# What happened to Linear B skepticism?

**URL:** <https://www.textkit.com/t/what-happened-to-linear-b-skepticism/13149>\
**Category:** Open Board\
**Created:** [December 12, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/what-happened-to-linear-b-skepticism/13149 "2014-12-12T18:49:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeidsath](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/jeidsath/32/3_2.png) [@jeidsath](https://www.textkit.com/u/jeidsath)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/what-happened-to-linear-b-skepticism/13149/1 "2014-12-12T18:49:43Z")

</div>

The more I find out about Linear B, the weirder and wackier the claims about its decipherment seem to be. For example, in the first chapters of Horrocks, we get repeated claims about the unexpected absence of expected linguistic developments. This is all very strange.

However, these sorts critiques seem explosive:

[http://www.sunypress.edu/p-494-the-linear-b-decipherment-contr.aspx](http://www.sunypress.edu/p-494-the-linear-b-decipherment-contr.aspx)

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/20162981](http://www.jstor.org/stable/20162981)

So where is the modern skepticism? I can’t seem to find much after the 1960s. I would have expected that at least one person would have written up a paper demonstrated that Linear B = Modern Norwegian, based on syllable juggling. Ventris had to do it with pencil and paper, of course, but it would be fairly easy to churn out that sort of thing with a computer.

Or did we have some boat of new evidence that came along and confirmed everything Ventris thought?

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.textkit.com/t/what-happened-to-linear-b-skepticism/13149)._