> and humans can infer things better.

While that is true, it's not necessarily an advantage; you do see the claim that the decipherment of Linear B is entirely spurious, a product of the decipherers' imaginations.

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27191899

There are ancient forms found in Linear B that have to be preserved in some sections of the Iliad to preserve the dactylic hexameter, like wanax. This gives more credence to a continuity of the Greek language from the Mycenaean Bronze Age

Those are forms we knew about before we knew anything about Linear B; they are not independently evidence that we are reading the Linear B correctly. When you hallucinate material, it's not surprising that you hallucinate something you're already familiar with.

It's even less surprising in a context like this, where a proposal that "this is Bronze Age Greek!" is more or less required to include reconstructed Bronze Age forms. Who's going to take it seriously otherwise?

I’ve never seen this take. I was following that dutch philologist’s attempt to decode Linear A thinking it was luwian. Woudhuizen or something?

Is there no evidence of similar place names in Linear A and B?