The final edition of all Linear B inscriptions from the Mycenaean palace complex of Pylos, correctly joined and catalogued, and complete with photographs, drawings and transliterations has been expected for about fifty years. With joy we finally have it in our hands. According to the new joins, it comprises 1026 clay tablets, 22 clay labels (Wa series) and 24 clay regular string nodules (series Wo–Wr).

The material was brought to light during the excavation campaigns conducted by the American archaeological mission of the University of Cincinnati, led by C.W. Blegen in 1939 and 1952–1966, and progressively drawn and published by E.L. Bennett (The Pylos Tablets. A Preliminary Transcription [1951] and The Pylos Tablets. Texts of the Inscriptions Found in 1939–1954 [1955]) and M. Lang in subsequent issues of the American Journal of Archaeology (1958–1963 and 1965). The texts were then collected and transliterated by E.L. Bennett and J.-P. Olivier (The Pylos Tablets Transcribed, Part I: Texts and Notes [1973]), to whom we also owe the first attempt to group them according to their palaeographical features (The Pylos Tablets Transcribed, Part II: Hands, Concordances, Indices [1976]). Despite the accuracy of the transliterations and critical apparatus, this collection of texts cannot be considered a corpus since it does not include photographs or drawings of the texts. Black-and-white photographs taken by E. Seraphis in 1969, with a variable degree of legibility and, of course, not joined as they are now, had been recently gathered and made available in the CaLiBRA (Cambridge Linear B Research Archive) online database.

In theory the definitive edition of the Pylos Linear B inscriptions should have constituted the fourth volume of the series devoted to the publication of the results of the archaeological excavations (The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, 3 vols, 1966–1973). The complex editorial work has seen, over several decades, the collaboration of many specialists, including scholars in charge of the realisation of 3D models (D. Nakassis and K. Pluta, ‘Vorsprung durch Technik: Imaging the Linear B Tablets from Pylos’, in M.-L. Nosch and H. Landenius Enegren [edd.], Aegean Scripts [2017], pp. 285–98). Nevertheless, the project has not been completed yet, despite the fact that a draft version of the announced volume by E.L. Bennett, J.L. Melena, J.-P. Olivier, with the collaboration of R.J. Firth and T. Palaima, has been circulating on the internet for many years (https://www.academia.edu/5788888/DRAFT_VERSION_NOT_DEFINITIVE_Bennett_Melena_Olivier_Firth_Palaima_The_Palace_of_Nestor_at_Pylos_in_Western_Messenia_Volume_IV_The_Inscribed_Documents, accessed 21 October 2020). One member of the original team also expressed doubts about the feasibility of the project (J.-P. Olivier, ‘Πυλιακά παραφερνάλια’, in P. Carlier [ed.], Études mycéniennes [2012], pp. 107–21).

A series of contributions containing new texts, joins and readings were published between 1992 and 2017 (C. Shelmerdine and J. Bennet, Kadmos 34 [1995], J.L. Melena, Minos 27–36 [1992–2003], and F.A. Cooper and D. Fortenberry, The Minnesota Pylos Project 1990–1998 [2017]). Therefore, in order to update the 1973 edition, M. Del Freo and J.-P. Olivier published a second edition of The Pylos Tablets Transcribed (2019), still without photographs and drawings. Among the electronic resources, which are nowadays particularly welcome, a mention is due to DĀMOS (Database of Mycenaean at Oslo), an online database of the transcriptions of all Linear B documents published thus far, which also includes metadata such as new joins, find-spots, scribes and chronologies.

Having placed Godart and Sacconi's book within its laborious scholarly background, we will now have a closer look at its contents. The authors follow the traditional grouping of texts in series, according to format (palm-leaf, page-shaped tablets, labels and nodules are usually grouped separately, but series An, for example, includes both palm-leaf and page-shaped tablets), logograms and layout of the text. After an introductory section (pp. xi–xxx) with information about the history of the excavations, find-spots and chronology, and valuable remarks on the approach and method followed for the building up of the corpus, the first volume is occupied by series Aa–Fr. The second volume includes series Gn–Xn (in alphabetical order, but tablet Pn 30 proceeds by mistake the Pa series), the table of the signs attested at Pylos, the list of the scribes with the relative tablets, the list of tablets grouped in series with the relative scribes, and the concordance of the documents in numerical order (from 1 to 1585).

For each document we find one, two or three high-quality colour photographs taken by the archaeological photographer K. Xenikakis, a facsimile for each written side, drawn by Godart at a 1:1 scale and double-checked by J.-P. Olivier, a transliteration grounded on autopsy conducted in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, together with measures and, whenever possible, find-spot, scribe and epigraphical comment (i.e. the critical apparatus). The reliability of the facsimiles is guaranteed by the experience, precision and skill of Godart, who also drew the facsimiles of the Linear B inscriptions from Knossos and Thebes, besides the Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A corpora.

A valuable aspect of these two volumes is that they not only provide us with the images of all inscribed sides of the tablets, but also with high-quality pictures of tablet faces showing doodles (e.g. on the reverse of An 724+frr. and Cn 1287) and graffiti (e.g. on the reverse of An 615+1133+1139+frr.). In my opinion, these may open a new horizon of research on the habits and even psychology of the Mycenaean scribes, if we look at them not only as ‘stylus tests’, but also, at least in some cases, as traces of fantasies and emotions, like boredom, uncertainty, tension etc., which might be overlooked if we only focus on the result of scribes’ official accounting and recording activity.

Certainly, the greatest element of novelty, in terms of research, is presented by the palaeographical study of the scribal hands. As we have already hinted at above, the first attempt to recognise scribal hands, by grouping texts according to palaeographical affinities and idiosyncrasies, was undertaken by E.L. Bennett and J.-P. Olivier (PTT II) who recognised 26 hands (H 1–6, 11–15, 21–6, 31–4, 41–5). The work was then continued by T. Palaima (The Scribes of Pylos [1988]), who dismissed H 5, recognised one more hand among the earliest documents (H 91) and added tables of signs. Nevertheless, these 26 hands only accounted for 72% of the documents, while other tablets were only grouped into ‘styli’ and ‘classes’, which in Bennett and Palaima's view should account for differences within a single hand and similarities across different hands, or even left without any palaeographical classification. The necessity of having a ‘stylus’ category, however, was questioned by M. Lejeune and J.-P. Olivier (in Études mycéniennes [2012], pp. 109–10) and is rejected by Godart and Sacconi. The authors also accept Olivier's suggestion to rename the scribes as 601, 602, 603 and so forth, in order to avoid any overlap with scribes recognised at other Mycenaean sites (J.-P. Olivier, Études mycéniennes [2012], p. 116 n. 17).

Extremely important, therefore, is the reappraisal of tablets whose scribe had not been identified before, as for example Jo 438, now attributed to the same scribe (602) as Jn 829, and many others that led to the recognition of 13 further scribal hands (651–63). Moreover, tablets Fr 1223 and Tn 316 were previously seen as the work of the same scribe (H 44), but their accurate palaeographical analysis shows this was incorrect. This leads to the elimination of scribe H 44 and the identification of scribe 657 as the author of a homogeneous group of Fr tablets, which also includes Fr 1223. Finally, Godart and Sacconi acknowledge that two scribes may be at work on the same document. This proves to be the case at least with An 261 (scribe 643 responsible for the obverse and the first two lines of the reverse, and scribe 601 responsible for lines 4–9 of the reverse), An 594 (an unknown scribe would have written the text, except for the VIR logograms at the end of lines .1 and .2, and possibly the numerical notations and stiktogram after them, since these look very different from the other VIR logograms on the tablet, but very similar to the VIR logograms traced by scribe 663) and Tn 316 (scribe 626 for the first five lines of the obverse, and 663 for line 10 of the obverse and the reverse).

The modifications introduced by Godart and Sacconi are deep, significant and bound to spark discussion among Mycenaean scholars. For example, the reassessment of the palaeographical features of Tn 316, which was previously thought to have been hastily written under the pressure of the imminent catastrophe of the palace, allows for a more moderate interpretation of its content as a record of metal vessels, men and women aimed at the preparation of a regular religious ceremony (as the indication of the month would suggest), rather than an extraordinary display of human sacrifice (sic inter alios J. Chadwick and M. Ventris, Documents in Mycenaean Greek [1973], pp. 458–63).

Godart and Sacconi are rigorous in their analysis of the shapes of the signs, as shown by tables included at the end of the second volume, namely the tables of the representative sign forms for the new scribes (651–63), the table that compares the palaeographical features of scribe 626 with those of Tn 316r.1–5, and the table that contrasts the palaeographical features of the first five lines of Tn 316's obverse with the remaining text of its obverse and reverse. The excellent quality of the illustrations offers the opportunity to check all statements made by the authors, in particular about new readings, epigraphic and philological aspects of some series, and the relationship between certain groups of tablets belonging to different series, but now recognised as the work of the same hand.

Concerning new readings, we can mention, for example, *34-ja instead of ḳạ-ja on Un 1314.3B. This is supported, on the one hand, by the divergence between the sign in question (a circle crossed by one curved vertical stroke) and the syllabogram ka attested on the same tablet (which constantly shows two crossing traits), on the other hand, by the comparison with syllabogram *34 as attested on Va 15.1, which seems to have been written by the same hand (655). Incidentally, syllabograms *34 and *35 are understood as variants of the same sign and therefore constantly transcribed as *34, as agreed in Études mycéniennes (2012), p. 581.

As regards the relationships between documents, we can now investigate more confidently the links between the subjects and types of documents each scribe worked on and how they interacted, ultimately leading to paint a better picture of life in Pylos at the time of the collapse of its palace. This event is commonly placed at the transitional LH IIIB2/LH IIIC early period, corresponding to the end of the thirteenth/beginning of the twelfth century bc in terms of absolute chronology (PofN I, pp. 421–2; P. Mountjoy, ABSA 92 [1997]). Nevertheless, this chronology was challenged by M.R. Popham (OJA 10 [1991]) and P. Thomas (Hesperia 73 [2004]) who, mainly on the ground of a particular type of vessel (the ‘Zygouries’ kylix) found in destruction levels, dated them back to LH III B1 (roughly 1250 bc) and assigned later pottery to a reoccupation phase. Godart and Sacconi support the latter hypothesis, which would reduce the time span between the chronology of the vast majority of the documents (found in the final destruction levels) and the four tablets found in LH IIIA2 levels (roughly 1350 bc): Ae 995 and Xa 1419 by scribe 691, La 994 and Xa 1420 (T. Palaima, The Scribes of Pylos [1988], pp. 111–13, 133, 165). They suggest that La 994, which only partially preserves a logogram, now read as ḶẠṆẠ, previously as *252, was written by the same hand as La 632 and 635, envisaging a long-lived scribe 613 (active for at least 60 years) and two short-haul destruction events. This scenario would fit with the archaic palaeographical features observed by Palaima on fragment Xn 1449, now joined with Vn 1339+1340. Nevertheless, these observations rely on a very few signs. The palaeographical evidence still needs to be thoroughly investigated in order to assess whether it is closer to documents dated to LH IIIB1 (in particular from Chanià, Mycenae and Thebes) or to those dated to LH IIIB2 (in particular from Midea, Mycenae and Thebes). Moreover, the result of a new cycle of study of the Pylian pottery, conducted over many years by experts, places the first destruction of the palace at LH IIIA2 early and the final at LH IIIC early, i.e. at the very beginning of the twelfth century bc (S. Vitale, Hesperia 75 [2006], 190–1; S. Vitale, S. Stocker and J. Davis, Synchronizing the Destructions of the Mycenaean Palaces, forthcoming). Some archaic features might have been retained in the documents from this last destruction without necessarily implying an earlier chronology.

The authors have undertaken and accomplished an enormous task, thanks to a well-established and tested approach. Not only is this a valuable and up-to-date working tool for both research and teaching activities concerned with Linear B, but also an example of method and dedication. Some courageous suggestions, especially about the chronology of the documents, should be better taken as provisional, since the palaeography of the texts as a whole should be further analysed and discussed, but this is the book that finally makes it possible.