Talk:Linear A

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linear A article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or images of one or more symbols or characters illustrating the nature of the texts be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Actually, it is deciphered.

Hello,

After the reading of the books about minoan script written bij Peter G. van Soesbergen, I am pretty sure he deciphered a Huge part of the minoan linear a. The website about his books is http://www.minoanscript.nl

Kind regards, Jodocus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.198.196 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiLyN9T2stY&feature=youtu.be deciphering some Linear A texts by Peter Revesz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:C30A:1F00:7842:F540:954E:F14B (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linear B is considered deciphered, even though there are some unknown characters. Linear A is considered undeciphered; some of it is, but much of it isn't. It might be a matter of the meanings of characters and words. Linear B is written in an ancient form of Greek, which is much more known about than the Minoan of Linear A. 64.124.38.140 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cited in the above comments are two competing claims. They both claim a transliteration into another language, and interpretation based on that, but they claim for different languages! Both are very recent developments I think we need to let scholarship review and assess a while yet before we can declare it solved. 184.148.57.116 (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabograms and ideograms

A table of the signs with assumed syllabic values can easily be added, just as the Linear B article contains one. There seems to be broad agreement about the sound value of numerous syllabograms that are shared with Linear B: see e.g. here, p. 319 (with references) and here, p. 5. Some ideograms are the same as in Linear B, too (a number are identified even in the Unicode Standard document), and could be listed just as they are listed in the Linear B article. The main obstacles to proper 'decipherment' seem to be the unknown logograms and the fact that the language apparently isn't sufficiently closely related to any known language to make it easy to understand or even classify. Anyway, the agnosticism maintained by this article about the sound value of the signs seems peculiar and excessive. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming is not the same as Knowing. Language glyphs can and have been re-used with different meaning and sounds. There appears to have been at least a half century lapse between the end of Linear A and Linear B. Certainly the designers of Linear B used some of the Linear A glyphs they found lying around. Any notion that those glyphs have the same sound or the same meaning is an Assumption. If you substitute the Linear B sounds in Linear A texts AFAIK you get gibberish. Maybe some are the same, maybe not. That is not Known. Certainly Linear B is built on Mycenae Greek. Its pretty certain that Linear A is not.

I looked at those references. One is built on the idea that the underlying language of Linear A was Hurrian which seems unlikely. The other merely says that in some specific cases in some specific circumstances a glyph may have the same meaning in Linear A and Linear B. That is all.

How many Assumptions were made made for Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Linear B which looked reasonable at the time but turned out in retrospect to be tragically wrong? Many.Ploversegg (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, all 'knowing' is nothing but assuming - everything can turn out to be wrong in retrospect, and all we can do is retell what scholars believe at present, this is what Wikipedia's job is per WP:NPOV and WP:V. If we had been writing Wikipedia in the 19th century, we would have and should have endorsed the misconceptions that were dominant at among scholars at that the time. We have no right to be more sceptical than the experts are, that would be WP:Original Research. As for the references, you clearly haven't 'looked' at them well enough. The first reference doesn't just say that 'in some specific cases in some specific circumstances a glyph may have the same meaning in Linear A and Linear B'. It presents a complete syllabary on p. 319, and it sources it to two other publications by leading experts dealing with this issue, Younger and Davis. The second reference also contains such a syllabary, and that syllabary isn't 'built on on the idea that the underlying language is Hurrian' - it's the other way around, the arguments that the language is Hurrian are built on readings using a syllabary and interpretations of logograms deduced from Linear B, which just goes to show that this scholar, too, subscribes to these same interpretations. You don't have to accept that the language is Hurrian to accept the syllabary and the logograms. Peter Schrijver's article, which this Wikipedia article cites, makes a completely different case, namely that the language is Hattic, but it also starts from the same principle of reading syllabograms and logograms as in Linear B (p. 341-342). All of this just goes to show that pretty much everybody working with Linear A shares the idea that the syllabograms and logograms stand for roughly the same things as their counterparts in Linear B (another proof of the same: [1]: 'Linear B took most of its signs from Linear A, and because we can read Linear B, we can actually pronounce Linear A inscriptions'). Another recent book, by Ester Salgarella ([2]), goes even further in the same direction, basically arguing that 'Linear A' and 'Linear B' are essentially the same script in two stages of its development; and given how many of the signs are the same, this doesn't seem unreasonable. What we see here is a scholarly consensus if there ever was one, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the scholarly consensus.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little squeamish about including a table that presents the presumed values in Wikivoice. But FWIW, I have an unfinished rewrite waiting in my sandbox where I report what appears to be the current consensus / lack thereof regarding the phonetic values. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be included in 'non-Wikivoice' then, as in 'scholars A, B and C assume', if you absolutely insist; but 'Wikivoice' means just 'most scholars say' in any case. As far as I can see, there is no 'lack (of current consensus) regarding the phonetic values': see my references above. You write that 'this does not amount to a decipherment since it results in words that are uninterpretable', citing a 2022 article by Salgarella; I would be interested to how her statement was worded, because, as I said, the main thrust of her 2020 book (Aegean linear script(s): rethinking the relationship between Linear A and Linear B) is that Linear B and Linear A are essentially the same script, and Linear B obviously is deciphered. It seems to me that there is a confusion here between decipherment of a script and 'decipherment'/understanding of a language; we could have texts in an unknown language written in the Latin or Greek alphabet and still not understand them (reading in them with Latin and Greek sound values would 'result in words that are uninterpretable'), but it would be odd to say that 'the script is undeciphered' on that basis. It's as if people for some reason expect the language to be Greek or something else well-known and easily understandable, and the very fact that what comes out is not Greek (it's 'gibberish', as put by Ploversegg above) is seen as discrediting the sound values. The ancient Near East and Mediterranean were full of language isolates or members of tiny and obscure families; if anything, I would be surprised if Minoan, which clearly had been indigenous to Crete for a long time, was closely related to any other well-known language. We were lucky that Linear B happened to be in a variety of something as well-known as Greek - that is the exception, not the norm, and expecting the same kind of 'decipherment' story to take place with Linear A is highly unrealistic. Scholars' readings of Sumerian, Elamite and Hurrian are essentially based on the values known from Akkadian cuneiform (with greater or lesser subsequent modifications based on later evidence), and the only reason why this results in words that are 'interpretable' is because we happen to have some bilingual texts.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deeply disagree with anything you're saying, but the hedging I'm suggesting comes from the scholars themselves, e.g. Salgarella describes the sounds values as "reasonably secure". I like the way you handled the uncertainty in your table, though I've moved it to the "Decipherment" subsection. Botterweg14 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been bold and made the tables of syllabograms and logograms, following closely the model of the Linear B article, which, after all, lists basically the same signs. There are some divergences between the sources on some of the signs, which I've reflected partly in the table by writing 'disputed' and adding question marks. A neater-looking option might be simply to stick only to Davis' version, who is probably the best of the cited sources (Raison & Pope are a bit older, and I suspect that there might be some accidental errors in Fang et al.), but I couldn't find the glyph or even the Bennett number for at least one of his sign shapes (ju).--62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davis' 2014 Work on the Libation Formulae

I probably shouldn't've added a section on this, but I did. I reason thus: if it were kosher, then it would already be here. But I don't even see a Talk section on it. So, fire away. Washi (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and then I read the VERIFIABILITY article, and removed my section. I'll paste it here for everyone's amusement. Washi (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libation Formula Analysis

Per Davis 2011/2014, pp. 368-380.

The Libation Formula is on inscribed, dedicated, objects. By analyzing the formulae, Davis deduced that Linear A is mainly a Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) language.

The words typically follow a sequence, of which the first three can stand on their own. Any remaining words never vary, but also never stand alone.

   VERB                     SUBJECT                OBJECT                       4                  5              6             Source
   ----------------------   ---------------------  --------------------------   ------------------ -------------- ------------- ---------
   A-TA-  I-*301 -WA-JA     O-SU-QA-RE             JA-SA-SA-RA-ME               U-NA-KA-NA-SI      I-PI-NA-MA     SI-RU-TE      (TL Za 1)
   TA-NA- I-*301 -U-TI-NU   I-NA-TA-I-ZU-DI-SI-KA  JA-SA-SA-RA-ME                                                               (IO Za 6)
   A-TA-  I-*301 -WA-JA     A-DI-KI-TE[ ] SI-[     JA-SA-SA-]RA-ME[ ]A-[ ]-NE   U-NA-RU-KA[ ]JA-SI A-PA-DU-PA-[   JA[  JA-PA-QA (PK Za 12)
          GIVE?             (Name)                 DEDICATION                   REQUESTING

A "VERB" variant also appears on a pithos found in a rural farmhouse (ZA Zb 3):

  .2: A-TA- I-*301 -DE-KA

The implication is that I-*301, the root verb, is common. Davis suggests something like "give".

The "SUBJECT" is always different, which suggests the person giving the offering.

Davis then takes the second half of TL Za 1 and suggests:

   U-NA-KA-NA-SI         I-PI-NA-MA            SI-RU-TE
   REQUEST(participle)   FAVOR(singular)       DIVINE(genitive)

Moreover, I-DA is on IO Za 2 and Za 11, KO Za 1, PK Za 9 and Za 18, and SY Za 1, where it seems to substitute for A-SA-SA-RA, "dedication"; I-DA may therefore mean simply "this thing" (Davis 2011/2014 p. 374-375).