Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?
From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: grapheus: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Previous message: grapheus: "Re: The Faistos disc tradegy"
- In reply to: Qakare: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Next in thread: grapheus: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Aug 2004 09:12:03 -0700
qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0408170059.4d274584@posting.google.com>...
> As usual you try to change the topic. Obviously you can't name a proof
> for a greek background for the Phaistos Disk.
I don't feel obliged to spare to IGNORANTS the effort of being
informed by reading the ORIGINAL works !.. You will find all these
proofs in the J.F.'s books and papers.
> I see no need to talk about lies like "The Phaistos Disk has been
> found in Crete. Therefore, it "must" be Minoan". I never said this and
> up to now I haven't given a proof for a Minoan origin.
>
> qakare
OK !.. Nice to hear that !.. Until now, I understood that you were
considering that the Disk "could not" be Proto-Ionian - NOT by a
CAREFUL STUDY of the PRO-arguments, but because "it had to be
Minoan"...
Sorry for my mistake !..
grapheus
>
> grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0408161143.3c1fc4ef@posting.google.com>...
> > Qakare, who strongly wants the Phaistos Disk not to be Proto-Ionian (I
> > wonder why, as the Proto-Ionic decipherment of it is a sure thing !),
> > but to be Minoan, has written a lengthy post on the subjet.
> > I'll not discuss Qakare's denial concerning the Proto-Ionian origin of
> > the Phaistos Disk. As he has read NONE of the J.Faucounau's books and
> > papers, his denial is just a BLUNT STATEMENT, ignoring all the PROOFS
> > of the Proto-Ionian character of the Phaistos Disk. If Qakare wants to
> > be serious, he has to make the effort of being INFORMED first, before
> > launching meaningless assertions !..
> > But I will examine Qakare's arguments in favour of a Minoan origin of
> > the Disk.
> > These are of two kinds :
> > 1)- "The Phaistos Disk has been found in Crete. Therefore, it "must"
> > be Minoan".
> > It's obvious that such an argument has no value : Hittite tablets have
> > been found in Egypt, and Egyptian scarabs in Crete. Moreover, there
> > are STRONG reasons going against such an idea :
> > a)- In spite of EXTENSIVE diggings in Crete, NO other Disk has been
> > found. Such an isolation would be strange if the Disk was Minoan. It's
> > a normal thing if it has been IMPORTED.
> > b)- It has been shown that the clay of the Phaistos Disk was not
> > Cretan . (Research done at the beginning of the 20ies. Conclusion
> > mentioned by G. Glotz in "La Civilisation Egéenne" p. 434).
> > c)- the BAKING is not Minoan : NONE of the Minoan tablets have been
> > baked in an oven. They were burned by accident, into a fire.
> > d)- the use of stamps IN RELIEF is not Minoan. ALL the Minoan stamps
> > are "in hollow". There are ONLY TWO exceptions : 1)- The jug n° 14276,
> > decorated by stamping, with a stamp bearing the sign n°12. 2)- the
> > clay-sealing HM 992, made with a stamp corresponding to Sign n° 21.
> > The fact that the jug n° 14276 is the ONLY ONE of this kind amongst
> > hundreds of jugs found in Crete, and the fact that both exceptions
> > have been stamped with stamps in relief BEARING signs of the Phaistos
> > Disk, are STRONG REASONS for seing both items as IMPORTS, like the
> > Phaistos Disk itself, COMING from the same FOREIGN CULTURE.
> > e)- Several hieroglyphs of the Phaistos Disk cannot be Minoan, but
> > they belong to other Cultures.
> > e.g. sign n° 2 (Philistine Culture) -- Sign n° 6 (Ugarit and Mycenes)
> > -- Sign n° 12 ("People of the Sea") -- Sign n° 25 ( Keros-Syros
> > Culture) -- Etc.
> >
> > 2)- "The Arkalochori Axe has also been found in Crete. Its script "has
> > similarities to Linear A" and to the Phaistos Disk's script. Moreover,
> > it's "a typical Minoan double axe".
> > The argument is also without real value:
> > a)- The "double axe" was not only Minoan. It was also known in
> > Anatolia (See for instance the Legend of the Amazons).
> > b)- The votive offerings in the Arkalochori cave were not all
> > "Minoan". Some, like the "long swords" found with the axe, belonged to
> > the Philistine Culture.
> > c)- the script has NOTHING to do with Linear A : only ONE sign, out of
> > 11, has a correspondent in Linear A (NA-sign).
> > d)- The script is not the same as the Phaistos Disk's script. In fact,
> > its most noticeable links are with the other "Proto-Philistine
> > Scripts", for instance with the "Dagger from Lachish" or the "Sherd
> > from Gezer" (See "Les Proto-Ioniens...", Fig. 28).
> >
> > The CONCLUSION is obvious : there is no reason for seing in the
> > Phaistos Disk a Minoan artifact. On the contrary, it appears as an
> > IMPORT. And such has been the opinion of most scholars : A.Evans,
> > A.Reinach, G. Glotz, J. Chadwick, etc. to quote a few of them.
> > And I will not mention that this view has been DEFINITELY confirmed by
> > the VERIFIED Proto-Ionic decipherment of the Phaistos Disk !
> >
> > grapheus
- Next message: grapheus: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Previous message: grapheus: "Re: The Faistos disc tradegy"
- In reply to: Qakare: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Next in thread: grapheus: "Re: Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
