Talk:Kish tablet

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq Mid‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content

I haven't been able to figure out whether the inscription has been deciphered, and if so, what it is supposed to say. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that to the article. Took it from the picture description page. --BjKa (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Ordinary Person removed the alleged translation again, with the following comment in the edit summary: "Whoever entered that content detail in the image description must have misunderstood what Horne was referring to. The Kish tablet has not been deciphered in any fine detail." (see the article's history) --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this article: whether the writing on the Kish tablet has been deciphered or not. Why isn't this basic information already included in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should either say it is undeciphered, or include the meaning and reference it. If it has only been vaguely deciphered, we should explain that while including the rough meaning. 2A02:C7C:C48F:5C00:1800:595B:99B8:871 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original

The article currently says: "A plaster-cast of the artifact is today in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford." Great to know. And a photograph of a photograph of the artifact is today in the collection of Wikipedia, I suppose, although I don't think this should be mentioned in the article. But I think it is necessary to reveal where the original can be found! --BjKa (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The article Ashmolean Museum claims "Highlights of the Ashmolean's collection include The Kish tablet". Should be correcetd if it's not the original. --BjKa (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tablet from Oxford

I've put up an image of the real tablet from the Oxford Ashmolean museum. The previously displayed image (labelled as "The oldest writing in the world - The Sumerian Stone Tablet.jpg") is still kept below, although this is not a tablet from Oxford, as far as I could see; this was a scan from a 1907 book. The exact details of where it came from may be clarified further. They are clearly 2 different tablets. Y-barton (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the other tablet is an unprovenanced Sumerian tablet Y-barton (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the other one. There are millions of tablets, why in the world would we put up a picture of another tablet when we have the correct one? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]