 Good morning, and thank you to Marta, Susanna, and Cecil for this wonderful session on textile. Very, very interesting, and very, very busy. So, let's begin with our topic about Mycenaean carpet, and especially about Mycenaean tepo. As in many languages, a linear V2 object can be referred to through both words and logogram. That is to say, through a drone directly or indirectly linked to this object. And this way to refer to an object still works nowadays, especially with image. Here, we have a very direct relation between the image and the text, because the text is going about a dog and we have the image of a dog. But what if we have this kind of imaging? None of these two imaging refer to toilets, but we can understand which is the relationship between the text and the image. Which is the difference that we have at some point the text and the imaging have split, so they refer to two different things. And we have to reconstruct all the paths these two different rules have done to understand which is this collection. So, which is the object referred to by the Mycenaean word tepo and this ligature that we will see. So, which kind of data can we have from linear B tablets? We have contextual data that talk us about the shape of this tepo. And as far as the shape is concerned, we know that it was an evi textile, it was large, it was woolen, and it was rectangular. We know that because of the very huge amount of sheep wool that is required to have this fabric and rectangular is a deduction that can be made on the basis, especially of the shape that we will see now. But we can discuss about that. So, especially on this contextual basis, Mycenaean tepo has been compared with alphabetic Greek tapest, that is carpet. That it seems to fit almost entirely the characteristics required by contextual data from linear B tablets. We have also the ligature that refer to this object. The ligature is a drone that is obtained from a logogram and from another syllabogram used in logographic function inscribed inside the logogram. So, the logogram is Pella, and you can see that it has a squared shape. There is wringle or not, this is the same. It is related to different of scribal ends, it's not referred to the fabric or the quality of the textile. So, the logogram is Pella, and the acrophonic abbreviation is Te, and you can see that it is made through a vertical long stroke and three different horizontal strokes, three in each side. So, the ligature Pella plus Te is a squared Pella with Te inscribed. This is what we have in linear B, as referred to Pella plus Te. But we have probably ancestors of this ligature and both of the syllabogram Te and also of the logogram Pella. We can see this in linear A, and we have this through the sign AB54. These are the drones of the sign AB54. You can easily see that this sign is quite similar to a loom. So, we could wonder if either it referred to directly a loom or rather, also it seems to be more likely, it referred to the object mainly on the loom. That is maybe the generic name of a fabric. But this is the attestation of sign AB54 in linear A. It is the sign developed. We have two different paths for the same sign. We have this sign in the linear B va, that is a syllabogram, and we have this same sign in the logogram Pella. It seems to have no relationship between the linear B Pella and linear B va because of the simplification of the shape of the imaging. But just let me think that they have a different purpose because you use the syllabogram much more than a logogram and they have different functions too because the main function of a logogram is to recall directly the object. So, this Pella recalls the shape of a fabric while the va has remained more similar to the original AB54. And it could be one of the reasons why they differ so much even though they were born on the same sign. We have sign T in linear A2. This is not just the sign T because we have not the pure sign T in linear A. We have it just inscribed into another sign. In this case it is inscribed into the logogram for Y. But we can see that it is made of a vertical stroke and three ladle strokes. This time they are not regional but rather they are obliques. And if we make a comparison between linear A and linear B sign, we can see this difference between the regional stroke and the obliques strokes. We have a further attestation of this T sign in a further description that is T1. And we cannot say so far if it belongs to the linear A or to the Cretan hieroglyphic. We have argument for both interpretation of course but we are not able to decide. This is the description I was referring to. And of course you can easily imagine which is the sign I'm interested in. That is this one of course. It is made of the sign AB54 and AB4. AB4 is sign for T and 54 is sign for Y. That is what we have previously seen. We can compare this one to the linear A sign for T and we can see that they have both a large vertical stroke in the middle and then we have further stroke obliques on both sides. So this one is much more similar to the linear A sign than to the linear B. This is because it is more ancient of course. It could be argued that we have more than three strokes. So maybe it was even more ancient that the linear A sign we have in Gnostus and maybe it could use as an argument to say that this description belongs to the Cretan hieroglyphic but we have also argument to say that belongs to linear A. So I don't know which is your idea about this shape, this drone but I'm not sure it could be carpet. Because the previous description we have seen from contextual data that is heavy, that is large, that is woolen and rectangular because this is the shape we have here could be applied also on different objects. And if we go back to linear B tablets, we can also see from contextual data that these tepa, tela plus te, belong to the royal sphere, to the ritual sphere and it was a luxury object that maybe was... it was required for special palace or commission needs. So it's very, very tentative to compare the drone of the linear A, Cretan hieroglyphic sign to these wonderful scarves of the ladies from the Larnax of Tanagra. This is very tentative but it's not scientific because we have one and one we cannot match just because they fit. However, however, however, let's go to the linguistics data. I said that it has been applied this parallel but I've said not that there is a linguistic problem in this interpretation that is this. If we have E in Mycenaean, we cannot have A in alphabetic Greek. It can be the opposite but cannot be this. So this interpretation has some linguistic problem and it's not the only one. We have further problems from the linguistic point of view with this interpretation. What if we compare Mycenaean tepa to these words? Tebar is a word of unknown origin that we have in an Akavic dictionary and is labelled as a friend work, friend is German, art is in English. Foreign, thank you, as a foreign word. So we don't know where Tebar comes from. And we also have Tebena. Tebena is the Greek word that Greek use to refer to Latin toga and Latin toga comes from the Truscan Tebena and Tebena was a dress that was used by priests in royal context and it has also further similarities. One more thing. We cannot be sure that Tebena and Tebar are really two different words or maybe just one because we can have a common basis, teb, that is the one we see also in Mycenaean tepa and maybe also before in linear A and in credit hieroglyphic and then we just have different suffixes that Tebar and Tebena. So what if we make this compare? We can say that both teba and tebena are heavy textiles with real, large, wooden, belonging to the royal, the little sphere and luxury object. Actually the only difference seems to be that toga and tebena when rounded exactly and where tepa was squared. It could be a difference, but we can take into account also for the factor. First of all, it seems to be that it was a general differences between Greek and Roman attire as far the shape is concerned because generally speaking Roman attire were rounded and Greek was squared or maybe we think it was squared just because of the logogram. So this is a question to be aware but it seems to be not an obstacle so big if compared to all the information that we have. And lastly, our host Catalan says...