Cretan ‘Hieroglyphic’ and the nature of script

Abstract

Roeland P-J. E. Decorte Cretan 'Hieroglyphic' and the Nature of Script 1 This paper deals with a problem that has been haunting the study of Cretan 'Hieroglyphic' for over a century, ever since the first publication of Cretan 'picture-writing' by Evans (1894a, 1894b, 1895). It is an issue that was purportedly solved by the publication, two decades ago, of the script's corpus (Olivier 1989), 2 but which in reality remains highly relevant and illdefined today. The problem is that of defining 'script' in relation to 'decoration' ('writing' in relation to 'art'), and the definitions we supply directly determine what we consider to constitute the 'Cretan Hieroglyphic' script. Since the publication of Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae (CHIC) by Olivier and Godart, reviews have criticised the omission of script signs in individual instances (Younger 1997, Karnava 1997 and Palaima 1998), while Jasink (2009) 3though still 'following, as much as possible, the suggested criteria of CHIC'has proposed the reinstatement to the syllabary of as many as 30 signs, maintaining even more elements as 'decorative'. It is testament to the tremendous influence of CHIC, however, and the strength of its argumentsfirst published as a series of articles by Olivier (1981, 1989, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2010)that scholarly response has limited itself to refining the corpus' approach: not a single serious redefinition of the interpretative framework for understanding Cretan Hieroglyphic has been suggested since its publication. It is exactly such a conflicting approach that will be developed here. Cretan Hieroglyphic, in active use on Crete between Middle Minoan I and the end of Middle Minoan III (roughly 2000 to 1600 B.C.), 4 is unique among the writing systems of the 1 This paper was first presented in March 2015, and a first draft was sent to the editor in April 2015. Thanks go out to Philippa Steele for the invitation to speak on Cretan Hieroglyphic at the URBS conference on Aegean scripts, leading to the publication of this volume. Further thanks go out to Cyprian Broodbank and the anonymous reviewer for their comments on the final draft of this paper. This work arises from a PhD thesis on Minoan iconography and the relationship between early writing and art, in preparation at the University of Cambridge (Christ's College). I am grateful to the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding this work. Abbreviations are listed at the top of the bibliography. CHIC conventions are used when referencing documents (preceded by #) and individual signs (001-309). 2 While preparing CHIC for publication, Olivier (1989, 48) argued that deciding which signs to understand as script, and which not, was 'not an easy decision to make (…) but it is now a resolved problem.' Olivier (2010, 287) more recently stated that 'en une trentaine d'années, on en est arrivé, grosso modo, à un certain consensus.' 3 Building upon groundwork already laid in this direction by Karnava (2000, unpublished PhD). 4 In this paper I follow traditional low dates establ...

The First ‘European’ Writing: Redefining the Archanes Script

“…Each sealing was impressed by a rectangular cushion or cognate type, and each had lines engraved along the edges of the glyptic field (AS*0 and AS*00); dentate bands and ‘ladder’‐motifs occur on four of the six sealings. With regard to palaeography, the signs on the sealings are clearly distinct from those seen on the earlier bone and steatite seals, appearing much more rounded and full‐bodied, while same‐size ‘sematographic’ elements (such as the S‐spiral AS*9, familiar from face c of AS#03) now appear linearly sequenced alongside our known script‐signs, a distinctive orthographic feature well known from later Cretan Hieroglyphic (Jasink , 4–12; 70; 134–7; Decorte , 43–5). Indeed, I would argue that we may here for the first time discern distinct and successive phases in hieroglyphic palaeography: whereas, for example, signs AS001 and AS002 on the early seals most often appear set upon thin elongated stalks, instances of these signs on the Knossos and Samothrace sealings are considerably more squat.…”

“…These motifs generally appear inside a field bordered by an incision’.Yule did not actually enumerate the ‘signs represented’, nor did he clearly differentiate between script sign and iconographic ‘motif’ (see, for example, his inclusion of the ‘double axe’ – which appears exclusively in sign‐sequences – amongst his ‘motifs’). Retrospectively, such caution is justified, as it allows for the fact that ‘motifs’ may well be considered signs in the semiotic sense, and that sematographic structures may heavily participate in, or even constitute, writing systems (Boone and Mignolo ; Decorte ). However, without actual analysis of the entanglement of lexigraphic and sematographic representation, it is more likely that Yule simply considered the separation straightforward, or did not want to address exactly what constitutes writing, being mainly concerned with issues of iconography and style.…”

“…A breakdown according to material, form, provenance and suggested dates of the Archanes Script seals listed in CHIC is offered in Table . As the editors of CHIC consider the Archanes Script to be an early form of Cretan Hieroglyphic, and, moreover, are notably strict in what they identify as writing, only signs that appear elsewhere in the corpus, and as part of a sign‐sequence, are recognized, omitting isolated single signs (Olivier , 108, following Pope : see Decorte , 41 and n. 9). A restrictive sign‐list, compiled on the basis of only those signs recognized by CHIC , is offered in Table .…”

“…As I have argued elsewhere, dismissing such motifs as meaningless ‘decoration’ or ‘fillers’ (a tradition started by Evans ; , 229–31, who dismissed a large number of motifs as the result of the Minoan artist's supposed ‘ horror vacui ’), simply on the basis that they do not reflect the linear sequencing familiar from modern writing systems, cannot be justified. Signs well accepted as part of the Cretan Hieroglyphic script may be seen to behave in similarly complex ways, while ethnographic parallels for recurring ‘background’ elements participating in – and modifying the signs of – heavily sematographic writing systems are abundant (Decorte , 49). As the drawings in Fig.…”

“…A complete list of supposed ‘background elements’ may be a vital tool in and of itself, if only for reasons of stylistic comparison and iconographic composition. However, the fact that many of these asterisked motifs are attested in the Cretan Hieroglyphic script (and occasionally Linear A), both as sequenced script signs and as iconographic motifs appearing alongside known sign‐sequences (Jasink ; Decorte ), should caution against too narrow an approach.…”