Print

Print


there's a big difference methinks between moveable type and printing, and
the impression of marks or pictures on clay.  cunieform of course.  would
that be the earliest?  meaningful marks pressed into clay.
still think it has something to do with pizza or gigh speed pizza delivery.
(see glyphs)  ;--}

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM, R A Brown<[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Why has no thermoluminescence test been done to establish its age and,
> > indeed, whether it's genuine or not?
>
> Supposedly because the test process might damage the artifact.  Also,
> it would only tell us when it was fired, not when it was formed... it
> is possible (though perhaps unlikely) that there was a significant gap
> there.
>
> The big problem is the complete lack of anything like the Disc to
> corroborate its authenticity.  Some of the symbols unquestionably show
> up elsewhere in Phaistos inscriptions (these aren't the "kinda looks
> like" mappings that have been made to other scripts), but only a few.
>
> If someone did develop moveable type 3700 years ago, it's a darn shame
> they used it exactly once and then threw it away, making the world
> wait another two millennia before its rediscovery...
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>