Sacred Sounds or Foreign Tongues? The Mystery of the Keftiu Incantations in Egyptian medical papyri: A Linguistic and Historical Assessment of Their Minoan Identity

Two brief magical incantations—(1) “sente kepe wej’ ejmentere kekere” and (2) “ebeksetesebeseje hmkt repej pewer’ smk”—appear in New Kingdom Egyptian medical papyri and are explicitly noted to be written in the “language of the Keftiu.” The term Keftiu is widely believed to refer to Minoan Crete and its people, based on iconographic and textual evidence from the 18th Dynasty and earlier. The first incantation comes from the so-called London Medical Papyrus (BM EA 10059), and the second from the Hearst Papyrus, now housed at the University of California, Berkeley. The first incantation concerns the so-called "Asiatic disease" (a case of disease from the Near East), and the second one refers to the disease samuna (possibly an infectious illness). These incantations were used as “spells” by Egyptian healers—possibly Minoan physicians residing in Egypt—to expel the evil believed to cause the illnesses.

These texts are among the rare direct attestations of what may be the Minoan language—transcribed into Egyptian script and preserved within magical-medical contexts. Because of the tantalizing nature of this possibility, they have been the subject of scholarly speculation since the early 20th century. But are they really Minoan? Or are they misunderstood renderings of Semitic, Anatolian, or other languages? What does current research say?

1. Historical Context and Early Interpretations

The first modern discussion of these texts came from Sir Arthur Evans, who included them in his monumental Scripta Minoa (1952). Evans noted that they were recorded in medical contexts and specifically labeled in the manuscripts as being in the language of the Keftiu. He cautiously interpreted them as perhaps representing the spoken Minoan language. Evans, however, remained cautious regarding the interpretation: he observed that only one word from the second incantation (hmkt) is clearly Egyptian, while all other elements appear foreign. He also noted that, although the texts seem to be “Keftiu” (i.e., of Cretan origin), the very reference to an “Asiatic” (Semitic) disease and possibly to two deities of Asiatic provenance raises questions about whether the incantations genuinely reflect Cretan (Minoan) content. In other words, Evans had already pointed out early on that these foreign words may not be purely Minoan but could include elements from the Near East.

In the early 20th century, scholars like W. Wreszinski, H. Th. Bossert, and A. H. Sayce examined these texts. Wreszinski first published the London Medical Papyrus (1912), noting that incantations 32 and 33 refer to diseases “ttmkm” and “smk” respectively and label one of them explicitly as in the “language of the Keftiu.”

London Medical Papyrus; fragment of text with Kaftiw incantations is marked by whitelines (source: Kyriakidis 2002: 215)

Bossert offered the most imaginative interpretation, claiming that the first incantation contains Anatolian deity names—Sandon and Kubaba (Kybebe)—embedded within it, suggesting a link to Hittite or Luwian religious traditions. Sayce also accepted that these fragments could be Minoan, but emphasized their unknown linguistic nature.

Arthur Evans, despite his deep interest, was cautious: he recognized only one clearly Egyptian word (hmkt in the second incantation), noting that the rest of the content appeared non-Egyptian. He accepted that the texts may represent Keftiu (i.e., Minoan) language, but warned that little could be said about them with certainty.

Other scholars, such as G. A. Wainwright, controversially suggested that Keftiu might actually refer to Cilicia rather than Crete, proposing a more Anatolian origin for these texts. However, this theory was eventually rejected by most Egyptologists and Aegean archaeologists, who maintain that Keftiu corresponds to Minoan Crete.

Text of the spell (image source – Wreszinski 1912: 151)

2. Structure and Transmission of the Incantations

The two incantations are brief, grammatically obscure, and written phonetically using Egyptian hieratic signs. In both cases, the scribes attempt to record foreign words in a readable Egyptian form. Only the second incantation contains determinatives—classifying signs that hint at grammatical categories like “man,” “disease,” “god,” or “motion.”

First incantation (London Medical Papyrus, no. 32):
sente kepe wej’ ejmentere kekere
Possibly linked to deities (Sandon, Kubaba?) and described as treating “the disease ttmkm” (unknown).
Second incantation (Hearst Papyrus):
ebeksetesebeseje hmkt repej pewer’ smk
Associated with “disease smk” and includes the Egyptian word hmkt, possibly a known term for a spirit or illness.

The inclusion of foreign language incantations in Egyptian medical texts was a recognized practice—certain magical texts incorporate Semitic or Nubian phrases. The explicit designation of these two as “Keftiu language” thus signals that the Egyptians themselves regarded them as foreign—likely from a region with ritual or medical authority.

Menkheperreseneb. From left to right: 'Prince of Keftiu', 'Prince of Hatti', 'Prince of Tunip' (Syrian figures) and Aegean figure, facsimile (after Davies 1936:Plate XXI). Source

3. Modern Linguistic Analysis and Interpretative Approaches

Contemporary scholarship has taken a far more cautious and methodological approach:

3.1 General Position

The scholarly consensus holds that the incantations are most likely non-Egyptian and non-Semitic in structure and phonology. However, this does not prove they are definitively Minoan. The incantations’ extreme brevity makes secure interpretation nearly impossible.

3.2 Minoan Hypothesis

Most researchers today accept that, since the texts are explicitly labeled “language of the Keftiu,” and Keftiu is strongly identified with Crete, they likely represent some form of the Minoan language—possibly in a magical register.

Evangelos Kyriakidis (2002) cautiously notes that although the incantations cannot be translated or grammatically parsed, their phonological patterns do not contradict what is known from Linear A. However, no Linear A word has been definitively matched to any element of the incantations.

3.3 Anatolian/hattic Hypothesis

Some linguists—especially Alexander Akulov—have proposed more radical theories: that the language of the incantations shows affinities with Hattic (a pre-Indo-European language of Anatolia). Akulov analyzes grammatical morphemes within the incantations that appear to follow Hattic-like verb structures, possessive suffixes, and pronominal markers.

He interprets, for example, sabujajəjədʒa in the second incantation as a compound verb with personal markers resembling Hattic constructions. However, this view is highly speculative and not widely accepted in mainstream Aegean or Hittitological studies.

3.4 Rejection of Semitic Hypothesis

Richard Steiner and others have decisively rejected the idea that the texts are in a Semitic language, despite the diseases being labeled “Asiatic.” While some words (e.g., samuna) may derive from Semitic roots, the grammar and structure of the incantations do not align with Semitic syntax.

Senenmut. Three remaining Aegean figures, facsimile (after Davies 1936: Pl. XIV). Source

4. Theological and Magical Elements

The second incantation includes two divine names (Ratsiya, Erupa and Amaya), with accompanying Egyptian determinatives marking them as gods. This suggests that the Keftiu language had a pantheon unknown to Egyptians, or at least unfamiliar deity names. These theonyms do not resemble known Egyptian, Semitic, or Greek deities clearly, though speculative links have been made to Rhea and Maia or Kubaba.

The presence of foreign deities within the incantation strengthens the case for an independent Minoan religious tradition, at least partially captured here in Egyptian transmission.

Conclusion

The two Keftiu incantations found in Egyptian papyri constitute a rare window into a language of the Late Bronze Age, which the ancient Egyptians associated with Crete. Contemporary research converges on the idea that these incantations likely reflect the Minoan (pre-Greek) language, though possibly enriched with “magical vocabulary” borrowed from neighboring cultures. The early theories of Evans and his contemporaries—that these are indeed Minoan texts transcribed in Egyptian script—have not been rejected. On the contrary, they remain the starting point and the most logical interpretation, now approached with greater scholarly rigor. Evans’ view is broadly accepted in principle (that the language is that of the Keftiu/Minoans), but the early attempts to "translate" the incantations are now largely considered invalid or speculative.

No clear linguistic evidence has yet been found linking these incantations directly to the known vocabulary of Linear A or any other Aegean language, primarily because we lack a deciphered lexicon for comparison. Minor similarities (such as the aforementioned KA-PA, I-JA, etc.) suggest continuity, but do not prove it. Meanwhile, efforts to connect the texts with Anatolian languages (like Hattic) offer a tempting image of a Minoan language that did not evolve in isolation, but rather was influenced by—and perhaps genetically related to—other languages. If true, this would position the Minoans linguistically closer to populations of Asia Minor, rather than as an entirely isolated case.

In any case, the Keftiu incantations remain an object of ongoing research and debate. It is noteworthy how such a short text has inspired such a wide array of theories—evidence of its significance for our understanding of prehistoric Aegean civilization. For now, the most prudent conclusion is: these phrases appear to be Minoan, but their content suggests a complex magical vocabulary with international influences. Their full decipherment will likely only come if and when Linear A is decoded or if new bilingual texts are discovered. Until then, the Keftiu incantations remain a mystery—a lingering echo of a language once spoken in the halls of Knossos, still beckoning us to uncover its secrets.

REFERENCES