Title says it all. Linguists are also part of the archaeologic community in this case
Phoenician alphabet is dated at around 1200BC. We've found ancient tablets in Greece, dated in the 6th millenium, where most Greek letters are clearly shown. Letters such as Α, Υ, Ο, Π, Ν, Μ, Δ, Ε, W, F, Κ, Λ... But for some "odd" reason, they are not willing to publish these things. Instead they want to talk about how the Greeks did not have an alphabet until the 8th century BCE and copied the Phoenician one. Which wasn't even used as an alphabet, had different pronounciations and was actually a syllabary. Let's not ignore the fact that there's nothing we know of that was written in the Phoenician language.
This is a small part of a 5500BCE tablet found in the Sporades islands of the Aegean: It's somewhere in Greece at the moment, but nobody really knows where. And it's never been on display. It was found in the early 90s. The letters Α, Υ, Ο and Λ are clearly marked. There are considered to be Phoenician letters: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Phoenician_alphabet.svg
Linear B is universally accepted to be a form of Greek alphabet. . While it's also a syllabary, it predates the Phoenician alphabet by a few centuries and shares a lot of the symbols. Symbols such as Δ, Μ, Ι, Τ, Ξ, that O with the cross in the middle, Υ, the inverse F symbol, Φ, M, N and a few others. Pretty much the majority of what is accepted as the Phoenician alphabet.
Then we have Linear A, which is an older Greek alphabet - this really cannot be denied but they're conveniently "neutral" until someone manages to decipher it properly, the symbols are pretty much the same. 80% of Linear A and Linear B's symbols are shared. The location of these alphabets varies though. Linear A was founded in Crete, while Linear B was founded in the Peloponnese. At least that's what these 'scholars' say. There's also the question of the Eteocypriot and Eteocretan alphabets, which also share a lot in common. Eteyocypriot is very close to Linear A and Linear B too. None are classified as Greek though.
Then we have the Latin alphabet, which is derived from the Euboean/Chalcidean/Cumaean alphabet.. So far so good. But the "scholars" will then tell you that the Cumaean alphabet has derived from the Phoenician alphabet as well and that it was the Etruscans who taught it to the people of Latium!!! Ignoring the fact that it's called Cumaean because it was the alphabet of Greek colonists in Cumae and most of Magna Grecia, who were neighbours of the Romans. For some reason, the Etruscans have to enter the picture. And the Etruscans, like the Phoenicians, are tribes we know almost nothing about. We know that they were great scholars and teachers to the Greeks and Romans, but we don't know any of their work and we don't even know if they are the same people as the Tyrrhenians... In fact, the Etruscan alphabet also derived from the Euboean alphabet and it gave birth to the "Old Italic" alphabets in general. So, we get this confusion: That the Greek colonists have gotten their alphabet from the Phoenicians, passed it on to the people of Italy (minus the Romans) and then the Etruscans gave it to the Romans. Ignoring that the Greek colonists bordered with Rome but not with the Etruscans who were further up north :rofl: The Romans were invisible to the Euboean colonists I guess... What makes things even more laughable is that Etruscan is categorized as "non-Indo European" while everything else is considered "Indo European".
Obviously several alphabets must have existed within the Greek populations of antiquity, but there's a documented continuity of the current alphabet from at least the 6th millenium BC. But some "experts" are trying to (and have managed to) convince people that the Greeks got their letters 4700 years later from the Phoenicians... Something doesn't add up. [To usual suspects: Please keep your general hate away from this thread and waste your time elsewhere :unsure:]
Phoenician alphabet is dated at around 1200BC. We've found ancient tablets in Greece, dated in the 6th millenium, where most Greek letters are clearly shown. Letters such as Α, Υ, Ο, Π, Ν, Μ, Δ, Ε, W, F, Κ, Λ... But for some "odd" reason, they are not willing to publish these things. Instead they want to talk about how the Greeks did not have an alphabet until the 8th century BCE and copied the Phoenician one. Which wasn't even used as an alphabet, had different pronounciations and was actually a syllabary. Let's not ignore the fact that there's nothing we know of that was written in the Phoenician language.
This is a small part of a 5500BCE tablet found in the Sporades islands of the Aegean: It's somewhere in Greece at the moment, but nobody really knows where. And it's never been on display. It was found in the early 90s. The letters Α, Υ, Ο and Λ are clearly marked. There are considered to be Phoenician letters: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Phoenician_alphabet.svg
Linear B is universally accepted to be a form of Greek alphabet. . While it's also a syllabary, it predates the Phoenician alphabet by a few centuries and shares a lot of the symbols. Symbols such as Δ, Μ, Ι, Τ, Ξ, that O with the cross in the middle, Υ, the inverse F symbol, Φ, M, N and a few others. Pretty much the majority of what is accepted as the Phoenician alphabet.
Then we have Linear A, which is an older Greek alphabet - this really cannot be denied but they're conveniently "neutral" until someone manages to decipher it properly, the symbols are pretty much the same. 80% of Linear A and Linear B's symbols are shared. The location of these alphabets varies though. Linear A was founded in Crete, while Linear B was founded in the Peloponnese. At least that's what these 'scholars' say. There's also the question of the Eteocypriot and Eteocretan alphabets, which also share a lot in common. Eteyocypriot is very close to Linear A and Linear B too. None are classified as Greek though.
Then we have the Latin alphabet, which is derived from the Euboean/Chalcidean/Cumaean alphabet.. So far so good. But the "scholars" will then tell you that the Cumaean alphabet has derived from the Phoenician alphabet as well and that it was the Etruscans who taught it to the people of Latium!!! Ignoring the fact that it's called Cumaean because it was the alphabet of Greek colonists in Cumae and most of Magna Grecia, who were neighbours of the Romans. For some reason, the Etruscans have to enter the picture. And the Etruscans, like the Phoenicians, are tribes we know almost nothing about. We know that they were great scholars and teachers to the Greeks and Romans, but we don't know any of their work and we don't even know if they are the same people as the Tyrrhenians... In fact, the Etruscan alphabet also derived from the Euboean alphabet and it gave birth to the "Old Italic" alphabets in general. So, we get this confusion: That the Greek colonists have gotten their alphabet from the Phoenicians, passed it on to the people of Italy (minus the Romans) and then the Etruscans gave it to the Romans. Ignoring that the Greek colonists bordered with Rome but not with the Etruscans who were further up north :rofl: The Romans were invisible to the Euboean colonists I guess... What makes things even more laughable is that Etruscan is categorized as "non-Indo European" while everything else is considered "Indo European".
Obviously several alphabets must have existed within the Greek populations of antiquity, but there's a documented continuity of the current alphabet from at least the 6th millenium BC. But some "experts" are trying to (and have managed to) convince people that the Greeks got their letters 4700 years later from the Phoenicians... Something doesn't add up. [To usual suspects: Please keep your general hate away from this thread and waste your time elsewhere :unsure:]