I have to second that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Printable View
I have to second that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
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/~...2_diaspora.jpg
Also, based on that, the theory that the legend of Atlantis represented the Black Sea, center of the world, that suddenly flooded.
tip: bringing up Atlantis rarely lends credibility to a tenuous theory.
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.
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...
Actually it just says that if the deluge thing is correct, the references to Atlantis would actually be to a pre-deluge pontic kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
I daresay Minoan Crete and the Thera eruption make a better case for the Atlantis story though.
Doesn't help the only true dark age happened relatively soon after.....
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
Spare us of your intelligent comments.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.
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
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...
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.)
- 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.
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.
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.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayce
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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.Quote:
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.
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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 (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 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.
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.
anyone thinking: PILTDOWN ALERT!!? (one theory behind the hoax's motive was to promote the idea of human origions being in the UK)
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.
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:
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/wikiped...n_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
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).
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.
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.
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.