This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dispilio Tablet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not what the discoverer is saying: "The Dispilio Tablet refutes a major facet of the Indo-European Theory that states that the Phoenicians were the inventors of the alphabet and that the ancient Hellenes adopted it from them. The writings on the tablet possess letters from Linear A.". -- Wetman 22:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks vaguely like
Ogham. And the site sounds something like a
Crannóg... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.198.55.108 (
talk)
20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The signs are similar to Vinca. Probably they influenced Linear A and B, but the new alphabet that Greece use after dark age (XII-VIII) until today is indubitely Phoenician. About the theory of indo-european migrations it has lot of archeological falure. Indeed, for example, the Copper Age sites in Northern Italy are undoubtedly older than those in Asia, and have cultural continuity until Roman age. Etruscans excluded. It is not that Indo-eruropeans were arrived from Anatolia or born directly in Europe, after glacial era directly from African Sapiens? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.222.73.39 (
talk)
00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the factual correctness of the purported "text" of the tablet in the file File:Dispilio_tablet_text.png. The contents of the file are sourced to an unreliable webpage in Russian [1]. I don't know what the image on that page is supposed to mean, maybe just a tabular list describing a reconstruction of the glyph repertoire collected from the tablet, but it certainly does not appear to be the actual arrangement of symbols on the tablet itself. This [2], in contrast, purports to be an actual photograph of the tablet. As can be easily seen, it has nothing like the neat arrangement of straight columns of symbols as shown in our image. Our image suggests the existence of an actual writing-like arrangement of a "text", while the photo suggests nothing of the sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I finally found a proper and more recent reference: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/17456/pdf (posthumously credited to Hourmouziadis as a co-author). This archaeological report features a copy of the same chart (p.517, p.7 of the PDF), clarifying that only the first column is meant to show "Samples of carved “signs” on the wooden tablet and other clay finds from Dispilio", while the second column are signs from Linear A script and the remaining ones are from other "Paleoeuropean clay tablets" from other sites. There is also a photograph of the actual tablet, although, confusingly, it appears to be a different object from the one I linked to earlier [4] (which had appeared to be a decent enough source, but apparently it wasn't). On the photograph shown here, it appears the tablet is covered in a dense jumble of carved strokes, making it quite difficult to sort them into individual "signs". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This text: "The tablet was partially damaged when it was exposed to the oxygen-rich environment outside of the mud and water in which it was immersed for a long period of time, and it is now under conservation. The full academic publication of the tablet apparently awaits the completion of the work of conservation" is taken verbatim from an uncited source: Archaeology News Network
I added a "Disputed" tag due to the concerns raised above about accuracy, the plagiarized text, and lack of independent sources.. Cleeder ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
'Currently under conservation' - dates? Jackiespeel 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
A long comment on Quora by Colleen Anne Coyle, Ph.D Archaeology, University of Chicago July 19, 2019 ("The Dispilio Tablet- Revising the Origins and Development of Writing") discusses the discoverer's belief that the marks on the tablet represent writing, pre-dating Sumerian writing by a long time. Kdammers ( talk) 08:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: has the inscription been deciphered? If not, why not include that information in the article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I find it unsatisfactory that there is no image, and no mention of suspected or alleged writing or proto-writing, or even symbols in the article (it merely says "inscribed markings"). Without that, I simply don't think the "tablet" (what does that word signify, anyway?) is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own article. -- But, obviously, we'd need proper sources. Nø ( talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know how they distinguished between the age of the wood and the age of the writing. Since of course the wood could be a lot older than the writing. Greg Lovern ( talk) 09:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
As an ancient piece of wood with some man-made marks on it, this object is hardly notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. The notability relies on a reliably sourced academic claim that the markings are writing, or at the very least suspected protowriting, and also, I think, on havning a reliably sourced photo and/or diagram showing the object and the markings. (There may be other reasons for notability, but I can't see any in the article.) In the absence of such sources and images, I'd suggest we delete this article (or move it to a sandbox space).
Obviously, I could create an AfD, but perhaps someone here can change my mind before I do so?
It should be noted that a number of articles link here:
However, the I think the reasons for linking are not really borne out by the present contents of the article. Nø ( talk) 10:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dispilio Tablet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not what the discoverer is saying: "The Dispilio Tablet refutes a major facet of the Indo-European Theory that states that the Phoenicians were the inventors of the alphabet and that the ancient Hellenes adopted it from them. The writings on the tablet possess letters from Linear A.". -- Wetman 22:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks vaguely like
Ogham. And the site sounds something like a
Crannóg... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.198.55.108 (
talk)
20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The signs are similar to Vinca. Probably they influenced Linear A and B, but the new alphabet that Greece use after dark age (XII-VIII) until today is indubitely Phoenician. About the theory of indo-european migrations it has lot of archeological falure. Indeed, for example, the Copper Age sites in Northern Italy are undoubtedly older than those in Asia, and have cultural continuity until Roman age. Etruscans excluded. It is not that Indo-eruropeans were arrived from Anatolia or born directly in Europe, after glacial era directly from African Sapiens? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.222.73.39 (
talk)
00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the factual correctness of the purported "text" of the tablet in the file File:Dispilio_tablet_text.png. The contents of the file are sourced to an unreliable webpage in Russian [1]. I don't know what the image on that page is supposed to mean, maybe just a tabular list describing a reconstruction of the glyph repertoire collected from the tablet, but it certainly does not appear to be the actual arrangement of symbols on the tablet itself. This [2], in contrast, purports to be an actual photograph of the tablet. As can be easily seen, it has nothing like the neat arrangement of straight columns of symbols as shown in our image. Our image suggests the existence of an actual writing-like arrangement of a "text", while the photo suggests nothing of the sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I finally found a proper and more recent reference: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/17456/pdf (posthumously credited to Hourmouziadis as a co-author). This archaeological report features a copy of the same chart (p.517, p.7 of the PDF), clarifying that only the first column is meant to show "Samples of carved “signs” on the wooden tablet and other clay finds from Dispilio", while the second column are signs from Linear A script and the remaining ones are from other "Paleoeuropean clay tablets" from other sites. There is also a photograph of the actual tablet, although, confusingly, it appears to be a different object from the one I linked to earlier [4] (which had appeared to be a decent enough source, but apparently it wasn't). On the photograph shown here, it appears the tablet is covered in a dense jumble of carved strokes, making it quite difficult to sort them into individual "signs". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This text: "The tablet was partially damaged when it was exposed to the oxygen-rich environment outside of the mud and water in which it was immersed for a long period of time, and it is now under conservation. The full academic publication of the tablet apparently awaits the completion of the work of conservation" is taken verbatim from an uncited source: Archaeology News Network
I added a "Disputed" tag due to the concerns raised above about accuracy, the plagiarized text, and lack of independent sources.. Cleeder ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
'Currently under conservation' - dates? Jackiespeel 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
A long comment on Quora by Colleen Anne Coyle, Ph.D Archaeology, University of Chicago July 19, 2019 ("The Dispilio Tablet- Revising the Origins and Development of Writing") discusses the discoverer's belief that the marks on the tablet represent writing, pre-dating Sumerian writing by a long time. Kdammers ( talk) 08:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: has the inscription been deciphered? If not, why not include that information in the article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I find it unsatisfactory that there is no image, and no mention of suspected or alleged writing or proto-writing, or even symbols in the article (it merely says "inscribed markings"). Without that, I simply don't think the "tablet" (what does that word signify, anyway?) is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own article. -- But, obviously, we'd need proper sources. Nø ( talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know how they distinguished between the age of the wood and the age of the writing. Since of course the wood could be a lot older than the writing. Greg Lovern ( talk) 09:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
As an ancient piece of wood with some man-made marks on it, this object is hardly notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. The notability relies on a reliably sourced academic claim that the markings are writing, or at the very least suspected protowriting, and also, I think, on havning a reliably sourced photo and/or diagram showing the object and the markings. (There may be other reasons for notability, but I can't see any in the article.) In the absence of such sources and images, I'd suggest we delete this article (or move it to a sandbox space).
Obviously, I could create an AfD, but perhaps someone here can change my mind before I do so?
It should be noted that a number of articles link here:
However, the I think the reasons for linking are not really borne out by the present contents of the article. Nø ( talk) 10:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)