Paistos disc
Can I decipher a single letter
▲ Cover of events — opening records
Discovered in 1908 at the Crete Paistos Palace, there is a symbol stamped with a spiral. With no comparative document, numerous translations stop at the verification stage.
The difficulty of the Pistos disc lies not in the complexity of the symbols, but in the fact that there is only one data.
Prologue: A Record-Breaking Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and some times were entirely empty. People try to explain the whole incident by holding on to a clear scene, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between them is too far.
There are about 240 signs on both sides of the disk. The symbols appear to have been stamped like a seal rather than drawn by hand.
I didn't see this event as a work to confirm a known ending. The records were arranged in chronological order, the routes of the objects were drawn separately, and the sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. Because if you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues appear to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| Number | Verified Records | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The disc was found in the context of the Bronze Age Minos civilization. | High |
| 2 | A bundle of symbols is separated by a vertical line and looks like a word or phrase. | High |
| 3 | There is no consensus table corresponding directly to the linear characters A·B. | the middle |
| 4 | No long parallel statements of the same character system were found. | the middle |
Details of language, direction of reading, phonetic value of symbols, document function, place of production and authenticity debate remain.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Reconfiguring Scene: The Last Definite Point
I changed the place where the incident took place to a real route rather than a stage in my head. I divided the starting point, the last check point, and the place of discovery, and calculated the time required in the meantime. Several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing in the process. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The fictional atmosphere arose from the texture of that very fact. There was no need to add an unidentified secret passage or an unnamed accomplice.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I did not make up the character's mind. Fear, planning, error, and fatigue can cause the same behavior. So, I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. The events became less colorful but more specific thanks to this principle.
Clue 1. The disc was found in the context of the Bronze Age Minos civilization.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if we separate this clue. But I immediately confronted the next record, "A set of symbols is separated by vertical lines and looks like a word or phrase." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question, "Is the repetition of the set of symbols grammar or the chorus?" ignores the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. Symbol bundles are separated by vertical lines and look like words or phrases.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. But I immediately confronted the next record, "There is no consensus table that directly corresponds to the linear characters A and B." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis, which fails to pass the question "What is the basis for seeing the reading direction outward from the center?" turns away from the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 2 — An mismatched piece
Clue 3. There is no agreed table corresponding directly to the linear characters A and B.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. But I immediately confronted the next record, "No long parallel statements of the same writing system found." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question of "What is the first pattern to compare when additional disks are found?" turns away from the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. No long parallel statements of the same character system were found.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A straightforward conclusion seems very plausible if we separate this clue. But I immediately confronted the next record, "The disc was discovered in the context of the Bronze Age Minos civilization." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. The hypothesis, in particular, that fails to pass the question "Is symbol repetition grammar or chorus?" ignores the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Putting the three hypotheses on the same scale, the
hypothesis did not evaluate them in a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they can withstand opposite evidence were written down, respectively. A complete explanation of one clue is not a good hypothesis if the other three are discarded.
Hypothesis A. Religious ceremonies, hymns, and prayers
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue that "the disk was found in the context of the Bronze Age Minos civilization" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from beginning to end. I connected where and what the character saw, what judgment he made, and moved to the next place one sentence at a time. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point of disconnection.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "There is no consensus table that corresponds directly to the linear letters A and B." If we continue to add exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, we can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B. Administrative/military lists or playboards
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue, "A set of symbols is separated by vertical lines and looks like a word or phrase," as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-staged the event from beginning to end. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and where he moved to the next place one sentence by one. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point of disconnection.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "long parallel statements of the same writing system have not been found." If we keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis, we can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis C. Local notation system independent of known characters
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts as a relatively small assumption the clue, "There is no consensus table corresponding directly to the linear letters A and B." I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from beginning to end. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The main weakness is that it does not fully explain "the disk was found in the context of the Bronze Age Minos civilization." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything, but that explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
The conclusions I abandoned
I was also drawn to the most famous explanation at the beginning of the investigation. It organized the case in one sentence and gave everything intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required a new coincidence for each blank. Then I erased the conclusion and started again. Good reasoning was more about removing unnecessary assumptions than adding anything.
With only 45 symbols and short texts, multiple decipherments are possible at the same time. External criteria, such as additional documents or proper nouns of the same system, are required for real decipherment.
In particular, the details repeated on the Internet and later testimonies were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. The possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated was first confirmed. The size of the case decreased after this process, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Checks — The Conclusion I Abandoned
Final Reason: The Results I Reached
The difficulty of the Pistos disc lies not in the complexity of the symbols, but in the fact that there is only one data.
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. It is a direction that requires the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It can be corrected when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that the conclusion changes when it comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable legal and scientific data, and independent evidence that directly connects objects and people are needed.
I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of the mystery is not that anything is possible. It is in finding out what can be thrown away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description that requires the least assumption
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the Timeline
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only a record was left: "The disc was discovered in the context of the Minos civilization of the Bronze Age." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of it, I put the hypothesis, "religious ritual texts, hymns, and prayers." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "Is repetition of the symbolic bundle grammatical or refrain?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation records 2. Missing links
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only a record was left saying, "A set of symbols is separated by vertical lines and looks like a word or phrase." Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a single line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
I put the hypothesis on top of it, "administrative and military lists or playgrounds." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "What is the basis for seeing the reading direction outward from the center and the opposite?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, you will create, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 3. Eyewitness Distance
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, and only the record was left: "There is no consensus table that directly corresponds to the linear letters A and B." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis that it is a "regional notation system that has nothing to do with known characters." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "What is the first pattern to compare if an additional disk is found?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation record 4. The path through which the item passed
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only a record of "No long parallel statements of the same writing system were found." Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
On top of it, I put the hypothesis, "religious ritual texts, hymns, and prayers." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "Is repetition of the symbolic bundle grammatical or refrain?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 5. The Temptation of False Clues
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only a record was left: "The disc was discovered in the context of the Minos civilization of the Bronze Age." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
I put the hypothesis on top of it, "administrative and military lists or playgrounds." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "What is the basis for seeing the reading direction outward from the center and the opposite?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, you will create, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only a record was left saying, "A set of symbols is separated by vertical lines and looks like a word or phrase." Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a single line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis that it is a "regional notation system that has nothing to do with known characters." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "What is the first pattern to compare if an additional disk is found?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
additional investigation records 7. hypothesize the opposite
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, and only the record was left: "There is no consensus table that directly corresponds to the linear letters A and B." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of it, I put the hypothesis, "religious ritual texts, hymns, and prayers." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "Is repetition of the symbolic bundle grammatical or refrain?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
▲ End of investigative record — questions still to be asked
· Heraklion Archaeological Museum — Phaistos Disc
· UNESCO — Minoan Palatial Centres
※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal investigation records based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, the judgment is updated.
Image Source and Edit
We used Wikipedia Commons public license data cut, ratio adjustment, and color correction to fit the body flow. Circles with generated images are not included in the list below.
- Palace of Zakros ruins.jpg — Vladimír Držík, Public domain
- Discos Phaitos Umzeichnung.png — D. Herdemerten , Derivat-Arbeit Perhelion ., CC BY-SA 3.0 de
- Messara plain from Phaistos 04.jpg — Stegop, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Small golden double head minoan axe archmus Heraklion.jpg — Jebulon, CC0
- Δίσκος της Φαιστού πλευρά B 6381.JPG — C messier, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Messara plain from Phaistos 03.jpg — Stegop, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Bull leaping minoan fresco archmus Heraklion.jpg — Jebulon, CC0
- Δίσκος της Φαιστού πλευρά Α 6380.JPG — C messier, CC BY-SA 4.0