No 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.

A obra se apresenta como um catálogo representando o resultado de excelente trabalho de pesquisa da dra. Barbara Montecchi, da Universidade de Florença, um singular estudo curatorial que prioriza a tecnologia como ponto de inflexão e inserção desses artefatos e fragmentos em novos circuitos de cultura material, articulando a coleção do MAE a outros conjuntos congêneres de instituições brasileiras e estrangeiras. Esse acervo, formado a partir de coleções particulares sem proveniências precisas, tem características bastante comuns em muitas coleções museológicas. O material é extremamente heterogêneo e cobre um vasto período cronológico do século XIII a.C ao XI d.C. O arranjo do material sob o prisma tecnológico visou também satisfazer a uma das funções básicas de um museu universitário, que são seus propósitos didático-educativos, possibilitando o olhar para muitas produções de vidros diferentes.

This article examines the earliest attestations of writing on Crete at the beginning of the second millennium bce, the so-called ‘Archanes formula’. The aim is to reassess its origin, purpose, significance and ‘reading’ through a multi-step analysis taking in details of palaeography, correlations with iconographic seal motifs, and material culture. Key issues are considered, namely the extent to which is it comparable with the Linear A ‘libation formula’ a-sa-sa-ra-me, or, conversely, whether it should be singled out as a separate writing tradition. To address these questions, the ‘Archanes formula’ is brought under close scrutiny, vis-à-vis the graphic repertoires of Cretan Hieroglyphic and, in parallel, Linear A. Our conclusions point towards a strong connection with the Cretan Hieroglyphic milieu, in terms of sign shapes and direct links to seal imagery. In this light, the earliest writing in the Aegean is revisited not so much as a script in itself, nor as a prequel to Linear A religious sequences, but as a direct manifestation of the iconic glyptic practices of the Hieroglyphic tradition.