Jump to content

Talk:Phaistos Disc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Auburntide (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 17 August 2011 (→‎Number of Signs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWriting systems B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

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.

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 J.F. has emphasized in another article (unpublished but that he was kind enough to give me a copy of) that Linear A has been used to write several languages (including Semitic).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).

Page protected

...so I can't fix this, someone else will have to do it: "bovine" should link to Bovinae, easiest to just use bovine. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images in the Signs section.

So that idiots like me are not fooled again, the images in this section should be labelled as reproductions or replicas. Where did they come from? Myrvin (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly  Done. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No point in keeping the replica images at all as we already have images of the original, and the replicas are not an accurate copy of the original. Therefore I have removed them from the article. BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Eisenberg declares disc to be a hoax - The Times 2008

A report published in The Times by Arts Correspondent, Dalya Alberge, July 12 2008 - refers to the American scholar Jerome Eisenberg, a specialist in faked ancient art, who claims that this disc is a hoax and is indecipherable not because it is a relic dating from 1,700BC. but a forgery created by Luigi Pernier, an Italian archaeologist, who “discovered” it in the Minoan palace of Phaistos on Crete in 1908.

Eisenberg asserts Pernier was desperate to impress his archeological contempories with an important find of his own volition, and so needed to unearth something to "out do other discoveries" made by the likes Sir Arthur Evans, a renowned English archaeologist of the time, and Federico Halbherr, a fellow Italian that he simply created the disc.

Eisenberg who has also conducted appraisals for both the US Treasury Department and the J. Paul Getty Museum, asserts that the 'disc' was also created with 'punctuation' to lead scholars astray, and that the method of munufacture and creation is wholly inconsistant with all other similar examples of manufacture from the period.

By 2008 the authorities in Rome had refused a thermoluminescence test that may have ultimately proved or disproved Eisenberg's claim, and Eisenberg was also refused all forms of access to inspect of the disc outside of it's actual display case. [Bryan Hovercraft 19 12 10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Hovercraft (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Eisenberg still, so far as I know, has not published his ideas anywhere other than the magazine he owns, Minerva. When he does, then maybe it will belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signs in adjacent windings

What is wrong with this subsection? It has been reverted as: "reverting original research ref'd to a Journal of Paleontology article." Myrvin (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody knows what is wrong, can somebody restore this subsection? I fear that if I do that, it might be reverted again.
This is about the revision 12:11, 20 February 2011. The word "Paleontology" does not occur in it. As indicated in the description of that revision, the DOI of the journal article was incorrectly expanded in the original version, at 18 February. This can be verified easily. (See Template:Cite_doi about automatic expansion of a DOI, by a "bot".)
Arie ten Cate (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it is often frowned on to cite yourself, the subsection now correctly referenced to a reliable source, and so I have restored it. BabelStone (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signs shown in mirror image

Does anybody know why the signs are shown in mirror image, with left and right exchanged? (This includes the Unicode characters; the Unicode Technical Committee is investigating this.) This has been noted in the article from 2 February 2011 to 18 February 2011. Sign 28 is also rotated: on the disc it is written with the hoof up. Arie ten Cate (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in the article under "Directionality" and in the Unicode proposal (page 3). As most interpretations of the Phaistos disc inscriptions read the characters from the outside of the disc into the centre, it is generally considered that the faces, walking figures, birds etc. look backwards along the direction of writing (i.e. the writing goes into the faces of the characters). However, as the inscription is normally discussed in a left-to-right context in English and other European languages, the Phaistos disc text is traditionally laid out in left-to-right directionality, which requires reversing the glyphs so that they face to the left. This corresponds to the practice for laying out Egyptian hieroglyphs in modern left-to-right contexts. Note that the Unicode code charts only show representative glyphs, and there is no reason why somebody could not create a Unicode Phaistos disc font with right-facing glyphs for use in right-to-left contexts or for use in a simple list of the glyphs. BabelStone (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that would conflict with LTR Bidi_Class. This flipping thing is looking more and more strange. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not conflict. The bidi class of Latin, Old Italic, and Phaistos Disc is LTR. One can use the directional overrides on all of these and get RTL behaviour, and add OpenType tables to mirror the glyphs when the overrides are in place. -- Evertype·✆ 13:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... all this to reproduce the original face. So with Unicode sec we cannot reproduce the original view! I get the workings you point to, Evertype, but it is a construction still. If these scholars are that far into the disc research, let's ask them to do the mirror-steps as part of their research. On top of this: if RTL is an as yet unknown part of the coding/decoding mind, scholars will be wrongfooted for the next two generations or so. (All this after you pointed me to your /formal subpage :-) -- very interesting reading). -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are complaining about. What is a "Unicode sec"? http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/11166-phaistos-response.pdf shows examples of RTL and LTR presentations of the text. It also explains the rationale which was accepted by the technical committees when choosing strong LTR directionality for the script. And this cannot be changed. (Not should it be) So what are you complaining about? -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not complaining, I am stating. For now, I don't think I can be more clear than what I wrote. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is something wrong with your English, then. I still don't know what a "Unicode sec" is. I don't know what you mean by "workings" or "construction", or what "mirror-steps" are. Or what a "coding/decoding mind" is. But it doesn't matter. The standard is as it is, intentionally. -- Evertype·✆ 00:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you "still don't know", it could be about your capacity for reading & understanding too. Even more probably so, since in this thread you diverted twice to personal stuff. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what is a "Unicode sec"? -- Evertype·✆ 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try. (1) As it is: on the disk, the plumed head is nosing (looking) rightwards, in an RTL directionality; a font that has the Phaistos Disc block available, would have to show the U+101D1 PLUMED HEAD nosing (looking) leftwards given the bidi_class "L". (2) This is why I said: "with Unicode sec we cannot reproduce the original view!" (namely, a with right-nosed plumed head). (3) Then, you noted that using a Bidi-override and an OpenType table, it will be all right ((4) I understand that OpenType table (font definition) has two sets of glyphs available: one for each orientation (so there is a left-nosed and a right-nosed plumed head), and it has a rule like "WHEN Unicode Phaistos Disk Sign AND used R-to-L THEN use the glyph with rightward-nosing orientation"). (5) About this I (meant to) note: sure it would "work out" well. And: requiring an extra or specialised font definition to render the original disc view is a construct. A user would need extra preconditions to make it work, a Unicode-covering font is not enough. Full stop. (6) As a consequence of this situation (not of my opinion), I used the words "Unicode sec" as opposed to "Unicode with extra outside preconditions" if you like. (7) Another consequence is, that the scolarly laboratory situation (using mirrored, left-nosing glyphs) now has become the standard; (8) imo it could & should have been considered to require that the mirrored-OpenType-font-requirements or any other solution are the exception. So that, the scolars who are studying the signs would have to dig into these extras -- which is more part of their job. After all, it was "them" who started to flip the images in the first place ;-). Third note I made, and again not an opinion: if the R-to-L writing sequence is part of the writing system's background or explanation or mental world, the scolars now will miss a hint to that. Such an explanation is an unknown, so it cannot be excluded. (10) Now, I could be wrong somewhere so then point it out (is what we are here for), but saying "the standard is as it is" is not a contribution to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what the word "sec" means. This is the fourth time I have asked it. -- Evertype·✆ 14:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case the answer to your complaint is the same as it was previously, and is as described in the original proposal to encode the Phaistos Disc, in the document discussing fonts and directionality already mentioned above, in Babelstone's answer to Arie ten Cate above, and in the article itself in the section on directionality. I don't see what more needs to be said. -- Evertype·✆ 14:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for "Unicode sec", is what I replied to. The word "sec", apparently not used in English this way (sorry), literally is "dry wine" (as opposed to sweet wine), and by extension is used meaning "without additions", or even "speaking dryly" = without superfluous words. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not complain but state. There is no "complaint" to be "answered", nor "let me explain again". I just expanded on the consequences of the situation. E.g., my statement "So with Unicode [without extra preconditions] we cannot reproduce the original view!" can be declared True, Not true, or discussed. I declare the outcome for now to be "Indeed". And my opinion on that is: strange. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, I do not think this discussion has anything to do with improving this article, so may I suggest that if you have queries relating to the Unicode encoding of Phaistos Disc or the character properties of Phaistos Disc characters you raise them on a appropriate forum rather than here. BabelStone (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image ok that I've inserted? I will soon upload a new language-neutral version. -- *«( P e r h e l i o n )»* 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re BabelStone: except maybe that the mirrored-glyph explanation & consequences cannot be understood from the current article. Well, in my previous last post I sort of closed it here. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phaistos Disc and the "Hands of God"

If you look at this link you can see something at the top right of the page which I think you will agree is the comb-shaped object on the Phaistos Disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_of_God

Do you think it should be included on the main page about the disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not without a reliable sources saying it's on the Phaistos disc. Please read WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? You don't mean the nebula, I hope? (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.139.40 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign No 14, "manacles" or "yoke"?

Does sign n.14 not look like this: oxen yoke ? I wonder how many ambitious "translators" have been missled by the funny interpratation of s.14 as "manacles". It is highly unlikely that in bronze age manacles were used or were that important so as to be s symbol. The yoke was (and still is) a highly estimated object and symbol in most cultures. Not sure though if this idea of mine will help any translator-to-be. --Enoiken (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unicode signs

sorry for my bad english first. In "4.4. Inscription text" is as example for can read the signs mentioned: Fonts Everson Mono or Code2001. I installed now extra for this article Code2001, Everson Mono is shareware and I don't pay 25 Dollar just to read an article in Wikipedia. Result: still no signs to see - still only the stripes. Is there another (Freeware-)Font which maybe fix this Problem? -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 11:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you don't like to support font development, Hartmann. -- Evertype·✆ 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Aegean font is freeware and supports Phaistos. BabelStone (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hehe wonderfull - this one works. Thank you sooo much for this hint. Maybe it should stand in the article also? -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article for this font.BabelStone (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Signs

It seems to me that the number of signs as cited in the article as being 45, is incorrect. I may have missed the reference to this being the number of signs on the disc, but it is obvious to me that there two different species of fish depicted on the "b" side of the disc. Same orientation, same row, one fish is clearly facing in the opposite direction and the distance between its pelvic and anal fins are a different distance apart between the two. ````

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phaistos_Disc&oldid=445387344"