JAHA SHENGELIA0 lg

Ramaz SHENGELIA DISCOVERY OF UNKNOWN SCRIPT CHARACTERS IN GEORGIA: THE BASHPLEMI LAKE TABLET Michael Shengelia Museum of History of Georgian Medicine Georgian National Academy of Sciences Tbilisi State Medical University, Georgia r.shengelia@tsmu.edu Levan GORDEZIANI Faculty of Humanities of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Department of History of Ancient Countries, Georgia levan.gordeziani@tsu.ge Abstract: In Georgia, numerous sites date back to the Bronze Age. Nearby Bashplemi Lake, the site of the discovery of a basalt tablet bearing an inscription with unknown characters, is the site where the skull of a 1.8-million-year-old hominin, the first European, was discovered. This tablet, which bears 60 signs, 39 of them different, raises the question of the origin of the Georgian script, proto-Georgian. While the basalt on which it is based is known to be of local origin, its meaning is unknown and there remains a long way to go to decipher it. An initial comparative analysis conducted with over 20 languages shows that the characters, which could belong to an aboriginal Caucasian population, beside proto-Georgian and Albanian writing signs, bear some similarities with Semitic, Brahmani, and North Iberian characters. Nikoloz TUSHABRAMISHVILI Ilia State University, Department of Arts and Science Centre for Paleoenvironment Reconstruction and Archaeological Research, Tbilisi, Georgia niloloz_tushabramishvili@iliauni.edu.ge Nodar POPORADZE Georgian Technical University Department of Applied Geology, Tbilisi, Georgia nodar_poporadze@yahoo.com Othar ZOURABICHVILI Historical Georgian Association Chatou, France zourabichvilio@gmail.com Keywords: Georgia, proto-Georgian, Caucasian, Inscription, Bashplemi. INTRODUCTION Late in the autumn of 2021, a tablet was discovered in Dmanisi Municipality (historical Dbaniskhevi), Georgia, nearby Bashplemi lake. While fishing in the artificially impounded water body in the interfluve between the right tributaries of the Mashavera river, some locals came across an engraved tablet. This book-sized tablet bears 60 signs or characters, 39 of which are different from one another. The engravings leave the impression of an unknown script (Fig. 1). SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS Lake on a volcanic plateau The archeological and historical site that is a point of our interest includes an artificial body of water and its vicinity (Fig. 2). It is located on a Dmanisi volcanic plateau (Fig. 3) between streams called Mamutli and Karaklisi, Dmanisi Municipality, South Georgia (latitude: 428 629 (41015′32.65″); longitude: 4 568 005 (44008′46.33″)). Bashplemi Lake is the name given to the water body by the locals. The artifact was found in late autumn, when the level of water was the lowest. The lake, surrounded by hills, is located at 1.647 m above sea level and is abundant in fish (Fig. 4). Road described in historical records The road to Bashplemi Lake runs along Tbilisi-Sadakhlo main road and then turns to the right, southwestward. A few kilometers right of the latter village, northward, begins the road leading to the plateau. The first few 96 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–3/2024 St u dies hundred meters are paved with flat stones, followed by a section where the completely damaged pavement disappears. Thereafter, a well-preserved section of the road begins, which is a few tens of meters long. It is a heavy road. The road is an artery described in Georgian historical records1, which began at Kldekari pass of Trialeti range and connected Shida Kartli, by means of its western, eastern, and southern branches to Armenia as well as other southern countries. It is believed that the road was paved in the medieval period. Geological structure and tectonics Geomorphologically, according to the tectonic layout scheme of the territories of Georgia (Gamkrelidze 2000), the Bashplemi Lake and its surroundings are located in the Gektapi subzone of the Lok-Karabakh zone, the folded system of Lesser Caucasus (Anti-Caucasus). The territory is built of Upper Pliocene – Lower Quaternary (βN23-Q) volcanogenic rocks: continental sub-alkali basalts, andesite porphyres, andesite basalts and andesites. We examined both a sample taken from the inscribed tablet and rock samples from the lake surroundings. Finally, we conclude that the samples of the basalt structures around the Bashplemi Lake and the inscribed tablet are identical: Visually, as well as in their mineral and chemical composition, they represent intact volcanic rock—basalt. THE REGION’S HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Brief history of the region The first source in which Mashavera gorge and Dbaniskhevi appear is a list of Georgian clergymen participating in a Church Council held in 5062. Archaeological evidence suggests human settlements on Dmanisi territory since the Early Bronze Age3. Archeological discoveries have verified the presence of well-developed metallurgy in the Late Bronze Age. In this respect, the existence of Taguti mount and a village with a similar name seems to be quite interesting. In proto-Georgian language, the word tagi means copper slag and has been maintained in contemporary Zan languages. Christianity spread here in the same period as in other parts of Georgia. During the sixth to eighth centuries, Dmanisi was a diocesan with a functional cathedral. The city of Dmanisi first appears in sources dating to the ninth century, a period of Arab dominance. However, a new power appears in the 1080s, the Seljuk Empire. In 1123, David IV the Builder completely redeems Dmanisi. In 1125, it was subject to complete royal control, which boosted the advancement of the city during the twelfth to thirteenth centuries: increased trade, the development of crafts and mintage. The caravan route to Anatolia and Western Asia ran across these places. It was also called the Camel Road, hinting that the ultimate destination was in Central Asia, far beyond Western Asia. It may be considered as a section of the Great Silk Road. At the end of the fourteenth century, Dmanisi was invaded by Tamerlan and, by 1486, by Yaqub Khan’s forces. From the 1 2 3 BERDZENISHVILI 2014. BERDZENISHVILI 2014. JAPARIDZE 1966. sixteenth century, the city was on the decline, its economic and cultural life destroyed. In the late sixteenth century, Dmanisi was conquered by the Ottoman Empire for a brief period and, in the early seventeenth century, by Persia. In the eighteenth century, the city was finally devastated and emptied. In the nineteenth century, migration processes began, mostly from the neighboring countries and regions. History of the archeological excavations conducted in the region Excavation works in Dmanisi started in 19364, which revealed the city gate, some paved streets, a tunnel leading to the river, and numerous ruins of houses. Abundant local ceramics dating back to the ninth to eleventh centuries, and especially the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, coins belonging to the period from the eleventh to thirteenth century (mostly Georgian), tools, weapons and jewelry made of gold and silver were also discovered5. During works conducted to pull a fiber optic cable into a duct at a location called Nagzauri, between Gantiadi and Nusi villages, a few kilometers to the north-east from Bashplemi Lake, an early medieval settlement and a church complex were found. Approximately 170 artifacts and fragments with carved images of humans, animals, and birds were also found. Embossed and carved Georgian Asomtavruli inscriptions are preserved on a stone cross and its fragments from the same territory6. In the 1980s, archeologists discovered animal bones, including remains of extinct rhinoceros—Etruscan rhinoceros7 characteristic of the Early Pleistocene. The first stone tools were discovered in 1982. In 1999 and 2001, excavations conducted in Dmanisi region revealed hominid skulls and jaw bones. Their age was determined as 1.8 million years8. Later, they were named Homo Georgicus9. These facts provide evidence of the continuous existence of ancient settlements in the region till the Late Middle Ages. Vicinity of Bashplemi Lake The upper reach of the Mashavera river basin and vicinity of Bashplemi Lake have never been studied from the viewpoint of archaeology. It is plain at a glance that the territory is interesting. A close look at the white stones scattered around the uninhabited area distinguishes geometrical figures such as rectangles, squares, circles, ellipses, semicircles and sectors. In certain parts of the territory, there are small mound-like hills with apparent vegetation. During the very first expedition, surface artifacts such as fragments of pottery and a stone mortar (Fig. 5) were discovered. The obsidian lamellae with serrated edges and a scraper with some apparent signs of use were found there too. Drone research (Fig. 6) revealed that the area of approximately 4 km2 is divided into geometrical shapes contoured 4 5 6 7 8 9 MUSKHELISHVILI 1938. JAPARIDZE 1966 JAPARIDZE ET ALII 1978. KAKHIANI ET ALII 2012. VEKUA 1983. VEKUA ET ALII 2002; RIGHTMIRE ET ALII 2006. LORTKIPANIDZE ET ALII 2013. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 97 St u d i es by means of white stones brought from somewhere else. Special, in-depth studies showed entire sets of regular circles that could be burial mounds; the rectangular, semicircular and combined geometric figures could be the remains of houses, defense structures and places of worship. We find interesting the rectangle with a circular inset in the upperright corner. It is a replica of the shapes of the Didnauri Settlement discovered by K. Pitskhelauri in Shiraki, in the interfluve of the Iori and Alazani rivers, dated back to the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC. Georgian historical tradition (Georgian medieval historical manuscripts) Georgian literacy was established in the third century BC, by king Pharnavaz. There three types of Georgian alphabet that developed in different historical periods: Asomtavruli, i.e. Mrgvlovani, Nuskhuri (since the ninth century) and Mkhedruli (since the eleventh century). The first two types appear in hundreds of thousands of rather well-studied Georgian manuscripts and epigraphic monuments, while the last one is an alphabet used of contemporary Georgian language. THE CONTEXT OF CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES ANCIENT SCRIPT STUDIES IN GEORGIA Sources by Apollonius of Rhodes (Apoll. Rhod. Arg. IV, 277–281), John of Antioch (FHist. Gr.IV. 548), Charax of Pergamum (FHist. Gr.II. 492–493), Palaephatus (Palaephati. Περι; απίστων, XXXI.) and others provide data about the existence of written language in ancient Colchis. Chrysography, writing in gold, is a term used by Charax of Pergamum to denote this script. Referring to this fact, in his Description of the Golden Fleece, St. Eustathius of Thessalonica (Eust. Dion. Per. 689) says: “The purpose of the Argonautic expedition was to learn the method of the Golden Script”. Apparently, the Golden Script was a special, peculiar art of writing, applied in Colchis. Notwithstanding numeral ancient sources, Georgian historiography remains traditionally silent about the Colchis script. The unnatural fact that the Colchis script appears in none of ancient Georgian sources calls for explanation. The primary reason why the samples of the script haven’t been preserved is that, according to all the above-mentioned authors, Colchis used bio-organic writing materials which could have hardly been preserved in the climatic conditions of west Georgia. It is also worth noting that on the territory of Colchis (west Georgia) hundreds of mounds (probably of Bronze Age), the so-called “Dikha-gudzubas” are not studied yet. Historically, only three Caucasian nations had written languages of their own: Georgians, Armenians and Albanians. Albanian belongs to dead languages. However, the Udians living in Azerbaijan and Georgia today, regard themselves as heirs of this ethnic group. The present paper properly discusses characters and groups of characters discovered on the territory of present-day Georgia, mostly Late Bronze period and antiquity, and unified under the name of a Proto-Georgian script by various researchers like10 or under the name – Colchian runes11. Georgian, Armenian and Albanian scripts in fact appeared after the spread of Christianity. There is a reasonable doubt that epigraphs and manuscripts written in the pre-Christian versions of these scripts were destroyed as a result of Christian domination. In the near vicinity of Nekresi Church, east Georgia, was discovered a graphitic inscription dated back by the researchers who found it by the first to the third century AD, i.e., two centuries earlier the official recognition of Christianity in eastern Georgia12. In accordance with The history of studying pre-Christian scripts in Georgia begins with the archeological studies of the ancient city of Mtskheta, which was the capital before the fifth century. In the 1920s–1950s period, 10 ancient epigraphic monuments were discovered there (five Greek, two Hebrew, one Pahlavi (Middle Persian), and one Aramaic). P. Ingorokva traces the influence of Georgian language in these samples13. In addition, one Greek-Aramaic bilingual stele was found there. A graphitic inscription belonging to the period before Christianity officially spread to Georgia (cal AD 2–3) was found in Nekresi Monastery (extreme east of Georgia) and city ruins. Over the last two or three decades, attention has been paid to the so-called cryptographic images discovered in the territory of Georgia (especially in the mountainous regions). These images have been intensively gathered and studied14 (Great Catalogue of Petroglyphs of Georgia 2010). Regarding their fragmented nature, they are unreadable; however, the question of their origin and graphical similarity to some other alphabets has also been debated15. It is highly likely that these stones were reused: The oblong ones, mostly, were built into the walls of Christian chapels and household units constructed later, which complicates the research. The eleventh to ninth century BC image on the altar discovered on Graklian Hill, Shida Kartli16, seems to be an inscription. It has not yet been deciphered. It is short and differs from the alphabets (Fig. 7). The seals discovered in different regions of Georgia are noteworthy. Characters on them (mostly intaglio) undoubtedly contain certain information and are part of an ancient alphabet17. In this respect, the sealing plates discovered in the 1950s in Khovle (9–8 cal BC) (Fig. 8) and Tskhinvali (Fig. 9) are remarkably interesting. The characters on them are rather numerous, more than 20 on each. The Tskhinvali sealing plate was discovered by accident and, due to the absence of archeological context, it is difficult to date. Characters on it seem to be more systematic and, compared with the other seals, it looks more like a script (Fig. 10). On the seals discovered in Didnauri, in the burial of twelfth to thirteenth cal BC, we found a character that resembled the Greek A and B linear alphabets, which commonly denote wine. This seal, we believe, belonged to a 13 APAKIDZE 1963; FÄHNRICH 2013; LORTKIPANIDZE 2002; LICHELI 2001; SHENGELIA 2010; GIGAURI 2010. 11 KVRIVISHVILI 2010. 12 CHILASHVILI 2000. 10 98 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 14 15 16 17 APAKIDZE 1963. GIGAURI 2010. SHENGELIA 2010. LICHELI 2020. LORTKIPANIDZE 1969; SHANSHASHVILI/SHERAZADISHVILI 2013. St u dies tax gatherer, based on the small bone seals discovered there with symbols denoting crops and quantities. Quite interesting opinions have been offered on the ornaments of the ancient pottery discovered in Vani (west Georgia) and Dablagomi. These ornaments are believed to be informative18, and some scientists19 even regard them as fragments of the ancient Colchian script, the existence of which was believed by Greek and Roman authors (Diodorus of Sicily, Charax of Pergamon etc., CA, v.1). Moreover, these authors clearly point out to the existence of the Colchian script in the period when it was unusual to nations. However, no actual and reliable traces of the Colchian script have yet been discovered. This is due to inappropriate scales and depths of archeological excavations on the territory of historic Colchis, and the possibility that ancient Colchians mostly used biodegradable materials (wood, leather, etc.) to write on them. The local humid climate and soil should also be considered. In an article T. Parchukidze20 writes about the inscription (the so-called Rhodope inscription) near Petritsoni Georgian Monastery (Bachkovo, Bulgaria), which, according to legend, was deciphered in the twelfth century by Georgian philosopher Ioane Petritsi, to the astonishment of his contemporaries. Some characters in this inscription are somewhat analogous with the Bashplemi inscription (Fig. 11). In the 2000s, Kvashilava21 tried to decipher the Phaistos disc (1850–1600 BC). The attempt was followed by his works on the Greek A linear script22, in which the author regards Proto-Kartvelian language as the linguistic substrate for these scripts, raises important questions, and reaches important conclusions. THE TABLET FROM A TECHNICAL VIEWPOINT Artifact authenticity It is quite natural that while studying any accidentally discovered artifact, the first question that arises is whether it may be faked. This problem has numerous aspects; however, the shortest way to resolve the issue is to find a similar artifact or even a much smaller and insignificant one either in the same area or in its vicinity. It is understood that our research is mostly focused on this aspect along with the clarification of the general archeological context. According to the currently available data, the situation may be assessed as follows: 1. Signs on the basalt tablet show similarities with several ancient scripts, and it requires vast knowledge and experience to compile them. 2. People who found the artifact are ordinary peasants, and it would be illogical to think of them as falsifiers. Their financial incentive was insignificant. 3. When those people saw the artifact for the first time, to ‘see the inscription better,’ they scrubbed the surface with something made of iron (presumably a nail). Fortunately, the scratches caused no changes. Their depth is 0.36 mm, 18 19 20 21 22 LORTKIPANIDZE 2002; LICHELI 2001. KVRIVISHVILI 2010. PARCHUKIDZE 2019. KVASHILAVA 2010. KVASHILAVA 2017. while the depth of carved characters is 1–3 mm. No falsifier would ever do anything like this and render the authenticity of an artifact questionable. 4. Microscopic examination revealed that the inscription technology coincided with the age of epigraphy, although it is rather developed and refined. 5. The territory adjacent to the lake seems to be quite rich from the viewpoint of archaeology. Drone photographs and a survey of the area evidence the fact. Fragments of pottery, a stone mortar and pieces of obsidian (artifacts) found in the surface layer, at first glance, bring us closer to the Bronze Age. We believe that at this stage, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the artifact. Technical characteristics of the tablet Tablet dimensions: 24.1 × 20.1 cm; surface and edges unprocessed, naturally irregular and waved; thickness: 0.8– 1.8 cm; color: greyish with pale insertions, and the central part of the reverse is of reddish color; density: 2.6 g/cm3. The tablet was subject to optical and electronic microscopy at Georgian Technical University (Prof. N. Jalabadze) and examined at the Mineralogy Laboratory (Prof. N. Poporadze). It was proved that the tablet was made of vesicular basalt, which is common in the area. Inscription techniques A detailed visual examination revealed notched points in the depth of the carved characters. Basalt is a strong and hard-to-cut material. The initial notched contours of the characters were made using a conic drill and were then connected using some smooth and round-head tool. A deep, pointed notch made using a conic drill was left at the bottom of a linear groove (Fig. 12). THE INSCRIPTION ON THE BASHPLEMI TABLET Description of the inscription The characters carved into the tablet can be conventionally divided into seven registers: Register 1 at the top and Register VII at the bottom (Fig. 13). Part of this tablet has been broken off, particularly on its left side. It is difficult to say how large the missing part was; however, as a rule, the upper first registers of inscriptions, which are shorter and contain some introductive (title) information, are center aligned. According to this logic, not much of the text was lost: the five-member sequence of characters is complete on both sides. However, on the left side, an artifact can be seen: an incomplete arc and an inclined horizontal line that could imply that the register continued slightly further. The last, Register VII, seems to be a complete one, although it could be continued to the right. We could talk about a certain degree of damage. No answer to the main question has yet been found: Was the original tablet given a rectangular or elliptic shape, or was the inscription made on a stone of natural shape? There are 39 characters on the tablet. Some of them are repeated and in total, there are 60 characters on the stone. They are distributed through seven lines or registers. We count them from left to right: No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 99 St u d i es 0 is the number of the extreme-left artifact and it cannot be compared with any other symbols due to suspected damage of the edge. The first register includes six characters (numbered from 1 to 6). In the fourth character, vertically aligned three points must be a dividing mark in a phrase or a numeral. The second register includes 12 characters (numbered from 7 to 18). No. 9 is a full stop; Nos. 13 and 14 were believed to be separate characters but they reappear together in the fifth register (Nos. 48 and 49). It is a set of characters in which character No. 14 (No. 49), a short vertical line, might have some auxiliary function; the long vertical line (No. 39) must be a separate character. At the end of this register, there are three upside-down, angle-shaped characters. Regarding the graphical differences, we suppose that No. 15 is a separate character, while Nos. 16 and 17 could be components of a single character. However, considering the lowest positional location of this character (No. 17), it could be an auxiliary to the characters (Nos. 27 and 28) of the third lower register (e.g., a determinative). The register ends with a point. The third register includes 13 characters (numbered from 19 to 31). The three-point character (No. 25) appears here again. It was difficult to make out the characters in the end (Nos. 29, 30 and 31), either because they were carved later or because they simply wore out under physical impact. They are hardly legible. Additionally, the graphics of character No. 31 are different. Perhaps No. 30 had to be considered together with the lower No. 31. These three characters create a particularly dense cluster. The fourth register includes 12 characters (numbered from 32 to 43). The three-point one appears here again (No. 40). The register ends with a hardly visible worn-out character (No. 43). The fifth register includes 11 characters (numbered from 44 to 54). Nos. 47 and 54 are aligned in the upper part of the register and are of particular interest. The sixth register includes only three characters: Nos. 55, 56 and 57. The seventh register includes three characters: Nos. 58, 59 and 60. The distribution of characters is as follows: 1. Twenty-one unique characters: 9, 11, 12, 15, 21, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 54, 57 and 59. 2. Thirteen characters appear twice: (1–53); (2–22); (3–42); (6–56); (7–58); (10–38); (13–48); (14–49); (16–17); (19–27); (20–60); (24–52) and (34–51). 3. Three characters are repeated three times: (4–25–40); (8–23–37) and (30–35–55). 4. The full stop is the only character repeated four times: (5–18–44–46). Directionality of the inscription The directionality of the inscription is unclear. It is either left to right or vice versa. It might also be boustrophedon. If we assume that the first register includes an address or an addressee and the three-point character marks the end of the phrase, the writing direction might be right to left to separate the addressee (deity, king, etc.) from the rest of the 100 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 text; then comes the part written in the same direction, or boustrophedon. If it were a complete boustrophedon, the same character in different lines should have different orientations. Characters No. 10 in Register 2, No. 38 in Register 4 and No. 50 in Register 5 might be an example of boustrophedon, but characters No. 13 and 14 in Register 2 as well as characters No. 48 and 49 in Register 5 do not fit this assumption. Typologically, the inscription can be of a combined nature. Notably, 24 of 700 Egyptian hieroglyphs were symbols of consonants, while on the bases of Babylonian cuneiform characters spread in the north, 29 alphabetic symbols appeared. Additionally, the inscriptions discovered in Ras Shamra are written in north Syrian alphabetic cuneiform characters. An alphabetic list of Ugaritic cuneiforms was discovered there too. Twenty-five cursive characters (fourteenth century BC) were discovered on Sinai Peninsula, the transient phase between the hieroglyphs and the Phoenician alphabet23. We needed this short historical insight to explain our position and logics at the moment when we were focused on recognizing the type of Bashplemi inscription, a transient script. This transience implies the possibility that logograms, syllabograms, morphemes and alphabetic characters are all used in a single inscription. Comparative analysis of the graphical representation of characters To examine the characters on the stone discovered at Bashplemi Lake, we used the comparative method, with due regard to globally recognized classification and approaches24 25 . Applying modern computer methods adapted to our purposes would also be of interest26. Generally, the Bashplemi inscription does not repeat any script known to us; however, most of the symbols used therein resemble ones found in the alphabets of the Middle East, as well as those of geographically remote countries such as India, Egypt and West Iberia. The shape of certain characters is reminiscent of the Proto-Kartvelian script27 that, according to V. Licheli, appeared in the late fourth century BC on Colchian and Iberian territories28. Similarity with the seals of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages found in Georgia is also worth mentioning. The histogram summarizing graphical similarities between the Bashplemi inscription and other living and dead languages (Fig.14) shows that the graphical shapes of the Bashplemi inscription mostly resemble the characters of the Proto-Kartvelian script29. To establish the graphical shapes and meanings of the scripts used in different epochs and regions, we resorted to the scientific literature30 31 as well as special resources in social networks (Tables 1, 2, and 3). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 TSERETELI 1955. DANIELS/BRIGHT 1996. COULMAS 2003. GILLAM 2003. FÄHNRICH 2013. LICHELI 2020. FÄHNRICH 2013. KARAKHANYAN/SAFYAN 1970. MOVSISYAN 2006. St u dies The hypothetical assumption that the language of the inscription belonged to the Aboriginal Caucasian population may be based on the fact that the tablet is of local mineralogical origin. We believe that the still-undeciphered symbols on the seals discovered on the territory of pre-Christian Georgia, the so-called Colchian runes, Grakliani Hill characters, and the graphics of Georgian Mrgvlovani/NuskhaKhutsuri alphabet, along with the assumption about the uninterrupted genetic continuity of the ancient population till the first millennium BC32, enables us to hypothesize that the language and graphics of the inscription belong to the aboriginal population. Special attention should also be paid to the similarity with Phoenician and Albanian scripts, although it does not significantly expand the geographical area. We note that Caucasian Albania, the greater part of which was located on the territory of contemporary and historic Georgia, ethnically, culturally and genetically was extremely close to the Kartvelian world. Regarding this unity, such similarity does not seem strange. Relations with Phoenician and other scripts is an issue for separate research, and it does not seem to be out of general context: The modern theory about Phoenician, Greek, Georgian and other Near Eastern alphabets having common roots33 is quite widespread. As for the graphical similarity of the script used in Bashplemi tablet, with North Iberian and Brahmic scripts, the similarity seems strange at the first glance. With regard to similarity with North Iberian script, it’s enough to remember a once popular and, in our opinion, undeservedly forgotten theory about the similarity of Georgian and Bask languages34 35. Besides, numerous works dedicated to parallels between Georgian and Indian languages have already been published by Georgian and foreign authors. Similarities between Georgian/Kartvelian languages and Sanskrit would be of interest to researchers of the relationships between Caucasian-Anatolian and Indian civilizations in the second millennium. Language and contents of the inscription Analyzing the Bashplemi Lake inscription in a general linguistic context, several views can be offered: (i) It is still early to make any specific conclusions about the language of the inscription. (ii) Irrespective of the similarity of several graphemes with Phoenician and Aramaic, here, the presence of the Semite language can probably not be considered, provided that if the vertically located three points (Nos. 4, 24 and 39) are regarded as the sign dividing phrases, no such things are used in Semite scripts. However, in Bashplemi characters, we can easily see the so-called endpoints either at the beginning or at the end of a shape—round, wide notches that could simply be related to the method and style of carving—or we can add a greater and more significant function and identify them as the well-known method of vowelization. We regard as very interesting the three-line inscription on the stone built into a newer wall of the so-called Red Church (eleventh to thirteenth century) on the left side of Pinezauri River, near Dmanisi36, in which some letters and straight lines 32 33 34 35 36 KOPTEKIN ET ALII 2023. GAMKRELIDZE 1989. VOGT 1955. DZIDZIGURI 1978. BERDZENISHVILI 2014, 153. have the end points, i.e., they repeat the style, or techniques used with Bashplemi stone (Fig. 15). Red Church is located a few kilometers from Bashplemi. (iii) Furthermore, we can observe some similarities with several linear and Ancient Greek graphemes, although it is difficult to talk about the use of an Indo-European language. It should be noted that the characters resembling Indo-European graphemes comprise only 20–22% of the Bashplemi inscription, and in this respect, as mentioned earlier, they are much fewer than the other alphabets, particularly the Caucasian scripts. Contents of the inscription Considering the many characters in the inscription that, presumably, represent numerals, it may describe one of the following: (i) successful conquering wars and the property looted during them; (ii) a construction process and its results, that is, it can be the so-called ‘construction inscription;’ and (iii) a religious inscription, probably unifying all the above-mentioned in the form of a dedication to some deity. CONCLUSION A group of scientists was established to study the artifact and assess the environment where it was discovered. The group, led by Academician Ramaz Shengelia included Academician Konstantine Pitskhelauri (archaeologist), Professor Levan Gordeziani (historian), Professor Nikoloz Tushabramishvili (archaeologist), and Gia Kvashilava (linguist). Professor Vakhtang Licheli (archaeologist) familiarized himself with the materials and opined that the hypothetical pieces of the artifact or other epigraphic specimens should be intensively sought. His provisional conclusion was as follows: 1. The graphical shapes of the tablet discovered are samples of a script. The characters on the tablet undoubtedly represent an alphabet. 39 original characters reappear so as to give 60 characters altogether; 2. According to mineralogical analysis, the inscription is made on basalt of local origin. The method of inscribing on a basalt stone is original to a certain extent. The inscription was made by means of drills, presumably two different types, and some abrasive material; 3. Graphic comparison of the characters with tens of syllabic and alphabetic scripts identified relative, not full, similarity with each one. Similarities were mostly identified while comparing the characters from Bashplemi inscription with Caucasian scripts (Georgian Mrgvlovani, Albanian, proto-Georgian). As for other scripts, similarities with Northern, Brahmi and Semitic scripts were revealed which is a matter of particular interest. The direction of the inscription is horizontal, from-right-to-left or vice versa. According to the analysis of the sequence of characters, it’s less likely that it’s a boustrophedon; 4. At this point, it is impossible to date back the tablet; however, taking into consideration the graphical shapes of the inscription and the artefacts discovered during shallow studies of the area where the tablet was found, the inscription may be dated back to the Late Bronze/Early Iron Ages. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 101 St u d i es 5. Archaeological excavations carried out at this archaeologically abundant location will provide answers to all other questions. Deciphering the inscription discovered in historical Dbaniskhevi can become a remarkably interesting and significant event and this can possibly change the stereotypes about certain historical phenomena, as well as key aspects of the origination and development of the scripts globally. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Access to the artifact and the studies conducted were associated with certain difficulties. Organizing the investigation expeditions, collecting additional evidence and conducting the necessary research required proper funding. In this respect, the historical Georgian Community in France, and its president, personally, Mr. Othar Zourabichvili, have provided invaluable support. Without this support, we would not have had access to the artifact and the remarkably interesting archeological site. Initial scientific-expert studies were conducted at Georgian Technical University and for this, we are very grateful to Academician David Gurgenidze, the Rector, Deputy Rector in the sphere of science, Professor Zurab Gasitashvili, Badri Gogia, staff member of the same University, Head of Microscopy Department, Professor Nikoloz Jalabadze. We would like to particularly emphasize the contribution of Mr. David Barbakadze, Head of the Economic Department of GTU, to the organization of the initial survey and expedition. We thank Mr. Pridon Lobzhanidze, the artist, restorer, and IT professional Irakli Khutsishvili for their assistance in identifying paleographic characters and making graphical copies. We thank the staff members of Michael Shengelia Museum of the History of Georgian Medicine for their generous support and collaboration: Ekaterine Machitidze, Tamar Gogolashvili, Levan Jojua, Ivliane Pailodze and Dimitri Amirejibi. REFERENCES APAKIDZE 1963 Apakidze, A., Cities and Urban Life in Ancient Georgia. (V. I SMEA Publishing House). BERDZENISHVILI 2014 Berdzenishvili, D., Essays about Historical Geography of Kvemo Kartli (Publishing House Cezanne). BERDZENISHVILI 1965 Berdzenishvili, N.: Issues of the History of Georgia, II (Publishing House Metsniereba). CHILASHVILI 2000 Chilashvili, L.: Pre-Christian Georgian Inscriptions of Nekresi. (Kartvelology N°7), Tbilisi. COULMAS 2003 Coulmas, F.: Writing Systems. An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) (Cambridge University Press). DANIELS/BRIGHT 1996 Daniels, P.T./Bright, W.: The World’s Writing Systems (Oxford University Press). 102 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 DZIDZIGURI 1978 DZIDZIGURI, SH.. ბასკები და ქართველები (Basques and Georgians). Sabchota Sakartvelo. 306FÄHNRICH 2013 Fähnrich, H.: Die Ältesten Georgischen Inschriften (Brill), M03 30 – 252 pp. GAMKRELIDZE 2000 Gamkrelidze, I.P., Again, about tectonic fracturing of the territory of Georgia. Proc. of Institute of Geology of Georgian Academy of Science. N. S. V 57. 80 p. GAMKRELIDZE 1989 Gamkrelidze, T.: Alphabetic System of Writing and Ancient Georgian Script: Typology and Origins of Alphabetic Writing (TSU Publishing House). GIGAURI 2010 Gigauri, G., Secret Signs (Crypts) in Eastern Georgia (Tbilisi: MAGTI publication). GILLAM 2003 Gillam, R., Unicode Demystified: A Practical Programmer’s Guide to the Encoding Standard (Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional). TALAKHADZE 2010 E. Talakhadze (ed.), Great Catalogue of Petroglyphs of Georgia (Tbilisi: Tamarioni). JAPARIDZE 1966 Japaridze, V., Magazine Dzeglis Megobari, №. 8. Soviet Georgia, 23–28. Tbilisi. JAPARIDZE ET ALII 2078 Japaridze, V./Lomtatidze, G./Jaoshvili, V./Zakaraia, P., Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, 3, (Tbilisi: Georgian SSR), 593. KAKHIANI ET ALII 2012 Kakhiani, K./Chanishvili, G./Kopaliani, J./Machabeli, K./ Aleksidze, Z./Ghlighvishvili, E./Pataridze, N., Early Christian Church Complex of Dmanisi (Tbilisi: Publishing House Nekeri). KARAKHANYAN/SAFYAN 1970 Karakhanyan, G.O./Safyan, P.T., Arkheologicheskie Pamiatniki Armeniis. Археологические Памятники Армении. Archeological Monuments of Armenia, vol. Rock Carvings. Issue 1. АНА SSR (Yerevan). KOPTEKIN ET ALII 2023 Koptekin, D./Duru, G./Rodríguez-Varela, R./Altinisxik, N.E./ Psonis, N./Kashuba, N./Yorulmaz, S./George, R./Kazanci, D.D./ Kaptan, D./Gurun, K./Vural, K.B./Gemici, H.C./Vassou, D./ Daskalaki, E./Karamurat, C./Lagerholm, V. K./Erdal, D./Kirdo, E./Marangoni, A./Schachner, A./Ustundag, H./Shengelia, R./ Bitadze, L./Elashvili, M./Stravopodi, E., Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in human mobility patterns in Holocene Southwest Asia and the East Mediterranean. Current Biology 33(1), 41–57. KVASHILAVA ET ALII 2010 Kvashilava, G., On Reading Pictorial Signs of the Phaistos Disk and Related Scripts: Rosette. Studies in History and Ethnology, vol. 12. Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology, Tbilisi, 237–362. KVASHILAVA ET ALII 2017 Kvashilava, G., On decipherment of the inscriptions of linear A in the common Kartvelian language. The 2nd Academic International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (AICSSH 2017, Cambridge) Conference Proceedings. [Online]. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, FLE Learning, May 22–24, 2017. Cambridge, United Kingdom: FLE Learning, 65–73. KVRIVISHVILI 2010 Kvrivishvili, O., The Runes of Colchian Runes (Tbilisi: Publishing House Nekeri). St u dies LICHELI 2001 Licheli, V., Issues of Culture of Colchis and Iberia (Universal). LICHELI 2020 Licheli, V., Intellectual innovations in Georgia (11th–9th centuries BC): excavations at Grakliani Hill. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 26(2020), 350–361. LORTKIPANIDZE ET ALII 2013 Lortkipanidze, D./Rightmire, P./Ponce de Leon, M.S./Vekua, A./Margvelashvili, A./Zollikofer, C.P.E./Rak, Y., A complete skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the evolutionary biology of early homo. Science 342(6156), 326–31. DOI: 10.1126/ science.1238484 LORTKIPANIDZE 1969 Lortkipanidze, M., Corps of Glyptic Monuments of Ancient Georgia, vol. 1 (Publishing House Metsniereba). LORTKIPANIDZE 2002 Lortkipanidze, O., At the Origins of Ancient Georgian Civilization (TSU Publishing House). LUCAS 1934 Lucas, A., Egyptian Materials and Industries (Dover: Arnold & Co.). MOVSISYAN 2006 Movsisyan, A., The Writing Culture of Pre-Christian Armenia (Yerevan: Yerevan University Publishers). MUSKHELISHVILI 1938 Muskhelishvili, L., “Dmanisi,” collection “Material Culture of Shota Rustaveli Epoch,” Tbilisi. PARCHUKIDZE 2019 Parchukidze, T., Petritsi and Petritsoni. Part One. On the issue of interrelation between Georgian chronicles and Bulgarian artifact. Bulletin of the Academy of Science of Georgia 1, 141–154. PATARIDZE 1980 PATARIDZE, R., ქართული ასომთავრული (Georgian Asomtavruli) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba). RIGHTMIRE/LORTKIPANIDZE/VEKUA 2006 Rightmire, G.P./Lortkipanidze, D./Vekua, A., Anatomical descriptions, comparative studies and evolutionary significance of the homin skulls from Dmanisi. Republic of Georgia Journal of Human Evolution 50(2), 115–41. DOI: 10.1016/j. jhevol.2005.07.009 SHANSHASHVILI/SHERAZADISHVILI 2013 Shanshashvili, N./Sherazadishvili, Z., Earliest Seals of South Caucasus, Archaeological Review of Gori Museum. Tbilisi, S, 1, pp.7–25. SHENGELIA 2006 Shengelia, R., Georgian Asomtavruli – Ideogram Script, Magazine “Phenomenon” #5 (28) May. SHENGELIA 2010 Shengelia, R., Georgian crypts and the ways of their studying. In G. Igauri, Secret Signs (Crypts) in Eastern Georgia (Tbilisi: MAGTI Publication). TSERETELI 1955 Tsereteli, A., Ancient East. Syria and Phoenicia (Publishing House of Scientific-Methodological Office). VOGT 1955 Vogt, H., Le basque et les langues caucasiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. VEKUA ET ALII 2002 Vekua, A./Agusti, J./Lortkipanidze, D./Ferring, R./ Mouskhelishvili, A./Ponce de Leon, M./Tappen, M./Rightmire, G.P./Maisuradze, G./Zollikofer, C./Nioradze, M./Tvalchrelidze, M., A new skull of early homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science 297(5578), 85–9. DOI: 10.1126/science.1072953 No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 103 St u d i es Fig. 1. Bashplemi tablet (special illumination). Fig. 2. Bashplemi Lake location. 104 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 St u dies Fig. 3. Map of Bashplemi Lake and its surrounding area. Fig. 4. Aerial photos of Bashplemi Lake shore. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 105 St u d i es Fig. 5. Stone mortar discovered on the shore of Bashplemi Lake. Fig. 6. Drone views surroundings of Bashplemi Lake. 106 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 St u dies Fig. 7. Inscription on the altar discovered on Graklian Hill (12 BC). Fig. 8. Khovle plate and its print (9 BC–8 BC). Fig. 9. Tskhinvali Plate (supposedly Bronze Age). No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 107 St u d i es Fig. 10. Shiraki (South-east Georgia) seals (13 BC–11 BC). Fig. 11. ‘Rhodope’ inscription, near Petritsoni Georgian Monastery (Bachkovo, Bulgaria). 108 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 St u dies Fig. 12. Graphic representation of Bashplemi inscription. Circles within character contours represent pointed notches. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 109 St u d i es Fig. 13. Graphic representation of Bashplemi inscription characters and their numbering. 110 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 St u dies Fig. 14. Comparative analysis of Bashplemi inscription and other scripts. Number of characters on Bashplemi tablet (BT) is regarded as 100% and percentage of the characters like BT in other scripts is given in the columns of distinct colors. Number of the characters on Bashplemi tablet is highlighted in blue, those of Semitic languages – in red, scripts of Caucasian languages and those revealed on the same territory – in yellow and others – in black. It should also be noted that the mirror images were considered to be similar characters. Fig. 15. Inscription on the stone built in the ‘Red Church’ wall. In the upper line, the middle letters and horizontal lines have endpoints. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 111 St u d i es 1 N Bashflami Phoenici meaning Greek plate an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Semitic and Greek scripts 3 4 2 meaning Sabean Archaic Protomeaning (West meaning Greek Sinaitic Semitic) H G 5 6 7 meaning Aramaic meaning Hebrew meaning E H G B † th E th S D S W M R S H L L N T G J, M Ph P G F A A L I I Z G I E W I I U U Z C H W G Table 1. Semitic and Greek writings: Phoenician, Greek, Archaic Greek, Old Semitic, West Semitic (Sabaean), Proto-Sinaic (Canaanite), Aramaic. Key to table: † Separation sign ‡ Unknown script § Nuskhuri alphabet 112 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024 St u dies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Z E ‡ meaning Rhodope 14 meaning Gracliani 13 meaning ProtoGeorgian 12 meaning meaning Colkhis Runes meaning Georgian Mrgolvani E Georgian Broze Age Seals Caucasian scripts 10 11 9 meaning Albanian N Bashflami plate 8 ‡ ‡ † ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ T ‡ th ‡ i ‡ ‡ ‡ E § i A ‡ T ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ G ‡ i ‡ o N Q ‡ ‡ ‡ L S ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ D ‡ A ‡ ‡ ‡ Table 2. Caucasian writings: Georgian Mrgvlovani (Asomtavruli) and Nuskhuri, Albanian alphabet, Armenian alphabet (Erkatagir), pre-Christian signs found on the territory of modern Armenia, the “Colkhian runes”, seals of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Georgia, “Proto-Georgian script”, The linear signs on the Rhodope Rock, Grakliani Mount signs. No. 11–1/2024 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 113 St u d i es meaning 1 E 2 G U meaning 21 Southern Iberia 20 Northern Iberia meaning 19 Pahlavi meaning European runes Brahmi meaning meaning Various scripts 17 18 16 Egyptian Meroitic Bashfla mi plate meaning N Pre-Christian Armenia 15 O i 3 4 5 j/T ‡ 6 7 2000 ‡ tha te/de 8 9 T 10 M R 11 S 12 E 13 h- R P 14 15 i 16 1000 17 T i kh 18 600 19 20 ka/ga R ‡ E 21 kh 22 23 H 24 25 26 27 U G/H 28 bi 29 30 300 31 100 o i i ba 32 M 33 R 34 35 6 M ‡ 36 T 37 T T G/W 38 39 Table 3. Various writings: Egyptian: Demotic and Hieratic (Meroitic), South Iberian, North Iberian, Brahmic Script, European Runes, Pahlavi Script. 114 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 11–1/2024