The Internet Archive discovers and captures web pages through many different web crawls.
At any given time several distinct crawls are running, some for months, and some every day or longer.
View the web archive through the Wayback Machine.
I’ve been doing some data analysis related to the sign groups and adjuncts that most frequently appear in conjunction with MUL on the Knossos tablets. Here’s what most frequently appears in the context of MUL at Knossos (I’ve excluded single instance appearances; and please ignore the case sensitivity, it’s just an issue with my current set of data):
Interesting that κόρος would be the most frequent sign group associated with MUL, and that it would exceed κόρη. It seems to pose a similar, though lesser, problem to the one that Killen noted with OVIS vs. OVISf vs. OVISm in Killen, J.T., 1964 British School at Athens (BSA) 59 “The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age”. It’ll be interesting to see what the Pylos data looks like.
to do:
case insensitivity
run Pylos and compare once PY data entry is complete
auto-consolidate declensions and alternations
de-duplicate entries from single inscriptions from multiple sources
Pylos Scribe 1
Pylos Scribe 4
Pylos Scribe 21
I’ve been doing some data analysis related to the sign groups and adjuncts that most frequently appear in conjunction with MUL on the Knossos tablets. Here’s what most frequently appears in the context of MUL at Knossos (I’ve excluded single instance appearances; and please ignore the case sensitivity, it’s just an issue with my current set of data):
[“KO-WO”, 42],
[“ko-wo”, 3],
[“KO-(WO)[“, 2],
=> 47 instances
Interesting that κόρος would be the most frequent sign group associated with MUL, and that it would exceed κόρη. It seems to pose a similar, though lesser, problem to the one that Killen noted with OVIS vs. OVISf vs. OVISm in Killen, J.T., 1964 British School at Athens (BSA) 59 “The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age”. It’ll be interesting to see what the Pylos data looks like.
[“KO-WA”, 40],
[“ko-wa”, 3],
=> 43 instances
[“X”, 29],
[“ME-ZO-E”, 14],
[“ME-ZO”, 3],
[“me-zo-e”, 2],
[“](ME)-ZO-E”, 2],
=> 21 instances
[“ME-WI-JO-E”, 9],
[“ME-(WI)[“, 2],
[“(ME)-WI-JO-E”, 2],
[“me-wi-jo”, 2],
[“]ME-WI-JO-E”, 2],
=> 17 instances
[“DI”, 15],
[“DA”, 10],
[“TA”, 9],
[“PE”, 7],
[“ME-U-JO-E”, 3],
[“ME-U-(JO)[“, 2],
[“ME-U-JO”, 2],
=> 7 instances
[“VIR”, 6],
[“TU”, 6],
[“DO-E-RA”, 5],
[“PA”, 4],
[“NE”, 4],
[“A-KE-TI-RI-JA”, 2],
[“A-ZE-TI-RI-JA”, 2],
[“](JA)”, 3],
[“]JA”, 3],
[“KO-[“, 3],
[“RA-SU-TO”, 2],
[“E-E-SI”, 2],
[“]E”, 2],
[“A-PI-QO-I-TA”, 2],
[“PE-SE-RO-JO”, 2],
[“ME[“, 2],
[“DO-TI-JA”, 2],
[“A-NO-ZO-JO”, 2],
[“T”, 2],
[“DI-DA-KA-RE”, 2],
[“TU-KA-NA”, 2],
[“de”, 2],
[“KO-U-RE-JA”, 2],
[“TO-SA”, 2],
[“ZA”, 2],
[“]TA”, 2],
[“TELA+TE”, 2],
[“GRA”, 2],
[“KA-RA-WE”, 2],
to do:
case insensitivity
run Pylos and compare once PY data entry is complete
auto-consolidate declensions and alternations
de-duplicate entries from single inscriptions from multiple sources