sustainability

Article Material Entanglements of Writing Practices in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus

Philippa M. Steele 1,2 1 Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK; [email protected] 2 Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0AG, UK



Received: 31 July 2020; Accepted: 18 December 2020; Published: 21 December 2020


Abstract: The present paper explores theoretical aspects of the study of writing systems and practices. It approaches the mesh that constitutes writing practice through one type of agent: the writing instrument used to write clay documents in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. On the one hand, this investigation will use types of writing implements and their distribution to think through wider issues concerning the development of writing practices across the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. On the other, it will attempt to establish the place of writing implements within a broader conceptual framework of the people, things and actions that constitute writing practices in this area and period.

Keywords: writing; palaeography; stylus; clay; practice; materiality

1. Introduction Writing is a phenomenon that, from a linguistic perspective, is frequently studied in terms of its function of language encoding, an approach very deeply embedded in much literature on writing systems. To speak of writing as existing in systems is itself a product of longstanding structuralist traditions that tend to view writing in a way that abstracts it from the people doing it and the settings in which it is being done. More recent research on writing as a practice and especially on the materiality of written objects has thankfully made a very significant contribution to redressing the balance and placing a focus on physical, social and technological contexts of writing (the traction gained by such approaches can be easily seen in a number of recent volumes on material approaches e.g., [1–3] and social context and agency e.g., [4,5], amidst a growing body of literature). While these growing trends have greatly improved our understanding of the phenomenon of writing from different perspectives, there remains considerable scope in my view for the linguistic/structuralist and the material/contextualist approaches to be brought into more constructive conversation with each other (some of these issues are discussed more extensively in [6]). In concentrating on the syllabic systems of the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, I will in some senses be preaching to the converted, because the field of Aegean scripts studies (i.e., the study of these systems and the documents written in them) has already been blessed with decades of research that fruitfully brings together linguistic and archaeological approaches and that in many cases pushes the boundaries of interdisciplinarity and results in impressively joined up thinking. However, I hope this paper may add some new perspectives on the ways in which the material and practice-based aspects of writing can be further probed to ask some fruitful questions of the nature and development of writing in these areas and periods. The approach followed in this paper views materiality not as a static property of an object but as a dynamic one that must also be considered in relation to practice. Kathryn Piquette and Ruth Whitehouse in the introduction to their volume on the materiality of writing ([3] p. 4) notably advocated this wider view: “‘Materiality’ can thus refer in a general way to the material aspects of artefacts, while also, and importantly, prompting their situation in relation to mutually-informing sets of practices. This enables material to be described as more than a mere ‘support’ for writing.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671; doi:10.3390/su122410671 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 2 of 17

It becomes active in the construction of meanings, from the preliminary work of manufacturing artefact ‘blanks’ on which marks are made, and the techniques of surface transformation which give rise to written marks, to the ways in which these physical objects were incorporated into subsequent activities, from reading/viewing (where intended) and display, to discard, deposition or loss.” From this perspective, objects and materials can be understood as agents in the social setting in which they exist, and in which they play a dynamic role in the interaction between humans and their material surroundings (see also Knappett [7] on such broader approaches to materiality). Practice represents the coalescence of these different aspects and interactions. The title of this paper introduces the term ‘material entanglements’, with intentional allusion to the idea of webs of human-thing entanglements (e.g., Hodder [8]) that affect perceptions of the role and agency of things that exist in human society. Such things have material properties that determine and are determined by their interactions with people, and in turn those interactions have social context—making it useful also to introduce anthropological approaches to practice, such as those grounded in Bordieu’s concept of ‘habitus’ (e.g., [9]). In other words, anything that people have or that people do cannot be simple or isolated, and can be understood from multiple angles in relation to the wider mesh of agents, things and practices that make up a given social setting. We can move from the abstract towards more concrete applications with an example. James Whitley’s recent discussion of writing in Archaic Greece ([10]) showed one particular way in which the concept of material entanglement can be useful to a study of writing practices. He argued that, in different areas of Archaic Greece, writing and written objects were entangled with other forms of cultural and oral practice to different degrees, and that the nature of writing practices could correspondingly vary. In central Greece in this period, writing seems to be heavily entangled with other forms of cultural expression, including narrative and visual culture (which is obvious, for example, in the frequent appearance of writing on highly decorated and narrative ceramic wares, objects strongly associated with symposiastic activity and elite practice), as well as with sanctuary-based religious practice and with practices related to craft production. In the same period, writing on the island of Crete seems to be far less entangled with these particular areas of social practice and is less visible in e.g., ‘private’ documents like graffiti and oggetti parlanti (objects that ‘speak’ to the reader in the first person), while predominant uses of writing are far more impersonal, in particular the monumental legal codes for which Crete is perhaps most famous. The different settings and practices with which writing is entangled in each area are connected with local differences in the nature of writing. Such entanglements can of course be unpicked further. What do mean when we say that one thing or practice is entangled with another? In the case of a vase with a narrative scene that integrates writing (e.g., the names of figures, direct speech, the signature of the artist), it is abundantly clear that the act of writing was in no sense separate from the act of decorating the vase and painting the figures and scenery that appear on it. It was done by the same person, using the same implements and materials. The placement of the writing depended on and/or dictated the arrangement of pictorial elements. This necessitated technical skill, both in working with the materials, paints and implements and in executing the letters and shapes. The content of the writing required the artist to understand the myth or scene they were depicting, and to have some degree of literacy however limited. The finished vase with its inscription will then become part of a social landscape in which it co-exists and interacts with other objects, many of which will not bear inscriptions but may nevertheless have a meaningful relationship with it. In order to understand a given object, there is a whole mesh of relevant interconnected relationships between humans, materials, objects, practices and social context that need to be explored. For the Bronze Age Aegean, some impressive work has already been done to explore and establish the relationship between the material aspects of writing and the broader context in which inscribed objects are viewed and imbued with meaning (e.g., Flouda [11,12]). In the context of his ongoing work on cognitive approaches to materiality and material engagement (e.g., [13,14]), Lambros Malafouris has specifically sought to situate Bronze Age Aegean writing practices within a new interpretive framework. This views the production of Linear B tablets as ‘a temporally Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 3 of 17 unfolding process, or sequence of related processes, encompassing both interaction between humans, situated tool use, and intelligent use of space, bodies and things’ (Malafouris [15] p. 75). Crucially, the properties of Linear B as a system are a hybrid to which both the people and the things involved contribute: “the cognitive and the social are inseparable often to such an extent that from the perspective of distributed cognition one may see the social organization of the Linear B system as a form of cognitive architecture in itself ” ([15] p. 81, emphasis original). This view is a departure from structuralist linguistic approaches to writing systems in that it sees material and social context of writing as a practice as vital parts of that cognitive architecture, rather than separating the abstract concept of writing as a system from the embodied performance of writing as a practice. We can build on this model by drawing language encoding and writing system structure into the wider mesh of entanglements that encompass but also go beyond the material and social aspects of writing practice. Such combined approaches to cuneiform writing have indeed proven helpful in understanding the development of writing as both system and practice (Overmann [16,17]). The final theoretical point to make is that by combining different approaches, we may be able to envisage a far wider set of complex connections that coalesce in the practice of writing, including: the concept of representing sound and language in a visible and tangible medium along with the structure of the writing system (including the signs and their shapes and values); the need and potential uses for writing in a given social setting, the types of objects that will bear the writing along with the types of tools used to execute the writing and their material properties; the availability of materials to fashion the objects and tools alongside considerations of their suitability to the intended purpose; the social mechanisms by which individuals learn the conventions of using the writing system and participating in the writing practice; the social contexts in which writing co-exists with other practices and in which writing constitutes a meaningful act. Any attempt to boil down such a practice will necessarily be reductive, and this list of examples is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, and to open up the range of factors that need to be brought into consideration. Within such a mesh of entanglements, we have to envisage the people and objects involved as active agents contributing to the practice of writing. The present paper is going to approach the mesh that constitutes writing practice through one type of agent, the writing instrument, with a further restriction (in order to cover a manageable range of examples in a meaningful way) that the focus will be on the implements used to write clay documents in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. On the one hand, this investigation will use types of writing implements and their distribution to think through wider issues concerning the development of writing practices across the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. On the other, it will attempt to establish the place of writing implements within a broader conceptual framework of the people, things and actions that constitute writing practices in this area and period. I intend the main focus to lie in the methodological approach to the material, in order to lay some theoretical groundwork for future study that will, I hope, give scope to engage in far more detail with the material evidence treated (inevitably) only briefly here.

2. Cherchez Le Stylet Across the linear scripts of the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, writing was done in multiple different contexts and using different materials—the seal stones with Cretan Hieroglyphic inscriptions would have been made in a very different way from the stone libation vessels inscribed in Linear A, or the stirrup jars with painted Linear B inscriptions, or the Cypro-Minoan inscribed bronze bowls, to take a few examples from what are usually considered to be separate writing traditions. Each type of inscribed object involved different materials and implements, and different kinds of expertise and specialist craft equipment (which, in a craft context, also raises the question of whether the same implements that were used to add details or decoration to inscribed objects were also used to write on them, and whether this was done by the same person). What all four of the above writing traditions have in common, however, is that they were also often written on clay documents in (exclusively or largely?) administrative contexts that sometimes differ quite considerably from one tradition to another Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 4 of 17

(‘traditions’ rather than ‘systems’ to imply that we are dealing with whole packages of writing practices and their sociocultural context, with which the writing systems are themselves closely bound up; we should also be careful to avoid the assumption that each writing system is exclusively associated with a completely separate tradition—in the case of Cretan Hieroglyphic, Linear A and fledgling Linear B bureaucratic methods, for example, we should certainly be aware of shared features that suggest more complex relationships, on which see Petrakis [18] and Tomas [19]). There is a functional difference here too, because unlike most of the other objects, the clay documents exist primarily to be written on—that is, they are aetiologically connected with the concept and practice of writing and particularly with its bureaucratic functions. For these reasons, the present study is restricted to writing on clay. There is of course far more to be said about writing practices on media other than clay across the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, and ideally we would want to consider writing on other media alongside writing on clay for further comparison, but this lies beyond the possible scope of the present paper. The use of clay documents in all four traditions provides some opportunity to compare them with each other as well as to trace the relations between them, on this occasion placing the implement of writing centre-stage. Although the study of the Aegean linear scripts is a mature and well populated discipline, which has over the years reached an advanced view of the palaeographic and pinacological features of the documents written in them (particularly in the case of Linear B; see Palaima [20] for an overview), there has been relatively limited direct interest in the implements that were used to write on these documents. In part, that may be because we have very little direct evidence for writing implements in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. We are certainly also lacking in the kinds of iconographic evidence for styli in areas where cuneiform was used. But even for cuneiform, we find that most evidence is indirect in nature: aside from a few surviving examples, the size, shape and material properties of the stylus (in Mesopotamia such tools were often cut from a reed and unlikely to survive in the archaeological record, although the use of other materials such as bronze is also known) largely have to be reconstructed from the impressions it left on inscribed clay documents (Cammarosano [21]). As we will see, such a methodology will prove to be apposite in the present case study too. For the Middle Minoan period and the earlier part of the Late Minoan period on Crete (i.e., when Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A were in use), no obvious candidate for a stylus survives. For the Mycenaean period, a few small tools of different materials have been identified as potential styli, largely from the northern and eastern areas of the Mycenaean world: from the Argolid, four bone examples and one possibly in bronze from Tiryns as well as a bone example from Mycenae (see Godart [22]), and from Thebes another bone example found in the vicinity of inscribed clay nodules (Olivier, Melena and Piteros [23]); a pointed bronze tool from a cremation at the Khania near Mycenae (Palaiologou [24]) seems to be a doubtful example. However, no styli have survived from Knossos or Pylos, the two sites responsible for the majority of extant Linear B documents. In Bronze Age Cyprus, if we discount the bone tools once identified as styli but now conclusively reinterpreted as weaving tools (Smith [25]), our only likely examples of styli are pointed bronze implements from several sites, although there is a considerable possibility that these objects were used to write on wax tablets rather than clay documents (Pappasavvas [26]). The physical and material features of these styli are considered in more detail below. The bone implements from the Argolid and from Thebes have a distinctive shape with a tapered blade at one end, coming to a rounded point (see Figure1). The rest of the object is round in its cross-section, and tapers to a point at the other end. The examples range in length from c.6 to c.12 cm. The possible bronze example from Tiryns has a blade similar in shape at the end, though the whole implement is thinner and flatter than the bone examples. Louis Godart already showed by experimentation that this shape of stylus could be used successfully to inscribe Linear B tablets ([22] pp. 248–250). Sustainability 2020, 12, x 5 of 17

Sustainability 2020, 12, x 5 of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 5 of 17

Figure 1. Section of the ends of two bladed bone styli from Tiryns. Drawn by the author after Godart ([22] p. 248Figure Figure 1.3). Section of the ends of two bladed bone styli from Tiryns. Drawn by the author after Godart ([22] p. 248 Figure 3). FigureWhile 1. Section the evidence of the ends for ofMycenaean two bladed Greece bone styli can from be plausiblyTiryns. Drawn and byconfidently the author linked after Godart with writing([22] onp. clay, 248While Figure which the 3). evidenceas far as we for know Mycenaean was the Greece principal can be means plausibly of recording and confidently information linked in withthe palatial writing administrations,on clay, which as the far same as we cannot know be was said the of principalCyprus. The means bronze of recording implements information found at sites in the including palatial Enkomiadministrations,While and Kalavassos-Agiosthe evidence the same for cannot Mycenaean Dimitrios be said are ofGreece Cyprus.pencil-like can Thebe objectsplausibly bronze that implements and feature confidently short, found sharp linked at sites points with including atwriting one endEnkomion andclay, andend which Kalavassos-Agiosin a aschisel-like far as we shape know Dimitrios at was the theother. are principal pencil-like In other means objectswords, of thatthey recording feature look very information short, similar sharp to in points the the sorts palatial at one of styliendadministrations, andthat endare so in awell chisel-likethe attested same cannot shape in the be at Roman thesaid other. of worl Cyprus Ind, other and. The which words, bronze were they implements designed look very found for similar use at with tosites the woodenincluding sorts of tabletsstyliEnkomi that coated and are soinKalavassos-Agios wellwax: attestedthe pointed in Dimitrios the end Roman was areused world, pencil-like to make and whichtheobjects inscription, were that feature designed and short,the for chisel sharp use end with points to wooden scrape at one thetabletsend wax and coated for end corrections in wax:a chisel-like the or pointed re-inscription. shape end at the was other. usedGeorge toIn make otPappasavvasher thewords, inscription, they has look indeed and very the interpreted similar chisel endto the tothem scrapesorts as of evidencethestyli wax that for of are correctionsthe so prevalent well attested or re-inscription.use of in wooden the Roman George writing worl Pappasavvas boardsd, and in which Bronze has were indeed Age designed Cyprus, interpreted whichfor themuse in with asturn evidence wooden could explainoftablets the prevalent thecoated relatively in use wax: of verywooden the pointedsmall writing numbers end boardswas of used inclayBronze to documents make Age the Cyprus, inscription, that have which beenand in the turnfound chisel could (Pappasavvas end explain to scrape the [26]).relativelythe Cruciallywax veryfor smallcorrectionsfor our numbers purposes or ofre-inscription. clay here, documents these impl George thatements have Pappasavvas beenare the found wrong has (Pappasavvas shapeindeed to interpretedhave [26]). produced Crucially them the for as survivingourevidence purposes ofCypriot the here, prevalent theseinscriptions implements use of onwooden clay, are thewritingmany wrong boardsof shapewhich in to Bronzefeature have producedAge distinctive Cyprus, the which surviving‘teardrop’ in turn Cypriotshape could impressions,inscriptionsexplain the onalthoughrelatively clay, many the very methods of small which numbersof feature producing of distinctive cl theay inscriptionsdocuments ‘teardrop’ thatclearly shape have varies impressions, been (see found Steele although(Pappasavvas and Boyes the [27]).methods[26]). (see Crucially ofFigure producing for2). our the purposes inscriptions here, clearly these impl variesements (see Steele are the and wrong Boyes shape [27]). to (see have Figure produced2). the surviving Cypriot inscriptions on clay, many of which feature distinctive ‘teardrop’ shape impressions, although the methods of producing the inscriptions clearly varies (see Steele and Boyes [27]). (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Section of the end of a pointed bronze stylus from Enkomi. Drawn by the author after FigurePappasavvas 2. Section of ([26 the] p. end 81, Figureof a pointed 3). bronze stylus from Enkomi. Drawn by the author after Pappasavvas ([26] p. 81, Figure 3). The direct evidence for styli is obviously deficient in several respects. There are long periods of time andFigure wideThe 2.direct geographicalSection evidence of the areas forend styli forof whichais pointedobviously surviving bronze deficient examplesstylus in from several are Enkomi. missing respects. Drawn altogether. There by arethe The longauthor interpretation periods after of timeofPappasavvas the and few wide surviving ([26] geographical p. 81, implements Figure 3).areas as styli for iswhich often tentative,surviving and examples only the are examples missing from altogether. Thebes have The a interpretationstrong contextual of the motivation few surviving for this implements assumption. as It st alsoyli is hardly often needstentative, stating and that only there the couldexamples have from been Thebesstyli madeThe have direct from a strong perishableevidence contextual for materials styli motivation is thatobviously could for this notdeficient beassumption. expected in several to It bealso respects. represented hardly There needs in are thestating archaeologicallong that periods there of couldrecord.time haveand The beenwide evidence styli geographical made is too from patchy areasperishable to determine for whichmaterial the surviving degrees that could to examples which not be stylus expected are type missing andto be usage representedaltogether. may have Thein thevariedinterpretation archaeological in different of therecord. times few and survivingThe places evidence implements (or evenis too within patc as hyst anyyli to is determine given often timetentative, the or place),degree and only whichto which the means examples stylus that type from the andburdenThebes usage of have thismay a investigation stronghave varied contextual willin different fall motivation on the times indirect for and this places evidence. assumption. (or even It alsowithin hardly any needsgiven statingtime or that place), there whichcould means have been that stylithe burden made from of this perishable investigation material wills fall that on could the indirect not be expected evidence. to be represented in 3.the Impressions archaeological of the record. Stylus The evidence is too patchy to determine the degree to which stylus type 3.and ImpressionsThe usage existence may of havethe and Stylus varied nature in of different the stylus times is heavilyand places dependent (or even onwithin its interactions any given time with or people, place), which means that the burden of this investigation will fall on the indirect evidence. objectsThe and existence materials and that nature coalesce of the to make stylus up is writing heavily practice. dependent The materialon its interactions from which with a stylus people, was made was chosen deliberately: it had to be possible to fashion it into the appropriate shape to produce objects3. Impressions and materials of the that Stylus coalesce to make up writing practice. The material from which a stylus was madesigns ofwas the chosen necessary deliberately: writing system it had to in be the possible chosen mediumto fashion (in it thisinto casethe appropriate clay), and it shape had to to be produce durable signsenough ofThe the to existence maintainnecessary thisand writing shapenature system during of the in the prolongedstylus chosen is heav me usage,diumily anddependent (in ofthis the case appropriateon clay), its interactions and it size had to to bewith be held durable people, and enoughmanipulatedobjects to and maintain materials in the hand.this that shape The coalesce relationship during to makeprolonged would up writing neverusage, practice. had and been of theThe entirely appropriatematerial straightforward: from size which to be a anyheldstylus given and was materialmade was may chosen have deliberately: offered both it advantages had to be possible and disadvantages, to fashion it into and the the appropriate choice of one shape material to produce over anothersigns of may the necessary have necessitated writing system a compromise in the chosen between medium availability (in this case and suitability.clay), and it Crucially,had to be durable such a compromiseenough to maintain will have this real shape ramifications during prolonged for the act usage, of writing, and of as the we appropriate will see. While size to the be choice held and of Sustainability 2020, 12, x 6 of 17 manipulated in the hand. The relationship would never had been entirely straightforward: any given material may have offered both advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of one material over another may have necessitated a compromise between availability and suitability. Crucially, such a Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 6 of 17 compromise will have real ramifications for the act of writing, as we will see. While the choice of material for the writing implement may have been driven by the craftspeople responsible for producingmaterial for them the writing (perhaps implement different may individuals have been drivenfrom the by theend craftspeople users?), the responsible embodied forand producing socially situatedthem (perhaps use of dithefferent implement individuals will frommake the it an end acti users?),ve agent the in embodied practised and writing. socially In situated other words, use of the materialimplement properties will make of itthe an implement active agent will in practisedcontribute writing. not only In to other the materiality words, the of material the inscribed properties object of butthe implementalso to its perception will contribute within not its only social to the setting, materiality and to of theits value inscribed as an object instantiation but also to of its the perception broader withinconcept, its or social cognitive setting, framework, and to itsof writing. value as In an th instantiatione interaction between of the broader the writer, concept, the stylus or cognitive and the clayframework, document of writing.lies the Inindirect the interaction evidence betweenfor the thestylus’s writer, shape, the styluswhich and we the can clay at documentleast begin lies to reconstructthe indirect by evidence examining for the the stylus’s surviving shape, clay whichdocume wents can and at the least incisions begin to and reconstruct impressions by examiningin the clay thatthe surviving were produced clay documents as a result and theof incisionsthat interaction. and impressions We will inbegin the clay with that an were overview produced of asthe a palaeographicresult of that interaction. characteristics We willof clay begin documents with an overview from the ofdifferent the palaeographic writing traditions characteristics of the Bronze of clay Agedocuments Aegean from and theCyprus. different writing traditions of the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. There areare onlyonly a a few few clay clay tablets tablets understood understood to containto contain Cretan Cretan Hieroglyphic Hieroglyphic inscriptions, inscriptions, but there but thereare also are other also clayother document clay document types bearing types bearing writing includingwriting including clay bars, clay crescents bars, crescents and cones. and The cones. signs Theare typicallysigns are incisedtypically quite incised shallowly, quite shallowly, although italthough is sometimes it is sometimes possible topossible observe to deeper observe rounded deeper roundedshapes where shapes a sharp where rounded a sharp implement rounded implement has sunk further has sunk into further the clay. into Where the clay. these Where round these depressions round depressionsare incorporated are incorporated into the lines into that the make lines up that a script make sign up a (e.g., script in sign Figure (e.g.,3), in they Figure give 3), the they impression give the impressionthat the writing that endthe writing of the stylus end of was the itselfstylus pointed was itself and pointed round, and and round, varying and sizes varying of round sizes depression of round depressionare likely the are result likely of the a stylus result with of a a stylus tapering with point a tapering (hence thicker point (hence the further thicker the the stylus further is sunk the into stylus the isclay). sunk Artemis into the Karnava clay). Artemis has identified Karnava the usehas ofidentified thicker stylithe foruse inscribingof thicker some styli Cretanfor inscribing Hieroglyphic some Cretanclay inscriptions Hieroglyphic in the clay context inscriptions of her studyin the ofcontex scribalt of hands, her study especially of scribal in the hands, Quartier especially Mu at in Malia the (KarnavaQuartier Mu [28 ]at pp. Malia 98–109, (Karnava esp. 105). [28] pp. 98–109, esp. 105).

Figure 3. A four-sided Cretan Hieroglyphic clay bar. Image courtesy of Rupert Thompson. Figure 3. A four-sided Cretan Hieroglyphic clay bar. Image courtesy of Rupert Thompson. Linear A presents us with far more examples of clay documents, many of which are tablets Linear A presents us with far more examples of clay documents, many of which are tablets (on (on Linear A administration, see Schoep [29]). Again the signs are typically incised shallowly, with thin Linear A administration, see Schoep [29]). Again the signs are typically incised shallowly, with thin lines and evidence that the stylus featured a sharp, round tip (see for example the ‘eyes’ of the ma lines and evidence that the stylus featured a sharp, round tip (see for example the ‘eyes’ of the ma sign lying along the crack in the lower half of the tablet in Figure4). This may put us in mind of John sign lying along the crack in the lower half of the tablet in Figure 4). This may put us in mind of John Chadwick’s suggestion (though intended for Linear B) that ‘writing was done with a needle-sharp Chadwick’s suggestion (though intended for Linear B) that ‘writing was done with a needle-sharp stylus—perhaps a thorn mounted on some kind of holder—and then left to dry’ (Chadwick [30] p. stylus—perhaps a thorn mounted on some kind of holder—and then left to dry’ (Chadwick [30] p. 18). I had the opportunity to attempt writing with an acacia thorn a few years ago, and found that 18). I had the opportunity to attempt writing with an acacia thorn a few years ago, and found that its its proportions made it perfect to incise signs accurately at the appropriate scale: the long, thin point proportions made it perfect to incise signs accurately at the appropriate scale: the long, thin point was sharp and inflexible enough to produce incisions with very similar characteristics to those of real was sharp and inflexible enough to produce incisions with very similar characteristics to those of real Linear A inscriptions (with thanks to my colleagues Torsten Meissner, who convened our Linear A self help group in 2017, and Sarah Finlayson, who provided the thorn; this thorn was large enough to hold quite comfortably in the hand without a mount or holder, and although acacia would not have been Sustainability 2020, 12, x 7 of 17

Linear A inscriptions (with thanks to my colleagues Torsten Meissner, who convened our Linear A Sustainabilityself help group2020, 12 in, 106712017, and Sarah Finlayson, who provided the thorn; this thorn was large enough7 of 17 to hold quite comfortably in the hand without a mount or holder, and although acacia would not anhave available been an resource available in resource Bronze Age in Bronze Crete, anyAge plant Crete, with any reasonably plant with large reasonably and sharp large thorns and couldsharp providethorns could a very provide similar a implement.).very similar implement.). There seems Ther to bee littleseems evidence to be little here evidence of the use here of of bladed the use styli, of though,bladed styli, as we though, will see, as the we di willfference see, the between difference impressions between from impressions rounded from and bladedrounded implements and bladed is notimplements perhaps is as not obvious perhaps as youas obvious might assume.as you might It is alsoassume. important It is also to important bear in mind to bear the diversityin mind the of Lineardiversity A writingof Linear practices, A writing as employedpractices, byas employed autonomous by localautonomous administrations local administrations and used also outsideand used of thealso strictly outside administrative of the strictly sphere administrative (for example sphere on items(for example associated on withitems religious associated practice with andreligious with statuspractice display). and with status display).

Figure 4. Linear A tablet. Image courtesy of Philip Boyes. Figure 4. Linear A tablet. Image courtesy of Philip Boyes. For Linear B, we are able to reach a much better appreciation of palaeographic features owing to the farFor larger Linear corpus B, we of are surviving able to reach documents, a much and better there appreciation is further potentialof palaeographic to discern features geographical owing andto the temporal far larger variation corpus of given surviving the spread documents, of the evidence: and there c. is 6000 further documents potential found to discern in Crete, geographical both sides ofand the temporal Peloponnese variation and given Boeotia the (plusspread a tabletof the fragmentevidence: asc. 6000 far north documents as Thessaly). found in However, Crete, both there sides is aof great the Peloponnese deal of work and to doBoeotia here, (plus and thea tablet present fragment article as will far only north attempt as Thessaly). to lay outHowever, some ideas there andis a guidinggreat deal principles of work thatto do will here, hopefully and the pave present the way article for somewill only interesting attempt observations to lay out some andinspiration ideas and forguiding future principles research: that detailed will hopefully conclusions pave cannot the way safely for besome drawn interesting except onobservations the basis of and extensive inspiration new palaeographicfor future research: analysis detailed of these conclusions documents. cannot Since safely in the be Argolid drawn and except in Thebes on the we basis have of directextensive evidence new forpalaeographic bladed styli, analysis it makes of sense these to begindocuments. with tablets Since fromin the these Argolid areas andand toin consider Thebes whetherwe have a stylusdirect ofevidence this shape for makesbladed a styli, distinctive it makes impression. sense to begin with tablets from these areas and to consider whetherThe a three stylus signs of this in Figureshape 5makes show a some distinctive possible impression. traits that might be associated with the use of a stylus with a flat blade approximately of the shape shown in Figure1 above. The blade can glide Sustainability 2020, 12, x 8 of 17

SustainabilityThe three2020, signs12, 10671 in Figure 5 show some possible traits that might be associated with the use8 of 17a stylus with a flat blade approximately of the shape shown in Figure 1 above. The blade can glide easily through the clay, although for long straight lines it may be that the blade is angled to produce easilyan impression through theof clay,the althoughright length for longinstead straight of being lines it drawn may be through that the bladethe clay; is angled this totechnique produce anis impressiondiscernible ofin the rightminimal length displacement instead of being of clay drawn around through the stroke the clay; and this its evenness technique from is discernible one end of in the minimalstroke to displacementthe other (e.g., of the clay main around vertical the strokestroke andin this its evennessexample of from a2). one Typically end of long the stroke straight to thestrokes other made (e.g., with the maina blade vertical will strokealso be in quite this examplepointed ofat aboth2). Typically ends (rather long than straight terminating strokes made in a withrounded a blade shape). will Curved also be quitelines, pointedhowever, at bothgive endsmore (ratherscope thanfor discerning terminating the in dimensions a rounded shape).of the Curvedimplement. lines, A large however, circular give shape more might scope be for accompli discerningshed the in dimensionstwo separate of strokes the implement. as in this example A large circularof ka, where shape the might width be accomplishedof the incision in changes two separate as each strokes stroke as is in drawn. this example The reason of ka, wherefor this the must width be ofthat, the although incision changesthe writer as does each turn stroke the is stylus drawn. as Thethey reason draw forthe thisline, must they becannot that, easily although do so the in writer such doesa way turn that the it keeps stylus the as theywidth draw of the the incision line, they (i.e., cannot the angle easily of do the so stylus in such blade a way with that respect it keeps to the widthcurve) ofconstant. the incision It is (i.e., also the the angle case of that the styluswhen bladedrawing with a respecttight curve to the in curve) one stroke constant. with It isa alsobladed the caseinstrument, that when the drawingmore pointed a tight tip curve of the in blade one stroke is thewith most a effective bladed instrument, part to turn, the which more means pointed that tip the of theincision blade may is the be mostshallower effective than part for toless turn, curved which lines: means we thatcan see the this incision in the may loops be shallowerof the a2 sign than here, for lessespecially curved the lines: one we on canthe seeright. this The in the tu in loops this of example the a2 sign shows here, similar especially varying the onewidth on of the incision right. The in itstu inupper this central example curved shows line, similar and varying we also width see that of incisionthe sign’s in ‘shoulders’ its upper central have curvedbeen formed line, and with we small also seeseparate that thehorizontal sign’s ‘shoulders’ strokes (rather have than been curving formed withlines smallthat continue separate the horizontal downward strokes strokes (rather of the than V curvingshape). lines that continue the downward strokes of the V shape).

FigureFigure 5. Three 5. signsThree (a signs2, tu, ka (a)2 ,fromtu, kaa )Linear from B a tablet Linear from B tablet Mycena frome. Digital Mycenae. drawing Digital from drawing a photograph, from a by thephotograph, author. by the author.

It is also sometimes the case that horizontal strokesstrokes (especially shorter ones) will be wider than vertical strokes,strokes, whichwhich couldcould bebe related related again again to to the the shape shape and and dimensions dimensions of of the the blade. blade. If itIf isit heldis held so thatso that the the flat flat dimension dimension of of the the blade blade can can form form a a thin thin vertical vertical stroke, stroke, then then itit followsfollows that—unlessthat—unless the writer turns the stylus by 90 degrees—a horizontal stroke will be made with the wider dimension of the blade. Clearly Clearly it it is is possible that a writer migh mightt hold, turn and manipulate the stylus in different different ways, thus varying the degree to which the difference difference in width between vertical and horizontal stroke is noticeable. The above examples serve to demonstrate that the relationship between author, implement and sign shape is is not not a a straightforward straightforward case case of of the the auth authoror envisaging envisaging a alearnt learnt sign sign shape shape and and executing executing it itwith with the the implement—rather, implement—rather, the the sign sign shape shape is is influenced, influenced, enabled enabled and and constrained constrained both both by the author’s understanding ofof thethe signsign shape shape (and (and the the broader broader cognitive cognitive system system in in which which it exists)it exists) and and by theby the material material and and shape shape of the of implementthe implement and itsand interaction its interaction with thewith clay the of clay the tablet.of the tablet. In other In words, other itwords, is impossible it is impossible to understand to understand the act the of writing, act of writ anding, the and product the product of that of act, that without act, without ascribing ascribing some agencysome agency to the to stylus. the stylus. The stylus The stylus further further needs needs to be to understood be understood as having as having a complex a complex relationship relationship with administrativewith administrative need andneed availability and availability of materials of materials and craft specialism,and craft specialism, as the shape as of the the shape implement of the is aimplement product of is interaction a product of and interaction compromises and betweencompromi itsses intended between use, its intended the nature use, of thethe materialnature of used the andmaterial the way used it and is fashioned the way intoit is afashioned writing implement. into a writing Materials implement. such asMaterials bone or ivorysuch as would bone bring or ivory the advantageswould bring of the being advantages hard and of durable, being andhard being and abledurable, to be and drawn being effectively able to throughbe drawn the effectively surface of thethrough clay, butthe wouldsurface lend of the themselves clay, but farwould better lend to athemse shapelves that involvesfar better a to flat a sharpshape edge,that involves since they a flat are notsharp well edge, suited since to they a thin are and not sharp well roundedsuited to pointa thin (which and sharp would rounded also be point more (which likely towould break also under be pressure).more likely While to break there under may bepressure). some advantages While ther heree may over be the some use advantages of something here like over a thorn the withuse of a sharp, rounded point (e.g., in throwing up less clay, perhaps greater durability), the use of a bladed Sustainability 2020, 12, x 9 of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 9 of 17 something like a thorn with a sharp, rounded point (e.g., in throwing up less clay, perhaps greater durability), the use of a bladed bone stylus would also impact on the execution of sign shapes, which bone stylus would also impact on the execution of sign shapes, which could have wider implications could have wider implications for the script, from palaeographic variation to potential systemic for the script, from palaeographic variation to potential systemic changes. We will return to this point. changes. We will return to this point. If a sharp, pointed stylus (something like a thorn) was used to inscribe Linear A clay documents, If a sharp, pointed stylus (something like a thorn) was used to inscribe Linear A clay documents, and a bladed stylus made of bone or another material was used to inscribe Linear B documents in at and a bladed stylus made of bone or another material was used to inscribe Linear B documents in at least the northern and eastern parts of the Mycenaean world, we might wonder what lies between least the northern and eastern parts of the Mycenaean world, we might wonder what lies between (both chronologically and geographically) and how we get from one to the other. Was the thin, (both chronologically and geographically) and how we get from one to the other. Was the thin, pointed implement used for Linear A ever used for Linear B? Or did the development of Linear B pointed implement used for Linear A ever used for Linear B? Or did the development of Linear B writing (accompanied by the distinctive aspects of Mycenaean bureaucratic practice) bring with it writing (accompanied by the distinctive aspects of Mycenaean bureaucratic practice) bring with it the the use of a new type of stylus? We might expect to find the answer to such a question on Crete, use of a new type of stylus? We might expect to find the answer to such a question on Crete, which which is by Occam’s Razor the best candidate for the locus of the development of Linear B (though is by Occam’s Razor the best candidate for the locus of the development of Linear B (though other other locations have been suggested: see e.g., Palaima and Sikkenga [31]), and where speakers of Greek locations have been suggested: see e.g., Palaima and Sikkenga [31]), and where speakers of Greek would have had the opportunity to observe Linear A accounting methods in practice. Palaeographic would have had the opportunity to observe Linear A accounting methods in practice. Palaeographic analysis of the Linear B documents from the Room of the Chariot Tablets at Knossos, assumed to be the analysis of the Linear B documents from the Room of the Chariot Tablets at Knossos, assumed to be earliest archive in Crete, and comparison with Linear A sign shapes, suggests ‘a soft process of script the earliest archive in Crete, and comparison with Linear A sign shapes, suggests ‘a soft process of adaptation’ from Linear A to B (Salgarella [32] p. 89) where we might also expect some interaction script adaptation’ from Linear A to B (Salgarella [32] p. 89) where we might also expect some between Minoan and Greek speakers in the development of bureaucratic practices in the Mycenaean interaction between Minoan and Greek speakers in the development of bureaucratic practices in the palace (see also Salgarella [33]; see also Steele and Meissner [34]). Mycenaean palace (see also Salgarella [33]; see also Steele and Meissner [34]). At Knossos, a site that has produced more than 4000 Linear B tablets, we find some considerable At Knossos, a site that has produced more than 4000 Linear B tablets, we find some considerable degree of variation in palaeographic features and it has not yet been possible to analyse every inscription degree of variation in palaeographic features and it has not yet been possible to analyse every from this perspective. However, from the sample consulted, some tablets show features that will be inscription from this perspective. However, from the sample consulted, some tablets show features familiar from the above discussion, with for example thin (and shallow) vertical incisions accompanied that will be familiar from the above discussion, with for example thin (and shallow) vertical incisions by wider (and deeper) horizontal incisions (see Figure6 for an example). Curved lines sometimes accompanied by wider (and deeper) horizontal incisions (see Figure 6 for an example). Curved lines but not always vary in width, again perhaps pointing to the use of a bladed stylus. But there are sometimes but not always vary in width, again perhaps pointing to the use of a bladed stylus. But differences too, particularly in the degree to which clay is displaced when incising signs. On the one there are differences too, particularly in the degree to which clay is displaced when incising signs. hand, this could indicate some difference in the shape of the stylus, and practical experimentation On the one hand, this could indicate some difference in the shape of the stylus, and practical suggests that a rounded implement (even a sharp one) will ‘throw up’ more clay as it moves through experimentation suggests that a rounded implement (even a sharp one) will ‘throw up’ more clay as the surface of the clay; this ought to be minimised for a bladed stylus, both because the narrow cross it moves through the surface of the clay; this ought to be minimised for a bladed stylus, both because section allows the blade to move through the clay more easily and because a straight blade can be the narrow cross section allows the blade to move through the clay more easily and because a straight impressed into the clay to make a straight line without drawing the blade through the clay at all, blade can be impressed into the clay to make a straight line without drawing the blade through the such that either method should involve minimal clay displacement. On the other hand, the size and clay at all, such that either method should involve minimal clay displacement. On the other hand, the shape of the implement is not our only material consideration here, and we must also bear in mind size and shape of the implement is not our only material consideration here, and we must also bear factors such as clay consistency and quality, and the dryness/wetness of the clay when it is inscribed. in mind factors such as clay consistency and quality, and the dryness/wetness of the clay when it is The shallowness of vertical lines in many tablets may suggest that, whatever the implement and inscribed. The shallowness of vertical lines in many tablets may suggest that, whatever the implement whatever the other factors involved, there was a deliberate attempt to avoid displacement of too much and whatever the other factors involved, there was a deliberate attempt to avoid displacement of too clay when drawing longer strokes (as vertical ones generally are), whereas the shorter horizontal much clay when drawing longer strokes (as vertical ones generally are), whereas the shorter strokes were less of a concern. horizontal strokes were less of a concern.

Figure 6. Linear B tablet from Knossos. Image courtesy of Philip Boyes. Figure 6. Linear B tablet from Knossos. Image courtesy of Philip Boyes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 10 of 17

Sustainability 2020, 12, x 10 of 17 At Pylos we see some further palaeographical differences, in particular the ‘boxier’ appearance At Pylos we see some further palaeographical differences, in particular the ‘boxier’ appearance of signs in the tablets of some Pylian writers. Some tablets show limited evidence of the physical of signs in the tablets of some Pylian writers. Some tablets show limited evidence of the physical characteristics identified above as typical of the bladed stylus (e.g., the quite consistent stroke width characteristics identified above as typical of the bladed stylus (e.g., the quite consistent stroke width in the tablet in Figure7), but we should question whether that indicates beyond doubt that a stylus in the tablet in Figure 7), but we should question whether that indicates beyond doubt that a stylus of different shape was used in such cases. Could it be, for example, that the method of holding and of different shape was used in such cases. Could it be, for example, that the method of holding and manipulating the stylus in the hand was responsible for the differences in appearance? Bronze Age manipulating the stylus in the hand was responsible for the differences in appearance? Bronze Age writing in Cyprus can in fact offer an instructive parallel here. writing in Cyprus can in fact offer an instructive parallel here.

Figure 7. Linear B tablet from Pylos. Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati. Figure 7. Linear B tablet from Pylos. Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati. Cyprus presents quite a different situation, as writing on clay looks far less standardised than we Cyprus presents quite a different situation, as writing on clay looks far less standardised than see in the Aegean, and the numbers of inscriptions (including clay documents) are by far weighted we see in the Aegean, and the numbers of inscriptions (including clay documents) are by far weighted towards the well excavated site of Enkomi. Early scholarship on Cypro-Minoan writing acknowledged towards the well excavated site of Enkomi. Early scholarship on Cypro-Minoan writing the importance of studying the material features of the documents in order to understand the way acknowledged the importance of studying the material features of the documents in order to in which this degree of variation affected the very structure of the writing system (Daniel [35]). understand the way in which this degree of variation affected the very structure of the writing system The diversity of surviving examples of Cypro-Minoan writing is itself problematic in this regard, (Daniel [35]). The diversity of surviving examples of Cypro-Minoan writing is itself problematic in and across the whole corpus it is likely that there was also considerable diversity in the type and shape this regard, and across the whole corpus it is likely that there was also considerable diversity in the of writing implement used (see the discussion in Ferrara [36] pp. 197–203, as well as Palaima [37] type and shape of writing implement used (see the discussion in Ferrara [36] pp. 197–203, as well as pp. 136–138 and 155), presumably including not only implements designed exclusively for writing (i.e., Palaima [37] pp. 136–138 and 155), presumably including not only implements designed exclusively styli) but also other tools that may have been involved in craft production (e.g., in examples where for writing (i.e., styli) but also other tools that may have been involved in craft production (e.g., in writing is incorporated into the fabric or decoration of an object whose sole purpose is not to carry examples where writing is incorporated into the fabric or decoration of an object whose sole purpose writing). Even the very small number of surviving clay tablets (found at Enkomi, Pyla-Kokkinokremos is not to carry writing). Even the very small number of surviving clay tablets (found at Enkomi, Pyla- andKokkinokremos Ras Shamra-Ugarit and Ras on theShamra-Ugarit Syrian coast) on show the verySyrian considerable coast) show variation very considerable in their sizes, variation shapes andin methodstheir sizes, of inscriptionshapes and (seemethods recently of inscription Steele [38] chapter(see recently 3 with Steele references). [38] chapter The shape3 with ofreferences). the stylus The used toshape inscribe of the most stylus of theseused to clay inscribe documents most of is these relatively clay documents easy to reconstruct is relatively from easy the to impressions reconstruct from in the claythe impressions that make up in scriptthe clay signs that (I make would up likescript to si thankgns (I Martina would like Polig to thank for showing Martina me Polig her for 3D showing textured lightme her scans 3D oftextured Cypro-Minoan light scans inscriptions, of Cypro-Minoan which inscriptions, make it possible which tomake measure it possible the dimensions to measure the of a givendimensions impression, of a given and impression, so to calculate and some so to ofcalcul theate dimensions some of the of dimensions the stylus—bearing of the stylus—bearing in mind some caveats,in mind e.g., some that caveats, it is more e.g., di thatfficult it is to more capture difficult deeper to impressions capture deeper with impressions this type of scanning,with this andtypethat of wescanning, have to and account that we for have the etoff ectaccount of the for implement the effect of being the implement moved in being or through moved the in or clay). through This the is a roundedclay). This stylus, is a rounded but not stylus, with a but long, not sharp with a point long, like sharp that point used like for that Linear used A: for instead Linear itA: comes instead to it a pointcomes after to a a point very shortafter a taper, very suchshort thattaper, when such impressed that when and impressed angled inand the angled clay it in creates the clay a distinctiveit creates ‘teardrop’a distinctive shape ‘teardrop’ (see Figure shape8). (see For Figure the clay 8). tablets, For the although clay tablets, the although basic shape the of basic the shape stylus of with the astylus short taperingwith a short point tapering was apparently point was common, apparently methods common, of holding methods it and of drawingholding it and and/or drawing impressing and/or it in theimpressing clay could it sometimesin the clay give could quite sometimes distinct appearancesgive quite distinct to different appearances groups of to objects different (see groups Steele andof Boyesobjects [27 (see]). NoSteele object and withBoyes the [27]). right No proportions object with thatthe right I know proportions of has been that found I know in of the has archaeological been found record.in the archaeological Among the other record. inscribed Among clay the documents other insc suchribed as clay the claydocuments balls (see such Figure as 8the below, clay withballs clear(see ‘teardrop’Figure 8 below, impressions), with clear a stylus‘teardrop’ of similar impressions), shape was a stylus clearly of similar used in shape many was cases, clearly although used in in many others thecases, point although of the stylusin others may the have point been of the sharper stylus and may narrower. have been sharper and narrower. Sustainability 2020, 12, x 11 of 17

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 11 of 17

Figure 8. Cypro-Minoan clay balls. Image courtesy of Silvia Ferrara. In the earliestFigure phase 8. of Cypro-Minoan Cypro-Minoan clay writing, balls. Image however, courtesy there of Silvia is some Ferrara. evidence to suggest that a bladed implement might have been used to write clay documents at Enkomi. The earliest surviving clay tabletIn the (16th–15th earliest phase C BC, of someCypro-Minoan hundred years writing, before however, the Cypro-Minoan there is somefloruit evidence: see Ferrarato suggest [36 ])that in particulara bladed implement bears impressions might have that been include used some to write of the clay characteristics documents at identified Enkomi. above The earliest as characteristic surviving ofclay abladed tablet (16th–15th implement. C PerhapsBC, some the hu giveawayndred years is that before the the sign Cypro-Minoan at the left end offloruit the: second see Ferrara line (clearly[36]) in relatedparticular to Linearbears impressions A ka), which that involves include a circlesome withof the a characteristics cross in the middle, identified is formed above inas multiplecharacteristic jabs ofof aa straight-edgedbladed implement. stylus Perhaps rather the than giveaway drawn inis thethat roundthe sign (most at the obvious left end in of the thebottom-right second line (clearly of the sign:related see to Figure Linear9 ).A Thiska), which looks likeinvolves an intriguing a circle with link a with cross the in Aegean, the middle, but itis isformed not obvious in multiple how wejabs shouldof a straight-edged interpret it. Cypro-Minoanstylus rather than (and drawn this tablet in the in round particular) (most pre-dates obvious Linearin the Bbottom-right and—as a system of the atsign: least—has see Figure tobe 9). understood This looks like as a an development intriguing link from with Linear the AAegean, (see Val butério it [ 39is ]not for obvious a palaeographic how we discussion).should interpret Should it. Cypro-Minoan we assume that (and the this bladed tablet stylus in particular) was an pre-dates object associated Linear B with and—as some a system sort of Cretanat least—has writing to inbe the understood Minoan period?as a development Or could itfrom even Linear be that A ideas(see Valério about stylus[39] for type a palaeographic move in the otherdiscussion). direction, Should from we Cyprus assume to Mycenaeanthat the bladed Greece? stylus Tempting was an object as these associated questions with may some be, there sort isof littleCretan evidence writing we in canthe callMinoan on to period? try to resolve Or could them—except it even be that perhaps ideas a about tentative stylus connection type move between in the Bronzeother direction, Age Cyprus from and Cyprus Tiryns, to whereMycenaean an inscribed Greece? Cypro-Minoan Tempting as these clay ballquestions and some may blanks be, there have is beenlittle foundevidence (Vetters we can [40 call]) although on to try theyto resolve date to them—except the postpalatial perhaps period a tentative and cannot connection speak for between earlier literateBronze connections.Age Cyprus Itand also Tiryns, seems where at the leastan inscribed possible Cypro-Minoan that the use of bladed clay ball styli and in thesome early blanks stages have of Cypro-Minoanbeen found (Vetters writing [40]) had although a significant they edateffect to on the the postpalatial development period of sign and shapes, cannot which speak mostly for earlier look palaeographicallyliterate connections. very It also different seems from at the their least Linear possible A counterparts. that the use For of example,bladed styli the in Linear-A-looking the early stages kaof signCypro-Minoan (composed ofwriting a circle had with a asignificant cross in the effect middle) on the in the development earliest clay of tablet sign seems shapes, to bewhich a precursor mostly tolook Cypro-Minoan palaeographically sign 25, very usually different consisting from their of two Linear sloping A counterparts. lines meeting For at a example, point at the the top, Linear-A- with a crosslooking underneath. ka sign (composed Valério sees of a thiscircle development with a cross asin the ‘an middle) increasing in the propensity earliest clay to open tablet the seems sign atto itsbe lowera precursor edge’ ([to39 Cypro-Minoan] p. 145), a trend sign that 25, could usually plausibly consisting be driven of two by sloping the use oflines a bladed meeting stylus, at a withpoint which at the ittop, is far with more a cross diffi cultunderneath. to draw aValério smooth sees complete this deve circlelopment than with as ‘an a rounded,increasing narrowly propensity pointed to open stylus. the sign Whateverat its lower the edge’ trajectory ([39] p. of 145), changes a trend in stylus that could type and plausibly usage inbe thosedriven earlier by the stages, use of we a bladed can at leaststylus, be with sure thatwhich the it Aegean is far more and Cyprusdifficult had to draw divergent a smooth trends. complete The diff circleerences than in writingwith a practicesrounded, provenarrowly illustrative pointed if stylus. we look more closely at sign shapes (alongside writing system structure) in both areas, as can be seen from the initial discussion of the ka sign above. Another instructive example is found in the na and to signs of the Aegean scripts. In Linear B (Figure 10), the essential difference between the signs na and to is that na has a gap below the upper horizontal line, while to has a tall vertical that extends through a lower horizontal line all the way up to the upper horizontal line. A na may sometimes look like a to but without the gap between the two horizontal lines, or it there may be some distinguishing features on the stem (e.g., a dotted stem or a curved shape at the top of the stem), and the lower horizontal line is not a compulsory feature. Meanwhile, in Cypro-Minoan (Figure 11) we find shapes that are similar to a simple na or to with two horizontal lines either with a gap between them or a vertical extending through them to the top; and at the same time we find a to where the vertical line has moved to one side of the sign, and can appear at an angle to the horizontal line at the top, while another variant has a horizontal line at the top with two angled lines extending down, often staggered. Miguel Valério has convincingly argued that in Cypro-Minoan, a sign that has a central vertical extending between the two horizontal lines should be understood as a na rather than Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 12 of 17 a to, and sees the other shapes of to with its vertical at one side or with angled lines as attempts to distinguish between the two sign shapes ([41]). It is just a coincidence that this results in a shape that would in Linear B indisputably represent the syllable to having a completely different value (na) in Cypro-Minoan. The important point for our purposes is that these divergent features, which are systemic in that they involve differences in sign shape and value, are heavily entangled with the material properties of the clay documents being inscribed and the implements used to inscribe them. Whether making use of a rounded stylus with a sharp point or a bladed stylus, Linear B is being written at a larger scale with an implement that is capable of distinguishing between minute features. The development of bowed or dotted stems in the sign na may have something to do with making the sign distinctive from to, but, even so, the most simple form of na persists. By contrast, in Cyprus different strategies have been developed to distinguish na from to, and we can confidently link them with the problem of writing with a less sharp instrument, and often at a smaller scale (especially in the case of clay tablets). This is not a case of arbitrarily different choices in attempting to distinguish between potentially confusable signs—these are developments in the properties of the writing system thatSustainability are deeply 2020, 12 embedded, x in practice, and that are entangled with issues of document type12 and of 17 medium, material and shape of stylus and embodied action, all contributing to the practice (or we could say the cognitive architecture) of writing.

Figure 9. The earliest Cypro-Minoan clay tablet. Image courtesy of Silvia Ferrara. Figure 9. The earliest Cypro-Minoan clay tablet. Image courtesy of Silvia Ferrara. The purpose of this section was to illustrate some of the central issues related to reconstructing stylus shapes. It was not intended as in any way exhaustive, and there remains a great deal of work to Whatever the trajectory of changes in stylus type and usage in those earlier stages, we can at be done to survey, document and analyse the palaeographic features of documents in the Aegean linear least be sure that the Aegean and Cyprus had divergent trends. The differences in writing practices scripts. Advanced digital imaging techniques (such as RTI—reflectance transformation imaging—and prove illustrative if we look more closely at sign shapes (alongside writing system structure) in both 3D scanning) have an important role to play because they give unprecedented scope to analyse areas, as can be seen from the initial discussion of the ka sign above. Another instructive example is minute palaeographic details, as pilot studies have already shown. The forthcoming publication found in the na and to signs of the Aegean scripts. In Linear B (Figure 10), the essential difference of the Pylos corpus by an American team complete with RTI images of each inscription will be an between the signs na and to is that na has a gap below the upper horizontal line, while to has a tall impressive resource (I am grateful to Sharon Stocker, Cassandra Donnelly and Dimitri Nakassis for vertical that extends through a lower horizontal line all the way up to the upper horizontal line. A na permission and help in accessing some of these RTI images) and there have also been smaller pilots may sometimes look like a to but without the gap between the two horizontal lines, or it there may involving RTI, including the Pa-i-to project (https://www.paitoproject.it/en/pa-i-to-project-2/) and the be some distinguishing features on the stem (e.g., a dotted stem or a curved shape at the top of the Ashmolean’s online gallery (https://sirarthurevans.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/collection/linearb/images.html); stem), and the lower horizontal line is not a compulsory feature. Meanwhile, in Cypro-Minoan a current doctoral project by Martina Polig (Ghent University / Cyprus Institute Nicosia) is using a (Figure 11) we find shapes that are similar to a simple na or to with two horizontal lines either with a gap between them or a vertical extending through them to the top; and at the same time we find a to where the vertical line has moved to one side of the sign, and can appear at an angle to the horizontal line at the top, while another variant has a horizontal line at the top with two angled lines extending down, often staggered. Miguel Valério has convincingly argued that in Cypro-Minoan, a sign that has a central vertical extending between the two horizontal lines should be understood as a na rather than a to, and sees the other shapes of to with its vertical at one side or with angled lines as attempts to distinguish between the two sign shapes ([41]). It is just a coincidence that this results in a shape that would in Linear B indisputably represent the syllable to having a completely different value (na) in Cypro-Minoan. The important point for our purposes is that these divergent features, which are systemic in that they involve differences in sign shape and value, are heavily entangled with the material properties of the clay documents being inscribed and the implements used to inscribe them. Whether making use of a rounded stylus with a sharp point or a bladed stylus, Linear B is being written at a larger scale with an implement that is capable of distinguishing between minute features. The development of bowed or dotted stems in the sign na may have something to do with making the sign distinctive from to, but, even so, the most simple form of na persists. By contrast, in Cyprus different strategies have been developed to distinguish na from to, and we can confidently link them with the problem of writing with a less sharp instrument, and often at a smaller scale (especially in Sustainability 2020, 12, x 13 of 17

Sustainabilitythe case of2020 clay, 12 ,tablets). 10671 This is not a case of arbitrarily different choices in attempting to distinguish13 of 17 between potentially confusable signs—these are developments in the properties of the writing system Sustainabilitythat are deeply 2020, 12 embedded, x in practice, and that are entangled with issues of document type13 ofand 17 dimedium,fferent method, material 3D and textured shape lightof stylus scanning, and embodied to approach action, Cypro-Minoan all contributing palaeography. to the practice The use(or ofwe enhancedthecould case say of imaging the clay cognitive tablets). techniques architecture)This is can not make a caseof itwriting. possibleof arbi trarily to observe different the choices direction in andattempting order of to strokes distinguish in a givenbetween sign, potentially for example, confusable and to establish signs—these something are develo of theirpments relative in the depth properties and the of proportions the writing system of the incisionthat are/impression, deeply embedded provided in we practice, develop and secure that analyticalare entangled methods with forissues interpreting of document the enhanced type and visualmedium, evidence, material supplemented and shape of by stylus other and methods embodied such action, as practical all contributing experimentation to the (seepractice Greco (or and we Floudacould say [42 ]the p. cognitive 155). Such architecture) combined approaches of writing. have the potential to put us in a stronger position when interpreting the traces and impressions of writing implements in the material record.

Figure 10. Shapes of na (left) and to (right) in Linear B.

Figure 10. Shapes of na (left) and to (right) in Linear B.

Figure 10. Shapes of na (left) and to (right) in Linear B.

Figure 11. Shapes of na (left) and to (right) in Cypro-Minoan. 4. Using the Stylus Figure 11. Shapes of na (left) and to (right) in Cypro-Minoan. Now that we have considered the direct and indirect evidence for stylus types, it is important The purpose of this section was to illustrate some of the central issues related to reconstructing to conclude by turning some attention towards the users of the styli and the conditions in which theystylus were shapes. writing. It was It is not fair intended to say that as in we any know way very exhaustive, little about and the there authors remains behind a great the deal documents of work writtento be done in the to Aegeansurvey,Figure document linear 11. scripts. Shapes and ofanalyse They na (left are the) and anonymous palaeographic to (right) in in Cypro-Minoan. every features sense, of documents and unlike in in the the Aegean Near East,linear they scripts. never Advanced sign their documentsdigital imaging or leave techni us theirques names. (such Noas termRTI—reflectance for a professional transformation scribe is recorded.imaging—andThe purpose For Cretan 3D of scanning) this Hieroglyphic, section have was an Linear toimportant illustrate A and role some Cypro-Minoan, to ofplay the because central only issuesthey quite give related limited unprecedented to work reconstructing has beenscope donestylusto analyse to shapes. identify minute It individualwas palaeographic not intended writers, asdetails, but in any Linear as way pilot B exhaustive, is astudies considerable have and therealready exception. remains shown. Decades a great The deal offorthcoming research of work andtopublication be the done availability to of survey, the Pylos of document thousands corpus byand of an analyse deciphered American the palaeographicte documentsam complete have features with allowed RTI of images documents a composite of each in thepictureinscription Aegean to belinearwill reconstructed, be scripts. an impressive Advanced moving resource fromdigital the(I amimaging palaeographic grateful techni to Sharon identificationques (such Stocker, as of CassandraRTI—reflectance individual Donnelly hands transformation (Olivier and Dimitri [43], Palaimaimaging—andNakassis [44 for]) topermission 3D studies scanning) of and the have bureaucratichelp anin importantaccessing interests somerole of to theseof play these individuals because RTI images) they integrated give and unprecedented there with have the physicalalso scope been distributiontosmaller analyse pilots ofminute the involving documents palaeographic RTI, they including wrote.details, Inthe as a Pa-i couplepilot-to studies ofproject cases, have(https://www.paitoproject.it/en/pa-i-to- it may already even beshown. possible The to forthcoming infer that a publicationproject-2/) of the Pylosand corpus by anthe American teamAshmolean’s complete with RTI imagesonline of each inscriptiongallery name mentioned in a tablet may belong to its author, most famously in the case of pu2-ke-qi-ri in PY Tawill(https://sirarthurevans.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/collection/li 711 be (Hand an impressive 2). For the resource Mycenaean (I am world grateful we canto Sharon confidentlynearb/images.html); Stocker, assume Cassandra that a wecurrent Donnelly are dealing doctoral and not Dimitriproject with Nakassisby Martina for Poligpermission (Ghent and University help in accessing / Cyprus some Institute of these Nicosia) RTI images)is using and a different there have method, also been 3D smaller pilots involving RTI, including the Pa-i-to project (https://www.paitoproject.it/en/pa-i-to- project-2/) and the Ashmolean’s online gallery (https://sirarthurevans.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/collection/linearb/images.html); a current doctoral project by Martina Polig (Ghent University / Cyprus Institute Nicosia) is using a different method, 3D Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 14 of 17 professional scribes in the sense of the Mesopotamian dub-sar but with professional administrators for whom literacy happened to be a key aspect of their work (see Bennet [45]). There must be many open questions as to the social context of stylus use and the interaction between writer and stylus. Was the choice of stylus type determined by the rigorous training that we know Linear B writers to have undergone? The very significant degree of standardisation in other aspects of writing practice (including tablet shape and layout, arrangement of text, script repertoire and sign shapes, orthography, etc.) strongly suggests that Mycenaean administrators were trained to a high degree (Duhoux [46]) and stylus use may have been a significant part of that—though we lack direct evidence such as the practice cuneiform texts known from Mesopotamia, which included exercises in forming wedges with the stylus. Could an individual writer make an individual choice about the stylus they used? Might two options have been available in some contexts, and the choice free to the writer? Might some styli have been better made than others (or made from more precious materials), and perhaps have been associated with prestige and relative status (factors which can also be assumed from the clear signs of hierarchical structures in administration with some writers having more wide-ranging administrative responsibility for example)? Were there different preferences in embodied practice, e.g., the way in which a writer held the stylus in the hand and positioned it in relation to the document? Or was posture also a heavily trained aspect of writing? The latter is a difficult question to approach in the absence of iconographic evidence like that found in the many depictions of scribes in Egyptian art, but the traces of this physical human-thing interaction are there to be studied in the surviving documents themselves. We cannot at this point offer answers to all the above questions, nor should we try to, given the limitations of the evidence. But that does not mean that the questions may not in themselves be revealing, or that they cannot contribute to our interpretation of the surviving epigraphic record. One of the most intriguing avenues that this approach can take is to bring the issue of writing implements and practices into conversation with wider questions of the nature and spread of writing across the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. The latter questions have typically been approached by adopting a writing systems perspective that places the Aegean linear scripts on a sort of family tree and views them in ancestor/descendant relationships with each other based on shared or divergent sign shapes and values. This is, to be sure, a very useful, tried and trusted way of studying the differences between the systems, and is comfortably grounded in structuralist and grapholinguistic approaches. But by approaching writing from a different angle, as a practice in the context of its social setting and material entanglements, we can find another way of looking at the relationships between these traditions. As we have seen, there are some important differences in stylus use that require explanation. When and why was the very sharp rounded implement used for Linear A abandoned? This must point specifically towards some change in attitudes towards the material aspects of writing practice, and should be viewed alongside other changes in documents shapes and types (see Tomas [47,48]). What were the origins of the bladed stylus (particularly if Greek speakers were, as usually assumed, illiterate before acquiring and adapting Linear A to make a new writing system and tradition), and where and how did it become a preferred implement for writing? When and how did the distinctively-shaped Cypriot rounded stylus with a short tapered point become popular in the writing of clay tablets and other document types? These are issues that relate to the spread of writing systems and writing practices around the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, and with further research it may be hoped that a study of writing implements can help to elucidate how writing practices developed in different areas at different times, and how they ‘moved’ as sets of practices were adopted and adapted by new groups of people. I have also aimed to illustrate that by taking a fresh theoretical approach, we can understand writing implements as more than an intermediate between the cognitive system (made up of the author’s understanding and experience of writing as system and practice) and the end product (the inscription in its material and social context) of any given act of writing. What I hope is already Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 15 of 17 clear from the present discussion is that the writing implements need to be viewed as active agents within the mesh of interconnected people, things and behaviour that coalesce in writing practices.

Funding: This research was conducted as part of the CREWS project, Contexts of and Relations between Early Writing Systems, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 677758). Acknowledgments: I would like to thank: Philip Boyes for reading and commenting on this article; the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions; the community of Aegean scripts scholars based here in Cambridge for their very helpful collaboration and feedback; numerous other colleagues for sharing their work electronically during the Covid-19 pandemic, which otherwise made this article challenging to develop and write up. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Balke, T.E.; Tsouparopoulou, C. (Eds.) Materiality of Writing in Early Mesopotamia; De Gruyter: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2016. 2. Hoogendijk, F.A.J.; van Gompel, S.M.T. (Eds.) The Materiality of Texts from Ancient Egypt: New Approaches to the Study of Textual Material from the Early Pharaonic to the Late Antique Period; BRILL: Leiden, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2018. 3. Piquette, K.E.; Whitehouse, R.D. (Eds.) Writing as Material Practice: Substance, Surface and Medium; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2013. 4. Baines, J.; Bennet, J.; Houston, S. (Eds.) The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication; Equinox Publishing Limited: London, UK, 2008. 5. Englehardt, J. (Ed.) Agency in Ancient Writing; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2012. 6. Boyes, P.J.; Steele, P.M.; Astoreca, N.E. Introduction. In The Social and Cultural Contexts of Historic Writing Practices; Boyes, P.J., Steele, P.M., Astoreca, N.E., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, forthcoming. 7. Knappett, C. Thinking through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005. 8. Hodder, I. Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012. 9. Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1990. 10. Whitley, J. The material entanglements of writing things down. In Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Ancient Greece: Manipulating Material Culture; Nevett, L., Ed.; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2017; pp. 71–103. 11. Flouda, G. Materiality of Minoan Writing: Modes of display and Perception. In Writing as Material Practice: Substance, Surface and Medium; Piquette, K.E., Whitehouse, R.D., Eds.; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2013; pp. 143–174. 12. Flouda, G. Materiality and script: Constructing a narrative on the Minoan inscribed axe from the Arkalochori cave. In SMEA Nuova Ser. 1; Edizioni Quasar: Rome, Italy, 2015; pp. 43–56. Available online: https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/284732861_Flouda_G_2015_Materiality_and_script_constructing_a_ narrative_on_the_Minoan_inscribed_axe_from_the_Arkalochori_cave_SMEA_Nuova_Serie_1_2015_43-56 (accessed on 1 June 2020). 13. Malafouris, L. The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain, body and culture conflate. In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World; DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., Renfrew, C., Eds.; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 53–62. 14. Malafouris, L. How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. 15. Malafouris, L. Linear B as Distributed Cognition: Excavating a Mind Not Limited by the Skin. In Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections through Culture, Cognition and Materiality; Johannsen, N., Jessen, M.D., Jensen, H.J., Eds.; Aarhus University Press: Aarhus, Denmark, 2012; pp. 69–84. 16. Overmann, K.A. Beyond writing: The development of literacy in the Ancient Near East. Camb. Archaeol. J. 2016, 26, 285–303. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 16 of 17

17. Overmann, K.A. A Cognitive Archaeology of Writing: Concepts, Models, Goals. In The Social and Cultural Contexts of Historic Writing Practices; Boyes, P.J., Steele, P.M., Astoreca, N.E., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, forthcoming. 18. Petrakis, V. Reconstructing the matrix of the ‘Mycenaean’ literate administrations. In Understanding Relations Between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems; Steele, P.M., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 57–68. 19. Tomas, H. Linear B script and Linear B administrative practice: Different patterns in their development. In Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems; Steele, P.M., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 57–68. 20. Palaima, T.G. Scribes, scribal hands and palaeography. In A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Texts and their World, Volume 2; Duhoux, Y., Davies, A.M., Eds.; Peeters: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; Walpole, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 33–136. 21. Cammarosano, M. The cuneiform stylus. Mesopotamia 2014, 49, 53–90. 22. Godart, L. Autour des textes en linéaire B de Tirynthe. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. In Archäologischer Anzeiger 1988; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; pp. 245–252. 23. Olivier, J.-P.; Melena, J.L.; Piteros, C. Les inscriptions en linéaire B des nodules de Thèbes (1982): La fouille, les documents, les possibilités d’interprétation. Bull. Corresp. Hellénique 1990, 114.1, 101–184. [CrossRef] 24. Palaiologou, H. Late Helladic IIIC cremation burials at Chania of Mycenae. In Brandbestattungen von der Mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis Zwischen 1300 und 750 v. Chr Akten des Internationalen Symposiums an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 11–12 Februar 2010; Lochner, A., Ruppenstein, F., Eds.; Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 249–279. 25. Smith, J.S. Bone Weaving Tools of the Late Bronze Age. In Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages of the East Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of P.Åström; Fischer, P.M., Ed.; Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes: Vienna, Austria, 2001; pp. 83–90. 26. Pappasavvas, G. Writing on Cyprus: Some Silent Witnesses; RDAC, 2003; pp. 79–94. Available online: http://gnosis.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/7/50625 (accessed on 2 June 2020). 27. Bultrighini, I.; Anglicker, E.M. (Eds.) Steele and Boyes. A comparative approach to methods of inscribing clay tablets: Interaction and innovation in Cyprus and Ugarit. In Current Approaches to the Materiality of Texts in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Available online: https: //www.academia.edu/33207201/Current_Approaches_to_the_Materiality_of_Texts_in_Greco_Roman_ Antiquity_Colloquium_session_at_the_119th_AIA_SCS_Annual_Meeting_in_Boston_4_7_January_2018 (accessed on 1 June 2020). 28. Karnava, A. The Cretan Hieroglyphic Script of the Second Millennium BC: Description, Analysis, Function and Decipherment Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium, 2000. 29. Schoep, I. The Administration of Neoplatial Crete: A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process; Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca: Salamanca, Spain, 2002. 30. Chadwick, J. The Mycenaean World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1976. 31. Palaima, T.G.; Sikkenga, E. Linear A > Linear B. In Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20); Betancourt, P.P., Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R., Eds.; Aegaeum: Liège, Belgium; Austin, Belgium, 1999; pp. 599–608. 32. Salgarella, E. Drawing lines: The palaeography of Linear A and Linear B. Kadmos 2019, 58, 61–92. 33. Salgarella, E. Aegean Linear Script(s). Rethinking the Relationship between Linear A and Linear B; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. 34. Steele, P.M.; Meissner, T. From Linear B to Linear A: The problem of the backward projection of sound values. In Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems; Steele, P.M., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 93–110. 35. Daniel, J.F. Prolegomena to the Cypro-Minoan Script. AJA 1941, 45.2, 249–282. [CrossRef] 36. Ferrara, S. Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions. Volume 1: Analysis. Volume 2: Corpus; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. 37. Palaima, T.G. Cypro-Minoan Scripts: Problems of Historical Context. In Problems in Decipherment, BCILL 49; Duhoux, Y., Palaima, T.G., Bennet, J., Eds.; Peeters Publishers: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 1989; pp. 121–187. 38. Steele, P.M. Writing and Society in Ancient Cyprus; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. 39. Valério, M. Script comparison in the investigation of Cypro-Minoan. In Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems; Steele, P.M., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 127–221. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10671 17 of 17

40. Vetters, M. A clay ball with a Cypro-Minoan inscription from Tiryns. Archäologischer Anz. 2011, 2, 1–49. 41. Valério, M. Problems of Cypro-Minoan palaeography: The case of sign shapes 08, 13 and 78. Kadmos 2013, 52.1, 111–134. 42. Greco, A.; Flouda, G. The Linear B Pa-i-to Epigraphic Project. Annivario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente. Annivario Della 2017, 95, 143–160. 43. Olivier, J.-P. Les Scribes de Cnossos: Essai de Classement des Archives d’un Palais Mycénien; Edizioni dell’Ateneo: Rome, Italy, 1967. 44. Palaima, T.G. The Scribes of Pylos; Edizioni Dell’ Ateneo: Rome, Italy, 1988. 45. Bennet, J. Agency and Bureaucracy: Thoughts on the Nature and Extent of Administration in Bronze Age Pylos. In Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge; Voutsaki, S., Killen, J., Eds.; Cambridge Philological Society: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 25–37. 46. Duhoux, Y. How were the Mycenaean scribes taught? In Proceedings of the International Colloquium “The Inner Workings of the Mycenaean Bureaucracy”, University of Kent, Canterbury, 19–21 September 2008, Pasiphae 5; Kyriakidis, E., Ed.; Fabrizio Serra editore: Pisa, Italy; Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 95–118. 47. Tomas, H. Linear A tablet , Linear B tablet. In Πεπραγµε´να τoυ I’ Kρητoλoγικoυ´ ∆ιεθνoυς´ Συνεδρι´oυ/ Proceedings of the 10th Cretological Conference, Chania, 1–8 October 2006, Vol. A1; Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., Papadopoulou, E., Eds.; Literary Society “Chryssostomos”: Chania, Greece, 2011; pp. 331–343. 48. Tomas, H. Linear A scribes and their writing styles. In The Inner Workings of Mycenaean Bureaucracy (Pasiphae V); Kyriakidis, E., Ed.; Fabrizio Serra editore: Pisa, Italy; Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 35–58.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).