![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Untitled
editTo Tompw:
- There is nothing else known about this numeration system (as far as I know): neither where it comes from, nor how it developed.
- There are no other numeration systems that evolved from this one, the only possible relation with any other system is mentioned in the last section.
--Ecelan 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't have any kind of reference. It is simply based on an unreferenced piece on Spanish Wikipedia. Meller (2006) is cited for no apparent reason. I am tagging this as a hoax unless somebody can substantiate that this hypothesis exists. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to leave here the link to the discussion I had with Dbachmann about the source. The source is (was, as the information about the number system has been deleted) the book that was on the page from the beginning. I don't know why Dbachmann decided the book has nothing to do with the article, as he clearly has not read it.
- Personally I think that if Dbachmann didn't like the tone of the article, it would have been enough to make it clear in the beginning that it was a hypothesis of Christoph Sommerfeld, and comment the other possible hypothesis, instead of deleting the complete article. But, it's your Wiki, these are your rules, so I wish you all a good day.
- --Ecelan (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"numeral system"
editThe article as I found it, and as it remains in place on es-wiki is apparently based on the speculative idea by Sommerfeld (1994) that the ridges on the sickles may represent the numerals 1-29. The remainder, including the "cuneiform" and the "runic" stuff, was pure unsubstantiated nonsense. Needless to say, the article also failed to identify Sommerfeld 1994 as the author of this suggestion. Fwiiw, Chiriaco (2009) accepts the idea that the ridges might encode numbers as plausible, but rejects the association with the moon as fanciful, as apparently there are also numbers higher than 29. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Assessment comment
editThe comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Frankleben hoard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Would benefit from more on history and development of the system (if known), and if any subsquent numeration systems evolved from this. Also needs mroe references. Tompw (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 18:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)