Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : A big step backwards
grap...@www.com
paper on the Phaistos Disk, written by Dr Jerome Eisenberg in his
journal "Minerva".
It is not a serious, scientific approach as claimed, but just bad
"romance". In the way some novelists tell you that "this morning, the
Pharao got up from his bed in a bad mood", Dr Eisenberg writes
everything Pernier did, as he had been there : "Pernier soon came up
with the answer... The ploy was to create a completely new script...
To further confuse the linguists, Pernier included several signs that
ressemble those of Linear A... Etc."
Dr Jerome Eisenberg is free to believe in a forgery, like others have
thought that the Disk was a message from extraterrestrials... But,
when one pretends to make a "serious" demonstration of his thesis, he
has to be FULLY INFORMED of what has been written on the subject.
Strangely enough, the MOST IMPORTANT WORK on the Phaistos Disk, the
ONLY ONE WHICH IS CLAIMED to be PROVED, the ONE which gives the
ANSWERS to Dr Eisenberg's questions, i.e. the J.Faucounau's attempt,
IS TOTALLY IGNORED. If Dr J. Eisenberg generously mentions the
obviously FALSE attempts of several would-be-decipherers, the UNIQUE
MENTION I found about the J.F.'s work (more than 40 papers and
books !!!) is the categorical (and FALSE !!!!) statement by Yves
Duhoux that " the J.F.'s study committs enough serious errors of all
sorts to warrant a secure place in the anthology of misguided
decipherments". This was probably enough to Dr Eisenberg for NOT
TAKING THE TROUBLE to judge by himself !... In spite of the fact that
he would have found the ANSWERS to his questions. To quote a few :
A)- "Why so many deciphering attempts ?". For MATHEMATICAL motives.
The text's length is TOO CLOSE from the "Unicity Distance".
B)- "Why such a variety of "sources of inspiration" for the glyphs ?".
Because the Disk belongs to a MARITIME Civilization, which has had
contacts with Greece, Crete, Anatolia, Palestine and Egypt.
C)- "Why using stamps?". Because THIS civilization used metal stamps.
D)- "Why the similarity with the Arkalochori Axe?". Because this Axe
is a "Proto-Philistine item", and "Proto-Philistines" were amongst the
DESCENDENTS of the Proto-Ionians. (Of course, Dr Eisenberg IGNORES
that J.Faucounau has mentioned some other "Proto-Philistine objects"
in one of his books).
E)- "Why the similarity with the "Gold Ring from Mavro Spilio" ?".
Because the language of both is probably the same, this gold ring
being THE ONLY KNOWN other item in Proto-Ionic.
F)- "Why the similarity with the "Vladikavkaz Disk" ? Because this
disk is a FAKE, made in the 1920.
G)- Etc.
My opinion about this Minerva-paper : PITIABLE ! A big step
backwards !
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Well, I forgot to mention a few other points, which are a step
backwards :
1)- "Direction of Reading". This problem has been DEFINITELY SOLVED,
but Dr Eisenberg just mentions that "it has been accepted by most
scholars that it reads from the outside in..."
2)- "The archaeological context and datation of the Disk". Thess
questions have been ALREADY DEFINITELY SOLVED, but Dr Eisenberg don't
hesitates to quote Kristian Jeppesen's concurrent opinion, based ...
upon a false translation of italian !!!!
As Y. Duhoux would say : "these serious errors of all sorts warrant a
secure place for this Minerva-article in the anthology of misguided
studies..."
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Another "objection", called back to mind by Peter T. Daniels :
> How does that (rather daring) assertion
> refute the fact that the
> object itself is unique? Refer again to
> Eisenberg's claims.
The answer can be found in the "Proto-Ionian Theory" : The
"Civilization of the Disk" has been very EPHEMERAL and LOCATED in a
small island.
EPHEMERAL : Because it has been a survival of the "Keros-Syros
Culture" : instead of being extinct during the "Terrible Years"
between 2200 and 2000 BC as the other "Proto-Ionian Cultures in the
Cycladic Islands", the "Disk's Culture" started again developping
between 1900 and 1700 BC, before being finally DESTROYED by the
MINOANS.
LOCATED : Because it did develop only on a small island of the
Dodecanese.
WHAT EXPLAINS WHY NO OTHER "DISK" has been found : Up to this day, NO
EXCAVATION has been done in this site !!!!!
grapheus
antiquarian
ancient forgeries, for it is indeed very much like detective work, not
just mere jousting with words. I wonder how much experience Grapheus
has had in the study of forgeries in being able to state that my
article is “just bad ‘romance’”. It is true that some of my
suggestions concerning Pernier are circumstantial, but my analysis of
the 45 signs of the disk showing their MANY different and varied
source are not
The mind of the forger is a complex one and he makes many aesthetic
misjudgements in the course of his planning. Grapheus should first
read my “The Aesthetics of the Forger: Stylistic Criteria in Ancient
Art Forgery,” Minerva, May/June 1992, 10-15, to give him some
background in this field. The article was originally given by me as a
paper at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America
in 1970 (!), but only published as an abstract at that time. If
Grapheus will have read my article he would see that it is the
preponderance of errors made by the forger and the number of unique
aspects of the disk that point to it as a forgery.
I have specialized in forgeries in ancient art since 1968 when I first
developed my stylistic criteria and in the same year presented an 84-
page monograph on the ‘Etruscan’ Monteleone Chariot as an early 20th
century pastiche to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I did not start
to do any serious work on the Phaistos Disk until 1971 and still have
my notes from that time following a visit to the Herakleion Museum (my
only visit, in rebuttal to Grapheus’s friend’s claim of a visit by me
a few months ago).
In reply to Grapheus's remarks this morning (08:36 AM posting):
A)- “Why so many deciphering attempts?” Simply because it is not an
ancient script, thus it is impossible to decipher. All the attempts
are pure creation or guesswork, thus the many dozens of attempts.
B)- “Why such a variety of “sources of inspiration” for the glyphs?”
Grapheus states that it is “Because the Disk belongs to a MARITIME
civilization, which has had contacts with Greece, Crete, Anatolia,
Palestine and Egypt.” Sure, like so many other ancient scripts! It’s
as if the inventor of the script tossed dozens of ideas into his hat
and pulled out the best 45 signs, particularly those that were taken
from miniaturizing objects on Egyptian wall reliefs and on Greek
vases. What other ancient script is a pastiche of different elements
from several completely different civilizations, many of them
miniaturized to create unique glyphs?
C)- “Why using stamps?” Grapheus: “Because THIS civilization used
metal stamps.” Of course, a sound, scientific answer based upon
factual evidence! No such fine metal stamp has ever been found on
Crete or elsewhere . No ancient script made use of a metal stamp. In
that period of time, a stylus or similar instrument was used to
inscribe clay documents, unless, of course, Grapheus has found an
ancient typewriter, or better yet, a primitive form of Varityper (an
early portable typesetting machine that I used in 1951 in editing
Jacobs and Vermeule’s Japanese Coinage (1953), for it could hold a
limited font of Japanese characters).
D)- “Why the similarity with the Arkalochori Axe?” Apparently
Grapheus has not read ALL of my article. Of the fifteen signs, ten of
them (with two repeated) seem to be unique. I have also questioned
the inscription on the axe, but have not been permitted by the museum
to examine it. Also, to quote Louis Godart: “there are no definite
comparisons between the signs of the Disc and the syllabograms of the
three known Cretan scripts (Hieroglyphics [ed.: including the axe
inscription if it is genuine], Linear A and Linear B)”.
E)- “Why the similarity with the “Gold Ring from Mavro Spilio?”
Grapheus: Because the language of both is probably the same, this gold
ring being THE ONLY KNOWN other item in Proto-Ionic”.
Since Grapheus says that he has have read my article, he should take
another look at Fig 19 in which I use both a photo and a line drawing
of the ring - the inscription on the ring is in LINEAR A (Kn Zf 13)
not the Phaistos Disk script! As do others, I also have little faith
in the authenticity of Evan’s ring from Mavro Spilio which may be
another production of the Gilliéron family, famously known for their
restoration work for Evans and commercial electrotypes and jewelry
reproductions.
F)- “Why the similarity with the “Vladikavkaz Disk?” Grapheus says
that is is a fake, but again he did not really read my article. I
wrote that “It could possible be a forger’s prototype for the disk or
merely an attempt of copying the original forgery.” At least we
partially agree on one item!
Coincidentally, I have just read Grapheus's remarks about J. Faucounau
on his other posting of 16 July, yesterday I received from Mr
Faucounau a parcel of his recent books which he graciously sent to me,
including a copy of his book Le Déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos
(1999), from which I had previously only taken quotes from other
authors (not being in any way whatsoever an epigrapher). I was
gratified to find illustrated several excellent sources for at least
four of the signs adapted by the forger. For no. 12, the shield,
closely resembles the shields carried by the Sea People (the Sherden
or Shardana) on the Kadesh battle reliefs on the walls of the
Ramasseum at Thebes. For no. 17, the lid or tool, a match is made
with the cutting tool used by a leatherworker on a 6th century BC
Attic vase. Sign 27, the hide, though missing his tail, is well-
matched by another on a wall (relief) from the 18th dynasty tomb of
Rekhmire in the Valley of the Kings. Sign 31, the eagle and the
serpent, has a good parallel in a similar scene on another 6th century
Attic vase. Again, so often, an author in favour of the authenticity
of the disk has unwittingly provided the source for the forger.
Mr. Faucounau also sent me the same copy of his unpublished reply to
Duhoux's attack on his book. We will be posting it at the Phaistos
Disk Conference. (We do hope to balance the papers at the Conference
fairly between believers (for the most part) and non-believers and
welcome your participation (all the way from Luxembourg?).
By the way, John Younger, who apparently opposed the publication of
Faucounau's reply to Duhoux in the AJA, wrote to me last week that he
thought that the Phaistos Disk "was highly suspicious (because it was
unique)…" !
To rephrase your concluding remark: My opinion of your opinion, at
the moment: a much bigger step backwards!
As for your later posting "on a few other points", your opinion as to
my notes on the 'Direction of Reading' and on 'The archaeological
context and datation of the Disk' as being "DEFINITELY SOLVED" is just
that - your opinion.
Again, to rephrase your rephrasing of Y. Duhoux on Faucounau: "these
serious errors of all sorts warrant a
secure place for Grapheus' comments on Eisenberg's article in the
anthology of misguided
amateurs in the study of forgeries..."...a further step backwards. I
admire Grapheus's bitter wit but not his knowledge of forgeries.
Finally, my curiosity about 'Grapheus' has been aroused...I Googled
his name and came up with this comment on Wikipedia: 'In a less
academic mode, the internet troll "grapheus" has advocated Faucounau's
theories over Usenet, becoming notorious in the process. Posting from
Luxembourg, and admitting to personal acquaintance of Faucounau, he
has been suspected to be an alter ego of Faucounau's.' Aha, the
light appears through the tunnel...
Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D.)
Peter T. Daniels
If I ask Oscar White Muscarella about you the next time I see him,
what is he likely to say?
In short, your only reason(s) for claiming the PD is a forgery is that
it's not like anything else we know.
> Coincidentally, I have just read Grapheus's remarks about J. Faucounau
> on his other posting of 16 July, yesterday I received from Mr
> Faucounau a parcel of his recent books which he graciously sent to me,
> including a copy of his book Le Déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos
> (1999), from which I had previously only taken quotes from other
> authors (not being in any way whatsoever an epigrapher). I was
> gratified to find illustrated several excellent sources for at least
> four of the signs adapted by the forger. For no. 12, the shield,
> closely resembles the shields carried by the Sea People (the Sherden
> or Shardana) on the Kadesh battle reliefs on the walls of the
> Ramasseum at Thebes. For no. 17, the lid or tool, a match is made
> with the cutting tool used by a leatherworker on a 6th century BC
> Attic vase. Sign 27, the hide, though missing his tail, is well-
> matched by another on a wall (relief) from the 18th dynasty tomb of
> Rekhmire in the Valley of the Kings. Sign 31, the eagle and the
> serpent, has a good parallel in a similar scene on another 6th century
> Attic vase. Again, so often, an author in favour of the authenticity
> of the disk has unwittingly provided the source for the forger.
How many of those "sources" were known, let alone widely available, in
1907?
> Mr. Faucounau also sent me the same copy of his unpublished reply to
> Duhoux's attack on his book. We will be posting it at the Phaistos
> Disk Conference. (We do hope to balance the papers at the Conference
> fairly between believers (for the most part) and non-believers and
> welcome your participation (all the way from Luxembourg?).
>
> By the way, John Younger, who apparently opposed the publication of
> Faucounau's reply to Duhoux in the AJA, wrote to me last week that he
> thought that the Phaistos Disk "was highly suspicious (because it was
> unique)…" !
That is simply not a legitimate ground for suspicion.
antiquarian
Faucounau, for his Syros culture on the islands of Keros and Syros,
Grapheus states that “WHAT EXPLAINS WHY NO OTHER “DISK” HAS BEEN
FOLUND: up to this day, NO EXCAVATION has been done in this site!!!!!”
However, it should be pointed out to him that a number of excavations
HAVE been made at Dhaskalio Kavos on Keros and at Kastri, Hanandriani,
and the city of Syros itself on Syros. No traces of a ‘Proto-Ionic’
civilization have been found.
Antiquarian
grap...@www.com
Dear Antiquarian ,
As you have obviously never read Faucounau's work (under the
influence, I guess, of the RIDICULOUS criticism of one of his book by
Yves Duhoux), you didn't understand what he has really written, that I
can sum up here for you : Yes, the "Civilization of the
Disk" (1900-1700 BC) is the heir of the "Keros-Syros
Culture" (2800-2200BC). But its survival during the "Terrible
Years" (2200-2000BC) did not happen "on the spot", i.e. at Keros or
surrounding islands. It happened closer to the Anatolian coast.
I suggest that you go to an Universitarian Library cose to you, and
read carefully "Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oublié" and
"Les Origines Grecques à l'Age de Bronze"... You will find mention of
what J.F. called "The Triangle Samos-Thèra-Rhodes".
Regards
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Thanks for this interesting reply. But allow me, in my turn, to put
the things straight :
On Jul 19, 4:29 am, antiquarian <ancient...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think that Grapheus needs a little education in the detection of
> ancient forgeries, for it is indeed very much like detective work, not
> just mere jousting with words. I wonder how much experience Grapheus
> has had in the study of forgeries in being able to state that my
> article is “just bad ‘romance’”.
Accusing an deceased archaeologist - who cannot defend himself - of
having played a HOAX is a SERIOUS ACCUSATION. For doing so, one has to
present very strong motives, in particular concerning the PSYCHOLOGY
of the accused. Well, all I personally know about Luigi Pernier goes
IN THE OTHER DIRECTION !..
Not to mention the lots of "unanswered questions" in the case of a
hoax !..
> It is true that some of my
> suggestions concerning Pernier are circumstantial,
Not "circumstancial" ! "Invented" and contrary to the personality of
the man !.. One may accuse Luigi Pernier to have been, some times, a
kind of a "dilettante". But a man, ambitious enough to fabricate a
hoax, DEFINITELY NO!.
> but my analysis of
> the 45 signs of the disk showing their MANY different and varied
> source are not
>
> The mind of the forger is a complex one and he makes many aesthetic
> misjudgements in the course of his planning. Grapheus should first
> read my “The Aesthetics of the Forger: Stylistic Criteria in Ancient
> Art Forgery,” Minerva, May/June 1992, 10-15, to give him some
> background in this field. The article was originally given by me as a
> paper at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America
> in 1970 (!), but only published as an abstract at that time. If
> Grapheus will have read my article he would see that it is the
> preponderance of errors made by the forger and the number of unique
> aspects of the disk that point to it as a forgery.
Circular reasoning !!! And FALSE MOTIVE : it is not because an object
is UNIQUE that it is a fake !!! Mainly, when 1)- the HYPOTHESIS
doesn't fit with the supposed forger's personality 2)- the HYPOTHESIS
leads to MORE NEW PROBLEMS than it solves 3)- An OTHER EXPLANATION of
the so-called "problems" does exist.
>
> I have specialized in forgeries in ancient art since 1968 when I first
> developed my stylistic criteria and in the same year presented an 84-
> page monograph on the ‘Etruscan’ Monteleone Chariot as an early 20th
> century pastiche to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I did not start
> to do any serious work on the Phaistos Disk until 1971 and still have
> my notes from that time following a visit to the Herakleion Museum (my
> only visit, in rebuttal to Grapheus’s friend’s claim of a visit by me
> a few months ago).
Well, I've explained the error. My correspondent had confused "he has
come" with "He will come", and apologized. Me too.
>
> In reply to Grapheus's remarks this morning (08:36 AM posting):
> A)- “Why so many deciphering attempts?” Simply because it is not an
> ancient script, thus it is impossible to decipher. All the attempts
> are pure creation or guesswork, thus the many dozens of attempts.
It's obvious, once more, that YOU HAVE NEVER SERIOUSLY STUDIED the
ONLY PROVED SOLUTION, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic" one !...
I would like here to mention my own story : I started more than ten
years ago with the project to write a book on the Phaistos Disk and
its many decipherments. But when I stubbled upon the J.F.'s papers (he
had not written any book, at that time), I was convinced to have
discovered THE solution of the enigma... So, my book has never been
written...
To sum up : NO, it is NOT TRUE that there are MANY "solutions" to the
enigma. The ONLY PROBLEM has been the REFUSAL BY THE A.J.A. Redactors-
in-Chief of a REPLY to a BIASED REVIEW of the ONLY PROVED
SOLUTION !!!!
>
> B)- “Why such a variety of “sources of inspiration” for the glyphs?”
> Grapheus states that it is “Because the Disk belongs to a MARITIME
> civilization, which has had contacts with Greece, Crete, Anatolia,
> Palestine and Egypt.” Sure, like so many other ancient scripts! It’s
> as if the inventor of the script tossed dozens of ideas into his hat
> and pulled out the best 45 signs, particularly those that were taken
> from miniaturizing objects on Egyptian wall reliefs and on Greek
> vases.
Nice that you say that !!!
Because the EXPLANATION is OBVIOUS in the frame of the Proto-Ionian
Theory (unknown by you!) : The IDEA of the script came from the
contacts of the Proto-Ionians with Egypt during the VIth Dynastie --
As the ATHENIANS in particular were the descendents of the same
people, it's, on the other hand, a NORMAL THING to find later many of
the represented objets on ATTIC POTTERY : they were the products of
THE SAME CIVILIZATION.
> What other ancient script is a pastiche of
> different elements
> from several completely different civilizations, many of them
> miniaturized to create unique glyphs?
Whart other ancient script has been invented BY A MARITIME PEOPLE ????
Not even the Alphabet. It has been only SPREAD AROUND by maritime
peoples !..
> C)- “Why using stamps?” Grapheus: “Because THIS civilization used
> metal stamps.” Of course, a sound, scientific answer based upon
> factual evidence! No such fine metal stamp has ever been found on
> Crete or elsewhere .
On Crete, NO !!!! But you have to put into your mind - like Yves
Duhoux !- that THE DISK IS NOT CRETAN !!!
For the Cyclades, please go to an Universitarian Library and ask for
the book "Le déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos" by J.F. Then, read
pages 23 to 42, and get a good look at the Figure on page 40 !... You
xwill find the answer!...
> No ancient script made use of a metal stamp.
"Script", yes !.. With the exception of the Phaistos Disk. But STAMPS
did EXIST in the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean area.
>
> D)- “Why the similarity with the Arkalochori Axe?” Apparently
> Grapheus has not read ALL of my article. Of the fifteen signs, ten of
> them (with two repeated) seem to be unique.
So what ???? I talked about "similarity". NOT "IDENTITY" !!!
> I have also questioned
> the inscription on the axe, but have not been permitted by the museum
> to examine it. Also, to quote Louis Godart: “there are no definite
> comparisons between the signs of the Disc and the syllabograms of the
> three known Cretan scripts (Hieroglyphics [ed.: including the axe
> inscription if it is genuine], Linear A and Linear B)”.
AND Louis Godart is RIGHT !!!!
When will you put into your head - like Yves Duhoux !- that THE DISK
IS NOT MINOAN !!!!
>
> E)- “Why the similarity with the “Gold Ring from Mavro Spilio?”
> Grapheus: Because the language of both is probably the same, this gold
> ring being THE ONLY KNOWN other item in Proto-Ionic”.
> Since Grapheus says that he has have read my article, he should take
> another look at Fig 19 in which I use both a photo and a line drawing
> of the ring - the inscription on the ring is in LINEAR A (Kn Zf 13)
> not the Phaistos Disk script!
PLEASE, READ CAREFULLY what I wrote !!!!
I said : "Probably in PROTO-IONIC". I was talking about LANGUAGE, not
script !..
Every time I don't use CAPITAL letters to call the attention of my
readers, there are misreadings !..
> As do others, I also have little faith
> in the authenticity of Evan’s ring from Mavro Spilio which may be
> another production of the Gilliéron family, famously known for their
> restoration work for Evans and commercial electrotypes and jewelry
> reproductions.
I have NO opinion on this point...
> F)- “Why the similarity with the “Vladikavkaz Disk?” Grapheus says
> that is is a fake, but again he did not really read my article. I
> wrote that “It could possible be a forger’s prototype for the disk or
> merely an attempt of copying the original forgery.”
NO. This is a fancy supposition !.. The FAKE of Vladikavkaz is an
obvious IMITATION of the Disk, not the contrary... And it has been
discovered in a house, constructed AFTER 1908...
> At least we
> partially agree on one item!
YES !..
> Coincidentally, I have just read Grapheus's remarks about J. Faucounau
> on his other posting of 16 July, yesterday I received from Mr
> Faucounau a parcel of his recent books which he graciously sent to me,
> including a copy of his book Le Déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos
> (1999), from which I had previously only taken quotes from other
> authors (not being in any way whatsoever an epigrapher).
Oh ! I didn't know that J.F. has sent you his book... So, you don't
need to go to a library ... But I'm not surprised by the move of this
old very generous scholar...
>I was
> gratified to find illustrated several excellent sources for at least
> four of the signs adapted by the forger. For no. 12, the shield,
> closely resembles the shields carried by the Sea People (the Sherden
> or Shardana) on the Kadesh battle reliefs on the walls of the
> Ramasseum at Thebes.
So what ???? This type of shield is OF PROTO-IONIAN ORIGIN, and
attested also in the Euboean-Attic-Ionic area...
Please, don't forget that all the Greek Civilization is not coming
from THE SOLE Mycenaeans. The "Proto-Ionians" have ALSO contributed to
it !...
> For no. 17, the lid or tool, a match is made
> with the cutting tool used by a leatherworker on a 6th century BC
> Attic vase. Sign 27, the hide, though missing his tail, is well-
> matched by another on a wall (relief) from the 18th dynasty tomb of
> Rekhmire in the Valley of the Kings. Sign 31, the eagle and the
> serpent, has a good parallel in a similar scene on another 6th century
> Attic vase. Again, so often, an author in favour of the authenticity
> of the disk has unwittingly provided the source for the forger.
CIRCULAR REASONING !!!!! The TRUE EXPLANATION is that THESE PARALLELS
PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY of the DISK and the VALUE of the "Proto-Ionian
Theory, which EXPLAINS THEM !...
>
> Mr. Faucounau also sent me the same copy of his unpublished reply to
> Duhoux's attack on his book. We will be posting it at the Phaistos
> Disk Conference.
ALL MY CONGRATULATIONS for YOUR SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT. This publication
should have been done years ago, if the A.J.A. Redactors-in-Chief...
> (We do hope to balance the papers at the Conference
> fairly between believers (for the most part) and non-believers and
> welcome your participation (all the way from Luxembourg?).
May I make another suggestion ?..
I will contact J.Faucounau to see whether he would accept to write a
more complete paper on the subject of this Conference, that you could
distribute to the participants. As the author of the Proto-Ionian
Theory, I believe he is the most qualified to do so, but I am not sure
he will accept. (I know he is pretty busy with other matters than the
Disk)...
>
> By the way, John Younger, who apparently opposed the publication of
> Faucounau's reply to Duhoux in the AJA, wrote to me last week that he
> thought that the Phaistos Disk "was highly suspicious (because it was
> unique)…" !
I am NOT SURPRISED !!! I consider John Younger as a CATASTROPHY for
the Aegean studies !..
>
> To rephrase your concluding remark: My opinion of your opinion, at
> the moment: a much bigger step backwards!
>
> As for your later posting "on a few other points", your opinion as to
> my notes on the 'Direction of Reading' and on 'The archaeological
> context and datation of the Disk' as being "DEFINITELY SOLVED" is just
> that - your opinion.
NO!. It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED !..
(Even if you don't know it !)...
> Again, to rephrase your rephrasing of Y. Duhoux on Faucounau: "these
> serious errors of all sorts warrant a
> secure place for Grapheus' comments on Eisenberg's article in the
> anthology of misguided
> amateurs in the study of forgeries..."...a further step backwards. I
> admire Grapheus's bitter wit but not his knowledge of forgeries.
>
> Finally, my curiosity about 'Grapheus' has been aroused...I Googled
> his name and came up with this comment on Wikipedia: 'In a less
> academic mode, the internet troll "grapheus" has advocated Faucounau's
> theories over Usenet, becoming notorious in the process. Posting from
> Luxembourg, and admitting to personal acquaintance of Faucounau, he
> has been suspected to be an alter ego of Faucounau's.' Aha, the
> light appears through the tunnel...
Ha! ha! I would have been surprised if you would have NOT evoked this
question : "Who the hell is grapheus ?".. With the usual reasoning:
"When two guys are living not far away one from the other, when they
use the same NET-provider, when they are of the same opinion and
defend the same theories, THEY MUST BE THE SAME MAN. Oh! they don't
have the same age, neither the same head-dress ?.. Never mind !!!
"Light has appeared!!!!"
grapheus
antiquarian
Muscarella he is likely to fly into a rage. I wrote a scathing review
of his book ‘The Lie Became Great’( in Minerva, March/April 2001, pp.
58-60, ‘A Misguided Scholar and his ‘Forgery Culture’ ) in which he
condemns many objects, even Classical ones, without stating any good
reasons, only apparently because of a gut reaction. He is indeed an
expert on Near Eastern bronzes and condemns some of these with very
good reason for he is a serious scholar in his own specialized field.
At a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America a few years
ago, following my review, he almost came to blows with me (though he
used my offices for telephone calls during his battle with the Met in
the early 70s because he was afraid that his line at the museum was
being tapped).
To understand him, it’s best that one reads this excerpt about Dr
Muscarella from the Village Voice, August 5, 2003: “The whistle-
blower, who describes himself as a thorn in the side of the venerable
Met, has worked in the Near East department at the museum since the
mid 1960s. In 1972, he was fired, he says, for speaking publicly about
a stolen vase. He fought for reinstatement in court and won, so
they're stuck with him. Since then, he says, he feels isolated, and is
friendly with only a few of the curators. "They gave me some Mickey
Mouse title, and won't call me a curator," says the archaeologist with
a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. "I'm a senior research
fellow."
“Indeed, Muscarella is viewed as a loner. "I don't think I've ever
spoken to Oscar Muscarella," says Harold Holzer, the Met's
communications director. "I just don't understand why anyone who hates
museums would work in a museum."
“The publication of Muscarella's book a few years ago on the
forgery of ancient Near Eastern culture probably didn't impress his
superiors, either. In The Lie Became Great, he exposes the actors he
believes are complicit in the crime, including academics and
scientists, collectors and museum trustees, auction houses and
dealers. Forgery for Muscarella is not just about fakes. He also
means the cover-up of theft, the removal of an archaeological
artifact from its "original context," and the attempts to obscure its
origins.”
As for the statement that Dr Daniels makes about my article on the
Phaistos Disk:”In short, your only reason(s) for claiming that the PD
is a forgery is that it’s not like anything else we know,” I only
suggest that he read my article which lists the DOZENS of reasons
that I consider it a forgery and the large number of disparate
sources that the forger used drawn from the mid-2nd millennium BC
to the 6th century BC. It is unique in quite a few different ways,
not
just because of its unique script. I must acknowledge that Dr
Daniels is a brilliant scholar in the study of writing systems, one
of
the world’s best (one an area in which I am woefully ignorant), but
in the case of the PD, it is primarily a study in forgery, not scripts
as
such.
As to Dr Daniels' question as to "How many of these "sources" were
known, let alone widely available, in 1907?" The answer is ALL OF
THEM. Again, he must read my article. I think he will find it very
enlightening.
grap...@www.com
.....
> As for the statement that Dr Daniels makes about my article on the
> Phaistos Disk:”In short, your only reason(s) for claiming that the PD
> is a forgery is that it’s not like anything else we know,” I only
> suggest that he read my article which lists the DOZENS of reasons
> that I consider it a forgery and the large number of disparate
> sources that the forger used drawn from the mid-2nd millennium BC
> to the 6th century BC. It is unique in quite a few different ways,
> not
> just because of its unique script.
Let me laugh!.. These DOZENS of reasons are, in fact, only TWO :
A)- the Disk is "Unique", in the sense that it DOES NOT BELONG to the
"Myceno-Minoan WORLD" by its shape, its spiralic writing, his
hieroglyphs, the use of stamps, the way it has been fire into an
oven.
THE ANSWER: THE DISK IS NOT MINOAN, BUT "PROTO-IONIAN"!!!!
B)- its hieroglyphs testify of a DIVERSITY of "influences", mainly
from Egypt, from Greece and Anatolia.
THE ANSWER : THE DISK is the work of THE MARITIME CYCLADIC
CIVILIZATION of the EARLY BRONZE AGE, which has put in contact MOST
of
the MEDITERRANEAN COASTAL COUNTRIES.
But, of course, Peter T. Daniels, who is the "loyal Guardian of the
Orthodoxy" inherited from John Chaswick, is UNABLE to give these
answers...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> In reply to Peter T. Daniels, if you mention my name to Oscar White
> Muscarella he is likely to fly into a rage. I wrote a scathing review
He's likely to fly into a rage over almost anything.
> of his book ‘The Lie Became Great’( in Minerva, March/April 2001, pp.
> 58-60, ‘A Misguided Scholar and his ‘Forgery Culture’ ) in which he
> condemns many objects, even Classical ones, without stating any good
> reasons, only apparently because of a gut reaction. He is indeed an
> expert on Near Eastern bronzes and condemns some of these with very
> good reason for he is a serious scholar in his own specialized field.
> At a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America a few years
> ago, following my review, he almost came to blows with me (though he
> used my offices for telephone calls during his battle with the Met in
> the early 70s because he was afraid that his line at the museum was
> being tapped).
>
> To understand him, it’s best that one reads this excerpt about Dr
Who wrote it?
> Muscarella from the Village Voice, August 5, 2003: “The whistle-
> blower, who describes himself as a thorn in the side of the venerable
> Met, has worked in the Near East department at the museum since the
> mid 1960s. In 1972, he was fired, he says, for speaking publicly about
> a stolen vase. He fought for reinstatement in court and won, so
> they're stuck with him. Since then, he says, he feels isolated, and is
> friendly with only a few of the curators. "They gave me some Mickey
> Mouse title, and won't call me a curator," says the archaeologist with
> a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. "I'm a senior research
> fellow."
>
> “Indeed, Muscarella is viewed as a loner. "I don't think I've ever
> spoken to Oscar Muscarella," says Harold Holzer, the Met's
> communications director. "I just don't understand why anyone who hates
> museums would work in a museum."
He comes to virtually every public lecture on an ANE topic in New York
(at e.g. Columbia and NYU), and participates vociferously in the
discussion. Have I ever seen you there? Or at the annual meeting of
the American Oriental Society?
> “The publication of Muscarella's book a few years ago on the
> forgery of ancient Near Eastern culture probably didn't impress his
> superiors, either. In The Lie Became Great, he exposes the actors he
> believes are complicit in the crime, including academics and
> scientists, collectors and museum trustees, auction houses and
> dealers. Forgery for Muscarella is not just about fakes. He also
> means the cover-up of theft, the removal of an archaeological
> artifact from its "original context," and the attempts to obscure its
> origins.”
>
> As for the statement that Dr Daniels makes about my article on the
> Phaistos Disk:”In short, your only reason(s) for claiming that the PD
> is a forgery is that it’s not like anything else we know,” I only
> suggest that he read my article which lists the DOZENS of reasons
> that I consider it a forgery and the large number of disparate
> sources that the forger used drawn from the mid-2nd millennium BC
> to the 6th century BC. It is unique in quite a few different ways,
> not
> just because of its unique script.
The "script," if that's what it is (it probably isn't), is not in fact
unique, and if it was one of your criteria for declaring the PD a
fake, it wasn't mentioned in the Times story.
I repeat again that uniqueness is not a valid criterion for declaring
something a fake.
> I must acknowledge that Dr
> Daniels is a brilliant scholar in the study of writing systems, one
> of
> the world’s best (one an area in which I am woefully ignorant), but
> in the case of the PD, it is primarily a study in forgery, not scripts
> as
> such.
>
> As to Dr Daniels' question as to "How many of these "sources" were
> known, let alone widely available, in 1907?" The answer is ALL OF
> THEM. Again, he must read my article. I think he will find it very
> enlightening.
>
> Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D.)
Sorry, I've never heard of, let alone seen, this *Minerva*; the New
York Public Library lists no less than 13 serials of that name, three
of which appear to be in current publication.
grap...@www.com
.....
> The "script," if that's what it is (it probably isn't), is not in fact
> unique, and if it was one of your criteria for declaring the PD a
> fake, it wasn't mentioned in the Times story.
>
> I repeat again that uniqueness is not a valid criterion for declaring
> something a fake.
>
If THIS is the only thing that you may object to Dr Eisenberg's theory
- AND, in fact, IT IS. Because you are bound to the "Risch-Chadwick's
Orthodoxy !- , I understand why he is so sure that his arguments will
triumph in the end !...
Just knowing the "Proto-Ionian Theory" through the Yves Duhoux' prism,
he has even found other ASTONISHING arguments, like :
A)- "The forger quite often rotated the direction of a sign... This
however would be a mistake (See Rule #xxx: "Mistakes are the mark of a
forgery"), for it would not be the practice of a scribe carefully
executing such a sophisticated script".
ALL the misorientations of the signs have been EXPLAINED IN DETAIL by
J.F. But Dr Eisenberg had not read any line from this author, trusting
Peter T. Daniels' friends, the "Faithful Guardians of the Orthodoxy".
B)- Talking about the (really) "fake stamps" fabricated by James
Scotford in the Michigan c. 1910, Dr Eisenberg wrote : "Were these
inspired by the Phaistos Disk - or were they possibly one of the
principal source for Pernier for the creation of the Disk ?".. REALLY
FUNNY !!! One has to imagine Dr Luigi Pernier buying some stamps (by
telegraphic message ???) from Mr Scotford, but once receiving them
being DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED : The Stamps he had received WERE CARVED "in
hollow" !!! If the "cat's head" was "in relief", the eyebrows, the
eyes contour, etc. WERE "IN HOLLOW", just INCISED into the sand-
stone !!!!
What a disappointment ?.. Could he got his money back ???? In the next
chapter of his novel, Dr Eisenberg will probably tell us...
grapheus
Jack Linthicum
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Thanks -- I see by the spelling of the online materials that it's a
British publication, which makes it rather unlikely that I could find
it on local magazine stands, even if I were interested in paying the
prices of imported magazines. (I did once buy a British art magazine
for $15 because it happened to be an issue devoted to computer
typography and included a CD with a large amount of freeware and many
free fonts.)
antiquarian
Minerva, the International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology, is a
bi-monthly publication published in England that I founded in January
1990. I am the publisher, editor-in-chief, and principal proof-reader
and bottle-washer. It features primarily articles on worldwide
excavations and exhibitions, mainly on Classical, Egyptian, and Near
Eastern subjects, but also has occasional lengthy and often very
boring articles written by me on the problems of forgery in ancient
art (since I subsidize it!). It has NO articles on epigraphy as such,
but sometimes on forged inscriptions. The July/August 2008 issue,
vol. 19, no. 4, with my 16-page article ‘The Phaistos Disk: A 100-Year-
Old Hoax?” is available at $7 or the reprint of the article itself at
$5 including postage from the New York office: Minerva, 153 East 57th
Street, NY, NY 10022 (email: ancie...@aol.com). Reprints are
available without charge to any scholars who have published articles
or books on the Phaistos Disk or engaged in discussions on it on
sci.lang (even Grapheus). If one is impatient, the current issues can
also be obtained at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian,
the British Library, the Ashmolean Museum, the Louvre, Borders,
Foyles, etc. The website is www.minervamagazine.com.
antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D.
Peter T. Daniels
> available without charge to any scholars who have published articles
> or books on the Phaistos Disk or engaged in discussions on it on
> sci.lang (even Grapheus). If one is impatient, the current issues can
> also be obtained at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian,
> the British Library, the Ashmolean Museum, the Louvre, Borders,
> Foyles, etc. The website iswww.minervamagazine.com.
>
> antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D.
I've now seen a copy of the article. (It's quite clear that it was
self-/vanity-published.) I am no more convinced after reading it from
beginning to end than I was from the summary in the Times article that
the PD is a recent confection. Your proposals of parallels are no more
persuasive than the proposals that the letters of the Armenian
alphabet were gathered together at the beginning of the 5th c. AD from
half a dozen contemporary scripts.
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
antiquarian <ancie...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think that Grapheus needs a little education in the detection of
> ancient forgeries, for it is indeed very much like detective work, not
> just mere jousting with words.
Hmmmm. I don't intend to debate the Phaistos Disk: I don't have the
specialised knowledge and don't even have much interest in the matter.
Nonetheless, I subscribe to Minerva and found your article there a
little less than convincing. I also felt that rather more space was
devoted to the subject than, perhaps, it deserved. As a general
principle, I would prefer to see more reports of current work, such as
the excellent series of articles on Butint, the article on that Roman
fort up by the mouth of the Danube (which I was pleased to be able to
find on GoogleEarth) and so on.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
grap...@www.com
For once, I'll defend Antiquarian. The Minerva paper is calling the
attention of scholars on two REAL problems : 1)- How to explain the
many "unicities" of the Disk (shape, firing, script, stamping, etc.),
if it is not a fake ?
2)- how to explain the variety of "correspondences" with so many
cultures (Minoan, Egyptian, Anatolian, etc.), if it is not a fake ?..
To these two problems, the "Proto-Ionian Solution" is THE ONLY ONE to
provide an answer, like it or not...
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Another remark : Of the more than 60 deciphering-attemps, listed in
the Minerva paper, more than 80% are posterior to 1975, date of the
first publication of the "Proto-Ionian Solution". If the "scholarly
world" would have, at that time, been interested in THIS solution and
made the researches it was calling upon, instead of being horrified
because it was contradicting the "Risch-Chadwick Theory", one would
not have to say today : "Wow ! Why so many deciphering attempts ?!.."
grapheus
antiquarian
wrote:
> In message <db6ea8d5-190f-4c09-bcfd-fa61bd68f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegro
> ups.com>
I agree with you..."rather more space was devoted to the subject
than,
perhaps, it deserved". That is why, if you will notice, I added 8
additional pages
to that issue! Otherwise I try to balance much of the content
(principal articles)
primarily between excavation news and exhibitions of ancient art.
Since my
own speciality is in the study of recent (19th century onward)
forgeriesof ancient
art, every so often I bore my readers with a long article with the
results of my
research on a particular project in this field - just 8 of them in the
18 1/2 years
of publication. I heavily subsidize Minerva for I feel that there has
long been a
need for a publication of this type. I would agree with Dr Daniels in
his posting
yesterday that some of my work IS indeed "self-/vanity-published", but
several
of my articles, such as those on the Ludovisi and Boston Thrones, the
Etruscan Bronze Reliefs from Perugia. and the Portland Vase (not a
forgery as
such, but a Renaissance masterwork rather than a Roman one) WERE
published in scholarly journals following their presentation as papers
at various
international conferences when I had the patience to do so.
Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg)
hagen
> ancient forgeries, for it is indeed very much like detective work, not
> just mere jousting with words. I wonder how much experience Grapheus
> has had in the study of forgeries in being able to state that my
> article is “just bad ‘romance’”. It is true that some of my
> suggestions concerning Pernier are circumstantial, but my analysis of
> the 45 signs of the disk showing their MANY different and varied
> source are not
>
> The mind of the forger is a complex one and he makes many aesthetic
> misjudgements in the course of his planning. Grapheus should first
> read my “The Aesthetics of the Forger: Stylistic Criteria in Ancient
> Art Forgery,” Minerva, May/June 1992, 10-15, to give him some
> background in this field. The article was originally given by me as a
> paper at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America
> in 1970 (!), but only published as an abstract at that time. If
> Grapheus will have read my article he would see that it is the
> preponderance of errors made by the forger and the number of unique
> aspects of the disk that point to it as a forgery.
>
> I have specialized in forgeries in ancient art since 1968 when I first
> developed my stylistic criteria and in the same year presented an 84-
> page monograph on the ‘Etruscan’ Monteleone Chariot as an early 20th
> century pastiche to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I did not start
> three known Cretan scripts (Hieroglyphics [ed.: including the axe
> inscription if it is genuine], Linear A and Linear B)”.
>
> E)- “Why the similarity with the “Gold Ring from Mavro Spilio?”
> Grapheus: Because the language of both is probably the same, this gold
> ring being THE ONLY KNOWN other item in Proto-Ionic”.
> Since Grapheus says that he has have read my article, he should take
> another look at Fig 19 in which I use both a photo and a line drawing
> of the ring - the inscription on the ring is in LINEAR A (Kn Zf 13)
> unique)…" !
>
> To rephrase your concluding remark: My opinion of your opinion, at
> the moment: a much bigger step backwards!
>
> As for your later posting "on a few other points", your opinion as to
> my notes on the 'Direction of Reading' and on 'The archaeological
> context and datation of the Disk' as being "DEFINITELY SOLVED" is just
> that - your opinion.
>
> Again, to rephrase your rephrasing of Y. Duhoux on Faucounau: "these
> serious errors of all sorts warrant a
> secure place for Grapheus' comments on Eisenberg's article in the
> anthology of misguided
> amateurs in the study of forgeries..."...a further step backwards. I
> admire Grapheus's bitter wit but not his knowledge of forgeries.
>
> Finally, my curiosity about 'Grapheus' has been aroused...I Googled
> his name and came up with this comment on Wikipedia: 'In a less
> academic mode, the internet troll "grapheus" has advocated Faucounau's
> theories over Usenet, becoming notorious in the process. Posting from
> Luxembourg, and admitting to personal acquaintance of Faucounau, he
> has been suspected to be an alter ego of Faucounau's.' Aha, the
> light appears through the tunnel...
>
> Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D.)
A)- Ups! total lack of logic The probability that a forgery should be
impossible to read, like some volapiik, is no greater than for a
genuine ancient inscription.
B)- The unicity of the sign could be taken as a token for its purpose
otherwise than language for instance a rare calendar.
D)- The similarity with the axe is a phrase (it is Greek to me) it has
none what-so-ever. Perhaps the Arkalochori axe is the one, which is
the forgery. It was almost grafitti to draw a head 'en face'. They
used 'in profile' like the Egyptian
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/zzquadrac.gif
Marathon man (Ole Hagen)
antiquarian
While I am not in the remotest way an linguist or epigrapher, I see
no
connection whatsover between the creation of the Armenian alphabet
and the Phaistos Disk script. The Armenian alphabet was carefully
constructed by Mashtots from a number of other CONTEMPORARY
scripts - Greek, Syriac,Aramaic, Ethiopic, etc., and the very
appearance
of it - its beautifully composed letters all relating to one another
in the
same style - show a painstakingly scholarly attempt to create a true
script.
(Many years ago - in the early 1950s-60s! - as a professional
numismatist, I
had the pleasure of being involved with a number of Armenian coins,
though my particular interest at the time were the Sasanid and Urtuqid
issues.)
The signs of the Phaistos Disk, however, 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 (which I personally collect). Can you show me another
hieroglyphic or other script with such disparate characters in such a
limited number of signs?
Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, the self-/vanity publisher)
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, dear.
> and the very
> appearance
> of it - its beautifully composed letters all relating to one another
> in the
> same style - show a painstakingly scholarly attempt to create a true
> script.
> (Many years ago - in the early 1950s-60s! - as a professional
> numismatist, I
> had the pleasure of being involved with a number of Armenian coins,
> though my particular interest at the time were the Sasanid and Urtuqid
> issues.)
And where's your evidence that Mashtots was or could have been so
intimately familiar with so many different scripts? The Gamkrelidze-
Mouraviev hypothesis of geometrically constructed characters on the
basis of the Greek model is far more plausible.
> The signs of the Phaistos Disk, however, 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 (which I personally collect). Can you show me another
> hieroglyphic or other script with such disparate characters in such a
> limited number of signs?
>
> Antiquarian (Jerome M. Eisenberg, the self-/vanity publisher)
As usual, the one with the bizarre claim -- that's you -- is the one
that has to provide something more than "that's what I feel."
Oh, and when you claimed that you provided the dated pre-1908
publication source for every sign taken from some ancient inscription,
you were lying. Not a hint of where your guy could supposedly have
found his Luvian hieroglyphs -- other than the assertion that three
items had been published during the 19th century.
grap...@www.com
"a jumble of completely unrelated objects"?..
Not at all !.. ALL these objects are related to "Cycladic
Civilization", to "Greek Civilization" 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...
And, as a general rule, the design of these can be found later in
Attic-Euboean vases.
I chalenge you to find a SINGLE represented item which doesn't enter
in this classification, that the "Proto-Ionian Theory" EXPLAINS.
grapheus
grap...@www.com
POOR PETER !... Caught like a fish into the net of the "Risch-Chadwick
Orthodoxy", you can only OPEN a DIGRESSION on the Armenian Alphabet,
and mumble : "I'm not convinced... I'm not convinced..." !!!!!
PITIABLE !...
grapheus
hagen
> Old Hoax?” is available at $7 or the reprint of the article itself at
> $5 including postage from the New York office: Minerva, 153 East 57th
> available without charge to any scholars who have published articles
> sci.lang (even Grapheus). If one is impatient, the current issues can
> also be obtained at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian,
> the British Library, the Ashmolean Museum, the Louvre, Borders,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calm down -. The number 61 is the eighteenth prime in the sieve of
Eratosthenes. It is most beautiful visualized by the two square
numbers 25 and 36. All true mathematicians should agree, that the
fundamental figures of the Phaistos disc inscription are characteried
by the hollow pyramid with its 61 stones and 244 corners. So if you
turn the bowl upside down (?) and fill it with champagne ala' Veuve
Cliquot-Ponsardin, you get a full 365-day calendar. Chin chin !
No reason to let the imagination run riot, that this soft message do
not origin from ancient mathematic.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/observ.htm
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/hatshepsut.htm
Marathon man (Ole Hagen)
Peter T. Daniels
So now you're saying that you find Eisenberg's claim that the PD is a
modern creation plausible? What _will_ M. Facounau say?
grap...@www.com
I didn't say nothing of this kind !!!
I said that most of the questions asked by Dr Eisenberg : 1)- Why so
many "unique characteristics" of the Disk (shape, firing, etc.)
compared to the Myceno-Minoan Tablets ? 2)- Why so many differences
with the "Minoan Family of Scripts" ? 3)- Why such a diversity in the
"parallels" to its Hieroglyphs ?
are LEGITIMATE and GOOD SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS.
But my ANSWER to them is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and I consider as A
WRONG ANSWER the hypothesis of a HOAX.
And I don't believe that J.F. has a different position...
But *YOU*, as a "Guardian of the Risch-Chadwick Orthodoxy" cannot
OFFER A CREDIBLE ANSWER, because, like Yves Duhoux, you have REFUSED
the "Proto-Ionian Theory", which is THE ONLY theory providing aN
ANSWER to Dr Eisenberg's legitimate questioning... The only thing you
can do is to say : "Well, I don't know why the Disk has so many unique
characteristics -- why it is so different from the "Minoan Family" of
Scripts (from Hieroglyphic to the Cypriot Syllabaries) -- why its
hieroglyphs have parallels in the CYCLADIC ART, or in the later GREEK
ART, or in the EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONS of the "Peoples of the Sea"...
But I'm sure it is not a Hoax"...
Is that clear for you now ????
grapheus
Kendall K Down
ps.com>
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I've never heard of, let alone seen, this *Minerva*; the New
> York Public Library lists no less than 13 serials of that name, three
> of which appear to be in current publication.
Well, I have a subscription, so it really exists. It is a bi-monthly
magazine devoted to antiquities of all kinds but with a kind spot for
collectors and dealers, so it carries lots of advertisements for
objects for sale. It also features special exhibitions of all kinds
and in many different places, as well as news of current excavations
and discoveries and readable articles by experts on current work.
Kendall K Down
> I've now seen a copy of the article. (It's quite clear that it was
> self-/vanity-published.)
I think that's a bit harsh! Minerva has a pretty good subscription
list and so far as I know, Mr Eisenberg is not a millionaire who pays
to print the magazine.
Kendall K Down
ps.com>
antiquarian <ancie...@aol.com> wrote:
> I agree with you..."rather more space was devoted to the subject
> than, perhaps, it deserved". That is why, if you will notice, I added 8
> additional pages to that issue!
I apologise; although I read and enjoy Minerva, I don't make a habit
of counting the pages!
> Since my own speciality is in the study of recent (19th century onward)
> forgeriesof ancient art, every so often I bore my readers with a long
> article with the results of my research on a particular project in
> this field - just 8 of them in the 18 1/2 years of publication.
Fair enough. I was not aware that this was your speciality.
> I heavily subsidize Minerva for I feel that there has long been a
> need for a publication of this type.
Really? Er - *are* you a secret millionaire?
Peter T. Daniels
I have told you before that I do not know what "the Risch-Chadwick
Orthodoxy" is, and I don't give a flying fuck about it, or about the
hundreds of "decipherments" of the PD.
> OFFER A CREDIBLE ANSWER, because, like Yves Duhoux, you have REFUSED
> the "Proto-Ionian Theory", which is THE ONLY theory providing aN
AFAIK the only thing by Duhoux I have read is his article in the
Emmett Bennett Festschrift.
> ANSWER to Dr Eisenberg's legitimate questioning... The only thing you
> can do is to say : "Well, I don't know why the Disk has so many unique
> characteristics -- why it is so different from the "Minoan Family" of
I said nothing of the sort. I don't know whether the symbols on the
disk are "unique" or not. (Eisenberg wanders all over the known world
to claim that they're not.) The "unique" characteristics of the disk
mentioned by Eisenberg are the material it's made of (non-local clay),
the fact that it was baked in antiquity, and the fact that its edges
are trimmed as with a knife. None of those characteristics indicates
that it is a modern creation.
> Scripts (from Hieroglyphic to the Cypriot Syllabaries) -- why its
> hieroglyphs have parallels in the CYCLADIC ART, or in the later GREEK
> ART, or in the EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONS of the "Peoples of the Sea"...
> But I'm sure it is not a Hoax"...
> Is that clear for you now ????
Not in the slightest.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In message <30e2268e-40e3-4b83-88a9-87280f6eb...@d1g2000hsg.googlegrou
> ps.com>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I've now seen a copy of the article. (It's quite clear that it was
> > self-/vanity-published.)
>
> I think that's a bit harsh! Minerva has a pretty good subscription
> list and so far as I know, Mr Eisenberg is not a millionaire who pays
> to print the magazine.
I doubt that it would have been published in any other magazine in the
form it has: several pages of (libelous, if the gentleman were still
alive) speculation without a single piece of evidence (even
circumstantial); followed by assertions about the object itself that
don't pass any sort of credibility test.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In message <4708af2a-ad9f-47c4-9d68-11da1e1e2...@m3g2000hsc.googlegrou
> ps.com>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I've never heard of, let alone seen, this *Minerva*; the New
> > York Public Library lists no less than 13 serials of that name, three
> > of which appear to be in current publication.
>
> Well, I have a subscription, so it really exists. It is a bi-monthly
> magazine devoted to antiquities of all kinds but with a kind spot for
> collectors and dealers, so it carries lots of advertisements for
> objects for sale. It also features special exhibitions of all kinds
> and in many different places, as well as news of current excavations
> and discoveries and readable articles by experts on current work.
So a sort of Biblical Archaeology Review for the Classical set ...
To change the subject, has it taken a position on the sale and
purchase and publication of unprovenanced antiquities? Has it covered
the recent stories about the Getty and the Met and the governments of
Italy and Greece? The demand that the Persepolis tablets be removed
from the custody of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago and sold to make good on Iranian debts?
For that matter, has your magazine done so?
grap...@www.com
> On Jul 20, 1:16 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > So now you're saying that you find Eisenberg's claim that the PD is a
> > > modern creation plausible? What _will_ M. Facounau say?
>
> > I didn't say nothing of this kind !!!
> > I said that most of the questions asked by Dr Eisenberg : 1)- Why so
> > many "unique characteristics" of the Disk (shape, firing, etc.)
> > compared to the Myceno-Minoan Tablets ? 2)- Why so many differences
> > with the "Minoan Family of Scripts" ? 3)- Why such a diversity in the
> > "parallels" to its Hieroglyphs ?
> > are LEGITIMATE and GOOD SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS.
> > But my ANSWER to them is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and I consider as A
> > WRONG ANSWER the hypothesis of a HOAX.
> > And I don't believe that J.F. has a different position...
> > But *YOU*, as a "Guardian of the Risch-Chadwick Orthodoxy" cannot
>
> I have told you before that I do not know what "the Risch-Chadwick
> Orthodoxy" is,
Well, you are so impregnated with this theory than you don't even know
what is the source of your beliefs !!!!
> and I don't give a flying fuck about it, or > about the
> hundreds of "decipherments" of the PD.
In that, you are right !.. With one exception: you should pay
attention to the PROVED one !!!
> > OFFER A CREDIBLE ANSWER, because, like Yves Duhoux, you have REFUSED
> > the "Proto-Ionian Theory", which is THE > > ONLY theory providing an ANSWER
> > to Dr Eisenberg's legitimate questioning... The only thing you
> > can do is to say : "Well, I don't know why the Disk has so many unique
> > characteristics -- why it is so different from the "Minoan Family" of
>
> I said nothing of the sort. I don't know whether the symbols on the
> disk are "unique" or not.
This is NOT what I wrote !!!! You deleted the parenthesis specifying :
shape, firing, etc.
Strange....
> (Eisenberg wanders all over the known world
> to claim that they're not.) The "unique" characteristics of the disk
> mentioned by Eisenberg are the material it's made of (non-local clay),
> the fact that it was baked in antiquity, and the fact that its edges
> are trimmed as with a knife. None of those characteristics indicates
> that it is a modern creation.
I FULLY AGREE.
> > Scripts (from Hieroglyphic to the Cypriot Syllabaries) -- why its
> > hieroglyphs have parallels in the CYCLADIC ART, or in the later GREEK
> > ART, or in the EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONS of the "Peoples of the Sea"...
> > But I'm sure it is not a Hoax"...
> > Is that clear for you now ????
>
> Not in the slightest.
Well, then I repeat : I AGREE WITH YOU that the DISK IS NOT A HOAX,
but - contrary to you - it is NOT just "because I think so", but
because I CAN PROPOSE ANOTHER ANSWER to the real problems he
mentioned.
grapheus
POST-SCRIPTUM : I am a bit unfair with you, saying that you didn't put
forwards a real motive for refusing his hypothesis. In fact, you did
for the "Luwian Hieroglyphic parallels", saying that he didn't PROVE
that Luigi Pernier could have known them. But I would have prefered
something more "elaborated". For instance : In 1908, Pernier could
ONLY know the inscriptions gathered by Messerschmidt in his work
"Corpus Inscript. Hetticarum", published in the "Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatishen Gesellschaft" V (1900) - VII (1902) and XI (1906).
Has Dr Eisenberg VERIFIED that the "parallels" he quoted are in this
publication?.. If yes, what is the reference, so any scholar may
verify the thing ...
grap...@www.com
What importance has this ????
Looks as a NEW ATTEMPT to DIVERT the discussion !!!!!
It is true that, as a "Faithful Guardian of the Orthodoxy", you don't
care a damn about the Phaistos Disk... "un objet dangereux", as was
saying the French Prof. M. Lejeune, a stauch defender of the "Risch-
Chadwick Theory"...
grapheus
mb
Apart from the internal evidence and things of the type Eisenberg
specializes in, the find record (not observed and recorded in situ,
and presented to the archeologist in a basket containing a mix of
different objects from different strata) is plenty suspect enough. If
an archeologist can explain if and how something like that can be
fixed for such a hapax, fine. Otherwise it will never be convincing
anyway.
Peter T. Daniels
How did that differ from the general practice of archeology in 1908?
Peter T. Daniels
I DON'T CARE WHAT _ANYONE_ SAYS ABOUT IT. IF YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR
LIFE ON IT, FINE. I WISH YOU WOULD STOP PESTERING US ABOUT IT.
grap...@www.com
Here comes again the Italo-Californian IGNARROGANT pizza-man, who
KNOWS NOTHING, but GIVES ***HIS*** OPINION on EVERYTHING !!!!!
Go back to your ^pizzas, Azythos ! It's the ONLY field in which you
have some competence !!!
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Ha! Ha! Because it is not so easy to say WHY I would be wrong, eh ?...
And because you are caught today in a terrible dilemna : you would
like to counter Dr Eisenberg's hypothesis, BUT YOU CAN'T, because,
caught in the net of the Chadwick's Orthodoxy, you have NO answer to
his questions...
I'll deceive you : in spite of the efforts of your followers like the
IGNORANT pizza-man, who believes he is a linguist because he can
jabber insults in several languages, I WILL GO ON telling the thruth.
grapheus
grap...@www.com
And the TRUTH is that a bunch of DOGMATIC scholars, like the late John
Chadwick, Yves Duhoux, John Younger and yourself, have PUT ASIDE an
archaeological item, which was contradicting THEIR theories, and tried
to discourage the scholars who were interested in it !.. Read again
Yves Duhoux' A.J.A. paper : he tried to kill SEVERAL birds with one
stone! And John Chaswick's words "Please, DO NOT send me any paper on
this object !" is carefully mentioned !.. As is also the "Oficial Rule
# 1" : I quote : "One should expect the disc's syllabary to conform
fairly well to that of securely deciphered parallel scripts." As it
doesn't....
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
I don't care whether you are right or wrong.
> And because you are caught today in a terrible dilemna : you would
> like to counter Dr Eisenberg's hypothesis, BUT YOU CAN'T, because,
> caught in the net of the Chadwick's Orthodoxy, you have NO answer to
> his questions...
His questions are of no interest. His assertion is absurd on the face.
> I'll deceive you : in spite of the efforts of your followers like the
> IGNORANT pizza-man, who believes he is a linguist because he can
> jabber insults in several languages, I WILL GO ON telling the thruth.
I will go on not being interested.
grap...@www.com
> On Jul 21, 3:41 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 5:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 5:57 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It is true that, as a "Faithful Guardian of the Orthodoxy", you don't
> > > > care a damn about the Phaistos Disk... "un objet dangereux", as was
> > > > saying the French Prof. M. Lejeune, a stauch defender of the "Risch-
> > > > Chadwick Theory"...
>
> > > I DON'T CARE WHAT _ANYONE_ SAYS ABOUT IT. IF YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR
> > > LIFE ON IT, FINE. I WISH YOU WOULD STOP PESTERING US ABOUT IT.
>
> > Ha! Ha! Because it is not so easy to say WHY I would be wrong, eh ?...
>
> I don't care whether you are right or wrong.
What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
Ancient Scripts !!!!!
You embarrassment is obvious...
> > And because you are caught today in a terrible dilemna : you would
> > like to counter Dr Eisenberg's hypothesis, BUT YOU CAN'T, because,
> > caught in the net of the Chadwick's Orthodoxy, you have NO answer to
> > his questions...
>
> His questions are of no interest. His assertion is absurd on the face.
And this is probably the motive why you were the first in this Group
to announce the Minerva-Conference...
> > I'll deceive you : in spite of the efforts of your followers like the
> > IGNORANT pizza-man, who believes he is a linguist because he can
> > jabber insults in several languages, I WILL GO ON telling the truth.
>
> I will go on not being interested.
Well, if you change your mind one day....
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jul 21, 1:34 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:41 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 5:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 20, 5:57 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is true that, as a "Faithful Guardian of the Orthodoxy", you don't
> > > > > care a damn about the Phaistos Disk... "un objet dangereux", as was
> > > > > saying the French Prof. M. Lejeune, a stauch defender of the "Risch-
> > > > > Chadwick Theory"...
>
> > > > I DON'T CARE WHAT _ANYONE_ SAYS ABOUT IT. IF YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR
> > > > LIFE ON IT, FINE. I WISH YOU WOULD STOP PESTERING US ABOUT IT.
>
> > > Ha! Ha! Because it is not so easy to say WHY I would be wrong, eh ?...
>
> > I don't care whether you are right or wrong.
>
> What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
> Ancient Scripts !!!!!
I have done no such thing.
> You embarrassment is obvious...
>
> > > And because you are caught today in a terrible dilemna : you would
> > > like to counter Dr Eisenberg's hypothesis, BUT YOU CAN'T, because,
> > > caught in the net of the Chadwick's Orthodoxy, you have NO answer to
> > > his questions...
>
> > His questions are of no interest. His assertion is absurd on the face.
>
> And this is probably the motive why you were the first in this Group
> to announce the Minerva-Conference...
There was no indication in the announcement posted to LINGUIST List
that it had anything to do with claims that the object is a modern
creation.
grap...@www.com
> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:34 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 3:41 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 21, 5:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 20, 5:57 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It is true that, as a "Faithful Guardian of the Orthodoxy", you don't
> > > > > > care a damn about the Phaistos Disk... "un objet dangereux", as was
> > > > > > saying the French Prof. M. Lejeune, a stauch defender of the "Risch-
> > > > > > Chadwick Theory"...
>
> > > > > I DON'T CARE WHAT _ANYONE_ SAYS ABOUT IT. IF YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR
> > > > > LIFE ON IT, FINE. I WISH YOU WOULD STOP PESTERING US ABOUT IT.
>
> > > > Ha! Ha! Because it is not so easy to say WHY I would be wrong, eh ?...
>
> > > I don't care whether you are right or wrong.
>
> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
> > Ancient Scripts !!!!!
>
> I have done no such thing.
I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's Writing Systems"
edited by a Peter Daniels, which is a "collaborative volume", with
contributions of the best "specialists", including a "Peter T.
Daniels" for the subject: "Undeciphered Scripts".
And guess what is written by this author in this paragraph ?.. "
Emmett Bennett (not necessarily Peter T. Daniels, I guess!) regards
(Miss Melian) Stawell as an early effort worth mentioning.." And you
know what ?.. "The J.Faucounau's book on the Phaistos Disk is
dedicated "à la mémoire de Florence Melian Stawell, qui pressentit la
première la solution de l'énigme"... !!!!!
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
Since you are able to quote a sentence from the book, you have
presumably seen it, so you _know_ that it is not "a reference book on
Ancient Scripts" !!!!!
If Stawell _solved_ it, why do you, er, why does Faucounau need to do
any further work on it?
(The comment from Bennett, BTW, was from a pers.comm. He said,
incidentally, that if we wanted to include a picture of the PD, he
would not allow us to publish his chapter. We had, of course, not
intended to do so.)
Adam Funk
> On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
>> > Ancient Scripts !!!!!
>>
>> I have done no such thing.
>
> I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's Writing Systems"
> edited by a Peter Daniels, which is a "collaborative volume", with
> contributions of the best "specialists", including a "Peter T.
> Daniels" for the subject: "Undeciphered Scripts".
The short answer: the book covers scripts from ancient right up to the
20th century.
--
Pengo is having second thoughts about his years working for the KGB.
(Stoll 1989)
Hayabusa
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>Really? Er - *are* you a secret millionaire?
No. He is a millionaire quite openly. But being rich does not prevent
one from using one's brain, and this is the only issue that matters
here in this ng.
H.
grap...@www.com
The answer is in the J.F.'s book, on page 51 : (free translation from
French by me) : "The errors that one may commit when he uses ONLY the
acrophonic method, even when the starting hypotheses are correct, is
illustrated by Florence M.Stawell's attempt, to whom this book is
dedicated because she has been the first to foresee the solution of
the enigma. Only bad luck prevent her to hit the target... She
correctly identified 60% of the signs, but obtained less than 10% of
correct phonetic values.."
>
> (The comment from Bennett, BTW, was from a pers.comm. He said,
> incidentally, that if we wanted to include a picture of the PD, he
> would not allow us to publish his chapter. We had, of course, not
> intended to do so.)
Interesting historical point !!! So, in spite of having a more open
mind than John Chadwick, Emmett L. Bennett was so afraid of the
reactions of his colleagues that he didn't want to talk about the
Disk, called "un dangereux objet" by Michel Lejeune !!!!
Well, I predict that Dr Eisenberg will feel the same in a few weeks,
the "Establishment's ukase" being : "Pass along ! There is nothing to
see!.. Right, Sergeant Daniels ?...
grapheus
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:20:32 +0100, Kendall K Down
>
> >Really? Er - *are* you a secret millionaire?
>
> No. He is a millionaire quite openly. But being rich does not prevent
> one from using one's brain, and this is the only issue that matters
> here in this ng.
>
> H.
When does that start?
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> To change the subject, has it taken a position on the sale and
> purchase and publication of unprovenanced antiquities?
Yes, the topic is regularly covered and, of course, condemned.
> Has it covered
> the recent stories about the Getty and the Met and the governments of
> Italy and Greece?
Yes.
> The demand that the Persepolis tablets be removed
> from the custody of the Oriental Institute of the University of
> Chicago and sold to make good on Iranian debts?
I haven't heard of that one and would oppose it strongly. I hold no
candle for Iran, but such objects would lose half their value for the
world of scholarship if they were separated.
> For that matter, has your magazine done so?
The above answers apply to Archaeological Diggings as well.
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, stop parading your ignorance. Around the time WWS was published,
Bennett had a review article in the journal *Semiotica* on some PD
publication or other -- I think that's where he said that _all_
decipherments are "correct," because there's no way of _disproving_
any of them.
> Well, I predict that Dr Eisenberg will feel the same in a few weeks,
> the "Establishment's ukase" being : "Pass along ! There is nothing to
> see!.. Right, Sergeant Daniels ?...
Mr. Eisenberg PhD stands to profit from continuing to beat his dead
horse.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-07-21, graph...@www.comwrote:
> > On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
> >> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
> >> > Ancient Scripts !!!!!
>
> >> I have done no such thing.
>
> > I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's Writing Systems"
> > edited by a Peter Daniels, which is a "collaborative volume", with
> > contributions of the best "specialists", including a "Peter T.
> > Daniels" for the subject: "Undeciphered Scripts".
>
> The short answer: the book covers scripts from ancient right up to the
> 20th century.
Maybe neither of you read the Introduction -- the historical stuff in
incidental, the main purpose is to describe the _use_ of writing
systems to express their language.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In message <5b1a2a6c-2f6f-41cb-85b9-d684461d5...@k37g2000hsf.googlegro
> ups.com>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > To change the subject, has it taken a position on the sale and
> > purchase and publication of unprovenanced antiquities?
>
> Yes, the topic is regularly covered and, of course, condemned.
>
> > Has it covered
> > the recent stories about the Getty and the Met and the governments of
> > Italy and Greece?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The demand that the Persepolis tablets be removed
> > from the custody of the Oriental Institute of the University of
> > Chicago and sold to make good on Iranian debts?
>
> I haven't heard of that one and would oppose it strongly. I hold no
> candle for Iran, but such objects would lose half their value for the
> world of scholarship if they were separated.
>
> > For that matter, has your magazine done so?
>
> The above answers apply to Archaeological Diggings as well.
Chuck Jones has been posting regular updates on the OI lawsuit in the
yahoo group ANE-2. The message archives are readily available (and you
can even join the group once the moderators are persuaded of your
legitimacy).
grap...@www.com
Ah! Ah!.. So, there are writing systems which don't express
language ???? Interesting indeed... Could you more specific about what
they express ?.. Curious to know... Maybe "unutterable ideas"????
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:10 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-07-21, graph...@www.comwrote:
> > > > On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
> > > >> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
> > > >> > Ancient Scripts !!!!!
>
> > > >> I have done no such thing.
>
> > > > I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's Writing Systems"
> > > > edited by a Peter Daniels, which is a "collaborative volume", with
> > > > contributions of the best "specialists", including a "Peter T.
> > > > Daniels" for the subject: "Undeciphered Scripts".
>
> > > The short answer: the book covers scripts from ancient right up to the
> > > 20th century.
>
> > Maybe neither of you read the Introduction -- the historical stuff in
> > incidental, the main purpose is to describe the _use_ of writing
> > systems to express their language.
>
> Ah! Ah!.. So, there are writing systems which don't express
> language ????
There is a growing cadre of scholars who want to use "writing" for any
sort of visual communication of meaning, whether or not it involves
language. I am not of that cadre.
I think you have simply not understood the sentence I wrote.
> Interesting indeed... Could you more specific about what
> they express ?.. Curious to know... Maybe "unutterable ideas"????
No, that's generally what _music_ is said to be for.
grap...@www.com
> On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 3:10 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2008-07-21, graph...@www.comwrote:
> > > > > On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a reference book on
> > > > >> > Ancient Scripts !!!!!
>
> > > > >> I have done no such thing.
>
> > > > > I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's Writing Systems"
> > > > > edited by a Peter Daniels, which is a "collaborative volume", with
> > > > > contributions of the best "specialists", including a "Peter T.
> > > > > Daniels" for the subject: "Undeciphered Scripts".
>
> > > > The short answer: the book covers scripts from ancient right up to the
> > > > 20th century.
>
> > > Maybe neither of you read the Introduction -- the historical stuff in
> > > incidental, the main purpose is to describe the _use_ of writing
> > > systems to express their language.
>
> > Ah! Ah!.. So, there are writing systems which don't express
> > language ????
>
> There is a growing cadre of scholars who want to use "writing" for any
> sort of visual communication of meaning, whether or not it involves
> language.
Seems to me pretty difficult to "think" without language (at least
"interior language") !.. Personally, I never could...
And I agree with these guys : Any type of communication, would it be
the design of two children crossing a road, is for me "writing"
transmetting language. Here : "Caution ! Schoolboys may cross the
road ! Be careful!"...
grapheus
grap...@www.com
But there is a way to PROVE one of them : Checking if ALL its
CONSEQUENCES are VERIFIED by FACTS. This is called : "The scientific
method to check whether an hypothesis is true or false"...
>
> > Well, I predict that Dr Eisenberg will feel the same in a few weeks,
> > the "Establishment's ukase" being : "Pass along ! There is nothing to
> > see!.. Right, Sergeant Daniels ?...
>
> Mr. Eisenberg PhD stands to profit from
> continuing to beat his dead
> horse.
Not so dead !.. But what he didn't foresee is that it would be a
confrontation between TWO hypotheses : his and the Proto-Ionian
Theory, which is the only solution which answers all his questions...
(and many more...).
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
Or: 'Slow! Children cross the road here!'
grap...@www.com
YES. You may also "READ" the sign in German, French, Italian or
Chinese. The difference is ONLY PHONETIC, the "READING" is the same...
All "SCRIPTS" are not phonetic...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
But all writing systems record language. By definition.
grap...@www.com
I don't believe this definition to be very satisfactory... A purely
"ideographic system", for instance, can be read in several
languages... I prefer the following definition of writing : "any
system which permit to transmit a MESSAGE, without consideration of
time and prsence (and normally without a reading device). In other
words, a message which can be "read" later and in the absence of the
one who has written it, normally without the need of a reading device,
the exceptions being "messages written with invisible ink", or on a
computer with the need of knowing the pass-word, etc.
grapheus
hagen
>
> - Show quoted text -
No mistakes, please. When I state, that the Phaistos disc do not
contain any language. I write in the litterally sense of the word
language *lingua, means tongue, giving a phonetic communication.
The answer is different, if you talk In the broader sense of the word
language. You have of course Algebra, Ido, C++ (color codes etc.), the
manual alphabet, A dogs bark?
- I once had a dog, that could (ex)press its own name. Its name was
Turd. Definitely not language!
Hagen
P.S. sorry for this last joke
Richard Herring
<cc381f14-57ff-4e37...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"grap...@www.com" <grap...@www.com> writes
>On Jul 22, 1:42 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 5:13 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 4:50 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 21, 6:19 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > > > > ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:10 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On 2008-07-21, graph...@www.comwrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > > > > > > > ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, "graph...@www.com"
>> > > > > > > > >><graph...@www.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > What a poor anwer for someone who has edited a
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> I have done no such thing.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I must have dreamt... about a book "The World's
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > > The short answer: the book covers scripts from ancient
>> > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > Maybe neither of you read the Introduction -- the
>> > > > > > > incidental, the main purpose is to describe the _use_ of writing
>> > > > > > > systems to express their language.
>>
>> > > > > > Ah! Ah!.. So, there are writing systems which don't express
>> > > > > > language ????
>>
>> > > > > There is a growing cadre of scholars who want to use
>> > > > >"writing" for any
>> > > > > sort of visual communication of meaning, whether or not it involves
>> > > > > language.
>>
>> > > > `
>> > > > Seems to me pretty difficult to "think" without language (at least
>> > > > "interior language") !.. Personally, I never could...
>> > > > And I agree with these guys : Any type of communication, would it be
>> > > > the design of two children crossing a road, is for me "writing"
>> > > > transmetting language. Here : "Caution ! Schoolboys may cross the
>> > > > road ! Be careful!"...
>>
>> > > Or: 'Slow! Children cross the road here!'
>>
>> > YES. You may also "READ" the sign in German, French, Italian or
>> > Chinese. The difference is ONLY PHONETIC, the "READING" is the same...
>> > All "SCRIPTS" are not phonetic...
>>
>> But all writing systems record language. By definition.
>
>I don't believe this definition to be very satisfactory...
You are Franz Gnaedinger and I claim my Ł5.
> A purely
>"ideographic system", for instance, can be read in several
>languages... I prefer the following definition of writing : "any
>system which permit to transmit a MESSAGE,
And how many "purely ideographic" systems do you know that can convey an
*arbitrary* message? Not just a pre-defined set like "children
crossing", "turn left" etc., but *any* utterance from the unbounded set
of things that humans are capable of saying?
> without consideration of
>time and prsence (and normally without a reading device). In other
>words, a message which can be "read" later and in the absence of the
>one who has written it, normally without the need of a reading device,
>the exceptions being "messages written with invisible ink", or on a
>computer with the need of knowing the pass-word, etc.
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
> In message
> <cc381f14-57ff-4e37-b276-76a577cb6...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> writes
>
> > A purely
> >"ideographic system", for instance, can be read in several
> >languages... I prefer the following definition of writing : "any
> >system which permit to transmit a MESSAGE,
>
> And how many "purely ideographic" systems do you know that can convey an
> *arbitrary* message? Not just a pre-defined set like "children
> crossing", "turn left" etc., but *any* utterance from the unbounded set
> of things that humans are capable of saying?
Of course, a "purely ideographic system" cannot convey ALL POSSIBLE
messages... No more than another system, including the "alphabet", if
not COMPLETED by lots of new signs, e.g. the mathematical, or the
linguistical, ones!... If you are COMPLETING an ideographic system
with some "phonetic" or "grammatical" signs, like the Egyptians and/or
Luwians did, for instance, you may convey any message...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> <cc381f14-57ff-4e37-b276-76a577cb6...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> You are Franz Gnaedinger and I claim my £5.
> > A purely
> >"ideographic system", for instance, can be read in several
> >languages... I prefer the following definition of writing : "any
> >system which permit to transmit a MESSAGE,
> And how many "purely ideographic" systems do you know that can convey an
> *arbitrary* message? Not just a pre-defined set like "children
> crossing", "turn left" etc., but *any* utterance from the unbounded set
> of things that humans are capable of saying?
Unfortunately the sense espoused by grapheus has become quite common
among scholars of nonliterate cultures who wish to use the, as they
see it, values-laden term "writing" for any system of visual
communication; whereas something like "semiotic system" surely has a
much grander sound, and wouldn't bring about the necessity of finding
some other term for what I call "writing" -- since "writing systems"
as traditionally understood share many properties that non-language-
bound semiotic systems do not share and so merit being studied
together but apart from the wider field of all of semiotics.
grap...@www.com
Well, is it really so necessary to create such a classification,
except as a convenient title for a book ?... I found clearer the
concept of "Ancient Scripts"... So, you may add the "Prehistoric
writing", loved by Franz G., and the "Modern ways to communicate
between Humans", like Internet or the SMS..
grapheus
Richard Herring
<a261fe7f-7bae-4d33...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
"grap...@www.com" <grap...@www.com> writes
Not only that, it can't convey "most messages", or even "quite a few
messages". It's so circumscribed it can convey HARDLY ANY AT ALL.
> No more than another system, including the "alphabet", if
>not COMPLETED
No. If alphabets can represent any possible utterance in the spoken
language(s) they represent, even if it has never yet been uttered, they
_are_ complete.
> by lots of new signs, e.g. the mathematical, or the
>linguistical, ones!...
Those are just convenient shorthand, because it's tiresome to spell out
"closed contour integral" or "labio-lingual trill" every time. They add
nothing to the expressive power of the alphabetic writing system.
>If you are COMPLETING an ideographic system
>with some "phonetic" or "grammatical" signs, like the Egyptians and/or
>Luwians did, for instance, you may convey any message...
>
Indeed. And by the time you've "completed" it, how many of the written
symbols are still "ideographic"?
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
> In message
NO. There are not only "shorthand", but TRUE IDEOGRAMS : one may
"read" them in HIS own language !..
> They add
> nothing to the expressive power of the alphabetic writing system.
Except the possibility TO BE UNDERSTOOD even by people who don't know
the language of THIS peculiar alphabetic system !.. If I don't know
Russian, I'll have trouble to understand a single word, written in the
Russian Alphabet and Language. But I may understand : 1+1 = 2, even in
a Russian book !..
>
> >If you are COMPLETING an ideographic system
> >with some "phonetic" or "grammatical" signs, like the Egyptians and/or
> >Luwians did, for instance, you may convey any message...
>
> Indeed. And by the time you've "completed" it, how many of the written
> symbols are still "ideographic"?
This is unimportant... Because nobody can "fix the limit" when an
"ideographic system" lost its character, as long as remains some
"ideograms", what is the case even in modern times with some
"Universal Road-signals" for instance...
There is nothing new under the Sun since 40,000 years !...
grapheus
hagen
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having arranged my life to the hazzard purpose of being the victorious
one, who came to hit the bulls eye, was of course pure euforia, when a
reality. Now will you please help me having manifold my new alphabetic
notation of the 45 differing signs with a certain haste.
My showing forward trustfully this trophy became however "my soul at
stake, yours nothing". total nightmare.
Dear Grapheus, who for sure know my birth date.( and the name of my
Godfather as well) Do you know the names of my tormentors too? In
that case feel free to contact me. PS You owe me 0 $.
Regards
Ole Hagen
Hayabusa
good question. Sometimes there are signs of hope.
Hayabusa
grap...@www.com
Believing that you are a victim is pure imagination. I can tell you
that your "solution" has been examined by diverse scholars. Their
conclusion is that you made an interesting discovery with your (true)
"stems", but you erred after, not seing that the way you took was
totally unlikely : it is unlikely that the hieroglyphs don't
correspond to a TEXT -- it is unlikely that the two "dotted
separators" are not just marking the beginning of the reading -- it is
unlikely that part of one Face belongs to the other Face -- it is
unlikely that a calendar would have been written, not into a circle or
into a square, but into a spiral (your "transformation" of the spiral
into a square or even a pyramid is artificial and the result of
several "manipulations of the true figures") -- it is unlikely for a
Minoan to have made a calendar covering only eight months, when it was
so easy for him to make a bigger disk of clay.
That you refuse to see that this bunch of improbabilities condemns
your "solution" has always surprised me... Mainly as ANOTHER solution
does exist, with no improbabilities of this kind, which EXPLAINS a lot
of things, including your "stems", and with ALL its consequences
VERIFIED by FACTS.
I wish you wake up from your impossible dream...
Regards
grapheus
Kendall K Down
> Chuck Jones has been posting regular updates on the OI lawsuit in the
> yahoo group ANE-2. The message archives are readily available (and you
> can even join the group once the moderators are persuaded of your
> legitimacy).
Thanks. I'll wait for it in the newspapers.
Richard Herring
<f032edf7-d6d2-4ecc...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"grap...@www.com" <grap...@www.com> writes
>On Jul 22, 7:01 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message
>> <a261fe7f-7bae-4d33-a0f5-8499a6063...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>> "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 22, 4:52 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <cc381f14-57ff-4e37-b276-76a577cb6...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> writes
>>
>>
>> >> >"ideographic system", for instance, can be read in several
>> >> >languages... I prefer the following definition of writing : "any
>> >> >system which permit to transmit a MESSAGE,
>>
>> >> And how many "purely ideographic" systems do you know that can convey an
>> >> *arbitrary* message? Not just a pre-defined set like "children
>> >> crossing", "turn left" etc., but *any* utterance from the unbounded set
>> >> of things that humans are capable of saying?
>>
>> >Of course, a "purely ideographic system" cannot convey ALL POSSIBLE
>> >messages...
>>
>> Not only that, it can't convey "most messages", or even "quite a few
>> messages". It's so circumscribed it can convey HARDLY ANY AT ALL.
>>
>> > No more than another system, including the "alphabet", if
>> >not COMPLETED
>>
>> No. If alphabets can represent any possible utterance in the spoken
>> language(s) they represent, even if it has never yet been uttered, they
>> _are_ complete.
I note that you didn't respond to this point.
>>
>> > by lots of new signs, e.g. the mathematical, or the
>> >linguistical, ones!...
>>
>> Those are just convenient shorthand, because it's tiresome to spell out
>> "closed contour integral" or "labio-lingual trill" every time.
>
>NO. There are not only "shorthand", but TRUE IDEOGRAMS : one may
>"read" them in HIS own language !..
Big deal. He still needs to read the surrounding alphabetical text in
the author's language. Your "true ideograms" are incomplete.
>
>> They add
>> nothing to the expressive power of the alphabetic writing system.
>
>Except the possibility TO BE UNDERSTOOD even by people who don't know
>the language of THIS peculiar alphabetic system !.. If I don't know
>Russian, I'll have trouble to understand a single word, written in the
>Russian Alphabet and Language. But I may understand : 1+1 = 2, even in
>a Russian book !..
And that's about as far as you'll get. You've never opened an advanced
mathematical text in Russian or any other language, have you? Despite
the mathematical notation, there's a good deal of verbal reasoning in
Russian or English or German interspersed between the formulae.
>>
>> >If you are COMPLETING an ideographic system
>> >with some "phonetic" or "grammatical" signs, like the Egyptians and/or
>> >Luwians did, for instance, you may convey any message...
>>
>> Indeed. And by the time you've "completed" it, how many of the written
>> symbols are still "ideographic"?
>
>This is unimportant... Because nobody can "fix the limit" when an
>"ideographic system" lost its character,
Don't be silly. Your "ideographic system" lost its character the moment
someone discovered they couldn't use it to represent what they wanted to
say, and started introducing morphophonemic elements to make up for the
deficiency.
> as long as remains some
>"ideograms",
Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
ideographic writing system.
>what is the case even in modern times with some
>"Universal Road-signals" for instance...
Which brings you back full circle. Those "universal" road signs can only
convey a highly restricted set of pre-defined meanings. They can't
convey an arbitrary message that wasn't agreed in advance.
>There is nothing new under the Sun since 40,000 years !...
Yes, it has been known for a very long time that purely ideographic
systems are inadequate for representing language.
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
> In message
If this is your final conclusion, I've no problem to agree...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
> ideographic writing system.
Kindly identify some "ideographic" characters in Chinese writing?
> >what is the case even in modern times with some
> >"Universal Road-signals" for instance...
>
> Which brings you back full circle. Those "universal" road signs can only
> convey a highly restricted set of pre-defined meanings. They can't
> convey an arbitrary message that wasn't agreed in advance.
>
> >There is nothing new under the Sun since 40,000 years !...
>
> Yes, it has been known for a very long time that purely ideographic
> systems are inadequate for representing language.
Since Peter Stephen Duponceau in 1839, to be precise. The English
version is on google books (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to
track it down); the University of Chicago libraries (special
collections, no less) have only the French version.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In message <fe625ea9-0255-4f64-b1d4-2d732f920...@l42g2000hsc.googlegro
> ups.com>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Chuck Jones has been posting regular updates on the OI lawsuit in the
> > yahoo group ANE-2. The message archives are readily available (and you
> > can even join the group once the moderators are persuaded of your
> > legitimacy).
>
> Thanks. I'll wait for it in the newspapers.
Do you get the Chicago Tribune down there?
Richard Herring
<202cb7c7-d0ba-48af...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
>On Jul 23, 5:33 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message
>
>> Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
>> ideographic writing system.
>
>Kindly identify some "ideographic" characters in Chinese writing?
I was thinking of the characters for "up" and "down".
>
>> >what is the case even in modern times with some
>> >"Universal Road-signals" for instance...
>>
>> Which brings you back full circle. Those "universal" road signs can only
>> convey a highly restricted set of pre-defined meanings. They can't
>> convey an arbitrary message that wasn't agreed in advance.
>>
>> >There is nothing new under the Sun since 40,000 years !...
>>
>> Yes, it has been known for a very long time that purely ideographic
>> systems are inadequate for representing language.
>
>Since Peter Stephen Duponceau in 1839, to be precise. The English
>version is on google books (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to
>track it down); the University of Chicago libraries (special
>collections, no less) have only the French version.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
> >On Jul 23, 5:33 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> In message
>
> >> Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
> >> ideographic writing system.
>
> >Kindly identify some "ideographic" characters in Chinese writing?
>
> I was thinking of the characters for "up" and "down".
Does each of them represent several different Chinese words involving
notions of upness and downness? What you're noticing is their
pictographic origin, which is quite a different matter from ideography
-- after all, the letters of our alphabet are pictographic in origin
but have never been associated with any sort of ideography.
Richard Herring
<8c19883f-e1e3-4de0...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> In message
>> <202cb7c7-d0ba-48af-9958-845afa6c8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 5:33 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >> In message
>>
>> >> Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
>> >> ideographic writing system.
>>
>> >Kindly identify some "ideographic" characters in Chinese writing?
>>
>> I was thinking of the characters for "up" and "down".
>
>Does each of them represent several different Chinese words involving
>notions of upness and downness?
At least one. (Does _any_ individual Chinese character "represent
several different Chinese words"?)
They also represent some Japanese words involving the same notions ;-)
> What you're noticing is their
>pictographic origin, which is quite a different matter from ideography
So what else would you call a "picture" of an abstract concept?
>-- after all, the letters of our alphabet are pictographic in origin
>but have never been associated with any sort of ideography.
Unless that's also true of Chinese, it's irrelevant. AIUI the
traditional Chinese classification makes a distinction between what are
commonly called pictograms and ideograms, in addition to the other kinds
of character.
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
> In message
Why are you not opening a new thread on "pictograms in Chinese" ?...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
>
>
> >On Jul 23, 9:46 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <202cb7c7-d0ba-48af-9958-845afa6c8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
> >> >On Jul 23, 5:33 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> >> In message
>
> >> >> Chinese has some ideographic characters, but that doesn't make it an
> >> >> ideographic writing system.
>
> >> >Kindly identify some "ideographic" characters in Chinese writing?
>
> >> I was thinking of the characters for "up" and "down".
>
> >Does each of them represent several different Chinese words involving
> >notions of upness and downness?
>
> At least one. (Does _any_ individual Chinese character "represent
> several different Chinese words"?)
There are some characters that represent more than one morpheme (with
different pronunciations as well).
> They also represent some Japanese words involving the same notions ;-)
In Japanese, a character can have more than one reading -- but again,
a character doesn't express some "idea" divorced from the word it
represents.
> > What you're noticing is their
> >pictographic origin, which is quite a different matter from ideography
>
> So what else would you call a "picture" of an abstract concept?
There's no such thing. Hence, rebus-writings.
> >-- after all, the letters of our alphabet are pictographic in origin
> >but have never been associated with any sort of ideography.
>
> Unless that's also true of Chinese, it's irrelevant.
It's true of Chinese, and it's not irrelevant.
> AIUI the
> traditional Chinese classification makes a distinction between what are
> commonly called pictograms and ideograms, in addition to the other kinds
> of character.
There are 6 traditional categories: pictograms, slightly abstract
representations of relations (like the ones you mention and maybe a
handful of others), sense-compounds (very, very few, such as 3 trees =
forest; not including sun + moon = light), radical + phonetic (the
vast majority of characters), and a sixth category which no one can
interpret.
Richard Herring
<115ea4e6-017c-49d4...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"grap...@www.com" <grap...@www.com> writes
Because the topic is your attempt to redefine "writing system". The
non-ideographic nature of Chinese was just a digression.
--
Richard Herring
hagen
Your many statements, above, must be intentionally "false", aimed at
the purpose to miscredit "true".
Example_: To disentangle all consequences of the stems at once, would
even not be possible for a picked panel of scholars (Only God, Allah,
knows 'all' at a time in a split-second).
I was correctly sketching some immediately code-breaking advantages of
my discovery ' the 70 stems'. For instance:
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/chain3.htm
Ole Hagen
PS We got to recompense discoveries, or we shall have near none in the
future.
grap...@www.com
No. It was just a new attempt to wake you up.
But, once again, it failed...
grapheus
mb
> On Jul 20, 7:09 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apart from the internal evidence and things of the type Eisenberg
> > specializes in, the find record (not observed and recorded in situ,
> > and presented to the archeologist in a basket containing a mix of
> > different objects from different strata) is plenty suspect enough. If
> > an archeologist can explain if and how something like that can be
> > fixed for such a hapax, fine. Otherwise it will never be convincing
> > anyway.
>
> How did that differ from the general practice of archeology in 1908?
How the heck would I know? In the text above there was a request for
an archeologist in the room to please explain.
Also, considering that Dörpfeld writes way before that date that such
practice is sloppy, it must have been frowned upon. Or should have.
Anyway, that remark is irrelevant, the question being how reliable is
the origin and the dating, independently from state-of- the-art
practice at the time of the find.
tauar...@gmail.com
> Thanks to a friend of mine who had it, I've been able to read the
> paper on the Phaistos Disk, written by Dr Jerome Eisenberg in his
> journal "Minerva".
> It is not a serious, scientific approach as claimed, but just bad
> "romance". In the way some novelists tell you that "this morning, the
> Pharao got up from his bed in a bad mood", Dr Eisenberg writes
> everything Pernier did, as he had been there : "Pernier soon came up
> with the answer... The ploy was to create a completely new script...
> To further confuse the linguists, Pernier included several signs that
> ressemble those of Linear A... Etc."
> Dr Jerome Eisenberg is free to believe in a forgery, like others have
> thought that the Disk was a message from extraterrestrials... But,
> when one pretends to make a "serious" demonstration of his thesis, he
> has to be FULLY INFORMED of what has been written on the subject.
> Strangely enough, the MOST IMPORTANT WORK on the Phaistos Disk, the
> ONLY ONE WHICH IS CLAIMED to be PROVED, the ONE which gives the
> ANSWERS to Dr Eisenberg's questions, i.e. the J.Faucounau's attempt,
> IS TOTALLY IGNORED. If Dr J. Eisenberg generously mentions the
> obviously FALSE attempts of several would-be-decipherers, the UNIQUE
> MENTION I found about the J.F.'s work (more than 40 papers and
> books !!!) is the categorical (and FALSE !!!!) statement by Yves
> Duhoux that " the J.F.'s study committs enough serious errors of all
> sorts to warrant a secure place in the anthology of misguided
> decipherments". This was probably enough to Dr Eisenberg for NOT
> TAKING THE TROUBLE to judge by himself !... In spite of the fact that
> he would have found the ANSWERS to his questions. To quote a few :
> A)- "Why so many deciphering attempts ?". For MATHEMATICAL motives.
> The text's length is TOO CLOSE from the "Unicity Distance".
> B)- "Why such a variety of "sources of inspiration" for the glyphs ?".
> Because the Disk belongs to a MARITIME Civilization, which has had
> contacts with Greece, Crete, Anatolia, Palestine and Egypt.
> C)- "Why using stamps?". Because THIS civilization used metal stamps.
> D)- "Why the similarity with the Arkalochori Axe?". Because this Axe
> is a "Proto-Philistine item", and "Proto-Philistines" were amongst the
> DESCENDENTS of the Proto-Ionians. (Of course, Dr Eisenberg IGNORES
> that J.Faucounau has mentioned some other "Proto-Philistine objects"
> in one of his books).
> E)- "Why the similarity with the "Gold Ring from Mavro Spilio" ?".
> Because the language of both is probably the same, this gold ring
> being THE ONLY KNOWN other item in Proto-Ionic.
> F)- "Why the similarity with the "Vladikavkaz Disk" ? Because this
> disk is a FAKE, made in the 1920.
> G)- Etc.
>
> My opinion about this Minerva-paper : PITIABLE ! A big step
> backwards !
>
> grapheus
Friends it is really interesting,
Read aboute Phaistos Disk.....It is Armenian
http://makarats.ru/index/0-227
benl...@ihug.co.nz
side of) the disk. There you can choose to read about the decipherment
in either Armenian or Russian. This, I fear, will limit the number of
readers from sci.lang, particularly as the number who might be
interested in yet another Phaistos Disk decipherment is already small.
Well, perhaps they can put the text through one of those translation-
thingys.
Sneak preview: On 0-246, a sequence of five characters along the rim
is translated: "The seal of Artashen, Emperor of Armenia, Protected of
God the Law-Giver". Apparently dude-with-mohawk followed by chocolate-
chip-cookie means "Land of Arman". As far as I can make out, anyway.
Maybe grapheus will return and give us his opinion?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Aug 17, 6:40 am, tauarme...@gmail.com wrote:
>> пятница, 18 июля 2
> 008 г., 16:36:26 UTC+4 пользов
> атель m...@www.comнапис
> ал:
>>
>>
>> Friends it is really interesting,
>> Read aboute Phaistos Disk.....It is Armenianhttp://makarats.ru/inde
> x/0-227
>
> The sequence actually starts on ...0-226, with a nice photo of (one
> side of) the disk. There you can choose to read about the decipherment
> in either Armenian or Russian. This, I fear, will limit the number of
> readers from sci.lang, particularly as the number who might be
> interested in yet another Phaistos Disk decipherment is already small.
> Well, perhaps they can put the text through one of those translation-
> thingys.
intelligible from the Russian text.
> Sneak preview: On 0-246, a sequence of five characters along the rim
> is translated: "The seal of Artashen, Emperor of Armenia, Protected of
> God the Law-Giver". Apparently dude-with-mohawk followed by chocolate-
> chip-cookie means "Land of Arman". As far as I can make out, anyway.
>
> Maybe grapheus will return and give us his opinion?
Magdalenian nonsense got underway the Phaestos Disk was something he
wrote more or less sensibly about, but maybe that was only by
comparison with Grapheus.)
--
athel
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 6:40 am, tauarme...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> пятница, 18 июля 2
> > 008 г., 16:36:26 UTC+4 пользов
> > атель m...@www.comнапис
> > ал:
>
> >> [ ... ]
> >> Friends it is really interesting,
> >> Read aboute Phaistos Disk.....It is Armenianhttp://makarats.ru/inde
> > x/0-227
>
> > The sequence actually starts on ...0-226, with a nice photo of (one
> > side of) the disk. There you can choose to read about the decipherment
> > in either Armenian or Russian. This, I fear, will limit the number of
> > readers from sci.lang, particularly as the number who might be
> > interested in yet another Phaistos Disk decipherment is already small.
> > Well, perhaps they can put the text through one of those translation-
> > thingys.
>
> Actually Google Translate does a reasonable job of producing something
> intelligible from the Russian text.
>
this saves time.)
So he's working (a bit like S.Kalyanaraman) from Armenian homophones
-- allowing for some near-homophones and controversial etymologies --
but only gives a few proposed translations, not the whole text.
> > Sneak preview: On 0-246, a sequence of five characters along the rim
> > is translated: "The seal of Artashen, Emperor of Armenia, Protected of
> > God the Law-Giver". Apparently dude-with-mohawk followed by chocolate-
> > chip-cookie means "Land of Arman". As far as I can make out, anyway.
>
> > Maybe grapheus will return and give us his opinion?
>
> Maybe Franz can give us his? (I seem to recall that before all this
> Magdalenian nonsense got underway the Phaestos Disk was something he
> wrote more or less sensibly about, but maybe that was only by
> comparison with Grapheus.)
meandering semantic connections. But I think Armand has more of a
sense of humour than either.