[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]
This volume originates from a 2016 conference held in memory of Lilian H. (Anne) Jeffery, with a focus on her The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, published in 1961 and reissued with a supplement by Alan Johnston in 1990. Jeffery’s work, based on autopsy of numerous inscriptions, remains essential reading on the emergence of Greek alphabetic writing and its heterogeneous development in the regions where Greek was spoken, written, and read. Far more than a catalogue, her book is of enduring value for any student of archaic Greece, for it encompasses material culture, history, literature, politics, and religion.
The contributors to this volume achieve several objectives: some honor Jeffery by participating in debates about where and when the alphabet(s) emerged and why and how they were first used (Wachter, Luraghi, Woodard, Thomas, Whitley); others continue Jeffery’s work via recent discoveries (Johnston, Minon, Matthaiou, Papazarkadas); some extend her already-broad scope, with papers on inscribed coins (Meadows), phonology (Méndez Dosuna), Etruria and its early script (Benelli and Naso), and Puglia and Messapic epigraphy (Lomas). The editors, Robert Parker and Philippa M. Steele, succinctly describe in the introduction the principal findings of the contributions, areas of general agreement (e.g. single, not multiple, adoption of the alphabet), and how this volume and hoped-for future studies can build on Jeffery’s work. The book is organized into three loose sections: Origins, Alphabet and Language, Themes and Regions.
Rudolf Wachter and Nino Luraghi, addressing questions of origins, start from shared premises. Both, for example, argue that a fixed abecedarium is essential for the acquisition of writing; Wachter—criticizing Jeffery’s presentation of this issue—stresses how a script’s system (abecedarium) is distinct from the usage of letters. But whereas Wachter prefers a pure form of the single-adoption theory, Luraghi offers a modified version: central to his account are the copper plaques—said to come from the Fayum—inscribed right to left with sequences of an alphabet running to tau. Luraghi accepts these as authentic, first half of the eighth- or late ninth-century specimens of a Greek alphabet; the absence of a grapheme (h)ypsilon suggests to him a second wave of adaptation from West Semitic forms, which could explain the other supplementals (e.g. cruciform Greek chi/ksi from taw). Contra Wachter, who sees the Greek ‘Uralphabet’ originating at a hypothesized “casual meeting of some Greek and Phoenician traders in any Mediterranean harbour” (25), Luraghi advocates a highly formal context but is vague about the duration of the process (“ample time for correction and fine-tuning,” 42). Since (h)ypsilon and chi are found already on the Dipylon oinochoe, one wonders how extensively Luraghi’s proto-alphabet was used and spread.
To explain the local scripts, Wachter distinguishes changes in forms, which he claims do not indicate writing’s origin or spread, from more consequential changes, like the addition of letters. The supplementary signs Φ, Χ, Ψ, with their varying values and order, are taken as evidence that the Uralphabet was first extended in the Attic system (Χ, Φ), which then affected the Euboean and East Greek systems. Luraghi, however, argues that the local scripts derive from both his ‘second wave’ of borrowing and reassignment of values to certain graphemes, as part of the process of boundary-drawing between communities. He speculates that the “early cohort” (45) of local scripts were devised in one location, where there were Greeks from diverse regions. This is an interesting suggestion and a departure from Jeffery’s picture of one region or city taking its script from another. Luraghi’s model, however, would seem to require limited diffusion from the place of origin during the scripts’ development, for otherwise we might expect to see some ‘partially-developed’ (proto-)scripts (i.e. lacking the supplementals) in early use.[1]
Roger Woodard’s rich chapter addresses some of the same questions, albeit largely on the basis of phonological change. He starts from the observation that the double consonant ksi is in the core of the Semitic-derived alphabet, which makes it an early and seemingly unmotivated (from the perspective of phonology) assignment. This leads him to Cyprus (or Cypriots) as the origin-point for adoption, for the cluster /ks/ was already distinguished by two signs in the Cypriot syllabary.
Julián Méndez Dosuna reconsiders the pronunciation of (h)ypsilon. According to the standard account, back rounded /u/ and /uː/ continued from Proto-Greek in most dialects but were fronted to /y/ and /yː/ in Attic and Ionic (excepting Euboea) around the seventh or sixth century. Méndez Dosuna proposes that fronting occurred already in Proto-Greek and that dialects, like Boeotian, that show evidence for /u(ː)/ were the innovators (by a secondary backing). He canvases the arguments and evidence, much of it inscriptional, for fronting in Attic-Ionic and for /u(ː)/ in other dialects, but his proposal depends less on reassessing the evidence than on explaining it differently. One exception (where the data are disputed) highlights the need for, and challenge of, examining ancient phonology and writing systems interdependently: he contests the prevailing view that qoppa represented a back allophone (reflected in spellings ϙο, ϙω, ϙυ) and kappa a front allophone (κα, κε, κι) and instead deems the use of qoppa an orthographic convention introduced by the Phoenician alphabet-bestowers, who overanalyzed Greek /k/ by reference to their own language. Woodard, however, accounts for qoppa otherwise, positing that Greek still possessed the labiovelar /kw/ when writing was adopted; the unusual delabialization of /kw/ seen in East Ionic in function words like κου in part explains qoppa’s usage.
As for applications of writing, Rosalind Thomas studies early graffiti and “pre-writing” (non-alphabetic signs) on pots and sherds found at Methone and Eretria. She views these as largely “perfunctory uses of writing for purposes which seem to be completely functional” (59), not elaborate texts like the epigram on Nestor’s cup from Pithekoussai. Yet, as Thomas observes, in the common specimens of one or two letters “the meaning to be conveyed is clearly more than is being represented,” and even more so with non-alphabetic signs, “where there is evidently no one-to-one relationship between symbol and sound” (60). The latter may be exemplified by the incised ‘branches’ from Eretria, which could refer to Apollo Daphnephoros. She also rightly cautions against assuming a link between writing proficiency and social status. We need not, then, infer that short or non-alphabetic texts are “perfunctory,” and typologically similar graffiti could well have diverse ‘functions.’ I also note that Eretria does offer a slightly earlier parallel for the cup of Nestor—a probably metrical text of at least three lines incised right to left on two joining sherds from a Late Geometric cup (SEG 39.939).
James Whitley, too, examines uses of writing, and advocates a regional approach to Cretan epigraphy. Whitley praises Jeffery, along with Margherita Guarducci, editor of Inscriptiones Creticae, for eschewing the “logocentrism” of most epigraphers and giving fuller attention to the materiality of inscriptions. He revives his case for limited literacy in Crete based on counts of personal inscriptions vs. monumental legal ones,[2] suggesting that Crete’s epigraphic habits reflect local social and cultural factors and, particularly in the sixth century, diverge from those elsewhere. East Crete, however, is dominated by graffiti—albeit with further local distinctions—so that ‘the’ Cretan epigraphic habit is really that of Central Crete. Since Whitley is surely correct about the factors shaping material practices, it is not necessary to conclude from the absence of graffiti in a place that literacy was low. The heuristic of inscriptional categories also merits scrutiny: since the “largely informal” inscriptions from Azoria were found near the Monumental Civic Building, Whitley well advises against inferring that they are “purely domestic, and unrelated to civic functions” (234). The determination that an inscribed object is civic or domestic (personal, in/formal, monumental, etc.) affects our interpretation of it.
Sophie Minon’s contribution is most Jeffery-like. She studies the letter-forms and spellings in the new ‘festival calendar’ tablet probably from Arcadia (SEG 65.292, unknown provenance). To clarify its date and context, Minon provides updated charts of the letter-forms of Arcadia, extending Jeffery’s range to ca. 350 and separating private from official inscriptions (though omitting punctuation, which is relevant: LSAG 207). She initially suggests ca. 475–50. After exploring some distinctive spellings, particularly the varied representations of labiovelars and palatalizations, Minon concludes that an unusual upright three-stroke letter found in the new inscription (which also has four-stroke sigma) points to western Arcadia; she allows that a more cautious dating would be ca. 500–450. Since the text also shows some Mantinean features and some Doric (Elean) ones, Minon proposes that it derives from an amphictionic administration composed of members from different Arcadian cities.
Andrew Meadows offers a useful supplement to Local Scripts: a conspectus of writing on early coins, including geographical origin, type of legend, and purpose. He observes, for example, that legends emerge first in the West and move east over time. Meadows provides a catalogue of archaic Greek coinage and its legends, with numerous photographs.
Angelos P. Matthaiou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas each provide an overview, with brief commentary, respectively, of new archaic inscriptions from Attica and the Cyclades, and of new inscriptions in the local script of Boeotia. Matthaiou’s list represents a “small specimen” (249) of discoveries, some yet unpublished. The Attic material is largely composed of graffiti; any future update to Jeffery may do well to treat this material as a special subset, distinct from ‘professionally’ inscribed texts (cf. LSAG 63–65). Notable is the rock-cut abecedarium found by Merle Langdon showing both sigma and san (SEG 55.83). Papazarkadas includes post-archaic material because the Boeotian script continued in use into the fourth century. He offers the editio princeps of a Thespian funerary epigram for one Pythoklees, which he dates to the late fifth or early fourth century. If his reading in the first line is correct, it attests a new adjective τηλεφυής, ‘far-situated.’[3]
The contributions are high-quality; some will interest mainly specialists, but the introduction and some of the other chapters are suitable for a wider readership. The editors and press deserve praise for producing a technically complex volume with few errors.[4] The book is well but unevenly furnished with figures and tables.
Authors and titles
Introduction, Robert Parker and Philippa M. Steele
Part I. Origins
The Genesis of the Local Alphabets of Archaic Greece, Rudolf Wachter
Sounds, Signs, and Boundaries: Perspectives on Early Greek Alphabetic Writing, Nino Luraghi
Writing and Pre-Writing in Early Archaic Methone and Eretria, Rosalind Thomas
Contextualizing the Origin of the Greek Alphabet, Roger D. Woodard
Part II. Alphabet and Language
Dodona and the Concept of Local Scripts, Alan Johnston
The Pronunciation of Upsilon and Related Matters: A U-Turn, Julián Méndez Dosuna
Letter Forms and Distinctive Spellings: Date and Context of the ‘New Festival Calendar from Arkadia,’ Sophie Minon
Part III. Themes and Regions
Local Scripts on Archaic Coins: Distribution and Function, Andrew Meadows
Regions within Regions: Patterns of Epigraphic Habits within Archaic Crete, James Whitley
New Archaic Inscriptions: Attica, the Attic-Ionic Islands of the Cyclades, and the Doric Islands, Angelos P. Matthaiou
Boiotian Inscriptions in Epichoric Script: A Conspectus of Recent Discoveries, Nikolaos Papazarkadas
Etruria between the Iron Age and Orientalizing Period and the Adoption of Alphabetic Writing, Enrico Benelli and Alessandro Naso
The Greek Alphabet in South-East Italy: Literacy and the Culture of Writing between Greeks and Non-Greeks, Kathryn Lomas
Notes
[1] Wachter insists that we may not point to Crete, Thera, and Melos (which lack the supplementary consonant-signs), for we do not possess any abecedaria from them, and Cretans could have inherited a sign (e.g. for phi) for which they had no use. But, as Jeffery LSAG 35–36, 116 observes, assuming that Thera and Melos derived their scripts from Crete, they then did so after the Cretans had ejected the supplementals—if they had them—from their abecedarium.
[2] Whitley, J. (1997) “Cretan laws and Cretan literacy.” AJA 101: 635–61.
[3] In the first transcription, phi in line 1 is dotted, ksi in line 4 undotted; in the restored version, the phi is undotted and ksi dotted.
[4] Corrections: p. 11 graphemes discussed by Minon are rendered differently than in her chapter; p. 40 “grapheme”; p. 71 “really take it”; p. 112 “noted above”; p. 114 “Achaian”; p. 144 Miller, Ancient Scripts is “1994”; p. 149 the digraph representing psi in Attica and Aigina is rendered incorrectly; p. 150 “crooked iota”; p. 163 final sigma twice used for medial; p. 170 “in between”; p. 180 etc. “Bartoněk”; p. 181 etc. “García Ramón”; p. 229 Table 10.1 “Types of inscriptions”; p. 256 “Butt-fucker”; p. 268 “ἀνέθειαν”; p. 274 l. 8 “line 3” (not “line 2”), judging from the photo; p. 281 “ἐπ’”, “: ἀρχαίε̄ς:”, and “⁝ ἐποίε̄σ|εν”; p. 288 thrice “[γᾶ]ν̣” (with ny, not Latin v); p. 320 “Wallace (2016)” is not in the bibliography; p. 328 “adaptation”; p. 332 Fig. 14.5 “third century” but p. 331 “late fifth century”; p. 341 “using Greek.” I could not understand two sentences (pp. 51, 52), and another (p. 173) is confusingly ordered.