This book, based on J.'s Ph.D. thesis, can be divided into three main parts: (1) the structure of Linear B syllabary and the expected values of the undeciphered signs based on a discussion of the whole Linear B system; (2) a detailed examination of the undeciphered signs; and (3) problems and new perspectives on palaeographic analysis.

The book begins with a helpful introduction to the decipherment of Linear B and its relationship with other Aegean writing systems: Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic, Cypro-Minoan and Cypriot Syllabary. The bibliography on these writing systems is full and up to date. Regarding the corpora, in addition to CHIC and GORILA in the paragraph dedicated to Cypriot scripts (pp. 29–30), it would be useful to include the second edition of ICS (O. Masson [1983]; J. elsewhere mentions only the first edition) and the new corpus of Cypriot Syllabic Inscriptions (IG XV 1,1; A. Karnava and M. Perna [2020]. The corpus was probably still unpublished at the time when this book came out, but perhaps a reference to M. Egetmeyer, A. Karnava, H. Enegren, M. Perna, Aegean Scripts [2017], would have been enough). With regard to Cypro-Minoan, J.-P. Olivier's Édition holistique (HoChyMin [2007]) would be a welcome addition.

The first part of the book (Chapter 2) describes the methodology used for the identification of the ‘missing’ sound values of Linear B syllabary. Through a systematic analysis of the ‘core’ and the ‘extra’ signs J. detects ‘gaps’ in the system (for example, we know of two signs representing /dwV/ sequences, dwe and dwo, but dwa, dwi and dwu are unattested). In order to determine these ‘missing’ sound values with some degree of certainty, the book is built upon three pillars (p. 39): (i) the identification of these ‘gaps’ through a close examination of the deciphered signs in the context of the syllabary's overall structure; (ii) the study of the processes involved in the adaptation of Linear B signs from Linear A and the extent to which these processes can shed light on possible Linear A sound values and Minoan phonology; (iii) the inquiry into the motives behind the creation of new signs within Linear B and the ways in which the Mycenaean scribes used and adapted the writing system.

The methodology yields fruitful results, and J. arrives at interesting conclusions, especially in respect of Minoan phonology and the reasons behind the appearance of new signs. With regard to the first point, despite the theory that palatalisation and labialisation were characteristic features of the Minoan language, typological arguments based on UPSID data demonstrate that palatalised and labialised phonemes are likely to have been relatively few. Concerning the signs, J. points out that the creation of ‘extra’ signs was not random or intended to ‘fill up’ existing series of signs, but fulfilled specific functions such as the more accurate representation of frequently repeated terms, grammatical categories and morphological formations. The study of the possible ‘gaps’ in the syllabary as a whole also represents, to some extent, a change of approach. J. does not focus on a comparison between deciphered and undeciphered signs employed to ‘fill the gaps’ and to replace the deciphered ones in some similar contexts, but on how the entire syllabary system could have been configured. However, this methodology also involves some problems, as will be seen below.

The second part of the volume (Chapters 3–4) provides a comprehensive analysis of every undeciphered sign from a palaeographical and phonetic point of view. Chapter 3 deals with the undeciphered signs inherited from Linear A, while Chapter 4 examines the signs with no certain Linear A correspondences. Due to space limitations I cannot discuss these chapters in depth and will therefore only touch on a few significant points. As J. argues, *65 could very likely be transcribed as ju, but it is difficult to accept the equation of *56 with pa₃ /pha/. The correspondence between pa-ra-ku-ja -*56-ra-ku-ja, the relation between both and pa-ra-ku-we (in the PY Ta series), and the study of the context where these words are used suggest that the hypothesis put forward by J.L. Melena (Tractata Mycenaea [1987], pp. 203–32) remains the most plausible. According to Melena, *56 could have a sound value /^mba/ and pa-ra-ku-ja -*56-ra-ku-ja / pa-ra-ku-we could be etymologically related to βαρακίς· γλαύκινον ἱμάτιον (Hsch.). As J. rightly states, Melena's argument is still debated, but both the reading of the tablets and the green vitreous inlays for decorating furniture found in some Mycenaean archaeological sites (J. Piquero, Orientalística en tiempos de crisis [2015], pp. 285–96) suggest that this is the most likely interpretation. In any case, only new texts will help us determine the real sound value of this sign. For the rest of the signs inherited from Linear A, J. proposes that *22 could have a vocalic value -i (zi, pi₂ or nwi?); *34 a value zu (or perhaps /ei/ or /oi/); *47 perhaps a diphthong /ei/ or /oi/; *49 probably the consonantal value z- or ph-; and *82 the vocalic value -a. The limited evidence available on *79 and *86 does not allow the reconstruction of their sound values. Chapter 4 discusses the signs with no certain Linear A correspondences. This section begins with the suggestion that the signs *18 and *19 are both inherited from Linear A. Thus, A333 and/or A347 would be antecedents of *18, while the Cretan Hieroglyphic 044 would be the ancestor of *19. As for their sound values, *18 would be an ‘extra sign’ with a vocalic value of -a, -e or -o (perhaps pe₂ or po₂), while *19 could have a possible C(C)V value (z-, ph-, ry-, ty- or nw-). As far as the signs without Linear A correspondences are concerned, *64 could be swi; *63 probably has a vocalic value of a-, e- or o- and could similarly have a consonantal value of Cw-; and *83 could have a C(C)V structure with a vocalic value -e or -o without excluding a Cw- value as swe/swo or kwe/kwo, although, as J. points out, ‘this is extremely tentative’ (p. 172).

In the last part of the book J. presents a new approach to the problem of palaeography. According to J. the current methods of Linear B palaeography are highly problematic and have not considered the complexities of the palaeographic situation within individual sites and deposits. Based on this premise and taking the undeciphered signs as a case study, she concludes that the use of palaeography for the establishment of the chronology of the tablets involves many risks and may lead to incorrect data. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Knossos tablets and their current division into three chronological groups. In her opinion the assumption that Linear B signs underwent a general process of simplification over time is unsound. Apart from that, her analysis provides new evidence on the relationships between scribes and administrative centres: the scribes may have been more mobile and connected to more individuals in the course of their training and administrative work than has often been thought.

The book ends with an updated corpus of attestations of the undeciphered signs and three useful indexes: words, texts and a general index.

Two last comments: on boustrophedon (p. 131 n. 513) there is another possible example that J. does not mention: MY Oe 111.2 according to Melena (TITHEMY [1991], p. 65); on interpretations J. has not taken into account A. Bernabé (Études Mycéniennes 2010 [2012], pp. 167–76) on /storphaphoroihi/ (p. 114 n. 430); Bernabé and E.R. Luján (A Companion to Linear B, Vol. 1 [2008], p. 209) on /aiginohois/ (p. 133) and Bernabé (Manuale di Epigrafia Micenea [2016], pp. 511–50) on Linear B chariot terminology (p. 159 n. 638).

There is no doubt that this book opens new horizons in the study of Linear B palaeography. New Linear B texts will contribute to the better interpretation of the sound values of the undeciphered signs.