Talk:Tărtăria tablets

Missing section
...currently in an unidentified private collection? Wetman 22:37, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

They are in the collection of the museum in Cluj-Napoca.--Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tartaria tablets
I made some research on these Tartaria tablets.Absolutely all elementary signs on them can be found among different ancient alphabets.I wonder how so few realised this.I do not understand why highly specialised schollars got near zero output on this matter.These tablets were written using : the round-one mostly phoenician-like letters e.g archaic greek. See on upper-left quarter those greek archaic letters HP/HD (H in the archaic shape of heta and Rho in the form of P or D).The other-one, squarred seems to have on it signs or letters from anatolian alphabets ( lycian/carian ?)..User:eugenrau It is showing a clear phase when writing systems were not stabilised,or not finished.See archaic greek alphabets= greek epichoric alphabets


 * Pure speculation.--Mazarin07 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Eugen. Newcomers often do as you did above, but Wikipedia talk pages should be for discussing changes to the article or comments intended to affect the content of the article directly, not merely pertaining to the subject matter (for example, on Talk:Cigarette, I shouldn't just talk about cigarettes, but preferably relate it to the article Cigarette directly). Alexander 007 07:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, your post can be interpreted as spam (by calling it spam, I do not pass judgment on its merits, merely implying that the only purpose of your post seems to be to direct people to your blogs and your research), and I was about to remove it, but I did not want to be rude. Alexander 007 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam is too harsh a word, I dont think it was deliberate advertisement, more along the lines of original research. HuronKing Mazarin 07: Take a look on Archaic Greek and Anatolian alphabets and after this respond again to me.User:eugenrau 11:08, 08 October 08 2012

Mazarin's decipherment
These are not writings!


 * 1) We did decide to go on hunting. (upper left)
 * 2) We followed the foot-marks in the forest. (Or: five of us followed the foot-marks) (upper right)
 * 3) We managed to kill the (two?) prey animals, with the bow (using two arrows?)(lower left)
 * 4) Back at home we cooked the meat in a cauldron (see the smoke and/or steam raising to the sky), while dancing around. Wow! (lower right)

The other Tartaria tablets have similar subjects: hunting, prey animals, means of hunting (bow, ambush), tree/forest, means of preparing the meat (skinning knives etc.), and the feast that follows (cauldron, dance). All is like an ancient cartoon! You just need to add the speech balloons.--Mazarin07 09:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and exactly how this isn't pure speculation too? Giuseppe86 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit that my theory is just another speculation...:-)--Mazarin07 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that Mazarin07 meant it as a joke, but really his interpretation is probably just as good as anyone elses. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User : eugenrau. Of course is a joke;this kind of reasoning and reading could be aplied to that squarred tablet (on wich is a vegetal motiv and kind of goat). In any case not to that round one wich has on it signs wich seems to be true letters.Please compare some of the signs on it with those found on archaic greek alphabets. Shame on you Mazarin, those signs wich you made fool of, and interpreted as
 * "1.We did decide to go on hunting." (upper left) are in fact archaic greek leters: 1.Heta/eta/open heta ...it is about old h with 3 close to horizontal bars,initialy pronounced h,H(eta) later in time E, E(ta) and 2.P (rho) !!
 * Heta-rho was used in that form of archaic h/heta and P(rho) e.g. mainly for writing HP= HP(A)=Hera ...but not only : "HP(AKLES)"
 * http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/AVRASYA_dosyalar/image006.gif or http://www.webtopos.gr/archives/languages/greek/alphabet/chart_gre_anc_alphabets_cities_1369x1301_tr.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So many questions
Radiocarbon dating - is it applicable to clay? Where are the tablets now? --Ghirla-трёп- 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Radiocarbon dating may only be applied to organic artifacts. The original Tartaria tablets were of dried, unbaked clay. The Romanian scientists baked them in an oven, to avoid their decay, but any subsequent dating by thermoluminescence (which is the usual method for the age determnation of ceramic artifacts) became impossible.--Mazarin07 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The radio-carbon dating was performed not on the tablets themselves but on the bones with which they were found and with which they are presumed to have been buried. The article's (currently) second external link is to a report dated 2004 of an investigation of the bones, tablets etc that dates the bones to a calibrated r-c span of 5370-5140BC. Incidentally, that report also corrects several of the original excavator's incorrect assumptions which the article currently still contains. For example, the bones were not burnt, and are of an elderly female, not a male. I leave it to someone with more wiki-fu to study the report and update the article. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User: eugenrau. The tablets are containing only few/small amounts of carbon, so an accurate radiocarbon dating was not possible in the past with those tiny amounts.But now is impossible mainly because the tablets were baked in a furnace and as a result of elevatet temperature the carbon was degradated and this is the final reason for wich never will possible a direct radiocarbon dating.My sincere opinion regarding the age of the tablets : as in forensic sciences also in archeology one cannot atribute the age of an object to other object even when both were found close one of each-other.Especially when we have such circumstances related tothe very moment of finding covered with fogg. Think to a possibility that some items could fall from an upper earth layer.Eugenrau (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversies
Just because someone writes something and publishes it, doesn't make it so. There are a lot of controveries surrounding the research of Vlassa. Future excavations at some of his sites have shown stragraphies completely different from what he reported. As well, he didn't keep (or didn't make public) his excavation notes. Regarding the tablets, it's not even known if they in fact came from Tartaria. They were only documented years after the excavation, and then after being fired (supposedly for preservation). The technician who fired them wasn't even sure which excavation box they came from. Why was nothing similar found in the Vinca layers during later excavations at Tartaria? Without documentation, we have no way of knowing which layer they came from (or even if they were in fact found at Tartaria). During Vlassa's era, people could publish anything as long as it wasn't contradictory to Party doctrine and especially if it promoted Romania's image. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Merlini's publications... again, just because he's published a lot about the topic doesn't make his theories any more correct than other people's. He rarely published in refereed journals and often just repeats himself and cites his own publications as references.--Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User: eugenrau You`re damn right, Fata Muntilor ! But with a corection regarding Mr. M. Merlini work and articles. My opinion is like this:1. He has a mount/big amount of valuable work related to Danubian Writing phenomenom,with sharp,detailed analises, (as any before him), studied and gathered fresh and scientific perspectives regarding the Danubian Proto-Writing (if we not have at the final stage tru-writing.2. He is not sustaining directly with sound arguments and not analysed the writing proper (analisys of those signs)on that round Tartaria tablet.At least not as me wich I was comparing every signg on round Tartaria tablet with many other signs wich existed in the world (from sumerian ones to European eg. greek).Remember that writing could exist despite, out of carring sounds or words proper ! In respect of this aspect, he knows better as many scientists,and is aware of the complexity of ancient or not using of signs (semiotic science).His scientific level on this matters is not that of a student, but that of a true, high-level scientist. Eugenrau (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nicolae Vlassa, an archaeologist at the Cluj Museum, unearthed three inscribed but unbaked clay tablets, together with 26 clay and stone figurines and a shell bracelet,...".

No, it is not him who "unearthed" the artifacts, but some students and workers. he was not present at the very spot in the very moment of discovery. He was told about a full day later.After that,(moment of discovery) some hours or more exactly one day Vlassa was not been found and any contact was made. Eugenrau (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Eugenrau (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Eugenrau (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Eugenrau (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Eugenrau (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [Inserted leading colons to repair layout of preceding post. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195~] 90.201.110.45 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Tartaria site
I wonder if a page should be made also for the Tartaria site itself. I see that there is a page for the village of Tartaria (from which te site gets it's name). The site itself has several cultural phases. Vinca, Petresti and Cotofeni (if i remember correctly). There are also connections between this site and other sites in the area, such as Turdas (aka Tordos) a little ways down the Mures river, Piatra Tomii across the river where likely they mined flint from, Vintu-de-Jos also nearby along the Mures river with contemporary finds. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User: eugenrau I am not sure at all to wich those described phases are pertaining each discovered item. cause was a pile of them, in total some 28 artefacts. My opinion is like that (and advancing with this ocasion): Not all artefacts partaining to a single/same age, or culture phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's edits
Sorry but I've removed quite a bit of them as unsourced. In one case the person mentioned seems to have no qualifications in the field and the only source I could find was his blog. This article needs good academic sources. I'll add, not directly related to today's edits, that I'm dubious about Merlini. I haven't removed the bit about the Cyclades and origin yet as I hope to be able to rewrite this with a source (and simplify the section heading). Sorry about this - oh hell, that's you isn't it! You obviously have a keen interest in this and I'm glad you're participating, no insult meant,. I've also tried to improve the English (of course, I couldn't write in your language to save my life, so no disrespect meant). Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Tartaria round tablet.True archaic greek letters eta/heta-Rho on upper-left quadrant !
That twoo signs situate on upper/left quadrant of the round Tartaria tablet are TRUE letters, as a result we have there TRUE WRITING. See in attic pot/sherd and other places the sequence/monogram/mason mark "eta/heta-rho".Other noticed on Sevilla ancient phoenician inscription the same sequence h-r, their opinion beeing that hr is for hu/ru (hr strt huru ashtoreth huru Astarte, syro/phoenician astarte)

CELE 2 SEMNE ALE CADRANULUI SITUAT ÎN STG. SUS PE TABLITA ROTUNDA DE LA TARTARIA SANT LITERE MARII SAVANTI AI LUMII INCA SE INTREABA DACA PE TABLITA AVEM PROTO SCRIERE AU IDEOGRAME AU SCRIERE EVENTUAL see the sign/archaic greek letter eta,heta vezi semnul H,He "eta-heta-e-he-h cu 3 bare-heta ala scala" http://upload.wikime..._Eta_08.svg.png http://www.google.ro...29,r:6,s:0,i:85 see sign D used in archaic greek/epichoric greek writing as for "R" vezi semnul D folosit initial ba pentru d ba pentru R http://upload.wikime...t_Varianten.png http://www.codex99.c.../greek_sign.gif

Great mistake
Right at the the very begining or in the begining resume, as you wish, right not far under the title "Tartaria tablets" there is stated that "the bones are of a male human" wich is entirely wrong. The bones, as were analysed by an anthropologist at the Cluj History Museum under the direction of Mr. Marco Merlini was concluded that the bones were of a female, average 1,50 m height, 50 y.o. and suffering of some chronic disease wich directly afected her bones, at least or especially the bones of one leg wich is/was shorter. Please make urgently the necessary corection. [eugenrau/23.03.2013/18.27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Location
The article does not tell us where these tablets are - are they in a museum? Are they on pubic display? Who now owns them? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Carbon-datable: yes or no?
"The dating of the tablets is difficult as they cannot be carbon dated" states the lead.

But further on this WP article claims that they WERE indeed carbon-dated AFTER being fired. Which one is true? If there is a debate, which are the arguments?

Where does the indicated age (c. 5300 BC) actually come from, and how reliable is it? If no C14-dating and no stratigraphy, isn't it just wishful thinking? Arminden (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Carbon-dating of clay is usually very hard, as carbon-dating needs (as the name says) carbon. It is certainly impossible after firing (which will burn most of the carbon, while contaminating it with new carbon). The article states there were carbon-dates on other objects. But the article states that the stratigraphy of the find is unclear, and the leading scientist had never been willing to answer questions about it. Al things considering it has too many similarities to the very disputed Phaistos Disc to take it very seriously. Also the step of firing it after the find seem to me last thing you want to do to an important object you want to study (I've never heard of anything similar to it!) and seems to me something you would only do to destroy any evidence of it's origin. So probably best to lay these tables aside in the study of this fascinating proto-script. --Codiv (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Following text needing better references
I'm moving the this text here for the time being. Originally it was in the section "Dating" but (if from valid sources) should be moved to "Purpose and meaning" or "Context". However, I cannot find and verify the references specified:

The symbols are Sumerian pictograms (not cuneiform signs). A. Falkenstein )1965), J. Harmatta (1966, 1973), A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))

Astronomical approach

As a celestial map we can see constellations on the Tartarian disk (M. Merlini 2004; 2008), or rather the half of the starry sky, from Auriga to Archer/Aquila (A. Záhonyi 2018).

With the help of precession the estimated time of manufacturing (of the Tartaria findings) is 4500 B. C. (M. Merlini: Milady Tartaria and the riddle of dating Tartaria tablets. Dacia Magazine 14 (2004; 2008), T. Rumi: Two circles. Imagent, Budapest (2007), A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018)).

The Sumerian reading of the disk signs: PA(.BIL) (Sagittarius), MUSH (Hydra), HUN(.GA) (Aries). (A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))

The symbolic meeting point of the Zodiac and the Milky Way can be observed on the third (rectangular) tablet. (A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))

- DNewhall (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dispilio tablet
This article links to Dispilio tablet. That article seems to have serious problems regarding sourcing and notability. Though not a formal AfD (yet), I have here to delete that aricle. Please chime in there if you have an opinion (or help improve the article)! Nø (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)