Talk:Dispilio Tablet

message: 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 . 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 , 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)
replies: text: Thanks, well done. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by this discussion. This image seems to show exactly the same symbols as those on the ministry of culture's page http://pegasos.fhw.gr/chronos/01/en/gallery/nl/dispilio/disp5.html , in fact it is apparently simply the same image that has been edited to make it less difficult to see the symbols. If we use similar wording to the ministry's "linear writing symbols, found incised on a wooden tablet", that should be OK, shouldn't it? --Espoo (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't know to what extent that website is anything like a reliable source. It's not actually a Ministry of Culture website, but the site of some privately-run cultural foundation, of unknown academic standing. The page cites an (unpublished) paper by Hourmouziadis; we don't know whether Hourmouziadis actually features that image, or what if anything he says about it there. (The image is credited not to Hourmouziadis but to the Ministry, but without any indication how and by whom and in what context it was compiled there.) Apparently Hourmouziadis never actually offered a formal academic publication about the symbols (as opposed to other archaeological aspects of the site), so there isn't really much to go by. Even if the chart purports to show a repertoire of glyphs found on the tablet, it is by no means clear whether all the symbols shown in the picture are meant to be that – if you compare the chart with the photograph of the actual tablet, it appears that the tablet contains substantially fewer signs than shown in the chart. In fact, one contributor on the Greek Wikipedia seemed to have found out that only one column in the chart was meant to show the actual Dispilio signs, whereas the others were meant to show signs from other writing systems for comparison (); unfortunately, that edit, while plausible, didn't come with proper references either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, i found that file before you. It was very easy to find by putting <<dispilio site:edu >> into Google. --Espoo (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious image 

message: 'Currently under conservation' - dates? Jackiespeel 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation 

message: 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)
replies: text: The pdf linked in a comment above seems to contain no details on whether the Centre for Isotope Research of the University of Groningen conducted any date corrections because the artifacts and surrounding sediments come from a lacustrine location. It is therefore uncertain whether the ages calculated here are in fact too high. Underwater sources require different aspects of the carbon cycle to be considered.  ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The earliest known alphabet? 

message: 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)
thread_title: To add to article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proto-writing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age of wood vs. age of writing