| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| grapheus... |
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As somebody told me that this message was not interesting the
Linguists (I posted it in sci.lang), I repost it here, in a more
appropriate Group, with some additions :
The main argument for suspecting the Phaistos Disk to be a hoax has
been summarized as follows :
Quote: The signs of the Phaistos Disk are a jumble of often
completely
unrelated objects, the sources of which date from Egyptian
tomb
reliefs and
Anatolian objects of the mid-2nd millennium BC to 6th
century BC
Attic vases.
To what, I can answer :
Quote: "a jumble of completely unrelated objects"?..
Not at all !.. ALL these objects are related to the Early Bronze Age
"Cycladic
Civilization", to the "Greek Civilization" (in general) and to the
"Peoples of the Sea"
as represented on Egyptian monuments!.. Plus some "characters", like
"the ram" or "the feline head", etc. WHICH ARE UNIVERSAL...
Moreover, as a general rule, the design of these can be found later in
Attic-Euboean vases.
To what one may add that the hieroglyphs, which are supposed to have
been "inspired by the Luwian Hieroglyphic script"
are all dubious, AS IT IS EXPECTED, if the Disk is NOT a hoax, for a
script, of which the earliest attestations' datation is about 1500BC
(in Cilicia. See for instance J.G. Macqueen "The Hittites and their
contemporaries in Asia Minor" p. 24).
They also represent characters or objects belonging to the "Peoples
of the Sea Civilization".
So, the "main argument" of the Minerva-paper can receive another
interpretation than the Disk being an hoax : THE DISK BELONGS to the
PROTO-IONIAN CIVILIZATION evidenced by J. Faucounau. A terrible
Quote: conclusion for the faithful followers of the
"Risch-Chadwick Theory" !!!!!
The dismissal of the hypothesis that four Phaistos Disk's signs would
have been "inspired to Luigi Pernier" by Luwian
Hieroglyphs is important. So, I repeat here what I already wrote in
another Group :
1)- S38 (rosette) : It is true that this sign can be found on Hittite
Seals from Boghazköi that L. Pernier could have seen. But it is
MAINLY
a motive VERY USUAL in the Minoan-Greek Civilization. It has been
found on Camares vases as on the Tempel on the Akropolis at Athens.
Saying that the "inspiration is Luwian" is NOT proved.
2)- S26 (horn) : It is also true that this sign (corresponding to
Hitt. surna) has bee found at Keratepe, Kargamis, Alep and even
Assur.
So it is "not impossible" that Luigi Pernier knew its existence. But
it is the design of an UNIVERSAL object. So much, that one can also
found it AS a HIEROGLYPH, in the Egyptian script... Nothing
surprising, therefore, to find it ALSO in the Phaistos Disk's script,
and NO NEED for the "inventor of this script to have followed a
model !!!!!
3)- S15 (pic-axe) : A SIMILAR , but NOT IDENTICAL, is attested ONLY
in the Karahöyük-Elbistan 10 Inscription. There seems NO POSSIBILITY
for L. Pernier to have known it, as this inscription has been
published for the first time in 1949 by GÜterbock (cf "Karahöyük
Hafrojati Raporu", Pl XLIX and ss).
But a STRICTLY
IDENTICAL object has been found at Kythnos in a CYCLADIC layer.
4)- S12 (rosette) : As far as I know, there is NO strictly identical
hieroglyph attested in a Luwian/Hittite inscription, that L. Pernier
could have known, and I challenge Dr Eisenberg to bring some contrary
proof.
But this "type of shield" has been used by GREEKS and by "Sea
Peoples".
CONCLUSION : The hypothesis that Pernier "WOULD have been inspired by
Luwian Hieroglyphs" is SURELY FALSE. Pernier was living in 1908, not
TODAY, when there have been LOTS of PUBLICATIONS about the Luwian
Hieroglyphic Scripts by Merrigi, Güterbock, Laroche, E. Masson,
etc. !!!
grapheus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LloydB... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 30, 1:04 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
Quote: On Jul 25, 5:08 am, grapheus <graph... at (no spam) www.com> wrote:
Probably not someone you want to intrude into a sci.arch discussion
but here is a man from the New York Times with an inquiring mind,
uly 30, 2008, 11:30 am
A Fake Ancient Disc?
By John Tierney
Phaistos Disc If you can read the writing on either side of the
Phaistos Disc, you have the mind of either a brilliant scholar or a
clever hoaxster. (Photos by Judith Lange)
[snip]
Lloyd's Laws:
1) Any object. if sufficiently ambiguous in physical characteristics
and/or provenance, may be attributed to the Chinese, Proto-
Whatevers, Vikings, Atlanteans, Space Aliens, or Your Choice.
2) A good 'background' story can carry this even further, maybe
for decades.
3) With any luck at all, two or more persons with obsessive person-
alities will 'adopt' such an object, and spend an unfortunate
amount
of time trying to explain why their "explanation" is correct
(and, of
course, why anyone else's is totally wrong).
4) These same individuals will daily search the internet seeking any
references to their "holy relic".
5) Barring some unforseen and unlikely circumstances, all of this,
no matter HOW off-topic, and based in language, religion, or
whatever, will be posted to sci.archaeology.
6. Along with a lot of other trash.
The current thread is, of course, NOT off topic. Doubts as to the
nature of objects 'claimed' to be genuine are properly worth noting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hagen... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 30, 9:03 pm, LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Jul 30, 1:04 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:> On Jul 25, 5:08 am, grapheus <graph... at (no spam) www.com> wrote:
Probably not someone you want to intrude into a sci.arch discussion
but here is a man from the New York Times with an inquiring mind,
uly 30, 2008, 11:30 am
A Fake AncientDisc?
By John Tierney
PhaistosDiscIf you can read the writing on either side of the
PhaistosDisc, you have the mind of either a brilliant scholar or a
clever hoaxster. (Photos by Judith Lange)
[snip]
Lloyd's Laws:
1) Any object. if sufficiently ambiguous in physical characteristics
and/or provenance, may be attributed to the Chinese, Proto-
Whatevers, Vikings, Atlanteans, Space Aliens, or Your Choice.
2) A good 'background' story can carry this even further, maybe
for decades.
3) With any luck at all, two or more persons with obsessive person-
alities will 'adopt' such an object, and spend an unfortunate
amount
of time trying to explain why their "explanation" is correct
(and, of
course, why anyone else's is totally wrong).
4) These same individuals will daily search the internet seeking any
references to their "holy relic".
5) Barring some unforseen and unlikely circumstances, all of this,
no matter HOW off-topic, and based in language, religion, or
whatever, will be posted to sci.archaeology.
6. Along with a lot of other trash.
The current thread is, of course, NOT off topic. Doubts as to the
nature of objects 'claimed' to be genuine are properly worth noting.
It flashed through my mind a couple of times, while I went through
with my minutily (air)charting of the structure of this inscription on
a disc; that the whole concept of a Minoan civilization could be a
nineteenth century fabrication, perhaps inspired from the engravings
on the many milky stones from Crete, or they might be a hoax’ too.
Look at all that balloon shaped pottery in the museum, and the cartoon
like frescoes from the palaces (some day they shall find a handy idol
in the shape of Andy pandy).Even flush toilets with running water,
like in the ancient city of Harappa, this Indian site is probably also
a hoax
An assembly plant producing scores of antiquities, a money mashine!
Lets play Monopoly!
All the items so unlike any other artifacts from excavations through
out the Meditereanean.
Is that, what those Athena papers are about?
As a rational being, I of course brushed aside such thoughts with a
big laughter.
It is hard for me to understand, why some persons are so zealed in
their reaction on ‘my discovery’ that they take the role as guardians
against my announcement, in those few newsgroups, which I consult
(only choise left). Why am I regarded as a ballyhoo pain for those
pseudo-guardians in this Phaistos connection? The parole seems to be:
for any price humiliate the victory man. At least many better
educated persons shoud have the right understanding. Highly skilled
engineers are underway in bringing man to Mars!
It also struck me, that the resistance, I am up against, reminds of
some gambling with high bets. Lets play Monopoly.- No thank you! Or
even worse: A group of disturbed millionaires, their motifes so
balloony, and therefore kept in strict secrecy.
Again let us brush it aside.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/0937.htm
Realist
Ole Hagen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:12 pm
|
|