In the past, those who have looked for linguistic patterns in Linear A by comparing inscriptions from different parts of Crete have been met with a common objection: “How do you know Linear A encodes the same language across the island?” In Chapter 7, Crete is divided into five regions centered around the five main Minoan palaces, and the corpus of Linear A is likewise divided into five corpora, each containing the inscriptions from a single region. These five corpora are analyzed against each other in an effort to answer this question. As a control, five analogous corpora of Linear B 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 this script is deciphered: all Linear B inscriptions encode Greek). The analysis of the Linear A corpora demonstrates a similarly overwhelming probability that Linear A encodes the same language everywhere in Crete. The Linear A and B corpora are also analyzed against each other, demonstrating an overwhelming probability that the two scripts encode different languages—that is, that Linear A does NOT encode Greek.

This comprehensive Glossary contains detailed definitions of over a hundred linguistic terms, together with illustrative examples, to ensure that readers who might not be familiar with some of these terms will not be placed at a disadvantage by the linguistic arguments presented in the book.

Appendix B contains a graphic of the International Phonetic Alphabet, used extensively throughout the book.

The Mycenaean Greeks borrowed the Linear A script and used it to write in Greek; their customized version of the script is called Linear B. Linear B was brilliantly deciphered in the 1950s by a British architect named Michael Ventris. We therefore know how to pronounce its signs, and by extension how to pronounce the corresponding signs in Linear A, making it possible to investigate the phonology (spoken sounds) of the Minoan language that Linear A encodes. Chapter 3 presents a thorough investigation of Minoan phonology, progressing systematically through each spoken sound represented by the Linear A signs, and discussing the potential pronunciations of each sound. Evidence is drawn from the Linear B tablets, as they contain many Minoan words and names, as well as from later records in alphabetic Greek, as many Minoan words were borrowed into the Greek language. Odd or alternating spellings of these borrowed words in Greek can yield hints as to how the original Minoan word may have been pronounced. The chapter ends by positing a set of twenty-three spoken sounds for the Minoan language—eighteen consonants and five vowels.

Although Cypriot Syllabic was mostly used to write in Greek, it was sometimes used to write in an unknown indigenous language now conventionally called “Eteocypriot.” Many have wondered whether Eteocypriot could be a descendant of the language behind the earlier Cypro-Minoan script. In Chapter 11, Cypro-Minoan is analyzed against Linear A and Eteocypriot in an effort to determine whether any of them encode the same language. As a control, Cypriot Syllabic 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). Cypriot Syllabic is also analyzed against Linear A and Eteocypriot, demonstrating an overwhelming probability that none of them encode the same language—that is, that Linear A (for a fourth time) does NOT encode Greek, and neither does Eteocypriot. The analysis of Cypro-Minoan against Linear A and Eteocypriot, however, demonstrates a similarly overwhelming probability that (a) though Cypro-Minoan and Linear A clearly encode different languages, (b) Cypro-Minoan and Eteocypriot do encode the same language.

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.

Chapter 5 deals with Linear A syntax (word order) and orthography (spelling). The chapter begins by comparing several examples of the so-called “offering formula,” a standardized string of words—most likely a dedicatory sentence—found on many ritual vessels, but a sentence that differs in subtle ways from vessel to vessel. I use the differences between the various examples of the “offering formula” to discern which words are most likely to be the subject, verb, and object of the sentence. This exercise indicates a high likelihood that the Minoan language is a verb-initial language (i.e., one in which the verb ordinarily comes first in the sentence), which in turn enables us to draw additional important conclusions about the Minoan language based on the way in which most verb-initial languages behave. The chapter ends with some observations about the apparent way in which the Minoans spelled words in Linear A, leading to the interesting conclusion that the spelling-rules they used in Central and Eastern Crete most closely align with the spelling-rules used in Linear B and Cypriot Syllabic, respectively, a conclusion that is backed up by archaeological evidence.

Appendix A pulls together into one place all fifty hypotheses formulated in this book regarding the undeciphered Aegean scripts.

The Afterword is framed by a reading of Caroline Bergvall’s text and performance Drift (2013) and explores ideas of migration across time and space. Using Thomas Nail’s recent work on the figure of the migrant and Paul Zumthor’s celebrated work on ‘mouvance’ the Afterword asks, following Sara Ahmed’s work on orientation, what cultural possibilities emerge if we celebrate the diversity, multiplicity and untimeliness of ideas of the Middle Ages, rather than attempt to limit or define it. It suggest that medievalist acts of cultural memory often rely on an idea of the Middles Ages as singular, closed-off and stable, but nevertheless demonstrate its multiplicity, openness and indeterminacy.