaining to Chinese.

It is with a certain degree of self-assurance that I refer to that

scho lar s relu ctan ce to be associated with here tics , since I ho pe

to see him go to Canossa when he sees the l ight .

The study rel ies chiefly on internal structural evidence,

placing in secondary posi t ion arguments that can be drawn

from external formal evidence. Thus there is plenty of room

in a future stu dy of similar na tu re to wo rk out thoro ug hly the

formal aspects of the typolog y a n d evo lution of w rit ing. Subjects

which might rece ive more adequate t rea tment in the future

pe rta in to wri t ing m ateria ls , nu m bers , order of s ignaries , nam es

of signs, and auxil iary marks, such as prosodic features, word

division, etc.

This study has been in the making for sl ightly over twenty

years.

I t includes parts in the cha pter W ri t ing an d Civil iza

t ion wh ich were taken over from a pa pe r wri t ten in m y college

days as well as a cha pter ent i tled F utu re of W ri t ing wh ich was

wri t ten only about two years ago. The major part of the s tudy

was composed in the few years immediately preceding the

American ent ry in to the Second World War . The long per iod

of gestat ion, coupled with the heavy burden of scholastic and

administrat ive duties that have fal len to me in the last few

years, is mainly responsible for whatever unevenness in style

an d com posit ion ma y ap p ea r in the final pr od uc t. It is for th e

latter reason that I have been unable to uti l ize fully the

scientific l i terature of the last two or three years. From among

the important works on wri t ing which have not received ful l

just ice in this study I should l ike to single out Ja m es G. Fev rier,

Histoire de Vecriture (Paris, 1948) a nd G. R . D river, Semitic

W riting from ictograph to lphabet (Lon don , 1948).

In order to prevent misunderstanding on the part of some

vi

oi.uchicago.edu



P R E F C E

l inguists i t should be pointe d ou t tha t the term syllabic sign

5

is

used here to denote a unit of writ ing which must contain a

vowel (either by itself or flanked by consonants in front or in

back of i t) a nd w hich m ay or m ay no t contain prosodic features

(such as stress, tone, quantity, etc.); this definition in the field

of writing differs, therefore, from that of a syllable, taken by

some linguists to denote a speech unit which is characterized

in the first place by prosodic features and which may or may

not contain a vowel.

One of the most vexing problems in a study of such a wide

range as this one is that of transli teration and transcription.

Nobody realizes better than myself that (while striving to

achieve uniformity) I have not succeeded in avoiding a number

of inconsistencies. Especially unfortunate is, in my opinion, the

use of

j

j andjy (forjy in English

e

y

e s

) j

t n e

fc>

rc

e of existing

conventions in different languages and writ ings presented a

problem for which no satisfactory solution could be found.

This study owes much directly and indirectly to many friends

and col leagues both in this country and abroad. The whole

manuscript was read and constructively cri t icized by my

former teach er at the University of R om e, Professor G iorgio

Levi Del ia Vida (when he was at the Universi ty of Penn

sylv ania ), Professor G iulian o Bon fante of P rin ce ton , Professor

J o h n Lotz of Co lum bia, Professor Th om as Sebeok of the

Indiana Universi ty , Professor Ralph Marcus, Dr. Richard T.

Hal lock, Mrs. Erna S. Hal lock, and my former s tudent Mr.

Byron E. Farwell , al l of Chicago. Parts of Chapters I and IX

were read by Professor Thorki ld Jacobsen of Chicago, Pro

fessor Henri Frankfort and Mrs. Frankfort formerly of Chicago,

now of London. Much help was received in the field of

Sumerian from Professor Jacobsen, in the field of Egyptian

from Professors Will iam F. Edgerton, Keith C. Seele, and

John A. Wilson of Chicago, and in the field of Chinese from

Professors C h en M eng-c hia an d Te ng Ssii-yu (w hen they were

at the Un iversi ty of Chicag o). M r. j0 rg e n Laess0e of Chicago

was kind enough to help me with many hand drawings in this

study. To all these scholars and friends may I offer in this place

my warmest thanks and appreciat ion.

I . J . G .

Chicago, Il l inois.

June 1931.

vii

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



P R E F A C E T O T H E S E C O N D E D I T I O N

T

HE present edit ion of Study of W riting is being

issued to br ing u p to da te the older edit ions bo th

American and Bri t ish which have completely dis-

appeared f rom the market . In order no t to d is turb

th e form at of the older edit ion un du ly only short revisions an d

those easy to inco rpo rate w ithou t ch ang ing the pag inat io n

we re m ad e in the ma in bo dy of the volu m e while al l the larg er

revisions correct ions an d addi t ions w ere relegated to the

Notes near the end of the book. Because of the numerous addi-

t ions in th at section the No tes Bibl iograph y an d In de x w ere

completely reset and repaged. The present edi t ion contains

the same il lustrations as the older edit ions with the exception

of Figures 50 51 and 69 w hich were rep laced by m ore ade-

quate i l lustrat ions.

I . J . G .

C H I C A G O I L L I N O I S

N o v e m b e r 1 9 6 2

IX

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



PROTQ 5UMER1AN PICTOG

R

PHIC

EGYPTIAN PICTOGRAPHIC

31

PROf6 ~ELAMITE 3 0 0 0

PICT.

2 9 0 0

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



CONTENTS

I . W R I T I N G A S A S Y S T E M O F S IG N S

Ways of

Communicating

Ideas

Definition of Writing

Sources

of Information

Study of Writing

I I .

F O R E R U N N E R S O F W R I T I N G

Primitive D rawings

Descriptive Representational Device

Identifying Mnemonic Device

Limited

Systems

I I I .

W O R D S Y L L A B I C S Y ST EM S

Sumerian

System

Egyptian System

Hittite System

Chinese System

Proto-Elamite

Proto-Indic and

Cretan Systems

Signs in General

W ord Signs

Syllabic Signs

Auxiliary Marks

Word-Syllabic Writing

I V . S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G S

Cuneiform Syllabaries

West

Semitic Syllabaries

Aegean

Syllabaries

Japanese Syllabary

Observations

V . T H E A L P H A B E T

Oriental Forerunners

Greek

A lphabet

Alphabets

Conquest

of

the

World

i

i

i i

2 0

2 2

24

24

29

36

51

60

6 l

72

8 l

85

89

97

99

107

113

113

1 2 0

1 2 0

1 2 2

53

159

162

166

166

176

183

X l l l

oi.uchicago.edu



C O N T E N T S

VI

EVOLU TION OF W R ITIN G

Stages of Development

Pictures

Forerunners

of Writing

Word Syllabic Systems

Syllabic

Systems

Alphabetic Systems

Observations

VII

MODERN WRITINGS AMONG PRIMITIVES

Descriptive Presentation

Observations

page

190

190

190

190

194

196

97

198

206

206

2 1 0

VIII M ONOGENESIS OR POLYGENESIS OF WR ITING 2 1 2

Cultural Background

of

the Seven Oriental Systems

213

Possible Arguments

in

Favour

of

Monogenesis

217

I X W R I T I N G A N D C I V I LI Z A T IO N 2 2 1

Importance of Writing

221

Writing and Speech

223

W riting and rt 229

Writing and Religion 230

X F U T U R E O F W R I T I N G 2 3 6

X I TER MIN OLOGY OF W R ITIN G 2 4 8

X II B I B L I O G R A P H Y 2 5 4

NOTES 2 6 9

I N D E X 3 0 9

xiv

oi.uchicago.edu



L I S T O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S

i . W ay s o f Co mm u n ica t in g Id eas page 8

2. W ays o f W ri t in g Linguis t ic Elem ents 14

3 . Inconsistenc ies of Ph on etic W rit i ng 16 f.

4 .

Ro ck Pa in t in g f ro m So u th e rn Rh o d es ia Dep ic t in g R a in Ce rem o n y 25

Fro m Leo Fro b en iu s an d Do u g la s C . Fo x , Prehistoric Rock

Pictures in Europe

and Africa

Ne w York, 1937 ), p. 47.

5 .

Pe t ro g ly p h f ro m Or eg o n 26

Fro m L . S . Cressman ,

Petroglyphs of regon

(Eug ene , 1937) ,

p .

3 1 .

6 . Pe t rog ly ph f rom No r th-W estern Braz i l 27

From Theod or Koch-Gri inberg,

Siidamerikanische FeUzeichnungen

Berlin, 1907), pi. 5.

7.

L in ea r Draw in g s f ro m Sp a in an d Fran ce 28

From Ebert , Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte vii, pis. 114 f.

8 . I n d ian Ro c k Dra win g f ro m Ne w M ex ico 29

From Garrick Mallery,

Picture-Writing of

the

American Indians

(Wa shing ton , 1893) , p . 354 .

9 . I n d ian Ro ck Draw in g f ro m M ich ig a n 30

From Henry R. Schoolcraft , Historical and Statistical Inform a

tion Respecting

the History

ondition

and

Prospects

of

the

Indian

Tribes of the United States Pa r t I (Ph i lade lph ia , 1851),

p i . 57 B opp . p . 406 .

10.

Ch ey e n n e In d ian Le t t e r 31

F r o m M a l l e r y ,

Picture-Writing

p . 364 .

11. Le t te r f rom an Oj ib wa Gir l to her Love r 32


Picture-Writing

p . 36 3 .

12 .

P ro c lam a t io n f ro m V an Diem en s La n d (Tasm an ia ) 33

F r o m J a m e s B o n w ic k ,

The Last of the Tasmanians

(Lo n d o n ,

1870),

p i . opp . p . 84 .

13 .

A la sk an No t i ce o f H u n t 34


Picture-Writing

p . 332 .

14.

Alask an Signs o f D ep ar t u re 34


Picture-Writing

p . 35 3 .

15. M aso n s M ark s f ro m An a to l i a 37

Fro m A. Gab r i e l i n Syria x (1929) , 265.

16.

Nam es f ro m th e Og la l a Ro s te r 38

From Mal lery,

Pictographs of the North Am erican Indians

(Washington, 1886) , p i . Hi.

17.

Nam es f ro m th e Re d -C lo u d s Cen su s 39

F r o m M a l l e r y , Pictographs pi. lix.

18.

I n d ian T r ib a l Des ig n a tio n s 4 0


Picture- Writing

pp. 380 ff.

19.

Da k o ta W in te r Co u n t s 4 3

F r o m M a l l e r y , Pictographs pis. ix , x iv , xxxi , and xxxii .

XV

oi.uchicago.edu



L IS T O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S

2 0 .

Oj ib wa Songs 45

F r o m M a l l e r y , Pictographs pi. iv.

2 1 . Oj ib wa Songs 46


Picture-Writing

pi. xvii.

2 2 .

Al leged Ind ia n W ri t in g 47

F r o m W i l l i a m T o m k i n s ,

Universal Indian S ign La nguag e of the

Plains Indians of North America

San Die go, California ,

1927) ,

p . 82 .

2 3 .

Ew e Proverbs 49

Fro m C. Me in h o f in Z eitschrift fur agyptische Sprache xlix

1911),

pi. i £ opp . p. 8.

2 4 .

Aztec Inscr ip t ion , Exem pl i fied by a Page f rom the Co dex

Boturini 52

Fro m Ed u a rd Se le r ,

Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen

Sprach- und Alter humskunde i i Berl in , 19 04), 3 5.

2 5 .

Azte c Ins cr ip t ion , Exempl i f ied by a Pa ge f rom the Co dex

Hamb u rg en s i s 5 3

F r o m T h e o d o r - W i l h e l m D a n z e l , Handbuch der prakolumbischen

Kulturen in Lateinamerika H am b u rg u n d Berl in , 1927 ), p . 5 1 .

2 6 .

M ay a In sc r ip t io n f ro m Co p an 5 5

Fro m S . G . Mo r ley , An Introduction to the Study of the Ma ya

Hieroglyphs W ashing ton , 191 5) , p i . 7 op p . p . 167 .

27.

Aztec Cate ch ism 57

Fro m Se le r ,

Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen

Sprach- und Alterthumskunde i Berl in , 1902 ), p i . op p. p . 289 .

28. Ear l ies t P ic to graph ic Tab le ts f rom U ru k 62

Fro m A. Fa lk en s te in , Archaische Texte aus Uruk Berl in , 1 936),

p i . 1 .

29 .

Ledg er Ta b le t f rom U ru k 64

Fro m Fa lk en s te in , Archaische Texte aus Uruk p i . 31 , No . 339 .

3 0 .

W ri t ing o f Persona l Na m es in the U ru k Per iod 66

Fro m Fa lk en s te in ,

Archaische Texte aus Uruk

p . 24 .

3 1 . Pictor ial O rig in of T e n Cun eiform Signs 70

O r ien ta l Ins t i tu te Ph oto N o. 27875 after A. Poe bel ) .

3 2 .

Th e Tw o M eso p o tam ian Me th o d s o f Crea t in g Sy ll ab ic S ig n s 7 2

3 3 . T h e N a r m e r P a l e t t e 7 3

Fro m J . E . Qu ib e l l i n Z

e

^

scnri

fi f

ur

agyptische Sprache xxxvi

189 8) , p is .

xiif

3 4.

Spec imens o f Hi era t i c an d De mo t ic W ri t ing wi th Hiero g lyphic 75

Tran s l i t e r a t io n s in a Mo d ern Eg y p to lo g ica l Han d

F r o m A . H . G a r d i n e r , Egyptian Grammar 2nd ed . ; Oxford ,

1950) ,

pi. ii .

3 5 . Fo rm al Dev elopm ent o f Som e of the Signs in H ierog lyp hic ,

Hie ra t ic , an d Dem ot ic 76

From G. Mol le r in Z

e

^

sc

hrift des eutschen Vereinsfur Buchwesen

und Schrifttum

i i 1 91 9), 78.

3 6.

Eg y p t i an Un ico n so n an ta l Sy l l ab a ry 7 7

From C. Fossey , Notices sur les

caracteres Strangers

Paris , 19 27),

p . 4 .

xvi

oi.uchicago.edu




37.

Egyptian Biconsonantal Signs

t

78

From G. Lefebvre, Grammaire

de VEgyptien

classique (Le Caire,

1940 5 PP- 12 £

38 .

Specim en of Early Hitt ite Hieroglyp hic W rit ing 82

From I. J. Gelb , Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments (Chicago,

1939)

5

P

1

- lxxiv.

39. Cursive Form of Hitt ite Hieroglyp hic W rit ing 83

F rom Ge lb ,

Hittite

Hieroglyphic

Monuments

pi. xxxvii .

4 0 . T he Hitt ite Hierog lyphic Syllabary 84

F rom Ge lb ,

Hittite Hieroglyphs

i i i (Chicago, 1942), Frontispiece.

4 1 . Chinese Oracle Te xt on An ima l Bone 85

From F. H. Chalfant in Mem oirs of the Carnegie Museum iv

(1906) , 33-

4 2 .

Chinese Ora cle Te xt on Tortoise Shell 85

From F. H. Chalfant in

Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum

iv, 32.

4 3 .

M oder n Chinese W rit ing 86

From C. F . K el ley and Ch 6n M eng-chia , Chinese Bronzes

from the Buckingham Collection (Chicago, 1946) , p. 155.

4 4 . Chinese Fan -ch ieh Syllabary 88

From A. Forke in Mitteilungen des Seminars fur Orientalische

Sprachen

vol . ix, Abt . 1 (1906) , p. 404.

4 5 . Earliest Ty pe of Proto-E lamite W riting 89

From V. Scheil ,

Memoires de la Mission

rchaeologique

de Perse

tome xxvi (Paris, 1935), pi. xl.

4 6 . Proto-Elamite Inscript ion of O ld Akk adian Period 90

From V. Scheil , D elegation en Perse Mem oires tome vi (Paris,

1905)? pl. 2, No. i.

4 7 .

Proto-Indic W rit ing 90

From Jo hn Marshal l, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization

i i i (London, 1931) , pis . cxviif

4 8 . Cretan Hierog lyphic A W rit ing 91

From A. J . Evans ,

Scripta Minoa

i (Oxford, 1909), p. 149.

4 9 . Cretan Hierog lyphic B W rit ing 92

From Evans ,

The Palace of Minos

i (London, 1921) , p. 282.

50 .

Cretan Linear A W rit ing 93

From G. Pugliese Carratelli in nnuario

della

Scuola rcheologica

di Atene x iv - xv i ( 1952- 1954) , 21 .

51 . Cretan Linear B W rit ing 94

From Emmett L. Bennet t , The Pylos Tablets (Princeton, 1955),

p .

2 0 1 .

52 . Development of Some Cretan Hieroglyphic Signs into Linear

Forms 95

From Evans ,

The Palace of Minos

i , p. 643.

53 .

Linear B Inscription from Kno ssos 96

From Evans ,

The Palace of Minos

iv, p. 703.

54 . Pictorial Signs in the Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Chinese

Writings 98

55 . Typ es of W ord Signs in W ord-Syllabic W rit ings 100 f.

xvii

oi.uchicago.edu




56 . Signs for Fractions in Eg yp tian 102

From A. H. Gardiner ,

Egyptian Grammar

(Oxford , 192 7),

p . W -

57 .

Un iconso nan tal Signs of the O ld Bab ylonian Syllabary 109

58 . Ty pes of Syllabic Signs in W ord-Syllab ic W ritings 112

59 . H ittite H ierog lyph ic Inscription from Erkilet 114

60 . R elat ionship of W ord Signs to Syllabic Signs in W ord-Syllabic 115

Writings

61 . O ne Sentence as Spelled in W ord-Syllabic Writ ings 116 f.

6 2 . Proto-S inaitic Inscription 123

From Martin Sprengling, The Alphabet (Chicago, 1931) , p. 28.

63. Proto-Sina itic W riting

/

124 f.

From J. Le ibovi tch , M emo ires presentes a Vfnstitut d Egyp te,

xxiv (1934) , pis . iv-vi .

64 . Proto-Pa lestinian Inscriptions 126

From D. Diringer in

Journ al of the Am erican Oriental Society,

lxi i i (1943) , 25-7.

65 . Enigm atic Inscript ions from K ah un in Fay yum (Egypt) 127

From W. M. Flinders Petrie in Ancient Egypt, vi (1921), 1.

66.

E nigm atic Inscription on a Stele from Balu ah in Transjordan 128

From G. Horsf ie ld and L. H. Vincent in Revue Biblique, xli

(1932) , 425.

67 .

En igma tic Inscript ion from Byblos in Syria 128

F rom M. Dunand , Byblia grammata (Beyrou th, 1 945 ), p. 136.

68 . Ra s Shamrah Tab let 129

From C. Virolleaud in

Syria,

xxi (1940) , 250.

69 . Ra s Sham rah Syllabary 130

70. A^Tram Inscription from Byblos 1 3

l

From R. Dussaud in Syria, v (1924), p. 137, f ig. 2 and p. 143,

fig. 4 .

71 . Phoenician Inscription from Cyprus 133

From Mark Lidzbarski ,

andbuch

der

nordsemitischen

Epigraphik,

pi. vi, 2.

72. Can aanite Inscript ion of Mesa* K ing of M oa b 134

From Lidzbarski ,

amdbuch

der

nordsemitischen

Epigraphik,

pi. 1.

73.

Ara m aic Inscription of Barrakib from Zincirli 135

From Lidzbarski ,

Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik,

pi. xxiv, 1.

74. Sou th Arab ic Inscript ion 136

From K. Conti Rossini ,

Chrestomathia Arabica Meridionalis

Epigraphica (Rom a, 1931) , p . 46, No . 29 .

75.

Com parative Chart of the M ost Important Sem it ic Writ ings 137

76.

Form al Differentiation in Som e W est Semit ic Signs 140

77 .

Form al Com parison of Signs of W est Semit ic W rit ing with Seven

Different W ritings 142

78 . Excerpt from a W rit ing Inven ted by a School Child 144

From H. Bauer in

Der Alte Orient,

xxx vi , 1/2 (1937 ) , 36.

xv

oi.uchicago.edu




79 . Cypro-Minoan Characters with Minoan and Classical Cypriote

Parallels 145

From J. F. Dan iel in merican Journal of A rcheology xlv (1941) ,

254 and 286.

80 . Three Short Texts from Enkomi (Cyprus) page 154

F rom A. Evans ,

The Palace of Minos

iv (London, 1935) , 760.

81 .

Cyp riote Syllaba ry 155

From H. Jensen,

DieSchrift

(Gluckstadt und H am bur g, 193 5) ,

P. 97-

82 . A Cy priote Inscription from Ed alion 155

From Fossey, Notices sur les caracthes Strangers (Paris, 19 48), p. 57.

83 .

Pha istos Disk 156 f.

From A. J . Evans , Scripta Minoa i (Oxford, 1909), pis. xii f.

84 .

Byblos Inscription 158

F r o m M . D u n a n d , Byblia grammata (Beyro uth, 194 5), p. 72.

85 .

Jap ane se Ka takan a W rit ing Com pared with Chinese K ai-shu 160

From Jensen,

Die Schrift

p. 156.

86 .

Jap anes e Ka takana and Hirag ana W rit ings 161

From Fossey, Notices sur les caracthes etrangers (Paris, 192 7),

P. 314.

87 .

Ty pes of Syllabic Signs in Syllab ic W ritings 163

88 . O ld Persian Syllabary 174

89 . Com parative Chart of Greek and W est Sem it ic W rit ings 177

9 0 . Greek Inscript ion on a Dip ylon Va se from Athen s 178

From Handbuch der Archaeologie hrsg. von Walter Otto, i

(Mu nchen, 1939) , p . 195, Ab b. 8 .

9 1 . Ro ck-cut Inscript ions from Th era 179

From R. Carpenter in Am erican Journal of

Archeology

xxxvii

(1933), P- 26, fig. 7.

9 2 . Short Legends on Geom etric Pottery from M ou nt H ym ettos 179

From C. W. Blegen in merican

Journal of

A rcheology xxxvii i ,

0 9 3 4 ) , 1 1 .

93. Inscribed Sherds from Corinth 180

From A. N. St i l lwell in

merican

Journal of

A rcheology

xxxvii ,

( i933)> 605.

9 4 . Ty pes of Vo we l Indica t ion in Variou s Alph abetic Writ ings 185

9 5 . Stages of the Dev elopm ent of W rit ing 191

X X

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A S A S Y S T E M O F S I G N S

W A Y S O F C O M M U N I C A T I N G I D E A S

T

H E

two most important external characteris t ics of

human behaviour a re express ion and communica-

t ion. The first affects what we may call personal

behaviour, the second social behaviour. Man has

many ways, natural and art ificial , of expressing his thoughts

an d his feelings. H e can give expression in a n atu ra l wa y to his

joy by laughing or humming and to his sorrow by weeping or

m oan ing . H e can express himself w ith the he lp of art ificial

means in a writ ten poem, a painting, or any other piece of art .

Man can try to communicate his feelings, thoughts, and ideas

by means of convent ional and general ly understandable forms.

What is the relat ion of expression to communication? Is there

such a thing as pure expression or pure communication? Is i t

not rather that man, as a social being, the zoon pol t kon of

Aristotle, finds himself or visualizes himself to be at all times in

condit ions in which he can express himself only by com-

municating? And, vice versa, are not al l the great masterpieces

of ar t or poetry forms of communicat ion achieved through the

perso nal expression of individuals? I t seems to m e th at th e a ims

of expression and communication are so closely intertwined

with each other in a l l forms of human behaviour that normal ly

it is impossible to speak about one without being forced at the

same t ime to consider the other.

In order to communicate thoughts and feel ings there must

be a conventional system of signs or symbols which, when used

by some persons, are understood by other persons receiving

them. Communica t ion under normal c i rcumstances requi res

the presence of two or m ore) person s, the one s) wh o em it s)

and the one s) who receive s) the communicat ion.

I

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G S S Y S T E M O F S IG N S

The process of communication is composed of two parts,

emission and recept ion. As the means of emit t ing communica

tion are too varied and numerous to allow for any systematic

classification, our treatment must start from the point of view

of reception. The reception of communication is achieved by

m eans of our senses, of w hich sight, hearing , an d to uch play the

most important roles. Theoretically, other senses, such as smell

and taste, could also be taken into consideration, but in

practice they play a very l imited role and lead to no fully

developed systems of signs.

1

Visual communicat ion can be achieved by means of gesture

and mim ic ry .

2

Both are frequent com pan ions of speech, a l th ou gh

th e intensity of their use differs w ith variou s individ uals or social

strata or folk groups. Some persons, more than others, use

gesticulation or mimicry for oratorical effect or through natural

im pu lse. In ou r society it is conside red b ad ta ste to talk w ith th e

hands

5

. It is a well-known fact that in Europe the southerners,

l ike the Italians, use both gesticulation and mimicry to a much

greater extent than, for instance, the Scandinavians or the

Brit ish. A com bination of lan gu ag e an d gesture has playe d an

important role in the ri tual proceedings of all t imes and places.

The restrictions imposed upon the use of language by natural

and artificial conditions has resulted in the origin and develop

ment of systems of communication based on gesture and

mimicry. Such are the systems developed for the use of

deaf

mutes deprived by nature of the power of natural language.

Here we may mention the gesture language of the Trappist

monks, who, because of their vow of silence, were forced to

develop a substitute system for speech. Systems of gesture

language are often used among the Australian aborigines by

widows who are not allowed to utter a word during the period

of m ourning .

3

And, finally, the system of gesture language used

among the Plains Indians was introduced as the need grew for

communicat ion between t r ibes speaking various mutual ly

incomprehensible languages.

Among other ways of communicat ion appeal ing to the eye

we should mention optic signals by means of fire, smoke, light,

semaphores, etc.

One of the simplest forms of auditory communication is, for

instance, whistl ing with the intention of call ing someone.

Hissing or applauding in the theatre are other simple specimens

oi.uchicago.edu



W Y S O F C O M M U N I C T I N G I D E S

of this kind of co m m un icatio n. Som etimes artificial m ean s,

such as dru m s, whistles, or trum pe ts are used as acoustic

signals.

4

The most important system of audi tory communicat ion is the

spoken language directed to the ear of the person receiving the

communicat ion. Language is universal . Within the span of

hu m an knowledge there has never existed a gro up of m en w ho

have not possessed a fully developed language.

Simple ways of communicating feeling by the sense of touch

are , for instance, the handclasp, the backslap, the lovestroke.

A fully developed system of communication by handstroking

is used among blind deaf-mutes, for which the best-known

example is provided by the case of Helen Kel ler , the American

wri te r and educator .

5

T he m eans of com m unica t ion men t ioned above have two

features in com m on: ( i ) Th ey are al l of m om enta ry value a nd

are therefore restricted as to time; as soon as the word is uttered

or the gesture made, i t is gone and i t cannot be revived except

by repeti t ion. (2) They can be used only in communication

between persons more or less in proximity to each other and

are therefore restricted as to space.

The need for finding a way to convey thoughts and feelings

in a form not l imited by t ime or space led to the development

of methods of communication by means of (1) objects and

(2) markings on objects or any solid material.

Visual means of communication with the help of objects are

unlimited. When a person sets up a pile of stones or a single

stone mo nu m en t on a grav e, he intend s to give expression to his

feelings for the deceased and to perpetuate his memory in the

days to come. The cross symbolizing faith or the anchor

symbolizing hope are further modern i l lustrat ions. A modern

survival is the rosary, each bead of which, according to i ts

position and size, is supposed to recall one certain prayer. We

might also mention here the so-called flower and gem

lang uag es , in which a certa in flower or gem is supposed to

convey a certain sentiment.

Systems of mnemonic signs to keep accounts by means of

objects are known throughout the world. The simplest and the

m ost com m on are the so-called cou nting sticks to keep records

of ca ttle ; these ar e simple wo ode n .sticks w ith c arv ed notc hes

corresponding to the number of cat t le under the custody of a

3

oi.uchicago.edu




shepherd. Another simple device is keeping account of catt le

with the help of l i t t le pebbles in a sack. A more complicated

mnemonic system is represented among the Peruvian Incas by

the so-called

quipu

w ri t ing , in w hich accounts concerning

objects and beings were recorded by means of strings and knots

of various length and colour. All the reports about the alleged

use of the

quipu

for th e reco rdin g of chronicles an d histor ical

events are plain fantasy. Nei ther the Peruvian nor the modern

knot wri t ings in South America and on the Riukiu Islands near

J a p a n h ave any other a im tha n th at of recording simplest facts

of statist ical nature.

6

Here , too , we may ment ion the

wampums

o f the N orth

A m erica n In dia ns , consisting of strings of shell beads, frequently

tied together in belts, which served as money, ornaments, and

also as means of communication. In their simplest form,

coloured w mpum strings were used to convey m essages following

the colour conventions of the American Indians (see p. 19):

white beads for peace, purple or violet for war, etc.

7

The more

complicated forms of w mpum belts, representing full figures and

scenes, m ay very well be assigned to the descrip tive-represe nta

tional stage discussed in Chapter II.

Objects are used as memory aids for recording proverbs and

songs among the Ewe Negroes in a form quite similar to that

w hich they achieved b y mea ns of w rit ten symbols (see p p .

48 ff.). Carl M einh of

8

relates that a missionary found in a native

hut a cord on which were strung many objects, such as a

feather, a stone, etc. In answer to his query as to the meaning

of the string with the objects the missionary was told that each

piece was supposed to stand for a certain proverb. Another

custom is re lated by Mary H. Kingsley

9

from West Africa

about native singers who carry around in a net all kinds of

objects, such as pipes, feathers, skins, birdheads, bones, etc.,

each of which serves the purpose of recall ing a certain song.

T h e songs are reci ted w ith pantom im es. Persons in the audienc e

choose a certain object and before the recital they barg ain ab ou t

the price to be paid to the singer. In a way, the net of the

singer can be considered the repertoire of his songs.

Cowrie mussels are frequently employed for communicative

purpose . Th us , am ong the Y oruba N egroes

1 0

one cowrie m ussel

denotes defiance and failure

5

, two placed together mean

relat ionship an d m eet ing , while two placed ap ar t m ean

4

oi.uchicago.edu




' separation and enmity' , and so on. Surprising is the develop-

m en t of the pho netic principle (see p . 66) ev ident in the

following examples: six cowrie mussels mean 'at tracted'

because the word

efa

in the Yo rub a langu age m eans ' s ix' a nd

'attracted'; a message consisting of a string with six mussels,

when sent by a young man to a girl, therefore expresses: 'I feel

attracted to you, I love you. ' And since the word eyo m eans

both 'eight ' and 'agreed' the answer from the girl to the young

man may be a message consisting of a string with eight mussels,

saying: 'Agreed, I feel the same way as you do. '

A modern illustration of the use of objects for the purpose of

communicat ion is contained in the s tory from the Hungarian

wri te r Jdkai ,

1 1

according to which a man sent a package of

coffee to another man to warn him about danger from police.

The story can be understood on the basis of the phonetic

principle by noting that the Hungarian word for coffee is have

and that i t resembles in sound the Latin word cave ' beware ' .

A most interesting usage from the comparative point of view

is reported from the same Yoruba country, where the cowrie

mussels are used so frequently for communicating messages.

During an attack of a king of Dahomey upon a city of the

Yoruba one of the natives was taken captive and, anxious to

inform his wife of his plight, sent her a stone, coal, pepper,

corn, and a rag, conveying the following message: the stone

indicated 'heal th ' , meaning 'as the s tone is hard, so my body

is hardy, strong' ; the coal indicated 'gloom', meaning 'as the

coal is black, so are my prospects dark and gloomy'; the pepper

indicated 'heat ' , meaning 'as the pepper is hot, so is my mind

heated, burning on account of the gloomy prospect ' ; the corn

indicated ' leanness' , meaning 'as the corn is dried up by

parching, so my body is dried and become lean through the

he at of m y affliction an d suffering'; an d finally, the ra g

indicated 'worn out ' , meaning 'as the rag is, so is my cloth

cover worn and torn to a rag ' .

1 2

An exact paral le l to this usage

is reported in the fourth book, section 131 fF., of Herodotus.

'The Scythian kings sent a herald bringing Darius the gift of

a bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows. The Persians asked

the bringer of these gifts what they might mean; but he said

that no charge had been laid on him save to give the gifts and

then depart with all speed; let the Persians (he said), if they

were clever enough, discover the signification of the presents.

5

oi.uchicago.edu




The Persians hearing and taking counsel , Darius ' judgement

was that the Scythians were surre nde ring to him themselves an d

their earth and their water; for he reasoned that a mouse is a

creature found in the earth and eat ing the same produce as

men, and a frog is a creature of the water, and a bird most l ike

to a horse; and the arrows (said he) signified that the Scythians

surrendered their weapon of bat t le . This was the opinion

declared by Darius; but the opinion of Gobryas, one of the

seven who had slain the Magian, was contrary to i t . He

reasoned that the meaning of the gifts was: 'Unless you become

birds,

Persians, and fly up into the sky, or mice and hide you

in the earth, or frogs and leap into the lakes, you will be shot

by these arrows and never retu rn ho m e. Th us the Persians

reasoned concerning the gifts. ' Those modern cultural historians

who may object to some of my reconstructions based on

comparisons between ancient peoples and modern primit ive

societies (s ee p . 21 f.) ca nn ot easily overlook the we ight of such

parallel usages from ancient and modern times.

Still another parallel to the two stories given above is

rep orte d from East Tur ke sta n an d concerns a bil let dou x sent

by a young native girl to a boy friend with whom she fell in

love.

1 3

T h e loveletter consisted of a sma ll sack co nta inin g

various objects which were supposed to convey the following

message: a lump of pressed tea, meaning T can drink tea no

more' ; a blade of straw, 'because I became wan from love for

yo u'; a red fruit , ' I get red wh en I think of yo u'; a d ried -ou t

aprico t, T bec am e withe red like the fruit ' ; ap ie ce of cha rcoa l,

'my heart burns of

love ' ;

a flower, 'you are handsome'; a piece

of suga r cand y, 'you a re sweet ' ; a peb ble, ' is you r hea rt m ad e of

stone? ' ; a feather of a falcon, ' if I ha d w ings I wou ld fly to y ou ';

a kernel of a walnut, 'I give myself to you.'

All these means of communication are sometimes called in

G e r m a n

achschrift

o r Gegenstandschrift

u

tha t is, 'object w rit ing ' ,

but entirely without justification since they have nothing to do

with wri t ing as we norm ally under stand i t. T he impra ct icabi l i ty

of using objects prevented the development of any full system,

and the devices used are restr icted to small geographic areas.

Writing is expressed not by objects themselves but by

ma rkings on objects or on any other ma teria l . W ritten symbols

are normally executed by means of motor action of the hands

in drawing, painting, scratching, or incising. This is reflected

6

oi.uchicago.edu




by the meaning and etymology of the word ' to wri te ' in many

different languages. The English word ' to write ' corresponds to

the Old Norse rita ' to incise (runes), ' and modern German

reissen einritzen

'to t ea r, to incis e'. T h e Gree k wo rd yp cpsiv, 'to

write, ' as in English 'graphic, phonography, ' etc. , is the same

as ' to carve ' , German kerben. Lat in scribere G e r m a n schreiben

English 'scribe, inscribe, ' etc., originally meant ' to incise' as we

ca n see from its conne ction w ith Greek a m p 190x160(1, 'to incise,

to scratch. ' Gothic meljan ' to write, ' at first meant ' to paint ' as

we see from the fact that the m ode rn G erm an w ord

m len

means

' to paint ' . And, finally, Slavonic pisati ' to write, ' originally

referred to painting, as shown by the connection with Latin

pingere ' to paint , ' found also in our 'paint , picture, pictography' ,

etc .

1 5

The same semantic development can be observed in the

Semitic family of languages. Thus, the root str ' to write, ' must

originally have meant ' to cut ' , as can be deduced from the

occurrence of the Arabic word sdtur ' large knife, ' and sdtir

' bu tcher ' ; the roo t ktb ' to write, ' meant originally ' to incise ' ,

as indicated by Syriac makt

e

bd ' awl ' ; and the root shf or shf

meant not only ' to write ' but also ' to excavate, to hollow' in

South Semit ic languages.

T h e expressions ju st desc ribed give us illustration s for th e

m echan ical backgro und of wri t ing, and at the same t ime p oint

toward a very close connection between picture and writ ing.

This is as i t should be, since the most natural way of com-

municating ideas by means of visible markings is achieved by

pictures. To the primitives a picture takes care in a crude way

of the needs fulfilled in modern times by writing. In the course

of t ime the picture develops in two directions: (1) pictorial art ,

in which pictures continue to reproduce more or less faithfully

the objects and events of the surrounding world in a form

ind ep en de nt of lang uag e; and (2) w rit ing, in w hich signs,

whether they retain their pictorial form or not, become

ultimately secondary symbols for notions of linguistic value.

T h e cases of stable com m unic ation achieved by ta ctu al

recept ion—su ch as Brai lle—and audi tory recept ion— such as

phonograph records—are all secondary transfers (see next

pa ra gr ap h) developed from systems cre ated on the basis of

visual reception.

Fig ure 1 shows in the form of a ch ar t some of the vario us

means of communicat ion avai lable to human beings,

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A S A S Y S T E M O F S IG N S

For visual

recep t ion .

For aud i to ry

recep t ion .

For tac tua l

recep t ion .

Momentary Communication

Ges tu re ; m im ic ry ; m ien , ey e

expression; l ip reading;

mim et ic dan c ing ; s igna ll ing

by means of f ire , smoke,

l ight , or semaphores.

W h is t l in g ; s in gin g an d h u m

ming; app laud ing or h iss

i ng ;

S P E E C H ;

signalling b y

means o f d rums, whis t les ,

o r t rumpets .

Han d c la sp , b ack s lap , o r

loves t roke ; handst rok ing

of bl ind deaf-m utes.

Stable Communication

a)

Ob jec ts : c ross o r anc hor ;

rosary; f lower or gem

lan g u ag e ; co u n t in g

sticks;

p eb b le s ; q u ip u ;

cowrie mussels.

b)

M ark in gs on ob jec ts:

p i c tu r e an d scu lp tu r e ;

W R I T I N G .

Ph o n o g rap h r eco rd s o r

d ic taphone cy l inders .

R ea di ng w ith f ingers of raised

or incised inscr ipt ions;

Brail le .

F I G . I .

W YS

O F

COMMUNIC TING IDE S

In discussing the various systems of human intercommunica

tion we should be careful to dist inguish between primary and

secondary systems. We can best illustrate this difference by the

following example. When a father calls his son by whistling he

expresses, without the interference of any linguistic form, his

desire to bring the boy to a certain place. His thought or

feeling is directly and immediately conveyed in the whistle.

This is a primary means of communicat ion. But when a father

tries to call his son by whistling the letters of the Morse code

expressing s-o-n, he is do ing so by m ean s of a linguistic transfer.

His desire to bring the son to a certain place is now conveyed

in the w histle thro ug h the j tatermed iary of a linguistic form.

This is w hat we m ay cal l a secondary m eans of com m unicat ion.

There is no l imit to secondary transfers. The spoken word

son

5

, for instance, is a primary speech sign. In the writ ten

word son

5

we find a written sign used for a spoken sign. If this

wri t ten word

s-o-n

were the n transm itted b y m eans of flashlight

signals, the resulting flashes would be signs of signs of signs.

And so on

ad libitum.

There is no good English expression capable of covering all

8

oi.uchicago.edu




the convent ional means of hu m an in tercom mu nicat ion through

signs.

T h e Fre nc h linguists use

le l ng ge

in this sense, wh ile t he y

cal l the audi tory language

l ng ge J?arle langage articule

or

simply

la langue.

In Anglo-American usage 'speech' often stands

for auditory language and ' language' for any system of signs.

16

For the general science of signs several terms have been

prop osed , of wh ich the term 'semiotic ' , used by Charles M orris,

may perhaps be the most appropria te .

1 7

What l ies at the basis of all human intercommunication?

What do we mean when we say we are communicat ing our

ideas, thoughts, or feelings? To take three concrete examples

from daily life, what is communicated by a gesture of a speaker

asking for silence, by the bugle sounding reveille, or by the

w arn ing stop sign in the road? T o the l inguists of the beh avio ur

ist school the answer is clear and simple: what we are com

municat ing is language. According to them, language is the

only medium through which al l humans communicate with

each other and al l mean s of hu m an interco m m unicat ion out

side of language are nothing but secondary substitutes for

language.

1 8

Even thinking or having ideas is to them nothing

else but 'silent talk', which they believe is always accompanied

by 'soundless movements of the vocal organs, taking the place

of speech-movements, but not perceptible to other people' . But

this is a po int where one m ay diverge from the princip al do gm a

of the linguists belongin g to the beh avio urist schoo l.

19

Of course,

silent talk plays an important role in all forms of thinking,

especially in cases of intensive thinking. For instance, a

m ed itated situation in which we intend to say 'get out ' to

another person could very well be accompanied by a percept

ible movement of lips, sometimes even clearly vocal. On the

other side, we know from experience, supported by experiments

in the field of psychology, that we can think without a silent

flow of words

2 0

and that we can understand the meaning of

things for which we have no word in mind,

2 1

Certainly at least

the born deaf-mutes are qui te capable of com mu nicat ing am ong

themselves without any vocal background; and while in their

case intensive thinking may at t imes be accompanied by more

or less pe rce ptib le m otions of ha nd s a nd face, such reflexes m us t

be considered secondary and on a l ine with perceptible move

ments of lips in the case of 'silent talk' by persons capable of

speaking normally. Many more examples of reception of

9

oi.uchicago.edu




communicat ion without a l inguist ic background can be found

everyw here in ou r daily life. W he n I ju m p from bed in the

morning at the sound of reveil le or when I see on the highway

a wa rn ing sign to stop I seem to react to these signs im m edia tely

w ithou t the interference of an y linguist ic form ; th e sound of the

bugle or the sight of the traffic signal speak directly to my mind.

T h er e is frequently an eno rm ous difference b etwe en th e

process of em i t t ing an d th a t of rece iving the com m un ica t io n.

While our slow w ri t ing m ay be accom pan ied by sub-voca l

processes, these processes m a y b e difficult, if n o t im po ssib le,

to detect in persons who can read s i lent ly tw o or th ree t imes

as fast as the y read alo ud . I t i s an establ ished fact th at m an y

persons can read visually w ithou t an interm ediary flow of

speech signs

To be sure, almost al l sign systems can be transferred into

some linguistic form, simply because speech is the fullest and

the most developed of all our systems of signs,

22

but to draw on

that basis the conclusion that speech forms the background of

al l human intercommunicat ion seems a fa l lacy. Nobody would

say that everything in the world is money because everything

in the world can (theoretically) be transferred into money.

T h e m ore conservat ive of the Am erican l inguists do not den y

the existence of visual images, ideas, or concepts without a

necessary speech-sign b ack gro un d. W ha t they say is th at in

l inguist ics such disembo died words m ea n absolutely no thing

an d th at for a l inguist les idees ne vienn en t qu en p ar la n t , to

quote a French saying very much in vogue in this country.

2 3

Th is ma y be tru e of the l inguist ic science w hich deals fifst an d

last with the word, i ts only reali ty .

2 4

Where they err , however,

is in taking for granted the complete identi ty of speech and

writ ing and in believing that as a l inguist can operate only with

speech sym bols, so a historia n of w ritin g ca n use fruitfully on ly

speech symbols and should relegate visual images or ideas

without words to the wastebasket. But writ ing in the widest

sense cannot be in all stages identified with speech, and a

student of writ ing does not necessari ly have to be a l inguist .

The symbolism of visual images in the earliest stages of writing,

l ike that of gesture signs, can express meaning without the

necessity of a l inguist ic garment and both can profi tably be

investigated by a non-linguist . It is only after the development

of writ ing into a full phonetic system, reproducing elements of

10

oi.uchicago.edu



E F I N I T I O N O F W R I T I N G

speech, that we can speak of the practical identi ty of writ ing

and speech and of epigraphy or paleography as being sub

divisions of linguistics.

This tremendous difference between the sem siogr phic stage

of w rit ing (expressing m eanin gs an d no tions loosely con nected

with speech) and

th

phonogr phic stage (expressing speech) must

be thoroughly emphasized here because of the controversies

which are continuously taking place in the matter of the

definition of w rit ing. T hos e g enera l l inguists who define w rit ing

as a device for recording speech by means of visible marks,

2 5

and take the wri t ten languag e to be a point-by-p oint equivalent

of i ts spoken counterpart ,

2 6

show li t t le appreciation of the

historical development of writ ing and fail to see that such a

definition cannot be applied to its early stages, in which writing

only loosely expressed the spoken language. On the other hand,

the philologists, who believe that writ ing even after the

introduction of phonetization was used for the recording or

transmission of both idea and sound,

2 7

fail to understand that

once man discovered a way of expressing exact forms of speech

in w rit ten signs, w rit ing lost i ts ind ep en de nt ch ara cte r an d

became largely a wri t ten subst i tute for i ts spoken counterpart .

D E F I N I T I O N O F W R I T I N G

An average person asked to define writ ing would more than

likely give something like the following answer: 'Why, that is

the easiest thing in the world. Every child knows that writ ing

is pa rt of the elem entary three R 's and that our expression

A B C

denotes the simplest rudiments of any subject in our

knowledge. ' The problem is not so simple, however.

Wri t ing began at the t ime when man learned how to com

municate his thoughts and feelings by means of visible signs

3

,

understandable not only to himself but also to all other persons

more or less init iated into the particular system. In the

beginning pictures served as a visual expression of man's ideas

in a form to a great extent independent of speech which

expressed his ideas in an auditory form. The relationship

between writ ing and speech in the early stages of writ ing was

very loose, inasmuch as the writ ten message did not correspond

to exact forms of speech. A certain message had only one

meaning and i t could be interpreted by the reader in only one

I I

oi.uchicago.edu




way, bu t i t could be rea d th at i s, pu t into words in m an y

different ways and even in many different languages.

In later periods systematic application of the so-called

ph on et izat ion enab led m an to express his ideas in a form

w hich could corresp ond to exac t categories of speech. F ro m

then on wri t ing gradual ly lost i t s character as an independent

mode of expressing ideas and became a tool of speech, a vehicle

through which exact forms of speech could be recorded in

pe rmanent fo rm.

In every great human achievement can be observed one

important and decisive step which entirely revolutionized i ts

further progress. In talking about inventions, I refer elsewhere

to the fact th at a l thoug h W att did no t inv ent the s team engine,

he did take the decisive step in first using steam in a practical

way as motive power (p. 199). We must reckon with a similar

step in the history of writ ing. Such a step of revolutionary

importance is the phonetization of the script . If we believe that

the steam engine first started with Watt , then we might also

assume that wri t ing began only when man learned to express

in wri t ing not ions of l inguist ic value. This would mean that

writ ing is, as some l inguists assume, a device for the recording

of speech an d t h at al l the stages in w hich w rit ing does not serve

this purpose are only feeble at tempts in the direction of writ ing,

but not real wri t ing.

2 8

This restriction of the definition of

writ ing is unsatisfactory, however, because i t does not take into

accou nt the fact tha t both s tages have one ident ical a im : h u m an

intercommunicat ion by means of convent ional vis ible marks.

Furthermore, i t is impossible to lump together al l the early or

primitive writ ings and consider them to be on the same low

level of development. Even though all the early writ ings are

inefficient in expressing speech adequately, some of them, l ike

the Maya and Aztec writ ings, reached a level of systematization

and convent ion which in some ways may be compared with

such fully developed writ ings as Sumerian or Egyptian.

What, then, is writ ing? Writ ing is clearly a system of hum n

intercommunic tion by means of convention l visible marks but it is

evident from what has been said that what the primit ives

und erstood as wri t ing is no t the same thing as w ha t we do. T h e

qu estion of w ha t lies at th e basis of al l writ ing— w ords or ideas—

is clearly the same as the question of what lies at the basis of all

hu m an interco m m unica t ion (see p p . 9 ff) .

2

oi.uchicago.edu



DEFINITION OF WRITING

For the pr imi t ive Indo-Europeans , Semi tes , or Amerindians

the needs of writing were fulfilled in a simple picture or series

of pictures which normal ly had no clear connect ion with any

linguist ic form. As the pictures are per se und e rs t andable t hey

do no t have to correspon d to an y signs of th e spo ken

language. This is what we cal l primit ive semasiography.

To us, layman and scholar a l ike, wri t ing is written language.

Ask a man in the street and he will not even hesitate about

giving this answer. The same definit ion is expressed poetically

by Vo ltaire : L ec ri tu re est la pe int ur e de la voix; plus elle est

ressemblante, meil leure el le est , and by Brebeuf: Cet ar t

ingenieux de pe ind re la parole e t de par le r aux yeux. T h e

French authors are in good company here because they can

back their opinion with the authori ty of the re l iable Aris tot le ,

who centuries ago, in the int roductory chapter of De Interpreta-

tion of his Lo gic, said: Sp ok en words are the symbo ls of m en tal

experience and wri t ten words are the symbols of spoken

words. 29

I agree entirely with the l inguists who believe that fully

developed writ ing became a device for expressing l inguist ic

elements by mea ns of visible m ark s. T ak e, for exam ple, such a

sentence as M r. Th eo do re Foxe, age 70, died to-d ay at the

G ran d X ing Stat io n . A l thou gh Engl ish wri t ing, like L at in, is

called alphabetic, i t is clear that our sentence is not writ ten in

purely a lphabet ic characters . Besides such le t ters as e 0, d ex

pressing their cor resp on din g s ingle sound s, we ha ve a di gr am th

for the spirant 0, the let ter x for th e two con son ants ks a word

sign 70 for the word seventy , and the rebus-type symbol Z p lu s

alphabet ic ing for the w ord Cro ssing . Un system at ic as th e

writing is, still every sign or combination of signs in our

sentence has i ts correspondence in a speech form. It seems

absurd to see in the w ri t ten 70 an ideogram in con trast to the

pho nog raph ic died — as is general ly don e by phi lologists—

simply because the w rit ten 70 contains such different m eanin gs

as seven, zero, seventy, sev entieth , etc. Both 70 an d di ed

evoke the correspond ing wo rds for seventy and die d , an d in

both of them is inherent the idea of the number or death,

respectively. T h e fact th at 70 is w ri t ten logograp hical ly a nd

died alphabet ical ly can be explained s imply as an acciden t of

w rit ing an d is no m ore baffling th an the variou s ways of writ ing

other words , for ins tance , M is te r or M r. , com par e or cf.,

3

oi.uchicago.edu




'and

5

or ' ' . I n all cases a con ven tiona l use, or uses, of ce rtai n

signs for certain speech forms can be observed.

3 0

If un de r the term ' linguist ic e lements ' we unde rstand phrases,

words, syllables, single sounds, and prosodic features, then the

sentence discussed above includes only signs for words, single

sounds , a nd prosod ic features. Phraseog ram s or signs for phrases

are rarely found in popular writ ings, but they form an integral

part of all stenographic systems. Syllabic signs

31

are, of course,

characteristic of syllabic writings. Of the prosodic features, such

as quantity (or length), accent (or stress), tone (or pitch), and

pauses, only the latter are pa rtially expressed in our sentence by

word division and punctuat ion marks in the form of commas.

N orm ally, w rit ing fails to indic ate a de qu ately the prosodic

features. Thus, in such a sentence as 'are you going home?

5

the

interrogation is indicated by the question mark, but i t is left to

the discretion of the reader to decide whether the emphasis is

on the first, second, third, or fourth word. By contrast, scientific

transli terations frequently employ special signs to denote

characterist ics of prosodic nature, by means of diacrit ic marks

or numbers, as in the writ ing of

emos

to denote quant i ty and

stress,

or ku to denote tone. A full indication of tone or pitch

has been developed only in the system of musical notation.

Figure 2 shows in chart form the various ways of writ ing

linguistic elements.

Sing le Sound

(phoneme)

Syllable

W o r d

[Phrase

[Pro so d ic Fea tu r e

Written ign

Let te r o r Alphabet ic Sign

Syl lab ogram or Sy l lab ic Sign

Lo g o g ram o r W o rd S ig n

Ph raseo g ram o r Ph ra se S ig n

Prosodic Sign or Mark

ystem of igns

Alp h ab e t o r A lp h ab e t i c

W r i t i n g .

Sy l labary o r Sy l lab ic

W r i t in g .

Lo g o g rap h y o r W o rd

W r i t in g .

Ph raseo g rap h y o r

Ph rase W r i t in g ]

Pro so d ic W r i t in g ]

F I G 2 W A Y S O F W R I T I N G L I N G U I S T I C E L E M E N T S

14

oi.uchicago.edu




Writing can never be considered an exact co un terp art of the

spoken language. Such an ideal s ta te of point-by-point equiva

lence in wh ich one speech un it is expressed b y one sign, an d one

sign expresses only one speech unit , has never been attained in

wri t ing. Even the a lp hab et , the m ost developed form of w ri t ing,

is full of inconsistencies in th e relat ion s betw een sign an d so un d.

T h e inconsis tencies of ph on et ic wri t in g are i l lust ra ted in Figu re

3 . At the same t ime, the chart i s intended to point out the

differences between the historical and functional characters of

wri t ing.

However, the general statement that full writ ing expresses

speech should not be taken to mean that i t expresses nothing

else bu t speech. Al l wri t ing— even the m ost developed ph one t ic

writ ing— is full of forms w hich , w hen re ad a lou d, are am bigu ou s

and easily misunderstood. The existence of these so-called

visual m or ph em es , th at is , forms or spellings w hich con vey the

meaning only in wri t ing, shows clearly that wri t ing can some

t imes funct ion as a means of communicat ion separately and in

addi t ion to speech. From among many examples of visual

m orphe m e s

3 2

we m ay qu ote the following: T h e

sea

is an ocean,

an d si is a tone, as you can readily see The danger is safely

p ssed or th e da ng er is safely past\ H o w m u c h wood would a

woodckuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?

9

. ^Gref in sh e

has lovely grey eyes an d graf in it was a

gray

gloomy da y .

Other pairs of this bifurcation of meaning in writ ten words are

check— cheque , controller—comptroller• compliment— complement. 33

In modern usage we sometimes meet wi th s igns which have

no conventionally assigned speech forms. For instance, an

arrow used as a symbo l can hav e different m eanings dep end ing

on the s i tuat ion/On a s ign along the road this arrow may mean

som ething like follow in the direction of the ar ro w , bu t at th e

entranc e to a cave i t m ay me an enter here or this is the

en tran ce . S uch ex am ples as the re a re of this sort of symb olism

have many parallels in the semasiographic stage of writ ing in

which m eanings— not w ords or sounds— are suggested by s igns.

This symbolism is outside of our normal system of writ ing. As

part of the phonetic system of writ ing an arrow sign would

necessari ly have developed in the course of t ime one or two

un equ ivoca l speech mea ning s, such as go (the re), follow , o r

the like.

Here, too, belong certain symbols in our comic strips which

5

oi.uchicago.edu



FIG 3 INCONSISTENCIES OF PHO NETIC WRITIN G

Alphabetic signs

o

function as single sounds

function as syllables

function as words

i

=

i

in dim ; =

ay

in dime ; =

9

in dirt*

c

—

s in Caesar ; = k in cat

x = ks in fox ; = gz in exa m ; = £ in Xavier

M = 0 in thin ; = 3 in them; = in Thomas

/ =

h

in the dialectal pronunciation of elm as ebm

b = bi

in rebus writing

q

yuu

in unusual writing of barbecue as Bar-B-Q

m =

meter, mile, minu te, etc.

M . = Martin , Mary, Majesty, Master, Mon day, etc .

v. = see

e.g. = for exam ple, for instance

No. or JV° = num ber

a in Greek = one

Q

H

H

O

Q

O

oi.uchicago.edu



Syllabic signs

Word signs



function as words

function as words



ma = ma in Hittite syllabary

ma = m in Hittite writing of ta-ma for tarn

ma = mana 'mina' in Akkadian

t

=

'dead, died'

2 = 'two, second'

° = 'degree'

(originally La tin et) = 'and '

c =

c

et caetera

and so forth, and so on,' and the like

Picture of arrow = ti in Sumerian = syllabic value ti

7 = septem in yber for 'September'

= et in medieval writing of videlic for videlicet

Picture of bee = b in rebus writing

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A S A SY S T E M O F SI G NS

are general ly understood even though they have no conven

tional counterpart in speech. Such symbols, called 'sub-

linguistic ideographs

5

by Weston Labarre ,

3 4

are, for example,

a balloon encircling print signifying 'speaking', footprints for

'going

5

, sawing wood for 'snoring, sleeping

5

, l ight bulb with

rays for 'idea

5

, a n d ' ] % * ' / = # for 'u ns pe ak ab le

5

.

Eq ually o utside of our n orm al pho netic system of signs are the

conventions employed in mathematics, logic, and some other

sciences. Although in the writ ing of such a mathematical

formula as :—

Y (A) = TT e e

ii + A

b

each single sign has or can have an exact correspondence in

speech, the meaning is here conveyed by the sum of the

signs in an order and form which do not follow the con

vent ions of normal , phonet ic wri t ing.

M ean ing c an sometimes be conveyed within wri t ing not only

by conventional forms of signs but also by various auxiliary

methods based on the descriptive device, colour, posit ion, and

context of si tuation.

T h e oldest O rie nta l systems of w rit ing, such as M esop otam -

ian, Egyptian, etc. , being fully phonetic, employ conventional

signs with definite word or syllabic values. However, even in

these fully ph one tic w ritings the m ean ing is sometimes expressed

not by conventional signs, but by drawings of scenes following

the de scriptive-repre sentational device (see p p . 29 ff.). Th us , in

Egyptian, in a writ ten context describing the victories of

Ram ses I I over foreign lands, Pha rao h 's hon orary t i t le , 'he w ho

binds the foreign peoples,

5

is not expressed by individual

hieroglyphs but by a scene depict ing the Pharaoh binding the

foreign king with ropes.

3 5

In another wri t ten context , the

formula, 'an offering which the king gives,

5

is expressed by a

picture of a king holding a mat with a loaf of bread.

3 6

T h e

meaning is conveyed in these two scenes in a form which we

know so well from the earliest periods of Egyptian writ ing, as

found, for example, on the Narmer palette, described in full

below (see pp. 72 f.).

Colour does not seem to play an important role in our

modern writ ing. Although colouring schemes are occasionally

used to differentiate meaning, as in charts, i t is normally the

black or dark colour that predominates, whether in our

8

oi.uchicago.edu




han dw ri t ing or book prin t . In older times, w hen al l w ri t ing was

don e by ha nd , colour differentiation was found m ore frequen tly.

Both the old Mexican wri t ings and the more modern wri t ings

of the American Indians frequent ly employ a method of

colouring the s igns. Among the Cherokee Indians white colour

is used for peace or happiness, black for death, red for success

or triumph, blue for defeat or trouble.

3 7

Final ly , we may

mention the Polychrome Bible in which colours are used to

represent certain sources, and the modern developments in

pasigraphy (see p. 244) giving to colour an important function

of differentiating m ean ing . Ou tside of w rit ing, co louring

schemes are used on maps and in tattooing. Also the quipu

system w as used to re cor d statistical facts by tying knots in strings

of various colours. Colour characteristics in flowers and gems

are often used to convey certain messages.

The meaning can sometimes be indicated by a device based

on the so-called prin ciple of posit ion or princ iple of posit ional

value.

5

We know how important this principle is in mathe

m atical systems as, for instan ce, in our w rit ing of 3 2 an d

5

3

2

\

W hile individual ly these num bers represent three

5

and two

5

,

respectively, the intended meaning is here expressed by placing

the signs in a conventional position in respect to each other.

An unusual application of the principle of posit ion can be

observed in the writ ing of the Egyptian word m

x

h

x

n

x

w

x

, within,

5

by means of two signs placed one upon the other, the J AR sign

upon the W A T E R sign. This gives syllabically m

x

{w

x

), water ,

5

plus

k

x

r

x

),

under

5

(not expressed by any sign), plus n

x

w

x

, jar,

5

together m

x

h

x

n

x

w

x

, w i th in .

5

^ A similar exam ple in m od ern t imes

is the w ri ting of ™ ° °

D

£*£ fo r J ohn U nderw ood, Andover ,

Massachusetts

5

, supposedly found as an address on a letter.

W ord division, frequently left unin dica ted in the older writ ings,

is another important application of the principle of posit ion, as

anyo ne can ju dg e for himself from the differences in m ea nin g

indicated in the writ ing of see them eat

5

or see the meat

5

, and

that of a nice box

5

or an icebox

5

.

Hand in hand with the principle of posit ion goes the principle

of context of si tuation, to use a term introduced lately by

B. Malinowski in his study of the problem of meaning in

pr imi t ive languages .

3 9

T hu s, the query w here is the pen?

5

is

usually perfectly understandable to the l istener, even though

9

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A S A S Y ST E M O F S IG N S

the word 'pen' may have such different meanings as that of a

writ ing instrument, a play pen, or a small enclosure, simply

because the query was ut tered under certa in condi t ions which

make the interpretat ion unequivocal . Similarly, i t can be

interpreted without difficulty from the context that an abbrevia

t ion PG will stand for

Parteigenosse

in a report on the Nazi

party, for Panzer

grenadier

in a s ta tement on the German army,

and for

e

post-graduate ' in universi ty usage,

40

just as AO will be

interpreted as s tanding for Der lte Orient w hen found in an

Orientalist ic periodical and for

uslandsorganisation

whe n m e n

t ioned in a report on Nazi act ivi t ies outside of Germany. The

principle of context of si tuation finds i ts application also in

other systems of

signs,

for example, in those involving gestures:

a man pointing his finger at the door in certain si tuations may

want to express something l ike 'Get out ' , while in others the

same gesture may simply s tand for ' the re ' or ' in tha t di rect ion ' .

T h e im po rt of the con text of si tuation can b e well i l lustrated by

our modern cartoons; a poli t ical cartoon published some fifty

years ago is well nigh inco m preh ensible to a yo un g fellow w ho is

not acquainted with the s i tuat ion and condi t ions which served

as the background for the cartoon.

4 1

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In trying to reconstruct the early phases of our culture we

rely mostly on sources from the ancient East . This is perhaps

more t rue of the his tory of wri t ing than of any other great

cul tural achievement . There , in the lands of the Sumerians,

Babylonians, Assyrians, Hi t t i tes , Ganaani tes , Egypt ians, and

Chinese, the spade of the excavator has une arth ed w ithin th e

last century thousands of documents which have immensely

enriched our knowledge and opened ent i re ly new avenues of

research. I t would be unthinkable even to t ry to sketch the

history of wri t ing without taking into considerat ion the wri t ten

sources of the ancient East . But frequently we find great gaps

in our knowledge. The further back we go in years the fewer

sources we have at our disposal . The very interest ing problem

of the 'origins ' of w rit ing is shro ud ed in a cloud of darkness an d

is as hard to interpret as the 'origins ' of art , architecture,

religion, and social institutions, to name only a few of the

important aspects of our cul ture .

2

oi.uchicago.edu



S O U R C E S O F I N F O R M A T I O N

Where ancient times fail to give us the clue to a certain

development we must look elsewhere for light on our subject.

We assume that there are to-day, or have l ived within the last

few centuries, primitive

4 2

societies on a cultural level which in

some respects resembles the level of ancient cultures long since

dead. The writ ten remains of such primitive peoples as the

Am erican I nd ians , the African Bushm en, or. the A ustral ian

aborigines, even though far removed from what we call writ ing

to-day, offer valuable ground for understanding the way men

learned to communicate with each other by means of visual

m arkings. In our investigation w e m ust not neglect the artificial

writ ings created by natives under the influence of white men,

usually missionaries. The history of these writ ings—the most

interesting of which are the systems of the Alaska Eskimos, of

the African B am um , an d of the Cherok ee Indians— show s us

the various stages through which they passed before they

reached the final form. The sequence of these stages greatly re

sembles the history of wri t ing in i ts natural development .

A no the r fruitful ap pr oa ch results from the study of child psy

chology. It has often been observed that the mental att i tudes of

infants a nd child ren som etimes resem ble those of societies on the

most primit ive basis . O n e of the most im po rta nt p oints of s imi

lari ty is the tendency toward concrete specification.

43

Jus t as

a child will draw a vertical line and explain it as the tree which

grows in front of the house, so primitive men will frequently

associate their drawings with concrete things and events in

the surrounding world. This tendency in wri t ing and drawing

is an outgrowth of the character of their language which seeks

expression in concrete and specific terminology. The observa

tions made upon those primitive languages which do not use the

word arm

5

o r eye , bu t m y arm or r ight eye , according to

the occasion, and w hich do not have a general word for tre e ,

bu t individu al words for oak, elm , etc. , can be duplica ted to

a great extent by the study of children just emerging from the

init ial stage of language-learning. Another interesting point of

contact can be established from the study of the direction and

orientation of signs in ch ildren s draw ings an d prim itive

writ ings. It has been noted that children will draw individual

pictures in undue proport ion to each other and without any

apparent sense of order or direction. Even a child learning how

to write,will frequently draw signs from left to right or from

2

oi.uchicago.edu




right to left without ever being aware of any difference in the

two direct ions. Similar phenomena perta ining to the direct ion

and orientation of signs can frequently be observed in almost

all the primitive writ ings.

The tendency toward concrete specif icat ion noted among

chi ldren an d primit ives has been observed recent ly in g row n-up

people afflicted by mental infirmities of the type called amnesic

aphas ia .

4 4

I t was noted empirically that these persons will

no rm ally avoid gen eral term s such as knife an d will use

specific expressions such as b re ad knife, p ar in g knife , or pe nc il

shar pen er . T h e road taken b y these persons in re learning the

language is similar to the course of the natural l inguist ic

development of chi ldren. Thus, a detai led s tudy of the amnesic

aphasiacs may yet furnish another fertile field for the study of

the origins of lan gu ag e an d w rit ing.

S T U D Y O F W R I T I N G

The investigation of writ ing from the formal point of view is

the pr im e dom ain of the epigrapher and the pa leograp her .

These terms are frequent ly interchangeable , but in good usage

the two should be carefully dist inguished. The epigrapher is

interested chiefly in inscriptions incised with a sharp tool on

hard material , such as stone, wood, metal , clay, etc. , while the

paleographer s tudies mainly manuscripts on skin, papyrus, or

paper, wri t ten in drawn or painted characters . General ly

speaking, epigraph y t reats of older wri tings, whi le p aleog raph y

is concerned with manuscripts from younger periods.

As a ma t ter of fact, epig raphy and p aleog raph y d o not exis t

as general scientific disciplines. There are no studies in either of

the two fields which treat of the subject from a general ,

theoretical point of view. For example, a treatise which presents

the formal dev elop m ent of signs from pictorial to l inear o r from

round to angular taking in consideration all the writ ings of the

world is unknown to me. What we have, instead, are narrow

fields of study of the type Semitic epigraphy, Arabic paleo

graphy , Greek or / and La t in ep igraphy or / and pa l eography ,

Chinese paleography, papyrology, etc. , al l l imited to certain

periods a nd geo grap hic a reas. In al l cases these na rro w fields of

stud y form subdivisions of w ider, b u t still specific, fields of stud y,

such as Semitic or Arabic philology, classical philology, Assyrio-

logy, Sinology, and Egyptology.

2 2

oi.uchicago.edu



S T U Y O F W R I T I N G

As there is no general epigraphy or paleography, so there is

no general science of writ ing. This statement may sound

preposterous to anyone who remembers the dozens of various

books which treat of writ ing in general . What should be noted,

however, is that all these books are characterized by a common

historical-descriptive treatment. Such a simple narrative

approach to a subject does not make it into a science. It is not

the trea tm en t of the epistemological questions what? when? and

where but tha t of how and, above all , why tha t is of pa ram ou nt

importance in establishing the theoretical background of a

science. Disregarding a few notable exceptions in the case of

individual systems, such questions have rarely, if ever, been

posited and answered in the general field of writ ing. However,

the greatest shortcoming from the theoretical point of view of

all the existing studies on w riting is th e gen era l lack of systematic

typology. G ood studies on indiv idua l writ ings, such as Eg yp tian

hieroglyphic or Greek a lpha bet , are not w ant ing. W ha t we miss

entirely is the theoretical and comparative evaluation of the

various types of writing, such as discussions of various types of

syllabaries, alphabets, word signs, and logo-syllabic writings.

The present confusion in the typological classification of writing

can be best i l lustrated by the term trans it iona l

4 5

given to such

important wri t ings as Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egypt ian

hieroglyphic, which lasted for over 3,000 years and whose exact

place in the classification of writing can be established without

gr ea t difficulties (see p p . 61 ff.).

The aim of this book is to lay a foundation for a full science

of writ ing, yet to be writ ten. To the new science we could

give the na m e gram m atology

5

, following partially the term

gra m m atog rap hy wh ich was used some years ago in a t i tle of

a book on wri t ing publ ished in England,

4 6

This term seems to

m e bette r suited th an either grapho logy

5

, which could lead to

a m isunderstanding, or phi log raph y (a new term coined in

contrast to philo logy ), w hich is no t so exact as gra m m ato log y .

The descriptive treatment of writ ing v/i l l be presented in the

following four chapters, with separate discussions, usually at the

end of each chap ter , devoted to comp arat ive evaluat ion.

Chapter VI will deal with the historical evolution of writ ing

from the earliest stages of semasiography to full phonography.

3

oi.uchicago.edu



II


U

N D E R

Forerunners of Writ ing we shall discuss al l

those phases which, while they do not yet represent

real writ ing, form the elements from which real

wri t ing gradual ly developed. The Germans have a

good te rm , Vorstufe which designates a stage before the first real

stage in a certain development, something l ike prehistory in

contrast to history. The word which I should have l iked to coin

for orstufe is forestage , bu t un fortun ately this term c an no t be

used for our p urpo se becau se i t already has the m ean ing Tore-

castle or a ship w ith a forecastle , even thou gh only in obsolete

E ngl ish.

P R I M I T I V E D R A W I N G S

N atura l ly there was a time when m an did not know how to

write. If we define full writing as a device for expressing

linguist ic elements by means of conventional visible marks (see

p .

12), the n w rit ing, in this sense, is no m ore th an five tho us an d

years old. But already in the earl iest t imes, tens of thousands of

years ago, man felt the urge to draw or paint pictures on

the walls of his primitive dwelling or on the rocks in his

surroundings. Primitive man is similar in this respect to a child,

who no sooner learns to crawl than he begins to scribble on the

wal lpaper or to draw crude pictures in the sand.

ll over the world man has left t races of his imaginative

powers in drawings on rocks dating from the oldest paleoli thic

down to modern t imes. These drawings can be cal led petro-

grams i f they are drawn or painted and petroglyphs i f they are

incised or carved. They usual ly depict man and animal in

various relat ions to each other. Well known to everybody are

the faithful reproductions of animal figures left by paleolithic

m a n in E u r o p e

1

an d th e graceful p aint ing s of the So uth African

24

oi.uchicago.edu



PRIMITIVE DRAWINGS

Bushmen (Fig. 4). An immense num ber of rock drawings and

carvings have been found on this con tinen t (Figs. 5-6),

especially in the m oun tainous regions of N or th Am er ica .

2

These drawings have aroused popular fancy

in

support

of

the

most fantastic reconstructions. Julian H. S teward , in an

interesting an d sob er-m inded art icle, derides all these in terp reta

t ions that try to p rove th a t Egy pt i an s , Scyth ians , Chinese, and

F I G . 4 . — R O C K P A I N T IN G F R O M

S O U T H E R N R H O D E S I A D E P I C T I N G R A I N

C E R E M O N Y

From Leo Frobenius and Douglas G. Fox,

Prehistoric Rock Pictures

in

Europe

nd

frica

New York, 1947), p. 47

a host of o ther Old World peoples, including the Ten Lost

Tribes of Israel, whose fate continues to hav e abso rbing interest

to many persons, invaded America in ancient days . . . ( that

these drawings are) markers of bur ied treasu re, signs of anc ient

astrology, records of vanished races, symbols of diabolical cults,

works of the ha nd of G od, a nd a hu nd re d oth er things conceived

by feverish br ain s . H e furth er states th at devotees of the subject

have wri t ten voluminously, argued bi t terly , and even fough t

duels .

3

In reali ty the d rawings have a much s impler aim.

25

oi.uchicago.edu




In most cases it is, of course, very difficult, if not impossible,

to ascertain the purpose or the urge which st imulated man to

draw or incise a picture, since we do not know the circum-

stances w hich led to its execution. Is the pictur e a m anifestation

of magic, religious, or aesthetic expression? Was it drawn for

the purpose of securing good hunting or was i t the result of the

artist ic impulse? It is not improbable that several urges may

F IG . 5 . — P E T R O G L Y P H F R O M O R E G O N

From L. S. Cressman,

Petroglyphs

o

regon

Eu gene , 1937), p . 31

have been instrumental at the same time in the origin of a

drawing. When a hunter returned from a successful chase, or

a w arrio r from a mili tary e xpedition, he felt the desire to rec ord

his experiences in a picture . The picture may have been drawn

as the result of his art ist ic urge, but at the same time it may

have served as a monument to commemorate past experiences.

It could also have had the magic purpose of securing another

good hunt or a successful razzia in the future. Such pictures do

not represent writ ing because they do not form part of a

6

oi.uchicago.edu



P R I M I T I V E D R A W I N G S

conventional system of signs and can be understood only by the

man who drew them or by his family and close friends who had

heard of the event.

Ju st as speech developed out of im itation of sound , so w rit ing

developed out of imitation of the forms of real objects or beings.

At the basis of all writing stands the picture. This is clear not

only from the fact that all modern primitive writ ings are

pictorial in character, but also because all the great Oriental

systems, such as Sumerian, Egyptian, Hitt i te, Chinese, etc. ,

were originally real picture writ ings.

F I G . 6 . P E T R O G L Y P H F R O M N O R T H - W E S T E R N B R A Z I L

From Theodor Koch-Griinberg,

Sudamerikanlsche elszeichnungen

(B erlin, 1907), pi . 5

To be sure, all these writings already have in their earliest

stages signs which do not look like pictures of real objects, but

rather l ike simple l inear, geometric designs. Such geometric

signs are found in all the areas of the world from prehistoric

periods down to modern t imes. They are sometimes found on

rocks, but are especially common on movable objects such as

pots and weapons {art mobilier .

There is no doubt in my mind that such geometric designs do

not represent abstract forms but are the result of a schematic

development from real pictures. In Fig. 7 is given a series of

drawings showing post-paleoli thic examples of l inear forms

painted on rocks from Spain as compared with later forms from

M as d Az il in Fra nc e pa inte d on sm all pieces of flint. H ug o

Obermaier has shown in this series how pictures became

27

oi.uchicago.edu



FOR RUNN RS OF WRITING

schematized in the course of t ime u nt i l they reached a s tage in

which

it is

impossible

to

recognize w ha t they were originally

intended

to

r epresent .

4

The most s t r iking and the most common

of all

the

deve lopments

is the

t ransi t ion

of

the drawings

of

the

so-called hal le lujah m an — th at is ,

a

m a n

in a

pra yin g posi tion

with

the

ha nd s raised— into sim ple l inear designs.

F I G .

7.

L I N E A R D R A W I N G S F R O M S P A IN

A N D F R A N C E

F r o m E b e r t , Reallexikon er Vorgeschichte vii

pis . 114 f.

T h at the geometric designs are schematic developmen ts from

picture forms can be pro ved conclusively from the o bservat ion

of the development of any wri t ing in its historica l stag es. All of

the well-known ancient writ ings, such as Sum erian, Egy pt ian,

Chinese,

etc.

developed

in the

course

of

t ime

a

cursive, l in ear

form usually so far removed from the or iginal pic tures th at

wi thout knowledge of the in terve nin g stages it would often be

impossible to conc lude tha t the l inear form is a direct descen

d a n t of the p icture form.

8

oi.uchicago.edu



D E S C R I P T I V E - R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A L D E V I C E


Among the forerunners of writ ing the most widely used class

is that generally known by the misleading term of picto-

grap hic or ideograph ic w ri ting. Such wri t ing is best repr e

sented among the American Indians. Before entering into the

difficult subject of definitions an d term ino log y let us pa us e to

glance at a few outstanding examples.

A simple com m unicat ion of no thoroughfare was found in

New Mexico on a rock drawing placed near a precipitous trail ,

here presented as Figure 8.

5

The design warns horsemen that

a mountain goat could climb up the rocky trail but a horse

would tumble down.

F I G . 8 . I N D I A N R O C K D R A W I N G

F R O M N E W M E X I C O

From Garrick Mallery, Picture Writing of

the American Indians (W ashing ton, 1893),

P-

354

More complicated examples of t ransmission of communica

t ion by the American Indians are contained in the three

following illustrations.

Figure 9 represents a drawing, found on the face of a rock in

Michigan on the shore of Lake Superior, which describes the

course of a m ili tary ex pedition across the lake.

6

At the top, five

canoes carrying fifty-one men, represented by vertical strokes,

can be seen. The expedition is led by a chieftain named

Kishkem unasee, Kingfisher, whose totem or anim al symbol ,

in the form of a water bird, is drawn above the first canoe. The

trip lasted three days , as we can ju dg e from the pictures of three

suns under three arches, representing the celestial dome. After

a happy landing, symbolized by the picture of a turt le, the

expedition marched on quickly, as can be seen from the picture

9

oi.uchicago.edu




o f a m a n r i d i n g a h o r s e . T h e e a g l e , s y m b o l o f c o u r a g e , e m b o d i e s

t h e s p i r i t o f t h e w a r r i o r s . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n c lo s es w i t h p i c t u r e s

o f a p a n t h e r a n d a s e r p e n t , t h e s y m b o l s o f f o rc e a n d c u n n i n g

r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h o m t h e c h i e f i n v o k e s f o r h e l p i n t h e m i l i t a r y

e x p e d i t i o n .

Fig ure 10 is a l e t t e r sent by ma i l f rom a Sou ther n Ch eye nn e ,

named Tur t l e -Fo l lowing-Hi s -Wi fe , a t t he Cheyenne and Arapaho

Agency , Ind i an Ter r i t o ry , t o h i s son , L i t t l e -Man , a t t he P ine R idge

Agency, Dakota . I t was drawn on a ha l f - shee t of ordinary wr i t ing

paper , wi thout a word wr i t t en , and was enclosed in an envelope ,

which was addressed t o 'L i t t l e -M an , Che yenn e , P ine R id ge A gency , '

F I G . 9 . — I N D I A N R O C K D R A W I N G F R O M M I C H I G A N

From Henry R. Schoolcraft , Historical and Statistical Informa tion

Respecting

the

History

Condition and

rospects

of

the

Indian Tribes of

the

United States

Part I (Philadelphia, 1851), pi. 57 B, opp. p. 406

in the ordinary manner , wr i t t en by someone a t the f i r s t -named

agency. The le t te r was evident ly unders tood by Li t t l e -Man as he

immedia t e ly ca l l ed upon Dr . V . T . McGi l lycuddy , Ind i an agen t a t

P ine R id ge Agency , and was aw are tha t the sum of 53 ha d b een

placed to his credi t for the purpose of enabl ing him to pay his

expenses in going the long jo ur ne y to h is fa ther ' s ho m e in In di an

Ter r i t o ry . Dr . McGi l lycuddy had , by t he same ma i l , r ece ived a

le t te r f rom A gen t D yer , enc los ing 53, an d expla in in g the reason for

i t s be ing sent , which enabled him a l so to unders tand the p ic to-

graphic le t t e r . Wi th the above explanat ion i t very c lear ly shows,

over the head of the f igure to the lef t , the tur t le fol lowing the tur t le ' s

wife uni ted with the head of a f igure by a l ine, and over the head

of the other figure, also united by a l ine to i t , is a l i t t le man. Also

3

oi.uchicago.edu




over the r ight arm of the last-mentioned f igure is another l i t t le man

in the act of spr ing ing or adv anc ing tow ard Tur t le-Fol low ing-His-

Wife, f rom whose mouth proceed two l ines, curved or hooked at the

end , as i f dra w ing th e l i t t le f igure tow ard s him . I t is suggested th at

the las t -ment ioned par t o f the p ic tograph i s the substance of the

com m unica t ion , i.e . com e to m e, the larger figures wi th thei r nam e

to tems being the persons addressed and address ing . Between the

above the two large figures are fifty-three round objects intended for

dol lars . Both the Indian f igures have on breechcloths, corresponding

F I G . 1 0 . C H E Y E N N E I N D I A N L E T T E R

From Mallery, Picture-Writing p. 364

with the in format ion g iven concern ing them, which i s that they are

Cheyennes who are not al l civi l ized or educated.

7

F i g u r e n is a l e t t e r w r i t t e n b y a n O j i b w a g i rl t o a f a v o u r e d

l o v e r , r e q u e s t i n g h i m t o c a l l a t h e r l o d g e .

8

T h e g i r l i s r e p r e

s e n t e d b y t h e b e a r t o t e m , t h e b o y b y t h a t o f t h e m u d p u p p y .

T h e t r a i l l e a d s t o w a r d t h e l a k e s , s h o w n b y t h e t h r e e i r r e g u l a r

c i r cl e s , w h e n c e i t b r a n c h e s o ff i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t w o t e n t s .

T h r e e C h r i s t i a n g ir ls , i n d i c a t e d b y t h e c ro ss e s, a r e e n c a m p e d

t h e r e . F r o m o n e o f t h e t e n t s p r o t r u d e s t h e a r m o f t h e g i r l

i n v i t i n g t h e I n d i a n b o y t o c a l l o n h e r . O b s e r v e t h a t t h i s

d r a w i n g h a s s o m e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c fe a t u r e s o f a m a p , s u c h

3 i

oi.uchicago.edu




as the trail and the lakes, side by side with such symbolic

representations as the protruding hand expressing the idea of

invitation.

Communicat ion can sometimes be adequately expressed by

means of a sequence of simple drawings in a manner which the

Germans cal l fortlaufende Illustration, th at is, continu ous

illustration.

5

In modern t imes good examples for this device are

wordless comic strips of the Sad Sack type or even full-size

novels, such as those composed in wood cuts by Lynd Ward

{Vertigo, God s Man, Madm an s D rum, e tc . ) . While one picture

in a cartoon is per se und erstan dab le , the m ean ing is conveyed

only by the sequence of all the pictures in a certain order.

F I G . I I . L E T T E R F R O M A N O J I B W A G I R L T O H E R L O V E R

From Mallery, Picture-Writing p. 363

Another, older, example of this kind is the proclamation

issued by the governor of V an D iemen s L an d (Tasm ania) to

the natives illustratin g re trib utiv e jus tice for the edification of

parrots , possums, and Black fel lows

9

(Fig . 12). T h e first

register shows the state of pea ce in which bo th w hite an d da rk

men should l ive. The second confirms the peace concluded

between the official parties. The third register states that if a

native kil ls a white man, the former will be punished by

hanging; finally, the fourth sets the same punishment for a

white man who kil ls a native.

Our other examples, in which pictures follow upon each

other in a certain logical order corresponding to the continuity

of the ideas which are to be conveyed, all come from Alaska.

Native Alaskans use drawings to inform their visitors or friends

of their departure for a designated purpose. The drawings are

depicted upon strips of wood pointing in the direction taken by

32

oi.uchicago.edu




t h e d e p a r t e d m e n a n d p l a c e d i n c o n s p i c u o u s p l a c e s n e a r t h e

d o o r s o f t h e i r h ab i t a t i o n s .

T h e f o ll o w i n g s a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n F i g u r e 1 3 .

1 0

a the speaker , wi th the r igh t hand ind icat ing h imsel f and wi th

F I G . 1 2 . P R O C L A M A T I O N F R O M V A N D I E M E N S L A N D

( T A S M A N I A )

From James Bonwick, The Last of the asmanians (London, 1870), pi.

opp. p. 84

the lef t point ing in the direct ion taken; b ho ld ing a boa t -padd le ,

go ing by boat ; c the speaker holding the r ight hand to the side of

the head, to denote sleep, and the lef t elevated with one f inger erect

to signify one night; d a ci rc le wi th two marks in the middle ,

signifying an island with huts upon it ; e same as a; f

9

a circle to

oi.uchicago.edu




denote another island where they touched; g same as c with an

additiona l finger elevated signifying two nights ;

h

the speaker

with his harpoon . . . ; i represents a sea-lion which the hunter j

9

secured by shooting with bow and arrow;

k

the boat with two

persons in it the paddles projecting dow nw ard; / the winter

habitation of the speaker.

Another pert inent example is given in Figure 14.

11

Alaskan

hunters who had been unfortunate in their hunt and were

a b c d e f g h i j k 1

F I G . 1 3 . — A L A S K A N N O T IC E O F H U N T

From Mallery Picture-

Writing

p. 332

suffering from h ung er drew some characters on a piece of wo od

and placed the lower end of the st ick in the ground on the trail

where there was the greatest chance of i ts being discovered by

other natives. The stick was inclined toward their shelter. The

following are the details of the information contained in the

d rawing :

a

cano e showing do uble projections at bow as well

as the two m en ow ners in the bo at ; Z> a m a n w ith bo th ar m s

extende d signifying no thin g correspo nding to the gesture for

negat ion ;

c

a person with the right ha nd to the m ou th signifying

F I G . 1 4 . A L A S K A N S IG NS O F D E P A R T U R E

From Mallery

Picture-Writing^

p. 353

the act of eating the left han d poin ting to the house occupied

by the hunters ;

d

the shelter. The whole thing means that the

two men have nothing to eat in the house.

What are these drawings intended to represent? Are they

pictures or are they writing? These questions are not difficult to

answer. The drawings at tempt to communicate a certain

message by certain persons in a way that could be understood

by the people for whom the message was intended. It is clear

34

oi.uchicago.edu



D E S C R I P T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A L D E V IC E

that the drawings do not serve the purpose of pictures in the

normal sense, since they were drawn for the purpose of com

munication and not for the purpose of art ist ic-aesthetic

expression. But the differences between pictures and our

drawings l ie not only in the divergent aims, but also in the

form of the execution. Our drawings, l ike all drawings for the

purpose of communicat ion, are characterized by stereotyped

execution as well as by omission of all details (grass, mountains,

etc.) not necessary for the expression of the communication. In

short , our drawings lack all the embellishment, the art ist ic

effect, evident in pictures representative of art.

It has been said before (see p. 29) that all those means of

human communicat ion described above are known by the

misleading term of pictographic

5

or ideographic

5

wr i t ing . The

term p ic tographic

5

, meaning picture wri t ing

5

, is not ap

propriate because there are other systems, such as Egyptian,

early S um erian , etc. , also expressed in pictu re form, b ut entirely

different in inner structure from such primitive systems as those

used by the Am erican Indians . Fu r therm ore , the te rm p ic to

graphy

5

implies characterist ics of outer form, not of inner

development of the system. Although problems of outer form

should not be neglected in a treatise on writ ing, I personally

am inclined toward a reconstruction of the history of writ ing

based more on the inner characterist ics. For that reason I

should l ike to use terminology indicating this development. We

could, of course, invent new terms to dist inguish between the

primit ive picture wri t ings of the American Indians and the

advanced picture writ ings of the Egyptians, etc. , in a way

paral le l to that taken by Arthur Ungnad who cal ls the former

Bildschrift and the la t ter Bilderschrift

i2

but terminology of this

sort is difficult to remember and sounds too artificial.

Ob jections similar in na tu re to those raised against pic to

graphy

5

can be m ade against the term ideography

5

. This term,

too, has been extended outside of the sphere of primitive

systems, sometimes to cover cases in which it is entirely mis

app rop riate . Th e Orientalis ts wh o use the term ideogram

5

for

the simple word sign or logogram have been so sinful in this

respect that the term ideography

5

has become a real oppro

brium in linguistic circles. Because of this double meaning of

ideography

5

I prefer to avoid the term entirely in this study.

In searching for a correct term to cover the means of

35

oi.uchicago.edu




expressing ideas discussed in this chapter we must once more

give attention to the purposes for which they are used and to

the way in which they are achieved. The examples quoted

abov e all serve to com m un icate m en s ideas by m eans of

pictures, each of which separately, or their sum total , suggests

the in tend ed m ean ing . Fo r this reason this stage of w rit ing has

sometimes been called edankenschrift ( though t wri t ing

5

), Vor

stellungschrift ( repres entation al w rit ing

5

), or Inhaltschrift ( con

tent writ ing

5

) by the Germans .

1 3

The picture or a series of

pictures describe to the eye what the eye sees in a way parallel

to that achieved by the picture originated under the art ist ic-

aesthetic urge. To be sure, there are differences between the

schem atic execu tion of pictures inte nd ed to convey one s ideas

and that of pictures made for art ist ic reasons, but the general

similari t ies between the two entirely overshadow the existent

divergences. This stage of the forerunners of writ ing could

therefore be called the descriptive

5

o r representat ional

5

stage,

using a term which points toward a close connection in the

technique of expression in writ ing and in art .

I D E N T I F Y I N G - M N E M O N I G D E V I C E

Let us permit ourselves to speculate a little as to other

possibi l i t ies of human intercommunicat ion which may have

served as the basis for the ultimate evolution of full writing.

Suppose that a primitive man drew on his shield a picture of

a panther. This drawing original ly may have had the magic

purpose of transmitting the strength or the swiftness of the

panther to the man who owned the shield. But in the course of

time the panther on the shield became also a symbol which

communicated to everyone the fact that the shield was owned

by a certain person. The symbol of the panther therefore

became a property mark, whose aim was that of ut i l i tarian

wri t ing. The drawing of a panther as a property mark is , of

course, not yet real writ ing , even thou gh it stands for a pe rsonal

name and may be habitually associated with one certain person,

because it does not yet form a part of a well-established and

conv entional system. But it is an im po rta nt step in the d irection

of writ ing.

A specialized system of this kind is found in the heraldic

symbols used by the nobili ty as identification marks. In the

6

oi.uchicago.edu



I ENTIFYING MNEMONIG DEVICE

same class are the military insignia of rank and branch of

service and the symbols for various professions and crafts very

popular even in modern Europe, such as a key for a locksmith,

a pair of glasses for an optician, or a trumpet for a post office.

Simple linear, geometric designs are frequently found on

objects of daily use, such as pots, utensils, weapons, bones,

ti\

k ^

=\t

=t

yi r(9

n-N- UJ j A

/ E r ^ o y | t H d / 9. t T T T L

tpi ^ t^f $ f n l ^ ^ K X r

U J # B 1 III t % K X. t r r

1

^

N

E

s A A K -> n fa&7 A H T (> 7 H

z

JL £ F T X m K Y £ Vô #

i

0 0 Z $ K I / X C L

r

_

,

^ f

^ 3$ X 2f El < 13 f> £ ^ . ^ < V

F I G .

1 5 . MASON S MARKS FROM ANATOL IA

From A. Gabriel in Syria x 1929), 265

blocks of stone, etc. Their use extends from the post-paleolithic

period down to modern times. Some of the examples on flint

from Mas d Azil have been referred to above (see p. 27).

Potter s marks are found frequently on pottery of the pre-

dynastic and historical periods from Egypt. Figure 15 gives

examples of mason s marks found on Turkish buildings in

Anatolia. Examples of potter s and mason s marks and similar

37 .

oi.uchicago.edu




F I G . I 6 . — N A M E S F R O M T H E O G L A L A R O S T E R

From Mallery, Pictographs of the North merican Indians Washington,

1886), pi. Hi

types from all parts of the world could be multiplied

ad libitum

The custom of branding animals belongs to the same class. The

designs serve in all cases to identify either the owner of a certain

object or its maker.

8

oi.uchicago.edu



IDENTIFYING MNEMONIC DEVICE

F I G . 17 N A M E S F R O M THE R E D - C L O U D S

CENSUS

F r o m M a l l e r y , Pictographs pi lix

The identifying method of recording p rope r nam es includes

also the various ways in which the Am erican Indian s designate

personal and t r ibal nam es. It will be no ted th a t an individual

can be called e ither by his re al or t r iba l n am e or by a to tem.

In Figure

16 we

r ep roduce pa r t

of the

so-called O gla la

Roster

5

which includes

the

names

of

eighty-four hea ds

of

families

in the

b a n d

or

p e rhaps

the

c lan

of

Chief Big-Road,

belonging

to the

N or thern Og la la t r ibe .

1 4

Each chief and sub-

chief holds the insignia of his office

in

h is r ight ha nd . Th e na m e

39

oi.uchicago.edu



F O R E R U N N E R S

OF

W R I T I N G

appears

in

each case above

the

head

of the man.

Following

is

the interpretat ion

of

some

of the

n a me s :

i)

Chief Big-Road,

represented

by a

road w ith tracks.

The

flying bird indicates

the

rap id i ty

of

travel which

a

good road allows;

the

chief was often

ca l led Good-Road because

a

road tha t

is big or

b road

and

well travelled

is

good.

2)

Bear-Looking-Behind.

3)

Brings-

Back-Plenty.

4)

White-Buffalo.

5)

T h e -R e a l -Ha wk

6)

Shield-Boy.

7)

The-Bear-Stops .

8)

Wears-The-Feather .

9)

Dog-Eagle .

10)

Red-Horn-Bul l .

More personal names, in Figure 17, are taken from the

so-called Re d-C loud s Census .

1 5

The census was p repa red

a b o u t

1884

u n d e r

the

direction

of

Re d-C loud, chief

of the

F I G . l 8 . I N D I A N T R I B A L D E S I G N A T I O N S

From Mallery, Picture-Writing pp. 380 ff.

Dakotas

at

Pine Ridge Agency, Dakota Terri tory.

The 289

individuals enumerated were

the

adherents

of

Red -Cloud

and

did not represent all the Ind ians at that agency. Owing to some

disagreement the agent refused to acknowledge that chief as

head of the Ind ians at the agency and named another as the

official chief. The Indians, however, manifested their allegiance

to Red-Cloud by s igning their nam es to seven sheets of ord ina ry

manila paper, which were then sent to Washington. Fol lowing

is the i n te rpre ta t ion of the i nd iv idual names: 1) Chief Red-

Cloud.

2)

T o p - M a n .

3)

Slow-Bear.

4)

He -Do g .

5)

Li t t le-

Chief. 6) Red-Shi r t . 7) Whi t e -Hawk. 8) Cloud-Shield.

(9) Good-Weasel. The symbol of goodness is expressed by two

wavy lines passing upward from the m o u th in imitat ion of the

gesture sign for good ta lk . 10) A fraid-Eagle no in terpretat ion

4

oi.uchicago.edu



IDENTIFYING-MNEMONIC DEVICE

kno w n). M any m ore personal names are to be found in an other

book by Mallery.

1 6

T he exam ples of tribal designations repr odu ced in Figure 18

are taken from winter counts discussed on the following pages.

7

(1-3) T he Crows are symbolized by pictures of persons { r pars

pro toto only of the head) with the characterist ic arrangement

of hair brushed up w ar d an d slightly bac kw ard . (4) Th e

A rap aho , in the D ako ta languag e m eanin g blue cloud

5

, are

represented by a circular cloud drawn in blue in the original,

enclosing the head of a man. (5) The Arikara or Ree are

symbolized as an ear of corn because these Indians are known

as co rn shellers . (6) T h e Assiniboin or H oh e are design ated by

a picture showing the vocal organs (upper l ip, roof of mouth,

tongue, lower l ip, chin, and neck), based on the fact that Hohe

m eans th e voice , or, as some say, the voice of the m usk o x.

(7) T he K ay ow a a re pictur ed b y a sign of a m an shaking his

hand s in a circular m otion, symbo lizing ratt leb rain ed or crazy

he ads . Th e sign is tak en over from an In di an gesture for

craziness made by a circuitous movement of the hand around

the head. (8) The Omaha are designated by a human head

with cropped hair and red cheeks.

Of similar nature to those discussed above are the examples

of forerunn ers of w riting expressed by m ean s of m ne m on ic signs.

Also for this device we find ample illustration among the

American Indians in their use of symbols for recording t ime

and songs.

T he D akota India ns use a m ethod of recording t ime by

m eans of w inter co unts

1 8

named after an important event in the

previous year in a manner identical with that of the ancient

Sumerians and Babylonians, who also named their years after

outstan ding events . T h e D akota s cou nt their years by winters ,

1 9

which may be due to the fact that in the regions inhabited by

them the cold season generally lasts more than six months.

Contrast this custom with that of the Poles who count years by

summers. The way a certain event was chosen for a certain

year is described as follows by Mallery :—

Probably with the counsel of the old men and authorities of his

tribe, Lone-Dog [the Dakota Indian who was responsible for the

systematization of the recording of the winter counts] ever since his

youth has been in the habit of deciding upon some event or

circumstance which should distinguish each year as it passed, and

4 1

oi.uchicago.edu



F O R R U N N R S O F W R I T I N G

when such decision was made he marked what was considered to

be its appropriate symbol or device upon a buffalo robe kept for

the purpose. The robe was at convenient times exhibited to other

Indians of the [Dakota] nation, who were thus taught the meaning

and use of the signs as designating the several years, in order that

at the death of the recorder the knowledge might not be lost. . . .

It was also reported by several Indians that other copies of the

cha rt in its various past stages of formation had been know n to exist

among the several tribes, being probably kept for reference, Lone-

Dog and his robe being so frequently inaccessible.

The different edit ions of the Dakota winter counts extend

from the winter 1775-76 to 1878-79. The chief edit ion,

represented by the Lone-Dog buffalo robe, covers the years

1800-1801 to 1876-77. Although Lone-Dog is described as a

very old Indian, he probably was not old enough in the year

1800-1801 to begin the recording of events then. As suggested

by Mal lery :—

Either the re was a predecessor from whom he received the earlier

records or obtained copies of them, or, his work being first under

taken when he had reached manhood, he gathered the traditions

from his elders and worked back so far as he could do so accurately.

The following is a discussion of examples taken from the

Dakota winter counts. In each case I, II, III refers to different

editions of the same text.

In Figu re 19 the year 1800-1801 is na m ed after th e fact th at

thirty or thirty-one) D akotas w ere killed by Crows. T h e device

consists of thirty parallel lines in three columns, the outer lines

being united. Black lines always signify the death of Dakotas

killed by enemies. O n the significance of colou r, as in using

black for death, etc., see above, p. 19.) The year 1801-1802

signifies that many died of smallpox. The device is the head and

body of a man covered with red blotches. The year 1802-1803,

symbolized by a horseshoe, is named after the first shod horses

seen by Indians or, following a different Indian tradition, after

the theft by the D ako tas of some horses ha vin g shoes then first

seen by the Indians).

The next three years give examples of different forms of

pictures as noted in different editions. Observe the bow in

different positions in the picture for the year 1815-16 and the

divergen t posit ions of the chim ney and of the tree in the p ictu re

42

oi.uchicago.edu



I 8 O O - O I 1 8 0 1 - 0 2

• B 1

- I i

u u u c

1 8 0 2 - 0 3 1 8 1 5 - 1 6

ft Wt

i t f l t l

n V

n

1 8 1 6 - 1 7

0

1 8 1 7 - 1 8 1 8 6 6 - 6 7

Jjk| nnrpi

/ y itfflpn

« * * * *

1 8 6 7 - 6 8 1 8 6 8 - 6 9 1 8 6 9 - 7 0

r *• •

1 ^ *

f

8

w i*

1 8 7 0 - 7 1

r

F I G . 1 9 . D A K O T A W I N T E R C O U N T S

F r o m M a l l e r y

Pictographs,

p i s . i x x iv x x x i an d x x x i i

oi.uchicago.edu



F O R R U N N R S O F W R I T I N G

for the year 1817-18. The year 1815-16 is named after a large

dirt lodge made by the Sans Arc Dakotas. The bow over the

lodge may have been drawn in allusion to the tribe Sans Arc,

without any sign of negation, however. It is also possible that we

should interpret the bow as a feather in allusion to Crow-

Feather who was the chief of the Sans Arc tribe. The year

1816-1 7, represe nted by a buffalo hide , indicates the t im e w hen

buffaloes were very plentiful . The year 1817-18 marks the

building of a trading store with dry t imber; the dryness of the

wood is shown by the dead tree.

The year 1866-67, named after the death of Swan the

Da k o t a

chief

is represented by the picture of a man with the

totem of a swan in the water. The year 1867-68, represented by

the f lag, records the peace made with General Sherman and

others at Fort Laramie. The year 1868-69 is named either after

the issue of beef by the Government to the Indians or after the

Texas cat t le brought into the country. Observe the abbreviated

form of the animal in edit ion I. Similar abbreviations in form

are found in the pictures for other years, as in the year 1864-65,

where only the heads of men are drawn instead of the full

bodies.

Som etimes there is disagre em ent as to the choice of the event

after which a year should be named. Thus, while in edit ion I

the ye ar 1870-71 is na m ed after the killing of th e Fla m e s son,

edi t ions II and III record a bat t le between the Uncpapas and

the Crows.

Of similar mnemonic character are drawings on birch bark

made by the Ojibwa Indians for the purpose of recording their

songs.

2 0

According to Mallery, these songs are in general con

nected with religious ceremonies, and are chiefly used in the

init iation of neophytes into secret religious orders. The words

are invariable, even to the extent that by their use for genera

t ions many of them have become archaic and form no part of

the col loquial language. Indeed, they are not a lways under

stood by the best of the Shaman singers. But no Indian can

change the wording of the ancient songs because in doing so he

would cause loss of the power which such songs are alleged to

possess.

In Figure 20 we give a collection of the Songs of the Meda

(priest) with the explanations of the first four groups by

Mal lery :—

21

44

oi.uchicago.edu




FIG. 20.—OJIBWA SONGS

From Mallery, Pictographs pi. iv

N o .

i .— A m edic ine lodge f illed with the presence of the G re at

Spir i t who, i t is aff i rmed, came down with wings to instruct the

Indians in these ceremonies . The meda, o r p r ies t , s ings , The Great

Spir i t s lodge— you ha ve h ea rd of i t . I wil l ente r i t . W hile this is

sung, and repeated, the priest shakes his shi-shi-gwun, and each

member of the socie ty ho lds up one hand in a beseeching manner .

5

oi.uchicago.edu




F I G . 2 1 . O J I B W A S ON G S

From Mallery Picture-Writing pi. xvii

All s tand w i thou t dancing . T h e dru m is no t st ruck dur in g th is

in t roduc to ry chan t .

N o . 2 .—A ca nd idate for admiss ion crow ned wi th feathers an d

hold ing suspended to h is arm an o tter -sk in pou ch w i th the w ind

repre sente d as gush ing out of one end. H e sings rep ea t ing af ter the

6

oi.uchicago.edu




priest, all dancing, with the accompaniment of the drum and

rattle: 'I have always loved that that I seek. I go into the new green

leaf lodge.

5

N o.

3 marks a pause, during which the victuals prepared for the

feast are introduced.

No.

4.—A man holding a dish in his hand, and decorated with

magic feathers on his wrists, indicating his character as master of

the feast. All sing, 'I shall give you a share, my friend.'

J T ^ ~

\ f c ~

=

/ >

*

6 ^

*

f. .

S

s

& >

,W

^ZLJ /J

6

F I G . 2 2 . LLE GED INDI N WRI TIN G

From William Tom kins,

Universal Indian Sign Language o f the Plains Indians

of North merica

(San Diego, California, 1927), p. 82

In Figure 21a group of songs pertaining to the ceremony of

ini t ia t ing new m emb ers into the Mide wiwin or Grand Medicine

Society is offered.

22

In connect ion with the American Indian wri t ings I should

like to call at tention to a type represen ted b y ab ou t half a do zen

illustrations, all published as a sort of appendix to a book on the

sign language of Am erican I nd ians .

2 3

O ne of them, reproduced

here as Figure 22, is explained as follows by Tomkins: 'An

In dia n an d his wife had a qu arre l ; he w anted to go hu nt ing and

she did no t wa nt to go. H e gave the sign of nega tion, w ould no t

do what she wanted, and he took his bow and arrows and

started into the forest . A snowstorm came upon him and he

47

oi.uchicago.edu




looked for shelter. He saw two teepees, went over to them, but

found that they contained two people who were sick, in one

teepee a boy with the measles, in the other teepee a man with

the smallpox. He ran away as fast as he could and shortly came

to a river. He saw some fish in the river, so he caught a fish,

ate it, and rested there for two days. After that he started out

again and saw a bear. He shot and kil led the bear and had

quite a feast . Then he started on again and saw an Indian

village, but as they proved to be enemies he ran away until he

came to a l i t t le lake. While walking around the lake he saw

a deer. He shot and killed it and dragged it home to his teepee,

to his wife an d his little bo y. T h e story begins w ith the signs for

Indian and his wife in the centre and continues spirally and

counter-clockwise to the end in the upper left corner marked by

the signs for woman and child. One glance at the illustration is

sufficient to see that this pictography has no parallels among the

American Indian writ ings which were discussed above on pp.

29 ff. and 39 ff. To be sure, most of the symbols may have been

taken from some Indian system, but the whole arrangement of

the symbols and the writ ing of

c

two days by means of the

nu m be r V plus the symbol for da y (near the up pe r left

corne r) inste ad of two symbols for d a y ,

2 4

evoke the suspicion

th at the au tho r m ay have concocted freely th e i l lustrations. This

is supported by the cavalier fashion in which the whole book

was wr itten for the use of ou r you ng friends, th e boy -scou ts ,

and i t should have been a warn ing to Jac qu es van G inneken

against taking these inscriptions too seriously in his treatment of

the American Indian wri t ings.

25

The Ewe Negroes of Togo, in Africa, are able to record

proverbs by means of mnemonic signs in a way similar to that

of the O jibwa In dia ns . Figure 23 gives the following exam ples :

2 6

The picture of the needle with the thread represents the proverb

th e thre ad follows the ne ed le (not vice versa) an d resembles in

its me an ing the E nglish saying a chip off the old bloc k , or

l ike father, l ike son . T he pictu re of a thre ad ed needle an d

cloth means the needle sews grea t cloth , in other w ords, th at

small things can achieve greatness , pa ralle l to th e English gr ea t

oaks from li tt le acorns grow . T h e pro verb two opp onen ts

can not last (because sooner or later one of the m m ust re treat)

is expressed by pictures of two men armed with bows and

arrows. T he prove rb w hatever is found and w hatever is m ine

48

oi.uchicago.edu



IDENTIFYING-MNEMONIC DEVICE

is

not

the same

5

implies that things found should

be

re turned

to

the owners

and is in

opposit ion

to the

English saying finders

keepers, losers w eep ers .

The Ewe

p roverb

is

expressed

by the

picture

of a

man poin t ing

at his

chest , m eaning m ine ,

and of

another

man

holding

in his

left ha n d

the

object found.

The

proverb

the

world

is

like

a

baob ab t ree — so grea t tha t

it is

impossible

to

em brac e i t— is expressed

by the

p ic ture

of a man

trying in vain

to

s tretch his arm s betwe en the tree a nd the w orld

(symbolized

by a

c ircle). T h e prove rb the cham eleon says, even

if you m ove fast, you mu st die ju st th e sam e (therefore

it

moves

F I G . 2 3 . EWE P R O V E R B S

F r o m G. M e i n h o f in

êitschrift fur agyptische Sprach e

x l ix (1911) , pi. i b o p p . p. 8

slowly)

is

expressed with some difficulty

by the

p ic ture

of a big

man (who

can

m ove fast),

a

s traight l ine symbolizing moving,

and

an

animal with wings symbolizing death.

The

divinity

of

death must

be a

fast-moving

one

since people

can die at the

same t ime

in

different parts

of

the country.

T h e

use of

writ ten symbols

as

m em ory aids

for

recording

proverbs is also know n from the Cong o region.

2 7

On

the pa rallel

use of objects

for

the sam e purp ose see

the

discussion on p p . 4

ff.

T h e re

is one

gr ea t difference

in the use of

picto rial signs

by

49

oi.uchicago.edu




the American Indians and the Africans. The American Indians

have reached a stage of systematization and standardization

entirely unknown among the African Negroes. As Mallery28

puts i t :—

One very marked peculiarity of th drawings of the Indian s is that

within each particu lar system, such as m ay be called a triba l system,

of pictography, every Indian draws in precisely the same manner.

The figures of a ma n, of a horse, and of every other object delinea ted,

are made by everyone who attempts to make any such figure with

all the identity of which their mechanical skill is capable, thus

showing their conception and motive to be the same.

Am ong the Am erican Indian s the signs dra w n by one person of

a tribe are generally understood by other members of the same

tribe.

Among the Africans the signs are understandable only to

the person who drew them or at most to some of his nearest

friends acquainted with the meaning of the signs.

Besides the identifying-mnemonic systems discussed above

there are others which have had l imited use in various parts of

the world. Among them we should mention the system of the

Guna Ind ians in Panama ,

2 9

of the Aymara Indians in Bolivia

and Pe ru ,

3 0

the inscriptions discovered at Sicasica in Peru,

3 1

the

Nsibidi

system used by the natives in Nigeria,

32

and perhaps

the symbolism of the Dogon, Bambara, and other t r ibes of

S u d a n .

3 3

The symbols discussed in this chapter are supposed to

represent a stage of writ ing which Meinhof calls

Satzschrift

that is, sentence or phrase writing. I feel that this is an entirely

inappropriate term. The individual symbols are not used for

actual sentences or phrases as parts of speech

3 4

but stand as

mnemonic devices for remembering year dates or songs. The

picture of a horseshoe in the year 1802-03 discussed above

(see p. 42) does not in itself represent the sentence

c

this is the

year in w hich shod horses were first seen by the I nd ian s , bu t

i t is a symbol to help remember the particular event. For this

reas on I prefer to call this class of fore run ners of w ritin g t he

m nem onic or the rec ording stage.

Systems of mnemonic signs by means of objects are used

thro ug ho ut th e world for the purpose of keeping records (see

p p . 3 ff.). T h e anc ient Su m erian s, too, felt the necessity of

keeping records by means of mnemonic signs, but instead of

using the objects themselves they chose the method of drawing

5 0

oi.uchicago.edu



L I M I T E D S Y S T E M S

the accounts on tablets. This important innovation, discussed

fully in Chapter III, led to the ult imate development of real

writ ing.

LIMITED SYSTEMS

In addition to the systems described in the preceding pages

there are a few, mostly on the American continent, which

should be discussed in this chapter. Chief among them are the

system of the Aztecs in central Mexico and that of the Mayas

in Yucatan , Sa lvador , Br i t i sh Honduras , and Guatemala .

It may shock some scholars to find the highly elaborate

inscriptions of Central America classified with the primitive

systems of the North American Indians and the African

Negroes. Still , the result cannot be otherwise if we look at the

problem from an unprejudiced point of view. N o ma tter how

elaborate in form the beautiful manuscripts and stone inscrip

tions of the Aztecs and Mayas may appear, in inner structure

they are not on a much higher level of development than are

the primitive systems of North America and Africa. What can

be clearly understood in the Central American inscriptions are

first and above all the mathematical and astronomical systems

of notation. Outside of these, some inscriptions or parts of

inscriptions are understandable but only in the sense that the

North American pictures are per s intell igible without the con

veyance of any l inguistic form. Although the beginnings of

phonetization can be observed among both the Aztecs and the

Mayas nei ther even approximately reached the phonet ic s tage

of writing which we find so well developed already in the oldest

Sumerian inscriptions. However, before we make any more

aprioristic statements let us glance at some typical Central

American inscriptions.

Figure 24 gives a page from the so-called

c

Codex Boturini

dealing with the migrations of the Aztecs.

3 5

The scene on the

left shows four Az tec tribes (w ith their na m es m ark ed by signs

above their heads) moving (shown by footprints) in the direc

tion of a place called Tamoanchan Tlace of Descent

5

(marked

by a broken tree and an altar), to take leave of eight kindred

tribes.

At this place, while the members of the Aztec and

kindred tribes are engaged in a feast and a religious ceremony

(two scenes at right bottom), their respective leaders are

deciding about the dep artu re . Th e two men depicted just above

5 i

oi.uchicago.edu



F I G . 2 4 . A Z T E C I N S C R I P T I O N E X E M P L I F I E D B Y A P A G E F R O M T H E C O D E X B O T U R I N I

F r om Eduar d Se l e r , Gesamm elte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde i i Ber l in , 1904) , 35

oi.uchicago.edu



LIMITED SYSTEMS

the feast and cerem onial scenes a re, on the left, the chief of the

Aztecs (marked by the wo rd Azt lan

5

in the form of t he water-

plus-pillar sign) and, on the r ight , the chief of the k indred

tribes who belongs

to

one

of

the eight tribes n oted

in the

upp e r

r igh t by the pictures of houses with the respective na m es

F I G . 2 5 . — A Z T E C I N S C R I P T I O N , E X E M P L I F I E D BY A P A G E F R O M THE

C O D E X H A M B U R G E N S I S

F r o m T h e o d o r - W i l h e l m D a n z e l Handbuch der prakolumbischen Kulturen n Latein

m rik Hamburg und Berlin, 1927), p. 51

at tached below. The chief on the r ight is shown crying by the

sign

for

water extending from

his

left

eye to the ear. The

ceremony takes place at n ight , as can be seen from the p ic ture

of the sky w ith stars abov e the nam es of the eigh t kindr ed tribe s.

The depa r tu re

of

these tribes

is

indicated

by the

footprints

moving

in the

opposite direction from

the

cen tre .

53

oi.uchicago.edu




A no the r i l lustration of Az tec writ ing is given in F igure 25

s6

showing in symmetrical arrangement the following: 1-20 stands

for 20 days (an Aztec year consists of 13 months of 20 days

each); 21-24 mark the divinit ies of the four cardinal points, that

is , Xochipilli,

th e flower-prince, m ar ke d b y a flower in his left

hand (21) ;

Mictlantecutli,

the prince of the underworld, marked

by the skull (22); Chalchiuhtlicue, the water-goddess, marked by

water (with snails) flowing from her shoulders (23); and

Tlaloc,

the w eathe r-go d, h olding in his left ha nd a lower ja w as a

symbol of this power to crush everything (24); 25-40 represent

the 16 chiefs with their names expressed in rebus-form signs;

41 depicts

Mayauel,

the goddess of the agave plant and of

fertility.

Suc h examples of pho netic w rit ing as are found are con

spicuous by their rari ty and by their occurrence almost

exclusively in the w rit ing of pro per n am es. For ex am ple, the

Az tec geograph ic nam e Quauhnauac, ne ar the forest

5

, composed

of the words quauh, tree, forest,

5

and nauac, near,

5

is writ ten

w ith the signs for tree* {quauh an d for speech

5

naua-tl); the

word

Teocaltitlan,

temple personnel,

5

is written with the signs

for lips

5

te-n-tli), road

5

o-tli), house

5

cal-li), an d teeth

5

tlan-tli), omitting only the syllable tij

1

T he sporadic occur

rences of phonetization cannot be taken as evidence of a high

level of the Central American systems since the principle of

phonet izat ion appears sometimes among primit ive peoples

without any prospects of developing into a full phonetic system

(seep . 5 ) .

Much less understood than the Aztec writ ing is the system

used by the Mayas (Fig. 26).

3 8

In spite of many and various

attempts to decipher the Maya writ ing, the only sure result is

that whatever is clearly understood in this system is limited to

signs of mathematical and astronomical nature. Besides these,

a few more signs for divinities and other terms are known, some

of which were apparently expressed by a phonetic method, as

among the Aztecs.

In whatever l ight we understand the sta tement of the

Spanish bishop Diego de Landa in his book published in the

m iddle of the s ixteenth century, th at a M ay an alph abe t of

twenty-seven signs was used in Yucatan in his t ime, one thing

is clear: nobody has ever succeeded in deciphering the Maya

inscriptions on the basis of de Landa

5

s a lphabe t .

3 9

Even if we

54

oi.uchicago.edu



F I G . 2 6 . M A Y A I N S C R I P T I O N F R O M G O P A N

From S. G. Morley,

n Introduction to the Study of the Maya ieroglyphs

Wa shington, 1915), pi. 7 op p. p. 167

oi.uchicago.edu




admit that this alphabet was composed in the sixteenth century

under Spanish influence and had a l imited use in some areas

of Yucatan, it does not follow that it reproduces the systems of

the pre-Columbian Indians .

The best proof that the Maya writ ing is not a phonetic

system results from the plain fact that it is still undeciphered.

Th is conclusion is inescap able if we rem em ber the m ost

important principle in the theory of decipherment:

A phoneti

writing can and ultimately must be de iphered if the underlying language

is known

Since the languages of the Mayas are still used to-day,

and therefore well known, our inabili ty to understand the

Maya system means that i t does not represent phonetic writ ing.

Another proof that nei ther of the Central American systems

can be called phonetic is evident from the analysis of the

following inscription. Figure 27 represents a catechism com

posed some time in the sixteenth century under white influence

for the use of Mexicans converted to Catholicism.

4 0

Al though i t

contains a number of signs which correspond to words of the

language, the inscript ion cannot be read in the way phonet ic

writ ings are normally read. The signs and groupings of signs

m erely suggest the me an ing , w hich can be reconstructed only on

the basis of independent knowledge of the Catholic catechism.

The character of the text will be better understood if we try to

analyse some of i ts parts. Seven Articles of Faith pertaining to

Jesus beg in with the second gro up of the second line m ark ed by

the picture of the cross with instruments of torture as the sign

for Jesu s. Article I, stating G od s only son, conceived by th e

H oly Gho st, bo rn of the Virgin M ar y is expressed by th e

number one

5

, a picture of a piece of paper to designate the

article, God (recognizable by the characterist ic crown and

beard), the Holy Ghost (symbolized by a bird), and finally

M ar y w ith the child Jesus at her bosom . Th e second article is

found in the first group of the third line, since the writing is

boustrophedon, and i t expresses simply crucified and buried

5

.

Start ing with the second group of the fifth l ine the Ten

C om m and m ents are given. T he first, Th ou shal t love God

above all other things,

3

is expressed by the picture of a man

w ith a he ar t in his ha nd . Th e fifth, T ho u shalt no t kil l,

5

is

shown by pictures of a man with a sword and of a man in a

defending a tt i tu de . T h e rest of the text can be deciphere d in the

same way with the help of the Catholic catechism and without

6

oi.uchicago.edu




any knowledge of the Aztec and Maya languages and writ ings.

The analysis of this Mexican catechism shows clearly that it is

not writ ten in a phonetic system of writ ing but in a device

amply exemplified in the systems discussed above among the

forerunn ers of w riting. If, therefo re, the Aztecs and th e M aya s

did not succeed in evolving a phonetic system by the sixteenth

F I G . 2 7 . — - A Z T E C C A T E C H I S M

F r o m S e l e r , Gesamm elte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprach- und Alter thumskunde i

Be r l i n , 1902) , p i . opp . p . 289

century in spite of the Spanish influence, it is difficult to argue

that they had had such a system in pre-Columbian days.

Would i t not be surprising, somebody may ask, if the pre-

Columbian Indians, who produced a cul ture frequent ly com

pared with the fully developed cultures of the ancient Near

East, did not have a writing of the same stature as the systems

found in the Orient? The answer I would give is that the

Amerindian cul tures cannot properly be compared with the

57

oi.uchicago.edu




cultures of the Near East . Not being quite at home in the field

of A m erica n archaeology I can no t pr ete nd to be able to give

a com petent answer in the m at ter of com paring cul tures of such

diverse origin. But I cannot help expressing my views, or rather

my feelings, on this subject . The pre-Columbian cultures in

America—characterized as they are by scarci ty of metals ,

po verty of tools an d we apon s, l imited ag ricultu re and almost

no dom estication of anim als, lack of the wheel and conseq uently

of carts an d w hee l-ma de po ttery , extensive h u m an sacrifices and

canniba l i sm—cannot s tand compar i son wi th the Orienta l

cultures which almost from the oldest historical stages have a

ful ly developed copper and bronze metal lurgy with an abun

dance of tools and weapons, full agriculture and domestication

of anim als , the pot ter s w heel and carts , almost no h um an

sacrifices, and no trace of cannibalism. The highly developed

calendar system is the most conspicuous feature of the Amer

indian cul tures and i t s tands out as a unique achievement

among the dearth of other cul tural accomplishments . Such a

high level of development in a specialized field is surprising,

b u t not un iqu e. T h e wonderful works of the Luris tan bronze

mak ers s tand out against the backg roun d of the general c ul tural

pov erty of the Zagros M ou ntains , jus t as the high ethical a nd

religious ideas of the biblical Hebrews tower over their

mediocre achievements in the pol i t ical , economic, and techno

logical spheres.

I t is not t rue tha t the A m erind ian cul tures were nipp ed in

the bu d at the t ime of the con quest , as is claimed b y some

scholars who believe that Amerindian writ ings were on the

right way towards developing into ful l systems. Many Mayan

towns were found in ruins by the Spanish conquistadors,

showing that at least the Mayan culture was in a declining

state.

4 1

Furthermore, even a superficial knowledge of the

inscriptions of the Aztecs and Mayas is enough to convince

oneself that they could never have developed into real writ ing

without foreign influence. The features of the writ ten forms,

stagnant for about seven hundred years ,

4 2

the creation of the

grotesque head-variant forms with their characterist ic super

ab un da nc e of unnecessary detai l—a cardin al sin in w ri t ing

from the point of view of economy—are all indications of

a decadent , a lmost baroque, development .

One more remark should be added in connect ion with our

8

oi.uchicago.edu




classification of the Aztec and Maya systems among the fore

runners of writ ing. This is necessary to make i t clear that we

do not wish to imply by this classification that the Central

American systems are on the same low level of development as

their North American counterparts, discussed at the beginning

of this chapter. Even to an outside observer the systematization

of the formal aspect of the writing will appear considerably

more progressed among the Aztecs and Mayas than among the

North American Indians. In addi t ion, we may note in Central

America the existence of phonetization, entirely unknown

among the comparable systems in the north and, above all , the

highly developed numerical system, in comparison with which

anything produced in the north looks childish and primitive.

T he C entral A m erican me thod of wri t ing num bers and things

coun ted as, for exam ple, in the w rit ing of 5 m en by mean s of

the nu m be r 5 and th e sign for m an , is identical w ith th at of

the Oriental writ ings and is totally different from the method

emp loyed in the no rth , w here the expression 5 m en w ould

have to be wri t ten by mean s of f ive separate pictures o f m a n

4 3

All these characteristics point toward a higher level of writing

in Central America than in North America, but they can in no

way lead to the conclusion that the Central American systems

are identical in general structure with any of the Oriental

writ ings. T h e similari ty in the use of the descriptive-represe nta

t ional device among both the North and Central Americans, on

the one hand, and the general lack of system tic phonography

among the Indians, on the other, are two chief characterist ics

which divide sharply all Amerindian systems from those in the

Old World. I find myself thus in complete accord with the

opinions of two eminent Americanists as expressed in the

following: N o nativ e rac e in A m eric a possessed a com plete

wri t ing ;

4 4

t he Maya h ieroglyphs are by ho means a rea l

writ ing in our sense, and no counterpart to the Egyptian

hieroglyphs.

4 5

59

oi.uchicago.edu



I l l

W O R D - S Y L L A B I C S Y S T E M S

F

U LL systems of writing originated for the first time in

the Orient—that vast mass of land extending from the

eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea to the western

Pacific. F or historical as well as pr ac tica l reasons Eg yp t

an d the adjacent areas in Africa an d at least in the p re-H ellenic

period the areas surr oun ding the Ae gean Sea should also be

included within the orbit of the Oriental civil izations.

In the large area thus defined we find seven original and

fully deve loped systems of w riting all of w hich co uld priori

claim independent origin:—

Sum erian in M esopotam ia 3100

B . C . - A . D .

75.

Pro to-E lam ite in Ela m 3000-220 0 B.C.

Pr oto -In dic in the Ind us Valley aro un d 2200 B.C.

Chinese in C hina 1300 B.c.-pres ent.

Eg ypt ian in Egyp t 3000

B . C . - A . D .

400.

C re tan in Cre te and G reece 2000-120 0 B.C.

H it t i te in A natol ia and Syria 1500-700 B.C.

The fact that we know of exactly seven Oriental systems—

a nu m be r so sacred to occultists cabbalists an d universalists—

is du e simply to coinciden ce. T h e O rie nt is full of w ritings w hich

aw ait discovery an d every few years some new w rit ing comes to

light thr ou gh th e efforts of the excavators. T o be sure at the

present t ime there are no l ikely candidates to be added to the

list of the seven original Oriental systems. The Proto-Armenian

inscriptions which have recently been discovered in great

num ber s in A rm enia are too l i tt le know n to allow any safe

conclusions.

1

The undeciphered Phaistos and Byblos writ ings

are most likely syllabic and thus fall under the classification of

writ ings which will be discussed in Chapter IV. The mysterious

Easter Islan d inscriptions on w hich so m uc h effort has been

wasted by so m an y im agina tive minds are not even w rit ing in

60

oi.uchicago.edu



SUMERIAN SYSTEM

the m ost prim itive sense of the wo rd as they pro bab ly represen t

no thin g else bu t pictorial concoctions for ma gica l p urpo ses.

2

Finally, the Amerindian systems of the Mayas and the Aztecs

do not represent full writing since even in their most advanced

stages they never attaine d the level of deve lopm ent cha racteris

tic of the earliest phases of the Oriental systems (see pp. 51 ff.).

Inasmuch as three of the seven Oriental systems—namely,

Proto-Elamite , Proto-Indic , and Cretan—are as yet un-

deciphered or only part ia l ly deciphered, we can deal construc

tively in this chapter only with the remaining four writ ings,

whose systems we can understand fully. Of these, Sumerian is

the oldest and the only one in which ample i l lustration is avail

able for the recons tructio n of the earliest stages. Fo r th at reaso n

our discussion of the Oriental systems of writing will start first

with a full presentation of the Sumerian system; next will

come the discussion of the Egypt ian, Hit t i te , and Chinese wri t

ings,

followed by short sketches of the salient points of the

three undeciphered or part ia l ly deciphered systems; and final

ly we shall try to review the common characterist ics of all the

Oriental systems of writ ing.

S U M E R I A N S Y S T E M

The home of the cuneiform writ ing is in Mesopotamia, in the

basin of the Tigris and E up hra tes rivers. T h e term cuneiform

m eans l i terally w edge-form , from L atin

cuneus

c

w edge , plus

forma

form , and owes i ts origin to the wedgelike ap pe ara nc e

of the little strokes in the signs of the Mesopotamian writing.

T he d ecip herm ent of cuneiform, init iated in th e first half of the

last century by the German Georg Friedrich Grotefend and the

Englishman Henry Rawlinson, progressed so much in the

following years that by the end of the century it was possible to

read with relative ease the various forms of cuneiform in which

m an y different lang uages of the ancien t N ear E ast were w rit ten.

Chief among these were Sumerian, spoken in southern Mesopo

tamia by a people of unknown ethnic and linguistic affiliation,

and A kkadian, a Semit ic langua ge spoken in nor thern M esopo

tamia, which includes two main dialects, Babylonian and

Assyrian. Toward the end of the third millennium B.C. the

Sumerian language died out , g iving way to Akkadian.

Discoveries in Mesopotamia in the nineteenth century soon

6

oi.uchicago.edu




m ade i t ap pa ren t that , a l thoug h the term cuneiform could

well be applied to the major part of the life of this writing, it

was not applicable to its earliest stages. It was noted that the

signs on early tablets brought to light in the course of excava

tions in southern Mesopotamia did not have the cuneiform

appearance, and before long it was found that the older the

tablet was the more its signs resembled plain pictures as they are

found in many other pictographic systems, such as Egyptian

hieroglyphic, for example. Thus, as i t became clear that the

Mesopotamian cuneiform writing had developed from a picto

graphic stage, attempts were soon made to reconstruct in detail

the various phases of development. The task was considerably

lightened by the recent discovery at Uruk (biblical Erech,

Greek Orchoe, modern Warka) in southern Mesopotamia of

F I G . 2 8 . E A R L I E S T P I C T O G R A P H I C T A B L E T S F R O M

U R U K

From A. Falkenstein, rchaische Texte aus

ruk

(Berlin, 1936),

pi.

1

about a thousand tablets which give a rather clear picture of

the development of the Mesopotamian wri t ing in i ts earl iest

stages.

3

The Sumerian wri t ing owes i ts origin to the needs arising

from public economy and administrat ion. With the rise in

product ivi ty of the country, resul t ing from state-control led

canal izat ion and i rr igat ion systems, the accumulated agricul

tural surplus made i ts way to the depots and granaries of the

cities,

necessitating keeping accounts of goods coming to the

cities,

as well as of manufactured products leaving the cit ies

for the country.

The earliest known Sumerian records were found at Uruk in

wh at is usual ly cal led U ru k IV stra tum . Th e exact dat ing of

this stratum, l ike the dating of all early remains in the Near

Ea st, is still in the re alm of fantasy, w ith th e extrem e dates

differing by as much as one thousand years. Thus, while one

scholar places the begin ning of the Proto -li terate p eriod betw een

6

oi.uchicago.edu




the end of the forty-first and the middle of the thirty-eighth

century B.C.,

4

others assign it to the beginning of the third

millennium B.C.

5

Lacking concrete evidence there is nothing

that I can say about this or that date except to express my

opinion that to a historian of writ ing the lowest possible date

would seem to be the most acceptable. The span of over one

thousand years between the beginning of Sumerian wri t ing at

the start of the fourth millennium and the establishment of full

w rit ing aro un d 2500 B.C., postu lated by the hig h chro no-

logists, has always seemed to me out of proportion with the

reali t ies of Sumerian epigraphy. For that reason I have felt

rather in sympathy with the low chronologists who proposed

to reduce this span to about 400 or 500 years, yielding a

reconstruction which was much similar to that of my own based

on the observation of the inner and outer development of the

Sumerian wri t ing. There is a l imit , however, below which we

cannot possibly go, and that is the date of the earliest Egyptian

hieroglyphic inscriptions. If i t is tru e, as generally assumed, th at

the Egyptian writ ing originated under the st imulus of the

Sumerian writing (see pp. 214 ff.), and if the date of the earliest

Egyptian inscriptions is set at about 3000 B.C., then the earliest

Su m erian w rit ing cann ot be da ted after 3000 B.C. T he re is

nothing set , however, about the earliest dates of Egyptian

chronology, and it is possible that further studies may result in

the redu ction by a few centuries of the d ate of the First Eg yp tian

Dynasty and, with i t , of the introduction of writ ing in Egypt.

If this is impo ssible, then in the lig ht of the facts ou tlined abo ve,

the date of the earliest Sumerian writ ing should be set tenta

tively at about 3100 B.C.

In assigning the earliest known Mesopotamian records to the

Sumerians we must guard against the easy assumption that the

Sum erians were the real inventors of the M esopotam ian

writing. In fact, as it has become ever more clear in the last few

years that an ethnic element different from the Sumerians

(which for wa nt of a better te rm I call the X elem ent )

inhabited Mesopotamia alongside, or perhaps even before, the

Su m erians, i t is no t at al l excluded th at this X elem ent an d

not the Sumerians may have been responsible for first introduc

ing what became known later as the Sumerian wri t ing.

The simplest forms of Sumerian records are represented by

tags or labels showing perforations with traces of strings by

6

oi.uchicago.edu




which they were originally attached to an object or group of

objects. Such tags, usually m ad e of clay, m ore rare ly of gypsu m ,

contained nothing more than the impression of a cylinder seal ,

that is, the property mark of the person who sent the objects,

plus (sometimes) marks giving the number of objects sent, but

no signs which in any way would indicate what objects were

sent.

6

The l imitations of this system are obvious; although the

recipient of the goods knew at the t ime what objects were

involved, since the tags came with the objects, once the tags

w ere .deta che d from the objects the conn ection was grad ually

lost and forgotten. A further limitation was involved in the fact

FIG

29 LEDG ER TABLET FR OM UR UK

From Falkenstein, rchaische Texte aus Uruk pi. 31, No. 339

that by this method it was possible to record the names of only

those persons who owned cylinder seals.

All these l imitations led quickly to the enlargement of the

system by drawing the signs for the objects and substituting

written signs for the seals. Although the small tablets in

Figure 28

7

are rather difficult to interpret, it is clear that the

signs can stand for nothing else but objects and persons. More

developed and easier to interpret is Figure 29,

8

a ledger tablet

with many li t t le cases on the obverse, each giving a number in

th e form of semicircles an d a perso nal na m e expressed by one

or more signs. What is being sent or recorded is stated on the

reverse, reading clearly 54 ox cow, that is, 54 oxen (and) cows

or 54 cattle

5

. It evidently made no difference to the recorder

whether oxen or cows were connected with individual persons,

64

oi.uchicago.edu



S U M E R I N S Y S T EM

and there is nothing to indicate wh ether the ca t t le were bro ug ht

in by different persons or sent out to them.

In saying that the substi tution of seal impressions by writ ten

personal names was an important factor in the development of

Sumerian writ ing, i t must be emphasized that I strongly

disagree with the opinion that the Sumerians came upon the

idea of writ ing through their use of the cylinder seal or that

the immediate ancestor of Mesopotamian wri t ing was the

cylinder seal. It seems to me that the aims of the seal and of

writ ing and the form in which these aims are achieved are so

different throughout the whole course of their history that i t is

difficult to see how the use of seals could have ever influenced

the origin of the writ ing. The purpose of the seal as a mark of

ownership in both i ts uti l i tarian and magical aspects is the

identification of the owner, that of writing is the transmission

of com m unic ation. T h e seal depicts scenes take n from religious

and legendary spheres, showing no direct relationship to the

owner of the seal, while writing uses signs, that is, pictures and

non-pictorial symbols, for the purpose of communicating a

message by the writer. Even the forms of the individual

drawings in the early Uruk writ ing frequently differ greatly

from those found on contemporary seals, as one can readily see

from a comparison of the signs for ox and sheep in the

Uruk writ ing with the drawings of these two animals on the

seals.

The signs used in the earliest Uruk writ ing are clearly word

signs lim ited to the expression of nu m er als , objects, and per son al

nam es. This is the stage of w rit ing w hich w e call logog raphy or

word writ ing and which should be sharply dist inguished from

the so-called ide og rap hy

5

.^ T h e differences ca n b e easily

grasped by anybody who would take the t rouble to com pare any

of the early Uruk inscriptions with the primitive devices of the

American Indians, discussed above on pp. 29 ff.

11

I n th e m ost prim itive phases of logo gra ph y it is easy to express

concrete words, such as a sheep by a picture of a sheep, or the

sun by a picture of the sun, but soon a method must be evolved

whereby pictures can express not only the objects they originally

depict but also words with which they can be secondarily

associated. Thus, a picture of the sun can stand secondarily for

the wo rds brig ht, wh ite

5

, late r also d ay ; similarly, a pic tur e of

a woman and a mountain can stand for s lave gir l

5

— a

6

oi.uchicago.edu




com bina tion derived from the fact tha t slave girls w ere no rm ally

brought to Babylonia from the surrounding mountains.

Logography of this kind has, of course, its drawbacks in its

inabili ty to express m an y parts of speech and gra m m atic al

forms;

this is not very serious, however, since the intended

meaning can frequent ly be understood through the context of

situation

5

, to use a term introduced by B. Malinowski in his

study of the m ean ing in primit ive lan gu age s^ (see p . 19). M uch

more serious are the limitations of the system in respect to the

wri t ing of proper names. The primit ive device of the American

Indians for expressing personal names (see pp. 39 ff.) may have

been sufficient for tribal conditions but it certainly could not

satisfy the requirements of large urban centres like those in

Sumer. In an Indian t r ibe, where everybody knows everybody

else,

it is normal for every individual to have an exclusive name.

$e •

70 **

M

F I G . 3 0 . W R I T I N G O F P E R S O N A L N A M ES IN T H E U R U K P E R I O D

From Falkenstein,

rchauche Texte aus Uruk

p. 24

In large cities, in spite of the proximity of living conditions,

people do not know each other an d m any different persons bear

the same names. Therefore, in documents, persons with the

same name have to be further identified by their paternity and

place of origin. Furthermore, names of the Indian type, such as

/White-Buffalo

5

or Big-B ear , w hich can be expressed in w riting

with relative ease and are found perhaps in our Figure 30, were

relat ively rare among the Sumerians, while common Sumerian

nam es of the type Enlil-Has-Given-Life

5

were difficult to

express by the Indian device.

T he need for ad eq ua te repres entatio n of pro pe r names finally

led to the development of phonetization. This is confirmed by

the Aztec and Maya writ ings, which employ the phonetic

principle only rarely and then almost exclusively in expressing

proper names (see p. 54). That the need for indicating gram

matical elements was of no great importance in the origin of

phonetization can be deduced from the fact that even after the

66

oi.uchicago.edu




full development of phonetization writing failed for a long time

to indicate grammatical e lements adequately .

Phonetization, therefore, arose from the need to express

words and sounds which could not be adequately indicated by

pictures or combinations of pictures. Its principle consists in

associating words which are difficult to express in writing with

signs w hich resem ble these words in sound an d are easy to dr aw .

The procedure involved may result in a full phonetic transfer,

as in a draw ing of knees to express the n am e Neil

5

(from

c

kne eP), of the sun for the word son , or even togethe r in a

drawing of knees plus the sun to express the personal name

Nei l son .

1 3

Part ial phon etic transfer is involved in the d ra w in g

of the bear in the coat of arms of Berlin or of the monk in that

of the city of Munich. Phonetic indicators are normally used

w hen it is im pera tive to differentiate words w hich a re sim ilar in

meaning and which theoretically could be expressed by one and

the same sign. Thus, while a picture of two women facing each

other may stand through association of ideas for the words

discord, q ua rre l , l i t igation , in ord er to express the w ord

discord pictures of two wom en an d of a cord m ay be used,

beca use the final syllable of the wo rd disc ord resem bles, or in

this case is iden tical w ith, th e sou nd co rd expressed by th e

pictu re of a cord. Of course, the word discord could also be

writ ten through the process of phonetic transfer by means of

two signs, one representing a disk, the other a cord.

A lthough most of the U ru k inscript ions are as yet un rea dab le

we can safely assume that the principle of phonetization Was

evolved very early. Falkenstein himself quotes as an example of

pho netization the case of the A R R O W sign, which is found in the

second oldest stage of the w riting (the so-called U ru k I I I

s t r a tu m ) .

1 4

This sign stands in Sumerian for the word ti

ar ro w , an d also for the w ord ti life . B ut since in the oldest

stage of the writ ing (the so-called U ru k I V s tra tum ) we find

men

the word for crow n in Sum erian, wri t ten with the s ign

for crown plus the phonet ic indicator en

15

and since possibly

the divine name Sin, originally Suen, Suin, is writ ten phoneti

cally as su-en ™ i t is probable that examples of this kind will be

great ly increased when we reach a bet ter understanding of the

earliest stages of the Uruk writing.

O nc e introdu ced, the principle of phon et izat ion spread

rapidly. With i t entire new horizons were opened to the

7

oi.uchicago.edu




expression of all linguistic forms, no matter how abstract, by

means of written symbols. The establishment of a full system of

w rit ing required conv entionalization of forms an d principles.

Forms of signs had to be standardized so that everybody would

dra w the signs in approx ima tely the same wa y. Correspon

dences of signs with definite words and meanings had to be

established, and signs with definite syllabic values had to be

chosen. Further regulation of the system had to take place in

the matter of the orientation of signs and the direction, form,

and order of the l ines. The order of signs had in general to

follow the order of forms in the spoken language, in contrast

to the convention of the descriptive-representational device, as

know n amo ng the N orth Am erican Ind ians see p p . 29 ff. ), the

Aztecs see p p . 51 ff.), an d the Egy ptian s see p p . 72 ff.); it

should be remembered, however, that for aesthetic or practical

reasons see p . 230) the sign orde r ma y be chang ed w ithin

words and short expressions.

Conventionalization of the system of writ ing required not

only the setting-up of the rules but also the actual learning of

the forms and principles of writing. The few school tablets

found in the Uruk IV stratum giving l ists of signs

1 7

testify to

the educational and scientific activities of the Sumerians, fields

in which they became so proficient in the later course of their

history.

Some time in the first half of the third millennium B.C. the

system of the Sumerian writ ing was taken over first by the

Sem itic Ak kadians a nd a li t t le later by their eastern neigh bou rs,

the Elamites. In the second millennium it was the Hurrians of

nor ther n M esopotam ia and th e H it ti tes of An atol ia wh o

borrow ed the wri t ing from the Akkadians. Th at w as the period

in which the Akkadian language, as the

lingu fr nc

of the

Near East , reached i ts greatest period of cultural expansion.

T he U rar t ians of Arm enia , who used the M esopotamian

w riting for the ir langu age in th e first half of the first m illen niu m ,

were the last nation to borrow the cuneiform system from

Mesopotamia.

O utside of the cuneiform systems ju st m ention ed, reference

should be m ad e to U ga ritic see p p . 129 f.) an d Pe rsian see

p p . 172 ff.), bo th of w hich were ind ep en de nt local creations,

whose only connection with the Mesopotamian cuneiform was

the notion that signs could be made in the form of wedges.

68

oi.uchicago.edu



S U M E R I N S Y ST E M

Throughout i ts history the material par excellence of the

Mesopotamian wri t ing was clay. As the rounded forms of

pictures could not easily be incised on clay with a stylus the

signs perforce acquired in the course of t ime an angular form

executed by means of a few separate strokes of the stylus. Due

to natural pressure of the stylus in one of ts corners the strokes

acquired the appearance of wedges, resul t ing in the develop-

ment of cuneiform writ ing. This writ ing was later used on other

materials , such as s tone and metal . The development of some

of the Sumerian pictographic signs into cuneiform is shown in

the tab le in Figure 3 1. Th is is the usual inter pre tatio n of the

origin of cuneiform writ ing, but i t should be noted that there

are some indications pointing towards the use of wood as a

wri t ing material in Mesopotamia. Wood, even more than clay,

would have necessitated the development of rounded into

ang ular and square forms. T he C hinese, too, had a squa re

script

5

a rou nd the t ime of Jesu s, which m ay ha ve arisen as a

result of the difficulties in incising rounded forms on wood.

Even the Hebrew scriptur qu dr t may owe its origin to similar

causes.

The Sumerian syllabary and the systems derived from it

consist of signs which usually represent monosyllables ending in

a vowel or a consonant, more rarely dissyllables of the same

structure.

At no t ime did any of the Mesopotamian syllabaries (see

p .

130) contain signs for all the possible syllables existing in the

languages for which they were used. The principle of economy

aiming at the expression of linguistic forms by the smallest

possible number of signs, resulted in various economizing

m easures. N o M eso po tam ian system distinguishes betw een

voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants in the case of signs

end ing in a conso nant. T hu s, the sign IG has the valu e

ig ik

an d

iq

just as the sign TAG can stand for

tag tak

and

taq.

In addition, some older systems, such as Old Akkadian and

Old Assyrian, do not even indicate the qual i ty of the con-

sonant in s igns beginning with a consonant . Thus, in these

systems the sign GA has th e v alue of

ga ka

and

qa.

In all

cuneiform systems many signs ending in

i

may stand also for

those ending in

e

as in the sign LI w ith the v alues

li

and

le.

In the case of syllables which are not represented by a sign in

the syllabary, signs with similar consonants can be used as, for

69

oi.uchicago.edu




BIRD

FISH

D O N K E Y

O X

SUN

G R A I N

O R C H A R D

P L O U G H

B O O M E R A N G

F O O T

j

*>

X

o

1

V A / V

®i?

cc^>

^

^

n

&

» -

^

^

»

c4

'V

^

HP*-

£>

•

^

93

I f f

5

..*4

< T

W <

t s^

pi

» .

T

^

frT

p f-

^

^ L

F I G . 3 1 . P I C T O R I A L O R I G I N O F T E N C U N E I F O R M S IG N S

Oriental Institute Photo No. 27875 (after A. Poebel)

instance, in writing the syllable rin by means of the sign which

has a normal value rim. Syllables for w hich no signs with sim ilar

consonants can be found are written in a way which developed

uniquely in Sumerian and finds no parallels in any other

syllabic system w ith t he possible exception of the Chinese system

(see p p . 87 f.). T hu s, in t he M eso pot am ian system the syllable

ral, for which no separate sign exists, is written as ra-al, while

in other known syllabic systems this syllable would be written

ra-/(a),

ra-l(e),

or the like. This method of writing syllables, for

70

oi.uchicago.edu




which we have the first documentation in the spell ing of

Ti-ra-ds

for

Tiras

at the time of Ur-Nanse (about 2500 B.C.),

invad ed the M esop otam ian system of w rit ing to the extent t ha t

in the course of t ime i t became one of the two normal ways of

writing monosyllables consisting of a consonant plus a vowel

plus a consonant . The Mesopotamian wri t ing of

ral

as

ra al

may

be exp lained b y the princ iple of red uc tion (pp . 105 an d 182 f.).

In cases of polyphonous signs, such as the sign which may be

read as

gul

or sun, the w ri t ing

gul-ul,

composed of the basic sign

gul

p lus the phonet ic complement or indicator

ul,

was used to

show that the sign should be read as

gul

and not

sun.

T h e

spelling

gul-ul

may then have been conceived as

gu l)-ul,

wi th

the result that the gul sign was now considered to stand for gu

alone, while the ul s ign supplied the remainder of the required

gul-

The normal Mesopotamian syllabic writ ing contains signs of

the type da, du, dam, dum, etc., each of w hich in dica tes exactly

the required vowel. But besides these there are signs such as

W A which has the value of wa, wi, we

l

and wu, in other words,

the consonant

w

p lus any vowel .

18

St il l an ot he r sign is the

A

or

3

A sign wh ich contains the weak con sona nt and any req uired

vowel. The early Assyriologists frequently transliterated the

former sign as

w,

and the latter even in modern practice is st i l l

commonly t ransl i terated as

3

by persons who h ave n ot yet

grasped clearly the difference between syllabic and alphabetic

writ ings. This latter sign developed from an older form which

had the value of ah,

ih, eh,

and later also

uh.

In addition, i t has

recently been proved that the sign

IA

can in some periods have

the value of the consonant y p lus an y vowel . T h en there are

signs such as H AR or L A H , which can be read with any medial

vowel, and many more signs such as L I / L E , I G / E G , L A B / L I B ,

D I N / D U N , e tc. , in which readings with more than one vowel are

possible.

Remembering that the Mesopotamian wri t ing often in

adequately indicates the consonants in having identical signs

for voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants (see p. 69), we

can observe two methods in play. One procedure is to indicate

the consonant correctly but not the vowel (the sign W A, W I ,

W E, wu), and the other to indicate the vowel correctly but not

the consonant (the sign GA, KA,

QA

or the sign AG, AK, AQ J .

Of these methods i t is the second which is by far the more

7i

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S Y L L A B I C S YS TE M S

important in Mesopotamian. Thus, the Mesopotamian syl labic

writ ing is the result of the amalgamation of two processes both

aiming at the effective expression of the language by means of

the smallest possible number of signs. This is the principle of

economy, which may be observed in many other syllabic

systems, such as Egyptian, which indicates the consonant

correctly but not the vowel, or Hitt i te, Cypriote, and older

Ja pa ne se , non e of w hich indicates the dist inction betw een

voiced, voiceless, emphatic, or aspirate consonants.

If we t ry now to reconstruct the two M esopo tamian m ethods

of creating syllabic signs in accordance with the principle of

economy we can draw the fol lowing picture:—

ethod

O ne sign expresses ga or ka or qa

One sign expresses

gi

or

hi

or

qi

One sign expresses

ge

or

ke

or

qe

O ne sign expresses gu or ku or qu

ethod

One sign expresses

wa

or

wi

or we or

wu

One sign express es^

or yi or ye or yu

One sign expresses ah or ih or eh or uh

O ne sign expresses har o r hir o r her o r hur

F I G . 3 2 . T H E T W O M E S O P O T A M I A N M E T H O D S O F C R E A T I N G

S Y L L A B I C S I G N S

E G Y P T I A N S Y S TE M

The name of the hieroglyphic writ ing of the Egyptians is

derived from th e G re ek iepoyAU<piKcc ypajjua roc and owes its

origin to the belief that this kind of writing was used chiefly

by the Egyptians for sacred purposes and on stone (iepos means

sacred

5

and yA uîv to incise

5

, namely, on stone). By 1822 the

hieroglyphic w rit ing was successfully deciph ered by the Fr en ch-

man Francois Champollion chiefly on the basis of comparison

with the Greek inscription on the famous Rosetta stone.

The origins of the Egyptian writ ing are not as clear as those

of Sumerian. At the beginning of the history of Egyptian

writ ing we have a number of slate palettes from Hieraconpolis,

si tuated about fifty miles south of the ancient town of Thebes

72

oi.uchicago.edu



E G Y P T I N S Y ST E M

in Upper Egypt . The best of these for the purpose of our

discussion is the N ar m er pa lette (Fig. 33), so na m ed becau se

of the belief that the two central symbols in the uppermost

register on both the obverse and reverse represent signs which

in la ter Eg ypt ian could be read som ething l ike N ar m er . As the

73

oi.uchicago.edu




n a me Na rme r

5

is otherwise unknown in later Egyptian history,

the syllabic reading of the symbols as well as the proposed

identity of Narmer with Menes, the founder of the First

Dynasty of Egypt , are purely hypothet ical .

Let us now glance at the reverse side of our palette. The

central scene shows an Egyptian king in the process of smiting

an enemy to his knees. The scene to the right depicts a falcon,

probably symbolizing the king as the god Horus, leading on a

string a man from the Delta Land, symbolized by the head of

a man plus six papyrus reeds. The whole is supposed to record

a conquest of the Low er Lan d (Delta) by Men es, the fou nder

of the U pp er E gyp t ian kingdom , an event wh ich presu m ably

took place around 3000 B.C. In addition, we find symbols

scattered throughout the palette, as in the uppermost register

between the two heads of Hathor and near the heads of the

subjugated enem y, all of wh ich, no ma tter w hat their readin g

or interpretation, can hardly stand for anything else but proper

names or titles. The whole structure of the record, different as

it is from what we have seen in the earliest stages of Sumerian

writ ing, finds striking parallelism in comparable examples of

the Az tec w rit ing (Fig. 25 and p . 54). In bo th cases the

record is achieved by means of the descriptive-representational

device by depicting an event and, as in art , by disregarding

entirely the m ain object of full w rit ing, which is to rep rod uce

language in i ts normal word order.

The proper names on the Narmer palette, as also on several

other examples from Hieraconpolis, are evidently writ ten in the

rebus-form device which we have found in use among the

Amerindians (see pp. 39 ff.) and perhaps also among the early

Sumerians (see pp. 66 ff.).

Soon after M enes a full pho ne tic system of w riting deve loped

in Egyp t , perha ps und er the S um erian st imulus (se ep . 214 f .) .

After a short trans itory period in w hich the pho netically w rit ten

insc riptio ns still offer g re at difficulties of in te rp re ta tio n, a fully

developed system appeared which in principle remained

unchanged to the very end of the history of Egyptian writ ing.

T hr ou gh ou t all of i ts history Egyp tian was a w ord-syllabic

writ ing.

T h e hierog lyph ic form of w riting , used chiefly for p ub lic

display purposes, was not the writing of everyday practical life.

Fo r such purposes the E gyp tians developed two forms of cursive

74

oi.uchicago.edu



EGYPTIAN SYSTEM

writing, first the hierat ic and then the dem otic Fig. 34). The

development of the forms of some of the signs in hieroglyphic,

hierat ic , and demot ic is shown in Figure 35.

LITERARY HIERATIC OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY JV. 4,3 -4) ,

WITH TRANSCRIPTION

OFFICIAL HIERATIC O THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY Abbott 5^*1-3),

WITH TRANSCRIPTION

LITERARY DEMOTIC

O

THE THIRD CENTURY B.C.

Dm. Chron

6,1-3),

WITH TRANSCRIPTION

F I G . 3 4 . — S P E C I M E N S

OF

H I E R A T I C

AND

D E M O T I C W R I T I N G W I T H

H I E R O G L Y P H I C T R A N S L I T E R A T I O N S IN A M O D E R N E G Y P T O L O G I C A L

H A N D

From A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar 2nd ed.; Oxford, 1950), pi. ii

The Egyptian syllabary consists

of

ab ou t tw enty-four signs,

each with

an

init ial conso nan t plus an y vowel, such

as the

sign

with

the

value

m

a

, m

{

, m

e

, m

u

, and m

x

) Fig. 36), and of

about eighty signs, each with two consonants plus any vowel

s),

75

oi.uchicago.edu




such as the sign

t

x

m

x

wi th the value

t

a

m

a

, tW, t

e

m

e

, t

u

m

u

, 1?m\

t

e

m\ t

a

m

a

), t

e

m

e

), t

a

)m

a

,

etc. (Fig. 37).

The name syl labary given here to the Egypt ian phonet ic ,

non-semantic signs must be understood in i ts simplest sense,

that is, as a system consisting of syllabic signs. This simple

terminology has nothing to do with the ideas of those Egypto

logists w ho divide the Egy ptian pho netic

5

signs into two classes:

A lpha betic signs of the typ e

m

and syllabic signs of the type

tm .

19

HIEROGLYPHIC

1

J^^*

, \

- 2

9

P I

l l ^ t i l ^ D

2900-2800

B.C.

#

<s

pMBBa

e^3Z,

si

f

i\

1 fit 1

2700-2600

B.C.

*

r

- ^

r-Sl

1

, \

ass9 za

2000-1800

B.C.

|

r

^

^%

—

c. 1500

B.C.

f

£ = S >

c^H>

^==^

7

1

r —

500-100

B.C.

HIEROGLYPHIC

BOOK-SCRIPT

ili

i^&*

^ o >

s\

1

ftr

—

c 1500

B.C.

HIERATIC

1

^

- * ,

, - * ,

r

fi

*

c 1900

B.C.

&

X

-rfJf

Y

n >

^

A

c 1300

B.C.

^

/ > "

- jk>

< ^

f

IV

c 200

B.C

D E M O T I

z^

/

f

ted

> - ^

r

V

400-100

B.C.

F I G . 3 5 . F O R M A L D E V E L O P M E N T O F S OM E O F T H E S IG NS I N

H I E R O G L Y P H I C , H I E R A T I C , A N D D E M O T I C

From G. Moller in

£eitschrift des

Deutschen Vereins

fur

uchwesen

und

Schrifttum, ii (1919), 78

As justly observed by K u rt Sethe , the dist inction is no t real

since both types are identical in structure, except that the first

contains one consonant , the second two consonants .

2 0

For that

reason Sethe and almost all modern Egyptologists include the

non-semantic s igns of Egypt ian, whether uniconsonantal or

mult iconsonantal , under consonantal wri t ing. The problem,

therefore, as posed in the following, is not whether the Egyptian

non-semantic signs are alphabetic and syllabic, as taken

originally by Erman, but whether they are all consonantal , as

76

oi.uchicago.edu



EGYPTIAN SYSTEM

taken generally by Egyptologists, or syllabic, as proposed by

myself.

T h e r e

is no

difference be tw ee n

the

Egyptologists

on the one

hand and myself on the other

in

the belief th at the non -sem antic

signs ind ica te fully the con son ants b u t do no t indic ate differences

t h a t

the

n vo\

vels.

I agree

J\>

11.*

— .

>

I

* - w

*

- =

\

***** |

y

F I G . 3

entirely with S

(aleph)

J ,; (yod)

« ain)

w

\

b

p

/

m

•

.

n

i

i

6 . E G Y P T I A N

U

S Y L L A B A

e the ,

for

m

i

0

«•—

P

.

A

A

t = 9

mtmm

^

N I C O N S O N A

R Y

2xample

h

h kh)

h

s

t

s

i sh)

* f )

k

g

t

i

d

4

N T A L

From

G.

Fossey , Notices sur les c r cteres Grangers (Par is ,

1927),

p. 4

sign transli terated

as

mn

by the

Egyptologists stands

for

man

mm,

men, mitn, mon

of

la ter Co pt ic ,

2 1

implying that some such

vowels must have been inherent

in the

words

of

ancient

Egypt ian

in

which the sign n was used. Also, from the pr ac tica l

poin t

of

view, the re seems

to be no

difference be tw een

the

t radi t ional t ransl i terat ion

as

m n,

22

taking this writ ing

to be

consonantal ,

and the

t ransl i terat ion

m

x

n

x

, m

x

n

x

), m

x

)n

x

,

etc.,

77

oi.uchicago.edu




if we take the writing to be syllabic in the sense that it shows

correctly the consonants [m and n) and does not indicate the

vowels (

x

). However, from the point of view of the theory of

~ s fl«: V- *(<*¥)/«

>

m

tfk Us

•* \ fe? ^ s> < z', V (et -fc) sKZil Iilil s '

tjfc is A

2 m^ ao= m l

*—i

mi ~-» ni ] /t

* & '

<*> ;w J * to *

nw

- *

rw \— hw

(e t £ ) A—J

jiw

^ sw <C iw I sw -* f/w

^ lb *~ nb

\/ wp (+ * kp (et fep)

J nm w Am a fern j * g m 55= to

m< in &w n mm mn ^^ nn n hn Jfg hn *\Q hn

J

sn <Z in

£

sn

-<*>- Ir *±~w r ci pr | mr ^ mr t Ar zn Ar fr dr

v _

£> ph ** mh \^ nh

(f| ms < m £ *—\ns<Zn <= gs < g i

\ is <C iz \hs <zhz

I si < ik

~-*mt — A* Y* s? << ft

>oc V/ >

c

d f wd

1*

wrf J Ad

FIG . 3 7 . EGY PTIAN BIGONSONANTAL SIGNS

From G. Lefebvre, Grammaire de Vfigyptien classique (Le Caire,

1940),

pp. 12 f.

writing, the difference is enormous. The Egyptian phone tic, non-

semantic writing cannot be

consonantal

because the development from

a logographic to a consonantal writing, as generally accepted by the

Egyptologists, is unknown and unthinkable in the history of writing, and

8

oi.uchicago.edu



E G Y P T I N S Y ST E M

bec use

the only

development

known and

ttested

in dozens of

v rious

systems

is tha t from a

logogr phic

to a

syll bic

writing.

23

The at tested development in the ancient Oriental systems,

such as Sumerian, Hitt i te, and Chinese, as well as in some

modern wri t ings created by American Indians and African

Negroes under foreign impulse, such as Cherokee, Bamum, and

m an y others, is from a logograph ic to a syllabic stage. Fro m the

psychological point of view this is the most natural develop

ment. The first step in the analysis of a word is to divide it into

its com pon ent syllables, not into its com po nen t single sounds or

consonants. In fact, when we consider that almost all the native

American Indian and African writings stopped at the syllabic

stage without further developing into alphabetic systems, we

can deduce that these natives encountered difficulties in

abstracting words into their component single sounds. Thus, in

taking the Egyptian non-semantic wri t ing to be consonantal ,

we should not only face a development entirely unique in the

history of writing, but also we should have to grant to the

Egyptian writing a stage of abstraction which—as will be

proved— was not achieved until thousa nds of years later, in the

Greek alphabet .

No matter whether we consider the Egyptian non-semantic

signs as syllabic or consonantal, one fact stands out clearly, and

that is that the vowels are not indicated in the writing. At first

glance this looks like a unique development since all other

writings known to us—with the exception of Semitic writings

which descend directly from Egyptian—regularly indicate the

vowels. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is not entirely unique if

we remember that a number of signs in the Mesopotamian

cuneiform systems never indicate the vowels and many others

indica te them only inad equ ately see p p . 69 ff.). T hu s, in these

systems the sign normally called W A can be read as

wa wi

y

we

an d

wu

in other words, as the consonant

w

plus any vowel,

jus t as the sign LI can be re ad as either

li

or

le

and the sign

LAB as lab or lib. In the Mesopotamian systems, besides signs

which either never indicate the vowels or indicate them

inadeq uately, there are others which do not indicate adeq uately

the con son ant, as in th e sign AG w ith t he values of ag ak aq

or

GA

with those of ga ka qa. Of these two methods of creating

syllabic signs the second plays by far the more important role

in cuneiform. By contrast, in the Egyptian system the first

79

oi.uchicago.edu




m eth od wa s chosen as the basis for the form ation of its sy llabary .

In both cases the underlying idea is the principle of economy, which strives

for the effective expression of language by means of the smallest possible

number of signs (see p. 72).

If one should ask why Egyptian and i ts Semitic derivates

omit systematically the indication of vowels, the answer is that

usually given by Orientalists who are at home in the Semitic

field. The Egyptian language—as is well known—belongs in

the widest sense to the Semitic group, and one of the chief

m orpho logical characterist ics of these languag es is the reten tion

of consonants and variabil i ty of vowels. Thus, for instance, the

abstract root

ktb,

to write,

5

has

katab

for he wrote

5

,

kdtib

for

writer

5

,

kitb

for boo k

5

, and many more forms all retaining the

basic consonants

ktb.

I t is not th at the vowels are less im po rta nt

in the Sem itic languages t ha n in the Tnd o-E urop ean

5

or that

the vowels play a more prominent role in Greek than in

S em itic , as is often suggested by som e philologists, be cau se

writ ing without vowels can be read with relatively equal ease

or equal difficulty in both groups of languages.

3

n rdng ths

sntnc y wll fnd th bst prf tht

3

ls th nglsh Ingug en b w rttn

withut vwls.

24

T he t ru th is ra ther th a t the Indo -Eu rope an

languages usually indicate morphological and semantic differ

ences by endings, while the Semitic languages indicate these

differences chiefly by internal vowel variations in a form

occasionally found in the Indo-European languages, as in the

G e r m a n

brechen,

brach,

brdche,

brich,

gebrochen, Bruch,

riiche or in

the English sing, sang, song, sung. Thus, the relative stability of

consonants and variabil i ty of vowels in the Semitic languages

may t ruly have been the main reason why the Egypt ians

crea ted a syllabary based on signs w hich in dicated the con

sonants correctly while sacrificing the vowels.

For more evidence in favour of the syllabic character of the

Egyptian non-semantic writ ing see the discussion on the West

Semitic syllabary (pp. 147 ff.). As the West Semitic writing is

clearly a direct desc enda nt of the E gyp tian syllabic w rit ing, an d

as the two writings are fully identical from the point of view of

inner structural characterist ics, any evidence brought forth

in favour of the syllabic character of the so-called Semitic

a lphabet

5

ca n b e used also as proo f in favour of the syllabism

of the Egypt ian non-semantic wri t ing.

It was stated above (p. 75) that the Egyptian phonetic signs,

8

oi.uchicago.edu



H I T T I T E S Y S T E M

whether un iconsonanta l or m ult iconsonantal , a lways b egan

wi th a consonant . This s ta tement is in disagreement with the

opinion of some Egyptologists who believe that the Egypt ian

phonet ic wri t ing was cons onan tal , with eac h sign r epres enting

one or more consonants plus any vowel , in i t ia l, m edia l , or

final, as the sign MOUTH represent ing ra, rd

re, re,

ar dr

er,

er

etc. ,

or the sign HOUSE standing for

par, per, dpr, epr,

epra, etc.

2 5

The reconst ruc t ion of Egyptian signs as represent ing vowel

p lus consonant is based seemingly on the observa t ion tha t a

n u m b e r of Egy pt ian forms app ear wi th or w i th o u t an initial

weak consonant , as in the case of the p reposi t ions

i

x

m

x

or m

x

' in, from, with,

5

i

x

r

x

or r

x

as to, of

m an y im pera t ives such

as

i

x

d

x

d

x

or d

x

d

x

' say ' , and of other v erbal forms. Fr om the inter-

change of such spellings it was imp lied th at some sort of (weak

consonant plus) vowel was inhe ren t in the shorter spell ings,

lead ing to the assumpt ion th a t the first sign in the shorter

spellings stood for a vowel p lus consonant . There is no need,

however , for a graphic in t e rp re t a tion , as in all cases, the pros-

thet ic

dleph can be expla ined on a phonetic basis as a secondary

element introduced before

two

cont iguous consonants

in

order

to facil i tate their pronunciation.

2 6

This explanat ion may be

confirmed by such parallels in Semi t ic languages as êrnna or

min, ' from, ' ûqtul or qutul < qtul, 'k i l l ' , and m an y o the rs . The

in te rpre ta t ion of Eg yp t ian pho net ic s igns as repr esen t ing vowel

plus consonant could be accepted only if it could be proved

th at origina l init ial vowels, l ike those in the n a m e of A m o n and

Osiris, could be freely omitted in the classical Egyptian writ ing.

HITTITE SYSTEM

The dec iphe rmen t of the Hit t i te hieroglyphic wri t ing was

achieved only in the thirties of this century thro ug h the

combined efforts of scholars of such diverse origin as He lmuth

T. Bossert (Germany), Emil O. Fo rrer (Sw itzerland), Bedfich

Hrozny (Czechoslovakia) , Piero Meriggi (I ta ly), and the

present wri ter . As yet, the dec iphe rmen t of Hi t t i t e has not

progressed

so far as to

enable

us to

place

our

knowledge

of

Hit t i te on the same level as t h a t of Sumer ian or Egypt ian .

Al though the general system of the w ri t ing is reaso nably clear,

much remains to be done in the in te rpre ta t ion of individual

signs.

27

8

oi.uchicago.edu




T he term hieroglyphic

5

used for the Hitt i t e writ ing was ta ken

over from the Egyptian and i t simply implies that the Hitt i te

writ ing, l ike the Egyptian, is a picture writ ing. Under no

circumstances does i t imply that the Hitt i te hieroglyphic system

was borrowed from the Egyptian hieroglyphic or that i t is in

any way related to i t .

F I G . 3 8 . S P E C IM E N O F E A R L Y

H I T T I T E H I E R O G L Y P H I C W R I T I N G

From I .J . Gelb, ittite

ieroglyphic

Monu-

ments

(Chicago, 1939), pi. lxxiv

The Hitt i te hieroglyphic writ ing was in use from about 1500

to 700 B.C. in a large area extending from central Anatolia to

northern Syria . I ts language is re lated to , but by no means

identical with, the so-called cuneiform H itt i te

5

, so named from

the fact tha t this lang uag e is preserved in the cuneiform w rit ing

borrowed from Mesopotamia. Both of these languages and

writings were used simultaneously in the Hitt i te Empire, but

while cuneiform Hitt i te was l imited to the area around

Bogazkoy, the capital of the empire, and died out soon after

1200 B.C., hieroglyphic Hitt i te was used throughout the empire

82

oi.uchicago.edu



HITTITE SYSTEM

an d con tinue d as a l iving tongu e u p to a bo ut 700 B.C.

The beginnings of the Hitt i te hieroglyphic writing are sti l l

rather obscure, but al l indicat ions point toward the Aegean

cu ltu ra l ar ea as its source of origin see p p . 216 f.). T h e

picto rial ch ar ac ter of the signs of the earlier stages Fig. 38)

is prese rved in th e forma l inscription s of th e classical per iod

and is still recognizable even in the cursive form of the latest

period Fig. 39, tran slate d on p . 114).

F I G . 3 9 . C U R S IV E F O R M O F H I T T I T E

H I E R O G L Y P H I C W R I T I N G

From Gelb ittite ieroglyphic Monuments pi. xxxvii

The structure of the word signs is identical with or similar

to that of other logo-syllabic writings. The normal Hitt i te

syllabary consists of about sixty signs of the type

pa pi pe pu

each representing a syllable beginning with a consonant and

end ing in a vowel Fig. 40). In agreem ent with the princ iple

of economy no distinction is made between voiced, voiceless,

and aspirated consonants. The normal Hit t i te syl labary is the

one used in Syria at the beginning of the first millennium B.C.

Syllabaries used in Anatolia at the same time contain a number

8

oi.uchicago.edu



V o w e l s

N a s a l s

h

i

k / g

1

m

n

P A

r

8

3

t / d

w

2 ( = t s )

a

( l ' f -

Q

f-f-

d

-=a

<°

^

W

i

/ f^

^

«U

• ? •

5^

e

V

®

w

ofe

O

l l l l

• ^

n u

fij*

W

-s

i

t

t

R >

*

^

B

c

J H |

W

I t

a

«F

S ^

f t

u

/ ;

P

o>

A

/

ill ill III n u

^ n u

IT

®

©

C 3

07

t=a

9

unknow n v a l u e £ J ^ ^ < - ^ ^ Q > |

F IG . 4 0 . T H E H I T T I T E H I E R O G L Y P H I C S Y L L A B A R Y

From Gelb, ittite

ieroglyphs,

iii Ch icago , 1942), Fron tispiece

oi.uchicago.edu



C H I N E S E S Y S T E M

of signs which developed locally, just as the older syllabaries

from the period before 1200 B.C. contain some syllabic signs

which fell into disuse in later periods. Besides syllables of the

type

pa

there is a small number of rebus signs used syllabically,

such as the signs

tra

an d

ara.

C H I N E S E S Y S T E M

Of the four main Oriental writ ings, Chinese is the only one

which did not have to be deciphered in modern t imes, as i ts

M

a

w » I

F I G . 4 1 . C H I N ES E

O R A C L E T E X T O N

A N I M A L B O N E

Fro m F. H . Chalfant in

Memoirs of the arnegie

Museum^ iv 1906 ), 33

F I G . 4 2 . — C H I N E S E O R A C L E

T E X T O N T O R T O I S E S H E L L

From F. H . Chalfant in

Memoirs of

the arnegie Museum iv, 32

knowledge has passed traditionally from generation to genera-

tion up to the present day. The Chinese writing makes i ts

appearance about the middle of the second millennium B.C.

during the Shang Dynasty, as a fully developed phonetic

system. To be sure, in i ts outer form the writing has changed

greatly in the course of its long history, but from the point of

inner characteristics the oldest inscriptions hardly differ from

those of recent t imes.

85

oi.uchicago.edu




The oldest Chinese inscriptions are the oracle texts on animal

bones (Fig. 41) and tortoise shells (Fig. 42), and some short

texts on bronze vessels, weapons, pottery, and jade. The signs

in the Shang period are l imited in number—no more than

ab ou t 2 ,500— and in the majori ty of them the pictorial

character is still clearly recognizable. But the signs soon develop

3f us

n * * a ^-1§-*it

j£ e n J IR A ?>-j£+

£ 3«c P D§ ^ ;§• £ i£ fC 5C

4£ £ 1% j£ P * § # £ ; ? 4£

* * t m . s: fii ^ js

3E

*>

F I G . 4 3 . M O D E R N C H I N E SE W R I T I N G

From G. F. Kelley and Ch en Meng-chia,

Chinese ronzes from th

uckingham Collection

(Chicago, 1946), p. 155

a linear form to the extent that in later writings it is impossible

to recognize the pictures they originally represented (Fig. 43).

The Chinese writ ing does not have a full syllabary which

could be compared with the syllabaries in the other three

Oriental systems. As the words of the Chinese language are

regularly expressed by word signs it is only in the writing of

foreign words and names that the necessity arose to use word

signs in a syllabic function. Thus, the name Jesus is writ ten

86

oi.uchicago.edu



H I N E S E S Y S T E M

as Yeh-su, Engl ish as Ying-chi-li, T r e n c h as Fa-lan-hsi

}

tele

phone a s ti-li-fSng) e tc. Th ere are n o set wo rd signs for certa in

syllables, as there are in the Near Eastern systems; for example,

the na m e Jesus could also be w ri t ten

Ta-su,

the w ord te le

p h o n e tS-lu-fung. T h e ch aracteris t ic tend ency of Chinese

toward abbreviat ion can be noted in the use of Ting for

English (besides Ying-kuo-jen for En gl ish m an , th at i s,

Engl i sh-count ry-man ) , Fa for Fr en ch (besides Fa-kuo-jen), o r

Lo for Ro ose velt (besides Lo-ssu-fu) . Frequently words spelled

out syllabically acquired in time a logographic spelling as, for

example, the above-ment ioned te-li-feng, t e lephone , now adays

usually writ ten as

tien-hua,

me anin g electr ic ity ta lks . T h e g reat

attachment of the Chinese for their logographic writ ing shows

itself in the spelling of foreign names in which the individual

signs stand not only for the respective syllabic values, but are

frequently so chosen as to convey a meaning either inherent in

the name borne by the person or otherwise thought to be

characteris t ic of him . Th us , the na m e St ua rt can be wri t ten

Ssu-t u by means of two phonetic signs which at the same t ime

stand for a Chinese word for an official corresponding to the

Engl ish s tew ard . Similarly, the na m e W oo db ridg e can be

wri t ten Wu-pan-chiao, in wh ich W u s tands for the surname,

while pan-chiao m eans actual ly w oo d-b ridge . H ere , too, I

should l ike to quote the Chinese name which a Chinese scholar,

in a joc ul ar m ood , gave to m e: it is K e-er-po, in which Ke s tands

for the surname and er-po m eans som ething l ike refined,

l e a rne d .

2 8

As far back as the fifth or sixth century of our era cases of

syllabic writ ing based upon the so-called fan-chHeh p r inc iple

appear for the first t ime in Chinese. This principle, originally

employed only sporadically to help in the reading of rare and

difficult word signs, was developed at the beginning of the

twentieth century into a full system which for a while enjoyed

a certain amount of success in the province of Hopei and to

some extent a lso in Shantung.

2 9

The syllabary (Fig. 44)

consists of sixty-two signs, divided into fifty initial and twelve

final signs. The simple signs

p

(

u, pu, mu,

e tc. , are used naturally

for the corresponding syllables pu, bu, mu, e tc . , but when the

need arises to express a syllable which has no corresponding

sign in the syllabary the fan-ch ieh principle is employed. Such

a syllable is written by two signs existing in the syllabary, one

87

oi.uchicago.edu




(a ) j o Initial Signs

1 hj£

JL

k

y

+ i f

pu pu mu fu wu pi pi mi (u tsu

w m m

«.

*

A jfi

u &

cJiu 8u shu tsu tu chu ju lu nu ts

<

e

*? 4 •* i )\i 4. 4 Q 2- t

m m m m m z m

B

M. a

tee sse tS t*4 cJiih chih shih jih ti ti

14 na ni nu lu cKu chu hsu yu ti

I ^ f i S* ¥ 5P* 5fc

cAi cA t foe ye ku Jcu *hu ko k*o ho

(b) 12 Final Signs

T 0 L v

w i t fif fc) /c w

a ao an (en) ang ai eh

£(«) m m ©(A) *(m> a a

6i (wi) ow (w) 4n (in) 4ng {ung) o erh

F I G . 4 4 . C H IN E S E F A N - C H ' l E H S Y L L A B A R Y

From A. Forke in Mitteilungen des

Seminarsfur

Orientalische

Sprachen,

vo l .

ix , Abt . 1 (1906) , p . 404

initial and the other final. Thus, the syllable ming is writ ten

with the signs mi-eng yu with yi-u, chiao w i th clii-ao, etc . T he

syllabic signs, as can be seen from Figure 44, represent clearly

simplified forms of the stan da rd Chinese w rit in g.

3 0

88

oi.uchicago.edu



P R O T O - E L A M I T E , P R O T O - I N D I C , A N D C R E T A N S Y S T E M S

P ROTO- ELAMITE, P ROTO- INDIC, AND CRETAN SYSTEMS

The common feature of the three systems is that they are all

st i l l undeciphered or only partially deciphered. Because of i t

we must l imit our discussion to straight facts and try to avoid

speculations in connection with the inner characterist ics of the

systems.

The Proto-Elamite writ ing first appears at Susa, the capital

of ancient Elam, and i t can be dated roughly to the so-called

Jemdet Nasr period

5

after 3000 B.C.

F I G . 4 5 . — E A R L I E S T T Y P E O F P R O T O - E L A M I T E W R I T I N G

From V. Scheil, Mimoires de la Mission Arche ologique de Perse tome xxv i Paris,

i935)> pl. xl

The earliest type of writ ing occurs on several hundred clay

tablets, evidently of an econom ic nat ur e (Fig. 45 ). N ot even one

of the several hundred signs of this writing can as yet be read

safely. The only relatively sure result of the decipherment is the

interpre tat ion of some nu m be r s igns and the determ inat ion of

the existence of a decimal system. A more developed form of

Proto-Elamite wri t ing, a lso undeciphered, occurs on about a

dozen stone inscriptions from the Old Akkadian period dated

to about 2200 B.C. Figure 46 gives a portion of a presumably

bi l ingual inscript ion wri t ten in Old Akkadian and Proto-

89

oi.uchicago.edu



WORD-SYLLABIC SYSTEMS

Elamite.,

31

The new type of writing consists of a very limited

number of signs—only fifty-five have been discovered up to

now—differing greatly in form from those of the previous

period.

FIG. 46.—PROTO-ELAMITE INSCRIPTION OF OLD

AKKADIAN PERIOD

From V. Scheil,

iligation en

Perse Memoires tom e vi Par is, 1905),

pi. 2, No. 1

Seals w ith pecu liar signs, w hich ha ve arou sed intense interest

throughout the world, have been found sporadical ly during the

past fifty years at various sites in the Indus Valley. It was not

unt i l 1924, however, when the Archaeological Department of

FIG. 4 7 .— PR OT O-IND IC W RITING

From John Marshall Mohenjo Daro

nd the

Indus Civilization

iii Lon don , 1931), pis.

cxvii f.

the Government of India undertook the first systematic

excavation of the ancient si tes to-day called Harappa and

M ohenjodaro , t ha t a considerable num be r of texts were

discovered. In the following years more inscriptional material

of the same nature was uncovered at Chanhudaro. At these

9 0

oi.uchicago.edu



P R O T O - E L A M I T E , P R O T O - I N D I C , A N D C R E T A N S Y ST E M S

sites cul tures of great a nt iqui ty were une arth ed , a bo ut wh ich,

strangely enough, Indie tradit ion tells us nothing. The sti l l

un dec iph ere d w rit ing consists of ab ou t 250 signs found on short

seal inscriptions, potter y, and cop per tablets Fig. 47 ).

3 2

T h e

dating of this Proto-Indic writ ing is established by comparative

F I G . 4 8 . C R E T A N H I E R O G L Y P H I C A W R I T I N G

From A. J . Evans, cripta Minoa i Ox ford, 1909), p . 149

strat igraphy with the help of Mesopotamian finds. The wri t ing

m ad e its app eara nce in the second half of the third m il lennium

B.C. and, after a short-lived duration of a few centuries, it

d isappeared as suddenly as i t had appeared.

The origin and development of the Cretan wri t ing are best

i l lustrated by the epigraphic finds made some sixty years ago by

Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos, in Crete .

3 3

Other si tes in Crete

9 i

oi.uchicago.edu




- 4t- <

fr

X L J X X LU

6 i, 8 8 2 3

E

- 2 & 9 « *;

* ^ X X X X

a s

M

a s tt »

^ W ^Sk -» »- ^

>~

^ «"** > - x x X

S 8 § 8 § ?

3 8 & S 8 S

H i t

^ m x

* K C X K R

¥ x x ^ x x

l | ** f >- t -A

ft 5? 3 ? 1 •

8

<g

p j m

M

^> ^

x

n m

* P<J

fc *

x

? 3 3 V

1

5 *

a s A . » , a s

- < • C J x • * # ^ X

y

c ^

0

X ^ g X

3E-

^ —

X X X

i i

a

x ' D x <5 x X X X

S g ' 5 3 3 3 3 8

h i S: x

t

*». ^

s . St 8 3 8 ftSS

I V X X X x x ^

******* Vt&

£ £ £ 8 5 3 3 3

) > ' x ^ X x X x x

.2 2 3 S fe 8 3 8

g 3 p 0 ® O x x

X X X X x ( ^ |>3• J |

5 S ^ j > { 5 5 5 #

~ f f x x ot- &-. £2 L

* I - 3 I* *

^ a a

x

2< ^ x x X zr

^r

x

rh CO

§ °

m 1

o §

S

S

* I

S <

^

< -I

W ^

fa

r}" >

2

M al li a , H agia T r i ad a , e t c . ) , in Greece M ycenae , O rch o-

menos, Pylos, Thebes, Tiryns, e tc . ) , and in the Aegean is lands,

have yielded epigraphic materia l which is of great help in

fi l l ing the gaps in our knowledge as reconstructed from the

Knossos materia l . Al though the Cretan wri t ing is s t i l l only

part ia l ly deciphered, we can fol low rather wel l i t s main l ine

92

oi.uchicago.edu



P R O T O E L A M I T E , P R Q T O - I N D I C , A N D G R E T A S SYSTEM S

Y

+

*

*

T

i

TIT

r

f»

14

*

*

*

*

P

*

¥

Y

*

T

Y

V

(

1

( L 3 0 )

da

2 ( L 2 2 ) ro

3 (L 2) pa

4 (L 92 ) te

5 ( L 3 9 )

to

6 (L 2 6) rw

7 ( L 5 1 )

di

8 (L 5 2) a

9 ( L 7 7 ) se

1 0 ( L 9 7 ) u

11 (L 2 1) po

1 2 ( L 7 )

sot

13 (L 8 4) me?

1 4 ( L 1 7 )

dol

[ B l ]

[ B 2 ]

[ B 3 ]

[ B 4 ]

[ B 5 ]

[ B 6 ]

[ B 7 ]

[ B 8 ]

[ B 9 ]

[ B I O ]

[ B l l ]

[B12J

[ B 1 3 ]

[ B 1 4 ]

15 (L 62)

pd ba)

[ B I G ]

16 (L2 3) za

17 (L1 0) 20?

18 (L 67)

<U 19 (L 27 mut

e L 3 8 )

2 0 ( L 5 7 ) net

2 1 ( L 5 5 ) ru

22 (L 5 4) re

2 3 ( L 3 4 ) pit

24 (L 6 0) n»

2 5 ( L 3 1 ) sat

2 6 ( L 1 2 )

got

27 ( L 6 9 ) d i

[ B 1 7 ]

[ B 2 0 ]

[ B 2 2 ? ]

[ B 2 3 ]

[ B 2 4 ]

[ B 2 6 ]

[ B 2 7 ]

[ B 2 9 ]

[ B 3 0 J

[ B 3 1 ]

[ B 3 2 ]

[ B 3 4 ]

FIG. 50,—

A

A

A

A

X

^

N

§

E

C

2J

1*

fr

£

9

4

W

I

»

©

2 8 ( L 7 8 )

29 (L 44)

30 (L 56)

31 (L 28)

32 (L 102)

33 (L 81)

34 (L 64)

)K 35 (L 93

e L 2 4 )

36 <L 100)

37 (L 75)

38 (L 25)

39 (L 1)

4 0 ( L 3 2 )

41 (L 59)

42 (L 74)

4 3 ( L 5 3 )

44 (L 87)

4 5 ( L 9 6

e L 6 8 )

46 (L 86)

47 (L 103)

4 8 ( L 6 )

49 (L 45)

50 (L 90)

51 (L 76)

52 (L 94)

53 (L 58)

54 (L2Q)

ft [B 37]

e? [B 38]

pi [B 39]

wi [B 40]

de [B 45]

/ e ? ? [ B 4 6 ]

pu

[B 50]

du [B 51]

no [B 52]

wa [B 54]

j t [ B 5 5 ? ]

null

pa l [ B 5 6 ]

;o [B 57]

su

[B 58]

to [B 59]

ra [B 60]

0 [B 61]

[B 65?]

id

[B 66]

hi [B 67]

tu [B 69]

ko [B 70]

pe t

[B 72]

mi

[B 73]

we [B 75]

rd

[B 76]

ka [ B 77]

- C R E T A N L I N E A R A W R I l

<g>

V

y>

• >

l

?

4<

*

*

£

E

4

4

9

*

a

*

Q

V

h

k

H

F

I

TOG

5 5 ( L 9 1 )

56 (L 101)

57 (L 95)

5 8 ( L 9 8 )

59 (L 66)

I 60 (L72 e

61 (L 83)

62 (L 50)

63 (L 61)

64 (L 79)

6 5 ( L 8 8 )

66 (L 63)

67 (L 82)

68 (L 65)

69 (L 36)

70 (L 37)

7 1 ( L 7 3 )

72 (L 85)

7 3 ( L 4 9 )

74 (L 43)

75 (L 71)

76 (L 41)

77 (L 9)

7 8 ( L 6 8 6 )

79 (L 33)

80 (L 14)

qe

[ B 7 8 ]

zu

[ B 7 9 ] *

ma

[B 80]

ku

[ B 8 1 ]

[B 87 ?]

94 6 ) * * *

wait

From G. Pugliese Garratelli in nnuario

della

Scuola rcheologica

di Atene

xiv-xvi

(1952-54), 21

of developm ent. Seals with representa tions of objects and living

beings make their appearance in the very earliest stages of the

Early Minoan period. Gradually at the beginning of Middle

Minoan I (about 2000-1900 B.C.) the first pictorial form of

writing begins to appear. This is what Evans calls

c

Glass A of

the hieroglyphic writing (Fig. 48), which in Middle Minoan II

93

oi.uchicago.edu



KN PV MY K N P Y M Y K N P Y M Y

1

r

\- V

2 + 1 +

3 * * *

4 + + +

5 T TT *

6 n n H l

7 11 Y T1

8

V Y Y Y

Y

9 r r r F i-

10

ff

C M

ii •= n *i n *

12 TM?T 1

13 TTTTfT

14 T t t t t f t

15

^1 T*f*

16 t t t T T

17 H *

18

1 *

19

X

20 f f t f

21 t " I f f

22 * n * t

23 YYTY

2 4 • f f f T ' ?

25 T t T f

26

Y"f T t t

27 YY YY V

28 YYYY Y

29 W YT Y

30 YT H t

da

ro

pa

te

to

na

di

a

se

u

po

so

me

do

mo

pa

2

za

zo

qi

mu

ne

a

1

ru

re

i

pu*

ni

31 YYYVY? sa

32 Yt YYYY

q 0

33 YY rtf

3 4 U < <

ai

2

35 * * > "

36 TTUf tYT jo

37 Jk t

Jk A

A ti

38

H U M e

39 Ad kbit pi

4 0 i f c i i t f 4 wi

41 )K/K»K*

*• si

4 2

tit

wo

4 3

H I S

* ai

44 * Tm ke

4 5 f * * * * de

4 6 W K * je

47 n

48 V y V'Knwa

49 m

50 AdtiA fl lpu

51 il&'ft'RK

da'

52 M l * * no

53 Willi 4 ri

54 FH R ffwa

55 m ttWW

nu

56 M H M

57

0

B B

8

It ja

58 c r e

B

fi su

59 CI K K C ta

60 ftkkkUW ra

61 BBMrtHIJIf o

62 MM

HW pte

63 «

6 4

H H

65

IW

**tf

66 T V * * ta

1

67 IT Tit

Y

ki

68 4+ i n ro

2

6 9 <H <ff*tf tu

7 0 T t t l T l l ko

71 M *

72

rPU

9 t

pe

73 W W V mi

7 4 f c H « » ze

75 2 2 2Swe

76 ) t n ra

1

77 ® $ ® ® e ka

7 8 © © © © © qe

79 * o •* <=>

80 trfMttVttma

81 * * * * * * ku

82

1 * ) *

83 ^ ft*

84 ^

85 ^ îtoVtfe

86 ^ w

87 >fc

88 T

89 jk

F I G . 5 1 . — C R ETA N LI N EA R

B

WRITING

From Emmett

L

Bennett, Jr.,

The ylos Tab lets

Princeton, 1955),

p 201

(about 1900-1700 B . G . ) is succeeded by G l a s s B of the h ie ro

glyphic wri t ing

(Fig. 49). The

p rogress

of

economic l ife con

t r ibu ted to the fu r ther deve lopm ent of C re t an wr i t ing . In

M i d d l e M i n o a n III (about 1700-1550 B . G . ) t he re appea r a

curs ive Linear A wri t ing (Fig. 50), wh ich is used up to abou t

1450 B .C., and a cursive Lin ear B wri t ing (Fig. 51), wh ich is

94

oi.uchicago.edu



LINEAR CL A

LINEAR CLB HIEROGLYPHS LINEAR CL A LINEAR CL B

V^

™

m

a > M l « | i

W f

i n * lyj

B I lls

TIT

Pi

1 ;

O l d W W I S

F IG . 5 2 . — D E V E L O P M E N T

OF

S OM E C R E T A N H I E R O G L Y P H I C S IG N S

I N T O L I N E A R F O R M S

From Evans The Palace of Minos, i p. 643

used up to ab ou t 1200

B .C.

The d e v e l o p me n t of some h iero

glyphic signs into l inear forms

is

i l lustrated

in

F igu re

52. A

typical inscription in L i n e a r B wri t ing is shown in F igu re 53.

The recent publ icat ion of extensive materials

in

L i n e a r B wr i t

ing

has led to

their successful de cip he rm en t

by a

y o u n g E n g

l ish archi tect , Michael Ventris .

The

d e c i p h e rme n t

is

based

on

a

set of

postulates which

can be

s u m m e d

up as

follows:

The

tablets

are

inventories , acco unts ,

or

receipts .

The

wri t ing con

tains

an

i n d e te rmi n a t e n u m b e r

of

' ideo gra m s' (real ly logo

grams, which normal ly serve

the

function

of

de te rmina t ives -

classifiers), which

can be

inte rpr ete d from their pictorial

representa t ion

or

from

the

way

in

w hich they are grou ped

and

different ia ted. From

the

fact th at

the

wri t ing conta ins ab ou t

eighty-eight different 'phonetic

5

signs

it can be

assumed tha t

it

represents

a

syl labary

of

the Cy prio te

and

h ieroglyphic H i t t i t e

type , in which each sign expresses a vowel or a conson ant p lus

a vowel . The frequency cou nt yielded a n u m b e r of very fre

quent s igns which Ventris (fol lowing Kober and Ktistopoulos)

assumed represented vowels.

By

observing var iat ion

in the

final syllabic signs of a s ign group represent ing words , he

reached the conclusion th at the w rit ing expressed inflection

of the type shown in Latin bo-m, bo-no, bo-nae etc. T h i s as-

sumpt ion enabled Vent r i s to d r a w a tentat ive grid with rows

95

oi.uchicago.edu




of s igns containing ei ther the same consonant and a varying

vowel or a var ying con son ant an d the same vowel . O n the

basis of these postulates Ventris proceeded experimental ly to

assign syllabic values to the signs. The road was not easy, and

several a t tempts made in this direct ion ul t imately proved to

be wrong. But a happy st r ike in the interpretat ion of some

geographic names , such as

A-mi-ni~so, A-m i-ni-si-io, A-m i-ni-

si-ia

(c or re sp on di ng to th e G re ek A/mcro-, Ajuytoio-, A/mo-la-)

a n d

Ko-no-so, Ko-no-si-io, Ko-no-si-ia

(corresponding to KPWO-O-,

F I G . 5 3 . L I N E A R B I N S C R I P T I O N F R O M KN OS SO S

From Evans

The alace

of Minos iv p. 703

Kvaxrio-, Kvoxria-

provided h im wi th the read ing of a number

of signs; while the inflectional endings occurring in these and

other names led him to the conclusion that the underlying

language was Greek .

3 4

While, typological ly speaking, the Linear B syl labary be

longs together with Cypriote and hieroglyphic Hit t i te , the fol

lowing diverg ent charac teris t ics of L ine ar B should be no ted :

non-expression of i i n the d iphthongs ai, e tc. , while u in the

d i p h t h o n g s

au,

e tc. , is expressed; non-expression of syllable-

final

m,

n, / , r, a n d s; existence of the row of signs for the voiced

d, while those for g a n d b are missing.

The decipherment of Linear B wri t ing raises hopes for the

success of the decipherment of other types of Cretan wri t ing,

96

oi.uchicago.edu



S IG N S I N G E N E R L

especial ly Linear A. This wri t ing consists of about e ighty

syllabic signs, of which roughly one-half correspond formally

to the s igns of Linear B, plus a l imited number of logograms.

It may almost certainly be assumed that Linear A expresses a

non-Greek language. For other related wri t ings, see pages

153 ff

36

SIGNS IN G ENE R L

T he g reat m ajority of s igns in the Sum erian, Eg ypt ian,

Hitt i te, and Chinese systems of writ ing are simple pictures of

objects found in the surrounding world. But the creators of the

signaries rarely drew the signs as an art ist would draw them.

The original object of writ ing is the creation of symbols which

stand for words of the language and is achieved through

economizing measures resulting in the omission of all details

which are not necessary for the understanding of the symbol.

An art is t would not draw water, a mountain , or a house in the

form in which w e find th em in writ ing, jus t as he wo uld rare ly

allow himself to draw heads for full figures, following

the p rs

pro toto

conve ntion so frequently uti l ized in the S um eria n and

H itt i te writ ings Fig. 54 ).

A limited number of signs did not grow out of imitation of

real objects but out of gradually evolved arbitrary conventions.

Such are certain geometrical forms, such as strokes, circles, and

half-circles for numbers and other abstract expressions, and in

more modern t imes the symbols used in mathematics , such as

the plus, minus, or root signs.

All four systems of writing in time developed cursive, linear

forms which became so abbreviated and changed through

frequent use in daily life that in the great majority of cases it

is impossible to recognize in them the underlying pictures. But

while the Sumerian and Chinese cursive systems succeeded in

changing even their monumental forms into non-pictorial

wri t ings, the Egypt ian and Hit t i te monumental systems

retained their pictorial character to the very end.

3 6

When, after an initial period of organization, a system of

w riting b ecom es stabilized see p . 115 ff.), the nu m be r of signs

is closed and new signs are normally created only through

formal changes and differentiations or through new combina

tions of existing signs. Instructive in this respect is the sign for

97

oi.uchicago.edu



>

i»

fl

s

&

5

c?

®

m D

4*

*

*

^

J L

i r

z

o

en

m

a

a

^ >

s

©

CD

^

CZ3

>

I

=*=

I

(?

•s,

*

2

5

0

©

0

*

*

•

5

*

11

3

» •

$

9

©

f

^r

- *

s

<&

ff

* f c

-<€

m

3

*

_ a

©

*

5

^ - 1

\ ft

BE*

l>

2

Z

0 7

P#

^

^

HVlH3WnS

NVM4A93

aii i i iH

353NIH?

F I G . 5 4 . — P I C T O R I A L S IG NS I N T H E SU M E R I A N E G Y P T I A N H I T T I T E A N D C H I NE S E W R I T I N G S

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R S IG N S

camel ANSE.A.AB.BA, l i terally don key of the sea , intro du ced in

the cuneiform system after the camel had become known to the

Mesopotamians, and the sign for te lephone T IEN.HUA, l i terally

electricity talks , intro du ced in recen t t imes in th e Chinese

writ ing.

The fully developed systems of the four writings discussed

above are characterized by three classes of signs:—

(i) Lo gog ram s, tha t is, signs for words of the la ng ua ge .

(2) Syllabic signs, developed by the rebus principle from

logograms.

(3) Au xil iary mark s, such as pu nctu at io n m arks and, in some

writings, classifiers, determinatives, or semantic indicators.

WOR SIGNS

Logograms, or signs for words, are created by means of

various devices. We can distinguish six different classes (Fig. 55)

which partially agree with the tradit ional classification of word

signs in C hinese .

3 7

I t is impo ssible to divide th e signs rigorously

within the classes because some signs may belong to different

classes or they may be formed by means of more than one

device.

The first three classes include word signs created by means

of devices so simple and natural that they are found also among

all the primitive forerunners of writ ing.

In the primary device concrete objects and actions are

represented by pictures of objects or of a combination of

objects.

The second, the associative class, includes signs which express

words connected with the original drawing by association of

meanings. Thus, while a picture of the sun expresses first

directly the word sun

5

, i t can also have the secondary meaning

of br igh t or da y . Sim ilarly, to the Sum erians l iving in the

lowlands of South Mesopotamia, the s ign for mountain could

stand for foreign co un try , because alm ost all foreign countries

were si tuated in the highlands from the point of view of the

Sumerians.

T h e third class, called di ag ra m m ati c , contains signs w hich

do not go back to original pictures, but are freely created from

various geometric forms (p. 97). As stated above, the signs for

numbers are usually derived from geometric forms—if not

99

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



o

o

i . Pr imary

2 . Associat ive

3 . D i a g r a mma t i c

Sumerian

S U N sun

S T A R

s t a r

M O U N T A I N

m o u n t a i n

MAN +BRE AD to ea t

S U N

whi t e ; day

S T A R

d e i t y

M O U N T A I N

foreign

c o u n t r y

M A L E . M O U N T A I N

ma le

s lave

S E M I C I R C L E o n e

C I R C L E

t e n

C I R C L E

t o t a l i ty ; a l l

HORIZONTAL LINE.HORI-

ZONTAL LINE to ad d

G R E E K C R O S S t o

b r e a k

gyptian

S U N

sun

S T A R

s t a r

M A N + B O W L to drin k

S U N

d a y

S T A R

hou r .

COW LOOKING BACK AT

C A L F

t o rejoice

VERTICAL LINE on e

ST .

A N D R E W S C R O S S t o

break

V E R T I C A L L I N E . S E M I

C I R C L E to cu t off

C I R C L E

to go round

Hittite

S U N

sun

H E A D

h e a d

A X a x

MAN+BREAD to eat

H E A D

ch ie f

AX tO CUt

M A N . M A N

to agr ee or

the like

VERTICAL LINE on e

HORIZONTAL LINE t e n

VERTICAL LINE.SEMI

CIRCLE to return

Chinese

S U N sun

T O W E R

t o we r

S K Y + D R O P S

r a i n

S U N d a y

T O W E R

h i g h

S U N . M O O N

br ight

WOMAN.CHILD love,

g o o d

WOMAN.BROOM wife

W O M A N . W O M A N q u a r

r e l

WOMAN.WOMAN.WOMAN

falsehood

HORIZONTAL LINE on e

L A T I N C R O S S t e n

VERTICAL LINE.HORI

ZONTAL LINE u p

HORIZONTAL LINE.VER-

TICAL LINE do wn

SEMICIRCLE.SEMICIRCLE

to d iv ide

3

o

I

H

4 . S e ma n t i c

indica tor

5 . Phone t i c

transfer

•-( 6. Ph on et ic

indica tor

CITY.Assur

(ci ty) Assur

a n d D E I T Y .

A s s u r

(dei ty) Assur

W O O D . P L O W

p low and

M A N . P L O W

p l o w m a n

A R R O W

arro w; l i fe (ti)

O N I O N

onio n; to give

(sum)

C R O W N S c r o wn

(men)

EAR.gis.tuk

wise;

wi s d o m

(gestuk)

L O R D . M A N

( h u ma n )

l o r d a n d L O R D . -

D E I T Y

( d iv ine) lord

d

x

m

xyx

i

x

.TOWN

t o wn

a n d

d

x

m

x:)x

i

x

.UANT>

to reach

D U C K

duck; son

(s

x

x

)

B A S K E T

baske t

(n

x

b

x

t

x

);

l o rd

(n

x

b

x

)

j

M A N

m a n

(s

x

)

n

x

.BASKET.b*t

x

basket

(n

x

b

x

t

x

)

r ^ . M AN p e r s o n

(r

x

m

x

c

x

)

D E I T Y . P I G E O N

(dei ty)

K u p a p a s

B E E H I V E . C I T Y

(city)

M a l a t y a ?

S E A T

seat ; to com

p l e t e ?

(asa-)

LORD.nw(a) or

LORD.na ni s (a)

lo rd

(nanis)

S Q U A R E . W O O D

bo a r d

a n d S Q U A R E . E A R T H

dis t r i c t (both.fang)

T H U M B . W O O D

v i l l age

compared wi th

T H U M B

t h u m b

(both

ts ung)

W H E A T

whea t ; to

c o m e

(lai)

S C O R P I O N

scorpion;

t en thousand (wan)

E Y E . A J M

b l ind

(ku)

u AND. kung

to carr y

(kang)

W A T E R . k u n g r i ver

(kiang)

o

o

Q

FIG. 5 5 . TYPES OF WORD SIGNS IN WORD- SYLL ABIC WRITI NGS

oi.uchicago.edu




created by the process of phonetic transfer (see later). For that

reason the explanation of the Egyptian signs for fractions used

in me asurin g gra in (see Fig. 56) as derived from an ancie nt

myth, according to which the eye of the falcon-god Horus was

torn into fragments by the wicked god

Seth, cannot possibly hold water.

3 8

I t

is not th at th e fragm ents of the eye of

Horus led to the creation of the signs

for fractions, but rather that these

FIG. 56. SIGNS

FOR

s igns, originally pres um ably geom etric,

FRACTIONS IN EGYPTIAN

m a y h a y e b e e n a r r a n g e

d secondarily

From A. H.

Gardiner

gyptian

b y S Q m e

i

n g e

n io u S Scribe in Such a wa y

r m m r Ox f o rd ,

1 9 2 7 ,

p . 1 9 7

J

°

J

as to form the sacred eye.

39

Some signs

geometric in form may owe their origin to imitation of signs in

gesture lan gu age , as the w rit ten sign for all

5

d raw n in the form

of a circle m ay well go back to a gesture sign m ad e by a circ ular

mot ion of the hand .

4 0

These three simple devices for creating word signs may have

been capable of taking care of the modest requirements of

primitive systems but they certainly were not sufficient in

systems which required the expression of more exact nuances

of language. The full systems of writing, searching for new ways

to express words by signs, evolved three new devices achieved

by the use of (1) semantic but non-phonetic elements,

(2) phonetic transfer, and (3) phonetic but non-semantic

elements.

The first of these new devices, the fourth in our Figure 55,

is achieved by means of semantic indicators, that is, semantic

and non-ph onet ic e lements , frequently called determ inat ives

in the case of ancient Oriental writ ings, which are attached to

the basic signs to determine their exact reading. Thus, in

cuneiform, while the writ ing Assur can sta nd for bo th th e city

Assur and the god Assur, an unpronounced determinat ive in

the form of the city sign may be added when the city Assur is

involved, and the deity sign when the god Assur is intended.

In the course of t ime these determinatives were attached to any

word of a certain class, without respect to whether this word

had one meaning or more or whether i t was wri t ten logo-

graphically or syllabically. For example, in Mesopotamian

cuneiform the name of the deity Istar is writ ten either logo-

graphically as

deUy

Istar where the divine determinative is added

102

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S IG N S

to help in inter pre ting th e wo rd sign as the na m e of a deity,

or syllabically as

detty

Is-tar

which can, of course, be read only

as

Is-tar

and interpreted only as the name of the well known

Mesopotamian goddess. In the three Near Eastern wri t ings—

namely, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Hit t i te—the semantic

indicators or determinatives, which originally were used only

in the case of signs with more than one possible meaning,

developed in time into classifiers, that is, signs which marked

the word to which they were attached as belonging to a certain

class or category. In the three Near Eastern systems each class

of words for persons, deities, animals, metals, stones, plants,

cities,

lands, mountains, rivers, etc. , is marked by a different

classifying determinative. Only Chinese, because of

ts

aversion

to expressing a word b y m eans of a sign composed of m ore th an

two elements, has retained the old character of the determina

tives and has never developed real classifiers.

In the three Near Eastern writings the semantic indicators

developed in the course of t ime another characteristic which

set them farther away from their original function. These signs,

originated as sem antic helps to the interp reta tion of wo rd signs,

developed in t ime into unpronounced auxi l iary marks whose

function was to facil i tate in general the interpretation of

the text. In fact, from the regularity of the appearance of the

determinat ives in Egyptian, some scholars have drawn the

conclusion that these determinatives effect the practical

function of dividing sentences into their com pon ent w ord s,

4 1

that is, they serve as word separators.

4 2

Th ere is no do ub t t ha t

also in the Mesopotamian and Hitt i te writ ings the existence of

determinatives helps greatly in the breaking-up of the sentence

into individual words and thus facil itates th e general in terp reta

tion of the text. This is of great importance especially in

writings which do not regularly indicate word separation either

by special marks or spacing.

The four devices discussed up to now have wide possibilities

for creating signs for words but even they are not sufficient to

achieve a full system of writing. Logographic writing thus

limited can never hope to be able to express all the existing

words of a language, let alone all the proper names and newly

introduced words. The failure of the writings introduced

among American Indians in modern t imes ei ther direct ly by

missionaries or un d e r the ir influence see p p . 206 fF.) is th e best

1 3

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S Y L L A B I C SY ST EM S

evidence of the in ad equ acy of such l imited logog raphic systems.

It was the invention of the phonetic principle that was

instrumental in opening new horizons in the history of writ ing.

With the introduct ion of phonet izat ion a new device was

create d by m eans of pho netic transfer, called reb us in mo de rn

times, involved in expressing word signs which are difficult to

draw by signs which are easy to draw and express words which

are identical or similar in sound. Thus, the Sumerian word ti

9

life,

5

which is hard to draw in a sign, can be expressed through

this device by the

A R R O W

sign, which stands for ti

9

a r row, in

Sumerian .

Finally, the last device consists of adding a phonetic but

non-semantic element to a sign as a help in i ts exact reading.

T hu s, in Ch inese, while the sign HAND could theoretically stand

for the words ha nd , to ha nd le, to rea ch, to carr y , etc. , in

order to express the word

kang

to carry, the syllable

kung

is

added to the HAND sign to indicate that it is to be read

kang.

These phone t ic indicators are called pho net ic com plem ents

in the Near Eastern writ ings. While they are not absolutely

necessary in the writing of a word, in the fully developed

systems it is indeed seldom that a word sign is found without

i ts phonet ic complements. Phonet ic complements can precede

or follow the word sign, although specific conventions and

predilections are at work in the various systems. While in

Egyptian the phonet ic complements can be bui l t around the

word sign, in Mesopotamian and Hitt i te they usually follow it .

Also, in respect to the length of the phonetic complements,

various conventions can be observed. While in Egyptian and

Hit t i te the phonet ic complements can repeat the word sign

fully, in the Mesopotamian system partial phonetic comple

ments are definitely in the majority. In Chinese the situation is

slightly different. There a phonetic complement or indicator,

once added to a word sign, remains with i t always to form one

word sign composed of two elements. The great majority of

Chinese word signs belong to this class. The creation of many

signs in this class w as facil i tated by the p re po nd er an tly m on o

syl labic character of the Chinese language and the resul t ing

shortness of phonet ic indicators . The phenomenon is not en

tirely un iq ue in the history of w rit ing . Also in Su m eria n w e find

a few signs w hich reg ular ly ap pe ar com posed of the basic an d

ph on et ic e lem ents , as in the case of the s ign rep rese nted by an

104

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D SIG N S

animal head which , when the sy l labogram za is added, is read

aza, b ea r ,

5

bu t wi th ug expresses the word ug, l ion

5

.

The so-cal led phonet ic complements s tarted as phonet ic

indicators which were attached to a basic sign to facil i tate i ts

reading, as in the writ ing of gul

ul

o r gul-ul for gul i n Sumerian

an d tdb

ab

o r tdb-ab for tab in Akkadian. From this secondary

posit ion phonetic complements rose to a posit ion of equal

standing with the signs to which they were attached, result ing

finally in reducing the basic signs to shorter values, such as

gu l) or gu and ta b) or ta respectively. This is the principle of

reduction discussed elsewhere on pp. 71 and 182 f. In Egyptian

the atta ch m en t of full phon etic comp lem ents to logogram s

cha nge d in the course of t ime the value of these basic logogram s

to that of semantic determinat ives. This is what the Egypto

logists call specific de term ina tive s

5

, as in th e case of >

x

s

x

h

x

REA P,

where the determinat ive REAP occurs only in the w ord (to)

reap

5

, in contrast to generic determinatives, such as G O , which

occur with all sorts of words expressing movement.

O nly in bo rrow ed systems of w riting d o we find a class of

signs which are not based on any of the six classes discussed

ab ov e. Th is class of signs, w hich I call allogra m s

5

, includes

logographic, syllabic, or alphabetic signs or spellings of one

writing when used as word signs or even phrase signs in a

borrowed wri t ing. Thus, for example, the Sumerian sign lugal,

king

5

, stands for Akkadian sarrum, king

5

; similarly, the

Sumerian spell ings in-ld-e, he will weigh out

5

in-ld-e-ne, they

will weigh out,

5

were accepted as standing for isaqqal isaqqalu,

he/they will weigh out,

5

respectively, in the Akkadian writ ing,

just as the Sumerian igi-lu-inim-inim-ma was ta ke n to sta nd for

Akkadian ina mahar sibi, before witnesses.

5

There a re hundreds

of examples of this type of word and phrase signs, which may

very wel l be cal led Sumerograms

4 3

whenever they stand for

Sumerian writ ings. Similarly, Akkadian spell ings are used

regularly for the same purpose in the cuneiform Hitt i te system

of wri t ing. Among hundreds of examples we may quote

Akkad ian id-din s tanding for H it t i te

pesta,

he gave,

5

Akkadian

a-na a-bi-ia

for H itt i te

atti-mi,

to my father,

5

e tc. A mixed type

is represented by the spelling dingir-lum, where the Sum erian

dingir, god,

5

p lus the phonet ic indicator -lum corresponds to

Akkadian Hum, god

5

, and the whole stands for the Hitt i te word

siwannis

wi th the same me aning . The se so-called Sum erograms

1 5

oi.uchicago.edu




and Akkadograms find their parallel in a much later period in

the use of A ram aeo gra m s in the Persian Pehlevi writ ing, wh ere,

for instance, the Aramaic spell ing malkd king, stands for

Persian

sdh,

kin g. I n still late r usage we find a similar type of

w rit ing in our inter pre tatio n of e t c as an d so on, and so

forth , or the like. A no the r good pa rallel is the spelling go d in

Latin characters for the word agaiyun wi th the same meaning

in one of the writ ings introduced recently among the Alaska

Eskimos.

4 4

The meaning can sometimes be indicated not only by word

signs formed through different devices, but also through the

so-called prin cip le of position an d prin cip le of con text of

sit ua tio n w hic h we re discussed fully elsew here (see p . 19 f.).

It is evident from this short discussion of the various classes

of word signs that one sign can and actually does express many

different words. One sign can stand not only for a group of

words all related in meaning but also, with the emergence of

phonetization, for words similar in sound but with no relation

in meaning. This is pure and simple logography. In contrast to

semasiography, in which such a sign as

SUN

conveys the m ean ing

of su n an d of all of its relate d ideas, such as br igh t, light,

clear, shining, pu re , w hite, da y, or even the sun is shining,

the day has come, etc. , in logography the sign has only as

many meanings as there are words which are habi tual ly and

conventionally associated with i t . Thus, in Sumerian, the SUN

sign expresses at least seven words, all related to the basic

m ean ing of sun , bu t in Chinese the SUN sign alone stands only

for the wo rds sun an d da y , while the w ord

ch ing,

pure ,

clea r , is expressed by a co m bin atio n of the sign for su n w ith

the sign for co lou r ; th e w ord

ming,

b r ight , shining, by that

of su n and m oo n ; an d the w ord for w hite by a sign of

unknown interpretat ion evident ly having no connect ion with

the sun. Sim ilarly, in Egy ptian , the wo rds for sun, day, w hite,

l ight are expressed by the pictur e of the sun, bu t the w ord

t

x

h

x

n

x

,

shining,

5

is w ritt en by a sign different from th a t for

the sun.

45

There are no logographic systems in which a s ign

ca n stan d for a certain ide a with all of its rela ted ram ifications,

just as there are practically no cases in these systems of signs

which when writ ten down are not intended to express words or

when read or interpreted do not correspond to words of

language. Almost all such cases, claimed by a majority of

106

oi.uchicago.edu




philologists to be ide og rap hy (see p p . 13 f.), tu rn ou t up on

investigation to be false. When a writer intends to express

a word by means of a word sign which can stand for many

words he will usually try through all the means available to

him to make sure that the reader will read in this sign only the

inten ded w ord . A dditio n to the basic w ord sign of sem antic an d

pho netic ind icators, use of the princ iple of posit ion a nd context

of situation are all devices leading to the achievement of this

aim.

In con nection with the controversy ideo gra phy versus logo-

gr ap hy w hich is now rag ing in philological-linguistic circles

(see p p . 13 f.), it m ay be w or th w hile to no te the following:

All the Sumerian and Akkadian grammars use the term

ide og rap hy , w ith Falkenstein, Fried rich (see p . 65), an d

Poebel (orally) forming a small but notable group of objectors

to th at term . T he Egyptologists, as one m an , favour ideo

graphy

5

.

4 6

I n the Hit t i te field I myself used id eo gr am ,

4 7

bu t

later gave i t up in favour of log og ra m .

4 8

In the field of

Chinese i t is interesting to note that as far back as 1838 the

ingenious Franco-American scholar Du Ponceau defined

Chinese wri t ing as logogra phic or lexigraph ic , and not

ideographic .

4 9

EL G . C reel s use of ide og rap hy

5 0

was

crit icized by Peter A. Boodberg.

5 1

SYLLABIC SIGNS

A lthough w ith the introd uct ion of phon et izat ion all sounds

of language can be expressed in writ ing, the rebus way of

writ ing is inadequate in practical use. Systems which would

allow the expression of the w ord m an da te either by pictures

of a man plus a palm date, or by those of a man plus a palm

tree,

or even by pictures of a man plus a boy-and-girl combina

t ion, may be considered qui te r ight in our modern rebus

composit ions with their elements of mental gymnastics, but

they are clearly not adequate in a practical system of writ ing,

where speed and accuracy in reading are most essential . For

that reason the convention soon had to be established to write

identical syllables of various words with identical signs. Thus,

a single sign would be chosen from among many possibilities to

stand for the syllable

man

no matter whether i t occurred in the

words m an , m ank ind, ma nd ate , w om an, e tc . , jus t as one sign

107

oi.uchicago.edu




would be chosen for the syllable date no matter whether i t

occurred in the words da te , m an da te , can did ate , e tc . T o be

sure, eac h of these words could still be expressed by a word sign,

if such existed in the system, but syllabically these words could

be writ ten only with signs taken from a conventionally used

syllabary.

There are no such things as Standard

5

Sumerian , Egypt ian ,

Hitt i te, or Chinese syllabaries. What we actually have are

various Sumerian, Egyptian, Hitt i te, and Chinese syllabaries,

all l imited to certain periods and areas. Thus, in Sumerian,

out of some twenty-two different signs all read as

du

bu t each

corresponding to a different word of the language, at one t ime

one sign was picked which was conventionally used as the

syllable

du

in all cases of no n-s em antic w riting . Sy llabic signs

thus chosen formed part of a syllabary which may have been

limited in i ts employment to a certain period and to a certain

area. In another place and at another t ime a different sign du

may have been chosen to stand for this syllable. The inter

m ixture of influences m ay sometimes have provoke d the

existence of more than one sign for the same syllable. But such

occurrences as occur are relatively rare before the latest periods,

in which the writ ing started on i ts downward course of

degeneration (see pp. 202 f.).

This categorical statement will seem fantastic to anyone who

is even superficially acquainted with the Mesopotamian sign

l is ts and who remembers the great number of homophonous

signs l isted in them. The existence of an almost unlimited

homophony would, of course, be true for the

whole

M esopo

tam ian syllabary, bu t i t certainly is not in the case of indiv idua l,

area and period syllabaries. Anyone who would take the

trou ble to cou nt the in dividu al signs w ith syllabic values in one

limited area and period—as I actually did in several cases—

could easily reach the conclusion that identical syllables

normally are expressed by only one sign. As evidence, let the

syllabaries of the Old Assyrians and the Old Babylonians speak

for themselves. The latter syllabary, taken from the Ham-

m ur ap i La w C ode, is presented he re in t ransl i terat ion in the

form of a chart showing only uniconsonantal values (Fig. 57).

The multiconsonantal values are, of course, very rarely homo

phonous. The use of more than one sign for a single sound, as

in the case of sibilants, is due to the transitory nature of the

108

oi.uchicago.edu




O ld Baby lon ian sy ll aba ry of the H am m ur ap i pe r iod . T h e

reader does not have to be reminded that the principle of

economy in writ ing—so frequently invoked in this book—

a

b a

d a

g a

h a

ia

k a

la

m a

n a

p a

qa = ga

r a

sa

sa = z a

sa

s a = z a

t a

t a = d a

w a

z a

i

b i

d i

g i

h i

ii = i a

k i

l i

m i

n i

p i = b i

qf = k i

r i

si

•si = zi

si

§i =

ze

si = z i

t i

t i = d i

t i = t i

w i = w a

z i

e

b e

d e = - d i

g e = g i ?

h e = h i

ie = ia

k e = k i ?

Ie = l i

m e

n e

pe

= b i

q6 = k e

re = r i

se = ?

se

se

=z

te

t e

4

= = t e

w e = w a

z e

u

b u

d u

g u

h u

iu = i a

k u

lu

m u

n u

pu = bu

q u = k u

r u

su

sii = zu

su

§u = z u

t u

j u = t u

w u = w a

z u

a b

a d

a g

a h

—

ak = ag

a l

a m

a n

ap = ab

aq = ag

a r

ds = a s

as

a§ = a z

a t = a d

a t = a d

—

az

i b

id

ig

i i | = a h

—

ik = ig

il

i m

in

ip = ib

iq = ig

i r

is = i z

is

is = i z

i t = i d

i t = i d

—

iz

e b = i b

e d = i d

eg = i g

e h = a h

—

ek = e g

el

em = im

e n

e p = e b

e q —eg

e r = i r

es = ?

e§

es = e z

e t = e d

e t = e d

—

ez = i z

u b

u d

u g

u h

—

uk = u g

u l

u m

u n

u p = u b

u q = ug

u r

u r

u s

=ul

u s

us = u z

u t = u d

u t = u d

—

u z

F I G . 5 7 . — U N I G O N S O N A N T A L S IG N S O F T H E O L D

B A B Y L O N I A N S Y L L A B A R Y

speaks unequivocally against the existence of uncontrolled

homophony of signs.

What is true of the Mesopotamian syllabaries is also true of

the other Oriental systems. The classical hieroglyphic Hitt i te

1 9

oi.uchicago.edu




syllabary, for instance, used in Syria around 800 B.C., lacks

entirely a number of sign values which occur in the earlier

inscriptions from Anatolia. The compactness of the Egyptian

state prev ented such great differentiation, b ut in Egyp t, too, we

find syllabaries limited in use to certain periods and areas. It is

even more difficult to speak of a standard Chinese syllabary.

As a ma tte r of fact, it is no t only impossible to speak ab ou t

s tandard

5

syllabaries in the logo-syllabic writings, but even

an unqual i f ied statement about the various period and area

syllabaries is open to question. The people who used logo-

syllabic writ ings certainly did not dist inguish between the

logographic and syllabic signs in the manner we do. What they

knew about their writ ing was that all signs stood originally

for words of their language and that under certain conditions

some of these signs could also be used as syllables. That the

users of logo-syllabic writings seemingly did not bother to

compile special lists of syllabic signs does not mean, however,

that in actual practice they did not dist inguish carefully

between word signs used logographically only and those used

both logographically and syllabically. For that reason the

negligence which modern philologists have been showing in not

distinguishing clearly between logographic and syllabic uses is

inexcusable. Only in the field of hieroglyphic Hittite lists of

syllabic values have been compiled from the earliest stages of

dec ipherment .

5 2

In the field of cuneiform there are now several

lists of syllabic values used in Akkadian, but there is as yet no

such l ist for Sumerian.

5 3

The confusion is quite evident in

Egyp t i an manua l s

5 4

which l is t und er pho nog ram s (as con

t ras ted wi th ideogram s ) no t on ly the un icons onanta l an d b i -

consonantal s igns, which belong there, but a lso the t r icon-

sonan ta l s igns wh ich— with some spor t ive except ions—are

used in Egypt ian logographical ly only. Even in Chinese some

convention must exist as to the choice of word signs for syllabic

use i f foreign proper names of the type reproduced below on

p . 118 can be trans l i terated in to Chinese an d rea d correct ly .

Syllabic signs clearly originated from word signs. This is a

re la t ive ly easy mat te r in preponderant ly monosyl lab ic lan

guages, l ike Chinese or Sumerian, where the choice of mono

syllabic signs from monosyllabic words is easy. Thus, in

Sumerian, the syl lable

orig ina ted from the w ord sign A for

w a t e r ,

ti

from the w ord sign TI for ar ro w or l ife ,

g l

from the

n o

oi.uchicago.edu



S Y L L B I C S IG N S

word sign G A L

for

g r e a t .

In

Egyp t i an

it was

relatively simple

to create syllabic signs containing

two

consonants ,

as in the

sy l labogram

m

x

n

x

from

the

word sign

m

x

n

x

,

d r a u g h t b o a r d ,

or

w

x

r

z

rom

the

w ord sign

w

x

r

x

,

sw allow, gr ea t . T he re w ere diffi

cult ies, however,

in

c reat ing monosyl labic s igns with

one

consonant , because

the

l angua ge co nta ined very

few

such

monosyllabic words. These difficult ies were overcome

by

choosing monosyl labic words ending

in a

so-called w eak con

sonant , such

as

D

, jy, w,

or the

feminine end ing -t, which could

be d is regarded

in the

va lue

of the

s ign. Thus,

the

w ord sign

r

xox

, mo u t h , a c q u i r e d

the

syllabic value r

x

, j u s t

as the

word

n

x

t

x

,

wa t e r ,

led to the

origin

of

the syllabic sign

n

x

. In the

case

of the syllabic signs d

x

from d

x

t

x

, o lder

w

x:>x

d

x

i

x

t

x

,

snake , and

p e rh a p s d

x

from i

x

d

x

, h a n d , we m ust p roba bly reckon w i th

the omission of an ini t ial w o r y, qu i te f requent in the S emit ic

languages .

The widely accepted idea that syllabic values originated

frequently through

the

acrophonic principle , w hereby

the

signs

acquired

the

value

of the

beginning

of the

whole word,

can

hard ly

be

t rue

in the

case

of the

Oriental systems

of

writ ing.

I n spite of Sethe s assertion,

55

there is

no

evidence

for

ac rophony

in Sumerian

or

Mexican writ ings.

The

existence

of

the syllabic

sign fa-beside

the

word

farf, to

bea r, does

not

mean tha t

fa

developed

by the

acrophonic principle from tud,

but

t h a t

the

original word

tud

could,

and

actually did, acquire

by a

phonet ic

process

the

p ronu ncia t ion

fa,

from which

the

shorter syllabic

value

fa was

derived. N orm al E gyp t ian wri t ing

has no

traces

of acro pho ny; only

in the

late period of dege neration have some

examples

of

acropho ny been found

in the

case

of

the Eg ypt ian

enigmatic writ ings.

5 6

For the

sake

of

com pleteness,

it

should

be

ment ioned tha t

in the

H it t i te w rit ing, besides such no rm al cases

as

the

HAND s ign, meaning pi-,

to

give,

for the

syllable pi

or

th e SEAL s ign, meaning

siya-, to

seal ,

for the

syllable si there

are some other syllabic signs which

are not

a t tested

as

logograms.

An

unusual

way of

creating syllabic signs

is

shown

in

the

Hit t i te sign mu, represented

by a

combinat ion

of the

u

and

me

signs. Finally,

we

should refer

to

pages

141 ff.,

where

the alleged existence of acrophony

in the

W est Semitic syllabary

is discussed and re jected.

5 7

The s tandard iza t ion of the syllabaries took different ro ad s

in the various O rien tal w ritings (Fig. 58). The Sumerian

i n

oi.uchicago.edu



O p e n M o n o

syllables

C l os e Mono

syllables

O p e n D i s

syllables

Sumerian

a ta

i ti

e te

u tu

a t ta rn

(or ta -am)

it t im

(or t i- im)

e n me n

(or me-en)

ut turn

(or tu-um)

aka (very rare) ba la (very rare)

(or a-ka) (or ba-la )

Egyptian

3

a

t

a

ti

3 t

e

3

U

t

u

3

a

D

(a) t

a

m

( a )

(or >

a

-b

(a )

) (or t

a

- m

( a )

)

,ib») t*m«>

(or >i-b<») (or t*-m >)

b

{e

t

e

m

( e )

(or je_b(e)) (

o r

t e - m

(e )

)

3

u

D

(u) t

u

m

( u )

(or 3«-b

(u )

) (or t

u

- m

( u )

)

>

x

b

x

t

x

m

x

(or >

x

-b

x

) (or t

x

- m

x

)

Hittite

a ta

i ti

e te

u tu

(a- t (a) ) ( ta -m(a))

(i-t(i)) ( t i-m(i))

(e- t (e) ) ( te -m(e))

(u- t (u) ) ( tu-m(u))

(a- ta) ( ta -ma)

Chinese

a ta

i ti

(e) te

(u) tu

o to

a n m a n

( ih) min

e n me n

(uh) kun

(oh) (foh)

(a- ta) ( ta -ma)

F I G . 5 8 . T Y P E S O F S Y L L A B I C SI G NS I N W O R D - S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G S

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G

syllabary and the systems derived from it consist of signs which

usually represent monosyllables ending in a vowel or a con

sonant, more rarely dissyllables. The Egyptian system, l ike the

Mesopotamian, contains signs for both monosyllables and

dissyllables, but in contrast to Mesopotamian i t does not

indicate vowels. The Hittite syllabary is limited to signs for

monosyllables ending in a vowel. The Chinese syllabary is

similar to the Mesopotamian one, but i t expresses only mono

syllables ending in a vowel or a consonant. None of the systems

contains signs for syllables with two or more contiguous con

sonants such as amt, tma, etc. It should be no ted th at th e ng

combination in such Chinese words as

ming, kung,

etc., does no t

express two contiguous consonants, but a nasal sound y,. In

order to express syllables with contiguous consonants a cir-

cumventive way had to be used; thus amt can be writ ten as

am-t a), a-m a)-t a), or the like, while tm a can be expressed as

t a)-ma, or the like.

A U X I L I A R Y M A R K S

In addition to word and syllabic signs a third class of signs,

found in all four Oriental systems, consists of the auxiliary

marks, or signs, such as punctuation marks, and, in some

systems, th e d ete rm ina tive s o r th e classifiers see p p . 103 f.).

Their main characterist ic is that in writ ing or reading these

marks have no definite correspondences in speech but are used

as helps to make easier the understanding of a sign or a group

of signs or of the context in general.

5 8

A systematic study of auxiliary marks in the Oriental sys

tem s is lacking an d as this m at te r w ould lead us aw ay from

our main line of investigation it seems preferable to omit it

entirely from our discussion.

W O R D - S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G

All four Oriental systems are alike in having preserved

thro ug ho ut the ir long history a m ixture of logograph ic and

syllabic spellings. They differ, however, in some specific

characterist ics which we may now discuss.

5 9

T he no rm al Su m erian w rit ing consists of both w ord and

syllabic signs, but while the former are used chiefly to express

3

oi.uchicago.edu




nouns and verbs, the latter are more in evidence in the writ ing

of prop er nam es, pron ouns , and gram m atical formatives. This

usage is , however, by no means general . The vernacular

erne s l dialect of Sumerian is written almost exclusively with

syllabic signs. The emphasis upon the syllabic side is equally in

evidence among some cuneiform writ ings derived from the

Sumerian as, for example, in the Old Akkadian and Old

Assyrian systems.

Egyptian, too, retained i ts logo-syllabic character to the very

end. As in cuneiform, its usage varied from period to period.

For example, the early Egyptian writ ing of the Pyramid texts

shows greater preference for syllabic spellings than most of the

later Egypt ian wri t ings. Then, again, we have a number of

texts from the Saite period in the middle of the first millennium

B.C. w hich , by a n a lmo st tota l suppression of w ord signs an d

multiconsonantal syllabic signs, give the appearance of a

uniconsonantal syllabic writ ing which is almost identical with

the West Semitic syllabary.

6 0

The syllabic character asserted itself so strongly in the later

Hitt i te writ ing that word signs were almost entirely eliminated.

For example, the short inscription from Erkilet in Figure 39

(see p . 83) is w ritt en ex clusively w ith syllabic signs in a form

which is fully identical with Cypriote. In view of the fact that

Hitt i te hieroglyphic has only recently been deciphered i t may

be of interest to give here a full transliteration and translation

of the tex t so th at scho lars ma y ju dg e for themselves th e progress

achieved in the decipherment:

i~wa ->a-la-n{d)

n a m e

^ A-s a)-ta-wa-su-s{a) tu-t e)

i ri)-wa talari Âsta-wa sus tut

Th is m o n u m en t Âsta -wasu s p l aced ;

i-pa-wa-te ni ki-a-s e)-ha sa-ni-a-ta

i ri)-pawa-te ni-kiasha saniata

i t t h en n o b o d y sh o u ld d am ag e

FIG. 5 9 . HITT ITE HIER OG LYP HIC INSCRIPTION FROM ERK ILET

The normal Chinese writ ing in contrast to that of the three

other Oriental systems is almost exclusively logographic. Only

114

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D - S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G

foreign pr op er n am es an d occasionally w ords of foreign origin

are written by means of syllabic spellings (see pp. 117 ff.).

In closing our discussion of the Oriental systems of writing

we may refer to a chart (Fig. 60) showing statistically the

relationship of word signs to syllabic signs:—

Su mer ian

Eg y p t i an

Hi t t i t e

Chinese

Total Number of Signs

about 600

about 700

about 450 -f-

about 50 ,000

Syllabic Signs

about 100-150

about 100

about 60

[62 in fan-ch ieh]

F I G . 6 0 . R E L A T I O N S H I P O F W O R D S IG N S T O S Y L L A B I C SIG N S

IN W O R D - S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G S

I t is est imated tha t the earliest Sum erian wri t ing (U ruk I V -

II) consisted of close to 2,000 different signs, while in the later

Fara period the number is only 800, to be further scaled down

to 600 in the Assyrian period. This process is well illustrated

by the redu ction of thirty -on e various signs for sheep

5

in the

early Uruk period to one single form in later t imes. The

diminishing number of signs follows the principle of con

vergence whereby a number of word signs are eliminated and

are replaced by other spellings. Comparative statistics for early

Egyptian, Hitt i te, and Chinese writ ings are lacking, but i t is

quite clear that the Hitt i te writ ing at least used in i ts early

stages a number of signs which later disappeared entirely. The

process may have been similar in the earliest stages of Chinese

but in subsequent periods we have the following picture: about

3,000 signs around 200 B.C., 9,353 signs around

A.D.

100, and

close to 50,000 signs in modern t imes. This growing number of

signs following the principle of divergence seems at first glance

to be the reverse of the process in Sumerian; in reality, however,

the two developments are not anti thetic. The 50,000 Chinese

signs do not represent 50,000 different pictures which can be

contrasted w ith the 600 Sum erian signs, each of wh ich originally

represented a different picture. I do not know the exact

number of basic pictures in the 50,000 Chinese signs or whether

5

oi.uchicago.edu



o

J

STROKE.Ha-am-mu-ra-bi B R E A S T S S T R O K E S T A R

.EN.ZU-mu-bal-li-it

C R O W N . M A N

ffammu-rapi dumu Sin-muballit lugal

H a m m u - r a p i , th e son of Sin-mubal l i t, the king

CO

GATE. ST AR-rfl. LAND HOUSE STAR.Marduk 7WM-PEG

Babilim

e

Marduk mudu

of Babylon, the temple of Ma rd uk bui l t .

*

3

*-

3

*-m*-m*£

x

-r*^

x3a:

.THROWSTICK.SEMITE DUGK.STROKE S

x

-i*-tt*.MOON.GOD-m*-W2*£*-£*-r*-fiKTHROWSTICK.-

Hxmxrxpx

sx x

Sxnxmxbxrxdx [ S E M I T E

§ I Hammu rap i , th e son of Sinmubal id ,

V

CHIEF

n

x

i^-^- f^FOREI GN-LAN D WALL.MAN.q

x

d

x

EMBLEM.HOUSE.^.BUILDING fl t M

x

-m

x

i -r

x

-d -k

x

.GOD

wxrx

nx

Bxbxrx qxdx hxtx-nxforx nxtx Mxrxdxkx

the king

of

Babyl on, built

the

temple

of

Marduk .

•4

W

o

d

I

CO

>

w

W

CO

oi.uchicago.edu



S T R O K E

.Ha-mu-ra-pi-s a)

S T R O K E

.Si-mu-pa-li-t i) -fa-s a) H A N D .ni-mu-wa-i-s a)

Ham urapis Sinmupalitias nimuwais

^lammurapis , of Sinmu pal i tas the son,

Pa-pi-li-wa-ni-s a) . L A N D

TiARA-to- fl)

EMBi.EM.Ma-ru-ta-ka-sa-s a) E M B L E M . H O U S E - ^ A W AL L . H AND- 7 W £ - £ £ )

Papiliwanis . . . .

tas

Marutakaias . . . . haza . . . .

met

the Babylonian king, of Marutakas the temple s) built.

Ha mu lai pH Hsin mu pa li te chih BOY

Ham ulaipH Hsinmupalit chih tsu

Hamulaipi, of Hsinmubal i t the son,

Pa pi lun

Papilun

of Babylon

chih

chih

K I N G

wang

the king

B U I L D

chien

built

Ma er to ki chih TEMPLE

Martok chih miao

of Mardok the temple.

3

O

d

i

CO

s

3

H

z

Q

FIG. 6 1 . ONE SENTENCE AS SPELLED IN WORD SYLL ABIC WRITI NGS

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S Y L L A B I C SY ST EM S

anybody has ever taken the t rouble to calculate i t . There are

to-day 214 keys according to which Chinese signs are classified,

a number which was reduced from 540 keys used in an old

Chinese lexicon called Skuo wen (about

A . D .

100). T he nu m be r

of keys in

Shuo wSn

may approximate ly reproduce the number

of basic signs in the Chine se wr iting . A ll the a dd ition al signs

do not stand for new pictures but represent either combinations

of basic signs or, more commonly, combinations of basic signs

plus phonet ic indicators . Contrary to the pract ice in the Near

East, where signs with many different phonetic indicators

(complements) are counted as one sign, in China signs with

different pho netic indicators a re counted as sepa rate signs. Th is

is as if in one system the w riting of f s (t ha t is, the w ord sign

for cross

5

p lus the phonet ic indicator

s

for th e w ord cross )

an d fd ( dead ) were cou nted as one sign, th at is, f, an d in

ano ther as two signs, th at is, f s and | d . T he rein lies the reason

for the extraordinary number of Chinese signs.

By way of illustration of the word-syllabic writing, Figure 61

shows one sentence, as spelled in Sumerian, Egyptian, Hitt i te,

and Chinese. In each case the first row gives sign-by-sign trans

li teration, the second approximate transcription, and the third

word-by-word translation. Semantic elements, such as word

signs and determinatives, are transli terated in capital roman

chara cters, while pho netic elements are in i talics. T h e Eg yptia n

and Chinese sentences were composed with the help of

Professors Will iam F. Ed ger ton and C h en M eng- chia

respectively. In connection with the Chinese part i t should be

stated that when I submitted the English sentence to a scholar

of Chinese, asking him to put i t into Chinese characters, he

refused my request, saying that the Chinese transliteration of

proper names would be total ly incomprehensible due to the

logographic character of Chinese writing. I then asked Professor

C h en to m ake the trans li teration a nd on e year later as a test

submitted the sentence in Chinese characters to another

Chinese scholar, Professor Teng Ssu-yu. The latter understood

correctly the whole sentence and read exactly all the proper

names, including some, such as

Hsin-mu-pa-li-U

of which he

had never heard before. That does not prove, of course, that

the process of transliterating a foreign sentence into Chinese

characters was as easy as that in the other logo-syllabic

writ ings. What i t means is that the Chinese writ ing, in spite

118

oi.uchicago.edu



W O R D S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G

of i ts extreme logographic character, has a l imited number of

word signs which can be used in a definite syllabic function to

express foreign words and nam es cf. p . n o ) .

6 1

i i 9

oi.uchicago.edu



IV

S Y L L B I C W R I T I N G S

F

R O M

the seven O rien tal writ ings discussed in th e previous

chapter originated four types of syllabic systems: cunei

form syllabaries, such as Elamite, Hurrian, etc. , from

M esopo tamian cuneiform; W est Semit ic syllabaries,

such as Sinait ic, Proto-Palestinian, Phoenician, etc. , from

Egypt ian hieroglyphic; the Cypriote syl labary, and perhaps

also the as yet little known Phaistos and Byblos writings, from

C re tan ; and , f inally, the Ja pa n es e syl labary from* C hin ese .O ur

discussion will first be concerned with a descriptive presentation

of the various syllabic systems, to be followed by a general

resume of their main structural characterist ics.

C U N EI F O R M S YL L AB A R I E S

I n th e discussion of the M esop otam ian w ri t ing the observa

t ion was made that in certain periods or areas this writ ing had

more of the characterist ics of a syllabic than a logo-syllabic

system see p . 114). T hu s, for instance, the O ld A kk adia n

inscriptions, th e

erne sal

dia lec t of Sumerian, and the Cappado-

cian texts of the O ld A ssyrian merch ants w ere w ri t ten to a

great extent with syllabic signs, while the few word signs

which were used were confined to some of the most common

expressions of the language. The derived cuneiform syllabaries

w hich will be discussed in this ch ap ter a re not m uc h different

in character, although the use of syllabic signs is considerably

expanded and systematized. In the strict sense of the word

there is no cuneiform syllabary which could be compared, for

example, with the Phoenician or Cypriote syllabic writ ing.

What we actually have are different cuneiform syllabaries al l

used in company with a more or less l imited number of word

signs.

1 2 0

oi.uchicago.edu



C U N E I F O R M S Y L L A B A R I E S

Among the derived cuneiform syllabaries we may include

the E lami te , Human , Ura r t i an , Ha t t i c , Luwian , and Pa la i c

writ ings. All of these systems were borrowed from the Mesopo-

tamian cuneiform by foreign peoples living in the areas to the

north and north-west of the Valley of the Two Rivers.

When, in the middle of the third millennium B.C. the

Elam ites gave u p their own Pro to-E lam ite w rit ing (see p .

213) in favour of a system borro w ed dire ctly from cuneiform ,

they introduced a writing consisting of some 131 syllabic signs,

twenty-five word signs, and seven determinatives.

1

However, i t

should be noted that the proportion of 131 syllabic signs to

thirty-two word signs and determinatives in the sign lists does

not even approximately express the preponderance of syllabic

spellings in the ac tua l text.s. I t wo uld be ju st as w ron g to dr aw

the conclusion that in our own writ ing the proportion of

alphabetic to word spellings is something like twenty-six to ten

because there are twenty-six alphabetic signs and ten numbers

( = word signs) in the English w rit ing. T he late Elam ite cunei

form system is even more simplified, as it consists, according to

Weissbach, of only 113 signs, of which 102 are syllabic and

eleven are word signs and determinatives.

2

The emphasis upon

syllabic spellings can be attested to a very large degree in the

Hurrian wri t ing used in northern Mesopotamia, Syria , and

eastern Anatolia in the middle of the second millennium B.C.

Even a superficial glance at the letter of the Mittannian king

T u s ra t t a

3

will show how rarely word signs are used in com

parison with syllabic spell ings: no more than one to three word

signs are found scattered among hundreds of syllabic spellings.

The Urart ian or Vannic inscript ions from Armenia dated to

the first half of the first millennium B.C. appear to have a

slightly larger proportion of word signs than the Hurrian

writ ing. The Hattic, Luwian, and Palaic texts discovered in the

archives of Bogazkoy, the capital of the Hitt i te Empire, use

almost exclusively syllabic signs. These little-known languages

were spoken by peoples living in various parts of central

Anatol ia .

Among the writ ings borrowed from Mesopotamia by foreign

peoples the only one which closely followed its prototype in

retain ing a large num be r of w ord signs is the so-called cun ei

form Hitt i te

5

writ ing. This is the writ ing of the thousands of

cuneiform tablets discovered at Bogazkoy and used for a

2

oi.uchicago.edu



S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G S

language which with hieroglyphic Hitt i te was one of the two

official languages of the Hitt i te Empire. The close adherence

of the cuneiform Hitt i te writ ing to i ts Mesopotamian prototype

may well be due to the existence at Bogazkoy of a scribal

t radi t ion great ly under the influence of the Mesopotamian

civilization.

WEST SEMITIC SYLLABARIES

I n th e following discussion the ter m Se m itic (w riting,

alphabet, syllabary) stands exclusively for West Semitic and

applies to various w ritings used by peoples speaking N orth-w est

Semit ic (Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic, e tc . ) and South-west

Semitic (North Arabic, South Arabic, Ethiopic, etc.) languages.

In p lace of East Sem itic the term A kk ad ian , w ith its Assyro-

Babylonian branches, is used throughout .

Before we enter into the discussion of the character and origin

of the Semitic syllabaries we should first acquaint ourselves with

the various systems of writing which originated in the second

m illen niu m B.C. in the vast Sem itic area e xten ding from the

Sinai Peninsula to northern Syria.

In the winter of 1904-5 several stone inscriptions in a new

type of writing were discovered by the English archaeologist,

Sir Will iam M. Flinders Petrie, near the locali ty of Serabit

el-Hadem, on the Sinai Peninsula. The discoveries aroused

immediate interest in the scientific world, as a result of which

several expeditions were sent to Sinai to search for more

inscriptions of the same type. The total number of inscriptions

discovered up to now is limited to a few dozens. The dating of

these inscriptions is still a moot question, although most

scholars seem now to agree that they originated around 1600-

1500 B.C., a d ate reco nstru cted chiefly on the arch aeolo gical

basis.

Non-specialists are warned not to confuse these Proto-

Sinait ic inscriptions w ith the m uc h youn ger Sin ait ic script ,

which is considered to be the l ink between the Nabatean and

Arabic writ ings.

T h e Proto-S inait ic inscriptions are found on stone, frequently

statues of female divinities, an d w ere evidently m ad e by th e

Semites who worked the copper and turquoise mines in the

are a of Serab it el-H ade m . T he English Egyptologist, A lan

H. Gardiner, laid the foundations for the decipherment of the

2 2

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M IT IC S Y L L A B A R I E S

writing by suggesting that the four signs found on some of the

statues (as in our Fig. 62) should be read as BHt.

4

This reading

of the name of the famous Semitic goddess Ba' lat seemed to

have found support in the fact that the temple of the Egyptian

goddess Hathor, with whom Ba' la t

could have been identified, was dis

covered in the ruins of Serabit el-

H ad em . How ever, the progress of the

decipherment of the Proto-Sinait ic

inscriptions since Gardiner has been

so negligible as to make even

Gardiner ' s basic decipherment look

suspicious. To some extent progress

FIG

* °

2 , P R O T

° -

1 1 . 1 1 ,1

4.

S I N A IT I G I N S C R I P T I O N

was ham per ed not only by the scarcity

of comparative material but also by

^ ^ S ^ ^

some rather fantastic reconstructions

of scholars who tried to rea d into these inscriptions the na m es of

Ja hw eh and Moses and the story of the Heb rew peregrinat ions

In reali ty the texts cannot contain anything more complicated

than simple votive inscriptions. A recent study by W. F.

Albr igh t

5

takes us a good deal farther on the road toward the

final decipherment of Proto-Sinait ic. For the sake of complete

ness we should m ention h ere two fragm entary inscriptions from

Sinai using signs which do not resemble those of the standard

Proto-Sinait ic inscriptions.

6

A list of signs found in th e Pro to-S inaitic inscriptions is given

as Figure 63 after Leibovitch.

7

Moving northward from Sinai we enter Palestine, where, too,

discoveries of great importance for the history of writing have

been made. At such scat tered places as Beth Shemesh, El-

Hadr , Gezer , Lachish , Megiddo , Shechem, Tel l e l -Hesi , Te l l

es-§arem , and perha ps Jeru sa lem and T el l e l-

c

Ajjul were

found various objects, chiefly pots and sherds, with short

inscriptions containing signs sometimes resembling those on the

Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, sometimes entirely different.

8

As less

than a dozen of these inscriptions are known the importance of

the Palestinian finds lies not in the number of inscriptions; it is

rather the number of locali t ies in which the texts have been

discovered that leads to the important conclusion that the

writing was used rather extensively in Palestine centuries before

the Heb rew invasion. O ne glance at the extan t inscript ions

23

oi.uchicago.edu



JtJft 3fcJY

«2S

ia.

M

_ _ ** '

Cenr

yf^ft

X T ,

>u.c

3 M

* ' '• • '

J i

i f c i

£$4 31f

WIOAH «IDUH

^ttn^tfH^

iS -

»

^ ^

£

3

M

*

m

;

> » •

^ £

. 5 »

- ^

w

lt f

5

«> ** i.uH

xai

»m i »

JO

^ . ^

Jrt

\

M 4W

^N

ZEaT

5 •« <*£*£>

. A Vf

f

*>

Si

31 fc

• * * - «

<5>

tf-s

c

^ ^ i. • ^ r >

sti

^

£*fc*

W

» »

F I G . 6 3 . — P R O T O - S I N A I T I G W R I T I N G

From J. Leibovitch,

Memoires presentes a V nstitut

d Egypte, xxiv (1934),

pis.

iv-vi

oi.uchicago.edu



W o 9 r£> ~J>

J>

o c o e 9«»t o /

2EH

j.»ff

3 - K *

* * • » *

» *

f c

-

v

- ^ A A A A - ^ / ^ * ~ ^ v-v - ^ < y ^ £

IK

Vlv4 9

XXT

«lit

Pjf

xxm

"XX tV

oo ô 6 ,: OO C^ c~ W * L~J <->> ^ °£ ° ^

j f t }JT ) * • >fc« U « *C1 JM

, f c

\^y

f\J ^ *JP ^0

itx

, 1 J

» »>** n»<*rt

xssr

ja 1.*

) f J

5« jfj ,

n ) f

, JJ

+

J f s

| I j

4

,

J W

I

J t J

j

V i

^

xxy»- t -c

XxVUl '

*

X X X E /

rf

oi.uchicago.edu



'oriap o W

11

F I G . 6 4 . P R O T O - P A L E S T I N I A N I N S C R I P T I O N S

From D. Diringer in Journal of

the merican Oriental Society

lxiii 1943), 25-7

oi.uchicago.edu



WEST SEMITIC SYLLABARIES

Fig. 64) is sufficient to show that they must belong to different

periods. The exact dating is still impossible, of course, but we

may not be too far off if we assign the Gezer and Shechem

fragm ents No s. 1-2) to ab ou t 16 00-1500 B.C. an d some of the

Lac hish inscript ions Nos. 7-8 , 10-11) to ab ou t 1300-1200

B.C.

9

T he re is no com plete sign list an d i t can no t even be ascertained

F I G . 6 5 . E N I G M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M K A H U N

I N F A Y Y U M E G Y P T )

F r o m W . M . F l i n d e r s P e t r i e i n Ancient Egypt vi 19 21) , 1

whether the Proto-Palestinian inscriptions represent one or

more systems of writ ing.

1 0

Some inscriptions from the second millennium B.C., dis

covered outside of Palestine and as yet unreadable, should be

mentioned here because they may very well consti tute one of

the many attempts to create systems which everywhere in this

period began to spring up l ike mushrooms after a rain.

Among these in the first place belong the mysterious short

127

oi.uchicago.edu




F I G . 6 6 . E N I G M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N O N A S T E L E

F R O M B A L U A H IN T R A N S J O R D A N

From G. Horsfield a nd L . H. Vince nt, in

evue Biblique

xli

(1932 ) , 425

inscriptions found in Kahun in Fayyum (Fig. 65), supposedly

dated to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, that is,

from the first half of the second millennium B.C.

11

Another unreadable inscription on a stele of black basalt was

recent ly discovered at B alu ah in Tran sjord an

1 2

(Fig. 66).

According to fi t ienne Drioton, i ts date is later than Ramses III

(about 1200-1168 B.C.).is

F I G . 6 7 . — E N I G M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N F R O M B Y B L O S

IN SYRIA

From M. Dunand , Byblia

grammata

(Beyrouth, 1945), p. 136

1 2 8

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I T IC S Y L L A B A R I E S

dental discovery m

subterranean tunnel

peasant subsequently

tematic excavations

which yielded the ruins of the

ancient and prosperous town of

Ugarit . From the point of view

of the history of writing the most

important discovery consisted of a

number of clay tablets inscribed

in a peculiar kind of cuneiform

(Fig. 68) entirely unlike any other

known cuneiform writ ing. As the

writing is composed of a limited

number of signs and the division

of words is marked by a special

sign, the decipherment presented

no difficulties whatsoever. In fact,

the system was deciphered

>

An enigmatic inscription containing three l ines of writ ing

was found on a stone fragment in Syrian Byblos

14

(Fig. 67).

A similar type, represented by the Byblos syllabic writ ing and

presumably developed under Aegean influence, is discussed

elsewhere (seepp. 157ff.). Another

unreadable writ ing was discovered

on a statuette from Byblos.

15

One of the greatest archaeo

logical finds of all times was

made about twenty years ago

in the obscure little village of

Ras Shamrah, s i tuated a few

miles north of Latakiya (ancient

Laodicea), in Syria . The acci-

1928 of a

by a local

led to sys-

of the site

>-

,

(

FIG. 68 .

— R A S S H A M R A H

T A B L E T

From G. Virolleaud in

Syria,

xxi

(1940) , 250

was aecrpnerea in

dependent ly by Hans Bauer, E. Dhorme, and Ch. Virol leaud

within a few weeks after publication of the first texts—one of

the shortest cases of decipherment on record. The Ugarit ic

writing consists of thirty signs, of which twenty-seven are of

the usual Semitic type, expressing a consonant plus any vowel.

Exceptional in a Semitic system is the use of the three signs

expressing ' ,

H ,

and

u

respectively (Fig. 69). The writing is

da ted to ab ou t th e fourte enth ce ntu ry B.C. an d is used for a

1 2 9

oi.uchicago.edu




Semitic language closely akin to Phoenician and Hebrew,

and also for the Hurrian language which in this period was

widely spoken throughout vast areas in North Syria and

Mesopo tamia .

1 6

1 6 .

1 7 .

18 .

1 9 .

2 0 .

21 .

2 2 .

2 3 .

21*.

2 :

2 6 .

27 .

28 .

2 9 .

3 0 .

V

• -

K

V

<

t-

rr

»-»

B >

<

*

• -

g

P

D

N

Z

S

c

P

S

Q

R

I

6

T

>i

5

u

S

1 .

2 .

3 .

u.

5.

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

1 0 .

1 1 .

1 2 .

1 3 .

1U.

^• .

• > -

«-

r

f

« . •

e

t>-

f

*

*

l

p -

^

rrr

•r

>a

B

G

H

D

H

IN

Z

H

T

J

K

3

L

M

F I G . 6 9 . R A S S H A M R A H S Y L L A B A R Y

A variation of Ugarit ic writ ing has recently been discovered

on two inscriptions from Beth Shemesh and Mt. Tabor in

Palestine, suggesting that a type of cuneiform similar to that of

Ugarit ic may have been used in Palestine in the middle of the

second millennium B.C.

17

130

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I TI C S Y L L A B A R I E S

U nti l a bo ut the m iddle of the ig2o s the oldest S emitic

inscr iption , preserve d in the so-called alph abe tic

5

writ ing, was

thou gh t to be the famous M oabite s tone of K ing M esa , dated

to the middle of the ninth century B.G. Since then our know

ledge of Semitic epigraphy has increased greatly, thanks chiefly

to new finds at Byblos, which allow a more exact chronological

classification of the extant inscriptional material from the

earliest periods.

l {091-1 + vvVij9K

i^.vi) / i i7;^3 fc:3yi67 ^)iH^+»+fl^y^îKfM

FIG . 70.— AH IRA M INSCRIPTION FROM BYBLOS

From R. Dussaud in Syria, v (1924), p. 137, fig. 2, and p. 143, fig. 4*

At the present t ime the oldest of the Semitic inscriptions in

the new form of w rit ing is the inscription, on the A hi ra m

sarcophagus with the graffito incised on one of the walls of the

tomb of Ahiram, discovered at Byblos (Fig . 70) .

18

T h e usual

dat ing of the Ahiram inscript ions to the thir teenth century B.G.

rests solely upon st rat igraphic reconstruct ions based on com

parison with Egypt ian materials (see la ter) . Epigraphical ly

you nge r a re the inscript ions of A za rba al

1 9

and Yehimilk

2 0

from Byblos and the bronze arrowhead from Ruweiseh, in

L e b a n o n .

2 1

Final ly , from about the tenth century are the

inscript ion of A biba al ,

2 2

dated historically to the t ime of the

Egyptian king Sheshonq I (about 945-924 B.C.) , and that of

El iba a l ,

2 8

date d to the t ime of O sorkon I (abo ut 9 24- 895 B.C.),

son of Shesh onq I . D un an d s da t ing of the inscriptions of

131

oi.uchicago.edu




Sapatba 'a l and 'Abda 'a to the e igh teenth and seventeenth

centur ies

2 4

is without foundation.

2 6

A note of warning is necessary in connection with the

dating of the earliest Phoenician inscriptions. The epigraphic

differences between the oldest inscriptions—like those of

A hira m — and the younger ones—like those of A biba 'a l and

Ellb a'al— are so negligible th at one m ay justifiably w ond er

how correct i t is to assume th e wide gap of three h un dr ed years

between them . As the dat ing of the A biba 'a l and El lba 'a l

inscriptions to about the tenth century is beyond question, the

low ering of the d at e of the Ahir m an d rela ted inscriptions by

about two hundred years would seem to be much more

satisfactory from the epigraphical point of view.

2 6

On the basis of our knowledge of the earliest Semitic writings

we can reconstruct the following picture:—

The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions from about 1600-1500 B.C.

are written in a system consisting of a limited number of signs

of a definitely pictorial character. In other words, the pictures

of each sign can in most cases be recognized without much

difficulty. Exactly how many signs there are is unknown, since

the num be r of thirty-on e signs, cou nted by L eibovitch, m ay

have to be reduced somewhat if we take into consideration the

fact that some of the signs listed separately by him may be

merely variants of the same sign.

From approximately the same period but extending up to

about 1100

B.G.

are the Proto-Pa lest inian texts from G ezer,

Shechem, etc. Although some of the signs on the older inscrip

tions are pictorial in character, those on the later Proto-

Palestinian inscriptions are mainly l inear. The number of signs

is unk now n. D ue to the l imited m ater ial i t is impossible to m ake

any definite comparisons between the Proto-Sinait ic and Proto-

Palestinian writ ings. The latter may represent one or more

attempts to create a system identical in inner structure, but still

formally different in the choice of signs from that of the Proto-

Sinaitic inscriptions.

The as yet totally undeciphered inscriptions from Kahun,

BahVah, and Byblos may represent a few more attempts to

create systems similar in inner structure to those of the Proto-

Sinait ic and Proto-Palestinian inscriptions. The signs are

everywhere l inear in character.

The Ugaritic writing from the fourteenth century B.C. consists

1 3 2

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I T IC S Y L L A B A R I E S

of cuneiform signs and is therefore l inear in form. The attempts

of some scholars to derive the Ugarit ic system from either the

Proto-Sinai t ic wri t ing

27

or Mesopotamian cunei form

2 8

have

not been successful . Although foreign influence may have been

instrumental in the choice of some signs, in the majori ty of

cases the forms of the Ugaritic signs are the result of free

individual creat ion.

Finally, around iooo B.C. come the earliest Byblos inscrip

t ions A hira m , e tc .) w ri t ten in a system com posed of tw enty -two

signs purely l inear in appearance. Of al l the various Semitic

at tempts made in the second mil lennium

B.C.

to create a new

writing this one was by far the most successful. From it directly,

bo th from the structura l an d formal po int of view, are derived

F I G . 7 1 . P H O E N I C I A N I N S C R I P T I O N F R O M C Y P R U S

From Mark Lidzbarski,

andbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik

pi. vi, 2

three of the four main subdivisions of the Semitic writ ing

represen ted by the Ph oen ician Fig. 71), Pales t inian Fig. 72),

and Aram aic Fig. 73) bran che s. T h e fourth subdivision,

represented by the South A rabic br an ch Fig. 74), can only

indirect ly be derived from the Phoenician proto type . T h e Sou th

Arabic writ ings seem to have made their appearance in the first

half of the first millennium B.C., although both earlier and later

dates have been proposed by some scholars .

29

The wr i t i ng

consists of twe nty-n ine signs, a nu m be r w hich is almo st identical

with that of the Ugarit ic writ ing, but exceeds by seven the

number of signs in the Phoenician writ ing. The forms of the

South Arabic writ ing are al l l inear; while a few are identical

with those of the Phoenician writ ing, most of them were

independent ly created.

133

oi.uchicago.edu




The chart in Figure 75 attempts to bring together the signs

of the most important Semitic writ ings with their corresponding

values. N ote the g reat sim ilarity of form and nu m be r of signs

I

17/^^vvâ^ ^^^x^ <YVf « j

F I G . 7 2 . C A N A A N I T E I N S C R I P T I O N O F M E S A

K I N G O F M O A B

From Lidzbarski andbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik pi. i

in the Phoe nician Palest inian and Aram aic systems. T he larger

nu m be r of s igns in the U gari t ic South A rabic Ethio pic and

Arabic systems is due to the fact that these languages contain

a larger nu m be r of sounds th an the other S emitic langua ges.

134

oi.uchicago.edu



ggff§g ^

^3gBmm&

g

13

14

15

16

17

18

9

F I G . 7 3 . A R A M A I C I N S C R I P T I O N O F B A R -

RAKIB FROM ZIN CIRL I

F r o m L i d z b a r s k i

Handbuch der nordsemitischen

pigraphik p i . xx iv 1

oi.uchicago.edu




In the case of Ugaritic also the necessity of transliterating

Hurrian sounds, foreign to Semitic, may have stimulated the

creation of additional signs.

In saying that the Byblos wri t ing from Ahiram on may be

called the prototype of all the subsequent Semitic systems, we

do not wish to imply that this writ ing was necessarily invented

in Byblos or even in Phoenicia. It so happens that the earliest

extant inscriptions of this new form of writing come from

Byblos and Phoenicia, but nobody can deny the possibil i ty that

almost any site in the vast Semitic area extending from Sinai

UN I N(lo I o V J O H N t lo

YS I Y t M f t I ?Ht¥ I H>

o>4* I M I U1<>n I >oJo I ho

I ?0<M I oVXOIH I W1» I M

ft I ftXo M o I HoftNoA I oVHO

5

HNH° I o Y N IW h ? W I YM1

^TX A? I ^f t f t M t f l I oVft>

Ho | JXHoh | a>UYN°A 11© | oVh

I hn I a>HVh?>V 1101 HWA I X lh

V*H1fto | >X on | uxAftfl

I0

F I G . 7 4 . S O U T H A R A B I C

I N S C R I P T I O N

From K. Gonti Rossini, hrestomathia

r bic

Meridionalis Epigraphica

Roma,

1931), p. 46, No. 29

to no rth er n Syria could at least theore tically) be considered

the birthplace of the prototype of all the Semitic writings.

This is, in short, the story of the origins of the Semitic

wri t ings, from the various at te m pts in the mid dle of the second

millennium B.C. to the creation of a full system which after

1000 B.C. conq uered the S emitic world. O u r next pr ob lem is to

investigate the origin of this Semitic writing. As this is one of

the most discussed subjects in the field of Oriental studies, it

wou ld be possible w itho ut m uc h difficulty to w rite a wh ole book

on the question. The mere l ist ing of the various opinions would

require a large chapter entirely beyond the scope of the present

study. Suffice it to mention, therefore, that there is hardly a

136

oi.uchicago.edu



WEST SEMITIC SYLL B RIES

writ ing

in

the Ne ar East ,

and

even beyond tha t area, which

has

not been taken into consideration

by

one scholar

or

another

as

the a rche type

of the

Semit ic wri t ing. Fr om am ong

the

m a n y

T R A N S

L I T E R A T I O N

>

B

6

D

P

M

W

Z

H

H

T

z

i

K

I

M

U

S

*

G

F(P)

S

p

Q

R

S

s

T

T

U G A R I T I C

V

T

ux

f=

p * .

f

*

1

-r*

8

fc

TTT

-r

• * • -

Tf..,ft-r

4»

• A

fc

TT»»»PW

M ,

n>~

M

<l>

r

*

PHOEN ICIAN

K

*

1

4

i

Y

i

H

e

^

*

i

>

>

¥

o

?

h

*

PALESTINIAN

*

4

A

A

V

V

z

*

®

^

/

L

1

1

f

o

1

I

*

1

w

X

A R A M A I C

<

9

1

A

^

V

I

ft

9

%

1

I

1

1

f

0

1

h

9

<\

w

X

H E B R E W

K

a

3

T

n

i

i

n

tt

T

1

4

D

1

t>

bf

1

Y

?

i

i f

u/

J l

S Y R 1 A C

/

sD

0

J.

n

o

)

*,

-<>

«•

7

A

»

V

#

0

J

\

JO.

9

tA

L

A R A B I C

1

L/

I

s

g

?

)

I

i

*>

b

<J

V

J

f

u

i

I

c9

cP

Jo

O

)

W

iP

C

CJ

SOOTH ARABIC

rr

n

1

H

H

M

Q), °o

X

V

4

(D

*

?

rt

1

IB

S

X

o

n

0,4

A

B

•,•

)

rt

)

X

X

E T H I O P I C

*

/)

1

4

H

U

00

/fi

S

/n

f

h

*

*w

«l

O

4 ' M v

51

e

•

L

rt

w

t

F I G . 7 5 . — C O M P A R A T I V E C H A R T

OF TH

M O S T I M P O R T A N T

S E M I T I C W R I T I N G S

derivations which have been proposed

we

should note

at

least

Eg yp tian in i ts three forms hieroglyphic, hiera tic, an d dem otic)

Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Cretan, Cypriote , Hit t i te ,

South Arabic ,

and

Germanic runes .

Of

these

the

Egypt ian

theory

has

enjoyed

by far the

most po pu lar recept ion.

In all

137

oi.uchicago.edu




cases the approach was quite similar, as i t was based almost

exclusively on formal comparisons. This is the usual interpreta

t ion: First , the forms of the Semitic writ ing were derived

directly from the forms of Egyptian (hieroglyphic, hieratic, or

demotic); next, the values of the Egyptian word signs were

translated into a Semitic language, result ing in names for the

signs; and, finally, the Semitic values of the individual signs

were derived from the respective names through the so-called

acro ph on ic principle . T hu s, for instance, first the Eg ypt ian

sign for hou se was take n over by the Semites; next the

Egypt ian word p

x

r

x

for hou se was tran slated into Sem itic ith

(or the l ike) and became the name of the letter; and finally,

the sign ith received the value according to the acrophonic

princ iple. T h e derivation of the Sem itic w rit ing from Eg yptia n

received a certain am ou nt of sup por t from the evidence bro ug ht

forth by various scholars that both the Egyptian and Semitic

alphabets are identical in respect to the vowellessness of their

signs.

30

T h a t i t was necessary to prov e this self-apparent iden ti ty

only shows how blinded scholars were by the alleged im po rtan ce

of formal com parisons, neglecting entirely the evidence of inn er

structural value. Further impetus to the Egypt ian theory was

given by the discovery of the P roto-S inait ic inscriptions w rit ten

by Semites living in a territory controlled by Egypt, a fact

which easily lent itself to the conclusion that the Proto-Sinaitic

signs w ere the long-sought missing l ink betw een the E gy ptian

and later Semit ic forms.

3 1

Thus matters stood until about fifteen years ago when the

origins of the Semitic writ ing began to be investigated by a

group of scholars with a different approach to the problem.

Their chief idea was that , in the study of various systems

of writ ing, formal comparison of signs was given undue

im po rtan ce a t the expense of inne r struc tura l chara cterist ics.

This approach was not entirely new. Already in the days of the

First World War and a l i t t le la ter , both A. Hertz

3 2

and G. F.

L e h m a n n - H a u p t

3 3

expressed this idea an d b ro ug ht forth

evidence from many writ ings created among primitives, al l

showing forms of signs freely inve nted bu t with in ner struc tura l

characterist ics which could have been developed only under

the st imulus and influence of white men. But i t was not unti l

recently tha t a series of art icles by Jo ha nn es F rie dr ich ,

3 4

Rene

Dussaud ,

3 5

and Hans Bauer

3 6

began to give weight to the new

138

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I TI C S Y L L B R I E S

a pproa c h .

3 7

Of these the most pert inent to the quest ion of the

origin of the Sem itic writ ing is the clear an d logical p resen tation

in the posthumous work of Bauer, which will serve as the basis

for the following discussion. It is indeed a sad co m m en tary up on

the conservative at t i tude of some scholars in the Oriental field

that out of about a dozen art icles published in this country in

the last few years on the subject of the origins of the Semitic

writ ing, not one takes account of the new revolutionary

approach .

It has been stated above that the basic tenet of the older

school of investigators of the origin of the Semitic writing is that

th e classical Sem itic w rit ing from A h ir am on ) is com pose d of

a certain number of signs, al l formally borrowed from some

other system of wri t ing. I t should be rem em bered th at even

though of the various Oriental systems Egyptian seems at

present to be favoured, there is no such agreement as to which

form of Egypt ian—hieroglyphic , hierat ic , or demotic—should

be taken as the prototype of the Semitic forms. Even if the

problem could be l imited by general agreement to one of these

forms—let us say hieroglyphic—stil l the question would remain

as to which of the few hundred hieroglyphic signs should serve

as the basis from which the twenty-two Semitic signs are

derived. It is clear therefore that all the derivations of the

Sem itic signs from this or th at O rien tal w rit ing, or from an y

form of Egyptian, or from any group of signs within one form

of Egyptian, have so many weaknesses as to prevent the general

acceptance of any one of them. Compare the self-evident and

generally accepted derivation of the forms of the Greek

alphabet from a Semit ic wri t ing, of the Hurrian cuneiform

wri t ing from Mesopotamian cuneiform, of the Japanese

syllabary from Chinese, or even of the Cypriote syllabary from

Cretan. Many years ago I observed that wherever there is an

extended discussion in a history of writing, involving dozens of

divergent opinions on the formal derivation of a certain system,

the basic assumption becomes suspicious. Either the discussion

shou ld be limited b ecause the derivation is simple and gen erally

accepted—as in the case of the derivation of the Greek writ ing

from som e form of Sem itic— or th e listing of m an y differing

opinions only tends to prove that no correct interpretat ion of

a formal deriv ation exists, as in the case of the G erm an ic ru nes .

T h u s ,

I concluded that when there is no agreement as to the

139

oi.uchicago.edu



SYLLABIC WRITINGS

formal derivation of a system, the signs are usually not borrowed

from outside but freely and arbitrarily invented. How well

founded such doubts were in the case of the Semitic writing

may be seen from further evidence.

The signs of the Old Phoenician writing are said to have

originally represented pictures: The

^dleph

sign is supposed to

depict the form of an oxhead, the

beth

sign that of a house, and

so on down the list. But again, as in the case of the choice of

the Egyptian signs, there is no agreement among scholars as to

what picture each sign is supposed to represent.

3 8

For the

benefit of non-Semitists, it should be emphasized that scholars

do not interpret the

dleph

sign as an oxhead because this sign

resembles the form of an oxhead, but simply because i ts name,

i

i

.

he

nun

z yin

t w

nd

nd

nd

nd

H

?

e

heth

•

mem

s mekh

teth

•

F I G . 7 6 . F O R M A L D I F F E R E N T I A T I O N IN

S O M E W E S T S E M I T I C S I G N S

^dleph,

means ox in Semitic languages, thus suggesting that the

sign allegedly depicted the animal. None of the Semitic signs

was drawn in a form which would immediately betray i ts

pictorial character. The great difficulties in the interpretation

of the signs as pictures will be apparent in the discussion of the

following few examples. A number of signs, such as

he, heth,

teth, sadhe, bear name s wh ich can no t be explained w ith the help

of any Semitic language. Other names, such as

gimel, lamedh,

samekh,

qoph, which may exist in the Semitic languages, cannot

be interpreted easily as words fitting the pictures of the signs.

A few signs seemingly bear more than one name in different

periods or areas. Thus, the sign which in Canaanite bears the

n a m e

nun,

fish (to wh ich it shows no resem bla nce ), is called

nahds,

serpent, in Ethiopic. Moreover, i t was proposed that

140

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M IT IC S Y L L A B A R I E S

the sign zayin,' weapon? , ' o r ig ina l ly had the name zayit,

c

olive

(tree),

5

because of Greek zeta, jus t as G reek sigma seems to

favour something l ike sikm, 'shoulder,

5

for the sign usually

called

sin,

' tooth.

5 3 9

However, the best evidence that a t least

some of the signs do not originally represent pictures but are

the result of free and arbitrary choice comes from the observa

tion of pairs of similar forms no ted in Fig ur e 76. W h a t the se

cases show is that the signs he a n d helh, for insta nce , did no t

originate as two independent pictures, but that out of one

sign another s ign with a s imilar value was arbi t rari ly de

veloped by the addi t ion or subtract ion of a l inear detai l .

4 0

Another fundamental point brought forth in favour of the

Egyptian origin of the Semitic writ ing was that the Semites

first named the signs obtained from Egyptian and then by the

acrophonic principle derived the values of the signs from their

names. In other words, the Semites were supposed to have

nam ed things before they ha d acquired any mea ning A t least

in the history of writ ing there are no parallels for any such

development. In investigating various types of writ ings I have

found the following conditions affecting the names of signs:

Either the forms of the signs, their values, and their names are

all directly borrowed by one system from another, as in the case

of Greek from Semitic or Coptic from Greek; or the forms of

the signs and their values are borrowed, as in the case of Latin

from Greek or Armenian from Aramaic, and in subsequent

years the names of the signs are freely invented and added; or

finally the forms of the signs and their values are first freely

invented and then the sign names are added, as in the case of

the Slavonic Glagolitsa or the Germanic runes. The last case is

especially instructive for the correct understanding of the

situation in the Semitic writ ing. The names of signs of the

Glagolitsa alphabet, called azbuki after the first two letters az,

T ; buki, ' let ter

5

;

vedi,

'knowledge

5

;glagol, 'speech

5

; dobro, 'good,

5

etc. ) , and of the Anglo-Saxon runes, called futhorc after the

initials of the first five names feoh, 'money

5

; ur, 'aurochs

5

;

thorn, ' thorn

5

; os, 'god

5

; rdd, 'voyage

5

; cen, ' torch,

5

etc.), all have

one characteris t ic in common: There is no apparent re lat ion

between the forms of the signs and their names. Worthy of note

also is the fact that the names of the signs in the Anglo-Saxon

alphabet are sometimes different from those in the Norse runic

system, where we find the third letter called thurs, 'giant,

5

4

oi.uchicago.edu



SYLL BIC WRITINGS

O L D

PHOENICIAN

'

* b

1 3

A a

*

•>

V

w

I J

H b

e t

i i

v^

k

6

1

«

i

*.

• ¥ »

0 «

? p

K *



*

I »•

L a

I

1

* •

O th*

n kh»

d> ?k«,

Lu

fwu

+

k*

YEZTDT

1 t

A J

L v

0 v

R

i

H i 6

+ 5

OLD HUNGARIAN

-1 i

* P

Y 2

Z 5

H •

© i

h o

*

*'

o V

*

4

*

+

^

KOREAN

1

k

A

i

^ J*

H r

L

it

* J«

O v

NUMIOIAN

r J

I x ; Z j

H ?

N j

O r

v

-f

t

ANGLO SAXON

RUNIC

r I

*

•*

r x

N h

CS

s)

<?>)

t

-

+ j

SOMALI

7 '

Z a

H k

^

I

-I

b

«v

0 «i

1

i

*£ b

F I G . 7 7 . — F O R M A L CO M P AR IS O N OF SIGNS OF W E S T S E M I T I C

W R I T I N G W I T H S EV E N D I F F E R E N T W R I T I N G S

instead

of thorn

/ t h o r n ,

5

the

fifth

kaun

tumor, ins tead

of

cen

torch,

5

etc. The

choice

of

the respective names

is

apparen t ly

as free

as in our own

m nem onic device

for

teaching

the

a lphabe t

to

chi ldren:

A is for

app le ,

B is for

b u n n y ,

etc., or

in another system:

A is for

ape,

B is for

bear ,

etc. The

same

free choice

is

a p p a re n t

in the

n ames

of

signs used

by the

U ni ted Sta tes Arm y: ab le

for

A, b ake r

for

B , Ch ar l ie

for C,

42

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M IT IC S Y L L B R I E S

etc. , or, formerly, in the British N av y: ab le for A, bo y for B,

cast for C, etc.

If i t can be proved that the signs of the Old Phoenician

writing do not represent pictures, then it is useless to speak

ab ou t the derivatio n of the sign values by the so-called ac ro-

pho nic p rinc iple . A cco rding to this principle th e sign values

originated by using the first part of a word expressed in the

w ord sign and by c asting off the rest, as if we cho se, for ex am ple ,

a picture of a house to stand for

h

because hou se starts w ith

an

h

We have seen before that, at least in the case of the

Mesopotamian and Egyptian wri t ings, the principle of acro-

phony has no application as a system and even the sporadic

use of this principle in some other writings is conspicuous by

i ts rari ty and difficulty of in terp retat io n (see p . n o f . ) . In the

case of the Semitic writing, if the signs do not originally

represent pictures with logographic values i t is impossible, of

course, to argue that the syllabic or alphabetic values were

derived by the acrophonic (or any other) principle from

logographic values which did not exist .

Now that we have shown the weaknesses of the older and

sti ll generally a ccepte d th eory deriving th e forms of the Sem itic

writing from Egyptian we shall try to present the solution

suggested from the poin t of view of the new ap pro ac h, described

abov e on p . 138 f. In o rder to un de rst an d bet ter the origin

of the Semitic writing from the formal aspect we should first

consider the various possibilities in writings of the w orld outsid e

of the Semitic group:—

(1) T h e forms of the signs an d the ir values are borro w ed , as

in the case of Greek from Phoenician.

(2) The forms are all borrowed, but the values assigned are

partly borrowed, partly freely invented, as in the case of

Meroitic from Egyptian.

(3) The forms and values are partly borrowed, partly in

ven ted, as in the case of Sou th Ara bic from some N or th Sem itic

wri t ing.

(4) T h e forms are borrow ed b u t the values given to the signs

are new, as in the case of the Sauk or Fox wri t ing and normal

ly , of course, in cry pto gra ph y in the so-called sub st i tu t ion

ciphe r .

(5) The forms are part ly borrowed, part ly invented, with

143

oi.uchicago.edu




new values, as found, for example, in the case of the Cherokee

writing, built chiefly upon the forms of the Latin alphabet.

6) T h e forms a re freely inv ente d, with new values, as found

in a large number of writings such as Balti , Brahmi, Gelti-

berian, Korean, Glagol i tsa , Hungarian, Numidian, ogham,

runic Yezidi and

ma ny o the rs

created in m odern

times chiefly

am on g prim itive societies see p p . 206 flf.).

In view of what has been said in the preceding pages there

is no need to discuss the possibility that the forms of the Semitic

writing may have been borrowed from another system. Such

formal resemblances between Semitic and other writings as

have been brought out by various scholars can be due to

nothing but accident. What fallacious results can be reached on

the basis of un critic al com par ison of sign forms can be well seen

from our Figure 77 in which the signs of the Sem itic w riting

Ol M X O I K I X A ® A « I

l e s e n l e r n e n f r o h

F I G . 7 8 . E X C E R P T F R O M A W R I T I N G I N V E N T E D BY

A S C H O O L C H I L D

From H. Bauer in

Der Alte Orient

xx xvi, 1/2 i937)> 3

6

are compared formally with the signs of seven other different

writings, picked at random from among those which presum

ably used freely invented signs. While no common derivation

of any of the eight systems listed can be proved, they all

contain some signs which either are fully identical or show

great resemblances to each other. The reason for this is rather

obvious. Although theoretically there are no limits to the

number of linear forms which could be used for signs, in

practice simple forms of straight lines, triangles, squares, and

circles are usually chosen, since these can be easily learned and

remembered by the users of the system. The number of such

geom etric forms is rath er l imited. T hu s, Petrie l isted only ab ou t

sixty forms found by him as markings or signs in various

prehistoric and historic systems in the areas surrounding the

Medi terranean basin .

4 1

We may complete these remarks by giving in Figure 78 an

excerpt from a writing invented by a school child for the

purpose of secret intercommunicat ion.

4 2

T he

forms of

the

144

oi.uchicago.edu



Hier.

L in . A

L in . B

Hell.

G.-M.

Gl. Gyp.

V

\l

*

7T

T?

7

i

n

T

*

f

*

t

*

*

r

Y

y

y

r

r

r

01

r

*

t

f

t

?

If

Y

^

>*

y

H

h

i-

H

?

f

Y

t

w

*

*

T

A

f

^

*

F O

ifi A

1*

H OfcW ftt jm

F X )K +>K X

t

t

4

*

±

f

f

i

v

*

1

Ar

/ \n

An

it

W

W

* *

IsL

R<

k

\A>

* >

0|<l

^

%

X

+x

+^

t

- -X

+ x

M

M

W

/ ^ >

Hier.

Lin. A

Lin. B

Hell .

C.-M.

*

f

+ *

f

?:«

4

4

5

V

f

Y

v

i

*

ff

9

$

TT

£

$

e

©

©

$

H

ff

€

IS

B

§

I

0

H

N

N

& £

T

¥

H*

T T

ff

'f'Y

fl

ffl

n

3?

ffl

ffl

T

T

r

^

f

F

VS<

a s

t •

WJf

x

xc

2%

S5

2

zs

S*

^

•i

f

?

?

Q.

H

X

S

Si

H

Hier.

J

*

fl

Lin. A

Lin. B .

Hell .

CI. Gyp.

F I G . 7 9 . C Y P R O - M I N O A N C H A R A C T E R S W I T H M I N O A N A N D C LA S S IC A L C Y P R I O T E P A R A L L E L S

From J . F. Daniel in merican

Journal of Archaeology

xlv (1941), 254 and 286

oi.uchicago.edu



SYLL BIC WRITINGS

geometric signs in some cases strikingly resemble those of the

Sem itic w riting yet no bod y wo uld dare to suggest th at th e

child had any knowledge of Semitic epigraphy. Similar con

clusions may be drawn from an experiment reported by the

Dutch scholar Johannes de Groot

4 3

A nine year old girl

requested to compose an original alphabet created twenty-six

signs

of which seven corresponded exactly to those of the

Ph oen ician w riting while others resembled Sinaitic C reta n

and Cypriote forms.

H av ing e limina ted th e theory of foreign d erivation of the

Semitic signary and accepted that favouring original creation

we are stil l faced w ith the prob lem as to wh at forms— linear or

pictorial—lie at the basis of the Semitic signary. The forms as

they ap pe ar in the Sem it ic signary start ing with A hi ra m are

clearly l inear. But were they linear when first introduced by

the creators of this signary? Or are these l inear forms rather

the result of a development from originally pictorial forms?

Th is mu ch c an be said safely: O n the one han d it is clear from

Figure 76 that at least some of the signs of the Semitic signary

developed not from pictures but from linear forms. In support

of the l inear origin parallels from m an y writings listed un de r

N o.

6 on p . 144 can be quo ted. O n the other ha nd we should

remember the various Proto-Semitic systems in Sinai and in

Palest ine da ted to the period before the A hi ra m wri t ing using

to a great extent pictorial forms as signs. That pictures can in

the course of t ime develop into l inear forms is something quite

no rm al in all systems of w riting. But is the re a ny conne ction in

formal aspect between the Proto-Semitic signaries of Sinai and

Palest ine and the Semit ic signary of Ahiram and i ts descen

dants? This is a question which cannot be answered apodicti-

cally because of lack of comparative material . My own idea is

that around the middle of the second millennium B.C. several

writings using either pictorial or l inear forms originated in the

Sem itic are a. It is no t at all excluded that thro ug h m ut ua l

influence bo th pictorial and linear forms ma y hav e been used

in some of the systems.

The whole question of the formal aspect of the Proto-Semitic

and Semitic writings is of secondary importance in comparison

with that of the origin of the inner structure of these writings.

Different as these vario us writings ap pe ar in ou ter form they

are al l ident ical in their most important inner st ructural

146

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I TI C S Y L L B R I E S

characterist ic: They all consist of a l imited number of signs

(22-30) each of which expresses the exact consonant, but does

not indicate a vowel. In the generally accepted reading of Ht

on Proto-Sinaitic stelae, of

V

on a Proto-Palestinian sherd

from Tell el-Hesi, or of mlk on the Ahl ram sarcophagus , th i s

characteristic comes clearly to light. This is a system of writing

wh ich is norm ally called alpha betic

5

, but which, as we shall

try to prove in the following pages, is really a syllabic system

of writ ing.

The first question is: where did the Semites get the idea of

using signs which would indicate the consonants but not the

vowels? The answer can be given without any difficulty. Of the

three main groups of writ ing in the Near East which could be

taken into considerat ion—namely, Mesopotamian cuneiform,

Aegean, and Egyptian—only the last is identical with the

Semitic writing in its failure to specify the vowels. Out of the

complicated Egyptian system, composed of a few hundred word

signs an d o ther pho netic signs w ith one to three c onsonan ts, the

Semites evolved a simple system of their own by throwing

overboard all word signs and phonetic signs with two or more

consonants and retaining only those with one consonant. Thus,

the twenty-four simple signs of the Egyptian writ ing are

identical in inner structure with the twenty-two to thirty signs

of the various Semitic writ ings. The reason why the Semites

chose the Egyptian system rather than cuneiform or Aegean as

the prototype of their own writ ing may not be entirely due to

the close cultur al an d c om m ercial relations w hich existed in the

second m illennium B.C. betw een Syria an d Palestine on the one

hand and Egypt on the other. The main reason may l ie rather

in the fact that the genius of Egyptian writ ing was considered

better suited to the expression of the Semitic languages than

that of other Oriental writ ings. One should not forget that

Egypt ian belongs to the Hamit ic languages, which in the

widest sense should be considered a subdivision of the Proto-

Semitic group of languages.

Once the identity of the Egyptian and Semitic systems is

placed beyond the pale of doubt, the inevitable conclusion

must be drawn that either they all represent alphabets, as is

generally accepted, or syllabaries, as proposed in this study.

Therefore, al l the evidence brought together above in favour

of the syllabic character of the Egyptian writing (see pp. 75 ff.)

147

oi.uchicago.edu




may be used for the Semitic writing; and vice versa, whatever

evidence can be found to prove the syllabic character of the

Semitic writing should tend to support the conclusions drawn

above in respect to Egyptian.

It is not surprising that scholars regard the Egyptian and

Semitic systems as alphabets or really consonantal writ ings.

Looking in any of the modern Semitic alphabets at the writing,

for example, of ba by m eans of the bith sign plus a diacritic, it

seems natural to analyse the bith sign as the consonant b and

the diacrit ic mark as the vowel a. The result of this analysis of

modern Semitic alphabets, therefore, is to construe the older

Semitic writings, which do not use diacrit ic marks to indicate

the vowels, as consonantal only. What seems not to have

occurred to the scholars is the possibility that the modern

Semitic alphabets may not be identical in structure with their

earlier Semitic and Egyptian predecessors.

If the vowels are generally left unindicated in the older

Semitic writings, still there are cases in which the quality of the

vowel is expressed by m ean s of the so-called w eak con son ants.

This is what is normally called scriptio

plena

or

plene

writ ing ,

which will be extensively discussed elsewhere (see pp. 166 ff.).

In this writing the syllable za for example, may be written with

qyin p lus âleph jus t as the syllable ti may be wri t ten wi th taw

plusyodh. Scholars wh o bel ieve in the conson antal c ha rac ter of

the Sem itic writing do no t hesitate to transli tera te the two basic

signs in the above examples as the consonants z an d t respec

tively. What they overlook, however, is the fact that scriptio

plena is no t limited to the Sem itic writings b u t th at it occurs also

in many other systems, definitely and clearly syllabic. We have

referred above to a small number of signs in Mesopotamian

cuneiform which express a consonant without indicating a

vowel and thus are st ructural ly ident ical with norm al Eg yptian

an d Sem itic (see p p . 71 an d 7gf.)« A m on g these signs th ere

is,

for example, one containing

w

plus any vowel. This sign is

not transli terated as

w

as i t would normally be transli terated

in Egyptian or Semitic, but as

wa wi we wu

depending on the

linguistic si tuation. This discrepancy appears even more clearly

in cases in which a sign containing a vowel is attached to the

sign

wa wi we wu

to express the correct vowel as, for example,

in the writing of

wa-a

for

wa wi-i

fo r

wi

etc. , found regu larly

in Hattic, Hurrian, and Palaic texts from Bogazkoy (p. 171).

148

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M IT IC S Y L L B R I E S

Similarly, in transli terations of ia a

iox ya

or of

iu-u for

yu etc. ,

occurring in M esopotam ian cuneiform, i t is general ly adm it ted

that the cuneiform sign is

ia it ie iu

and no t t he consonan t^

alone . T he reason for this discrepancy is obvious. T h e cuneiform

writings are syllabic; therefore the signs in question cannot be

transl i terated otherwise than

wa

?

wi we wu

or

ia ii ie in

respectively. The Semitic writ ings are alleged to be alphabetic;

therefore the signs of identical structure are transli terated there

as consonants

w

o r

y

a lone. The incongruence of such t rans

li teration from the point of view of the theory of writ ing is

apparent. Since all the cases discussed above in the Semitic and

cuneiform wri t ings are ident ical in s t ructure, the respect ive

transli terations should be identical , that is, ei ther syllabic or

alphabetic. In view of the fact that the cuneiform writ ing is

definitely syllabic, the resulting conclusion is that the identical

Semitic spellings should also be considered syllabic and not

alphabet ic .

Another point in favour of the syllabic character of the

so-called Semitic alphabet

5

results from the investigation of

the

shewa

w rit ing. W hen , und er G reek influence, the Sem ites

introduced a vocalic system into their writ ing they created not

on ly som e dia cr itic m ar ks for full vow els, such as a i e o u but

also one mark called shewa w hich, wh en a ttac he d to a sign,

characterizes i t as a consonant alone or a consonant plus a very

short vowel e (intro du ced beca use of difficulties in p ro no un cin g

consonantal clusters). If the Semitic signs were originally con

sonantal— as is general ly claime d— then there would simply be

no use for the shewa m ark . T h e fact tha t the Semites felt th e

necessity of creatin g a m ark show ing lack of a vowel m eans th at

to them every sign originally stood for a full syllable, that is,

a consonant plus a vowel.

Even more important conclusions can be drawn from the

Ethiopic and Indie writ ings. The Ethiopic writ ing is a formal

development of South Arabic (see Fig. 75), and both of them

are formally identical with the Semitic writ ings in the north.

When, a few centuries after Christ , the Ethiopians decided to

introduce into their writ ing a system of vowel notation, they

invented not only special marks for the full vowels a 1 e u 0

but also one mark for the shewa as in North Semit ic . The most

important feature, however, is that the basic sign, without any

vowel marks, expressed not the consonant alone but a syllable

149

oi.uchicago.edu



SYLLABIC WRITINGS

consisting of a consonant plus the full vowel

a\

44

Surely, if the

Semitic writ ing were originally consonantal , one might legit i

mately have expected the basic sign, without any marks, to

express the consonant alone and a special mark invented for

the consonant plus the <2-vowel.

45

T h e si tuat ion in the I nd ie

systems is alm ost ide ntic al: special m ark s exist for the ind ivid ua l

vowels, one mark indicates no vowel, but a syllable consisting

of a consonant plus the vowel a is represented by the basic sign

without any addi t ional marks. The great s imilari ty or even

iden tity of the Eth iopic a nd In die systems is du e to the fact t ha t

structurally, if not formally, al l the various Indie writ ings are

derived from a Semitic prototype (see p. 187 f.).

From the fact that in the Indie and Ethiopic wri t ings a

consonant plus an 0-vowel is represented by the basic sign

w ithou t any marks a further conclusion ma y be dra w n, nam ely,

that in some Semitic writ ings the basic or rather the first value

of all signs was a consonant plus the vowel

a.

The basic value

of a consonant plus the vowel

a

developed in some systems into

rea l sign nam es as, for instance, in Ind ie. T h e sign nam es in th e

Arabic writ ing are the result of a mixture of two systems: some

Arabic names l ike alif, gim, ddl, ddl, kdf, lam, e tc. , are clearly

borrowed from a North Semitic writ ing, while others l ike bd,

ha, zd, hd, ha, td, e tc. , may attest to the existence in some

Sem itic writ ings of a system in w hich the sign nam es originated

from the first values of the signs, namely, from a consonant plus

the vowel a. However, this reconstruction may lose much of

its strength if the Arabic names of the bd, ha type should prov e

to be la ter innovat ions, l ike the modern Ethiopic names ha, Id,

etc. , used in place of the older hoi, lawe, e tc . 46

The various names of the mark denot ing the absence of the

vowel furnish additional and important evidence in favour of

the originally syllabic character of the Semitic and derived

wri t ings . Thus , the modern Hebrew name shewa is deriv ed

from a word

saw ,

nothing,

5

while the older Hebrew expression

hitpa goes back to the root htp m ean ing to t ake aw ay . T h e

Arabic word corresponding to the Hebrew

shew

is eithe r sukun

from the root

skn,

to be quiet , to be withou t motion,

5

o r

gezma,

from gzm, to cut, to cu t off

5

The Syr iac word

marhHdna,

from

the root rht, to run,

5

is used not only to indicate the absence

of the vowel but sometimes even that of a consonant which has

disappeared from spoken usage as, for example, in the writ ing

15

oi.uchicago.edu



W E S T S E M I T I C S Y L L A B A R I E S

of

m

e

ditto,

for the older

m dintd

(with a marhHdnd stroke over the

n

s ign). Finally, the derivation of the Sanskrit word

virdma

from the root

ram,

to bring to a stop, to rest, parallels closely

that of the Arabic

sukun.*

1

T h e implicat ions w hich can be

drawn, at least in the case of the names based on the roots

hip

a n d

gzm,

a re therefore that the shewa sign is used to denote the

cutting-off of the vowel value from the basically syllabic sign.

T he nam es based on the root m eanin g to rest m ay similarly

be taken to indicate the resting, that is, the non-pronunciation,

of an inherent vowel.

To the question whether there is any evidence in favour of

the theory here proposed in writ ings other than West Semitic,

the answer cannot be given in dogmatic terms. Perhaps the

following discussion will help to shed some light on the pr ob lem .

I t was observed long ago th at the La te Assyrian and Ba bylonian

texts frequently use ab no rm al spell ings w ith vowels inter pola ted

between consonants as, for example,

na-ta-ku-lu

fo r

natkulu,

a-pa-ta-lah

fo r

aptalah, li-qi-bi

for

liqbi, i-ku-bu-tu

for

ihbutu.

48

Especially important is the very frequent occurrence in this

period of spellings with a non-functional vowel after a con

sonant at the end of the word as, for example, in

ba-la-ta

for

baldt, a ra ku for ardk, na di na for nddin, ku-ti-mu for M m.

49

Both

Sigurd Ylvisake^

50

and Thork i ld Jacobsen

5 1

have tried to

explain the interpolations as anaptyctic vowels introduced

between any two consonants as a result of difficulties in

pronouncing consonantal clusters. Theoretically, at least , there

can be no serious objection against the development of

anaptyxis in late Assyro-Babylonian, as this phenomenon is

found in many languages of the world as, for instance, in our

own dialectal etem

5

for elm

5

. But even i f we admit anaptyxis

as the right interpretation for the vowels interpolated between

consonants, still the problem of the spellings with final vowels

is left unexplained. It seems to me that the question of vowels

interpolated between two consonants and that of vowels added

at the end of words should not be treated separately but as one

problem. The main reason for this assumption is the fact that

both phenomena seem to have made their appearance at the

same time in the late Assyro-Babylonian period. Therefore, i t

appears that , as the question of the final vowels cannot be

explained on a phonetic basis, so also the phonetic explanation

of the interpolated vowels should be aban don ed. Conseq uent ly ,

I 5

oi.uchicago.edu




i f the interpretat ion of both phenomena here discussed cannot

be supported by phonetic arguments, the only other possibil i ty

is interpretat ion on a graphic basis .

52

T h e n aga in, ther e is

noth ing in the cuneiform system of w rit ing which would sup po rt

such an interp reta tion . Cuneiform w rit ing is perfectly cap able

of expressing correctly words like natkulu o r baldt as na-at-ku-lu

or ba-la-at respectively, leaving entirely unex plain ed the

existence of such attested spellings as na-ta-ku-lu or ba-la-ta. But

we should remember that i t was not only the cuneiform writ ing

that was used in Mesopotamia in the late Assyro-Babylonian

period. This was the t ime when Aramaic influence began to be

preponderant in large parts of the Near East . How strong this

influence was, especially in Mesopotamia, is well attested by

the numerous Aramaic inscriptions discovered in both Assyria

and Babylonia, which clearly prove that the country was at that

t ime bil ingual and biscriptural . If, then, we understand the

Aramaic writ ing, l ike other Semitic writ ings, to be a system of

syllabic signs each expressing a consonant plus any vowel, we

can explain the abnormal cuneiform spell ings discussed above

very simply as a reflection of the Aramaic system.

5 3

In arguing in favour of the syllabic character of the Semitic

writ ings I do not stand alone. Years ago Franz Praetorius, in

comparing the Canaani te wri t ing with the Cypriote syl labary,

was forced to reach the conclusion that the former, too, was

a syllabary.

54

Another scholar, for reasons which are not

altogether clear, used the term Ph oen ician syllaba ry

5

.

5 5

S. Yeivin, in a short but stimulating article, identified both the

Egyptian and the West Semitic writ ings as syllabaries.

5 6

David

Diringer refers to the opinion of some scholars who believe that

the Semit ic a lphabet cannot be considered a t rue alphabet

because it does not possess vowels.

57

Relevant is the opinion of

Eduard Schwyzer, who interpreted the older, syl labic , value h

(besides h of the Greek eta a ls Rest der si lbischen Geltung im

phonikischen Alphabet

5

.

5 8

Here, too, should be mentioned the

opinion of Professor Arno Poebel, of the University of Chicago,

who regards the Semitic writ ing as a syllabary and not as an

alphabet on the basis of evidence furnished by the character of

the Ethio pic w rit ing (see p p . 149 f.) an d the A kka dian inter

po late d vowels (see p . 5 f.).59 However, Professor Poebel never

thought of the Egyptian writ ing as being syllabic and he did

not try to fit his interpretation into a general history of writing.

52

oi.uchicago.edu



C Y P R I O T E , P H A I S T O S , A N D B Y B L O S S Y L L A B A R I E S

It was only after all this discussion was written down that

a student in one of my classes called my attention to a remark

in a recent ly publ ished book by Edgar H. Sturtevant ,

6 0

from

which I learned that also the famous Danish scholar, Holger

Pedersen, understood both the Egyptian and Semitic writ ings

to be syllabic.

61

The interesting thing about this is that

Pedersen was able to reach what I believe to be the correct

solution of the problem not on the basis of any specific factual

evidence but from a correct evaluation of the theoretical

development of

wri t ing.

To be sure, Pedersen still speaks of the

Semit ic a lphabet

5

a nd places i t am ong the alphab et ical

systems , bu t in his und erstan ding of the Sem itic a lpha bet as

a syllable-script , which to us may seem to be a consonant

script ,

6 2

he expressed an opinion that is quite near the one

defended in this study.

6

AEGEAN SYLLABARIES

Under the heading of Aegean syl labaries we include the

Cypriote , Cypro-Minoan, Phaistos, and possibly the Byblos

syllabaries, al l of which originated under the direct or indirect

influence of one or m ore of the C reta n w ri t ings. Fro m the ty po

logical aspect the main characterist ic of the Aegean syllabaries

is the existence of syllabic signs expressing a vowel or a con

sonant plus a vowel.

At many sites on the island of Cyprus there have been

discovered inscriptions in a system of writing which we call

the C ypriote syllabary . W he n this w rit ing was deciph ered in

the second half of the past century i t was found that most of

the inscriptions were writ ten in the Greek language while a

few were in an ununderstandable autochthonous language of

Cyprus. At first , nothing was known about the origin of this

unique writ ing, which clearly had no connection with either

the Greek or the Phoenician system.

In the course of t ime Enkomi, or old Salamis, and other si tes

in Cyprus yielded some short inscriptions in characters which

could not be read. These Bronze Age inscriptions are now

dated to about 1500-1150

B.C.

and are thus considerably older

than the Iron Age inscriptions in the Cypriote syllabary which

was in use from ab ou t 700 to the first cen tury

B.C.

T h e relatively

long gap between the end of the Bronze Age writ ing and the

153

oi.uchicago.edu




beginning of the Cypriote syllabary is as yet difficult to explain.

Sir Arthur Evans proved, in my opinion convincingly, that

these enigmatic Bronze Age signs, which he called 'Cypro-

Minoan

5

, are definitely related to the Cretan script .

6 4

In fact,

as the Cretan influence on Cyprus is well attested for this

period, he concluded that the Cypro-Minoan wri t ing was a

provincial offshoot of Cretan. Evans also proved that the signs

of the later Cypriote syllabary can be l inked formally with the

Cre tan charac ters by way of the in termedia te Cyp ro-M inoan

signs.

T h e w hole pro ble m was restated in a full art icle by

John Frank l in Dan ie l .

6 5

Daniel reached the conclusion that

there are some 101 extant Cypro-Minoan inscript ions, a l l on

pottery, with sixty-three different signs plus ten additional

signs for numbers. The t ies between the Cypro-Minoan wri t -

FIG.

80. TH RE E SHO RT TEXTS

FR OM ENK OMI CYPRUS)

From A. Evans,

The

Palace

of Minos

iv

London, 1935), 760

ing on the one hand and Cre tan and la te r Cyprio te on the

other are shown in Figure 79. Figure 80 i l lustrates three short

tex ts f rom Enkomi which , l ike o ther Cypro-Minoan inscr ip

tions,

are characterized by extreme brevi ty (1-8 signs).

66

The classical Cypriote syllabary consists of fifty-six signs,

each of which stands for a syllable ending in a vowel (Fig. 81).

Double consonants, long vowels, pre-consonantal nasals, and

distinction between voiced, voiceless, and aspirated consonants

were not indicated in the writ ing. The syllabary was originally

devised for a non-Greek language and was badly suited to

express Greek, for which i t was later adapted. The following

examples best illustrate the difficulties:

to ko ro ne

stands for

TOV x P

0V

5 a-ti-ri-a-se = ccvSpiocs;

sa ta si ka ra te se

=

STOCCTI-

Kparris;

f ra fe ro

apyOpco;

a-to-ro-po-se=&vQpodiro orcn:po'nos

154

oi.uchicago.edu



Vowels

k

t

P

1

r

m

n

f, v

s

z

X

a,

ai

t t

h H

±±

V\N

2*d

T C

X

0

A

i X

S )

fc

X<?)

e .1

*

frtf;*

± vjZ

5

• 8 « < \

^SN/TAA

X

1

N *

2

=n

r f

t

t>

6

€

i

X

ÂT

T T t

^ X

L J Z ^

^ £

M T

tf

X

^ T

0 , CO

i£

H A

F1-A

5

ny?

+

£X°<

WAT

x >

? ? ?

^

^

55

w

T T

XX Tc

n

£> ILL

/7T\ /^k

\< *

>•

KG?

3

IG 8 l . CYPRI OTE SYLLABARY

From H. Jensen, Die Schrift (Gluckstadt und Hamburg, 1935), p. 97

or cxrpocpos

or

8opTros.

A

typical Cypriote inscription

is

shown

in Figure

82.

Entirely unique

is the

clay disk from Phaistos,

in

Crete

(Fig.

83),

dated

to the

seventeenth century B.C.

on the

basis

of stratigraphy.

The

lines

of

writing

are

arranged spirally.

Since

in

most pictographic writings

the

pictures normally face

toward

the

beginning

of the

line

it is

probably safe

to

assume

that

the

writing starts

at the

outside

of the

disk,

not in the

I §

82.—-A CYPRIOTE INSCRIPTION FROM EDALION

rom

Fossey,

Notices sur les

c r cteres

etrangers

p. 57

155

oi.uchicago.edu




centre. The signs represent distinctly recognizable pictures of

people anim als objects of daily life and buildings. Th e

strange thing about these pictures is that even though some

resemblances between them and the Cretan signs can be found

in general the forms are different. They clearly represent an

ind ivid ua l dev elop m en t. T he re are only forty-five different

signs used on the disk bu t takin g into conside ration th e relative

brevity of the inscription we may assume that the complete

system included about sixty signs. The number of signs used

and the fact that the words separated by vertical division lines

consist of tw o to five signs m akes it safe to assum e th a t th e

w ritin g is syllabic of the A ege an ty pe .

Perhaps the most unusual feature of the Phaistos disk is the

fact th a t the signs w ere no t incised w ith a stylus as could be

156

oi.uchicago.edu



C Y P R I O T E , P H A I S T O S , A N D B Y B L O S S Y L L A B A R I E S

expected with writ ing on clay, but that the individual signs

were made with stamps. This case of writ ing with movable

type is unique in the Aegean cultural area, al though parallels

can be found in Mesopotamia from the much later Assyrian

per iod .

6 7

Another system which may very well belong to the Aegean

group of syllabic writings was discovered recently in Syrian

Byblos, wh ere so m an y im po rta nt archaeological discoveries

have been made in the last few years. The first of the texts in

the n ew w riting ca m e to light in 1929 in the form of a fragm ent-

ary stone stela w ith ten lines of w riting Fig. 84 ). Su bse que ntly,

nine more inscriptions were dug up in Byblos, among which

w

r

ere two bronze tablets, four spatulae, and three stone inscrip-

tions.

All these texts have now been published by Maurice

FIG . 8 3 . PHAISTOS DISK

From A. J . Evans,

Scripta Minoa

i O xfo rd, 1909), pis. xii f.

157

oi.uchicago.edu




D u n a n d .

6 8

T h e w rit ing has only recen tly been discussed b y

the d is t inguished French Orien ta l i s t Edouard Dhorme.

6 9

According to Dhorme, there are fifty-three different signs in

one inscription which has a total of 217 signs, and sixty-four

different signs in another inscription which contains a total of

461 signs. H ow ev er, D u n a n d refers to 114 different signs in th e

Byblos wri t ing.

7 0

There seems to be a discrepancy here s ince

from th e existence of fifty-three an d sixty-four different signs

in two inscriptions of considerable length we should not ex

pect the ful l syl labary to contain more than about e ighty to

ninety signs. Elsewhere, Dhorme cal ls the Byblos wri t ing both

syllabic and alphabetic, and even insists that there are certain

syllabic signs w hich consist of a vowel plus conso nan t. T hes e are

F I G . 8 4 . B Y B L O S I N S C R I P T I O N

From M. Dunand ,

yblia gr mm t

(Beyrouth, 1945), p. 78

all facts which are incompatible with the type of syllabaries

known to us from the Aegean area and force us to conclude

th at th e Byblos w rit ing may b e of a char acte r different from the

A egea n syllabaries, unless, possibly, later revision an d clarifica

tion by Professor D ho rm e should rem ove som e of the difficulties

that stand in the way of an Aegean affi l iat ion. The language of

the Byblos inscriptions is tak en to be Sem itic an d, m ore speci

fically, Phoenician.

The dating of the new inscriptions is st i l l a moot problem.

While Dunand assigned them to the last quarter of the third

millennium or the first quarter of the second millennium,

Dhorme lowered the date to the fourteenth century B.C.

Important for the dating is to note that the other side of the

spa tula with the inscription o f A z ar ba al (see p . 131) con tains

signs which, according to Dunand himself

71

find best parallels

158

oi.uchicago.edu



J A P A N E S E S Y L L A B A R Y

in the signs of the ten Byblos inscriptions discussed abo ve. T hu s,

the date of the new Byblos writ ing may be considerably lower

than hi therto thought .


After a few centuries of cultural and commercial contact

between China and Japan the Chinese system of writ ing seems

to have m ade its appe aranc e in J a p a n some time in the f if th

century of our era. The Chinese word signs were simply taken

over by the Ja pa ne se and re ad no t w ith their C hinese values

bu t in Ja pa ne se . Th us , for exam ple, the Chinese wo rd sign nan,

south , was read in Jap an ese as minami wi th the m eaning

so uth . T he Chinese writ ing m ay h ave b een well suited to a

monosyl labic and isolat ing language in which grammatical

forms are norm ally expressed by syntactical position rath er th an

by special formatives. However, such a writing was not suited

to Ja pa ne se , a langu age w hich is polysyllabic and agglu tinative,

and expresses grammatical forms by means of special forma

tives. Therefore, the custom soon developed of employing some

of the Chinese word signs as syllabic signs to express the

gram m atical formatives of the Jap an ese langua ge. Original ly

the choice of the syllabic signs was unsystematic, and it was not

until about the ninth century that a stable syllabary with a

l imited number of s igns made i ts appearance.

Fro m the ninth century on, two formal types of the Ja pa ne se

syllabar y (the so-called kana, perhaps from kanna < kari na,

borrow ed nam es ) developed:—

( i ) T h e katakana, s ide kana, also known as Tamatogana,

Japanese kand {Tamato = J a p a n , gana = kana), developed

usual ly from par ts of the cha racte rs of the no rm al Chinese w ri t

ing (k ai-shu), an d used chiefly in scientific l i teratu re a nd pu blic

documents (Fig . 85) .

(2) The hiragana, s imple kana, developed from the cursive

Chinese writ ing (ts ao-shu), an d used extensively in ne w spap ers,

belles-lettres, and in general in daily life (Fig. 86).

The Japanese syllabary consists of forty-seven basic signs.

T h e k t k n is a simple system and easy to learn because of the

uniformity of the signs, while the

hiragana,

with i ts more than

300 va ria nt forms a nd the difficulties w hich arise in join ing the

signs, offers a co nside rably m ore com plex pic tur e. 72

159

oi.uchicago.edu



SYLLABIC WRITINGS

T he values of the Ja pa ne se syllabic signs are derived norm ally

from Chinese,

but

frequently with their Jap an ese pron unc ia

tion: Chinese

nu,

'slave,' is used for the syllable nu; Chinese

mao,

' ha i r , ' p ronounced

mo

in Japane se ,

is

used

for the

syllable

mo;

k ai-shu

m

4=

ff

M

m

&

^ 8 +

a

.n&

2.

m

ut

*

&

kata

kana

7

A

V

zc

5

fi

*

ir

V

ZJ

-9-

V

*

-fe

y

*

a

»

w

e

0

k

ki

ku

ke

ko

s

si

shi)

8U

se

so

t

k ai-shu

T

n

g

±

&

tr

WL

=t

TJ

A

It

*

M J S

ft

*

H H

kata

kana

?•

V

T

V

-r

-

*

j

/^

M

y

^ s

*

-r

i

i

ti

chi)

tu

tsu)

te

to

n

ni

nu

we

no

fa

ha)

fi

hi)

fu

/e

he)

fo

ho)

m

mi

k ai-shu

£

*

^

€

l i

&

a

'*•]

m

i t

a

H

ft

p

¥

—

kata

kana

A

y

•^

-V

^L

3

5

»J

; f

u

P

V

J^

ft

*

—

mu

me

mo

y

yu

yo

r

ri

ru

re

ro

w

we

wi

wo

—

F I G . 8 5 .—JAPANESE KATAKANA WRITING COMPARED WITH CHINESE

K ' A I - S H U

From Jensen

Die Schrift

p. 156

Chinese

fieri,

'heaven , ' p ronounced

te n)

in

J a p a n e s e ,

is

used

for the syllable te. Sometimes the Chinese sign is given its

Japanese va lue , as in Chinese sari, ' three , ' corresponding to

J a p a n e s e mi, 'three, ' giving rise to the syllable mi, or in C hinese

nil,

' w o m a n , 'J a p a n e s e

me,

'wo m an, ' result ing in th e syllable

me.

160

oi.uchicago.edu



# *

ff

a

¥

g

r

S

n

¥

ge

i f

S«

• r

za

zi

/C

Zll

te*

ze

7*

zo

da

4-*

di

,f

du

r

de

r

Ho

*

>>

ba

h*

bi

~f

bu

-xT

be

7ft

bo

o

pa

h°

P«

•7°

pu

0

(JC

* °

|>0


I n ad ditio n to the forty-seven basic signs of the

kana,

several

marks were developed

to

indicate various phonetic features.

T h u s ,

the mgon-mark is used to differentiate voiced consonants

from voiceless ones; the m^ra-mark, added to the syllables

Katakana

a ka sa ta na ha ma ya ra wa

^ i + - t i ')#

i

ki si

ti(tsi)

ni hi mi ri w i( i)

0 ? * 7 5C 7

U -

;L

u

ku su

tu(tsu)

nu hu mu yu ru

e ke se te ne he me ye re we (e)

* 3 7 h

/

ik *i

a

v>

?

o ko so to no ho mo yo ro wo

v (•>)

Hiragana

*>v tii*n%*bb r <r £ te w:

a

ka sa ta na ha ma ya ra wa ga za da ba pa

^ £ & > it ci <* 9

Z> $

£ t? « tf

i ki si ti, (tsi) m hi mi ri wi gi zi di bi pi

)<-]Ot\XVi9?>

4 ?• -?

x

J:

u

ku su tu, tsu) nu hu m u yu ru gu zu du bu pu

*

Q

<£

t SR - \ *> J t ft * i?' * t -V .-Y

e

ke se te ne he me ye re

we (e)

ge ze de be pe

ft t ^'E

< ftU

? £ * * r ft ft

o ko so to no ho mo y°

r o w o

g°

z 0

do ^° P°

A ,

(n)

F I G . 8 6 . — J A P A N E S E K A T A K A N A A ND H I R A G A N A W R I T IN G S

From Fossey, Notices

sur

les caracteres G rangers, f irst edition, p . 314

conta in ing h, changes their value to p; the to-mark ind ica tes

the doubling of consonants; a special sign for n, ng, and m is

used for syllables ending in these consonants and, finally, there

are two different marks, one indicating the reduplication of a

syllable and the oth er the re dup lication of two or mo re syllables.

161

oi.uchicago.edu




Even with their two fully developed syllabic systems the

Japanese could not persuade themselves to give up the old

Chinese logogra phy . T h e syl labic wri t ing is used norm ally in

chi ldre n s books; for all other pu rposes the Ja pa ne se use a typ e

of writing called Kanamajiri, which consists of a mixture of

word signs, called kanji, and of syllabic signs, called kana.

Whi le kanji is used mainly to express nouns, adjectives, and

verbs, kana is used m ain ly to express na m es , foreign w ords , as

well as gr am m atic al formatives, part icles, an d othe r pur ely

phonet ic elements. The uses of the

kana

signs in co nju nc tion

wi th the main

kanji

sign as syllabic helps in the reading of diffi-

cult word signs are of two classes:

Okurigana

( accomp any ing

kana ),

in which the signs are placed below the

kanji

sign to

indica te grammat ica l format ives ; and

hurigana

( scat tered

kana ),

in which the signs are placed to the right (very rarely to

the left) of the

kanji

s ign to indicate i ts pronunciat ion.

T h e efforts of some Ja pa ne se to simplify their w riting by

eliminating entirely the Chinese word signs have remained

unsuccessful up to now.

7 3

O B S E R V A T I O N S

Of all the various systems of writing the syllabic writings are

the easiest to evaluate. Actually our observations could be

limited to this short statement:

All syllabic writings are either

identical with, or

simplified

from, the

respective

syllabaries of the

word syllabic writings

from which they are derived

The following

short discussion is presented here to bring out more sharply

the existing similarities and divergencies.

The chart in Figure 87 shows the four types of syllabic

writing, namely the cuneiform, Semitic, Cypriote, and

Japanese syllabaries. The various cuneiform syllabaries of the

Elamites, Hurrians, Urartians, etc. , are all derived from the

Mesopotamian cuneiform both from the formal and the

structural point of view. The only difference is the lack of

dissyllabic signs in the derived systems, a fact which should not

surprise anyone who remembers that dissyllabic signs are rare

even in the Mesopotamian system. The various Semitic

syllabaries, different as they may be in their formal aspect, are

all derived structurally from the Egyptian; but while Egyptian

uses monosyllabic as well as dissyllabic signs, all ending in a

1 6 2

oi.uchicago.edu



O p e n M o n o

syllables

C lose M ono

syllables

Derived uneiform

Syllabaries

a ta

i ti

e te

u tu

at tarn

or ta-am)

i t t im

or t i-im)

en m en

or me-en)

ut turn

or tu-um)

West Semitic Syllabaries

>a t

a

>* ti

3

e t

e

3

u t

u

3° t°

3

a_t a t

a

-m

a )

)

-t

ti-m)

:>

e

-t

e

t

e

-m

e

>)

3

u

-t t

u

-m

ll

>)

j°-t

o>) t°-m

0)

)

ypriot

Syllabary

a ta

i ti

e te

u tu

o to

a- t a) ) ta-m a))

i-t i)) t i-m i))

e- t e) ) te-m e))

u- t u) ) tu-m u))

o- t o) ) to-m o))

Japanese Syllabary

a ta

i ti

e te

u tu

o to

a - t o /u ) ) t a -m o /u ) )

i - t o /u ) ) t i -m o /u ) )

e - t o /u ) ) t e -m o /u ) )

u - t o / u ) ) t u - m o / u ) )

o - t o /u ) ) t o -m o /u ) )

F I G . 8 7 . T Y P E S O F S Y L L A B I C S I GN S I N S Y L L A B I C W R I T I N G S

oi.uchicago.edu




vowel the Semitic syllabaries are restricted to monosyllables.

The Cypriote syllabary, formally connected with the Cretan

writing, consists only of open monosyllables with a clear

indication of the final vowel, and thus represents the structural

type well known in hieroglyphic Hitt i te and presumably in

other writ ings of the Aegean group. The Japanese syllabary is

formally derived from the Chinese writ ing. Structurally, how

ever, i t is farther removed from its Chinese prototype than are

the Near Eastern syllabaries from their respective word-syllabic

models. The creation of a syllabary consisting solely of mono

syllabic signs ending in a vowel may have been induced by the

cha racter of the Jap ane se lang uage w hich generally requires

open syllables as, for exam ple, in the words m ika do , Hir oh ito,

N aga sak i , etc. Therefore, th ere m ay not be a ny n eed for

assuming the influence of the Sanskrit writ ing upon the

Japanese, as suggested by some scholars.

7 4

The writing of close syllables in the derived syllabaries

parallels generally the methods used in the syllabaries of the

word-syl labic prototypes. Thus, the combinat ion

tapta

would

be writ ten as

tap-ta

or

ta-ap-ta

in cu neiform , as

t

a

-p

a

)-t

a

in

Semitic, and as

ta-p a)-ta

in Cypriote . In Japanese this would

be wri t ten

ta-p o)-ta

or

ta-p u)-ta,

since in this system the

consonant of a close syllable (usually in foreign words and

nam es) is expressed no rm ally by a syllable en din g in o or M.

It should be rem em bere d, how ever, tha t Ja pa ne se close syllables

ending in n, ng, and m are expressed by a special mark (see

p .

161). The writ ing of a syllable ending in two contiguous

consonants is similar to that of a syllable ending in one

consonant . Thus, a combinat ion tapt m ay be w ri t ten as tap-t a),

ta-ap-t a), ta-pa-at, or ta-ap-at in cuneiform, t

a

-p

a

)-t

a

) in

Semitic, ta-p a)-t a) in Cypriote, and ta-p o)-t o) o r ta-p u)-t u)

in Jap ane se .

The following is a comparative table showing the number of

signs as used in the four types of syllabaries:—

100-130 signs in the derived cuneiform syllabaries.

22-30 signs in the Semitic syllabaries.

56 signs in the Cypriote syllabary.

47 signs in the Japanese syllabary*

75

Much more on the structure of the syllabic systems can be

learned from the writ ings introduced among native societies

under the stimulus of white men and briefly discussed below

164

oi.uchicago.edu




in Chapter VII. This is a subject which would require special

treatment out of all proportion to the scope of the present

study.

Only two of the four systems here discussed employ syllabic

signs exclusively, namely the Semitic and the Cypriote

writ ings. The derived cuneiform writ ings carry with them a

limited n um be r of w ord signs, taken over from the M esopo-

tam ian cuneiform; and the Ja pa ne se syllabic system {hand is

used side by side with a number of Chinese word signs [kanji .

The respective similari t ies between the Mesopotamian,

Egyptian, and Hitt i te writ ings on the one hand and the

derived cuneiform, Semitic, and Cypriote syllabaries on the

other are so striking that one naturally wonders about the

reasons which prevented the word-syllabic systems from

developing locally into full syllabic writings. How close some

phases of the word-syllabic writings were to developing into

full syllabic systems may very well be observed by comparing

any of the Elamite, Hurrian, or Urartian texts with those of

the O ld Ak kadian or C app ado cian period of the M esopotam ian

w riting ; or any W est Sem itic text w ith the late Eg yptia n

texts discussed a bove in this study ; o r any Cy priote text w ith

the Hitt i te inscription transli terated and translated above,

all discussed above, p. 114. Still, near as some of the phases

of word-syllabic writings were to the development of a full

syllabary, they never quite reached it. The reason for this does

not lie solely in the conservative attachment of a people for

their own writing. It is rather the protection of vested interests

of a special caste, religious Eg ypt, Bab ylon ia), or political

China), that frequently may have been responsible for

m ain tain ing a difficult an d obsolete form of w riting, m ak ing

thus its general use by the people impossible. It is therefore

foreign peoples, not bound by local traditions and religious or

political interests of an alien group, that are frequently

responsible for introducing new and important developments

in the history of writing.

165

oi.uchicago.edu



V

T H E A L P H A B E T

I

F

the alphabet is defined as a system of signs expressing

single sounds of speech, then the first alphabet which can

justifiably be so called is the Greek alp ha be t. H ow ever,

. the new type of writ ing did not spring up suddenly on

Greek soil as a new an d stran ge blossom. W e have h ad occasion

on preceding pages to refer often enough to that important

aspect of evolution which shows that for every new feature in

a new type of writ ing parallels can be found in some older

types. And so i t happened with the Greek alphabet . I t s roots

and i ts background l ie in the Ancient Orient .

O R I E N T A L F O R E R U N N E R S

The old Hebrew writ ing, l ike other West Semitic systems,

used only syllabic signs beginning with a consonant and ending

in any vow el. I n ord er to indic ate the exact ch ara cter of a long

vow el, syllabic signs be gin nin g with a so-called w eak co n

son an t w ere frequently add ed to the pre ced ing syllable to form

a unit which is known as scriptio plena or plene wri t ing. Thus, the

na m e D av id was wri t ten in old H ebre w as

D

a

w

l

d

{i)

in scriptio

defectiva,

but as

D

a

w

i

y

i

d

U)

in scriptio

plena.

The signjy* does not

stand here for an independent syllable; i ts sole purpose is to

make sure that the previous syllable

w

l

will be read as

wi

and

not

wa, we, wu,

or

wo.

Similarly, the addit ion of

w

u

in the plene

spelling of

^s

u

w

u

r

{u

\

as co ntra sted w ith the defective spelling

) a

? r

( u )

for

Assiir,

A ssyria , m ad e i t certa in that a t least the

syllable

su

wo uld be rea d with the correct vow el. Th ese

addit ional signs helping in the reading of the vowel of the

preceding syllable are called matres

lectionis,

evidently a transla

t ion-borrow ing from the H eb rew expression mmoth

haqq

e

ri>ah,

66

oi.uchicago.edu




mo thers of readin g. According to the He brew scholar, David

Q im hi, the re are ten vowels in H eb rew , five long (mothers) and

five short (daughters) vowels, without the aid of which no letter

can be p ronounced .

1

How old the biblical

plene

writ ing is can not be ascertained

because of the manifold difficulties with the dating of the

M assoretic text. T h a t the device was no t freely inve nted b y the

Hebrews can be seen from the fact that many systems of writing,

much older than even the oldest sources of the Bible, make

extensive use of it.

The standard interpretat ion of the bibl ical mattes

lectionis

is

that they have developed from original diphthongs which were

later contracted into long vowels.

2

Thus, the biblical spelling

wi th w

x

in y

x

w

x

m

x

for y6m, da y, is supposed ly du e to the fact

that this word actually was pronounced at one t ime something

likeyawm, an d only after it was co ntra cted toy6m did the idea

originate among the ancients that such full spellings could serve

the purpose of vowel indication. Against this interpretation we

m ay add uce the fact th at the con tract ion of

w

to 6 , ay to e took

place in the middle of the second millennium B.C. long before

the introduction of a full system of writing in Palestine and that

scriptio plen

occurs chiefly in the case of the plural ending -im,

ot, and the ist person pronominal suffix -I, which are not due to

contraction. Furthermore, as we shall see later, the

scriptio plen

device occurs in many writings—Semitic and non-Semitic—

where it could never be explained as originating from a

diphthongal contract ion.

If we disrega rd the dou btful occurre nces of

plene

writ ing in

the U ga rit ic inscriptions from R as S h am ra h (see p p . 129 f.)

and the earliest Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos (see pp.

131 f.), then the first sure evidence for the

plene

w rit ing is found

in the ninth c entury , in the Mes a

c

inscription and in the earliest

texts from Zincirli (see p. 133).

3

The

plene

writing at first is at

tested mainly in the final position, as in the spelling of

Da

by

{

for

°abi,

m y fa ther , or

w

a

s

a

m

u

w

u

for

wasamit,

a nd they set. In

later t imes it is freque ntly found bo th in the final an d m ed ial

portions. Compare, e.g. , the spellings of

z

a:>a

t

{a

for

zdt,

th i s ,

(feminine) as against

z

a

t

{a

; z

e

h

e

for

ze,

th is , (mascul ine) as

against z

e

; w

x

y

x

l

x

k

u

w

u

, they we nt , as agains t y

x

z

x

b

x

h

u

, the y will

sacrifice ; b

a

nHy

l

a n d

fcnyH

for baniti, T built , as again st

b

a

nH\

A

Besides the signs

^dleph,

he, wdw, a n d yodh also the signs

167

oi.uchicago.edu



T H E L P H B E T

heth

an d

c

ayin

b

are used as

matres lectionis

though only in la te

Semitic writ ings. In the course of years the device grew more

common unt i l i t reached a rather high degree of systematiza-

t ion in the neo-Punic, Mandean, and other la te Semit ic sys

tems of writ ing. To what extent this full Semitic device of

vowel indicat ion is the resul t of natural development and to

what extent i t may have been influenced by the classical writ

ings (La tin or Gr eek ) is ra th er difficult to decid e.

The principle of vowel indication by means of

matres lectionis

which we found in the Semitic writings corresponds to what is

know n in Egyp t ian und er the na m e of syllabic o rthog rap hy .

Much as I agree with W. F. Albright

6

and his predecessors on

the m ean ing and aims of the Eg yptia n syllabic orthog raph y

5

,

I cannot accept this term. Since in my reconstruction the

normal Egyptian phonetic, non-semantic writ ing is syllabic,

the so-called syllabic orth og rap hy w ith i ts

plene

writ ing

represents a stage of writing in the process of developing from

a syllabary toward an alphabet. However, this Egyptian system

cannot be called an alphabet because the method of indicating

vowels is still very inconsistent in com pariso n w ith full alp ha be ts

of the Greek type. For that reason I prefer to use the term

plene

w riting take n over from the Sem itic or even gro up w rit ing

advoca ted by W ill iam F. Edger ton

7

following Alan H.

Gard iner .

According to the evidence brought forth by Albright, the

Egypt ian plene o r group w ri t ing m ade i ts appea ran ce abo ut

2000 B.C., during the Middle Kingdom, in the so-called

execration texts containing curses cast upon rulers of foreign

lands. In subsequent centuries the device grew rapidly unti l i t

reached the apex of i ts development in the New Kingdom

during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynast ies , which ruled

from the sixteenth to thirteenth centuries. From that period on

the Egypt ian

plene

writ ing proceeded on i ts downward course of

corrupt ion unt i l i t became completely amorphous by the tenth

century B.C.

8

Fro m the ev idence addu ced by Edger ton we

know of some examples of plene writing going as far back as the

Pyramid Texts of the first Egyptian dynasties.

9

T h a t me a n s

th a t this device was no t sudd enly inv en ted ar ou nd 2000 B.C.,

but was the result of a slow and gradual development fully

comparable with that found in the Semitic writ ings. It is

enough if we recall the rare use of the

plene

w rit ing in the early

168

oi.uchicago.edu



ORIENTAL FORERUNNERS

Semitic writings as compared wi th the fuller system of neo-

Pun ic . In the case of the Egypt ian plene wri t ing, it may be

suggested that the need to t ransli terate exactly the names of

foreign rulers and lands during the periods of intensive foreign

contacts which took place between the twelfth and n ineteenth

dynasties m ay ha ve been th e stimulus ma inly responsible for the

systematization of a device used only irregularly in previous

periods.

H e re

are a

few specific examples ofplene writ ing

in

Eg ypt ian :

T

x

-w

x

-n

x

-j

x

~p

x

>

x

->

x

or

T

x

-w

x

-n

x

-p

x

for the

Syrian ci ty T un ip ;

px-w

x

-t

x

-w

x

-h

x

-i

x

-p

x:,x

for the

n a m e

of the

Hi t t i te queen Putu-

H i p a ; D

x

--

x

-p

x

-w

x

-n

x

-

DX

for the

G anaa ni te geographica l te rm

Sapt ina , Sapon; Q

x

-^-r

{x

-q

x

->

x

-m

x

-s

x

^

x

or ^ . V f - f -

M

- w * f -

s

x

-

DX

for the

Syrian ci ty Car chem ish,

old

Karkamisa (s )

or

K a rk a m i s ; N*->*-h

x

-r

x

-i

x

-n

x

r

ix

, J\f*-h

x

-r

x

-i

x

-n

x

, W-hP-r^jf-ri*-™,

or J\f

x

^h

x

-

rx

-r

x

-i

x

-n

x

^

x

for

N a h a r i n a

or

Nahr ina , M esopo tamia ;

Qxj> x^^xjix^y^xji x^flxji x_^xj>x Qx_^ x_^x„y^x_ i

x_£x_-i

x_yiXji x Qx_^x_ Jx_

>*-

w

x_ix_

ix_>x_

n

x_>x

f

or

the

Anato l ian count ry K iz(zu)w at(a)na .

In

the

above examples

we

find

the

syllabic signs co ntain ing

initial

,

w,

and

i

used

as

m tres lectionis.

The

use

of

w

x

and

i

x

in

these examples to indicate the respective vowels

u

and

i

is

self-

evident. But besides the clea r cases of the sign con taining

3

for

the vowel

a,

as in the spel ling of N ah (a) rm a, there are others in

which this sign

is

used

in

grou p wri tings presum ably requiring

only a consonant . What is the reason for the final >

x

in the

names Tun ip

or

Karkamis? Even

the

arg um en t th at this sign

may represent the vowel

a

of su ch old Semitic nam es as Q a t n a ,

Kassapa , Hasf i ra , and m an y others, w ould sti ll leave un

explained the spell ing w ith

i

x

after

r

x

in the n a m e K a rk a m i s .

The correct interpretat ion of these ana ptyc tic vowels, m edial

and final,

in the

Egy ptian g roup w ri ting remains

a

p roblem

to

be tackled in the future by scholars interes ted in this subject.

10

One does

not

have

to be a

t rained Egyptologist

to

recognize

tha t

the

Egypt ian matres lectionis

are

functional

in

character.

T o the historian of writ ing the parallels from the Semitic and

other systems alone prove the po int conclusively. O f course, the

system as reconstructed by Albr ight may not be t rue in all

details, and there are m an y cases of inconsistent spelling wh ich

may speak against the in terpretat ion of this or that reading.

For instance, I feel very strongly th at A lbright s intre pre tation

of some sign groups as simple consonants, such as

k

or

r,

or as

169

oi.uchicago.edu



THE LPH BET

syllables beginning with a vowel and ending in a consonant ,

such as an in un ar ir ur will have to be revised. If it is

accepted that the basic Eg ypt ian pho net ic , non-sem antic

writing consists only

of

syllabic signs beg innin g w ith

a

con

son ant (see pp . 75 ff.), then the group writ ing developed from it

should have syllabic signs of ident ical s t ruc ture. T he re is no

need for transli terations of the type r or ar since parallels w ith

such syllabic writings as hieroglyphic H itt i te wou ld allow

transli terations as r

{x

\ r

{a

\ or the like for a syllable in w hich the

final vowel is s i l en t .

u

I n the article quo ted abov e on p. 168, Professor E dg erto n

makes

the

stateme nt tha t 'Albright ' s syl labic theory

of Egypt ian group-wri t ing has certainly not been proved.

The weight

of

evidence

is

clearly

and

strongly against

it ;

then after quoting some examples for which an in terpre ta

tion as syllabic .writing can be suggested, be it only a somew hat

remote possibil i ty ' , he concludes: It is my considered opinion

t h a t no Egyptian scribe of the Nineteenth Dynasty or earlier

ever consciously attempted to represent a vowel sound in

hieroglyphic

or

hierat ic wri t ing

by any

device wh atever. '

1 2

This means, in short , that the addi t ion of various signs in the

Egyptian group wri t ing has no function w hatsoever, and is due

simply to the whims of various scribal schools. M uc h as I

respect the scholarly opinions of m y g ood friend and colleague,

this is a statement which I cannot leave unchal lenged. Of

course, there are many inconsistencies in the Egy ptian w ri t ing

due to personal whim , as there are in other w ritings or, for tha t

ma t t e r , in all phases of hum an behav iou r and cul ture . But the

existence of these inconsistencies should not lead us to the blind

denial of important principles or systems go vern ing the m ajority

of cases. To anybody who, l ike myself, has been brou ght up on

the proposi t ion that all life is governed by rules and principles,

how ever inconsistently they may be applied in pract ice, a state

ment referring to the 'ut terly unsystematic character of

Eg yp tian w rit ing' sounds almost l ike heresy. Such a statement

can be challenged not only on general principle but, more than

tha t ,

it can be

proved

to be

most improbable

in the

case

of

Egyptian writ ing from comparison with many other systems.

What should we say ab ou t such spellings as n

x

d

x

r

x

n

xcx

d

x

r

x

and

n

x

d

xc x

r

x

/vow ;

s

x

m

xcx

, s

x

m

x

^

x

,

s

x

m

x

m

x

,

and s

xcx

m

x

™ he h e a rd ' ;

1 3

or b

xcx

l

x

and b

xlx

l

xyx

' lord

5

, all found in neo-P unic? Surely the

170

oi.uchicago.edu




existence of a general principle governing the indication of

vowels by means of separate signs cannot be denied in the

neo-Punic writ ing. That vowels are indicated in some places

and not in others, or that they appear in places where we

should not expect them norm ally, only shows how inconsistently

or even erroneously this principle was applied in neo-Punic

texts, but the validity of the principle is left unimpaired. If this

principle is accepted for neo-Punic then, from the point of view

of the theory of writing, it must apply also for the parallel

system of vowel indication in the Egyptian group writ ing.

The system of vowel indication is found not only in writings

which normally do not express the vowels, such as Semitic and

Egyptian, but also in purely syllabic writings, such as cuneiform

and Hittite hieroglyphic, which often fail to express the vowels

adequately .

The normal way to indicate vocal ic length in the Meso-

potamian cuneiform writ ing in the later Assyrian periods is by

the addition of a vowel sign to a preceding syllable ending in a

vowel. Thu s, da da) o r di di) ar e spelled da a or di-i, in contrast

to the spellings

da

o r

di

w hich stand norm ally for short

da

o r

di

respectively. However, in such spellings as

m

As-su-ra-iu-u,

u

Assyrian , the com binat ion iu-u does no t stan d for yu (or yu)

but for simple yu. Similarly, the spell ing lis-°a-a-lu, may they

ask, frequently found in late Assyrian letters,

1 5

does not

correspond to UPdlu, but to lis*alii. Even mo re indicat ive are

the spellings wa

a

-sa-ah

y

at-ta-an-ni-wi^-na, wu^-la-a-si-na, and

many others found in the Hat t ic , Hurrian, and Palaic cunei

form texts from Bogazkoy.

1 6

Here the sign wa, wi, wu is written

in its normal size, while the vowel signs a, z, and u a re drawn

much smaller and in a form making one unit with the

preceding wa, wi, wu s ign. It will be noted immediately that in

all these cases the vowel signs are added to those syllabic signs

which in the cuneiform system have the value of a consonant

plus any vowel (see p p . 71 f.). As this vowel is not ind ica ted ,

a device was created to eliminate this shortcoming of the

cuneiform system by the addition of vowel signs.

W e hav e seen in ou r discussion on p p . 69 ff. th a t th e cun ei

form system of writing usually indicated vowel differences by

m eans of sep ara te signs, as in th e signs da and du for the syllables

da a nd du respectively. Fr eq ue ntly , how ever, these vowels wer e

indicated inadequately, as in the signs which can be read li or

1 7 1

oi.uchicago.edu




ie

}

ri o r re ig o r eg and in many others. This inadequacy, added

to that of the signs which leave the vowel entirely unindicated,

as in the sign representing wa w i we or wu led to a device of

vowel indicatio n w hich found its best expression in the H ur ri an

system of cuneiform writing as used in Mesopotamia in the

second half of the second millennium B.C. (see p. 121). Thus, in

the spelling of i-i-al-le-e-ni-i-in for iyallenin the vowel sign e

added to li insures that this sign will be read as le and not li

just as the vowel sign i added to ni indicates the pronunciat ion

ni and not ne. T o b e sure, in the latter case the ad dition of i

seems to be unnecessary because the reading of ni is already

determined by the vowel of the sign in . Numerous cases of this

type only show that, from a device which originally grew out of

the necessity to indicate the vowels adequately, an enlarged

system was gradual ly developed which al lowed the regular

addition of vowel signs even in cases where the vowels were

clearly determined. But, as can be seen from such different

spellings as

se-e-ha-la se-ka-a-la

or

se-ha-la-a

this principle was

used very inconsistently.

1 7

Similar vowel indication is found also in systems which

regularly indicate all vowel differences. In hieroglyphic Hittite

the syllable

ta

in the word

ayata

he will make, is expressed by

means of one syllabic sign

ta .

But besides

a-i-a-ta

also the

spelling

a-i-a-ta-a

occurs. T h e final vowel sign is no t used he re

to indicate the pronunciat ion

ayata ayataa

or the like, but to

show that the word is pronounced

ayata

and not

ayat.

This

device was im pe rat ive in a system in w hich close syllables could

be written only by means of syllabic signs consisting of a

consonant and a vowel.

The Persian cuneiform writing was used between the sixth

and fourth centuries B.C. during the period of the Achaemenid

Dynasty. Being a cuneiform writing i t could only have

originated under the Mesopotamian st imulus, al though the

forms of the individual signs in the Persian system cannot be

derived from any other system of cuneiform writing. As in the

case of the Ugaritic system (see p. 129), the forms of the

Persian signs are the result of free individual creation.

The Persian writing is a mixed system. It consists of only

41 signs, of which 36 are syllabic, four are signs for the words

king, land, province , and A hu ram az da , and one is a word

sep ara tor. O f the 36 syllabic signs, thr ee different signs are used

172

oi.uchicago.edu




for the vowels a, i, and u, and six different signs for the syllables

da, di, du and ma, mi, mu. Five signs stand for a consonant plus

vowel a or i ga = gi, ka — ki, na = ni, ra — ri, ta — ti),

while five addit ional signs denote the consonant plus vowel

u

gu, ku, nu, ru tu); two signs stand for a consonant plus vowel

a or u {ja = ju, wa = wu) while two addit ional signs denote

the consonant plus vowel i ji, wi). In all other cases one sign

stands for a consonant with any of the three vowels b, c,

g,

f,

h,

h,y>

/,

p, s, s, t,

a n d

z

Fig. 88 ).

In the Persian system simple consonants are expressed by

syllabic signs ending in

a,

as in the writing

a-da-m a)

for

adam,

but also, at least theoretically, for

adm

or

adma.

The long vowel

a

is indicated by the addition of the vowel sign

a,

for example,

in the spelling

oiha-ca-a

for

hacd

Bu t th at this is a later d eve lop -

m en t an d th at originally the ad dit ion of vowel signs did no t

serve to indicate vowel length can be deduced from such cases

as

u-ta-a = uta.

From the paral le ls in the Hit t i te hiero-

glyphic writ ing just discussed we can judge that the sign

a

was

added to

ta

to m ake sure tha t the whole word would be

pronounced

uta

and no t

ut.

Even more instructive is the

comparison of some Persian spell ings with those in the Hurrian

system of writing. I refer to such spellings as

di-i

for

di

or

ku-u

for

ku,

in which apparently there is no need for writ ing the

vowel signs i or u, since the vowels of the syllabic signs d i and ku

can be read in only one way. All these features ind icate th at the

Persian writing was in the transition stage from a syllabic to an

alphabetic system.

The main problem in connect ion with the origin of the

Persian cuneiform writ ing is whether i t was created suddenly as

a full system or whether it was the result of a slow and gradual

evolution. In favour of the first alternative we may refer to some

tradi t ional argu m ents supp ort ing the creat ion of Persian w ri t ing

during the t ime of Darius. .

18

If this al ternative be true, then

a simple statem ent of fact wou ld ob viate an y further specula-

t ion. The Persian cuneiform writ ing is a mixed system. Of the

22 consonan ts of Persian lang uag e, 13 are represen ted b y

sign

each, 7 by 2 signs each, and only 2 consonants are represented

by 3 signs each. Thus, the Persian writ ing would seem to be a

concoction based on two foreign systems. The structure of the

13 Persian signs expressing a consonant but not indicating the

vowel would be identical in principle with that of the Egyptian

J73

oi.uchicago.edu



THE LPH BET

Vowels

b

V

c

9

d

f

g

h

h

y

k

a

r r r

s r

rr

r f

to-

r r

W

< f Y -

<S<

«rr

T < -

r <

rt

i

r r

Sf+i

fr*— ••«-

r ? + «-

£rr

K < + t

< T > K

<£<+i

« T f - n

Kî-

^ I H

YSH

u

< f r

fcT+u

rr^+n

f f +

< S r

?«+a

<£

<£<+*

« r r +

f< «-+u

*~f<+u

< v

i

m

n

P

t

s

s

t

t

w

z

a

- t r

^w

<

*

£T

r£

r

f c f r F

K T

*-T5

W

i

^fcf+l

ftt

Ja(+i

*l

+l

3f+

l

T*E+<<

« + i

W + i

r < r + t

*

M M

u

-fcf+a

« t

f j + W

K<

+tt

r r r

r < r + u

• T ^ + «

Hf+«-

F I G . 8 8 . OLD P E R S I A N S Y L L A B A R Y

and West Semitic writ ings; al though some signs

of the

same

stru ctu re exist also

in the

M eso po tam ian cuneiform system, they

are

so few see pp. 71 ff.)

t ha t

it

would

be

difficult

to

suggest

174

oi.uchicago.edu




that they had formed the basis for this Persian development.

The rest of the Persian signs, expressing a consonant and, more

or less exactly, also the vowel, would then be formed on the

pa t tern of the M esopotam ian wri t ing. How ever, one m ust

remember that there are some st rong arguments against the

thesis of a sudden creation of the Pe rsian writ ing un de r D arius ,

1 9

and consequently we may have to reckon with the possibil i ty of

a slow and gradual evolution. If this alternative be true, then i t

is possible to visualize two lines of evolution, depending on

whether one takes the West Semitic or the Mesopotamian

system as the prototype of the further Persian development.

Taking the Semitic system as the basis, the original Persian

writing should be reconstructed as consisting of 23 signs each

expressing a consonant but not indicating the vowel, or possibly

of 22 such signs plus th re e special vow el signs as, e.g., in

Ugaritic). To this basic system seven syllabic signs containing i

and four containing u and possibly the three vowel signs,

would hav e been added in the course of t ime. T he ul t im ate

result of this line of development would have been a 69-sign

syllabary of the

ma m i m u

typ e, in wh ich e ach sign expressed

exactly the consonant and the corresponding vowel. It does not

have to be stressed here that this would have been an unusual

development in the history of writ ing and that the principle of

economy aiming at the expression of language by the smallest

possible number of signs would speak unequivocally against it .

T h u s ,

it seems that the second line of evolution, taking the

Mesopotamian cuneiform system as the basis of the Persian

writing, offers more plausible possibilities of interpretation.

According to i t , the original Persian writ ing would be a

syllabary consisting of 9 signs of the ma m i mu type. Fro m this •

basic system, in which each sign expressed the consonant and

the corresponding vowel, a new system consisting of 36 signs

was gradually evolved, in which vowels were indicated only

partially. We may only speculate as to the reasons which may

have led to this reduction of signs, and the best possibility

which offers itself is an explanation based on the pl n writing

encountered in many other Oriental systems. Especially instruc

tive is the comparison with the pl n writing in such syllabaries

as Mesopotamian cuneiform and Hit t i te hieroglyphic employ

ing signs with full indication of vowels. A systematic employ

ment of the pl n writing in the Persian writ ing would have led

175

oi.uchicago.edu



THE LPH BET

gradually to the creation of a full alphabet along the lines of

development clearly demonstrated in the case of the Bamum

writing (see p. 209). Let the reader be warned that this is

entirely a reconstructed picture and that the stages of develop-

ment of Persian writ ing as proposed here to the best of

knowledge cannot be tested on the basis of extant sources of

Persian epigraphy.

G R E E K A L P H A B E T

The Semitic origin of the Greek alphabet does not present

much of a problem. The very Greek t radi t ion in cal l ing the

G reek w riting ®otviKf)icc ypamjccTOC, or

OTIIJETCC,

that is,

Phoenician wri t ing

5

,

2 0

shows clearly the direction in which the

origin of this system should be sought. In addition, even a

superficial investigation of the forms, names, and order of the

Greek signs leads immediately to the conclusion that all these

features must have been borrowed from a Semitic form of

writ ing.

T h e formal d erivation of the G reek signs from a S em itic

prototype can be established without great difficulty. Even an

uninit iated epigrapher cannot fail to observe the identity or

great similari ty of form in the signs of the Greek alphabet and

those of the Semitic writings (Fig. 89).

W hile the nam es of the signs of the G reek alp ha be t ca nn ot be

explained with the help of the Greek language, they correspond

almost exactly to those of the various Semitic writ ings. Thus,

Greek alpha, beta, gam ma, delta, e tc. , correspond to Sem itic

°dleph, bith, gimel, ddleth,

w ith the respective meaning s of ox,

house, camel(?)

5

, and do or . O f the Sem itic languages from

which theoretically the names of the Greek signs could be

derived, Phoenician is definitely to be preferred to Aramaic.

It can be observed, for example, that Greek

alpha

is derived

from

ateph,

ox , a w ord which exists in Pho enician a nd H eb rew

but not in Aramaic, while Greek

iota, pi,

and r o are nearer to

the respec t ive Phoenic ian or Hebrew words

yodh,

h a n d ,

5

pe,

m o u t h ,

5

a n d

ros,

h ead ,

5

t h a n t o Ara ma i c

yad, pum,

a n d

res.

As Theodor Noldeke has pointed out ,

2 1

the

a

ending of the

Greek names

alpha, beta,

etc., should n ot be der ived from

Aramaic since i t can be best explained as a Greek addition

resulting from the aversion of the Greek language to final

consonants (with the exception of n,

r,

an d

s)

.

176

oi.uchicago.edu




>

• X

— 1

»

s

K

4

1

4

*

V

I

M

©

*

v

d

*

h

¥

0

?

A

w

+,X

50

i

m

m

IC

*

<

Q

2

V

s

0

fc

>

73

CD

*

4

Y

i

a

2

v

L

i

¥

0

T-i

w

• h

W E

~

m

i '

r-

7?

K,fc

4 ,1

A

<d

3

V

I

H,B

2

V

C

i

h

0

> )

A

9

4

w

X

ST

>

CD

i

r—

*

4

A

V

£

*

o

h.

A

SEN

m

c,

CO

>

>

p-

<

4

*s

A

Y

I

B

I

V

L

*

)

1

<1

w

/

1ITIC

.s

CO

3>

>

<

1

/^

4

y

i

B

0

1

V

£

>

>

o

)

?

4

w

+

2

m

>

*

4

1

<

1

V

X

M

e

=i

/

L

7

J

¥

0

0

h-

f

-I

w

X

Q

*

5

A

A

*

i

I

N

©

\

1

L

>

•)

¥

o

?

r

9

4

w

/

5

c

<

5

*\

A d

^

f

I

1

>i

L

S

\

o

0

9

1

w

f-

>

73

O

z

>

*

4

A

A

3

1

B

©

1

1

6

*

S

0

0

K

4

w

X

GREEK

O L D L A T E

* , A

3 , $

1 , A

A

3 , d

^ v ^ v

I

B

®, e

M

• M

1,vJ

1

h

5

0

i , n

i , «

9,9

1,P

* • * . *

T

A

6

r

A

E

(YArw)

z

H

0

I

K

A

M

N

S

o

TT

(M)

(9)

P

Z

T

|Y,4>X,Y,n

LATIN

A

B

(&b REPWCJN«| Z )

D

E

F

(IVy.YATtMQ)

( Z

T

, „ , )

H

I

K

L

M

N

X

A

«• )

0

p

Q

B

S

T

U,V ,X ,Y>Z

F I G . 8 9 . — C O M P A R A T I V E C H A R T OF G R E E K A N D W E S T SE M IT IC

W R I T I N G S

Even the order of the let ters of the two writ ings is the same

as can be seen from the names of the first letters quoted in the

preceding paragraph. The Semi t ic s igns wdw sddhe and qoph

w hich d o no t exist in classical G reek occu r in the olde r period s

as wan or digamma san and qoppa. Furthermore in la ter t imes

these three signs continue to be used in the Greek numerical

system in w hich they hav e almo st the same values as their

counterparts have in the Semitic systems.

177

oi.uchicago.edu




The direction of signs in writing varies greatly in the oldest

Greek inscriptions, as it runs either from right to left or from

left to right, continuing in boustrophedon fashion, alternately

changing direction from line to l ine. Only gradually did the

classical method of writing from left to right assert itself in the

Greek system.

As ther e is no question th at th e Greeks borro w ed their w rit ing

from the Semites, the problem is to establish from which

Semitic system did the Greek writ ing originate. Theoretically,

any of the writings used by the Semitic peoples living in the vast

area stretching from south of Gilicia to north of Sinai could

have formed the prototype of the Greek system. This was the

area which was populated by the Amori tes , Aramaeans, and

Canaanites, including the Phoenicians. In reali ty, however, our

search should be narrowed down to the Phoenicians, those sea-

farers of antiquity who alone of the Semites dared to brave the

F I G . 9 0 . G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N ON A D I P Y L O N V A SE F R O M A T H E N S

From andbuch der

Archdologie

hrsg. von Walter O tto, i Miinche n, 1939), p. 195,

Abb . 8

Great Sea in search of new horizons. The Greeks did not come

to the Asiatic coast to borrow the Semitic system; writings

never pass from one people to another in this way. It was the

Phoenicians, with trading posts scattered throughout the Greek

world, who bro ugh t their wri t ing to the Greeks. T he Pho enician

origin is supported not only by Greek tradit ion but also, as we

have seen above on page 176, by the results derived from

investigation of the names of the signs in the Greek and Semitic

systems.

Our next problem to investigate is the t ime when the Greeks

might have borrowed their writ ing from the Phoenicians. This

is still a hotly discussed subject with differences of opinion

varying by more than half a mil lennium. A. Mentz, for

instance, advocates a date around 1400

B . G . ,

2 2

B. L. U l lm an

the end of the Mycenean period or the Dark Ages which

followed,

23

while Rhys Carpenter goes as far down as about

720 B.G.

24

If we do not wish to indulge in speculations based on

circumstantial evidence, then the only safe approach to the

178

oi.uchicago.edu




problem of the introduction of the Phoenician writ ing among

the Greeks is that starting with an investigation of the date of

the earliest extant Greek inscriptions. At least the dating of

these inscriptions does not vary by mu ch m ore th an one hun dr ed

years in extreme cases.

Hi

breo^BM

F I G . 9 1 . — R O C K - C U T IN S C RI PT IO N S FR O M

T H E R A

From R. Carpen ter in merican Journal of

Archaeologyy

xxxvii (1933), p- 26, fig. 7

According to prevalent opinion among Greek epigraphers,

the oldest known Greek inscription is that

on

the dipylon vase

from Athens (Fig. 90)

2 5

dated to the early eighth

2 6

or early

Ni[xo]5ejuo [ • • • • ]|5es Karairvyou A«o[ • • • • ]fos t

pt

F I G . 9 2 . S H O R T L E G E N D S O N G E O M E T R I C P O T T E R Y F R O M M O U N T

H Y M E T T O S

Fro m C. W. Blegen in merican Journal of Archaeology xxxviii (1934), n

seventh

2 7

century B.C. Slightly later in date but still from the

eighth or seventh century B.C. are the rock-cut inscriptions

from Thera (Fig.

9

) ,

2 8

short legends on geometric pottery

from Mount Hymettos (Fig. 92),

2 9

and two inscribed sherds

from C or inth (Fig. 93). so

x

79

oi.uchicago.edu




Individual signs in these early Greek inscriptions frequently

vary so much in form that it is clearly impossible to speak of

a single Greek alphabet in this early period. One may assume,

therefore, that the borrowing an d a da ptat io n of the Phoen ician

writ ing took place independently in the various areas of the

Greek world.

Let us see now what conclusions, if any, can be reached as to

the date of the introduction of the Greek writ ing from the point

of view of Sem itic epigrap hy. T he P hoe nician w rit ing de veloped

only slightly from A hiram to Sa patb a

c

al (ab ou t 1000-8 50 B.C.).

Then for a few centuries we lose track of the Phoenician system

in Phoenicia proper, but we can follow the development of the

Semitic writ ing in various other areas. From the middle of the

nin th cen tury we have in the south the famous M esa

c

inscription

iornnogg

wnrggf

H55EM

F I G . 9 3 . I N S C R I B E D S H E R D S F R O M C O R I N T H

From A . N . Stillwell in merican Journal of

Archaeology

xxxvii (1933), 605

from Moab and slightly later in the north the first inscriptions

from Zincirli (see p. 133). The earliest Phoenician inscriptions

from Cyprus and Sardinia cannot be dated exact ly but they,

too , a re probably from the ninth century.

3 1

If we now look at the com par ative tab le of Sem itic an d Greek

signs (Fig. 89), several immediate observations can be made.

The form of Greek

kappa

w ith its tail

5

is different from that of

the P hoenician inscriptions up to Sap atba

c

al, but identical with

that of the inscriptions dated from 850 B.C. on. Also the Greek

mu

s ign looks m uc h nea rer to the corresp onding forms of the

Semitic inscriptions from about 850 B.C. on than to those of

earlier inscriptions. On the other hand, the appearance of the

Semitic

ddleth

sign with the tail

5

a ro un d 800 B.C. forces us to

assume th at the tail less Greek delta was derived from a writ ing

earlier tha n 800 B.C. T h e conclusions th at ca n be dra w n on the

180

oi.uchicago.edu




basis of these comparisons speak, therefore, in favour of the

n in th cen tury

3 2

as the most probable t ime of the borrowing of

the Semitic writing by the Greeks. This date is fully in agree

ment with the dating of the earliest extant Greek inscriptions

to the beginning of the eighth century B.C.

Passing from the problems of outward form to those of inner

structure we can observe that the most imp orta nt characteris tic

of the Greek writ ing, as contrasted with any of the Semitic

writings, is a fully developed system of vowels. From the oldest

period on all the vowels are w rit ten wh erever the y are expected.

This can be recognized without difficulty from the trans

li teration of the old inscription on th e dipylon vase from A thens

(Fig. 90 ): H 0 2 NYN OPXEITON nANTO N ATAAOTATA

T7AIZEI TOTO AEKAN MIN, corresponding to classical 6s

VU V O p XTjCTTCO V TT VTG O V TCcAcb TO CTCC TTCXl El T O < 0 T O S6KCCV

U I V ,

whoever of the dancers makes merry most gracefully, let him

receive this.

5 3 3

Outside of sign forms, the only observable

differences between the writ ing on the Athens vase and that of

the later classical period are the following: The old writing fails

to indicate accents and vowel and consonant quantity, and

while the spiritus lenis is not indic ated , the spiritus asper is

expressed by the letter which later became eta.

The generally accepted interpretation of the origin of the

Greek vowel system is very simple. The Semitic writ ing had a

nu m be r of signs expressing so-called we ak co nson ants , w hich

were not phonemic in Greek. What the Greeks allegedly did,

therefore, was to convert these seemingly unnecessary signs into

vowels. Thus the Semitic dleph sign, expressing a soft breathing

—something l ike the sound between w and e in however

5

—was

changed to the vowel a of alpha; Semitic

he

to Greek e ofepsilon;

Semitic

wdw,

used in older periods of Greek for th e con sona nt

w

digamma)

,

also developed the v ocalic valu e

u

of

upsilon,

p laced

near the end of the alphabet, after

tau;

Sem itic

yodh

became in

Greek the vowel

i {iota)

; and finally the em ph at ic sound

c

ayin

of

the Semites was converted into the vowel

0 omikron).

There is nothing wrong with the usual derivation of indivi

dual Greek vowel values from the corresponding Semitic signs.

The fact is, however, that the Greeks did not invent a new

vowel system but simply used for vowels those signs which in

the various Semitic systems of writing likewise can function as

vowels in form of the so-called matres lectionis (see p. 167). The

181

oi.uchicago.edu




greatness of the Greek innovation l ies, therefore, not in the

inve ntion of a new m etho d of ind icatin g vowels b u t in a

m etho dica l ap plication of a device w hich the early Semites used

only in an irregular and sporadic fashion. As we have seen,

even the Semitic and other Near Eastern writ ings in the course

of t ime developed this method of indicating vowels to such an

extent that they, too, were on the way toward creating a full

system of vowel signs an d co nsequ ently a n alp ha be t.

It seems very improbable that the full vocalic system attested

in the earl iest kno w n G reek inscriptions was sudd enly developed

by an intel l igent Greek on the basis of irregular parallels in the

Semitic writ ings. I should rather favour the idea that the oldest

Greek writ ing expressed the vowels in the same unsystematic

fashion as did the Semitic, and that the full vocalic system was

only gradual ly developed and systemat ized. Nothing would

surprise me less than the discovery of early Greek inscriptions

from the ninth century B.C., which would either not indicate

any vowels at al l or would indicate them only rarely in the

manner of the Semit ic mattes lectionis.

The term full vocalic system implies that vowels are

regularly indicated in Greek, but i t does not mean that the old

vowel system is the same as that of the later classical period.

In fact , the vowel system underwent considerable changes in

the course of t ime, as already implied in the remarks on page

181.

The older method did not a t tempt to indicate the vowel

quanti ty. In the new system, as gradually evolved, only the

alpha and iot signs continued to be used for both short and long

vowels. But when in some of the Greek dialects the consonant

expressed by the Semitic heth was lost, this sign acq uir ed th e

va lue e of eta, differentiating it from e ofepsilon. Similarly, a new

sign omeg was developed for 0, leaving only o for omikron. And

final ly, when the Greeks began to pronounce their old u of

upsilon as u\ they were forced to use for the u sound the omikron

plus upsilon combination originally reserved for the ou d i ph thong

T h e grad ua l developm ent of the Greek alpha bet is further

i l lustrated by the el imination of

digamma,

san, and

qopp

and by

th e final ad ditio n of signs 9, x> y w hich did no t exist in th e

Semitic languages and were therefore arbitrari ly created by the

Greeks.

Once the six Semitic syllabic signs developed their vocalic

values in Greek, the natural step was to analyse the remaining

182

oi.uchicago.edu



A L P H A B E T S C O N Q U E S T O F T H E W O R L D

syllabic signs as consonants by the process of reduction. If in

the wri t ing ty

{

the second sign is taken as a vowel i to help in

the correct reading of the first sign which theoretically can be

read as ta ti te tu or to then the value of the first sign must be

reduced from a syllable to a simple consonant. This is the

principle of reduction, for which there are many precedents in

the history of w rit ing. For instance, the Su m erian sign rep resent

ing female breasts stands for many related words, such as

dumu

son,

5

banda

boy, and

tur

small.

5

In order to differentiate

between these words, phonetic complements or indicators were

used, as in banda-da where the phonetic sign

da

indica ted the

reading of the word sign as banda and not dumu or tur. In the

wri t ing banda-da since

da

was co nsidered to be a full sylla ble,

the value of b nd was consequently reduced to ban. Similarly,

from the Akkadian writ ing of

fdb-ab

good,

5

the syllabic value

fa was developed from the word sign fab (see also pp. 71 and

A L P H A B E T S C O N Q UE S T O F T H E W O R L D

The statement was made above (see pp. 181 ff.) that the

introd uctio n of the Greek vocalic system should not be re gard ed

as a new and original creation in the Greek writ ing, but as a

systematization of a device well know n, tho ug h irreg ularly used,

in many Oriental writ ings such as Semitic, Egyptian, Meso-

potamian cuneiform, Hitt i te hieroglyphic, and Persian. This

device consists of an addition of a syllabic sign containing a

weak consonant

5

in the case of writ ings of the Eg yptian -Se m itic

type, or of a vowel sign in the case of cuneiform and Hittite

hieroglyphic writ ings, al l for the purpose of making certain the

reading of the vowel which was either totally unexpressed or

inadequately expressed in the preceding syllabic sign. Any of

the Oriental syllabic writ ings with this method of vowel

indication could, at least theoretically, have developed into

pu re a lphabe t ic systems. T h at such a wri t ing ofmali as ma-a-li-i

in the cuneiform or hieroglyphic Hitt i te systems could have

resulted in reduction of the syllabic signs ma and li to m and I

respectively, in the same way as the writing of this word as

m

a_oa_ii_yi

m t

h

e

Egypt ian-Semit ic wri t ings ul t imately led to

the analysis of the syllabic signs as alphabetic in the Greek

system, can be deduced from the development of the Bamum

183

oi.uchicago.edu



T H E L P H B E T

syllabic w rit ing in the direction of an alp ha be t see p . 209).

T h a t none of the Orie nta l systems indep end ent ly developed an

alphabet is due to their inconsistent use of vowel indication.

It was, therefore, only the Greeks who, by regular use of a

device borrowed from the Orient and by way of the principle

of reduction, were able to achieve for the first t ime an alpha

betic system of writing.

The development of a full Greek alphabet, expressing single

sounds of language by means of consonant and vowel signs, is

the last im po rtan t s tep in the his tory of w ri t ing. F rom the Greek

period up to the present , nothing new has happened in the

inner s t ructural development of wri t ing. General ly speaking,

we write consonants and vowels in the same way as the ancient

Greeks did.

The use of vowel signs and the resulting analysis of writing

as an alphabet passed in the course of t ime from the Greeks to

the Semites, thus repaying the debt of the original borrowing.

This is the a lphabet that subsequent ly conquered the world.

Much as the hundreds of a lphabets used throughout the world

may differ from each other in appearance, they all have

characterist ics of outer form, inner structure, or both, which

first originated in the small area surrounding the eastern

Mediterranean. In fact , i f we exclude the various forerunners

of wri t ing scat tered throughout the world, the smal l group of

writ ings in eastern Asia which grew out of the Chinese system,

and the chiefly syllabic systems introduced in modern t imes

am on g prim itive societies which will be discussed in C ha pt er

V I I ) ,

there is only one system of writ ing in use to-day. And

that is the alphabet of Semitic-Greek origin.

Fro m th e inner s t ructural p oint of view the ma in characteris

tic of the alphabet is the existence of special signs for both

consonants and vowels. As the signs for consonants are used in

approximately the same way in a l l the a lphabets of the world,

the various types of alph abe ts can b e distinguished only by their

use of the vow el signs. In dist inguishing thre e types of alph ab ets

I should l ike to add that they are ideal types. In practice,

numerous writ ings show so many mutual influences that i t is

frequently difficult to assign them to one certain type. The

various types of vowel indication are shown in Fig. 94.

Type I, as represented by the Greek alphabet, is the simplest .

Vowels are expressed by special signs on equal footing with

184

oi.uchicago.edu



Greek Latin Hebrew rabic Kharosthi Brdhmi Devandgari Ethiopic

k

9

If

>

V

1

o

u

XL

t t

t t r

to

Os

1

tu

JLU

o

ka.

U

to.

tu,

to

%

#

# .

*c

s

J]

S\

J)

1

i

-

-

*>

as

—

^

-

1

1

1

0

)

<>

*

•>

^

h

H

•

»

>

L

—

J C

1

L

*

w

T

T

3T

—

J

-fcr

%

7

3

* t

X »»*

A. * ' t

) w « *

X -

s >

« £

>• »»5

t «*a,

t » . t t

tr*t*

t »t&

f =*o

F I G 9 4 T Y P E S O F V O W E L I N D I C A T I O N I N V A R I O U S A L P H A B E T I C W R I T I N G S

oi.uchicago.edu




con sona nts as in the w riting of the syllable

ta

by means of the

signs

t

plus

a

This type of vocalization is characteristic of all

the Western writings no matter how much they may differ in

outer form: Greek La t in runic Slavonic Morse etc . Some

Oriental writ ings l ike neo-Punic or Mandean have also evolved

this typ e of voc alization alth ou gh nev er as system atically as

Greek. It is ha rd to say w heth er the systematization of vocaliza

tion in these two Semitic systems should be regarded as the

na tura l evolut ion of the

scriptio plen

device widely know n in th e

N ea r East or w heth er i t is du e to La t in

3 4

or Greek influence. In

gene ral how ever the Semitic writings are averse to intro du cing

new vowel signs plac ed beside the conso nan t signs; inste ad the y

prefer to place them above or below the consonant sign. When

in the eighth century of our era the Greek vowel signs were

introdu ced in the West Syriac or Jac ob ite wri t ing they were

no t placed beside the conson ant sign as in Greek bu t above or

below it . Apparently in a similar way the Babylonian Jews

originally used their weak consonants for vowels. There may be

several reasons for this aversion of the Semites to placing vowel

signs beside the consonants. One reason may be the attachment

to the traditional spellings in the sacred books. And another

perh aps even m ore im po rtant reason m ay lie in the fact t ha t

by leaving the consonantal structure intact and placing the

vowel signs above or below the consonants the way was left

open for anybody who wished to continue writing consonants

alone without bothering about the vowels. It is a well known

fact that even in modern times such Semitic writings as Arabic

and Hebrew get along rather well both in print and in hand

w riting w itho ut the use of vowel signs. T h e unwillingness to

have the consonantal structure obstructed by inserted vowel

signs

which in Semitic are identical with the consonant signs

may truly have been the reason which finally led to the

creation of a new type of vocalization expressed not by weak

consonants but by special diacrit ic marks.

Th is is T yp e I I of vocalization pro ba bly intro du ced first in

the East Syriac or Ne storian w riting wh ence it found its wa y

into the Palestinian Hebrew and later into the Arabic writings.

In all cases the vowels are indicated by small strokes dots or

circles placed either above or below the consonant sign.

Ty pe I I I of vocal izat ion found in the Indie and Ethiopic

wr itings prese nts some difficult pr ob lem s.

186

oi.uchicago.edu




T h e In die w ritings ma ke their ap pe ara nc e as full systems in

th e thir d ce ntu ry B.C. in the famous edicts of Asoka (who rule d

from 272 to 231 B.C.), although there are indications that

writ ing was known a few centuries earlier. We are leaving out

of consideration the Proto-Indic writ ing, which was used in the

th ird m illen niu m B.C. (see p p . go f.), an d is therefo re too

remote to have influenced the new Indie writ ings, which arose

in the second half of the first millennium B.C. The Asoka

inscriptions were redacted in two types of writ ing: Kharosthi

and Brahmi .

The forms of the signs of the Kharosthi writing as well as

the right-to-left direction are apparently derived from Aramaic.

The basic sign always has the value of a consonant plus a,

while other vowels are expressed by means of short strokes, in

all cases attached to the sign with which they form one unit.

Even the differences in vowels used initially (or syllabically) are

indicated by the same diacrit ic marks. Thus, this type of

vocalization is very similar to that noted above as Type II,

with one important difference: while in Type II the vowel

marks are wri t ten separately , in Type III they are always

attached to the respective syllabic signs.

The Brahmi writ ing goes one step further in i ts development.

Vowel differences are normally noted in the same way as in the

Kharosthi system, but a new set of signs was devised for the

initial (or syllabic) vowels. The forms of the individual signs of

the Brahmi writ ing show no clear relationship with any other

system, and were most probably freely invented. The direction

of the Brahmi writing is from left to right. All later Indie

writ ings, including D ev an ag ari , the w rit ing of Sanskrit , a re

descended from Brahmi, a l though the prevalent method of

vocalization is represented by Type II.

Fro m the formal po int of view, the E thiopic signs are derived

directly from So uth A rab ic (see p p . 149 f.). In conform ity w ith

other Semitic systems the oldest Ethiopic inscriptions were not

vocalized. Then, around 350 of our era, a full system of

vocalization made i ts appearance, which to all intents and

purposes is identical structurally with that of the Kharosthi

writ ing. The vowel differences are normally indicated by small

diacrit ic marks attached to the signs. Ethiopic does have one

additional feature, namely, the occasional modification of the

form of th e basic sign to express vowel differ entiatio n. I t does

187

oi.uchicago.edu




not seem plausible to suggest that such a method of vowel

indication, as found in the Indie and Ethiopic writ ings, could

have been independently devised in the two areas, especially

since we know that the device of vowel differentiation is used

nowhere else in this form. For that reason there is much in

favour of Fr ied rich s suggestion th at th e Ethio pic vocalic system

was devised following an Indie prototype.

3 5

T h e m ain pr ob lem facing us in connection w ith the classifica

tion of the Indie and Ethiopic writ ings is: Are they syllabaries

or are they alp hab ets? B asically, the re is no t m uc h difference

in the vowel notation between the writ ings of the Semitic type

on the one side and those of the Indic-Ethiopic type on the

other. Whether the diacrit ic marks are writ ten separately, as in

Hebrew and Arabic, or attached to the sign, as in older Indie

an d Eth iop ic, still their function in all cases is to indic ate vowel

differentiation. But w ha t shall we do with instances in E thiop ic

and Indie writings in which a syllable is expressed by means of

a sign without a diacritic mark, as in the case of signs ending

in

a

How shall we classify the signs in Ethiopic and in many

stenographic systems which denote vowel variation by modify

ing the form of the basic sign? In stenographic systems the basic

sign expressing a consonant is, of course, a consonant sign, and

therefore an alphabetic sign, but the heavy form of this sign

expressing, for instance,

ka

is not an alphabetic but a syllabic

sign. Sti ll , one w ould ha rd ly call steno gra ph ic systems syllabic.

36

And how shall we classify the modern Semitic writings, such as

Arabic and Hebrew, which although well able to express vowel

differentiation, neglect it frequently by writing only con

sonants? It would hardly seem proper to call them syllabic in

the sense in which this term was used for the older Semitic

writings, which did not know how to express vowel differentia

t ion. These are all disturbing problems, which must be left to

the future the ory of w rit ing to speculate upo n; w ith s harp er

typological definitions it should be possible to clear up the

difficulties facing us at present in the classification of some

writings.

The formal development of the alphabet from the Greek

stage on is beyond the scope of the theory of writ ing. The best

we can do is refer the reader interested in this subject to good

treatments of the history of wri t ing by Hans Jensen,

3 7

David

Dir inger ,

3 8

and Ja m es G . Fevrier .

3 9

Unfortunately, since the

88

oi.uchicago.edu




ant iqua ted publ ica t ion of Isaac Taylor

4 0

there is nothing that

can be recommended in the Engl ish language. The Engl ish

book publ ished recent ly by Diringer

4 1

fi lls only partially the

ne ed, since it lacks the scientific ap p ar at u s. Useful rep rod uc tion s

of the various writings plus short discussions can be found in a

book edited by Charles Fossey.

42

Basic for the history of writ-

ing, especially in its sociological aspect, is the recent book by

Marce l Cohen .

4 3

189

oi.uchicago.edu



V

E V O L U T I O N O F W R I T I N G

S T A G E S O F D E V E L O P M E N T

H

A V I N G t reated w rit ing in the preceding four chap ters

from the descriptive and comparative points of view

I shall try in the following to sketch the history of

writing in its evolution from the earliest stages of

semasiography in which pictures convey the desired meaning, to

the later stage of phonography in which writing expresses

language. The various stages of the development of writ ing are

shown in cha rt form in Fig. 95. A bsur d as i t m ay a pp ea r at

first glance to designate the three main stages of writing as

No Writ ing, Forerunners of Wri t ing, and Ful l Wri t ing, there

is good reason for this division.

P I C T U R E S

The fact that pictures are quoted under the first stage, called

No Writ ing

5

, implies (1) that what we normally understand as

pictures—that is, objects of art resulting from an artistic-

aesthetic urge— do no t fall und er th e category of w rit ing, and

(2) that writing had its origin in simple pictures. The case could

be paralleled, for example, by calling steam the first stage in a

chart showing the development of the steam engine. Steam, as

it issues from a geyser or a tea kettle, is in itself not a steam

engine, but it is the element around which the successive stages

had to bui ld in order to reach the ul t imate development .


U nd er Fo rerunn ers of W ri t ing are included al l the various

devices by wh ich m an first at tem pte d to convey his thou ghts a nd

feelings. The all-inclusive term which I have coined for these

190

oi.uchicago.edu




devices is sem asiogr aph y from G reek

semasia

meaning ,

signification, and

graphe

writing. As the word implies, this is

the stage in which pictures can convey the general meaning

inte nd ed by th e write r. I n this stage visible dr aw n forms—-just

l ike gesture language—can express meaning directly without an

intervening linguistic form.

N o W r i t i n g : Pictures

Fo re ru n n e r s o f W r i t in g :

Semasiography

i . Descr ip t ive-Represen ta t iona l Device

2 .

Iden t i fy ing-Mnemonic Device

Fu l l W r i t in g :

honography

i . Word-Syllabic: S u m e r i a n E g y p t i a n

(Akkadian)

Hi t t i te Chinese

(Aegean)

2 .

Syllabic: E l am i te W es t Semi t i c Gy p ro - Jap an e se

H u r r i a n (Ph o en ic i an ) Min o an

etc . (Heb rew) Cy p r io te

(Aramaic) Phaistos?

etc .

Byblos?

3 . Alphabetic: Greek

Aramaic (voca l ized)

Hebrew (voca l ized)

La t in

In d ie

etc.

F I G . 9 5 . S T AG E S O F T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F W R I T I N G

The most primit ive ways of communicat ion by means of

visible symbols were achieved by means of the descriptive-

representational and the identifying-mnemonic devices. As the

two devices are frequently interlocking it is difficult to assign

rigorously some primitive writings to definite categories.

Under the descript ive-representat ional device are included

means of communicat ion similar to drawings produced as a

result of an artistic-aesthetic urge, differing from the latter in

I 9

1

oi.uchicago.edu




that they contain only those elements which are important for

the transmission of the com m unic ation and lack the aesthetic

embellishments which form an important part of an art ist ic

picture. In the identifying-mnemonic device, a symbol is used

to help to record or to identify a person or an object, as in the

dra w ing of a thre ade d needle w hich represents the pro verb the

thre ad follows the needle (p. 48 ). T he desire to record things

for posteri ty through similar symbols used as memory aids

consti tuted an important factor leading directly to the develop

ment of real writ ing.

To a superficial observer the descriptive-representational

device may appear to be the more developed of the two devices

discussed above because this method seems better adapted to

convey communication than the device using symbols of an

identifying and mnemonic nature. It is clear, for instance, that

a drawing depicting a batt le by the descriptive-representational

device tells the story better than a sign or two helping to

memorize the batt le by the identifying-mnemonic device.

Similar conclusions might be drawn in comparing, for example,

the early specimens of the Egyptian writing like the so-called

Narmer pa le t te

5

, drawn chiefly by the descriptive-representa

tional device (see p p . 72 ff.), w ith the Ol d S um eria n ledg er

tablets, drawn by the identifying-mnemonic device (see pp.

63 fr. .

It is not the descriptive-representational device, however,

which lies on the direct road toward a fully developed writing.

Pictures drawn by this device follow the conventions of art

with all of their drawbacks and limitations as a vehicle of

human intercommunicat ion. The binding t radi t ions of art ,

established hun dre ds an d thou sand s of years before m an first

a t tempted communicat ion by means of convent ional marks,

were too strong to allow for the d evelo pm ent of the descriptive-

representational device in the right direction.

In the identifying-mnemonic device pictures are drawn as in

the descriptive-representational device, but their aim is not to

describe an event but to help to remember and to identify an

object or a being. Thus, a complete correspondence is estab

lished and gradually conventionalized between certain symbols,

on the one hand, and certain objects and beings on the other.

Since these objects and beings have names in the oral language

the correspond ence is further established betwe en the w rit ten

192

oi.uchicago.edu




symbols and their spoken co un terp arts . O nc e i t was discovered

that words can be expressed in writ ten symbols a new and

m uch bet ter m ethod of hu m an intercom m unicat ion w as firmly

established. It was no longer necessary to express a sentence

such as m an killed l ion by mean s of a dra w ing of a m an , spea r

in hand, in the process of killing a lion. The three words

could now be writ ten by means of three conventional symbols

representing man, spear (kil l ing), and l ion, respectively.

Acco rdingly, 5 sheep could now be expressed by m eans of

two symbols corresponding to two words in the language

instead of by five separate pictures of sheep, which would have

to be drawn in an art ist ic picture or in the descriptive-

representational device (see p. 59). The introduction in the

identifying device of a strict order of the signs following the

order of the spoken words is in direct contrast to the methods

of the descriptive device and of the artistic picture, in which

the meaning is conveyed by the totali ty of l i t t le drawings

without any convention as to the beginning of the message or

the order in which i t should be interpreted.

A device in which individual signs can express individual

words should naturally lead toward a development of a

complete system of word signs, that is, a word writing or

logography. Against the general opinion of scholars it is my

belief that such a fully developed system never existed either

in ant iqui ty or in more modern t imes. To create and memorize

thousands of signs for thousands of words and names existing

in a langu age and to inven t new signs for newly acqu ired words

and n am es is so im pra ctica ble t ha t either a logograp hic w rit ing

can be used as a limited system only or it must find new ways

to overcome the difficulties in order to develop into a useful

system. Experience with the Alaska and Cherokee word

writings, created artificially in modern times for the use of

American natives, is indicative of the impracticabil i ty of such

limited systems. Even Chinese, the most logographic of all the

writ ings, is not a pu re logog raphic system becau se from the

earliest times it has used word signs functioning as syllabic

signs. And what is true of the Chinese system is even more true

of other ancient Oriental systems such as Sumerian, Egyptian,

and Hit t i te .

A primitive logographic writing can develop into a full system

only if it succeeds in attaching to a sign a phonetic value

193

oi.uchicago.edu




independent of the meaning which this sign has as a word. This

is phonetization, the most important single step in the history

of w rit ing. I n m od ern usage this device is called rebu s w rit ing ,

exemplified in the drawing of an eye and of a saw to express the

phrase T saw

5

, or in that of a man and a date to express the

word manda te

5

. W ith the introduc t ion of phon et izat ion and

its subsequent systematization complete systems of writ ing

developed which made possible the expression of any linguistic

form by means of symbols with conventional syllabic values.

Thus full writ ing originated, in contrast to the feeble attempts

grouped together as semasiography, which deserve no higher

designation than implied in classifying them as forerunners of

writ ing.

W ORD-SYLLABIG SYSTEMS

It-is to the Sumerians that we are indebted for having taken

the important step leading toward a fully developed writ ing.

The organizat ion of the Sumerian state and economy made

im per ative the keeping of records of goods transferred from the

country to the cit ies and vice versa. Records were kept in

concise ledger form, of the typ e 5 sheep

5

or, with a personal

na m e, i o bows, X.

5

The choice of one sign for one word

resulted in the origin of a logographic system which soon

expanded into a phonographic system through the necessity of

expressing personal names in an exact way to prevent con

fusion in the records. The greatness of this achievement lies in

the fact that in creating a full word-syllabic system from the old

identifying-mnemonic device the Sumerians were able to break

away entirely from the hampering conventions of the descrip

tive-representational device. They developed writ ing from the

former device, while they continued the latter undisturbed in

their technique of reproduct ions on seals . The Amerindians,

too, had both devices at their disposal as means of communica

tion, but the emphasis placed upon the descriptive technique of

art at the expense of the identifying device forced all their

attempts in the wrong direction with the result that none of the

Amerindian systems—and this includes the Maya and the

Aztec— developed beyo nd the stage of forerunners of w rit ing.

It is possible that even the predynastic Egyptians, because they

too placed too much emphasis upon conventions of art in their

194

oi.uchicago.edu




early at tempts to convey communicat ion, would never have

developed a writ ing of their own without foreign influence.

This influence may very well have come from the Sumerians.

T h e oldest of the seven ancien t O rien tal systems of w rit ing is

Su m erian , attested in southe rn M esop otam ia aro un d 3100 B.C.

Fro m there the m ain principles of the Sum erian wri t ing m ay

hav e spread eastw ard first to the neig hbo uring P roto-E lam ites

and then, perhaps via the Proto-Elamites, to the Proto-Indians

in the valley of the In du s; one of the N ea r Ea stern w ritings m ay ,

in turn, have been the st imulus leading to the creation of the

Chinese writ ing. Around 3000 B.C. Sumerian influence presum

ably worked i ts way westward to Egypt; Egyptian influence, in

turn, spread toward the Aegean where' , about 2000 B.C.,

originated the Cretan writ ing, and a few centuries later, in

Anatolia, the Hitt i te hieroglyphic writ ing.

Since of the seven systems three—namely, Proto-Elamite,

Pro to-Ind ic , and C re ta n— are as ye t und eciphe red or on ly

partially deciphered, we can discuss only the principles of writ

ing as they are found in the remaining four—namely, Sumeri

an, Egypt ian, Hit t i te , and Chinese.

As far as the inner principles of writ ing are concerned, the

unifying characteristic of the four systems is that they are all

phonographic almost from the very beginning of their develop

ment and that they all contain signs of these three classes: word

signs or logograms, syllabic signs, and auxiliary signs.

The formation of word signs is identical or very similar in all

four systems. One sign or a combination of signs expresses one

word or a combination of words. Also the principles of using

auxiliary signs, such as determinatives or punctuation marks,

are identical , al though the various systems may differ in outer

form. Only in the use of syllabic signs are the differences so

prominent as to enable us to form exact subdivisions by types.

T h e four O rie nta l systems emp loy syllabaries of four different

types

1

:

Type I .—Sumerian. Monosyl lables ending in a vowel or

consonant :

ta ti te tu; at it et ut; tarn tim tern turn;

very

rarely also dissyllables like ata; tama.

Type II.—Egyptian. Monosyllables and dissyllables ending

in a vowel, with differences in vowels not indicated:

t

x

;

t

x

m

x

.

95

oi.uchicago.edu



V O L U T I O N O F W R I T I N G

Type III .—Hitt i te . Monosyl lables ending in a vowel: ta, ti,

te ,

tu.

T yp e IV.— Ch inese. Monosyl lables ending in a vowel or con

sonant :

ta, ti, te, tu, to; at, it, et, ut, ot; tarn, tim, tern, turn, torn.

S Y L L A B I C S Y S T E M S

Out of the four word-syllabic systems four syllabaries

showing various degrees of simplification ha ve develope d in

the course of t ime:

T yp e I.— Elam ite cuneiform etc. M onosyllables end ing in

a vowel or consonant:

ta, ti, te, tu; at, it, et, ut; tarn, tim,

tern, turn.

Type Ily—West Semitic. Monosyllables ending in a vowel

with differences in vowels not indicated: t

x

.

Type III .—Cypriote. Monosyl lables ending in a vowel:

ta,

ti, te, tu, to.

Type IV.—-Japanese. Monosyllables ending in a vowel:

ta,

ti, te, tu, to; da, di, de, du, do).

An interesting conclusion which can be drawn about the new

syllabic writings is that they were all created by heterogeneous

peoples. T hu s while the Meso potam ian Babylonians and

Assyrians accepted almost without change the Sumerian system

of wri t ing the foreign Elamites H urria ns and Ur art ia ns felt

tha t the task of ma stering the com plicated M esopo tamian

system was too heavy a burden; they merely took over a

simplified syllabary and eliminated almost entirely the ponder

ous logographic apparatus. The Semites of Palestine and Syria

went even farther in their tendency toward simplification; what

they accepted from the Egyptians was nothing but the principle

of w riting monosyllables with differences in vowels not ind ica ted .

Similarly the Cy prians created a syllabary from a n Aeg ean

system of w riting om itting entirely the use of wo rd signs. T h e

Jap an ese were not as radical . Th ey too developed a simple

syllabary very similar in princip le to th at of the C ypria ns even

though it distinguishes by separate marks the voiced from the

voiceless consonants; but side by side with it they use word

signs tak en ov er from the Chinese w riting . I n all cases it was the

foreigners who were not afraid to break away from sacred

traditions and were thus able to introduce reforms which led

to new and revolut ionary developments.

196

oi.uchicago.edu



L P H B E T I C S YS TE M S

T h e general nam e of W est Semitic syl labary — given to th e

various forms of writing used by the Pho enicians, He brew s, and

other Semites from the latter half of the second millennium B.C.

on—expresses clearly my belief that these writings are sylla

baries and not alphabets, as is generally assumed. These

Semitic writings follow exactly the pattern of their Egyptian

prototype and the latter cannot be anything else but a syllabary

from the point of view of the development of writing.

LPH BETIC SYSTEMS

T h e qu estion m ay no w be legitima tely asked: If these early

Semitic writings are not alphabets what, then, is the alphabet?

T h e answer is clear. If by the word alp ha be t we und ersta nd

a writing which expresses the single sounds of a language, then

the first alphabet was formed by the Greeks. Although through

ou t the second m illennium B.C. several attemp ts w ere m ad e to

find a way to indicate vowels in syllabaries of the Egyptian-

Semitic type, none of them succeeded in developing into a full

vocalic system. The usual way was to add phonetic indicators

as helps in reading the vowels which normally were left

unindicated in the Semitic systems of writing. But while the

Semites employed these so-called m tres lectionis (see pp. 166 ff.)

sporadically, as in the case of m

a

-l

a

-k

a)

-t

i

-y

i

for malaktl, I

reigned, the Greeks used them systematically after each

syllable. Thus, following the principle of reduction (see pp.

182 f.), they were soon able to reach the conclusion that since

in the writing t

l

y

l

the secon d sign is no t a syllable

y

i

bu t a

vowel

i,

consequently the first sign must stand for a consonant

t

and not for a syllable

t\

It was therefore the Greeks who, having accepted in full the

forms of the West Semitic syllabary, evolved a system of vowels

which, attached to the syllabic signs, reduced the value of these

syllables to simple consonantal signs, and thus for the first time

created a full alphabetic system of writing. And it was from the

Greeks that the Semites in turn learned the use of vowel marks

and consequently developed their own alphabets.

There are three types of alphabets in use, characterized by

three different methods of indicating vowels:

Type I .—Greek Lat in, etc . Vowels indicated by separate

signs: t-a, t-i, t-e,

t u>

t-o.

197

oi.uchicago.edu




Type I I .—Aramaic , Hebrew, Arabic , e tc . Vowels indica ted

by separate diacri t ic marks: / , / , | , ( ,

t

or the like.

Type I I I .—Indie , Ethiopic . Vowels indica ted by diacr i t i c

marks at tached to the sign or by internal modification.

In the last twenty-five hundred years the conquests of the

alphabet have encompassed the whole of c ivi l izat ion, reaching

to the farthest corners of the ear th, b u t dur ing all this period

no reforms have taken place in the principles of writ ing.

Hundreds of a lphabets throughout the world, di fferent as they,

may be in outer form, all use the principles first and last

established in the Greek writ ing.


In looking at the small an d simple cha racters of ou r h an d

wri t ing or of our book print one would hardly real ize that a

span of many thousand years l ies between our modern charac

ters and their original ancestors. Most of us would call our

w rit ing En glish because it serves as a m eans to express the

Engl ish language. Many might know that i t can be cal led

L at in , for even in its m od er n form ou r wr iting differs little

from the Lat in wri t ing of more than two thousand years ago.

But how many would know the s teps by which the his tory of

the Lat in wri t ing can be t raced backward; that the Lat in

alphabet is a development from the Greek alphabet ; and that

the la t ter , in turn, i s an adaptat ion of a wri t ing which was

developed among the Semites of Syria in the middle of the

second millennium B.C.? But that is not the end. The history of

our writ ing goes even further back. Though in outer form this

first Semitic writ ing seems to be an original and individual

creat ion which cannot be t raced back to any other known

writ ing, i ts principles are certainly those of the Egyptian

syllabary. The lat ter is part of the Egyptian system of writ ing

which, together with Sumerian, Hit t i te, Chinese, etc. , belongs

to the great family of anc ient O rie nta l systems of w rit ing. T h e

history of the oldest of these writ ings, Sumerian—which may

have been the mother of al l the other systems—can be followed

from ab o u t 300 0 B.C.

In both scholarly and popular books we often meet wi th

sta tements about the invent ion of wri t ing. But was wri t ing

198

oi.uchicago.edu



O B S E R V T I O N S

really invented? Or, speaking in more general terms, is there

such a thing as inve ntion ? If we consider, for exa m ple, such

an inve ntion as m one y we will readily see the point I wish to

make. It is said that money was invented by Croesus, King of

the Lydians. But in real i ty what he did was no more than to

accept the custom of using precious metals as a medium of

exchange—a practice widely known for centuries all over the

N ear E ast— and to add to i t h is and the sta te s gua ran tee as to

the exact relation of value to weight of each piece of metal .

Similarly should be viewed all other achievements called

inve ntion s : M arc on i s wireless o r th e rad io is un thin ka ble

w ithout H ertz s wave theory; Stephenson s rai l road is an

app lication of W att s steam engine on wheels; while the latte r

is a pra ctica l ada pta tion of observations of m an y gene rations

made over a period of centuries.

I n considering the examples ju st men tioned one can see tha t

every so-called inve ntion is actua lly no thin g m ore th an an

improvement upon something that had been known before.

Writing, like money, or the wireless, or the steam engine, was

not invented by one man in one certain place in one part icular

period. Its history and prehistory are as long as the history of

civilization itself

2

To be sure, we must always reckon in the case of all great

cultural achievements with the decisive intervention of men of

genius w ho w ere able either to bre ak awa y from sacred trad it ion

or to transfer into practical form something on which others

could only speculate. U nfo rtuna tely, we do not know any of the

geniuses wh o were responsible for the m ost imp or tan t reforms in

the history of writ ing. Their names, l ike those of other great

men who were responsible for the crucial improvements in the

practical use of the wheel, or the bow and arrow, or the sail ,

are lost to us forever in the dimness of antiquity.

Before we begin with the discussion of the salient points in

the evolution of writ ing some remarks should be made in

connection with the use of terminology and definit ions in the

ch ar t in Figure 95 . T he re are no pu re systems of w rit ing ju st as

there are no pure races in anthropology and no pure languages

in l inguistics. As elements retained from an older period and

innovat ions ahead of the accepted development may be found

in a language of a certain period, so a system of writing at one

period may contain elements from different phases of its

J99

oi.uchicago.edu




development. In a schematic reconstruction of a chart i t is

impossible to take acco unt of all these min or divergences. Lo ng

and complicated terminologies might be introduced to include

all the characteristics of a system, but that would only tend to

obscure the issue. For this reason the terminology used in the

chart is meant to define only the major characterist ics of a

writing. Here are a few specific examples. English writing, like

Latin, is called alphabetic, even though it contains some word

signs, as in the w riting 3 lb.

5

o r £ 3 for th ree poun ds . M any

more word signs are used with the Elamite syllabary and the

Pehlevi alphabet. The Hitt i te hieroglyphic syllabary contains

a few signs of the type

tra ara

outside of the normal develop

m en t. T h e so-called C ar ia n alp ha be t consists of alp hab etic

signs borrowed from Greek plus a number of syllabic signs

borro w ed from an oth er system of local A na tol ian o rigin .

3

In all

phonographic writ ings, especially in Chinese, are found

elements which we normally include under the semasiographic

stage of writing.

In the preceding chapters the various types of writ ing were

organized and discussed in groups in accordance with the

stages as reconstructed on the basis of the inner development of

writing. The successive stages are represented first by semasio

graphic forerunners of writing, followed by three subdivisions

of full w riting w hich inc lude logo-syllabic, syllabic, an d alp ha

betic stages. The main stress given in my division to the inner

principles of writing is in direct contrast to the efforts of those

scholars who try to classify writings in terms of some formal or

geographic aspects. The grouping of writ ings according to outer

form— for exam ple, pictorial and l inear— or ac cording to geo

graphic posi t ion—for example, Oriental , African, Amerindian,

etc .—is in my t reatment a mat ter of secondary importance.

Another point which should be stressed in this reconstruction

of the various phases of w rit ing is the p rinciple of unidire ctiona l

developm ent . T he term unidirec t ional as used here mean s tha t

writ ing developed in one certain direction, and i t should not be

confused with the term un ilinea r , which would m ea n t ha t

writing progressed in one direction following a straight line of

development . Nothing would be farther from the t ruth than to

argue in defence of a straight development of writ ing, since we

know rather well that i t was along the path of trial and error

that writing progressed from stage to stage in the long course

2

oi.uchicago.edu




of i ts history. There is nothing unusual in arguing in favour of

a unidirectional development, as a similar l ine of evolution can

be attested in many other aspects of our culture, such as

language, art, religion, and economic theory. In linguistics, for

instance, we know of the tendency of languages to develop

from isolating to agglutinative to inflectional stages. In a more

specific case such as phonetics we can frequently observe a

tendency of voiceless consonants to change to aspirates and in

turn of aspirates to change to voiced consonants (see also p.

202) . The gradual evolution of the definite and indefinite

articles and the gradual disappearance of the old dual are

further i l lustrations of the unidirectional development of

l a n g u a g e .

4

What this principle means in the history of writing is that

in reaching its ult imate development writing, whatever i ts fore

runners may be, must pass through the stages of logography,

syl labography, and alphabetography in this , and no other,

order. Therefore, no writing can start with a syllabic or

alphabetic stage unless i t is borrowed, directly or indirectly,

from a system which has gone through all the previous stages.

A system of writing can naturally stop at one stage without

developing farther. T hu s, a nu m be r of writings stopped at th e

logograph ic or syllabic stage. T he saying na tu ra no n facit

saltus

can be applied to the history of writing in the sense that

no stage of development can be skipped. Therefore, if i t is

accepted th at logo graph y develops first into syllabogra phy, then

the so-called Eg yp tian alp ha be t , which developed from logo

graphy, cannot be an alphabet but must be a syl labary. There

is no reverse development: an alphabet cannot develop into a

syllabary, just as a syllabary cannot lead to the creation of

logograph y. Fo r th at reason it is absu rd to speak of the d evelop

ment of the Ethiopic (or Sanskrit) syllabaries from a Semitic

alphabet. As shown in another place (see pp. 186 ff.), both the

Ethiopic and Sanskrit writ ings are further developments from

a Semitic syllabary, which, in turn, is a creation following the

model of the Egyptian syllabary.

I t is difficult to pr ed ict th e future of ou r ow n writin g, in o the r

words, what will be the next stage into which our alphabetic

system may develop in the years to corne. Should our writing

evolve accidentally in the direction of semasiography, that is,

a system of writing without definite correspondence to spoken

2 1

oi.uchicago.edu




lang uag e (see pp . 243 f.), this could no t be bro ug ht forth in

favour of a reverse development. Like the parallel phenomenon

in the case of languages developing through the isolating

> agglutinative > inflectional > isolating, etc., stages

5

or in

the case of the T A M -T A M rule in Indo -Eu ropea n phonet ics

(tenuis > aspirata > m edia > tenuis > aspirata > m ed ia) ,

6

the development of writ ing in the direction of semasiography

would only show that writ ing can pass through various stages

along a circular, or rather spiral , l ine of development. Only if

our present alphabet should change directly into a word or

syllabic writ ing could a case be made against the principle of

unidirect ional development .

From what has been said above we should expect to find the

normal development of writ ing from logographic to syllabic or

fcom syllabic to alphabetic attested within one writing as used

in one certain area. But habit is always de rer to men th n

progress

and consequently writ ing very rarely develops to this extent

within one area. The t rend from a preponderant ly logographic

to a preponderantly syllabic writ ing can be observed within the

hieroglyphic Hitt i te system. On the other side, al though in their

earl ier s tages the Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egypt ian

systems manifested sound tendencies in the direction of

syllabography, in the course of centuries they became more and

more burdened with a great number of addi t ional word signs.

The retrograde evolution of individual writ ings was frequently

facilitated whenever they fell under the control of a priestly or

political caste. In such cases the systems gradually became so

overburdened with various art ificial and baroque deflections

that they grew too difficult for large masses of people to master.

The final result of such degenerated writ ing was frequently i ts

total rejection by the people and i ts replacement by an entirely

new system introduced from abroad (see also pp. 165 and 196).

Such was the case with the relatively simple and easy to learn

cuneiform systems of the Old Akkadians, Old Assyrians, and

Old Babylonians, as compared with those of the Late Assyrians

and Late Babylonians, which were finally replaced by the

Aramaic script . Or that of the hieroglyphic systems of the

Egyptian Pyramid and Empire periods, as contrasted with the

complicated and enigmatic developments in the Ptolemaic Era,

which finally resulted in the replacement of hieroglyphic by the

Coptic wri t ing. The almost unbel ievable development of

2 2

oi.uchicago.edu



OBSERVATIONS

logog raphy in the Chinese writing is a well know n ph en om en on .

Due to i ts marginal geographic posit ion in the Old World,

China was not affected by foreign invasions to the extent that

the Near Eastern areas were. For that reason, the evolution of

the Chinese writing progressed through thousands of years

undisturbed by foreign influences, resulting finally in a type of

writing which perfectly suited th e needs of a small b ure au cra tic

clique, but was totally inaccessible to 90 per cent of the

populat ion.

T he history of our w riting in th e course of thousa nds of years

is closely paralleled by the history of some modern writings

created under the st imulus of white men among primit ive

societies, for example, the Cherokee Indian and the African

Bamum writings, which will be discussed more fully on pages

206 f. and 208 f. Both of these writings, starting with an un-

systematic semasiography, first developed logographic systems

in which individual signs expressed individual words of the

language. Due to the inadequacy of pure logography both

writings were soon forced to evolve syllabic systems, but while

the Bamum writing in i ts ult imate development seems to show

certain tendencies tow ard alpha betiz ation , the Cherokee writing,

l ike many other comparable writings used by primitives,

stopped at the syllabic stage. This sequence of the stages of

writing reflects the stages of primitive psychology. Naturally,

as all primitives can grasp parts of speech, such as utterances

an d ph rases , it is freque ntly w ith some difficulty th a t they ca n

recognize individual words. The abili ty to divide a word into

its component syllables is a great step in their understanding of

speech and it frequently must be learned through outside

influence. The division of syllables into single sounds usually

lies beyond their capacity. That this sequence in analysing

speech is the most natural one is supported by the fact that

almost al l the wri t ings introduced in modern t imes among

primitive societies stopped at the syllabic stage. The effective-

ness of syl labaries and the extraordinary ease with which the

abili ty to w rite an d rea d syllabic w ritings c n be acqu ire d by

nat ive s tudents—in cont ras t to a lphabet ic wri t ings—have

been poin ted out repeatedly by Western observers .

7

In going over this short sketch of the development of writing

we can observe three great steps by which writing evolved from

the primitive stages to a full alphabet. In chronological order

203

oi.uchicago.edu



E V O L U T I O N OF W R I T I N G

they ar e: (i) the Su m erian principle of pho netiza tion, (2) the

West Semitic syllabic writ ing, and (3) the Greek alphabet.

T h e principle of pho netiza tion, leading tow ard a fully

systematized syllabary, is historically first attested among the

Sum erians, la ter amo ng m any o ther writ ings of the Old W orld.

The sporadic occurrence of phonetization in various parts of the

O ld as wel l as the New W orld (p p. 5 , 4 1, an d 54) proves t ha t

this principle could have been evolved independent ly in if-

ferent areas.

The second important step was the creation of the West

Semitic syllabary consisting of some twenty-two signs, fully

identical in principle with the correspo nding E gy ptian syllabary

of twenty-four signs. The greatness of the Semitic achievement

does not l ie in any revolutionary innovation but in i ts rejection

of all the word signs and signs with more than one consonant

of the Egyptian system and in i ts restriction to a small number

of open syllabic signs. In a way this achievement is no greater

than that of the Cypriote syllabary, which developed from an

Aegean word-syllabic writ ing by discarding the word sign

apparatus. Of course, the creation of the Semitic syllabary was

of considerably greater importance in the history of writ ing

than the parallel creations in other areas, simply because this

wri t ing happened to become the mother of a l l the alphabets ,

while the Cypriote system died out without leaving any direct

descendants .

Finally, the third important step, the creation of the Greek

alphabet, was realized by the systematic use of a device

matres

le tionis

which was widely but sporadically employed in various

parts of the Near East . The regular addition of vowels to the

syllabic signs resulted in reducing the values of these syllabic

signs to alphabetic signs, consequently leading to the creation

of a full alphabet. As shown elsewhere (see pp. 166 ff.), many

other Oriental writ ings were also on the way toward the

development of an alphabetic writ ing very similar to that

evolved systematically for the first time by the Greeks.

The point which needs to be stressed is that none of these

three important steps is really revolutionary in the sense that i t

presents something entirely new. In l ine with what was said

previously ab ou t so-called inv entio ns in gen eral (see p . 199),

the only observable dev elopm ent in th e history of w rit ing is the

systematization at a certain stage of devices which had been

2 4

oi.uchicago.edu



O B S E R V T I O N S

kno wn previously b u t ha d been used only in a ha ph az ard

way.

W e have thus followed the evolution of w rit ing from prim itive

semasiographic at tempts to fully developed word-syllabic

syllabic and alphabetic systems. Simple as this development of

w rit ing m ay ap pe ar at first sight i t m ust be strongly emph asized

that i t has heretofore been badly mistreated. How else can we

regard the opinion of a scholar who takes for granted the

successive evolution of the w ord syllabic an d alpha be tic w rit

ings

8

b ut a t the same t im e cal ls the Egy pt ian pho net ic non -

semant ic wri t ing consonantal

9

and elsewhere talks about the

syllabic writing as being a blind alley

Sackgasse)

which could

neve r lead to an alph ab et ic wri t ing?

10

Ho w c an we reconci le the

conflict ing statements of another scholar who believes that

wri t ing developed from a pictographic-ideographic through the

syl labic to an alp ha be t ic s tage

11

but a t the same t ime takes the

Egypt ian non-semant ic wri t ing to be a mul t iconsonantal and

uniconsonanta l mixture

1 2

and concludes that the absence of

vowels in Eg yp tian an d West Sem itic writ ings h as no t b een

satisfactori ly explained?

1 3

It seems to me that these conflicting

sets of statements can be el iminated only if we try rigorously

to draw a logical conclusion from the two basic premises:—

Premise I.— From the point of view of

the theory

of writing the

evolution is

from a

word-syllabic

writing

through

a

syllabic

writing to

an

alphabetic

writing.

Premise II.— From the historical point of view the development is

from the Egyptian writing through the West Semitic writing to the

Greek

writing.

If we accept the two premises—and there seems to be no

disagreement among scholars as to the validity of these two

premises individually—then we must draw the self-evident con

clusion that some sort of a syllabary existed either in the

Egyptian or in the Semitic systems before the evolution of the

Greek alphabet . This is the crux of the problem. I t can be

entirely el im inated if we accep t the theoretically an d historically

justified development of writ ing as proposed in this study: from

the Egyptian

word-syllabic system

to

the purely

syllabic W est Semitic

writing and from the West Semitic syllabic writing to the G reek

alphabet.

2 5

oi.uchicago.edu



VII

M O D E R N W R I T I N G S A M O N G

P R I M I T I V E S

U T S I D E

of the limited systems which have been used

in recent t imes am ong p rimitive societies and wh ich

were discussed in Chapter II under Forerunners of

Writing there is a large number of more developed

writings introduced in modern t imes among primitive societies

un de r the influence of w hite me n, chiefly missionaries. In the

following short discussion all these writings are grouped

according to the continents on which they originated. For the

sake of completeness, the writings invented directly by white

m en for use am ong p rimitive societies are also inclu ded . D ue to

the importance of the subject, l i terature is. qu oted as com pletely

as possible.

D E S C R I P T I V E P R E S E N T A T I O N

The most important and apparent ly the oldest on the

American cont inent is the Cherokee wri t ing, invented by an

Indian named Sikwayi—known bet ter in the form Sequoyah—

for the use of his tribesmen living in the territory now covered

by the state of North Carolina. Sequoyah received the stimulus

to invent wri t ing from white men, but , a l though he was

acquainted with the existence of books printed in English, he

could nei ther read nor wri te that language. About 1820 he

began experimenting with a new wri t ing by organizing on the

basis of prim itive In di an sem asiography see p p . 29 ff. an d

39 ff.) a system of pictographic signs each of which stood for

words of his tong ue. Gr ad ua lly realizing how h ar d i t wou ld b e

to persuade his fellow tribesmen to learn a difficult word

writing, he gave up his init ial attempt and began to work on

a system in which n ot words bu t their com pon ent parts , nam ely

206

oi.uchicago.edu



D E S C R I P T I V E P R E S E N T A T I O N

syllables, were expressed by individual signs. At the same time

he abandoned his original idea of expressing signs by pictures

and instead decided to use the forms of the signs in his English

book as the basis for th e signs in his own syllab ary. F or ex am ple ,

to the sign i7he gave the value

mi,

to the sign

A

that of go, etc.

Other signs were either freely invented or were derived

variants of the English forms. Thus he created first a syllabary

of some two hundred signs, which by 1824

n e

simplified con

siderably by shortening it to eighty-five signs. This is the

writ ing in which books and newspapers of the Cherokee nation

were subsequent ly publ ished.

1

O f less im po rta nc e is the syllab ary inven ted a little after 1840

by J . Ev an s, an Eng lish m issionary, for the use of the C ree

Indians and other neighbouring tribes of the Algonquins, in

C an ad a. T h e syllabary is composed of forty-four signs dra w n

in simple geometric form. Vowel differences are indicated by

different orientation of the basic sign. An additional set of signs

is used to indicate final consonants. Several systems are known.

2

The ponderous system of word signs in the writ ing invented

by a missionary named Christ ian Kauder had a l imited use

am ong the M icmac or M egum ) Ind ians l iving in eastern

Canada. In 1866 a whole catechism was printed in Vienna in

this writing, for which no less than 5,701 different signs, freely

invented, were used.

3

The absurdity of the system is best

illustrated by the fact that it contains separate signs even for

such l i t t le-used words or names as Vienna and Austria.

A pure alphabet is represented by the various systems used

by the Algonquin tribes of Sauk, Fox, and Kickapoo in the

south-west. The alphabet consists of fifteen signs, with slight

variations all taken over from a cursive form of the Latin

w rit ing. I n eleven cases the sign values are app roxim ately those

of English; only in four cases the values have been changed

arb i t ra r i ly .

4

Very l i t t le is known about an alphabet which was

borrowed by a Winnebago t r ibe from the Sauk Indians. The

alphabet is supposed to consist of seventeen Latin letters and

two new signs, arbitrari ly created. It is reported that of the

seventeen Latin letters capital or sm all?), ten retain ed their

L atin values e.g. w rit ten

m

= spoken

m

while seven acquired

new values e.g. w rit ten

r =

spoken

s .

5

Of greatest interest are the various writ ings used among the

Alaska Eskimos. O u t of prim itive sema siography see p . 34.)

2 7

oi.uchicago.edu



M O D E R N W R I T I N G S A M O N G P R I M I T I V E S

some t ime toward the end of the nineteenth century a word

writing was developed with signs both pictorial or l inear. In

the course of t ime the writ ing acquired certain features of

phonetization, although a full phonetic syllabary of the

Cherokee type was never achieved among the Eskimos. Several

types of the Eskimo writing are in use in different parts of

Alaska, in some of wh ich certain tendencies tow ard alph abe tiza

tion are discernible.

6

Turning now to Africa, the first writ ing to appear there was

that of the Vai Negroes in the region of Sierra Leone and

Liberia. According to one source, some years before 1848 a

native Negro named Bukele developed from a primitive

sem asiogra phic system see p p . 48 ff.) a pic tur e w ord w riting

and then a syllabic system. Some syllabic signs were derived

from the corresponding word signs, others were formed

arbitrari ly. In the course of years the pictures gradually lost

their pictographic character, while the number of word signs

was so reduced that in its final stage the Vai writing consists of

some 226 syllabic signs plus a very few word signs.

7

Closely allied to the Vai is a group of syllabic writings, most

of w hich m ay very well hav e originated un de r the influence of

the older Vai wri t ing:—

The Mende syllabic writing consists of some 190 signs and

was invented by a nat ive cal led Kisimi Kamala.

8

The Basa syllabary in Liberia is known only from general

repor t s .

9

The writ ing of the Kapelle or Kpelle, north of Basa, is st i l l

unpubl i shed .

1 0

The Toma sy l labary in French Guinea and Liber ia consis t s

of 187 signs showing st rong Vai-Mende relat ionships.

1 1

T h e G erze wri ting in Frenc h G uinea is represented by only

87 signs.

12

M uc h m ore recent than the Va i w ri t ing is the equal ly im

portan t wri t ing of the Bamum in the Cameroons , invented

about 1895-96 by a nat ive chieftain Njoya under the influence

of Europeans o r Hausa merchan t s .

1 3

The Bamum wri t ing , l ike

Vai, started first as a picture word writ ing composed of some

510 signs. Gradually the signs lost their original pictographic

character and, a t the same t ime, the number of s igns was

gradually reduced from about 510 to 437 to 381 to 295 to 205.

In i ts ul t imate development a Bamum syl labary of some 70

2 8

oi.uchicago.edu



DESCRIPTIVE PRESENTATION

signs appears , showing certain tendencies toward alphabet iza-

t ion—a phenomenon en t i re ly un ique among wri t ings of mod-

ern African societies.

14

The origin of this new type of writ ing

is du e to m ost unu sua l c i rcumstanc es. I t seems that th e K in g

N joya bec am e jealous of his royal col leagues in th e neig hbo ur-

ing countries who possessed a royal language of their own

ap ar t from the com m on lang uag e of their subjects , an d decided

to create a language for the use of his royal court . The new lan-

guage, composed with the help of a European woman mission-

ary, represents a concoct ion of French, German, and Engl ish

words, a l l pronounced in the nat ive fashion but with meanings

arbitrari ly assigned. Because of the inadequacy of the existing

syllabic system to express foreign w ords , a device was intr od uc ed

to add vowel signs to open syllables in the form known as

plene

writing in the many systems of the Near East (see pp. 166 ff.).

Thus, the word

fete stuff

5

(from Eng lish T ate ) is w ritte n as

f e)-e-t e)-e

9

just as

atol

th at s it (from En glish a t all ) is

writ ten as

a-t e)-o-l i).

But the device is not used systematically

and a full alphabet has never been achieved among the

Bamum. Although the alphabetic spell ing of the above words

asf-e-t-e

and a-t-o-l used by some scholars, does not seem to be

fully justified, the Bamum development is of greatest im-

portance for the theory of writ ing, proving, as i t does, that an

alphabet can originate not only from a syllabary of the Semitic

type, consisting of signs in which vowels are not indicated, but

also from a syllabary like Bamum, which consists of signs with

a full indication of vowels

15

(see p p . 175 f. an d i8 4 f .) .

The only sure example of an alphabetic writ ing developed in

modern t imes among African natives is the Somali alphabet.

The creator of the wri t ing, a nat ive by name of

c

I s ma n

Ytisuf,

was not an i l l i terate person since he was well acquainted with

Arabic and, to some extent, with Italian. On the basis of his

kno w ledge of these systems,

c

Isman Yusi i f evolved an alphabet

of his own, composed of nineteen consonants and ten vowels.

The order of the consonants is that of the Arabic alphabet. The

forms of the signs were borrowed neither from Arabic nor

Italian but seem to be freely invented, perhaps partially under

the influence of the

du tus

of the Ethiopic writ ing.

1 6

A unique system invented in modern t imes in Asia is that of

the Chukchi shepherd, named Tenevi l , in Siberia . The wri t ing

consists of several hundred signs, conventionally drawn, each of

209

oi.uchicago.edu



M O D E R N W R I T I N G S A M O N G P R I M I T I V E S

which stands for a certain word. As the phonetic-syllabic stage

was never reach ed, the w rit ing was difficult to learn an d i ts use

was, therefore, confined to Ten evil s family and ac qu ain tan ces .

1 7

Several syllabic systems with linear signs were devised by the

British Bible Missions for use of different languages in South

west China . Nothing i s known to me about them beyond

samples of w rit ing, as given in a catalog ue issued b y th e British

and Foreign Bible Society.

18

Finally, we should refer to a syllabic script allegedly used on

one of the Carol ine Is lands, about which nothing is known

except that—as in the Cherokee wri t ing—the forms of Lat in

signs were used as the basis for the signs of the Caroline

syl labary.

1 9

The syl labary used on the is land Oleai or Uleai , in

the Carolines, is said to contain signs part ly developed from

pictures , part ly arbi t rar i ly invented, and may therefore be a

different creation.

2 0

OBSER V A TION S

Even this short resume clearly shows how difficult it is even

to l ist al l the writ ings which have been created in recent t imes

for use among primitive societies. Some of these writ ings are

known very inadequately, others are known only from hearsay,

and still others must exist in obscure corners of the globe as yet

unnoticed by scholars. This is a fert i le ground for investigation,

heretofore ba dly neglected in works on w rit ing. A strong imp etus

to the study of these important writ ings has been given in recent

years by the wel l known Oriental is t , Johannes Friedrich.

The study of these writ ings leads to conclusions which are of

pr im ary im po rtanc e for the general his tory of wri t ing. Her e are

some per t inent point s :—

(i) Al l the wri t ings which have gone through an extended

process of evolution, l ike the Cherokee and Alaska systems in

North America or Vai and Bamum systems in Africa , have

evolved from primitive semasiography and have passed

successively through the stages of logography and syllabo-

graphy, showing at t imes in the final stages certain tendencies

tow ard alpha bet izat ion . T hu s, the sequence of s tages in

writ ings introduced among primitives fully parallels the history

of writing in its natural evolution, as discussed above, pp. 190 ff.

(2) The wri t ings developed among primit ives under the

2 1

oi.uchicago.edu



OBSERVATIONS

influence of white men have passed within the span of one or

two generations th rou gh a process of evolution which ha d take n

thousands of years for writ ing in general to pass. Thus, we can

observe the process of evolution speeded up immensely under

th e im pa ct of foreign stimu lus see also p p . 219 f.).

3) T h e case of the original Cherokee word w rit ing, inven ted

by Sequoyah and then given up by him, the l imited use of the

Alaska and Chukchi word wri t ings prove the content ion

espoused on p. 193 about the infeasibility of word writing in

general as a system of communication.

4) Judging by the great majority of writ ings, discussed in

this chapter, the syllabic stage is best suited for use among

pri m itive societies. Th is is in line with the view expressed ab ov e,

P- 203.

5) Certain tendencies of such syllabic writ ings as Bamum

and Alaskan to develop in the direction of an alphabet belie the

statem ent of K . Sethe,

2 1

that the syllabic writing is a blind alley

Sackgasse which could never lead to an alphabetic writ ing.

The view defended in this study is that an alphabet could not

deve lop from a ny thin g else b ut a syllab ary see p . 20 5).

2

oi.uchicago.edu



VIII

M O N O G E N E S I S O R P O L Y G E N E S I S O F

W R I T I N G

I T the outset of ou r discussion one po int mu st be

/ s tressed imm ediately . I t is impossible to speak abo ut

/ t h e monogenesis of w rit ing if we use the term

L J L . ' w r i t i n g

5

in its widest sense to stand for all methods

of human communicat ion by means of visible markings.

Writing in this sense, like pictures in general, could have been

and actually was used by various people in various parts of the

w orld, a nd it w ould be ju st as senseless to speak a bo ut th e

common origin of these writings as it would be to try to derive

all art from one common source. Thus, the problem of the

monogenesis or polygenesis of writ ing can pertain only to what

we call full or phonetic writing.

We know of seven great systems of writing, all of which,

theoretically, could claim independent origin: Sumerian,

Proto-Elamite , Proto-Indic , Chinese, Egypt ian, Cretan, and

Hittite. As each of these systems represents a phonetic writing,

i t was thought by some scholars, l ike Alfred Schmitt

1

and

A r t h u r U n g n a d ,

2

that a l l of them must have one common

origin because such an important feature as phonetization

could not have been independently achieved in several parts

of the world. Personally, I am not much convinced as to the

validity of their reasoning. Phonetization may truly be the most

im po rta nt step in the developm ent of real w rit ing, b ut there are

no grounds for argu ing th at such a step could have been reac hed

only once in one certain place (see p. 204). It was not the

invention of phonetization but the systematization of this

principle that was of such paramount importance in the

evolution of full writing.

Before we go deeper into the problem of the monogenesis or

212

oi.uchicago.edu



C U L T U R A L B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E O R I E N T A L S YST EM S

polygenesis of writing let us discuss briefly the conditions and

the cul tural background under which the seven Oriental

systems developed, and see what evidence there is of cultural

contact between them.

C U L T U R A L B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E S E V E N O R I E N T A L SY ST EM S

The oldest of the seven Oriental systems of writing is

Sumerian which originated in southern Mesopotamia around

3100 B.C. F ro m a period only a few cen turies later c om e o ur

first examples of the undeciphered Proto-Elamite writ ing,

discovered at Susa, the capital of ancient Elam. At least in the

case of the Proto-Elamite inscriptions it is difficult to speak

about an independent origin. Elam was so close to Sumer and

throughout i ts entire history showed such strong cultural

dependency on i ts western neighbour that the conclusion that

the Proto-Elamite wri t ing originated under the Sumerian

stimulus is almost inevitable. This cultural dependency of Elam

upon Sumer finally resulted in the total el imination of the

Proto-Elamite wri t ing and in i t s replacement by a Meso

potamian type of cuneiform (see p. 121).

The very existence of cylinder seals in the Proto-Indic

civil ization points definitely toward cultural borrowing from

Mesopotamia. This, as well as the existence of other cultural

features of pro ba ble M esopo tamian origin, leads to a p rob ab le

conclusion that the Proto-Indic writ ing, too, owed i ts origin

to Mesopotamian influence.

3

From the Indus Val ley our problem leads us to northern

Ch ina, whe re ab ou t 1300 B.C., du rin g the Shan g D yna sty,

the first writ ten records made their appearance in the form

of short inscriptions on bone, shell , and bronzes. The fact

that the extant Chinese inscriptions are l imited almost ex

clusively to divinatory texts should not be taken to mean that

the Chinese writ ing was used solely for this purpose. The very

occurrence in the earliest Shang inscriptions of the sign for

bo ok , in th e form of a pictu re of tablets t ied to geth er by a

string, testifies to the use of some perishable material like wood.

This book l i terature is now entirely lost , but who knows

whether by a stroke of luck some future excavation will not

uncover evidence to prove the existence of a widely used

2 3

oi.uchicago.edu



MONOGENESIS OR POLYGENESIS OF WRITING

l i terature in this early period. The problem of the origin of the

Chinese writ ing is closely connected with the problem of the

origin of the Shang civilization. The researches of the last few

years have proved conclusively that the Shang civil ization in

North China succeeded painted pot tery and black pot tery

cul tures of a rather primit ive character . As compared with

these simple cultures, there are so many innovations during the

period of the Shang Dynasty that in the opinion of some

eminent Sinologists the Shang period gives the impression of

being an imported, ready made civil ization. Highly developed

metal lurgy in bronze, horse-drawn war chariots , many new

weapons, domesticated animals and plants and, of course,

writ ing—these are the main new characterist ics which stand

out sharply in the Shang civil ization as against the general

cultural poverty of previous periods.

There are two different theories which try to explain the

origin of the Shang civilization: One, chiefly represented by

nativ e Chinese scholars an d in A m erica by Professor H errle e

Cree l, tries to prove tha t the S han g civilization spran g from the

native soil and should therefore be regarded as a natural

development from previous cultures

4

; the other, championed

chiefly by Western scholars, is in favour of explaining the

sud den ap pea ran ce of a fully d eveloped civilization in the Sh ang

period as due to foreign influences.

5

Whence exactly this

influence came it is impossible, of course, even to suggest, since

any of the highly developed civilizations of the Near East

could be taken into consideration. Especially important in

connection with the problem of cultural borrowings is the

existence in China of the war chariot in a form which greatly

resembles the war chariot found throughout the Near East in

the middle of the second mil lennium.

6

This is perhaps the

clearest and the surest example of the diffusion of a cultural

element over the vast area extending from the shores of the

Mediterranean to the Yel low Sea.

The direct derivation of the Chinese writ ing from Meso

potamia, suggested by some scholars on the basis of formal

comparisons of Chinese and Mesopotamian signs,

7

has never

been proved by rigorous scientific method. As will be seen later

pp . 217 f.), such formal comparisons are

priori

doomed to

failure.

If we return now to the Near East , our next task is to

2 4

oi.uchicago.edu



C U L T U R A L B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E O R I E N T A L SY ST EM S

investigate the origin of the Egyptian writ ing. Impossible as i t

may have been to give a definite answer to this question some

thirty or forty years ago, our task at present is considerably

facili tated by the extensive co m pa rativ e ma teria l w hich has

recent ly come to l ight from both Egypt and Mesopotamia. The

ne w ev iden ce shows conclusively th at ar o un d 3000 B.C., at th e

t ime of the int rodu ct ion of the Eg ypt ian w ri ting, a ra th er s t rong

Mesopotamian influence is detectable in the Egyptian civil iza

t ion. T h e existence of cylinder seals an d of the p otter s wh eel,

directly imported from Mesopotamia, as well as a strong

influence in pot tery making and brick archi tecutre , a l l point to

the Mesopotamian imprint upon the Egypt ian civi l izat ion at

this early period. The weight of these implications can be

realized more easily if i t is pointed out that the primacy of

the Meso potam ian civi lizat ion is no t prop ag ated by Pa n-

Babylonists who in years past , through exaggerated ideas of

the importance of the Babylonian civi l izat ion, had rendered so

much disservice to Assyriology, but by eminent scholars in the

field of Egyp tology wh o, inst inctively, wo uld n ot be in sym path y

with a plea for a secondary position for their own field of

s tudy .

8

Finally, we should refer to the recent investigations of

A . Scharff who proved that the forms of signs representing

objects in the earl iest Egyptian inscriptions correspond to the

forms of objects in use ab ou t 3000 B.C. in E gy pt. T h a t m ean s,

according to Scharff that the Egypt ian wri t ing originated

about 3000 B.C., i .e . in the period when the Mesopotamian

influence w as s t rongest , and thus supp orts the argu m en t th at

the wri t ing may have or igina ted under the Mesopotamian

influence.

9

Considerably easier than the problem of the origin of other

O rien tal wri t ings is th at of the Aegean gro up of wri t ings, am on g

w hich w e includ e the C reta n w rit ing with i ts offshoots in G reece

and the adjacent islands, the writ ing of the Phaistos disk, the

Cypro-Minoan syl labary, the Cypr iote syl labary, the Byblos

syl labary, and the Hi t t i t e h ie roglyphic wri t ing.

Throughout i t s ent i re his tory the Cretan civi l izat ion was

under s t rong Egypt ian influence. Finds of Egypt ian origin have

been made in various strata of Cretan si tes; in fact , the whole

Cretan chronology can be reconstructed almost exclusively by

correlat ion of the C retan s t ra ta wi th the Egy pt ian imp orts .

2 5

oi.uchicago.edu



MONOGENESIS OR POLYGENESIS OF WRITING

As the Cypriote, Phaistos, and Byblos writ ings have been

discussed elsewhere (see pp. 153 ff.), I should like to refer here

only to the fact that at least from the formal point of view the

Cypriote syllabary can be derived from the Cretan writ ing

throu gh the interm ediate stage of the so-called Cy pro -M ino an

inscriptions, th at is, * C ret an inscriptions discovered in Cy prus .

Already the oldest Hitt i te hieroglyphic texts known at

present, like the ones from Emirgazi, show a well developed

system of writ ing, in the main identical with the system known

in later periods. We know of Hitt i te inscriptions which are

older than the Emirgazi texts—on seals, for example—but even

these can hardly represent the earliest phases of the writ ing.

The forms of signs are already too well developed to allow of

such a possibility. We may draw two possible conclusions.

Either the Hitt i te hieroglyphic writ ing was an indigenous

creation with its earliest stages not available to us or this

writ ing was borrowed from elsewhere. A totally independent

origin of H itt i te w rit ing in the m iddle of the second m illennium

B.C. seems priori im prob able s ince at tha t t ime An atol ia w as

surrounded by high civilizations with fully developed writings,

which lent themselves easily to borrowing. Of these writings

cuneiform cannot be taken into consideration because i t is no

longer a picture writ ing. The Egyptian writ ing is geographically

too far away and too different from the Hitt i te hieroglyphic.

Therefore, by the simple process of elimination, we seem

justified in looking to the West for parallels, and more especially

toward the Aegean cu l tura l a rea . There , the Cre tan wri t ing

and the other Aegean systems offer the most fert i le ground for

compar i son .

Back in 1931, in trying to prove th e com m on origin of the

Hitt i te hieroglyphic and Cretan writ ings I drew a table

showing some forty comparable signs in these two systems.

10

As I no longer believe in quantitative comparison of forms

betw een two different w ritings, this table does no t app ea r to m e

any more to have such far-reaching results. Many of the

picture signs found in both Cretan and Hitt i te hieroglyphic

writings, such as those for parts of the body, animals, or

geometric designs, can and do frequently occur in all picto-

graphic or hieroglyphic systems of writ ing. There is, however,

a small group of signs in this table which, as far as I know,

occur in these two systems of writ ing only, and another group

2 6

oi.uchicago.edu



P O S S IB L E A R G U M E N T S I N F A V O U R O F M O N O G E N E S I S

of signs characterized by such developments in pictorial form

1 1

that it would be very difficult to escape the conclusion that they

ul t imately must go back to the same source.

M uch mo re imp or tant however than the compar i son of

outer forms of individual signs is the comparison of inner

characteris t ics . Al though we cannot compare the principles of

the Hit t i te hieroglyphic with those of the Cretan hieroglyphic

because the la t ter is un de cip he red we are ent i re ly justi fied in

co m pa ring th e system of the Hit t i te hieroglyphic syl labary w ith

the Lin ear B an d Cy prio te syllabaries especial ly s ince we

know that nowhere e lse in the Near East are syl labaries of this

type used. Fu r the rm ore we know th a t the forms of the indi -

vidual signs of the Cypriote syllabary are definitely derived

from the corresponding s igns of the Cre tan wri t ing. Through

the connect ion in forms of s igns between Hit t i te and Cretan

hieroglyphic through the connec t ion in s t ruc ture be tween

H i t t i te Linea r B an d Cy pr iote syllabar ies an d thro ug h the

connect ion in forms between signs of the Cypriote and Cretan

w rit ings we arriv e at the conclusion th a t all these w rit ings are

in some w ay relate d to each oth er an d th us feel fully just ified

in bring ing them b ack ul t ima tely to the sam e source to be

sought somewhere in the a rea a round the Aegean Sea .

P O S S I B L E A R G U M E N T S I N F A V O U R O F M O N O G E N E S I S

O f the seven O rie nta l systems of w rit ing Su m erian is the

oldest; but that fact in itself is no proof that it must have

formed th e pro toty pe of al l othe r Or ien tal writ ings ju st as there

is no reason for believing that the Chinese invention of paper

money and of gunpowder should be taken as the prototype of

the corresponding achievements which took place in Europe

many centuries later. We must therefore search for other

reasons if we intend to give to the problem of the monogenesis

of writing a firmer basis.

Another possible approach would l ie in comparison of outer

form. As has bee n men tioned before for ma ny years some

scholars have been trying to derive the Chinese writ ing from

the Sumerian by comparing the forms of the signs. Similar

deduct ions were suggested in a number of other Oriental

writ ings. It has been stressed often enough in this book that

I am in general very reluc tan t to d ra w conclusions as to

2 7

oi.uchicago.edu



M O N O G E N E S I S O R P O L Y G E N E S I S O F W R I T I N G

common origin of writ ings based solely on comparison of outer

form. The signs in all the original systems of writing are

pictorial in character and are employed to represent objects of

the surrounding world. As human beings all over the world,

and the objects by which they are surrounded, have much in

common, we should natural ly ant ic ipate that the pictures they

devised for their writings would also have many points of

resemblance. Thus, men and parts of the body, animals and

plants, tools and weapons, buildings and structures, sky, earth,

w ater, and fire are everyw here represe nted by pictures c har acte r

ized by great similarity in form, because all of these things

actually exist in similar forms. There is no need to claim for

these signs one single origin.

More important than comparisons of outer form are com

parisons of inner structural characterist ics, such as phonetiza-

tion or vocalization. But even here the development could take

similar forms in different places As evidence we may cite the

fact that several writings created among primitive societies

un de r th e st im ulus of w hite me n see p p . 206 ff.) hav e gone

through a similar process of development in respect to inner

structural characterist ics, even though they have developed

entirely independently of each other.

As we view the earliest history of the seven Oriental systems

of wri t ing one important observat ion immediately comes to

mind. And that is that while the period of development of the

Sumerian writ ing from its primitive beginnings to a full

phonetic system is rather long—it may have lasted about five

centuries—the situation in other Oriental writ ings is quite

different. Thus, we find that the earliest extant Chinese and

Hittite texts exhibit almost fully developed phonetic systems

wh ich ha rd ly differ in their ma in inner struc tura l characterist ics

from those of the later periods. In the case of Egyptian and

C re tan w rit ings the crucial period of deve lopm ent seems to hav e

been very short. And finally, while we know very little about

the Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic writ ings, i t is clear from an

even superficial glance at Figs. 45 f. and 47 that, at least from

the formal point of view, these two writings give the impression

of being fully developed systems. These facts can be explained

in two possible ways: Either the other Oriental systems all had

a long proto-history, now lost , comparable in duration with

that of the Sumerian writ ing, or the systems developed rapidly

2 8

oi.uchicago.edu



P O S SI B LE A R G U M E N T S I N F A V O U R O F M O N O G E N E S IS

under foreign influence or st imulus. rgumentum e silentio may

no t be a strong argu m en t bu t i t w ould seem ra th er difficult to

argue in favour of lost protohistory when i t is noted how

common this silence is in the case of all the Oriental systems

outside of Sumerian.

The most frui t ful approach to the problem of the mono-

genesis of writ ing is that of st imulus based on cultural contact .

T h e pr ob lem is of course very difficult since it is ev iden t th at

th e proofs br ou gh t forth in favour of the mono genesis of w rit ing

based as they are solely on evidence of cu ltura l conta ct do n ot

seem strong enoug h to m ak e the poin t conclusive. Sti ll one

feature stands out clearly in favour of mon ogenesis an d th at is

that al l Oriental systems outside of Sumerian came into

existence in periods of strong cultural influences from abroad.

Fu rtherm ore i t should be noted that a l thou gh there is no clear

pro of for the com m on o rigin of all seven systems th er e is stron g

evidence that at least some of the systems are derived from one

source. Th us cul tural con tact supp orted by geographic

proxim ity makes a com m on origin for the Su m erian Pro to-

Elam ite and Proto -Ind ic systems highly pro ba ble . T h e same

considerations in ad dit io n to formal an d stru ctu ral features

bring together the Aeg ean grou p of wri t ings including Cr etan

and Hitt i te just as some of these considerations seem to support

the theory of Egypt ian influence upon the Cretan wri t ing. As

for the Eg yp tian w rit ing i ts origin occu rred close to an d q uite

possibly within the period when Mesopotamian influence in

Egypt was stronger than at any other period either a few

centuries before or after th e crucial perio d. Finally the Chinese

writ ing seems to have originated in the period of the Shang

Dy nasty wh ich is characterized by so m an y foreign innovat ions

that many scholars regard i t as a ready made imported

civilization.

How are we to evaluate the importance of s t imulus based on

cul tur al contact? T h e prob lem of course is no t l imited to

w ritin g alon e since it affects m an y oth er aspects of ou r civiliza

t ion. Ta ke for exam ple the problem of the origins of Greek

astronomy. I t i s I bel ieve taken for granted that many

elements of Greek ast ronomy were borrowed from the

Bab ylonians. An d w ha t is the evidence? First the existence of

similar e lements in Greece and B abylonia; second the chro no

logical priori ty of the Mesopotamian elements over those in

2 9

oi.uchicago.edu



M O N O G N S IS O R P O L Y G N S I S O F W R I T I N G

Greece; and thi rd a pro bab le assum ption of cul tural c on tact

between the two areas. I t seems to me that the arguments

brought forth above in favour of the monogenesis of writ ing are

nei ther s t ronger nor weaker th an those add uced in favour of the

dependency of Greek ast ronomy on Babylonian prototypes.

1 2

2 2

oi.uchicago.edu



X

W R I T I N G A N D C I V I L I Z A T I O N

I M P O R T A N C E O F W R I T I N G

A M ES H . B R E A S T E D ,

the famous Chicago his torian and

O rientalist , once said: T h e inve ntion of w rit ing and of

a convenient system of records on paper has had a

greater influence in upl i f t ing the human race than any

other inte l lectual achievement in the career of man.

1

To this

sta tement might be added the opinions of many other great

men—among them Car ly l e , Kant , Mi rabeau , and Renan—

who believed that the invention of writ ing formed the real

beginning of civil ization. These opinions are well supported

by the s ta teme nt so frequent ly qu oted in an throp olog y: As

language dist inguishes man from animal, so writ ing dist in

guishes civil ized man from barbarian.

How can these statements be checked in the l ight of history?

Is it true that writing was mainly responsible for the decisive

change that made the primit ive into a c ivi l ized man? The

answer is not easy. Everywhere in the Ancient World writ ing

appears first at a t ime which is characterized by a simul

taneous growth of al l those various elements which together

make for what we usually call civil ization. Whenever writ ing

appears i t i s accompanied by a remarkable development of

government , ar ts , commerce, industry, metal lurgy, extensive

m eans of tran spo rtat ion , full agricu lture an d dom estication of

animals, in contrast to which all the previous periods, without

writ ing, make the impression of cultures of a rather primitive

make-up. There is no need, however, to urge that the int ro

duct ion of wri t ing was

th

factor which was responsible for the

birth of original civil izations. It seems rather that al l the

factors—geographic, social , economic—leading towards a full

civil ization simultaneously created a complex of condit ions

which could not funct ion properly without wri t ing. Or, to put

2 2 1

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A N D C I V IL I Z A T I O N

i t in other words: W riting exists only in a civilization and a

civilization c nnot exist without writing

In our modern society it is difficult to imagine an intelligent

and cul tured person who cannot read and wri te . The art of

writ ing has become so widespread that i t now forms an integral

and indispensable part of our cul ture . We have come a long

way since the t ime when proud but i l l i terate kings of the

Middle Ages signed their names with crosses. Nowadays an

il l i terate person cannot expect to part icipate successfully in

human progress, and what is true of individuals is also true of

any group of individuals, social strata, or ethnic units. This is

most apparent in Europe, where nat ions without any not iceable

percentage of i l l i terates, l ike the Scandinavians, lead other

nations in cultural achievements, while those with a large

proportion of i l l i terates, l ike some of the Balkan nations, lag

in many respects behind their more l i terate neighbours .

The importance of writ ing can easily be realized if one tries

to imagine our world without wri t ing. Where would we be

without books, newspapers, let ters? What woufcl happen to our

means of communication if we suddenly lost the abil i ty to

wri te , and to our knowledge if we had no way of read ing abo ut

the achievements of the past? Wri t ing is so important in our

daily life that I should be willing to say that our civilization

could exist more easily without money, metals, radios, steam

engines, or electrici ty than without writ ing.

We can make one negative observation, however. As a result

of the w idespread use of wri t ing th e imp ortan ce of oral t radi t ion

has definitely suffered. All we hav e to do is to com pa re w ha t w e

know about our own ancestors beyond our grandparents wi th

what an i l l i terate Bedouin knows about his, in order to observe

the great difference. The average Bedouin has no recourse to

writ ten documents to find out about his family or his tribe; he

has to keep in his memory knowledge of past happenings and

he can t ransfer t ha t knowledge to others only by wo rd of mo uth .

The extensive use of oral tradit ion is an important factor in

sharpening and developing the powers of memorizing. I t i s a

well-known fact that the wise men of ancient India learned the

Vedas by heart , just as the ancient Greeks commit ted to

memory the I l iad and the Odyssey. We do not have to learn

our great classics by heart . We can read them in books. The

ph rase ex l ibro do ctus well applies to a gre at m an y of us.

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A N D S P E E C H

Modern knowledge consists not only in the actual knowing but

also in the ability to find the facts in books and l ibraries. In that

sense, the Baconian dist inction of these two kinds of knowledge

is even more pe rt inent to-day tha n i t was in Bacon s own t ime .

W R I T I N G A N D S P E E C H

The interrela t ion between speech and wri t ing and their

m ut ua l influences a re very stron g. It is frequ ently difficult to

study a speech with ou t kno wledg e of i ts w rit ing, an d i t is almo st

impossible to understand a wri t ing without knowledge of the

speech for which it is used.

Writ ing is more conservative than speech and i t has a

powerful restraining influence on the natural development of

the speech. Writ ten language frequently preserves older forms

which are no longer used in the daily language. We often

em ploy in our wr iting a form of En glish w hich is different from

spoken English. The difference between the l i terary and

the everyday speech is apparent, for example, in ancient

Babylonian. Not only are the historical , rel igious, and epic

composi t ions wri t ten in a more archaic language than the

letters, but we can even observe similar archaic tendencies in

the language of the formal, royal let ters as compared with that

of private le tters wri t ten in the vernac ular . W ri t ing s tubbo rnly

resists an y l inguistic ch ang e, frequently term ed co rru pt io n .

It is pr ob ab le th at such po pu lar expressions as ai n t (for is

no t ) or no good (for no t goo d ) wo uld long since ha ve bee n

accepted as co rrec t English were i t no t for oppo sit ion from

wri t ten t radi t ion.

A good case for the restraining power of writ ing over speech

can be made from observat ion of the phonet ic and morpho

logical development of English or, for that matter, of any other

language. The fact that English has changed relat ively l i t t le in

the last four or five hundred years, in comparison with the

strong l inguist ic changes previous to that t ime, can be ascribed

in some measure to the widespread knowledge of writ ing in the

last few centuries. On the other hand, we can observe rapid

l inguist ic changes taking place in modern t imes among

primitive societies which are deprived of real , phonetic writ ing.

Some of the American Indian languages are changing so

rapidly that it is frequently difficult, if not impossible, for

223

oi.uchicago.edu



WRITING AND CIVILIZATION

persons of the present generation to converse with people three

to four generations older. Continuous l inguist ic changes result

in the break ing-u p of languages into new languages and

dialects. The existence of hundreds of languages and dialects

am on g the Ind ians of Am erica or amon g the Bantu of Africa

is a good illustration.

Writing frequently preserves older, historical spellings, as

best exemplified by modern French spell ing. The writ ing of

sain, saine shows us th at som e t ime ago this Fr en ch w ord was

actual ly pronounced something l ike sain, saine, if we re ad it in

the conventional Latin way. The historical spell ing, when

systematized, as in the case of French, is, of course, of great

value to linguists because it helps in the reconstruction of older

forms of the language. Modern English spell ing is only part ial ly

historical , as in the case of nig ht or kn igh t , show ing th at the

older pronunciat ion was s imilar to that of the corresponding

German words Nacht or Knecht. Bu t En glish spelling is no t as

systematized as French. Many of our modern spell ings are

left-overs from a period in which a word could be spelled in

several different ways, depending on the whim of the writer.

T h er e is no rhym e or reason for the English spelling of he igh t

as against hig h , speak as against spee ch , pro cee d as

against prec ede , or a t torn eys as against s tories . T h e

preservation of these irrat ional spell ings in modern English

w rit ing seems to be du e to an old an d inb or n individua listic ten

dency, averse to accepting any bounds imposed by systematiza-

t ion. This at t i tu de is well exemplified by the learned D r. Cro w n

who, in the various books he published in the lat ter half of the

seventeenth century, spelled his name indifferently as Cron,

Croon, Croun, Crone , Croone , Croune; or in more modern

t imes, by the famous Lawrence of Arabia who, when asked by

his perplexed publisher to try to spell his foreign words and

names more uniformly, answered: T spel l my names anyhow,

to show what rot the systems are.

2

The inconsistency of English writ ing can be well i l lustrated

by the fact that the system permits eleven different spellings for

the long i sound me, fee, sea,

field

conceive, machine , key,

quay, people, sub po m a, Caesar) an d at least five different soun ds

for the alphabetic sign a man, was, name, fa ther , aroma). What

can be done with English spell ing can be seen from the story

ab ou t a foreigner whose na m e soun ded l ike Fish in English.

4

oi.uchicago.edu



WRITING AND SPEECH

Annoyed by the flexibility of English spelling he wrote his

na m e in Engl ish as G ho t iug h , deriving it sound b y soun d

from the spelling of the following words:

gh =f

soun d in

t o u g h ;

o

=

i

sound in wo men ;

ti = sk

sound in s ta t ion , a nd

ugh

is si lent in do ug h .

Many European writ ings have reformed their old spell ings to

make them express more nearly the modern spoken forms.

I ta l ian and Spanish among the Romance languages and

Croatian and Polish among the Slavonic languages express in

their spellings forms which are almost identical with those of

the spoken language. The best road was taken by the Czech

writ ing which reformed i ts spell ing by introducing diacri t ic

marks. The Czechs wri te Cech, while the Poles write Czech; in

both cases the init ial sound corresponds to the English

ch

in

chess .

Observe the inconsistency of the English spelling of

Cze ch with ini t ia l

cz

and final

ch

in tota l disagreem ent w i th

the normal English spell ing of the two sounds as

ch

an d

kh

respectively.

Writing frequently introduces spellings due to artificial and

erroneous interpre tat ion. Th us , our Engl ish words de bt and

do ub t a re and a lways were prono unced wi thout the

b.

Both

the French and the Engl ish words were wri t ten dette, doute, and

the present-day spell ings with

b

were inve nted by scribes w ho

knew the Lat in antecedents of these words

debitum, dubitum)

.

In a similar way the spelling of isle an d island (from O ld

English iegland ) w ith

s

is due to the recollection of the Latin

insula

and n ot to the actual pro nu nciat io n w ith

s

in any

historical phase of English.

3

Sometimes such wrong spell ings

have been able to assert themselves in the spoken language.

Since the digram

th ,

in transli terations of Greek words, was

pronounced

t

by medieval scribes, they frequently spelled with

th

words wh ich never ha d the digr am . Thu s originated the

spell ing of auth or (Lat in

au{c)tor,

F rench

auteur),

o f Go thic

(Lat in Goti, G e r m a n Goten), o f L i t hua n i a (L a ti n

Lituania),

and

the subsequent pronunciat ion with

th

i n mode rn Engl i sh .

4

Similarly, the Engl ish pronunciat ion of

x

as

ks

in Mexico and

Don Quixote , pronounced as

sh

in older Sp anish a nd as

kh

in

modern Spanish, furnishes another case of the influence of

spell ing on pronunciation. In the same l ight can be viewed the

frequent modern pronuncia t ion wi th

t

of the words often,

soften , w here no

t

was pronounced for centuries, or of the

5

oi.uchicago.edu



WRITING AND CIVILIZATION

word forehead as foor-hed where t radi t ion for some t ime has

favoured the pronuncia t ion

fored

Our vocabularies are frequently enriched by expressions

taken over from abbreviated writ ten forms. Such words are

usually of technical or ephemeral character. In the speech of

the A m erican A rm y the wo rd recon (rhymes w ith pec an ) is

used for recon naissa nce , jus t as recc e (rhymes w ith Becky )

is the corresponding word in the Brit ish Army. Similarly, we

find am m o for am m un it ion , arty for art i l lery , or diva rty

(w rit ten D iv A rty ) for divisional art i l lery . T h e Ge rm ans of

the Nazi period showed great predilection for creating new

words from abbreviated written forms. In spite of the official

N azi a t t i tud e tow ard w hat they called the Bolshevic-Talm udic

tendency, the num be r of w ri t ten and spoken abbreviat ions

grew so large that books and bulky appendices had to be

compiled to l ist the abbreviations used in the various branches

of poli t ical , economic, and mili tary l ife. During the second

world war Allied Mili tary Intell igence issued two volumes

list ing the various abbreviations used in the German army

alone. From among thousands of examples which have entered

the language we may choose

Ari

for

Artillerie Hiwi

fo r

Hilfs-

williger Jabo

for

Jagdbomber Pak

fo r Panzerabwehrkanone its

twin

Flak

for Flugzeugabwehrkanone and, of course, the word

Nazi

fo r Nationalsozialistische eutsche Arbeiterpartei with its post

war corol lary

Entnazifizierung

denaz ification. Inc iden tally, a

few remarks should be made in respect to the types of writ ten

abbreviations preferred in various countries. The normal type

of abbreviation—cutting off the last part of a word—is shown

in the A m erican wri t ing of Rec on for reconnaissance, Div

5

for division , C o for co m pa ny , an d occasionally also in

German as, for example, in the use of Muni for Munition T h e

British, following an old medieval tradition, prefer to eliminate

the m iddle pa rt of a word, as in Re cce for reconnaissance

or Coy for com pany . The G erman s , in tu rn , show pre

ference for creating words by combining the first syllables of

compound words, as in Hiwi or Jabo; ano ther type of German

abbreviation is exemplified by

Pak

and

Flak

Mixed types of

abbreviations, naturally, occur everywhere. Colloquial expres

sions l ike p r o f for professor , pre xy for pre side nt , vars ity

for unive rsity , na tc h for na tur all y origina ted as the result

of the Engl ish language tendency toward abbreviat ion of long

6

oi.uchicago.edu



WRITING AND SPEECH

words ra ther than under the influence of the corresponding

abbreviated wri t ten forms.

The attachment of the people to their writ ing is best visible

in the examples furnished by the Jew s an d A rabs of Spa in. T h e

former, during the Arabic dominat ion of Spain, spoke Arabic

predominant ly and lef t a considerable l i terature wri t ten in the

Arabic language but in their own Hebrew characters . On the

other hand, the Arabs, who after the Spanish reconquest

accepted Spanish as their mother tongue, left us the famous

lj mi o

l i terature wri t ten in the Spanish language and Arabic

w rit ing. Also pert in en t is the ex am ple of the Jew s in th e

M ed i terra ne an area wh o speak La din o a Spanish dialect) an d

the Jew s of eastern Eu rop e wh o speak Yiddish a G erm an

dialect) both languages being wri t ten in the Hebrew alphabet .

Here belongs also the case of the Polish Tatars with their

l i terature wri t ten in the White Russian and Pol ish languages

but in Arabic let ters.

Normal ly a language uses only one wri t ing at a t ime. Thus,

in ancient t imes, Sumerian, Egypt ian, Chinese, Greek, or Lat in

ha d only one corresponding w ri t ing, jus t as in mo dern t imes

English, French, or Arabic are expressed only in one type of

alphabet. Similarly, the late Babylonian tablets are often

inscribed in the Babylonian language and in incised cuneiform

wri t ing, wi th drawn or painted addi t ions in the Aramaic

language and in the Aramaic a lphabet . Other examples are the

bil ingual inscriptions, such as the Rosetta stone, one of whose

inscriptions is writ ten in the Egyptian language and in two

varieties of Eg yp tian w rit ing hieroglyphic an d de m otic ), w hile

the other is in the Greek language and writ ing; or the Behistun

inscriptions w rit ten in thre e different languag es Persian,

Elamite, Babylonian), each expressed in a different kind of

cuneiform.

Cases in which one language is expressed at the same t ime in

different writ ings are few and unimpressive. For example, the

Aramaic records, which normal ly used a wri t ing of their own,

were sometimes w ri t ten in cuneiform. T he H urr ian s of no rthe rn

Mesopotamia used Babylonian cuneiform for their language,

bu t H ur r ia n records a t Ra s Sh am rah , in Syr ia , a re preserved in

a unique form of cuneiform writ ing developed at that si te.

Of course, over a long period of t ime a language can employ

several writ ings. Thus, for instance, the Persian language was

7

oi.uchicago.edu




expressed first in a variety of cuneiform writing, then in the

Pehlevi and Avestan scripts, and finally in the Arabic alphabet.

If and when Persia follows the example of Turkey, it is possible

that we shal l see Persian wri t ten in Lat in characters . The

Hebrews first had a Ganaanite system of writ ing and later

developed from Aramaic their own scriptur

quadrata

The old

Egypt ian language was wri t ten in i t s own wri t ing, but Copt ic ,

the direct descendant of Egyptian, used a script developed

from the Greek alphabet .

During transit ional stages two different writ ing systems may

be used at the same t ime for one and the same language. The

introduct ion of the Lat in a lphabet into Turkey in 1928 did not

ent i re ly e l iminate the older Arabic a lphabet . But whi le the

older generat ion can and does use both alphabets , the younger

generat ion knows only the Lat in a lphabet . There is no doubt

that within a short period of t ime the older Arabic writ ing will

die out entirely in Turkey.

While i t is true that in general a language chooses only one

writing as its means of expression, there are no limitations as to

the use of one wri t ing for any nu m be r of languages. T h e cul tura l

predominance of a certa in country frequent ly resul ts in the

borrowing of i ts writ ing by i ts culturally less developed neigh-

bours . In ancient t imes the Babylonian language was the lingua

franca of the whole Near East comparable in i t s extent wi th the

widespread use of Lat in in the Middle Ages. With the

Babylonian language came the Mesopotamian cunei form

writ ing. Many l i terate and i l l i terate peoples of the ancient

Near East accepted the cuneiform writ ing for their languages

and then developed i t into a number of local varie t ies . Thus,

the Elamites , the Hurrians, the Urart ians, and the Bogazkoy

Hitt i tes expressed their respective languages in cuneiform

wri t ing. In la ter periods the Greek, Lat in, Russian, and Arabic

alph abe ts we re and are sti ll) widely em ployed by m an y

different languages.

Ju st as ther e are occasions wh en the spoken w ord is m or e

powerful , more expressive, than i ts writ ten counterpart , so

the re ar e others whe n w rit ing serves i ts pu rpo se m or e effectively

than language. We know the powerful influence of the word

spoken from the church pulpit or from the poli t ical rostrum.

On the other hand there are sciences, such as mathematics , so

full of complicated symbolism that only writ ing is able to

8

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A N D A R T

express it in a short and efficient way. The effectiveness of

speech is frequently enhanced by the use of writ ten symbols.

T h u s ,

even in the classroom we often use the blackboard to help

visualize things which are hard to perceive by ear.

Writing is frequently more expressive than speech. This is

especially true of the pictorial writings, that is, writings like

Egyptian which faithfully preserved the form of the picture.

Th us, for instance, in the spoken sentence: I pu t my rrh in the

vase , the re is no indic ation as to the size or form of th e vase.

In pictorial writ ing this vase can be drawn large or small , in

a certain colour and in a certain form to indicate its desired

qualit ies. Sometimes further information can be conveyed by

unpronounced determinat ives, as in the use of the determina

tive for stone or metal, added to the picture of the vase.

W R I T I N G A N D A R T

The study of writing from the artistic point of view has

heretofore been badly neglected.

5

Although the chief aim of

writing is not artistic effect but the practical recording and

transmission of communication, writ ing at al l t imes has had

elements of aesthetic value. Writing is similar in this respect to

photography, inasmuch as both have primary aims of pract ical

value, but both can, at the same time, achieve aesthetic effect.

T he aesthetic feature is sometimes so exagg erated th at w rit ing

serves the purpose of orn am en tatio n, thus neglecting its prim ary

object of communication; consider, for example, Arabic

orn am en tal w rit ing, beautiful bu t difficult to re ad ,

6

and

some exagg erated an d ba ro qu e uses of w rit ing in m od ern

advertising.

Writing in i ts aesthetic—not uti l i tarian—aspect is one form

of art in ge neral . As such, writ ing shares in the ge neral develop

ment of art and frequently exhibits features which are

characteristic of other manifestations of art. It can be observed,

for instance, that the roundness of Carolingian handwriting

goes han d in han d w ith the roundness of Ro m anesq ue archi tec

ture , while the later Gothic writ ing has features of angularity

and pointedness characterist ic of Gothic architecture.

7

In all well-developed writ ings we can observe two main

classes: the carefully executed formal writing used on public and

official monuments, and the abbreviated cursive writ ing used

229

oi.uchicago.edu




for private purposes, primarily in let ters. Aesthetic execution is,

of course, more evident in the formal than in the cursive

wri t ing. Hand in hand with the development of the formal

writ ing into cursive goes the change from a pictorial form in

which pictures can be clearly perceived to a l inear form

represented by signs whose original pictorial character can no

longer be recognized.

The aesthet ic impression of an inscribed monument depends

on a gre at nu m be r of factors: the execut ion of the individu al

signs (form, size, etc .), the relatio n of the signs to the inscr iption

(posit ion, distance between signs, spacing of l ines, direction,

etc . ) , an d th e re la t ion of the inscript ion to the mo nu m en t

relief,

paint ing, s t ructure , e tc . ) .

The most important of these factors, the form of the indivi-

du al signs, gives us the best op po rtun ity to ju d g e the aesthetic

quali ty of an inscribed record. The aesthetic effect is evident

also in the grouping of signs. If the order of the signs is xXx

(x represents a small sign, X a large sign), then i t can be

cha ng ed to xX, w here tw o small signs * m ay b e so arran ge d as

to balance the large sign X. This also avoids the empty space

below the small sign, which would exist if the signs were

wri t ten in the correct order .

Horror vacui

fear of the empty

space, is of great influence in the arrangement of signs.

Scribal schools, each with characterist ic features, are known

in all periods of w riting . I t is no t difficult, for ex am ple , to

assign to the Lagash school the smal l Sumerian clay tablets of

the Ur III period inscribed in very minute cuneiform charac-

ters; an d i t is relat ively easy to recognize the d om in an t features

of th e Bogazko y school of scribes in th eir ve ry careful exe cution

of Hitt i te hieroglyphic inscriptions. In the older periods the

results of individual creativeness are l i t t le known to us, even

though the scribes frequently signed their names at the end of

the inscriptions. This is a fertile subject for future investigation.

WR ITING AND RELIGION

The concept of the divine origin and character of writ ing is

found everywhere, in both ancient and modern t imes, among

civil ized as well as among primitive peoples. In the main i t is

due to a widespread belief in the magic powers of writ ing.

8

2 3

oi.uchicago.edu



WRITING AND RELIGION

Everywhere, in the East as well as in the West, the origin of

writ ing is ascribed to a divinity. Among the Babylonians i t was

the god N ab u, p atr on of the sciences and scribe of the gods, wh o

invented writ ing, occupying thus a posit ion which in the earlier

Mesopotamian tradit ion was assigned partly to the goddess

Nisaba. The Egypt ians bel ieved that the god Thoth was the

inven tor of w rit ing, and they called their writ ing m

x

d

x

w

x

-n

x

t

x

r

x

the speech of gods . In the C hinese legends the invento r of

writ ing was either Fohi, the founder of commerce, or the wise

T s an g C hien with the face of a four-eyed d rago n. T he He brew s

ha d their older divin e w ri t ing (E x. xx xi : 18) besides the la ter

h u m an w ri ting ( Isa . v i i i: i ) . In Is lamic t rad i t ion G od h imself

crea ted the wri t ing . Accord ing to the Hindus i t was Brahma

who was supposed to have given the knowledge of letters

to m en. T he N orthe rn Saga at t r ibutes th e invent ion of the

runes to Odin; and in the Irish legend Ogmios is known

as the inventor of writing. These cases could be easily

mul t ip l ied .

9

A very interesting case of the inve ntion of a w rit ing u nd er

divine inspiration was recently described in conne ction with the

introduct ion of a new wri t ing by the Toma in French Guinea

and Liber ia .

1 0

Wido, the nat ive discoverer of the wri t ing, had

a vision:—

God takes he no pity on the Tomas? Other races know writing.

Only the Tomas remain in their ignorance.

5

God answered him:

I fear that when you are able to express yourselves you shall have

no more respect for the beliefs and customs of your ra ce . Not at

all, answered W ido, we shall still keep living as in pas t days.

I promise it. If such is the case, said God, I am willing to gran t

you the knowledge, but take care never to show anything of it to

a woman.

There are other divergent accounts of the invention of this

writing, none of which, however, states the reason for this

special at t i tude toward women. The road is open to speculation

at will.

Belief in the sacred character of writing is strong in countries

in which knowledge of writing is restricted to a special class or

caste of priests. The ancient Near East , where normally only

the priest-scribes could write, is full of mystic reconstructions

about wri t ing. On the other hand, Greece—where wri t ing was

23

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G A N D C I V I L IZ A T I O N

not restricted to priests but formed a popular patrimony of al l

the ci t izens—almost entirely lacks myths of this kind.

u

T he

educated Greeks knew that their wri t ing, l ike so many other

practical achievements, came from the East and fel t no need

for speculating about i ts divine origin. To be sure, the Greeks

also had some mystic interpretat ions about writ ing, l ike the

Py thag orean reconstruct ions, b u t these originated usually un de r

Oriental influence and were outside the normal course of Greek

philosophy.

Among primitives writ ing and books are the subject of

astonishment and speculat ion.

12

To them books are inst ruments

of divination. A book can predict the future and reveal what is

hidden; i t is a guide and a counsellor and, in general , a mystic

power. To learn to read and write is to the primitive a formal

ini t ia tion into a new rel igious pract ice , a bap t ism into a n e w

religion. A book is considered a l iving being which can spe ak .

T h e prim it ive fears the mag ic pow er of i ts w ord s . Acco rding

to one story, a native messenger refused to transport a writ ten

message because he was afraid that the let ter would speak to

him while he was carrying i t . In another case a messenger

refused to carry a let ter unti l he had pierced i t with his lance,

so that i t could not ta lk to him during the voyage. A wri t ten

message is a mysterious b eing w hich has th e pow er to see things.

We know th e s tory abo ut a n I nd ian wh o was sent by a m ission

ary to a colleague with four loaves of bread and a let ter stat ing

their number. The Indian ate one of the loaves and was, of

course, found out. Later he was sent on a similar errand and

repe ated the theft , bu t took the pre cau tion , wh ile he was

eating the bread, to hide the let ter under a stone so that i t

might not see him.

1 3

A similar story is reported from Australia.

A nat ive who had s tolen some tobacco from a package with an

accompanying le t ter was astonished that the whi te man was

able to find him out in spite of the fact that he had hidden the

letter in the trunk of a tree. He vented his wrath upon the

letter by beating i t furiously.

14

Another interest ing example is c i ted by Erland Norden-

skiold:—

W hen R ub en Perez K antu le learn t picture-writing, he recorded as

we know the legends also in L atin script, wh ich, of course, was m uch

more complete and expressive than was possible by means of the

Indian writing. The strange thing is that he troubled at all to write

3

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G N D R E L I G I O N

down the songs and the incantations with pictures when he could

have done it so much easier with Latin letters. This goes to prove

that picture-writing p r s carries a magic import, or that, so to

speak, the virtues of the medicinal incantations are enhanced by the

fact of their being expressed in picture-writing.

15

Belief in universal symbolism as practised by Pythagoreans,

gnostics, astrologers, magicians, and cabbalists had its fountain

hea d in mystic interpr etations of the alp ha be t. Gf., for exam ple,

a typical quotation from a recently published book on the

subject: 'Nous voulons montrer que 1 Alphabet latin... est la

representation ideographique des grands mythes grecs, et qu' i l

nous offre de ce

chef...

la signification m an iable des verites

fondamentales contenues en l 'homme et dans 1 'Univers, verites

vivantes, D ieu x, qui ma nifestent la V erite U ne , creatrice et

souvera ine . '

1 6

The power of a charm or amulet depends to a great extent

on the writ ing which i t includes. Such was the case with the

Babylonian amulets with their abracadabra formulas. Even in

modern t imes we can observe the widespread use of the magic

effect of writ ing. Here we may mention the phylacteries with

sacred writ ings wh ich the Jew s wear dur ing pra yer , an d the

inscriptions on the doorp osts of Je w ish houses wh ich are

supposed to protect the inhabi tants from harm. The Moham

medans carry amulets with enclosed verses from the Koran.

A m on g Ch ristians we find the custom of fann ing a sick person

with leaves of the Bible, or of having him swallow a pellet of

paper with a prayer writ ten on i t .

A curious left-over of the belief in the sacred character of

writ ing is the ri tual which was performed at the ceremony of

the consecration of the Westminster Cathedral in 9 o:—

On the floor of the spacious nave, from the main entrance to the

sanctuary, were painted in w hite two broad paths, which connected

the corners diagonally opposite, and intersecting a t the centre of the

nave formed a huge figure x, or St. Andrew's Cross. Where the lines

converged was placed a faldstool; and here the Archbishop, still in

cope and mitre, knelt in prayer, while the choir continued to sing

the ancient plainsong of the 'Sarum Antiphoner'. . . . Meanwhile

attendants were engaged in strewing the nave with ashes. This

meant the laying of small heaps of the ashes, about two yards apart,

along the lines of the St. Andrew's Cross. Beside each heap of ashes

was placed a piece of card board containing a letter of the alphabet—•

33

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G N D C I V I L I Z T I O N

the Greek on one line and the Latin on the other. The Archbishop

then went towards the main entrance, attended by the deacon and

sub-deacon, and preceded by the Crucifix carried between lighted

candles. Sta rting first from the left-hand corner Dr Bourne advanced

along one pa th of the S t. Andrew s Cross, tracing w ith the end of his

pastoral staff the letters of the Greek alpha bet on the heaps of ashes;

and returning again to the main entrance repeated the process on

the other path, tracing this time on the heaps of ashes the letters of

the Latin alphabet. This curious ceremony is variously interpreted

as symbolizing the union of the Western and Eastern Churches, or

the teaching of the rudim ents of Christianity, and as a survival of the

Rom an augurs in laying their plans for the construction of a tem ple,

or as the procedure of Roman surveyors in valuing land for fiscal

purposes.

17

The modern Near East is full of superstitious beliefs in the

pow er of w rit ing; this is frequently the case even with un kn ow n

wri t ing. From am ong m any examples I should l ike to quo te one

from my own experience. In 1935 I visited a small village in

central Anatolia called Emirgazi, where about thirty years

earlier some Hitt i te hieroglyphic inscriptions had been dis

covered, which had then been transferred to the Museum in

Istanbul . Inquiry revealed that there were no new ant iqui t ies

in the neighbourhood, but even if there were some, I was told

by the vil lagers, they would never give them up, because the

last t ime, after the Hitt i te inscriptions had been taken away,

a pestilence visited the village. The magic power associated

with stone inscriptions is described frequently in reports of

travellers in the whole Islamic world. The mystic power of

writ ing—sometimes entirely incomprehensible, as in the case

of the Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions just referred to^—is

paralleled by the magic effect of the spoken word. There is a

widespread custom, in magic ceremonies and even in ri tual

and religious ceremonies, of using songs and formulas which are

unintell igible to those who hear them, and sometimes even to

those who u t te r them.

1 8

W riting an d speech are the outw ard symbols of a nation . I t is

for th at reas on th at a con que ror s first aim in destroying a

nation is to destroy i ts writ ten treasures. We thus understand

why Cortez, having conquered Mexico in 1520, ordered the

burning of all the Aztec books which might remind the native

population of their glorious past; why the Spanish Inquisit ion

234

oi.uchicago.edu



W R I T I N G N D R E L I G I O N

in sending the Jew s to the py re bu rne d w ith them their

T alm ud ; why the m od ern Nazis anxious to dest roy ideologies

adverse to their own bu rn ed the books of their opp onen ts an d

why the victorious Allies after the second world war ordered

the dest ruct ion of a l l Nazi- ta inted l i terature .

35

oi.uchicago.edu



F U T U R E O F W R I T I N G

^

^k J

H I L E investigating the

how

of a certain phe no-

M / M / m en on it is difficult no t to ev alu ate at the sam e

Û Û

tim e its

why

It is therefore natural that in

w w recon structing the history of our wr iting the

following question would come up time and time again: Why

did writing develop from this to that stage? The overall answer

to this question m ight be qu ite simple: W riting passed from one

stage to another because at a certain t ime a new system was

deemed better suited to local needs than the one currently in

use.

In other words imp rovem ent is the aim of evolution and

w riting as it develops from stage to stage is steadily progressing

in the direct ion of a perfect means of human intercommunica

tion. But is writing actually progressing? Can we take for

gra nte d th at any new system of w riting is nor m ally better th an

the one used before? Before we try to give specific answers to

this question let us look first at some pertinent examples from

the history of writing.

In comparing the West Semitic system of writing with the

E gyp tian hieroglyphic from wh ich it ha d developed it is easy

to see th at th e W est Semitic system is simpler th an the E gy ptian

one .

Certainly there can be no argument as to the fact that the

twenty-two to thirty Semitic signs are easier to learn and

quicker to write than the many hundreds of signs of the

Egyptian system. Also we may agree that the introduction of

vowel signs in Greek made this system more exact than its

predecessor the W est Semitic wr iting w hich was charac terized

by lack of vowel indication. But is the West Semitic writing

therefore to be considered be tter th an Eg yp tian or Greek

better than West Semitic? In the case of Egyptian versus

Sem itic one could qu ote certain qualities of Eg yptia n lacking

in the S em itic system like th e expressiveness of pic tor ial signs.

236

oi.uchicago.edu



F U T U R O F W R I T I N G

T h u s ,

for instance, the picture of a vase in Egyptian not only

can s tand for the word Vase but can be drawn in such a way

as to suggest its intended size and form; in Semitic the word

Vase

5

would be writ ten by means of phonetic, syllabic signs,

while any additional information could be expressed only by

additional syllabic signs. In the case of Semitic versus Greek,

one could bring forth the argument that the Semitic writ ings

can get along rather well without vowel indication, and are

therefore considerably quicker and shorter than Greek or any

other systems using signs for vowels. And what shall we say

about the opinion of those scholars and laymen who consider

the Chinese writing as the best in the world and will not even

listen to any suggestions to replace the Chinese word-syllabic

wri t ing with an alpha bet ic system? H ow are we to jud ge the

enthusiastic statement about the syllabic writ ing which spread

like wildfire among the Cherokees because they could accom

plish the feat of learning the new system within the span of a

single day, as contrasted with four years required by the

Cherokees to master the English writ ing?

1

How are we to assess

the superficial conclusion that the Arabic writing is superior to

the Latin because, in taking dictation, the older Turks using

the Arabic alphabet for their language are much faster than

their younger countrymen employing the new Lat in alphabet?

Thus, we can see how delicate is the matter of evaluation of

quality, and how easy it is to go astray if one bases his con

clusions on single observations and neglects to weigh against

each other all the inherent characterist ics of a certain pheno

menon. The Semitic writ ings may truly be easier to learn and

quicker to wri te than Eg ypt ian hieroglyphic , while the Eg ypt ian

picture writ ing may be more expressive than the Semitic

systems, but surely the two characterist ics are not on equal

footing from the relative point of view. Of what relative value

is a w riting like Eg yptian — bea utifu l an d expressive— if it mu st

remain a total mystery to a vast majority of the population

because of the complexities and difficulties of ts system? To an

even greater extent the same is true of the Chinese system—

perhaps the most difficult system in the world to master. Years

and years of study must be spent by an individual before he can

attempt to read the simplest classics. It is, of course, true that

the Chinese writing serves rather well the needs of a selfish

bureaucratic clique at the top, and that a small percentage of

37

oi.uchicago.edu



FUTU R OF WRITING

the pop ula t ion wh o know how to read and wri te can com

municate wi th each other by wri t ing even when speaking

m utua l ly unu nd ers tand able dia lec t s. But has anybo dy a t temp t

ed to evaluate logically these seeming advantages of the

Chinese writ ing as against i ts tremendous shortcomings?

Nobody but a sel f ish and narrow-minded person could defend

the Chinese w rit ing o n the basis of i ts alleged m erits and neglect

to observ e th a t as a resu lt of th e difficultes of th e C hinese system

90 per cent of the populat ion remain i l l i terate . Which is more

va lua ble : a system wh ich is ad eq ua te for 10 pe r cent of the

population or a system which is accessible to everybody? And

what is more important : to keep the present wri t ing and

con t inue with the 10 per cent c l ique run nin g the co untry or to

reform the writ ing into a simple system and have 100 per cent

of the population sharing in the progress of the country?

Unprejudiced evaluation of al l the factors involved will show

that also in other cases writings on a higher scale of evolution

have definite advantages over those on a lower level . Even

tho ug h the Semitic writ ings are faster to w rite th an G reek only

the latter created a full vowel system and thus offered to the

world the potential i t ies of vowel indication so important for the

expression of exact nuan ces of lang uag e l i t tle kno w n dialectal

forms new wo rds an d foreign nam es and words. Also the

advantage of speed of the Arabic writ ing as used for the

Turkish language is total ly overshadowed by i ts difficult

or thog raph y; the Lat in a lphabe t as in t roduced in Tu rkey is

pr et ty nearly ph on em ic an d i t can be acquired by school

children in half of the t ime required for the mastering of the

older A rabic w ri t ing. A nd f inally w hen we com e to evaluate

the m eri ts of the Cherokee w ri t ing w e m ust adm it th at i t

evidently suited perfectly the expression of the Cherokee

language. But was this writ ing suited for a people who l ived

within an English speaking terri tory? How well suited was the

Cherokee wri t ing to express the hundreds and thousands of

words and names which passed to the Cherokees from the

surrounding Engl ish speaking people? This inadequacy of the

Cherokee wri t ing must have been the main reason that

ul t imately led to the disapp earan ce of the In di an w ri t ing and

its replacement by a Latin system which was better suited to

the wider needs of the Cherokee people.

To resume the question posed at the beginning of this

238

oi.uchicago.edu




chapter, is writing progressing as it passes along the course of

evolut ion marked by the logographic , syl labic , and alphabet ic

stages? I should say yes, it is prog ressing Lo okin g at w riting

from the bro ade st po int of view I should say w itho ut hesitat ion

that the a lphabet ic systems serve the a im of human inter

co m m un icatio n be tter th an the syllabic ones, ju st as the la t ter

systems serve i t better than the logographic or logo-syllabic

systems. Sti l l , there is nothing to brag about. The incon

sistencies of English orthography as compared with the pretty

nearly phonemic Greek and Lat in systems, and the abnormal

development of sign forms in some of the writ ings in modern

India as compared with the simple forms of older Indie

writings, show that in specific cases writing does not necessarily

proceed a long the line of improv eme nt . T he h am per ing con

ventions imposed by tradit ion, rel igion, and nationalism

frequently stand in the p at h of progress, thus preve ntin g or

delaying reforms which normal ly would have taken place in

the sound evolution of writ ing.

In comparing any of the a lphabet ic wri t ings used in the

Western civil ization with the Greek alphabet one observation

comes immediately to mind, and that is that from the inner,

stru ctu ral po int of view there is no difference betw een the

Western and the Greek alphabets . In other words, in spi te of

the tremendous achievements of the Western civil ization in so

m an y fields of h u m an en dea vo ur, w rit ing has no t progressed at

al l since the Greek period. Think of our modern media of mass

communicat ion, such as radio, c inema, te legraph, te lephone,

television, and press and look at our modern writ ing of

D A D A ,

Lat in

D A D A ,

and Greek AAAA. Compare the differences in the

methods of mass comm unica t ion be tween the m odern and

Greek t imes on the one side and the essential identi ty of the

English, Latin, and Greek alphabets on the other. It is not as

if our writ ing were so perfect as not to need any improvement.

A nd i t is no t for lack of proposals of good an d p ractic al reforms

that we cling so tenaciously to an obsolete way of writ ing. The

complex causes for this conservative at t i tude may very well be

beyond our capaci ty to comprehend. St i l l i t may not be amiss

to acquaint ourselves with the present state of affairs and to

speculate a little as to the possibilities which may be considered

or realized in the future.

Proposals and at tempts to reform wri t ing frequent ly go hand

239

oi.uchicago.edu



F U T U R E OF W R I T I N G

in hand with those affecting the reform of speech. This is only

natural i f we remember the dependence of wri t ing on speech

throughout i ts long history.

The simplest form of language change is that which occurs

when a national language is imposed upon a foreign ethnic

group. Akkadian, Aramaic, Arabic , Greek, Lat in , Spanish,

French, Russian, and English are some of those languages

which, backed up by cultural prestige or poli t ical pre

dominance, have imposed themselves at one t ime or another

in wide areas outside of their mother countries . Hand in hand

with the languages came the imposit ion of national writ ings,

as is well attested by the wide use of the cuneiform system in

antiquity and of the Semitic, Greek, and Latin writ ings in later

t imes. The present hegemony of Western civil ization manifests

itself in the widespread proposals, more or less successful, to

impose the Lat in wri t ing upon the world. The acceptance of

Latin writ ing by the Turks, i ts widespreading use by African

and American nat ives, the proposals concerning the romaniza-

t ion of Chinese, Jap an ese , Ar abic , and Persian are the best

manifestations of this trend.

However, the wide acceptance of the Lat in alphabet in

modern t imes has led to no unity. In many cases the signs of

the Lat in alphabet received widely variant phonet ic values in

different countries. The Turks, for instance, use the Latin sign

c for the sound j as in ou r jig

5

, a correspondence which is

without parallel in any Western writ ing. The l imitless homo-

phony of signs is best illustrated by the spellings of the name

of the famous Russian writer Chekhov, in which the init ial

sound can be writ ten as Ck Teh C, Tsch Tsj Tj Cz Cs or C

the medial consonant as kh ch k h or x and the final one

as v f

y

o r ff in variou s systems of the w orld, all using L at in

signs. For centuries the need to reform the Latin alphabet has

been general ly recognized and many at tempts have been made

to remedy the malady .

2

The best of these proposals is the

a lphabet known by the abbrevia t ion IPA (In terna t ional

Phonetic Association), which consists of Latin symbols, sup

plemented by a number of art ificial let ters and a few diacrit ic

ma rk s .

3

This is the system which is now generally used by

linguists. It is so simple and practical that i t merits a con

siderably wider appreciat ion than is accorded to i t in narrow

scientific circles.

2 4

oi.uchicago.edu



F U T U R E OF W R I T I N G

The most widespread reforms have taken place within many

national writings in order to simplify spellings and to systema

tize the correspondences between sound and sign. Some people,

l ike the Finns, have succeeded rather well in achieving an

almost phonemic system, while others, l ike the Anglo-Saxons,

cont inue to carry the burden of t radi t ional spel l ings. However,

the future of writ ing no longer l ies in reforms of national

wri t ings. As M ark T w ain once said, be i t som ewh at in i rregu lar

or tho graph y: T h e da ma ov koars kum w hen the publ ik m a

be expektd to get rekonsyled to the bezair asspekt of the

Simpli f ied Kombynashuns, but—if I may be al lowed the

expression—is i t worth the wasted t ime?

4

It is too late to

preach the gospel of reform for the various national ortho

gra ph ies. W h at is need ed no w is one system of w rit ing in wh ich

signs have identical or almost identical phonetic corre

spon denc es all over th e wo rld. T h a t need is fulfilled in th e

I PA alph abe t .

Nationalist ic and rel igious at t i tudes have strongly mili tated

against the acceptance of this or that language as the world

language. The Anglo-Saxons have fought against French, the

Frenchmen against Engl ish, the Protestants against Lat in, the

Russians against all three. Even simplified languages, such as

Basic English, have met with relatively little success. Add to

this fact the irregularities and inconsistencies of all natural

languages and you will find the reason for the rise of the many

art i f ic ia l languages in modern t imes. Among them Esperanto,

Ido ,

Occidental , Interl ingua, Novial , and Volapi ik a t least

enjoyed a certain amount of success in their t imes. In general ,

however, we may note that the a t tempt to create one universal

language has only resul ted in adding new languages to our

confused Tower of Babel. Also in the field of writing proposals

have been made to replace national systems with new forms of

wri t ing. The various approaches to the problem resul ted in

various concrete proposals, which we shall presently examine.

Whether a writ ing is borrowed from outside or created

within, it is used at first predominantly for public and official

purposes. In such cases the forms of individual signs are

frequently so chosen as to show com plete disregard for econo my

in space and t ime. Only gradually are cursive writ ings evolved

for daily, practical use, with signs showing various degrees of

simplification as, e.g. , in our cursive handwrit ing contrasted

24

oi.uchicago.edu



FUTURE OF WRITING

with book print . But frequently even cursive forms are not

simplified enough to serve adequately the purpose of a rapid

w rit ing. Fo r th at reason ever since classical t imes a ttem pts ha ve

frequently been made to create new forms of writ ing in which

individual signs were so chosen and linked together as to

produce the greatest possible saving in t ime and space. This is

the modern shorthand variously known as s tenography or

narro w w ri t ing , b rachygrap hy or shor t wri ting

5

, and tachy-

gra ph y or quic k wri t ing . Of all the reforms in writ ing, short

hand has enjoyed by far the greatest success. Although some of

the shorthand systems claim international recognition, in reali ty

there is no single system accepted throughout the world. One

system m ay b e used in several countries, b u t even the n i t usually

shows deviations necessitated by local needs. Practical short

hand systems are used everywhere in addition to the national

popular writ ings. None of the shorthand systems has as yet

succeeded in supplanting a local national writ ing in popular

use.

An entirely different approach to symbolizing sounds is

found in Bell s Visible Spee ch

5

and Jespersen s An alphabet ic

N ota t ion . T he appr oach starts from the presupposit ion th at a ll

sounds have two aspects: organ ic (or art iculator y) and acoustic.

When we speak, for example, of the sound we can observe its

organic art iculation in the shape of the mouth and the posit ion

of the tongue by which i t is produced, and i ts acoustic counter

p a rt in th e hiss w hich is the result of sending th e bre ath thro ug h

the passage thus formed.

6

The new methods a t tempt to

symbolize the art iculation of the sound rather than i ts acoustic

side.

The device known as Visible Speech was first worked out

by M elvil le Bell , the father of the inve ntor of the telep hon e, an d

subsequently became popular as the reformed system called

O rgan ic by H enry Sweet.

7

In this system diagrammatic signs

are used to imitate the form of vocal organs in position for the

utterance of various sounds. An electronic device of changing

speech sounds into visible patterns that one may learn to read

and analyse has recently been developed by researchers in the

Bell Te lep ho ne La bora tories and advertised as Visible Sp ee ch

8

but, outside of the name, the new device has nothing in

common with the Bell-Sweet device to record sounds.

Another method to symbolize art iculation of sound is the

4

oi.uchicago.edu




so-called A nalph abet ic N otat io n , devised by O tto Jesperse n.

9

T h e system is even m ore exact tha n Visible Spe ech . W hile in

Visible Speech symbols are used to indicate simple articula

t ions,

the Analphabetic Notation tries to express the sum total

of all the closely correlated movements in the organs of speech

resulting in a single soun d. I n Jesp ersen s n otatio n e ach sound

is represented by a series of Greek and Latin letters, Arabic

numbers, and some other symbols each of which has a definite

meaning: the Greek letter indicates the articulatory organ (l ip,

tongue, etc.); the number stands for the degree and form of the

opening (open, close, etc.); while the Latin letter, used as an

exp one nt, denotes the articulato ry position (front, ce ntral , bac k,

etc.). E.g., the letter

u

is expressed in this notation as oc3

a

(3g

y 3

j

60 el in a form closely resembling a chemical formula.

Even more complicated is the analphabetic system devised by

Kenneth L. P ike .

1 0

In his system the sound

t

for example,

would be expressed by

MallDeCVvelcAPpdLatdtltnransfsSiFSs.

These two systems have certain advantages in narrow scientific

usage for recording individual sounds where long definitions

requiring many lines of normal writing may be replaced by a

few symbols, but they are not intended for the recording of

utterances and are, therefore, not acceptable as a practical

system of writing.

As was shown in greater detai l in Chapter III , the Chinese

word-syllabic writing uses word signs to a considerably greater

extent than any other writing of the same type, for instance

Sumerian or Egyptian. In a country divided by a number of

different and frequently mutually incomprehensible dialects

this characteristic of the Chinese system serves the purpose of

a kind of universal writ ing. In imitation of the Chinese system,

proposals have frequently been made in Europe to create a

universal system in which signs and symbols would be used to

stand for words and grammatical formatives which could be

read differently altho ug h und erstoo d in the same way in various

languages of the world. The full system would thus be the

result of a systematization of the device used commonly in our

writing of numbers, which can stand for different words in

various languages. Ever since the Middle Ages various systems

have been proposed, but none has been general ly accepted.

1 1

The shortcomings of these pasigraphic systems are those of all

national word writings: Inexactness and difficulties in mastering

243

oi.uchicago.edu




thousands of signs for different linguistic elements. Still the

possibil i ty of creating a practical pasigraphic system cannot be

entirely excluded. The successful creation of an international

gesture sign lang uag e for the use of deaf-m utes in which each

gesture sign has the same basic meaning in various countries

is an indication that i t may yet be possible in the future to

devise a para llel pasig raph ic system for certain l imited purp oses.

Another pasigraphic system is that known as Isotype: Inter

na t iona l Sys tem Of TYpographic Pic ture Educa t ion.

1 2

Isotype

has no aspirat ion of becoming a universal system to replace

phonet ic wri t ings. What i t a t tempts to do is to create a number

of pictu re signs w hich could e perse und ers tandab le wi thou t the

necessity of having any established correspondences between

sign and word. The system is intended for use chiefly in

teaching and ed ucat ion bu t i t m ay also be used in l imited

form in some internat ional media of communicat ion and

transp ortat ion . For instance in wri t ing instruct ions of how to

use a telephone a short series of pictures could be given which

would be internat ional ly understood instead of long wri t ten

inst ruct ions which would be understood only by persons

acquainted with the local language.

The t ime is to summarize. How do we stand to-day with the

reform of writing and what is its future? Let us first review the

reforms which seem ei ther inadequate or impract ical . I t may

generally be admitted that the revision of national writ ings in

the direction of Simplified Spellings is in ad eq ua te an d no t

worth the effort . The t ime to revise our writ ing in the national

sense was the e ighteenth or nine teenth centu ry w hen nat ion al

ism was bo rn and reac hed i ts peak not the twen t ie th cen tury

when we are striving to achieve a universal community of

nat ions. For t ha t reason we should not a ppro ve of the imposi t ion

of the Lat in a lphabet upon countr ies exposed to Western

influence. In addit ion i t should be noted th at from th e poin t

of view of the theory of writ ing there is nothing in the Latin

alphabet as used in Western countries that can be considered

superior to w ha t is found for exam ple in the A rabic Greek

or Russ ian a lphabets . The main forte of the Lat in a lphab et

nam ely its back ing by the W estern civilization seems to over

shadow ent i re ly i ts apparent shortcomings. What is needed

therefore is eithe r on e system of w riting reformed for in ter

national use or an entirely new type of world writ ing.

244

oi.uchicago.edu




From the systems to be considered in the light of universal

em ploym ent we m ay imm ediately exclude the types represented

by Visible Speech

5

and An alphabet ic No ta t ion . Both can be

used internationally within l imited spheres to symbolize

elements of speech. They are very exact and therefore of great

help in scientific disciplines, but they are not practical enough

ever to be considered for a writing of daily use. For practical

reasons the various pasigrap hic systems with their hun dre ds an d

thousands of different signs should also be excluded from con-

sideration as a universal writ ing.

There is one writ ing in Latin characters which is widely

employed by l inguists for transcription and transli teration of

manyând various languages of the world, and that is the

alph abe t of the Intern at ion al Ph onet ic Associat ion. T h e

alphabet is relatively exact in i ts correspondence between sign

and sound and is at the same time so simple that with the help

of i t a child can acquire the art of writ ing in a much shorter

t ime than i t normally takes to learn the usual type of a national

wri t ing.

Although there is a difference in purpose between the

reformed alphabets and the I PA alph abe t in tha t the former

are alp hab ets revised for natio na l use, wh ile the I PA alp ha be t

is devised for use with any and all the languages of the world,

still objections of equal force can be raised against both. First,

there is the reaction of the general public, so well expressed by

M a r k T w a i n

1 3

in a comment to Simplified Spell ing as exem-

plified in La on,

Makduf,

and damd be he hoo furst krys hold,

enuf

5

H e tho ug ht tha t to see our letters p ut tog ether in w ays

to which we are not accustomed offends the eye, and also takes

the

xpr ssion

out of the words. . . . I t doesn t thril l you as i t

used to do. The simplifications have sucked the thrill all out

of i t . For th at reaso n M ark T w ain himself was not in favour of

reforming the existent English writ ing but of introducing an

entirely new form of writing which would not offend the eye as

much as Simplified Spell ing and would therefore be better

received by the general public. Such a new system would not

only be more acceptable on general psychological grounds, but

i t could also bring with i t al l the valuable elements of rapidity

and compactness which are so sadly lacking in our Latin

wri t ing. How many persons are aware of the amount of waste

in t ime and space in our Latin writ ing; that the single signs are

245

oi.uchicago.edu




unnecessarily complex; that the signs usually do not run in the

direction of writing; that frequently they cannot be written by

one cont inuous motion of the hand; that there is no rhyme or

reason for the prese nt formal differentiation betw een ca pital an d

small letters. All these shortcomings of the L atin alp ha be t co uld

be elimina ted by the intro du ctio n of a sh orth an d system. But the

simple acceptance of a shorthand system would not satisfy our

need for a universal writ ing. There are two reasons mili tating

against the shorthand systems as they are employed at the

prese nt. First they are devised for utmo st speed in ce rtain

practical applications and therefore they are not exact; and

second they are ad ap ted for the use of certain langu ages b ut

not of all the languages of the world.

W ha t we should look for is a system of w riting com bining the

exactness of th e I PA alp ha be t w ith th e formal simplicity of a

shorthand system. Both theory and practice could be satisfied

by evolving a full and exact system of notation which could be

shortened and simplified under certain conditions. The full

system should contain signs for all the known sounds of the

various langua ges within the l imits of the IPA a lph ab et an d

the signs should be expressed by forms borrowed from a steno

graphic system. Out of this full system smaller alphabets could

be excerpted for use in individual languages. At the same time

the full system should be evolved in such a way as to leave open

th e possibility of furthe r sim plification eve n w ithin th e n ati on al

wri t ings. The proposed IPA-stenographic combinat ion would

doubtless be shorter and quicker than the IPA alphabet wri t ten

in Lati n cha racte rs bu t i t m igh t no t satisfy the need for

rapidity and compactness as well as the present shorthand

systems. Fu rth er simplification of the IPA -steno grap hic system

would therefore be indicated for these practical purposes. In

order to keep intact the basic unity of the full and the practical

systems I wo uld n ot suggest th at th e latter shou ld seek to ac hieve

its aim b y crea ting new signs for wo rds an d phras es following

the well known procedure in the stenographic systems. A practi

cal system could very well be realized by the process of

abbreviation and elimination of all those elements which under

certain conditions are not necessary to achieve understanding

of the record or communication. Some Semitic writings with

their well-known abb reviation s a nd arb itra ry omissions of vowel

signs could serve as good models for possible simplification of

246

oi.uchicago.edu




the proposed IPA-stenographic system. Thus, using steno

gr ap hi c forms in all cases, in a full system th e w ord simp lifica

tion

5

co uld be spelled so m eth ing l ike sim plifikeysn , w hile in

certain practical applications the same word could be writ ten

as smplfkysn

5

by om ission of vow els, as simp lifik. by a bb re via

tion, or even as

c

smplfk.

5

by both abbreviation and omission of

vowels.

We have come to the end of our speculation on the future of

writ ing. I am fully aware how vulnerable this chapter is to

criticisms from various quarters. Traditionalists will decry it as

another useless proposal to change the status quo Professional

scholars wil l bemoan my cursory t reatment of an important

subject . I am not much affected by the tradit ionalist ic outbursts

against the reformers. Were it not for the reformers, the

traditionalists, dressed in skins and feathers, would still be

living in caves and would have nary a chance to talk or write

ab ou t the pesti lent heresy of reform . M ore serious m ight be the

criticisms levelled at the rather cursory fashion in which the

important subject of the future of writ ing was treated in this

cha pter . I n my defence I should l ike to state th at I had no

intention of making a formal proposal of a new universal

writ ing. What I intended to do in this chapter was simply to

put together certain ideas which grew out of my experience

with past writ ings in order to see what may be learned from

them in the future. Therein only l ies such value as this chapter

may have .

47

oi.uchicago.edu



X

T E R M I N O L O G Y O F W R I T I N G

• H IS i s the f i rs t at tempt to col lect and define terminology

• of w ri t ing. I n an at tem pt of this kin d i t has be en

I imp ossible to follow in the footsteps of tra di tio n. In or de r

M to br ing ou t the definit ions in sha rpe r typolog ical ou t

l ine, new terms had to be coined, while some old defini t ions had to

be changed or redef ined. The pr inc iples governing wr i t ing have been

placed to gether to enable the readers to evalu ate in toto w ha t I r ega rd

as the most imp or tan t co nt r ibu t ion in th i s s tudy. I t is ho ped th a t th is

first attempt will serve as a useful foundation on which, later, a firm

term inolog y of wr i t ing ca n be es tabli shed.

Acrophony, se e Principle of Acrophony.

Aesthetic

Convention, see

Principle of

esthetic Convention,

AUogram. Lo go gra ph ic, syl labic, or alp ha be t ic s igns or spel lings of

one wri t ing when used as word signs or even phrase s igns in a

bor rowed w r i ti ng . For examp le , t he S um er i an spe ll ing in-ld-e,

he wi l l weigh out , s tands for Akkadian

isaqqal,

he wil l weigh

ou t ; the Ar am aic spel ling

malkd

king,

5

s tands for Persian sdh,

king.

5

Alphabet

o r

Alphabetic Writing. A

wr i t ing in which a s ign normal ly

s tands for one or m ore pho nem es of the lang ua ge. T hu s , in E ngl i sh ,

the a lphabet ic s ign

b

s t ands fo r t he p ho nem e

b,

whi le the s ign

c

s tands for the phonemes k o r s. See also Logography, Syllabary.

ssociative

Sign. A

s ign expressed by dr aw ing a pictu re of a con crete

objec t , which s tands for a word connected wi th the p ic ture by

associat ion only. Thus, the picture of the sun may stand for the

w o r d d a y

5

.

•

Auxiliary Mark or Sign. A

non-phonet ic s ign, such as a non-phonet ic

punctuat ion mark, and, in some sys tems, a de terminat ive or

classif ier , added to help in the understanding of wri t ing.

Classifier see

Semantic Indicator.

^Consonantal W riting.

T h e so-ca lled conso nanta l s igns of the Eg yp t ian

and West Semit ic wri t ings are explained in this book as syl labic

signs in which vowels were lef t undetermined.

Con text of S ituation, see Principle of Context of Situation.

2 4 8

oi.uchicago.edu




Conventionalization, se e Principle

of

Conventionalization.

Convergence,

se e

Principle of Convergence .

Cursive Writing. A

qu ick an d superficial form of w rit in g used for

da i ly , prac t ica l purposes . Somet imes a curs ive wr i t ing becomes

monumenta l , developing a t the same t ime a secondary curs ive

form. Opposi te of Monumental Writing.

Descriptive Representational Device. A semasiographic device to convey

communica t i on by means o f p i c tu res d rawn and grouped in ac

cordance with convent ions of f igurat ive ar t .

Determinative,

see

Semantic Indicator.

Diagrammatic Sign. A

sign expressed by a geometr ic form, such as a

circle for the words 'a l l , total i ty ' or a s t roke for the numeral 'one ' .

Divergence,

see

Principle of Divergence.

Economy,

see

Principle of Econom y.

Forerunners of Writing.

Var ious devices , grouped together under

Semasiography,

to achieve in tercommunica t ion by means of v i s ib le

marks, expressing meaning but not necessar i ly l inguist ic elements .

Oppos i t e of Phonography.

Grammatology. Science of wri t ing.

Hieroglyphic.

A

logo-syllabic system of writ ing using pictures as signs,

such as Egypt ian h ieroglyphic or Hi t t i t e h ieroglyphic .

Homophony. A

character is t ic of several wri t ten s igns expressing the

same phoneme in t he l anguage . For example , the written ' too ,

two ,

to

5

are a l l p ronounced

tuu.

O p p o s i t e of

Polyphony.

Identifying-Mnemonic

Device.

A

semasiographic device to convey com

munica t ion by means of p ic tures or v i s ib le marks , which he lp to

ident i fy or to record cer tain persons or objects . For example, the

drawing of a panther on a shie ld may convey some such genera l

meaning as ' this shield belongs to the person who ki l led the

p a n t h e r ' .

Îdeogram.

Phi lo logis ts use f requent ly an d im prop er ly th e te rm

' ideogram

5

for our logogram.

Ideography. A system of w ri t ing al leged to use Îdeograms.

Inner Development

see

Principle of Inner Development.

Linear Writing. A

form of w ri t in g using l inea r designs or no n-

recognizable pictures as s igns. Opposi te of

Pictorial Writing.

Linguistic Transfer.

Identification of signs of a system with signs of

language , resul t ing in the former becoming a tool of the la t t e r .

T h u s ,

wh en signs of w ri t ing ar e conve nt ion al ly associated w ith

l inguist ic elements , the wri t ing becomes a secondary t ransfer of

l a n g u a g e .

Logogram. A

word s ign used in logography. Not

Îdeogram.

I n

Eng l ish, for ex am ple , th e s igns 2 ( two, seco nd ) , (do l lar) ,

0

(degree) . See also

Primary, Associative,

a n d

Diagrammatic Signs,

Semantic Indicator, Phonetic Transfer, a n d Phonetic Indicator.

2 4 9 \

>

^ - t - w

. ^

oi.uchicago.edu




Logography o r Word Writing A wri t ing in which a s ign normal ly

stands for~one or more words of the language. See also Syllabary

Alphabet

Logo-Syllabic A logo-syl labic wr i t ing, such as Sumer ian or Egypt ian ,

which uses logographic and syl labic s igns.

Manual Writing Wri t ing done by hand . Oppos i t e o f Mechanical

Writing

Meaning Mental associa t ion between a s ign and a referend, tha t i s

a th ing meant , such as the associa t ion between a word and a

referend or be tween a v i sual s ign (wi th or wi thout a word) and

a referend.

Mechanical Writing Writ ing done wi th a mechanica l he lp , such as

type or typewri ter . Opposi te of Manual Writing

Mnemonic see Identifying-Mnem onic Device

Monumental Writing

A careful form of w ri t ing no rm ally found on

monuments and used for off icial display purposes. Opposi te of

Cursive Writing

Object Writing

o r Object Language. A sy stem u til izing objects as signs,

such as the quipu kno t wr i t ing o r flower lang uag e.

Outer

Development see

Principle of

Outer Development.

Pasigraphy. A system of w ri t ing pro pos ed for universa l use an d using

signs expressing meaning, but not necessar i ly l inguist ic elements .

Petroglyph Pr imi t ive pic togram on rocks , inc ised or carved.

Petrogram

Pr imi t ive pic togram on rocks , drawn or pa inted.

Phonetic

Complement/Indicator A s ign express ing a phonet ic but non-

semant ic e lement a t tached to the bas ic s ign. Thus , in Sumer ian,

wh ile the basic pic ture of female brea sts can be rea d as

dumu

son,

5

banda boy ,

5

a n d tur small ,

5

the s ign da ad de d to the bas ic p ic tu re

necessi tates the reading

banda

a n d n o t

dumu

o r

tur.

Phonetic Sign Any sign of a full writ ing which expresses l inguistic

elem ents by m ea ns of vis ible m ark s, such as an

Alphabetic Syllabic

a n d Word Sign and, in some systems, a Prosodic a n d Phrase Sign.

Pho net ic S igns m ay be sub divided in to two classes : ( i ) Ph on et ic

sem ant ic s igns , such as w ord an d p hras e s igns , (2) pho net ic non -

semantic s igns, such as alphabet ic , syl labic, and prosodic s igns.

Phonetic Transfer see Principle of Phonetization.

Phonetization see Principle of Phonetization

Phonography A

full

Writing

that is a system of signs expressing

l inguist ic elements by means of vis ible marks. Opposi te of

Semasiography

Phraseography o r

Phrase Writing A

type of w ri t ing in which a sign

s tands for a phrase or sentence . Al though not known as a wr i t ing

sys tem, many phraseographic s igns are used in s tenography and

in the sentent ial calculus.

Pictography orerunners of Writing

us ing pictogram s that is pictures

250

oi.uchicago.edu



T R M I N O L O G Y O F W R I T I N G

as s igns , such as are known, for example , among Amer ican

Ind ians .

Pictorial Writing,

A form of wri t ing using recognizable pictures as

signs. Opposi te of Linear Writing,

Polyphony.

A ch arac ter is t ic of a s ingle w ri t te n s ign expressing m or e

than one phoneme in the language. Cf . , for example , the poly-

phonous cha rac t e r o f t he a lphabe t i c s ign

a

i n the w r i t ing of m an ,

m an e , ma l t , e t c . Op pos i t e o f H omophony.

Position, see Principle of Position,

Primary Sign,

A s ign expressed by drawing a picture of a concrete

object , which stands for a concrete object or act ion. Thus, the

pic tu re of a m a n m ay s tan d for the wo rd m an , the p ic ture of

a m a n ho ld ing b rea d in t he ha nd p l aced nea r h is m ou th m ay

stand for the word

c

to ea t .

Principle of

Acrophony, A pr inc iple by which syl labic and a lphabet ic

signs al legedly or iginated by using the f i rs t par t of a longer word

and cast ing off the rest . The principle could be i l lustrated in

English by choosing the picture of a house to s tand for an alpha

betic sign

h,

because the w ord house

5

s t a r t s wi th an

h.

No t

count ing sporadic except ions , acrophony as a pr inc iple seems to

play no part in the his tory of wri t ing.

Principle of esthetic Convention, A p r inc ip l e by which fo rm and /or

a r r an gem ent o f s igns m ay b e changed in accordance wi th

aes the t ic /ar t i s t ic convent ions . For example , the cor rec t order of

signs x (

x

repre sents a sma ll s ign, X a large s ign) m ay be

chan ged to IX , w here the two sm al l s igns * are so ar ra ng ed as to

balance the la rge s ign X.

Principle of Context of S ituation, A

p r i nc ip l e by which r ead ing and

interp re ta t ion of s igns m ay b e depe nd en t on the context of

s i tua t ion. For example , the abbrevia t ion m m ay s tan d for

m inu te i n one con tex t , an d fo r m e te r i n ano the r .

Principle of Conventiona lization, A p r inc iple by which the forms and

meanings of a l l s igns and symbols are convent ional ized.

Principle of Convergence, A pr inciple by which different word signs are

el iminated and replaced by syl labic spel l ings, as in Sumerian or

Hi t t i t e . Oppos i t e o f Principle of Divergence,

Principle of Divergence. A p r inc iple by which new s igns for new words

are crea ted, as in Chinese . Opposi te of Principle of Convergence,

Principle of Economy, A pr inciple by which a wri t ing s t r ives to achieve

i ts maximum eff iciency by the smallest possible number of s igns.

For example , cer ta in syl labar ies do not d i s t inguish be tween

voiced, voice less , and emphat ic consonants , whi le o thers do not

indicate differences between various vowels .

Principle

of Inner

Development

A

p r inc iple by which a wr i t ing develops

2 5

1

oi.uchicago.edu




from one inner s t ructural s tage to another , as from a syl labary to

an a lphabe t . Pa ra l l e l t o Principle of Outer Development.

Principle of Outer Development. A

p r inc iple by which a wr i t ing

develops from one outer formal s tage to another , as from a

pictor ial to a l inear form. Paral lel to

Principle of Inner Development.

Principle of Phonetization.

A pr inc iple , ca lled in mo de rn u sage the

Rebus Principle, by which word signs which are diff icul t to draw are

wri t ten by signs expressing words which are s imilar in sound and

are easy to d raw. Thus , i n Sumer i an , t he word

ti,

life , is

expressed by the picture of an arrow, which also is ti i n S um er i an .

Principle of Position. A p r i nc ip l e by wh ich r ead ing and m ean ing of

s igns m ay be de pe nd en t on the i r po s i tion, as in the wr i t in g of

3 2

a n d 3

2

.

Principle of Reduction. A p r inc iple by which the va lue of a s ign may

be shor tened w hen i t is fo llowed by a ph on et ic no n-sem ant ic s ign.

Thus , t he combina t ion tdb-ab, goo d, comp osed of the w ord s ign

tab

p l u s th e p h o n e t i c c o m p l e m e n t / in d i c a t o r

ab,

was conceived as

td(b)-ab by the Akkadians, resul t ing in taking the f i rs t s ign to

stand for the syl lable

ta

only. S imilar ly, th e wri t in g of the syl lable

bi by m ea ns of two syl labic s igns bi-i was conceived as b(i)-i by the

Greeks, resul t ing in the interpretat ion of the f i rs t s ign, or iginal ly

syl labic, as an alphabet ic s ign b.

Principle

of

Unidirectional Development.

A

p r inc iple of dev elopm ent f rom

word to syl labic to a lphabet ic wr i t ing.

Prosodic Sign. A s ign or mark to denote a prosodic feature, such as

quant i ty , accent , tone , and pause , as in the wr i t ing of dimos o r ku

z

.

Rebus P rinciple,

see

Principle of Phonetization.

Reduction,

see

Principle of Reduction.

Representational see Descriptive Representational

Device.

Semantic Indicator. A

s ign f requent ly ca l led de term ina t ive , expressing

a semant ic but non-phonet ic e lement a t tached to the bas ic s ign,

a s i n t h e C h in e s e w r i ti n g o f T H U M B . W O O D fo r t h e w o r d

ts ung,

v i l lage , con t r as t ed wi th t he wr i t i ng o f T H U M B a lone

for the word ts ung, t h um b. In some wr i t ings de te rmina t ives

became classif iers , that is auxi l iary s igns marking words to which

they were a t tached as be longing to a cer ta in c lass . In Akkadian,

for example , a l l d iv ine names were marked by a d ivine de termina

tive/classifier.

Semasiography. Forerunners of Writing, i nc lud ing the Identifying-

Mnemonic

a n d Descriptive Representational devices, to achieve inter

com m unic at ion b y mean s of v i sib le m arks expressing m ean ing ,

but not necessar i ly l inguist ic elements . Opposi te of Phonography.

Sign.

A

convent ional ly used

Symbol

forming p ar t of a system, such as

a wo rd in a system of s igns cal led lan gu ag e

5

, or a wr i t ten mark in

252

oi.uchicago.edu




a system of s igns cal led w ri t in g . In a na rro w sense only a w ri t ten

m a r k .

Signary. A list of signs of a writing.

Syllabary

o r

Syllabic Writing. A

wr i t ing in which a s ign normal ly

stands for one or more syl lables of the language. Thus, in

Sumerian, one s ign has the syl labic value

ba,

a n o t h e r

ri

o r

dal,

st i l l another bala. See also Logography, Alphabet.

Syllabic Sign o r Syllabogram. A s ign used in a Syllabary o r Syllabic

Writing.

Symbol.

Same as

Sign

bu t no t forming, p a rt of a system, such as th e

symbol cross

5

for Ch r i s t iani ty , or an ch or for ho pe .

System of Signs. Assemblage of organical ly related s igns con-

vent ional ly used for the purpo se of in terco m m unic at ion , such as

language, wr i t ing, ges ture language, e tc .

Transcription. A

form of gra ph ic t ransfer w he rein o ne sign (or a

com bin at ion of alp ha be t ic signs an d ar t i f icial symbols) s tan ds for

each phoneme of t he l anguage we a re r ecord ing . Thus , t h ree

cuneiform signs, t ransl i terated as i-din-nam o r i-di n)-nam, m a y b e

t ranscr ibed as

iddinam.

Transliteration. A form of gra ph ic t ransfer w he rein on e s ign (or a

com bin at ion of alp ha be t ic s igns an d ar t i ficial symbols) s tand s for

each charac ter of the wr i t ing we are recording. Thus , three

cuneiform signs may be t ransl i terated as

i-din-nam or i-di ri)-nam.

Unidirectional Development see

Principle of

Unidirectional Development.

Word Sign,

see

Logogram.

Writing. A system of in terc om m un icat ion by mean s of conv ent ional

visible marks. See also

orerunners of Writing

o r

Semasiography

and

Phonography.

53

oi.uchicago.edu



X I I

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

GE NE RAL

PHILIPPE BERGER, Histoire de

Vecriture

dans Vantiquite

(2nd ed.; P a r i s ,

1892).

ALOYS BOM ER, Die S chr if t und i h r e E n t w i c k l u n g in

Handbuch

der

Bibliothekswissenschaft hrsg .

von F.

M i lk a u,

i

(Leipzig , 1931) ,

pp.

2 7 - 1 4 9 . 2nd ed. ed i ted by W a l t e r M e n n ( W i e s b a d e n , 1 9 5 2) .

JOSEPH BOUUAERT , Petite histoire de Valphabet (Bruxe lles, 194 9).

P. E.

GLEATOR, Lost Languages

(Lon don , 1959).

E D W A R D G L O D D , The Story

of

the Alphabet

(3rd ed.;

Ne w York , 1938) .

M ARC EL GOHEN, Vecriture

(Paris , 1953) .

M ARC EL GOHEN,

La

grande invention de

Vecriture

et

son

evolution. T h r e e

v o l u m e s : Texts Documentation

et

index Planches (Paris , 1958) .

T H . W. D A NZ E L,

Die

Anfdnge der Schrift

(2nd ed.; Le ipzig , 1929) .

HERM ANN D EGERING, Die Schrift Atlas der Schriftformen des bendlandes

vom Altertum bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts

(Berl in , 1929) . 3rd

e d .

in 1952.

HERM ANN D ELITZ S C H , Geschichte der abendlandischen Schreibschnftformen

(Leipzig, 1928) .

DAVID DIRINGER, Valfabeto nella storia della civilta

(Firenze, 1937) .

D A V I D D I R I N G E R ,

The

Alphabet.

A Key

to the History

of

M ankind

(Lon

d o n

and New

York , 1948) .

2nd ed. in 1949.

DAVID DIRINGER,

The

Story

of

the Aleph Beth

(London , 1958) .

D A V I D D I R I N G E R , Writing (London , 1962) .

ERNST DOBLHOFER, Voices

in

Stone.

The

Decipherment

of

Ancient Scripts

and Writings ( L o n d o n

and New

York , 1961). T rans l a t i on

of

D o bl -

hofer s

Z

e

^

cnen un

^

Wunder

(Wien , Ber l in , S tu t tga r t , 1957).

FRANZ DORNSEIFF,

Das

Alphabet

in

Mystik

und

Magie

(2nd ed.;

Leipz ig und Be rl in , 1925) .

M A X E BE R T , Reallexikon

der

Vor geschichte

xi

( 1 9 2 7 - 2 8 ) , 3 1 5 - 3 6 6 :

a r t ic l e S chr i f t by T h u r n w a l d , S u n d w a ll , R o ed e r , J. P ede r sen ,

F . H i l l e r von G a e r t r i n g e n , and J. de G. S e r r a -Rafo l s .

B EN ENGELHAR T

and

F RA NS D E GL E R C Q ,

50 eeuwen schrift Een inleiding

tot de

geschiedenes

van het schrift

(U t r ech t , 1956).

C ARL FAULM ANN, Illustrirte Geschichte

der

Schrift (Wien , Pes t ,

and

Leipzig , 1880) .

54

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

J A M E S

G. F ^ V R IE R ,

Histoire de Vecriture

(Paris , 1948). Nouvel le 6di t ion

in

1959.

CHARLES FOSSEY, Notices sur les

characteres Strangers anciens

et

modernes,

redigees

par un

groupe

de

savants (Paris , 1927). Nouvel le edi t ion

in

1948.

J .

FRIEDRIGH, Entzifferung verschollener Schriften

und

Sprachen

(Berlin,

1954). Also

the

A m e r i c a n e d i t io n : Extinct Languages

New

York ,

1957)-

I .

J.

G E L B ,

Von der

Keilschrift

zum

Alphabet. Grundlagen einer Sprach-

wissenschaft

( S tu t tga r t , 1958). T ran s l a t i on and a r evised edi t ion of

G e l b s

Study

of

Writing.

W A L T E R J A M E S H O F F M A N , The Beginnings of Writing New York,

18 95 ) ••

LANCELOT HOGBEN, From Cave Painting

to

Comic Strip

New York ,

1949)-

V .

A.

ISTRIN, Razvitiepis ma (M oskva , 1961).

H AN S J E N S E N ,

Geschichte

der Schrift

(Hannover , 1925) .

HANS JENSEN ,

Die

Schrift

in

Vergangenheit

und

Gegenwart (Gl i ickstadt

u n d H a m b u r g , 1 9 3 5 ) .

2nd ed. in 1958.

F R E D E R I C

G.

K E N YO N, Ancient Books and Modern

iscoveries ( C h i ca g o ,

I927)-

W I L H E L M

H.

LANGE, Schriftfibel.

Geschichte

der

abendlandischen

Schrift

von den Anfangen bis

zur

Gegenwart

3rd ed.; W iesbade n , 1952).

C . R. L E PS I U S ,

Standard Alphabet

2nd ed.; L o n d o n and Be rl in , 1863).

C LOUKOTKA, Vyvoj pisma (P raha , 1946) .

WILLIAM A . M A S O N ,

History

of the rt of

Writing (N ew Yo rk , 1920) .

ANNE L IS E M O D R Z E ,

Z

urtl

Problem

der

Schrift.

Ein

Beitrag

zur

Theorie

der Entzifferung

(D i sser ta tion; Bres lau , 1930) .

A . C.

M O ORHOU S E , Writing and the Alphabet

(London , 1946) .

A .

C.

M OO RHOU S E , The

Triumph

of

the Alphabet.

History

of

Writing

(New York , 1953) .

H U B E R T N E L I S , Vecriture

et

les scribes (Brux elles, 191 8).

G E O R G E

F. VON

O S T E R M A NN

and A. E.

G I E G E N G A G K , Manual of

Foreign Languages

for the Use of

Printers

and

Translators

3rd ed.;

W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 3 6) . 4th ed. in 1952.

W A L T E R O T T O , Handbuch der Archaologie,

i ( M i in c h e n , 1 9 39 ), 147-

356: ar t icles by F. W. von Bissing, A. R e h m , E. P e rn i ce , and

H . A r n t z .

H O L G E R P E D E R S E N ,

Linguistic Science

in the

Nineteenth Century ( C a m

br idge , 1931), cha p ,

vi, pp.

141-239 : Insc r ip t ions

and

A r c h a e o

logica l D iscoveries .

The

S tu d y

of the

H i s to ry

of

W r it in g .

5

A L F R E D P E T R A U , Schrift und Schriften im Leben der Vother

(E ssen , 1939) .

2 n d ed. in 1944.

55

oi.uchicago.edu




W . M.

F L I N D E R S P E T R I E ,

The

Formation

of

the Alphab et British

School

of

Archaeology in

Egypt, Studies Series,

iii; L o n d o n , 1 9 12 ).

P A U L S A T T L E R and G O T Z V. S E L L E , Bihliographie zur Geschichte der

Schrift bis in

das

Jahr

igô

Archivfur Bihliographie,

Beiheft 17; L inz

a . D . , 1 9 35 ) .

A L F R E D S G H M I T T ,

Die Erfindung

der

Schrift Erlanger Un iversitats-Reden ,

2 2 ;

E r l a n g e n , 1 9 3 8 ).

O . S C H R AD E R , Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, ii (Berlin

u n d L e i p z i g , 19 2 9 ), pp. 3 3 8 - 3 5 3 : a r ti c le S c h r e i b e n und L e s e n .

K U R T S E T H E ,

Vom Bilde

zum

Buchstaben. Die

Entwicklungsgeschichte

der

Schrift.

Mit e i n e m B e i t r a g von S i eg f ri ed S c h o t t

Untersuchungen

zur

Geschichte und Alter tumskunde Agyptens,

xii, L e i p z i g , 1 9 3 9 ) .

R .

S T U B E , Beitrage

zur

Entwicklungsgeschichte der Schrift Monographien

des B uchgewerhes,

vi;

L e i p z i g , 1 9 1 3 ).

R . S T U B E , Der Ursprung

des

Alphabets

und

seine Entwicklung (Berl in ,

1 9 2 1 .

I S A A C T A Y L O R ,

The Alphabet

2 v o l s .; L o n d o n , 1 8 8 3 ).

I S AAC T A Y L O R ,

The History

of the

Alphabet

2 v o l s. ; N e w Y o r k , 1 8 9 9 ) .

J A N T S C H I C H O L D , Geschichte der

Schrift

in

Bildern

(Basel , 1940). 2nd

G e r m a n ed. in 1946 » n Illustrated History of Writing

and

Letters

( L o n d o n , 1 9 4 6) .

B.

L. U L L M AN , Ancient Writing and

Its

Influence (N e w Y o r k , 1 9 3 2 ).

K A R L W E U L E , Vom Kerbstock zum Alphabet ( 2 0 t h ed.; S t u t t g a r t ,

1926?).

H .

S.

WI L L I A M S , The History

of

the

rt of

W riting. M a n u s c r i p t s , in s c ri p

t ions and m u n i m e n t s , etc. 4 v o ls .; L o n d o n and New Y o rk ,

1901-8 .

H E I N R I C H W U T T K E ,

Die

Enstehung der Schrift.

Die

verschiedene Schrift-

systeme (L eipzig, 1877).

P R I M I T I V E D E V I C E S

H E N R I B R E U I L , Four Hundred Centuries

of

Cave

rt ( M o n t i g n a c , 1 9 5 2) .

T r a n s l a t e d fro m F r e n c h .

L . S.

G R E S S M A N , Petroglyphs

of

Oregon

( E u g e n e , 1 9 3 7 ).

D A N I E L

S.

D AVI D S O N , Aboriginal Australian

and

Tasmanian Rock Carv

ings

and

Paintings Mem oirs

of

the American P hilosophical Society,

v;

P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 3 6 ).

S E L W Y N D E W D N E Y and K E N N E T H E. K I D D , Indian Rock Paintings of

the Great Lakes

( T o r o n t o , 1 9 6 2 ).

G . B. M.

F L AM AN D , Lespierres ecrites.

Gravures

et

impressions rupestres

du

Nord-Africain

( P a r i s , 1 9 2 1 ) .

L E O F R O B E N I U S

and

D O U G L A S

G. F O X ,

Prehistoric Rock Pictures

in

Europe and A frica

( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 3 7) .

56

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

W . G . HELLINGA, T6 t rog lyp hes ca ra i bes : p rob lem e semio log ique ,

Lingua, i v (1954) , 121-65.

A . T . J A C K S O N , Picture-Writing of Texas Indians (Aust in , 1938).

T H E O D O R K O C H - G R U N B E R G ,

Sudamerikanische Felszeichnungen (Berlin,

I9°7 ) -

H E R B E R T K U H N , Die F elsbilder Europas ( S tu t tga r t , 1952).

E . LOHSE , Versuch einer Typologie der Felszeichnungen (D i sser ta tion;

Leipzig, 1934).

GARRIGK M ALLE RY, Pictographs of the North American Indians. A P r e

l i m i n a r y P a p e r

Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,

Smithsonian Institution; W a s h i n g t o n , 1 8 86 ; p p . 1-256 .

GARRICK M ALLE RY, Picture-Writing of the Am erican Indians Tenth

Annual R eport of

the

Bureau of Ethnology; W ash ing ton , 1893 ; PP-

I -

822).

E R L A N D N O R D E N S K I O L D , The Secret of the Peruvian Quipus Com parative

Ethnographical Studies,

6 Pa r t 1 ; G ote bo rg , 1925) .

E R L A N D N O R D E N S K I O L D , Picture- Writings and other Docum ents by Nele

and Ruben Perez K antule Comparative Ethnographical Studies, 7 P ar t 1;

Goteborg , 1928) .

E . B . R E N A R D , I n d i an Pe t rog lyphs f rom the W es te rn P l a ins ,

Seventieth Anniversary Volum e Honoring Edgar Lee Hew ett (Albu

q u e r q u e , N e w M e x i c o , 1 9 3 9) , p p . 2 9 5 - 3 1 0 .

H E N R Y R . SCHOOLCRAFT, Historical and Statistical Information Respecting

the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United

States, Pa r t i (Ph i ladelp hia , 1851) .

JULIAN

H .

S T E W A R D ,

Te t rog lyp hs of C a l ifo rn ia an d Adjo in ing

S t a t e s , University of California Publications in American Archaeology

and Ethnology, xxiv (1929) , 4 7-2 39 .

JULIAN H . S T E W A R D , T e t r o g l y p h s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t es , Annual Report

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Tear ig^6

(Wash ing ton , 1937), pp . 405 -425 .

ANDRE VARAGNAC et aL, Vhomme avant Vecriture

(Paris , 1959).

A ZT E C -M A Y A

T . S . BARTHEL, D i e gegenw ar t ige S i t ua t ion in de r E r fo r schung d e r

M a y a -S c h ri ft , Journal de la Societe d es Am ericanistes, n .s . xlv (1956) ,

219-227 .

H E R M A N N B E Y E R ,

T h e A n al ys is of t h e M a y a H i e r o g l y p h s ,

Inter

nationales Archivfur Ethnographie,

xx xi (19 32) , 1-20.

D A N I E L

G .

BRINTON,

A P rimer of Mayan Hieroglyphics Publications of

the University of Pennsylvania Series in Philology, Literature and Archaeo

logy,

i i i, 2; Bo ston, 1895 ). -

T H .

W .

D A N Z E L , Handbuch der prakolumbischen Kulturen in Latein-

amerika

(H am bu rg un d Ber lin , 1927) .

57

oi.uchicago.edu



B I B L I O G R P H Y

Y U R I Y V . K N O R O Z O V, D r e v n y a y a p i s m e n n o s t C e n t r a l n o y A m e ri k i,

5

Sovetskaya Etnogrqfiya, 1952, Par t 3 , p p . 100-1 18.

Y U R I Y V . K N O R O Z O V , P i s m e n n o s t d r e v n i k h M a i y a , O p y t r as sh i-

frovki , Sovetskaya E tnogrqfiya, 1955 , Pa r t 1, pp . 94-12 5 .

Y U R I Y

V .

K N O R O Z O V ,

N e w D a t a o n t h e M a y a W r i tt e n L a n g u a g e ,

Journal de la

Societe

des Am ericanistes,

n . s . x lv (1956) , 209-216

Pro

ceedings of the Thirty-second International C ongress of A merican ists

(Co penh agen , 1958), pp . 467-475) -

Y U R I Y V . K N O R O Z O V , T h e P rob lem of t he S tud y of t he M ay a

H i e r o g l y p h i c W r i t i n g , American Antiquity, xxi i i (1958) , 284 -291 .

R I C H A R D C . E . L O N G , M a y a a n d M e x i c an W r i t i n g ,

Maya Research,

i i ( i935) i 24-32.

R I C H A R D

G . E .

L O N G ,

M a y a W r it in g a n d I t s D e c i p h e r m e n t , Maya

Research, i ii (1936) , 30 9-3 15 .

SYLVANUS

G .

M O R L E Y , An

Introduction

to the Study of the Maya Hiero

glyphs (W ash ing ton , 1915).

SYLVANUS

G .

M O R LEY , The Ancient Maya

(S tanford U nivers i ty Press,

1947)-

P. SCHELLHAS, F i ft y Y e a r s of M a y a R e s e a r c h , Maya Research, iii

(1936) , 129-139.

EDUARD SELER, Gesam melte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprach-

und Alterthumskunde (5 vols . ; Berl in , 190 2-19 23).

J . E R I C S . THOMPSON, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Introduction ( W a s h

i n g to n , D . C . , 1 95 0 ). 2 n d e d . , N o r m a n , O k l a h o m a , i 9 6 0 .

J . E R I C S . THOMPSON, A Catalogue of Maya Hieroglyphs ( N o r m a n,

O k l a h o m a , 1 9 62 ).

ALFRED M . T O Z Z E R , T h e V a l u e of A n c i e n t M e x i c a n M a n u s c r i p t s

in t he S tud y of t he G enera l Dev e lopm ent of W r i t i ng , Annual Re

port of

the

Board of Regents o f

the

Smithsonian Institution for

the

Tear ign

(W ash ing ton , 1912) , 493-5 06 .

ALFRED

M .

TO Z Z E R ,

M a y a R e s ea rc h , Maya Research, i (1934) , 3-19-

BENJAMIN L . W H O R F , M a y a W r it in g a n d I t s D e c i p h e r m e n t , Maya

Research, i i (1935) , 367 -382 .

BENJAMIN L . W HO R F , D ec iph erm en t of the Linguis t ic Po r t ion of the

M a y a H i e r o g l y p h s , Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,

1941, p p . 4 7 9 - 5 0 2 .

GUNTER Z IMMERMANN, Die ieroglyphen

der

Maya-Handschriften ( H a m

burg , 1956) .

M E S O P O T A M I A N C U N E I F O R M

G . A .

B A R T O N , The Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing

(2

vols.;

Leipzig , 1913) .

F R A N Z B A Y E R , Die Entwicklung der Keilschrift Orien talia,

x x v; R o m a ,

1927)-

2 5 8

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

C U M B E R L A N D C L A R K , The Art of Early Writing. With Special Reference

to the Cuneiform System (Lond on , 1938).

G . C O N T E N A U ,

£

Les deb u t s de Pe c r i t u re cune i fo rme , Revue des etudes

semitiques, 1940 , pp . 5 5-6 7 .

A N T O N D E I M E L , Keilschrift Palaeographie (Roma , 1929) .

E . D H O R M E , L ec r i t u re e t la l angue as syro-baby lon iennes , Revue

d assyriologie,

x l (194 5-46 ) , 1-16.

A . F A L K E N S T E I N , Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Leipzig, 1936).

CHARLES FOSSEY,

Manuel

d assyriologie

(2 vols . ; Paris , 1904-1926).

I . J . G E L B , Memorandum on Transliteration and Transcription of Cunei

form, sub m i t ted to the 21s t In t ern at io na l C ongress of Or ien ta l i s t s ,

P a r is ( C h i c ag o , 1 9 48 ). M i m e o g r a p h e d .

R E N E LABA T ,

Manuel

d epigraphie

akkadienne (Paris , 1948).

L . M E S S E R S G H M I D T , Die E ntzijferung der Keilschrift (Der Alte Orient,

v, 2; Leipzig, 1903).

M . RU T T E N , N o t e s d e p a l e o g r a p h i e c u n ei fo r m e , Revue des etudes

semitiques, 1940, p p . 1-53.

F . T H U R E A U - D A N G I N , Recherches sur Porigine de Pecriture cuneiforme

(Paris , 1898).

E C K H A R D U N G E R , Die Keilschrift (Leipzig, 1929).

E C K H A R D U N G E R , Keilschrift-Symbolik (Berlin, 1940).

E G Y P T I A N H I E R O G L Y P H I C

W . F .

ALBRIGHT, The Voca lization of the Egyp tian Syllabic Orthography

( N e w H a v e n , 1 9 34 ).

W . F .

E D GE R T ON ,

E gy p t i an Pho ne t i c W r i t i ng , f rom I t s Inven t ion to

t h e C lo se of t h e N i n e t e e n t h D y n a s t y ,

Journal of the Ame rican

Oriental Society,

l x (1940) , 473-506.

A .

E R M A N , Die Hieroglyphen

(N eudru ck ; Ber lin un d Le ipz ig , 1917).

H . W .

FAIRMAN,

A n In t rod uc t ion to t he S tudy of P to l emaic S igns

a n d T h e i r V a l u e s ,

Bulletin de PInstitut

Frangais d?Archeologie Orientale

du Caire,

x l ii i (1945) , 51 -13 8.

A . H .

G A R D I N E R ,

T h e N a t u r e a n d D e v e lo p m e n t of t h e E g y p t ia n

H i e r o g l y p h i c W r i t i n g ,

Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology, i i (1915) ,

61-75 .

H . K E E S , S . S G H O T T , H .

BRUNNER

E . O T T O , a n d S . M O R E N Z ,

Agyptische Schrift und Sprache.

(H an db uc h de r Or i en t a li s ti k , h r sg .

v o n B . S p u l e r, E r s te A b t . , E r s t e r B d . , E r s te r A b s c h n i t t ; L e i d e n ,

PIERRE LAGAU,

Sur le systeme

hieroglyphique

(Institut Frangais d Archeo-

logie Orientale. Bibliotheque d Etude,

T . xxv ; Le C a i r e , 1954) .

E . N A V I L L E , Uecriture egyptienne (Paris , 1926).

A . SGHARFF, Archaologische Beitr dge zur Frage der Enstehung der Hiero-

2 5 9

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

glyphenschrift Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad d. Wiss., Philos.-hist.

A bt . , 1942, Heft 3 ) .

S I E G F R I E D S G H O T T ,

Untersuchungen

zu r

Schriftgeschichte

der Pyramiden-

texte (Disser ta t ion; Heid elbe rg , 1926) .

S I E G F R I E D S G H O T T , Hieroglyphen.

Untersuchungen

zum Ur sprung der

Schrift Akademie der

Wissenschaften

und der Literatur in Mainz, Ab-

handlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang

1950,

N r . 24) .

K U R T S E T H E , Das hieroglyphische Schriftsystem Leipziger Agyptologische

Studien Hef t 3 ; G l i icks t ad t un d Ha m bu rg , 1935 ) .

H .

S O T T A S

a n d E .

D R I O T O N ,

Introduction

a

Vetude

des

hieroglyphes (Paris,

1 9 2 2 ) .

W A LT E R T I L L,

V om W esen de r agyp t i schen Schr if t, Die Sprache iii

( 1 9 5 6 ) , 2 0 7 - 2 1 5 .

H I T T I T E H I E R O G L Y P H I C

H . T H .

B O S S E R T , Santas und Kupapa {Mitteilungen der

Altorientalischen

Gesellschaft

vi , 3; Leipzig, 1932).

E .

O .

F O R R E R , Die

hethitische

Bilderschrift Studies in Ancient Oriental

Civilization

No. 3; Chicago, 1932) .

J. F R I E D R I G H , Entzifferungsgeschichte der hethithischen Hieroglyphenschrift

(Sonderheft 3 der Zei tschrif t

Die Welt als Geschichte;

S tu t tga r t ,

1939)-

I G N A C E

J .

G E L B , Hittite

Hieroglyphs Studies

in

Ancient

Oriental Civiliza

tion,

No s . 2 , 14, an d 2 1 ; Ch icag o, 193 1-19 42) .

IGNACE

J .

G E L B ,

T h e Cont r ib u t ion o f t he Ne w Ci li c ian B i li ngua ls

to t he De c iphe rm ent o f H ie rog lyph ic Hi t t i t e ,

Bibliotheca Orientalis

vi i (1950 ) , 129-141 .

B . H R O Z N Y , Les inscriptions hittites

hieroglyphiques

(3 vols.; Praha,

EMMANUEL LAROCHE, Les hieroglyphes hittites. P r em ie re p a r t i e :

L ec r i t u re (Pa r is , i 9 60 ) .

P. M E R I G G I , Die Idngsten Bauinschriften in hethitischetf Hieroglyphen

nebst Glossar zu samtlichen Texten Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-

gyptis hen

Gesellschaft

xxxix, 1; Leip zig, 193 4). T h e glossary wa s

republished under the title Hieroglyphisch-hethitisches Glossar (2nd

ed . ; W iesbaden , 1962) .

P . M E RIGGI, L i s tes des h ieroglyph es hi t t i t es ,

Revue hittite e t asianique

iv (1937)5 PP- 69-114

a n d

1 5 7 - 2 0 0 .

C H I N E S E

PETER BOODBERG, Som e P ro lep t i ca l Re m ark s on the E vo lu t ion of

A rchaic C h inese , Harvard Journal of A siatic Studies, ii (1937)? 3

2

9 ~

372

260

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

PETER BOODBERG,

C

I d e o g r a p h y o r I c o no l ot ry ? , ' T oung

Pao

xxxv

(1940) , 266-288 .

H E R R L E E G . C R E E L , ' O n t h e N a t u r e of C h i n es e I d e o g r a p h y , ' T oung

Pao

xxxii (1936) ,

8 5 - 1 6 1 .

H E R R L E E G . C R E E L , ' O n t h e I d e o g r a p h i c E l e m e n t in A n c i e n t

C h in e se , ' T oung

Pao

xxxiv (1938) , 265-294.

B E R N H A R D K A R L G R E N , Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino Japanese

(Paris , 1923).

BERNHARD KARLGREN,

Sound and Symbol in Chinese

(Lond on , 1923).

BERNHARD KARLGREN,

Philology and Ancient China

(Oslo, 1926) .

B E R N H A R D K A R L G R E N , Gram ma tica Serica Script and Phonetics in

Chinese and Sino-Japa nese {Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern

Antiquities N o. 12; S tockh olm, 1940) .

P. PELLIOT,

'Breves remarques sur le phonet i sme dans l ' ecr i ture

chinoise , ' T

(

oung

Pao

xxxi i (1936) , 162-166.

A .

VON ROSTHORN,

'Zur Geschichte der chines i schen Schr i f t , '

Wiener

Zeitschriftfur die Kun de des

M orgenlandes xlviii (1941), 121-142.

BRUNO SGHINDLER,

several articles in

Ostasiatische Z

e

^

sc

hrift

1 9 1 4 -

1918.

T A I T U N G , The Six Scripts Or the

Principles

of

Chinese

Writing.

T r an s

lated

b y L . C . H o p k i n s ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 54 ).

T C H A N G T C H E N G - M I N G , Uecriture

chinoise

e t le

geste hurhain (Sha ng ha i

and Par i s , no da te , about 1939?) .

P R O T O - E L A M I T E

F.

B O R K , Die

Strichinschriften von

Susa

(K o nig sberg , 1 9 2 4 ).

W ILLIAM C . BRIGE, ' T h e W r i t in g S y st em of t h e P r o t o - E l a m i t e A c

c o u n t T a blets o f Susa ,

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library M an

hester xl (1962) , 15-39.

C .

FRANK,

' E l am . Schri ft ' i n M ax E ber t , Reallexikon der V or geschichte

i i i ( i 925 ) , 83 f .

W A LT H E R H I N Z, 'Zu r E ntzi fF erung der e lamischen S t r ichschr i f t, '

Iranica

Antiqua

i i (1962), 1-21.

P R O T O - IN D I G

H .

HERAS ,

'L a escr i tura pro to- I nd ica y su desc i f ramiento , '

Ampurias

* 0 9 3 9 ) , 5 - 8 i .

B. HROZNY,

' Inschr i ft en un d K u l tu r de r P ro to - In der . . . , ' Archiv

Orientdlni xii (1941) , 192-259; xi i i (1942) ,

1 102.

G . R . H U N T E R , The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection

with Other Scripts (L o ndo n, 1 9 3 4 ).

E R N E S T

J . H .

M A G K A Y ,

Further Excavations

at Mohenjo-Daro

(2 vols.;

D e l h i , i g s ? - ^

8

) -

261

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

E R N E S T

J. H.

M A C K A Y , Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36

(New

Haven , 1943) .

J O H N M A RS H AL L, Mohenjo-Daro

and the

Indus Civilization

(3

vols.;

London , 1931) .

P. M E R IG GI , Zur I ndus -Schr i f t ,

Z

e

^

scnr

^ d

er

Deutschen M orgenldndi-

schen

Gesellschajt

lxxvi i (1934) , 198-241 .

H E I N Z M O D E ,

Indische Fruhkulturen und ihre Beziehungen zum Westen

(Basel , 1944).

M A D H O S A RU P V AT S , Excavations

at

Harappa (2 vols .; C a lcu t ta , 1940) .

C R E T A N

E M M E T T

L.

B E N N E T T ,

The Pylos Tablets. Texts oj the Inscriptions Found

I

939~

I

954 (P r inceto n , 1955) .

W . C. B RI C E , Inscriptions in the M inoan Linear Script oj lass A (Oxford ,

1961).

J O H N C H A D IC K , The Decipherment oj Linear

B

(Cambridge, 1958).

J O H N C H A D W IC K

and

M I C H A E L V E N T R IS ,

Greek Records in the

M i n o a n S c rip t, Antiquity, xxvi i (1953) , 196-206.

F E R N A N D C H A P O U T H I E R , Les ecritures minoen nes

au

palais de Mallia

(E co le F ranga i se d Athen es . Etudes cretoises,

ii;

Pa r is , 1930).

S T E R L I N G D O W , M i n o a n W r i ti n g , American Journal oj Archaeology,

lvi i i (1954) , 77-129.

A R T H U R J. E V A N S , Scripta Minoa

(2 vols .; Ox ford , 1909 -1952 ) .

A R T H U R J. E V A N S , The Palace oj M inos (4 vols , and In d e x ; L o n d o n ,

1921-1936) .

A R N E F U R U M A R K , Linear A und die altkretische Sprache, Entzifferung und

Deutung

(2

pa r t s , m ul t i g ra phe d ; Ber l in , 1956).

G . P.

G OU L D

and M.

P O PE ,

Preliminary Investigations into the Cretan

Linear

A

Script ( m i m e o g r a p h e d ; U n i v e rs i ty of G a p e T o w n , 1 9 55 ).

A . E. K O B E R , The M i n o a n S c rip ts : F a c t and T h e o ry , American

Journal oj Archaeology,

Hi

(1948) , 8 2 -1 03 ; al so op. cit. xlvi i i (1944) ,

6 4 - 7 5 ,

x l i x

(

x

945)>

l

^~

l

5

l

>

a n d

1 ( 1946) , 2 68 -2 76 .

M I C H E L L E J E U N E , ed., Etudes myceniennes, Actes du Gol loque Inte r

n a t i o n a l

sur les

T ex t es M ycen iens (Pa ri s , 1956).

M I C H E L L E J E U N E , Memoires de ph ilologie mycenienne, Premiere s6rie

(Paris ,

1958) ,

esp. pp.

321-330 .

P . M E R IG GI , Primi elementi di M inoico A ( S a l ama nca , 1956).

LEONARD

R.

PALM E R, Mycenaeans and Minoans (London, 1961) .

A X E L

W.

PERSSON,

Schrijt und Sprache inAlt-Kreta {Upp sala Universitets

Arsskrijt, 1930, No. 3).

E M I L I O P E R U Z Z I ,

Le iscrizioni minoiche ( F i r enze , i 960) .

G . PUGLIESE GARRATELLI,

Le

iscrizioni preelleniche de Haghia Triada in

Creta e della Grecia peninsulare Monumenti Antichi, xi, 4

a

; 1945;

pp.

4 2 1 - 6 1 0 ) .

6

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

G .

PUGLIESE CARRATELLI , La

decifrazione

dei

t es ti m icenei

e il

problem a della lineare

A

5

nnuario delta Scuola rcheologica di

Atene,

x i v - x v i ( i 9 5 2 - 1 9 5 4 ) , 7-21.

J .

S U N D W A L L , Die

k re ti sche Linearschr i f t , Jahrhuch des

K

Deutschen

rchaologischen

Instituts,

xxx (1915), 41-64.

J .

S U N D W A L L , er Ursprung der kretischen Schrift Acta Acade miae

Aboensis.

H u m a n i o ra ,

i, 2,

192 0) .

J .

S U N D W A L L ,

K re t i sche S chr if t in Max E b e rt ,

Reallexikon der Vorge-

schichte

vii (Berl in , 1926) , 9 5 - 1 0 1 .

J .

S U N D W A L L ,

M e t h o d i s c h e B e r m e r k u n g e n

zur

E n t z if f erung

mino i scher Schr i f t denkmale r ,

Eranos

xlv (1947) , 1-12.

M I C H A E L V E N T R I S ,

K i n g N e s to r s F o u r - H a n d l e d G u p s ,

Archaeology

vii (1954) ,

15-21.

M I C H A E L V E N T R I S and J O H N C H A D

IC K ,

Evidence for Greek Dia

lects in the M y c e n a e a n A r c h i v es , Journal of Hellenic Studies lxxiii

( ^ S ) , 8 4 -1 05 .

M I C H A E L V E N T R IS and J O H N

GHADWICK,

Documents in Mycenaean

Greek

( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 56 ).

D E R IV E D C U N E I FO RM S Y LLA BA RIE S

G E O R G E

G.

C A M E R O N ,

Persepolis Treasury Tablets Oriental Institute

Publications

lxv; C h i cago , 1948).

JOHANNES FRIEDRICH , Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler (Berl in , 1932).

F RI E D R IC H W I LH E L M KO N I G , Corpus

inscriptionum

Elamicarum (Han

nover , 1928) .

C .

L E H M A N N - H A U P T , Corpus inscriptionum Chaldicarum (Berlin und

Leipzig , 1928—).

E . A. S P E I S E R , Introduction to Hurrian The nnual o f the merican Schools

of Oriental Research

xx; New H a v e n , C o n n . , 1 9 41 ).

W E S T S E M IT I C S Y L LA BA RIE S

W .

F. ALBRIGHT ,

New L i g h t

on the

E a r l y H i s t o r y

of

Phoen ic i an

C olonization,

Bulletin of the Am erican

Schools

of Oriental Research,

N o .

83 ( 1 9 4 O , 1 4 - 2 2 .

W . F. ALBRIGHT ,

The

Phoe n ic i an Insc r ip t ions of the T e n t h C e n tu r y

B.C.

from Byblus, Journal

of the

American Oriental Society, lxvii

(

I

9 4 7 )

5

i 5 3 -

l 6

° -

W . F. ALBRIGHT ,

The

E a r ly Alp hab e t i c Insc r ip tions f rom S ina i and

T heir D ec ipherment, Bulletin

of

the

Am erican Schools

of

O riental

Research No. n o (1948) , 6-22.

H .

BA U E R , Z

ur

Entzifferung

der

neuentdeckten Sinaischrift

und zur

Enstehung

des

semitischen

Alphabets

(H alle, 1918).

H . B A U E R , as Alphabet von Ras Shamra (H alle, 1932).

63

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

H .

B A U E R , Der Ursprung des Alphabets {Der A lte Orient

x x x v i ,

1/2;

Leipzig, 1937).

AUGUSTIN BEA, D i e E ns t eh ung des Alph abe t s . E ine k r it is che T Jbe r-

sicht, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati

vol vi =

Studi

e

Testi

126

(Ci t ta de l V at ic an o, 1946) , 1-35.

A . V AN D E N BRANDEN , L o r i g i n e

des

a lph abe ts protos ina i t iques ,

arabes pr6is lamiques et ph6n ic i en ,


xix

(1962), 198-206.

F R A N K M . GROSS, T h e E v o l u ti o n of t h e P r o t o - C a n a a n i t e A l p h a b e t ,

Bulletin of the merican Schools of Oriental Research

No . 1 3 4 (1 9 5 4 ) ,

15-24.

F R A N K M. C R O S S and T H O M A S O. L A M B D I N , An Ugaritic Abecedary

and the Or ig ins

of

t h e P r o t o - C a n a a n i t e A l p h a b e t , Bulletin

o

the

merican Schools o f O riental Research

N o . 1 6 0 ( i 9 6 0 ) , 2 1 - 2 6 .

E . D H O R M E ,

Langues

et

ecritures semitiques

(Paris, 1931).

D. DIRIN GE R,

T h e O r i gi n s of t h e A l p h a b e t ,

Antiquity

xvii (1943),

77-90 and 208 f.

D. DIRINGER,

T h e Pa l es t in i an Insc r ip t ions and the O r i g i n of t he

A l p h ab e t , Journal of

the merican

Oriental

Society

lx i i i (1 9 4 3 ) , 2 4 -

30.

D. DIRINGER, P r o b l e m s of t he P resen t D ay on the O r i g in of the

P h o e n i c i a n A l p h a b e t , Journal of World History iv/ i ( i957)>

4

0 _

5

8

-

G. R D R I V E R , Semitic Writing. From

Pictograph

to Alphabet (Lo ndo n,

1948) . Rev. ed . in 1954.

M .

D U N

A N D ,

Byblia grammata. Documents

et

recherches su r

le developpe-

ment de Vecriture

en

Phenicie (B eyrouth, 1945).

R . DUSSAUD, L o r i g i n e

de

I a l p h a b e t

et son

evolut ion prem iere

d ap res les deco uver tes de Byblos ,

Syria

xxv (1946-1948) , 36-52 .

JAMES

G.

F E V RI E R ,

La

genese

de

I a l p h a b e t ,

onferences

de I Institut

de Linguistique de PUniversite de Paris vi

(1 9 3 8 ) , 2 1 - 3 9 .

JAMES

G.

F E V RI E R ,

Le s fouilles

de

Byblos

et la

d a t e

de

I a lphab e t

p h e n i c i e n , Journal asiatique ccxxxvi (1948),

1-10.

JOHN W. F L IG HT , T h e P r es e n t S t a te of S t u d ie s in the H i s to ry of

Writing

in

the N ea r E a st,

The Haver ford Symposium on rchaeology

and the Bible

(N ew H av en , 1938), pp . 111-135 .

J . FRIEDRIGH, E i ni g e K a p i te l

aus der

i nne ren Gesch ich te

der

Schrift,

Archivfiir Schreib- und Buchw esen

n . F .

ii

(1 9 3 5 ) , 8 -1 8 .

A .

H.

GARDIN E R, T h e E g y p ti an O r i gi n

of

t h e S e m i t ic A l p h a b e t ,

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology iii (1916 ), 1-16.

T .

H.

GA S T E R ,

T h e C h r o n o l o g y of P a l e st in i a n E p i g r a p h y , Palestine

Exploration

Fund

Quarterly

Statement 1 9 3 5 , pp. 1 2 8 -1 4 0 , a nd 1 9 3 7 ,

pp. 4 3 - 5 8 .

I .

J.

G E L B , N e w E v id en ce

in

F a vo r

of

t he S y l lab i c Ch arac t e r

of

W e s t S e m i t i c W r i t i n g ,


xv (1958) , 2 -7 .

64

oi.uchicago.edu




J .

L E I B O V I T G H ,

'Les

i n s c r ip t i o n s P r o t o s i n a i t i q u e s , Memoires presentes

a rinstitut PEgypte, xxiv (1934).

M .

L I D Z B A R S K I ,

Ephem eris fur semitische Epigraphik

(3

v o l s .; G i e ss e n ,

1902-1915 .

B .

M A I S L E R ,

'Zur

U r g e s c h i c h t e

des

p h o n i z is c h - h e b ra i sc h e n A l p h a

b e t s ,

Journal

of

the Palestine Oriental Society, xvi i i (1938 ) , 2 7 8 - 2 9 1 .

B .

M A I S L E R , P h o e n i c i a n I n s c r i p t io n s f ro m B y b lo s

and the

D e v el op

m e n t

of the

P h o e n i ci a n- H e b r e w A l p h a b e ti c W r i t in g , Leshonenu,

xiv (1946) , 166-181

(in

H e b r e w ) .

J U L I A N O B E R M A N N ,

'The

A r c h a ic I n s c r i p ti o n s f ro m L a c h i s h , Journal

of

the

merican Oriental

Society,

S u p p l e m e n t

to

vol .

lix, No. 2, 1938.

V I T T O R E PiS A N i, O r i g i n i d e l l a l f a b e t o , Annali delta

R

Scuola Normale

Superiore

di

Pisa. L e t te r e , S t o ri a

e

Filosofia. S erie

II,

v o l .

v

( 1 9 3 6 ) ,

2 6 7 - 2 7 7 .

A L F R E D S G H M I T T ,

'Die

V o k a ll o si g k ei t

der

a g y p t i s c h e n

und

s e m i -

t ischen Schrif t , Indogermanische Forschungen,

lxi

( 1 9 5 4 ) , 2 1 6 - 2 2 7 .

K U R T S E T H E ,

'Der

U r s p r u n g

des

A l p ha b e ts , Nachrichten von der

K

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften

zu

Gottingen. Philos.-hist .

Kl., 1916,

p p . 8 7 - 1 6 1 .

K U R T S E T H E ,

'Die

n e u e n t d e c k t e S i n ai -S c h r if t

und die

E n s t e h u n g

der semit ischen S chrif t , Nachrichten von

der K

Gesellschaft

der

W issen

schaften

zu

Gottingen. P hi los.-his t .

KL,

1917,

pp.

437~475-

M A R T I N S P R E N G L I N G ,

The

Alphabet.

Its

R ise and D evelopment from

the

Sinai Inscriptions {Oriental Institute Communications,

No. 12;

C h i c a g o ,

I 9 3

1

) .

B . L.

U L L M A N ,

'The

O r ig in

and

D e v e lo p m e n t

of the

A l ph a b et ,

merican Journal

of Archaeology,

xxxi (192

7) ,

311 - 3 2 8.

S .

Y E I V I N ,

'The

P a l e s t i n o - S i n a i t ic I n s c r i p t i o n s , Palestine Exploration

Quarterly, 1937,

pp.

1 8 0 - 1 9 3 .

G Y P R O - M I N O A N

AND

C Y P R I O T E

H A N S - G U N T H E R B U G H H O L Z ,

'Zur

H e rk u nf t

der

k y p r i sc h e n S i lb e n -

schrift , Minos, i i i /2 (1954) , 1 3 3 - 1 5 1 .

S T A N L E Y G A S S O N ,

'The

G y p r io t S c r ip t

of the

B r on z e

Age,'

Iraq,

vi

( 939)> 3 9 - 4 4 -

J O H N F R A N K L I N D A N I E L ,

'Prolegomena to the Gypro-Minoan Script,'

merican Journal

of

Archaeology,

xlv

( 1 9 4 1 ) , 2 4 9 - 2 8 2 .

O L I V I E R M A S S O N , N o u v e l l e s i n s c r ip t i o n s

en

c a r a c t e r e s c h y p r o -

m i n o e n s ,

in G. F. A. S G H A E F F E R ,

Enkomi-Alasia,

i

(P aris , 1952) ,

p p . 3 9 I - 4 0 9 -

O L I V I E R M A S S O N ,

L e s S c r ip t u re s c h y p r o - m i n o e n n e s

et

les possibilites

d e d 6 c h i f f r e m e n t ,

in

Etudes myceniennes,

ed. M.

L e j e u n e ( P a r is ,

2 6 5

oi.uchicago.edu



BIBLIOGRAPHY

O L I V I E R M A S S O N , Les

inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et

comments (Paris, 1961).

PIE RO M E RIGGI ,

C

I pr im i tes ti c iprom inoic i

e

l e teocipr io , Athenaeum

n.s.

xxxiv (1956),

3-38.

E . S I T T I G , H e l le n is c h e U r k u n d e n

des 2.

v o r c h r . J a h r t a u s e n d s

von

C y p e r n ,

a

N ouvelle Clio

vi

(1954) , 470-490.

E .

S I T T I G ,

Zur E n t z if f e rung der m ino i sch-kypr i schen Ta fe l von

E n k o m i ,

Minos

iv/i (1956) , 33-42.

P H A I S T O S

E RNS T GRUMAGH,

D ie K orr ek ture n des Diskus von Phais tos ,

Kadmos

i (1962), 16-26.

G . I P S E N , Der Diskus von Phais tos , ndogermanische Forschungen xlvii

(1929) ,

1-41.

E R N S T S G H E R T E L ,

c

Der Diskos von Pha is tos . We ge zu seiner Entzif

f e rung , W urzburger Jahrbucher fiir die Altertumswissenschaft iii

( i 948) , 334-365-

BENJAMIN SGHWARZ,

The

Phaistos Disk,

5

Journal

of

Near Eastern

Studies

xvii i (1959), 105-112 and 227 f.

BYBLOS

J O H N P A IR M A N B R O W N , The Pseudo Hieroglyphic Texts of Byblos

( m i m e o g r a p h e d ; A m e r i c a n U n i v e r s i t y

of

Be irut , 1962).

E .

D H O R M E ,

Dech i f f r ement des i nscr ip t ions pseud o-hieroglyp hiques

de Byblos ,

Syria

xxv ( 1946-1948) , 1-35.

M . D U N A N D , Byblia grammata (Beyro uth , 1945) , ch ap .

iv.

G .

JAN S S E N S ,

C o n t r i b u t i o n au dechi f f rement des inscr ip t ions pseud o-

h ie rog lyph iques de By blos , a

Nouvelle

Clio v i i- i x ( 1 9 5 5 - 5 7 ), 3 6 1 -

377-

M .

M A R T I N ,

Revis ion and Reclassification of the P roto-Bybl ian

S i g n s , Orientalia

n.s. xxxi (1962) , 250-2 71 and 3 3 9 - 3 6 3 .

HARVEY SOBELMAN, The P roto-B ybl ian In scr ip t ions— a Fresh Ap

p r o a c h , Journal

of Semitic

Studies

vi 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 2 6 - 2 4 5 .

J A P A N E S E

B A S I L H A L L C H A M B E R L A IN ,

A Practical Introduction to the Study of

Japanese Writing

(2nd ed.; Lo nd on , 1905) .

N .

E.

I SEMONGER,

The Elements of Japanese Writing

(2nd

ed . ; Lo ndo n ,

1943)-

R .

L A N G E ,

infilhrung in

die japanische Schrift

2nd ed.; B erlin, 1922).

J O S E P H

K.

Y A M A G I WA ,

Introduction

to Japanese W riting

Ann A r b or ,

M ich igan , 1943) .

66

oi.uchicago.edu




PERSI AN CUNEI FORM

J . FRIEDRICH, E in ige K api t e l aus

der

i nne ren Gesch ich te

der

Schrift ,

Archivfur Schreib- und Buchwesen,

n.F. ii

(1935) ,

14 ff.

F. H.

W EISSB AGH ,

Die

K eilinschriften der Achameniden

(Leipzig, 1911).

G R E E K

RH Y S CARPENTER,

The

A n t i q u i ty

of the

G r e e k A l p h a b e t , American

Journal

of Archaeology xxxvii (1933) , 8-29.

RH Y S CARPENTER,

The

G r e e k A l p h a b e t A g a i n , American Journal of

Archaeology, x l i i (1938) , 58-69.

MARGIT FALKNER,

Zur

F ruhgesch ich te

des

g r iech i schen A lphab e t s ,

Fruhgeschichte

und

Sprachwissenschaft, h r sg .

von

W i lh e lm B r a nd e n -

s te in (W ien , 1948), pp. 110-133.

V . GARDTHAUSEN, Griechische Palaeographie (2 vols . ; 2nd ed.; Le ipzig ,

1 9 1 1 - 1 9 1 3 .

J . PENROSE H ARLAND , The D a te of t h e H e l le n i c A l p h a b e t , University

of North Carolina Studies in Philology, x l ii (1945) , 413 -426 .

F .

H I L L E R

VON

GAERTRINGEN, Griechische Epigraphik;

W. S c h u b a r t ,

Papyruskunde;

P. M a a s , Griechische

Palaeographie Einleitung

in die

Altertumswissenschaft, h r sg .

von A.

G e r c k e

und E.

N o r d e n ,

vol. i,

H e f t

9;

Le ipzig

und

B er l in , 1924) .

L . H.

JEFFERY ,

The

Loca l Scripts

of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961).

W . LARFELD, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik (2 vols . ; Leipzig,

1902-1907 .

W . LARFELD, Griechische Epigraphik

(3rd ed.;

B er l in , 1914) .

A R T H U R M E N T Z ,

Geschichte der griechisch romischen

Schrift

bis zur Er

Jindung des Buchdrucks mit beweglichen Lettern (Leipzig, 1920).

E . S.

ROBERTS

and E. A.

GARDNER,

An

Introduction

to

Greek Epigraphy

(2 vols .; Ca m br id ge , 1887 -190 5) .

W ILH ELM SCH UBART , Das

Buch bei den Griechen und Rbmern

(2nd ed.;

B er lin und Leipzig , 1921).

E D W A RD M A U N D E T H O MP SO N,

Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeo-

graphy

(3rd ed.; Lo nd on , 1906).

E D W A RD M A U ND E T H O MPSO N,

An Introduction to Greek and Latin

Palaeography

(London, 1912) .

B .

L. ULLMAN,

H O W

Old Is the G re e k A l p h a b e t ? American Journal of

Archaeology, xxxvi i i (1934) , 359~3

8

i -

W EINBERGER

and

GAERTE,

Die Schrift in P a u ly - W i ss o w a ,

Real-

Encyclopadie der classischen Alter tumswissensc haft (S tut tgar t , 1921) .

L A T I N

RH Y S CARPENT ER, The A l p h a b e t in I t a l y ,

American Journal

of

Archaeology, x l ix (1945) , 452-464.

67

oi.uchicago.edu




H . D E S S A U , Lateinische Epigraphik; P. L e h m a n n , Lateinische Palao-

graphie Einleitung in die Altertumsw issenschaft,

h r s g . v o n A . G e r c k e

a n d E. N o r d e n , v o l. i Heft 10; L eip zig u n d Berl in , 1 925).

J A M E S

C .

E GBE R T ,

Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions (rev. ed. ;

N e w Y o r k , 1 9 2 3 ) .

M .

I H M , Palaeographia Latina,

S e r i e s

I

(2nd ed. ; L ipsiae , 1931).

J E A N M A L L O N , Paleographie romaine ( M a d r i d , 1 9 52 ).

J. M A L L O N , R. M A R I C H A L , and G. P E R R A T , Uecriture latine de la

capitate

romaine a

la

minuscule (P aris , 1939).

M . P R O U ,

Manuel de

paleographie

latine et frangaise

( 4 t h e d . ; P a r i s ,

1 9 2 4 .

J .

E. S A N D Y S

a n d

S. G. C A M P BE L L, Latin Epigraphy

( 2 n d e d . ; C a m

b r i d g e , 1 9 2 7 ) .

F R A N Z S T E F F E N S , Lateinische Paldographie

( 2 n d e d . ; T r i e r , 1 9 0 9 ) .

M O D E R N W R I T I N G S A M O N G P R I M I T I VE S

J . F R I E D R I C H , ' S c h r i f tg e s c h i c h t l ic h e B e t r a c h t u n g e n , ' ^ z ta ^ r* / *

der

eutschen Morgenlandischen

Gesellschaft x c i ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 3 1 9 - 3 4 2 .

J . F R I E D R I C H ,

C

Z U e i n i g e n S c h r i f te r f i n d u n g e n d e r n e u e s t e n Z e i t,

5

op.

cit.,

xci i (1938) , 183-218.

J .

F R I E D R I C H ,

' N o c h e i n e P a r a l l e l e

zu

d e n a l t e n S c h r i f te r f i n d u n g e n .

E i n e S c h r if te r fi n d u n g b e i d e n A l a s k a -E s k i m o s , '

op. cit.,

x c v ( 1 9 4 1 ) ,

3 7 4 - 4 1 4 .

J .

F R I E D R I C H ,

' S c h r i f t s y s t e m e

und

S c h r i f t e r f i n d u n g e n

im

A l te n

O r ie n t und bei m o d e r n e n N a t u r v d lk e r n ,

5

Archiv Orientdlni, xix

( 1 9 5 0 ,

2 4 5 - 2 5 9 .

J . F R I E D R I C H , 'A l a sk a - S c h r if t und B a m u m - S c h r i f t ,

5

op. cit. civ

(

I

9 5 4 ) > 3

1

7 ~ 3 2 9 -

A L F R E D S C H M I T T ,

Die Alaska-Schrift und ihre

sprachgeschichtliche

Bedeu-

tung Miinstersche Forschungen, H e ft 4 ; M a r b u r g , 1 9 51 ).

68

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES

NOTES to Chapter I, pages 1-23

1.

Cf . Adolf Noreen,

Einfiihrung in die wissenschaftliche Betrachtung

der Sprache

(Hal le , Saale , 1923) , p p . 1 ff ., an d O . K r i ick m an n,

Se the s Buch i iber d ie E ns te hu ng der Schri ft ,

5

Orientalia, n.s. x

( 1 9 4 0 , 2 5 5 .

2.

L . A. Rosa , Espressione e mim ica (Mi l ano , 1929) ; G iuseppe

Cocchiara, 77 linguaggio del gesto ( T o r i n o , 1 9 3 2 ); M a c d o n a l d C r i t c h -

ley,

The Language of

Gesture (Lon don , 1939) ; J . Ven dryes , La ng ag e

oral et langage par gestes ,

5

Journal de Psychologies x l i i i (1950), 7-33;

Da vid Ab erc rom bie , Ges tu re ,

5

English Language Teaching,

i x (19 54-

55) , 3 -12; Wi l l iam P . S tokoe, Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the

Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf (Buffalo, i9 6 0) . A

notat ion system for analysis of body motion and gesture can be found

in the pioneer ing work by Ray L . Bi rdwhis te l l , Introduction to Kinesics

(Louisvi l le , Kentucky, 1952).

3. Luc i en Levy-Bruh l ,

How Natives Think

(Lon don , 1926), p p .

158-159-

4. Cf. Die t r ich W est erm an n, Ze iche nsp rach e des Ewevolkes in

Deut sch-Togo ,

5

Mitteilungen des Seminars fur Orientalische Sprachen,

vol . x , A bt . 3 , pp . 1-14; Ge orge Her zog , D rum -Sig na l l ing in a West

African Tribe,

5

Word

i ( 1 9 45 ) , 2 1 7 - 2 3 8 ; G e o r g e M . C o w a n , M a z a -

teco Whist le Speech,

5

Language,

xx iv (1948) , 280 -286 ; J . F . Ca r r ing-

ton , A Comparative Study of Some Central African Gong Languages Institut

Royal Colonial Beige. Section des Sciences Morales et Politiques.

M e m o i r e s.

Collect ion in -8°. Tome xvi i i , fasc. 3; Bruxel les , 1949);

idem, Talking

Drums of Africa (London, 1949) .

5. M arc el Coh en, JSur Pec r i ture l ibyco-berbere ,

5

Comptes rendus

du

Groupe Linguistique d?Etudes Chamito-Semitiques, v (1948-1951) , 40 , re

por t s tha t youn g Berber lovers often use a sor t of co m m un icat io n by

tracing signs in the palms of their hands.

6 . L . Le l a nd Locke , T h e An c ien t Q uip u , a Pe ruv ian K no t

Record ,

5

American

Anthropologist

n.s . x iv (1912) , 325-332; idem, The

Ancient Quipu or Peruvian Knot Record (New York , 1923) ; A nd re

Eck ard t , Da s Gehe im ni s de r Knotenschri f ten ,

5

Forschungen und

Fortschritte, xxx i i (1958), 340 -342 ; Porf ir io M i ra nd a R ive ra , Q uip us

yjeroglificos,

5

Z

e

^

sc

îftfur Ethnologie,

lxxxi i i (1958), 118 -132 .

7. Garrick Mallery

Picture-Writing of the American Indians ( T e n t h

2 6 9

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I , PAGES 4 - 9

A nn ua l Re po r t of t he Bu reau o f E thno log y , Smi thson ian Ins t i t u t i on ;

W ashin gton , 1893) , PP- 2 2 8 - 2 3 1 .

8. 'Zur Ents tehung der Schr i f t ,

5

Zeitschrift fur dgyptische Sprache,

xlix (1911), 2 f.

9 .

West African Studies

(2nd ed. , London, 1901), pp. 126 f .

10. G. A. Gol lm er , 'O n Afr ican S ym bol ic Messages ,

5

The Journal

of the Roya l) Anthropolog ical Institute of Great Britain and Ireland xiv

(1885) , 169-181 .

11. As rep or te d to m e by Professor Jo h n Lo tz .

12. Gol lmer , op. cit., pp. 173 f.

13. R . St i ibe, 'E in turkisc her Liebesbrief aus Ze ntra lasie n in

Markenschr i f t

5 5

,

5

Z

e

^

sc

^ft des Deutschen Vereins fiir Buchw esen und

Schrifttum, i (1918) , 3 , quot ing A. von Le Goq, Volkskundliches aus

Ost-Turkistan (Berlin, 191 6), p . 5.

14. K a r l W e u l e ,

Vom Kerbstock zum Alphabet

(20th ed . ; S tut tgar t ,

1926?), p . 16; H an s Jen sen , Die Schrift ( G h ic k s ta d t u n d H a m b u r g ,

I935)> PP-

I o f f

-

15. O n a l l these express ions an d m an y m ore see the ar t ic le

'Schre iben und Lesen ' i n O . Schrader ,

Reallexikon der Indoger-

manischen Altertumskunde, i i (Berl in un d Leip zig, 1929) .

16. Gf. , e .g. , Alan H. Gardiner ,

The Theory of

Speech

and Language

(Oxford , 1932) ; Rudo l f G arn ap , ntroduction to Semantics ( C a m b r i d g e ,

M a s s . ,

1942) , p . 3 ; Char les Morr i s ,

Signs, Language, and Behavior

(New York, 1946) , pp . 36 f f . On sys tems of communicat ion bes ides

speech l anguage , c f . t he p rogrammat i c a r t i c l e by George L . T rager ,

T a r a l a n g u a g e : A F i r s t A p p r o x i m a t i o n , '

Studies in Linguistics,

xiii

(1958), 1-12, with extensive l i terature.

17. For o ther te rminology cf . Al len W. Read, 'An Account of the

W o r d S e m a n t i c ,

5

Word iv (1948) , 78-97.

18. E.g . , Leonard Bloomfie ld ,

Language

(New York, 1933) , ch ap

ters 9 and 17; idem, 'La ng ua ge o r Ideas?

5

Language, xi i (1936) , 89 -9 5;

idem,

Linguistic Aspects of Science International Encyclopedia of Unified

Science, vol . i , no. 4; Chicago, 1939), pp. 6 ff . ;

idem,

' S e c o n d a r y a n d

Ter t i a ry Responses t o Language ,

5

Language, xx (1944), 45 -5 5 ;

E d w a r d S a p i r ,

Language

(New Y ork, 1939), p . 19; B. L. W ho rf in

Annual Report of the Board o f Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the

year 1941

(W ash ing ton , 1942), p . 483 ; George S . La ne , 'Chan ges o f

Emphas is in Linguis t ics wi th Par t icular Reference to Paul and

Bloomfield,

5

Studies in Philology,

xl ii (19 45) , 465 -48 3.

19.

On the genera l problem cf . a l so the i l luminat ing ar t ic le of

Margare t Sch lauch , 'Ea r ly Behav ior i s t P sycho logy and Contempo

ra ry Linguis tics ,

5

Word i i (1946) , 25-36.

20 . C . K . O g d e n , The Meaning of Psychology (New York and Lon

don, 1926), pp. 221 f .

27

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I , PAGES 9 - 1 5

2 1 . E d u a r d M a r ti n a k , Psychologische Untersuchungen

zur Bedeutungs-

lehre (Leipzig, 1901), p p . 3 f. Gf. V . Panfi lov, A pro po s des ra pp or ts

ent re la langue e t l a pensee ,

Recherches Internationales a la lumiere du

marxisme No. 7 . L inguis t ique (1958) , pp .

7 4 - 9 3 .

On wr i t ing as

viewed by psychologists , cf . Fr iedrich Kainz, Psychologie der Sprache

iv (S tut tg ar t , 1956) , ch ap ter 1 , Da s Sch re ibe n (pp . 1-161 , a n d

b ib l iograph ica l anno ta t ions (pp . 493-506) .

2 2 . G a r n a p , loc. cit. bel ieves tha t spoken language i s the most

important of al l the systems of s igns, but recognizes that there are

other sys tems which can be learned and used independent ly of

speech.

2 3. E .g . , Pe ter A. Boo dberg in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies ii

(

I

937)> P- 332, n . 5; and in Toung Pao xxxv (1940), p . 269, n . 1 .

2 4 .

Idem

in

Harvard Journa l of Asiatic Studies loc. cit.

2 5 . E .g. , Bloomfield,

Language loc. cit.; idem Linguistic Aspects of

Science loc. cit.

2 6 . Sapi r ,

loc. cit.

2 7.

E . g . , W i l li am F . Edger to n , Ide og ram s in Engl i sh Wr i t i ng ,

Language xvii (1941 ), 148 ff.; H err lee G. Creel , O n th e N a tu re of

Chinese Ideography ,

T oung Pao

xxxii (1936), 8 5 - 1 6 1 ;

idem

O n

the Ideograph ic E lement i n Anc ien t Chinese ,

5

op. cit. xxxiv

(1938),

2 6 5 - 2 9 4 .

2 8 . Bloomfield s op inio n in

Language

p . 2 83 , t ha t t he p i c tu re -

w r i t ing of the Am er ica n Ind ian s is no t rea l wr i t ing (because it bears

no f ixed relat ion to l inguist ic forms) seems to be in disa gre em en t w ith

his avow ed co nten t ion th a t a l l wr i t ing i s a secon dary d er iva te of

language (e .g . , p . 144) .

2 9 . Even to a Chinese scholar , who l ived some s ix hundred years

a g o ,

wr i t ing is p ic ture d speech, and speech is vocal ised br ea th .

Cf. Ta i T un g , The Six Scripts Or the Principles of hinese W riting. A

t r ans l a ti on by L . G . Ho pkins (Ca m br idg e , 1954), p . 31 .

30 . S t r ict ly speaking, the use of X for c ross in the abo ve exam ple

does not form par t of a convent ional sys tem, but must be unders tood

as a spo rt ive device on a l ine w ith th e use of + for p lu s in voici

le + im po r tan t or w i th even m or e com pl ica ted cases of the type G a

expressing j a i gra nd a pp et i t by w ay of G gr an d a pe t i t .

31 . A syllabic sign normally expresses a vowel, either by itself or

f lanked by a con son ant in front or in bac k of i t . Th is defini t ion ca n

somet imes be extended to inc lude a vowel or a d iphthong, e i ther by

i tself or f lanked by more than one consonant in front or in back of i t .

32 .

Taken f rom Dwight L . Bol inger , V i sua l Morphemes ,

Lan

guage

xxii (1946), 333-340-

33 .

S t i ll an ot he r exa m ple belo ngin g to this class is foun d in t h e

w r i t in g of £ 3 a n d 3 l b .

2 7 1

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I , PAGES l 8 ~ 2 0

3 4 . T h e Cul tu ra l Basis o f Em ot ions an d Ges tu res ,

Journal of Per

sonality xvi (1947) , 49-68, esp . p . 59 .

3 5. K u r t S e t h e , Das hieroglyphische Schriftsystem (G lucks t ad t u nd

H am b u rg , 1935) , pp . 10 f f.;

idem Vom Bilde zum

Buchstaben (Leipzig,

i939)>PP- i8f .

36 . Ibid.

37. Ga r r i ck M al l e ry , Picture-Writing of the Am erican Indians ( T e n t h

A nn ua l Re po r t of t he Bu reau o f E thno logy , Sm i thson ian Ins t i t u t i on ;

Washington, 1893) , P- 624. ^

n t n e

Egyp t i an h i e rog lyph ic wr i t i ng ,

ind ivid ua l s igns are often dis t ingu ished b y different colo urin g;

co loured a re vowel marks i n ea r ly Koran manusc r ip t s and punc tua

t ion m arks ( such as w ord an d sentence division m arks) in the

Ethiopic wr i t ings .

38 . More compounds o f t h i s t ype a re c i t ed in Kur t Se the ,

Das

hieroglyphische

Schriftsystem

(G lucks t ad t un d H am bu rg , 1935), p . 13 .

39 . C . K . Og den an d I . A . R ic ha rds , The Meaning of Meaning (2nd

ed. ; New Y ork, 1927) , Su pp lem en t I , pp . 306 f f.

40 . I have noted fur ther usage of PG for the Post-Gazet te ( in

P i t t sburg h) , p r im ary g rad e ( in t he Labo ra to ry School of t he Un ive r

s i ty of Chicago) , poison gas (on a radio broadcas t ) , P leasant Grove

(a place in Texas) , paying guest ( in a novel) , pr ison graduate (Life

Magaz ine ) , Peop les Gas ( a company) , P roc t e r and Gamble ( a

company) , and P redynas t i c Graves ( i n Sumer ) .

4 1 . The scient i f ic invest igat ion of the relat ionship of wri t ing to

speech has been pursued in recent years mainly by scholars wi th a

background in genera l l inguis t ics . A genera l t rea tment of the subjec t

can be found in the respect ive chapters of the in t roductory manuals

to l inguist ics by Leonard Bloomfield,

Language

(New Y ork, 1933) ,

cha p te r 17 ; H . A . G leason , J r . , An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics

(New York, 1955) , chapters 21 and 22; W. Nelson Francis ,

The

Structure

of

merican

Eng lish

(New York, 1958) , ch ap ter 8 ; Arch ibald

A. Hi l l , Introduction to Linguistic Structures (New Y ork, 1958) , pp .

442 f . ; Charles E. Hocket t ,

A

Course

in M odern Linguistics

(New York,

1958) , chap te r 62 ; H . M. Hoen igswald , Language Change and Lin

guistic Reconstruction

(Ch icago , i 960 ) , pp . 4 -1 2 . A mo re de t a i l ed

t rea tm en t is offered in the ar tic les by Josef Va che k, Z u m Pro ble m

der geschr i ebenen Sprache ,

Travaux du Circle Linguistique de Prague

vi i i (1939) , 99-104; idem S o m e R e m a r k s o n W r i t i n g a n d P h o n e t i c

T r a n s c r i p t i o n , Acta linguistica v (1945-1949) , 8 6 - 9 3 ; idem W r i t t e n

L a n g u a g e a n d P r i n t e d L a n g u a g e i n

Melanges

J . M . Kof inek

(Brat is lava , 1948?, no t avai lab le to m e) ; H . J . Uld al l , Sp eech an d

W r i t i n g ,

Acta linguistica

iv (1944) , 11-16 ; E rns t Pu lgram , Ph on em e

a n d G r a p h e m e : A P a r a l l e l , Word vi i (1951) , 15-20; and Angus

M cin tosh , T h e Ana lysi s of W r i t t en M idd le Engl i sh ,

Transactions of

7

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I , PAGES 2 I - 2 3

the Philological

Society 1956 , pp . 26-55 ;

idem,

' G r a p h o l o g y a n d

M e a n i n g , ' Archivum linguisticum, xi ii (1961) , 1 07-120. Wh i le U lda l l

and Pu lgram desc r ibe the mutua l r e l a t i onsh ip be tween and the de

pend ence of wr i t i ng on speech , Va chek a nd M cin tos h emp has i ze

the l a rge ly indep end en t cha ra c t e r of wr i t i ng . T h e com m on char

acter is t ic of al l these invest igat ions is th at the y are b ui l t on m od er n

wri t ings, and l i t t le , i f any, account is taken of the pre-alphabet ic

sys tems. A thorough inves t iga t ion of the mutual re la t ionships be

tween wri t ing and speech in al l their his tor ical phases is badly

needed .

42. I am us ing the te rm 'pr imi t ive ' de l ibera te ly , though ful ly

aware of the aversion in anthropological ci rcles against this term.

Some socie t ies which I ca l l ' pr imi t ive ' may not be pr imi t ive in re

spect to e labora ted r i tua ls or ways of basket -making, but they are

primit ive when considered from the point of view of the total of

accompl i shment . The t e rm ' p re l i t e r a t e ' , u sed by some an th ropo

logists in the place of 'pr imit ive ' , shows the same narrowness of ap

proach that expressed i tself in the opposi t ion against 'pr imit ive ' .

4 3 . G . H . L u q u e t ,

Les

dessins

d un enfant

(Paris, 1913).

4 4 . K u r t G o l d s t e i n , ' O n N a m i n g a n d P s e u d o n a m i n g , f r o m E x

per iences in Psychopathology, '

Word

i i (1946), 1-7;

idem,

'L ' ana lyse

de l 'aph asie et l 'e tu de de l 'essence du lan ga ge , ' in Psychologie du

langage

pa r H . De lac ro ix , e t c . (Pa r is , 1933) , pp . 43 0-4 96 ; A dh em ar

Gelb, 'Remarques genera tes sur l ' u t i l i sa t ion des donnees pa tho-

logiques pour la psychologie e t l a phi losophic du langage , ' op. cit.,

p p . 4 0 3 - 4 2 0 ; R o m a n J a k o b s o n , Kindersprache,

Aphasie und

allgemeine

Lautgesetze (Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1942, N o. 9 , p p .

1-83 ;

Kur t Golds t e in ,

Language and Language Disturbances. Aphasie Symptom

Complexes and Their Significance or Medicine and Theory of Language (New

York , 1948) ; R om an Jako bso n an d Mo r r i s Ha l l e ,

Fundam entals of

Language ( ' s -Grave nha ge, 1956) , Pa r t 2 : 'T w o Aspects of La ng ua ge

an d Tw o Typ es of Ap has ie Dis tur ban ces ' ; A. R . Lur ia , 'Di fferences

between Dis turbances of Speech and Wri t ing in Russ ian and in

F r e n c h , ' International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, i i i ( i960) ,

13 22.

45. David Di r inge r ,

The Alphabet

(London, 1949), pp. 35 f .

4 6. Fr iedr ich Bal lhorn, Grammatography. A Manual of Reference to

the lphabets

of Ancient and Modern Languages.

T r a n s l a t e d f ro m G e r m a n

(London, 1861) . The or ig inal German book does not use th i s t e rm.

73

oi.uchicago.edu



NOT E S t o Chap t e r I I , p ages 24 -59

1.

Gf. Henri Breui l ,

Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art.

T r a n s l a t e d

f rom F renc h (M ont ign ac , 1952) ; H erb e r t K i ihn , Die Felshilder

Europas

(S tu t tga r t , 1952) ; A nd re V ara gn ac

et al. Uhom me avant

Vecriture (Paris, 1959).

2. Gf. esp. G arr ic k M alle ry, Pictographs of the North American

Indians. A P re l im ina ry Pape r (F our th A nn ua l Re po r t of t he Bu reau

of E thno logy , Smi thson ian Ins t i t u t i on ; Wa sh ing ton , 1886 , pp . 1 -

256) ,

a n d idem Picture-Writing of the Am erican Indians ( T e n t h A n n u a l

R ep or t ; Wash ing ton , 1893, PP- 1-822 . Among the l a t e s t pub l i ca

t ions wi th extens ive bibl iographies , c f . Ju l ian H. S teward, Tet ro-

glyphs of Cal i fornia and Adjoining S ta tes , University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and

Ethnology

xxiv (1929) , 47-239;

L. S . Gressman, Petroglyphs of Oregon (Eug ene, 1937) ; A. T . Jack son ,

Picture-Writing of Texas Indians (Aus t in , 1938); Th eod or K och -G run -

b e r g , Sudamerikanische Felszeichnungen (Berlin, 1907).

3.

P e t rog lyph s of t he U ni t ed S ta t e s , Annual Report of the Board of

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Tear igj6 (Wash ing ton ,

1937)>PP- 405-425-

4 . I n M a x E b e r t , Reallexikon der

Vorgeschichte

vii (1926), 156 ff.

5. M a l l e r y , Picture-Writing pp. 353 f.

6 . H en ry R . Schoolcraf t , Historical and Statistical Information

Respecting the History Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes o f the

United States Pa r t I (Ph i ladelp hia , 1851) , p i . 57 B, op p. p . 406.

7.

M a l l e r y ,

Picture-Writing

pp . 363

i.—idem

Pictographs pp. 160 f.

8 . Mal l e ry , Picture-Writing pp. 362 f.

9 . J ames Bonwick ,

The Last of the Tasmanians

(Lo nd on, 1870) ,

P P. 83 ff.

10. M a l l e r y , Picture-Writing p. 332 —idem Pictographs p p . 147 f. =

W a l t e r J a m e s H o fF m a n,

c

The Graphic Ar ts of the Eskimos , Annual

Report of the B oard of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Tear 895

(Washington, 1897), 904 f .

11. M a l l e r y , Picture-Writing p p . 352 f. — idem Pictographs p p .

154 f. = Hoffman,

op. cit.

p. 907.

12.

I n Reallexikon der Assyriologie i i (1938), 91.

13.

K a r l W e u l e , Vom Kerb stock zum Alphabet (20th ed . ; S tu t tga r t ,

1926?) , p . 1 3; Alfred Sc hm it t , Die Erfindung der Schrift (E r l angen ,

1938),

P- 4-

14. M a l l e r y , Pictographs pp . 174-176 , and idem Picture-Writing

p p . 4 1 9 - 4 2 5 -

2 7 4

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER II , PAGES 4O-5O

15. M a l l e r y , Pictographs p p . 1 7 6 - 1 8 1 .

16. Picture-Writing, pp. 447 ff.

17.

Op. cit. pp. 380 ff .

18.

Cf . the extens ive t rea tment in Mal lery , Pictographs p p . 8 9 -

146,

a n d

idem Picture-Writing

pp . 266 -328 . For add i t i ona l l i t e r a tu re

an d examples , cf. J am es H . H ow ard , D ak ota Win te r Cou nt s a s a

Source of Plains History,

Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of merican

Ethnology Bul le t in 173 ( i960) , pp . 273-416 .

19. As po inted out by Les lau in Word xi (1955) , 282, the connec

t i on be twe en win te r

5

and ye ar is ind ica ted a l so by the exis tence

of Hebrew horeph w i n t e r , a n d E t h i o p i c

fyarif

t he cu r ren t ye a r ;

fo r S o u t h A r a b i c , { J R F m e a n i n g b o t h w i n t e r ( or a u t u m n ) a n d

year, cf. G. Gonti Rossini, Chrestomathia Arabica meridionalis epi-

graphica

(R om a, 1931) , p . 158 .

20 . Col lec ted an d discussed by M al lery , Pictographs p p . 8 2 - 8 4 , a n d

idem, P icture-Writing, pp. 231-250 .

21 . Mallery,

Pictographs,

loc. cit.

22. M a l l e r y , Picture-Writing p p . 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 .

23. Will iam Tomkins, Universal Indian Sign Langu age of the Plains

Indians of North America

(San Diego, Cal i fornia , 1927) , p p . 79- 85 .

24. Cf. p . 26 6, n. 2 7.

25.

L a r econs t ruc t ion typo log ique des l angues a rcha ique s d e

Phumanite,

Verhandelingen der K. Nederlandsche Akademie van Weten-

schajppen. L e t t e rku nd e , N .R . x liv (Am ste rdam , 1940), p p . 120 f. A

similar m isrep rese ntat io n of facts ca n be de tec ted in the i l lustrat ion

purpor t ing to r eproduce a p reh i s to r i c pa in t ing , pub l i shed in Osca r

O g g , The 26 Letters (New Yo rk, 1948) , p p . 24 f. T h e pain t ing recon

s t ruc ted on the bas i s of or ig ina l f inds made in Spain and France

shows scenes dep ic t ing in a consecut ive o rder a cerem onia l h u n t

dance , l eav ing fo r t he hun t , s i gh t ing the quar ry , su r rounding the

quarry , the k i l l , and the re turn home. Alone the para l le l s quoted in

O gg s book (as on p . 23) bel ie th e existence of such nicely ord ere d

paint ings in the prehis tor ic time s . T h e t ru th i s th a t prehis tor ic m a n

pain ted com plex scenes w i tho ut e i ther fee ling the necess i ty or b e ing

able to represent them in any consecut ive order of the ac tual occur

rences .

26 . F r o m C a r l

Meinhof

Zur En t s t ehung de r Schr i f t , Zeitschrift

fur gpptische Sprache xlix (1911) , pp. 1-14, pi . I b .

27.

R. E. Dennett ,

At the Back of the Black Man s Mind

(London,

1906), pp. 71 ff .

28. Pictographs,

p. 17.

29 .

Erland Nordenskiold, Picture- Writings and Other

Documents

by

Nile and Ruben Perez Kantule

(Goteb org , 1928) ; Da v id Di r inge r ,

Ualfabeto nella storia della civilta (Firenze, 1937), p. 605.

75

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I I , PAGES 5 O - 5 4

30 . D i r inge r , op. cit., pp . 600 f f . ; G . F . Lehmann-Haupt i n Zeit-

schrift der Deu tschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft,

lxxiii (19 19 ), 58 ff.;

J o h a n n e s F r i e d r i c h , op. cit., x ci (193 7), 333 f- A vast l i te ra tur e is

growing on these South Amer ican sys tems. Gf . , among others , Dick

E d g a r I b a r r a G r a s s o , La escritura indigena Andina (La Paz, 1953);

Por fi ri o M i ra nd a R ive ra , Q uip us y j e rog l if icos , Zeitschrift fur

Ethnologie,

l xxxi ii (1958) , 118 -132. T hes e scr ip t s , used to re pro du ce

m od ern songs , hym ns , an d ca t ech i sms , a r e deve lop ing un de r W es te rn

inf luence in to logo grap hic sys tems wi th s t rong t ren ds in the d i rec t ion

of phonet iza t ion .

3 1 . D i r i n g e r , op. cit., p . 600 .

32 . D i r inge r , op. cit., pp . 56 f f . ; Hans Jensen, Die Schrift (Gluck-

s t ad t un d H am bu rg , 1935) , p . 112 .

3 3 .

M a r c e l G r i a u l e a n d G e r m a i n e D i e te r le n , Signes graphiques

soudanais. {U Hom me.

Cahiers

a ethnologie,

de

geographie

et de linguistique,

iii,

P a r i s , 1951) ; D . Za ha n , P i c tog raph ic W r i t i ng in t he W es te rn

S u d a n ,

5

Man,

1 (1950) , 136 -138.

34. O n re a l phraseo gram s, as used in s teno grap hic sys tems, see

above, p . 14 .

35.

Ed ua rd Se le r ,

Gesamm elte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen

Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, i i (Berlin, 190 4), 35 .

3 6 .

T h e o d o r - W i l h e l m D a n z e l ,

Handbuch der prdkolumbischen Kul-

turen in Lateinamerika

(Ha m bu rg u nd Ber l in , 1927) , p . 51 .

37. J e n s e n , op. cit., p. 122.

38 . Seler,

op. cit.,

i (Berlin, 1902), 383.

39 . As far as I can judge the s i tuat ion, this is t rue of the more

ser ious a t tempts made in recent years by the Amer ican l inguis t

Ben jamin L . W hor f and the R uss i an e thno log i st Yur iy V . Kno ro-

zov . W hor f s work , M ay a Wr i t i ng and I t s Dec ipherm ent ,

5

Maya Re-

sear ch,ii{i

§< ), 36 7-38 2 , an d De c iph erm en t of t he L ingu i s ti c Por t ion

of t he Maya Hie rog lyphs ,

5

Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,

1941, pp . 479 -502 , was c r it ic i zed by J . E r i c S . Th om pso n ,

Maya

Hieroglyphic W riting (W ash ing ton , D .G . , 1950) , p p . 311 ff., b ut favor

ably rece ived by Archibald A. Hi l l in International Journal of Am eri

can Linguistics, xvi i i (1952),

i84ff

Knorozov

5

s work , D revn yay a

pis

5

mennost

5

Gen t r a lnoy Amer ik i ,

5

Sovetskaya Etnografya, 1952, Part

3, p p . 1 0 0 - 1 1 8 ;

c

Pis

5

mennos t

5

d r evn ikh M aiya , Opy t rassh i f rovk i ,

5

op.

c

ti~>

x

955> P

a r t x

? PP- 94—125; The Problem of the Study of the

M a y a H i e r o g l y p h i c W r i t i n g ,

5

American Antiquity,

xxi i i (1958) , 284-

291 ;

a n d N e w D a t a o n t h e M a y a W r i t t e n L a n g u a g e ,

5

Journal de la

Societe des Am ericanistes,

n . s . x lv (1956) , 20 9-21 6 {Proceedings

of the

Thirty second International Congress of Americanists [Copenhagen, 1958] ,

p p .

467-4 75 ) , was favorably rece ived by T o r Ulv ing in Ru ss ian

D e c i p h e r m e n t o f t h e M a y a G l y p h s ,

5

International Journal of American

76

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I I, PAGES 5 6 - 5 9

Linguistics

', xxi i (19 56) , 184 ff., an d 'A N ew D ec ip he rm en t of th e

M a y a G l y p h s , '

Ethnos

xx (1 955 ) , 152 -15 8, bu t cr i t ic ized b y T . S.

Ba r the l i n 'D ie gegenw ar t ige S i tua t i on in de r E r fo rschung de r M ay a-

Schrift,

5

Journal de la ociete des Am ericanistes

n.s . x lv (195 6) , 219 -227 ,

and by J . E r i c S . Th om pso n in

Tan

i i (1953) ,

I

7 4 ~

I

7 ^ >

a n

d 'Sys tems

of H ie rog lyph ic Wr i t i ng i n Midd le Amer i can and Methods o f

D e c i p h e r i n g T h e m , '

American Antiquity

xxiv (1959) , 349-364 . The

pre l imina ry r epor t s by Evreynov , Kosa rev , and Us t inov on t he

'S ibe r i an ' dec iphe rment o f t he Maya wr i t i ng wi th t he he lp o f com

puter machines are not ava i lable to me. For a c r i t i c i sm of the i r*

work see Knorozov , 'Mash innaya desh i f rovka p i s 'ma Maiya , '

Voprosy

yazykoznaniya

x i / i ( 1962) , 91 -99 .

40 .

Seler ,

op. cit.

i , pi . opp. p. 289.

4 1 .

J . Les l ie M i t che l l , 'T h e End of t he M ay a O ld Em pi r e , '

Antiquity

iv (1930) , 285-302.

42. Pau l Sche l lhas , ' P rob l eme de r Mayafor schung , ' Forschungen

und Fortschritte

xvi (1940), 122.

43 . Cf. , e .g. , the wri t ing of '3 days ' wi th three s igns for 'day' in

our Fig . 9 and of ' 5 mar tens ' wi th f ive s igns for 'mar ten ' on an

Alaskan d rawing pub l i shed i n Mal l e ry ,

Picture- Writing

pp. 581 f. In

the same l ight should be cons idered the wr i t ing of ' 51 men ' in our

Fig. 9, and of ' 53' in Fig. 10.

44. R i c h a r d C . E . L o n g , ' M a y a a n d M e x i c a n W r i t i n g , '

Maya

Research

i i (1935) , 24-32, esp. p. 31.

45 .

P. Schel lhas , 'F i f ty Years of Maya Research, '

op. cit.

iii

(1936) , 129-139, esp. p. 138.

77

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chapter III, pages 60-119

1. A note on these inscr ipt ions wil l be publ ished soon by the au

thor . Cf . , provis ional ly , R . D. Barnet t and N. Gokce , 'The F ind of

Ura r t i an Bronzes a t A l t i n t epe , Near E rz incan , ' Anatolian Studies

i i i ( i953)> 121-129.

2. The Eas ter I s land ' inscr ip t ions ' were taken ser ious ly as wr i t ing

b y H . J e n s e n , DieSchrift (2nd ed . ; Berl in , 1958), pp . 334 -33 8 ; Ja m es

G. Fevr ier , Histoire de Vecriture (nou v. ed . ; Paris j 1959), p p . 14 7-1 49 ;

a n d D . D i r i n g e r , The Alphabet (Lon don , 1948) , pp . 136-40 . M .

Cohen, in h i s La grande invention de V ecriture et son evolution (Paris ,

1

958)> PP- 3

I _

33> f i r s t p laced the Eas ter I s land ' inscr ip t ions ' under

forerunners of wr i t ing; then, impressed by recent works of such

scho la r s a s Thomas Bar the l , Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterin-

selschrift (H am bu rg , 1958) , an d N . A . But inov and Y . V . Kn orozov ,

'P re l imina ry Repor t on the S tudy o f t he Wr i t t en Language o f Eas t e r

I s l and , ' The Journal of the olynesian Society lxvi ( i 957) , 5-1 7, ch an ge d

his mind, and in h i s Documentation p p . 49 ff., assigned t h e m to t h e

' p i c to - ideograph ic s t age , ' t oge the r w i th t he Az tec and Maya wr i t

ings. T h e plain fact is th at if we we re to assign the Ea ster Is lan d ' in

scr ip t ions ' to a s tage of wr i t ing, any s tage of wr i t ing however pr imi

t ive , we would have to reckon wi th the exis tence of a comple te ly

unique type of wr i t ing f rom the point of v iew of the form and com

pos i t ion of i t s s ignary . The objec t of wr i t ing being communicat ion,

the forms of s igns in accepted wr i t ings are cons t rued normal ly in

such a way as to permi t easy and quick recogni t ion of the d i f ferent

signs. By contrast , the great majori ty of the Easter Is land signs look

so a l ike an d are d i f ferent ia ted by such m in ut e de ta i l s as to cause the

greatest diff icul t ies in the recogni t ion of the different s igns. Note

fur ther tha t scholars who have worked in the Eas ter I s land f ie ld

have not succeeded in providing us with a clear-cut l is t of different

s igns occu rr ing in th e texts . Ba r the l , for exa m ple , t a lks ab ou t '120

G r u n d b e s t a n d t e i l e ' a n d ' e t w a 1 5 0 0 -2 0 0 0 v e r s ch i e d e n e K o m p o s i -

t i o n e n ' {op. cit. p . 314) , and then p roceeds to g roup them in ' 790

K enn ziffern ' in his Fo rm en tafeln 1-8. Cf. also J . Im be l lon i , 'L as

t ab l e t e s pa r l an t es de Pascua , m on um ento s de un s i st ema graf ico

indo-ocean ico , '

Runa

i v (1951) , 89-177 ; A l f r ed Met raux ,

Easter

sland t ran s la te d f rom F ren ch (Oxford, 1957) , esp . p p . 183-2 07.

3.

Table t s publ i shed and discussed by A. Falkens te in ,

Archaische

Texte aus Uruk (Berlin, 1936).

78

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I, PAGES 6 3 - 7 6

4 . P . De lougaz and S . L loyd ,

Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala

Region (Chicago, 1942), p. 135.

5. F . W a c h t s m u t h in rchiv

fur Orientforschung,

x i i i (193 9-19 41) ,

203 ,

a n d S . N . K r a m e r i n American Journal of Archaeology», lii (1948)^

164.

6 .

Op. cit.,

pp. 32 f.

7. Op. cit., p i . 1, nos. 1-3 a nd 7 -8 .

8.

Op. cit.,

p i . 31 , no . 339. T h e text is rep rod uc ed here in the form

famil iar to us in the later periods, af ter the or ientat ion of the tablet

had been changed by turning i t n ine ty degrees counterc lockwise .

9. E. A. Speiser, in Studies in the History of Science, U niv ersi ty of

Pennsylvania Bicentennia l Conference (Phi ladelphia , 1941) , pp .

57 f.; also in t h e Journal of the American Oriental Society, S u p p l e m e n t

to vol . l ix, no. 4 (1939), pp. 20 ff . and 26.

10. As jus t ly observed b y Falkens te in ,

op. cit.,

p . 3 2 , a n d J o h a n n e s

Fr iedr ich in eitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, xci

( i 9 3 7 ) > 3 2 5

f

-

11.

The Amer i can Ind ians express p i c to r i a l l y i deas hav ing no

or l imi ted conn ect ion w i th l inguis tic e lem ents ; th e Su m er ian s rep re

sent words , tha t i s, s igns of lan gu ag e . In the In di an device , the p ic

tures are of ten drawn wi thout any c lear order ; in the Sumer ian sys

tem, wr i t ten s igns are ordered in the sequence of the cor responding

speech forms. In a de ve lop m en t pa ral le l to f igurative ar t , In di an s

represent counted objec ts by means of as many pic tures as there are

objec ts to be counted, whi le the Sumer ians use only two s igns , one

for the number and the other for the th ings counted.

12 .

C . K . O g d e n a n d I . A . R i c h a r d s ,

The Meaning of Meaning

(2nd ed . ; N ew York, 1927) , Su pp lem en t I , pp . 306 f f.

13.

Ful l phonet ic t ransfer , of ten ca l led the rebus pr inc iple , can be

recognized in hera ldic symbols , as in the representa t ion of the coat

of arms of Oxford, showing an ox crossing a ford, or of the Griffin

fami ly , showing a mythica l gr i f fon. Cf . A. C. Moorhouse ,

The

Triumph of the Alphabet (New York, 1953) , p . 18 .

14. Fa lkens te in ,

op. cit.,

pp . 33 and 38 .

15. Op. cit., pp . 34 and 40 .

16. Op. cit., p . 112, no . 408.

17.

Op. cit,

p . 43 , qu ot i ng no s. 340 , 539 , 594 f., e tc .

18. In a recent a r t ic le publ i shed in the

Journal of Near Eastern

Studies, xx (1961 ), 194 ff. , I bro ug ht for th ev iden ce to show th a t th e

cunei form s ign WA has , bes ides the va lues wa, wi, wu, also those of

aw, iw, uw.

19. A d o l f E r m a n , Agpptische Gram matik (2nd ed.; Berl in, 1902),

§§ n ff ., l a ter revised in the th i rd an d four th edi t ions . Er m an s o ld

terminology is s t i l l fol lowed by some Egyptologists .

279

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I , PAGES 7 6 - 8 7

20 . Kur t Sethe , Zur Reform der agypt i schen Schr i f t lehre ,

5

£eit-

schriftfur dgyptische Sprache xlv (1908-9) , 3 6 - 4 3 .

2 1 .

Op . cit.

pp. 37 f.; also

mine mine m no

not c lear ly indica ted by

Sethe .

22 .

For prac t ica l reasons i t may be advisable to cont inue wi th

consonanta l t rans l i te ra t ions in the f ie ld of Egyptology, but such

t rans l i te ra t ions , if m y theor y is acce pted, w ould lea d to a m isun der

s tanding in a genera l work on wr i t ing .

2 3 . W . F . E d g e r t o n i n

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

xi (1952),

288 , expressed doubt about the cor rec tness of my s ta tement in re

spect to the existence of dozens of syl labic wri t ings which developed

u l t ima te ly from a logograph ic s t age . M y nu m be r is based on the

evaluat ion of the fo l lowing sys tems: Sumer ian and the syl labic sys

tem s based on cunei form, such as Assy ro-Baby lonian, E la m i te ,

H ur r i a n , Ur a r t i an , H i t t i t e , e t c . ; cune i fo rm Per s i an (pa r t i a l l y ) ;

h i e rog lyph ic Hi t t i t e ; Cre t an L inea r B , Cypr io t e , and p robab ly o the r

sys tems der ived f rom Cretan, such as L inear A, Phais tos , and Cypro-

Minoan ; Chinese and the de r ived sys t ems , such as O ld Korean ,

Japanese , and severa l l i t t l e known sys tems used mainly in south

w e s t e r n C h i n a ; I n d i e K h a r o s t h i , B r a h m i , a n d t h e m a n y S o u t h

Asia t ic wr i t ings based on the la t te r ; E thiopic and the der ived sys

tems; Iber ian A and B (par t ia l ly) ; Cherokee and severa l sys tems of

th e Cre e an d Fo x In dian s , as wel l as the Alaska sys tems; Afr ican V ai

and Bamum, and severa l sys tems developed f rom the la t te r , such as

M e n d e , B a s a , K a p e l l e , T o m a , a n d G e r z e .

24 . The s ign

stands for any glot tal s top before an ini t ial vowel;

u

i n lngu g

5

a n d w t h u t

5

s t ands for consonanta l

w.

2 5. A l a n H . G a r d i n e r , Egyptian Grammar (Ox ford, 1927), § 7.

26 . Cf . Cur t ius H. Sethe ,

De aleph prosthetico in lingua egpptiaca

verbi formis praeposita

(Disse r tat ion; Bero l ini , 1892 ) , an d

idem

Die

Vokal i sa t ion des Agypt i schen,

5

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

landischen

Gesellschaft lxxvi i (1923) , 144-207, esp. pp. 201 fF.

27. A powerful s tep forward in the decipherment of the Hi t t i t e

hieroglyphic wr i t ing was achieved by the recent d i scovery of b i

l ingual Hi t t i t e and Phoenic ian inscr ip t ions a t Kara tepe in Ci l ic ia by

Bosser t an d his col labo ra tors . Cf. Gelb , T h e Co nt r ib ut io n of the

New Ci l ic ian Bi l inguals to the Decipherment of Hieroglyphic

Hi t t i t e ,

5

Bibliotheca Orientalis vii (1950), 129 -141 .

28 . For m ore examp les of th i s type cf. O . Fra nk e , Gr un dsa tz l ich es

zur Wiedergabe f r emder Lander - und Or t snamen im Chines i schen ,

5

Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der W issenschaften

Philos . -his t .

K l . ,

1 93 4 , p p . 2 4 4 - 2 8 0 , a n d O t t o M a e n c h e n - H e l f e n , H i s t o r y i n

Linguist ics ,

5

Journal of the American Oriental Society

lxviii (1948),

120-124 . Acco rd ing to a s to ry r epo r t ed by Ab e l Re m usa t , R em arq ue s

2 8

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I, PAGES 8 7 - 8 8

sur quelques ecr i tures syl labiques t i rees des caracteres chinois , et sur

le passage de I ecr i ture figurative a I ecr i ture a lp ha be t iq ue ,

Mem oir es

de VInstitut Royal de France Academie des Inscriptions et B elles-Lettres

vii i (1827) , 43 , a Chinese (bro ug ht to Fra nc e) w rote the na m e of h i s

coun t ry phone t i ca l ly wi th a s ign mean ing

Thang

swee t , an d ju s t i

f ied the wr i t ing by saying tha t China was the sweetes t count ry in the

wor ld . Yuen Ren Chao r epor t s i n t he

Journal of

the

Am erican Oriental

Society lxxxi (1961) , 175, th a t some Ch inese wr i ters ca l led Ch icag o

Shyjiagun

V alle y of th e po ets . In th e decad es af ter 1900 several re

forms to s implify the Chinese wri t ing or to replace i t by a phonet ic

a lp ha be t based on La t in were propose d, non e of th em successful. In

1956 the Chinese commiss ion to reform the Chinese wr i t ing pub

l i shed a projec t to replace the old Chinese wr i t ing by Lat in a lpha

bet ic charac ters , which apparent ly has a good chance of succeeding.

T h e reform of wr i t ing goes ha nd in ha nd in Chi na wi th the reform

of lan gu ag e , specif ica lly wi th the rep lac em en t of the var ious

Ch inese dia lec ts by one dia lec t , nam ely the so-ca lled Peiping dia lec t .

C f . W o u Y u - T c h a n g ,

c

La reforme de I ecr i ture chinoise ,

Recherches

internationales a la lumiere du marxisme no . 7 . L ing uis t iqu e (195 8) , p p .

127-135 ,

an d Lo Tc han g-P e i and L iu Ch ou-S hiang , Ve r s l a un if ica

t ion de la langue chinoise , op. cit. p p . 9 4 - 1 2 6 .

29.

A . Forke , N eue re Ve r suche mi t ch ines ische r Buch s t aben-

schrift ,

Mitteilungen des Seminars fur Orientalische Sprachen

vol. ix,

A bt . 1 (1906), pp . 401-4 08 .

30. Very l i t t le space can be devoted here to the discussion of the

scr ip t s developed by peoples of non-Chinese or ig in , such as the

scr ip t s of the Lo- lo , Mo-so (or N a-k hi or Na -hs i ) , an d Y ao peop les of

the Tibeto-Burmese fami ly of languages , spoken in southwest China

and beyond , i n Burma and Indo-China , and the sc r ip t s o f t he

Cho i t an , N iu-ch ih (o r Jo u C he n) , and Ta ng u t (o r S i -h ia o r Hs i -

hs ia) peoples of the Turkic or Mongol fami ly of languages , spoken

in cent ra l a nd no r th er n C hin a . A l tho ug h some of the sys tems show

forms reminiscent of Chinese , o thers , such as Lo- lo and Mo-so, have

developed independent forms based on ful ly p ic tographic char

ac ters .

Another character is t ic of these systems is a very s t rong de

velopment of syl labography. The wr i t ings are very l i t t l e known and

they are in d i re need of a comp rehen s ive s tudy, bo th f rom th e

formal as wel l as s t ructural points of view. Cf. Hans Jensen,

Die

Schrift (G l i i cks tad t un d H am bu rg , 1935), pp . 144-152 ; Da vid

Di r inger , The Alphabet (Lond on and New York , 1949) , pp . 141-14 8 ;

and James G . Fevr i e r , Histoire de ecriture (Par i s , 1948) , pp. 82-85.

These scr ip t s , some dat ing f rom medieval t imes , have nothing to do

with the scr ipts of the Pol lard system developed by the missionaries

in modern t imes for use of the non-Chinese popula t ions of China ,

no ted o n p . 30 1, n . 18 .

281

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER III PAGES 89-102

3 1 . O n the ch ara c ter of Pro to-E lam i te wr i t in g cf. provis ional ly the

a r t i c l e by G . F rank in Max Eber t , Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte iii

1925)5

8

3

f

-

3 2 .

T h e P ro to - Ind ic wr i t ing is d iscussed by G . R . H un te r , The

Script of H arappa and Mohen jodaro and Its onnection with Other Scripts

(Lo nd on , 1 934) . T h e inscr ip t ions are usual ly very shor t , the ave rage

running to about s ix s igns . The di rec t ion of the wr i t ing i s genera l ly

bous t rophedon, wi th the f i r s t l ine beginning on the r ight .

3 3 .

A r t h u r J . E v a n s , The Palace of Minos (4 vols , an d ind ex; L on

d o n , 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 3 6 ) , a n d

idem Scripta Minoa

i (Ox ford, 1 909) .

3 4. M ichae l Ven t r is and Jo h n Gh adwick , Ev iden ce fo r Greek

Dia l ec t s i n t he Mycenaean Arch ives ,

Journal of Hellenic Studies

l xx i ii ( 1953 ) , 84 -1 05 ; Ve nt r i s , K in g Nes to r s Fo ur -H an dle d Gu ps ,

Archaeology

vii (1954), 1 5 - 2 1 ; Gha dw ick and Ven t r i s , Gre ek

Reco rds in t he M ino an Scr ip t ,

Antiquity

xxvi i (1953) , 196-206;

Vent r i s and Ghadwick , Docum ents in Mycenaean Greek ( C a m b r i d g e ,

1956) ; Ghadwick,

The Decipherment of Linear B

(Cambr idge , 1958) ;

Miche l Le jeune , Mem oires de philologie mycenienne Premiere ser ie

(Pari s, 1 958), e sp . p p . 3 21 -3 3 0 .

3 5 . G . Pugl iese Garra te l l i , Le iscrizioni preelleniche di Haghia Triada

in Creta e della Grecia pe ninsulare

in

Monumenti Antichi

xi, 4

a

( 1945) ,

p p .

4 2 2 - 6 1 0 ; idem

c

La deci f raz ione dei t es t i micenei e i l problema

del la l ineare A, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene xiv-xv i

( 1 9 5 2 - 1 9 5 4 ) , 7 - 2 1 ; G . P . G o u l d a n d M . P o p e ,

Preliminary Investiga-

tions into the retan Linear A Script (mimeographed , Unive r s i t y o f Gape

T o w n , 1 9 5 5 ); A r n e F u r u m a r k ,

Linear A und die altkretische Sprache.

Entzifferung und Deutung ( 2 pa r t s , mul t i g raphed ; Ber l in , 1956) ; P .

M e r i g g i ,

Primi elementi di Minoico A

(Sa l am anca , 1956) ; W . C . Br i ce,

Inscriptions in the Minoan Linear Script o f C lass A (Oxford, 1961) .

3 6.

W h a t th at m ea ns in the case of th e four wri t ing s discussed

abo ve is th a t in Su m er ia n an d Ch inese the s igns of bo th the m on u

menta l and curs ive forms are la rgely l inear , whi le in Egypt ian and

Hi t t i t e the s igns of the monumenta l form are la rgely pic tor ia l , but in

the cursive form they are largely l inear .

3 7.

T a i T u n g ,

The Six Scripts Or the Principles of

hinese

Writing

a t r ans l a t i on by L . C . Ho pkin s (Cam br idg e , 1 954), an d Tc ha ng

T c h e n g - M i n g ,

Vecriture chinoise et le geste humain

( C h a n g h a i a n d

Paris , n .d . ) , p p . 5 fF. Fo r a discussion of th e classif ication of w ord

s igns as prop osed in th i s boo k, cf. T a i Ch un -J£ n, M r . G elb s S ix

Pr inc iples of Wri t ing, Academic Review Quarterly i v / i ( 1 9 5 5 ), 3 7 - 4 2 ,

in Chinese .

3 8 . A l a n H . G a r d i n e r ,

Egyptian Grammar

(Ox ford, 1 927) , § 26 6.

3 9 . E . T . Pee t ,

The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

. . . (Liverpool ,

1923 ) , p p . 25 f. Cf. a l so O . Ne ug eb au er in Z

e

i>

tsc

hrift fur agyptische

Sprache

l xv ( 1930) , 42 -48 .

8

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTJER III , PAGES I 0 2 - I 10

4 0 . Som e exam ples of Am er i can Ind ian p i c tog raph ic s igns de r ived

from gestures are qu ot ed ab ov e, in th e discussion of th e foreru nn ers

of wr i t ing (pp. 34 , 40 , and 41) . For more examples of ges ture and

pos tu re s igns among Amer i can Ind ians , c f . Gar r i ck Mal l e ry ,

Picture-Writing of the Am erican Indians Tenth Annual Report of the

Bureau of Ethnology;

W ash ing ton , 1893), PP- 637 -64 8 . An exhaus t ive

study of Chinese word signs derived from gestures can be found in a

s t u d y o f T c h a n g T c h e n g - M i n g , Vecriture chinoise et le geste humain

(Sh ang hai an d Par i s , n .d . ) ; he ca ll s such signs d ac tylo gra m s. N o

acc ou nt can be take n of the exag gera te d op inions of Ja cq ue s v an

Gin nek en, L a recons t ruc t ion typolo gique des langue s archai ques

d e l h u m a n i t e , Verhandelingen der if . Nederlandsche Akadem ie van

Wetenschappen. Le t t e rk und e , N . R . x l iv (Am ste rdam , 1940), an d

idem, Die Bi lderschr i f t -Sprachen,

Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de

Prague, v i ii (1939) , 247 -254 , w ho m akes spoken lan gu age der iva t ive

of both ges ture and pic tography.

4 1 .

A l a n H . G a r d i n e r ,

The Theory of Speech and Language

(Oxford,

1932), p. 122.

4 2 . R . O . Fau lkner i n Antiquity, xvi i (1943), 207.

4 3 . T h e t e rm S u m e r o g r a m w a s i n t r o d u c e d so m e y e a rs a g o

among the Chicago Assyriologists , but i t i s impossible now to ascer

ta in i t s exact authorship .

44 . Cf. below , p p . 207 f., an d Jo h an n e s Frie dric h in

£eitschrift

der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft xcv (1941), 381 f.

4 5 . T his po int is m a d e q ui te clear by Siegfried S cho t t in Hiero-

glyphen.

Untersuchungen

zum Ursprung der Schrift Akadem ie der Wissen-

schaften und der Literatur in M ainz, Abhdndlungen der Geistes- und Sozial-

wissenschaftlichen

Klasse,

Ja h rg an g 1950, N r . 24 ) , pp . 115 f., w here he

says th a t the Eg yp t ian m uss le rnen

5

an d er m uss wissen

5

are signs

which are convent ional ly associa ted wi th def in i te words and not

wi th vague ideas or meanings .

46 . Bu t cf. the enl ighten ed com m ents in the recen t book by Schot t ,

quo ted jus t above .

47 . I . J . Gelb ,

Hittite Hieroglyphs,

i i (C hica go , 1935), 3.

4 8 .

Idem, Hurrians and Subarians

(Ch icago, 1944) .

49 . Cf . Yuen Ren Chao in

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,

v

(1940) , 189 -191 ; and F rank l in Ed ger to n in Proceedings of the merican

Philosophical Society, lxxxvi i (1944) , 29.

50.

I n T

6

oung Pao, xxxi i (1936) ,

8 5 - 1 6 1 ,

and xxx iv (1938) , 265-

294-

51 .

I n

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,

i i (1937) , 329-372, and

in T

c

oung Pao, xxxv (1940) , 26 6-2 88 . O n th e his tory of the te rm s

logography

5

versus ide og rap hy an d the i r present usag e , see the

discussion by Gelb in

Language,

xxxv i i i (1962 ), 208 -211 .

52 . Cf. Fig. 40.

83

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER III PAGES O~ 19

5 3 .

O n th i s pro ble m cf. Gelb , Mem orandum on Transliteration and

Transcription of Cuneiform

submi t t ed to t he 21s t In t e rna t iona l Con

gress of Or ienta l is ts , Paris (Ch icag o, 1948), §§ 80 -8 7.

5 4 . E . g . , A l a n H . G a r d i n e r ,

Egyptian Grammar

(Oxfo rd, 1927),

§ 1 7 ,

and Gus tave Lefebvre , Grdm maire de VEgyptien classique (Le

C aire , 1940), § 14, pa r t ly qual i f ied by the s tate m en t in § 15.

5 5 . Vom Bilde zum Buchstaben (Leip zig, 193 9), p p . 28 f.

5 6 . As jus t ly observed by Siegfr ied Sc ho t t

apud

S e the ,

op. cit.

p p . 78 f. Cf. also the m aste r ly s tudy of H . W . Fa irm an ,

c

A n I n t r o

duct ion to the S tudy of P tolemaic S igns and Thei r Values ,

5

Bulletin

de Vlnstitut rangais

d Archeologie

Orientale du Caire xl ii i (1945) , 51 -13 8,

w h o ,

in ca l l ing ac rop ho ny a very de ad horse (p . 52 ) , expresses

c lear ly doub ts abo ut the exis tence of the acro ph on ic pr inc iple even in

the la te Egypt ian (P tolemaic) t imes .

5 7 . Cf . a lso the recent discussion of al leged acrophony in hiero

glyphic Hi t t i t e by Gelb in Language xxxv ii i (1962), 199, w ith refer

ences t o Egypt i an and Cre t an .

5 8 . The except ions are those marks ( s t rokes , dots , or spacing)

which are used to indica te word divis ion . Such marks of pauses or

junctures , of ten te rmed

c

suprasegm enta l pho nem es , a r e t o be no ted

under the prosodic fea tures of language .

5 9.

Cf. J . F r iedr ic h , D ie Para l le l -En tw icklu ng de r dre i a l ten

Schr i f t -Erf indungen,

5

Analecta Biblica xii (1959) ,

9 5 - 1 0 1 .

6 0 . See the d iscuss ion by Bat t i scombe Gunn in the

Journal of

Egyptian

Archaeology xxix (194 3) , 55 ~59 (reference from Professor

Kei th C. Seele) .

6 1 . Th is po int is m ad e qu i te c lear in an old s tudy by A bel

R6 m usa t , R em arq ue s su r que lqu es ec ri tu res sy l lab iques t ir ees des

car ac tere s chinois , et sur le passag e de Pecri tu re f igurat ive a l ec r i tur e

a l p h a b e t i q u e ,

Mem oir es de Vlnstitut Royal de France Academ ie des

Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres vii i (1827), 34~59-

84

oi.uchicago.edu



N O T E S to Ch ap ter IV , pages 120-165

1.

F r i e d ri c h W i l h e l m K o n i g , Corpu s inscriptionum Elamicarum , i

(H an no ve r , 1928) , Schr i f t ta fe l a t en d of pu bl ica t io n.

2. F . H . Wei s sbach , Die Keilinschriften der Acham eniden (Leipzig,

1911),

p p . xxx ix fF. T h e ex act s tat is t ics should be corre cted in ac

cordance wi th George G . Gameron , Persepolis Treasury Tablets

{Oriental Institute Publications, l xv; Chicag o, 1948) , ch ap ter ix .

3 . J o h a n n e s F r i e d r ic h , Kleinasiatische Sprachde nkma ler (Berlin,

1932) , pp . 8 fF. O nl y th e in t ro du ct ion to the le t te r is w r i t ten a lm ost

ent i re ly wi th Akkadian word s igns .

4 . T h e Egypt i an O r ig in of t he Semi t i c A lph ab e t , Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology, i ii (1916), 1-16.

5. T h e Ear ly Alp hab e t i c Insc r ip t ions f rom S ina i an d Th e i r De

c i p h e r m e n t , Bulletin of the Am erican Schools of Oriental Research

N o . n o (1948), 6 -22 .

6 . J . Leibo vi tch ,

£

Sur qu elqu es inscr ip t ions indechi f f rables ,

Bulletin de VInstitut d Egypte, xv i (1934) , 177-183 .

7. J . Leibo vi tch , Le s inscr ip t ions Protos ina i t iques , Memoires

presentes a VInstitut d Egypte, xxiv (1934) , pis . iv-vi .

8. A ll these texts are discussed in D av id Dir ing er , T h e Orig ins of

t h e A l p h a b e t , Antiquity, xvi i (194 3 ) , 77 -90 an d 208 f., an d T h e

Pales t in ian Inscr ip t ions and the Or igin of the Alphabet , Journal of

the American Oriental Society, l x ii i (1943 ) , 2 4-3 0.

9 . F inal ly , the sherd f rom Tel l e§-Sarem and the epigraphica l ly

ve ry im po r t an t j ave l in heads found by a pea san t from E l - J Jadr , a

vi l lage s i tua ted in th e c lose v ic ini ty of Beth lehem , are da ted to a bo ut

1100 B.C. Gf. R u th B. K al ln er , T w o Inscr ib ed Sh erd s , Kedem, ii

(1945) , 11-14 an d vi i , an d E . L . Sukenik , N ot e on the Sherd f rom

Tel l e s -Sa rem, op. cit., pp . 15 an d v i i ; J . T . Mi l ik and F ran k M .

Gross, J r . , I nsc r ibe d Jav e l in -H ead s from th e Pe r iod of t he Ju dg es :

A Recent Discovery in Pales t ine , Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research, No. 134 (1954) , 5-15, and Gross , op. cit., pp . 15-24 .

10. Fo r d ive rgen t opinions on the da tes and rea ding s of the d i ffer

ent Proto-Pales t in ian inscr ip t ions , c f . works by authors quoted in

footnotes 8 f.; an d a l so Fr an k M . Cross, J r . , an d Dav id N. Fr ied m an ,

Early Hebrew Orthography (New H av en , Con nec t i cu t , 1952), pp .

8 f., a n d G . R . Driv er,

Semitic W riting from Pictograph to Alphabet

(rev.

ed . ; London, 1954) , pp . 98-103 and 198 f .

11. W . M . F l in d e r s P e t r ie , T h e A l p h a b e t i n t h e X l l t h D y n a s t y ,

Ancient Egypt, v i (1921) , p p . 1-3 .

85

oi.uchicago.edu



N OT ES T O C H A P TE R IV , PA GE S I 2 8 - I 3 I

12.

G. Hors f i e ld e t L . H . V incen t , 'Une s t e l e Egypto-Moabi t e au

Balou

c

a ,

5

Revue Biblique, xl i (1932) , 417-444.

13. 'A propos de la s te le du Balou 'a , ' op. cit., xl i i (1933) , 353-365.

14.

M a u r i c e D u n a n d , i n Melanges Maspero, i (Le Gai re , 1935-

1938),

p i . op p . p . 570 ;

idem,

Bybliagrammata (Beyro uth , 1945) , p p . 135

ff . In t erp re te d as West Sem i t ic by W . F . Alb r ight , in Bulletin of the

American chools of Oriental Research, no. 116 (1949), 12 ff . , following

H . Gr im m e; cf., how eve r , th e diff icul ties discussed by F ra n k M .

Gross, J r . , in Bulletin of the Am erican Schools of Oriental Research, no.

x

3 4 ( i 9 5 4 )

5

22 ff.

15. Byblia grammata, p. 143.

16. G en era l d iscuss ion in H an s Bau er , Das Alphabet von Ras

Schamra (H alle , 1932) .

17. Cf. t he discussion by A. H e rd n er , 'A -t- i l existe u n e variete

pa l es t i n i enne de I ' ec r i t u re cune i fo rme a lphabe t ique? , ' Syria, xxv

(194 6-19 48) , 165 -168. O n e of the mo st im po r ta nt finds ma d e a t

R as Sha m rah in r ecen t yea r s is t he r ecovery of an a nc i en t abec edary ,

show ing the ord er of th e signs to be th e sam e as in late r (Ph oe nicia n,

Hebrew, and other ) West Semi t ic wr i t ings , wi th the fo l lowing qual i

f icat ions: A m on g the fi rs t twe nty-s eve n signs of th e Ug ar i t ic abe ce

dary there are f ive s igns H, S, D, Z, G), which d i sappeared in t he

later West Semit ic; the s igns Nos. 28 and 29 {H ,

D

u represen t ing a

s t ruc tura l evolut ion f rom N o. 1 , or ig ina l ly

D

) , as well as No . 3 0

(main ly in Hur r i an usage) a re f rom a loca l deve lopment and were

placed a t the end of the abec ed ary . Gf. Gyrus H . Go rdo n, 'T h e

Ug ar i t i c A B G ,

5

Orientalia, n.s . xix (1 950 ), 374 ff. ; W . F . A lbr igh t ,

' Som e Im po r t an t Re cen t D i scoveri e s: A lp hab e t i c Or ig ins an d th e

I d r i m i S t a t u e , ' Bulletin of the Am erican chools of Oriental Research, no.

118 (1950) , 11-20;

idem, op. cit.,

no . 119 (19 50 ), 23 f.; E. A . Spe iser,

op. cit., no. 121 (1951), 1 7 - 2 1 ; F r a n k M . G ro ss a n d T h o m a s O .

L a m b d i n , op. cit., no . 160 (1960) , 21 -26 ; W i l li am W . Ha l lo , ' I s a i a h

2 8 : 7 - 1 3 a n d t h e U g a r i t i c A b e c e d a r i e s , ' Journal of Biblical Literature,

lxxvi i (1958) , 324-338; Gelb in Bibliotheca Orientalis, xv (1958), 6 f .

18.

P . M o n t e t , Byblos et VEgy pte (Par i s , 1928-29) , Tex te , pp . 215-

238 , an d At l a s , p i s. cxxv i -cx l i ; S . Ron zeva l l e , 'L ' a l ph ab e t du sa rco-

p h a g e d ' A ^ i r a m ,

5

Melang es de VU niversite Saint Joseph, xi i (1927),

3 -40 .

19. D u n a n d , ' S p a t u l e * d e b r o n z e a v e c e p i g r a p h e p h e n i c i e n n e d u

xiii

e

siecle, ' Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth, i i (1938) , 99- 10 7; idem,

Fouilles de Byblos (Paris , 1937), Atlas , pi . xxxi i , no. 1125; idem, Byblia

grammata, pp. 155 ff . and pi . xi i i , no. 2.

20. Idem, 'Nouve l l e i nsc r ip t ion phen ic i enne a rcha ique , ' Revue

Biblique, xxxix (1930) , 3 2 1 - 3 3 1 .

2 1 . P .-E . Gu iges , 'Po int e de fleche en bro nze a inscr ip t ion p h6n i -

86

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER IV, PAGES I 3 I - I 3 8

c i e n n e , '

Melanges de PU niversite Saint Joseph

xi (1926) , 325-328 ; and

S . Ronzeva l l e , 'No te

sur le

t ex t e phen ic i en

de la

f leche publ iee

par

M . P.-E. Guiges , '

op. cit.

pp. 329-358 . Gross and F r i e d m a n , in

works quo ted

on p.

285,,

n. 10,

d a t e

the

c

A z a r b a

c

a l

and

R u w e i s e h

inscr ip t ions to a pe r iod be fore Ahi ram, in the e l even th cen tu ry .

22.

Re n6 Du ssaud , 'L ' i nsc r ip t ion du roi A b i b a ' a l ,'

Syria

v (1924) ,

145-147 .

23 . R e n e D u s s a u d , ' D e d i c a c e d ' u n e s t a t u e d 'O s o r k o n I par

E l i b a ' a l ,

roi de

Byblos , ' Syria

vi

(1925) , 101-117.

24.

D u n a n d , Byblia grammata

pp.

146

fF.

25. As observed by W. F. A l b r ig h t in the

Bulletin

of

the Ame rican

Schools

of

riental Research no'.

102

(1946) ,

p. 20,

w ho dates these

two

inscr ipt ions

to the

early n in th ce ntu ry B.C.

26. The lower ing of the d a t e of the A hi ra m insc rip tion to a b o u t

1000 B.C., propo sed some y ears ago by several scholars and lately

defended

by W. F.

A l b r i g h t ,

The

Pho en ic i an Insc r ip tions

of the

T e n t h C e n t u r y B.G. from Byblos, '

Journal

of the

American Oriental

Society lxvi i (1947), 153-160, is supported

by

archaeo logica l eviden ce

as newly recons t ruc ted in a

Post-scriptum

by D u n a n d ,

Byblia gram

mata

pp.

197

fF.

27. A. T. Olms tead , 'Excur sus on the C u n e if o rm A l p h a b e t of R a s

S h a m r a

and Its

Re la t ion

to the

Sinai t ic In scr ip t ions , '

in

M a r t i n

Spreng l ing ,

The

Alphabet

(Chicago, 1931) , pp. 57 ff. The West

Semit ic or igin

of

the U gar i t i c w r i t ing w as de fended

by H.

B u c h m a n ,

' D i e E n s t e h u n g der F o r m e n des Kei l schr i f ta lphabets von Ras

S c h a m r a , ' Przeglqd History czny 1934, pp. 2 1 3 - 2 3 4 ; E. Bur rows , The

O r i g i n of the Ras S h a m r a A l p h a b e t , '

The Journal

of

the Royal Asiatic

Society

1936, pp. 2 7 1 - 2 7 7 ; and B. R o s e n k r a n z, Der U r s p r u n g des

A l p h a b e t s

von Ras

S c h a m r a , ' Zeitschrift

der

Deutschen Morgenlandi-

schen

Gesellschaft

xci i (1938), 178-182.

28. E.

Ebe l ing ,

Zur

Ent s t ehungsgesch ich te

des

Kei l schr i f ta lpha

bets von Ras S c h a m r a , '

Sitzungsberichte der

Preussischen

Akademie der

Wissenschaften Philos.-hist.

KL

1934,

pp.

10-15 .

29. A . J a m m e , An Arch a ic Sou th-A rab ian Insc r ip t ion in V er t i ca l

C o l u m n , ' Bulletin

of

the Am erican Schools

of

Oriental Research

no. 137

(1955) , 32-38, da tes one inscr ip t ion, re cent ly d i scovered, to the

n i n t h

or the

ten th ce ntu ry B.C.

30.

H einr ic h Schafer ,

Die

Vokal losigkei t

des

p h o n i z i s c h e n

A l p h a b e t s , '

Z

e

^

scnr

iflf^

r

agyptische

Sprache Hi (1914) , 9 5- 98 .

31 . Thi s t heory

is

bes t represented

in

M a r t i n S p r e n g l in g ,

The

Alphabet

(Chicago, 1931) .

32. Ein Bei t rag zur E n t w i c k l u n g der Schrif t , '

Arch iv fiir

die

Gesamte Psychologie xxxvi (1917) , 359-390; idem

Die

E n t s t e h u n g

der Sinaischrif t und des p h o n i z is c h e n A l p h a b e t s , '

Journal

of the

87

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER IV, PAGES I 3 8 - I 5 O

Society of Oriental Research, x i i (1928) , 131 -145 ; idem, Les debu t s de

l ec r i t u re , Revue archeologique, Ser ie v i , Tome iv (1934) , pp. 109-134.

33 . Z u r Herku nf t des Alp hab e t s , Z

e

^

tsc

îft der eutschen Morgen-

landischen G esellschaft, lxxi i i (1919), 51-79.

34. E inig e K ap i te l aus de r inne ren Geschichte de r Schr i f t,

Archiv fiir Schreib- und Bu chwesen, n . F . i i (1935) , 8-18 ; idem, Schrif t -

gesch ich t l i che Be t r ach tungen , êitschrift der Deu tschen Mo rgenldndi-

schen Gesellschaft, xc i (1937) , 3 19- 342 ; idem, Zu einigen Schrif ter-

f indungen der neues ten Zei t ,

5

op. cit., xc i i (1938) , 183-218; idem,

Noch e ine moderne Para l le le zu den a l ten Schr i f te r f indungen, op.

cit., x cv ( 1 9 4 0 , 3 7 4 - 4 H -

35 . L or ig ine de l a lp ha be t e t son evolut ion p rem iere d ap res les

decouver tes de Byblos ,

Syria,

xxv (1946-48) , 36-52, and previous ly

in Syria, xi (19 30 ), 185 fF., a n d xix (19 38 ), 88 fF.

36. Der Ursprung des Alphabets {Der Alte Orient, xxx vi , 1-2; L eipz ig,

1937)-

37. Gf. a lso V i t tore P isani , O r ig ini de lPal fabeto , Annali della R.

Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Letere, Storia e Filosofia, serie ii, vol. v

(1936) ,

2 6 7 - 2 7 7 ; idem, r eview of Di r ing er , U alfabeto nella storia della

civilta, op. cit., v i (1937), 37

J

- 3 7

6

-

38 .

Cf . the long discussion in G. R. Driver , Semitic Writing (Lon

do n , 1948), pp . 152-171 .

39. Some names of s igns can be grouped together , bear ing evi

dence tha t they were crea ted fol lowing cer ta in phonet ic pa t terns

ra ther than forms of p ic tures . We can l i s t here the group inc luding

t h e n a m e s waw, taw, and even saw, qaw, found in Isa. 2 8 :9 -1 0 (cf.

Dr ive r , op. cit., pp . 89 f., 155, 167 f., 23 0), an d th e gro up in clu di ng

heth,

teth, and possibly even beth (if not

beth,

h o u s e ) a n d zeth,{in a c

cordance wi th t he Greek zeta . The s t ruc ture of the names of the

W est Sem it ic s igns w ith a f inal co nso na nt is fam il iar t o us from

Georgian, where we f ind names of the le t te rs normal ly (but not

exclusively) ending in -n , as in an, ban, gan, don, en, e tc .

40. T h e diff icult ies affecting th e int erp ret at io n of th e Sem it ic s ign

names are bes t d i scussed in Th. Noldeke , Beitrdge zur semitischen

Sprachwissenschaft (S t ra s sburg , 1904), pp . 1 24-136 , and M ar k L idz -

ba r sk i , Ephemerisfur semitische Epigraphik, i i (Giessen, 1908), 125-139.

4 1 .

W . M . F l inde r s Pe tr ie ,T /z£

Formation of the Alphabet

( L o n d o n ,

1912), pis. i i- iv.

42. F r o m H a n s B a u e r i n Der Alte Orient, xx xv i, 1/2, p . 36 .

43 . I n Nieuwe Theologische Studien, xiv (1 93 1) , 137 f.

44. Cf. the discussion by S. Yeivin in Archiv Orientdlni, iv (1932),

77,

and by A . Poebe l , Studies in Akkadian Grammar (Ch icago , 1939) ,

p p . 62 f.

45. W olf Lesla u s posi t ion, expressed in

Word

xi (1955), 281 f.,

88

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER IV, PAGES I 5 O - I 5 3

th at the inv ento r of the E thiopic vocal ic sys tem cons idered th e vow el

a as basic because of i ts f requent occurrence in the language, loses

i ts s t rength on the basis of s tat is t ics: in count ing the occurrences in

four passages in G. Bergstrasser, Einfuhrung in die semitischen Sprachen

(M u nc he n, 1928), p p . 104 fF., I found th at syl labic s igns co nta inin g

a

number 126, whi le those wi th the

shew a

m a r k n u m b e r 1 39 .

46. E n n o L i t t m a n n in Nachrichten von der K. esellschajt der Wissen-

schajten zu Gottingen

Phi los . -h i s t . KL, 1917, p . 677. Edward Ul len-

dorfFj Stu die s in the Eth iop ic Sy l lab ary ,

Africa

xxi (1951) , 207 -217 ,

a rgues t ha t t he E th iop ic names ha la etc . , were or ig ina l in E thiop ic ,

whi le the

hoi lawl

t ype of names was probably borrowed secondar i ly

f rom Hebrew.

47. Note a l so tha t the mark for sukun is der iv ed form ally from th e

n u m b e r z e r o .

4 8 .

S igu rd G. Ylvisaker , Z

ur

babylonischen und assyrischen Grammatik

(Leipzig, 1912), pp. 15 f.

49. Op . cit. p . 13 , and Jam es P h i l ip Hy a t t , The Treatment oj Final

Vowels in Early Neo-Babylonian

(New H av en , 1941) , p . 20 .

50. Op . cit. p. 15.

51 . In h i s review of H ya t t s book pub l i shed in Classical Weekly

xxxvi (1942), oof.

52. Gf. the discussion in Poebel, op. cit. pp. 61 f.

53. For addi t ional points in favor of the syl labic character of the

West Semi t ic wr i t ing, based on evidence cul led f rom the Iber ian ,

Et ru scan , an d ear ly Greek wr i t ings , see G elb , N ew Ev iden ce in

Favor of the West Semi t ic Wri t ing,


xv (1958),

2-7 , esp . pp. 4-6 . For the Ugar i t ic evidence bear ing on the subjec t ,

see

op. cit.

pp . 6 f., an d Wi l l i am W. Ha l lo , I sa i ah 2 8 :9 -1 3 and the

Ugar i t i c Abecedar i e s , Journal oj Biblical Literature lxxvi i (1958),

324-338 .

54. F r anz P rae to r ius , JJber den Ursprung des kanaanaischen Alphabets

(Be rlin, 190 6), p p . 1 fF.

55. A. Seidel , Sprachlaut und Schrijt (Wien und Leipzig , 1920) , pp.

130 and 133.

56. T h e S ign B and the T ru e Na tu re of t he Ear ly A lphab e t s ,

Archiv Orientalni iv (1932) , 71-78.

57. Dav id Di r inge r i n Antiquity xvii (1943), 89.

58 . riechische Grammatik i (Munchen, 1939) , 145.

59. Studies in Akkadian G ramm ar

(Ch icago , 1939), pp . 61 -64 .

60.

An Introduction to Linguistic Science

(New H av en , 1947) , p . 22 .

6 1 .

Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth C entury

(Ca m br idg e , 1931),

p p . 142 fF. a n d i8o fF.

62. Op . cit.

p. 142.

63 . In addi t ion to Prae tor ius , Se idel , Yeivin , Poebel , Schwyzer ,

2 8 9

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER

IV

PAGES 153-162

Stur tevant , and Pedersen, noted in the preceding footnotes , the fo l

lowing scholars argued in favor of the syl labic character of the West

Semi t i c wr i t i ng : Roland G . Kent , Dona ld G . Swanson , Marce l

Goh en , Ed m on d So l lbe rge r , An to ine Mei l le t , H erb e r t H . Paper , E . A .

Speiser, Pa ul Krets chm er , an d Alf red Sc hm i t t , a l l no ted in m y

art icle in Bibliotheca Orientalis xv (1958), 4; add to this l ist also

Wi l l i am W. Ha l lo i n Journal of Biblical Literature, lxxvi i (1958) , 3 2 4 -

338, and E l i zabe th Bowman in Journal of Near Eastern Studies xix

( i96 0) , 4 6-4 8. For the oppo s i te po int of v iew, see the tw o ar t ic les b y

Stanis law Seger t ,

c

Ch ara kte r des wes tsemi t ischen A lph ab ets , e ine

E n t g e g n u n g a n I g n a c e J . G e l b ,

5

an d G ha rak te r des wes t semi t ischen

Alphabe t s ,

5

Archiv Orientdlni xxvi (1958) , 243-247 and 657-659 .

64.

Last s tated in his Scripta Minoa i (Oxford, 1909) , p p . 68 -7 7.

65. P r o l e g o m e n a t o t h e G y p r o - M i n o a n S c ri pt ,

5

American Journal

of Archaeology xlv (1941) , 249-282.

66 . . R ec en t discoveries of add i t io na l sho rt texts , as wel l as of large

table t s , conta ining hundreds of s igns , enlarged cons iderably our

know ledge of the Gy pro -M ino an w r i t ing. Gf. Ol iv ier M asson ,

Nouvel les inscr ip t ions en carac teres chypro-minoens

5

in G. F. A.

Schaeffer,

Enkomi-Alasia

i (Par i s , 1952) , pp . 391 -40 9; P orp hy r ios

Dikaios in Antiquity xx vii (19 53 ), 103 ff. , 2 33 -2 37 ; xxx (19 56 ), 40 f.;

Glaude F. A. Schaeffer , op. cit. xxviii (1954), 38 f. Gf. also the discus

sion of P. Meriggi ,

C

I p r im i tes t i c iprom inoic i e Peteocipr io ,

5

Athe

naeum n.s . xxxiv (1956) , 3-3 8, and P . M er iggi , O. M asson , an d others

in Etudes myceniennes ed. M iche l Lejeun e (Pa r i s , 1956) , p p . 1 93-206

a n d 268 -271 .

67 . O t to S chroe der , Ge setz te assyr ische Ziegelstempel ,

5

Z

e

^

m

schriftfiir Assyriologie xxxiv (1922) , 157-161 .

68. Byblia gramm ata (Beyrouth, 1945), chapter iv.

69. Gf. omptes Rendu s de P Academ ic des Inscriptions et Belles Letires

1946, pp . 36 0-3 65 an d 47 2-4 79 , an d Dec hi f f remen t des inscrip t ions

pseudo-hieroglyphiques de Byblos ,

5

Syria

xxv (1946-1948) , 1-35.

70. Fol lowing Byblia grammata pp. 88 fF.

71. Op . cit.

p p . 85 f., 155 ff., a n d p i. xi ii, 2.

72. In modern t imes a la rge measure of s tandardiza t ion of forms

has been achieved.

73.

As a resul t of the decre e of the Ja p an es e M inis t ry of Pub l ic

Ins t ruc t ion in 1900 the number of word s igns was grea t ly reduced,

but s t i l l 1 ,200 word s igns were cons idered the minimum requi red for

e l em enta ry schoo ls . O n N ov em ber 16, 1946, t he Jap an ese Ca b ine t

and Minist ry of Educat ion issued a l is t of 1850 kanji cha rac t e r s which

were r ecommended fo r genera l use , p resumably ou t l awing the use

of perhaps four or f ive thousand other charac ters car r ied in the fonts

of publ i shing houses . Scholars genera l ly doubt the success of the re-

2 9 0

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHA PTER IV, PAGE 1 6 4

form. Cf. Jose ph K . Ya m agiw a , Reform s in t he La ng ua ge an d

O r t h o g r a p h y of N e w s p a p e r s in J a p a n ,

5

Journal of

the

American Oriental

Society, l xvii i (1948) , 45 -52 , an d a N ot e by F . J . Dan ie l s in Bulletin

of

the chool

of Oriental and African Studies, xv i (19 54 ), 393 f. Crit ic ism s

of the f i rs t edi t ion of this work by Daniels loc. cit.) as well as helpful

sugges tions of Professor Y am ag iw a con t r ibu ted to the im pro ve d

form of the Ja pa ne se po r t ion of the prese nt edi t ion .

74. S . K a n a z a w a , Uber den Einfluss des Sanskrits auf

das

japanische

und

koreanische

Schriftsystem (To kio, 1907).

75. A m on g other less wel l -know n wr i t ings of th e Ae gea n gro up

we f ind tha t Cypro-Minoan con ta ins abou t s ix ty - th ree , Pha i s tos

about s ixty, and Byblos about eighty to ninety syl labic s igns, while

the comparable numbers for the Linear A and B syl labar ies (d i s

cussed un de r the logo-syllabic wr i t ings) are e igh ty an d e ighty-e ig ht ,

respect ively.

291

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chap ter V, pages 166-189

1. H a n s B a u e r a n d P o n t u s L e a n d e r ,

Historische Gram matik der

hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (H al le , 1918), p . 92 ; ci tat ion

to be cor rec ted in accordance wi th

David KimMs Hebrew Gramm ar

Mikhlol), ed . by W il l iam Chom sky (Ph i ladelph ia , 1933) , p . 12 .

2.

Cf., e.g. , S. Y eivin , T h e Sign B and the T rue Na ture o f t he

E a r l y A l p h a b e t s , Archiv Orientdlni, iv (1932) , 71- 78 ; Fr an k R. Blake ,

The Deve lopment o f Symbol s fo r t he Vowel s i n t he Alphabe t s De

r ived f rom the Phoenic ian, Journal of the American Oriental Society, lx

(1940) ,

39 1-4 13 ; W i l li am Chomsky , T h e Hi s to ry of O u r Vowe l -

S y s te m i n H e b r e w ,

The Jewish

Quarterly

Review,

xxx i i (1941 -42) , 2 7 -

49-

3. Cf. the d iscuss ion in Fr an k M oo re Cross , J r . , an d Dav id No el

F r i e d m a n , Early Hebrew Orthography. A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence

(New Haven , Connec t i cu t , 1952) .

4 . A l l examples t aken f rom Mark L idzbar sk i , Handbuch der nord

semitischen Epigraphik (Weimar , 1898) .

5. The indica t ion of the vowel

0

by m eans of

c

aiin,

found in the

neo-Punic spel l ings such as B

xcx

m

x

l

x

q

x

r

x

t

x

= L a t i n Bomilcar), is very

instruct ive, as i t shows that in some Semit ic dialects this consonant

inf luenced an a t o cha ng e wh ich m ay ha ve been respons ible for the

u l t ima te deve lopment o f t he vowel

0

from

c

ayin

i n the Gree k w r i t ing.

6. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography ( N e w H a v e n ,

1934).

For recent mater ia l on the subjec t , c f . E lmar Edel in

Journal

of Near Eastern Studies,

v ii (1 9 48 ), n - 2 4 ;

idem, op. cit.,

vi i i (1949),

44 -47 ; W. F . A lbr igh t i n Journal of the Am erican Oriental Society,

lxxiv (1954) , 222 -23 3; an d especia lly W . F . Albr ig ht an d T . O.

L a m b d i n , N e w M a t e r i a l fo r t h e E g y p t i a n S y ll ab i c O r t h o g r a p h y ,

Journal of Semitic Studies,

i i (1957), 113-127.

7 . Eg yp t ian Ph on et ic W ri t ing, f rom I t s Inve nt ion to the Close of

t h e N i n e t e e n t h D y n a s t y ,

Journal of the American Oriental Society,

lx

( i 9 4 o )

5

4 7 3 - 5

o 6

>

e s

P- P- 486.

8 . Albr ight ,

Vocalization,

p p . 6 - 1 5 .

9 . E d g e r t o n , op. cit., p p . 4 8 6 - 9 9 0 .

10.

Even in the cunei form wri t in g we f ind such an ap tyc t ic

spellings, as in

Ki-iz-zu-wa-ta-na, Ki-iz-wa~ ta-na,

e t c . (Gerha rd

Rudol f Meyer i n Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orien tforschung, i (1953),

1 2 1

11. Accord ing to Albr igh t , Journal of the American Oriental Society,

292

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES T.O CHAPTER V, PAGES 1 7 0 - 1 7 9

Ixxiv (1954) , 224, the number of syl labic groups employed in the

New Kingdom was abou t s ix ty , which compares we l l w i th t he num

ber of syllabic signs in the syllabic systems discussed above on p. 164

an d p . 29 1, n . 75 .

12. Op. cit., p . 506.

13 . J o h a n n e s F r ie d r ic h , Phonizisch-punische Gram matik {Analecta

Orientalia, xxxi i ; R om a, 1951) , pp . 42 f., an d V ulg arp un isch u n d

Vulgar l a t e in i n den neupuni schen Inschr i f t en ,

5

Cahiers de Byrsa, iii

( 1953) ,

I 0

° f->

n a s t r

i

e c

* to establ ish two different methods of vowel

indica t ion in the la te Neo-Punic (Fr iedr ich

5

s V u l g a r p u n i s c h

5

) in

scr ip t ions : one method, in which ^—e, 0,

c

=a, Y = i, W = w , a n d

ano the r , much r a re r me thod , i n which

D

= a ,

H = e

c

=o, Y=i,

W = w .

14.

E r i ch Ebe l ing , Keilschr ifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Leip

zig, 1927), no. 121 a, rev. 2, and elsewhere.

15. L e r o y W a t e r m a n , Royal

Correspondence

of the Assyrian Empire, i

(Ann Arbor , 1930) , Nos . 258 :4 , 263 :5 , 3 4 5 : 3 , e tc .

16 . E . Fo rrer in êitschrijt der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschajt,

lxxvi (1922) , 227, 23 1, e tc . , an d H . O t te n in Z^îftjur Assyrio-

logie, xlvii i (19 44), 123 .

17. Examples quoted in E . A. Speiser , Introduction to Hurrian (New

Haven, 1941), pp. 15 ff.

18.

See on th i s pro ble m the discuss ion by J . F r ied r ich in Archiv

jiir Schreib- und Buchw esen, n .F . i i (1935 ) , 15. A m on g recent s tudies

sup po r t ing th e view of an

ad hoc

c rea t ion of the O ld Pe rs ian syl labary

rather than i ts survival f rom a ful ler , as yet unat tested, syl labary, cf .

H e r b e r t H . P a p e r ,

c

T h e O l d P e r si an / L / P h o n e m e ,

5

Journal oj the

American Oriental Society, l xxvi (1956) , 24- 26 , and , wi th d i fferent

a rgu m ent s , W al th e r H in z , D ie E infuh rung de r a l t pe rs i schen

Schrift,

5

eitschrijt der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschajt, cii

(1952) , 28-38.

19.

Ibid.;

la ter modif ied in Zeitschrijt der Deutschen Morgenldndischen

Gesellschajt xci i (1938) , 207, and xcv (1941), 414.

20. C f . t he ex t ens ive l i t e r a tu re i n M. Dunand , Byblia grammata

(Beyro uth , 1945) , pp . 189-19 2, an d G. R . D r ive r , Semitic Writing

(L on do n, 1948), p p . 128 f.

21 . Beitrdge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschajt (Strassb urg , 1904), p .

135-

22 . D i e Urgesch ich te des Alphabe t s ,

5

Rheinisches Museum jiir

Philologie, n . F . lxxxv (1936) , 34 7-3 66 .

23 .

H o w O ld I s t he Greek Alphab e t?

5

merican Journal oj Archaeo

logy, xxxvi i i (1934) , 3 59~ 3

8 l

«

24. T h e A nt iqu i ty of t he Greek Alphab e t ,

5

op. cit., xxxvi i (1933) ,

8-29.

25. Handbuch der Archdologie, h r sg . von Wa l t e r O t to , i (M un ch en ,

2 9 3

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER V PAGES 79 188

1

939)5

95- The Greek inscr ip t ions refer red to in footnotes 25-30,

as wel l as severa l o the r ear ly Greek inscr ip t ions , a re repub l i shed

and discussed in L. H. Jeffery,

The Local Scripts of Archaic

Greece

(Oxford, 1961).

26. U l l m a n ,

op. cit.

p. 365, and many other scholars .

27 . C a r p e n t e r , op. cit. p. 24.

28 .

Op . cit.

p. 26.

29. C a r l W . B l egen , I ns c r i p t i ons on G eom et r i c P o t t e r y f r om

H y m e t t o s , American Journal of Archaeology xxxvi i i (1934) , 10-28 .

30. A gnes N . S t il lw e l l, E i g h t h C en t ur y B.G. Inscr ip t ions f rom

C or i n t h ,

5

op. cit. xxxvi i (1933) , 605-610.

3 1 . W . F . A l br i gh t , N ew L i gh t on t he E ar l y H i s t o r y of P ho en i

c ian Coloniza t ion,

5

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

N o . 83 (1941)5 14-22.

32.

I n r ecen t t im es , M ar g i t F a l kne r , Z u r F r uhg es ch i ch t e des

gr iechischen Alphabets ,

5

Fruhgeschichte und Sprachw issenschaft hrsg.

von W i l he l m B r andens t e i n ( W i en , 1948) , pp . 110- 133 , cam e ou t i n

f avour of t he n i n t h cen t u r y , w hi l e F r ank l i n P . J o hn s on , N o t es on t he

E ar l y G r eek W r i t i ng ,

5

merican Journal of Philology lxxvi i (1956) , 29-

37 , f avor ed the t en t h cen t u r y . R . M . C ook and A . G . W oo dh ead ,

T h e Dif fus ion of the Gre ek Alph abe t ,

5

American Journal of Archaeo

logy lxi ii (1959), 17 5-1 78 , an d L. H . Jeffery, The Local Scripts of

Archaic Greece (O xford, 1961), p p . 1-2 1, favour th e da te of th e secon d

hal f of the e ighth century B.G. and t h e m i dd l e of t he e i gh t h ce n t u r y

B.C., respective ly , and bel ieve th a t the G reek a lp ha be t was b orrow ed

by the Greeks res id ing and t rading in the coas ta l c i t i es of Syr ia and

P hoen i c i a .

33 . The vase was evident ly offered as a pr ize to the merr iest

dancer chosen in a contes t .

34. J o ha nn es F r i ed r i ch i n t he t w o st ud ies qu o t ed on p . 293 , n . 13 ,

takes for gran ted th a t the deve lop m en t of voca l iza t ion in the neo -

Pu nic wr i t ing i s du e to the L at in inf luence .

35. I n

Archivfur Schreib- und Buchwesen

n .F . ii (193 5), 17 f. A dolf

G r o h m a n , U b e r d e n U r s p r u n g u n d d i e E n t w i c k l u n g d e r a th i o p is c h e n

Schrift,

5

Archiv fur Schriftkunde

i (1915), 57-87, esp. pp. 80 ff . ,

re jec ted the der iva t ion of the Ethiopic vowel sys tem f rom Indie be

cause of differences in outer form of several vowel marks, neglect ing

comple te ly the connect ions be tween the two sys tems based on com

m on s t r uc t u r e .

36.

Or should we conclude tha t in the s tenographic sys tems even

the sign for ka i s a lphabet ical and analyse i t as the basic s ign for k

plus the heavy form for the indica t ion of the vowel

a?

S im ilar ly in

the case of E thiopic , we could analyse such vowel indica t ion as the

bas ic s ign plus some formal modi f ica t ion. The case of E thiopic and

2 9 4

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER V PAGES 188 189

Indic bas ic s igns s tanding for a consonant p lus

a

could b e an alysed

as the basic s ign plus zero to indicate the vowel a.

37 . Die Schrift

Gl i icks tad t un d H am bu rg , 1935) and the o lde r

edi t ion ent i t l ed Geschichte der Schrift Ha nno ver , 1925).

38 . Ua lfabeto nella storia della civilta Firen ze, 1937) .

39 . Histoire de Vecriture

Paris , 1948 ) .

40 . The Alphabet 2 vols . Lo nd on , 1883) = The History of the Al-

phabet 2 vols . New Yo rk, 189 9) .

4 1 . The Alphabet. A Key to the History of Mankind L o n d o n a n d

New York, 1948; 2nd ed. in 1949) .

42.

Notices

sur

les

characteres Strangers anciens

et

m odernes redigees par

un grou pe de savants , reunies pa r Char les Fossey Par i s , 92

7);

n o u -

velle edition in 1948).

43 . M a r c e l C o h e n ,

La grande invention de

Pecriture

et son evolution.

T h r e e v o l u m e s : Texte ocumentation et index Planches Paris , 1958) .

2 9 5

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chap ter VI , pages 190-205

1. Fo r th e defini t ion of a syl labic s ign, see p. 2 71 , n. 31 .

2. I ca nn ot agree wi th the opinion expressed in R al p h Lin ton s

The Study of Man. An Introduction (New York, 1946) , pp . 3046° . ,

wh ere d iscovery is def ined as an y ad di t io n to kn ow ledg e an d inve n

t ion— both bas i c an d im prov ing — as a new app l i ca t ion of knowl

e d g e .

3.

T h e Copt i c a lph abe t , bor row ed m ain ly f rom th e Greek , has

one s ign, bor rowed f rom the Egypt ian Demot ic , wi th a syl labic va lue

ti.

4.

See G iul iano Bonfante s a r t ic le on Se m an t ics ,

Encyclopaedia of

Psychology (New York, 1946) , p . 844, an d O n R eco ns t ruc t ion an d

Lingu i s t i c Method , Word i (1945), 85 fF.

5. Observe the evolut ion of Chinese , or ig ina l ly i sola t ing, now a l

most agglut inat ive, and the t rend of Engl ish, or iginal ly inf lect ional ,

now developing in the d i rec t ion of i sola t ing languages .

6 . Obse rve Indo-European : p9ter (La t in pater : O ld Norse fafiir

( E n g l i s h / a ^ r ) : O l d S ax on an d G o t hi c fadar: G e r m a n Vater o r I n d o -

E u r o p e a n *dheu-: Engl i sh dead: G e r m a n tot: d ia l e ct a l G e r m a n thot.

C .

Meinhof

Die moderne Sprachforschung in Afrika (Berlin, 1910), p. 59,

observed tha t G r im m s L aw holds good for e ighteen di f ferent

Ban tu l anguages .

7 . Th is poin t is em pha s ized s t rongly by sch olars w ho ha ve

analysed the typology of sys tems crea ted in modern t imes among

such prim it ive societies as th e Alask a Eskim os a nd th e A frican

Ba m um . See J . F r i edr i ch in Z

e

ti

sc

hrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen

Gesellschaft, civ (19 54), 322 , 3 25 , 328 f.; idem in Archiv Orientdlni, xix

(1951 ), 256 6°. ; Alfred Sc hm it t , Die A laska Schrift und ihre schrift-

geschichtliche Bedeutung {Miinstersche Forschungen,

H e f t 4 ; M a r b u r g ,

1951), pp. 100, 107; idem in Indogermanische Forschungen, lxi (1954),

225 ; E g e r t o n R . Y o u n g , The Apostle of the North— Rev. James Evans

(New Yo rk, 1899) , p p . 181 fF.; Lou is -Phi l ippe V ai l lan cou r t ,

L or ig ine des carac te res syl labiques , Anthropologica, v (1957), 127 f.;

K. L . P ike , Phonemics (Ann Arbo r , Mic h iga n , 1947), cha p te r 16 ;

J . Ber ry , T h e M ak ing of A lp hab e t s , Proceedings of the VIII Interna-

national Congress of Linguistics

(Oslo, 1957), 752-764.

8 . Kur t Se the , Vom Bilde zum Buchstaben (Leipzig, 1939), p. 66.

9 . Op . cit., pp. 26 fF.

10. Op. cit., pp . 44 and 52; th i s d i screpancy was c lear ly observed

296

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER

VI

PAGE 205

by S . Schot t apud S e the , op. cit. p . 71 . A n opinion ident ica l wi th th a t

of Se the is expressed b y G. R . D rive r ,

Semitic Writing

(London, 1954) ,

p .

138: Sy l labic wr i t ing is a bl ind al ley from w hic h the re is no

escape .

11. Dav id Di r inge r , Ualfabe to nella storia delta civilta (F i r enze ,

i937)> P- 704-

12. Op. cit. p . 88; Di r ing er uses the te rm syl labic in the sense

m ult ico ns on an tal cr i t icized on pp . 76 fF. of this s tu dy .

13.

In Antiquity xvii (1943), 88.

2 9 7

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chapter VII, pages 206-211

1.

H a n s J e n s e n ,

Die Schrift

( G l u k s t a d t u n d H a m b u r g , 1 9 35 ), p p .

166;

D a v i d D i r i n g e r,

Ualfabeto

nella storia della

civilta

(Firenze, 1937)?

p p .

602 f.; C F . L eh m an n- H au pt i n Z

e

^

sc

hnft der eutschen Morgen-

Idndischen Gesellschaft

(hereinafter referred to as

Zeitschrift ,

Ixxiii

( 1 91 9 ) , 6 0 - 6 5 ; J o h a n n e s F r i e d r ic h , £eitschrift

9

xci (1937), 331 f.

2. J e n s e n ,

op. cit.,

p p . 168 f.; D irin ge r,

op. cit.,

p . 604; Louis -

Ph i l i ppe V a i l l ancou r t , L o r ig ine des ca rac t e res sy l l ab iques , An-

thropologica,

v (1957) , 125-129 . Fro m

The G ospel in Many Tongues

Published by the British and Foreign Bible Society (L on do n, 1954 ), I learr i

tha t sys tems s imi lar to those used by the Gree Indians are a t home

am o ng th e Eskim os of the Baff in L an d (N o. 199) an d th e Slave or

Tinne in the Mackenzie River area (No. 708) . Gf . a l so^the ar t ic le

Esk im o in P r in t , i n

Time

magazine , June 29, 1959, p . 37*

3. D i r i n g e r , op. cit., pp . 601 f . ; Garr ick Mal lery , Picture-Writing of

the American Indians ( T e n t h A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e B u r e a u o f E t h n o l

ogy , Sm i thson ian Ins t i t u t i on ; Wa sh ing ton , 1886), pp .

6 6 6 - 6 7 1 .

N o t h i n g m u c h c a n b e l e a r n e d f ro m t h e s t a n d a r d m a n u a l s a b o u t t h e

actual

use of the M icm ac wr i t in g. How eve r , from a n ar t ic le by W il -

he lm Sch lag , Au s t r i an M issionar ie s t o Am er i can Ind ians , Austrian

Information,

publ i shed by the Aust r ian Informat ion Service of New

Yo rk, vol . xv , no . 2 ( J an u ar y 31 , 1962) , p . 5 , rep ubl i sh ed f rom

Osterreich und die angelsachsische Welt,

ed . O t to Hie t zsch (W ien-

Stu t tg ar t , 1961 , no t ava i lable to m e) , we learn the fo l lowing: I n the

Aus t r i an Na t iona l L ib ra ry may be found two presen ta t ion cop ies o f

a cur ious one volume ca techism, prayer book and abr idged Bibl ica l

his tory , pr in ted in p ic tographs . The book was wr i t ten by Chr is t ian

K au de r fo r h i s congrega t ion of M icm ac In d ian s i n No va Sco t i a . Th e

tw o copies are al l th a t is left of the en t i re edi t ion p rin te d gra tui to usl y

by the Imper i a l and Roya l Government P r in t ing Of f i ce i n Vienna .

T h e sh ip wh ich was to b r ing the books to t he New W or ld sank . A

two- l ine exce rp t f rom a M icm ac m anu sc r ip t p rese rved in t he B i -

b l io theque Na t iona l e , Pa r i s, r eprod uced in M . Gohen , La grande inven

tion de Vecriture, Planches

86A , an d discussed in his

Documentation,

p p .

123 f., ap pa ren t ly is w r i t ten in a M icm ac wr i t ing of un kn ow n or ig in .

4.

Wi l l i am Jon es , A n Algo nquin Sy l l aba ry , i n

Boas Anniversary

Volume

(New Y ork, 1906) , pp . 8 8 - 9 3 . Jones ca l l s the Algonquin wr i t

ing a syl labary , no t a lph ab et . H e just if ies th i s s ta te m en t by saying

th at i t is co m m on to associa te the con sona nts in co m bin at io n w i th

2 9 8

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER VII , PAGES 2 0 7 ~ 2 0 8

vowels , and in learning the syl labary, the vowels are told off f i rs t ,

and af terwards the consonants in combinat ion wi th the vowels . The

ord er fo llowed i s no t vowel and the n each co nso nan t one after the

other with that vowel , but f i rs t al l the vowels , and then one conso

n a n t a t a t im e in conn ect ion w i th a l l the four vowels .

5

This co nce pt of

the syl labary is fur ther sup po r ted by no t ing th a t in a n evolved

form of the Algonquin syl labary the row of s igns for a consonant plus

vowel u = o o r the l ike) is expressed by a sym bol w i tho ut a ny vow el

indicat ion, in contrast to other syl labic rows in which vowels are

ful ly indicated.

5. A l i ce G . F l e t che r , A Phone t i c A lph ab e t Used by the W inn e

bago Tr ibe o f Ind ians ,

The Journal of

merican

Folk-Lore,

i i i (1890),

299-301 ( re ference f rom D r . Th om as Sebeok , of In d ia na Un ive r

si ty) .

I t is rep or te d ab ou t an oth er Fox syllabic sys tem tha t i t em

ploys our ord ina ry Arab ic num be rs in p lace of le t te rs or sym bols . See

T r u m a n M i c h el so n , F o x L i n g u i st ic N o t e s . A n U n k n o w n F o x

Syl l aba ry , i n

Festschrift Meinhof

( H a m b u r g , 1 9 27 ), p p . 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 .

6. Alfred Sc hm it t , Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Schrift. Eine

Schrifterfundung

urn

1900 in Alaska

(3 vols . ; Leip zig, 1940); Frie dri ch ,

Zeitschrift, xcv (1941) , 374-414 ; H . Dewey Ander son and Wal t e r

Crosby Eel ls ,

Alaska Natives

(Stan ford U niv ers ity, 1935 ), p p . 191 ff.;

W . J . Hof fman , T h e Gra ph ic A r t of t he Esk imos , Annual Report of

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Tear i8g ( W a s h

ing ton , 1897), pp . 739 -968 . M uc h new and im po r t an t i n fo rmat ion

on the Alaska wr i t ing can be found in Al f red Schmi t t , Die Alaska-

Schrift und ihre

schriftgeschichtliche

Bedeutung {Munstersche Forschungen,

Hef t 4 ; M arb ur g , 1951) ; F r i edr i ch , Zeitschrift, c iv (1954), 3

2

5 ~ 3 2 9 ;

idem,

Archiv O rientdlni,

x ix (1951) , 252 -259 . Ow ing to the i na deq uac y

of a pure word wr i t ing, in the course of t ime the Alaska wr i t ing ac

qui red cer ta in fea tures of phonet iza t ion appl ied in words which were

diff icul t to express in pictures, as in the wri t ing of the name Peter

( p r o n o u n c e d pita) by means of a p ic ture s ign which normal ly s tood

fo r

pita,

he ca tches it . T h e use of the syl labic-phonet ic s igns in

creased steadi ly, replacing ent i rely in the f inal s tages of development

the logographic spel l ings. At the same t ime the wri t ing lost i ts pic

tor ia l charac ter and acqui red l inear forms. The f ina l syl labar ies con

sis t of about seventy to eighty s igns, some of which are used alpha

bet ica l ly in a form qui te s imi lar to tha t achieved in the Bamum

wr i t i ng (p . 209) . Thus the word

qdnertoq,

h e speaks , or ig ina l ly

expressed by means of a picture s ign, is expressed f i rs t syl labical ly as

qa-ner-tuq, t he n as qa-n-ner-tuq, qa-n-ner-r-tuq, qa-a-n-ne-r-t-tu-q, a n d

qa-a-n-ne-r-ri-t-tu-q.

7 . Jensen , op. cit., pp . 1156° . ; Di r inger , op. cit., p p . 222 ff.; A .

2 9 9

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER VI I, PAGES 2 0 8 - 2 0 9

K l i n g e n h e b e n , T h e V a i S c r i p t ,

Africa,

v i (1933) ,

1 5 8 - 1 7 1 ;

F r i e d -

r i ch , Zeitschrift) xci (1937), 328 f.

8 . J ensen , op. cit., p . 118; Fr iedr ich , Z

e

^

isc

^

r

ifh

x

° i (

x

937)> 3

2

9 ff*

a n d 5 0 5 ; idem, op. cit., xci i (1938), 189-208.

9 . Fr iedr ich , Z

e

^

tsc

hrift, xc i (1937) , p . 328, n . 2 , an d p . 50 8;

Joseph Jof f r e , Man, x l ii i ( 1943) , 112 , qu o t ing H . B au m an n , D .

W e s t e r m a n n , R . T h u r n w a l d , Volkerkunde von Ajrika (Essen, 1940),

p .

380, not avai lable here .

10. Gf . Fr iedrich, Z

e

^

sc

hrift, xc i (1937) , 33 1, an d op. cit., xcii

( i 9 3

8

)> P - 185, n. 1.

11. Joseph Jof f re ,

£

A Ne w Wes t-Af ri can A lph ab e t : Used by the

T o m a , F r e n c h G u i n e a a n d L i b e r i a , Man, x l i i i (1943), 108-112; idem,

c

Sur un nouv el a lp ha be t oues t -af r ica in: l e T o m a ( f ront iere f ranco-

l ibe r i enne) , Bulletin de VInstitut Franga is d Afrique Noire, v i i (1945) ,

160-173 .

12. Gf. Joffre in Man, x l i ii , p . 112, an d A . Lassor t , L ec r i tu re

guerzee , Premiere conference internationale des africanistes de Vo uest,

omptes rendus, i i (Par i s , 1951) , 20 9-2 15 . V ery l i tt l e is know n ab ou t

the use of the Bete wr i t ing on the Ivory G oas t inve nted in or a bo ut

1956 by a F renc h-edu ca ted na t ive F reder i c Bru ly -Bo uabre . T h e

wri t ing in i ts ul t imate development consists of 401 syl labic s igns,

m a in ly of p i c tograph ic o r ig in . T h e ve ry in t e res ti ng doc um ent w i th

the hand-wr i t ten descr ip t ion of the charac ter of the new wri t ing by

Bru ly-Bouabre was pub l i shed in Th . Monod ,

c

U n n o u v e l a l p h a b e t

oues t -af r ica in: l e be te (Cote dTvoi re) , Bulletin de VInstitut Frangais

d Afrique Noire, xx (1958) , 43 2-5 53 . A separa t e m on og rap h on the

Bet6 wr i t ing by M on od is soon to ap pe ar .

13. J e n s e n ,

op. cit.,

pp . 112-115 ; D i r inge r ,

op. cit.,

pp. 206 f.;

F r ied r ich , ^ te A nj f r , xc i (1937) , 326 ff.; M au r ic e Delafosse ,

c

N a i s -

sance e t evo lu t ion d un sys teme d 6c r i t u re de c rea t ion con tem po -

r a i n e , Revue d ethnographie, i ii (1922) , 11-3 6; O . G . S . Craw ford,

c

The Wr i t i ng o f N joya , Antiquity, i x (1935) , 43 5- 44 2; I . D ug as t e t

M . D . W . Jeff reys , Vecriture des Bam um, sa naissance, son evolution, sa

v leur phonetique, son utilisation {Me moires de VInstitut Franga is d Afrique

Noire. Centre du C ame roun. Serie: Populations, no . 4 (1 950 ) ; F r i edr i ch ,

Zeitschrift, c iv (1954), 317-3^

14. In the new sys tem the word mfon,

c

king, or ig ina l ly wr i t ten

logographical ly with one s ign, is now expressed by four s igns as

m-fu-o-n, j us t as the w ord lam, m a r r i a g e , is w r i t t e n la-a-m. Desc r ibed

by Delafosse, op. cit., pp . 17 f. an d 3 3- 36 , b u t not discussed in th e

otherwise adm irab le work of D ug as t an d Jeff reys c i ted in the prec ed

ing footnote .

15. A n ar t if ic ia l new langu age an d scr ip t we re rep or te d f rom t he

ext reme southeas t of Niger ia as be ing used f rom 1936 on by a band

3

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

VII,

PA GES 2 0 9 - 2 I O

of profess ing Chr is t ians ca l led Ober i Okaime. According to R. F. G.

A d a m s , ' O b e r i O k ai m e, a New A f ri ca n L a n g u a g e and Scr ip t , '

Africa,

xvi i ( i g47) , 24-34 , ' t he re appear

to be

th i r ty - two m ain symbol s ,

m o s t of the m t ak ing ve ry s t r ange fo rms , whi le d i ac r i t i c ma rks are

f o u n d

as

well

as

special let ters .

All the

th i r ty - tw o symbol s hav e bo th

smal l and capi ta l forms.

5

A d a m s ' d e s c r i p t i o n is not sufficient to get

a clear idea

of the

c h a r a c t e r

of the

syl labary .

Two

slightly differing

forms of a N u b i a n a l p h a b e t , a p p a r e n t l y b a s e d on A r a b i c , are r e p r o

d u c e d and discussed in H. A. M a c M i c h a e l, A

History

of

the Arabs

in

the Sudan ( C a m b r i d g e , i g 2 2 ) ,

ii, 328; M.

Delafosse

in

Revue tfethno-

graphie

et des

traditions populaires,

iv ( i g 2 3 ) , io6f.; M. C o h e n , In

scr ip t ions arabes

en

caracteres s6pares recuei l l ies

en

M a u r i ta n i e

par

P . Boery , '

Hesperis,

xiv ( i g 3 2 ) , 1 7 - 2 1 , esp. pp. 18 f. A w r i t in g of un

k n o w n c h a r a c t e r

and

origin

is

u s ed a m o n g

the

Ga l l a

in

E t h i o p i a .

Cf. A. d ' A b b a d i e in Bulletin de la Societe de Geographie, 1842 (not

ava i l ab l e to me), c i ted by C o h e n in

Hesperis,

xiv, 20 f.

16.

E.

Ceru l l i , 'Ten ta t ivo ind igeno

di

f o r m a r e

un

a l fabeto

so-

m a l o , '

Oriente Moderno,

xii ( i g 3 2 ) , 212 f.; F r i e d r i c h ,

Z

e

^

sc

^fli

x c

^

(

x

9 3 8 ) , i 8 6 - i 8 g ; M a r i o M a i n o , ' L 'a l f ab e t o o s m a n i a

in

Somal i a , '

Rassegna

di

Studi Etiopici,

x 1

g51) ,

1 08-1 21 .

17.

F r i edr i ch , £eitschrift, xc i i ( i g38) , 2og-2 i8 , r e f e r r ing

to a

Russ i an pub l i ca t ion by V. G. Bogoraz , not ava i l ab l e he re .

18. The ospel in

Many Languages.

Spec imens of 6 6 5 L a n g u a g e s in

W h i c h

the

B ri t ish

and

Fore ig n Bible Socie ty

Has

Publ i shed

or

Ci rcu

l a t ed Some Por t ions of the W o r d of God ( L o n d o n , i g 3 3 ) , Nos. 286

( K o p u ) ,

308

( L a k a ) ,

322 f.

(L i su) ,

387 ff.

( M i a o ) ,

442

( N o s u ) ,

and

656 (Na-hs i ) . The recen t ly pub l i shed book by D. D i r i n g e r , The

Alphabet

( L o n d o n , i g 4 8 ) , pp. 184 f., has a short discussion of some

of these sys tems. These modern scr ip t s are different from the m u c h

older scr ip t s developed

by the

n o n - C h i n e s e p o p u l a t i o n s

of

C h i n a ,

briefly discussed

on p.

281 ,

n. 30.

Ver y l i t t le

is

k n o w n a b o u t

a

scr ipt

used in the Chin Hi l l s of B u r m a , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to Pau C h i n Hau,

t he l eade r

of a

s e c ta r ia n m o v e m e n t ,

was

revea l ed

to him in a

d r e a m by a d iv in i ty . F ro m ab ou t i go o on, he e x p e r i m e n t e d w i t h

several versions of the wr i t i ng , the t h i r d and final revision being

ca r r i ed

out in

1 9 3 1 .

The

wri t ing consists

of

twenty-on e s igns ,

of the

consonan t p lus

a

s t ruc ture , such

as pa,

ka la w hile voc al ic different ia

t ion

is

ind ica t ed

by

seven add i t ion al s igns,

as in pi

wri t ten/? a)- i .

An

u n u s u a l t y p e

is

represen ted

by

nine s igns

of

vowel p lus co nsona n t

s t ruc ture , such

as ab ag ad.

F o r m s

of

signs

are all

l inea r , ap pa ren t ly

f ree ly crea ted, a l though some of the m resemble La t in c ha rac t e r s .

See

Census

of

India,

1931, vol. xi:

Burma,

p a r t i:

Report

by J. J.

Bennigon (Rangoon , 1933) ,

pp. ig4f. and 217 f.

3 0 1

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER VI I, PAGES 2 I O ~ 2 I I

19. T h e o d o r - W i l h e l m D a n z e l ,

Die A nfdnge der Schrift

(Leipzig,

1 9 1 2 , p . 2 1 9 .

20 . J . Macmi l l an Brown, A New Pac i f i c Ocean Scr ip t ,

5

Man,

xiv

(1 91 4), 89 ff.; idem, Peoples and Problems of the Pacific, i (Lo ndo n ,

1927) ,

p p . 11 7-1 20. T h e following inform at ion on th i s w r i t ing is

found in Sau l H . R iese nbe rg an d Sh ige ru K ane sh i ro ,

C

A Caro l ine

Is lands Scr ip t ,

5

Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology,

Bul le t in 173 ( i9 60 ) , 27 3-3 33 . T w o types of scr ip t exis t on the

island s: th e older , scr ipt 2, consist ing of 19 s igns formed on th e

bas is of R o m a n cha rac te rs , and the you nge r , scr ip t 1, cons is ting of a t

least 78 signs, all freely invented. The signs stand for syllables of the

consonant p lus vowel type . The two scr ip t s , in t roduced on the i s lands

betw een 1907 an d 1909 by way of s timu lus d i ffusion f rom th e W est ,

ha ve a very l im i ted use a t the presen t tim e. I owe the inform at ion on

the Caro l ine I s l ands sc r ip t s t o Mess r s . E r i c P . Hamp and Sau l H .

R i e s e n b e r g .

2 1 .

Vom Bilde zum Buchstaben

(Leipzig , 1939) , p p . 44 an d 5 2, sup

po r t ed b y J . F r i edr i ch in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen

Gesellschaft,

xcv (1941) , 405 , an d G . R. D r iver ,

Semitic Writing

( L o n

do n, 1948) , p . 138.

3 2

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chapter VIII, pages 212-220

1. Die Erfindung der Schrift (Erlangen, 1938), p. 8.

2. I n Reallexikon der Assyriologie i i (1938), 92, and previously in

Wiener êitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes xxx iv (19 27 ), 79 f.

3. Cf. W . N or m an Brow n, T h e Beginnings of Civi l iza t ion in

India, Journal of

the

Am erican Oriental

Society

Supplement to vol . l ix ,

n o . 4 (1939) , pp . 32-44; Henr i Frankfor t , in Annual Bibliography of

Indian Archaeology for the Tear 1932 pp. 1-12; idem Cylinder Seals (Lon

d o n , 1 9 39 ), p p . 3 0 4 - 3 0 7 ; H e i n z M o d e , Indische

Friihkulturen

und ihre

Beziehungen zum Westen (Basel, 1944).

4. Her r lee Glessner Creel , Studies in E arly Chinese Culture (Bal t i

more , 1937) , and The Birth of China (Lo nd on , 1936) .

5. Th is ap pro ac h is repre sen ted, e .g . , by C ar l W . Bishop, T h e

Beginnings of Civi l izat ion in Eastern Asia, Journal of the Am erican

Oriental

Society

Supplement to vol . l ix , no . 4 (1939) , pp .

4 5 - 6 1 .

6. Ac co rding to Professor Lu dw ig Ba chh ofer; see prov isional ly his

a r ti c le Z ur F ruhge sch ich te Ch inas , Die Welt als Geschichte iii

bWl\ 257-279 esp. p. 279.

7 . E .g ., Te r r i en de Lac oup er i e , We stern Origin of

the Chinese

Civilisa

tion (Londo n , 1894); idem T h e O l d B a b y l o n i a n C h a r a c t e r s a n d

The i r Chinese Der iva t es , The

Babylonian

and

Oriental

Record ii (1887—

1888),

73 -99 ; an d C. J . B al l, Chinese and Sumerian (Ox ford, 1913).

8 . H . F rankfor t , T he Or ig in of M on um en ta l Arc h i t ec tu re i n

E g y p t , Am erican Journal of S emitic Languages and Literatures

lviii

(1941) ,

3 2 9 - 3 5 8 ; A .

Scharff

Die Friihkulturen Agyptens und Me so-

potamiens {Der Alte Orient xli ; Leipzig, 1941). Cf . also Helene J .

K an to r , T he Ear ly Re la t ions of Eg ypt w i th As ia , Journal of Near

Eastern Studies i ( 1942) , 174-21 3 , an d T h e Aeg ean and the Or i en t

in t he Second Mi l l enn ium

B.G.,

American Journal of Archaeology l i

(1947), 1-103.

9 . Cf. D ie Ents teh ung szei t der agyp t i schen Hieroglyp hensch r i f t

in archaologischer Beleuchtung, Forschungen und Fortschritte xviii

(1942) ,

172 f., w ith a fuller disc ussio n in his rchaologische Beitrage

zur

Frage der Enstehung der Hieroglyphenschrift {Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften Philos.-his t . A bt . , 1942, Heft 3 ) .

10. I . J . Gelb , Hittite Hieroglyphs i (Chicag o, 1931) , 81 .

11. He lmuth Th . Bosse r t , Santas und Kupapa (Leipzig, 1932), p p .

12.

M y basic approach to the problem of monogen esis of writing

3 3

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII , PAGE 2 2 0

is in per fec t ag ree m en t wi th the ideas expressed by A. L . K ro eb er ,

St imulus Diffusion,

5

Am erican Anthropo logist n.s. xli i (19 40 ), 1-20,

which became known to me on ly a f t e r t he comple t ion o f t he manu

scr ip t . I cannot c la im, however , to ta l or ig ina l i ty , as i t i s qui te pos

s ib le tha t I may have rece ived the s t imulus to wr i te about the

impor tance of s t imulus indi rec t ly f rom Kroeber by way of ta lks wi th

my co l l eagues i n t he Depar tment o f Anthropo logy .

3 4

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES to Chapter IX, pages 221-235

1. The Conquest of Civilization (New York, 1926), pp. 53 f .

2. Seven Pillars of Wisdom (London, 1935) , p . 25 .

3 . Leonard Bloomfie ld , Language (New York, 1933) , PP-

2

9

2

f-

4 . Op . cit., pp . 448 and 494 .

5. Cf . the sect ions on the ar t is t ic value of wri t ing by F. W. von

B i s s i n g , A l b e r t R e h m , a n d H e l m u t A r n t z i n W a l t e r O t t o , Handbuch

der Archaologie, i (Mi inc hen , 1939) ,

i74ff.

21 36° ., an d 34 8 f.; also

Schr i f t a l s Ornament

5

in Buck und Schrift, J a h r b u c h d e s D e u t s c h e n

Vereins fur Buchwesen und Schr i f t tum, i i (1928) .

6. Gf. , e .g. , Samuel Flury,

£

L e d e c o r e p i g r a p h i q u e d e s m o n u m e n t s

fa t imides du Ca i r e , Syria, xv i i (1936) , 365-376 ; E rns t Kuhne l ,

Islamische Schriftkunst (Berl in-Le ipzig, 1942), p p . 77 ff.; K u r t E rd -

m a n n , Arabische Schriftzeichen als Ornamente in der abendldndischen Kunst

des Mittelalters (Wiesbaden, 1953) .

7 . B . L . U l lm an , Ancient Writing and Its Influence (New York, 1932) ,

p p .

118 ff.

8 . Gf. the fu ll do cu m en ta t i on in A. Ber thole t , Die Macht der

Schrift in Glauben und berglauben Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akadem ie

der Wissenschaften zu B erlin. Phi los .-h i s t. Klasse , Ja h rg a n g 1948, N r . 1 ;

Ber lin , 1949); fo r a t t e s t a t i on in t he M o ha m m ed an t r ad i t i o n , s ee

H. A . Wink le r , Siegel und Charaktere in der muhammedanischen £auberei

(Berl in and Leipzig, 1930).

9 . For more examples cf . F ranz Dornseiff Das Alphabet in Mystik

und Magie (2nd ed. ; Ber l in , 1925) , pp . 2-10.

10.

J o s e p h J o ff re a n d T h e o d o r e M o n o d ,

C

A N ew W est -Afr ican

A l p h a b e t : U s e d b y t h e T o m a , F r e n c h G u i n e a a n d L i b e r i a , Man,

xli i i (1943), 108-112.

11. As observed by

Dornseiff

op. cit., p . 5.

12. Luc i en Levy-Bruh l , La mentalite primitive (4 th ed . ; Par i s , 1925) ,

p p . 4 2 4 - 4 3 3 -

13.

Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the Tear 1864, p . 379.

14. Ba ldwin Spencer , N ative Tribes of the Northern Territory of

Australia (London, 1914) , p . 36 .

15. E r l a n d N o r d e n s k i o l d , Picture-Writing and Other Docum ents by

Nile and Ruben Perez Kantule (Goteborg, 1928), pp. 18 f .

16. F r a n g oi s H a a b ,

Divination de

V alphabet

latin

(Paris , 1948), p. 9.

17. Desc r ibed in The Times of 29 th Ju n e , 1910 , an d r epo r t ed by

3 5

oi.uchicago.edu



NOTES TO CHAPTER IX PAGE 234

S. H. Hooke in Antiquity, xi 1937), 26 1. Th is cus tom is kn ow n also

e l sewhere ; c f . Gu ido Mazzon i apud Da v id D i r inger , L alfabeto ne lla

storia della c ivilta F i renze , 1937), p p .

xliiif

18.

Lucien Levy-Br i ih l , How Natives Think Lo ndo n, 1926), p .

179-

3 6

oi.uchicago.edu



NOT E S t o Chap t e r X , pages 236 -247

1 . Mar ion L . S t a rkey ,

The

herokee

Nation

(New York, 1946) , p .

8

2. See

U

adoption universelle

des

caracteres

latins

edi ted by the Socie te

des Na t ion s . Ins t i t u t In t e rn a t ion a l de Co ope ra t ion In t e l lec tue l l e

(Paris, 1934).

3. (O t to Jespe r sen and H olge r Pede r sen) , Phonetic Transcription

and Transliteration. S u p p l e m e n t t o Maitre phonetique (Ox ford, 1926).

4. What Is Man? and Other Essays (New York and London , 1917) ,

p . 262.

5. P rofessor G iorgio Le vi Del ia V ida ca l ls my a t ten t ion to the

fact that visible speech

5

i s a Da nt es qu e exp ression ; cf. vis ibi le

p a r l a r e i n

Purgatorio

10 , 95 , w he re the c inem a i s ant ic ipa ted .

6 . H en ry Swee t , A Primer of Phonetics (3rd ed . ; O xfo rd, 1906), p. 1 .

7. Sweet ,

op. cit.

a n d W i l h e l m V i e t o r ,

Elemente der Phonetik

(6th

ed.; Leipzig, 1915), pp. 16 f.

8 . R a lp h K . Po t t e r , V i s ib l e Pa t t e rn s of So un d , Science ci i (1945),

463-470 ; R . K . Po t t e r , G . A . Kopp , and H . C . Green , Visible Speech

(New York, 1947) .

9 . O t to Jespe r sen ,

Lehrbuch der Phonetik

(2nd ed. ; Leipzig und

Ber l in , 1913) , and Vie tor , op. cit. pp. 17 f.

10. Phonetics (An n A rbo r , 1943) , p . 155 .

11. T h . W . D a n z e l , Die Anftinge der Schrift (Leipzig , 1912) , pp .

212-218 .

12 . O t t o N e u r a t h ,

International Picture Language

(Lon don , 1936) ,

a n d idem Basic by Isotype (Lo ndo n , 1937).

13.

Op . cit.

p. 263.

°7

oi.uchicago.edu



oi.uchicago.edu



INDEX

Abbadie, A. d ' , 301

Abbreviations, 20, 87, 97, 226 f., 246 f.

c

Ab d a

c

a,

132

Abercrombie,

David

269

Ab iba^ al, 131 f., 177

Acoustic signals, 3, 8

Acronym, 226

Acrophony, 111, 138, 141, 143, 251,

284

Adams, R. F. G., 301

Advertising,

229

Aegean writings, 83, 92, 129, 147,

156 ff., 164 , 19 1 , 195 f., 20 4, 215 ff.,

291

Aesthetic

convention,

68, 230, 251

African wr itings , 4, 21 , 24 f., 48 ff., 79,

200, 208 f., 256 f., 268

Ahi r am,

131 ff., 139, 146 f., 177, 180

Akkadian

cuneiform,

61 , 68, 183, 191 ,

252

Akkad ogram, 106

Alaskan writings, 21, 32 ff., 106, 193,

207 f., 210 f., 299

Albright W. F., 123, 168 ff., 259, 263,

286 f., 29 2, 294

Algonquin writing, 207, 298 f.

Allogram , 105, 248

Alphabetography, 13 ff. , 16, 54, 138

ff., 147 ff., 166 ff., 19 1, 197 f., 200

ff.,

207,

209 ff., 239, 248

Amerindian w ritin gs, 19, 2 1 , 25 f.,

29 ff., 35, 38 ff., 65 f., 68, 7 4, 7 9, 1 03 ,

193 f., 20 0, 206 ff., 2 5 1 , 256 f., 26 8,

279

Amerindians, 2, 4, 13, 57

Amnesic aphasiacs, 22

Analphabetic not at io n, 242 f., 245

Anap tyxis, 15 1, 169

A nat olia , 37 , 60, 68, 82 f., 110, 121,

195,

216, 236

Anderson, H. Dewey, 299

Anglo Saxon runic, 141 f.

Animal branding, 38

Arabic writing, 122, 134, 137, 150 f.,

185 f., 18 8, 19 8, 209 , 227 ff., 237 f.,

244

Aramaeogram, 106

Aramaic w riting , 133 ff., 141 , 152,

176 f., 187,191,198, 202, 227 f., 248

Aristotle, 1, 13

Armenia, 60, 68, 121

Armenian writing, 141

Army, 142, 226

Arntz , Helmut 255, 305

A rt , 7 , 35 f., 97 , 190 ff., 21 2, 229 f.

Artificial languages, 241

Asoka, 187

Associative sig n, 99 f., 248

Assyrian cuneiform, 61, 196

Astronomy, 51, 54, 219 f.

Athens, 178 f., 181

Auditory

communica t ion ,

2 f., 8

Australians, 2, 21, 232

Auxiliary marks , 99 ,1 03 ,1 13 ,1 95 , 248

Avestan writing, 228

Aymara Indians, 50

<Azarba

c

al, 131, 158, 177

Aztec w ritin g, 12, 19, 51 ff., 57 ff.,

6 1 ,6 6 ,6 8 ,7 4, 111, 194, 257 f.

Babylonian cuneiform, 61, 196, 227

Bachhofer Ludwig, 303

Bacon, Roger 223 '

Ba

c

lat

123, 147

Ball, C. J., 303

Ballhorn, Friedrich, 273

Balti writing, 144

Balu

c

ah, 128, 132

Bambara, 50

Bamum writing, 21 , 79, 176, 183, 203,

208 ff.

Barnett R. D., 278

Barrakib, 135

Barthel,

Thomas

S., 257, 277 f.

Barton,

G. A., 258

Basa writing, 208

Bauer H an s , 1 29, 138 f., 144 , 263 f.,

286,

288, 292

Baumann, H. , 300

Bayer Franz, 25

Bea, Augustin, 264

Bedouins, 222

Behaviourists, 9 ff.

Behistun, 227

Bell, Melville, 242

Bennett

Emmett L., 94, 262

Bennigon , J . J. , 301

Berger Philippe, 254

Bergstrasser G., 289

Berry, J., 296

Bertholet

A., 305

B6te

writing, 300

Beth

Shemesh,

123, 130

Beyer Hermann , 257

Bibliography of writin g, 206, 254 ff.

Birdwhistell, Ray L., 269

309

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Bishop C arl W . 303

Bissing F . W . von 255 305

Blake Fra nk R. 292

Blegen Ca rl W . 179 294

Bloomfield Le on ard 270 ff. 305

Bomer Aloys 254

Boery P. 301

Bogazkoy 82 121 f. 148 171 2 28

230

Bogoraz V . G. 301

Bolinger Dw ight L. 271

Bolivia 50

Bonfante Giuliano vii 296

Bonwick James 33 274

Boodberg Peter A. 107 260 271

Book 21 3 23 2 234 f.

Book prin t 242

Bork F. 261

Bossert H el m ut h T . 81 f. 280 303

Bou strophedo n writing 178

Bomiaert Joseph 254

Bowman Elizabeth 290

Brachygraphy 242

Brahma 231

Br ahm l writing 142 144 185 187

Braille 7 f.

Brand en A. van den 264

Brazil 27

Breasted Jam es H . 221

Brebeuf

Georges de 13

Breuil Henri 256 274

Brice W illiam C 261 f. 282

Brinton Da niel G. 257

British 2

Brown J. M acm illan 302

Brown John Pair-man 266

Brown W . Norm an 303

Bruly-Bouabr6 Frederic 300

Brunner H. 259

Buchholz Hans-Gunther 265

Buchman H. 287

Bukele 208

Burrows E. 287

Butinov N . A. 278

Byblos writing s 60 12 0 128 f. 131 ff.

157 ff. 164 19 1 215 f. 266 291

Ca lend ar 41 ff. 58

Cam eron George C 263 285

Cameroons 208

Cam pbell S. G. 268

Ca naa nite Writing 134 140 152 228

Canada 207

Cap p ad o c ian s Old Assyrian

Caria n writ ing 200

Carlyle Thomas 221

C a r n a p Rudolf 270 f.

Caro line Islands writing 210

Caro lingian writing 229

Ca rpen ter Rh ys 178 f. 267 294

Carr ington J. F. 269

Cartoons s Comic strips

Casson Stanley 265

Ca techis m 56 f.

Celtiberian writing 144

Cerulli E. 301

Cha dwick J oh n 262 f. 282

Chalfant F. H . 85

Cha mb erlain Basi l Ha ll 266

Champoll ion Frangois 72

Ch an h u d a ro 9 0

C h a o

Yuen Ren 281 283

Chapouth ier Fernand 262

C h ar ts 18 f. 31 f.

C h

c

en M eng-c hia vii 86 118

Cherokee writ ing 19 21 79 144 193

203 206 f. 210 f. 237 f.

Ch eyen ne Indian s 30 f.

Child psychology 21 24 203

C hin ese w rit in g 27 f. 60 f. 69 f. 79

85 ff. 97 ff. 1 03 120 139 159 ff.

164 f. 184 19 1 19 3 195 f. 19 8

200 203 210 212 ff. 217 ff. 227

237 24 3 251 f. 260 f.

Cho itan writ ing 281

Chomsky Will iam 292

Ch ukc hi writing 209 ff.

Clark Cumber land 259

Classifier 95 99 103 113

Clea tor P. E. 254

Clerq Frans de 254

Clodd Edward 254

Cocchiara Giuseppe 269

Code x Botu rini 51 ff.

Codex Ham burgensis 53

Cohen Marce l 254 269 278 290

295

298 301

Co lour conv ention s 4 18 f. 42 272

Co mic strips 15 20 32

Co m mu nica tion Iff . 34 ff. 190 ff.

229

Congo 49

Co nson antal writing 76 ff. 148 186

205

248

Contenau G. 259

Co ntent wri t ing 36

C on tex t of sit ua tio n 19 f. 106 f. 251

Con ti Rossini C 136 275

Co ntinuo us illustration 32

Co nven tionalization 50 59 68 10 7 f.

110 f. 194 20 4 212 243 251

Co nve rgen ce 115 f. 251

Cook R . M . 294

Copan 55

Coptic wri t ing 77 141 202 228 296

C ori nth 179 f.

Cor tez Hernando 234

C ou nti ng sticks 3 f. 8

Cow an George M . 269

C ow rie mu ssels 4 f. 8

Craw ford O . G. S. 300

Cree writing 207 298

3 I O

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Creel, Herrlee Glessner, 107, 214, 261,

271, 303

Cressman, L. S., 26, 256, 274

C re ta n w ritin g, 60 f., 91 ff., 120, 137,

139, 145 f., 15 3, 155 f., 164, 1 95 ,

212,

215 ff., 262 f.

Critchley, Macdonald, 269

Croatian writing, 225

Croesus, 199

Cross,

Frank Moore, Jr. , 264, 285 ff. ,

292

Crown, Dr., 224

Cryptography, 143

Cuna Indians, 50

Cuneiform wr iting , 23 , 61 ff., 79,

120 ff., 133, 137, 143, 147 ff., 151 f.,

162 ff., 171 f., 17 5, 18 3, 202 , 227 f.,

240,

25 3, 258 f., 263

Cu rsive w ritin g, 74 f., 83 , 94, 97 ,

229 f., 24 1, 249

Cypr io te wr i ting , 72 , 97 ,114 ,120 ,137 ,

139, 145 f., 152 ff., 162 ff., 19 1, 196,

204,

215 ff., 265 f.

Cy pro-M inoan writing, 145, 153 ff. ,

215 f., 265 f., 291

Cyprus, 133, 153, 177, 180, 216

Czech writing, 225

Dactylograms, 283

Dakota Indians, 41 ff.

Daniel , Jo hn Franklin , 145,154, 265

Daniels, F . J. , 291

Danzel , Theodor-Wilhelm, 53, 254,

257, 276, 302, 307

Darius, 173, 175

Davidson, Daniel S., 256

Deaf-mutes, 2 f., 8 f., 244

Decipherment, 54, 56, 61, 72, 81, 85,

89,

91, 96, 114, 123, 129, 158

Definition of writing, 11 ff., 24, 34 f.,

97,

212, 229, 253

Degering, Hermann, 254

Deimel, Anton, 259

Delafosse, Maurice, 300 f.

Deli tzsch, Hermann, 254

Delougaz, P., 279

D em otic w riti ng , 75 f., 137 ff., 227

Dennett, R. E., 275

Descriptive-representational device, 4,

18 , 29 ff., 59, 68, 74, 191 ff., 249

Dessau, H., 268

Determinative,

s

Semantic indicator

Devanagarl writing, 185, 187

Dewdney, Selwyn, 256

Dhorme, Edouard, 129, 158, 259, 264,

266

Diacritic marks, 14, 148, 186 ff., 198,

225,

240

Diagrammatic sign, 99 f., 249

Dieterlen, Germaine, 276

Dikaios, Porphyrios, 290

D irec tion of signs, 21 f., 68 , 155, 178,

187, 230, 246

Diringer, David, 126, 152, 188 f., 254,

264, 27 3, 275 f., 278 , 2 81 , 28 5,

288 f., 297 ff., 306

D ive rge nce , 115 f., 251

Divine writing, 231

Doblhofer, Ernst, 254

Dogon, 50

Dornseiff Franz, 254, 305

Dow, Sterling, 262

Drawings , s Pictography

Drioton, Etienne, 128, 260

Driver, G. R., vi, 264, 285, 288, 293,

297,

302

Dugast, I . , 300

Dunand, Maurice, 128, 131, 158, 264,

266,

286 f., 29 3

Du Ponceau, Peter Stephen, 107

Dussaud, Ren6, 131, 138, 261, 287

East Syriac writing, 186

East Turkestan, 6

Eas ter Island inscr iption s, 60 f., 278

Ebeling, Erich, 287, 293

Ebert, Max, 28, 254, 274

Eckardt, Andr6, 269

Eco nom y, 69, 72, 80, 83, 109, 175, 251

Edalion, 155

Edel, Elmer, 292

Edgerton, Franklin, 283

Edgerton, William F., vii, 118, 168,

170,

259, 271, 280, 292

Eells,

Walter Crosby, 299

Egbert , Jam es C , 268

Egypt, 37, 60

Eg ypti an hierog lyphic , 12, 18 f., 23 ,

27 f., 35, 60,

63,

68, 72 ff., 82, 97 ff.,

120,

137 ff., 14 3, 147 f., 152, 162 ,

165,168 ff., 173, 183,191 ff., 201 f.,

212, 215 ff., 227 ff., 236 f., 24 3,

248 ff., 259 f.

El-Hadr, 123, 285

Elam, 60, 89

El am ite cune iform , 68 , 120 f., 162,

165,

191, 196, 200, 213, 227 f.

Eliba

c

al , 131 f., 177

Eme-sal writing, 114, 120

Emirgazi, 216, 234

Emission of com m unic ation , 1 f., 10

Engelhart, Ben, 254

En glish w riti ng , 13 f., 12 1, 198, 200,

207,

224 ff., 237 ff.,

248

f., 251

Enkomi, 153 f.

E pig ra ph y, 11 , 22 f., 132, 176

Epistemology, 23, 236

Erdmann , Kur t , 305

Erech , s Uruk

Erkilet, 83, 114

E r m a n , Adolf 76, 259, 279

Eskimos, s Alaskan writings

3

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Ethiopic writing, 134, 137, 140, 149 f.,

152,

185 ff., 198, 201, 209, 294

Etruscan writing, 289

Etymology of word wr iting , 6 f.

Eva ns , A rt h u r J. , 91 f., 95 f., 153 f.,

262,

282

Evans, J. , 207

Ev olution of writing , 2 1, 23 , 78 f.,

165 f., 173 ff., 199 ff., 210 f., 21 8,

236 ff.

E w e ,

4, 48 f.

Execration texts, 168

Expression, 1

Fairman, H. W., 259, 284

Falk enste in, A da m , 62 , 64, 66 f., 107,

259,

278 f.

Falkner, Margit, 267, 294

Fan-ch

c

ieh writing, 87 f.

Fa r a period, 115

Farwell, Byron E., vii

Faulkner, R. O., 283

Faulmann, Carl , 254

Fayyum, 127 f.

Fevrier, James G., vi, 188, 255, 264,

278,

281

Finnish writing, 241

Flamand, G. B. M., 256

Fletche r, Alice C , 299

Flight, John W., 264

Flower lang uag e, 3, 8, 19, 250

Flury, Samuel, 305

Fohi, 231

Fo reru nne rs of writin g, 24 ff., 184,

190 ff., 200, 206 ff., 249

Forke, A., 88, 281

Formal evolution, s Outer develop

ment

Forrer, Emil O., 81, 206, 293

Fossey, Charles, 77 ,15 5, 161, 189, 255 ,

259, 295

Fox, Douglas C , 25, 256

Fox writing, 143, 207, 299

Fractions, 102

France, 27 f.

Francis, W. Nelson, 272

Frank , C , 2 61, 282

Franke, O., 280

Frankfort, H. A. Groenewegen, vii

Frankfort, Henri, vii, 303

French Guinea, 208

Fr en ch w ritin g, 224 f., 227

Friedman, David Noel, 285, 287, 292

Friedrich, Johannes, 107, 138, 188,

210, 25 5, 260 , 2 63 f., 267 f., 27 6,

279, 2 83 ff., 293 f., 29 6, 298 ff.

Frobenius, Leo, 25, 256

Fu nctio nal cha racter of writing, 15 ff.

Furumark, Arne, 262, 282

Future of writing, 201 f., 236 ff.

Gabriel, A., 37

Gaerte , Wilhelm Otto , 267

Gaertringen, F. Hiller von, 254, 267

Galla writing, 301

G ard ine r, A lan H ., 7 5, 102, 122 f.,

168,

259, 264, 270, 280, 282 ff.

Gardner, E. A., 267

Gardthausen, V. , 267

Gaster, T. H., 264

Gelb , Adhemar, 273

Gem lan gua ge, 3, 8, 19

Geometr ic , s Linear

Georgian writing, 288

German writing, 224, 226

Germanic runic, 137, 139, 141

Gerze writing, 208

Gesture language, 2, 8, 10, 20, 40 f.,

102,

191, 244, 283

Gezer, 123, 127, 132

Giegengack, A. E., 255

Ginneken, Jacques van, 48, 283

Glagolitsa writing, 141, 144

Gleason, H . A., Jr . , 272

Gokce, N., 278

Goldstein, Kurt, 273

Gollmer, C. A., 270

Gordon, Cyrus H., 286

Gothic writing, -229

Gould, G. P., 262, 282

Grammatology, v , 23, 249

Greece, 60, 92, 96, 215, 231

Greek writing, 79, 139, 141, 143, 149,

152,

166, 168, 176 ff., 191, 197 f.,

200,

204 f., 227 f., 236 ff., 24 4, 25 2,

267,

289

Green, H . C , 307

Griaule , Marcel , 276

Grimme, H. , 286

G r o h m a n , Adolf 294

Groot, Johannes de, 146

Grotefend, Georg Friedrich, 61

Group writing, 168 ff.

Grumach, Ernst , 266

Guatemala, 51

Guiges, P.-E., 286 f.

Gunn, Batt iscombe, 284

H a a b ,

Francois, 305

Hagia Triada, 92

Halle , Morr is , 273

Hal le lu jah man , 28

Hallo, William W., 286, 289 f.

Hallock, Erna S., vii

Hallock, Richard T., vii

Hammurap i Code , 108

Hamp, Eric P. , 302

Harappa , 90

Harland, J . Penrose, 267

Hathor, 74, 123

Hattic cuneiform, 121, 148, 171

3 1 2

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Hebrew writing, 69, 137, 150, 166 f.,

185 f., 188, 191 , 197 f., 227

Hebrews, 58

Hellinga, W. G., 257

Heraldic symbols, 36

Heras ,

H., 261

Herdner, A., 286

Herodotus, 5

Hertz, A., 138

Herzog, George, 269

Hieraconpolis, 72, 74

H ie ra ti c wri tin g, 75 f., 137 ff.

Hieroglyphic, s Egyptian, Hit t i te ,

Cretan

Hietzsch, Otto, 298

Hill, Archibald A., 272, 276

Hinz, Walther, 261, 293

Hiragana writing, 159, 161

Hittite cuneiform, 68, 105, 121 f., 171,

228

H itt ite hiero glyp hic, 27 f., 60 f., 72 ,

79,

81 ff., 97 ff., 137, 164 f., 170 ff.,

175,

1 83, 191 , 193, 195 f., 200 , 202 ,

212,

215 ff., 230, 234, 249, 251, 260

Hockett, Charles E., 272

Hoenigswald, H. M., 272

Hoffman, W alter Jam es , 255, 274, 299

Hogben, Lancelot, 255

H om op ho ny , 108 f., 240 , 249

Honduras, 51

Hooke, S. H., 306

Hopei, 87

Hopkins, L. C., 271, 282

Horror vacui, 230

Horsfield, G., 128, 286

Horus, 74, 102

Howard, James H. , 275

Hrozny, Bedfich, 81, 260

H um an writ ing, 231

Hungarian writing, 142, 144

Hunter, G. R., 261, 282

Hurigana writing, 162

H ur ri an cuneifo rm, 120 f., 139, 148,

162, 165, 171 ff., 191, 196, 227 f.

Hy att , Jam es Phil ip , 289

Ibarra Grasso, Dick Edgar, 276

Iberian writing, 144, 289

Identifying-m nem onic device, 36 ff.,

191 ff., 249

Ideography, 13, 29, 35, 65, 107, 110,

205,

249

Ihm, M., 268

Imbellon i, J. , 278

Importance of writing, 221 ff.

Incas,

4

Indians, s Amerindians

In di e writin gs, 149 f., 186 ff., 191 , 198,

239

Indo-Europeans, 13, 80

Indus Valley, 60, 90, 195, 213

Inne r development, 35, 51, 80, 85,138 ,

143,

146, 181, 184, 195, 200, 217 f.,

239, 251 f.

Inscriptions, 22, 51 , 234

In te rn al m odification, 187 f., 198

International Phonetic Association,

240 f., 245 ff.

Inv en tion s, 12, 63 , 136, 140, 143 f.,

167 f., 181 ff., 198 f., 20 4, 21 7,

231 f., 296

Ipsen, G., 266

Isemonger, N. E., 266

c

I sman Yusuf 209

Isotype, 244

Istrin, V. A., 255

Italian writing, 225

Italians, 2

Jackson, A. T., 257, 274

Jacobi te , s West Syriac

Jacobsen, Thorkild, vii, 151

Jakobson, Roman, 273

Jamme, A. , 287

Janssens, G., 266

Japanese writing, 72, 120, 139, 159 ff.,

191,

196, 266, 290 f.

Jeffery, L. H., 267, 294

Jeffreys, M. D. W., 300

Jemdet Nasr per iod, 89

Jens en, H an s, 155, 160, 188, 255, 270,

276,

278, 281, 298 ff.

Jerusalem, 123

Jesp ersen , O tto , 242 f., 307

Joffre, Joseph, 300, 305

Johnson, Franklin P., 294

J6kai , Maurice, 5

Jones ,

William, 298

K a h u n , 127 f., 132

Kainz, Friedrich, 271

K

c

ai-shu writing, 159 f.

Kallner, Ruth B., 285

Kana writing, 159 ff., 165

Kanamajir i wri t ing, 162

Kanazawa, S. , 291

Kaneshiro, Shigeru, 302

Kanji writing, 162, 165

Kant , Immanuel , 221

Kantor , HeleneJ . , 303

Kantule, Ruben Perez, 232

Kapelle writing, 208

Karlgren, Bernhard, 261

K ata ka na writing, 159 ff.

Kauder, Christian, 207, 298

Kees,

H., 259

Keller, Helen, 3

Kelley, C. F., 86

Kent, Roland G., 290

Kenyon, Frederic G., 255

Kharosthi writing, 185, 187

Kickapoo writing, 207

3 3

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Kidd, Kenneth E. , 256

Kinesics, 269

Kingsley, Mary H. , 4

Kisimi Kamala, 208

Klingenheben, A., 300

Knorozov, Yuriy V., 258, 276, 278

Knossos, 91 f., 96

Knot wri t ing, s Qu ip u

Kober, A. E., 96, 262

Koch-Griinberg, Theodor , 27, 257,

274

Konig, Friedrich Wilhelm, 263, 285

K o p p ,

G. A., 307

Kopu writing, 301

Korean writing, 142, 144

Kpelle , s Kapelle

Kramer, S. N. , 279

Kretschmer, Paul , 290

Kroeber, A. L., 304

Kriickmann, O. , 269

Ktistopoulos, C. P., 96

Kiihn, Herbert , 257, 274

Kuhnel , Ernst , 305

Labarre, Weston, 18

Labat , Rene, 259

Lacau, Pierre, 259

Lachish, 123, 127

Lacouperie , Terr ien de, 303

Laess ê, J 0rgen, vii

Lagash, 230

Laka writing, 301

Lambdin, Thomas O. , 264, 286, 292

Landa, Diego de, 54

Lane, George S., 270

Lange, R., 266

Lange, Wilhelm H. , 255

L an gu ag e, 3, 8 ff., 15, 26, 223 ff., 234,

240, 271

Larfeld, W., 267

Laroche, Emmanuel , 260

Lassort, A., 300

Latin writing, 13, 141, 144, 168, 177,

185 f., 19 1, 197 f., 20 0, 2 07, 210 ,

227 f., 232 f., 237 ff., 244 ff., 267 f.

Lawrence, T. E., 224

Leander , Pontus, 292

Lebanon, 131

Le Goq, A. von, 270

Lefebvre, Gustave, 78, 284

Le hm ann -H aup t, G. F. , 138, 263, 276,

298

Leib ovitch , J. , 123 ff., 132, 265, 285

Lejeune, Michel, 262, 282, 290

Lepsius, G. R., 255

Leslau, Wolf, 275, 288

Levi Delia V ida, Giorgio, vii, 307

Levy-Bruhl, Lucien, 269, 305 f.

Liberia, 208

Lidzbarski, Mark, 133 ff. , 265, 288,

292

L in ea r w riti ng , 27 f., 37, 93 ff., 102,

132 f., 144, 146, 207 f., 217, 230, 249

Ling uistic elem ents, 13 ff.

Lin gui stic transfe r, 7 f., 249

Linguists, 9 ff., 35, 240

Linton, Ralph, 296

Lisu writing, 301

Lit tmann, Enno, 289

Liu Chou-Shiang, 281

Lloyd, S., 279

Lo Tchang-Pei , 281

Locke, L. Leland, 269

Logo-syllabic writin gs, 60 ff., 191 ,

193 ff., 200 ff., 239, 250

Lo go gra ph y, 13 f., 17, 35 , 65 ff.,

120 ff., 162,165,193 ff., 206 ff., 239,

249 f.

Lohse, E., 257

Lolo writing, 281

Lone-Dog, 41 f.

Long, Richard G. E., 258, 277

Lotz, John, vii, 270

Loukotka, C., 255

Luquet , G. H. , 273

Luria, A. R., 273

Luristan bronzes, 58

Luwian cuneiform, 121

M a a s ,

P., 267

Mcintosh, Angus, 272 f.

M ack ay, Ern est J . H ., 261 f.

MacMichael , H. A. , 301

Maenchen-Helfen, Otto , 280

Magic, 26, 36, 61, 230 ff.

Maino, Mario , 301

Maisler, B., 265

Malinowski, B., 19, 66

M all ery , G arr ick , 2 9, 31 f., 34, 38 ff.,

50,

2 57, 269, 27 2, 274 f., 277, 283 ,

298

Mallia, 92

Mallon, Jean, 268

Mandean writing, 168, 186

Manual wri t ing, 19, 250

Manuscripts, 22, 51

M a p s , s Charts

Marcus, Ralph, vi i

Marichal , R. , 268

M arshall , Jo hn , 90, 262

Martin , M., 266

Martinak, Eduard, 271

M as d Azil, 27, 37

Mason, William A., 255

M ason s m arks, 37

M ass on , O livie r, 265 f., 290

Materials, 22, 69, 86, 91, 213

M ath em atic s, 18 f., 51 , 54, 97, 228

Matres lectionis, s Plane writing

Maya writing, 12, 51, 54 ff. , 61, 66,

194, 257 f.

Mazzoni, Guido, 306

J

4

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

M ea nin g, 10, 18 ff., 65, 106, 191 , 250

Mechanical writing, 250

Megiddo, 123

M e g u m , s Micmac

Meillet, Antoine, 290

Meinhof

Carl, 4, 49 f., 275, 296

Mende writ ing, 208

Menes, 74

Mentz, Arthur, 178, 267

Meriggi, Piero, 81, 260, 262, 266, 282,

290

Meroitic writing, 143

Me§a

c

, 131, 134, 167, 177, 180

M eso pota m ia, 60 f., 121 , 130, 195

Mesopotamian writ ing,

s

Cuneiform

writing

Messerschmidt, L., 259

Metraux, Alfred, 278

Mexican , s Aztec

Meyer , Gerhard Rudolf 292

Miao writing, 301

Michelson, Truman, 299

Michigan, 29 f.

Micmac writing, 207, 298

Milik, J. T., 285

Military insignia, 37

Mimicry, 2, 8

M i n o a n , s Cretan

Mirabeau, 221

Miranda Rivera, Porfirio, 269, 276

Mitchell, J. Leslie, 277

M ne m on ic signs, 3 f., 36 ff.

Moabite stone, 131, 134, 180

Mode, Heinz, 262, 303

Modrze, Annelise, 255

Moller, G., 76

Mohenjodaro, 90

M om enta ry co mm unication, 2 f., 8

Money, 10, 199

Monod, Theodore, 300, 305

M onog enes is of writ ing , 60 f., 212 ff.

Montet, P. , 286

Monumental writing, 97, 229 f., 250

Mo orhouse, A. C , 255, 279

Morenz, S., 259

Morley, Sylvanus G., 55, 258

Morris, Charles, 9, 270

Morse writing, 186

Moso writing, 281

Mt. Hymettos, 179

Mt. Tabor , 130

Movable type, 157

Musical notation, 14

Mycenae, 92

Nabatean writing, 122

Nabu, 231

Nahsi writing, 301

Names of signs, 138, 140 ff., 150, 288

N ar m er p ale tte, 18 , 73 f., 192

Naville, E., 259

Navy, 143

Nelis,

Hubert , 255

Neo-A ssyrian cuneiform, 1 51 , 202

Neo-B abylonian cuneiform, 151, 202

Neo-Punic writing, 168 ff., 186, 292

Nestor ian,

s

Syriac

Neugebauer , O. , 282

Neurath , Otto , 307

New Mexico, 29

Nigeria, 50

Nisaba, 231

Niuchih writing, 281

Njoya, 208 f.

Noldeke, Theodor, 176, 288

Nordenskiold, Erland, 232, 257, 275,

305

Noreen , Adolf 269

Norse runic, 141 f.

North Carolina, 206

Nosu writing, 301

Nsibidi writing, 50

Nubian writ ing, 301

Number o f signs, 115 f., 12 1, 134, 156,

158,

162, 164,172 ff.

Nu mb ers, 13, 48, 59,

8 9 ,1 2 1 ,

177, 193,

277

Numidian writing, 142, 144

Oberi Okaime writing, 3Q0 f.

Obermaier , Hugo , 27

Obermann , Ju l ian , 265

O bj ec t w rit in g, 3 ff., 8, 49 f., 250

Odin, 231

Ogden, C. K., 270, 272, 279

Ogg, Oscar, 275

Ogham writ ing, 144

Oglala, 38 ff.

Ogmios, 231

O jibw a Ind ian s, 31 f., 44 ff.

Okurigana writ ing, 162

Old Akkadian cuneiform, 69, 89, 114,

120,

165, 202

Old Assyrian cuneiform, 69, 108, 114,

120,

165, 202

Old Babylonian cuneiform, 108 f., 202

Oleai writing, 210

Olmstead, A. T. , 287

Optic signals, 2, 8

Oral t radit ion, 222

Orchomenos, 92

Order of signs, 177, 193, 230, 251

Oregon, 26

Organic, 242

Orientalists, 35

Ornamenta t ion , 229

Orth ogra phy , 224 ff.

Ostermann, George F. von, 255

Otten, H. , 293

O t t o ,

E., 259

O t t o ,

Walter, 178, 255, 305

J

5

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

O ut er dev elop m ent, 27 f., 35, 69, 70,

76,

137, 177, 181, 184, 188, 200,

217 f., 230, 252

Palaic cuneiform. 121, 148, 171

Paleography, 11, 22 f.

Palestine, 123, 146 f., 196

Palestinian writing, 133 f.

Palmer, Leonard R. , 262

Panama, 50

Panfilov, V., 271

Paper, Herbert H., 290, 293

Paralanguage, 270

Pars pro toto convention, 97

Pasigraphy, 19, 243 ff., 250

Pau Chin Hau, 301

Pebbles, 4, 8

Ped ersen, H olge r, 15 3, 255, 290, 307

Pedersen, J. , 254

Peet, E. T., 282

Pehlevi writing, 106, 200, 228

Pelliot, P., 261

Pernice, E., 255

Perrat , C , 268

Persian cuneiform, 68, 172 ff., 183,

227 f., 267, 293

Personal names, s Proper names

Persson, Axel W., 262

Peru, 4, 50

Peruzzi, Emilio, 262

Petrau, Alfred, 255

Petrie, William M. Flinders, 122, 127,

144, 256, 285, 288

Petroglyph, 24, 250

Petrogram, 24, 250

Phaistos writing, 60, 120, 153, 155 ff.,

191, 215 f., 26 6, 291

Philologists, 11, 13, 107, 110, 249

Phoenician writing, 120, 132 ff., 140,

142 f., 146, 152, 167, 176 ff., 19 1,

197

Phonetic complement,

s

Phonetic in

dicator

Phon etic indicator, 67, 71,10 1 ff., 118,

197, 250

Phonetic transfer, 67, 101 ff., 250

Ph one tizatio n, 5, 12, 51, 54, 59, 66 ff.,

74,

104, 106 f., 193 f., 204, 208 , 212

Phonograph records, 7 f .

Ph on og ra ph y, 10 f., 13 , 15 ff., 60 ff.,

190 ff., 250

Photography, 229

Ph rase ogra phy , 14, 50, 246, 250, 269

Pi cto gra ph y, 7 f., 11 , 24 ff., 29, 35 , 62,

69 f., 82 f., 86 , 97 f., 13 2, 140,

146,

155 f., 190 ff., 206 , 208 ff., 212 ,

216 ff., 229 f., 236 f., 24 4, 250 f.,

256 f.

Pike,

Kenneth L., 243, 296

Pisani, Vittore, 265, 288

Ple ne w riti ng , 148 f., 166 ff., 175 ,

181 ff., 197, 204, 209

Poebel, A., 70, 107, 152, 288 f.

Poles, 41

Polish writing, 225

Pollard system, 281, 301

Polychrome Bible, 19

Polyg enesis of w rit in g, 60 f., 212 ff.

Polyphony, 71, 251

Pope, M., 262, 282

Position, 19, 106 f., 252

Potter, Ralph K., 307

Potter s m arks, 37

Praetorius, Franz, 152, 289

Primary sign, 99 f., 251

Primitive writings, 6, 11 f., 21 f., 24 ff.,

138,

164, 184, 20 3, 206 ff., 218 ,

256 f., 268

Pr op er n am es , 36, 39 ff., 53 f., 64, 66,

74,

87,103,110,114 f., 118 f., 194

Property marks, 36, 64 f.

Prosodography, 14, 113, 252

Proto-Armenian inscriptions,

5

60

Proto-Elamite writing, 60 f., 89 f., 121,

195, 212 f., 218 f., 261 , 282

Pr ot o- In di c w riti ng , 60 f., 90 f., 187,

195,

212 f., 218 f., 261 f., 282

Proto-Palestinian writing, 120 ,123 ff. ,

132

Proto-Sinaitic, 120, 122 ff., 132 f., 138,

146 f.

Prou, M., 268

Proverbs, 4, 48 f.

Psychology, 9, 79, 203, 245

Ptolemaic period, 202

Pugliese CarratelH, G., 93, 262 f., 282

Pulgram, Ernst, 272 f.

Punctuation marks, 14, 99, 113, 195

Pylos,

92, 96

Pyramid texts, 114, 168, 202

Qimhi, David, 167

Quibell, J. E., 73

Quipu knot writing, 4, 8, 19, 250

Ramses II , 18

Ras Shamrah, 129 f., 167, 227

Rawlinson, Henry, 61

Read, Allen W., 270

Reading, 10, 15, 106 f.

Reb us writ ing, 13, 74, 85, 99,1 04 ,10 7,

194 ,252

Re cep tion of com mu nica tion , 1 f., 9 f.

Red-Cloud, 39 f.

R ed uc tion , 7 1 , 105, 175, 183 f., 197,

204, 252

Reform of writing, 239 ff.

Rehm, Albert, 255, 305

Religion, 230 ff.

R6musat, Abel, 280, 284

Renan, Ernest, 221

316

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Re na rd E. B. 257

Re prese ntation al writing 36

Rhodesia 25

Rich ards I . A. 272 279

Riesen berg Saul H . 302

Riukiu Islands 4

Ro berts E. S. 267

Roeder Gunther 254

Ro ma nce writ ings 225

Romanization 240

Ro nze vall e S. 268 f.

Ros a L. A. 269

Rosary 3 8

Rosenkranz B. 287

Ro setta stone 72 227

Ro sthorn A. von 261

R un ic writing 144 186

Russian writing 228 244

Rut ten M. 259

Ruweiseh 131 177

Saite period 114

Salamis 153

Salvador 51

Sandys J. E. 268

Sans krit writin g 151 164 187 201

Sapatba

c

al 132 177 180

Sapir Edw ard 270 f.

Sardinia 177 180

Sattler Paul 256

Sauk writing 143 207

Scandinavians 2 222

Schafer Heinrich 287

Schaeffer C. F . A. 265 290

charff A. 259 303

Sch eil V . 88 f.

Schellhas P. 258 277

Schertel Ernst 266

Schindler Bruno 261

Schlag William 298

Schlauch Margaret 270

Schmitt Alfred 256 265 268 274

290

296 299

Schoolcraft H enr y R. 30 257 274

Sc ho tt Siegfried 256 259 f. 283 f.

297

Schrader O. 256 270

Schroeder Otto 290

Schubart Wilhelm 267

Schwarz Benjamin 266

Schwyzer Eduard 152 289

Scrib al schools 68 230

Scriptio defectiva 166

Scriptio plena s Plene writing

Scriptura qua drata 69 228

Sculpture 8

Seals

64 f. 194

Sebeok Thomas vii 299

Sec ond ary transfer 7 f.

Seele K eith C vii 284

Segert Stanislaw 290

Seidel A. 289

Seler Eduard 52 57 258 276

Selle Go tz v. 256

Sem antic indicator 99 101 ff. 113

195

229 252

Semasiography 11 13 15 106 190 f f.

200 ff. 206 ff. 252

Semiotic 9

Semites 13 178 184 198

Sem itic languages 7 80 122

Sem itic writings s West Semitic writ

ings

Se qu oy ah 206 f. 211

Sera blt el-H adem 122 f.

Serra-RafoTs J. de C 254

Sethe Kur t 76 f. I l l 211 256 260

265

272 280 284 296 f.

Sh an g D yn as ty 85 f. 213 f. 219

Shantung 87

Shechem 123 127 132

She wa writin g 149 ff.

Shor thand s Stenography

Shou-w6n 118

Siberia 209

Sicasica 50

Sierra Leo ne 208

Signs

1 ff. 50 58 230 252 f.

Sig nal s 2 f. 8

Signary 253

Sikwayi s Sequoyah

Silent talk 9

Simplified spellings 244 f.

Sin 67

Si na i 122 f. 136 146

Sinaitic writing 122

Sittig E. 266

Slavon ic writing s 186 225

Sobelman Harvey 266

Sollberger Edmond 290

Som ali writing 142 209

Song s 4 44 ff.

Sottas H. 260

Sources of inform ation 20 ff.

So uth Africa 24

So uth A rab ic writing 133 ff. 136 f.

143

149 187

Sp ain 27 f.

Spanish writing 225

Specific determ inative 105

Speech s Language

Speiser E . A. 263 279 286 290 293

Spencer Baldwin 305

Sprengling Martin 123 265 287

Stable com mu nication 3 ff.

S tandard iza t ion

s

Communica t ion

Starkey M arion L. 307

Steffens Franz 268

Ste nog rap hy 14 188 242 246 f. 25 0

276

Stew ard Julian H . 25 257 274

Stillwell Agnes N . 280 294

J

7

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

Stimulus, 63, 74, 79, 138, 164, 195,

203, 20 6, 21 1, 2 13 , 218 f., 304

Stokoe, William P., 269

Stiibe, R., 256, 270

Study of writing, 22 f.

Stur tevant , Edgar H. , 153, 290

Sub-linguistic ideographs, 18

Substitution cipher, 143

Sudan, 50

Sukenik, E. L., 285

Su m eri an w riting , 12 , 18, 27 f., 35,

50 f., 60 ff., 74 , 79 , 97 ff., 18 3,

191 ff., 196, 204, 212 ff., 227, 230,

243,

248, 250 ff., 279

Sumerogram, 105, 283

Sundwall, J. , 254, 263

Superstitions, 234

Susa, 89, 213

Swanson, Don ald C , 290

Sweet, Henry, 242, 307

Syllabic orthography, 168 ff., 266

Syllabography, viii, 14, 17, 60, 69 ff.,

75 ff., 107 ff., 120 ff., 1 9 1, 194 ff.,

200 ff., 207 ff., 253, 280

Sym bols, 1 ff., 15, 36 f., 40 , 60, 253

Syr ia , 60 , 82 f., 110, 121 f., 129 f., 13 6,

147, 196

Syriac waiting, 137, 150

System of signs, 1 ff., 253

Systematization,

s

Conventionaliza

tion

Tachygraphy , 242

Ta ctua l comm unication, 3 , 8

Tags ,

63 f.

Tai Chun-Jen, 282

T a i T u n g , 2 6 1 , 2 7 1 , 2 8 2

Tangut wri t ing, 281

Tasmania, 32 f.

Tattooing, 19

Taylor, Isaac, 189, 256

Tc han g Tche ng-M ing, 2 61, 282 f.

Tell el-

c

Ajjul, 123

Tell el-HesI, 123, 147

Tell es-Sarem, 123, 285

Tendency toward concrete specifica

tion, 21 f.

Tenevil, 209 f.

Teng Ssu-yxi, vii, 118

Te rm ino log y of w riti ng , 199 f., 248 ff.

Thebes (in Greece), 92

Thera, 179

Thinking, 9

Thompson , Edward Maunde , 267

Thompson, J. Eric S., 258, 276 f.

Thoth , 23

Thought wri t ing, 36

Thureau-Dangin , F . , 259

Thurnwald, R. , 284, 300

Till, Walter, 260

Tiryns, 92

3

T o g o ,

48

Toma writ ing, 208, 231

Tomkins, William, 47, 275

Tozzer, Alfred M., 258

Trager, George L., 270

Transcription, vii, 118, 253

Transjordan, 128

Transl i te ra t ion , v i i, 114 ,11 8 ,13 6 ,18 1 ,

253

Trappist monks, 2

Tribal names, 39 ff.

Tsâng Chien, 231

Ts

c

ao-shu writing, 159

Tschichold, Jan, 256

Tu rk ey , s Anatolia

Turkish writing, 228, 237 f., 240

Tusra t ta , 121

Tw ain , M ark , 2 41 , 245

Typology of writing, 8, 14, 16, 23,

34 ff., 50, 60, 97 ff., 107 ff., 120,

162 ff., 183 ff., 190 ff., 236 ff.

U ga rit ic w riti ng , 68, 129 f., 132 ff.,

167, 172, 175, 286, 289

Uldall, H. J., 272 f.

Ulea i , s Oleai

Ullendorff Edward, 289

U llm an, B. L., 178, 256, 265, 267, 294,

305

Ulving, Tor, 276

Unger , Eckhard, 259

Ungnad, Arthur , 35, 212

Un idirection al develop me nt, 200 ff. ,

252

Univ ersal w riting, 239 ff.

U rar tia n cuneiform, 68, 12 1, 162, 165,

196, 228

Ur-Nanse, 71

Uruk, 62 ff., 115

Vachek , Josef 272 f.

Vai writing, 208, 210

Vaillancourt, Louis-Philippe, 296, 298

Van n ic , s Urar t ian

Varagnac, Andre, 257, 274

Vats ,

Madho Sarup , 262

Vendryes, J. , 269

Ventris, Michael, 95 f., 263, 282

Vietor, Wilhelm, 307

Vincent, L. H., 128, 286

Virolleaud, Charles, 129

Visible speech, 242 f., 245, 307

Visual com mu nication , 2 ff.

Visual morphemes, 15

Voltaire, 13

Vo we l in dic atio n, 71 f., 75 ff., 148 ff.,

166 ff., 181 ff., 197 ff., 204, 209

Vowellessness, 79 ff., 138, 205

Wachtsmuth, F. , 279

Wampum belts , 4

8

oi.uchicago.edu



I N D E X

W ar chariot 214

Ward Lynd 32

Waterman Leroy 293

Wat t James 12

Weinberger Wilhelm 267

Weissbach F. H . 121 267 285

West Semitic writings 79 f. I l l 114

120

122 ff. 162 ff. 174 ff. 1 91

196 ff. 20 1 204 f. 209 236 ff. 24 6

248

263 ff.

Wes t Syriac writin g 186

Westermann Dietr ich 269 300

Weule Karl 256 270 274

horf Benjamin L. 258 270 276

Wido 231

Williams H . S. 256

Wilson John A. vii

Winkler H . A. 305

Winnebag o writ ing 207

Winter counts 41 ft.

W oodhea d A. G. 294

W or d division 14 19 103 1 29 156

Wou Yu-Tchan g 281

Wuttke Heinr ich 256

Yam agiwa Jose ph K. 266 291

Ya ma togana writ ing 159

Yao writing 281

Yehimilk 131 177

YeiVin S. 152 2 65 288 f. 292

Yezldi writing 142 144

Ylvisaker Sigurd C 151 289

Y oru ba 4 f.

Young Egerton R. 296

Y uca tan 51 54 f.

Zagros M ountain s 58

Zahan D. 276

Zimmermann Gi in te r 258

Zincirli 135 167 177 180

3 9

oi.uchicago.edu



PHOENIX BOOKS

P i Ernst

Cassirer

Paul Oskar

Kristeller

and John Herman

Randall

Jr. EDITORS:

T he R enaissance Philosophy of Man

P 2 Edward

Chiera:

T hey Wrote on Clay

P 3

John Dewey:

T he C hild and the Curriculum and T he School and Society

P 4 Friedrich

A. Hayek:

T he R oad to Serfdom

P 5 Jacques

Maritain:

Man and the State

P 6

Anselm Strauss

EDITOR: T he Social Psychology o f George Herbert Mead

P 7

Louis Wirth:

T he G hetto

P 8

T.V. Smith EDITOR:

Philosophers Speak for T hemselves: From T hales to P lato

P 9

T.V. Smith

EDITOR:

Philosophers Speak for T hemselves: F rom A ristotle to Plotinus

P io

A

Professional

Thief:

T he Professional Thief edited

by Edwin H.

Sutherland

P I I

John A. W ilson: The

Culture of Ancient Egypt

P 12 Gilbert

M urray:

T he Literature of Ancient Greece

P 13

Ernest Staples

Osgood: T he D ay of the Cattleman

P 15 R. S. Crane EDITOR: Critics and Criticism

abridged)

P 16 Karl Lowith: Meaning in History

P 17 T.V. Smith andMarjorie Grene EDITORS:

Philosophers Speak for T hemselves: F rom D escartes to Locke

P 18

T. V. Smith and

Marjorie

Grene EDITORS:

Philosophers Speak for T hemselves: Berkeley H um e and Kant

P 19 Paul Tillich: T he Protestant Era

abridged)

P 20

Kenneth

P. Oakley: Man the T ool-maker

P 21 W. E. Le Gros Clark: History of the Primates

P 22 Euclides da

Cunha:

R ebellion in the Backlands

P 23 John B. Watson: Behaviorism

P 24 B. A. Botkin: Lay My Burden D own

P 26 David

Cecil:

Victorian Novelists

P 27 Dan iel J. Boo rstin: T he G enius of Am erican Politics

P 28

David M. Potter:

People of Plenty

P 29 Eleanor

Shipley Duckett:

Alfred the Great

P 30

Rudolf Carnap:

Meaning and Necessity

P 31 Peter

H. Buck:

Vikings of the Pacific

P 32

Diamond Jenness:

T he People of the T wilight

P 33 Richmond

Lattimore TRANSLATOR:

T he O des of Pindar

P 34 Marjorie

Grene:

Introduction to Existentialism

P 35 C.

F. von Weizsacker:

T he History of Nature

P 36

A. T. Olmstead:

History of the Persian Empire

P 37 Charles

Feidelson

Jr.: Symbolism and Am erican Literature

P 38

R.W.B . Lewis:

T he American Adam

P 39

Smith

Palmer

Bovie TRANSLATOR:

T he Satires and Epistles of Horace

P 40 Giorgio de

Santillana:

T he C rime of Galileo

P 41-43

David

Grene and Richmond

Lattimore

EDITORS: Greek T ragedies Vols. 1-3

P 44 Richard M .

Weaver:

Ideas Have Consequences

P 45 Weston La Barre: T he Human Animal

P 46

Kate L. Turabian:

A M anual for W riters of T erm Papers T heses and D issertations

P 47 Joseph

Clancy TRANSLATOR:

T he Odes and Epodes of Horace

P 48 Richmond

Lattimore TRANSLATOR:

Greek Lyrics

oi.uchicago.edu



P H O E N I X B O O K S

P 49 Frieda Fromm -Reichmann: Principles of Intensive Psychotherapy

P 50-51 Harold

C. Goddard

The Meaning of Shakespeare,

Vols.

I and II

P 52

Zellig S. Harris:

Structural Linguistics

P 53

Robert Redfield

The Little Com munity

and

Peasant Society and Culture

P 54 Grover

Smith:

T . S. Eliot s P oetry and Plays

P 55

J. A. Pitt-Rivers:

The People of the Sierra

P 56

Leonard B. Meyer

Emotion and Meaning in Music

P 58 Laura Fermi: Atoms in the Family

P 59 Pierce Butler An Introduction to Library Science

P 60

E. H. Sturtevant

Linguistic Change

P 61

W. S. Try

on EDITOR: My Native Land

P 62

Franz

Alexander

and

Helen

Ross

EDITORS:

The Impact of Freudian Psychiatry

P 63 Richmond Lattimore TRANSLATOR: The Iliad of Homer

P 64 Arnold van

Gennep:

T he R ites of Passage

P

66 Alan Simpson:

Puritanism in Old and New England

P 67 Yves

R. Simon:

Philosophy of D emocratic Go vernment

P 68 Rosemond Tuve: Elizabethan and Metaphysical Imagery

P 69 Gustave

E. von Grunebaum:

Medieval Islam

P 70

Oscar Jd szi:

Th e D issolution of the Habsburg M onarchy

P 71

Nels And erson:

The Hobo

P 72 Elder

Olson:

Th e Poetry of D ylan Thomas

P 73 Howard

H. Peckham:

Pontiac and the Indian Uprising

P 74 Thorn

Gunn:

My Sad Captains and Other Poems

P 75 Isabella

Gardner

The Looking Glass

P 76

George Dillon TRANSLATOR:

Three Plays of R acine

P 77

Ed ward W. Rosenheim

Jr.: What Happens in Literature

P 78

Joshua C. Taylor

Learning To Look

P 79

Grosvenor Cooper

Learning To Listen

P 80

Carl Brid enbaugh:

The Colonial Craftsman

P 81 Hans Reichenbach: Experience and Prediction

P 82

W. Lloyd Warner

American Life {revised

P 83 Donald

F. Bond

A R eference Guide to English Studies

P 84 Edward

H. Levi:

An Introduction to Legal R easoning

P 85

W.R.

Bascom and

M.J. Herskovits

EDITORS: Continuity and Change in African Cultures

P 86 Robert Redfield and Alfonso Villa Rojas: Chan Kom

P 87

Robert Redfield

A Village That Chose Progress

P 88 Gordon

R. Willey

and Philip

Phillips:

Method and Theory in American Archaeology

P 89 Reuel Denney: In Praise of Adam

P 90

Eric

Wolf Sons of the Shaking Earth

P 91 Paul Good man: The Structure of Literature

P 92 Joachim

Wach:

Sociology of R eligion

P 93 Wallace Fowlie: M allarme

P 94

Myron Lieberman:

The Future of Public Education

P 95 Archibald

G . Baker

A Short History of Christianity

P 96 Harold J. Leavitt: Man agerial Psy chology

P 97 Gertrude

Himmelfarb:

Lord Acton

P 98

Mary K. Eakin:

Good Books for Children

P 99 Herman Melville: Billy Budd, Sailor, edited

by

Harrison Hayford and Merton

M. Sealts Jr.

oi.uchicago.edu



PHOENIX BOOKS

P

IOO-IOI Earl J. Hamilton A lbert Rees and Harry G. Johnson EDITORS:

Landmarks in Political

Economy, Vols. I and II

P 105

Sol Tax EDITOR:

Anthropology Today—Selections

P 106

John T. Waterman:

Perspectives in Linguistics

P 107 Howard Nemerov: T he Next R oom of the D ream

P 108 Horace

Miner

St. D enis: A French-C anadian Parish

P 1 0 9 LJ. Gelb: A Study of Writing

P n o Manley Thompson: T he Pragmatic Philosophy of C. S. Peirce

P i n Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom

P 112 Leo Strauss: T he Political Philosophy of Hobbes

P 1.13

Carl Brent

Swisher T he G row th of Constitutional Power in the United States

P 114

Lewis W.

Beck

A C om me ntary on Kant s Critique of Practical R eason

P 115

Robert A. Dahl: A

Preface to D emocratic T heory

P 116

Sebastian de Grazia:

T he Political Com mun ity

P 117

Herbert

A. Thelen: D ynamics of Groups at W ork

P 118

Grosvenor Cooper

and

Leonard

B. Meyer T he R hythmic Structure of Music

P 119 Joseph H. Greenberg Essays in Linguistics

P 120

Friedrich

A. Hayek: Capitalism and the Historians

P 121

Bertrand

d e Jouvenel Sovereignty

P 122 Frank H Knight: On the History and Method of Economics

P 123 Mitford M. Mathews: Beginnings of American English

P 124 Margaret Mead and Martha Wolfenstein: Childhood in Contemporary Cultures

P 125

George Steindorff

and

Keith

C .

Seek:

W hen Egypt R uled the East

P 126

Alan

Gregg For Future D octors

P 127

Milton Crane:

Shakespeare s P rose

P 128

Michael Polanyi:

T he Study of Man

P 129

John P. Dean

and

Alex Rosen:

A M anual of Intergroup R elations

P 130 Wa lter J. Blum and Harry Kalven Jr.: T he Uneasy Case for Progressive T axation

P 131 Perry D. LeFevre: T he Prayers of Kierkegaard

P 132 Merlin Bowen: T he Long Encounter

P 133

lexander

Heidel T he Babylonian Genesis

P 134 Kate L. Turabian: S tudent s Guide for W ritin g C ollege Papers

PHOENIX

S C I E N C E S E R I E S

PSS 501

Carey Croneis and William C . Krumb ein:

D own to Earth

PSS 502 Mayme I. Logsdon: A Mathematician Explains

PSS 503

Heinrich Kliiver:

Behavior Mechanisms in M onkeys

PSS 504

Gilbert A. Bliss:

Lectures on the Calculus of Variations

PSS 505

Reginald J. Stephenson :

Exploring in Physics

PSS 506

Harvey B. Lemon:

From Galileo to the Nuclear Age

PSS 507

A. Adrian

Albert Fundamental Concepts of Higher Algebra

PSS 508

A. A. Michelson:

Light Waves and T heir Uses

oi.uchicago.edu