![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
[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)
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))
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)
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:
It has not been read. J.F.'s theory based on Acrophony is not notable. Evertype 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Kadmos' quote of Neumann is notable however.
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)
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;
Her reconstruction of Faucounau's method is
Septentrionalis 05:42, 27 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)
Sorry, by you are piling up false ideas upon false statements !..
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.
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)
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).
[oftopic tangent deleted, see page history] dab (ᛏ) 08:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
It is really necessary to have redundant informations (bibliography etc.) on both articles? Kadmos 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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
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)
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)
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)
DGG 05:16, 5 November 2006 (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)
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)
The new section on the Disc being a game board seems like original research. -- Evertype· ✆ 11:49, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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!
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:
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.
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!
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!
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)
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)
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 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)
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. [1]
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)
Please add Godart (1990) to the references: "... Louis Godart (1990) resigns himself ..." .
Thanks.
Arie ten Cate ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. [2] 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. [3] [4] 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. [5]
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)
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)
![]() | Phaistos Disc/Archive 7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Phaistos Disc/Archive 7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
"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)
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)
If you can agree on which referencing system to use, I can help with the conversion. Pergamino ( talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale for removing them. Dougweller ( talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{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
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)
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 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 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)
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¤t=phaistos-disc-arkalochori22.jpg
Alex-the-grate2 ( talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is apparently unsourced - is there a source or is this original research? Dougweller ( talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; [7] 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
[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)
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))
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)
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:
It has not been read. J.F.'s theory based on Acrophony is not notable. Evertype 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Kadmos' quote of Neumann is notable however.
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)
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;
Her reconstruction of Faucounau's method is
Septentrionalis 05:42, 27 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)
Sorry, by you are piling up false ideas upon false statements !..
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.
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)
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).
[oftopic tangent deleted, see page history] dab (ᛏ) 08:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
It is really necessary to have redundant informations (bibliography etc.) on both articles? Kadmos 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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
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)
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)
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)
DGG 05:16, 5 November 2006 (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)
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)
The new section on the Disc being a game board seems like original research. -- Evertype· ✆ 11:49, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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!
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:
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.
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!
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!
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)
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)
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 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)
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. [1]
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)
Please add Godart (1990) to the references: "... Louis Godart (1990) resigns himself ..." .
Thanks.
Arie ten Cate ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. [2] 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. [3] [4] 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. [5]
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)
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)
![]() | Phaistos Disc/Archive 7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Phaistos Disc/Archive 7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
"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)
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)
If you can agree on which referencing system to use, I can help with the conversion. Pergamino ( talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale for removing them. Dougweller ( talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{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
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)
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 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 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)
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¤t=phaistos-disc-arkalochori22.jpg
Alex-the-grate2 ( talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is apparently unsourced - is there a source or is this original research? Dougweller ( talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Phaistos Disc was discovered in the Minoan palace-site of Phaistos, near Hagia Triada, on the south coast of Crete; [7] 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)