Archaeologica.org

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 318911.ece
Thought this was pretty interesting. If true I guess that's one less linguistic mystery to be cleared up, which just leaves us with ronga ronga script and all the rest...

War Arrow

You might be interested in this rather lenghty, somewhat heated but fascinating discussion (for aficionados only):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang ... a3f8557fc0

The original article is not available on the internet. It is published in an elusive archaeological magazine called Minerva which I've emailed to try and buy a copy. It seems they are in no hurry to reply. Annoying.

Bit pressed for time but had a very quick look and, yes, that is interesting. Perhaps the question might be asked, if one is going to fake something, why fake something with no reference point to any known culture? Well, maybe's there's reasons, but I would kind of like to find out the disc is genuine.

Let us know if you manage to track down that issue of Minerva.

War Arrow wrote:why fake something with no reference point to any known culture?

Fakers can have motives beyond the range of us normals.

I am reminded of the Voynich Manuscript - another example of seduction by unintelligibility.

Did you read that article down to the part about La Lupa being a 13th century AD fake instead of a 6th century BC original bronze?

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 318911.ece

The test results should be interesting if us peasants ever get to see them. How will they know when the thing was made? I don't trust Popes bearing gifts - how will we know he didn't re-fashion a piece of 6 BC junk?

I sometimes nightmare a world full of fakes, nothing original - artifacts, texts, works of art - the whole bloody lot.