MASt Summer 2024 Seminar Report

Bronze Age Intergenerational Dialogues (BA.ID), 2: Early Career Researchers (ECRs) at MASt. Papers and Summary of the Discussion held at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar (Friday, June 28)

§1. Following the pioneer session “Mentors and Mentees” held at the Summer 2022 MASt seminar and its implementation throughout the Winter 2023 MASt seminar, the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar, held on June 28, hosted a session fully devoted to Early Career Researches (ECRs).

§2. To select the ECRs presenting their work at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar, the MASt board designed a multi-step process, involving both the MASt board and internationally renowned leading experts in each subject, who acted as double-blind peer-reviewers.

§3. Circulating an open call for papers in Summer 2023 was the first concrete step of such a multi-step process. The call for papers was aimed at graduate students and post-docs up to four years post PhD defense.

§4. The call for papers successfully received a strong response with numerous high-quality proposals. The MASt Board individually evaluated each proposal, a substantial abstract of approximately 750 words, against nearly 10 criteria and assigned scores to each criterion. In case of neck-to-neck scenarios, in addition to criteria such as excellence and relevance to the Aegean studies, the MASt board further considered elements such as feasibility within a 15-20 minute presentation timeframe.

§5. After notifying the selected presenters, each ECR submitted the full paper, which underwent review by three evaluators—one MASt Board member and two external double-blind reviewers. The MASt board made the decision to let each selected ECR give their talk regardless of the results of the review process, but to move forward with the paper publication only if the paper got the green light from at least two out of three reviewers. As Editor-in-Chief of the MASt series, Rachele Pierini was happy to report that all the papers of the Summer 2024 MASt seminar received the green light from three out of three reviewers.

§6. The ECRs presenting their work at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar were Diana Wolf, Lavinia Giorgi, Tore Rovs Kristoffersen, and Jasmine Zitelli.

§7.1. Wolf presented “The Enigmatic Exchange: Cross-Material Influence Between Crete and the Mainland in Late Bronze Age Glyptic”. Her presentation offered an overview and analysis of cross-material influences in Late Bronze Age Aegean glyptic, drawing from an examination of over 1000 Late Minoan soft-stone seals.

§7.2. Wolf analyzed the transfer or imitation of stylistic features between different seal materials, thus revealing links between different materials and specialized craftspeople. Moreover, she discussed the recurrence of several distinctly soft-stone seal-related motif groups on semi-precious seals that were found not on Minoan Crete, but in Mainland contexts—notably, on Crete, these images never appear in hard-stone seals. Finally, Wolf concluded with a discussion of a suggested culmination of this phenomenon in a gold signet ring found in the Pylos ‘Grave of the Griffin Warrior’.

§8.1. Lavinia Giorgi discussed “What do Linear B tablets tell us about Mycenaean diplomatic relations? A comparison between Mycenaean and Hittite documents recording vessels and furniture”. Her paper aimed to investigate diplomatic relations between the Mycenaean and Hittite kingdoms using administrative written sources.

§8.2. Giorgi assumed that Mycenaean and Hittite administrative documents can be compared since they may reflect gift-exchanges that accompanied diplomatic relations. She compared the precious items listed in the Mycenaean and Hittite inventory texts, as they can provide indirect evidence of the flow of goods underlying diplomatic relations. Next, she used the Amarna letters and the Uluburun wreck as comparisons because they document the circulation of luxury materials and goods in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the second millennium BCE. Finally, Giorgi suggested that Mycenaean furniture may have been produced locally, whereas precious vessels may have actually accompanied diplomatic relations.

§9.1. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen followed with his perspective on “Homeric εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς and the etymology of PIE ‘cow’”. His presentation focused on the Homeric epithets εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ and the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *u̯elh₁(u̯)- they stem from. Rovs Kristoffersen argued that the PIE root does not refer to the animals ‘rolling gait’ or ‘curved horns’, as often assumed, but, rather, it was used to describe the movement of grazing cows, as further comparisons show.

§9.2. Rovs Kristoffersen compared the PIE root *u̯elh₁(u̯)- with its variant *kwelh₁-, meaning ‘turn, wander around grazing’ when used for cows, and Hittite wellu- ‘pasture, meadow’, deriving from the same root. Hence, he argued that the Homeric forms may be explained as inherited epithets of cows, meaning ‘wandering around grazing’. Additionally, he proposed that the PIE word for ‘cow’ may be explained within this framework, too. Rovs Kristoffersen argued that Greek βοῦς ‘cow’ should not be reconstructed as *gwh₃–éu̯–s ‘graze’ but, rather, as *gweu̯– ‘turn, wander around’. He concluded that word for ‘cow’ originally meant ‘the one that moves around’—a designation of great significance within the pastoral economy reconstructed for PIE society, with the cow being the moveable property par excellence.

§10.1. Jasmine Zitelli concluded with “The Enigma of the Eteocretans: Language, Identity, and Politics in Ancient Crete”. Her presentation focused on the Eteocretans’ role within the polis and the significance of their inscriptions.

§10.2. Zitelli stressed how bilingualism played a crucial role in the emergence of Eteocretan poleis, with its characteristics varying across different sites. In particular, she focused on Praisos as a case study, where the primary seat of the Eteocretans showed the most enduring bilingualism, asserting its autochthony in contrast to other Cretans on the island. Additionally, Zitelli drew attention on how the Eteocretan texts shed light on the process of city identity consolidation, with ethnicity and language serving as means for a collective group to identify itself. She concluded by offering an overview on how Eteocretans were a complex and multifaceted people with a rich cultural heritage in ancient Crete—their inscriptions, bilingualism, and political strategies provide valuable insights into the island’s history and the formation of its poleis.

§11. In addition to the MASt board members (Editor-in-Chief: Rachele Pierini; Associate Editor: Tom Palaima; Editorial committee members: Elena Džukeska, Joseph Maran, Leonard Muellner, Gregory Nagy, Marie Louise Nosch, Thomas Olander, Birgit Olsen, Helena Tomas, Agata Ulanowska, Roger Woodard; Secretary: Giulia Muti; Editorial Assistants: Harriet Cliffen, Linda Rocchi, Katarzyna Żebrowska; Student Assistant: Matilda Agdler), roughly 70 attendees took part in the Summer 2024 MASt seminar, among whom Julia Binnberg, Andrea Cesaretti, Eric H. Cline, Stephen Colvin, Janice Crowley, Paola Dardano, Louis Dautais, Panagiotis Filos, Georgia Flouda, Lavinia Giorgi, Daniel Kölligan, Tore Rovs Kristofferson, Hedvig Landenius Enegren, Olga Levaniouk, Monika Łapińska, Nicoletta Momigliano, Giulia Paglione, Peter Pavúk, Paula Perlman, Gudrun Samberger, Andrew Shapland, Maxwell Stocker, Carlos Varias, Diana Wolf, Jasmine Zitelli.

§12. Substantial discussions followed the ECRs’ presentations. Specifically, contributions to the seminar were made by Janice Crowley (see below at §166), Lavinia Giorgi (§§193—194), Olga Levaniouk (§179), Joseph Maran (§§170—171), Tom Palaima (§§195—198), Peter Pavúk (§169), Paula Perlman (§§182—184), Tore Rovs Kristoffersen (§§172; 180—181; 190; 199), Andrew Shapland (§§173; 189), Carlos Varias (§§191—192), Diana Wolf (§§167—168; 174—178), Jasmine Zitelli (§§186; 188).

• Diana Wolf’s paper
• Lavinia Giorgi’s paper
• Tore Rovs Kristofferson’s paper
• Jasmine Zitelli’s paper

1. The Enigmatic Exchange: Cross-Material Influence Between Crete and the Mainland in Late Bronze Age Glyptic

Presenter: Diana Wolf

Introduction

§13. Used as sphragistic instruments,^[1] tools for securing and identification, as jewelry, amulets, and status symbols,^[2] seals were an indispensable part of life in Aegean Bronze Age Crete.^[3] Their multiple functions made these small, engraved objects carriers of meaning that contributed to the formation, maintenance, and transformation of social relations. While Pre- and Protopalatial seals have already been covered extensively by comprehensive studies,^[4] Late Minoan (LM) seals have not yet received such detailed treatment, the exception being the hard-stone seals of the “Talismanic” style and metal signet rings.^[5] Although many detailed iconographic studies exist,^[6] their objective is not to provide a comprehensive treatment with in-depth discussions of materials, techniques, chronology, and other craft-related aspects of the seals. Soft-stone seals are especially under-studied, despite the large number of currently over 1.500 known LM soft-stone seals. In comparison, hard stone seals from this period number about 1.300, and ca. 200 metal seals have been documented.

§14. Soft-stone seals have the longest, most prolific history of Bronze Age Cretan seals, dating from Early Minoan (EM) II—LM III.^[7] Engraved with simpler techniques and easily abraded, seals cut in soft materials (Mohs 1–3/4) are less impressive in appearance than their hard stone (Mohs 4+) and metal counterparts. Hard-stone seals began to be produced during the Protopalatial period, following the introduction of the lapidary lathe, which enabled the cutting of semi-precious stones.^[8] In scholarly discussions, this resulted in comparative approaches to soft-stone and hard-stone seals that often highlight the aesthetic and technological superiority of the latter. Evan’s notion of “primitive pictographic figures” on soft-stone seals that “from the second Middle Minoan period onward were transformed into intaglio types of the highest naturalistic and artistic merit”^[9] is reflected throughout the literature of the 20th century and can still be recognized in more recent contributions. Boardman in his seminal work Greek Gems & Finger Rings did not bother to explore the “many poorer stones […] mainly of interest for their subjects since they exhibit no technical bravura and several are simply hand cut in softer stones.”^[10] This apprehension is still reflected in later archaeological reports that tend to specify soft-stone seal finds only when individual pieces are considered exceptional due to an iconography of special interest or excellent preservation.^[11] Otherwise, they are usually mentioned in side notes on “μικρά ευρήματα”^[12] (small finds) without specification. As a result, the corpus of soft-stone seals has been relatively neglected, rarely receiving individual attention without being utilized as a simplistic backdrop to other groups.^[13] The soft stones’ aesthetically less striking appearance, their proclivity to poorer states of preservation, and the graphic impression of intaglios created by hand-held tools (often described as ‘simple’ or ‘crude’) have led scholars to internalize the role of this object group as subordinate to other seal types and to suggest that soft-stone seals were owned and used by low-ranking social groups.^[14]

§15. Comparisons of cross-material influence can be made most effectively through seals with similar motifs, as this allows for observing and comparing the execution of specific details. This approach is particularly suitable for evidence from the Late Bronze Age (LBA), a period rich in seals featuring detailed representational imagery across various materials. The lack of comprehensive studies of the iconography, style, and distribution of soft-stone seals has resulted in simplified models explaining their relationship to other glyptic groups. Regarding hard-stone seals specifically, previous scholarship has proposed two models of cross-material influence: Either the production of soft-stone seals was thought largely dependent on the production of hard-stone seals, or vice versa. For example, Krzyszkowska stated that “[…] in composition, pose, and the rendering of anatomical parts, soft stone engravers clearly emulated their cousins working in other materials.”^[15] Betts, on the other hand, contended that “[i]nfluence more often passed in the other direction, hard-stone engravers attempting to mimic techniques or follow motifs used more consistently by their colleagues working in soft stone.”^[16] Systematic iconographic analysis, however, strongly suggests that these models both fall short of the reality of LBA glyptic development. Here, we explore cross-material influences in LBA glyptic based on an extensive study of over 1.000 LM soft-stone seals with representational iconography. Methodologically, it involved detailed scrutiny of all available impressions of LM soft-stone seals at the CMS Archive Heidelberg (over 960) and close examination of approximately 80 original seals.^[17] Based on the results of this extensive study, the following discussion begins with stylistic transfer, going on to motif exclusivity and transfer, thereby revealing connections between soft-stone and hard-stone seals as well as between Crete and the mainland. A concluding case study of a signet ring from Pylos illustrates various aspects of motif transfer in the context of Minoan-mainland connections during this period.

Stylistic Transfer

§16. Due to the different production techniques of each material group (Table 1), stylistic analysis is usually not useful for comparing seals made of different materials.^[18] Style is primarily dependent on technology, specifically the way tools are used,^[19] and the material of the workpieces (e.g. soft, medium, hard stone, their respective density, granularity, etc.).^[20] Clear stylistic influences between seals of different materials are evident only in a few instances.

Table 1. Production techniques for different materials prevalent in LBA Aegean glyptic. In bold: materials used for LBA representational soft-stone seals.

§17. Due to the limited length of this article, style groups are referred to without detailed specification. The transfer of stylistic traits can best be observed in a small number of soft-stone and hard-stone seals, of which three examples are given here.

Figure 1. Transfer of stylistic traits between soft-stone and hard-stone seals: Cut Style in a LM I soft- (a, CMS III no. 444) and a *LB I-II hard-stone (b, CMS VS1B no. 37), “spectacle eyes” in LM IIIA soft- (c, Heraklion Museum Seal inv. no. 2540) and *LB IIIA1–2 hard-stone (d, CMS V no. 188), LM IIIA/B soft-stone engraved in hard-stone style (e, CMS IS no. 147) with a *LB IIIA1 hard-stone example (f, CMS I no. 105). Drawings and modern impressions. *CMS dating. Not to scale (a–b, d-f courtesy CMS Heidelberg; c courtesy M. Anastasiadou).

§18. The first example of stylistic transfer from hard to soft stone is a serpentine seal depicting a goat, reportedly from Knossos (Figure 1a). The undisguised tool marks on the piece consist of simple straight lines along the back and horns and drilled solid dots for the eye, muzzle, and hooves of the wild goat. Combined with limited internal modeling, these are characteristic features of the Cut Style.^[21] Wild goats are a favorite motif of this style that appeared mainly in LM IA and to a lesser extent in LM IB (Figure 1b). It relies on mechanical engraving, allowing for precise, straight lines. A second example is the rendering of “spectacle eyes.”^[22] This typical Final Palatial (FP) trait observed in many hard-stone seals features on a LM IIIA/B serpentine seal from the cemetery of Kalochorafitis (Figure 1c).^[23] This idiosyncratic feature is created by a solid drill and a tubular drill which together produce a large dot-eye with a circular outline (Figure 1d). A third case of stylistic transfer is found on a soft-stone seal of unknown provenance (Figure 1e). It not only copies hard-stone style traits but was also engraved with rotary tools.^[24] The seal depicts a ram with a stout, well-modeled body and thin, short legs, features typical of hard-stone seals (Figure 1f, further CMS X no. 122).

Figure 2. Stylistic transfer from soft-stone to hard-stone seals: soft-stone style deer on a *LB I–II amethyst lentoid (a, CMS II3 no. 74) and typical soft-stone deer on a LM I serpentine seal (b, CMS II4 no. 113); (c, CMS II3 no. 210) *LB IIIA carnelian seal showing a deer attacked by a lion. Modern drawings and impressions. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§19. Examples of stylistic transfer from soft-stone to hard-stone are rare. Two amethyst lentoids, one from Knossos (Figure 2a) and one from Mycenae,^[25] depict deer with bodies covered in short dashes or dapples, a feature typical of Neopalatial soft-stone seals (Figure 2b).^[26] Additionally, the collapsing pose of the Knossian specimen^[27] is characteristic of soft-stone seals of the period, whereas hard-stone seals usually depict deer in attack scenes (Figure 2c).

Motif Exclusivity and Motif Transfer

§20. Soft-stone seals are best compared to other glyptic materials based on their imagery. By eliminating the more restrictive category of style and focusing on iconography, larger clusters of seals can be assembled and compared. In the following, we will discuss motif exclusivity and transfer from the perspective of soft-stone seal imagery. Motif exclusivity where certain motifs are restricted to one material type is rare. Seal designs usually range from being mostly soft-stone-related to mostly soft-stone-unrelated. Typical soft-stone motifs were sometimes replicated in hard materials, and vice versa. The next section provides a basic overview of the material specificity of common motifs in LM glyptic.

Figure 3. Example of a Neopalatial hybrid bird-woman (a, CMS VII no. 143), and of a Final Palatial LLC seal (b, CMS II4 no. 74) with the only non-soft-stone example (c, CMS VS1A no. 107). Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§21. Based on the available evidence, only one iconographic group appears exclusively in soft stone.^[28] The Neopalatial hybrid bird-women (Figure 3a) and variants of these fantastic creatures have not been recognized in any other Aegean object with pictorial imagery. Similarly, the FP lion-leg-column (LLC) group is found almost (?) exclusively in soft stone (Figure 3b). A single possible exception is a seal of indeterminate material that has been described as a very soft, possibly vitreous or paste-like, white substance (Figure 3c).^[29] Its eroded surface reveals traces of rotary tools despite the soft material—possibly favoring an interpretation of the material as vitreous or perhaps glazed.^[30]

Predominantly soft-stone motifs

§22. Three Neopalatial soft-stone groups revolve around female human figures performing a selection of gestures (Figure 4).^[31] Over 50 seals bear motifs related to one of three types: the female figure may appear alone on the seal face (Figure 4a), in pairs of two (Figure 4b), or alone and carrying a quadruped (Figure 4c).^[32] The seal provenances, when known, cluster around north-central and central Crete.

Figure 4. Gesturing Female Figures on Neopalatial (LM I) soft-stone seals. Type 1: Individual figure (a, CMS III no. 352). Type 2: pairs of figures, here with pointed headdress (b, CMS XII no. 168). Type 3: Individual figure carrying a quadruped (here a caprid) over her shoulder (c, CMS II4 no. 111). Drawings and seal faces. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§23. This imagery is not exclusive to soft stone, as evidenced by several hard-stone seals with the same or closely related motifs, as well as occurrences on metal signet rings. Intriguingly, evidence comes predominantly, and in the case of hard stones exclusively, from the mainland, where seals are typically found in LH II contexts. Judging by the context dating, it appears that the inception of the soft stone seals, some of which are found in LM IA contexts, predates the hard-stone specimens, but further observations are necessary to corroborate this.^[33] The following instances of Minoan soft-stone motifs can be evidenced on mainland hard-stone seals:

§24. Type 1: Individual female figures performing gestures

Material: carnelian | shape: amygdaloid | provenance: Vaphio (Figure 5a)

Material: amethyst | shape: scaraboid | provenance: Aidonia (Figure 5b)

§25. Type 2: Pairs of female figures performing gestures

Material: carnelian | shape: lentoid | provenance: Modi (Figure 5c)

Material: carnelian | shape: lentoid | provenance: unknown^[34]

Material: gold | shape: signet ring | provenance: Pylos (Figure 13a)

§26. Type 3: Female figure carrying a quadruped

Material: carnelian | shape: lentoid | provenance: Vaphio (Figure 6a)

Material: agate | shape: lentoid | provenance: Vaphio (CMS I no. 222)

Material: hematite | shape: lentoid | provenance: Epidauros (Figure 6b)

§27. Variations of Types 1–3

Imagery: 3 female figures| material: lead | shape: signet ring | provenance: Malia (CMS VS1A no. 58)

Imagery: 3 female figures | material: chlorite mold for metal seal production | provenance: Malia^[35]

Imagery: 2 females, one carrying a quadruped | material: chalcedony | shape: lentoid | provenance: Vaphio (Figure 6c)

Figure 5. Neopalatial soft-stone seal imagery on *LB I–II semi-precious sealstones found on the mainland, Type 1 (a, CMS I no. 226, and b, CMS VS3 245b) and 2 (c, CMS VS3 no. 80). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

Figure 6. Neopalatial soft-stone seal imagery on semi-precious sealstones found on the mainland, gesturing females Type 3 (a, CMS I no. 220 [*LB II], and b, CMS I no. 221 [*LB I–II]) and variation of Type 2 and 3 (c, CMS VS1A no. 369 [*LB I]). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§28. These seals feature the same constellations and gestures found on the soft stones. However, details are often modified or added, such as ground lines (Figures 5, 6b–c). In particular, the hard-stone images tend to occupy more space, while the larger surface of the metal seals was used to render more figures. Their style varies from including organic forms to degrees of linearity and abstraction. Idiosyncratic Minoan styles related to hard-stone seals are also present, as testified by the Cut Style seal in Figure 6c. The hard-stone lentoids tend to be larger (median ∅ 2,1 cm) and thicker (median Th. 0,88 cm) than the soft-stone examples (median ∅ 1,7; Th. 0,6 cm),^[36] and the range of seal shapes is wider. The fact that all hard-stone seals come from mainland contexts (where known) suggests that these examples in particular, were designed exclusively for mainland consumption. Interestingly, the Cretan soft-stone seals derive predominantly from upper-tier settlement contexts, some associated with religious activities, at Knossos, Archanes, Malia, Agia Triada, Gournia, Tylissos, and Petras, for example.^[37] The mainland seals, on the other hand, were recovered from burial contexts.

Figure 7. Soft-stone seal examples of the LM I Leaping Lion’s Prey group. Drawings and seal faces, CMS XI nos. 50, 22; CMS V no. 222. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§29. Another idiosyncratic LM soft-stone seal group is that of the Leaping Lion’s Prey (LLP, Figure 7).^[38] LLP seals depict a seated or recumbent lion, regardant, facing an animal of prey leaping through the background. It is one of the most widespread groups among the corpus of LM soft-stone seals and found throughout north-central Crete, with some imports to the Argolid and Korinthia. The soft-stones date to LM IA/B-early. The hard-stone seals on the mainland are found in later contexts, (Kallithea-Patras: LH IIIA–C; Kalapodi: LH IIB–IIIA1; Mega Monastiri: LH IIIA–B), again suggesting that these succeeded the inception of the soft-stones.

§30.

Material: carnelian | shape: amygdaloid | provenance: Achillion, Larisa (Figure 8b)

Material: carnelian | shape: lentoid | provenance: Mega Monastiri, Larisa (Figure 8c)

Material: carnelian | shape: lentoid | provenance: Kalapodi (Figure 8d)

Figure 8. Neopalatial soft-stone seal imagery on semi-precious sealstones found on the mainland, Leaping Lion’s Prey group: CMS VS1B no. 176 (*undated); CMS V nos. 750, 725 (*LB I–II), CMS VS3 no. 63 (*LB II–IIIA1). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§31. These examples adhere closely to the original imagery, although the lentoids include an additional ground line (Figure 8c–d). Several seals are in the Cut Style (Figure 8a–c), an idiosyncratic Neopalatial hard-stone style often exported from Crete.^[39] Nevertheless, their imagery is clearly derived from the soft-stone repertoire (Figure 7) and finds no parallels in other materials. Compared to their soft-stone equivalents, the LLP hard-stone seals are significantly larger. The soft-stone group’s median diameter is 1,76 cm, whereas that of the lentoids in the hard-stone group is 2,4 cm. In comparison to the Neopalatial soft-stone lentoids, the latter’s median thickness is even twice as large (1,2 vs. 0,6 cm; Figure 14). It appears that one soft-stone lentoid from Epidauros (Figure 7c) connects these two phenomena. Apart from its unusual size (2,55 × 2,35; Th.0,9 cm), it is engraved in a typical Minoan material and style.^[40] Is it possible that this is an instance of a soft-stone seal intended for trade with the mainland? Its provenance at Epidauros corresponds to that of a hematite lentoid (Figure 6c) showing a female figure bearing a quadruped, which, as suggested above, was presumably also made for mainland consumption. On Crete, LLP seals are found in a variety of contexts, such as the palatial buildings at Archanes or Zominthos, the agora at Malia, or the peak sanctuary of Mt. Giouktas, but also in burials at Archanes-Katsoprinias and Poros-Katsambas.^[41] The mainland hard-stone seals are, yet again, found exclusively in necropoleis.

§32. Both groups suggest that Minoan soft-stone seal images were transformed into hard-stone seals specifically for mainlanders. Based on context dating, it appears that the Cretan soft-stone seals preceded the mainland hard-stone seals. However, stylistic factors, like the prevalence of the LM IA–B Cut Style, suggest caution, as the motif’s presence in different materials may in fact be more contemporary than indicated by context dating. Modifications were made to accommodate different aesthetic preferences, including material, shape, size, and scaling of the motifs. Current evidence does not conclusively determine whether the hard-stone seals were engraved in Crete or on the mainland. It was previously proposed that Cretan artisans may have traveled to the mainland during the Neopalatial period to satisfy the demand of local elites for Minoan artifacts, since there was no tradition of seal engraving in early Mycenaean Greece.^[42]

Motifs not primarily associated with soft-stone seals

§33. Two examples of motifs not typically associated with soft-stone seals that are rendered in soft stone are given here. The first comprises bi-somatic hybrids (Figure 9), fantastic creatures with the lower body of a human and the foreparts of a quadruped. This novel motif in FP hard-stone seals is attested in over thirty instances (e.g. Figure 9a–b). However, the motif occurs only twice in soft stone (Figure 9c–d). These are a lion- and a goat- or deer-man, both following the same compositional principles: a twisted mid-section, elongated legs, large heads, oriented along the circular seal face.

Figure 9. Bi-somatic hybrids on *LB II–IIIA1 hard-stone seals, example of a goat-man (a, CMS VS3 no. 11) and bull-man (b, CMS VS3 no. 150); and the only two soft-stone seals of the group, a lion-man (c, Heraklion Museum Seal inv. no. 2309) and goat- or deer-man (d, CMS VI no. 300). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (c by author, rest courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§34. The second example is a soft-soft stone seal influenced by a long-recognized hard-stone seal group discussed by Pini and Drakaki.^[43] The original hard-stone image, discussed as Bildthema der zwei gelagerten Rinder (motif of two recumbent bovines), consists of two bovines, one lying behind the other (Figure 10a). The animal in the foreground is in profile, gardant, the one in the background has its head turned away from the viewer, in frontal view. Typically, their necks are striated as if wrinkled. This feature and the position of the head are reproduced on a soft-stone seal reportedly found at Kalyves (Figure 10b). The producer of the seal must have been familiar with the traditions of hard-stone seal engraving and may have been skilled in both free-hand and mechanical engraving techniques, with the necessary knowledge of how to adapt from one medium to the other. The adaptation is evident in the differences between the soft-stone seal, which lacks the depiction of the recumbent bovine in the foreground, and its extended neck folds, resulting from hand-engraving a soft material, which lacks the precision achievable in mechanically engraved hard-stone intaglios.

Figure 10. Typical hard-stone seal motifs (a, CMS IS no. 20) and a rare example in soft-stone (b, CMS IS 100). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

Motifs not restricted to a specific material

§35. Many images of LM soft-stone seals are also present in vitreous materials, metal, and hard stone. Among these are representations of a single quadruped, be it standing or sitting, gardant or regardant. For the most part, the observation made by Krzyszkowska that engravers of soft- and hard-stone seals, as well as manufacturers of metal signet rings, were using the same patterns remains valid.^[44] A full description is beyond the purview of this work, so only two examples of this common phenomenon are given. Running or collapsing bovines (Figure 11) reflect the occurrence in the Neopalatial record, while animal-attack scenes (Figure 12) represent the FP period.

Figure 11. Neopalatial examples of iconographic types that are found throughout different materials: running / leaping bovines on a LM I soft-stone (a, CMS VIII no. 126), a *LB I–II hard-stone (b, CMS I no. 234), a *LM I metal seal impression (c, CMS VS1A no. 145), and a *LB II(?) engraved glass seal (d, CMS I no. 148). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

Figure 12. Final Palatial examples of iconographic types that are found throughout different materials: animal-attack imagery on a LM II–IIIA soft-stone (a, CMS I no. 511), a *LB II–IIIA1 hard-stone (b, CMS I no. 70), a LB II–III metal-seal impression (c, CMS II8 no. 342, dating cf. Becker 2018, A 171), and a *LH IIIA1–B engraved glass seal (d, CMS I no. 100). Drawings and seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§36. The execution of shared motifs in different materials results in several differences. The degree of internal detail is reduced on soft-stone and glass seals, richer on hard-stone, and most elaborate on metal seals. Individual motifs may be combined into more elaborate representations on hard-stone and metal seals. For example, running / collapsing bovines are regularly combined with a human leaper in metal, i.e. they are merged to form bull-leaping scenes (Figure 11c), whereas animal-attack scenes may include additional attackers below the prey, or details such as landscape elements (e.g. CMS II6 no. 274 and II8 no. 192).

Summary of findings

§37. The discussion of motif exclusivity and transfer exposes the recurrence of distinctly soft-stone seal-related motif groups on semi-precious seals found in mainland contexts. On Crete, the home of the motifs, these images never appear in hard-stone seals. Mainlanders, unlike Minoans, generally did not use and own soft-stone seals in this period, as suggested by their sporadic appearance in LH II contexts.^[45] However, the archaeological record suggests that mainlanders valued semi-precious sealstones engraved with Minoan motifs, prizing large seals in vibrant colors.

§38. The analysis of hard-stone seals found on the mainland with Cretan soft-stone seal imagery leads to the following findings:

• The hard-stone seals are often stylistically different from one another. This suggests that more than one individual was involved in their production.
• The mainland seals include details not found in the Minoan soft-stone seals, like ground lines.
• The hard-stone lentoids from the mainland are considerably larger and thicker than the Minoan soft-stone seals bearing the source motif.
• While the motifs in soft stone occur almost exclusively in lentoid seals, the shapes of the hard-stone specimens are more diverse, even though the motif was originally designed for a round seal face, which led to difficulties in transferring it to another ‘frame’ such as the amygdaloid shape.
• While the Neopalatial soft-stone seals from Crete are predominantly, albeit not exclusively, found outside of funerary contexts, the mainland hard-stone seals with secure provenances always derive from funerary contexts, implicating a rather different social role and context of the seals there.

Soft Materials—Strong Connections: the Pylos Gold Signet Ring 2 and Minoan Soft-Stone Seals

§39. This article has discussed two main phenomena: cross-material links between different seal types and the transfer of distinct soft-stone seal motifs to semi-precious seals for mainland consumption. Cross-material influences and the export of Minoan imagery for mainland consumption culminate in a gold signet ring discovered in the LH II “Grave of the Griffin Warrior” at Pylos.^[46] Ring 2 provides a unique case study for discussing these cultural phenomena (Figure 13a). The craftsperson(s) responsible for the signet ring’s imagery combined individual motifs known from different types of sealstones, thereby creating an extended scene.

Figure 13. Pylos Ring 2 (SN24-30) and motif parallels in LM I soft stone (b–d, CMS XI no. 282, CMS IX no. 163, CMS II3 no. 218), *LB II hard stone (e, CMS I no. 159), and *LM I metal signet ring impressions (f–g, CMS II8 no. 264, CMS II6 no. 1). Drawings of seal faces. *CMS dating. Not to scale (a Courtesy of The Palace of Nestor Excavations, The Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, drawing T. Ross; rest courtesy CMS Heidelberg).

§40. Ring 2 has been published in detail,^[47] so the following description is limited to the most relevant aspects. The intaglio depicts five female figures to the left and right of a built structure. To the right (from the impression) is a group of three female figures wearing horizontally banded skirts and a fleeing cloth around the neck. The central figure is taller and gestures with her hands to her hips. Her body is frontal, with her head and feet facing the structure. The smaller figures on either side are also facing the center of the intaglio, but in profile, likely mimicking her gesture, though only one arm is visible. To the left, two differently dressed female figures with pointed head ornaments, depicted in profile, are making an asymmetrical gesture with an outstretched rear arm and a raised and bent front arm. The built structure is positioned on an elevated outcrop and flanked by two palm trees. A foliage tree appears to be growing from within or behind it. The figures stand on a hatched ground line beneath which a reticulated pattern appears to represent the sea.

§41. This imagery combines motifs individually known from the Minoan, particularly the soft-stone, glyptic repertoire. The pair of women with the pointed headdress is attested on a minimum of six soft-stone seals (i.a. Figures 13b, 4b). Examples come from Gournia (CMS II3 no. 236), and reportedly Knossos (Figure 13b, CMS VI no. 288), others have no known provenance (Figure 4b). The five extant hard-stone examples of pairs of gesturing female figures lack the headgear and are, moreover, considered here as derivatives of the soft-stone group (cf. above with Figure 5c). The three heraldically arranged female figures on the opposite side find a close parallel on a soft-stone lentoid (Figure 13d). The main differences are related to technology (amounting to style), material, and scaling. More intricate details can be seen on the signet ring, such as the gowns’ vertical folds, intricate waistbands, collars, and necklaces. The motif is further found on an agate lentoid from Mycenae (Figure 13e). This piece should also be considered in the context of Minoan seals that were exported for consumption on the mainland. Indications for this lie in the considerably larger diameter and thickness (∅ 2,1; Th. 0,8 cm) of this lentoid compared to the corpus of Neopalatial soft-stone lentoids (∅ 1,7; Th. 0,6 cm). Another constellation of this type is attested in the impression of a metal signet ring from Agia Triada (Figure 13g). The data on this constellation is, therefore, inconclusive as to its possible origins within glyptic in either metal or soft stone. The Agia Triada impression includes a depiction of a built structure with a foliate tree: Although this is different from that on the Pylos ring, the same spatial context is evoked. Such shrines can also be found on soft-stone seals with female figures: One prominent example renders a female figure gesturing towards the structure (Figure 13c). Finally, the reticulated pattern of the sea is testified by three other metal signet rings. One is the so-called ‘Ring of Minos’ where the interpretation is made clear by the presence of a boat on the sea-pattern.^[48] The other two instances are preserved by their impressions, one on a string nodule from Knossos (Figure 13f), the other on the infamous ‘Master Impression’ from Chania.^[49]

§42. The large size of Ring 2 (Figure 14a) allows it to combine and expand motifs that otherwise tend to occur in isolation. The soft-stone repertoire in particular, contains many recurring motifs, most notably the duo of female figures with the pointed headdresses. Others, such as the trio, are found on metal, soft-, and hard-stone seals—although the latter are suggested to be mainland-targeted derivatives of Minoan soft-stone images. The structure with a tree occurs in both soft-stone and metal seals. Surprisingly, the iconographic repertoire of hard-stone seals seems to have been less significant as a source material. Whether this is a case of data bias resulting from preservation is unclear, although it appears probable given the evidence for motif transfer from Cretan soft-stone to mainland hard-stone seals as discussed in the previous sections.

Figure 14. Comparison of the dimensions of Pylos Ring 2 and the median diameters of the hard-stone and the soft-stone lentoids in this study (a); comparison of the median thickness of the soft- and hard-stone lentoids in this study (b) (line art by author).

Conclusions

§43. The findings suggest that, contrary to previous views, cross-craft influence between soft-stone, hard-stone, and metal seal manufacturers was not unidirectional. Instead, the boundaries between different materials and seal types were open to reciprocal influence. The semi-precious sealstones found on the mainland but engraved with Minoan soft-stone motifs in Minoan hard-stone styles, like the Cut Style, demonstrate the seal cutters’ knowledge of different seal types (in terms of material and style), their ability to switch between these media and respective technologies, as well as a “consumer-oriented” approach on behalf of the commissioners.

§44. Appearances of the discussed Minoan soft-stone seal motifs, as well as of the individual elements combined in the imagery of the Pylos Ring 2 in hard stone are found exclusively on the mainland and in funerary contexts. Semi-precious stones were greatly favored there, whereas soft-stone seals were of little relevance in the Early Mycenaean period. These hard-stone seals, it is argued here, were a product derived from Minoan soft-stone prototypes (regarding imagery) but adapted in hard stone (sometimes copying Minoan hard-stone styles) to meet mainland tastes and needs. While the Cretan soft-stone seals relate to representational structures in upper-tier settlement areas, spaces of ritual practice, and only rarely feature in burials, it appears that mainlanders appreciated their larger-scale hard-stone versions for their representative quality within a social arena connected to signification through burial customs.

§45. Accepting this hypothesis prompts a consideration of Pylos Ring 2 as a product intended for mainland consumption—rather than a reflection of Minoan cultural traits or a means of contextualizing previously ‘fragmented’ images belonging to a hypothetical “complete” scene from a nowadays lost instance in the Minoan iconographic repertoire. While it may be appealing to use the signet ring to elucidate the social contexts and roles of motifs found on Minoan soft-stone seals, this approach risks conflating the emic understanding with an outsider’s interpretation. Variations in mainland seal usage impede drawing conclusions about Minoan soft-stone motifs and their societal function, given the distinctiveness of mainland society (or societies). While individual motifs may have been associated with particular social practices or beliefs in Crete—predominantly among living members of the community—, in a mainland context, this same imagery may have served a conceivably different function, related—as far as the extant evidence goes—exclusively to burial practices. The adaptation and combination of motifs in semi-precious stones and gold may have functioned as a branding device and cultural marker of foreign origin, exoticism, or possibly “mystical” associations which enhanced their perceived value and ultimately, their owners’ prestige. This may explain the larger size of the mainland seals and the predilection for precious materials.

§46. In conclusion, it is conceivable that mainlanders used seals very differently, likely as prestige objects, during the Early Mycenaean period. Qualities like the exoticism of the motifs and foreign origin of the materials were probably paramount—and likely to obscure—any concern with the original “meaning” of these objects in their vernacular context. Simultaneously, this enigmatic exchange between objects previously considered crude and restricted to the Minoan lower social strata,^[50] on the one hand, and mainland prestige objects, on the other, highlights the interconnections among seal-craft technologies and the versatility of their mutual influence, while simultaneously challenging our previous assessment of the social role of the soft-stone seals on Crete. Finally, it should be noted that this is only a case study, offering preliminary insights into the cross-material influence between Crete and the mainland during the LBA. A comprehensive analysis of imagery and techniques is necessary to substantiate the observations presented here and to better define the local origins of certain motifs in different areas of Crete.

Acknowledgements

§47. I am deeply grateful to the MASt seminar team for the opportunity to contribute to this Early Career Researcher installment and to the three anonymous reviewers for their highly constructive feedback.

§48. This research was made possible through the support of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique—FNRS. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my former PhD supervisors, Jan Driessen and Maria Anastasiadou, for their unwavering support. The results of this project were also enabled by the kind support of the following institutions: the CMS Heidelberg, the National Archaeological Museum Athens, the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, and the Staatliche Münzsammlung Munich.

§49. Bibliography

Anastasiadou, M. 2011. The Middle Minoan Three-Sided Soft Stone Prism: A Study of Style and Iconography, Vol 1. Mayence.

Anastasiadou, M. 2015. “The Seals.” In Kalochorafitis. Two Chamber Tombs from the LM IIIA2–B Cemetery, ed. A. Karetsou, L. Girella, M. Anastasiadou, I. Antonakaki, A. Nafplioti, and E. Nodarou, 257—276. Studi di archeologia cretese 12. Padova.

Becker, N. 2018. Die goldenen Siegelringe der ägäischen Bronzezeit. Heidelberg.

Betts, J. H. 1989. “Seals of Middle Minoan III: Chronology and Technical Revolution.” In Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium, 5.-7. September 1985, ed. I. Pini, 1—17. Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel Beiheft 3. Berlin.

Betts, J. H., and J. G. Younger. 1982. “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Masters and Workshops,” Kadmos 21:104—121.

Blaklomer, F., ed. 2020. Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography. Louvain-la-Neuve.

Boardman, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. London.

Crowley, J. 2024. IKON. Art and Meaning in Aegean Seal Images. Heidelberg.

Drakaki, E. 2005–2006 (2009). “The Ownership of Hard Stone Seals with the Motif of a Pair of Recumbent Bovines from the Late Bronze Age Greek Mainland: A Contextual Approach,” Aegean Archaeology 8:81—93.

Dubcová, V. 2020. “Bird-demons in the Aegean Bronze Age: Their Nature and Relationship to Egypt and the Near East.” In Blakolmer 2020:205—222.

Effenterre, H. van. 1980. Le palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne. Étude de synthèse 2. Rome.

Evans, A. J. 1935. The Palace of Minos: a Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos 4.2: Camp-Stool Fresco, Long-Robed Priests and Beneficent Genii; Chryselephantine Boy-God and Ritual Hair-Offering; Intaglio Types, M.M. III-L.M. II, Late Hoards of Sealings, Deposits of Inscribed Tablets and the Palace Stores; Linear Script B and its Mainland Extension, Closing Palatial Phase; Room of Throne and Final Catastrophe. London.

Evely, D. 1993. Minoan Crafts, Tools and Techniques. An Introduction. Gothenburg.

Hallager, E. 1985. The Master Impression: A Clay Sealing from the Greek-Swedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 69. Gothenburg.

Hallager, E. 1996. The Minoan Roundel and other Sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration. Liège.

Iliopoulos, T. 1998. “Ζένια Μιραμπέλλου,” Archaiologikon Deltion 53 B3:880—81.

Kanta, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery, and Their Distribution. Gothenburg.

Karetsou, A. 1978. “Τὸ ἱερὸ κορυφῆς Γιούχτα,” Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 1978:232—258.

Knappet, C. 2020. Aegean Bronze Age Art. Meaning in the Making. Cambridge.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2005a. Aegean Seals. An Introduction. London.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2005b. “Travellers’ Tales: The Circulation of Seals in the Late Bronze Age Aegean.” In Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, ed. R. Laffineur and E. Greco, 767—775. Aegaeum 5. Liège and Austin.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2011. “Seals and Society in Late Bronze Age Crete.” In Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Χανιά, 1–8 Οκτωβρίου 2006, A1, ed. M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki and E. Papadopoulou, 437—448. Chania.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2012. “Worn to Impress? Symbol and Status in Aegean Glyptic.” In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, ed. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, 739—747. Aegaeum 33. Leuven and Liège.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2020a. “A Traveller Through Time and Space: The Cut Style Seal from the Megaron at Midea.” In Neoteros. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of his Retirement, ed. B. Davis and R. Laffineur, 155—167. Aegaeum 44. Leuven.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2020b. “Changing Views of Style and Iconography in Aegean Glyptic: A Case Study from the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris.” In Blakolmer 2020:253—271.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2022. “On the Wings of Birds: Reflections on the Cut Style in Minoan Glyptic.” In Kleronomia: Legacy and Inheritance. Studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in Honor of Jeffrey S. Soles, ed. J. M. A. Murphy and J. E. Morrison, 85—94. PM 61. Philadelphia.

Müller, W., 1995. “Bildthemen mit Rind und Ziege auf den Weichsteinsiegeln Kretas. Überlegungen zur Chronologie der Spätminoischen Glyptik.” In Sceaux minoens et mycéniens: IVe symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand, ed. I. Pini and J.-C. Poursat, 151—167. Berlin.

Onassoglou, A. 1985. Die “Talismanischen” Siegel. Berlin.

Palmer, J. L. 2014. An Analysis of Late Bronze Age Aegean Glyptic Motifs of a Religious Nature, PhD diss. University of Birmingham.

Pini, I. 1980. “Kypro-ägäische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Definition und zum Ursprung der Gruppe,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 95:77—108.

Pini, I. 1995. “Bemerkungen zur Datierung von Löwendarstellungen der spätminoischen Weichsteinglyptik.” In: Sceaux minoens et mycéniens: IVe symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand, ed. I. Pini and J.-C. Poursat, 193—207. Berlin.

Pini, I. 2000. “Das Bildthema der zwei gelagerten Rinder.” In Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.-25. September 1999, ed. I. Pini, 245—255. Berlin.

Pini, I. 2010. “Soft Stone versus Hard Stone Seals in Aegean Glyptic: some Observations on Style and Iconography.” In Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium des CMS Marburg, 9.–12. Oktober 2008, ed. W. Müller, 325–339. Mayence.

Rupp, D. W., and M. Tsipopoulou. 2012. “Priestess? at Work: a LM IA Chlorite Schist Lentoid Seal from the Neopalatial Settlement of Petras.” In Petras, Siteia. 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010, ed. M. Tsipopoulou, 305—314. Åarhus.

Sakellaraki, E. 2017. “Ανασκαφή Ζωμίνθου,” Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 2017:301—448.

Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki. 1997. Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light. Athens.

Sapouna-Sakellaraki E., and Y. Sakellarakis. 1988. “Αρχάνες,” To Ergon tes Archaiologikes Etaireias 1988:156—160.

Sbonias, K. 1995. Frühkretische Siegel. Ansätze für eine Interpretation der sozial-politischen Entwicklung auf Kreta während der Frühbronzezeit. Oxford.

Sherrat, S. 2008. “Vitreous Materials in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Some Questions of Values.” In Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, ed. C. M. Jackson and E. C. Wager, 209—232. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 9. Oxford.

Stocker, S. R., and J. L. Davis. 2016. “The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of Pylos,” Hesperia 85.4:627—655.

Warren, P. 1980-81. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–1980. Part I,” Archaeological Reports 27:73—92.

Warren, P. 1982-83. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–82. Part II,” Archaeological Reports 29:63—87.

Warren, P. 2010. “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean circa 2000 B.C.-1400 B.C. A Summary.” In Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik: VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9.-12. Oktober 2008, ed. W. Müller, 383—394. Berlin.

Wolf, D. Forthcoming 2024a. “Ariadne’s Dance—Staging Female Gesture in Neopalatial Soft-Stone Glyptic.” In Gesture, Stance, and Movement. Communicating Bodies in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. U. Günkel-Maschek, C. Murphy, F. Blakolmer, and D. Panagiotopoulos. Heidelberg.

Wolf, D. Forthcoming 2024b. Late Minoan Representation Soft Stone Seals. Chronology, Contexts, Craft, and Cognition. Louvain-la-Neuve.

Younger, J. G. 1983. “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Masters and Workshops II. The First-Generation Minoan Masters,” Kadmos 23.1:38—64.

Younger, J. G. 1986. “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Stylistic Groups V. Minoan Groups Contemporary with LM IIIA1.” Kadmos 25.2:119—140.

Younger, J. G. 1991. A Bibliography for Aegean Glyptic in the Bronze Age. Berlin.

Younger, J. G. 2000. “The Spectacle-Eyes Group: Continuity and Innovation for the First Mycenaean Administration at Knossos.” In: Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.–25. September 1999, ed. I. Pini, 347—360. Berlin.

Yule, P. 1981. Early Cretan Seals. Mayence.

Footnotes

[1] On sphragistic use, cf. references in Younger 1991:94—95; further Hallager 1996.

[2] Krzyszkowska 2005a:21—22; 2011; 2012.

[3] Krzyszkowska 2012:739.

[4] Yule 1981; Sbonias 1995; Anastasiadou 2011.

[5] Onassoglou 1985; Becker 2018.

[6] Most recently: Crowley 2024.

[7] Dates after Warren 2010:393.

[8] Krzyszkowska 2005a:83—85.

[9] Evans 1935:484—485.

[10] Boardman 1970:48.

[11] An example of this practice is the selective way that soft-stone seals are mentioned and extensively discussed, while others are glanced over in the reports on the excavations of the Knossos Royal Road; cf. Warren 1980—81; 1982—83.

[12] E.g. in Iliopoulos 1998:881.

[13] Krzyszkowska 2005b:773—774; 2011:439. An exception are the early articles by J. G. Younger (1983, 1986), who provided the first overview of the material, and later case studies of iconographic groups by Pini (1995, 2010) and Müller (1995).

[14] Boardman 1970:48; Betts and Younger 1982:120; Krzyszkowska 2005a:20.

[15] Krzyszkowska 2005a:20. Cf. further, p. 124, “[..] soft stone engravers often imitated stylistic features of hard stone seals and metal signet rings, they also drew on much the same iconographic repertoire.”

[16] Betts 1989:15.

[17] This included, in 2021, The National Archaeological Museum Athens, the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, and, in 2022, the Staatliche Münzsammlung München; further the seals of the Sissi Archaeological Project (2019). I warmly thank these institutions and their representatives for giving me the opportunity to study the originals, despite the many restrictions caused by the covid-19 pandemic.

[18] Pini 2010:325.

[19] Tools and techniques of seal engraving: Evely 1993.

[20] Parameters for identifying style include: (1) depth and thickness of engraving; (2) depth and modeling of details; (3) drill use; (4) shapes of individual elements; (5) ratio of motif size to free space; (6) scaling; (7) poses.

[21] On the Cut Style: Krzyszkowska 2020a; 2022.

[22] Younger 1986; 2000.

[23] Anastasiadou 2015:262—263 figure 9.4a.

[24] This phenomenon occurred sporadically in the Protopalatial period (cf. Anastasiadou 2011:45—46). The same accounts for the Neopalatial and FP soft-stone repertoire, which includes only few soft-stone seals engraved in the hard-stone technique (e.g. the LM I seal in Figure 1a or the LM III seal Heraklion Museum no. 2540, cf. Anastasiadou 2015:262—263, 433 pl. XI).

[25] CMS I no. 13.

[26] Further soft-stone deer: CMS I no.  499; II4 no. 140.

[27] Poses: cf. Wolf forthcoming 2024b, Chapter 5.4.1.

[28] CMS II3 no. 279, a Cypro-Aegean hematite cylinder seal from Palaikastro engraved in the hard-stone technique could be considered a possible exception. It is only marginally related to the seals under discussion, based 1. on the seal-shape, an outlier in the Aegean repertoire related to Asia Minor glyptic, and 2. on stylistic accounts, discussed in more detail by Pini 1980: 81 C5, 101; Dubcová 2020:215. Cf. Pini 1980 on Cypro-Aegean cylinder seals; Dubcová 2020 on bird-human hybrids in their possible origins in Egypt and the Asia Minor. I thank the anonymous reviewer for referring this seal to me.

[29] Cf. the description in CMS VS1A, p. 113.

[30] On terminological and identificatory difficulties viz. Bronze Age vitreous materials: Sherratt 2008:209—210. On engraved glass seals in LM II–III: Krzyszkowska 2005a:198.

[31] The iconographic groups are discussed in Wolf forthcoming 2024a.

[32] The iconography of the latter is discussed extensively by J.L. Palmer 2014:252—256.

[33] A clear LM IA horizon is present in a Type 3 soft-stone from a Neopalatial building in Petras, cf. Rupp and Tsipopoulou 2012. The prevalent style of the seals (Delineated Style) can be found in a large number of LM IA seals but appears to have lasted into at least LM IB-early, cf. Wolf forthcoming 2024b, chapter 6.3.1.

[34] Cabinet des Médailles no. M6621, cf. Krzyszkowska 2020b, fig. 1.

[35] Krzyszkowska 2005a:129 fig. 219.

[36] See Figure 14 for a comparison of the median diameters and thicknesses of soft-stone and hard-stone lentoid seals covered in this study.

[37] Knossian examples were found in the Unexplored Mansion, House of the Frescoes, Gypsum House, and House of the Ivories (Heraklion museum nos. 2094, 2995, 3190; CMS II3 no. 17; II4 no. 111). The Malia specimen (CMS II4 no. 165) is from Quartier Epsilon, the Archanes seal from a possible sanctuary, (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997:696). Distribution is discussed in detail in Wolf forthcoming 2024b, chapter 6.4.2.

[38] Previously discussed by Pini 1995:198—199 as “Chimära-Typus”.

[39] Further CMS VI no. 267; and X no. 264.

[40] Wolf forthcoming 2024b, chapter 6.3.1.

[41] Sapouna-Sakellaraki and Sakellarakis 1988:159; Sakellaraki 2017:379—380, fig. 35; van Effenterre 1980:572—574, fig. 847; Karetsou 1978:255 Pl. 169 γ–δ; Pini 1995:199 n. 3; Kanta 1980:32; Pini 2010:338 n. 46.

[42] Knappett 2020:89—90; Krzyszkowska 2005a:235—236.

[43] Pini 2000; Drakaki 2005–2006 (2009).

[44] Krzyszkowska 2005a:124.

[45] Krzyszkowska 2005a:236.

[46] Stocker and Davis 2016.

[47] Stocker and Davis 2016:640—643.

[48] https://www.heraklionmuseum.gr/en/exhibit/the-ring-of-minos/ (accessed 2024-06-02).

[49] Hallager 1985. I thank the anonymous reviewer for this observation.

[50] Cf. above, n. 14.

2. What do Linear B tablets tell us about Mycenaean diplomatic relations? A comparison between Mycenaean and Hittite documents recording vessels and furniture.

Presenter: Lavinia Giorgi

Introduction

§50. Diplomatic relations during the Late Bronze Age (LBA) in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean are documented by written, iconographical, and archaeological sources. For example, the royal correspondence testifies to political contact accompanied by gift-exchange (Mauss 1925; Liverani 1994:217—260; Liverani 1999:324—331; Zaccagnini 1999:181; Feldman 2006:14—18; Walsh 2016:54—55), such as the Amarna Letters and the Hittite diplomatic texts (Moran 1992; Liverani 1998; Liverani 1999; Beckman et al. 2011; Rainey 2015). Egyptian tomb paintings show diplomatic ceremonies and prestige objects, which are sometimes similar to gifts mentioned in the texts and the artifacts also present in archaeological contexts (Feldman 2006:16—18, 22, 29; Walsh 2014:202; Walsh 2016:58—61). These artifacts can be interpreted in two ways, either as the result of gift-exchanges between elites, in accompaniment with political relations, such as, the faience plaques and scarabs with the cartouche of the pharaoh Amenhotep III and his wife Tiyi found in Mycenae and Crete (Cline 1987; Cline 1993:22—34; Cline 1994). Alternatively, they might have been produced locally, consistent with a hybrid style shared throughout the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, which scholars have called “International Style” or “International koine” (Feldman 2006:1—71 with quoted bibliography).

§51. Archaeological evidence shows that the Aegean communities participated in the LBA Near Eastern network (illustrative but not exhaustive bibliography in Cline 1993). However, written sources do not explicitly testify to diplomatic and political relations between the Mycenaeans and other contemporary rulers. The Amarna Letters, for example, do not mention the Mycenaeans among the pharaoh’s partners (Feldman 2006:9), and Linear B tablets are silent about any diplomatic relationship (Snodgrass 1991:16; Olivier 1997:277; Jasink 2005:60, 67; Kelder 2012:48) because they deal with the internal administration of Mycenaean kingdoms.

§52. A possible reference to political relations involving the Mycenaeans could be found in the Hittite texts mentioning Aḫḫiyawa, assuming the validity of the link between the words Aḫḫiyawa and Achaeans and/or Achaea (Forrer 1924:9—10; Muhly 1974; Atila 2021:335—337). The first term occurs mainly in diplomatic documents, but also in historical, political, religious, and inventory texts (Beckman et al. 2011; Dickinson 2019; Melchert 2020). These texts have been extensively studied to better understand Aḫḫiyawa’s identity, its relationship with the Hittites, and the history of Western Anatolia (Güterbock 1983; Bryce 1989; Taracha 2001; Bryce 2003; Hope Simpson 2003; Bryce 2018; Greco 2018; Kelder 2018; Taracha 2018; Weeden 2018; Waal 2019; Atila 2021; Blackwell 2021. All with quoted references). However, the connection between Aḫḫiyawa and Mycenaeans is still debated.[1]

§53. Despite the limited and uncertain data available, possible indirect evidence of diplomatic exchanges/relations involving the Mycenaean kingdoms can be identified in the prestigious objects described in some Linear B tablets. Such artifacts may have reached the Mycenaean courts as luxury gifts circulated among the palace elites (Feldman 2006:30; Walsh 2014:211—213) as a possible signifier of political-diplomatic relations. However, this is likely to be indirectly associated, because they were recorded in texts responding to a purpose other than diplomatic.

§54. Most of the goods are furniture and precious vessels made and/or decorated with precious materials such as ebony, gold, silver, ivory, lapis lazuli, blue glass, and semi-precious stones. These paraphernalia are mentioned not only in the Linear B tablets, but also in the Hittite inventory texts and in the Amarna Letters, all of which fall into the same chronological framework (fourteenth–early twelfth century BCE). The Amarnian correspondence explicitly documents the circulation of luxury materials and goods in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East during the LBA, while the Mycenaean and Hittite administrative texts provide little or no information about the nature of the objects, possible senders, and/or recipients or the reasons for the record, preventing a definitive understanding of whether the recorded items were the result of gift exchanges or locally craftwork consistent with shared patterns of wealth and power.

§55. By comparing Mycenaean written sources with Hittite administrative texts and combining the data with data from the Amarna Letters and archaeology, this paper aims to investigate what information Linear B tablets can indirectly provide on the diplomatic relations of the Mycenaeans with other partners.

The Linear B evidence

§56. The valuable items recorded in the Linear B tablets are mainly luxury furniture and vessels made of precious materials, such as those that are described in the Ta and Tn series from Pylos (Doria 1956; Higgins 1956; Ventris 1956; L. Palmer 1957; Hiller 1971; Gallavotti 1972; Sacconi 1987; Del Freo 1990; Killen 1998; Palaima 1999; Palaima 2000; Varias 2008; Godart 2009; Shelmerdine 2012; Tsagrakis 2012; Varias 2016; Palaima and Blackwell 2020; Aura Jorro 2021; Pierini et al. 2021; Blackwell and Palaima 2021; Morton et al. 2023; Palaima 2023; Killen and Bennet 2024).

§57. The Ta series includes 13 tablets that list “what Phugeg^wris saw when the king appointed Augewās as da-mo-ko-ro” (PY Ta 711.1). The tablets describe furniture, utensils, and vessels required for an unknown event. From the late fifties, scholars have proposed several hypotheses (Del Freo 1990; Aura Jorro 2021:16—24 for an overview), namely:

• a registration of furniture in a reception hall (Ventris 1956; Sacconi 1971:36—38; Gallavotti 1972; Docs² 334; Del Freo 1990).
• an inventory of furniture stored in a palatial storeroom (Doria 1956; Higgins 1956).
• a temple inventory (Hiller 1971).
• an inventory of funerary goods in Augewās’ grave (Palmer 1957) or used in a funerary feast (Palaima 2023).
• a list of paraphernalia for a ritual ceremony, that included the sacrifice and consumption of animals during a banquet (Killen 1998; Speciale 1999:292; Palaima 2000; Palaima 2004:234; Bennet 2008:151, 154; Palaima and Blackwell 2020; Blackwell and Palaima 2021). The items could be used for both sacrifice and banquet, or just as a ritual sacrifice (Pierini 2021:128—130; Morton et al. 2023).

§58. Following Palaima’s sequence, the tablets record: libation vessels, offering vessels, fire implements, tripods, other vessels, slaughtering paraphernalia, and furniture.[2] Furniture included eleven tables (Piquero 2021; Morton et al. 2023:172–178), six thrones,[3] and sixteen (foot)stools (Palaima 2004:115; Tsagrakis 2012:327—329; Perna and Zucca 2021; Pierini 2021:117—118) and appear to be the most luxurious objects in the document, especially in terms of materials[4] and decoration patterns (Table 2). Stone (ra-e-ja), rock crystal? (we-a-re-ja/we-a₂-re-jo),[5] false ebony (ku-te-so), boxwood (pu-ko-so), and ivory (e-re-pa-te/-te-jo/a)[6] form the furnishings or parts thereof. Ivory is also used for inlaying (a-ja-me-na/o) furniture, along with gold (ku-ru-so), ku-wa-no, probably blue glass (Docs²:559; Halleux 1969; Nightingale 1998:213—215; Bennet 2008:159—162; Piquero 2015:288—292; Varias 2016:554; Killen and Bennet 2024:787—788),[7] pa-ra-ku, i.e. emerald, green glass or green decoration (DMic s.v.; Piquero 2015; Killen and Bennet 2024:788), and a₂-ro[ ]u-do-pi, aquamarine or purple semi-precious stone (Piquero 2021:46; Romani 2021; Killen and Bennet 2024:787). The furniture is also decorated using the carving technique (qe-qi-no-to/qe-qi-no-me-na).

§59. Inlaid and carved decorative motifs are:

• geometric: spirals (to-qi-de), bands (ko-no-ni-pi);
• plant: palmettes (po-ni-ke/-ki-pi), walnut (ka-ru-we/-pi);
• animal: shells (ko-ki-re-ja), wings (pi-ti-ro₂-we-sa), birds (o-ni-ti-ja-pi), octopuses (po-ru-po-de), calves (po-ti-pi), horses (i-qo), lions (re-wo-pi), or lion heads (ka-ra-a-pi re-wo-te-jo);
• human: male figures (a-di-ri-ja-te/-pi, a-to-ro-qo), sphinx/siren heads (se-re-mo-ka-ra-a-pi/-o-re: Luján et al. 2017);[8]
• objects: lunettes (me-no-e-ja), helmets (ko-ru-pi);
• unidentified: so-we-no, au-de-pi.

§60. The Ta series provides additional information, including the circular shape of the tables (a-pi-qo-to) and the component parts of the furniture. The thrones have an inlaid backrest (o-pi-ke-re-mi-ni-ja: Luján and Piquero 2022), while the tables may or may not have the top (a-ka-ra-no) and the supports (e-ka-ma-te). Tables are also defined as we-pe-za (‘with six legs’), or e-ne-wo-pe-za (‘with nine legs’: Morton et al. 2023:172–174), although the terms have been alternatively interpreted as indicating the number of leg pieces (Yasur-Landau 2005), whereas the most common Mycenaean tables would have had three legs, as testified by etymological and iconographic evidence (Sabattini 2021).

Table 2. Summary table of the furniture described in the Pylos Ta series.

§61. The value of the vases recorded in the Ta series is less clear because the manufacturing materials are not specified but can be inferred from the shape of the vessels (Table 3). Comparison with archaeological evidence shows that di-pa/*202^VAS (cf. later /depas/) and qe-to/*203^VAS (cf. later /pithos/) would have been pottery vessels, probably not particularly valuable, while qe-ra-na/*204^VAS (bath vase: DMic s.v.; Shelmerdine 2012:693), pi-je-ra₃/*200^VAS (basins), pa-ko-to/*214^VAS (jar?), and ti-ri-po/*201^VAS (tripod: Russotti 2021) could have been metal vessels, perhaps precious, as suggested by their description (Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979:221—241, 246—257; Dialismas 2001:129—134).

§62. Qe-ra-na and pi-je-ra₃ vessels are characterized by the following decorative motifs:

• geometric: shell, spirals (to-qi-de-we-sa);
• animal: bull head (qo-u-ka-ra);
• human: female figures (ku-na-ja);
• uncertain: ko-ro-no-we-sa (either /korōnowessa/, ‘with circular motif’, or /klonowessa/, ‘with warriors in combat training’: DMic s.vv.; Varias 2016:554), a₃-ke-u (/aigeus/, with a goat or an Aegean or a high waves motif: Biraschi 1993:78—79; Melena 2014, 213; Docs³ s.v.; Killen and Bennet 2024, 784—786), *34-ke-u, that has been read either as a graphic variant of a₃-ke-u or as ru₂-ke-u (/lukeus/, ‘decorated with a wolf’ or /lugkeus/, ‘decorated with a lynx’);[9]
• unidentified: a-pe-te-me-ne, o-pi-ke-wi-ri-je-u, so-we-ne-ja, au-de-we-sa.

§63. The similarity of the decorative patterns to those found on furniture supports the hypothesis that metal vessels are also valuable.

§64. Furthermore, qe-ra-na are qualified as wa-na-se-wi-ja and a-mo-te-wi-ja, adjectives perhaps indicating “a type, shape or material conventionally so named” (Killen and Bennet 2024:782—783), that can be derived from names in -eus, respectively *wa-na-se-u (potentially, an official connected to the wa-na-sa, ‘queen’) and a-mo-te-u (‘wheel-maker’). The tripods would be of Cretan workmanship or aspect (ke-re-si-jo we-ke: Heubeck 1986; Pierini and Rosamilia 2021. Otherwise, Biraschi 1993), and in two cases are damaged because one has burnt legs and another only a leg and a handle (PY Ta 641.1: DMic s.v.; Varias 2016:555; Russotti 2021:37—38. Alternatively, Doria 1973:27—35; Biraschi 1993).

§65. In contrast, the vases recorded in the two tablets of the Tn series could have had a high value due to their manufacturing materials (Table 3). Indeed, in PY Tn 996 jugs (a-te-we/*205^VAS) and cups (po-ka-ta-ma/*208^VAS) are made of bronze (*140/AES) and gold (*141/AUR), while in PY Tn 316 bowls (*213^VAS), cups (*215^VAS), and goblets (*216^VAS) (Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979:183—185, 209—216, 252—253) are made of gold (*141/aur). In both tablets logogram *141 appears in two slightly different shapes (Godart 2009:112), which have been interpreted as graphic variants (*141a and *141b), perhaps with a different meaning: *141a would have represented gold, while *141b would have represented silver (Godart 2009:113–114; de Fidio 2024:267—268). Nevertheless, the decision whether to consider the two signs as different logograms is still to be made (Nosch and Landenius-Enegren 2017:837). Whether it was gold or silver, logogram *141 highlights that the vases recorded in the Tn series were made of precious metals.

Table 3. Summary table of the vases recorded in the Pylos T-class.

The Hittite inventory texts

§66. Hittite inventory texts record an extensive number of goods, including high-value items similar to those mentioned in the Linear B tablets, sometimes providing additional information about the occasion for which the documents were written or the origin and/or destination of the objects.

§67. As for the furniture (Table 4), tables (^GIŠBANŠUR) are recorded in KBo 53.289, HFAC 9, and KUB 42.37 (Košak 1982:151—152; Siegelová 1986:70—71; Burgin 2022b:518—523). In HFAC 9, the table is made of wicker (^GIŠḫariuzzi-), with feet covered with gold (KÙ.SI₂₂), while in KUB 42.37 the tables have feet with nine pieces made of ivory (GÌR ZU₉ AM.SI) and nine made of ebony (GIR ^GIŠESI) (Yasur-Landau 2005:300—302; Burgin 2022b:521—523).

§68. The fest ritual fragment KUB 35.133 lists more than ten tables and two chairs (^GIŠŠÙ.A), one of them for the king, possibly the throne (https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/TLHdig/tlh_xtx.php?d=KUB%2035.133). A wood chair (^GIŠšarpa) is also mentioned in the fragment KBo 47.3 (Burgin 2022b:271–272) and one inlaid with gold (KÙ.SI₂₂ GAR.RA) as well as a stool (^GIŠGÌR.GUB) are listed in KUB 42.21 (Košak 1982:46–47; Siegelová 1986:137–139; Burgin 2022b:225–228).

§69. Beds are also recorded, such as the one made of ivory and ebony and overlaid with gold (GIŠ.KIN KÙ.SI₂₂) in KUB 42.34, one probably decorated with gold in KUB 42.57, and another made of boxwood (^GIŠTÚG) in KBo 31.53.[10]

§70. In some texts, the furniture is associated with vessels, such as in KUB 42.81++ and KBo 18.172 (Košak 1982:98—100; Siegelová 1986:490—493; Burgin 2022b:69—72, 403—408). The first lists gold and silver zoomorphic vessels/BIBRI[11], cups (^(DUG)GAL), chairs, and one Hurrian table made of ebony and ivory. The second records gold cups inlaid with semi-precious stones, silver vessels, and chairs made of ebony and overlaid with gold.

Table 4. Summary table of the furniture recorded in Hittite inventory texts.

§71. Cups, zoomorphic vessels, and other vessels, made of precious metals (Table 5), are recorded in other texts,[12] where they sometimes appear as gifts. For example, KUB 42.48 lists diplomatic gifts potentially addressed to Ugarit, that includes two cups, one made of gold, the other of silver (Košak 1982:126—127; Siegelová 1986:242—245; Burgin 2022b:216—218). VSNF 12.116 is a preliminary inventory of chests which contains incoming gifts, including silver cups and BIBRI for smiths (Burgin 2022b:24—30). IBoT 1.31 and KUB 42.65 are part of a preliminary inventory of chests containing incoming gifts and tributes, that include a gold cup and copper vases for washing (warpuwaš and NÍG.ŠU.LUḪ URUDU) (Košak 1982:4—10, 158—159; Siegelová 1986:80—85; Burgin 2022b:37—47). Also, KBo 9.91 (Košak 1982:24—29; Siegelová 1986:332—335; Burgin 2022b:283—290) is an inventory of chests which contain clothes, garments, utensils, and silver zoomorphic vessels coming from Egypt, and two silver cups for the garrison of Nerik. Another example is KBo 2.11, a letter that mentions gold and silver rhyta as gifts originally intended for the pharaoh but redirected to the Aḫḫiyawa king (Beckman et al. 2011:149; Waal 2019:16).

§72. Lion-shaped BIBRI together with cow-, deer-, eagle-, leopard-, and sphinx-shaped BIBRI made of gold, black iron, stone, lapis lazuli, and mušnuwanti-stone are listed in KBo 48.262+ and gold lion-shaped BIBRI are recorded in KUB 34.87 as votive objects for several deities, along with silver vases, utensils, and weapons (Burgin 2022b:315—319, 391—402).

§73. Luxury materials like gold, silver, ivory, boxwood, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and others are also used to make and decorate other objects, such as boxes (^GIŠDUB.ŠEN) and chests (^GIPISAN), (wool) combs (^GIŠGA.ZUM), jewelry, and statues of/for Hittite deities.[13]

§74. Texts that are part of the KASKAL series are of particular interest, with administrative texts dealing with the transportation of durable goods, that have in common a similar formula characterized by the presence of the Sumerogram KASKAL, meaning ‘way/journey/road’ (Košak 1982:10—23, 31—45, 125—126, 173—174, 181; Siegelová 1986:388—438; Burgin 2022a:144—148; Burgin 2022b:325—356). They list items made of precious materials and often inform on their provenience, like rings made of gold, lapis lazuli, and carnelian, coming from Egypt, Babylon, and Lukka.

Table 5. Summary table of the vases recorded in Hittite texts.

Comparison and integration of data

§75. The presented analysis revealed that the luxury objects described in Mycenean and Hittite texts share some similar aspects whilst also differing in others.

§76. A common element between Mycenean and Hittite furniture is the number of feet or feet pieces of tables, which equal nine, as well as the manufacturing material, as shown by the ivory feet of the tables described in PY Ta 642.3 and KUB 42.37.

§77. As for the manufacture materials, ebony, ivory, and gold are mentioned in Mycenaean and Hittite texts as well as in the Amarna Letters. Most beds, headrests, stools, chairs, and thrones recorded in EA 5, EA 14, EA 31, EA 34, and EA 120 are made of ebony, with ivory in some cases, such as a bed in EA 5, three headrests in EA 14, or inlaid ivory, such as ten chairs listed in EA 31, with gold plating (uḫḫuzu) used for decoration (Rainey 2015:76—79, 112—127, 326—329, 336—339, 632—635, 1329—1330, 1342—1345, 1378—1379, 1464—1465, with previous quoted editions Moran 1992; Liverani 1998; Liverani 1999). Boxwood appears as a raw material offered by the governor of Alašiya to Egypt in exchange for ivory (EA 40) (Rainey 2015:356—357, 1385—1386, with previous quoted editions Moran 1992; Liverani 1999), whilst in the Mycenaean and Hittite texts, which record it as a manufacturing material for a table in PY Ta 715.3 and beds in KBo 18.181, KBo 18.170(+)–KUB 42.43, KBo 31.35, and HFAC 10.

§78. The Ta series reveals additional differences in recorded materials because, besides ebony, boxwood, ivory, and gold, it mentions blue glass (ku-wa-no), green glass or emerald (pa-ra-ku), and semi-precious stones as materials for furniture decoration.

§79. Furthermore, the decoration techniques differ slightly: Linear B tablets mention inlays and carving, whereas Hittite texts and Amarna Letters mention plating (GIŠ.KIN and uḫḫuzu respectively) rather than carving, in addition to inlays.

§80. Decorative patterns distinguish furniture recorded on Linear B tablets from those mentioned in Hittite and Amarnian texts. The Ta series provides detailed information on decorative motifs for furniture, unlike the Hittite texts and Amarna Letters. The only exception is the lion motif, which appears on both Linear B and Hittite tablets. On the one hand, two ta-ra-nu were decorated with ivory lion-shaped inlays in PY Ta 708.3 and PY Ta 722.2; on the other, KBo 18.172 records three ebony crossed-leg chairs with gold plating and ivory lion-shaped feet.

§81. As a result, although Mycenaean and Hittite furniture share some elements, the furnishings described in the Hittite and Amarnian texts are more similar. This situation seems to reduce the likelihood that furniture recorded on Linear B tablets were obtained through inter-regional gift-exchanges.

§82. The available documentation instead suggests that the Mycenaean tables and seats may have been produced locally using precious imported raw materials, on the one hand adapting to shared etiquettes in the LBA courts, consistent with the idea of an “International koine” (Walsh 2016:194—222; Feldman 2006:1—71), whilst on the other hand considering the possible involvement of itinerant craftsmen to produce such luxury objects (Feldman 2006:12, 125—126). This hypothesis is supported by the reference of specialized craftspeople in the processing of non-local materials (ku-wa-no-wo-ko for blue glass, ku-ru-so-wo-ko for gold, pi-ri-je-te-re perhaps for ivory), in the Linear B corpus (Voutsa 2001:155—160), and in archaeological evidence of artisanal activities related to ivory, blue glass, and other precious materials.[14] The Uluburun wreck confirms this assumption because its cargo and possible destination towards the Aegean (Bloedow 2005:340; Cline and Yasur-Landau 2007) suggest that high-value raw resources, including ebony, ivory, and blue glass, which are also mentioned in the Pylos Ta series, would arrive in Mycenaean Greece (Caubet 1998:105; Bachhuber 2006:351). The same materials also appear in the Amarna Letters as commodities exchanged between Great Kings, as well as between the pharaoh and the vassal rulers, confirming their circulation in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, Hittite inventory texts that record votive statues for local deities made of ebony, gold, and ivory support the hypothesis of local production because they indicate that the Hittites used imported raw precious materials for internal purposes. However, the possible local production of Mycenaean furniture does not rule out that such precious objects were exchanged as gifts among the Mycenaean kings.

§83. In contrast, greater consistency has emerged regarding the vessels, as evidenced by the gold and silver cups mentioned in PY Tn 316 and Hittite inventories KUB 42.48, IBoT 1.31, KUB 42.65, and the KASKAL series. The latter record incoming gifts, perhaps from Ugarit or Egypt, with the queen present, proving the import of precious metal cups into Anatolia and the official character of the entry process.

§84. Hittite texts also mention zoomorphic vessels made of precious materials as diplomatic gifts (KBo 2.11, KBo 48.262+) as well as the Amarna Letter EA 41, which mentions a silver deer-shaped vessel promised to Amenophi IV by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma (Rainey 2015:358—361, 1386—1387, with previous quoted editions Moran 1992; Liverani 1999). Zoomorphic vessels, as appropriate offerings in elite contexts, are supported by archaeological evidence, for example a silver stag-shaped vessel of Anatolian origin discovered in the Shaft Grave IV of Circle A at Mycenae (Cline 1994:213–214; Koehl 1995; Koehl 2013; Stos-Gale 2014:199).

§85. These pieces of evidence provide credence to the hypothesis that the two qe-ra-na decorated with bull heads in Mycenaean tablet PY Ta 711 could have been obtained as diplomatic gifts and made of silver or, perhaps, gold.

§86. Based on the examined sources, the vases recorded in the Linear B tablets may have been imported as gifts accompanying diplomatic relations with the Great Kings.[15]

Conclusions

§87. In summary, although the Linear B tablets do not explicitly record diplomatic relations or gift exchanges, mentioning precious objects seems to provide complementary indirect information, which may help in increasing knowledge on the nature of the Mycenaean high-level contacts. On the one hand, luxury furniture showed that trade contacts ensured the entry of both the luxury materials of which they were made, and the ideas behind their precise stylistic articulation (Walsh 2014; Caubet 1998:109—110). The local processing of valuable imported materials to produce luxury items shows the intention to enjoy and flaunt the same prestigious goods exchanged by the Great Kings, following a pattern of wealth and power shared throughout the Eastern Mediterranean (Caubet 1998; Manning and Hulin 2005:285; Walsh 2014).[16] On the other hand, the precious vessels that match with those exchanged as royal gifts proved to be a valid indicator that gift-exchanges also involved Mycenaeans, who would, therefore, have been included in the Great Kings’ “club”.

§88. In the light of all this, the question in the title can be answered. The analysis of the Linear B tablets from a different perspective provides information that improves our understanding of the Mycenaeans’ diplomatic relations and, above all, on the exchange of goods that accompanied them.

§89. Bibliography

Archives = Godart, L., and A. Sacconi. 2019-2020. Les archives du roi Nestor: Corpus des inscriptions en linéaire B de Pylos. 2 vols. Pasiphae 13-14. Pisa and Rome.

Aura Jorro, F. 2021. “Las interpretaciones de la serie Ta de Pilo en su contexto.” In Pierini et al. 2021:7—26.

Atila, C. 2021. “The Ahhiyawa Question: Reconsidered.” Belleten 85/3:333—359.

Bachhuber, C. 2006. “Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship.” American Journal of Archaeology 110/3:345—363.

Beckman, G., T. Bryce, and E. H. Cline. 2011. The Ahhiyawa Texts. Atlanta.

Bennet, J. 2008. “PalaceTM: Speculations on Palatial Production in Mycenaean Greece with (Some) Reference to Glass.” In Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, ed. C. M. Jackson, and E. C. Wager, 151—172. Oxford.

Bennet, J., and P. Halstead. 2014. “O-no! Writing and Righting Redistribution.” In KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, ed. D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S. A. James, 271—282. Prehistory Monographs 46. Philadelphia.

Biraschi, A. M. 1993. “Miceneo ke-re-si-jo we-ke. A proposito della tavoletta dei tripodi (PY Ta 641).” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 32:77—84.

Blackwell, N. G. 2021. “Ahhiyawa, Hatti and diplomacy: implications of Hittite misperceptions of the Mycenaean world.” Hesperia 90:191—231.

Blackwell, N. G., and T. Palaima. 2021. “Further Discussion on pa-sa-ro on Pylos Ta 716: Insights from the Ayia Triada Sarcophagus.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 7:21—37.

Bloedow, E. F. 2005. “Aspects of trade in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean: what was the ultimate destination of the Uluburun ship?.” In Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, ed. R. Laffineur, and E. Greco, 335—341. Aegeum 25. Liège and Austin.

Bryce, T. 1989. “Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans. An Anatolian Viewpoint.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8:297—310.

Bryce, T. 2003. “Relations between Ḫatti and Aḫḫiyawa in the Last Decades of the Bronze Age.” In Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. G. Beckman, R. Beal, and G. McMahon, 59—72. Winona Lake, IN.

Bryce, T. 2018. “The kingdom of Ahhiyawa: a Hittite perspective.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 4:191—197.

Burgin, J. 2022a. Studies in Hittite Economic Administration. A New Edition of the Hittite Palace-Temple Administrative Corpus and Research on Allied Texts Found at Ḫattuša. Vol. 1. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten. Wiesbaden.

Burgin, J. 2022b. Studies in Hittite Economic Administration. A New Edition of the Hittite Palace-Temple Administrative Corpus and Research on Allied Texts Found at Ḫattuša. Vol. 2. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten. Wiesbaden.

Caubet, A. 1998. “The International Style: a point of view from the Levant and Syria.” In The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, University of Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997, ed. E. H. Cline, and D. Harris-Cline, 105—113. Aegaeum 18. Liège andAustin.

Cline, E. 1987. “Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the 14th Century B.C.” Orientalia 56/1:1—36.

Cline, E. 1993. “Contact and Trade or Colonization? Egypt and the Aegean in the 14th-13th Centuries B.C.” Minos 25-26 (1990–1991):7—36.

Cline, E. 1994. Sailing the Wine-dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 591. Oxford.

Cline, E., and A. Yasur-Landau. 2007. “Musings from a Distant Shore. The Nature and Destination of the Uluburun Ship and its Cargo.” Tel Aviv 34/2:125—141.

de Fidio, P. 2024. “Economy.” In Docs³:267—289.

Del Freo, M. 1990. “Miceneo a-pi to-ni-jo e la serie Ta di Pilo.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 28:287—331.

Dialismas, A. 2001. “Metal artefacts as recorded in the Linear B tablets.” In Manufacture and Measurement. Counting, Measuring and Recording. Craft Items in Early Aegean Societies, ed. A. Michailidou, 120—143. Meletemata 33. Athens.

Dickinson, O. 2019. “The Use and Misuse of the Ahhiyawa Texts.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 5:7—22.

DMic = Aura Jorro, F. 1985-1993. Diccionario micénico. 2 vols. Madrid.

Docs² = Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge.

Docs³ = J. Killen ed. 2024. The New Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge.

Doria, M. 1956. Interpretazioni di testi micenei; le tavolette della classe Ta di Pilo. Trieste.

Doria, M. 1973. Varia Mycenaea. Trieste.

Egetmeyer, M. 2022. “Woher kam der Mann von Ahhiya?.” Kadmos 61:1—36.

Feldman, M. 2006. Diplomacy by Design, Luxury Arts and ‘International Style’ in the Ancient Near East, 1400-1200 BCE. Chicago.

Forrer, E. 1924. “Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschrifttexten von Boghazköi.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 83:1—22.

Gallavotti, C. 1972. “Note omeriche e micenee, III: la sala delle cerimonie del palazzo di Nestore.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 15:24—32.

Godart, L. 2009. “I due scribi della tavoletta Tn 316.” Pasiphae. Rivista di filologia e antichità egee 3:99—115.

Greco, A. 2018. “‘Ecco … ha assoldato contro di noi i re degli Ittiti e i re di ‘Ahhijawa’ per assalirci’. Alcune riflessioni sul contesto economico, politico e sociale del fenomeno Ahhijawa.” Pasiphae. Rivista di filologia e antichità egee 12:105—117.

Güterbock, H. 1983. “The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered.” American Journal of Archaeology 87:133—143.

Halleux, R. 1969. “Lapis-lazuli, Azurite ou Pâte de verre? A propos de Kuwano et Kuwanowoko dans les Tablettes Mycéniennes.” Minos 9:47—66.

Hart, G. 1993. “Mycenaean se-re-mo-ka-ra-a-pi and se-re-mo-ka-ra-o-re.” Minos 25-26:319—329.

Heubeck, A. 1986. “Mykenisch ke-re-si-jo we-ke.” Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 47:81—85.

Higgins, R. 1956. “The archaeological background to the furniture tablets from Pylos.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 3:39—44.

Hiller, S. 1971. “Beinhaltet die Ta-Serie ein Kultinventar?.” Eirene 9:69—86.

Hope Simpson, R. 2003. “The Dodecanese and the Ahhiyawa Question.” Annual of the British School at Athens 98:203—237.

Jasink, A. M. 2005. “Mycenaean Means of Communication and Diplomatic Relations with Foreign Royal Courts.” In Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, ed. R. Laffineur, and E. Greco, 59—67. Aegaeum 25. Liège and Austin.

Judson, A. 2020. The Undeciphered Signs of Linear B: Interpretation and Scribal Practices. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge.

Kelder, J. 2012. “Ahhiyawa and the World of the Great Kings: A Re-evaluation of Mycenaean Political Structures.” Talanta 44:41—52.

Kelder, J. 2018. “The Kingdom of Ahhiyawa: Facts, Factoids, and Probabilities.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 4:200—208.

Kempinski, A., and S. Košak. 1977. “Hittite Metal “Inventories” (CTH 242) and their Economic Implications.” Tel Aviv 4:87—93.

Killen, J. 1998. “The Pylos Ta Tablets Revisited.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 122/2:421—422.

Killen, J. 2008. “Mycenaean Economy.” In A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Volume 1, ed. Y. Duhoux and A. Morpurgo Davies, 159—200. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 120. Louvain-la- Neuve.

Killen, J., and J. Bennet. 2024. “Finished Products I: Vessels and Furniture.” In Docs³:758—786.

Koehl, R. B. 1995. “The Silver Stag ‘BIBRU’ from Mycenae”. In The Age of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, ed. J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris, 61–66. Austin.

Koehl, R. B. 2013. “Bibru and Rhyton: Zoomorphic Vessels in the Near East and Aegean”. In Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., ed. J. Aruz, S. B. Graff, and Y. Rakic, 238–247. New York and New Haven.

Košak, S. 1982. Hittite Inventory Texts (CTH 241-250). Texte der Hethiter 10. Heidelberg.

Liverani, M. 1994. Guerra e Diplomazia nell’Antico Oriente, 1600-1100 a.C. Bari.

Liverani, M. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna. Le lettere dei Piccoli Re. Brescia.

Liverani, M. 1999. Le lettere di el-Amarna. Le lettere dei Grandi Re. Brescia.

Luján, E. R., and A. Bernabé. 2012. “Ivory and Horn Production in Mycenaean Texts.” In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010, ed. M.-L. Nosch, and R. Laffineur, 627—638. Aegaeum 33. Leuven and Liège.

Luján, E. R., J. Piquero, and F. Díez Platas. 2017. “What did Mycenaean Sirens Look Like?”. In Nosch and Landenius-Enegren:435—460.

Luján, E. R., and J. Piquero. 2022. “Mycenaean o-pi-ke-re-mi-ni-ja”. In TA-U-RO-QO-RO: Studies in Mycenaean Texts, Language and Culture in Honor of José Luis Melena Jiménez, ed. J. Méndez Dosuna, T. G. Palaima, C. Varias García, 121—130. Hellenic Studies 94. Washington, DC.

Manning, S. W., and L. Hulin. 2005. “Maritime Commerce and Geographies of Mobility in the Late Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean: Problematizations.” In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, ed. E. Blake, and A. B. Knapp, 270—302. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology 6. Oxford.

Mascheroni, L. M. 1979. “Un’interpretazione dell’inventario KBo XVI 83+XXIII 26 e i processi per malversazione alla corte di Ḫattuša.” In Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi Dicata, ed. O. Carruba, 353—371. Studia Mediterranea 1. Pavia.

Mauss, M. 1925. Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris.

Melchert, H. C. 2020. “Mycenaean and Hittite Diplomatic Correspondence: Fact and Fiction.” Classical Inquiries. https://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/mycenaean-and-hittite-diplomatic-correspondence-fact-and-fiction/

Melena, J. L. 2014. “Filling gaps in the Mycenaean Linear B additional syllabary: the case of syllabogram *34.” In Ágalma. Ofrenda desde la Filología Clásica a Manuel García Teijeiro, ed. A. Martínez Fernández, B. Ortega Villaro, H. Velasco López, and H. Zamora Salamanca, 207—226. Valladolid.

Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.

Morton, J., N. G. Blackwell, and K. W. Mahoney. 2023. “Sacrificial Ritual and the Palace of Nestor: A Reanalysis of the Ta Tablets.” American Journal of Archaeology 127/2:167—187.

Muhly, J. D. 1974. “Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomitus.” Historia 23:129—145.

Nightingale, G. 1998. “Glass and the Mycenaean Palaces of the Aegean.” In The Prehistory & History of Glassmaking Technology, ed. P. McCray, 213—215. Westerville, OH.

Nosch, M.-L., H. Landenius-Enegren eds. 2017. Aegean Scripts: Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Copenhagen, 2-5 September 2015. Incunabula Graeca 105. Rome.

Olivier, J.-P. 1997. “El comercio micénico desde la documentación epigráfica.” Minos 31-32:275—292.

Palaima, T. 1999. “KN 02 – Tn 316.” In Floreant Studia Mycenaea: Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995, ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, 437—461. Vienna.

Palaima, T. 2000. “The Pylos Ta series: from Michael Ventris to the new millennium.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 44:236—237.

Palaima, T. 2004. “Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents”. In The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, 217—246. Hesperia 73/2. Princeton.

Palaima, T. 2023. “The Pylos Ta Series and the Process of Inventorying Ritual Objects for a Funerary Banquet.” In Processions: Studies of Bronze Age Ritual and Ceremony presented to Robert B. Koehl, ed. J. Weingarten, C. F. Macdonald, J. Aruz, L. Fabian, and N. Kumar, 222—233. Oxford.

Palaima, T., and N. G. Blackwell. 2020. “Pylos Ta 716 and Mycenaean Ritual Paraphernalia: a reconsideration.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 6:67—96.

Palmer, L. R. 1957. “A Mycenaean tomb inventory.” Minos 5:58—92.

Perna, M., and R. Zucca. 2021. “Il ta-ra-nu nel Mediterraneo antico”. In Pierini et al. 2021:97—104.

Pierini, R. 2021. “Mycenaean wood: re-thinking the function of furniture in the Pylos Ta tablets within Bronze Age sacrificial practices.” In Pierini et al. 2021:107—136.

Pierini, R., A. Bernabé, and M. Ercoles. 2021. Thronos: Historical Grammar of Furniture in Mycenaean and Beyond. Eikasmos: Quaderni Bolognesi di Filologia Classica, Studi 32. Bologna.

Pierini, R. and E. Rosamilia. 2021. “Made in Crete: Tripods and other imported luxury items in Mycenaean and Classical Greek.” Classical Continuum. https://continuum.fas.harvard.edu/mast-fall-seminar-2021-friday-december-17/

Piquero, J. 2015. “Incrustaciones con vidrios de colores en Pilo. Análisis lingüístico y arqueológico de micénico pa-ra-ku-we.” In Orientalística en tiempos de crisis: actas del VI Congreso Nacional del Centro de Estudios del Próximo Oriente, ed. A. Bernabé, and J. A. Álvarez-Pedrosa Núñez, 285—296. Zaragoza.

Piquero, J. 2021. “The tables of the Pylos Ta series: text and context.” In Pierini et al. 2021:43—54.

Rainey, A. F. 2015. The El-Amarna Correspondence. Leiden.

Romani, E. 2021. “‘The odd couple’: morpho-syntactic analysis of a-ja-me-na a₂-ṛọ[ ]ụ-do-pi.” In Pierini et al. 2021:147—154.

Russotti, A. 2021. “ti-ri-po: unusual description for an every-day object.” In Pierini et al. 2021:31—41.

Sabattini, P. 2021. “Were Mycenaean tables three-footed? Etymological, iconographical, archaeological, and contextual remarks.” In Pierini et al. 2021:65—74.

Sacconi, A. 1971. Un problema di interpretazione omerica: La freccia e le asce del libro XXI dell’Odissea. Rome.

Sacconi, A. 1987. “La tavoletta di Pilo Tn 316: una registrazione di carattere eccezionale?.” In Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick, ed. J. T. Killen, J. L. Melena, and J.-P. Olivier, 551—555. Minos 20–22. Salamanca.

Shelmerdine, C. W. 2012. “Mycenaean Furniture and Vessels: Text and Image.” In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010, ed. M.-L. Nosch, and R. Laffineur, 685—695. Aegeum 33. Leuven and Liège.

Siegelová, J. 1986. Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente. Prague.

Singer, I. 2011. “Aḫḫijawans Bear­ing Gifts.” In The Calm before the Storm: Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, ed. I. Singer, 459—466. Writings from the Ancient World Supplement 1. Atlanta.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1991. “Bronze Age Exchange: A Minimalist Position.” In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, ed. N. Gale, 15—20. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Gothenburg.

Speciale, S. 1999. “La tavoletta PY Ta 716 e i sacrifici di animali.” In Ἐπί πόντον πλαζόμενοι. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma 18-20 febbraio 1998, ed. V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, and L. Vagnetti, 291—297. Rome.

Stos-Gale, Z. A. 2014. “Silver vessels in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves and their origin in the context of the metal supply in the Bronze Age Aegean.” In Metalle der Macht–Frühes Gold und Silber: 6. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19. Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale), ed. H. Meller, R. Risch, and E. Pernicka, 183—208. Halle (Saale).

Taracha, P. 2001. “Mycenaeans, Ahhi­yawa, and Hittite Imperial Policy in the West: A Note on KUB 26.91.” In Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalist­ische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. T. Richter, D. Pre­schel, and J. Klinger, 417—422. Saarbrücken.

Taracha, P. 2018. “Approaches to Mycenaean-Hittite Interconnec­tions in the Late Bronze Age.” In Change, Continuity, and Connectiv­ity: North-Eastern Mediterranean at the Turn of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age, ed. Ł. Niesiołowski-Spanò, and M. Węcowski, 8—22. Philippika 118. Wiesbaden.

Tournavitou, I. 1995. The ‘Ivory Houses’ at Mycenae. The British School at Athens Supplementary Volume 24. London.

Tsagrakis, A. 2012. “Furniture, Precious Items and Materials recorded in the Linear B archives.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 54:323—341.

Vandenabeele, F., and J.-P. Olivier. 1979. Les idéogrammes archéologiques du Linéaire B. Études crétoises 24. Paris.

Varias, C. 2008. “Observations on the Mycenean Vocabulary of Furniture and Vessels.” In Colloquium Romanum: atti del XII colloquio internazionale di micenologia, Roma, 20-25 febbraio 2006, ed. A. Sacconi, M. Del Freo, L. Godart, and M. Negri, 775—793. Pasiphae 2. Pisa and Rome.

Varias, C. 2016. “Testi relativi a mobilio e vasi pregiati.” In Manuale di epigrafia micenea: Introduzione allo studio dei testi in lineare B, ed. M. Del Freo, and M. Perna, 551—565. Padua.

Ventris, M. 1956. “Mycenaean furniture on the Pylos tablets.” Eranos 53:109—124.

Voutsa, K. 2001. “Mycenaean craftsmen in palace archives: Problems in interpretation.” In Manufacture and Measurement. Counting, Measuring and Recording. Craft Items in Early Aegean Societies, ed. A. Michailidou, 144—165. Meletemata 33. Athens.

Waal, W. 2019. “My Brother, A Great King, My Peer: Evidence for a Mycenaean Kingdom from Hittite Texts.” In From ‘LUGAL.GAL’ to ‘wanax’. Kingship and Political Organisation in the Late Bronze Aegean, ed. J. Kelder, and W. Waal, 9—29. Leiden.

Walsh, C. 2014. “The high life: courtly etiquette in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2013. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, March 19-22, 2013, eds. K. Accetta, R. Fellinger, P. Lourenço Gonçalves, S. Musselwhite, and W. P. van Pelt, 201—216. Oxford and Philadelphia.

Walsh, C. 2016. The Transmission of Courtly Lifestyles in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. PhD diss., University College London.

Weeden, M. 2018. “Hittite-Ahhiyawan Politics as Seen from the Tablets: A Reaction to Trevor Bryce’s Article from a Hittitological Perspective.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 4:217—227.

Yasur-Landau, A. 2005. “Mycenaean, Hittite and Mesopotamian tables ‘with nine feet’.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 47:299—307.

Zaccagnini, C. 1999. “Aspetti della diplomazia nel Vicino Oriente antico (XIV-XIII secolo a.C.).” Studi Storici 40/1:181—217.

[1] Recently Aḫḫiyawa was identified with Chios (Egetmeyer 2022).

[2] PY Ta 711, PY Ta 709, PY Ta 641, PY Ta 716, PY Ta 642, PY Ta 713 PY Ta 715, PY Ta 714, PY Ta 708, PY Ta 707, PY Ta 722 PY Ta 721, and PY Ta 710.

[3] As for the number and type of seats, see Palaima 2004:115; Varias 2016:553—554. Differently, Shelmerdine 2012:686; Tsagrakis 2012:326—327; Archives; Pierini 2021:116.

[4] As for the wood, see Pierini 2021:115.

[5] Pierini recently proposed the meaning ‘spring type’ referring to tables and chairs (Pierini 2021:121—124).

[6] ‘Made of ivory’ or ‘covered with ivory plaques’ (Luján and Bernabé 2012:627).

[7] As lapis lazuli, DMic s.v.; Tsagrakis 2012.

[8] As ‘onager’s head’, see Hart 1993.

[9] DMic s.v. On the possible phonetic values of *34 see Judson 2020, 128—135, with quoted bibliography.

[10] Further texts are KBo 18.168 and KBo 18.186. Košak 1982:54—56, 153, 169—170, 184—185, 192; Siegelová 1986:56—59, 378—379, 489, 510—513, 529—530; Burgin 2022b:449—451, 516—518, 534—536, 565—568.

[11] Definition based on Koehl 2013:240–243.

[12] Further texts are KUB 38.20, KUB 42.67, KBo 18.159, KBo 23.26+, KUB 42.42, KUB 42.19, KUB 12.1,  KBo 18.153(+)–KUB 26.66(+), KUB 42.10+, KBo 18.178, Bo 9184, KUB 40.95, KBo 2.11, KBo 31.54, KUB 42.61, KBo 71.46, DBH 46/2.150, KBo 18.170(+)–KUB 42.43, KBo 55.5, KBo 18.176, KUB 42.106, KUB 42.57, KBo 13.239, and KBo 18.181. For all, see Beckman et al. 2011:176—182; Singer 2011:461—466; Burgin 2022b: 58—60, 129—143, 151—162, 241—247, 253—259, 261—265, 410—414, 455—457, 483—484, with previous editions (Kempinski and Košak 1977:89—90; Mascheroni 1979; Košak 1982; Siegelová 1986).

[13] In addition to the texts in Figures 3—4: DBH 42/2.73, KBo 9.92, KBo 14.72, KBo 18.161–KUB 42.80, KBo 60.10, KBo 67.104, KBo 67.289, KUB 38.11, KUB 42.32, KUB 42.33+, KUB 42.38, KUB 42.58, KUB 42.59, KUB 42.64, KUB 42.70, KUB 42.75, KUB 42.78, KUB 60.71, and VBoT 62.

[14] For instance, the Ivory Houses at Mycenae (Tournavitou 1995).

[15] On the diplomatic gift-exchanges involving the Mycenaeans, see Killen 2008:181—189; Kelder 2012:50; Bennet and Halstead 2014:278—279; Kelder 2018:205—206. On the shared use of vessels in diplomatic ceremonies see Walsh 2016:85—86.

[16] Feldman describes a similar process for Ugarit (Feldman 2006:18–19).

3.Homeric εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς and the etymology of PIE ‘cow’

Presenter: Tore Rovs Kristoffersen

§90. This paper presents new solutions for two different historical linguistic problems regarding two obscure Homeric epithets and the etymology of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) word for ‘cow’.

§91. In Homer, εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ are epithets of βοῦς ‘cow’, e.g., at Il. 9.466:

πολλὰ δὲ ἴφια μῆλα καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς

many stout sheep and εἰλίποδας ἕλικας cows

§92. The epithets may occur together (Il. 9.466, 21.448, 23.166; Od. 1.92, 4.320, 9.46), or individually, i.e. εἰλίποδας βοῦς (Il. 6.424, 15.547, 16.488; Od. 8.60) and ἕλικας βοῦς (Il. 12.293, 15.633, 18.524; Od. 11.289, 12.136, 12.355, 22.292, 24.66). All but one occurrence is in the plural and the case is most often accusative. For details concerning variations and metrics, cf. LfgrE (II, 433, 550) and Le Feuvre (2015:451—459).

§93. The etymology and meaning of both epithets have been debated. Traditionally, εἰλίπους has been understood as ‘rolling in their gait’ and connected with εἰλέω ‘wind, turn around, roll / drehen, rollen’ (thus LSJ s.v.), derived from a PIE root *u̯elh₁(u̯)-. An alternative interpretation as ‘pressing the feet’ connects the word with the homonym εἰλέω ‘press’, from a homonymous root *u̯elh₁u̯- ‘envelope / einschließen, verhüllen’, which may or may not ultimately derive from the same basic root (cf. LIV²:674). The fact that εἰλίπους shows no trace of an initial digamma has led to a third interpretation as ‘foot-dragging’ (as against horses, who are ἀερσίποδες ‘high-stepping’), connecting the word with Lith. selė́ti ‘to drag’ < *sel- (cf. EDG:386). However, this latter option may be dismissed: The root in question is now reconstructed as *tsel- (cf. Ved. tsar‑ ‘to sneak, steal’, Kroonen and Lubotsky 2009, Kroonen 2013b), which would yield Greek *σελ- (Witczak 2017). As argued by Hoekstra (1965:67—68) and Le Feuvre (2015:452—454), the missing digamma may be explained as the result of a modification of metrical context in which the epithet occurs. Nothing therefore prevents the connection with a root of the shape *u̯elh₁(u̯)-.

§94. The meaning of the epithet ἕλιξ is similarly obscure, although there is general agreement that this word is etymologically connected with εἰλέω ‘wind, turn around, roll’ (EDG:411). Traditionally, it has been understood as referring to the cow’s twisted horns or, again, to its “rolling” walk (LSJ s.v.). Specifically, two options are commonly cited: The first is that we may be dealing with an adjective ἕλιξ ‘twisted, curved’, which in later texts is used also for other objects. The second option takes ἕλιξ as simply a metrically induced shortened form of *ἑλικό‑πους (= εἰλίπους) or *ἑλικό‑κραιρα ‘with curled horns’ (EDG:411), cf. the similar phrase βοῦς κεράεσσιν ἑλικτάς ‘cows with twisted horns’ (h.Merc.192).

§95. However, there seems to be no compelling reason to understand the epithets as referring to “rolling gait” or “twisted horns” other than tradition, with both interpretations the product of ancient scholarship and handed down through scholia (cf. LfgrE:II, 433, 550). These interpretations are clear attempts to explain terms the meaning of which had become obscure over time. These attempts are unconvincing: the idea that cows walk in a “rolling” fashion is quite arbitrary (cf. also Le Feuvre 2015:446), and ἕλιξ as referring to horns is contradicted by the fact that the cattle of the sun are described as both ἕλικες (Od. 12.136, 355) and ὀρθόκραιραι ‘straight-horned’ (Od. 12.348). According to O’Sullivan “this does not exclude taking ἕ[λιξ] as ref. to horns” (LfgrE:II, 551), but the cooccurrence must at least be seen as quite clumsy if this is the case. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is syntactically more straight-forward to take ἕλιξ as describing βοῦς itself, not the horns which are never mentioned.

§96. An innovative solution is presented by Le Feuvre (2015:445—463), who takes the underlying root of both epithets to be *u̯elh₁‑ ‘turn’ and argues that the formula εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς means ‘cows turning in narrow turns’ (‘bœufs virant en virages serrés’), with reference to ploughing oxen turning at the end of the furrow. This is semantically attractive, since the formula may then be explained as portraying the animal in its most prized function in an agricultural society—although, as Le Feuvre notes (2015:462), the formula is not attested in a context depicting ploughing (for the context, cf. §105). However, this argument depends on certain assumptions which are open to criticism: Le Feuvre argues that the long variant εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς is primary and the shorter variants εἰλίποδας βοῦς and ἕλικας βοῦς are both secondary truncations of the long variant. In favor of this, she presents certain metrical arguments: In the long variant (εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς), the ϝ of ἕλικας makes position, while it only does so some of the time in the short variant ἕλικας βοῦς, and while the ϝ of εἰλίποδας never makes position, this may be explained as originating in the long variant, where it is always preceded by the conjunction καί. Le Feuvre (2015:452) argues that this is a modification of the original context where καί was scanned as disyllabic *kahi, in which case *ϝεἰλίποδας would make position. If this is correct, it only allows one to take εἰλίποδας βοῦς as a truncation of εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς, while the variant ἕλικας βοῦς may still be seen as an independent formula. Concerning ἕλικας, Le Feuvre argues (2015:455—458) that this represents a noun (ἡ) ἕλιξ ‘spiral’ (in the sense ‘narrow turn’) whose case form is accusative of relation, rather than an adjective in -ιξ, which is otherwise unattested. She argues that ἕλικας was secondarily analyzed as an adjective agreeing with βοῦς, prompting the creation of variants with different case-forms: βοῶν ἑλίκων (Od. 22.292), βουσὶν ἕλιξιν (Il. 12.293), ἕλικος βοός (Il. 15.633). A problem with this interpretation is that, outside of this formula, the noun (ἡ) ἕλιξ only occurs once in Homer (Il. 18.401) where it refers to ‘armlets or earrings’, and is only found referring to other things of “spiraling shape” in later writers (cf. LSJ s.v.). The assumed meaning ‘spiral’ used in the specific sense ‘narrow turn’ posited by Le Feuvre (2015:462—463) is not attested.

§97. While it seems morphologically attractive to derive both εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ from *u̯elh₁(u̯)- ‘turn’, there is no obvious synchronic explanation for the semantics of either epithet. Therefore, it is beneficial to investigate the problem diachronically. The PIE root is reconstructed by LIV² (675) as *u̯el‑ ‘drehen, rollen’, but forms such as Greek εἰλέω < *u̯el‑n‑h₁‑ point to *u̯elh₁‑ (Rasmussen 1989:147). Beside this simple root (reflected in Greek εἰλέω, Skt. val‑, Av. var- ‘turn’, OIr. fillid ‘bends’, Toch.B wäl‑ ‘curl, curve’), a root-extension *u̯elh₁u̯‑ is commonly reconstructed, cf. Arm. gelowm ‘turn’, Greek ἐλύσθη ‘rolled up, crouched’, Lat. volvō ‘turn, roll’, Go. walwjan ‘to roll’ (overview in IEW:1140—1142; cf. also de Vaan 2008:689—690; Cheung 2007:419). As it is evident from the material, the root is attested in most branches of IE. Semantically, the sense ‘turn, roll’ predominates (whence several nominal derivations referring to winding, twisted, or round objects), but a wider semantic spectrum is attested in Skt. val‑ which can also mean ‘move to and from; go, approach; return to a place’ (Monier-Williams s.v. val) and Germanic forms as OE weallian ‘to wander, roam’, MDu. wal(l)en ‘to turn, roll, wander’, OHG wal(l)ōn ‘to wander, roam’ (Kroonen 2013a:571).

§98. For the present purposes, one group of nominal derivations is of special interest: In a recent talk, Olsen (2023) has suggested that PIE the word for ‘pasture, meadow’ reflected in Hitt. wellu- ‘id.’, ON vǫllr ‘field’, and Greek Ἠλύσιον (πεδίον) ‘the Elysian field’ (first equated by Puhvel 1969) is derived from *u̯elh₁(u̯)- ‘turn, roll’ (i.e. wellu- < *u̯elh₁u‑, vǫllr < *u̯olh₁u‑, Ἠλύσιον < *u̯ēlh₁utii̯o‑). The derivation is morphologically and phonetically attractive and leads us towards an understanding of the association between *u̯elh₁(u̯)- and cows. However, I disagree with Olsen’s (2023) explanation of the semantics, which departs from the interpretation of the word in a specifically religious context: As it has long been noted, the conception of the abode of the dead as a pasture or meadow is wide-spread among Indo-European speaking cultures, and both Hitt. wellu- and Greek Ἠλύσιον are used in this sense in the relevant texts. Olsen (2023) argues that this idea may be connected with the practice among steppe cultures associated with speakers of PIE of raising burial mounds, these mounds being named “rolling meadows” for the “rolling” of lumps of earth and grass in the construction process. The problem with this account is that Hitt. wellu- ‘pasture, meadow’ and ON vǫllr ‘field’ are general terms and not confined to the religious sphere (cf. Tischler 2016:477—484 on the Hittite usage). It therefore seems more straight-forward to assume that *u̯olh₁u‑/*u̯elh₁u- was originally a general word for ‘pasture’ which could be used, inter alia, to refer to the abode of the dead. While I believe that the root *u̯elh₁(u̯)- is in fact the basis for the word for ‘pasture’, I reason that a different explanation of the semantics is warranted.

§99. The nature of the relationship between the root *u̯elh₁(u̯)‑ and cattle/cows may be explained if we look at the use of the root *kʷelh₁‑ ‘turn, roll’ (IEW:639—640; LIV²:386—388), which—as it is well-known—is closely associated with the semantic field of cow-herding. This is evident from the compound *gʷou̯‑kʷolh₁o‑ ‘cowherd’ > Greek βουκόλος (Mycenaean qo‑u‑ko‑ro), OIr. buachaill. In Greek, we also find αἴπολος ‘goatherd’, but this is not re-constructible for the proto-language. Here, it should be noted that *u̯elh₁(u̯)‑ and *kʷelh₁‑ may not only be semantically, but also etymologically related: Cohen (2004:57—58) lists *kʷelh₁‑ ~ *u̯elh₁‑ among a handful of cognate sets pointing to variation within PIE between word-initial *kʷ- and *u̯-, also including *kʷr̥mi- ~ *u̯r̥mi- ‘worm’ (Ved. kŕ̥mi‑, OIr cruim, MW pryf ~ Lat. vermis, Go. waurms, cf. IEW:649, 1152), *kʷerpH‑ ‘sich wenden’ ~ *u̯erp‑ ‘sich hin- und herdrehen’ (ON hverfa ‘to turn’ ~ Lith. ver̃pti ‘to spin’, Hitt. warp‑^zi ‘to wash, bathe’, cf. IEW:631, 1156; LIV²:392—393, 690). It should be noted that Cohen (2004:52—53) is explicitly agnostic regarding the ultimate origin of the observed variation—conditioned sound-change in pre-PIE, interdialectal borrowing (etc.)?—and that the small number of comparanda makes it difficult to exclude the possibility that we are dealing with a chance resemblance between unrelated forms. Therefore, further research into Cohen’s (2004) claims would be beneficial. With these reservations in mind, I will proceed to explore what can be gained if we assume that the roots *u̯elh₁‑ and *kʷelh₁‑ are in fact cognates.

§100. Since the reflexes of *kʷelh₁‑ found in the daughter languages attest to a wide range of meanings, cf. Greek πέλομαι ‘become, be’, Lat. colō ‘dwell, inhabit’, Ved. carⁱ‑ ‘move around, wander’, the traditionally reconstructed basic meaning ‘turn, roll’ (LIV²: 386—388) or ‘circulate’ (DELG: 878: ‘circuler, circuler autour’) has been criticized by a number of scholars. Rix (1994:17—22) rejects ‘turn’, reconstructing instead ‘tend to, care for’ as the basic meaning. Lubotsky (2023:257) reconstructs it as ‘to roam (with cattle), to live the nomadic life’. Accordingly, the sense of the root in relation to cattle, as well as the basic meaning of *gʷou̯‑kʷolh₁o‑ ‘cowherd’ are difficult to ascertain. Mallory and Adams (2006:283) assume that the ‘cowherd’ was ‘one who turns/moves cows’. Differently, assuming a basic meaning ‘circulate’, one might expect ‘one who circulates the cows, making sure they are all together etc.’ (as pointed out to me by a reviewer). Rix (1994:23) assumes that the basic sense of ‘cowherd’ was ‘Rinderversorger’. Following Lubotsky (2023:257), the cowherd would simply be ‘one who roams with cattle, a nomad’.

§101. Regarding the basic meaning of the root, it should be noted that while the reflexes in the daughter languages does not allow for a straight-forward reconstruction of a simply meaning ‘turn’, this sense is clearly present. It is directly reflected in Anatolian to, cf. HLuw. kuwalīti ‘turns’, Lyc. teliχa ‘I turned’ and this must be reconstructed for the highest node of the family tree. It is also preserved in Alb. sjell ‘bringe, trage; drehe um, wende’ (LIV²:386—388). The semantics of the remaining comparanda may ultimately be derived from ‘turn’, as evident, e.g. in Greek πoλέω ‘go about, range over, haunt’. The best solution is probably to assume that the root had a wider semantic field ‘turn, go around, wander’.

§102. With this in mind, we may take a closer look at the root in relation to cows. For the compound *gʷou̯‑kʷolh₁o‑ ‘cowherd’, the suggested basic meaning is ‘one who turns/moves cows’, ‘one who circulates the cows’, ‘one who tends cattle’, ‘one who roams with cattle’, which assume that the root *kʷelh₁‑ refers to the action of the human, with the cows as the object of this action. However, as is evident from the material collected in LIV² (386—388), where the root is glossed ‘eine Drehung machen, sich umdrehen, sich (um‑, zu‑)wenden’, we must rather start from an intransitive sense. Here, it is informative to look at the Indo-Iranian: Vedic carⁱ‑, the reflex of *kʷelh₁‑, means ‘gehen, wandern, von Göttern, Menschen und Vieh’ (Grassmann 1873: s.v.). In the Rigveda, collocations of carⁱ‑ and gáv- ‘cow’ always refer to the action of cows (subject), not to humans in relation to cows (object). Cf. e.g. RV.6.28.4c-d (trans. Jamison and Brereton 2014):

urugāyám ábhayaṁ tásya tā́ ánu / gā́vo mártasya ví caranti yájvanaḥ

The cows of the mortal who sacrifices wander far across wide-ranging (space) free of fear.

§103. Also interesting are the numerous Middle- and New Indo-Iranian forms, which, as pointed out by Rix (1994:21), carry the sense ‘weiden’. What is not reflected, however, in the German rendering ‘weiden’ or, for that matter, in the English rendering ‘pasture, graze’ used by Cheung (2007:33—34), is that these words, such as Parthian/Middle Persian cr‑ /čar-/ ‘graze’ (cf. DMMPP:126) and Pali carati ‘moves, grazes’, Prakrit caraï ‘to graze’ (Turner 1966:254) are in fact intransitive and mean ‘to eat grass on the pasture’ (the animal is the subject), not ‘to feed, put animals out to pasture’ (human subject). In Indo-Aryan, the sense ‘graze (= to eat grass)’, as noted by Turner (1966:254) and Monier-Williams (s.v. car), is not Middle Indo-Aryan development, but is attested to in classical Sanskrit (Yājñavalkya). Thus, the comparanda suggest that the Proto-Indo-Iranian reflex of the root encompass the sense ‘to wander around on the pasture, wander around grazing’ when cows/cattle was the subject. If this situation is projected back into PIE, the basic meaning of *gʷou̯‑kʷolh₁o‑ ‘cowherd’ would be explicable as ‘one who makes cattle wander around on the pasture’, with *‑kʷolh₁o‑ conveying a causative sense; precisely this use of the causative is attested in the Mahābhārata (cf. Monier-Williams s.v. car) and is continued in Waigali čaräy- ‘to herd cattle’ < cāráy° (EWAia:I, 535).

§104. To sum up, the roots *kʷelh₁‑ and *u̯elh₁‑ share not only a basic meaning ‘turn’ but also the broader sense ‘move around, wander’. For kʷelh₁‑, this included the special sense ‘wander around grazing (of cattle)’, which is not attested in *u̯elh₁‑. However, if the two roots were originally the same, we may assume that this meaning was simply lost in the daughter languages’ reflexes of *u̯elh₁‑, as the two roots underwent gradual semantic specialization in opposite directions – perhaps in part due to a secondary association between *u̯elh₁(u̯)‑ and *u̯elh₁u̯‑ ‘envelope’ (LIV²:674), the reflexes of which are not always clearly distinguishable in the daughter languages. Thus, we may now explain *u̯olh₁u‑/*u̯elh₁u- ‘pasture’ as the ‘place for cows to wander around grazing’, a parallel for which is seen, e.g., in the different Indo-Aryan terms for ‘pasture’ derived from cari- < *kʷelh₁‑ (cf. Turner 1966:254).

§105. This also provides an explanation for the two Homeric epithets under discussion: εἰλίπους would originally have meant something along lines of ‘with wandering feet’ and ἕλιξ ‘the one wandering around’. The exact age and derivational basis of these formations remain difficult to comprehend: εἰλίπους seems to reflect *ἐλν‑ί‑πους, with the first member of the compound deriving from the verb εἰλέω, i.e. an inner-Greek formation. This could mean that εἰλέω (which itself is not attested in “our” Homer) preserved the sense ‘wander around (grazing)’ down to the time of the composition of the Homeric epics, which seems somewhat uncertain. Alternatively, we may see εἰλίποδας as a modification of an original (metrically illicit) *ἐλίποδας, which would reflect a PIE *u̯elh₁i‑pod- (with an i-stem *u̯elh₁i‑ as first member) or *u̯elh₁‑i‑pod- (with the simple root as first member + compositional vowel *‑i‑). Analyzed in this way, the formation would be regular from a PIE point of view and could therefore go back to the proto-language, when the root still carried the sense ‘wander around (grazing)’. Concerning ἕλιξ, the apparent connection with the noun ἕλιξ (f.) ‘spiral’ may be illusory, and we may be dealing with a separate formation. Morphologically, the formation seems old, since the suffix -ιξ derives from PIE *‑ih₂s > *‑iks with “laryngeal hardening” (Olsen 2010). This derivational type is based on collectives which underwent singularization through the addition of the animate nominative marker *‑s (Olsen 2010:210–211), i.e. *u̯elh₁‑i‑h₂ (i-stem collective) ‘herd of wandering animals/cows’  *u̯elh₁‑i‑h₂‑s ‘a wandering animal/cow’. This means that the epithet ἕλιξ should be interpreted as (originally) a noun standing in apposition to βοῦς, i.e. ἕλικας βοῦς ‘the wandering ones, the cows.’ Note that this interpretation does away with the idea of a morphologically isolated adjective in -ιξ, but still allows us to make sense of the passages showing other case-forms than the accusative plural, which Le Feuvre (2015) saw as secondary (cf. §95). The use of ἕλιξ as an adjective ‘twisted, curved’ found in later writers (cf. LSJ s.v.) probably arose due to the (incorrect) interpretation of the Homeric epithet as referring to curved horns (cf. §§93—94), induced by the existence of the homonym (ἡ) ἕλιξ ‘spiral’.

§106. While the present analysis of εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ relies heavily on comparative rather than inner-Greek material, we do in fact find circumstantial evidence supporting the interpretation in the Homeric passages themselves. The contexts in which the epithets occur may be divided in two types: the first type describes cattle being slaughtered for sacrifice (Il. 9.466, 23.166; Od. 1.92, 4.320, 8.60, 9.46, 24.66). In the second type, the narrative role of the cattle varies, but the way the animals are depicted forms a distinct pattern: they are described as being guarded/herded (Il. 15.547, 18.524, 21.448; Od. 12.136) or driven from one place to another (Od. 11.289), or as grazing (Od. 12.355). Once, we hear of Achilles killing the seven brothers of Andromache among the sheep and cows (Il. 6.424), suggesting a situation where the animals are grazing together. In a recurring simile, a lion is described attacking cattle (Il. 12.293, 15.633, 16.488), specifically described as grazing in a meadow at Il. 15.633. Finally, the epithet is incorporated into an epithet describing the cowherd Philoetius (Od. 22.292). In short, the epithets are used when cows are depicted as wandering around grazing, which conforms to the original sense of the epithets as proposed here. In fact, it seems that whenever Homer depicts cattle wandering around grazing, they are described—almost exclusively—using either the epithets εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ, or no epithet at all (e.g. Il. 5.161–162; Od. 11.108). The only exceptions seem to be the use of ἀγελαῖος ‘belonging to the herd’, but this seems to be used only when the poet’s focus is on describing the herd specifically (e.g. Od. 10.410, opposite calves in the stall). A single cow may be described as ἄγραυλος ‘dwelling in the field’ (e.g. Od. 22.403), but this is never used when depicting cattle grazing.

§107. Finally, it should be noted that the description of cattle as the ones ‘moving around’ would have been far from trivial: in PIE society, which was based on nomadic pastoralism (Anthony 2023), the cow occupied a central economic role as moveable property. This is also the case in the Greek world: cows serve as the principal measure of wealth in Homeric society (cf. Donlan 1997), and livestock (including cows) may be designated as πρόβασις ‘moveable wealth’ and contrasted with κειμήλια ‘stored wealth’ (e.g. Od. 2.75. Cf. Benveniste 1969:37—43). Although there is now little support for the claim (Snodgrass 1987:193—209) that Dark Age Greece saw a partial abandonment of sedentism in favor of a return to nomadic pastoralism (cf. Bintliff 2012:215), society as depicted by Homer certainly shows a preoccupation with the image of large herds of cattle. Cf. Donlan (1997:655):

Ploughlands, vineyards, and orchards do not fill the Homeric landscape […] Homer distorts the economy for us by foregrounding the huge ranching operations of the basileis and other plousioi and pushing into the background the agricultural economy and the small and middling farmer. But the poetic selectivity also suggests that the Dark Age audiences viewed animals as the higher wealth in social terms.

In this socio-economic context, the image of the cow as the one that ‘moves around, wanders’ would have also been of great significance for the audiences of the Homeric bard. I will return to this concept of the cow in the second part of this paper.

§108. The reconstruction of the PIE word for ‘cow, ox’, reflected in Greek βοῦς (Mycenaean qo‑u‑°), Lat. bōs, Ved. gáv- (etc.), is debated. Some scholars reconstruct the word as a (highly archaic) un-suffixed type nom.sg. *gʷō̌u̯‑s gen.sg. *gʷéu̯‑s (cf. Schindler 1972) while others prefer a (productive) u-stem, either nom.sg. *gʷeh₃‑u‑s gen.sg. *gʷh₃‑éu̯‑s or nom.sg. *gʷh₃‑éu̯‑s gen.sg. *gʷh₃‑u̯ó‑s (cf. Nielsen Whitehead 2018). Whilst a detailed discussion of the issues involved in the thorough overview given by de Decker (2011) and Nielsen Whitehead (2018), I would like to instead draw attention to a few points: Proponents of the u-stem option argue that this reconstruction has a number of advantages, namely that ‘cow’ may be derived in a regular fashion from the root *gʷeh₃- ‘to graze’, which explains the o-vocalism found throughout the paradigm as the result of laryngeal-coloring. Further, Nielsen Whitehead (2018) argues that the génitif fermé type assumed by Schindler (1972), i.e. gen.sg. *gʷéu̯‑s (as reflected in Ved. góḥ, Av. gə̄uš) is exceedingly rare in un-suffixed nouns, which means that ‘cow’ would belong to a very small group of words displaying a morphological pattern only attested as a relic, the main parallel being *dom- ‘house’ with its gen.sg. *dém‑s, while a u-stem would conform with a regular, productive pattern.

§109. Against these arguments, it may be noted that there is no reason ‘cow’ should not display highly archaic morphology, belonging, as it does, to what may be considered the basic vocabulary of animal names. Further, there is no evidence for the supposed lack of *o/e-ablaut in the paradigm often cited as pointing to the existence of *h₃ in the root. It is to be expected that most daughter-languages, such as Greek, would have levelled the paradigm and generalized the o-grade. Here, it must be noted that both the root-noun and u-stem options require a number of analogical changes to the paradigm in one or more daughter-languages, which means that neither option predicts all forms of the attested paradigms exactly. In Vedic, we do find forms pointing to an e-grade, such as dat. sg. gáve, loc. sg. gávi, where the lack of Brugmann’s law (PIE *o > Ved. ā in open syllable) excludes an o-grade. Of course, these forms, too, may be analogical, so the evidence for or against *o/e-ablaut in the original paradigm is inconclusive. Finally, certain derivatives in fact do point to an e-grade: as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, this is the case for the word for ‘leather’ in modern Pamir languages, e.g. Yidgha žū, Munji žūg < *ǰauka‑ < *gʷeu̯°, which suggest the existence of an e-grade in the paradigm word for ‘cow’ itself (cf. Morgenstierne 1938:277).

§110. A quite different, and often-ignored issue is that the evidence for the root *gʷeh₃‑ ‘to graze’, which is the point of departure for the u-stem analysis, is in fact quite weak. The root *gʷeh₃- ‘to graze’ is reconstructed based on the Greek family of βόσκω ‘graze’ etc. and Lith. gúotas ‘herd’ (cf. IEW:482—483, EDG:227—228). However, it is uncertain whether the root *gʷeh₃- ‘to graze’ (not in LIV²) can in actually be reconstructed. Garnier (2009) argues that Lith. gúotas is rather derived from *gʷóh₂‑to‑ ‘richesse sur pieds, bétails’ to the root *gʷeh₂- ‘to go, step’, comparing Benveniste’s (1969:37—43) analysis of Greek πρόβατα ‘cattle’ < ‘*moveable property’. This would confine the root *gʷeh₃- to Greek. The author goes further, however, arguing that a similar formation *gʷóh₂‑teh₂‑ is reflected in Greek forms such as συ-βώτης, Mycenaean su‑qo‑ta‑o (PY Ea 109) ’swine-herd’, qo‑u‑qo‑ta (KN X 480) ‘cow-herd’, and βωτι‑άνειρα ‘man-feeding’, while the short-vowel forms, such as βόσκω, βοτήρ ‘herdsman’, βοτόν ‘beast’, βόσις ’food, fodder’, are due to secondary ablaut βω‑ : βο‑, which was created within Greek under the influence from ablaut the synonymous root *peh₂- : *ph₂- ‘to graze, protect’ (LIV²:460) which it eventually displaced.

§111. I would add the following modification to Garnier’s (2009) analysis: if there was in fact, as reconstructed by some scholars (e.g., Mayrhofer 1986:174—175), an original distinction between the two (later contaminated) roots *peh₂- ‘to graze, feed’ and *peh₃‑ ‘to protect, tend (cattle)’, cf. ποιμήν ‘shepherd’ < *peh₃i‑men‑, πῶμα ‘lid, cover’ < *peh₃‑mn̥ ‘protection’ (rather than *poh₂i‑men‑, *poh₂‑mn̥, with unmotivated o-grade, as argued by Mayrhofer). The zero-grade of the root *peh₃‑, namely *ph₃‑, would regularly yield βο‑ in Greek, with voicing *p > b next to *h₃. Note that the evidence for a labiovelar in the Greek comparanda is restricted to the Mycenaean forms, which may be accounted for by Garnier’s (2009) explanation, i.e. the forms in βωτ° (Mycenaen qo-t° would reflect /gʷōt°/) and those in βο° would by etymologically unrelated. Secondary association between the two groups would have given rise to such forms as βου‑βότης ‘giving pasture to cattle’ (Pi.Ν.4.52) for expected *βου‑βώτης (Mycenaean qo‑u‑qo‑ta). If this analysis is correct, we may then equate βόσκω with Lat. pasco ‘graze, feed, tend (cattle)’ < *ph₃‑sk̂e/o-, with Latin showing restored p‑ for *b‑, presumably from the pf. pāvi < *pōvi < *peh₃° (cf. octāvus ‘eighth’ < *octōvus).

§112. In view of these issues, the u-stem analysis of PIE ‘cow’ seems to lead to an etymological dead end. It is therefore worthwhile to explore whether a root-noun *gʷō̆u̯‑s has the advantage of being etymologically analyzable. Leaving aside the option that we are dealing with a Wanderwort of non-IE origin or an onomatopoeion (cf. EIEC:135), neither of which can in principle be excluded, the word must be derived from a root *gʷeu̯‑. A root of this shape is in fact reconstructed by a number of scholars, which, given the arguments presented above, seems an ideal candidate for the derivational basis of ‘cow’.

§113. According to García Ramón (1985) and de Lamberterie (1990:932—935), Greek πρέσβυς (variant πρέσγυς, πρεῖ(σ)γυς etc.), Mycenaean pe‑re‑ku‑ta (PY An 72), pe‑re‑ku‑wa‑na‑ka (PY Va 15) ‘old man, elder’ and its Armenian cognate erēc’ ‘elder’ are to be analyzed as a compound *prei̯s‑gʷu- ‘going in front’, where the second member reflects a root *gʷeu̯- ‘to go’. This root is found also as in compounds such as Ved. vanar‑gú‑ ‘wandering in a forest; a savage’ (etc.), Lith. žmo‑gùs ‘human being, man’ < *‘walking on the earth’. Both authors interpret *gʷeu̯- as a third variant of the two well-known roots meaning ‘to go’, *gʷem‑ and *gʷeh₂‑, for which García Ramón (1985:59) cites as a parallel of the three variant roots meaning ‘to run’, *dreu̯‑ (Ved. drávati), *drem‑ (Ved. drámati), *dreh₂‑ (Ved. drā‑, Greek ἔδρᾱν). Since, however, the root is attested only as second member of compounds, García Ramón (1985:59—60) notes the possibility that the comparanda rather reflect *‑gʷh₂-u-, i.e. u-stem formations to the root *gʷeh₂‑. Therefore, the evidence for a root *gʷeu̯- ‘to go’, if based on the above-cited comparanda alone, is meagre.

§114. However, the interpretation of these words as containing a root *gʷeu̯- may be strengthened if we assume that this root is identical to the one reconstructed by IEW (393—398) as gēu-, gəu-, gū- ‘biegen, krümmen, wolben’, on the basis of such forms as Greek γύης ‘curved part of a plough’, γυῖα ’limbs’, and γῡρός ‘round, curved’, ON ká ‘to root up, turn’, ká‑beinn ‘krummbeinig’, among many other comparanda. On the shape of the underlying root, two things should be noted. First, the evidence for (what would now be understood as) a root-final laryngeal, i.e. *geuH‑, is weak: For instance, the long vowel of Greek γῡρός ‘round, curved’ may reflect *gus‑ro‑ and belong to the forms showing an s-extension of the root (IEW:398). Beside this, the evidence for a seṭ-root seems primarily due to the long ū found in a number of Germanic comparanda, not all of which are equally certain. The short vowel attested in such forms as Greek γύης, on the other hand, points to an aniṭ-root. Secondly, among the material cited in IEW, very little speaks against reconstructing the initial consonant as a labiovelar *gʷ‑: of the comparanda belonging to languages that would show a distinction between *g- and *gʷ-, most forms show environments where delabialization would be regular, i.e. before rounded vowels (cf. Stiles 2017:985). Where Germanic shows a pure velar *k- before a Pre-PGmc *e (such as ON kjólr ‘keel’ < PGmc *keula-, if indeed related), this may be seen as analogically introduced from forms where delabialization was regular.

§115. Further comparanda, not included in IEW, may be adduced in favor of reconstructing the root in question as *gʷeu̯‑, among which are Greek βουνός (m.) ‘hill’. This word was first compared by Fick (1890:36, 406) to ON kaun (n.) ‘sore, blister’ < PGmc *kauna‑. Aside from the gender, the Greek and Germanic forms may be exactly equated and reconstructed *gʷou̯nó‑ ‘something round, curved; bulge, arch’ (compare Lith. kaũbras, kaũburas ‘hump, bulge, hill’ < *keu̯bʰ- ‘to bend, curve’). Most striking is Fick’s (1890) inclusion of the Hesychian glosses and δεῖν· […] καὶ στρέφειν. Κύπριοι. ‘to turn about. Cyprians’ (δ 491 Cunningham) and ἐπιδεῦσαι· ἐπιστρέψαι ‘to turn about, turn round’ (ε 4715 Cunningham). The interpretation of these glosses as directly reflecting a root *gʷeu̯‑ > Greek δευ‑ (preserved, as it seems, only in the Cyprian dialect) and seems to have drawn no scholarly attention. In part, this may be due to textual problems surrounding the glosses: The gloss “δεῖν” seems to conflate several originally separate glosses, as shown by the fact that the explicatio includes of number of other interpretations beside “στρέφειν”, while “ἐπιδεῦσαι” is slightly misplaced in the alphabetical order and is simply marked as corrupt by Cunningham (s.v.). These, however, seem to be minor problems, and as no better explanation for either gloss exists, Fick’s (1890) interpretation seems quite attractive. If this is correct, then Hesychius provides us with a direct verbal reflex of the root in question.

§116. I posit that the two roots *gʷeu̯- ‘to go’ and ‘bend, curve’ may be reduced to one, if we assume a basic meaning ‘to move circularly, move around’. As we have seen, this semantic breadth within a root is unproblematic and finds a parallel in the pair *kʷelh₁‑/*u̯elh₁(u̯)‑. Further, as the above discussion has shown, ‘to move circularly, move around’ was the sort of movement that was associated with cows among speakers of PIE. If we assume that PIE *gʷō̌u̯‑s ‘cow’ was derived from *gʷeu̯-, then the animal’s name can be understood simply as referring to the behavioral characteristics of the animal, the ‘cow’ being ‘the one that moves circularly, moves around’. The name itself therefore confirms what has long been known: That the cow was the moveable wealth par excellence for the speakers of PIE.

§117. Bibliography

Anthony, D. W. 2023. “The Yamnaya Culture and the Invention of Nomadic Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes.” In The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited: Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics, ed. K. Kristiansen, G. Kroonen, and E. Willerslev, 13—33. Cambridge.

Benveniste, É. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris.

Bintliff, J. 2021. The Complete Archaeology of Greece: From Hunter‐Gatherers to the 20th Century AD. Malden.

Cheung, J. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden and Boston.

Cohen, P. 2004. “Relationships Between Initial Velar Stops and Laryngeals in PIE.” In Nostratic Centennial Conference: the Pécs Papers, ed. I. Hegedűs and P. Sidwell, 51—62. Pécs.

Cunningham, I. C., ed. 2018—2020. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Volumen I: A–Δ. Volumen IIa: E-I. Berlin and Boston.

DELG = Chantraine, P. 1999. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris.

de Decker, F. 2011. “Stang’s Law and the Indo-European Word for ‘Cow’.” Indogermanische Forschungen 116:42—59.

Donlan, W. 1997. “The Homeric Economy.” In A New Companion to Homer, ed. I. Morris and B. B. Powel, 649—667. Leiden.

DMMPP = Durkin-Meisterernst, D. 2004. Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. Volume III: Texts from Central Asia and China edited by Nicholas Sims-Williams. Part 1: Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. Turnhout.

EDG = Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston.

EIEC = Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams, ed. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London and Chicago.

EWAia = Mayrhofer, M. 1992—2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg.

Fick, A. 1890. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Erster Theil. Wortschatz der Grundsprache der Arischen und der Westeuropäischen Spracheinheit. Göttingen.

García Ramón, J.-L. 1985. “Griego πρέσβυς y variantes dialectales.” Emerita 53(1):51—80.

Garnier, R. 2009. “Sur la famille du grec βόσκω.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’historie anciennes 83:211—221.

Grassmann, H. G. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-veda. Wiesbaden.

Hoekstra, A. 1965. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Amsterdam.

IEW = Pokorny, J. 1959—1969. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern and Munich.

Jamison, S. and J. P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford.

Kroonen, G. 2013a. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden and Boston.

Kroonen, G. 2013b. “Proto-Indo-European *tsel- ‘to steal, sneak’ and *tseubʰ- ‘to dash’: More on the Initial Cluster *ts-.” International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 10:91—95.

Kroonen, G. and A. Lubotsky. 2009. “Proto-Indo-European *tsel‑ ‘to sneak’ and Germanic *stelan‑ ‘to steal, approach stealthily’.” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 14:237—241.

de Lamberterie, C. 1990. Les adjectifs grecs en -ύς, Sémantique et comparaison. 2 vols. Louvain-la-Neuve.

Le Feuvre, C. 2015. Ὅμηρος δύσγνωστος. Réinterprétations de termes homériques en grec archaïque et classique. Genève.

LfgrE = Snell, B. et al., ed. 1955–2010. Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. 4 vols. Göttingen.

LIV² = Rix, H., M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, and B. Schirmer, ed. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2., erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden.

LSJ = Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. 1977. A Greek-English Lexicon, Compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott; Revised and Augmented Throughout by Henry Stuart Jones with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie, and with the Co-operation of Many Scholars. Oxford.

Lubotsky, A. 2023. “Indo-European and Indo-Iranian Wagon Terminology and the Date of the Indo-Iranian Split.” In The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited: Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics, ed. K. Kristiansen, G. Kroonen, and E. Willerslev, 257—262. Cambridge.

Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams. 2006. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford and New York.

Mayrhofer, M. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I. 2. Halbband: Lautlehre. Heidelberg.

Monier-Williams, M. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford.

Morgenstierne, G. 1938. Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Vol. II: Iranian Pamir Languages (Yidgha-Munji, Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi). Oslo, London, Leipzig, Paris, Cambridge Mass.

Nielsen Whitehead, B. 2018. “PIE *gʷh₃‑éu̯‑ ‘cow’.” In Farnah. Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky, ed. L. van Beek, G. Kroonen, and T. Pronk, 217—231. Ann Arbor, New York.

Olsen, B. A. 2010. “Martinet’s Rule of Laryngeal Hardening: A Reappraisal.” In Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. S. W. Jamison, H. C. Melchert, and B. Vine, 207—222. Bremen.

Olsen, B. A. 2023. “The roots *u̯el(h)- in Germanic tradition” [conference presentation]. Early Germanic Poetics and Religion from Linguistic and Comparative Perspectives. University of Copenhagen, September 18th 2023.

Puhvel, J. 1969. “‘Meadow of the Otherworld’ in Indo-European Tradition.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83/1:64—69.

Rasmussen, J. E. 1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck.

Rix, H. 1994. Die Termini der Unfreiheit in den Sprachen Alt-Italiens. Stuttgart.

Schindler, J. 1972. “L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 67:31—38.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1987. An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London.

Stiles, P. 2017. “The Phonology of Germanic.” In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, ed. J. Klein, B. Joseph, and M. Fritz, 888—912. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 41. Berlin and Boston.

Tischler, J. 1983—2010. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck.

Turner, R. L. 1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London.

de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden and Boston.

Witczak, K. T. 2017. “Grecka nazwa ślimaka σέσῑλος i jej indoeuropejska geneza.” Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae 27/1:53—67.

4. The Enigma of the Eteocretans: Language, Identity, and Politics in Ancient Crete

Presenter: Jasmine Zitelli

Introduction: The Discovery of the Eteocretans

§119. The debate concerning the Eteocretans officially began in 1884, when Italian archaeologist F. Halbherr discovered the first Eteocretan inscription during his investigations at the third acropolis of Praisos (Halbherr 1894:540; IC III, vii.1), an ancient polis located in eastern Crete. This discovery marked the beginning of a series of findings that would capture the attention of the academic community. The inscription garnered significant interest after its publication in 1888 by D. Comparetti (Comparetti 1888:673—676), as it documented a non-Hellenic language despite being written in the Greek alphabet. Comparetti promptly linked the language to the Eteocretan people, primarily mentioned in the Odyssey (Hom. Od. 19.172—179) as one of the pre-Hellenic groups of Crete. This connection was reported by Strabo (Strab. 10.4.6), which placed the Eteocretans in Praisos.

Figure 15. Map of central and eastern Crete, showing the main sites mentioned in the text. Drawn by author.

§120. Further excavations conducted at Praisos by the British School at Athens uncovered more Eteocretan texts (Bosanquet 1901/1902:255), confirming the presence of an ethnically diverse group that retained its local language. The plot thickened in 1936, when investigations conducted by P. Demargne and van Effenterre in the polis of Dreros, located in northeastern Crete, revealed several official texts regulating the public and religious life of the city (Demargne and van Effenterre 1937; van Effenterre 1946a:588—604.). One of these inscriptions was partially written in a non-Hellenic language resembling that used at Praisos (van Effenterre 1946b). Another text from Dreros was long thought to be bilingual (Eteocretan-Greek), however, it was later proven to be entirely written in Greek (van Effenterre 1989).

§121. A crucial moment in Eteocretan studies occurred in 1958, when S. Marinatos edited a Hellenistic inscription (Marinatos 1958) which scholars used to believe came from the territory of Arcades, in east-central Crete. The inscription was not unearthed during regular excavations but was part of the private collection of S. Giamalakis. The Arcades inscription sparked a huge debate concerning its genuineness due to the inaccurate information provided by the owner regarding its discovery circumstances and location (which is sometimes referred to as Psychro and other times as Ini in the Arcades region), as well as the unusual presence of three signs traceable to the Cretan syllabic scripts of the second millennium BCE, positioned at the end of the text. A recent analysis by C. Kritzas suggested that the inscription is a modern forgery, created on a piece of clay floor plaque of the late Roman period and then cut by forgers to shape it into a small stele (Kritzas 2005; Facchetti 2009:75—84). According to Kritzas, in addition to the chronological inhomogeneity of the letters and the similarity of the text to common Greek tombstone inscriptions, elements previously observed by other linguists (Faure 1988/1989:108), compelling evidence of forgery is demonstrated by the fact that the original surfaces of the stele show concretions and patinas that are completely missing on the later cut sides.

§122. In 2006, excavations carried out by the American School of Classical Archaeology at the Archaic site of Azoria, eastern Crete, uncovered two pithos handles, both inscribed with the same sequence: ΞΡΤΑΚ (Haggis et al. 2011:57—58; West 2015). The brevity of the inscription renders uncertain its classification as an Eteocretan text. The handles may come from the same pot and probably bear the name of the pithos owner. However, the peculiar succession of consonants and the presence of the letter 𐤐, rarely attested on the island during the Archaic period, bear resemblances to the Eteocretan inscriptions found at Praisos (PRA1.2; Duhoux 1982:164). Currently, there are six inscriptions definitively identified as Eteocretan. Five originate from Praisos, dating from the sixth to the third centuries BCE, while one hails from Dreros dating to the mid-seventh century BCE, totaling 422 characters (Duhoux 1982).

The Linguistic Studies

§123. Since the discovery of the Eteocretan inscriptions, scholars have dedicated their efforts to unraveling the mysterious language. R.C. Conway was among the first scholars to attempt to identify this language. He noted resemblances between Eteocretan and languages within the Italic linguistic family, particularly Venetic (Conway 1901/1902). Over the years, the Eteocretan language has been variously identified as Phrygian, Proto-Slavic, a Greek dialect, and even Sumerian. However, with the discovery of the Dreros texts and, notably, the publication of the Arcades inscription, two theories have gained traction: one posits Eteocretan as an Indo-European language akin to Anatolian languages, while the other places it within the Northwest Semitic language family. These perspectives stem from a broader debate regarding the nature of the Aegean substrate before the arrival of the Hellenic peoples. This controversy animated the academic community during the twentieth century and developed alongside newly acquired knowledge about ancient languages, particularly the Anatolian ones.

The Anatolian Hypothesis

§124. In 1915, Czech linguist B. Hrozný revolutionized the understanding of ancient languages in Asia Minor by deciphering the Hittite language from the Ḫattuša tablets and identifying it as belonging to the Indo-European language family (Hrozný 1915). Further research conducted between the 1920s and 1950s confirmed the linguistic link among various languages in Asia Minor, such as Luwian, Lycian, and Hittite, categorizing them as “Anatolian languages” and recognizing their Indo-European affiliation (Finkelberg 2005:42—64).

§125. The newfound insights into Anatolian languages, along with the excitement following the decipherment of Linear B in 1952, spurred increased interest in studies related to the pre-Hellenic substratum, particularly in Crete, where undeciphered scripts remained. Attention was particularly focused on Linear A, which, unlike Cretan Hieroglyphic, featured a greater number of signs and attestations. The presence of disputed suffixes like –nth– and –ss– in Greek place names led many linguists to speculate about an Anatolian-type substrate in Crete. Leonard Palmer was a prominent advocate of this theory, proposing Luwian as a possible language for Linear A (Palmer 1980).

§126. Instead, S. Davis was among the first to extend this Anatolian-type continuity to Eteocretan, suggesting it may be related to Hittite (Davis 1961). The publication of the inscription from Arcades significantly bolstered this theory. Despite doubts about its authenticity and the differences between the alphabetical sequences of the Arcades text and those of the Praisos and Dreros inscriptions, the presence of three signs in syllabic script seemed to support the hypothesis of continuity between second-millennium languages and Eteocretan. Several scholars, who advocated for an Anatolian-type substratum in Crete and proposed hypotheses about the Linear A language, also applied their interpretations to Eteocretan inscriptions, assuming they were written in the same language as the syllabic script texts. Among these scholars, M. Finkelberg suggested that this language might be Lycian (Finkelberg 2006).

§127. From an archaeological perspective, C. Renfrew’s theories on the Indo-Europeanization of the Aegean world further reinforced the notion of an Anatolian substratum in Crete. In 1987, Renfrew suggested that Indo-European languages arrived with the first farmers from Anatolia following the Neolithic revolution, around the seventh or sixth millennium BCE. This event, according to Renfrew, contributed to the spread of Indo-European languages in the Aegean world (Renfrew 1987).

The Semitic Hypothesis

§128. During the same period when the Anatolian hypothesis gained traction, an alternative theory emerged, seeking to underscore the significant influence of the Semitic world on the development of Aegean writing and culture. The proposed existence of a Proto-Indo-European or Indo-European substratum in the Aegean region challenged prevailing theories dating back to the eighteenth century, which suggested colonization of the Hellenic world by Egyptians and Phoenicians, resulting in the dissemination of their culture. In the nineteenth century, the movement for Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire fueled a strong pro-Hellenic sentiment. Particularly in Crete, the discoveries by A.J. Evans and the parallels with the culture uncovered by H. Schliemann on the mainland helped foster a strong sense of identity within the Greek world. However, this period of fervent philhellenism was also marked by widespread anti-Semitism (Bernal 1987).

§129. The Phoenicians’ role in transmitting the Greek alphabet was recognized in antiquity, as evidenced by Herodotus’s tradition (Hdt.5.58—61). While Herodotus suggests Boeotia as a possible birthplace of the alphabet, many scholars have noted the close resemblance of the Cretan alphabet to the Phoenician model. This is further supported by the persistence of the vertical stroke as a word separator in Cretan inscriptions from the Archaic period and the adoption of retrograde writing, consistent with Semitic writing conventions (Guarducci 1967:181). Additionally, the oldest evidence of Phoenician writing in Crete comes from the necropolis of Tekke near Knossos, represented by an engraved cup dating back to the ninth century BCE (Sznycer 1979).

§130. While the notion that Crete might have been the birthplace of the alphabet remains speculative, it is indisputable that the island had early exposure to the Phoenician alphabet. This is affirmed by the oldest alphabetic inscription from Crete, dated to the eighth century BCE (Duhoux 1981:288). The striking similarities between the Cretan and Phoenician alphabets, coupled with the early dating of alphabetic writing in Crete and the Semitic roots found in Linear A and B, have led to the suggestion that Phoenician influence may represent a genuine substratum.

§131. C. Gordon pioneered this theory, initially focusing on Linear A and later directing attention to Eteocretan. Gordon concluded that Eteocretan inscriptions demonstrate continuity with the Bronze Age and were written in the same language as Linear A (Gordon 1975:148—158). Once again, the edition of the false Arcades inscription played a pivotal role in bolstering this hypothesis.

§132. One of the main arguments used to support this theory is the highly conservative aspect of the Eteocretan texts, especially those from Praisos, which exhibit features closely resembling the Phoenician model. Alongside the use of the vertical bar as a word/paragraph separator, the archaic nature of the letters, and the retrograde writing pattern, a distinctive characteristic of Eteocretan inscriptions is the frequent occurrence of consonantal succession, reminiscent of the Abjad script seen in Semitic texts.

Limits of Previous Research and New Perspectives for the Eteocretan Studies

§133. The work of Gordon and Davis is now somewhat outdated, as it is based on old and inaccurate editions of the Linear A corpus as well as erroneous reconstructions of many terms found in Anatolian languages. These studies were also influenced by a true pro-Semitic and pro- Indo-European ideology regarding the pre-Hellenic substratum that characterized the academic world of those years. However, the major weakness of linguistic studies on Eteocretan, even the more recent ones, lies in the methodology applied to the texts, primarily focused on isolating lexical roots. This approach is universally adopted by linguists studying this language since it appears as the sole viable method. The scarcity of Eteocretan inscriptions, totaling only 422 characters, largely contributes to this. Additionally, these texts are often incomplete, poorly preserved, or comprised of short sequences, further hindering analysis.

§134. While the Dreros inscription presents the possibility of being bilingual (Eteocretan–Greek), it poses considerable challenges in reading and interpretation. Furthermore, the temporal gap between the two sections of the inscription raises doubts about the authenticity of the Greek translation as a faithful rendition of the Eteocretan text (van Effenterre 1946b).

§135. Compounding the scarcity of textual sources, only three out of the six Eteocretan texts display dividers. This lack of structural cues makes determining sequence breaks arbitrary, impacting the interpretative outcome. Consequently, the predominant focus on isolating lexical roots has led to interpretations suggesting linguistic connections across vastly different languages.

§136. The Arcades inscription, despite being pivotal for linguistic theories, raises several problems. Notably, the supposed syllabic signs closing the text lack exact correspondence with any known Cretan script from the second millennium BCE, and compelling evidence suggests it is a modern forgery. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the persistence of signs from the Cretan syllabic scripts of the Bronze Age into the first millennium is not unique to the Arcades inscription. This phenomenon does not necessarily indicate the survival of languages spoken in Crete during the second millennium BCE. These signs remained legible within the palace ruins but likely underwent evolution detached from their original linguistic context, transforming into religious marks or structural elements like dividers (Bousquet1938:405—408)[1].

§137. Before the Kritzas article proving the forgery of the inscription and even after, the Arcades inscription has notably influenced assumptions regarding Eteocretan, particularly the unsubstantiated belief that it directly corresponds to languages recorded in Cretan syllabic scripts of the second millennium BCE, notably Linear A.

§138. It is impossible to rule out a connection between the language of Linear A and Eteocretan since both languages remain unknown. It is noteworthy that there is a significant time gap between Eteocretan and Linear A. The latter ceased to exist within the palatial administration around the fifteenth century BCE, with its last known attestation on the island dating back around the fourteenth century BCE, recorded in clay figurine (Perna 2016:94). The oldest attested inscription in the Eteocretan language dates to around 650 BCE.

§139. Certainly, the mere temporal distance between the two languages is not sufficient to exclude continuity. In fact, the chronological gap between Linear A and Eteocretan texts might be attributed to the use or loss of a form of writing and does not necessarily affect the possibility of linguistic continuity. Furthermore, one can assume that the Eteocretan language likely existed on the island long before it was used for official and monumental inscriptions. However, it is important to consider that the syllabic scripts used on Crete in the Bronze Age mainly represent the languages of the ruling elites responsible for political and often religious affairs in palatial society. This monopolization of writing provides an incomplete picture of the linguistic diversity on the island during the second millennium BCE.

§140. Regarding cultural continuity and identity, the coexistence of two different populations, the Minoans and the Myceneans, during the late Bronze Age is also an important factor to consider.

§141. Tsipopoulou coined the term “Mycenoans” to describe the ethnicity of Cretans between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age (Tsipopoulou 2005:303). This identity appears to have been formed as early as the twelfth century BCE and blends Minoan and Mycenaean elements. According to Tsipopoulou, the Eteocretans constructed their identity by reconnecting with a mixed, non-purely Minoan past to differentiate themselves from the Dorians, a new group on the island seen as a possible threat.

§142. This research aims to approach the Eteocretan issue from a new perspective, integrating insights from the archaeological context of inscriptions and the significance of bilingualism in the first millennium BCE Crete. In doing so, it is essential to delve into the origins and implications of the term “Eteocretan” by reexamining ancient sources referring to this population.

The Archaeological Evidence

§143. As a part of the Eteocretan studies, the archaeological context of the inscriptions holds a prominent significance. As previously indicated, the Eteocretan texts primarily originate from Praisos and Dreros.

§144. Praisos is a polis that emerged during the Geometric period (eighth century BCE). The ancient city sprawls across three hills or acropolises. The Eteocretan inscriptions were unearthed along the slopes and atop the third acropolis, dubbed Altar Hill, since it hosted a prominent sanctuary, originally comprising solely an altar. The sanctuary area yielded a rich votive deposit dating from the eighth to the fiftieth centuries BCE (Halbherr 1901). This deposit included terracotta figurines, votive bronzes (comprising mainly miniature and life-size weaponry and armor), vases, and animal bones. By the fifth century BCE, the sanctuary underwent significant development, marked by the building of a temenos enclosing the altar. Also dating to this age, are numerous architectural terracotta, likely associated with structures erected within the sacred area, possibly including a temple, although no conclusive evidence has emerged (Bosanquet 1901/1902). The excavation also yielded Greek-language inscriptions along with the Eteocretan ones. The Greek text consists of decrees and treaties of Hellenistic data. Both Eteocretan and Greek inscriptions likely leaned against the temenos walls (Duhoux 1982:57).

§145. The deity venerated on the third acropolis of Praisos remains uncertain. The abundance of weaponry suggests Athena (Duhoux 1982:56—57), while Bosanquet identified the sanctuary with that of Zeus Dicteus, located by Strabo in Praisos (Bosanquet 1908/1909:351; Bosanquet 1939/1940:64—66). However, it is important to consider that bronze offerings were widespread in Archaic Crete and did not necessarily indicate the deity’s identity. The weaponry attests to aristocratic involvement in the cult, particularly the agonistic and martial aspects of elites charged to administrate the sanctuary, and reflects the protective role expected from the deity (Morgan 1990:19; Prent 2005:369; De Polignac 1995:26, 49). The elite nature of this sanctuary is further underscored by remnants indicative of communal dining, suggesting its civic function in which established citizens participated (Prent 2005:497—498; Erickson 2009:386—389).

Figure 16. Plan of the temenos. Drawn by author after Bosanquet 1901/1902, figure 27.

§146. Similarly, Dreros, also a geometric polis, spanned two acropolises. The Eteocretan inscription lay in a Hellenistic cistern situated in the saddle between the two acropolises. Numerous other archaic inscriptions, written in Greek, were recovered from the cistern, primarily laws and decrees regulating the city’s public and religious life (Demargne and van Effenterre 1937; van Effenterre 1946a). The inscribed blocks were likely part of the eastern wall of the adjacent temple of Apollo Delphinios. Dating back to the eighth century BCE, this temple contained an eschara, a bench, and a keraton altar in its main room (Marinatos 1936). The temple follows the Hearth Temples typology known in Crete, used for smaller-scale meals of magistrates (Prent 2005:441—476, 462). Its civic significance is evident not only from the presence of official inscriptions but also from its proximity to the agora, situated immediately to the north. Although the agora dates to the Hellenistic period, it is supposed that the Archaic agora occupied the same or a nearby location (Zographaki-Farnoux 2014).

Figure 17. Dreros. The Agora area. Photo by author.

§147. While the specific content of the Eteocretan texts remains unknown, it is possible to deduce their nature from accompanying Greek texts. These Greek inscriptions typically consist of official texts, laws, and decrees. The placement of the Eteocretan texts within sacred spaces, which concurrently served civic functions, further underscores their essentially public nature. These sanctuaries served as platforms for elites to assert their role and influence through lavish votive offerings, solidifying civic cohesion through communal banquets and ceremonies. Consequently, sanctuaries emerged as early forms of civic space, and in the cases of Praisos and Dreros, they served as venues for expressing an emerging ethnic identity.

§148. However, the phenomenon of bilingualism appears to differ between the two city-states. Dreros exhibits a less pronounced presence of bilingualism, yet the use of the local language for drafting official inscriptions seems comparatively limited. Only one surviving inscription in the local language has been found in Dreros, coexisting with Greek texts. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the use of the local language ceased in the first half of the seventh century BCE.

§149. In contrast, Praisos showcases a different linguistic dynamic. Eteocretan inscriptions emerged in the sixth century BCE and persisted until the Hellenistic period. Despite the widespread use of Greek in Praisos, indicated by Classic coins (Svoronos 1890:285—292), Eteocretan remains the sole language deliberately chosen for official inscriptions, at least until the third century BCE when Greek inscriptions began to appear alongside Eteocretan ones. The state of preservation of both Greek and contemporary Eteocretan texts makes it impossible to determine whether one was a translation of the other. However, it is interesting to note that in Praisos, the Greek texts appeared alongside the spread of treaties and agreements between different poleis in Crete, particularly the isopoliteia treaties, which granted full reciprocal citizenship rights to the citizens of the contracting cities. One of the purposes of these treaties was to strengthen the bond between allies. Observance of a treaty between two city- states was part of the duties of citizenship; for this reason, young ephebes swore to respect the treaties their polis had established with the other contracting community (Chaniotis 1996:124). Members of the contracting polis were often present during the proclamation of this oath. Contracts and treaties were also read out by the magistrates on special festive occasions, always in the presence of members of the contracting city (Chaniotis 1996). In Praisos, the Greek texts from the third acropolis are mostly fragments of treaties with other poleis, especially Lyttos. As for the Eteocretan texts from Praisos, the only word that can be distinctly read is φραισο- (PRA 2.2; PRA .6; Duhoux 1982:69), the name of the city. No other toponyms can be read in the Eteocretan texts. Therefore, it can be assumed that inscriptions in the local language regulated the internal life of the city. At the same time, Greek spread for drafting official texts when treaties with other poleis began to be established and read in public during specific ceremonies in the presence of the contracting partners. However, this hypothesis remains speculative, given the small number of Eteocretan texts and their incomplete state.

§150. The need for alliances may have stimulated the phenomenon of bilingualism in Praisos, while the prevalence of a Dorian elite or more in general Dorian influence in Dreros may have prompted the abandonment of the local language, at least in the official sphere. In this regard, it must be emphasized that the city of Praisos seems to have preserved more conservative cultural aspects than Dreros. For example, the sanctuary on the third acropolis remained en plein air at least until the Classical period.

§151. Additionally, local deities, such as the famous Zeus Dicteus, seem to have predominated in Praisos, while Dreros appears to have been Hellenized much earlier, perhaps influenced by its alliance with Knossos.

The Origins of the Eteocretans

§152. The Eteocretans are deemed to have inhabited Crete during the Bronze Age, before the arrival of the Hellenic people. From an archaeological point of view, Dreros and Praisos arose at the beginning of the Iron Age. However, traces of settlements dating to the final phase of the Bronze Age have been unearthed in the small hill immediately east of Praisos, known as Kypia Kalamafki (Whitley et al. 1999:238—242), and in the small hill of Kephali Limnes (Gaignerot-Driessen 2016:223), east of the Dreros Hills, where the Eteocretans may have originally settled.

§153. The ancient sources attest to the antiquity of the Eteocretans, revealing them as an ethnic group known as far back as Homer’s time. In the Odyssey, they are listed among the diverse ethnolinguistic communities of Crete (Hom. Od. 19.172—179). Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F145), Pseudo-Scymnus (Pseudo-Scymn. 541—548), and Diodorus Siculus (Diod. Sic. 5.64.1) subsequently portray them as one of the oldest indigenous peoples of the island, ruled by King Kres. However, Strabo is the first and only author to locate the Eteocretans in Praisos (Strab. 10.4.6).

§154. Since the ancient sources mentioning the Eteocretans emphasize their antiquity, they have always been used to support the link between this population and the Minoans. However, doubts arose as early as the early twentieth century regarding the authenticity of the Homeric passage mentioning the peoples of Crete (Beloch 1910:219—221). Mentions of the Eteocretans disappear from historical records until the fourth century BCE (Ephorus). This hiatus is puzzling, particularly given Herodotus’s account in the Histories (Hdt. 7.169—171), where Praisos, alongside Polichna, abstained from participating in the Cretans’ punitive expedition to Sicily following the death of King Minos. While the inhabitants of Praisos lay claim to their antiquity and autochthony in Herodotus’s account, they are never called Eteocretans. This suggests that the term “Eteocretan” may have first appeared in the fourth century BCE, potentially coinciding with the interpolation of Homeric passages.

§155. The term Eteokretes has a Greek etymology (Chantraine 2009:381), prompting speculation about whether it was the Hellenic peoples who coined the term to indicate the indigenous inhabitants of Crete, or if the Eteocretans themselves chose a Greek name to identify themselves. The unmistakably Greek origin of the name is confirmed by similar formations, notably Eteobutadai and Eteokarphatioi, both of which have connections to Athens. The former refers to an Attic ghenos (Marginesu 2001:48—49), while the latter denotes certain inhabitants of the island of Karpathos, situated east of Crete, mentioned in Athenian records from the Classical period and in a Hellenistic decree concerning Athens and the community of the Eteokarpathioi (Foucart 1888).

§156. Y. Duhoux hypothesizes that the term “Eteocretan” could be the Greek translation of an originally indigenous name meaning “true Cretans.” This term might have developed after the Mycenaean conquest of the island (1450 BCE) or after the Dorian invasion (1150 BCE). According to Duhoux, the success of this term in Homeric poems might have led to the creation of similar names, such as Eteokarpathioi (Duhoux 1982:17—21). However, the possible interpolation of the Homeric passage in the late Classical or Hellenistic period, the absence of any mention of the Eteocretans in Herodotus, and the significant influence exerted by Athens in the Aegean world between the Archaic and Classical periods make it plausible that the term “Eteocretan” was coined after, or at least at the same time as, the spread of the term Eteokarphatoi. In both cases, the resonance of Athenian terms, such as Eteobutadai, might have inspired its creation.

§157. There are further parallels between the Eteocretans and Athens. From the fourth century BCE onwards, sources describe the Eteocretans as indigenous people descended from Kres. This inevitably evokes the myth of autochthony elaborated by Athens during the fifth century BCE. The Athenians, who previously traced their lineage back to Hellen through the character of Ion, departed from this tradition to align themselves with the mythical figure of Erechtheus. This shift allowed them to establish a stark contrast with other Hellenes, ultimately evolving into a profound dualism between Greeks and non-Greeks (Hall 1989). In the case of Crete, the Eteocretans rally around the name of Kres. They are not just the authentic Cretans but, more importantly, the genuine descendants of Kres. Praisos asserts its autochthony and distinctiveness from other Cretans in Herodotus’s account by refusing to claim Minos, the legendary king of the island. Praisos, as indicated by Strabo, was the stronghold of the Eteocretans, thus likely affiliated with Kres rather than Minos. The Eteocretans are not the only ones to follow the model of Athens; numerous other poleis, between the Classical and Hellenistic periods, reworked or invented myths centered on local eponymous heroes, often mentioned in Homeric poems, claiming their autochthony. Examples are the inhabitants of Amathus, on the island of Cyprus, who are recorded in fifth- and fourth-century sources as autochthonous, having as their mythical ancestor Kinyras, the only Cypriot mentioned in the Homeric poems, who was present in Cyprus before the Achaean arrival (Petit 1995). Amathus, too, preserves a local language which alongside Greek is employed in the writing of official texts (Steele 2013:160—172).

The Rise of the Eteocretan Identity

§158. There is certainly a significant difference between the Athenian experience and the myth of autochthony developed by poleis such as Praisos. While the Attic dialect was part of a broader context of Greek linguistic traditions, the situation in Praisos illustrates the persistence of a local idiom on an island that had become entirely Dorian. However, in this regard, it is crucial to consider the role language plays in the formation of ethnic identity.

§159. The term Eteocretan marks the formation of an ethnic identity. Studies on ethnicity in the ancient world show that ethnic groups are social entities rather than biological ones. Attributes like language, religion, and material culture contribute to this identity, with a common ancestor serving as a fundamental criterion. This group must accept and recognize the descent, even if its historical accuracy is uncertain (Hall 1997; Hall 2002).

§160. According to this perspective, it is plausible that not only the poleis displaying a local language were Eteocretan, but also any communities tracing their lineage back to the shared ancestor, Kres. For example, in Phaistos, a genealogy attributed to Cinaethon of Sparta links Rhadamanthys to Kres (Federico 2008). Even though no Eteocretan inscriptions come from there, this suggests the possibility that Phaistos, too, may have distanced itself from the traditional association with Minos, aligning itself with Kres and adopting an “Eteocretan” identity. However, caution is warranted, as genealogy alone, like language, is not a sufficient criterion for defining an exclusive or oppositional ethnic identity (Malkin 1998:61).

§161. Even in the case of Dreros, an Eteocretan-type ethnic identity is only presumed. The example of Athens demonstrates that a common language does not preclude the formation of a distinct identity. Similarly, the potential shared language of Praisos and Dreros does not necessarily indicate that these two poleis shared the same Eteocretan ethnic identity. While literary sources link Praisos to the Eteocretans, there is no mention of Dreros as an Eteocretan polis. Furthermore, there is no association with Kres, around whom the specific Eteocretan identity is consolidated. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the phenomenon of bilingualism and the emergence and institutionalization of an ethnic identity known as Eteocretan. Bilingualism has been documented in Crete since Archaic times and clearly indicates the survival of local peoples expressing their distinct identity from the Dorian one. However, the term Eteocretan refers to a specific ethnic identity centered around Kres. The creation of a collective name is precisely one of those elements that enable an ethnic group to be recognized in the historical record. It should also be noted that in the same Homeric passage, the Eteocretans are mentioned along with other local peoples of Crete, outlining the complex ethnic and linguistic scenario of the island.

§162. The rise of an ethnic identity involves reclaiming a distant past and cultural heritage. Communities project their history into a mythical past to create a sense of temporal continuity, often to legitimize present circumstances or to deliberately forge a narrative where none existed (Whitley 1995:49). Elites play a significant role in this process, fostering unity and cohesion within the community. Asserting indigenous roots and authenticity, like the Athenian paradigm, holds political significance. Political alliances and perceived threats are prominent in molding or strengthening ethnic identities (Hall 1989:12).

§163. In the case of Crete, the threat to autonomy came from influential cities like Knossos or Gortyn seeking to dominate the island. The myth of the Eteocretans may have originated from attempts to maintain autonomy, especially evident in Praisos, the sole Eteocretan city mentioned in historical records. Praisos adopted this myth of autochthony during its period of expansion, which led to conflicts with Hierapytna, its rival in eastern Crete (Spyridakis 1970). Conversely, Dreros came under the influence of Knossos early on, potentially leading to the abandonment of its local language and, possibly, its local ethnic identity.

Conclusion

§164. In investigating the Eteocretan phenomenon, it becomes essential to analyze the historical and archaeological backdrop where bilingualism manifests. While there is no explicit prohibition against linking the Eteocretan language with that of Linear A, current data does not firmly establish this connection, even though it remains the most logical way to follow at present. Cretan bilingualism, varying from one city-state to another, suggests that writing in Crete was a political act (see Detienne 1988:40—41; Brixhe 1991:55), with the local language surviving in official texts displayed within civic and religious spaces managed by elites. Despite their limited understanding, Eteocretan texts offer insights into the rise of civic and ethnic identity, used by elites to legitimize themselves and foster community cohesion, thereby safeguarding polis autonomy. Language is only one of the factors that contributed to the creation of the Eteocretan identity. Praisos appropriated or even created this identity and made it the bulwark of its myth of autochthony inspired by the Athenian model.

§165. Bibliography

FGrHist: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. F. Jacoby 1923—1958.

IC: Guarducci, M. Inscriptiones creticae opera et consilio Friderici Halbherr collectae/ curavit Margherita Guarducci, Roma.1935—1950.

Beloch, K.J. 1910. “Origini cretesi.” Ausonia 4:220—221.

Bernal, M. 1987. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization 2. New Brunswick and New Jersey.

Bosanquet, R.C. 1901/1902. “Excavations at Praesos, I.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 8:231—270.

Bosanquet, R.C. 1908/1909. “The Hymn of the Kouretes.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 15:339—356.

Bosanquet, R.C. 1939/1940. “Dicte and the temples of Dictaean Zeus.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 40:60—77.

Bousquet, J. 1938. “Le temple d’Aphrodite et d’Arès à Sta Lenikà.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 62:386—408.

Brixhe, C. 1991. “La langue comme reflet de l’histoire, ou les éléments non doriens du dialecte crétois”. In Sur la Crète antique: histoire, écritures, langues, ed. C. Brixhe, 43—77. Nancy.

Chaniotis, A. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit. Stuttgart.

Chantraine. P. 2009. Dictionnaire étimologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Paris.

Comparetti, D. 1888. “Iscrizioni di varie città cretesi.” Museo Italico di Antichità Classica 2:669-—686.

Conway, R.S. 1901/1902. “The pre-Hellenic inscriptions of Praesos.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 8:125—126.

Davis, S. 1961. The Phaistos Disk and the Eteocretan Inscriptions from Psychro and Praisos. Johannesburg.

De Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City-State. Chicago and London.

Demargne, P., and H. van Effenterre. 1937. “Recherches à Dréros.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 61:5—32.

Detienne, M. 1988. “L’espace de la publicité : ses opérateurs intellectuels dans la cite”. In Les savoirs de l’écriture en Grèce Ancienne, ed. M. Detienne, 29—81. Lille

Duhoux, Y. 1981. “Les Etéocrétois et l’origine de l’alphabet grec.” L’Antiquité Classique 50:287—294.

Duhoux, Y. 1982. L’étéocrétois: les textes, la langue. Amsterdam.

Erickson, B. 2009. “Roussa Ekklesia, Part 1: Religion and Politics in East Crete.” American Journal of Archaeology 113/3:353—404.

Facchetti, G. 2009. Scrittura e falsità. Rome.

Faure, P. 1988/1989. “Les sept inscriptions dites ‘Étéocrétoises’ reconsiderées”. Kretika Cronika 28/29:107—108.

Federico, E. 2008. “Una genealogia festia in Cinetone spartano. Dati per una cronologia.” Creta Antica 9:287—300.

Finkelberg, M. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition. Cambridge.

Finkelberg, M. 2006. “The Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro and the Goddess of Thalamai.” Minos 37/38: 95—97.

Foucart, P.F. 1888. “Décrets athéniens du IVe siècle.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 12:53—179.

Gaignerot-Driessen, F. 2016. De l’occupation postpalatiale à la cité-État grecque: le cas du Mirambello, (Crète). Leuven and Liège.

Gordon, C. 1975. “The Decipherment of Minoan and Eteocretan.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2:148—158.

Guarducci, M. 1967. Epigrafia Greca, I. Caratteri e storia della disciplina, La scrittura greca dalle origini all’età imperiale. Rome.

Haggis, D.C., M.S. Mook, R.D. Fitzsimons, C.M. Scarry, L.M. Snyder, and W.C. West. 2011. “Excavations in the Archaic Civic Buildings at Azoria in 2005-2006.” Hesperia 80:1—70.

Halbherr, F. 1894. “American Expedition to Crete under Professor Halbherr.” American Journal of Archaeology 9/4:538—544.

Halbherr, F. 1901. “Cretan Expedition XVI: Report on the Researches at Praesos.” American Journal of Archaeology 5:371—392.

Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford.

Hall, J. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge.

Hall, J. 2002. Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago.

Hrozný, B. 1915. “Die Lösung des hethitischen Problems.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient- Gesellschaft 56:17—50.

Kritzas, C.B. 2005. “The “Bilingual” Inscription from Psychro (Crete). A coup de grâce.” ΜΕΓΑΛΑΙ ΝΗΣΟΙ. Studi dedicati a Giovanni Rizza per il suo ottantesimo compleanno 1:255—261. Catania.

Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley.

Marginesu, G. 2001. “Gli Eteobutadi e l’Eretteo: la monumentalizzazione di un’idea.” Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 79:37—54.

Marinatos, S. 1936. “Le temple géometrique de Dréros.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 60:214—285.

Marinatos, S. 1958. “Γραμμάτων διδασκάλια.” In Minoica: Festschrift zum 80, Geburstag von Johannes Sundwall, ed. E. Grumach, 226—227. Berlin.

Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles. The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C. Cambridge.

Palmer, L. 1980. The Greek Language. London.

Perna, M. 2016. “La scrittura lineare A”. In Manuale di epigrafia micenea, ed. M. Del Freo and M. Perna, 87—116. Padova.

Petit, T. 1995. “Amathous (Autochtones eisin). De l’identité amathousienne à l’époque des royaumes (VIIIe -IVe siècles).” Sources, Travaux historiques 43/44:51—64.

Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults. Continuity and Change from late Minoan III C to the Archaic Period. Leiden.

Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo- European Origins. London.

Smith, A. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford.

Spyridakis, S. 1970. Ptolemaic Itanos and Hellenistic Crete. California.

Steele, P. M. 2013. Eteocypriot in context: Eteocypriot at Amathus. Cambridge.

Svoronos, I.N. 1890. Numismatique de la Crète ancienne. Paris

Sznycer, M. 1979. “L’inscription phénicienne de Tekke, près de Cnossos.” Kadmos 18:89—93.

Tsipopoulou, M. 2005. “‘Mycenoans’ at the Isthmus of Ierapetra.” In Ariadne’s threads: connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III, ed. D’Agata A. L. and J.A. Moody, 303—352. Athens.

Van Effenterre, H. 1946a. “Inscriptions archaïques crétoises.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 70: 588—606.

Van Effenterre, H. 1946b. “Une bilingue étéocrétoise?.” Revue de Philologie 20:131—138.

Van Effenterre, H. 1989. “De l’étéocrétois à la selle d’agneau”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 113:447—449.

West, W.C. 2015. “Informal and Practical Uses of Writing on Potsherds from Azoria, Crete.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 193:154—155.

Whitley, J. 1995. “Tomb cult and Hero cult. The uses of the past in Archaic Greece.” In Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology, ed. N. Spencer, 43—63. London.

Whitley, J., M. Prent and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: A Preliminary Report on the 1993 and 1994 Survey Seasons.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 94:215—264.

Zographaki, V., and A. Farnoux. 2014. “Mission franco-hellénique de Dréros.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 138:785—791.

Footnote

[1] One of the Eteocretan inscriptions from Praisos (PRA 5) also bears a sign similar to the Linear A syllabogram used as a divider (IC III.vi.4).

Discussion following ECRs’ presentations

§166. Janice Crowley asked Diana Wolf about her analysis of cross-cultural links in late seals. Crowley inquired if she correctly understood Wolf’s suggestion that the commissioners of seals were making significant changes from traditional Minoan ways in terms of size, color, and motifs on hard stone seals.

§167. Diana Wolf confirmed this, adding that while discussions usually focus on craftsmen and users, commissioners are often overlooked. She suggested that seals were likely commissioned for specific groups, serving as identity devices, noting the repeated motifs like gesturing female figures across different seals in Central and North-Central Crete, which always follow the same pattern.

§168. Wolf suggested that someone was likely using a pattern book, but different craftsmen created the seals, as evidenced by the distinct ways they employed their tools. Wolf proposed that hard stone seals were likely commissioned by individuals who decided on motifs and had an agenda, indicating a consumer-oriented approach. She noted that this idea is theoretical but intriguing, as it reveals connections beyond the seal users (possibly higher-ranking) and craftsmen (possibly lower-ranking). She acknowledged that these are preliminary suggestions and that no definitive answers are yet available.

§169. Peter Pavúk remarked that, despite not specializing in seals, he found Crowley’s point about commissioning hard stone seals for the mainland particularly compelling and believed she was on the right track.

§170. Joseph Maran asked Tore Rovs Kristofferson for confirmation on whether the reconstructed PIE term *kʷélh₁– is sometimes associated with a wheel, which would make sense due to the connection between cattle, wheels, and wagons, and he requested an opinion on this association.

§171. Maran also commented that the hypothesis proposed by Snodgrass (A. Snodgrass, An Archaeology of Greece: the present state and future scope of a discipline, 1987) regarding the alleged abandonment of settlements and a shift to pastoralism at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE lacks archaeological support. He noted that bone assemblages and archaeobotanical evidence from Nichoria and other Dark Ages sites indicate a continued strong presence of sedentary elements, thus suggesting that while herding may have played a significant role during the Dark Ages, it would be incorrect to conclude that there was a complete shift away from sedentary lifestyles towards a nomadic one.

§172. Tore Rovs Kristofferson referred to the traditional interpretation of the wheel as something that turns itself, potentially related to draft animals. He referred to a recent talk by Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead at Leiden, where it was suggested that *kʷé-kʷl(h₁)o-, usually interpreted as ‘wheel’, could refer to various circular objects, including disks, the sun, and other circular shapes, not just the wheel. Rovs Kristofferson admitted that this perspective offers a different approach. Concerning the comment on Snodgrass and the partial abandonment of sedentism, Rovs Kristofferson observed that he ought to further investigate this part.

§173. Andrew Shapland asked Diana Wolf whether there might be a connection between the material of the seal and the status or identity of the user. He found it intriguing that there is some overlap between soft and hard stone seals, yet they retain distinct graphic styles. Shapland wondered if these variations in seal materials and designs correlate with different human groups.

§174. Diana Wolf expressed her belief that seals are indeed connected to human groups, but she finds it increasingly challenging to categorize them solely based on material. She believes it is incorrect to classify seals as belonging to distinct groups simply by whether they are made of soft or hard stone.

§175. Additionally, Wolf pointed out that even within what is conventionally called the “soft stone group”, there are significant differences. Some seals within this category exhibit unique iconography and superior engraving quality, suggesting they were carefully preserved and valued over time. She noted that some seal groups exhibit significant abrasion and poor preservation, indicating they were used differently and possibly by different groups of people for their imagery. Wolf acknowledged that it might have been misleading to present outliers influenced by either soft or hard stone. In reality, the majority of seals from the late Bronze Age feature motifs like individual quadrupeds (such as goats, rams, bulls) depicted in similar ways across both materials, albeit in distinct styles, Wolf continued.

§176. Moreover, in her PhD research, Wolf had begun examining the distribution of materials in closed contexts. For example, she highlighted the Armeni cemetery as an excellent case study where she could observe the relationships between various objects such as soft stone seals or hard stone seals and other materials.

§177. Continuing, Wolf observed that soft stone seals frequently appear alongside upscale materials such as gold, bronze, swords, jewelry, ivory objects, and that hard stone seals also accompany these contexts with the soft stone seals. She pointed out that previous scholarship often categorized soft stones as associated with low-ranking social units. However, upon closer examination of contexts, despite the typically poor preservation and documentation in the early stages of Minoan archaeology (particularly for soft stones due to historical neglect and storage in archival), she highlighted the need for more nuanced understanding.

§178. To conclude, Wolf mentioned the challenges in contextualizing soft stone seals, noting that sometimes the only documentation found might be an inventory list mentioning them. She emphasized the difficulty in achieving a robust contextual approach due to inadequate preservation and documentation historically. Looking forward, she expressed optimism that pending publications of, for example the Poros workshop and cemetery, could provide clearer insights into these questions.

§179. Olga Levaniouk started by thanking Tore Rovs Kristoffersen for his paper, and asked, given his interpretation of ἕλιξ and εἰλίπους, how he understands the adjective ἑλίκωψ or the Homeric ἑλικῶπις, which is usually translated as ‘sideways-glancing’. In particular, she wondered whether Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymological proposal would affect the meaning of that adjective.

§180. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen replied by saying he is unsure whether his etymology would affect that. He explained that the traditional and more usual way of dividing the adjective is *ἑλικ-ωψ, thus, ‘with rolling eyes’. Additionally, he added that Le Feuvre (C. Le Feuvre, Ὅμηρος δύσγνωστος. Réinterprétations de termes homériques en grec archaïque et Classique, 2015) has a different analysis, by which she interprets it as *ἑλι-κωψ, meaning ‘with rolling oars’—as, for example, the Achaeans, who are the one who turn their oars on the ships.

§181. However, Rovs Kristoffersen conceded that this analysis would perhaps bring ἑλικῶπις morphologically closer to his interpretation of the *ἑλι- element. On the other hand, he also stressed that the semantic interpretation of this element is different from what he envisaged. Therefore, he is not sure to what extent he can offer more elements to answer this question. He concluded by adding that he tends to favor the above-mentioned Le Feuvre’s interpretation, because it makes sense morphologically, but he has not explored yet whether his explanation would change anything in the meaning of the epithet.

§182. Paula Perlman thanked Jasmine Zitelli for her interesting paper and asked whether she think that the use of the Greek script for non-Greek inscriptions at Praisos would be largely for an internal audience. Perlman pointed out that later Greek inscriptions in the Greek language from Praisos are outward looking—they are directed at an external audience.

§183. Perlman continued by stressing that this is a really interesting way to think about the choices that the Praiseans are making. She further pointed out that, if that is the case—if the foreign, non-Greek language is used for an internal audience—it is striking that the Praiseans are referring to themselves (that is, that we find the name Phraisioi, in the non-Greek language).

§184. As such, Perlman highlighted that it would indeed be very unusual to have a reference to the internal population as a group rather than to a part of it—Perlman cannot think of any parallels in Cretan inscriptions (that is, they do not refer to themselves in inscriptions that are just for the local audience). To gain a better knowledge about this, Perlman suggested to consider more potential explanations for that phenomenon.

§185. Jasmine Zitelli thanked Perlman for her feedback and remarked that she had been looking for some parallels, especially because part of her research focuses on the epigraphical analysis of this text—particularly on details such as the layout of the text.

§186. Zitelli added that the study of the Dreros Greek inscriptions for local audience demonstrates that the inhabitants of Dreros do not mention themselves. As such, some parts of her hypothesis might have to be rethought and that Praisos could indeed be an unicum, especially considering its myth of autochthony in Crete—which is why she proposed this hypothesis, which she would like to investigate further, Zitelli concluded.

§187. Perlman brought into the discussion also one additional piece of evidence, namely the Praisaean coins. The Praisaean coins sort of sit in the gap between the epic references to the Eteocretans and the references in the later literary sources (later historians in particular, but also lexicographers), Perlman remarked. The legend is in Greek, but interestingly, for the sibilant, they used the three-bar sigma, which occurs nowhere else in Cretan inscriptions—Perlman continued. Therefore, she added, this would potentially be the earliest outward-looking, public use of Greek at Praisos. Perlman concluded by stressing that the Praiseans would be still making a statement, with the script that they are using, in choosing, rather than the Ionic four-bar sigma, what we think of as an archaic three-bar sigma.

§188. Zitelli thanked Perlman for her suggestions since she was not aware of this particular example. She then highlighted that the classical coins are in Greek. Therefore, this supports the hypothesis that, at Praisos, the use of the local language for monumental and official inscriptions is a deliberate choice, which points towards clear political and ‘elite’ implications—Zitelli concluded.

§189. Regarding Tore Rovs Kristoffersen’s paper, Andrew Shapland commented that one way of managing cattle, which is seen in the Bronze and Iron Ages—particularly in Crete, where there are no predators—is ranching, as in the American West: one would leave cattle to roam free, even go feral, and then round them up to kill them. Thus, he explained, cattle can roam even if people do not. Perhaps, then, Kristoffersen’s very interesting observations on these terms do not require the practice of mobile pastoralism, Shapland concluded.

§190. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen remarked that this would allow him to avoid using Snodgrass’ explanation, because this would be the explanation instead, and thanked Shapland for his comment.

§191. Carlos Varias commented on Lavinia Giorgi’s paper and stressed that some Hittite items mentioned by Giorgi like beds are lacking in the Linear B tablets of the Ta series. Varias also stressed that beds in the Ta series would not be expected since the Ta series is a specific inventory for a specific occasion (the preparation of a banquet). However, beds as such are attested in Linear B (de-mi-ni-ja in Mycenae tablets), Varias continued.

§192. Next, Varias asked Giorgi if it is possible to carry on such a comparative investigation given the relatively little Mycenaean evidence and the bigger corpus of data from the Hittite or Egyptian documents.

§193. Lavinia Giorgi thanked Varias for his question and replied that the reason why she did not take into account the tablet’s mentioning beds is because they do not add any information about luxury materials. Therefore, she explained, it would be more difficult to compare them with Hittite texts.

§194. Giorgi added that it would be possible to gather more information by investigating not only other items, but also other resources, as, for example, scented oils that are recorded in Linear B tablets, and other materials that were exported by the Mycenaeans into the Eastern Mediterranean. She concluded that oils are sometimes recorded as one of the items that were used as gifts in diplomatic exchanges, thus presenting themselves as a potentially fruitful area of investigation.

§195. Tom Palaima enquired as to Rovs Kristoffersen’s opinion on the relation between the three PIE roots *u̯elh₁, *kʷelh₁– and *gʷeu̯-. Drawing on Rovs Kristoffersen’s reconstructions presented above, Palaima highlighted the fact that they seem to have had roughly the same meaning—something along the lines of ‘to turn around, move oneself’. As such, Palaima asked if they might have been used simultaneously alongside each other, or if there could be an internal diachronic hierarchy between them—with, for example, one of them the source for the others.

§196. Further, Palaima expanded on words used for describing the tending of different domesticated animals. By way of example, he mentioned that the word relating to the tending of pigs, as seen in Greek βόσκω ‘graze’, stems from a word describing the agent who feeds them. Additionally, he highlighted that the word for ‘shepherd’, ποιμήν, has a root sense of ‘protection’, while the etymology for the tending of cows goes back to *kʷelh₁– ‘turn, turn around’, seen in βουκόλος ‘cowherd’ (Mycenaean qo-u-ko-ro).

§197. Provided that Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymology of Greek βοῦς ‘cow’ < *gʷō̆u̯-s, to PIE *gʷeu̯- ‘turn, wander around’, βουκόλος strikingly seems like a pun, with the meaning ‘the one turning the turning ones’ vel. sim., Palaima argued that these words point to an attentive, non-haphazard way of talking about domesticated animals by describing their functions within the speakers’ society, and that this pattern lends strength to Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymology of βοῦς.

§198. Palaima also compared ‘wandering around, circling’ to modern herding practices, where methods which include ‘encircling’ the cows are still in use.

§199. To address Palaima’s comments, Rovs Kristoffersen added details about the second part of his talk, which he summarized during the Summer 2024 MASt seminar and is presented in full in the above written version of the paper.

Final remarks

§200. Rachele Pierini thanked the presenters for their great papers and anonymous reviewers for their exceptional feedback. She announced that the next Summer Seminar will continue to focus on ECRs and invited participants to share the call for papers with their colleagues. Pierini emphasized MASt’s commitment to nurturing young scholars by providing them with a platform to showcase their ideas on an international stage. Pierini also invited everyone to join the upcoming Fall 2024 MASt Seminar scheduled for October, featuring presentations by Tom Palaima and Livio Warbinek.