Linear A

This paper describes the Linear A / Minoan digital corpus and the approaches we applied to develop it. We aim to set up a suitable study resource for Linear A and Minoan. Firstly we start by introducing Linear A and Minoan in order to make it clear why we should develop a digital marked up corpus of the existing Linear A transcriptions. Secondly we list and describe some of the existing resources about Linear A: Linear A documents (seals, statuettes, vessels etc.), the traditional encoding systems (standard code numbers referring to distinct symbols), a Linear A font, and the newest (released on June 16th 2014) Unicode Standard Characters set for Linear A. Thirdly we explain our choice concerning the data format: why we decided to digitize the Linear A resources; why we decided to convert all the transcriptions in standard Unicode characters; why we decided to use an XML format; why we decided to implement the TEI-EpiDoc DTD. Lastly we describe: the developing process (from the data collection to the issues we faced and the solving strategies); a new font we developed (synchronized with the Unicode Characters Set) in order to make the data readable even on systems that are not updated. Finally, we discuss the corpus we developed in a Cultural Heritage preservation perspective and suggest some future works.

The slides: https://www.academia.edu/14675424/Minoan_Linguistic_Resources_The_Linear_A_Digital_Corpus_-_SLIDES.

"Writing as Material Practice grapples with the issue of writing as a form of material culture in its ancient and more recent manifestations, and in the contexts of production and consumption. Fifteen case studies explore the artefactual nature of writing — the ways in which materials, techniques, colour, scale, orientation and visibility inform the creation of inscribed objects and spaces, as well as structure subsequent engagement, perception and meaning making.

Covering a temporal span of some 5000 years, from c.3200 BCE to the present day, and ranging in spatial context from the Americas to the Near East, the chapters in this volume bring a variety of perspectives which contribute to both specific and broader questions of writing materialities.

The authors also aim to place past graphical systems in their social contexts so they can be understood in relation to the people who created and attributed meaning to writing and associated symbolic modes through a diverse array of individual and wider social practices."

This paper contains remarks on the epigraphic and archaeological evidence for the relative values of Linear A fractions and for the absolute values of the Minoan largest units of measurement. It is chiefly aimed at reviewing updated bibliography on the matter, and understanding whether the similarity between Linear A and B symbols for measures and weight rests on identical values. As far as the concluding remarks are concerned, in the light of recent publications the following values remain the most probable for the most attested Linear A fractions: J = 1/2, D = 1/3, E = 1/4, A = 1/20, H = 3/10, X = 9/20, F = 1/8, B = 1/5, K = 1/16. Mycenaean ideograms for measures conventionally transcribed as T, M, and N seem to derive from Linear A fraction signs conventionally transcribed as K, DD, X, but do not seem to rely on identical values or express analogous ratios. Finally, the occurrence of sign *118 in Linear A is reviewed and contrasted with the use of ideogram *118 and syllabogram 90/wo in Linear B

Σκοπός του άρθρου αυτού είναι να εξεταστούν συγκριτικά οι πληροφορίες για τον κορυφαίο αξιωματούχο και επικεφαλής της διοικητικής οργάνωσης κάθε μυκηναϊκού βασιλείου, τον wa-na-ka, ἄνακτα. Παρουσιάζονται οι καταγραφές του τίτλου, αναλύεται η λειτουργία του σε κάθε περίπτωση και γίνεται προσπάθεια να εντοπιστούν ομοιότητες και διαφορές, αν υπάρχουν, στις αρμοδιότητες και στο ρόλο του σε κάθε μυκηναϊκό βασίλειο. Μια δεύτερη συγκριτική ματιά πέφτει πάνω στα κοινά στοιχεία και στις διαφορές μεταξύ των Μυκηναίων ανάκτων και των ομηρικών βασιλέων καθώς και των ανατολικών ηγεμόνων των σύγχρονων προς τον μυκηναϊκό κόσμο κρατών και πολιτισμών της Ανατολής.
The article presents the recordings of the title wa-na-ka, it analyses its function in every case and reveals similarities and differences, if existing, over his responsibilities and his role in each Mycenaean kingdom. A brief comparative view is also attempted of the common elements and the differences between the Mycenaean sovereigns on the one hand and the Homeric kings and the leaders of the eastern states and civilizations contemporary to the Mycenaean world on the other.

In three occasions Egyptian texts give us extracts of the language of the Keftiw: a school writing tablet with personal names, an inscription with place names, and a papyrus with two magical spells! The information that we can extract, although puny, could help us in our attempt to approach the Keftiw language and its nature. All difficulties of interpretation
have to be analysed and each step has to be taken cautiously.

Ever since humankind first settled down in permanent settlements as the direct consequence of farming of grains and other crops and the raising of livestock in the Late Neolithic era, the territorial imperative has consistently dictated real or imagined threats from outsiders. Consequently, people always struggled to improve means of self defence, leading to the introduction of missiles such as sling stones, spears and arrows. In the Late Neolithic, humankind built enormous fortresses. This was soon followed by the emergence of the first chariots in Sumeria ca. 2,500 BCE. Cumbersome as they were, they represented a significant step forward in the early technology of warfare. The next millennium was to bring about the perfection of the chariot as a vehicle enabling much more efficient warfare. Chariots had become far lighter, more mobile and more battle-worthy than their much more ponderous Sumerian predecessors. All late Bronze Age chariots, including Egyptian and Mycenaean, had reached the zenith of perfection attainable for that era. The Linear B Lexicon for the Construction of Mycenaean Chariots, the only one of its kind, has been produced in partnership with Koryvantes, the Association of Historical Studies (Athens).

The focus of this paper is to present a new methodology that examines Cretan Hieroglyphic seals from both epigraphic and glyptic standpoints to be understood as parts of an integrated and multimodal system of communication. As our premise, we consider the newly published material from Myrtos-Pyrgos (Ferrara, Weingarten, Cadogan, 2016), and then compare and contrast local trends impacting the presence and use of inscribed seals from reasonably well provenanced Middle Minoan contexts in the East of the island. The goals are : 1) to throw light on the cultural significance of the administrative and  functions played by Hieroglyphic seals and seal impressions ; and 2) to gain a synoptic appreciation of the
emergence and use of this relatively short-lived writing system.

The term "labyrinth" can refer to three different entities: 1) a real building since several labyrinths are mentioned in Egypt, Greece, Miletus, and Italy by ancient authors and inscriptions, 2) an imaginary building, i.e. the building consisting of numerous halls connected by intricate and tortuous passages in which, according to the Greek mythology, the Cretan Minotaur was held, and 3) a widespread metaphor and symbol, a unique configuration with certain well-defined and rigid characteristics attested across the Mediterranean and beyond, from Prehistory to the present day.
In this paper, the earliest evidence for each of the above-mentioned meanings is reviewed, from the Mycenaean until the Hellenistic and Roman Times. The diachronic perspective is emphasized to outline transformation processes.
The reader is also invited to walk the demarcation line between the two points of view from which the labyrinth can be approached, the physical and the metaphysical, to discover how and when it achieved a material presence and came to occupy a specific place in our mind.

This article re-examines the evidence for the value of the Linear B sign pu₂, in particular its appearance in the term da-pu₂-ri-to- ‘labyrinth’, and demonstrates that it stands specifically for the value /pʰu/ (contrary to the usual assumption that it represents both /pʰu/ and /bu/). It then discusses the further implications of this conclusion, in particular for the interpretation of the undeciphered signs *56 and *22, which are often assigned to the same series as pu₂, as well as any other similar signs which may exist. This discussion illustrates the crucial impact that establishing a single sign’s value may have on the wider understanding of the Linear B script, as well as on its relationship with its parent script Linear A and even the possibility of reconstructing aspects of the Minoan language.

This work has two specific objectives : 1. The reconstruction of a palaeographic model that describes the relationship between the Cretan Hieroglyphic script and Linear A ; 2. The structural analysis of the sign distribution of the two scripts and the distribution of their sign sequences (or sign groups). The two sets of analysis aim to establish via rigorous, solid parameters the degree of relation between the two scripts, by reconstructing through an evolutionary dimension the development of each sign and by establishing its positional distribution in each script corpus. The conclusions indicate that, despite sharing a nucleus of signs, the two scripts show notable divergences : a percentage of Linear A signs is not shared by the Cretan Hieroglyphic, which implies innovation strategies from a common template. In addition, the analysis of the two writing systems shows that no sign sequences are shared, in addition to different positional distributions. This evidence indicates that Linear A was the result of substantial adaptation strategies of the Cretan Hieroglyphic model.

“Cretan hieroglyphic is very much influenced by Luwian hieroglyphic – almost 75 percent of the signary of Cretan hieroglyphic consists of Luwian hieroglyphic.”
“There is no question about the values of the signs in Linear A – they are almost the same as in Linear B. It is indeed very easy to read Linear A, there are no challenges: you fill in the signs, look up the Semitic words and then you are able to translate the text.”
“In Byblos, people invented a new provincial style of writing Egyptian hieroglyphic. It was these newly invented signs which were then also adapted for the Byblos script. Byblos script documents were written in a pure Semitic dialect closely related to Ugaritic.”
“The cylinder seals in Cypro-Minoan script reflect economic registration since the Hittite overlords were anxious to charge taxes. The system used for economic registration is the same that we already know from the lead strip with Luwian hieroglyphic inscription that was found in Kayseri-Kululu in central Anatolia.”
“Etruscan is basically a seventh century Luwian dialect. The Liber Linteus, a whole book in Etruscan, is a manual for priests. The language of the enigmatic Lemnos Stele is closely related to Etruscan, but it is not identical; it has dialectal features.”
“Carian, Etruscan and Lycian are all Luwian dialects! Etruscan is indeed very closely related to the Carian language, and both are ultimately derived from Luwian hieroglyphic."

The purpose of this work is to prove that the sole reason why Cretan Linear A class documents cannot be read yet is because the Ventris grid is wrong. The paper summarizes the most obvious objections against the mainstream decipherment of Linear B. Furthermore, it challenges the core of its substance, i.e. its syllabic character and finally proposes a more suitable alternative model which works for all Linear documents and above all, is open to corrections.

The article concerns the Linear A form j/a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re which occurs in four stone libation tables from Palaikastro, in eastern Crete. The starting point of the present analysis is the element (-)du-pu2-re, which appears as a Wanderwort pertaining to the sphere of power and kingship, and is ultimately connected to the Hittite royal title tabarna-/labarna-. Hence, the whole form above should be rendered as ‘Diktaian Master (dat.)’ (vel. sim.), with clear reference to a Minoan deity predecessor of the later Diktaian Zeus.

This work describes a general method of testing for redundancies in the sign lists of ancient scripts by data mining the positions of the signs within the inscriptions. The redundant signs are allographs of the same grapheme. The method is applied to the undeciphered Indus Valley Script, which stands out from other ancient scripts by having a large proposed sign list that contains dozens of asymmetric signs that have mirrored pairs. By a statistical analysis of mirrored asymmetric signs, this paper shows that the Indus Valley Script was multi-directional and the mirroring of signs often denotes only the direction of writing without any difference in meaning. For this and five other specific reasons listed in the paper, 50 pairs of signs, 23 mirrored, and 27 non-mirrored, can be grouped together because each pair consists of only insignificant variations of the same original sign. The reduced sign list may make decipherment easier in the future.

The questions concerning the decipherment of the inscriptions of Linear A and related scripts in the Proto-Kartvelian-Colchian language are studied here in the following order:1. Ancient inhabitants and languages of southern Europe and Asia Minor;2. Some information about habitations of Macrians and Dolionians;3. Discovery and study of Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions;4. Graphic parallels of the Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphic signs with the signs of the Phaistos Disk and other related scripts;5. Graphic features of Linear A signs *326, *120, and *120b – their meanings and typology with a commentary;6. Reconstruction of the Common Kartvelian general word denoting grass, hay, food, wheat, barley, bread, nourishment, feeding, grazing, cereals, eating;7. Reconstructed words and lexical units denoting grass, hay, food, seed, cereals, grain, wheat, barley, millet, bread, flour;8. The territory and era of cultivation of barley and wheat;9. Linear A syllabary and ideograms;10. Linear A ideograms, their combinations, and ligatures of a general word for grass, hay, food, grain, cereals, wheat, barley, bread, grazing, feeding, nourishing;11. Whole numbers and fractions of Linear A script;12. Examples of deciphering Linear A inscriptions;13. Deciphering of the inscriptions on a jug in Dablagomi (West Georgia).● Conclusions

Previous algorithms for deciphering lost languages assumed knowledge of cognate languages. Since that is not always possible a priori, this paper develops an algorithm that can test an important feature of the underlying language, namely the presence of vowel harmony in root words. The new algorithm detects this type of vowel harmony in the Minoan language, thereby greatly narrowing its possible set of cognate languages.

Linear A is an ancient writing system that was used on the island of Crete and a few surrounding Aegean areas between 1750 and 1450 BC to represent the Minoan language(s). Linear A is believed to be a syllabic script, but has yet to be deciphered; consequently, little is known about the Minoan language(s). This paper provides an analysis of recurrent clusters of symbols in order to uncover aspects of the structure of the language that Linear A transcribed. From Linear A inscriptions in readily available publications, similar, frequently recurring clusters were identified, and the comparison and analysis of these clusters yielded three aspects of variation: symbol-internal variation, inter-cluster variation, as well as variants in the wider context. With the observations from the patterns in inter-cluster variation, an approximate morphological breakdown of the clusters was derived, and plausible roots and affixes were isolated. A comparison of the clusters’ immediate environments suggests that the affixes were more likely to have been semantically motivated, while the wider contextual variation provides possible interpretations of the semantic content of the affixes themselves. This internal analysis approach, with the morphological breakdown of the clusters analysed, provides further support for the current hypothesis that the language that Linear A represented was rich in affixation.

Key words: Linear A, libation formulas, internal analysis

Abstract:
Nell’ambito della diatriba tuttora in corso sull’identificazione più corretta della Itaca omerica, rivestirebbe di sicuro un ruolo di enorme importanza il rinvenimento di iscrizioni nelle Lineari A e B che, a fronte di un panorama archeologico di natura frammentaria e controversa per le fasi del Bronzo Medio e Tardo, potessero testimoniare le forme e il grado di partecipazione dell’isola al più vasto panorama egeo del II millennio. La questione della presunta attestazione di materiali iscritti con questi sistemi scrittori è stata portata recentemente alla ribalta dall’individuazione, da parte di un team dell’Università di Ioannina, di un altamente sospetto 'segno iscritto' (in Lineare A o B) su una 'tavoletta' proveniente da Aghios Athanassios, ubicato in prossimità del sito di Pelikata, donde Faure annunciò di aver individuato due ostraka iscritti in Lineare A in un contesto fortemente disturbato relativo all’AE II-III. Di conseguenza, è sembrato opportuno ripercorrere le vicende interpretative di tali manufatti, che l’analisi epigrafica ed una serie di osservazioni cronologiche e contestuali hanno dimostrato non recare alcuna iscrizione riconducibile al segnario di nessun sistema scrittorio noto in uso nel II millennio. D’altra parte, l’esame del recente frammento 'iscritto' di Aghios Athanasios spinge a concludere che questo debba essere escluso dalla discussione relativa alle forme e alla tipologia della 'frequentazione' minoica o micenea della porzione settentrionale di Itaca per gli insuperabili problemi cronologici presentati dal suo contesto di rinvenimento, la mancanza di qualunque evidenza relativa ad un contesto socio-economico che avrebbe potuto produrre e giustificare un’iscrizione su una 'tavoletta' vergata con una delle Lineari egee, le sue caratteristiche esterne (cottura intenzionale) e interne (compresenza di un 'segno' di scrittura e graffiti sprovvisti di alcuna intenzionalità scrittoria). Di conseguenza, i manufatti incisi oggetto di indagine non sembrano poter far progredire in alcun modo o modificare in maniera decisiva il dibattito tuttora in corso sull’identificazione della Itaca omerica.

Understanding Relations Between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems, Oxford 2017
ISBN: 9781785706448, Oxbow Books
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/understanding-relations-between-scripts.html

Details

Understanding Relations Between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems arises from a conference held in Cambridge in 2015. The question of how writing systems are related to each other, and how we can study those relationships, has not been studied in detail and this volume aims to fill a gap in scholarship by presenting a number of case studies focused on the writing systems of the Bronze Age Aegean. These include Cretan Hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B, used predominantly in Crete and mainland Greece, as well as the Cypro-Minoan script of Cyprus. Most of these systems (the only major exception being Linear B) remain undeciphered to some degree but we nevertheless have considerable evidence for their development and use.

Each contributor focuses on a different theoretical problem and/or set of scripts. Important questions include: How and why did writing emerge in Crete in the Middle Bronze Age? What is the relationship between writing and art? Why did different writing systems co-exist with each other? What changes were made when a new system was developed from an old one? Can our understanding of how different systems are related to each other help us to reconstruct the values of script signs? The contributors tackle such questions by employing a variety of methods, from epigraphic and palaeographic analysis to typological comparison and contextual study.

The result is a coherent volume that will not only enrich our understanding of the ancient Aegean writing systems in particular, but will also provide an important example for future studies of writing across the world.

Table of Contents

List of figures
Preface
Abbreviations

Chapter 1. Introduction: the Aegean writing systems
Philippa M. Steele

Chapter 2. Another beginning’s end: secondary script formation in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean
Silvia Ferrara

Chapter 3. Cretan ‘Hieroglyphic’ and the nature of script
Roeland P.-J.E. Decorte

Chapter 4. Linear B script and Linear B administrative system – different patterns in their development
Helena Tomas

Chapter 5. Reconstructing the matrix of the ‘Mycenaean’ literate administrations
Vassilis Petrakis

Chapter 6. From Linear B to Linear A: the problem of the backward projection of sound values
Philippa M. Steele and Torsten Meißner

Chapter 7. Processes of script adaptation and creation in Linear B: the evidence of the ‘extra’ signs
Anna P. Judson

Chapter 8. Script comparison in the investigation of Cypro-Minoan
Miguel Valério

Chapter 9. Is there anything like a Cypro-Minoan 3 script?
Yves Duhoux

Chapter 10. Script and language on Cyprus during the Geometric Period: an overview on the occasion of two new inscriptions
Markus Egetmeyer

Bibliography