Having discussed many things about the fairly-well readable Linear A inscriptions, I now feel confident enough to continue our dig into the past. And that means it is time to start discussing a script even more ancient than Linear A. It is time for some Minoan Hieroglyphics.
To anyone not comfortable enough with this topic, one glance at the famous Phaistos disc is enough to be convinced that writing systems other than Linear A did exist on Crete during the Minoan era. But it this point it gets interesting: according to a thorough archaelogical analysis, Minoan Hieroglyphs were not only used before the arise of the more simple Linear A script. They were also used more-or-less contemporaneously.
This fact points to a functional segregation between the two scripts: While the more figurative (and thus aesthetically more pleasing) Hieroglyhic script was heavily used on sigils and at other 'representative' occasions, the more simplistic Linear A script was used primarily for account-keeping. Despite the fact that it is much simpler to write with the Linear system, so high was the charm of Hieroglyphics, that craftsmen and artists continued to use them for a long period. And they even invented novel versions of the old theme. That is how the signs of the famous Phaistos Disc were born. These are not the same as the ancient Hieroglyphics, but nevertheless appear to be genuinely Minoan: It is not beyond reason that these signs represent a "secondary" Hieroglyphic system (that is, re-interpretation of the already simplified Linear A signs as figurative elements, to create a highly decorative "festive" script).
Looking at a Hieroglyphic script, the first thing that comes to one's mind (apart from admiration of the craftsman's work): How can we read it ? Where does the script start? The problem is, the scripts go from right to left, from left to right, from up to down and even around in circles. There was no fixed direction of writing. This is no good news at all.
While some documents indeed offer no clue, there are many more that contain dedicated elements to help the reader. There are at least three different signs to help to guess the direction of reading. The most salient feature of these scripts is the small X most texts contain on at least one end. This is actually the "start" sign - it has no phonetic value, other than indicating the start of a word. The "start" sign can even be encountered on some Linear A documents (such as table HT123-124) - this is proof enough that the two systems were used beside each other, by the same people.
An other frequently encountered feature is a Z-like (lightening or wave-like) sign. If one more thoroughly analyses the scripts, it turns out that this sign (Hie *61) always stand on the end opposing that of X. This observation and the fact that Hie *61 is unlike any meaningful Linear A sign (except Lin AB *76 = RA2, but that does not fit well into the context) implies that this sign is another marker. John Younger interpreted Hie *61 as the "termination sign", but I believe an interpretation like "abbrevietion sign" might equally be correct: it sometimes stands where only a single sign follows the start sign (i.e. on KN He HM 1279 and 1281). The usage of this sign is by far not that common compared to the almost-universal X ("start") sign: for example, it occurs regularly in accounting texts (where abbreviations are common in Linear A as well), but only rarely on seals.
And if these two signs were not enough, some documents (especially seals) feature a further mark to aid the readers: these are the tiny dots that follow each single sign on many seals and other inscriptions. One simple look is enough to see that they always stand behind the signs, not before them. So - with their help - a careful eye can follow the flow of characters even when they go around in circles.
Now to end the hollow theorising, let us make some reading excercises, with the help of the Hieroglyphic Seals Database (thanks to the University of Florence). Our first piece to practice on shall be the nice round seal CHIC #126. You can see its impression below:
As we are already trained in reading such scripts, we should immediately realize the presence of the small X in the lower left corner. So the reading should be started there. Theoretically, we should have two different directions to start, but if we take a more careful look at the small dots, it is apparent that the script can only go clockwise (as the 'gate' sign is in the middle of the text). So we read X-*62-*56. But there the line takes an abrupt break. The vertical line before the glove-like sign *09 is actually a word-divider (Hiero style), and thus the reading should be continued from there: *09-*36-*47. This is exactly what the direction of the little dots suggest (the dot of *36 was displaced to the right probably because it did not fit into the remaining surface). The only possible alternative order, *47-*36-*09 is less likely.
Okey, now we have our order. But what about the phonetic value of the signs? Since it is pretty much likely that Hieroglyphics are ancestral to the Linear A script, we expect this script to be a syllabary as well. This is further confirmed by the number of signs: there are less than a hundred of them (even less than the Linear A signs). So, by careful examination of the shape of signs, we may have the luck to find the phonetic value of some, and even read some complete words!
On the above specimens, we can identify four characters - most of whom bear at least some resemblance to the Linear A signs. Though we see no 'start' sign except on the third seal, we can infer that the text is to be read from left to right on the upper seals (right to left on the lower ones) and counterclockwise. This will be further confirmed by the reading (see below).
In the left side of the first seal, we see a 'sistrum' sign that has to be read as KI. Though the musical instrument it depicts has a different orientation of chords from that of the classic harp, it is interesting to speculate that it stands for the word Kithara. The next sign we see is a double-backed object (possibly breasts or hills), that undoubtedly reads as TA. The third sign is the hardest to decipher, but after some search one can find that the only fitting value is NA. (This latter identification is non-trivial and this is something I would love to make a post of some time later). So the reading is KI-TA-NA-?. The text ends here on the second and third seals. The last additional sign of the first and fourth seals is probably the same, but not easy to assign: possible values include SE or TE (both would fit to the above word well).
How can we check if our decipherment was correct? On the KH 30 and PE Zb 3 tablets we can enconter a very closely related sequence: KI-TA-NA-SI-JA-SE. This cannot be a mere coincidence!
The only thing that remains unknown is its meaning. Theoretically, the words written on sigils can be either names or titles. Since we can find at least four different examples of seals with the sequence above, this is unlikely to be a personal name. It is much more likely that this was some (unknown) title. Similar repetitive words dominate most seals, often leaving no more than only one facet to be unique, thus representing a proper personal name.
For the last part, just for some teasing, I show an impression of a (multi-faceted) seal. Though some sides contain 'start' signs, some do not. Where do we know how to read them, then? The answer is simple for those who have read too much ancient texts: the direction of reading is a boustrophedon ! One has to read in the order up-down-up-down-up-down. The direction only changes where we see a 'start' sign, and these are the only facets where a start sign was featured. Otherwise just follow the turns!
According to my own decipherment of the Phaistos disk, this could read:
ReplyDeletei-du-a-ni-wu
i-du: body, person (of the God in that case)
-a-: dative
-ni-: article
-wu: my
so it translates as:
my one for the body of the God(s).
The suggested direction of reading seems correct.
Best
A.
Dear Yangg,
ReplyDeleteMy only problem with the reading presented above lies in the phonetic value of certian signs (though you have not mentioned, I assume the reading refers to the circular seal CHIC #126). I take it as axiom that the Linear A and B signs are straight descendant of the Hieroglyphic script (otherwise their values would be extremely difficult to interpret in Greek). With that, some signs have a fixed value: for example, the 'A' sign is the 'double-axe'. Since we know that true homophones are not expected to be found in the Linear scripts, this can be putatively extended to hieroglyphs (see Documents in Mycenean Linear B by John Chadwick, 1973). Similar to the 'A' sign, the 'double-axe', the sign 'NI' is invariably a 'two-branched twig with leaves' (as in Lin A/B, and so on the Ph. disc and Hiero texts). This leaves the cited reading highly tentative at best. While I certainly welcome any meaningful attempt to search for Hurrian-originating terms and words in Minoan texts, I also believe the first step is to establish a firm reading of the Hieroglyphic signs, and then begin to interpret them, not the opposite way.
ok
ReplyDeleteThe double-axe is wa in my system, not that far. Hence not a big problem.
As regards the twig sign, I read it as -ru- and this is coherent with Anatolian-Luvian hieroglyphs. And if I change ru to ni, then everything crumbles in my system. I cannot accept this value.
So the issue is :
1. Are the hieroglyphs really the ancestor of Linear A and B,
or
2. Are the hieroglyphs connected with Anatolian hieroglyphs.
Best
I think that there IS an issue with Anatolian Hieroglyphs. Earlier on, I checked them eagerly to find correspondences between them and the Minoan writing systems. But I must admit, this marvel of Luwian writing is not just a simple borrowing of the Cretan system (we know that Hieroglyphic Minoan pre-dates the Anatolian Hieroglyphs). A good counter-argument against direct borrowing is the different distribution of signs (i.e. many signs depicting body-parts and animals, meanwhile the Minoan systems feature a strikingly high number of plants). But more importantly, those signs that do show similarity to Linear A signs have very different values (e.g. the Luwian SI2 sign resembles the Linear A "flying bird" sign, however its reading is 'KU', not 'SI'). The reverse is also true: Fore example in Linear A (and in likely in Minoan Hieroglyphics as well) the sign 'TI' represents an arrow-head, while the 'TI' sign of the Luwian system depicts a human foot. The Minoan system is also significantly more phonetic than the Luwian one, with the logograms being restricted to administrative texts (as abbreviations).
ReplyDeleteDespite the (very unnerving) fact, that the origins of the Luwian Hieroglyphs have not been determined, and even the language it was first used for is still unknown, the system has little in common with the Minoan one. I believe this system was some kind of a 'borrowing' from the Cretan one, the same way as the Cretans borrowed the concept of writing from Egypt. But the signs in the Anatolian writing no longer carry their Minoan values. Since the Minoan system has been thought of as acrophonic, I would really be interested to know the language that could have provided the acrophonic basis of Anatolian Glyphs (as Luwian seems improbable).
Just because of shared sign-distribution characteristics (many signs for plants, few for body-parts and animals, some tools) I have formed the opinion that Hieroglyphic Minoan and even the Phaistos Disc uses essentially the same system as Linear A. This also suggests (but does not prove) that these scripts represent the same language. (The situation could be similar to Luwian, that could both be written in Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic.)
Well,
ReplyDeleteIf your reasoning and observations are correct, and if Linear A has very little in common with Luwian Hieroglyphics then there is little doubt that Linear A and Hieroglyphic Minoan have nothing to do with the Phaistos Disk either, because the system of the PD is more or less the same as LH.
Maybe it would be more interesting to compare Minoan with Hatti which does have prefixes, contrary to Hurrian.
Best A.
Actually, I casually wonder about the as-yet weakly understood Hattic influence on this region too, even vis-à-vis influences on the writing system. I think that's a reasonable thought.
ReplyDeleteWhat first needs to be worked out, however, is Hattic's grammar and vocabulary. So far, it's one of the many annoying mysteries hovering around the Mediterranean. However, I'm reasonably certain that Hattic is thoroughly unrelated to Minoan, although loanwords between the two are certainly possible (and in fact I'd even expect them). Hattic did indeed have prefixes, unlike Minoan.
As it does seem a reasonable concept to search for words and structures in Hattic possibly repeated in Linear A, I conducted some analysis with the help of the works of Igor Diakonov.
ReplyDeleteI have found even less than I anticipated. As for the grammatical structures, There is almost no element that would be repeated in Linear A. All the prefixes so frequent and important in Hattic (wa-, le-, pi-, es-) are prectically absent from Linear A texts. The cited syllables are not so frequent in word-initial positions, and show no regular changes. Among the suffixes,the endings -e/-ia, -nth, -ush and -tu do show some resemblance to certain Minoan constructions (this might be coincidence), but the rest does not. The structure of Minoan and Hattic compound words are very different from each other - no common element could be identified.
I also checked the stems of the few words that are known from Hattic with some reasonable certainty. Again, there are almost no cognates, apart from the word windu = 'wine' (Proto-Greek *woinos). The few Linear A words that do sound similar to any these words are often expected to carry totally different meanings: for example SU-PU2-*188 looks like a transaction term, while the Hattic sapu means 'god'. So this far, I only came to negative results.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful article. Congratulations!
ReplyDeleteI hope you would not mind a really serious discussion about some of your points, without taking each others heads off, of course.
No doubt, X is a “starting” sign.
The 061 (Hie*61) is questionable. How can you tell where the words ends before deciphering the texts?
For the “tiny dots” you have already come up with some counter examples: on seal CHIC #295 the 057 Key/Clef has “tiny dots” on both sides, and – I would say – on CHIC #126 one precedes the stallholder’s tent, 036, the other follows it. In my reading of this seal, the dots are ‘10’-s, as on all hieroglyphic texts, independently of their size. The line is not a word divider but ‘1’. So, I have a different order (and reading) for this seal impression: 062-‘10’ 056-‘10’ 009 ‘1’, than 036 between two dots, i.e. 036 in ‘20’ and ontop 047, followed by ‘10’.
You don’t have to agree with me, but than you must define ‘tiny’. How tiny is a marking dot, from what size starts the dot to be the sign for ‘10’? Same question for word divider versus ‘1’. Who will decide? The reader or the scribe?
Now with the twist: LinA is (presumable) a syllabary, consequently the Hieroglyphics as the ancestral to LinA are also. You see, Cherokee (Tsalagi) is a syllabary using our ABC to mark its syllables. Should we than, from the Cherokee view point, conclude that English is also a syllabary? This comparison better suits the relation between LinA and LinB. LinA evolved as a simpler version of Hieroglyphics, while LinB is constructed in a single moment of time to suit a new language, exactly the Tsalagi case.
Let's talk about the number of hieroglyphic signs now. Who counted them? The signs above 034 on CHIC #238 & #295 and bellow it on #310 are not counted by CHIC nor by JG Younger. Are you counting them or not? If not why not? Again, who to decide which sign is a hiero and which is not? The reader or the scribe?
I hope you understand that these questions are intended to clarify some of the fundamentals of this very exciting writing system. I have at least hundred more questions, and I’m convinced that when we get to the end we’ll be able to read and understand the Minoan texts.
minoan
Thank you for your comment! Although Blogger was unstable for some days, now I am able to post a reply. I will try ro answer your questions in brief - as much as I can:
ReplyDeleteThe Hiero sign *61 is a very heavily terminal one. Which should not be a problem by itself, as some Linear A signs also show terminal-heavy distribution (although by far not this grade). The problem is: there is no fitting Linear A counterpart: the only one would be Lin AB *76 = RA2, which is not nearly as common (and also, it has a counterpart in Hie *69). So I think, unless you regard Hie *61 as a variant of Hie*69, you should find another interpretation. Methinks, John Younger's solution (the "termination sign") is a good one, so I put my vote there.
Before reading any numeric signs on a sealstone (or seal impression), stop for a second. This is a stone stamp, right? I doubt they would have carved out a different sealstone for each and every account... A list of names / wares with numerals (the usual context of Linear A) does not make sense here. One should better expect names and titles. The latter assumption is supported by the seals' pretty repetitive structure as well. There are inscriptions that partly or completely recur more than 10-15 times on different objects!
Your last note leads on to a much more difficult problem. On the sealstones, there are "large" and "small" objects depicted. I think the label "primary element" and "secondary element" is fitting. Primary elements are always phonetic ones, most likely syllabograms (judged by the strikingly low number of Hiero signs, way below 90). The role of secondary elements is more complicated. First, they can be simple decorations. But sometimes, there is some regularity in their occurrances: they could also be phonetic complements to the primary elements. One could guess if they might express unstressed or defective syllables, grammatic endings or something like that. But the question is still open in most cases.
And I do agree with the theory that Hieroglyphic signs are ultimately ancestral to the Linear sytems. These include not only Linear A, but also its offsrings outside Crete, such as Linear B in mainland Greece, Cypro-Minoan and Linear C on Cyprus.
Thank you for your comment! Although Blogger was unstable for some days, now I am able to post a reply. I will try ro answer your questions in brief - as much as I can:
ReplyDeleteThe Hiero sign *61 is a very heavily terminal one. Which should not be a problem by itself, as some Linear A signs also show terminal-heavy distribution (although by far not this grade). The problem is: there is no fitting Linear A counterpart: the only one would be Lin AB *76 = RA2, which is not nearly as common (and also, it has a counterpart in Hie *69). So I think, unless you regard Hie *61 as a variant of Hie*69, you should find another interpretation. Methinks, John Younger's solution (the "termination sign") is a good one, so I put my vote there.
Before reading any numeric signs on a sealstone (or seal impression), stop for a second. This is a stone stamp, right? I doubt they would have carved out a different sealstone for each and every account... A list of names / wares with numerals (the usual context of Linear A) does not make sense here. One should better expect names and titles. The latter assumption is supported by the seals' pretty repetitive structure as well. There are inscriptions that partly or completely recur more than 10-15 times on different objects!
Your last note leads on to a much more difficult problem. On the sealstones, there are "large" and "small" objects depicted. I think the label "primary element" and "secondary element" is fitting. Primary elements are always phonetic ones, most likely syllabograms (judged by the strikingly low number of Hiero signs, way below 90). The role of secondary elements is more complicated. First, they can be simple decorations. But sometimes, there is some regularity in their occurrances: In theory, they could also be phonetic complements to the primary elements. That question is still open in most cases.
And I do agree with the theory that Hieroglyphic signs are ultimately ancestral to the Linear sytems. These include not only Linear A, but also its offsrings outside Crete, such as Linear B in mainland Greece, Cypro-Minoan and Linear C on Cyprus.
Hi Andras! In one of your above comments you said "There is almost no element that would be repeated in Linear A. All the prefixes so frequent and important in Hattic (wa-, le-, pi-, es-) are prectically absent from Linear A texts."
ReplyDeleteHowever I found several authors (D. W. Packard, Y. Duhoux, I. Schoep, J. Younger) arguing some sequences of Linear A signs can be read as prefixes.
Thank you for your comment!
ReplyDeleteThe authors you mentioned were absolutely right in stating, that technically there are many prefixes in the Linear A script: a-, i-, at-, tan-, etc. However, it is easy to show - for at least some of these - that they are actually pronouns, only merged with the following words due to ortographic reasons. For example, the Linear A TA-N- particle is very likely the same as the Eteocypriot TA-N-, thought to be a pronoun. Note that the latter is also written as an enclitic.
The I- (J-) prefixes are considerably harder to interpret. John Younger has proposed them to be a locative marker, but there is a problem: some examples (e.g. I-DA-MA-TE vs DA-MA-TE) clearly show that it can be added on to to a word independently of the already-established locative -TE suffix. So it is not complementary to the locative cases in -TE or -TI, thus it must have a different meaning.Throughout this blog, I express the opinion that this i- may be pronominal as well, perhaps something like 'the' 'that' 'so' or similar - explaining its frequent use on the first words of table headers.
It really should not surprise you or anyone that Minoan scribes written in blocks instead of words, regularly linking pronouns with the following word. This way of writing also occurs in Linear B, and - thank to the fact that it records more than just accouting - it is quite frequently seen in Cypriot Linear C. An example: the phrase A-PO-TO-LI-SE means 'the town' (ha ptolis): so that the A- part is technically a prefix in the script, but not in the real Greek language.
Yves Duboux (and Ilse Schoep and John Younger seem to agree with his interpretation) showed that Linear A has procentually much more prefixes than Linear B. See for example "Les langues du linéaire A et du disque de Phaestos", Minos 18 (1983). Linear A shows a pattern in using affixes distinct from Linear B. Aparently Minoan was a language with more "prefixes" and less "suffixes" than Myceneaen Greek.
ReplyDeleteI have read about this "discovery" in more than one place. Unfortunately, this observation does not take into account the imperfect nature of the Minoan scripts. Simply put: Linear B preserves many (but not all) the Greek suffixes, because many of these were either -VCV, -CVC -CV or -VV types. On the other hand, suffixes of simple -C or -VC type are not marked in this script. If Minoan had suffixes overwhelmingly of a pure consonantal type, then most of them would never have been recorded in Linear A!. Of course, we lack any hard evidence, yet the suffixes in some local languages like Lemnian can give an intriguing example: endings in e.g. -s, -l or -r would have simply perished, if these were the ones utilized by Minoans. Of course, do not forget that Linear A tablets are typically much shorter and less verbose than the Linear B ones. Most of them recorded little more than the names of taxpayers (in nominative cases) with the goods (in logograms) they had given.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, enclitic pronominal structures were commonplace in languages of bronze-age Anatolia. Hittite and Hurrian utilized a system of enclitic particles, often building up complicated constructions sentence- or phrase-initially. I would not be surprised if the initial words of Lin A tablet-headers would have gotten prefixes out of the very same reason in Minoan.
As it is often argued, Linear B does not suit so well the Greek phonology and morphology because it was not designed for it, but for another language. If Linear A was specifically designed for Minoan, why should we expect to find affixes hidden because of the limitations of the script? In the later Cypriot syllabary the final consonants were marked (se for -s, ne for -n etc).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in saying the apparent occurence of affixes may be influenced by text length or by some formulaic contexts (however in many languages with rich inflectional morphology the nominative has its own desinence - ex: Pindar-os, -ou). Moreover some "affixes" may be not real affixes (ex: "bad", "mad", "pad", "lad", "ad").
With all that, I guess it's also possible that Minoan was an agglutinative language using prefixes for derivation, gender, number etc. as suggested by Duhoux et al.
I have the feeling that prehistoric and protohistoric Mediterranean was rather linguistically diverse than homogenous. In this case some of the languages scarcely attested should be unrelated (or distantly related) to the other known groups. I can't say Minoan is such a language. However comparing it with known languages may produce no or illusory results (caused by borrowings and chance resemblances). Unless more Linear A texts will be found, I don't see how can we reach an unequivocal understanding of it.
Somehow, I like your insight into the nature of ancient Mediterranean tongues. But if it is as you suggest, we should still be able to find out the actual meaning of some of the Minoan grammatic elements. I still maintain that the TA-N- and A-T- type prefixes are not really meaningful as part of the word they were attached to: they rather appear to be sentence-initial particles, demonstratives by purpose. But the case of I- and A- elements is still not closed. I also thought of the A- one as some sort of "person derivator", if the pairs attested in Greek: Hephaistos (Mycenean A-PA-I-TO) and Phaistos (PA-I-TO) belong together. Perhaps you could also suggest some good alternative interpretations for them...?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the Blogger was unstable only for my comment of 13/09. No problem, Andras, I'm not complaining, it's your blog, your decision. I'm writing this only to let you know: I'm putting up a small article (A Kafkániai Kavicstól Aszklépiosz Botjáig on osmagyar.kisbiro.hu/ site), in which I talk turky about some of your coclusions.
ReplyDeleteminoan
By the way, I fully agree with Ardagastus (Oct. 8), adding that by slicing up a text into 'words'without any other check on those words but your whim, than using those words to prove the existence of whatever will lead you nowhere. You could utilize your vast knowledge of the subject to better return.
And here is a "prefix": cab-aret, cab-bage, cab-inet, cab-otage.
The Cretan Hieroglyphic Signs and their Suspected
ReplyDeleteLinear A Equivalents
This list contains the CHS signs recognized in the Part 2-2 Cretan Hieroglyphic Sign Catalog as syllabic or phonetic elements. The CHIC numerical system is followed here. Signs not recognized in CHIC as syllabic elements are listed last by their Evans numbers. The 2-2 Catalog count for each CHS sign follows each ‘sign characterization’ and are based on the inscriptions presented in CHIC. Questions concerning this list should be referred to the individual 2-2 Catalog detailed entry for that sign. These assignments yield 220+ matching CHS and Linear A sign groups (sign pairs and triplets).
#002 ‘head’ sign (8) = AB16 / qa
#005 ‘eye’ sign (50) = Linear A #79 / do
#006 ‘bound hands’ sign (12) = AB13 / me
#007 ‘bent arm’ sign (9) > AB67 / ki
#008, 009 ‘hand’ signs (25) =AB28 / i
#010 ‘leg’ sign (54) = AB60 / la, ra
#011 ‘bull’s head’ sign (28) = AB05 / ta, tau?
#012 ‘cow head’ sign (5) = AB23 / mu
#013 ‘calf’s’ head sign (36) = AB59 / ta
#014 ‘donkey’ head sign (5) > AB29? / pu2?
#016 ‘goat head’ sign (23) = AB73 / mi
#017, 018 ‘dog’s head’ signs (18) >AB81/ ku
#019 ‘fish’ sign (56) = AB31 / sa
#020-022 ‘honey bee’ signs (16) = AB45 / de
#023 ‘lily or iris’ sign (15) = AB27 / re
#024, 155 ‘fig tree’ signs (9) = AB30 / ni
#025 ‘tree’ sign (28) = AB04 / te
#026, 028 ‘feather / wing’ sign (25) = AB09 / se
#027, 029, 030 ‘tree branch’ signs (32) = AB01 / da
#031 ‘barley’ sign (74) = AB27 / le, re
#032 ‘tripod’ sign (9) = AB44 / ke
#033, 073 ‘spinning disk / potter’s wheel’ (28) = AB77 / ka
#034 ‘woman’s breasts’ sign (43) = AB37 / ti
#035 ‘ram’s horn’ sign (3) = AB58 (see Evan’s #137)
#036 ‘building or tower’ sign (30) = AB39 / pi
#037 var. form of #041? (3)
#038 ‘door or gate’ sign (88) = AB57 / ya
#039 ‘vine lattice’ sign (7) = AB56 / pa3 (oi?)
#040 ‘ship’ sign (18) = AB86? / yu?
#041 ‘loom’ sign (24) = AB54 / wa, va?
#042 ‘double ax’ sign = AB08 / a, ha
#043 ‘single ax’’ sign = AB11 / po
#044 ‘broad chisel’ sign (139) = AB06 / na
#046 ‘inscribing tool’ sign (12) = A301 / sphra?
#047 ‘sieve’ sign (24) = AB78 / qe, khe
#048, 049 ‘archery’ signs (141) = AB41 / si
#050 ‘spear’ sign (28) > AB51 / du
#051 ‘sword’ sign (7) = A312 / zi?
#052, 053 ‘amphora’ signs (26) = AB24 / ne
#054 ‘oil flask’ sign (24) = AB69 / tu
#055 (var. of #054?) (5)
#056 ‘mallet’ sign (62) = AB55 /nu
#057 ‘sistrum’ sign (48) = AB10 / u
#058 form of ‘harp or lyre’ sign (5) see #092
#059, 060 ‘harvesting tool’ signs (15) = AB53 (L#72) / ri
#061 ‘worm’ sign (47) = AB53 (L#94) / li?
#062-064 ‘scepter’ signs (24) = AB03 / pa
#066, 067 (var. forms of #068?) (5)
#068 ‘rain or waterfall’ sign (12) = AB07 / di
#069 ‘eyebrow’ sign (4) = AB76 / ra2
#070 ‘cross’ sign (71) = AB02 / ro, lo
#071 ‘hair’ sign (2) = AB 50 / pu
#072 (var. form of #034?) (7)
#073 see #033
#074, 075 (forms of #047?)
#076 ‘throne’ sign ? (3) = AB188? / o?
#077 ‘mail genitalia’? (20) = AB70 / ko
#078 var. form of #005? (5)
#085 ‘tent’ sign (2) = AB40 / wi, vi?
#092 ‘harp or lyre’ sign (39) = AB26 / lu, ru
#094 ‘mason’s compass’? sign (3)? = AB38? / e?
#095 ‘pearched bird?’ or 2nd ‘hand’ sign (10) = ra, rha?
Inventory of Cretan Hieroglyphic Signs - 2nd Part
Evans #75 ‘cat head’ sign (8) = AB80 / ma
Evans #138 ‘loop or sacred knot’ sign (5) = AB17 / za
Evans #137 ‘ram’s horn sign (16) = AB58 / su
Evans #79 ‘flying bird’ sign (6) = AB81 / ku
Evans #6 ‘mouth or flame’ sign (3) > AB61? / zu?
Evans #82 ‘walking duck’ sign (5) = A306 / ai?
Evans #111 ‘moon’ sign (5) = AB34 / mna?
From ‘The Persistent Puzzle’ Ó 2009 M. B. Manning
adurynth@gmail.com