SMEA NS 4, 2018, 111-130 SYLLABOGRAM *65 OR LOGOGRAM *129 (= FAR)? THE SIGN  ON THEBES TABLETS, AB 65 IN LINEAR A, AND SOME REMARKS ON THE O-STEM GENITIVE SINGULAR IN -XO Rachele Pierini Summary Te possible double reading of the sign  both as a syllabogram (*65) and as a logogram (*129 = far) has sparked a wide-rang- ing debate around its meaning on the Tebes tablets from the Fq and Gp series. Initially, this sign was always read as far in both series. In the following interpretations, its meaning mostly appears to be *65 on the Fq tablets, but is difcult to determine on the documents termed Gp. For this reason, some interpretative details regarding entries from both series still diverge. Tis paper will make additional arguments to support the reading as *65 throughout the Fq series, whereas the other occurrences will be analysed individually and a choice will be made where there is sufcient information. To this end, data from Linear A on AB 65 will also be taken into account. Moreover, considerations will be proposed on epigraphic conventions and the possible reassignment of some tablets. Finally, given the ongoing debate on the morphological interpretation of Teban words ending with the sign , as genitive singulars or otherwise, some details on the o-stem genitive singular in -Xo will be discussed, and an interpretation of these terms provided. 1. AIM Te sign  recurs throughout the corpus of documents in Mycenaean Greek, with attestations from Knossos, Mycenae, Pylos, and Tebes. It is drawn with a vertical stroke and a curved diagonal attached to its right, and with additional (usually two or three) shorter vertical strokes under the diagonal. From an interpretative point of view, it can be read as both the syllabogram *65 (still undeciphered) and the logogram *129 (= far). In most of its oc- currences, a distinction between its syllabic and ideographic value seems easy to make. On KN Fs 3.B it is plainly recorded in the same line frst as *65 and then, just a few signs later, as far. However, its interpretation has proved controversial on the Tebes tablets from Odos Pelopidou. As a result, despite the numerous proposals advanced, the long debate surrounding it has not yet reached a shared conclusion. Te aim of this paper is to provide additional arguments to support the idea that the sign  should be read as *65 on tablets from the Fq series, as well as to analyse fndings from the texts of the Gp documents. Since the debate over the interpretation of  has been long and complex, a complete overview will be provided of the various readings of  hitherto advanced. Finally, some considerations on the o-stem genitive singular in -Xo will be provided. 2. INTRODUCTORY NOTE Tough references such as Fq 130.1 and Fq 236.1 seem identical, they indicate diferent parts of the respective texts. Tis is because the former refers to an unbroken document and, thus, to the very frst line of the text. Te latter, by contrast, refers to the frst readable line of the text since Fq 236 is a broken tablet, being supra mutila. In addition to being ambiguous, references like Fq 236.1 also fail to provide any information on the breakage in the upper part of the tablet. A solution might be to indicate the frst readable line with, e.g., underlined numbers. Tus, an entry such as ]ẉa ̣[ on the frst readable line of Fq 342 would be indicated as Fq 342.1 (instead of Fq 342.1). Te next entry on the same tablet, i.e. the second readable line, would be referred to as Fq 342.2, and that after it, i.e. the third readable line, as Fq 342.3, and so on. References like these are unambiguous and straightforward, and estratto