Hello,
Mark wrote several things (see below, and I don't contradict him at all!!) -
I belatedly realized were meant for another - mainly archaeological - list
(AegeaNet). I still believe my answer is fitting for cybalist!
MARK:
>As regards the Phaistos Disk, all sorts of
sensational claims have been made, none of which
has achieved any substantive acceptance by the
scholarly community.
In Daniels and Bright's _The World's Writing
Systems_ (OUP, 1996), Peter Daniels writes of the
Phaistos Disk and other undeciphered scripts in his
chapter "The First Civilizations":
Four of the mysterious scripts of
this area have been interpreted as
expressing Northwest Semitic by
Cyrus Gordon in a 1966 monograph and
many subsequent articles. He
considers Eteocypriote, Eteocretan,
Linear A, and the Phaistos Disk,
calling the language revealed
"Minoan". The lack of acceptance
which this work found may be
attributed in part to the
aforementioned reluctance of
Classical scholars to admit to
Semitic influence in their realm,
but more likely it results from the
tiny amount of material concerned in
three of the scripts and the failure
to provide a complete corpus (fully
analyzed with exhaustive scholarly
apparatus!) of the Linear A
materials. [p. 29]
In the same work, Emmett L. Bennet, in the chapter
"Aegean Scripts" considers the Phaistos Disk:
The notorious Phaistos Disk, found
in Crete, is unique. Although the
circumstances of its discovery make
it impossible to determine when it
was made, it has been dated to about
1700 B.C.E. There can be no
certainty that it was made in Crete.
Its script is certainly
pictographic. It is a clay disk on
whose two faces 242 clear
impressions were made by 45
different stamps. They appear in the
31 fields drawn on one face and the
30 on the other, and each field has
from two to seven impressions. Those
figures suggest that the script was
syllabic, but nothing suggests that
a verifiable decipherment will ever
be achieved [p. 133]
I'm just an amateur. As such, I must respect the
views of the scholarly consensus when such a
consensus exists. The consensus about the Phaistos
Disk remains highly skeptical about *any* claim for
decipherment. Until other scholars competent to
judge such claims signal that there might be
something here, I too must remain highly skeptical. <
HERE IS MY (SABINE'S) POINT:
Now this is a good point to criticize all kinds of linguistics! Many of
those who have 'deciphered' the PD are well known scholars in linguistics!!!
The point is, on the other hand: A single object like this can't possibly
satisfy >scholarly consensus< there is just not enough material to prove
anything beyond doubt - for NOBODY. Still even generally renowned scholars
as Aartun, the man who has written, as far as I know, THE book on Ugaritic
grammar, don't fear disapproval - although any psychologist could tell him
that he just can't be able to see from a different point than his own eyes.
I've stated once that it ought to be possible to prove the PD was actually
Old English (if you just put enough energy in it, although you'd have a hard
time with archaeological facts, I admit...) - and the point may well
be - ought to - humbling all of us a little bit of what we are sure IS ore
ISN'T true/possible.
I've studied comparative literature and I'm thinking for quite a while now
on writing a paper on the optional qualities of interpretations - by using
the example of the Phaistos Disc - every reader reads his own book - who can
care what the author thought about?
The PD proves that fact beyond doubt.
And they all believe they have found 'THE' decipherment' - and possibly one
of them is right ...
The point is: be careful in declaring something to be >scholarly< proof -
most of those >real professionals< (!!), and even some amateurs, believe
just that for their work ...
Look at some of the decipherments on the web and you'll know what I mean.
Sabine