Friday, October 14, 2011

My Kingdom for a Writing System!


Again, Friday morning finds me returning* to the mountainous island of Crete, to visit the ancient woody kingdom of the Minoans.  This time, though, I’m here to look at ancient writing, not ancient speaking. 

*I wish! An island vacation sounds amazing right now…

Is this a language?  Good question!

So, as I have been researching the Minoans over the last few weeks, I have been finding references to both Cretan Hieroglyphics and some mysterious thing called “Linear A”.  I looked up a definition of Linear A and found that it was the as-of-yet untranslated script of the Minoan culture, and I knew already what hieroglyphics were, so I lumped them both in together and forgot completely about them both.  Now, in returning, to them, it turns out I was wrong!  Minoans apparently had two entirely different writing systems through their history. 

According to ancientscripts.com (thank you, Professor Burton, for that reference!), the Minoan culture may have been the earliest literate European culture.  The more ancient written form of the language (Cretan Hieroglyphics, displayed and linked above) appears to have begun as a series of icons.  These symbols were placed on ‘sealstones’; small stones used to impress the images onto surfaces; perhaps to indicate ownership.  As the Hieroglyphs evolved, they began to take on some of the characteristics of a more phonetic-based language; there are a few examples of what seem to be hybrids, such as the following image:



As the culture progressed and grew, a new form of writing emerged.  It is unknown if there were any corresponding changes in oral culture, or even if the hieroglyphics were in any way related to the spoken language.  Nonetheless, the aforementioned “Linear A” emerged, and as near as we can tell, is a phonetic representation of the spoken language of the time.  Linear A (so named for its rectangular structure) is largely untranslated, although there have been a few interesting insights.  It appears that Linear A is a direct predecessor of Linear B, which is an ancestor of modern Greek and was used by the Mycenaeans, who would later replace the Minoans on Crete.  Many of the symbols of Linear A are identical to Linear B, and from those symbols we have been able to somewhat reconstruct a few of the findings that have been made.   An example:

Interesting...Accounting shows up in antiquity again...I think there might be a
future blog post on this subject...
Most of the symbols can be read with Linear B pronunciations, and a few seem to have meant the same things (such as wine, above), but taken together they don’t mean anything in Linear B; it’s a real mystery.  This particular tablet appears to be either an inventory or a ledger, reflecting wine purchases or deliveries. 

(by the way; at first, when I was studying this, it seemed implausible to me that they used so many similar characters and yet we couldn't translate one after translating the other, but then I started thinking about our own alphabet and how many languages use some or even a lot of our characters, and it made more sense.)

To sum up...Cretan Hieroglyphics either became or gave way to Linear A, whose characters are almost identical to Linear B.  Linear B appears to have borrowed the same characters, but not their meanings, and was a direct ancestor of modern Greek.  What a strange history!


I'm very glad to not be a cryptographer or an archaeologist...
Just looking at this gives me a headache...

5 comments:

  1. Hieroglyphs are always cool but understanding them is a really hard cause one symbol means a whole word where as for us normally we us very few characters to accomplish the task of explaining our whole language. Written language is really different and hard to tell if it even represent how the people spoke or if their written language and their spoken language are even the same.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad that you pointed out that "linear A" and hieroglyphs weren't the same thing. I initially thought the same thing. :)

    Up above you asked if those picture looking things could be considered language. I personally think they aren't. Although the pictures could represent something, I don't believe that you could consider that a written language because it doesn't combine accepted symbols in a meaningful way. Sure everyone can tell that a cat is being portrayed, but that's not a symbol of the cat, but a drawing of a cat. Anyone else have anything to support my claim? lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, those pictures above are just examples; they were taken from seal-stones (kind of like signet rings), and some archaeologists theorize that those kinds of symbols might be more like a family brand from a cattle ranch nowadays.

    Now that you mention it, I actually can think of an example of just the opposite of what you are saying; Egyptian hieroglyphs, although they were largely pictures (iconographic), they in fact represented language. In middle Minoan times, they have found simpler forms of what you see above that seem like they might have actually been rudimentary writing systems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the post Brett! I had never really thought about how different a phonetic based language and a hieroglyphic language were before reading this. That must've been a huge cultural shift for the Minoans! Just imagine if we switched over to an iconographic system of writing today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brett I agree with you I think that hieroglyphs do represent a language. It is a different style of language than we are used to but it still is a language.

    ReplyDelete