Detailed studies by J.-P. Olivier (1999; 2009; 2010) and M. Del Freo (2012; 2017) have identified, to date, four instances of seals written in Linear A (CR Zg 4, KN Zg 55, ARM Zg 1, CR (?) Zg 3). To these, we may tentatively add a few other examples signalled by M. Anastasiadou (2016: 178); in particular, CMS VII no. 31. However, some of these seals are problematic and some authors are cautious about their interpretation. The stylistic dating of most of these seals (CR Zg 4, KN Zg 55, CMS VII no. 31), is MM II or III-III, which is contemporary to the use of administrative seals written in Cretan Hieroglyphic. Conversely, the find context of ARM Zg 1 dates it to LM II-III A2, while the stylistic date suggested is MM I, which means this specimen may have been an heirloom. Finally, no dating is proposed for CR (?) Zg 3. The marginal use of seals in Linear A for administrative practices is generally contextualised either to highlight the differences between the writing practices proper of this script and those of Cretan Hieroglyphics or, on the contrary and more recently, to minimize the gap between the two (Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphics were both used on seals!) when arguing about the writing system in use on some seals engraved with the so-called “Arkhanes inscription” (Godart 1999; Anastasiadou 2016), traditionally interpreted as Cretan Hieroglyphic and consequently published in CHIC . There is yet to appear, however, a specific study analysing this mini-corpus of more or less problematic Linear A seals on their own and in comparison with the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus. Despite the extremely poor documentation we have, it would be of interest, though, to analyse all the “contours” of the act of writing on seals in Linear A. We believe that these “contours” are not mere documentary supplements, but rather, they have social and referential aspects that are key factors for our understanding of any writing act in any writing system. Hence, it would be useful to assess the forms of the Linear A seals under examination, the material used for their manufacture, the formatting of the texts, the graphic norms used in their writing, the typology of the signs and sequences appearing on their surfaces, the possible presence of “decorative” signs along with inscriptions, the potential writers and the readers and their possible administrative uses. These results could then be compared with the same elements on the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus, in order to try to understand the roughly contemporary use of seals and their function within the two different administrative systems of Protopalatial Crete. For the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus, despite the limitations of our documentation and our limited understanding of a number of specific issues, we can plausibly pin down a sort of a “canon” through which Hieroglyphic inscriptions were classified and interpreted during the Protopalatial period; this “canon” seems to be testified by documents covering the whole chronological period that this writing system was in use, from different places on the island and manufactured by different workshops. Above all, it is possible to identify a recurrent correlation between external elements (like seal forms: prismatic and 1- or 2-sided seals – and materials: hard and soft stones), the distribution of different kinds of sign-groups (for instance, “formulae” and non-formulaic sign groups) and their sphragistic use (on crescent-shape nodules and other kinds of nodule) (see Olivier 2000: 141, fig. 1; Poursat 200; Karnava 2000: 192-194, tab. 38-39). As a consequence, we may hypothesize that forms and materials, along with the visual presentation of the script, were significant from a semiological point of view, and were codified and transmitted in specific ideological contexts (see Flouda 2013: 143-144). The very limited use of Linear A on seals can be, at first sight, tentatively contextualized among a series of “overlaps” in the forms and formats of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A documents. For instance, the use of seals in the Linear A administration could have been residuary as the use of tablets in the Cretan Hieroglyphic. But was the use of Linear A on seals unpredictable and random, casually and inconsistently related to the Hieroglyphic tradition of inscribing seals, or was it codified according some specific and recurrent functions of particular seal forms connected to definite textual contents in a parallel administrative system? A cursory preliminary scrutiny shows that in many of the semiologically significant aspects we have listed above the Linear A seals we are referring to seem to be quite different from “standard” Cretan Hieroglyphic seals (while some very interesting similarities with a few “nonconventional” Hieroglyphic seals will be reported). With regard to the forms, prisms (the majority in Hieroglyphic corpus with more than 100 out of ca. 150) are not encountered in the Linear A repertoire, and documents with one or two circular inscribed surfaces, in soft materials only, are the rule. As to the formatting of the texts, they are characterized by greater regularity in their general appearance than their Cretan Hieroglyphic counterparts: they tend to develop in a linear configuration even when they are encountered on circular surfaces. As a consequence, both for alignment and for orientation, the visual effect of the inscriptions contrasts with the irregular development of the often “fluctuating” signs of Cretan Hieroglyphic encountered on circular surfaces (and not only on these). The texts themselves, in terms of the general spheres of meaning they belong to, include ideograms as well as hapax (quite exceptional cases in the Hieroglyphic corpus), perhaps a ligature (on ARM Zg 1; Olivier 2010: 291 n. 16) and, in at least one case, a new form of a known word (Perna 2014: 257), attested, with its derivatives, on clay tablets, libation tables and gold artefacts written in Linear A: AB 28-01-01 (i-da-da) on CR Zg 4.a. It is probably a toponym. Notwithstanding the extremely limited number of these documents, then, we believe it could be of interest to conduct a first preliminary analysis of them, through a systematic comparison of their features with Cretan Hieroglyphic seal traditions, with the aim of shedding more light on our understanding of the administrative practices in different places (in some cases, possibly site-specific) and the contexts of use for the two writing systems of Protopalatial Crete and how this may have led to the creation and use of different document formats.
"Comparing Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A seal stones: a preliminary assessment of forms, materials, sequences, uses"
Matilde Civitillo
In corso di stampa
Abstract
Detailed studies by J.-P. Olivier (1999; 2009; 2010) and M. Del Freo (2012; 2017) have identified, to date, four instances of seals written in Linear A (CR Zg 4, KN Zg 55, ARM Zg 1, CR (?) Zg 3). To these, we may tentatively add a few other examples signalled by M. Anastasiadou (2016: 178); in particular, CMS VII no. 31. However, some of these seals are problematic and some authors are cautious about their interpretation. The stylistic dating of most of these seals (CR Zg 4, KN Zg 55, CMS VII no. 31), is MM II or III-III, which is contemporary to the use of administrative seals written in Cretan Hieroglyphic. Conversely, the find context of ARM Zg 1 dates it to LM II-III A2, while the stylistic date suggested is MM I, which means this specimen may have been an heirloom. Finally, no dating is proposed for CR (?) Zg 3. The marginal use of seals in Linear A for administrative practices is generally contextualised either to highlight the differences between the writing practices proper of this script and those of Cretan Hieroglyphics or, on the contrary and more recently, to minimize the gap between the two (Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphics were both used on seals!) when arguing about the writing system in use on some seals engraved with the so-called “Arkhanes inscription” (Godart 1999; Anastasiadou 2016), traditionally interpreted as Cretan Hieroglyphic and consequently published in CHIC . There is yet to appear, however, a specific study analysing this mini-corpus of more or less problematic Linear A seals on their own and in comparison with the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus. Despite the extremely poor documentation we have, it would be of interest, though, to analyse all the “contours” of the act of writing on seals in Linear A. We believe that these “contours” are not mere documentary supplements, but rather, they have social and referential aspects that are key factors for our understanding of any writing act in any writing system. Hence, it would be useful to assess the forms of the Linear A seals under examination, the material used for their manufacture, the formatting of the texts, the graphic norms used in their writing, the typology of the signs and sequences appearing on their surfaces, the possible presence of “decorative” signs along with inscriptions, the potential writers and the readers and their possible administrative uses. These results could then be compared with the same elements on the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus, in order to try to understand the roughly contemporary use of seals and their function within the two different administrative systems of Protopalatial Crete. For the Cretan Hieroglyphic seal corpus, despite the limitations of our documentation and our limited understanding of a number of specific issues, we can plausibly pin down a sort of a “canon” through which Hieroglyphic inscriptions were classified and interpreted during the Protopalatial period; this “canon” seems to be testified by documents covering the whole chronological period that this writing system was in use, from different places on the island and manufactured by different workshops. Above all, it is possible to identify a recurrent correlation between external elements (like seal forms: prismatic and 1- or 2-sided seals – and materials: hard and soft stones), the distribution of different kinds of sign-groups (for instance, “formulae” and non-formulaic sign groups) and their sphragistic use (on crescent-shape nodules and other kinds of nodule) (see Olivier 2000: 141, fig. 1; Poursat 200; Karnava 2000: 192-194, tab. 38-39). As a consequence, we may hypothesize that forms and materials, along with the visual presentation of the script, were significant from a semiological point of view, and were codified and transmitted in specific ideological contexts (see Flouda 2013: 143-144). The very limited use of Linear A on seals can be, at first sight, tentatively contextualized among a series of “overlaps” in the forms and formats of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A documents. For instance, the use of seals in the Linear A administration could have been residuary as the use of tablets in the Cretan Hieroglyphic. But was the use of Linear A on seals unpredictable and random, casually and inconsistently related to the Hieroglyphic tradition of inscribing seals, or was it codified according some specific and recurrent functions of particular seal forms connected to definite textual contents in a parallel administrative system? A cursory preliminary scrutiny shows that in many of the semiologically significant aspects we have listed above the Linear A seals we are referring to seem to be quite different from “standard” Cretan Hieroglyphic seals (while some very interesting similarities with a few “nonconventional” Hieroglyphic seals will be reported). With regard to the forms, prisms (the majority in Hieroglyphic corpus with more than 100 out of ca. 150) are not encountered in the Linear A repertoire, and documents with one or two circular inscribed surfaces, in soft materials only, are the rule. As to the formatting of the texts, they are characterized by greater regularity in their general appearance than their Cretan Hieroglyphic counterparts: they tend to develop in a linear configuration even when they are encountered on circular surfaces. As a consequence, both for alignment and for orientation, the visual effect of the inscriptions contrasts with the irregular development of the often “fluctuating” signs of Cretan Hieroglyphic encountered on circular surfaces (and not only on these). The texts themselves, in terms of the general spheres of meaning they belong to, include ideograms as well as hapax (quite exceptional cases in the Hieroglyphic corpus), perhaps a ligature (on ARM Zg 1; Olivier 2010: 291 n. 16) and, in at least one case, a new form of a known word (Perna 2014: 257), attested, with its derivatives, on clay tablets, libation tables and gold artefacts written in Linear A: AB 28-01-01 (i-da-da) on CR Zg 4.a. It is probably a toponym. Notwithstanding the extremely limited number of these documents, then, we believe it could be of interest to conduct a first preliminary analysis of them, through a systematic comparison of their features with Cretan Hieroglyphic seal traditions, with the aim of shedding more light on our understanding of the administrative practices in different places (in some cases, possibly site-specific) and the contexts of use for the two writing systems of Protopalatial Crete and how this may have led to the creation and use of different document formats.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
