Rationalizing the Cretan Hieroglyphic signlist

Abstract

Ever since the publication of the first and unsurpassed corpus of Cretan Hieroglyphic inscriptions by Louis Godart and Jean-Pierre Olivier, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae, known as CHIC, there has been no systematic or comprehensive reassessment of several difficult readings of signs and sign groups geared towards a rationalization of the sign-list. In this article, we discuss several readings in depth, by engaging with issues that relate to script classification, sign frequencies, interpretative uncertainties, and new finds post CHIC. Specifically, we highlight inconsistencies in the graphic behavior of signs, especially those of singular attestations (‘hapax’) or low frequency, and we also reassign uncertain cases that may be more likely read as Linear A rather than Cretan Hieroglyphic. As a steppingstone in rationalizing the sign-list, we apply a systematic approach to the material by means of a thorough sign-by-sign paleographic and structural reassessment, also presenting the resulting inventory.

In Search of Lost Signs: A New Approach to the Issue of Writing and Non‐writing on Cretan Hieroglyphic Seals

“…The comparison of CH 048 with A 305 is stronger if CH 089 is not a variant of the former in incised clay documents, as pondered in Ferrara et al 2021b, but the current evidence is inconclusive. In CHIC 258, the reading direction is marked as >?…”

“…After a new autopsy of the inscription, it is suggested in Ferrara et al . 2021b that the sign in question is rather to be read as CH 040 .…”

“…These instances may be clues that some graphs 2 may have been excluded from the repertoire of CH prematurely. Indeed, in recent years several scholars have sought to reassess the principles to exclude signs adopted in the standard corpus, specifically those found on seals or impressions (Younger 1996-97;Jasink 2009;Decorte 2017;Ferrara 2018, 91;Ferrara et al 2021b;Ferrara and Weingarten 2022), as well as signs previously recognized by Arthur Evans (designated here as SM, after his book Scripta Minoa, 1909, 181-231). In CHIC, these exclusions are either recognized as variants or considered mere 'decorative motifs' unique to seals.…”

“…CHIC, CH 001 is also attested on a clay document (#041.b). After a new autopsy of the inscription, it is suggested inFerrara et al 2021b that the sign in question is rather to be read as CH 040 . bJasink (2009, 6) interprets the graph on #293.γ as SM 137a-b(Jasink 2009, 6) because it occupies the same position on #303.β.…”