The path towards a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A: a rational approach: PART A

Before May 2016, I would never have even imagined or dared to make the slightest effort to try to decipher Minoan Linear A, even partially. After all, no one in the past 116 years since Sir Arthur Evans began excavating the site of Knossos, unearthing thousands of Mycenaean Linear A tablets and fragments, and a couple of hundred Minoan Linear A tablets and fragments (mostly the latter), no one has even come close to deciphering Minoan Linear, in spite of the fact that quite a few people have valiantly tried, without any real success. Among those who have claimed to have successfully deciphered Linear A, we may count:

Sam Connolly, with his book:

Where he claims, “Has the lost ancient language behind Linear A finally been identified? Read this book and judge for yourself”.

Stuart L. Harris, who has just published his book (2016):

basing his decipherment on the notion that Minoan Linear A is somehow related to Finnish, an idea which I myself once entertained, but swiftly dismissed,, having scanned through at least 25 Finnish words which should have matched up with at least 150 Minoan Linear A words. Not a single one did. So much for Finnish. I was finished with it.

and Gretchen Leonhardt

who bases her decipherments of Minoan Linear A tablets on the ludicrous notion that Minoan Linear A is closely related to Japanese! That is a real stretch of the imagination, in light of the fact that the two languages could not be more distant or remote in any manner of speaking. But this is hardly surprising, given that her notions or, to put it bluntly, her hypothesis underlying her attempted decipherments of Mycenaean Linear B tablets is equally bizarre.

I wind up with this apropos observation drawn from Ms. Leonhardt’s site:

“If a Minoan version of a Rosetta Stone pops up . . , watch public interest rise tenfold. ‘Minoa-mania’ anyone?”. Glen Gordon, February 2007 Journey to Ancient Civilizations.

Which begs the question, who am I to dare claim that I have actually been able to decipher no fewer than 90 Minoan Linear A words

since I first ventured out on the perilous task of attempting such a risky undertaking. Before taking even a single step further, I wish to emphatically stress that I do not claim to be deciphering Minoan Linear A. Such a claim is exceedingly rash. What I claim is that I seem to be on track to a partial decipherment of the language, based on 5 principles of rational decipherment which will be enumerated in Part B. Still, how on earth did I manage to break through the apparently impenetrable firewall of Minoan Linear A? Here is how.

In early May 2016, as I was closely examining Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada),

which dealt exclusively with vessels and pottery, I was suddenly struck by a lightning flash. The tablet was cluttered with several ideograms of vessels, amphorae, kylixes and cups on which were superimposed with the actual Minoan Linear A words for the same. What a windfall! My next step - and this is critical - was to make the not so far-fetched assumption that this highly detailed tablet (actually the most intact of all extant Minoan Linear A tablets) was the magic key to opening the heavily reinforced door of Minoan Linear, previously locked as solid as a drum. But was there a way, however remote, for me to “prove”, by circumstantial evidence alone, that most, if not all, of the words this tablet actually were the correct terms for the vessels they purported to describe? There was, after all, no magical Rosetta Stone to rely on in order to break into the jail of Minoan Linear A. Or was there?

As every historical linguist specializing in ancient languages with any claim to expertise knows, the real Rosetta Stone was the magical key to the brilliant decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1822 by the French philologist, François Champellion

It is truly worth your while to read the aforementioned article in its entirety. It is a brilliant exposé of Monsieur Champellion’s dexterous decipherment.

But is there any Rosetta Stone to assist in the decipherment of Haghia Triada tablet HT 31. Believe it or not, there is. Startling as it may seem, that Rosetta Stone is none other than the very first Mycenaean Linear B tablet deciphered by Michael Ventris in 1952, Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952. If you wish to be informed and enlightened on the remarkable decipherment of Pylos Py TA 641-1952, you can read all about it for yourself in my article, published in Vol. 10 (2014) of Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) ISSN 1452-7448

Archaeology and Science, Vol. 10 (2014), An Archaeologist's Translation of Pylos Tablet 641-1952. pp. 133-161, here:

It is precisely this article which opened the floodgates to my first steps towards the partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A. The question is, how? In this very article I introduced the General Theory of Supersyllabograms in Mycenaean Linear A (pp. 148-156). It is this very phenomenon, the supersyllabogram, which has come to be the ultimate key to unlocking the terminology of vessels and pottery in Minoan Linear A. Actually, I first introduced in great detail the General Theory of Supersyllabograms at the Third International Conference on Symbolism at The Pultusk Academy of the Humanities, on July 1 2015:

This ground-breaking talk, re-published by Koryvantes, is capped off with a comprehensive bibliography of 147 items serving as the prelude to my discovery of supersyllabograms in Mycenaean Linear B from 2013-2015.

How Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) serves as the Rosetta Stone to Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada):

Believe it or not, the running text of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) is strikingly alike that of Mycenaean Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris). So much so that the textual content of the former runs very close to being parallel with its Mycenaean Linear B counterpart. How can this be? A few preliminary observations are in order. First and foremost, Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) cannot be construed in any way as being equivalent to the Rosetta Stone. That is an absurd proposition. On the other hand, while the Rosetta stone displayed the same text in three different languages and in three different scripts (Demotic, Hieroglyphics and ancient Greek), the syllabary of Linear A tablet HT 31 (Haghia Triada) is almost identical to that of Mycenaean Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris). And that is what gives us the opportunity to jam our foot in the door of Minoan Linear A. There is not point fussing over whether or not the text of HT 31 is exactly parallel to that of Pylos Py TA 641, because ostensibly it is not! But, I repeat, the parallelisms running through both of these tablets are remarkable.

Allow me to illustrate the cross-correlative cohesion between the two tablets right from the outset, the very first line. At the very top of HT 31 we observe this word, puko, immediately to the left of the ideogram for “tripod”, which just happens to be identical in Minoan Linear A and in Mycenaean Linear B. Now the very first on Mycenaean Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) is tiripode, which means “tripod”. After a bit of intervening text, which reads as follows in translation, “Aigeus works on tripods of the Cretan style”, the ideogram for “tripod”, identical to the one on Haghia Triada, leaps to the for. The only difference between the disposition of the term for “tripod” on HT 31 and Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) is that there is no intervening text between the word for tripod, i.e. puko, on the former, whereas there is on the latter. But that is scarcely an impediment to the realization, indeed the revelation, that on HT 31 puko must mean exactly the same thing as tiripode on Pylos Py TA 641-1952. And it most certainly does. But, I hear you protesting, and with good reason, how can I be sure that this is the case? It just so happens that there is another Linear B tablet with the same word followed by the same ideogram, in exactly the same order as on HT 31, here:

The matter is clinched in the bud. The word puko in Minoan Linear A is indisputably the term for “tripod”, exactly parallel to its counterpart in Mycenaean Linear B, tiripode.

I had just knocked out the first brick from the Berlin Wall of Minoan Linear A. More was to come. Far more.

Continued in Part B.

Minoan Linear A tablet GO Wc 1 (Gournia) asasumaise = “cattle-driver”

Minoan Linear A tablet GO Wc 1 (Gournia) asasumaise = “cattle-driver”:

Even at first glance, from Minoan Linear A tablet GO Wc 1 (Gournia), sporting the word asasumaise, it appears very much like this word means “cattle-driver” or “shepherd (of cattle)”.  Of course, it is also possible that this is just the cattle-driver’s name. So I have to account for both possibilities. Nevertheless, I am inclined to lean strongly on “cattle-driver” or “shepherd (of cattle), if only for the reason that it is a rather long word, just as are its equivalents in Mycenaean Linear B, qoukoro & qoukota, as illustrated here:



This is the eighty-ninth (89) Minoan Linear A term I have deciphered, more or less accurately.

Linear B Lexicon R-Z by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A

Linear B Lexicon R-Z by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A:

As our final installment on the Linear B Lexicon by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A, here is section R-Z.



The terms I have extracted from his Lexicon are the most likely candidates for decipherment of new vocabulary I encounter in Minoan Linear A.

Linear B Lexicon O-Q by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A

Linear B Lexicon O-Q by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A:

Continuing with our instalments on the Linear B Lexicon by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A, here is section O-Q.



The terms I have extracted from his Lexicon are the most likely candidates for decipherment of new vocabulary I encounter in Minoan Linear A.

Linear B Lexicon K-N by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A

Linear B Lexicon K-N by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A:

Continuing with our instalments on the Linear B Lexicon by Chris Tselentis as a guide to deciphering Minoan Linear A, here is section K-N.



The terms I have extracted from his Lexicon are the most likely candidates for decipherment of new vocabulary I encounter in Minoan Linear A.

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 88 (Haghia Triada), ripe figs & fig gatherers in pay/hired: the next decisive step in the partial decipherment of Linear A

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 88 (Haghia Triada), ripe figs & fig gatherers in pay/hired: the next decisive step in the partial decipherment of Linear A




Minoan Linear A tablet HT 88 (Haghia Triada), which was quite out of my reach just a week ago, has now become accessible to decipherment. This is a direct result of the fact that I had already deciphered these words on this tablet, namely, reza (standard unit of measurement), kiro (owed) & datare (fig overseer). This outcome has for the first time facilitated the task of deciphering Linear A tablets in and of themselves which do not contain enough clues or indicators to trigger a plausible decipherment. Thus, I was able to extrapolate 2 news terms from this tablet alone.

kikina ostensibly means “purple” or, more accurately, “ripe” = Linear B popureyo.
pajare = “in pay” or “hired”  = Linear B emito.

This development may prove to be decisive, triggering a cascading domino effect, opening up preciously inaccessible vocabulary as a direct result of the 88 terms I have already managed to decipher, more or less accurately.

Here is an abbreviated version of Prof. John G. Younger’s version of HT 88:

Linear A tablet HT 123+124, kitai = scented olive oil? + saru = large olives + datu = small olives

Linear A tablet HT 123+124, kitai = scented olive oil? + saru = large olives + datu = small olives:



I have had to give a great deal of thought to the decipherment of this tablet, the contents of which have frustrated and eluded me for weeks. Finally, the light came on. Eureka! I figured it out. Well, almost... The first word I struggled to decipher on this tablet was kitai, which was and remains a stickler.  I have settled for “scented olive oil”, which seems to make sense in the context, although I really have no choice but to assign it a scalar value of < 50%. On the other hand, the next two words, saru & datu, seem much clearer. It makes a lot of sense to list different sizes of olive oil on a tablet, and it makes  just as much sense to list the large(r) ones before the small(er) ones. Hence, to my mind, saru = large olives and datu = small olives. These two terms can be assigned a scalar value of 60-75% (a reasonable degree of accuracy). The word kuro was one of the very first words I deciphered, and it has a perfect scalar value of 100%. It means what it says and says what it means.

Here is Andras Zeke’s restored version of HT 123+124 on the Minoan Language Blog:



These three (3) new terms constitute items 82-84 in my Glossary of Minoan Linear A words.

Kunisu, another Minoan Linear A word which might mean “bushel” or alternatively “emmer wheat/farro”

Kunisu, another Minoan Linear A word which might mean “bushel” or alternatively “emmer wheat/farro”:



Kunisu is yet another Minoan Linear A word which might mean “bushel” or alternatively “emmer wheat/farro”. I am uncertain whether this is the suitable term for “bushel” in Minoan Linear A or whether ase is. The former (kunisu) is masculine, indicating a large amount, and can be either singular or plural. The latter, ase, is probably feminine plural. Because kunisu denotes something large, as apparently all words ending with ultimate U in Minoan Linear A do, it may be the better candidate for “bushel”. But I am leaving my options open. One thing is certain. As Prof. John G. Younger points out in his Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, kunisu does not mean the same thing as Konoso in Mycenaean Linear B. Take a good look at the two words in their original syllabaries side by side at the bottom of the figure above. They do not even look alike. I am full agreement with Younger on this point.

This brings the total number of Minoan Linear A words we have deciphered more or less accurately to eighty-one (81).

The principle of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B & logical fallacies

The principle of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B & logical fallacies:

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 of approaches, 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 KEY reads as follows:

KEY:

Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a very high level of certainty (75-100%) are in BOLD.
Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a reasonable degree of certainty (60-75%) are in italics.
Minoan Linear A words for which the decipherment is uncertain (< 50%) are in plain text.

Now, according to the principle of cross-correlative cohesion between terms in Minoan Linear A and their (approximate) counterparts in Mycenaean Linear B, not only should the Minoan Linear A vocabulary exhibit an internal cohesion which appears to be parallel with the Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary with which it conceivably corresponds, but also this parallelism should make the cross-correlative or external cohesion between the Minoan Linear A and the Mycenaean Linear B appear even more closely knit. Examining the chart above, The principle of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary, it appears, at first glance, that the parallelism is intact. But appearances can be and usually are, deceptive. Unless any particular Minoan Linear A word which I have deciphered has a scalar value > 75%, meaning that it has been deciphered with a high level of certainty, the apparent parallelism between the Minoan Linear A word and its suppositious Mycenaean Linear B counterpart is just that, apparent. In the chart, while I have had to flag some of the less reliable Minoan Linear A decipherments with dotted lines -------> (a3, a4 & a7), other Minoan words have been successfully deciphered with a high degree of certainty (a1, a2, a8 & a10). But can one assume that the latter, those terms deciphered accurately, will de facto necessarily be exactly parallel with their Linear B counterparts? Not really. That all depends on whether or not their Linear B counterparts (b1 to b11 abc) have themselves been accurately deciphered. What can I possibly imply by that? I can hear you say, “I thought Mycenaean Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris et al. from1952 onward.” Yes, they did get it... almost all of it, but not all of it. While at least 90% of Mycenaean Greek words have been deciphered with a high degree of accuracy (> 75%), a considerable number have never been adequately deciphered.

To cite just a few (Latinized)from Chris Tselentis’ Linear B Lexicon, we have:

aeitito – not used?
akitito – untitled?
duma – official title?
Maka – Mother Earth?
opa – workshop?
outemi – without edges?
porodumate – family groups?
samara – monument, burial grounds?

In cases like this, it becomes virtually impossible to decipher any single Minoan word which might conceivably be parallel to any of the aforementioned Mycenaean Linear B doubtfuls, since the scalar degree of reliability in the latter (Linear B words) is clearly < 50%.

Moreover, while the Minoan Linear A words in the left column appear to be as rock-solid as their Linear B counterparts (a1, a2, a8 & a10) in the right column of the chart above, all falling within the ambit of a high degree of certainty (> 75%), I must still sound a note of caution. Who is to say for certain that I have teamed up the correct Minoan word in the left column with the clearly correct Mycenaean term in the right column? In all of these instances, it definitely looks like they all line up perfectly. But we can never really be sure. To summarize, I contend that cross-correlative parallelism between Linear A terms and their Linear B counterparts, however logical it may appear, may in fact be deceptive. Why so? Perhaps I am leaping to conclusions in one, some or even all of these apparently sound decipherments of Minoan words which seem to line up so neatly with their Mycenaean equivalents. The operative word is “seem”.

The inescapable pitfalls of logical fallacies:

In short, no matter how air-tight our inductive or deductive logic is, it is not necessarily always a done deal. We humans have a regrettable tendency to follow “lines of logic” which are not straight lines at all, and often not even circuitous ones. In fact, all too often they are broken lines or worse yet severed lines. This is why I have resorted to dotted lines (-------->) in all cases where the either the Minoan Linear A or the Mycenaean Linear B term is in some doubt, or far worse yet, both of them are. Fortunately, the Minoan Linear A words daropa, kanaka, pazeqe, puko and sedina are all almost certain (75%-100%), almost perfectly mirroring their Mycenaean Linear B equivalents kararewe, kanako, dipa anowe/dipa anowoto, tiripode and serino, all of which also fall in the 75%-100% range. But this almost air-tight parallelism is rare indeed in any attempt at cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B. Ergo the extreme delicacy of the task of deciphering any Minoan term, fraught as it is with vulnerabilities and loopholes.

Are there any Minoan Linear A words in Mycenaean Greek? Of course!

Consider the word kidapa on the third line of Mycenaean Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01:

which is certainly not an ancient Greek word, not in any ancient Greek dialect from the earliest, Mycenaean, to the latest, Attic and Hellenic. But if it is not Greek, then what on earth is it? Before we answer that question, let us review just a few other terms which appear both in the Minoan language and in Mycenaean Greek, as follows: sedina (Minoan) & serino (Mycenaean) = celery/orada (Minoan) & rodo (Mycenaean) = rose/araiwa (Minoan) & erawo (Mycenaean) = olive (oil) and finally kanaka (Minoan) & kanako (Mycenaean) = saffron. All of these terms are firmly deciphered in the Minoan language and fully translated in Mycenaean Greek, let alone in the later ancient Greek dialects. But none of them are Indo-European.

On another footing, it is notable that, in Minoan, a significant proportion of the terms we have managed to decipher to date, more or less accurately, begin with the letter K. Referencing our Glossary of 75 Minoan Linear A words, we find that at least 15/75 or 20% begin with K. This is rather striking, in light of the fact that a correspondingly large number of words in ancient Greek begin with K, even though the two languages are in no way related. In other words, since kidapa begins with K, that is another reason to conjecture that it might possibly be Minoan.

Finally, I feel obliged to make the observation, however transparent it may seem to some of us, that all languages, ancient and modern, inherit thousands upon thousands of words from ancestral languages, and in a great many cases, the words inherited are not even of the same class of language (for instance, Indo-European). English is notorious for this. While most of the hundreds of thousands of words in English which are not strictly English are Indo-European, having been lifted in droves from ancient Greek, Latin and French, great many are not Indo-European. Examples are: ketchup, chai (tea) from Sino-Tibetan; chile, poncho from Arawak (Andean) & anchovy and jingo from Basque, to cite a very few.

So if all languages, ancient or modern, can and do borrow vocabulary from previous languages not in in their class, then Mycenaean Greek, which is Indo-European, must also have done the same with respect to Minoan.

However, since I have been unable to find kidapa on any Minoan Linear A tablet or fragment, there is absolutely no way I can confirm it is Minoan. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have enumerated above, there stands a good chance that it may very well be Minoan. Thus, although I intend to add it and other bizarre and unaccountable words in Mycenaean Greek, which are clearly not of Indo-European origin, to my Glossary of Minoan Linear A words, I shall do so under the subtitle, “Words in Mycenaean Greek of putative Minoan origin”, but I shall not add any of these words to the total number of Minoan words I have already deciphered more or less accurately.

Finally, how did I come to the conclusion, tentative as it is, that kidapa may very well mean “ash”, even if it is not Minoan and even though it is certainly not Greek? It all boils down to the methodology I resort to over and over, namely, cross-correlative analysis. If the words for elm and willow respectively appear on lines 1. and 4., then it is reasonable to assume that kidapa on line 3. should also be a type of wood. Carrying this assumption one step further, we may reasonably deduce that the type of wood kidapa is supposed to be is supposed to be is also a species of hardwood, like the other two (elm and willow). Homer mentions ash as the preferred wood used for the construction of ships in the Iliad; so it is quite feasible that kidapa is indeed “ash”. But there is absolutely no way of verifying this assumption.

This tablet is held at the Ashmolean Museum, British Museum:

Undecipherable Minoan Linear A tablets, reduced to a muddy mess or mutilated

Undecipherable Minoan Linear A tablets, reduced to a muddy mess or mutilated:



Undecipherable Minoan Linear A tablets, reduced to a muddy mess or mutilated. Need I say more? A number of Mycenaean Linear B tablets were also reduced to a muddy slush just a few days after Sir Arthur Evans began excavating the Palace of Knossos in early 1900. They were exposed to rain, and rendered entirely useless. Sadly, they all had to be thrown away.

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) mostly translated, with 2 new words, Kaudeta (person’s name) & pa3ni (paini) = type of vase? nos. 74 & 75

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) mostly translated, with 2 new words, Kaudeta (person’s name) & pa3ni (paini) = type of vase? nos. 74 & 75



Most of the terms on Minoan Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada), apart from 2 new words, Kaudeta (person’s name) & pa3ni (paini) = type of vase?, have already been deciphered; so I have been able to translate most of this tablet, which is a first! We have certainly come a long way since we started deciphering Minoan Linear A a month ago, when our Glossary of Minoan Linear A had only 16 words in it. Now at 75, we have almost 5 times as many terms.  I shall display the full Glossary of 75 terms in the next post.

These two new words, Kaudeta and pa3ni (paini) are nos. 74 & 75 in a glossary in which I have managed to decipher 75 terms in Minoan Linear A, more or less accurately.

In the next post featuring the full Glossary of Minoan Linear A (75 terms), i shall explain the concept of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B.

Our new PINTEREST board, Minoan Linear A, Mycenaean Linear B: Progressive Grammar

Our new PINTEREST board, Minoan Linear A, Mycenaean Linear B: Progressive Grammar:

Our PINTEREST board, previously called Mycenaean Linear B: Progressive Grammar, has changed its name to Minoan Linear A, Mycenaean Linear B: Progressive Grammar:




to better reflect the new aims of our primary site, Linear B, Knossos & Mycenae.

We cordially invite you to join our new PINTEREST board by clicking on its logo above, where you can download to your heart’s content thousands of pictures, illustrations and photographs from our primary site, including all the newest ones on our ongoing decipherment of Minoan Linear A.
 
We need more followers at any rate, so please help us out.

The perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B

The perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B:

Here we see 4 examples of the perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B.



[1] kiretana (Linear A) = amoiyeta (Linear B) = (having been) delivered
[2] pa3nina (Linear A) ? (meaning unknown)
[3] dirina (Linear A) ? (meaning unknown)
[4] pitakase (Linear a) = epididato(i) (Linear B) = (having been) distributed

Of these four, [1] to [3] are either feminine singular or neuter plural. It is hard to determine which, if either.
[4] is masculine plural.

Proof-positive confirmation that Mycenaean Linear B = Minoan Linear A Paito, pre-Greek for Phaistos

Proof-positive confirmation that Mycenaean Linear B = Minoan Linear A Paito, pre-Greek for Phaistos:



The illustration above of Mycenaean Linear B tablet KN 36 K c 33 and Minoan Linear A tablet HT 116 (Haghia Triada) confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mycenaean Linear B = Minoan Linear A Paito for Phaistos, which is definitely pre-Greek and possibly even pre-Minoan. Unless the Minoan language is Indo-European (which no-one knows), then Paito = Phaistos may not be Indo-European. 

Paito, which is one of the first terms we introduced in our Minoan Linear A Glossary, does not require decipherment. It is 100% accurate, bang on the mark.

It is very likely that Minoan Linear A pitakase means the same thing as epididato = “distributed” in Mycenaean Linear B

It is very likely that Minoan Linear A pitakase means the same thing as epididato = “distributed” in Mycenaean Linear B:



In all probability, Minoan Linear A pitakase means the same thing as epididato = “distributed” in Mycenaean Linear B. There is firm circumstantial evidence to support my hypothesis. Dictionary.com defines “distributed” as follows:



Pay close heed to the synonyms I have underlined for each of the definitions above. Note that the definition includes reference to “prizes”... “distributed among ten winners”. Ten prizes, ten winners. Likewise, on Linear A tablet HT 21 (Haghia Triada), Prof. Younger directly links pitakase to“mixed commodities” (in his own words). This leads me straight to conclusion I have drawn. The term pitakase fits the context very well indeed, especially in light of the fact that a relatively large number (161) of commodities are being distributed. These are all almost certainly agricultural in nature, most likely representing barley, wheat, figs and other commodities in the same vein. So I am quite convinced that pitakase does indeed mean “distributed”, rating 75% or more on the scale of accuracy I have assigned for Minoan Linear A words I have deciphered.

This is the seventy-second (72) Minoan Linear A term I have deciphered, more or less accurately, to date.

Which of atare/datara/uta2 in Minoan Linear A = Mycenaean Linear B opisuko “a figs overseer” ?

Which of  atare/datara/uta2 in Minoan Linear A = Mycenaean Linear B opisuko “a figs overseer” ?



In Minoan Linear A, at first glance there appear to be two possibilities  for “figs overseer”, [1] atare & [2] datara = Mycenaean Linear B opisuko. The third word appearing in the illustration above, uta2 (utai) appears to refer to something else relating to figs, possibly “harvesting of figs”. But this troubles me quite a lot, since this last word is so different from the first two. It would seem more likely that the word for “harvesting of figs” would be something like atareuta2 (atareutai) or datarauta2 (dataraiutai). The next problem facing us is which word, atare or datara, actually refers to a “fig overseer”? This is no idle question. The term atare would appear to be masculine, whereas datara seems to be feminine, thereby disqualifying it as meaning “fig overseers”. On the other hand, datara may not be feminine at all, in which case it does qualify.  Moreover, it prepends the letter “d” to a minor variation of atare. So which one refers to a “fig overseer” and which to a “fig gatherer”? ... or perhaps it is even possible that neither of them refers to either, leaving the actual word for “fig overseer” as uta2 (utai). Tricky. I shall have to list all 3, of which atare may mean either “fig overseer” or  fig gatherer” and datare the same, or vice versa. I reserve uta2 (utai) as an alternative for “fig overseer”. 

These 3 words dilute to entries seventy (70) seventy-one (71).

3 alternatives in Minoan Linear A for pasiteoi = “to all the gods” in Mycenaean Greek

3 alternatives in Minoan Linear A for pasiteoi = “to all the gods” in Mycenaean Greek:

I rummaged through every last of the scores of Minoan Linear A tablets I have on file, searching for any rendition possible commensurate with the phrase pasiteoi = “to all the gods” in Mycenaean Greek. I have made the assumption, however misplaced, that since this a 5 syllabogram or syllable phrase in Mycenaean Linear B, the cross-correlated phrase in Minoan Linear A should run to approximately the same number of syllabograms or syllables, give or take. I found 3 alternatives. I had little choice, as there is simply no way or knowing whether or not any one of these 3, iqa*118, dadumata or *47nuraja corresponds to the Mycenaean phrase, if indeed any of them do. However, the chances are pretty good that one of them does.

So take your pick. I lean towards dadumata, as it looks like it might be plural, though certainly not necessarily neuter plural, corresponding to the ultimate “a”, which imposes itself on any word in the neuter or feminine plural in Mycenaean Greek. One simply cannot transpose the last vowel “a” for the neuter plural in Linear B to Linear A. The same problem obtains with *47nuraja. On the other hand, transposition of “a” for Greek “ai” in Mycenaean Greek is a (somewhat remote) possibility in Minoan Linear A. But here again we cannot and must not leap to any premature conclusions.

Each of these terms qualifies as the sixty-ninth (69) term I have deciphered, more or less accuracy, in Minoan Linear A.

Linear B Lexicon (Chris Tselentis) D-I – as a template for words susceptible of translation into Minoan Linear A

Linear B Lexicon (Chris Tselentis) D-I - as a template for  words susceptible of translation into Minoan Linear A:



While I have managed to decipher 68 Minoan Linear A words more or less accurately to date, there remains a possibility that I may be able decipher a few more, but not many more. The only way I can do so is to rely on a primary source for Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary, and the source par excellence is Chris Tselentis’ Linear B Lexicon, the by far best lexicon of Linear B I have run across to date. We find below selected terms under A in his lexicon. Any of these words may still have the potential for unravelling a few new terms in Minoan Linear A. We shall continue with the rest of the alphabet in the next few posts.

Linear B Lexicon (Chris Tselentis) A – as a template for words susceptible of translation into Minoan Linear A

Linear B Lexicon (Chris Tselentis) A - as a template for  words susceptible of translation into Minoan Linear A:



While I have managed to decipher 68 Minoan Linear A words more or less accurately to date, there remains a possibility that I may be able decipher a few more, but not many more. The only way I can do so is to rely on a primary source for Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary, and the source par excellence is Chris Tselentis’ Linear B Lexicon, the by far best lexicon of Linear B I have run across to date. We find below selected terms under A in his lexicon. Any of these words may still have the potential for unravelling a few new terms in Minoan Linear A. We shall continue with the rest of the alphabet in the next few posts.

Tag: Linear B Tablets

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: