Hubbry Logo
Ugaritic alphabetUgaritic alphabetMain
Open search
Ugaritic alphabet
Community hub
Ugaritic alphabet
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ugaritic alphabet
Ugaritic alphabet
Ugaritic alphabet
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Ugaritic
The Ugaritic writing system
Script type
Period
c. 1400 – c. 1190 BCE
DirectionLeft-to-right Edit this on Wikidata
LanguagesUgaritic, Hurrian, Akkadian
Related scripts
Parent systems
ISO 15924
ISO 15924Ugar (040), ​Ugaritic
Unicode
Unicode alias
Ugaritic
U+10380–U+1039F
 This article contains phonetic transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA. For the distinction between [ ], / / and ⟨ ⟩, see IPA § Brackets and transcription delimiters.
History of the alphabet

The Ugaritic alphabet is an abjad (consonantal alphabet) with syllabic elements written using the same tools as cuneiform (i.e. pressing a wedge-shaped stylus into a clay tablet), which emerged c. 1400[1] or 1300 BCE[2] to write Ugaritic, an extinct Northwest Semitic language; it fell out of use amid the Late Bronze Age collapse c. 1190 BCE. It was discovered in Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) in 1928. It has 30 letters. Other languages, particularly Hurrian, were occasionally written in the Ugaritic script in the area around Ugarit, but not elsewhere.

Clay tablets written in Ugaritic provide the earliest evidence of both the North Semitic and South Semitic orders of the alphabet, which gave rise to the alphabetic orders of the reduced Phoenician writing system and its descendants, including the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin, and of the Geʽez script, which was also influenced by the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system,[3] and adapted for Amharic. The Arabic and Ancient South Arabian scripts are the only other Semitic alphabets which have letters for all or almost all of the 29 commonly reconstructed Proto-Semitic consonant phonemes.

The script was written from left to right. Although cuneiform was pressed into clay, its symbols were unrelated to those of Akkadian cuneiform.[4]

Function

[edit]

The Ugaritic writing system was an augmented abjad. In most syllables only consonants were written, including the /w/ and /j/ of diphthongs. Ugaritic was unusual among early abjads because it also indicated vowels occurring after the glottal stop. It is thought that the letter for the syllable /ʔa/ originally represented the consonant /ʔ/, as aleph does in other Semitic abjads, and that it was later restricted to /ʔa/ with the addition, at the end of the alphabet, of /ʔi/ and /ʔu/.[5][6]

The final consonantal letter of the alphabet, s2, has a disputed origin along with both "appended" glottals, but "The patent similarity of form between the Ugaritic symbol transliterated [s2], and the s-character of the later Northwest Semitic script makes a common origin likely, but the reason for the addition of this sign to the Ugaritic alphabet is unclear (compare Segert 1983: 201–218, Dietrich and Loretz 1988). In function, [s2] is like Ugaritic s, but only in certain words – other s-words are never written with [s2]."[7]

The words that show s2 are predominantly borrowings, and thus it is often thought to be a late addition to the alphabet representing a foreign sound that could be approximated by native /s/; Huehnergard and Pardee make it the affricate /ts/.[8] Segert instead theorizes that it may have been syllabic /su/, and for this reason grouped with the other syllabic signs /ʔi/ and /ʔu/.[9]

Probably the last three letters of the alphabet were originally developed for transcribing non-Ugaritic languages (texts in the Akkadian language and Hurrian language have been found written in the Ugaritic alphabet) and were then applied to write the Ugaritic language.[4] The three letters denoting glottal stop plus vowel combinations were used as simple vowel letters when writing other languages.

The only punctuation is a word divider.[citation needed]

Origin

[edit]
Dark green shows the approximate spread of writing by 1300 BCE

At the time the Ugaritic script was in use (c. 1300 – c. 1190 BCE),[10] Ugarit, although not a great cultural or imperial centre, was located at the geographic centre of the literate world, among Egypt, Anatolia, Cyprus, Crete, and Mesopotamia. Ugaritic combined the system of the Semitic abjad with cuneiform writing methods (pressing a stylus into clay). Scholars have searched in vain for graphic prototypes of the Ugaritic letters in Mesopotamian cuneiform.

Recently, some have suggested that Ugaritic represents some form of the Proto-Sinaitic script,[11] the letter forms distorted as an adaptation to writing on clay with a stylus. There may also have been a degree of influence from the poorly understood Byblos syllabary.[12]

It has been proposed in this regard that the two basic shapes in cuneiform, a linear wedge, as in 𐎂, and a corner wedge, as in 𐎓, may correspond to lines and circles in the linear Semitic alphabets: the three Semitic letters with circles, preserved in the Greek Θ, O and Latin Q, are all made with corner wedges in Ugaritic: 𐎉 ṭ, 𐎓 ʕ, and 𐎖 q. Other letters look similar as well: 𐎅 h resembles its assumed Greek cognate E, while 𐎆 w, 𐎔 p, and 𐎘 θ are similar to Greek Y, Π, and Σ turned on their sides.[11] Jared Diamond[13] believes the alphabet was consciously designed, citing as evidence the possibility that the letters with the fewest strokes may have been the most frequent.

Abecedaries

[edit]

Lists of Ugaritic letters, abecedaria, have been found in two alphabetic orders. The "Northern Semitic order" is more similar to the one found in Phoenician, Hebrew and Arabic, the earlier, so-called ʾabjadī order, and more distantly, the Greek and Latin alphabets. The "Southern Semitic order" is more similar to the one found in the South Arabian, and the Geʽez scripts. The Ugaritic (U) letters are given in cuneiform and transliteration.

North Semitic

Letter: 𐎀 𐎁 𐎂 𐎃 𐎄 𐎅 𐎆 𐎇 𐎈 𐎉 𐎊 𐎋 𐎌 𐎍 𐎎 𐎏 𐎐 𐎑 𐎒 𐎓 𐎔 𐎕 𐎖 𐎗 𐎘 𐎙 𐎚 𐎛 𐎜 𐎝
Transliteration: ʾa b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k š l m ḏ n ẓ s ʿ p ṣ q r ṯ ġ t ʾi ʾu s2

South Semitic

Letter: 𐎅 𐎍 𐎈 𐎎 𐎖 𐎆 𐎌 𐎗 𐎚 𐎒 𐎋 𐎐 𐎃 𐎁 𐎔 𐎀 𐎓 𐎑 𐎂 𐎄 𐎙 𐎉 𐎇 𐎏 𐎊 𐎘 𐎕 [ 𐎛 𐎜 𐎝 ]
Transliteration: h l ḥ m q w š r t s k n ḫ b p ʾa ʿ ẓ g d ġ ṭ z ḏ y ṯ ṣ [ ʾi ʾu s2 ]

Letters

[edit]
Ugaritic alphabet
Letter[14] Phoneme IPA Corresponding letter in[15]
Phoenician Ancient South Arabian Aramaic Arabic
𐎀 ả (ʾa) [ʔa] 𐤀 𐩱 𐡀 ا
𐎁 b [b] 𐤁 𐩨 𐡁 ب
𐎂 g [ɡ] 𐤂 𐩴 𐡂 ج
𐎃 ḫ [x] 𐤇 𐩭 𐡇 خ
𐎄 d [d] 𐤃 𐩵 𐡃 د
𐎅 h [h] 𐤄 𐩠 𐡄 ه
𐎆 w [w] 𐤅 𐩥 𐡅 و
𐎇 z [z] 𐤆 𐩸 𐡆 ز
𐎈 ḥ [ħ] 𐤇 𐩢 𐡇 ح
𐎉 ṭ [tˤ] 𐤈 𐩷 𐡈 ط
𐎊 y [j] 𐤉 𐩺 𐡉 ے/ي
𐎋 k [k] 𐤊 𐩫 𐡊 ڪ/ك
𐎌 š [ʃ] 𐤔 𐩦 𐡔 ش
𐎍 l [l] 𐤋 𐩡 𐡋 ل
𐎎 m [m] 𐤌 𐩣 𐡌 م
𐎏 ḏ [ð] 𐤆 𐩹 𐡃 ذ
𐎐 n [n] 𐤍 𐩬 𐡍 ن
𐎑 ẓ [θˤ] 𐤎 𐩼 𐡈 ظ
𐎒 s [s] 𐤎 𐩪 𐡎 س
𐎓 ʿ [ʕ] 𐤏 𐩲 𐡏 ع
𐎔 p [p] 𐤐 𐩰 𐡐 ف
𐎕 ṣ [sˤ] 𐤑 𐩮 𐡑 ص
𐎖 q [q] 𐤒 𐩤 𐡒 ق
𐎗 r [r] 𐤓 𐩧 𐡓 ر
𐎘 ṯ [θ] 𐤔 𐩻 𐤕 ث
𐎙 ġ [ɣ] 𐤏 𐩶 𐡏 غ
𐎚 t [t] 𐤕 𐩩 𐡕 ت
𐎛 ỉ (ʾi) [ʔi] 𐤉 𐩺 𐡉 إ
𐎜 ủ (ʾu) [ʔu] 𐤅 𐩥 𐡅 ؤ
𐎝 s₂ [su]
𐎟 word divider 𐤟

Ugaritic short alphabet

[edit]

Two shorter variants of the Ugaritic alphabet existed with findspots primarily not in the area of Ugarit. Findspots have included Tel Beit Shemesh, Sarepta, and Tiryns. It is generally found on inscribed objects vs the tablets of the standard Ugaritic alphabet and unlike the standard version it is usually written right to left.[16] One variant contained 27 letters and the other 22 letters. It is not known what the relative chronology of the different Ugaritic alphabets was.[17][18][19]

Unicode

[edit]
Main article: Ugaritic (Unicode block)

Ugaritic script was added to the Unicode Standard in April, 2003 with the release of version 4.0.

The Unicode block for Ugaritic is U+10380–U+1039F:

Ugaritic[1][2]
Official Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF)
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F
U+1038x 𐎀 𐎁 𐎂 𐎃 𐎄 𐎅 𐎆 𐎇 𐎈 𐎉 𐎊 𐎋 𐎌 𐎍 𐎎 𐎏
U+1039x 𐎐 𐎑 𐎒 𐎓 𐎔 𐎕 𐎖 𐎗 𐎘 𐎙 𐎚 𐎛 𐎜 𐎝 𐎟
Notes
1.^ As of Unicode version 17.0
2.^ Grey area indicates non-assigned code point

Six letters for transliteration were added to the Latin Extended-D block in March 2019 with the release of Unicode 12.0:[20]

  • U+A7BA Ꞻ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL A
  • U+A7BB ꞻ LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL A
  • U+A7BC Ꞽ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL I
  • U+A7BD ꞽ LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL I
  • U+A7BE Ꞿ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL U
  • U+A7BF ꞿ LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL U

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ugaritic alphabet

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Ugaritic alphabet is an ancient cuneiform-based alphabetic script employed to write the Ugaritic language, a Northwest Semitic tongue spoken in the city-state of (modern Ras Shamra, ), during the Late from the 14th to 13th centuries BCE. It consists of 30 distinct signs—primarily 27 consonants with three additional markers for the vowels a, i, and u—inscribed left-to-right on clay tablets using a wedge-shaped , adapting Mesopotamian techniques to an efficient alphabetic system rather than the more complex syllabic forms used for Akkadian. This innovation marked a significant departure from earlier logographic and syllabic scripts in the , enabling the recording of myths, epics, rituals, administrative documents, and correspondence in Ugaritic alongside multilingual texts in Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hittite. Discovered in 1929 during French excavations at Ras Shamra led by Claude Schaeffer, the first tablets were unearthed in a royal palace library and quickly recognized by scholars like Charles Virolleaud for their unique script, which was fully deciphered by the early 1930s through efforts including those of Édouard Dhorme and Hans Bauer. Over 1,500 have since been recovered, revealing a vibrant literary tradition, including the renowned epic that parallels biblical narratives and illuminates , deities, and cosmology. The script's development likely occurred locally in around the mid-14th century BCE, possibly influenced by interactions with Egyptian hieratic or Mesopotamian traditions, though it stands as an independent invention tailored for Semitic . Linguistically, Ugaritic shares close affinities with Hebrew and Phoenician, featuring similar consonantal roots, dual forms, and verbal structures, which has made the corpus invaluable for reconstructing Proto-Semitic and understanding the evolution of the Hebrew Bible's language and motifs. The alphabet's influence extended beyond Ugarit, with similar cuneiform alphabetic variants appearing in Canaanite sites like Beth Shemesh and Taanach during the 13th–12th centuries BCE, potentially bridging to the linear Phoenician script that spread across the Mediterranean. Its abrupt discontinuation after Ugarit's destruction around 1190 BCE by Sea Peoples underscores the script's localized use, yet its legacy endures in scholarly fields like Ugaritology, biblical studies, and the history of writing systems.

Overview

Description

The Ugaritic alphabet is a cuneiform-based , or consonantal , consisting of 30 signs that primarily represent consonants, with occasional use of certain signs as to indicate vowels. This script was developed specifically for writing the language, an extinct Northwest Semitic tongue closely related to other ancient Levantine languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. The script was inscribed on clay tablets using a to produce wedge-shaped impressions, a technique adapted from broader Mesopotamian traditions. Tablets varied in size, from small ones measuring about 3 by 4 centimeters to larger examples up to 30 by 20 centimeters, and were typically fired or sun-dried for durability, rendering them resistant to decay and allowing many to survive millennia. Ugaritic texts were composed and used mainly from the 14th to the BCE in the ancient city of , located at modern Ras Shamra in .

Historical Significance

The Ugaritic alphabet represents the earliest known full alphabetic abecedary, dating to the 14th-13th centuries BCE, which has provided crucial evidence for the evolution of alphabetic scripts from proto-alphabetic forms to the modern systems used today. These abecedaries, inscribed on clay tablets in style, confirm the antiquity of the Proto-Canaanite sign names and their sequential order, bridging earlier linear traditions with later Phoenician developments. Their discovery underscores the alphabet's role in advancing literacy in the by simplifying writing for , distinct from the more complex syllabic systems. The script's primary historical value lies in preserving Ugaritic literature, including major epics such as the and the Kirta epic, which offer direct parallels to Canaanite and biblical narratives. The , detailing the storm god Baal's conflicts and kingship, mirrors motifs of divine battles and cosmic order found in texts like and Job, illuminating shared mythological frameworks. Similarly, the Kirta epic's themes of royal succession and divine intervention resonate with stories in Genesis and 1-2 , revealing common literary structures and in Northwest Semitic traditions. In , a cosmopolitan port city, the alphabet facilitated by serving alongside Akkadian cuneiform for diplomatic and administrative purposes, while Hurrian appeared in ritual texts, reflecting the society's diverse linguistic interactions. This coexistence— with over 1,400 amid Akkadian and Hurrian documents—highlights the script's adaptability in a hub of and cultural exchange during the Late Bronze Age. Such evidence demonstrates how the Ugaritic alphabet supported local identity amid imperial influences from Hittite and Egyptian powers. The corpus has profoundly shaped by revealing linguistic and mythological affinities between Ugaritic and Hebrew, such as shared vocabulary for divine titles and practices. These parallels, particularly in the Cycle's depiction of deities and the epic's familial motifs, have informed interpretations of narratives, clarifying Canaanite influences on Israelite religion and literature. Overall, the alphabet's texts have revolutionized scholarly understanding of Semitic cultural continuity in the ancient .

History and Discovery

Archaeological Context

The ancient city of , identified with the of Tell Ras Shamra on the Mediterranean coast of modern-day near , was first systematically excavated starting in 1929 by the French Archaeological Mission under the direction of Claude F.A. Schaeffer. These excavations, initiated after a chance discovery of a tomb by a local farmer, uncovered the remains of a major Late port city that thrived as a commercial and cultural hub from approximately 1400 BCE to 1200 BCE. Among the most significant finds were over 1,500 clay tablets inscribed in the alphabet, unearthed primarily from the royal palace archives, temple complexes (including the house of the ), and private dwellings throughout the city. These tablets, dating to the city's final centuries, encompass administrative, literary, and ritual texts that reflect Ugarit's role in and diplomacy. The preservation of these artifacts resulted from Ugarit's abrupt destruction around 1185 BCE, attributed to an invasion by the Sea Peoples—a confederation of maritime raiders—whose assault led to widespread fires and the collapse of structures, inadvertently baking the unfired clay tablets in the debris. This cataclysmic event ended Ugarit's occupation, leaving the site abandoned until modern times. Excavations also revealed a range of associated artifacts, including cylinder seals used for administrative purposes, imported and local pottery indicative of trade networks, and bilingual inscriptions pairing Ugaritic with Akkadian, Hittite, or Egyptian, highlighting the city's multicultural interactions.

Decipherment Process

The decipherment of the Ugaritic alphabet began shortly after the discovery of cuneiform tablets at Ras Shamra in 1929, with initial recognition of its alphabetic nature occurring in the early 1930s through the analysis of abecedaries by scholars such as Charles Virolleaud, Édouard Dhorme, and Hans Bauer. These abecedaries, which listed signs in a sequential order resembling known Semitic alphabets, provided crucial evidence that the script was not syllabic like standard Akkadian cuneiform but rather an alphabetic system of 27 consonants and three vowel indicators. Dhorme, working independently, proposed phonetic values for many signs by comparing them to Phoenician and other West Semitic scripts, achieving about 24 correct assignments by late 1930 based solely on the initial texts. Further confirmation came from bilingual Ugaritic-Akkadian vocabulary lists unearthed at , which matched Ugaritic terms to their Akkadian equivalents in lexical contexts. These bilinguals, often appearing as glosses or parallel entries in administrative and scholarly tablets, confirmed many of the provisional readings from the abecedaries and revealed the script's adaptation of wedges for an alphabetic purpose. The lists facilitated the identification of word roots and grammatical forms, bridging gaps in the . By the early 1930s, the alphabet was fully deciphered. Significant contributions to understanding Ugaritic grammar and vocabulary came from Cyrus H. Gordon, whose 1940 publication, Ugaritic Grammar, synthesized these efforts and established a foundational framework for reading the script. Gordon's work emphasized morphological patterns shared with other , enabling the translation of literary and ritual texts. The process overcame major challenges, including the absence of direct descendant languages or contemporary bilingual inscriptions like the , relying instead on comparative with Hebrew, Phoenician, and cognates to infer meanings and syntax. This method, combined with the internal consistency of Ugaritic texts such as myths and letters, validated the decipherment despite initial uncertainties in sign order and vocalization. For instance, abecedaries like the one inscribed on a small tablet helped confirm the aleph-to-taw sequence familiar from later alphabets.

Origins and Development

Cultural and Linguistic Background

, located on the northern Syrian coast, served as a major cosmopolitan port city during the Late (c. 1450–1200 BCE), facilitating extensive trade networks with , , and (Hittite territories). This strategic position at the crossroads of major cultural spheres enabled the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies, contributing to an environment ripe for linguistic and scribal innovations, including the development of the Ugaritic alphabet as a local alongside established scripts like Akkadian cuneiform. Linguistically, Ugaritic belongs to the Northwest Semitic branch of the Semitic family, classified as a distinct closely related to the Canaanite subgroup, which includes Hebrew and Phoenician. It retains archaic features such as a fully preserved in nouns, verbs, and pronouns, alongside a case system with three cases (nominative, accusative, genitive) in the singular and two (nominative, oblique) in the dual and , marking it as more conservative than later where these elements largely eroded. In sociolinguistic terms, was predominantly employed in written form for purposes, including religious (such as myths and rituals), administrative records (like economic lists and legal documents), and , reflecting its role in institutional and high-status activities within the palace, temples, and residences. While no direct evidence survives for everyday oral communication, the likely functioned as a spoken by the local population, with writing confined to a literate minority amid a multilingual society where Akkadian served international needs. Ugaritic texts exhibit notable influences from neighboring languages, incorporating Akkadian lexical borrowings, particularly in administrative and technical terminology (e.g., terms for trade and ), due to Mesopotamia's dominant cultural and economic role. Additionally, Hurrian personal names appear frequently in Ugaritic onomastics and documents, indicating significant Hurrian demographic presence and cultural integration, especially in ritual and elite contexts.

Theories of Invention

The primary scholarly consensus holds that the Ugaritic alphabet developed as an adaptation of the earlier , which emerged around 1850–1500 BCE among Semitic-speaking Canaanite workers laboring in Egyptian turquoise mines at in the . These workers are believed to have selectively borrowed and simplified Egyptian hieroglyphic and signs, applying the acrophonic principle—where a sign's phonetic value derives from the initial consonant of a familiar Semitic word for the depicted object—to create a concise consonantal system of about 22–30 signs, far less complex than the syllabic of or the logographic Egyptian systems. In , this linear alphabetic precursor was then reformatted into a medium using wedge-shaped impressions on clay tablets, likely to leverage existing scribal infrastructure while expressing the local Northwest Semitic vernacular, with the earliest attested examples dating to the BCE. This adaptation theory is supported by morphological parallels between Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions and signs, such as the 'alep sign representing an ox head (ʾalp in ) for the glottal stop //, and the absence of syllabic elements that characterize Akkadian or , emphasizing instead a purely consonantal inventory suited to Semitic . The process reflects a pragmatic at cultural crossroads, where Egyptian oversight of operations exposed illiterate or semi-literate Semitic laborers to hieroglyphic models, prompting them to devise a script for practical communication like worker tallies or dedications, as argued in Orly Goldwasser's analysis of the inventors as non-elite lacking formal scribal training. Recent work underscores the social dimensions of this , portraying it as a collaborative "disruptive technology" born from intercultural exchanges in the Late , rather than a solitary endeavor, with Ugarit's polyglot environment—blending Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and local influences—facilitating the script's localization around 1400 BCE. Alternative hypotheses propose either a more direct derivation from Egyptian hieratic cursive script, bypassing Proto-Sinaitic intermediaries, or an independent invention within itself as a simplification of local cuneiform traditions. Proponents of the hieratic origin, such as Carleton T. Hodge, point to specific sign resemblances—like the Ugaritic bēt (house) echoing hieratic forms—and argue that Ugaritic scribes, familiar with Egyptian administrative texts, directly mimicked these for efficiency in a multicultural port city. Independent invention theories, though less dominant, suggest Ugarit innovated the alphabet de novo around the 15th century BCE to assert cultural autonomy amid imperial pressures from and Hatti, drawing on but not deriving from external models. These views remain minority positions, challenged by the acrophonic consistencies linking Ugaritic to earlier Sinai evidence. Ongoing debates center on the precise timeline and agency of , with traditional views placing Proto-Sinaitic origins in the BCE (ca. 1900–1700) based on paleographic and stratigraphic dating of Serabit inscriptions, while revisionist paleographers like advocate a narrower 19th-century window (ca. 1840 BCE) tied to specific pharaonic expeditions under . In contrast, some scholars extend the emergence to the 15th century BCE, aligning it closer to attestations and attributing greater continuity to Canaanite scribal networks rather than isolated mining innovations. The role of illiterate or sub-elite innovators persists as a contentious point, with studies emphasizing how non-literate Semitic workers at cultural interfaces could conceptualize phonetic abstraction without prior writing systems, though critics argue this underestimates scribal mediation in script transmission. These discussions highlight the alphabet's as a dynamic, socially embedded process rather than a singular event. Recent archaeological findings, such as possible alphabetic inscriptions on clay cylinders from Umm el-Marra in northern dated to circa 2400 BCE (announced in November 2024), suggest alphabetic writing may have emerged even earlier in the region, potentially by 500 years predating Proto-Sinaitic examples, though the interpretation remains tentative and subject to further analysis.

Script Characteristics

Functional Type

The Ugaritic alphabet functions as an , a type of that primarily represents consonants, with 30 signs dedicated to consonantal phonemes. Three of these signs—the aleph variants (ʾa, ʾi, ʾu)—also serve as matres lectionis, indicating the vowels /a/, /i/, /u/ (short or long), to provide limited vocalic guidance in specific contexts like word-initial glottal stops or to specify vowel quality. This partial vowel notation distinguishes the Ugaritic script from pure consonantaries while keeping the system compact and suited to the language's structure. The script's phonemic coverage encompasses the core consonantal inventory of , a Northwest Semitic language, including distinctive features like emphatic (pharyngealized) consonants ṭ, ṣ, and ; guttural (pharyngeal and glottal) sounds such as ḥ and ʿ; and a rich set of comprising /s/, /z/, /š/, and /ṣ/. It does not encode tones, diphthongs, or a complex inventory, aligning with Ugaritic's of three basic qualities (/a/, /i/, /u/) in short and long forms, which are largely predictable from morphological patterns. Compared to syllabic systems like Akkadian cuneiform, which requires separate signs for consonant-vowel combinations, the abjad enables more streamlined notation, particularly advantageous for Semitic root-based morphology where consonantal skeletons determine lexical meaning. This efficiency likely contributed to its adoption for vernacular literary and administrative texts alongside the more cumbersome used for Akkadian. A key limitation of the abjad format is the omission of short vowels and inconsistent use of matres lectionis, resulting in potential ambiguities in pronunciation and word division that must be inferred from grammatical context, poetic parallelism, or cross-references with cognate Semitic languages like Hebrew and Phoenician.

Writing Conventions

The Ugaritic alphabet was inscribed primarily on clay tablets using a reed stylus, which produced horizontal wedges to form the cuneiform-like signs, distinguishing it from the more vertical or complex wedge arrangements typical of contemporary logosyllabic cuneiform scripts used for Akkadian and other languages. This horizontal orientation allowed for efficient linear writing and reflected an adaptation aimed at compatibility with local administrative and literary practices while maintaining the material familiarity of cuneiform. Styli were typically made from reed, though variants in wood, bone, ivory, or metal have been attested, enabling scribes to create the 30-sign alphabet with relative speed on purpose-made tablets or incidental surfaces like pottery and stone. Texts were written in left-to-right horizontal lines, a convention adopted from Middle Babylonian syllabic practices prevalent in the Late Bronze Age . This left-to-right progression contrasted with the right-to-left norm of some linear alphabetic precursors, emphasizing the script's heritage while facilitating its function for consonantal representation. Formatting relied on word dividers rather than , with no evidence of systematic sentence-ending marks or other diacritics. Common dividers included a small vertical (𐎟), a short vertical , or a vertical line (⟨ω⟩), used inconsistently to separate prosodic or morphosyntactic units, such as prefix particles from following morphemes in administrative and literary texts. Dots appeared rarely, often in vertical arrangements of three, as an alternative separator in some inscriptions. was rare, with most signs representing single consonants, though certain graphemes exhibited limited multiple phonetic values, complicating precise phonemic transcription in specific dialectal contexts. Tablets were often oriented in format, with text flipped bottom-to-top when read, and lines sometimes overrun onto edges without additional formatting cues.

Corpus and Examples

Abecedaries

Abecedaries in the Ugaritic script are instructional texts consisting of sequential lists of the alphabet's signs, primarily used to teach aspiring scribes the fixed order and forms of the letters. These practice exercises were typically inscribed on small clay tablets, fragments, or occasionally along the edges of larger documents, reflecting their role in elementary scribal during the Late at . The purpose was pedagogical, facilitating the memorization of the 30-sign consonantal alphabet and its arrangement, which was essential for in administrative, literary, and contexts. Such texts demonstrate the structured nature of scribal , where novices progressed from basic letter sequences to more complex compositions. Over twenty abecedaries have been unearthed at , varying in completeness and sometimes showing minor deviations in sign placement or omissions due to the fragmentary state of the tablets. Notable examples include KTU 5.6 (RS 12.063), an early complete sequence discovered in a domestic context, and KTU 5.21 (RS 24.288), a well-preserved tablet containing all 30 signs inscribed in a single column, found in a temple and dated to the 13th century BCE. Other significant specimens, such as KTU 5.4, 5.12, and 5.27, exhibit partial lists or repetitions, likely representing student exercises with errors or intentional variations for practice. These artifacts, cataloged in the standard edition Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (KTU), highlight the prevalence of such training materials across residential, administrative, and religious sites in the city. The standard order preserved in these abecedaries follows the Proto-Canaanite sequence: ʾ b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k š m ḏ n z s ʿ p ṣ q r ġ t ʾ i u, with occasional insertions or adjustments for additional and semi-vowels. This arrangement, consistent across most examples like RS 24.288, begins with glottal and labial , progresses through velars and dentals, and ends with a secondary group of and gutturals, differing from the later Phoenician order by including extra signs for . Variations appear in about half the abecedaries, such as reversed pairs (e.g., š and l swapped) or incomplete sections, possibly indicating regional or individual scribal preferences during training. The sequence's stability underscores its role as a foundational mnemonic device. These abecedaries provide the earliest attested evidence of a fixed alphabetic order in the Semitic world, dating to circa 1400–1200 BCE, and confirm the script's direct lineage from Proto-Canaanite while influencing subsequent systems like Phoenician and Hebrew. Their discovery aided the of the script by revealing the letter inventory and independently of bilingual texts. As tools for scribal training, they illustrate Ugarit's advanced educational infrastructure, where was disseminated beyond circles to support the city's multilingual .

Major Inscriptions

The major inscriptions in the Ugaritic script encompass a diverse corpus of literary, administrative, religious, and bilingual texts discovered primarily at Ras Shamra (ancient ), dating to the Late (ca. 1400–1200 BCE). These texts, part of an overall corpus of approximately 1,500–2,000 and fragments, demonstrate the script's versatility in recording complex narratives and practical documents on clay tablets, often in poetic or formulaic styles that reflect oral traditions adapted to writing. Among the most prominent literary works are epic poems exploring themes of divinity, kingship, and human-divine relations. The (KTU 1.1–1.6), the longest surviving Ugaritic narrative, depicts the storm god Baal's ascent to divine kingship through conflicts with sea chaos (Yamm) and death (Mot), culminating in the construction of his palace on Mount Saphon, symbolizing and cosmic order. This epic, preserved on multiple tablets likely copied by the Ilimalku, underscores Baal's role as a warrior-king and patron , with vivid descriptions of divine assemblies, battles, and rituals that parallel broader Canaanite mythology. The (KTU 1.14–1.16), a royal saga, follows King Kirta's divinely ordained quest—guided by El in a dream—to besiege Udum and marry Ḥuraya for , emphasizing kingship's dependence on lineage, divine favor, and familial duty amid personal loss and rebellion. Similarly, the Tale of Aqhat (KTU 1.17–1.19) narrates the righteous judge Danel's plea to El for a son, Aqhat, whose life is threatened by the warrior goddess over a bow; the story culminates in Aqhat's murder, prolonged mourning, and themes of vengeance, mortality, and the interplay between divine caprice and human piety, evoking patriarchal ideals of and . These epics, inscribed in the alphabetic , highlight the script's capacity for rhythmic parallelism and epic scope, serving both mythological and ideological functions tied to Ugaritic royalty and . Administrative inscriptions reveal the script's practical applications in and . Economic records, such as lists of commodities, personnel, and transactions, document Ugarit's bustling and resource management, often in terse, formulaic entries that attest to the city's role as a Mediterranean hub. Diplomatic letters detail alliances, , and matters among regional powers, showcasing the script's use in international relations during the 14th–13th centuries BCE; known exchanges with , however, were conducted in Akkadian . Temple ritual lists enumerate offerings, sacrifices, and personnel duties, providing glimpses into institutional and daily cultic practices. These texts, typically brief and utilitarian, illustrate the alphabet's for non-literary purposes beyond mythology. Religious inscriptions further illuminate Ugarit's polytheistic worldview, with prominent Hurrian influences evident in hymns and incantations. Hymns praise deities like Tešub (syncretized with ) and , blending Hurrian poetic forms with Ugaritic elements to invoke and , often in syllabic or alphabetic from priestly houses. Incantations against misfortune, such as those for healing or averting evil, incorporate ritual formulas addressing the pantheon headed by El as creator-father and as storm warrior, reflecting a hierarchical divine family that governed natural and social orders. These texts, numbering around 50 Hurrian-influenced examples, highlight cultural fusion under Hittite oversight and the script's role in esoteric cultic transmission. Bilingual inscriptions, particularly Ugaritic-Hurrian and Ugaritic-Akkadian parallels, have been crucial for and . Ritual texts like KTU 1.116 alternate Ugaritic instructions with Hurrian lists or recitations, using without deep grammatical fusion to clarify sacrificial procedures and divine invocations. Akkadian-influenced documents, such as lexical lists or administrative notes, provide Semitic parallels that aid in reconstructing vocabulary and syntax, as seen in quadrilingual glosses equating terms across languages. These hybrids, from the 14th–12th centuries BCE, facilitated administration and scholarship by offering direct linguistic bridges.

The Alphabet

Standard Letters

The standard Ugaritic alphabet consists of 30 signs, known as the "long alphabet," which represent the phonemes of the Ugaritic language, an extinct Northwest Semitic tongue spoken in the ancient city of (modern Ras Shamra, ) during the Late (c. 1400–1200 BCE). These signs were impressed into clay tablets using a to form wedge-shaped impressions, adapting the technique prevalent in but simplifying it into an system where each sign denotes a single (with three additional signs for glottal stops distinguished by implied vowels). The alphabet is written from left to right, contrasting with the right-to-left direction of many later Semitic scripts. The shapes of the Ugaritic signs are composed primarily of straight wedges oriented horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, along with angled "Winkelhaken" wedges, mirroring the basic elements of Mesopotamian but featuring fewer and simpler combinations—typically 1 to 7 wedges per sign—to suit alphabetic use rather than the complex of Akkadian. This adaptation is evident in the predominance of horizontal wedges in many signs, which often display minimal inclination and provide a visual distinction from the more vertically oriented or intricate Akkadian forms, emphasizing clarity for rapid inscription on clay. Some signs exhibit polyvalent tendencies, such as occasional interchange between similar like š (/ʃ/) and s (/s/ or affricate [ts]), reflecting phonetic nuances in the , though most signs maintain distinct values. The following table inventories the 30 standard signs in their conventional abecedary order, including representations, Latin transliterations, approximate phonetic values (using IPA where precise), and traditional Semitic acrophonic names derived from Northwest Semitic words (e.g., objects or animals beginning with the sound). These names, such as alpu for "," underscore the script's acrophonic principle, akin to early Semitic alphabets. Visual examples use glyphs, which approximate ancient impressions; actual tablets show variations in wedge depth and alignment due to stylus pressure.
OrderUnicodeGlyphTransliterationPhonetic ValueSemitic Name
1U+10380𐎀ʾ/ʔ/ (glottal stop)alpu (ox)
2U+10381𐎁b/b/baytu (house)
3U+10382𐎂g/g/gamlu (camel)
4U+10383𐎃ḫ/χ/ (velar fricative)ḫatpu (sickle)
5U+10384𐎄d/d/diggu (grain)
6U+10385𐎅h/h/ḥillu (cheer)
7U+10386𐎆w/w/wa(y)du (hook)
8U+10387𐎇z/z/zīnu (weapon)
9U+10388𐎈ḥ/ħ/ (pharyngeal fricative)ḥaṣ(a)bu (court)
10U+10389𐎉ṭ/tˤ/ (emphatic stop)ṭēltu (woman)
11U+1038A𐎊y/j/yadu (hand)
12U+1038B𐎋k/k/kapu (palm)
13U+1038C𐎌š/ʃ/šinnu (tooth)
14U+1038D𐎍l/l/lamdu (goad)
15U+1038E𐎎m/m/maynu (water)
16U+1038F𐎏ḏ/ð/ḏaḫaru (path)
17U+10390𐎐n/n/naḫašu (serpent)
18U+10391𐎑ẓ/θˤ/ or /sˤ/ (emphatic fricative)ẓillu (shadow)
19U+10392𐎒s/s/ or /ts/šawu (bow)
20U+10393𐎓ʿ/ʕ/ (pharyngeal fricative)ʿaynu (eye)
21U+10394𐎔p/p/pū (mouth)
22U+10395𐎕ṣ/sˤ/ (emphatic fricative)ṣēdu (side)
23U+10396𐎖q/q/qarnu (horn)
24U+10397𐎗r/r/rašpu (flame)
25U+10398𐎘ṯ/θ/ṯalāʾu (lamb)
26U+10399𐎙ġ/ɣ/ (velar fricative)ġašmu (load)
27U+1039A𐎚t/t/tawu (mark)
28U+1039B𐎛i/ʔi/ (glottal + i-vowel)ʾiddu (hand, variant)
29U+1039C𐎜u/ʔu/ (glottal + u-vowel)ʾummu (mother, variant)
30U+1039D𐎝ss or s̀/s/ (variant sibilant)sillu (basket, allograph)
Phonetic values are approximate, as Ugaritic pronunciation is reconstructed from comparative Semitic ; the three vowel-distinguished alephs (ʾ, i, u) and the variant ss highlight the script's quasi-syllabic elements for clarity in writing. Analysis of letter frequencies in the corpus, drawn from the comprehensive Texts of the Data Bank (totaling over 177,000 signs across mythological, administrative, and texts), reveals that consonants like y (/j/, appearing in common words for "hand" or pronouns), m (/m/, frequent in nouns like "" or "mother"), and n (/n/, prevalent in verbs and prepositions) are among the most common, comprising a significant portion of inscriptions due to their roles in everyday vocabulary and morphology. This distribution aids in understanding scribal preferences and linguistic patterns, with y, m, and n often exceeding 5-7% of total occurrences each. Less frequent signs, such as the emphatics ṭ, ẓ, and ṣ, appear under 1%, reflecting rarer phonemes in .

Variant Forms

The Ugaritic short alphabet consists of 22 letters, representing a reduced form of the standard 30-sign inventory by merging distinct signs for and omitting additional markers for emphatic and lateral fricatives, thereby aligning more closely with the consonantal structure of other . This variant likely served vernacular or simplified purposes, as evidenced by its appearance in abecedaries and brief inscriptions from peripheral sites such as Beth Shemesh in , Taanach in , and Sarepta in , where it facilitated everyday or local scribal practices rather than formal literary composition. The long alphabet of 30 signs expands the core 27-sign base by incorporating three secondary signs—such as i (ʾi, a variant of aleph), u (ʾu, a variant of aleph), and s̀ (a sibilant)—primarily to accommodate foreign phonemes, particularly in Hurrian-influenced texts. Regional differences are notable at Ras Ibn Hani, a site adjacent to Ugarit, where inscriptions occasionally feature reordered or augmented signs reflecting local adaptations, including experimental placements of these extra letters within the sequence. The short form predominates in non-royal texts, such as administrative records, letters, and school exercises, suggesting its utility in practical, non-elite contexts across Ugarit's sphere of influence. Scholars propose that these variants arose from dialectal adaptations, allowing scribes to tailor the script to regional pronunciations or linguistic borrowings while maintaining compatibility with the standard alphabet's cuneiform wedges. This reduction in the short alphabet parallels developments in early Phoenician script, where a similar 22-letter system emerged through phonemic mergers, facilitating broader dissemination in the during the Late transition to the .

Legacy and Modern Use

Influence on Other Scripts

The alphabet exerted a foundational influence on subsequent writing systems through its preservation of the early Levantine letter order, which directly informed the Phoenician script emerging around 1100 BCE. This 30-sign consonantal system, adapted into a in Phoenician with 22 letters, maintained the same sequence—beginning with ʾalep, bet, and gaml—establishing a template for North Semitic alphabets. Scholars trace this transmission via proto-Canaanite intermediaries, where Ugaritic's adaptation paralleled the pictographic origins of linear scripts in the . From Phoenician, the alphabetic tradition extended westward, shaping the Greek script by the 8th century BCE through adaptations that introduced vowels and rotated letter forms, such as turning Phoenician ʾalep into Greek alpha. This evolution further influenced the Latin alphabet via Etruscan intermediaries, forming the basis of many modern Western scripts. In parallel, shared Semitic roots linked to , which diverged from Phoenician influences in the 9th century BCE while retaining core consonantal values, and to South Arabian scripts that evidenced a variant order but common acrophonic derivations. Ugaritic innovations, including its abecedary lists for rote of the sequence, promoted standardized scribal and influenced pedagogical practices in later Levantine traditions, easing the transition from elite syllabaries to accessible alphabets. The acrophonic —deriving signs from initial sounds of depicted objects, as seen in proto-Canaanite precursors—facilitated this spread, allowing rapid adaptation across without reliance on complex logograms. A 2018 study portrays the adoption of the Ugaritic alphabet as a form of resistance to imperial syllabaries like Akkadian, reflecting negotiation of and promoting localized scribal in the Late Bronze Age . This shift underscored the alphabet's role in fostering local identity and administrative efficiency, contrasting with the exclusivity of Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems.

Contemporary Scholarship

Contemporary scholarship on the Ugaritic alphabet emphasizes refined textual editions and digital resources to support ongoing analysis of its structure and usage. The standard reference remains the Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (KTU), a comprehensive corpus of approximately 1,500 alphabetic cuneiform tablets and fragments from Ugarit, first compiled in the 1970s and continually updated through subsequent volumes. Recent commentaries, such as the second volume of The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (2005), offer detailed philological and historical interpretations of key inscriptions, incorporating advances in Northwest Semitic linguistics. Digital initiatives, including online platforms hosting KTU texts with transliterations and translations, have enhanced accessibility for researchers, enabling collaborative studies on script variations and paleography. Current debates center on the script's contribution to the spread of in the Late Bronze Age , particularly its role as an efficient adaptation of for . The University of 's Contexts of and Relations between Early Writing Systems (CREWS) project, launched in 2016, examines the social contexts of alphabetic innovation at , arguing that the script facilitated broader administrative and literary use amid imperial influences from and . A 2018 study in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal further posits that the rise of Ugaritic alphabetic reflected resistance to syllabic systems, promoting localized scribal autonomy during periods of geopolitical tension. Emerging in fragment reconstruction, initially developed for Babylonian , utilize recurrent neural networks to predict missing signs in digitized corpora. Significant research gaps persist due to the scarcity of new archaeological discoveries since the primary Ugarit excavations concluded in the 1970s, limiting fresh epigraphic evidence and shifting emphasis toward reinterpretations of existing materials. Recent publications, such as the 2024 issue of Maarav featuring analysis of the first tablet of the Ugaritic Krt text, continue to advance interpretive work. These approaches highlight the need for more integrated studies bridging and to address how the supported Ugarit's role as a multicultural hub. Major institutions driving Ugaritic research include the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), which coordinates ongoing epigraphic projects stemming from its historical excavations at Ras Shamra, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Institute of Archaeology, where faculty specialize in scripts and Northwest Semitic . Conferences on Northwest Semitics, such as the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature with dedicated Ugaritic sessions and specialized events like the 2025 "Current Research and Challenges in Ugaritic Studies" in , , foster debates on these topics and disseminate new methodologies.

Digital Encoding

Unicode Support

The Ugaritic script was incorporated into the Unicode Standard with version 4.0, released in , and assigned to the dedicated block in the range U+10380–U+1039F within the Supplementary Multilingual Plane. This allocation encompasses 31 characters, comprising 30 alphabetic signs—corresponding to the standard letter inventory—and a single at U+1039F. Ugaritic characters are encoded with left-to-right bidirectional behavior, aligning with the script's primary horizontal writing direction, and are classified as Other Letters (Lo) in the Unicode character categories. Compatibility is facilitated by open-source fonts such as Sans Ugaritic, which render the cuneiform-inspired glyphs in a consistent style suitable for scholarly and digital applications. Support for Ugaritic encoding extends to modern web technologies, including rendering via or UTF-16, PDF generation with embedded fonts, and database storage for epigraphic corpora. Rendering these characters, however, presents challenges due to the intricate shapes and palaeographic variations inherent in ancient inscriptions, requiring advanced font engines and platform-specific adjustments to ensure accurate visual fidelity across systems.

Transliteration Practices

The standard transliteration of the Ugaritic alphabet into follows Semiticist conventions, employing modified Latin letters and diacritics to distinguish consonants such as the (ʾ), the (ḫ, corresponding to /x/), and the emphatic (ṣ). This system, which aligns with broader practices for , is exemplified in major editions like Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus (KTU), where letters are rendered without inherent vowel indications except for matres lectionis, such as w for /u/ and y for /i/. Variations in transliteration have arisen historically, particularly in the handling of ambiguous signs and matres lectionis. Early systems, such as that proposed by H. Gordon in his Ugaritic Handbook (1947), used simpler notations like h for ḫ and occasionally differed in sibilant distinctions (e.g., š vs. s), while later standardized approaches in KTU (1976) adopted more precise diacritics for clarity. For matres lectionis, conventions consistently render w as a marker for /u/ in contexts like word-final positions, but interpretations of vocalic alephs (a, i, u) vary between superscript notations in some grammars and plain forms in others, reflecting ongoing debates in phonemic reconstruction. These practices are essential for scholarly editions, dictionaries, and pedagogical materials, enabling analysis of morphology and syntax. For instance, the Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (2015) relies on KTU-style transliterations for lemma entries, while primers like William M. Schniedewind and Joel H. Hunt's A Primer on Ugaritic (2007) use them to introduce texts inductively. Digital resources, such as the Ugaritic Data Bank, provide searchable transliterations of over 2,000 texts, facilitating concordance searches and variant readings across editions. Recent advancements include the Edition of the Ugaritic Poetic Text Corpus (EUPT) project, initiated in 2024 and funded by the , which is creating the first comprehensive digital corpus of Ugaritic poetic texts with extensive philological and poetological annotations for advanced . Transliteration conventions evolved rapidly after the script's in the 1930s by Charles Virolleaud, with significant standardization occurring in the through revised grammars like Gordon's Ugaritic Manual (1955 edition). This period saw alignment with international Semitic standards to resolve early inconsistencies in sign interpretation. In the digital era, adaptations have incorporated Unicode-compatible diacritics (e.g., for ḫ and ṣ) to support tools, enhancing accessibility in databases and software for Ugaritic studies.

References

  1. https://cla.umn.edu/cnrc/languages/akkadian-ugaritic
  2. https://old.biblicalarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology-review/36/2/8
  3. https://www.academia.edu/38656707/Ugaritic
  4. https://www.theology.edu/ugarit.htm
  5. https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/234921/4/Ugaritic.pdf
  6. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781575068879-009/html
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ancient-languages-of-syriapalestine-and-arabia/ugaritic/32DC888FD01953C112711DCD50DB1FE1
  8. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/DISSERTATIONS/Anthoni.pdf
  9. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/52589/external_content.pdf
  10. https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/context/amar/article/1162/viewcontent/47072.pdf
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1355644
  12. https://tyndalehouse.com/2021/05/24/ugaritic-abecedary/
  13. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/727576
  14. https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/download/5924/4977
  15. https://cojs.org/ugaritic_alphabet_tablet-_14th-13th_century_bce/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282305822_Contact_Languages_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_-_Three_more_Case_Studies_Ugaritic-Hurrian_Hurro-Akkadian_and_Canaano-Akkadian
  17. https://anetoday.org/boyes-writing-ugarit/
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/negotiating-imperialism-and-resistance-in-late-bronze-age-ugarit-the-rise-of-alphabetic-cuneiform/5DE04581682E949D85A2B7FA6A13BCA9
  19. https://crewsproject.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/ninety-years-of-ugaritic-studies/
  20. https://archaeology.org/issues/july-august-2021/features/ugarit-bronze-age-archive/
  21. http://sel.cchs.csic.es/sites/default/files/06day_2a4aeb99.pdf
  22. https://brill.com/view/book/9789004294103/B9789004294103-s005.xml
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43072628
  24. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110251586.460
  25. https://www.sel.cchs.csic.es/sites/default/files/17soldt_889b038d.pdf
  26. https://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Simons_Proto-Sinaitic_Rosetta9.pdf
  27. https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2023/08/who-invented-alphabet
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331088680_Goldwasser_O_July_2018_The_Alphabet_as_a_Case_of_Disruptive_Innovation_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_as_an_Old_Technology_the_Ugaritic_Alphabet_as_Unsuccessful_Improvement_and_some_Emoji_Lecture_delivered_at_6
  29. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12356
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30029469
  31. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-alphabet/
  32. https://core.ac.uk/download/493013831.pdf
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364829842_The_Miners_Who_Invented_the_Alphabet_-_A_Response_to_Christopher_Rollston
  34. https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jaei/article/id/1355/download/pdf/
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03876-3
  36. https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/images/documents/faculty/Rendsburg/ancient_hebrew_phonology.pdf
  37. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/52589/external_content.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  38. https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/75247-on-hieratic-and-the-direction-of-alphabetic-writing/attachment/159076.pdf
  39. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/51596/external_content.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  40. https://ctan.math.utah.edu/ctan/tex-archive/fonts/archaic/ugarite/ugarite.pdf
  41. https://www.academia.edu/38210215/Joshua_Blau_On_Problems_of_Polyphony_and_Archaism_in_Ugaritic_Spelling_Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society_vol_88_no_3_July_September_1968_523_526
  42. https://www.persee.fr/doc/syria_0039-7946_1984_num_61_1_6854
  43. https://brill.com/view/title/15373
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126050_Suspense_in_the_Epic_of_Aqhat_A_Reexamination_of_Two_Passages_of_CAT_119
  45. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/ar/81-90/82-83/82-83_Ugaritic.pdf
  46. https://journal.fi/store/article/view/88230
  47. https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10380.pdf
  48. https://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Simboli&id=30&lang=en
  49. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463209391
  50. https://christopherwolfram.com/projects/ugaritic-letter-frequencies/
  51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/604198
  52. https://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Scrittura&id=30&lang=en
  53. https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/30586-ugarit-canaan-and-israel.pdf
  54. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004294103/B9789004294103-s005.pdf
  55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/543206
  56. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34280/chapter/290618483
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360486633_Evolution_of_ancient_alphabet_to_modern_greek_latin_and_cyrillic_alphabets_and_transcription_between_them
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Ugaritic-cuneiform-abecedary-G-G-ARBINI-Introduzione-allepigrafia-semitica_fig6_263528954
  59. https://academic.oup.com/book/32294/chapter/268506838
  60. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004369887/BP000053.pdf
  61. https://intertextual.bible/index.php/book/ktu/chapter/all
  62. https://brill.com/display/title/13153?language=en
  63. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/easy-as-alep-bet-gimel-cambridge-research-explores-social-context-of-ancient-writing
  64. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003794117
  65. https://www.asor.org/asor-publications/maarav
  66. https://en-hum.huji.ac.il/departments-list/archeology-and-ancient-middle-east
  67. https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/aktuelles/news/75432.html
  68. https://www.unicode.org/notes/tn3/bunz-iuc17pap.pdf
  69. https://archive.org/details/ugaritichandbook0000gord
  70. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/primer-on-ugaritic/F25DF8A91C7F9700FF3179B76D83550B
  71. https://www.gorgiaspress.com/the-texts-of-the-ugaritic-data-bank-4-volume-set
  72. https://aclanthology.org/2024.tlt-1.3/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.