Gerald Lange wrote:

>
> 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).

(There's no doubt: they are stamped.)

> 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
> BC?
>
> 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.

Why would some of the stamps be carelessly applied and overlap if
someone was making a mold from which multiple copies would be pressed?

> 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?

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...