Cucuteni-Trypillia - Troy - Greece: Written history 3500-1500 BC

Higher Education Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Kyiv Ypsilantis Society of Greeks Cucuteni-Trypillia – Troy – Greece: Written history 3500-1500 BC By Iurii L. Mosenkis Kyiv ARATTA 2018 1 Cucuteni-Trypillia – Troy – Greece: Written history 3500-1500 BC By Prof. Dr. Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis 3rd ed. Kyiv: Aratta, 2018 In memory of Dr. Prof. Nina Klymenko, famous Ukrainian Hellenist Front cover: the Lozna inscription (northeast Romania) and a prototype of the Phaistos Disc (east Ukraine, Oleksandr S. Polishchuk’s private collection) Cover design and drawing of pictures: Liubov T. Shkrobanets The edition is supported by Oleksandr S. Polishchuk ΓΙΟΥΡΙ ΛΕΟΝΙΝΤΟΒΙΤΣ ΜΟΣΕΓΚΗΣ Ουκρανία Απόφοιτος του Τάρας Σεβσιένκο Εθνικού Πανεπιστημίου του Κιέβου, εξειδικευμένος στις «Προσωπικές αντωνυμίες ευρύτερων οικογενειών ποικίλων γλωσσών» και μεταπτυχιακό στην «Θεωρητική της Μονογετικής Γλωσσολογίας στην Ιστορία των Γλωσσών». Διδακτορικό στον τομέα «Το πρόβλημα της αποκατάστασης της γλώσσας του κουκουτέν-τρυπίλιαν πολιτισμού». Καθηγητής από το 1995 στην έδρα του Γλωσσολογικού Ινστιτούτου του Εθνικού πανεπιστημίου του Κιέβου. Επίτιμος Διδάκτωρ του Ινστιτούτου Θεώρησης και Ιστορίας, και του Διεθνούς Σοσιόνικ Ινστιτιουτ. Μέλος της Ουκρανικής Ακαδημίας Επιστημών, της Ακαδημίας Επιστημών ανωτέρας Εκπαίδευσης και της Ακαδημίας Αρχιεκτονικής της Ουκρανίας καθώς και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ακαδημίας Επιστημών, Τέχνης και Γραμμάτων, της Βουλγαρικής αλλά και Βραζιλιανής Ακαδημίας Γραμμάτων. Έχει τιμηθεί με το Μετάλλιο Τελεσφορίας στις Επιστήμες και Παιδαγωγικές Επιτεύξεις. Συνεργάζεται με πολλά επιστημονικά περιοδικά και έχει συγγράψει περισσότερα από 200 επιστημονικά άρθρα και ισάριθμα βιβλία, τα οποία έχουν εκδοθεί σε Ουκρανία, Ρωσία, Γερμανία, Γαλλία, Πορτογαλία, Βουλγαρία, Τσεχία, Πολωνία, Κορέα, Ινδία, Ρουμανία, Αρμενία, Μολδαβία και Ολλανδία. Ανάμεσα στις επιστημονικές μελέτες του, εμείς θα αναφερθούμε σε ορισμένες, οι οποίες αφορούν στην Ελλάδα και είναι: «Η Ελληνική μυθολογία», «Ουκρανία, Ελλάδα, Κόσμος: Διεπιστημονικές σπουδές», «Ο συμβολισμός στην Ελληνική μυθολογία και την επική ποίηση», «Η γραπτή ελληνική γλώσσα από την Τρίτη χιλιετία προ Χριστού», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού και η πυξίδα του Μίνωα», «Η ελληνική γλώσσα στις μινωϊκές επιγραφές», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού ως αστρική πυξίδα», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού ως ηλιακό ημερολόγιο». 2 CONTENTS Forewords Спочатку було Трипілля Віктор Ющенко, Олександр Поліщук ...................... 7 Στην αρχή υπήρχε Τριπολί Βίκτορ Γιούστσενκο, Ολεξάντρ Πολιστσούκ ...... 8 In the beginning was Trypillia by Viktor Yushchenko, Oleksandr Polishchuk ..... 10 Незвичайна книга Олександр (Драбинко) ............................................................. 11 Το ξεχωριστό βιβλίο Ολεξάντρ (Ντραμπίνκο) ....................................................... 12 Unusual book Oleksandr (Drabynko) .......................................................................... 13 Відродження елліністики в Україні Микола Корецький ..................................... 14 Η αναγέννηση των ελληνικών μελετών στην Ουκρανία Μικόλα Κορέτσκι .... 16 Renaissance of Hellenic studies in Ukraine Mykola Koretsky ..................................... 18 Сторінки давньої історії Михайло Відейко ........................................................... 20 Οι πτυχές της αρχαίας ιστορίας Μιχάιλο Βιντέικο .............................................. 23 Pages of ancient history Mykhailo Videiko ................................................................. 26 Писемна мова першої європейської держави Дмитро Переверзєв ....................... 29 Γραπτή γλώσσα του πρώτου Ευρωπαϊκού κράτουςΝτμιτρό Περεβέρζιεβ ........ 31 The written language of the first European state Dmytro Pereverzev .......................... 34 Письменный язык первого европейского государства Дмитрий Переверзев ...... 36 Подорож мовними знаками в часі і просторі Вікторія Челпан ............................ 39 Το ταξίδι στο χώρο και χρόνο μέσω γλωσσικών σημείων Βικτώρια Τσελπάν .. 41 Travel through language signs in time and space Victoria Chelpan ............................ 44 Першопроходець цивілізацій Тарас Голота ............................................................... 46 Pioneer of Civilizations Taras Holota ............................................................................. 47 Передмова автора ....................................................................................................... 48 Що привело мене на стародавній Крит? ................................................................. 48 Кому і для чого потрібне це дослідження? ............................................................ 49 Подяки ............................................................................................................................. 51 Author’s Preface ............................................................................................................. 53 What has led me to ancient Crete? ............................................................................... 53 Who needs this research and why? .............................................................................. 54 Acknoledgements ........................................................................................................... 56 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 57 Sources .............................................................................................................................. 57 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 59 History of research: The Linear A decipherment attempts ....................................... 61 Part One. GREEK LANGUAGE AND STATE IN LINEAR A: 2000-1500 BC ..... 76 3 Chapter 1. Greek language of Linear A ..................................................................... 76 1. Cultural meaning ......................................................................................................... 76 2. Ways of research .......................................................................................................... 76 3. Methods of decipherment .......................................................................................... 77 4. Orthography vs phonetics .......................................................................................... 80 5. Grammar of the Linear A Greek dialect ................................................................... 81 6. Coherent texts ............................................................................................................. 85 7. Linear A for Greek etymology, historical phonetics, and dialectology .............. 86 8. Linear A and the Paleo-Balkan languages .............................................................. 89 Chapter 2. Greek economy in Linear A ..................................................................... 91 1. Space and time ............................................................................................................ 91 2. ‘Minoan tetrad’ (cereals, figs, olives/oil, wine) as a basis of economy ............... 91 3. Other plants and animals .......................................................................................... 95 4. Technologies ............................................................................................................... 98 5. Distribution and exchange ...................................................................................... 100 6. What from Minoan economy is absent in Linear A? .......................................... 102 Chapter 3. Greek society in Linear A ....................................................................... 103 1. Cities .......................................................................................................................... 103 2. City-administration ................................................................................................. 108 3. Workers and slaves ................................................................................................. 114 4. Everyday life: secular gifts ..................................................................................... 117 5. Trade ......................................................................................................................... 118 6. Foreigners in Minoan Crete ................................................................................... 125 7. Navy .......................................................................................................................... 127 8. War ............................................................................................................................ 128 9. Healing ...................................................................................................................... 133 Chapter 4. Greek religion in Linear A .................................................................... 136 1. Goddesses and gods ............................................................................................... 136 2. Cult places ................................................................................................................ 140 3. Priestesses ................................................................................................................. 145 4. Offering: to sacral throne vs to Demeter .............................................................. 145 5. Purification ............................................................................................................... 148 6. Libation ..................................................................................................................... 149 7. Burial rites and epitaphies ..................................................................................... 153 Part Two. GREEK DOCUMENTS AND STATES BEFORE LINEAR A: 3500-2000 BC .................................................................................................................................... 156 Chapter 5. Greek language in Cretan hieroglyphs: 2200-1600 BC ..................... 156 4 1. Writing and language ............................................................................................. 156 2. Economy and society .............................................................................................. 163 3. Religion ........................................................................................................... ..........165 4. The Arkalokhori script: An anti-catastrophic charm to Ida Mother? .............. 176 Chapter 6. Greeks before Minoan Crete ................................................................. 178 1. Greeks in the third-millennium BC Egyptian and Anatolian documents? ...... 178 2. Greek state in Mesopotamia: 2150-2050 BC .......................................................... 178 3. Greek-Pelasgian state at Lerna: 2450-2200 BC ...................................................... 180 4. Troy spoke Greek: 3000-1900 BC ............................................................................ 187 5. Cucuteni-Trypillia literacy: 3500-3000 BC ............................................................. 203 Chapter 7. Origin of Hellenic writing and art ......................................................... 211 1. Etymology of the Linear AB and Cretan hieroglyphic signs .............................. 211 2. Cretan and Anatolian hieroglyphs: searching initial Indo-European script .... 216 3. North Caucasian influence on the Minoan syllabary? ........................................ 217 4. Minoan-Mycenaean origin of the Phoenician alphabet? .................................... 220 5. Provenance of Cretan nobility and writing: a conclusional model ................... 221 6. Greek language in Minoan myths, rites, and arts ................................................ 223 7. The Cucuteni-Trypillian prehistory of Greek art? ............................................... 230 Conclusions. The way of writing: Cucuteni-Trypillia (fourth m. BC) – Troy (third m. BC) – Crete (second m. BC) ....................................................................... 238 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 240 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 240 5 In memory of Dr. Prof. Nina Klymenko, famous Ukrainian Hellenist 6 Спочатку було Трипілля Унікальна Трипільська культура існувала близько двох із половиною тисячоліть і створила одразу впізнавану, високомистецьку мальовану кераміку, двоповерхові житла, великі міста з чисельністю мешканців у багато тисяч осіб (яких не було більше ніде в тогочасному світі). Трипільці накопичували й передавали від покоління до покоління складні астрономічно-космологічні знання, включаючи навіть можливості передбачати сонячні та місячні затемнення. Розпис посуду і глиняна пластика віддзеркалювали розвинуті релігійні уявлення трипільців. На жаль, Трипільська культура залишається ще недостатньо популярною навіть в Україні, не говорячи вже про Європу і світ у цілому. Однак ця феноменальна культура заслуговує непорівнянно більшої уваги і археологів, і представників інших наук, і Української держави, і ЮНЕСКО, і Організації Об’єднаних Націй. Упродовж багатьох десятиліть науковою загадкою залишалася проблема «зникнення» трипільців. Куди поділися численні носії потужної цивілізації, якщо хліборобам у принципі не властиві далекі міграції? Інше, можливо, ще важливіше наукове питання – якою мірою Трипільська культура вплинула на сучасну Україну в усіх її проявах? На ці питання запропонував науково аргументовані відповіді автор докторської дисертації «Проблема реконструкції мови Трипільської культури» Юрій Мосенкіс, який показав вплив Трипілля на українську мову, зокрема на формування такої її чільної риси, як милозвучність. Нова книжка Юрія Мосенкіса присвячена впливові Трипілля на інші визначні культури Європи – легендарну Трою і славнозвісний Крит, колиску давньогрецької цивілізації. Автор розглядає свідчення участі трипільців у формуванні культури Трої починаючи з найдавніших часів існування цього знаменитого міста. Згодом уже Троя, у свою чергу, впливала на формування цивілізацій стародавнього Криту і материкової Греції. Отже, тепер культурна спадковість від Трипілля через Трою до Греції перетворилася з романтичної гіпотези на науково аргументовану теорію. Щиро вітаємо автора й бажаємо гарного сприйняття книжки в наукових і широких громадських колах України й світу, а також нових творчих успіхів! Віктор Ющенко, Президент України (2005-2010), почесний член Національної академії мистецтв України Олександр Поліщук, Заслужений працівник культури України 7 Στην αρχή υπήρχε Τριπολί Ο μοναδικός και ανεπανάληπτος πολιτισμός Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί κράτησε δυόμισι χιλιετίες και δημιούργησε αμέσως αναγνωρίσιμη, αριστουργηματική ζωγραφιστή κεραμική τέχνη, διώροφα σπίτια, μεγάλες πόλεις με χιλιάδες κατοίκους όπως πουθενά αλλού στον κόσμο εκείνης της εποχής. Οι Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί συγκέντρωναν και μεταλαμπάδευαν από γενιά σε γενιά τις πολύπλοκες αστρονομικές και κοσμολογικές γνώσεις, συμπεριλαμβανομένου ακόμα και την ικανότητα να προβλέπουν τις εκλείψεις Ηλίου και Σελήνης. Ζωγραφιστά σκεύη και γλυπτική αντικατόπτριζαν τις ανεπτυγμένες θρησκευτικές αντιλήψεις των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί. Δυστυχώς, ο πολιτισμός των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί παραμένει αρκετά άγνωστος όχι μόνο στην Ευρώπη και στον κόσμο εν γένει, αλλά ακόμα και στην ίδια την Ουκρανία. Ο εν λόγω πολιτισμός-φαινόμενο, εντούτοις, αξίζει πολύ περισσότερη προσοχή από την πλευρά των αρχαιολόγων και άλλων επιστημόνων, του Ουκρανικού κράτους, της UNESCO και του ΟΗΕ. Επί πολλές δεκαετίες το θέμα “εξαφάνισης” των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί αποτελούσε ένα επιστημονικό αίνιγμα. Πως εξαφανίστηκαν οι πολυάριθμοι φορείς ενός ισχυρού πολιτισμού, παρόλου που ο αγροτικός τρόπος ζωής τους δεν προϋπόθετε μακρινές μεταναστεύσεις; Ακόμα ένα, προφανώς πιό σημαντικό, ζήτημα είναι η επιρροή του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί στον πολιτισμό της σύγχρονης Ουκρανίας από όλες τις απόψεις. Τις επιστημονικά αποδεδειγμένες απαντήσεις στα παραπάνω ερωτήματα δίνει ο συγγραφέας της διδακτορικής διατριβής με θέμα: “Ανασύσταση της γλώσσας του πολιτισμού των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί σε σχέση με τους αρχαιολογικούς πολιτισμούς της Ελλάδας”, ο καθηγητής Γιούρι Μοσένκις, ο οποίος περιγράφει την επιρροή του πολιτισμού των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί πάνω στην Ουκρανική γλώσσα, συγκεκριμένα πάνω στη διαμόρφωση της χαρακτηριστικής ευφωνίας της. Το καινούργιο βιβλίο του καθ. Γιούρι Μοσένκις είναι αφιερωμένο στην επιρροή του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί πάνω στους άλλους σημαντικούς πολιτισμούς της Ευρώπης, την πολυθρύλητη Τρωάδα και την δοξασμένη Κρήτη, το λίκνο του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού. Ο συγγραφέας εστιάζει την προσοχή του στη συμμετοχή των ΚουκουτένιΤριπολί στη διαμόρφωση του πολιτισμού της Τρωάδας από τα πανάρχαια χρόνια της ύπαρξης αυτής της περίφημης πόλης. Αργότερα, η Τρωάδα ασκούσε επιρροή στη διαμόρφωση των πολιτισμών της Αρχαίας Κρήτης και της ηπειρωτικής Ελλάδας. Επομένως, η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί μέσω της Τρωάδας και της Ελλάδας μετατράπηκε από μιά ρομαντική υπόθεση σε επιστημονικά αποδεδειγμένη θεωρία. 8 Τα θερμά συγχαρητήρια στον συγγραφέα του βιβλίου. Ευχόμαστε καλή υποδοχή από το ευρύτερο επιστημονικό και αναγνωστικό κοινό της Ουκρανίας και του κόσμου, καθώς και τα καινούργια επιτεύγματα στον συγγραφέα! Βίκτορ Γιούστσενκο, Πρόεδρος της Ουκρανίας Ολεξάντρ Πολιστσούκ, Διακεκριμένος Παράγοντας Πολιτισμού της Ουκρανίας 9 In the beginning was Trypillia The unique Trypillian culture existed approximately two and a half millennia and created immediately recognizable, highly artistic hand-drawn ceramics, two-story buildings, large cities with a population of many thousands of people (and the world in that period did not know similar examples). The Trypillian people accumulated and passed on from generation to generation the cosmological knowledge, including even the possibilities of predicting the solar and the lunar eclipses. Painting dishes and clay plastic were reflecting the advanced religious concepts of Trypillia. Unfortunately, the Trypillian culture is still not popular enough even in Ukraine, let alone Europe and the world in general. Nevertheless, this phenomenal culture deserves incomparably greater attention of archaeologists and representatives of other sciences, and the Ukrainian state, and UNESCO and the UN. Over many decades, the “disappearance” of the Trypillians remained to be a scientific mystery. Where have vanished multiple carriers of the powerful civilization, if farmers indeed were not prone to long-distance migrations? Another, perhaps more important scientific question is to what extent the Trypillian culture has influenced modern Ukraine in all its manifestations? Iurii Mosenkis, the author of the doctoral thesis “The problem of the reconstruction of the Trypillian culture’s language”, has offered scientifically reasoned answers to these questions, having demonstrated Trypillia’s influence on the Ukrainian language, including the formation of its key feature – euphony. The new book by Iurii Mosenkis is devoted to the impact of Trypillia on other European outstanding cultures – the legendary Troy and the famous Crete, the cradle of the ancient Greek civilization. The author considers evidence of participation of the Trypillians in the formation of the Troy culture from the first times of the existence of this famous city. Consequently, Troy, in its turn, was influencing the formation of civilizations of ancient Crete and mainland Greece. Thus, now the cultural inheritance from Trypillia through Troy and to Greece evolved from a romantic hypothesis to a scientifically argumented theory. Congratulations to the author and we wish a good perception of the book in scientific and wide public circles of Ukraine and the world, as well as the new creative success! Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine (2005-2010) Honorary Member of the National Art Academy of Ukraine Oleksandr Polishchuk, Honorary Labourer of Culture of Ukraine 10 Незвичайна книга Читач тримає в руках незвичайну, сміливу за своїми висновками, книгу. Незвичайну не тільки тим, що автор наполегливо працював над нею більше двох десятиліть. Ця книга цікава ще й тим тим, що в ній подана оригінальна версія дешифрування найдавніших писемностей Європи. Автор запропонував власні дешифрування. В результаті була отримана унікальна інформація про економічне, соціальне та релігійне життя острова Крит кінця ІІІ – першої половини ІІ тисячоліття до Р.Х., де, згідно з відомостями сучасної археології (підтвердженими дешифруваннями писемностей), виникла перша в Європі держава. Там були закладені основи культури класичної Греції – основи сучасної європейської цивілізації. Утім, дослідник не обмежився лише Критом – він показав, що писемність острова зародилась у легендарній, опоетизованій Гомером, Трої. Однак, як уважає автор, і Троя не була першою. Як пізні троянські написи нагадують критські, так ранні троянські писемні знаки подібні до тих, що знайдені в Україні й належать до відомої Трипільської культури. Реконструюючи шлях розвитку писемності в Греції, автор робить ряд сміливих висновків та наполягає на певній спадковісті: Трипілля – Троя – Крит і материкова Греція. Наскільки науково виправдана така гіпотеза? Поза будь-яким сумнівом, вихід книги спричинить певну дискусію, за результатами якої і стане очевидною остаточна наукова цінність концепцій, які захищає автор. Але вже сьогодні зрозуміло, що ця книга може не лише спровокувати наукову дискусію, але й викличе неабикий інтерес у читача, котрий цікавиться давньою історією та джерелами нашої цивілізації. Олександр (Драбинко) Митрополит Переяслав-Хмельницький і Вишневський 11 Το ξεχωριστό βιβλίο Ο αναγνώστης κρατάει στα χέρια του ένα ξεχωριστό βιβλίο που καταλήγει σε εξαιρετικά τολμηρά συμπεράσματα. Το εν λόγω βιβλίο ξεχωρίζει όχι μόνο επειδή ο συγγραφέας δούλεψε επίμονα επί δύο δεκαετίες για να το ολοκληρώσει, αλλά και επειδή παρουσιάζει την καινοτόμα παραλλαγή αποκρυπτογράφησης των αρχαιότερων γραφών της Ευρώπης. Ο συγγραφέας εισάγει τις δικές του αποκρυπτογραφήσεις με αποτέλεσμα την απόκτηση ξεχωριστών πληροφοριών περί του οικονομικού, κοινωνικού και θρησκευτικού βίου της Κρήτης στα τέλη της 3ης - αρχές της 2ης χιλιετίας π.Χ., όπου σύμφωνα με τις πληροφορίες της σύγχρονης αρχαιολογίας, τεκμηριωμένες από τα αποκρυπτογραφημένα γραπτά μνημεία, δημιουργήθηκε το πρώτο Ευρωπαϊκό κράτος. Εκεί θεμελιώθηκε ο πολιτισμός της Κλασικής Ελλάδας, της κοιτίδας του σύγχρονου Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού. Είναι αξιοσημείωτο ότι ο μελετητής δεν περιορίστηκε στην Κρήτη και μόνο, προχώρησε για να αποδείξει ότι η γραφή του νησιού κατάγεται από τη θρυλική Τρωάδα, την οποία εξυμνούσε ο Όμηρος. Επίσης, ο συγγραφέας υποθέτει ότι η ιδιά η Τρωάδα δεν ήταν πρώτη. Όπως οι ύστερες γραπτές επιγραφές της Τρωάδας θυμίζουν τις κρητικές επιγραφές, τα πρώιμα γραπτά σημεία της Τρωάδας θυμίζουν τα γραπτά σημεία που βρέθηκαν στην Ουκρανία και ανήκουν στον περίφημο πολιτισμό Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί. Ανασυστήνοντας την πορεία ανάπτυξης της γραφής στην Ελλάδα, ο συγγραφέας καταλήγει στη σειρά τολμηρών συμπερασμάτων και ισχυρίζεται ότι η διαδοχή ήταν ως εξής: Πολιτισμός Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί - Τρωάδα - Κρήτη και ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα. Σε ποιο βαθμό η προαναφερθείσα υπόθεση είναι επιστημονικά αποδεδειγμένη; Αναμφίβολα η έκδοση του παρόντος βιβλίου θα αναζωπυρώσει την επιστημονική διαμάχη, η οποία θα φανερώσει την επιστημονική αξία της θεωρίας, την οποία εισάγει και υποστηρίζει ο συγγραφέας. Όμως ήδη από τώρα είναι ολοφάνερο ότι εκτός από την επιστημονική συζήτηση, το βιβλίο θα προκαλέσει μεγάλη προσοχή του ευρύτερου επιστημονικού κοινού που ενδιαφέρεται για την αρχαία ιστορία και για τις απαρχές του πολιτισμού μας. Ο π. Ολεξάντρ (Ντραμπίνκο), Μητροπολίτης Περεγιασλάβ-Χμελνίτσκι 12 Unusual book The reader holds in hands an unusual book, bold in its conclusions. Unusual not only because the author has worked hard on it for more than two decades. This book is also interesting since it presents the original version of the decipherment of the ancient European writing systems. The author offered his own decipherment. As a result, the unique information was obtained on the economic, social and religious life of the island of Crete from the end of the third to the first half of the second millennium BC, where, according to information from modern archeology (confirmed by the decipherment of writing), the first European state emerged. They laid the foundations of the culture of classical Greece – the foundations of the modern European civilization. However, the researcher did not confine himself to Crete only – he demonstrated that the island’s writing originated in the legendary, poeticized by Homer, Troy. However, according to the author, Troy was not the first. As the late Trojan inscriptions resemble Cretan, so the early Trojan written characters are similar to those found in Ukraine and belong to the famous Trypillia culture. Reconstructing the development of writing in Greece, the author makes a number of brave conclusions and insists on a certain heredity: Trypillia – Troy – Crete and mainland Greece. How scientifically justified is this hypothesis? Undoubtedly, the issue of this book will entail a certain discussion, on the results of which the final scientific value of the concepts that the author protects will become apparent. But today it is already clear that this book cannot only cause scientific discussion but also arouse extraordinary interest among readers who are interested in ancient history and the sources of our civilization. Oleksandr (Drabynko) Metropolitan Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky and Vishnevsky 13 Відродження елліністіки в Україні Для мене велика честь представити наукову роботу видатного вченого, дослідника, патріота, Людини з великої літери – професора Мосенкіса Юрія Леонідовича. Для мене велика честь мати відношення до представлення результатів його наполегливої праці протягом двох десятиріч, його щоденних пошуків, його боротьби за право мати свою точку зору, яка не завжди збігалася з думкою та теоріями усталених авторитетів. Найбільшою проблемою, з якою стикнувся автор і з якою щоденно стикаються тисячі дослідників із наукового середовища Украіни, на мій погляд, є ізоляція, а ще більше самоізоляція нашого наукового співтовариства від європейського, світового, а в нашому випадку і грецького наукового товариства. Усі основні здобутки в галузі науки – елліністики – були досягнуті, за рідісними винятками, ще до часів здобуття Україною Незалежності. І ось 27 років Незалежності – з чим ми входимо в свій 28-й рік самостійної держави? З розпорошеними науковими школами, закритими не з об'єктивних причин, а, на мою думку, – суб'єктивних причин кафедрами у провідних національних університетах, із відсутністю проривних фундаментальних тем в академічних інститутах, із відсутністю можливості представлення результатів досліджень на широкий науковий загал. Від кого це впершу чергу залежить? Від нас, від нашої згуртованості, від узаємопідтримки, від узаємопорозуміння. Байдужість, сварки, звинувачення до добра не приводять. Юрій Леонідович Мосенкіс своєю працею довів правдивість вислову, що і один у полі Воїн. Якщо він справді – Воїн. Крок за кроком рухатися вперед, відкривати нове, до тебе ще не розглянуте. Вислухувати зауваження колег, незаслужено отримувати удари чи поштовхи в спину від невігласів, і працювати, працювати день за днем без вихідних та свят протягом двадцяти років. І ось результат – наукове відкриття, вирішення наукової проблеми. Відкриття світового рівня, зроблене українським ученим, про яке і про якого повинні знати вчені всього світу, у першу чергу Украіни, Греції, Європи. Повинні знати, що наукова школа професора Ю. Л. Мосенкіса, до якої відносять себе як уже знані вчені, так і талановита молодь, є однією зі складових відродження науки елліністіки в Украіні. Відкриття професора Ю. Л. Мосенкіса має величезне значення не тільки для історії грецької культури (а це додає грецькій писемності ще 500 років, на півтисячоріччя більше, ніж уважалось раніше), для історії Європейської цивілізацііі, а й для історії української культури, для її єднання з грецькою культурою, з минулим та сьогоденням двох народів – Украіни і Греції. Хочу звернути увагу на висновки автора на взаємопов’язаність та взаємозалежність трипільської культури та домікенськоі грецької культури. Як тисячі років тому, так і сьогодні два великих народи – українці і греки – доповнюють та розвивають один одного. 14 Хочу вірити, що попереду як у видатного вченого-еллініста професора Юрія Леонідовича Мосенкіса, у його талановитих учнів і послідовників – нові відкриття, нові здобутки, нові публікації й головне – визнання як в Украіні й Греціі, так і у світовому науковому товаристві. Микола Корецький, доктор наук з державного управління, професор, Заслужений діяч науки і техніки Украіни, Голова громадської спілки «Київське міське товариство греків імені Костянтина Іпсіланті» 15 Η αναγέννηση των ελληνικών μελετών στην Ουκρανία Αποτελεί μεγάλη τιμή και ιδιαίτερη χαρά για μένα να προλογίσω το επιστημονικό έργο του διακεκριμένου επιστήμονα, ερευνητή, πατριώτη, Ανθρώπου με Α κεφαλαίο, καθηγητή Γιούρι Μοσένκις. Εκτιμώ πολύ την ευκαιρία να συμμετέχω στην παρουσίαση των αποτελεσμάτων της επίμονης προσπάθειάς του κατά τη διάρκεια των δύο δεκαετιών, της καθημερινής μελέτης του, του αγώνα του να έχει τη δική του άποψη, η οποία πολλές φορές δεν συνέπιπτε με τις επικρατούσες απόψεις και θεωρίες των αναγνωρισμένων από ευρύτερο επιστημονικό κοινό εμπειρογνωμόνων. Το μεγαλύτερο πρόβλημα που καθημερινά αντικρίζει ο συγγραφέας, καθώς και χιλιάδες άλλοι Ουκρανοί ερευνητές, κατά τη γνώμη μου, είναι η απομόνωση ή για την ακρίβεια αυτοαπομόνωση της επιστημονικής κοινότητάς μας από Ευρωπαϊκή και παγκόσμια επιστήμη. Στην περίπτωσή μας η ελληνική επιστήμη δεν αποτελεί εξαίρεση. Πλην σπανίων εξαιρέσεων όλα τα αξιόλογα επιτεύγματα στο χώρο των ελληνικών μελετών χρονολογούνται στην περίοδο πριν αποκτήσει η Ουκρανία την ανεξαρτησία της. Κατά τη διάρκεια των 27 χρόνων ιστορίας της Ανεξάρτητης Ουκρανίας με ποιά αποτελέσματα μπαίνουμε στο 28ο χρόνο; Με σκορπισμένες επιστημονικές σχολές και έδρες, κάποιες από τις οποίες ακόμα και στα σπουδαιότερα εθνικά πανεπιστήμια έκλεισαν άνευ λόγου και αιτίας, κατά τη γνώμη μου, ως επί το πλείστον, λόγω προσωπικών φιλοδοξιών ορισμένων ανθρώπων, με ανύπαρκτα πρωτοπόρα θεμελιώδη θέματα στα ακαδημαϊκά ινστιτούτα, με έλλειψη παρουσίασης των επιστημονικών συμπερασμάτων στο ευρύτερο επιστημονικό κοινό. Απο ποιον, άραγε, εξαρτάται; Από μας, βέβαια, από την ενότητά μας, από αλληλουποστήριξη, από αλληλοκατανόηση. Η αδιαφορία, οι συγκρούσεις, οι ενοχοποιήσεις δεν οδηγούν σε καλό. Ο Γιούρι Μοσένκις με το έργο του έχει αποδείξει το αντίθετο από το πασίγνωστο ρητό: και με έναν στρατιώτη μάχη κερδίζεται, αν ο ίδιος πολεμά γερά. Βήμα-βήμα προχωρούσε εμπρός, ανακάλυπτε το άγνωστο, κάτι, το οποίο κανένας δεν ήξερε νωρίτερα, άκουγε τις παρατηρήσεις των συναδέλφων, άντεξε τα χτυπήματα πίσω από την πλάτη του από τους αμάθητους και μέρα με τη μέρα συνέχιζε την ακαταπόνητη προσπάθειά του χωρίς διακοπές και άδειες κατά τη διάρκεια των είκοσι χρόνων. Πρόκειται για την ανακάλυψη παγκόσμιας σημασίας του Ουκρανού επιστήμονα για την οποία, καθώς και για τον εν λόγω επιστήμονα, οφείλει να μάθει όλη η παγκόσμια επιστημονική κοινότητα, ιδιαίτερα της Ουκρανίας, της Ελλάδας και της Ευρώπης. Πρέπει να γνωρίζουν ότι η επιστημονική σχολή του καθηγητή Γιούρι Μοσένκις, στην οποία ανήκουν διακεκριμένοι επιστήμονες και ταλαντούχα νεολαία αποτελεί ένα σημαντικό όχημα στην αναγέννηση των ελληνικών μελετών στην Ουκρανία. Η ανακάλυψη του καθηγητή Γιουρι Μοσένκις έχει πολύ μεγάλη σημασία όχι μόνο για την ιστορία του Ελληνικού πολιτισμού (διότι προσθέτει στην ελληνική γραφή ακόμα 500 χρόνια ιστορίας, δηλαδή μισή χιλιετία παραπάνω απ’ οτι νόμιζαν προηγουμένως) και για την ιστορία του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού, αλλά και για 16 την ιστορία του Ουκρανικού πολιτισμού και για την ένωσή του με τον Ελληνικό πολιτισμό, με το παρελθόν και το παρόν των δύο λαών της Ουκρανίας και της Ελλάδας. Θα ήθελα να εστιάσουμε την προσοχή μας στα συμπεράσματα του συγγραφέα για την αλληλεπίδραση και για την στενή σχέση του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί και του Ελληνικού πολιτισμού που προηγείται του Μυκηναϊκού. Όπως χιλιάδες χρόνια πριν, σήμερα οι δύο μεγάλοι λαοί, Έλληνες και Ουκρανοί, αναπληρώνουν και βοηθούν στην ανάπτυξη ένας τον άλλον. Ευελπιστώ πως ο σημαντικός ελληνιστής και επιστήμονας Γιούρι Μοσένκις, καθώς και οι διάδοχοι και μαθητές του θα κάνουν ακόμα πολλές λαμπρές ανακαλύψεις, θα δημοσιεύσουν πολλά αξιόλογα έργα και το κυριότερο - θα αναγνωριστούν για το έργο τους στην Ουκρανία, στην Ελλάδα και στην παγκόσμια επιστημονική κοινότητα. Μικόλα Κορέτσκι, Διδάκτωρ σε θέματα κρατικής διαχείρισης, καθηγητής Διακεκριμένο μέλος της Επιστήμης και Τεχνικής της Ουκρανίας, Πρόεδρος του Συλλόγου Ελλήνων Κιέβου «Κωνσταντίνος Υψηλάντης» 17 Renaissance of Hellenic Studies in Ukraine It is a great honor for me to present the scientific work of an outstanding scientist, researcher, patriot, the Person, written with a capital letter, – Professor Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis. It is a great honor for me to be related to presenting the results of his hard work for two decades, his daily searches, his struggle for the right to possess his own point of view, which does not always coincide with the opinions and theories of the established authorities. In my opinion, the biggest problem the author faced and that thousands of researchers from the Ukrainian scientific community face every day is isolation, and even more, – self-isolation of our scientific community from the European, global, and, in our case, the Greek scientific community. All the major achievements in the field of science – Hellenic studies – were achieved, with the rare exceptions, even before Ukraine obtained independence. And here are 27 years of Independence – with what do we enter our 28th year of an independent state? With scattered scientific schools which are closed not for objective reasons, but, in my opinion, for subjective reasons of departments in leading national universities, with the lack of breakthrough fundamental topics in academic institutions, and the lack of opportunity to present research results to the wide scientific community. Who is the first to be responsible for all of this? We, our cohesion, support, understanding. Indifference, quarrels, accusations do not tend to lead toward good results. By means of his labor, Iurii Leonidovich Mosenkis proved the veracity of the expression that even one man Is Man. If he really Is a Man. Step by step, moving forward, discover new things, not discovered before you. Listen to the comments of colleagues, receive unfair punches and pushes in the back from ignoramuses, and work, work day by day, no days off, and holidays for twenty years. And here is the result – a scientific discovery, the solution to a scientific problem. The world-class discovery, made by the Ukrainian scientist, about which and about who the scientists of the whole world, first of all Ukraine, Greece, and Europe should be aware. We should know that the scientific school of Professor Iurii L. Mosenkis, to which both already known scientists and talented young people refer themselves, is one of the components of the revival of Hellenic studies in Ukraine. The discovery of Professor Iurii L. Mosenkis is of great significance not only to the history of the Greek culture (and this adds another 500 years to Greek writing, more than it was previously considered), to the history of the European civilization, but also to the history of the Ukrainian culture for its unity with the Greek culture, to the past and the present of two nations – Ukraine and Greece. I would like to draw attention to the author’s conclusions on the interconnectedness and interdependence of the Trypillian culture and the PreMycenaean Greek culture. As thousands of years ago, today two great nations – Ukrainian and Greek – complement and develop one another. I want to believe that new discoveries, new achievements, new publications, and, most importantly, – recognition both in Ukraine and Greece, and in the world 18 scientific community await an outstanding Hellenistic scientist, Professor Iurii Leonidovich Mosenkis, and his talented students and followers. Mykola Koretsky, Dr. Sc. in Public Administration, Professor, Honorary Labourer of Science and Technology of Ukraine, Head of the Kyiv Ypsilantis Society of Greeks 19 Сторінки давньої історії Назва цієї книги починається зі згадки декількох знакових для давньої історії назв. Серед них – найменування культурного комплексу Кукутень-Трипілля, який існував у V-IV тис. до Р.Х., а також Трої – міста-держави, що виникло в кінці IV тис. до Р.Х. Відкриті археологами у другій половині ХІХ століття, вони стали своєрідним символом розкриття невідомих сторінок давньої історії. Друга половина назви містить слово «Греція». За часів, що передували згаданим вище археологічним відкриттям, саме в Елладі (і не без вагомих на те підстав) бачили витоки європейської історії і культури. Проте лише завдяки археологічним відкриттям, зокрема й на території Греції, стало зрозуміло, наскільки стародавньою насправді є ця історія і скільки ще належить витратити зусиль, аби у ній розібратися. Історики звикли відновлювати історію, використовуючи писемні джерела. Чим глибше в часі, тим їх менше, тим вони фрагментованіші й туманніші. Особливий випадок становлять найдавніші системи письма, коли у більшості випадків ключовим питанням є те, для якої мови вони створені. Тут історики й археологи поступаються полем діяльності філологам і можуть лише уважно спостерігати за результатами їхньої діяльності. Маю сказати, що у випадку з цією книгою заняття це було вельми цікавим і захопливим: адже у ній запропоновано усебічний опис не тільки історії, але й суспільного життя, економіки, релігії Стародавньої Греції, не кажучи про розвиток мови і становлення писемності протягом двох тисячоліть. Може виникнути питання, а як усе це може стосуватися культурного комплексу Кукутень-Трипілля і легендарної Трої? Виявляється, дуже навіть може. З огляду на ту обставину, що у VII-VI тис. до Р.Х. через землі Еллади в Європу проникали аграрні технології, що докорінно змінили спосіб життя на континенті, вона так чи інакше була пов’язана з досить віддаленими територіями. Уже в ті далекі часи виникають трансєвропейські торгові шляхи, як сухопутні так і морські, які будуть діяти аж до епохи Середньовіччя, а деякі зберегли значення і до наших днів. Наприклад, прикраси, виготовлені з мушель, виловлених в Егейському морі, протягом тисяч років були бажаним товаром на великих територіях – від узбережжя Балтійського моря до долини Дніпра, куди носії трипільської культури проникли в другій половині V тисячоліття до Р.Х. На грунті усвідомлення духовної спільності і спільності походження стародавніх землеробів на континенті виникає унікальне явище, яке археологи називають «Цивілізацією Старої Європи» (Old Europe). Тисячоліттями у її межах зберігалися духовні зв’язки, пов’язані з поклонінням Великій Богині. З’являється й упродовж майже двох тисячоліть розвивається складна знакова система, піктографічне «Дунайське письмо», а потім і його локальні версії, зокрема й Кукутень-Трипільська. 20 У другій частині книги зроблена цікава спроба прочитання знаків на деяких артефактах Кукутень-Трипілля, датованих другою половиною IV тис. до Р.Х., а також із Трої, що належать уже до III тис. до Р.Х. В останньому випадку цікавим є те, що знаки ці виявлено на керамічних прясельцях. І прясельця, і деякі знаки на них знаходять найближчі аналогії у знахідках з поселень трипільської культури, датованих другою половиною IV тис. до Р.Х. Між ними і троянськими прясельцями кількасот років різниці у віці, але схожість вражає. З’ясування цієї обставини — справа майбутніх досліджень. Крім того, у книзі зроблена спроба простежити й обгрунтувати зв’язки найдавніших європейських знакових систем із ієрогліфікою Криту і походженням лінійного письма А. Тим самим до археологічних свідчень щодо найдавніших сторінок історії Еллади в другій половині IV-III тис. до Р.Х. чи не вперше були додані писемні джерела. Особливий інтерес становить перша половина книги, у якій на підставі писемних джерел (авторське прочитання написів лінійного письма А) запропоновані детальні відомості стосовно економіки, суспільного устрою та життя і релігії Древньої Греції. Вони становлять значний інтерес для детального порівняння з відомостями, отриманими під час розкопок. Цю роботу буде надзвичайно цікаво провести в майбутньому. Однак інтерпретація деяких джерел, наприклад, висновки щодо існування матріархату і «матріархальних божеств» на Криті, не виглядають, на наш погляд, достатньо переконливими. У випадку з «матріархатом» це скоріше данина історіографічній традиції (що напряму відсилає до «Цивілізації Богинь» Марії Гімбутас) у цьому питанні. Ця тема у зв’язку зі згаданою працею вже була предметом розлогої дискусії, насамперед у колі археологів, кілька десятиліть тому. І та дискусія, слід зауважити, завершилася зовсім не на користь концепції “мартіархальної Європи”, яка суперечила насамперед наявним археологічним відомостям. Наявність у пантеоні богинь, і навіть та обставина, що вони (на думку вчених) в ньому домінували, ще не може бути, на наш погляд, достатньою підставою для висновків стосовно матріархату у суспільстві. Навіть застосування титулу «Її Величність» стосовно божества може бути витлумачена різним чином, причому не обов'язково саме так, як це робить автор. По той бік Середземного моря (і в той самий час, відзначимо), був розташований Давній Єгипет, у якому за всієї значної кількості жіночих божеств та їх серйозних позиціях у пантеоні та міфологічній традиції, а також особливостях успадкування влади й навіть наявності дюжини фараонів жіночої статі, нині про «матріархат» як про якусь систему влади вже не йдеться. Титул «Пані» щодо Ісиди, Сехмет або Сешет був пов’язаний саме зі зверненням до божества, сутності іншого порядку, аніж прості смертні. Однак у цілому запропоноване автором бачення суспільного життя, економіки, засноване на прочитанні давніх письмен, у цілому не суперечить, а гармонійно доповнює те, що вже відомо за результатами археологічних 21 розкопок, дозволяє у багатьох випадках ліпше зрозуміти, як усе це могло виглядати і діяти у стародавні часи. Немає нічого неймовірного у запропонованому баченні давніх зв’язків, контактів, адже йдеться про часи, коли не було безлічі державних кордонів, що розділяють нині Європу. Напрямок зв’язків і вибір партнерів визначалися традиціями й необхідністю, а відстані, що навіть сьогодні виглядають великими, усе ж таки не були насправді такою вже непереборною перешкодою. На завершення хотів би подякувати автору за запропоновану візію цікавих сторінок давньої історії, яка, безумовно, буде цікава усім, кого вона цікавить і хвилює у наші часи. Михайло Відейко доктор історичних наук, старший науковий співробітник, завідувач науководослідної лабораторії археології Київського університету імені Бориса Грінченка 22 Οι πτυχές της αρχαίας ιστορίας Ο τίτλος του παρόντος βιβλίου αναφέρεται σε μερικές πολύ σημαντικές για την αρχαία ιστορία ονομασίες, μεταξύ των οποίων είναι και ο πολιτισμός Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί, ο οποίος χρονολογείται την 5η-4η χιλιετία π.Χ., καθώς και η Τρωάδα, η πόλη-κράτος που δημιουργήθηκε στα τέλη της 4ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. Οι αποκαλυμμένοι στο δεύτερο μισό του 19ου αιώνα μ.Χ. από αρχαιολόγους πολιτισμοί έχουν γίνει σύμβολο αποκάλυψης των άγνωστων πτυχών της αρχαίας ιστορίας. Το δεύτερο μισό του τίτλου περιέχει την ονομασία “Ελλάδα”. Κατά την περίοδο που προηγείται των παραπάνω αρχαιολογικών ανακαλύψεων και, μάλιστα, με σοβαρά τεκμήρια, στην Ελλάδα τοποθετούσαν την κοιτίδα της ευρωπαϊκής ιστορίας και πολιτισμού. Όμως αποκλειστικά χάρη στα αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα, τα οποία προέρχονται και από τα ελληνικά εδάφη επίσης, έγινε φανερό κατά πόσο μπορεί να είναι αρχαία η εν λόγω ιστορία και πόσες προσπάθειες απαιτούνται για να βρεθούν οι απαντήσεις στα ερωτήματά της. Οι ιστορικοί έχουν συνηθίσει να μελετούν την ιστορία βάσει των γραπτών πηγών. Όμως όσο πιο βαθιά χρονικά είναι η ιστορία, τόσο λιγότερα είναι και τα γραπτά μνημεία της, ενώ και τα υπάρχοντα ως επι το πλείστον είναι σποραδικά και θολά. Μια ξεχωριστή περίπτωση αποτελούν και οι πιο αρχαίες γραφές, καθώς και το ζήτημα ποιά είναι η γλώσσα τους. Σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις οι ιστορικοί και αρχαιολόγοι αφήνουν πεδίο δράσεις στους φιλολόγους και το μόνο που μπορούν να κάνουν είναι να απολαμβάνουν τα αποτελέσματα των φιλολογικών μελετών τους. Οφείλω να σημειώσω ότι η εν λόγω διαδικασία στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση ήταν πραγματικά ενδιαφέρουσα και απολαυστική, διότι το βιβλίο δίνει μιά σφαιρική εικόνα όχι μόνο των ιστορικών δεδομένων, αλλά και του κοινωνικού βίου, της οικονομίας, της θρησκείας της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας και, το σημαντικότερο, της γλωσσικής εξέλιξης και διαμόρφωσης της γραφής κατά τη διάρκεια των δύο χιλιετιών. Τίθεται η ερώτηση: τι σχέση μπορεί να έχουν όλα τα προαναφερθέντα με τον πολιτισμό Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί και την θρυλική Τρωάδα; Και όμως η σχέση υπάρχει και, μάλιστα, άμεση. Αν υπολογίσουμε το γεγονός ότι την 7η-6η χιλιετία π.Χ. μέσα από τα ελληνικά εδάφη στην Ευρώπη έφτασαν οι αγροτικές τεχνολογίες, οι οποίες άλλαξαν ριζικά τον τρόπο ζωής στην ήπειρο, συμπεραίνουμε ότι η Ελλάδα ήταν από πολύ παλιά συνδεδεμένη με τα αρκετά απομακρυσμένα μέρη. Ήδη από τότε δημιουργούνται διευρωπαϊκοί εμπορικοί άξονες μέσω της θάλασσας και της στερεάς, οι οποίοι θα λειτουργούν αδιάκοπα έως την εποχή του Μεσαίωνα, ενώ οι ορισμένοι υπάρχουν ακόμα και τώρα. Παραδείγματος χάρη, τα κοσμήματα, παρασκευασμένα από τα κοχύλια του Αιγαίου, ήταν πολυπόθητο εμπόρευμα κατά τη διάρκεια πολλών χιλιετιών στις τεράστιες εκτάσεις από τη Βαλτική Θάλασσα έως το Δνείπερο, όπου οι φορείς του 23 πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί έφτασαν στο δεύτερο μισό της 5ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. Βασιζόμενο στο κοινό πνευματικό υπόβαθρο και την κοινή καταγωγή των αρχαίων αγροτών στην Ευρώπη δημιουργείται ένα πρωτοφανές φαινόμενο, το οποίο αποκαλείται ο πολιτισμός της “Παλαιάς Ευρώπης” (Old Europe) από τους αρχαιολόγους. Επί χιλιετίες στο πλαίσιο του εν λόγω πολιτισμού διατηρούνταν οι πνευματικοί δεσμοί, συσχετιζόμενοι με τη λατρεία της Μεγάλης Θεάς. Επίσης, εμφανίζεται και επί δύο χιλιετίες εξελίσσεται το πολύπλοκο σύστημα πικτογραμμάτων, η λεγόμενη “γραφή του Δούναβη”, και απότερα οι τοπικές παραλλαγές του, όπως και η γραφή των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί. Το δεύτερο μέρος του βιβλίου είναι αφιερωμένο στην ενδιαφέρουσα προσπάθεια αποκρυπτογράφησης των επιγραφών στα ορισμένα μνημεία του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί που χρονολογούνται στην 4η χιλιετία π.Χ., καθώς και των μνημείων της Τρωάδας της 3ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. Το σπουδαιότερο στις εν λόγω περιπτώσεις είναι ότι αυτά τα σημεία βρέθηκαν στα πέτρινα σφοντύλια. Τα σφοντύλια και ορισμένα από τα σημεία των Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί, παρόλου που χρονολογούνται στην 4η χιλιετία π.Χ. και απέχουν μερικούς αιώνες από τα σφοντύλια της Τρωάδας, χαρακτηρίζονται από απίστευτη παρομοιότητα. Η μελέτη του εν λόγω φαινομένου αποτελεί στόχο των μελλοντικών ερευνών. Εκτος από αυτό, ο συγγραφέας επιχείρησε να εξηγήσει τη σχέση των αρχαιότερων γραφών της Ευρώπης με τα ιερογλυφικά της Κρήτης και τη Γραμμική Α. Με τον τρόπο αυτό ίσως για πρώτη φορά στην ιστορία μελετών της ελληνικής αρχαιότητας της 4ης-3ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. προστίθενται οι γραπτές πηγές. Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον αποτελεί το πρώτο μέρος του βιβλίου όπου ο συγγραφέας βάσει των δικών του αποκρυπτογραφήσεων της Γραμμικής Α δίνει λεπτομερέστατες πληροφορίες για την οικονομία, τον κοινωνικό βίο, την καθημερινότητα και τη θρησκεία της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας, οι οποίες είναι εξόχως ενδιαφέρουσες για τη σύγκριση με τα αποτελέσματα των ανασκαφών. Πρόκειται και πάλι για ένα επίκαιρο αντικείμενο μελλοντικών ερευνών. Όμως, οι ορισμένες ερμηνείες, λόγου χάρη το συμπέρασμα για την μητριαρχική κοινωνία και της μητριαρχικές θεότητες στην Κρήτη, κατά τη γνώμη μας, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα πειστικές. Η υπόθεση για την ύπαρξη μητριαρχίας οφείλεται κατά πάσα πιθανότητα στην ιστοριογραφική παράδοση (άμεση παραπομπή στο βιβλίο της Μαρίγιας Γκιμπούτας “Ο Πολιτισμός της Θεάς”). Το εν λόγω θέμα επί πολλά έτη αποτελούσε επίμαχο σημείο των επιστημονικών συζητήσεων και η διαμάχη τελείωσε με την ήττα των υποστηρικτών της ιδέας για τη μητριαρχική Ευρώπη, η οποία διαφωνούσε με τις αρχαιολογικά τεκμηριωμένες υποθέσεις. Η ύπαρξη στο πάνθεον των θηλυκών θεοτήτων και το γεγονός ότι (κατά τη γνώμη των επιστημόνων) είχαν προτεραιότητα, δεν αποτελεί κατά τη γνώμη μας τον επαρκή λόγο για το συμπέρασμα περί της μητριαρχικής κοινωνίας. Ακόμα και η προσφώνηση “Μεγάλη Κυρία” μπορεί να ερμηνευθεί ποικιλοτρόπως. Στην 24 άλλη πλευρά του Μεσογείου (και την ίδια εποχή κιόλας), υπήρχε η Αρχαία Αίγυπτος, όπου παρόλες τις πολυάριθμες θηλυκές θεότητες και τους σημαντικούς ρόλους που διαδραμάτιζαν στο πάνθεον και στη μυθολογία, καθώς και παρ’ολες τις παραδόσεις διαδοχής εξουσίας και ύπαρξη γυναικών Φαραώ, δεν πρόκειται για τη μητριαρχία ως σχήμα κοινωνικής οργάνωσης. Ο τίτλος “Κυρία” για την Ίσιδα ή για την Σεκχμέτ ήταν απλώς προσφώνηση στη θεότητα σε διαφορά με τις προσφωνήσεις προς τους κοινούς θνητούς. Παρ’όλα αυτά η άποψη του συγγραφέα για τον κοινωνικό βίο και την οικονομία βάσει των αρχαίων γραπτών μνημείων εν γένει δεν διαφωνεί με τα συμπεράσματα της σύγχρονης αρχαιολογίας, αντιθέτως σε περισσότερες περιπτώσεις βοηθάει στην καλύτερη κατανόηση των φαινομένων της αρχαίας ιστορίας. Δεν υπάρχει τίποτα αδύνατο στις υποθέσεις του συγγραφέα όσον αφορά τις σχέσεις και τις επαφές στα αρχαία χρόνια, διότι δεν υπήρχαν σύνορα που χωρίζουν τη σύγχρονη Ευρώπη. Ο άξονας των επαφών και η επιλογή των συμμάχων προσδιοριζόταν από την παράδοση και αναγκαιότητα, ενώ οι αποστάσεις που ακόμα και σήμερα φαίνονται μεγάλες στην ουσία δεν αποτελούσαν ιδιαίτερο εμπόδιο στην εξάπλωσή τους. Εν κατακλείδι, θα ήθελα να εκφράσω την ευγνωμοσύνη μου στον συγγραφέα για την προτεινόμενη ανασκόπηση της αρχαίας ιστορίας, η οποία αναμφίβολα θα προκαλέσει μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον ανάμεσα στους σύγχρονους ιστοριολάτρεις. Μιχάιλο Βιντέικο, διδάκτορας ιστορίας, επιστημονικός συνεργάτης, Πρόεδρος του επιστημονικού και ερευνητικού σπουδαστηρίου αρχαιολογικών μελετών του Πανεπιστημίου “Μπορίς Γρίντσενκο” του Κιέβου 25 Pages of Ancient History The title of this book begins with the mention of several iconic nominations regarding the ancient history. Among them is the name of the cultural complex Cucuteni-Trypillia, which existed in the 5-4th millennium BC as well as Troy – a citystate, which arose at the end of the 4th millennium BC. Discovered by archaeologists in the second half of the 19th century, they became a kind of a symbol for the disclosure of unknown pages in ancient history. The second half of the name contains the word "Greece". In the times that preceded the above-mentioned archaeological discoveries, it was in Hellas (and not without good reason) that the sources of European history and culture were seen. Yet it was only due to the archaeological discovery, including on the territory of Greece, that it became clear how ancient this story really was and how much effort still had to be spent to figure it out. Historians are used to restoring history employing written sources. The deeper in time, the fewer they appear to be found, the more fragmented and foggy they seem. A special case is represented by the most ancient writing systems, when in most cases the key question is for which language they were created. Here, historians and archaeologists are relying on the scientific activity of philologists who carefully scrutinize the results of their research. I must say that in the case of this book this occupation was very interesting and fascinating: after all, it offered a comprehensive description of not only history, but also public life, economics, religion of ancient Greece, let alone the development of language and the formation of writing over two thousand years. The question may arise, what kind of all this may be related to the cultural complex of Cucuteni-Trypillia and legendary Troy? It turns out that it actually may. Considering the fact that in the 7-6th millennia BC, agrarian technologies had penetrated Europe via the lands of Hellas, which radically changed the way of life on the continent, in one way or another, it was connected with quite remote territories. Already in those distant times, trans-European trade routes, both land and sea, emerged, which will operate until the Middle Ages, and some have retained their significance up to our days. For example, jewelry made from shells collected in the Aegean Sea for thousands of years has been a desirable commodity in large areas, from the Baltic Sea coast to the Dnieper Valley, where the carriers of the Trypillia culture penetrated in the second half of the 5th millennium BC. On the basis of realization of the spiritual community and common origin of the ancient farmers on the continent, a unique phenomenon arises, which archaeologists call the “Civilization of Old Europe.” For millennia, spiritual bonds connected with the worship of the Great Goddess have been kept within its borders. A complex sign system, the pictographic “Danube Script,” and then its local versions, including Cucuteni-Trypillia, appear and have been advancing for almost two millennia. In the second part of the book, an interesting attempt was made to read the signs on some of the Cucuteni-Trypillia artifacts, dated from the second half of the 4th 26 millennium BC, as well as from Troy, dated back to the 3rd millennium BC. In the latter case, it is interesting that these signs were found on ceramic spindles. Both the spindles and some signs on them possess the closest analogies in the finds from the settlements of the Trypillia culture dated to the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Between them and the Trojan spindles there were several years of difference in age, but the similarity is striking. The clarification of this circumstance is a matter of the future research. In addition, the book attempts to trace and substantiate the connections of the most ancient European sign systems with the hieroglyphics of Crete and the origin of Linear A script. Thus, in the archaeological evidence of the most ancient pages of the history of Hellas in the second half of the 4-3th millennia BC for the first time written sources were added. Of particular interest is the first half of the book, in which, on the basis of written sources (the author's reading of Linear A inscriptions), detailed information about the economy, social system, and life and religion of Ancient Greece is offered. They are of considerable significance for a detailed comparison with the data obtained during excavations. This work will be very fascinating in the future. However, the interpretation of some sources, for example, the conclusions regarding the existence of matriarchy and “matriarchal deities” in Crete, do not seem, in our opinion, sufficiently convincing. In the case of “matriarchy”, this is rather a tribute to the historiographic tradition (directly refers to the “Civilization of the Goddesses” by Maria Gimbutas) in this matter. In relation with this work, the topic has already been the subject of extensive discussion, primarily among archaeologists, several decades ago. And that discussion, it is noteworthy, ended in no way in favor of the concept of "Matriarchal Europe", which contradicted, first of all, the available archaeological information. The presence of goddesses in the pantheon, as well as the fact that they (according to scientists) dominated in it, cannot yet be, in our opinion, a sufficient basis for conclusions regarding matriarchy in society. Even the application of the title of “Her Majesty” with respect to the deity may be interpreted in different ways, and not necessarily precisely as the author does. On the other side of the Mediterranean Sea (and at the same time, let us note), there was Ancient Egypt, in which, for all the significant number of female deities and their serious positions in the pantheon and mythological tradition, as well as the peculiarities of the inheritance of power and even the presence of a dozen female pharaohs, about “matriarchy” as some type of a system of power scientists no longer have discussions. The title "Mistress" in relation to Isis, Sekhmet or Seshet was associated exactly with the reference to a deity, an entity of a different order than ordinary mortals. However, on the whole, the author’s vision of social life, economics, based on the reading of ancient writings, in general, does not contradict, but harmoniously complements what is already known from the results of archaeological excavations, and in many cases helps to better understand how all this could look and act in ancient time. There is nothing improbable in the proposed vision of ancient ties, 27 contacts because we are talking about times when there were not many state borders that now separate Europe. The direction of relations and the choice of partners were determined by tradition and necessity, and distances, even today, look great, yet were not really such an insurmountable obstacle. In conclusion, I would like to thank the author for the proposed vision of the interesting pages of ancient history, which, of course, will be of interest to everyone who is concerned and worried about similar subjects in our time. Mykhailo Videiko Doctor of History, Senior Researcher 28 Писемна мова першої європейської держави: Чому новітнє дослідження лінійного письма А важливе для нас нині? Відкриття, репрезентовані у книжці професора Ю. Л. Мосенкіса, мають величезне значення для історії грецької культури й усієї європейської цивілізації. Не менше значення це дослідження має для України. У книжці дістали строге наукове підтвердження, по-перше, ідея початку ХХ ст. про Трипільську культуру як попередницю Мікенської грецької, і, по-друге, романтична гіротеза про вплив Трипілля на формування Трої. Традиція написів на пряслицях демонструє єдину лінію розвитку від пізнього Трипілля через Трою до першої європейської держави на Криті. Унікальний феномен стародавньої морської цивілізації Криту вперше досліджений на основі конкретних писемних документів, що виявилися цілком узгодженими зі свідченнями археології та мистецтвознавства. Мінойський Крит тепер виведений із темряви доісторії на світло історії. Блискуче підтверджена гіпотеза найавторитетнішого за всю історію дослідження давньогрецької мови еллініста – Пауля Кречмера – про іонійський діалект як поширений раніше за всі інші діалекти й безпосередній попередник ахейського діалекту. Діалект лінійного письма А містить саме іонійські риси й передує ахейському діалекту лінійного письма В. Суспільство лінійного письма А винятково цікаве для розуміння самої сутності європейської цивілізації та її перших кроків. Це ще не народження західного світу (який узвичаєно починати з класичної античності), однак це його безпосередня передісторія. Доведена індоєвропейська природа мови лінійного письма А й безперервність документованої історії грецької мови впродовж чотирьох тисяч років – на півтисячоліття більше, ніж уважали раніше. Грецька виявилася мовою з найдавнішою писемною традицією не тільки серед інших індоєвропейських, а й серед усіх сучасних мов, включаючи китайську (засвідчену з XVIII ст. до н.е.). Тепер грецька писемна трпадиція своєю тривалістю поступається тільки єгипетсько-коптській традиції, що тривала з кінця IV тис. до н.е. (перші читабельні давньоєгипетські пам’ятки) до XVIII ст. (припинення живого вживання коптської мови). Надзвичайно важливим і актуальним є підтвердження написами лінійного А існування на давньому Криті матріархату, який раніше тільки припускали для деяких давніх суспільств (включаючи й мінойське). Запропоновані читання написів лінійного А спростовують універсальність патріархальної моделі цивілізації й показують альтернативні шляхи успішного розвитку суспільства. Це дає додаткове історичне підгрунтя для осмислення глибокого коріння руху за рівноправність жінок і фемінізму. Лінійне письмо А свідчить про своєрідну форму монотеїзму, до того ж не патріархального – про вшанування Великої Богині в багатьох іпостасях (що 29 давно припускали дослідники за свідченнями критського мистецтва). Деякі елементи культу Богородиці в Греції не випадково виводять із культу мінойської богині. Під покровительством матріархальних богинь і керівництвом земних жіноклідерів критські греки побудували економіку мирного процвітання і суспільство без внутрішніх конфліктів (про що свідчать схожі плани палаців, відсутність укріплень у містах і називання головних поселень за єдиним планом). Мінойський Крит, що виявився грецьким, будував успішні взаємини з сусідами – Єгиптом, Малою Азією (хеттами), Левантом, що також віддзеркалено в написах лінійного А. Поки чоловіки перебували в плаваннях, жінки мирно й ефективно керували суспільством, виконуючи обов’язки, як свідчать написи лінійного А, міських голів і суддів. Цей досвід може виявитися цікавим і повчальним для сучасного суспільства. Ситуація на давньому Криті здається подібною до сучасної Північної Європи (також невіддільної від моря!), де жінки відіграють провідну роль у парламентах і урядах. Увагу сучасних дієтологів і всіх, хто турбується про культуру здорового харчування, може привернути середземноморська дієта – за визначенням дешифрувальника, «мінойська тетрада» (зернові, інжир, оливки й оливкова олія, вино). Написи свідчать також про вживання (хоч і скромніше порівняно зі згаданою «тетрадою») бобових, приправ і пива, а також про обмежене вживання м’яса (яловичини, баранини та свинини). У той же час видається дивною відсутність згадок про сир і мед. Списки сільськогосподарських продуктів у лінійному А фіксують ті види продуктів, які тривалий час зберігали в палацових господарствах. Особливе зацікавлення це дослідження може становити для археологів, етнологів та істориків технологій, зокрема військової техніки: у написах віддзеркалені оброблення шерсті й виготовлення килимів, промисел молюсків, зброя, споряджекння мінойського воїна й навіть вершництво. Також прочитані списки численних тодішніх професій – від дровосіка до флейтиста. Написи також віддзеркалюють витоки грецької релігії – не тільки імена богів і вшанування їх, а й жрецтво, культові місця (священні гори, печери та храми) й обряди. Виявлені перші писемні свідчення про Міноса, Деметру, Зевса, Діоніса, богиню хатнього вогнища Гестію, богиню народження дітей Іліфію. Установлена центральна роль культу священних узливань – що зближує мінойський Крит із Трипільською культурою. Дмитро Переверзєв, кандидат філологічних наук, член-кореспондент Академії наук вищої освіти України, почесний доктор Інституту культури Солензара (Франція), дійсний член Європейської академії наук, мистецтв та літератури (Франція) 30 Γραπτή γλώσσα του πρώτου Ευρωπαϊκού κράτους: γιατί η πρόσφατη μελέτη της Γραμμικής Α είναι σημαντική για μας ακόμα και τώρα; Οι ανακαλύψεις του καθηγητή Γιούρι Μοσένκις είναι μείζονος σημασίας για την ιστορία του Ελληνικού και του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού γενικότερα. Για την Ουκρανία η εν λόγω μελέτη είναι εξίσου σημαντική. H μελέτη υποστηρίζει με σοβαρά επιστημονικά επιχειρήματα την ιδέα των αρχών του 20ου αιώνα, ότι ο πολιτισμός Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί είναι προγενέστερος σε σχέση με το Μυκηναϊκό ελληνικό πολιτισμό, καθώς και τη ρομαντική ιδέα για την επιρροή του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί στη διαμόρφωση του πολιτισμού της Τρωάδας. Η παράδοση επιγραφών στα σφοντύλια αποδεικνύει την κοινή γραμμή εξέλιξης από τον πολιτισμό Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί ύστερης περιόδου μέσω της Τρωάδας στο πρώτο ευρωπαϊκό κράτος στην Κρήτη. Το πρωτοφανές και μοναδικό φαινόμενο του αρχαίου θαλάσσιου πολιτισμού της Κρήτης για πρώτη φορά έχει μελετηθεί βάσει των συγκεκριμένων γραπτών μνημείων που τεκμηριώνουν τα συμπεράσματα της αρχαιολογίας και της ιστορίας τεχνών. Η Μινωική Κρήτη ξαναβγαίνει από το σκοτάδι της προϊστορίας στο ιστορικό φως. Η υπόθεση του μεγαλύτερου σε όλη την ιστορία των αρχαίων ελληνικών μελετών ελληνιστή Paul Kretschmer για την προτεραιότητα της Ιωνικής διαλέκτου ανάμεσα σε άλλες διαλέκτους, καθώς και η σκέψη ότι αποτελεί άμεσο προκάτοχο της Αχαϊκής διαλέκτου, έχει τεκμηριωθεί με καλύτερο τρόπο. Η διάλεκτος της Γραμμικής Α διαθέτει Ιωνικά χαρακτηριστικά και προηγείται της Αχαϊκής διαλέκτου της Γραμμικής Β. Η κοινωνία της Γραμμικής Α είναι εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρουσα για την κατανόηση της ουσίας του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού και των πρώτων βημάτων του. Δεν πρόκειται ακόμα για τη γέννηση του Δυτικού κόσμου, η οποία χρονολογείται ως συνήθως από την κλασική αρχαιότητα, πρόκειται όμως για την άμεση προϊστορία του. Έχει τεκμηριωθεί επίσης η ινδοευρωπαϊκή φύση της Γραμμικής Α και η αδιάκοπη εξέλιξη της γραπτής ιστορίας της Ελληνικής γλώσσας διάρκειας τεσσάρων χιλιετιών, δηλαδή μισή χιλιετία παραπάνω σε σχέση με την επικρατούσα γνώμη. Η Ελληνική γλώσσα αποδείχθηκε να έχει την πιό αρχαία γραπτή παράδοση όχι μόνο ανάμεσα σε άλλες Ινδοευρωπαϊκές γλώσσες, αλλά και ανάμεσα σε όλες τις σύγχρονες γλώσσες, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της Κινεζικής (από 18ο αιώνα π.Χ.). Από τώρα η ελληνική γραπτή παράδοση υστερεί σε διάρκεια μόνο από την Αιγυπτιακή Κοπτική παράδοση, η οποία χρονολογείται στα τέλη της 4ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. (τα πρώτα διαβάσιμα γραπτα μνημεία) έως 18ο αιώνα (τερματισμός χρήσης της ζωντανής Κοπτικής γλώσσας). Μείζονος σημασίας είναι και η τεκμηρίωση από τις επιγραφές της Γραμμικής Α της ύπαρξης μητριαρχίας στην Κρήτη, την οποία τη θεωρούσαν πιθανή για κάποιες αρχαίες κοινωνίες, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της Μινωικής. Οι 31 προτεινόμενες αποκρυπτογραφήσεις της Γραμμικής Α αντικρούουν την καθολικότητα του πατριαρχικού μοντέλου πολιτισμού και δείχνουν εναλλακτικούς δρόμους της επιτυχημένης κοινωνικής εξέλιξης. Τα προαναφερθέντα διαμορφώνουν την ιστορική βάση για την κατανόηση των βαθιών ριζών κινήματος για την ισότητα φύλων και τον φεμινισμό. Η Γραμμική Α αποδεικνύει την ιδιόρρυθμη μορφή του μονοθεϊσμού, ο οποίος δεν ήταν πατριαρχικός και αποτελούσε λατρεία της Μεγάλης Θεάς σε πολλές υποστάσεις (κάτι το οποίο από παλιά υποθέτουν οι ερευνητές της Κρητικής τέχνης). Δεν είναι καθόλου τυχαίο πως τα ορισμένα στοιχεία της λατρείας της Θεοτόκου στην Ελλάδα πηγάζουν από τη λατρεία της Μινωικής θεάς. Υπό την προστασία των θηλυκών θεών και την ηγεσία των γήινων γυναικώναρχηγών οι Έλληνες της Κρήτης έχτισαν την οικονομία της ειρηνικής ανάπτυξης και την κοινωνία χωρίς εσωτερικές συγκρούσεις (κάτι το οποίο αποδεικνύεται από τα σχέδια των ανακτόρων, απουσία των οχυρών στις πόλεις και ονομασίες των κύριων τόπων με την κοινή λογική). Η Μινωική Κρήτη, η οποία αποδείχθηκε ελληνική, ανέπτυξε την καρποφόρα συνεργασία με τις γειτονικές χώρες, όπως η Αίγυπτος, η Μικρά Ασία (οι Χετταίοι), ο Λεβάντες, σύμφωνα με τις επιγραφές της Γραμμικής Α. Όταν οι άντρες θαλασσοπορούσαν, οι γυναίκες ειρηνικά και αποτελεσματικά κυβερνούσαν την κοινωνία, εκτελώντας τα καθήκοντα, όπως αποδεικνύεται από τις επιγραφές της γραμμικής Α, των δημάρχων και των δικαστών. Η εν λόγω εμπειρία μπορεί να είναι εξόχως ενδιαφέρουσα και διδακτική για την σημερινή κοινωνία. Η κατάσταση στην Αρχαία Κρήτη ήταν παρόμοια με την κατάσταση στη σύγχρονη Βόρεια Ευρώπη (επίσης παραθαλάσσια!), όπου οι γυναίκες διαδραματίζουν καθοριστικό ρόλο στα κοινοβούλια και στις κυβερνήσεις. Εξόχως ενδιαφέρουσα επίσης για τους διαιτολόγους και γενικότερα για τους ανθρώπους που ενδιαφέρονται για υγιεινή διατροφή είναι και το θέμα της Μεσογειακής διατροφής, την οποία ο συγγραφέας αναφέρει ως “μινωική τετράδα” (τα σιτηρά, τα σύκα, οι ελιές και το ελαιόλαδο, το κρασί). Οι επιγραφές επίσης μαρτυρούν τη χρήση (σε λιγότερο βαθμό σε σύγκριση με την “τετράδα”) των οσπρίων, μπαχαρικών και μπύρας, καθώς και την περιορισμένη χρήση κρεατικών (μοσχαρίσιο, αρνίσιο και χοιρινό κρέας). Από την άλλη πλευρά εκπλήσσει η έλλειψη αναφοράς για το τυρί ή το μέλι. Οι κατάλογοι των αγροτικών προϊόντων στη Γραμμική Α περιέχουν τα είδη διατροφής που διατηρούνταν στα ανάκτορα. Πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα είναι η εν λόγω μελέτη για τους αρχαιολόγους, λαογράφους και ιστορικούς τεχνολογιών, ιδιαίτερα πολεμικής τέχνης: οι επιγραφές περιέχουν πληροφορίες για την επεξεργασία μαλλιού και την παραγωγή χαλιών, την αλιεία μαλακίων, τα όπλα και την πανοπλία του μινωικού στρατιώτη, καθώς και του ιππότη. Επίσης, έχουν διαβαστεί και οι κατάλογοι των επαγγελμάτων της εποχής εκείνης: από ξυλοκόπο έως πλαγιαυλιστή. 32 Οι επιγραφές αντικατοπτρίζουν τις απαρχές της ελληνικής θρησκείας, όχι μόνο τα ονόματα των θεών και των ιεροτελεστιών, αλλά και των ιερέων, των ιερών τόπων (τα ιερά όρη, σπήλαια και ναοί) και τα έθιμα. Εντοπίστηκαν τα πρώτα γραπτά μνημεία για τον Μίνωα, τη Δήμητρα, τον Δία, τον Διόνυσο, την θεά της οικίας Εστία, την θεά του τοκετού Ειλειθυία. Αποδείχθηκε ο καθοριστικός ρόλος της ιεροτελεστίας σπονδής που αποτελεί ακόμα ένα κοινό γνώρισμα της Μινωικής Κρήτης και του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί. Ντμιτρό Περεβέρζιεβ, υποψήφιος διδάκτορας φιλολογίας, αντεπιστέλλον μέλος της Ακαδημίας Ανώτατης Εκπαίδευσης Ουκρανίας, επίτιμος διδάκτορας του Ινστιτούτου Πολιτισμού Solenzara (Γαλλία), τακτικός μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ακαδημίας Επιστημών, Τεχνών και Λογοτεχνίας (Γαλλία) 33 The written language of the first European state: Why the recent research of Linear A is important for us now? The discoveries presented in this book are of great significance to the history of Greek culture and the whole European civilization. However, the research is not less important regarding Ukraine. In this work an accurate scientific confirmation found both the idea of the start of the twentieth century about the Trypillian culture as the predecessor of the Mycenaean Greece and the romantic hypothesis about the impact of Trypillia on the formation of Troy. The tradition of the inscriptions on spindle whorls demonstrates a single line of development from late Trypillia through Troy to the first European state in Crete. The unique phenomenon of the old marine civilization of Crete was first investigated on the basis of specific written documents which turned out to be quite consistent with the data of archeology and art history. Minoan Crete is now brought out of the darkness of prehistory into the light of history. Perfectly confirmed was the hypothesis of the most authoritative Hellenist in the entire history of the ancient Greek language studies – Paul Kretschmer – about the Ionian dialect that was spread earlier than all other dialects and immediately preceded the Achaean dialect. The dialect of the Linear A script contained exactly Ionic features and preceded the Achaean dialect of the Linear B script. The Linear A society is extremely interesting in terms of understanding the very essence of the European civilization and its first steps. This is not the birth of the Western world (which conventionally begins with the classical antiquity), but its direct prehistory. The Indo-European nature of the Linear A language and the continuity of the documented history of the Greek language during four thousand years have been proven – half a millennium more than it was previously considered. The Greek language turned out to be a language with the oldest written tradition not only among other Indo-European but also among all modern languages, including Chinese (witnessed from the XVIII century BC). Now the Greek written tradition gives way only to the Egyptian-Coptic tradition, which ranged from the end of the 4 th millennium BC (first read ancient Egyptian monuments) until the XVIII century (termination of the live use of the Coptic language). Extremely essential and appropriate appears the confirmation of the inscriptions of Linear A concerning the existence of matriarchy in ancient Crete, which was previously only supposed for some societies (including Minoan). The proposed readings of Linear A inscriptions disprove the universality of the civilization patriarchal model and depict alternative ways of successful society’s development. This provides additional historical grounds for comprehending the deep roots of the movement toward the equality of women and feminism. The data of the Linear A script may indicate to a specific form of monotheism, not a patriarchal one: about worshipping the Great Goddess in a multitude of hypostases (it was suggested earlier by different scholars, grounding on the data of Cretan art). 34 Some elements of the cult of the Virgin Mary in Greece are not accidentally connected with the Minoan goddess. Under the auspices of matriarchal goddesses and the leadership of the human female leaders, the Cretan Greeks built a peaceful, prosperous economy and society without internal conflicts (as evidenced by the plans of the palaces, the absence of fortifications in the cities and the naming of settlements according to a single plan). Minoan Crete, which turned out to be Greek, built successful relations with its neighbors – Egypt, Asia Minor (the Hittites), the Levant, which is also reflected in the inscriptions of Linear A. While men were in voyages, women peacefully and effectively ran the society, fulfilling the duties of city-governors and judges, as the inscriptions of Linear A evidence. This experience may be interesting and instructive for contemporary society. The situation in ancient Crete appears to be comparable to modern Northern Europe (also inseparable from the sea!) where women play a vital role in parliaments and governments. The attention of modern nutritionists and everyone who cares about healthy food culture can be attracted by the Mediterranean diet – by definition of the interpreter, the “Minoan tetrad” (cereals, figs, olives and olive oil, wine). Inscriptions also indicate the use (although more modest, as compared to the aforementioned “tetrad”) of legumes, seasonings and beer, as well as the limited consumption of meat (beef, lamb, and pork). At the same time, the absence of references to cheese and honey seems a bit strange. Lists of agricultural products in Linear A record those types of products which have been stored for a long time in the palace farms. Minoan technologies (including military ones) can be a subject of special interest of archaeologists, ethnologists and historians of technology. In particular, the inscriptions reflect the processing of wool and carpet weaving, fishing for mollusks, weapons, equipment of Minoan warrior and even cavalry. Also the lists of numerous professions of that time – from the woodcutter to the flutist – were found. The inscriptions also reflect the origins of the Greek religion – not only the names of the gods and their worship, but also the priesthood, sites of worship (sacred mountains, caves, and temples) and rites. The first written evidence of Minos, Demeter, Zeus, Dionysus, the goddess of the hearth of Hestia, the goddess of childbirth, Eileithyia were revealed. The central role of the cult of sacred libations has been established – which makes Minoan Crete closer to the Trypillian culture. Dmytro Pereverzev PhD, corresponding member of the Higher Education Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor honoris causa of the Institut culturel de Solenzara (France), Member of the Académie européenne des sciences, des arts et lettres (France) 35 Письменный язык первого европейского государства: Почему новейшее исследование линейного письма А важно для нас сегодня? Открытие, представленное в книге, имеет огромное значение для истории греческой культуры и всей европейской цивилизации. Не меньшее значение это исследование имеет для Украины. В книге нашли строгое научное подтверждение и идея начала ХХ века о Трипольской культуре как предшественнице Микенской греческой, и романтическая гипотеза о влиянии Триполья на Трою. Традиция надписей на пряслицах демонстрирует единую линию развития от позднего Триполья через раннюю Трою к первому европейскому государству на Крите. Уникальный феномен древнейшей морской цивилизации Крита впервые исследован на основе конкретных письменных документов, оказавшихся вполне согласованными с данными археологии и искусствоведения. Минойский Крит теперь выведен из мрака доистории на свет истории. Блестяще подтвердилась гипотеза самого вавторитетного за всю историю изучения древнегреческого языка эллиниста – Пауля Кречмера – об ионийском диалекте как распространявшемся ранее всех других диалектов и непосредственно предшествовавшем ахейскому диалекту. Диалект линейного письма А содержит именно ионические черты и предшествует ахейскому диалекту линейного письма В. Общество линейного письма А исключительно интересно для понимания самой сущности европейской цивилизации. Это еще не рождение западного мира (который принято начинать с классической античности), но его непосредственная предыстория. Доказана индоевропейская природа языка линейного письма А и непрерывность документированной истории греческого языка в течение четырех тысяч лет – на полтысячелетия больше, чем считалось ранее. Греческий оказался языком с древнейшей письменной традицией не только среди других индоевропейских, но и среди всех современных, включая китайский (засвидетельствованный с XVIII века до н.э.). Теперь греческая письменная традиция по своей продолжительности уступает только египетско-коптской традиции, имевшей протяженность с конца IV тыс. до н.э. (первые читаемые древнеегипетские памятники) до XVIII в. (прекрашение живого употребления коптского языка). Чрезвычайно важным и актуальным является подтверждение надписями линейного А существования на древнем Крите матриархата, ранее только предполагавшегося для некоторых древних обществ (включая и минойское). Предложенные чтения надписей линейного А опровергают универсальность 36 патриархальной модели цивилизации и показывають альтернативные пути успешного развития общества. Это дает дополнительные исторические основания для понимания глубоких корней движения за равноправие женщин и феминизма. Данные линейного письма А могут свидетельствовать о своеобразной форме монотеизма, причем не патриархального – о поклонении Великой Богине во множестве ипостасей (что давно предполагали исследователи на основании свидетельств критского искусства). Некоторые элементы культа Богородицы в Греции не случайно возводят к минойской богине. Под покровительством матриархальных богинь и руководством земных женщин-лидеров критские греки построили мирную процветающую экономику и общество без внутренних конфликтов (о чем свидетельсвуют сходные планы дворцов, отсутствие укреплений в городах и называние главных населенных пунктов по единому плану). Минойский Крит, оказавшийся греческим, строил успешные отношения с соседями – Египтом, Малой Азией (хеттами), Левантом, что также отражено в надписях линейного А. Пока мужчины находились в плаваниях, женщины мирно и эффективно руководили обществом, выполняя обязанности, как свидетельствуют надписи линейного А, градоначальников и судей. Этот опыт может оказаться интересным и поучительным для современного общества. Ситуация на древнем Крите кажется сопоставимой с современной Северной Европой (тоже неотделимой от моря!), где женщины играют огромную роль в парламентах и правительствах. Внимание современных диетологов и всех заботящихся о культуре здорового питания может привлечь средиземноморская диета – по определению дешифровщика, «минойская тетрада» (зерновые, инжир, оливки и оливковое масло, вино). Надписи свидетельствуют также об употреблении (хотя и более скромном по сравнению с упомянутой «тетрадой») бобовых, приправ и пива, а также ограниченном потреблении мяса (говядины, баранины и свинины). В то же время кажется странным отсутствие упоминаний о сыре и меде. Списки сельскохозяйсвенных продуктов в линейном А фиксируют те виды продуктов, которые длительно хранились в дворцовых хозяйствах. Особый интерес исследование может представлять для археологов, этнологов и историков технологий, в частности военной техники: в надписях отражены обработка шерсти и ковроткание, промысел моллюсков, оружие, обмундирование и вооружение минойского воина и даже всадничество. Также прочитаны списки многочисленных тогдашних профессий – от дровосека до флейтиста. Надписи также отражают истоки греческой религии – не только имена богов и поклонение им, но и жречество, культовые места (священные горы, пещеры и храмы) и обряды. Выявлены первые письменные свидетельства о Миносе, Деметре, Зевсе, Дионисе, богине очага Гестии, богине деторождения Элифии. 37 Установлена центральная роль культа священных возлияний – что сближает минойский Крит с Трипольской культурой. Дмитрий Переверзев, кандидат филологических наук, член-корреспондент Академии наук высшего образования Украины, почетный доктор Института культуры Солензара (Франция), действительный член Европейской академии наук, искусств и литературы (Франция) 38 Подорож мовними знаками у часі і просторі: Трипілля, Троя, Греція Автор цієї безумовно непересічної і надзвичайно цікавої книжки – український учений Юрій Мосенкіс – відтворює на її сторінках історію чотиритисячолітньої давності у вимірах часу і простору, соціальної організації давнього суспільства, економіки, побуту, культури, релігії, гендерних питань, мови на матеріалі власних інтерпретацій написів критського лінійного письма А та джерел, що йому передували, а саме: критської ієрогліфіки (2200-1600 рр. до н.е.), троянського лінійного письма (2600-1900 рр. до н.е.), складових знаків «ієрогліфіки» Лерни (континентальна Греція, кінець ІІІ тис. до н.е.) та пізнього Трипілля (Україна, кінець IV тис. до н.е.), а також лінійної писемності культури Кукутень (Румунія, кінець або й середина IV тис. до н.е.). Автор виходить далеко за межі суто мовного пошуку, залучаючи до аналізу широкі археологічні, історичні, загальнокультурні відомості і доходить амбітних та досить сміливих висновків, деякі з яких відверто конфліктують із загальноприйнятними й, поза сумнівом, спровокують тривалу наукову дискусію. Юрій Мосенкіс захистив дисертацію кандидата філологічних наук у 1994 про реконструкцію спільної прамови людства і доктора філологічних наук у 2002 про реконструкцію мови трипільської культури у її зв’язку з археологічними культурами Греції. Нині професор Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Підготував двадцять аспірантів і трьох докторантів. Віцепрезидент Академії наук вищої освіти України, почесний доктор Державного науково-дослідного інституту теорії та історії, архітектури і містобудування, Міжнародного інституту соціоніки, член-кореспондент Української академії архітектури, дійсний член Європейської академії наук, мистецтв та літератури (Франція), Болгарської академії наук і мистецтв, Румунської літературної академії, член франкомовної секції PEN-клубу Королівства Бельгія. Нагороджений почесним дипломом Грецького відділення ЮНЕСКО. Автор понад 100 книг, опублікованих в Україні, Франції, Бельгії, Греції, США та інших країнах. Засновник журналу «Мова та історія», репрезентованого у провідних бібліотеках світу. Дослідження ґенези давньогрецької цивілізації розпочав у 1997 році як закономірний наслідок тривалого інтересу до загадок давніх культур. Походження давньогрецької цивілізації та дешифрування найдавніших писемностей острова Крит – тема значної частини його публікацій. Це книги та брошури: «Минойский, прототигрский, австронезийский?» (1997 – гіпотеза східноазійсько-месопотамського впливу на формування критської цивілізації), двотомове видання «Минойская культура: лингвистический экскурс» і «Загадки лабиринта: язык и культура минойского Крита» (1998), «Дешифрування Фестського диска» (1998), «The Greek written language from the third millennium B.C.» (1999), «The Greek language of the Minoan inscriptions» (2000), 39 «Mediterranean inscriptions» (2000), «Найдавніші пам’ятки грецької мови: грецька мова кінця ІІІ – середини ІІ тисячоліття до н.е.» (2000), «Ancient Occidental and Oriental inscriptions and languages with special references to Greek and Armenian» (2001), «Давньогрецький космос» (Афіни, 2013), «Proto-Greeks 4000 years before Homer: oral history from 4600 BC; written language from 3000 BC; state development from 2600 BC» (2017). У Греції також видано два томи досліджень автора «Небесні явища у давньогрецькій міфології» і «Небесні явища у давньогрецькій поезії» (Афіни, 2013). У новій книжці Юрія Мосенкіса «Кукутень-Трипілля-Троя-Греція: писемна історія 3500-1500 до н.е.» перед читачем постає Мінойський Крит, де, на думку автора, зароджувався сучасний європейський Захід у ролі певного цивілізаційного взірця, у межах якого, напевно, матріархальне таласократичне суспільство жваво розвивалось у мирі, злагоді, добробуті та гармонії. Автор стверджує і доводить, що так само, як сучасна західна цивілізація народилась у класичній Греції 2500 років тому, так і Греція народилася на Криті 4000 років тому. Слідом за болгарським дослідником Владимиром Георгієвим, Юрій Мосенкіс ідентифікує лінійне письмо як грецьке і, таким чином, додає грецькій мові і неперервній історії грецької культури ще майже 2000 років віку. Твердження Юрія Мосенкіса, що грецька мова з усіх індоєвропейських мов має найдавнішу писемну традицію, є дуже привабливим для всіх закоханих в елліністику. Суперечок щодо того, які з висунутих гіпотез і тлумачень можна вважати абсолютно вірогідними, а які можна віднести до світу авторських фантазій, уникнути буде неможливо у зв’язку зі складністю тематики і розбігом поглядів щодо порушених питань. Проте, цей факт є безумовно позитивним з огляду на те, що у подальшій дискусії народжуватиметься нове знання про витоки європейської цивілізації, мовні контакти протягом поступу європейської цивілізації «від Сходу до Заходу», роль грецької культури у розбудові сучасного світу. Вікторія Челпан, завідувач кафедри грецької мови і перекладу Маріупольського державного університету (2003-2014), декан факультету грецької філології Маріупольського державного університету (2009-2012), радник з питань визнання іноземних кваліфікацій ДП «Інформаційно-іміджевий центр» Міністерства освіти і науки України 40 Το ταξίδι στο χώρο και χρόνο μέσω γλωσσικών σημείων του Ουκρανού γλωσσολόγου Γιούρι Μοσένκις. Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί, Τρωάδα, Ελλάδα «Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί, Τρωάδα, Ελλάδα: γραπτή ιστορία 3500-1500 π.Χ.». Ο συγγραφέας του εν λόγω εξαιρετικού και εξόχως ενδιαφέροντος βιβλίου, Ουκρανός επιστήμονας Γιούρι Μοσένκις αναπαριστά στις σελίδες του από σκοπιά χώρου και χρόνου την τετραχιλιετή ιστορία ανάπτυξης της αρχαίας κοινωνίας, της οικονομίας, της καθημερινότητας, του πολιτισμού, της θρησκείας, των σχέσεων μεταξύ των φύλων και το κυριότερο της γλώσσας βάσει των δικών του αποκρυπτογραφήσεων και ερμηνειών της Γραμμικής Α, καθώς και των προγενέστερων γραπτών μνημείων όπως τα Κρητικά ιερογλυφικά (2200-1600 π.Χ.), η Γραμμική γραφή της Τροίας (2600-1900 π.Χ.), τα συλλαβικά “ιερογλυφικά” της Λέρνης (ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα, τέλη 3ης χιλιετίας π.Χ.), η γραφή του ύστερου πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί (Ουκρανία, τέλη 4ης χιλιετίας π.Χ.), καθώς και η Γραμμική γραφή του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι (Ρουμανία, τα τέλη ή τα μέσα της 4ης χιλιετίας π.Χ.). Ο συγγραφέας ξεπερνάει τα όρια της καθαρά γλωσσολογικής έρευνας και αξιοποιεί τα ευρύτερα αρχαιολογικά, ιστορικά και πολιτισμικά στοιχεία για να καταλήξει στα άκρως φιλόδοξα και αρκετά τολμηρά συμπεράσματα, κάποια από τα οποία έρχονται σε αντίθεση με τις κοινές απόψεις και αναμφίβολα θα προκαλέσουν την μακρά επιστημονική διαμάχη. Ο συγγραφέας του βιβλίου ίσως να είναι ένας από τους πιο προοδευτικούς και πολυδιάστατους γλωσσολόγος της σύγχρονης Ουκρανικής επιστήμης, ο οποίος έχει συνδέσει το όνομά του με ένα εύρος επίκαιρων ερευνητικών ζητημάτων, μεταξύ των οποίων η προέλευση της Ελληνικής γλώσσας και ο ρόλος της στη διαμόρφωση του παγκόσμιου πολιτισμού. Το 1994 υποστήριξε με επιτυχία τη μεταπτυχιακή του διατριβή με θέμα: “Ανασύσταση της Κοινής Πρωτογλώσσας”. Το 2002 υποστήριξε τη διδακτορική του διατριβή με θέμα: “Ανασύσταση της γλώσσας του πολιτισμού Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί σε σχέση με τους αρχαιολογικούς πολιτισμούς της Ελλάδας”. Καθηγητής του Εθνικού Πανεπιστημίου “Ταράς Σεβτσένκο” του Κιέβου. Υπήρξε επιβλέπων καθηγητής των 20 μεταπτυχιακών και 2 διδακτορικών διατριβών. Αντιπρόεδρος της Ακαδημίας Ανώτατητς Εκπαίδευσης της Ουκρανίας. Επίτιμος Διδάκτορας του Κρατικού Ερευνητικού και Επιστημονικού Ινστιτούτου Θεωρίας και Ιστορίας, Αρχιτεκτονικής και Πολεοδομίας και Διεθνούς Ινστιτούτου Κοινωνιολογίας Γενετήσιων Ψυχολογικών Τύπων. Αντεπιστέλλων μέλος της Ουκρανικής Ακαδημίας Αρχιτεκτονικής. Μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ακαδημίας Επιστημών, Τεχνών και Λογοτεχνίας (Γαλλία), της Ακαδημίας Επιστημών και Τεχνών Βουλγαρίας, της Ακαδημίας Λογοτεχνίας Ρουμανίας, μέλος του Συγγραφικού Ομίλου του Βασιλείου του Βελγίου. Κάτοχος βραβείου του Ελληνικού Τμήματος Διεθνούς Επιτροπής UNESCO. 41 Στο βιογραφικό του εντάσσεται και η συγγραφή 100 βιβλίων, εκδοθέντων στην Ουκρανία, στη Γαλλία, στην Ελλάδα, στις Η.Π.Α., στο Βέλγιο και σε άλλες χώρες. Ιδρυτής του επιστημονικού περιοδικού “Γλώσσα και Ιστορία”, το οποίο κυκλοφορεί από το 1993 διεθνώς. Από το 1997, ως λογική συνέπεια της προγενέστερης ενασχόλησής του με τα μυστικά των αρχαίων πολιτισμών, το κύριο ερευνητικό ενδιαφέρον του Γιούρι Μοσένκις εστιάζεται στη γένεση του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού. Η προέλευση του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού και αποκρυπτογράφηση των πιο αρχαίων γραφών της Κρήτης αποτελούν πλέον το κύριο θέμα των μελετών και δημοσιευμάτων του στα Ουκρανικά και Αγγλικά, συγκεκριμένα: “Μινωικός, Πρωτοτιγρικός, Αυστρονησιακός;” (1997, στα Ουκρανικά, περί της υπόθεσης της επιρροής της Ανατολικής Ασίας και Μεσοποταμίας στη διαμόρφωση του Κρητικού πολιτισμού). Δίτομη έκδοση “Μινωικός Πολιτισμός: γλωσσολογική ανασκόπηση” και “Τα Μυστικά του Λαβύρινθου: γλώσσα και πολιτισμός της Μινωικής Κρήτης” (στα Ουκρανικά, 1998). “Αποκρυπτογράφηση του δίσκου της Φαιστού”, (1998) «The Greek written language from the third millennium B.C.», (Η Ελληνική γραφή από την 3η χιλιετία π.Χ., 1999). «The Greek language of the Minoan inscriptions», (Η Ελληνική γλώσσα των Μινωικών επιγραφών, 2000). «Mediterranean inscriptions», (Μεσαιωνικές επιγραφές, 2000). «Τα αρχαιότερα μνημεία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας: Ελληνική γλώσσα στα τέλη της 3ης - τα μέσα της 2ης χιλιετίας π.Χ.» (στα Ουκρανικά, 2000). «Ancient Occidental and Oriental inscriptions and languages with special references to Greek and Armenian», (Αρχαίες Επιγραφές Ανατολής και Δύσης με ιδιαίτερη αναφορά στις Ελληνικές και Αρμένικες, 2001). «Αρχαίος Ελληνικός Κόσμος», (Αθήνα, 2013). «Proto-Greeks 4000 years before Homer: oral history from 4600 BC; written language from 3000 BC; state development from 2600 BC» (Οι Πρωτοέλληνες 4000 χρόνια πριν από τον Όμηρο: προφορική ιστορία από το 4600 π.Χ., γραπτή γλώσσα από το 3000 π. Χ., κράτος από το 2600 π. Χ., (στα Ουκρανικά, 2017). Στην Ελλάδα εκδόθηκαν επίσης δύο τόμοι μελετών του Γιούρι Μοσένκις: “Ουράνια φαινόμενα και ελληνική μυθολογία” και “Ουράνια φαινόμενα και αρχαία ελληνική ποίηση”, (Αθήνα, 2013). Άλλα δημοσιεύματα του Γιούρι Μοσένκις με θέμα τον Ελληνισμό: «Η Ελληνική μυθολογία», «Ουκρανία, Ελλάδα, Κόσμος: διεπιστημονικές σπουδές», «Ο συμβολισμός στην Ελληνική μυθολογία και στην επική ποίηση», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού και η πυξίδα του Μίνωα», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού ως αστρική πυξίδα», «Ο δίσκος της Φαιστού ως ηλιακό ημερολόγιο», καθώς και πολλά άλλα. Στο καινούργιο βιβλίο του «Κουκουτένι-Τριπολί, Τρωάδα, Ελλάδα: γραπτή ιστορία 3500-1500 π.Χ.» ο Γιούρι Μοσένκις ξεναγεί τους αναγνώστες στη Μινωική Κρήτη, όπου κατά τη γνώμη του ερευνητή γεννήθηκε η σύγχρονη Ευρωπαϊκή 42 Δύση, ως συγκεκριμένο πρότυπο του πολιτισμού στο πλαίσιο του οποίου η μητριαρχική κατά πάσα πιθανότητα και θαλασσοκρατική κοινωνία άκμαζε σε ειρηνική συνύπαρξη, συναίνεση και αρμονία. Ο συγγραφέας ισχυρίζεται ότι παρομοίως με τη γέννηση του σύγχρονου Δυτικού πολιτισμού στην Κλασική Ελλάδα 2500 χρόνια πριν, ίδια η Ελλάδα γεννήθηκε στην Κρήτη 4000 χρόνια πριν. Ο Γιούρι Μοσένκις συμφωνεί με τον Βούλγαρο ερευνητή Βλαντιμίρ Γεωργίεβ και χαρακτηρίζει τη γραμμική γραφή ως ελληνική, και έτσι προσθέτει στην Ελληνική γλώσσα και στην αδιάκοπη ιστορική πορεία του Ελληνικού πολιτισμού ακόμα 2000 χιλιάδες χρόνια. Η πεποίθηση του Γιούρι Μοσένκις ότι η Ελληνική γλώσσα έχει την αρχαιότερη γραπτή παράδοση ανάμεσα σε όλες τις Ινδοευρωπαϊκές γλώσσες είναι εξαιρετικά ενθουσιαστική για όλους τους λάτρεις των ελληνικών μελετών. Είναι σίγουρα αναπόφευκτες οι μετέπειτα συζητήσεις ποιές υποθέσεις και ερμηνείες του συγγραφέα μπορεί να θεωρηθούν ως απολύτως αναμφισβήτητες και ποιές μπορεί να αποτελούν καρπό της επιστημονικής φαντασίας λόγω του πολύπλοκου θέματος και ποικίλων απόψεων περί των ζητημάτων της μελέτης. Αυτό το γεγονός, όμως, είναι αναμφίβολα θετικό, διότι η περαιτέρω συζήτηση θα οδηγήσει στην απόκτηση καινούργιων γνώσεων για τις απαρχές του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού, τις γλωσσικές επαφές κατά τη διάρκεια της πορείας της Ευρωπαϊκής κοινωνίας «από Ανατολή στη Δύση» και το ρόλο του Ελληνικού πολιτισμού στη διαμόρφωση του σύγχρονου κόσμου. Βικτώρια Τσελπάν, Πρόεδρος Τομέα Ελληνικής Γλώσσας και Μετάφρασης του Κρατικού Πανεπιστημίου Μαριούπολης, Ουκρανία (2003-2014) Κοσμήτορας της Σχολής Ελληνικής Φιλολογίας του Κρατικού Πανεπιστημίου Μαριούπολης, Ουκρανία (2009-2012) Σύμβουλος για θέματα αναγνώρισης των ξένων τίτλων σπουδών του Εθνικού Κέντρου Ακαδημαϊκών Ανταλλαγών και Πληροφόρησης του Υπουργείου Παιδείας και Επιστήμης της Ουκρανίας 43 Iurii Mosenkis’ journey through space and time in the world of language signs. Trypillia, Troy, Greece "Cucuteni-Trypillia – Troy – Greece: Written History 3500-1500 B.C." The author of this outstanding and really interesting book, the Ukrainian scientist Iurii Mosenkis, revives on its pages four thousand years long history in the dimensions of time and space: the ancient social organization, economics, everyday life, culture, religion, gender relations and language on the basis of his own decoding and interpretation of the Cretan Linear A inscriptions and the preceding written sources, namely: the Cretan hieroglyphics (2200-1600 B.C.), the Trojan linear script (2600-1900 B.C.), Lernean syllabic “hieroglyphics” (mainland Greece, the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.), the late Trypillia script (Ukraine, the end of the 4th millennium B.C.), as well as the linear script of Cucuteni (Romania, the end or the middle of the 4th millennium B.C.). The author goes far beyond pure linguistic research, analyzing vast archaeological, historical, general cultural data and arrives at ambitious and rather bold conclusions, often contradicting the generally accepted assumptions and for sure leading to an extended scientific debate. Iurii Mosenkis defended his PhD thesis, devoted to the problem of reconstruction of the common proto-language of the mankind in 1994 and his Doctor of Science thesis, concerning the reconstruction of the Trypillian language in its interaction with the archaeological cultures of Greece. Up-to-date he is a professor at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. He was a scientific advisor of twenty PhD and two Doctors of Science. Vice President of the Academy of Science of Higher Education of Ukraine, Honorary Doctor of the State Research Institute of Theory and History, Architecture and Urban Planning, International Institute of Socionics, Corresponding Member of the Ukrainian Academy of Architecture, Full Member of the European Academy of Science, Arts and Literature (France), Bulgarian Academy of Science and Arts, Romanian Literary Academy, a member of the French-speaking section of the PEN Club of the Kingdom of Belgium. He was awarded the honorary diploma of the Greek branch of UNESCO. Author of more than 100 books published in Ukraine, France, Belgium, Greece, the USA and other countries, he is the founder of the scientific journal "Language and History", represented in the leading libraries of the world. His study of the genesis of the Ancient Greek civilization began in 1997 as a logical consequence of his persistent interest in the mysteries of ancient cultures. The roots of the Ancient Greek civilization and the decipherment of the ancient scripts of Crete is the main subject of his numerous publications. These are books and brochures: “Minoan, Proto-Tiger, Austronesian?” (1997, hypothesis of the East AsianMesopotamian influence on the formation of the Cretan civilization), two-volume edition “Minoan Culture: Linguistic Excursion” and “Mysteries of the Maze: Culture and Language of Minoan Crete” (1998), “Phaistos Disc Decipherment” (1998), “The Greek Written Language from the Third Millennium B.C.” (1999), “The Greek 44 Language of the Minoan Inscriptions” (2000), “The Mediterranean Inscriptions” (2000), “The Oldest Greek Language Samples: Greek Language of the End of the 3rd – Middle of the 2nd millennium B.C.” (2000), “The Ancient Occidental and Oriental Inscriptions and Languages with Special References to Greek and Armenian” (2001), “The Ancient Greek Cosmos” (Athens, 2013), “The Proto-Greeks 4000 Years before Homer: Oral History from 4600 B.C.; Written Language from 3000 B.C.; State Development from 2600 B.C.” (2017). In Greece, Yuri Mosenkis also published two volumes of studies: “Heavenly Phenomena in Ancient Greek Mythology”, “Heavenly Phenomena in Ancient Greek Poetry” (Athens, 2013). In Iurii Mosenkis new book “Cucuteni-Trypillia – Troy – Greece: Written History 3500-1500 B.C.”, Minoan Crete arises before the reader, where, according to the author, the modern European West takes its beginning. Minoan Crete is viewed as a certain civilization model, in terms of which matriarchic and thalassocratic society vividly developed in peace, prosperity and harmony. The author claims that, just as the modern Western civilization was born in classical Greece 2500 years ago, so Greece was born on Crete 4000 years ago. Following the Bulgarian researcher Vladimir Georgiev, Iurii Mosenkis identifies the Linear A as Greek and thus adds up to the Greek language and the continuous history of the Greek culture almost 2000 years of history. The statement of Yuri Mosenkis that the Greek language has the oldest written tradition among all other Indo-European languages is very attractive for those who are in love with the Hellenic studies. Disputes which hypotheses and interpretations of the author can be considered absolutely undoubtable and which can be attributed to the world of fantasy are inevitable due to the complex character of the topic and the diversity of views on it. However, this fact is certainly positive for the subsequent discussion will generate new knowledge, concerning the origin of European civilization; language contacts in the course of the journey of European civilization from “the East to the West” and the role of the Greek culture in the formation of the modern world. Victoria Chelpan, Head of the Greek Language and Translation Chair of Mariupol State University (2003-2014) Dean of the Greek Philology Faculty of Mariupol State University (2009-2012) Advisor on the recognition of foreign qualifications of the National Information Center of Academic Mobility of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine 45 Першопроходець цивілізацій Мінойський Крит із його таємницями вважали історично нерозплутаним клубком. Так було доти, поки зародки наукового відкриття не вербалізувалися із хаотичних записів Юрія Леонідовича Мосенкіса в глобальне дослідження, репрезентоване цією книгою. Не одне покоління вчених прагнуло розшифрувати давнє лінійне письмо А, та їхні зусилля виявилися недостатніми без систематизованої аргументації. З авторського пера Мінойський Крит, разом із доісторичною тінню своїх таємниць, тепер увійшов у світло сьогоднішнього дня із темряви минулої ночі. Завдяки десятиліттям роботи Юрія Леонідовича Мосенкіса лінійне письмо А розшифроване, зміст табличок розкритий і оприлюднений для схвалення або заперечення. Проте запропоновані результати дешифрування буде доволі важко спростувати, оскільки вони повністю відповідають археологічним свідченням, історичним відомостям та лінгвістичним дослідженням. Нині заговорила найстаріша морська цивілізація на Криті, що була водночасч першою європейською державою! Докази, представлені в книзі, свідчать, що культура Кукутень-Трипілля, як попередник мінойсько-мікенської Греції, має очевидний зв’язок із легендарним містом Троя. Одним із найдивовижніших фактів, які ця робота виявляє, є те, що запропоновані докази занурюють історію Греції на два тисячоліття далі в глибину віків на противагу тому, що вважали раніше. Згідно з новими фактами, документально оформлену грецьку мову слід уважати найдавнішою серед інших індоєвропейських мов. Полишаючи наукову аргументацію твору, також важливо зазначити, що процес прориву стіни байдужості та невігластва передбачає наявність залізного характеру, тверду позицію і волю до подальшого відкриття, демонстрації доказів упертій аудиторії та розірвання ланцюгів іще більш фундаментальних перешкод. Цією книгою Юрій Леонідович Мосенкіс довів, що володіє всіма необхідними навичками, щоб зайняти свою академічну нішу в українській і зарубіжній наукових традиціях. Тарас Голота, член Ради молодих учених Академії наук вищої освіти України, заступник головного редактора збірника наукових праць «Мова та історія» 46 Pioneer of Civilizations Being an Aegean Bronze Age civilization, located on the island, Minoan Crete on par with its mysteries was considered to be a historically unraveled lock. Nevertheless, it had been thus until this very work left the nimble writings of Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis. Numbers of scholars aimed to decipher the ancient Linear A inscriptions, but their efforts were regarded as sporadic, insufficient, and lacked strong argumentation. From the author’s pen, Minoan Crete, together with the prehistorical shadow of its secrets, has now stepped into the sun of today from the mirk of yesterday. Owing to decades of Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis’ labor, Linear A inscriptions have been deciphered, the content of tablets has been revealed and brought into the public eye, for either its approval or disapproval. However, the results of decipherment are quite difficult to refute, as they entirely meet the archaeological data, historical evidence, and linguistic investigations. On the contrary, they were stuffed with arguments and proof only in view of the fact that the previous attempts had been not enough to explain everything in detail, they merely could not bear close scrutiny. The evidence presented in the book itself have proved that Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, as a predecessor of Mycenaean Greece, has an obvious, yet relative connection with a mythical city of Troy, seeing that the oldest marine Crete civilization was also the first European state! Nonetheless, one of the most astonishing facts which this work reveals is that the discovered evidence adds to the history of Greece about half millennium years more than it has been previously supposed. According to the newly presented facts, the documented Greek language should be regarded as the oldest among other Indo-European languages. Leaving behind the scientific part of the work, it is also substantial to mention that the process of breaking through the walls of indifference and ignorance implies a stone-cold temper, a firm position, and a will to continue discovering, proving, demonstrating, notwithstanding a chain of severe obstacles. Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis has shown that he possesses all the necessary skills to occupy his academic niche within the Ukrainian scholarly tradition in the neighborhood of his own scientific works. Taras Holota 47 Передмова автора Що привело мене на стародавній Крит? Моє захоплення Грецією в цілому і стародавнім Критом зокрема має тривалу історію й не менш тривалу передісторію. Іще в ранньому дитинстві батько розповів мені легенду про Дедала й Ікара – один із ключових елементів «критського міфу». У середній школі я захоплювався міфами стародавньої Греції, зокрема генеалогіями богів і героїв. Згодом ретельно і багаторазово прочитав книжку Олександра Кондратова «Таємниці трьох океанів», присвячену ранньоісторичним загадкам різних континентів. Відтоді загадки стародавніх цивілізацій стали центральним об’єктом моїх зацікавлень, основним моїм хоббі. У студентські роки центром моєї читацької уваги був «Міфологічний словник». Поряд із тим мене притягували як мови невідомого походження (баскська, айну), а особливо давні (етруська, шумерська, еламська), так і недешифровані писемності та різноманітні субстрати – залишки зниклих мов (догрецький – пеласгський, догерманський, докельтський). Особливу магію я вбачав (і досі вбачаю) в критській ієрогліфічній писемності. Ієрогліфи не десь далеко на Сході, а саме в Європі! Нарешті, мене давно цікавить проблема «генези Заходу» – походження західної культури (Греції, Риму) зі східних культур (мінойської, етруської). Крит – саме той Схід, із якого почав народжуватися Захід. Восени 1993 р. я почав спілкування з чільним українським елліністом Андрієм Олександровичем Білецьким. Ми навіть запланували спільну працю «Доіндоєвропейська Європа й середземноморська цивілізація», однак за малодоступністю джерел у доінтернетну добу не змогли здійснити цього задуму. Спершу я розглядав нерозшифровані писемності Криту як осередок якихось загадкових давніх мов (можливо, кавказьких). До систематичних занять критськими писемностями (з весни 1997 р. – по декілька годин щоденно) мене підштовхнули два випадки, що майже збіглися в часі. По-перше, я виявив близькість критської назви фігового дерева й полінезійської назви пальми (Minoan nikulea ‘fig tree’ : Sumerian ŋiš ‘tree’ : Proto-Austronesian *ñiuR ‘coco-palm’ : Ainu ni ‘tree’). Якщо мова лінійного письма А була, як уважають, відкритоскладовою – як полінезійські, то чи не зазнав давній Крит (як, можливо, Месопотамія і Єгипет) упливу полінезійців під час їхнього руху з Тихого океану через Індію на Мадагаскар? Другий випадок був більше схожий на виклик. Читаючи курс «Вступ до мовознавства», я розповів студентам про Фестський диск – найбільш концентрований символ усіх давніх загадок – і порадив спробувати свої сили в його дешифруванні. Один зі студентів заперечив: «Але ж Ви знаєте про диск значно більше за нас – от і спробуйте самі!» З того дня я взявся і за Диск. Однак поступово, накопичуючи знання про давні писемності Криту й власні невдачі в їх прочитанні, я рухався від різних «екзотичних» мов до найбільш 48 вірогідної мови цих писемностей – грецької. І вже з кінця 1998 р. мої публікації засвідчують пошуки саме грецьких читань не тільки для лінійного А, а й для критської ієрогліфіки, а також для самого Фестського диска. Робота йшла дуже повільно, зважаючи передусім на дві причини. По-перше, мені були недоступні узагальнювальні публікації про корпус написів лінійного А. Читання окремих знаків уточнювали, й воно починало відрізнятися від перших публікацій. Подруге, я дуже слабко володів граматикою давньогрецьткої мови, приділяючи увагу передусім лексиці. Завдяки блискучому корпусові написів лінійного А Джона Янгера й наполегливим заняттям давньогрецькою граматикою я спробував виправити деякі (хоча, розумію, далеко не всі) вади своєї роботи. Результатом виступає пропонована читачеві книга. До речі, я ще ніколи не був на Криті... Кому і для чого потрібне це дослідження? Чим події 4000-літньої давності на острові Крит можуть бути цікаві сучасному європейцеві? По-перше, саме тоді і там виникла, за висновками археологів, перша в Європі держава. Світ стародавнього Криту – разом із його загадковими писемностями, своєрідним мистецтвом та архітекстурою – відкрив сучасному світові у 1900 р. Артур Еванс. Деяку інформацію про культуру острова, де правив химерний цар Мінос, оповідають давньогрецькі міфи – про Зевса і Європу, Дедала й Ікара, Тесея і Мінотавра тощо. Давньогрецькі джерела повідомляють і про найдавніші закони, приписувані саме Міносові. Вони не тільки лягли в основу заменитого законодавства Спарти, створеного Лікургом, а й навіть вплинули на священне законодавство давньої Скандинавії – так далеко сягали морські зв’язки середземноморського острова! Більше того: як сучасна західна цивілізація народилась у класичній Греції 2500 років тому, так сама Греція народилася на Криті 4000 років тому! Колись повсюдно був Схід – і в Британії (пікти, споріднені з народами Сибіру), і в Іспанії та Франції (баски, споріфднені з народами Кавказу), і в Італії (етруски, що походили з малої Азії). Саме на Криті став зароджуватися Захід. Що таке критське лінійне письмо А, котре не піддавалося дешифруванню впродовж більш ніж століття? Це перша розвинута писемність Європи, що прийшла на зміну значно більш фрагментарним записам інформації, які існували в VI–III тисячоліттях до н.е. у культурі Вінча (Сербія), Трипільській культурі (Україна, Молдова, Румунія), Трої та материковій Греції. Яке значення має прочитання лінійного письма А, уживаного впродовж першої половини ІІ тисячоліття до н. е.? На відміну від лінійного письма В (використовуваного на Криті й у материковій Греції протягом 1450-1200 рр. до н.е. переважно для господарчих записів), лінійне письмо А – це написи перш за все на сакральних предметах. Це сакральне письмо. Попередня ідентифікація мови лінійного письма як грецької здійснена впродовж 1955-1965 рр. В. Георгієвим і Г. Надем на доступному тоді 49 фрагментарному матеріалі. Дальше дослідження, здійснюване нами впродовж двох десятиліть із використанням повного корпусу написів, дозволило всебічно аргументувати й деталізувати ідею відображення в лінійному письмі А саме грецької мови. Це означає, що грецька мова з усіх індоєвропейських має найдавнішу писемну традицію, яка триває понад 4000 років! Отримання свідчень найдавніших індоєвропейських написів дає винятково важливий матеріал для уточнення інтепретації всіх без винятку інших індоєвропейських мов. Так, наприклад, специфічна форма слова лабіринт, засвідчена лінійним письмом А, знаходить точні відповідники в литовській мові – як критська форма уточнює пояснення литовської, так і навпаки. «Стара Європа» Марії Гімбутас заговорила – і не якоюсь загадковою (зовсім зниклою або фрагментарно збереженою) доіндоєвропейською мовою, а грецькою – мовою великої класичної традиції, невичерпний словник якої не може бути вміщений навіть у десятки томів! У написах лінійного А детально описане господарство давнього Криту. Основою харчування були зернові, інжир, оливки та оливкова олія і вино, до яких у незначній кількості додавали м’ясо та спеції. Як бачимо, така основа здорової дієти зберігає свою силу й досі – упродовж 4000 років! Дізнаємося з написів також про наявність норм видачі харчування для різних працівників, ретельне підрахування запасів, які зберігалися в палацах. Крит першої половини ІІ тисячоліття до н. е. був потужним урбанізаційним центром – збереглася ціла низка табличок лінійного письма А зі списками критських міст, де кожна назва заслуговує спеціального не тільки лінгвістичного, а й археологічного коментаря. Назви основних міст острова («знамените», «світле», «славне»), а так само однакові плани палаців-храмів у цих містах, засвідчують саме планову урбанізацію. Три таблички несуть інформацію про структуру міської влади – у різних містах відмінну. В одному місті правив посадовець, вибраний шляхом жеребкування – відповідно до волі богів. У другому – верховний старійшина, підпорядкований «її величності Богині». Винятково цікаво, що в одному з головних міст острова – Фест (де знайдено всесвітньовідомий Фестський диск) – дві найвищі посади (керівника міста і судді) посідали жінки. Отже, реальний матріархат, який так довго шукали етнографи, нарешті знайдений – і не денебуть у далеких краях, а в самому центрі Європи, більше того – у першій європейській державі! Збереглися також списки назв різноманітних професій – від дровосіка до флейтиста. Нарешті, дтально описано зброю критських воїнів. Лінійне письмо А інформує про критське вершництво (одне з найдавніших у Європі!) та флот – найпотужніший військовий і транспортний засіб «мінойців» – критських греків. Кожне місто готувало по одному кораблю, а окремі – по два. За багато століть до знаменитого Гомерового «Каталогу кораблів» ми знаходимо такий каталог на Криті – у центрі давньої «таласократії» («моревладства»). 50 Плавання давніх критян сягали, як свідчать написи, не тільки материкової Греції й численних грецьких островів, а й Кіпру, Італії та навіть Скандинавії! Водночас на острові засвідчено присутність представників різних сусідніх країн – Малої Азії (Хеттського царства), Єгипту, Фінікії, Кіпру. Лінійне письмо А – цінне дререло найдавніших свідчень про грецьку релігію, зокрема, поклоніння Матері, богині родючого поля Деметрі, богині хатнього та громадського вогнища Гестії, богині народження Іліфії, Зевсові та Діонісові. Згадані в написах також священні гори, культові печери та святилища, різноманітні обряди. Свідчення лінійного письма А підлягають ретельному порівнянню з пізнішими історичними відомостями, з одного боку, і з археологічною інформацією, з другого боку. Найскладнішою була інтерпретація джерел, що передували критському лінійному письму А. Це критська ієрогліфіка (2200-1600 рр. до н.е.), троянське лінійне письмо (2600-1900 рр. до н.е.), складові знаки «ієрогліфіки» Лерни (континентальна Греція, кінець ІІІ тис. до н.е.) та пізнього Трипілля (Україна, кінець IV тис. до н.е.), лінійна писемність культури Кукутень (Румунія, кінець або й середина IV тис. до н.е.). Показана спадковість розвитку писемності від культури Кукутень-Трипілля через Анатолію (зокрема й Трою) до материкової Греції й острова Крит. Сподіваюся, що книжка буде цікавою для України, де процвітала знаменита Трипільська культура, для Румунії, де та сама культура має назву Кукутень, для Туреччини, де впродовж двох тисячоліть розвивалася Троя, і, звичайно, для Греції. Подяки Ця книжка не могла би з’явитися без тривалих і детальних обоговорень: цивілізаційних та економічних моделей розвитку різних суспільств – із Дмитром Переверзєвим; найрізноманітніших питань давньої й нової елліністики – з Євгеном Чернухіним, Назарієм Назаровим та Вікторією Челпан; археологічних концепцій – із Михайлом Відейком; сутності міфології – з Наталією Бурдо; історії мистецтва, передусім давньогрецького, – з Андрієм Пучковим; методології історичної науки – з Геннадієм Казакевичем; методології лінгвістики – з Михайлом Собуцьким і Віталієм Борисевичем. Значну організаційну підтримку від студентських та аспірантських часів авторові надавали чільні українські елліністи Олександр Пономарів і Ніна Клименко. Авторові пощастило спілкуватися з такими класиками лінгвістики й корифеями елліністики, як Андрій Олександрович Білецький, Юрій Володимирович Откупщиков, Аркадій Анатолійович Молчанов, Микола Миколайович Казанський, Сергій Якович Шарипкін, Леся Леонідівна Звонська, – дискусії з ними надихали на пошуки й відкривали нові горизонти знань. 51 Автор також дякує за винятково цінні консультації з англійської та грецької мов Дмитрові Переверзєву, Назарію Назарову, Вікторії Челпан, Тарасові Голоті, Кирилові Огаркову. 52 Author’s Preface What has led me to ancient Crete? My passion for Greece in general and ancient Crete in particular has a long history and not less long prehistory. Back in early childhood, my father told me the legend of Daedalus and Icarus – one of the main elements of the ‘Cretan myth’. In middle school, I adored the myths of ancient Greece, in particular the genealogy of gods and heroes. Consequently, I have carefully and repeatedly read the book ‘Secrets of the Three Oceans’ written by Alexander Kondratov and dedicated to the early historical riddles of different continents. Since then, the secrets of ancient civilizations have become the central object of my concerns, my main hobby. In student years, the focus of my attention fell on the ‘Mythological Dictionary’. Along with that, I felt attracted by the languages of unknown origin (Basque, Ainu), especially the ancient (Etruscan, Sumerian, Elamite), together with non-deciphered written languages and various substrates – the remnants of the lost languages (pre-Greek – ‘Pelasgian’, pre-German, pre-Celtic). I have seen peculiar magic (and I still see it) in the Cretan hieroglyphic writing. Hieroglyphs which are found not somewhere far in the East, but namely in Europe! Ultimately, I have felt interested in the issue of the ‘genesis of the West’ – the origin of the Western culture (Greece, Rome) from the Eastern cultures (Minoan, Etruscan). Crete – is exactly that very East, from which the West has been born. In the Autumn of 1993, I began communicating with a prominent Ukrainian Hellenist Andrii Oleksandrovych Biletsky. We even planned to unite our efforts on the work called ‘Pre-Indo-European Europe and the Mediterranean civilization,’ but the inaccessibility of sources during the pre-Internet era prevented us from accomplishing this task. At first, I regarded Crete’s undeciphered scripts as the focus of mysterious ancient languages (perhaps, the Caucasian). To systematic work on the Cretan writing (since the spring of 1997 – several hours per day) I was induced by two cases which almost coincided in time. First, I discovered the closeness of the Cretan name for the fig tree and the Polynesian palm tree name (Minoan nikulea ‘fig tree’: Sumerian ŋiš ‘tree’: Proto-Austronesian *ñiuR ‘coco-palm’: Ainu ni ‘tree’). If the language of Linear A was considered to be open-syllable – like Polynesian, then had Crete undergone (as, perhaps, Mesopotamia and Egypt) the influence of the Polynesians during their movement from the Pacific through India to Madagascar? The second case was more like a challenge. While teaching the discipline ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, I have told students about the Phaistos Disc which is the most concentrated symbol of all ancient mysteries – and advised them to try their best at its decryption. One of the students objected: ‘But you know about the Disc much more than we do – try it yourself!’ From that day on, I started working on the Disc. However, gradually, accumulating the knowledge of the ancient writing of Crete together with my own failures in reading them, I moved from different ‘exotic’ languages to the most probable language regarding these scripts – Greek. And since the end of 1998 my publications have evidenced the search for precisely Greek 53 readings not only for Linear A, but also for the Cretan hieroglyphics, as well as for the Phaistos Disc itself. The work appeared to be very slow, taking into consideration two reasons. First of all, generalizing data concerning the corpus of inscriptions of Linear A were not available to me. Reading of individual characters were clarified, and it began to differ from the initial publications. Secondly, I had very little knowledge of the grammar of the Old Greek, paying attention primarily to its vocabulary. Due to the brilliant corpus of Linear A inscriptions by John Younger and my persistent studies of the Ancient Greek grammar, I tried to correct some (although, I understand, not all) shortcomings of my previous work. The results of these actions are hidden in the proposed book. By the way, I’ve never been to Crete ... Who needs this research and why? How the events which have occurred 4000 years ago on the island of Crete may be interesting for modern Europeans? First of all, it was then and there where, according to the findings of archaeologists, arose the first state in Europe. The world of ancient Crete – along with its mysterious writing, peculiar art and architecture – was revealed to the modern world in 1900 by Arthur Evans. Some pieces of information about the culture of the island, where ruled the chimeric King Minos, were narrated by Ancient Greek myths – about Zeus and Europe, Daedalus and Icarus, Theseus and Minotaur, etc. Ancient Greek sources report also about the ancient laws attributed exactly to Minos. They served not only as a basis for the famous legislation of Sparta, created by Lycurgus, but also influenced the sacred legislation of ancient Scandinavia – so far stretched the maritime connections of the Mediterranean island! Furthermore, as the modern Western civilization was born in classic Greece 2500 years ago, Greece was also born on Crete 4000 ago! Once the East was everywhere – in the UK (the Picts, related to the peoples of Siberia), in Spain and France (the Basques, related to the peoples of the Caucasus), and in Italy (Etruscans, which originated from Asia Minor). It was in Crete where the West began to appear. What is that Cretan Linear A script which has not yielded to decipherment for more than a century? This is the first developed writing of Europe that has replaced much more fragmentary records of information existing in the VI-III millennium BC in the cultures of Vinča (Serbia), Cucuteni-Trypillia (Ukraine, Moldova, Romania), Troy and mainland Greece. What is the significance of reading the Linear A script, used during the first half of the second millennium BC? Unlike Linear B script (used in Crete and in Mainland Greece during 1450-1200 BC mainly for economic records), Linear A script represents the inscriptions left primarily on sacred objects. It is a sacral writing. Preliminary identification of the language of Linear script as Greek was carried out during 1955-1965 by Vladimir Georgiev and Gregory Nagy which based on the fragmentary material affordable at that time. Further research, carried out by me for two decades using a full corpus of inscriptions, allowed to fully argue and specify 54 the idea that in Linear A writing was reflected namely the Greek language. This means that Greek, among all Indo-European languages, has the oldest written tradition which lasts for more than 4,000 years! Obtaining evidence of the oldest Indo-European inscriptions provides extremely important materials to clarify the interpretation of all other Indo-European languages. For example, the specific form of the word labyrinth, certified by Linear A script, finds exact matches in the Lithuanian language – like the Cretan form clarifies the explanation of Lithuanian, and vice versa. ‘Old Europe’ by Maria Gimbutas spoke up – and in not some mysterious (completely extinct or fragmentarily preserved) pre-Indo-European language, but in Greek, in the language of the great classical tradition, inexhaustible vocabulary which cannot be placed even in dozens of volumes! The inscriptions of Linear A describe in detail the economy of ancient Crete. The basis of nutrition were cereals, figs, olives and olive oil, and wine, to which meat and condiments were added only in small amounts. As we see, such a basis for a healthy diet still preserves its strength – over 4000! We also learn from the inscriptions about the presence of norms regarding the issuing of food to various workers and about a careful counting of stocks kept in palaces. Crete in the first half of the second millennium BC was a powerful urbanization center – a number of Linear A tablets with lists of the Cretan cities preserved, where every name deserves a special, not only linguistic, but also an archaeological commentary. The names of the main cities of the island (‘famous’, ‘light’, ‘glorious’), as well as the same blueprints of palaces and temples in these cities demonstrate a planned type of urbanization. Three tablets carry information about the structure of the city government – different in in different cities . One city was ruled by an official, chosen by draws, – in accordance with the will of the gods. The second – by a supreme elder, subordinate to ‘Her Majesty the Goddess.’ Extremely interesting is that in one of the main cities of the island – Phaistos (where the world-known Phaistos Disc was found) – the two highest positions (head of city and judge) were taken by women. Thus, the real matriarchy, which ethnographers were looking for during a long time is finally found – and not somewhere in the distant margins, but in the center of Europe, even more – in the first European state! The lists of names of various professions have been also preserved – from a woodcutter to a flutist. Finally, the Cretan weapons are described in detail. Linear A script informs about the Cretan cavalry (one of the oldest in Europe!) and the fleet – the most powerful military and transport means of ‘Minoans’ – Cretan Greeks. Each city prepared one ship, and separate – two. Many centuries before famous Homer’s ‘Catalogue of Ships’ we find such in Crete – in the center of the ancient ‘sea power’ (‘thalassocracy’). The seafaring of the ancient Cretans reached, as the inscriptions evidence, not only mainland Greece and numerous Greek islands, but also Cyprus, Italy, and even Scandinavia! At the same time, on the island there was witnessed the presence of the 55 representatives of various neighboring countries – Asia Minor (the Hittite Kingdom), Egypt, Phoenicia, Cyprus. Linear A script is a valuable source of the oldest evidence of the Greek religion, in particular, the worship of the Mother, the goddess of the fertile field Demeter, the goddess of the domestic and public hearth of Hestia, the goddess of birth Eleuthya, Zeus and Dionysus. The sacred mountains, cult caves, shrines, and various ceremonies were also mentioned in the inscriptions. The evidence of Linear A script must be carefully compared to the later historical information, on the one hand, and the archaeological information on the other hand. The most difficult was the interpretation of the sources that preceded the Cretan Linear A script. This is Cretan hieroglyphs (2200-1600 BC), linear Trojan script (26001900 BC), syllabary of ‘Hieroglyphs’ of Lerna (Mainland Greece, late third millenium BC) and late Trypillia (Ukraine, late fourth millennium BC), linear script of the Cucuteni culture (Romania, the late or mid-fourth millennium BC). The heredity of the development of writing from the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture through Anatolia (including Troy) to Mainland Greece and the island of Crete has been shown. I hope that the book will be interesting in Ukraine, where flourished the famous Trypillia culture, in Romania, where the same culture is called Cucuteni, in Turkey, where Troy was evolvingdeveloping for two millennia, and, of course, in Greece. Acknoledgements On the brilliant e-resource Academia.edu, Alberto Areddu, Joost Blasweiler, Costis Davaras, Svitlana Ivanova, Philippos Kitselis, Haris Koutelakis, Adela Kovacz, Marco Merlini, Attila Mrenka, Nadezhda Nikolaeva, Michael Nikoletseas, Giampaolo Tardivo, and many others kindly helped me to make this work more perfect. 56 INTRODUCTION Sources 1. Linear A: space and time ‘What seems today to be the greatest problem of all is the language of the Linear A script’ (Davis 1959: 23). Unfortunately, we have now ‘only about a page and a half of Hieroglyphic when compressed into a single-spaced statement, and only about six or seven pages of Linear A’ (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 176). ‘Nous disposons aujourd’hui d’environ 1500 textesédités, totalisant ±8000 signes – l’équivalent de ±huit ou neuf pages A4’ (Duhoux 2006a: 665). Then, statistical method of decipherment (successfully applied to Linear B by Alice Kober and Michael Ventris) can’t be used for Linear A. Thank to the wide contacts of the Minoan maritime trade empire (thalassocracy), Linear A spread far from its craddle island. Linear-A inscriptions have been discovered mainly in Crete. A number of them have been also discovered around the Aegean area (Argos, Drama, Kea, Kythera, Melos, Miletus, Mycenae, Samothrace, Thera, Tiryns and Troy) and a few of them were found outside the Aegean area: Amisos of Pontus; Monte Morrone of Italy (Woudhuizen 2009); Tel Haror (Oren et al. 1996) and Tel Lachish (Finkelberg et al. 1996) of Israel; Margiana of Central Asia (Sarianidi 1998, pp. 88-89). (Papakitsos, Kenanidis 2017) Also, signs similar to Linear A are found on the talants in Sardinia (Nemirovsky 1983: 53; Ilyinslkaia 1988: 88). The oldest Linear A document from Arkhanes (ARKH Zc 8, EM II-MM IA context, Younger 1) contains a bull head and syllabic signs ta-ro (not ta-je, as in Younger 1, Younger 7), i. e. ταῦρος, ‘bull’ or ταλῶς, ‘Cretan solar bull’. Thus, the earliest known Linear A inscription might be Indo-European and even Greek. The image of a bull and a syllabic word make a quasi-bilingual, similar to the famous syllabic word poro/lo near the image of a horse in Linear B. Despite that several dozens of signs are common for Linear A and Cretan hieroglyps, the relations between two these writing systems (synchronous during 2000-1600 BC) remain unclear. It is essential to stress, first of all, that contrary to Arthur Evans’s belief, this script [Linear A] does not derive from the Cretan hieroglyphic, since the two writing systems share only about 20 signs in common. (Perna 2014: 254) Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A may have been written contemporaneously, but perhaps on different kinds of documents for different purposes or even different administrations. (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 175) The problem of the invention of writing (and of the two scripts, to be more exact) in Crete in the Minoan period has attracted the attention of many scholars but remains, to this day, unsolved. 57 What could be the reason for using two scripts simultaneously for the same purpose, that is, the registration of texts of an economic nature? [...] In my opinion, a plausible solution could be that two different populations (not necessarily speaking two different languages) coexisted within Crete, in independent kingdoms. Two different scripts could have been invented toward the end of the EM period in two different areas of the island. (Perna 2014: 255) In comparison, the latest Linear A document (KH 94) is dated to LM IIIB or even LM III C time (Younger 1). Lin. A was used in Mallia during LM III period ‘if not later’ (Hutchinson 1962: 72). Linear A was used in Crete from the beginning of the palatial era until the Mycenaean invasion (around 1450 B.C.). There is actually a sporadic presence of Linear A even after that date; a painted inscription that appears on a clay figurine from Poros Herakleiou, dated around 1350 b.c., attests to a religious and private use of Linear A. It is this famous figurine, mentioned previously, that bears the word with five signs that Linear A shares in common with the Cretan hieroglyphic. (Perna 2014: 254-255) Therefore, the usage of Linear A lasted for about a millennium, from EM II (23002100 BC) to LM IIIB (1300-1200 BC). John Bennet summarized the use of Minoan scripts as follows (Bennet 2008): Dates (BC) 2100–1900 1900–1700 1700–1450 1450–1350 1350–1200 Pottery phase Middle Minoan (MM) IA MM IB–III Late Minoan (LM) IA–B LM II–IIIA1 LMIIIA2–IIIB Cultural phase Pre-Palatial Proto-Palatial Neo-Palatial Final-Palatial Post-Palatial Script in use Archanes script Cretan Hieroglyphic; Linear A Linear A Linear B Linear B The first systematized Linear Script, Linear A was probably based on an extensive primitive material not confined merely to the hieroglyphs. [...] Far the greatest proportion of the inscriptions occurs in Linear B, the latest and apparently most regular form of Minoan writing. (Ventris 1940: 508) Linear A was a less developed script than Linear B, as well as Linear B was less developed in comparison to Classical Cypriot syllabary. It is important to take into account in this connection that the Minoan script possesses a considerably lesser amount of signs than its Mycenaean comerpart. A simple count of the Linear A signs as placed within the new AB series in the GORILA edition shows that they cover only sixtyfour of the eighty-nine signs in Bennett's Linear B list. Taking into account the signs that are used in Linear A only (GORILA's A-series) increases the total by no more than a few items, because these are mainly commodity signs that do not form part of Linear A words. In terms of phonetic values, the Linear B signs not represented in Linear A fall into three categories: (a) complex syllables (a2, rai, ai, nwa, pte, ri2, two, ro2, dwe, dwo), (b) syllables of the o-series (so, do, mo, qo, jo, wo, no, two, ro2, dwo, and probably also zo), and (c) syllables that do not belong in either of the rwo former categories (pe and we in GORILA). (Finkelberg 2000: 82) Linear B might appear in Crete, not in Mainland Greece. ‘With reference to Linear B, J. M. Driesen suggested that the documents of the Room of the Chariot Tablets, 58 which show sign-shapes similar to those of Linear A, were earlier than the rest of the Knossian archives, and these in turn earlier than Mainland Linear B’ (Brice 1988: 95). Linear B might be created by Greek merchants in Crete in the early XVI c. BC and then brought in mainland Greece (Olivier 1979). The [Linear B] script derived from Linear A (and Hieroglyphic?), probably on Crete during LH II, the formative period of interaction between Crete and the mainland [...] (Shelmerdine 2008: 14) Both hypotheses, of Knossian (XV c. BC) and Mycenaean (XV c. BC) origin of Linear B, are not proved (Pope 1964/1976: 86). A Knossian inscription (on the door jamb of the Tholos tomb I) was proposed as an intermediate link between Linear A and B (Hutchinson 1962: 70). In contrast to Linear A, no Linear B inscriptions were made on stone and bronze objects – the Linear B monumental inscriptions are absent. Thus, Linear A seems to be a sacral, whereas Linear B – an agricultural writing. Ignoring attemts of Vladimir Georgiev, Gregory Nagy and others to read Linear A in Greek, Serhii Ya. Sharypkin states that we have no reasons to hope to obtain Greek texts, older than Mycenaean ones (Molchanov et al. 1988: 95). However, as Arthur Evans stated, ‘Whether they like it or not, classical students must consider origins.’ (Evans 1913: 618). For me personally, Linear B is not a finish but a start of research! 2. Late Cucuteni-Trypillian, Trojan, and Lernean scripts: searched sources of Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A? Linear Trojan Script (from Troy III-V or even Troy II), very similar to Linear A, preceded the latter and might represent its ancestor (cf. Harald Haarmann’s hypothesis of the beginning of Linear A ~2500 BC). In comparison, syllabic signs on the seal from Lerna III (2450/2300-2200 BC) might play a role of the ancestor of Cretan hieroglyphs. The Lerna sript might be linked with the suggested thirdmillennium BC Anatolian hieroglyphs, preceded the attested Anatolian/HittiteLuwian hieroglyphs of the second and first millennia BC. The hypothesis of Anatolian (in particular, Trojan) origin of the Lernean ‘hieroglyps’ as well as of the Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A corresponds to the archaeological evidence of the Anatolian influence on the Early Helladic IIB Lerna (Lerna III) and Minoan Crete. Methodology 1. What is ‘decipherment’? Methodological principles What is decipherment itself? It is, in general, a recognition of known words (lexical elements in their grammatical forms) in the text which have to be deciphered. E. g., Georg Grotefend recognized names of the Persian king in the Persian cuneiform, Francois Champollion – names of the Egyptian pharaohs in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Michael Ventris – names of Greek towns in Linear B. 59 If we initially identified several words in undeciphered script correctly, these words make a key to a further decipherment. E. g., if we found an Etruscan word in Linear A and made a preliminary conclusion that Linear A is Etruscan, we can find other Etruscan words in this script. Then we will be able to generalize phonetical and grammatical features of these words and compare them with Etruscan ones. The collection of similar words (playing a role of quasi-bilingual) is an empirical basis of any decipherment. As it will be demonstrated below, we can found a list of recognizable words in Linear A only for Greek, whereas other attempts are unacceptable. Methodological basis of any decipherment seems to be extremely clear. If one postulates that Linear A is, e. g., Hurrian, he/she must demonstrate a) Hurrian vocabulary (including names of gods and related, because many objects with Linear A inscriptions are sacral); b) Hurrian word-formation, noun declension and verb conjugation; c) Hurrian reading of coherent word combinations and sentences. More detailed principles of deciphering, especially approached to Linear A, were summarized by Yves Duhoux: usage of correctly edited texts; recognition of ideograms; reconstruction of regular orthographic rules, phonology, morphology and syntax; explanation of lexicon; interpretation of documents, ‘especially the syntactically most complex ones’; get links with pre-Hellenic substrate elements, archaeological and historical context (Duhoux 1998: 34-35). 2. Exsperience of the Linear B deciphering The estimation of possible ‘Greekness’ of Linear A strongly resembles the estimation of the hypothesis of the Greek Linear B before Michael Ventris’ decipherment. Michael Ventris himself stated in 1940: The fantasy with most followers appears to be that which makes Minoan out as Greek. It has several champions [...] The theory that Minoan could be Greek is based of course on a deliberate disregard for historical plausibility, and the wonder is that the Greek readings have been got into publishable form at all. (Ventris 1940: 494) Heinrich Schliemann archaeologically extended the Greek history from Homer to the Trojan War and to the Mycenaean times while Arthur Evans unearthed the Minoan civilization which began at least in the late 4 th millennium BC (PM I-IV; SM III). But, if the Greekness of Mycenae was undoubted for Schliemann, the position of Evans changed over time. Before having put a spade in the Cretan soil, Evans had already differentiated two forms of prehistoric writing used on the Cretan seal stones. Following the ancient Greek authors, he supposed that the earliest, pictographic form belonged to the indigenous ‘Eteocretes’, one of the Cretan tribes mentioned by Homer and Herodotus. For the second, linear type of ‘mysterious characters’ he considered the possibility that they had also been used by ‘men of Greek speech’ and formed the inspiration of the later, Phoenician script (Prent 2005: 48, refs.: Evans 1894; Evans 1897). 60 Later, Evans regarded both the Minoan and the Mycenaean civilizations as nonGreek, despite his own reading a Greek word in Linear B: using Classic Cypriot syllabary, the scholar reads po-lo = πῶλος, ‘foal‘, which was written near horsepictures on a Linear B tablet (PM IV 2: 799; Lurie 1957: 3). Following Arthur Evans, Vladimir Georgiev reads po-lo as πῶλος, ‘foal‘, which was written near horsepictures on the Linear B tablet, in the late 1940s (Georgiev 1950). Arthur Evans also identified the ‘female suffix’ in Linear B, later read as ru-ki-ti-ja (SM I: 35). Then Arthur E. Cowley identified the Linear B words for ‘boy’ and ‘girl’, later read ko-wo and ko-wa, but he was mistaken about their gender (Cowley 1927: 5-7). Michael Ventris corrected the identification of both these words (Ventris 1940: 517) and rightly identified the phonetic value of seven Linear AB signs in comparison to Cyprion signs (Ventris 1940: 510). Moreover, he identified final syllabic sign -ja in female/feminine names (Ventris 1940: 512). But his position against Greek readings in that time (above), corresponding with Arthur Evans’ position, inhibited his deciphering. Michael Ventris’ decipherment (Ventris, Chadwick 1956) confirmed the hypothesis of some linguists (Paul Kretschmer, Salomon Luria, Vladimir Georgiev) and several archaeologists (Allan J. B. Wace, Carl Blegen, George E. Mylonas etc.) about the Greekness of Linear B (XV-XIII centuries BC). In contrast, earlier Cretan hieroglyphic, the Phaistos Disc, Linear A and the late Eteocretan inscriptions remain regarded as ‘undeciphered’ and especially ‘non-Greek’. Cyrus H. Gordon underlines that Arthur Evans and Arthur E. Cowley correctly read several Greek words in Linear B, but they were not ready to accept Greek as the language of Linear B and to develop their discovery (Gordon 1982/2002). Archaeologists (such as Allan J. B. Wace, Carl Blegen), who thought that Linear B is Greek (Ventris, Chadwick 1973: 13-14), were strongly criticized by Arthur Evans. It was not accidental that famous Documents in Mycenaean Greek by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick (Ventris, Chadwick 1956) was prefaced by Allan Wace and dedicated to Heinrich Schliemann – both these archaeologists were symbols of the Greek attribution of the second-millennium BC civilization of mainland Greece, in contrast to ‘anti-Greek’ position of Artur Evans. If (although history don’t know any ‘if’) highly influential Arthur Evans drew his attention to the Greek word for ‘foal’ near the picture of foal (where the word and the picture made a quasi-bilingual), linguists in cooperation with archaeologists might have deciphered Linear B long before Michael Ventris’ decipherment. If... In turn, if present-day scholars (linguists and archaeologists) repeat previous mistakes and copy Arthur Evans’ position (now applied to Linear A) – every language except Greek – Linear A may remain undeciphered for a long period. History of research: The Linear A decipherment attempts Great number of publication on Linear A might be divided into three groups: 61 a) archaeological, socio-cultural, statistical, combinatorical aspects without an interest to the language of Linear A. As the compiler of the brilliant e-corpus of Linear A John Younger underlines, ‘I am NOT interested in producing a decipherment of Linear A [...]’ (Younger 6, red color of letters!); ‘My own aim in producing these webfiles has NOT been to decipher Linear A.’ (Younger 8, red color of letters); ‘Whatever language Linear A turns out to be (Semitic, Indo-Hittite, Greek, or Martian), will be fine with me; I have no set predisposition.’ (Younger 8); b) researches devoted to some separate words in Linear A (works of Günter Neumann, Nikolai N. Kazanski, Arkadii A. Molchanov); c) global attempts to decipher Linear A in general. Let me discuss language-related attempts (mostly of the (c) type) below. Greek? Pro The occurrence in both [Linear A and B] of similar sign-groups seems at any rate to prove that the language itself of those who used the one or the other Script was essentially the same (Evans 1909: 38). From 1955 to the present time, many scholars – Vladimir I. Georgiev was the first – interpreted some Greek words and grammatical forms in Linear A (Georgiev 1958; Georgiev 1963; Meriggi 1956 – comments: Minoica 1958, Raison 1959, Milani 1960, Aevum 37.3/4: 344; Peruzzi 1957; Peruzzi 1958; Milani 1960; Milani 1964; Milani 2005; Peruzzi 1963; Nagy 1963; Nagy 1965; Faure 1972; Tsikritsis 2001; Faucounau 2001; Hicks 2005; Patria 2011; Lewyckyj). Among these interpretations, some grammatical evidences, such as the paradigm i-ja-te ‘physician’ (Peruzzi 1957: 39) / i-ja-ma ‘medicine’ (Georgiev 1958), copula -qe (Meriggi 1956; Bartoněk 1958: 237; Georgiev 1958: 81–82, 86; Nagy 1965: 300–301; Hooker 1975: 168), adjective feminine flexion like su-ki-ri-ta – su-ki-ri-te-i-ja (Nagy 1963; Nagy 1965), dative -si (Pope 1964/1976: 91), mediopassive participle suffix -men(Peruzzi 1957: 39; Faure 1972) are the strongest proofs of the Greek language in Linear A, in contrast to lexical elements which might have been borrowed. These grammatical forms are of Indo-European origin. The above-mentioned suggestions have never been criticized. Moreover, Linear A copula -qe (identical with Linear B -qe of undisputable Indo-European origin) was allowed even by the main proponent of the Linear A Semitic hypothesis (see below), Cyrus H. Gordon (Gordon 1958: 253-254). As John L. Caskey concluded concerning Linear A, ‘The consensus is that the language is not Greek, although a few would allow that it may contain Greek elements’ (Caskey 2008: 138). Similarly, Paul Faure’s conclusion is: ‘...if not Greek, at least an Indo-European language closely related to Greek’ (cited after: Fischer 1997: 97). In comparison, ‘Remember Linear B, which was several times unsuccessfully presented as deciphered and as writing Greek, and which Michael Ventris 62 nevertheless proved to be Greek – but a quite different one than those of the previous would-be decipherers...’ (Duhoux 1998: 33). Each reader of the aforementioned works, especially by Vladimir I. Georgiev and Gregory Nagy, might make a conclusion that Linear A is a Greek writing. Despite that, hypothetical Greek-like lexical and especially much more significant grammatical elements have never been studied systematically, whereas possible Linear A forms of Greek phonetics are not described until the present time. The unbroken cultural development and the absence of destructions in Crete in the time of the suggested Achaean invasion about 1450 BC (Platon 1959: 143) is the strongest extra-linguistic argument against the difference of the Linear A and B languages. However, there is archaeologically attested influence on Crete from the Mainland Greece in LM II–IIIA1 period and especially in later LM IIIA2–IIIB period; the appearance of the Mycenaeans started from LM II (Haskell 1997). Crete was Mycenianized after LM IB destructions (Macdonald 1997) ‘warrior graves’ at Knossos and Phaistos evidenced Mycenaean domination in Crete in LM II/IIIA (Niemeier 1997: 297, refs.) In addition, Constantinos D. Ktistopoulos attempted to find common flexions in Linear A and B (Ktistopoulos 1956: 189-191) whereas N. K. Bouphidis proposed to read the Arkalokhori inscription as i-da-ma-te (Bouphidis 1954). Contra. Simon Davis proposes such argument against the Greekness of Linear A: ‘total’ and ‘deficit’ are to-so and o-pe-ro in Linear B, but ku-ro and ki-ro in Linear A (Davis 1959a: 23). However, both ‘non-Greek’ words are Greek (below) wheras Linear A might represent another Greek dialect, different from the Achaean dialect of Linear B. Margalit Finkelberg cites Yves Duhoux’s arguments against the ‘Greekness’ of Linear A (proposed during the discussion ‘Linear A as Greek’ in AEGEANET in March 1998): (1) The word for total is different in Linear A and in Linear B: LB to-so(-de); LA>B ku-ro. (2) The Linear B language is significantly less prefixing than Linear A. (3) Votive Linear A texts, where we are pretty sure to have variant forms of the same word, show morphological (I mean: grammatical) features totally different from Linear B (Finkelberg 2000: 83). However, (1) Greek has many synonyms, whereas ku-ro and po-to-ku-ro have Greek interpretation, (2) Linear A ‘prefixes’ (Duhoux 1983; Duhoux 1994–1995, even in da-ma-te / i-da-ma-te!) may also be Greek forms of negation, augment of Greek aorist, reduplication in verb perfect, articles (which are written with the next words in Linear B and Classical Cypriot), prepositions, and also prefixes (the Ancient Greek language also had prefixes!) etc., (3) votive Linear A texts might also be interpreted in Greek, written differently from Linear B. Let us discuss some examples. First, ‘Minoan’ (Linear A) ku-ro ‘sum’ and ki-ro ‘debt’ are firmly established combinatorically. These words clearly correspond with Heraclitus’ opposition of κόρος ‘satiety, surfeit’ – χρησμοσύνη ‘need’ (Heraclit. 65), whereas the latter word is derived from χρέος ‘debt’. 63 Then, Lin. A ku-ro might reflect another (than Mycenaean Greek to-so ‘sum’) but also Greek word. Cf. also κῦρος ‘supreme power’ and related, whereas Latin summa is derived from summus, a superlative of superus ‘upper, higher’. This Latin etymology as a typological parallel for the Greek interpretation of the Linear A word is underlined by Evhen K. Chernukhin, pers. comm. Similarly, a contradiction of ‘Minoan’ ki-ro ‘debt’ and the Mycenaean Greek o-pe-ro = ophelos ‘debt’ (Duhoux 1998: 20, 24; Facchetti 2002: 173) might also reflect two different but related Greek synonyms of ‘debt’. Both these ‘contradicted’ words, ‘Minoan’ and Greek, occurred in Greek texts side by side: ὀφείλουσι τὰ χρέα (Isocr. Against Euthynus 21.13), ὀφειλόντων χρέα (Plut. Camillus 36), χρεῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας (Plut. Cleomenes 10), ὀφείλων δημόσιον χρέος (Plut. Sulla 37), χρέος, ὤφειλε (Plut. Caesar 48), χρέος ὀφέλλεσθαι (Plut. De defectu oraculorum 3), χρέος ὀφειλόμενον (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 12.43), χρέος ὀφείληται (Aristides, Orationes 38 Aelius, Jebb p. 484). There are good examples of the role of lexical markers to identify the Linear A language as Greek. Second, ‘prefixes’ turn up articles, prepositions etc. – it is to be noted that Linear A (as well as Linear B) totally excludes one-syllable words which must be written as a unit with the previous or the next word. The ignoring of this fact leads to the identification of quasi-‘prefixes’. E. g., the comparison of a-sa-sa-ra-me and ja-sa-sa-rame leads to the identification of ‘prefixes’ a- and ja- (Duhoux 1983: 38) which, instead, might appear Greek(-Phrygian) feminine article ja > ha (cf. Lin. B o-/jo- which also makes a unit with the next word). Then, the ‘prefix’ j- is compared to the ‘prefixe’ iin Linear A i-da-ma-te (Duhoux 1995: 292-294), reading as ‘Ida Mother’ by many scholars. Similarly, the comparison of pa-ra-ne and a-pa-ra-ne leads to the identification of prefix a- (Duhoux 1983:38), whereas it might be only Greek negation a-. Margalit Finkelberg proposed phonological arguments contra the Greek hypothesis. Let us start with the Greek hypothesis. As already mentioned, almost half a century ago Michel Lejeune showed in a simple and elegant way that while Greek is an -o language the Minoan is an ulanguage and is therefore not likely to be Greek. A simple comparison with both the Linear B and the Cypriot syllabary, both of which abound in the vowel o, let alone our knowledge of the vocalism of historic Greek, shows, in fact, rwo mutually incompatible systems of vowels. Comparison of the consonantal systems of both languages leads to a similar conclusion. The opposition berween voiced and voiceless stops is inherent in the Greek language. We saw, however, that the language of Linear A does not possess this kind of opposition. Needless to say, the lack of agreement on these rwo points actually excludes Greek as the language of Linear A. (Finkelberg 2000: 85) However, Linear A orthography could reflect another language, non-Greek initially (the North Caucasian rather than the Hittite-Luwian, see below). Linear B and Cypriot syllabary does not reflect Greek phonology as well. The suggested 64 absence of o in Linear A (Finkelberg 2000: 85-87) contradicts with Lin. A pa-i-to (Greek Φαιστός), ra-o-di-ki (Greek Λαοδίκη), -au-ta-de-po-ni-za (Greek αὐτή *δεσποινικία) etc. The main argument against the Greekness of Linear A, frequently proposed since 1952, is the differences between the Linear A and Linear B words. However, Nothing in the Linear A syllabary suggests that it was structurally dissimilar, although it appears that the phonetic structure of the language behind Linear A differed from that of Greek. (Bennet 2008) As the comparison of Linear B and Classic Cypriot syllabary clearly demonstrated, this argument (proposed against the Greekness of Linear B until 1952) is very weak. Differences of dialects and especially orphographies make an effect of nonrecognition of the (Greek) language – firstly of Linear B, compared with Classic Cypriot syllabary, secondly of Linear A, compared with Linear B. In contrast, the similarity between Linear A and B led N. Platon to the conclusion: if Linear B is in Greek then Linear A is also do (Platon 1959: 143). Yes, Linear A is not ‘perfect’ for the Greek language – but Linear B and Cypriot syllabary are the same! Were Sumerian cuneiform ‘perfect’ for the Akkadian language, or were archaic French orthography ‘perfect’ for the modern French language? (Examples of Nazarii A. Nazarov, pers. comm.). Ignoring. The present-day conceptualization of the Linear A language – every language except Greek – strongly resembles the position of Arthur Evans concerning Linear B. Inhibition of scientific researches is a result of both cases. As John L. Caskey summarized, ‘The consensus is that the language is not Greek, although a few would allow that it may contain Greek elements. Some, led by Cyrus H. Gordon, have thought it to be a western Semitic dialect; others identify it with Luwian; but it is not by any means certain that all the texts are in a single language. Obviously caution and patience are called for.’1 C. S. Dow’s conclusion: ‘The language of Linear A is definitely a different language from that of Linear B, and therefore is not Greek. Beset though they are with discouraging uncertainties, attempts to read Linear A have turned up interesting translations of single words, particularly Greek, but also others.’2 Maurice Pope described two ways of the Linear A deciphering – Semitic and IndoEuropean (meaning Hittite-Luwian), whereas the Greek hypothesis is totally ignored by him. But this author correctly criticized both the aforementioned hypotheses (Pope 1964/1976: 89-92). John Chadwick thought that the Greek language of Linear A is acceptable only for the most enthusiastic researchers (Chadwick 1967/1976: 206). He saw two main perspectives of the Linear A decipherment – Hittite-Luwian and Semitic, but he correctly criticized both these hypotheses (Chadwick 1967/1976: 248-249). 1 2 CAH, 3rd ed., Vol. II, pt. 1 (2006), p. 138. CAH, 3rd ed., Vol. II, pt. 1, p. 595. 65 Cyrus H. Gordon in his summarizing work Forgotten scripts drew attention to the Semitic hypothesis only (Gordon 1982). He didn’t analyze other versions of the Linear A language. David W. Packard criticized Cyrus H. Gordon’s Semitic hypothesis and Leonard R. Palmer’s Luwian hypothesis, but he left the Greek hypothesis of Vladimir I. Georgiev and Gregory Nagy without comments. In sum, ‘[...] no one has yet been able to interpret a significant portion of the Linear A corpus with reference to any known language’ (Packard 1974: 27-29). Julio M. Facchetti commented only the recent Hurro-Urartian, Indo-European in general, and (his own) the Etruscan hypotheses of the Linear A language affiliation. ‘Not to speak of the oldest approaches, unsuccessfully arisen nearly after the Linear B decipherment (C. H. Gordon, L. R. Palmer, S. Davis and others)...’ (Facchetti 2003: 89). As one can see, only Semitic and Hittite-Luwian ‘old’ hypotheses are mentioned here, whereas the first among these ‘old’ hypotheses – Greek one – is not even mentioned. In another article, the aforementioned author explained in detail his Etruscan hypothesis and mentioned Semitic and Luwian ones (Facchetti 2001: 30), but repeatedly omitted the Greek hypothesis. Fred C. Woudhuizen searches not only for Semitic, Luwian, pre-Greek but also for Sumerian, Egyptian, Hurrian etc. elements in Linear A, but totally excluded Greek (Woudhuizen 2016). ‘One certain point is that it cannot be Greek; the few words whose meaning are known are quite different from their Linear B equivalents. There is no convincing evidence of inflection, though this is not to deny that it may exist.’ (Chadwick 1975: 146-147). In conclusion, I have to repeat: many proposals to read Linear A in Greek must be newly studied and criticized in detail. When some Linear A signs recently changed their reading, the Greek hypothesis must be newly re-examined. Morphological and syntactical analysis of the Linear A words and texts without any preconceptions is the direct way to identify the enigmatic ‘Minoan’ language. Hittite-Luwian? Pro. When Arthur Evans named Protopalatial Cretan civilization ‘Carian’ (Evans 1913:620), he didn’t mean ‘Hittite-Luwian’ – it was long before the recent decipherment of the Carian script. The idea of the Hittite-Luwian interpretation of Linear A is initially linked with Leonard R. Palmer (Palmer 1958 – Luwian; Davis 1967, Davis 1968 – Hittite, cf. Huxley 1961) and recently revived (Brown 1990, Brown 1993 – Luwian; Finkelberg 2000 – Lycian; Kazansky 2010, Kazansky 2012 – Lycian). Sinclair Hood suggests the Luwian appearance in Crete about 1700 BC (Hood 1971) – clearly later than not only Cretan hieroglyphs but also Linear A emerged. An invasion at the beginning of the MM period is also suggested (Hood 1971:50). From the 1960s, Vladimir I. Georgiev read Linear A in two different languages – Greek (Haghia Triada archives) and Hittite-Luwian (other sites, especially so-called 66 ‘Libation Formula’) (Georgiev 1963; Georgiev 1966; Georgiev 1981), but this idea was not accepted: ‘Two components of the population are taken to be the source of the Linear A texts: the Eteocretans in the eastern and central parts of the island, with a language of the Hittite-Luwian group, and the Cydonians at Hagia Triada, with an extremely archaic Greek dialect. […] his interpretations of the texts cannot be regarded as sure, since all the texts are fairly short, the content is made to consist largely of proper names, and there are certain matters of detail which fail to carry conviction’ (Poultney 1968:337). [...] the sequence a-ra-u-da found in the heading of a Khania tablet (KH 5) should be interpreted as parallel to the third person preterite of the Hittite, Luwian, and Lycian verb derived from the stem a-ra-wa (free) and should be translated he released.31 This interpretation renders [he heading of KH 5 exactly parallel to the Linear B formula PN/ride e-re-u-te-ro-se SA x (PN/ritle released [from taxation] x units of flax) found in the Pylian records of flax delivered as tax (PY Na 395, 568, 924) and makes sense of the document as a whole. If correct, the correlation a-ra-u-da = e-re-u-te-ro-se will give us the first full scale Linear A-Linear B parallel. (Finkelberg 2000: 94 after Uchitel 1994/1995) This parallel is significant, but can it be Greek goddess Ἐλεύθυια, worshipped in Crete? The Anatolian hypothesis corresponds with 1) archaeological links between the island of Crete and Asia Minor from the Neolithic, 2) historical evidence of CretanLycian and Cretan-Carian relations (Hdt. 1.173; 1.171; Duhoux 2004: 209), 3) clear similarity between some (but a few) Cretan and Luwian (Anatolian) hieroglyphs (e. g., ‘bull head’ sounds mu in both scripts; hieroglyph for ‘life’ is of common Egyptian origin in both writing systems). An additional support of the hypothesis is that ‘the Cydonian language as an independent Indo-European language was closely related to the Anatolian Indo-European group’ because Polyrrhenian/Cydonian gloss σύας ‘dog’ closely resembles Anat. Hier. suwani- ‘dog’ (Witczak 1996). However, both cited forms of well-known Indo-European root are satemized, then suggested Luwian influence couldn’t precede 1) this phonetical process and 2) the separation of Luwian from other Anatolian (which are not satemized, except Lycian the descendant of Luwian). Supporters of this hypothesis proposed several (but not many) word parallels, but without coherent syntactical constructions (see below examples and references). E. g., I can add Lin. A i-da-mi (...) with ‘Hittite’ mis ‘my’ – but the complete decipherment needs complete grammar of the deciphered language. Contra. Despite Anatolian origin of Greek and other European Neolithicization (possibly followed by the Indo-Europeanization – Renfrew 1987), postulated HittiteLuwian substrate in Mainland Greece and Crete (cf. Finkelberg 1997) is based on a very little list of lexical and onomastic parallels – the Pre-Greek substrate was PaleoBalkan (looking like Macedonian, Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian – Otkupshchikov 1988) = ‘Pelasgian’ (Georgiev 1958; Georgiev 1981) rather than Hittite-Luwian. If Linear A ku-ni-su lead Cyrus H. Gordon to postulate the Akkadian language on the island (see below), then Linear A a-sa-sa-ra-me, interpreted in comparison with 67 Hier. Luw. hasusaras ‘queen’ and Hittite ishassaras mis ‘my lady’ lead Leonard R. Palmer to the Hittite-Luwian interpretation of the script (Palmer 1958). However, a-sa-sa-ra (‘the corner stone of a proof that the language of Linear A must be Luvian’) is not existed as a distinct word in Linear A (Pope 1961). Moreover, a variant ja-sa-sa-ra- is not interpretable in Hittite-Luwian. Another argument is Lin. A a-ta-no- / ja-ta-no- / ta-na-no-, compared with Hitt. istananas ‘altar’ by Emilio Peruzzi (Pope 1964/1976: 92), but these Linear A words now have another reading a-ta-i- / ja-ta-i- / ta-na-i-. Simon Davis defended the Semitic hypothesis initially (Davis 1959; Davis 1959a), grounding on some incorrect readings of Linear A signs (Peruzzi 1959: 321), but later he became a supporter of the Hittite-Luwian hypothesis, also basing on the not generally accepted value of signs (Davis 1967; Davis 1968). Margalit Finkelberg’s Lycian hypothesis (Finkelberg 1990/1991; Uchitel, Finkelberg 1995; Finkelberg 2000; critical comments: Duhoux 2004) corresponds to Herodotus’ evidence of the Cretan origin of Lycians (Hdt. 1.173), but it is disputable from the linguistic point of view (Hittite-Luwian texts can’t begin from grammatical elements, postulated by Margalit Finkelberg – see Duhoux 2004: 214-215) and chronologically (Linear A, attested from the early second millennium BC, was not a contemporary of the first-millennium BC Lycian). ‘The morfological profile of Minoan’, extracted mostly from the libation inscriptions (Finkelberg 2000: 94-95), included subjectively identified features, as well as Linear A-Lycian morphologicall parallels (Finkelberg 2000: 97) such as: ‘(1) both Minoan and Lycian have -di as the third person present-future verbal ending; (2) the Lycian third person preterite verbal ending -de can be consistently accounted for as corresponding to the Minoan da’ etc. Another argument is stronger – as Linear A ‘Lycian is inconsistent in rendering the r/l distinction’ (Finkelberg 2000: 98), but it might also be Egyptian feature. Considering an old parallel of Lin. A wa-du-ni-mi : Lycian βadunimi (Meriggi 1956: 6), we must take into account a possible Greek etymology of the Linear A word (*hdonym- ‘sweet/pleasant name’, cf. Georgiev 1958: 85), with Cretan-Pamphilian w > b shift. The suggested Hittite-Luwian substrate in Greek (especially in toponymy) is questioned now: ‘Neither the substrate suffix *-ntho- nor the substrate suffix *-tsowould have convincing comparanda in the Indo-Hittite language family.’ (Yakubovič 2008:12). Greek lexical elements of possible Hittite-Luwian origin are very poor, and all of them might be interpreted in the light of neighbor contacts. The Hittite hypothesis of Bary Fell (Fell 1977) is based on his own reading of the Linear A signs, corresponding only a little with the commonly accepted readings. The Luwian, in contrast to other Hittite-Luwian languages, must be excluded from the candidates for the Linear A language because of the absence of e, presented in Linear A, in Luwian (Finkelberg 2000: 86). In conclusion, Maurice Pope’s words about the Semitic hypothesis (see below) might be exactly re-adressed to the Hittite-Luwian hypothesis: if grammars and 68 vocabularies of the Hittite-Luwian languages were not applied correctly to Linear A then the language of this script is not Hittite-Luwian. We must assume that no Linear A text was completely and correctly read in any Hittite-Luwian language until the present-day time. A comparative lexicon was not proposed, in contrast to Linear AGreek one. This statement doesn’t exclude the Anatolian influence on Crete in lexicon and syllabic signs. The Hittite-Luwian hypothesis contradicts with archaeological and historical evidences. First, if Crete was a Microasiatic colony, the Hittite-Luwian finds, including inscriptions, must be massively presented in the island (an exchange between a metropoly and a colony is normal). Vice versa, Miletus and some neighbor territories were Minoan colonies. Second, Crete is not mentioned in Anatolian documents (Ahhiyawa was Mycenaean Greece of the post-Minoan time). Third, why the suggested Cretan Anatolians used several Cretan scripts instead of cuneiform? Semitic? Pro. Among the attempts (especially by Cyrus H. Gordon) to identify Semitic words in Linear A (Gordon 1957; Pope 1958; Pope 1964/1976: 91, refs; Gordon 1966; Gordon 1984; Hiller 1978/1979; Best 1989; Best 2000; Woudhuizen 2005; Colless a; Colless b), only several vessel names, also ku-ni-su WHEAT: Akkadian kun(n)išu ‘emmer wheat’ and possibly ya-ne ‘wine’ (on the pithos) might be acceptable as loans. Possible Semitic loanwords in Linear A are listed by Emilio Peruzzi: sa-sa-me (Ugarit. ssmn, Akkad. sammasammu), ku-mi-na-, sa+mu+ku (Hebr., Ugar. s.mk-m plur. 'raisins', HT 34.6), and vessel names su-pu (Ugarit. sp), ka-ro-pa3 (Ugar. krpn), su-parra (Ugarit. spl), but he concluded: ‘None of these elements, however, even if the identifications are correct, can give us a hint as to the relationship of the Minoan language, because such forms may be loan-words in Minoan as they are in Mycenaean.’ (Peruzzi 1959: 323). Semitic loans are also presented in Linear B, but Linear B itself is not Semitic (Duhoux 2011: 7-8). About possible ways of Semitic loans in Linear B see (Bourguignon). However, a conclusion/assumption that ‘Linear A texts include a high number of Semitic loanwords: Renfrew (1998: 268)’ (Wallace 2018: 191) is highly questionable. The presence of Linear A in Ugarit, on the one hand, and the Phoenician maritime civilization with its possible (Minoan-)Mycenaean contacts, on the other hand, might indirectly evidence in favor of the Semitic hypothesis. Contra. The majority of usually citing/quoting Cyrus H. Gordon’s Semitic readings of Linear A (Hutchinson 1962: 73), except frequently loaned vessel names, are based on incorrect (now changed) readings of signs. Semitic loans in Linear A (as in Linear B) are not an evidence in favor to the Semitic language of this script, as well as of Linear B: None of these elements, however, even if the identifications are correct, can give us a hint as to the relationship of the Minoan language, because such forms may be loan-words in Minoan as they are in Mycenaean (Peruzzi 1959: 323). 69 Thus, ‘Ventris could be right and Gordon still be wrong’ (Hutchinson 1962: 73). As Margalit Finkelberg concludes, It is important to realize in this connection that most of the phonetic values with which Cyrus Gordon worked almost half a century ago would be regarded today as unacceptable, not to mention the fact that Gordon got lost in the archives of Hagia Triada, reading terms for transactions as personal names, and so on. (Finkelberg 2000: 83) Jan G. P. Best, attempting to read Linear A in Semitic (Best 1982), reads (j)a-sa-sara-me in comparison with Ugaritic atrt, Hebrew ’āšērāh , but, ‘the lack of an expected feminine –t and the double writing -sa-sa-, force us to conclude that Best’s analysis is plainly wrong’ (Rendsburg 1982: 84). Linear A (j)a-ta-nV-tV/ta-na-nV-tV, interpreting by J. G. P. Best as Semitic ytnt/atnt ‘gift’, now have different reading (j)a-ta-i-, not correlated with these Semitic interpretations. As J. G. P. Best suggests, Minoan Crete was populated by both West Semitic and the Luwian people. He proposes a Semitic reading for some long Linear inscriptions, like this: ‘Arakos: кайма, Autade заполнил письмом’; ‘А ну-ка вытолкни, Kaniyami, и высвободи их (предметы одеяния)!: Atade’ (Best 1987). These translations seem quite surprising! Margalit Finkelberg criticizes metodological approachs and results of this researcher (Finkelberg 2000: 83–84). Kjell Aartun proposed a Semitic translation of many Linear A tablets (Aartun 1997), but he used some reading of signs, distinct from those presently accepted, and frequently interpreted ideograms as phonetic words. These proposals were strongly criticized (Younger 2009). Fred C. Woudhuizen underlines that ‘even with the recognition of some Luwianisms in texts basically conducted in the Semitic language we have not yet fully exploited the language situation in Linear A’ because of the presence of ‘Pelasgian’ forms da-ma-te and i-da-ma-te (Woudhuizen 2016: 233-234, 303–312). In turn, ‘the use of Akkadisms and even phonetic renderings of Sumerograms are only to be expected in the Cretan dialectal variant of Luwian’ (Woudhuizen 2016: 279). This author reads a/ja-ta-no- (Woudhuizen 2016: 227) instead of a/ja-ta-i-, proposed a Semitic interpretation even for au-ta-de-po-ni-za (Woudhuizen 2016: 230-231) which, for me, is clearly Greek – his complete translation of the ‘Despoina-sentence’ is ‘Arakos: the fringe; A(u)-ta-de covered this in Punic’ (Woudhuizen 2016: 231). His translation of the inscription on the gold ring from Mauro Spelio is: ‘For Nesidis: Pikes-Phaistos, Arnutes, I-Ayalu (= Malia)’ (Woudhuizen 2016: 277). For this researcher, the Semitic language of Linear A included also Luwian and Hurrian elements – including grammatical Luwianisms (Woudhuizen 2016: 231–232). Moreover, he found Sumerian dumu ‘son’ in Lin. A tu-me- from ‘Libation Formula’ (Woudhuizen 2016: 253, 271). Lin. A also included not only Thracian names (Woudhuizen 2016: 330) but also even Egyptian goddess Nwt = Lin. A nu-da (Woudhuizen 2016: 331) The researcher identifies Lin. A ki-ro ‘debt’ with Semitic kalum (Woudhuizen 2016: 269). Such multi-comparison resembles approachs of Bedřich Hrozný and Vladimir I. Georgiev before 1952. 70 Despite the fact that Maurice Pope does not exclude the Semitic hypothesis, he writes: ‘For Minoan to contain some Semitic words would not be surprising. Bronze Age Crete belonged to the same culture as the contemporary Near East. It is natural that technical terms of accountancy and of articles of commerce such as pots should have been borrowed. The further conclusion that the language itself is Semitic is however still a long way from being proved’ (Pope 1958: 23). Maurice Pope also underlines that ‘Linear A is not a ‘prefixing’ language’ (Pope 1958), in contrast to Semitic. The absence of aspirated stops in Linear A contrasts with Semitic phonetics. M. Pope also writes: ‘The only Minoan word whose meaning is certainly known is kuro or kulo = «total». There is no doubt that this could be Semitic (Akkadian kalu, kullatu; Hebrew kôl; etc.)’ (Pope 1958: 21). However, this word has an alternative Greek reading kuros (above), and this Greek form is closer to Linear A than Semitic. Moreover, Margalit Finkelberg cites Yves Duhoux’ opinion namely about this word: Semitic kl ‘total’ might explain ku-ro but not po-to-ku-ro ‘grand total’ (Duhoux 1998: 33; Finkelberg 2000: 83). Yves Duhoux demonstrates that Linear A ku-ro ‘total’ has more or less close parallels in different language families (Duhoux 2011), but Greek κύριος, κῦρος remain omitted! It is an evidence that neither one word (which might be a coincidence) nor a group of words (which might be loans) are not a basis for the firm identification of language. Emilio Peruzzi underlined the absence of ‘a Semitic commercial colony’ in the island of Crete (Peruzzi 1959: 324), despite a possible presence of the Akkadian-like and the Ugaritic-like words in Linear A. Perhaps, a Minoan colony in Ugarit, which used Linear A (as it is archaeologically attested), might be a source of these Semiti(ci)sms. Maurice Pope, after the mention of non-Semitic flexions in Linear A, underlined that Semitic languages are deeply studied, and the Linear A language, if it was Semitic, might already be deciphered (Pope 1964/1976: 90-91). It is very symbolic and significant that main proponent of the Semitic Linear A hypothesis, Cyrus H. Gordon, wrote that ‘Linear A, like cuneiform Hittite, might be full of Sumerograms and Akkadograms and yet be in a non-Mesopotamian language. That some elements in Linear A are not Semitic is a foregone conclusion. Whether or not ka-pa is Akkadian gabba, "all," it is clear that ka-pa-qe (HT 6:a:4) has the suffix that appears in Latin as -que, Linear B Greek -qe, "and."’ (Gordon 1958: 253-254). In the other words, the copula particle in Linear A is identical to one in Greek Linear B, and it is noticed by the scholar who created the hypothesis of Semitic Linear A! Thus, our conclusions on the Semitic hypothesis are: 1) Many Linear A words are unexplained in comparison with the different wellattested Semitic languages with a rich vocabulary; 2) Linear A phonetic structure strongly contradicts with Semitic one – e. g., e is presented in Linear A but absent in the Semitic languages, except only Akkadian (Finkelberg 2000: 86, 100); 3) Despite the Semitic morphology is described in detail, no Linear A texts were completely read in any Semitic language; 71 4) Many of the proposed Semitic parallels of the Linear A lexicon a) ignored vowels (different in Linear A words and their Semitic ‘parallels’) and b) based on the incorrect readings of the Linear A signs (see an overview: Davis 1959a); Now we have no archaeological evidence of the Akkadian and even Ugaritic presence in Minoan Crete. Vice versa, Linear A is found in Ugarit. We have no information about Ugaritic fleet, able invaded Crete, whereas ships of the Dan tribe (Genesis 49) rather belonged to the Danaans (Greeks among the Sea Peoples). Phoenician maritime activity is dated to after 1200 BC; there is no evidence of the Phoenicians even among the Sea Peoples (1300–1200 BC). A lost Indo-European branch? Pro. The idea of an Indo-European (in general) attribution of the Linear A language is not recent one. Emilio Peruzzi underlines that ‘this spelling ma-te is then a cogent piece of evidence for the Indo-European character of the language spoken at Arkalokhori in the Minoan age’ (Peruzzi 1959: 324). Later, Elvira Kaczyńska agrees with Gareth A. Owens that -ma-te and pi-te-ri ‘guarantee the Indo-European status of the Linear A language’ (Kaczyńska 2002). Now Gareth A. Owens recognizes Linear A as an Indo-European language, distinct from Hittite-Luwian, Greek and other branches of the family, but the closest cognate of Indo-Iranian (Owens 1999). His conclusion about the Indo-Iranian link of the Linear A language is based on the reading of Indo-Iranian-like pi-te-ri ‘fathers’ (alongside of Greek-like si-tu ‘bread’) in Linear A. However, Indo-Iranian ‘father’ has no such grammatical form. For Virginia Hicks, Linear A also reflects a distinct Indo-European language, and then she uses Greek and Hittite-Luwian forms to interpret it (Hicks 2005). A very interesting hypothesis in favor of the Indo-European (in general) nature of the Linear A language was proposed. Sign *034 has been suggested to represent MNA (or, if a disyllabic value can be accepted, MINA), based on its resemblance to the crescent moon (Pope and Raison 1978, 28; Packard 1974, 107; Furumark 1956, 24). And while this idea has not received wide-spread agreement, it may be correct. Consider the following: U-*034-SI (HT 15.1, 140.1, 2) =? U-MI-NA-SI (HT 28b.1-2, 117a.1-2) PI-*34-TE (HT 116a.4) =? ]PI-MI-NA-TE (AP Za 2.2) (Younger 7) The Egyptian hieroglyph ‘crescent moon’ is very similar to the aforementioned Linear A sign. If the sign, looking like the moon, has the reading m(i)na in Linear A, then the language of the script is Indo-European: ‘moon’ is *mens- in Proto-IndoEuropean. Some Linear A words ‘look as if they could be Indo-European adjectives, ending in -I-JA (feminine?) or -U (masculine?)’ (Younger, Rehak 2008: 176). Saro Wallace summarizes our present knowledge of the Linear A language in such way: 72 The first known Aegean writers (Linear A/Hieroglyphic script users on MM–LM I Crete) used a non-Greek language (which belonged, like Greek, to the Indo-European group: Brown 1990 ; 1993 ; Duhoux 1998 ; 2004 ; Rehak and Younger 2001 : 425). (Wallace 2018: 190) For the cited author, the pre-Linear B Cretan language(s) might be Anatolian (Wallace 2018: 191). The hypothesis of a distinct Cretan branch of the Indo-European language family corresponds with archaeologically and genetically attested Anatolian influences on the island (first of all, in the Neolithic) much better than the Hittite-Luwian hypothesis: initial Cretan Neolithic (since the late seventh millennium BC) might precede the formation of the Hittite-Luwian language group (cf. Duhoux 2004: 220222). Contra. However, some recent ideas on the Linear A language as a distinct but lost branch of the Indo-European language are ‘built on crucially new (in comparison with GORILA) readings of some important texts’ (Facchetti 2003: 92). If decipherment means the complete interpretation of a text, then this hypothesis (as well as all others) needs systematical demonstration of coherent texts, readable lexically, morphologically and syntactically. Proponents of the Linear A language as ‘an Indo-European in general’, i. e. a distinct branch of this language family, have a great challenge – to reconstruct this branch. It will be more and more difficult than Vladimir I. Georgiev’s hypothetical model of substratal ‘Pelasgian’ language! Similarly, Bedřich Hrozný and Vladimir I. Georgiev constructed their own IndoEuropean language of Linear B from different language sources... before 1952! Others: Etruscan, Hurrian, Indo-Iranian, North Caucasian etc.? An Etruscan interpretation of Linear A reminds Michael Ventris’ idea of Etruscan Linear B (preceding his decipherment of this writing). Among suggested Etruscisms in Linear A, (j)a-sa- : Etruscan aisa- ‘god’ (Facchetti 2001: 16), but possible source of the latter might be Greek Αἶσα ‘the divinity who dispenses to everyone his/her lot or destiny’ (cf. Greek τύχη ‘the act of a god’ as a source of Etruscan demon Tukhulkha). However, Etruscan texts (about 12 000 inscriptions) are well-readable, and then if Linear A reflected this language, many words, some parallel word-groups, and morphological elements must be found. S. A. Yatsemirsky postulates a ‘MinoanTyrrhenian group of languages’ (Yatsemirsky 2011). The Etruscans were a result of the Sea Peoples migration in the late 2 nd millennium BC – not about 2000 BC. A Hurrian interpretation of the script is a subject of discussion between two proponents of it, Peter van Soesbergen and Arnaud Fournet (Soesbergen 2016, see also his page on academia.edu; Fournet 2017; cf. Monti 2002). A draft ‘The Minoan Linear A language interpreted as a Hurrian dialect’, proposed by Arnaud Fournet for discussion in academia.edu in late 2017, is unavailable now. As Margalit Finkelberg states, ‘[...] in order to become a respectable scholarly proposal, the Semitic hypothesis should be reformulated on entirely new grounds. The same would apply to the Hurrian hypothesis, which seems to be also mainly based on etymological 73 approach.’ (Finkelberg 2000: 84). The Hurrians were attested so far from Crete (in Syria) and their fleet was not known. An Indo-Iranian attribution of Linear A (La Marle 1997–2006; La Marle 2002; La Marle 2002a; La Marle 2007) is based on the reading of signs which are not generally accepted (Younger 2009). Main argument of this hypothesis, Lin. A pi-te-ri : IndoIranian pitar ‘father’, might be false: this form of the word for ‘father’ not occur in the Indo-Iranian languages. The Indo-Iranians used chariots, not ships! An Abkhaz-Adyghe or, more widely, Northwest Caucasian hypothesis, grounded on phonetic typology of Cretan syllabaries or etymology of signs (Fournet 2018), was also proposed (Sergeev 1984; cf. Sergeev, Tsymbursky 1984; Gamkrelidze 1988). This hypothesis might explain the origin of some Linear AB signs in their preCretan history (see below), but anyone read Linear A in a North Caucasian language before the present time. The hypothesis corresponds with possible early presence of West Caucasian people in the east Mediterranean (Ἀοοί ‘proto-Cilicians’, aww-im ‘inhabitants of Gaza before Caphtorites/Mycenaean Cretans’ Deut. 2:23 : Abkhaz aowe ‘man’, awaa ‘men’). However, the suggested North (and especially West) Caucasian lexical elements in the Greek language (Nikolai Ya. Marr, Viacheslav V. Ivanov, Sergei L. Nikolaev) might be brought by the Greeks from Anatolia. A Proto-Slavic version, based upon the similar open-syllable structure of the Proto-Slavic language and the Linear A script, was also proposed (Grinevich 2007), but it is not confirmed by common lexicon and morphology, historical and archaeological evidence. The aforementioned author used his own readings of the syllabic signs. Austronesian (Malay-Polynesian) hypothesis was investigated by the present author in the late 1990s (Mosenkis 1997; Mosenkis 1998; Mosenkis 1998a), until he accepted the Greek hypothesis. Unknown ‘Minoan’? Some scholars use a conventional term ‘Minoan language’ (‘unknown and unclassified’, as an English version of Wikipedia speaks) to the undeciphered Linear A language (Molchanov 1984; Molchanov 1988). ‘Minoan resembles no single known language’ (Younger, Rehak 2008a:176). ‘In my opinion, Linear A could be cognate to any linguistic families of the Ancient Mediterranean, including of course IndoEuropean, Semitic, but also every other one.’ (Duhoux 1998: 34). This opinion is not surprising if Yves Duhoux postulates that Linear A was prefixal language (Duhoux 1983; Duhoux 1994–1995; Duhoux 1998) and searches for ‘prefixes’ even in da-ma-te / i-da-ma-te. If this language is ‘agglutinative’ then indo-European and Semitic languages must be excluded from the candidates (Duhoux et al. 1978: 113). Then, some researchers seek only separate words of ... ‘Minoan’ language. E. g., Günter Neumann identified some ‘Minoan’ words in Linear A (Neumann 1958; Neumann 1962). However, the most known of them, *νικύλεα, ‘fig-tree’ < νικύλεον, ‘a fig’ (a gloss), reflected in the Lin. AB syllabic sign ni (fig-tree), is not of 74 substrate but of adstrate (contact) origin: cf. Egypt. nh.t ‘sycamore’, Arabic nakhla ‘palmtree’. This work was continued by Arkadii A. Molchanov (Molchanov 1988: 172-175), Gean-Pierre Olivier (Olivier 1992), Miguel Valério (Valério 2007). The hypothesis corresponds with Beekes’ view of the pre-Greek substrate as a unity. Instead, the languages of Neolithic/Early Helladic I-II Greece might be mostly Paleo-Balkan – Thracian-Albanian-Armenian-like (Georgiev 1958; Otkupshchikov 1988). However, Margalit Finkelberg proposes an argument from linguistic geography against ‘an absolute isolation of the Minoan language’ (Finkelberg 2005: 54) A reconstruction of this kind (type) of language is much more difficult than even the aforementioned ‘distinct branch of Indo-European’! Conclusion The main problem of numerous decipherment attempts is to demonstrate complete reading of a text. E. g., in contrast to Bedřich Hrozný and Vladimir I. Georgiev, Michael Ventris read Linear B interpreting each word in its context (cf. reviews of the proposals of Hrozný, Georgiev, and Ventris respectively: Lurie 1947; Lurie 1954; Lurie 1957). Simon Davis is completely right when he underlined: ‘..the final identification of a language can only be made if its morphology can be discovered; in this respect, grammatical forms, especially of the verb, are decisive’ (Davis 1968: 92). Thus, now Linear A remains undeciphered or, more correctly, not interpreted (from the commonly accepted point of view), but the Greek hypothesis was newer verified. I make an attempt to do it below. 75 Part One. Greek language and state in Linear A: 2000-1500 BC Chapter 1. GREEK LANGUAGE OF LINEAR A 1. Cultural meaning Linear A is a Cretan logo-syllabic script, used during the first half of the second millennium BC. Like Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear B, it was discovered by Arthur Evans in the early XX century, but it is considered undeciphered (readable, but not interpretable) until the present time. To many contemporary scholars, this script reflected an unknown language of the first European state. It is considered the last remnant of Marija Gimbutas’ ‘Old Europe’ – strong pre-Indo-European cultural stratum, different from later Indo-European Europe by many features. This Linear A might be a key to the pre-Greek substrate(s) of the Greek language, regarded by different linguists as Paleo-Balkan (‘Pelasgian’, i. e. closely related to Albanian, Thracian, Armenian, Phrygian, Macedonian), Hittite-Luwian, or non-Indo-European ‘Aegean’. In contrast to Linear B, which was mainly a script referred to the economic sphere, the Linear A inscriptions were found on many sacral objects. Therefore, the latter might shed light on the religious life of Minoan Crete much more than Linear B. Despite that all Linear A inscriptions are short, some of them could preserve information on the Minoan literature, suggested already by Arthur Evans. If Linear A – the earliest developed writing system in Europe – appears to be a script for an Indo-European language, we will obtain the oldest Indo-European texts, preceding Hittite-Luwian ones by several centuries. Thus, what is the Gretan Linear A script? It is a) the earliest developed (not fragmentary) European writing, b) the script and the language of the first European state and, if it appeas Greek, c) initial 500-year history of the written Greek language and d) the earliest Indo-European inscriptions. They are ‘the initial texts of European culture’ (Stepan A. Zakharkin, pers. comm.). 2. Ways of research Since Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris in 1952, the attention of enthusiastic decipherers was focused on Linear A. The earlier Cretan hieroglyphs are represented by low number of very short texts (only two of them are relatively long), 76 whereas the Phaistos Disc (a top symbol of all ancient enigmas) reists to its decipherment. As early as in the 1950s, three main hypotheses of the Linear A language were proposed: Greek (Georgiev 1955: 274), Hittite-Luwian (Palmer 1958), and Semitic (Gordon 1957). Three these views were later detalized by the same authors (Georgiev 1958; Georgiev 1963; Georgiev 1981; Gordon 1958; Gordon 1966; Palmer 1968) and by other scholars (Peruzzi 1957, Nagy 1963, Nagy 1965, Tsikrithis 2001 – Greek; Davis 1967, Davis 1968 – Hittite; Brown 1990, Brown 1993 – Luwian; Finkelberg 2000, Kazansky 2010, Kazansky 2012 – Lycian; Best 1989, Best 2000, Woudhuizen 2005 – Semitic). Other hypotheses include: a distinct but lost Indo-European branch (Owens 1999), Etruscan (Facchetti 2001; Facchetti 2003, cf. Yatsemirsky 2011), Hurrian (Soesbergen 2016), unknown ‘Minoan’ (Molchanov 1984), Indo-Iranian (La Marle 1997–2006), Abkhaz-Adyghe (Sergeev 1984) etc. However, none of these hypotheses is accepted by the scientific community. For critical notes, see (Chadwick 1975; Duhoux 1998; Finkelberg 2000; Facchetti 2002/2003 etc.). 3. Methods of decipherment Statistical method is hardly applicable to Linear A because its corpus is too little for the statistic approach towards decipherment (used by Alisa Kober and Michael Ventris to Linear B): we have now ‘only about six or seven pages of Linear A’ (Younger, Rehak 2008: 176). Despite that, significant statistical observations has been made (Packard 1974). Combinatorical method is more useful in this case, despite Michael Ventris’ opinion that this method is very limited in the case of Linear A (Relations 1956: 267). Two Linear A words, which might represent a nature of the Linear A language, are identified combinatorically: ku-ro ‘sum’ (Finkelberg 2000: 83) and ki-ro ‘debt’ (Duhoux 1998: 20, 24; Facchetti 2002: 173). These words closely resemble two Greek words, κόρος ‘satiety, surfeit’ and χρέος ‘debt’. Moreover, Heraclitus (fr. 65) opposes κόρος to χρησμοσύνη ‘need’. Suggested opposition of two names of debt, Lin. A ki-ro and Lin. B o-pe-ro, might be rejected combinatorically: both of these words occurred next to each oser in the same Greek contexts: ὀφείλουσι τὰ χρέα (Isocr. Against Euthynus 21.13), ὀφειλόντων χρέα (Plut. Camillus 36), χρεῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας (Plut. Cleomenes 10), ὀφείλων δημόσιον χρέος (Plut. Sulla 37), χρέος, ὤφειλε (Plut. Caesar 48), χρέος ὀφέλλεσθαι (Plut. De defectu oraculorum 3), χρέος ὀφειλόμενον (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 12.43), χρέος ὀφείληται (Aristides, Orationes 38 Aelius). Similar Lin. A ku-ra ‘sum’ (ZA 20, ‘looks like a totaling word’, Younger 11) : κυρία ‘possession’, ‘authority, power’, also κύρια – fem. of κύριος ‘having power’. Also, po-to-ku-ro ‘total sum’ (‘"grand total" (Palmer 1995; Schoep 2002, 163)’, Younger 11), ‘grand total’ (Hooker 1975: 167) is identified from ku-ro 31 … ku-ro 65 … po-to-ku-ro 97 (HT 122). Vladimir Georgiev (1958) compared this word with Tochar. A, B ponto- ‘all’, but παντακύριος ‘all-supreme’ is much closer correspondence. The 77 form and meaning of the Greek word παντακύριος points to the exact meaning and etymology of ku-ro: the latter could be also compared to κῦρος ‘supreme power’, κύριος ‘decisive, supreme’ (Thessal. κῦρρος), κυρίως ‘precisely, exactly’, κυρόω ‘accomplish one’s end’ (λόγῳ κυροῦται τὰ πάντα, Pl. Grg. 451c). Evhen Chernukhin (pers. comm.) drew my attention to Latin summa < summus, superlative of superus ‘upper, higher’: the semantical development in Latin is the same as in Greek. Another result of this method is the identification of some morphological elements in Linear A. They are: the paradigm i-ja-te ‘physician’ (Peruzzi 1957: 39) : i-ja-ma ‘medicine’ (Georgiev 1958), copula -qe (Meriggi 1956; Bartoněk 1958: 237; Georgiev 1958: 81-82, 86; Nagy 1965: 300–301), adjective feminine flexion like su-ki-ri-ta : su-kiri-te-i-ja (Nagy 1963; Nagy 1965; Younger 13), dative ending -si (Pope 1964/1976: 91), mediopassive participle suffix -men- (Peruzzi 1957: 39; Faure 1972). These grammatical forms of Indo-European origin might be the strongest proof of the Greek language of Linear A, in contrast to lexical elements which might have been borrowed. Quasi-bilingual method allows to construct a quasi-bilingual if natural bilinguals were not found. First, an inscription might make a quasi-bilingual with an inscribed object itself. E. g., tu-nu on the axe might represent θύνω ‘rush, dart along’ (part. pres. act. θύνων?), da-ku on the another axe – θάγω ‘sharpen, whet’, θηγός (also Armen., Old Armen. daku ‘axe’), ‘sharp’, e-si-ja on the lamp – ἑστία ‘hearth’, u-na-a on the pithoid jar – *οἰναία ‘wine-wessel’. A famous story of Lin. B qe-to-ro-we, ti-ri-(j)o-we and a-no-we – four-handled, threehandled, and unhandled vessels, whereas ‘ear’ = ‘handle’ was used in both Linear B and alphabetical Greek (Chadwick 1967/1976: 185–186) – resembles a fact of Linear A: a-tu-ri-si-ti (KN Zb 5, a vessel without handles) : *ἀ-δωλ-ίστ-ης ‘vessel without handles’ : Cretan δῶλα ‘ears’ (Hesych.). Second, the Linear A textual fragments are similar to the Linear B ones. E. g., Lin. A a-ka-ru OLE (HT 2) resembles both a) Lin. B OLIV+A (shortened ἄγριος ‘wild’), ake-re-u /Agreus/ and a-ki-ri-jo /Agrios/ in the toponyms related to olives, and b) alphabetical Greek ἄγριον ἔλαιον ‘wild olive-oil’ (Soph. Trach. 1197). Lin. A ku-pa3… OLE (HT 101): Lin. B ku-pa-ro-we (PY Fr 1203) ‘(oil) aromatized with ku-pa-ro’ (κύπαιρος, ‘galingale, Cyperus rotundus’). Third, the Cretan proper names, especially place-names (known from Linear B and alphabetical Greek) might be used to make quasi-bilinguals with the Linear A inscriptions. A key role of proper names in the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Persian cuneiform, Classic Cypriot syllabary and Linear B is wellknown (Gordon 1982/2002). Cretan toponyms A-mi-ni-so, Ko-no-so, Tu-ri-so were the first Linear B words, read by Michael Ventris, and their decisive role was underlined by John Chadwick (Chadwick 1967/1976: 170-171, 181). During the Late Bronze Age, there were 284 settlements in Crete (Renfrew 1972: 232). Later, Homer knew ninety or hundred Cretan towns (Il. 2.649, in the list of seven Cretan towns; Od. 19.174). In contrast, small number of Cretan towns was mentioned in Linear B, and only several city-names were identified in Linear A (pa-i-to, su-ki-ri-ta, se-to-i-ja and, possibly, ku- 78 ni-su – Younger, Rehak 2008b: 151-152). Main principles to identify toponyms in Linear A are: a) their similarity to toponyms in Linear B (Lin. A pa-i-to : Lin. B pa-i-to); b) their occurrence alongside other, previously identified toponyms (ka-nu-ti, ma-di in the same list with pa-i-to); c) the place-name position in the ‘Libation Formula’ (i-na-ta-, se-to-i-ja, tu-ru-sa); d) similarity to alphabetically attested names of Cretan towns (this principle was used only additionally, after combinatorical identification of toponymical lists). E. g., in the tablet HT 97 pa-i-to (identical with Lin. B pa-i-to = Φαιστός) is preceded by ka-nu-ti : Κνωσσός < γνωστός ‘known’ (cf. Armenian canot’ ‘known’; Mosenkis 1999: 4; Mosenkis 2001: 17). Other names of this list are: di : Δῖον, na-ti : Ἴνατος, ma-di : Μώδα / Μωδαῖοι (Linear A had no sign for mo), ju : Ἰυτός, ki : Κίσ-σαμος, zu or do : Δούλον (they might be nominations of citizens in pl.: *Γνώστιοι *Φαίστιοι *Ἰνάτιοι Μωδαῖοι etc.). In this way, other lists of Cretan towns were identified in Linear A (HT 6, HT 13, HT 85, HT 93, HT 118, HT 120, HT 122, PH 6, PH 28, PH (?) 31). Several dozens of Cretan city-names were read in these lists, e. g.: a-ra-na-re (HT 1) : Eronos, Erranos da-ri-da (HT 85, 1st in the list; HT 93) : Lin. B ti-ri-to (KN NL Tritos?), ti-ri-ti-ja/-jo (KN ethn. adj. NL ti-ri-to) : Τρίτα ‘another name of Knossos’, lit. ‘the third (fem.)’; da-ta-ra (HT 6) : Δαίδαλα; i-na-ta- (IO Za 6), na-ti (HT 97) : Lin. B wi-na-to : Εἴνατος, Ἴνατος, Inata (Tab. Peuting.) (IC I.98); ki-re-ta-na (HT 120) : *Ὑρτήνη, cf. Ὑρταῖοι / Ὓρτακος / Ὑρτακίνα (like Γόρτυνα and Γυρτώνη ‘a town in Pelasgiōtis, on the river Penēus’ (Il. 2.738) < *gurt-wana ‘place of fortress’ < Hitt. gurta- ‘fortress’, wana- ‘place’); ku-da (HT 122) : Lin. B ku-ta-to (KN NL: Kutaiton?) : Κύτα, Κύταιον (CT < Hitt. kutt‘outer walls’); cf. *Κυταίς, gen. *Κυταίδος : Georg. Kuta-isi; ku-pa3-nu (HT 1, 122) : Κύρβας, gen. Κύρβαντος (pa3 : /ba/ in this case, cf. pa3-ni-na); o-ra2-di-ne (HT 6) : Ἐλτυνία, *-η vs Araden; pa3-ni-na (HT 6), pa3-ni (HT 85) : Βιάννος / *Βιάννα / *Βιάννη; pi-ta-ja (HT 6) or *e-ta-ja (pi and e are very similar) : Ἠτεία; qa-qa-ru (HT 93, HT 118, HT 122) or *za-qa-ru (qa and za are very similar) : Ζάκρος; re-di-se (HT 85) : Ρυτιασσός (CT); cf. Lin. B ru-ta2 /rutia/ (KN NV); re-za (HT 13) : Ριζηνία / Ριττήν / *Ριζήν; ri-ka-ta (HT 146) : Lin. B ru-ki-to (KN NL /Luktos/), Egypt. ri-k;-tj [rikati], Λύκτος; si-da-re (HT 122) : *Σταλη, Στᾶλαι / Στῆλαι etc. Etymological method had a bad reputation among critics of decipherments, but it also can give some important information (as Linear B clearly showed). E. g., several names of goddesses and gods might be recognized: ma-te-re *339 (PH 15; the logogram *339 is similar to sa as possible shortening of sasa-me, ‘sesame’) : Lin. B ma-te-re /matrei/ ‘to the mother’ (dat.); da-ma-te (KY Za 2) : Δαμάτηρ, of Cretan origin (Hom. Hymn to Demeter 123); 79 a-ra-u-da (KH 5) : Lin. B (KN) e-re-u-ti-ja : Lacon. Ἐλευθία, Cretan Ἐλεύθυια, of Cretan origin (Paus. 1.18.5), whose cave was located near Cretan Amnissos (Od. 19.198); -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : Lin. B au-to, au-ta2 : αὐτή ‘self, alone’, *δεσποινικία (za /kja/ in Linear B) < δεσποινικός ‘belonging to the household’ < δέσποινα ‘mistress, princess, queen, goddess’. Also, some names of cult places were identified: ra-ri-de-me-te (HT 94) : Lin. B ra-ri-di-jo : Ραρίς (Adrados 2: 224), Ραριάς Δημήτηρ, cf. Ραριάς ‘epithet of Demeter’ (St. Byz.), Ράριον (πεδίον) ‘the field where tillage was first practised, and which was sacred to Demeter’ (Paus. 1.38.6; St. Byz.; Hom. Hymn to Demeter 450-454); i-da-ma-te (AR Zf 1 and AR Zf 2) : Ἴδα μάτηρ ‘Ida (mountain) the Mother’; i-da-me-te (THE 6) : Ἴδα μήτηρ, an Ionic-like dialectal form; a-ro-te- i-da-da (CR Zg 4) : ἀρότης Ἴδα-*δα(ν) ‘husbandman from Ida’, cf. Hom. Ἴδηθεν (Il. 3.276, cf. 4.475), Arcad. θύρ-δα ‘from the door’, Phryg. -dan ‘from’; a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu(2)-re : ἡ Δίκτην-δε *θύφρη ‘to Dictaean cave’ (cf. δύβρις ‘sea’ < ‘*deep’, τάφρη ‘ditch, trench’); tu-ru-sa du-pu3-re i-da-a : *Τυλυ/ισία *θύφρη Ἰδαῖα ‘Idaean cave of Tylissos’. A text from Phaistos (PH 2) demonstrate the structure of city-authority: a-se-tu-qi ra-o-di-ki pi-ru-e-ju se-sa-pa3 : ἀστυόχη λαοδίκη *πλωεύς *σέσαφαι ‘female (!) cityholder, female (!) judge, admiral, sages/priests’. 4. Orthography vs phonetics Linear A had some orthographical differences from Linear B, such as Linear B – from the Classic Cypriot syllabary. The recording of the Greek language became more precise from Linear A to Linear B to Classic Cypriot syllabary. Like the absence of final -se (typical for Classic Cypriot syllabary) in Linear B was an ‘argument’ against the ‘Greekness’ of Linear B – so the absence of final -o (typical for Linear B) in Linear A is an ‘argument’ against the Greek language of the latter. Phonetic features of the ‘Minoan dialect’ and orthografical rules of Linear A are difficult to differ. The e-series and especially o-series are incomplete in Linear A (e. g., do, jo, mo, no, qo, so, wo are absent), then u might also transmit ō, o and even e (u-na-(ru-)ka-na-ti/si : ἐναρξάντι/σι). The i-series might denote not only /i/ but also /ē/ (like in Byzantine and Modern Greek, but also in Armenian) as in a-si-ki-ra *303 (grain): ἀσκηρά: εἶδός τι τῶν καστανίων, ‘a kind of sweet chestnuts’ (Hesych.), a-re-pi-re-na (Za Zb 3, pithos): ἀλειπτήριον, ἀλειπήριον, ‘paint-brush, unguent’. Also, the i-series might transmit /u/ (u/i in Lin. A, see below). The most difficult consonant series are d-, j-, q-, and z-. 80 The d-series corresponds to both 1) Greek θ (a-ra-u-da : Ἐλευθία, di-ri-na : θρινία, mi-da-ma-ra2 : μεθ-αμάριος, si-da-te … a-si-da-to-i : συνθέτη, ἀσύνθετοι), cf. Lin. B odu-ru- : Cretan ὄθρυν ‘mountain’ (Hesych.), Arcad. ἄνω-δα : Attic ἄνω-θε ‘up-side’, κίδαρις ‘Arcadian dance’ (Athenaeus 14.631d) : κιθάρα ‘lyre’, Macedonian δ, Armenian d < dh, and 2) Greek δ (me-ki-di *megidjoi < Μεγιδδώ, -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : αὐτή *δεσποινικία, ro-da : Ῥόδια, ka-u-de-ta : Καῦδος / Γαῦδος, ma-za 5 ma-ki-de-te 5 : μᾶζα μαγίδες δε, a/ja-di-ki-te : ἡ Δίκτη, ra-o-di-ki : Λαοδίκη). In rare cases, Lin. A t : Greek θ as in Linear B (ki-re-ta2 GRA : κριθή ‘barley’, Lin. B ki-ri-ta, κριθαία, ‘barley pottage’; ki-re-ta-na GRA, ki-re-ta-na VIR 1 GRA : κριθανίας ‘like barley’). The j-series denotes h (i-ru-ja /eluha/ < ἔλυσα, du-ja /thuha/ < θῦσα, ja-re-mi : ἁρμή), cf. Lin. B jo- / o- /ho/, -o-i /-oihi/ < *-oisi, -a-i /-aihi/ < *-aisi. Lin. AB ja /ha/ > Phoenician letter (initially syllabic sign – Gelb) het > alphabetical Greek η. The q-series, in contrast to Linear B labiovelar consonants, denotes χ (a-se-tu-qi : ἀστυ-όχη, o(*pi?)-su-qa-re : *Ψυχρή (Modern Greek Ψυχρώ), qa-ti-ju : *Χαττιοί < Hatti, Hom. Κήτειοι). The w-series might denote 1) w (i/wi-pi- : Fίφι) or 2) labiovelar consonant or a result of its transformation (wa-pi-ti-na(*te)-ra2 on a pithos: βαπτιστήριον < *guap-, cf. Germ. kvaf, Frisk). The z-series reflects 1) z < dj (ki-re-za FIC : κράδη, ‘fig-branch, fig-tree’), 2) z < gj (ma-za : μᾶζα ‘barley-cake’; a-ra-ko-ku-zu- : *ἀρχ-ωγύγιος ‘prime elder’), 3) z < kj (dure-za-se VINb : *dleukias, cf. Lin. B de-re-u-ko, ‘grape must’, δλυκύς), 4) g (a-zu-ra : ἀγορά) and, perhaps, even 5) ks (a-ka-nu-za-ti : ἐξαν-οίξαντι). These rules are not regular: cf. ma-si-du … GRA (HT 43): μαγίδιον, ‘small cake’. Egyptian influence on Linear A orthography? Discussing the differences between the structure of Linear A and the Greek language, we can take into consideration the Egyptian tradition to record Greek place-names in the Mycenaean time (Duhoux 2003: 238-239), whereas Egyptian writing has influenced the Cretan one since the time of Cretan hieroglyphs (Evans 1909). Perhaps, Linear A could accept several orthographic rules from the Egyptian tradition to record foreign words, e. g. (the Egyptian forms after Duhoux 2008): a) Only the second vowel of diphthong is denoted, as nw-pj-r-jj-ї ‘Nauplion’ (nupinstead of naup- whereas a in au is not reflected; b) Vowelless syllable is denoted as consonant + a: k3-jn-.jw-š3 ‘Knossos’ (initial kaninstead of kn-, cf. Lin. A ka-nu-ti ‘Knossos’), rї-k3-tj ‘Lyktos’ (-kat- instead of -kt), w3jw-r-jj-ї ‘Wilios, Ilion’ (initial wa-); c) Unnecessary initial j- (j-m-nї-š3 ‘Amnisos’); d) Absence of o, replaced by w /u/: k3-tw-n3-jj ‘Cydonia’ (-tun- instead of -don-); e) Absence of e which is only conventional insert vowel in the modern reading of Egyptian words; f) The lack of distinction between l and r (contrasted with all other ancient scripts!). 81 5. Grammar of the Linear A Greek dialect 1. Noun morphology. a) The Greek suffixal paradigm -ma / -tēr with the suffixes of Indo-European origin, not from substrate: Lin. A i-ja-ma ‘medicine’ (the reading: Georgiev 1958: 82, instead of the modern reading sa-ja-ma) / i-ja-te ‘physician’ (the reading: Godart 1990: 182) : ἴαμα ‘remedy, medicine’ / ἰατήρ ‘healer’ (Lin. B i-ja-te, Class. Cypr. ἰjaτῆραν acc. sing.); b) The typical Greek prefix of negation a-, combined with the typical Greek plural flection -oi: si-da-te … a-si-da-to-i (ARKH 2) : συνθέτη ‘put together, compounded, composite, complex’ and ἀσύνθετοι ‘uncompounded, standing alone’ < συντίθημι; Lin. A ta-na-te … a-ta-na-te (ZA 10, Lewyckyj 2014); Lin. A a-si-su-po-a VIR (KH 9) ‘not very clever’, cf. Σίσυφος ‘Sisyphus’, lit. ‘very clever’, σέσυφος: πανοῦργος (Hesych.); Lin. A a-su-pu-wa (ARKH 2.5-6) ‘(vessels) without spout’, cf. συπύη ‘meal-tub’; Lin. A a-tu-ri-si-ti (KN Zb 5) : α-δωλ-ιστ- ‘vessel without handles’ : Cretan δῶλα ‘ears’ (Hesych.). Cf. Lin. B qe-to-ro-we, ti-ri-(j)o-we, and a-no-we – ‘four-handled’, ‘three-handled’, and ‘unhandled’ vessels whereas ‘ear’ instead of ‘handle’ was used in both Linear B and alphabetical Greek (Chadwick 1967/1976: 185–186). c) Typical Greek agentive suffixes: Lin. A ma-ti-za-i-te : *μαστιγ-αίτης ‘coachman’, cf. μαστιγόω, μαστίζω ‘whip, flog’, μαστ-ίκτωρ ‘scourger’; see below models ματ-ευτής, μαχ-αίτας; Lin. A ma-te-ti : ματευτής ‘seeker, searcher’; Lin. A ma-ka-i-ta : μαχαίτας (Aeol.) ‘fighter, warrior’. d) Prefixes: Lin. A a-pa-du-pa-[ (PK Za 12.d) : ἀπο-, perhaps : ἀποτύπτομαι ‘to cease to beat oneself, to cease mourning’. 2. Noun declension. Nom. sg. masc.: nu-wi : νηῦς ‘ship’, du-ru-wi : *δρυεύς ‘oak-worker’ (< δρῦς ‘oak’, cf. Lin. B du-ru-to-mo : δρυτόμος ‘oak-cutter’) vs *θροεύς ‘herald’ (< θροέω ‘cry aloud’), u-re-wi : Ὑλεύς (attested as a personal name) ‘wood-worker’ (< ὕλη ‘forest, wood, firewood, timber’). Iurii V. Otkupshchikov considered the ending -εύς ‘preGreek’ Paleo-Balkan (Otkupshchikov 1988: 6, 134). Gen. sg. masc.: ku-ra-tu-jo /kratuhos/ vs /kratehos/ (Lin. A inscription from Italy) : Κρατύος, gen. < Κρατύς vs Κράτεος, gen. < Κράτος Κράτης (possibly a name). Gen. sg. fem.: i-ja-re-*wi-ja i-ja-pa[ (IO Za 5, stone lamp) : ἰαρηFίjας *ἰάπτρα ‘priestess’ / sanctuary’s lamp’. Dat. sg. fem.: ja-su-ma-tu OLIV (SY Za 2) : αἰσυμνητύι olives ‘olives to αἰσυμν-ητύς’. Acc. sg. masc.: i-ja : υἷα ‘son’. Acc. sg. fem.: du-ra-*ne : θύραν ‘door’. Nom. pl. masc.: si-da-te … a-si-da-to-i (ARKH 2) : συνθέτη ‘put together, compounded, composite, complex’ and ἀσύνθετοι ‘uncompounded, standing alone’; 82 se-sa-pa3 : *σέσαφαι (dat. sg., nom. pl. or dat. pl.?) < *σέσαφης, cf. σαφής, ‘clear (esp. of seers, oracles, prophets), sure, unerring’, σέσυφος ‘πανοῦργος’ (Hesych., literally ‘very clever’) σοφός, ‘clever’, Σίσυφος ‘Sisyph’ (literally ‘very clever’), Hitt. šuppi-, ‘consecrated, pure, taboo’, Umbrian supa, sopa ‘consecrated meats’, Latin. sapiens. (?) Dat. pl. fem.: u-mi-na-si (HT 117) : *Ὑμηνᾷσι, possible feminine form *Ὑμήνη of Ὑμήν, Ὑμήναος, Ὑμήναιος (alternative: εἱμένος ‘those who clothing oneself’ < ἕννυμι ‘put clothes on’). 3. Pronouns are very rare in Lin. A because persons are reflected in the verb forms (see below). Lin. A wi-te-ia-mu u-qe-ti (PL Zf 1, pin) : (F)ἴδια μου οἴκετις ‘my own housewife’ (female slave?) reflects enclitical genitife of ἐγώ ‘I’. Lin. A i-da-mi (SY Za 1) : Lin. B -mi : μιν ‘her’ (acc. sg.) (Adrados; Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 55; Molchanov et al. 1988). 4. Numerals are denoted mainly by numbers in Linear A, and their syllabic recording is very rare: Lin. A qe/ka-ti-ra-du VIR (before four portions) : τετράς, -άδος ‘four’. Cf. Lin. B qeta-ra-je-u (Adrados 2: 200), Phryg. ke < qe, Minos’ son Κατρεύς < *quatr-; Lin. A qe-pi-ta (HT 6) : ἑπτά ‘seven’ in the context da-qe-ra qe-pi-ta (a headline of the seven personal names) : ἑπτά dohelai ‘seven female slaves’ (Lin. B do-e-ra); Lin. A qa-sa-ra-ku (SY Za 10) : *τεσσαράκονς (τεσσαράκοντα ‘fourty’) or *τεσσαρακόhιοι (τεσσαρακόσιοι ‘four hundred’). Altern.: ἔξαρχος ‘leader’. 5. Verb conjugation is very complex. Present indicativi activi 1 st sg.: ka-ni-ja-mi : ἐξαν-ίημι ‘I send forth’ (1st sg). In contrast, Linear B verbs are attested it the 3 rd person only (Kazanskene, Kazansky; Molchanov et al.). Present active participle: ko-sa-i-ti (HT 117) = ko-sa-*no-ti (Lin. A i and no are very similar): ξαίνοντι (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat. < ξαίνω ‘scratch, comb’); da-ku-se-*no-ti (HT 104), za-ki-se-nu-ti (CR (?) Zf 1) : διαξαίνοντι ‘to the carder’ < δια-ξαίνω ‘card’; da-ne-ku-ti : διανήχοντι ‘to the swimmer’ < διανήχομαι = διανέω ‘swim across’, ‘swim through’; i-du-ti : ἰθύοντι ‘to the wool-stretcher’ (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat. < ἰθύω ‘made straight’). Present medio-passive participle (Greek-Phrygian -menos form): i-pi-na-ma / i-pi-na-mi-na: *(F)ιφιναόμνᾳ ‘strongly poured’; a-sa-su-ma-i-no: ἐσσύμενος, ‘hurrying, eager, impetuous’ (of bull), possible contamination with μαίνομαι which has similar meaning ‘mad’, cf. ἀεσίμαινα: ἡ τοῖς πνεύμασι τῶν ἀνέμων μαινομένη, θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ ἐπίθετον (Hesych.); 83 da-du-mi-ne (KN Zf 31) : part. θη-θή-μενος (Linear A preceded the Grassman law) > τιθήμενος (Il. 10.34) vs inf. τιθήμεναι (Il. 23.83) < τίθημι ‘put, place’; na-qif-ne-mi-na (of plants – GRA, HT 115)? Future active participle: pa-da-su-ti : φθάσοντι ‘to the winner’ (part. sg. fut. act. masc. dat.) < φθάζω / φθάνω ‘to be beforehand with, overtake, outstrip’. Perfect medio-passive participle: 1. (j)a-sa-sa-ra-me / (j)a-sa-sa-ra-ma-na: *ἅ σεσαράμνα/η, ‘she (is) purified’ (of cities which are fem. in Greek). a-sa-sa-ra-me (PK Za 11, PR Za 1), variants ja-sa-sa-ra-me (IO Za 6, PS Za 2, TL Za 1), ja-sa-sa-ra-ma-na (KN Za 10), ja-sa-ra-a-na-ne = ja-sa-ra-*me-na-ne (KN Zc 7). It is definitely participle form -menos. Initial a/ja- ‘this’ is explained above. It may be σεσαρωμέν- (part. sg. perf. mp. masc. nom. redupl.) < σαρόω, ‘sweep clean; to be swept clean, exhausted’ (τὴν οἰκίαν Ev. Luc. 15.8; οἶκος σεσαρωμένος ‘home is cleaned’ Matt. 12:44, cf. Eurip. Hecuba 363) or rather σεσαραμένη (earlier *σεσαράμνη) < σαίρω ‘sweep, clean’ (καθαίρω is a model). Variants (j)a-sa-sa-ra-me / ja-sa-sa-ra-ma-na : ja sesaramna, ἅ σεσαράμνα / ἥ *σεσαράμνη ‘she (is) purified’. ja-sa-ra-*me-na-na is fem. acc. *ἅν σαράμναν. Aorist indicativi activi: i-ru-ja /eluha/ : ἔλυσα ‘I make free’ < λύω ‘set free’ (augmented); du-ja /thuha/ : θῦσα ‘I sacrificed’ < θύω ‘sacrifice, slay (a victim)’ (unaugmented); i-ku-ri-na (HT 90) : ἔκρινα ‘separated’ (1st sg. aor. ind. act.) < κρίνω ‘separate’. Augment as the past tense marker of verb is attested only in Ancient Greek (but the augment was not obligatory in early Greek), Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian (Clackson 2007: 186). Aorist active participle: u-na-ru-ka-na-ti (PK Za 11) : ἐνάρξαντι (aor. part. act. masc. sing. dat.) ‘for him who began the offering’ < ἐνάρχομαι ‘begin (the offering)’; u-na-ru-ka-ja-si (PK Za 12) : ἐνάρξαισι (aor. part. act. fem. plur. dat.) ‘for her who began the offering’; u-na-ka-na-si (IO Za 2, TL Za 1, KO Za 1, PK Za 8) : *ἐνάρξανσι (aor. part. act. masc. plur. dat.) ‘for them (masc.) who began the offering’. 6. Function words. Article: a-/ja- (fem.) : *ἅ > ἥ ‘this / she’, cf. Linear B o-/jo- (masc.). Copulative particle -qe, identical with Lin. B -qe: Greek τε (Georgiev 1958: 81-82, 86; Bartonek 1958: 237; Nagy 1965: 300-301): Lin. A ku-mi-na-qe (HT Wc 3014) : κύμινα ‘and cummin’ (nom. and acc. pl.); Lin. A pa-ta-qe (HT 31) : πάντα (neut. nom. pl.) τε ‘and all’ (Georgiev 1958: 81-82, 86); Lin. A ka-pa-qe (HT 6a.4-5) : *κάρπα (cf. κάρπη· τὰ σπέρματα Hesych.) ‘and fruits’. Preposition: pu VINa … a-pu2-na-du (HT 14) : ἀπ᾽ οἰνάδων ‘from the vineyard’, cf. u-na-a on the pithoid jar (KN Zb 40): οἰνάς ‘the vine’, οἴνη, ‘the vine, wine’, personal 84 names Οἰνόη, Οἰναῖος, Οἰνοαῖος; VINb+WI wi-na-du (KH 5 2-3): Lin. B wo-na-si (KN) dat.-loc. pl. woinassi < *uoinad-si, ‘in the vineyards (?)’, οἰνάδες· ἀμπελώδεις τόποι (Hesych.) (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 99), οἰνάς, -άδος ‘the wine’. Less acceptable *Fοιν-αδυς ‘sweet wine’ (cf. structurally πόδ-αργος, ‘swift-footed’, semantically – Homeric οἶνον … ἡδύν (Od. 2.349-350, 9.204-205), inverse variant ἡδύ-οινος, Dor. ἁδύοινος, ‘related to sweet wine’). Postposition: a) -then / -dan ‘from’: Lin. A a-ta-de (CR (?) Zf 1) : ἄττα-θεν ‘from father’; Lin. A i-da-da (CR Zg 4) : Ida-dan ‘from Ida’, Phryg. -dan, cf. Hom. Ἴδηθεν ‘from Ida’, Eteocret. -θη ’from’; Lin. A ka-u-de-ta *Καυδη-δαν ‘from K/Gaudos’; b) -de ‘to’ : di-ki-te-te : Δίκτην-δε, Lin. B -de : -δε. Particle: a-ra (HT 87) : ἄρα ‘and – mark you!’ 7. Word-combinations. Adjective + noun: Lin. A i-ja-re-di(*wi?)-ja i-ja-pa[ (IO Za 5, stone lamp) : ἰαρηFίjας *ἰάπτρα / ἅπτρα ‘priestess’ / sanctuary’s lamp’; Lin. A ro-da ka-wa (PM IV 2, p. 783, bowl) : Ῥόδια *καFία ‘Rhodian priestess’ or Ῥόδιας *καFίας ‘(bowl) of Rhodian priestess’; Lin. A wi-te-ia-mu u-qe-ti (PL Zf 1, pin) : (F)ἴδια μου οἴκετις ‘my own housewife’ (female slave?). Adjective + adjective: Lin. A ki-ki-ra-ja ki-re-ta2 (HT 85) : κεγχριαῖα ‘of the size of a grain of millet’ Κρηταῖα ‘Cretan (fem.)’ (alternatively < κίχρημι ‘lend’). 6. Coherent texts The majority of Linear A inscriptions are short and represent lists, not sentences. However, several relatively long Linear A sentences could be completely translated. 1. a-ma-wa-si ka-ni-ja-mi i-ja za-ki-se-nu-ti a-ta-de : *ἀμαύσει ἐξαν-ίημι υἷα διαξαίνοντι ἄττα-θεν ‘In the harvest season, I send forth (my) son to the carder from (his) father’. 2. VINa di-di-ka-se a-sa-mu-ne a-se, a-ta-i-301(*de)-de-ka a-re-pi-re-na ti-ti-ku : οἴνω (gen. sg.) τέθηκας ἄσμενην αἴσην, ἄρδαις τέθηκα ἀλειπήριον Τέττιγος : ‘you placed a good portion of wine. for libations, I placed unguent/oil. From Tettix’. 3. a-ti-ka a-du-ko-mi (a hairpin) : *Ἀττικά ἁδυ-κόμη : ‘Attic pleasant hair’ vs *Ἀττικά ἁδυ-κόμῃ (dat.-loc.) ‘in Attic pleasant hair’. 4. wi-te-ja-mu u-qe-ti : (F)ἴδια μου οἴκετις ‘my own housewife’. 5. i-ja-re-di(*wi?)-ja i-ja-pa[ : ἱαρηFίjα ἅπτρα ‘priestess’ lamp’. 85 6. pa-ra tu-ru-nu-se-me GRA : παρὰ δώρων Σεμνῄ GRAIN ‘beside gifts to Holy (Demeter) – grain’. 7. a-ka-nu-za-ti du-ra-*ne a-zu-ra ja-sa-sa-ra-*me-na-ne wi-pi-[na-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te] : ἐξαν-οίξαντι θύραν ἀγοράς, ἥν *σεσαράμναν *(F)ἶφι-νάομνᾳ ἀρδῃ ‘(this cup is a gift) to him who opened agora’s gate, purified with strongly poured water’.. 8. ja-di-ki-te-te-*307-pu2-re tumei ja-sa-[] u-na-ka-na-si i-pi-[] : ἅ Δίκτηνδε (‘to Dicte = Dictaean’) *θύφρη (‘cave’) δέμει αἵ σεσαρωμέναι (‘way is cleaned’) ἐναρξάντι (‘to him who libated’) *(F)ιφινά(ο)μνᾳ (‘strongly poured’) ἀρδῃ (‘libation’). 9. a-ta-i 301(*te)-wa-i pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne a-di-ki-te-te du-pu-re a-sa-sa-ra-me u-na-ru-kana-ti i-pi-na-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te i-na-ja-pa-qa : ἄρδαις (‘with libations’) ἔδευσα (‘I poured’) ἐπιτελῆ (‘completed’) ἅν *χοάν (‘drink-offering’) ἅ Δίκτηνδε (‘to Dicte = Dictaean’) *θύφρη (‘cave’) ἅ *σεσαράμνη (‘(she) is purified’) ἐναρξάντι (‘to him who libated’) *(F)ιφινά(ο)μνᾳ (‘strongly poured’) ἀρδῃ (‘libation’) ἵν’ (‘let’) ᾖ (‘he will be’) ἡ πάχης (‘fleshy, stout, *healthy’). 10. tu-ru-sa du-pu3-re i-da-a : *Τύλισια *θύφρη Ἰδαῖα ‘Idaean cave of Tylissos’. 11. ro-da ka-wa (Syria) : Ῥόδια *καFία ‘Rhodian priestess’ vs Ῥόδιας *καFίας ‘(bowl) of Rhodian priestess’. 12. qif-ri-tu-qa sa-sa-me : *χριστ-όχα *σάσαμη ‘oil-contained sesame’ (< χριστός ‘used as ointment’, of anointing oil, LXX Levit. 21.10, σησάμη, Dor. σάσαμον, Lin. B sa-sa-ma ‘sesame’). a-ti-a-we-ti-ja re-u-ma ku-ra-tu-jo we-ka (Italy) : ἀντὶα αFητίας ῥεῦμα. Κράτοιο Fέργα. ja-ki-si-ki-nu mi-da-ma-ra2 (ARKH Zf 9, a hairpin from the Archanes tholos) : αἰκὴς σκῆνος μεθ’ ἁμάριαν ‘meagre corpse after a day (metaph. of life)’. 7. Linear A for Greek etymology, historical phonetics, and dialectology Etymology 1. Lin. A qe-ra2-u : Lin. B e-ra-wo / e-ra3(rai)-wo /elaiwon/ : ἔλαιFον ‘olive-oil’, whereas Lin. A qe-ra2-ja (also qa-ra2-wa?) : Lin. B e-ra-wa /elaiwai/ ‘olive-trees’ : ἐλαίFα ‘olive-tree’. Initial q /kh/ is surprising in this stem. It could be 1) an orthographical convention or 2) a phonetic feature (ἐλαίFα < *ἑλαίFα?). A Near Eastern parallel doesn’t contain an initial x: Akkad. ellu(m) ‘sesame oil’ (but cf. Hebrew ēl ‘fat’?). In contrast, the Proto-North Caucasian *χw lʡi > Proto-Dargwa *χIʷali, Proto-Lezghian *χIul ‘fat’ (a cognate of Sino-Tibetan *Łu ‘oil’) could be a source of surprising Linear A forms (metathesis in Greek?). Thus, Lin. A qe-ra2-u and qe-ra2-ja preserved more archaic phonetic forms (*ἑλαιFον, *ἑλαίFα or even *χέλαιFον, *χέλαίFα?), reflected the North Caucasian source of this stem (*χwali > *χ(e)laiw-?). 2. Lin. A VINa … a-pu2-na-du (HT 14) : ἀπ᾽ οἰνάδων ‘from the vineyard’. If pu2 points to /phu/ (as in Lin. B) then *ἀφ᾽ οἰνάδων < *ἀπ᾽ οἱνάδων might reflect Fοῖνος > *οἷνος /hoinos/ > οἶνος. 86 3. Lin. A a-sa-da-ka GRA (MA Wc): ἄσταχυς ‘ear of corn’. Like στάχυς ‘ear of corn’, it is a substrate word without Indo-European etymology (Beekes 155, 1392), but Svan šda ‘ear of corn’ corresponds with the Makedonian-like Linear A form. Thus, Lin. A a-sa-da-ka is an intermediate link between alphabetically attested Greek form ἄσταχυς / στάχυς and its possible source, Svan šda. 4. Lin. A a-ra-ki zu-wa-ni-se (SY Zb 7, terracotta zoomorphic rhyton from the Syme sanctuary) : ἀρχηῒς (‘priestess’) Διονυσίη (‘of Dionysos, fem.)’ or Διονυσίης ‘of the festival of Dionysus’; zu reflects /djo/ or even /diē/ (cf. Aeol. Ζόννυσος) whereas wo is absent in Linear A. Cf. Lin. A du-me-di (HT 19) : Διομήδης ‘Zeus-counselled’. Lin. A je-di du-zu-wa (HT 36) : ἕδει θεοῦ ΔιFός, cf. Hom. θεὸς Ζεύς (Od. 4.236, 14.327), also Lin. A je-di OLE ... pa3-ka-ra-ti (HT 8) : παγκρατής ‘all-powerful’ (epith. of Zeus) where je is /he/. The correspondence of zu-wa (‘Zeus’, gen.) and zu-wa-ni-se is regular, cf. Lin. B di-wo /Diwos/ (gen.) ‘Zeus’, di-wo-nu-so-jo (gen.) ‘Dionysus’ and especially Lin. B de-u-jo-i, de-wi-jo (Adrados 1: 168, 170). 5. Lin. A po-to-ku-ro ‘total sum’ (ku-ro 31 … ku-ro 65 … po-to ku-ro 97 HT 122, cf. poto ku-ro HT 131) : παντακύριος ‘all-supreme’ : Tochar. A, B ponto- ‘all’. The Lin. A form is close to Tocharian than alphabetical and Lin. B forms (Greek *pant- < *pont-?); o / a cf. Lin. A se-to-i-ja (PR Za 1) : Lin. B se-to-i-ja : Σηταία (CT) ‘all’ (? an Iranian influence, cf. also ‘Pre-Greek’ and Iranian d > l and Iranian t > d, t > th in διθύραμβος). Suggested Iranian influence might point to the Pontic Steppe (the Usatove and Budzhak cultures) vs Asia Minor (the Lefkandi I culture, cf. Iranian features in Luwian and Lycian). The meaning of παντακύριος points to the exact meaning and etymology of ku-ro. 6. Lin. A du-pu(2,3)-re : Lin. B da-pu2-r(i-to), δύβρις ‘*deep’, τάφρη ‘ditch, trench’, Cretan θάπτρα ‘monument’ (the latter: Beekes 534), Lith. du ur s ‘hollow, trough’ : dau ur s ‘ravine, trough among mountains’ < IE *dh eubh- ‘deep’. About d > l (Iranian?), cf. δάφνη, δαύχνα, λάφνη ‘laurel’ (possibly also δαῦκος, δαυχμός ‘a Cretan plant’), considered ‘typically Pre-Greek word’ (Beekes: 307) < ‘*aromatic’ (Indo-European, cf. Lithuanian daũsos ‘air’, dvãsė ‘spirit, soul’ etc.); Greek τύφω ‘smoke’ (< IE *dueh2- / *duh2- ‘to smoke’, Beekes: 1522) might be a regular Greek word for this stem. Is Latin laurus < *laus-os < *daus-os? Thus, δάφ-νη, δαύχ-να, like δύβρις and even λαβύρινθος, might be Macedonian-like (IE dh > Maced. d, Greek th) forms of the IE roots. Cf. also Lin. B da-pu2-ra-zo, du-pu2-ra-zo (Adrados ...)? 7. Lin. A pa-se GRA (ideogram ‘grain’) (HT 18) : *φάση, cf. φάσηλος ‘bean’, Alban. bathё ‘tick-bean’ (Beekes 1556). Short Linear A and Albanian forms are corresponding, in contrast to the alphabetical Greek one. 8. Lin. A i-ja-pa[ (IO Za 5, stone lamp) : a) ἅπτω, ‘kindle, set on fire’ (‘The initial aspiration is secondary’ : Latin aptus ‘fit, apt’, Hitt. happ-zi ‘to join’ < Proto-Indo-European *h2ep- ‘join, fit’, Beekes 120), ἅπτρα, ‘wick of a lamp’ (ἁφή ‘kindling’ > Ἥφαιστος?), b) ἰάπτω, ‘hurt, spoil’ (‘Etymology unclear’, Beekes 574; > Ἰαπετός the father of Prometheus, an old form of Ἥφαιστος?). Cf. also ἐφ-έστιος ‘at one’s own fireside, at home’. 87 The complete inscription i-ja-re-*wi-ja i-ja-pa[ : ἱάρεFιας/ἰαρηFίjας *ἰάπτρα/ἅπτρα ‘priestess’/sanctuary’s lamp’. Two Greek words, ἅπτω and ἰάπτω (considered unrelated), as well as two god names, Ἥφαιστος and Ἰαπετός, might appear related to Minoan Greek i-ja-pa[ ‘lamp’. Historical phonetics 1. Like in Lin. B, /s/ > /h/ occurs even more widely than in alphabetical Greek. The sign ja does not only denote /ha/ < /ja/ (ja-re-mi : ἁρμή) but also /ha/ < /sa/ (i-ru-ja /eluha/ < ἔλυσα, du-ja /thuha/ < θῦσα). It contrasted to retained intervocalic s in Macedonian (ἄλιζα· ἡ λεύκη τὸ δένδρον. Μακεδόνες (Hesych.), in comparison to Goth. alisa ‘alder’, cf. Neroznak 1978: 172–173). 2. The d-series denotes rather yet /dh/ than already /d/, similar not to Greek /th/ but to Macedonian and Phrygian /d/. Thus, the Linear AB d-series reflected not /dl/ but /dh/. 3. Linear A preceded the Grassman Law: di-di-ka-se ... -301(*de)-de-ka : τέθηκας ... τέθηκα ‘you placed ... I placed’; -du-pu(2)-re : *θύφρη ‘cave’ (cf. Macedonian-like δύβρις ‘sea’ < ‘*deep’ : Greek τάφρη ‘ditch, trench’). However, taking to attention Lin. A d : Greek δ, we can suggest an intermediate sound between the Proto-IndoEuropean /dh/ and the Macedonian-Phrygian /d/, i. e. /dh/. A form i-da-da /Ida-dan/ (Hom. Ἴδη-θεν) demonstrates *Idh a-dhan where /dh/ > /d/ and /dh/ > /th/ are identical. Two forms di-di-ka-se ... -301(*de)-de-ka : τέθηκας ... τέθηκα in the same text evidence an initial form of the perfect reduplication *dh ē-dh ē-. Thus, aspirated /dh/ yet not became devoiced in Linear A. On the other hand, an alternation du-pu-re (PK Za 11) : du-pu2-re (PK Za 15) points to the variability of the Macedonian-like *dh u rē (or even *dh ubh rē?) and Greek-like *dh uph rē. Perhaps, both Greek-Macedonian split and devoicing of aspirated consonants occurred in the time of Linear A. 4. In contrast to Phrygian, final consonants (d, t etc.) are lost in Linear A. Thus, phonetic image of the ‘Minoan Greek dialect’, reflected in Linear A, points to the time after the separation of Phrygian (final d, t are lost in Lin. A, in contrast to Phrygian) and soon after the separation of Macedonian (s > h in Lin. A, in contrast to Macedonian, but pre-Grassman stage of Lin. A d > Greek d, th resembles Maced. d, Greek th). Dialectal position 1. Doric-Aeolic /ā/ : Ionic /ē/ : ‘modernized Ionic’ /i/ Ionic-like (a > ē) Linear A forms are: i-da-me-te : Ἴδα μήτηρ, ra-ri-de-me-te : Ραρίς (Adrados 2: 224) Δημήτηρ, a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu(2)-re : ἅ Δίκτηνδε *θύφρη, a-sa-mu-ne a-se : ἄσμενη αἴση, na-da-re : *νῆθρη (= νῆτρον), qe-ku-re : *Χέρκυρη, Κέρκυρα. Ionic-like -η resembles /ə/ (Alb. ë, Bulg, Maced. (Slav.) dial. ъ, Rom. ă) of the Balkan Sprachbund. ‘Modernized Ionic’ (ē > i) Linear A forms are: a-du-ko-mi : ἁδυ-κόμη ‘pleasant hair’ vs *Ἀττικά ἁδυ-κόμῃ (dat.-loc.) ‘in Attic pleasant hair’, a-si-ki-ra *303 (grain): ἀσκηρά, a-re-pi-re-na : ἀλειπήριον (= ἀλειπτήριον), a-se-tu-qi ra-o-di-ki : ἀστυόχη Λαοδίκη, mate-ti (PK 1) : ματευτής ‘seeker, searcher’ (alongside ma-ka-i-ta : Aeol. μαχαίτας and 88 au-re-te : Ion. αὐλ-ητής ‘flute-player’ or αὐλ-ήτης, αὐλείτης ‘farm-servant’ in the same text) vs fem. *ματευτίς, ja-re-mi : ἁρμή, ja-ki-si-ki-nu : αἰκὴς σκῆνος ‘meagre corpse’. Cf. ē > i in a Greek inscription from Phrygia (Neroznak 1978: 116) and in Phrygian Kubila/e (Neroznak 1978: 148). Doric-Aeolic-like (preserved a) Linear A forms are: -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : αὐτᾶς *δεσποινικίας ‘of the Mistress herself’, i-da-ma-te : Ἴδα μάτηρ, da-ma-te : Dor., Arc., Boeot. Δαμάτηρ, i-da-da /Ida-dan/ (Hom. Ἴδη-θεν). 2. Digamma (F): retained and lost Preserved F: wi-te-ja-mu u-qe-ti : (F)ἴδια μου οἴκετις ‘my own housewife’, i-ja-redi(*wi?)-ja i-ja-pa[ : ἱαρηFίjα ἅπτρα ‘priestess’ lamp’ (Dorian and Northern Greek ἱαρός). Also Cypro-Minoan a-ke-wi-de : ἀρχηίδες, Lin. A (Italy) a-ti-a-we-ti-ja re-u-ma ku-ra-tu-jo we-ka : ἀντὶα αFητίας ῥεῦμα. Κράτοιο Fέργα. Lost F: a-se-tu-qi : ἀστυ-όχη. This root word has F in other Linear A texts: -wa-sa-to, wa-tu- : Fαστός. The presence of the main Ionic features (a > ē and lost F) in Linear A, preceded Achaean Linear B, confirmed Paul Kretschmer’s view on the Ionic dialect which spread before the Achaean dialect (Kretschmer 1909). Already in 1909, Kretschmer suggested both Achaean (1500/1400-1200 BC) and pre-Achaean Pelasgo-Ionic (1800/1700-1500/1400 BC) dialectal layers in Crete (Kretschmer 190: 19-23). In comparison, Linear B might have Ionic substrate (Georgiev 1958: 66, 108; Grinbaum 1984: 22; Tronsky 1973: 101, cf. 19, 31). Note that the Pelasgians were Hellenes (Herodot. 2.51) which later became Ionians (Herodot. 1.56, 7.94-95, 8.44); IndoEuropean (not substratal) Zeus was Pelasgian (Il. 16.233). See also about Ionic Linear A (Mosenkis 2000: 16-19). 8. Linear A and the Paleo-Balkan languages 1. Linear A : Ancient Macedonian: 1) open-syllable structure (Maced. δάρυλλος: δρῦς, ἐσκόροδος: σκόρθος, Εὐδαλαγῖνες: Εὐθαλγῖνες, κάναδοι: γνάθοι, κάραβος: κάρφος); 2) Lin. A d : Maced. d, Greek th; 3) /a/ > /o/ before sonants (Lin. A po-to-ku-ro ‘total sum’: Greek παντακύριος ‘allsupreme’; Maced. Γορπιαῖος ‘August’ : Greek καρπός ‘fruit’); 4) Maced. ū: Greek ō (Lin. A ka-nu-ti ‘Κνωσός’, Maced. κάνουν : Attic κανών). 2. Linear A : Phrygian: 1) open-syllable structure (Βερεκύνται ‘Phrygian clan’, Βερεκυντία ‘Phrygia’ (Hesych.), Βερεκύνθιον ‘Phrygian mountain’ < PIE *bherg’ - ‘mountain’ (Neroznak 1978: 142) : Βρίγες : Φρύγες); 2) u > i (Lin. A FIC ki-ki-na : κικύνα ‘fig’, Lin. B u-ta-no : Ἴτανος (Molchanov et al. 1988: 42), Cretan βριτύ ‘sweet’ (Hesych.) : βρῦτος ‘beer’, Phryg. κικλα ‘chariot’ : Greek κύκλα ‘wheels’, Βριγία : Φρυγία); 89 3) Lin. A-Phryg. z : Greek-Maced. g (Cret. Hier., Lin. AB ze ‘jaw’ : Phryg. αζεν‘beard’ : Greek γένυς ‘jaw’). Classical Cretan and Pamphylian /v/ > /b/ resembles the similar Phrygian (*ued- > βέδυ ‘water’), Armenian and Iranian (Jahukyan 297), Lycian change. 3. Linear A : Armenian: 1. Lin. A ka-nu-ti (the first element in the list of Cretan cities, i. e. the name of Κνωσ(σ)ός) is the Linear A form of Greek γνωστός ‘well-known, glorified’, like Φαιστός means ‘the lightest one’, Κυδωνία ‘glorious’, G/Kaudos ‘joy’. The closest analogue is Armenian canōt’, ‘known’. About k instead of g, cf. Phryg. knouman: Greek γνῶμα (Cf. also Phrygian kanutieivais, kanutievan-?). 2. Retained d, like in Macedonian: Lin. A d- : Armen. d, in contrast to Greek th, as in Lin. A da-ku (on the axe) : Armen., Old Armen. daku ‘axe’ (Mosenkis 2001: 17), a cognate of θάγω ‘sharpen, whet’ (Martirosyan : 232). 3. Similar vocal changes: a) /ū/, /u/, /ō/ → /u/ in Armenian like in Linear A; b) /ē/, /i/, /ī/ → /i/ is common for Linear A, Greek koine and Armenian (cf. /a/ > /ē/ in Ionic Greek dialect and /a/ > /ă/ in Romanian); 4. Similar consonant changes: a) Proto-IE *w- > Armenian *g-, cf. Greek w > h, reflected as g by Hesychius. Initial sound w > h is interpreted as qu (gu) in Lin. A qif-tu-ne : (?) ἡδονή (like in old Germanisms in French: ward > guard). It might be a way of the change w > h via *hw; b) Proto-IE p > w, bh > w in Armenian (Matasović), cf. b > v in Greek koine and, much more earlier, Lin. A wa-pi-ti-‘na’-ra2 (PH Zb 5, pithos) = wa-pi-ti-*te-ra2 : *βαπτιστήρια, cf. βαπτιστήριον, ‘swimming-bath’; cf. Lin. A wa-du-ni-mi (swad- > wad-, onum- > onim-) : Lycian βadunimi (Cretan, Pamphylian w > b). Armenian bar ‘word’ and bar-bar ‘language’ (Marr 5: 258) might point to the preGreek Paleo-Balkan language/dialect in Greece. 90 Chapter 2. GREEK ECONOMY IN LINEAR A 1. Space and time Land Possible name of the plot of land is identified in Linear A: Lin. A a-ka-ra ki-ta-na-si-ja-se (PE Zb 3): ἄκρα, ‘end’ (i. e. border?) and κτοίνα or κτοῖνα, Rhodian name for ‘a local division’, and κτοινάτης, ‘member of a κτοίνα’; Lin. B ko-to-na, ko-to-i-na, ‘plot of land’; so the phrase might mean ἄκρα *κτοινάσιjας, ‘border of a territory’. Alternatively, ki-ta-n-: Lin. B ki-ta-no: κρίτανος: τέρμινθος, ‘Pistacia Terebinthus’ (Hesych.), -a-si-ja-se: Ἀσιάς fem. adj. ‘Asiatic’; or cf. ἄκρα γειτνίασις ‘highest quarter (of the city)’: the inscription is found on the pithos on the Central Court. Lin. A a-ka-ru (HT 2, a headline of the list about oil; HT 86, a headline of the list of plants): ἀγρός ‘field’. Lin. A a-ru-ra- (HT 11, a headline) : Lin. B a-ro-u-ra : ἄρουρα ‘earth, ground, land’ in the context a-ru-ra- ka-ro-na : ἄρουρα Κρόνια ‘Cronus’ land (?!)’. Cronus was an old Cretan god (Losev 1957: 119). ΖΑΝ ΚΡΟΝΟΥ (IC I.54), Καρώνιος ‘Cnossian month’ (IC I.55, 124) Cf. a Cretan meadow, sacred to Zeus (Diod. 5.70); Cretan sacral field of Demeter and Iasion. Alternatively, cf. ἄρουρα φερέσβιος ἠδὲ κατ᾽ ἀγροὺς κτήνεσιν εὐθηνεῖ (Hom. hymn. 30 to Earth) Seasons Lin. A a-ma-wa-si : *ἀμάυσι (locative dative to denote time) < *ἀμάυσις ‘harvest’ < ἀμάω ‘to reap corn’, Mycenaean Greek (Linear B) a-ma ‘harvest’. This word is IndoEuropean: English mow etc. Hesiod, using the same root (ὥρῃ ἐν ἀμήτου), recommended to begin the harvest in spring when the Pleiades rise (Works and Days 571-575). Among Indo-European parallels of the root, Hittite ḫamešḫa(nt)-, ‘spring/early summer (April–June)’ (link with Greek: Beekes 84; meaning: Puhvel 1991: 3.73), literally ‘mowing time’ is the most significant. Thus, we obtain the name of Minoan Greek harvest-month! 2. ‘Minoan tetrad’ (cereals, figs, olives / oil, wine) as a basis of economy Cereals 1. Lin. A ka-pa is a heading of some lists (HT6, HT 102, HT 105), similar to Lin. B ka-po (also ka-pa GRA – Adrados 1: 315) : καρπός ‘fruit; seed’, especially ‘corn’, and 91 ‘seed’ (LSJ, s. v. καρπός). Gregory Nagy identifies with Hesych. κάρπη· τὰ σπέρματα (Nagy 1963: 207). Ancient Greek opposition of ξηροὶ καρποί ‘cereals’ to fruits, wine, oil (LSJ, s. v. ξερός) resembles Linear A opposition of sa-ra2 (followed by ideograms GRA and *303 ‘grain’), ‘figs’ (ideogram FIC), ‘wine’ (ideogram WIN), ‘olive’ or ‘oil’ (ideograms OLIV or OLE respectively) and ‘meat’ (ideogram BOSm ‘bull’): sa-ra2 GRA, then FIC, above OLE (HT 18), sa-ra2 GRA then OLE, FIC, VIN (HT 28), sa-ra2 *303 (grain), then FIC, VIN, OLIV (HT 30), sa-ra2 GRA, then FIC, OLE (HT 90), ka-pa (a headline) ... sa-ra2 *303 (grain), then FIC (HT 94), sa-ra2 *303 (grain), then FIC, VIN (HT 99), sa-ra2 *303 (grain), then FIC, VIN, OLE (HT 100), sa-ra2 GRA, then OLE (HT 101), sa-ra2 … ku-pa3[ ka-pa (a headline) sa-ra2 GRA (HT 102), ka-pa (a headline) ... sa-ra2 (HT 105), sa-ra2 GRA, OLE, FIC, VINa, BOSm (HT 114, HT 121), sa-ra2 GRA, OLE (HT 125), sa-ra2 *303 (grain) ... FIC, VIN (HT 130). Moreover, sa-ra2 ‘grain’ 1) precedes ‘oil’, ‘figs’ and ‘wine’, 2) it is mentioned closely to ka-pa (HT 102, cf. HT 94, 105), 3) mentioned as the head of lists in HT6, HT 102, HT 105. Thus, Lin. A sa-ra2 : ξηραί (adj. fem. nom.pl.) ‘dry’ > ‘*cereals’. 2. Lin. A ki-re-ta2 GRA (ideogram ‘grain’, HT 129) : Lin. B ki-ri-ta : κριθή, ‘barley’ and κριθαία, ‘barley pottage’. Lin. A ki-re-ta-na GRA (HT 120), ki-re-ta-na VIR 1 GRA (ideograms ‘grain’, HT 108) : κριθανίας ‘like barley’. Lin. A qa-qa-ru I GRA (HT 93, cf. HT 118, 122) : *χάχρυς, κάχρυς ‘parched barley’ (pre-Greek, Beekes 660-661) : Proto-Semitic *gargir- ‘bean, grain’ (Starling). Lin. A ke-ki-ru (context of plants: HT 94) : κέγχρος ‘millet’ (‘The etymology remains unclear’, Beekes 662) : Proto-North Caucasian *qwVɫVqV / *qwVqVɫV ‘egg; grain’, *qwāqwV(-ɫV) ‘seed, grain, egg’, *k rk (-nV) and Hurr. kirikiri(j)annǝ ‘seed of pine-cone’ > Akkad. kirkiriannu, Proto-North Caucasian *qumqV ‘a kind of grain, cereal’ > Proto-Nakh *qunq (Starling). Lin. A ku-ni-su GRA (HT 86) : Akkad. kunišu ‘wheat’ (a loan, C. Gordon). Lin. A a-sa-da-ka GRA (ideogram ‘grain’, MA Wc) : *ἄσταχα, cf. ἄσταχυς / στάχυς ‘ear of corn’. It is a substrate word without Indo-European etymology (Beekes 155, 1392), but Svan šda ‘ear of corn’ closely corresponds to the Linear A form. 3. Cereals are also represented in Lin. AB syllabary: Lin. AB se (ear of corn) : Sumerian še ‘barley’, Egyptian šʕ.t ‘barley’; IndoEuropean *sē- ‘to sow’; Lin. AB si (sheaf) : σῖτος ‘grain’ (comparison: Ruijgh 1970) : Sumerian zid, ‘flour’ (Beekes: 1337). 4. Cakes are also attested: 92 Lin. A ma-za 5 ma-ki-de-te 5 (Za 10): μᾶζα, ‘barley-cake’ and μαγίδες δέ (nom. plur.) < μαγίς, -ίδος, ‘any kneaded mass, cake’, μαγίδες: αἷς ἀπομάττουσι (wipe off or level corn in a measure with a strickle) καὶ καθαίρουσι (Hesych.); ma-zu (HT 102, a list of plants) : μαζός ‘*barley-cake’ (later lost due to its coincidence with the word for ‘woman’s breast’). Lin. A ma-si-du … GRA (HT 43) : μαγίδιον, ‘small cake’, context ma-si-du pa-*ta-i ... GRA (I reconstructed *ta from *342 which ‘strongly resembles *118, Talent’) : φάττᾳ (dat. sg. fem.) < φάττα ‘ringdove, cushat’ (ritual feeding of a dove?). 5. Some other related objects: Lin. A a-ru-da-ra GRA (HT 28): ἄλεθρα ‘wheat-meal’ rather than ἄλυτρα (nom. plur.) < ἄλυτρον, ‘threshing implement’ or ἐρυθρά ‘red (fem.); balm, Melissa officinalis’, Lin. B e-ru-ta-ra. Lin. A pa-ta-ne WATERBIRDS si-tu (HT We 1019): φάτνη ’manger, crib’, σῖτος ‘grain’ (food for sacral birds?). 6. Lin. A ligature 307 (pi+ro related to grain, HT 32, 36, 89) : πυρός ‘wheat’. Figs Lin. A ki-re-za FIC (ideogram ‘fig’, ZA 1): *κρηδία / *κρήζα, κράδη, ‘fig-branch, figtree’, cf. Cret. κάρα ‘fig-tree’ (Hesych.). Perhaps, a metaphorical derivation < καρδία, Epic κραδίη, Aeol. κάρζα, Cypr. κορζία, κόρζα ‘heart’ (fig is similar to heart). Lin. A pa3-ka-ra-ti (HT 8, in the list of plants, cf. ki-re-ta-na here): παγκράδη: ἀπὸ τῆς κράδης τῶν σύκων (Hesych.). Alternatively : παγκρατής ‘all-powerful’, in the context je-di pa3-ka-ra-ti : παγκρατεῖς ἕδρας ‘imperial throne’ (Aesch. Prom. 391) where je [he]. Lin. A su-‘re’ (HT 32, after sa-ra2 ‘cereals’, Younger) might be su-ku ‘fig’ (Peruzzi 1960: 24). Olives and oil 1. Linear A had ideograms OLIV (olives) and OLE (oil). Also, Lin. A qe-ra2-u (HT 1, HT 95 twice) : Lin. B e-ra-wo / e-ra3(rai)-wo : ἔλαιFον ‘olive-oil’, whereas Lin. A qe-ra2-ja (HT 3, also qa-ra2-wa, HT 86, a list of plants?) : Lin. B e-ra-wa : ἐλαίFα ‘olive-tree’. Initial q /kh/ is very surprising in this stem. It might be 1) orthographical convention or 2) phonetic feature (ἐλαίFα < *ἑλαίFα?). Oriental parallels a) Akkad. ellu(m) ‘sesame oil’ (doesn’t contain initial x); b) Proto-North Caucasian *χw lʡi > Proto-Dargwa *χIʷali, Proto-Lezghian *χIul ‘fat’ (a cognate of Sino-Tibetan *Łu ‘oil’ – Starling) might be a source of surprising Linear A forms (metathesis in Greek?); c) Hebrew ēl ‘fat’, Phoenician hlb, Syrian Aramaic helbā ‘fat’, Arab. hilb‘diaphragm, midgroft’ (Kogan 2011: 215-216) are the clothest parallels to the Greek and especially to the Linear A (and Cretan hieroglyphic – below) forms. It might be an old evidence of a West Semitic language (Amorite / early Ugaritic?). 2. Lin. A ]to-sa pu2-re-ja[ (PK Za 16, on the corner of a libation table) Virginia Hicks deciphers ‘so many (tosa, cf. Greek tossos) offerings or things brought (pu2reja, from 93 the zero grade of PIE *bher- which would yield an o in Greek phoros)’. If ἡ φυλία ‘wild olive’ might be taken into consideration (Lin. B pu2-ra2) then ‘so many olives’ might be proposed as a translation of the word combination. Alternatively : τόσαν πόληα (acc. sg.) ‘so great city’. 3. Some parallel texts with Linear B are identified: Lin. A a-ka-ru OLE (HT 2) resembles Lin. B OLIV+A (ἄγριος ‘wild’), a-ke-re-u /Agreus/ and a-ki-ri-jo /Agrios/ in the toponyms related to olives; a-ka-ru (HT 86, the first word of a list, possibly a title, before ku-ni-su GRA). Lin. A ku-pa3- … OLE (HT 101): Lin. B ku-pa-ro-we (PY Fr 1203) ‘(oil) aromatized with ku-pa-ro’, κύπαιρος, ‘galingale, Cyperus rotundus’. 4. Oil was used for smearing. Lin. A a-re-pi-re-na (Za Zb 3, pithos): ἀλειπτήριον, ἀλειπήριον, ‘place for anointing in gymnasia, paint-brush, unguent’. Lin. A ki-ri-si OLE (TY 3) : χρῖσις ‘smearing’ (τοῦ ἐλαιου). See below about sesame oil. Grape, wine, beer 1. Lin. A ideogram VINa ‘wine’ and some related terms reflect winemaking. Lin. A u-na-a on the pithoid jar (KN Zb 40): οἰνάς ‘the vine’, οἴνη, ‘the vine, wine’, personal names Οἰνόη, Οἰναῖος, Οἰνοαῖος; phonetically cf. ἐλάα ‘olive tree’. The context is a-pa-ki u-na-a *ἀφ-άγια *οἰνάα ‘sacred wine-vessel’ (ἀφαγνεύω, ἀφαγνίζω ‘purify, consecrate’, ἅγιος ‘devoted to the gods’), cf. Etruscan (Liber Linteus) santic vinum ... husina vinum (two kinds of sacred wine). Lin. A VINb+WI wi-na-du (KH 5 2-3): Lin. B wo-na-si (KN) dat.-loc. pl. woinassi < *uoinad-si, ‘in the vineyards (?)’, οἰνάδες· ἀμπελώδεις τόποι (Hesych.; Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 99), οἰνάς, -άδος ‘the wine’. Less acceptable *Fοιν-αδυς ‘sweet wine’ (cf. πόδ-αργος, ‘swift-footed’; Homeric οἶνον … ἡδύν (Od. 2.349–350, 9.204–205), inverse variant ἡδύ-οινος, Dor. ἁδύ-οινος, ‘related to sweet wine’). Lin. A pu VINa … a-pu2-na-du (HT 14) : ἀπ᾽ οἰνάδων ‘from the vineyard’. If pu2 points to phu (as in Lin. B) then *ἀϕ᾽ οἰνάδων < *ἀπ᾽ οἱνάδων might reflect Fοῖνος > *οἷνος > οἶνος (v > h). Lin. A du-re-za-se VINb (ZA 10) *δλεύκιαs like γλύκιαs ‘of sugary, sickly’ (gen. fem. sing. < γλύκιος), cf. Lin. B de-re-u-ko, ‘grape must’, γλεῦκος, Doric gen. γλεύκιος ‘sweet new wine’ (Cretan), a cognate of γλυκύς, ‘sweet’ and δλυκύς (LSJ), cf. Lat. dulcis. Lin. A di-ri-na (HT 102) : θρινία ‘ἄμπελος ἐν Κρήτῃ’ (Hesych.). Lin. A da-me (HT 86, HT 95, HT 106 – in the lists of plant in all cases, also perhaps HT 120) : θάμνα, θάμνη ‘wine from pressed grapes’. 2. Wine might be sacral (cf. Etruscan santic vinum ... husi-na vinum : ὅσι-ον). Lin. A di-na-u (HT 9 twice; HT 16; HT 25 twice; before the ideogram VINa ‘wine’, on a jug, KN Zb 27) : θῖνος , Cret. for θέϊνος ‘sacred’. Lin. A a-re-sa-na (THE Zb 2, jug) : ἄρσην (metaph.) ‘mighty’ (of wine) (?). 3. Brewing. 94 Lin. AB ju (related to Lin. B logogram FARINA ‘flour, dough’) and Lin. A zu-du (context of plants, HT 99), cf. zu-22f-di (context of plants and oil, HT 101) : ζῦθος, ζῦτος, ‘beer, brewed with barley’ which was Egyptian (LSJ, refs.) < Egypt. jt, Coptic ju:t, jo:t ‘barley’, i > ζ like in ζυγόν (Ernstedt 1953: 27-32). Lin. A zu-301 (301 ≈ the) (ARKH 2) : ζῦθος ‘beer’ whereas the complex word zu301-se-de-qif-118(-ta) : 1) στέγος ‘vessel’ < στέγω ‘keep in, hold (water etc., about vessels)’, 2) στάχυς ‘ear of corn’, or rather 3) σταφίς / ἀσταφίς ‘dried grapes, raisins’, ἀσταφίδος οἶνος ‘raisin-wine’ (Plat. Leg. 845b). Therefore, zu-301(dh e)-se-de-qif-118(-ta) : *ζύθη σταφίδα ‘raisin-drink’ (‘beer’ > ‘*drink’?). Beer is unattested in Lin. B. 3. Other plants and animals Condiments 1. A list of condiments might be represented in Lin. A ka-na … qif-ri-tu-qa sa-sa-me … ko-ru (HT 23): Lin. A ka-na : *κάναξ, Lin. B ligature ka+na ‘saffron’, also Lin. B ka-na-ko ‘saffron’ : κνῆκος, ‘safflower’; Lin. A qif-ri-tu-qa sa-sa-me : *χριστ-όχα ‘oil-contained (plant)’ < χριστός ‘used as ointment’ (of anointing oil, LXX Levit. 21.10), σησάμη, ‘sesame’ (Dor. σάσαμον, Lin. B sa-sa-ma). Akkad. šammaššamu ‘sesame’ is closer to the Greek forms than Hitt. šam(m)am(m)a- (Frisk 3: 698; Beekes: 1325), but Ugaritic ššmn (Černý 1976: 153) and Egypt. sesemt are more similar. Cf. sa-ja-ma (HT 31): Lacon. σάἁμον = σήσαμον, ‘seed or fruit of the sesame-plant’. Alternatively, it is i-ja-ma ‘medicine’ (Georgiev 1958). The aforementioned word-combination (Adj. + Noun) qif-ri-tu-qa sa-sa-me : *χριστόχα σησάμη ‘oil-contained sesame’ : Lin. A ki-ri-si OLE (TY 3) : χρῖσις ‘smearing’ (τοῦ ἐλαιου), Lin. B ki-ri-se-we /khrisewes/. Lin. A ku-ni-su sa-ma (HT 10), ku-ni-su GRA (HT 86), GRA ... ku-ni-su (HT 95), kuni-te (KH 92) : Mid. Pers. kunjid ‘sesame’ < Proto-Iran. *kunčit, Sanskrit kuñcikā, ‘fennel flower seed’ (?), if it is not from Akkadian ‘wheat’ (Aram. kun∂ta < *kunnit – Gordon ... : 183), whereas sa-ma might be *same < *saame < sahame (attested, see above) < sasame or only a part of Akkad. šammaššamu ‘sesame’. Lin. A ko-ru (HT 23, list of plants) : κόριον, ‘coriander’ (cf. Peruzzi 1958: 11 after Arne Furumark), cf. Lin. B ko-ri-ja-do-no ‘id’ (Adrados I: 382). Perhaps, Akkad. uri’ānu gives not only κορίαννον (Frisk) but also κόριον. Cf. Cretan town Korion (St. Byz.); Lin. A mi-nu-te (HT 86, 95, lists of plants) : Lin. B mi-ta, μίνθα, ‘mint’; Lin. A di-de-ru (HT 86, 95, lists of plants) : τεύθριον 1) ‘hulwort, Teucrium Polium’ (medicine), 2) ‘madder, Rubia tinctorum’ (dye); Lin. A sa-ru (HT 86, 94, 95, 123+124, among plants in all cases), cf. sa-ro (HT 9, 17, 19, 42+59) : σάρον ‘sea-weed’; 95 Lin. A tu-ma (HT 94, among plants) : θυμία ‘incense’ rather than θῦμα ‘victim, sacrifice’; Lin. A a-ku-mi-na … a-du-ku-mi-na (Za 10), ku-mi-na-qe (HT Wc 3014) : Lin. B ku-mino, κύμινον, ‘cummin’, possibly ‘without cummin’ and ‘sweet cummin’. These Linear A forms are clearly Greek, phonetically different from their Semitic prototypes. 2. Lin. A a-du (HT 85, a headline; HT 86, a headline, preceding da-me ‘wine’ and mi-nu-te ‘mint’; HT 88, a headline; HT 92; HT 95, a headline of plan list; HT 99, a headline of plants and beer; HT 133, a headline) : ἁδύς ‘pleasant (to the taste, of wine; to the smell)’ might be a general name of condiments, or : ἅδος ‘satiety’ (food norm?). Another name of condiments in general might be qa-nu-ma ... FIG (KH 88) : γανύμα ‘condiment’. Lin. A u-ju a-ra-tu a-re-tu-mi[ (ZA 7, a list) : ὄις / ὄϊς, ἄρτος, ἄρτυμα ‘sheep, bread, condiment’ as a kind of ‘Minoan menu’. Other plants Lin. A pa-se GRA (ideogram ‘grain’) (HT 18) : *φάση, cf. φάσηλος ‘bean’, Alban. bathё ‘tick-bean’ (Beekes 1556). Short Linear A and Albanian forms are corresponding, in contrast to the alphabetical Greek one. Bean was well-known in Bronze Age Crete (Riley 1997: 48). Lin. A a-si-ki-ra *303 (grain): ἀσκηρά: εἶδός τι τῶν καστανίων, ‘a kind of sweet chestnuts’ (Hesych.; etym.: Neroznak 1978: 180). Lin. A pi-ta-ja (/pitahia/ because ja might be ha?): φιττάκια, ψιττάκια, πιστάκιον ‘pistachio-nut’, cf. pi-ta-ka-se TE GRA – with the ideogram ‘grain’ (HT 21), pi-ta-ke-si (HT 87): πιστάκη (Peruzzi 1963: 13), πιστάκιον, ‘pistachio-nut’ or πίτταξις, ‘fruit of the κράνεια (cornelian cherry)’. Lin. A mu-ru (HT 3, after ma-di ‘honey, mead’ and qe-ra2-ja ‘olive tree’) : μόρον ‘black mulberry; blackberry’ or rather μύρον ‘sweet oil, unguent, perfume’ (mixed with wine, Ael. Varia historia 12.31). The list of plants ka-pa da-ta-ra … pi-ta-ja … o-ra2-di-ne … ka-pa-qe (HT 6) might include plant names vs city names (see below). Some lists of plants, ka-pa sa-ra2 … pa3-ni … di-ri-na … ma-zu … (HT 102) and pa3-nina GRA … di-ri-na … (HT 93), may be interpreted: pa3-ni : φαινίς ‘ἀνεμώνη’ (Laced.); di-ri-na : θρινία ‘ἄμπελος ἐν Κρήτῃ’ (Hesych.) rather than θρῖον, ‘fig-leaf’, ‘mixture of eggs, milk, lard, flour, honey, cheese, etc., wrapped in fig-leaves’; ma-zu : μᾶζα, ‘a kneaded, unbaked thing’ or ‘a porridge, consisting of barley-meal’ or ‘barley-cake’ (Nagy 1965: 307-310). Animals, birds, fish 1. The mentions of animals are very rare in Linear A, whereas fish were not mentioned in Linear A (except an hieroglyphic usage as a title, see below) as well as in Linear B. Except for some syllabic signs (below), only several inscriptions mentioned animals – bull and sheep. 96 The oldest Linear A document contains the BULL HEAD (an ideogram) and syllabic signs ta-ro (rather than ta-je) : ταῦρος, ‘bull’ or ταλῶς, ‘Cretan solar bull’ (this word is glossed ‘the sun’ by Hesych. and ‘bull’ by Ps.-Apollod., cf. Armen. t’ał-at’-eal ‘10th hour after the sunrise’ < IE (Jahukyan 124) vs Arab. tlʕ, ‘rise (of the Sun)’, ProtoWest. Chad. *tal-, ‘Sun’ – Starling; East Hurr. Tilla , West Hurr. Sharruma, Urart. Tura ‘bull-god’).. Lin. A qa-re-to OVISf (HT 132): χρηστός ‘useful, good’ (sheep). An initial word on this table, a-se, might be αἶσα, αἶση ‘portion’. Lin. A sa-ra2 GRA, OLE, FIC, VINa, BOSm (HT 114, HT 121) mentioned bull’s meat as a fifth element after the ‘Minoan tetrad’. Lin. A u-ju a-ra-tu a-re-tu-mi[ (ZA 7, a list) : ὄις / ὄϊς, ἄρτος, ἄρτυμα ‘sheep, bread, condiment’. 2. The Linear A syllabary also reflected some animal names. Lin. AB qi (sheep): Greek *gui-, ‘animal’ (cf. Georg. cxoveri, ‘sheep’ : cxovre-ba, ‘life’), or : Greek κῶας, ‘fleece’ (< Georg. t’q’avi, Megr. *t’q’ovi ‘fleece’ vs Hit.-Luw. below). Nikolai N. Kazansky interprets this syllabic sign as a Lycian name of sheep, cf. Luw. hawi-, Hier. Luw. hawa/isa-, Lyc. χawã (acc. sg.), ‘sheep’ (Kazansky 2010; Kazansky 2012). Not only Lycian but also Luwian may also be acceptable, cf. mu (bull) in Linear AB and Luwian. A Carian gloss κοῖος (/kwios/?), ‘sheep’ (Sch. Iliad 14.255, LSJ, s. v.) may reflect namely kwi-. If Lin. A q : Greek kh in this case, cf. χίμαιρα ‘she-goat’. Lin. AB mu (bull’s head): Greek μυκάομαι ‘low, bellow (of oxen)’, μυκητής, μυκατάς, ‘bellower (of oxen)’, possibly also μόσχος, ‘calf, young bull; heifer, young cow’, μόναπος, Paeonian name of European bison. Cf. Anat. hier. mu (bull’s head); Egyptian hieroglyph ‘bull’ is very similar to Luwian one and might be a prototype of the former. Lin. AB me (goat): μηκάς, ‘bleating goat’; Hier. Luw. me (ram’s head). Lin. AB ra (arm and hand): λαμβάνω ‘take’. If ‘Hieroglyphic *018 , a dog head, becomes AB 60 RA’ (Younger 8) then cf. Λαῖλαψ, dog of Minos; Proto-Gondi (Dravidian) *raci, ‘wild dog’. Phoen. resh, head, confirms the second reading. Lin. AB ku: κύκνος, ‘swan’; the similar sign on the Phaistos Disc and Anat. Hier. huwa-, ‘bird’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB mi (fish): Greek μαίνη, ‘herring-like fish’ (without i in other Indo-European), Old Ind. mīna-, ‘fish’ < Proto-Indo-European; Proto-Dravidian *mīn-, ‘fish’ (possibly reflected in the Indus script) of common Nostratic origin, i. e. related to the Mesolithic roots of fishing (Mosenkis 1998a: 63). Animals were sacral in Crete: ‘The Cretans, from a law established by Rhadamanthus, swore by all animals’ (Porphyry, On abstinence from animal food 3.16, transl. Th. Taylor). 3. Ideograms denote some animals: one pig, three sheep (HT 38), pigs related to Cretan towns (HT 118), he-goats, rams, sheep, pigs linked with a long list of Cretan towns (PH (?) 31). 97 4. Technologies Wool and weaving 1. Lin. AB ideogram ‘wool’ is a ligature of two syllabic signs, ma-ru, which is interpreted as a ‘Minoan word’ : μαλλός, ‘flock of wool’. The word is traditionally interpreted as ‘pre-Greek’ (Beekes: 899) but Hittite maluli-, ‘skin’ might be a prototype, cf. Hittite sacral kursa- on the eia tree (cf. Joost Blasweiler’s works) > Greek βύρσα, ‘skin’, Hittite eia tree and a skin on it in comparison with the myth of Argonauts. Possibly, Greeks brought these terms as well as the ‘Parnassian’ (HittiteLuwian) substrate from their Anatolian homeland, so-called ‘proto-Ahhiyawa’. Cf. also Georgian mat’q’li ‘wool’ and Elamite malla ‘to sew, cloth’ (Mosenkis 1998a: 33). 2. Lin. A ta-pa TE (HT 104): Lin. B te-pa and TE, τάπης, ‘carpet’ (Tsikritsis 2001: 152-153). The sign te, frequent on Trypillian spindle-whorls (Eneolit 1982: 304; Arkheologia 1985: 236), might be compared with Lin. A, B te – shortened designation of material, possibly related to Lin. A ta-pa, Lin. B te-pa, τάπης, ‘carpet’. 3. Types of wool might be described on the tablet HT 24, where each of three words is followed by a ligature ma+ru : μαλλός ‘flock of wool’: ku-pa3-ri-ja : κυφαλέα ‘bent forwards’ or ὑφαιρέω ‘draw or take away from under’ rather than from κύπαιρος ‘Cyperus’; pa-sa-ri-ja : ψάλλω ‘pluck, pull, twitch’; ru-i-ko : ῥοικός ‘crooked’. 4. The tablet HT 104 might be about paiment for the carpet-weavers. The headline ta-pa TE : Lin. B te-pa : τάπης, δάπης ‘carpet’ and TE – the shortening of the same word (Tsikritsis 2001: 152-153) of possible Iranian origin (Beekes: 1451); cf. such exotic parallels as Dravidian *tadap- ‘strip of cloth, waistcloth’, Polynesian tapa ‘barkcloth’. Next, we have a list, related to carpet-working: da-ku-se-ne-ti (da-ku-se-*no-ti because ne is similar to no?) : 1) ko-sa-i-ti (HT 117) = kosa-*no-ti (Lin. A i and no are very similar) : ξαίνοντι (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat.) ‘to the carder’ (< ξαίνω ‘scratch, comb’), cf. ξάντης ‘wool-carder’ and 2) za-ki-se-nu-ti (CR (?) Zf 1; John Younger transliterates qa-ki-se-nu-ti, but initial za is clear, see the drawing: Chadwick 1987: 48) : δια-ξαίνω ‘card’, δια-ξῆναι. An alternation da-ku-se*no-ti / za-ki-se-nu-ti reflects dia > za (cf. Lin. B to-pe-za = torpedja/torpeza, Molchanov et al. 1988: 78, 153). The absence of special signs for ξ-series in Linear A caused irregular usage of ku-s-, ko-s- and ki-s- instead of it (da-ku-se-*no-ti / ko-sa-*no-ti / za-ki-se-nu-ti); i-du-ti : ἰθύοντι (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat.) < ἰθύω ‘go straight, press right on’, ‘made straight’ (the latter meaning after Middle Liddell); pa-da-su-ti : φθάσοντι (part. sg. fut. act. masc. dat.) ‘to him who will be the first’ < φθάζω / φθάνω ‘to be beforehand with, overtake, outstrip’. Cf.: ‘Around 540-30 BC a young woman called melousa, who lived in Taras (modern Taranto in the ‘heel’ of Italy), won a prize for her skill in working wool, a splendid black-figured cup imported from Athens. Her success was recorded in a graffito underneath the foot: Μελόσασ. ἑμί νικατέριον. ξαίνοσα τὰς κόραςἐνίκε (‘I am Melousa’s prize; she won 98 the maiden’s carding contest’). The cup, now in New York, is said to have been found in Taranto, and this is confirmed by the use of Laconian letter-forms...’ (Cook 1998: 56-57). This parallel is kindly proposed by Kyrylo A. Ogarkov. Thus, ta-pa TE ... da-ku-se-*no-ti 45 J (fraction ½, Younger 14), i-du-ti 20 J, pa-da-suti 29, ku-ro 95 : τάπητες (TE in ta-pa TE is not shortening but a part of the word ta-pate?) ... διαξῆνοντι ... ἰθύοντι ... φθάσοντι ‘carpets... to the carder ... to the woolstretcher ... to the winner’. 5. Some objects, belonging to to weaving, are listed in HT 117: mi-tu : μίτος ‘thread of the warp, string of a lyre’; ma-ru : μαλλός ‘flock of wool, tress’; ku-pa3-nu : (?) ὑφαίνον ‘woven object’ < ὑφαίνω ‘weave’, cf. ὑφαντόν ‘woven’; mi-ru-ta-ra-re : *μηλο-δηράρ ‘a lock of wool from lamb’s head’ or ‘lamb’s skin’ < μῆλον ‘sheep’, δειράρ: κορυφή (Hesych.) ‘crown, top of the head (of a horse)’ (Il. 8.83), Cret. *δηράρ, cf. Cretan δηράς = δειράς or, if it is mi-ru-ta-ra-*ne (re and ne are very similar) : μιλτάριον, Dim. of μίλτος III ‘blood’; na-da-re : *νῆθρη ‘spindle’, cf. νήθω ‘spin’, νῆτρον ‘spindle’ (Suid.). Vessels Names of vessels are also frequent in Linear A. 1. Vladimir I. Georgiev (1958) underlined a key role of the ‘vessel tablet’ (HT 31 in which possible names of vessels followed ideograms for vessels) in the decipherment of Linear A. i-ti-sa pu-ko *410VAS ( tripod cauldron, here and below are Younger’s signs and definitions): ἴτυς, ‘felloe’, ‘*round’ and *φώγον, cf. φώγανον ‘a vessel for roasting barley’ < φώγω ‘roast, toast, parch’, *402VAS+qa-pa3 ( conical vessel) : σκάφη ‘bowl’, *415VAS+su-pu ( jar without handles), cf. su-pu2 (HT 8), ka-ti su-pu2[ (HT 63): συπύη, σιπύη, σιπύα, ἰπύα ‘meal-tub’, *416VAS+ka-ro-pa3 ( jar with handles) : κάρδοπος, καρδόπη ‘wooden vessel’, sa-ja-ma *402VAS+su-pa3-ra : σῦφαρ ‘a piece of old or wrinkled skin’ or rather σφαῖρα ‘any globe’, *402VAS+pa-ta-qe, ‘and all’. 2. Other vessel names occur in many texts: ka-ti in ka-ti su-pu2[ (HT 63): Cret. hier. za-ti, Lin. B ka-ti; ka-di VINa (ideogram ‘wine’, ZA 15): κάδος, ‘jar or vessel for water or wine’, κάδιν, diminutive of the previous. Cf. ka-ti su-pu2[ (HT 63); however, if Lin. A d frequently corresponds to the Greek th then Arcadian κάθιδοι: ὑδρίαι (Hesych.) < *κάθις is the most preferable alphabetic Greek word to compare with this Lin. A form. 99 a-tu-ri-si-ti (KN Zb 5, handleless vase, GORILA IV: 76; PM I fig. 416, MM III B context): *ἀ-δωλ-ίστ-ης ‘vessel without handles’ : Cretan δῶλα ‘ears’ (Hesych.) rather than ἀθυρεύεσθαι ‘to mix, properly of liquids’ or ἄτριστος ‘stiff’. wa-pi-ti-na-ra2 (PH Zb 5, pithos) = wa-pi-ti-*te-ra2 : *gwaptisteria : βαπτιστήριον, ‘swimming-bath’. Lin. A had no special signs for labiovelar consonants! u-ta-ro (HT 116) : ὑδρίον ‘vessel’ (?). mi-da-ra (PK Zb 25, jar) : μέτρα ‘measures’, pl. < μέτρον ‘measure’. mi-ki-se-na (of vessels – VAS as a headline, HT 26) : *μιξ-οίνη ‘mixed wine’ < μιξ‘mixing, mixed’, οἴνη ‘vine, wine’ (for mixing of wine?), u-nu-qif (of vessels – VAS as a headline, HT 26) : ὀνύχιος ‘of onyx’ (Adj.) or οἰνοχόη ‘vessel for taking wine from the mixing-bowl (κρατήρ) and pouring it into the cups’. nu-ro (KAM Zb 1, jug) : νηρός, νηρόν, Modern Greek νερό ‘water’, cf. *nouoro- > Arm. nor ‘new’ (Jahukyan 226-227). Yoke, wheel and vehicle These object are reflected in syllabary only. Lin. B ha (yoke), probably = Linear A sign A 305 (GORILA 5: XXII): Greek ἁρμός, ‘joint’, ἅρμα ‘chariot, yoked chariot’, ἁρμή ‘junction, fitting together’ related with Old Slavonic iarĭmŭ ‘yoke’ < Indo-European. Lin. AB qe (wheel): πέλω < Indo-European *kuel-, ‘turn’; κύκλος, ‘wheel’ < IndoEuropean *kuekulos. Lin. AB ka (wheel): Greek (Thessal.) καπάνη, ‘chariot’, cf. also ἀπήνη, ‘fourwheeled wagon’, later ‘car’ or ‘chariot’ (of possible Semitic origin: Hebrew ophan, ‘wheel’ < aphan, ‘to revolve, turn’). Implements Hier., Lin. A, B ta (scale): τάλαντον, ‘balance’, pl. τάλαντα, ‘pair of scale’ < IndoEuropean. 5. Distribution and exchange Food distribution The food list (HT 90: cereals, figs, oil, as ideograms evidence) contains two subheadlines. If the first sub-headline i-ku-ri-na includes GRA 20, FIC 10, OLE 3 then the second sub-headline si-ru-ma-ri-ta includes only GRA 1, FIC 1, OLE 1. There are ‘big norm’ and ‘small norm’, cf. 1) ἔκρινα ‘I (have) separated’ (1 st sg. aor. ind. act. < κρίνω ‘separate’) and 2) *ψιλο-μεριτία ‘small norm’ < ψιλός ‘mere, simple’ and μεριτεία, μεριτία ‘division (of property)’. Lin. A ki-ra … ka-i-ro (ZA 8), Lin. A ka-ru (HT 97, a headline) : καιρός ‘due measure’. Lin. A ka-pa (a headline) da-ta-ra (HT 6) : δαιτρά (nom. plur.) from δαιτρόν ‘portion’, perhaps in the context of *καρπά. δαιτρά (neut. pl. *καρπόν, alphabetical 100 Greek καρπός ‘fruit’). This word-group correspond to a word καρποδαισται in the Gortynian laws (IC IV 77; Nagy 1965: 300–303). Alternatively, the context da-ta-ra te FIG might point to the name of figs, cf. δάκτυλος, pl. δάκτυλα, ‘date’, ‘grape’. Lin. A da-tu (HT 123+124, after the mention of ‘wine’): δαίς, gen. δαιτός ‘meal’. Cf. da-i (HT 12). Lin. A da-ju-te (HT 34, the first word) might reflect the same. Lin. A ta-i-*123 = ta-i-AROM (Younger 1) = ta-i-ἄρωμα : δαϊλμός ‘division’. Lin. A da-ro-pa *403VAS 1 SUS 1 OVIS 3 [...] (HT 38, a food norm?): δροπ-ίσκ-ος, ‘flower-basket’ (Hesych.) or rather τροφή ‘food’ (< *θρόφα, cf. τροφός ‘feeder, nurse’, τρόφις ‘well-fed’, θρέμμα ‘nursling’, τρέφω ‘thicken’, aor. θρέψα, θρόμβος ‘lump’, Russ. droba ‘dregs’, Engl. draff, drivel, Germ. Treber < Proto-Germ. *drabiz- ‘dregs’ < PIE *dh rebh - / *dh robh -, Beekes, 1505-1506; Kroonen 2013: 98-99; Vasmer, s. v. droba); Accounting and exchange Lin. A ku-ra ‘sum’ (ZA 20), ‘looks like a totaling word’ (Younger 10) : κυρία ‘possession’, ‘authority, power’, also fem. of κύριος ‘having power’ Lin. A ku-ro ‘sum’ : Greek κῦρος ‘supreme power’, κύριος ‘decisive, supreme’ (Thessal. κῦρρος), κυρίως ‘precisely, exactly’, κυρόω ‘accomplish one’s end’ (λόγῳ κυροῦται τὰ πάντα, Pl. Grg. 451c) (Mosenkis 1999: 3; Mosenkis 1999a); cf. Latin summa < summus, superlative of superus ‘upper, higher’ (Latin semantical parallel is proposed by Evhen K. Chernukhin, pers. comm.); cf. also κύρω ‘obtain; reach’, κύρμα ‘that which one meets with or finds’. Independently, Enrica Patria points to another meaning of aforementioned Greek word, κῦρος ‘confirmation’ (Patria 2011). Cf. Lin. B ku-ro2, ku-ro2-jo. Lin. A ki-ro : χρέος, ‘debt’, cf. χρή, χρῆ ‘it is necessary’. There are significant combinatorical evidence of ki-ro ‘debt’ : χρέος, ‘debt’. A locus communus among many ‘arguments’ against the Greekness of Linear A is: Lin. A ki-ro ‘debt’ is different from Lin. B o-pe-ro ‘debt’. However, cf. ὀφείλουσι τὰ χρέα (Isocr. Against Euthynus 21.13), ὀφειλόντων χρέα (Plut. Camillus 36), χρεῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας (Plut. Cleomenes 10), ὀφείλων δημόσιον χρέος (Plut. Sulla 37), χρέος, ὤφειλε (Plut. Caesar 48), χρέος ὀφέλλεσθαι (Plut. De defectu oraculorum 3), χρέος ὀφειλόμενον (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 12.43), χρέος ὀφείληται (Aristides, Orationes 38 Aelius, Jebb p. 484). There is a clear evidence of the link between Lin. A ki-ro ‘debt’ and Lin. B o-pe-ro ‘debt’. Lin. A ku-ro … ki-ro … ke-ki-ru … ku-ro (HT 94): ke-ki-ru ≈ κεχρημένος ‘needy’, see also ki-ki-ra-ja (HT 85). But cf. also κέγχρος ‘millet’ (above). Lin. A ki-ra (HT 103, ZA 8) : χρή ‘it is necessary, it must needs’. Lin. A a-ki-ro (ARKH 4) : ἄχρεος ‘useless’. Lin. A i-ka (a headline of HT 91) : ἔσχα, aor. < ἔχω ‘have, hold, possess’. Thus, two key Linear A words may be interpreted in Greek: Linear A ku-ro ‘sum’ = Greek κυρίως (adv. of κύριος ‘a lord, master’) ‘completely, entirely, wholly’ and Linear A ki-ro ‘deficit’ : Greek χρέος ‘debt’. However, cf. also κόρος ‘satiety, surfeit’, opp. χρησμοσύνη ‘need’ (Heraclit. 65): Lin. A opposition ku-ro : ki-ro correlates with Heraclitus’ semantic opposition! 101 2. Lin. A pa-pa before the number (PM I: 621; Pini 1989: XIV) : πάμπαν ‘wholly, altogether’ (Georgiev 1981: 94; Tsikritsis 2001: 132-133). 3. Lin. A pa-, pa-ta : Greek πᾶν, πάντα. pa-se ‘sum’ (HT 18, HT 27) : πᾶς (masc.) ‘all’ rather than πᾶσα, Cret. πάνσα (fem.) ‘all’. pa-ta-qe ‘sum’ (HT 31) : πάντα (pl. neut. nom.) ‘all’ and -qe = Lin. B –qe (Georgiev 1958: 81-82, 86). pa ‘sum’ (TY 3) : πᾶς (masc.), πᾶν (neut.) ‘all’. 4. Lin. A po-to-ku-ro ‘total sum’ (‘"grand total" (Palmer 1995; Schoep 2002, 163)’, Younger 10; Tochar. A, B ponto- ‘all’, Georgiev 1955: 274; Peruzzi 1960: 26) : παντακύριος ‘all-supreme’. ku-ro 31 … ku-ro 65 … po-to-ku-ro 97 (HT 122), po-to-ku-ro (HT 131). The form and meaning of the Greek word παντακύριος points to the exact meaning and etymology of ku-ro. 6. What from Minoan economy is absent in Linear A? No mentions of milk, cheese, honey were found in Linear A. Fishing was archaeologically attested in Minoan Crete, but fishermen represented poor, low part of the community (Riley 1997: 105-106, cited Gallant 1985: 43), and then this type of food is not attested in Linear A as well as in Linear B (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 74). Beer is not mentioned in Lin. B, and John Chadwick criticized Arthur Evans for his idea of the Minoans as consumes of beer (Chadwick 1967/1976: 222). However, beer is mentioned in Lin. A. Horses are not mentioned, except the Cretan town name ‘without horses’, if its reading is correct, but two word might mean ‘cavalry’ (see below). Metals (not only copper / bronze and tin but also gold and silver) are totally absent. Building activity (except city-names and wa-tu- / wa-sa-to ‘(unfortified) city’) is also not mentioned. 102 Chapter 3. GREEK SOCIETY IN LINEAR A 1. Cities 1. Minoan urbanism At the turn of the second millennium BC the society of Minoan Crete underwent considerable changes. Diversification and improvement of agriculture, population explosion, and an increase in trade produced, in the terminology of C. Renfrew, a "multiplier effect"' which resulted in a fully urban culture. (Marinatos 1993: 38) ‘Minoan urbanism’ and ‘Minoan urbanisation’ are commonly accepted presentday terms (Branigan 2001: 38; Whitelaw 2001:15, 27). ‘Early in the second millennium B.C., Crete was the scene of an urban revolution [...]’ (Hutchinson 1962: 161). The Minoan urbanization process began in the Old Palaces period (Branigan 1972) and developed in the next New Palaces period, i. e. MM II – LM I–II (Andreev 1989: 119) – Crete in the Neopalatial period was ‘surprisingly urbanized’ (Younger, Rehak 2010: 141). The start of the Aegean urbanization in general is dated to the third millennium BC when Poliochne on Lemnos and Therme on Lesbos flourished (Andreev 1989: 219). Aegean proto-urban communities emerged during the third millennium BC (Marthari 1994: 34). But the transformation of ‘proto-city’ in a classical city, centered by the palace complex (a hotbed of social stratification), occurred namely in Crete (Andreev 1989: 220). Arthur Evans estimated the population of Cretan capital Knossos and its port about 100 000 persons (PM II: 562-564), but recent estimations are much more poor (Branigan 2001: 47-48). Protopalatial Knossos was peopled by 11 000–18 000 persons (Whitelaw 1983: 339). In comparison, C. Renftew estimates population of Crete in the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages as 75 000, 214 000 and 256 000 persons respectively (Renfrew 1972: 251). In the Greek mythologized historical tradition, Minos was a founder of Knossos, Phaistos, and Kydonia (Diod. 5.78.2). Arkadii A. Molchanov suggested the unbroken development of Cretan cities, which started from the Early Minoan I period, under their historically attested names (Molchanov, Neroznak, Sharypkin 1988: 62) which are Greek. Many Cretan towns were found in the EM II period (Andreev 1989: 66), but ‘The key center of Knossos remains at present the only known major settlement site on the island through the fifth millennium BCE [...]’ (Manning 2010: 107). There is no question of an invasion of Crete by a foreign population, since the cultures of the EM III and MM I periods develop smoothly from that of EM II, but some sort of centralization of political power may have been taking place within Crete during the last century or two of the Early Bronze Age. (Rutter Lesson 5) 103 Thus, main Cretan cities might bear their Greek names since the early third m. BC! 2. Planned urbanization in names Names of principal Cretan cities represent the same system. Cretan city Φαιστός < *φαF-ιστ-ος ‘the most lighted’ (< φάFος ‘light’, Georgiev 1958: 104-105). Cretan capital Κνωσός / Κνωσσός (‘urbis notissimae’ – IC 1.45) < γνωστός / γνωτός ‘known’ (g/k in Linear A, B and Ancient Macedonian; cf. Latin Gnossus). Cretan city Κυδωνία (Lin. А ku-zu-ni, zu /djo/, former reading ku-do-ni) < κῦδος ‘glory’ (more exactly, ‘divine power’, by Emile Benvenist’s explanation), κυδάνω ‘exalt, to be triumphant’, κυδαίνω ‘give honour’ (Georgiev 1949: 46). The Cydonians were a distinct tribe (Od. 19.171-175) of western Crete (Strab. 10.475), possibly akin to the Aeolians (Graves Myths: Minos). Καῦδος / Γαῦδος / Καῦδα island near Phaistos (Lin. А HT 13 ka-u-de-ta : *Καῦδηda(n) ‘from’) < γα(F)ίω ‘rejoice, exult’. The contents of the HT 13 tablet is: ‘from the Cauda (island): wine (and) cloth for (list of towns)’. Cf. ka-u-zu-ni (HT 26) in the context of wine. Κρήτη < κράτος ‘strength, might, power, authority, victory’. Aristotle in his Politics stated that Crete was created to rule over Greece. Thus, we have the ‘mighty’ island, its ‘famous’ capital, ‘brightest’ main port, ‘glorious’ center of a distinct western tribe, and ‘exulted’ islet near the island. Gennadii M. Kazakevych (pers. comm.) underlines a role of planned colonization of the island in the formation of such similar names. Already Arthur Evans suggested simultaneous usage of the same stereotype model in different regions of the island (PM II.1: 269). This idea is confirmed by archaeological data. Four main palaces of the Neopalatial period (Knossos, Phaistos, Mallia, and Kato Zakro) had very similar structure as an evidence of Knossos-centered unified state (Andreev 1989: 123-125, 132-133; Graham 1972: 224-236; cf. Hutchinson 1950) – see their four plans (Younger, Rehak 2010: 145). ‘Architectural planning develops to heights unprecedented in Crete [...]’ (Hutchinson 1962: 162). Thus, the same architectural plan of the new palaces (from ~1700 BC) might correlate not only with the unified state but also with the unified plan of naming. Then, Minoan unified state of the Neopalatial period might be Greek-spoken, as the names of key Minoan cities evidenced. Lin. A wa-sa-to-, wa-tu- : (F)ἄστυ (below) reflect unfortified town, in contrast to fortified one (πόλις), absent in Linear A. 3. Lists of towns 1. During the Late Bronze Age, there were 284 settlements in Crete (Renfrew 1972: 232). Later, Homer knew 90 or 100 Cretan towns (Il. 2.649, in the list of seven Cretan towns; Od. 19.174). 104 More than a hundred names of Cretan towns are alphabetically attested (IC I-IV; Faure 1960; Vasillakis; Semenoff 1894). A list of Cretan (k-f-tj-w) and Mainland (tj-n;-jj-w) towns is preserved in an Egyptian document of the Amenhotep III time (early XIV c. BC). Alongside Crete (five names) and Mainland Greece (four names), also Kythera (k;-tj-i-r;) and TroyIlion (w;-jw-r-jj-i) are mentioned, and Ionia (yw-ny-‘;) is mentioned in another list (Duhoux 2008). These toponyms demonstrate 1) an early XIV-century BC Greek territory, including Crete, Mainland Greece, Ionia, and Troy (!), and 2) the Egyptian influence on Linear A (sic!) orthography (cf. Lin. A ri-ka-ta, Egypt. ri-k;-tj [rikati], in contrast to Lin. B ru-ki-to /Luktos/, Λύκτος). In contrast, a little number of Cretan towns were mentioned in Linear B. In Linear A, only several words (pa-i-to, su-ki-ri-ta, se-to-i-ja and, possibly, ku-ni-su) are interpreted as toponyms (Younger, Rehak 2008: 151–152). 2. Main principles to identify toponyms in Linear A are: a) their similarity to toponyms in Linear B (Lin. A pa-i-to : Lin. B pa-i-to); b) their occurrence alongside other, previously identified toponyms (ka-nu-ti, ma-di in the same list with pa-i-to); c) the place name position in the ‘Libation Formula’ (i-na-ta-, se-to-i-ja, tu-ru-sa); d) similarity with alphabetically attested names of Cretan towns (this principle was used only additionally, after combinatorical identification of toponymical lists). E. g., in the tablet HT 97 pa-i-to (identical with Lin. B pa-i-to : Φαιστός) is preceded by ka-nu-ti : Κνωσσός < γνωστός ‘known’ (cf. Armenian canot’ ‘known’). Other names in this list are: di : Δῖον (the name after: Semenoff 1894: 36), na-ti : Ἴνατος, ma-di : Μώδα (this form: Semenoff 1894: 37) or Μωδαῖοι (this form after: Faure 1960: 232, 238; Linear A had no sign for mo), ju : Ἰυτός, ki : Κίσ-σαμος, zu or do : Δούλον (Mosenkis 2001: 17). A complete translation of this list might be proposed: ka-nu-ti pai-to na-ti ma-di : *Γνώστιοι *Φαίστιοι *Ἰνάτιοι Μωδαῖοι etc. (nominations of citizens in pl.). In this way, other lists of Cretan towns were identified in Linear A: HT 6, HT 13, HT 85, HT 93, HT 118, HT 120, HT 122, PH 6, PH 28, PH (?) 31. 3. A list of suggested Linear A towns (using an abbreviation CT ‘Cretan town’), with Linear B and alphabetical Greek parallels, and etymological notes, I propose below. a-mi-da-o (PH (?) 31), ja-mi-da-re (HT 122) : (??) Ἀμύκλαιον (CT). a-ri (PH 6), a-ri-ja[ (PH 28), a-ri-su (HT 118) : Lin. B a-ri-ja-wo (KN NV) : Ἀριαῖοι (CT < Indo-European); cf. Ἀρι-άδνη. a-se (HT 93), Adj. a-se-ja (HT 115), a-si-ja-ka (HT 28) : Lin. B a-si-wi-ja (epithet of Potnia, PY), a-si-wi-jo (male name, KN, PY, MY) : Ἄσος (CT). da-ki (HT 6) : 1) Θήβη < *T ēgwē (CT), Lin. B te-qa-de (MY) /T ēguans-de/; Egypt. (early XIV c. BC) or 2) Τεγεά Egypt. D;k;j;s /Dakajas/ ‘Tegea’. da-me (HT 120) : Ραμνή / Ραμνούς (CT), cf. du-da-ma, da-si-*ta (below). da-re (HT 85) : Τάρρα (CT, also in Lydia, St. Byz. s. v.; IC II.305). 105 da-ri-da (HT 85, 1st in the list; HT 93) : Lin. B ti-ri-to (KN NL Tritos?), ti-ri-ti-ja/-jo (KN ethn. adj. NL ti-ri-to) : Τρίτα ‘another name of Knossos’, lit. ‘the third (fem.)’. If d : th in this case and da-ri-da : *Θρίτα, cf. θρί-αμβος ‘two-step’, διθύρ-αμβος ‘fourstep’. da-si-118(-ta) (HT 85; Lin. A sign 118 ‘scales’ : Lin. A, B ta < τάλαντον ‘scales’) : Lin. B ra-su-to (KN NL), Adj. ra-su-ti-jo (KN NV?) : alphabetically unattested Λάσυ(ν)θος (Adrados 2: 225-226; Woudhuizen 2006, 2: 99), a Lyttian (from Cretan city Λύκτος / Λύττος) tribal name Lasynthioi : δασύτης ‘roughness, hairiness (of land)’, λάσιος ‘bushy’. da-ta-ra (HT 6) : Δαίδαλα (CT), Lin. B da-da-re-jo-de /daidaleion-de/ ‘in the sanctuary of Daedalus’ : Δαίδαλος ‘Daedalus’. da-u-49 (zu = kju) (HT 120) : Ραῦκος (CT), perhaps Raikios ‘citizen of Raikos’. di (HT 97) : Δῖον (CT). do (HT 97), (?) da-qe-ra (HT 6) /dohela/ (?) : Δούλον πόλις, Δουλόπολις (CT), Lin. B do-e-ra ‘female slave’ (fem. πόλις). du-da-ma (HT 6), cf. te-tu (HT 13), te-tu[ (HT 85), also Lin. A (not a city-name in this case!) da-du-mi-ne (KN Zf 31) : τιθήμενος ‘dedicated’ < *θη-θή-μν-ος, fem. *θη-θή-μνα (fem. πόλις) or even *θη-θή-μν-α > (?) Ρί-θυ-μν-α. du-pa3-na (HT 115) : *Θήβαινα ‘female citizen of Thebes’, cf. λέαινα 'lioness', λύκαινα ‘she-wolf’. i-du-ne-si (HT 13) : Ἐλτυνία (CT, gen. sg. vs adj. dat. pl.?) i-na-ta- (IO Za 6), na-ti (HT 97) : Lin. B wi-na-to : Εἴνατος (CT, the most frequent form), Ἴνατος, Inata (Tab. Peuting.) (IC I.98) i-na-wa (PH 6) : Lin. B a3(ai)-ni-jo (KN NV) : Αἴνα, Αἰνάων (CT) < αἰνέω ‘glorify’, cf. etym. of Knossos, Cydonia. ja-ki-pa3[ (PH 28) /ahipai/ : Ἀἴπεια (CT, kw already > p not only in Lin. B but also in Lin. A?!), cf. Lin. B i-po(-po-qo-i) /hippo-phorguoihi/ (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 93; Molchanov etc. 1988: 139). ka-nu-ti (HT 97) : Lin. В ko-no-so : Κνωσσός (Mosenkis 1999: 4); Armenian canot’ ‘known’ or only γνωστός ‘known’, γνώστης ‘one that knows’? ki (HT 97) : Κίσ-σαμος (CT, IG II.348). ki-re-ta-na (HT 120) : *Ὑρτήνη, cf. Ὑρταῖοι / Ὓρτακος / Ὑρτακίνα (like Γόρτυνα < *gurt-wana ‘place of fortress’ < Hitt. gurta- ‘fortress’, wana- ‘place’) vs (?) Γόρτυνα vs (??) Χερσόνησος. Cf. Lin. A ki-re-ta2(tia) (HT 85) : Ὑρταῖοι vs Κρηταῖος ‘Cretan’. ku-da (HT 122), ku-ta[ (HT 115) : Lin. B ku-ta-to (KN NL: Kutaiton?) : Κύτα, Κύταιον (CT < Hitt. kutt- ‘outer walls’); cf. *Κυταίς, gen. *Κυταίδος : Georg. Kuta-isi. ku-pa3-nu (HT 122) : Κύρβας, gen. Κύρβαντος (CT, see the next city-name). Thus, Lin. A pa3 is ba, cf. Lin. A pa3-ni-na (HT 6), pa3-ni (HT 85, the second name in the list) : Βιάννος (CT). ku-zu-ni (HT 13, HT 85), (?) ki-di-ni (HT 93) : Lin. B ku-do-ni-ja, Κυδωνία (CT), Κύδωνες ‘a tribe in the northwest of Crete’; zu /dju/, cf. κυδίων ‘nobler’. For Lin. A i : Greek ω, cf. ma-ri-*ne-i : Μαρώνεια below: perhaps, ω > u > i. 106 ma-di (HT 97; PH (?) 31) : (?) Lin. B ma-di, ma-di-jo, mo-da (Adrados 1: 456 KN NV) : Μώδα (Semenoff 1894: 37) or Μωδαῖοι (Faure 1960: 232, 238). Cf. Modhi as a modern name of conical mount (Hutchinson 1962: 202), IE *mōd- > Armen. mawt ‘close’ (Jahukyan 74, 247). Lin. A had no sign for mo. ma-ri-re-i (HT 6) : Mallei (?!) or rather ma-ri-*ne-i (re and ne are very similar) : Lin. B ma-ri-ne-wo wo-i-ko-de ‘to the temple of Marineus’ : Μαρώνεια, a Thracian town with the same name Μαρώνεια was ruled by a Cretan (Diod. 5.79.2). Cf. also Μαρώνι, a village in Cyprus, existed since the Middle Bronze Age. o-ra2-di-ne (HT 6) : Ἐλεύθερνα (CT) rather than Ἐλτυνία (but cf. i-du-ne-si) or Γόρτυνα (IC IV.14). Homer named the latter ‘high-walled’ (Γόρτυνά τε τειχιόεσσαν, Il. 2.646). o-ti-ro (HT 93) or o-*ku-ro : Ogylos ‘an island between the Peloponnese and Crete’ (St. Byz.) or rather o-*re/ru-ro : Ὤλερος (CT). pa-i-to (HT 97, HT 120, HT 122) : Lin. В pa-i-to : Φαιστός (CT). pa-ra-ne (HT 115) : Priansos vs Pronos. pa-ta-da[ (PH (?) 31), pa-ta-da du-pu2-re[ (HT Zb 160) : (?) πεδιάς, gen. πεδιάδος ‘on the plain’ vs *Φαιστια-δα(ν) (it is the inscription from Phaistos). pa-ta-ne (HT 122) : *Φαιστιαν vs (?) *Putna : Hieraputna / Hierapetra (CT). From *putna / πέτρα ‘rock, stone’ alternation, one might consider Cretan putna ‘stone’; cf. also πύνδαξ and πυθμήν ‘bottom of vessel’, Sanskrit ud nás ‘bottom, base’, Lat. fundus, Old English botm. pa3-ni-na (HT 6), pa3-ni (HT 85) : Βιάννος / *Βιάννα / *Βιάννη (CT). Cf. Lin. B pa-jani anthr. fem. nom. (Adrados 2: 68)? pi-ta-ja (HT 6) or *e-ta-ja (pi and e are very similar) : Ἠτεία (CT). qa-qa-ru (HT 93, HT 118, HT 122) or *za-qa-ru (qa and za are very similar) : Ζάκρος (CT < ζάκορος?). ra-ti-se : Ellotis ‘another name of Gortyn’ (St. Byz.). re-di-se (HT 85) : Ρυτιασσός (CT); cf. Lin. B ru-ta2 /rutia/ (KN NV). re-za (HT 13) : Ριζηνία / Ριττήν / *Ριζήν (CT). ri-ka-ta (HT 146) : Lin. B ru-ki-to (KN NL /Luktos/), Egypt. ri-k;-tj /rikati/ (another form vs Egyptian orthographic influence?), Λύκτος (CT); possibly linked with Lycia, cf. a legend of Cretan origin of the Lycians. Lin. A ri-qe-ti-a-sa-sa-ra-*325(me?) (PO Zc 1, Poros Herakleiou near Lyktos, the latest Linear A inscription – Younger) : Λυκτοί ‘citizens of Lyktos (are purified)’. ri-ru-ma (HT 118), ri-ru-ma-ti (PH (?) 31, both forms appears in the lists of cities) : ἐλελύμην (pluperfect middle/passive 1 st sg.) / ἐλελύμεθα (pluperfect middle/passive 1st pl.) < λύω ‘release’. Cret. hier. ru-ro-ma-sa (SM I.154): another name of Ἐλευθέρα / Ἐλευθεραί / Ἐλεύθερνα (CT) which means ‘free’ (?). ri-ta-ma-(nu-wi), ri-su-ma-(nu) (HT 115) : Rhetymna, Rhethymnon. sa-ma (HT 6) : Κίσ(σ)αμος (CT) or rather Ἀνώ-πολις (CT), lit. ‘high city’, cf. σάμος ‘a height’ (Strab. 8.3.19, 10.2.17). Cf. (?) Lin. B sa-ma-da (KN NL seu NV). se-to-i-ja (PR Za 1) : Lin. B se-to-i-ja : Σηταία (CT), o / a cf. Lin. A po-to- : Greek panta- ‘all’. 107 si-da-re (HT 122) : *Σταλη, Στᾶλαι / Στῆλαι (CT), cf. si-da-ro (GO 2) su-ki-ri-ta (PH Wa 32), Adj. su-ki-ri-te-i-ja (HT Zb 158) : Lin. B su-ki-ri-ta (KN NL /Sugrita/), su-ki-ri-ta-jo (KN Adj. /Sugritaios/) : Σύβριτα, Adj. Συβρίτιος (CT, IG II.289–290). Cf. se-ku-tu (HT 115) : Sibyrtos (?). te-ki (HT 13) : Τεγεά (CT), cf. Lin. A da-ki (above). te-ri (PH (?) 31) : (?) Δρῆρος (CT). ti-nu-ja (HT 115) : Thenai, Thenes, adj. Thenaia (St. Byz.). tu-ru-sa (KO Za 1) : *Τύλισια (adj. fem.) : Lin. B tu-ri-so (KN NL /Tulisos/), Adj. turi-si-jo/-ja : Τύλισος (CT), cf. Etruscan tul ‘stone’. wa-du-ni-mi (HT 6) : *ἁδ-ονυμος ‘of sweet (pleasant) name’ < ἡδύς, Dor. ἁδύς, Boeot. Fαδ-, Elean βαδύς (cf. Georgiev 1958: 85) rather than βαθύκνημος ‘with high mountain-spurs’. Cf. Cret. τᾶι Ἀθάναι Fαδίαι = to Βριτόμαρτις (IC II.312–313, cf. Paus. 5.3.2). Is it another name of Ἄμπελος (CT) ‘grape’? Thus, more than forty Linear A words on eleven tablets might be interpreted as Cretan town-names, collected in eleven town-lists. 2. City-administration 1. Prime-elder of city Lin. A (Cophinas town) a-ra-ko-ku-zu-wa-sa-to-ma-ro-au-ta-de-po-ni-za might be interpreted in relation to city-authority: 1. a-ra-ko-ku-zua-ra-ko- : ἀρχός ‘leader, chief’: ἀρχὸς ἀνήρ (Il. 1.144), ἀρχός πόλεως ‘ruler of city’ (Prob. in Eur. Fr. 1014); (o)-ku-zu- : ὠγύγιος ‘primeval’. Less acceptable ἀγωγός, ἀγωγεύς, ‘leading’, ‘guide’, also ἀρχαγέτας, ἀρχηγέτης, ‘founder of a city’, ‘Spartan king’; ἀρχηγέτις, a title of Athena; ἀρχαγός, ἀρχηγός, ‘a god of city’ (Plat. Tim. 21e), cf. ἀρχός ἀγωγός, ἀγωγεύς ‘chief leader’. Thus, a-ra-ko-ku-zu- : *ἀρχ-ωγύγιος ‘the supreme eldest’. 2. -wa-sa-to-ma-ro-wa-sa-to- : Fαστός ‘citizen’, Ἀστός ‘epithet of Κόρη’ (< Fάστυ ‘town’). Cf. Eteocypriot a-sa-to-wa-na-ka- and a-ra-to-wa-na-ka- < Aristowanax (Duhoux 2009: 4446); -ma-ro- : Lin. B ku-da-ma-ro, wi-da-ma-ro, wi-ja-ma-ro, ma-ro, ma-ro-ne anthr. masc., εὐ-μάρων (Adrados 1: 398, 2: 427, 429), ἐγχεσί-μωρος ‘fighting with the spear’, (F)ἰόμωρος < PIE *meh1-ro- ‘great’ (the 2nd member of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic names) (Beekes 372; Hofmann 68). Cf. Μάρων, a name of Thracian priest at Ismarus (Od. 9.197-200) whereas Vladimir I. Georgiev interpreted Ἴσμαρος as ‘settlement (Alb. vis ‘place’, Old Ind. viś- ‘house’, Avest. vīš ‘house, village, clan’) the great (Dac. > Rom. mare ‘great’, Gaulish -maros, Germanic -mar ‘famous’ as in Waldemar)’ (Georgiev 1972: 8), -μαρος in Thracian names (Georgiev 1957: 62); Lemn. μαραζ : Etr. maru, marun-, Umbr. maru, Latin maro (in P. Vergilius Maro) ‘a magistrate’ : Lyc. marazi ‘judge’ 108 (Braun: 15) or maraza < mara, mere, ‘law’ (Bryce 1986: 136). Also: 1) Lin. B mo-ro-qa ‘official, magistrate’ (where qa might be ‘posess’, Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 129); 2) μάρη ‘hand’, μάρπτω ‘take hold of’, μάρπτις ‘seizer’; the root forms a verb in Linear B. Βριτόμαρτις (Cretan Artemide) is compared to μάρπτω, ‘take hold of’ with IndoEuropean parallels (Kaczyńska 2004: 71, 73), but cf. also Assyrian mārtu, mārti‘daughter, girl’ (Gordon 2009), Proto-Semitic *marʔ- ‘son; lord’ (‘lord’ only in Aramaic), Μάρνας, name of Zeus at Gaza (St. Byz.). However, the feminine suffix (Proto-Semitic *marʔ-at-, ‘woman’) is absent in Lin. A ma-ru, and vocalism is also different. Cf. also Cretan μαρνά ‘virgin’ (St. Byz., s. v. Γάζα). Cf. Lin. A wa-tu-ma-re GRA (HT 128), Cret. hier. wa-sa-ma-ro on the four-sided prism (#294, picture: Karnava 1999: 234) which is the longest Cret. hier. text. Thus, it might be a title of a city official, like ‘judge’, ‘priest’, or rather ‘holder’: -wa-sa-to-ma-ro- : *(F)ἀστυ-μωρος vs Fάστιος μάρων ‘priest / judge / holder of the town’, cf. ἀστυάναξ ‘lord of the city’, epithet of certain gods (Aesch. Suppliant Women 1018) and a name of the throne descendant in Troy, and especially ἀστυόχος ‘protecting the city’ and the Lin. B name wa-tu-o-ko (Ventris, Chadwick 1956: 98), Homeric personal female names Ἀστυόχη, Ἀστυόχεια; πολιοῦχος Ἀθάνα (Aristoph. Clouds 595), Ὦ πολιοῦχε Παλλάς (Aristoph. Knights 581), Ἀθηναίης πολιούχου (Hdt. 1.160), ὦ πολιάοχε Παλλάς (Pind. Olymp. 5); ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀθήνησιν ἀστυνόμων (Diog. Laert. 6.5), cf. (Lurie 1957a: 303-307). The structure is similar to Aeolian Λεσβῶναξ and Phrygian modrovanak (king of the Bithynian city of Modra). 3. -au-ta-de-po-ni-za -au-ta- : αὐτᾶς (gen. sg.) < αὐτή ‘self, alone’, a common Greek-Phrygian word, cf. Lin. B au-to, au-ta2; -de-po-ni-za : *δεσποινικίας (gen. sg.) < *δεσποινικία (za /kja/ in Linear B) < δεσποινικός ‘belonging to the household’ from δέσποινα ‘mistress, princess, queen, goddess‘. It is an epithet / title of Arete, Medea, Hecate, Artemide, Demeter, Persephone, Cybele etc. Cf. δέσποιν᾽ ἁπασῶν, πότνι᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλι (Com. Adesp. 340.1), δεσποίνῃ Ἀθηναίᾳ τῇ τῆς πόλεως μεδεούσῃ (Aristoph. Knights 763), πότνια δέσποιν᾽ Ἀθηναία ποιῶν ἀπόλωλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος κἀν δέοντι τῇ πόλει (Aristoph. Peace 250), δέσποιν᾽ Ἀθάνα (Eurip. Rhesus 595, Suppliants 1196), δέσποινα Πολιάς (Athena, Plut. Demosthenes 26). Despoina might be an equivalent of Mycenaean Potnia, closely related to wanax. Lin. B do-po-ta ‘god’s name or epithet’. Despoina was an Arcadian goddess, Demeter’s daughter (Paus. 8.25.7, 8.42.1). Similarly to Despoina < *Demspotnia ‘House-mistress’, Demeter might also be < PIE *dems-mater ‘mother of the house’ (H. Frisk). Demeter and Persephone were called Δέσποιναι at Olympia, in possible relation to Lin. B wa-na-so-i, ‘two queens’. Thus, -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : αὐτάς *δεσποινικίας ‘(a city-state) of the Lady herself’, cf. αὐτοδεσπότης ‘absolute master’, αὐτοδεσποτεία ‘absolute rule’, οἰκοδέσποινα, ‘mistress of a family’. Cf. Lin. B qa-si-re-wi-ja (KN, PY) ‘palace of gwasileus’. Perhaps, the goddess considered a divine city-protector(ess). 109 Therefore, a-ra-ko-ku-zu-wa-sa-to-ma-ro-au-ta-de-po-ni-za : *ἀρχ-ωγύγιος Fάστιος μάρων αὐτάς *δεσποινικίας ‘chief leader, city-judge (priest? lord?) of the Lady herself’ or ‘chief-leader, city-Lady, self-ruling’. The relations between a king and his divine protectoress might be transformed into a myth of Hera-cles (‘Hera’s glory’) and Hera who sent many difficulties to the hero for his initiation as a lawagetas. Young Cretan Zan and the Great Goddess might demonstrate the similar model. With the Great Goddess, therefore, a god is associated, either as son or lover, and is of a standing inferior to her own. The Egyptians make Isis the wife of Osiris and the mother of Horus. The Phoenicians place Adonis beside Ashtoreth. In Phrygia, Cybele is worshipped with Attis. (Glotz 2003: 252) He might be ‘a satellite god’ (Glotz 2003: 253), and the terrestrial rulers might imitate his position. The proposed interpretation corresponds with a hypothesis of the dualistic structure of authority in Minoan city (grounded on the excavations at Mallia): agora and ‘hypostyle crypta’ (agora and pritaneum in Classic Greece) neighbored to the palace (temple of a god the poliouchos ‘city-holder’ in Classic Greece) (Van Effenterre 1963; Van Effenterre, Trocme 1964; Van Effenterre 1980). Note that Athenian agora was not only political but also religious center (Martin 1951). In Mallia, agora functioned during the Old Palaces period (Van Effenterre H. et M. 1969: 143), whereas in the New Palaces period the ritual place of community was usurped by the palace central court (Andreev 1989: 135-136). The Lion-Goddess on the peak-sanctuary near the temple of horns 110 (pictures after: Pendlbury 1940/1950: 238) The intimate relationship between human dignitaries and supernatural powers characterizing the ritual of enacted epiphany we would attribute to those traits of the wanax ideology for which Palaima has assumed a transfer from Crete to the Greek Mainland. [...] The presumed Minoan roots of central elements of the wanax ideology do not only help to understand the reasons for the ‘invisibility’ of the rulers of both early Aegean palatial civilizations, but also why potnia, the main deity of the pantheon of the Mycenaean palatial period did not survive the dark ages. [...] We would attribute the decline of potnia to her position as the deity to whom the wanax was ritually attached and through whose power he gained an important part of his legitimacy. (Maran 2007: 290–292) It might be a development of the idea, reflected in Cretan hieroglyphs: a ruler, belonging to Despoina in Linear A, closely resembles a ruler, belonged to Potnia in Cretan hieroglyphs. 2. Elected city-ruler and priests Lin. A ja-su-ma-tu OLIV u-na-ka-na-si OLE (Syme town, SY Za 2) might denote the offering of olives to αἰσυμνητύς – the office (palace?!) of αἰσυμνήτης ‘judge’, ‘ruler chosen by the people, elective monarch’ (less acceptable reading αἰσυμνητήρ, Patria 2011: 30), and the offering of oil to ἐναρξάνσι ‘for him who began the offerings’ (aor. act. part. dat. pl.). Greek αἰσυμνήτης is a title of magistrates in Greek cities, compared with the Roman dictator (Dion. Halic. 5.73), cf. αἰσύμνιον, ‘council-chamber’ at Megara (Paus. 1.43.3). These then are two kinds of monarchy; while another is that which existed among the ancient Greeks, the type of rulers called aesymnetae. This, to put it simply, is an elective tyranny, and it differs from the monarchy that exists among barbarians not in governing without the guidance of law but only in not being hereditary (Arist. Pol. 1285a31, 1295a14, transl. H. Rackham). If this title is originated from Αἶσα (like Μοῖρα, the deity that dispenses among everyone its lot or destiny) then 1) the goddess might be a city-protector and 2) the way of a ruler’s election may be reconstructed (he might be elected by citizens or rather by a divine power). Perhaps, one can reconstruct *αἰσυ-μν-ος ‘chosen by the goddess’ (an archaic participle form, which then obtained a suffix of profession ήτης). Aisa in this case might be the same goddess as Despoina who protected the supreme elder of the city (see above). Summarizing, Lin. A ja-su-ma-tu OLIV, u-na-ka-na-si OLE : αἰσυμνητύι olives, *ἐναρξάνσι oil ‘to ruler’s office – olives, to them (priests?) who began the offerings – oil’. Alternatively, ja su-ma might mean ē Symē. 111 Young ruler accepts his part of power from a goddess (Mycenaean ring, Andreev 2002: 232) 3. Female city-head, female judge, admiral, and counsil: an unique documentary attested matriarchy at Minoan Phaistos The Phaistos tablet (PH 2) might contain the titles of high officials, who ruled this city (rather than personal names): a-se-tu-qi : ἀστυ-όχη ‘protector of the city’ (lit. ‘female city-holder’, a priestess?), cf. Lin. B NV wa-tu-o-ko, Classical Greek Athena Polias. Lin. A a-se-tu-qi (< ἀστυ- of IndoEuropean origin, Beekes 158) has no initial F-, in contrast to Lin. A wa-sa-to-, cf. Lin. B wa-tu-o-ko /wastuokhos/, Arcad. Fασστυοχō (gen.). Cf. Ἕκτωρ ‘holder’ (of Troy) and his son Ἀστυάναξ ‘city-king’ (titles?). Were the relations Priamus-Hector, LaertesOdysseus also reflected the wanaks-lawagetas model? Lin. A wa-sa-to-ma-ru-, wa-tu-mare, Cret. hier. wa-sa-ma-ro might mean the same (see above); ra-o-di-ki : Λαοδίκη (female; attested in alphabetical Greek as a personal name) ‘*judge’ rather than *military commander’ (cf. λαόδικος ‘tried by the people’; in Linear A, it is not a personal name, in contrast to Patria 2011; Lewyckyj 2013), cf. Lin. B second high official (possibly a military commander) ra-wa-ke-ta /law-agetas/ > λαγέτας; pi-ru-e-ju : *πλωεύς ‘admiral’ (Phaistos has a port!), cf. Lin. B NV e-u-po-ro-wo /Euplowos/, na-u-pi-ri-jo (place- or personal name, Adrados 1: 264, 466). He might be an equivalent of ναύαρχος in classical Greece, cf. an ‘admiral’ on the Theran frescoe, depicted a maritime expedition. Morphologically, cf. Lin. B ka-ma-e-u /kama-eus/ ‘land-owner’; se-sa-pa3 : *σέσαφαι (nom. pl.) ‘highest priests’ vs ‘council of sages’ vs ‘elders’ (?), cf. Σίσυφος ‘Sisyphus’ (a title of the king, ‘very clever’? an object of cult, Strab. 8.6.21), σέσυφος ‘πανοῦργος’ (Hesych.), σοφός, Doric συφός ‘clever’, σαφής, ‘clear, (esp. of seers, oracles, prophets) sure, unerring’, Hitt. šuppi-, ‘consecrated, pure, taboo’, Umbr. supa, sopa ‘consecrated meats’, Latin sapiens; Lin. A (KH 9) a-si-su-po-a VIR ‘not very clever’. Also ἐπίσσοφος (name of an annually changing official at Thera, Beekes: 1373): *σέσαφαι in Phaistos and ἐπίσσοφος in Thera might represent common tradition of city-administration. Cf. Lin. B (PY) ke-ro-si-ja : γερουσία ‘council of elders’, on the one hand, and Lin. B te-re-ta (‘priests’? Chadwick 1967/1976: 215), on the other hand. Alternatively : Hebr. shopheṭ, Punic šufeṭ, Ug. ṯapiṭ ‘judge’ (Sisyphus was the brother of Salmoneus < Proto-Semitic *šalām- ‘peace’). 112 Thus, one can translate Lin. A (Phaistos) a-se-tu-qi ra-o-di-ki pi-ru-e-ju se-sa-pa3 : ἀστυ-όχη, λαοδίκη, *πλωεύς, *σέσαφαι ‘female city-ruler, female judge, admiral, council of sages/priests’. Thus, there is an unique evidence of documentary attested (not legendary!) matriarchy / gynaecocracy. It was previously suggested grounding on the Minoan art evidence (Bogaevsky 1930; Andreev 1992). ‘[M]any scholars are convinced that Crete was a matriarchy, ruled by a queen-priestess’ (Rohrlich 1977: 36). Perhaps, the high position of Egyptian women (Kosven 1948: 302-307, refs.) might be a standard for Minoan Crete. However, in contrast to opinion of Marija Gimbutas and her followers, Minoan Matriarchy represented not pre-Indo-European ‘Old Europe’ (opposуd to later Indo-European patriarchy) but namely Indo-European Greek society. Subdued positions of two Cretan male gods (Zeus and Dionysus), reflected in Linear A, contrasted with a group of attested Minoan Greek female goddesses (Mother, Demeter, Despoina, Hestia, Eileithuia) which seem to be leading in Cretan pantheon. However, were the Phaistian high city officials goddesses or humans? (Cf. Lin. B wa-na-ka – a title of gods and sacral kings). An answer might be very simple and clear. One can see very strange distributions of (unatested) resources between four officials: a-se-tu-qif 1, ra-o-di-ki 60, pi-ru-e-ju 60, se-sa-pa3 60. The most likely, a-se-tu-qif is a goddess (the city-protector, like Athena in Athens as well as various gods and goddesses in Mesopotamian city-states) who receives a symbolic gift (1 unit) whereas other persons are humans who receive real resources (60 units per person or, in the latter case, per the group). Therefore, female judge was the highest human high official at Phaistos. Then this order of power resembles legenday Minos the lawmaker and judge, Spartan Lycurgos (influenced by Crete!) as well as Carthagenian suffets, Biblical Judges, and Roman councils. 4. Μίνως as a title? 113 City-ruler (a god vs a human?), holding a fish (a seal print from Cydonia/Chania, XV c. BC, Andreev 2002: 234) It might be a god, ‘a protector of the town’ (Marinatos 1993: 172). The city-ruler holds a fish (hanging on the ruler’s stick), similar to Cret. hier. ‘fish’ > Lin. AB mi. Depicted waves, attacking the shrine, caused a hypothesis that this seal of so-called ‘Lord of Chania’ represents ‘Poseidon-Poteidan commanding the sea from a coastal temple or town’ (Castleden 1993: 130; D’Amato, Salimbeti 42, 49). We must ascertain that the fish (Cret. hier., Lin. AB mi < μαίνη ‘fish’) represents the Cretan king himself (Μίνως, Mosenkis 1998a: 63), and this title might exist when this seal was made. Cf. symbolic designations of cities on the coins in Classical Greece (σίδη ‘pomegranate’ for Σίδη, φώκη ‘seal’ for Φώκαια). The name/title of Minos is also comparable to Lycian / Milian muni ‘king’ (also Proto-Dravidian *mun- ‘leader’) whereas the city-name Minoa – to Luw. hier. mina ‘city’. The Minyans/Argonauts (descended from Poseidon) might also be Minoans (Mosenkis 1998: 52). 3. Workers and slaves 1. Professions Minoan frescoes at Tylissos, Thera and Keos show ‘normal picture of daily life ranging from the mundane, menial tasks (water-carriers, shepherds, fishennen, rowers) to the professions (soldiers, mariners, captains and admiral as well as the grandes dames of the villa)’ (Immerwahr 1983: 149). The Linear A tablet (PK 1) might contain a list of professions: 114 ka-qa : Κάλχας ‘purple-maker’ (Homeric personal name of priest), cf. καλχαίνω ‘make purple’, κάλχη ‘murex’; a-du-za : ‘fire-kindler’ or ‘torch-bearer’, cf. αἰθύσσω (αἴθυγ-) ‘set in rapid motion, stir up, kindle’; ta2-ta-re : *δαιδαλης or fem. *δαιδαλη, cf. δαιδάλεος ‘cunningly’, Δαίδαλος ‘Daedalus = Cunning Worker’; Lin. B da-da-re-jo-de ‘in the sanctuary of Daedalus’; ta2-ti-te : *δαιτη/ιτης ‘torch-bearer’ or rather ‘divider’ (on a feast), cf. δαῖτις, -ιδος ‘torch’ or δαίτης ‘priest who divided the victims’ (‘*she-divider’?); o-te-ja : ‘she-messenger’, cf. ὁδεία ‘travelling’, ὅδιος ‘belonging to a way or journey’; ra-na-tu-su : ‘sprinkler (in a rite)’ or ‘purified (priest, participant of a rite)’, cf. ῥαντίζω ‘sprinkle, purify’, ῥαντός ‘sprinkled’; ni-mi : *νιμμης ‘purifier (with water)’ or ‘purified’, cf. νίμμα ‘water for washing’, νιμμός ‘cleansing, purification’ (cf. previous profession); ma-ti-za-i-te : *μαστιγ-αίτης ‘coachman’, cf. μαστιγόω, μαστίζω ‘whip, flog’, μαστίκτωρ ‘scourger’; see below models ματ-ευτής, μαχ-αίτας; ma-te-ti : ματευτής ‘seeker, searcher’; ma-ka-i-ta : μαχαίτας (Aeol.) ‘fighter, warrior’; cf. the same word in another list of workers (ZA 5); Lin. B (PY NV) ma-ka-ta /Makha(i)tas/; ib-nu-ma-re (ZA 5, ZA 15) : οἰνο-μάρ-, cf. οἰνο-χειριστής ‘dispenser of wine’, also Lin. A wa-tu-ma-re, wa-sa-to-ma-ru. Μάρων was a Thracian priest who gave wine to Odysseus, and then ‘strong wine’. Some professions might be also listed in the tablet HT 25: u-re-wi : Ὑλεύς (attested as a personal name) ‘wood-worker’ < ὕλη ‘forest, wood, firewood, timber’; on wi : υ, cf. nu-wi : νηῦς ‘ship’; a-ri-ni-ta : ἀρνευτής, ἀρνευτήρ ‘acrobat; diver’ or rather *ἀλιν-ητης ‘scribe’ (Lin. A a-ri-ni-ta : ἀλίνω ‘paint’, Cypriot ‘write’, Lin. A *ἀλινιστάς ‘scribe’, Nagy 1965: 322329, cf. Chadwick 1967/1976); Indo-European root (Beekes: 69); tu-qe-nu[ : τεχνήτωρ ‘artificer, maker’; du-ru-wi[ : *δρυεύς ‘oak-worker’ from δρῦς ‘oak’, cf. Lin. B du-ru-to-mo : δρυτόμος ‘oak-cutter’ (Adrados 1: 198), or rather *θροεύς ‘herald’ < θροέω ‘cry aloud’; wi-te-ro i-ti VIR : *ὑδρο-ευτής, ὑδρ-ευτής ‘drawer of water’; it might be an evidence of morphological division of the word – an example of Minoan linguistics! Perhaps, some professions are mentioned in KH 6: ri-ta-je : λιτ-αῖος ‘hearing prayer (epith. of Zeus)’; au-re-te : αὐλ-ητής ‘flute-player’ or αὐλ-ήτης, αὐλείτης ‘farm-servant’. Note the presence of professions, belonged to arts. A list (ZA 8) includes a headline ki-ra : χρή ‘need’ (rather than ξηρά neut. pl. < ξηρόν ‘dry’) and several words, followed by the ideogram FIG (the second word after the headline) and also by numbers and signs for fractions: a-ta-re FIG : ἄνδρες ‘men’ (nom. pl.); 115 ku-tu-ko-re : *konto-gwoles = *κοντο-βολής ‘spearman’, cf. κοντο-βόλος (Beekes: 673, absent in LSJ), κοντο-βολέω ‘strike with a pole’ (< *gwel-, Beekes: 198), κοντός, ‘pole, pike’, ἀκρο-βολής 'skilful in hitting', ἀκοντίου βολῆς (Thuc. 5.65.2); a-ri-ni-ta : *ἀλιν-ητης ‘scribe’ (Lin. A a-ri-ni-ta : ἀλίνω ‘paint’, Cypriot ‘write’, Lin. A *ἀλινιστάς ‘scribe’, Nagy 1965: 322-329, cf. Chadwick Decipherment); ta-i-nu-ma-‘pa’ (*na?) : δαινύμενος < δαίνυμι ‘give a banquet or feast’ vs ταινιούμενος (part. sg. pres. mp. masc. nom., Diod. 17.101) < ταινιόω (pass.) ‘to be crowned’; ma-ka-i-se : *μαχα-ιστής, ‘warrior’, cf. Aeol. μαχαίτας, Hom. μαχητής ‘fighter, warrior’; da-i-‘pi’-ta = (?)da-i-*e-ta (pi and e are very similar) : *δαι-ητής ‘divider’ (servant at the feast); ka-i-ro : καιρός ‘due measure’ is the last preserved line of this list of professions (ZA 8). Lin. A ku-pa3-na-tu (HT 47) : κυβερνατήρ ‘steersman’ (pa3 /ba/ see lists of towns above). Lin. A da-ku-na (HT 103) : διάκονος ‘servant, messenger’, ‘attendant or official in a temple or religious guild’. 2. Home serving vs slavery? Lin. A wi-te-ja-mu u-qe-ti (PL Zf 1, pin) : (F)ἴδια μου οἴκετις ‘my own housewife’ (a female servant vs slave?). We must choose οἴκετις (fem.) instead of οἰκέτης (masc.) ‘household slave’ because of the feminine flexion of adjective wi-te-ja : *Fιδεια, not *Fιδειος. 3. ‘Works and days’ of an apprentice A gold pin bears an inscription a-ma-wa-si ka-ni-ja-mi i-ja za-ki-se-nu-ti a-ta-de: (drawing from: Chadwick 1987: 48; here is clearly za instead of Younger’s qa; cf. Fauconau 2001a also za). 1. a-ma-wa-si : *ἀμάυσι (dat.-loc., of time) < *ἀμάυσις ‘harvest’ < ἀμάω ‘to reap corn’, Lin B a-ma ‘harvest’ (Adrados 1: 53; < Indo-European: English mow etc.). Hesiod, using the same root (ὥρῃ ἐν ἀμήτου), recommended to begin the harvest in spring when the Pleiades rise (Works 571-575). Among the Indo-European parallels of the root (Beekes 84), Hitt. ḫamešḫa(nt)-, ‘spring/early summer (April-June)’ (meaning: Puhvel 3: 73), lit. ‘mowing time’ is the most significant. It might be a name of the harvest-season rather than of the harvest-month. 2. ka-ni-ja-mi : ἐξαν-ίημι ‘send forth, let loose’. 3. i-ja : υἷα ‘son’ (acc.), cf. Lin. B i-jo (*ἱός), i-jo-qe, i-ju (*ἱύς), dat. i-je-we ‘son’ (Adrados 1: 277, 292; Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 92). 116 4. za-ki-se-nu-ti : 1) da-ku-se-ne-ti (HT 104) and 2) ko-sa-i-ti = ko-sa-*no-ti (HT 117; Lin. A i and no are very similar), both occur among the names of professions. It might be ξαίνοντι (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat.) ‘to a combing person’ (< ξαίνω ‘scratch, comb’) and δια-ξαίνοντι (< δια-ξαίνω ‘card’, δια-ξῆναι). Cf. da-ku-se-ne[, da-ku-se-ne (HT 103) : *δια-ξαίνη (fem.)? 5. a-ta-de : ἄττα-θεν ‘from father’ < ἄττα ‘father’, -θεν ‘from’ (this Lin. A form was previously translated ‘from the father’, but compared with Hitt. atta, not with Greek, Solcà, Vallance Janke 2018). Thus, a-ma-wa-si ka-ni-ja-mi i-ja za-ki-se-nu-ti a-ta-de : *ἀμάυσι ἐξαν-ίημι υἷα διαξαίνοντι ἄττα-θεν ‘In the harvest (season), I send forth (my) son to the carder from (his) father’. Perhaps, the father sent his son to study as an apprentice. Note that the father sent his son to the male-carder, cf. men-weavers on Minoan seals (Ulanowska 2017). 4. Everyday life: secular gifts 1. ‘You gifted wine, I gifted unguent’ Lin. A a) VINa 32 di-di-ka-se a-sa-mu-ne a-se b) a-ta-i-301-de-ka a-re-pi-re-na ti-ti-ku (ZA Zb 3, pithos). Words after the ideogram of ‘wine’: 1. di-di-ka-se : *θήθηκας > τέθηκας (2nd sg. perf. ind. act. < τίθημι) ‘I placed’. 2. a-sa-mu-ne : ἄσμενη ‘glad’ (fem.). 3. a-se : αἶσα, αἴση ‘portion’; VINa ... a-se : τῶ Διὸς τῶ Fοίνω αἶ. (Inscr. Cypr. 148, LSJ). Cf. Lin. B a3-sa /aisa/ in wanaktei aisa ‘king’s portion’, Lin. A a-je-sa (IO Za 1): αἶσα ‘portion’. 4. a-ta-i- : ἄρδαι (nom. pl.) ‘water / wine for libations’ rather than ἥ δαίς ‘meal’ / σταίς ‘dough’. 301(*de)-de-ka : *θήθηκα > τέθηκα (1st sg.) ‘I placed’. 5. a-re-pi-re-na : ἀλειπτήριον, ἀλειπήριον, ‘unguent’ (‘*oil’? acc.!) vs ἀλειπτήριον· γραφεῖον. Κύπριοι (Hesych.) ‘pencil, paint-brush, graving tool’. Less acceptable: ἄλειφαρ ‘unguent’, ἄλευρον ‘wheat-meal’, ‘meal’. 6. ti-ti-ku : τέττιξ (Gen. -ιγος, -ικος) ‘cicala’ (pers. name?); the same name in HT 35. ‘Minoan Genii’ might represent not only the Egyptian hippopotamus-goddess (Taweret), as it is traditionally considered (Weingarten 1991; Weingarten 2013; Younger, Rehak 2008a: 168), but also cicadas (pictures: Marinatos 1993: 198, 200), known namely as pourers: ‘Impressed glass plaque from Mycenae: Daemons pouring libations’ (Evans 1901: 19/117) Cf. HT 35 ti-ti-ku. 117 Complete translation: a) VINa di-di-ka-se a-sa-mu-ne a-se : οἶνω (gen. sg.) τέθηκας ἄσμενην αἴσην ‘you placed a good portion of wine’; b) a-ta-i-301(*de)-de-ka a-re-pi-re-na ti-ti-ku : ἄρδαις τέθηκα ἀλειπήριον Τέττιγος ‘for libations, I placed unguent. From Tettix’. Cf. the Linear B inscribed vases (Alfen 2008). There were the approximately 180 LM IIIB inscribed stirrup jars (capacity 12–14 liters) that were filled with perfumed oil and exported from western Crete to the mainland. Two-thirds of the inscriptions consist of single personal names (nominative); the rest consist of a three-word formula: personal name (nominative) + place-name + personal name (genitive) or wa-na-ka-te-ro (or simply wa). This formula (cf. KN D series) should represent the producer, place, and Collector, “a sort of serial or tracking number” (238). The one-word inscriptions present the name of the producer. (Younger 2009a) 2. ‘Sweet hair’ Lin. A a-ti-ka a-du-ko-mi (ZA Wc 2, a pin) : Ἀττική ἁδυ-κόμη ‘Attic pleasant hair’, or Adj. of ἄττα ‘father’. Cf. Lin. B a-ti-ka (anthr. masc., Adrados 1: 118). 5. Trade 1. Minoan colonies from the Adriatic to Anatolia? Minoan ships, as they are depicted on the seals (drawing after: Hutchinson 1962: 94) ‘Cretan king and trader-in-chief’ might bear a title minos and name his colonies Minoa (Castleden 1993: 117), cf. Cretan μνοΐα ‘a class of serfs’ (suggested ‘royal slaves’). There was ‘the Minoan trading empire’ (Castleden 1993: 120-121) or simply ‘Minoan empire’ (Hood 1984; Marinatos 1993: 4; cf. Macdonald et al. 2009). Marissa Marthari used a term ‘colonies’ (Marthari 1994: 36). Among many possible causes of the Minoan expansion, one might suggest not only trade and the search for resources but also ‘a form of religious colonialism with political overtones’ (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 169). In comparison, Helen Whittaker underlines ‘[r]eligious aspects of Mycenaean militarism’ (Whittaker 2015: 615). Not only Jason and Heracles had ritual aims of their travels, but also the Minoan inscriptions in Cyprus, Italy, and Norway have the cult meaning. The Ancient Greek authors (Herodot. 3.122, Thuc. 1.4, 8; Diod. 5.54.4) ascribed to Minos a ‘thalassocracy’ and many colonies outside Crete (refs. and comments: Molchanov 2000). 118 Scholarly readings have differed as to whether something like a Bronze Age colonial empire is suggested by the Thucydides account (the most detailed), or a system more resembling the political league of east Aegean islands under Athenian leadership/control in Thucydides’s own time – or something else again [...] (Wallace 2018:139, refs.) The distribution of the place-name ‘Minoa’ in the Aegean and in the eastern and central Mediterranean also seems to imply Minoan colonies. [...] The colonial development manifested itself in three ways: the spread of Minoan artistic and cultural influences, the diffusion of exported Minoan products, and the establishment of Minoan settlements beyond the Cretan shores. (Castleden 1993:116–117) John Chadwick underlined that non-Cretan place names were not found in Knossian Linear B tablets – thus, Mycenaean Crete was not a center of the maritime state, as Thucydides stated. Then, this legend must be ascribed to other epoch (Chadwick 1967/1976: 209-210) which might be Minoan one (see discussions: Minoan 1984), as Linear A proves. The Minoan colonization included the Aegean islands, western Asia Minor and, partially, Mainland Greece (Branigan 1981; Branigan 1984). However, the Minoan presence and ifluence overlapped much wider area and stretched from Italy to Anatolia, Levant, and Egypt (Wallace 2018: 196-221). A way of the colonization was poetically described by Bacchylides (Ode 1.113-127): Warlike Minos came with a host of Cretans in fifty ships with swift sterns. By the will of Zeus who brings glory, he married the ample-bosomed maiden Dexithea and left her half of his people, men who were devoted to Ares, god of war. Then after distributing this mountainous land to them, King Minos, he of Europa’s bloodline, sailed back to Knossos, his beloved city. After nine months the fair-haired maiden Dexithea bore Euxantios to rule over the celebrated island of Keos. (transl. by Davis 2010: 188) The HT 20 tablet preserves a list: pa-ro-su, ku-ma-ju, qe-ku-re, sa-re-ju. It might be an enumeration of extra-Cretan places, familiar to the Minoans. Lin. A pa-ro-su : Πάρος, an island of the Cycladic archipelago, northward from Crete (Hom. hymn Ap. 44, Cer. 491; Adj. Πάριος in Pind. Nem. 4.81, Herodot. 3.57, Diod. Sic. 2.52). Paros was ruled by Minos and his descendants (Ovid. Met. 7.465; Solin. 2.26; St. Byz. s. v. Minos, Paros; Ps.-Apollod. 3.15.7, 3.1.2, 2.5.9; Plut. Moral. 132 F; Diod. 5.79.2); the Minoa settlement was known in the island (Schachermeyer 1964: 303). Alternatively: 1) Φάρος (an island in the bay of Alexandria, Od. 4.355), 2) modern Hvar? However, Ph. Kitselis underlined in the discussion on Academia.edu : ‘Linear scripts of the Bronze Age do not render the final /s/. That is a later Cypriot "innovation". Shouldn't be PA-RO in that case?’ (https://www.academia.edu/s/b91463fc17/islands-in-linear-a) Could it be Πηλούσιον ‘Pelusium’, a town in the easternmost mouth of the Nile < πηλός, παλός ‘mud, mire’? Lin. A ku-ma (-ju?) : Κύμα (Κύμη Αιολίδας in the western Asia Minor, Hesiod’s homeland, not Cumae in Italy, founded only in the VIII c. BC). The Minoan presence 119 in western Anatolia is archaeologically attested (Betancourt 2010: 217; Davis 2010: 198-199). Lin. A qe-ku-re : *Χέρκυρη = Κέρκυρα / Κόρκυρα, an island in the Adriatic Sea (Corcyra/Corfu), northeast of Crete (mentioned by Herodotus and Thucydides), known for Homer as Σχερίη; the Minoa settlement was known in the island (Schachermeyer 1964: 303). Lin. B ke-ku-ro (anthr. masc., Adrados 1: 341). Cf. κάρχαρος ‘saw-like’, κάρκαροι: τραχεῖς (Hesych.) (pre-Greek, Urart. harhar ‘heap of stones’, Arm. karkar ‘slippery rock’, Beekes 652) : Georgian xerxi /kherkhi/, Megrel xorxi ‘saw’ (> *xerx-ur-i, *xorx-ur-i Adj. ‘of saw’!), the Northeast Caucasian *ʔVrχwVrV ‘to saw’. The place-name Minoa (an evidence of Cretan presence) is found on Corcyra (Molchanov 2000). In comparison, Linear A or B inscription was found not far from Corcyra, in Ithaca (Faure 1989), including da-mi-te [Demeter?] and u-a-na-ka-na-re-te [‘Libation Formula’ or wanakan arete?] but it is disputable (Civitillo 2008/2009). Lin. A sa-re-ju : Σάρος, Modern Greek Σαρία, a small island near Carpathos northeast from Crete. An adjective model ku-ma-ju from Κύμα resembles Κορκυραῖοι from Κόρκυρα, whereas sa-re-ju from Σάρος resembles Αἰγύπτειος from Αἴγυπτος, Καδμεῖος, Καδμεῖοι from Κάδμος. Lin. A su-ki-ri-te-i-ja (HT Zb 158) from su-ki-ri-ta (PH Wa 32) reflects the same model. Perhaps, the list describes persons from these islands. Note that Pharos (Hvar) and Cercyra are located in the same Adriatic Sea. Thus, pa-ro-su ku-ma-ju qe-ku-re sa-re-ju : Πάρος (vs Πηλούσιον?) Κυμαῖος/-οι Κέρκυρη Σαρεῖος/-οι. Note Ionian form *Κέρκυρη. Lin. A ka-u-de-ta (HT 13) : *Kaude-dan ‘from Cauda’ Lin. B ka-u-da (KN NL? Adrados 1: 332), *Kaude, Kauda, Kaudos, Gaudos. ‘Kaudo is island near Crete, where there are big wild asses’ (Soudas), Strabo cites it as Gaudos. 2. Minoan Greeks in Cyprus? The Greek myths speak about Cretan princess Ariadne, Cretan queen Europe, Cretan Telchines in Cyprus (Plut. Thes. 20; Plin. Nat. hist. 12.11; Strab. 14.2.7; Paus. 9.19.1). Two Cypro-Minoan gold rings from Kalavassos (image: Steele 2017: 158) bear the same inscription which might be read in comparison to Lin. A, B: a-ke-wi-de : ἀρχηίδες ‘priestesses’ (nom. pl. fem.) < ἀρχηΐς ‘priestess’ (as ἐλπίδες < ἐλπίς). Cf. ἀρχεῖτις ‘title of priestess at Thasos’, ἀρχείνη ‘title of priestess at Syros’, ἀρχειώτης ‘archeota, a municipal recorder’. Thus, the Cypro-Minoan gold rings might have belonged to the Greek priestesses. Later, were some ‘Eteo-Cypriot’ inscriptions Greek? a-na-ma-to-ri u-mi-e-s[a]-i mu-ku-la-i la-sa-na • a-ri-si-to-no-se a-ra-to-wa-na-ka-to-ko-ose ke-ra-ke-re-tu-lo-se- ta-ka-na-[?-?]-so-ti • a-lo- ka-i-li-po-ti Ἡ πόλις ἡ Ἀμαθουσίων Ἀριστῶνα Ἀριστώνακτος, εὐπατρίδην 1. a-na-ma-to-ri : *ἀνα-μάτωρ ‘main city’ from ἀνα- ‘up’ and -μάτωρ ‘mother’ (in composites), perhaps, in dat.-loc. *ἀνα-μάτορι ‘in the main city’ (cf. ἀ-μήτορι Herodot. 4.154). Thus, initial words of two parts of the bilingual, ‘Eteocypriot’ *ἀνα- 120 μάτορι ‘in the main city’ and Greek Ἡ πόλις ‘this city’ might be equated. Cf. Cretan town Anopolis. 2. u-mi-e-s[a]-i mu-ku-la-i might be u-mi-e-s ai-mu-ku-la-i: ἡμεῖς ‘we’ and *αἱμ-ὄχλος ‘akin mass’ as possible another (‘Eteocypriot’) variant of the city-name Ἀμαθοῦς θύνω ‘rush’ (Ἀμα-θοῦς < θύνω : *αἱμ-ὄχλος?). Less acceptable μείς ‘month’, Ἀμυκλαῖος ‘month in Gortyn, Crete’ (IC IV.37). Thus, ‘Eteocypriot’ ‘we, akin mass’ might be equated with Greek ἡ Ἀμαθουσίων ‘of the Amathusans’. 3. la-sa-na : λάσανα ‘trivet’ (traditional Greek gift of honor) 4. a-ri-si-to-no-se a-ra-to-wa-na-ka-to-ko-o-se : Lin. B wa-na-ka and τόκος ‘offspring’, frequently as a second part of composites (like ἀριστο-τόκος) 5. ke-ra-ke-re-tu-lo-se (an equivalent of Greek εὐπατρίδην) or ke-ra-ke-*ka-tu-lo-se (ka and re are very similar in Cypriot syllabary) : καλοκἄγαθος ‘perfect gentleman’. Cf. also χαρά (names like Χαρι-κλώ), καλλί-κριτα (Hesych.), Καλλικράτης, Κρατύλος. 6. ta-ka-n : τάγηνον, τήγανον ‘frying-pan’ (*tagan?), cf. λάσανα ‘trivet’ above. 7. a-ku-no-so-ti a-lo- ka-i- li-po-ti : two paralleled forms (a-ku-no-so-ti and li-po-ti), linked with a-lo- ka-i- : ἄλλος καὶ (cf. ἄλλοι τε, ἄλλα δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο) ‘and also’. Two paralleled words might be verbs in patr. act. masc. sg. dat., perhaps, from *agnosti vs agnizw < agnos and li-po-ti : καλυπτός ‘covered’ (frequently after prefixes) vs l(e)ibonti λίβω, λείβω. 3. Minoan Greeks in Italy? The Cretan presence in mainland Italy (as well as in Sicily and Sardinia) was widely described in the ancient literature (Dion. Hal. 1.13.2; Serv. Aen. 1.533), whereas Iapygia (Apulia, modern Puglia, the ‘heel’ of the Italian ‘boot’) was the main Cretan colony in Italy (Herod. 7.170; Conon. 25; Plut. Thes. 16; Plut. Moral. 299 A; Athen. 2.522 F; Serv. Aen. 7.72.796; Strab. 6.3.2,5–6; Plin. Nat. hist. 3.102; Solin. 2.7; Serv. Aen. 3.121; also Molchanov 2000: 108–109). Moreover, Ps.-Aristotle in De mirabilibus (§ 81 = 836a–b) states that Daedalus visited the Electrides (Amber) Islands (located deep in the gulf of the Adriatic Sea, near the mouth of the Po River) and erected the consecrated statues here. The Early Minoan copper daggers were found in Lombardia and Etruria (Hutchinson 1962: 113). In comparison, the vases from Melos (of the Middle Cycladic period) were found as far as Marseille and the Balearic isles, whereas a stone axe, which might be from Naxos, was found in Wiltshire (Hutchinson 1962: 113). Already Neolithic Cretans might appear in Malta (Hutchinson 1962: 115). Metal ingots with Linear A signs are known in Sardinia (Nemirovsky 1983: 53; Ilyinskaya 1988: 88). Objects of Cretan origin reached Spain, whereas Cretans might search silver and tin in the Pirenean Peninsula (Poplinsky 1978: 70). Aegean-like burials in Spain correlated with metallurgical regions (Poplinsky 1978: 75-76). El Argar / Algaric culture of Spain (2200-1550 BC) was linked with Minoan Crete (Kozlovskaia 1971: 147). A female idol with the Linear A inscription (c. 1800–1600 BC) was found near the peak sanctuary of Monte Morrone at the Adriatic shore of Italy (Woudhuizen 2010; 121 Woudhuizen 2016: 281-288). The find is located northward from Puglia, where the Cretan colony existed, but far southward of the Po mouth, where Daedalus made statues (see above). This idol is similar to that of the Ozieri culture (3200-2800 BC), which used Cycladic- and Minoan-influenced ceramics. See the image: Gimbutas 2006: 186; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozieri_culture The figurine bears a Linear A inscription: a-ti-a-we-ti-ja re-BULL-ma ku-ra-tu-jo weka (square) a-we-so-ni-ja (square) re-pi-ma. A twicely repeated square might mean the word boundary word division here. The Greek reading of the inscription might be proposed. 1. a-ti-a-we-ti-ja : ἀντὶα αFητίας vs *ἀντι-αFήτια ‘against the wind’ (Adj. fem.), cf. ἀFήτης ‘gale’, ‘wind’, ἄFητος ‘stormy’, Adj. *ἀFήτιος, fem. *ἀFήτια. Lin. B a-ne-mo ije-re-ja ‘priestess of winds’. The eighth sign of this inscription (a bull’s head) is very important not only to read this text but also to understand the origin of the Linear A script in general. A bull’s head has readings mu in both Linear A and Anatolian (Luwian) hieroglyphs and also u in the Anatolian hieroglyphs. The word re-BULL’S HEAD-ma might be read re-uma: ῥεῦμα ‘current, stream’. Thus, we obtain *ἀντι-αFήτια ῥεῦμα ‘the current against the wind’. 2. ku-ra-tu-jo : κρατύς, ‘strong’ or similar and Mycenaean-Homeric gen. sing. (-oio), possibly personal name. Krateos? we-ka : Fέργα ‘works’ (pl.). 3. a-we-so-ni-ja : Αὐσονία, an old Greek name of Italy. re-pi-ma : ἔλπισμα ‘hope, confidence’ < Fελ- (Homer). The last word of the inscription might be a wish, comparable with frequent beginning of alphabetic Greek inscriptions: ἀγαθὴ τύχη (Kyrylo A. Ogarkov, pers. comm.). Thus, one can propose the complete translation of the Linear A inscription from Italy: a-ti-a-we-ti-ja re-BULL(u)-ma ku-ra-tu-jo we-ka (square) a-we-so-ni-ja (square) re-pima : a-ti-a-we-ti-ja re-u-ma ku-ra-tu-jo we-ka a-we-so-ni-ja re-pi-ma : ἀντὶα αFητίαςῥεῦμα. Κράτοιο Fέργα. Αὐσονία. ἔλπισμα ‘the current against the wind. Cratys’ work. Ausonia. Hope’. 4. Minoan Greeks in Norway? A Linear A inscription was surprisingly found on a rock panel of a Bronze Age cult site on the outskirts of the town of Kongsberg, Norway, in 1987 (1999 Jarnæs). This region once held the world’s largest deposits of native silver, evidenced by thousands of small silver mines, along with big ones, scattered over a vast area in the forests and mountains surrounding the town. [...] Only the extremely rich occurrences of native silver in the Kongsberg area could have brought the Minoans, the great metal traders of the Mediterranean in the Early Bronze Age, to Norway and this particular site more than 3500 years ago. [...] Minoans, having reached Kongsberg, most likely around 1700 BC, at the heyday of Minoan civilization, when silver could be traded for its double weight in gold in Egypt, and leaving a message on a cult place there, would probably have thanked the gods for what ever riches they had come for. The only reason for 122 their coming to Kongsberg would have been the area's richness in easily accessible native silver. (Jarnæs). Unprecedented Linear A inscription in Norway corresponds with the MinoanMycenaean influence on the formation of the Nordic Bronze Age of Denmark and Scandinavia (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). Acc. to these authors, ‘[...] foreign origins were most consciously demonstrated in the formation of the Nordic Bronze Age Culture from 1500 BC onwards, basing itself on a Minoan/Mycenaean template’ (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 249). There are many archaeological, art and linguistic evidence of the Bronze Age contacts between North Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, e. g. the North European amber in the Aegean, images of the Cretan-like labyrinths in Scandinavia, the Phoenician name of ape in Germanic and common Latvian-Etruscan another name of ape etc. (cf. Flemming 2013). Also, a sign or a symbol akin to the Hittite hieroglyph meaning ‘divine’ was found among the rock carvings at Fossum in Sweden, associated with possible images of divinities (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 342). For the last hundred years it has puzzled archaeologists that the development of the original Nordic Bronze Age culture shows a ‘Mycenaean’ impact. […] A number of Mycenaean cultural influences were apparently transformed into a genuine Nordic style. (Kristiansen 2005: 133) In Kristiansen’s and Larsson’s view of the Bronze Age the north is largely dependent on the south. The Aegean is regarded as a key area for the development of the rest of Europe, both as a cultural source in itself, providing the origin for many of the social institutions of central and northern Europe, and as an area which transmitted influences from the Near East. (Nordquist, Whittaker 2007: 76 – the review is highly critical) Bronze was imported to Scandinavia from the East Mediterranean. This trading started about 1750 BC. At just the same time amber from the Baltic started to appear in Mycenaean and Minoan graves. This gives evidence of active trading between the Mediterranean and Scandinavia […] In Great Britain, the Bronze Age began around 2100 BC. This corresponds well with the proposed onset of tin exploitation in Cornwall (Penhallurick, 1986; Haustein et al., 2010). Trading abroad is likely to have commenced at the same time. Tin from Cornwall has been identified in Mycenaean-Minoan bronze objects […] Scandinavia and Central Europe suddenly stepped into the Bronze Age at about 1750 years BC. The bronze objects were imported from the Mediterranean area (Ling et al., 2014). At just the same time amber started to occur in masses in Mycenaean and Minoan graves (Figure 1). The provenience of that amber is shown to be the south Baltic coasts. This means that we have evidence of a simultaneous import/export exchange between Scandinavia and the Eastern Mediterranean region (Mörner & Lind, 2010) […] At the same time, pictures of huge ships started to be carved into the bedrock and into big blocks in Scandinavia […] Therefore, it seems logical to propose an integrated interpretation, viz. that people from the Mediterranean at about 1750 BC, in their excellent ships, reached all the way up to Scandinavia, introducing bronze tools to the region, exporting the valuable amber, and giving the local people reasons to start the new costume of creating rock-carvings of ships (Mörner & Lind, 2010, 2013) […] 123 An oral tradition of a country in the far north named Hyperborea where there was a river of amber termed Eridanos […] (Mörner, Lind 2015: 129-130). … my studies of material culture and rock art in the Nordic area has shown that there are a number of images, symbols and combinations of figures that show distinct similarities with features and depictions originating in the Mediterranean area, both from the Greek Bronze Age cultures, the Minoan and the Mycenaean cultures, and from the later Geometric Period, as well as from Egypt at the time of the eighteenth Dynasty. (Winter) Proto-Germ. *skipam ‘ship’ (‘obscure origin’, OED, s. v. ship) might be related to Greek σκάφος ‘ship’; Proto-Germ. *segl- ‘sail’ : Egypt. sgr ‘sail’ (Egyptian form after: Černý 1976: 176), whereas rock-carved ships of the Nordic Bronze Age resemble pre-Dynastic Egyptian and Cycladic pictures of ships and formation of the Proto-Germanic language among other West Indo-European branches, materialized in the Corded Ware culture, began in the Pre-Dynastic period. Cf. also κυβερνήτης ‘steersman’ : Egypt. kbn.t ‘ship’. In this context, not only Egyptian hieroglyph netjer (‘god’), Phoenician ‘Baal’ sign (Mörner, Lind 2015: 133), Hittite (Luwian) hieroglyph ‘divine’ (above), but also the Cretan Linear A inscription are not surprising in Scandinavia. Lin. A we-tu-na-ma-ti or rather in two words we-tu-na ma-ti (image: Jarnæs) : εὔθυνα (1st sg. aor. ind. act. < εὐθύνω ‘guide, direct, rule, lead’) ματεῖν ‘to seek’ (praes. inf. act. < Aeol. *μάτημι = ματεύω ‘seek’, cf. ματεῖ: ζητεῖ, Hesych.). Complete translation: we-tu-na-ma-ti : εὔθυνα ματεῖν ‘I arrived to seek’. Less acceptable variants are: εὔθυνα μάτην (Adv. < acc.) ‘I steered in vain’, εὔθυνα μάτηρ, εὔθυνα μάτη : εὔθυνα βλάβη (Arist. Rh. 1411b20), εὐθυνάματι ‘(an offering) to the direct current’ < εὐθύς ‘straight, direct’ and νᾶμα ‘anything flowing, running water, stream, spring’ (dat. sg.), cf. ἰθύνω, ‘steer’ and an epithet of the Phrygian great goddess Evteveya, linked to Greek εὐθύς (Vasileva 1990: 137), ‘(Great) Mother leads (us to here)’, *εὔθυνα ‘Mother-judge’ (fem. of εὔθυνος ‘judge’), μῆτις ‘*measure’. Kejl Aartun proposed a Semitic interpretation of the inscription (Aartun 1992). Just beside [the inscription] is a figure resembling a boat, and nearby a strange figure resembling a water sack with water pouring out of it. (Jarnæs) In the light of the afore-mentioned facts, one can interprete Hurrian parallels of pre-Germanic substrate words as not only the Neolithic or the Chalcolithic/Eneolithic relations but also the Cyprus-North Europe Bronze Age contacts. Very hypothetically, Cypriot Hurrian trade elite might influence the Proto-Germanic people (Germanic words below are of unknown origin): Proto-Germ. *aþalaz ‘noble’ : Hurr. adali ‘strong’; Old Norse erilaR ‘noble’ > English earl : Urart. ere/ili ‘king’ (Djaukian 1963: 44); Proto-Germ. *geban ‘to give’ : Hurr. kib- ‘to put, set’, giban- ‘to bring’; Proto-Germ. *saiwaz ‘sea’ : Hurr. šiwe ‘water, river’; 124 Proto-Germ. *saiwalo ‘soul’ : Hurr. šu uri ‘life’, Urart. še eri ‘alive’; Proto-Germ. *dimbaz ‘dark’ : Hurr. timerri ‘black’; Proto-Germ. *ertho ‘earth’ : Armen. art ‘field’, Hurr. arde ‘town’, Urartian ardi-ne ‘id.’ Not only the Minoan (Cretan) Greeks and the Phoenicians but also the Cypriot Hurrians (located between the Cretans and the Phoenicians) might visit North Europe. The Hurrians might represent a part of elite in Minoan Greek Crete (Couretes ‘sacral guardians’: Hurr. huradi ‘warrior’?). Genetically (autosomal), a Neolithic farmer from southern Sweden (Funnel Beaker) was the closest to the modern Cypriots (Skoglund 2012). Vladimir A. Safronov underlined the similarity of south Scandinavian Funnel Beaker with Early Cycladic II (including ‘frying pans’!) and Early Helladic II–III. Perhaps, the Hurrian language in North Europe might be of Cypriot origin (while some Cypro-Minoan inscriptions might reflect Hurrian), or even Funnel Beaker might be partially Hurrian-spoken. If the similar lexicon reflects the trade contacts, then Cypriot merchants might visit the Bronze Age North Europe. An intermediate link between Crete and Norway might be Spain, where the Cretans might initiate metallurgy of arsenical copper and building of tholoi (Sheppard Baird). Famous Los Millares is frequently ascribed to the Cretan influence. Mycenaean ceramics appeared in Spain (Guadalquivir valley) (Adrados 2005: 28). In comparison, Guanche (Canarian) king title mencey closely resembles Minos whereas the Canarian title of the priestesses from an underearthen temple Ari-mag Wada is comparable to Ari-hagna/-adna (Poplinsky 1978: 78, after Dominik Wölfel) (Cretan influence on the Canary Islands?). The tin may have come from Etruria, Bohemia, Spain, or even Britain. Britain may also have been the trade-source of the small amount of amber found in Crete. A gold-mounted disc of amber found at Knossos may have come from the Wessex culture of southern England. (Castleden 1993: 119) The Wessex culture of Britain had clear Mycenaean connections (Dickinson 1994: 249, cf. Maran 2004). The Wessex culture of Stonehenge III was linked with Crete (Hawkins, White 1984: 76). However, these contacts might be not only via the Atlantic: a Linear B inscription was found in Bavaria where Mycenaean gold diadem was also found, and ‘Mycenaean and south German and even south Scandinavian chiefs had direct personal contacts’ (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 235-236). 6. Foreigners in Minoan Crete Different groups of foreigners appeared in Minoan Crete, as the Linear A inscriptions prove. There were the Phoenicians, Hittites, Cypriots, Ephesians, and Egyptians. 125 Phoenicians, Hittites, Cypriots. Zakros (alongside Knossos, Phaestos, and Mallia) was one among the largest Minoan cities of Crete. ‘Along the south coast ships traveled east to west, which explains the necessity of a palace at Zakros for ships coming from Cyprus that did not enter the Aegean.’ (Younger, Rehak 2008: 142). Asiatic slaves (captives? merchants? ambassadors? guests?) might be mentioned in the Zakros tablet (ZA 14): me-ki-di *Μεγιδδῷος, like Δηῷος < Δηώ, Λητῷος < Λητώ) < Μεγιδδώ. In contrast, other forms have -a-: Μαγεδδών (Septuagint); Latin Mageddo; Assyrian Magiddu, Magaddu; Magidda, Makida in the Amarna tablets; Egypt. Maketi, Makitu, Makedo. The Megiddo battle, linked with Armageddon, occurred later than the Cretans used Linear A; pu-ni-ka-so : Φοινικᾶς ‘of Phoenicia’ (noun sg. fem. gen. Doric Aeolic) < Φοινίκη ‘Phoenicia’, cf. Lin. B po-ni-ki-jo, Greek Φοῖνιξ, ‘a Phoenician’, Φοίνικες ‘the Phoenicians’, Latin Punicus (independently: Lewyckyj 2014a). Cf. Φοῖνιξ ‘a Cretan town’ (IC II.226); qa-ti-ju : *Khat(t)ijoi (if Lin. A q : Greek χ), cf. Hattic-Hittite Hatti > Hom. Κήτειοι ‘Hittites’, cf. also (?) Lin. A qe-ti VIR (HT 7a.1), Egypt. t’ [heta] ‘Hittites’ (Georgiev 1957: 80). Phonetically less acceptable *qatnijoi (< Syrian town Qatna, Akkad. URUQa-ṭàna, URUQàṭ-aṭ-na where Minoan palace was unearthed, Keys 2004), Kition at Cyprus, Koda (Ḳdy) ‘an Egyptian name of Kizzuwatna’. Cf. Lin. B po-ti-ni-ja a-si-wi-ja to-so qete-jo OLE (Adrados 2: 201); ku-pi : Κύπριος (shortened form?), Lin. B ku-pi-ri-jo ‘Cypriot (merchant?)’ (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 115) or Ai-ku-pi-ti-jo ‘Egyptian’. Cf. Lin. A ku-pa-ri VIR (PE 1) : Κύπρι- (?); tu-mi-ti-za-se : *δο/ωμ-η(σ)τικίας (gen. fem. sg.) ‘native’ or ‘of household’ < *δο/ωμη(σ)τικός ‘of house’, cf. δμώς, ‘slave’. On the morphological model, cf. Lin. A de-poni-za : δεσποινικίας; pa-nu-qe : πανοικεί ‘with all the household’. Thus, Lin. A me-ki-di 1 pu-ni-ka-so 3 qa-ti-ju 8 ku-pi 1 : *Μεγιδδῷος 1, Φοινικᾶς 3, *Χάττιοι 8, Κύπριος 1 tu-mi-ti-za-se 45 pa-nu-qe 2 ‘One Megiddian, three from Phoenicia, eight Hittites, one Cypriot (slaves? merchants? migrants?), forty five natives, two persons with the all their households…’ In comparison, the names of Lemnos, Cnid, Miletus are mentioned in Lin. B. Ephesians, Hittites, Egyptians. Foreigners (merchants or ambassadors rather than slaves) might also be mentioned in other Linear A tablets: GRA 10 i-pa-sa-ja qa-*ta aki-pi-e-te GRA 90 (KH 10), i-ku-pi[ (KH 18). i-pa-sa-ja : Ἐφεσίᾳ, Hitt. A-pa-sa ‘Ephesus’. Note a) -sa- in i-pa-sa-ja might be explained as /ephesja/ (a in sa might be mute) and b) the feminine ending of i-pa-sa-ja (priestess? female slave?); qa-118 (sign 118 = τάλαντον ‘balance’, cf. Lin. A, B ta) = qa-*ta : Hatti, Egypt. ht; /heta/, Hom. Κήτειοι ‘Hittites’, neighbours of the Ephesians; 126 a-ki-pi-e-te : Αἰγύπτεια or rather Αἰγυπτίη + δὲ ‘and’, Lin. B a3-ku-pi-ti-jo ‘Memphite man’. Cf. Lin. A i-ku-pi[ (KH 18), a-ku-ju-pa-118(*ta) (PA 1). The ethnic names of slaves were well-known in later Greece. Thus, three variants of the translation might be proposed: 1) datives without attention to qa-118: Ἐφεσίᾳ ... Αἰγυπτίῃ (-e-te instead of *-te-e?) or Αἰγυπτίῃ δὲ ‘to Ephesian (priestess?) – cereals, and to Egyptian (priestess?) – cereals’; 2) nominatives with attention to qa-118: Ἐφεσία χατ.., Αἰγύπτεια δὲ GRA ‘Ephesian (priestess?) needs, and Egyptian (priestess) – cereals’ or even 3) ‘to Ephesian, Hattic, and Egyptian (priestesses? female slaves?) – cereals’. Now I prefer the last interpretation. The proposed translation i-pa-sa-ja qa-118(*ta) a-ki-pi-e-te : Ἐφεσίᾳ, Hatti, Αἰγυπτίῃ δὲ as well as the aforementioned enumeration of Phoenicians, Hatti, and Cypriots resembles Homeric formula Κύπρον Φοινίκην τε καὶ Αἰγυπτίους ἐπαληθείς (Od. 4.83). Canaanite monkeys. Lin. A ka-na-ni-ti (KH Wc 2005) ‘Canaanites’ (Lewyckyj KANA-NI-TI), Greek *Κανανίτης, cf. Χαναναῖος ‘a Canaanite; a merchant’. Note that the Lin. A word has a Greek form, in contrast to Phoenician Kenā‘an, Akkadian (Amarna letters) Kenā‘an, but Egyptian Ka-na-na ‘Canaan’ is the closest to the Lin. A form – thus, this form might be of Egyptian origin. The Lin. A word has also typical Greek suffix – like Ἀβδηρίτης ‘a man from Abdera’, Σταγειρείτης, Συβαρίτης etc., also used as an adjective: Κυδωνίτης οἶνος, Παγασίτης κόλπος etc. In the Linear A inscription, there was an epithet of three monkeys, depicted on the roundel (Younger). Thus, the inscription might mean *Κανανίτοι (πίθακοι) ‘Canaanite (monkeys)’, cf. Greek κῆβος, κῆπος ‘monkey’ which (alongside ProtoGermanic *apô or *apan ‘ape’ > Proto-Slavic *op-) of Oriental origin: Aram. qowp ‘ape’, Egypt. gafi ‘ape, monkey’, Copt. qapi ‘ape’ (but also Old Ind. kapi). Linear AB qa (of Egyptian origin?) and its heir, Phoenician letter qoph > Greek Ϙ koppa > Latin Q might depict ‘tailed monkey’ initially. 7. Navy: ‘Catalogue of Ships’? The HT 115 tablet contains a list of adjective feminine forms like *47-nu-ra-ja, naqi -ne-mi-na, a-se-ja, ti-nu-ja, du-pa3-na, *306-tu-ja etc. The word ri-ta-ma-nu-wi (or two separate words ri-ta-ma nu-wi, Younger 1) might be Ρί-θυ-μν-α, then there is a list of towns. However, nu-wi in this word, in comparison to ti-nu-ja nu-wi in the same list, might point to νηῦς ‘ship’, corresponding with feminine adjectives of the city-names (‘ship’ as well as ‘town’ is feminine in Ancient Greek, in contrast to masculine νηός ‘temple’). Perhaps, this list might evidence that each city prepared one ship whereas Retymna and Su[kirita] = Sybrita – two ships. Orthographically, nu-wi : νηῦς is f 127 comparable to 1) du-ru-wi[ : *δρυεύς ‘oak-worker’ from δρῦς ‘oak’, cf. Lin. B du-ru-tomo ‘oak-cutter’, or rather *θροεύς ‘herald’ < θροέω ‘cry aloud’, and 2) u-re-wi : Ὑλεύς (attested as a personal name) ‘wood-worker’ < ὕλη ‘forest, wood, firewood, timber’. There are a-se-ja < Ἄσος, du-pa3-na (HT 115) : *Θήβαινα ‘female citizen of Thebes’ (cf. λέαινα 'lioness', λύκαινα ‘she-wolf’), ku-ta[ : Κύτα, Κύταιον, pa-ra-ne : Priansos vs Pronos, se-ku-tu : Sibyrtos (?, cf. another Linear A form su-ki-ri-ta, PH Wa 32), ti-nu-ja : Thenai, Thenes, adj. Thenaia (St. Byz.) in this list. 8. War 1. Weaponry M[iddle]M[inoan] weapons are relatively rare, and this fact has led to the somewhat simplistic conclusion that the Minoans were peace-loving and simply did not indulge in warfare (Rutter 10, cf. Polemos 1999). That the Minoans were not perhaps so pacifistic as previously thought is, however, now being increasingly recognized and taken into account in interpretations of Minoan society. (Whittaker 2015: 615) Lin. AB syllabic sign a (double axe): ἀξίνη ‘double axe’ < Akkad. ḫass-innu ‘axe’ + Indo-European ak- ‘sharp’. Lin. AB syllabic sign o (shield): ὅπλον ‘the large shield of ὁπλῖται’. Minoan images of this shield type are well-known (see: PM I: 691; PM III: 95, 502). Lin. AB syllabic sign pa (sword): Lin. B pa-ka-na, φάσγανον, ‘sword’ (Akkad. pāsu, Arab. faʔs-, ‘axe’). Cret. hier., Lin. AB ko strongly resembles Lin. A, B ideogram ‘helmet’ from Greek κόρυς ‘helmet’. Less acceptable, it is mace: κορύνη ‘club, mace’, cf. Cret. hier. ‘mace’ (SM I: 190). Maces were known in Minoan Crete: e. g. Minoan clay sealing from Kydonia (Khanià Archaeological Museum, 15 th c. BC) represents a Minotaur armed with a mace or club (D'Amato, Salimbeti: 56). 2. Soldier’s equipment The HT 87 tablet includes a headline qif-tu-ne ma-ka-ri-te and a list: pi-ta-ke-si 1, jare-mi 1, di-ki-se 1, qe-su-pu 1, ku-ru-ku 1, a-ra a-tu. qif-tu-ne ‘equipment’ : χιτών ‘coat of mail’ (Il. 5.113, 13.439), Lin. B ki-to (nom. sg.), ki-to-ne (nom. pl., Adrados 1: 368). ma-ka-ri-te : *μαχαιρίτης (dat. sg. -ίτῃ) ‘swordsman’ < μάχαιρα ‘short sword, sabre’ (Georgiev 1963: 72, might be pre-Greek, but a Hebrew parallel < Greek, Beekes: 915, cf. Arm. mak’ar’em ‘to fight’, Jahukyan 125) + -ίτης (as in ὁπλ-ίτης ‘heavy-armed foot-soldier’ < ὅπλον ‘armour, the large shield’, λογχ-ίτης ‘spearman’, θωρακ-ίτης ‘soldier with breast-armour only’ etc.). Thus, qif-tu-ne ma-ka-ri-te might mean χιτών *μαχαιρίτῃ ‘equipment for swordsman’. The list includes: 128 pi-ta-ke-si : πύνδαξ ‘sword-hilt’ rather than ἐπίταξις ‘injunction, order, command; position on the flanks’ (cf. Lin. A pi-ta-ka-se (HT 21) : ἐπίταξις ‘command’, Georgiev 1963: 75); ja-re-mi /harmē/ (Lin. A ja /ha/) : ἄρμα ‘food; burden, load’ (‘that which one takes’ < αἴρω ‘to take up’) vs ἁρμή ‘junction’, ‘fitting together (of shields)’ or another similar word < ἀραρίσκω ‘join, equip’ rather than ἅρμα ‘war-chariot’; di-ki-se : *θήξ ‘axe’, cf. Lin. A da-ku (on the axe) < θήγω, θάγω ‘sharpen, whet’; qe-su-pu : ξίφος, ξύφος (EM 611.8) ‘sword’, Lin. B qi-si-pe-pe, ξίφος, ‘sword’ (< Hattic zipah, ‘sword’, Kitselis; Aram. sajəfā, Arabic sayf-, Egypt. sēfet, ‘sword’ not explain initial consonant, but article ha may be suggested; Egypt. sfy ‘sword, knife’, Černý 1976: 171); ku-ru-ku : κέρκος ‘tail (used as a tawse)’ vs (?) *κόρυξ, κόρυς ‘helmet’; a-ra a-tu : ἄρα ‘and – mark you!’, ἄρτος ‘bread’ rather than ἅδος ‘satiety, loathing, disgust’. Therefore, the very hypothetical complete translation is: Lin. A qif-tu-ne ma-ka-ri-te pi-ta-ke-si ja-re-mi di-ki-se qe-su-pu ku-ru-ku a-ra a-tu : χιτών *μαχαιρίτῃ: πύνδαξ, ἁρμή, *θήξ, ξύφος, κέρκος / *κόρυξ, ἄρα ἅδος ‘equipment for swordsman: 1) sword-hilt, 2) fitting together, 3) axe, 4) sword, 5) tawse helmet, 6) and, the most importantly, (have) hatred (for enemies)’. Cf. a frescoe from the West House at Akrotiri where ‘soldiers in line march off to duty’ (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 180), also marshing men, depicted on the Epidaurus marble rhyton (D'Amato, Salimbeti 55). Crete had own regular army, as frescoes and Linear B inscriptions evidence (Kondratov, Shevoroshkin 1970: 15). ‘The artifacts from the [tholos] tombs [of the Mesara plain] (vessels of both pottery and stone, tools and weapons, jewelry, and seals) show that a dead person was buried with his or her personal belongings as well as with food and drink (for the next life?)’ (Rutter 6). Hagia Triada, where discussed inscription was found, is located near the Mes(s)ara plain. 3. Warrior vs groom The HT 117 tablet (from Hagia Triada) includes three lists: 1) ma-ka-ri-te ki-ro u-mi-na-si: u-su 1, mi-tu 1, ku-ra-mu 1, ma-ru 1, ku-pa3-nu 1, tu-juma 1, u-di-mi 1, mi-ru-ta-ra-re 1, te-ja-re 1, na-da-re 1, ku-ro 10 (a.1-6); 2) sa-ta: ku-ku-da-ra 1, ko-sa-i-ti 1, da-mi-nu 1, da-ne-ku-ti 1, ki-da-ro 1 (a.7-9); 3) qif-tu-ne: ku-re-ju 1, di-ki-se 1 (b.1-2). The first lists has a headline ma-ka-ri-te ki-ro u-mi-na-si: ma-ka-ri-te : *μαχαιρίτης (dat. sing. -ίται) ‘swordsman’ < μάχαιρα ‘short sword, sabre’ (Georgiev 1963: 72). It might be a pre-Greek word, but a Hebrew parallel is from Greek (Beekes: 915) and the suffix -ίτης (like in ὁπλ-ίτης ‘heavy-armed footsoldier’ from ὅπλον ‘armour, the large shield’, λογχ-ίτης ‘spearman’, θωρακ-ίτης ‘soldier with breast-armour only’); ki-ro : χρέος ‘duty’; 129 u-mi-na-si : εἱμένος < ἕννυμι ‘put clothes on’. In contrast, if a-si-ja-ka u-mi-na-si is larger than simply a-si-ja-ka (HT 28) : ἔμμηνος ‘done or paid every month, monthly’ (daily and monthly norms?). Alternatively, ma-ka-ri-te ki-ro u-mi-na-si : μακαρίτης χρέος *Ὑμήνᾳσι ‘happy person (*groom) is duty to the wedding-goddesses’. The distaff and spindle, with the wool and thread upon them, were carried in bridal processions; and, without the wool and thread, they were often suspended by females as offerings of religious gratitude, especially in old age, or on relinquishing the constant use of them. (Plin. N. H. viii. 74.) [Donaria, p. 356.] They were most frequently dedicated to Pallas, the poatroness of spinning, and of the arts connected with it. (Smith 1842: 446) Varro informs us, he himself having been an eye-witness, that in the temple of Sancus, the wool was still preserved on the distaff and spindle of Tanaquil, who was also called Caia Cæ- cilia; and he says that the royal waved toga, formerly worn by Servius Tullius, and now in the temple of Fortune, was made by her. Hence was derived the custom, on the marriage of a young woma n, of carrying in the procession a dressed distaff and a spindle, with the thread arranged upon it. Tanaquil was the first who wove the straight tunic, such as our young people wear with the white toga; newly-married women also. (Plin. Nat. hist. 8.74, transl.: The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855) Himerius as well fully describes her moral quality and practical skills. After having said that both, bride and groom, are “sages” and “hard working”, he distinguishes between the bride’s and groom’s fields. He reserves wool spinning, spool and lyre for the maiden (IX 15,179-182) [...] (Tognazzi 2008: 12) Choral performances, which were accompanied by the lyre and involved processions and dancing, had an important place in later Greek ritual. The earliest example of Greek choral lyric of which an intelligible amount survives is a partheneion, a song written for a choir of young women, by the poet Alcman, who was active in the seventh century BC at Sparta. The poem describes a procession in honour of a female deity in which the singers themselves are taking part. It is selfreferentially oral and occasional; it refers to particularities of the ritual as it is taking place and describes the beauty, the rich purple clothes, and gold jewellery of the individual choir members. The choir sings of itself as bringing a pharos (φᾶρος) as a dedication to the goddess they are honouring. There is some uncertainty as to exactly what is meant here. Pharos is generally translated as a piece of cloth or a dress, but according to ancient sources it here signifies a plough, presumably a terracotta or wooden model. (Whittaker 2015: 618-619) The list of ten objects includes: u-su : ὑσσός ‘javelin’ rather than ὀιστός ‘arrow’ or οὖσον ‘rope’ ; mi-tu ‘*bowstring (?)’ : μίτος ‘thread of the warp, string of a lyre’; ku-ra-mu : χηραμός ‘hollow in the hilt of a sword’ vs κέραμος ‘clay vessel’ rather than ὅρμος ‘necklace, collar, wreath’ or κορμός ‘trunk’; ma-ru : μάρρον ‘spade’ (ultimately Sumerian) rather than μαλλός ‘flock of wool, tress’; ku-pa3-nu : κύβηνα: σκήνωμα ‘tent’ (Hesych.; cf. Lin. A pa3 /ba/ in the names of cities) rather than ὑφαίνω ‘weave’, ὑφαντόν ‘woven’, *ὑφάνον ‘woven object’; tu-ju-ma : *δεόμα, *δεόμνα (δεόμενος: νόμος, δεσμός, Hesych.) or rather /dehma/ : δέσμα ‘head-band’, δεσμά pl. < δεσμός ‘band’; 130 u-di-mi : ἐθμοί: πολλοί, δεσμοί (‘band, *belt?’), πλόκαμοι (‘locks’, prop. of woman) (Hesych.), but ‘band’ is preferable than ‘locks’ because of ‘hair’ below.; mi-ru-ta-ra-re : 1) *μηλο-δηράρ ‘helmet from lamb’s skin’ (like μηλο-φόνος ‘sheepslaying’) < μῆλον ‘sheep’, δειράρ: κορυφή (Hesych.) ‘crown, top of the head’ (Il. 8.83), Cretan *δηράρ, cf. Cretan δηράς = δειράς, δειρή ‘neck, throat’ vs 2) μελο-δηράρ[es?] ‘mittens’ < μέλος ‘limb’; te-ja-re : δειρή ‘collar’ rather than στειλειόν ‘axe-handle’ (Od. 5.236); na-da-re : *νῆθρη ‘spindle’, cf. νήθω ‘spin’, νῆτρον ‘spindle’ (Suid.) rather than ἀνήρ ‘man’, pl. ἄνδρες, ἄνθραξ ‘charcoal, coal’. ku-ro 10 : κῦρος ‘supreme power’, ‘*sum’, cf. (comparison of Ye. Chernukhin, pers. comm.) Latin summa ‘sum’ from summus, superlative of superus ‘upper, higher’. Thus, we have ten things: sacral things or a branch; thread; collar; wool; weaving; head-band; band; a lock from lamb’s head or lamb’s skin; collar; spindle’. Perhaps, they are a ‘bride’s package’, gifts to a goddess rather than to the bride herself. Thus, the complete inscription is ma-ka-ri-te ki-ro u-mi-na-si: u-su 1, mi-tu 1, ku-ra-mu 1, ma-ru 1, ku-pa3-nu 1, tu-ju-ma 1, u-di-mi 1, mi-ru-ta-ra-re 1, te-ja-re 1, na-da-re 1, ku-ro 10 : μακαρίτης χρέος *Ὑμήνᾳσι: ὅσιος (ὔσδος?) 1, μίτος 1, ὅρμος 1, μαλλός 1, ὑφαντόν (*ὑφάνον?) 1, *δεόμα 1, ἐθμοί 1, *μηλο-δηράρ 1, δειρή 1, *νῆθρη 1, κῦρος 10 ‘happy (adj.) owe (rather than ‘groom owes’) to wedding-goddesses: sacral object (branch) 1, thread 1, collar 1, flock of wool 1, woven object 1, incense 1, band 1, a lock of wool from lamb’s head 1, hair 1, spindle 1, in sum 10’. Hired labourers: sa-ta: ku-ku-da-ra 1 ko-sa-*no-ti 1 da-mi-nu 1 da-ne-ku-ti 1 ki-da-ro 1 : θῆτται: κογχοθήρᾳ 1 ξαίνοντι 1 διαμένων/θαμινῷ 1 διανήχοντι 1*κίθαριῳ 1 The second list of the HT 117 tablet has a headline sa-ta : θῆτται (nom. pl.) or θῆττᾳ (dat. sg.) < θῆττα ‘hired servant-girl’, fem. < θής ‘serf, bondsman’ (θῆτές τε δμῶές τε, Od. 4.644), ‘hired labourer’. Phonetically, th > s cf. Συία ‘a Cretan town’ < *Θυία (IC II.299). Doubtfully ζητός, Arc. ζατός ‘sought for’. There is a list of servants under the aforementioned headline: ku-ku-da-ra : κογχοθήρᾳ ‘to the mussel-catcher’ (dat.) < κογχοθήρας; ko-sa-i-ti = ko-sa-*no-ti (Lin. A i and no are very similar): ξαίνοντι (part. sg. pres. act. masc. dat.) ‘to the carder’ (< ξαίνω ‘scratch, comb’), cf. ξάντης ‘wool-carder’; da-mi-nu : διαμένων ‘keeper, holder (of bride?)’ < διαμένω ‘keep (of seeds)’ (or even *διαμίνων? Arcad. pres. part. μίνονσαι) or θαμινῷ < θαμινός ‘crowded, closeset, frequent’ (‘bride-keeper’? ‘home-worker’? ‘the best person at the wedding’??) or δάμνος < δάμνημι, δαμάζω ‘overpower’, esp. of maidens, ‘make subject’ to a husband (Il. 18.432). Doubtfully θάμνος ‘bush, shrub’; ‘tamer’, cf. δαμνῆτις ‘she that subdues’ (Hesych.), δάμνια: θύματα, σφάγια ‘victim, sacrifice’ (Hesych.), δάμνος: ἵππος (Tyrrhen., Hesych.). It can’t be a bride because she is mentioned as the after the mussel-catcher and the carder; da-ne-ku-ti : διανήχοντι ‘to the swimmer’ < διανήχομαι = διανέω ‘swim across’, ‘swim through’; 131 ki-da-ro : *κίθαριῳ ‘player on the cythara’ rather than ‘to the warrior clothed in the coat of mail’ < κίθαρος ‘corslet, coat of mail’. Phonetically, cf. κίδαρις ‘an Arcadian dance’. Cf. also ku-pa3(ba)-na-tu ... ki-da-ro[ (HT 47) Thus, the complete translation of the second list is: sa-ta: ku-ku-da-ra 1 ko-sa-*no-ti 1 da-mi-nu 1 da-ne-ku-ti 1 ki-da-ro 1 = θῆτται: κογχοθήρᾳ 1 ξαίνοντι 1 θαμινῷ 1 διανήχοντι 1*κίθαριῳ 1 ‘servant-girls: to the mussel-catcher – 1 (unit), to the (wool-)carder – 1 (unit), closeset (person, i. e. ‘home-worker’? ‘the best person at the wedding’??) – 1 (unit), to the dying (actor? a victim of the bull-game??) – 1 (unit), to the player on the cithara – 1 (unit)’. Equipment: qif-tu-ne: ku-re-ju, di-ki-se : χιτών: κολεόν, *θήξ The third part of the HT 117 inscription has the headline qif-tu-ne : ‘equipment’ and includes: ku-re-ju : κολεόν, κουλεόν ‘sheath, scabbard’ (Il. 1.194, 220, 3.372, 11.30, Od. 10.333, 11.98); di-ki-se ‘scabbard’ : *θήξ ‘axe’ (< θήγω, θάγω ‘sharpen, whet’, cf. Lin. A da-kuon the axe), or cf. ξιφο-θήκη ‘scabbard’, θηκο-ποιός ‘scabbard-maker’. 4. Cavalry? Horses are not mentioned in Linear A, except a very hypothetical interpretation of a Cretan city-name which mean ‘without horses, horseless’. Lin. A ja-ki-pa3[ (PH 28) /ahipai/ : Ἀἴπεια (CT, kw already > p not only in Lin. B but also in Lin. A?!), cf. Lin. B ipo(-po-qo-i) /hippo-phorguoihi/ (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 93; Molchanov etc. 1988: 139). However, one can found a name of horsemen in Linear A. Lin. A i-qa-*118(*ta) GRA, OLE (three types), OLIV, FIG, VIN (HT 44) : ἱππευταί or rather ἱππόται ‘horsemen’ (nom. pl. masc.) < ἱππότας, Hom. ἱππότα ‘horseman’. Cf. i-ku-ta (HT 35), probably a personal name. The first horse bones on the site appear at the beginning of Troy VI. By contrast, on the Greek Mainland such bones have been found at Tiryns, and possibly also at Lerna, in EH III contexts. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, the domesticated horse is attested a bit earlier in southern Greece than in northwestern Anatolia. (Rutter Lesson 23), cf. (Pappi, Isaakidou 2015, recommended by Joost Blasweiler) 5. Fate of Hittite captives (slaves?): the earliest ‘Trojan War’? The Lin. A tablet HT 7 includes a headline qe-ti VIR (*Χηττοί ἄνδρες ‘Hittite men’?) and a list: i-ru-ja 3, du-ja 4, ta-na-ti 1, da-re 1, te-tu 1, qif-tu-ne 1, da-ru-*329 2. Perhaps, the list describes fates of (Hittite?) men: i-ru-ja /eluha/ (s > h) : ἔλυσα ‘I make free’ < λύω ‘set free’ (augmented!). Cf. Lin. A ri-ru-ma-ti cf. Pluperfect middle/passive pl. 1 elelumetha; du-ja /thuha/ : θῦσα ‘I sacrificed’ < θύω ‘sacrifice, slay (a victim)’ (unaugmented!); ta-na-ti : θάνατος ‘dead’ / κτάντης ‘murderer’ < κτείνω ‘kill’; da-re : θάλλει ‘is active’, ‘grows’ or δῶρον ‘gift, present; votive gift or offering (to a god)’, -a- as in Πίνδαρος, Πάνδαρος; 132 te-tu : δεδιώς (part. sg. perf. act. masc. nom.) < δείδω ‘to fear’ : δίω ‘to flee’ vs θής, gen. θητός ‘serf, hired labourer’; qif-tu-ne : (?) φυτόν ‘offspring’, φιτύω ‘beget’, (of the woman) ‘bear’ > φιτύων (ὡς παῖδα φιτύοντος τῇ πόλει, Plato Rep. 5.461a) rather than *Khition / Kition ‘citykingdom on Cyprus’ (Bibl. Kittim / Chittim ‘Cyprus’); da-ru-… : (?) θῆλυς ‘woman’. Thus, one can interpret this inscription: Lin. A qe-ti VIR i-ru-ja du-ja ta-na-ti da-re te-tu : *Χηττοί ἄνδρες: ἔλυσα 3, θῦσα 4, θάνατοι / κτάντης 1, θάλλει / δωρεά 1, δεδιώς 1 ‘Hittite men: released – 3, sacrificed – 4, dead / murderer – 1; active / gifted – 1; fled – 1; pregnant woman / child / Cypriot – 1; virgins – 2’. In comparison, women and their children from Miletus are mentioned in the Linear B tablets from Pylos. 9. Healing 1. Various Linear A evidence Health and diseases of Minoan Cretans (Riley 1997: 217-238, refs) as well as Aegean healing (Arnott 1996) is a matter for recent investigations. Both in the Early and Middle Minoan periods Cretans lived longer than their mainland counterparts (Halstead 1977: 109; Riley 1997: 222). In comparison, Cretan life expectancy in the Post-Palatial period was possibly slightly less than that ofthe mainland (McGeorge 1990; Riley 1997: 224). Linear A might contain some information about Minoan healing and healers. First, Lin. A i-ja-ma ‘medicine’ (the reading: Georgiev 1958: 82, instead of the modern reading sa-ja-ma) / i-ja-te ‘physician’ (the reading: Godart 1990: 182) : ἴαμα ‘remedy, medicine’ / ἰατήρ ‘healer’ (Lin. B i-ja-te, Class. Cypr. ἰjaτῆραν acc. sing.). Two thse words, i-ja-ma and i-ja-te, represent the Greek suffixal paradigm -ma / -tēr with the suffixes of Indo-European origin, not from substrate. Lin. A si-ma i-ja-te (PH Zb 4), cf. -su-ma- (SY Za 2 from Syme), might mean ‘physician from (the Cretan town) of Syme’, cf. Lin. A i / u alternation; Lin. B si-ma (anthr. fem., Adrados 2: 293). Lin. A ja-si-e (KE Zb 4) might have the same root as i-ja-ma, cf. Iasion. Second, Lin. A ja-pa-ra-ja-se (SY Za 9, libation table) : 1. ja- /ha/ : ἥ ‘this (fem.)’. 2. -pa-ra- : πρός ‘to’ (with acc.) rather than παρά. Cf. pa-ra tu-ru-nu-se-me (below). 3. -ja-se : ἴασις ‘healing, remedy’. Thus, ja-pa-ra-ja-se : ἥ πρὸς ἴασιν ‘it (is) for healing’, cf. πρὸς ἴασιν (Plut., Bruta animalia ratione uti, 1). Third, Lin. A ja-si-e (KE Zb 4, lamp) : ἴασις, ‘healing’. If Demeter-related Iacchus the torch-bearer might be compared to Demeter-related Ἰασίων or Ἰασίως (divine participant of a Cretan rite, Hes. Theog. 969–971) then the lamp might bear the similar name (fem. *Ἰασίη?). 133 Alternatively, cf. a Minoan colony in West Anatolia – Ἰασός (Castleden 1993: 117, 120). Fourth, Lin. A a-na-nu-si-ja-se[ (HT Zb 159, pithos) : ἀν’ ἀνοσίας < ἀνά ‘up’, ἀνοσία ‘fredom from sickness’, cf. Νόσιος ‘healer, a title of Zeus’. Alternatively, ἀνά *Νόσιας ‘to the goddess of healing’. 2. Conditions of sick persons vs women in childbirth The tablet HT 10, after the list of cities or citizens (HT 10a1-4), includes the list, described conditions of some citizens (HT 10b1-4): u-ti 1 da-re 2 ta-ri-na 15 *312-ta 6 ka-sa-ru 6 ta-na-ti 9. There are: u-ti : ὠδίς ‘pangs, throes (of childbirth), travail, anguish’; da-re : θάλλω (of persons, states or conditions) ‘bloom, thrive, flourish’, cf. ζῶν καὶ θάλλων ‘alive and prosperous’ (Soph. Trach. 235) and *312-ta (*zo-ta) below; ta-ri-na : τάλας, Aeol. τάλαις, fem. τάλαινα ‘suffering, wretched’; *312-ta (*312 = ku vs zo, Younger 11) : ζωητός ‘capable of being vitalized’, ζώντως ‘vivide’; ka-sa-ru : ξηροί (nom. pl.) < ξηρός ‘dry’, of bodily condition, ‘withered, lean’; ta-na-ti : Dor. θνατός, Aeol. θνᾶτος ‘liable to death, mortal’, θνητοί ‘mortals’ (Od. 19.593), θνηταί ‘mortal women’ (Od. 5.213). Cf. ti-ni-ta ... VIR (HT 27, a headline) : θνηταί, a list of the dead? 3. Cretan healing in Egyptian papyrus In comparison, an Egyptian papyrus, dated to between XVII and XIV century by different scholars (Sorbets, refs), contains two Cretan spells in the language of Keftiw. This London Medical Papyrus (BM 10059) preserved both: a) the ‘Spell for the Asiatic disease in Keftiw language: s(a,i)-n-t(a,i)-ka-pV-pi-wVj(a,u) ‘(i,a)-j(a,u)-mV-n-t(a,i)-r(a,i)-ku-ka-r(a,i). This spell is to be said over froth of a fermented drink, urine and sd.t’ and b) the ‘Spell for the sa-mu-na disease’ where two Keftiw gods, r-sV-j(a,u) and ‘(a,i)mV-‘(a,i), are mentioned (Kyriakidis: 213–214). Other readings of these names are Razaja/Razija and Ameja/Amija (Haider 2001: 480). The first spell: 1) s(a,i)-n-t(a,i) : ἐξάντης ‘out of danger, healthy, free from’ (νούσου ‘of sickness’ etc.), ἐξάντη (verb 2nd sg. pres. imperat. act.). Aternatively : ξανθός, -ή ‘yellow’ (an euphemism for urine?); 2) ka-pV-pi : κάπος, κάπυς, κάφος ‘breath’ (cf. also καπνός – not only ‘smoke’ but also ‘spray’), perhaps, in instrumentalis: κάπο-φι ‘with froth’. Alternatively : ὀπό-φι ‘with juice’ < ὀπός ‘juice’ (‘vegetable juice, the milky juice which is drawn from a plant by tapping it’). Therefore, it might be ξανθί κ’ ὀπό-φι ‘with urine and juice’ (both in instr.); 3) wV-j(a,u) : Fοῖνος ‘wine’ (gen.?) vs ὗε (2nd sg. pres. imperat. act.) < ὕω ‘to rain’; 4) ‘(i,a)-j(a,u)-mV : ἴαμα ‘remedy, medicine’ (Mosenkis 1998a: 36); 5) n-t(a,i)- : ἀντί ‘against’; 134 6) r(a,i)-ku-ka-r(a,i) is traditionally (Lurie 1947) compared with λαγαγεῖ: ἀφρίζει ‘to foam’ (Hesych.). However, another interpretation might also be proposed: ῥιγαλέος ‘cold, chilling’ < ῥῖγος ‘frost, cold’, also ‘shivering fit, as in ague’. Cf. dengue fever, spread by the yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti). This disease has modern names Asiatic / Tropical ague. Therefore, this spell which ‘is to be said over froth (κάπο-φι) of a fermented drink (Fοῖνω), urine and sd.t’ can be completely translated: s(a,i)-n-t(a,i)- / ka-pV-pi- / wV-j(a,u) / ‘(i,a)-j(a,u)-mV- / n-t(a,i)- / r(a,i)-ku-ka-r(a,i) : ἐξάντη κάπο-φι Fοῖνω – ἴαμα ἀντί ῥιγαλέω ‘become healthy with froth/breath of wine – remedy against ague’ vs ξανθί κ’ ὀπό-φι ὗε – ἴαμα ἀντί ῥιγαλέω ‘with urine and juice, let you rain – remedy against ague’. In the second spell, r-sV-j(a,u) : Ἐλεύθυια and ‘(a,i)-mV-‘(a,i) : ἥ Μαῖα (cf. Akulov 2017) or Ἀμάλθεια. These goddesses were nurturers. 135 Chapter 4. GREEK RELIGION IN LINEAR A 1. Goddesses and gods Linear A reflects the Greek religion and cults in Minoan Crete: Lin. A ma-te-re ‘mother’, -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : αὐτή *δεσποινικία ‘of the Queen’, e-si-ja ‘Ἑστία’ (from Hatti?), da-ma-te ‘Δαμάτηρ’ (from Albanian?), a-ra-u-da ‘Ἐλευθία’, zu-wa-ni-se : Διονυσίη. Minoan religion is one of the most important – and most vexed – topics in the Aegean Bronze Age. (Gulizio, Nakassis 2014: 115, refs) The most vexing problem for students of Minoan culture is the secure identification of rulers and gods. (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 181) Nilsson treated Minoan and Mycenaean religion as though they were the same. (Marinatos 1993: 9) 1. Mother: Lin. A ma-te-re sesame : Lin. B ma-te-re /matrei/ That a powerful goddess of nature was the chief deity of the Minoans was recognized already by Evans and has never been seriously questioned. (Marinatos 1993: 147) Some scholars have assumed that the Minoans worshipped a Great Goddess, the Mediterranean ‘Magna Mater’, and that they later divided her up into a series of more specialized divinities. (Castleden 1993: 124, see also: Nilsson 1927: 344-348) Evans [...] was caught between two conflicting paradigms: that the Minoan goddess was a Hathor/Nut figure and that she was akin to Cybele, the great mother of Asia. (Marinatos 2009: 27; cf. Marinatos s. a.) She might be the Linear B Potnia (Castleden 1993: 124), absent in Linear A but presented in the Cretan hieroglyphs (FOOT/pod-ne-ja). The Minoan Mother Goddess and her divine son were suggested by Nanno Marinatos (Marinatos). The Minoan pantheon of Greek goddesses can be found in Linear A. First of all, Lin. A ma-te-re *339 (PH 15; the logogram is similar to sa as possible shortening of sa-sa-me, ‘sesame’) might reflect Mother Goddess(es). Cf. Lin. B ma-te-re te-i-ja (dat.) ‘to the mother of gods’, ma-te-re (PY Fr 1202) = matrei (theiai) ‘for the mother (of gods)’. In Classical Greek, ἡ Μήτηρ is Δημήτηρ. 2. Lady (Despoina): Lin. A -au-ta-de-po-ni-za : αὐτή *δεσποινικία Lin. A -au-ta- = αὐτή ‘self, alone’, a common Greek-Phrygian word. Lin. A -de-po-ni-za = *δεσποινικία (za /kja/ in Lin. B) < δεσποινικός ‘belonging to the household’ (or ‘in service of the queen’, Beekes: 319) from δέσποινα ‘mistress, princess, queen, goddess‘. It is an epithet / title of Arete, Medea, Hecate, Artemide, Demeter, Persephone, Cybele etc. Two Arcadian goddesses had this name. Cf. δέσποιν᾽ ἁπασῶν, πότνι᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλι (Com. Adesp. 340.1), δεσποίνῃ Ἀθηναίᾳ τῇ τῆς πόλεως μεδεούσῃ (Aristoph. Knights 763), πότνια δέσποιν᾽ Ἀθηναία ποιῶν ἀπόλωλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος κἀν δέοντι τῇ πόλει (Aristoph. Peace 250), δέσποιν᾽ Ἀθάνα (Eurip. 136 Rhesus 595, Suppliants 1196), δέσποινα Πολιάς (Athena, Plut. Demosthenes 26). Despoina is an equivalent of Mycenaean Potnia, closely related to wanax. Lin. B do-pota ‘god’s name or epithet’ (Adrados 1: 188). Demeter, they say, had by Poseidon a daughter, whose name they are not wont to divulge to the uninitiated, and a horse called Areion. For this reason they say that they were the first Arcadians to call Poseidon Horse. […] The Phigalians accept the account of the people of Thelpusa about the mating of Poseidon and Demeter, but they assert that Demeter gave birth, not to a horse, but to the Mistress, as the Arcadians call her’ (Paus. 8.25.7, 8.42.1, transl. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod). Demeter might also be < PIE *dems-mater ‘mother of the house’ (H. Frisk). Demeter and Persephone were called Δέσποιναι at Olympia, in possible relation to Lin. B wana-so-i, ‘two queens’. Despoina was Demeter’s daughter, worshipped in Arcadia (Paus. 8.42.1). This Mistress the Arcadians worship more than any other god, declaring that she is a daughter of Poseidon and Demeter. Mistress is her surname among the many, just as they surname Demeter's daughter by Zeus the Maid [Kore]. But whereas the real name of the Maid is Persephone, as Homer and Pamphos before him say in their poems, the real name of the Mistress I am afraid to write to the uninitiated ’ (Paus. 8.37.9). Both names of Demeter’s daughters, Kore and Despoina, look like euphemism for tabooed names. Lin. B po-ti-ni-ja = πότνια is the closest parallel. Thus, -au-ta-de-po-ni-za = αὐτή *δεσποινικία ‘(a city-state) of the Lady herself’, cf. αὐτοδεσπότης ‘absolute master’, αὐτοδεσποτεία ‘absolute rule’, οἰκοδέσποινα, ‘mistress of a family’. 3. Hestia: Lin. A e-si-ja : Ἑστία / Ἱστία : Hatt. Estan > Hitt. Istanus ‘sun goddess’ Lin. A e-si-ja (from the right to the left!) on the lamp (KE Zb 4): ἑστία ‘hearth of a house’, also a title of a priestess, or Ἑστίᾳ, ‘to Hestia’. The goddess was the founder of Knossos (Lactant. 1.11.46, quoting Ennius’ Latin translation of Euhemerus’ Sacred History, Hutchinson 1962: 199). If Ἑστία / Ἱστία is really unrelated to Latin Vesta because of the absence of initial Fin the former, despite Fιστίαυ and γιστία (Beekes, : 471-472, cf. LSJ, s. v.), then cf. Hatt. Estan > Hitt. Istanus ‘sun goddess’. In comparison, cf. Cretan Fέλχανος (> Etruscan Velkhan > Latin Vulcanus ‘god of fire and metalworking’) and Τελχίνες (< *gwelkh -) ‘Cretan metalworkers’ from Proto-North Caucasian *ɦw laqē > Lak wilaχ ‘hearth’. Straight reading (from the left to the right) ja-si-e (in a possible relation with ἴασις, ‘healing’) is less acceptable because the object is the lamp. However, if Demeterrelated Iacchus the torch-bearer might be compared to Demeter-related Ἰασίων or Ἰασίως (divine participant of a Cretan rite, Hes. Theog. 969-971) then the similar name might be inscribed on the lamp. 137 4. Demeter Lin. A da-ma-te (on the steatite vessel from the Ayios Georgios peak sanctuary in Kythera, KY Za 2) is Δαμάτηρ. This goddess was of Cretan origin (Hom. Hymn to Demeter, 123). Traditional interpretation of Da- is δᾶ, Dorian variant for γᾶ, ‘earth’ (cf. Dor. Ἐννοσί-δας for Ἐννοσί-γαιος), or < Maced. -γδαν : χθών, Alb. dhe ‘earth, land’ (cf. Θέτις, Τηθύς ‘sea-goddess’ : Alb. det ‘sea’) but also Egypt. ta, ‘earth, land’. Vladimir I. Georgiev (1957: 5-8, 42) also reconstructed this word in Thracian, loaned in Greek. ‘Though one might expect the name in Mycenaean, it happens not to have been found so far’ (Beekes: 324, other etymologies). 5. Eleuthya Lin. A a-ra-u-da (KH 5, before a list mentioning wine, figs etc.): Lin. B e-re-u-ti-ja (KN) : Lacon. Ἐλευθία (Adrados 1: 244), Cretan Ἐλεύθυια, a goddess of childbirth, traditionally linked with Ἐλευσίς (an old city of Attica, sacred to Demeter and Persephone). Cretan wooden figures (ξόανα) of Eleuthyia were demonstrated in her Athenian temple. She is a goddess of Cretan or even Hyperborean origin (Paus. 1.18.5). ‘Eileithyia of the hard pains had brought out the child into the light, and he looked on the sun's shining’ (Il. 16.187-189). Marianna Ridderstad (...) demonstrated the Minoan roots of the Eleusinian mysteries. Phonetically, Lin. A da = thia here. Homer (Od. 19.198) mentioned the cave of Eileithyia near Amnisos. In classical times, there were shrines of Eileithyia in the Cretan cities of Lato and Eleutherna and a sacred cave at Inatos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileithyia), but Lin. A wi-na-du (KH 5) is ‘sweet wine’ rather than the name of (W)Inatos. Eileithyia was depicted as a woman wielding a torch, representing the burning pains of childbirth, or with her arms raised in the air to bring the child to the light (http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Eileithyia.html), cf. Spica in Virgo and Mycenaean Psi-figurines. In comparison, Taweret, an Egyptian goddess of childbirth and fertility, was adopted in Crete as ‘Minoan genius’ (Rehak 1995; Weingarten 1991; Weingarten 2013). The genius is often portrayed with water vessels, such as ewers, so it seems to play a role as libation bearer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_Genius). Cf. also Hitt.-Luw. arawa-, ‘free, released’. The Cretan wooden statues of Eleuthya were demonstrated in her Athenian temple; she was a goddess of Cretan or even Hyperborean origin (Paus. 1.18.5). Thus, the Cretan cult of Eleuthya is evidenced by Linear A, Linear B, Odyssey and archaeology. 6. Dionysus: Lin. A a-ra-ki zu-wa-ni-se : ἀρχηΐς Διονυσίη Several decades ago, Hellenists (especially researchers of the Ancient Greek language and religion) were strongly surprised because of the appearance of di-wo- 138 nu-so-jo ‘of Dionysus’ in Linear B: prevoiusly the late Thracian origin was ascribed to this god. Lin. A a-ra-ki zu-wa-ni-se (SY Zb 7, terracotta zoomorphic rhyton from the Syme sanctuary) : ἀρχηΐς ‘priestess’ Διονυσίη ‘of Dionysos (fem.)’ or Διονυσίης ‘of the festival of Dionysus’ (cf. ἀρχίς ‘ruler (fem.)’, perhaps in a-re-ki- KN Zf 13); zu reflects dio (djo). Attested form Διάνυσος (if it not influenced by διά ‘through’ or similar) corresponds with wa (= a?) in zu-wa-ni-se, but it also might be only an orthographic convention (because of absence of the wo sign). Cf. Lin. A du-me-di (HT 19) : dat. < Διομήδης ‘Zeus-counselled’. Perhaps, Linear A Dionysos reflects the Phrygian element in Minoan Crete (cf. Phrygian σεμελοσ ‘earth’ : Σεμέλη ‘Dionysos’ mother’). The name bears Arcado-Cypriot genitive -ν in Διόν and ὕς, ὑύς, ‘son’, cf. long υ in Διόνυσος; the form διον(ν)ύς (Hesych., Etym. Magn.) confirms the etymology. The image of Dionysus as a bull might also be related to Palaic-Hittite tiuna/i- ‘bull’, mixed with the Greek name. Cretans named bull ‘Adiounios bull’ (Anecd. Bekk. 344.10; Losev 1957: 134); Phryg. diunsin (Neroznak 1978: 119). Cretan Zeus is common Hellenic proto-Dionysus (Losev 1957: 143). Dionysus was worshipped in Cretan Eleutherae, Cydonia, Praesus (Losev 1957: 144). Dionysos’ wife was Cretan Ariadne (attested as arakhne ‘spider’ = Ari-hagne in Cretan Hieroglyphs), consequently, the Minoan roots of the god are not surprising. The priestess of Dionysos might be a maenad or a Bacchantess. In Euripides’ Bacchae, bodies of the maenads are surrounded by/with snakes – like Cretan Snake-Goddess and Cucuteni-Trypillian figurines. About Cretan Zeus, see below. 7. ‘Oil for Zeus, Minoan Genii, Zeus’ guardians, and proto-Ariadne’: A list of Minoan gods? Lin. A (HT 1) qe-ra2-u ki-ro 197 zu-su 70 di-di-za-ke 52 ku-pa3-nu 109 a-ra-na-re 105. There are: zu-su : Διός (instead of ΔιFός, without digamma, as it typical to the Ionic dialect; zu /djo/), gen. < Ζεύς; di-di-za-ke : τέττιγος, gen. < τέττιξ ‘cicala’, the Minoan ‘Genii’. Cf. οἱ τέττιγες οὐκ εὐδαίμονες (Xenarch. 14), οἱ Μουσῶν προφῆται (Plat. Phaedr. 262d); ku-pa3-nu : Κύρβαντος, gen. < Κύρβας (< *Κύρβανς) ‘one among the Cyrbantes’ (Soph. Ich. 862; Lycophron, Alexandra 78; Strab. 7 fr. 50, 10.3.19) = Corybantes; a-ra-na-re (*-se?) : ἀράχνας, gen. < ἀράχνη ‘spider’ (an image of ‘proto-Ariadne’?). Thus, oil was offered to Zeus, Cicala(s) (‘Minoan Genius/-i’), Cyrbantos/-es (guardians of young Zeus), and Spider (proto-Ariadne?). Possible another list of gods (HT 49) includes qa-ra2-du (ἁλιάς, -άδος, ἡ ‘belonging to sea’)) ]ta-na-ti (< ἀθάνατος ‘immortal’, ἀθάνατοι ‘the Immortals’), ti-du-ni (Τιθωνός in dat.?), a-ru (ἥρῳ, dat. < ἥρως ‘hero’?), ku-pa3-nu (Κύρβας in dat.?), tu-supu2 (*διο-σοφός ‘heavenly clever’?). 139 8. Oriental gods? The HT 88 tablet might contain a list of Near Eastern gods: ku-pa3-pa3 /kubaba/ : Kubaba, a Sumerian queen (late third millennium BC) and then Mesopotamian and Anatolian goddess, known in Greek as Κυβήβη (‘daughter of Zeus’, Hipponax fr. 125) = Cybele; ka-ju : Χάος ‘Chaos’ (corresponded to Canaanite / Ugaritic Yam ‘Sea’?) rather than γάιος ‘on land’; ku-pa3-nu : Κύρβαντες / Κορύβαντες were dancing priests of Cybele. pa-ja-re /bahal/ : Canaanite / Ugaritic Baʿal ‘Lord’, later Greek Βάαλ; sa-ma-ro : Samal the mother of vultures (Ugaritic epic of Aqhat), in general – a bird of the Otherworld, traced to the Catal Hoyuk birds : Σεμέλη : Phrygian ζεμελωσ ‘of earth’ : Greek χθαμαλός ‘near the ground, on the ground, low’; da-ta-re : Δαίδαλος ‘Daedalus’, initially ‘a bird who lead souls’ (cf. winged Daedalus and Icarus as well as Daedalus’ nephew winged Talos or Perdix ‘partridge’). Therefore, this list might reflect Anatolian and Ugaritic influence on the Minoan panteon. 2. Cult places 1. Psychro cave? Sacral caves were significant cult places in Minoan Crete (Marinatos 1941; Faure 1964; Tyree 1974; Watrous 1996; Tyree 2001; Rutkowski, Nowicki 1996; Platon 2013). The most ancient sanctuaries are caves and rock shelters. Both were used as habitations in palaeolithic and neolithic times over all Europe from Sweden to Crete, and very often the dead were buried in or at the mouth of the caves where the people lived. (Nilsson 1927: 49) The Psychro cave in the mount Aigaion (‘of goats’, cf. Δίκτη : δίζα ‘goat’ below) was an old Minoan cult place (Glotz 2003: 257–258), used already in the Middle Minoan period (Nilsson 1927: 58). The name of this cave might be hypothetically found in Linear A o(*pi?)-su-qa-re = *Ψυχρή, in so-called ‘Minoan libation formula’: a-ta-i-301-wa-ja o-su-qa-re a-sa-sa-ra-me... Lin. A o is similar to pi, then o-su-qa-re might be *pi-su-qa-re = *Ψυχρή (‘cold’, fem.), Modern Greek Ψυχρού ‘Psychro cave’. Perhaps, q denotes χ, as in a-se-tu-qi = Ἀστυόχη. If Lin. A o-ra2-di-ne (HT 6) is ἐλᾴδιον, ἐλαίδιον ‘young olive-tree; a little oil’ (Beekes: 400; LSJ; see above) then o- might mean e- in this case and o-su-qa-re might be ἐσχάρη ‘hearth, fire-place’. But o-ra2-di-ne appears in a possible list of Cretan cities (see above). 140 The position of this word in the Libation Formula points to its interpretation as a place-name. Cf. Psychion (Cretan town). 2. Dicte mount ‘We do not yet know where to place that of Mount Dikte.’ (Glotz 2003: 258). Some researchers (firstly Pugliese Carratelli 1957: 170-172) propose to identify the name of the Cretan sacral mountain Δίκτη in Lin. A -di-ki-tu / -di-ki-te-(te), cf. Lin. B di-ka-ta(-de) /Diktan-de/ ‘to Dicte’, di-ka-ta-jo di-we /Diktaioi Diwei/ (dat.) ‘to Dictaean Zeus’. Lin. A a-*301-ki-ta-a (TY Zb 4, pithos) : Δικταῖα (Adj. fem., j > h) ‘of Dicte’ rather than ἄθικτα (neut. pl.) ‘holy things’ < ἄθικτος ‘untouched, not to be touched, holy’. The name might be related to Lacon. δίζα : αἴξ, ‘goat’ (Hesych.; Indo-European, Beekes 333), as a possible place where Amalthea nursed newborn Zeus (goats near peak sanctuaries are depicted on Kato Zakro rhyton and Pylos gold ring), or to δείκνυμι, Cretan δίκνυμι (possible dialectal monophthongization!), perf. δέδεκται, ‘point out, show’, Latin digitus ‘finger’ as a sacral landmark or rather the place where god(desse)s appear. Alternatively, a-di-ki-te : ἄθικτη ‘untouched (meal)’, cf. ja-di-ki-tu (IO Za 2) : ἄθικτος. On the ending of ja-di-ki-tu, cf. Lin. B i-du (anthr. fem. nom., Adrados 1: 272) : *Ἰδώ? 3. Ida mount Several forms of the name of Cretan sacral mountain Ida (Ἴδη toward which the Phaistos palace oriented, Scully 1962; Dokkum) might be hypothetically found in Linear A: 1) i-da (a separate word, PK Za 18; ZA 24; perhaps, also PK Za 9, PK Za 17); 2) i-da-a in tu-ru-sa du-pu3-re i-da-a (KO Za 1), perhaps adj. fem. Ἰδαῖα ‘of Ida’, cf. Lin. B i-da-i-jo, wi-da-jo : Ἰδαῖος (Adrados 1: 271, 2: 427); 3) i-da-ma-te (the same inscription on two axes – gold and silver – from Arkalokhori, AR Zf 1 and AR Zf 2) : Ἴδα μάτηρ (Peruzzi 1960: 25; Shevoroshkin 1965: 46). Ida was considered the Great Mother (Lucr. 2.610–613); 4) te-me-da-i (THE tablet 6 from Thera) John Younger proposes to read conversely i-da-me-te as ‘a misspelling for I-DA-MA-TE?’ However, it might be an Ionian-like dialectal form; 5) i-da-mi in the position of a place-name in the ‘libation formula’ (SY Za 1) looks like Hittite *Ida-mis ‘my Ida’; 6) a-ro-te- i-da-da (CR Zg 4, a seal; photos of the seal and its sealprints: Perna 2014: 256–257) might be ἀρότης Ida-dan ‘husbandman from Ida’, cf. Ἴδηθεν μεδέων ‘ruling from Ida’ (Iliad 3.276, cf. 4.475, but of Trojan, not Cretan Ida), Arcadian θύρ-δα ‘from the door’, Phryg. -dan ‘from’. The mountain name was ἴδα ‘timber-tree, wood’ initially (Paus. 10.12.7). This ‘PreGreek word without further etymology’ (Beekes: 577) might be later influenced by Fιδ- ‘see’, cf. εἴδομαι ‘to be seen, appear’, εἶδος ‘that which is seen’ (Indo-European): 141 it might be considered a place where goddess(es) appear (as it is depicted on Minoan seals). In mythical thought, Ida sees the sun before the sunrise (Solin. 11.6; Lucr. 5.663-665; Etym. Magn., s. v.). Initial w-, sometimes suggested for this word, is not reflected in Linear A. The repeating of the mountain name in Crete and Troad might reflect Phrygian migration from Anatolia to Crete, which preceded the appearance of Linear A (which reflects the name of Ida) and even the appearance of the Cretan hieroglyphs (because they reflect the Phrygian phonetics in syllabary and morphology). 4. Dictaean cave as the labyrinth? Lin. A a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu(2)-re : ἅ Δίκτηνδε *θύφρη (: δύβρις / τάφρη) : ἐν ἄντρῳ τῆς Δίκτης (Apollod. 1.1.5) The sign-group a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re occurs in so-called Libation Formula between a-ta-i-301-wa-ja and ja-sa-sa-ra-me where place names (i-da ‘Ida’, se-to-i-ja ‘Setoia’, turu-sa ‘Tulis(s)ia < Tulis(s)os’, o-su-qa-re < *pi-su-ka-re ‘Psychre’) occur in other similar inscriptions. Then, the reading di-ki-te ‘Dicte’ might be correct. If Lin. A often reflects the second vowel of diphthong, du-pu(2)-re might be *d(a)upu(2)-re without -ινθ-suffix, cf. Lin. B da-pu2-ri-to-jo po-ti-ni-ja ‘Lady of the Labyrinth’. Different linguists proposed many parallels to λαβύρινθος, traditionally considered ‘pre-Greek’, ‘Aegean’, ‘non-Indo-European’ (cf. Beekes 819). However, an Indo-European etymology of this word can be proposed. Lin. A du-pu2-re ‘*cave’ : Lin. B da-pu2-ri-to ‘labyrinth’ (also Lin. B da-pu2-ra-zo, dupu2-ra-zo anthr. masc., Adrados 1: 156, 197) = τύμβος ‘sepulchral mound’ : τάφος ‘tomb’ = Lithuanian du ur s ‘hollow, trough’ : dau ur s ‘ravine, trough among mountains’, dau urà, Latv. duburs ‘fairly deep and wide spot in a river, three-hollow’ (the two latter after: Derksen 2015: 117, 143) = Proto-Slavic *dŭ rĭ ‘ravine’ : *dom rŭ ‘forest’, Latvian dumbrs ‘swamp’. Greek τάφρος, τάφρη ‘ditch, trench’ (< *θαφρ-, acc. to Grassman law) and especially Cretan θάπτρα ‘monument’ (Beekes 534) are also comparable. These aforementioned Greek words are linked with other Creek words, τάφος ‘tomb’ (> English epitaphy) and τύμβος ‘sepulchral mound’ (> English tomb), which might reflect Indo-European *dh mbh-. If traditional transcription of the Linear B da-pu2-ri-to is daphur-inth-os then the Linear A du-pu2-re might be dup (u)rē ‘cave’, cf. Greek δύβρις ‘sea’ < ‘*deep’ with good Indo-European etymology (Neroznak 1978: 183; Beekes 358; absent in LSJ). If Lin. A d is mostly th in alphabetical Greek then Linear A might be a contemporary of acting Grassman law or even might precede it. The reconstructed word might be conventionally replaced with τάφρη. Thus, a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re might be interpreted ha Diktēn-de duph(u)rē / δύβρις ‘cave into Dicte’. Cf. Lin. B di-ka-ta-de /Diktan-de/. In comparison, pa-ta-da du-pu2-re (HT Zb 160, pithos from Haghia Triada near Phaistos) might be *Φαιστιαν-δαν ‘from Phaistian cave’; cf. pa-ta-da[ (PH (?) 31, Phaistos), if -da is not graphic/phonetic variant of -de. Cf. Phrygian -dan, Hurrian da(n), Georgian -dan ‘from’. 142 Lin. A a-301-ki-ta-a (TY Zb 4) : ἅ Δικταῖα. Perhaps, caves, which the Cretans used as the Neolithic dwellings and which they sacralized as the ‘labyrinths’, as well as Knossian ‘hypogeum’ (preceded the Old Palace) and ‘crypta’ in Mallia represented the same idea of underearth enclosed room, traced to the Paleolithic cave shrines. Homeric Minos renewed his sacral power nameli in the cave! ‘[...] уже давно известно удивительное пристрастие минойцев ко всевозможным подземным или надземным, но обязательно изолированным и не освещаемым помещениям’ (Andreev 1989: 115). 5. Idaean cave near Tylissos? Lin. A tu-ru-sa du-pu3-re i-da-a : *Τύλισια *θύφρη Ἰδαῖα ‘Idaean cave of Tylissos’ Lin. A tu-ru-sa du-pu3-re i-da-a (KO Za 1, in the place-name position of the Libation Formula) : *Τύλυ/ισια (adj. fem. < *Τύλυσος, Τύλισος), δύβρις ‘cave’ (see above), and Ἰδαῖα ‘of Ida’. Note that this word-combination contains three corresponding feminine forms. Cf. Lin. B i-da-i-jo, wi-da-jo : Ἰδαῖος (Adrados 1: 271, 2: 427). Tylis(s)os was famous Minoan town in which area many caves are located. This town is located near Phaistos which palace is oriented towards Ida mountain. Demeter’s sacral field: ra-ri-de-me-te : Ραριάς Δημήτηρ Lin. A ra-ri-de-me-te (HT 94) : Lin. B ra-ri-di-jo : Ραρίς (Adrados 2: 224), Ραριάς Δημήτηρ, cf. Ραριάς ‘epithet of Demeter’ (St. Byz.), Ράριον (πεδίον) ‘the field where tillage was first practised, and which was sacred to Demeter’ (Paus. 1.38.6; St. Byz.; Hom. hymn to Demeter 450-454). Ρᾶρος was the father of Triptolemus (Paus. 1.14.3). If ῤάρος means ‘abortive child’ and ῤάριον is a diminutive form of it, an ancient rite (foeti / abortive children, sacred to Demeter’s field?) might be reconstructed. Lin. A qif-tu-ne ‘child (?)’ is the next word after ra-ri-de-me-te (HT 94). Cf.: ‘But Ister, in his collection of the Cretan sacrifices, says that the Curetes formerly sacrificed children to Saturn.’ (Porphyry, On abstinence from animal food 2.56, transl. Th. Taylor). Child’s skull, found at Kato Zakro, might be a sacrificial victim (Platon 1971: 120; Riley 1997: 218). Children were also sacrificed in Late Minoan IB Knossos (Wall et al. 1986: 333383; Riley 1997: 222-223, cf. Otto 1996). Therefore, the myth about teenagers, sending to Minotaur (priest-king in bull’s mask?), obtains archaeological background (in addition to its astronomical meaning). However, Δημήτηρ was also a name for ‘bread’. Thus, the appearance of this word in the list of plants is not surprising. Demeter is also reflected in Lin. A da-ma-te from Kythera (above). 6. Temple of Zeus and his nurse? Lin. A je-di ... du-zu-wa : ἕδει θεοῦ ΔιFός : Hom. θεὸς Ζεύς; Lin. A je-di ... pa3-ka-ra-ti ... te-301(*de / *the) : ἕδει Παγκρατῇ, τήθῃ ‘to the temple of Zeus (and his) nurse’. The tablets HT 36 and HT 8 might reflect the cults of θεὸς Ζεύς (Od. 4.236, 14.327) and Ζεὺς ὁ παγκρατὴς (Aesch. Eum. 916) respectively. Lin. A je-di du-zu-wa (HT 36): 143 je-di /he-di/ : ἕδος ‘dwelling-place (esp. of the gods)’, perhaps in dat. ἕδει, Lin. B opi-e-de-i /opi hedei/ ‘for the temple’; cf. Lin. A je-di (HT 122, after a list of Cretan towns), Lin. A je-di OLE (HT 140). Greek ἕδος < IE *sed- ‘sit down’, cf. a Cretan rite to prepare the seat for Zeus every year (Porph. Vit. Pyth. 17). du- : θεός, Cret. θιός, Dor. also θεύς, gen. sg. θεοῦ, Lin. B te-o, gen. sg. te-o-jo ‘god’; -zu-wa : Ζεύς, gen. ΔιFός, Mycen. (Lin. B) gen. di-wo /Diwos/ ‘Zeus’. The form zuwa for the name of Zeus is regular, cf. zu-wa-ni-se ‘of Dionysus’ (SY Zb 7, see above). Thus, Lin. A je-di du-zu-wa : ἕδει θεοῦ ΔιFός, cf. Hom. θεὸς Ζεύς (Od. 4.236, 14.327). Lin. A je-di OLE ... pa3-ka-ra-ti (HT 8) : παγκρατής ‘all-powerful’ (epith. of Zeus: ὦ παγκρατὲς Ζεῦ, Aesch. Seven Against Thebes 255; Ζεὺς ὁ παγκρατὴς, Aesch. Eumenides 916; παγκρατὴς Κρόνου παῖς, Soph. Philoctetes 676), perhaps, dat. παγκρατῇ, in the context je-di pa3-ka-ra-ti : παγκρατεῖς ἕδρας ‘omnipotent throne’ (of Zeus, Aesch. Prometheus Bound 391). Lin. A te-301 (HT 8) ≈ te-*de / *the : τήθη ‘grandmother’, perhaps dat. τήθῃ, Illyr. deda ‘nurse’ (Beekes: 1477), also Georgian deda ‘mother’; cf. τίτθη ‘nurse’ (these words were confused in the Ancient Greek texts) and τιθήνη ‘nurse’ from another IE root. Lin. A si-ki-ra (HT 8) : Σκύλλα (Lin. A i / u), cf. not only Minoan pictures of dogshaped water-monster Scylla but also a princess of Megara Σκύλλα, killed by Minos, and especially Cretan Zeus Skullaios. Lin. A pa-ja-re (HT 8) : Φαίδρα, Φαίδρη ‘bright, beaming’ (of the sun and the moon), the name of Minos’ daughter < PIE *gwh eh2id- (Lith. gaidra ‘cloudless heaven, clear weather’ Beekes 1544), but a contamination with φάος ‘light’ or even *gwh > ph (in contrast to Mycenaean Greek) are not excluded. Lin. A ka-pa (HT 8) might be an eponym of Carpathos, ruled by Minos (Diod. 5.54.4). Lin. A ki-re-ta-na (HT 8) : Κρητηνία, a place on Rhodes where Cretans invaded the island (Ps.-Apollod. 3.2.1; St. Byz., s. v. Kretenia). Is it a coincidence that the sanctuary of young Zeus was found namely at Hagia Triada? At Hagia Triada the earlier sanctuary was surmounted by one of Hellenic date, in which, however, the male divinity had now attained prominence as the youthful Zeus Velchanos. As Zeus Kretagenes, he was the object of what was regarded in other parts of the Greek world as a heterodoxcult. But in spite of the jeers of Kallimachos at the “Cretan liars” who spoke of Zeus as mortal, the worship persisted to late classical times and points of affinity with the Christian point of view were too obvious to be lost. It is at least a highly suggestive fact that on the ridge of Juktas, where the tomb of Zeus was pointed out to Byzantine times and on a height above his birth cave little shrines have been raised in honor of Αὐθενθὴς Χριστὸς—Christ, the Lord. (Evans 1913: 625) 144 3. Priestesses Nanno Marinatos analyses Minoan priesthood in details (Marinatos 1993: 127-146). Lin. A reflects some elements of this institute. A Rhodian priestess in Syria: Lin. A ro-da ka-wa : Ῥόδια *καFία ‘Rhodian priestess’ vs Ῥόδιας *καFίας ‘(bowl) of Rhodian priestess’ Lin. A ro-da ka-wa or ka-a (a silver bowl from Ugarit/Ras-Shamra, PM IV.2: 783) 1. ro-da : Ῥόδια, ‘Rhodian, of or from Rhodes’. Rhode, Ῥόδη was Rhodian seagoddess (Apollod. 1.4.4; Diod. 5.55; Pind. Olymp. 7.24, 100 sqq; Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 923; Ov. Met. 4.204). 2. ka-wa : 1) γόης, κόης, κοίης, ‘priest’ (g / k in Lin. A and AncientMaced.), fem. *kowia / *kawia (Lin. A dar-, Greek Dar-dan-, Tin-dar-, Dares : Greek dor-, ‘gift’), related to Lydian kaweś, ‘priest’, Sanskrit kaví-, ‘seer, sage’ (see: Neroznak 1978: 50) or 2) γαῖα < *γαFῖα, ‘earth’ (‘Rhodian land’, cognates: gava(s) ‘county, countryside’, Goth. gawi, Duridanov, Chapter V) or 3) καίω, κάω < καF-jω, ‘kindle’, πυρ-καεύς, ‘fire-kindler’ (Ναύπλιος). Fire for sailors might be associated with rose (ῥόδον). Thus, the whole inscription means ‘Rhodian priestess or land or fire-kindler’. The first or the third variant may be preferred. Lamp-carrying priestess: Lin. A i-ja-re-di(*wi?)-ja i-ja-pa[ : ἱαρηFίjα ἅπτρα ‘priestess’ lamp’ A lamp bears an inscription: i-ja-re-di-ja (IO Za 5, stone lamp) or rather i-ja-re-*wi-ja (di and wi are similar) : ἱερός, Dorian and Northern Greek ἱαρός ‘initiated’, Lin. B i-je-re-ja, Dorian and Northwest Greek ἱαρέα or ἱάρεα, especially ἱάρεια (Thebes) ‘a priestess’, Cypr. ἰερηFίjα, ‘sanctuary’, ἱερατεία, ‘priesthood’, ἱερατεῖον, ‘a sanctuary’, ἱερωτός, ή, όν, Thess. ἱαρωτός, ἱαρουτός, ‘consecrated’, ἱρήτειρα, ‘priestess’ (Hesych.). i-ja-pa[ in the same inscription : ἅπτω, ‘kindle, set on fire’ (‘The initial aspiration is secondary’ : Latin aptus ‘fit, apt’, Hitt. happ-zi ‘to join’ < Proto-Indo-European *h2ep‘join, fit’, Beekes 120), ἅπτρα, ‘wick of a lamp’ (ἁφή ‘kindling’ > Ἥφαιστος?), more archaic form ἰάπτω, ‘hurt, spoil’ (‘Etymology unclear’, Beekes 574; > Ἰαπετός the father of Prometheus, an old form of Ἥφαιστος?). Cf. also ἐφ-έστιος ‘at one’s own fireside, at home’. Thus, we obtain i-ja-re-*wi-ja i-ja-pa[ : ἱάρεFιας/ ἰαρηFίjας *ἰάπτρα / ἅπτρα ‘priestess’ / sanctuary’s lamp’. 4. Offering: to sacral throne vs to Demeter Lin. A pa-ra tu-ru-nu-se-me : παρὰ θρόνῳ σεμνῷ vs παρὰ δώρων Σεμνῄ The Minoan throne cult and Knossian ‘throne room’ are well-known. Cf. neighbouring traditions: Egypt. Isis (Iset ‘throne’) and Hattic Throne-goddess (Proto- 145 Sem. han, ‘place’ and shwth, ‘sitting’ > Hatt. Hanwasuit > Hittite Halmasuit). Sacral throne may be mentioned in Linear A. Lin. A pa-ra tu-ru-nu-se-me GRA … wa-tu-ma-re GRA (HT 128): 1) pa-ra : not only παρά which means (among other meanings) ‘to the side of, to’ in composites or rather πρός ‘to’, see the parallel text: ja-pa-ra-ja-se : ἥ πρὸς ἴασιν ‘it (is) for healing’, cf. πρὸς ἴασιν (Plut., Bruta animalia ratione uti, 1); less acceptable φορά ‘carrying, bringing’; 2) tu-ru-nu- : Lin. B to-ro-no-, θρόνος, ‘throne’, cf. Apollo’s throne in the Prytaneum, or a form of δῶρον ‘votive gift or offering to a god’: φέρε δῶρον Ἀθήνῃ (Il. 6.293); 3) -se-me : σεμνός, ‘holy’, of many goddess: Demeter, Hecate, Thetis, Athena, Σεμναί are Erinyes; cf. σεμναί in Hom. Hymn 2 to Demeter 486; 4) wa-tu-ma-re is identical to aforementioned wa-sa-to-ma-ro. On the one hand, Lin. A pa-ra tu-ru-nu-se-me strongly resembles ἐν θρόνῳ σεμνῷ (Herodot. 2.173), cf. also σεμνοί τε θᾶκοι ‘holy seats’ (Aesch. Agam. 519), σεμνὰς καθεδοῦνται (Aristoph. Eccles. 618). Then, the sentence may be read: παρά θρόνῳ σεμνῷ GRA (acc.).., *(F)ἀστυμάρ(π)τις (dat.) GRA (acc.). However, the presented reading contradicts with the hypothesis of Linear A d : (mostly) alphabetic Greek th. On the other hand, if we choose fem. Σεμνή as the name of Demeter, then we can propose the following translation: παρὰ δώρων Σεμνῄ ‘beside (other) gifts to Demeter’ vs πρός δῶρον (acc.) Σεμνῄ ‘as a gift to Semne’. Cereals (ideogram GRA) are the best gift to Demeter. Was the Great Goddess on the throne an evidence of Minoan divine matriarchy? More women than men, however, appear in powerful roles, at a larger relative scale, and their importance seems assured by the number of them who sit on camp stools, stools like hassocks, and thrones (chairs with arm rails and backs). Besides the throne at Knossos, several other stone seats have also survived; Evans made the interesting comment that the tops of these seats have been hollowed to suit a woman comfortably. The throne at Knossos faced a lustral basin and was flanked by benches, but in the other palaces we find only benches, no thrones; perhaps we can imagine a powerful woman on the throne at Knossos flanked by male counselors, and similar arrangements at the secondary centers. [...] The prominence of females in Neopalatial art, important mortal women and goddesses (by the definition above), makes it possible to imagine that women dominated Neopalatial society, perhaps even politics. All human societies, however, ancient and modern, have been patriarchies with men in positions of authority; no matriarchy has ever been documented. But Neopalatial Crete offers the best candidate for a matriarchy so far. If Neopalatial Crete was matriarchal, or partially so (in religious matters?), we might imagine that when the Mycenaeans took Crete over, presumably after LM IB, they imposed a patriarchal system, perhaps even violently, thus accounting for the LM IB destructions by fire and the concomitant loss of many Minoan art forms, many of which are religious [...] (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 180, 182) In his notebook for 13 April 1900, p. 12L, he [A. Evans] reports: “Stone seat . . . from its capacity . . . it was made for a woman.” (younger, Rehak 2008a: 184) 146 A prince accepts his power from an enthroned goddess (a Mycenaean seal, CMS I.101), drawing by Liubov T. Shkrobanets ‘Seal-impression from Hagia Triada showing an adorant and a seated goddess’ (Marinatos 1993: 159). One can compare this image with famous Anatolian Neolithic goddesses The goddess, depicted above, is closely similar to Neolithic Anatolian goddess. Other sealimpressions of the seated goddess are also known (Marinatos 1993: 162). The seated goddess is also depicted on the Akrotiri frescoe (Marinatos 1993: 206) 147 5. Purification Cleansing of agora and ritual opening of its gate: a-ka-nu-za-ti du-ra-*ne a-zu-ra *ha-sa-sa-ra-*me-na-ne wi-pi-[na-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te] : ἐξαν-οίξαντι θύραν ἀγοράς, ἥν *σεσαράμναν *(F)ἶφι-νάομνᾳ ἀρδῃ Lin. A a-ka-nu-za-ti du-ra-re a-zu-ra ja-sa-sa-ra-a-na-ne wi-pi- (KN Zc 7, a cup from Knossos). 1. a-ka-nu-za-ti : ἐξαν-οίξαντι ‘to him who opened’ (part. sg. aor. act. masc. dat.) < ἐξαν-οίγω ‘open’. The most frequent variant of this verb, ἀνοίγνυμι ‘open’, was used with θύραν ‘door (acc.)’ (Aristoph. Wasps 768). A simple variant of this verb, οἴγω / οἴγνυμι, was also used with θύρα (Il. 6.89, 6.298). Cyrus Gordon erroneously read aka-nu : Sem. aganu ‘cup’ (Gordon 1982/2002: 193). 2. du-ra-re or du-ra-*ne (ne and re are very similar) : θύραν ‘door (acc.)’; frequently Lin. A d : Classical Greek th. Alternatively : Δρῆρος ‘a Cretan city’, located near Knossos. An Archaic-period agora of Dreros is located between two acropoleis. No Minoan finds were known in the city, but two pre-Greek (‘Eteocretan’) inscriptions from Dreros might evidence very old history of the place. 3. a-zu-ra (a-kju-ra, a-gu-ra) : ἀγορά ‘assembly’ and ‘a place of assembly’, also Thessal. ‘port, harbour’; Lin. B a-ko-ra (Adrados 1: 46). A context of this inscription points to the meaning ‘a place of assembly’. The MM I-II ‘agora’ was discovered in Mallia (Van Effenterre H. et M. 1969; Van Effenterre H. 1980). Cf. Zeus Agoraios (IC III.89). Less acceptable: ἀγρός ‘field, country opp. to town’, cf. Skt. ájras ‘plain’. If this reading is correct, the word combination closely resembles Lin. B combinations with place names ‘ro-u-si-jo a-ko-ro, ‘the ἀγρός (‘plain’, ‘territory’) of ro-u-so’, and pa-ki-jani-jo a-ko-ro, the ἀγρός of pa-ki-ja-ne’ (Bennet 2011: 143). 4. ja-sa-sa-ra-a-na-ne or ja-sa-sa-ra-*me-na-ne (a and me are similar) is unique; the last syllable might point to accusative σεσαρωμέναν ‘cleansed (acc.)’. Initial ja- might be acc. sing. fem. *ιαν, cf. Phrygian ιαν (article fem. acc., Blažek 2005: 20). 5. wi-pi- is the beginning of well-known final part of the Libation Formula, wi-pi[na-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te] : (F)ἶφι-ναομένᾳ ἀρδῃ ‘strongly poured libation’. Less acceptable *συρρυτῄ, cf. ῥυτή ‘flowing’ and συρρέω ‘flowing together, into one stream’, συρροή ‘conflux’, σύρρυσις ‘flowing together, conflux’ (Heracles cleaned the Augean stables, rerouting two rivers, Apollod. 2.5.5). Thus, a complete translation might be proposed: a-ka-nu-za-ti du-ra-*ne a-zu-ra *ha-sa-sa-ra-*me-na-ne wi-pi-[na-mi-na si-ru-te] : ἐξαν-οίξαντι θύραν ἀγοράς, ἅν *σεσαράμναν *(F)ἶφι-νάομνᾳ ἀρδῃ ‘(this cup is a gift) to him who opened agora’s gate, purified with strongly poured water’. Cleansing of way to sacral cave: Lin. A tu-me-i ja-sa-sa-[ra]-[ (the reading: Davaras 1972: 104) : δέμει αἵ σεσαρωμέναι ‘way is cleaned’. 148 The inscription PK Za 8 was found on the stone libation table, located in the cave on lower slope of the Petsofas hill (Younger): ja-di-ki-te-te-*307-pu2-re tumei ja-sa-[] una-ka-na-si i-pi-[] tu-me-i : δέμει: ὁδός ‘way, road’ (Hesych.) Cf. οἶκος σεσαρωμένος (Matt. 12:44) ‘home is cleaned’; cf. also Luc. 15:8, Eurip. Hecuba 363. 6. Libation ‘Minoan Libation Formula’. Libations are considered frequent Minoan ritual practice; the libation procession is depicted on the Minoan sarcophagus (Glotz 2003: 270, 275). There is a variable inscription on the stone offering tables, dedicated at peak sanctuaries (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 169). ‘One of the more intriguing Linear A texts is the so-called “Libation Formula” that occurs on some 30 artifacts, most coming from peak sanctuaries.’ (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 176) PK Za 11 is the longest libation text in Linear A: a-ta-i-*301-wa-e a-di-ki-te-te-dupu(2)-re pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne a-sa-sa-ra-me u-na-ru-ka-na-ti i-pi-na-mi-na si-ru-te i-na-ja-pa-qa. Name of libation: Lin. A -301-wa/u-ja[ha]/e, -301/te-u-ti-nu : ἔδευσα [*ἔδευhα] ‘I poured’, ἐδεύθην ‘I was poured’. The suggested function of libation tables, where the Linear A ‘Libation Formula’ was frequently inscribed, points to search a word for ‘libation’. 1. A comparison of -301-wa-ja (PK Za 12), -301-wa-e (PK Za 11), -301-u-ja (AP Za 1) gives us -301-wa/u-ja/e or, if ja is /ha/ (cf. o-/jo- in Lin. B), (i-)301-wa/u-ha/e. Cf. Lin. B wa/u for /u/ as in ra-wa/u-ra-ti-ja /Lauranthia/ (Molchanov et al. 1988: 80) 2. A comparison of ta-na-ra-te-u-ti-nu (IO Za 2.2) and ta-na-i-301-u-ti-nu (IO Za 6) gives us 301 ≈ te, i. e. (i)-301/te-u-ti-nu. Also, the Lin. A syllabic sign 301 ≈ di because of alternation a-di-ki-te- / a-*301-ki-ta-a (TY Zb 4), or 301 ≈ te because of 1) the comparison of ta-na-ra-te-u-ti-nu (IO Za 2.2, before the place-name) or rather ta-na*su-te-u-ti-nu (su is similar to ra) and -301-u-ti-nu (IO Za 6) and 2) 301-de-ka (ZA Zb 3) = τέθηκα (verb 1st sg. perf. ind. act.). 3. It seems to be -(i)*te-wa/u-ja and -(i)-te-u-ti-nu are /edeuha/ (ἔδευσα 1st sg. aor. ind. act.) and /(e)deuthn/ (ἐδεύθην 1st sg. aor. ind. pass., 3 rd pl. aor. ind. pass.) respectively < δεύω ‘wet, drench, smear’. Phonetically and grammatically, cf. Lin. A i-ru-ja /eluha/ : ἔλυσα, du-ja /thuha/ : θῦσα. 4. Etym. of δεύω is ‘unexplained’ but cf. δύω ‘sink’ < Indo-European (Beekes: 320, 362). Giampaolo Tardivo proposes non-Indo-European parallels: Pre-Greek δεύω ‘make wet’, Hurrian tab-, taw- ‘to pour, to cast’, Hattic: *tewuu- in tewuu∫ne ‘drinkoffering’, Akhwakh =etw- ‘to drop, to drip, to flow’ (Tardivo 2014: 7), but cf. also Proto-Indo-European *teh2- ‘to melt’ > Latin tabes ‘melting’, English thaw (cf. Beekes: 1477). 149 Libation vs gift: Lin. A a/ja[ha]-ta-i- : ἄρδαις ‘*poured water/wine’ (dat.-instr. pl.). An initial part of the Lin. A libation formula might be translated: a/ja-ta-i-301/*tewa/u-ja : ἄρδαις ἔδευσα ‘I poured with waters / wine’ rather than ἡ/ἥ σταίς. ἔδευσα ‘There is dough. I prepared it’. Lin. A ta-na-ra-te-u-ti-nu (IO Za 2) : τά ναρά / νηρά (‘waters’: ναρός, -ά, -όν ‘flowing, liquid’ < νάω, νηρόν, τό, or νηρός, ὁ, ‘water’, cf. Modern Greek νερό) ἐδεύθην ‘I was poured’ Alternatively, a-ta-i- : antai (pl.) < ἀντῆ ‘gift’, see below. Lin. A ta-na-i- / a-na-ti- : δάνος / ἀντῆ ‘gift’ (pl.?) Lin. A ta-na-i- (IO Za 6; PS Za 2), possibly also as ta-na-‘ra’- (IO Za 2), ta-na-‘su’(PR Za 1) : δάνος ‘gift’ (pl.). Cf. especially ta-na-‘su’-te-ke (PR Za 1) : δανέων, θῆκε θεοῖς Σαμόθρᾳξι (Callim. fr. 48 = Anth. Graec. 6.301). Perhaps, ta-na-i = danai ‘with a gift’, see the gloss danas = meridas (acc. pl.), cf. danh fem. < danos ‘burnt’. Lin. A a-na-ti- (IO Za 8) : ἀντῆ: δῶρον ἱκέσιον (Hesych.) ‘gift of suppliant(s)’. Was gift placed? Lin. A 301-de-ka : *θέθηκα > τέθηκα (1st sg perf. ind. act.) < τίθημι ‘put, place’; Lin. A -te-ke : ἔθηκα (1st sg aor. ind. act.) < τίθημι ta-na-su-te-ke (PR Za 1), a-ta-i-301-de-ka (Za Zb 3), also a-di-ki-te- (frequent) / a-*301ki-ta-a (TY Zb 4) d (> alphabetical Greek th) in (-i-)301-de-ka (Za Zb 3), cf. d in a-di-ki-te- (frequent) / a-*301-ki-ta-a (TY Zb 4). Thus, (-i-)301-de-ka = (-i-)*de-de-ka : *θέθηκα (*dh edh eka?) > τέθηκα. -te-ke (PR Za 1) : θήκη < τίθημι, ἔθηκε ‘he placed’. Purified sacral cave: a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu(2)-re a-sa-sa-ra-me : ἅ Δίκτηνδε *θύφρη ἅ *σεσαράμνη Lin. A a/ja(*ha)-di-ki-te-te-du-pu(2)-re : ἡ Δίκτηνδε (‘to Dicte = Dictaean’) *θύφρη (‘cave’) ‘the cave to Dicte’ (see above). Lin. A a-sa-sa-ra-me (PK Za 11, PR Za 1), variants ja-sa-sa-ra-me (IO Za 6, PS Za 2, TL Za 1), ja-sa-sa-ra-ma-na (KN Za 10), ja-sa-ra-a-na-ne = ja-sa-ra-*me-na-na (KN Zc 7). It is definitely participle form -menos, common for Greek and Phrygian. Initial a/ja‘this’ is explained above. It may be σεσαρωμέν- (part. sg. perf. mp. masc. nom. redupl.) < σαρόω, ‘sweep clean; to be swept clean, exhausted’ (τὴν οἰκίαν Ev. Luc. 15.8; οἶκος σεσαρωμένος ‘home is cleaned’ Matt. 12:44, cf. Eurip. Hecuba 363) or rather σεσαράμενη (earlier *σεσαράμνη) < σαίρω ‘sweep, clean’ (καθαίρω is a model). Variants (j)a-sa-sa-ra-me / ja-sa-sa-ra-ma-na : ja sesaramna, ἥ *σεσαράμνη ‘she (is) purified’. Beginners of the rite. Lin. A u-na-ru-ka-na-ti i-pi-na-mi-na si-ru-te : ἐναρξάντι ‘to the beginner (of rite)’. Lin. A u-na-ru-ka-na-ti (Greek aor. part. act. masc. sg. dat. ἐναρξάντι), variants una-ru-ka-ja-si (Greek aor. part. act. fem. pl. dat. ἐναρξάισι) and frequent u-na-ka-na-si (Greek aor. part. act. masc. pl. dat. ἐναρξάνσι), e. g. ἐναρξάντι ‘for him who began 150 the offering’. Parallel text is Lin. A ja-su-ma-tu OLIV, u-na-ka-na-si OLE (SY Za 2) : αἰσυμνητύι olives, *ἐναρξάνσι oil ‘to ruler’s office – olives, to them (priests?) who began the offerings – oil’. In contrast, Hom. ἄρσαντες (part. pl. aor. act. masc. nom., Il. 1.136) < ἄρδω and ἐναρδεύω ‘irrigate’, ἐν-αρδευτής ‘one who irrigates’ might point to u-na-(ru-)ka-na-ti in the same libation formula, but it contradicts with ka- in all records of u-na-(ru-)ka-nati. Perhaps, u-na-ru-ka-na-ti instead of u-na-ru-sa-na-ti reflects ἄρδω < *ἄργω ‘*wine’, related to ῥάξ ‘grape’ (??). Strongly poured water: Lin. A i-pi-na-ma/-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te : (F)ιφινάομνᾳ ἀρδῃ ‘with strongly poured water/libation’ : i-pi-na-ma si-ru-te (frequent), i-pi-na-mi-na si-ru-te (PK Za 11), wi-pi-[ (KN Zc 7) : (F)ἶφι να(ο)μέναν ‘strongly poured’; Gold signet ring from Vapheio tomb Evans, A. The pillar cult, p. 78/176 1. The ending -ma / -mi-na points to -μνα, an archaic form of the passive participle ending, later known as -μενα. E. g., i-pi-na-mi-na (PK Za 11), i-pi-na-ma (frequent variant) might be a passive participle form: masc. -menos / fem. -mena. The form -mina instead of -mena is an Arcado-Cypriot feature (Bartoněk 235), whereas the ArcadoCypriot dialect was the closest to the Mycenaean Greek dialect of Linear B. A variant wi-pi- (KN Zc 7) is a key to word’s meaning: ἶφι ‘by force or might’ (< Fιφι-) from ἴς ‘strength, force’. Therefore, -na-mi-na might resemble later να(ο)μένα whereas -na-ma is another reflex of -na-mno-. Greek -men- < *-mn- (βέλεμνον, Latin alumnus, Chantraine 1947/1953: 240, cf. Phryg. not only -menos but also ada/mna ‘friend’ : Greek adamnein ‘to love’, Hesych., cf. Neroznak 1978: 134) is confirmed by Linear A -ma / mina / -mana < *-mna. If Arcadian-Cypriot-like -mina and Sanskrit-like -mana couldn’t exist in Linear A simultaneously, then *-mna is the best explanation of these forms. Thus, (w)i-pi-na-ma / i-pi-na-mi-na : (F)ἶφι ναομένα ‘strongly poured’. Perhaps, there is -na-ma / -na-mi-na without o/u under the influence of νᾶμα ‘stream’. Then, si-ru-te or *a-ru-te (si and a are very similar) : *ἄρδη ‘ (poured) water’, ‘libation’ or even ‘wine’ (attested meaning ἄρδα ‘dirt’ but cf. ἄρδω ‘water, give drink to, furnish drink for, irrigate’, ἀρδ-εύω ‘water, irrigate’ without etymology – Beekes 128), Ἰάρδανος ‘river in Crete’ (Od. 3.292). Cf. Basque ardo < Proto-Basque *ardano ‘wine’ : Alban. (h)ardhi ‘vine, grape’, Old Armen. ort’ ‘vine, vineyard, grape’ (Orel 1998: 7; Trask 2008: 102), ῥάξ ‘grape’, Alb. rrush ‘resin’ (substrate – Beekes 1274-1275). 151 Thus, u-na-ru-ka-na-ti i-pi-na-mi-na si-ru-te (PK Za 11) : ἐναρξάντι (F)ιφινά(ο)μνᾳ ἀρδῃ ‘who pours with strongly poured water/wine’. ‘Completed drink-offering’: Lin. A pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne : ἐπιτελῆ ἅν *χοάν ‘completed drink-offering’ 1. pi-te-ri : ἐπιτελῆ (adj. sg. masc. / fem. acc. Attic epic Doric contr.) < ἐπιτελής ‘brought to an end, completed, accomplished’ < *telh2-, not < kuel-, cf. Lin. B te-re-ta (Beekes: 1463-1464). 2. a-ko-a-ne : ἥν (ἅν) *χοάν (acc. sg.) < χοή ‘pouring out (of liquid), drink-offering’, esp. made to the dead or over their graves (opp. λοιβή, σπονδή made to the gods): χοὴν χεῖσθαι πᾶσιν νεκύεσσιν (Od. 10.518), χοὴν χεόμην πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι (Od. 11.26). Alternatively : ἥκουσαν (part. sg. pres. act. fem. acc. attic epic doric ionic) < ἥκω ‘to have come, be present’. Thus, Lin. A pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne : ἐπιτελῆ ἅν *χοάν (adjective and noun are in accusative) ‘completed drink-offering’. In this case, -301(*te)-wa/u-ja(*ha) pi-te-ri a-koa-ne : ἔδευσα [*ἔδευhα] ἐπιτελῆ ἅν *χοάν ‘I poured completed drink-offering’. Wishes of health Lin. A i-na-ja-pa-qa : ἵν’ ᾖ ἡ πάχης ‘let he will be healthy’ Lin. A i-na-ja-pa-qa, in comparison with ja-pa-qa, might mean ἵνα ‘in order that’, ᾖ rd (3 sing. pres. subj. act. < εἰμί ‘to be’), and ἡ πάχης ‘fleshy, stout’. Minoan Greek poetry? Therefore, I propose complete translation of the longest ‘Minoan Libation Formula’: a) a-ta-i 301(*te)-wa-i pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne : ἄρδαις (‘with libations’) ἔδευσα (‘I poured’) ἐπιτελῆ (‘completed’) ἅν *χοάν (‘drink-offering’); b) a-di-ki-te-te du-pu-re a-sa-sa-ra-me : ἅ Δίκτηνδε (‘to Dicte = Dictaean’) *θύφρη (‘cave’) ἅ *σεσαράμνη ‘(she) is purified’; c) u-na-ru-ka-na-ti i-pi-na-mi-na si(*a)-ru-te : ἐναρξάντι (‘to him who libated’) *(F)ιφινά(ο)μνᾳ (‘strongly poured’) ἀρδῃ (‘libation’); d) i-na-ja-pa-qa : ἵν’ (‘let’) ᾖ (‘he will be’) ἡ πάχης (‘fleshy, stout, *healthy’). Then, one can reconstruct the sacral verses: ἄρδαις ἔδευσα ἐπιτελῆ ἅν *χοάν ἅ Δίκτηνδε *θύφρη ἅ *σεσαράμνη ἐναρξάντι *(F)ιφινά(ο)μναν ἀρδην ἵν’ ᾖ ἡ πάχης The proposed translation is: ‘With water/wine, I completed the libation. The cave in the Dicta is cleansed. For the beginner strongly poured libation – let he will be fleshy’ 152 7. Burial rites and epitaphies Self-flagellation of female mourners: u-na-ru-ka-ja-si a-pa-du-pa-[...] ja-pa-qa ἐναρξάισι ἀποτύπτ- ... ἡ πάχης ‘who began to beat themself (let they will be) fleshy’ The inscription PK Za 12 is typical ‘Libation Formula’, but it contains a significant hapax legomena: a-ta-i-*301-wa-ja a-di-ki-te-[ ]ra-me[ ]a-[*ko-]a-ne u-na-ru-ka-ja-si a-pa-dupa-[ ]ja-pa-qa Lin. A u-na-ru-ka-ja-si a-pa-du-pa-[ (PK Za 12.d, the Libation Formula) : ἀπο-, perhaps : ἀποτύπτομαι ‘to cease to beat oneself, to cease mourning’, τυπητός ‘beating of the breast’, after ἐναρξάισι (aor. part. act. fem. plur. dat., i. e. ‘female mourners’?). An archaeological comment to this rite, as well as to the aforementioned ritual dance, might be proposed. Tylis(s)os was a Minoan town near Phaistos, in which area a peak sanctuary, an aqueduct with clay pipes, many caves (Kamilari, Doxa, Arkaliospilio) and two gorges are known. Let us look to the Kamilari tholos tomb closer. The Kamilari tholos tomb is located on a low hill near the sea and 1.9 kilometres south west of Ayia Triada and therefore also very close to Phaistos. [...] The most interesting finds at Kamilari date from the LM IIIA burials, the last to be carried out here. Among the finds were three clay models depicting various scenes. One scene shows a banquet being offered to the dead. The religious nature of the event is clear from the horns of consecration and doves which have been attached to the clay model. The second scene shows two people standing in front of four seated people. It is possible that these two are making offerings to the dead. The final scene is of a group of dancers, dancing in a way which is very similar to the traditional Greek dances still to be seen on the island. These finds are on display in the Heraklion Museum. (Swindale) Thus, the three-part Minoan burial rite is reflected in these clay models: 1) a banquet being offered to the dead, 2) offerings to the dead, and 3) group dancing. The labyrinth of chief-spinner Ariadne: a-re-ki-ne-di- *de-ma- si-pa-ja-ta-ri-no- te-riki-a-ja-ku : *ἀρχι-νηθίς. θέμα. *σπε(ι)ατ-άριον *τριχάικον ‘Chief-spinner. Burialplace. Threefold small grotto’ The Labyrinth-shaped Mavro Spelio ring is an example of ‘gold for gods’ 153 The Mavro Spelio Ring (KN Zf 13, the image from Wikipedia) The gold ring from Mavro Spelio, Crete, bears a spiral inscription in Linear A, reading by John Younger a-re-ne-si-di-*301-pi-ke-pa-ja-ta-ri-se-te-ri-mu-a-ja-ku. The form of the inscription symbolically corresponds with the ‘labyrinthian’ (Moore) image of the cave. It is not an astronomical artifact, despite its spiral form, and the Greek reading of the inscription may be proposed. 1. a-re-ki-ne-dia-re-ki- : ἀρχι- ‘chief’, ἀρχίς ‘ruler (fem.)’, ἀρχηΐς ‘priestess’ ne-di-: νηθίς, ‘spinner’. Thus, we obtain ἀρχίς νηθίς or even *ἀρχι-νηθίς ‘chief-spinner’, i. e. Ariadne! 2. 301(de?)-ma- : θέμα ‘burial-place’. 3. si-pa-ja-ta-ri-no : *σπε(ι)ατ-άριον ‘small grotto’ < σπέος, epic σπεῖος ‘cavern, grotto’, irreg. dat. pl. σπεάτεσσι, suffix cf. ἀνθρωπ-άριον, Dim. of ἄνθρωπος, παιδάριον ‘little boy’ etc. Alternatively but less acceptable, ma-si pa-ja-ta-ri-no : ἐμός (poet. ἀμός) παιδάριον ‘mine little boy’. 4. te-ri-ki-a-ja-ku : *τριχάικον, cf. τριχάικες ‘threefold’ (epith. of Δωριέες ‘Dorians’, noun pl. masc. nom., Od. 19.177) < τρίχα ‘in three parts or ways’. Cf. the plan of the tomb (Parr 2014: 9). Thus, we obtained a complete Greek interpretation of the inscription: a-re-ki-ne-di- de-ma- si-pa-ja-ta-ri-no- te-ri-ki-a-ja-ku : *ἀρχι-νηθίς. θέμα. *σπε(ι)ατ-άριον *τριχάικον ‘chief-spinner. burial-place. threefold small grotto’. Life as a day: ja-ki-si-ki-nu mi-da-ma-ra2 : αἰκὴς σκῆνος μεθ’ ἁμάριαν ‘meagre corpse after a day (metaph. ‘light’ or ‘life’)’ 154 Lin. A (ARKH Zf 9, a hairpin from the Archanes tholos) ja-ki-si-ki-nu mi-da-ma-ra2 : αἰκὴς σκῆνος μεθ’ ἁμάριαν ‘meagre corpse after a day(-lasted-life)’ (metaph.): Lin. A ja-ki- : αἰκής ‘meagre; deadly’ Lin. A -si-ki-nu : σκῆνος ‘hut’, ‘dead body, corpse’ Lin. A mi-da-ma-ra2 : μεθ’ ἁμάριαν ‘after a day(-lasted-life)’, cf. μεθ-αμέριος ‘in open daylight’, ἡμέριοι ‘mortals’. Alternatively, αἰκεῖ σκῆνῳ (dat.-loc.) ‘in the deadly hut’; cf. also ἴκνυς ‘ashes’. The endless life of a king: te-a-ne-ka : δια-νεκής ‘perpetual’, lit. ‘through the death’ Owens 1993c sees the four mason marks on the Royal Tomb (Evans, Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 1906, fig. 146) as an inscription, KN Ze 45, KA-SI-A-TE [...] (Younger 1). However, ‘si’ might be ne, as a picture evidenced (Nikolaudou 1998: 205). If we read the text from the right to the left, as aforementioned picture evidenced, then we obtain te-a-ne-ka, i. e. δια-νεκής, διη-νεκής ‘continuous, unbroken, perpetual, without ceasing’, literally ‘through the death’. Cf. pharaohs, asking two fig-trees to enter the Reed Field (Eliade 2008: 122; Egyptian paradise Ialu > Greek Elusion). Perhaps, Egypt. nht ‘fig’ resembled nhh ‘eternity’ – such coincidances were very important in the Egyptian religious thought. 155 Part Two. Greek documents and states before Linear A: 3500-2000 BC Chapter 5. GREEK LANGUAGE OF CRETAN HIEROGLYPHS: The oldest Indo-European documents? 1. Writing and language State needs writing: space and time Pictografic seals (which design had ‘an Egyptian air’, Hutchinson 1962: 64) appeared in Crete since the Early Minoan I period (Shevoroshkin 1968: 312). The appearance of hieroglyphs was strongly linked with the state formation process – such as Linear A played significant role in the next period of the state formation (Dabnew : 43-47). The rise of ruling classes towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC, when the first monumental building complexes appeared (Malia, Knossos and Phaistos), created the right conditions for the invention of two fully developed writing systems, Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear Α. Following the foundation of the first palaces in central and east Crete (1900-1800 BC), the requirements of institutionalised cult and the central administration of sources of wealth contributed to the establishment of these scripts. (Flouda 2015: 68) Grounding on different archaeological arguments, Keith Branigan considered Early Minoan II-III as a time of the state formation (Branigan 1995: 33-39). W.D. Niemeier postulates ‘social transformations in Crete during the developed early Bronze Age lead to the formation of palatial and urban centres from EM III-MM I (ca. 2100 B.C.)’ (Niemeier 1995: 73). Simultaneously, ‘The story of Minoan glyptic begins in EM II’ (Weingarten 2010: 318). ‘The abundant seal evidence from Arkhanes supports the idea of an elite who were busy acquiring power – and the symbols of power—in the MM IA-IB periods. Hierarchy and emblematic power come together with the appearance here of the first inscribed seals, often elaborately carved bone seals engraved with simple Hieroglyphic signs’ (Weingarten 2010: 319). The First Palaces were founded in the same MM IB period (Weingarten 2010: 320). External contact might stimulate the state formation and the emergence of writing. ‘MM IA is the key horizon of the Minoans’ first direct and significant contact with the east Mediterranean, Egypt, the Near East, and Anatolia.’ (Manning 2010: 110). 156 The earliest hieroglyphs from Archanes are dated to MMI (2050/2000-1900/1875 BC high chronology, 2160/1979-1800 BC low chronology); hieroglyphs were used to MMIII (1750-1675 BC high, 1700/1650-1600 BC low); Linear A – from the end of MMI (1875 BC high, 1800 BC low) to LMIIIa (1440/1425-1320/1300 BCE high, 1390-1340/1330 BC low); Linear B – from the end of LMII (1440/1425 BC high, 1390 BC low) to LHIIIb/LHIIIc (1190/1180 BC high, 1190 BC low) (Hainal). However, some hieroglyphic seals were used even in the LM IB period (Weingarten LMI). In any case, the sherd inscribed with three signs in Cretan hieroglyphic, found recently in the Bâtiment Pi at the Palace of Malia (Pomadиre 2009, 636) and dated to MM IB/IIA, definitively eliminates the gap existing between the Archanes documents (2100 B.C.) and the hieroglyphic archives of Knossos and Malia (1700 B.C.). (Perna 2014: 253) The date of about 1700 BC (Arthur Evans suggested an earthquake) marked a border between Old and New Palaces, when more centralized state with one capital appeared. Despite the fact that Cretan hieroglyphs were used after 1700 BC and the Phaistos Disc is dated to about 1600 BC, on the one hand, and Linear A was used before 1700 BC, on the other hand, hieroglyphs were the main script of the Protopalatial period (until 1700 BC), whereas Linear A became the main script in the Neopalatial period. Thus, the timeline of the Minoan state and writing might be reconstructed as follows: EM II–III and MM IA: Prepalatial period, Hypogeum at Knossos, the first protostate and the earliest seals; MM IB – MM II: Protopalatial period (Old Palaces), flourishing of hieroglyphic scripts; MM III – LM I: Neopalatial period (New Palaces), flourishing of Linear A. The Cretan hieroglyphs were used in the eastern Crete (eastward of the KnossosPhaistos axis only), whereas western Crete was peopled by the Cydonians (Neolithic Cretans?). In comparison, Linear A was also not used in southwest Crete. Thus, the users of hieroglyphs might be not the Cydonians but the Eteocretans (Hieroglyphic people?) rather than the Pelasgians (Linear A people?). The syllabary of the Cretan hieroglyphic script comprises 96 syllabic signs on some 350 documents. The repeated attestations of these signs reach the number of only 1,500, which, in today’s terms, is no more than a page’s text. As a point of comparison, we have 1,500 Linear A documents with a total of 8,000 signs and 6,000 Linear B documents with a total of 70,000 signs. [...] Thirty-four Cretan sites have produced documents in the Cretan hieroglyphic, while this script occurs at only two sites outside Crete, namely, Samothrace in the northern Aegean sea and Kythera. (Perna 2014: 253–254) It may be that the old pictographic signs acquired a special magic power associated with the remote past. (Castleden 1993: 100) 157 The late survival of hieroglyphs in Crete might be explained by their use as a sacred script (Spiridon Marinatos) (Hutchinson 1962: 69). There were ‘so-called ‘talismanic’ seals dating to MM III-LMI period’ (Karnava 1999: 223) However imperfect a script is deemed to be, this does not constitute a reason for its disappearance. Sufllcient reasons for the appearance or the disappearance of any writing System constitute only the economie necessities of a given society, and the political implications of any such necessities. [...] The evidence suggests that the reasons for the end of the use of the Cretan Hieroglyphic are connected with the spread of Linear A, but not in terms of a cause/result phenomenon. Obviously, since Linear A continued to be used for the registration of economie transactions, the need for employment of a writing System throughout the island of Crete was not extinct : what was terminated, was the need for the use of the Cretan Hieroglyphic. We need to note that the Cretan Hieroglyphic seemingly disappeared exactly at a period when the need for writing became more evident ; this fact is demonstrated by the use of Linear A in an impressive (compared to the preceding periods) number of sites in the succeeding LM IA period. (Karnava 1999: 222–223) picture rowesazero (Karnava 1999: 232) Writing system: How to read the script for goddesses and kings? Cretan hieroglyphs were known already from the 1860s (Dumont 1870; Dumont 1872: 413-416). This system of writing might include not only logograms (‘hieroglyphs’), i. e. signs for words, but also phonetic (syllabic) signs (Neumann 1976: 71; Kondratov 1975: 138; Pope 1964/1976: 85, 94: Molchanov 1981: 133; Molchanov 1984a: 104; Molchanov et al. 1988: 12, 172; Molchanov 1989: 119), i. e. signs for syllables. Similarly, Linear A and B scripts also include many dozens of logograms alongside syllabic signs. Cretan hieroglyphs correspond to Linear A like Egyptian hieroglyphs – to Egyptian hieratics (Pendlebury 1950: 189; Lurie 1940/1993: 72), Anatolian hieroglyphs – to Hittite and Luwian cuneiforms. ‘It would be a mistake to undertake any investigations of these earliest and most irregular inscriptions until the language and spelling of the later Linear accounts are fully understood [...]’ (Ventris 1940: 508). Moreover, John Chadwick considered Cretan hieroglyphs undeciphrable because of the little number of inscriptions (Chadwick 1967/1976: 123-124). Cretan hieroglyphics, Linear A and Linear B are elements of the same line of the development of writing system (Molchanov et al. 1988: 15), and some Cretan hieroglyphic signs may be read basing on the similarities with Linear A and B (Molchanov 1992: 31). 158 Cretan hieroglyphs after Arkadii A. Molchanov, numeration by Arthur Evans (SM I: 181 ff., PM I: 282) Arkadii A. Molchanov proposed the reading of the Cretan hieroglyphic signs, in comparison with Linear AB syllabary: No 5 = Lin. AB zu, No 13 = Lin. AB ti, No 23 = Lin. AB ze, No 30 = Lin. AB ru, No 74 = Lin. AB ma, No 97 = Lin. AB te etc. (Molchanov 1992: 46, 51; Molchanov et al. 1988: 175) The sign No 44 = Lin. AB ja, not jo (Molchanov 1992: 48). 159 The signs No 5 = Lin. AB zu and No 23 = Lin. AB ze may be also read as k’u, k’e (Lurie, Amusin 1963: 199; Molchanov et al. 1988: 77) or even gu, ge. The other signs may be read in the same way, basing on the similarities with the syllabic signs of Linear AB: No 8 = Lin. AB no, No 14 =Lin. AB zo / k’o, No 18 = Lin. AB za / k’a, No 19 = Lin. AB ta. The sigh No 21 = Lin B jo without clear correspondance in Lin. A. The sign No 12 = Lin. B sign (PM I: 643) which later was readed as so, cf. Cypriot σοάνα : Attic ἀξίνη ‘axe’ (rather than Greek σάγαρις, ‘single edged (rarely double edged) axe’, Akkad. šukurru, Hebr. šegor ‘axe’). The frequent sign No 74 = ma might mean the name of the Cretan Great Mother Μᾶ. Lin. B ma-qe = Μᾶι τε (not ma-ka ‘Ma Ga’, Duhoux 2006), Lin. B (PY goddess?) ma-na-sa = Μᾶι ἀνάσσαι (Lurie 1957: 82, 286, 298-299, 302); the initial w- is absent in ma-na-sa like in Lin. B wa-na-ka-te / a-na-ka-te. The name of Ma was known in Phrygia and Thracia (Georgiev 1958: 131, 144; Gindin 1967: 117; Gindin 1981: 49; Neroznak 1978: 126); perhaps cf. Latin Ma-vors, Egypt. M3‘t [maat] with -t suffix feminine. Cret. hier. PLOUGH (SM I: 190-191) : Lin. AB u : Greek ὕνις, ὕννις ‘ploughshare.’ The Cretan writing systems might be created basing on the acrophony or rebus: Lin. AB te < τέρχνος (Arthur Evans), Lin. AB ku < γύψ (Vladimir Georgiev) or κύκνος, Lin. AB ni < νικύλεα (Günter Neumann), Lin. AB si < σῖτος (Karl Ruigh). The aforementioned Greek words might be of substrate or rather contact (adstrate) origin. E. g., ‘Minoan’ νικύλεα (Gunter Neumann) may be compared with Egypt. nh.t or nkwt ‘sycomore’, Arab. nakhla ‘palm.’ However, the language of the Cretan hieroglyphs’ creators may be identified from other signs (below). Greek translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs might be also suggested. E. g., Egyptian hieroglyph ankh, ‘life,’ ‘to live’ resembles the Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear AB sign za < Greek ζάω ‘to live’; Egyptian hieroglyph kebeh, ‘jug’ resembles Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear AB sign ki < Greek κισσύβιον ‘rustic drinking-cup’; Egyptian hieroglyph aha, ‘palace’ resembles Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear AB sign wa < Greek (F)ἀνάκτορον ‘palace’ etc. (comparison of signs without Cretan readings: SM I: 197, 240). 160 (Evans 1894: 58/327) The type of objects reaching Crete ffom Egypt varies : in the prepalatial period, mostly raw materials seem to be the desideratum, whereas the first objects of some interest to the present study (and maybe of some relevance to the script stimulus difiusion ?) are scarabs dated in MM IA period*^. These scarabs bave also initiated the local production of such amulets, found in tombs in the Messara region and dated in the beginning of the same period*'*. The presence of these scarabs and of imitations made locally leads us to the question of the so-called ‘Archanes script’, the earliest attestation of the Cretan Hieroglyphic to be found on seals, because the scarabs and scaraboids of the MM IA period belong to the same stylistic group as do the seals bearing this ‘script’ (Karnava 1999: 213-214) Egyptian scarabs, appeared in Crete in the MM IA period, might influence the ‘Archanes’ script as the earliest form of Cretan hieroglyphs (Karnava 1999: 213–214) Direction: ‘The Pictographic writings have no uniformity of direction, and it is even hard sometimes to know which way they go’. 3 Meaning: ‘The hieroglyphs were an embryonic syllabary for spelling out names and titles’ (Davis 1959a: 20). Language: the earliest Greek with Phrygian features? Yves Duhoux wrote extremely clearly: ‘There is no available study about the characteristics of the language of the “hieroglyphic” script’ (Duhoux 1998: 5). For Aleksandr M. Kondratov and Vitaly V. Shevoroskin, the language of Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphs was anyone except Greek (Kondratov, Shevoroshkin 1970: 3). Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A might be used not for exactly the same purposes because they occur on different types of documents. As earliest Linear A was found at Phaistos (south-central Crete) whereas hieroglyphs – at Knossos, Malia and Petras (north and northeast Crete), then two scripts might reflect different languages. 3 CAH, 3rd ed., Vol. II, pt. 1 (2006), p. 592. 161 However, so-called Archanes script might represent their common source (Whittaker 2013: 105). The simultaneous development and use of both scripts, Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A, can only be explained if we suppose that they represented two different bureaucratic systems, or, possibly, two different languages or dialects. (Flouda 2015: 69) In the discussion about his article ‘Did the Mesara plain have its own pictographic script during MMII/III?’ on Academia.edu, Stephen P. B. Durnford wrote: ‘The undeciphered scripts of Bronze Age Crete are seen by some scholars as a no-go area with the risk of academic suicide [...]’ (Durnford 2016). The hieroglyphic sign No 18 = Egypt. ankh ‘life, to live’ (PM I: 201; Georgiev 1958: 76) = Lin. A, B za < Greek ζάω ‘to live’ < Indo-European. The sign No 21 (lower jaw) = Lin. A, B ze = Greek γένυς ‘animal’s lower jaw’, Phryg. gloss ἀζήν, acc. ἀζένα ‘beard’ < Indo-European. If the Cretan hieroglyphs are based on the Greek or Graeco-Phrygian words of the Indo-European origin (see above) then the writing system was created for the Greek or very similar Paleo-Balkan language. The Greek dialect of the Cretan hieroglyphs is satem-influenced, like Phrygian, Georgiev’s Pelasgian, or Thracian. Cf. Phrygian features of the Eteocretan language (below). The Cretan hieroglyphics were used from the end of the 3rd millennium BC (when the Greek language was close to Macedonian, Phrygian, and Armenian), i. e. the Greek language has the oldest writing among other Indo-European. Thus, the Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions might be read in Greek (with additional usage of lexical and phonetical elements from the cognate Paleo-Balkan languages, first of all Macedonian, Phrygian, Thracian, and Armenian). However, if z might be read as g then this ‘Phrygian feature’ must be rejected. Arhur Evans collected the most interesting part of the Cret. hier. vocabulary – word-groups / ‘formulae’ – was by: 162 Cretan hieroglyphic words (SM I.261) Cretan hieroglyphic words (SM I.262) 2. Economy and society Olives As far as the commodities recorded are concemed, we notice that there is almost complete absence of logograms for animais and people, and the recognisable commodities seem to be agricultural products in some processed form. (Karnava 1999: 240) In the Cretan hieroglyphic script, ‘basic ideograms, namely, the signs for grain, wine, figs, and olives, are the same as those in Linear A (and in Linear B, which has been deciphered)’ (Perna 2014: 254; also Packard 1974: 20; Karnava 1999: 240). Thus, the ‘Minoan tetrad’ (grain, figs, olives/oil, and wine) was already presented among the logographic repertory of Cretan hieroglyphs. Moreover, some types of food might also be denoted syllabically. 163 Cret. hier. ideograms for grain, figs, olives, oil, Drawing from (Davis 1959: 21) Lin. A qe-ra2-u (HT 1, HT 95 twice) might be ἔλαιFον ‘olive-oil’, whereas Lin. A qera2-ja (HT 3) might be ἐλαίFα ‘olive-tree’; cf. also qa-ra2-wa (HT 86, a list of plants). Lin. B e-ra-wa /elaiwai/ ‘olive-trees’, e-ra-wo / e-ra3(rai)-wo /elaiwon/ ‘olive-oil’. As one can see below, possible Cret. hier. word for olive occurred in several graphic variants: a-rai-we / ?-ra3(rai)-we / a-ro2-we / a-ro-ja. a-rai-we and ?-rai-we (SM I.174) a-ro2-we (SM I.252, 257) a-ro2-we (SM I.253) a-ro-ja (SM I.160, two sealprints) vs ja-ro-a : iarea ‘priestess’ or iara ‘offerings’ (neut. pl.) 164 Olive-tree Alphabetical Linear B Greek ἐλαίFα e-ra-wa /elaiwai/ pl. Olive-oil ἔλαιFον e-ra-wo / e-ra3(rai)wo /elaiwon/ Linear A Cret. hier. qe-ra2-ja / qa-ra2-wa qe-ra2-u a-rai-we / ?-ra3(rai)-we / a-ro2-we / a-ro-ja Greek verb form as a city-name? Cret. hier. ru-ro-ma-sa (SM I.154) : Lin. A ri-ru-ma (HT 118), ri-ru-ma-ti (PH (?) 31, both forms appears in the lists of cities) : ἐλελύμην pluperfect middle/passive 1st sg.) / ἐλελύμεθα (pluperfect middle/passive 1 st pl.) < λύω ‘release’. Perhaps, this word might represent synonymous name of the Cretan city Ἐλευθέρα / Ἐλευθεραί / Ἐλεύθερνα ‘free’. 3. Religion Lady Gyga: FOOT(ποδ-)-ne-ja k’u-k’a WINE-k’a-ti : Πότνιᾳ Γυγᾷ Fοῖνω κάθις / Fάνακτι ‘wine-vessel for Lady Athena’ or ‘for Lady Athena and the King’ Three-sided seal from R. B. Seager’s collection (high) and three-sided seal from the Swiss collection (low) (pictures after: Molchanov 1992: 56) Let me interpret the three-sided seal from R. B. Seager collection (three upper pictures, SM I.49, 159). a) FOOT-ne-ja : ποδ-ne-ja (Greek πούς, gen. ποδός, root ποδ- ‘foot’) : πότνια ‘mistress, queen’ (title of goddesses such as Demeter, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hera, Athena etc.). Potnia was very important Mycenaean goddess, as Linear B evidenced (Chadwick 1967/1976: 224–225), but she is absent in Lin. A. 165 b) zu-za (?) or gu-ga : Γυγᾶ: Ἀθηνᾶ ἐγχώριος (‘of the country’, Hesych.), cf. γυγαί: πάπποι (‘grandfathers’, Hesych.), γυγαίη νύξ: ἡ σκοτεινή (‘darkness’, Hesych.), ὠγύγιος (‘primeval’, Hesych.; Homer’s Ogygia is a home of a goddess), κουκᾶνα: πάππον (‘father’, Hesych.: Hitt. huhhant- ‘grandfather; ancestor’), κοκύαι, κοκκύαι, ‘ancestors’ (: Hitt.-Luw. huhh-), Hittite huhhas, Luwian huhhas, Hieroglyphic Luwian huha-, Lycian χuga- ‘grandfather’ (Puhvel 3: 355-358), Lycian name Κουγας, Lydian king Γύγης, Greek Ιδαγυγος) (Adiego 2007: 334). Hattic kuka ‘ancestor’ (http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Hattic ; < Hittite-Luwian?) might be related to these words. Frequent Linear A ‘si’-ka alongside the bird picture might be *ku-ka because of the similarity between ku and si in Linear A. The names of the Lunar Goddess of Athena (Γυγᾶ) and of the water bird (γύγης) were very similar in the Greek language. Alternatively, cf. Ἥρη τε Ζυγίη (Ap. Rhod. 4.96) as patroness of marriage, also Aphrodite (LSJ, s. v. ζύγιος). Cf. also: Γυγαίη : λίμνη, the Gygaean lake, in Lydia, near Sardis (Il. 20.391), also the nymph of this lake (Il. 2.865); ‘goddess Gygaea Agrisa’ (Lycophron Alexandra 3.1152), ‘Athena Gygaea either, in spite of the quantity, from Gygaiê limnê in Lydia (Strabo 626) or cf. Gyga Athêna enchôrios (Boeotian?). Hesych. Agrisca as goddess of agriculture’ (note by A. W. Mair), http://www.theoi.com/Text/LycophronAlexandra3.html Gyga is regarded as Thracian-Macedonian goddess (Katsarov 1921: 8, 35; Shofman, ref. 98), or as Macedonian goddess of Lydian origin (The Cambridge Ancient History, Macmillan 1928: 197–198, https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=bi8LAQAAMAAJ&q=Gyga&redir_esc=y ) , information of Nikola Mitevski c) WINE (cf. Lin. AB ideogram ‘wine’)-za(k’a, ga?)-ti : woino-k’a-ti might be interpreted in two ways: 1) ‘wine-vessel’ : Lin. A ka-ti su-pu2[ (with another vessel-name, HT 63), ka-di VINa (with the ideogram ‘wine’, ZA 15), Lin. B ka-ti, Anat. Hier. gati- ‘vessel’ (Lin. A – Luw. parallel: Neumann 1960/1961; Shevoroshkin 1964), κάδος, ‘jar or vessel for water or wine’, κάδιν (ἔλαιον καὶ κάδιν), Arcadian κάθιδοι: ὑδρίαι (Hesych.: Lin. A d frequently corresponds to the Greek th), κηθίς ‘dice-box’, γητικά ‘cup’, γαδή· κιβωτός (Hesych.); 2) ‘for king (dat.)’ : Ἄνακτι (Iliad 1.390) Thus, two complete translations may be proposed: 1) Πότνιᾳ Γυγᾷ Fοῖνω κάθις / κάδιν, ‘vessel of wine for Gyga the Mistress’ or 2) Πότνιᾳ Γυγᾷ, Fάνακτι, ‘for Gyga the Mistress and the king’. In comparison, signs za-ta-HYENA (ὕαινα) are depicted on another seal (Evans 1894; Pope 1999: 149) and clearly point to the title Fάνακτ- (ὕαινα-za-ta : *wana-kattah ‘queen’?), but may be in the other case, not in dative (if it is not γαδή, ‘vessel’, see above). Thus, Cretan hieroglyphs might reflect the noun declension. Several other Cretan hieroglyphic texts include title ποδ-ne-ja : Potnia (SM I: 156, 162). 166 SM I.237 potnia vs nhpia (SM I.272) If this picture represents a king / prince, he might be Potnias ‘of Mistress’ This title appears in the Cret. hier. texts frequently: ja-POD-ne (No. 242, 248, 250, 269), ja-ne-POD (No. 270), ja-POD (No. 249, 253). No. 270: cross (x) marks the beginning of the word – (x) we-POD-ne-ja and (x) ja-ro : Dor. iaros No. 298 056-ro-naus ro-we-sa-ze-ro ja-POD-ne za-zu za-ti Two emperor titles: k’u-k’a k’a-ti BULL’S HEAD (Hurr. ŠARRUMA ‘bull-god’) saru : Γυγᾷ *κάτῃ (katte, dat.) *σαρῳ (šarru, dat.) The seal from the Swiss collection (three lower pictures above) shows: a) zu-za : Γυγᾶ ‘Athena’ (see above); b) za-ti : κάθις / κάδιν ‘vessel’ (see above) or even Hattic katte ‘king’ (> wana-kt-); 3) BULL’S HEAD sa-ru. Perhaps, it is not ‘meat’ (σάρξ; meat in vessels as offering for gods is known in Egypt from the Pyramid texts period, Chetverukhin 2000: 135, chapter 192 and comments) but ‘king’ (Akkadian šarru, ‘king’ as in the name of Sargon the Great). Logogram BULL’S HEAD might reflect the name of Hurrian bullgod ŠARRUMA and confirm the syllabic reading sa-ru. Thus, a complete translation may be proposed: Γυγᾷ katte šarru ‘for Gyga and the king (with two titles, Hattic katte and Akkadian šarru)’. Cretan emperor equated himself with both Hattic-Hittite and (similarly to the king of Lerna several centuries earlier, see above) Sumero-Akkadian emperors! Both interpreted seals might represent not wine and meat but the king titles. The same title sa-ro appears on the seal CMS II 6.230. Lady Ariadne: Cret. hier. ποδός-ne κυνός/ὕαινα ἀράχνη (SM I.135) : πότνια Κνώσια/Fάνα(σσα) Ἀρι-άγνη 167 A Cretan princess Ariadne, a daughter of mighty king Minos, is well known from the myth of Theseus and Minotaur. She helped the Athenian prince to fight a monstrous foe in the labyrinth. The name of the princess is now found among Minoan hieroglyphs (SM I: 135). Side a b c Reading LEG/FOOT πούς, gen. ποδός ‘foot’ + syllabic sign ja DOG/HYENA κύων, gen. κυνός ‘dog’ / ὕαινα ‘hyena’ = Ionian (Ephesian) γάννος, Phrygian and Tsakonian γάνος SPIDER ἀράχνη ‘spider’ Interpretation πότνια ‘mistress’ Κνώσια ‘of Knossos’ / Fάνασσα ‘queen(-goddess)’, Δίκτ-υννα ‘Cretan Artemis’, lit. ‘queen of the Dicte mount’, Magna Graecian Doric βάννας, = Fάναξ, ἄναξ ‘king’ Ἀρι-ἅγνη = Ἀρι-άδνη A possible translation: Πότνια(ι?) Κνώσια(ι?) / Fάνασσα(ι?) Ἀρι-άγνη(ι?), ‘(for) Mistress Cnossian / Queen Ariadne’, cf. πότνιαν ἁγνήν (Hom. hymn to Demeter 203), θεσμοφόρους ἁγνὰς π. (Inscr. Prien. 196.3). Knossian Ariadne was mentioned by Homer (Il. 18.591). Alternatively, cf. ὑννάς: αἲξ ἀγρία ‘wild goat’ (Hesych.), ὑννή (ὑννὴς cod.): αἴξ ‘goat’ (Ibid.) Cretan Artemis might be a goat initially, cf. newborn Zeus, nursed by a goat. ‘The formula on a is of constant recurrence’ (SM I.149), cf. (SM I.152 – two seals). Let us note that the sacral king / queen title, Fάναξ / Fάνασσα, might be simpler initially, as ὕαινα instead of *Fάνα evidenced, cf. ὦ ἄνα, Cret. Hier. wa-nwa as possible king title (see below). About -akt- / -ak- cf. not only gen. ἄνακτος but also plur. Ἄνακες, Fάνακες. The name of a Cretan goddess Dictynna (< *Dikt-wana ‘Queen of Dicte’?) might preserve this simple form of the title. Fanassa, the Queen, the Lady of the Dove, as we see her at Paphos, Idalion or Golgoi, is the great Minoan goddess. [...] In the epithet “Ariadne” itself, applied to the goddess both in Crete and Cyprus, we may perhaps see an inheritance from a pre-colonial stage. [...] The nature goddess there lived on under the indigenous names of Diktynna and Britomartis. (Evans 1913: 625) 168 Cret. hier. ‘Potnia Ariadne’ is an exact equivalent of Lin. B da-pu-ri-to-jo-po-ti-ni-ja. Another equvalent is Panagia, ‘The All Holy’ – the regular Modern Greek name for the Virgin Mary (Hutchinson 1962: 211). Ariadne (as the ‘Lady of the Labyrinth’ in Linear B) might be a lunar goddess, not Venus planet (despite Mircea Eliade linked her with Aphrodite, Eliade 2008: 353). Her cult might be related to the observation of the 18.6-year high-low Moon period, cf. twenty or rather nineteen years of Helen in Troy. Dmitry V. Panchenko linked Theseus from Troizen with the Trojan myth whereas the labyrinth is named ‘Troy’ in Etruscan and Scandinavian art. Helen (= Selene ‘Moon’) was hidden in Troy as Ariadne – in the labyrinth. Spider’s net might symbolize the same labyrinth. Greek ἀράχνη ‘spider’ has two parallels: Punic ʔrg ‘weaver’ (also Hebrew ʔrg), Proto-East Chadic *raHag- ‘mat’, Proto-West Chadic *rag- ‘net; thread’ < Proto-AfroAsiatic *ʔVrVg-, on the one hand, and Proto-Lezghian ʔirχ:ʷan ‘to knit, to spin, to sew’ (other North Caucasian forms are very distant formally) < Proto-North Caucasian *irχwVn (the Proto-North Caucasian parallel is proposed by Ph. Kitselis, pers. comm.). Greek culture must be seen as a continuity of Cretan one, and to bear in mind that, some words already had an explanation through mythology; in this case, its original meaning is not directly exposed to the reader. A comparative system reveal the name truthfulness; like Pre-Greek ἀράχνη and Kryz (Lezgian group of Nakh-Daghestanian family) bab ruχ ≪spider≫ ← litt. ‘old woman’ + ‘to weave’. The Greek tale is about a competition between a weaver (her name was ἀράχνη) and Ἀθήνη goddess, and then ἀράχνη was condemned to be a ≪spider≫ forever. Semantically speaking, the word ‘spider’ in Greek (Latin arāneo) – mythology and comparison – reveal the exact equation of ‘spider ← the weaver’. http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Assets/PreGreekStudies/PreGreek%20studies%20-%20Volume%201%20-%20G.P.%20Tardivo%20%20Promitheus%20or%20Amirani.pdf Arachne-Arihagne might be of Anatolian / North Caucasian Neolithic origin or, alternatively, of Lybian Neolithic origin (as it is well-known, Arthur Evans considered Lybia as the main source of the Minoan culture, but it is not confirmed genetically). Cf. Cretan goddess Δίκτυννα where *Dict- means Dicte mount or δίκτυον ‘net’ whereas -ννα might be Hitt. wana ‘place’ < North Cauc. vs wana(ssa) ‘goddess’ vs Hurr. suffix (Hurrian presence in Minoan Crete seems to be undoubtful). Ari-hagna might be a Greek interpretation of a loanword which then transform into Ari-andna under possible influence of hedone, cf. semantically Cretan Britomartis ‘sweet girl’ and formally also Cretan city Araden (Heraden). Ari-agne > Ari-adne resembles kudnos < kuknos ‘swan’ (Hesych.). The suggested parallels of the Helen myth in the Ramayana might be not only of the Indo-European but also of the contact origin: cf. the Sea Peoples of Yavana, Turvasha and perhaps Danava and Bhrigu in India. Stolen Sita, imprisoned in the world center, is clearly linked with Greek sitos ‘bread’; astronomical symbols of the fall of Troy are related to the Virgo constellation, including Spica ‘ear of corn’. The constellation is located near the center of the celestial equator. 169 King / queen title: Cret. hier. wa-nwa : wana-ks/ssa Titles like Linear B wanax ‘sacral king’, lawagetas ‘vice-roy’ or ‘supreme military commander’, guasileus (Lin. B wa-na-ka, ra-wa-ke-ta, qa-si-re-u) were not found among the Linear A words. (Lin. A u-na-ka- is not king title but a verb because of its variant u-na-ru-ka-). However, the reading of the Linear AB sign wa (an adoption of Egyptian aha, ‘palace’, acc. to Arthur Evans) is based on Greek (F)ἀνάκτορον, ‘royal palace’ (Georgiev 1958). Thus, this title existed when Linear A formed about 2000 BC. The Cretan hieroglyphic inscription PALACE–HANDS (Middle Minoan I period, SM I: 150, picture: Pendlebury 1950: 138), reading in comparison with Linear A, B as wa-nwa, may be compared with Linear B wa-na-ka, ‘king’ (but not with Linear A una-(ru-)ka-) and wanakteron, ‘king’s palace’ as a base of Lin. A, B syllabogram wa and interpreted as the same title in three scripts. Cf. Ζεῦ ἄνα (Il. 3.351, 16.233) ὦ ἄνα = ἄνασσα ‘queen’ (Pind. Pyth. 12.4). Cretan goddess Dikt-unna (< *Dikt-wana) might be ‘Dictaean queen’ rather than ‘Dictaean place’ (see about Dictynna: Glotz 2003: 250–251). The sign-group wa-nwa also occurs in Cret. hier. texts No. 246 (Younger) Mother the Mistress: Cret. hier. ma FOOT(ποδ-)-ne-we-ja : Lin. B ma, po-ti-ni-ja-weja : Hom. πότνια μήτηρ, Hom. hymn πότνια Μαῖα 170 Three-sided ‘royal’ (A. Evans) seal from Knossos (SM I: 23, 153; PM I: 277; Molchanov 1992: 31) from the Middle Minoan II period (Pendlebury 1950: 163; Hutchinson 1962: 178) a) CAT FOOT-ne-we-ja (two hieroglyphic signs and three syllabic signs) = *kat πούς-ne-we-ja = katte *ΠοτνιεϜιας, ‘king, of the Mistress’, cf. Hattic katte, ‘king’ and Lin. B po-ti-ni-ja-we-ja /potniaweia/: *ποτνιεϜια, fem. of Adj. Ποτνιεύς, ‘Potnian’, or it was an epithet of the king (‘lord’); cf. Lin. B ka-ma-e-wi-..., wa-na-se-wi-ja, a-mo-te-wi-ja (PY, Molchanov et al. 1988: 165), Phrygian arkia-evais, mem-evais, mem-euis (Baiun, Orel 1988: 136), Phryg. oikawoi, oikawos (Neroznak 1978: 96, 107), proitavos. Thus, all inscription might be read CAT ποδ-ne-we-ja ta-ru-ne za-jo KING = katte *ΠοτνιεϜιας δῶρον, γάιος KING or *γαιοάνασσας. Alternatively, cf. Lin. AB syllabic sign ma, depicting cat, and Egypt. mjw, ‘cat’ (in the light of the Egyptian origin of this domestic animal in Europe). Thus, Cret. hier. ma ποδ-ne-we-ja closely resembles πότνια μήτηρ (Il. 1.357, Od. 6.30), μᾶτερ π., addressed to Earth (Soph. Philoct. 395), πότνια Μαῖα (Hom. hymn 4 to Hermes, 19) and Cretan god Ameja (ἡ Μαῖα?) in London Medical Papyrus (Egypt, late XIV c.) as well as Lin. B theonym ma-qe (Μᾶ τε, Lurie 1957: 82, 286, 298–299) or, in another reading, ma-ka (μᾶ γᾶ ‘Mother Earth’, Aesch. Suppl. 890, 899). Goddes Ma considered Phrygian (Lurie 1957: 302), her name is attested in Thracian (Georgiev 1958: 131, 144) and Phrygian (Gindin 1967: 117; Gindin 1981: 49). b) ta-ru-ne = δῶρον, ‘gift’ or rather θρόνος ‘seat, chair’, or even πότνια θηρῶν (Il. 21.470); c) za-jo KING (signs similar not only to an Egyptian sign on scarabs (SMI.136), but also to the Anatolian hieroglyph ‘great king’ on both sides of the syllabic word) = γάιος KING, ‘king of the land/earth’, cf. γάιος, ‘of earth’ and Cypriot ζᾶ = γῆ. Note that γάιος KING is an exact parallel to wana-kt- ‘king of land’ (Hitt. wana ‘place’, Carian kdous ‘king’) < Hatt. wuru-n katte ‘king of land’. Cf. Phrygian-like goddess Gdan Ma ‘Earth Mother’. Cf. Cret. hier. FOOT-AXE-FISH (SM I.19) where ποδ- 171 Hymn to newborn Zeus and the Great Mother? The titles are inscribed using logograms and syllabic signs: ὕαινα za–κῆτος–ti = Ϝάνακτι, τιτθαί–ne = τιτήνηι, za–νᾶσσα–jo = *γαιοάνασσα Eight-sided seal (picture: Molchanov 1992: 34) CAT pod-ne-we-ja ta-ru-ne za-jo KING on the three-sided ‘royal’ (A. Evans) seal from Knossos (SM I: 23, 153; PM I: 277; Mochanov 1992: 31), interpreted above, resembles za-ti uaina-so ta-ru-ne pod-ne-ja (less acceptable ne-pod-ja) za-BIRD-jo on the sides e-h of the eight-sided seal: e) k’a-ti HYENA(ὕαινα)-so : katte Fάνασσα ‘queen, lady, addressed to goddesses’ (to Athena, Od. 3.380, Asch. Eumen. 235, 443); f) ta-ru-ne : θηρῶν ‘of beasts’, cf. πότνια θηρῶν // Ἄρτεμις (Iliad 21.470–471); g) FOOT(ποδ-)-ne-ja : πότνια ‘mistress, queen’; h) DUCK(νᾶσσα) k’a-jo : ἄνασσα ‘queen’, γάιος ‘of earth’. Note that νᾶσσα, ‘sheduck’ < *anassa (proto-IE *anət- and IE cognates with a-). Greek νᾶσσα ‘she-duck’ instead of *ανασσα migh be a result of dissimilation with ἄνασσα ‘queen’ like ἵππος ‘horse’ with unetymologized i- and ῥίς ‘nose’ might be used instead of *ἔπος ‘horse’ (cf. Ἐπειός, a creator of the Trojan Horse) and *νασυς > *ναυς ‘nose’ because of a homonymy with more frequent ἔπος ‘word’ and ναῦς ‘ship’. Cf. also Ἐν(ν)οσίγαιος ‘earth-shaker (Poseidon)’; a) zo no(νεῦμα?) HYENA(ὕαινα) : Ζεῦ (voc.) νέος, Fάναξ. Cf. zo-no/neuma (a) and zo-ne (c): gonos (?); b) za-MONSTER(κῆτος)-ti : katte ‘king’ (*wana-katte is divided into two lines!); 172 c) WOMAN’S BREASTS(τιτθός) ne zo : τίταξ ‘king’, Hesych. (Hattic titah, ‘great’) νέος (or rather WOMAN’S BREASTS-ne : τιτήνη, ‘queen’) Ζεῦ! d) HYENA(ὕαινα)-so zu : Fάνασσας Ζεῦ Thus, the complete interpretation might be proposed: Ζεῦ νέος, Fάναξ katte (voc. *Fάνακτε?), τιτήνης Ζεῦ, Fάνασσας Ζεῦ katte Fάνασσας, θηρῶν πότνιας ἄνασσαs γάιος (Ἐν(ν)οσίγαιος?). Supplementary notes and alternative readings The sign No. 74 CAT might also (alternatively) designate Hattic katte, ‘king’ (Sergeev, Tsymbursky 1984). The authors propose a reading Lybian *qatt- (cf. Nubian kadis, Berber kadiska ‘cat’, Arabic qitt ‘tomcat’, OED). This reading may be confirmed by 1) za-ti (the most frequent word in the Cretan Hieroglyphics!) in the similar context and 2) wana-kt- < Hitt.-Luw. wana-, ‘country’ and Hattic katte > Carian kdous, ‘king’. If za-ti denotes the second part of wana-kt- then ὕαινα, ‘hyena’ might denote the first part of the title, wana-. Thus, (eight-sided, sides a–b) uaina-za-(KETOS?)-ti = wanakti (dat.) whereas (eight-sided, sides d–e, twice) uaina-so = wanassai (dat.). The comparison of CAT pod-ne-we-ja ta-ru-ne KING-za-jo-KING and za-ti uaina-so taru-ne pod-ne-ja za-(a)nassa-jo points us to conclude about the equation of 1) CAT and za-ti and 2) KING (< Luwian hier.) and (a)nassa. Thus, the king and queen titles are identified in Cretan Hieroglyphics. The Luwian great king title on both sides of za-jo on the three-sided seal (above) is semantically similar to a bird (νᾶσσα, ‘she-duck’) inside ga-jo on the eight-sided seal. Cf.: ‘The Phrygian bird das point to Kubaba, since the Neo-Hittite hieroglyph “bird” appears between the phonetic syllables “Ku” and “ba-ba”’ (Roller 1999: 48), cf. Hitt.Luw. huwa-, ‘bird’. The reading of ne-pod-ja = νέπους, gen. -ποδος, ‘child’ (eight-sided, side g, cf. Lin. B na-pu-ti-jo nhputios ‘child’) is not confirmed by the reading pod-ne-we-ja (three-sided, side a). SPEAR might be read as δόρυ, ‘spear’ = δῶρον, ‘gift’. It corresponds with the king title in dative. EYE might be read κανθός, ‘eye’ which resembles an element of the unique Hittite title of Hattic origin, MAGNUS.REX.FILIUS = cuneiform title tuh(u)kanti- (Oreshko 2013: 354), cf. Greek name Θεό-γνητος (cf. Ivanov 2008). 173 Minoan Artemis, the Lady of Beasts (MM III), http://www.sno.pro1.ru/lib/andreev_ot_evrazii_k_evrope/andreev_ot_evrazii_k_evrope.pdf Mycenaean gem (Evans 1901: 66/164) 174 a-ne-ti zo (chisel) ta-ni wana-k’a-ta ka’-jo Two doves (Peleiades/Pleiades) near horns (Taurus) (Evans 1901: 93/191, from H. Schliemann’s Mycenae) #300 (Karnava 1999: 176) nwa-ru-ro #268 (Karnava 1999: 181) Purification: Cret. hier. a-sa-sa-HAND(ra/ῥώμη) : Lin. A a-sa-sa-ra-me : *σεσαρώμνη / *σεσαράμνη (Evans 1895: 30/299. Arthur Evans found ‘Inscribed Libation Table from the Dictaean Cave’ (SM I.15) where Cret. hier. ja-sa-sa- can be read (cf. a-sa-sa- SM I.157, a-sa-HAND SM I.158). 175 The Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions which may be read syllabically as a-sa-saand ja-sa-sa- (SM I: 254) are an evidence of common language with Linear A in which a-sa-sa-ra- and ja-sa-sa-ra- are very frequent. Note that this word clearly reflect Greek grammatical forms. The ‘Archanes Formula’ a-sa-sa-HAND-ne (Younger 1998: 380) is sometimes read asa-sa-ra-ne (Perna 2014: 253) in comparison to Lin. AB ra (hand?). However, I prefer HAND : ῥώμη, ‘bodily strength, might’, cf. τῇ ῥώμῃ τῶν χειρῶν, ‘strength of hands’ (Antiph. 4.3.3). This formula a-sa-sa-HAND(ῥώμη)-ne repeats in the Cret. hier. texts No. 202, 203, 205, 251, 252, 313. The fact that a group of signs of the "Archanes Script" are identified with the repeated Linear A phrase known as the "libation formula" hints that they may have been of a ritual or magical nature from the very beginning. (Flouda 2015: 66) SM I.167 rai-nwa pod-no pod-te-ni-zo(k’io) 4. The Arkalokhori Script: An anti-catastrophic charm to Ida Mother? i-da-ma-na-ti-sa i-ze-na-i-ma-te ti-rai-sa : Ἴδα μάντις, ἥ Ζηνός ἥ μάτηρ, τλῇς ‘Ida the prophetess, Zeus’ mother, let you hold out’ (a charm against a catastroph?) The Arkalokhori Axe inscription, similar to the Phaistos Disc script as well as to Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A, surprisingly appears as syllabic, not hieroglyphic or astronomical, and refers to the Health Goddess (Eileithyia?) or rather to her prophetess. A double axe, made of bronze, bears an inscription, so-called ‘Arkalokhori Script’, which contains the Linear A-like and the Phaistos Disc signs. Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli reads the initial sign-group on the bronze Arkalokhori axe as Ida Ma na(Pugliese Carratelli 1957: 170-172), and then I propose further reading of the inscription. 176 Line 1 i-da-ma-na-ti-sa: Ἴδα, Cretan sacral mountain, and μάντις, ‘diviner, seer, prophet’; -μαντις is frequent in composites like ἀχαιόμαντις, title of diviner in Cyprus (Hesych.). Perhaps, it might be Ida-mantis ‘Ida the prophetess’ vs Idas mantis ‘prophet(ess) of Ida’. Line 2 i-ze-na-i-ma-te: Ζῆνα (acc.) or even Ζηνός (gen.) < Ζήν = Ζεύς (less acceptable ὑγιεινά, ‘healthy’, adj. sing. fem.), and μάτηρ, 'mother', epithet of goddesses; i- ... -imight be ἴ (Cypr. for ἤ, ‘or’) or even ἥ (‘this’, fem.). Line 3 ti-rai-da: τλῇς 2 sg. subj. < *τλάω ‘hold out’ Cf. ῥᾶ, ῥέα, ῥεῖα, ‘easily’ in Cretan Ῥέα, Ῥεία and Cretan Ῥαδάμανθυς from δαμαντήρ, ‘tamer’ like ῥα-θυμέω, ῥᾳ-θυμέω ‘to leave off work, take holiday’ from θυμός, ‘soul, spirit’. She may be Minoan winged goddess. Also λαίς, -ίδος ‘booty, spoil’ Thus, complete inscription may be interpreted: i-da-ma-na-ti-sa i-ze-na-i-ma-te ti-rai-sa : Ἴδα μάντις, ἥ Ζηνός ἥ μάτηρ, τλῇς ‘Ida the prophetess, Zeus’ mother, let you hold out’ It might be a charm against a catastroph (earthquake and even tsunami). Minoan images of goddess holding the double axe are well-known. She may be Rhea who had a dwelling at Knossos (Diod. 5.66.2), Mater Idaea. Like the Idaean cave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ida_(Crete)), the Arkalokhori cave might be the site of an oracle. 177 Chapter 6 GREEKS BEFORE MINOAN CRETE 1. Greeks in the third-millennium BC Egyptian and Anatolian documents? The third-millennium BC Greeks in Egypt? Perhaps, Egyptian sources mentioned the Greeks long before mentions of the Mycenaean Greeks among the Sea Peoples. Ancient Egyptian term H;w-nbwt denoted the Greeks from the Sais epoch. Pierre Montet (following several other Egyptologists) proposed the reading hlw /helou/ = Ἕλληνες for the first part of this term. The oldest usage of this name appeared in the Pyramid texts (mid-third millennium BC) and even might be traced to the Pre-Dynastic epoch, as Jean Vercoutter thought. Lev A. Elnitsky supported the identification of H;w-nbwt with Ἕλληνες and ναῦς. He interpreted this name as an evidence of the Greek language in Crete and Aegean shores from the third millennium BC (Elnitsky 1958: 199-200, refs.). The late third – early second-millennium Greeks in Anatolia? Valerii P. Yailenko underlines Viacheslav V. Ivanov’s cunclusion about the name of Achaea in the so-called Cappadocian tablets. There were documents of Assyrian merchant colonies in Asia Minor, dated to later third – early second millennia BC (Yailenko 1990: 266). In comparison, Boris V. Hornung, summarising James Mellaart’s works, suggested the presence of the proto-Greeks (alongside the Luwians) in Asia Minor before the appearance of the Hittites there (Hornung 1962: 129). 2. Greek state in Mesopotamia ~2150-2050 BC: Gutians, Xuthus and the Greek s > h shift The Greek genealogical legend about three brothers (Dorus, Aeolus, and Xuthus) and sons of the latter (Ion and Achaeus) personified main dialectal groups of the Greek people. The activity of these persons was dated by the Greek tradition to early XV c. BC (they were sons and grandsons of Deucalion, lived in late XVI c. BC). But historical background of this legend might be older: common source of the Ancient Greek dialects is recently dated to the third millenium BC, not to the time of Hellen the son of Deucalion. Why Ion and Achaeus were not brothers but nephews of Dorus and Aeolus in ancient Greek genealogical legend? Why Xuthus (father of Ion and Achaeus), expelled by his brothers Dorus and Aeolus from their homeland, was included in the genealogy? Perhaps, the (lost) tradition knew an early migration of Xuthus (Xouthos) 178 himself, before migrations of Ion and Achaeus? If this (very hypothetical) migration was not preserved neither in Greek genealogical traditon nor in the names of Greek tribes and dialect, where the name of Xuthus might preserve? The northern tribe of Kuti (Gutians), appeared in a Mesopotamian documents (e. g., in the inscriptions of Lugal-Anne-Mundu, the king of the city-state Adab and great empire in Sumer) in the XXVI-XV centuries BC (exactly when Troy II and the Aegean-related Trialeti culture appeared!). Then, the Gutians captured Mesopotamia and ruled over it during a century , about 2150–2050 c. BC. They might be linked with Ξουθός (cf. also Koitaioi ‘Colchians’ in the Argonautica?). The Gutians were blond-haired (Howorth 1901: 32; Pinches 2005: 158; Woolley 1929: 5; Gelb 1944: 88) because of their northern origin whereas Greek ξουθός means ‘golden yellow’, contrasted with the Sumerians and Akkadians which self-name were ‘black-headed’. According to the Sumerian king list, ‘in Gutium ... no king was famous; they were their own kings and ruled thus for three years’. Many Gutian kings ruled 3 or 6 (twice three) years whereas the ruling period in Crete and Cretan-influenced Sparta and Scandinavia was 9 (thrice three) years. Preserved names of the Gutian kings look like Greek ones, e. g.: Ingeš(a)uš : *ἐγγυησεύς, ‘one who gives security’ < ἐγγυάω, ‘give security’, but cf. also Ἀγχίσης (Aeneus’ father), Achish, Ikausu (Philistine kings’ name in the Byble and in an Assyrian source); Ibate : αἰFετός, Cretan and Pamphylian αἰβετός ‘eagle’, cf. Αιήτης (a Colchian king) or rather Ἰοβάτης (‘walking’, a Lycian king with the Greek name in the Bellerofon myth); Iarlagan(da) : *ἱερολαγενής, ‘who was born of priest’, cf. ἱερόλας = ἱερεύς and γενής, -γενέτης, ‘who was born’; Tirigan : τριγενής, ‘thrice-born’, cf. τριγέννητος, ‘thrice born’ (epith. of Athena); Sarlagab / Iarlagab : *ἱερολογεύς, ‘one who speaks sacral words’ < ἱερολογέω, ‘recount a ἱερὸς λόγος’; Silulumeš / Elulumeš : Cret. ἵληFος, Aeol. ἴλλαος ‘propitious, gracious’ *si-slh2-yo-, Latin solari ‘to comfort’ (Beekes: 587). The analysis of these Gutian names causes several very important conclusions. 1. The Greek dynasty ruled over Mesopotamia during ~2150–2050 BC, two millennia before Alexander the Great, and a half century after the fall of Lerna which leader bore the Akkadian Emperor title. 2. The Gutian language of the late third millennium BC invaders in Mesopotamia might be Greek or Paleo-Balkan, closely related to Greek. 3. It was very archaic Greek-like language, with the s/h alternation: Sarlagab / Iarlagab, Silulumeš / Elulumeš. This shift is common for Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian (it is also attested in the Iranian languages). 4. The appearance of the Gutians in historical records during the 26–25th c. BC coincided with the start of three other famous Greek-related states – Early Helladic II, 179 Troy II, and the Aegean-related Trialeti culture (< trui-al ‘Trojan’?). The latter might include Kartvelian, Hurro-Urartian, and Armenian components. It might be a great proto-Greek migration, caused the appearance of Greek states from the Mainland Greece (Early Helladic II culture) and western Anatolia (Troy II) to the Trans-Caucasian region (the Trialeti culture) and even northern Mesopotamia (the Gutians). The name of the Gutians (kuti) resembles not only Kudones (Mosenkis 1998: 42) but also Xuthus. 3. Greek-Pelasgian state at Lerna: Peloponnesus, 2450-2200 BC Lernean hier. sa-ro, Cret. hier. sa-ru, sa-ro, Akkad. šarru ‘king’ Royal palace in an old sacral capital: Greek-Pelasgian center at Lerna Lerna was the capital of the Peloponnesian proto-state in the Early Bronze Age II Greece (Early Helladic IIb period, 2450-2200 BC). It was a strongly fortified power center: a double ring of defensive walling, with towers, enclosed the site (Caskey 1960: 289). Lerna was ‘the most important and the wealthiest of all Early Helladic II sites’ (Bryce 2006: 47). It might be not a coincidence that Heracles, the Mycenaean military chief (lawagetas, ‘leader of armed men’), linked his second ritual labour with Lerna (as an old sacral centre?) after his first labour which was linked with Mycenae itself as the capital of then Empire. Fortified coastal sites and public buildings (Corridor Houses), which had single basic design, were typical to the Early Helladic IIA period (the Korakou culture) (Rutter Lesson 3). It might be compared with Herodotus’ mention of the ‘Pelasgian’ building activity. The ‘Pelasgians’ were described by the ancient Greek authors (Herodotus, Thucydides etc.) as pre-Greek tribes, later peacefully mixed with early Greeks during the formation of Hellenic nation. The Early Helladic II (suggested ‘Pelasgian’) culture reached its highest level at the end of its development. In terms of chronological development, indications of a more complex social and political organization are apparent in EH 2b. Such phenomena as individual wealth ("rich" graves), craft specialization (workshops), formalized political organization (Corridor Houses), and urbanization (changes in settlement pattern) are clearly noticeable in the advanced phase of EH 2. These developments fit well with the general expansion and growth that has been noticed in artifact production, exchange networks, and iconography. (Cosmopoulos 1995: 31) The social organization of the Early Helladic (EH) II society was ‘incipient chiefdoms’ (Parkinson, Galaty 2007: 120) or ‘chiefdoms’ (Cosmopoulos 1995: 29, refs.). In contrast to previous EH I and the next EH III periods, the EH II site hierarchy includes two, three or even four levels (Rutter Lesson 3). A single ruler of Lerna is suggested (views: Overbeck 1969: Shaw 1987; Wiencke 1989; Pullen 1994; 180 Weingarten 1997; Peperaki 2004). ‘The House of Tiles has been variously interpreted as a regional administrative center and/or palace’ (Fillios 2006: 18-24, see here also about the Anatolian and Levantine influence on the Early Helladic II seals). Early Helladic II chiefdoms ‘were presumably governed by the ruler whose residence was in the Corridor Houses of the larger settlements’ (Cosmopoulos 1995: 29-30). It was clearly the proto-state, centered by the palace (so-called House of the Tiles) and ruled by a chief or even ‘proto-king’ (cf.: Blavatskaia 1966: 36). Palace of Lernean kings (sic!) preceded the Cretan ones (Blavatskaia 1976: 10). Pullen proposes a model of the Lernean social organisation as a chiefdom and a reconstruction of the House of the Tiles (Pullen 2010: 33-35). However, the Early Helladic IIb period was developed under the Anatolian influence on Greece. Trojan origin of the Lernean capital? Lernean fortifications, sealings etc. may be linked with the appearance of so-called Lefkandi I cultural elements at many sites – it might be ‘a new people with Anatolian connections’ (Wiencke 1989: 495, 509). It was ‘a trans-Aegean population movement from Western Anatolia through the northern Cyclades <...> and Sporades <...> to the eastern seaboard of central Greece <...>’ (Rutter Lesson 8). New types of ceramics, which appeared in the Mainland Greece and in the Cyclades in that time, were ‘clearly derived from Western Anatolian prototypes’ (Rutter Lesson 8). French argues that the idea of a gray-burnished ware was very probably exported to Greece during the latest Early Bronze 2 period when Anatolian influence is to be detected in the Kastri Group and Lefkandi I assemblages. The first Gray Minyan (or Fine Gray-burnished) ware appears at Lerna in Early Helladic III (Lerna IV) when the pottery of Mainland Greece had become “anatolianized” as a result of the fusion of the “Lefkandi I” and Early Helladic IIA (or Korakou culture) traditions. (Rutter Lesson 23) In central Greece and adjacent islands in the later part of the EH II period, a new assemblage of ceramics appeared, called the Lefkandi I assemblage on the mainland (also Group B at Thebes) and the Kastri Group in the islands [...]. Many of the forms seem to derive from Anatolian prototypes, though whether from northwest Anatolia, that is, in the Trojan region, or from central western Anatolia, that is, in the Liman Tepe/Izmir region, is still unclear. [...] Rutter’s hypothesis that EH III was the result of a fusion of EH IIB and Lefkandi I elements in central Greece provides a coherent model for the ceramic changes, but the precise mechanisms of this fusion and the time period over which it took place have not been clarified. This period of fusion and transition was probably relatively short, perhaps no more than a century. If so, then the Lefkandi I phase cannot be equivalent to the entire EH IIB period, but only the later part of it. (Pullen 2010: 35) Taken together, the Mainland Early Helladic Corridor Houses, Anatolian Troy, the Northeast Aegean fortified villages, and perhaps also Manika, may well evidence complex societies, either organized by an elite, or at least achieving corporate, proto-city state form (Bintliff 2012: 107). Among the aforementioned parallels, Troy (i. e. Schliemann’s Troy II of the same period!) is the most significant. 181 Was the Lernean ‘palace’ (and the ‘Anatolianized’ phase of the Early Helladic IIb culture in general) only ‘Pelasgian’ or already ‘Greek-Pelasgian’? Was the Anatolian (Lefkandi I culture) influence on the Early Helladic IIb culture Greek? ‘Pelasgians’ and a Proto-Greek wave from Anatolia? Early Helladic IIb and Lefkandi I cultures Let me propose a hypothetical ethnical and linguistic model of the Lerna protostate development. It is very significant that namely the ‘Lefkandi I’ culture of the Early Helladic IIb period (ca. 2450/2400-2200/2150 BC) might be the most credible candidate for socalled ‘Coming of the Greeks’ or, more correctly, the formation of the Greeks from the Early Helladic IIa ‘Pelasgians’ under the Anatolian (Greek?) Early Helladic IIb influence. The Anatolia-linked people might represent one among other Proto-Greek tribes and waves. Peaceful mixing of the ‘Pelasgians’ (in modern linguistic terms, Albanian-like relatives of the Proto-Greeks, see below) and the Greeks, described by Herodotus, correlates with the archaeological evidence of the mixing between the Early Helladic IIa culture (‘Pelasgian’?) and the Anatolia-linked Lefcandi I culture (Proto-Greek?). The Early Helladic II culture is linked (by I. Ecsedy) with the Baden culture which perhaps was Paleo-Balkan (Greek-Albanian-Armenian). In turn, the Baden culture appeared in Anatolia in the same time, about 2600 BC (Troy II, acc. to Leo S. Klejn). How can we hypothesize that ‘Pelasgians’ (mentioned by many ancient Greek writers as the oldest inhabitants of Greece and close relatives of the Greeks) were linked with Albanians? This question is closely linked with two other ones: what does the name of Lerna (as a capital of the ‘Pelasgian’ or ‘Greek-Pelasgian’ state) mean and where does the name come from? Two alternative answers might be proposed. On the one hand, this name might be of the Anatolian origin, traced to the enigmatic Hattic language. Possible Hattic provenance of the Lerna name has long been proposed (Hattic plural prefix le- plus arinna, arna ‘spring’, ‘pool’, ‘well’, ‘source’, Forrer 1938; Strabo (8.6.8) described Lernean springs; Lernean Hydra might be related to them). The Greek title of the sacral king (wanaks) is also of the Anatolian (Hattic) origin: wanakt- ‘king (*-kt- < Hattic katte, cf. Carian kdous, ‘king’) of land (*wana-, Hitt.-Luw. wana, ‘country’)’ as possible semi-translation of Hattic wuru-n katte, ‘king of the land/earth (name of a god)’. Also, the king title τίταξ (ἔντιμος, ἢ δυνάστης, οἱ δὲ βασιλεύς, Hesych.) is of Hattic origin: Hattic titah, ‘great’. The similarities between architecture of palaces at Cretan Knossos and Anatolian Beycesultan are also significant. On the other hand, the name of Λέρ-ν-α, where the fortified House of the Tiles was built, might be related to the name of Λάρισα, ‘citadel’ (considered the ‘Pelasgian’ capital with the ‘Pelasgian’ name); several cities had this name. The root of this word (lar-) resembles Thracian rera ‘stones, stony ground’ (from an earlier *lera), Albanian lerë, -a ‘stones, fallen stones’ (Duridanov, Chapter 5), possibly also Greek λάρ-ν-αξ, ‘(stone) box’ and Λάρ-ν-ασσ-ος as an old name of Πάρ-ν-ασσ-ος 182 (‘Nehring Glotta 14 (1925): 185 points to Λάρνασσος, which is an old name of the Πάρνασσος acc. to EM 655, 5 et al.’, Beekes 835). Now I prefer the latter (Balkan ‘Pelasgian’) hypothesis of the Lerna name origin, but not the former (Anatolian) one. The Early Helladic II culture, including Lerna, might be ‘Pelasgian’ (similar to Albanian in its language) initially, but later it might be Hellenized by the Lefkandi I culture, related to Anatolia. The highest level of the Lerna proto-state was reached after the Hellenization. It was the Pelasgian-Greek symbiosis, described by Herodotus. Thus, one can suggest the slow infiltration of the Greeks from Anatolia in the ‘Pelasgian’ state during the EHIIb time. It must be specially underlined that the suggested Anatolian wave of the Proto-Greeks was not the main one (and, perhaps, also not the first one!). Two other early waves (both about 2200 BC), from the Vučedol culture of Croatia and Hungary and from the Budzhak culture (a source of Vučedol’s tumuli) of the northwest Pontic, are also possible. The seal of power: An unique inscribed seal might be royal ‘We first see administration on the Greek mainland in EB II, a sealing administration adapted from that which had already operated in the Near East for a millennium’, and this system was comparable with that of Minoan Crete (Younger, Rehak 2008a: 173-174). Many clay seals, which were important social signs, were found in the Lerna palace. ‘The ownership of a seal probably implied some prestige or social standing […]’ (Wiencke 1989: 505). These Early Helladic IIb seals from the House of the Tiles at Lerna represented the Lerna III archaeological layer (without continuity with previous layer) (Caskey 1960). However, only one unique seal with clear signs, similar to the Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A and B, is found (see pictures: Heath 1958, Plate 22, No. S62; Makriiannis 2009: 15). These signs can be read as sa-ro (less acceptable da-ro). It might mean 1) sa-ro : Cret. Hier. sa-ru, sa-ro, possibly = Akkadian šarru, ‘king’ vs 2) da-ro : Lin. A da-re, possibly : δῶρον ‘gift, present’, ‘votive gift’ or ‘offering’ to a god. 183 It is significant for the interpretation of this seal that a king, using this seal, was a contemporary with Akkadian Sargon the Great (the late 24 th – early 23rd century BC). Anatolian origin of the Lernean signs? Anatolian link between the Kura-Araxes and Luwian hieroglyphs? Where the ‘Lerna signs’ could appear? The style of signs resembles syllabic signs of ‘Cretan Hieroglyphics’ rather than Cretan Linear A script. The Anatolian relations of the Lefkandi I influence points to the Cretan hieroglyphs (known a little bit later, from about 2200 BC) and to the Anatolian (Luwian) hieroglyphs (known in their proto-forms from early second millennium BC, Dunaevskaia 1969: 19). Both Cretan and Anatolian (Luwian) hieroglyphs used only open syllables and depended on the Egyptian hieroglyphs, contrasting to the cuneiform script. This fact points to the common (western Anatolian?) origin of Luwian hieroglyphs (see: Klock-Fontanille). Also, the signs of the Kura-Araxes culture of eastern Caucasus (existed, including its Levantine branch such as Khirbet-Kerak culture, during 3700–2200 BC), must be taken into consideration. The Kura-Araxes culture, possibly partially belonged to the Hittites (cf. Hittite and Luwian words as a basis of the Anatolian hieroglyphic signs), influenced famous Alaca Hoyuk site (possibly the first Hittite or rather Hattic-Hittite state in Anatolia) while the Kura-Araxes signs influenced Anatolian hieroglyphs (e. g., Anatolian hieroglyph for ‘great king’ is of the Kura-Araxes origin, Shanshashvili 1999). Some third-millennia BC Anatolian hieroglyphs might be suggested because a) it might be a link between the Kura-Araxes pictograms/hieroglyphs (?) and the Luwian hieroglyphs; b) it might be a source of the Lernean signs and possibly of the Cretan ones, if Cretan hieroglyphs are not from Lerna (where they are attested so purely!); c) a picture from Alishar (Anatolia) closely resembles Cret. hier. sign ma (cat). 184 Greek adversary of the first Oriental Emperor? Lernean chief / king bore Sargon’s title The Lernean signs might be read sa-ro rather than daro because 1) the form of the first sign resembles sa rather than da; 2) the form daros / daron is absent among attested Greek words; 3) if only one found seal is inscribed, then, logically, the reading ‘king’, not ‘gift’, might be preferred; 4) possible continuations of this title among hieroglyphs of Minoan Crete demonstrate clearly sa, not da. Thus, the Lernean inscription sounds sa-ro and resembles the Cretan Hieroglyphic sa-ru (the side c of the three-sided seal from the Swiss collection: Molchanov 1992: 56) or sa-ro (Weingarten 2016: 86, CMS II.6.230), Lin. A sa-ro (HT 9, a headline). Perhaps, this title had two Graecianized forms, *σαρυς and *σαρος. Akkadian šarru, ‘king’ might be a source of the title. But why the Greek chief (or even ‘proto-king’?) of Lerna bore the Akkadian title, if he ruled so far from the Akkadian empire? Who ruled in Akkad in that time? It was Sargon, also known as Sargon the Great, the first Emperor of the Akkadian Empire (modern Iraq), founded by him himself and ruled by him during 56 years. He became the strongest king of that time. He obtained silver from Anatolia (modern Turkey), lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, cedars from Lebanon, and copper from Oman; he met ships from Bahrain and even India. His empire stretched from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf of the Indian Ocean. His late legendary biography tells that he even invaded Cyprus – so this strongest king of then Orient must be known in Greece! (He also knew about the Armenian state near the Van Lake: Sargon the Great mentioned Armanum to the north of his empire, so he knew Armenians closely related to Greeks linguistically). It must be specially underlined that Sargon (or, to be more exact, Šarru-ukīn or Šarru-kēn) was not his birth name (a child in a poor family can’t be named ‘king’!) but a title which means ‘legitimate king’. (Biblical term sár ‘king’ and the name of Sarrah, meaning ‘princess’, are related words. Philistine seran ‘king’ might be also related.) If the name of Hera (whose sacral island Samos is located close to Asia Minor) is of the same origin and meaning (‘queen’, s > h in pre-written Greek) then the concept of the goddess traced to the earliest Greek concept of divine power. Ulrich von Wilamovitz interpreted Hera as despoina, a feminine form of heros (Wilamovitz 237; Eliade 2008: 342). This meaning might refer to Venus, Sumerian Inanna ‘queen of the heaven’, cf. Biblical Sarrah. Note that s not changed into h in the king title which was accepted before this phonetic process (attested as contemporaneous in the Gutian names with s/h alternation). In contrast, this process ended before the Mycenaean time (1470–1200 BC) because the Linear B forms of the Hera name not reflected s-. Thus, the ruler of Lerna could feel himself so strong and glorious that he associated himself with the great Akkadian king and entitled himself with the Akkadian king/Emperor title. We have neither portraits of the Lernean kings (in 185 contrast to the suggested Minoan royal portraits in the frescoes and on the seals) nor their burial masks (in contrast to the Mycenaean ones). But it is clear that Lerna was ruled by very inspired chiefs! Perhaps, they were more ambitious than the Mycenaean kings. Early Greeks were so impressed by/with the Sargon Empire that they (under the name of the Gutians) soon capture it – only a fifty years after the fall of Lerna! Cretan heirs of the Lernean kings: Cret. hier. title sa-ru/ro continued Lernean sa-ro About 500 years after the destroying of the Lernean palace by the next wave of the Greeks (moved from the northwest Balkans and the northwest Pontic) about 2200 BC, the same king title appeared among the Cretan hieroglyphs in two forms, sa-ru and sa-ro (*σαρυς and *σαρος, refs. above). Cretan royal seal with the king title sa-ru Compare sa , ro , and ru in Linear A and B respectively. The syllabic word sa-ru is confirmed by hieroglyphic sign BULL (ŠARRUMA, the Hurrian bull-god), and both mean šarru, ‘king’. Hurrians were a Near Eastern people of metalworkers which lived in northern Mesopotamia and Syria. These people influenced the Aegean region during the II–II millennia BC. Perhaps, the Hurrian element was presented in the Kura-Araxes culture, used pictograms/hieroglyphs (see above). Not only the Hurrian language is attested in some Cypro-Minoan inscriptions of the second century BC, but also the Cretan Couretes (guardians of newborn Zeus) and Cretan solar bull Talos might be of the Hurrian origin (Hurrian huradi ‘warriors’ and tella ‘bull-god’). Moreover, the name of Cretan king Minos resembles the most frequent name of the Urartian kings Menua (Urartu was an ancient state in modern Armenia which language was close to Hurrian). Therefore, the Cretan kings inherited the Emperor title from their ancestors of Lerna and used it 500 years later. The idea of the inheritance of power might be very important not only in ancient Mesopotamia but also in the earliest Greek world. If the ancient Greeks (during the earliest centuries AD) remembered the first Greek kingdom in Sicyon and precisely dated its start to about 2200 BC (as Byzantine chronicler Eusebius evidenced after Greek first-century BC historian Castor), it is naturally that 17-century BC Cretans might use 23-century BC Lernean title. 186 Moreover, Cretan ‘hieroglyphic people’ (or only royal dynasty or nobility in general?) might be connected with fugitives from Greek-Pelasgian state (centered by Lerna), partially expelled by conquerrors (a new wave of the Greeks?) about 2200 BC. Note that the fall of the Lernean proto-state exactly coincided with the appearance of Cretan ‘hieroglyphic theocracy’! Lions and bees, depicted on other Lernaean seals, might also be royal symbols (cf. especially bee as a symbol of rulers of Lower Egypt). Later a bee become an important Cretan symbol (SM I.159). Bees among Cretan hieroglyphs (SM I.212) Lerna between the ‘Pelasgians’ and the Greeks: Conclusional models Thus, Lerna tumulus appeared about 2200 BC (Early Helladic III period / culture) when ancient Greek historians placed the appearance of the earliest Hellenic kingdom. Hypothetically, three sources of these Proto-Greeks might be suggested: 1) the Anatolia-related Lefkandi I culture, about 2450-2200 BC (cf. Greek reading of contemporaneous Trojan inscriptions below), linked with the Early Helladic IIb culture (whereas Early Helladic II corresponds with Troy II, also fortified). However, the Lefkandi I (= Early Helladic IIb) influence on Mainland Greece preceded Early Helladic III period, not corresponded with the Lernean tumulus and with synchronous appearance of the earliest Greek kingdom (acc. to Castor-Eusebius); 2) the Budzhak culture of the southwest Pontic (present-day Ukraine), influenced the Vučedol culture (S. V. Ivanova) and possibly Early Helladic III (L. S. Klejn). Main source of the Budzhak culture was the Coţofeni culture – a part of the CoţofeniCostolac cultural layer (the last Albanian-Greek-Armenian or only AlbanianThracian?), influenced Greece (A. Bulatović); 3) the Vučedol culture, a source of the Somogyvár-Vinkovci culture which was linked with both 1) Early Helladic III culture of Mainland Greece and the Middle Minoan III culture of Crete. 4. Troy spoke Greek Proto-linear Trojan script (on the vessels and spindle-whorls) ma-ru : μαλλός ‘flock of wool’, a-ro-ma : ἄρωμα ‘spice’, e-mi-ta-ti-ra2 : ἡμιστατήρ ‘half-stater’ Three Trojan Wars?! The greatest event in the Greek past: the Trojan War which occurred thrice! 187 Troy was the famous ancient city, placed in the strategic point of northwest Anatolia (modern Turkey). It was peopled from about 3000 BC and abandoned in Medieval time. Despite the fact that the ancient Greeks regard the Trojan War (the capture of Troy by the Greeks about 1200 BC, known from Homer and many other Greek writers) as the most important event in their history, the place of the city was forgotten and repeatedly found in the XIX century. Scottish geologist and journalist Charles Maclaren was the first who correctly identified the position of the lost city of Troy in 1822. British consul Frank Calvert excavated Trojan objects in his own part of the Troy territory during the 1860s. He also invited German businessman Heinrich Schliemann to join the excavation, and the latter (born in 1822 when the place of Troy was identified) became the most famous among all (earlier and later) excavators of the city. In the late XX century, H. Schliemann’s compatriot Manfred Korfmann and his team demonstrated that Homeric Troy (flourished in the late XIII century BC) was larger than it had been previously thought, and Homer had described it very correctly. Troy was founded in the end of the 4 th millennium BC (more than 5000 years before the present time!). As archaeology and linguistics suggest, there were PaleoBalkan tribes (mostly Thracians – close relatives of the Greeks and especially ‘Pelasgians’) who built the city. The names of Trojan places and persons have Thracian and Macedonian parallels (see below). Carriers of the Baden archaeological culture (created by the Proto-Greeks or, more widely, by the suggested common ancestors of the Greeks, Albanians, and Armenians) took part in the initial peopling of the city. It appears strange that the city was captured not once or twice but three times during only one (or one and a half) century (from the late XIV c. BC or early XIII c. BC to the early XII c. BC)! First, Heracles, the military chief of the Mycenaean empire (the first empire in Europe!), destroyed the Troy in the late XIV or the early XIII c. (The date is obtained from the synthesis of archaeology, the Greek traditional chronology, and astronomical symbols in Greek myths). It was so-called Troy VI, destroyed by an earthquake (or, in mythical words, Poseidon the ‘earth-shaker’, helping Heracles to capture the city, destroyed its walls). Second, the new city (so-called Troy VIIa) was captured by the Greek military league (leaded by the Mycenaean emperor Agamemnon whose name means ‘megaruler’) in the late XIII c. (exact astronomical date, corresponding with archaeological Blegen-Furumark date, is 1230 BC). The event was poetized by Homer in the VIII century, but the shorter songs might be created by contemporaries and immediate ancestors of the participants in this war. Third, the destroying of Troy was continued by so-called ‘Sea Peoples’ (the Egyptian name of ancient multi-national maritime ‘Vikings’) in the early XII c. Main anti-Trojan force of that time were Phrygians – close relatives of the Greeks. The Phrygians were known in the modern European culture due to two mythical kings – Gordias tying the Gordian Knot, and his son Midas with donkey’s ears. 188 It is possible that the second and the third captures of Troy were only parts of the same process. Egyptian inscriptions mentioned Greeks (under their Homeric names Achaeans and Danaans) among other ‘Sea Peoples’. Not only war described in the Iliad but also adventures depicted in the Odyssey might be included in the deeds of the ‘Sea Peoples’. The astronomical date of the fall of Troy VIIa (1230 BC, obtained from astro-symbols of Homeric poems, see below) might exactly correspond with an archaeological date (by Carl Blegen and A. Furumark) or differ a little from the recent archaeological date (several decades later, acc. to Manfred Korfmann). The recent dating of Troy VIIa (captured by Agamemnon) and VIIb1 (captured by the Phrygians) is 1300/1280– and 1230/1180–1150 BC respectively (Rutter Lesson 27). Names of Troy: Can they be deciphered? The ancient Greeks named the territory of modern Turkey Anatolia – ‘the land of the rising sun’, whereas our contemporaries use similar name for Japan. Western Anatolia was known in Anatolian (Hittite) written documents as Assuwa – ‘the land of horses’ (the name of Asia is derived from it), and Homer described the Trojan land as horse-rich. (Perhaps, this poetic epithet traced to the time after 1900 BC when horses appeared in Middle Helladic Greece and Troy VI; the Greek historians dated the appearance of the second Hellenic kingdom in Argos to the same date). About 5000 years ago it was a land where famous city-state of Troy was found. This city developed almost two thousand years until the Trojan War, poetized by Homer in his Iliad. Heinrich Scliemann unearthed Troy in 1871 and proved that Homer’s poetic image of the city was not fantasy but reality. However, the city remained very small in the modern scientific thought until the early XXI century when another German archaeologist, Manfred Korfmann, argued that Troy was 15 times larger than it had been previously expected. Then, Homer was right when he described the largest and strongest city. Two names of the city are preserved: 1) Greek Τροία (Mycenaean Trou-), Hittite Taruiša and 2) Greek Ἴλιος, Ἴλιον < Fίλιον, Hittite Wiluša. The first name was given after a mythical character Τρώς whereas the second name – after a mythical character Ἶλος, acc. to Greek myths. The name of Τροία might be a cognate of the name of a Thracian tribe Τραυ σοι (Georgiev 1958: 172, 197); Ἀγάθυρσοι was another name of them (St. Byz.). This tribe was located close to the Ezero culture area (this archaeological culture took part in the formation of the early Troy – I and II layers). Similarly, names of the Dardanians (close relatives of the Trojans in Iliad) – Aeneus and his ancestors – are Thracian (Gindin, Tsymbursky 1996: 191-192). Another prototype of the city-name might be Turs- (an ethnic name of the Tyrsenians, later known as the Etruscans), because the Polyochne city of Lemnos island (where archaic Etruscan language was preserved to the classical time) was belonged to the Manfred Korfmann’s ‘Troy I–III maritime culture’. Georgian Tri-aleti (when Aegean-related Trialeti culture was excavated) might also be the ‘Trojan 189 place’ (Lycian trujal ‘Trojan’, Georgian -eti ‘place’). Τροιζήν (< *Trois-wan-?), a city in Argolis, might also be linked with the bname of Troy. If Troy (Ilion) was founded by Ilus when a cow lay down (as a myth spoke) then the name might be compared with Greek ταῦρος ‘bull’. In turn, Ἴλιον resembles the name of the Illyrians (Ἰλλ-υρ-ιοί, etymologically ‘snakes’?). Can one prefer some among these versions? Elusive Trojan language: Luwian, Etruscan, Thracian, or ..? The ethnicity of the Trojans and the nature of the ‘Trojan language’ remains among the greatest enigmas of ancient history. The Dardanians (Homeric synonym for the Trojans) were mentioned as allies of the Hittites in the Kadesh battle (1289 BC), but they were not mentioned among the Sea Peoples because they migrated in Asia Minor earlier: alongside the Hittites, they consisted the Trojan people (Neroznak 1978: 11). Discussions on this matter became much more heated when a Luwian seal was found in Troy VIIb in 1995. Luwian is a language of Anatolia during the second-first millennia BC, now extinct (see about the Luwian hypothesis: Watkins 1986; Starke 1997; Latacz 2004). However, a leading Luwianist Ilya Yakubovich underlines that the Trojan language remains yet completely unknown (Yakubovich 2010: 117–129). Moreover, Troy VIIb was not Homeric Troy: it was the city-layer, existed after Homeric Trojan War and captured by the Phrygians several decades after the Homeric Trojan War. A Luwian hieroglyphic seal from the Troy VIIb layer. Hieroglyphic seal E9.573, found in Troy VIIb, drawing from Hawkins/Easton (1996) text: BONUS2.FEMINA [.]-pa-tá-[.] drawing of an ancient artefact, academic fair use in en:Luwian hieroglyphs, en:Troy and related articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hieroglyphs#/media/File:Troy_VIIb_hieroglyphic_seal_revers e.png The language of the Etruscans (founders of Rome, migrated from Anatolia to Italy after 1200 BC and known as Tursha among the ‘Sea Peoples’) is also considered a candidate to the unknown Trojan language. The name of Troy (T(a)ruisa in Hittite documents) is similar to the oldest name of the Etruscans (Greek Τυρσ-ᾶν-οί from Anatolian *Turs-wana ‘Turs-country’?). This word-model was undelined by Stephen Durnford (pers. comm.). An old hypothesis linked this name with τύρσις 190 ‘tower’ (reflecting the fortified cities of the Troy I-III maritime culture?). However, no Etruscan documents were found in Troy – as adherent of the Etruscan hypothesis Alwin Kloekhorst admits (Kloekhorst 2012). Thus, the language of Troy might be Greek (see about Greek Troy VI: Goetze 1957: 182; Mellaart 1958; Page 1959: 56, 70; Blegen 1963: 145-146), Thracian (see about Early Bronze Thracian-Troy relations: Gindin 1981: Gindin, Tsymbursky 1996: 214) or Thracian-Phrygian (Woudhuizen 2017), Luwian (see above), Lydian or LemnianEtruscan (Georgiev 1958; Watkins 1986; Starke 1997; Kloekhorst 2012), but it is still unknown (Yakubovich 2010: 117-129). Trojan writing: A proto-linear script? Could the Trojans have their own writing? Some inscribed Trojan objects (much more indigenous than the aforementioned Luwian seal) may tell about it. Heinrich Schliemann (in his Troy and its remains, chapter ‘The Trojan inscriptions’) not only published Trojan signs on whorls and vessels (strongly resembling Cretan Linear A script) but also informed about the first attempt to read them, grounding on the Cypriot syllabic script. E. g., he published a whorl with repeated sign resembling Linear A ma from Troy III (2250-2100 BC). In comparison, Harald Haarmann dated the appearance of Linear A to about 2500 BC (Haarmann), so the beginning of the script coincided with Troy II (2600-2250 BC). Cyrus H. Gordon ‘accepts the view of Harald Haarmann (1990) and Marija Gimbutas (1991: 308-21) that the Minoan Linear A script derives from the Old European script of the Danube valley of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages’ (Rendsburg 1996: 42). Louis Godart identified two locally made spindle-whorls from Troy IV 2050-1900 BC (among others, discovered by Schliemann) as incised with Linear A signs (Godart 1994; Godart 1994a; Finkelber 1998). Hubert La Marle also suggest the existence of ‘the Linear A script from Troy IV ca. 2200-2050’ (La Marle). Nikolai N. Kazansky interprets the Trojan signs which are 1) not symmetrical and 2) separate from each other as a Trojan script (Troy II-V, 2600-1900/1700 BC) which was an intermediate link between the Danube/Vinča script and Linear A. Was Cretan Linear A of the Trojan origin? The end of Troy V coincided with the start of Cretan Linear A and with the constructing of the Beycesultan palace about 1950 BC (Whitelaw 2001: 30), similar to the Knossian ‘Old Palace’. Inscribed objects are known in the developed and very rich state of Troy II (socalled ‘Schliemann’s Troy’, 2600-2250 BC), but they couldn’t be read now: The ‘signs resembling letters’ in Troy II (from Schliemann’s Ilion I) The picture No. 52 from Troy II which was published in Troy may also reflect Linear A 191 Ilion: 298 Among many other objects, excavated by Heinrich Schliemann, spindle-whorls (conical, like Trypillian ones!) were typical. In Troy II, Spindle whorls are common. In one IIg house was found evidence for a loom in the form of three or four parallel rows of loomweights, although this hardly proves the existence of a true weaving industry at Troy. Spindle whorls are now often decorated with incised patterns. (Rutter, Lesson 7) In Troy III (contemporary with the Lefkandi I culture and the House of the Tiles at Lerna III, Rutter, Lesson 7), ‘Spindle whorls continue to be common, the types continuing from Troy II.’ (Rutter, Lesson 7). In Troy IV (synchronous with EH III period), ‘A greater percentage of the common spindle whorls are decorated (ca. 65%), but otherwise these are much the same as in Troy III.’ (Rutter, Lesson 7). In Troy V (synchronous with the earliest MH and MMIA), ‘The range of types is identical to that typical of Troy II-IV.’ (Rutter, Lesson 7). In Troy VI, in contrast to the previous layers, ‘Terracotta spindle whorls are no longer decorated as they had been in the Early Bronze Age.’ (Rutter Lesson 23). Some of the spindle-whorls are inscribed, and the signs, depicted on them, closely resemble later syllabic Linear A script of Crete (XX–XV centuries BC) and the Linear B script of Crete and mainland Greece (XV–XIII centuries BC). Ilios: 417 Trojan ma-ru (a spindle-whorl from Troy III, XXII c. BC; ru over ma) can be read in comparison with Cretan Linear A and B scripts: . The same combination of signs in the same position (one sign over another) is found in the Cretan Linear A *559 Linear B *145 (e. g., see the Linear A tablet from Hagia Triada HT 12) and scripts (Younger 11; see also about the Linear A origin of this Linear B ligature: Ventris, Chadwick 1956: 36) . It means ‘wool’ and reflects Greek μαλλός ‘flock of wool’ (Younger 11). This word (considered ‘Minoan’, Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 159) reflects Greek-Hittite contacts: Greek μαλλός ‘flock of wool’ : Hittite maluli- ‘skin’ as well as Greek βύρσα, ‘skin’ (< *gursa-) : Hittite sacral kursa‘skin’ (on the eia tree), Greek μίτος, ‘thread’ : Hittite mitta-, ‘red wool’ etc. 192 Ilios, plates 1924, 1926 we-ro we-ro we-ro in Cret. hier. text #292 (Karnava 1999: 48) we-ro #871 (Karnava 1999: 138) Trojan we-ro we-ro (a spindle-whorl, picture: Schliemann 1881: pl. 1924, 1926) : Cret. hier. we-ro (#292, 871, pictures: Karnava 1999: 48, 138) : -ἔρος (in ἔπ-ερος ‘woolly’, εὔ-ερος ‘with good wool’), Ion. εἶρος ‘wool’, Lin. B we-we-si-je-ja /werwesieiai/ 'women who work the wool', from we-we-si-jo(-) /werwesios/ : Latin vervex ‘wether’ < Proto-Indo-European *ueru-os- ‘wool’ (Beekes: 392). Trojan te (a spindle-whorl, image: Schliemann 1981: pl. 1910) : Lin. AB te ‘cloth’ (an abbreviation). 193 Ilios, pl. 1910, 1911, 1914 Ilios, pl. 1912, 1913, 1915 Ilios, pl. 1900 Trojan te-ja (image: Schliemann 1881: pl. 1900) : τείνω ‘stretch by force, pull tight’ (< Indo-European, Beekes: 1458) rather than < τεῖος ‘long’ (Il. 20.42). 194 ‘Cuneiform-like’ inscription, Ilios, pl. 1892 Ilios, pl. 1873, 1874 Trojan ti-ro (images: Schliemann 1881: pl. 1873, 1874) : τίλος ‘anything plucked (of hair)’ < τίλλω ‘pluck, pull out (hair)’, ‘no cognates outside Greek’ (Beekes: 1485). Ilios, pl. 1872 Trojan wa-ro (Schliemann 1871: pl. 1838, 1872) : (F)ἀρνός ‘lamb, wool’, Lin. B wa-niko /warniskos/ < Indo-European (Beekes: 129). Ilios, pl. 1838 wa-ro 195 Trojan origin of the Cypro-Minoan script: Vinča – Troy – Cyprus? Archibald G. Sayce rightly interpreted a Trojan seal (Troy III in Ilion 2, figs. 499, 1519) as closely related to the Cypriot syllabary 4: Ilion: 415 Sayce, A. H. The inscriptions found at Hissarlik, 691-705, Ilios: 693 Sayce Ilios: 697 Schliemann, H. 1881. Ilios: The city and country of the Trojans. N. Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1-800 On the other hand, namely Cypriot syllabary is the closest (among other Aegean scripts) to so-called ‘Danube/Vinča script’ of Neolithic Balkans. Marija Gimbutas / Harald. Haarmann’s hypothesis of the ‘Danube Script’ origin of Linear A contradicts with Sir Arthur Evans’ idea of the hieroglyphic origin of Linear A. Western Anatolia (including Troy) might be a link between the scripts of the Balkan Neolithic and the Aegean Bronze Age scripts. Cypriot-like Trojan signs preceded Cypro-Minoan syllabary and might be (alongside Cretan Linear A) its source. In other words, the http://historylib.org/historybooks/Ilion--Gorod-i-strana-troyantsev--Tom-2/11 See also: http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/kubaba/KUBABA/Davis_2010__Introduction_to_Aegean_pre-Alphabetic_Scripts.pdf 4 196 Trojan linear script resembles both Linear A and Cypro-Minoan scripts and might be their source. Thus, some Proto-Greek tribes might appear in Greece from the Vučedol culture area or/and from northwest Pontic directly (about 2200 BC), whereas other tribes might migrate from the Balkans (the Ezero culture) to western Anatolia (about 3000 BC) and then in Greece (about 2300 BC). It is very significant that the appearance of Troy III (where Greek-like inscriptions were found) about 2250 BC coincided with the appearance of the palace of Lerna (about 2450/2300 BC) and the Greek-like invaders in Mesopotamia (about 2150 BC). The Trojans spoke Greek! The Greekness of the Troy III-V inscriptions Linear A signs in Troy IV (2100/2050–2000/1950 BC) from Heinrich Schliemann’s Ilion 2 (in the recent work, the inscription is dated to Troy V, Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 48) might be more informative: 197 Troy IV Ilion: 527 Compare Nikolaii N. Kazansky’s drawing (Kazansky 1984): http://minoablog.blogspot.com/ Cf. differently (Schliemann 1881) and the similar image (Zurbach 2001). Perhaps, the same combination of two words repeats in the inscription twice: ku-pa a-ro-ma ku-pa a-ro-ma. The first word may be compared with Linear A ku-pa, ‘Cyperus’. Trojan ku-pa a-ro-ma ku-pa a-ro-ma (image: Schliemann 1881: 527) : Linear A ku-pa, ‘Cyperus’, Greek ἄρωμα ‘aromatic herb or spice’ (etym. ‘unknown’, Beekes: 146). Emilio Peruzzi identifies Linear A ku-pa (following the ideogram of Cyperus rotundus) as a name of the plant (Linear B ku-pa-ro = kupairos) while Linear A su-ku (HT 32) as a name of fig (Peruzzi 1960: 24). An alternative and more weak reading, if to was written instead of pa: Linear B (KN Fp 13) *47-ku-to-de OLE V 1, ‘in *47-ku-to – oil’ or Linear B ku-to (KN, hapax)..The second word may be well known Greek ἄρωμα ‘aromatic herb or spice’ (etym. ‘unknown’, Beekes: 146). Andras Zeke reads the inscription as ku ? a ro ka ru ? ku ro tu (Zeke). However, only two Trojan inscriptions, identified as Linear A (Godart 1994a: 722724), were included in the Linear A corpus of texts (Younger 1). 198 Trojan spindle-whorls, possibly inscribed in Greek, from J. Younger’s catalogue TRO Zg 1, spindle whorl (Berlin Museum; Godart 1994, 714-17, fig. 5 on p. 722): PI-MI-TA-TI-RA2 TRO Zg 2, spindle whorl (Berlin Museum; Godart 1994, 714-17, fig. 5 on p. 722): DU-MI-TA-TI-RA2 Compare one of these Trojan spindle-whorls from H. Schliemann’s book: Sayce, Ilios 694 If two words differ by only one sign, both these objects might bear the same inscription. The initial sign might be neither du not pi but e: compare signs du , pi , and e in Linear B script. If it is right, then e-mi-ta-ti-ra2 (ra2 = ria) might be ēmistateria from ἡμιστατήρ, ἡμιστάτηρον ‘half-stater’, cf. στατήρ ‘a weight (about 7 g)’, στατηριαῖος ‘weighing a stater’. The weight of spindle-whorl is related to the length of the spindle and to the thickness and material of the thread. Alternatively but less acceptable, it might be *duēmistatēria ‘of two and half stater in weight’, cf. τριημῖστατῆρα ‘a stater and a half’. It might also be du-mi-ta-ti-ra2 = δόμῳ δατήρια ‘distributing in/to the house’. Perhaps, the same root may be presented in the word which we can find in the Linear A list of slaves from Zakros (after the listing of foreigners): tu-mi-ti-za-se ‘home-born (native slaves?)’ from δόμῳ ‘in house’ and τίκτω ‘engender’, τέξις ‘child-bearing’ or rather ktisths ‘inhabitant’. The first inscription is also published in A. G. Sayce’s supplement to Schliemann’s Ilion 2, and the sign ‘ra2’ has two dots in the centre, so it may be ma. However, the reading *dome-ti-te-ma, *δωματίτημα, ‘of house’, cf. Greek δωματίτης, ‘of, belonging to the house’, δώμημα, ‘chamber’, is lesser acceptable. Two other inscribed spindle-whorls from Troy are dated to late Troy II (2700/26002250 BC) or early Troy III (Waal 2017: 115-116). 199 Many separate signs, similar to Cretan Linear A, were also found on Trojan ceramics (see pictures: Zurbach 2003). Therefore, Troy might speak Greek at least from the XXII c. BC! However, if 1) Troy II-V (2600-1900/1700 BC) represented the same tradition to use inscribed spindle-whorls and 2) readable spindle-whorls were inscribed in Greek then the Greeks might be presented in Troy from 2600 BC (Schliemann’s highly developed Troy II, coincided with the Baden-related influence on Anatolia) or even from the foundation of Troy I under the Ezero culture (Bulgaria) influence about 3000 BC. If Troy I-III was the same culture then the Greekness of Troy III determined the Greekness of Troy I-II. Moreover, Aia as an aim of the trip of the Argonauts might be not the Caucasus but Western Anatolia initially (the name of Aia is derived from the name of Ahhiyawa ‘Greek state’, known from Anatolian documents). Therefore, when Homer described the Trojans very similarly to the Greeks, he might be right. The origin of the Trojan Greeks: Archaeological and onomastic evidence The people and place names of Homeric Troy are Thracian (dominantly) and Macedonian, and archaeologically Troy II-V was related to Thracia while Troy VI – to Thessalia and Macedonia (Gindin, Tsymbursky 1994). Thus, Troy II-V was linked with the Ezero culture (Thracian?) whereas Troy VI – with the horse-rich people, appeared in Mainland Greece (Middle Helladic period) about 1900 BC (Macedonian?). Suggested proto-Greeks in Troy might be Graeco-Thracians and later GraecoMacedonians. The so-called ‘proto-Ahhiyawa’ as hypothetical pre-Balkan homeland of some Greek tribes might be located in northwest Anatolia. Names of Aia, Akhaivoi ‘Achaeans’, Aivoleoi ‘Aeolians’ (LUGAL aiawalaas was the brother of the Akhiyawa king in an Anatoloan document; Aia was an old name of Thessalia) might be derived from Anatolian (Hittite) Ahhiyawa (Tsymbursky 2003; Tsymbursky 2005; this etymology contrasts with traditional comparison with the river name Akheloos and Phrygian akala, ‘water’). Post-Hittite state of Quwe/Hiyawa (nineth-eighth cc. BC) might be a rest of the Greeks (Achaeans) in Anatolia. Moreover, the name Iwnia (Hebr. yawan) might be traced to the same form (iaw- < *aiw-?). Graeco-Macedonian (?) Linear A script (reflected some Ancient Macedonian phonetic features) might be also of Anatolian origin. Troy VI and Cretan Linear A appeared in close time: a part of the Troy II-V people might migrate in Crete (under the pressure of new ‘horse-rich’ newcomers) and bring the linear script on the island. Compare the Lefkandi I culture, influenced mainland Greece from the East (Anatolia and islands) in the Early Helladic IIB period. Why the Greeks needed Troy: Hellenic sacral land in Western Anatolia and the Golden Fleece (solar ram) as astro-chronological marker 200 But why ancient Greeks need Troy so strongly? The answer comes from a Greek myth. When Heracles stormed Troy, the Argonauts sailed eastward in Aea (and Heracles was among the Argonauts initially). The goal of their trip was later interpreted as Colchis in the Western Caucasus, but, as we can see below, earlier it might be not the Caucasus. What was the purpose of Argonauts’ trip? It was the Golden Fleece, the skin of the golden ram. If one had this symbol, he obtained the right to reign in the Mycenaean Empire. Atreus, the father of Agamemnon, was Mycenaean Emperor as long as he owned the golden lamb. When the lamb was taken by Atreus’ brother Thyestes (who then became the Emperor), the sun moved to the opposite direction. It is a clear designation of the so-called precession: the point, where the sun was located at the spring equinox, moved from Taurus constellation (bull) to Aries constellation (ram), i. e. in the direction opposite to the annual moving of the sun, about 2000 BC. The mythical motif might trace to the aforementioned date (despite that Atreus-Thyestes contest was dated by the ancient Greek historians to the early XIII c. BC). The ram cult appeared in Egypt at that time, XX c. BC. Several pharaohs accepted the name of Amenemhat ‘Amen (solar ram) the leader (on the horizon)’. Pharaohs’ name points to Aries (ram) as main constellation (location of the sun at the spring equinox) in the zodiac. The reign of Amenemhat I (which began soon after 2000 BC) was predicted, i. e. Egyptian astronomers knew that the Aries Age became in certain time. Note that the Anatolian influence on the Mainland Greece in the Early Helladic IIb period (2450-2200 BC) and the appearance of the new horse-rich people in Mainland Greece (1900 BC) and in Troy (1900/1700 BC) are dated to approximately one period of time. However, the Mycenaean myth also included the later event. The position of the sun in the spring equinox reached the figure of Aries exactly in the 13 th century BC. Both myths – of the golden ram in Mycenae and the Golden Fleece in Aea – are dated in Greek tradition to the same century. Several decades before Atreus, a young couple, Phrix (‘Phrygian boy’) and Helle (‘Greek girl’), riding on the golden ram, left Greece and reached Aea where the ram was sacrificed, and his skin, famous Golden Fleece, was hanged on the tree as a sacral symbol. The similar sacral object (the eia-tree with the fleece on it) was known in the Hittite Empire eastward from Troy. Tree’s name strongly resembles the name of Aea. The land of Aea is known from the Mycenaean (so-called Linear B) script in the form of Aiwa, so Hittite eia might be derived from Greek (Aiwa > Aia > eia), but not vice versa. Hittite eia- is ‘evergreen tree’, and Greek aiw- means ‘eternal’! S eep’s skin on eia- depended on the Greek language: ovis ‘sheep’ is very similar to aiw- ‘eternal’ (whereas Hittite hawes ‘sheep’ is phonetically distant from Hittite eia-). It is Greek, not Hittite play of words! 201 Therefore, first, the Hittite myth of eia- ‘evergreen tree’ and kursa- ‘sheep’s skin’ on it might be derived from the Greek homonymy of aiw- ‘eternal’ and ovis ‘sheep’. Second, if the Argonauts searched Aia (< Aiwa) where the Golden Fleece was hung on a tree and the Hittite myth of the tree and fleece might be of the Greek origin, then the Argonauts visited Anatolia initially! What the name of Aea means? Russian researchers of Ancient Balkans L. Gindin and V. Tsymbursky supposed that Ahhiyawa (the name of the Mycenaean Empire in the Hittite texts) earlier was belonged to Western Anatolia near Troy. The ‘proto-Ahhiyawa’ gave its name not only to Aea (Ahhiyawa > Aiwa > Aia ‘Aea’) but also to Aeolia near Troy (*Ahhiyawa-l- > Aiwa-l- ‘Aeolia’, after O. Carruba; LUGAL aiawalaas was the brother of the Akhiyawa king; Aia was an old name of Thessalia, Gindin, Tsymbursky 1995; Tsymbursky 2003; Tsymbursky 2005). Why Western Anatolia was so important to early Greece? The first Greek state in mainland Greece (appeared about 2300 BC, see below) was a result of the Anatolian-related influence (Early Helladic IIb : Lefkandi I culture) on the ‘Pelasgian’ state (Early Helladic IIa culture). (Ancient Greeks named ‘Pelasgians’ their relatives, possibly Thracians, close to modern Albanians). What center of cultural and state development was known in Western Anatolia before the appearance of aforementioned first Greek state in mainland Greece? It was famous city-state of Troy II (2600–2200 BC), beloved archaeological layer of Heinrich Schliemann! It was linked with Usatove-Baden-Ezero cultural circle, reflected as the Silver Generation in the Hesiodic poetry. Thus, the Greeks sought to Aea as well as to Troy because Ahhiyawa, Aeolis, Aea, Troy were different names of old Greek territories in Western Anatolia. There were the oldest sacral centers of Greek kings. Last, we have a clear proof of the Aea, located in Western Anatolia: Homer mentioned Hector’s father-in-law Ἠετίων, a king of Mysia in Western Anatolia. It is a close parallel to the name of the king of Aea (a goal of Argonauts’ trip) – Αἰήτης. Both names are only forms of Greek aiwetos ‘eagle’. Hittite name of Cyttisorus is an agrument in favor that initial Aea = (western) Anatolia. As J. Blasweiler undelined (pers. comm.), ‘there are no indications, that a kingdom Colchis existed in the late Mycenaean time period’. Homeric Aeaea is an island, western and eastern simultaneously (as the poet described it), then it might be a pair of symmetrical islands, perhaps Canarian and Cyprus. Troy between the Neolithic Balkans and Middle Bronze Crete: Are Trojan enigmas solved? Thus, several important conclusions can be proposed. 1. The Ancient Greeks knew three ‘Trojan Wars’. Heracles captured the city (in archaeological terms, Troy VI) during the first of them (about 1300 BC). Homer poetized the second – and thanks to him the most famous – Trojan War in his Iliad (Troy VIIa which was burnt about 1230 BC). Later the Phrygians (close relatives of 202 the Greeks) invaded the city (Troy VIIb) and killed its king (about 1184 BC?), as Greek ‘father of geography’ Strabo told. 2. The Golden Fleece concept (of astronomical origin) might be traced to the early 2nd millennium BC, but it was actualized in the 13 th BC. 3. Western Anatolia (Aea, Troy, Aeolis) might be the proto-Hellenic sacral land from the third millennium BC, and the Argonauts sailed there, searching the oldest sacral centers of the Greek kings. Heracles’ trips in Aea and Troy were only one trip. 4. The Trojan inscriptions are written in Greek from the late 3 rd millennium BC (Troy III-V). The Greeks might bring proto-linear script from the Balkans where proto-linear Danube/Vinča script was known from the early Neolithic. 5. The Greeks might appear in Troy II about 2600 BC or even in Troy I about 3000 BC. If Troy I-III represent the same culture with unbrocken descendance, then Troy was Greek from its founding about 3000 BC! Thus, the Ezero culture (a part of the Baden cultural circle) as the source of Troy I–II might also be Greek! 6. The Greeks of Troy I-V might be pressed by the Troy VI people (ancient Macedonians as another proto-Greek wave ?) and partially migrate in Crete. 5. Cucuteni-Trypillia literacy: 3500-3000 BC Signs on the late Cucuteni-Trypillia spindle whorls: Early proto-Greek language or astronomical pictures? As the researcher of pre-historical scripts Marco Merlini states, the descendants of the ‘Danube script’ (famous Balkan-Danube writing which existed from the six millennium BC) remained in the fourth millennium BC mostly only in Ukraine (Merlini 2008, Chapter 9F) because the Cucuteni-Trypilla culture was a descendant of highly developed Balkan culture of Vinča. Two very important inscriptions (one from Ukraine and another from Romania) were found in the late Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural layers, influenced by the Baden culture. Spindle-whorls of the Gorodsk and Troianiv cultural groups of late Trypillia (Videiko 2004a; Videiko 2004b; late fourth millennium BC, influenced by the Baden cultural circle and contemporaneous with Troy I, might be read in comparison with Cretan Linear A. 203 Presented Trypillian spindle-whorl (Eneolit 1982: 301) from the Raiky site of the Gorodsk group (Natalia B. Burdo, pers. comm.) might bear an inscription: pa-we-a = Lin. B pa-we-a = Greek φάρεα, pl. of φᾶρος, φάρος ‘a large piece of cloth’ (‘An isolated word, which could well be Pre-Greek’, Beekes 1555). An alternative interpretation of these signs might be astronomical. 28 dots may represent a lunar month, possibly sideric. Three pictures may embody Canis Major, Hydra, and Virgo. These constellations began rise for Trypillians on the eastern horizon firstly in the winter solstice (mid-January about 3000 BC) after the sunset and secondly one month (28 dots!) after the summer solstice (mid-July) before the sunrise. Thus the spindle-whorl inscription might point mid-August, possibly the end of the harvest season. The month was the harvest time: it is named after harvest in the Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic languages. Coincindently, the constellation of Leo, in which the Sun is located in the month, resembles a sickle. A harvest festival might be reconstructed for the Trypillian climatic zone from the East Slavic folklore data. The Savior (Spas) of the Apple Feast Day is celebrated now on August 19 (a month after the late Trypillian summer solstice in 3000 BC on the July 19). It is the beginning of autumn; the fruits of the new harvest can be eaten from this day (Nekrylova 2007: 401; Agapkina 2009.4: 258). A fragment of the spindle-whorl, Troianiv group (Eneolit 1982: 304): te A spindle-whorl, Gorodsk group (Arkheologia 1985: 236): ti-ro The sign te, frequent on other Trypillian spindle-whorl of the Troianiv group (Eneolit 1982: 304), might be compared with Lin. A, B te, shortened designation of material possibly related to Lin. A ta-pa, Lin. B te-pa, τάπης, ‘carpet’. 204 The sign-group ti-ro on the spindle-whorl from the Gorodsk group (Arkheologia 1985: 236) is comparable with Trojan ti-ro Mykhailo Yu. Videiko (pers. comm.) suggests two possible sources of the Cucuteni-Trypillia signs: Vinča (existed until 4300 BC) and Kodjadermen-GumelniţaKaranovo VI (developed until 4200 BC). The latter is closer chronologically and culturally. The inscribed objects which might be compared with Linear A are: the Vinča A/B bifaced spindle whorl (Flavin 1998: 86; Merlini 2008, Chapter 9B), the Karanovo round seal (Merlini 2008, Chapter 9C; Tsonev 2011), the Gradešnica plaque (Prehistory), the black cultic disc from Turdaş (Merlini 2008, Chapter 6), the Tizsa signs (Gimbutas 2006: 341), Sesklo tablet (the first half of the sixth m. BC, Merlini 2008, Ch. 7, 8; the ro and ti signs as well as word-dividers similar to Linear A; the similar word-divider was used in the Coşeşti inscription, Merlini 2008, Ch. 6), the concave seal from Yannitsa (northern Greece) made of black stone (c. 5250-5000 BC, Merlini 2008, Ch. 9B), the Paradimi III signs (Greece, early fifth m. BC, Merlini 2008, Ch. 8, 9C), the Dikili Tash spindle whorl (northeastern Greece/Greek Thrace near Philipi, early fifth m. BC), etc. ‘The Danube script originally appeared in the central Balkan-Danube area and had an indigenous origin. The oldest inscribed pieces come from the almost contemporaneous horizons Starčevo-Criş (Körös) IB/IC (DCP 1 = 6100-6000 CAL. BCE) in Romania and Karanovo I (DCP 2-4 = 6000-5600 CAL. BCE) in Bulgaria’ (Merlini 2008, Conclusions). Several steps to the Greek art of writing may be proposed: Near Eastern tokens > Sesklo and early Karanovo > Vinča > Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI and Cucuteni-Trypillia > Ezero > Troy and Greece. [...] two discoid loom weights come from Ayia Triada and have the AB07 ‘TE’ sign incised on (Fig. 15.11). This sign has a special significance in Linear A: found alone, it is the most used ‘transaction sign’ and it is used found in ligature with TELA, it is the TELA+TE type of cloth occurring in both Linear A and Linear B. In both cases, its presence on a loom weight could have a special significance and suggests a special interest of Minoan administration for wool manufacture. (Militello 2014: 276) 205 206 The newfound oldest known inscription among Greek and all Indo-European: Romania, ~3500 BC Proto-Linear A ra-ro ro-tu-ke qi-ro do : λαρὸς ὄρτυξ χειρὸς δώς ‘tasty quail, gifted by the hand’ Liubov T. Shkrobanets’ drawing of Gh. Lazarovici’s photo (Merlini 2009: 668) 1. The Lozna inscription: relative and absolute dating An inscription, similar to the ancient Cretan syllabic scripts (Linear A and B), has been recently found in Romania: several words were inscribed on a potsherd under the picture of a reversed (i. e. killed) bird near a bow and a man. This clay fragment was found alongside idols and vessels at the Cucuteni site of Turbărie, 2 km southwest from Lozna village (in the municipality of Dersca, Botoşani district, Romania; excavations conducted by S. Teodor and P. Şadurschi (Merlini 2009: 668, refs). The most probably dating of this object (a part of an amphora) is the Cucuteni B period, 4100/3800–3200 BC (Teodor 2004; Teodor 2009; Lazarovici 2015: 42) or the Cucuteni A–B phase (Şadurschi 1983; A. Kovacs kindly sent me the bibliography and articles). The Cucuteni A-B period is dated to 4100–3800 calBC, whereas the Cucuteni B period – to 3800–3600/3500 BC (Lazarovici 2010: 74). However, M. Yu. Videiko (pers. comm.) proposes another dating of the Cucuteni A–B phase, 4300–4100 BC, which preceded Trypillia BII period. This scholar also allows later (HorodişteaErbiceni/Gordineşti period 3500–3150 calBC, dating after: Lazarovici 2010: 74 3300/3200–2900 BC M. Yu. Videiko) origin of the inscription, contemporaneous with the latest groups of the Trypillian culture (Gorodsk 3200–2900 BC and Troianiv 34003200 BC, the dates acc. to M. Yu. Videiko, pers. comm.), also represented some inscriptions (on the spindle-whorls). Thus, this artifact, in any case, is dated to the fourth (or even late fifth!) millennium BC, ~1500 years earlier than the oldest Cretan Linear A inscriptions, dated to ~2000 BC, or about 1000 years earlier than proto-linear Trojan inscriptions, similar to Cretan Linear A. 207 2. Cultural context: Cucuteni-Trypillia vs Baden What cultural context of this significant find might be described, and what ethnical and linguistic ideas about this context might be proposed? Why does namely Romania turn up the territory where the inscription was made? During the fourth millennia BC, Romania (as well as Moldova and western Ukraine) was an area of highly developed Cucuteni-Trypillia culture (5400-3000 BC; it is the recent date of the Trypillia culture end, acc. to Mykhailo Yu. Videiko, pers. comm.). This culture created fine painted ceramics, specialized two-storey houses, big temples and even the largest settlements of that time (15–20 thousand inhabitants!). As many pictures and figurines evidenced, the Cucuteni-Trypillians worshipped first of all the Moon, the Great Mother, the Bull (or Cow), and the Snake (similarly to Minoan Crete!). They had developed astronomy and calendar, reflected in the ornament on their vessels and temple-models; they even could calculate solar or lunar eclipses. (E. g., the distance between two holes in their special vessels – socalled ‘binocles’ – is about 16 cm which is daily movement of the moon in angular measurement. Such information might be used to calculate a possibility of eclipses.) As it was hypothetised yet in the early XX century, this culture might represent a southeastern part of the Indo-European world, especially the Proto-Greeks. Recent genetic research confirmed mainly European, not Oriental nature of the culture. It seems from the interdisciplinary view that this culture might be linked with GraecoAryan (Balkan-Indo-Iranian) or, alternatively, Hittite (or/and Hittite-Tocharian) language area. Northeastern Romania, where the aforementioned proto-linear inscription is found, was also linked with early Baden-Boleráz culture (3600-3400 BC, suggested proto-Greek or, more widely, Greek-Phrygian-Armenian) in that time, i. e. the Cucuteni B period (Horvath 2015: 11). The Baden culture later spread over a large territory from Austria to western Ukraine, Bulgaria, and western Anatolia (modern Turkey), e. g. Troy II. However, Mykhailo Yu. Videiko underlines (pers. comm.) that the Baden culture inscriptions are not known until present, in contrast to the Trypillia inscriptions. 3. Proposed interpretation: a sacral gift? Can we read the inscription, and how can this be done? Several words of the inscription (groups of signs, separated by intervals) may be read in comparison with later Cretan Linear A and B scripts. Compare the same sequence of signs in Linear B and Linear A absent These words might be read in comparison with the Greek vocabulary: 208 ra-ro : Greek λαρός ‘pleasant to the taste’. This word might be connected with Greek λαρ-ιν-ός ‘fatted, fat’ (Beekes 835) but etym. of the latter is ‘unclear’ (Beekes 834), cf. Latin lar(i)dum ‘bacon’ (> English lard) : Basque larru ‘skin, leather’ : Georgian lori ‘bacon’. This word might be ultimately traced to the initial Caucasian-related Neolithic in Greece. Cf. also λάρος ‘sea-mew, gull’, Pamphylian σισίλαρος: πέρδιξ ‘partridge’, Περγαῖοι (Hesych.), Armenian lor, ‘quail’ (Beekes 835; double designation of the bird?), Basq. oilar ‘cock’ (oilo ‘hen’); ro-tu-ke : Greek ὄρτυξ ‘quail’ < Fόρτυξ’, Vedic vártikā, ‘quail’; Greek ὀρταλίς, ‘fowl’, (Beekes 1112); qi-ro : Greek χειρός ‘by the hand’ (gen. sing. of χείρ ‘hand and arm’, frequently used by Homer in this meaning); do : Greek δώς ‘gift’. Thus, the most credible interpretation (in contrast to some other possible but less credible readings) might be ra-ro ro-tu-ke qi-ro do = λαρὸς ὄρτυξ χειρὸς δώς = ‘tasty/fatted quail, gifted by the hand’. The goal of the inscription might be to inform about the gift to a human or rather to a shrine. Note that ro in the Romanian inscription resembles ro in the earliest Linear A inscription from Arkhanes: both signs have ‘tails’, in contrast to ‘classical’ Linear AB sign (see the image: Younger 7): BULL’S HEAD-ta-ro : ταῦρος ‘bull’ 4. The origin of the Hellenes among other Indo-European branches: discussion and conclusion The reading is correlated with the hypothesis of the Baden culture as Greek-like (or, more widely, Paleo-Balkan) spoken. However, each of both cultural elements in then Romania (Cucuteni and Baden) might be hypothetically attributed to the ProtoGreeks. The first scenario: common Indo-European Linear Pottery culture was divided into western Indo-European Stroked Pottery culture (> Lengyel > Funnel Beaker > Corded Ware) and eastern Indo-European Alföld Linear Pottery (> Tisza > Tishapolgár > Bodrogkeresztur) or Graeco-Aryan Boian (> Paleo-Balkan CucuteniTrypillia and Indo-Iranian Gumelniţa > Pontic Steppe). The second scenario: western Indo-European Corded Ware, Indo-Iranian Globular Amphora, and Paleo-Balkan (Greek-Armenian-Albanian) Baden. 209 The quail, depicted on the Romanian vessel, is clearly comparable with the famous Vučedol partridge (a ritual vessel in the shape of the male partridge, previously recognized as a dove), a present-day symbol of the Vučedol culture. The culture was, very credible, Proto-Greek (see below). Its direct descendant, the Somogyvár-Vinkovci culture, influenced the formation of Early Helladic III culture (existed from about 2200 BC) which correlated with the first Greek kingdom in the Hellenic written history and the most commonly accepted date for formation of the Greeks. Thus, the proto-linear inscription from Lozna is the earliest presently-known document in Greek. It is naturally a cradle of the Greek language, two millennia preceded the earliest Mycenaean Greek texts in Linear B. Moreover, if the proposed interpretation is correct, we obtain the oldest Indo-European written document. 210 Chapter 7 ORIGIN OF HELLENIC WRITING AND ART 1. Etymology of the Linear AB and Cretan hieroglyphic signs In the beginning is the syllable. The rebus-writing of the universe [...] Daryl Hine, ‘Linear A’, In: Poetry 120.5 (Aug., 1972): 287-295. The Linear A, B syllabary is based on Greek words of Indo-European origin and includes several Macedonian and Phrygian phonetic features. However, influences of Egyptian and Luwian (Anatolian) hieroglyphs, Sumerian cuneiform, Semitic, Kartvelian and North Caucasian lexicon are not excluded (cf. Kura-Araxes hieroglyphs, influenced Luwian hieroglyphs) Searching an initial language of signs The ‘acrophonic interpretation of syllabary’ method is based on the hieroglyphic origin of Linear A and B syllabic signs. If Gunter Neumann, Carl Ruijgh, Arkadii A. Molchanov searched substrate words from which syllabic signs were derived (see refs below), then Vladimir Georgiev proposed the interpretations of Linear A, B syllabic signs from Greek words of Indo-European origin: we (worm) < Greek ἕλμινς ‘worm’ (but it might be substrate, see below), za (‘ankh’, the Egyptian symbol of life) < Greek ζάω ‘I live’, phu (the plant) < Greek φυτόν ‘plant’ (Georgiev 1958: 75-76). I made an attempt to extend the list, using some previous proposals, as one can see below. Lin. AB a (double axe, Ursa Major): ἀξίνη ‘δίστομος πέλεκυς, double axe’ (Hesych.), traditionally interpreted as Indo-European, but cf. Sumerian aga, urudha-ziin, Akkadian ḫass-innu, ‘axe’. Despite possible Semitic origin of the Greek word, the Greek etymology of this sign looks acceptable. Lin. AB e (building, Cepheus constellation): ἕδος, ἕδρα, ‘temple’; Sumer. e ‘building, temple’, cf. archaic Mesopotamian reed hut, ‘the house of birth’ of Inanna. Lin. AB i (arrow or, especially in Lin. A and in the Arkalokhori script, ‘hand’, Draco’s head; cf. Egypt. ‘reed’ with alphabetic reading i): Greek ἰός ‘arrow’ < IndoEuropean. Phoen. iodh ‘hand’ (Proto-Semitic *yad- ~ *ʔid- > Akkadian idu, Ugaritic and Phoenician yd)? If initial meaning was really ‘hand’ then a logographic reading may be proposed. Lin. AB o (shield, cf. images: PM I: 691; PM III: 95, 502): Greek ὅπλον ‘the large shield of ὁπλῖται’ (independently: Makriiannis 132). Cf. also Cassiopeia constellation, depicted as a throne. 211 Lin. AB u (plough, Ursa Minor): Greek ὕνις, ‘ploughshare’; Proto-Dravidian *uz-, ‘to plough’. Lin. AB au (pig): ὕαινα, a fem. of ὗς, ‘boar’. Proto-West Caucasian *qIʷa ‘pig, swine’. Lin. B ha (yoke), probably = Linear A sign A 305 (GORILA 5: XXII): Greek ἁρμός, ‘joint’, ἅρμα ‘chariot, yoked chariot’, ἁρμή ‘junction, fitting together’ related with Old Slavonic iarĭmŭ ‘yoke’ < Indo-European. Lin. AB da (branch): Greek θαλλός, ‘branch’ (independently: Colless (c)) : Mac. ὁμο-δάλιον (Mac. δ : Greek θ, cf. Lin. B o-du-ru- : Cretan ὄθρυν, ‘mountain’, Hesych.., Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 64). Cf. δρῦς; δρίος ὕλης· ὄρος. χόρτος. δρυμός (Hesych.); ὀθρυόεν: τραχύ, ὑλῶδες, δασύ, κρημνῶδες (Hesych.). Cypriot ta, Phoen. taw. Lin. AB di (plant, similar to the Lin. AB ideogram of ‘wheat’): Luw. hier. ti (similar sign, whereas voiced stops are absent in Luw. hier.): Greek θιακχά: ἄνθη (‘full bloom of a flower or plant’) ἐν Σικυῶνι, Hesych.; τίφη, ‘one-grained wheat, einkorn, Triticum monococcum’; Kartv. (Georg.-Zan) *dik- ‘wheat’ and Proto-East Caucasian *dikwi ‘a kind of cereal’. A. Evans compared the sign with Egyptian hieroglyph ‘rain’, so it might be read in relation with διαίνεται· βρέχεται (Makriiannis 2009: 92-93). Lin. B dwo (double thing) derived from earlier Cretan scripts (Olivier 1994: 111112): Greek δύω, ‘two’ < Indo-European. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ja (door): Egypt. ‘3 [aa], ‘door’ (sign similar to Cret. Hier.), Greek ἰέναι (pres. inf. act.), ‘to go’ (cf. Latin janua, ‘door’ – A. Evans’ comparison, Ind. yāna ‘way’) < Indo-European. Phoen. heth, ‘fence’ (these syllabic sign and Phoenician letter were compared by Arthur Evans, SM I: 89) whereas Greek i > h. Lin. AB je (walking) : ἰέναι ‘to go’ (Colless (c)). Lin. AB ju (related to Lin. B logogram FARINA): Greek ζῦθος, ζῦτος, ‘beer, brewed with barley’. Proto-East Caucasian *ɦwati ‘cereal; flour’. Lin. AB pa (sword): Greek φάσγανον, ‘sword’ (< Akkadian pāsu, Arabic faʔs-, ‘axe’). In this case, Lin. A p : Greek ph, cf. pu. Cf. also the form of the Virgo constellation, Greek Parthenos. Lin. AB po (similar to the Lin. A, B ideogram ‘wine’): Greek οἶνος < Fοῖνος, Cretan βοῖνος < Indo-European *uei-. Lin. B pte: πτέρυξ, ‘blade of the steering-paddle, rudder’ (Makriiannis 2009: 132– 133: the similar word with another meaning). Lin. AB pu (plant): Greek φυτόν ‘plant’, cf. Lin. B pu2 = phu. Lin. A p : Old Greek ph, cf. pa. Lin. AB qa (face, bald head; similar to Egypt. sign hr ‘face’): Old Greek ὄψ, ‘the eye, face’ < oqus, Lin. B o-qo; Proto-East Caucasian *hqwemV ‘head’ (also > Proto-Celtic *kwenn- ‘head’); Proto-Semitic *k(ʷ)r , ‘to have/make a hairless spot (on the head), to become/make bald’ > Gurage kʷ rr r , ‘to become bald’. Egypt. gjf, ‘vervet monkey’, Sumer. ugubi, Akkad. uqupu, Phoen. qoph, ‘monkey’ (these syllabic sign and Phoenician letter were compared by Arthur Evans, SM I: 87). 212 Lin. AB qe (wheel): Greek πέλω < Indo-European *quel-, ‘turn’; Greek κύκλος, ‘wheel’ < Indo-European *kuekulos; also κίκελος: τροχός (Hesych.), possibly Macedonian. Proto-North Caucasian *hwǝlkwē ‘carriage, vehicle; wheel’. Lin. AB qi (sheep): Old Greek *gui-, ‘animal’ (cf. Georgian cxoveri, ‘ship’ < cxovre-ba, ‘life’), or Greek κῶας, ‘fleece’. Nikolai N. Kazansky interprets as a Lycian name of sheep, cf. Luwian hawi-, Hieroglyphic Luvian hawa/isa-, Lycian χawã (acc. sing.), ‘sheep’ (Kazansky 2010; Kazansky 2012). The Luwian source may also be acceptable, cf. mu (bull) in Linear A, B and Luwian. Carian gloss κοῖος, ‘sheep’ (Schol. Iliad 14.255, LSJ, s. v.) may reflect namely kwi-. Proto-North Caucasian *ʡīlχU > Proto-West Caucasian *χʷǝ ‘sheep’; Proto-East Caucasian *ʔwɨlgɨ ‘lamb’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ma (cat or rather lion): μάταν: ἡ λύγξ (Hesych.) 5, Modern Greek matza, ‘cat’, Egyptian m3j, ‘lion’ or lesser mjw, ‘cat’ (in the light of the Egyptian origin of this domestic animal in Europe). Akkadian mandinu, ‘tiger (?)’, Arabic ʔalmadīn-, ‘lion’ are lesser acceptable. Proto-East Caucasian *mHarGVwV ‘cat’. Lin. AB me (goat): μηκάς, ‘bleating goat’; Luw. Hier. me (ram’s head). Proto-East Caucasian *musVrV ‘goat’, *mɦar ‘sheep’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB mi (fish): Old Greek μαίνη, ‘herring-like fish’ (without i in other Indo-European), Old Indian mīna-, ‘fish’ < Proto-Indo-European; Proto-Dravidian *mīn-, ‘fish’ (possibly reflected in the Indus script) of common Nostratic origin. Lin. AB mu (bull’s head): Old Greek μυκάομαι ‘low, bellow (of oxen)’, μυκητής, μυκατάς, ‘bellower (of oxen)’, possibly also μόσχος, ‘calf, young bull; heifer, young cow’, μόναπος, Paeonian name of European bison. Cf. Hier. Luw. mu (bull’s head) and very similar Egyptian hierogl. East Chadic *muǯ-, ‘ox’ with Egypt. parallel phonetically different. Lin. AB ka (wheel, Corona Borealis or Corona Australis): Old Greek (Thessalian) καπάνη, ‘chariot’, cf. also ἀπήνη, ‘four-wheeled wagon’, later ‘car’ or ‘chariot’ (of possible Semitic origin: Hebrew ophan, ‘wheel’ < aphan, ‘to revolve, turn’). Cf. similar picture of a wheel with reading Luw. harsanta(n) (Woudhuizen 2016: 245). Lin. AB ke (beetle): κεράμβυξ, ‘longicorn beetle, cerambyx’; lesser Egypt. hpr, ‘dung beetle’. If it is ‘horned head-piece’ (Arthur Evans), cf. κέρας, ‘horn’ (Makriiannis 121, pictures). Cret. hier., Lin. AB ki (jug): Old Greek κισσύβιον ‘drinking-cup’ (Neumann 1958: 158) or κιβώριον, ‘vessel, cup’, possibly also κυρίλλιον, ‘narrow-necked jug’ (i : u in Lin. A and Phrygian); Proto-Dravidian *gind -i, ‘drinking vessel’. The sign closely resembles Minoan rhyta. Proto-East Caucasian *kwǝrV ‘vessel’ (also Georg. kvevri ‘pithos’) > Proto-Avaro-Andian *kʷirV ‘jar’. Cret. hier., Lin. A, B ko : Lin. A, B ideogram ‘helmet’ < Greek korus ‘helmet’ or mace : Cret. hier. ‘mace’ (SM I: 190, cf. Egypt. ‘mace’) : Greek < κορύνη ‘club, mace’. Maces were known in Minoan Crete, e. g. Minoan clay sealing from Kydonia (Khanià Archaeological Museum, 15 th c. BC) represents a Minotaur armed with a mace or club 5 149. 213 (D'Amato, Salimbeti 56). Less acceptable: ‘nail’ < Greek γόμφος, ‘bolt’, Macedonian κόμβους, ‘tooth’. Lin. AB ku (flying bird, Cygnus): γύψ (V. Georgiev) or κύκνος, also κύμινδις (Makriiannis 2009: 163). Cret. hier., Lin. AB na (plant): Old Greek νάρθηξ, ‘giant fennel, Ferula communis’. Lin. AB ne (plant): ἄνηθον ‘dill’; Anat. Hier. ‘fennel-like plant’ nu. If ne is psifigurine (Makriiannis 2009: 105) then cf. ἀνήρ, ‘man’. Lin. AB ni (fig-tree): *νικύλεα, ‘fig-tree’ < νικύλεον, ‘a fig’ (gloss) (Neumann 1958; Neumann 1962); Egypt. nh.t, ‘sycamore’, Arabic nakhla, ‘palm-tree’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB no (hand), nwa (hands): Greek νεύω, ‘beckon (with the hand)’ (Ezek. Exag. 73), Sanskrit návate ‘turn round’, Latin nuo < Indo-European. ProtoNorth Caucasian *nH wGA ‘arm, shoulder’ > Proto-Dargwa *naq:I ‘arm, hand’, ProtoTsezian *nuq ‘armpit’. Lin. AB ra (arm and hand): λαμβάνω, ‘take’ (independently: Colless (c)). If ‘Hieroglyphic *018 , a dog head, becomes AB 60 RA’ (Younger 8) then cf. Λαῖλαψ, dog of Minos; Proto-Gondi (Dravidian) *raci, ‘wild dog’. Phoen. resh, ‘head’ confirms the second reading. Proto-East Caucasian *ƛōrǝ (/*rōƛǝ) ‘hand’. Lin. AB ra2 = rja (stream): Old Greek ῥίαινα: πηγή, λιβάς (Hesych.) < IndoEuropean (Mosenkis 2001; independently: Makriiannis 2009: 146). Lin. B ra3 = rai (lily, see image: Evans 1895: 43/312). Cret. hier., Lin. AB re (lily): Greek λείριον ‘lily’ < Egypt. (Cacciafoco; Colless (c)). Cret. hier., Lin. AB ro, Cypriot lo (sun cross): Greek/Cretan ἀFέλιος, ‘Sun’; σταυρός, ‘upright pale or stake, cross’ (Makriiannis 88). Cret. hier., Lin. AB ru (lyra): λύρα, ‘lyre’ (without IE etymology, Beekes 879; ProtoAvaro-Andian *ʎirV ‘bow’); Anat. Hier. ‘deer’s head’ ru2 (Hittite deer-god Runta); if it is a yoke, cf. ἐρύω, ‘drag, draw’, ῥυμός, ‘pole of a chariot or car’ (independently: Makriiannis 106–107). Cret. hier., Lin. AB sa (sepia): σηπία, ‘sepia’, possible cognates: σίφνα: ποιὸς ἰχθῦς, ‘a kind of fish’ (Hesych.), σίφων, ‘tube, pipe, pump’, σιπυΐς, ‘jar’, σιπύη, συπύη, ‘meal-tub’ (Lin. A su-pu, ‘vessel’); σάτρα· σηπία (Hesych.). Lin. AB se (ear of corn): Sumerian še ‘barley’; Proto-East Caucasian *č[e]ħl ‘cereal’ > Proto-Tsezian *če ‘barley’. Phoen. samekh. Lin. AB si (sheaf): Greek σῖτος ‘grain’ (Ruijgh 1970) < Sumerian zid, ‘flour’ (Beekes 1337), lesser Sumerian si-gal, sig, siki, Akkadian sīku ‘bread’. Proto-North Caucasian *świʔē ‘cereal’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB so (axe): ‘Paphian’/Cypriot σοάνα, ‘axe’; Akkadian šukurru, ‘axe’. Lin. AB su (from Egyptian hieroglyph ‘reed shelter’ with the same form and alphabetic reading h; Cretan Neolithic house and Early Minoan II ossuary were the similar, Pendlebury 1940/1950: 53, 78): συρίγγιον, ‘little reed’, σῦριγξ, ‘subterranean gallery, burial vaults, cloister’ Cf. the identical plane of the ‘house tomb’ from Mochlos (PM I: 102) and Etr. suthi-na ‘tomb’. Phoen. beth, ‘house’ (These syllabic sign and Phoenician letter were compared by Arthur Evans, SM I: 89). Less acceptable: 214 Greek σολοειδής = θολοειδής, ‘dome-shaped’, a phonetic variant of θόλος, ‘round building with conical roof, rotunda’; Sumerian su uš ‘foundation’, sur ‘canal, ditch; foundation pit of a building’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ta (scale): τάλαντον, ‘balance’, pl. τάλαντα, ‘pair of scale’ < Indo-European. Lin. AB te (branch): Old Greek τέρχνος, ‘twig, young shoot’, Latin termes, ‘twig’ < Indo-European. Lin. AB ti (arrow): Anat. Hier. ti8 (Woudhuizen 246), Sumerian ti, ‘arrow’. Anatolian zi is similar sign. Lin. AB tu (fig, cf. the Lin. A, B ideogram ‘fig’): Greek σῦκον, Boeot. τῦκον (cf. Lin. A si-ka, ‘fig?’), Armenian tcuz, Latin ficus (Greek-Armenian-Latin parallel regarded as substrate ‘Mediterranean’), perhaps < Proto-Semitic *tiʔin-, ‘fig-tree’ with other AfroAsiatic parallels, but cf. Lin. A FIC(US) (ideogram ‘fig’) ki-ki-na (Neumann 1960): parallel of tuk- / suk- / *kuk- and Armenian tc uz (< *tjukj-?) gives a possibility to reconstruct a special consonant which not corresponds with Semitic t-. Possible cognates with the same phonetic alternations are: σικύα, ‘bottle-gourd, Lagenaria vulgaris’, σίκυος, ‘cucumber, Cucumis sativus’, σέκουα·σικύα (Hesych.), κυκύιζα· γλυκεῖα κολόκυντα (Hesych.), κύκυον· τὸν σικυόν (Hesych.), Latin cucumis, ‘cucumber’, Proto-Slavic *tyky < *tūkū, ‘Cucurbita’, Langedoc tükо, ‘id.’, Italian zucca, ‘pumpkin’, Catalan tuca, ‘pumpkin’, also Armenian t’zēni, ‘fig-tree, mulberry tree ’ (Gindin 1962: 82-89; Hubschmid 1969: 240 ): Lacon. σεκουάνη, ‘a kind of olive’ (Hesych.). Lin. AB wa (palace, a translation of Egyptian sign): (F)ἀνάκτορον, ‘palace, temple’; Luw. Hier. sign ‘dominus’ and even Chinese sign wang ‘king’ are similar. ProtoNorth Caucasian *GwinʡV > Proto-West Caucasian *ʁ Iʷǝna ‘house’ (> Hitt.-Luw. wana ‘place’?). Lin. AB we (worm): ἕλμινς, ἕλμις, ‘worm’ (non-IE, Beekes 414, Proto-Tsezian *ʁʷimilV ‘worm’), εὐλή, ‘worm, maggot’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB za (from Egyptian ankh, ‘live, life’ with the same form, esp. stylized ankh tjt/tyet, ‘knot of Isis’; the same sign means ‘life’ in Luw. Hier.): Greek ζάω, ‘to live’, Proto-Tocharian śāw-, Latvian dzivs, ‘lebendig’ < Proto-Indo-European *guei-, ‘to live’; cf. the Linear B alternation a-ke-ti-ri-ja / a-ze-ti-ri-ja (Knossos), ke-i-ja-kara-na / ze-i-ja-ka-ra-na (Pylos), o-ze-to possibly related to gento (Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986: 116), Cypriot za = ga, ‘earth’. It was Cretan phonetic feature (ζενια, Fοιζευς instead of γενια, Fοικευς, Viredaz) which might be of Phrygian origin. Phoen. zayin. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ze (jaw): Phryg. azen- ‘beard’, Old Greek γένυς ‘jaw’, ProtoBaltic *ǯan-d-, ‘jaw’, ‘cheek’ < Proto-Indo-European *g’en-, ‘jaw’. Proto-North Caucasian *ča maGu ‘jaw’ > Proto-West Caucasian *ǯamǝʁʷa ‘cheek, chin’ > Abkhaz aámʕʷa ‘cheek’ : Phryg. azen- ‘beard’. Phrygian had the satem features whereas the centum features were preserved before sonants, as in Albanian (examples, refs: Neroznak 1978: 16). Lin. AB zi (goat?): OG αἴξ, gen. αἰγός < Proto-Indo-European *aig’-, ‘goat’, cf. Lithuanian ō ī-s, Latvian azis < Proto-Indo-European *ag’-, ‘he-goat’. Proto-North 215 Caucasian *cühnV ‘goat’ > Proto-Avaro-Andian *c:inHV ‘goat’, Proto-West Caucasian * ʷǝ ‘kid’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB zo (spear): Old Greek *βαρύς, pl. βαρύες· δένδρα Hesych., Gothic kʷɛru, ‘thorn, spike’, Latvian dzira, dzire, ‘forest’ < Proto-Indo-European *gueru, ‘tree, stick, spear’ (> Latin / Sabin cuiris, ‘spear’); cf. Greek doru, ‘spear’ < ‘tree’; or κοντός, ‘pike’; Sumer. šukur, ‘lance, spear’. Anatolian (Luwian) za is similar sign. Cret. hier., Lin. AB zu / *kju (?), *k’u (?), *gu (?) (eye or shell): Old Greek θέλγω, ‘be witch’, Proto-Baltic *ǯwelg-, ‘look, shine’ < Proto-Indo-European *g’ uelg-, ‘to look’, ‘to bewitch (with the evil eye)’ or Old Greek κύλα ‘the parts under the eyes; groove above upper eyelid’. Proto-East Caucasian *-agwV ‘to see’ > Proto-Nakh *gu-, ProtoDargwa *gʷ-. Lin. B twe (bow): Greek τόξον, ‘bow’, Proto-Germanic *ɵixsō(n), *ɵixsalō(n), ‘spear, axe’ > Old Engl. ɵeox, ‘spear’, New Persian taxš, ‘bow (weapon)’ < Indo-European. The best material for bow is taxus (M. Iu. Videiko, pers. comm.). Lin. A ideogram *123/AROM (Younger 11) might depict a chariot due to the homonymy of Greek ἄρωμα ‘aromatic herb’ (Lin. B a-ro-[mo-ta]) and ἅρμα ‘chariot’. 2. Cretan and Anatolian hieroglyphs: searching initial Indo-European script Cretan pictograph seals (suggested source of hieroglyphs) appeared in early third millennium BC (Shevoroshkin 1968: 312; Kondratov 1975: 137). Arthur Evans identified the similarity of Anatolian and Cretan hieroglyphs immediately after the discovery of the latter in 1889 (Doblhofer 1963: 293). The similarities in iconography and sounding of Cretan and Anatolian hieroglyphs are clear: David Diringer proposes fourty parallels (Diringer 1963: 123). Both scripts are closely related (Georgiev 1950: 51). In some cases, the same syllabic sign had different acrophonic reading (i. e. traced to a logogram) in Cretan and Anatolian scripts. E. g., Lin. AB si (sheaf) < Greek sitos ‘bread’ is very similar to Anat. hier. ha (sheaf) < Hitt. harsi- ‘bread’ (cf. also Hitt. halki‘grain’). If the Cretan and Anatolian sign ‘life’ (Cret. hier., Lin. AB za < Greek zaw ‘to life’) is of common Egyptian origin (Egypt. ankh ‘life, to live’) than the Cretan and Anatolian sign ti (arrow) traced to Sumerian ti ‘arrow’. Linear AB pa has clear Sumerian parallel. Also, both scripts shared some common signs of Egyptian origin. The parallels between the Anatolian and Egyptian hieroglyphs might be not only a result of Egyptian influence but also a trace of common origin earlier than the second millennium BC (Degtereva 2: 47). It might be Mesopotamian origin. Viacheslav V. Ivanov dated the source of the Anatolian hieroglyphs to the third millennium BC (Ivanov 1980: 137). Irina M. Dunaevskaia underlined that Anatolian hieroglyphs and Linear B are close structurally: numbers of syllabic signs are similar in both scripts; all signs denote open syllables only; 216 signs don’t differ simple and double consonants, voiced, voiceless, and aspirated consonants; n is omitted before another consonant; some signs are common in both scripts ant typical to them only (Dunaevskaia 1969: 45). Both Linear A script and Lycian language have the open-syllable structure (Georgiev 1958: 76-77; Kondratov, Shevoroshkin 1970: 62-64). However, open-syllable writing doesn’t mean open-syllable language (Dunaevskaia 1969: 62). If Cretan hieroglyphs traced to the late third millennium BC, Anatolian hieroglyphs (including their earliest forms) are dated to the second millennium BC. A seal, found at Beicesultan and dated to the XX c. BC, had some features of the Anatolian hieroglyps (Macqueen 1983: 21). Thus, the earliest Cretan hieroglyphs might appear unique third-millennium BC Indo-European documents, the oldest written evidence among all texts of this language family. However, suggested linear Trojan script might reflect even older Indo-European inscriptions (below). Mesopotamian and Elamite pictographs / hieroglyphs and especially Egyptian hieroglyphs might be ultimate sources of Cretan hieroglyphs (Pope 1964/1976: 94; Kondratov, Shevoroshkin 1970: 70-71). However, Egyptian hieroglyphs were influenced by Mesopotamian ones. The Tărtărian tablets (Romania, late six millennium BC), similar to the Cretan hieroglyphs (Kondratov 1975: 101), might represent a link between the Danube signs and Mesopotamian pictograms / hieroglyphs (Mosenkis 1998: 25). Viacheslav V. Ivanov thought that Cretan scripts, Anatolian hieroglyphs, ‘pictorial script of Ancient Balkan cultures’ and early Uruk signs traced to ‘pre-writing’ of Iran and Asia Minor, existed from the nineth millennium BC (Ivanov 1979a: 35-37). 3. North Caucasian influence on the Minoan syllabary? ‘The language for which the Minoan syllabary was first created may have differed significantly from Greek in its repertory of vowels and consonants’ (Packard 1974: 112). There are pure e- and especially o-series (Packard 1974: 112), ignored phonemic opposition of voiced, voiceless, and aspirated stops (b/p/ph etc.) and l/r (Packard 1974: 115). The last feature is Egyptian whereas others are Hittite-Luwian (Hitt.-Luw. parallels of Lin. A phonology: Finkelberg 2000: 85–87). Hurrian is another candidate (Packard 1974: 115, contra: Finkelberg 2000: 87). However, it might be only orthographical principles, not a phonetic typology. If so, the presented phonetic features are far more evident. The most interesting is that the graphic system of Linear A points to the language with alternation of simple, palatalized and labialized stops, i. e. [t] : [t’] : [t w] (Palmer 1963: 38; Palmer 1965: 59; Lejeune 1972: 41-53; Packard 1974: 115; Bartonek 1987: 48; Molchanov et al. 1988: 76–77). The North Caucasian languages are the best candidate. 217 The d/l alternation, as in daphurinthos / laburinthos (cf. Hitt. tabarna / Labarna), corresponds with the North Caucasian consonant tl. Very hypothetically, we can propose some North Caucasian etymologies of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear AB signs. Caucasian forms are taken from (Starling). Lin. AB au (pig): a) ὕαινα ‘hyena’, a fem. of ὗς, ‘boar’ vs b) Proto-West Caucasian *qIʷa ‘pig, swine’. Lin. AB di (a plant, similar to the Lin. AB ideogram of ‘wheat’): a) Greek θιακχά: ἄνθη (‘full bloom of a flower or plant’) ἐν Σικυῶνι, Hesych. vs b) τίφη, ‘one-grained wheat, einkorn, Triticum monococcum’ vs c) Kartv. (Georg.-Zan) *dik- ‘wheat’ and Proto-East Caucasian *dikwi ‘a kind of cereal’. Lin. A, B qa (face, bald head; similar to Egypt. sign hr ‘face’): a) Greek ὄψ, ‘the eye, face’ < oqus, Lin. B o-qo < Indo-European vs b) Proto-East Caucasian *hqwemV ‘head’. Lin. AB qi (sheep): a) Greek *gui-, ‘live’ < Indo-European vs b) Greek κῶας < Kartv. (Georg. t’q’avi, Megrel *t’q’ovi ), ‘fleece’. N. N. Kazansky interprets as a Lycian name of sheep, cf. Luwian hawi-, Hieroglyphic Luvian hawa/isa, Lycian χawã (acc. sing.), ‘sheep’ (Kazansky 2010; Kazansky 2012). Luwian source may also be acceptable, cf. mu (bull) in Lin. AB and Luwian. Carian gloss κοῖος, ‘sheep’ (Sch. Iliad 14.255, LSJ, s. v.) may reflect namely kwi-. Proto-North Caucasian *ʡīlχU > Proto-West Caucasian *χʷǝ ‘sheep’; Proto-East Caucasian *ʔwɨlgɨ ‘lamb’. Proto-North Caucasian *kw ʡn ‘ram’. Hier., Lin. A, B ma (cat):, Modern Greek matza, ‘cat’, Egyptian m3j, ‘lion’ or lesser mjw, ‘cat’ (in the light of the Egyptian origin of this domestic animal in Europe). Proto-East Caucasian *mHarGVwV ‘cat’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ki (jug): a) Greek κισσύβιον ‘drinking-cup’ (Neumann 1958: 158) or κιβώριον, ‘vessel, cup’, possibly also κυρίλλιον, ‘narrow-necked jug’ (i : u in Lin. A and Phrygian) vs b) Proto-East Caucasian *kwǝrV ‘vessel’ (also Georg. kvevri ‘pithos’) > Proto-AvaroAndian *kʷirV ‘jar’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB no (hand), nwa (hands): a) Greek νεύω, ‘beckon (with the hand)’ (Ezek. Exag. 73), Sanskrit návate ‘turn round’, Latin nuo < Indo-European vs b) Proto-North Caucasian *nH wGA ‘arm, shoulder’ > Proto-Dargwa *naq:I ‘arm, hand’, Proto-Tsezian *nuq ‘armpit’. Cret. hier., Lin. AB ru (lyra): λύρα, ‘lyre’ (without IE etymology, Beekes 879; ProtoAvaro-Andian *ʎirV ‘bow’). Lin. AB se (ear of corn): a) Sumerian še ‘barley’ : Afro-As.? vs b) Proto-East Caucasian *č[e]ħl ‘cereal’ > Proto-Tsezian *če ‘barley’. Lin. AB si (sheaf): 218 a) Greek σῖτος ‘grain’ (Ruijgh 1970: 172-173) < Sumerian zid, ‘flour’ (Beekes 1337), less acceptable Sumerian si-gal, sig, siki, Akkadian sīku ‘bread’ vs b) Proto-North Caucasian *świʔē ‘cereal’. Lin. AB wa (palace, a translation of Egyptian sign): (F)ἀνάκτορον, ‘palace, temple’; Luw. Hier. sign ‘dominus’ and even Chinese sign wang ‘king’ are similar. ProtoNorth Caucasian *GwinʡV > Proto-West Caucasian *ʁ Iʷǝna ‘house’ (> Hitt.-Luw. wana ‘place’?). Lin. AB we (worm): ἕλμινς, ἕλμις, ‘worm’ (non-IE, Beekes 414, Proto-Tsezian *ʁʷimilV ‘worm’), εὐλή, ‘worm, maggot’ Cret. hier., Lin. AB ze (jaw): a) Phryg. azen- ‘beard’, Greek γένυς ‘jaw’, Proto-Baltic *ǯan-d-, ‘jaw’, ‘cheek’ < Proto-Indo-European *g’en-, ‘jaw’ vs b) Proto-North Caucasian *ča maGu ‘jaw’ > Proto-West Caucasian *ǯamǝʁʷa ‘cheek, chin’ > Abkhaz a- ámʕʷa ‘cheek’ : Phryg. azen- ‘beard’. Lin. AB zi (goat?): a) Greek αἴξ, gen. αἰγός < Proto-Indo-European *aig’-, ‘goat’, cf. Lithuanian ō ī-s, Latvian a zis < Proto-Indo-European *ag’-, ‘he-goat’ vs b) Proto-North Caucasian *cühnV ‘goat’ > Proto-Avaro-Andian *c:inHV ‘goat’, Proto-West Caucasian * ʷǝ ‘kid’. Hier., Lin. AB zu / *kju (?), *k’u (?), *gu (?) (eye or shell): a) Greek θέλγω, ‘be witch’, Proto-Baltic *ǯwelg-, ‘look, shine’ < Proto-IndoEuropean *g’ uelg-, ‘to look’, ‘to bewitch (with the evil eye)’ or Old Greek κύλα ‘the parts under the eyes; groove above upper eyelid’ vs b) Proto-East Caucasian *-agwV ‘to see’ > Proto-Nakh *gu-, Proto-Dargwa *gʷ-. The North Caucasian etymologies for qa (face), no, mwa (hand(s)), ze (jaw), zu (eye) are the most significant. They, alongside of the aforementioned phonological correspondence, might represent a relic of the North Caucasian (Kura-Araxes?) writing system and its Anatolian (Hattic?) descendant. Let us note that the non-Greek features of the writing cannot be considered an argument contra the recording of the Greek language. Despite ‘[..] the Linear B script is not perfectly adapted to the Greek language’ (Packard 1974: 115), it reflects namely Greek. If so, why the Linear A script, also not perfectly adapted to the Greek language, not also reflect Greek?! Extra-Cretan predecessors of Linear A (Romanian and Trojan linear scripts) and Cretan hieroglyphs (Lerna signs) clearly point to the creation of Cretan scripts long before their inventions on the island. Prohibited initial r in the Greek, Armenian, and Anatolian languages (of common substrate origin? Degtereva 1962.2: 99-103) is also attested in the West Caucasian languages. The Dravidian languages (which have no alternations of voiced, voiceless, and aspirated stops) might represent another pretendent on the Minoan scripts (Mosenkis 1998a: 75, refs.). Si Dravidian parallels of words, possibly linked with Cret. hier., Lin. AB signs (above). Suggested Dravidian language of (pre-?)Sumerian 219 hieroglyphs and even early Neolithic tokens might be a source of many Near Eastern scripts. 4. Minoan-Mycenaean origin of the Phoenician alphabet? Vladimir I. Georgiev considered Phoenician script the result of the development of the Minoan-Mycenaean script (Georgiev 1952: 49). E. g, he explainded the Phoenician-Greek letter theta (a wheel: cross in the circle; no Semitic prototype) as adopted Greek θῆσσα ‘sacred car’. He undelined that Cretans (as Diodorus and Photius evidenced) doubted Phoenician origin of alphabet (Georgiev 1952: 80). E. g., Diodorus of Sicily declares that the Phoenicians did not invent letters, but took them from Crete (Diod. 5.74). As it is well-known, some Linear B tablets repeated the form of palm leaves. The Ancient Cretans used palm leaves form writing (Plin. Nat. hist. 13.69). Acc. to an old hypothesis, ‘Phoenician’ origin of Greek alphabet might be re-interpreted as ‘Cretan’ in the light of these facts (Georgiev 1952: 80). Cretan signs were very long-lived: [...] numerals were placed beside the sign -I, which, long before it took the form I- and had the sound ta in Cyprus and the meaning “drachma” in Greece, perhaps designated in Crete the talent, the unit of weight and of value. (Glotz 2003: 379) Sometimes, the Mycenaeans recorded -n and -r as -na and -ra respectively – in kito-na and ka-ra-te-ra (Molchanov et al. 1988: 87). Among parallels between Linear A, B syllabic signs, on the one hand, and Phoenician and Greek letters, on the other hand, syllables ‘consonant + a’ prevailed. 220 ‘Signs on blocks of Mycenaean buildings, Knosus’ (Evans 1894/1895: 13/282) Pottery and mason’s marks were contemporary (not earlier) with hieroglyphs (Karnava 1999: 31). 5. Provenance of Cretan nobility and writing (a conclusional model): Sumerian pictographs and the Vinča script as ultimate sources of Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A respectively. Thus, Greek theocracy might be established in ‘hieroglyphic Crete’ about 2200 BC. Exactly, it was a time when another wave of the Proto-Greeks captured Lerna and founded ‘the first Greek kingdom’ (as ancient Greek historian Castor, cited by Byzantine Eusebius, evidenced). If Lernean royal seal resembles Cretan hieroglyphic seals (of the earliest, so-called Hieroglyphic A period) and, moreover, Cret. hier. king title *saru/os repeated Lernean *saros (< Akkad. šarru ‘king’ or even ‘emperor’), then Cretan ‘hieroglyphic society’ might represent fugitives from Mainland Greece (a tribe or only a nobility?), expelled by the new Greek wave. However, more like model might be proposed: if the ‘Lernean proto-state’ developed under the Anatolian influence (of the Lefkandi I culture), then both Lernean (since 2450/2300 BC) and Cretan (since 2200 BC) hieroglyphs might be of Anatolian origin (cf. especially Luwian hieroglyph ‘great king’, appeared in a Cretan eight-sided seal, of the Kura-Araxes culture origin). North Caucasian etymologies of some Linear AB syllabic signs might confirm the influence of East Caucasus. In contrast, common Greek-Phrygian-Armenian term for ‘writing’ might point to the use of writing by common archaeological culture (perhaps, in the fourth millennium BC). Did the Kura-Araxes culture, archaeologically (first of all, in its 221 metallurgy) linked (Evgenii N. Chernykh) with the Bodrogkeresztúr culture of Hungary (which Janos Makkay ascribes to the Proto-Greeks), include not only North Caucasian but also Greek-Armenian language elements? Did some dynasties in Mainland Greece (in Lerna as well as later in Argos) and in Crete PhrygianArmenian? The Novotitorovka culture (since 3300 BC) and its branch the Trialeti culture (since 2600 BC, when also Phrygian-like Gutians appeared) might represent the next (possibly Phrygian) wave which moved after the earlier (possibly Armenian) wave (Kura-Araxes culture since 3700 BC). The end of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (about 3700 BC) might reflect the split of (proto-Greek?) Baden and (proto-Armenian?) Kura-Araxes metalworkers, related to Bordogkeresztúr. Later, about 3300-3200 BC, the Budzhak culture (a descendant of Baden-related Coţofeni culture) influenced the Novotitorovka culture (Svitlana V. Ivanova) and might cause the formation of a proto-Armenian group, which later appeared in the Trialeti culture, strongly linked with Novotitorovka. The proposed model might be schematized as follows: West IE Lengyel and Greek-Aryan Tiszapolgár > Aryan Polgárized Cucuteni-Trypillia > Greek-Phryg.-Arm. Bodrogkeresztúr > Arm. component of Kura-Araxes (3700-) > Arm. component of Trialeti > Greek-Phryg. Baden-Coţofeni (3700-) > Greek Baden > Phryg. Coţofeni > Budzhak One can identify two lines of the writing development: a) ‘hieroglyphic’ (Kura-Araxes > *Proto-Anatolian > Luwian, Lernean, Cretan) and b) ‘linear’ (Badenized Cucuteni > Troy > Linear A). What archaeological model might correspond with these lines? The Kura-Araxes culture close contacted with Sumerians which pictographs might influence not only Egyptian but also Kura-Araxes hieroglyphs. On the one hand, the Kura-Araxes culture influenced Hattic-Hittite Alaca. On the other hand, yet Sir John Myres compared Cretan hieroglyphs with early Sumerian pictographs. Lernean hieroglyphic seal with syllabic inscription might reflect Anatolian (Lefkandi I culture) influence. (Note that the appearance of Lernean hieroglyphs about 2300 BC coincided with the beginning of the Kura-Araxes-influenced Unětica culture). Lernean chief/king, transformed Akkad. šarru into sa-ro = Greek *saros (with the Greek flexion!), already used the Greek language. Cretan hieroglyphs might be created by the fugitives from the Early Helladic IIb proto-states (the end of the culture coincided with the appearance of the Cretan state and hieroglyphic writing about 2200 BC) rather than from Asia Minor immediately. The Baden-Ezero influence on early Troy is commonly accepted. Moreover, the end of Trypillia (3000 BC, recently dated by Mykhailo Yu. Videiko) coincided with the beginning of Troy I. Then the end of the Troy II-V cultures and their linear writing and the beginning of ‘horse-rich’ Troy VI (about 1900 BC) coincided with the 222 appearance of Linear A in Crete. Then, Cretan Linear A script might be brought from Asia Minor in that time. Thus, hypothetical models for the appearance of Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A might be proposed: (Sumerian pictographs? >) Kura-Araxes pictographs/hieroglyphs > (ProtoAnatolian pictographs/hieroglyps as a lost element, cf. an Alishar picture of cat, closely similar to the Cret. hier. cat sign) > Lernean hier. > Cret. hier. (Vinča script? >) linear Cucuteni-Trypillia script > linear Trojan script > Linear A. (Pre-Sumerian / Dravidian?) tokens of the Early Neolithic of Fertole Crescent might be a common source of Sumerian pictographs/hieroglyphs and (via Dravidian Ubaid, similar to Vinča) the Vinča script. Igor M. Diakonoff underlines that Luwian hieroglyphs, ‘undoubtfully created for an Indo-European language’, also not differ voiced and voiceless stops and conventionally represent the Luwian language with CVCV-structure (editor’s footnote to: Shevoroshkin 1976: 83). 6. The Greek language in Minoan myths, rites, and art Sacral harmony of words The ‘hieroglyphic way of thinking’ preceded and caused not only hieroglyphic writing but also myths and arts. E. g., Ancient Egyptians linked an animal to a god if their names were similar. The usage of homophony to create double senses is well-known in Japan poetry. Japan symbol of the Emperor’s Chrysanthemum Throne is based on the homonymy of koku ‘chrysanthemum’ and ‘state’. In the first full moon of a year some Koreans visited bridges because the words for the moon, bridge, and foot are homonyms (tari) in Korean. Famous concept of the Blue Bird might be ultimately traced to Old Iranian (Avestan) homonymy of Saēnō (mythical bird of prey, Sanskrit śyenaḥ is the same) and axšaena ‘dark blue’ (e. g., as the name of the Black Sea). Another famous concept of the Blue Flower might be related to German blau Blum ‘blue flower’. The concept of Swan Song (attested in ancient Greek and Roman literature) might reflect a common Germanic association: Proto-Germanic *swanaz ‘swan’, literally ‘singer’, and *sangwaz ‘song’. Cucuteni-Trypillian vessels for cereals, decorated with pictures of cat with tail looking like ear of corn, might reflect homonymy of *kat ‘vessel’, ‘cereal’, and ‘cat’. Many motifs of ancient Greek myths and art were language-addicted. Myths and rites enable to propose the ‘language interpretation of myth, rite, and art’ method: the searching of homophones gives a chance to identify a language in which words are compared. E. g., after the flood, Deucallion and Pyrrha cast stones (sg. λᾶας and λᾶος) to create peoples (λαός). 223 Participants of the Eleusinian mysteries throw piglets into a trench to imitate Persephone in the underworld (Gitana) because the name of Persephone (Περσεφόνη) was interpreted as ‘killer of pigs’ (‘Pelasgian’ *pors- ‘pig’, Greek -φονία ‘murder’). Meat of pig was prohibited in Cretan Πραίσος (Atheneus F 376a, comments: Beletsky 1950: 125-126) which name is very similar to the aforementioned name of piglet. When Athenian prince Theseus was initiated in the Cretan labyrinth, his father Aegeus as an ‘old king’ must have been sacrificed (according to the Sir James G. Frazer theory). A form of the sacrifice was determined by a relation of Αἰγεύς with αἴξ ‘goat’ and ‘waves’. The famous paradox of Achilles and a tortoise might tie homonyms Ἀχιλλεύς and χέλυς ‘tortoise’. The paradox has an astronomical link: the constellation of Sagittarius (Achilles; his tutor Chiron and divine protector Apollon are also linked to the constellation) rises immediately after the constellation of Ophiuchos (looking like a tortoise): Sagittarius-Achilles ‘chases’ Ophiuchos-tortoise. Why Minoan copper ingots had a form of bull-skin? Because the name of a weight unity (τάλαντον) resembled a name of Cretan sacral ox and the bronze giant (Τάλως). The motif of the Golden Fleece, symbolized a kingship, is known in two variants. The first is a struggle between Mycenaean kings Atreus and Thyestes for the Golden Ram. The second in the Argonauts seeking the Golden Fleece. This motif is depended on astronomy: the sun in the spring equinox reached the figure of Aries constellation in the XIII century BC. However, the homonymy of ἄναξ ‘king’ and νάκη ‘woolly skin’ might enhance the motif. An owl (ἐλεᾶς) on the olive-tree (ἐλαία) in the cult of Athena of Parthenon (Eliade 2008: 174) represents another example of magic homonymy. A princess, buried in the Grave Omicron of Circle B at Mycenae, used the duckshaped small bowl (made of rock crystal) for mixing of unguents and colors (Mylonas 1983: 54, 221). This symbol might reflect a homonymy of νᾶσσα ‘she-duck’ : ἄνασσα ‘queen’. Perhaps, the duck denotes queen on the eight-sided Cretan hieroglyphic seal (below). As it will be demonstrated below, the language of Minoan art is identified as Greek due to homophony. 224 Ship symbolized solar point: Greek τρόπις ‘ship’ : τροπή ‘solstice, equinox’ Why solar points were symbolized with ships in Minoan calendrical art? The Minoan lunisolar calendar (MMIa, about 2000 BC, PM II.1: 202, fig. 111; Ridderstad) includes 13 lunar months (13 external spirals) and four main solar points (depicted as a crosses and ships near them) with three months between each two cross-ship pairs. Signs for solstices and equinoxes (Greek τροπή, ‘the turn’) depicted as ships (Greek τρόπις, ‘keel’ and ‘ship’) and reflected Greek homonymy (both words < τρέπω, ‘turn’ < Proto-Indo-European *trep-, Beekes 1503-1504, not of preGreek substrate origin). 225 Dog-faced Scylla: Σκύλλη ‘Scylla’, σκύλαξ ‘young dog’, σκύλιον ‘dog-fish’ The drawing by Liubov T. Shkrobanets Why Scylla resembled a dog in Minoan art as well as in Homer’s Odyssey (Marinatos 1926)? The Minoan picture of dog-headed Scylla (about 1600 BC, a clay seal-impression of the MMIII period from Knossos, PM I: 698; Pendlebury 1950: 192, cf. Cook 1940 III.1: 414; Hanfmann 1987; Papadopoulos, Ruscillo 2002: 221) reflected the similarity of the words Σκύλλη and σκύλαξ, ‘young dog, puppy’ in Greek. Homeric Scylla (Σκύλλη) whimpers like a young dog, puppy (σκύλαξ). Od. 12.85-86: ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐνὶ Σκύλλη ναίει δεινὸν λελακυῖα. // τῆς ἦ τοι φωνὴ μὲν ὅση σκύλακος νεογιλῆς. This word is of Indo-European (not of substrate) origin: Russian skulit’, skolit’ ‘to whimper’ (Slavic-Baltic-Germanic word, cf. Old Norse skoll, ‘barking’ etc.) are cognates. Greek σκύλιον, ‘dog-fish’ (Aristotle) is a natural explanation of the mythical image of Scylla. Later the name of Scylla might be associated with the name of Sicily. Philippos Kitselis kindly informed me about another image of Scylla from Itaki: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/H2jxPI0tP_4/UIwvwYb_mVI/AAAAAAAAAD8/hROoewc_FrE/s640/scylla.jpg Lunar-shaped Cycladic ‘frying pan’ with lunar symbols might reflect the homonymy of ἄττανα: τήγανα ‘frying-pan’ (Hesych.) and Ἀθάνα ‘lunar goddess’. 226 Chris Johnsen kindly informed me that these ‘frying pans’ might be compasses (Hill 2014). Cretan ‘horns of consecration’ cult (traditionally compared with Egypt. dw, ‘mountain’. Cretan New Palaces from about 1700 BC were oriented to double-peaked mountains which were possible natural prototypes of cult horns; cf. Egyptian depiction of horizon as a double mountain) and even Cretan bull cult might reflect the homonymy of κέρας, ‘horn’ dual. κέρατε. (Semitic karn as well as Georgian rka, Megrel kra might be derived from Indo-European ker-n-, ‘horn’), κάρτη· τὴν βοῦν. Κρῆτες (Hesych.) and Κρήτη < κράτος, Ep., Ion. κάρτος, Aeol. κρέτος, ‘strength, might, power’. Cf. also Καίρατος, a name of a river near Knossos and another name of Knossos; Keratas Mountain near Viannos (a place of the cult of Zeus in classical Crete, Vatrous 1995: 400), on the one hand, and Eleusinian drink (κυκεών), made from barley (κριθή, ‘barley’), on the other hand. ‘Poppy Goddess’ of the Mycenaean period (PM II.1: 341) might reflect the similarity of μήκων, Dor., Arc. μάκων, ‘poppy’ and Μυκῆναι, Μυκήνη, < *Muk-wana ‘place of mushrooms’, μύκης. ‘Griffins guarded the gypsum throne’ in the palace of Knossos (PM IV.2: 915) might reflect the homonymy of γύψος ‘gypsum’, γρύψ ‘griffin’ and ‘a bird of prey’ / γύψ ‘vulture’ and ὕψος ‘height, crown’. Fore-part of the goddess’ boat takes a form of hippocampus’ head on the ‘ring of Minos’ and gold signet-ring from Mochlos (PM IV.2: 951-952). It might reflect the similarity of κάμπη ‘caterpillar’, κάμπος ‘a sea-monster’, ἱππόκαμπος ‘monster with horse’s body and fish’s tail, on which the sea-gods rode’, ‘a small fish, the sea-horse’ and Κόμβη, ‘mother of Couretes’; cf. Cretan Polyrrhenian κόμβα: κορώνη (Hesych.). A girl with a spiral shell from the Idaean Cave (PM I: 222; PM IV.1: 210) might reflect the similarity of κόχλος ‘shell-fish with a spiral shell’ and Minos’ daughter Ἀκακαλλίς; cf. the name of Sicilian king Κώκαλος and his spiral shell as the riddle for Minos. ‘Lion’s head facing, surmounted by the sacred fleur-de-lis’ (SM I: 209, cf. 214; Glotz 2003: 249) reflects the similarity of λείριον, ‘lily’ and λίς, λέων, ‘lion’. Throne in Knossian palace resembles peak (Andreev 2002: 315): it might be a result of the similarity between ὄθρυν: Κρῆτες τὸ ὄρος (Hesych.) and θρόνος ‘seat, chair’. Newborn Zeus was nurtured by bees in a Cretan cave (Ant. Lib. 19): cf. the similarity of μέλιττα, ‘bee’ and ἀμαλθεύω, ‘thicken’, cf. Ἀμάλθεια goat. Inhabitants of Elysion hunt deer (Andreev 2002: 519), cf. ἑλλός ‘deer’ and Ἠλύσιον πεδίον. Therefore, we have many supposed evidences of the Greek language in Minoan myths and art. 227 Crystal lentoid from the Idaean cave (Evans 1901: 44/112) (Evans 1901: 38/136) Temple of Astarte in Byblos (a coin, Evans 1901: 40/138), symbolizing horned Venus 228 Mycenaean Poppy-Goddess (Evans 1901: 10/108) 229 7. The Cucuteni-Trypillian prehistory of Greek art? Heavenly inspired painting: Bi-triangle figure of Orion constellation The Greek Dipylon Amphora, mid-8th century BC, source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prothesis_Dipylon_Painter_Louvre_A517.jpg https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Геометрический_стиль 230 Greek Geometric style in Italy, late 8th century BC6 6 231 Greek-like ‘geometric art’ of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, Ukraine and Moldova, 3700-2700 BC (Bikbaev 2016: 242; see also Burdo 2005: 165) Natalia B. Burdo kindly drew my attention to this picture and Cucuteni-Trypillian geometric art in general. Pre-Cucuteni vessel, Romania, about 5000 BC (Burdo 2005: 246) Well-known symbol of Greek geometric art is the bi-triangle human figure depicted on vessels. It appeared in Cucuteni-Trypillia about 4000 BC – Cucuteni AB3, B1 (4200-4100 BC), Trypillia BII (4100-3900 BC); information and dates are proposed by Mykhailo Yu. Videiko. and frequently used in 3400–3200 BC. Similar bi-triangle clay statuettes (without known prototypes in plastic art) are known in the Baden culture during 3200-3000 BC (see the drawing: Horváth 2008: 87). The constellation of Orion has similar bi-triangle form. 4000–3000 BC was a time when the brightest star of the constellation rose before the sunrise in the summer solstice. The sun was located near the star in the spring equinox whereas the full moon – in the autumn equinox. Thus Orion and its brightest star marked cardinal points of the sun during a year. The similar astronomical picture might be observed in Geometric Greece, 900-700 BC: the brightest star of Orion rose before the sunrise in the summer solstice. Thus, the Trypillians during 4000-3000 BC and the Greeks during 900-700 BC observed the similar celestial picture: giant figure of Orion rose before the sunrise in the summer solstice. 232 4000-year prehistory of Demeter’s symbol Demeter, whose name means ‘earth-mother’, was a patroness of fields and plants. A rombus, depicted on her body, symbolized productive field. Eleusinian Demeter, VI c. BC Similar rhombuses are known on figurines of the Trypillian Great Goddess (Ambroz 1965; Thomson 1954/1958: 252). Trypillian and Eleusinian rhombuses were compared by Anatoly K. Ambroz. Similar rhombuses are known in Vinča, Neolithic Greece (Tsani-Magoula), and Usatove (Zbenovich 1974: 126). A rhombus which very resembles the Eleusinian one was found in Early Bronze Alishar in Turkey (Wilson, Allen, Pt. 1, Fig. 255). ‘Membrum virile’ was among other meanings of Ancient Greek ῥόμβος. Double rhombus (one inside another) is a Sumerian pictogram of token origin which means ‘heart, womb’ (Schmandt-Besserat). Cf. the homonymy: Sumerian šag ‘heart’, šag-tur ‘womb’ : ašag ‘field’; Dravidian *gund- ‘heart’ : *gud‘field’. Sumerian words better explain two possible places of the rhombus picture on figurines. However, Sumerian influence might be suggested only from the Uruk time but not before 4000 BC. If tokens were a source of Sumerian pictography and then cuneiforms, then the same tokens might be a source of European Neolithic script(s) several millennia earlier before cuneiforms. 233 Trypillia BI figurine of the Great Goddess with the fertile rhombus, mid-5 millennium BC (Burdo 2005: 101) These sacral figurines reflect the idea of similarity between fertility of a woman (goddess) and fertility of a field (plant). 234 The Phaistos Disc sign on the Cucuteni-Trypillian lunar godess figurine The Cucuteni-Trypillian Lunar Goddess, bearing the central sign of the Phaistos Disc (so-called ‘shield’) thrice Three ‘flowers’ include 7+7+8 holes, and central vertical line include 8 holes: they represent 30 days of so-called synodic lunar month. 14 holes, representing a half of the lunar month, are located on each side and symbolize sideric (?) lunar month. The stile of ‘eyed’ goddess resembles Cucuteni-Trypillian statuettes and ancient Greek images of owl-faced lunar goddess Athena. The figurine is made from nacre which symbolizes lunar colour. Proposed interpretation confirmed the hypothesis of lunar calendar, reflected on the Phaistos Disc. This object is from the private collection of Oleksandr S. Polishchuk. 235 5. The North Pontic prototypes of the Phaistos Disc: Spiral calendars of the Catacomb cultures Significant parrallels in Ukrainian and Greek signary continued in the third millennium BC. E. g., the Catacomb cultures (linked with Caucasus, Levant, and Egypt) represent some objekt similar to famous Phaistos Disc. One can see below the first publication of two calendrical objects, with a kind permission of Oleksander S. Polishuk. A calendrical spiral on the clay disc (diameter 43 cm) includes seven turns, bearing about 200 marks. The Catacomb cultural unity (Krarkiv-Voronezh catacomb culture of eastern Ukraine), about 100 km eastward from Kharkiv, circa 2500 BC, Oleksandr S. Polishchuk’s private collection 236 Another North Pontic prototype of the Phaistos Disc (diameter 41 cm), Krarkiv-Voronezh catacomb culture of eastern Ukraine, Oleksandr S. Polishchuk’s private collection The Catacomb cultures were ancestors of the Multi-Rolled Ware/Babyne culture which took part in the formation of the Mycenaean civilization. 237 Conclusions The way of writing: Cucuteni-Trypillia (4th m. BC) – Troy (3rd m. BC) – Crete (2nd m. BC) 1. The language of the Cretan Linear A script (2000-1450 BC) and even Cretan hieroglyphs (2200-1600 BC) appeared Greek – despite long-existed hypothesis of ‘non-Greek’ Linear A and ‘unreadable’ Cretan hieroglyphs. 2. Linear inscriptions on spindle-whorls and vessels from Troy III-V (22501900/1850 BC, chronology after: Rutter Lesson 7) are readable in Greek whereas a linear inscription from Troy II (2600/2550-2250 BC) remains unreadable. The cultural unity of early Troy (started from Troy I ~3000 BC) gives a possibility to suggest the Greekness of Troy from the time of its founding. Thus, the Ezero culture of Bulgaria (a part of the Baden cultural circle), which strongly influenced the foundation of Troy, might also be Greek. On the other hand, Troy VI (despite its differences from previous Troy V) was a part of the Greek word in the Egyptian document of the Amenhotep III time (early XIV c. BC). If these conclusions are correct, Troy appeared Greek (or Paleo-Balkan closely similar to Greek) during all its history. 3. Spindle-whorls are typical to Troy II, not to Troy I. They were conical, exactly as the Trypillian ones. Moreover, signs on Trojan and late Trypillian (the Gorodsk and Trojaniv groups, late fourth m. BC) spindle-whorls are similar. The start of Troy II (~2600 BC) corresponds to the previous date of the late Trypillian groups’ disappearance (~2700 BC) rather than to the recent date (3000 BC, Mykhailo Iu. Videiko, pers. comm.). However, one can suggest an intermediate link between late Trypillia and Troy II (such as the Ezero culture?). 4. The sign te, denoting cloth in Linear B, is common for two Minoan loom weights from Hagia Triada (near Phaistos, Crete) as well as for Trojan and Trypillian spindlewhorls. It represent the same way of the language and writing development. 5. Among many seals from the Lerna palace (the House of the Tiles, 2450/23002200 BC), only one seal has signs. They are comparable to Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A syllables. Their reading is sa-ro which resembles sa-ro and sa-ru in Cretan hieroglyphs. It might mean ‘king/emperor’, in comparison to the name/title of the great Akkadian king/emperor Sargon who reigned contemporaneously with the ruler(s) of the Lerna palace. If the development of the Lernean palace was linked with the Anatolian influence on the Early Helladic IIB culture of Mainland Greece, then one can suggest the Trojan origin of the Lernean signs. 6. A linear inscription (readable in Greek, in comparison to Linear AB syllabary) is recently found in the area of the Cucuteni culture, northeast Romania. It is dated to mid-fourth millennium BC (Cucuteni A-B or B) or, if it represents the next (Horodiştea-Erbiceni/Gordineşti) cultural layer, as Mykhailo Iu. Videiko allows (pers. comm.), – to the late fourth millennium BC. It might be the oldest IndoEuropean document. This writing corresponds to late Trypillian (late fourth millennium BC) signs on the spindle-whorls. 238 7. The link between late Trypillian, Trojan, and Cretan writing traditions does NOT shade light on the indigenous language of late Trypillia (Hittite-Luwian? IndoIranian?). The last Trypillian groups, in which inscribed spindle-whorls were widely used (Gorodsk and Trojaniv), were under the Baden cultural influence, whereas the Baden cultural circle might reflect the proto-Greek and other Paleo-Balkan languages. The Baden features (such as faced urns) appeared in Troy II. However, inscribed spindle-whorls of the Baden culture remain unknown. Perhaps, the late/post-Trypillian elements might appear in Troy under the ‘Baden veil’ (cf. suggested Anatolian relations of the partially Badenized Usatove culture, linked with late Trypillia, on the one hand, and the Baden-related Ezero culture, on the other hand). 8. If the linear writing tradition of Cucuteni-Trypillia, Troy and Greece might be ultimately traced to the Danube/Vinča script, then the hieroglyphic tradition of Lerna (Mainland Greece) and Crete might be traced (via hypothetical third-millennium BC proto-Anatolian hieroglyphs, reflected in later Hittite-Luwian hieroglyphs and Alishar signs) to the Kura-Araxes pictograms/hieroglyphs and ultimately to the proto-Sumerian pre-cuneiforms hieroglyphs. The Danube/Vinča script might also traced to the latter. This research confirmed Vladimir I. Georgiev’s idea of the Greek language, separated from other Indo-European languages since mid-fourth millennium BC (Georgiev 1958: 282) and Tatiana V. Blavatskaia’s idea of the Balkan Neolithic prehistory of Achaean literacy (Blavatskaia 1976: 113). 239 Abbreviations Aesch. Prom. – Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound Aesch. Suppl. – Aeschylus. The Suppliants Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=3:section=1285a Beekes – Beekes, R. S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2009. GORILA – Godart, L., Olivier,J.-P., Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A, Paris, 1985, Vol. 1-5. Hdt – Herodotus Hes. Works – Hesiod. Works and Days Hesych. – Hesichius Alexandrini. Lexicon. IC I-IV –Inscriptiones Creticae, F. Halbherr and M. Guarducci. Roma 1935-1950. LSJ – Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. With the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940, available online at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=true Middle Liddell – Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889, available online at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=true Od. – Homer. Odyssey. OED – Online etymology dictionary [of English], http://www.etymonline.com PM I-IV – Evans, A. The Palace of Minos at Knossos. L. 1921-1935. – Vol. 1-4. SM I-II – Evans, A. Scripta Minoa I-II. Oxford 1909, 1952. Starling – The Tower of Babel: An etymological database project, available online at: http://starling.rinet.ru/ Xen. Oec. – Xenophon. Oeconomicus Bibliography Aartun, K. 1992-1997. Die minoische Schrift: Sprache und Texte, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bd. I-II. Adiego I. J. 2007. The Carian language, Brill Leiden, Boston. Adrados 1-2 – Diccionario grego-español. Anejo I-II: Diccionario micénico. Red. Francisco Aura Jorro. Bajo la dirección de Francisco R. Adrados. Madrid, 1985-1993, Vol. 1-2. Adrados, F. R. 2005. A history of the Greek language from its origins to the present. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Agapkina 2009.4 – Агапкина Т. А. Преображение Господне, Славянские древности: Этнолингвистический словарь, М., т. 4. Akulov, A. 2017. A Minoan deity from London Medicine Papyrus, Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics 3.2: 13-17, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/33708015/A_Minoan_deity_from_London_Medicine_Papyrus Alfen, van. The Linear B Inscribed Vases, A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World 1. Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies (eds.). Peeters, Louvain and Dudley, Mass. 2008: 235-42. Ambroz 1965 – Амброз А. К. Раннеземледельческий культовый символ («ромб с крючками»), Советская археология 3, available online at: http://www.perunica.ru/tradicii/2826-ambroz-ak-rannezemledelcheskij-kultovyj-simvol.html Andreev 1989 – Андреев Ю. В. Островные поселения эгейского мира в эпоху бронзы. Ленинград. Andreev 1992 – Андреев Ю. В. "Минойский матриархат": Социальные роли мужчины и женщины в общественной жизни минойского Крита, Вестник древней истории 2: 3-14, available online at: http://pryahi.indeep.ru/history/andreev_01.html Andreev 2002 – Андреев Ю. В. От Евразии к Европе: Крит и Эгейский мир в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа (ІІІ – начало І тыс. до н. э.). СПб.: Дмитрий Буланин. Arkheologia 1985 – Археология Украинской ССР. И. И. Артеменко (гл. ред.). Киев: Наукова думка, 1-568. 240 Arnott, R. 1996. Healing and Medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 89: 265-270, available online at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107689608900508 Baiun, Orel 1988.1, 4 – Баюн Л. С., Орел В. Э. Вестник древней истории 1, 4. Barber, E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton. Bartoněk, A. 1958. Krétské lineární písmo A a pokusy o jeho rozluštění, Listy filologické 6: 237. Praha. Bartoněk, A. 1987. Prehistorie a protohistorie řeckych dialektu. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne, 1184. Bartoněk, A. Chrestomathy of Ancient Greek Dialect Inscriptions, online at: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/124502/SpisyFF_403-20111_12.pdf?sequence=1 Bedigian, D. 2010. Introduction: history of the cultivation and use of sesame, Sesame: The genus Sesamum, D. Bedigian (ed.), Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press Beekes – Beletsky 1950 – Белецкий А. А. Принципы этимологических исследований: На материале греческого языка. Киев: Изд-во Киевского университета, 1-268. Bennet, J. 2008. Now You See It; Now You Don’t! The Disappearance of the Linear A Script on Crete, In: The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication, J. Baines, J. Bennet, S. Houston (eds.). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., online at: https://www.academia.edu/1130869/_Now_you_see_it_now_you_don_t_the_disappearance_of_the_Li near_A_script_on_Crete Bennet, J. 2011. The geography of the Mycenaean kingdoms, A companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world (Duhoux, Y., Morpurgo Davies, A., eds.), Peeters (Louvain-la-Neuve – Walpole, MA), available online at: https://www.academia.edu/963845/The_Geography_of_the_Mycenaean_Kingdoms Best, J. G. P. 1982. ΤΑΛΑΝΤΑ: Proceedings of t e Dutc Arc aeological and Historical Society (Middelie, The Netherlands: Studio Pieter mulier), Vol. XIII/1981, Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum. Best 1987 – Бест Й. Г. П. К интерпретации надписей линейного письма А, Вестник древней истории 1, 159-168, available online at: http://www.sno.pro1.ru/lib/vdi/1987/vdi-1-1987.pdf Best, J. G. P. 1988. Ku-ni-su: emmer wheat or personal name? Talanta 16-17: 77-79. Best, J. G. P. 1989. The language of Linear A, Lost languages from the Mediterrannean, J. Best, F. Woudhuizen (eds.), Leiden etc.: E. J. Brill: 1-34. Best, J. G. P. 2000. The first inscription in Punic, Vowel differences between Linear A and B. UgaritForschungen 32: 27-35. Betancourt, Ph. P. 2010. Minoan trade, In: The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Bikbaev 2016 – Бикбаев В. М. Расписная амфора со сценами ритуальных танцев.., Interactions, changes, and meanings, S. Ţerna, B. Govedarica (eds.). Kishinev. Bintliff, John. 2012. The Complete Archaeology of Greece: From Hunter-Gatherers to the 20th Century A.D. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Blavatskaia 1966 – Blavatskaia 1976 – Блаватская Т. В. Греческое общество ІІ тыс. до н. э. и его культура. Москва, 1174. Blažek, V. 2005. Paleo-Balkanian languages I: Hellenic languages, S orník prací filozofické fakulty rněnské univerzity / Studia minora facultatis p ilosop icae universitatis runensis 10, available online at: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/113980/N_GraecoLatina_10-20051_3.pdf?sequence=1 Blegen, Carl W. 1963. Troy and the Trojans. N.-Y. Bogaevsky 1930 – Богаевский Б. Л. Мужское божество на Крите, Яфетический сборник VI. 241 Bokisch 1974 – Бокиш Г. Дворцы Крита, Вестник древней истории 4, http://annales.info/greece/krit_pal.htm Bouphidis 1954 – Μπουφίδης, Ν. Κ. Επιγραφές από το Αρκαλοχώρι, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 1952/53: 61-74. Bourguignon, A. 2012. Les emprunts sémitiques en grec ancien: Étude méthodologique et exemples mycéniens: Thèse, online at: https://www.academia.edu/5020261/Les_emprunts_s%C3%A9mitiques_en_grec_ancien_%C3%A9tud e_m%C3%A9thodologique_et_exemples_myc%C3%A9niens Bourguignon, A. Semitic loanwords in Mycenaean Greek: Multiple roads, multiple ways, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/5030445/Semitic_Loanwords_in_Mycenaean_Greek_Multiple_Roads_Mult iple_Ways Branigan K. 1972. Minoan settlements in East Crete, MSU. Branigan K. 1981. Minoan colonialism, BSA.. N 76 Branigan K. 1984. Minoan community colonies in the Aegean? Minoan Thalassocracy.. Branigan, K. 1995. Social transformations and the rise of state in Crete, in R. Laffineur and W-D. Niemeier (eds.), POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age [Aegaeum 12] (Liège/Austin) I: 33-39. Branigan, K. 2001. Aspects of Minoan urbanism, Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan (ed.). Sheffield Brice, W. C. 1988. The Six International Colloquium on Aegean prehistory, at Athens, Kadmos 27.1. Brown, E. L. 1990. Traces of Luwian dialect in Cretan text and toponym. Studi Micenea ed Anatolici 28: 225-37. Brown, E. L. 1993. The Linear A signary: tokens of Luvian dialect in Bronze Age Crete. Minos 27–8: 25-54. Brown, E. L. 1997. Linear A on Trojan Spindlewhorls, Luvian-Based WANAX at Cnossus." In: Qui miscuit utile dulci: Festschrift Essays for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick, G. Schmeling and J. D. Mikalson (eds.), 51-68. Bryce, Trevor R. 1986. The Lycians in literary and epigraphic sources, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press Bryce, Trevor R. 2006. The Trojans and their Neighbours. New York: Routledge. Bulatović, A. Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, 2014, Vol. 42, No. ½. Burdo 2005 – Бурдо Н. Б. Сакральний світ трипільської цивілізації, e-edition, available online at: http://chtyvo.org.ua/authors/Burdo_Nataliia/Sakralnyi_svit_trypilskoi_tsyvilizatsii/ Cacciafoco, P. Linear A and Minoan, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/8107092/Linear_A_and_Minoan._The_Riddle_of_Unknown_Origins__SLIDES Carington Smith, J. 1977. Spinning, weaving and textile manufacture in prehistoric Greece : from the beginning of the neolithic to the end of the Mycenaean Ages; with particular reference to the evidence found on archaeological excavations: PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, online at: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/11442/ Caskey, John L. 1960. "The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid" Hesperia 29.3: 285-303. Caskey 2008. The Cambridge Ancient History II.1, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge) Castleden, R. 1993. Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. London etc. Chadwick, J. 1967/1976. Decipherment of Linear B, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1967), Тайны древних письмен (Москва, 1976). Chadwick, John. 1975. Introduction to the problems of “Minoan Linear A”, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2: 143-147. Chadwick, J. 1987. Linear B and related scripts. London. 242 Chantraine, P. 1947/1953. Morphologie historique du grec (Paris 1947), Russ. transl.: Шантрен П. Историческая морфология греческого языка (Москва 1953) Chetverukhin 2000 – Тексты пирамид / Под общ. ред. А. С. Четверухина. СПб. Civitillo, M. 2008-2009. Sulle presunte ‘iscrizioni’ in Lineare A e B da Itaca, AION 15-16: 71-88. Clackson, J. 2007. The genesis of Greek, in: A history of Ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late Antiquity (Cristidis, A.-F., ed.), Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Colless, B. E. (a) Creto-Semitica, available at: http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2016/05/creto-semitica.html ; Colless, B. E. (b) Semitic Linear A inscriptions, available online at: http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2016/09/semitic-crete.html Colless, B. E. (c) The Cretan scripts, available online at: https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/cretanscripts Cook, A. B. 1914. Zeus: a study in ancient religion 1: Zeus god of the bright sky. Cambridge Cook, A. B. 1940. Zeus, University Press Cambridge, III.1 Cook, B. F. 1998. Reading the past: Greek inscriptions. Berkeley: University of California Press Cosmopoulos, M. B. “Social and Political Organization in the Early Bronze 2 Aegean,” in R. Laffineur and W-D. Niemeier (eds.), POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age [Aegaeum 12] (Liège/Austin 1995) I: 23-32. Cowley, A. E. 1927. A note on Minoan writing, Essaus in Aegean archaeology presented to Sir Arthur Evans. Černý, J. 1976. Coptic etymological dictionary. London etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1-384. Dabney, M. K. The later stages of state formation in Palatial Crete, Aegeum 12. I: 43-47. D’Amato, Salimbeti – D'Amato, R., Salimbeti, A. Early Aegean warrior 5000–1450 BC (Osprey Publising) Davaras, C. 1972. Two new Linear A inscriptions on libation vessels from Petsophas, Kadmos XI. Davis, S. 1959. The Language of the Linear A Script of Minoan Crete and Its Morphology, a mimeographed paper privately circulated through the courtesy of the Mycenaean Seminar of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London in January of 1959. Davis, S. 1959a. New light on Linear A, Greece & Rome 6.1: 20-30. Davis, S. 1967. The Decipherment of the Minoan Linear A and Pictographic Scripts. Johannesburg. Davis, S., 1968. The decipherment of Linear A, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 6. Davis, J. L., 2010. Minoan Crete and the Aegean islands, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Degtereva 1961-1962 – Дегтерева Т. А. Пути развития современной лингвистики 1-2. Москва: Изд-во Высшей парт. школы и Академии общественных наук при ЦК КПСС. Del Freo, M., Nosch, M.-L., Rougemont, F. 2013. The terminology of textiles in the Linear B tablets, including some considerations on Linear A logograms and abbreviations, Textile terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the third to the first millennia BC, C. Michel, M.-L. Nosch (eds.). Oxbow Books: 338-373. Derksen, Rick. 2015. Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1-684. Dickinson, O. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Diringer 1963 – Дирингер Д. Алфавит. Москва. Djaukian 1963 – Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский и индоевропейские языки, Ереван. Doblhofer 1963 – Добльхофер Э. Знаки и чудеса. Москва: изд-во вост. лит., 1-388. Dokkum, D. van. Connecting the peak with the palace, https://www.academia.edu/15389379/Connecting_the_Peak_with_the_Palace_Minoan_religion_in_the _Neopalatial_period Driessen, J. 2001. History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete, Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan (ed.). Sheffield 243 Duhoux, Yves; Maurice Pope, Jacques RaisonYves Duhoux, Maurice Pope, Jacques Raison. 1978. Études Minoennes I. Le Linéaire A, Bi liot èque des Ca iers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 14. Louvain: Éd. Peeters, 1-191. Duhoux, Y. 1982. L’Étéocrétois: Les textes, la langue. Amsterdam Duhoux, Y. 1983. Les langues du linéaire A et du disque de Phaestos, Minos: Revista De Filologia Egea: 33–68. Duhoux, Y. 1994-1995. LA > B da-ma-te = déméter? Sur la langue du linéaire A, Minos: Revista De Filologia Egea 29-30: 289–294. Duhoux, Y. 1998. Pre-Hellenic language(s) of Crete, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 26.1–2: 1– 39. Duhoux, Y. 2003. Des Minoens en Égypte? Louvain-la-Neuve. Duhoux, Y. 2004. La langue du linéaire A est-elle anatolienne? M. Mazoyer, O. Casabone (éd.). Antiquus Oriens (Paris) I: 207–228. Duhoux, Y. 2006. Adieu au ma-ka cnossien: Une nouvelle lecture en KN F 51 et ses conséquences pour les tablettes linéaire B de Thèbes, Kadmos 45: 1–19. Duhoux, Y. 2006a. Destins contrastés de langues et d’écritures: les linéaires A et B, Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, a cura di R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso: 665-676. Duhoux, Y. 2008. Les relations égypto-égéennes au Nouvel Empire : que nous apprend la toponymie ? Alt gyptisc e Weltsic ten Akten des Symposiums zur istorisc en Topographie und Toponymie Alt gyptens vom 12. – 14. Mai 2006 in Münc en. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 19-34. Duhoux, Y. 2009. Eteocypriot and Cypro-Minoan 1–3, Kadmos 48: 39–75. Duhoux, Y. 2011. Linéaire A ku-ro, “total” vel sim.: Sémitique ou lange “exotique”? Kadmos 50:1–13. Dunaevskaia 1969 – Дунаевская И. М. Язык хеттских иероглифов. Москва: Наука, 1-120, https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/dunaevskaya/text.pdf Dumont, A. 1870. Sur deux tessères grecques inédites, in: Revue arc éologique, Paris. Dumont, A. 1872. Inscriptions céramiques de Grèce, Paris. Duridanov, Ivan. The language of the Thracians (e-version), available online at: http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/ Durnford, S. P. B. 2016. Did the Mesara plain have its own pictographic script during MMII/III?, (article and discussion), online at: https://www.academia.edu/s/3ccda15e78/did-the-mesara-plainhave-its-own-pictographic-script-during-mmiiiii-draft Eliade 2008 – Eliade M. Histoire des croyances et des idees religieuses 1 / Элиаде М. История веры и религиозных идей 1. Москва. Elnitsky 1958 – Ельницкий Л. а. Библиографические заметки: Эгейское племенное наименование в раннединастических древнеегипетских текстах, Вестник древней истории 3: 199200. Eneolit 1982 – Энеолит СССР. Б. А. Рыбаков (гл. ред.). Москва, 1-369. Ernstedt 1953 – Ернштедт П. В. Египетские заимствования в греческом языке (Москва; Ленинград) Evans, A. J. 1894 1895. Primitive pictographs and a pre-Phoenician script, from Crete and the Peloponnese, JHS 14: 354-59. Evans, A. J. 1897. Further discoveries of Cretan and Aegean Script: with Libyan and ProtoEgyptian comparisons, JHS 17: 327-95. Evans, A. 1901. The Mycenaean tree and pillar cult and its Mediterranean relations. London. Evans, A. 1913. The Minoan and Mycenaean element in Hellenic life, The Smithsonian report for 1913 Facchetti, G. M. 2001. Qualche osservazione sulla lingua minoica, Kadmos XL. Facchetti, G. M. 2002. Minoico ki-ro, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 44.2. Roma Facchetti, G. M. 2002/2003. On some recent attempts to identify Linear A Minoan language, Minos 37/38. 244 Faucounau, J. 2001. Do inscriptions in Linear A Script belong to different languages? Anistoriton, Vol. 5 (January 2001), V011, http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/index.htm Faucounau, J. 2001a. Do inscriptions in Linear A Script belong to different languages? Anistoriton, V011 13 January 2001, 1st Revision 27 May 2001, http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v011.htm Faure P. 1960. La Crète aux cent villes, Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, no2:228-249, available online at: https://www.persee.fr/doc/bude_0004-5527_1960_num_1_2_3898 Faure P. 1964. Fonctions des cavernes crétoises (École Française d’Athènes. Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris. Faure, P. 1972. Dédicaces crétoises en linéaire A, Балканско езикознание / Linguistique balqanique 16.1. София: 9–14. Faure, P. 1989. Tessons inscrits du palais de Pilikata a Ithaque, Nestor 16.6,sept.: 2288. Faure, P. 1992. Atanu, Atanowo, Atanupi, Cretan Studies 3: 89-95. Fell, B. 1977. The Minoan language – Linear A decipherment, The Epigraphic Society: Occasional publications 4.77: 1–67. Fillios, M. A. 2006. Measuring complexity in Early Bronze Age Greece: A dissertation. Finkelberg, M. 1990/91. Minoan inscriptions on Libation vessels, Minos 25/26: 43-85. Finkelberg, M. 1997. Anatolian Languages and Indo-European migrations to Greece, The Classical World 91.1: 3-20. Finkelberg, M. 1998. Bronze Age writing, Aegeum 18: 265-272. Finkelberg, M. 2000. The language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian? Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family (R. Drews, ed.) / JIES Monograph Series 38. Washington: D. C.: 81–105 https://www.academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian Finkelberg, M. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean prehistory and Greek heroic tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-203. Fischer, S. R. 1997. Glyphbreaker. Springer. Flavin, Richard D. 1998. “The Karanovo Zodiac and Old European Linear,” in the Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 23, available online at: http://www.flavinscorner.com/kz2.htm Flemming, K. 2013. The Nordic razor and the Mycenaean lifestyle, Antiquity, June 1, available online at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-334944176.html Flouda 2015 Fol, A., Schmitt, R. 2000. A Linear A Text on a Clay Reel from Drama, South-East Bulgaria? Praehistorische Zeitschrift 75: 56-62. Forrer, E. 1938. Glotta 26. Fournet, A. 2017. Glossary of Linear A Mino-Hurrian, online at: https://ru.scribd.com/document/364299255/Hurrian-Glossary-of-Linear-A-Mino-Hurrian-v1-pdf Fournet, A. 2018. Linear A in comparison with North-East Caucasic (a draft paper), available online at: https://www.academia.edu/37204867/Linear_A_in_comparison_with_North-East_Caucasic Frisk 1–3 – Gallant, T. W. 1985. A Fis erman’s Tale. Gent: Belgian Archaeological Mission in Greece in collaboration with the Seminar for Greek Archaeology of the State University of Gent. Gallant, T. W. 1991. Risk and survival in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gamkrelidze 1988 – Гамкрелидзе Т. В. К вопросу о системе смычных и фрикативных "минойского" языка по показаниям греческой линейной письменности класса В, Вопросы языкознания 1. Gelb, I. J. 1944. Hurrians and Subarians, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Georgiev, V. 1949. Le dechiffrement des inscriptions minoennes, Годишник на Софийския ун-т. Историко-филол. ф-т. София. Кн. 4. Georgiev 1950 – Георгиев В. История эгейского мира во ІІ тысячелетии до н. э. в свете минойских надписей, Вестник древней истории 4: 48-58, available at: http://liberea.gerodot.ru/a_hist/georgiev.htm Georgiev 1952 – Георгиев В. И. Происхождение алфавита, Вопросы языкознания 6: 48-83. 245 Georgiev 1955 – Георгиев В. И. Введение в чтение и толкование крито-микенских надписей, Известия АН СССР: Отделение литературы и языка XIV.3 Georgiev 1957 – Георгиев В. Тракийският език. София: Изд. БАН, 1–102. Georgiev 1958 – Георгиев В. И. Исследования по сравнительно-историческому языкознанию. – Москва: Изд-во иностранной лит. Georgiev, V. 1963. Les deux langues des inscriptions Cretoises en linéaire A, Linguistique balkanique 7: 1-104. Georgiev, V. I. 1966. Introduzione alla storia delle lingue indeuropee. (Incunabula graeca, 9.) Rome: Edizioni dell' Ateneo. Pp. vi, 477. Georgiev V. I. 1972. Thrakische Etymologien, Балканско езикознание / Linguistique balkanique XVI/1 (София) Georgiev, V. 1981. Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages. Sofia. Gimbutas 2006 – Гимбутас М. Цивилизация Великой Богини: мир Древней Европы, М.: РОССПЭН. Gindin 1962 – Гиндин Л. А. Этимологии старосл. тыкы, др.-русск. тыкъвь, тыкъва, Этимологические исследования по русскому языку ІІ. Москва Gindin 1967 – Гиндин Л. А. Язык древнейшего населения юга Балканского полуострова, М.: Наука Gindin 1981 – Гиндин Л. А. Древнейшая ономастика Восточных Балкан, София: Изд-во БАН. Gindin, Tsymbursky 1994 – Гиндин Л. А., Цымбурский В. Л. Прагреки в Трое, Вестник древней истории 4, available online at: http://annales.info/mal_az/troy/pragreki.htm Gindin, Tsymbursky 1995 – Гиндин Л. А., Цымбурский В. Л. Троя и «Пра-Аххиява», Вестник древней истории 3, available online at: http://annales.info/mal_az/small/praahh.htm Gindin, Tsymbursky 1996 – Гиндин Л. А., Цымбурский В. Л. Гомер и история Восточного Средиземноморья М. Gitana, ed. by Melissa Gold, Eleusinia ta megala, available online at: https://sites.google.com/site/hellenionstemenos/Home/festivals/eleusinian-mysteries Glotz, G. 2003. The Aegean civilization. London etc. Godart, L. 1990. Le pouvoir de l’écrit. Paris. Godart L. 1994. La scrittura di Troia, Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale del Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche s. 9, v. 5: 457-60 Godart L. 1994a. Les écritures crétoises et le bassin méditerranéen, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscxriptions et Belles Lettres 138.3: 707-731. Goetze A. 1957. Kleinasien, Muenchen. Gordon, C. H. 1957. Notes on Minoan Linear A, Antiquity 31: 124-130. Gordon, C. H. 1958. Minoan Linear A, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17.4. Gordon, C. 1966. Evidence for the Minoan Language. Philadelphia: Ventnor Publishers. Gordon, C. H. 1982/2002. Forgotten scripts, Basic Books (New York) / Гордон С. Забытые письмена (СПб.). Gordon, C. H. 1984. The Semitic language of Minoan Crete, Bono homini donum: Essays in historical linguistics, in memory of J. Alexander Kerns, J. L. Arbeitman, A. R. Bomhard (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing Company (Amsterdam; Philadelphia): 761-782. Gordon, G. 2009. A deeper source of Cretan Britomartis, available online at: http://paleoglot.blogspot.ca/2009/12/deeper-source-of-cretan-britomartis.html GORILA – Godart, L., Olivier,J.-P. Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A, Paris, 1985, Vol. 5 Graham J. W. 1972. The palaces of Crete (Princeton, New Jersey) Graves Myths – Graves, R. Myths: Minos Greenhouse, M. The “arrival” of the Greeks in Greece ca. 2200 B.C.E: a review of archaeological evidence, 1-7, https://www.academia.edu/5230149/The_Arrival_of_the_Greeks_in_Greece_ca._2200_B.C.E_A_Revie w_of_Archaeological_Evidence Grinbaum 1984 – Гринбаум Н. С. Ранние формы литературного языка (древнегреческий). Ленинград. 246 Grinevich 2007 – Гриневич Г. С. Праславянская письменность (результаты дешифровки), eversion, available online at: https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=131933 Gulizio, J., Nakassis, D. 2014. The Minoan goddess(es): Textual evidence for Minoan religion, Ke-rame-ja: Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine. Haarmann, H. 2008. The Danube script, The Journal of Archaeomythology 4.1, available online at: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/138393335/The-Danube-Script-and-Other-Ancient-Writing-Systems-ATypology-of-Distinctive-Features Haider, P. S. 2001. Minoan deities in an Egyptian medical text, Aegaeum 22. Hajnal, I. 2010. Die mykenische Schrift – Die voralphabetischen Schriften in Kreta und Zypern, Die minoischen Schriften Kretas (und des griechischen Festlands): Typologie und Chronologie, https://web.archive.org/web/20120710070853/http://www.uibk.ac.at/sprachenliteraturen/sprawi/pdf/Hajnal/mykgr1.pdf#4 Halstead, P. 1977. The Bronze Age demography of Crete and Greece – A note. Annual of the British School at Athens 72: 107-111. Halstead, P. 1981. Counting sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece. In: Panem of the Past, eds I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 307-339. Halstead, P. 1992. Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: Towards a model of palatial economy. In: Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Suecae, Series in 4°, XLII. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-17 May 1990, ed. B. Wells, Stockhohn, 105-113. Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1987. The Scylla of Corvey and Her Ancestors, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 41, Studies on Art and Archeology in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 249-260. Haskell, H. W. 1997. Mycenaeans at Knossos: patterns in the evidence, In: La Crète mycénienne (éd. J. Driessen, A. Farnoux): 187–193. Hawkins, White 1984 – Хокинс Дж., Уайт Дж. Разгадка тайны Стоунхенджа. Изд. 2-е. М.: Мир, 1-256. Heath, M. C. 1958. Early Helladic clay sealing from the House of the Tiles at Lerna, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun.), available online at: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147054.pdf Hicks, V. 2005. The language of the Minoans, Anistoriton, vol. 9 (September), Viewpoints, Section V053, available online at: http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v053.htm ; http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/index.htm Hill, G. E. 2014. The prehistoric navigation compass and seaworthy ships of the fifth to second millennium BC, available online at: https://plentymoreplasticinthefish.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/12/ Hiller, S. 1978/1979. Forschungsbericht: Linear A und die semitischen Sprachen, Arc iv für Orientforschung 26: 221-235. Hofmann 1949 – Hood, S., 1971. The Minoans, London: Thames & Hudson. Hood, M. S. F. 1977. Minoan town-shrines? Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in ancient history and prehistory. Studies pres. to Fr. Schachermeyr. Berlin; New York. Hood, S. 1984. A Minoan empire in the Aegean in the 16 th and 15th centuries BC, In: The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality, Hägg, R., Marinatos, N. (eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Institute in Athens: 33–37. Hooker, J. T. 1975. Problems and methods in the decipherment of Linear A, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2: 164-172. Hornung 1962 – Горнунг Б. В. Рец на кн.: V. Georgiev. La toponimie ancienne de la péninsule balkanique et la thèse mèditeraanéenne. Sofia, 1961, 1-61, Вопросы языкознания 1: 126-132. Horváth, T. 2008. Balatonőzöd – an unusual Baden settlement? The Baden Complex and the outside world, Bonn. Horváth, T. 2015. Spool-shaped clay artefacts: an unknown objecttype of the Boleráz/Baden Cultures, Ja ressc rift für mitteldeutsc e orgesc ic te 95: 1-20, available online at: 247 https://www.academia.edu/31131614/Spoolshaped_clay_artefacts_an_unknown_object_type_of_the_Boler%C3%A1z_Baden_Cultures._JMV_95_2 016_163-182 Howorth, H. H. 1901. The Early History of Babylonia, The English Historical Review 16.61. Hubschmid 1969 – Хубшмид И. Дославянские и дороманские этимологии, Этимология 1967. Москва Hutchinson, R. W. 1950. Prehistoric town planning in Crete, Town planning Review. 1950. Vol. 21 Hutchinson, R. W. 1962. Prehistoric Crete. Baltimore etc. Huxley, G. L. 1961. Crete and the Luwians. Oxford: Vincent-Baxter Press. Ilyinskaya 1988 – Ильинская Л. С. Легенды и археология: Древнейшее Средиземноморье. Москва: Наука: 1–176. Immerwahr, S. 1983. The people in the frescoes. In: Minoan Society, eds O. Krzyszkowska & L. Nixon. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 143-153. Ivanov 1979 – Иванов В. В. Разыскания в области анатолийского языкознания 9–16, Этимология 1977. Москва: Наука. Ivanov 1979a – Иванов В. В. Чатал-Гююк и Балканы: Проблемы этнических связей и культурных контактов, Balcanica: Лингвистические исследования. Т. В. Цивьян (ред). Москва: Наука. 5-38. Ivanov 1980 – Иванов В. В. Древние языки Малой Азии. Москва. Ivanov 2008 – Иванов В. В. К проблеме соотношения древнегреческой и хаттской традиций, In: Иванов В. В. Труды по этимологии индоевропейских и древнепереднеазиатских языков. Т. 2. М.: Языки славянских культур: 653-662. Jahukyan 1967 – Джаукян Г. Б. Очерки по истории дописьменного периода армянского языка. Ереван: Изд-во АН АрмССР, 1-385. Jarnæs, J. 1999. Før Kongs erg le til, Kronos Media. Jarnæs, J. Linear A Minoan Crete, available online at: https://jarnaes.wordpress.com/1-minoancrete-linear-a/ ; http://www.britam.org/BARS/BARS-16.html#3 Kaczyńska, E. 2002. Greek ΙΔΑ ‘battle, fight, combat’: a term of Minoan origin? Kadmos XLI: 137140, https://www.academia.edu/6872958/GREEK_%CE%99%CE%94%CE%91_BATTLE_FICHT_COMBAT _A_TERM_OF_MINOAN_ORIGIN Kaczyńska, E. 2004. Kallimachejski mit o Britomartis-Diktynnie, Classica wratislaviensia XXIV (Wrocław), https://www.academia.edu/9565556/The_Callimachean_Myth_on_Britomartis-Dictynna Karnava, A. 1999. The Cretan Hieroglyphic script of the second millennium BC: description, analysis, function and decipherment perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Bruxelles. Katsarov 1921 – Кацаров Г. Пеония: Принос към старата етнография и история на Македония. Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986 – Предметно-понятийный словарь греческого языка: Критомикенский период (сост. В. П. Казанскене, Н. Н. Казанский) (Ленинград) Kazanskene, Kazansky 1986a – Казанскене В.П., Казанский Н.Н. Два этюда об идеограммах линейного письма В (1. ‘Говорящие’ идеограммы; 2. Идеограмма *145 ‘шерсть’), Балканы в контексте Средиземноморья. Проблемы реконструкции языка и культуры. Тезисы и предварительные материалы к симпозиуму. Москва, 157-158. Kazansky 1980 – Казанский Н. Н. Об одном названии хлеба в языках Восточного Средиземноморья, Античная балканистика: Этногенез народов Балкан и Северного Причерноморья Москва: 27-28. Kazansky 1984 – Казанский Н. Н. Троянское письмо: к постановке вопроса, Античная балканистика: Карпато-Балканский регион в диахронии, Москва, available online at: http://www.kladina.narod.ru/kazanskiy/kazanskiy.htm Kazansky 2010 – Казанский Н. Н. Возможные следы ликийского языка в линейном письме А, Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология-XI (чтения памяти И. М. Тронского): 248 Материалы международной конференции, проходившей 21–23 июня 2010 г. В двух частях / Отв. ред. Н. Н. Казанский, СПб.: Наука, Ч. 1: 399-415. Kazansky, N. N. 2012. The evidence for Lycian in the Linear A syllabary, available online at: http://www.aegeussociety.org/images/uploads/pdf/kazansky-2012.pdf Keys, D. 2004. Colonizing Cretans, Archaeology, Vol. 57, No. 3, available online at: http://www.archaeology.org/0405/newsbriefs/cretans.html Kitchell, K. F. 1977. Topographica Cretica: A Dissertation, Chicago, online at: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2707&context=luc_diss Kitselis, Ph. / Κιτσέλης, Φ. Χαττίλι / Hattic, https://www.academia.edu/12636092/Hattili_Hattic__The_pre-historic_language_of_central_Anatolia_in_Greek_ , ref.: ‘Tardivo (σε εξέλιξη)’ Klejn 2007 – Клейн Л. С. Древние миграции и происхождение индоевропейских народов (preliminary e-version). Klock-Fontanille, I. The invention of Luwian hieroglyphic script, 1-14, available online at: http://www.caeno.org/origins/papers/KlockFontanille_LuvianHieroglyphs.pdf Kloekhorst, A. 2012. The language of Troy, Troy: city, Homer, and Turkey. Amsterdam: WBooks, 4651. Kogan, L. 2011. Proto-Semitic lexicon, S. Weninger (ed.). The Semitic languages: An international handbook. Berlin; Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 179-258. Kondratov 1975 – Кондратов А. М. Книга о букве, Москва: Советская Россия, 1-224. Kondratov, Shevoroshkin 1970 – Кондратов А. М., Шеворошкин В. В. Когда молчат письма письмена: Загадки древней Эгеиды. Москва: Наука, 1-228. Kosven 1948 – Косвен М. О. Матриархат: История проблемы. Москва: Изд-во АН СССР, 1-330. Kozlovskaia 1971 – Козловская В. И. Древнейшая письменность иберов и ее средиземноморские связи (Из истории исследования), Вестник древней истории 3: 138-152. Kretschmer, P. 1909. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte, Glotta I.1: 9-34. Kristiansen, K. 2005. From stone to bronze: the evolution of social complexity in northern Europe 2300-1200 BC, In: Kristiansen, K., Rowlands, M. Social transformations in archaeology, L.; N. Y.: Routledge: 103-141. Kristiansen, K., Larsson, Th. B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kroonen, G. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1–794. Ktistopoulos, C. D. 1956. Relations entre linéaire A et linéaire B, Études mycéniennes (Paris) Kyriakidis, E. Indications on the nature of the language of the Keftiw from Egyptian sources, Ägypten und Levante, Hrsg. M. Bietak XII: 211–219. La Marle, Hubert M. 1997–2006. Linéaire A, la première écriture sylla ique de Crète 1-4. Paris: Geuthner. La Marle, H. 2002. Introduction au linéaire A. Geuthner, Paris. La Marle, H. 2002a. L'aventure de l'alp a et: les écritures cursives et linéaires du Proc e-Orient et de l'Europe du sud-est à l'Âge du Bronze. Paris: Geuthner. La Marle, H. 2007. Les racines du crétois ancien et leur morp ologie: communication à l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. https://web.archive.org/web/20131213174043/http://www.premiumorange.com/crete-minoslinear.a/index.html La Marle, H. An answer to John G. Younger’s remarks about Linear A, available online at: https://independent.academia.edu/HubertLaMarle Latacz, Joachim. 2004. Troy and Homer: towards a solution of an old mystery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49-72. Lazarovici, C. M. 2010. New data regarding the chronology of the Precucuteni, Cucuteni and Horodiştea-Erbiceni cultures, in: Šutekova J., Pavuk P., Kalabkova P., Kovar B. (eds.). Panta Rhei. Studies on the Chronology and Cultural Development of South-Eastern and Central Europe in Earlier 249 Prehistory Presented to Juraj Pavuk on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday. Bratislava: Comenius University: 71-94 Lazarovici, Gh. 2015. About the symbolism of fire in Neolithic, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis XIV: 29– 48, online at: http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats14/2.%20Lazarovici.pdf Legarra Herrero, Borja. Primary State Formation Processes on Bronze Age Crete: A Social Approach to Change in Early Complex Societies, available online at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1473892/1/Legarra-Herrero_Primary_State_Formation_Processes.pdf Lejeune M. 1958. Mémoires de p ilologie mycénienne, 1 série. Lejeune M. 1972. Contexte et interprétation, Mémoires de p ilologie mycénienne III. Roma, 41–53. Lewyckyj, O., available at: https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-0916T13:30:00%2B02:00&max-results=7&start=70&by-date=false ; https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-09-17T10:30:00%2B02:00&maxresults=7&start=14&by-date=false ; https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=200907-29T13:23:00%2B02:00&max-results=7&start=217&by-date=false Lewyckyj, O. KA-NA-NI-TI, available online at: https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-07-29T13:23:00%2B02:00&maxresults=7&start=217&by-date=false Lewyckyj, O. 2009. KA-I-RO est un anthroponyme grec! (linéaire A), available online at: https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-08-09T18:59:00%2B02:00&maxresults=7&start=154&by-date=false Lewyckyj, O. 2013. Linéaire A et Iliade https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-11-04T12:14:00%2B01:00&maxresults=7&start=42&by-date=false Lewyckyj, O. 2014. A-TA-NA-TE (linéaire A), available online at: https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-09-17T10:30:00%2B02:00&maxresults=7&start=14&by-date=false Lewyckyj, O. 2014a. Langues, écritures, et civilisations anciennes: QA-TI-JU, available online at: https://oksanalewyckyj.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-0413T20:26:00%2B02:00&max-results=7&start=28&by-date=false Ligorio, Lubotsky 2013 – Лигорио О., Лубоцкий А. Фригийский язык, Языки мира: Реликтовые индоевропейские языки Передней и Центральной Азии, М.: Academia, , https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/23084/LigorioLubotsky_Jazyki%20mira.pdf?sequence=1 Losev 1957 – Лосев 1957 – Лосев А. Ф. Античная мифология. Москва. Lurie 1940/1993 – Лурье С. Я. История Греции. СПб.: Изд-вло СПб. ун-та, 1-680. Lurie 1947 – Лурье С. Я. Догреческие надписи Крита, Вестник древней истории 4: 70-87. Lurie 1954 – Лурье С. Я. Рец. на кн.: В. Георгиев. Проблемы минойского языка, Вестник древней истории, 1954, № 3. Lurie 1957 – Лурье С. Я. Обзор новейшей литературы по греческим надписям микенской эпохи, Вестник древней истории, 1957, № 3. Lurie 1957a – Лурье С. Я. Язык и культура микенской Греции, М.; Л. Lurie, Amusin 1963 – Лурье С. Я., Амусин И. Д. К вопросу о языке линейного А, Вестник древней истории, , № 4. Macdonald, C. F. The prelude to Mycenaean Crete, In: La Crète mycénienne (éd. J. Driessen, A. Farnoux): 267–273. Macdonald, C. F., Hallager, E., Niemeier, W.-D. 2009. The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean – new evidence: Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22-23 January 2005 in collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens andn the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. Athens: Narayana Press. Macqueen 1983 – Маккуин Дж. Хетты и их современники в Малой Азии. Москва. 250 Makriiannis 2009 – Μακρυγιάννης Δ. Ἠλ. Η ΓΡΑΜΜΙΚΗ ΓΡΑΦΗ Β., ΕΛΛΗΝΟΕΚΔΟΤΙΚΗ, Αθήνα Manning, S. W., 2010. Formation of the Palaces, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge Maran, J. 2004. Wessex und Mykene, In: B. Hänsel, E. Studeníková (eds.). Zwischen Karpaten und Äg is. Rahden, Leidorf: 47–65. Maran, J. 2007. Πóτνιος Ἀνήρ – reflections on the ideology of Mycenaean kingship, In: Keimelion: Eliten ildung und elit rer Konsum von der mykenisc en Palastzeit is zur omerisc en Epoche / The Formation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period, E. Alram-Stern, G. Nightingale (hrsg.). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: 285–298. Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan religion: Ritual, image, and symbol. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press: 1–295. Marinatos, N. 2007. Proskynesis and Minoan Theocracy, In: ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΣ: Arc ologisc e Fors ungen zwis en Nil und Istros. Festsc rift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag, F. Lang, C. Reinholdt, J. Weilhartner (hrsg.): 179–185. Marinatos, N. 2009. The Indebtedness of Minoan Religion to Egyptian Solar Religion: Was Sir Arthur Evans Right? In: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1.1: 22–28. Marinatos, N. The Minoan Mother Goddess and her son: Reflections on a theocracy and its deities, Bilder als Quellen / Images as Sources: Studies on ancient Near Eastern artefacts and the Bible inspired by the work of Othmar Keel, ed. by Susanne Bickel, Silvia Schroer, René Schurte and Christoph Uehlinger (Fribourg s. a.): 349–363. Marinatos, Spyridon, 1926, “Μινωική και Ομηρικη Σκυλλα”: Archaiologikon Deltion 10: 51-62. Marinatos, S. 1941. The Cult of the Cretan Caves, The Review of Religions 5: 129-136. Marr 1-5 – Марр Н. Я. Избранные работы. Ленинград 1933-1937. Marthari, M. 1994. The Aegean: homeland of the first great civilizations in Europe, European Heritage 2: 34–38. Martin, R. 1951. Rec ero es sur l’Agora Grecque. Paris. Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2009. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill, 1951. Matasović, R. A grammatical sketch of Classical Armenian, http://mudrac.ffzg.unizg.hr/~rmatasov/ARMENIAN2.pdf McGeorge, P. J. P. 1990. A comparative study of the mean life expectation of the Minoans. Proceedings of the 6th Cretological Congress, 419-428. Mellaart, James. 1958. The end of the Early Bronze Age in the Anatolia and the Aegean, American Journal of Archaeology 62. Meriggi, P. 1956. Primi elementi di minoico A, Minos, 1956, suppl. I. Merlini, Marco. 2008/2009. Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube, Biblioteca Brukenthal XXXIII, Ministery of Culture of Romania and Brukenthal National Museum, Editura Altip, Alba Iulia, available online at: https://ulbsibiu.academia.edu/MarcoMerlini Mikić, A. 2012. Origin of the Words Denoting Some of the Most Ancient Old World Pulse Crops and Their Diversity in Modern European Languages, available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044512 Milani, C., 1960. Rev. of: Peruzzi, Le iscrizioni minoiche, Atti dell'Accademia di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’ 24, 1959-60. Ed. L. S. Olschki, Firenze 1960:31-128. Milani, C., 1963. Aevum, Anno 37, Fasc. 3/4 (Maggio-Agosto 1963):344. Milani, C., 1964. Contributo all’ interpretazione del lessico minoico, Kadmos 3:8-24. Milani, C., 2005. Contributo all’ interpretazione del lessico minoico, in: Milani, C. Varia Mycenaea (Milano):319-336. Militello, P., 2014. Wool economy in Minoan Crete before Linear B. A minimalist position, Wool economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (C. Breniquet, C. Michel, eds.). Oxford etc. 251 Minoan 1984 – The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality, Hägg, R., Marinatos, N. (eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Institute in Athens. Minoica 1958 – Minoica: Sundwall-Festschrift, Berlin. Molchanov 1981 – Молчанов А. А. Критская иероглифическая надпись на восьмисторонней печати из собрания Эшмолеанского музея, Вестник древней истории, № 3 Molchanov 1984 – Молчанов А. А. Элементы доиндоевропейского языкового субстрата на юге Балкан (минойский и "эгейский"), Античная балканистика. Карпато-балканский регион в диахронии. Предварительные материалы к международному симпозиуму. Москва: 27-28. Molchanov 1984a – Молчанов А. А. Методика работы с минойскими текстами (дешифровка и интерпретация), Этногенез народов Балкан и Северного Причерноморья. Лингвистика, история, археология / Отв. ред. Л. А. Гиндин, М. Molchanov 1988 – Молчанов А. А. Минойский язык: проблемы и факты, In: Молчанов А. А., Нерознак В. П., Шарыпкин С. Я. Памятники древнейшей греческой письменности: введение в микенологию (Москва), available online at: http://annales.info/greece/molchan/pdgp_06.htm Molchanov 1989 – Молчанов А.А. Типология минойских сфрагистических формул, Вестник древней истории, № 3. Molchanov 1992 – Молчанов А. А. Посланцы погибших цивилизаций: Письмена древней Эгеиды, М.: Наука. Molchanov 2000 – Molchanov et al. 1988 – Молчанов А. А., Нерознак В. П., Шарыпкин С. Я. Памятники древнейшей греческой письменности: Введение в микенологию. Москва Monti O. 2002. Observations sur la langue du linйaire A, Kadmos 41: 117-120. Moore, D. Thomas Spratt: 19th century antiquarian traveler to Crete, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/4460542/Thomas_Spratt_FSA_Travels_in_Crete_in_the_19th_Century Mosenkis 1997 – Мосенкис Ю. Л. Минойский, прототигрский, австронезийский? [Minoan, ProtoTigrid, Austronesian?] Киев: ВІПОЛ: 1–47. Mosenkis 1997a – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Прототигрсько-мінойське божество [Proto-Tigrid-Minoan divinity], Мова та історія. – К., 1997. – Вип. 30. – С. 10–12. Mosenkis 1998 – Мосенкис Ю. Л. Минойская культура: Лингвистический экскурс. Киев: Институт украинско-кавказских исследований: 1–102. Mosenkis 1998a – Мосенкис Ю. Л. Загадки лабиринта: Язык и культура минойского Крита. Киев: НИИТИАГ: 1–94. Mosenkis, Yu. L. 1999. The Greek written language from the third millennium B. C. Kyiv: Mova ta istorija. Mosenkis 1999a – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Мінойське kuro і грецька мова [Minoan ku-ro and the Greek language, in Ukrainian], Мова та історія 45: 19. Київ Mosenkis 1999b – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Знову про критські “ієрогліфи” (Найдавніші індоєвропейські тексти?) [Cretan hieroglyphs again: The oldest Indo-European texts?], Мова та історія. – К., 1999. – Вип. 45. – С. 20–21. Mosenkis 1999c – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Індоєвропейські елементи в мові критського лінійного письма А [Indo-European elements in the language of Cretan Linear A], Мова та історія. – К., 1999. – Вип. 47. – С. 32–33. Mosenkis 1999d – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Дешифрування критської ієрогліфіки – підсумкові результати (найдавніші грецькі тексти?) [Decipherment of Cretan hieroglyphs – concluding results (the oldest Greek texts?)], Мова та історія. – К., 1999. – Вип. 49. – С. 29–33. Mosenkis 2000 – Мосенкіс Ю. Л. Найдавніші пам’ятки грецької мови: Грецька мова кінця ІІІ – середини ІІ тисячоліття до н. е. Київ: Дослідницький семінар «Мова та історія». Mosenkis, Yu. L. 2000a. The Greek language of the Minoan inscriptions. Kyiv: NDITIAM. Mosenkis, Yu. L. 2001. Ancient Occidental and Oriental inscriptions and languages with special references to Greek and Armenian, Kyiv: NDITIAM. 252 Mosenkis 2002 – Греки в месопотамських клинописних документах ХХІІІ–ХХІІ століть до н.е. (Грецька династія в Месопотамії) [The Greeks in Mesopotamian cuneiform documents XXIII–XXII centuries BC (Greek dynasty in Mesopotamia)], Мова та історія. – К., 2002. – Вип. 58. – С. 40–42. Mörner, N.-A, Lind, B. G. Long-distance travel and trading in the Bronze Age: the East Mediterranean-Scandinavia case, Archaeological Discovery, 2015, 3, 129-130, Published Online October 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ad http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ad.2015.34012 Mucciante, Luisa. 1976. Il problema del lineare A, Aevum 50.1/2: 120-128. Mylonas, George E. 1983. Mycenae: rich in gold. Athens: Ekdotike Athenos S. A. 1-269. Nagy, G. 1963. Greek-like elements in Linear A, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Harvard: Harvard University Press 4 Nagy, G. 1965. Observations on the sign-grouping and vocabulary of Linear A, American Journal of Archaeology 69.4. Nekrylova 2007 – Некрылова А. Ф. Русский традиционный календарь: на каждый день и для каждого дома, СПб.: Азбука-классика. Němejcová-Pavuková, V. 1984. "K problematike trvania a konca boleazkej skupiny na Slovensku". Slovenska Arch. 34, 1986, 133-176. Nemirovsky 1983 – Немировский А. И. Этруски. Москва. Neroznak 1978 – Нерознак В. П. Палеобалканские языки. Москва: Наука. Neumann G. 1957/1958. Zur Sprache der kretischen Linearschrift А, Glotta 36: 156–158. Neumann, G. 1960. Minoisch kikina 'Die Sykomorenfeige', Glotta 38.3/4: 181-186. Neumann, G. 1960/1961. Weitere mykenische und minoische Gefäßnamen, Glotta, XXXIX, ¾: 172178. Neumann, G. 1962. νικύλεον, Glotta 40: 51-54. Neumann 1976 – Нойман Г. К современному состоянию исследования Фестского диска, Тайны древних письмен: Проблемы дешифровки. Москва Niemeier, W.-D. 1997. Cretan glyptic arts in LM I–III: continuity and changes, In: La Crète mycénienne (éd. J. Driessen, A. Farnoux): 297–311. Niemeier, W.-D. 1995. Aegina – first Aegean ‘state’ outside of Crete?, Aegeum 12.1, , http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum12(pdf)/Niemeier.pdf Nikolaidou, M. 1998. Religious Symbols in Minoan Scripts and Iconography: Elements of Formulaic Expression? In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Indoeuropean Conference, UCLA, 26–27 May 1995 (Journal of Indoeuropean Studies Monograph 27), ed. A. della Volpe, Washington, D. C., https://www.academia.edu/36703025/Nikolaidou_M._1998._Religious_Symbols_in_Minoan_Scripts_a nd_Iconography_Elements_of_Formulaic_Expression_in_Proceedings_of_the_7th_Annual_Indoeurop ean_Conference_UCLA_26_27_May_1995_Journal_of_Indoeuropean_Studies_Monograph_27_ed._A._ della_Volpe_Washington_D._C._pp._188_223 Nilsson, M. P. 1927. Minoan religion... Lund Nordquist, G., Whittaker, H. 2007. Comments on Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson (2005): The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations.Norwegian Archaeological Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Nosch, M.-L. 2014. Voicing the loom: Women, weaving, and plotting, KE-RA-ME-JA: Studies presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine (D. Nakassis et al., eds.) (Philadelphia):91–111. Nowicki, K. 2014. Final Neolithic Crete and the Southeast Aegean. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. Olivier J.-P. 1979. L'origine de l'écriture lineaire B, SMEA 20 (Roma): 43–52. Olivier J.-P. 1992. 'Cinq' en linéaire A? In: B. Brogyanyi & R. Lipp, eds., Historical Philology: Greek, Latin, and Romance (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 87). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.: 135-136. Olivier, J.-P. 1994. ‘Kritskie pismennosti II tysiacheletia do n.e.’, in: Vestnik drevnei istorii 4. Orel, V. 1998. Albanian etymological dictionary. Leiden etc.: Brill, 1-670. Oreshko, R. 2013. Hieroglyphic inscriptions of Western Anatolia, Luwian identities, A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds.), Leiden; Boston: Brill. 253 Otkupshchikov 1988 – Откупщиков Ю. В. Догреческий субстрат. Ленинград. Otto 1996 – Отто Б. Приносимый в жертву бог, Вестник древней истории 2: 103-119. Overbeck, J. C. 1969. Greek towns of the Early Bronze Age, The Classical Journal 65.1: 1-7. Owens, G. 1999. The Structure of the Minoan Language, Journal of Indo-European Studies 27.1-2: 15-56, available online at: https://www.teicrete.gr/daidalika/documents/minoan_language/jies27.pdf Owens, G., Hulse, V. 2005. ku-mi-na-qe, a-ku-mi-na 'with or without cumin'. Further evidence for the Indo-European nature of the Minoan language? DO-SO-MO: Fascicula Mycenologica Polona 6: 46-51. Packard, D. W. 1974. Minoan Linear A. Berkeley etc. Page D. L. 1959. History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley-Los Angeles. Palmer, L. R. 1958. Luvians and Linear A, Transactions of the Philological Society 57.1: 75-100, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1958.tb01273.x Palmer, L. R. 1963. The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts. Oxford Palmer, L. R. 1965. Mycenaeans and Minoans. 2nd ed. N. Y. Palmer L. R. 1968. Linear A and the Anatolian Languages, in Atti e memorie del 1° Congresso internazionale di micenologia (Roma 27 settembre – 3 ottobre 1967), Roma, I: 339–354. Papadopoulos, J. K. and Ruscillo, D. A. 2002. Ketos in Early Athens: An Archaeology of Whales and Sea Monsters in the Greek World, American Journal of Archaeology 106. 2. Papakitsos, E. C., Kenanidis, I. K., 2016-2017. Cretan Hieroglyphics: The ornamental and ritual version of the Cretan protolinear script, Anistoriton Journal, Vol. 15: Essays, available online at: http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/2016_2e_Anistoriton.pdf Pappi, Evangelia & Valasia Isaakidou. 2015. On the significance of equids in the Late Bronze Age Aegean: New and old finds from the cemetery of Dendra in context, Mycenaeans up to date: The archaeology of the north-eastern Peloponnese – current concepts and new directions (Stockholm Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen, 4°, 56 / Acta instituti atheniensis regni sueciae, series in 4°, 56). Ed. by Ann-Louise Schallin & Iphiyenia Tournavitou, 469-481. Parkinson, W. A., Galaty, M. L. 2007. Secondary states in perspective, American Anthropologist 109.1: 113-129, available online at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9368/bb8ab358a3008e946330a72c87a244badd61.pdf Parr, J. 2014. Funeral processions and the chamber tombs of Knossos, 1-76, https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/16816/Parr_ku_0099M_13510_DATA_1.pdf?seq uence=1 Patria, E. 2011. The ideophonetic system of Linear A, available at: http://www.enricapatria.com/file/THEIDEOPHONETICSYSTEMOFLINEARA_eng.pdf Pelon O. 1984. Le Palais Minoen on tant que lieu de Culte, Temples et Sanctuaires. Paris, Pendlebury 1950 – Пендлбери Дж. Археология Крита. Peperaki, O. 2004. “The House of the Tiles at Lerna: Dimensions of ‘Social Complexity’,” in Barrett, John C., and Paul Halstead, eds., The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 214-231. Perna, M. 2014. The birth of administration and writing in Minoan Crete, Ke-ra-me-ja: Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine Peruzzi, E. 1957. L’iscrizione HT 13, Minos 5: 35-40, available at: http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/0544-3733/article/view/2649/2688 Peruzzi, E. 1958. Note minoiche, Minos 6: 9–15, available at: http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/0544-3733/article/view/2741/2777 Peruzzi, E. 1959. Recent interpretations of Minoan (Linear A), Word 15.2: 313–324, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659701 Peruzzi, E. 1959. II minoico e indoeuropeo ? La Parola del Passaro XIV: 106-116. Peruzzi 1960 – Перуцци Э. Структура и язык минойских надписей, Вопросы языкознания 3, available online at: http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/voprosy/voprosy1960-3.pdf Peruzzi, E. 1963. Appunti sull’iscrizione HT 6a, Minos 8: 7–14, available at: http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/0544-3733/article/viewFile/2109/2163 254 Pinches, T. G. 2005. The Old Testament in the light of the historical records and legends of Assyria and Babylonia, Kessinger Publishing (reprint). Pini, I. 1989. The Hieroglyphic Deposit and the Temple Repositories at Knossos, in: Aegaeum 5 (1990): Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration. Proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory of the Department of Classics, University of Texas at Austin, January 11-13, 1989, ed. by Thomas G. Palaima Platon, N. 1959. Rev. Cretica Chronica (April 1959) Platon, N. 1971. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete. New York : Scribners. Platon, E. 2013. The uses of caves in Minoan Crete: A diachronic analysis, In: Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece (BAR International Series 2558), F. Mavridis, J. T. Jensen (eds.). Oxford: Archaeopress: 155–165. PM I–IV – Evans, A. The palace of Minos at Knossos, Vol. I–IV (1921–1935) (London 1928). Vol. II, Polemos 1999 – Polemos, le contexte guerrier en égée à l’âge du bronze, Actes de la 7e rencontre égéenne internationale Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998, Liège. Pope, M. 1958. On the Language of Linear A, Minos VI, available at: https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/73246/1/On_the_Language_of_Linear_A.pdf http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/0544-3733/article/view/2748/2786 Pope, M. 1961. The Minoan goddess Asasara – an obituary, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 8.1: 29-31. Pope, M. 1964/1976. Aegean writing and Linear A (Cape Town, 1964), Russ. transl.: Поуп М. Линейное письмо А и проблема эгейской письменности, Тайны древних письмен (Москва, 1976) Pope, M. 1999. The story of decipherment. London: , Thames and Hudson. Poplinsky 1978 – Поплинский Ю. К. Из истории этнокультурных контактов Африки и Эгейского мира: Гарамантская проблема. Москва: Наука: 1–204. Poultney, J. W. 1968. Rev. of: Introduzione alla storia delle lingue indeuropee. By V. I. Georgiev. (Incunabula graeca, 9.) Pp. vi, 477. Rome: Edizioni dell' Ateneo, 1966, Language, Vol. 44, No. 2, Part 1 (Jun.). Prehistory knowledge: The Gradešnica plaque, available online at: http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/gradesnica.htm Prent, M. 2005. Cretan sanctuaries and cults, Brill (Leiden; Boston) Pugliese Carratelli, J. 1957. Sulle epigrafi in lineare A di carattere sacrale, Minos 5. 2: 170-172, available online at: http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/05443733/article/view/2714/2752 Puhvel, J. 1991. Hittite etymological dictionary 3: Words beginning with H. Berlin; N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter. Pullen, D. J. 1994. A lead seal from Tsoungiza, ancient Nemea, and Early Bronze Age sealing systems, AJA 98.1: 35-52. Pullen, D. J. 2010. The Early Bronze Age in Greece, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age Cambridge. Raison, J. 1959. État actuel des travaux sur le linéaire A, Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé, Vol. 1, No 3:323-325, available at: http://www.persee.fr/doc/bude_00045527_1959_num_1_3_3865 Rau, J. 2010. Greek and Proto-Indo-European, In: A companion to the Ancient Greek language, E. J. Bakker (ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell: 171–188. Rehak, P. 1995. The ‘Genius’ in Late Bronze Age Glyptic: the Later Evolution of an Aegean Cult Figure, in W. Müller (ed.), Sceaux Minoens et Mycéniens [CMS Bei eft 5] (Berlin): 215-231. Relations entre le linéaire B et le linéaire A: Rapport de P. Meriggi; Discussion, Études mycéniennes: Actes du Colloque international sur les textes mycéniennes (Gif-sur-Yvette, 3-7 avril 1956). Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1956. 265-268. Rendsburg, G. A. 1982. On Jan Best’s “decipherment” of Minoan Linear A, JANES 14. 255 Rendsburg, G. A. 1996. ‘Someone will succeed in deciphering Minoan’, Biblical Archaeologist 59.1, available online at: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/90-someone-will-succeed-indeciphering-minoan-cyrus-h-gordon-and-minoan-linear-a/file Renfrew, C. 1972. The emergence of civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the third mill. В. С. London: Methuen. Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London. Ridderstad, M. Evidence of Minoan astronomy and calendrical practices, available online at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0910/0910.4801.pdf Riley, F. R. 1997. The role of the tradmonal Mediterranean diet in the development of Minoan Crete: Archaeological, nutritional and biochemical evidence: Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics, University of Cape Town, 1–270. Rohrlich, Ruby. 1977. "Women in transition: Crete and Sumer". In Renate Bridenthal & Claudia Koontz. Becoming Visible: Women in European History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 36–59. Roller, L. E. 1999. In search of God the Mother: The cult of Anatolian Cybele. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press. Ruijgh, C. J. 1970. L’origine du signe *41 (si) de l’écriture linéaire B, Kadmos 9: 172-173. Rutkowski, B., Nowicki, K. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences. Rutter, J. B. Aegean prehistoric archaeology, Lessons 1-29, available online at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean Sarpaki, A. 2001. Condiments, perfume and dye plants in Linear B, ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 33 (A. Michailidou, ed.), (Athens): 195–256. Sarpaki, A., 2013. The economy of Neolithic Knossos: the archaeobotanical data, The Neolithic settlement of Knossos in Crete (N. Efstatiou, A. Karetsou, M. Ntinou, eds.), INSTAP Academic Press (Philadelphia): 63-94. Schliemann, H. 1881. Ilios: The city and country of the Trojans. N. Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1-800. Schmandt-Besserat, D. The earliest precursor of writing, available online at: http://en.finaly.org/index.php/The_earliest_precursor_of_writing Scully, V. 1962. The Earth, the Temple, and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture (New Haven; London) Semenoff A. 1894 Antiquitates iuris publici Cretensium. Jurjevi (Dorpati). Sergeev 1984 – Сергеев В. М. К вопросу о фонетической структуре языка линейного А, Лингвистическая реконструкция и древнейшая история Востока. Тезисы и доклады конференции. Ч. 1. Москва: 86-88. Sergeev, Tsymbursky 1984 – Сергеев В. М., Цымбурский В. Л. Памятники критской письменности: структура текста как ключ к распознанию языка, Лингвистическая реконструкция и древнейшая история Востока. Москва. Ч. 1. 91-92. Schachermeyer, F. 1964. Die Minoische Kultur des alten Kreta. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Shanshashvili 1999 – Шаншашвили, Н. Знаки и символы на керамике куро-араксской культуры. Тбилиси, https://georgiannationalmuseum.academia.edu/NinoShanshashvili Shaw, J. W. 1987. The Early Helladic II corridor house, AJA 91.1: 59-79. Shaw, Chapin (eds.) 2016 – Woven threads: Patterned textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age / M. C. Shaw, A. P. Chapin (eds.). Oxford. Shear, I. M. 1998. Bellerophon tablets from the Mycenaean world? A tale of seven bronze hingers, Journal of Hellenic Studies 118: 187–189. Shelmerdine, C. W. 2010. Background, sources, and methods, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge) Sheppard Baird, W. Early Minoan colonization of Spain, available online at: http://www.minoanatlantis.com/Minoan_Spain.php Shevoroshkin 1964 – Шеворошкин В. В. Новые исследования по хеттологии (Работы Г. Ноймана и А. Хойбека), Вопросы языкознания, № 3. Shevoroshkin 1965 – Шеворошкин В. В. Остров неразгаданных тайн, Знание – сила 10. 256 Shevoroshkin 1968 – Шеворошкин В. В. Тайны письмен Крита, Будущее науки: Международный ежегодник 2. Москва: Знание: 305-317. Shevoroshkin 1976 – Деянов, А. Ф. [Шеворокин В. В.] Линейное письмо А, Тайны древних письмен Москва. 83-84 Shevoroshkin 1976a – Деянов А. Ф. [Шеворошкин В. В.] Комментарий, Тайны древних письмен Москва Shofman 1960 – Шофман А. С. История античной Македонии. Казань: Изд-вл Казанск. ун-та, available online at: http://annales.info/greece/makedon/mk1_2.htm Skoglund, P. et al. 2012. Origins and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers in Europe, Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6080: 466-469, available online at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/466.abstract Smith 1842 – A dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities, Ed. by Wi. Smith, London: Taylor and Walton. Soesbergen, P. van. Minoan Linear A: Hurrians and Hurrian in Minoan Crete I–II. Brave New Books. Solcà, A., Vallance Janke, R. 2018. Old Minoan lexicon and geographical researches, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/s/a0905fc655/old-minoan-lexicon-and-geographical-researcheslexicon-for-cretan-sites-other-than-haghia-triada ; https://www.academia.edu/s/9d8f415a49/oldminoan-linear-a-lexicon-and-geographical-researches Sorbets, P. Notes complémentaires sur l'Incantation crétoise de la maladie asiatique – Papyrus médical de Londres n°10059 section 32, online at: https://www.academia.edu/36043446/Notes_compl%C3%A9mentaires_sur_lIncantation_cr%C3%A9to ise_de_la_maladie_asiatique_-_Papyrus_m%C3%A9dical_de_Londres_n_10059_section_32 Starke, Frank. 1997. "Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend". Studia Troica 7: 447–87. Starling – Steele, Ph. 2017. Writing “systems”: Literacy and the transmission of writing in non-administrative contexts, Non-scribal communication media in the Bronze Age Aegean and surrounding areas: the semantics of a-literate and proto-literate media, A. M. Jasink, J. Weingarten, S. Ferrara (eds.), Firenze: Firenze University Press. Swindale, Ian. Kamilari, online at: http://www.minoancrete.com/kamilari.htm Şadurschi P. 1983. Aşezarea eneolitică din turbăria de la Lozna, jud. Botoşani, în Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, a XV-a sesiune anuală de rapoarte, Muzeul judeţean Braşov – 1981, Bucureşti, 86-92. Tardivo, G. 2014. Paleolexicon. Pre-Greek Studies 1: Prometheus or Amirani, online at: https://www.academia.edu/20298569/PRE-GREEK_STUDIES Teodor, S., Lazarovici, Gh. 2004. Un fragment de vas Cucuteni B cu semne şi simboluri, Cucuteni 120, alori universale.lucrările simpozionului naţional, Iaşi, 30 Septembrie 2004, 93-114. Teodor S. 2009. Un fragment de vas Cucuteni B cu semne şi simboluri, în turbăria de la Lozna, jud. Botoşani, in Forum cultural, nul IX, nr. 3, septembrie, 2009 (34), Editura Axa, Botoşani, 2-4. Thompson, R. 2010. Mycenaean Greek, In: A companion to the Ancient Greek language, E. J. Bakker (ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell: 189-199. Thomson, G. Studies in ancient Greek society: The prehistoric Aegean. 2nd ed. (1954) / Томсон Дж. Исследования по истории древнегреческого общества: Доисторический эгейский мир (Москва 1958). Tognazzi, Giada. 2008. The bride in Ancient Greece: An analysis through wedding compositions, Language and the Scientific Imagination: The 11 th International Conference of ISSET, Helsinki, available online at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/15253/51_83_Tognazzi.pdf?sequence=1 giadatognazzi@unisi.it Trask, R. L. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Basque, Ed. for web publication by Max W. Wheeler, Univ. of Sussex, 1-418. Tronsky 1973 – Тронский И. М. Вопросы языкового развития в античном обществе. Ленинград: Наука, 1-204. 257 Tsikritsis 2001 – Τσικριτσης Μ. Δ. Γραμμική Α. Ηράκλειο Tsonev, Tsoni. 2011. The interpretation of the Karanovo stamp from Bulgaria and meta-narratives of modernity, XXIV Valcamonica Symposium: Papers, 442-448, available online at: http://www.ccsp.it/web/INFOCCSP/VCS%20storico/vcs2011pdf/Tsonev.pdf Tsymbursky 2003 – Цымбурский В. Л. Этно- и лингвогенез Трои как преломление индоевропейской проблемы, Вопросы языкознания 3 Tsymbursky 2005 – Цымбурский В. Л. Эя и Троя (Прагреки в Северо-Западной Анатолии и происхождение топонимии Αἶα), Hrdā manasā: Сборник статей к 70-летию проф. Л.Г.Герцeнберга, СПб. Tyree, E. L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss. Columbia: University of Missouri. Tyree, E. L. 2001. Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult. (In), Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference. Göte org, Göte org University, 12-15 April 2000. Aegaeum 22: 39-50. Texas, Austin: University de Liege/University of Texas. Uchitel, A. 1994/1995. Records of conscription, taxation and monthly rations in Linear A archives. Minos 29/30: 77-86. Uchitel, A., Finkelberg, M. 1995. Some possible identifi-cations in the headings of the Linear A archives, SMEA 36: 29-36. Ulanovska, A. 2013. Egejskie techniki tkackie w epoce brązu. Zastosowanie archeologii eksperymentalnej w badaniach nad włókiennictwem egejskim: Unpublished PhD thesis. Warszawa. Online at: https://uw.academia.edu/AgataUlanowska Ulanowska, A. 2016. Za nicią Ariadny, czyli o znaczeniu tkanin i ich produkcji w Grecji epoki brązu, In A. Nadolska-Styczyńska ed., Snuć nić jak opowieść. Tkaniny w kulturac świata, Toruńskie Studia o Sztuce Orientu 5, Toruń, 2016, 33-46. Ulanowska, A. 2017. A man and his loom: did men weave in Minoan Crete? In: Textiles, Dress and Gender in the Ancient World: A two day workshop to be held at the University of Leicester, April 24-25, 2017, online at: https://www.academia.edu/32661106/A_man_and_his_loom_did_men_weave_in_Minoan_Crete_prog ramme_download_ Valamoti, S. M. et al., 2007. Grape-pressings from northern Greece: the earliest wine in the Aegean? Antiquity, 81:54–61. Valério, M. 2007. 'Diktaian Master': A Minoan Predecessor of Diktaian Zeus in Linear A?, Kadmos 46: 3-14. Van Effenterre H. 1963. Politique et religion dans la Créte minoenne, Revue historique, 87 T. 229. Van Effenterre H., Trocme H. 1964. Autorité, justice et liberté aux origines de la cité antique, Revue philosophique. T. 154; Van Effenterre H. et M. 1969. Fouiles exécutées à Mallia: Le Centre politique I. L’Agora. Paris. (Etudes Crétoises 17). Van Effenterre H. 1980. Aréne ou agora? Antichita Cretese: Studi in onore di D. Levi. T. I: Catania. Vasileva 1990 – Василева, М. Гора, бог и имя: О некоторых фрако-фригийских параллелях, Вестник древней истории, № 3: 94–101, available online at: http://annales.info/mal_az/small/vasileva.htm Vasillakis, A. Th. The 147 cities of ancient Crete (e-version), available online at: http://www.kairatos.com.gr/cities.htm Ventris, M. Introducing the Minoan language, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. XLIV, No. 4: 494-520. Ventris, M., Chadwick, J. 1953. Evidence for Greek dialect in the Mycenaean archives, JHS 73: 84103. Ventris, M., Chadwick, J. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge Ventris, M., Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed. 258 Videiko 2004a – Відейко М. Ю. Городськ, Енциклопедія трипільської цивілізації. Київ, 128. Videiko 2004b – Відейко М. Ю. Троянівський тип, Енциклопедія трипільської цивілізації. Київ, 555. Viredaz, R. Crétois ζενια, Fοιζευς, https://www.academia.edu/5196602/2003b_Cr%C3%A9tois_zenia_woizeus Waal, W. 2017. How to read the signs: The use of symbols, marking and pictographs in Bronze Age Anatolia, Non-scribal communication media in the Bronze Age Aegean and surrounding areas: the semantics of a-literate and proto-literate media, A. M. Jasink, J. Weingarten, S. Ferrara (eds.), Firenze: Firenze University Press, 115-116. Wall, S. M., Musgrave, J. H. & Warren P.M. 1986. Human bones from a Late Minoan lb house at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 81: 332-388. Wallace, S. 2018. Travelling in time: Imaging movement in the Ancient Aegean world. L. etc. Watkins, Calvert. 1986 "The language of the Trojans" in Troy and the Trojan War: a symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984 (M. J. Mellink, ed.). Bryn Mawr. Watrous, L. V 1994. Review of Aegean prehistory. Crete from earliest prehistory through the protopalatial period. American Journal of Archaeology 98 : 695-753. Watrous, L. V. 1995. Some observations on Minoan peak sanctuaries, Aegeum 12, available online at: http://www.minoer.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Watrous.pdf Watrous 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro. A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete, (Aegaeum 15), Liège. Weingarten, J. 1991. The Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A Study in Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age. Partille: P. Åströms: 3–19. Weingarten, J. 1997. “Another Look at Lerna: An EH IIB Trading Post?” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16: 147-166. Weingarten, J. 2013. The Arrival of Egyptian Taweret and Beset on Minoan Crete: Contact and Choice, in L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, S. Valentini (eds), SOMA 2012, Identity and Connectivity, Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012, Vol..I, Bar International Series 2581.I: 371-378. Weingarten, J. Cretan Hieroglyphic at Myrtos-Pyrgos, in Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici N. S. 2, 2016, https://www.academia.edu/35995020/Cretan_Hieroglyphic_at_MyrtosPyrgos_in_STUDI_MICENEI_ED_EGEO-ANATOLICI_N._S._2_2016 Weingarten, J. 2010. Minoan seals and sealings, The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Eric H. Cline, ed.), Oxford University Press, 317-328, https://www.academia.edu/238434/Minoan_Seals_and_Sealings_Ch._24_OHBAA_2010 Weingarten, J. LMI Hieroglyphic seals and sealings in LM I (or later) context, https://www.academia.edu/25931356/Hieroglyphic_Seals_and_Sealings_in_LM_I_or_later_contexts West, M. L. 2007. Indo-European poetry and myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, available online at: http://library.globalchalet.net/Authors/Poetry%20Books%20Collection/IndoEuropean%20Poetry%20and%20Myth.pdf Whitelaw, T. 1983. The settlement at Foumou Korifi, Myrtos and aspects of social organisation. In: Minoan Society, eds O. Kryzyszkowska & L Nion. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 323-345. Whitelaw, T. 2001. From sites to communities: Defining the human dimensions of Minoan urbanism, Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan (ed.) (Sheffield) Whittaker, H. 2005. Social and symbolic aspects of Minoan writing, European Journal of Archaeology 8.1: 29-41. Whittaker, H. 2013. The function and meaning of writing in the prehistoric Aegean: Some reflections on the social and symbolic significance of writing from a material perspective, In: R. Whitehouse, K. Piquette (edd.). Writing as Material Practice. Substance, Surface and Medium:, 105 - 122 Whittaker, H. 2015. Mycenaean religion in the 21st century, In: Mycenaeans up to date: The archaeology of the north-eastern Peloponnese – current concepts and new directions, A.-L. Schallin, I. Tournavitou (eds.). Stockholm: 613–622. 259 Wiencke, M. 1989. Change in Early Helladic II, AJA 93.4: 495–509. Wilamovitz U. von. Glaube der Griechen, Bd. 1. Wilson, John Albert; Allen, Thomas George (eds.). The Alishar Huyuk: Seasons of 1930-32: 1-328, available online at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oip28.pdf Winter, L. From diffusion to interaction: Connections between the Nordic area and Valcamonica during the first millennium BC, available online at: https://www.academia.edu/219941/From_Diffusion_to_Interaction_Connections_Between_the_Nordic _Area_and_Valcamonica_During_the_First_Millennium_BC Witczak, K. 1996. Non-Greek elements in the animal terminology of the ancient Polyrrhenians, Eos polonorum, Vol. LXXXIII/1995. Woolley, L. 1929. The Sumerians. Clarendon Press. Woudhuizen, F. 1989. The Cretan branch of Luwian hieroglyphic, Lost languages from the Mediterrannean, J. Best, F. Woudhuizen (eds.), Leiden etc.: E. J. Brill: 65–138. Woudhuizen, F. C. 2005. The language(s) of Linear A: An updated review, DO-SO-MO 6: 95–120, https://www.academia.edu/8098692/The_Language_s_of_Linear_A_An_Updated_Review_Article Woudhuizen, F. C. 2006. The earliest Cretan scripts. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, Vols 1-2. Woudhuizen, F. C. 2010. The Linear A inscription on the idol from Monte Morrone, Italy, In: Hazırlayan, Y., Süel, A. (eds.). Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology II (Ankara): 961–969. Woudhuizen, F. C. 2016. Documents in Minoan Luwian, Semitic, and Pelasgian. Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society: 1-448, available online at: http://www.talanta.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/2016_Documents_in_Minoan_Luwian_Semitic_and_Pelasgian.pdf Woudhuizen, F. 2017. The language of the Trojans, Homère et l’Anatolie 3, Valérie Faranton, Michel Mazoyer (eds.). Paris: L’Harmattan, 127-140. Yailenko 1990 – Яйленко В. П. Архаическая Греция и Ближний Восток. Москва: Наука. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, Leiden Yatsemirsky 2011 – Яцемирский С. А. Опыт сравнительного описания минойского, этрусского и родственных им языков. Москва: Языки славянской культуры: 1-312. Younger 1-18 – Linear A Texts & Inscriptions in phonetic transcription & Commentary, online at: http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ Younger, John G. 1998. The Cretan hieroglyphic script: A review article, Minos 31-32, 1996-1997, 379-400, available online at: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6394/Younger_HieroRev.pdf?sequence=1&isAll owed=y Younger, J. 2009. Critique of decipherments by Hubert La Marle and Kjell Aartun, available online at: http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/LaMarleAartun.html Younger 2009a – Rev. of: A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World 1. Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies (eds.). Peeters, Louvain and Dudley, Mass. 2008, American Journal of Archaeology online 113.4, available online at: https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/639 Younger, J. G., Rehak, P. 2008a. Minoan culture: religion, burial customs, and administration, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge Younger, J. G., Rehak, P. 2008. The material culture of Neopalatial Crete, The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Zbenovich 1974 – Збенович В. Г. Позднетрипольские племена Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Zeke, Andras. The great city of Troy, available online at: http://minoablog.blogspot.com/ Zurbach, J. 2003. Schriftähnliche Zeichen und Töpferzeichen in Troia, Studia Troica 13: 113-130, available online at: https://ens.academia.edu/JulienZURBACH https://www.academia.edu/12358208/Schrift%C3%A4hnliche_Zeichen_und_T%C3%B6pferzeichen_in _Troia_Studia_Troica_13_2003_113-130 260