Talk:Tărtăria tablets

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tartaria tablets 

message: Radiocarbon dating - is it applicable to clay? Where are the tablets now? --Ghirla-трёп- 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So many questions 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: [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)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tartaria site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Today's edits 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Tartaria tablets.png Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great mistake 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Carbon-datable: yes or no? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Following text needing better references