LINEAR–GRAMMIKEE A ,AN (A)EGYEAN MEDITERRANEAN SCRIPT / part 2


(BEING CONTINUED FROM  29/07/2014 )

7d. Balance Ledger Tablets

Balance Ledger tablets are transaction documents that record what appear to be contributions and disbursements (somewhat like “income” and “expenses”). They can be recognized by the fact that they present two lists of mostly the same NAMES. Original assessments (last column) can be deduced by totaling the contribution and the disbursement.
Here are two examples, HT 28 and HT 114.
HT 28
Since sides a & b carry most of the same name, it is likely that this tablet is in the form of a “Balance Ledger”, with side a recording contributions and side b recording debits — if so, then b.1: U-MI-NA-SI probably means “owes” (vel. sim.; cf. HT 117a.1-2: MA-KA-RI-TE KI-RO U-MI-NA-SI. KI-RI-SI [TY 3b.1] & KI-RI-TA2 [HT 114a.1] seem to be verbal variations on KI-RO, “debit” [vel. sim.]).

 

image

Another arrangement, by commodity, reveals the ratios:

image

The ratios seem to be as follows:

VINa+OLE = 44E
GRA+NI+OLE?+*304 = 45 J L2
or: VINa+OLE =? GRA+whatever
HT 114 can also be rearranged as a Balance Ledger — here, KI-RI-TA2 is a likely variant on KI-RO (cf. KI-RI-SI on TY 3b.1), perhaps a 3rd plural of a verbal form. If so, then side a lists what is owed, and side b lists what has been contributed (SA)

 

image

Again, the ratios appear to be similar in proportion to those in HT 28:

GRA = 10, VINa = 10, OLE+NI+BOSm = 11
or: VINa:GRA:OLE+BOSm = 1:1

 

8. Decipherment

My own aim in producing these webfiles has NOT been to decipher Linear A.
Most scholars have tried one of two approaches: the “acrophonic” principle to identify the phonetic values of the signs, and using vocabulary to identify a language — I don’t believe either works very well.
The acrophonic process
Decipherments based on reading the signs as pictograms, then identifying what the object was called in a language, and then identifying the phonetic value of the sign as the initial sound or first phoneme of the object’s name (the acrophonic principle) — this process does not seem to work for Linear A for two major reasons.
1, the identifying term for the “pictogram” cannot be proved in advance of deciphering the script.
2, it can be demonstrated that, for several Hieroglyphic & Linear A signs, the acrophonic principle probably did not operate. Hieroglyphic *012 , a bull-head, becomes Linear AB 23 MU, Hieroglyphic *018 , a dog head, becomes AB 60 RA, and Hieroglyphic *060 , a cat face, becomes AB 80 MA. My guess is that the phonetic value of these signs reflect the sound the animal makes, “moo,” “arf,” and “miaow” (in English). And there are other examples where the sound of the object seemingly relates to its phonetic value (e.g., Hiero *057 , a key sistrum, becomes AB 67 KI [the clinking sound of a metal rattle]).

This is not to say that the acrophonic principle is never appropriate to Linear A. Valério 2007 demonstrates that the word for master/lord is DU-PU2-RE and that the first sign DU is based in form on the Egyptian sr , “official/dignitary/courtier.”

 
Using vocabulary to identify a language
Below See my critique of the “decipherments” by Hubert La Marle and Kjell Aartun (A*).

For me, vocabulary does not necessarily identify a language (English, for instance, has a large German, French and Classical Greek and Latin vocabulary); grammar would identify a specific language more securely. Thus, I am not immediately swayed by the process of identifying words in another language as Linear A words (e.g., KU-NI-SU in Linear A as the Semitic term for emmer wheat) — this is not to say that I don’t find such correspondences impressive and interesting. Compare Nakassis and Pluta 2003: 335: “A number of scholars have attempted to decipher Linear A, identifying it with known languages such as Semitic, Luwian, and even Greek. These studies begin by attempting to etymologize a small number of individual words, largely ignoring overall context.”
My own method has been strictly internal, to examine the texts as accounting documents, and to use the numbers to identify transaction terms and patterns in vocabulary, and then to pay special attention to vocabulary variations, especially in prefixes and suffixes, in order to tease out a grammar.
Whatever language Linear A turns out to be (Semitic, Indo-Hittite, Greek, or Martian), will be fine with me; I have no set predisposition.

 

(TO BE CONTINUED)

by  John Younger

SOURCE   http://people.ku.edu

 

 

A*

La Marle

What follows is a brief critique of Hubert La Marle’s presumed decipherment of Linear A as Indo-Iranian / Sanskrit, in 4 vols.

La Marle, Hubert. 1996 (reprinted 1999). Linéaire A. La première écriture syllabique de Crète. Essai de lecture. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
La Marle, Hubert. 1997. Linéaire A. La première écriture syllabique de Crète. Éléments de grammaire. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
La Marle, Hubert. 1998. Linéaire A. L’histoire et la view de la Crète minoenne. Textes commentés. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
La Marle, Hubert. 1999. Linéaire A. La première écriture syllabique de Crète. Signes rares, textes brefs, substitutions. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Also: La Marle’s website
La Marle, Hubert. 1996 (reprinted 1999). Linéaire A. La première écriture syllabique de Crète. Essai de lecture. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Introduction (7-11): lay-out of the study
Bibliography (13-29)
“Essai de lecture” (33-131): a discussion of each LA sign, comparing its graphic shape with similar signs in other writing systems of the eastern Mediterranean (Cypro-Minoan, Cypro-Syllabic, Hurrian, Hittite, Proto-Sinaitic, Phoenician, Egyptian Hieroglyphic, Proto-Canaanite, South Arabic, Mineo-Sabeen, Ethiopian, Amharic, etc.), which he characterizes as forming a “famille graphique.”

Each discussion concludes with a nuanced phonetic value for the sign. Click here for HLM’s chart of phonetic values in a separate window (click on the image to enlarge it).

Sample at random: “Le signe 16a . Nous distinguerons le signe 16a à deux ‘oreilles’ du signe 16b dont l’une des ‘oreilles est remplacée par deux tirets parallèles. Pareille surcharge graphique en bin⊚me rappelle celle du signe 13a. Il ne semble pas que le signe 1a ait eu de correspondant chpro-minoen. Le chypriote n’en possède pas davantage de rejeton. Le Hiéroglyphe égyptien du ‘visage’ vu de face [picture] offre bien deux oreilles latérales ainsi qu’un cou. Sundwall a rapproché avec raison ce schéma du phénicien [picture], de valeur < i=””>. Lequel remonte au proto-cananéen tardif [picture]. On peut assi établir une comparaison avec le sud-sémitique [picture], le sud-arabique [picture], le minéo-sabéen [picture] de même valeur, et avec l’une des variantes du sémitique du nord-ouest, [picture], qui rend également lat consonne q.”</I.Q<>

For most of the LA signs, HLM assigns more or less the same phonetic values as is conventional, except 10 (U) = cur/gur
11 (PO) = n/ne; by shape, compared to signs in proto-Canaanite & other semitic scripts, & Ethiopian: thus n-
13 (ME) = m/mu (HLM sees a 12a & 12b, but gives them the same value)
24 (NE) = x/xa; HLM sees this sign as a simplified version of 16b, and relates its shape to proto-Canaanite samek
37 (TI) = ko/go/kho; 37b = lu
38 (E) = mu (m/me/mi)
41 (SI) = ra/gha
44 (KE) = ai/e; 44b a/e
45 (DE) = ke/ku/khe/khu/ge/ghu; 45b d/de
53 (RI) = y/ye; HLM relates the shape to Phoenician y
59 (TA) = s (th/z); HLM relates the shape to Hieroglyphic Hittite s
65 (JU) = z/so/za(n) (d), related to Phoenician on shape; HLB sees a �65b = ze/zi
73 (MI) = ş/şe/ş HLM relates the shape to Cypro-Minoan sign 44, to which he assigns a value of se
76 (RA2) = ir/ri; HLM relates the shape to Egyptian ir
79 (ZU) = h/he/e (hai); HLM relates the shape to an “eye” sign in several early Semitic scrips
87 (TWE) = no value suggested
100 (VIR) = y/ye
118 (?) = b/bi/ wi/vi; HLM relates the shape to Pi-like signs in Ethiopian, Cypro-Syllabic
120 (GRA) = do/to; HLM equates 120 with 05)
122 (OLIV) = ñ/ñy/ni; HLM relates the shape to signs in Meroitic and Cypro-Minoan 100
123 (?) = r/ri (le/lë/li); HLM relates the shape to Proto-Sinaitic r
131 (VIN) = b/w; HLM relates the shape to Proto-Sinaitic b/p
164 (?) = b (p)
188 (?) = kh
301 (?) = r/re/ri (ro/ra/l/le/li); HLM relates the shape to AB RI
302 (?) = h/he/ge; HLM relates the shape to Phoenician
303 (OLE?) = ts/dz/dze
304 (?) = di(l)/ti(l) �
306 (?) = r/re/ri
310 (?) = ko/k �/ku
312 (KU/MINA?) = s+vi/si
317 (?) = thw
319 (?) = we
328 (?) = ñ/ñy/ni
361 (?) = nu (ne)
703 (fraction D/MINA) = wy/we (equates with B75)

Summary (108-110)
Discussion of the pronunciation of the various vowels & consonants (111-131)
JGY comments
Contrary to the subtitle, Cretan Hieroglyphic is actually the first syllabic writing system in Crete.

Godart 1984 demonstrated that 7 (possibly 8) complex words (3 or more syllables) appear in both Linear A & B, and that therefore 12 signs have the same values in Linear B and A (DA, I, JA, KI, PA, PI, RO, RI, SE, SU, TA, O): RI & TA are two of those, but HLM assigns them completely different values (y/ye and s (th/z), respectively).

HLM derives phonetic values for Linear A signs based on their similarities with signs in various eastern Mediterranean and northeast African scripts (see above) as if such similarities constituted a demonstration that Linear A derived from those scripts — similarities in the shape of written signs may not indicate similarities of phonetic value, even when it can be demonstrated that one script derived from another (e.g., Cyrilic from Greek, but Russian H [/n/] is not pronounced like Greek H [/ē/]).

HLM also assigns phonetic values to several ideograms (VIR, GRA, OLIV, OLE, VIN, etc.), of which only VIR & VIN seem to operate also as syllabograms.

Instead, Linear A probably derives many if not most of its signs from Cretan Hieroglyphic, which HLM occasionally mentions but whose relaltionship to Linear A he does not discuss at all. Most signs in Cretan Hieroglyphic are pictographs, whose names or sounds or other qualities may have determined the phonetic values (e.g., LinA 23 from CH *012 , bull head, “mu”; LinA 60 from CH *018 , dog head, “ra”).

La Marle, Hubert. 1997. Linéaire A. La première écriture syllabique de Crète. Éléments de grammaire. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Introduction (7-12): HLM lays out the 11 criteria set out by Y. Duhoux for establishing a decipherment (corpus of texts, a syllabary, phonetic values, orthography, morphology, etc.) and asserts he is following all of these.
Concordance (13-20) of signs between GORILA and Raison-Pope, Corpus transnuméré.
Maps (192-195)
Index & Abbreviations (197-199)
Elements of grammar (23-191) analysis will be limited to “literary” texts, not lists (23-24)
HLM’s conventional phonetic transcription for signs (24-43)
identifying nouns, verbs, etc. (45-58)

for example, KO Za 1 (I picked this totally at random) which carries the Libation Formula (as in GORILA)

HLM reads (47)

a) a-s-i-rai-ro-ja
b) wo-ru-sa / mu-lu-nwi / i-tar
c) a / mu-na-kh-na ra / i
d) pi-na-pha / ra-ru-te
La Marle, Hubert. 1998. Linéaire A. L’histoire et la view de la Crète minoenne. Textes commentés. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
HLM translates KO Za 1 into Indo-Iranian/Sanskrit (280)
a) a-s-i-rai-ro-ja = king of Asura, a god
b) wo-ru-sa / mu-lu-nwi / i-tar = (wo)-ru, water or a liquid; mu-lu-nu �= purify; i-tar, a god
c) a / mu-na-kh-na ra = ?mang, demand, pray ?= mangala, benediction
d) i / pi-na-pha / ra-ru-te = i-pi-na-ph, to heaven; ra-ru-te = the face
JGY stops here because
HLM does not analyze Linear A’s structure before attempting a translation.
Instead, he 1) assigns phonetic values to Linear signs based on superficial resemblances to signs in other scripts (the choice of scripts being already prejudiced to include only those from the eastern Mediterranean and northeast Africa), as if “C looks like O so it must be O.”

and, 2), translates the words into the language he has chosen (Indo-Iranian/Sanskrit).

For words that do not translate comfortably, HLM suggests religious meanings, names of otherwise unknown divinities and rites, and produces a translation that makes difficult sense.
cf. Duhoux, Companion to Linear B (2008), pp. 349-61, where he criticizes the recent translations of the new Theban texts because they introduce a religious interpretation of words simply because they are imperfectly understood.

……………………………….

Aatun

Aartun, Kjell.
1992. Die minoische Schrift: Sprache und Texte. 1: Der Diskos von Phaistos, die beschriftete Bronze axt, die Inschrift der Tarragona-Tafel. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
1997. Die Minoische Schrift Sprache und Texte. 2: Linear A-Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

I will not deal with Aartun’s treatment of the Phaistos Disc (which he translates as a sexual magic text; for an English translation of some lines, click here), the Arkalokhori ax, and a painted (?) clay (?) plaque now in the Madrid Museum and conventionally dated to the 4th c. BCE — except to point out that he identifies the pictographs (e.g., the head with the “Mohawk” hair is a “priest” which is kahinu in Semitic and therefore the sign has the phonetic value of ka [at the beginning] and ak [at the end of words]). In other words, Aartun uses the acrophonic principle once he has determined what the sign “is.”

For Linear A, he says he accepts most of the standard identification of phonetic values (1: 46-53), following Brice 1961 and GORILA, but in the long discussion of individual texts (1: 53-121), he identifies Linear A words as words in various languages (the vocabulary index, pp. 805-40 lists, among others: Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopian, and Akkadian), forcing many syllabograms to take on new phonetic values (this will be made clear in the following section).

His sign chart (1: 122-23) keeps some of the standard phonetic identifications, but to transcribe his Semitic identifications he assigns phonetic values to rare Linear A signs (both GORILA and Brice) in order to supply phonetic values that do not exist in GORILA’s grid — for example, in the deficient O-series: Brice 15 [usually a variant on GORILA 11] for DO, Brice 75 for JO, 302 for MO, 28 for NO, Brice 12 for QO, and 319 for WO). Aartun also invents three H-series, 2 z-series (z- and z- with a dot under it), a y-series (57=YA [JA] but the rest are new), a second d-series (d- with a line under it), and alternative open vowels (A-U, all preceded by ‘).

For example of his method, I take (at random) Aartun’s discussion of HT 13 (this continues over several pages, 1: 57-58, 80-87; 2: 78-80).

First, here is GORILA’s transcription and my normalized version:

HT 13

1-2:77-10-45-59 131a 04

2: 27-17   5[] J[]

3: 04-69  56

3-4: 04-67  27 J

.4: 81-79-30  18

.5:01-41-*118  19

.5-6: 28-51-24-41  5

.7:81-02  130 J

Aartun reads only some of the signs on p. 1: 57 (other signs on HT 13 are discussed on 1: 58, and 80-87), forcing some signs to take on new phonetic values to suit his identification of the Semitic word he thinks the Linear A inscription is trying to spell.

I present only the section on p. 1: 57 to give a sample of what he is doing (I give a photo of this section since it includes a lot of diacritical marks unavailable to the web; L-sign numbers are Brice, those in () are GORILA’s):

has not any means of subsistence.”

Apparently Aartun feels free to take the Linear A word and change it to suit a Semitic word.

Vol 2 discusses the Linear A texts, text by text. HT 13 is again discussed on pp. 2: 78-80. Here is Aartun’s complete presentation and translation (I omit the commentary, which basically duplicates 1:57-58 etc.):

I give an English translation of his German (many thanks to Sabine Beckmann!):

.1:he who lives in a wretched state/his life

.1-2: prepared (food)

.2: tot(al)

.2: poor (person) / (person) under protection (of the prince)

.2: 5 J

.3: the fool [low-class?]              56

.3: very much the fool [low-class?]

.4: 27 J

.4: (person) who drinks uninterruptedly without slurping

.4: 17 J

.5: s/he who does not grow

.5-6: food/fare [or provisions] of the destitute [without means]/poor people

.6: 5

.7: total 130 J

Needless to say, this translation makes little sense and does not suit a presumed administrative purpose for this text.

I can’t really follow Aartun’s method, for it is circular, taking up a text, changing the phonetic values to suit a Semitic reading for the words, and then refining the produced Semitic text. There is no internal analysis of the Linear A texts, no assumption of what the texts should resemble (in his section on the cultural context, 1: 24-25, he talks of a “Feudal- und theokratisches System,” but does not mention Minoan administration). Instead, Aartun assumes that Linear A is writing Semitic and that a substitution of Semitic words for the Linear A words (contorted to fit) suffices for a decipherment.

About sooteris kyritsis

Job title: (f)PHELLOW OF SOPHIA Profession: RESEARCHER Company: ANTHROOPISMOS Favorite quote: "ITS TIME FOR KOSMOPOLITANS(=HELLINES) TO FLY IN SPACE." Interested in: Activity Partners, Friends Fashion: Classic Humor: Friendly Places lived: EN THE HIGHLANDS OF KOSMOS THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF AMENTHE
This entry was posted in GLOSSOLOGY and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s