PHOENICIAN “ALPHABET”: AN HISTORICAL DECEPTION
1. Completely rejects the theorem that the Greek language came from another language (the so-called “Indo-European”!!!), since it is proven to be the only non-conventional language of the world. In other words, the only language where a relationship betweenthe “word” (as a form) and the “meaning of the word” is established.
2. Consequently, it is proven that Greek is the first and only created language of the human species which provided the basis for all “conventional” languages, as are all the other languages of the world (where there is no causative relationship between the form and the meaning). These other languages are a corrupt form of Greek.
3. This theory proves, without a doubt, that the alphabet was created by the Greeks so that the 24 or 27 code letters would aid in attributing the meanings of the Greek words (and only of these).
4. Comparatively, this theory shows that the symbols of the Phoenician writings andtheir nouns, e.g., “alef” =ox, “beth” = hut, “gimel = camel, etc., not only do not containcoded meaning, but are also associated or refer to [the] primitive animal conditions[one would expect in a culturally backward society].
Overwhelming evidence that one of the most important discoveries in the history of civilization is Greek ,a deception that usurps and distorts Greek History and Civilization. It is of utmost importance that the truth be restored not only for modern Greece, but also for thewhole of humanity.The deception that alphabetical script was discovered by the Phoenicians is a long-lived one.For the past 14 years [the Greek scholarly magazine] Davlos has published numerous articleson this problem. This prompted K. Katis to ask that we submit a relevant article for hismainstream daily so that this important issue would become known to a wider audience.
This article summarizes the strong evidence against the “Phoenician Deception,” and proves that the greatest discovery in the history of civilization is Greek. We believe it necessary to republish this article in [this issue of] Davlos exactly as it appeared in the daily.
A SCIENTIFIC MONSTROSITY.
According to linguistic theory, an “alphabet” is defined as “the sum of symbols following a specific sequence and order used to ascribe the essential utterances of a language, under thecondition that each utterance represents only one symbol and vice-versa”. Consequently, in alphabetical script (as an example, in the writings of the people of Europe, America,Australian, as well as the other parts of the world) each letter represents one essential sound.This is not true for the imperfect alphabets expressed through syllables where each symbolrepresents a syllable (with two or more voiced sounds). For example, in Greek Linear A andB, there is a symbol that represents the syllable ko (k + o), a symbol that represents the syllable po (p + o), etc. In Phoenician writing (which has only consonants and no vowels), this situation is even worse, as far as we can tell from the small amount of existing samples.
In Phoenician, each symbol is not equivalent to one specific syllable, but to a variety of syllables, and thus the reader can use his imagination when attempting to decipher the sounds. For example, there are consonants which can be read as either ba, bou, be, bi, bo, etc. Others is not an alphabet, it is a less advanced form of writingthat can be read as gou, ga, ge, go, and so on. Consequently, Phoenician script does not constitute an alphabet, and is not even an advanced form of syllabic script nearing the perfection of the equivalent Greek syllabic writings. It is truly amazing to think that, in the academic world of the past 150 years, the almost contradictory term of “Phoenician alphabet” has been established, which, in reality refers to a type of writing that has nothing to do with an alphabet. It is even more unbelievable to think that the scientific dogma that Greek came from Phoenician has been enforced. Not only the Phoenician is not an alphabet, it is a less advanced form of writing than Greek Linear A and B.
So, professor G. Babiniotis’ statement that “Phoenician writing is something like a syllabic alphabet” must be rejected and replaced with the correct characterization of Phoenician as a “purely concise syllable system of writing,” as stated by the former president of the Greek Society of Philologists, Pan. Georgountzos (see “The Alphabet: A Greek Discovery” by Pan. Georgountzos, Davlos, issue 142, October 1993, page 8242).
GREEKNESS OF THE ALPHABET
a) Archaeological Evidence The theory that the alphabet is a Phoenician discovery has been maintained through the argument, among other things, that certain symbols of Phoenician writing are similar to the letters of the alphabet. For example, the Phoenician alef is the reverse or sideways Greek “A.” This argument was a strong one until about 100 years ago, when linguists and historians still maintained that the Greeks did not know how to write before 800 B. C.! Around 1900 A.D., however, Arthur Evans excavated the Greek Minoan Crete and discovered the Greek Linear writings, whose symbols corresponded to 17 of the 24 letters of the Greek Alphabet. Given that (A), the most ancient evidence of the Greek scripts (Linear A and Linear B) that were later discovered in Pylos, Mycenae, Menidi and Thebes — but also in more northern areas up to the Danube river as well — were dated to before 1500 B.C. And (B), that the Phoenicians and their writings appear in history no earlier than 1300 BC, Evans was the first person to express doubts about the theory that the Greeks received their script from the Phoenicians. He put forward the scientific suspicion that it was probably the other way round. The doubts pertaining as to who was first — the Phoenicians or the Greeks — in discovering writing, became a certainty when French professor, Paul Fore, an internationally acclaimed specialist on Prehistoric Archaeology, published a report in Nestor (an American Archaeological Journal of the University of Indiana — 16th year, 1989, page 2288). In this report, he submits and deciphers plates with Greek Linear writing found at the cyclopean wall of Pilikates, in Ithaca, dated, through the use of modern scientific methods, back to 2700 B.C., The language of these plates was Greek, and the decoding by professor Fore resulted in the following syllabic text, expressed phonetically: A]RE-DA-TI. DA-MI-U-A-.A-TE-NA-KA-NA-RE (ija)-TE. The phonetic equivalent of this is translated, always according to the professor, as: “Ιδού τι εγώ η Αρεδάτις δίδω εις την ανασσαν, την θεάν Ρέαν: 100 αίγας, 10 πρόβατα, 3 χοίρους” [Here is what I, Aredatis, gives to the queen- goddess Rea, 100 goats, 10 sheep, 3 pigs]. (See, “Davlos” magazine, issue 107, November 1990, page 6103). Thus, Fore proved that the Greeks were writing and speaking Greek at least 1400 years before the appearance of the Phoenicians and their script in history. But, the archaeological excavations in Greece during the last 15 years have given us many more great surprises: The Greeks were writing using not only Linear A and B, but also a type of writing identical to that of the alphabet since at least 6000 B.C. In fact, at Dispilio, in the lake of Kastoria, in northern Greece, professor G. Houmouziadis discovered a plate with writing very similar to that of the alphabet, which was dated, using radioactive Carbon- 14 and visual photothermal methodology, back to 5250 B.C. (see Davlos, issue 147). Three years later, N. Samson, a curator of the Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Department, discovered shards of vases (“ostraka”) with letters identical to the present Greek alphabet while excavating at the “Cyclop’s Cave,” on the deserted island of Yioura, near the inhabited island of Alonnissos, in the Northern Sporades island complex. These vases were dated to5,500 to 6,000 B.C. with the same methods (see “Davlos,” issue 185, May 1997). The same archaeologist, while performing excavations on the island of Milos, discovered vessels of the proto-cycladic period (mid-3rd millennium B.C.) with letters identical to the Greek letters:
“X,” “N,” “M,” “K,” “Ξ” [ksi],”Π” [p], “Ο,” & “Ε.” (See N. Samson’s interview in Davlos,issue 204, December 1998, page 12749.)
It is apparent that these archaeological discoveries have given a “comical’ character to the so-called “Phoenician Theory” on the discovery of writing. In addition, these archaeological discoveries have revolutionized chronological dating of Greek history as it is taught today, as well as the world history of civilization itself. (See also the book by Con. Koutrouvelli, “Re- establishing the Chronology of Prehistoric Times based primarily on astronomical information from Ancient Writers,” Davlos Publishing, 1999.)
b) The somewhat mathematical proof
While the house-of-cards which provided “proof”‘ of the so-called “Phoenician alphabet” was being torn down by archaeological discoveries, another overwhelming piece of evidence surfaced. This evidence was offered to us by the 20-year long discreet and timid research of the Greek Language and Writing by a great researcher, Elias Tsatsomoiros. Unfortunately E.Tsatsomoiros passed away on December 19th 1991, after having, however, completed his revolutionary work, History of the Genesis of the Greek Language-from the hunter-gatherer to the time of Zeus-the Deciphering of the Greek Alphabet. The undersigned [writer of this article] had the honor of publishing and editing this work (Davlos Publishing, 1991), but also the honor of having worked closely with the researcher for more than a decade. We had long discussions on the numerous problems arising from the research, and we had published a series of articles in Davlos magazine. This memorable researcher proved in a remarkable way that every letter of the Greek alphabet contained a consistent code meaning, which is literally introduced either exactly or metaphorically within the general meaning of the Greek word it belongs to, as a partial meaning. Consequently, every (ancient) Greek word is basically an acronym (similar to D(imosia) E (picheirisi) H(lektrismou) [=ΔΕΗ in Greek, or as U(nited) N(ations), in English], where every letter provides a significant or less significant notional element, and then, they all together provide the logical definition of the meaning expressed bythe word. The “significant difference” of each word’s meaning is usually provided by the firstletter. Obviously, there is not enough space in this article to present the code meaning of the letters of the Greek alphabet as a whole, as they are analyzed in this revolutionary volume of research in the field of human speech. As an example, I will choose only one of the now days 24 letters (orinaly 27) of the Hellenic alphabet, “Ypsilon” = “Y” or, small case, “u” (pronounced, long-e “eepsilon,” the 20th letter of the Greek alphabet, and familiar to us as “Y” in the so-called “Latin” alphabet– which is nothing more than a variationof the Greek “Chalcidean” alphabet). Ypsilon, therefore, as its shape indicates, has the code meaning of “a cavity” οr, if reversed, of a “convexity.” This meaning is introduced into the words containing this letter, and sometimes, by extension into the meaning of liquids (which, through their natural flow end up filling the “cavity”). I will quickly mention some of the names of vessels and liquids (such as the amphiconical κ-Υ-πελλο which is dated back to 2700 B.C. and is displayed at the Heraklion Museum). One may add to the words mentioned there, many others, such as kot-Y-li, go-Y-ttos, tr-Y-blion, p-Y-xis, amphore-Y-s, b-Y-tion, l-Y-chnos, procho-Y-s, ske-Y-os, etc, all having the meaning of a curvedobject. Also, some other words such as k-Y-hsis (rounding of the stomach ofan eng-Y-os [pregnant] woman); k-Y-ma (curving on the surface of the ocean); cr-Y-pti (curving of the ground); the preposition [h-Y-po] Y-po (meaning under a certain level); h-Y-per (preposition meaning above acertain level); Y-psos =height; and all of the hundreds of words that have h-Y-po or h-Y-per as a prefix, as well as thousands of others. This discovery, which unfortunately has been officially ignored, is a continuation of the forgotten Platonic approach to the problem of language (see Plato’s Cratylus ).
THE HERODOTUS EXTRACT
All the Greek writers who mention the alphabet (they called it “grammata”) consider it a very ancient Greek invention (by Prometheus, Palamedes, Linus, etc). The theory of the Phoenician alphabet was always, and is still, based on an exception to this general rule. Thisexception is an excerpt from Herodotus, that he himself presents as his ‘personal opinion’ (“ως εμοι δοκεει” = “as it seems to me”). This opinion was formed based on the sayings of others, as he himself mentions in the previous paragraphs (“αναπυνθανομενος” = taking information from others). Let us have a look at the Herodotus’ excerpt (History, E 58): [58. As far as the Phoenicians, they, who arrived with Cadmus, including the Gefiraioi, had lived in many other places and introduced also arts (new and unknown) to the Greeks; in fact, and also (some) writing, whichhad not been known to the Greeks before that, as I think, first this writing which was used by all the Phoenicians. With the passing of time, however, the Phoenicians changed this type of writing along with their language.]
The most important thing about this excerpt is that in the critical phrase “… ama tin foni metevallon kai ton rhithmon ton grammaton,” it is disclosed that the Phoenicians-Gefiraioi that went to Viotia with Cadmus brought some form of writing with them. But, as the Phoenicians “changed their language” (they learned Greek, in other words), they also changed their writing (they started writing, therefore, with the existing ancient Greek writing that already existed in Viotia). Although this statement was made by Herodotus, the translators, subsequently, provided the translation [meaning] that the local Greek Viotes and not the Phoenician emigrants changed their language and writing and adopted the Phoenician! This generally incoherent reference to the alphabet, as it has been saved, has been obviously altered and meddled with, who knows by whom and when. Let us look at the suspicious continuation of the text, as it has arrived to us:
Around them (the Phoenicians) lived at that place during that year (year of Cadmus) Ionian Greeks, who received through contact or through teachings by the Phoenicians their writings, changing their own writing which they used little. When using this writing and since this writing had been introduced to Greece by Phoenicians, they called it Phoenician.
Ionian Greeks living around the Phoenicians received the Phoenician writing and, using a few of its letters, since they had altered them and since it was just, they called it Phoenician-to pay tribute to the people who brought it to Greece, is a striking contradiction. Consequently, one can assume that this is a forged paragraph, hypothetically explanatory, which aims to reduce the previous statement “…as they changed their language, they changed their writing,” to an unimportant statement. This is how the “Phoenician Theory” was substantiated and is maintained as an obvious forgery.
The “Phoenician Theory” was established in Europe during a time, when, as the renowned British classical scholar, S. G. Rembroke (The Legacy of Greece, Oxford University Press, 1984) wrote, “The Phoenicians were given an intermediary role “that is not based on any historical information”. A role, in other words, of the transporter of wisdom and civilization from the “chosen” people of Israel to the “uncivilized” nations, and specifically the Greeks. This, of course, could be forgiven, since this was established around the end of the Medieval Ages, when religious fanaticism and backwardness had reached such a point that the daughter of Agamemnon, Iphigenia, is presented as the daughter of Iephtha; Deukalion is presented as
Noah; Appis is a consul of Joseph; Apollo, Priam, Tiresias, and Orpheus are corrupted personae of Moses; the story of the Argonauts is the crossing of the Israelites from Egypt to Palestine, and other similar distortions. The above are noted by Rembroke.
And we conclude: At the time, Hellenism was in comatose spiritual condition regarding national and historical awareness, and therefore totally unable to defend its history and civilization, and for this reason could not react and did not react. Today, it is with ourtolerance that our language is deemed “Indo-European,” and our writing “Phoenician,” our Athena and our Socrates are presented as “Blacks,” and our civilization as “African.” What spiritual situation are we in now? [i.e., What’s our excuse this time?]
Notes: On page 13745 of this article, is a picture of a piece of shard [pottery] dated to 6,000 B.C., found on the islet of Youra of the North Sporades island complex with Greek alphabetical writings. One can see the letters “A,” “Y,” & “D” [alpha, eepsilon, and delta ], almost identical to the Greek letters of the classical alphabets. This finding proves that the Greek alphabet is older than the Greek Linear writings. This finding also completely and definitely disproves the false theory that the Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians, who made their historical appearance around 1300 B.C., in other words about 4,500 to 5,000 years after the creation of this plaque at Youra. On page 13747 are shown letter-symbols from the Proto-cycladic vessels of Milos (mid-third millennium B.C.). One can distinguish the [letter] “X” [chi] to the left and the [letter] “N” to the right. These letters are written just as the letters of the Greek alphabet are written today.
Other vessels were also found with “M,” “K,” “Ξ” [ksi], “Π” [p], “O,” and “E.” Source.