Cretan pictograms, Medallion E, Knossos, after Sir Arthur Evans:
A few of the Cretan pictograms on Medallion E, Knossos, lend themselves to possible/probable/definite decipherment. These are:
definite: 5. & 8. (adze, labrys)
probable: 3. & 7. (spice container, saffron)
possible: 9. 11. 12. (olive oil lamp, some kind of floral crop, dagger)
Everything else is indecipherable.
Now on academia.edu. Are Minoan and Mycenaean fractions fractions?
Click to download:
This very brief, but informative tract is a real eye opener.
After 117 years, the Linear A vocabulary for 3 major grains (bran, wheat, barley) and for flax is conclusively deciphered:
Although decipherment of Linear A vocabulary for the primary Minoan grains has seemed beyond reach for the past 117 years, I believe that I may have actually cracked the vocabulary for at least 3 major Minoan grain crops, kireta2 (kiretai)/kiretana (attributive) = “barley”, dideru = “einkorn wheat”, kunisu = “emmer wheat” and for sara2 (sarai) = “flax”, while concurrently tackling 3 more grain crops, rumata(se), pa3ni (paini)/pa3nina (painina) (attributive), which I may or may not have managed to accurately identify. More on this below.
How did I manage to accomplish this feat? My first breakthrough came with the code-breaker, Linear A tablet HT 114 (Haghia Triada), on which appears the word kireta2 (kiretai). It just so happens that this is a match with the ancient Greek word, kritha(i) for “barley”, here Latinized:
Armed with this invaluable information, I then devised a procedure to extract the names of the other 2 major grains, dideru (Linear B equivalent, didero), and kunisu and for sara2 (sarai) from all of the Haghia Triada tablets. I selected the tablets from Haghia Triada because they mention grains far more often than any other extant Linear A tablets do, regardless of provenance, with the sole exception of Zakros ZA 20, which is a very close match with the many Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada dealing with grains.
The procedure I have adopted is tagged cross-comparative extrapolation (CCE). I scanned every last word related to grain on every last Linear A tablet from Haghia Triada, HT 1 – HT 154K on Prof. John G. Younger’s Linear A texts in phonetic transcription HT (Haghia Triada) for the recurrence and numerical frequency of each of these words. It strikes me as very odd that no one in the past 117 years since the first discovery of Linear A tablets at Knossos has ever thought of this or a similar cross-comparative procedure. While it is practically useless to try and extrapolate the meaning of each and every grain merely by examining them in context on any single Linear A tablet, regardless of provenance, because even in single tablet context, and even in the presence of other words apparently describing other type(s) of grain, we get absolutely nowhere, the outcome from cross-correlating every last one of these words on every last tablet from Haghia Triada paints an entirely different picture, a picture which is both comprehensive and all-embracing. Clear and unambiguous patterns emerge for each and every word, including the total incidence of all statistics for them all. The result is astonishing. The table below makes this transparently clear:
We see right off the top that all of the Haghia put together mention akaru, which means “field”, the equivalent of Linear B akoro, no fewer than 20 times! Additionally, the generic word for “wheat”, situ, corresponding to Linear B sito, surfaces 5 times. But this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Cross-comparative extrapolation of the next 4 grains has proven to be much more fruitful. The first of these is of course kireta2 (kiretai) ⁄ kiretana (attributive) for “barley”, which appears 149 times (!) on all of the Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada. I was definitely on to something big.
But the preliminary step I needed to take, before I actually attempted to identify the next 2 most common grains cultivated in the pre-Mycenaean and Mycenaean Minoan era, was to conduct a Google search on the 2 most common grains after barley grown in Minoan Crete. These are einkorn and emmer respectively. Returning to my cross-comparative extrapolative scan, I discovered the words dideru and kunisu recurring 40 times each. It just so happens that one previous researcher (whose name unfortunately escapes me for the time being, but whom I shall fully acknowledge when I publish my summary data on academia.edu) has accurately identified both of these types of wheat. As can be seen from the table above, these are dideru for “einkorn” and kunisu for “emmer” wheat respectively.
Moving on, fully realizing that sara2 (sarai) runs rampant on the Haghia Triada Linear A tablets, I discovered that this word recurs no less than 1321 times. Astonishing! But what does it mean? The answer was not long coming. The next most common crop the Minoans cultivated was flax, for the production of linen. Flax is not a grain, but is derived from flax flowers and seeds. This fully explains why sara2 (sarai) recurs with such astonishing frequency. Unlike the aforementioned grains, which would have been grown on a relatively restricted number of plots, in this case not exceeding 4o each, the number of flax flowers required to produce a sufficient flax harvest would have had to be very high… hence 1321. These stunning frescoes illustrate a male Minoan flax flower and a female flax seed gatherer:
Even from these 2 frescoes, we can easily see that the flax gatherers were kept busy picking what was required, a large flax crop, in this case running to 1321 flax seeds and flowers. No surprise here.
As a result of my exhaustive cross-comparative extrapolation of the first four Minoan crops, I have been able to define 3 of them for certain as grains, kireta2 (kiretai), dideru and kunisu, and one of them, sara2 (sarai) as flax. It is practically certain that all 4 definitions are correct. Hence, I have managed to isolate for the first time in 117 years the actual names of 4 major Minoan crops, barley, einkorn wheat, emmer wheat and flax.
However, when it comes to the next 5 crops, we run up against inescapable semiotic problems. What does each of these signifiers signify? There is no easy answer. On the other hand, I would have been remiss were I not to make a stab at extrapolating the names of these crops as well. It just so happens that the next most common grains after barley, einkorn and emmer cultivated by the Minoans were millet and spelt. And the next two words I extrapolated were rumata(se) and pa3ni (paini)/pa3nina/painina (attributive). But if one of them appears to be millet, the other is spelt, or vice versa. That is the conundrum. But the problem is compounded by the mystifying cumulative total statistics for each of these words, 1039 for rumata(se) and 1021 for pa3ni (paini)/pa3nina/painina (attributive). Why on earth are there so many recurrences of these 2 crops, when there are only 40 instances of dideru and kunisu? It does not seem to make any sense at all. Yet there is a possible explanation. While dideru and kunisu reference einkorn and emmer crops as crops per se, it would appear that rumata(se) and pa3ni (paini)/pa3nina/painina (attributive) refer to the seeds derived from the crops. It is the only way out of this impasse. However, it is not necessarily a satisfying answer, and so I have to reserve judgement on these definitions, which are interchangeable at any rate.
Next we have the ligatured logograms dare and kasaru, either of which might refer to the next most common crops, durum and lentils. But there is no way for us to corroborate this conclusion with any certainty. The verdict is out. Finally, the last word, kuzuni, might refer to 2 other, less common Minoan crops, either sesame or vetch for fodder. But once again, which one is which? Your guess is as good as mine.
Conclusions:
Nevertheless, one thing is certain. Every last one of these words identifies a Minoan crop. While most of them are grains, three of them are certainly not. One of them is clearly flax (sara2/sarai) The other two may or may not be lentils or sesame. But they probably are one or the other, if they are not on the other hand durum or vetch. In short, there several permutations and combinations for the last 5. Yet the circumstantial evidence for the first 4 appears quite solid enough to justify the definitions we have assigned, barley, einkorn, emmer and flax. So at least this constitutes a major breakthrough in the identification of these 4 for the first time in 117 years.
I shall eventually be publishing a much more comprehensive draft paper on this very subject on my academia.edu account, either this summer or autumn. I shall keep you posted.
Proto-Greek or Mycenaean kiritai = “barley” on Minoan Linear A tablet HT 114 (Haghia Triada):
Like many other Linear A tablets, HT 114 (Haghia Triada) does not appear to be inscribed only in the Minoan language. The proto-Greek or, more accurately, the Mycenaean word, kirita2 (kiritai), which means “barley” and which is almost exactly equivalent to Linear B, kirita, meaning the very same thing, appears on the very first line of this tablet. The only difference is that the Linear A word, kiritai, is plural, whereas the Linear B, kirita, is singular, as we can see here:
While the rest of HT 114 is inscribed in Minoan, the appearance of this one Mycenaean word gives pause. Was Linear A the syllabary of proto-Greek or of Mycenaean Greek just before the advent of the new official syllabary, Linear B? The fact is that it was not. However, this does not mean that there was not proto-Greek or Mycenaean vocabulary on Linear A tablets. How can this be, when the language itself is not proto-Greek?
The phenomenon of the superimposition of a superstratum of vocabulary from a source language (Mycenaean in the case of Linear A) onto a target language (Minoan), is historically not unique to the Minoan language. A strikingly similar event occurred in English with the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 AD. Before that date, the only English was Anglo-Saxon. This is what is called Old English. But after conquest of England in 1066 AD, over 10,000 Norman French words streamed into the language between 1100 and 1450 AD, altering the landscape of English vocabulary almost beyond recognition. In fact, believe it or not, only 26 % of English vocabulary is Germanic versus 29 % is French, 29 % Latin and 6 % Greek. So the latter 3 languages, amounting to 64 % of the entire English lexicon, have completely overshadowed the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) Germanic vocabulary, as illustrated in this Figure:
This phenomenon is unique to English alone among all of the Germanic languages. While the grammar and syntax of English is Germanic, the great majority of its vocabulary is not. A strikingly similar event appears to have occurred when the Mycenaeans conquered Knossos, is dependencies and Crete ca. 1500 – 1450 BCE. Just as the Norman French superstratum has imposed itself on Old English, giving rise to Middle and Modern English, Mycenaean Greek operated in much the same fashion when it superimposed itself on Old Minoan, leading to New Minoan vocabulary, which is proto-Greek or Mycenaean. I have already isolated no fewer than 150 proto-Greek or Mycenaean words out of 510 intact words (by my own arbitrary count) in the Linear A lexicon. Again, while the Minoan language itself is not proto-Greek in its grammar and syntax, but is of another, to date still unknown, origin, a large portion of its vocabulary is not Old Minoan, but instead proto-Greek or Mycenaean, as I shall demonstrate in no uncertain terms in my decipherments of numerous Linear A tablets to follow this one. One striking feature of New Minoan is this: the percentage of proto-Greek or Mycenaean vocabulary in Linear B comes to 29 %, precisely the same level as Norman French in English. Although this is sheer co-incidence, it is quite intriguing.
A ‘fairly accurate’ rendering of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 86a, according to Gretchen Leonhardt:This Linear B tablet clearly deals with various crops, with the lead in crop being grains or wheat, just as one would expect on either a Mycenaean Linear B tablet. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose that a Minoan Linear A tablet dealing with crops would not deal first and foremost with grains and wheat. The units of measurements identified on this tablet accord with those tentatively tabulated by Andras Zeke on the
Ms. Gretchen Leonhardt of
has duly advised me that (and I quote) “your "recto" tablet is a fairly accurate rendering of HT 86a, but your "verso" tablet is an inaccurate rendering of HT 87.... ” She is of course entirely correct in informing me that the so-called verso side is not the same tablet at all, but is in fact, HT 87 (Haghia Triada). I am nevertheless astonished that she would accord me a fair degree of accuracy in my decipherment of HT 86 a, in view of the fact that (a) I do not even know what the Minoan language is; (b) Ms. Leonhardt claims to have conclusively deciphered the Minoan language as being proto-Japanese, categorically stating as she does that “overwhelming evidence keeps me steadfast in this view...”, a claim which I intend shortly to refute in no uncertain terms, by bringing to bear on it reasonable circumstantial, though not conclusive, evidence to the contrary and; (c) she concedes that my decipherment of HT 86 A is fairly accurate, in spite of the fact that I am apparently flailing in the dark, since I know nothing of the Minoan language. Yet if I am, how on earth did I manage to achieve even a fairly accurate decipherment, I have to ask her. Although Ms. Leonhardt claims that my knowledge of Linear A is “in its infancy” (as everyone’s, including her own, must of necessity be), as a historical philologist specializing in the decipherment of ancient syllabaries such as Linear A, Linear B and Linear C, and unlike Ms. Leonhardt along with numerous other researchers who purport to have definitely deciphered the Minoan language, I neither have ever made nor would ever make the rash and untenable claim that I have deciphered it, given the exiguous size of the lexical database with which we have to work. I have said as much over and over, as for instance in this citation from one of my own works to be published in the next year or so, and I quote: Conclusions concerning the many failed attempts at deciphering Minoan Linear A: The worst of all the pretensions of the authors of the aforementioned monographs and tractata are their untenable claims that they have in fact deciphered Minoan Linear A. How is it even remotely possible that these soi- disant decipherers of Minoan Linear A can claim to have discovered the so-called magic bullet in the guise of the proto-language upon which their decipherment has been based, when the proto-languages they invoke are soà wildly disparate? These decipherers have turned to a number of proto-languages, some of them Indo-European (such as proto-Greek and Proto-Slavic), others non proto-Indo-European, running the gamut from Uralic (proto-Finnish), proto-Niger Congo to proto-Semitic and Sumerian all the way through to proto-Altaic and proto-Japanese. While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the Minoan language, it is nevertheless remotely conceivable that one of them just might be. But which one? Given the tangled mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, I am left with no alternative but to pronounce that none of these so-called proto-languages is liable to stand the test of linguistic verisimilitude. All of this leaves me with an uneasy feeling of déjà vu. Instead, I have adopted the unique approach of declaring that it does not matter what proto- language Minoan derives from, or for that matter, whether or not it, like modern Basque, is a language isolate, meaning a natural (spoken) language, ancient (dead) or modern (alive) with no demonstrable genealogical or genetic relationship with any other language whatsoever or alternatively, a language that has not been demonstrated to descend from an ancestor common with any other language in the world. (italics mine). and again: In an article of this nature, which is the first of its kind in the world ever to deal with the partial, but by no means definitive, decipherment of Minoan Linear A, I must of necessity focus on those Minoan Linear A terms which offer the greatest insight into the vocabulary of the language, but not the language itself. Anyone who dares claim he or she has “deciphered” the Minoan language is skating on very thin ice. Any attempt to decipher the Minoan language is severely trammelled by the incontestable fact that no one knows what the language is or even what language class it belongs to, if any.
A partial rational translation of another Minoan Linear A tablet on crops:
Ms. Gretchen Leonhardt has correctly pointed out that this decipherment I have assayed of what I took to be one Linear A tablet is in fact two entirely unrelated Linear A tablets, and as such it must be considered as completely invalid. I am truly grateful to Ms. Leonhardt for bringing this serious gaffe to my attention. Once I have cleared the matter up, I shall repost my decipherment of both of these tablets in two separate posts.
This Linear B tablet clearly deals with various crops, with the lead in crop being grains or wheat, just as one would expect on either a Mycenaean Linear B tablet. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose that a Minoan Linear A tablet dealing with crops would not deal first and foremost with grains and wheat. The units of measurements identified on this tablet accord with those tentatively tabulated by Andras Zeke on the
I have already tentatively deciphered both adu and adaru in my Glossary of 107 Minoan Linear A words to appear in Archaeology and Science, Vol. 16 (2016), which is to be published sometime in 2018, since the publication date of this compendious international annual always lags behind by at least 18 months from the approximate date of submission of articles by authors, which in my case was November 2016.
Archaeology and Science annual: the Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, the last & most formidable frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B:
For the past 65 years since Michael Ventris first deciphered Linear B, one phenomenon has eluded historical linguists and philologists. This is the supersyllabogram, which is always a single syllabogram, being the first syllabogram, i.e. the first syllable of a particular Mycenaean word in any one or more of the major economic sectors of the Mycenaean economy: agriculture, military, textiles and the vessels and pottery sector, along with a few religious supersyllabograms. Supersyllabograms are always independent; they always stand alone on extant Linear. My discovery, isolation and classification of supersyllabograms represents the final frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B. Some 800 tablets from Knossos alone contain primarily supersyllabograms, with a subset of these incised with supersyllabograms and nothing else. It is difficult to decipher the former, and impossible to decipher the latter without fully accounting for the presence of supersyllabograms. The decipherment of supersyllabograms accounts for the last and most difficult remaining 10 % of Mycenaean Linear B to be deciphered.
You may also download “The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B” here:
This article is 35 pages long (pp. 73-108) in a 29 cm. x 22 cm. format, which is far oversized compared with the standard north American format for research journals (ca. 20 cm. vertical), meaning that if it had been published in the standard north American format, it would have run to some 50 pp., which is the size of a small book.
The Editorial Board consists of 21 peer reviewers, all of them matriculated professors and researchers at the Ph.D. level or higher, from Ancona, Belgrade, Belgium, Bologna, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A., Moscow, Münich, Philadelphia, U.S.A., Rome, Warsaw & Trieste. Every author must pass muster with the majority of these peer reviewers if his or her article is to be published in Archaeology and Science. That is one tall hurdle to overcome.
Note also that I am ranked in the top 0.5 % of all researchers and publishers on academia.edu
What do all those supersyllabograms in Linear B associated with the ideogram for “saffron” mean? In response to a recent query by a research colleague of mine regarding the use of 4 key supersyllabograms in Mycenaean Linear B (A, TI, RO & WE) related to the harvesting and production of saffron, I am reposting this table:It is clear that each of these 4 supersyllabograms functions in its own unique way. I sincerely hope that this reposting clears up any ambiguities that may have previously persisted.
The 70 Minoan Linear A terms MAXIMUM I shall be featuring in my article on the partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A in Vol. 12 (2016) of Archaeology and Science: Here is a list of the 70 out of 106 Minoan Linear A terms I shall be zeroing in on in my article in Vol. 12 (2016), “Pylos tablet Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris), the ‘Rosetta Stone’ to Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) vessels and pottery” of the prestigious international annual, Archaeology and Science ISSN 1452-7448 (release date spring 2018), to be submitted by Nov. 15, 2016. In an article of this nature, which is to be the first of its kind in the world ever to deal with the partial (by no means definitive) decipherment of Minoan Linear A, I must of necessity focus on those Minoan Linear A words which offer the greatest insight into the vocabulary of the language. It is, of course, impossible to decipher the Minoan language, and anyone who dares claim he or she has done so is skating on very thin ice, actually, no ice whatsoever. All we can hope to do at the present juncture is to decipher some of the vocabulary, that and nothing else. This is possible because the syllabary has already been deciphered, though as far as I know, no researchers or decipherers to date have taken any note of this vital factor. It is precisely because the syllabary itself has been deciphered that we have any access at all to Minoan vocabulary. We must recall that for Michael Ventris, the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B was far more difficult at the outset, because no-one in the world, including himself, knew what the Linear B syllabic signs signified. It took him two years or so to figure them out and he never actually got them until he realized that Linear B was a very early form of Greek, which we now know as Mycenaean Greek. But the situation is far different with Minoan Linear A. We can read the syllabary. We can “read” the words, but we cannot understand what they mean... at least to date. I have taken upon myself to decipher, more or less accurately (probably more often less than more) as many Minoan Linear A words as I possibly can. Even after months of strenuous travail, I have only been able to extrapolate the potential meanings of 106 Minoan Linear A words from a lexicon of about 510 intact Linear A words in John G. Younger’s Lexicon. These terms I have managed to decipher more or less accurately thus amount to only 20 % of the complete lexicon. But 20 % is far more than anyone else has managed to decipher to date. Here then are the 70 terms (MAXIMUM) excerpted from my complete Glossary of Minoan Linear A:KEY: Minoan Linear A words deciphered with certainty (90% - 100%) are in BOLD. Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a reasonable degree of certainty (75% - 85%) are in italics. All terms in Minoan Linear A and in Mycenaean Linear B have been Latinized for ease of access to persons not familiar with these syllabaries. Terms to which I shall assign special treatment are followed by an asterisk (*). adureza = unit of dry measurement (grain, wheat, barley, flour) aka = wineskin (two syllabograms overlaid) akii = garlic darida = large vase * daropa = stirrup jar = Linear B karawere * 5 datara = grove of fig trees * datu = olives See also qatidate = olive trees = Linear B erawa * daweda = medium size amphora with two handles dikise = a type of cloth = Linear B any number of types of cloth ditamana = dittany (medicinal herb) 10 dureza = unit of measurement (unknown amount)* kanaka = saffron = Linear B kanako kapa = follower or (foot) solder = Linear B eqeta * karopa3 (karopai) = kylix (with two handles & smaller than a pithos) * kaudeta = to be distributed (fut. part. pass.) approx. = Linear B, epididato = having been distributed (aorist part. pass.)15 keda = cedar kidema*323na = type of vessel (truncated on HT 31) * kidapa = (ash) wood, a type of wood. On Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01 * kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis kiretana = (having been) delivered (past participle passive) = Linear B amoiyeto 20 kireza = unit of measurement for figs, probably 1 basket * kiro = owed = Linear B oporo = they owed kuro = total kuruku = crocus maru = wool (syllabograms superimposed) = Linear B mari/mare 25 mitu = a type of cloth nasi = a type of cloth nere = larger amphora size * nipa3 (nipai) or nira2 (nirai) = figs = Linear B suza * orada = rose 30 pazeqe = small handle-less cups = Linear B dipa anowe, dipa anowoto * puko = tripod = Linear B tiripode * qapa3 = qapai = large handle-less vase or amphora * qatidate = olive trees See also datu = olives = Linear B erawo * qareto = Linear B onato = “lease field” * 35 quqani = medium size or smaller amphora * ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine) rairi = lily reza = 1 standard unit of measurement * sajamana = with handles = Linear B owowe * 40 sara2 (sarai) = small unit of measurement: dry approx. 1 kg., liquid approx. 1 litre sata = a type of cloth sedina = celery supa3 (supai) = small cup = Linear B dipa mewiyo * supu = very large amphora * 45 tarawita = terebinth tree tejare = a type of cloth teki = small unit of measurement for wine @ 27 1/2 per tereza * tereza = larger unit of liquid measurement (olive oil, wine) * tesi = small unit of measurement * 50 tisa = description of pot or pottery = Linear B amotewiya/yo udimi = a type of cloth uminase = harbour (cf. French “Le Havre”), famous Atlantic port in France * usu = a type of cloth Eponyms: Sirumarita2 = Sirumaritai 55 Tateikezare Tesudesekei Turunuseme Toponyms: Almost all the toponyms do not require decipherment as they are either identical or almost identical in Mycenaean Linear B: Akanu = Archanes (Crete) Dikate = Mount Dikte 60 Idaa = Mount Ida Idunesi Kudoni = Kydonia Meza (= Linear B Masa) Paito = Phaistos ( =Linear B) * 65 Radu = Lato (= Linear B Rato) Setoiya = Seteia (= Linear B) Sukirita/Sukiriteija = Sybrita Uminase = Linear B Amnisos * Winadu = Linear B Inato 70 COMMENTARY: This Glossary accounts for 20 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms. The principle of cross-correlative cohesion operates on the assumption that terms in Minoan Linear A vocabulary should reflect as closely and as faithfully as possible parallel terms in Mycenaean Greek vocabulary. In other words, the English translations of Minoan words in a Minoan Linear A Glossary such as this one should look as if they are English translations of Mycenaean Greek terms in a Linear B glossary. I have endeavoured to do my best to achieve this goal, but even the most rational and logical approach, such as I take, does not and cannot guarantee reciprocity between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B terms. It is precisely for this reason that I have had to devise a scale of relative accuracy for terms in this Linear A Glossary, as outlined in KEY at the top of it. The best and most reliable Linear B Lexicon is that by Chris Tselentis, Athens, Greece. If you wish to receive a copy of his Lexicon, please leave a comment in Comments, with some way for me to get in touch with you. Are there any words in Mycenaean Greek of putative Minoan origin? It should surely not strike us as so surprising that there are. After all, kidapa = ash? (Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01) Several Minoan Linear A words very likely survived into Mycenaean Linear B. The problem is, if they did, we do not know which ones did.... except perhaps kidapa, which has a distinctly Minoan feel to it. Cf. kidata = to be accepted (for delivery to) = Linear B dekesato
Minoan Linear A tablet HT 12 & qatidate = Mycenaean Linear B erawa = olive tree(s):On Minoan Linear A tablet HT 12, we find the word qatidate, which in all likelihood is the equivalent Mycenaean Linear B erawa = olive trees. This decipherment is substantiated by or earlier decipherment of datu = small olives. Notice the direct correlation between qatidate and datu. This raises the scalar value of both of these translations to > 60% (very reliable). This is term 110 I have deciphered in Minoan Linear A, more or less accurately (in this case, more).
Minoan Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11 & kupa or sa*301ri = planter:On Minoan Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11, we run across 2 terms which are likely to mean “planter”, kupa or sa*301ri. The problem is, which one does mean this? I really had no choice but too tag both of these words as candidates for “planter”. This predicament has faced me more than once in attempting to attribute suitable meanings to Minoan words. However, a decision must be made. In this case, the more appropriate term for “planter” appears to be sa*301ri rather than kupa, since the latter is more likely to be feminine. Whichever of these two terms is the more a propos remains an open question. At any rate, the term is no. 104 in our Glossary of Minoan Linear A.
Minoan Linear A ADU on tablets dealing with grain & wheat refer to the TOTAL harvest:Minoan Linear A ADU on tablets dealing with grain & wheat apparently refer to the TOTAL harvest. After spending the past three months wracking my brains out over this term, ADU, I have finally settled on its being the approximate, if not exact, equivalent of the Mycenaean Linear B terms, toso, tosa, as illustrated in the figure above. All this amounts to nothing more or less than taking into account the total harvest of grains or wheat, as seen on tablets HT 92, with no fewer than 680 “bushel-like” units of wheat! I say “bushel-like” because there is no way on earth that we in the twenty-first century can ever know what the standard unit for measuring wheat was for the Minoans. But there can be little doubt but that these tablets all deal with the standard unit for measuring grans and wheat, because the first two use the term tereza and the last one reza, which are the actual Minoan standard units for measuring large quantities. On the first two tablets (HT 92 & HT 133) the total number (ADU) refers to the actual large units of wheat measured (something like our modern “bushels”). But on Linear tablet HT 92. we are faced with a different scenario. Here ADU refers to all the men who are carrying out the measurement of 55 large “bushel-like” units of grains or wheat. So it is quite reasonable to assume that the occupational title (so to speak) of these folks would be something like surveyor or comptroller, since these are in fact the métiers of people who undertake such measurements. But remember. We are not just dealing with some of the comptrollers measuring the 55 large units of wheat. We are dealing with all 20 of them. In other words, ADU is the approximate, if not exact, equivalent of the Mycenaean Linear B term toso (masc. sing. & pl. & neut. sing.) and tosa (neut. pl.), which correspond precisely with the same forms of the ancient Greek words meaning all you see in the figure above. This brings the number of Minoan Linear A words I have deciphered, more or less accurately, to an even 100.
Minoan Linear A tablet HT 128 (Haghia Triada) & 2 new eponyms, Turunuseme & Watumare:After carefully examining Minoan Linear A tablet HT 128 (Haghia Triada) several times, I have come to the belated conclusion that Turunuseme & Watumare are eponyms, the names of the farmers or farm tenants who are responsible for the harvesting and storage of grain on this tablet. My conclusion is perhaps bolstered by the fact that the ideogram for “man” [3] appears on the last line (b.1). I have already tentatively deciphered the terms pa3ni (paini) & kunisu as possibly meaning “an amphora for the storage of grain” and “bushels” respectively. But these latter two translations are not very reliable at the time of this writing, and so they are wide open to re-interpretation. This brings the number of Minoan Linear A words I have deciphered, more or less accurately, to 97.
What is the Minoan Linear A word for “figs”? It only appears as a logogram on Linear A tablets, so we do not know how it might be spelled. However, informed speculation leads me...What is the Minoan Linear A word for “figs”? As it only appears as a logogram on Linear A tablets and is never spelled out, we do not know its orthography. Or so it appears. However, informed speculation leads me to infer the following from what we already know about the syllabogram-cum-logogram for “figs” in Mycenaean Linear B, which just so happens to be exactly the same syllabogram/logogram as that for “figs” in Minoan Linear A. All this in spite of the fact that the Mycenaean Greek word for “figs” is suza, which is the same word as in many other ancient Greek dialects. So what is going on here? There is no doubt but that Mycenaean Linear B inherited the logogram for “figs” from Minoan Linear A. They simply lifted it lock-stock-and-barrel from the earlier syllabary. But why? Why didn’t they turn to their own word for “figs”, suza, and use its first syllabogram, SU, as the syllabogram/logogram for “figs”? It seems passingly strange. But is it? Turning to our Glossary of 95 Minoan Linear words, we set our sights on examining Minoan Linear A words which are typically diminutives. This we do because after all, figs are very small; hence, we can infer that the word referencing them, beginning with the syllabogram NI, should display orthographic characteristics reminiscent of other Minoan Linear A diminutives. Let us examine the latter in turn. In the Glossary, we find: dumitatira2 (dumitatirai) = right or inner spindle wheel on one side of the distaff karopa3 (karopai) = kylix (with two handles & much smaller than a pithos) kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis kita2 (kitai) = scented olive oil? pimitatira2 (pimitatirai) = left or outer spindle wheel on one side of the distaff sara2 (sarai) = small unit of measurement: dry approx. 1 kg., liquid approx. 1 litre supa3 (supai) = small cup = Linear B dipa mewiyo All of the terms above refer to small, i.e. diminutive, items. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the Minoan Linear A word for “figs” may quite possibly be similar to any of the above. There are 3 diminutive ultimates in Minoan Linear A, pa3 (pai) and ra2 (rai) and ta2 (tai). Thus, the Minoan Linear A word for “figs” is likely to be one of these alternatives: nipai3 (nipai) -or- nira2 (nirai) -or- nita2 (nitai) However, the last alternative (nita2/nitai) seems to be the least likely candidate. This is because one of the terms ending in ta2 (tai), kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis is abstract, while the other, kita2 (kitai) = scented olive oil? , apparently describes a something to which size cannot be directly attributed. One can have a little bit, a moderate amount, or a great deal of scented olive oil. The amount cannot be pinned down. This attribute is semi-abstract in and of itself, at least is kita2 (kitai) = scented olive oil. I cannot be sure of this meaning. So it appears we are now down to two alternatives for the orthography of “figs” in Minoan Linear A, i.e. nipai3 (nipai) -or- nira2 (nirai) Of course, we can never be certain which of these 3 alternatives might hit the proverbial target. We still can never really know what the Minoan term for “figs” is. But there are times when speculation leads us to a leap of faith which just might be grounded somewhere in the realm of reality. As for the rationale behind the Mycenaean Linear B scribes to retain the syllabogram/logogram NI from Minoan Linear A, we shall never know why they chose to do that. It may have been a matter of expediency, or it may have been that the Minoans at Knossos had used the word for “figs” beginning with NI so intensively that the Mycenaean scribes could see no point changing the syllabogram/logogram NI, or it may have been for some other less obvious, possibly esoteric, reason. Yet, we must keep firmly in mind that the Mycenaean word for figs was suza, regardless of their decision to keep on relying on the independent supersyllabogram NI to represent “figs”, as seen in this Linear B tablet:
Minoan Linear A tablet HT 88 (Haghia Triada), ripe figs & fig gatherers in pay/hired: the next decisive step in the partial decipherment of Linear AMinoan Linear A tablet HT 88 (Haghia Triada), which was quite out of my reach just a week ago, has now become accessible to decipherment. This is a direct result of the fact that I had already deciphered these words on this tablet, namely, reza (standard unit of measurement), kiro (owed) & datare (fig overseer). This outcome has for the first time facilitated the task of deciphering Linear A tablets in and of themselves which do not contain enough clues or indicators to trigger a plausible decipherment. Thus, I was able to extrapolate 2 news terms from this tablet alone. kikina ostensibly means “purple” or, more accurately, “ripe” = Linear B popureyo. pajare = “in pay” or “hired” = Linear B emito. This development may prove to be decisive, triggering a cascading domino effect, opening up preciously inaccessible vocabulary as a direct result of the 88 terms I have already managed to decipher, more or less accurately. Here is an abbreviated version of Prof. John G. Younger’s version of HT 88:
Linear A tablet HT 123+124, kitai = scented olive oil? + saru = large olives + datu = small olives:I have had to give a great deal of thought to the decipherment of this tablet, the contents of which have frustrated and eluded me for weeks. Finally, the light came on. Eureka! I figured it out. Well, almost... The first word I struggled to decipher on this tablet was kitai, which was and remains a stickler. I have settled for “scented olive oil”, which seems to make sense in the context, although I really have no choice but to assign it a scalar value of < 50%. On the other hand, the next two words, saru & datu, seem much clearer. It makes a lot of sense to list different sizes of olive oil on a tablet, and it makes just as much sense to list the large(r) ones before the small(er) ones. Hence, to my mind, saru = large olives and datu = small olives. These two terms can be assigned a scalar value of 60-75% (a reasonable degree of accuracy). The word kuro was one of the very first words I deciphered, and it has a perfect scalar value of 100%. It means what it says and says what it means. Here is Andras Zeke’s restored version of HT 123+124 on the Minoan Language Blog:
These three (3) new terms constitute items 82-84 in my Glossary of Minoan Linear A words.
Kunisu, another Minoan Linear A word which might mean “bushel” or alternatively “emmer wheat/farro”:Kunisu is yet another Minoan Linear A word which might mean “bushel” or alternatively “emmer wheat/farro”. I am uncertain whether this is the suitable term for “bushel” in Minoan Linear A or whether ase is. The former (kunisu) is masculine, indicating a large amount, and can be either singular or plural. The latter, ase, is probably feminine plural. Because kunisu denotes something large, as apparently all words ending with ultimate U in Minoan Linear A do, it may be the better candidate for “bushel”. But I am leaving my options open. One thing is certain. As Prof. John G. Younger points out in his Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, kunisu does not mean the same thing as Konoso in Mycenaean Linear B. Take a good look at the two words in their original syllabaries side by side at the bottom of the figure above. They do not even look alike. I am full agreement with Younger on this point. This brings the total number of Minoan Linear A words we have deciphered more or less accurately to eighty-one (81).
Minoan Linear A ase = bushels? & qaqaru = crop yield?Does the Minoan Linear A word ase = bushels & qaqaru = crop yield? While I have tentatively deciphered them this way, I am remain in some doubt about the decipherments. The primary reason for my doubts rests on the fact that only 26 ase or “bushels” are mentioned in the context a total crop yield of 5 qaqaru. Both figures are on the low side. A crop yield that low would not go very far. But for the time being, I will go with these translations. These 2 decipherments, which appear to be less rather than more accurate, bring our putative total to seventy-nine (79). The reliability of these 2 decipherments is <50%.
Canadian Zen Haiku canadien ISSN 1705-4508 
You must be logged in to post a comment.