DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0176
150 THE COMING OF THE GREEKS
and Tiryns are so small as to be negligible, may only be
an accident, due to the fact that they were continuously
inhabited, and not destroyed under conditions favourable
to the preservation of Clay Tablets.1 Even Cyprus seems
only to have produced three balls of clay with inscriptions
on them ; 2 yet it can scarcely have been without some
system of writing on Clay Tablets, whatever its relation
was to that of Crete.5
The absence, however, of masons' marks on the mass of
stonework that survives in the Argolid cannot be thus
explained. It is not surprising that in 1897, before much
was known of the Cretan scripts, Professor Tsountas
followed M. Perrot in denying the art of writing to
" Mycenaean " civilisation.4 We know now that to the
centrepoint of that civilisation writing was familiar,
and it is difficult to believe that a district that was in
such close touch with it as the Argolid would not have
used the Cretan script if it had understood it. Though
the evidence of place names makes it almost certain
that the same language was spoken all over the iEgcan
at some period before the coming of Greek, it is not clear,
on the linguistic evidence alone, when this period was.5
It is not out of the question that a different language was
being spoken on the mainland at the time when the
Minoan scripts were in use in Crete.
Still less is it clear, on the evidence of the scripts them-
selves, whether or not their language was Indo-European.
Although Mr. Evans has found in it changing suffixes that
may be inflexional terminations,0 this fact in itself proves
nothing as to its affinities. There are suffixes in Lycian,
which in the opinion of most authorities does not belong
1 See above, p. 18 ; also Sayce, A.C.I, pp. 181-3.
2 From Enkomi. See Evans, J.A.I, xxx. 1900, fig. 14, p. 217.
3 Sayce, op. cit. 4 Tsountas-Manatt, ikf.il. pp. 284, 291-2.
5 See pp. IS4-5. I97-8-
6 E.g. Phylakopi, p. 183. Mr. Evans has also kindly made the
general statement to me personally.
and Tiryns are so small as to be negligible, may only be
an accident, due to the fact that they were continuously
inhabited, and not destroyed under conditions favourable
to the preservation of Clay Tablets.1 Even Cyprus seems
only to have produced three balls of clay with inscriptions
on them ; 2 yet it can scarcely have been without some
system of writing on Clay Tablets, whatever its relation
was to that of Crete.5
The absence, however, of masons' marks on the mass of
stonework that survives in the Argolid cannot be thus
explained. It is not surprising that in 1897, before much
was known of the Cretan scripts, Professor Tsountas
followed M. Perrot in denying the art of writing to
" Mycenaean " civilisation.4 We know now that to the
centrepoint of that civilisation writing was familiar,
and it is difficult to believe that a district that was in
such close touch with it as the Argolid would not have
used the Cretan script if it had understood it. Though
the evidence of place names makes it almost certain
that the same language was spoken all over the iEgcan
at some period before the coming of Greek, it is not clear,
on the linguistic evidence alone, when this period was.5
It is not out of the question that a different language was
being spoken on the mainland at the time when the
Minoan scripts were in use in Crete.
Still less is it clear, on the evidence of the scripts them-
selves, whether or not their language was Indo-European.
Although Mr. Evans has found in it changing suffixes that
may be inflexional terminations,0 this fact in itself proves
nothing as to its affinities. There are suffixes in Lycian,
which in the opinion of most authorities does not belong
1 See above, p. 18 ; also Sayce, A.C.I, pp. 181-3.
2 From Enkomi. See Evans, J.A.I, xxx. 1900, fig. 14, p. 217.
3 Sayce, op. cit. 4 Tsountas-Manatt, ikf.il. pp. 284, 291-2.
5 See pp. IS4-5. I97-8-
6 E.g. Phylakopi, p. 183. Mr. Evans has also kindly made the
general statement to me personally.