________________
206
THE ALPHABET
characters so that it is just possible to date the earliest use of the alphabet in the period of the twelfth dynasty. Having dated the origin of the alphabet in the period of the twelfth or thirteenth dynasty (ca. 2000-1780 B.C.), Dunand considers the possibility of the alphabet being derived from any other script but the Egyptian or the cuneiform should be excluded.
Maurice Dunand thus puts back the use of the alphabetic script by five or six centuries (Fig. 109). Three new inscriptions, also found in Byblos, are considered by Dunand as filling the gap. They are: (1) The 'Abdo inscription, a small fragment of pottery, which may be attributed to the eighteenth century B.c. or the early seventeenth century. It contains an inscription consisting in one horizontal line (Fig. 107,1); Dunand reads: "[]hd b[n) klby hy[ts], 'Abdo son of Kelubay, the potter'," (2) The Shafațba'al inscription (Fig. 107, 2), consisting of five lines engraved on a chalk limestone block, found in the centre of the Byblos acropolis. This inscription is attributed by Dunand, both on archæological and palæographical grounds, also to the end of the eighteenth or to the early seventeenth century B.C., perhaps somewhat earlier than the previous one. (3) The Asdrubal spatula; it is an inscription (Fig. 107, 3) engraved on a spatula, similar in shape to the spatulæ inscribed in pseudo-hieroglyphic writing (see p. 158); according to Dunand it probably belongs to the fourteenth century B.C. See now note on p. 213.
Dunand's theory regarding the origin of the alphabet thus involves two problems, which may not be necessarily connected one with another. (1) The suggestion that the Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script is the prototype of the alphabet may be acceptable, although no definite opinion can be expressed about this matter, as long as Dhorme's mentioned decipherment of the Byblos script is not being considered. The date of the texts is uncertain. The theory on the whole has not found adherents as yet, not having proved entirely satisfactory.
(2) The suggestion that we should date the origin of the alphabet (independently of its connection with the pseudo-hieroglyphic script). in the period of the twelfth or the thirteenth dynasty, is of such great importance that it should not be accepted unless it rests on a very sound foundation. Unfortunately, the present foundation is still very weak. Also the "connecting link" between the suggested "incunable of the alphabet" (see p. 205) and the Akhiram inscription (see below) consists of far too few documents; and these are mainly of uncertain date, and cannot be considered as sufficient material by which to trace the development of the alphabet through half a millennium. I feel thar M. Dunand makes no clear distinction between conjecture and proof. In short, the problem, according to my opinion, is still open. See also note on p. 213.
One thing is certain, that in Byblos one or more attempts to introduce alphabetic writing were made in the early second millennium B.C.
