Talk:Phaistos Disc

• Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive1: discussion of unicity distance, minimal length for decipherment
• Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive2, 3, 4, 5, 6

dispute over notability of J. Faucounau's reading

---

Phaistos Disc and Printing

I put it back to "clearly an understanding of printing", because according to the following definition it clearly, not reasonably is.

text in glyphs

[moved to article]

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

voices of the scholary world, 20 years ago

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

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

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

What Evans actually said

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Acrophony

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

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

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

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

Kadmos' quote of Neumann is notable however.

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

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

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

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

older iteration about acrophony

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rose-mary is wrong;

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

Her reconstruction of Faucounau's method is

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

Septentrionalis 05:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

4 - by - bystander (see his arms)

6 - ka - karma goddess

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

15 - out - outbreak tool

30 - the - theophany of the english sheepgod

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

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

S O4 : "bystander" (?) v./ "prisoner"

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

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

S 30 : "theophany" (???) v./ "ram"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

Off topic novel

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

Golden Ring from Mavro Spelio

Just for your information, Mr Bachmann, may I call your attention upon the "Annexe n° 3" of the J.Faucounau's book Les Origines grecques à l'Age de Bronze ? It is a very short, accessory study of the said inscription, considered by J.F. as the only known document in Linear A, which could be written in Proto-Ionian Greek. A translation has even been given, but considered by the author as nothing but an interesting possibility (personal discussion with J.F. about one year ago). J.F. has emphasized in another article (unpublished but that he was kind enough to give me a copy of) that Linear A has been used to write several languages (including Semitic). But, of course, you will consider all this as amateur's dreaming , I guess... You are so well informed by one of your compatriots, Mr Bachmann !.. (User 80.90.57.154 , 17:12, March 26, 2006).

ban

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

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

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

Modern Greek name

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

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

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

The name Festos is sometimes uses at Greek websites [2] and at Maps from Crete [3]. But for the Phaistos Disc the spelling "Festos Disc" is indeed uncommon. Therefore I agree. Kadmos 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc decipherment claims vs. decipherment claims at Phaistos Disc

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

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

citation needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ipsen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date Wars

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

directionality

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

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

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

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

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

original signs vs. everson mono phaistos font

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

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

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

Phaistos in Unicode?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGH

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character names

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

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

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

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

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

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

PD Symbols Table

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

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

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

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

exact character shapes & "printing"

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

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

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

DGG 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion at DGG's suggestion. The comparison to traditional printing is flawed for a number of reasons -- the key one being the conflating of "movable type" with printing. Stamping technology predates printing in all cultures by centuries (at least). While that is a component of printing, it's not the only one. Arguably more key is the notion of a "master image," be it physical or digital. In this sense, there doesn't seem to be a master image or matrix used in the manufacture of the disk. Thus each disk produced starts back at "zero" and must be built from scratch. That is a significantly different mode of (re)production than traditional printing.

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

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

Matt 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Game board theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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