Other Praisos Fragments

Introduction

These fragments are included among the Eteocretan inscriptions from Praisos by Margarita Guarducci and given on pages 141 & 142 of Inscriptiones Creticae, Vol. III. She gives no information about when they were found or who found them.

Praisos #4 fragment

Facsimile
	Maximum dimensions: width 300mm; height 200mm; thickness 75mm.   The inscription is in two parts and appears to be damaged on all sides. All four lines are written sinistrorsely in an archaic Cretan alphabet of the 6th century BCE.

Transcriptions
In standard Greek script	In modern Roman script
--..υ̣ο̣-- --.οιτ||σ-- --φ|ρ̣ας|.-- ---ισ̣--	--..ụọ-- --.oit||s-- --pʰ|ṛas|.-- ---iṣ--
Notes
Line 1: The first two letters are each either α (a) or γ (g). Line 2: The first letter is too damaged to read. Line 3: The second letter looks like ρ (r) but it could be β (b). Line 4: The line is badly damaged, but the letter after ι (i) seems to be σ (s).

Praisos #5 fragment

Facsimile
	Maximum dimensions: width 115mm; height 480mm; thickness 410mm.   The inscription is certainly damaged on all sides, but the remaining fragment is whole. All lines written dextrorsely in the Ionian alphabet of the 3rd & 2nd centuries BCE.
	Transcriptions
	In standard Greek script	In modern Roman script
	--- --αρτια̣-- --ε.α̣τ-- --...α̣-- --θερτ.-- vacat --κοσα-- --τ̣ερν-- --κομνε-- --α̣τατε-- --δεαρσ-- vacat	--- --artiạ-- --e.ạt-- --...ạ-- --tʰert.-- vacat --kosa-- --ṭern-- --komne-- --ạtate-- --dears-- vacat
Notes
There was possibly some text before the surviving Line 1. Line 1: The last letter may be α (a), δ (d) or λ (l). Lines 2 and 3: the facsimile shows these lines as being very damaged; the letters transcribed seem just about legible, but nothing else can be read. Line 4: last letter may be α (a), δ (d) or λ (l). Line 7: first letter may be γ (g) or τ (t). Line 9: first letter may be α (a), δ (d) or λ (l).

Praisos #6 fragment

Facsimile
	Maximum dimensions: width 140mm; height 130mm; thickness 40mm.   This inscription is also in two parts and appears to be damaged on all sides except the bottom. Both lines are written dextrorsely. But the inscription is to fragmentary to identify the variety of the alphabet or to date.

Transcriptions
In standard Greek script	In modern Roman script
--ε̣α-- --αρρ.-- vacat	--ẹa-- --arr.-- vacat
Notes
Line 1: the first letter is probably ε (e) but it could be ξ (x). Line 2: the last letter as shown in the facsimile appears to either a badly written α (a) or a badly written Ϝ (w).

Comments

Praisos #4

If the facsimile and the transcription are correct, then we have evidence of a word ending in φ (pʰ) and of a complete word ρας (ras) which would mean that the text cannot be Greek and we have another complete Eteocretan word whose meaning we cannot ascertain.

However, we have to bear in mind that the complete word could be the Greek word βάς ( = ἔβας, Attic-Ionic ἔβης from the verb βαίνω) and that the first letter of the 3rd line is not accurately recorded. In other words, the inscription may be Cretan Doric Greek.

 

Praisos #5

This inscription is so fragmentary that one cannot be certain about the language. The only reason it is considered by some to be Eteocretan is the supposed instance of the word κομν (komn) in Line 8.

However, the existence of a month called κομνοκάριος in the calendar of the Greek speakers at Dreros reminds us that borrowings in Greek from Eteocretan were always a possibility.

Also, as word divisions are not indicated, we cannot be sure that we even have an instance of κομν; the division may have been -κο μνε- (-ko mne-).

In short, we cannot be sure whether the inscription is Greek or Eteocretan and, even if it is Eteocretan, the fragmentary nature of the inscription and lack of indication of word division tells us nothing useful about the language.

 

Praisos #6

This is so very fragmentary that the language cannot be determined. I see no cogent reason to suppose it was not once part of a Greek inscription.

 

Created August 2003. Last revision: Copyright © Ray Brown