Meanwhile it is well to put on record Professor Gomperz’s reply to the objections that may be brought forward against the probable conclusion that, even before the Homeric times, there existed Greeks acquainted with a written language.
“For this supposition is not only opposed by ancient, though possibly unhistoric traditions, such as the denial of the settlement of Asia Minor by European Greeks, but by really historical facts—for instance, the total absence of any mention of the art of writing in these very Homeric poems.
“However this objection—let it count for as much or as little as it may—affects not only our decipherings, but also a firmly established and quite undeniable fact, the existence of a Cyprian syllabic writing. For that a nation which knew of a written language, simple and handy as the Phœnician with its facility of supplying the vowels, should prefer one like the Cyprian, full of the most troublesome characters and yet subject to the worst ambiguity, is surely as unlikely as that a nation in possession of the needle-gun should return to the use of the battle-axe. However, in the ninth and at latest in the eighth-century (and very probably much earlier) the Greeks must already have been acquainted with the so-called Phoenician writing, which at that time was employed with equal readiness both in Moab and in Nineveh. Hence the Cyprian writing must have found its way among the Greeks before this epoch (and we may almost safely say a considerable time before this epoch, for otherwise how could it have taken firm root in Cyprus only?) My opinion is that we shall soon find the definite outlines of an epoch of Greek culture, or semi-culture, which I should be inclined to name the pre-Cadmean, the decline of which may probably be dated from the mighty impulse which the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (about 1300) gave to the migration and the colonization of the Phœnicians.”[326]
We are enabled, by a communication from Dr. Schliemann, to present a list of all the objects in his collection, which Professor Gomperz has recognised as bearing Inscriptions, all of which are figured in our work. We also append the depth at which each object was found, inasmuch as this determines to which of the nations, that dwelt successively on the site of Ilium, each inscription is to be referred; and this is by no means the least interesting point in the investigation.
It will be understood, of course, that this is, in the strongest sense, a “first provisional list” of the results of an enquiry only just begun. We believe that we could make no inconsiderable additions to it; but we await the verdict of the more competent enquirers who are now engaged in the research. Their labours may show that the lowest stratum of remains is not destitute of traces of a written language, as would appear at first sight from the List. Meanwhile the great preponderance of known inscriptions from the “Trojan stratum” (7-10 M.) of Dr. Schliemann is very striking: 11 out of the 18 belong to it. But the ethnic affinity between the Trojans and their successors, already attested by many proofs, is now confirmed by five inscriptions in the Cyprian character from the depths of 4, 5, and 6 meters (Nos. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 16 in the List). The two funnels (Nos. 17, 18) are furnished by the uppermost stratum: each bears only a single letter, which appears also to be Cyprian; but there would seem to be still some doubt whether it may not be Phœnician.
