I was rummaging through the links provided in the Bookmarks section
here and came across the material on the Phaistos Disk. Lot of good
references that I spent most of the night tracking down.

Most of the work on Phaistos seems to have been spent in deciphering
the language but I found some information regarding measurements,
depth of impression, etc., that seem ignored (or perhaps are just
thought to be taken for granted).

One might assume that the Phaistos symbols were stamped?, this from
their near identical patterns, their seeming multiple use, etc., but
also from uniform impression measured across the imprinted surface
(this with squeeze distortion taken into account).

This would be a big step would it not? To carve wrong reading punches
or even a number of variant punches? In the approximate year of 1600

If so, has anyone ever suggested an even bigger step, but perhaps not
an unnatural bump forward — that this was made in a sandwich mould?
This would only require secondary "casting." This guess made on other
measurements and certain moulding characteristics (stretch and
planing) that seemingly are in evidence here.

Assuming that this is even a possibility, this might lead to another
question. At which point did numismatic or (architectural/pottery)
techniques (such as stamping, casting) veer away (or develop
separately) from language reproduction (writing)? Various forms of
replication for coinage, medallions, for example, existed long before
attempts were made to mechanize writing, China, Korea, Europe. (?)

Am I completely off base here?

Gerald Lange