Sadly, as is the case with so many artefacts, the creators (both of the system and of the individual inscriptions over the centuries) did not leave a detailed explanation or transparently sign their names. Because the first millennium alphabet is used for Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite—all Canaanite languages—as well as Aramaic, the consensus is that the inventors were Canaanites and most have suggested (or assumed) that those responsible were literate, perhaps with some scribal training.
By Robert D. Holmstedt
University of Toronto,
University of the Free State
March 2019
Cognitively as well as sociologically, writing underpins ‘civilization’, the culture of cities. (Jack Goody, The Interface Between the Written and the Oral [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], 300).
There may be no greater technological invention in human history than writing.
Hi Dr. Holmstedt,
I should let you know that I was fine with reading your opinion until I hit your use of “audacity” in this article. Combined with your previous OP’s mentioned below, the meaning of ‘audacity’ came across as ‘impudence’, not ‘boldness’. If you meant the latter, then I offer that you should be more precise in the use of your words, and you do not need to read any further. If you meant the former, then please, read on.
What strikes me is Dr. Petrovich is offering an out-of-the-box working theory, and he has been attacked for not having credentials in that area of study (knowing how you look down on footnotes, I am referring to your posts "The Alphabet was not Invented by the Hebrews" March 2016 and "The invention of the alphabet" March 21, 2019 in this response). Does it really matter if he is not accredited in that specific area? There may be flaws in his working theory but discounting in totality as indicated by your use of “audacity” in this post to which I am responding seems rather unprofessional to a mere person like me who has only achieved a degree in teaching elementary children. I do know unequivocally that learning does not come from wearing blinders. Blinders are used for propaganda indoctrination. Or do you disagree?
And on footnotes, now referring to your previous post “The Alphabet was not Invented by the Hebrew”, I was extremely disappointed to find you attacked Dr. P (hope he doesn’t mind being so nicknamed) on his use of footnotes, saying he “often cites sources in an exaggerated way if he wants to impress the reader with their authority.” You come across, to me, as reacting negatively to his working theory and are insulting the work as well as the person. True, later you close with praise, but still this comment is HIGHLY UNPROFESSIONAL on your part, at least to someone of my low education who has stumbled across your comments.
The educational system teaches our children to use footnotes to show they have done their research. The footnotes also have become a source of study in research papers, directing the reader to other sources for further information on an idea presented. I know. I use them. Alot. I abhor academic papers written without footnotes because it has become that specific person’s opinion, so I cannot use it in my own learning without a great deal of work on my part trying to chase down their sources. It is simply an opinion of someone who most decidedly is rather arrogant for they assume they no longer need to support their work because of their credentials: “As I wrote the essay I began to wonder if I’d lost the ability to write for those who aren’t specialists in my field. Perhaps someday I’ll write a “Biblical Hebrew Grammar for Dummies” without a single footnote. Speaking of which, a departed friend and colleague once told me that best thing about emeritus status was no longer needing to support every idea in an article with footnotes!” Rather audacious of you to say. Even Sir Gardiner used footnotes in his work "Egyptian Grammar". Again, this is simply my point of view. Remember, I am only the bearer of a Bachelor’s of Science in Elementary Education, nothing more.
Then there is what comes across to me an actual denial of the Jews’ own account of their history. I really do not get this part actually. I mean, are you literally saying that just because we cannot prove their oral history, that their history does not exist? It does, for the sheer fact, Jews exist. In fact, they are here currently reenacting their own biblical history, doing exactly what they have done for thousands of years – throw all their weapons at someone to defeat them despite their history of Teachings on reciprocation and endless love (referring to the current deplorable war on Gaza). This is echoed in their oral history which they have come to call the Tanakh. Of course, as with any history, it will be written to promote their importance, their strength, their power. Their history is their propaganda, just like the Western cultures have their own historical propaganda, and the ancient Egyptians had their propaganda, from religious propaganda to military to ruling powers. Here is the other side of oral history that seems to be forgotten in the higher reaches of education like yours:
Oral history is based on facts – someone lived it somewhere and because it is oral, there is no other account of it except in how they have handed it down, generation to generation. Of course, it gets distorted eventually because the caution of the early days is not prevalent today, but in the ancient times, being precise in accounting knowledge was paramount, just as showing power was paramount. Otherwise, it was lost, both power and knowledge. Then I have to mention there is also a loss in translation to another language because of our own biases and lack of knowledge.
In short to deny oral history, is to deny an existence. Even modern psychologists know there are two sides to every story. And with all of the stories we have in this world, there are many sides. It’s audacious of anyone who has not lived in those ancient times to sit here today and write that anyone’s history did not exist simply because we haven’t found any evidence of it. None of us are smarter than our predecessors. None of us. That Dr. P has attempted to connect an oral history with a written history is pretty cool, if I may be low-browed without being discredited for not having the proper credentials. It may open an avenue of discovery which will end that 150-year deadlock you more accredited professionals are locked in: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inventing-alphabet-180976520/
Just some thoughts from no one of any great standing.
Thanks for listening. I don’t need a reply as the questions I asked are rhetorical. My children are reading so please, just be professional in your disagreements ... and perhaps, brainstorm a little more, discredit a little less. You could be the key to discovering the unknown history, if you remove your blinders. We did not get to where we are today by working alone. Take care.
Sincerely,
Amanda