- 1 According to Emilia Masson, CM1 refers to the non-tablet inscriptions from Cyprus, CM2 to the Enkom (...)
- 2 For sustained discussion of E. Masson’s division and its history see Valério 2016, pp. 46‑54, and p (...)
1Olivier Masson’s contributions to Cypro-Minoan have largely been overshadowed by his own invaluable work on the Cypro-Syllabic script and by his wife’s subsequent work on Cypro-Minoan. Emilia Masson first published on Cypro-Minoan in 1969, a decade and a half after her husband’s initial contributions to the script. Olivier Masson continued to publish on Cypro-Minoan for the next two years, until 1971, before turning exclusively to the later script. From the early 1970s through the late 1980s, Emilia Masson was the major figure in Cypro-Minoan. She was responsible for publishing new Cypro-Minoan discoveries, and she established the contested methodology of dividing the script into three separate scripts CM1, CM2, CM3.1 Unlike in the case of her husband, Emilia Masson’s contributions to the field of Cypro-Minoan have been well-documented.2 Olivier Masson’s contributions have, in comparison, been left out of the script’s historiography.
- 3 Olivier 2007; Ferrara 2013.
2The body of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions that Olivier Masson had to work with in 1952 was substantially different than what we have today. To begin, there was no comprehensive list of inscriptions. Currently, there are two in common use, both published in the 21st century: HoChyMin, a 2007 publication by Jean-Pierre Olivier, and CMII, published by Silvia Ferrara in 2013.3 Secondly, the proportion of inscribed objects is very different today. Approximately 30% consist of inscribed clay balls, 30% of inscribed vessels, and the remaining 40% is a veritable hodge-podge of metal objects, clay cylinders, cylinder seals, and other writing media. There are eight tablets currently published, four from Enkomi and four from Ras Shamra. By contrast, when Olivier Masson first published on Cypro-Minoan in 1952, there were around 185 inscriptions. Only ten clay balls, one of the most prominent inscription types today, had been discovered. There were thirteen cylinder seals, which were the second most popular inscription medium. The majority of the inscriptions, well over 70%, were vessels inscribed with one or more Cypro-Minoan signs. In Masson’s time, the definition of Cypro-Minoan writing was also broader in scope. Objects inscribed with single signs were considered Cypro-Minoan writing. Today’s lists of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions exclude single signs.
3The first comprehensive publication of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions and photographs was published by Jean-Pierre Olivier in 2007 and numbers two-hundred and seventeen inscriptions. Olivier employed the same definition of an inscription that he employed in his Aegean corpora to Cypro-Minoan, two consecutive signs of similar size written on the same plane.4 The resulting édition holistique (HoChyMin), as Oliver termed his publication, excluded the single-sign inscriptions on vessels, cylinders, and other objects that O. Masson had worked with. Olivier’s édition aggregated all published Cypro-Minoan inscriptions, providing pictures, drawings, and identifications of the signs, but did not actively seek out unpublished inscriptions. Nor did it provide an index of sign groups, concordances, or palaeographic tables of signs, as a proper corpus would. Though not a corpus in intent, Olivier’s collection of inscriptions had the effect of ‘canonizing’ the list of the inscriptions for the first time much like a proper corpus would have.
- 5 Ferrara 2012 and Ferrara 2013, respectively.
4Ferrara’s ‘corpus’ updates Olivier’s, adding twenty-two new inscriptions. Her list differs from his on three counts. In the first place, she conceived of CMII as an “archaeological corpus,” whose aim was to document the excavation year, findspots, and excavation context of every inscription. In the second place, she published her corpus in two volumes, an analysis, CMI, and corpus, CMII.5 Lastly, although she largely adheres to Olivier’s definition of an inscription, she includes several single-signed objects, ADD##219, ADD##222, ADD223. None of the single-signed objects she includes are on vessels. Why Ferrara includes some single-signed objects and not others is not clear. The twenty‑two objects Ferrara added to CMII fall into the following categories: a few single-sign inscriptions on noteworthy objects such as stamps, a handful of objects, mostly seals, published by O. Masson in 1957 but not included by Olivier, and unpublished inscriptions or material excavated in the late 80s – early 90s. Her final list differs from the list of inscriptions Masson worked with as substantially as Olivier’s edition.
- 6 Masson 1971.
- 7 “Bibliographie thématique des travaux d’Olivier Masson concernant Chypre”. CCEC 27, 1997, pp. 3‑4.
- 8 Masson 1968, p. 72.
5Olivier Masson began working on Cypro-Minoan in 1952 and turned away from the script after his last article published in Alasia I in 1971.6 During that time, he published more than twenty articles of varying length, a list of which were compiled into a bibliographie thématique published in this very journal in 1997.7 Several of Masson’s publications are short commentaries on newly discovered inscriptions and others are longer, more theoretical works, that contextualize the Cypro-Minoan script within the broader writing traditions of the Aegean and later Iron Age Cyprus. Schaeffer gave Masson the task of publishing the clay tablets discovered at Ras Shamra, which he published in a series of three articles. In every publication, Masson documents the archaeological context and chronology of each inscription, a practice that E. Masson at times abandoned. O. Masson was especially attentive to the potential links between writing medium and genre. For instance, his publication of the bronze bowls from Enkomi asks whether the bowls constitute a single document type. Analysing the structure of their inscriptions, longer sign sequences followed by word dividers followed by one or two signs, Masson concludes in the affirmative and notes the similarity in structure between the inscriptions on metal bowls and on the clay balls.8 Throughout his publications on Cypro-Minoan, O. Masson maintains scepticism as to whether Cypro-Minoan inscriptions belong to a unified script tradition or one script tradition with several sub-traditions. Initially, he pays equal attention to inscriptions of single signs, especially on vessels, but as more and more inscriptions of length were discovered these feature less prominently in his work.
- 9 Daniel 1941.
- 10 Masson 1952.
6Before World War II, the total corpus of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions consisted of one hundred and eighty‑five objects, which were aggregated by John Franklin Daniel in his seminal Prolegomena to the Cypro-Minoan Script.9 The one hundred and eighty‑five objects included four clay balls and ten seals, but the vast majority of inscribed objects were vessels inscribed with single signs, called “potmarks” today. By the time of his first publication on Cypro-Minoan in 1952, Masson was able to add to the collection six more balls, three more cylinders, and one additional inscribed vessel.10 In this first publication, Masson publishes five balls recently discovered at Enkomi alongside the five previously published balls, providing their findspots, where applicable, and offering tentative readings of the inscriptions. Alongside his presentation of the balls, he includes a brief historiography of the Cypro-Minoan script focused mostly on issues of sign identification. His history of Cypro-Minoan begins with Evans, whom he credits for identifying the script’s apparent relationship to Linear A, and proceeds to discuss Casson, to whom he attributes the first systematic publication of the script, Persson, and Daniel, all of whom published single-sign potmarks in their lists of inscriptions.
- 11 Deecke 1884.
- 12 Masson 1952, pp. 394‑395.
7Regarding John Franklin Daniel’s Prolegomena, Masson is mostly interested in Daniel’s method for identifying signs. Daniel compared the shapes of Cypro-Minoan signs to those from the Cretan Hieroglyphic, Linear A, the Linear B and Helladic scripts (aka the Linear B from Pylos), and later Classical Cypriote script, as it was then called. Masson embraces Daniel’s method with the caveats that the Classical syllabary is as yet poorly understood. For instance, the corpus of inscriptions in use was from 1884, the sign values of the Eteocypriot script were uncertain, and the differences in sign variants between the Classical script and the earlier Cypro-Minoan script were sometimes quite extreme.11 He also cautions that the Cypro-Minoan script probably does not record a form of the Greek language, and perhaps not even the Eteocypriot language, and therefore cautions against assigning sign values from one script to the other too liberally.12 In turning to the ball inscriptions, Masson assigns sign values only in cases where there is an assured match between the Cypro-Minoan and Classical syllabary. In cases where no such match exists, Masson gives the sign a number based on Daniel’s numbering system. Daniel’s sign list was built largely on material drawn from inscribed vessels, many of which were inscribed with only single signs. It is clear then that Masson regarded the single-signed objects as palaeographically relevant and accepted them as signs of writing (as opposed to marking).
8Masson does not adhere to Daniel’s classification system, which divides the inscriptions into classes based on a combination of ware type and inscription method. For Daniel, each class of inscription potentially belonged to a different writing system. Masson’s lack of discussion of Daniel’s classification system is particularly interesting because many of the principles of analysis employed by Daniel, such as a regard for writing medium and scepticism about the unity of the script, are evident in Masson, too. Daniel divided the Cypro-Minoan inscriptions into six classes based on a combination of vessel ware, inscription method, and writing medium. Daniel’s classes were as follows: Class I, incised inscriptions on local ware, Class II, incised inscriptions on Mycenaean wares, Class III, painted inscriptions on Mycenaean wares, Class IV, incised inscriptions on Minoan wares, Class V, inscriptions on wares of unclear origins, and, finally, Class VI, inscriptions on cylinders. Daniel compiled different sign lists for each Class of object and compared the sign lists individually to the other known Aegean scripts. According to Daniel’s analysis, some inscription classes, such as Class IV, showed closer fidelity in terms of sign forms and sign repertoire to Linear A than others. Masson did not accept Daniel’s classification system wholesale and refers to it sparingly throughout his subsequent work. But the spirit of the method, its attention to writing medium and inscription method as meaningful ways of classifying objects, and its scepticism towards Cypro-Minoan’s unity pervade Masson’s approach to the script. Likewise, he inherited from Daniel a willingness to accept single signs on marks as palaeographically informative examples of writing.
- 13 Dikaios 1953; Dikaios, Ventris 1953.
- 14 Schaeffer 1954.
- 15 Kizilduman 2017.
- 16 For their find context and a brief discussion, see Karageorghis, Kanta 2014, pp. 210‑211.
- 17 For an extended discussion and bibliography of tablet ##001, see Duhoux 2009.
9Shortly after Masson’s publication of the balls in 1952, came a series of discoveries of tablets both at Enkomi and Ras Shamra. The discovery of the clay tablets ultimately shifted interest away from smaller inscriptions to the longer texts, which hold more potential for decipherment by virtue of their length. Porphyrios Dikaios’ excavations at Enkomi in 1952 and 1953 recovered two tablets (##207 and ##209, respectively), which were published by Dikaios in rapid succession.13 1953 also saw the discovery of a tablet (##209) by the French excavation team under the direction of Claude Schaeffer, which he published himself in 1954.14 Schaeffer entrusted the publication of the four clay tablets discovered at Ras Shamra, excavated in 1953 (##212), 1955 (##213, 214), and 1956 (##215), to Masson. Surely, the rapid discovery of seven tablets at the two sites over the six seasons would have whetted excitement for the discovery of more tablets, perhaps even dreams of an archive. But only five other Cypro-Minoan tablets have been found since 1956. Three of these are recent discoveries, one from the site of Galinoporni in the Turkish occupied North Cyprus,15 and two excavated at the site of Pyla-Kokkinokremos in 2010-2011 excavation season that are awaiting publication.16 The other two come from Enkomi. One, ##207bis, was identified as belonging to the tablet excavated in 1952, ##207, and the other, tablet ##001, whose odd palaeography, tablet shape, and early date, distinguish it from the rest of the tablets discovered at Enkomi.17
- 18 Masson 1955, p. 177.
- 19 Masson 1955, p. 176.
- 20 Masson 1955, Masson 1956, Masson 1969.
- 21 Masson 1955; Masson 1956.
- 22 Masson 1969.
10O. Masson greets the discovery of the tablets with optimism, “l’importance de ces trouvailles n’a pas besoin d’être soulignée.”18 For Masson, “la multiplication des petites trouvailles en ces dernières années montre [...] que la connaissance de l’écriture chypro-minoenne était très largement répandue dans l’île à l’époque mycénienne”, but did not yet supply enough palaeographical information to make a comparison with the Minoan scripts possible.19 Only with the discovery of the tablets did he see a way forward toward potential decipherment and fuller knowledge of the relationship between Cypro-Minoan and the Aegean scripts. He publishes the tablets from Ras Shamra over the course of three publications spanning fourteen years, from 1955 to 1969.20 The first two publications in 1955 and 1956 centre on tablets ##213, ##213, ##214.21 The last, on ##215, was published over a decade later.22 Two dramatic changes in Masson’s interpretation of the tablets during that time are noteworthy. In the first place, the optimism he expressed at the initial discovery of the tablets gives way to an abiding pessimism. He concludes his 1969 article on tablet ##215 with a note of aporia, “la possibilité d’un déchiffrement est encore liée à l’éventualité de nouvelles découvertes qui rendraient réalisable la lecture des signes chypro-minoens”, new discoveries that were slow in coming and small in number. For Masson, ten years on, decipherment is no longer close at hand but dependent upon further new discoveries. In the second place, he shifts from a belief that at least one of the tablets from Ras Shamra demonstrates a substantial palaeographical affinity to the balls from Enkomi to the belief that the script at Ras Shamra, while still Cypro-Minoan, is distinctive from that of the mainland. The two shifts in mindset are linked. More discoveries become a pre-requisite for a potential decipherment precisely because the inscriptions from the mainland seem to constitute a separate strand of the Cypro-Minoan script than inscriptions from the island.
- 23 Masson 1954.
- 24 Masson 1954, p. 445.
- 25 E. Masson 1971.
- 26 Dikaios 1953; Dikaios, Ventris 1953.
- 27 Masson 1956, p. 239.
- 28 Masson 1954, p. 444.
11Masson’s initial contention that the tablet discovered in 1953 at Ras Shamra evinces palaeographical links to the clay ball of the island is extremely short-lived. He first mentions this belief in passing as part of his first, abbreviated list of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions published in 1954.23 There, he contends that, “la tablette fournit cependant les éléments d’un syllabaire de type clairement chypro-minoen, apparenté au répertoire des boules, etc., d’Enkomi, plutôt qu’à celui des tablettes fournies par le même site”.24 At this point in time, his assessment relies on either unpublished or only recently published material. Many of the sign forms he identifies on Ras Shamra tablet ##212, he links to sign forms on the clay balls that were only recently discovered by Porphyrios Dikaios that would not be published until E. Masson published them in 1971.25 His analysis of the palaeography of the Enkomi tablets relies on the publications by Dikaios and Dikaios and Ventris published two years prior.26 He is comfortable with the conclusions of Ventris and Dikaios that the tablets at Enkomi demonstrate palaeographical differences when compared to the balls.27 But, at this point, he attributes the palaeographical differences to the necessity of simplifying signs on the clay tablet medium and not to substantive differences in the sign repertoires or scripts of the different media.28
- 29 Masson 1955, p. 178.
- 30 Masson prefers to compare them to a question mark, “ressemblant un peu à nos points d’interrogation (...)
12One year later, in presenting his reading of tablet ##212, Masson no longer sees substantive similarities between the palaeography and sign repertoire of the Ras Shamra tablets and the Enkomi clay balls. He concludes that the script at Ras Shamra evinces “l’existence d’un nouveau chypro-minoen, celui de Ras Shamra, pour le xive ou le xiiie siècle”.29 He does not dismiss entirely his earlier contention that the balls and the Ras Shamra tablets exhibit similarities, but he no longer believes that the palaeography and sign repertoire of tablet ##212 compares well with the balls. He reduces their similarities to one feature, tablet ##212’s use of “exclamation point” word dividers. These exclamation point word dividers are also used on several balls from Enkomi, ##003, ##006, ##013, ##014, ##018, and on Ras Shamra tablet ##214.30 All five of these balls were part of the tranche of recently excavated, unpublished balls uncovered by Dikaios. None of the other balls, either ones already published, nor ones published since, have the same idiosyncratic word divider. Most use either a straight line of the same approximate height as the signs or a smaller straight line about the half the size of the signs.
13Masson’s observation is more important than he ultimately gives it credit for. Two of the balls with exclamation points date to the LCIIC (late) period and are among the chronologically earliest balls discovered at Enkomi. Their early date makes them contemporary to the Ras Shamra tablets. The balls’ idiosyncratic use of the exclamation point word dividers seen on the Ras Shamra may indeed demonstrate a real link between the palaeographic traditions of the two sites. Further evidence of this link can be sought in the palaeography of CM 019 and the fact that the sign is fairly uncommon on the balls but relatively common on the Ras Shamra tablets (fig. 1). The sign is attested on four balls from Enkomi: one LCIIC ball ##002, one ball with an exclamation point word divider, ##018, one ball from the Sanctuary of the Ingot God, ##047, where the sign is in the position where a word divider should be, and last on one of the two clay balls from Kition, ##090, where the sign exhibits an otherwise unattested sign variant. The palaeography of CM 019 on balls ##002 and ##018 is identical to that seen on the Ras Shamra tablets, with the exception that on tablet ##212 the sign is written in reverse direction. It is unclear whether or not he has noticed that sign CM 019 on tablet ##212 is the reverse of CM 019 on the two balls recently excavated by Dikaios, ball ##002 and ##018. Unfortunately, his 1955 publication does not provide a line-by-line reading of the tablet, as is his usual practice in other publications. Had he undertaken a line-by-line analysis, perhaps he would have noticed the palaeographical similarities between CM 019 on the tablet and on the balls despite their reverse direction.
Figure 1 — a) Drawing of ##020 ENKO Abou 001: CM 19, used as abbreviation; b) Drawing of ##212 RASH Atab 001: CM 19, used word initially.
a. drawing by the author on personal photograph; b. drawing by the author based on photograph from Ferrara 2013, pl. XXXVI.
- 31 Masson 1955, p. 180. Elsewhere in print, Schaeffer ascribes to Masson’s differentiation of the scri (...)
14I can see three reasons why Masson would view the relationship between tablet ##212 and the Enkomi balls differently in 1954 from 1955. The first is that the extra time he spent with the tablet changed his assessment of its palaeography. The second is that the perspective on the script he adapted from Daniel, who divided inscribed objects and their scripts into classes at least partially based on their geographical origin, predisposed Masson to look for differences in sign repertoires on objects from different sites. Lastly, it is possible that he was swayed by the position of Claude Schaeffer, who believed that the script of the balls, the Enkomi tablets, and Ras Shamra constitute different scripts, an opinion which he voices in the responses to the 1955 article on the Ras Shamra tablets.31 The three-script model Schaeffer proposes here is remarkably similar to the one later proposed by E. Masson.
- 32 Masson 1956, p. 245.
- 33 Masson 1956, pp. 234‑236.
- 34 Masson 1956, p. 236.
- 35 Masson 1969, p. 390.
- 36 Masson 1969.
15Masson’s contention that the Ras Shamra tablets constitute evidence for a distinctive Cypro-Minoan script only strengthens throughout the course of his publications. By 1956, he proposes giving the script of Ras Shamra its own moniker, “chypro-minoen d’Ougarit”, on account of “des divergences nombreuses qui existent entre le répertoire des signes de notre tablette et les autres syllabaires chypro-minoens”.32 He still regards the script as Cypro-Minoan because of the correspondences between many of the signs from the two sites and because of the large amount of painted and incised Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery at Medinet el Beida and Ras Shamra,33 which show strong similarities to the mainland, and because of the Cypro-Minoan inscribed silver bowl discovered at Ras Shamra’s acropolis.34 In his 1969, on the last of the four Ras Shamra tablets, ##215, he maintains that the differences in sign repertoire may be partly attributable to differences in the length of texts but that, “ces différents répertoires ne se recouvrent pas complement”.35 The script still maintains its relationship with Cypro-Minoan, however, due to the overlap between both simple and complex signs between the inscriptions from Ras Shamra and the island.36
16There are clear differences in sign forms between the tablets from Ras Shamra and the mainland inscriptions. As Valério has suggested and this author agrees, many of the major differences in the Ras Shamra and Enkomi repertoires can be attributed to differences in sign variants rather than the actual repertoires.37 Masson’s decision to treat the four Ras Shamra tablets as a coherent group of texts may have been a misstep. More significantly, each tablet is different from the other in terms of tablet construction, the presence or absence of line rules, and palaeography. Not only are the tablets different from one another, they are also all distinctive from tablets on the mainland. The diversity in tablet construction, formatting, and palaeography at Ras Shamra suggests a writing tradition in the midst of flux and experimentation. The four tablets should probably not be regarded as a coherent group representing a single standardized writing tradition.
17Masson’s greatest contribution to the Cypro-Minoan script was probably his 1957 catalogue of all Cypro-Minoan inscriptions known at the time.38 Masson provided a catalogue number for every inscription, listing the excavator and year in which a given inscription was found and providing a brief description of the object when possible. Masson’s list counts 359 inscriptions, considerably more than in Olivier and Ferrara. The objects that Masson included in his catalogue that are not included in either Olivier or Ferrara consist almost entirely of objects inscribed with single signs, the vast majority of them inscribed vessels, but also single-signed inscribed weights, cylinder seals, spindle whorls, and other similar objects. Olivier excludes a few seals with longer sequences, some of which Ferrara subsequently put in CM II. Olivier excluded a few seals with longer inscriptions from HoChyMin for various reasons, some of which will be discussed below.
- 39 The site of Sinda yielded a single-signed inscription at the time of Masson’s publication. In the m (...)
- 40 Valério 2016, p. 61.
18Masson lists over a hundred more inscriptions than Olivier and Ferrara due to his decision to include single-signed objects in his list. These additions alter neither the geographical nor chronological scope of the script in significant ways, suggesting that single-signed inscribed represent a similar, or the same, historical phenomenon as the longer inscriptions. The chronological span of attested inscriptions in Masson is identical to Ferrara and Olivier’s. So too, the list of sites with inscriptions in his catalogue are almost identical to the lists of sites within the island of Cyprus listed by Ferrara and Olivier. The only sites included in Masson’s catalogue that did not deliver any inscriptions according to HoChyMin and CM II are Alambra and Ktima.39 Several of the sites with single-sign objects only attest a single full-length inscription. These include Arpera, Dromolaxia-Vizatzia, Pyla-Vergi, Sanida, Klavdia, and Deneia. The great overlap between sites with potmarks and sites with inscriptions, even single examples, suggests that potmarks are an indicator of the presence of script at a specific site. In some cases, a site with only a single potmark also attests an inscription, as is the case with Dromoloaxia-Vizatzia. This site contained a single entry in Masson’s 1957 catalogue and did not yield a full-length inscription until 2012.40 The coincidence of sites with potmarks and inscriptions validates Masson’s inclination to follow Daniel by taking an inclusive approach to the script.
19O. Masson’s approach to the script in the 1957 catalogue was well suited to Cypro-Minoan with its large number of single-sign inscribed objects. Cypro-Minoan’s relative lack of tablets and its large number of inscriptions on media not attested in the Aegean, such as the clay balls, make it an outlier vis à vis Aegean scripts. Incised vessels, too, are largely absent from Aegean contexts with the exception of a small number of Linear A incised handles from the Cyclades and Linear A inscribed pithoi from Crete. The demands of Cypro-Minoan writing media, many of which have rounded, uneven surfaces, differ from tablets with their flat, clear surfaces. A review of some of the objects catalogued by Masson but excluded from Olivier and Ferrara’s corpora demonstrates the advantages of his more inclusive approach to the script that is better suited to the writing media of the Cypro-Minoan script.
20Two types of excluded inscriptions will be reviewed, multi-sign inscriptions and single-sign inscriptions. The excluded multi-sign inscriptions failed to meet the definition of an inscription either because their signs are of different height or are not on the same plane, or some combination of both. The excluded cases demonstrate the element of subjectivity that enters into assessing irregular – at least in Aegean terms – writing media, such as vessels and seals, that do not provide the clear and level surfaces that tablets, for instance, do. Single signs were excluded by virtue of not containing “words”. Single-sign inscriptions that occur on valuable media such as seals or pithoi, especially when they are found at sites where full-length inscriptions have been attested, however, may very well constitute evidence for literacy. Certain signs appear frequently on single-signed inscribed objects on specific writing media and as abbreviations as part of full-length inscriptions on the same types of writing medium. In these cases, it is not unreasonable to assume that the single signs abbreviate words and therefore constitute writing. Such connections between single-sign inscriptions and those with multiple signs are difficult to make, however, when the single- and multiple-signs inscriptions are not published together in the same place.
21The first multi-sign inscription catalogued by Masson but excluded from the corpora that we will look at is CM A 1502 (fig. 2). Although neither Olivier nor Ferrara indicates why they excluded the inscription, it has several features that do not strictly meet the criteria they set out. CM A 1502 is a two-signs inscription positioned vertically down the handle of a Plain White Wheel-Made jug. The first sign, CM 038, is larger in size than the second sign, CM 001. Unfortunately, the object is reported as missing in the Cyprus Museum, so I was unable to measure the differences in size, and no published picture of the object provide a scale. Based on the published images, the first sign appears to be roughly twice as large as the second. In addition to their difference in size, the two signs are also slightly offset from one another. One feature of the inscription that is unusual, which may or may not have contributed to its exclusion from the corpora, is its word divider, a horizontal line. As will be discussed shortly, there are plenty of other two-signs handle inscriptions, but none has a horizontal word divider.
Figure 2 — Drawing of A 1502 based on photograph in Karageorghis, Buchholz 1973, no. 1903.
- 41 Here I list only inscribed vessels and cylinders. Cylinders: ##195, signs facing different directio (...)
22The difference in size and slight misalignment between the two signs on the handle highlight the subjectivity involved in making such judgments. Other inscriptions included by Olivier and Ferrara have similar differences.41 Many, though by no means all, of the post-fired incised inscriptions on handles show signs of the significant effort it took on the part of the inscriber to cut through hard ceramic. Precision and orderliness in the inscriptions were attainable but not always sought. The size of signs in relation to one another and their even alignment are essentially criterion of “neatness”. Given the difficulty involved in incising fired clay vessels, neatness cannot always be adhered to. Both are criteria that make sense when applied to tablets but less so in the case of vessels that have varied and uneven surfaces, especially in the case of pot handles.
- 42 This count includes further handles published by Valério 2014.
- 43 Hirschfeld 2017.
- 44 I propose a tentative reading of the inscription, 104 | 019. Cf. ##113 for the palaeography of CM 0 (...)
23CM A 1502, with its strange horizontal word divider, provides a useful contrast to other handle inscriptions. Two-signs inscriptions on handles separated by a word divider are common on the handles. Scholars of Cypro-Minoan refer to them as 1+1 inscriptions. 1+1 inscriptions are also seen on other inscriptions media, such as miniature ingots, stone blocks, and, in one case, on a clay ball, but they primarily appear on pot handles. 1+1 inscriptions are attested on a total of eleven of the thirty-six two-signs inscribed handles.42 All of the 1+1 inscriptions in the corpora are arranged horizontally on the handle. An exception to this is a handle from Alassa published by Nicolle Hirschfeld in 2017.43 This handle is inscribed with two signs arranged vertically down the spine of the handle. Hirschfeld was unable to autopsy the handle and her reading of it is uncertain. Based on my reading of the photograph, it too may have a horizontal word divider as in the case of CM A 1502.44 The horizontal 1+1 inscriptions contrast with other two-signs handle inscriptions, which are all vertically arranged down handle spines. That handle CM A 1502 goes against the anticipated pattern perhaps makes its strange horizontal word divider more understandable. It is a unique solution to a unique arrangement of the signs.
- 45 Inscriptions whose sign sequences begin with CM 038 and/or use CM 038 in an abbreviation are as fol (...)
24There are several reasons to treat handle CM A 1502 as an inscription. In the first case, the two signs in question CM 038 and CM 001 appear together on another two-signed handle inscription from Maa-Palaeokastro, ##155. There, the two signs are in reverse order, CM 001 CM 038. Secondly, each of the two signs is attested on other vessel inscriptions.45 Inscribed vessels circulate in distinct contexts in which certain signs appear again and again as abbreviations (single signs placed before or after a word divider). A sign’s repeated presence or absence on inscribed vessels can therefore be taken as an indicator of whether or not a given sign belongs to the vessel context. Thirdly, both signs appear frequently as single signs on vessels. If the single-sign inscriptions and the multi-signs inscriptions circulate in the same contexts, as Masson’s inclusive catalogue implies, then an overlap in signs repertoire between the two types of inscriptions would likewise be an indicator that a given inscription fits the vessel context. Lastly, the palaeography of the two signs also fits the palaeography of other inscriptions, which constitutes strong evidence that whoever inscribed the handle was trained in the palaeography of the Cypro-Minoan writing tradition.
25CM 038 illustrates the significance of finding the sign on both vessel inscriptions and as a single sign. CM 038 is an especially common sign on vessel inscriptions. This is in contrast to, for instance, the balls, where it only appears as a sign on one of the ninety-one ball inscriptions (##007). CM 038 is the first sign in longer words (inscriptions of more than two signs) on four vessel inscriptions ##106, ##127, ##157, ADD##240. It appears as one of two signs on four two-signs inscriptions (##116, ##125, ##153, and the already mentioned ##155), where it appears in the sequence CM 001 038. The affinity of sign CM 038 for the vessel medium, to the exclusion of other media, must be more than coincidental even if we do not know what the sign abbreviates.
- 46 From Ras Shamra: RS 5474; from Kition: II/5362A, II/Temenos A/8.
- 47 Inscriptions ##92, ##93, ##100, ##101, ##102, ##128 (Olivier reads the sign as 056 but notes that i (...)
26CM 038 is not only common in vessel inscriptions, but it also appears several times as a single sign, especially on pithoi.46 In one instance, CM 038 appears on a pithos from Kition flanked on both sides by what appear to be numerals. Olivier included the pithos as an inscription, ##145, in HoChyMin on account of the numerals. It is one of the very few Cypro-Minoan inscription with numerals.47 Given the context of a single sign on a pithos rim, flanked by numerals, it may be the case that CM 038 designates a commodity held in the pithos. At Kition, there are two other single-sign pithoi inscribed with CM 038 (II/5362A, II/Temenos A/8). Given that the three vessels are from the same site, it is very likely that CM 038 designates the same thing on each vessel. What is less easy to establish is whether CM 038 designates the same thing on vessels from other sites. Whether it does or not, the sign seems to have particular relevance for vessels, both in the case of multi-signed or single-signed vessels.
27A last compelling piece of evidence that CM A 1502 should be read as in inscription is the fact that the palaeography of each sign fits with the palaeography on other vessel inscriptions. CM 038 is in the shape of an upside-down V. Two shorter lines protrude from each leg of the “V” shape at upward 45-degree angles. The same version of the sign form is seen on the pithos from Athienou ##106, and pot handles ##153 and ##155 (partly damaged, see drawing from Olivier which is more accurate than the one in Ferrara) from Maa-Palaeokastro. The second sign, CM 001, is a simple sign in the shape of a capital “I”. Its simplicity makes it uninformative from the perspective of palaeography. The other vessel inscriptions with CM 001 that has the same simple “I” variant is the already mentioned ##155 inscription from Maa-Palaeokastro.
28I have argued here that CM A 1502 should be read as an inscription given its sign sequence and the palaeography of its signs. But even if the handle is not included in a future corpus, a study of the handle’s formatting, signs, and palaeography provides important insights into broader Cypro-Minoan writing practices. Both the vessel inscriptions included in the corpus and those not included circulate in similar contexts. CM 038 is a great example of this given its prominence in vessel inscriptions and as a single sign on vessels, especially on pithoi. CM 001 is likewise common as a single sign on vessels. Separating out vessels inscribed with single signs, or in the case of CM A 1502 two signs, from the corpus of inscriptions can obscure the connections between the two inscription types that are not otherwise substantially different from one another.
- 48 Masson 1957b, nos. 1, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 17.
- 49 See n. 29.
29Masson’s list of cylinder seals counts nine seals (including rings) that were originally excluded from HoChyMin.48 Excluded seals fall into two types: ones whose readings as Cypro-Minoan are dubious and seals with single signs. Both cases illustrate the benefits and pitfalls of Masson’s inclusive approach to inscriptions. Seals with more than one sign present numerous difficulties for the traditional definitions of writing employed by Olivier and Ferrara discussed above. Most Cypro-Minoan inscriptions on seals do not appear to be original to the seal design itself but were squeezed into already crowded surface. The result of this is that signs are not always contiguous or written on the same plane. In several instances, we have inscriptions where some of the signs are arranged vertically but others horizontally.49 As a result of the often-bizarre formatting on the seals, the decision which to count as inscriptions necessarily involves a good deal of subjectivity. A further difficulty in assessing the seals involves deciding whether a given inscription is meant to be read in relief or in imprint.
- 50 Masson 1957b, no. 8.
- 51 Masson 1957b, no. 18.
- 52 Ferrara 2013, p. 120.
30Perhaps the biggest divergence in Olivier’s and Ferrara’s lists of inscriptions surround the inclusion of seals. HoChyMin counts fifteen seals, whereas Ferrara counts twenty. All‑in‑all, Ferrara publishes six “ADD” seals in CMII, ADD##218, ADD##219, ADD##220, ADD##225, ADD##227 ADD##232, five of which were published by Masson (ADD##218, ADD##219, ADD##225, ADD##227, ADD##232). One of these is an inscription with a single sign that will be discussed below. The other three are multi-length inscriptions that seem to have been excluded by Olivier for a variety of reasons. I will briefly discuss the three examples in turn, referring to them by the number assigned to them by Ferrara. The two signs on ADD##218 are written on the same plane and are of the same size but are not contiguous. The abrasion on the surface of the seal makes reading this seal incredibly difficult. The second seal, ADD##225, presents difficulties because the surface of the seal is decorated with “symboles,” including bucrania and an ingot.50 It is difficult to determine which images constitute symbols and which constitute script. Masson identifies four signs, the first two of which lack exact matches in the script. The first may be sign CM 082, as identified by Ferrara, but if so, it is a variant of the sign not attested elsewhere in the inscriptions. The second sign is not attested in the script at all, as Ferrara herself admits. That leaves us with a two-signs inscription, consisting of signs CM 023 and CM 007. The third seal ADD##232, contains two “signs” that likely are artistic motifs and not signs of the script. Masson had certainly argued as much in his initial publication of the cylinder.51 Ferrara includes the seal in CMII despite her own doubts about whether the motif constitutes signs in the script.52 Neither Masson nor Ferrara suggest corollaries for the “signs” in the Cypro-Minoan script without extreme reservation. Cases such as this, where neither sign has any obvious corollary in the Cypro-Minoan signary, should not be included in a corpus and demonstrate the dangers of taking a too wide approach to the script. At the time of Masson’s 1957 publication, the inclusion of such an item might have made sense but 60 years on, with no obvious corollary to either sign having been discovered in the meantime, labelling an item such as this as writing is misleading.
- 53 Ferrara 2015, p. 114; Ferrara and Valério 2017, p. 85.
- 54 For the seal from Sinda see Iakovidis 1967.
- 55 Masson 1957b, no. 15.
- 56 See Ferrara 2013, p. 4, for a discussion of why she includes other single-signed objects in CM II.
31Single signs on seals challenge the traditional definition of writing Olivier applied to Cypro-Minoan, especially when the identification of the sign as belonging to the Cypro-Minoan script is not in doubt. CM 102 is a complex sign composed of four elements. The sign has several variants, including two that are identical to the forms that appear as single signs on seals. It is a relatively common sign on the seals, where it appears word initially on four different seals ##195, ##206, and the recently added inscriptions ADD##252 and ADD##253. The elite funerary contexts in which seals are recovered increases the likelihood that the people using the seals were likely literate since many Cypro-Minoan texts have elite connotations either in their findspots or the materials onto which they were inscribed.53 Masson certainly believed that the single sign CM 102 on AM 1639, a cylinder seal from Sinda (fig. 3),54 constituted a sign of writing as opposed to a symbol or an ornament.55 His argument is strengthened by the presence of the same sign on seal ADD##219, a serpentine stamp seal on which CM 102 appears prominently, deeply engraved in between the horns of a bull’s head, the seal’s central and only feature. CM 102 also appears in a composition between bull’s horns, in this case between the horns of two recumbent bulls seated one in front of the other, in inscription ##206. The presence of the same sign with the same artistic motif, once as a single sign and once in an inscription, suggests that the sign might have the same meaning in both cases. ADD##219 is the only single-signed seal that Ferrara include in CMII. Although Ferrara does not indicate why she included this single-signed seal in particular, the appearance of CM 102 in between bull’s horns in ADD##219 and ##206 justifies the inclusion of the single-signed object in the list of other inscriptions.56
Figure 3 — Seal from Sinda. Paris, Louvre AM 1639. After Masson 1957b, fig. 9.
- 57 Smith 2002, p. 13, fig. 3.
- 58 Karageorghis, Buchholz 1973, pp. 114 and 391, cat. no. 1380.
32CM 102 may also appear as a single sign on two other seals, which would further solidify the association between the seal medium and CM 102. The first of the two seals is already included in HoChyMin and CMII, seal ##201, based on the four contiguous signs atop the seal’s upper register. In addition to the four contiguous signs, Joanna Smith counts two other signs that are squeezed, singly, into the lower register, neither of which signs are discussed by Olivier or Ferrara.57 According to Smith’s reading, one of the two signs is CM 102. The second seal with a possible reading of CM 102 comes from Perati, Greece. The seal is thought to come from Cyprus based on its motifs. The Perati seal contains two non-contiguous signs, CM 006 and either CM 102 or CM 110.58 Regardless of the Perati seal’s reading or Smith’s reading of the additional sign on seal ##201, the repeated presence of CM 102 as a single sign on seals and word initially in longer inscriptions on seals suggests the sign’s relevance to the seal medium. CM 102’s significance for the seal medium is apparent, even we cannot as yet articulate the precise meaning of its significance.
- 59 Karageorghis, Masson 1968.
33The tablets discovered one after the other in the 1950s shifted the focus away from the broader picture of script use on the island to analyses of the script on longer inscriptions. O. Masson continued to publish single-sign inscribed vessels and other objects throughout the 1960s, but with less and less commentary. In his publication of finds from Kition with V. Karageorghis, for instance, single-signed objects are listed but not discussed.59 Masson’s inclusive approach to the script has been superseded by corpora with more traditional Aegeanist approaches to the script. For that reason, his list of inscriptions, especially the single-signed ones, has become all the more valuable. It is currently the most recent aggregated collection of single-signed inscribed Cypro-Minoan inscriptions. Today, there are no current catalogues or corpora of either single-sign inscriptions in general nor of potmarks in particular. Hundreds more potmarks have been found in the last seventy years, but they have yet to be collected into a single volume or corpus of their own. Many are still awaiting publication. What this contribution has hopefully demonstrated is the usefulness of having such inscriptions compiled into one place. While it may not be appropriate or even feasible to include the single-signed objects in future Cypro-Minoan corpora, their collection and cataloguing would be of great benefit to the field. It would allow for easy comparison of single-signed objects to the multi-sign inscriptions across a variety of criteria including palaeography, site-by-site sign distribution, etc., on the model presented here. Thanks to Olivier Masson, we have a precedent for such a catalogue.