28-the letter-order of the semitic alphabets in africa and the near east

8/12/2019 28-The Letter-Order of the Semitic Alphabets in Africa and the Near East

1/13

International African Institute

The Letter-Order of the Semitic Alphabets in Africa and the Near EastAuthor(s): A. M. HoneymanSource: Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 1952), pp.136-147Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of the International African InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1156240.

Accessed: 17/03/2011 06:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University PressandInternational African Instituteare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAfrica: Journal of the International African Institute.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1156240?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1156240?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/13

[ 36]

THE LETTER-ORDER OF THE SEMITIC ALPHABETSIN AFRICA AND THE NEAR EASTA. M. HONEYMAN

T HE Ethiopic syllabaryemployedfor writing the classicalGe'ez and also, withcertainmodifications,hecontemporary outh Semiticvernaculars f EastAfrica,was formed by super-imposinga system of auxiliaryvowel-marksupon a basicconsonantalalphabet;this alphabetoccurs, alongside of the syllabicscript, in theOld Ethiopic inscriptionsof the AxumiteKingdomin the fourthcenturyof our era,and is a derivativeof the Sabaeo-Minaeanr Old SouthArabicscriptfound in themonumentsof the south-west Arabiankingdoms.'But althoughthe Ethiopic sylla-bary is thus geneticallyconnected with the other main branches of the Semiticalphabet, he traditionalorderof the signs, in whichthe consonantal omponentandthe accompanyingvowel arethe primaryandsecondarydetermining actorsrespec-tively, does not agreewith that of any Semiticalphabethitherto known. Thereis noold or reliablenative tradition as to the reasonunderlyingthe orderof the signs;no help is to be hadfrom numericalsigns, which elsewhere,as will shortlyappear,affordvaluabletestimonyto the order of the letters;for EthiopicborrowedGreekalphabeticsigns for this purpose,while the South Arabian nscriptionsused singlestrokesfor the units, and for higher denominations he initial lettersof the nativewordsforfive,ten,hundred, c.2The mnemonicword-groupsreconstructed y Bauerandothers3areopen to objectionon groundsof languageand sense. Other externalcriteriayieldonly tentativeandinconclusiveresults,andthe subjecthasaccordinglyremainedone of speculationand controversy.The problem has assumeda new form, although it has not been completelyresolved,as the result of a discoverymadein the springof 1951at HajarKohlanin the WadiBeihan,the site of ancientTimna',the capitalof the QatabanianKing-dom. In the course of its second campaignthere the expeditionof the AmericanFoundationfor the Study of Man, under the archaeologicaldirection of ProfessorW. F. Albright,excavatedan enceinte in the centreof the city to the north of theobelisk; from the form of the enceinte and the multitude of dedicatory ragments,ProfessorAlbright provisionally dentifiedthe buildingas a templeof 'Attar.At alevel datedby Albrightas late fourthor firsthalfof the thirdcentury-about 300B.C.in round numbers-there was uncovereda stone gutter with rows of flat pavingblocks of Yemenite limestoneon either side. Some of the stones found in situ oneither side of thegutterwere ightly ncisedwith mason'smarkson the top face;somehundredsof similarblocks were found in the court without mason'smarks,andamongstthe debrisweremanypavingordado blocks with similarmarkson the edge.It appears hat, althoughthey would not take any appreciable ime to make,these

I For details and further bibliography see Dill- I95I, 207-I7.mann-Bezold-Crichton, Ethiopic Grammar (1907), 2 Dillmann, op. cit., 33; H6fner, AltsAidarabischeI5-32; Diringer, The Alphabet (I947), 223-34; Grammatik I943), I3-I7.Fevrier, Histoire deI'tcriture (I948), 275-88; Driver, 3 ZDMG Ixvii (913), 50I-2; Bartels, ibid. IxixSemitic Writing(I948), 144-8; Ullendorff in Africa, (I915), 52-8; cf. Ullendorff, loc. cit., 210.


3/13

LETTER-ORDER OF SEMITIC ALPHABETS IN AFRICA AND NEAR EAST 137markswere madeonly exceptionally o identifystoneswhich hadto be prepared ooccupy some particularposition. To the right of the gutterand contiguouswith itwerefour rectangular locks,each of whichhad been markedon its top surfacewitha single letter of the SouthArabianscriptandthe singlevertical strokeused for thenumeralone. To the rightof this was a second row of four, a thirdrow of five, anda fourth row of five blocks, each of which had been inscribedwith a letter of theSouth Arabianalphabetand, on the left of the letter, two, three, or four verticalstrokesaccording o the row in whichit was set. On the othersideof the gutterwasanother row of slabscorresponding o the firstrow and having similarmarks,butin a poorerstate of preservation; t contributesno addition to what canbe learnedfrom the other series.The signs are too faint for effectivereproductionby photography;Fig. i repro-duces a hand-copy suppliedby ProfessorAlbright.It will be observed hat the lastblock of the firstrow and the first of the fourth arequiteillegible.On the firstblockof the thirdrow the upper right corner of the letter is lackingand the reading s notbeyond some doubt.

p > n i i a9 f ng NHiO

FIG. I. SouthArabianragmentarylphabeticeries rom Timna'. Reproduced y permissionfroma hand-copymadeby ProfessorW. F. Albright)In regard o the forms of the letters one featurecalls for comment. Of those letterswhich are not symmetricalabout theirverticalaxis seven in the presentseriesfaceleft, as is usualin SouthArabian,andtwo-the first in the first row and the thirdinthe second row-face right.Examplesof the latter etter n its dextrogradeormmustbe very rare, since it is one of the more infrequentletters of the South Arabianalphabet.But no particular ignificance s to be attachedto the inconsistency,forreversed ettersarenot uncommonoutside of boustrophedonwriting, especially n

graffiti;and the men who marked these stones, being stone-dressersrather thanepigraphicmasons,had no specialneed of a high degree of literacyand may alsohave been confusedby the fact thattheyhad to prepare wo sets of blocks in reversedirections.No letteris repeated n the series,and it is clear that the letters areused as serialnumbersto indicate the position of the stones in relationto their neighbours.Forsuch a purpose the conventionalorder of the letters of the alphabetas taught toscholars affordsa convenient serialorder, and it is naturaltherefore to see in thepresent series a portion of the Qatabanian alphabet of c. 300 B.C. and to compare itwith other known Semiticalphabets.

Direct comparisonof the letter-orderof the Qatabanian eries with that of theNorth Semiticalphabet n its variousformsyields only negativeresults;cf. Fig. 3.


4/13

THE LETTER-ORDER OF THE SEMITIC ALPHABETSThere is a superficial resemblance in the occurrence of the third and fifth signs of thefourth column in virtual juxtaposition-with only one sign intervening-and in thesame order as that of their analogues pe and 'ayinin certain ancient Hebrew alpha-betic acrostics,1 but the reason for the coincidence is to be found within the SouthArabian course of development.Comparison with the sequence of the Ethiopic syllabary is more instructive, ascan be seen from Fig. 2, in which the Qatabanian series is transposed to a horizontalarrangement, provided with a transliterationand set alongside a transliteration of thecorresponding portion of the Ethiopic system. It will be seen that the three surviving

(a) Text (right to left): i I T 1 RowI1 ) 3 RowIM 6I hi n V RowIIIo h o X g Row

(b) Transliterationright to left):- m h 1 Row Is g r s Row IIh n k b h Row III

p -- Row IV(c) Consonantalvalues of beginning of Ethiopic syllabary right to left):m h 1 h

s r sn h t b qw k

FIG. 2. Comparison of Qatabanianand Ethiopic consonantal orderletters of Row I followed by the first two letters of Row II occur in the sequence ofthe second to the sixth letters inclusive of the Ethiopic system, and that the analogueof the seventh Ethiopic sign occurs at the end of Row II, being separated from thatof the sixth bygayn, which was not taken over by the Ethiopic system. In other wordsthe opening of the Qatabanian series is identical with that of the first seven lettersof the traditional Ethiopic series, save for-

(i) the absence of the first Ethiopic sign h, which is probably to be read as no. 9of the Qatabanian series;(ii) the presence between nmand s of some letter not represented-at least not inthat position-in the Ethiopic series; and(iii) the presence before s of a letter not reproduced by the Ethiopic.Beyond Row II the comparison cannot be pursued with the same degree of closeness,

I Driver, op. cit. x8I, n. 5; for this divergence from the usual North Semitic letter-order no adequateexplanation has been provided.

I38


5/13

IN AFRICA AND THE NEAR EAST 139but at the end of Row III we may note n and h,injuxtaposition,though in theopposite orderfromthatfound in Ethiopic.Finallyband ', to a lesserdegreealso ',may be said to occupyapproximatelyhe sameposition in the Qatabanian eries asthey do in Ethiopic. The agreementsare sufficient o confirm the suppositionthatthe seriesof letters formsthe beginningof the Qatabanian lphabet,and to suggestthat the order of its letters is substantially hat of the Ethiopic syllabaryand thealphabeticarchetype hereof.'

QatabanianserialorderRow I I

2

Row II 5678

Row III 9IOII1213

Row IV I415I61718

Qata-banianszgnIT

I 1?fie(?)n?

h0

Phoneticvalue1hmr

shbknh?

sgP

EthiopicanalogueA(hoDW

deestfiI4nrdJadeestA0

Place nEthiopicseries

234567

91412II

2513x6

Place nUgariticseries

149

15'32426'962

12174

deest21

(?)20

FIG. 3. Comparison of order of signs in Qatabanian,Ethiopic, and UgariticIn the Qatabanian lphabet he main basis for the sequenceof the lettersis pro-vided by the shapesof the lettersthemselves. Nos. i (1)and2 (h)consistof a verticallimb with additions at the top. Nos. 3 (m), 5 (s), and 6 (r) are all asymmetrical aboutthe verticalaxis and variouslyangularat the sides; no. 5 has a double and no. 6 asingle vertex to the right; no. 3 has a similardouble vertex to the left andmightberegardedas repeating he two elements-vertical strokeand doublebay or fold-of

I Thus we do not exclude the possibility that theorder of the letters varied at different periods or indifferent regions of the South Arabian area. But theinconvenience of upsetting a long-established con-vention is such, even where numericalvalues are notassociated with the letters of the alphabet, that re-

arrangement is rarely resorted to except where amajor break has taken place in the whole culturaltradition. And the discrepancies between the Qata-banian and the Ethiopic systems are not such as tonecessitate the hypothesis of a different order in theEthiopic archetypefrom that found at Timna'.


6/13

I4o THE LETTER-ORDER OF THE SEMITIC ALPHABETSits predecessorno. 2 in a differentarrangement.The similarityof shape s unmistak-ablein nos. 7-I I (g, s, h (?), b,k), in allof whichahollow square s the basicelement;this groupbeginsandends with a sign which adds a diagonalstroke to the top out-sideof thesquare,andno. 9, if correctly ead, s no. 8 turnedupsidedown.Nos. 12(n)and 13 (h) both involve a verticalzigzag. No. 17 (') has the same componentsasno. 13 with the hollow squareset in reverseposition at the foot of the zigzag; ofthe threeinterveningcharacters,he two that survive,no. 15 (S)and no. 16(p), aredistinguishedby having a lozenge as their essentialfeature.In the juxtapositionofnos. I 7 (') and i 8 (') it is possiblethat a new factor s operative,viz. thatof phoneticsimilarity.IThe last sign, no. 18 (') introducesa new group of forms whose dis-tinctive feature cannot but have been a circle; it must thereforehave included wwhich standsnext to ' in the Ethiopicorder.Turningto the gaps in the Qatabanianeries,we have for the vacantplaceno. 4only one sign which has the featuresof nos. 3-6 as above described,viz. d, with itsunilateralaspect, the vertical line as in no. 3, and the single trianglein reversedposition; it may thereforewith considerableplausibilitybe restoredin that place.The missingletter for placeno. I4 is less easyto supply;the likeliest candidatesaret and z with theirtwo diagonalarms,and in eithercasea reason could be given fortherebeing no evidencein the Ethiopic. For no. 9, as alreadystated, the likeliestreading s h;thetop of theletter,especiallyon theright,is hardto discern,but on theprinciplesdiscussedabovehfitsperfectly. n theEthiopicthepositioncorrespondingto no. 9 is occupied by q; in Qatabanian,however, its naturalposition is with w,t ory. In anyevent the Ethiopictraditionseparatesy rom w and ' 2 by its z,3 but iffor the reasonsgiven below t is morelikely than z for no. 14, then z maywell havebeen contiguousto d. The Qatabanian lphabet hen closes with the right-angled ,the rectangular and d, and finallys with its modificationz, all very much as inEthiopic.A tentativereconstructionof the Qatabanian lphabet s offered,with alldue reserve, n Fig. 4.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II I2 I3 I41 1' a ) 1l h n I h Mx15 i6 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29: O h o f o X H TI I H AFIG.4. Conjecturalreconstruction of the Qatabanianorder of the alphabet

Some accountcan now be given of the relationof this alphabet o the Ethiopicsuccessor.In Ethiopic the soundsrepresentedby the signs nos. 7 (g), I5 (S), 21 (t),22 (z), and 29 (z) did not occur, and these signs were therefore dropped as redun-dant,while two new signswere introduced or the Ethiopicsoundsp' andp. For anunderstanding f the furtherchanges n theletter-orderwe havea surestarting-pointin the beginning of the alphabet, which is h, 1, m, . . . in Ethiopic as against Qata-banian1,h, ,. .. Whywas the letterhtransposedromninth, or, ifg be disregarded,eighth place to the head of the alphabet?The answeris that once againconsidera-

I Cf. H6fner, op. cit., ? I2. 3 i.e. the sign with the etymological value of z and2 In that order, whereas the Qatabanianalphabet d, the sound of z, and a shape deriving from that ofbegins the group with '. South Arabian d.


7/13

IN AFRICAAND THE NEAR EAST I4Itions of form dictated the arrangement. n some of the fourth-centuryalphabeticinscriptions he customary orm of h is that of an invertedI of contemporaryorm.Only at this phaseis the resemblance o close, and the Ethiopicreformof the alpha-betic order must thereforebelong to this generalperiod.'At the sametime,the letterd was transferredo come aftery, to which it now had a close resemblance n form.2To fill the vacantplace after s and so preservethe relativeposition of b and thefollowing group the letter q was introducedfrom a laterposition in the alphabet.Why this letterwas chosen for the shift is not at all clear,since Old Ethiopics andqarenot closelyrelated n form.If the originalpositionof Ethiopicqwas justafterthelast letter of the survivingQatabanian eries,considerationsof symmetrymayhavehad somethingto do with the transference rom eighth last position in the reducedalphabet3o eighth placefrom the beginning.Beyond this point only the most tentativeaccountcan be offered of the furtherchanges n letter-order,but it would seem that form is the chiefcriterion.Within thegroup representedby Qatabanian os. 10o-7 considerablerearrangementook place.No. ' 5 () had been dropped;no. 6 (p orf) was transferred o the end of the basicEthiopic alphabetbecausetherewas no longer any group of signs distinguishedbytheirsloping lines and because ts shapewas not unlike that of d. The lettert, what-ever its original position in the alphabet,had now developedfrom a diagonalto averticalcross and so was set besideb in orderthatthe two right-angled ymmetricalforms might standtogether. Next the relativepositions of n and h were reversed,because the latter, in the modified form which it took in Old Ethiopic, might beregardedas standingintermediatebetween t and n. Lastlyk was brought in at theend of this group after', which it most nearlyresembles n shape.The Ethiopicorderof wfollowedby ' is atvariancewith the Qatabanian, f whichall that we know for certain s that ' was not preceded by w. If, as seems likely, afairlysimple transpositionhas takenplace, it canhardlyhave been basedon regardfor letter-forms,since both letters developedin much the sameway from circularto more angular shapes.In view of the prevalenceof labio-velar combinationsinEthiopic it is conceivablethat the desire to balance the pairq+b by the pairk+-wwasa factor n the case.Againstthispossibility,however,mustbe set' the singularlyvague phoneticnotions of Ethiopians ,4 andin the absence of anycomparativedatafrom Qatabanor elsewhereconjecture s hazardous,both at this point and in thesequencet , , d towardsthe end of the unenlargedalphabet.The forms of the Old

Ethiopic lettersand the relationof their order to that of the reconstructedSouthArabianalphabetareshown in Fig. 5.While there remainsconsiderableuncertainty n details, it may be regardedasestablished hatboth in SouthArabianand in Old Ethiopicthe mainfactorin deter-mining the orderof the letterswas that of form and graphic similarity.The reasonfor this is clear. It was paedagogic. Signs of similar ormwere set beside each othernot simplybecausethey were similar,but in order that the learnermight see andreproducethe distinguishingfeatures and be relievedso far as possible of the riskof confusingthem. The need for care andattention in this regard s appreciatedbyI Cf. supra, n. i on p. I39 (I9I3), Tafelvi.2 Cf. Littmann, Deutsche A4ksum-Expedition,Bd. 3 Viz. q, w, z, y, g, t, d, $.IV, Sabdische,GriechischendAltabessinischenschriften 4 Ullendorff, loc. cit. 211.


8/13

THE LETTER-ORDER OF THE SEMITIC ALPHABETSevery teacher of handwriting and is stressed in the orthographic sections of intro-ductory grammars to languages in foreign scripts. That the same consideration wasshown in the early stages of the South Arabian and the Ethiopic alphabets suggeststhat the art of writing was not the exclusive perquisite of a cultured class but wasrather more widely disseminated than is sometimes allowed.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Io 1 12 I3VA/ /\ a p~g ~ki ~b1rh P r9 I 2 3 5 6 8 19 IO 14 I3 12 I7

I4 15 I6 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

h Do H P s.m- -^M El(-TI 20 i8 23 24 4 25 26 - 28 27 i6FIG. 5. The Old EthiopicAlphabet.The formsof the lettersarereproducedromthe Axumitealphabetic nscriptions,and below each the serialposition of thecorrespondingignin the reconstructedQatabanianlphabets indicated

The principle of sign-sequence according to graphic form is to be seen in opera-tion in the earliest known phases of the Semitic alphabet, for it is exemplified in thealphabetic table in Ugaritic cuneiform script recovered at Ras Shamra in the courseof the 1949-50 excavations under the direction of M. Claude F. A. Schaeffer, andreproduced in Fig. 6.I The order of the signs in this cuneiform alphabet agreesremarkably with that of the classical 22-letter Phoenician alphabet from which theGreek alphabet and our own are derived. At the same time the tablet confirms theview of those who maintain that the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet is not a derivativeof the 22-letter alphabet, for the signs representing sounds which, in later Canaanite,had coalesced with their phonetic neighbours and thus did not require separategraphic representation, occupy an integral position in the Ugaritic alphabet and arenot placed as additions either with the signs to whose phonetic value theirs mostclosely approximates or in a group as a secondary feature at the end of the series;thus, no. 4, whose sound h later shifted to that of A, no. 9; so no. 26 (cf. no. 20),no. i8 (cf. no. 22), no. I 3 (cf. no. 25). Whether the Ugaritic alphabet is to be regardedas a cuneiform adaptation of the ancestor of the Phoenician alphabet and as followingthe sign-sequence of the latter, or whether the sign-sequence originated with theUgaritic system itself is less easy to decide. The position of signs nos. 28-30, whichare not characteristic of the later Canaanite alphabet, might suggest that they areadditions to the Semitic series made by scribes at Ugarit for the requirements ofHurrian and other non-Semitic tongues; on the other hand, the position of nos. I6and 26a, which are used mainly for non-Semitic words, suggests that signs for non-Semitic values were an integral part of the series and so that the convention cameI This table is reproducedby permission rom pp. 6 and4; Gordon in Orientalia,xix (I950), 374-6;TheOldTestamentandModerntudy,d. H.. Rowley Virolleaud in GLECS, v (1950), 57-60, with

(I95I), p. xiv. Detailed discussion of the tablet will observations by Herdner, Dhorme, and Cohen.befound n TheManchesteruardianf 4 March 950,

X42


9/13

IN AFRICA AND THE NEAR EAST 143into being at Ugarit or in some such environmentwhere Semite and non-Semitewere in contact.At the same time there are indications,albeit not of a conclusivenature,that the originatorsof the Ugariticcuneiformwere not uninfluencedby themodel of a proto-Phoenicianscript of pictographicorigin and acrophonicbasis.1. >- a 17. n2. yy b I8. . z3. g '9. S4. b 20.

28-the letter-order of the semitic alphabets in africa and the near east

Documents