Richard Vallance Janke now has 500 followers on academia.edu:
Would you like to follow him too? Just click FOLLOW.
THE MYCENAEAN LINEAR B “ROSETTA STONE” TO MINOAN LINEAR Tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) Vessels and Pottery has just been uploaded to my academia.edu account, here: To DOWNLOAD it, click on the DOWNLOAD button on the top right hand side of the page. ABSTRACT In partnership with The Association of Historical Studies, Koryvantes (Athens), we address past and current prospects for the decipherment of the Minoan language, which has never met with any credible success in the 117 years since the ?rst discovery of Minoan Linear A tablets by Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos in 1900. A considerable number of philologists and historical linguists, some of them amateurs, claim to have deciphered the Minoan language, yet no one has ever formulated a convincing decipherment. We advance a unique and entirely untested approach to unravelling the text of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada), based on the principle of cross-correlative retrogressive extrapolation (CCRE) from Mycenaean Linear B to Linear A. HT 31 so closely parallels Mycenaean Linear B tablet, Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) that the latter effectively serves as a kind of “Rosetta Stone” for the former. There is also credible evidence that a Mycenaean derived superstratum imposed itself on Linear A as the result of the Mycenaean conquest of Knossos and Crete ca. 1500 – 1450 BCE or, failing that, their all but absolute suzerainty over Knossos and its dependencies. Approximately 300 or 26 % of 1166 intact words in Linear A are very likely of Mycenaean origin.
Click on the TITLE to view and download the article:
just uploaded to my academia.edu account at the link above. To download it, click the green DOWNLOAD button on the right side of the document.
Illustrations from the article:
This Lexicon is the only one of its kind in the entire world. To date, no one has ever published a Linear B Lexicon on a subject as focused as the Construction of Mycenaean Chariots.
This article has just been published in the prestigious European journal, Epohi (Epochs), Vol. 25, Issue 2 (2017), published bi-annually by the Department of History of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, University of Veliko, Tarnovo, Bulgaria. I have been invited by the Editor-in-Chief, Stefan Iordanov, to publish new papers in the near future (sometime in 2018) and again in 2019. Considering that the Editor-in-Chief, Stefan Iordanov, solicited me to submit this article sight unseen, you can be sure I shall submit more papers to the journal.
How can so-called Cretan hieroglyphs be hieroglyphs when there are only 45 of them?
Until now most researchers have simply assumed that the 45 Cretan symbols (by my count), exclusive of numerics, must be hieroglyphs. But the evidence appears to gainsay this hypothesis. As the table below makes quite clear, there are only 45 Cretan symbols, to which
only 27 may possibly/probably/definitely be assigned meanings.
The significance of the remaining 18 are currently beyond the bounds of decipherment:
So this lands us with a total of only 45 Cretan symbols. If and when we compare this number with the approximately 1,000 Egyptian hieroglyphs, the whole notion that the Cretan symbols are hieroglyphs comes apart at the seams and is shattered.
And that is not the end of it. There are anywhere between 600 and 1,000 symbols in Cuneiform.
So once again, the massive proliferation of symbols, i.e. hieroglyphs, in Egyptian, and of symbols in Cuneiform make a mockery of the notion that the Cretan symbols are hieroglyphs. But if they are not hieroglyphs, what are they? It would appear that they are ideograms or logograms on seals and nodules which serve to tag the contents of the (papyrus) documents they seal. This hypothesis makes a lot of sense, since almost all Cretans and Minoans, administrators, merchants and consumer, were illiterate. These people were probably able to master the minimal number of 45 ideograms and logograms which we find on 100s of surviving seals. But while the illiterate hoy polloi could not read the script on the sealed papyrus (or leaf tablets sometimes), the scribes most definitely could. This leaves us open to yet another hypothetical question? What is the script of the texts? How many symbols or syllabograms (if the latter yet existed) would have been required to write the papyrus or inscribe the leaf tablets? Was this script, if script it was, an early form of Linear A, such as Festive Linear A? Or was it actually Linear A? This question or hypothesis demands further investigation.
My article, Lexicon of Chariot Construction in Mycenaean Linear B, has been accepted in advance by the international historical journal, Epohi/Epochs:
I shall be submitting it to the editor-in-chief, Stefan Iordanov of the Faculty of History of St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo (hence forward referred to as UVT), Bulgaria. The editorial board consists of highly prestigious researchers:
Stefan Yordanov, Associate Prof., Ph.D., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Ivan Tyutyundjiev, Prof., Dr. Hab., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Plamen Pavlov, Prof., Ph.D., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Nikolay Kanev, Associate Prof., Ph.D., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Acad. Vasil Gyuzelev, Prof., Dr. Hab., Member of the Bulgarian Academy of science and President of the Association of Byzantinists and Medievalists in Bulgaria
Demetrios Gonis, Dr. Hab., Professor Emeritus of University of Athens (Greece)
Mirosław Jerzy Leszka, Prof., Dr. Hab., University of Lodz (Poland)
Tatyana Leontyeva, Prof., Dr. Hab., State University of Tver (Russia)
Milko Palangurski, Prof., Dr. Hab., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Petko Petkov, Проф. д-р Петко Петков, St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Rumen Yankov, Prof., Dr. Hab., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Mariya Ivanova, Prof., Dr. Hab., St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Dan Dana, Chargé de recherche de 1ère classe, Ph.D., Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique – Paris (France)
Nikolay Kanev, Associate Prof., Ph.D.
Stefan Yordanov, Associate Prof., Ph.D.
Linear B seal BE Zg 1 as erroneously interpreted by Gretchen Leonhardt, corrected here: Gretchen Leonhardt, a self-styled Linear B expert, has erroneously deciphered Linear B seal BE Zg 1. As she so often does, she misinterprets syllabograms, all to often blatantly violating their phonetic values. It is clear from this seal that the last syllabogram must be either ru or ne, and certainly not me, by any stretch of the imagination. Leonhardt is also in the habit of recasting the orthography of Linear B words she interprets to suit her own purposes. In this instance, she translates what she mistakenly takes to be the word on the VERSO to be dokame as dokema in Latinized Greek, flipping the vowels. But the second syllabogram is clearly ka, and cannot be interpreted as anything else. The problem with Ms. Leonhardt’s so-called methodology in her decipherment of any and all Linear B tablets is that she runs off on wild tangents whenever she is confronted with any word that does not meet her preconceptions. In this instance, she is desperate to cook up a meaning which appeals to her, no matter how much she has to twist the Linear B orthography. She indulges in this very practice on practically every last Linear B tablet she “deciphers”, interpreting Linear B words to suit her fancy, except in those instances where she is faced with no alternative but to accept what is staring her in the face. For instance, allow me to cite some of her translations of certain words on Linear B tablet Pylos TA 641-1952. She has no choice but to accept tiripode as signifying “tripod”, eme as “together/with” and qetorowe as “four year”, even though it properly means “four”, in line with the Latin orthography, quattuor. Linear B regularly substitutes q for t. As for her so-called decipherment of apu, she should know better than to translate it as “to become bleached/white”. After all, how could a burnt tripod be bleached white, when scorching turns pottery black? It is astonishing that she would overlook the obvious here. What is even more damning is the indisputable fact that apu is the default aprivative preposition for “from/with” in Mycenaean, Arcadian, Arcado-Cypriot, Lesbian and Thessalian, as attested by George Papanastassiou in The preverb apo in Ancient Greek: Then we have mewijo, which she interprets as “a kind of cumin”. Why on earth the Mycenaeans would have bothered with naming a specific kind of cumin when the standard word suffices, is completely beyond me. In fact, the alternative word she has latched onto is extremely uncommon in any ancient Greek dialect. Finally, she bizarrely interprets dipa, which is clearly the Mycenaean equivalent to the Homeric depa, as “to inspect”, another wild stretch of the imagination. Sadly, Ms. Leonhardt is much too prone to these shenanigans, which mar all too many of her decipherments. She ought to know better. This of course applies to her decipherment of Linear B seal BE Zg 1. Finally, we can also interpret the figure on this seal as representing the Horns of Consecration ubiquitous at Knossos.
Partial decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 15 (Zakros) and the phenomenon of orthographic adjustment of superstratum words in the substratum language: This decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 15 seems to add up overall. I have divined that the word qesizue, of which there are 57, means “goblets”. The plural in e is common in Linear A, and appears to be the plural of feminine diminutives, which in the case would imply that the singular is qesizuai = “goblet”. The decipherment certainly fits the context. The translation of itinisa as “in wicker/baskets” is less certain. Samidae can be construed as Old Minoan genitive singular for “from Samos”. Recall that when words derive from the superstratum, which means Mycenaean derived words in the case of Linear A, the orthography of the derived words must be altered from their Mycenaean spelling to Old Minoan Linear A spelling conventions. So in this case, Mycenaean Samoio (genitive sing.) could conceivably become Samidae in Minoan. We should not be at all surprised at this metamorphosis of orthography from the superstratum (Mycenaean derived vocabulary) to the substratum (Minoan vocabulary derived from the Mycenaean superstratum). After all, when superstratum French words are imported into English, their orthography undergoes the same metamorphosis. For instance, we have: French to English: albâtre = alabaster bénin = benign cloître = cloister dédain = disdain épître = epistle forêt = forest fanatique = fanatic gigantesque = gigantic gobelet = goblet loutre = otter maître = master plâtre = plaster similitude = similarity traître = treacherous and on and on. This phenomenon applies to every last substratum language upon which a superstratum from another language is imposed. So in the case of Old Minoan, it is inevitable that the orthography of any single superstratum Mycenaean derived word has to be adjusted to meet the exigencies of Minoan orthography. The most striking example of this metamorphosis is the masculine singular. Mycenaean derived words in Minoan must have their singular ultimate adjusted to u from the Mycenaean o. There are plenty of examples: Akano to Akanu (Archanes) akaro to akaru (field) kako to kaku (copper) kuruko to kuruku (crocus/saffron) mare (mari) to maru (wool) Rado to Radu (Latos) simito to simitu (mouse) suniko to suniku (community) Winado to Winadu (toponym) woino to winu (wine) iyero to wireu (priest)
Invitation by Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics ISSN 2411-6459 to submit my first article: Click on the banner to visit their site: https://culturalanthropologyandethnosemiotics.wordpress.com/ I have just been invited by the international quarterly, Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics ISSN 2411-6459, to submit my first article. Since this is the second new journal to have invited me to submit, I will not be able to write my first article for them until the autumn of 2017. Thus my article will not appear in Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics until the summer of 2018. I am deeply honoured by this unsolicited invitation. This article will doubtless focus on my ongoing efforts to decipher Linear A, at least partially.
Supplement to the Comprehensive Linear A Lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: Onomastics and Topomastics: +12 = 904 - 916 It is understood that I have personally interpreted the words below as either eponyms (personal names) or toponyms (place names), but some of them may be neither, being perhaps merely words. It is also possible that one or more of the 3 terms I have listed as onomastics may be topomastics, and that any number of those I have classed as topomastics may be onomastics (or neither). Onomastics: Kanajami Tateikezare Tidiate Toponomastics: Akanu = Archanes (Crete) Dawa (Haghia Triada) 5 Dikate = Mount Dikte Idaa = Mount Ida Kura Meza (= Linear B Masa) Paito = Phaistos (= Linear B) 10 Sukirita/Sukiriteija = Sybrita Winadu = Linear B Inato 12 TOTAL for the Comprehensive Linear A Lexicon = 916
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 801-903 = TI - ZU tikuja tikuneda timaruri/timaruwite timasa timi timunuta tina tinakarunau tinata (common)/tinita tinesekuda 810 tininaka tinu tinuka tinusekiqa tio tiqatediti tiqe/tiqeri/tiqeu tiraduja tirakapa3 tira2 820 tire tisa tisiritua tisudapa tita titema titiku titima tiu tiumaja 830 tizanukaa toipa tome toreqa tuda tujuma tukidija tukuse tuma/tumi/tumitizase tunada/tunapa 840 tunapa3ku tunija tupadida tuqe turaa turunuseme turusa tusi/tusu/tusupu2 tute tutesi 850 udamia udimi udiriki uju uki uminase unaa unadi (common) unakanasi unarukanasi/unarukanati 860 uqeti urewi usu uta/uta2 utaise utaro uti waduko wadunimi waja 870 wanai wapusua wara2qa watepidu watumare wazudu widina widui wija wijasumatiti 880 winadu winipa winu winumatari wiraremite wireu wirudu wisasane witero zadeu/zadeujuraa 890 zadua zama/zame zanwaija zapa zarse/zaredu/zareki/zaresea zasata zirinima zudu zukupi zuma 900 zupaku zusiza zute 903
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 701-800 = SI - TI sina sinada sinae sinakanau (common) sinakase sinamiu sinatakira sinedui sipiki sipu3ka 710 siriki siwamaa sokanipu sudaja suja suniku (common) sure Suria suropa siru/sirute 720 sirumarita2 sitetu situ sokemase sutu/sutunara suu suzu taa tadaki/tadati tadeuka 730 taikama tainumapa ta2tare ta2tite tajusu takaa/takari taki/taku/takui tamaduda tamaru temeku 740 tami/tamia/tamisi tanamaje tanate/tanati tani/taniria/tanirizu taniti tanunikina tapa tapiida tapiqe tara/tarina 750 tarejanai tarikisu taritama tasa/tasaja tasise tata/tati tateikezare ta2merakodisi ta2re/ta2reki ta2riki 760 ta2rimarusi ta2u tedasi/tedatiqa tedekima teepikia teizatima tejai tejuda teke/teki tekidia 770 temada/temadai temirerawi tenamipi tenata/tenataa tenatunapa3ku tenekuka teneruda teniku tenitaki tenu/tenumi (common) 780 tera/tere/teri teraseda tereau terikama teridu tero teroa terusi (extremely common) tesi/tesiqe tesudesekei 790 tetu tetita2 tewirumati tidama tidata tiditeqati tiduitii/tiisako tija tika tikiqa 800
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 601-700 = RE - SI rezakeiteta ria (common) ridu rikata rima rimisi ripaku ripatu riqesa rira/riruma/rirumate 610 risa risaipa3dai risumasuri ritaje rite/ritepi ritoe rodaa/rodaki roika roke/roki/roku romaku 620 romasa ronadi rore/roreka rosa rosirasiro rotau rotwei rua rudedi ruiko rujamime ruka/rukaa/ruki/rukike ruko rukue ruma rumu/rumata/rumatase rupoka ruqa/ruqaqa (common) rusa (common/rusaka rusi rutari rutia ruzuna sadi saja/sajama sajea saka sama/samaro samidae sanitii 650 sapo sapi saqa saqeri sara2/sarara sareju saro/saru/sarutu sasaja sasame sea sedire sei seikama seimasusaa seitau sejarapaja sejasinataki sesasinunaa sekadidi sekatapi 670 sekidi semake semetu senu sepa sekutu sesapa3 setamaru setira Setoija 680 sewaude sezami sezanitao sezaredu sezatimitu sia sidare/sidate sidi sidija sii/siisi 690 siitau sija sijanakarunau sika siketapi sikine sikira/sikirita sima simara simita 700
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 501-600 = PI - RE pitara piwaa/piwaja/piwi posa potokuro puqe pura2 pusa/pusi pusuqe pu2juzu pu2su/pu2sutu 510 pu3pi pu3tama qaka qanuma qapaja/qapajanai qaqada qaqaru qera2u/qara2wa qareto qaro 520 qasaraku qatidate qatiki qatiju qedeminu qeja qeka qenamiku qenupa qepaka 530 qepita qepu qequre qera2u qerosa qeta2e qesusui qesite qesizue qesupu 540 qeti/qetieradu qetune raa rada/radaa/radakuku/radami radarua radasija radizu radu ra2rore raja/raju 550 rakaa raki/rakii rakisi/raku ranatusu rani raodiki rapa/rapu rapu3ra raqeda rarasa rarua rasa 560 rasamii rasasaa/rasasaja rasi rata/ratapi ratada ratise razua ra2i ra2ka ra2madami 570 ra2miki ra2natipiwa ra2pu/ra2pu2 ra2ru ra2saa rea reda (common)/redamija/redana/redasi redise reduja reja/rejapa (common) 580 rekau rekotuku reku/rekuqa/rekuqe rema/remi rematuwa renara/renaraa renute repa repu2dudatapa repu3du 590 reqasuo reradu reratarumi rera2tusi rerora2 resi/resu retaa/retada retaka retata2 retema 600
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 401-500 = NA - PI nasi nasisea nataa/nataje natanidua natareki (common) nati nazuku/nazuru nea/neakoa nedia nedira neka/nekisi 410 nemaduka nemaruja nemiduda nemusaa nenaarasaja neqa neramaa nerapa/nerapaa nesa/nesaki/nesakimi nesasawi 420 nesekuda neta netapa netuqe nidapa nidiki/nidiwa niduti nijanu niku/nikutitii nimi 430 nipa3 niro/niru nisi nisudu niti nizuka nizuuka nua nude nuki/nukisikija 440 numida/numideqe nupa3ku (extremely common) nupi nuqetu nuti/nutini nutiuteranata nutu nuwi odami/odamia 450 opi osuqare otanize oteja pa (common)/paa padaru padasuti pade padupaa pa3katari 460 pa3ni/pa3nina/pa3niwi paja/pajai pajare paka (very common)/paku (very common)/pakuka pamanuita panuqe para paria paroda pasu 470 pata/patu pa3a/pa3ana pa3da pa3dipo pa3kija pa3ku pa3pa3ku pa3roka pa3sase pa3waja 480 pa3qa panuqe parane parosu pasarija pase pasu pata patada patane 490 pia/pii pija/pijawa piku/pikui pikuzu pimata pina/pini pirueju Pisa pita/pitaja pitakase/pitakesi 500
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 301-400 = KU - NA kureju kuro kuruku kuruma kutiti kutukore kuzuni maadf madadu madi 310 mai/maimi masaja majutu makaise/makaita makarite makidete mana/manapi (common) 320 maniki manirizu manuqa 320 maru/maruku/maruri masa masi masuri matapu mateti matiti matizaite matu masuja 330 maza/mazu meda medakidi mepajai mera merasasaa/merasasaja (very common) mesasa mesenurutu meto meturaa 340 meza mia midai midani midamara midara mide midiu mie miima 350 mijanika mijuke mikidua mikisena minaminapii minedu mini/miniduwa minumi minute mio/miowa 360 mipa mireja miru mirutarare misimiri misuma mita miturea mujatewi muko 370 mupi muru musaja naa nadare nadi/nadiradi/nadiredi nadiwi nadu nadunapu2a naisizamikao 380 naka nakiki nakininuta nakuda namarasasaja nmatiti nami namikua/namikuda namine nanau 390 nanipa3 napa3du narepirea naridi narinarikui narita naroka naru nasarea nasekimi 400
Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the third one hundred = 201-300 = JA - KU jatituku + jatituku jatoja jawi jedi jeka jemanata jua judu juerupi juka 210 juma/jumaku juraa jureku juresa jutiqa juu ka (extremely common) kada/kadasaa kadi kadumane 220 kae kai/kaika kairo kaji/kaju kaki/kaku kakunete kami kana kanatiti kanau kanita kanuti kapa/kapaqe kaporu kapusi kaqa/kaqe kara karona karu karunau/karunau 240 kasaru kasi kasidizuitanai kasikidaa katanite kati kaudeta keire kekiru kero keta/kete ketesunata kezadidi kida/kidi kidaro kidata kidini kidiora kii/kiipa kikiraja 260 kija kika kikadi kina kinima/ kinite kipaa kipisi (fairly common) kiqa kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru kireta2 270 kiretana kisusetu kitai kite kitiqa koiru koja kopu koru kosaiti 280 kuda kuja kujude kuka kukudara kumaju kumapu kunisu kupa/kupi kupatikidadia 290 kupa3natu kupa3nu kupa3pa3 kupa3rija kupaja kupari kupazu kura/kuramu kurasaqa kureda 300
Is the Minoan language proto-Altaic or proto-Japanese? The vast bulk of current diachronic linguistic research stacks up squarely against this hypothesis: According to Ms.Gretchen Leonhardt of: and I quote: While there has been much debate about the underlying language of Linear A, I disagree that LinA does not resemble a known language. Despite its similarities to Japanese, historical linguists dismiss a correlation for at least two reasons: (1) the apparent lack of genetic evidence and (2) the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language. Regarding the first justification, if linguists are looking to mainland Japan for genetic evidence, they are looking too far north. By whatever means, it appears that, around 1000 BCE, the Minoans entered Japan from the southern islands, and gradually moved north. Regarding the second justification, Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region**, which suggests an Altaic origin or influence. Likewise, Japanese scholarship suggests that the Japanese language belongs to the Japonic-language family, which is believed to have an Altaic origin or influence. General consensus dates the demise of the high Minoan civilization as late as 3,500 years ago, with the widespread destruction of the palace centers, while Neil Gordon Munro dates the commencement of the Yamato culture, which is the presumed progenitor of modern Japanese civilization, as early as 3,000 years ago. According to Munro, the origin of the Yamato culture is unknown but had arrived in a highly advanced state. The culture is notable for its grave goods–bronze arrowheads, bells, and halberds. The culture is also notable for its wheel-thrown pottery, which employed “restrained” decoration with “subdued color” [1908:4]. Comment: Munro was writing in 1908, when linguistic assumptions about Altaic languages were in their infancy! Modern scholarship has all but refuted the assumptions about Altaic languages in vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. 100 years ago! She continues: The Okinawan (Uchina’a) Japanese remain culturally, genetically, and linguistically distinct from the mainland (Yamato) Japanese, although the two cultures are believed to share a common proto language. This forum will provide support–through disciplines such as archaeology, architecture, art, genetics, and language–for my dual theories that LinA is proto Japanese and that the Minoan civilization provides a rich backdrop for Japanese history, which, for millennia, has been shrouded in mystery. I hasten to add that in the preceding passage, Ms. Leonhardt has made egregious errors with respect to Minoan Linear A. These are: 1. On the one hand, she claims to disagree that “LinA does not resemble a known language.” 2. and then goes straight ahead to flatly contradict herself by decrying “the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language.” Universally held? Very far from it. The controversy over the origin and language class Linear A purportedly belongs to still rages on, as attested by innumerable studies on academia.edu alone which contradict one another with respect to the language family or class to which Linear A purportedly belongs. All this after she has just lament the fact that Linear A does not resemble any known language (1.) 3. She goes on... “it appears that, around 1000 BCE, the Minoans entered Japan from the southern islands, and gradually moved north. Regarding the second justification, Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region** (Does it? Perhaps in 1908, but I sincerely doubt this is the case today), which suggests an Altaic origin or influence.” But what she obviously overlooks in this statement is the distinct probability, and indeed strong likelihood that the Minoan language almost certainly had already existed for some 1,200 years before the Minoans migrated to the southern Japanese islands, if they ever did so in the first place... which is a highly contentious claim. Moreover, while a few researchers still claim that the proto-Japanese dialect she is referencing belongs to the Altaic class of languages, the majority of current researchers number are convinced that this cannot be so. And I quote (all italics mine): Micro-Altaic includes about 66 living languages, to which Macro-Altaic would add Korean, Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages for a total of about 74. (These are estimates, depending on what is considered a language and what is considered a dialect. They do not include earlier states of languages, such as Middle Mongol, Old Korean or Old Japanese.) Opponents maintain that the similarities are due to areal interaction between the language groups concerned. The inclusion of Korean and Japanese has also been criticized and disputed by other linguists. The original Altaic family thus came to be known as the Ural–Altaic. In the "Ural–Altaic" nomenclature, Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic are regarded as "Uralic", whereas Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are regarded as "Altaic"—whereas Korean is sometimes considered Altaic, as is, less often, Japanese. In other words, proto-Japanese, including the dialect with which Ms. Leonhardt is concerned, may not be (proto-) Altaic at all. 4. Moroever, the following timetable seems to be the most realistic for the appearance of written Japanese (italics mine): (3) Timetable: To illustrate the prehistory of Japan, I'd put two lines on the timetable. The first line comes around 400 to 300 BC. This is the time when wet rice culture and iron processing came to the Japanese Islands, and the way of life there changed. Yet an older form of the Japanese language started to be spoken from that time. I'd call this phase of the language "proto-Japanese", which later evolved to our Old Japanese. Comment: Now it is clear from this diachronic timeline that proto-Japanese appeared at least 1,800 years after the first attestation of the Minoan language ca. 2200 BCE. And again (italics mine): Along with the foreign faith, Japan establishes and maintains for 400 years close connections with the Chinese and Korean courts and adopts a more sophisticated culture. This new culture is essentially Chinese and includes literature, philosophy, art, architecture, science, medicine, and statecraft. Most important is the introduction of the Chinese writing system, revolutionizing Japan, which heretofore had no writing system of its own, and ushering in the country’s historical period. (Comment: in other words, writing appeared in Japan only after 500 AD, some 2,700 years after the advent of the Minoan civlization. 5. Leonhardt continues, “Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region**, which suggests an Altaic origin or influence.” after asserting in 1. above that “LinA does not resemble a known language.” and in 2. above, touting “the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language.” Good God, can she make up her mind? Is it 1. 2. or 5.? 6. Leonhardt then cites research a century old! (again, italics mine) She states, “According to Munro, the origin of the Yamato culture is unknown but had arrived in a highly advanced state. The culture is notable for its grave goods–bronze arrowheads, bells, and halberds. The culture is also notable for its wheel-thrown pottery, which employed “restrained” decoration with “subdued color” [1908:4]. For confirmation of the general span of dates of his publications, see: Munro was writing in 1908, when linguistic assumptions about Altaic languages were in their primitive infancy! Modern scholarship has all but refuted the assumptions about Altaic languages in vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. 100 years ago! And he wrote in this very journal. 7. But the most damning evidence against her thesis comes from (italics mine): Paleoglot: How NOT to reconstruct a protolanguage Paleoglot: ... So let's go through my cheeky list of important strategies that we can follow (using examples from the Tower of Babel project) if we want to isolate ourselves and be rejected by all universities around the world. 1. Use "phonemic wildcards" obsessively! Cast the net wider and you might catch something! The abuse of mathematical symbols like C, V, [a-z], (a/é/ö), etc. are an excellent way to make your idle conjecture look like a valid theory. It might be called "reconstruction by parentheses" since parentheses are either explicitly shown or hidden by a single variable. An example of this is *k`egVnV (claimed to be the Proto-Altaic word for "nine" in the Tower of Babel database). Obviously, if V represents all possible vowels in this proto-language and there are, say, ten of them possible in either position, then the fact that there are two wildcards in the same word means that the word represents a humungous, two-dimensional matrix of ONE HUNDRED possible permutations (10*10=100): *k`egana, *k`egena, *k`egina, *k`egüna, *k`egïna, etc. *k`egane, *k`egene, *k`egine, *k`egüne, *k`egïne, etc. *k`egani, *k`egeni, *k`egini, *k`egüni, *k`egïni, etc. *k`eganü, *k`egenü, *k`eginü, *k`egünü, *k`egïnü, etc. etc. language Since no single form is actually being posited when wildcards are present, any claim of regular correspondence by such a theorist can be easily identified as fraud. If such linguists can't take themselves seriously enough to hypothesize a structured and testable theory, why then should we take them seriously in turn? It is this very method, if you can call it that by any yardstick of scientific methodology that Ms. Leonhardt indulges in: as we can see all too clearly from this chart of her derivations of Minoan words from so-called Altaic roots: To summarize, Ms. Leonhardt has seized herself in a web of self-contractions, severely outdated research and claims with respect to the authenticity of southern proto-Japanese as a so-called proto-Altaic language which cannot possibly stand the test of valid scientific methodology. I short, her pretensions that southern proto-Japanese is at the root of the Minoan language are just that, presentions, and egregious to boot. So what are the alternatives? What language family or class might the Minoan language fall into? We shall address that question head on in the next post.
Gretchen Leonhardt is up against some stiff competition from Urii Mosenkis concerning her so-called proto-Japanese origins of Minoan Linear A: Urii Mosenkis makes a very strong case for Minoan Linear A being proto-Greek, and he does it over and over, like clockwork. This includes his own completely different interpretation of Ms. Leonhardt’s highly contentious decipherment of kuro as so called proto-Japanese. I strongly suggest that Ms. Leonhardt read his articles. He is much more qualified than I am in Linear A (and, I contend, than Ms. Leonhardt as well), and I admit it without a shadow of hesitation. I am forced to revise my predictions about the partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A as I outlined them in my first article on Linear A, and I admit openly that Mosenkis is probably right, by and large. Ms. Leonhardt would do well to read all of his articles, as they flat-out contradict everything she claims about the so-called proto-Japanese origins of the Minoan language. I at least have the humility to lay down my cards when I am confronted with convincing evidence to the effect that my own partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A is defective, even though I have already reached many of the same conclusions as Mosenkis. Not that he would ever convince Ms. Leonhardt of the infallibility of her own dubious decipherments of Linear A tablets. I have a very great deal more to say about Ms. Leonhardt’s contentious claims to eventual fame with respect to her clearly flawed interpretations of Linear A tablets, and to drive my points home, I shall have occasion to cite Mosenkis whenever and wherever he contradicts her, and that is always. To view all of Mosenkis’ superbly conceived research papers, please visit his academia.edu account here: Here is a selective electronic bibliography of the highly qualified decipherments Mosenkis has made of several Minoan Linear A inscriptions: Electronic: Mosenkis, Urii. Flourishing of the Minoan Greek State in the Linear A Script 1700 – 14560 BCE. https://www.academia.edu/28708342/FLOURISHING_OF_THE_MINOAN_GREEK_STATE_IN_THE_LINEAR_A_SCRIPT_1700_1450_BCE Mosenkis, Urii. Graeco-Macedonian goddess as Minoan city queen. https://www.academia.edu/26194521/Graeco-Macedonian_goddess_as_Minoan_city_queen Mosenkis,Urii. Linear A-Homeric quasi-bilingual https://www.academia.edu/16242940/Linear_A-Homeric_quasi-bilingual Mosenkis, Urii. ‘Minoan-Greek’ Dialect: Morphology https://www.academia.edu/28433292/MINOAN_GREEK_DIALECT_MORPHOLOGY Mosenkis, Urii. Minoan Greek Farming in Linear A. https://www.academia.edu/27669709/MINOAN_GREEK_FARMING_IN_LINEAR_A_Iurii_Mosenkis Mosenkis, Urii. Minoan Greek hypothesis: A short historiography https://www.academia.edu/27772316/Minoan_Greek_hypothesis_A_short_historiography Mosenkis, Urii. Minoan Greek phonetics and orthography in Linear A https://www.academia.edu/27866235/Minoan_Greek_phonetics_and_orthography_in_Linear_A Mosenkis, Urii. Minoan-Greek Society in Linear A. https://www.academia.edu/27687555/MINOAN_GREEK_SOCIETY_IN_LINEAR_A Mosenkis, Urii. Researchers of Greek Linear A. https://www.academia.edu/31443689/Researchers_of_Greek_Linear_A Mosenkis, Urii. Rhea the Mother of Health in the Arkalokhori Script https://www.academia.edu/31471809/Rhea_the_Mother_of_Health_in_the_Arkalokhori_Script PS I came to almost exactly the same conclusions as Mosenkis re. this inscription, although my Greek translation is different. I wonder what Ms. Leonhardt has to say for herself in light of so many astonishingly insightful decipherments by Urii Mosenkis of a large number of Linear A tablets. I look forward to cogent and rational counter arguments on her part, which stand up to rigorous scientific criteria.
Arcado-Cypriot Linear C, the Elegant Culmination of Syllabaries from Minoan Linear A through to Mycenaean Linear B
The title of my submission to Vol. 13 (2017) Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) ISSN 1452-7448 is to be:
“Arcado-Cypriot Linear C, the Elegant Culmination of Syllabaries from Minon Linear through to Mycenaean Linear B”.
This article will feature an overview of each of the syllabaries in turn and the languages and dialects they represent: Minoan for Linear A, the earliest East Greek dialect Mycenaean for Linear B, and the slightly later dialect Arcado-Cypriot for Linear C. It will be quite some time before I will even be able to make my submission, as Vol. 12 (2016) is still in the pipeline, and authors’ articles have not been returned to them in their master format for proof-reading. Nor will they be returned to us before the end of 2017. But I like to hedge my bets, and anyway, the aforementioned topic for Vol. 13 (2017) is right down my alley, in view of the fact that I am expert in all three syllabaries (Linear A, B & C) and their respective languages.
NOTE it is absolutely de rigueur to read the table of the Arcado-Cypriot Linear C syllabary above, if you are to get any real grasp of its enormous significance, not only for the development of literary ancient Greek, which it pioneered, but retrospectively for a proper understanding of Mycenaean Linear B phonetics.
The article will explore in great depth the legacy of Minoan Linear A for Mycenaean Linear B and that of Mycenaean Linear B for Arcado-Cypriot Linear C in turn. Finally, we shall address the even more striking historical legacy of Arcado-Cypriot Linear C itself, as this last syllabary in the series of 3 syllabaries was to have a real impact on the historical Greek era (ca. 1100 BCE – 400 BCE).
What is most striking about the evolution of these three syllabaries is that, as we pass from one to the next, the syllabaries become more streamlined and more simplified. The Minoan Linear A syllabary is the most complex, with a very large number of syllabograms, many of which are undeciphered. While there are ideograms in Minoan Linear A, there are fewer of them in Linear A than in Mycenaean Linear B, which made extensive use of them for the purposes of accurate, minimalized inventory taking. On the other hand, by the time we get to Arcado-Cypriot Linear C, the picture changes drastically. Almost all of the syllabograms in Linear C look completely unlike their Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B forbears. They look different. But appearances can be and are, in the case of Arcado-Cypriot Linear C, very deceiving. While the syllabograms in Arcado-Cypriot Linear C look different from those in Mycenaean Linear B (leaving Minoan Linear A aside, because it is too archaic and too complex), almost all of them bear the same phonetic values as their Linear B counterparts. But what is most remarkable about Arcado-Cypriot Linear C is that it utterly abandoned ideograms, once and for all. There are several cogent reasons for this amazing development, which I shall address when I finally come around to writing this article, probably sometime in 2018.
I have already discussed this topic in recent posts on the Linear A, Linear B & Linear C keyboard templates, and so I would ask you to refer back to them for clarification on any issues which may elude you, and which I do not address in this post, for the simple reason that I have not even yet begun my article for Archaeology and Science. But, of one thing you can be certain, it is bound to be a ground-breaker, like all of my previous articles in this prestigious international archaeological journal.
6 Minoan Linear A words from KE to KO which might be proto-Greek or proto-Mycenaean: Here is the table of Minoan Linear A words from KE to KO in Prof. John G. Younger’s Reverse Linear A Lexicon. As is the usual case, there are inherent problems with the “Greekness” of almost all of the Minoan Linear A words I have tagged as possibly being proto-Greek or proto-Mycenaean. This should come as no surprise in view of the fact that I made myself crystal clear on this account in the previous post. The most convincing Minoan Linear A word by far of apparent proto-Greek origin is keite, which is highly likely to be the equivalent of archaic Greek keithen = “thence/from there”. The least credible is  koiru, which is far enough off in its orthography from ancient Greek, kairos = “due measure” to cast sufficient doubt on it. But in almost all cases, appearances can be, and often are, deceiving. I have said this already, and I repeat it for the sake of emphasis. We cannot be too overcautious. This brings the total number of so-called proto-Greek or proto-Mycenaean words I have managed to isolate in Minoan Linear A to 22.