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

----

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 J.F. has emphasized in another article (unpublished but that he was kind enough to give me a copy of) that Linear A has been used to write several languages (including Semitic).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

This was semi-protected more than a decade ago, is it still necessary to have it be semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia wisdom (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

::Of course not, but this is now an established fiefdom, as is par for the course on Wikipedia, and I suspect the power and control won't be easily relinquished. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Phaistos Disc|answered=yes}}

Although the Phaistos Disc is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists, a few scholars believe that the disc is a forgery or a hoax.

if appropriate please name the scholars and or show us the references for this statement thanks 70.189.223.151 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

: File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the "Authenticity" section. Three sources are given for "hoax" statement. RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Phaistos Disc|answered=yes}}

In the section Dating the date by Godart should be changed:

Currently: ... the disc may be dated to anywhere in Middle or Late Minoan times (MMI–LMIII, a period spanning most of the second millennium B.C.)

Should be: ... the disc may be dated to anywhere in Middle Minoan III or Late Minoan times (MMIII–LMIII, a period spanning most of the second millennium B.C.)

Source: J. Best, https://www.academia.edu/66972374/The_Phaistos_disc_a_Luwian_letter_to_Nestor p. 25 (next-to-last paragraph says Minoen Moyenne III); unfortunately, I currently don't have access to the original source https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1003816q/f210.item for double checking Mtrognitz (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

:The Godart quote given at Best p.25 in fact says "On a donc, en bonne méthode, le droit d’imaginer que le disc peut appartenir à n’importe quelle période comprise entre le Minoen Moyen III et les époques grecques tardives": i.e. anytime from MMIII to "the late Greek period". It also seems to me from a quick skim that the summary of Best's position is really overstating things; he suggests a date range for PH1 ending in 1340 (not exactly the "first half of the 14th century") and concludes that the archaeological evidence for PH 1 only has a bearing on when the Phaistos Disc fell into the position it was discovered in, and doesn't show when it was written. I don't have time at the moment, but it seems as though the entire section on dating might need some work... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:{{Not done|Closing this request for now}}, re-activate if you come to a consensus. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  19:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Evans, at one point, believed that the disc had been written from the center out. Evans later changed his mind and determined that the disc was written from the outside in toward the center. Several scholars including Jean Faucounau, Yves Duhoux, Gareth Owens, and others, have agreed that Evans second opinion was correct - that the disc was written from the outside in and have claimed that this is the consensus view. Still others including Derk Ohlenroth and Kjell Aarton, and Thomas Balistier are not convinced by this claim and have presented strong arguments that the writing was created from the center out. (See Balistier 2000, pp 79-90). If they are correct and the disc was written from the center out, then all of the figures shown below, which differ from the originals in having been transposed left-to-right, are inaccurate. (See Phaistos Disc decipherment claims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4880:2B80:AD95:980A:6BF4:ECD6 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

:[Note: I have moved this post from the top of the page, and given it a heading (using its first word, which was followed by a colon), per normal Wikipedia procedures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)]

The "descriptions" column of the signs table are not descriptions but interpretations. They are unsourced and obviously only conjectural and debatable. Are they "original research"? Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Removed that column. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Phaistos Disc_-_Side_A_-_6380_-_crop1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 16, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-03-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)