No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The tragic death of Dr. Michael Ventris in September 1956 has thrust upon me the task of answering the criticisms made by Professor A. J. Beattie of his decipherment of the Minoan Linear B script [JHS lxxvi (1956) pp. 1–17]. Reasons of time and space preclude more than a summary reply; but fortunately almost all his points are covered by our discussion in Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge University Press, 1956), to which the reader is referred. I judge it necessary, however, to correct some wrong impressions and comment on some of Professor Beattie's methods.
The account of the decipherment is tendentious and distorted. The need for brevity prevented a fuller account in Evidence [JHS lxxiii (1953), pp. 84–103]; a more detailed version appears in Documents; but the whole story as it unfolded month by month can still be traced in the duplicated work-notes which Dr. Ventris circulated during the period 1950–52. It should be enough to say that the crucial step of applying phonetic values to the grid was based upon the reasonable hypothesis that certain words found only at Knossos represented the names of important Cretan towns. At that stage the language was still unidentified; it was as the result of the values obtained from the place-names that Dr. Ventris was forced to the conclusion that the language was Greek. This led to the recognition of Greek declensions in the Linear B inflexions, not the other way about.
1 I should like to thank Professors D. L. Page and E. G. Turner, and many others, for help and encouragement in the compilation of this reply.
2 For instance, a picture of a sword is accompanied by pa-ka-na = phasgana; a corslet by to-ra-ke = thōrākes; cloths by pa-we-a = pharwea; equine heads by i-qo, o-no, po-ro = higquos, onos, pōlos; a broad dish by pi-a2-ra, pi-je-ra3 = phiala, phielai; amphoras by a-pi-po-re-we = amphiphorēwes; and so forth.
3 The asymmetry of the syllabary is the result of an empirical method. The asymmetry of the Greek alphabet, which distinguishes length only in the case of two vowels, is equally shocking.
4 It may be of interest to record that on a few occasions Dr. Ventris and I communicated successfully on postcards written in the Linear B script in an imitation of the Mycenaean dialect. Here is a sample of one in transliteration: sa-me-ro pu-pi-ri-jo pa-ro-do-ka tu-po-ka-ra-pe-u-si: a-ka-ta tu-ka: ka-mo-jo ke-pu2-ra3 i-jo-u-ni-jo-jo me-no a-me-ra 8. Professor Turner reminds me that in some business documents contained in Greek papyri and ostraca almost every word is abbreviated by suspense marks; the resultant loss of inflexions does not seem to have caused the users any difficulty.
5 ki-ka-ne-wi-jo-de. The other fifteen are (correctly): pq2-sa-ro-we, ke-ro-we, a-ta-ro-we (for a-ra-), pa2-ra-o-we (for ko-ra-), pa-we[(for to-we[), a-re-pa-we[, o-pa-we[ (for o-ro-we[), da-da-re-jo-de, ]re-jo-de, po-si-da-i-jo-de, ri-jo-de, ]ki-ri-jo-de, ]jo-de, za-e-to-ro (for qo-e-to-ro). Correctly transcribed, but incorrect entries in the Index are: o-wi-po-po, te-o-po, and ru-wo-to-ro. Note also e-u-de-to-qe (page 8 line 16) which is a misreading by Professor Beattie of e-u-ke-to-qe = εὔχεταί τε (‘Arcadian’!); and qe-tu (page 12 line 57) for qe-ro 2 Other readers who do not know the syllabary will find Meriggi's, P. Glossario Miceneo (Torino 1955)Google Scholar useful. Professor Beattie's text of the ‘tripod’ tablet (Ta641) is incorrect in several details: a-pu-ke ka-u-me-no[ should read a-pu ke-ka-u-me-no, a rational separation of the preverb from the reduplicated participle; the suppression of the numerals after the ideograms masks the concord of dual forms with the number 2; the last two entries form line 3 of the tablet.
6 Critical examinations resulting in favourable conclusions are, e.g.: P. Chantraine, Le déchiffrement de l'écriture linéaire B à Cnossos et à Pylos, : Rev. de philol. xxix (1955), pp. 11–33 Google Scholar; M. S. Ruiperez, El desciframiento del minoico lineal B: Zephyrus v (1954), pp. 48–60 Google Scholar; M. Lejeune, Déchiffrement du linéaire B: R.E.A. lvi (1954), PP. 154–7Google Scholar; V. Pisani, Die Entzifferung der ägäischen Linear B und die griechischen Dialekte: Rh. Mus. xcviii (1955), pp. 1–15 Google Scholar; J. Friedrich, Zur Schriftgeschichtlichen Wertung der kretischen Linearschrift B: Minos iv (1956), pp. 6–10 Google Scholar.
7 E.g. compare the account of the Pylos Ta- tablets by Ventris, (Eranos liii (1956), pp. 109–24)Google Scholar with that of M. Doria (Interpretazioni di testi micenei, Trieste, 1956). That of C. Gallavotti (Documenti e struttura del greco nell' età micenea, Rome, 1956, pp. 154–62) is less happy, but none the less shows a large amount of agreement with the other two.