Macalis'I'er — The Inscription on the Phaestos Disc. 349 



device to express a final closed syllable. Thus, if it were desired to write the 

 name of the Philistine god Dagon, it would, on this theory, be written, let us 

 say, DA-GO-NA, with a stroke underneath the last symbol to elide its 

 vowel. 



Obviously such a recognition of the principle of elision is an important 

 step on the way towards the evolution of a simple alphabet. 



And here we are confronted by an interesting question. Can it be that 

 in the script of which the Phaestos disc is so far the sole representative, we 

 are to see the long-sought origin of the so-called Phoenician alphabet ? It 

 seems to me not unreasonable to suppose that in process of time the script of 

 the disc would become simplified into just such a linear script as that 

 alphabet : and the principle of elision of the terminal vowel of syllables is 

 just what is wanted to help the process of evolution over that last most 

 difficult fence, which divides a syllabary from a pure alphabet. Suppose 

 that three syllables, ka, ho, leu, represented each by a special symbol, lost 

 their vowel under certain grammatical or euphonic conditions, then all three 

 being simply pronounced Ic might in writing become confused, leading 

 ultimately to the choice of one of the syllabic signs to denote the letter k. 

 Thus an alphabet of consonants would develop, which is just what we 

 have in the Phoenician alphabet. The 45 + a; characters of the original 

 script — for we have no guarantee that we have all the characters of the script 

 represented on the disc — could very easUy wear down by some such process 

 as this to the twenty-two signs of the Phoenician alphabet. 



As to the forms of the letters, in the total absence of intermediate links, 

 and our total ignorance of the phonetic value of the Phaestos signs, it would 

 be premature to institute any elaborate comparisons between the two scripts. 

 The Phaestos disc is dated not later than 1600 B.C., the Phoenician alphabet 

 , cannot be traced farther back than about 1000 B.C., and what may have 

 happened in the intervening six hundred years we do not know. But to the 

 most superficial glance over the two forms of writing there are not wanting 

 hopeful indications that with fuller material the comparison may prove 

 fruitful. The symbol which I have called li might well in rapid writing 

 develop into the Phoenician sign alepli. The little man running (a) is not 

 unlike some forms of tzade. The head fe) both in name and shape reminds 

 us of resh. The hand with cestus (f) could very easily degenerate into caph, 

 while the open hand (g) in shape and name recalls yodh. The dotted 

 triangle (i) recalls daleth or tctli, the fish (1) in name and to some extent in 

 shape suggests nun — it is notable that the fish on the disc always stands 

 upright on its tail — the five-leaved sprig (w) is something like saviekh, the 

 water-sign (/S) might be mem. (the three teeth of the Phoenician letter 



E.I. A. PEOC, VOL. XXX., SECT. C. [49] 



