Tag: regressive extrapolation

Minoan Linear A terms deciphered with a high degree of certainty thus account for 37 % of all Minoan Linear A terms I have attempted to decipher. They also account for 9 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms

A Glossary of 126 Minoan Linear A words more or less accurately deciphered to date (the largest ever glossary of Linear A) accounting for at least 24.7 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms in Prof. John G. Younger?s Linear A Liner A texts in phonetic transcription = 510. Terms deciphered with a high degree of certainty thus account for 37 % of all Minoan Linear A terms I have attempted to decipher. They also account for 9 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms in Prof. John G. Younger’s:


 
That is a pretty good return.

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. 

aka = wineskin (two syllabograms overlaid)
akii = garlic
darida = large vase  
daropa = stirrup jar = Linear B karawere
daweda = medium size amphora with two handles 5
ditamana = dittany (medicinal herb)
kanaka = saffron = Linear B kanako
karopa3 (karopai) = kylix (with two handles & smaller than a pithos) 
keda = cedar
kidema*323na = type of vessel (truncated on HT 31)10
kireta2 (kiritai) = delivery = Linear B apudosis
kiretana = (having been) delivered (past participle passive) = Linear B amoiyeto
kiro = owed = Linear B oporo = they owed 
kuro = total
kuruku = crocus 15
maru = wool (syllabograms superimposed) = Linear B mari/mare
nere = larger amphora size
orada = rose 
pazeqe = small handle-less cups = Linear B dipa anowe, dipa anowoto
puko = tripod = Linear B tiripode (100 % certain) 20
qapa3 = qapai = large handle-less vase or amphora 
quqani = medium size or smaller amphora
ra2ri = rairi = lily 
sajamana = with handles = Linear B owowe
sedina = celery 25
supa3 (supai) = small cup = Linear B dipa mewiyo
supu = very large amphora
tarawita = terebinth tree 28

Eponyms:

Adunitana
Akaru 30
Asiyaka
Danekuti
Daqera
Ikurina
Makarita 35
Mirutarare
Qetiradu
Sirumarita2 = Sirumaritai
Turunuseme
Watumare 40

Toponyms:

Almost all the toponyms do not require decipherment as they are either identical or almost identical in Mycenaean Linear B:

Akanu = Archanes (Crete)
Dikate = Mount Dikte
Idaa = Mount Ida
Idunesi
Kato = (Linear B Zakoro)45
Kudoni = Kydonia
Meza (= Linear B Masa)
Paito = Phaistos ( =Linear B)
Radu = Lato (= Linear B Rato)
Setoiya (= Linear B Seteia) 50
Sukirita/Sukiriteija = Sybrita
Winadu = Linear B Inato 52

COMMENTARY:

This Glossary accounts for at least 24.7 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms.
There are 45 terms deciphered with a high degree of certainty (> 75 %). These terms thus account for 37 % of all Minoan Linear A terms I have attempted to decipher. They also account for 9 % of all intact Minoan Linear A terms in Prof. John G. Younger’s Lexicon.

As for eponyms and toponyms, I can only claim to have deciphered no more than 10 %, since they are so obvious and since so many of them are almost identical to their Mycenaean Linear B counterparts, in those cases where the latter exist. 

All of my decipherments operate on The principle of cross-correlative cohesion 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.

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.

Minoan Linear A words: 7 types of cloth on tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada) compared with 7 types of cloth in Mycenaean Linear B

Minoan Linear A words: 7 types of cloth on tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada) compared with 7 types of cloth in Mycenaean Linear B:



My, my, what a co-incidence? Or is it?  7 types of cloth are apparently tallied on tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada), at least if I have translated the “correct” words corresponding to cloth types in Minoan Linear A (although I am fairly certain I have come close to the mark), and these can be compared with 7 types of cloth in Mycenaean Linear B,



although in the latter case I may have missed 1 or 2 types of cloth. At any rate, no one knows what kinds of textiles/cloth even the words in Mycenaean Linear B refer to, so what does it matter if the 7 Minoan Linear terms for cloth/textiles do not align with their supposed Mycenaean Linear B counterparts? It does not matter one jot, since we will never know what the cloth/textile types are in either syllabary. So take your pick. One is as good as the next.

The main point is that we have apparently catalogued 7 major types of textiles/cloth in Minoan Linear A with a fairly high degree of certainty ( > 60 %).

Boolean chart of The 5 Principles of Cross-correlative Retrogressive Extrapolation from Mycenaean Linear B to Minoan Linear A

Boolean chart of The 5 Principles of Cross-correlative Retrogressive Extrapolation from Mycenaean Linear B to Minoan Linear A:



Here we see a Boolean chart of The 5 Principles of Cross-correlative Retrogressive Extrapolation from Mycenaean Linear B to Minoan Linear A.  Before explaining the Boolean chart, it is highly advisable for us to review the 5 Principles of Cross-correlative Retrogressive Extrapolation from Mycenaean Linear B to Minoan Linear A, which you can read in full here:

The 5 principles applicable to the rational partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A:




for without a thorough understanding of these 5 principles, you will be unable to follow the novel methodology I have devised for the partial, not total, decipherment of Minoan Linear A à partir de (extrapolated from) Mycenaean Linear B.

Once you have carefully read over these 5 principles, the Boolean chart above should become pretty much transparent. For instance, the Minoan Linear A word puko is a perfect match for the Mycenaean Linear B word tiripode (= 100%). Likewise, the Minoan Linear A term sedina is a perfect match with Linear B selinon = celery. That is why the overlap between the two terms is illustrated as a circle within a circle (since displaying only 1 circle would not get the idea across clearly). Since Minoan Linear A qareto is very likely to correspond to Mycenaean Linear B onato = lease field, the overlap is > 75 %, and is mapped out as Sets A B & C completely overlapping in the Boolean chart. Likewise, saru = small olives in Minoan Linear A > 60 % and is again charted as Sets A B & C overlapping. On the other hand, tisa in Minoan Linear A, which apparently = amotewiya = description of pottery? in Mycenaean Linear B (though we can never be certain of this), comes in at a scalar value of < 50 %, mapped out in the Boolean chart as Sets A & B or A & C only.

In our Minoan Linear  A Glossary of 110 terms,

36 terms clock in a scalar value of > 75 %
58 clock in with a scalar value of > 60 %
16 clock in with a scalar value of < 50 %
TOTAL = 110

Thus, 84 or 76 % of all the terms in the Glossary of Minoan Linear A are either extremely reliable ( > 75 %) or reasonably reliable ( > 60 %).

Are we near the end of the line with our Minoan Linear A Glossary?

Are we near the end of the line with our Minoan Linear A Glossary?



Are we near the end of the line with our Minoan Linear A Glossary? With 110 terms, if we are not already there, pretty close. I can only squeeze so much juice out of an orange.

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 12 & qatidate = Mycenaean Linear B erawa = olive tree(s)

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 12 & qatidate = Mycenaean Linear B erawa = olive tree(s):



On Minoan Linear A tablet HT 12, we find the word qatidate, which in all likelihood is the equivalent Mycenaean Linear B erawa = olive trees. This decipherment is substantiated by or earlier decipherment  of datu = small olives. Notice the direct correlation between qatidate and datu.

This raises the scalar value of both of these translations to > 60% (very reliable).

This is term 110 I have deciphered in Minoan Linear A, more or less accurately (in this case, more).

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 19 & dadumata = Linear B sitokowo = grain/wheat measurers?

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 19 & dadumata = Linear B sitokowo = grain/wheat measurers?



Does dadumata on Minoan Linear A tablet HT 19 = Linear B sitokowo = grain/wheat measurers? It is a long shot, but at least I am willing to take it. The likelihood that this decipherment is correct is < 50%.

This is term 108 in Minoan Linear A I have deciphered more or less accurately (in this case, less).

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 40 the terms nudu*331 = Linear B rino? = flax? & kidata = Linear B dekesato = to be accepted (for delivery)

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 40 the terms nudu*331 = Linear B rino? = flax? & kidata = Linear B dekesato = to be accepted (for delivery):



On Minoan Linear A tablet HT 40 the term nudu*331 appears to mean Linear B rino? = flax, while kidata = Linear B dekesato = to be accepted (for delivery). Given that there are 201 bushel-like units, which is a moderate amount, I have interpreted nudu*331 as signifying “flax”. Flax is not as common as wheat or barley. Since the participle kidata terminates in the ultimate “ta”, it is not a past participle passive. Past participle passives in Minoan Linear B end in “na”, for instance, kiretana = “having been delivered”.  Of these two words, nudu*331 is the less certain (<50% scalar value, not necessarily reliable), whereas kidata is more certain (probably 60%+ a reasonably reliable scalar value).

These two new terms are nos. 106 & 107. Decipherment is more or less certain.

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 17 (Haghia Triada) & ra*164ti = approx. 5 litres (of wine)

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:

Minoan Linear A tablet KH 10 (Khania/Chania) & akipiete = Mycenaean Linear B kekemena = “common, shared, allotted”
Minoan Linear A tablet KH 10 (Khania/Chania) & akipiete = Mycenaean Linear B kekemena = “common, shared, allotted”:

Minoan Linear A tablet KH 10 from Khania/Chania contains the word akipiete, which is very likely the equivalent of Mycenaean Linear B kekemena = “common, shared, allotted”. Note the number 90 following the number of “bushel-like” units of wheat. That number is too small to refer to anything other than something rather small in common, or if you like, shared or allotted to an equally small number of farmers or (more likely) tenant farmers sharing a rather small plot of land = ktoina. I had previously defined akipiete as “harvest”, but such an interpretation is quite out of the question in light of the small no. of “bushel-like” units of wheat = 90. Such a piddly amount of wheat would never be sufficient to victualize all of the inhabitants of Khania/Chania, not even for a month! So we have no alternative but to greatly reduce the number of people who can reasonably be fed by 90 bushels to a few farmers or more likely tenant farmers on a small plot of land.

It is crucial to understand that the number of items following any object on a Minoan Linear A tablet is a critical factor determining the definition of said object. This factor will become clearer when I publish my draft article on our Minoan Linear A Glossary on academia.edu.

This is term 105 I have deciphered, more or less accurately. I feel comfortable enough assigning a scalar value of 60%+ to this term, indicating a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Share this:
Tweet
Print
More
Email
Like this:
Like Loading…

Minoan Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11 & kupa or sa*301ri = planter

Minoan Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11 & kupa or sa*301ri = planter:



On Minoan Linear A tablet Zakros ZA 11, we run across 2 terms which are likely to mean “planter”, kupa or sa*301ri. The problem is, which one does mean this? I really had no choice but too tag both of these words as candidates for “planter”. This predicament has faced me more than once in attempting to attribute suitable meanings to Minoan words. However, a decision must be made. In this case, the more appropriate term for “planter” appears to be sa*301ri rather than kupa, since the latter is more likely to be feminine.

Whichever of these two terms is the more a propos remains an open question. At any rate, the term is no. 104 in our Glossary of Minoan Linear A.

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 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.

Minoan Linear A ADU on tablets dealing with grain & wheat refer to the TOTAL harvest = term 100

Minoan Linear A ADU on tablets dealing with grain & wheat refer to the TOTAL harvest:

Minoan Linear A ADU on tablets dealing with grain & wheat apparently refer to the TOTAL harvest. After spending the past three months wracking my brains out over this term, ADU, I have finally settled on its being the approximate, if not exact, equivalent of the Mycenaean Linear B terms, toso, tosa, as illustrated in the figure above. All this amounts to nothing more or less than taking into account the total harvest of grains or wheat, as seen on tablets HT 92, with no fewer than 680 “bushel-like” units of wheat! I say “bushel-like” because there is no way on earth that we in the twenty-first century can ever know what the standard unit for measuring wheat was for the Minoans. But there can be little doubt but that these tablets all deal with the standard unit for measuring grans and wheat, because the first two use the term tereza and the last one reza, which are the actual Minoan standard units for measuring large quantities. On the first two tablets (HT 92 & HT 133) the total number (ADU) refers to the actual large units of wheat measured (something like our modern “bushels”). But on Linear tablet HT 92. we are faced with a different scenario. Here ADU refers to all the men who are carrying out the measurement of 55 large “bushel-like” units of grains or wheat. So it is quite reasonable to assume that the occupational title (so to speak) of these folks would be something like surveyor or comptroller, since these are in fact the métiers of people who undertake such measurements. But remember. We are not just dealing with some of the comptrollers measuring the 55 large units of wheat. We are dealing with all 20 of them. In other words, ADU is the approximate, if not exact, equivalent of the Mycenaean Linear B term toso (masc. sing. & pl. & neut. sing.) and tosa (neut. pl.), which correspond precisely with the same forms of the ancient Greek words meaning all you see in the figure above.

This brings the number of Minoan Linear A words I have deciphered, more or less accurately, to an even 100.

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 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.

The first ever complete translation of a Linear A tablet in toto, HT 31 (Haghia Triada), vessels & pottery

The first ever complete translation of a Linear A tablet in toto, HT 31 (Haghia Triada), vessels & pottery:



Here you see the first ever full translation of a Linear A tablet, HT 31 (Haghia Triada), vessels & pottery. Today I was finally able to break through the last barriers to the complete translation of this tablet, one of the most complete in Linear A, and the only one with so many ideograms, in this case, all of them standing for various types of vessels. The tablet explicitly names the type of each vessel by superimposing the Linear A name of it over its ideogram. What a windfall!

It just so happens that HT 31 exhibits so many parallels with Mycenaean Linear B tablet Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) that it almost defies credulity... so much so that we can even consider the latter to be the long overdue “Rosetta Stone” for the former. Not only are they written in two syllabaries which are almost the same, Minoan Linear A for HT 31, and its successor, Mycenaean Linear A for Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris), but even the contents (the text) of each of these tablets closely mirrors that of the other. That is one truly amazing co-incidence. And it is precisely because the similarity between these two tablets is so striking that I have been able to decipher the integral text of Minoan Linear A HT 31 (Haghia Triada) in toto, with the exception of a few signs (syllabograms, ideograms and numerals) which are pretty much illegible. This is the first time in history that anyone has managed to decipher a Minoan Linear A tablet in its entirety.

Compare the translation of HT 31 with the text of Mycenaean tablet  Pylos Py TA 641-1952 (Ventris) on which I have overlaid the equivalent cross-correlated Linear A vocabulary, and it instantly becomes clear that the two tablets deal with almost exactly the same range of vessels:



The methodology followed in the comparative analysis of any Linear A tablet which appears similar to any Linear B counterpart is called cross-correlated retrogressive extrapolation of a Linear A tablet (A) with an equivalent Linear B tablet (B), where:

CCRE (cross-correlated retrogressive extrapolation) stipulates that A = B (closely or approximately), in this case closely. 

I welcome any and all comments on this hard-fought and hard-won breakthrough in the decipherment of Minoan Linear A. Please also tag this post with 4 to 5 stars if you like it (hopefully 5!)

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.

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.

Tag: regressive extrapolation

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: