Talk:Kleines Schulerloch inscription

[Untitled]

The hoax concerns the nearby sketch of an animal and trap, belived to be about 15,000 to 25,000 years old. And that doubt based on the runes. Because the runes belived to be only obout 1400 years old. So not the runes may be a hoax, but the drawing. But people like to sign near existing drawings (as you can see till today). So today the scientists consider the drawing may be not a hoax. Even in other caves in France are later graffitis found near real old drawings. That's what the external German text says.

I cannot view the relevant pages on Google Books, but it is specifically the inscription whose authenticity is doubted. The suspicion that the inscription is a modern fake is based on the fact that the name Birg is not attested as such in Old High German, and the discovery that an authentic list of Old High German (specifically Old Bavarian or Old Alemannic) names contains in the same list, on the same page, or at least remarkably close to each other in the manuscript (I do not remember the details), both the name selprāt (a male name) – probably written selprat in the document, but the a is definitely long – and the name pirc, but when one examines the text more closely, it turns out that pirc is found at the beginning of a line and is only part of a name that was separated at a line wrap and the first part is at the end of the preceding line, namely lant, so the attested name is really lantpirc (a female name). So the reasoning goes as follows: The faker looked for real Old High German names, found suitable names that they liked in this manuscript, but failed to notice that the name is really lantpirc, not pirc. They took the names and – perhaps inspired by similar authentic inscriptions – constructed an inscription in pre-shift Old High German, simply by replacing p/t/c with b/d/g and using the archaic form leub (instead of Old Bavarian/Alemannic liup). That -birg only exists as a final member of compounded names is argued to be the tell-tale mistake of the hoaxer. That analogous inscriptions exist is not relevant because this was already accepted. AFAIK, IIRC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks like the source, an investigation of the charters, deeds or documents of the bishopric of Freising in the Carolingian period (primarily the 9th century). As you can see, they contain lots and lots of Old Bavarian names, typically with two members or sometimes uncompounded, but ending in -o (these are possibly nicknames or shortenings). The people named appear to be typically witnesses to the deeds. The element -pirc occurs several times, but never on its own (OCR mistakes are a problem with plain text search, admittedly). The name Selprat is attested twice (on p. 109), and the name Lantpirc occurs too, close to the Selprat attestations (on p. 104), but Lantpirc is not separated. What is separated, even closer to the Selprat attestations (on p. 107), is the name Hiltipirc, so perhaps I or my teacher misremembered the name. It appears that the hoaxer's source would not have been the original documents, but this compilation, which is even more plausible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. In the linked volume edited by Bammesberger and Waxenberger in 2006, Nedoma explains on pp. 351ff. that it was Eichner (1990) who came up with this argument, although Düwel (in the same volume) does not accept it. In the same volume, Eichner affirms his suspicion and adds to his argument that the authenticity of the inscription is dubious. (I think he doubts the authenticity of the drawing too, but can't view the relevant pages.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kleines Schulerloch inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110023620/http://www.altmuehltal.de/essing/geschichte/eiszeitgravur.htm to http://www.altmuehltal.de/essing/geschichte/eiszeitgravur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)