Forgery or Legit: Dacian art in lead plates?

[Romano-Dacis]

Given how rare any phyiscal remnant of the Dacians is, I thought it would be worthwhile to share the story of these plaques and the controversy behind them. These lead plates were discovered in the 19th century in Romania, and they were originally attributed as forgeries, but recently the topic has come up again as to whether they are authentic or not, since the tablets seem to contain information that was not available in any scholarly body of knowledge about the Dacians at that time, and no real physical evidence exists to prove they are fake.
http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/images/R002_jpg.jpg
http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/images/R018_jpg.jpg
http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/images/R039_jpg.jpg
http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/images/R042_jpg.jpg

More can be found here: http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/frames_en.htm

The site has an English page and a Romanian page, and apperantly the scholarly concensus is still not solid as to whether these are legitemate or not.

The lead plaques form a library of over one hundred (possibly two hundred) of relief inscriptions – written in an unknown language with mostly Greek characters and lavishly illustrated – that speak about the Getic and Dacian civilization. The plaques were photographed during WW2 by Dan Romalo, in the basement of Bucharest’s Antiquities Museum, with the archeologist Ioan Nestor’s intent to publish. Marioara Golescu, a young researcher, was about to publish these plaques as a forgery attempt. According to I. Nestor’s statement, the plaques appeared in the museum in the times of Grigore Tocilescu, somewhere between the 19th and 20th century. No one ever doubted their unauthenticity, no one ever published them (unfortunately neither Marioara Golescu did), no researcher ever studied them. The plaques never benefited from an inventory or a summary mention in any written paper. 35 plaques reappeared (there is no mention where from) in 2002 and are now at the “Vasile Pârvan” Archeological Institute in Bucharest. Two more plaques rest at the Sinaia Monastery, and a few more, of smaller sizes and diverse materials can be found in private collections or Romanian museums.

On the one hand:

The analysis carried out at the Physics and Nuclear Engineering Institute in Bucharest by Dr. Bogdan Constantinescu in may 2004 showed a lead composition very similar to that used in typography lead in the 19th century, confirming the hypothesis of the copies or of a possible forgery.
On the other hand:

Although, analysis carried out on a single item in Oxford, item 023, by Dr. Peter Northover, left the debate open, as he proved that the lead from this item is nearly similar to that of a cramp removed from Sarmizegetusa’s wall and used as witness item. (ROMALO 2005: 291-292). The lack of funding, destined to more precise analysis of all remaining items, impedes us from drawing a clearer conclusion.


No one knows were does this library of plaques comes from, but oral traditions states that the leaded artifacts were made in the last quarter of the 19th century, on King Carol the 1st orders, from the gold originals, discovered in a thesaurus from Poiana Văcăriei in Sinaia, were the Peleş Castle was to be built.

So, even though the composition could indicate a fake, it is possible that these are legitemate or reproductions of a legitemate artefact.

It would indeed be interesting if they turned out to be authentic, as then they would reflect a great deal on the ability of the Getic and Dacian populace to absorb and adopt foreign cultures (notice the writing has Greek chracters). On other Dacian artefacts we possess have writing in Latin characters, but those date from the time of Decebal (88-107AD), which may have been as much as 3 centuries after these plates were made.

Opinions, anyone?

[abou]

If anyone on the team knows, it will be Paullus. I anxiously await to see what he thinks too.

[Daos]

I don't know, I'm not an expert but they don't look 2000 years old. Have they been deciphered yet? Maybe the text itself can give more evidence...

[Watchman]

I don't know, I'm not an expert but they don't look 2000 years old....meaning...?

[cmacq]

fake, fake, fake, and fake. to know the golden with but a wee touch of the commie's rule.

http://boldra.com/features/socialist_art/images/activestate_hammer.gif

The material may be old, but they look very 1960's to me.

[Daos]

...meaning...?

Well meaning that lead is a very soft material. And these things don't show to many signs of degradation. They even have the look of 19th century printed material. Look at the overall form, not the letters.

[Tiberius Nero]

hmm, there isn't even one letter missing due to random damage and corrosion, how likely is that?

[Ayce]

Here is the book „Cronica getă apocrifă pe plăci de plumb” written by mr. Dan Romalo, who studied the plates for about 30 years: scanned and uploaded (http://rapidshare.com/files/101227535/Cronica_geta.rar.html)

The book is mostly in Romanian, though the possible translations and various chapters involving conclusions are translated into English. It's a must read. There is no nationalist chauvinism, only well documented research. The plates contain at least 3 distinct writing systems, two of them being dominant and decipherable, and among them, the most common being the Greek like one.

Now, IMO they are not fake. The task of faking 200 plates perfectly, involving complete historical accuracy and linguistic evolution in the 19th century or before was like going to the moon. Besides there was no interest in promoting anything Dacian, at that time, as only Romanity could gave us a political and cultural edge in that time-frame. And BTW the „legend” is that they were gold tablets, that in the 19th century were copied in lead to be smelted or that the originals were lost with the Romanian Treasure after WWI in Russia. The pictures he used in his study were made in 1946. Today only 30 of the lead plates survive.

[Romano-Dacis]

The material may be old, but they look very 1960's to me.

Ok, this statement doesn't even correlate with the evidence that might suggest it's fake. The plates, if they are fake, come from the 19th century.


hmm, there isn't even one letter missing due to random damage and corrosion, how likely is that?

The plates were originally been made of gold, or so the story goes. I do agree though, it is suspicious how well these plates were preserved.


Well meaning that lead is a very soft material. And these things don't show to many signs of degradation. They even have the look of 19th century printed material. Look at the overall form, not the letters.

These are supposedly reproductions of them in the 19th century, so anything about how "good the lead looks" wouldn't reflect too much on the authenticity, since these are reproductions.

The one thing which makes me really suspicious is the form of the translated words. Apperantly, the word for "god" is "dio", something which sounds very Italian (not even Latin, but like modern Italian). There are other suspicious translated words: paceo “peace”, armoso “army”, purcedeo “to leave, to proceed”. The abundant use of o's at the ends of words (read a little of the text) once again rings very much like modern Italian. The website tries to pass these off as "possibly words adopted from Latin by the Dacians" but something about this whole argument seems false.

Then again, my argument above isn't evidence I'd take to court, but it gives me reason to be suspicious.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Archaeological findings still have the tendency to surprise; Maybe we should not look at the plates themselves, but perhaps at the site of origins. Geo-physics and the quality of the soil can have a tremendous effect when it comes to preserving goods like these. Ice and salt for instance have yielded absolutely phenomenal findings on Tocharian "mummies" and the Parthian "salt-men", where even the most rudimentary earthen-ware and organic tissue have survived remarkably well. Textiles and leather in particular have survived with relatively little damage in those conditions.

Plates such as these are rather common in Iran; Seeing this high grade material does not surprise me and does not immediately give the impression of forgery, especially if there is an entire series of such findings. Sassanian gilded and silver-ware vessels and dishes, as well as Achaemenid and Parthian rhytons are of remarkably high quality. This does not surprise me a bit at all, and the lack "lacunae" in the text may be a bit unusual, but hardly an anomaly. Several metal plates from Persepolis display undeniable clarity on the cuneiform. A trained eye will see that these Dacian inscriptions are thoroughly made relief-works on metal with clearly protruding legends. These are fairly large objects after all, and not exactly as small as mere. This would by large explain the clarity of the text contained therein. However, what I think is not important. It's not my area of expertise, and the arbiter in my opinion would have to be a standard procedure dating process in order to establish a date. Paullus ought to know more about this.

Excellent pictures, by the way.

[Ayce]

Ok, this statement doesn't even correlate with the evidence that might suggest it's fake. The plates, if they are fake, come from the 19th century.



The plates were originally been made of gold, or so the story goes. I do agree though, it is suspicious how well these plates were preserved.



These are supposedly reproductions of them in the 19th century, so anything about how "good the lead looks" wouldn't reflect too much on the authenticity, since these are reproductions.

The one thing which makes me really suspicious is the form of the translated words. Apperantly, the word for "god" is "dio", something which sounds very Italian (not even Latin, but like modern Italian). There are other suspicious translated words: paceo “peace”, armoso “army”, purcedeo “to leave, to proceed”. The abundant use of o's at the ends of words (read a little of the text) once again rings very much like modern Italian. The website tries to pass these off as "possibly words adopted from Latin by the Dacians" but something about this whole argument seems false.

Then again, my argument above isn't evidence I'd take to court, but it gives me reason to be suspicious.

The conclusion mr. Romalo give is that it's the other way around. Whatever proto-Dacian language existed long before the tablets were created lexically influenced the various Italic languages. He also states that Dacian might be a pre-indo-european language due to the slightly „weird” grammar. Most words have a correspondence in modern-day Romanian (NOBAΛO - nobil, MATO - original meaning is lord, probably evolved into „mata”). A few have a form kept in French, rather than Romanian (AΔEΣIO - alliance, getting together, alăturare). Some names that exist today have been identified: Mara, Marica (MAPIK), Radu (ΡΑΔV ΤΡΙ - Radu the 3rd - probably a local taraboste). Historical figures have a slightly different form than expected: ΒΕΟΡΩΒΥΣ(Ε)ΤΟ/ΒΩΕΡΙΒΥΣΤΟ, ΔΑ?ΙΒΑΛΟ (where the ? is a Ψ with part of the left vertical line missing - representing a č). See the book for more. There is also a map of Sarmisegetusa (named ΣΑΡΜΙΨΙΤΙΟΖΑ (Ψ meaning dj) usually - BTW they had paved roads - ΣΘΡΑΤΟΥ). APMOΣA is army and APMOΣO is usually arming or a case of APMOΣA. Y is believed to be pronounced ju (iu, yu, you ~D), but I think it could also be a short i in some case, don't take my word for it though.

The general view is that they are forgeries, but this conclusion was drawn up without any real investigation, so it's invalid.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes you've got a point there. Forgery or not, the fact that the material is well preserved doesn't really mean much.

For example (lots?) of jewelry from the Bosphoran settlements have been found, virtually intact. One may argue that gold doesn't easily disintegrate (which is false, btw) but in natural circumstances lead, especially lead coated in lead-oxide/lead-sulphate (which is what these 'plaquettes' basically are) does not suffer much from such decline either. There's virtually nothing but strong acid which makes it disolve; so especially when the soil is base (soils rich in minerals, therefore often fertile) little or no decline takes place at all...

Question is: does the 'printing' reveal something?

[Ayce]

In case you missed it: the book that studies the plates (http://rapidshare.com/files/101227535/Cronica_geta.rar.html)

I've uploaded separately: the uncovered lexicon in the study (Ro) (http://www.mediafire.com/?zny190jf5j1) and the conclusions (Ro+En) (http://www.mediafire.com/?jng9tszvbmz)

EDIT: TA, what do you mean by printing? I don't get it.

And not all the plates are of high quality, it varies, though it's generally good.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, for instance during antiquity people didn't use serifs -- so any Greek character you see whith a serif is definitely not from back then. That's what I meant. :beam: (I know it isn't called printing, but it is something I can't recalle the right word for atm.)

[Ayce]

It doesn't use serifs (obviously), the words aren't delimited except in one plate (the last image posted by Romano-Dacis, showing how Dromikathes was injured in a battle). Some plates contain punctuation in the form of plusses (+). The usual alphabet is Greek-like. A second alphabet is used more as a decorative, religious script, possibly a precursor to the primary. A third, undeciphered script (possibly pictograms) is present. Some plates show portraits, maps, factional symbolism (that word delimited plate shows a possible alliance between the Haţeg Dacians and ΣΚΙΤ ΨΕΤ (Skit Get - Scythian Dacians, Dacians livin in Scythia, around EB's Olbia) under Dromikathes)

[paullus]

I'd be surprised if they were legit. The grammar is bizarre, and looks fabricated. There are literally dozens of loan words from Greek (fine), Latin (fine...the plates would be late BC or early AD anyway), but also modern Romanian and other Romance languages. The orthography isn't really objectionable as far as I can see, though a lot of it is without precedent. I'd be curious whether the guys who've "translated" the plates have found that they unlock the meaning of the handful of much smaller Getodacian inscriptions. I'm also suspicious about the find itself. There's nothing similar to them that's been found in any Thracian/Getodacian territories, so finding a huge cache of these things makes me suspicious, especially when they're allegedly copies of originals in gold. Right.

Anyway the first post said that there were things revealed in the tablets that no one would have known back when the tablets were made. Examples?

[cmacq]

With collectors and antiquarians the old saying is caveat emptor.

I am an archaeologists and I do know a thing or two about the antiquities blackmarket? That is why context and the method of recovery is everthing. And, yes the 'printing' or how the letters are executed does reveal something; that they are all fakes. I don't have time to detail this, but try here for a quick outline...

http://www.museum-security.org/fakes.html

However, at a glance I can tell these have something to do with nationalism.

[Ayce]

cmacq, earlier you said that they look 1960s, but the pictures were taken in 46 (before the commies won the rigged elections). And they certainly existed before 1900. I don't see who'd forge 200 of them back then.

paullus, the idea proposed is that most aren't loans from Latin, but that Latin loaned from a pre-Daco-Thracian language. I'll search for examples about the „no-one would had known” thing. Stay tuned later on.

OK, a few short things: Plate no 21 is a map of Sarmisegetuza, consistent with archaeological findings in 1939. Plate no 9 (not the only one) depicts historically accurate equipment of Dacian and Celtic armies. (Celtic helmet, Correct proportions for Dacian shields, as found in archaeological digs, especially in Piatra Roşie). Generally the plates have a high degree of historical accuracy. A forgerer would have to be maniacally obsessive. And 2-3 plates contain orthographic mistakes, indicating a natural writing. Many images are consistent with Dacian and pre-dacian coins and pottery.

[abou]

paullus, the idea proposed is that most aren't loans from Latin, but that Latin loaned from a pre-Daco-Thracian language.Huh?

[Ayce]

Maybe I should have said „the idea proposed in the book”. Aka Italic languages having a pre-Thracian adstrate.

Another extremely detailed thing. Big cats at Burebista's court, as Plutarch described that theywere kept at Getic courts. (plate 20)

[Daos]

Huh?

Well don't get me wrong I don't wanna get into a debate here but we are taught that most words in our language come from Latin. Well I like many others have found that in many cases it's clearly the other way around. This has two possible explications: 1 Romans borrowed words from Getai, which is unlikely but not impossible seeing they borrowed military equipment. 2 Both languages come from the same root language and some words in Romanian remain closer to the original words, which I think is more likely. What really is uncanny is the close resemblance that our language has with the ancient Sanskrit. Almost all ancient deity names from India have a corresponding word in Romanian. They mostly mean trivial things but we even got a city named Deva. Which means deity in Sanskrit. It comes from the ancient Dava but still the striking resemblance is there.

[Romano-Dacis]

Well, a lot of these ideas, of which many are probably reading about for the first time, were proposed in the 19th century in a book by Napoleon Savescu called "We are not the Descendants of Rome."

The opinion today is hardly mainstream, but it's still held by a few modern Romanian historians. The biggest problem with Savescu's book, is that it implies the complete rewriting of how civilizations came to be, since its conclusion is that Roman and Hellenic civilization are the result of Pelasgic civilization, or offshoots from Dacian culture.

I know, to those of us used to more orthodox interpretations of history, it sounds pretty unbelievable, and I don't subscribe to it myself, but there is a school of thought which still still believes this.

If I recall correctly, the reason why such a hypothesis came in to being was because the short duration of Roman colonization of Dacia was seen as problematic when considering that it resulted in a Romanized people (Romanians). Some people solved this by looking at the sheer extent of colonization (French academic V. Duruy considers the colonization of Dacia: “By far the largest colonial effort in ancient history!”) but this school of thought proposed the idea that Dacian and Roman cultures were similar to begin with.

[paullus]

Ayce, two things about your defense of the plates:

1) All those details you pointed out were known prior to WWII, and in the 19th century as well. The city plan of Sarmiszegethusa is nowhere near as clearly laid out on the plate as it would need to be to actually be convincing. It can be imaginately reconstructed as such, no more.

2) Arguments for precise detail are never good arguments on forgeries. The people who make forgeries are, of course, always obsessive over details, if they're good forgers.

[Ayce]

Well, a lot of these ideas, of which many are probably reading about for the first time, were proposed in the 19th century in a book by Napoleon Savescu called "We are not the Descendants of Rome."

Actually the first documented proposal of this theory dates back 300 years in Rome


The opinion today is hardly mainstream, but it's still held by a few modern Romanian historians. The biggest problem with Savescu's book, is that it implies the complete rewriting of how civilizations came to be, since its conclusion is that Roman and Hellenic civilization are the result of Pelasgic civilization, or offshoots from Dacian culture.

I myself base this theory in the Nicolae Densuşianu's work „Prehistoric Dacia” that studies written accounts, the correlation between folklore and mythology and more recently this book by mr. Romalo, because it makes more sense. It fits in with the Black Sea deluge and the advanced civilizations in the old (pre-Hellenic) Balkans. You can add „indirect result” there. And I'm not implying the part about offshoots of Dacian civilization, by the time they became Dacians, they were lagging behind a little.


I know, to those of us used to more orthodox interpretations of history, it sounds pretty unbelievable, and I don't subscribe to it myself, but there is a school of thought which still still believes this.

I hate it when people won't even take into consideration a theory, instead of actually investigating. Besides, it wouldn't rewrite history, as the time frame is almost blank on this aspect, it would just add to history.


If I recall correctly, the reason why such a hypothesis came in to being was because the short duration of Roman colonization of Dacia was seen as problematic when considering that it resulted in a Romanized people (Romanians). Some people solved this by looking at the sheer extent of colonization (French academic V. Duruy considers the colonization of Dacia: “By far the largest colonial effort in ancient history!”) but this school of thought proposed the idea that Dacian and Roman cultures were similar to begin with.

More so than the short duration was the (stable) conquest of only 14% of Dacian territory.

paullus: I don' need a defense of the plates, I want to see if a valid offense can be made to challenge their authenticity, since none has been specifically made.

[Parallel Pain]

I'd be surprised if they were legit. The grammar is bizarre, and looks fabricated.... but also modern Romanian and other Romance languages.

Convinces me it's a fake.

[Elmetiacos]

Funny language... reminds me a bit of North Sabellic; it looks as though it ought to be Indo-European, but the words make no sense. Btw, don't we know the Daco-Thracian word for "god" - Ziu?

[Romano-Dacis]

I hate it when people won't even take into consideration a theory, instead of actually investigating. Besides, it wouldn't rewrite history, as the time frame is almost blank on this aspect, it would just add to history.

Well it's kind of hard for me to accept a theory without reading the book.

Maybe it won't rewrite history if it were true, but some things I've never even heard about before, like "Regalianus's Kingdom" after the Aurelian withdrawal.

http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/Sigle-Agero/Daco-R1.GIF
Can anyone honestly say this wouldn't completely change the political map of Europe in 271.

Who knows, maybe he's the only guy in the world who has it right and there really was a Dacoromania about half the size of the Roman Empire, but until I read his book, his claim has equal value in my eyes as "Sarmatians in England created the first English state."

Oh wait, they actually made a movie out of that...

[Ayce]

That map is AD before the Aurelian retreat. It wouldn't change anything in 271 BC, neither would the subject of this discussion. The map is the supposed Regalian Kingdom, Regalian being proclaimed Emperor by the people in Pannonia, Dacia, Thracia, Makedonia, Illyria, with the rest of the Dacians and the Goths joining in on the rebellion. He was killed before the Aurelian retreat. That first state of the Vlachs sound like BS to me since it wasn't only Vlachs. It was like the East/West split with a different guy claiming leadership and isn't relevant to the subject that deals with pre-Roman conquest Dacia.

PS: I wasn't commenting on Savescu's work.

Elmetiacos: Diiu Dio Ziu or Za (in composed words) written ΔΙΥ ΔΙΟ ZY or ZA is used as god - ZABEΛO (god of war) and ZABOΛY (god of sleep - now boală=disease)

[cmacq]

Right, just got back and haven't read any of the above posts. Has anyone mention the Albanians yet?

[Ayce]

Nope, though I could mention Albanian is called ΑΛΩΒΑΝΩ in one of the tablets, though because of the many Albania-like toponyms existing in that period, it's exact meaning isn't known.

[Tiberius Nero]

A linguistics question: what sound is the "H" letter in the inscriptions supposed to represent? Since the alphabet is Greek, I suppose it is the Greek value of the letter, which at this point in history (if this is supposed to be early AD) was pronounced no different than "I", so a people adopting a foreign alphabet would have little reason to keep redundant letters like the "H" in Greek to represent the same sound.

The fact that the circumstances of their discovery (in fact of the original gold plates) are clouded in myth, as the site linked to admits, does little for me to convince me that those are authentic, the context of discovery of such artifacts is indeed essential.

And again, no matter what has been said earlier, I took the trouble of looking at all of the plates I could find in the site, and there isn't a single letter missing or damaged anywhere in two dozens of inscriptions, or more. In fact I have come across newspapers which were harder to read than this. All this is too good to be true, sorry.

[Ayce]

The H is supposed to represent a long i (I-I).

And there are worn out plates, plates written in such a manner and eroded that you can't make heads or tails of it. Also some lettering on various good quality plates that is hard to understand because of aging. You are probably talking about the site posted in the first post. I didn't even look at that one. Today there are about 30 left. In the book I posted earlier, there are pictures of 79 plates taken in the 1940s, 71 being from the National Archeology Museum since the 19th century. There were more pics, but some were destroyed when a building came down during the 1977 earthquake.

To me, the facts that it's an enormously complex task (the lead plates have the exact same composition as other ancient plates, extreme historical accuracy and detailed, very well constructed language, natural mistakes) and that at the time of discovery, the existence of such plates would be detrimental to Romanian political interest make them, or most of them perfectly authentic.

[paullus]

"the lead plates have the exact same composition as other ancient plates"

---oh?

[abou]

Well don't get me wrong I don't wanna get into a debate here but we are taught that most words in our language come from Latin. Well I like many others have found that in many cases it's clearly the other way around. This has two possible explications: 1 Romans borrowed words from Getai, which is unlikely but not impossible seeing they borrowed military equipment. 2 Both languages come from the same root language and some words in Romanian remain closer to the original words, which I think is more likely. What really is uncanny is the close resemblance that our language has with the ancient Sanskrit. Almost all ancient deity names from India have a corresponding word in Romanian. They mostly mean trivial things but we even got a city named Deva. Which means deity in Sanskrit. It comes from the ancient Dava but still the striking resemblance is there.
Only problem is that doesn't make much sense linguistically... at all. You even said that they are both Indo-European languages so naturally they have certain similarities, but it is very specious to suddenly feel that it was Latin that borrowed from Getic: especially considering that they had practically no major contact until after Rome became involved with Macedon as a province.

I would be curious to see the original publication that proposed the theory, but I have a strong feeling that there aren't too many linguistic experts who would agree.

[Cronos Impera]

Joining the debate, sorry I'm late.
The biggest problem one has with the Sinaia lead plates is that
1) They contain 3 different types of scripts which makes little sense for the Dacians
2) The Getai ware unlikely to use their precious metals for chronicles, as the lead plates ware supposed copies of the original "golden" plates. This was just a lame atempt of the nationalists to discredit Carol I who had supposedly smelted the real plates and copied them on a cheaper support.
3) The entire story of their discovery makes little sense either. The plates had been allegendly unearthed during the construction of Peles castle in an area without any other Getai artifacts whatsoever. At that time protochronist scholars placed Kogaion in the Bucegi Mts.
4) The plates themselves say nothing about Getai history when compared to the works of other ancient scholars. When you read a Getai plate you would expect to find referances to previously unknown events relating to the wars with the Keltoi and Bastarnoz, probably with Scythiai and Hellenes but all we get are some folk-like stories with unknown voievodes and princes resting at Sarmisegetuza

The best solution our ignorant archeologists would have is to leave those plates in a museum basement and focus on saving "real" artifacts.... and preserving those "geniue" artifacts. This whole Sinaia story is just an excuse for some to quietly smuggle Getai bracelets and other artifacts in the homes of rich, private collectors.

[Ayce]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here (http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/contents.htm), with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.

Cronos Impera: The plates shows 2 scripts are symbolic/religious, one of them being the precursor of the Greek like script, as plate 1 shows a more primitive main script with elements of the secondary.
There are 2 possibilities: 1 - Originals are gold (not unlikely considering the large amount of gold in Dacia at the time), 2 - the lead plates are original (this was apparently backed up by an analysis of a certain US university, but I can't find it anymore).
There are references to wars, raids, construction projects, a map, military orders and ceremonies.
And it's as much of a crime not to investigate the plates as it is to let other artifacts be stolen.

[edyzmedieval]

Joining the debate, sorry I'm late.
The biggest problem one has with the Sinaia lead plates is that
1) They contain 3 different types of scripts which makes little sense for the Dacians
2) The Getai ware unlikely to use their precious metals for chronicles, as the lead plates ware supposed copies of the original "golden" plates. This was just a lame atempt of the nationalists to discredit Carol I who had supposedly smelted the real plates and copied them on a cheaper support.
3) The entire story of their discovery makes little sense either. The plates had been allegendly unearthed during the construction of Peles castle in an area without any other Getai artifacts whatsoever. At that time protochronist scholars placed Kogaion in the Bucegi Mts.
4) The plates themselves say nothing about Getai history when compared to the works of other ancient scholars. When you read a Getai plate you would expect to find referances to previously unknown events relating to the wars with the Keltoi and Bastarnoz, probably with Scythiai and Hellenes but all we get are some folk-like stories with unknown voievodes and princes resting at Sarmisegetuza

The best solution our ignorant archeologists would have is to leave those plates in a museum basement and focus on saving "real" artifacts.... and preserving those "geniue" artifacts. This whole Sinaia story is just an excuse for some to quietly smuggle Getai bracelets and other artifacts in the homes of rich, private collectors.

1) Uhm, what? Why does it make little sense?
2) I agree with your point on this one. So far I haven't seen in any museum in Romania any Getai inscriptions made of expensive material.
3) Why does it have to be strictly related to an area of Getai artifacts? Getai spread everywhere, and where Sinaia is today isn't extremely far from where Sarmizegetusa is. So there might be a possibility of a old Getai settlement there, with a proper temple and stuff.
4) Good point, but it also might be the first evidence discovered of this sort.

I'm uncertain. It points out as a fake, especially how they look and what they contain, but it might also be a true thing recalling a sort of Getai "sagas". :book:

[Ayce]

OK, there may be some misconceptions about the plates message because of the small numbers surviving. Here are plates 9 and 10 in the book, each one using a different alphabet, one depicting the aftermath of a battle and the other a ritual:
https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7179/054ps5.jpg
https://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7505/055sv2.jpg
https://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5522/056lc2.jpg
https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2500/057fq7.jpg

[cmacq]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - [/B]

This would be the natural path out of the Steppe, so I would have to agree with this to some degree. As there and then Italic, Keltic, and Baltic would have been one tongue.

[Tiberius Nero]

@Ayce: Just a clarification, when you talk about the "Greek like script" do you refer to the one most of the text is written in? This is not Greek like, it is entirely Greek and the alphabet is a later form than those of the classical era (it contains H as a vowel, and Ω which doesn't exist earlier as a letter). The precursor of this alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet.

[Ayce]

@Ayce: Just a clarification, when you talk about the "Greek like script" do you refer to the one most of the text is written in? This is not Greek like, it is entirely Greek and the alphabet is a later form than those of the classical era (it contains H as a vowel, and Ω which doesn't exist earlier as a letter). The precursor of this alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet.

Yes, I said Greek like because of the presence of letters meaning [č], [dʒ], Y is pronounced [ju] (yoo) in most cases probably, and the presence of V as a [u]. Most plates are written around the time of Caesar's assassination. I suppose Getic, Greek and Italic scripts, evolving in the same geographical area, would have mutually influenced them selfs.

[Tiberius Nero]

1) Uhm, what? Why does it make little sense?


Well there isn't much reason to employ 3 different types of script at the same time; Linear B e.g. does, but only to clarify the meaning of some words since the fact that it is written in syllabograms and the rules of writting allow for much ambiguity (a made up example, the sequence pa-te, could be read both as "Sparte" or "pater"), but in an alphabet there is no reason for this (Japanese does employ 3 different scripts but for similar reasons, to explain ideogramms and the third is only used to transliterate foreign words). Could one of the scripts be "hieratic", one understood by only a select few (members of the priesthood e.g.)? But why write this along with a generally readable text, if this could provide the key to the decipherment of the hieratic script? And what of the third type of script? Could we be dealing with bilingual or tri-lingual inscriptions? Why then are there so few elements of the non-Greek script, if they would be translations of the whole main text? I really don't know, the whole thing seems as designed to be very flashy and mysterious; nationalism doesn't necessarily have to be the only force behind a forgery, one could do this for whatever reasons.

btw, which letters are [č] and [dʒ]? I have seen a couple of letters which look suspiciously close to cyrillic characters.

[Ayce]

The Ψ like letter is [dʒ]. The Ψ with part of the left branch missing is the [č]. Forgot to say the inverted Z is the same as the normal Z. Both types appear on the plates, probably depending on the period at which they were written. B is both [b] and [v].

Out of the three, the undecyphered tertiary is rarely present and possibly pictographic, the secondary is probably a script that was replaced in mainstream use, but used for ceremonial purposes (decorative writing: Kotopol Cieneu, Mato Boerebysto; describing ceremonies), it would be known by some nobility and the priest class. The primary Greek is mainstream. The last 2 are used for the same language, with equivalent letters (minus a sign in the secondary that represents the [ts], an equivalent separate from T is inexistent in the primary).

[cmacq]

Well, with a closer exam, why does the artistic style of the figures seem very much like typical medieval types? Both in overall composition and individual motif? I'm just saying?

Plus, after a quick review of the lit. this is on the list.

[Ibrahim]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here (http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/contents.htm), with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.

Cronos Impera: The plates shows 2 scripts are symbolic/religious, one of them being the precursor of the Greek like script, as plate 1 shows a more primitive main script with elements of the secondary.
There are 2 possibilities: 1 - Originals are gold (not unlikely considering the large amount of gold in Dacia at the time), 2 - the lead plates are original (this was apparently backed up by an analysis of a certain US university, but I can't find it anymore).
There are references to wars, raids, construction projects, a map, military orders and ceremonies.
And it's as much of a crime not to investigate the plates as it is to let other artifacts be stolen.

I agree that this is indeed wrong (the author's theories). I have considered it and rejected it for these reasons:

1-yes the black sea did flood; and it may have driven sumer out of the area. but it is known that those who speak afro asiatic languages (semetic, hametic, chadic, etc) are based overwhelmingly in africa, and archeological and linguistic evidence points to them coming from africa before the black sea flooded (around 8000BC). if you want to know what these items of evidence are, I'll PM.
2-Egyptians were not semetic speaking in 6400BC. their language is only distantly related(both are afro-Asiatic).
3-the Ainu (or Ainu like poeple) have been documented in the area of japan and the Americas in around 7000BC (e.g. kenewick man). mitochondrial evidence also points there
4-thraikioi were apperently indo european themselves (at least as far as I could tell)
5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?
now as for the plates-I say that I can't say anything about them until a better analysis is conducted.

[cmacq]

5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?



I believe that yes, the Tyrrhenians might be considered Pelasgian-esque. They seemed to have migrated from western Anatolia to Italy around the same time the Punes moved to Tunis (very late bronze and/or very early iron age). There are nearly no contemporary documents from this era, that’s why it’s often called a 'dark age.'

[Ibrahim]

pelasgianesc-not pelasgian. the theory is full of holes in my opinion.

[cmacq]

everything is full of holes if you think about it long enough.

right, tell me about the holes.

[Ibrahim]

I already mentioned them earlier:laugh4: :laugh4:

[cmacq]

Good god you expect me to read all of this tread?

Right, reread all and for you no mention of Tyrrheni/Τυρρηνοίas as Pelasgian or Πελασγοί as the pre-greek greeks? In Anatolia they were the Tyrseni or Τυρσινοι/Τορρηβοί and these are not to be confused with the Minyans or Μινύαι. Actually, this theory has nothing to do with the Balkans. There are some that see holes (see Dionysius), but they (the Tyrrheni) were clearly not Italic nor Ligurians/Λίγυες.

[Ayce]

I agree that this is indeed wrong (the author's theories). I have considered it and rejected it for these reasons:

1-yes the black sea did flood; and it may have driven sumer out of the area. but it is known that those who speak afro asiatic languages (semetic, hametic, chadic, etc) are based overwhelmingly in africa, and archeological and linguistic evidence points to them coming from africa before the black sea flooded (around 8000BC). if you want to know what these items of evidence are, I'll PM.
2-Egyptians were not semetic speaking in 6400BC. their language is only distantly related(both are afro-Asiatic).
3-the Ainu (or Ainu like poeple) have been documented in the area of japan and the Americas in around 7000BC (e.g. kenewick man). mitochondrial evidence also points there
4-thraikioi were apperently indo european themselves (at least as far as I could tell)
5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?
now as for the plates-I say that I can't say anything about them until a better analysis is conducted.


1. I didn't say the semitic language necessarily migrated, I said the guys that brought the semitic people more advanced technology and society.
2. Sorry about that, my mistake. There are 2 semitic branches coming from in East Anatolia, and another branch from center-west Anatolia is the pre-dynastic Egyptian.
3. I said maybe.
4. If they are closely related to the proto-indo-europeans, making such a confusion is only normal. Note: By the BSD theory, You have a pontic language group of which proto-indo-european is part of, a sort of proto-proto-indo-european or combination of the indo-european and aryan theories.
5. Yes they would be. There are indications that they migrated there. Ex: When the Etruscans offered the Romans shepherd's cheese, shepherd was coebanum, indicating a more eastern origin.

[paullus]

Well, with a closer exam, why does the artistic style of the figures seem very much like typical medieval types? Both in overall composition and individual motif? I'm just saying?

You're right, they do bear such similarities. But you may also connect aspects of the composition and artistry to the Gundestrep cauldron for instance, and even stretch to make a comparison to Venetic and archaic Etruscan cauldrons. The equipment seems relatively decent: phrygian caps/helmets or round, potentially la tene helms on most warriors. We see tall, narrow Celtic shields (spearmen on upper left), small and medium-sized round shields (on cavalry and the infantry on the lower left), and oval shields (on marines). If round shields ever became popular among Getic spearmen, we have no evidence for it--most evidence points toward simple oval shields for the entire period.

The main composition feature that seems anachronistic to me is the number of figures in that siege scene. While the design of individual figures may remind me of Gundestrep or a few other artifacts, the number and close spacing of figures looks medieval. Is there an actual battle plate, as opposed to plates showing large armies? It would be interesting to compare composition of battle in such a plate with composition in either medieval, archaic or Hellenistic battle depictions.

And what's up with dividing lines to throw in some pictures? When and where did people do that? I feel like that's a medieval phenomenon, but there are probably ancient examples somewhere, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Just the clarity of the letters (every single one, without fault, as has been mentioned before) seems so unlike anything remotely from the time period that I have ever seen.

[paullus]

are they carved or printed? the figures--the soldiers in particular--seem to be "printed" from molds. could the letters be "printed" from molds as well?

[Ibrahim]

1. I didn't say the semitic language necessarily migrated, I said the guys that brought the semitic people more advanced technology and society.
2. Sorry about that, my mistake. There are 2 semitic branches coming from in East Anatolia, and another branch from center-west Anatolia is the pre-dynastic Egyptian.
3. I said maybe.
4. If they are closely related to the proto-indo-europeans, making such a confusion is only normal. Note: By the BSD theory, You have a pontic language group of which proto-indo-european is part of, a sort of proto-proto-indo-european or combination of the indo-european and aryan theories.
5. Yes they would be. There are indications that they migrated there. Ex: When the Etruscans offered the Romans shepherd's cheese, shepherd was coebanum, indicating a more eastern origin.

thanks for the clarification on point one, my bad. I understand that your theory is subjunctive(with the maybe already noted), but the thraikikoi are still a worry.

[Ayce]

Teleklos Archelaou: Plates are worn in areas, not individual letters. EX:

Plates 28, 31, 106:

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5296/081ea9.jpg
https://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3166/082vi2.jpg
https://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3552/083vs3.jpg
https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3238/084dq9.jpg
https://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8384/085gz3.jpg
https://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5930/136fb3.jpg

Not really a battle, but the aftermath:

https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7901/103uo6.jpg
https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7969/104rr9.jpg
Interesting to translate the second phrase, it mentions that on plate 65 you can see the method of formation of the plates, by using a thin metal plate mold. Can someone help translate it exactly? It's a bit technical.
https://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1539/105ya4.jpg

Also plates featuring characters:
https://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2247/097tu3.jpg
https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5341/098eo0.jpg
https://img234.imageshack.us/img234/4351/099pw1.jpg
https://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4561/100ah2.jpg
https://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4599/133rv3.jpg
https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5927/134dl2.jpg

paullus: By dividing line, you mean the vertical line spanning the whole of plate 9? That is because it's a composite image.

[paullus]

no, by dividing lines I meant the places on many of the plates where pictures intrude into lines, interrupting or dividing lines of text and even interrupting words. I can't think of good comparisons to that prior to a few examples I've seen from the medieval period. But perhaps it was done earlier, even much earlier, and I just don't know the examples.

The number of round shields concerns me. Seems rather inaccurate. Also, many shots of architecture look medieval or later. For instance, I can see a round stone keep and a few bell-towers.

[Ayce]

no, by dividing lines I meant the places on many of the plates where pictures intrude into lines, interrupting or dividing lines of text and even interrupting words. I can't think of good comparisons to that prior to a few examples I've seen from the medieval period. But perhaps it was done earlier, even much earlier, and I just don't know the examples.

The number of round shields concerns me. Seems rather inaccurate. Also, many shots of architecture look medieval or later. For instance, I can see a round stone keep and a few bell-towers.

I think I remember seeing a roman inscription that had text interrupted by images. The interrupts words thing I wouldn't worry about. Most inscriptions that don't separate words terminate a row without ending a word.

Yes, the round shields is a bit weird, but it might be related to the period, or type of unit. I don't know. As for architecture, it looks more Doric than Medieval to me. And I don't spot any possible bell-towers.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The building on the bottom left of page 105 looks like a bell tower to me, or at least like nothing ancient I've seen.

[abou]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here (http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/contents.htm), with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.Ah, I see, I see. Interesting theory to say the least - though inacurate considering current knowledge. I'll have to read the link when I get the chance out of sheer curiosity.

Thank you, Ayce.

[Ibrahim]

The building on the bottom left of page 105 looks like a bell tower to me, or at least like nothing ancient I've seen.

I have to second that idea.

[Ayce]

Hmm, that plate is written with anomalous characters. The author sees an oriental influence. Maybe a traveller's notes?

abou: The link is to the pre-WWI book, the Black Sea deluge theory was developed by William Ryan and Walter Pitman from the Columbia University and fits into what Densuşianu theorized. Here is a map of the proposed diaspora:

http://chadparmet.home.comcast.net/~chadparmet/BlackSea/overview/flood2_diaspora.jpg

Also, based on that, the theory (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1898762#post1898762) that the legend of Atlantis represented the Black Sea, center of the world, that suddenly flooded.

[paullus]

tip: bringing up Atlantis rarely lends credibility to a tenuous theory.

[russia almighty]

I already have a hard time with the fact that it came out of Eastern Europe; if I know what book you're referencing, it's filled with nationalistic bullshit of the worst kind.

[Watchman]

I've heard the flooding of the Black Sea theorised as a sensible-enough sounding basis for the Deluge myth, though.

Also, could be just my opinion, but given how badly pre- and interwar scholars tended to be off base when it came to historic population movements and idea transmissions and related stuff, I don't regard reference to a pre-WW1 theory as exactly strenghtening the case either...

[Ayce]

tip: bringing up Atlantis rarely lends credibility to a tenuous theory.

Actually it just says that if the deluge thing is correct, the references to Atlantis would actually be to a pre-deluge pontic kingdom.

[Watchman]

I daresay Minoan Crete and the Thera eruption make a better case for the Atlantis story though.

[russia almighty]

Doesn't help the only true dark age happened relatively soon after.....

[Ayce]

Maybe, but I was only bringing it up as extra read on the subject, I can't find the original paper, but elements of it are present in that link.

[cmacq]

Doesn't help the only true dark age happened relatively soon after.....

Despite what one may read (a test of time [Manning not Rohl]), the dating remains a very great problem, as the newly proposed placement is based on radiocarbon (right, carbon used to date a single eruption of a volcano, on a volcano??? crazy). Yet, in the best case, the NE Dark Age began at least three hundred years after the bronze age Santorini eruption. There appears to be no cause and effect here.

Not to offend anyone or draw too fine a point, yet other than it being just another disaster fantasy, no one I know takes the Black Sea deluge theory all that serious.

[edyzmedieval]

Well there isn't much reason to employ 3 different types of script at the same time; Linear B e.g. does, but only to clarify the meaning of some words since the fact that it is written in syllabograms and the rules of writting allow for much ambiguity (a made up example, the sequence pa-te, could be read both as "Sparte" or "pater"), but in an alphabet there is no reason for this (Japanese does employ 3 different scripts but for similar reasons, to explain ideogramms and the third is only used to transliterate foreign words). Could one of the scripts be "hieratic", one understood by only a select few (members of the priesthood e.g.)? But why write this along with a generally readable text, if this could provide the key to the decipherment of the hieratic script? And what of the third type of script? Could we be dealing with bilingual or tri-lingual inscriptions? Why then are there so few elements of the non-Greek script, if they would be translations of the whole main text? I really don't know, the whole thing seems as designed to be very flashy and mysterious; nationalism doesn't necessarily have to be the only force behind a forgery, one could do this for whatever reasons.

btw, which letters are [č] and [dʒ]? I have seen a couple of letters which look suspiciously close to cyrillic characters.

Possible. But look at the Egyptians (pre-Ptolemaic I mean). They had 3 differents types of writing. If we analyse the texts about the complexity of Mount Kogaionon, why shouldn't we consider the fact that there might be 3 different scripts, all of them specialised or just 1 or 2 and the others for the common population?



I already have a hard time with the fact that it came out of Eastern Europe; if I know what book you're referencing, it's filled with nationalistic bullshit of the worst kind.


Spare us of your intelligent comments.



The making of plate number 67 might give some clues - "...it has been made by applying a thin metallic cover on a specific block stamp..."
It's very debatable whether this is real or not. Plates below 67 are written in an unknown archaic language, so this might be the evidence to support what I have written above.

Thought I still find it mysterious that they appeared and weren't left in the basement of the museum.

[Ayce]

Not to offend anyone or draw too fine a point, yet other than it being just another disaster fantasy, no one I know takes the Black Sea deluge theory all that serious.
Even if you don' subscribe to the actual theory, the sea level did rise more or less gradually, forcing the population on it's shores to pack up and leave.

I think you have to agree that there is quite a lot of conservative arrogance on the academia in refusing to investigate the plates, though.

edyzmedieval: That bit of text was about plate 65, 2 pages back, plate 67 was unrelated, The beginning of the article on plate 67 just happened to be on the same page.

[Ibrahim]

it is an interesting idea after all. anyways.

I don't think that they mix all three egyptian scripts that often. all the paintings/ paper that haver mostly come down are in 1 or 2 Seperate scripts, not mixed together. It is doubtful that the dacians would do anything differently(they're poeple afterall). But then there is the possibility that the dacians wrote like greek copts, mixing greek and demotic in the coptic script.

in other words: the script itself may not actually provide a clue. try the drawings. that belltower like object isn't right. I dunno

[Tiberius Nero]

The reason for not mixing script, is that, when you have the generally readable text along with the text that you don't want to be generally readable, the first gives the key to decipherement of the second. Of course they might have grown beyond that consideration at some stage, who knows...

[Ibrahim]

I'd have to agree. but you'd still figure that they wouldn't unless one system has sounds the the other doesn't have. now if it does, its either a code, or it is indeed a fake.

wait one moment: you from exeter? (Isca don.)

[Ayce]

- 66 plates are written with the primary.
- 3 plates are written with the secondary. A number of plates written with the primary have a few words of the secondary on them. (mainly important characters with their status - Mato Boerebysto, Kotopol Čeneo, Mato Dačibalo)
- 1 plate with intermediate script (looks like a regional dialect, the plate doesn't follow the pattern of the usual plates made to be displayed in Sarmisegetuza - possibly from the Banat)
- Possible syllabic writing present on a few primary writing plates (mostly from Decebal's period) - not much of it though
- 4 plates written with anomalous scripts (alphabets certainly)
Note: I just counted them quickly, numbers may not be exact.

[Ibrahim]

I see. then it might be genuine, but as I said, script isn't everything: composition, artwok, method of production, petine deposites, etc need to be looked at, among other things.

[cmacq]

Even if you don' subscribe to the actual theory, the sea level did rise more or less gradually, forcing the population on it's shores to pack up and leave.

I think you have to agree that there is quite a lot of conservative arrogance on the academia in refusing to investigate the plates, though.



Conservative academic arrogance is one thing, yet that doesn't mater, as the major problem with a Black Sea Deluge Theory is the archaeology, or the lack of it. In other words a substantial material culture represented by literally many hundreds or thousands of sites that display relatively uniform expressions; without this there actually is no theory, but again just another History Channel disaster fantasy. One can not simply say we can't define the material culture because its under water. Additionally, 2006 Yanko-Hombach (editor) has published a very convincing counter argument; please see 'The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate and Human Settlement.'


Regardless, I don't understand how the BSD is tied to the lead plates? Alrighty then, has Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's name been brought up yet, and/or can anyone tell me why he might be involved with these lead tablets?

[Ayce]

Lack of archeology is a major problem for any theory when it comes to Eastern Europe. ~D


Regardless, I don't understand how the BSD is tied to the lead plates?

The BSD or a related theory might explain why the language on the plates sounds as it does. My comment on academic arrogance was strictly about the plates.

[cmacq]

Lack of archeology is a major problem for any theory when it comes to Eastern Europe. ~D



The BSD or a related theory might explain why the language on the plates sounds as it does. My comment on academic arrogance was strictly about the plates.

Right, returning to the tablets, as they are artefacts, the context of their recovery is the most important thing. From what I've read they can only be traced back to a basement? A giant red flag goes up if this is the case. Maybe a review of Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's contribution to Romanian history could, 'explain why the language on the plates sounds as it does,' better?

[Ayce]

There were 2 suspects in faking them: Bogdan Haşdeu and Nicolae Densuşianu. Haşdeu was accused of faking 2 other documents before: „The bârladean diploma” and „Iurg Koriatovici's hrisov”, but most people countered this idea (including him faking the other 2). Aurora Peţan:


Nimic din activitatea şi concepţiile lui [Hasdeu] nu se regăseşte în plăci. Acad. Al. Vulpe a susţinut o vreme că autorul ar fi fost B.P. Hasdeu, care ar fi vrut să-i demonstreze lui Gr. Tocilescu existenţa scrierii la daci. Însă Hasdeu credea în existenţa unui alfabet propriu dacilor, continuat de secuii din Transilvania, dar care nu are nici o legătură cu scrierile de pe plăci. Dar lucrul cel mai grav îl constituie absenţa din acest corpus a oricărei idei haşdeene cu privire la limba dacilor. Pentru Hasdeu limba dacilor era indo-europeană, de tip satem, înrudită, astfel, îndeaproape cu limbile baltice. El nu şi-a imaginat niciodată că limba dacă este o limbă neindo-europeană şi a comparat adesea rămăşiţele substratului cu sanscrita, vechea persă, limbile baltice, slave. Nici în privinţa vocabularului nu avem repere care să ne trimită la Hasdeu: dintre numeroasele cuvinte atribuite de el dacilor, doar două sau trei pot fi regăsite în aceste înscripţii, şi nici acelea cu certitudine. Mai mult, Hasdeu era un aprig apărător al latinităţii noastre. El a înfiinţat ziarul Traian şi revista Columna lui Traian şi vorbea mereu de Dacia lui Traian, nu de cea a lui Burebista sau a lui Decebal. Pentru Hasdeu, dacismul înseamnă întoarcere la izvoare, cultivarea şi conservarea individualităţii şi nicidecum renegarea latinităţii (din contră, când regele Carol I a urcat pe tron, Hasdeu susţinea că este ameninţată latinitatea neamului) sau exacerbarea substratului.

Short translation: None of his activity and conceptions reflect in the plated. He did think the Dacians had an alphabet, but he thought it was a predecessor of the Szekler alphabet and he considered that Dacian was indo-european, satem, closely related to Baltic languages. He never imagined it would be non-indo-european, comparing the substrate with sanskrit, old persian, slavic and baltic languages. Only 2 or three words that he attributed to Dacian match, even those with little certainty. And he was a devout supporter of latinity.

Densişianu's idea of a pelasgic non-indo-european language matches the tablets, but he wasn't a good enough linguist to make them, and he was too poor (his book was published after he died because of lack of money)

There are many hypothesis to the origins of the plates. Some say the originals were gold and either smelted or kept at the Royal Residence, taken to Moscow or kept at the National Bank HQ. Dan Romalo considers that the lead plates are originals. His arguments are presented in the book (download on page 1 or 2)

The gold originals story:


În anul 1875, cu ocazia construirii Castelului Peleş, [...] s-a descoperit un tezaur de aur, compus din mai multe tablete scrise în relief şi alte obiecte de aur. Din ignoranţă -tezaurul fiind privit doar ca valoare de aur- a fost cedat de către guvernul procarlist Lascăr Catargiu domnitorului Carol I de Hohenzollern. Operaţia a fost efectuată prin administraţia locală şi jandarmi, în cea mai mare taină şi, astfel, tezaurul cu piese de aur, care ar fi fost impresionante, a dispărut. Posterităţii au rămas doar copiile efectuate pe metal nepreţios de autorităţile locale, la atelierele metalice [...], care au constituit nucleul fabricii de cuie, înfiinţată apoi în Sinaia în anul 1892.

In the year 1875, on the occasion of the construction of the Peleş Castle a golden treasure was discovered composed of tablets with embossed writing. Ignorantly, the thesaurus was viewed only as gold - it was gifted by the pro-carlist govt of Lascăr Catargiu to Carol I Hohenzollern. The operation was made by the local administration and gendarmes, mostly in secret, and so the thesaurus was lost. Posterity was left only with copies made on lead by local authorities, at the metal works that constituted the nucleus of the Sinaia nail factory, founded in 1892.

The discovery was supposed to be made at St. Anne cave.The thing is that this talks about 40-60 plates. There were obviously more found in the basement of the National Archeology Museum, so the others could be either copies from another batch (the supposed one from Moscow and the National Bank), or originally made in lead. Or the hypothesis of original lead tablets is true, the gold tablets story being intoxication or local myth.

Alexandru Vulpe, current curator of the National Archeology Museum considers that the preconception that they are false stemmed from the moment when Vasile Pârvan looked at them and considered them faked, all generations afterwards considered the supposition true.

EDIT: A defense of the plates by Dan Romalo here (http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/romalo_olteanu.htm) (I am not going to translate it).

EDIT 2: Most plates were found in the basement of the NAM, but there were no evidences of where they were brought from (nothing written in any case).

EDIT 3: Here (http://www.romfest.org/rost/iul2005/istoria-dacilor.shtml) is an interview with mr. Romalo (Again I an mot going to translate the whole thing, unless enough of you ask for it)

EDIT 4: Săvescu bought in 2005 4 plates from a Bulgarian living in California, the plates were from south of the Danube.

[cmacq]

Castelului Peleş

So, the site of their recovery was the physical personification of modern Romanian nationalism, were the builder of Peleş Castle, King Carol I, the founder of Romanian National Independence, resided? Of course this alone inspires a much larger giant red flag, if this is indeed the case.

[Ibrahim]

anyone thinking: PILTDOWN ALERT!!? (one theory behind the hoax's motive was to promote the idea of human origions being in the UK)

[Ayce]

No, the plates were supposedly smelted to build the castle and copied in lead beforehand.

But that is if the gold original story is true, and the whole thing looks a bit shaky to me, cause only 2 of them can be traced back to these events. And I'm more inclined to accept Romalo's technical analysis (who's an engineer by trade) that the lead plates are mostly original.

[Ibrahim]

still, that does raise alot of eyebrows..think about it:

the plates were found in gold, conveniantly melted for use in building peles castle(and copied in lead-equally conveniant :inquisitive: ) and the 2 remaining ones can't tell anyone jack. that to me is raising suspicions enough. either this is indeed a hoax, or all the stars have lined up-but I have been wrong before...:beam:

[cmacq]

To be fair, in archaeological terms the context of the recovery would at best be classified as unknown, which is not very good. The Castle Story alone is so very bad and strongly suggests fraud. Again, the Copy Story is, as well, very bad and also suggests fraud. The reason the Copy Story is so bad is because, if one (a nationalist leader) would destroy the original gold tablets (a national treasure of paramount importance to a new nation similar to the UKs crown jewels) and go to the considerable trouble to replace them with lead copies, why instead, as was admitted that copies were made, wouldn't it be just as easy to create a hoax in order to establish a nationalist context for a new nation? Then there is the issue of a prepared history (a relatively modern construct) vs the chance survival of a royal archive. This is when all the stories surrounding the tablets begin to fall apart.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/Sophia_schliemann_treasure.jpg/180px-Sophia_schliemann_treasure.jpg

One need only look behind the Mask of Agamemnon to know this is a very common scenario. This is one reason why one must be so carefull, please read...

http://www.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

[Ayce]

I told you, I don't think the originals were gold (or the great majority of them anyway). The story could have been invented to add to the mystery of the Peleş Castle. On the other hand, fabricating the lead plates as a hoax, would not be in national interest, because at that time Carol I was seen by some as a threat to Romania's latinity (so was approaching Germany), and fabricated plates of the Getic language that seeks to redraw Dacian-Latin relation in the opposite way than most people thought would be a very bad political move.

Another reason why the gold story appeared could have to do with a bit of national arrogance: our ancestors wouldn't preserve important messages in a cheap (non-precious) material like lead, as the Sumerians did on clay...:wall:

Since the recovery of the plates is unknown (but probably not all in one stash, one plate looks like having a regional dialect (from Banat is the suspicion), 4 others have been recovered 3 years ago from a Bulgarian, these plates were from south of the Danube), the attention should be focused on the plates themselfs:

1. Message (checks out, mostly military, rituals and descriptions)
2. Consistency with historic events (checks out too, plus at least 3 elements were not known before WWII; if the Y turns out to really be [ju], and the č can be confirmed as a regional source for the latter Cyrillic and maybe Gothic letter forms for that sound, all plates except the 4 in anomalous scripts and weird architecture check out for anachronisms)
3. Method of production (so far we have Romalo's opinion, a separate investigation from an institution would also be recommended)
4. When they were made (if the leads are originals, radio carbon dating would solve that, I think a sample was taken by a foreign university for this purpose, but I haven't heard anything about it yet).

[Romano-Dacis]

cmacq, I think you're insisting too heavily on some sort of nationalist conspiracy. It's not like Carol I, a Hohenzollern, whose native tongue wasn't even Romanian, had any real attachment to the nation he ruled. I fail to see what Romanians would have to gain from hoaxing these tablets; maybe they could say their ancestors were literate, but there are enough legit artifacts to confirm that anyway ("DECEBALUS PER SCORILO" etc.).

There's also historical inaccuracies in your description of Carol (he did not create Romania as a state, Ioan Cuza did) but that is off-topic.

To me the plates look unnatural. Take a look at plate 42 for instance. The face looks like it was caused by pressing a mould onto the tablet. Also, the "fortress" in the lower right corner on the same tablet looks like a medieval city, and we find the exact same fort on plate 117. On plate 134 we see a medieval tower at the top, with that "dense" formation of soldiers below, which Paullus said might be unnatural. Plaque 18 shows a "rounded square" embossment on the temple which isn't displayed anywhere else, pointing to inconsistencies in the artistic style. Look at plaque 134. On the center-right you can see a face embossed in the plate that is facing forward at an angle. Did anyone do anything like this before the Middle Ages? From what I know, most classical art depicts faces either facing to the side or forward, never inbetween.

Also, has anyone even seen an archer on these plaques? I mean, for people who reverred the bow to such an extent that they thought it could bring down rain, the archer is missing completely. This would be like if Greeks decorated their pots with slingers instead of hoplites.

[Ayce]

They weren't that fond of the bow and arrow, it was important yes, but the various types of spear were used way more often. The most bow and arrowish were the ones living in what was in WWII Moldova and Transnistria. The bow was a support weapon (like the SAW nowadays)

And the theory goes that thin malleable metal plates served as molds for the lead ones, so that bulging at the edges confirms it.

[cmacq]

Again, as these are artefacts, and their authenticity is in doubt, one must not look at the artefacts, rather, one must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody, from the point of recovery (where the context is recorded in some detailed), to wherever they are redeposited. I believe the Schliemann story provides the reasoning for this.

Alright if you take away all of the stories, which I think is what you're saying, the context of their recovery is that they appear out of nowhere in a basement. Or is this another story. What I mean is, what is the actual date, the tablets were first photoed. As this may be the earliest form of documentation. Thus, unless they appear in an inventory of the national museum, the date and context would be the photographs. I hope you understand how important the context of their recovery actually is in establishing their authenticity.

[Ayce]

They were on the inventory of the National Museum of Archeology for over 100 years. It's just that their provenience is not known (who brought them in and exactly when). The photographs were taken in the forties (1940 and 1946) to preserve the message in case they were destroyed by the war or commie ransacking.

[cmacq]

They were on the inventory of the National Museum of Archeology for over 100 years. It's just that their provenience is not known (who brought them in and exactly when). The photographs were taken in the forties (1940 and 1946) to preserve the message in case they were destroyed by the war or commie ransacking.

Typically, the provenience refers only to the location, while the context covers all aspects of the recovery. For archaeology the provenience would include the date of the inventory, who made the entry, and location of where the artefact was recovered (site name, feature number, and using an outdated excavation method, a grid provenience; for example north 34657 x west 6754). The full context of the recovery would either appear in the excavation notes, a published report, or at the very least a newspaper account of the event. An archaeological context can run from very good to very poor. For example, a very good context in this case would be; elements of a royal archive, buried with other contemporary artefacts, found below a room used to store historic documents, found within a administrative structure full of minor artefacts that were contemporary with both the archive and the destruction of said building, which had not been disturbed, since they were sealed, by any intrusion. All of this found within an extensive contemporary administrative center that was destroyed and/or abandoned, which was known from other contemporary sources. On the other hand a very poor context appears to be better than what we have here.

Now, at this point I would question the evidence of when these artefacts were actually inventoried by the National Museum. Its not normal, but when artefacts are inventoried a note concerning some detail of the context of their recovery may be included. Plus the entry will be dated. This may particularly be the case if there was a question of authenticity and/or possible fraud. Indeed, that statement about the initial inventory by the National Museum, may in fact be just another story. And, again, where are the remaining tablets today? Even within archaeology today fraud is a very big problem, as I'm sorry to say that personally I've been involved in inadvertently uncovering several examples perpetrated by professionals in the region which I work.

[Ayce]

They were definitely inventoried after Vasile Pârvan checked them out (early 20th century), probably even earlier, when they found the stash in the basement. The 1940s photos were made for everything the museum had on it's inventory.

As for their current location, I don't know, I think most of the survivors are still present at the museum, but I can't be sure.

Scratch that, I found out: 8 were in private collections in by 2002, 35 appeared after the publication of the book in 2002/2003 and are now found at the National Archaeological Institute.