As you might see, in the upper left corner; three symbols. Certainly distinguishable is the symbol ‘u’, appears, with the ‘boat’ ideogram. Preceding the symbol for ‘u’ is the first character shaped like the letter ‘C’. Quite obvious…is the raised relief of the outline of a woman in a long skirt with outstretched arms. Again, I ask; could this be the ‘Snake Goddess”. Will it positively date this piece and the Wisconsin tablet? AND… what does the obtrusive “S”, in the middle; mean? Is it an S? What you see is what I found. Not tricks, no illusions. I invite you to come and see them and the other pieces.
I’m not going to pretend to translate, just show anyone willing to view this piece; there is more to discover at this site.
Please present your arguments, I can only tell you where I unearthed them, not who or why they were made.
This shard was found at the same site as the Wisconsin tablet. There appears to be five legible symbols/characters of which may or may not be of the Minoan culture.
You decide. Most noticeable is the raised relief of the outline, of what appears to be the figure of a person in a long skirt and with outstretched arms. Could this be the ‘Snake Goddess” deity of the Minoan culture? And what of the ‘S’ symbol above the figure? Of the other three raised relief symbols, there is clearly the symbol for ‘u’ and the ideogram for ‘boat’. Not clear in this photo, I will post a much clearer photo very soon. Again, the time span for these symbols to be used in unison, gives way for deducing as well as speculation. Rest assure this, too; came from previously disturbed ground, at a construction site from 1962. All this in an area of 6X8 feet and a depth of 2 feet. But my blueberry bushes will thank me for removing this from their roots.
If Rita could please post the third photo of this shard, which is a better perspective; it gives a clearer view of the other symbols in the upper left corner of the shard. Thank you Rita. You are quite marvelous and very indulging.
This area of Wisconsin, prior to any European explorers; was known to have abundant minerals. This fact was noted by the explorer Champlain and his protégé Etienne Brule. Both explorers were versed in Native American language and listened to and conveyed the stories of the aboriginals about the mines having already been dug. The Native Woodland Americans did not use these minerals as a common practice, in this region of Wisconsin. Their first experience with the use of lead was when the explorers demonstrated the thunderous power of the gun. There were lead, copper and zinc mines in this area.
Also observed by the explorers were well established roads along ridges and rivers. When the local inhabitants were asked who built the roads and what were they for, they replied; the Spanish built them. This conversation was with E. Brule.
Were they referencing an unknown tribe as we here in the U.S. refer to Canadians or Latinos, which would be a very vague usage, rather than narrowing the locale of the citizen to Ottawa or Durango? But my question would be, why would the locals allow another tribe to construct roads in their territory. The construction had to be quite lengthy and what mode of transportation would require the use of such roads. What beast of burden were being used?
I find quite odd that five towns along the Wisconsin river have Roman or Latin names.I’m not saying those towns were begun by the Romans, it’s just odd.
So, in my wild imagination; I suggest the Minoan culture inhabited this area of the Great Lakes, but I don’t know when. I will persist in defining a timeline for the script on the tablet, based on the differences between evolutions of script of the Minoan, Cuneiforms, local natives and anything else I can find. Right now I’m suggesting the period the script was written prior to the 5th century BCE and after the 20th century BCE, based on symbol changes. Let me know your thoughts.
The Minoan culture were extremely skilled in metallurgy and they could have had symbols of these noble metals within their language. Perhaps they were never found, until now.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
James R Heath