Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:46:32.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meroitic script and the understanding of alpha-syllabic writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2010

Alexander J. de Voogt
Alexander J. de Voogt*
Affiliation:
American Museum of Natural History, New York
*
adevoogt@amnh.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the time of its decipherment by Griffith (1911), the Meroitic writing system was considered an alphabet. This alphabet was found to have a rather limited vowel notation. It was not until 1970 that the system was understood to have a more complex vowel notation. This system of vowel notation is comparable to what is found in an alpha-syllabary, a term used to describe the scripts of the Indian sub-continent, such as Brahmi and Devanagari. Since alpha-syllabaries were rare when the Meroitic writing system was in use (c. 200 bce–c. 500 ad), it is tempting to suggest a possible historical connection between the Meroitic kingdom in Sudan and the then existent scripts in India. A systematic analysis, as opposed to a description of alpha-syllabic writing, indicates that the structure of this type of script is less regionally confined. Rather, it places Meroitic writing among scripts that were created in the presence of alphabetic writing both in modern and in ancient times.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 101 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds). 1996. The World's Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. 1969. “The phonological efficiency of the Maldivian writing system”, Anthropological Linguistics 11, 199–208.Google Scholar
Diringer, David. 1968. The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. Volume I & II. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. and Cain, Bruce D.. 1996. “Dhivehi writing”, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds), The World's Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 564–8.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. 1952 (revised 1963). A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, Francis L. L. 1911. Karanog: The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablul and Karanog. Philadelphia: University Museum.Google Scholar
Hintze, Fritz. 1974. “Some problems of Meroitic philology”, in Abdalla, A. M. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Languages of the Sudan. Papers Presented at the Second International Colloquium on Language and Literature in the Sudan, 7–12 December 1970, Khartoum. Collections Sudanese Studies Library 3, 73–8.Google Scholar
Murdoch, John Stewart. 1981. “A syllabary or an alphabet: a choice between phonemic differentiation or economy”, in Burnaby, Barbara (ed.), Promoting Native Writing Systems in Canada. Toronto: OISE Press, 127–36.Google Scholar
Rilly, Claude. 2007. La langue du Royaume de Meroe. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Rilly, Claude. 2008. “What does the Meroitic word-divider divide?”, Paper presented at the Vth Symposium The Idea of Writing at Leiden University, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard G. 1996. “Brahmi and Kharoshthi”, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds), The World's Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 373–83.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard G. 2000. “Typological observations on the Indic script group and its relationship to other alphasyllabaries”, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 30/1, 87–103.Google Scholar