Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

text in glyphs

[moved to article]

---

unsure how to represent the rtl reading. Maybe we should mirror the glyphs after all, since rtl reading seems to be general consensus? At the moment I'm trying breaking the text into lines, but small browser windows will mess it up. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be asking too much of the readers, especially since we list the numerical form rtl, simply to read backward? Septentrionalis 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean? The numerical transcription runs ltr. The problem with rtl is not the reader, but the rendition in the browser, since things tend to get messed up at linebreaks. The above sample now has three words per line to avoid this, but if you make your browser window narrow enough, you will see what I mean. dab (ᛏ) 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The numerical form has words beginning with 02/Mohican; here you end with it. Have I got r and l mized up? Septentrionalis

The reading direction has changed. On the article the nummers are written left to right. Here the glyphs are written form right to left. Here also the words start with the Mohican. Kadmos 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

the numbers are ltr, like English. The glyhps are rtl like Hebrew. Your 02 top left of the numbers is the Mohican top right: This is what I'm talking about, if we keep the original glyph orientation, they read rtl. Timm on kereti.de has mirrored them so he can present the text ltr. I uploaded them in the original orientation because it could be conceived as "pov" to favour inwards reading direction. But since the scholarly consensus is "inwards" anyway, it may be better to mirror the glyphs after all. If somebody re-uploads all glyphs mirrored I won't mind, but I can't be bothered to do it. dab (ᛏ) 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to mirror the glyphs and alter the text so that it has LTR directionality. This is the typical practice for Egyptian and Luwian. RTL is confusing (as we have seen above) to some users. I'll write some text explaining this as well. Evertype 10:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

voices of the scholary world, 20 years ago

John Chadwick: "A few decipherments have been proposed using known languages, including a few based upon Greek, despite the obvious improbability of such a solution at this date. What is worse, their authors are rarely aware of what Greek would look like at this period, at least four hundred years before Mycenaean." Linear B and Releated Scripts, 1987, p. 61.

John Chadwick: "My own view, shared by all serious scholars, is that the Disk is undecipherable so long as it remains an isolated document. Only a large increase in the number of inscriptions will permit real progress towards a decipherment. Meanwhile, we must curb our impatience, and admit that if King Minos himself were to reveal to someone in a dream the true interpretation, it woul be quite impossible for him to convince anyone else that his was the one and only possible solution." Linear B and Releated Scripts, 1987, p. 61. -- (Kadmos 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

should be quoted. At least the "dream Minos" bit is proverbial :) dab (ᛏ) 07:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What Evans actually said

A. Evans: "That there is a general parallelism in appeareance between the signs on the Disk and those on the Cretan seal-stones is evident. So too they divide themselves into much the same categories, such as human and animal figures or their parts, arms and implements, domestic utensils and vegetable signs. But when we come to compare the figures in detail with those of the Minoan hieroglyhic signary a very great discrepancy is observable." Scripta Minoa p. 24

A. Evans: "The humean figures in their outline and costume are non-Minoan. We miss the pinched-in waist, and the female figure especially is marked by an extraordinary breadth of body." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "Still more divergent from all known examples of Minoan dress is that of the woman. It differs not only in its general broad outline, already noticed, but in almost every detail." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "The represantation of the ship also differs from all similar designs that occur either among the hieroglyphic or the linear documents of Crete." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "According to this view the Disk should rather be regarded as a record of a peaceful connection between the Minoan lords of Phaestos and some neighbouring race enjoying a parallel form of civilisation than as an evidence of hostile occupation. As to the direction in which this race is to be sought, the indications at our disposal may be thought to point to the Western coastlands of Asia Minor." Scripta Minoa p. 27 Kadmos 09:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Kadmos for these quotes. I greet our honesty, and apologize for having included you in the pack of wolves, with Latinus and the 80.237.152.53 anon. (User 80.90.57.154 O9: 35, 24 March)

About Acrophony

I have moved the rant to the Archive. I can't stand this pseudoscientific nonsense, and I can't stand the childish behaviour of 80.90.57.154. None of that rant had anything to do with an interpretation of the "text" of the Phaistos Disc on the basis of Acrophony. For any interpretation to be made based on Acrophony, values would have to be given to the letters based on the following criteria:

1. an interpretation of the symbols has to be made (which we have, assuming that Sign 28 is really an ox's foot
2. a guess as at which language it is in has to be made
3. a list of words corresponding to the interpretation of those symbols has to be drawn up
4. the principles of acrophony can then be applied and the text can be read, or it cannot.

It has not been read. J.F.'s theory based on Acrophony is not notable. Evertype 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Before moving (i.e. relegating) the discussion to the Archive, you should have, at least, waited for my answer to Kadmos 'remarks. Seems that fairness is not your favourite word !
2. What you call rant is what you don't like. I hope the readers of this Talk page will have another opinion than yours. I ask them to have a look at the Archives (particularly Archive n° 6), in order to make their own opinion.
3. Now, about your remarks : Of course, one has a)-first to guess (or to establish as he can!) the language and the type of the script b)-to interpret, the best way possible, the glyphs (if it is a fish, what fish can it be ? etc.) before thinking to applying acrophony. But, like it or not, this is what has been done by J.Faucounau, using only statistical methods. If he found later that the script was acrophonic (See what I wrote about this discovery by him), how can this make his deciphering attempt as not notable ? (User 80.90.57.154]], 15:36, March 26, 2006)

Kadmos' quote of Neumann is notable however.

"Wo liegt der Fehler dieser 'akrophonischen Methode'? - Erstens wird hier etwas, was erst festgestellt werden soll, nämlich die zugrunde liegende Sprache, bereits bei der Gewinnung der Lautwerte in den Entzifferungsvorgang eingeführt; zweitens ist die Annahme alzu optimistisch, man könne aus dem Bild erschließen welches Wort dem Schrifterfinder dabei eingefallen sei. (Hier hätte die hethitische Hieroglyphenschrift warnen können: das Bild des Fußes hat da nicht den Lautwert pa- nach padi- 'Fuß', sondern ti- nach dem Verb 'hintreten' usw.) Und drittens ist die mindestens unbewiesene Voraussetzung gemacht, als lägen der Moment der Schrifterfindung und der Zeitpunkt der Niederschrift des Diskos so nahe beisammen, daß man für beide mit der gleichen Sprachform rechnen könnte. - ...; wer sie (Anm.: gemeint ist Akrophonie) an den Anfang der Entzifferung stellt, begeht einen groben methodischen Fehler." (Zum Forschungsstand beim "Diskos von Phaistos" in Kadmos, 1968, p. 34.)

We should discuss acrophony as an alternative to comparison to known glyphs, but the notable verdict is Neumann's. JF has, of course, committed about evrey "methodischen Fehler" imaginable. This is his prerogative as an amateur/enthusiast, but his prerogative does not extend to being discussed on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. G. Neumann has forgotten one more obstacle : knowing exactly the script system !. If the script accepts complex syllabic values, like KRO or PTE, it is not the same as if the script writes KO-RO and PE-TE. Or if it uses occasionally determinatives, like MAN, CITY, COUNTRY, etc., the acrophony will be also disturbed. The first motive is the reason why Y.Duhoux "statistics", supposed to show that the language of the Disk is close to Linear A language, have no value. They start from the hypothesis that the script is the same (Linear Cretan A/B and Phaistos Disk).
2. What you pretend, Mr Bachmann, about J.F.'s "methodischen Fehler" doesn't be so obvious ! Otherwise, the members of the pack of wolves would not use the old archiving trick to perturb the discussion !!! Such a childish attitude shows that they are afraid of an honest, scientific discussion. Better hastily archiving, right ?..
3. As for the word "amateur" that you give to J.F., it sound pretty ridiculous ! If an old scholar, who has published more than 50 papers and books in peer-revied journals and scientific Collections, is an amateur , then all the Herausgebern and Redaction Committee members who have accepted to publish him must be fools ! This makes a lot of people, Mr Bachmann... Are you sure that the foolish persons would not be just the members of the present pack of wolves who hate the Proto-Ionic Solution ??? (User 80.90.57.154, 16:03, March 26, 2006)•

being prolific does not make up for expertise. But well, if he is an expert, so much the worse for him: he looks good when put beside the kooky "atlantean" solutions, but he sure looks bad beside professional scholarship. But I think we've discussed him enough. We've been over JF, the positions are clear, now back to the Phaistos Disc. dab (ᛏ) 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

older iteration about acrophony

Since more than one user feels like discussing this - and it does not propose a clear violation of policy - I am moving this one out of archive. Archives should be static.'

Thanks, Pmanderson for this intelligent move. It enhances my consideration for you. (80.90.37.84 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Note that, by the same token, when this thread becomes mere abuse, interesting to only one editor, it will be archived again. Septentrionalis 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have better expected your answer to the challenge I launched hereafter : showing that it is pretty easy to find ""reasonable interpretations (as you pretend) for 7 couples "sign-->value". (User 80.90.57154, 16:18, March 27, 2006)

In order to avoid any misunderstanding about J.Faucounau's work, I've thought useful to translate what this author has written about his "eleven possible acrophonic values".

First, J.Faucounau has explained that he started his research with a statistical method, "convinced at that time that the script could not be acrophonic" (His own words. Translation is mine). His statistical calculation finally lead him to the conclusion that the language seemed to be Proto-Ionic and the script "of an ancient syllabic type". He, then, was able "to establish with a reasonable probability the phonetic values of a few signs". He didn't give the detail, but it is pretty easy to guess how he did : for instance, it has been noticed by several scholars that Signs 12 and 35 appear to be endings. If the language is supposed to be Greek, it doesn't seem impossible to show by some sophiscated statistical considerations that S12 has probably the value -S of the nominative, and S35 the value -I of the dative. (These signs are, as is Sign S02 with its KA-value, listed by J.F. in the list of the eleven signs he has published). J.F. wrote that "the statistical method could not go further than establishing 11 values, but then the miracle happened" (his own words. Translation is mine). He noticed that "those eleven signs looked to be acrophonic" in the language chosen, i.e. in Proto-Ionic. "Was this mere illusion or the indication to be on the right track ?" . To know it, J.F. made a calculation of probabilities. Here again, he has not given the detail of it, but it's easy to guess how he reached his figure. If one considers that, for instance, the Sign n° 6 (the "woman") cannot have more than 5 to 10 different "reasonable" interpretations (woman -- goddess-- priest-woman -- Demeter -- Athena-- etc.), and that the script uses c. 90 signs, the probability that one phonetic value appears by mere chance to be acrophonic is less than 10/90. Although I am not a mathematician, I believe that for 11 signs, this probability must be in the range of 0.00000000001. (Maybe I am wrong, but even if I made a 100% error, the figure is still pretty low...).

Rose-mary is wrong;

• of the hundred or so combinations of consonant + vowel, there is probably a plausible Greek acronym for at least half.

Her reconstruction of Faucounau's method is

• circular
  • it proves the Disc to be written in Greek, by assuming it has the Greek cases, in the Greek proportions.
• worth no more than a guess
  • it assumes the unknown text has the average Greek percentages of nominatives in -s and datives in -i
    • take samples of 60 words of Greek prose, and you will find the percentage of nominatives and datives varying wildly, by mere chance.

Septentrionalis 05:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is meaningless and shows that, as usual, you have not understood what I wrote !.. I wrote that after finding by statistical considerations alone eleven values, J.F. noticed that they seemed to be acrophonic. You answer is that "out of hundred of combinations, there is probably plausible Greek acronym for at leasr half"!.. What does that mean ? Does it means that J.F. could only find acrophony for half of his eleven values ? But he said : for all the eleven . So, I believe that you didn't understand the method you are calling circular !..

If you really want to demonstrate your point, go on, but in a correct way. Take for instance the 7 signs n° 4, 6, 12, 15 , 30, 33 and 34, and try to find "reasonable interpretations" of these signs leading by acrophony to the corresponding values (chosen by me at random) , the script being supposed syllabic English : 4= BY , 6= KA , 12 = MA , 15 = OUT , 30 = THE , 33 = RA.

We are all waiting for your demonstration ! (And please, notice that as I am a charitable person, I just took seven values, not eleven... and English instead of Greek as a language!) (User 80.90.57.154 13:30, March 27, 2006)

The values are not choosen by random. There is only a limited number of english words starting with "by", "ka", "out" and "the". However its no problem to build reasonable interpretations of these signs leading by acrophony to the corresponding values.

4 - by - bystander (see his arms)

6 - ka - karma goddess

12 - ma - mailed shield (see the seven dots)

15 - out - outbreak tool

30 - the - theophany of the english sheepgod

33 - ra - rainfish Kadmos 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1. There is need to lie to explain your poor demonstration ! I have chosen the values by opening my English dictionary at random (and I did it so quickly, that I forgot the 7th value !).
2. Thanks for your demonstration, showing that, contrary to what you wrote about hundreds of possibilities, it is not so easy to find reasonable interpretations to fit false phonetic values (moreover in a false language) ! The following comparison between your interpretations and J.F.'s ones is significant :

S O4 : "bystander" (?) v./ "prisoner"

S 05 : "karma Goddess" (why not her name ?) v./"woman"

S 15 : "outbreak tool" (why not its name ?) v. "axe"

S 30 : "theophany" (???) v./ "ram"

S 33 : "rainfish" (implausible taking into account the fish's shape) v./ "tunny-fish"

Only your interpretations concerning S 12 is plausible, in my opinion, what makes 17% of "reasonable" identifications, and 83% of "unreasonable" ones, to be compared to 100% "reasonable" interpretations for J.F. But I let the WP reader conclude by himself... (User 80.90.57.154 10:50, March 28, 2006).

Your understanding of random values is very interesting. For instance your random values are sorted alphabetical!

However Faucounau did not use random syllabic values, he has fetched his values by statistics. And even if his statistics are not published I did not believe that he has used statistics for rare syllabic values only.

Last but not least he has not used "woman" he has used "married wife" and "prisoner" and "tunny-fish" are in the same way fair fetched as "bystander" or "rainfish". There is no prison and it is not possible to tell the kind of fish!

With all you rants you cannot change the fact that it will be always possible to find more or less reasonable interpretations leading by acrophony to the corresponding values. And in this way my interpretations are as good as Faucounaus. Period. Kadmos 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, J.F. says that he was "convinced by (the hereabove) calculation that the script was indeed acrophonic" , what allowed him to reach a complete decipherment, using then "a mixture of statistical considerations, acrophony and context".

As a conclusion : it is wrong to say that J.F.'s solution has "only eleven acrophonic values" (as one of you, guys, wrote. See Archive n° 6). The 11-figure represents only the number of signs, of which phonetic value has been established solely by Statistics. But, in J.F.'s decipherment, all the 45 signs of the Disk are respecting the acrophony. And I will add : without any forced or implausible identification. A notable feature when one compares this attempt to the others having used acrophony ! (User 80.90.57.154 ,12:03, 26 March, 2006)

• Faucounaus error is the number of reasonable interpreations. He forgot "mother", "birth", "Isis", "widow", "daughter", etc. The number of words connected to woman is endless in every language. It's simply not possible to use acrophony to decipher a script.
• G. Neumann wrote about using acrophony: "Wo liegt der Fehler dieser 'akrophonischen Methode'? - Erstens wird hier etwas, was erst festgestellt werden soll, nämlich die zugrunde liegende Sprache, bereits bei der Gewinnung der Lautwerte in den Entzifferungsvorgang eingeführt; zweitens ist die Annahme alzu optimistisch, man könne aus dem Bild erschließen welches Wort dem Schrifterfinder dabei eingefallen sei. (Hier hätte die hethitische Hieroglyphenschrift warnen können: das Bild des Fußes hat da nicht den Lautwert pa- nach padi- 'Fuß', sondern ti- nach dem Verb 'hintreten' usw.) Und drittens ist die mindestens unbewiesene Voraussetzung gemacht, als lägen der Moment der Schrifterfindung und der Zeitpunkt der Niederschrift des Diskos so nahe beisammen, daß man für beide mit der gleichen Sprachform rechnen könnte. - ...; wer sie (Anm.: gemeint ist Akrophonie) an den Anfang der Entzifferung stelt, begeht einen groben methodischen Fehler." (Zum Forschungsstand beim "Diskos von Phaistos" in Kadmos, 1968, p. 34.)
• There are only 45 and not 90 signs on the disk. Kadmos 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I talked about "reasonable" interpretations !.. How "birth", "widow", "daughter" or "Isis" can be reasonable ? It's not the representation of a baby birth, nor of a mourning woman. What should it be "a daughter" ? and Isis is not a Greek goddess. !.. So, the only reasonable addition you have brought is possibly "mother". Not very convincing for your demonstration that the number of words is endless, what is untrue (See hereafter).
2. What G. Neumann says is correct, but only for people using only the acrophonic method. This was not the case for the Proto-Ionic solution, in which statistical considerations have been preponderant, following its author. It's interesting to quote here what J.F. wrote about the interpretation of Sign 6 by Melian Stawell : Mais elle (= Melian Stawell) a manqué de chance : ayant identifié presque correctement 60% des signes, elle n'avait abouti qu'à moins de 10% de valeurs phonétiques correctes ... Elle a vu dans le signe S6 une "femme" et l'a lu <gunè>... C'est le terme synonyme <damar>... qu'il fallait lire. Oui, il n'a manqué qu'un peu de chance à Melian Stawell pour découvrir la clef de l'énigme du disque de Phaistos!. May I add that the difference between what J.F. calls "chance" et "malchance" (good luck and bad luck) is in fact the difference between a purely acrophonic method and a mixed statistical/acrophonic method. The second has obviously a better chance to succeed than the first, if the decipherer is on the good track.
3. Moreover, I maintain that finding a solution based upon acrophony alone is not so easy in the case of the Phaistos Disk : the proof is that scholars who did have been obliged to accept unreasonable identifications (I quoted G. Knutzen's attempt as an example).
4. For the Calculation of Probability I mentioned, what counts is the total number of the signs used by the script. It has been estimated c. 90. Even if it would be less (as supposed c.50 by MacKay), the argument would be reinforced, because one sign would necessarily have several phonetic values. If, for instance, there is only one sign to render W+vowel, the identifications "woman" and "widow" would be written with the same sign. Or if there is only one sign to render LE/RE as in Linear B, the French words "leopard" and "renard" would be written with the same initial sign. Etc. (User 80.90.57.154, 13:55, March 26, 2006)

• Who decides what reasonable is? For me goddess, priest-woman, Demeter and Athena is not reasonable.
• There is only talking about having statistical considerations.
• Everyone says he has used acrophony to decipher the Phaistos disk. Therefore it must be easy.
• Faucouanu only needs 90 signs because he postulates values like "ske" and "skae" or "ki" and "ksi".
• Like is or not, state of the art is that the acrophonic method can not be used for deciphering a script. Period. Kadmos 13:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, by you are piling up false ideas upon false statements !..

1. My own definition of what is a reasonable identification is : An identification already proposed by other serious scholars, (and leading of course to a corresponding phonetic value). I established some Statistics, in the case of G.Knützen's and J.Faucounau's identifications. The identifications of both authors are similar, with a slight advantage to J.Faucounau : at respectively 70% or 80%, both accept the usual identifications : So G. Knützen : 1="laufender Mann", 4="Gefangener", 6="Frau", 11="Bogen", 13="Kaule", etc.. So, the difference between them is not there. It is that surprinsingly about two thirds of the phonetic values proposed by G. Knützen don't correspond to the identification ! There is no justification why <gunè> has given the value QE, why the "Keule" has given MA, why the "Fell" has given WE, etc. Moreover, Knützen has proposed a few interpretations of his own, which are unreasonable : 30 = "Widder", 41= "Knochen", 45= "Strom", etc. By comparison, J.F.'s phonetic values are a lot more in line with the identification . The "ram" gives the value KRI (Greek <krios>), the "prisoner" the value LAE (Hom. <laeïas>), the "krokos" the value KRO, etc. Even in Faucounau's, there are, of course, a few surprises : for instance, the "ship" has not the value NA (<naus>), as expected, but RE (explained as coming from < *reu-naus> which gave later the verb <ereunaô>). But the number of these surprising values is very limited, compared to G; Knützen. I advise you to give a look at this comparisons. They are very eloquent and largely in favour of J.F.'s work...
2. This statement of yours is nothing but slander ! Of course, J.F. has used acrophony. He said it himself. But nobody may deny that, being a well-known mathematician, he would have used acophony alone. Even if he didn't publish the detail of his calculations, you don't have the right to accuse him of lying, without any other motive than this lack of publication.
3. If it is so easy to find reasonable interpretations leading to false values in a false language, take the challenge hereabove ! Go on ! Show us that it is easy to get by acrophony any value one needs for his reading (what would be a circular method indeed) ! And don't neglect the word reasonable , please !
4. You are putting the car before the horse !.. J.F. clearly stated that he first conducted a lot of calculations to determine the language and the type of the script. Amongst these calculations was the estimate of the number of signs used by the script. Once again, he has clearly stated that the figure he reached (by distinguishing the signs following a Poisson-Law and those following a Gaussian law) was 88 (See his book on pages 151-154). Will you again pretend that, as the detail of his calculation has not been given, he has been lying ?..
5. For a purely acrophonic method, I agree. But if you don't understand the difference between a purely acrophonic method and a mixed statistical/acrophonic method, you should go back to the Elementary School... (User 80.90.57.154, 15:24, March 26, 2006);

• That you didn't understand that unpublished sources did not exist for the scientific world is your problem. That you make no differences between a hypothesis build on unpublished sources and a lie is also your problem.
• However, all your repeatings does not change the fact that acrophonic used alone or in mix is rejected by the scientific community as way to decipher an old script. Period. 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that the important thing is not the hypothesis (whether based upon published or unpublished sources), but the evidence supporting it. And this evidence has been published, allowing everybody to make his own opinion. That you have not been convinced by it is one thing, that I may understand, (even if I would be glad to hear you to criticize the published evidence, instead of the unpublished calculations which have lead to the hypothesis !). But don't try to impose your POV upon others, by deleting or archiving what you don't like. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:43 , March 26, 2006).

At first you insist several times that "J.F. made a calculation of probabilities" and used "acrophony" and now all that is unimportant. You are a joke only. Kadmos 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The joke is your (voluntary or involuntary) misunderstanding of what I wrote ! Of course, the statistical methods used by J.F., his calculation of probabilities when he met acrophony, the acrophony itself are important to reach the result . But still more important is the evidence in favour of this result !.. Strange that you seem to confuse everything, acrophony and statistical considerations, deciphering method and decipherment's verification, when J.F. has said himself that he spent 7 years on the decipherment itself, and 21 years to verify it before publishing the detail of his decipherment... An exemplar scientific attitude, in my humble opinion... (User 80.90.57.154, 16:17, March 26, 2006) Post-Scriptum : I don't understand that you deleted as "personal attack" a text saying that D. Bachmann's assertion was ridiculous, but at the same time, not deleting Bachmann's wrong assertion that J.F. was an amateur. Fairness would have demanded to delete all, or nothing.

Archiving

Can someone please archive the whole talk page above this section to keep the rants out of our faces and Rose-mary, please respect other editors' consensus. --Latinus 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call "consensus" is a mokery. It's the POV of a bunch of unethical guys, acting as a pack of wolves, who have only one idea in their mind : to eliminate all opponents to their favorite POV, by frightening them (e.g. Rose-Mary), by never discussing the matter, by deleting anything what their opponents propose, and finally by archiving their arguments. All this in a complete disrespect of the NPOV rule. Sad, Mr Latinus, really sad for WP reputation ! (User 80.90.57.154, 17:26, 26 March 2006)

Again, Mr Faucounau, the IP check revealed that you are rose-mary - who do you think you're kidding? --Latinus 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have to say that, but you are an ignoramus in matter of IP, Mr Latinus. And moreover an idiot, for confusing an old scholar with a younger one !.. Stop spreading around hearsays, based upon nothing but unproved deductions, as smart as those deductions may seem, and you will be more respected. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:45, 26 March 2006).

Off topic novel

[oftopic tangent deleted, see page history] dab (ᛏ) 08:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ban

The user editing from the 80.90.32.0/29 range, also known as Rose-mary or grapheus, has been banned for six months by Gator1 (talk · contribs) for threats of real-life harassment [1]. until and unless the community objects to this decision, edits by this user to any namespace may be rolled back without regard to the 3RR. dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Any sockpuppet of this user can be summarily blocked by establishing their identity with User:80.90.38.96 (the actual location of the block), at WP:RCU. Does the article still need semi-protection? Septentrionalis 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) block log

Nope, now that the range block is in effect, there shouldn't be a problem with this person. Let me know if I'm wrong. Unprotected.Gator (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you cannot give a scientific answer to your opponent's objections, just shut up his mouth. This is the new Wiki spirit today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.199.4 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently when you don't get your way, you harass people. This an encyclopedia, not a place for your research. See [2] Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek name

Why is the modern Greek name included here? Obviously the disk was found in Greece, but equally obviously, this was not the contemporary name of the object, so it has no cultural or historic significance. Nor is the Greek name used in English sources, unlike, say, the Pella katadesmos. WP is not a multilingual dictionary. The Greek wikilink provides the information if for some reason it is useful. --Macrakis 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one always like to see at least the Greek placenames in the original spelling - and then, since we're already at it, there's really little harm done if we also translate the word "disc" together with it, is there? Not that I'd treat it as a matter of principle, though. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Which do you object to: Festos Disc, or Δίσκος της Φαιστού?
• I'm not sure we need Festos Disc myself; who uses it? Septentrionalis 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the same before, if you ask me, both Festos Disc and Δίσκος της Φαιστού should be removed. It's alright to feature the spelling of native names, but how do you spell "Phaistos disk" in Linear A? If you want to keep Δίσκος της Φαιστού for the unlikely event that people check Wikipedia because they want to ask for directions in Iraklio, at least remove Festos Disc which appears to be totally unused. dab (ᛏ) 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The name Festos is sometimes uses at Greek websites [3] and at Maps from Crete [4]. But for the Phaistos Disc the spelling "Festos Disc" is indeed uncommon. Therefore I agree. Kadmos 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc decipherment claims vs. decipherment claims at Phaistos Disc

It is really necessary to have redundant informations (bibliography etc.) on both articles? Kadmos 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

well, while this article is nearing completion, it is my hope that the "decipherments" sub-article will be substantially expanded, ideally one section per claim; so yes, I suppose the literature on the claims proper belongs on both articles. Maybe it should still be looked over in detail, we don't need to cite each and every paper here. dab (ᛏ) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

citation needed

for the sentence: "Jean Faucounau has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, which would also require an inward direction."
Where has Faucounau published such a reconstruction?

Le déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos. Do we need to look through that thing again for a page number? Septentrionalis 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx. All I remember are interpretations with his decipherment as starting point. But I will have a look. Kadmos 07:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a large sketch of a scribe sitting bent over the disk, and a long discussion, fairly early in the book IIRC. Septentrionalis 15:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have again read pp. 24 - 29 of Faucounaus book Le déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos 1999. There are indeed a lot of good ideas. Unfortunately some were published before 1999:

• "Dans la portion de spirale séparant B14 de B3, un minuscule caillou a fait dévier le stylet, traçant alors un trait qui ne pouvait aller que de l'extérieur vers le centre." Faucounau (1999:26). Here Godart (1995:73) wrote "Luigi Pernier, who discovered the disc, cleverly observed that very fine incisions seem to deviate from the line of the spiral, from right to left, created by deflections of the stylus in the movement to wards the centre" Pernier has published his article in 1908.
• "Le recoupement du 'prisonnier' par le 'bouclier' est indiscutable, mais il est visible qu'il s'agit d'une correction." Faucounau (1999:24). Here Godart (1995:100) wrote: "This correction, the most significant of all those made to the disc, had been observed by Della Seta." Della Seta has published his article in 1909.
• "Enfin, la forme même des spires montre que la spire extérieure fut tracée la première et que, pour éviter de rejoindre le point de départ, le scribe a fait obliquer brusquement le tracé de la seconde spire, créant ainsi un point anguleux. L'existence de ce point anguleux s'est répercutée sur le tracé des autres spires, allant en s'atténuant dans le cas de la face A, allant au contraire en s'aggravant dans le cas de la face B où la spirale finit par un triangle." Faucounau (1999:27). Here Godart (1995:75) wrote: "The direction in which the spiral was incised is particularly clear on side B, from the irregular shape at which it terminates at the centre. ... Careful study of the incision of the spiral also reveals in how many stages the line was executed. On side A the first convoultion was incised as far as point A. Here we can clearly see where the stylus that incised it stopped and the second convolution started. ...".
• "La forme de la spirale, surtout dans la zone centrale, a été visiblement affectée par l'impression des signes. Il y a eu interaction entre tracé et impression. Cette interaction est inexplicable dans une hypothèse autre que celle de l'alternance." Faucounau (1999:28). Here Godart (1995:86) wrote: "We can confirm that the upper section of the spiral had been incised before the signs below were imprinted because, as the drawings show, the signs frequently cut or alter the upper line, narrowing the groove.".
• "a reconstitution des gestes du scribe en A29 : ... Il lui fallut réfléchir pour savoir comment faire cadrer le nombre de signes avec la place restant disponible, et cette réflexion l'amena à tourner le disque. Lorsqu'il reprit son travail, il fut ainsi amené à imprimer la 'tête à plumes' et le 'bouclier' dans une position anormale. Voulant remettre son disque d'aplomb en position normale d'impression, i! tourna à nouveau ce dernier - machinalement ! - dans le sens habituel de rotation, ce qui l'amena à imprimer les deux 'peaux étendues' à l'envers." Faucounau (1999:28). Here Godart (1995:87) wrote: "It is a fact that in A XXIX (=A29), on account of lack of space, the signs of the plumed head and the shield were accommodated by placing them one above the other, and some millimetres were economized by inverting the two signs next to the hide."

This last goes back to Stawell or Hempl (I forget which).Septentrionalis 03:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The list can be continued if necessary. Kadmos 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the business about quarter-turns (IIRC) original with JF? If not, is anything on pages 24-42 his own? Septentrionalis 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the quarter-turn argument is orginal (Faucounau is citing an own paper from 1979 for this paragraph). At first reading also "Il eût été bien extraordinaire que deux spirales tracées du centre vers l'extérieur aient abouti ainsi au même endroit de la circonférence ! La probabilité infime de ce fait suffirait presque, à elle seule, à prouver que les spirales furent bien tracées à partir de l'extérieur." sounds orginal to me. Maybe there are some more. It is not easy to tell because sources are only cited in rare cases. Kadmos 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ipsen

for the sentence "Ipsen (1929:15) found it tempting to assume a non-Cretan origin for the Disc."
For me Ipsen has never excluded a Cretan origin in the same way as he has excluded a non-Aegean origin. On page 15 he is discussing Evans point: "Man mag immerhin bezweifeln, ob der Diskus darum gerade auf Kreta entstanden sei; es ist möglich (wenn auch unerweislich), ihn mit Evans nach dem südwestlichen Kleinasien zu verlegen: doch den Bereich der Ägäis dard man nicht verlassen.". Also the sentence "Es liegt nahe, diesen Widerspruch dadurch zu beseitigen, daß man dem Diskus fremde Herkunft zuschreibt" is not explicitly enough. For me this sounds more then like "all we can say about the origin is does it belongs to the Aegean area" Kadmos 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is this more Rose-mary? How about found non-Cretan origin perfectly plausible (which is, oddly, weaker than plausible to my ear.) Septentrionalis 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"found it plausible" sounds fine to me :-) Kadmos 07:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

the "found it tempting" was mine; it is supposed to be a direct rendition of "'Es liegt nahe, diesen Widerspruch dadurch zu beseitigen, dass man ... zuschreibt". This wording already implies that he will not yield to the "temptation" of resolving the "inconsistency" by positively assuming non-Cretan origin. Viz., he considers non-Cretan origin for a minute, which I admitted to accomodate Faucounau (he is not off his rocker to assume non-Cretan origin, he simply yields to the "temptation" alluded to by Ipsen), but his [Ipsen's] final position is, "certainly Aegean, may or may not be Cretan". Afaik, authors after Ipsen are much more inclined to posit Cretan origin, already because of the D02 hairstyle and due to parallels to Cretan hieroglyphs. dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Revised. Does this say what you both want said? If not, do alter or revert. Septentrionalis 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed both editions :-) Kadmos 19:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Irpen postulate (i.e. take as an axiom) that the inventors of the glyphs must have known other scripts, or does he have arguments for it? (I haven't looked.) Septentrionalis 16:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

His argument is simple. A script at this stage of development (syllabic type, imprinted, the beauty of the signs) can not be developed from nothing. For Ipsen the syllabic type and the imprinting is an advancement of the Cuneiform script and the beauty of the signs is inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Kadmos 19:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable argument, but I think postulate is the wrong word for it. Septentrionalis 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Date Wars

This article has been doing fine without date labels since I first saw it; until the Date Warriors came to call, I didn't notice it lacked them. I don't think even the more clueless readers will confuse the twentieth and twenty-first centuries with the Aegean Bronze Age, thank you. Septentrionalis 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

directionality

Evertype, I hope this is still in progress, but at the moment you have seriously messed up things. Glyphs come in various sizes and orientations now. Also, your statement that Egyptian and Luwian hieroglyphs are conventionally shown left to right is news to me. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It was in progress, and should be complete now. Ancient Egyptian was written LTR and RTL, but English/French/German scholarship always presents it LTR, which means "into the faces of the people and animals". Evertype 15:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The confusion above was with the text, not with the glyphs. It would be helpful, if we are going to use both, to explain the relation between RTL/LTR and inwards/outwards. Septentrionalis 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think when dab looked in things were in flux, but you are right, the text can be clarified. Evertype 15:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, it looks much better now dab (ᛏ) 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

original signs vs. everson mono phaistos font

For the new signs many details does not fit with the original signs of the Phaistos disc. See for instance sign 07(shape), 10(shape), 12(dots), 15(shape), 28(to big), 29(to big), 31(wings) or 40(unequal sides) etc. In my opinion at wikipedia the original version of the signs should be used. Maybe even the change of the reading direction can be a problem. Kadmos 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that as well; I do think that if we go to the trouble to show the text as images, the images should be as close as possible to the original stamps. I have no opinion on the directionality however, ltr is certainly more practical. dab (ᛏ) 11:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We're moving towards "text" representation, and fonts may differ from clay. Please see the different font examples in the Phaistos Disc proposal, and the section below. Evertype 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos in Unicode?

I'm curious to know whether you think a case can be made for formally encoding Phaistos in Unicode. Be specific yea or nay. Thanks Evertype 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

yea, I am sure a case can be made, unless they have an explicit policy against incorporating undeciphered writing systems. It's a clear set of 47 symbols (45 glyphs, the stroke and the "word" separator. 48 with Best's name marker). It is clearly notable (there are dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles dedicated to it). If such a proposal is made, however, it would be practical to submit it as part of a proposal to encode Cretan hieroglyphs. With the 1996 CHIC (see article), there is a clearly numbered glyph inventory of some 150 glyphs. If the Phaistos glyphs are included in the proposal as extra signs, it would amount to some 200 glyphs, all documented and numbered in academic literature, so that it would seem sensible to propose a 8-bit block of "Cretan hieroglyphics". Is there any proposal to include Luwian hieroglyphs btw? That's after all a deciphered script with a rather larger corpus than the Cretan stuff. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have information on the other Cretan materials, but in view of its status, I think keeping Phaistos Disc characters on their own is the only way to get it through. I'm interested in building the case. Evertype 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Update. I made my case, and the Phaistos Disc signs are on the ballot for inclusion in Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646. The 45 basic signs and the combining stroke were accepted; we ought to look elsewhere in the standard for vertical separators. Evertype 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder, if the PD symbols get a chunk of Unicode, and then in 2007 (or 2010 or 2015...) a nice long primer text turns up with all 90-odd symbols... I mean, I could see a text turning up (if any more exist) with the double-axe symbol, and ones that look like better versions of some on the Arkalochori Axe... well anyway, that would make things bulky for the "Minoan Seal Syllabary" or whatever it turns out to be. Perhaps it should be allocated 90+ positions to begin with... Washi 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

just look at how the "Supplements" (especially precomposed characters) are strewn unsystematically across encoding space - introducing a "Phaistos Supplement" in 20 years will be the least of Unicode's worries. Anyway, they can still reserve some positions when they introduce a Cretan hieroglyphs block (or there could be a x200 block for Cretan scripts to begin with, for all symbols except those already encoded as Linear B, with the Phaistos script filling just one corner of that). dab (ᛏ) 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U101D0.pdf Now use them! :)--Accurimbono (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SIGH

what's it take to get you guys to give out some theories on what was actually said? what it probably was? the purpose? - and that y thing.. that definitely looks familiar ;) -disgruntled- :d

Should we include the full alleged translations in Phaistos Disc decipherment claims? They're not that long. Septentrionalis 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh what fun! I'll do the Basque one (Gordon 1931). Evertype 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the list of reasonable attemtps is rather short. The language is likely "Minoan", which is itself unknown, which explains why we have no idea what the text says. The script is almost certainly syllabic, possibly with stray logograms. Personally, I am rather convinced that D-02 identifies personal names, so that we'd have a list of 16 names or so, followed by a short text containing another 3-4 names, or, reading B-A, a preamble of two names, a short text containing another two names, and some 16 'signatures' (which suggests a contract or oath, compare the structure of the Botorrita plaque). I wouldn't dismiss the Luwian hieroglyphs connection, and I think it is perfectly possible that Minoan was closely related to Lycian, and thus moderately closely related to Luwian. Of course the Lycian language we know dates to a 1000 years after the Phaistos Disc and is itself fragmentary, so that we'd expect considerable difference between Minoan and Lycian even if I am right. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You think the plumed head identifies personal names on what grounds? Evertype 13:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

as I said, that's my personal opinion, not a generally accepted view, although I cannot claim it as my own of course. My reasons include distribution and comparison with Luwian hieroglyphs. A detailed explanation would be too long and too OR. dab (ᛏ) 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Character names

Evertype, I am glad there is a Unicode proposal underway, but as always, I think that Unicode names, not to mention proposed Unicode names are not notable enough to be listed in the presentation of an alphabet; rather, once the alphabet is encoded, there can be a separate "Unicode" section, as on Runic alphabet, Ge'ez alphabet and many other articles. offtopic note for the record, I further think that fanciful Unicode names are a rather unhappy choice for ancient scripts, it would be much better to encode them just by their commonly used numberings (Anatolian hieroglyphs nos. 1-524; Phaistos glyphs 1-46, Cretan syllabograms 1-96, and case in point Cuneiform "Borger 1-598" or similar: it is a nightmare to find the glyph you are looking for otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete them. I will revert if you do. Please also note that these are not names invented by us for the purposes of encoding. They all come from Godart 1995, which is as authoritative a treatment as you get. The "proposed" names are under ballot and are not likely to change. Evertype 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to delete them, I was considering moving them to a separate "encoding" section. Since the proposed encoding sequence is Evans' numbering, not the proposed glyph names in alphabetical order or something, I do not think this proposal is 'unhappy' in the sense I outline above. Much as I like Unicode, I do think you are too "UCS-centric". We should not rename articles about historical alphabets based on decisions of the Unicode consortium (as you initially argued on Talk:Anatolian hieroglyphs). Proposed Unicode encodings are not very notable in the context of the treatment of a historical script, and the Unicode encoding of a script, while notable, is not front matter in such an article. Unicode consortium decisions on glyph names do not prejudice the 'best' or 'actual' name of a character (as you argued on Talk:Ogham), they only define the official name within the Unicode standard. I think you should keep these things in mind for proper perspective. dab (ᛏ) 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the names are those of Phaistos Disc expert Godart. If you move them to a "separate 'encoding' section" all we will have is two long tables, one with character names and glyphs in it, and one with other descriptions and glyphs in it. What would be the benefit of that? Evertype 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just made what I think is an appropriate solution. I think Godart's names are important and useful, and some people do prefer them to things like "D01". They're likely to be with us with the UCS anyway. Anyway I hope you agree that my edit is an improvement. Evertype 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do; Godart's names are certainly notable in themselves; I doubt Godart proposed them in ALLCAPS, but it's much better now :) dab (ᛏ) 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

PD Symbols Table

The remarks column mentions a few entries which appear to resemble Linear A signs and their values. Since it seems likely that the Linear A80 cat-head symbol is 'MA', would that be a reasonable remark to add for PD29?

--Washi 16:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to rework the table anyway: since all these comparisons are speculative, I think it would be better to discuss them, in prose, in a separate "comparison with other scripts" section. dab (ᛏ) 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Add a new section, then remove the phonetic guesses from the comments column. As long as it doesn't open up the flood gates... --Washi 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

exact character shapes & "printing"

Since there is an active discussion about the manner of production of this artifact on the Printing and related pages, it would be of some importance to know if the repeating signs for a single character are identical--i.e, have been stamped from the same stamp. I recognize this is hard to specify unless clear differences can be found that do not reflect different striking angles and forces. But are there some that are recognized? (I put in a NPOV sentence about the printing qy here, & if the discussion changes, I'll adjust it.) DGG 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of this "printing" discussion is more than original-research malarky. And it certainly doesn't belong as the first main section at Printing as I have already said there. -- Evertype·✆ 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't & I, like you, have been trying to remove it, but it would nonetheless be interesting to know the details of whether the repeating signs for a single character are identical--i.e, have been stamped from the same stamp.

DGG 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion at DGG's suggestion. The comparison to traditional printing is flawed for a number of reasons -- the key one being the conflating of "movable type" with printing. Stamping technology predates printing in all cultures by centuries (at least). While that is a component of printing, it's not the only one. Arguably more key is the notion of a "master image," be it physical or digital. Gutenberg (and Pi Sheng's) innovation was creating stable building blocks that could be temporarily combined into a master image. In this sense, there doesn't seem to be a master image or matrix used in the manufacture of the disk. If I understand the article, each stamp was used individually and therefore each disk would have positional variations based on everything from stamp choice, to ordering, to operator error. Thus each disk produced starts back at "zero" and must be built from scratch. That is a significantly different mode of (re)production than traditional printing.

OK. to complicate things, and potentially seem to contradict my last statement, a comparison could be made with emerging Digital Printing/Variable Data Print technologies. In these cases, the printing device re-images on each pass. Thus we don't have to have an exact reproduction each time. That said, we're still dealing with a master image, albeit a different one each pass. In that respect the manufacturing metaphors still don't work.

Finally, it seems to be while this can be noted as an example of "proto-moveable type," it's at best a footnote. There's no real way of establishing a strong link between this and any of the other eventual developments of movable type (in much the same way that it seems real sketchy to suggest that Gutenberg was somehow influenced by East Asian printing).

Matt 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a good command of German, I can send you Brekel's definition of typography. But it is already now obvious that you view things mainly from a technicians angle, while he takes primarily the perspective of a linguist. Unless we make a choice which approach is a priori the more viable one, I guess, we have to give both viewpoints somehow room. IMO the PD is definitely more worth than a footnote - that was it already before I had provided the source. Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not a German speaker. I will debate the notion that I'm taking a technician's POV. I am approaching this from a cultural point of view, where we cannot ignore the current working and industrial definitions. Further, this is an academic definition as well (one that the typographer who is sitting next to me agrees with). I'd suggest that isolating the notion of "typography" to that particular linguist seems like a restrictive stance to begin with. Especially since the excepted definition "typography as movable type printing" relies on "printing" to define itself. Matt 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that Brekle does not claim to have a definition monopoly on the term 'typography', his article is subtitled in fact 'attempt at a definition'. Personally, I have not heard about a universally agreed definition of printing. Therefore, the concentration on 'the master image' as a make or break criteria seems a bit restrictive, either. What is clear is that by reproducing a whole body of text by reusable characters, the PD constitutes a new unprecedented level of printing and should not be simply qualified as ordinary 'stamping' anymore. That would be selling the PD short.

As for cultural continuity: That the PD had apparently no successor, is true, but EA mt printing which practically died out in the 19th and 20th c. has neither, too. Today all MVT stems genealogically solely from Gutenberg's press. Still, EA mt printing is qualified as mt printing, even although JG printing has become the paradigm. So why should the PD not be subject of a broader definition of printing, too?

So, how can we proceed? IMO the PD deserves an entry at the articles 'printing' (which it btw already has) and movable type printing. We could link to this page and the quote. The sensitive thing, however, is how to phrase both entries which IMO should somehow oscillate between 'presumably more than stamping, presumably less than movable type printing'. Do you think you can make a concise entry which gives pro and con of classifying the PD as movable type? Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the definition of printing doesn't only turn on a master image, but also the application of a film to a substrate. BTW, if anything this is a phenomenological definition. Again the PD fails for a variety of reasons under this model.

I don't understand why it deserves an entry under "printing." Printing doesn't currently reference things like Egyptians using wooden stamps (and ink, btw.) to reproduce hieroglyphics. And argument might be able to made that it deserves a reference under "woodblock printing." But I'm not even sure about that

I do agree that this is movable type. What I don't agree with is that this is more than stamping. Not to be an ass. But how is this differentiated from a variety of pattern stamping that's done in numerous cultures? The Egyptians used wooden stamps to reproduce "hieroglyphics" for example.

In my mind, PD belongs in the "precursors" section on the Movable Type page. I don't see a place for it in printing, with the exception. On movable type it should get a sentence or two (just like other stamping methods).

"Therefore, the concentration on 'the master image' as a make or break criteria seems a bit restrictive, either. What is clear is that by reproducing a whole body of text by reusable characters, the PD constitutes a new unprecedented level of printing and should not be simply qualified as ordinary 'stamping' anymore. That would be selling the PD short." Interesting note: by this definition the Gutenberg bible fails as an example of printing as portions of it (including all of the words of Christ) were hand illuminated. 129.21.238.239 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to your strict interpretation the hand illuminations also disrupted the master image, making the JG bible less than printing according to your definition as well. The criteria of a "whole body of text" has to be viewed as opposed to the single symbol use which usually defines stamping. We are turning in circles, though, now. I am going to include the PD to the "precursors" section on the Movable Type page, as you said, and then we will see what the reactions of other users are. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with calling this a precursor to movable type. No problem at all with that. Considering the MT page lists other stamping technologies, it makes sense to have it listed there.

What I take issue with is the notion that this constituted printing. And while I agree that it matches Mr. Brekle's definition of typography, I again respectfully suggest that definition is flawed. And where it becomes flawed is that, at least in the attached quote, he doesn't unpack his definition of 'printing.' To paraphrase Lincoln, "just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it one." (As a side note, is there a translated version of that article?). I further submit that by taking that as the primary definition (or simply the bar for acceptance) we are ignoring a wide range of other definitions for that field and the broader field of printing.

Thus my issue has, and remains to be, calling the disk's mode of production Movable Type Printing. And I submit that if we extend that categorization to the disk, then there is no reason not to extend it to a number of other stamping technologies that were being used at the same time.

My mentioning of the facts surrounding the Gutenberg bibles mode of production was to demonstrate how difficult it is to create clear cut definitions. Matt 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Game board theory

The new section on the Disc being a game board seems like original research. -- Evertype·✆ 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Wikipedia No Original Research page refers to this as: "...unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material..." However, I provided 2 separate links as citations. As the Wikipedia page goes on to say: "...the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Which is precisely what I did. It may be further noted that there are other articles out there suggesting it may be a game board -- currently a google search on: '"Phaistos Disc" board game' turns up 292 entries; although some are effectively duplicates, clearly this cannot be considered "original research" by the Wikipedia criteria. -- SunSw0rd 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to find junk on the internet. That doesn't mean it's encyclopaedic. Serious scholars may say "For all I know, the Phaistos Disc s a board game!" I've said it myself. The two separate links as citations you give are not particularly interesting, but what makes this seem like original research is the tone of the section. "The evidence for this is ...." is a clear sign that you are making an argument, indeed defending the section title. This is, I think, original research on your part. The section adds little of interest to this page in my view. At best, it needs to be rewritten. -- Evertype·✆ 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a stab at rewriting it, but I am reverting it. I will add some additional references, but -- "making an argument" is not in fact "original research". Perhaps you should go reread that page (link above in this section.) -- SunSw0rd 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides the Web page, Aleff has a self-published book. That does not make the theory terribly notable. On the other hand, I found that Hélène Whittaker, a professor in Norway, has published an article in a reputable journal where she speculates about the game-board theory, and I have added it. --Macrakis 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to re-write it. There isn't anything to re-write. The burden is on YOU to write some actual sentences. All you have now is a thesis "Phaistos Disc as Board Game" (which is poor style; there is no reason to capitalize "board game". Then you proceed to apologize for your thesis: "The evidence for this is XYZ". Then you list some links without interesting discussion, and apologize again: "In any case the idea cannot be discarded, as the evidence for it being a game board is speculative, but plausible." This is dismal writing at best, and unworthy of the Phaistos Disc. Please do better. -- Evertype·✆ 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I should have been clearer -- my statement meant that I would take a stab at rewriting it -- which has now been done. More references, clearly text. I don't want to make the section any longer, people interested should follow the links. However anyone who looks at the ancient Egyptian "racing" board games will see a possible correlation. -- SunSw0rd 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments immediately before yours stand. You have no introduction or discussion, only apology. -- Evertype·✆ 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the game board theory to the Phaistos Disc decipherment claims. Kadmos 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think to completely exclude the concept is foolish, classifying it under decipherment claims is reasonable. -- SunSw0rd 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments above stand. You have no introduction or discussion, only apology. -- Evertype·✆ 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is state of the art that the phaistos disc contains language. Anyway with 4. of your evidence you are contradicting your theory. Stamping is required to produce different discs not many. Kadmos 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote: "...the usage of stamps in its fabrication suggests a form of mass-production. Its ruled, leading inwards to the centre, path, is a classical example that game-boards have shared throughout their history."

And also: "...However, the anachronism applies only to the use of stamps for reproducing written texts, other than the few signs that fit on individual seals, and it disappears when we compare the stamping on the Disk with the decoration methods used on other objects, particularly gameboards...On some of the Senet boards made from faience, these signs were impressed into the clay-like soft mass before firing, and they were impressed there with stamps. In other words, as unusual as the stamping on the Phaistos Disk may have been for imprinting a text, stamping was in no way exceptional for impressing signs on gameboards."

So...you see that 2 separate sources point out that stamps were used for mass production of ancient gameboards. So how does the #4 contradict the hypothesis that the Phaistos disk is an ancient gameboard? -- SunSw0rd 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the design of the boards in your examples is simple and fixed. A design with 45 different signs is not simple and on #4 you wrote "was used for other ancient games". Anyway wikipedia is not the place to discuss a theory. Instead of listing evidence you should explain the theory. Kadmos 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the section is more an overview of ancient board games than a concise discussion of the PD claim. I suggest we create an ancient board games article and move most of the material there, and keep only the briefest allusion to the individual arguments, referring to the more general article, at Phaistos Disc decipherment claims. dab (𒁳) 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The game board theory is likely to be wrong because symbols on the arkalochori axe seem related to those on the disc.

The axe is not a gameboard and is considered by archaeologists to be a votive offering to a god.

Alex_the_grate2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2010

Henke

An anon edded this PDF URL of a paper by Christoph Henke. Skimming, it looks like a statistical argument that the PD is not running text rather than a transcription; but someone with more time and German may want to add the paper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:)

Great article, guys. Keep it up. Lackinglatin 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Very poor paper, guys, not mentioning that ONE solution (the Proto-Ionic) is, at least, more credible than all others (Some are saying that it's the ONLY PROVEN by tens of facts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.199.142 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, M. Boubouleix Faucounau. dab (𒁳) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgery theory

I am surprised that the possibility has not been discussed here that the Phaistos Disc may have been a modern forgery. The disc may have been created by someone (necessarily extremely knowledgeable in archæology and writing systems' workings) such as a member of the Italian archæological expedition which excavated it (there would be plausible hypothetical motivation by one of this party to create a find, if nothing noteworthy was uncovered naturally). Since the Heraklion Museum has so far opposed subjecting the Disc to thermoluminescence dating, it is a possibility, even if not an encouraging one, that the disc may be no older than a rough century.

Although I am not actually a proponent of this hypothesis, it should get a section – or at least a mention – in this article, don't you think?

Of course, the opinion would have to be documented. I have a mention in Andrew Robinson's book "The Story of Writing" (1995), quote: "Could it be a fake?" ... I know this is not very good back-up, which is what has kept me here on the talk page instead of just editing the page, but I know that I have read about it in other places. Does anyone have good citations in mind to back me up on this?

Jimpaz (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, discussion of the possibility of forgery has a long history. But it turns out (somewhat surprisingly) that most experts consider the disc genuine. This is for several reasons. The comparatively early discovery counts for something: if the disc was found today, people would be far more skeptical. Also, the fact that the Arkalochori Axe was discovered later, with similar but not identical glyphs, adds significantly to the credibility of the find. We can (and should) by all means add a brief discussion of this point. dab (𒁳) 09:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just mentioned a forthcoming article, but a complete section surveying all hoax theories would be nicer. jnestorius^(talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The forthcoming article is one of many. Not much point until we see it. -- Evertype·✆ 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this article in the London Times today: you can read it here. This is Eisenberg's theory that it's a modern fake being discussed. Do people think his reasons for thinking so should be mentioned in the article, or this is stuff very fringy? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-word the question from another viewpoint:

What's the point of quoting more than twenty decipherment of the Disc (when at the best only one can be wright and many are utterly absurd) and not to quote the idea that it could be a fake?

Specially when this theory is to be published in an Archaeological Review:Minerva and in an International Conference of the Archaeological Institute of America.

So, if Dr. Eisenberg translated the Paistos Disc through a "proto-Ainu-Amharic-Greek" dialect according to the Rongo-Rongo script showing that it was a Minoic kitchen recipe a reference should be added, but not if he ONLY claims that the Disc could be a forgery??

By the way, remember that one of the Paistos Disc script problems is that it only appears in this inscription? --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One unusual problem is that the article in Minerva is self-published. Here is what Eisenberg, the author of the article has said "Minerva, the International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology, is a bi-monthly publication published in England that I founded in January 1990. I am the publisher, editor-in-chief, and principal proof-reader and bottle-washer. It features primarily articles on worldwide excavations and exhibitions, mainly on Classical, Egyptian, and Near Eastern subjects, but also has occasional lengthy and often very boring articles written by me on the problems of forgery in ancient art (since I subsidize it!)."

This was on a Usenet thread where he is discussing it with 'Grapheus' (who may be Faucounau) and Peter T. Daniels (who frequents sci.lang on Usenet). Daniels doesn't have much time for Eisenberg's hypothesis. The thread is here [5] and is worth reading if you are interested in this (skip over Grapheus's comments would be my advice). Eisenberg, who is signing his posts, posts as Antiquarian. He points out that he added 8 pages to the issue as he agrees with another posters comment ""rather more space was devoted to the subject than, perhaps, it deserved". I hasten to point out that we can't use Usenet as a source either, even when two fairly high-powered people are contributing. Doug Weller (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link (although to read, even skipping over, Grapheus the "faux-counau" is always sad). It looks like many of Eisenberg proofs are "circumstantial" and weak. I'm somewhat disappointed. I miss some "proofs" based on the material and the making-up of the Disc.

Even so, his "proofs" are more solid that most (if not all) the decipherments of the Phaistos Disc. (And it's more logical to suspect a forgery because it's a unicum that what was written on the Lady of Elx, that it should be a forgery because there were Iberian artefacts that could have been the inspiration).

But even if Esienberg theory is scarcely convincing, still it's more convincing (and specially worth noting and thinking on) that many of the data in the article (the claimed decipherments).

On the question of the self-publication certainly it's one serious argument, but not so clear. Many journal directors (of academic reviews, university reviews) publish what they want without referee and over the editorial board (I know true "atrocities", even with false data). The main question is on the scientific reputation of the Minerva journal and of Eisenberg as a "specialist in faked ancient art". (If Einstein had self-published an article on physics it would be valid, but the articles in orthodox journals published by the Piltdown Man discoverer....)

By the way, in the Lady of Elx article there is an entire section on the forgery question, in site of the fact that in the same section there is afforded evidence against that theory. This shows the dark side of the forgery claims.

So, Eisenberg's theory doesn't convince me, but it is interesting. While there is not a critical refutation of Eisenberg's theory I think that it deserves to be quoted. If it finally arise scepticism among the specialist, then it should be limited to a footnote. --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, has somebody read Andrew Robinson's article in Nature 453/1198 ("A century of puzzling"), who also claims that a thermoluminescence analysis is needed??? --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How could this be a syllabary?

The article says that this is interpreted as a syllabary, but I don't understand how. The dividing lines seem pretty clear word boundaries - but I'd expect a syllabary to offer at least a few common one-syllable words as single characters, and how many languages use seven-syllable words frequently? I'm no expert, but it is very hard for me not to see this as some kind of alphabet. 70.15.114.2 (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Syllabaries were common in the are at the time; alphabets were not. And 45 is getting up there in terms of alphabetic repertoires. I think your "expectation" that a sylabary offer one-syllable words as single characters is unwarranted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

the observation is valid, but you need to compare "word boundaries" as provided in other scripts of the period. The best comparandum is hieroglyphic Luwian, which has very similar "word boundaries". However, small function words do not get their own boundary, so that we are much rather looking at "phrase boundaries". Also, part of the text is written with ideographical determiners in every "syllabary" of the period. If we're going to decipher this, the difficult bit will be to figure out which are the logograms and which are the syllabograms. This was the greatest obstacle also in the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform. The 2004 decipherment by Achterberg et al. is well aware of all these points, which is why their result appears most "plausible" to people acquainted with Bronze Age literacy (while most of the amateur "solutions" can be dismissed out of hand). This doesn't "prove" Achterberg et al. are correct, btw., it just shows they had the background knowledge to come up with a solution that "rings true". dab (𒁳) 09:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it's non-Indo-European we are just hosed. -- Evertype·✆ 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Eisenberger's self-published article?

Eisenberg's article is self-published, and he states he is neither a linguist nor an epigrapher, so I am wondering how the article qualifies as a reliable source. I'm open to being convinced it is but we do need some rationale for it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another source: Article in The Times – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can use the self-published article as a source since the claim has been reported by various news media (including Liberty Times) and a historical museum in Taiwan. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oldest?

I think I read somewhere that the Phaistos Disc is the oldest example for writing. Is this not worth being mentioned in the opening paragraph? 192.114.175.2 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there are much older inscriptions (Sumerian, for example). --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Phaistos Disc genuine?

By Sven Buchholz.

In the scientific archaeological periodical Minerva, issue July / August 2008 We can read the following headline: The Phaistos disc, a hundred year old hoax! The 10th in a series of articles by the Editor in Chief of Minerva, Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D., dealing with the problems of forgery and ancient art. The author is a well known expert who has engaged himself with such forgeries over a period of many years. He also participated in TV programs. The disc was found in 1908 by the Italian archaeologist Louis Pernier in connection with the excavations of Phaistos. Eisenberg declares that the disc is created by its finder Louis Pernier!

Motivation

Why should Pernier pull such a stunt? His colleague, the Italian archaeologist Federico Halbherr excavated in Gortyna 1884. Halbherr was most successful and found several objects with written texts in ancient Greek language from the early 5th century BC, “The great inscription” the earliest European Legal Code, written on the city walls. Halbherr became very famous due to this discovery. Pernier was working with other Italian archaeologists excavating in the same area, the Messara plain. At the beginning of the century 1900, he was working at Phaistos. This was at the same time that Arthur Evans started to excavate at Knossos where he soon discovered a lot of clay tablets with Minoan inscriptions, Linear A and B. The expectations were great for Pernier to make similar findings. By 1908 it is most likely that he had not found any inscribed material. What could he possibly do to gain sufficient fame and glory to compete with Evans and Halbherr? What could he possibly discover? He soon came up with the answer: The creation of a relic with an untranslatable pictographic text, the Phaistos Disc! Pernier was an Italian archaeologist. During his education in Italy he must have been quite familiar with the Magliano Disc, the most popular theme for scientific discussion in the 1890’s! The disc that was excavated by Italian archaeologists in the late 1880’s has a lot of similarities with the Phaistos Disc. The entire style is the same nearly round with the text in Etruscan, spiralling inwards. Etruscan language was not yet deciphered at the time. The Phaistos and the Magliano are the only two discs of this “model” that were ever found in the whole world!

• http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/svenkriti/magliano_gettypic-1.jpg

In the article Dr. Eisenberg is carefully analysing all the aspects of the disc in order to enlighten the true nature of its origin. Since the author has engaged himself on the theme forgery for such a long period of time he has collected sufficient vital experience to create:

You say the text of the disc is untranslatable but lots of translations have been made.There is just no agreement on which one is right or if any translation is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 July 2010

“Stylistic criteria in ancient Art Forgery”

His “collection about aesthetics of the forger was published in Minerva 1992. You may as well call it: “Instructions for the detection of forgery in ancient art.”

The instructions are listed in many points. These 9 are all relevant in connection with the Phaistos disc.

1. A disparity in the execution of the elements.
2. A disparity in the degree of abstraction of the elements.
3. A unique element in the construction.
4. A unique style: The appearance of a fully developed style or type hitherto unknown.
5. Repeated favourite ancient motives and devices of the forger – in periods or regions where they do not ordinarily occur, or invented types.
6. Reversal of image.
7. A synthesis of geographically disparate styles.
8. A disparity in time-placement of elements.
9. Correction by elimination. One can allow for a small number of these elements to occur in a genuine antiquity, but the preponderance of such elements for the disc leads to the conclusion that it is certainly a forgery!

People get frustrated that the meaning of the disc can't be conclusively translated.It may take centuries. Hieroglyphs in egypt took this long to be understood. -- Alex-the-grate2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 July 2010

Similarities between the 9 points of “the instructions” and the real Phaistos disc.

Points are numbered (*1*) / (*2*) etc. with references to above mentioned points.

The disk became from the beginning a most controversial object for discussions. Until now there are more than one hundred published attempts to decipher the text. Many of these attempts are quite fantastic! None of them have the slightest resemblance with any other! The Phaistos disc is unique. Contrary to all other findings of Minoan clay tablets which are rectangular, the Phaistos disc is almost perfect circular! The most peculiar is that the characters are not engraved, they are printed with stamps! Each character has a matching stamp! Typography 3200 years before Gutenberg! The author, Dr. Eisenberg, finds it however mysterious that seemingly there is no overall layout, such as one might expect in a sophisticated script of this nature. The characters are stamped more or less coincidently, sometimes facing down, other times up, left or right! Another problem is that no such stamps used to create the disc have ever been found! Nor another copy of the disc! Most of the clay tablets that have been preserved up till our time were fired accidentally. The Phaistos disc however is baked perfectly homogenous as it could only have been in a modern ceramics oven! (*3*) (*4*)

Analysing the disc for the first time you will immediately distinguish the stylistic difference between the characters. Certain characters are picturing objects with the highest degree of “photographic” accuracy, whilst others are designed with a high degree of abstraction! With sufficient fantasy and goodwill one can accept that some of the signs of the Phaistos disk have resemblance with characters of Linear A and B as well as hieroglyphic characters from Anatolia, even from Egypt! There are also some hieroglyphic characters from Crete. It is easy to believe that the forger stole these characters from the other systems. In order to make the confusion perfect he reversed the images of some of the “stolen items” in relation to those of the prototypes. The result can only be described as: “Mixture”! Consequently, there are hieroglyphic characters on the disc where the geographic aspect is differing from Anatolia in the North to Egypt in the south, as well as characters from the Cretan Linear A and B! (*1*) / (*2*) / (*6*)

Chronologically the span is at least 600 years! We can say that the Phaistos disc is not at all compatible with any of the other Cretan hieroglyphs except for a few characters it has in common with the “Engraved Bronze Axe of Arkalochori”. This in itself is an item I found suspect many years ago, because out of the 15 hieroglyphic signs, 10 of them are unique! (*5*) / / (*7*) / (*8*).

Because many of the characters are depicting most naturally different objects, there were those who believed that the Phaistos Disc belonged to a pictographic ideogramatic writing system. In such systems each character corresponds to the object that is depicted, however the image in itself, not the word in itself! Consequently, in a pictogram system the character means the basic idea of the image. Example: In the Japanese ideogramatic writing system a picture of a HEART means heart. Other meanings are created by juxtapositions of different pictures: HEART + KNIFE = pain. It is easy to understand that such systems need thousands of pictures to convey a meaningful communication. The Phaistos Disc has only 45 characters. Several of them are repeated many times. It is therefore not possible that the disc can belong to a pictographic system. Most of the ancient writing systems in the Mediterranean Middle East area are syllabic systems. In such a system each character represents a syllable consisting of one consonant and one vowel or two vowels. Contrary to the pictograms, in a syllabic system each character represents the word of the image: Example, character depicting a HEART, in Greek KARDIA, syllable = KA.

As already mentioned above, the Phaistos Disc only comprises 45 characters whereas the known syllabic writing systems such as Linear A and B have more than the double number of characters. A phonetic alphabet such as the Greek that was created 1000 years later needs only 24 characters. From this we can conclude that the way the Phaistos disc is designed it was never intended to communicate any meaningful message!

Personal comments.

I am one of those who have been fascinated by the Minoan enigma since my days as a young boy. Reading the article of Mr. Eisenberg suddenly woke up a more than 40 year old memory. A friend of mine received a postcard with the Phaistos Disc from relatives on holiday and brought it to me for further information. At the time I did not know too much about the object so I brought it to a “historian colleague” not knowing at the time that his speciality was Etruscan, not Minoan. He immediately produced a book with a picture of the Magliano disc! I remember very well he said laughing: That one, the Phaistos, looks a good as new whilst the Magliano looks really old! I forgot all about it till I saw the picture in the Minerva article! A bell suddenly started to ring!

For many years I have engaged myself with the Minoan scripts. The aim never was to decipher the disc or the Linear A and B, but to try to understand more of the enigma. I have read about the more significant attempts to decipher the disc. Two of the books, “Die Minoische Schrift” by Kjell Aartun and “Evidence of Hellenic dialects in the Phaistos disc” by Steven Roger Fischer I have read from page one to the end. I know both writers personally! Reading such books is quite time consuming and you need to check all the time with existing catalogues depicting all the alternatives of the various characters in the respective systems. Fortunately, most of these catalogues by Evans, Chadwick, Brice and Olivier / Godard etc. are available at the library of Oslo University. From all these studies I learned a lot about the true nature of the Phaistos Disc. You do not digest material like this in one single day. Consequently it took me almost 5 years to fully “digest” the two books together with the necessary additional studies. Having familiarized myself with the material it was no big surprise for me to read the conclusions in Mr. Eisenberg’s article. I was already quite familiar with most of his 9 points! Most of my suspicion against the Phaistos disc came from reading Kjell Aartun and Steven Roger Fischer!

These are my 6 “Favourites”:

• No way for the 45 characters to fit into any system.
• No compatibility with other Minoan scripts. Kjell Aartun’s book no. 1 also comprises the Engraved Bronze Axe of Arkalochori. Because 60 % of the characters are unique, I also found this object suspicious! This is also clearly indicated by the author Dr. Eisenberg. Maybe he has material for one more article?
• The disc is unique, but the Magliano disc is an obvious model!
• None of the stamps or any other disc were ever found!
• The style is a complete mixture of elements from different times and places.
• The characters are differing widely from photographic naturalism to abstract.

Thanks to Internet it is possible to keep a world wide communication between people sharing an interest. At the same time it is easy to keep one self updated. I know many people who are sharing my suspicion. Because the disc has been “elevated” to become almost a “sacred object” nearly a relic, nobody dares to speak out! It might well be considered blasphemy!

The only solution to stop this discussion to everybody’s satisfaction is to carry out a «thermoluminescense test». This test will establish if the object was produced a hundred years ago or more than 3000 years ago! Dr. Eisenberg tried to arrange this several times. It was not even possible for him to examine the disc outside of the exhibition case.

Here is a copy of the answer of the director of the Heraklion Museum, Dr. Nota Dimopoulo – Rethemiotaki:

“ “Dear Dr. Eisenberg, In reply to your e-mail of July 25th, 2007, we would like to inform you that unfortunately we are not able to satisfy your request to examine the Phaistos Disc and the inscribed Arkalochori Axe. Specially, the Arkalochori Axe is encased and stored, whereas the Phaistos Disc, due to its uniqueness is considered immovable.” ”

Anybody who was not convinced reading the article will certainly be so after having read this declaration from the head of the museum! To me the test is of no importance. Dr. Eisenberg’s “9 point chain of evidence” together with my own experience is sufficient to convince me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven buchholz kriti (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Sven buchholz kriti's text is rather an essay (as a matter of fact it can be found posted in forums). Maybe it should be in his user page?

By the way, it's not fair to use the answer of the Heraklion Museum as a "proof". Since the "thermoluminiscence test" would damage the Disc and Eisenberg's arguments look insufficient (too many maybes, many speculations but inadequate or no proofs, many interesting questions unanswered), who will damage such an important piece without a very good reason?

And of course, the 45 signs can fit in a system. --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New Link?

What about the link: Ch. Henke, The Mathematics of the Phaistos Disc, Forum Archaeologiae 48/IX/2008 (http://farch.net)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadmossios (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. By eliminating all the errors no error is left. q.e.d. Kadmos (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

I move the section here from the main article

I am moving the folowing section here, from the main article for two reasons. 1) There is a conference about the Phaestos disk happening in London, where this subject will be the main focus. Let's wait and see the results first, before we include this in the main article. 2) The claim (even though is advertised in the times) was published in the Minerva journal, where the original author is the chief editor. In my opinion is more like an editorial than a scientific peer reviewed article. Until the international scientific comunity accept and verify this information, it falls under the Wikipedia:No original research policy.

I urge the editors interested in this topic to wait for the discussion in London, before they reinsert this information in the main article.

MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 04:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This is a self-published article. A quote from the author from Usenet (can't be used in the article as Usenet can't be used normally, but is ok here to clarify: Minerva, the International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology, is a bi-monthly publication published in England that I founded in January 1990. I am the publisher, editor-in-chief, and principal proof-reader and bottle-washer. It features primarily articles on worldwide excavations and exhibitions, mainly on Classical, Egyptian, and Near Eastern subjects, but also has occasional lengthy and often very boring articles written by me on the problems of forgery in ancient art (since I subsidize it!). It has NO articles on epigraphy as such, but sometimes on forged inscriptions. The July/August 2008 issue, vol. 19, no. 4, with my 16-page article ‘The Phaistos Disk: A 100-Year- Old Hoax?” is available at $7 or the reprint of the article itself at $5 including postage from the New York office: Minerva, 153 East 57th Street, NY, NY 10022 (email: ancient...@aol.com). Reprints are available without charge to any scholars who have published articles or books on the Phaistos Disk or engaged in discussions on it on sci.lang (even Grapheus). If one is impatient, the current issues can also be obtained at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian, the British Library, the Ashmolean Museum, the Louvre, Borders, Foyles, etc. The website is www.minervamagazine.com. antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D. (sorry, forgot to sign and sinebot is never there when you want it, only when someone vandalises and then you can't rollback!). dougweller (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This publication is not a reliable source, the author of the article is the editor of the web-page that publish it. This counts as a self publication and therefore, it is not e reliable source for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniadis (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 December 2008

I restored a subsection "Authenticity" under "Discovery". Even if we disregard Eisenberg, we have to state why we, or anyone else, thinks the disc is authentic. Do we just rely on Luigi Pernier's word? What other investigation has been made to orove its authennticity? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. It is self-published work. If we get a reliable source on this -- eg a comment by an expert in a reputable archaeological journal, we could use that, but I have searched and haven't found anything. Even the conference got very little if no publicity. The New York Times article is simply an arts correspondent reporting what Eisenberg said. We absolutely do not state why we think the disc is authentic or not, that would be original research. The only way to investigate its authenticity would be a materials test and that may be impossible due to the fragility of the disc. It is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists, but if you can find a reliable source from an archaeologist that suggests it is not that could probably be used. dougweller (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that Haughton's book, which I have, frustrates me as it doesn't cite sources enough. It does suggest that the Phaistos disc might be a forgery, but the source for that is -- according to Eisenberg, an old letter of Eisenberg's to The Economist: [6] dougweller (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists... — If this is true, then let's say so in the article. In fact, I have restored a section on authenticity stating just that. We would need sources for the claim however.

Personally I find the chances of the Phaistos Disc being authentic as being far less than the chances for the Kensington Runestone. For the Kensington stone to be authentic we only have to assume that Vikings (or Swedes) had boats. For Phaistos Disc to be authentic we have to assume that Gutenberg had a time machine. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof — or in the case of Wikipedia — extraordinary sourcing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Kensington stone issue is a lot more complicated than that, it has to do with the runes themselves. And if it was simply a matter of Gutenberg, then people would have been shouting forgery a long time ago. But thanks for the changes. dougweller (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed authenticity

(Moved from article.)

In a paper in the July-August 2008 edition of the archaeology journal Minerva, American scholar Dr Jerome Eisenberg published the results of his appraisal of the Phaistos Disc, conducted on behalf of the US Treasury Department and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Eisenberg contends that the Phaistos Disc is a hoax and that its text is a modern invention.

Eisenberg argues that two key physical features of the disc set it apart from all other Minoan clay tablets. The Disc was formed as a terracotta “pancake” with a cleanly cut edge, whereas no other known Minoan clay tablets were made in this way, since the edges would have inevitably been damaged through use. He also observed that the Disc was deliberately and evenly fired, whereas all other Minoan tablets were only fired accidentally when the buildings that housed them burned down.

According to a report in The Times, museum authorities refused to allow Eisenberg to study the Disc outside its case and also refused to allow him to conduct thermoluminescence testing which would have helped to establish the date of manufacture.

You've misread the article. Eisenberg has done work for the US Treasury and the Getty Museum, but it doesn't have anything to do with his work on the Phaistos disc. dougweller (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Article for Professor Pernier?

Why is there no article for Luigi Pernier? Knowing something about his career might help in judging the hoax claim. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think, knowing something about Dr Eisenberg's career might help in judging the hoax claim :-) I wrote short article about Luigi Pernier. So, if you speak Italian or Russian, you can write stub. I didn't find more information about him in web, it is necessary to look for some books. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But of course, it isn't up to us to judge the claim. Now if anyone can find anything by a reliable source discussiong Pernier and the disc, great, but not us. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

References Godart

Please add Godart (1990) to the references: "... Louis Godart (1990) resigns himself ..." .

Thanks.

Arie ten Cate (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Add section on refused requests to test the disk?

The number of articles on the possible forgery of the Phaistos disk continues to increase, but Wikipedia does not mention it. Calls for thermo-luminensce tests go unanswered, leading to further press reports -- yet WIkipedia won't report that either. This is beginning to look like a bunch of storks hiding their heads in the sand. Whether or not the disk is a fake, the encyclopedia ought to report on the early 21st century controversy and the refusal of the museum to allow simple testing. That's my two cents, anyway. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the increase over the self-published Eisenberg article? dougweller (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to add here that the proposed method of testing is destructive, meaning that a piece of the sample must be destroyed in order to get an estimate (with errorbars since there is no holy grail in dating methods). Do you think that if I ask to go to the Louvre and cut a piece from to Mona Lisa canvas because I think it might be fake, they will let me do it? The answer is no... When a person has suspicions about an object of this importance, it raises the question in the scientific community, experts will discuss about it and they will decide if there is ground for this type of tests. Then one should thing what is the most accurate method, who is the best expert to perform the test, who is going to pay for it (because it will probably cost a lot) abd what other tests one can do simultaneously, so that you can get the most out of the dammage. This is a process that takes years, and scientific planning. Once you start chirping off the clay, you cannot put it back. There is no museum in the world that it will support a policy, that everybody can come, cut pieces from the items in their collection, and perform random tests to support random theories. As far as I know, there is no general scientific discussion about the subject, or at least a scientific publication on the subject. The personal web page of the author is not a scientific publication. As for the times magazine, the only reference they provide, is the original web page of the author. Yes, "Times" is a very well known journal, but it is not a scientific journal. Since they only reproduce the original information from the web page of the original author, it does not count as one more publication, it is the same publication in a different medium. And last, the information is not hidden or removed, It is included here in the talk page, and everybody in the world can read it and make their own conclusions about who is doing what and for what reason. But, as per Wikipedia policy, no original information, or original research should be included in the main article. If anybody has objections about this policy, there are other pages, like the village pump where you can raise the subject, and it will affect all the contents of wikipedia not just this article, because, like it or not, a number of people voted, and decided that this is the rule for this project. MaNiAδIs^{τάλκ-Autographs} 14:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Vive le dogmatisme !

deleted thread by banned user Rose-mary (talk · contribs). Being banned from editing Wikipedia extends to editing talkpages and to anonymous edits. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "The Phaistos Disc is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists."

The fact tag was removed last night, but as it is only weeks old, I've replaced it. This sort of thing is tricky. Are there any archaeologists at all who challenge its authenticity? I can't find any. You could put a fact tag on the same sentence for most archaeological artifacts, from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid to old stone tools (yes, there are some exceptions). No one bothers to write an article saying 'X is generally accepted', so you shouldn't expect to find a reference. Tricky. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I thought that the text and sources I added was sufficient. Here is what I added:

The assumption of authenticity is based on the excavation records by Luigi Pernier. This assumption is supported by the later discovery of the Arkalochori Axe with similar but not identical glyphs.

The possibility that the disc is a forgery has been raised, based on the premise that not a single example of these glyphs have been found in the numerous excavations in Crete over the past century. The scholar Jerome Eisenberg, the founder and editor-in-chief of Minerva: The International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology, has claimed that the disc is not a relic, but a fake that has duped scholars since its discovery. Eisemberg proposes that the possible sources of some of the signs included signs copied from 6th century BC Attic black-figure vases and miniaturized objects on Egyptian wall reliefs.

Pergamino (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More on the forgery claim

I keep thinking about this. Obviously Eisenberg's claim is self-published and that's a problem. The conference seems to have been a damp squib. But I have now found some discussion by someone who apparently seems qualified to discuss it, an American archaeologist named Stephen Chrisomalis. He's published stuff in various places on other subjects, eg [7] and [8]. These are publications in academic archaeological journals and books. He's also written two short pieces about Eisenberg's claims. These are self-published. But, he's an expert. One is here [9] and the other, earlier one, here [10]. They're worth reading.

WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." There isn't a huge amount of interest in Eisenberg's claims, and Chrisomalis seems to be an established expert given his articles in Antiquity and the Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Might this be a way out of the present impasse? Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the editor-in-chief of a publication, whe he/she writes an article is "self-publishing"? I'd say that what it important is the publication's stature. So, what is the stature of Minerva in archeological circles? Pergamino (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, what about this: Haughton, Brian (2007). Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries. Career Press. p. 116. ISBN 1564148971. ? On page 116 Haughton writes about the possibility of forgery. Pergamino (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's seen as a mix of art and popular archaeology not aimed at professional archaeologists. Eisenberg is the owner of Minerva, that makes his article self-published - he controls the content, there is no peer review. I have Haughton's book, he is as I recall referring indirectly to a 1999 letter by Eisenberg. He doesn't have anything more to say than Robinson does, and Robinson is an expert whereas Haughton is not. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• If Haughton is referring to Eisenberg (is he really?), will the limitation on self-publishing apply if we quote Haughton? Pergamino (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do you know if Eisenberg is really a recognized expert in art forgeries as reported in the timesonline? Pergamino (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Robinson mentions Eisenberg, so Eisenberg is now in the article. Did you miss that? Yes, he's an expert on ancient art forgeries of various types. This is of course a bit different. Did you read the links to Chrisomalis? Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looking good! Pergamino (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. My understanding is that most people have sort of given up on the Phaistos Disc pending the appearance of new evidence. Most people will say they are ready to accept it as genuine, but they aren't going to bet a fortune on it. This is the impression the article should give. The mainstream position is "yeah, it's probably authentic. We don't know what to do with it though. People who tell you otherwise will very likely be cranks." --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although it seems that there is still an ongoing debate about it, albeit not too vigorous. Pergamino (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

peer review

"It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article"? How is a "peer review archive" different from a generic talk archive? Seeing that the entire point of talkpages is to present "ideas you can use to improve this article"? --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It says in the Wikipedia:Peer review page: "Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other."

It seems like a good idea to me. Pergamino (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Presumably since it's listed at Wikipedia:Peer_review, the request will attract the attention of editors who don't have the article on their watchlist. Of course, since these are editors who probably don't know anything about the disc, they can only tell us whether the article clearly conveys information about the disc to a non-expert reader; they can't tell us whether the article is accurate or comprehensive. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• We've got some good info from the automatic/machine review. I'm working on it. Pergamino (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The lateral direction

I added this subject today, with a reference to my paper. I tried to be very careful to prevent a conflict of interest. Hence I concentrated on things that can be verified simply by looking at a picture of the disk (side A). Note that this is not a decipherment claim. It merely reports about reading in the lateral direction.

Arie ten Cate (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use it - it's self-published, please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. But why also remove the Corrections subsection? Arie ten Cate (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we find good published sources for this? If we can, great. I assumed that was from your own personal knowledge, which may be excellent but we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As indicated, it lists the corrections as described in Godart (1995). (Duhoux (1977) lists a subsection of these.) Arie ten Cate (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note: I mean here the removed subsection with the header "Corrections"; not the paragraph about the corrections in the removed subsection with the header "The lateral direction". (Also, the above phrase "Duhoux (1977) lists a subsection of these" must be: "Duhoux (1977) lists a subset of these".) I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. Arie ten Cate (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but we need page numbers for references, see WP:CITE, and unless you want to convert the rest of the references to Harvard, which I doubt, you'll have to use the same reference stye of inline citations already in use. Ok? Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat at a loss. Why do you write "we need page numbers" when I wrote "Godart (1995:99-107)" in revision 10:45, 17 May 2009. Is this the wrong inline reference style? It occurs on many places in the article; for instance "Godart (1995:101)", "Evans (1909:24f.)", "Glotz (1925:381)" and "Ipsen (1929:15)". Arie ten Cate (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I automatically mention page numbers. What I'm annoyed with myself for is forgetting that there are two reference systems used in the article, which shouldn't have happened and which I probably should have done something about when I last edited it. There really does need to be some move to consistency. I'm off to bed now - I'm not sure which system is used most, or even which is now most in favor. But good articles are consistent with their referencing. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can agree on which referencing system to use, I can help with the conversion. Pergamino (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If this "you" includes me: I am not really qualified to participate in this discussion. I merely used the style which seemed to occur most often in the article. (This was after I failed to find a standard for this particular issue in Wikipedia: Citing sources. However, I assume that inconsistency within an article is even worse than inconsistency within Wikipedia.) Arie ten Cate (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see now that the standard in Wikipedia: Parenthetical referencing#Page numbers seems to be the use of a colon, assuming we can transform "... (Benjamin 1988:9)" into "... using Benjamin (1988:9)". Arie ten Cate (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Massey twins

I agree with the rationale for removing them. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. For a topic like this, "reliability" of sources needs to be held to a high formal standard; otherwise it opens the flood doors for all sorts of cranks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the principle that something has to be published in paper to be reliable, There are a lot of reliable web sites written by reliable academics, and conversely there are a lot of published books written by cranks, so to my mind whether something is "published" or not is not necessarily a good indicator of reliability. I would judge each source on its own merits, and in the case of the Massey twins paper, although it is just as crankish as some of the published theories, it is in my opinion sufficiently detailed to merit inclusion. But clearly I'm in a minority, so I'm not going to push the point. BabelStone (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard about the "published" rule, and it really doesn't make sense. This rule would rule out anyone who self-publishes, e.g. with Booksurge or Lulu, and includes a lot of people who have found a publisher who thinks the book might make them some money... As far as I'm concerned, the Massey paper is a lot more convincing than Stephen Fischer's book, but presumably Fischer is acceptable because he got his book published. Jpaulm (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this. See WP:SPS to see the guideline against self-published works being used. To BabelStone, a website by an acknowledged expert would normally be acceptable. A published book by a crank might not be, see WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying Lulu and BookSurge are not considered "self-publishing"? Also, I have a published book, and that happened because the editor of an established publishing company liked my book - was she an "expert" in the field? Finally, was Wegener a "crank"? This whole WP:SPS thing needs updating! Jpaulm (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent paper in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences to be added

{{editsemiprotected}}

1) in the "Non-linguistic or logographic" list, a recently published paper should be added:

Wolfgang Reczko, 2009 (interpretation as sun-eclipse information and dating)

2) In the "Attempted decipherments" references, the corresponding paper should be added:

Reczko, Wolfgang, "Analyzing and dating the structure of the Phaistos Disk", Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2009) doi:10.1007/s12520-009-0015-2

Done. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc Inscription in Unicode

Since the Phaistos Disc symbols have been encoded into Unicode, I believe it might also be prudent to provide a Unicode text transcription of the disc, in addition to the mathematical representation already present. Thoughts? Wikilackey (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So that readers can copy the text from the page, and paste it into an editor on their PC, and then play around with it as they like. Which is something they cannot do with images. Fonts that cover the Unicode Phaistos Disc characters include Everson Mono, Code2001 and Aegean. I think adding the Unicode characters would be a very good idea. BabelStone (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and re-added the Unicode characters under Inscription Text. It's a more appropriate place, I think, then where I had initially placed it. I've also created a Wikisource page of the inscription, for anyone who's interested. Wikilackey (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I added some html markup to use Everson Mono, Code2001 or Aegean font (in that order), so that the characters automatically display if the user has the latest version of one of these fonts installed on their system. Everson Mono is the closest font to the glyph images, which is why I put it first in the list. BabelStone (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. 2 to 1 is a consensus? I seem to recall a previous consensus with many more editors that it was not appropriate, although the archives are sufficiently mangled that I can't find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unicode Template

I believe that the Unicode template added by User:Crazymadlover and removed by User:Arthur Rubin is appropriate for this article as it provides the Unicode code points of the characters, which are not listed elsewhere in the article. In principle, all articles about Unicode-encoded scripts or blocks of characters (e.g. Dominoes) should have a Unicode template. BabelStone (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value of the private Unicode section. It had been previously removed from this article for lack of relevance, and I don't see anything as having changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "private Unicode section" -- could you please explain? BabelStone (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall if the template had been in the article before, and been removed. The encoding of the disk, itself, had been in the article before, and had been removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see why we need a separate template for it, but I echo BabelStone's question: what do you mean by "private"? If you mean these are technically somebody's Private Use Area assignments, no, apparently, they are not, they are supposed to be a regular normative part of "official" Unicode. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Constellation theory

I though this was pretty much solved when someone identified the symbols as constellations rather than a language?

Could you please supply the references for this? Thanks. Joan.salkin (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think constellations are unlikely on the disc because in Minoan times even civilisations linked to crete like egypt used only 36 constellation sets as a calendar.There are 61 divisions of the disc (30 +31). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alex-the-grate2, 16 July 2010

Authenticity

The Phaistos Disc is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists.[2] The assumption of authenticity is based on the excavation records by Luigi Pernier. This assumption is supported by the later discovery of the Arkalochori Axe with similar but not identical glyphs.

Alistair Bain says the Phaistos Disc and Arkalochori axe share all the same glyphs and this proves the disc is genuine because the axe was found 30 years after Luigi Pernier found the disc.See this link: http://s958.photobucket.com/albums/ae63/sicilyhenge/?action=view&current=phaistos-disc-arkalochori22.jpg

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you want the article to say? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Alex. It would certainly be good to have a reference to support the statement about the role of the Arkalochori axe, but the link your provided isn't to a reliable academic source. Can you be more specific about this Alistair Bain and how and where his argument was published? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The Phaistos Disc (also spelled Phaistos Disk, Phaestos Disc) is a disk of fired clay from the Minoan palace of Phaistos on the island of Crete, possibly dating to the middle or late Minoan Bronze Age (2nd millennium BC). It is about 15 cm (5.9 in) in diameter and covered on both sides with a spiral of stamped symbols.The spirals end in the centre of the disc and look like snake heads.Statues of snake goddesses have been found on Crete.

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I added "on the island of Crete", but I think the other addition, about the snake heads, is too specific for the lead sentence. This should be covered further down in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alex-the-grate2, 17 July 2010

My name is Alistair Bain.

I am not academically qualified but think that there is some reasonable evidence that the Phaistos Disc inspired the Arkalochori axe or vice versa and that because of this, and the fact that the disc was found 30 years or so before the axe, the disc is most likely genuine.See my link here showing how the axe and disc might be related: http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae63/sicilyhenge/arkalochoriaxe2phaistosdisc.jpg

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing original ideas. If you want to publish and original idea, there are multiple places on the web for doing that. I see you have already found one. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discovery

{{editsemiprotected}}

Tablet PH-1

The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; specifically the disc was found in the basement of room 8 in building 101 of a group of buildings to the northeast of the main palace. This grouping of 4 rooms also served as a formal entry into the palace complex. Italian archaeologist Luigi Pernier recovered this remarkably intact "dish", about 15 cm in diameter and uniformly slightly more than one centimetre in thickness, on 3 July 1908 during his excavation of the first Minoan palace.

Two spirals - one on each side of the disc - end in the centre of the disc and here they look like snake heads.

No need to link images from academic sources now. Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source linking the images to the Phaistos disc, without that this is original research, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Signs

There are 241 tokens on the disc, comprising 45 unique signs. Many of these 45 signs represent easily identifiable every-day things. CHANGE TO: There are 241 tokens on the disc.The disc is divided into thirty sections of tokens on one side and 31 sets of tokens on the other. It is of interest to note that 241 tokens amounts exactly to 8 months if there is one token per day (seven 30 day months plus one 31 day month).The growing season in Crete is 8 months long ( end of march to beginning of november).The disc has 45 unique signs on it.Many of these 45 signs represent easily identifiable every-day things... (end edit )

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, sorry, too much unsourced speculative opinion of your own in this passage. We can't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alex-the-grate2, 18 July 2010

Dating

Current text

Yves Duhoux (1977) dates the disc to between 1850 BC and 1600 BC (MMIII) on the basis of Luigi Pernier's report, which says that the Disc was in a Middle Minoan undisturbed context. Jeppesen (1963) dates it to after 1400 (LMII-III). Doubting the viability of Pernier's report, Louis Godart (1990) resigns himself to admitting that archaeologically, the disc may be dated to anywhere in Middle or Late Minoan times (MMI-LMIII, a period spanning most of the 2nd millennium BC). J. Best (in Achterberg et al. 2004) suggests a date in the first half of the 14th century BC (LMIIIA) based on his dating of tablet PH 1.

If this latter date is correct then the Santorini ( island of Thera) volcano could not have caused the collapse of the Phaistos palace (in whose ruins the disc was found) because the volcano erupted in the 16th century BC according to radiocarbon dating.

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the {{editsemiprotected}} template, as you have not proposed a clear alternative to the current text. However you have an interesting point here: If Phaistos palace was destroyed in a volcano eruption in the 16th century BC and Tablet PH-1 can be dated to the 14th century BC, then this is a clear indication that both objects were planted by Pernier. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Both objects could be genuine and could have been planted by someone else centuries before Pernier for religious reasons. Alex-the-grate2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

However, all this is editors' opinions, ie original research - WP:OR, which doesn't belong here. Discussion of the Phaistos disc is not the purpose of this page. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alex-the-grate2, 19 July 2010

Yves Duhoux (1977) dates the disc to between 1850 BC and 1600 BC (MMIII) on the basis of Luigi Pernier's report, which says that the Disc was in a Middle Minoan undisturbed context. Jeppesen (1963) dates it to after 1400 (LMII-III). Doubting the viability of Pernier's report, Louis Godart (1990) resigns himself to admitting that archaeologically, the disc may be dated to anywhere in Middle or Late Minoan times (MMI-LMIII, a period spanning most of the 2nd millennium BC). J. Best (in Achterberg et al. 2004) suggests a date in the first half of the 14th century BC (LMIIIA) based on his dating of tablet PH 1. If this latter date is correct then the Santorini ( island of Thera) volcano could not have caused the collapse of the Phaistos palace (in whose ruins the disc was found) because the volcano erupted in the 16th century BC according to radiocarbon dating.

I HAVE JUST ADDED SOME TEXT TO THE END OF THIS SECTION "IF THIS LATTER DATE" ETC...

Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The added text is unsourced, WP:OR and WP:SYN. No reason for changes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with other scripts table

This is apparently unsourced - is there a source or is this original research? Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most likely the source is Thorsten Timm, as he is cited as the source of the similar table in Arkalochori Axe. On the reliability of the source, see Talk:Arkalochori Axe#Source of comparison table?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of Discovery

Date of Santorini eruption

The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; specifically the disc was found in the basement of room 8 in building 101 of a group of buildings to the northeast of the main palace. This grouping of 4 rooms also served as a formal entry into the palace complex. Italian archaeologist Luigi Pernier recovered this remarkably intact "dish", about 15 cm in diameter and uniformly slightly more than one centimetre in thickness, on 3 July 1908 during his excavation of the first Minoan palace. It was found in the main cell of an underground "temple depository". These basement cells, only accessible from above, were neatly covered with a layer of fine plaster. Their content was poor in precious artifacts but rich in black earth and ashes, mixed with burnt bovine bones. In the northern part of the main cell, in the same black layer, a few inches south-east of the disc and about twenty inches above the floor, linear A tablet PH-1 was also found. The site apparently collapsed as a result of an earthquake, possibly linked with the explosive eruption of the Santorini volcano that affected large parts of the Mediterranean region in mid second millennium BC.The eruption took place around 1600 BC [1]

I HAVE ADDED ONE SENTENCE AT THE END .... Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. With the edits you've made in the meantime, you ought to be autoconfirmed by now. Have you tried if you can edit the article yourself? Ah no, sorry, it's a four day waiting period, so you would have reached the threshold only tomorrow. But I've set the "confirmed" right for your account manually now. Try it out, you ought to be able to edit now. Happy editing (but please do continue to mind what people told you about sourcing and "no original research"), -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should say more than mid-2nd millennium, given the controversy around the date of this eruption. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)