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.
Tag Archive: wine
Archaeology and Science annual: the Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, the last & most formidable frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B:
For the past 65 years since Michael Ventris first deciphered Linear B, one phenomenon has eluded historical linguists and philologists. This is the supersyllabogram, which is always a single syllabogram, being the first syllabogram, i.e. the first syllable of a particular Mycenaean word in any one or more of the major economic sectors of the Mycenaean economy: agriculture, military, textiles and the vessels and pottery sector, along with a few religious supersyllabograms. Supersyllabograms are always independent; they always stand alone on extant Linear. My discovery, isolation and classification of supersyllabograms represents the final frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B. Some 800 tablets from Knossos alone contain primarily supersyllabograms, with a subset of these incised with supersyllabograms and nothing else. It is difficult to decipher the former, and impossible to decipher the latter without fully accounting for the presence of supersyllabograms. The decipherment of supersyllabograms accounts for the last and most difficult remaining 10 % of Mycenaean Linear B to be deciphered.
You may also download “The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B” here:
This article is 35 pages long (pp. 73-108) in a 29 cm. x 22 cm. format, which is far oversized compared with the standard north American format for research journals (ca. 20 cm. vertical), meaning that if it had been published in the standard north American format, it would have run to some 50 pp., which is the size of a small book.
The Editorial Board consists of 21 peer reviewers, all of them matriculated professors and researchers at the Ph.D. level or higher, from Ancona, Belgrade, Belgium, Bologna, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A., Moscow, Münich, Philadelphia, U.S.A., Rome, Warsaw & Trieste. Every author must pass muster with the majority of these peer reviewers if his or her article is to be published in Archaeology and Science. That is one tall hurdle to overcome.
Note also that I am ranked in the top 0.5 % of all researchers and publishers on academia.edu
9 new Minoan Linear A words under U-WI, all of but 1 of which are probably of proto-Greek origin:
The 9 new Minoan Linear A words under U-WI are all probably of proto-Greek origin. As for those terms beginning with the syllabograms WA & WI, I have come to the conclusion that they all begin with digamma, meaning that digamma is even more common in Minoan Linear A than it is in Mycenaean Linear B. If we take into account that every last one of the Minoan Linear A words beginning with digamma would appear without digamma in Mycenaean Linear A, they all are equivalent to their Mycenaean Linear B and ancient Greek counterparts (the latter having dropped digamma for good). For instance,  TERA is almost certainly the ancient volcanic island of Thera, now Santorini, while  WAJA is equivalent to archaic Greek aia = earth, land and  WIJA is fem. pl. = arrows. The only word I have been unable to satisfactorily decipher is , of which I was able to decipher the first 2 syllabograms. You have to read the table to see my translation.
With this, we have come full circle to the end of our remarkable journey towards the decipherment of Minoan Linear A. Now that I have deciphered every last word I believe is of proto-Greek, proto-Hebrew, proto-Semitic or proto-Scythian origin, I have reached a cumulative grand TOTAL of 62 new Minoan Linear A words, expanding my original Minoan Linear A Glossary of 107 words = 21.5% of the total extant Linear B lexicon of 510 terms by my arbitrary count to a TOTAL = 169 words = 33 % of the total Minoan Linear A lexicon, which is exactly the sum and percentage I had predicted! This amounts to what is demonstrably a workable decipherment of the Minoan language, including of its grammar, which had evaded me before. Now all I have to do is to decipher as many of the 27 supersyllabograms in Minoan Linear A, beyond the 9 I have already deciphered. Now that I am armed with 62 new Minoan Linear A words, I am quite sure that I shall be able to decipher quite a few more of the supersyllabograms, and with that goal accomplished, I shall have effectively and once and for all deciphered the Minoan language.
Illustrations of 5 Minoan Linear A tablets (Figures) in Archaeology and Science (2016): Above are 5 illustrations of some (not all) of the Minoan Linear A tablets, reduced to 620 pixels, as they will appear as Figures (with the Figure nos. assigned only to Figures 1 & 2, other Figure nos. not yet assigned) in my upcoming article, “Pylos Tablet Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris), the ‘Rosetta Stone’ for Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) vessels and pottery” in the prestigious international annual Archaeology and Science, Vol. 12 (2016) ISSN 1452-7448. This is to be the third major article in a row which I will see published in Archaeology and Science. This paper represents the first genuine breakthrough in the decipherment of Minoan Linear A vocabulary (not the language!) in the 116 years since the first Linear A tablets were unearthed by Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos in 1900.
Table of the distribution of 24 Supersyllabograms in Minoan Linear A by economic sector & sub-sector: Following is the Table of the 24 Supersyllabograms in Minoan Linear A by economic sector & sub-sector. It is clear from this table that the majority of supersyllabograms (12) in Minoan Linear A fall in the olive trees, olives and olive oil sub-sector of the agricultural sector of the Minoan economy, primarily in Haghia Triada, but also in Khania (Chania). The next most common sector is grains (barley & wheat) with 7, the third are vases and pottery and also wine with 5, the fourth is figs with 2 and the fifth are military (men as attendants to the king) and textiles with 1 SSYL each. The distribution of supersyllabograms in both Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B by economic sector is of the utmost importance. I shall need to cross-correlate the key economic sector-by-sector distribution of supersyllabograms in both syllabaries to verify whether or not the distribution of SSYLs in the one syllabary (Linear A) and the other (Linear B) is closely aligned or not. The alignment of supersyllabograms in each syllabary relative to the other will determine with greater accuracy which economic sectors are the most and which the least important in each language, Minoan and Mycenaean. This way, we can get a much better idea of how the key economic sectors are distributed, from most to least important, in each of the two societies, Minoan and post-Minoan Mycenaean. It is of the utmost important to understand that all of the supersyllabograms in both of these syllabaries must refer only to major economic terms in each sector and sub-sector. I shall explicitly compare the relative economic distribution of each society, the Minoan and Mycenaean in my upcoming article, Linear B tablet Pylos TA 641-1952 (Ventris) is the Mycenaean Linear B “Rosetta Stone” for Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada, in Vol. 16 (2016) of the prestigious international annual, Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) ISSN 1452-7448. The Table of 24 Supersyllabograms in Minoan Linear A by economic sector & sub-sector is to appear in this article. I have deciphered the following 8 supersyllabograms more or less successfully in Minoan Linear A: DA = dadumata = grain/wheat measurer? = Linear B sitokowo KA = kapa = follower or foot soldier, attendant to the king KI = kidata = to be accepted for delivery = Linear B dekesato OR kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis kiretana = (having been) delivered (past participle passive) = Linear B amoiyeto AND kireza = unit of measurement for figs, probably 1 basket AND kiro = owed = Linear B oporo = they owed NI = nipa3 (nipai) or nira2 (nirai) = figs = Linear B suza. But Mycenaean Linear B shares NI with Minoan Linear A, in spite of the fact that the Mycenaean word for figs is suza. PA = pa3ni (amphora for storing grain) + pa3nina = grain or wheat stored in an amphora RA ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine) SA sara2 (sarai) = small unit of measurement: dry approx. 1 kg., liquid approx. 1 litre TE = tereza = standard unit of usually liquid measurement, sometimes of dry measurement
Symbaloo/Google search ranks Minoan Linear A, Linear B, Knossos & Mycenae as fourth largest on the Internet: Since this is a Boolean AND search, if we omit sites dealing with only Minoan Linear A or only Mycenaean Linear B, which do not fulfill this requirement, our site ranks fourth. But since the site, Linear A and Linear B script: Britannica.com is a minor site, we actually rank third. Also, our PINTEREST board is ranked fifth (actually fourth). We have over 1.7 K Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B translations, photos, maps & images on our PINTEREST board, Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B, Progressive Grammar and Vocabulary. Click the banner to visit and join if you like!
Archaeology and Science, Glossary of 106 Minoan Linear A words deciphered with (reasonable) accuracy (the largest ever glossary of Linear A) accounting for 20 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms in Prof. John G. Younger’s Linear A texts in phonetic transcription = 510: This Glossary contains only Minoan Linear A terms which have been deciphered either with certainty or with a reasonable degree of certainty. It is more or less the version which will be published in my article slated for publication in Vol. 12 (2016), “Pylos tablet Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris), the ‘Rosetta Stone’ to Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) vessels and pottery” of the prestigious international annual, Archaeology and Science ISSN 1452-7448 (release date spring 2018). To be submitted by Nov. 15, 2016. KEY: Minoan Linear A words deciphered with certainty (90% - 100%) are in BOLD. Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a reasonable degree of certainty (75% - 85%) are in italics. All terms in Minoan Linear A and in Mycenaean Linear B have been Latinized for ease of access to persons not familiar with these syllabaries. adaro = barley = Linear B kirita adu = so much, so many, all (persons, things, esp. grain/wheat), referencing all accounts relevant to them. In the case of grains & wheat, adu would refer to all the “ bushel-like” units of wheat accounted for. In the case of the men measuring the wheat, it would appear that they are surveyors or comptrollers. Cf. Linear B, toso, tosa. adureza = unit of dry measurement (grain, wheat, barley, flour) aka = wineskin (two syllabograms overlaid) 5 akipiete = (in) common, shared, allotted, allotment = Cf. Linear B kekemena ktoina = small plot of land akii = garlic asasumaise = cattle-driver or shepherd = Linear B qoukoro -or- qorokota atare = figs overseer = Linear B opisuko 10 darida = large vase daropa = stirrup jar = Linear B karawere datara= grove of fig trees datu = olives See also qatidate = olive trees = Linear B erawa daweda = medium size amphora with two handles 15 dikise = a type of cloth = Linear B any number of types of cloth ditamana = dittany (medicinal herb) dumitatira2 (dumitatirai) = right or inner spindle wheel on one side of the distaff dureza = unit of measurement (unknown amount) jedi = man/men = Linear B atoroqo. 20 kanaka = saffron = Linear B kanako kapa = follower or (foot) solder = Linear B eqeta karopa3 (karopai) = kylix (with two handles & smaller than a pithos) kaudeta = to be distributed (fut. part. pass.) approx. = Linear B, epididato = having been distributed (aorist part. pass.) keda = cedar 25 kidata = to be accepted (for delivery to) = Linear B dekesato kidema*323na = type of vessel (truncated on HT 31) kidapa = (ash) wood, a type of wood. On Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01 kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis kiretana = (having been) delivered (past participle passive) = Linear B amoiyeto 30 kireza = unit of measurement for figs, probably 1 basket kiro = owed = Linear B oporo = they owed kukani = (deep) red wine Cf. Linear B wono mitowesa kuro = total kuruku = crocus 35 maru = wool (syllabograms superimposed) = Linear B mari/mare mitu = a type of cloth nasi = a type of cloth nere = larger amphora size nipa3 (nipai) or nira2 (nirai) = figs = Linear B suza 40 orada = rose pajare = in pay, hired = Linear B emito pazeqe = small handle-less cups = Linear B dipa anowe, dipa anowoto pimitatira2 (pimitatirai) = left or outer spindle wheel on one side of the distaff pitakase = harvested or field of = Linear B akoro 45 puko = tripod = Linear B tiripode qapa3 = qapai = large handle-less vase or amphora qatidate = olive trees See also datu = olives = Linear B erawo qareto = Linear B onato = “lease field” quqani = medium size or smaller amphora 50 ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine) rairi = lily reza = 1 standard unit of measurement sajamana = with handles = Linear B owowe sara2 (sarai) = small unit of measurement: dry approx. 1 kg., liquid approx. 1 litre 55 sata = a type of cloth sedina = celery supa3 (supai) = small cup = Linear B dipa mewiyo supu = very large amphora tarawita = terebinth tree 60 tejare = a type of cloth teki = small unit of measurement for wine @ 27 1/2 per tereza tereza = larger unit of liquid measurement (olive oil, wine) tesi = small unit of measurement tisa = description of pot or pottery = Linear B amotewiya/yo 65 udimi = a type of cloth uminase = harbour (cf. French “Le Havre”), famous Atlantic port in France usu = a type of cloth Eponyms: Adunitana Akaru 70 Asasumaise = name of cattle-driver or shepherd Asiyaka Dadumine Danekuti Daqera 75 Ikurina Kanajami Kosaiti Kukudara Kuramu 80 Kureju Makarita Mirutarare Qami*47nara Qetiradu 85 Sidate Sirumarita2 = Sirumaritai Tateikezare Tesudesekei Tidiate 90 Turunuseme Watumare Toponyms: Almost all the toponyms do not require decipherment as they are either identical or almost identical in Mycenaean Linear B: Akanu = Archanes (Crete) Dame Dawa (Haghia Triada) 95 Dikate = Mount Dikte Idaa = Mount Ida Idunesi Kudoni = Kydonia Kura 100 Meza (= Linear B Masa) Paito = Phaistos ( =Linear B) Qeka Radu = Lato (= Linear B Rato) Setoiya = Seteia (= Linear B) 105 Sukirita/Sukiriteija = Sybrita Uminase = Linear B Amnisos 106 Winadu = Linear B Inato COMMENTARY: This Glossary accounts for 20 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms. The principle of cross-correlative cohesion operates on the assumption that terms in Minoan Linear A vocabulary should reflect as closely and as faithfully as possible parallel terms in Mycenaean Greek vocabulary. In other words, the English translations of Minoan words in a Minoan Linear A Glossary such as this one should look as if they are English translations of Mycenaean Greek terms in a Linear B glossary. I have endeavoured to do my best to achieve this goal, but even the most rational and logical approach, such as I take, does not and cannot guarantee reciprocity between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B terms. It is precisely for this reason that I have had to devise a scale of relative accuracy for terms in this Linear A Glossary, as outlined in KEY at the top of it. The best and most reliable Linear B Lexicon is that by Chris Tselentis, Athens, Greece. If you wish to receive a copy of his Lexicon, please leave a comment in Comments, with some way for me to get in touch with you. Are there any words in Mycenaean Greek of putative Minoan origin? It should surely not strike us as so surprising that there are. After all, kidapa = ash? (Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01) Several Minoan Linear A words very likely survived into Mycenaean Linear B. The problem is, if they did, we do not know which ones did.... except perhaps kidapa, which has a distinctly Minoan feel to it. Cf. kidata = to be accepted (for delivery to) = Linear B dekesato
KEY POST: 2 vastly different decipherments of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada). Does either measure up? In this post we compare two vastly different decipherments of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada). The key question here can be posed in three different ways: 1. Does one of these two decipherments measure up significantly more than the other? 2. Does either measure up? 3. Does neither measure up? Here are the two decipherments, first that of Pavel Serafimov and Anton Perdih: and secondly, my own decipherment: According to option 3 above, it is of course possible that neither of these translations forms a faithful semantic and semiotic map of the original Linear A text (whatever it actually means). On the other hand, it is much more likely that option 1. above is applicable, namely that only one of the two decipherments at least approaches a faithful semantic and semiotic map of the original Linear A text , although we can never really know how faithfully until such time as Minoan Linear B is properly and fully deciphered. And that will not happen anytime soon, due to the extreme paucity of extant Linear B tablets and fragments (< 500), of which the vast majority are fragments, and thus ineffectual in providing any impetus to even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A. However, all is not lost. Far from it. There quite a few (almost) full intact Minoan Linear A tablets, all of which are very much more susceptible to contributing positively to at least a partial decipherment of Linear A. To date, the Linear A tablets which I have been able to decipher, more or less accurately, are HT 13, HT 14, (HT 17), HT 21, HT 31, HT 38, HT 91, HT 92, HT 94 and HT 132 (all from Haghia Triada) ZA 1 ZA 8 ZA 10 (Zakros) GO Wc 1 (Gournia) and the Troy spindle whorls I have also managed to decipher one or two words on several other tablets from Haghia Triada, Zakros and elsewhere, without however being able to decipher the remainder of the integral text, which utterly escapes me, and is therefore still to be considered undecipherable, at least for the time being. There is no telling whether or not either I myself or someone else will be able to decipher more words from the rest of these tablets or even some of the tablets entire in the near future. Only time will tell, but I believe the prospects are much better now than they were even a few months ago, i.e. prior to May 2016, when I embarked on the exciting journey to decipher as much of Minoan Linear A as I could. It is no small achievement, I believe, for me to have been able to decipher at least the 12 Linear A tablets listed above, if indeed my decipherments approach cohesive accuracy, both internally and by means of cross-correlative regressive extrapolation from almost identical to similar Mycenaean Linear B tablets. With respect to my own decipherment of HT 13 (Haghia Triada) above, I wish to make the following highly pertinent observations. I leave it up to you to decide for yourself (yourselves) whether or not the assumptions I have meticulously made with specific reference to what appear to be derivational standard units of measurement in Minoan Linear A are in fact that. Immediately pursuant to my highly accurate decipherment of HT 31 (Haghia Triada) on vessels and pottery, for which Mycenaean Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) is the quasi Rosetta Stone (as I have re-iterated many times since that decipherment), I turned my attention to three words which appeared over and over on several Minoan Linear A tablets, these being reza, adureza & tereza. Philologists such as Andras Zeke of the Minoan Language Blog had previously and consistently “deciphered” these three terms as being toponyms or place names, but I was immediately suspicious of such an interpretation, given that both adureza and tereza have the prefixes adu and te prepended to what strikingly appears to be their own root, reza. Subsequent research revealed two more terms most likely derived from the root, reza = the standard unit of linear measurement in Minoan Linear A (as far as I can tell... more on this to come). These are dureza and kireza. So the total number of terms relative to measurement of large, not minute, quantities in Minoan Linear A appear to be 5. That is quite a tally. + units of measurement in Minoan Linear A: exact values unknown reza = standard unit of measurement (linear) adureza = dry unit of measurement (something like a “bushel”) dureza = unit of measurement (unknown)  kireza = dry measurement for figs (a basket)  tereza = liquid unit of measurement (something like “a gallon” or at the bare minimum “a litre”  NOTES:  While I have been utterly unable to surmise what standard unit of measurement dureza is supposed to represent, even the standard units for reza, adureza & tereza are mere approximations. For more on this see the concluding paragraph of this post.  While I am virtually certain that kireza is the standard unit for the measurement of a basket of figs, this still begs the question, what size is the basket? At any rate, it is pretty obvious that the basket size cannot be larger than can reasonably be carried on one shoulder, since that is the way baskets are carried in practically every culture, ancient or modern. So in this case, the approximation for the standard unit of measurement figs, kireza, is considerably more accurate than all of the others.  Obviously, in light of  above, my guesstimates for the standard units of dry and wet measurement (adureza and tereza respectively) are just that, and nothing more. Now if we compare the variables in the prefixes to the root, reza (adu, du, ki & te) with the similar practice of suffixes appended to word roots in Mycenaean Linear B, which is the direct opposite practice we have just propounded for Minoan Linear A, we nevertheless discover that the same level of consistency and coherence applies equally to both languages, as clearly illustrated by the following table, in which the prefixes listed above for Minoan Linear A appear at the end, preceded by no fewer than three roots (which are invariable) and appear in front of highly variable suffixes in Mycenaean Linear B. The roots are, respectively, raw, which references anything to do with people, tri, which references anything related to the number 3 and wana, which references any connotation of kingship or royalty in Mycenaean Greek. While the practices for affixing are appositive in Minoan Linear A (which prepends affixes to the root) and in Mycenaean Linear B (which appends suffixes to the root or stem), the procedure the two languages follows is one and the same, flipped on its head either way you view it, i.e. from the perspective of Mycenaean Linear B or vice versa, from that of Minoan Linear A. The underlying principle which defines this procedure is the cognitive frame, as propounded by my colleague and friend, Eugenio R. Luján. So let us simply call the procedure (whether from the perspective of Minoan Linear or its opposite in Mycenaean Linear B) just that, the cognitive frame, which is also the template for the procedure, actually proceeding forward in both languages, each in its own way. Either way, the procedure works like a charm. As Eugenio R. Luján so succinctly summarizes it in his article, “Semantic Maps and Word Formation: Agents, Instruments, and Related Semantic Roles”, in Linguistic Discovery (Dartmouth College), Vol 8, Issue 1, 2010. pp. 162-175, and I quote: ... The methodology of semantic maps has been applied mainly to the analysis of grammatical morphemes (affixes and adpositions) pg. 162 and again, Previous work on semantic maps has shown how the polysemy of grammatical morphemes is not random, but structured according to underlying principles.... Although the semantic map methodology has not been applied to the analysis of word formation patterns, there is no reason to suppose that derivational morphemes behave differently from grammatical morphemes. In fact, taking into account the findings of the intensive work done in the field of grammaticalization in the last thirty years or so, we know now that lexical and grammatical morphemes constitute a continuum, and their meanings are organized in the same way—inside a cognitive frame,... pg. 163 and most significantly, In contrast to the lexicon, the number of derivational morphemes and word formation patterns in any given language is limited. pg. 163. I wish to lay particular stress on this last observation by Eugenio R. Luján, because he is right on the money. In terms of the way I have expounded my own explanation of how the procedure of the cognitive frame works, as I see it, what he is actually saying here is this: the derivational morphemes (i.e. the prefixes in Minoan Linear A and the suffixes in Mycenaean Linear B) is limited, and in fact very limited in comparison with the orthographic and grammatical lexicon in either language, or for that matter, in any language, ancient or modern. All of this brings us full circle back to my own original assumption, namely, that adureza, dureza, kireza and tereza are all derivational morphemes of reza in Minoan Linear A and that the suffixes appended to the roots raw, tri and wana in Mycenaean Linear B are also derivational morphemes. The gravest problem with the decipherment of HT 13 (Haghia Triada) advanced by Pavel Serafimov and Anton Perdih is that it does not take the cognitive frame or map of derivational morphemes into account at all. So instead, the authors advance entirely different meanings for each of these terms (reza, adureza, dureza, kireza & tereza), entirely oblivious to the the fact that they all share the same root, reza. This factor alone throws profound doubt on their decipherment. On the other hand, my own decipherment of HT 13 (Haghia Triada) takes the procedure of the cognitive frame or map of derivational morphemes fully into account, with the very same procedure applied to derivational morphemes in Mycenaean Linear B, though in the opposite direction). For the sake of consistency, let us refer to the the cognitive frame or map of derivational morphemes in Minoan Linear A as regressive, given that the variables (the prefixes, adureza, dureza, kireza & tereza) precede the root, reza, and the same frame as progressive in Mycenaean Linear B, in light of the fact that the root or stem is followed by the variable suffixes (derivational morphemes). Be it as it may, prefixes and suffixes are both classed under the umbrella term, affixes, and again, I repeat, the procedure is the same either way. An affix is an affix is an affix, whether or not it comes first (prefix) or last (suffix). For this reason alone I am convinced that my decipherment of HT 13 is on the right track, even if it is not totally accurate... which it cannot be anyway, in light of the fact that the standard units of measurement for large quantities in Minoan Linear A (reza, adureza, dureza, kireza and tereza) will never be known with any measure of accuracy, given that we can have no idea whatsoever that the “standard” units for anything in either Minoan Linear A or Mycenaean Linear B can ever be really determined. The farther we as philologists or historical linguists go back diachronistically in the historical timeline, the less determinable are units of measurement or, for that matter, different kinds of textiles or pottery, few of which we can know with any measure of certainty either in Minoan Linear A or Mycenaean Linear B.
Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) & wine: I was previously unable to decipher Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) which deals with wine, since the words kaudeta, kuzini and dasi eluded me. However, upon re-examination of this tab let, I have concluded that kaudeta just may mean “to be distributed”. Given that other Minoan Linear A terms ending in “ta” which I have already deciphered appear to be future participles passive, I am assuming the same for kaudeta. This means that kaudeta is not an exact equivalent of Mycenaean Linear B epididato, which is an aorist participle passive. As for kuzini, there is a distinct possibility this is a type of wine, given the context of this tablet. Finally, while dasi eluded me before (even though I found it on another Linear A tablet), this time round I find myself in a better position to decipher it more or less accurately. This is because on this tablet (HT 13) the word appears right in front of the ideogram for “scales”. So it seems as though it either means “scales” or “weight”. At least the possibility is not out of the question. Idunesi is apparently Minoan Linear A for Mycenaean Linear B Amnisos. These three words bring the total number of Linear B terms I have managed to decipher, more or less accurately, to 133.
Minoan Linear A tablet HT 17 (Haghia Triada) & ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine): Close examination of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 17 (Haghia Triada), on which 38 units of wine + the supersyllabogram TE = tereza, which is the standard unit for liquid measurement in Minoan Linear A, appears ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine), reveals that this total (38) would amount to something in the order of 190 litres of wine, which is a pretty substantial amount. An equally close look at the heading of this tablet, the illustration of the wine magazines at Knossos, would seem to validate our findings. All we need to do is compare the amount of 190 litres or so on this tablet with the sizes of the 11 amphorae in this magazine to get a fair idea of which of these 11 amphorae is most likely to contain 190 litres or so. That is the one which I have flagged. I cannot be sure whether that amphora is the closest in size to 190 litres or so, because I have never had occasion to fill any amphora of any size with wine. Perhaps one of our archaeologist friends can carry out this experiment (or may have already done so for a certain amount of litre-like units of measurement for amphorae). Such a person would be in a solid position to enlighten us on this account. I am thinking, for instance, of our archaeologist colleague Rita Roberts, who may be willing to fill a few small amphorae with 190 litres of water until she finds the one that does not spill over... if she can find enough small amphorae to carry out such an experiment. Just a thought. Caveat: as is the usual case, we can never be sure what the standard liquid unit of measurement for wine or other liquids was in Minoan or Mycenaean times, particularly at Knossos, but this approximation will do. This is term 105 I have deciphered, more or less accurately in Minoan Linear A. Since I am reasonably confident of this definition, I am assigning it a scalar value of 60% +. For the table of standard dry and liquid units of measurement in Mycenaean Linear B by Andras Zeke, click on the figure below:
Mycenaean Linear B tablet KN 160a J j 11 as a template for Minoan Linear A large unit of liquid measurement, tereza: Mycenaean Linear B tablet KN 160a J j 11 serves as a useful template for Minoan Linear A large unit of liquid measurement, tereza, which was one of the very first words I deciphered with reasonable accuracy back in May 2016. Moreover, the supersyllabogram DI following the ideogram (ID) for “wine” specifically references dipa, the Mycenaean word for “cup”, which in turn appears as supa3 (supai) for a small cup (300 of them) and pazeqe for a small cup without handles (3,000 of them) on Linear A tablet HT 31, which we have already translated in its entirety. In addition, this particular Mycenaean Linear B tablet on wines is information-rich.
Linear A tablets Zakros ZA 11 & ZA 15 with wine adding up to same amounts (twice!) on both tablets: Linear A tablets Zakros ZA 11 & ZA 15 apparently reference two different types of wine adding up to the exact same amounts on both tablets. On ZA 11 we have kana and on ZA 15 kadi. But the passingly strange thing about these two tablets is that the totals for kana on ZA 11 & kadi on ZA 15 are exactly the same (3). Not only that, the grand total for all of the items mentioned on both of these tablets also adds up to the exact same amount (78)! This in spite of the fact that ZA 11 is loaded with text, whereas ZA 15 contains no text whatsoever apart from the name of the wine = kadi, and its total = 3 + the grand total, kuro = 78. Upon re-examination of Zakros ZA 11, I also just happened to notice that the first word apparently denoting a type of wine, kunasa (RECTO), which I previously defined as possibly meaning “honey wine” has to its immediate left the logogram for “gold” (at least that is what it means in Linear B, so I have little doubt that it cannot mean anything else in Linear A). Now since honey wine is obviously gold in colour, this additional bit of information tends to confirm, albeit not very strongly, that kunasa does mean “honey wine”. But this still leaves us frustrated with dilemma, why are there two different words for what appear to be wine types on ZA 11 & ZA 15? This one stumped me for a very long time. No matter how I wracked my brains, I could not extricate myself from the apparent impossibility that two different words existed for the same type of wine, which would very likely have to be a fine quality wine, given that there are only 3 of each type, or alternatively that each word referenced a different type of fine wine.. But as it turns out, I was entirely on the wrong track. Notice that kana and kadi both begin with the same syllabogram, KA. Now this is truly odd, if the two words both designate a kind of fine wine. In Mycenaean Linear B, no such distinctions are ever made. So I simply could not accept this interpretation. What alternatives was I left with? Finally, the solution hit me right between the eyes. It would appear that kana refers to the first item in a list, and kadi to the next in a series. So these are the meanings I have assigned to each in turn: kana = first (in a series) and kadi = next. It is highly unlikely that kana = first and kadi = second, because in almost all languages the numbers 1 & 2 are distinctly different. So I assume that the same scenario obtains with Minoan Linear A.
Fresco, The Cup Bearers, Knossos & Minoan Linear A tablet, Zakros = sukini = fine wine # 2: This Minoan Linear A tablet from Zakros appears to confirm my initial decipherment of sukini = fine wine. And here it is in facsimile:
Minoan Linear A tablet from Akrotiri (no. 36) undecipherable: This Minoan Linear A tablet from Akrotiri (no. 36) is so badly damaged it is undecipherable. I would like to believe that the word on the second join  is rutemuda, but there is simply no way of telling, as it is left-truncated. It is questionable whether the first syllabogram in  is indeed RU, which is why I have appended a question mark to. Still, this is such a justly famous Minoan Linear A tablet, I felt I would have done it an injustice not to post it.
Yet another Minoan Linear A tablet with 3 words I have already deciphered: Here you see yet another Minoan Linear A tablet which features not just 1, but 3 Minoan Linear A words I h ave previously deciphered. These are adu = “prefix for measurement”, daweda = “medium size amphora” (see illustration below) and kukani = “deep red wine”. It is gratifying to discover that 3 words I have recently deciphered appear on a second Linear A tablet. It is wide open to speculation whether or not this confirms my decipherments. Still, a second tablet can do no harm to our cause.
Minoan Linear A tablet from Zakros, sukini = a type of fine wine no. 40: Here we see the famous Cup Bearers fresco from Knossos, which I myself was thrilled to see myself on May 2, 2012, when I visited the site. Minoan Linear A tablet from Zakros deals with sukini = a type of fine wine. This is the fortieth Minoan Linear A term I have deciphered to date.
What are the current prospects for deciphering Minoan Linear A? Dismal but... As historical research on Minoan Linear A has demonstrated over and over, every attempt by philologists and historical linguists specializing in Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B to decipher Linear A over the past 116 years has met with failure. Though some, like Sam Connolly, have claimed success The Minoan language has remained a sealed mystery. Though I have brought all my intellectual resources to bear on the painful struggle to decipher Minoan Linear A, I too have made little headway. But that is not to say I have not made any at all. Still, the only words I have been able to decipher with any accuracy at all are those which are directly linked with ideograms. These ideograms happen to turn up almost exclusively on Linear A tablets dealing with vessels and wine, with little else to show in the other sectors of the Minoan economy. Moreover, I have found myself having to face the unsatisfactory prospect of having to “decipher” many Minoan words much less accurately than I would have hoped to. This usually happens because there is only one word to be found on only one tablet in Linear A containing that word in conjunction with an ideogram. One of these terms is qareto on Linear B tablet HT 132 (Haghia Triada), the only Minoan word prepended to the syllabogram for sheep. Now, in Mycenaean Linear B, there exist a number of single syllabograms preceding the ideograms for sheep, rams or ewes. Each of these syllabograms, which I have definitively defined as supersyllabograms (2014-2016), is the first syllabogram or first syllable of a Mycenaean Greek word. Two of these supersyllabograms (SSYLs) predominate in the sheep sub-sector of the agricultural sector of the Minoan/Mycenaean economy, outstripping all the others by a very considerable margin. These are the supersyllabograms O = onato = “lease field” and KI = kitimena = “a plot of land”. There are scores and scores of Linear B tablets directly dealing with sheep, which contain either of these two supersyllabograms. The problem is that there is only one word, qareto, on only one tablet in Minoan Linear A dealing with sheep, which does not leave us with much wiggle room at all. However, since the Mycenaean Greek words onato and kitimena appear with the ideograms for sheep, rams or ewes far more often than any other supersyllabogram, I have concluded that it is safe to assume that qareto in Minoan Linear A might be one or the other. But this state of affairs simply won’t do, since we can never know which one of the two it is, if indeed it is one of these two words for a specific type of field in Minoan Linear A. This confusion is compounded the fact that there are four other words naming specific types of fields in Mycenaean Linear B, arura or kama = unit of land (cf. metric, hectare), kekemina/no (adj.) = referring to common land and koto(i)na/no = plot of land, a synonym of kikimena. This brings the total number of specific terms relating to fields to six, making it impossible to accurately define qareto in Minoan Linear B. But it is not all that hopeless. If we cannot define qareto at the level of specificity allowed for in Mycenaean Linear B, we can still decipher it at the generic level of “field”, of which all 6 of the aforementioned are subsets. We are hedging our bets. While we suspect qareto is possibly some specific kind of field, we can safely say that it definitely is a field at the generic level, since all 6 types of fields found in Mycenaean Greek are subsumed under the notion of “field”. So qareto can be said to be pretty much synonymous with akoro. But that is as far as we can go. This is just one example of any number of Minoan Linear A words which allow for a more or less satisfactory decipherment, but which defy a truly accurate translation. I have compiled a list of terms in the agricultural, religious and vessels (pottery) sectors of the Mycenaean Linear A followed by another in Minoan Linear A. Both are as exhaustive as I could make them. I culled all of the Mycenaean Linear B words from Chris Tselentis’ comprehensive Linear B Lexicon, and all of the Minoan Linear A words from all of the relevant Linear A tablets on Prof. John G. Younger’s excellent site, Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription & Commentary (Click on the banner below to visit): Of course, there is no way of knowing for sure that I have accounted for all possible terms relevant to the potential decipherment of Minoan Linear A. In addition, so many Minoan words on the Linear A tablets are either left- or right-truncated that I simply had to eliminate them, given that it is an exercise in futility to attempt to decipher these. The number of Linear B terms I have compiled amounts to a total of 64, while that of Linear A words to 62. This means that if we take all possible permutations into account, we end up with the figure of 3,968, or let us us say, 4,000 give or take. The implications of this figure are staggering. It means that if we are going to be able ever to decipher Minoan Linear A, we have to take into account at least 4,000 possible variations in determining the exact meaning of almost all of the Minoan words in the Linear A list. A hopeless endeavour? ... not quite. As I have pointed out above, the presence of ideograms directly associated with quite a few Minoan words makes the potentiality for deciphering those terms rather more promising. So where we have been able to decipher these terms more or less accurately, we can eliminate them from the list of Minoan Linear A words. But even so doing scarcely makes a dent in the number of permutations left in the remaining words, which is almost all of them. We are still left with the well nigh impossible task of aligning just slightly short of 64 Mycenaean Linear B terms with just slightly fewer than 62 Minoan words. The permutations still run to over 3,500. Given this depressing situation, the prospects for deciphering the remainder of the words in the Linear A list remain all but hopeless. The vast bulk of the Minoan language still remains a sealed tomb in a pyramid, from which I have managed to rob a few artifacts (i.e. the words I have managed to decipher, more or less). Here are the two lists, Mycenaean Linear B (all translated) first, Minoan Linear A second. The Mycenaean Linear B words I have successfully deciphered (more or less accurately) in Minoan Linear A are in bold in both lists. The Minoan Linear A words which I expect are susceptible to decipherment are in italics. After each of the Minoan Linear A words the total number of its occurrences on each of the Linear A tablets on which it appears is provided.. Linear B olives & olive oil, wheat and barley, toponyms, vases & wine versus Linear A: Linear B: Grain/wheat/barley: akoro = field akotono = without plot of land apudosi = delivery arura = unit of land (cf. metric, hectare) kama = unit of land kapo = fruit kekemina/no (adj.) = referring to common land kirita = barley kitimena = plot of land koria2dana koriyadana = coriander koto(i)na/no = plot of land kanako = saffron, crocus kuparo = cyperus meno = month mereuro = flour onato = lease field ono (pl.) = payment, debt pasi/pasa (masc./fem.) = all rino = linen, flax sasama = sesame serino = celery sito = wheat weto = this year/this year’s crop? zawete = this year(’s) Olive oil: erawa = olive tree erawo = essential (olive) oil kapo = fruit meno = month pasi/pasa (masc./fem.) = all weto = this year/this year’s crop? zawete = this year(’s) Religious: anemoiyerea = Priestess of the Winds diwiyo =dedicated to Zeus diuya/diwiya = priestess of Zeus diuyayo = sanctuary diwiyo = sanctuary dedicated to Zeus dosomo (pl.) = offerings iyereu = priest iyeria (iyerea) = priestess iyero = sacred pasi/pasa (masc./fem.) = all pasiteoi = to all the gods qeteo = debt to the gods sapaketeriya/yo = for ritual slaughter teo = god wanakatero temeno = palace shrine Sheep: akoro Toponyms: Aminiso = Amnisos Kerasiyo/Kerasiya = Cretan Paito = Phaistos Vases: anowe/anowoto = without handles (vase, cup) aporewe = amphora apudosi = delivery dipa = cup ipono = (cooking) pot kakiya/yo = made of copper kako = copper karawere = stirrup jar kuruso = gold kurusupa3 = tripod amphora newo = new pasi/pasa (masc./fem.) = all pia2ra/piyera3 = a kind of pot qetorowe = with four handles (pot) rewotereyo = cauldron soro = funereal urn (for ashes) tiripo = tripod = Linear A: puko udoro = water flask Wine: apudosi = delivery kapo = fruit meri = honey mita = mint newo = new parayo = old, vintage/wine wono = wine Linear A: Grain/wheat/barley: 47nuraya (grain/wheat) adaro (grain/wheat) 40 apu2nadu (grain/wheat) 5 + (olive oil) 3 arudara (grain/wheat) 5 ase + PA (grain/wheat) dadumata (grain/wheat) dame (grain/wheat) x 2 20 & 74 dau49 (grain/wheat) + PA 20 ika (grain/wheat) x 2 kiritana (grain/wheat) 60 kirita3 = kiritai +QE DI (grain/wheat) iqa118 (grain/wheat) kitai (grain/wheat) kunisu (grain/wheat) 20 kupaya (grain/wheat) 16 + 40 pa3ni = paini + PA (grain/wheat) 33 pa3nina = painina + RE + SE (grain/wheat) 12 pase + QE (grain/wheat) 20 pitakase + TE (grain/wheat) 161 pura2 = purai (grain/wheat) 5 qaqaru + PA (grain/wheat) 5 sara2 (alone) sara2 = sarai (grain/wheat) x 6 @ 10 1 20 20 26 41 976! 10 2 tereza? simita (grain/wheat) 5 sirumarita2 = sirumaritai (grain/wheat) 1 = Linear B: qeteo = debt to the gods sise (grain/wheat) 16 turunuseme (grain/wheat) 10 = Linear B: pasiteoi u34si (grain/wheat) watumare +KU (grain/wheat) 12+ yaki + QE (grain/wheat) 5 (wine) 6 30 zu22di + QE (grain/wheat) 40 Olive Oil: datu (olive oil) 15 itaya +DI (olive oil) 10 kitai (olive oil) 1 kupa3 = kupai + U (olive oil) kirita2 = kiritai + (olive oil) + QE + DI 10 & alone pi34te (olive oil) 5 sara2 + DI (olive oil) tereza? saro (olive oil) saru (olive oil) 16 40 sise + KI (olive oil) 1 + sise + MI (olive oil) 6 + sise + TU (olive tree) 3? teri + MI (olive oil) x 2 5 + widina + DI (olive oil) 3 yedi + KI (olive oil) 1 Sheep: qareto (sheep) = field (akoro,kama etc.) Toponyms: Dikate = Mount Dikte Idaa = Mount Ida Kireta2 (Kiretai) Kudoni = Kydonia Meza (=Linear B Masa) Paito = Phaistos (=Linear B) Qeka Radu = Lato (=Linear B Rato)) Setoiya = Seteia (=Linear B) Sukirita = Sybrita Winadu = Inatos (Linear B Winato) Vases: darida (vase) 2 (LARGE!) daropa (vase) = Linear B karaeriyou (gen.) stirrup jar? Wine: kura (wine) 5 (large amount) = Linear B: woinos? RA164aTI (wine) 38 (medium amount) sukini yaki + QE (grain/wheat) 5 (wine) 6 (medium amount) of Linear B: woinos no. of permutations and combinations = 64 x 62 = 3968
2 new Minoan Linear A words for “wine”, aka = “wine skin” & kukani = “red” nos. 31 & 32: On these 2 Linear A tablets, the first of unknown provenance to me, and the second Linear A tablet Haghia Triada HT 38, there appear two words of interest, the first being the logogram, aka = “wine skin” and the second, kukani “red”. The latter corresponds roughly to the Mycenaean Greek Linear A words erutara =“red” or mitowesa = “deep red”. It could also mean “honey”, for “honey wine”, but I am less inclined to that interpretation. Red wine was much more common than honey wine in Minoan and Mycenaean Greece, just as it is today. P.S. As long as we stick to Linear A tablets dealing either with vessels or with wine, we can usually decipher at least part of them. It is when we try to pass beyond the bounds of these two commodities that we run into real trouble. It is of course intriguing that vessels and wine are intimately related, and in fact they often appear on the same tablet in Minoan Linear A, just as they do in Mycenaean Linear B.
Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11, kana = Linear B meri = honey + wine = honey wine? no. 28: By cross-correlating Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11, I have intuited that the word kana on the VERSO may possibly mean “honey”, and since it is followed by the ideogram for “wine”, which is precisely the same formula we find on Linear B tablet Pylos TA Un 718 L for “honey wine” (See Zakros ZA 11 above for the comparison), I believe I may be onto something here. But there is a bit of a problem. The word, ?kunasa appears on the RECTO, also immediately followed by the ideogram for “wine”. This throws a wrench into the decipherment. However, I am more inclined to the former word, kana, because it is followed by a tabulation of the number of amphorae? of (honey?) wine = 3. The word ?kunasa on the RECTO may itself in fact mean “wine”... or vice versa. How confusing! Take your choice! Following Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11 is the Mycenaean Linear B fragment KN 718, which clearly illustrates that a female slave (doera) is bringing honey (meri) to be poured into an amphora to her mistress. What with our reaching Minoan word no. 28, we have almost doubled our Linear A vocabulary from 16 a week ago.
Translation of most of the RECTO of Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada): A partial decipherment of the recto side of Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) holds up quite well under scrutiny. I was able to decipher lines 1, 3 and 4 with reasonable accuracy, the tail end of 5.(idu) and the beginning of 6. (nesi) to extract the toponyms (place names) Kydonia and Idunesi. To date, this is the most complete translation I have managed of a Linear A tablet. One thing that stood out was the total amount of teki = 27 1/2, which would appear to be the amount of teki (plural) per tereza, but I cannot be sure. If this is the case, then teki is a small measurement of wine = 27 1/2 per tereza. I suspect that this small standard amount of wine would be the amount measured out in a large kylix or small wine amphora to be served at a palace feast. But this only the case if teki is a small unit of measurement. The VERSO almost completely escapes me, at least for now. Perhaps some day... But for now I am satisfied with my translation of the RECTO.