Linear A tablet HT 13 Haghia Triada successfully translated, with a substantial Mycenaean

superstrate, wine stalks in (parallel) rows, crushed grapes and (a) sweeteners or (b) at Mount
Ida:

This is the first ever practically complete decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia
Triada) into what ostensibly appears to be largely Mycenaean-derived Greek (also known as
the Mycenaean superstrate). Most of the words on this tablet are probably early Mycenaean
or Mycenaean, with the caveat that their orthography and grammatical structure must have
been adjusted to reflect the exigencies of the orthography and grammatical structure of the
Minoan substrate language (Old Minoan, OM), the original Minoan language onto which
they have been grafted. Allow me to explain how this phenomenon transpires.

If we compare the incursion of Mycenaean-derived words into Linear A with the much later
enormous influx of Norman French and French vocabulary into English, we can glean a much

1
clearer picture of what is happening here. It is our belief that the introduction of Mycenaean-
derived vocabulary into the Minoan substrate language, Old Minoan (OM) from around 1600
to 1450 BCE parallels to some extent the massive influx of Norman French and French
vocabulary into English after the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 AD.
Norman French vocabulary flooded into English from ca. 1100 – 1450 AD, followed by an
even more massive influx of French vocabulary from the Renaissance onward, until the
French superstrate had swollen to its present-day mass of some 200,000 + French words
adapted into English. These account for 29 % of all English vocabulary, 3 % more than the
Germanic substrate vocabulary at 26 %.

The key word here is adapted. But what do we mean by this?

Reconciliation of the orthography of the superstrate language with that of its substrate:

English with its Norman French and French superstrate:

Before the conquest of English by William the Conqueror (Guillaume le Conquérant) in 1066
AD, the English language substrate language was Anglo-Saxon, of which all the vocabulary
was Germanic. But once William the Conqueror arrived on the scene in 1066 AD, everything
was to change dramatically thereafter. We can see this right off the top with the
transformation of Guillaume le Conquérant into William the Conqueror in English. They both
mean the same thing. They are in essence the same vocabulary, with this important caveat:
the spelling of the English translation of the name must conform to the orthography and
syntax of English, not of French. The situation was to change dramatically in the 3 centuries
after the conquest, 1066-1450 AD, when French became the official language of the royal
court and of the judiciary system. In fact, modern English vocabulary is 29 % French, 29 %
Latin and 6 % Greek, accumulating to a sub-total of 64 %, whereas the German vocabulary
constitutes only 26 % of English. This breakdown of the English lexicon is startling, insofar as
no other Germanic language has such a huge superstrate of non-Germanic vocabulary.

When the superstrate vocabulary from French infiltrated the English language, inevitably
adjustments had to be made in French orthography to conform with standard English
spelling, syntax and grammar. We can illustrate this phenomenon with the majority of the
200,000 + French-derived words imported into English from 1066 AD to the present day.
Allow me to give just a few examples to illustrate my point.

First of all, we find William the Conqueror from Guillaume le Conquérant. Now it is obvious
even from this first example that adjustments had to be made to make the Norman French
spelling conform to standard English orthography. Guillaume becomes William, a major
adjustment, while conquérant morphs into Conqueror, with the standard French acute accent
dropped and the ultimate changed from ant to er, such that the final syllable conforms to the
standard English orthography, syntax and grammar. This phenomenon is known as elite
dominance, meaning that the superstrate dominates the substrate, while the substrate
maintains demography subsistence, meaning that the grammatical and orthographic
conventions of the substrate are adhered to, in spite of the incursion of vocabulary from the
superstrate.

2
In Prehistory: the Making of the Human Mind, Colin Renfrew has this to say,

The linguistic map must have been complicated, however, by such processes as elite
dominance, where a small group of incomers seize power in an already well-established
society, and gradually impose their language upon it. Since the incoming group would
be very small in such a case, the molecular genetic effects might be difficult to detect.
The linguistic map is complicated further by processes of convergence, where the
languages spoken by the two groups in close contact begin to share common features.
(all italics mine) (bibliography, [28])

This linguistic premise closely mirrors my own, which I arrived at independently and without
foreknowledge of Renfrew’s book which I read about a year after I drew my own conclusions
uncannily echoing his own.

Here we find 20 more examples of the elite dominance of French in English, with the
grammatical and orthographic conventions of the Anglo-Saxon Old English substrate left
intact:

French superstrate, with orthography and syntax adjusted to the English substrate
(all major changes italicized):

albâtre (Norman = albastre) alabaster

biscotte biscuit
cérémonieux ceremonious
côte coast
dédaigneux disdainful [1]
délinéer delineate
diminuer to diminish
embuer to imbue
enflammer to inflame
exploitant exploitive
loutre otter
maître master
Norvégien Norwegian
obligatoire obligatory
portatif portable
redoublement redoubling
satisfaisant satisfactory
sous-estimer understimate [2]
surpayer to overpay [3]
testamentaire testamentary

NOTA BENE: In [1] [2] an [3] above, we find Germanic substrate syllables combined with
French superstrate syllables. This phenomenon is not uncommon in English. Likewise, in
Linear A, many tablets, especially from Haghia Triada and Zakros, contain words which are
combinations of Old Minoan (OM) syllables from the original Minoan substrate language
and Mycenaean-derived syllables with Mycenaean-derived superstrate syllables.

3
It is in fact impossible to import any vocabulary from any superstrate language (in this case,
Norman French and French), without adjusting the orthography and syntactical structure of
the original superstrate words to conform to the strict orthographic and syntactical
conventions of the substrate language, in this case, Old English.

The parallel between the French superstrate in English and the Mycenaean-derived
superstrate in the Minoan language in Linear A:

To date, no linguists exploring this phenomenon have ever properly taken this fundamental
criterion into consideration, namely, that any superstrate word introduced into a substrate
language must conform to the standard orthographic and syntactical conventions of the
substrate language, and that is why all of their efforts at decipherment of so-called “Greek-
like” vocabulary have utterly failed. It must be understood from the outset that all researchers
and decipherers of Linear A, including Gregory Nagi and Iurii Mosenkis, who have ever
attempted to assign “Greek-like” lexicographical values to the decipherment of Linear A have
made the fundamental and critical error of retrospectively extrapolating Greek words from
later archaic and much later classical Greek. This issue can be summarized in a nutshell: the
so-called Greek-like words imported into the Minoan language can only be early (ca. 1600
BCE) or later (ca. 1500-1450 BCE) Mycenaean-derived and nothing else. They are not
derived from any Greek dialect subsequent to Mycenaean Greek, not even from Arcado-
Cypriot Linear C, the kissing cousin of the Mycenaean dialect. We must clearly distinguish
these New Minoan (NM) Mycenaean-derived superstrates from what we call Old Minoan
(OM), which as yet remains largely undeciphered.

The decipherment of HT 13 (Haghia Triada) below at least appears sound. If it is, then it is
probably correct in most details. We must realize that Mycenaean-derived words such as
kaudeta cannot have looked too much like their later Mycenaean, archaic and classical Greek
counterparts, because words such as kaudeta must have had to conform to the structural
dictates of both the orthography and the syntax of the Minoan substrate language, which
was the primary language of most Linear A tablets. But there is still a resemblance which is be
convincing enough when you place everything in context on the tablet concerned. By just
taking one look at all of the apparently Mycenaean-derived words I have deciphered on this
tablet, you soon enough realize that the sense “fits” in all instances. Since the decipherment of
this tablet makes sense it is probably correct.

The translation of Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) appears on the next page.

4
 Translation of HT 13 (Haghia Triada)

Examining each of the Mycenaean-derived words in turn on this tablet, we notice the
following adjustments are required to meet the exigencies of the orthographic and syntactical
conventions of the Minoan substrate, i.e. Old Minoan (OM), the original Minoan language
onto which they have been grafted. Thus we have:

kaudeta – which appears to the Minoan spelling, possibly plural, of the unattested
Mycenaean-derived kaudo, meaning, of course, a stalk or stem. Just because a Mycenaean-
derived word on a Linear A tablet is not attested on any Linear B tablets or inscriptions does
not necessarily imply it did not exist.

tetu – which appears, at least to Richard Vallance Janke, to be equivalent to the unattested
Mycenaean word tito. See the comment on kaudeta above.

teki – which appears to be equivalent to the unattested Mycenaean word, tiko, tiki in the
Minoan locative singular.

idunesi – which appears to be the Minoan instrumental plural for the unattested Mycenaean
word, idu = sweet. The first two syllables may be related to later Ionic ήδυς, (although Ionic
Greek is probably too late for this interpretation) since both Linear A and Linear B are unable
to distinguish between a short Greek i (i) and a long one. (h). So “i” in idunesi may possibly
represent h. We must remember here that “idunesi” has to be adapted to meet the exigencies

5
of standard Minoan, and not Greek, orthography. But since no one has any idea how
standard Minoan orthography and syntax were structured, this interpretation is conjectural,
just as all of the others we take to be Mycenaean-derived Greek on this tablet. Moreover, if the
Mycenaean Greek instrumental plural is calqued on a conjectural Minoan instrumental
plural, then the last two syllables of idunesi, i.e. nesi may be considered the Minoan
instrumental plural of an unattested Mycenaean-derived word, idu. But once again, as with
every other so-called Mycenaean-derived word on this tablet, this interpretation is merely
conjectural. The other possibility is that “Idunesi” is the nominative locative plural form of
“Ida”, Mount Ida in Crete, thus meaning “at Mount Ida”, locative plural. This interpretation
confirms the incidence of kaudeta (stalks or stems) as being located at Mount Ida.

kuro - which appears to be equivalent to the unattested Mycenaean word, kuro, later to be
replaced by toso = total.

While it is true that most of the apparently Mycenaean-derived words above on this tablet are
not attested in Linear B, once again, I repeat, that does not necessarily mean they did not exist
in Linear B, however conjectural they may be. For the sake of clarification, later archaic or
ancient Greek spellings of each of these words appear in our translation above.

It is also to be noted that it at least looks as if Mycenaean Greek and Linear A may have
inherited some of its cases from the Minoan language, since on Linear A tablet HT 13 (Haghia
Triada) we find teki, which appears to be a primordial locative singular, and idunesi, which
may be the Minoan language instrumental or locative plural. If indeed Mycenaean Greek and
Linear B did inherit some cases from the Minoan substrate language, the implications for the
future study of Linear B, Arcado-Cypriot Linear C, and indeed archaic Greek are staggering.

As for reza, which appears to fall within the Minoan substrate, and which apparently means
“a unit of measurement”, please refer to Richard Vallance Janke’s article, “The Mycenaean
Linear B “Rosetta Stone” for Linear A Tablet HT 31”, in Archaeology and Science (Belgrade),
Vol. 12, (2016), pp. 75-98 (References and Notes [2], pp. 87-88) where we find the following
explanation:

Measurement in Minoan Linear A:

Immediately pursuant to my decipherment of HT 31 (Haghia Triada) on vessels and pottery, I

turned my attention to five words recurring on a number of Minoan Linear A tablets, reza,
adureza, dureza, kireza and tereza. Philologists such as Andras Zeke of the Minoan Language
Blog had consistently “deciphered” these five terms as toponyms or place names, but I was
immediately suspicious of such interpretations, given that 4 of them have prefixes prepended
to what remarkably looks like their own root or stem, reza. These I took to be terms of
measurement. If they are indeed that, the total number of terms relative to measurement of
large, not minute, quantities in Minoan Linear A is at least five.

These five units of measurement in Minoan Linear A (precise values unknown) are: reza =
standard unit of measurement (linear) | adureza = dry unit of measurement (something like
“a bushel” or “a bale”?) for grains (barley and wheat) and dry goods only | dureza = unit of
measurement (unknown) [1] | kireza = dry measurement for figs (a basket) [2] | tereza =

6
standard dry or liquid unit of measurement, in the latter case something along the lines of “a
large jug”, “a flask” or “a gallon”:

Zakros tablet ZA 1, illustrates the standard unit of measurement, kireza, for figs:

Fig. 11 ‒ The standard unit for the volumetric measurement of figs, kireza = 1 basket carried
on the shoulders

Linear A Tablet HT 13 (Haghia Triada) appears on the next page.

7
8
Although it would appear that instead of identifying here of reza as a possible dry measure, we
might want to reconsider, as usually reza is connected to figs, cf. HT 88, 1-3 and possibly KH
20. However, there is a hitch here. On Linear A tablet, Zakros ZA 1, the word kireza appears in
conjunction with the supersyllabogram NI for figs. And as has been pointed out above, kireza
would appear to be the standard unit of measurement for figs. Now since adureza, kireza and
tereza are all apparently derived from reza, it is reasonable to assume that they are in fact all
standard units of measurement in Linear A.

But there is a hitch. If tereza is derived from τερήν, τερείνα, meaning “delicate, smooth”, then
the orthography has undergone a very marked adjustment in spelling and syntax to meet the
exigencies of standard Old Minoan (OM) orthography and syntax. While tereza resembles
τερήν to some extent, the resemblance is not all that striking. In this vein, if we are to accept
tereza as derived from τερήν, it is just as reasonable to assume that idunesi derives from h3du =
sweet. Moreover, the resemblance between idunesi and h3du is clearly stronger than that
between tereza and τερήν, τερείνα. However, neither interpretation can be verified with any
certainty, and both are conjectural, since we know next to nothing about Old Minoan (OM)
grammar, syntax and orthography, with which the orthography and syntax of Mycenaean-
derived words must conform, if they are to be realistically accepted as falling within the
Mycenaean superstrate. So in the end it all comes down to one point: our theory of a
Mycenaean-derived superstrate in Linear A is as open to rejection, partially or in its
entirety, as are any other hypotheses regarding the possible interpretation of Linear A,
since no one whosoever has ever come up with a truly convincing decipherment of Linear A,
in whole or in part. It is surely open to question whether or not Linear A contains a
superstrate, regardless of what that superstrate may be, Mycenaean-derived Greek or not.

Observations concerning the many failed attempts at deciphering Minoan Linear A:

The worst of all the pretensions of the authors of monographs and tractata claiming to have
deciphered Minoan Linear A are their authors’ untenable claims that they have all but fully
deciphered it. How is it even remotely possible that all of these soi-disant decipherers of
Minoan Linear A can claim to have extracted the so-called magic bullet in the guise of the
proto-language upon which their decipherment has been based, when the proto-languages
they invoke are so wildly disparate? They have scoured many proto-languages, some of them
Indo-European (such as Proto-Slavic and the extinct Anatolian languages), others non proto-
Indo-European, running the gamut from Hurrian, Uralic (proto-Finnish) to proto-Niger
Congo, proto-Semitic and Sumerian all the way through to proto-Altaic and proto-Japanese.
While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the
Minoan language, it is conceivable that one of them might be. But which one? Given the
tangled mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, we are left with no
alternative but to conclude that none of these so-called proto-languages are liable to stand any
linguistic test of verisimilitude (See [2] below, pg. 79). So in effect, no linguistic researcher or
expert in Linear A delving into its decipherment enjoys a monopoly on its “correct
decipherment”, and that surely includes ourselves. In [2] below, pg. 91, Richard Vallance
Janke has no choice but to conclude:

In an article of this nature, I must of necessity focus on those Old Minoan Linear A terms
which offer the greatest insight into a small subset of the vocabulary alone of the language,

9
but not the language itself. Anyone who dares claim he or she has “deciphered” the Minoan
language is skating on very thin ice. Any attempt to decipher the Old Minoan language is
severely trammelled by the incontestable fact that no one knows what the language is or even
what language family or class it belongs to, if any. All we can hope to do at the present
juncture is to decipher a very small subset of its vocabulary, that and nothing else.

So in spite of the sometimes outrageous claims of some researchers in diachronic linguistics

that they have definitely deciphered Linear A, among whom we include Jan Best, Sam
Connelly, C. J. K Campbell-Dunn, Gary A. Rendsburg, Stuart L. Harris, Pavel Serafimov and
Peter van Soesbergen, not a single linguist has ever come up with a convincing decipherment
of Linear A (See [2], pp. 75-77). (end of quotation)

It would be presumptuous in the extreme if we were to do so. Nevertheless, Alexandre Solcà

and I are more than willing to stick with our hypothesis that there may possibly exist a
Mycenaean-derived superstrate in Linear A, on the outside chance that there may be
something to it. And note that we limit ourselves to the proposed Mycenaean-derived
superstrate only, making no attempt to decipher the Old Minoan substrate, i.e. the original
Minoan language upon which the Mycenaean-derived superstrate apparently is overlaid,
because here again, if we were to make such a claim, namely, that we had deciphered the
Minoan substrate, we would have almost certainly missed the mark just as everyone else has
to date. Since in Classical Greek, a9marta/nw is defined as “to miss the centre of a target, to err,
to fail”, and in the New Testament, the same verb means “to sin” and a9ma/rturoj is defined as
“without evidence of witness”, then anyone who makes the preposterous claim that he or she
has “deciphered” Linear A has indeed missed the target, probably by a wide margin or, if you
like, as committed this “sin”. To put it another way, anyone who claims to have “deciphered”
Linear A more likely than not suffers from pareidolia, the tendency to see patterns where none
exist. Caveat interpres.

In addition, in order to even begin to decipher Linear A, we have adopted a multi-pronged

approach, again something no other researcher has ever properly done in the past. By a
multi-pronged approach, we mean not only taking the Minoan substrate, a.k.a. Old Minoan
(OM), the original Minoan language into account, but accounting for any superstrate that
might or may exist, whether or not this be Mycenaean-derived, but also by permuting and
combining every last single word on every last Linear A tablet, until we have reached the
maximum total of permutations and combinations. This is precisely what Richard Vallance
Janke has set out to accomplish, and in so doing he has come up with no fewer than 5,000
permutations and combinations for the approximate 1,100 extant intact Linear A words,
excluding all Linear A words which are defective, missing syllables or which contain numeric
syllabograms such as *034 *047 *118 *305 *306 *308 *310 *311 *312 *529 *532 *3011 etc.,
none of which can be phonetically deciphered phonetically. Now this document on
permutations and combinations, which Richard has aptly labelled Enigma patterns in Linear
A (in draft, yet to be published), astonishingly reveals features of Linear A which have gone
virtually unnoticed by any linguistic researcher or would-be decipherer of Linear A to date.

Among these features of the Minoan substrate, a.k.a. Old Minoan (OM), the original Minoan
language, we have discovered what appear to be consistent and predictable patterns, some of
which may reveal standard orthographic conventions, as well as some of the syntax and

10
grammar of the Minoan language. Among these revelations we count the following:

a) the apparent existence of the dative, instrumental and locative singular terminating in
either e or i even as early as the Minoan language, which proliferate in Linear A, as for
example in asidatoi (a privative = without pomegranate?), datare (with figs), Idamate (to
the Mother goddess of Mount Ida), Kanijami (apparently to a girl or woman by that name)
and sipiki (apparently= with swords), and (undeciphered) akipiete, aparane, aranare,
arenisidi, asasumaise, aturisiti, dadumine, dikaki, idami, jasararaane, jasasarame,
jasasaramene, kirisi, kitanite, kunite, mikisane, pajare, parane, paiki, qatikipiteri,
qatidate, qesite, raodiki, rimisi, sikine, tanaratanati, temedai, turunuseme and
itaise/utaisi, among several others. The resemblance of these ultimates to Mycenaean and
later archaic and classical Greek dative, instrumental and locative singular ultimates is very
striking. It is from these examples that Richard Vallance Janke has drawn the tentative
conclusion and hypothesis that the Mycenaean and later archaic and classical Greek dative,
instrumental and locative singular ultimates may possibly have been directly inherited from
the Minoan language.

b) the apparent existence, relatively common, of the dative, instrumental and locative plural,
as for example in akarakitanasijase, ananusijase, danasi, didikase, enasi, idunesi ,
japarajase, mizase, otanizasi, pitakase/pitakesi, sekanasi, timitizase, uminasi and
unakanasi, among others. It is clear from all of these ultimates which, with the exception of
idunesi and pitakesi, terminate in asi, that there appears to have been a gradual shift from
asi in the original Minoan language, Old Minoan (OM) to esi in Mycenaean and later archaic
and classical Greek. Indeed, the resemblance of these ultimates to Mycenaean and later
archaic and classical Greek dative, instrumental and locative plural ultimates being truly
remarkable. It is from these examples that Richard Vallance Janke draws the tentative
conclusion and hypothesis that Mycenaean and later archaic and classical Greek dative,
instrumental and locative plural ultimates may very well have been directly inherited from the
Minoan language. The alternative hypothesis that akarakitanasijase may be derived from
Hittite seems untenable, in light of the fact the all of the other words in this class in the
original Minoan substrate, Old Minoan (OM) do not adhere to this pattern. And since we are
dealing with what appears to be a Mycenaean-derived superstrate, even for words which are
not Mycenaean-derived, all of which bear quite similar ultimates, the tentative conclusion
Richard has reached would appear to bear out his assumption as plausible, according to the
circumstantial evidence, that Mycenaean and later archaic and classical Greek dative,
instrumental and locative singular and plural ultimates, which also conclude with these
ultimates, may possibly be derived the original Minoan substrate, Old Minoan (OM). If this is
indeed the case, then idunesi in Linear A may mean “with sweeteners” (instrumental plural)
or alternatively may mean “at Mount Ida” (locative singular). But there are two problems with
the latter interpretation: (a) esi appears to be locative plural and not singular and (b) even in
Linear A, Mount Ida is rendered as Idaa, not Idu.

When Alexandre Solcà and I get around to publishing our article, Evidence for proto-Greek in
Linear A, in the next issue of Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) in January 2019, you can
rest assured that this tablet will be a prime candidate for inclusion in that article.

11
References and Notes:

[1] Janke, Richard Vallance. “The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B”, in

Archaeology and Science (Belgrade), Vol. 11, (2015), pp. 73-108
https://www.academia.edu/31400400/Archaeology_and_Science_Vol._11_The_Decipherm
ent_of_Supersyllabograms_in_Linear_B.pdf
[2] Ibid. “The Mycenaean Linear B “Rosetta Stone” for Linear A Tablet HT 31”, in
Archaeology and Science (Belgrade), Vol. 12, (2016), pp. 75-98
https://www.academia.edu/35890183/Mycenaean_Linear_B_Rosetta_Stone_for_Linear_A
_Tablet_HT_31_Archaeology_and_Science.pdf
[3] Cole, Sara E. Memphis Minos and Mycenae: Bronze Age Contact between Egypt and the
Aegean.
https://www.academia.edu/36313752/Memphis_Minos_and_Mycenae_Bronze_Age_Conta
ct_between_Egypt_and_the_Aegean
[4] Delgado, J. Jiménez. The particle a1ra from the 2nd to the 1st millennium.
https://www.academia.edu/36007629/The_particle_%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE
%B1_from_the_2nd_to_the_1st_millennium
[5] Foster, Karen Polinger. Bees and Birds in Aegean Epiphanic Dance.
https://www.academia.edu/36291942/Bees_and_Birds_in_Aegean_Epiphanic_Dance
[6] Gonzáles, Alfonso. Epigrafía minoica y cretomicénica: Lineales A y B.
https://www.academia.edu/35731675/Epigraf%C3%ADa_minoica_y_cretomic
%C3%A9nica_Lineales_A_y_B
[7] Hallager, Erik, Louis Godart, and Jean-Pierre Olivier. “La Rondelle en linéaire A d’Haghia
Triada ‘Wc 3024’ (HM 1110)”, in Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique. Vol. 113 (1989). pp.
431-437
[8] Hellázban, Rambo. A kafkaniai kavics felirata: Quem ad finem?
https://www.academia.edu/35862949/Rambo_Hell
%C3%A1szban._A_kafkaniai_kavics_felirata_Quem_ad_finem
[9] La Rosa, V. & Caratelli, G.P. “Nuova rondella con inscrizione in lineare A dall ‘Villa Reale’
di Haghia Triada”, in Parole del Pasato 237 (1987) 463-468
[10] Militello, Pietro Maria. “Riconsiderazioni preliminari sulla documentazione in lineare A
de Haghia Triada”, in Sileno (14.1-2) 233-61.
[11] Ibid. “Gli scribi di Hagia Triada”, in Parole del Passato (44:2), 1989. pp. 126-47.
[12] Ibid. “Un peso (?) con segno inciso da Haghia Triada (HT Zg 163)”, in ASAtene 66-67:
163-72. 1988-1989
[13] Ibid. “A Notebook by Halbherr and the Findspots of the Ayia Triada Tablets”, in Creta
Antica 3: 2002. pp. 111-20.
[14] Montecchi, Barbara. “Mobility to, from and within Neopalatial Crete: The Evidence from
the Sealings”, in Proceedings of the 12th. International Congress of Cretan Studies, Heraklion,
21-25.9.2016. ISBN 978-960-9480-35-2. pp. 3-12
https://www.academia.edu/36149779/Mobility_to_from_and_within_Neopalatial_Crete_T
he_Evidence_from_the_Sealings
[15] Mosenkis, Iurii. Fifteen centuries before Mycenae: 5000-year old Greek inscriptions.
https://www.academia.edu/32086625/Fifteen_centuries_before_Mycenae_5000-
year_Greek_inscriptions
[16] Ibid. Foreigners in Minoan Crete 1, Linear A me-ki-di pu-ni-ka-so qa-ti-ju ‘from
Megiddo, Phoenicia, and Qatna.

12
https://www.academia.edu/36358443/Foreigners_in_Minoan_Crete_1._Linear_A_me-ki-
di_pu-ni-ka-so_qa-ti-ju_from_Megiddo_Phoenicia_and_Qatna
[17] Ibid. Greek grammar in Linear A.
https://www.academia.edu/32103118/Greek_grammar_in_Linear_A
[18] Ibid. GREEK WRITTEN LANGUAGE FROM 3000 BC.
https://www.academia.edu/32123346/Chapter_Two._GREEK_WRITTEN_LANGUAGE_FR
OM_3000_BC
[19] Ibid. “Hellenic origin of Europe”, in Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A Scripts. Kyiv:
Uman, 2016. 293 pp.
https://www.academia.edu/28866733/Hellenic_origin_of_Europe
[20] Ibid. Linear A quasi-bilinguals: Word + inscribed object.
https://www.academia.edu/31443787/Linear_A_quasi-bilinguals_Word_inscribed_object
[21] Ibid. MINOAN GREEK FARMING IN LINEAR A.
https://www.academia.edu/27669709/MINOAN_GREEK_FARMING_IN_LINEAR_A_Iurii
_Mosenkis
[22] Ibid. Proto-Greek history from 5000 BC.
https://www.academia.edu/31178026/Proto-Greek_history_from_5000_BC
[23] Ibid. Proto-Greeks 4000 years before Homer: Main results of the book.
https://www.academia.edu/32125718/Proto-
Greeks_4000_years_before_Homer_Main_results_of_the_book
[24] Ibid. Rhea, the Mother of Health in the Arkalokhori Script.
https://www.academia.edu/31471809/Rhea_the_Mother_of_Health_in_the_Arkalokhori_S
cript
[25] Nagy, Gregory. Greek-like Elements in Linear A.
http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/11991/4031
[26] Olivier, Jean-Pierre. “Une rondelle d’argile d’Haghia Triada”, in Bulletin de
correspondence héllenique 107 (1983) 75-84
[27] Perna, Massimo. “La scrittura lineare A”, in Manuale di epigafia micenea. (2016) ISBN
978-88-6292-716-1 pp. VII-114
https://www.academia.edu/35704752/La_scrittura_lineare_A
[28] Renfrew, Colin. Prehistory: the Making of the Human Mind. London: Folio Society. ©
2013. xxiii, 240 pp.
[29] Rutter, Jeremy. “Late Minoan IIIB at Kommos Aegis 12 2017”, in Aegis: actes de
colloques. pp. 243 – 281 ff.
https://www.academia.edu/35439646/Late_Minoan_IIIB_at_Kommos_Aegis_12_2017_
[30] Schoep, Ilsa. “Minoan Administration at Haghia Triada: A Multi-Disciplinary
Comparison of the Linear A Tablets from the Villa and the Casa del Lebete” in A-na-qo-ta.
Studies Presented to J. T. Killen (Minos 33-34), 1998-1999. Edited by John Bennet and Jan
Driessen, 273-94 (bibliographical abbreviations, 371-75).
[31] van Soesbergen, Peter. Reviw of G. Tardivo ― Ph. Kitselis, The Pre-Greek substrate and
its origins, 12-3-2018.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/36142101/Review_of_G._Tardivo_-_Ph._Kitselis_The_Pre-
Greek_substrate_and_its_origins_12-3-2018.pdf
[32] TMA - Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie. Understanding Relations Between
Scripts: The (sic) Aegean Writing Systems.
https://www.academia.edu/35993013/Understanding_Relations_Between_Scripts_The_Ae
gean_Writing_Systems

13
[33] Younger, John G. Linear A Texts and Inscriptions in phonetic transcription &
Commentary
http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/
[34] Ibid. Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription HT (Haghia Triada). HT 13, page tablet
(HM 7) (Gorila I: 26-27)
http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/HTtexts.html

© by Richard Vallance Janke (University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada) and

Alexandre Solcà (Université de Genève, Suisse) 2018

14