







































 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v1n1p21 

 21 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Culturally Important Objects as Signs of Cretan Protolinear Script 

Ioannis K. Kenanidis1 & Evangelos C. Papakitsos2 

1 Primary Education Directorate of Kavala, Kavala, Greece 

2 School of Pedagogical and Technological Education, Iraklio Attikis, Greece 

Correspondence: Ioannis K. Kenanidis, Primary Education Directorate of Kavala, Ethnikis Antistaseos 20, 651 10 

Kavala, Greece. E-mail: ioakenanid@sch.gr 

 

Received: April 30, 2018; Accepted: May 15, 2018; Published: May 19, 2018 

 

Abstract 

This paper presents seven “syllabograms” of the Cretan Protolinear script (signs used for Consonant-Vowel [CV] 

syllables). This presentation is conducted following the theory of the Cretan Protolinear (CP) script as the one that 

all the Aegean scripts evolved from, including Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphics and Linear B. The seven 

syllabograms of this particular set depict inanimate objects or constructions that were very common or important 

in everyday life, economy and religion. It is also demonstrated that the phonetic value of each syllabogram 

corresponds to the Sumerian name of the object depicted by the syllabogram, in a conservative dialect. Thus, more 

light is shed on the linguistic ancestry of the Aegean scripts, the practice followed for their creation, and, indirectly, 

on some cultural aspects of the Minoan Civilization. 

Keywords: Aegean scripts, Cretan Protolinear, Minoan Civilization, Sumerian language, syllabograms 

1. Introduction 

Among the strongest testimonies for cultural contact, affinity or cognateness between two civilizations are 

language and artefacts; both of them are found within the Aegean scripts that emerged in Bronze Age Crete. These 

scripts include Linear A (henceforth LA), Cretan Hieroglyphics (CH) and Linear B (LB), all cognate to the Cypriot 

syllabaries (Davis, 2010). These scripts are syllabaries as they consist of signs (syllabograms) that usually render 

single syllables of the Consonant-Vowel (CV) form and only very rarely double syllables (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 

2017a). The syllabograms of the Aegean scripts depict objects, so revealing cultural elements, and they have been 

devised on the rebus principle, so revealing the language of those who created the Minoan Civilization, regardless 

of the fact that the Aegean scripts documents available convey various languages. LB conveys the Achaean 

(Mycenaean) Greek language, while it has been demonstrated that CH conveys an Archaic Sumerian dialect, with 

some quite meaningful instances (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 2017b; Kenanidis, 2016; Papakitsos & Kenanidis, 

2016), although this is not yet universally and unreservedly accepted; as for the language(s) of LA the opinions 

vary a lot (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 2015).  

The ancestry of the Aegean scripts is still considered mysterious in mainstream archaeology (Haarmann, 2008), 

although their direct relation to a conservative Archaic Sumerian dialect has been repeatedly presented (Kenanidis 

& Papakitsos, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2017c; Papakitsos & Kenanidis, 2015), by demonstrating that the 

syllabograms’ phonetic values are equivalent to the Sumerian names of the objects depicted by those signs, through 

the rebus principle (Fischer, 2004, pp. 34-40). Therefor the herein presentation supports the theory of the Cretan 

Protolinear script (CP), conceived as the script that all the Bronze Age Aegean scripts (related to Cypro-Minoan) 

evolved from. 

2. Method 

The existence of CP had been firstly suggested by Willetts (1977, p. 100). Later on, Owens (1996) and Schoep 

(1999, p. 266) suspected or proposed the common ancestry of CH and LA. Kenanidis (1992) initially demonstrated 

the affinity of LA and LB to a conservative Sumerian dialect, while the paleographic similarity of the Aegean 

scripts to the Sumerian pictography has been partially demonstrated also by Davis (2011, pp. 65-68). Just a few 

years ago, an almost complete reconstruction of CP was released in Greek (Kenanidis, 2013). 

The methodology for reconstructing the CP took into account linguistic aspects as well as the contemporary 

cultural context (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 2015). In order to recognize what an ancient sign depicted, it is necessary 

to trace its pictorial origin in all related scripts (LA, CH, LB and even Cypro-Minoan) and compare to the typical 

ways of representing objects in the Minoan art, examining in parallel the ways of Sumerian pictography and 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 22 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

vocabulary. CP was both pictographic and linear, every sign being a sketch readily recognizable by everyone as a 

familiar object named by the phonetic value of the sign - what the rebus principle means. In this application of the 

rebus principle (unlike the acrophonic one), the entire pronounced name of the depicted object was used and not 

only a part of it. The comparative study considered four factors: 

● the object as depicted by sign variants in the Aegean scripts (LA, CH and LB; with lesser aid by Cypro-

Minoan); 

● the pictorial similarity or analogy of the studied Minoan sign to equivalent Sumerian ones; 

● the phonetic value of the studied sign in the Aegean scripts; 

● the proximity of its phonetic value to Sumerian words that denote the depicted object or some directly 

related concept. 

The application of the aforementioned methodology resulted in identifying every sign name as a monosyllabic 

(rarely disyllabic) Sumerian word that named the depicted object. In this respect, the reader should be reminded 

of the Sumerian phonotactics which required that the coda consonant of a Sumerian word was silenced, unless the 

word was followed by a vowel (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 2015, p. 336); this feature is indicated here (see section 

3. Results) by enclosing the final consonant of a Sumerian word in parentheses. As a representative example, seven 

syllabograms of CP will be presented in the next section for the first time to non-Greek readers; these syllabograms 

depict objects or constructions that were very common or important in everyday life, economy and religion. 

3. Results 

In the following presentation, the main reference for Sumerian vocabulary used is “The Pennsylvania Sumerian 

Dictionary” of the University of Pennsylvania, abbreviated as “PSD” (Note 1). The images in the figures are 

retrieved from: the digital archives of the French School of Athens; the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative 

(CDLI), where all the images of pre-Cuneiform signs used came from (Note 2); the ATU signs came from 

Falkenstein (1936); the images for LB came from Ventris & Chadwick (1953), unless otherwise stated. Cultural 

information comes from Kenanidis (2013). Finally, the rules of Sumerian phonology mentioned in parentheses 

(e.g., “rule 5.0.4, p. 34”) refer to the specified page in Kenanidis & Papakitsos (2013). 

3.1 Sign “ŋa” 

The sign “ŋa” was not used in LB because there is no similar syllable in the Greek language. In CP, it depicted a 

box, called “ĝa” (i.e., “ŋa”) in Sumerian. The shape of this sign in Pre-Cuneiform included variants (fig. 1a), some 

marking the base of the box or its bottom, others its lid etc. The same is depicted by the equivalent LA syllabogram 

(fig. 1b), which is more accurately represented in LB as an ideogram (fig. 1c); there is some remote similarity to 

different ideograms for various kinds of fabric showing a lot of fringes at the bottom, while this one may very 

rarely have a few legs, and, as a luxurious box, metallic pieces that fasten its sides together. It was the word “ŋa” 

that meant “a box”, or, by extension, “a small shed” in Sumerian, so the sign was used for “ŋa”. This sign is 

frequent in CH, an example is the inscription (fig. 1d), which reads “i-ŋa-ši-(sa?)”, so second from left is the sign 

“ŋa”. 

 

(a) Sumerian Precuneiform:      

(b) LA 

 

(c) LB 164 

 

(d) CH # 303 

 

Figure 1. The box sign forms 

 

3.2 Sign “jo” 

The syllabogram LB 36 (fig. 2a) had already been recognized as an adze in Scripta Minoa by Sir Arthur Evans 

(1909), who correlated the LB sign with its forms in CH where it is quite common (fig. 2b), as well as with the 

Egyptian pictogram of an adze; his documentation was perfectly sound, so we know that this syllabogram depicted 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 23 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

an adze indeed. The adze was “jo” in the Sumerian dialect of Crete. 

The word is difficult to trace in the Cuneiform; in PSD, there is no word that specifically means “adze”, although 

“adze” is listed as a secondary meaning to some other words that basically mean types of axes. However, some of 

the words translated with the Akkadian “mek(k)û” must have been “šog(ur)”and similar (meaning “adze”), at least 

the words “ĝešigi-ĝal2” and “ĝešsuhur”. The word “šukur”, seen in the profession called “tug2-šu-kar2-ak / tug2-

šukur-ra / tug2-šukur-ur3-ra” = “ēşiru”, originated from an older “joc” (rule 5.0.26, p. 36).  This “joc” was the 

tool that hewed and finely shaped wooden objects, using a pulling motion on the tool while hewing; the signs 

depict it as a very elaborately made adze, quite better technically designed than the usual adzes of our times. So, 

when a Minoan saw this syllabogram, instantly recognized it as a “jo(c)” (adze) and recalled the syllable “jo” (by 

“c” we represent a palatal tense non-aspirate stop). 

 

(a) LB 36 

 

(b) CH:    

Figure 2. The adze sign forms 

 

3.3 Sign “me” 

This sign is very neatly written in LB (fig. 3a), and occasionally in LA (fig. 3b) where it is commonly found in the 

word “a-sa-sa-la-me/ja-sa-sa-la-me” (fig. 3c). Sir Leonard Palmer reasonably conjectured that the word “(j)a-sa-

sa-la-me” means “my Lady” in Luwian, where -me renders the possessive suffix (Palmer, 1958). It is a good 

conjecture, but possibly erroneous, because he did not know exactly the phonetic value of the signs; for example, 

he reads “ra” what was “la” in CP. Anyway the occurrences of the word “(j)a-sa-sa-la-me” confirm that all those 

variants belong to the sign “me” of CP (fig. 3a,b). 

What the “me” sign depicted, was exactly the same thing as of the Sumerian Pre-cuneiform "MUŠ3" (fig. 3d), also 

appearing in ATU (fig. 3e). That “MUŠ3” was read “mœš” which was possibly the plural of “me” (rule 5.0.4, p. 

34), This object could be made of the cheapest materials such as a bundle of reeds, of which the upper soft part 

front was bent to form a ring like a head inclining to one side, while on the other side the tops of the reeds with 

their leaves and flowers hung like a tassel. However, since this was a sacred symbol, it would also be made of 

precious materials, as Christians nowadays may use a Holy Cross made either of cheap wood or of gold. In the 

picture from a famous vase found in Warka (fig. 3f), we see men and women in a ritual procession to offer the 

season’s first agricultural products to the deity represented by a priestess and two holy symbols (fig. 3g) which are 

exactly what the CP syllabogram “me” depicted. In Mesopotamia, this object was the sacred symbol of goddess 

“Inana”, whom the Akkadians worshiped under the name “Ištar” that was Hellenized as “Astarte”. The Old 

Testament very often refers to exactly this religious symbol (fig. 3g) as “the Asherah pole”, which the nations 

around the Israelites used to set up in many places to honor their most important goddess. 

The goddess, called “Inana” (“the Heavenly Queen”) by the Sumerians, progressively over the centuries came to 

be the most worshipable deity of the Sumerians and neighboring Middle East nations, and her name in Cuneiform 

was written with the sign “MUŠ3” (which all the forms in the fig. 3 belong to); importantly, however, this sacred 

symbol did not represent the goddess herself, but it represented the “me”. We cannot find a word in a modern 

language to translate Sumerian “me” accurately: “me” was every social institution as, for example, the function of 

all dignitaries and authorities, the function of all artisans and professionals in every field; every tool or weapon or 

musical instrument was also a “me”; but also everything that has a command in life, e.g. reproduction, natural 

calamities and old age, were also “me”. “Me” was the answer to every question why that thing must exist in life: 

it must exist, because it is a “me”. So, the closest concept we can find in English, is “authority”; the word was 

mostly used for the elements of civilization, so different nations had different “me”. Because all the “me” of 

Sumerians were established and safeguarded by the goddess Inana, the Cuneiform sign that represented the “me” 

stood also for the name “Inana”, but the sign itself was the visualization of the “me”, so when the Minoans saw 

this sign, they recognized it as “me”, so recalling the syllable “me” (short “e” usually being represented as “i” in 

Cuneiform, the Cuneiform “e” typically stands for long “e”, so “me” was probably “mē”). 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 24 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

(a) LB 13:  

(b) LA 

  

 

(c) a-sa-sa-la-me:  

(d) Sumerian Pre-Cuneiform  

(e) ATU 208-209:   

(f) Warka’s vessel 

 

(g) “Asherah pole” 

 

 

Figure 3. The authority sign forms 

 

3.4 Sign “ne” 

This syllabogram appears in forms of exaggerated elegance, as it is customary in LB (fig. 4a). In LA this 

syllabogram has some very naturalistic forms (fig. 4b). It is also found in CH as on the example of (fig. 4c) where 

we see the syllabograms “ne-šo-tu” on a seal: the sign “tu” (on the right) depicts an ordinary vessel, quite different 

to “ne” (on the left) that depicts a vessel of very little capacity, with one handle for comfortably holding with the 

fingers of one hand and a fine spout for pouring liquid very slowly. This elegant vessel was called “necin” or 

simply “nec” (without the instrumental suffix -in, see: Kenanidis, 2013, p. 23). 

In Sumerian Cuneiform, the word is found as “nigin” (= a libation vessel). As supporters of the monogenesis 

theory (one common origin of all languages), we find the root of this word also in Old Turkic *nek- (attested as 

tök- “to pour out”) and the Akkadian: naqû “to pour (a libation), sacrifice”; nīqu “offering, sacrifice; libation”. 

Sumerian “nigin” was anciently glossed as ša#-qu2
#-um#”; “šaqû(m)” which is the Akkadian verb meaning “to pour 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 25 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

water, to offer libation, drink or water” and “šāqû(m)” is the noun that means the man who offers, or the object 

that pours, water / drink. The word “nigin” had also the variants “ni6”, “niggix (|LAGAB.LAGAB|)” and “nigi”. 

The “g” of “nigin” is not at all reliable in Cuneiform, see: rule 5.0.39, p. 38). In Sumerian, verb stems could be 

also used as nouns (like in Old Turkic or English), so the old verb stem “nek” (= to pour) was also a noun meaning 

“the pouring vessel”, which in practice was a holy vessel for libations. The vessel was designed so that the liquid 

would flow out slowly and ceremonially, as the relevant holy words were recited, and so that the whole content of 

it would be offered to the deity without demanding a big expense (since the vessel’s capacity was so little although 

the vessel was not small). During ceremonies, or simply to accompany a wish, the libation would be poured out 

on prepared clean earth or on the famous altar tables found from the Minoan era in Crete (Kenanidis & Papakitsos, 

2017b). So, the holy libation vessel “ne(k)” sketch stood for the syllable “ne”. 

 

(a) LB 24:  

(b) LA 

 

(c) CH 

 

Figure 4. The libation vessel sign forms 

 

3.5 Sign “nu”  

Sign LB 55 (fig. 5a) is not so easily recognizable, partly because of its exquisite elegance. In LA, its forms are 

more naturalistic (fig. 5b). It was an object consisting of two vertical wooden poles, where a convex thing was 

attached above and a concave below. This object was a yoke for one animal. Nowadays yokes have somewhat 

different forms (fig. 5c) but still they are based on the combination of a lower concave and an upper convex or 

horizontal piece. As far as we can tell from the sign forms, the Sumerian yoke was easier to construct, more 

practical and more comfortable for the animal. It would also be possible to use strong leather pieces instead of 

curved wood and indeed some of the LB forms in figure 5a probably show curved parts of leather rather than of 

wood. From the vertical wooden poles, the yoke was connected to a plough or a wagon. 

In old Sumerian, yoke was *ñud or rather *ñuc (rule 5.0.9, p. 35), since the word is an obvious cognate of the Latin 

“necto” (= con-nect). From the original *ñuc and then *ñud, with the addition of suffix -un (signifying instruments, 

see: Kenanidis, 2013, p. 23), the word *ñudun was formed, which in Cuneiform Sumerian became “šudun”. In 

PSD, the lemma is “šudul”, a word that has been written in many ways: “wr. ša2-dul5; šu4-dul4; ĝeššu4-dul5; ĝeššu-

dul9; ĝeššu2-dul4; šu-dul4; ĝeššu-dulx(|UR×A|); ša2-dulx(|UR×A|) = Akk. nīru”, but immediately below it gives 

“[[šudun]] = ŠUDUN = uš-ti-num2”and “geššudun”; otherwise the PSD prefers to write the word with -l, but all the 

different signs read as “šudul” are also read as “šudun”. In addition, the coda “l”, could only be pronounced when 

followed by a vowel, otherwise the signs supposed to end in -l stood only for “du” that was in fact “du(n)”. For 

example, the sign “DUN4”, which the word “šu4-dul4” is written with, has the readings “migir2, nigir2, nimgir2, 

šudul4, šudun4, šutul4, šutun4”. For the scope of this work it makes no difference whether it was “šudul” or “šudun”, 

because the original word was only *ñuc which became “šud” with some suffixes in Mesopotamia, and “nu(d)” in 

Crete; simply the forms with -n were more original and probably much more common, because -n was an original 

suffix for words signifying instruments; and the same root *ñuc through a different evolution became what appears 

as “migir2, nigir2, nimgir” (-r suffix for nouns in general). 

In conclusion, any Minoan who saw this syllabogram immediately recognized a yoke, called “nu(d)”, thus recalling 

the syllable “nu”. 

 

 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 26 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

(a) LB 55  

(b) AB 55 

 

(c) Yokes 

   

for a pair of oxen     traditional American      Greek 

Figure 5. The yoke sign forms 

 

(a) LB 69 

  

(b) AB 69 

 

(c) CH 

 

(d) Sumerian Pre-Cuneiform 

 

Figure 6. The common vessel sign forms 

 

3.6 Sign “tu” 

This sign (fig. 6a) depicted the most common type of vessel for storing liquids. The equivalent in LA almost 

always indicated the bottom of the vessel (fig. 6b). Those vessels, as they had to be moved, had a tapering round 

bottom (4 - 5 cm diameter) so they could be rolled on their bottom. Nowadays the seashore of Samothrace Island 

is strewn with shreds of clay vessels, and especially their narrow round bottoms, that were used in antiquity for 

the olive oil trade (Kenanidis, 2013). This syllabogram is also found in many inscriptions of CH (fig. 6c), in a form 

clearly different to that of the libation vessel (fig. 4c). 

In Sumerian Cuneiform it usually appears as “dug”, but it was never pronounced “dug”; some Akkadian writers 

rendered it phonetically with a d-, although others did it better with a t-. Falkenstein (1964) observes that vessels 

were “dug neben tug” (that is, both “tug” and “dug” appeared equally in ancient lexical texts). The correct 

pronunciation gloss was “tug”, and that is attested by Italian “zucca” which comes from the ancient “tug”, 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 27 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

borrowed from Sumerians (Eteocretans) who had settled in Sicily and Southern Italy (given that Sumerian p, t, k 

were aspirate; b, d, g were non-aspirate and tense, in practice heard as geminated consonants; all unvoiced). This 

settlement is mythologically related to Daedalus, who left Crete for Sicily, pursued by Minos (Kenanidis, 2013, p. 

135). Due to the notorious ambiguity of Cuneiform, the sign is today named DUG, and it was common in the 

Sumerian Pre-Cuneiform script (fig. 6d). Although there were many types of containers and equally many names 

for them, “tug” was the general word for all kinds of (normally earthenware) containers, so the sign DUG was 

used as a determinative sign (not pronounced but classifying words into the category of “vessels, containers”). 

When a Minoan saw this syllabogram, s/he immediately recognized a familiar container, called “tu(c)” in the 

Sumerian dialect of Crete, so recalling the syllable “tu”. 

3.7 Sign “su” 

This sign is well-known in LB (fig. 7a) and frequent in LA (fig. 7b) where it has some interesting variant forms, 

as well as in CH (fig. 7c). An object as depicted by this sign does not exist in nature; so, this syllabogram 

represented something artificial. It was the floor plan of a threshing-floor, probably delineated so as to indicate the 

circular movement of the animals as they threshed the harvested grain stalks. 

 

(a) LB 58 

 

(c) HM 1378 

 

(d) 

LAGAR 

 

(b) AB 58 

     

(e) 

LAGARgunu 

 

(f) 

LAGAB 

 

(i) ATU 615-616 

 

(h) 

sur3 

 

(g) 

sur8 

 

Figure 7. The threshing-floor sign forms 

 

The threshing-floor is a well-known word in Sumerian Cuneiform appearing as “sur12” = “su7”; translated by 

Akkadian maškanu (= literally “place of laying”; threshing floor); nidûtu (literally “abandoning”; also meaning 

unoccupied land), but in PSD there is no occurrence of the latter gloss to be found, only the following ancient 

lexical lemmata: 

[[su7]] = su-u = LAGAR×ŠE = ma-aš-ka-nu-[um] 

[[su7]] = = = ma-ag-ra-nu-um# 

[[su7]] = [...] = [LAGAR×ŠE] = ma#-aš-ka#-nu-um 

also in ETCSL (Note 3): “sur12” = threshing floor; the word has only the meaning “threshing-floor”. So Cuneiform 

“sur12” = “su7” is written with the sign LAGAR (fig. 7d) with ŠE (= cereals) inside, rarely with LAGARgunu (fig. 

7e) where the “gunu” element is a simplification of the grains image in the floor. The sign LAGAB (fig. 7f) would 

seem at least equally convenient to sketch a threshing-floor, and indeed it has the readings sux” (LAGAB) or “surx” 

(LAGAB). The sign “sur [UNMNG] wr. sur3; sur8” (of unknown meaning according to PSD), also meant a 

threshing-floor, since “sur8” (fig. 7g) is LAGAB (= sketch of floor plan) with “zar3” (= cereal stacks) in it, while 

“sur3” (fig. 7h) is simpler as a floor plan with something in it. The signs ATU 615-616 (fig. 7i) are practically 

identical to the “su” of CP, and they cannot seem to depict anything else, so probably ATU 615-616 meant “a 

threshing floor”, “su(r)”. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 28 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

This CP sign was recognized by every Minoan as a threshing-floor, called “su(r)”, so bringing to mind the syllable 

“su”. 

4. Discussion & Conclusion 

This study, based on the concept of Cretan Protolinear (CP) script being the origin of all Aegean scripts of the 

Bronze Age, has shown the pictorial origin and phonetic use of seven CP syllabograms which depicted objects or 

constructions that were very common or important in everyday life, economy and religion. In addition, it has been 

demonstrated how the phonetic value of each presented syllabogram corresponds to the Sumerian name (in a 

conservative dialect) of the object depicted by the syllabogram. Accordingly, more light is shed on the linguistic 

ancestry of the Aegean scripts, the practice followed for the creation of CP and the traits of its descendant scripts, 

as well as several cultural aspects of the Minoan Civilization, regarding religion and economy. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to express their thankfulness to the French School of Athens. Its digital archives greatly 

facilitated the research presented here. Also, this work would be quite inferior if there were not the Cuneiform 

Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). Even the main dictionary for Sumerian today (the PSD) is available at the 

CDLI’s tools webpage.  

References 

Davis, B. (2010). Introduction to the Aegean Pre-Alphabetic Scripts. KUBABA, 1, 38-61. Retrieved from 

http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/kubaba/KUBABA/kubaba_1_2010.html 

Evans, A. J. (1909). Scripta Minoa: The Written Documents of Minoan Crete: with Special Reference to the 

Archives of Knossos, Volume I: The Hieroglyphic and Primitive Linear Classes: with an account of the 

discovery of the pre-Phoenician scripts, their place in the Minoan story and their Mediterranean relatives: 

with plates, tables and figures in the text. Oxford. 

Falkenstein, A. (1936). Archaische Texte aus Uruk (ATU). Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft 

in Uruk – Warka (volume II). Berlin. 

Falkenstein, A. (1964). Das Sumerische. Handbuch Der Orientalistik. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 

Fischer, S. R. (2004). History of Writing. London: Reaktion Books. 

Haarmann, H. (2008). The Danube Script and Other Ancient Writing Systems: A Typology of Distinctive Features. 

Journal of Archaeomythology, 4(1), 12-46. Retrieved from 

https://www.archaeomythology.org/publications/the-journal-of-archaeomythology/2008-volume-4/ 

Kenanidis, I. (1992). Eteokreetes Megaleetores. Athens: National Library of Greece (in Greek). 

Kenanidis, I. (2013). Historical and Linguistic Studies: cwepeker.doc. Kavala, Greece: E.P. Lazidou (in Greek). 

Kenanidis, I. K. (2016). A 17th c. BC Minoan Votive Double Axe (Labrys). The Arkalochori Axe and its siblings. 

Anistoriton Journal, In Situ 15(1), 1-20. Retrieved from 

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/2016_1s_Anistoriton.pdf 

Kenanidis, I., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2013). Yet another suggestion about the origins of the Sumerian language. 

International Journal of Linguistics, 5(5), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i5.4107 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2015). A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the 

Creation of the Aegean Scripts. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1E), 332-346. 

Retrieved from http://saspjournals.com/sjahss-31/ 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2017a). Linguistic and Cultural Aspects of Disyllabic Signs in the Cretan 

Protolinear Script. Scholars Bulletin, 3(10), 489-496. https://doi.org/10.21276/sb.2017.3.10.9 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2017b). An Interpretation of the Malia Stone Inscription in Terms of the 

Cretan Protolinear Script. Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, 9, 43-56. Retrieved from 

https://www.cclbsebes.ro/muzeul-municipal-ioan-raica/terra-sebus-nr9.html 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2017c). A Decipherment of the Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro (Crete). 

Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 4(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/ARJASS/2017/36988 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2018a). Cretan Protolinear Script: The Sixth-Vowel Set of Syllabograms. 

International Linguistics Research, 1(1), 32-48. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v1n1p32 

Kenanidis, I. K., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2018b). Some syllabograms of the animal category in the Cretan Protolinear 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 29 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Script. Migration & Diffusion, 2018(Article 9), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.migration-

diffusion.info/article.php?year=2018 

Kenanidis, I., & Papakitsos, E. C. (2018c). Cretan Protolinear Script: Some Syllabograms of Human Theme. World 

Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4(2), 370-372. Retrieved from 

https://www.wwjmrd.com/archive/2018/2 

Owens, G. A. (1996). The Common Origin of Cretan Hieroglyphs and Linear A. Kadmos, 35(2), 105-110. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/kadm.1996.35.2.105 

Palmer, L. R. (1958). Luvian and Linear A. Transactions of the Philological Society, 8, 75- 100. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1958.tb01273.x 

Papakitsos, E. C., & Kenanidis, I. K. (2015). Additional Palaeographic Evidence for the Relationship of the Aegean 

Scripts to the Sumerian Pictography. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3C), 734-

737. Retrieved from http://saspjournals.com/sjahss-33/ 

Papakitsos, E. C., & Kenanidis, I. K. (2016). Cretan Hieroglyphics: The Ornamental and Ritual Version of the 

Cretan Protolinear Script. Anistoriton Journal, Essays 15(2), 1-12. Retrieved from 

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/2016_2e_Anistoriton.pdf 

Schoep, I. (1999). The Origins of Writing and Administration on Crete. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18(3), 

265-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00083 

Ventris, M. G. F., & Chadwick, J. (1953). Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Willetts, R. F. (1977). The Civilization of Ancient Crete. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 

Davis, B. (2011). Cypro-Minoan in Philistia? KUBABA, 2, 40-74. Retrieved from 

http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/kubaba/KUBABA/kubaba_2_2011.html 

 

Notes 

Note 1. Available at: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html 

Note 2. Available at: https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html 

Note 3. Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, available at: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 


