Replies

It contains two texts, one in cuneiform and another Semitic language of possible Sinaitic extraction cuneiform influences.
"Sinaitic extraction cuneiform" ... say, what? According to the symbols used one would be before an object that evidently shows itself to be from the transitional period between ideographical writing and cuneiform.
Um, cuneiform is ideographic (like Chinese writing). What it isn't is phonetic-consonantal (at least not originally), like some of the early Canaanite (Sinaitic?) adaptations, adaptations that many scholars believe were the first halts and half-starts toward alphabetic scripts. Chronologically, this leads us to the 3500/3000 B.C., the Sumerian/ Akkadian period.
Yeah. Only no. Because that would massively predate any of the Canaanite-Semitic adaptations. It would also massively predate any of the Meso-American civilizations (Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs etc., etc.).

From a history-of-the-written-word point of view, this article is really screwed up.

Yes, I think the author may be out for the publicity.

In my massive(not) research into history, I've seen quite a bit of cuneiform. The photos of the pot appearing in the excerpt above do not look like any kind of cuneiform to me.

A bowl, whenever it was originally produced, could have been an object of trade much later.

However, 3500/3000 BC does sound very early even for the production. Isn't the earliest Sumerian writing in cuneiform supposed to be from around 3000?

this article is really screwed up

It's probably the mixed up nature of South American and North American ruins that makes such an article possible. It's hard to sort archaeology from blue sky speculation, but thanks for the linguistics notes.