Knossos KN As Series

Transliterations from Killen & Olivier 1989 unless otherwise noted. Modified Wingspread Convention in use.

KN As 40+

sup. mut.
(o)-[ ] , (ko)-(no)-so VIR[
a-to , / da-*22-to VIR 1
zo-do-so , / da-*22-to VIR 1
a-sa-ro , / da-*22-to VIR 1
ko-so , / da-*22-to VIR 1
su-ke-re , / se-to-i-ja VIR 1
](to)-so VIR 10
] vacat

KN As 566

]di-ka-ta-ro (VIR)[
](si)-ja-qo VIR[
](ke)-we-da (VIR)[

KN As 602+

]VIR 1 TELA1 1
](jo) (VIR) (1)[ ] VIR 1 TELA1 1 [
], qe-ro a-ta-qe VIR (2) TELA1 1 ka-nu-se-u , ta-to-qe VIR 2 TELA(1) 1[
](da)-ro , a-ka-sa-no[ ]VIR 2 TELA1 (pe)-re-*82-ta , qo-wa-ke-se-u[
]to-so [ ](VIR) 12 [ ](1) [

KN As 603+

]VIR 1 no-si-ro VIR (1)[ ](a)-ta-no VIR 1
]1 ma-di VIR 1 o-po-ro-u-si-jo[
]1 pe-te-u VIR 1 ku-ro2 VIR[
] vacat [

KN As 604+

] e-re-dwo-(e) , ka-(ta2)-(ro) 'si-(ra)-so' VIR 1 e-ri-ta-qi-jo , / ka-mo 'VIR 1'
]ra-su-to VIR 1 ta-de-(so) (ra)-su-to[ ] 1 au-ri-jo 'wi-na-to' VIR 1
]te-so 'wi-na-to' VIR 1 te-(na)-ja-so[ ](1) qa-qa-ro 'pu-so' VIR 1 [ ]to , / u-ta[

McArthur 1993: Scribe 103

KN As 605+

]ni-jo VIR 2 TELA1[ ](ra)-wo-ke-ta , e[
] VIR 2 TELA1 1 qe-[ . . ]-no , pe-ro-qe VIR 2[ ] TELA1 1
](VIR) 2 TELA1 1 tu-ma-i-ta , qe-ta-se-u[ ] TELA1 1
] vacat [
]2 [

KN As 607+

.1 ]VIR 1 a-ra-ko VIR 1
.2 ]1 ta-ta-ro VIR 1
.3 ]VIR 1 (si)-mi-do VIR 1 (*56)-ni-sa-ta VIR 1
.4 ](1) [ ](ro)-ti-jo VIR 1
.5a ] ke-re-(to)[
.5b ](1) i-ne-u , ra-(ja)[

to do: confirm ke-re-(to); no entry for this in the Chadwick & Ventris index

KN As 608+

](i) 1 DA 1 / (ku)-(ru)-no[ ] VIR 5 [
] 1 DA 1 / pa-ta-u-(na) [ ] VIR (1)[
](1) / [ ]pa-ta-u-na // a3[ ] VIR 1 DA 1 / pa-ta-u-na // ko-no-si-jo (VIR)[
] ta-so DA 1 / (ke) [ ] 1 ke , ta-pa-da-no DA 1 / ke // si-to-(po)[
]ko-me-no VIR (1)[ ] no-do-ro-we (DA)[
lat. inf.
] DA 1 a-ma[ ]e-ne-o (o)-u[

KN As 609+

]re-po-so [
ka-ri-(se)-u [ ] wi-(je)-mo VIR 1 pi-ro-qa-wo[
qe-te-se-u VIR [ ] no-da-ro VIR 1 a-ku-ri-(jo)[
vacat [ ](to)-so VIR (7)

KN As 645

sup. mut.
](ki)-ne-u (VIR)[
sa-ma-ri-wa-ta VIR[
inf. mut.

KN As 1516

](du)-ru (1) (ko)[
ko-no-si-ja , ra-wa-ke-ja , a-nu-wi-ko VIR 1 [
a-ra-da-jo VIR 1 pi-ja-si-ro VIR 1 (da)-(na)[ ] VIR 1
](we)-ro VIR 1 po-to VIR 1 si-pu2 VIR 1 pu-te VIR [ ] (ja)-sa-no VIR 1
qa-me-si-jo VIR 1 mi-ja-ra-ro VIR 1 mi-ru-ro VIR 1
[ . ]-ki-wa-ta VIR 1 u-ra-mo-no VIR 1 pi-ri-no VIR 1
qa-to-no-ro VIR 1 pe-te-ki-ja , VIR 1 ko-ni-da-jo VIR 1
a-ko-ra-jo VIR 1 wa-du-[ . ]-to VIR 1 qo-te-ro VIR 1
i-te-u VIR 1 pu-to-ro VIR 1 ka-ri-se-u VIR 1 a3-ko-ta VIR 1
ka-ke VIR 1 ru-na VIR 1 pu-wo VIR 1 a-ta-ze-u [
a-ra-na-ro VIR 1 si-ja-pu2-ro VIR 1 to-so X VIR 31

]-ti-jo , a-nu-to [ ](si)-re-wi-ja , VIR 1 su-ki-ri-to VIR 1
[ . ]ke-se-ra-wo VIR 1 qa[ . . ]-jo VIR 1 ne-o-ta VIR 1
o-pi-si-jo VIR [ ]a3-wa-(to) VIR 1 a-ti-jo VIR 1 du-to VIR 1
a-de-we-[.]VIR 1 pa-na-re-jo VIR 1 sa-pi-ti-nu-wo VIR 1
du-to VIR 1 ka-*56-na-to VIR 1 a-qa-to VIR 1
du-ru-po VIR 1 qa-nu-wa-so VIR 1 ke-re VIR 1 pa-ti VIR 1
wi-ro VIR 1 su-mi VIR 1 i-wa-ko VIR 1 a-pi-wa-to VIR 1
pi-ja-se-me VIR 1 to-so X VIR 23

se-to-i-ja su-ke-re-o , qa-si-re-wi-ja VIR 1 ku-to VIR 1
sa-u-ri-jo VIR 1 du-ni-jo VIR 1 wi-ja-ma-ro VIR 1 a-pi-ra-wo VIR 1
](to) VIR 1 pi-[ ]-jo VIR 1 wi-ra-ne-to VIR 1
]na-(ro) VIR 1 wa-ru-wo-qo VIR 1
] VIR 1 a-ti-[ ] (VIR) 1 to-so[

KN As 1517

]no , re-qo-me-no ,
[ . ]si-re-u 1 a-di-nwa-ta 1
[ . ]-sa-ta 1 ti-qa-jo 1
da-wa-no 1 [ . . ]-wo 1
qi-qe-ro 1 wi-du[ ] 1
ku-ra-no 1 (ra)-wi-[ . ] 1
e-ru-to-ro 1 ku-(ta)-i-jo 1
ku-pa-nu-we-to 1 qa-ra-jo 1
ri-zo 1 pa-na-re-jo 1
ke-ka-to 1 to-so VIR 17
o-pi , e-sa-re-we , to-ro-no-wo-ko ,
po-to-ri-jo 1 pe-we-ri-jo 1
a3-ni-jo 1

side 2 verso
za-mi-jo VIR 9
reliqua pars sine requlis

KN As 1518+

] VIR 5 to-ko[ ]wi-ja 1 [
]VIR (5) we-e[ ] , to-ko 1 [
] VIR 5 we[ ]wi-ja to-ko 1 [
](re)-we VIR 5 (we)-e-wi-ja , to-ko 1 [
] vacat [ ] vacat [

KN As 1519

sup. mut.
] VIR 1
i-we-ro VIR 1
ne-o-to VIR 1
qa-ti-ja VIR 1
o-pi-si-jo VIR 1
pa-ja-ro VIR 1
ki-ke-ro VIR 1
i-to VIR 1
(ma)-ri-ne-wo , wo-i-ko-de
to-so VIR 10
inf. mut.

KN As 1520

sup. mut.
](no) ,
]1 a-ta-no 1
]wi-jo 1 a-te-mo 1
ki-ma-ta 1 ri-zo 1
ke-sa-do-ro 1 di-zo 1
da-ko-so 1 so-za 1
to-so VIR 10
] e-u-na-wo 1
] sa-zo 1
] o-*22-di 1
] pi-ma-na-ro 1
] a-*56-no 1
inf. mut.

major pars sine regulis
a-mi-ni-so [
a-ma-no 1 se[
inf. mut.

See also KN V 1523
To do: confirm sign groups; Chadwick & Ventris 1973 noted "si-za" on KN As 1520 - double-check so-za against references


](e)-pi-ko-wo , e-qe-(ta) , e-re-u-(te)[
]da-mo , / e-ro-pa-ke-u // VIR 1 ko-ki[
]-jo / ra-wo-po-qo , ze-ro[

KN As 5542

](ro) te VIR (1) [
] VIR [
inf. mut.

KN As 5549+

](VIR) 1 X
]-(to)[ ]4 (da)-zo VIR 2
](2) [ ]-(so)[ ]2[ ] VIR 1 [

lat. inf.
] 1

KN As 5557

] VIR 2[
](1)[ ]a-re-te-re-u[
inf. mut.

KN As 5605+

sup. mut.
] ko-ko[
](mi)-dwe VIR[
] VIR (1)[
inf. mut.

KN As 5609+

sup. mut.
] (e)[
](u)-ko-ro VIR [
]-ke-u VIR 1[
] to-so VIR 10[

KN As 5719

]ku-ka-so VIR 1[
] vacat [

KN As 5880+

]VIR 1 [
] VIR 1 [
](ta) VIR 1 [

KN As 5888

]wa-je VIR 2 [
]to , o-du[
] vacat [

KN As 5908

sup. mut.
] vacat [
] VIR 12[

KN As 5932

sup. mut.
]VIR 1 a-[ . ]-we (X)[
] X VIR 5 a-[
lat. inf.
]su-*56-ta X VIR 1[

KN As 5941+

]VIR (1) 'e-re-ta' VIR[
]VIR 1 'e-re-ta' (VIR)[
] 'e-re-ta' [
inf. mut.

KN As 5944+

]me-ri-to te VIR 1
] vacat

KN As 5956

]ma-jo , [
] VIR[
inf. mut.

KN As 5981

sup. mut.
] vacat [
] VIR [

KN As 6038

sup. mut.
] vacat [
]VIR 1 [

KN As 8161

sup. mut.
]-u-to VIR 1[
]1 o-ku 1 [

KN As 8342

sup. mut.
](VIR) 3 a-[
]-(we)-(ro) VIR 1 X[
lat. inf.
](*56)-ti VIR 1 X [


Chadwick, John and Michael Ventris, 1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek

Killen, J.T. and Jean-Pierre Olivier, 1989 The Knossos Tablets, 5th Ed.

To Do
Fix KN As 1516 in DB

9 Responses to KN As

  1. Sergey Kyrillyev says:

    Dear Dr. Turecek,

    What follows is my brief analysis of your interpretation as given above (an indepth investigation would require much more time and include precise references to published materials, of course, which I do not have time for at the moment).


    First of all, let us focus on /opisIJO/. We can have a look at the various forms attested in modern and old Slavic languages (the 3pl forms):

    Ukr. описують /opysuyutʹ/
    Bel. апісваюць /apisvajuć/
    Rus. описывают /opisyvayut/
    Bul. описват /opisvat/
    Mak. опишуваат /opišuvaat/
    SC. /opisuju/
    Sln. /opisujejo/
    Slk. /popisujú/
    LMCz. /popisují/, SMCz /popisujou/
    OCz. /popisujú/

    The traditional Proto-Slavic reconstruction would be *opisati and *opisovati, with 3pl forms *opisǫtъ (giving Czech opíšou due to the completely regular change of the nasal ending to -ou via intermediary *-ou- and loss of the final dental; future reference) and *opisujǫtъ (giving Czech opisujú through a similar set of regular changes; present reference).

    So, if I were supposed to consider this opisijo a Slavic formation, I would have to note three problems:
    1. it appears to share some features with Czecho-Slovak and Sloveno-Serbo-Croat, and is different from Lekhitic, Eastern Slavonic and Bulgaro-Macedonian, being thus innovative in this respect rather than archaic;
    2. –ijo rather than the expected –ujo could be due to an irregular regressive assimilation, which is not impossible, but would point to its being innovative rather than archaic;
    3. a question arises here how a Slavonic language supposedly spoken more than three millenia ago could show such innovative traits, which speak completely against its archaic character?


    While it is absolutely correct that in some SCr. dialects intervocallic /x/ changes to /v/ due to lenition/elision, it is important to note that it is a late change, quite common cross-linguistically, whereby a fricative is first voiced between vowels and only the labial feature (due to the neighbouring /u/) is preserved. Hence, a development such as this can be imagined: /duxa/ > /duɣa/ > /duva/. Most dialects preserve the original /x/, however, which can hardly be ignored. A change in the opposite direction (/v/ > /x/) is unlikely and almost unattested, as far as I know (although Armenian shows it is not entirely impossible).
    Nevertheless, as we know well that this /x/ comes from an earlier sibilant in Slavic (proven, for example, by the related word /duša/), we can be absolutely sure it is impossible in this particular word. Hence, /duva/ meaning /duxa/ (Czech ducha) can and must be ruled out.

    No Slavic language points to this form. All Slavic languages point to Proto-Slavic N. sg. *tělo, Gen. sg. *tělese:

    Cz. tělo, těla (older tělese)
    Slk. tělo, těla
    Sln. tělo, tělesa
    Ch. tijelo, tijela
    Ser., Rus. telo, tela
    Bul. tyalo
    Mak. telo
    Bel. ciela
    Ukr. tilo, tila
    Pol. ciało, ciała
    Old Church Slavonic tělo, tělese

    It is true that SCr. dialects have –ije-, but it only exists in the ijekavian dialects, in which Proto-Slavic long *ě has changed to ije. The word you translate as “body” shows a dialectal (and late) development and and unexplained loss of an integral part of the root. In your system, one would expect the Linear B form to be TERO, but it is TIJO. Why? The vowel i is another problem. How do you explain it?


    This word is, perhaps, less problematic. I think, nevertheless, you may have misunderstood a little the entry in the Polish dictionary you have referred to. The PSl. adjectival stem /dǫt-/ has a nasal vowel, as you can see, which is witnessed by Polish, for instance. It is of deverbal (participial) origin (cf. the Czech verb /douti/ < PSl. */dǫti/ “to blow”), whence its original meaning “blown”, “inflated”. The meaning “hollow” is, thus, a secondary semantic development. As for the meaning “proud”, it is nowhere attested as merely */dǫt-/. As far as I can remember, it always requires the perfectivizing prefix /na-/ (cf. the Czech and Polish forms). There is no reason to suppose the meaning should be “proud” here.
    Formally, the -o ending seems to agree with what Slavicists reconstruct. You may know there are two sets of adjectives in Slavic: short and long. The short ones have for the masculine, -a for the feminine and -o for the neuter gender forms.
    The long (or definite) forms require another suffix coming from the indefinite anaphoric 3rd-person pronoun, hence we would have */dǫtъjь/ (masc.), */dǫtoje/ (neutr.) and */dǫtaja/ (fem.), continuing completely regularly in Modern Czech /dutý/, /duté/ and /dutá/.
    The final /-o/ would fit nicely with the indefinite neuter form then.
    The only problems that remain are 1) WHY in a form that is supposed to be archaic we have a formal feature (u instead of ǫ) that is known to be later, and 2) HOW can we consider the meaning of the word to be “proud” while we also know this to be a secondary, or even tertiary, development?

    The Proto-Slavic forms as reconstructed by Slavicists would be (if we preserve the word order as assumed by you):

    *opisujǫtъ *duxa a *tělo *dǫto

    Let us compare the Linear B transliteration of this to what we should expect to see in the text (of course, taking your system into account):


    There are undisputable differences you need to explain.

    Now that I have shown a lot of good will, having taken time to look at your version of the text, let me check your transliteration against a picture of the tablet (e.g. here ). I can see a few more problems, I am afraid:

    1. OPISIJO is followed by an ideogram of “man” (VIR in the transliteration system Kim uses). You totally neglect its presence. How do you interpret it?
    2. The syllabogram you transliterate as DU is, indeed, similar to DU, yet still different enough. If you look at its upper part carefully, you will see the difference. This is a symbol usually transcribed as A3.
    3. The third character of the second word is damaged, but from what remains it is not inconceivable to interpret it as TO. It is actually the only option I deem likely considering the shape. You have chosen to ignore this symbol too. Why?
    4. The next symbol is another “man” ideogram, ignored by you again. Why?
    5. Then we have the vertical stroke, denoting number “1”. You neglect it. Why? Why, do you think, are there any numbers within the text?
    6. The next symbol is yet another “man” ideogram, ignored by you as usual. Why?
    7. The same problem as in 5.
    8. The next symbol is the DU syllabogram (you do see the difference, do you not?).
    9. Then we have TO, which is fine, but then there is another “man” ideogram followed by “1”.

    Hence, what we can really see is the following:

    OPISIJO “man” (“1”?) A3-WA-(TO) “man” “1” ATIJO “man” “1” DUTO “man” “1”

    Even if we interpret A3 as DU, there is another symbol following WA you have to explain.
    Comparing all three versions we can see the differences clearly:
    Attested: OPISIJO “man” (“1”?) A3-WA-(TO) “man” “1” ATIJO “man” “1” DUTO “man” “1”
    Expected if Slavic: OPISUJO(|)TU DUKA A TERO DO(|)TO

    So, I think I have shown some of the main problems. Of course, one must not forget about the arbitrary word delimitation that only increases ambiguity.

    I am aware of the fact that some of the concepts I have used in my response can be quite opaque, especially to someone not acquainted with linguistic principles and terminology. Should you have any problems with that, please, let me know, I will try to ellucidate matters as much as possible.

    Best regards,

    Sergey Kyrillyev

  2. Dr. Mag. Igor Tureček says:

    Dear Mr. Kiminoa, this is a reply to your 19 July 2012 at 16:28 comment: Statistics was, is and will ever be a part of mathematics. It has nothing in common with linguistics. And I am sorry, I will not discuss with you a definition of linguistics. Greek interpretation of linear scripts is a radical nonsense and I am not interested in reading this nonsense literature anymore. The brutal, unaducated and hunting Greek tribes accepted a lot of concepts and names of slavonic tribes settled at Balkan and so their language got the indo-slavonic feature. This is the reason Ventris could decipher several words. Also, Ventris´s decipherment of the sequence KO-NO-SO as the name of Knossos is a nonsense. When decipHering the 2nd line of KN As 1516 it is important to notice the words KO and KI meaning “as so”. So, the 2nd line is to be read like KO NOSIJAšč KI VAKEJAšč DA A NU VIKO.

    • Dr. Mag. Igor Tureček says:

      Of course, the spelling is KO-NO-SI.

    • Sergey Kyrillyev says:

      1. First of all, I do not understand your problem with KONOSIJA, which is a completely regular form. What level is your knowledge of Greek if I may ask?

      2. Where do you get the KI from? Looking at the picture is clearly RO.

      3. Where do you get the DA from?

      Please, explain.


      Segey Kyrillyev

  3. Dr. Mag. Igor Tureček says:

    KN As 1516, row 14:
    OPISIJO = they describe
    DUVA = spirit, 4th fall
    A = and
    TIJO = body
    DUTO = swollen headed, proud, this word I exceptionally found in Slownik praslowianski, Polska Academia Nauk, Zaklad Slawianoznanstwa.
    the describe spirit and body proudly

    So, neither I did not know this word when associating the linear signs together, nor the polish scientists knew this word existed and was written on the tablet KN As 1516 when they were reconstruncting their Proto-Slawonic dictionary. This row is an unquestionable prove of the Slavonic origin of the linear writing.
    I have a complete translation of the whole tablet with the help of Serbocroatian language.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *