Well, it is cuneiform:
Main Entry: 1cu·ne·i·form
Pronunciation: kyu-'nE-&-"form, 'kyü-n(E-)&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French cunéiforme, from Middle French, from Latin cuneus + Middle French -iforme -iform
Date: 1677
1 : having the shape of a wedge
2 : composed of or written in wedge-shaped characters <cuneiform syllabary>
It may well be that it does not look like cuneiform from the ME region. Which may mean that any connections to the "Old World" are bunk. But technically, some of it is clearly cuneiform.
Well, it is cuneiform:
Main Entry: 1cu·ne·i·form
Pronunciation: kyu-'nE-&-"form, 'kyü-n(E-)&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French cunéiforme, from Middle French, from Latin cuneus + Middle French -iforme -iform
Date: 1677
1 : having the shape of a wedge
2 : composed of or written in wedge-shaped characters <cuneiform syllabary>
It may well be that it does not look like Proto-Sumerian from the ME region. Which may mean that any connections to the "Old World" are bunk. On the other hand, they claim to be "translating" it on their website (see previous response for link.) So who the heck knows?
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I've also looked at a lot of cuneiform, and the inscriptions on the pot certainly resemble those found on Mesopotamian tablets.
Does our alphabet resemble the Cyrillic?
Does Hebrew resemble Arabic?
Maybe the marks on the Monolith of Pokotia are just decorations and the resemblance to cuneiform writing is coincidental. Further research is certainly warranted.
No, they don't, except for the shape of the impressions.