Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Authenticity and thermoluminescence

The disc is authentic. As expert Louis Goddard (professor specialising in Aegean scripts) points out, some of the symbols were not know in 1908. They were later discovered later, in 1953. Luigi Pernier could not bend time and space.

http://www.tanea.gr/default.asp?pid=96&ct=4&artid=75605&nid=0&rid=

«Είναι πολύ εύκολο να διαπιστώσουμε ότι είναι γνήσιος. Αρκεί να σκεφθείτε πως πάνω στην πήλινη επιφάνεια αποτυπώνονται 45 διαφορετικά σημεία. Δέκα από αυτά δεν ήταν γνωστά όταν ανακαλύφθηκε ο Δίσκος, το 1908, από τον Ιταλό αρχαιολόγο Λουίτζι Περνιέ. Βρέθηκαν πολύ αργότερα- το 1953 – από τον Ντόρο Λέβι σε ανασκαφές στο ανάκτορο της Φαιστού.»

As for thermoluminescence, it is a destructive method.

http://www.ceti.gr/pdf/20010208_Tsirliganis_AEMTH.pdf

«Η θερµοφωταύγεια (TL) χρησιµοποιείται από τις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ’70 για την χρονολόγηση κεραµικών και υάλινων αντικειµένων και γενικότερα υλικών µε εσωτερική κρυσταλλική δοµή. Η µέθοδος της οπτικά διεγειρόµενης φωταύγειας (OSL) χρησιµοποιήθηκε για πρώτη φορά στα µέσα της δεκαετίας του ’90 για την χρονολόγηση γεωλογικών υλικών αλλά έχει δοκιµαστεί και στη χρονολόγηση κεραµικών και υάλων. [...] Και οι δύο µέθοδοι είναι καταστρεπτικές και µη επαναλήψιµες.» —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.213.169 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is aware of this. As you can read in the lede, "the Phaistos Disc is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists". There are a few skeptics, but they are a clear minority. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting piece of information. Could you add Goddars's findings to the article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need a source, the tanea.gr one won't do,I think. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the 1953 find "by Doro Levi in excavations at the palace of Phaistos" that purportedly shows ten of the glyphs on the disc? (link 1 from above) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about Cretan hieroglyphs. Some of the signs on the Phaistos Disc were already known before it was discovered, some remain unique to it. Apparently, ten of the signs are found elsewhere, but only in documents that were discovered after the Phaistos Disk. Louis Godart says this proves it is authentic. I am not sure how this is due to Doro Levi in particular, fragments of hieroglyphs were dug up all over Crete.[1] Personally, I was also convinced of the PD's authenticity after seeing artefacts like the Arkalochori Axe, dug up decades after the description of the PD. I think the caveats about the disk's authenticity are today just a bit of an academic exercise in skepticism. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't help myself, but some of the signs, particularly the punk head, look to me like suspiciously modern comic figures. However, the supporting evidence of the Arkalochori Axe weighs pretty heavy in favour of the disc's authenticity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

...so I can't fix this, someone else will have to do it: "bovine" should link to Bovinae, easiest to just use bovine. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Images in the Signs section.

So that idiots like me are not fooled again, the images in this section should be labelled as reproductions or replicas. Where did they come from? Myrvin (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Boldly  Done. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No point in keeping the replica images at all as we already have images of the original, and the replicas are not an accurate copy of the original. Therefore I have removed them from the article. BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Eisenberg declares disc to be a hoax - The Times 2008

A report published in The Times by Arts Correspondent, Dalya Alberge, July 12 2008 - refers to the American scholar Jerome Eisenberg, a specialist in faked ancient art, who claims that this disc is a hoax and is indecipherable not because it is a relic dating from 1,700BC. but a forgery created by Luigi Pernier, an Italian archaeologist, who “discovered” it in the Minoan palace of Phaistos on Crete in 1908.

Eisenberg asserts Pernier was desperate to impress his archeological contempories with an important find of his own volition, and so needed to unearth something to "out do other discoveries" made by the likes Sir Arthur Evans, a renowned English archaeologist of the time, and Federico Halbherr, a fellow Italian that he simply created the disc.

Eisenberg who has also conducted appraisals for both the US Treasury Department and the J. Paul Getty Museum, asserts that the 'disc' was also created with 'punctuation' to lead scholars astray, and that the method of munufacture and creation is wholly inconsistant with all other similar examples of manufacture from the period.

By 2008 the authorities in Rome had refused a thermoluminescence test that may have ultimately proved or disproved Eisenberg's claim, and Eisenberg was also refused all forms of access to inspect of the disc outside of it's actual display case. [Bryan Hovercraft 19 12 10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Hovercraft (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And Eisenberg still, so far as I know, has not published his ideas anywhere other than the magazine he owns, Minerva. When he does, then maybe it will belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Signs in adjacent windings

What is wrong with this subsection? It has been reverted as: "reverting original research ref'd to a Journal of Paleontology article." Myrvin (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If nobody knows what is wrong, can somebody restore this subsection? I fear that if I do that, it might be reverted again.

This is about the revision 12:11, 20 February 2011. The word "Paleontology" does not occur in it. As indicated in the description of that revision, the DOI of the journal article was incorrectly expanded in the original version, at 18 February. This can be verified easily. (See Template:Cite_doi about automatic expansion of a DOI, by a "bot".)

Arie ten Cate (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is often frowned on to cite yourself, the subsection now correctly referenced to a reliable source, and so I have restored it. BabelStone (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Signs shown in mirror image

Does anybody know why the signs are shown in mirror image, with left and right exchanged? (This includes the Unicode characters; the Unicode Technical Committee is investigating this.) This has been noted in the article from 2 February 2011 to 18 February 2011. Sign 28 is also rotated: on the disc it is written with the hoof up. Arie ten Cate (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article under "Directionality" and in the Unicode proposal (page 3). As most interpretations of the Phaistos disc inscriptions read the characters from the outside of the disc into the centre, it is generally considered that the faces, walking figures, birds etc. look backwards along the direction of writing (i.e. the writing goes into the faces of the characters). However, as the inscription is normally discussed in a left-to-right context in English and other European languages, the Phaistos disc text is traditionally laid out in left-to-right directionality, which requires reversing the glyphs so that they face to the left. This corresponds to the practice for laying out Egyptian hieroglyphs in modern left-to-right contexts. Note that the Unicode code charts only show representative glyphs, and there is no reason why somebody could not create a Unicode Phaistos disc font with right-facing glyphs for use in right-to-left contexts or for use in a simple list of the glyphs. BabelStone (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, that would conflict with LTR Bidi_Class. This flipping thing is looking more and more strange. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not conflict. The bidi class of Latin, Old Italic, and Phaistos Disc is LTR. One can use the directional overrides on all of these and get RTL behaviour, and add OpenType tables to mirror the glyphs when the overrides are in place. -- Evertype·✆ 13:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

... all this to reproduce the original face. So with Unicode sec we cannot reproduce the original view! I get the workings you point to, Evertype, but it is a construction still. If these scholars are that far into the disc research, let's ask them to do the mirror-steps as part of their research. On top of this: if RTL is an as yet unknown part of the coding/decoding mind, scholars will be wrongfooted for the next two generations or so. (All this after you pointed me to your /formal subpage :-) -- very interesting reading). -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are complaining about. What is a "Unicode sec"? http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/11166-phaistos-response.pdf shows examples of RTL and LTR presentations of the text. It also explains the rationale which was accepted by the technical committees when choosing strong LTR directionality for the script. And this cannot be changed. (Not should it be) So what are you complaining about? -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not complaining, I am stating. For now, I don't think I can be more clear than what I wrote. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there is something wrong with your English, then. I still don't know what a "Unicode sec" is. I don't know what you mean by "workings" or "construction", or what "mirror-steps" are. Or what a "coding/decoding mind" is. But it doesn't matter. The standard is as it is, intentionally. -- Evertype·✆ 00:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you "still don't know", it could be about your capacity for reading & understanding too. Even more probably so, since in this thread you diverted twice to personal stuff. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And what is a "Unicode sec"? -- Evertype·✆ 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me try. (1) As it is: on the disk, the plumed head is nosing (looking) rightwards, in an RTL directionality; a font that has the Phaistos Disc block available, would have to show the U+101D1 PLUMED HEAD nosing (looking) leftwards given the bidi_class "L". (2) This is why I said: "with Unicode sec we cannot reproduce the original view!" (namely, a with right-nosed plumed head). (3) Then, you noted that using a Bidi-override and an OpenType table, it will be all right ((4) I understand that OpenType table (font definition) has two sets of glyphs available: one for each orientation (so there is a left-nosed and a right-nosed plumed head), and it has a rule like "WHEN Unicode Phaistos Disk Sign AND used R-to-L THEN use the glyph with rightward-nosing orientation"). (5) About this I (meant to) note: sure it would "work out" well. And: requiring an extra or specialised font definition to render the original disc view is a construct. A user would need extra preconditions to make it work, a Unicode-covering font is not enough. Full stop. (6) As a consequence of this situation (not of my opinion), I used the words "Unicode sec" as opposed to "Unicode with extra outside preconditions" if you like. (7) Another consequence is, that the scolarly laboratory situation (using mirrored, left-nosing glyphs) now has become the standard; (8) imo it could & should have been considered to require that the mirrored-OpenType-font-requirements or any other solution are the exception. So that, the scolars who are studying the signs would have to dig into these extras -- which is more part of their job. After all, it was "them" who started to flip the images in the first place ;-). Third note I made, and again not an opinion: if the R-to-L writing sequence is part of the writing system's background or explanation or mental world, the scolars now will miss a hint to that. Such an explanation is an unknown, so it cannot be excluded. (10) Now, I could be wrong somewhere so then point it out (is what we are here for), but saying "the standard is as it is" is not a contribution to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what the word "sec" means. This is the fourth time I have asked it. -- Evertype·✆ 14:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case the answer to your complaint is the same as it was previously, and is as described in the original proposal to encode the Phaistos Disc, in the document discussing fonts and directionality already mentioned above, in Babelstone's answer to Arie ten Cate above, and in the article itself in the section on directionality. I don't see what more needs to be said. -- Evertype·✆ 14:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You asked for "Unicode sec", is what I replied to. The word "sec", apparently not used in English this way (sorry), literally is "dry wine" (as opposed to sweet wine), and by extension is used meaning "without additions", or even "speaking dryly" = without superfluous words. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I did not complain but state. There is no "complaint" to be "answered", nor "let me explain again". I just expanded on the consequences of the situation. E.g., my statement "So with Unicode [without extra preconditions] we cannot reproduce the original view!" can be declared True, Not true, or discussed. I declare the outcome for now to be "Indeed". And my opinion on that is: strange. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DePiep, I do not think this discussion has anything to do with improving this article, so may I suggest that if you have queries relating to the Unicode encoding of Phaistos Disc or the character properties of Phaistos Disc characters you raise them on a appropriate forum rather than here. BabelStone (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the image ok that I've inserted? I will soon upload a new language-neutral version. -- _*«( P e r h e l i o n )»_* 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

re BabelStone: except maybe that the mirrored-glyph explanation & consequences cannot be understood from the current article. Well, in my previous last post I sort of closed it here. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of Signs

It seems to me that the number of signs as cited in the article as being 45, is incorrect. I may have missed the reference to this being the number of signs on the disc, but it is obvious to me that there two different species of fish depicted on the "b" side of the disc. Same orientation, same row, one fish is clearly facing in the opposite direction and the distance between its pelvic and anal fins are a different distance apart between the two. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auburntide (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't do our own counts, we have to rely on what WP:Reliable sources say. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The names of those credited with dating the disc make little sense

The section on Dating is in dire need of citations. Most "Notable" people in that section are only referred to by their first two initials and their surnames, and am I expected to believe that an airline (Jeppeson) can be used as a notable opinion on how it dates?--Soft and Stout (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc Decrypted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc_Decrypted — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGeorgiaPhasito (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This was apparently an attempt to add a 2006 decipherment claim by Gia Kvashilava (e.g. www.gerodot.ru/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=48&start=150) - the right place to add this is in Phaistos_Disc_decipherment_claims . If whoever tried to add this sees this post, please put it in the right place! BTW there is already a screenshot relating to this in Wikipedia files. Jpaulm (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

Please add the information below to the Phaistos Disk description, or wherever it belongs.

An article in the December 2012 issue is about the ancient phaistos disk. "The Phaistos Disk: A New Approach," by Victoria Shockley wrote that author Peter Aleff says the "signs are actually markings for the fields on an ancient game board path, and he offers evidence to support this analysis" in his book titled Solomon's Sky: The Religious Board Game on the Phaistos Disk .

Cynthia Harris

Blacklilackitty (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - the edit request template specifically says that your request has to state where the information should go. And frankly, I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article other than as a reference.--Launchballer 18:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign No 14, "manacles" or "yoke"?

Does sign n.14 not look like this: oxen yoke ? I wonder how many ambitious "translators" have been missled by the funny interpratation of s.14 as "manacles". It is highly unlikely that in bronze age manacles were used or were that important so as to be s symbol. The yoke was (and still is) a highly estimated object and symbol in most cultures. Not sure though if this idea of mine will help any translator-to-be. --Enoiken (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I always took that as a yoke. Many Pictographic scripts use some set of these glyphs. Crete traded with Egypt so its probably not irrelevant to have a look at Gardiner's sign list and other accepted reference works. The Yoke, The shaved head of the priest, the Peleset headress, the shield with seven dots, Asherah's dotted pubic triangle and other glyphs should be coordinated with the entire pictographic corpus. In addition to that some of these glyphs are very datable, The Peleset would date the disk pretty conclusively to the 18th or 19th dynasties of Egypt. The boat is a particular style of vessel which is datable. The beehive shaped structures are datable. The goddesses costume is datable. I'd also include among the interpretations the number of register sets overall on each side and not just the individual glyphs in the registers, the sequence of glyphs, for example there are 12 Peleset heads followed by shields and one head without a shield.142.0.102.117 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc and Printing

I put it back to "clearly an understanding of printing", because according to the following definition it clearly, not reasonably is.

If you mean its printing because it uses movable type (stamps) I'd have to say yes. It would be wonderful if we could find other disks stamped with the same glyphs, that might help establish it as something like a trade good, a calendar say that would always require the same glyphs arranged in the same way. 142.0.102.117 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc and the "Hands of God"

If you look at this link you can see something at the top right of the page which I think you will agree is the comb-shaped object on the Phaistos Disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_of_God

Do you think it should be included on the main page about the disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not without a reliable sources saying it's on the Phaistos disc. Please read WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Which article? You don't mean the nebula, I hope? (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.139.40 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Alex means this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HandsGod.svg. (It is currently in the article Slavic neopaganism, but I referenced it from Wiki Commons because images come and go from articles.) It is from the Przeworsk culture, in what is now Poland, over 1000 years later than Phaistos.

-- Solo Owl 13:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

unicode signs

sorry for my bad english first. In "4.4. Inscription text" is as example for can read the signs mentioned: Fonts Everson Mono or Code2001. I installed now extra for this article Code2001, Everson Mono is shareware and I don't pay 25 Dollar just to read an article in Wikipedia. Result: still no signs to see - still only the stripes. Is there another (Freeware-)Font which maybe fix this Problem? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 11:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like to support font development, Hartmann. -- Evertype·✆ 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Aegean font is freeware and supports Phaistos. BabelStone (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

hehe wonderfull - this one works. Thank you sooo much for this hint. Maybe it should stand in the article also? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article for this font.BabelStone (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I just installed a free copy of Code2001 from Alan Wood's web site - thanks, Alan! After doing this I noticed that the article seems to have 2 instances of the characters using Unicode: one under Inscription text, and another after the numerical transcription. Can we get rid of one of them?! Jpaulm (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to come in here to try to figure out why I can't see the special Unicode characters. This should somehow be made either "automatic" or some easy, user-friendly feature should be implemented within Wikipedia. I don't know where to mention or suggest this other than here. But someone needs to address this issue and "fix" it. (I installed both the Aegean and Code2001 fonts and the characters still do not display in Firefox 31.0 or IE 11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.166.252 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Feline genus

Sign 29 is described as "head of animal of the feline genus". Perhaps "genus" is being used in a non-technical sense, but this is rather misleading since there are many feline genera. It would be better to say "feline family". Mnudelman (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc and number of symbols per word

The Phaistos Disc has 30 words on one side and 31 on the other. There are between 2 and seven symbols in each word. Doesn't this give a clue as to what the symbols mean? Surely if the symbols were representing a written or spoken language the number of them per word would be more irregular? Isn't it more likely that the symbols are a mathematical entity? Where two pairs of the plumed heads line up (word 1 and word 14 and word 10 and word 19) there are five symbols in the outer word and 6 in the inner word in both cases. The probability of this being a chance occurrence is 1/6 to the power of 2 or 1/36 because there are 6 different numbers of symbol per word on the disc ( each word has either 2 symbols,3 symbols,4 symbols up to a maximum of seven symbols). Alex-the-grate2 (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Alex-the-grate2

Authenticity

There is strong evidence against Eisenbergs fake hypotheses: "The strongest point for the authenticity of the Phaistos disk is the sealing from Phaistos, which contains just a single character. It is the only known parallel to sign 21 (the “comb”) of the Phaistos disk. The sealing was not found by Pernier, as supposed with reservation by Eisenberg, but in a secured context by Doro Levi in 1955, i.e. 47 years a er the discovery of the disk." Citation from https://www.academia.edu/5996948/Notes_on_the_Authenticity_of_the_Phaistos_Disk

I suggest to add to the Authenticity section "after similar to the Phaistos Disc" "A sealing found in 1955 shows the only known parallel to sign 21 (the “comb”) of the Phaistos disc. Notes on the Autheticity of the Phaistos disc" Kadmos (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oblique strokes.

This site states that there are 18 oblique strokes on the disk. I think that in the name of science the page should state exactly where those strokes are, since there is disagreement on this subject. In fact, whereas the page here says that there are 18 oblique strokes, I count only 17 strokes in the actual disk photos on the page and your illustrations of the different cells (under the heading "inscription text"), show 17 strokes in the upper illustration and 19 strokes in the lower illustration. This needs straightening out. - Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.48.25 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Rotation

Do any of the sources suggest reasons for rotation of the characters? I can't see any discussion in the archive here and the current article summary of "This suggests that these rotations might be deliberate" seems a bit weak when the discussion only really mentions character crowding without any more obvious discussion among the experts as to whether rotation may be irrelevant or not (compared with the likes of Cree syllabics, for example). Harami2000 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Flipped

The articles on both the disc and the associated axe list horizontally flipped images of the disc symbols. The 'pedestrians' and the 'heads' are depicted facing left while on the disc they face right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.42.228 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The images are flipped on purpose, explained in the main text. Search for "with the glyphs mirrored compared to their orientation on the disc". Arie ten Cate (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Inscription Text" Section - Unicode?

Is there a reason that this section does not use the {{Unicode}} template? The net effect of that template is to add <span class="Unicode">...</span> tags around the text. That would thus enable the use of personal CSS stylesheets, as discussed on the documentation page for {{Unicode}}. Below is a sample of how I would propose to code this section:

¦ 𐇑𐇛𐇜𐇐𐇡𐇽 | 𐇧𐇷𐇛 | 𐇬𐇼𐇖𐇽 | 𐇬𐇬𐇱 | 𐇑𐇛𐇓𐇷𐇰 | 𐇪𐇼𐇖𐇛 | 𐇪𐇻𐇗 | 𐇑𐇛𐇕𐇡[.] | 𐇮𐇩𐇲 | 𐇑𐇛𐇸𐇢𐇲 | 𐇐𐇸𐇷𐇖 | 𐇑𐇛𐇯𐇦𐇵𐇽 | 𐇶𐇚 | 𐇑𐇪𐇨𐇙𐇦𐇡 | 𐇫𐇐𐇽 | 𐇑𐇛𐇮𐇩𐇽 | 𐇑𐇛𐇪𐇪𐇲𐇴𐇤 | 𐇰𐇦 | 𐇑𐇛𐇮𐇩𐇽 | 𐇑𐇪𐇨𐇙𐇦𐇡 | 𐇫𐇐𐇽 | 𐇑𐇛𐇮𐇩𐇽 | 𐇑𐇛𐇪𐇝𐇯𐇡𐇪 | 𐇕𐇡𐇠𐇢 | 𐇮𐇩𐇛 | 𐇑𐇛𐇜𐇐 | 𐇦𐇢𐇲𐇽 | 𐇙𐇒𐇵 | 𐇑𐇛𐇪𐇪𐇲𐇴𐇤 | 𐇜𐇐 | 𐇙𐇒𐇵|

 —Grollτech (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't read any of that.Myrvin (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at what I could find on this page and elsewhere in Wikipedia and tried to do what I thought would show the Unicode characters, but they are still not showing. I downloaded and installed the Noto Sans Symbols and Everson Mono fonts, but that didn't work. Isn't there any way to EASILY tell people what they need to do to show the characters instead of the "unknown character" characters??? Maybe I missed it, but I've had this problem MANY times. WHY even have these characters here like this if they are not going to show for "99% of the population"? --WillBo (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference Style?

Some of the references in the article as of my writing (July 26, 2018) are in wiki style, others are in scholarly paper style, e. g. "Godart (1995:101)". In terms of Wikipedia style, would it be valuable for someone (me) to go through the article and convert the non-wiki references into the local format? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

• "Phaistos Disk. Passing" (PDF). D.Artifex. 109.252.83.140 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

/* In Popular Culture */

The Phaistos Disk was the subject of the thriller "The Pharoah Key" by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, 2018. 2601:204:D500:2836:B032:3CC2:A082:1B42 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)