In 1974, É. Masson divided Cypro-Minoan inscriptions into four different scripts based on how their signs were drawn. Her divisions still persist, but have become increasingly controversial: are they really different scripts, or are they just variants of one script? In Chapter 10, the corpora of Masson’s three main divisions of Cypro-Minoan are analyzed against each other in an effort to determine whether they all encode the same language. As a control, three analogous corpora of Cypriot Syllabic inscriptions are analyzed against each other in the same way, with the results demonstrating an overwhelming probability that they all encode the same language (which we know they do, as Cypriot Syllabic is deciphered: it encodes Greek). The analysis of Masson’s three main divisions of Cypro-Minoan demonstrates a similarly overwhelming probability that they all encode the same language, and thus are simply variants of the same written language, not different scripts. The Cypro-Minoan and Cypriot Syllabic corpora are also analyzed against each other, demonstrating an overwhelming probability that the two scripts encode different languages—that is, that Cypro-Minoan does NOT encode Greek.

Chapter 2 reviews John Merryman’s ‘two ways of thinking’ about cultural property, rooted in an eighteenth-century dispute about the respective merits of particularism and cosmopolitanism, which continues to the present. A new section has been added on material looted from Benin.

Chapter 6 begins Part II, “Syllabotactic Analyses of the Aegean Scripts,” which contains Chapters 6 to 11. This chapter introduces the concept of “syllabotactic analysis,” a new linguistics-based method of determining whether any two undeciphered Aegean scripts encode the same language. All languages have rules dictating how syllables can combine to form words, and these rules differ from language to language. Since all the undeciphered Aegean scripts are syllabic scripts, with separate signs for each syllable in the language(s) they encode, the rules that dictate how syllables can combine to form words in the language behind the script will also dictate how signs can combine to form words in the script itself. As all the Aegean scripts are related, they share a large number of signs in common. Thus if the signs in common to two undeciphered scripts combine to form words in very similar ways in both scripts, the two scripts are highly likely to encode the same language; otherwise, they are highly likely to encode different languages. The chapter ends with brief descriptions of the analyses of this type contained in the next five chapters.

The sale, twice, of a Medici cabinet ordered for an English estate introduces the modern idea of heritage, initiated by Edmund Burke. It covers Protestant narratives and customary laws, and concludes with Alasdair MacIntyre’s thesis about narrative and identity.

The Phaistos Disk is an enigmatic object, imprinted with a text in a script found on no other object, though the script does contain a number of signs in common with Linear A. In Chapter 8, the text on the Disk is analyzed against Linear A in an effort to determine whether the two scripts encode the same language. As a control, a Cypriot Syllabic text analogous in size to the one on the Disk is analyzed against Linear B in the same way, with the results demonstrating an overwhelming probability that both scripts encode the same language (which we know they do, as both scripts are deciphered: they both encode Greek). The Cypriot Syllabic text is also analyzed against Linear A, demonstrating an overwhelming probability that the two scripts encode different languages—that is, that Linear A (for a second time) does NOT encode Greek. The analysis of the text on the Disk against Linear A, however, demonstrates a similarly overwhelming probability that both scripts do encode the same language.

Cretan Hieroglyphic has so far proven especially resistant to decipherment, because its corpus is rather small, and most inscriptions consist of just a word or two. In Chapter 9, the Cretan Hieroglyphic corpus is analyzed against Linear A in an effort to determine whether the two scripts encode the same language. As a control, a set of Cypriot Syllabic inscriptions analogous in size to the Cretan Hieroglyphic corpus is analyzed against Linear B in the same way, with the results demonstrating an overwhelming probability that both scripts encode the same language (which we know they do, as both scripts are deciphered: they both encode Greek). The set of Cypriot Syllabic inscriptions is also analyzed against Linear A, demonstrating an overwhelming probability that the two scripts encode different languages—that is, that Linear A (for a third time) does NOT encode Greek. The analysis of the Cretan Hieroglyphic corpus against Linear A, however, demonstrates a similarly overwhelming probability that both scripts do encode the same language.

The Introduction begins with a quote about the nature of decipherment by Alice E. Kober, a brilliant American Classicist whose work was instrumental in the decipherment of Linear B. This is followed by a section discussing proper and improper methods of deciphering undeciphered scripts, including the combinatorial or contextual method (a proper method), and the etymological method (an improper method). As an illustration of a sound and proper method of addressing the decipherment of the undeciphered Aegean scripts, Yves Duhoux’s eleven-step methodology for deciphering Linear A is discussed in detail, with reference to the ways in which the subsequent chapters follow that methodology with regard to each of the undeciphered Aegean scripts. The Introduction ends with a warning to the reader not to take the hypotheses in the book as more than hypotheses, followed by a brief presentation of the chronology used in the book.

It is also possible to investigate the morphology of the Minoan language—that is, its grammar and methods of word-formation—by studying Linear A. For example, many words in the script occur multiple times, but with different endings (suffixes) or beginnings (prefixes), thus yielding hints about the nature of Minoan grammar. Chapter 4 systematically addresses the morphology of Minoan through a refinement of a statistical method of analysis devised by David W. Packard in the 1970s. His method was designed to help determine the spoken values of some signs whose values were not yet known back then, whereas my refinement is designed to determine which syllabic signs are most likely to be indicating the presence of Minoan prefixes and suffixes at the beginnings and ends of words. This process isolates six signs—two very common at the beginnings of words, and four very common at the ends of them—that are highly likely to be grammatical prefixes and suffixes, including one suffix in particular that is highly likely to denote a genitive (showing possession), an ablative (showing origin), or a toponymic adjective (such as the “-ish” in “British,” again showing origin).

Chapter 2 begins Part I, “Linguistic Analysis of Linear A,” which consists of Chapters 2 to 5. As the main key to deciphering a script is identifying the language behind it, this chapter strives to present evidence of various types as to the character of the language behind Linear A. As this was the script of the Minoans on Crete in the 2nd millennium BCE, the chapter first outlines the linguistic landscape in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East at this time, mapping out the features of each ancient language in this region along six different parameters: (1) which language family it belongs to; (2) whether its nouns and verbs are inflected with one set of affixes (prefixes/suffixes), or more than one; (3) whether it is inflected with affixes alone, or also in some other way; (4) whether its affixes can serve multiple purposes, or just one; (5) whether its affixes are mostly prefixes or suffixes; and (6) the default order in which the subject, verb, and object occur in its sentences. Other evidence for the nature of the Minoan language is then discussed, including archaeogenetic and archaeological evidence for the origin of the Minoans, and evidence from documents in other cultures.

The Epilogue briefly summarizes the results reached in the preceding chapters; highlights the principal six hypotheses of Part I, and the five principal hypotheses of Part II; points out that these hypotheses, being data-supported, should be taken into account in all future work on the undeciphered Aegean scripts, at least until such time as we have data-supported reasons for doing otherwise; but nevertheless exhorts the reader for a final time to regard these hypotheses as what they are: hypotheses, not supposed proof of what they hypothesize.

Chapter 1 presents the reader with an overview of each of the seven ancient scripts in the Aegean family: Cretan Hieroglyphic, Linear A, the script on the Phaistos Disk, Linear B, Cypro-Minoan, Cypriot Syllabic, and Eteocypriot. So far, only two of these scripts have been deciphered (Linear B and Cypriot Syllabic), though it is clear that all seven scripts are “syllabaries,” with a separate sign for each syllable in the languages they encode. For each script, the reader is given (a) a brief description of the script, and when and where it was used, as well as a photograph of an inscription in the script, (b) a summary of the corpus of inscriptions in that script, (c) the structure of the script’s syllabary (including a table containing the syllabic signs in the script), and (d) a description of the “standard edition” of the script’s corpus—i.e., the work recognized as the authoritative edition of inscriptions in that script. The chapter ends by discussing the prospects for decipherment of the five undeciphered scripts in this family.

The concept of cultural heritage evolved to preserve important objects and practices, in peacetime and during conflict. It now justifies export controls and government regulation and provides the background to moral claims to valuable works of art and architecture. In this new edition of The Idea of Cultural Heritage, Derek Gillman provides an updated overview of both long-standing and more recent controversies over cultural things. In the last decade, these have been further charged not only by accelerating calls for the repatriation of materials from Western museums to countries of origin, but also by institutional acknowledgement of European colonisation and the reimagination of displays at museums and historic sites. Using cases from Asia, Africa, Europe and North America, Gillman provides a critical analysis of whether cosmopolitan or nationalist concerns should take priority in adjudicating cultural disputes, mapping the heritage debate onto positions in contemporary political philosophy and reframing it within a discussion of basic values.

This book—an extensive and daring linguistic investigation into the languages underlying the undeciphered Bronze Age Aegean scripts—is unlike any other book that has ever been written on these scripts. The author tackles not just one of them, but all of them: Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic, the script on the Phaistos Disk, Cypro-Minoan, and Eteocypriot. The arguments and analyses are meticulously designed and highly credible. Best of all, the book is written in wonderfully clear English that virtually anyone can understand, and there is a substantial glossary of linguistic terms at the back of the book for readers to consult. The author formulates no fewer than fifty separate hypotheses about the nature of the languages underlying these scripts, and as identification of the language behind an undeciphered script is the most important key to its decipherment, this book constitutes a significant advance along the road to the decipherment of all five of these scripts. This book will be of the greatest interest not just to linguists, philologists, archaeologists, and ancient historians who specialize in these scripts, but also to all novices and aficionados of decipherment.

Focused on China, Chapter 4 explores ideological competition in the construction of heritage. New material has been added on holding human remains. It concludes with a major set of Buddhist figures to set up the discussion about the reintegration of sculptural groups.