## Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 7, probably inscribed in New Minoan, i.e. the Mycenaean superstratum

```Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 7, probably inscribed in New Minoan, i.e. the Mycenaean superstratum:

Linear A tablet HT 7 (Haghia Triada) may have been inscribed entirely in New Minoan, i.e. in the Mycenaean superstratum, and not in the Minoan substrate language at all. The decipherment does makes sense in proto-Greek, but I cannot account for the presence of the numbers 3 & 4, which casts doubt on it.
There is also the problem of human sacrifice. Some historians allege that the Minoans practised human sacrifice, but there is no proof of this at all. Besides, I find a bit strange that a civilization as advanced as the Minoan would have indulged in such a barbaric practice.  But you never know.

```

## First of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c

```First of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c

Above is the first of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c. The text is extremely difficult to interpret, but I have done my level best. 12a is pretty much indecipherable. 12b consists of fractions. 12c  consists of the single syllabogram TE, which might possibly be the supersyllabogram TE, which usually stands for tereza, a large standard unit of liquid measurement. It would mesh well enough with 12b, since that fragment is all fractions. But there is no way we can confirm this at all, since 12c is a fragment, doubtless with almost all of its original text absent. So without context, we cannot be sure of anything.

```

## Supplement to the Comprehensive Linear A Lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: Onomastics and Topomastics: +12 = 904 – 916

```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)
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

```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
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
tunapa3ku
tunija
tuqe
turaa
turunuseme
turusa
tusi/tusu/tusupu2
tute
tutesi 850
udamia
udimi
udiriki
uju
uki
uminase
unaa
unakanasi
unarukanasi/unarukanati 860
uqeti
urewi
usu
uta/uta2
utaise
utaro
uti
waja 870
wanai
wapusua
wara2qa
watepidu
watumare
wazudu
widina
widui
wija
wijasumatiti 880
winipa
winu
winumatari
wiraremite
wireu
wirudu
wisasane
witero
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

```Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 701-800 = SI - TI

sina
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
taikama
tainumapa
ta2tare
ta2tite
tajusu
takaa/takari
taki/taku/takui
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
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

```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
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
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
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

```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
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
qetune
raa
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
ratise
razua
ra2i
ra2ka
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
reratarumi
rera2tusi
rerora2
resi/resu
retaka
retata2
retema 600

```

## Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 401-500 = NA – PI

```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
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
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
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

```Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 301-400 = KU - NA

kureju
kuro
kuruku
kuruma
kutiti
kutukore
kuzuni
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
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

```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)
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
kida/kidi
kidaro
kidata
kidini
kidiora
kii/kiipa
kikiraja 260
kija
kika
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
kupa3natu
kupa3nu
kupa3pa3
kupa3rija
kupaja
kupari
kupazu
kura/kuramu
kurasaqa
kureda 300

```

## Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the second one hundred = 101-200 = DI – JA

```Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the second one hundred = 101-200 = DI - JA

This is the most comprehensive Linear A Lexicon ever published on the Internet.

This lexicon comprises all of the intact words in John G. Younger’s Linear A Reverse Lexicon (which is far from comprehensive) plus every last intact word on every single tablet or fragment at his site, wherever any of the latter are not found in the former. By my count, there are 903 words, though I may have made the occasional error in addition, since I had to subtract some repetitive words and add others from the tablets, which are not in the Linear A Reverse Lexicon. Although Prof. John G. Younger has tallied some 903 Linear A words on his site, Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, his actual lexicon is far from complete. Consequently, it has been necessary for me to draw all of the intact Linear words from every last Linear A tablet and fragment on Prof. Younger’s site. The difficulty here is that his lexicon includes even those Linear A words containing unknown syllabograms, many of which are assigned numeric values only, e.g. *309 *318 *319 *346-348 etc. And there are a number of them. The problem with all of these syllabograms is that no one knows what their phonetic values are. So it goes without saying that every last Minoan Linear A word which contains even one of these unknown syllabograms should, properly speaking, be disqualified. Moreover, there is  redundancy in some of the vocabulary, since quite a few Linear A words on his site are simply variants of one another. To cite just a few examples, we have: daka/daki/daku/dakuna; maru/maruku/maruri; nesa, nesaki, nesakimi; and tami, tamia, tamisi. Consequently, I have also eliminated all of the variants on any given term. This leaves us with a remaindered total of 903, exclusive of onomastics (personal names) and topomastics (place names).

Words which are apparent variants of one another are listed as one entry, e.g.

daka/daki/daku/dakuna
dakusenete(ti)
kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru
maru/maruku/maruri
merasasaa/merasasaja
nesa/nesaki/nesakimi
piku/pikui/pikuzu
reda/redamija/redana/redasi
saro/saru/sarutu
tami/tamia/tamisi
zare/zaredu/zareki/zaresea

The following entries have been deliberately omitted:
1. Words containing any syllabograms which are either partially or wholly numeric, since we do not know what the phonetic values of these syllabograms are.
2. Strings of syllabograms > than 15 characters.

NOTE: I have already deciphered well over 200 Linear A words, but none of these are tagged in this comprehensive Linear A Lexicon. I shall be posting my decipherments at a later date.

dipa3a
diqise
dirasa
diredina
dirina
diru
disa
disipita
ditajaru
du/dua 110
duja
dumaina
dumedi
dunawi
dupa3na
dupu3re
dura2
durare
duratiqe
durezase 120
dusi/dusini
dusima
dusu
duti
duwi
duzu
edamisa
eka
epa3
ero 130
esija
ezusiqe
ia
Ida/Idaa
idapa3
idamate/idamete
idarea
idunesi
iduti 140
ijapame
ika
ikesedesute
ikurina
ikuta
ima
imeti
inajapaqa
ipinama
ira2
iruja
isari
ise
itaja
itaki
itijukui
itinisa
ititikuna 160
izurinita
jaa
jai
jaiterikisu
jaitose 170
jainwaza
jaja
jakisikinu
jako/jaku/jakute
jamaa
jami/jamidare
januti
japametu
japarajase 180
japanidami
jara2qe
jare/jaremi
jarepu2
jarete
jari/jarina/jarinu
jaripa3ku
jarisapa
jaru/jarui
jasaraanane 190
jasaja
jasapai
jasamu
jasasarame
jasea
jasepa
jasie
jasumatu
jata/jatai/jatapi
jate/jateo 200

```

## Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the first one hundred = 1-100 = A – DI

```Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the first one hundred = 1-100 = A - DI

This is the most comprehensive Linear A Lexicon ever published on the Internet.

This lexicon comprises all of the intact words in John G. Younger’s Linear A Reverse Lexicon (which is far from comprehensive) plus every last intact word on every single tablet or fragment at his site, wherever any of the latter are not found in the former. By my count, there are 903 words, though I may have made the occasional error in addition, since I had to subtract some repetitive words and add others from the tablets, which are not in the Linear A Reverse Lexicon. Although Prof. John G. Younger has tallied some 903 Linear A words on his site, Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, his actual lexicon is far from complete. Consequently, it has been necessary for me to draw all of the intact Linear words from every last Linear A tablet and fragment on Prof. Younger’s site. The difficulty here is that his lexicon includes even those Linear A words containing unknown syllabograms, many of which are assigned numeric values only, e.g. *309 *318 *319 *346-348 etc. And there are a number of them. The problem with all of these syllabograms is that no one knows what their phonetic values are. So it goes without saying that every last Minoan Linear A word which contains even one of these unknown syllabograms should, properly speaking, be disqualified. Moreover, there is  redundancy in some of the vocabulary, since quite a few Linear A words on his site are simply variants of one another. To cite just a few examples, we have: daka/daki/daku/dakuna; maru/maruku/maruri; nesa, nesaki, nesakimi; and tami, tamia, tamisi. Consequently, I have also eliminated all of the variants on any given term. This leaves us with a remaindered total of 903, exclusive of onomastics (personal names) and topomastics (place names).

Words which are apparent variants of one another are listed as one entry, e.g.

daka/daki/daku/dakuna
dakusenete(ti)
kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru
maru/maruku/maruri
merasasaa/merasasaja
nesa/nesaki/nesakimi
piku/pikui/pikuzu
reda/redamija/redana/redasi
saro/saru/sarutu
tami/tamia/tamisi
zare/zaredu/zareki/zaresea

The following entries have been deliberately omitted:
1. Words containing any syllabograms which are either partially or wholly numeric, since we do not know what the phonetic values of these syllabograms are.
2. Strings of syllabograms > than 15 characters.

NOTE: I have already deciphered well over 200 Linear A words, but none of these are tagged in this comprehensive Linear A Lexicon. I shall be posting my decipherments at a later date.

a
ajesa
aju
akaru
akanuzati  10
aki
akipiete
akumina
ama
amaja
amidao/amidau
amita
ana
anatu
anau 20
anepiti
aparane
apaki
api
araju
aranare
aratu
arauda
aredai
arepirena 30
aresana
ari/arinita
aripa
arisu
arote
aru/arudara
aruma
arura
asamune
asara2/asararame 40
asasumaise
ase/asi
aseja
asidatoi
asijaka
asikira
asisupoa
asuja
asupuwa 50
atanate
atare
ati
atika
atiru
aurete
awapi
azura
daa
daku/dakuna
dai/daina
daipita
dajute
daka/daki/daku/dakuna/dakusene(ti)
dami/daminu
dame/damate 70
danasi
danekuti
daqaqa
dare
darida
daqera
darunete
daserate
datapa
datara/datare/datu 80
dea
deauwase
dedi
dejuku
demirirema
depa/depu
deripa
detaa
dide/didi
dideru 90
didikase/didikaze
dii
dija/dije
dika
dikime
dikise
dima
dimedu
dinaro
dinau 100

```

## Minoan Linear A tablet HT 14 (Haghia Triada) almost completely deciphered + the 4 categories of Linear A tablets

```Minoan Linear A tablet HT 14 (Haghia Triada) almost completely deciphered + the 4 categories of Linear A tablets:

Here you see Minoan Linear A tablet HT 14 (Haghia Triada), which I have been able to decipher almost completely. This is because the tablet is comprised mostly of ideograms, making it much easier to reconstruct the original text. In addition, I have already translated the supersyllabogram TE = tereza (on the first line) as being a large unit of liquid measurement, which in the case of wine might be something like “a flask”,  “a jug” or something along the lines of  “a gallon”, on the explicit understanding that there was no such thing as a gallon in Minoan times; this is merely an approximation.  The supersyllabograms PU & DI are unknown, i.e. indecipherable, at least to date. Likewise, the Old Minoan word, apu2nadu (apunaidu) is also unknown, but it might mean  “harvest”. The units of wheat are probably equivalent to something like a bushel. The supersyllabogram MI = mini signifies  “for a month” (dative) or “monthly”, and is New Minoan, i.e. a word of Mycenaean origin superimposed on Linear A.

The rest of the decipherment is self-explanatory.

Decipherment of Minoan Linear A tablets falls into four (4) categories:

1. Tablets on which we find only Old Minoan words, or on which the vast majority of words are Old Minoan. These tablets are pretty much indecipherable.
2. Tablets on which we find a combination of Old Minoan and New Minoan (words of Mycenaean origin). The more New Minoan words on a tablet, the more likely we are going to be able to decipher it. Ideally, there should be more New Minoan (Mycenaean) words than Old Minoan (the original Minoan substratum), in order to divine the meanings of Old Minoan words immediately adjacent to New Minoan words. This is of course contextual analysis. Such tablets are at least partially decipherable.
3. Linear A tablets containing ideograms almost exclusively are susceptible to decipherment. HT 14 (Haghia Triada) falls into this category.
4. A very few Linear A tablets are written mostly, almost entirely and in one case only, entirely in New Minoan (the Mycenaean superstratum). These tablets can be be mostly and in some cases entirely deciphered.

```

## Proto-Greek or Mycenaean kiritai = “barley” on Minoan Linear A tablet HT 114 (Haghia Triada)

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.

## Proto-Greek Decipherment of Minoan Linear A silver pin from Mavro Spelio (Middle Minoan III = MM III) in the Heraklion Museum, Greece

```Proto-Greek Decipherment of Minoan Linear A silver pin from Mavro Spelio (Middle Minoan III = MM III) in the Heraklion Museum, Greece:

This decipherment of Minoan Linear A silver pin from Mavro Spelio (Middle Minoan III = MM III) in the Heraklion Museum, Greece relies rather heavily on the debatable notion that Minoan Linear A is by and large proto-Greek, a theory espoused by Urii Mosenkis, one of the world’s most highly qualified linguists specializing in diachronic historical linguistics, including, but not limited to Minoan Linear A. Accordingly, I have deliberately interpreted ample chunks of the Minoan Linear a vocabulary on this silver pin as being proto-Greek, even though such a decipherment is surely contentious, at least in (large) part.

While the first line of my decipherment makes sense by and large, the second is more dubious. It is apparent that the Minoan Linear A word dadu on the first line is almost certainly not proto-Greek, but the last two syllables of dadumine, ie. mine appear to be the dative singular for the (archaic) Greek word for month, i.e. meinei (Latinized), such that the decipherment of this word at least would appear to read  “in the month of dadu”. There is nothing really all that strange or peculiar about this interpretation, since we know the names of the months neither in Minoan Linear A nor in Mycenaean Linear B. However, a definite note of caution must be sounded with respect to the decipherment of this word, as well as of all of the other so-called proto-Greek words on this silver pin, since none of them can be verified with sufficient circumstantial evidence or on the contrary. Hence, all translations of putative proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A must be taken with a grain of salt.

While the second line on this pin, if taken as proto-Greek, makes some sense, it is much less convincing than the first, especially in light of the trailing word at the end, tatheis (Greek Latinized, apparently for the aorist participle passive of the verb teino (Latinized) = to stretch/strain, which actually does not make a lot of sense in the context.

Nevertheless, it would appear that at least some of the Minoan Linear A words which I have interpreted  as being proto-Greek or proto-Mycenaean may in fact be that. I leave it up to you to decide which one(s) are and which are not, if any in fact are. Additionally, even if a few or some of them are proto-Greek, they may fall within the pre-Greek substratum. The most dubious of the so-called proto-Greek words on this pin probably are qami -, tasaza & tatei, since none of these are likely to have fallen within the pre-Greek substratum.

But if the Minoan language itself is not proto-Greek, then what is it? I shall have ample occasion to address this apparently thorny question in upcoming posts and especially in my second article on the decipherment of Minoan Linear A, which I shall be submitting to Archaeology and Science by no later than April 17, 2017.

```

## Minoan Linear provides significant evidence of the presence of proto-Greek or even (proto) – Mycenaean in its vocabulary

Minoan Linear provides significant evidence of the presence of proto-Greek or even (proto) – Mycenaean in its vocabulary:

Minoan Linear provides significant evidence of the presence of proto-Greek or even (proto) – Mycenaean in its vocabulary, as attested by this Table (Table 2a & Table 2B), which I have had to divide into two parts because it is so long. So we have

Table 2a Minoan words of apparent proto-Greek origin… or are they in the pre-Greek substratum? A-M:

and Table 2b: N-W:

It is readily apparent from this Table in two parts that all of the words listed in it may be interpreted as proto-Greek or possibly even (proto-) Mycenaean. But the operative word is may, not certainly. This is because (a) Minoan Linear A, like Mycenaean Linear B, makes no distinction between Greek short and long vowels and (b) like Mycenaean Linear B, the Linear A syllabary is deficient in representing a number of Greek consonants, which otherwise might have been the initial consonants of the successive syllabic series, e.g. da de di do du, ka ke ki ko ku, ta te ti to tu etc. The following Greek consonants, first illustrated in this table of the ancient Greek alphabet including the archaic digamma, which was in widespread use in Mycenaean Linear B, are tagged with an asterisk * :

and here Latinized for accessibility to our visitors who cannot read Greek, i.e. b, g, eita (long i) , ksi, fi (pi), chi (as in Scottish loch), psi and omega. Because of these lacuna and the notable ambiguities which arise from it, it is not possible to verify that the so-called proto-Greek or (proto-) Mycenaean words listed in Tables 2a & 2b are in fact that. However, chances are good that they are proto-Greek. Additionally, it is not possible to verify whether or not a few, some or even all of the words in Tables 2a and 2b, which appear to be proto-Greek actually fall within the pre-Greek substratum. If the latter scenario is true, then it is more likely than not that a few, some or even all of these words are in fact Minoan. There is no way to verify this for certain. Nevertheless, numerous international researchers into Minoan Linear A, most notably, Urii Mosenkis, one of the world’s most highly qualified linguists specializing in diachronic historical linguistics, including, but not limited to Minoan Linear A, who stands in the top 0.1 % of 40 million users on academia.edu:

have provided significant convincing circumstantial evidence that there are even hundreds of proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A, which begs the question, is Minoan Linear A proto-Greek? But the answer to the question is not nearly so obvious as one might think, as I shall be demonstrating in my second article, Current prospects for the decipherment of Minoan Linear A”, which I will be submitting to the prestigious international annual journal, Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) by no later than April 17 2017, the deadline for submissions.

There is no positive, indisputable proof that there are any number of proto-Greek or proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A, any more than there is any positive proof whatsoever that, as Gretchen Leonhardt would have us believe, that there are any number of proto-Altaic or proto-Japanese words, if any at all, in the Minoan language. As for her hypothesis, for which there not even any substantive circumstantial evidence whatsoever, it is my firm belief and contention that she is, to use the common expression, wasting her time and energy barking up the wrong tree.

## Is the Minoan language proto-Altaic or proto-Japanese? The vast bulk of current diachronic linguistic research stacks up squarely against this hypothesis

```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,[9] 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.[13] 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

```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.

Mosenkis, Urii. Graeco-Macedonian goddess as Minoan city queen.

Mosenkis,Urii. Linear A-Homeric quasi-bilingual

Mosenkis, Urii. ‘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

Mosenkis, Urii. Minoan-Greek Society in Linear A.

Mosenkis, Urii. Researchers of Greek Linear A.

Mosenkis, Urii. 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.

```

## A ‘fairly accurate’ rendering of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 86a, according to Gretchen Leonhardt

```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.

```

## “Can quantum computers assist in the decipherment of Minoan Linear A?” Keynote article on academia.edu

```“Can quantum computers assist in the decipherment of Minoan Linear A?” Keynote article on academia.edu

(Click on the graphical link below to download this ground-breaking article on the application of potentially superintelligent quantum quantum computers to the decipherment, even partial, of the ancient Minoan Linear A syllabary):

This is a major new article on the application of quantum computers to the AI (artificial intelligence) involvement in the decipherment of the unknown ancient Minoan Linear A syllabary (ca. 2800 – 1500 BCE). This article advances the hypothesis that quantum computers such as the world’s very first fully functional quantum computer, D-Wave, of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, may very well be positioned to assist human beings in the decipherment, even partial, of the Minoan Linear A syllabary. This article goes to great lengths in explaining how quantum computers can expedite the decipherment of Minoan Linear A. It addresses the critical questions raised by Nick Bostrom, in his ground-breaking study, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford University Press, 2014),

in which he advances the following hypothesis:

Nick Bostrom makes it clear that artificial superintelligence (AS) does not necessarily have to conform to or mimic human intelligence. For instance, he says:
1. We have already cautioned against anthropomorphizing the capabilities of a superintelligent AI. The warning should be extend to pertain to its motivations as well. (pg 105)
and again,
2. This possibility is most salient with respect to AI, which might be structured very differently than human intelligence. (pg. 172) ... passim ... It is conceivable that optimal efficiency would be attained by grouping aggregates that roughly match the cognitive architecture of a human mind. It might be the case, for example, that a mathematics module must be tailored to a language module, in order for the three to work together... passim ... There might be niches for complexes that are either less complex (such as individual modules), more complex (such as vast clusters of modules), or of  similar complexity to human minds but with radically different architectures.

... among others respecting the probable advent of superintelligence within the next 20-40 years (2040-2060).

This is a revolutionary article you will definitely not want to miss reading, if you are in any substantial way fascinated by the application of supercomputers and preeminently, quantum computers, which excel at lightning speed pattern recognition, which they can do so across templates of patterns in the same domain, to the decipherment of Minoan Linear A, an advanced technological endeavour which satisfies these scientific criteria. In the case of pattern recognition across multiple languages, ancient and modern, in other words in cross-comparative multi-language analysis, the astonishing capacity of quantum computers to perform this operation in mere seconds is an exceptional windfall we simply cannot afford not to take full advantage of.  Surely quantum computers’ mind-boggling lightning speed capacity to perform such cross-comparative multi-linguistic analysis is a boon beyond our wildest expectations.

```
Akhelas Writing

THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES

Artistic Reconstruction and Original Translation From Homer's "Iliad" by Kathleen Vail

Be Like Water

Music, Film and Life

Little Fears

Tales of whimsy, humour and courgettes

Im ashamed to die until i have won some victory for humanity.(Horace Mann)

Domenic Garisto/havau22.com / IF YOU CAN'T BE THE POET, BE THE POEM (David Carradine) LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL,SO LIVE IT.

Φιλολογικά φύλλα

... από την περιπέτεια της θεωρίας, της ερμηνείας και της διδασκαλίας

Le Blog BlookUp

Imprimez et transformez vos contenus digitaux, blogs et réseaux sociaux, en magnifiques livres papier !

Diwiyana's Dreamscape

Just another WordPress.com site

The Evolutionary Mind

Live a Mindful Life, and Stay Motivated

pseudopr1me

Just another WordPress.com site

Elder Mountain Dreaming

Dreamers Collective, Shaman's Dream Journeys, Soul Circles, Spiritual Artist Retreats, Art Residency, Traditional Plant Medicine & Food Gardens, 13 Moon Workstudy, Seasonal Sweats, Folk Healing, Dreaming Syncronistic-Symbolism

archbhoo

Just another WordPress.com site

Memnison Journal

Jim Rittenhouse's semidaily journal of news, commentary and reports

Under the influence!

Myths, legends, folklore and tales from around the world

archaeologythimbleful

...in small doses

AFRICAN HOMAGE

CONTEMPORARY ART GALLERY

peiraieus

A Mental Repository

My Blog

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Hidalgo & Suárez - Estudio de Historia y Genealogía

Genealogista profesional en España - Professional genealogist in Spain - Généalogiste professionnel en Espagne

If It Happened Yesterday, It's History

History, Art, Film, Music and more....

Virginia Views

Country Living for Beginners

Varina's Moon Rising

To Strive, To Seek, To Find, And Not To Yield

uerbavolant

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

ArchaeoFox: Exploring the World Through the Past

Follow the research of an Archaeology Phd student over the next four years: The things he discovers, the places it brings and the people he meets along the way. (Site spelling variations; Arceofox archeofox archeryfox)

Rafael Tenório

Jornalista | Escritor | Redator

hipmonkey

He Come Groovin' Up Slowly

A Closer Look

Simple Pleasures

Visual Poetry, Photography and Quotes

SFoxWriting.com

Something For Everyone's Needs

joeseeberblog

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

My Blog

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

The Neighborhood

Society online's creative conscious.