107
A B S T R A C T ThefirstattestedindigenouswritingsystemintheIberianPeninsulaisthe
so-called “Southwestern script”. I argue that this system is of Phoenician inspiration and
simultaneouslyofferanexplicativemodelforitsdevelopmentasanalphabet,lateronalso
the source of the Iberian semi-syllabary. This account, made primarily from a linguistic
standpoint,ultimatelyintendstodiscloseorthographicrulesofthescriptandphonological
featuresofitsunderlyinglanguage.
R E S U M O OprimeirosistemadeescritaindígenadaPenínsulaIbéricadocumentadoéadesignada
“EscritadoSudoeste”.Aqui,defende-sequeestesistemaédeinspiraçãofeníciae,simultanea-
mente,oferece-seummodeloexplicativoparaoseudesenvolvimentocomoalfabeto,consti-
tuindoposteriormentea raizdosemi-silabário ibérico.Esteensaio, realizadosobretudode
umaperspectivalinguística,temcomoderradeiropropósitoaveriguarregrasortográficasda
escritaecaracterísticasfonológicasdalínguasubjacente.
1. Introduction
ThreemajorwritingsystemswereusedintheIberianPeninsulainprotohistoricaltimes—thatis,fromtheendofBronzeAgedowntotheearlymomentsofRomanoccupationoftheterri-tory—towritelocalPre-Romanlanguages.TheyarereferredtogenericallyasPaleohispanicscripts.Theseweretheso-called“Southwesternscript”andSoutheasternandNortheasternIberian.
Withtwovarieties,theIberianscripthasbeenthusnamedinreferencetoanIronAgearchae-ologicalculturethatisassociatedtoabulkofPre-Romanpopulibroadlyknownas“Iberians”.ItsNortheasternvariety(henceforthNEIberian)wasusedinanareathatroughlycorrespondstotheSpanishLevant,whichisthereasonwhyitisalsoreferredtoas“Levantine”.AlthoughNEIberianhasbeendeciphered,itsunderlyinglanguage—alsoknownas“Iberian”—stilllargelydefiestrans-
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet1
MIgUELVALéRIO*
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138108
lation.Ontheotherhand,theSoutheasternvariety(henceforthSEIberian)remainsforthemostpartincomprehensible.Whilesometextsappeartobeinthesamelanguage,itseemsitwasalsousedforsomethingotherthanIberian.EventhoughitisdifficulttoestablishchronologicallimitstotheuseofSEandNEIberian,mostscholarswouldagreetoplacethembetweenthefifthandthefirstcenturiesBC,i.e.intheIronAgeII.TheNEIberiansemi-syllabarywaslateradoptedbytheCeltiberiansofthehinterland,whoadaptedittotheirIndo-Europeanlanguage.Apartfromthese,itisalsoworthmentioningtheexistenceofgreco-Iberian,anIonian-basedalphabetusedtowritetheIberianlanguage.Fortheirgeographicaldistribution,seeMap1.
ThescriptknownasSouthwestern(henceforthSW)hasalsobeendubbed“South-Lusitanian”,“Tartessian”or“Bastulo-Tartessian”amongotherdesignationsthatappealtoethnicandethno--geographicboundaries.SincetheethnolinguisticsituationoftheprotohistoricalIberianPenin-sulaisstillpoorlyknown,hereImakeuseoftheconventionalgeographic-baseddesignation.ThecorpusofSWcomprisestodaynearlyonehundredinscriptions,thevastmajorityofwhichwerefoundinsouthwestPortugal(thusitsdesignation)intheregionsofBaixoAlentejoandAlgarve.Some,however,hadtheirfind-spotsintheneighboringSpain,namelyinthearealocatedbetweenExtremaduraandWesternAndalusia(Map2).
Thechronologyofthisscriptistroublesome.Despitetheexistenceofsomegraffitionpot-tery,mostofthetextswereinscribedinstone-madestelaewhosefunerarynatureisrecognizedbuttheseareusuallyfoundtakenfromtheiroriginalcontextandreusedasconstituentsoflatertombs,oftenbeingbrokenforthatpurpose.Buttheiroriginal functioncanbesurmised,andnot justbasedonhowfrequentlytheyturnupinnecropoles.ThestelefromAbóbadaI(Fig.1),forinstance,wasdividedintotwomainfunctionalsections.Thelowerpartoftheblockwasshapedtothepur-poseofbeinginsertedontheground,allowingthesteletostandvertically.Theremainingsectionfunctionedasthesurfacewherethewrittenmessageandtheiconographicmotifwerecarved.ThesamelogicappliestothesteleofMestras(Fig.2).Raisingwrittenanddecoratedfunerarystelaewas,ofcourse,across-culturalpracticeintheIronAgeMediterranean—inadditiontoSyriaandAnatolia, itwasalsopresentintheAegeanandItaly,amongotherregions—butintheIberianPeninsulaitneednottobetakenasacaseofdiffusion2.
Map 1 DistributionofthePaleohispanicscripts. Map 2 ApproximatefindspotsofSWinscriptionsupto1996(Correia,1996,p.162,Fig.15).
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 109
Thedirectionofwritingisnotstable:itmaybeleftwardorrightwardandoftenfollowstheboustrophedontechnique.Textwasfrequentlyinscribedwithinstraightlines,calledcartelas(roughlytranslatableas“bands”).InthesteleofAbóbadaI,forinstance,theinscriptionconsistsoftwosec-tions,writtenleftwardsandrightwards,andonlytheleft-orientedportionofthetextiscontainedinaband(Fig.1).Word-dividersareveryrare;textno.35fromMestras(Alcoutim,Portugal)isanexception:wordsareseparatedbyverticalstrokes.
Fig. 1 SteleofAbóbadaI/textno.48–35x40cm(Correia1996,p.118).
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138110
Henceanyapproachseekingtoseparate lexemescanonlyrelyondistributionalanalysis,thatis,onecanonlyidentifythelimitstopossiblewordsbylookingforrepeatedsign-groupsindifferentinscriptions.Thescriptyieldsonegoodexampleofhowthismethodcanbeappliedtoundividedtexts.Thereisasequenceoftwolexemeswhichisrepeatedinaconsiderablenumberof inscribedstelae,accordinglychristenedas“funerary formula”. Ipresentbelow instancesofsign groups from some (not all) texts where those two lexemes can be identified and distin-guishedfromtherestofthecontent.Inoneinstance(text48,AbóbadaI),oneofthesigngroupsoccursalone.Theunderliningandverticaldividersareanartificialcreationofmine,meanttohighlightthelexemesinquestion.ForthesakeofsimplicityhereIstrictlypresentthesignsright-wards:
Fig. 2 SteleofMestras/textno.35–85x62cm(Correia,1996,p.105).
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 111
Text9: ...‡"9|Mòa9|nòwk9ni
Text13: ‡ÇZÇ|ia9ò|Mòa9|nòwk9nòi
Text15: ...i|Mòa9|b9
Text17: ...9ò|Mòa9|nòwk9nii
Text38: ..."9|Mòa9Mò|nòwk9n±i
Text47: ...òn"9|Mòa[9]Mò|nòwk9n±i
Text48: iaÇòL"Çsi9L|nòwk9n±i|sÇ...
Text54: s|Mòa9Mò|nòwk9n±i
This example is quite informative, as we are able to isolate two possible stems which fre-quentlyappearinconnectionand,inaddition,showtracesofsuffixationandevensomeagree-ment i.e. whenever stem 1 appears with suffix X, stem 2 usually (not always) comes next withendingY:
Stem1: Mòa9- > Mòa9-Mò
Stem2: nòwk9n- > nòwk9n-±i
Someauthors,readingk9niiandk9n±i askoniiandkonti, respectively,haveconnectedthesepresumedwordswiththeethnonymConii~Cynetes,thenameofaPre-RomanpeopleknownfromClassicalsourcesthatabidedinthesouthernareasofmodern-dayPortugal.Distributionalanalysis,however,showsthattheyareinrealitypartoftwolargerlexemesandverylikelyunrelatedtothatethnonym.
Somestelaewereretrievedfromfunerarycontextsinarchaeologicalexcavations.Archaeolo-gistswhostudied thematerialsdated thosecontexts inwhich theywere foundtobetweentheseventh and fifth centuries BC (Mederos & Cabrero, 2001, pp.101–103, with references) butbecausethestelaeinquestionhad,asarule,beentakenoutoftheiroriginalpositionsandreusedtobuildnewfunerarystructures,weknowthattheyarenecessarilyearlier.Forthisreason,itisdif-ficulttoestablishthetimelineofthewritingsystemcontainedtherein.
Thereispresentlynoholisticeditionofthecorpus.With81inscriptions,Correia(1996)wasthelastmostcompletecorpuspublished.InthisarticleIfollowthetextnumbersgiveninhiswork(Correia,1996,pp.167–168),whilepresentingsubsequentinscriptionsaccordingtotheirprove-nance,i.e.bymodernplace-name.
Amongtheinscriptions,onequitesingularobjectstandsout:theso-calledSignaryorTableofEspanca, found in the municipality of Castro Verde, in Baixo Alentejo, Portugal (Correa, 1990,p.132).Ithasnoarchaeologicalcontextandisundated.Thetable(48x28x2cm)isatwo-linewrit-ingexercisethatincludestwenty-sevensignsengravedintheupperrowandlessregularlyrepeatedinthelowerline.Forthisreason,itisoftenadmittedthatthefirstandupperrowductuscorre-spondstothestandardizedsystemaspresentedbyamasterscribetohisstudent,whoselessimpres-
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138112
siveletteringliesbelow.TheoutstandingcharacterofthisobjectmakesitofparamountimportancefortheunderstandingoftheSWscript—eventhoughtheabsenceofsomesignspresentinthestelaefromitssetofletterscloudsthenatureoftheirrelationship.Thenumberofsignsinthetableandthepresenceofvowelsshowthatthesystemrepresentedthereincanonlybealphabetic,whereastheorderofthefirstthirteenletterscloselyreflectsthatoftheWest-Semiticalephats.
The direct Phoenician derivation of the script is widely accepted (De Hoz, 1996, p.201;Rodríguez, 2000, inter alia), even though some proposals that reject it and favor a greek role(Schulten,1940;Untermann,1985,1997)—orbothgreekandAnatolianrole(Beirão,1990,p.118;gomes, 1997, pp.11–12; Silva & gomes, 1998, p.163) — in its design have been offered3. Thesourceofthewritingsystemwillbethefocusofsection2.
EvenmoreconsensualisthenotionthatallPaleohispanicscriptsareultimatelyinterrelatedandithasalwaysbeenassumedthattheyhaveacommonsouthernorigin(Correia,1996,p.8).Inotherwords,itisadmittedthattheSWscriptmighthavedevelopedintoSEIberian,whichthengavewaytoaNEvariant.
Regardingthedeciphermentstudiesonthescript,manyscholarsseemtoendorsetheviewthattheSWsignsmatchthoseofIberian,notjustinshapebutalsophonetically.Thedecipher-mentofIberian,namelyitsNEvariant,wasaccomplishedfromthe19thcenturyonwardsmostlywithbasisoncoinageandinscriptionsassumedlybearingonomasticelementsknownfromlatergreekandLatinsources,aswellasotherepigraphicmaterialbearingbilingualorquasi-bilingualLatin-Iberiantexts.Theresultwasacuriousmixed-systemofsemi-syllabicnaturewithsyllabo-graphicsignsforstopsandalphabetic(i.e.phonemic)onesforotherconsonantsandvowels(Med-eros&Cabrero,2001,p.97).Thissystemwasadvanced intheworksofgómezMoreno(1922,1943)andeventuallybecameconsensual.Thehistoryofdeciphermentandthelistofworksdeal-
Fig. 3 TheTableofEspanca(Correia,1996,p.22).
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 113
ingwiththenatureofPaleohispanicwritingsystemsarelong:IsubmitthereadertothedetailedaccountofMederos&Cabrero(2001,p.97),withrespectivebibliography.
WithparticularrespecttotheworkontheSWscript,thecurrentstateofaffairsderivesfromthepublicationofgómezMoreno’slastmajorworkinwhichheconsideredeveryprotohistoricalscriptofthePeninsulaasthesamesemi-syllabicsystem(gómezMoreno,1961,p.187).Aroundthesametimeanotherscholar,Schmoll,arrivedatsimilarresults:hepostulateda25-signsystemin which the 5 vocalic signs matched those of SE Iberian (Schmoll, 1961, 1962). Furthermore,SchmolladdedanotherpeculiardetailbynotingthataftereachsignthatmatchedanIberiansyl-labogram,aletterwiththecorrespondingvocalicvaluefollowed—e.g.tu‑u:
Southwestern SE Iberian
dÇ tu‑u d tu
Indeed,Correa(1990,p.136)pointsouthowsurprisingitwouldbeforsignsofboththeSWscriptandtheIberiansemi-syllabariestoyieldexactlythesamephoneticvaluesanddefendsresortingtointernalanalysisasamediumtoestablishingdifferences.OneoftheadjustmentsheadvocatesisSchmoll’sobservationthatsyllabogramsarealwaysfollowedbyalphabeticsignswiththecorrespond-ingvocalicvalue:e.g.ta,ti andtu arealwaysfollowedbya,iandu,respectively.Evenifoneassumes—assomeseemedtodo—thatthisissomesortofscriptio plenamechanism(similartothatofAncientNearEasterncuneiformsystems)usedtorepresentlongvowels(i.e.ta–, tı−, tu–),theresultisabizarresituationinwhichtheunderlyinglanguageonlyallowedstopsinfrontoflongvowels(!).This“vocalicredun-dancy”,asperCorrea(1990,p.136),is“asurprisingandexclusivetrait”ofthescript.
VowelsSyllabic (stop) signs
B K T
A a M c x4E 9 Bb k ‚I i U R ±
O ᚬ 0 g+ <>U Ç 3 Y d
Regardingmethodology,theabovementionedideathatthereisacompleteornearcompletecorrespondencebetweentheSWscriptandtheIberiansystemsisdebatable.Mostreadingspub-lishedinthe literature,namelythatofstopssigns(bV,kV, tV),aredirectcalquesoftheIberianconventionaltranscription(Fig.4)andtacitlyinsinuatethatthelanguagehadafullphonologicalcorrespondencewithIberian.
Thepreconceptionthatitmustbesoduetotheirmereformalresemblanceandrecognizedrelationshipissimplyuntenable.WeknowofnumerouscasesthatcounterthisassumptionbutIwillcontentmyselfwithone(whichwasincidentallyputforwardbyJ.deHozinthe10th Interna‑tional Colloquium on Paleohispanic Languages and Cultures,Lisbon2009).ThisisthecaseofMycenaeanLinearB,decipheredin1952byMichaelVentris.givenitsgeneticrelationshipwiththeCypriot
Fig. 4 Mostconsensualtableofvaluesforthesyllabicstopseriesandvowels(Rodríguez,2000).
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138114
syllabary(decodedsincethe19thcentury),whichweknowtodayultimatelyderivesfromMinoanLinearA,scholarsinitiallyattemptedtoreadLinearBwithbasisontheCypriotvalues.Thatturnedoutunfruitful. In fact,althoughrelated, theCypriot syllabaryandLinearBsharedonlyelevensignsthatmatchinformandonlyeightorninethatareequivalentinformandphoneticvalue(Valério,2008,p.62).ApartfromthefactthattheCypriotsyllabarymostprobablynotatedadiffer-ent language, this was certainly caused by the geographical and chronological gap between thescripts.Thepointtoretainhereis:thelessclosetwogenetically-relatedscriptsareinspaceandtime,thelessfruitfultheircomparisonwillbe.Thisadvisescautionintheapproachtothedevel-opmentofdifferentwritingsystemsintheIberianPeninsula.
Bearinginmindtheproblemshereintroduced,thisarticlesetsouttoadvancesolutionsforissuesrelatingtodecipheringapproachestotheSWscript,theirmethodsandtheirreadings.ThefirstpointneedingclarificationistheprecisesourceoftheSWscript:Phoenicianorgreek?Then,theforeseeablealphabeticoriginofthesystemengendersonefurtherproblem:theoutcomeofIberianasasemi-syllabarylacksa logical justification.Suchadevelopmentmightseem“unnatural”asasyllabaryrepresentsalessflexiblesystemwhencomparedtothealphabet.Iam,ofcourse,notclai-mingthatwritingisabsolutelyprogressive.Imerelyassertthat,incomparisontosyllabaries,alpha-betsallowtoexpress individualphonemesandahighernumberofphonemesequences (namelyconsonantclusters,fairlycommon,forinstance,inIndo-Europeanlanguages)withfewmorethantwentyletters,muchlessthanthoseofasyllabary.Wecannotforget,however,thatthechoiceofaparticulartypeofscriptislargelydependentontheinherentfeaturesofthelanguagebeneath4,andthustherearesomeexamplesofworldlanguageswhosesoundsystempromptedtheshiftfromanalephat/alphabettoasyllabary.Thiswillbeimportanttotheanalysisherepresented.
Indealingwiththegradualtransitionfromthesourcealephatoralphabettothesemi-syllabicIberian,Iwilldiscussasolutiontotheproblemsraisedbythecurrentinterpretativemodel(s)oftheSWscript;and,indoingso,IwillalsoadvancenewreadingstosomeSWsigns.Iwillrelyonbothinternalandexternalanalysis(i.e.comparisonofsignvaluesinboththesourceanddescend-antscripts),asalsooutlinedinRodríguez(2000).Tounderstandwhatstructuralmodificationsoccurinagivenscriptwhenawritingsystemistransferredfromonelanguagetoanother,onemust take in consideration the eventual differences in their phonetic inventories. In our case,knowledgeofthestructuresofthedonorandrecipientscriptandofthephonologyoftherecipi-entlanguagewillpromptthereconstructionoftherecipientlanguage’sphonology5.Therefore,themostimportantmethodologicalpointinmyapproachistheappealtoalinguisticframework,whichIbelievehasnotbeenfullyexploredyet.
2. The source of the Southwestern script
ThissectionaddressesthequestionoftheoriginoftheSWscript.IhaveacknowledgedabovethatPhoenicianisthemostconsensualcandidateforitssourceamongscholars,whereasgreekisthealternativeofaminority.Thestartingpointofthepresentanalysis,however,intendstobetabula rasa.
2.1. The paleographic evidence
Thefirstanalyticalparameteristhealphabeticalorderofthescript’ssigns.ThearrangementoftheTableofEspancacloselyreflectsthatofthePhoenicianalephat,albeitta–wcomesbeforewa–w
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 115
(Fig.3)—atraitoftengivenintheliteratureasagreekfeature.Theorderoftheletters,however,isaveryconservativeandenduringaspectofalphabeticwritingsystems:thearrangementofWest--Semitic alephats was already established in the Ugaritic cuneiform alephat of the second--millenniumBCanddidnotchangemuchuptoourdays.BecauseinUgaritic/w/cameafter/t/,Rodríguez(2002,p.193)fairlysuggeststhatthepositionofupsiloningreekmightbeinheritedfromaheterodoxSemiticsignarythatfollowedtheUgariticorder.Andinanycase,thechangeofpositionsbetweentwoneighboringlettersintheTableofEspancaisnonprobative—especiallywhenwemustconcludethattheabecedaryinthistableandtheSWscriptingeneralarepossiblynotrepresentativeofthesamescript.
Moresignificantconclusionscanbedrawnfromtheinspectionofthemorphologyoftheletters.Ingeneral,their linearityandverticality(cf.e.g.aandz)wouldsuggestagreekratherthanWest-Semiticorigin.However, it issymptomaticthatthreeletters,thosecognatetogreekbeta,iotaandtau,aremuchclosertotheirPhoeniciancounterpartsthananycorrespondingearlygreekform(Sass,2005):
SWTable of Espanca
(undated)
PhoenicianKulamuwa orthostat(late 9th century BC)
Early GreekDipylon jug
(mid 8th century BC)
notattested( elsewhere)
ThefinalbutessentialaspectisthevocalicsystemofSW.Wehaveseenthatthemostconsen-sualschemepresentedintheliterature,andbasedonthecomparisonwiththelaterIberianscripts(seebelowfordiscussion),isthatofapentavocalicsystemwiththefollowingreadings:
a 9 i ᚬ Ç
a e i o u
Proponentsofagreekoriginmustassumeadifferentconfiguration,necessarilyinterpreting9as/o/orasimilarvowel.Fromanihilisticviewpoint,onecanmakeanimportantobservation:º,theobviouscognateofgreekepsilon,behavesintheSWscriptnotasavowelbutasaconsonantalsign(thiswillbedemonstratedspecificallyinsection3).Anotherpointtobeaddressedbelow(see3.2)regardsinternal(besidesexternal)evidencesuggestingthat9representsafront/highvowel(e)andᚬ writesaback/roundedone(o),aspredictedinthetableabove.
Itisacceptedthatthefive-vowelschemeisaninnovationofgreek(eventhoughvowelsignshaveemergedindependentlyinotherwritingsystemsofSemiticoriginacrosstheworld),whereastheWest-Semiticalephatswerebynatureconsonantal.However,thesourceofvowelletterscanbetraced back to them. Ugaritic, Phoenician and Aramaic scripts all made use of a special devicecalledmatres lectionis (whichincidentallyledtothecreationofvowelsignsinotherSemitic-derived
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138116
scriptsoftheworld).Thisconsistedintheuseofsomeconsonantandsemivowel(moreaccurately,approximant)letterstorepresenttruevowels,namelyintherenderingofforeignonomastics.Par-ticularly,thePhoenicianalephatmadelimiteduseofthismechanismtowriteLuviannamesinCilicia(Sass,2005,p.139),wherethelocalIndo-EuropeanAnatolianlanguage(writteninAnato-lianhieroglyphs)wasspokenalongsidePhoenician.ItshouldbenotedthatEarlyIronAgeLuvianhadonlythreevowels,/a/,/i/and/u/,notatedinthefollowingmanner:
Letter Phoenician matres lectionis (Luvian onomastics)
’a–leph /’/(glottalstop) /a/
yo–dh /y/(semivowel) /i/
wa–w /w/(semivowel) /u/
greeks,whopossiblyborrowedthePhoenicianalphabetinCiliciaitselforintheneighboringPamphylia6andhadforehandknowledgeofthematres lectionis,pickedthesethreeWest-Semiticlettersandtheirsecondaryvocalicvalues,addingeando(laterontwomoreletters,forthecorre-spondinglongvowels):
Letter Phoenician Greek
’a–leph /’/(glottalstop) /a/
yo–dh /y/(semivowel) /i/
wa–w /w/(semivowel) /u/
he– /h/(voicelessglottalfricative) /e/
cayin /c/(voicedpharyngealfricative) /o/
Thispointisfundamental.TheSWscriptcontainsthesamebasicvowellettersusedinthePhoenicianmatres lectionis,butthesignsassumedforeandodonotcoincidewiththegreekones(Rodríguez,2000,p.26)7:
SW Phoenician Greek
9=/e/< cayin >o=/o/
ᚬ=/o/< ’a–leph(?) nocognate
Inshort,thesamecayinthatbecameomicroningreekmighthavedevelopedintoeintheIbe-rianPeninsula,whereas it isnotclearwhatthesourceofowas.Rodríguez(2002,p.192,n.10)ingeniouslysuggeststhatoisderivedfromarotated’a–leph,citingaparallelchoiceinthedesignoftheYiddishscript.Moreover,Phoenicianhe–,whichyieldedgreekepsilon,hadadifferentfateasa
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 117
consonantalsigninIberia(seesection3).Togetherwiththeshapesofletters,thissignificantvoweldivergencecorroboratesthecommonly-sharedviewthatthescriptisofPhoenicianinspiration—allweneedtoassumeisthatitunderwentindependentverticalization,aprocessnotunseeninwritingsystemsoftheworld:
Phoenician’aleph cayin yo–dh ’a–leph (?) wa–w
SWa
ae
9
i
io
ᚬu
Ç
2.2. The archaeological evidence
Archaeologysupportstheconclusionsdrawnfromthepaleographicalanalysisofthescript.TheadoptionofwritingintheIberianPeninsulaispartofaprocessof“Mediterraneanization”increasinglyintensifiedsincetheBronzeAge.BecausetheSWscriptisattestedwithsecurityfromthe7thcenturyBCon,itmustnecessarilydatefromthattimeorearlier.ThiscoincideswiththearrivalofPhoenician(namelyTyrian)tradersandsettlerstothePeninsula,placedbyscholarscon-sensuallyinthe9thcenturyBCorshortlyafter.
Arruda(1999–2000,p.259)conceivesthat“populationsofeasternorigin”weresettledintheareaofthegibraltarStraitfromthebeginningofthe9thcentury.TheappearanceintheSpanishterritoryofpotteryofSyro-Palestiniantypologies,namelyamphorae,datedequallytotheeighthorseventh-centuriesBCisprobative;theindigenoussettlementofElCarambolo(Camas,Seville)yielded(levelsD-IVandC-III)platesofthinrimandeasternfeatures,withCypriotparallels,alsofoundatthesiteofCastilloDoñaBlancaandtraditionallydatedtoatleastthemid-8thcenturyBC(Mederos&Cabrero,2001,p.106,withreferences).
IntheIronAgeI,theexistenceofsettlementsinthesouthwesternareasoftheIberianPenin-sulawhichareinterpretedbyarchaeologistasPhoenician,basedonthepredominanceofmaterialcultureofeasterncharacterandonarchitectural remainswithparallels in theSyro-PalestiniancoastinsiteslikeSantaOlaia,Abul,AlmarazandCerrodaRochaBranca,contrastswithasmallnumberfindingsofAegeanpotterysuchasthefragmentofakrate–rorpyxisfromCallesdePalos(Huelva),datedtoeithertheLategeometricI(760–730BC)ortheMiddlegeometricII(800–760BC),orafragmentofanEuboean(?)skyphosdatedtothethirdquarteroftheeighth-centuryBCfromCalledelPuerto9,alsoinHuelva(Arruda,1997,pp.39–40,44,58–59).
ItisnonethelessconsensualthateffectivegreekcolonizationoftheIberianPeninsulashoreswasundertakenlater.Weknowthatgreeks,Ioniansinparticular,preferablyestablishedthemselvesintheLevantinecoastofthePeninsula8,wheretheyleftbehindwell-documentedandarchaeologi-cally attested settlements such as Emporion (modern-day Ampurias), Rhode–(Rosas) and Mainake–(Málaga),amongothers.ThiswasthemotivationforastrongHellenicinfluenceinthecultureofIberians from the sixth-century on, manifest in such phenomena as the emergence of a graeco--IberianalphabetofIonianbase(IronAgeII).ItwasfurthermorethetriggertosomemodificationsintheNEIberiansemi-syllabary(seesection3).Evidently,theSpanishLevantwasanaturaltacticalchoice,sincePhoenicians(laterfollowedbyCarthaginiansinthesixthcenturyBC)werealreadywell-
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138118
-established in the south and southwesternshoresaheadoftheAegeancolonizingimpe-tus. In short, Phoenician, not greek, was athandtobeborrowedbylocalpopulationsofthesouthwesternPeninsulainIronAgeI.
IntheaforementionedCalledelPuerto(no.6),inHuelva(interpretedbyarchaeolo-gists as an “indigenous” settlement withroots in theLateBronzeAgeandnotasanexogenousemporium),oneamphorawithagraffito was found that deserves considera-tioninthissection.Theamphorawasrecov-ered from level IIa (= c. 650–600 BC) andbelongstothetypeVuillemotR-1(=Trayamar1).TheseareconsideredthetypicalwesternPhoenician amphorae of the first momentsofthecolonization,andwereusedfortrans-portingwine.Regardingthegraffito,fromasequence of at least three, possibly moresigns,onecanunfortunatelyreadwithsafetyonlythefinaloneduetotheconditionoftheobject.ThislastsignhasbeeninterpretedasaPhoenicianyo–dhintheliterature(Mederos&Cabrero2001,p.105,withreferences),but,inreality,itisunmistakablyakintotheiofanyofthePaleohispanicscripts.
WhiletheshapeoftheletteralonewouldnotallowdiscerningwhetherthiswasSEIberianortheSWalphabet,theformermaybeexcludedwithbasisonthechronologyoftheartifact.Onecanimaginea7thcenturytradingvesselarrivingataportofsouthwesternSpainwithacargoofdozensofamphoraecontainingwineandotherprovisions.Possibly,therewassomeintermediaryentityoperatingattheportofHuelvathatwasresponsiblefortheredistributionofproductsamongtheindigenousworld.Inscribingapersonalorplace-nameonthecontainerswouldbeasuitableman-ner of distinguishing which one was meant for whom or where. This is a procedure attestedthroughouthistoryandcross-culturally.Ultimately,Ithinkthisitemisofutterimportance:whileitisnotdirectevidenceoftheroleplayedbyPhoeniciansinthedesignofthelocalscript,itisaproofofearlycontactsbetweenWest-SemiticmerchantsandusersoftheSWalphabet.
Therefore, independent evidence (the sum of the paleographical and archaeological data)supportsthealreadyconsensualviewthatPhoenicianwasthesourceoftheSWscript.
2.3. Additional signs
ThealphabetoftheTableofEspancaandtheSWscriptaspresentedinthestelaeincludenotonlyabasiccoreofsignstakenfromthePhoenicianalephatbutalsoasetofadditionallettersthatarenotofWest-Semiticfashion.TheyarepresentedintheTableasfollows:
T U o Q Ü g
Fig. 5 graffitoonamphoraofthetypeR-1fromCalledelPuerto6,Huelva(FernándezJurado&Correa,1988–1989,p.131,Fig.2/1)anddetailwiththereadablesign.
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 119
Thesesigns,usedtocoverphonologicalgapsleftbythePhoenicianletters,couldbe1)theproductof indigenousdesign;2)back-formationsfromPhoenicianletters;3) inspiredbyotherwritingsystems.Wehaveseenthatinthecaseofo,alsopresentinthisextraset,thesecondpossi-bilityisprobablythecorrectone.
Itwillbeexaminedwhichofthesepossibilitiesapplytowhichextraletters,butwhilethistopicwouldbelonginhere,itmustbepostponedtosections3and4,whereimportantpointsthatrelatetoitwillemergefromthediscussionformulatedthere.
3. From an alephat to an alphabet and from an alphabet to a semi‑syllabary: internal reconstruction of SW
3.1. The Iberian language and the development of its semi‑syllabary
AfterperceivinghowthePhoenicianalephatwasadaptedtoafullalphabetwithvowelsintheIberianPeninsula,weneedtoclarifythemotivationbehinditslateradaptationtoasemi-syllabarywas. The key-point is Iberian itself. Understanding how this script related to the phonologicalfeaturesofitsunderlyinglanguageprovidesimportantinformation.
The Iberian semi-syllabary is considered as such because it possesses thirteen individual(phonemic)signsforvowelsandmostconsonants,butthreeseriesofsyllabogramsforstops—bilabials,velarsanddentals(Correa,1994,p.268).TheNEvarietyevendevelopedgraphicvariants(markedwithoneextrastroke)ofthesyllabogramsofthekandt-seriestorepresenttheirvoicedcounterparts(notethatIberianhadvoicedandvoicelessvelaranddentalstopsbutonlyavoicedbilabial):
% ba 12 ka (ga) C ta (da)
( be :9 ke (ge) HK te (de)
* bi ;∙ ki (gi) O∏ ti (di)
, bo @ ko (go) to (do)
/ bu B ku (gu) TU tu (du)
Ontheotherhand,thescriptwasnotequippedtoexpresssequencesofthetypestop+con-sonant+vowel(SCV).Ofcourse,thiscouldwellbenotthereflexofanactualfeatureofthelan-guagebutratheralimitationofthewritingsystem(Correa,1994,pp.278–279).But,again,whywouldthescriptacquirealesspracticalformandmisrepresenttraitsofthelanguagethataplainalphabet could accommodate? In reality, SC clusters are absent even from texts written in thegreco-Iberianalphabet(i.e.theuseoftheIonianalphabettowritetheIberianlanguage),fittoembodysuchconsonantalclusters.
Indeedstop+consonantsequencesweremissinginIberian,aspatentinthetranscriptionofforeignnameswithsuchclusterswithCVsyllabogramswhosevocalicvaluereflectseitheradeadoranepentheticvowel:
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138120
Latin > Iberian
Flaccus bi‑l‑a‑ke (§4.7.3)
Fabricius ba‑bi‑r‑ki (E.7)
Gaulish
Blandus(*blandos) ba‑l‑a‑n‑de (B.1.125)
Celtiberian
*Segobriga se‑ko‑bi‑r‑i‑ke‑s (A.89)
Fromaphenomenologicalpointofaview,itisworthanalyzingtypologicalparallels.Thereare some languages in the world today that likewise have no such consonantal sequences, likeJapaneseandsomePolynesiantongues.TheJapanesephoneticinventory,forinstance,isbasedonsyllabicsets.Apartfromfivevowels(a, i, u, e, o)andthenasalsound(n),allothersyllablesinthelanguageareconsonant+vowel.Consonantclustersinloanwordsarealwaysbrokenupwithvow-elsandwordscontainingafinalconsonantotherthannareaddedanecho-vowel,oftenooru (Kay,1995,p.69).Notetheexamplesbelow,withspecialemphasisonthetreatmentofclustersofthetypestop+consonant:
English > Japanese
fax fakkusu
Christmas Kurisumasu
club kurubu
present purezento
stress sutoresu
Conveniently, Japanese came to use two syllabic writing systems (apart from the Chinesecharacters—kanji)calledHiraganaandKatakana,thelatterbeingusedmostlyforwordsofforeignorigin(Akiyama&Akiyama,2002).ThebasiccoreofHiraganaismadeof55syllabograms.
ThecasewithIberianislessdramaticbecausethelanguageonlydisallowsclustersoftheSCV(stop+consonant+vowel)type;SVC(stop+vowel+consonant)sequencesareallowed.Inotherwords,whileJapaneseconsistsalmostentirelyofopensyllables(cf.Na-ga-sa-ki),Iberianhasalsoclosedoneswithnonstopconsonantsinsyllable-finalposition.Forinstance,awordlikea‑bar‑kis(textC.4.1)containstwoconsecutivesequencesofthatkind(V-SVC-SVC),whichmeansthattwoconsonantsmaycometogetheracrosssyllableboundaries(abaRKis)andformheterosyllabicclus-ters9.UnlikeJapanese,then,Iberianwaswrittenwithasystemcontainingsyllabogramsforstopsalone(i.e.SVsigns)andindividual(i.e.phonemic)lettersforconsonants(C),sincethesecouldbefollowedbybothvowelsandotherconsonants.Thissystem,asemi-syllabary,wasthebest-fittingfortheIberianlanguage.
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 121
Thisframeworkunveilsthemotivationforasemi-syllabaryinitslastformativestage,butwestillneedtoclarifyhowthechangeoperatedbetweentheborrowingofthePhoenician-inspiredalphabetandtheshapingupofSEandNEIberian.That“intermediarystage”needingelucidationistheSWscriptitself.
3.2. The formation of Southwestern script
AsalreadynotedbyRodríguez(2000,p.29),whatSWhasisaseriesofsignsderivedfromPhoenicianstoplettersbut,withoutexception,alwaysfollowedbyvowelsigns:
Phoenician SW script NE Iberian
letter value sign ante (vowel) syllabogram value
d d Ç u T tu
t. ± i i H te
t x a a C ta
g c a a f ka
k k 9 e : ke
k. R i i no cognate
WeobservethattheSWscripthasawholesetofsignsdescendantfromthePhoeniciandentalstopletters,eachusedalwaysbeforeaparticularvowel:thusT+A,T+I,T+U(whereT=dental).Ontheotherhand,thesamesignsbecamesyllabogramsofthet-seriesinIberian,afactthat,aswehaveseen, ledscholars (whobelieve that those signshad identicalvalues inbothscripts) toassume“doublespellings”ofthetypeta‑a,ti‑iandto‑o.Thesearephonologicallydifficulttoaccountforand,infact,unnecessary.
IsuggestthatthemotivationforthisphenomenonisthesameasinIberian.Apartfromthesecombinationsofstopsignsandvowels(S+V),theSWscriptusesindividualphoneticsignsforallotherconsonants(n, m, l, r, s,etc.)whichmayoccurbeforeanysign.Itisplausible,then,toassumethat,likeIberian,thelanguagewrittenwithSWlackedSCVsequences.
Becauseonlythreestopseriesexist(conventionallytranscribedasB,KandTasseenabove;Fig.4)wemayalsohypothesizethatthelanguagehadnovoiceoraspirationcontrast,thuscon-tainingonlyplainvoicelessstops(/k/,/p/,/t/)initsinventory.ThisissupportedbyIberian:despitewritingalanguagewithbothvoicedandvoicelessdentalandvelarstops(/k/and/g/,/t/and/d/),thesemi-syllabaryhadoriginallynovoicingdistinction10,theabovementionedvoicedvariantsofsyllabogramsbeingalaterinnovation11:
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138122
SWLanguage Writing >
IberianWriting Language
/p/ *P > B /b/
/k/ *K > K /k/~/g/
/t/ *T > T /t/~/d/
IfweassumethatthesoundsystemofthelanguagespokeninthesouthwestoftheIberianPeninsulaincludedonly/k/,/p/,/t/,weconcludethat,astheyimportedthePhoenicianalephat,itsabundanceofstopletters(d, t, t. , k, g, k. , b, p)becameredundant.Insteadofdroppingtheadditionalsigns,therecipientsofthescriptwouldthenhavedecidedtouseallofthemforthesamepurpose,placingeachofthembeforeonevowel.
Thereisstrongstructuralevidencetosupportthisifweattemptasortofinternalreconstruc-tionofthePaleohispanicscripts.LetustaketheexampleofthePhoeniciandentalletters(da–let,te–thand ta–w): inaccordancetothepresenthypothesis, theywouldhavebecomeredundantbecauseonlyonetypeofdentalstop(/t/)neededtoberepresented.Itfollowedthateachofthemwascon-nectedtoasingledistinctvowel,inaclearattempttoavoidanarchyinthescript—animportantprincipleofwriting.Thus:
d Ç t + u
± i t + i
x a t + a
Toprovethatthisdevelopmentisnotfarfetched,wemaycomparethegreekalphabetwhichimportedthethreesibilantsoftheWest-Semiticalephat:s.ade(/s./),samekh(/s/)andšin(/∫/).TheserepresenteddifferentphonemesintheWest-Semiticlanguagesbutbecausegreekpossessedonly/s/(Brixhe,2007b,p.26)thenewHellenicalphabetwindedupwiththreeredundantsignsforasingle sibilant. Thus s.ade became the letter san, used in some variants of the Hellenic alphabetbeforedisappearing,andsamekhwasusedwithkhiorkappainthecompoundsXΞorKΞthatrep-resentedthecluster/ks/,intimemerelyabbreviatedtotheletterksi(Ξ);onlyaftercenturiesdidsigma(<šin)becamethesolegreeksibilantletter.
So farwehaveaccountedfor threestop-vowelcombinations.Ofcourse, twoothervowelsexistedthatneededtoberepresented.Andsowefindthat<(evidentlyderivedfromd)occursbeforeᚬ,i.e./o/(texts11,19and62).Eventhishasalogicalexplanation:agraphicvariantofthestop-signconnectedtouwasusedforobecausethesetwovowelsaresimilarinnature,bothbeingbackandroundedvowels.Similarly,agraphicvariantofthestopletterusedbeforeiwasdevelopedfore,andthesetwoarefrontandhighvowels12.Thesequencej9appearsintexts11,20,35,48andpossiblyon thenewly found inscriptionofSabóia13.Thuswe find that the scriptwasadaptedbasedonalogicphonologicalscheme:
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 123
Front/high vowels ± t (+ i) > j t (+ e)
Back/rounded vowels d t (+ u) > < t (+ o)
Throughthismechanics,afulldentalstopsyllabicseriesemerged:
xa taj9 te±i ti<ᚬ todÇ tu
Withthisinmind,insteadofassumingdoublespellings,asotherscholarsuphold,Isuggestthesimplertransliterationta(i.e.t‑a),representing/ta/intermsofsoundperformance.
Rodríguez(2000,p.25,2002,pp.189–190)mentionsinpassingtheinterestingparallelofthege’ezscript(incidentallyalsodescendentfromaSemiticalephat:SouthArabian),thewritingsys-temofSemitic languagesofEthiopia,mostnotablyAmharicandTigrinya.ge’ezconsistsof26basicconsonantalsignsandasetof7diacriticalvowels,whicharecombinedtoformthecompositesigns. Each of those main signs represents a consonant + vowel (CV) combination and eachunmarkedconsonantalsymbolcanbecombinedwithanyofthesevenvowels.Word-finalconso-nantsandconsonantclustersaredenotedwiththeconsonantsignplusthediacriticofthevowel ,functioningasananaptycticvowel(Comrie,2009,pp.614–616).Rodríguez(2000,p.25)mentionedthissystemonlytonotethat“thevocalicsignsare[progressively]absorbedasappendicesbytheconsonantalonetothepointwherecombinedsignsareconfigured,makingthisscriptlooksyl-labic”.Unfortunately,whatthisscholardidnotfurtherunveil(tomyknowledge,atleastinthisarticleofhis)isthatoncemorethissystemisintimatelyrelatedwiththephonologicalnatureofthelanguage.Notsurprisingly,Tigrinyahasarichphoneticinventorywhosesyllablesmay,however,onlyformCVorCVCsequences.Whenthreeconsonantsoronedoubleconsonantandasimpleonecometogetherinwords,clustersarebrokenupwiththeinsertionofananaptycticvowel ;likewise,whentwoconsonantsoradoubleonewouldturnupinword-finalposition,iemergesafterthem;finally, if this is caused by a suffix, the same anaptyctic is inserted before it (Rehman, 2007).Amharic,ontheotherhand,allowsC+r/lclustersinword-initialpositionasingra ‘left’andblen‘pupilofeye’,buteventhesemaybeunderstoodasgi–‑raandbi–‑len (Comrie,2009,p.596).
OnemayalsocompareKharos.t.hı−,agandharianscriptofAramaicoriginthatconsistedofacoreofconsonantalcharacterstowhichdiacriticalvowelsignswereappended.Thevocalicdiacrit-icswereappendedtoconsonantsinspecificpositions,whichrevealsthattheinventor(s)ofthesystemhadsomeknowledgeofphonology:thuse and i (frontvowels)areplacedonthetopoftheconsonantalsignandoandu(backvowels)areaffixedbelowit(glass,2000,p.13).ThislogicfindsadirectmatchintheSWdesignofthedentalseries.
Itisimportanttostress,atthispoint,thattheEthiopianandIndianscriptsarenotsyllabarieslikethetwoJapanesekana,noreven semi‑syllabaries:vowels,albeitconnectedtoconsonantalsigns,are still identifiableas independent fromthemas inany alphabetic system.This sameprincipleappliestotheSWscript.
Thereorganizationofthestopsignshereproposedisconfirmedbytheothertwoseries.WehaveseenthatWest-Semiticg,kandk. gavewaytothecombinationsk+aandk+eandk+iinSW.
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138124
Then,withthesameschemeseenaboveforthet-series,thepredecessorofIberianko(whichappearsintheTableofEspancabutisofobscureorigin)isalwaysusedbefore/o/,whileagraphicvariantofitformsthecombinationk+u:
Phoenician SW script NE Iberian
letter value sign ante (vowel) syllabogram value
g c a a f ka
k k 9 e : ke
k. R i i — —
— — g+ ᚬ o @ ko
— — Y Ç u — —
Aswemayobserve,RwasnotpresentinNEIberiananymore(itdidexistinSEIberian,butthereitsvalueisuncertain).Thereisprobablyagoodreasonforthis.WeknowthatlateronaevolvedtorinIberian,becomingidenticalwithther.Thelatterthenhadtobedisambiguatedandwaschangedintow.SincethisnewshapewasnowsimilartoR,itispossiblethatthesignhadtobereplacedtoavoidconfusion.Forsomeobscurereason,Yhadnocontinuationaswell.
ThemostpoorlyunderstoodSWseriesisthatofthebilabialstops—whichIwilltranscribeasp+Vinaccordancewiththeworkinghypothesishereendorsed.OnlytwosignshaveacandidlyidentifiableevolutionfromPhoenician,whichisonlynaturalbecausetwoisthenumberofbila-bialstopsrepresentedinthatalephat(West-Semiticlanguagesdidnothaveanemphaticbilabial*/p./).ThusthesignsderivedfromPhoenicianbethandpeyieldedp+eandp+o(Correa,1990,Fig.3;Rodríguez,2000,p.31)respectively:
Phoenician SW alphabet
letter value sign ante (vowel)
b Bb 9 e
p 0 ᚬ o
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 125
Moreover,NEIberiansyllabogram0(bu)isthedescendantofp+o.Regardingshape,itappearsthattherectangularSWpowasformedwhenitbecamemuddledwiththelowerrowofthebandsofthestelae(Rodríguez,2000,p.27).
OnetrickycaseinthediachronyoftheIberianwritingsystemsisº.Ontheonehand,thisaprioriisthedescendantofWest-Semitiche.Ontheotherhand,thehomomorphicsigninSEIbe-rianhasbeeninterpretedbyFaria(1992,p.41)asbeonthebasisofthepresumedidentificationoftwoIberianpersonalnames,bersirandbekor,ontwoinscriptions(Untermann,1987,pp.293,299–300,306)aswellasthesupposedsimilaritywithsignbi(DeHoz,1976,p.300).Moreover,coinsfromAlcácerdoSal(SWPortugal)datingtothesecondandfirstcenturiesBCcontainthefollow-inginscriptionintheSEvarietyofIberian(Faria,1992,p.39):
™/ß´û
Fariareads,fromtherighttotheleft,be‑u‑i‑bu‑m(eventhoughheseemstohesitatebetweenmandninthelastsign).Thiswouldbeanindigenousplace-namethat,likesomanyinthesouth-westernareasoftheIberianPeninsulapreservedinRomansources,endsin-ipo(cf.Olisipo, Sisipo, Collipo,etc.).Inreality,thereading-i‑pu‑n,oreveni‑po‑n, ismorelikelyasitconformstotheformofthesuffixknownthroughLatintransmission—notethatSEIberianprobablywrotenotIberianbutanotherlanguageinWesternAndalusia.Itakethelastsignoftheinscriptiontobeavariantofn,notm,whichisfeasibleonmorphologicalgrounds.
ThustheevidenceofSEIberianconfirmsthereadingofSW0aspoand,mostimportantlytothepoint,substantiatestheideathatitsownûisbe.Basedonformalresemblance,someauthorswould not hesitate to attribute the same phonetic value to its SW predecessor. The sign doesbehavelikeastopletter,butitalwaysoccursbeforea(texts19,48,67,75),note,andsoinalllike-lihooditfillsthegapofpa—asolutionwhichisinharmonywithitslaterSEIberianvalue14.Inthiscase,therecipientsofthescriptsimplygaveanewusetoasignthathadnone(i.e.thelanguagehadnosoundequalorclosetoavoicelessglottalfricative),usingittofill inagapinthemostdefectiveseries.NotethatintheTableofEspancaºdoesnotappearinitsoriginalPhoenicianposi-tion:ithasbeenmovedforward,closertothesetofadditionalsigns.
As for pi, itmightbe representedby thehapaxÖ,whichprecedes i in text35 (Fig.2). InRodríguez(2000,p.44,S-306),thesignisgivenas:
ThefactthatitappearshorizontallyandthescratchesintheinscribedstonepreventedthisscholarfromidentifyingthissignwiththeoneinthepenultimatepositionintheTableofEspanca (Ü),whichappearsvertical. ItshouldbenotedthatthisisoneoftheextrasignsintheTableofEspanca.Iwillnotinsistonthisproposition,however,sincetheonlytwopointsinfavorofitaretheremoteaffinitytosomeinstancesofNEIberianbe(seetablebelow)andtheneedtoeliminateanemptyslotinthebilabialseries.
Presently,Ialsocannotofferasolidproposalforpu.Thecreativelogicoftheothertwoseriesofstopswouldsuggestagraphicvariantof0.Indeedwehavesimilarcharacterslike1and2,butthesedonotseemtobehavelikestopsigns(seesection4).SoIleavetheholeintheseriesunfilledforthemomentbeing:
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138126
SW SE Iberian NE Iberian
º a pa ã ba % & ba
Bb 9 pe û be (?) ( ¤ be
i pi (?) uncertain uncertain * + bi
0 ᚬ po uncertain uncertain , . bo
? Ç pu / bu / bu
ThetableabovesuggestsSWpa and pe switchedplacesinSEIberian,eventhoughthemotiva-tiontothischangeisnotclear.Inanyevent,thedataseemtosupportthereadingsherearguedfortheSWsigns.
Stillwithregardtothebilabialseries,thismodelcontrastswiththeworkofRodríguez(2000,p.36),whoproposesthatM=baandf=bi(?).Hisanalysisentailstwoproblems.UnlikethoseSWsignswhosePhoenicianpredecessorsandIberiansuccessorshaveassuredstopvalues,thesetwolettersarenotusedexclusivelybeforeonevowel:Moccursnotonlybeforea(severaltimes,inthesocalled“funeraryformula”)asRodríguezclaims,butalsobeforee(text64);andfbeforea,e(text35)andi(texts11,25,42,64,75).ThisprinciplehasbeenlargelyignoredinpreviousapproachespossiblybecausescholarsareattachedtotheideathatstopsignshavethemselvesaCVvalue.Inanyevent,whenappliedtotheSWsigns,themodelherepresentedisproductiveandprovestosolvesomereadingdifficulties.
WithrespecttoM,alternativereadingsputforwardintheliteraturedefineitasasibilant(e.g.,gomes,1997,p.12).OneofthepointsinfavorofitisthefactthatNEIberianhasahomomorphicsignwiththevalues (Siles,1979,p.81).Asibilantwouldbeagoodsolutionforasignthatisfol-lowedbydifferentvowelsinthecorpus.Ontheotherhand,Misalsothebestcandidateform;Cor-rea(1990,Fig.3)madeasimilarproposal.Andsince/m/isarecurringphonemeinlanguagesoftheworld,itisnotlikelythatthescriptwouldlackit.ThedecisiveargumentisprovidedbytheTableofEspanca,wherethesignplacedinthepositionofWest-Semiticmemissimilartothatsameletter(Fig.3),whichseemstoconfirmitsvalueofalabialnasal.
Ofcourse,thispresentsoneobstacle:thediscontinuityrevealedbythehomomorphicsignthatisasibilantinNEIberianandthedifferent-lookingsignforminthesamescript.
NE Iberian
s m
{Å|} i
WemustnotexpectNEIberiantoshowfullcontinuity(andweknowitdoesnot)becausecertainlythephoneticinventoryoftheIberianlanguage(IronAgeII)wasdifferentfromthatofthe
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 127
SWscriptlanguage(IronAgeI).Onegoodexampleofthisisthereplacementof9foreasthesignfore,whichcertainlyhappenedduetotheinfluenceoftheepsilonofthegreekalphabet.NEIbe-riandevelopedinthemodern-dayCataloniaaroundthe5thcenturyBCwhen(asdiscussedinsec-tion2)severalgreeksettlementshadbeeninstalledintheregion.Onthewhole,theNEIberiansemi-syllabarywasunderstronginfluenceofthegreekalphabet,sobothitseandsmayhavebeeninspiredbyepsilonandsigma.
Inshort,everythingsupportsthereadingm,ultimatelyconfirmedbytheWest-Semiticpre-cursorofthesign:
Phoenician mem SW (stelae) SW (Espanca)
AsperU,itisclearthatitisalsoaconsonantotherthanastop.Iwillforthatreasondiscussitinsection4.
3.3. Two possible exceptions?
Iwishtoclosethissectionbyaddressingtwoinscriptionsofthecorpusthatappear,atfirstsight,todefytheruleofstop+vowelcombinationwhichIhaveadvocated.ThesearethestelaeofAlcaládelRío(fromSeville,Spain;text75)andBenafim(Loulé,Portugal),thelatterpublished(gomes,1997)aftertheholisticeditionofCorreia(1996).Accordingtotheeditio princeps,thestelafromBenafimincludestwicethecombination0ᚬinaccordancewiththeorthographicrule.Butthenastrangesequence(aR0Ç,fourthrow)andahapaxlegomenon( ,firstrow)aredocumentedinthedrawingsandphotograph(gomes,1997,figs.2–4).Thecasewiththehapaxlegomenonmaybesolveduponacloserinspectionofthephotographprovided:
Fig. 7 ThefirstrowsofthestelefromBenafim(gomes,1997,Fig.3)andadetailofthedoubtfulsign.
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138128
Thehapax appearstobeactuallyabadlyerodedᚬ—thisisalsothereadingproposedbyFaria&Soares(1998,p.156).Thedifficultsequenceinthefourthrowismoreproblematicduetotheconditionofthewrittensurfaceofthestone.Inmyopinion,regardlessofthebadconditionoftheinscriptionatthispoint,onemayreaditas*aR1Ç,whichwouldnotbeinconsistentwithanyruleofthescript:
Inanycase,howeverthereadingofthistextmaybedubious,itisalso,inmyopinion,insuf-ficienttodiscardtheextremeregularityoftherestofthecorpus.
Theonlygraphictestimonyoftheotherproblematicaltext(75)whichIcouldfindis1961drawingofgómezMoreno(withnoscale)intheworkofCorreia(1996,p.145):
Fig. 8 Thefourthrowofthesteleandtheproblematicsequence(followinggomes,1997,Fig.2).
Fig. 9 Text75fromAlcaládelRío(Correia1996,p.145,accordingtogómezMoreno,1961).
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 129
Aswemaysee,perfectlyregularsequencesarepresentinthetext(dÇ, ºa,±i,etc.)butsomeothersareintriguing:e.g.gappearsbeforeastopsigninoneinstanceandonceitisevenisolated(!).DespitesomeproblemsinthedrawingofgómezMoreno—forinstance,thesequencedncanonlybeamistakefordÇ—therearesomefeatureswhicharenoteasilyexplained.Nonetheless,thisinscrip-tion,astheoneabove,stillincludesaconsiderablenumberofregularsequencesthatconformtotherulesoutlinedinthissectionandinultimateanalysisnoneofthetwoendangerstheirvalidity.
3.4. From the SW script to the Iberian semi‑syllabaries
Ihopetohavedemonstratedinthissectionthatthreesets(dental,velar,bilabial)ofS+VsigncombinationswereusedasaruleintheSWscript.ItwastheexistenceofstopsignswithidenticalconsonantalvaluesbutbeingusedincombinationwithdifferentvowelsthatpavedthewaytothedevisingoftheIberiansemi-syllabary.Verylikely,theadaptorsoftheSEIberiansyllabaryspokealsoalanguagelackingstop+consonantsequences—thisscriptwasassuredlyusedforIberianinalaterstagebutwedonotknowyetwhatlanguageitwroteintheearlieststages.Bythen,theymusthavefoundthatithadbecomepurposelesstokeepaddingvowelsignstothestopones.Tobesure,thesyllabicvaluehadalreadybecomeintrinsictothem.Thatis,itwasalreadyevidenttothereaderthatthecross-likeletterwastawithouttheactualvowelnexttoit.Itispossiblethattheinscriptionnr.81conventionallyattributedtotheSWcorpusbutfoundinCañamero(Cáceres,Spain),isatokenofthistransitoryphase,ifnotalreadyoneofthefirstexamplesoftheSEIberiansyllabary:
4. Non‑stop consonant letters
TheSWsignthatderivesfromPhoenicianh.e–t(avoicelesspharyngealorvelarfricative—thetwoCanaanitephonemesmergedinPhoenician;Woodard,2008b,pp.86–87)hasagreatnumberofgraphicvariants(givenasS-201–205,S-308andS-309inRodríguez,2000)withdifferentkindsofextrastrokes.Allinall,thesignprecedesanumberofdifferentvowelsandisattestedbeforeaconsonantonlyintheproblematicaltextfromAlcaládelRío.Evenso,itdoesnotbehavelikeatypicalstopsignandthereforeitmuststandforanothertypeofconsonant.Avoicelessvelarfrica-tive(/x/,whichIwilltranscribeashypotheticalh)orasimilarsoundispossible,takingintoaccountthevalueoftheoriginalPhoenicianletter.Sinceoneofthefifteensignsinthethreeseriesofstops,pu,isstillunidentified,itneedstobeverifiedwhetheragraphicvariantof0—whichwouldhave
Fig. 10 Inscriptionno.81(Correia,1996,p.151,withreferences).
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138130
becomeambiguouslysimilartotheletterinquestion—wasusedassuch.Inanyevent,theplenti-fulvariationsofthesignareworthexamining:
"+ e(text34,47,54,60,61),o(text75),u(texts9,27)3 + e(text15;Sabóia),u(41,48,71)4 + a(text15,25,35),e (text15),o(text51),u(51)1 + e(texts10,26) 2 + e(text9),o(text17)∙ + a(text23)
Mostofthevariantsoccurwithmorethanonevowelandallofthemseemtobeformsofasinglesign.Inalllikelihood,isanonstopconsonantalsignthatunderwentexceptionalstyliza-tionwheninscribedinstelae.Thisiscorroboratedbythenew(yetunpublished)stelefromMesasdoCastelinho(Almodôvar,Portugal).Thisnewitemcontainsthelongesttextfounduptothedate(nearly90signs),butitcontainsratherunusualandhighlystylizedvariantsofwell-knownsigns.Onemuststillawaitfortheeditio princepsbut,sinceIhadalreadytheprivilegetoinspectthestoneintheAlmodôvarSouthwesternScriptMuseum,Imayreportthatitcontainsthefollowingembel-lishedvariantof‚ beforeu:
Apartfromit,thetextalsoincludes1beforeu,eanda,whichreassuresthehetero-vocaliccharacteroftheletter.
Anotherproblematicsigniswwhich,followingotherscholarswhocompareittoasimilarsigninIberian,Itaketorepresent(possibly)somesortofliquid,transcribedasr —onlytodistin-guishitfromr,justassandz,whomusthaverepresentedtwodifferentsibilants,aretransliter-atedsands,respectively.
AletterthatalsodeservescommentisU,whichwehaveseenisanon-stopconsonantalsign.Thisarrow-likeletterhasaparallelinPhrygian,whereanhomomorphicletterrepresentsthepala-talizedoraffricate(t∫ or ts?)thatresultedfrom*/ke/~*/ki/andaccordinglyappearsinfrontofeandiinthewholeofPhrygia(Brixhe,2004,pp.26–27;Adiego,2004,p.302).ThisPhrygianlettercontinuedinlaterAnatolianalphabets:thesamesigninLydianistransliteratedascandprobablystandsforanon-palatalizeddentalaffricate/ts/(Yakubovich,2009,p.45); inCarianthesoundwrittenwiththissign(transliteratedasτ)is“somekindofcoronalobstruent,probablyanaffric-ate”butitsprecisevalueisstillunknown(Woodard,2008a,pp.57–58,66).ItisacceptabletodaytothinkthatgreekwasthesourceofthePhrygianalphabet—andthusallAnatolianalphabets—becausetheysharethesamevowelscheme(i.e.epsilonandomicronfromPhoenicianheandcayin),eventhoughthelatterisattestedatleastatthesametime,ifnotearlier(seenote3).EvidencetodaysuggeststhatthegreekalphabetprobablyfirstemergedinsoutheasternAnatolia,fromwhereitwouldhavebeentransmittedtoPhrygianareas(seealsoabove).Thearrow-likeletterwasaPhry-gianinnovationandInowthink,asCraigMelchertsuggeststomeinapersonalcommunication,thatthisinnovativeAnatoliansignwasinspiredbytheLuvianhieroglyphzi/abecauselocalAna-toliansneededtorepresentasoundabsentfromgreek,whosealphabetwasthemodelfortheirs.Indeed,findingsofPaleo-Phrygianalphabeticinscriptions(Brixhe&Lejeune,1984)andLuvianhieroglyphicones (Hawkins,2003,pp.142–143,map4)overlap in someareasof south-centralAnatolia.
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 131
Since Phoenician presence is also attested in Cilicia,where monumental bilingual Luvian-Phoenician inscrip-tionsliketheonefromKARATEPEwereerected,itispossi-ble, thoughverydifficult toprove, thattheywereawareofthe existence of such a sign. If there is any relationshipbetweenthissignandtheAnatolianone,asortofvoicelesspalatalized(/ty/)oraffricate(/ts/)dentalispossible.Itis,inanycase,suggestedbyitsappeareanceinanelementoftheso-calledfuneraryformula, nawk9nUi= narkenUi(text42).Sincethisisarareoccurrence,itmaybeaspellingvariantofnawk9n±i=narkenti (texts13,31,38,47,48,54), i.e.thesignmayrepresenttheoutcomeofearlier*/tyV/.Buteventhisisofdoubtfulvalidity,sincewehaveseenintheIntroductionthatnawk9n=narken-isastemthatmaytakedifferentsuffixes.Iwilltranscribethisashypotheticalzbut,duetothefragilityofthisproposition,Iwillnotinsistonit.
WhilethereisanevidentmorphologicalsimilaritybetweensomeofthelastsignsoftheTableofEspanca(T,U,Qandg)andsomelettersoftheAnatolianalphabets(apparentlyalllaterthanSWexceptforPhrygian),theircompatibilityintermsofsoundisundeterminable—correspond-enceismuchmoreoverwhelmingatbothlevelsbetweenthebasiccoreofthescriptandPhoeni-cian.Andoneshouldbearinmindthatwhensuchbasicandlinearshapesareinquestion,theyoftencanemergeindependentlyindifferentwritingsystems.
5. Rare letters, hapax legomena and graphic variants
Thereisalsoanumberofhapaxlegomenaandraresignsthatmustbegraphicvariantsofothersigns,lapidaryerrors,misreadingsorhaveyetanotherexplanation.Otherwisetheamountofsignswouldsurpassthatofaregularalphabeticsystem.Sothesedifficultsignsneedtobeexplained:
S-105 ñandS-303(invertedñ)S-105isattestedontext26.Thesemustbegraphicvariantsofz.
S-121îEitheramistakeoravariantof w.
S-301ëThisoccursintext38,whereitappearstofunctionassomesortofword-divider(seeFig.12).Theimportantsectionoftheinscriptionmayberead:poti * anakerto...andsoon.
Fig. 11 Anatolianhieroglyph*376zi(left)anditslikelyalphabeticsuccessor(right).
Fig. 12 Detailoftheinscriptionno.38,MealhaNovaI(Correia,1996,p.108).
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138132
S-3028Adoublingofq?
S-304ÇItappearstobeanerrorintext59,whereperhapsitwasmeanttober:
S-311Thissignoccursintext67,betweenaande.Mightitbetheresultofanill-orientednthatbecamedoublewhenthesculptorattemptedtoamendit?
S-312}It appears only on an inscription foundnearthePaleochristianbasilicaofMértola,Portugal(Faria,1994),beforee—itispre-ceded by one vowel and followed by two.Asequenceoffourvowelswouldberatherunlikelysoitmustbeaconsonant.Wefindthattheshapeofthesignandthefollow-ingeguaranteeitasavariantofk,k(e).
S-305òandS-313ÏS-305occursintext64andS-313isusedtwice in the inscription from Mértola. ItappearsalwaysbeforeiandispossiblythatitisadoubletofU(whichismostlyattestedbeforethisvowel).
S-314;Theoneinstanceofthissignisintext28.Acloseinspectionoftheinscriptionrevealsthatthisisactuallylandtheextra“leg”inthedrawingisactuallypartofascratchinthestone.Thelineinquestionthusreads:]uarh(?)oli[15,whichisasign-grouprepeatedintext17.Wecannotignore,however,that;isindeedattestedintheTableofEspanca.ThisisconnectedtothequestionofwhethertheTableofEspancarepresentsadifferentwritingsystem(sinceitlackssomeSWsigns),aproblemwhichremainsunsolved.
Fig. 13 Detailoftext59,fromgavião(Correia,1996,p.129)
Fig. 14 DetailoftheinscriptionofMértola(photographoftheauthor).
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 133
6. Final considerations
Along these pages answers to questions raised in the introductory section were sought.Althoughwedepartedfromatabularasastartingpoint,ourfirstinquiryinrealityconcernedaconsensual idea requiring confirmation: we conclude that all evidence discussed above, paleo-graphicandarchaeological,supportsaPhoenicianoriginoftheSouthwesternscript.
Phoenicianh. e–t
šin? sa–mekh nun me–m la–medh reš
SWh(?)
“"1
s
z
s
s
n
n
m
M
l
l
r
r
Phoeniciangı−mel kaph k.o–ph he– be–th pe– ta–w t.e–th da–leth
SWk(a)
c
k(e)
k
k(i)
R
p(a)
º
p(e)
b
p(o)
0
t(a)
x
t(i)
±
t(u)
d
IthadbeenassumedpreviouslythatbecauseSWwaspentavocalic,itwasnecessarilyderivedfromgreekratherthanPhoenician.Inreality,however,weknowthatSemiticalephatswerethesourcetowritingsystemsthatdevelopedvocaliccomponentsindependentlyindifferentregionsoftheglobesuchasEthiopiaandIndia.AsalreadynotedbyRodríguez(2002),thishasbeengreatlyignored,perhapsbecauseofasomewhatprevailingEurocentricviewthatfocusesmainlyonthehistoryofwritingfromtheCanaanitealephatdowntotheLatinalphabet.
Fig. 15 Inscriptionno.28,AmeixialIII(Correia,1996,p.98).
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138134
Consequently,werealizethatSWaddedtwovowelstothethreebasicanduniversalvocalicsignsofthePhoenicianmatres lectionis,andtheselectioncriteriaforthosetwolettersiscompletelydivergentfromthegreekoptions.Besidesfivevocalicletters,thesystemofSWcontainedtwenty--four consonantal signs, fifteen of these representing the special category of stops (one is stillunidentified).These fifteen signs belonged to three different series that corresponded to velar,bilabialanddentalstops.Eachserieshadfivesigns,oneusedalwaysandexclusivelyincombina-tionwithoneofthevowelsinthesystem:thislaidthefoundationsoflaterIberianstopsyllabic(CV)signs.Theremainingnineconsonantsignsthatdidnotdenotestopswereusedfreelybeforeanysign.Theresultisthefollowing29-signsystem:
Vowel signs Non stop consonant signs
a a s s n n
9 e z s ś M m
i i U z(?) l l
ᚬ o " h (?) r r
Ç u w r (?) — —
Stop signs
ca ka ºa pa xa ta
k9 ke b9 pe j9 te
Ri ki i pi(?) ±i ti
+ᚬ ko 0ᚬ po <ᚬ to
YÇ ku (?) pu dÇ tu
Asarule—andwehaveseengoodexamplesofthat—writingsystemsaredevisedtoconformtoasmuchaspossibletothephonologicalprofileofthelanguagestheyexpressandthusthereis,toagreatextent,a relationshipbetweentypologyof languageandtypologyofscript.Butevenwhenonesystemisadaptedtowriteanewlanguagethatisgeneticallyandtypologicallyunrelatedtotheoriginalone,whichnecessarilyleadstoadaptations,thenewadaptedformofthescriptwillinevitably preserve certain traits that denounce the previous state of affairs. This has been theprincipleappliedhereand,inthecaseofSWandsubsequentIberiansemi-syllabaries,itledtotheinference of some phonological features that accounted for exceptional orthographic rules inthesesystems.Thisstrategyyieldsasortof“scriptinternalreconstruction”.
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 135
Inourcase,thisexerciseleadsustotheconclusionthatvoiceandaspirationwerenotdistinc-tiveinthelanguageoftheSWscript,whichwouldhavepossessedonlythreeplainunvoicedstops:/k/,/p/,/t/.Thismeans,onetheonehand,thatdifferentstopsignsfromthePhoenicianalephatwerereorganizedinonlythreebasicstopsets(velar,bilabialanddental);ontheotherhand,itjus-tifiestheeffortofIberiantomarklaryngealfeatures(i.e.voicing)inthevelaranddentalsyllabicsigns,whichculminatedinthe(re)creationofgraphicpairsforvoicedandvoicelesssyllabogramswhichhadbeenlostinSW.
Moreover,thealignmentofstopsignswithindividualvowelsreflectstheinexistenceofclus-tersofthetypeSCinthelanguageofSW.Thelatterhadprominentconstraintsonsyllablestruc-tureandtautosyllabicconsonantclustersmusthavealwaysbeenbrokenupwithananaptycticvowel; nevertheless, as in Iberian, heterosyllabic clusters are possible: cf. the aforementionednarken-oruarman(hereintransliteration),anothermuchrepeatedsign-group(texts11,25,51,61,63).
Suchphonological features(lackofvoicecontrastandheterosyllabicclusters)are impor-tant to our knowledge of the language, especially because they suggest a non-Indo-EuropeanlanguageandresembleourpictureofIberian16.Butforthemomentbeingwemustbecautiouswithsuchconsiderations,becausethesetraitsarenotstraightforwardindicationofgeneticaffil-iation.Suchfeaturescouldbedevelopedindependently,sometimesresultingfromarealcontactbetweenunrelatedlanguages.ThussomeIndo-Europeanlanguages,likePersian,lacktautosyl-labicclusters;andithasbeenproposedthatHittite,anotherIndo-Europeanlanguage,hadnovoicedistinctionbutmerelyallophonicvoicing (Kloekhorst,2008,pp.21–25),possiblyduetosubstratuminfluence.
Finally,IwouldliketounderlinethatthesystemIproposeisnotmuchdifferentthanthatalreadyadvocatedbyRodríguez(2000,2002)—whoseworkIcameacrosswhenthewritingofthistext was already ongoing. Our proposals diverge, however, with respect to the strictness of theorthographicrulesandthedistinctionbetweenstopandnon-stopconsonantletterswhich,asaconsequence,producedifferentreadingsforsomesigns.Themostsolidcaseisthe“serpentine”sign,whichIreadasm basedonsolidindependentevidence:1)theshapeofPhoenicianmem;2)thepositionofthesignintheTableofEspanca;3)itsusebeforemorethanonevowel;4)itsabilitytosolvetheproblemofabsenceofalabialnasalinthescript.Noneoftheotherproposalsmeetsthesecriteria.Moreover,Iofferaworkinghypothesisthatjustifiesandsubstantiates,fromalin-guisticstandpoint,therare(butnotunseen)developmentofwritingintheIberianPeninsula,withitsgradual,partial“syllabification”—anaccountthathasbeenmissingsofar.Nevertheless,IamsatisfiedbythemanypointsofconvergencebetweenwhatIpresenthereandtheworkofpreviousscholars because, evidently, the validity of one’s readings is strengthened when independentapproacheshaveleadtosimilarresults.
Thesereadingsneed,ofcourse,additionalconfirmation,whichwouldcorrespondtosubse-quentstagesindecipheringwork:i.e.exposingthelanguagehiddeninthescriptintermsofpho-nology,morphologyandsyntax,achieving,atthesametime,thehighestpossiblecompatibilitybetweenthe textsandelements (namelypersonalandplace-names)knownby indirect sources,namelyingreekandLatintransmission.Thepurposeofthisessaywassolelytoprovideasetofaccuratelydefinedandregularorthographic rulesandphonetic readingsaccordingtoasoundmethodology,hopefullypavingthewayforthesecondstep.
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138136
NOTES
* New University of Lisbon – Faculty of Social and Human Sciences1 Thislong-thoughtarticlecouldonlytakeshapethankstothe
incentiveofmanypeople,friendsandcolleagues.IamgreatlyindebtedtoRodrigoBanhadaSilva(CityMuseumofLisbon),MárioVarelagomes(NewUniversityofLisbon),IlyaYakubovich(UniversityofChicago)andMáriogouveia(NewUniversityofLisbon)who,apartfromdiscussingandreviewinglatedraftsofthispaper,providedimportantreferencesandmaterial.JoséMalveiro,PauloAlexandreMonteiroandAlexandreFernandes(NewUniversityofLisbon)alsosuppliedmewithimportantliterature.IamfurtherthankfulforthepatienceofCarlosSimões,EdgarFernandes,FilipeOliveiraandJoanaBruno(NewUniversityofLisbon),whoreaddifferentdraftsofthisarticle,discussedthemwithmeandsuppliedimportantopinionsorideas.Finally,IamgratefulforthepreciousconceptualhelpofBrentDavis(UniversityofMelbourne).Iam,nevertheless,thesoleresponsibleforthefinalviewsupheldhere.Furthermore,Ihaveattemptedtogiveduecredittoeveryideacontainedhereinwhichisnotoriginallymine.However,duetothespectacularlylargenumberofworksproducedonthesubjectinthelastcenturyandmyimpossibilitytoaccessmanyofthem,Iapologizeinadvanceforanypossibleomissions.
2 Actually,suchpracticecannotbedisconnectedfromthelocalreality.TherewasawidespreadLateBronzeAge(c.1200–800BC)traditionoferectingwhatappeartobetombstoneswithdepictionsofgoods,mostlyweaponsbutalsoluxuryobjects(fibulae,mirrors,combs,etc.)and,occasionally,representationsofpugnaciousorhuntingscenes.Thoseiconographicmotifshavesustainedtheideathatthemonumentsinquestioncelebratedeadwarriorsormembersofabelligerentaristocracy.AconsiderablenumberoftheseLBAstelaehavebeenretrievedfromtheregionsofBeiraBaixa(Portugal)andExtremadura(Spain),butalsoinotherareastothesouth(seeCardoso,2002,pp.392–396forasummaryofthetopic).Itissuggestivethat,atleastinonecase,aLBAstelewasreusedinEarlyIronAgeandinscribedwiththeSWscript(text80,fromCapoteinHigueralaReal,Badajoz,Spain).ThepossibilityofsomesortofcontinuuminthetraditionoferectingdecoratedgravestoneswithastrongcomponentofsymbolicpowerinthesouthwesternregionsofthePeninsulaisnottobeoverlooked,especiallyifwetakeintoaccountthedepictionofanarmedwarrioratthecenterofthesteleofAbóbadaI(Fig.1).
3 Anyproposalconnecting,evenpartially,thewritingsystemsoftheIberianPeninsulawiththeAegean-Cypriotpre-alphabeticsyllabaries(LinearA,LinearB,Cypro-MinoanorCypriotsyllabary)astheonesuggestede.g.inTovar(1951)andPérezRojas(1986)istotallyunfoundedandmustbediscardedonchronologicalandpaleographicgrounds.
4 Thesuccessofthealphabetisinpart“accidental”asitisassociatedwiththeextensivenessofPhoenicianandHellenicmaritimetradeinIronAgeMediterranean,whereIndo-Europeanlanguagesproliferated.Likewise,theexpansionofIndo--EuropeanlanguagesfromWesternEuropeinthemodernworlddictatedbyHistoryjustifiesthepredominanceofLatin-derivedalphabetstoday.
5 ForamorecompleteexpositionofthistheoreticalframeworkonemayseeStephens&Justeson,1978,pp.275–276.
6 HereIdonotfollowNaveh’s(1973,1982)viewthatthegreekalphabetderiveddirectlyfromtheCanaanitealephatataveryearlydate(mostlybasedonthefactthatlikegreek,earlyCanaaniteshowedsomelinearityintheshapesofitsletters).
Instead,IadheretothemoreconsensualthesisofaPhoenicianorigin(startingwithCarpenter,1933;Sass,2005,withreferences).Today,evidencethattheHellenicalphabetwasinventedsomewhereinsouth-easternAnatolia(PamphyliaorCilicia)isgainingadepts(Yakubovich,2007,p.218).Onetheonehand,itcanbearguedthatthepresenceofgreek-speakingsettlersinPamphyliagoesbacktotheLateBronzeAge(Yakubovich,2008,pp.190–195,withreferences).Ontheotherhand,Phrygian,whichlikeothersubsequentAnatolianalphabetsmustbeadescendentofgreek(becauseofthechoiceofvowels),isfirstattestedongraffitionpotteryfromgordiontodaydatedto“beginningoftheeighthcentury,orafullfiftyyearsbeforethefirstassuredlygreekdocuments”(Brixhe,2007a,p.278).TheconclusionisthattheearliestgreekinscriptionsmaystillbewaitingtobefoundinsoutheasternAnatolia,wheregreek-speakingpopulationsmusthavebeenincontactwithPhrygians.
7 giventhatgreekhadnoglottalfricative,thenameoftheletterhewouldhavebeen“heard”(i.e.perceived)as/e/bygreekears,thusmotivatingitsborrowingastheletterepsilon,asBrixhe(2007a,pp.284–285)pointsout.Thesamescholararguesthatthecayinmayhavebeenusedfor/o/withbasisontheacrophonicprinciple:thesignisagraphicdepictionofan“eye”(=cayin)andallthreegreekwordsfor‘eye,eyesight’beginwithanooro–(!oφθαλμoVς,#oμμα,w! ψ).
8 ProponentsoftheHellenicoriginofthescriptalsoputemphasisonClassicalauthorswhoreportgreekexpeditionsbeyondtheStrait,suchasHerodotus,whonarrates(I.163)howIoniansailorsfromPhocaeareachedasemi-mythologicalkingdomnamedTartessos(ΤαρτησσoVς)beyondtheColumnsofHeracles(i.e.thegibraltarStrait),thusintheIberianPeninsula.TheTartessianking,Argantonius,invitedthePhocaeanstosettleinhisterritoryand,whentheydenied,hestillofferedthemgoldtobuildwallsaroundtheirpolisinAsiaMinor.Tartessosistraditionallyidentified(StraboIII,1,6and2,11)withtheterritoryaroundthebasinoftheriverguadalquivir,whereinhistoricaltimesLatinsourcesplaceanindigenouspeoplenamedTurdetaniorTurduli.Onasidenote,itseemsthattoastem*Trte–-theRomansaddedtwonativeethnonymicsuffixes,-taniand-uli(whichareequivalent;cf.anotherethnonym,BastetaniandBastuli),whichHerodotusonhisownaddornedwiththeAegeantoponymicending-σσoς,quitefrequentintheAegeancoastofAnatolia(cf.Halikarnassos,thegreekauthor’sownhometowninCaria).Theassociationbysomeofthissemi-mythologicalindigenouspeoplewiththeSWscriptisthebasistosomeofthelatter’salternativenames,despitethefactthatthevastmajorityofthecorpuscomesfromthePortugueseregionofBaixoAlentejo,notfromtheareaoftheguadalquivirinSpain.
9 Wedofindinstancesofword-finalstopsinIberianthroughgreektransmission:e.g.gaibigaitandsalirg(Michelena,1979,p.25).Onceagain,Japaneseiselucidativefromatypologicalviewpoint.DespitethesyllabicnatureoftheNipponeselanguage,sometimesianduarenotpronouncedbetweenvoicelessconsonants.Theyalsodisappearinword-finalpositionwhenstressisonthepenultimatesyllable:e.g.ikimasu‘go’(presenttense)ispronounced/ikimas/;likewiseikimashita‘went’ispronounced/ikima∫ta/becausestressisontheantepenultimatesyllable.Itispossiblethatword-finalstopsinIberianarealsotheresultofaccent-drivenlossoffinalvowels:salirg<* SA ‑lir‑gV.Nevertheless,syllabicscriptswerestill“apropriate”forbothlanguages.
Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
Miguel Valério
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138 137
10 WemaycompareLinearBwhich,regardlessofthefactthatMycenaeangreekhadvoiceddistinction,inheritedanduseduniquekandp-seriesforsixdifferentgreekphonemes:/k/,/g/,/kh//p/,/b/and/ph/.Onemaypresumethat,LinearBbeinganadaptationofLinearA,theMinoanlanguagedidnothavevoicedoraspiratedvelar/bilabialstops.
11 ThismeansIberianhadtoreinventsignsforvoicedconsonantsthathadoncebeenavailableintheoriginalborrowedscript(Phoenician).OnemaycomparetheevolutionofvelarsignsinalphabetsfromgreektoLatinalphabet.Thegreekalphabetpossessedgammaandkappa(for/g/and/k/)butwhenEtruscansborrowedandadaptedthatsystemtheykeptonlyonesign(derivedfromgamma)for/k/,C,becausetheirlanguagehadnovoicedstops.Lateron,RomansdevelopedtheirownalphabetwithbasisontheEtruscanoneandwereforcedtousethatletterforboth/g/and/k/,sinceLatinhadvoicecontrast.Cwasused
ambiguouslyforcenturiesbeforeagraphicvariant,g,wasdevisedspecificallyforthevoicedstop.
12 ContraCorrea(1990,Fig.3)andRodríguez(2000,p.31),whopropose?tobete.Onthissignseebelow.
13 IthankJoséMalveiro,whokindlyprovidedmewithapictureoftheinscription.
14 Likewise,Correa(1990,p.Fig.3)hasproposedthehypotheticreadingp(a).
15 Thereading]uarpoli[isalsopossible.16 Thisresemblanceregards,a priori,onlytheexclusivenessof
tautosyllabicclustersinbothlanguages,butithasbeensuggestedthatIberianalsohadnovoicecontrastandthatthegraphicvariantsofstopsignswereusedforallophonicvoicedstops—eventhoughthisdoesnotseemlikelygiventheexclusiveuseofbeta(andnotpi)inthegreco-Iberianinscriptions.
BIBlIOGRAPhy
ADIEgO,Ignasi-Xavier(2004)-LosalfabetosepicóricosanhelénicosdeAsiaMenor.InBÁDENASDELAPEÑA,Pedro;TORALLASTOVAR,Sofía;LUJÁN,EugenioRamón;gALLEgO,MaríaÁngeles,eds.-Lenguas en contacto: el testimonio escrito.Madrid:ConsejoSuperiordeInvestigacionesCientíficas,pp.261–270.
AKIYAMA,Nobuo;AKIYAMA,Carol(2002)-Japanese Grammar. 2nd Edition.NewYork,NY:Barron’sEducationalSeries.
ARRUDA,AnaMargarida(1997)-As cerâmicas áticas do Castelo de Castro Marim.Lisboa:Colibri.
ARRUDA,AnaMargarida(1999–2000)-Los Fenicios en Portugal.Barcelona:UniversidadPompeuFabra.
BEIRãO,CaetanodeMello(1986)-Une civilisation protohistorique du sud du Portugal(1er Age du Fer).Paris:DeBoccard.
BEIRãO,CaetanodeMello(1990)-Epigrafiada1.ªIdadedoFerrodoSudoestedaPenínsulaIbérica.Novosdadosarqueológicos.Estudos Orientais.Lisboa.1,pp.107–118.
BRIXHE,Claude(2004)-Corpusdesinscriptionspaléo-phrygiennes.SupplémentII.Kadmos.Berlin.43,pp.1–130.
BRIXHE,Claude(2007a)-Historyofthealphabet:someguidelinesforavoidingoversimplification.InCHRISTIDIS,Anastasios-Phoinos,ed.-A History of Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to Late Antiquity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.277–289.
BRIXHE,Claude(2007b)-LesalphabetsduFayoum.Kadmos.Berlin.46,pp.15–38.
BRIXHE,Claude;LEJEUNE,Michel(1984)-Corpus des inscriptions paléo‑phrygiennes.Paris:éditionsRecherchesurlesCivilizations.
CARDOSO,JoãoLuís(2002)-Pré‑História de Portugal.Lisboa:EditorialVerbo.
CARPENTER,Rhys(1933)-Theantiquityofthegreekalphabet.American Journal of Archaeology.Boston,MA.37,pp.8–29.
COMRIE,Bernard,ed.(2009)-The world’s major languages.2ndEdition.London:Routledge.
CORREA,JoséAntonio(1990)-LaepigrafíadelSuroeste.IngAMITO,Teresa,ed.-Arqueologia Hoje, I. Etno‑Arqueologia.Faro:UniversidadedoAlgarve,pp.132–143.
CORREA,JoséAntonio(1992)-Laepigrafiatartesia.InHERTEL,Dieter;UNTERMANN,Jürgen,eds.-Andalusien zwischen Vorgeschichte und Mittelalter.Köln;Weimar;Wien:Böhlau,pp.75-114.
CORREA,JoséAntonio(1994)-Lalenguaibérica.Revista Española de Lingüística.Madrid.24:2,pp.263–287.
CORREIA,VirgílioHipólito(1996)-A epigrafia da Idade do Ferro do Sudoeste da Península Ibérica.Porto:Etnos.
FABIãO,Carlos(1992)-Opassadoproto-históricoeromano.InMATTOSO,José,ed.-História de Portugal, vol. I: antes de Portugal. Lisboa:CírculodeLeitores,pp.77–299.
FARIA,AntónioMarquesde(1992)-Aindaonomepré-romanodeAlcácerdoSal.Vipasca.Aljustrel.1,pp.39–48.
FARIA,AntónioMarquesde(1994)-UmainscriçãoemcaracteresdoSudoesteachadaemMértola.Vipasca.Aljustrel.3,pp.61–63.
FARIA,AntónioMarquesde;SOARES,AntónioM.Monge(1998)-UmainscriçãoemcaracteresdoSudoesteprovenientedaFolhadoRanjão(Baleizão,Beja).Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia.Lisboa.1:1,pp.153–160.
FERNÁNDEzJURADO,Jesús;CORREA,JoséAntonio(1988–1989)-NuevosgrafitoshalladosenHuelva.Huelva Arqueológica.Huelva.10–11:3,pp.121–142.
gLASS,Andrew(2000)-A preliminary study of Kharos. t.hı− manuscript paleography.MADissertation:UniversityofWashington.
gOMES,MárioVarela(1997)-Estelaepigrafadaenecrópole,daIIdadedoFerro,deBarradas,Benafim(Loulé).Al-ulyã.Loulé.5,p.9-22.
góMEzMORENO,Manuel(1922/1949)-Deepigrafíaibérica:elplomodeAlcoy.Revista de Filología Española.Madrid.9,pp.341–366.
góMEzMORENO,Manuel(1943)-Laescrituraibérica.Boletín del Seminario de Arte y Arqueología.Valladolid.8:1,pp.13–32.
góMEzMORENO,Manuel(1961)-Laescriturabástulo-turdetana(primitivahispánica).Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos.Madrid.69:2,pp.879–951.
Miguel Valério Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet
REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE Arqueologia. volume 11. número 2. 2008, pp. 107–138138
DEHOz,Javier(1976)-LaepigrafíaprelatinameridionalenHispania.InJORDÁ,Francisco;DEHOz,Javier;MICHELENA,Luis,eds.-Actas del I Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 27–31 mayo 1974).Salamanca:Universidad,pp.227–317.
DEHOz,Javier(1990)-ElorigenorientaldelasantiguasescriturashispanasyeldesarrollodelaescrituradelAlgarve.InPresenças Orientalizantes em Portugal. Da Pré‑História ao Período Romano.Lisboa:UniversidadeNova,1,pp.219–246.
DEHOz,Javier(1996)-Elorigendelasescrituraspaleohispánicasquinceañosdespués.InVILLAR,Francisco;ENCARNAÇãO,Joséd’,eds.-Actas del VI Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica(Coimbra, 1994).Salamanca:Universidad;Coimbra:Universidade,pp.171–206.
HAWKINS,JohnD.(2003)-Scriptsandtexts.InMELCHERT,H.Craig,ed.-The Luwians.Leiden;Boston:Brill,pp.128-169.
KAY,gillian(1995)-EnglishloanwordsinJapanese.World Englishes.Oxford.14:1,pp.67–76.
KLOEKHORST,Alwin(2008)-Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexiconLeiden;Boston:Brill.
LEJEUNE,Michel(1970)-Lesinscriptionsdegordionetl’alphabetPhrygien.Kadmos.Berlin.9,pp.51–74.
MEDEROSMARTíN,Alfredo;RUIzCABRERO,Luis(2001)-LosiniciosdelaescrituraenlaPenínsulaIbérica.grafitosencerámicasdelBronceFinalIIIyFenicias.Complutum.Madrid.12,pp.97–112.
MICHELENA,Luis(1979)-Lalangueibère.InTOVAR,Antonio;FAUST,Manfred;FISCHER,Franz;KOCH,Michael,eds.-Actas del II Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Tübingen, 17-19 de junio de 1976).Salamanca:Universidad,pp.23-39.
NAVEH,Joseph(1973)-SomeSemiticepigraphicalconsiderationsontheantiquityofthegreekalphabet.American Journal of Archaeology.Boston,MA.77,1–8.
NAVEH,Joseph(1982)-The early history of the alphabet.Jerusalem:MagnesPress;HebrewUniversity.
PANAYOTOU,Anna(2007)-Pamphylian.InCHRISTIDIS,Anastasios-Phoinos,ed.-A history of Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to Late Antiquity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.427–432.
PéREzROJAS,Manuel(1986)-Epigrafíatartésica.InTartessos(Revista de Arqueología,Extra;1).Madrid:zugarto,pp.74–81.
REHMAN,Abdel(2007)-English‑Tigrigna dictionary: a dictionary of the Tigrinya language.2ndrevisededition.Asmara:SimonWallenbergPress.
RODRígUEzRAMOS,Jesús(2000)-Lalecturadelasinscripcionessudlusitano-tartesias.Faventia.Barcelona.22:1,pp.21–48.
RODRígUEzRAMOS,Jesús(2002)-Elorigendelaescriturasudlusitano-tartesiaylaformacióndealfabetosapartirdealefatos.Rivista di Studi Fenici.Roma.30:2,pp.187–216.
SASS,Benjamin(2005)-The alphabet at the turn of the millennium: the west Semitic alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE; the antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian alphabets.TelAviv:EmeryandClaireYassPublications.
SCHMOLL,Ulrich(1961)-Die südlusitanischen Inschriften.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
SCHMOLL,Ulrich(1962)-zurEntzifferungdersüdhispanischenSchrift.Madrider Mitteilungen.Heidelberg.3,pp.85–100.
SCHULTEN,Adolf(1940)-LosTirsenosenEspaña.Ampurias.Barcelona.2,pp.33–53.
SILES,Jaime(1979)-ÜberdieSibilanteniniberischerSchrift.InTOVAR,Antonio;FAUST,Manfred;FISCHER,Franz;KOCH,Michael,eds.-Actas del II Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Tübingen, 17-19 de junio de 1976).Salamanca:Universidad,pp.81–99.
SILVA,ArmandoCoelhoFerreira;gOMES,MárioVarela(1992)-Proto‑História de Portugal.Lisboa:UniversidadeAberta.
STEPHENS,Laurence;JUSTESON,JohnS.(1978)-Reconstructing‘Minoan’phonology:theapproachfromuniversalsoflanguageanduniversalsofwritingsystems.Transactions of the American Philological Association.Baltimore,MD.108,pp.271–284.
TOVAR,Antonio(1951)-Sobrelasupervivenciadelsilabismomicénicoenibéricoyenotrosalfabetos.Minos.Salamanca.1,pp.61–70.
TOVAR,Antonio(1952a)-Observacionessobreescriturastartesias.Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina.Valencia. 3,pp.257–262.
TOVAR,Antonio(1952b)-Laescriturahispánicaylosorígenesdelalfabeto.Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología.Valladolid.18,pp.15–19.
TOVAR,Antonio(1956)-Hispaniaenlahistoriadelaescritura.Paraladelimitacióngeográficadelconceptodelotartesio.Anales de Historia Antigua y Medieval.BuenosAires.7,pp.7–14.
UNTERMANN,Jürgen(1975)-Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum. Band I: Die Münzlegenden. 1. Text.Wiesbaden:Dr.LudwigReichert.
UNTERMANN,Jürgen(1985)-LenguasyunidadespolíticasdelSuroestehispánicoenépocaprerromana.InWENTzLAFF-EggEBERT,Christian,ed.-De Tartessos a Cervantes.Köln:Böhlau,pp.1–40.
UNTERMANN,Jürgen(1987)-Repertorioantroponímicoibérico.Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina.Valencia.17,pp.289–318.
UNTERMANN,Jürgen(1997)-NeueÜberlegungenundeineneueQuellezurEntstehungderalthispanischenSchriften.Madrider Mitteilungen.Mainz.38,pp.49–66.
VALéRIO,Miguel(2008)-LinearAduandCypriotsu:acaseofdiachronicacrophony?Kadmos.Berlin.47,pp.57–66.
WOODARD,RogerD.,ed.(2008a)-Ancient languages of Asia Minor.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
WOODARD,RogerD.(2008b)-The ancient languages of Syria‑Palestine and Arabia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
YAKUBOVICH,Ilya(2007)-[Review]BÁDENASDELAPEÑA,Pedro;TORALLASTOVAR,Sofía;LUJÁN,EugenioRamón;gALLEgO,MaríaÁngeles,eds.-Lenguas en contacto: El testimonio escrito.Madrid:ConsejoSuperiordeInvestigacionesCientíficas.The Journal of the American Oriental Society.AnnArbor,MI.127:2,pp.217–218.
YAKUBOVICH,Ilya(2008)-Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language.UniversityofChicago,PhDDissertation.
YAKUBOVICH,Ilya(2009)-[Review]géRARD,Raphaël(2004)-Phonétique et morphologie de la langue lydienne.Leiden:Peeters.Journal of Near Eastern
Studies.Chicago,Il.68:1,pp.43–45.