Talk:Arkalochori Axe

Comparison with the Phaistos Disk

Although I added the entry, it looks pretty unlikely that 05 is related to PD42. Washi 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

AB80

As an aside, it seems quite reasonable to make the connection between PD29, a cat's head, and the syllable sound 'MA', represented by AB80, which could be a cat's face -- although Axe 08 doesn't really look so much like a cat's face... it doesn't really look all that much like AB80 for that matter.

Anyhow, I can think of some writing systems which are part acrophonic, and part onomatopoeia... perhaps the best examples are Egyptian ('ma' for cat, by the way), and Linear A:

  AB 23 'mu' from Hieroglyphic 12, a bull-head
  AB 80 'ma' from H cat-head (not identified as a sign in Olivier-Godart's 
                              publication, though they now admit it)
  AB 67 'ki' from H 57 a sistrum (a type of rattle)
  AB 60 'ra' from H 18 dog-head
  AB 50 'pu' from H 58 harp

Sorry this is veering off-topic, but I thought perhaps it was worth mentioning. Washi 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Linear A

I find 02-03 I-DA tantalizing, as I also find 08-09 MA-TE, both of which seem to be common Linear A libation formulae. Washi 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could some context be added?

Having hit the article via the "Random article" link, I found the context lacking. Some of it was made more clear by the categories at the bottom, but can't the editors put some of the context into the article? GRBerry 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added some clarifying keywords in the first sentence. I hope that will do the trick. Washi 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The images for glyphs 1, 2, 12 are missing.--87.162.60.155 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed the following additions from the article as unsourced and unreferenced. Is there anything useful in this that should be restated?

As with the Phaistos disc,it is not known whether the symbols on the Arkalochori axe are a written or spoken language or a purely pictorial representation of something.Many of the symbols on the axe look like plants or parts of plants.It is noticeable that the symbols all stand vertically and this may be important.Two of the head symbols on the axe look out at the viewer - none of the 21 heads on the Phaistos disc do this - they all appear in profile.There are two symbols on the Phaistos disc that are comparable to the three dots of symbols 6 and 13 on the axe (in the table above)- the disc's mallet symbol (D23 in the table) and the disc's "shield" symbol which has three small circles in a line along its diameter but seven circles in total for the "shield" as a whole.Symbol 6 of the axe does have a curved line at the top of the dots perhaps suggesting the outer rim of the "shield" on the Phaistos disc.Double headed axes such as the Arkalochori axe have been found in places outside Crete - places ranging from Iraq to the west coast of Africa.

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

Source of comparison table?

I have restored the reference to the source of the comparison table, this time using the {{Cite book}} template and referring to the original self-published book. I am doing this without any judgment on the reliability of the source. However, if we leave out the source and the reference, then we should also remove the whole table. I am not willing to do that yet.

As for the reliability of the source, it seems to have been cited at least once, making it somewhat notable, see Google Scholar. I'll see what Robert Mailhammer has to say on the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Robert Mailhammer (see Diversity vs. Uniformity... ) Thorsten Timm has published on the Phaistos Disc in a peer-reviewed journal, making him a reliable source on the subject. I seems likely that the 2005 self-published book is an expanded version of the 2004 article.

• Timm, Thorsten (2004). "Der Diskos von Phaistos - Anmerkungen zur Deutung und Texstruktur". Indogermanische Forschungen (109): 204–231.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Or he couldn't get it published, you should get the article and use that. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we will just ask Alex to check the source, as he is so eager to work on the subject. I would rather take a cruise on the Pacific. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, raised it at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

May I quote from the relevant policy, WP:SELFPUBLISH:

• Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

The source can be used here as:

1. Thorsten Timm has previously published in the relevant field, in fact on the very some topic, in a peer-reviewed journal
2. The reference is not used to source his own opinion.
3. The claims made are in no way controversial or disputed or attacked by other experts. (This is not about Climate change!)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It also says this "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." A self published book is not a RS. I am going to remove the citation again and tag it. mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar (Arkalochori Axe OR Axt) shows that Thorsten Timm is most likely the leading expert on the script on the Axe presently. He seems to be the only one that has published anything substantive on this subject for the last 10 years. A search on Google Book reveals that a Gregory Zorzos has also published a booklet on the Axe, but his work is definitely [http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002HMFJHS self] published. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

yes but the issue is that this is an important archaeological artefact. If this work was notable it would have been published by any number of journal`s. The question is why not? mark nutley (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And my search of Google Scholar does not even show Timm`s in it.[1] mark nutley (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have followed the link I provided: "Axt", not "Axe". Also note, that a large part of the scholarly literature on Greek and Minoan culture is in German, not English. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if his finds were notable then it would have rated a mention in the European journal of archaeology, and the last mention of this artefact was as a citation in 05. I think personally it is not a wp:rs in the strict sense of policy. But it may be ok to use until such a time as a better source comes along. I withdraw my objection and will continue to poke around for references on this :) mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is a case to remove Timm entirely - which might be reasonable. On the other hand, we have an whole article on Timm and other hapless attempts on the Phaistos Disk; the same could well be done here, provided it is clear what support they have in the academic literature - almost invariably none.

But there is no excuse for removing his book as a source for what his book says; it is reliable on that, if on nothing else. There is unlikely to be a better source - there may be no other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is no other source then the lot will have to go, self published books are not allowable. mark nutley (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not mandatory; especially for an author whose contributions on the subject have been peer-reviewed. Even if they had not been, WP:SELFPUB has five conditions which (if all true) permit the inclusion of self-published sources; four of them are the case here, and the fifth may well be.

So, as I began by saying, inclusion of such sources - under these conditions - is a judgment call. I invite mark nutley to begin offering reasons for the judgment of exclusion; which (as I said) I might well support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You already had them. wp:rs no self published books. wp:sps If something were notable then it would have been repeated in reliable secondary publications. The fact that this has not appeared in the European journal of archaeology makes me highly suspect of what appears to be a fringe theory, all in all this ain`t a good source and is not allowable under policy mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could use something self-published by Timm in an article about Timm, the five conditions you speak of aren't relevant here, the relevant bit is "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. " And the relevant bit of that is 'an established expert in the field'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, SPS can only be used for the authors opinons about themselves, not for statements of fact as is being done here. The source is simply no good mark nutley (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Timm entirely

Responding to the comment in an edit summary, yes, I think there is a case for removing Timm entirely, we shouldn't mention him without a source and if our only source is the self-published book, then we shouldn't mention him. I really do think that we should use only academic or peer reviewed sources for this. And as I've said, there's no evience that Timm has a PhD or any academic affiliations. On the other hand, I'm not damning him, I've read his posts on Usenet where he has been attacked by the kooks, and his reading list looks fine. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We could easily remove Timm as irrelevant, if this article was filled up with material from other scholars. Unhappily this is not the case. In fact this rusty object is most notable because of the possible proof it offers for the authenticity of the Phaistos Disc. This proof comes from the comparison of the glyphs. The Phaistos Disc article on the other hand attributes this comparison to Timm. Now, if Timm was unreliable or non-notable, then we would have to remove the comparison also from the Phaistos Disc article. If that was done, we would have to tune down the authenticity claims and give more weight to the hoax theories. I do not think this is what we want to do. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's non-notable - I'm pretty sure we couldn't have an article on him. Lack of cites, lack of any real evidence about him. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - You should also note what Jerome M Eisenberg says about him here:

• Eisenberg, Jerome M. (2008). "Phaistos Disk: A 100-Year-Old Hoax? Addenda, Corrigenda, and Comments" (PDF). Minerva (September/October): 15–16.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Timms book is the source for the comparison table we must name him as source. I have added a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal. See page 224-225 for the comparison with the Arkalchori Axe. Kadmos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.40.75 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Godart

Just to say I've created an article for him, next, Glanville Price. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Decipherment?

The word in Greek for “head” is κεφάλι, if you use the first two leters (or something that sounds like them) you get something like this, Ka-i-da ke-?-to ke-ma-te ke-sa-ma-na ?-?. The second part of “Ka-i-da" is the Linear A word for Mt. Ida. Ke-?-to is very similar to Ki-to, the word in Linear B for Tunic. Ke-ma-te is similar to Ko-ma-we-te-ja, which means “hair” and might have been a goddess, also, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out these people who wrote of this axe were illiterate. Ke-sa-ma-na is close to ki-ma-me-na, which is a field. So this might mean, a goddess (of hair?) from Mt. Ida that has a tunic and oversees fields. The last part might mean Pu-we which is like Pa-ko-we (sage) or maybe Pu-ma, which is like Pa-ma-ka (medicine). I also want to mention that the Linear B letter, if you will, KE has zigzag lines on them like the head used on this axe. --Russianamerican1 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really not appropriate here - see WP:NOR, and would be better for a forum of some sort. Now if you can find reliable sources (see WP:RS), that would be good. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to do that thanks. --Russianamerican1 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Other possible comparison

It may be worth mentioning that some of these symbols are similar and ocasionally identical to Indus Valley Script symbols, which are, interestingly, also primarily found stamped in clay and on votive axes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.42.228 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We'd need sources meeting WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)