The top of Minoan Linear A Tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) restored on academia.eduClick on the link below to read this key contribution to research into Minoan Linear A tablets:Minoan Linear A tablets appear to be classed in two primary areas of interest (a) agriculture, and more specifically, crops and grains and (b) religious and sacerdotal. It is to the former that we turn our attention in this study. Focusing on certain Linear A tablets which deal primarily or almost exclusively with grains, we find that these three tablets yield the most promising results, Haghia Triada tablets HT 86 & 95 and Zakros tablet ZA 20. While HT 86 and HT 95 are intact, ZA 20 is not. Other Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada also contribute to our findings.Is it possible to envision an intact version of the original ZA 20 tablet from Zakros? We believe so, and with that firmly in mind we have attempted the first ever restoration of the top of ZA 20, resulting in what amounts to a plausible intact version, however hypothetical, of the original. So without further ado, we present the full restoration of our version of Linear A tablet ZA 20.

## Tag Archive: dry measurement

## The top of Minoan Linear A Tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) restored on academia.edu

## Restoration of the top of Minoan Linear Tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) REVISED:

Restoration of the top of Minoan Linear Tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) REVISED:Since the last post on my original restoration of the top of Minoan Linear Tablet ZA 20 (Zakros), I have reconsidered the hypothetical text, and I have come up with this more plausible restoration:The running decipherment reads as follows:1. a field2. of 20 bales of einkorn wheat3. and 20 bales of emmer wheat4. and 65 bales of barley5. all measured by bales6. 4 bales of MI ?? ZA (unknown) + 1 bale with wheat7. and 12 bales of wheat with 2 spin-offs of chaff from the wheat8. totals for all the above = 130This restoration is the basis of an article on it soon to be published onacademia.edu. I shall keep you posted.

## Richard Janke’s conjectural restoration of the missing top of Linear A tablet ZA 20

Richard Janke’s conjectural restoration of the missing top of Linear A tablet ZA 20: Since the top of Linear A tablet ZA 20 is missing, I boldly took it upon myself to restore the top of this tablet. My restoration is of course conjectural, but I am quite sure it is something like what the original must have looked like, because line 6 mentionssitetuand line 7situ. These are variants on the same Linear A word,situ, which just so happens to look a great deal like the Linear B wordsito, which means “wheat”. SO it is natural to suppose that in factsituandsitetualso mean “wheat” in Linear A. Here is the decipherment of the entire Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakrs), including the restored lines 1.-7. 1.kireta211 = 11 units (probably bales) of barley 2.dideru42 = 42 bales of einkorn wheat 3.dideru30qerie22 = 30 bales of einkorn wheat (2) and 22 bales of another type of grain (3) 4.qerie6 = 6 bales of grain type (3) 5. ro? + direza- =(dide)ro[left truncated] = einkorn wheat =didero+direza= a unit of measurement 6. se + mi? +ru? 4 sitetu 1 = “se” is the last syllabogram, i.e. syllable of the worddireza+se, which implies the word is inflected. 7.situ6 te*123 12rumitase2 = 6 bales of wheat + 12 bales or units of te*123 (unknown) 2 units of chaff 8.kura120 =kura= TOTAL of all items listed in lines 1.-7. No one has ever attempted to decipher even the extant bottom portion of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) before, let alone to restore the missing lines in the missing top portion of this tablet.

## Rita Roberts, translation of Knossos Linear B tablet, KN 556 R o 01

*Rita Roberts, translation of Knossos Linear B tablet, KN 556 R o 01:
*

## Translation of Knossos Linear B tablet KN 554 R o 06 by Rita Roberts

*Translation of Knossos Linear B tablet KN 554 R o 06 by Rita Roberts:
*

## Linear A nodule on weighing emmer wheat with 3 supersyllabograms

Linear A nodule on weighing emmer wheat with 3 supersyllabograms:

This rare Linear A nodule is of particular interest because it contains 3 supersyllabograms, JE SE & U. I am unable to decipher JE and SE, but U appears to be the first syllabogram, actually a vowel, i.e. the first syllable of the word it represents, which in this case would appear to be the Mycenaean-derived word, udoro = u3droj = a water flask. But this interpretation may not make sense in the context of weighing KUNI(SU) or emmer wheat, unless a certain standardized amount of water in a water flask were poised at the other end of the scale measuring the emmer wheat. This is surely open to speculation.

## Mycenaean Linear B units of dry measurement

Mycenaean Linear B units of dry measurement:

This chart speaks for itself. Notice that at least 4 of these dry units of measurement in Linear A have counterparts in Linear A.

## New interpretation of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros)

New interpretation of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros):

This new interpretation of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) varies only slightly from my original one. I interpret the syllabogram on line 0 (the indecipherable line) as being NI, since the bottom of NI is a vertical line. And figs often figure prominently in Linear A tablets. The actual reading of the text is not quite clear, since there are at least 2 damaged syllabograms following MI on line 1. It is impossible to determine with any accuracy what the actual units of measurement are for anything on this tablet, although of course the units of chaff from wheat would have to be considerably less than the total units of wheat. So 1 unit + 6 units of wheat probably refers to something like bushels (a mere approximation), from which we would not get all that much chaff… which may explain the presence of the container, supposedly containing 3 smallish units of chaff. But why would anyone want to place chaff in a container? So we see problems with the decipherment.

## Just uploaded to academia.edu: Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 86 Haghia Triada, a mirror image of HT 95

Just uploaded toacademia.edu: Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 86 Haghia Triada, a mirror image of HT 95: Linear A Tablet HT 86 (Haghia Triada) Linear A tablet HT 86 (Haghia Triada) appears to be inscribed partially in Mycenaean-derived New Minoan and partially in Old Minoan, just as is HT 95 (Haghia Triada). This is one of the most significant of all Linear A tablets, because it so closely parallels HT 95. The fact that the text of HT 86 so closely mirrors that of HT 95 lends further credence to our decipherment of both of these tablets taken together. We find approximately equal parts of Mycenaean-derived New Minoan and Old Minoan vocabulary on HT 86. Here we have the New Minoan vocabulary on HT 86:akaru, dideru(equivalent to Linear B didero), dame & minute Old Minoan vocabulary on HT 86:kunisu, saru, qara2wa (qaraiwa)&adu. We must pay special heed to the termsakaruanddideruin New Minoan, as these in turn signify " field " (archaic acc.), where all of these crops are obviously grown and didero, which is Linear A for " einkorn wheat ". As for the Old Minoan terminology, we havekunisu, which is " emmer wheat " andadu, which is a very large unit of dry measurement, probably " bales ". Astonishingly, the text as a whole admirably hangs together, all the more so when compared with that of HT 95.

## The first ever complete and entirely unique decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 123 RECTO (Haghia Triada)

The first ever complete and entirely unique decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 123 RECTO (Haghia Triada):

This decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 123 RECTO (Haghia Triada) is entirely unique and is the *first ever of its kind*. It incorporates several key features never before seen in any of the failed attempts at “deciphering” this tablet. These are:

1. It accurately identifies the crops as (a) olives (b) wine and (c) saffron/flax;

2. It accurately identifies what all previous “decipherers” have erroneously assumed to be fractions as *crop shares*;

3. It accurately identifies the supersyllabogram PU, which no one has ever before been able to decipher as the Old Minoan word, *punikaso* = Phoenician or in the case of wine = purple, equivalent to Linear B *ponikiyo.*

4. It clearly and accurately identifies the shares of crops, usually 8 shares per;

5. The Old Minoan Linear A word *kiro* appears to mean “they owed”, which suits the context to a T;

6. the combination of the number 8 with harvesting fits the season exactly, the month for harvesting being lunar August (at least if the Minoans counted counted their lunar months from the first month in the year, which certainly appears to be the case).

7. Since the total 20 + is right-truncated on the last line, I have to assume that it refers to 20 or more months, given that 9 months are mentioned above, with the ninth month implying that 8 preceded it, for a total 17. The number 4 with the unknown character probably also references months, bringing the potential total to 21. Thus a grand total of 20+ months is not out of the question.

This is the first ever successful decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 123 (RECTO) *in toto.*

## Statistical incidence of various types of gains and of flax on Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada and elsewhere, now on academia.edu

Statistical incidence of various types of gains and of flax on Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada and elsewhere, now on__ academia.edu__

## Statistical incidence of various types of grains on Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada and elsewhere

Statistical incidence of various types of grains on Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada and elsewhere:

akaru = *field* HT 2 (20+) **HT 86** X2 (20+ )

TOTAL = 40+

*barley*

kireta2 (kiretai) = barley **HT 85** (1) + HT 129 (33)

TOTAL = 34

kiretana = barley-like HT 2 (54+) HT 8 X 2 (5) HT 108 (1) HT 120 (60)

TOTAL = 120

*einkorn wheat*

dideru = einkorn wheat **HT 86** X 2 (2^{nd}. trunc.) (20) **HT 95** X 2 (20)

TOTAL = 40

*emmer wheat*

kunisu = emmer wheat HT 10 (0) **HT 86** X 2 (40+) **HT 95** X 2 (30)

TOTAL = 70+

*flax*

[sara2 = flax HT 18 (10) HT 28 X 2 (21) HT 30 (0) HT 32-34 (0) HT 90 (20) HT 93 (20) HT 94 (5) HT 97 (0) HT 99 (4+) HT 100-102 (985+) HT 105 (234) HT 114 (10) HT 121 (5) HT 125 (2) HT 130 (0)

TOTAL = 1306+

+ saru (*oblique case*) **HT 86** X 3 (41+) **HT 95** X 2 (30) HT 123+124 (16 )

TOTAL = 87+

TOTAL for all references to flax = 1393]

*spelt or millet*

dame = spelt or millet **HT 86 **(20)** HT 95** X2 (20) HT 120 (74)

TOTAL = 94

*millet or spelt*

qera2u/qera2wa = millet or spelt HT 1 (197)HT 95X2 (17) TOTAL = 214

durare = durum wheat? Knossos KN Zc 7 (0)

TOTAL = 0

minute = a type of grain -or- “and for a month” **HT 86 **(20)** HT 95** X2 (20) HT 106 (6+)

TOTAL = 46+

pura2 = a type of grain HT 28 (6) HT 116 (45) KN 54 (0)

TOTAL = 51

qanuma = *ditto* HT 116 (20) KH 88 (Khania) (10)

TOTAL = 20

`standard units of measurement on all Linear A tablets:`

adu **HT 85 (0) HT 86** (0) HT 88 (20) HT 92 (680)** HT 95** (0) HT 99 (0) HT 133 (55) (bales?)

TOTAL = 755

adureza (0) = standard unit of dry measurement, something like a bushel

dureza (7 ) = variant of the same

TOTAL = 7

kireza ( 42) = standard unit of measurement for figs, dates or grapes = 1 basket

TOTAL = 42

reza (67+ ) = standard unit of linear measurement

TOTAL = 67+

tereza (0) = standard unit of liquid measurement

© by Richard Vallance Janke 2017

Now on __academia.edu__. Are Minoan and Mycenaean fractions fractions?

Click to download:

This very brief, but informative tract is a real eye opener.

Are Minoan and Mycenaean fractions fractions? I am not at all convinced Since Minoan and Mycenaean fractions, as estimated by Andras Zeke of the Minoan Language Blog and Prof. John G. Younger, fall as low as 1/10 and 1/32, I am not at all convinced that these are fractions at all. They are, as far as I can tell, crop shares. This makes a lot more sense, since we are dealing with farming, where crop shares have always been of paramount importance. As for units of measurement, we have no real idea what they were, since Minoan Crete and the Mycenaean Empire are so remote in history. No one can possibly determine fractions that far back in history. In fact, Prof. Younger and Andras Zeke cannot even agree on the values of the fractions... not that that argument invalidates the notion they are not fractions. That is a specious argument. However, it makes more sense to consider these as crop shares, especially in view of the fact that some of the Mycenaean symbols are so remarkably similar to their Minoan counterparts. The appearance of symbols has nothing to do with what we take them to mean. This again is an arbitrary decision, which may be right or wrong.

## Linear A tablet dealing with wheat and spices

Linear A tablet dealing with wheat and spices:

Note that on this tablet, the word *toesato/totaesato/toekito/totaekito *(whichever one of these 4 alternatives it is and whatever it means) is conjectural, since I find it difficult to determine how many syllabograms there are in it.

## Credible decipherment of several grains mentioned on of Linear A tablet HT 10 (Haghia Triada)

Credible decipherment of several grains mentioned on of Linear A tablet HT 10 (Haghia Triada): After several abortive attempts at realizing a relatively convincing decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 10 (Haghia Triada), I believe I have finally managed to come through. This has to be one of the most challenging Linear A tablets I have ever been confronted with. Any credible decipherment eluded me for months on end, until it finally struck me that all I needed to do was to identify the grain crops most commonly cultivated in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Mediterranean. And this is precisely what I have just done. Neolithic and Bronze age grains cultivated in the Mediterranean during the Neolithic and Bronze Age eras (the most common italicized): barley (sara2/sarai?) * einkorn (dideru) * emmer (kunisu) * flax (sara2/sarai?) * freekeh (sara2/sarai?) * and bran (less common) bulgur (less common) groats (less common) lentils (less common) millet (dare-or-kasaru) spelt (dare-or-kasaru) vetch for fodder (less common) Now it strikes me that if we findanyof these grains recurring on several Linear A tablets, and we do, these grains must be the most common cultivated then. As it so happens, the3grain crops most frequently referenced in Linear A tablets aredideru, kunisuandsarai2(sarai). They appear over and over and in abundant quantities on several Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada (HT 8 HT 10 HT 28 HT 85-68 HT 91 HT 93 HT 95 HT 114 HT 121 & HT 133), on HM 570, on Khania KH 10, Kophinas KO Za 1 and on Zakros ZA 20. We now know for certain thatdiderumeans “einkorn (wheat)” andkunisu“emmer (wheat)”. It is also highly likely thatsara2(sarai) references “barley”, “flax” or “freekah”. Which one we cannot be sure, but italmost certainly has to be one of these. In addition, we also finddareandkasaruon HT 10. It stands to reason that, by elimination,dareandkasaruare probably either “millet” or “spelt” orvice versa. I have eliminated bran, bulgur, groats, lentils and vetch, as these crops appear to have been relatively less common. Free translation of HT 10: emmer wheat on 4 hills + PA? + 16 1/2 bushel-like units of another type of grain (millet or spelt) *333? + RO + 6 *u325 + 14 bushel-like units of groats (?) + 2 1/2 of *301 (whatever that is), all stored in 8 vases, of which 2 are pithoi (very large) and also stored in 1 vessel of another type + 2 bushel-like units of bran, flax, millet or spelt & 16 young shoots of grain + 6 /12 of *312 TA ? & 6 bushel-like units of millet or spelt, of which 9 1/4 units were lost to death (i.e. never matured)... My preliminary research into the types of grains cultivated in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Mediterranean has clearly facilitated this plausible decipherment of HT 10, and has moreover confirmed my even more accurate translations of several other Linear A tablets dealing with grain, almost all of them co-incidentally from Haghia Triada.

## Decipherment of the RECTO of Linear A tablet HT 86 (Haghia Triada)

Decipherment of the RECTO of Linear A tablet HT 86 (Haghia Triada):

It is possible to decipher this tablet and several others dealing with grain crops with a reasonable degree of accuracy and, in the case of some words, with complete accuracy. The Linear A word *akaru* is almost certainly the equivalent of *akaro*, and not of *akareu*, in Linear B, the latter interpretation of John G. Younger being utterly out of the question in context. The standard Old Minoan words for “emmer wheat” and “roasted einkorn” are *kunisu* and *dideru*. The second of these words, *dideru*, is equivalent to Linear B, *didero,* but neither word appears in any later ancient Greek dialect, leading me to draw the inference that *dideru/didero* is either archaic proto-Mycenaean Greek or that it falls within the pre-Greek substratum or alternatively that it is Old Minoan (OM). As for *dame*, it appears to be dative singular for *damu *(Linear A) or *damo* (Linear B), hence grains “*for* the village wheat”. Finally, *minute *would appear to signify “and for one month”, te being enclitic, meaning “and”, with the entire phrase derived from *mini* = “month”. The actual case structure for the ultimate * u* has yet to be determined for Old Minoan. Unfortunately, it will be some time before I can tackle Old Minoan grammar (declensions and conjugations), as I must first decipher as many Old Minoan, pre-Greek substratum and Mycenaean-derived words as I can in Linear A. And these run to at least 300 out of 988 Minoan words I have isolated.

## A solid decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros), which definitely deals with several types of crops

A solid decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros), which definitely deals with several types of crops: Even though at the very least the top half of Linear A tablet ZA 20 (Zakros) is missing, it definitely deals with several types of crops. This is abundantly clear from the extant text on the bottom half (or less) of the tablet, in which we find, not one but2references to wheat, and to another crop,rumatase, which remains undeciphered, but which in all probability means “flax”. This word could also be Mycenaean-derived New Minoan forluma(Latinized Greek) for “offscourings”, the process whereby impurities are removed from grain crops, in this case, the extraction of chaff from wheat. It makes perfect sense in context. Given that at least half of the top of this tablet is lost, the question is, what does it reference? It is apparent from the remaining extant text on the bottom of this tablet, which deals with wheat twice, that the missing upper part of the tabletshoulddeal with grain crops. There are indeed several words in Linear A which are grain crop-specific. These aredideru= “emmer wheat”,qerie= “roasted einkorn” andsara2/sarai= “sharia wheat”. It is highly likely that the missing top portion of this tablet deals withat leastone of these crops, or with 2 or even all 3 of them. In addition, mention may well have been made of either or both barley and flax crops. In view of the fact that the sum total for all crops on this tablet =130, whereas the totals for the crops on the bottom half =19only, we are left with111units of something unaccounted for... and what might be that something?... other grain crops, of course. Otherwise, how are we to account for the 111 missing units on the lost portion of this tablet? We cannot. These 111 units, which were definitely tallied on the missing top of the tablet, must have been standard units of dry measurement for grain crops, something akin to our modern bushels. Of course, bushels are merely a speculative approximation, since there is no way we can know what the standard units of dry measurement for crops were either in the Minoan or Mycenaean eras, historically remote as they are. All we can do is hazard an approximation. But at least bushels at least give us some idea of what we are dealing with here. Evidence for a substantive inventory of several grain crops on this tablet is further buttressed by the presence of the worddurezase, in an oblique case ofdureza, which I have (and I believe correctly) deciphered as one standard unit of dry measurement in Minoan, in other words one unit roughly approximating the modern bushel. So the accumulation of circumstantial evidence lends even further credence to our decipherment. Finally, the decipherment makes so much sense contextually that it is more likely than not correct.

## Linear A fragment Petras V House III = grain husks in New Minoan + comprehensive Linear A Lexicon of 969 words

Linear A fragment Petras V House III = grain husks in New Minoan + comprehensive Linear A Lexicon of969words: This Linear A fragment is one of the most recent findings. It appears to be entirely in New Minoan, i.e. from the Mycenaean derived superstratum. It definitely deals with wheat, as its ideogram appears to the far left. What appears to be the syllabogramtiorpi(though I interpret it as the latter) is inscribed with RO, which just happens to correspond to the Mycenaean and ancient Greek word lopos, but which in this case islopi(i.e. dative singular). Hence, it would appear that we are dealing with 1 1/2 units (something along the lines of bushels) of wheat husk. When I speak of bushels, I mean merely a generous approximation, since we have no idea what the standard unit of measurement for wheat or barley was either in the Minoan or in Mycenaean era. But it gives us at least an idea of how much wheat we are dealing with. At this juncture in my ongoing endeavour to decipher Linear A, I have run across so many tablets with New Minoan Mycenaean derived superstratum words that I am confident I am well on the way to deciphering New Minoan. Such is not the case with Old Minoan, i.e. the original Minoan language a.k.a. the Minoan substratum. But even there I have managed to decipher at least 100 words more or less accurately, bringing the total of Old Minoan, New Minoan and pre-Greek substratum vocabulary to around 250 out of the 969 Linear A words I have isolated in myComprehensive Linear A Lexicon, by far the most complete Linear A Lexicon ever to appear online, exceeding Prof. John G. Younger’sReverse Linear A Lexiconby at least 250.

## Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 95 (recto/verso) almost intact

Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 95 (recto/verso) almost intact: Even though there is only one word of probable Mycenaean derivation,saru, from Greeksaro, which literally means “a broom”, and in this instance, which refers to a threshing floor or the process of threshing wheat, almost all of the remaining Old Minoan words on this tablet can be deciphered more or less accurately. The Minoan wordkunisudefinitely means “emmer wheat”, whiledideruis “roasted einkorn”. Even though we do not know exactly what the other types of grains or wheat,dameandminute are, it is highly likely that both of these words are the plural of the diminutivesdamaiandminuta2 (minutai), which in turn implies that these terms refer to fine grains. I take it from context thatdadumatameans “harvesting”. And so the decipherment flies. Here are illustrations of emmer wheat and roasted einkorn: