Race-making is an inherently embodied activity, rooted in the senses and predicated on corporeality. As a result, visuality and materiality are central to processes of race-making, and studies of ancient visual and material culture therefore have much to contribute to modern scholarship on ancient race-making. This chapter explores what can be learned from visual and material culture about processes of race-making in the ancient Greek world, considering a series of examples. Although neither comprehensive nor representative, these examples demonstrate a variety of potential approaches, as well as highlighting some of the key challenges and limitations of working with visual and material culture.

We conducted two experiments, testing the iambic–trochaic law (ITL) with speakers of English, Greek, and Korean. They heard sequences of tones varying in duration, intensity, or both; stimuli differed in the magnitude of the acoustic differences between alternating tones and involved both short and long inter-stimulus intervals. While the results were not always compatible with ITL predictions and did not show strong grouping preferences, language-related differences did emerge, with Korean participants showing a preference for trochees, and Greek participants being more sensitive to duration differences than the other two groups. Importantly, grouping preferences showed substantial individual variation, evinced by responses to both test sequences and controls (sequences of identical tones). These findings indicate that results from ITL experiments are influenced by linguistic background but are also difficult to replicate, as individual preferences and specific experimental conditions influence how participants impose rhythm structure to sound sequences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Latin poetry has always been defined by its relationships with poetry in other languages – first with poetry in ancient Greek, more recently with poetry in the European vernaculars. The Introduction defines the book less as a literary history of Latin poetry across languages, as such, than as a set of essays that offer test cases, sometimes limit cases, for such a literary history. What is promised is a book of intertextual juxtapositions, moving between extreme close-ups and broader treatments of intercultural relationality. A special interest is expressed in the possibilities of two-way poetic conversation across languages. The Introduction concludes with trailers for the book’s seven chapters.

The independent text is based on the Oxford Classical Text with revisions and is accompanied by a selective apparatus.

The twelfth century witnessed an unprecedented scholarly effort to access and assimilate new corpora of knowledge by translating Greek as well as Arabic sources into Latin. This chapter surveys the various translations, discusses the role of those who mediated them to the Latin tradition, and finally focuses on the reception of the texts at the University of Paris during the first decades of the thirteenth century.