O noua si interesanta perspectiva asupra celor mai vechi scrieri din aria Danubiana si Egeeana.

August 28, 2018

O cu totul noua si interesanta perspectiva asupra celor mai vechi scrieri din aria Danubiana si Egeeana.

Am obtinut foarte recent, (Aug.2018) o noua si proaspata perspectiva in urma studierii a doua lucrari :
Autori, Iannis Kenanidis si E. PapakitsosThe Eteocretan Inscription from Psichro (Crete) is genuine https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312038989_The_Eteocretan_Inscription_from_Psychro_Crete_is_Genuine pe de o parte, si a unei alte lucrari,
– autor A.A.Vaiman “On the quasi-sumerian tablets from Tartaria” http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii#section-22

Ca elemente de noutate,
– in prima lucrare se incearca cumva “taierea nodului gordian” adica din multe ipoteze privind limba necunoscuta folosita in inscriptiile eteocretane, autorii avansaza ipoteza unui amestec initial de populatii (deci si de limbi), in care un rol primordial l-a avut ( si din a carei limba s-au pastrat caracteristicile), o populatie care a colonizat initial Creta si care era de factura sumeriana.
“Thus, to all those readers interested in the Eteocretan languages of ancient Crete, a novel approach of decipherment is presented herein, for the first time based on the Cretan Protolinear script theory [12] that suggests the affinity of the Psychro inscription to the Sumerian dialect of Crete. It will be demonstrated that the application of the Sumerian language for this decipherment provides a coherent and meaningful interpretation of the text on this inscription.”
Din cate am inteles eu, desi limba nu a mai pastrat integral toate carcteristicile limbii sumeriene, in schimb scrisul a functionat ca un gen de constanta, in sensul ca semnificatia ideogramelor a fost retinuta, cunoscuta si pastrata de migrantii sumerieni= minoani, pe tot parcursul timpului (chiar pana inspre era noastra).
As explained in previous works, the Cretan Protolinear script was created by the Minoans, who were Sumerian settlers [12,20,21,22]; the Cretan Protolinear script in the form of Linear A and Linear B was used by all the different nations that inhabited Crete and the Aegean. However, in the hands of non-Minoans (i.e. Hands of nonSumerians) the Cretan Protolinear script was distorted as time passed, and eventually forgotten, because the script was difficult for nonMinoans (=non-Sumerians). On the other hand, in the hands of Minoan Sumerians the Cretan Protolinear script could not be significantly distorted or forgotten, no matter how many generations would pass. This is because the Cretan Protolinear script (henceforth in this work referred to simply as “Protolinear”) was phonetic and pictographic at the same time: every phonetic (syllabic) sign was a sketch of a readily recognizable object in the Minoan Sumerian culture. So, for those who had Minoan Sumerian as their first language, every syllabic sign had the native name of the thing that the sign depicted, and they always knew what the signs depicted. They could not alter the shape of the signs lest they would be no more recognizable and if a sign was not recognizable it could not have a native (Minoan Sumerian) name, so it could not have a phonetic value. This is why the Protolinear script could not be altered in Minoan hands; while for non-Minoans there was no connection between depicted object and phonetic use of the Protolinear signs.Therefore, the Protolinear script survived unaltered as long as the Minoan nation existed. And we know that the Minoan Sumerian language, as other non-Greek languages spoken in Crete, was spoken not only until 300 BC but also much later [21], because those populations were relatively isolated geographically and socially. “
In legatura cu aceasta lucrare , eu am constatat (si nu am reusit pe moment si rapid sa-mi explic) de ce :
– tablitele pastreaza cumva in opinia mea un caracter dual, respectiv contin semne, si pot fi citite folosind atat scrierea sumeriana cat si separat folosind-o pe cea micaeniana (Linear A).            In plus,
– cea rotunda prezinta  semne f. apropiate de scrierea arhaica greceasca, mai precis de cea arhaica Cretana.
RELATIV LA CEA DE A 2-a LUCRARE,

– am fost intrigat si m-am necajit cumva ca lucrarea lui Aisik AbramovichVaiman are un parcurs sanatos si plin de chestiuni valoroase, constituind un gen de “concurent” al meu care cumva precede cercetarile mele cu cativa ani ( 1994 a dansului visa ultima editie 2018 ale mele).
-asta pe de o parte; in schimb lucrarea dansului are lacune, (doar cca. jumatate din semne sant interpretate!)
Atentie: in prima coloana este numarul semnului !
Semnele Nr.1? Nr.2 si 9 gresite, Nr.4? Nr.10? Nr.12,13? Nr.14? Nr.17?….pana acum cca. 8-9 semne….
Dar si la semnele gasite trebuia explicate la toate semnificatia, intelesul lor.
(exemple de intelesuri cautate si gasite :
semnul 2 nu este mas/sal ci :”Asz/As”:”grau, orz”:”
semnul 4: neidentificat,neinterpretat: este AN:”zeu,cer,zeul AN,ANU” dar si “spic de cereale”
semnele 8 si 10, semn identif.corect,”ab“: “casa,templu,altar
Se ,semn identif.corect: semnifica”ratie,grau,cereale
Sa, semn identif.corect dar neinterpretat de dansul ( Sza,Sa:”a usca“)
amar,da, semn identif.corect, dar neinterpretat: inseamna “vitel,taur, zeul-taur solar“..la fel ca si semnul 14
ba identificat ca semn: dar inseamna”a imparti,portie,a da,distribui
semnul D, Nr.15,16 partial identificat, pentru dansul este numai “ges”= “60”,dar: este si “dis” cifra”1″ dar si “ninda””portie,portie de cereale,paiine
o, neidentificat,neinterpretat: inseamna cifra”10
semnul 9: este gresit,nu este plug (apin) ci semnul Ku “baza,a fonda,construi
semnul din quadrantul dreapta jos (cel din dreapta) corect emblema orasului LARSA dar si “templul soarelui
semnul >> neidentificat,neinterpretat; este RU:”dar”; “a da,trimite”



pe cand a mea este mai completa ( ex. explic clar si in amanunt, clar absolut toate semnele).
( In aceeasi situatie (lucrare incompleta tot numai cu cca. jumatate din semne interpretate) este lucrarea cercetatorului bulgar Rumen Kolev.)
A.A.Vaiman:“Altogether, sixteen of the eighteen Tartaria signs have been identified with the proto-Sumerian ones. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find proto-Sumerian prototypes for the two remaining signs as well.”
In fond rezultatul conteaza chiar daca este o contributie “colectiva”.
In fond posibil Michael Ventris nu obtinea rezultatele de varf daca nu coresponda cu Arthur Evans).
Ce este interesant este faptul ca avem o parere comuna ca cel care a scris tabletele nu a fost un locuitor nativ al Transilvaniei.
  Eu in plus afirm ca tablitele nu au fost scrise de mana unui sumerian.
Autorul avanseaza ipoteza unei origini si a unui autor de pe teritoriul Irakului (Sumer).
“Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, butthis hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents.”
Eu nu exclud nici-o ipoteza, dar dau mai multe sanse unei origini Cicladice-Egeene.

“On the quasy-sumerian tablets from Tartaria”.autor A.A.Vaiman,with my coments.

August 26, 2018

My blogspot.com coments are here:

https://tartariawriting.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=3a2Hd2UBAAA.hOPzmhHP_1LrLB3kizpPjf2ZKPknKdVv2X9k9ciN164vOnkmaE618qclBK6ZKenyGyo5u7nMao7eW7Jd_YLYlw.4mGocgBvKUh59aDFnryqew&postId=7956659482178171483&type=PAGE

А.А. Вайман. О квазишумерских табличках Тэртэрии

  1. A. Vaiman.On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria

In 1963 N.VIassa published a paper with a description of three baked clay tablets which were found during his excavations in Tàrtâria, Transylvania, Roumania (figs.1-3). On one of them (fig.l) https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT645MJ7vWg1XAIxdCQWXcqkA6u9XKPlWFGlvxmYWd2Nq0ik_6vVg

Image result for tartaria tablets fig.1

a tree is depicted with two animals standing on its sides. The researcher compared this representation with the impression of a Sumerian seal. Two other tablets (figs.2,3) carry signs, many of which, according to Vlassa, are either identical with, or very similar to, those inscribed on the tablets from Uruk IV (early Proto-Sumerian script).

Image result for tartaria tablets fig.2

Image result for tartaria tablets fig.3

The sensational find has gained a wide publicity. The most significant paper that has appeared so far is that by А.Falkenstein who has basically supported Vlassa’s conclusions. Falkenstein has compared the Tàrtâria tablets with those from layer III in Uruk and Jemdet-nasr (late proto-Sumerian script) using a number of criteria, such as clay, format, stylus, structure of the text, signs. He has proved beyond doubt that the script of the Tàrtâria tablets had been directly influenced by the proto-Sumerian script. At the same time, the tablets have not been studied in sufficient detail yet.

The present article is yet another attempt at studying the Tartaria tablets. It offers more accurate tracings of certain signs; also, a new attempt is made to identify the Tartaria signs with both early and late versions of the proto-Sumerian ones (see our list on fig.4); some characteristics of the Tartaria script are discussed, providing a possibility to assess the degree of their independence with respect to the proto-Sumerian script; a tentative interpretation is suggested for both the separate records and the texts in general.

First and foremost, according to published photographs, the copies of the tablets need to be corrected. The most important corrections are as follows. Tablet 2: 11, sign No.9 (fig.4): the cuneiform oblique dash (fig.2) is not shown. Tablet 2: V, sign No. 10 (fig.4): the middle horizontal incision (fig.3) is not shown; III and IV: the dividing incisions (fig.3) are not shown. It appears that the published copies have been made from the photographs rather than from the tablets themselves.

We have already mentioned that three of the Tartaria signs (Nos.9, 10, and 16) have been incorrectly identified by Falkenstein.

In sign No.9, the oblique dash has not been taken into account, and its presence makes it impossible to identify this sign with the proto-Sumerian sign No.260 (Falkenstein, 1936). Rather, it should be identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.214 (Falkenstein, 1936).

Sign No. 10 has been identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.810 (or 543, see Falkenstein, 1936); however, the latter has two vertical lines inside, which are absent in the Tartaria sign. The identification given in our list is self-evident.

Sign No. 16, for no apparent reason, has been identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.753 (Falkenstein, 1936), although, judging by the context, it should doubtless be identified with the proto-Sumerian number No.905 (Falkenstein, 1936).

As to sign No.l, in the published copy of tablet 2 (fig.2) it looks like two angles (see I 2, fig.4). The horizontal line is admittedly vague; yet its traces are evident in the photograph, which indicates that this sign should be identified with the similar sign of tablet 3, I 1 (fig.4).

Altogether, sixteen of the eighteen Tartaria signs have been identified with the proto-Sumerian ones. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find proto-Sumerian prototypes for the two remaining signs as well.

Because signs Nos.2, 4, 6, and 10 of the Tartaria tablets (fig.4) have only early proto-Sumerian parallels, it may be assumed that other Tartaria signs, too, were borrowed from the early, rather than from the late, proto-Sumerian script.

It has already been mentioned that not just the signs (possibly all of them) were borrowed, but other things as well, including the material for writing, the rectangular or round shape of the tablets (the latter occurs, although rarely, in layer IV of Uruk), the manner in which the text is divided into parts by means of vertical and horizontal incisions, and the technique of writing. However, the borrowed elements are transformed in such a way that one should speak of an independent Tartarian script rather than of a Tartarian version of the proto-Sumerian script. First and foremost, people who created this script, in contrast to the Sumerians, used only knife-shaped styluses.

The Tartarian script differs from the proto-Sumerian one also in the construction of the texts. Each of the two texts is divided into columns by a vertical incision, and each column is divided into lines by horizontal incisions (table 3, V, provides an exception, see fig.3). In each collumn, the first line from the top contains a number and what is probably the name of the thing counted, while the second line is composed of one to three signs which are not numbers (see tablet 3, I, fig.3, for an exception) and which explicate the numeric record of the top line. As it has been stated above, such a construction is not possible for the proto-Sumerian texts, in which just one line would suffice. Horizontal incisions on Tartaria tablets are situated directly under the signs of the top lines, which is never the case on the proto-Sumerian tablets.

Signs on the Tartaria tablets are arranged so that they fill up all the available space, creating an impression of a completed text. It is especially evident on table 3 (fig.3), where the signs of the top lines are situated quite close to the upper margin, while the signs of the bottom lines come close to the lower margin; as a result, free space is left above the signs in columns II, III, and IV. Such an arrangement of signs is not observed in proto-Sumerian texts.

Certain important differences between the Tartarian script and the proto-Sumerian one are related to the orientation of various elements. Nearly a half of Tartarian signs (Nos.l, 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18) are rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise relative to their Sumerian prototypes (fig.4). Admittedly, such rotation occurs also in the early proto-Sumerian script, but these cases are exceptional.

While in proto-Sumerian texts the higher-order digits are placed above the lower-order ones, making up a column, in tablet 2, II 1, of Tartaria (fig.2) higher-order digits are situated to the left of the lower-order ones, making up a line. It would be natural to suppose that such a line was read from the left to the right. It is quite likely that all signs written in a line on the Tartaria tablets were read in a left-to-right fashion (see tablet 2: I 1,2; И 1,2, see fig.2); but being arranged vertically, they were read from top to bottom (tablet 2: I 2, II 1,2, see fig.2; tablet 3: V, sec fig.3). The columns were probably read in the same way as the digits in a line, from left to right. It should be reiterated that in proto-Sumerian texts signs within lines, except digits, are scattered in an apparently random order, while the adjacent columns are read from the right to the left.

Finally, in contrast to what is seen in proto-Sumerian texts, numerical designations in Tartaria tablets do not always precede the non-numerical ones. Thus, in line I i of tablet 2 (fig.2) the numerical symbol is placed to the right of the non-numerical sign, while in line II 1 of the same tablet it is situated below, so in both instances the non-numerical sign precedes the numerical one. Taking into consideration the proto-Sumerian parallels, non-numerical signs in these lines may be interpreted as designations of the things that were counted. All the above brings us to the conclusion that in the language of the Tartarian tablets the names of the things counted apparently precede the respective numerals, or, more generally, the names of the defined things precede the definitions.

The abundance of numerals on the tablets indicates that the latter were economical documents. The meaning of the numerals and of some other signs may be quite safely established by the meaning of their Sumerian prototypes. A certain degree of caution, however, is required since the borrowed signs could have some shades of meanings or even new meanings which were not inherent in their prototypes.

Tablet 2 (fig.2). I 1. Sign No.9 (fig.4) may denote an agricultural worker.

Sign No. 15 (fig.4) is a numeral (originally sixty; however, after having been borrowed. it could acquire the meaning of the respective key numeral in the decimal system, one hundred).

I 2. The two upper signs, Nos.3 and 1 (fig.4) may mean (left to right) “given” (“distributed”) and “barley”, respectively, and sign No.7 (fig.4) below it, “supervisor”.

II 1. The upper sign, No.2 (fig.4) means “goat” or “sheep” (one specimen). Below it, there is a row of numerals: 600, 60, 10, 10, the total amount being 680 (or 1000, 100, 10, 10, totalling 1120). All together may signify 680 (or 1120) head of goats (or sheep).

II 2. The central sign in the line is No.5 (the meaning of the respective proto-Sumerian sign is not known), and to the right of it, two signs, No.ll, “sun”, “daytime”, “white”, and No.8, “sanctuary”. The combination of the two latter signs may be read as LARSA, the name of the Sumerian town.

So the inscription on tablet 2 may be tentatively read as follows: 11,2 Sixty (or one hundred) agricultural workers, BA.SE, supervisor.

II 1, 2 Six hundred and eighty (or 1120) head of goats (or sheep).

SA (name?), LARSA (?)

Tablet 3 (fig.3). On this tablet, numerals are present only in the middle three columns, II, III, and IV. I 1. Sign No.l (fig.4): “barley” (or, more generally, “grain”). I 2. Sign No. 13 (fig.4) cannot be identified with any proto-Sumerian prototype. II 1. Sign No.18 (fig.4), “one”, repeated five times and thus meaning “five”. II 2. Sign No.10 (fig.4). This sign is identified with an early proto-Sumerian sign, which, however, has not been identified with any sign in the later script. It appears likely that columns I and II should be viewed together: I 1, “grain”, I 2, a cubic measure; II 1, “five”; II 2, a name or a position of a person.

III 1, 2, and IV, 1, 2. The two top lines in both columns contain the same sign, No.12 (fig.4). Apparently, in early proto-Sumerian texts the respective sign already denoted a cubic measure, SILA, probably that of oil. In the Tartaria tablet, this sign, judging by the context, also stands for a cubic measure of some product. The bottom lines of the columns contain signs Nos.4 (its meaning is unknown) and 6, “calf”. Like the sign in the bottom line II, these signs probably signify a person’s name or position.

  1. The column is not divided into lines, and does not contain numerals. There are two (or three?) signs,Nos. 14 and 10(fig.4), the latter one being the same as that which occurs in line II 2. These signs evidently summarize the contents of all the preceding columns. Thus labtet 3 admits of the following interpretation:

I 1, 2 Of grain… (an unknown measure). II 1, 2 Five (to such-and such). HI 1, 2 One SILA (cubic measure),… (to such-and-such). IV 1, 2 One SILA (cubic measure),… (to such-and-such). V … No other clay tablets with inscriptions have so far been discovered in Tartaria, and the distribution area of this script is not known. The specimens described were found not in archives, but in a pit, which the excavator believed to be ritual. Before having been placed in the pit, the tablets probably served as amulets. This would explain the presence of holes in two of the specimens (figs.2 and 3). Apparently, strings were passed through these holes to suspend the tablets.

So the tablets described attest to the existence in Tartaria of an original script based on prolo-Sumerian prototypes. The belief that this script was invented prior to the proto-Sumerian one and influenced it, is totally unfounded.

Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, but this hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents.

My coments:

  1. Related to pure pictographic tablet,

“On one of them (fig.l) a tree is depicted with two animals standing on its sides.”

Corrected:”vegetal motif,possible ear grain or tree

silhuette (animal or human and an horned animal (goat,..)

! Autor not even take in account of possible relation of this tablet with the other twoo !!

  1. Related to the other twoo tablets,

First, based on suposition that there are written there numbers and from this that it is about an economical/accounting tablet, partly could be correct, but the author not extract the ultimate possible meanings from the signs inscribed, nor realised that on the tablets there are long deep in time of paramount importance religion-related icons.

So I sugest, or even stressing that the tablets possible has no an strictly economical aspect, but could be related to an religious (offering) ritual !

So, the reading and interpretation of the tablets are quite rude “on the surface” if one don’t mind.

I don’t know how to find,post and ad my comments on the fig.4 figure (table), so with my great excuses and apologise,

I underlined with red the statements and findings with wich I not agree or consider inacurate or even wrong.

With orange those wich I am not sure if correct , or posibility to be corect or not.

With blue, agreement

I aded the last column with my adnotations (rom.”NU” is NO!)

40259624_662678484130956_3567941027706699776_n

—————–  REVIEW OF fig. 4/ (table) VAIMAN’S SIGNS INTERPRETATION  ———————

SIGN No/tablet No,          his interpretation             my interpretation      yes/no

1/2,3                                    Se                                              Se,barley,grain                      YES                              

2/2                                     maS(sal)                                      ASZ(As) barley,grain                 NO

3/2               Ba; sign found.not interpreted     share,portion, wages,give,distribute         YES

4/3                               not interpreted                     AN:”sky,god An” ;grain ear             NO                

5/2                                          Sa (not interpreted)        SZA,Sa “dry up“;?cord,string?    YES

6/3                             amar  not interpreted                      “calf,bull God,Sun-God”              YES 

7/2                                             pa supervisor                         pa2/nigin “gift given             YES           

8/2                                                   ab not interpreted                            “temple,shrine”       YES         

9/2                                               apin                             Ku base,found,build/pure,noble   NO !     

10/3                          not interpreted                            Ab    temple,shrine  yes             say YES       

11/2                            ud ;but there is not on tablet as such(isolate)                    …                           . . . 

12/3                        sila not correct identified              sum.sign bad,pap (signif.””bad”)   NO      

14/3                        not identified                                      Bull ?Hi/lagab-bar-bar?                   NO

15                                  geS                                        could be dis/dil “1” or ges:”60”                YES 

16                                         gesxu                                 same sign ?60×2=120 or 2×1=2 ?        ….

17/2                                 not identified                                       sum. u :”10″ 2x10=20              NO

18/3                                sign                                                      one (1)                                    YES  

——————————————————————————————-

sign >>                          not identified                                      RU:”gift,present,give,send”     NO

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TOTAL “BLUE” (correct)             ~ 9

TOTAL “RED” (WRONG)             ~ 7

!! The autor no take in account long-time of paramount importance of sumerian and minoan icons related to their religion and rituals. (AN, Bull(sun-God,Labrys,etc.)  !!

LINEAR A A-DU and DA-I

July 4, 2018

A-DU and DA-I

From LLR 06: An Introduction to Minoan Linear A – the LINCOM webshop                         lincom-shop.eu › … › LLR 06: An Introduction to Minoan Linear A                                       ……RA (the Madonna of the Luwians) or to DA.MA.TE (the Earth Mother or Demeter). …………………..not convinced                                                                                                                 ———————————————————————————————————————————-From John G. YOUNGER, 10b. Transaction Words http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/#10

A-DU = “assessment”?:                                                                                                                  DA-I = “total”?:…………………indicates in some way a completed action (like a perfect of A-DU), could DA-I be a completed transaction *

linear A DA-I (dai):”then” (Richard Wallance https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/2017/02/05/6-more-minoan-linear-a-putative-proto-greek-or-proto-mycenaean-words-da-di-but-are-they-proto-greek-at-all/ ) ,or

FLOURISHING OF THE MINOAN GREEK STATE IN THE LINEAR A …

about the Greekness of Linear B (15th-13th centuries BCE) while earlier Cretan ….. It is natural that technical terms of accountancy and of articles of commerce such as pots should have been borrowed. The further ….. 1 da-i 50, so da-i ‘total‘,   

  • Particle

    *de ~ *do or *-de ~ *-do[1]

    Emphatic or contrastive particleandbut[2]

  • Postpositive demonstrative particletowards[
  • Ancient Greek: δή (dḗ)δαί (daí)

Hmm? ! …………I’m proposing for linear A DA-I, Dai: “it is,Give“,                                                          (as the word was at the finish of an accounting 2+2 dai 4 ;2+2 it is?give 4);                         In Romanian DA:”give” dai:(you) “give”

The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship

Allan R. Bomhard, ‎John C. Kerns – 1994 – ‎Language Arts & Disciplines

Proto—Nostratic *t’uw—/*t’ow— ‘to give, to put, to place’: A. Proto—IndoEuropean (*t’ow—C— >) *t’0’— ‘to give, to put, … to make, to prepare’, 931; Pokorny 19592223—226 *do- 2 *da-, *do-u— 2 *dau— : *du— ‘to give‘; Walde 1927—1932.

Original meaning of greek IDA ?

July 3, 2018

mount-ida-crete-10

Out of                                                                                                                                                 EDE/HEDE :                                                                                                                        From Strong’s Greek: 3592. ὅδε, (hode, héde, tode) — this (referring to what …  biblehub.com/greek/3592.htm

 “this one,this

 and greek                                                                                        EIDO                                     eido-, eid-; ido-, id- + – Word Information

wordinfo.info/unit/705  Greek: image, figure, form, shape; literally, “that which is seen”   Indo-European laryngeals in Afro-Asiatic perspective – тема научной …

Also gr.OIDA :”to know,see”

Items 35 – 44 – Keywords: IndoEuropean, Afro-Asiatic, Nostratic, long-range …… Aramaic ydda*, Syriac ida*, Mandaic yda “to know”; Arabic ?ayda*a “to inform”; .

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I’ve found:                                                                                                                              SUMERIAN GLOSSARY – OoCities http://www.oocities.org/proto-language/SumerianGlossary.htmSumerian Glossary. … IMPORTANT NOTE: Though I hope some will still find this glossary to be useful (it can be …… ida2: noun, river; main canal; watercourse

Maximillien De Lafayette – 2014 – ‎Education

Edu: Sumerian. Adjective. a- Single. … Eduku: Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian. Noun. House of the … Eeda “Ida”: Aramaic/Assyrian/Sumerian. Noun. a- A feast

From Full text of “Vedic And Indo European Studies Nicholas Kazanas”

As the title Vedic and IndoEuropean Studies indicates, this volume consists of …… lopa, temporary ‘disappearance’ adarsana : P 1,1, 60): e.g. ‘Ida ‘giving‘ > da-da-ti ‘one …… 323. know : S vid-/ved- ; Gkoida (perf); C fet-ar ; Gm witan ; SI vedeti.

 

Zinda 8 April 2007 http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2007/04.08.07/index_one.php Tammuz is the Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian Dummuzi, Inanna’s husband. … InGreece, the egg was celebrated as part of the nocturnal … synonymous, both of which were called IDA, (pronounced eeda). Now IDA, in ancient Assyrian language, had two meanings: 1) Festival, and 2) knowledge.

Proto-Indo-European in Prometheus? June 8, 2012 @ 7:57 am · Filed by  under Language and cultureQuizzes http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4008

ida This is a little strange since the *id stem is usually neuter in IE (as it still is in English it). But hmanəm is also either neuter or masculine accusative, neither of which seems quite right if it is supposed to be ‘man’ (for more usual *(dh)ĝh(e)mon- or something) – either I’m not sure why it’s neuter, or I’m not sure what it’s the object of. Perhaps the -əm is meant as an absolutive marker? Anyway, even if hmanəm is neuter, ida might mean ‘here, now‘, like Avestan iδa (Sanskrit iha). …………………………………………………………………………………….                                                       christian said, June 21, 2012 @ 12:05 am

  1. The line that David speaks to the Engineer (which is from a longer sequence that didn’t make the final edit) is as follows:                                                                           /ida hmanəm aɪ kja namṛtuh zdɛ:taha/…/ghʷɪvah-pjorn-ɪttham sas da:tṛ kredah/     in English is: ‘This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life’                                                                                                           KD said, June 21, 2012 @
  2. 2:29 am  Ah, well now we know the transliteration and the translation (thanks Anil!) it’s a lot easier to pick out the roots! Here’s my attempt:ida= *h1id, demonstrative pronoun (cf. English this, the)
    hmanəm = *(dh)ghomon, “human (literally ‘earthling’) (cf. Latin homo, hominis English human)
    kja = *kwi, relative pronoun (cf. Latin qui, English who)
    na- = *ne, negative prefix (cf. English ‘no’ etc.)
    mrtuh = *mer, “to die” (cf. Latin mors, mortis, English murder)
    ghʷɪvah – *gweiə (life, cf. Latin vivus, Greek bios, English quick)
    pjorn – really not sure about this one… maybe from *pu, meaning to “blow, swell”?
    iittham = *tuhom (?), emphatic second person pronoun, “you” (cf. Latin tu, English thou) (?)
    sas = *so, masculine demonstative pronoun functioning as 3rd person pronoun, “him” (?)
    datr = *do, “give” (cf. Latin dos, dotis, English dowry)
    kreda = *kre-dhə, “to place trust, ie. believe” (cf. Latin credere)Pjorn, ittahm and sas gave me a bit of trouble, so I’d appreciate any better suggestions. Three of the roots had been correctly identified on this comment thread: *mer, *gweiə and *kre-dhə, so that’s something at least! I’ll leave it to more competent linguists to parse the syntactical relations in the sentence.@Lethal_Mutation
    The similarities to Latin are not a coincidence; since Latin is a descendant of PIE, and one of our main sources for that language, it’s not surprising it retains a few roots with forms and meanings close to the source language. As Anil has said, ‘Engineer’ is based to some extent on PIE; whether it’s intended to be another descendant of PIE, its ancestor, or a language which influenced it, is another interesting question.

So                IDA ment “(It is?),Here,now,this

Deities!! – Angelfire http://www.angelfire.com/hi/SupernaturalThings/Deity.html    Belili: SumerianGoddess of Love, Romance, and the Moon. Belit-ilanit: … Ida: Hindu; Goddess of Dedication, Devotion, Divination, Oracles, Prophesy.

Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others

Stephanie Dalley – 2000 – ‎Fiction

Priests and Priestesses—enu (Sumerian en), high priest, a role sometimes filled in early times by a … River—Sumerian goddess Ida. 

A distinctive and characteristic Sumerian god was Ea, who was supreme at the …. Engur, “god of the abyss”, Naqbu, “the deep”, and Lugal-ida, “king of the river“.

 

                           I D A  = (image=ikon”?) Goddess IDA 

 

SCHOLAR’S PROGRESS IN DECIPHERING ANCIENT WRITINGS

June 29, 2018

Note.                                                                                                                                                    The first 5 positions regarding other (than Tartaria) writings are quick reviews. Rather of no practical use. Figures are estimates, only for general reference.

NO SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN DECIPHERING INDUS/HARAPPA WRITING                   I understand why it is hard; there are so many signs and the writing is not highly organised, and remained at best at the stage of proto-writing.

SUPPOSED VINCA WRITING (5.700-4.200 B.C.)                                                                        No way of proper writing, no prooved proto-writing. The sign library is great, but writing stalled or stopped at a level situated  before proto-writing or rather near-close to proto-writing.

CUCUTENI-TRYPILLIA (somehow later than Vinca (highest developement at 4.800-3.000B.C.)            No prooven proto-writing, writing excluded.

PROTO-ELAMITE                                                                                                                                Progress in reasearch are made, due to similarity to sumerian (&proto iranian) but not entire solved (language?!) 3.400-2.500 B.C.

CRETAN HIEROGLIPHYC (2100–1700 B.C.) ,LINEAR A   (1800–1450 B.C.)                                                                                     Most of the signs known. But the rest no; for  some of them not unanimously agreeding of phonetical rendering. Some languages in focuss. Not sure about language. SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSING.

ETEOCRETAN   ( late 7th  to the 3rd century B.C.)                                                                                                                            Archaic greek alphabet/letters, but not sure what language (semitic proposed?).

TARTARIA TABLETS   (late Vinca? 4.800-4.200 B.C.)                                         

Settling discovery circumstances, dating and utilization of the Tărtăria …   https://www.researchgate.net/…/29726577_Settling_discovery_circumstances_dating_an…
PDF |they settled the tablets from about 2900-2700 BC (Vlassa 1976: 33) to 2500BC (Hood:1967:110) 
                                                                     Hand-made by me, round Tartaria tablet replica / sinthetic clay:

36320642_1671848542936382_8881202476397625344_n                                                                                                                         Worst possible situation. From 1961 (discovery date) no consistent reasearch results. Maybe one notable contribution of Rumen Kolev (he is right in some 40%)                  World scholars seems to stay in a state of expectation and in real disarray. No eager to expose themselves as to utter definite statements.The range of hypothesis upon people,signs and language involved is so wide that one get in a maze; one don’t know what to take in account or consider more or less important.Understandable some-how, because:                                                                                                                                                   – It is not known  for sure real age > ? to what culture exactly pertain?                                     tablets are kind of singletons, unique, no others in the area to compare with                        -not known the writing system; worse: every tablet is presenting an different type of writing .Those types of writings are usual distanced by 500-1000 yars. Eg.Pictographic used (4000-2200B.C.); proto-cuneiform /syllabary(3300-1500B.C.); syllabary/alphabetic (1500 B.C. onward)                                                                                                                                      -din’t know the timing (aprox. to what  period of time pertain) so not even guess what language family and less of the concrete language those peple spoke. (see the supposed 10 languages hypothesised for linear A!)

If for Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A one have to search in a kind of mist, you must realise that for tablets supposed older than this(Tartaria) the searching is much harder.

Luckily enough, out of 2 -3 writing systems wich were used on Tartaria tablets, the logical thinking is to consider  the age of  entire set of the tablets (3pcs) as having the age of the latest wryting system,newer/latest-one used.                                                            Also luckily as the writing is less evolved the meaning is general and could be deduced not necessary knowing the language ! Some of the religion-economical life icons were close related  in ancient past (if not some of them beeing the same on a large area in the far past Eg. corn, goat, bull,).

Out of this reasoning the preliminary conclusion is that upon that                                    T H E  T A B L E T S  A R E   N O T   S O   O L D ;                                                                          Forget 5.500 B.C. ! could not be take seriously in account; not even as joke only as a prank.                                                                                                                                                       ————————————————————————-————————————————————— EXPECTED READING, No. of POSSIBILITIES

We have 3 tablets: pictographic(*1); squarred with hole(*2); round-one (*3) We suppose that entire set was written in a definite time when used 1(one) definite language (“x”)            Note                                                                                                                                                       I could read:                                                                                                                                        *2 using Sumerian Proto-cuneiform library of signs and separate using Cretan hieroglyphic and linear A/B syllabogram                                                                                      *3 using Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A/B; also separate reading using archaic greek alphabet                                                                                                                             Note. Even the Anatolian writings got highest score relative to the signs used I not try to read cause those languages (and writing) are far out of my expertise.

In best (simple,easy) situation *2 and *3 are using syllabary and *1 is using pictograms as kind of help/Rebus principle-like.                                                                            —————————-      you could pass-over this don’t want to get you tired !    ——————–

Tablet  Language           Type of writing   Aprox. number of possible readings                        ——————————————————————————————————————————–      *1               x                        P(pictographic)                         P1-3

*2               x                       PC(Proto-cuneiform)?              B1-3                                                                             x                           S1(Syllabary*1) ?                   b1?

*3               x                        S2 (syllabary*2″)?                      C1?                                                                             x                         A(alphabet)        ?                     A~ 5-10

In best situation *2 and *3 are using syllabary and *1 is using pictogram as kind of help/Rebus principle-like.                                                                                                                    ———————————————————————————————————————————-        Note:                                                                                                                                                             The artefacts found near the tablets are evidencing relation to Cyclades. No matter if cultural exchange was  from north to south or reverse the result is the same.                       ———————————————————————————————————————————          In this case the meaning of the entire set will be :

a mixture: [b1 ;C1]      ?+ help of P?    Messages of the set:1  or with much more variants:           -“-         [B1-3 ; C1]                   -“-                         ~3                                                                               -“-        [B1-3 ; A5-10]              -“-        combinations of 3 by 10                                                         -“-        [b1 ; A5-10 ]                 -“-                        min  1o

—————————————————   you passed-over  !  ——————————————————Now everyone could realise  an weird abnormal situation when somebody is using 2 types of writing (PC+S; PC+A; S+A)                                                                                                   Note:  ! I not counted that pictographic wich could be for help!?

!? W H Y ? ?                                                                                                                                         …………………………………Only if was kind of preast=teacher !                            Or possible only the round-one is carring a precise message,                                                      and the rest of the signs on the other tablets are sacred, religion-associated icons (possible  with forgotten meanings),                                                                                          used in most of  religious rituals from far back in time (before the moment these tablets were written ).                                                          ============================================================================Where from those numbers of variants/series ?                                                                               Eg.    Round-tablet, upside-left quadrant ; using archaic greek alphabet                           signs HP,D/D (Eta/heta-  Rho/D.Delta)                                                                                Possible readings:                                                                                                              monograms for deities: 1HeRos, 2HeRa, 3HeRos, 4HeRakles,                                      (gr.1″Lord”, 2″Lady”…….)                                                                                                              5HieRa, 6HaR, 7cHaR, 8HoRos,                                                                                                   (5″sacred objects”; 6″fitted in beautiful manner”:….)                                                                  9ED10EDe, 11EDo, 12HeDe, 13HeDus, 14*HeD,                                                                      9.alb.”kid-goat”…..10.lat.”eat!”/kid-goat!”11.gr.”I eat”

                                                                                   

 

Tartaria tablets.What script and language is expected !?

June 27, 2018

1.EUROPE NEOLITHIC/BRONZE AGE WRITING LANDSCAPE

In neolithic, Vinca-Turdas culture developed toward writing slowly , step by step. On its own (independently) or influenced, by pressure of incoming migrating people waves. Pity, despite the fact that the social life was well, quite-high developed, the stage of organisation was not so high, at the level of those sumerian, egyptian or proto-elamite ones. Vinca culture become highly developed, but even in later Cucuteni-Tyripilia culture writing not reached the proto-writing stage. Not known or found exemples of writing from this later than Vinca cultures (my recollecction, not even of proto-writing) . Vincans missed another more 500-1000 years to reach proto writing and maybe later writing.The Vinca signs are pottery-mark signs, artistic and religious symbols, not much more.Tartaria tablets shows evidence of proto-writing, as using proto-cuneiform signs symilar or the same as proto-cuneiform sumerian. But out of Tartaria tablets (maybe + Gradeshnitza and +Dispilio tablet) we have no other examples.So they are isolates.(Not the same case with Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A/B where we have hundreds of tablets).So the tablets are not pertaining to a high=organised society wich reached the stage to fix and transmit elements of economic and and social life by meaning of writing.In other words they are not Vincan’s.                                                   They are coming from somewhere outside area.                                                                There is a gap between Vinca-Turdas signs and organised Tartaria tablets signs.    So or they were made by “fallen from sky” sumerians, (from wich we have in the tablets all the signs  from sumerian proto-cuneiform sign library), or much realistic (much close?) anatolian metal prospectors. Or finaly none of above, coming by some kind of economic-cultural exchange from Aegean area. Bringed by a ?farmers/metal-workers?family coming from Aegean/Cyclades area. The round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, (even alphabetic writing in upper half.)                                               —————————- from papers related to suject —————————————————                           me:  …..Suspect connexion of Aegean writings to those of Near-East .Clues,hipothesys, arguments: 

The Tartaria Tablets M. S. F. Hood  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00033032

The inscribed clay tablets (PL. XVIa) found in a ‘Neolithic’ context at Tartaria (FIG. 1) in Romania in 1961 have already aroused a certain amount of interest here. The signs on the tablets are comparable with those of the script of the Late Predynastic (Uruk III Jemdet Nasr) period in Mesopotamia, as Dr Vlassa who excavated them has noted. It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian language of early Mesopotamia. The shapes of the tablets and some of the signs are paralleled in the Minoan scripts of Crete, but the tablets do not seem to be Cretan. There are indications that a similar use of signs, if not actual writing, was practised in the rest of the Aegean and in Western Anatolia before the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. A knowledge of writing, or the use of signs derived from it, may have spread to these regions and to the Balkans from Mesopotamia through Syria. This was perhaps one aspect of a common inheritance of religious or magical beliefs and practices. ============================================================================

From http://www.anistor.gr/index.html Anistoriton Journal, vol. 15 (2016-2017) Essays 5 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wIyjrlgkB-pTChOQSHfMneG9Q24e523fRqeFj46Wm4A/edit

   [5] After an idea since 1978 and almost 10 years of research, Kenanidis (1992) published (in Modern Greek) a study connecting the phonetic values of the linear scripts’ syllabograms to common or culturally important words of the Archaic Sumerian language, through the rebus principle. This study extensively refers to the Cretan Protolinear script, considering as the only survived samples of it three inscriptions on: a clay seal (Karageorghis & Masson 1968); a fragment of vessel with three syllabograms (Kenanidis 1992, p. 3) that is officially regarded as a Linear-B inscription; and a part of an Eteocretan inscription (Duhoux 1982, pp. 95-111: Illustration 27) that, because of its late construction (300 BC), its authenticity had to be argued for (Kenanidis & Papakitsos 2015b).

[6] Weingarten (1994) argues for an administrative system in Crete (using seals and record keeping) that would have been directly imported from the Near East.

[7] Owens (1996) argues for the common origin of Cretan Hieroglyphs and Linear-A. Alternative approaches had been presented and commented in the recent past (Hooker 1992).

 

[8] Schoep (1999, p. 266) can not rule out the existence of a common ancestor for Cretan Hieroglyphics and Linear-A, based on the common signs. The two writing systems probably serve different needs (e.g. decorative and ritual vs. administrative).

[9] Glarner (2002) observes that many characters from Linear-A are identical to the archaic archetypes of the Mesopotamian Cuneiform. Yet, the relationship was rejected as impossible because of the large distance between the two areas (Mesopotamia and Crete). The rejection was very premature considering the next points:

▪ All that we know about the Sumerians is from what was written on the existing cuneiform tablets. There are hundreds of thousands of such tablets but only about 10% have been read so far (BAS-Library 2005; Watkins & Snyder 2003). There are still many thousands of tablets in the store rooms of museums but there are not enough experts to read them.

▪ Historical evidence written on the deciphered part of the existing cuneiform tablets was ignored: The tablets of Mari (18th century BC), stating that “the hand of Sargon” had reached places beyond the “upper sea” (Mediterranean) as far as the island of copper (Cyprus) and “Kaptara”, the most ancient reference to Crete (Strange 1982; Drandakis 1956); Before the era of Sargon the Great (24th-23rd centuries BC), the earliest reports extend the rule of the Sumerian kingdoms to the Mediterranean coast since the 28th century BC, during the reign of Meskiaggasher, king of Uruk (Jacobsen 1939). The same wide regional coverage appears during the reign of Lugalanemundu (2525-2500 BC), king of Adab (Guisepi and Willis 2003).

▪ The period of the Uruk expansion was not known (Sundsdal 2011; Algaze 2005a,b), while Kramer (1963) was also ignored: “...by the third millennium BC, there is good reason to believe that Sumerian culture and civilization had penetrated, at least to some extent, as far East as India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as Ancient Ethiopia and as far North as the Caspian”.

Migration, a phenomenon as ancient, wide and intense as the human kind, is not adequately studied (for a discussion see: van Dommelen 2014).

[10] Castleden (2002, p. 100) observed that some signs of Cretan Hieroglyphics resemble symbols from a Mesopotamian script pre-dating cuneiform, suggesting that this writing system was imported from East.

[11] According to Fischer (2004, p.34), the rebus principle (see [5]) had been originally invented by the Sumerians. Their influence expanded to Indus Valley, Iran, Nile and probably Balkans (as he suspects and we argue for as well).

[12] Woudhuizen (2005) interpreted Linear-A as a linearization of the Akkadian cuneiform signs. This is supportive for the herein argument, since every sign in written Akkadian has a Sumerian origin. However, the natural process for a script is to evolve from pictorial signs (like the Sumerian pre-cuneiform) into non-recognizable forms (like the late cuneiform) and not the reverse (e.g. see: Karnava 2015). So, we make the reverse proposal herein: both the early Aegean scripts and Cuneiform were two evolutionary branches of the same trunk (Sumerian pre-cuneiform signs). The former branch followed an “analogic” path via drawn lines, while the latter a “digitalized” one (impressed strokes), thus starting to depict the icons in a more abstract and quick manner.

                                   2.SUPPOSED, EXPECTED LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE WICH SCRAPED THE TABLETS

“If” the tablets would have been old as expected (5.500B.C.) the language could be proto-Euphratean.If age is around 3.000 B.C. the language could be euphratean=sumerian. Not realistic to think that an sumerian speditioners group overun thousends of km/miles and reached Transylvania. But I looked close to those signs, and the tablets are not so old.The entire scientific comunity was fooled by supposed C14 age determination (5.500 B.C.!!) wich was not and cannot be done enymore.

An Introduction to the Study of the Danube Script Harald Haarmann and Joan Marler https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WHPWd9hJnGyi91BDQ6MA_wZ1KAuoaa60bt97VvwEoW8/edit

“As long as the absolute age of the tablets was undetermined and archaeologists dated the artifacts to the third millennium BCE, most of those scholars who engaged in the discussion were convinced that the signs inscribed on the Tărtăria tablets reflected a far-distant cultural influence from Sumerian civilization.”

Especially the round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half. But i am exposing you the folowing:

Oldest writing in Europe are Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A. (2.200-1500 B.C.) Back to 1800 B.C. we could expect an Indo-European language as Mycenaean/Linearb=proto-greek language.

Olders ones than Linear B, wich are Cretan hieroglyphic and Linea A are UNKNOWN.There are many papers wich got partial simylarities with semitic family and Luwian, but not found an definite language.Now I am asking you:

IF CRETAN HIEROGLYPHIC AND LINEAR A ARE USING  UNKNOWN LANGUAGES ( SOME-HOW WICH SHOWS TO BE RELATED TO SEMITIC, LUWIAN AND GOD KNOWS WHAT OTHER LANGUAGE ), OLDER THAN THIS FORM OF PROTO-GREEK=LINEAR B, THEN                                                    WHAT LANGUAGE COULD SOMEBODY EXPECT FROM TARTARIA TABLETS (?3200-1800B.C.?)  ? 

 —————————- from papers related to the suject —————————————————   

From Anistoriton Journal, vol. 15 (2016-2017) Essays 1  Cretan Hieroglyphics The Ornamental and Ritual Version of the Cretan Protolinear Script   https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/164454be0ed39a2d?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

“There are many proposals about the underlying language or languages of Linear-A, because of the difficulty to recognize the conveyed languages, since they are very poorly known and neither the script is known, although reasonable speculations are possible from the comparison to Linear-B and the Cypriot Syllabary (Kenanidis & Papakitsos 2015a). These proposed languages are:

▪ the Semitic/Akkadian (Woudhuizen 2005; Gordon 1981),

▪ the Proto-Aeolic (Tsikritsis 2006; Anistoriton 2001),

▪ the Pelasgian/Proto-Ionic (as an Indo-European one closely related but not identical to Proto-Greek, see: Owens 2007, 2000; Faucounau 2001),

▪ a Proto-Indo-European (Hicks 2005),

▪ the Luwian (Woudhuizen 2005, 2002; Brown 1992-1993),

▪ a non-Greek language closely related to Hittite (Davis 1964, p. 106),

▪ the Lycian (Kazansky 2012) and

▪ several different languages, making use of an originally Sumerian script (Papakitsos & Kenanidis 2015; Kenanidis & Papakitsos 2015a; Kenanidis 2013, 1992). Some more proposals can be also found, concerning other languages like the Etruscan (Perono Cacciafoco 2014).”

From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/#3                                                                   John Younger (jyounger@ku.edu)                                                                                           Linear A Texts & Inscriptions
in phonetic transcription & Commentary

<< Linear A has not yet been demonstrably linked to any known language family.

“The languages which have been used for comparison are of two families: Indo-European, especially an Anatolian language such as Luwian (Palmer, Meriggi [and Ed Brown of UNC-CH]); Semitic (Gordon, Best, and others)… First no inflexional forms such as characterize Indo-European or Semitic languages can be clearly demonstrated, hence the identifications depend largely on vocabulary, which is notoriously easily borrowed. Secondly, the Semitic comparisons are mainly with triconsonantal roots — yet if the vowels are ignored we are leaving out half the information presented by the script, and thus much decreasing the chances of success. Thirdly, if the languge of Linear A does not belong to a well-known family, then the chances of identifiying it are virtually nil. This is not to say that Linear A remains undecipherable; as more documents are found and published, we shall understand more of it. But I doubt very much if speculation at this stage can help; I feel strongly that is likely to belong to an unfamiliar type.” (Chadwick 1975: 147)

If Crete was deliberately colonized in developed Neolithic, probably from SW Anatolia (Broodbank & Strasser 1991), it would seem logical to surmise that the Minoan language could be related to one of the Indo-Hittite dialects, most probably Luvian. >>                       —————————————————————————————————————————-

eugenrau: THE SAME WAS THE CASE AS VINCA PEOPLE WERE SUPPOSED COMING FROM (?SW?) ANATOLIA !                                                                                                                                 ……………………or even from far  Cilicia-Levant(Syria) I would say (A priori, no language attested in the third or second millennium from the eastern Mediterranean or its surrounding areas can be excluded […] the languages spoken by people from the coasts of Asia Minor or Syro- Palestine must be favoured.

See:

Cretan Hieroglyphs http://www.ancientscripts.com/cretan_hieroglyphs.html             Bronze Age Crete was home to the powerful seafaring civilization known to the modern world as the Minoans. As the first literate culture of Europe, the Minoans employed not one but two related writing systems. The more commonly known system is Linear A due to the rectilinear shape of its symbols. The second system, more ancient but less well-known and even less understood, is called Cretan Hieroglyphs.Most early writing systems have their origins in iconographic systems and likewise.                                   Cretan Hieroglyphs most likely evolved out of non-linguistic symbols on sealstones from the late 3rd and early 2nd millenium BCE. Cretan Hieroglyphs was the first writing of the Minoans and predecessor to Linear A, which in turn gave rise to Linear B and Cypriot. Cretan Hieroglyphs remains undeciphered as no interpretation is widely accepted. One impediment to decipherment is that the seal texts are short and the sign sequences relatively formulaic, which means little the same problem preventing the decipherment of Indus Script. It is possible to compare its signs to Linear A and Linear B signs and produce a syllabic grid, but since the underlying language is unknown, few words aside from accounting terms and place names can be distinguished. Cretan Hieroglyphs’ language was certainly not Greek, the language of Linear B.

SEMITIC LINEAR A INSCRIPTIONS https://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2016/09/semitic-crete.html

This is a supplement to CRETO-SEMITICA

The Kaptarian logo-syllabary of Crete (Linear A)

Kaptar was a name applied to Crete in the Bronze Age; it was Kaphtor in the Bible (Caphtorim were from Caphtor, Deuteronomy 2:23; Philistines came from Caphtor, Amos 9:7; ditto, Jeremiah 47:4), Kptr in Ugaritic texts, and Keftiu in Egypt.[1]

SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE

by CH Gordon – ‎1984

SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE by. CYRUS H. GORDON. New York University

That Nero is credited with
knowing that the non-Greek native language of Crete was what we
would now call Northwest Semitic, ties in with the decipherment of
Eteocretan as Northwest Semitic.
The evidence for the linguistic character of Eteocretan must come
from the Eteocretan inscriptions themselves. Fortunately, the script is
for the most part the standard Greek alphabet, ranging in shape from
archaic letters that are close to their Phoenician forms, to the familiar
uncials of Hellenistic times which are just about the same as those in
modern Greek typography.

Eteocretan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eteocretan_language

(/ˌtiˈkrtənˌɛt-/ from GreekἘτεόκρητες Eteókrētes, lit. “true Cretans”, itself composed from ἐτεός eteós “true” and Κρής Krḗs “Cretan”)[2] is the non-Greek language of a few alphabetic inscriptions of ancient Crete.                                                                        In eastern Crete about half a dozen inscriptions have been found which, though written in Greek alphabets, are clearly not Greek. These inscriptions date from the late 7th or early 6th century down to the 3rd century BC. The language, which is not understood, is probably a survival of a language spoken on Crete before the arrival of Greeks and is probably derived from the Minoan languagepreserved in the Linear A inscriptions of a millennium earlier.

Were the ancient Minoans of Crete Semitic? Did they speak a Semitic language?  https://www.quora.com/Were-the-ancient-Minoans-of-Crete-Semitic-Did-they-speak-a-Semitic-language

There is one more approach to the Minoan language. Several classical texts refer to a non-Greek people living in Crete in classical times: the so-called Eteocretans (i.e. “True Cretans”) who might be identified with the pre-Greek Minoans. These Eteocretans allegedly dwelt in Praisos on Crete, and from this town come a handful of inscriptions (from memory from the 4th century B.C. — I have not checked this!) written with Greek letters, but self-evidently not in the Greek language. The inscriptions are utterly unintelligible. They could conceivably be written in a language descended from the Minoan language, but this is only a guess. Nothing in these inscriptions can be linked up with something in the Linear A documents, so, for now, this too appears to be a scholarly dead end.

Ultimately the Minoans remain an enigma. If we could ever read the Linear A documents, we would know a lot more about them, including obviously what language they spoke. For the foreseeable future, however, the Linear A texts, along with the Eteocretan ones, are unintelligible with the exception of the group of two signs to indicate “total”.

 

CONGRATULATIONS, RUMEN KOLEV !

June 4, 2018

There is a paper of a bulgarian scientist RUMEN KOLEV :

ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf

 This is the only paper I know, wich by far go strait as to proove that we have writing in Tartaria tablets, in fact icon/ideographic writing= proto writing. Also he comes close to my conclusions on my sumerian aproach.  But pity, he choosed :

  • not to precise identify each sumerian sign and show sumerian appearance and name. But luckily enough he succeded to corect identify many of them (bull/cattle, god, temple, branch/corn, altar, idea of offering, >> =sign “RU”,etc.). Where he has the sun sign, I have the (sun)GOD sign wich is close.                                      All thes green underlined are common with mines !
  • Folowing picture at the origin from Mr.Marco Merlini studies. http://static.actualdecluj.ro/uploads/2015/02/tartariasuprapuse.jpg

 Either don’t know why 

  • he not took the tablets separately and choosed to get mix them and sign meanings reading them only as beeing superposed.   
  • Finaly I not grasp his understanding: 
  • Mr. Merlini correctly observed that the tablets are made as to being carried/worn together around neck.In this situation the squared-one is covering uper side of that round-one. And not without reason.The writer intended that the covered message not to be seen by passer-by, probably is mystic-related and has a degree of power upon subjects on wich rituals were performed.Or used in rituals wich interfered with the people’s course of life or destiny.
  • So I do not understand at all why Mr. Kolev choosed to read in the first time (and only !) the visible mesage, not realising that the covered mesage could have a paramount importance !?

The sacred cryptograms of Tartaria.Marco Merlini’s article coments

May 31, 2018

The Sacred Cryptograms from Tărtăria: Unique or Widespread Signs …

http://www.academia.edu/…/The_Sacred_Cryptograms_from_Tărtăria_Unique_or_Widespr&#8230;


 

Note

There is a paper of a bulgarian scientist RUMEN KOLEV :

ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf

 wich go close to my conclusions of my sumerian aproach, but he choosed not to precise identify each sumerian sign and show sumerian appearance and name. But luckily enough he succeded to corect identify many of them (bull/cattle, god, temple, branch/corn, altar, idea of offering&gt;&gt;=sign “RU”,etc.). Where he has the sun sign, I have the (sun)GOD sign wich is close.                                      All this green underlined are common with mines !

 Either don’t know why he not took the tablets separately and choosed to get meanings reading them only as beeing superposed.     

 
I am admiring the monumental efforts and researches of this schollar in the large field of Vinca-Turdas 
 

Civilisation and especially those focussed on the supposed “Vinca writing”. My congratulations ! No Romanian 

spend more time and efforts on this field.Nor had more results.One to be noticed is Alex Imreh.

An italian is using and depassing  german-style and methods. Either in perseverence, acuracy, sharp-

reasoning or whatever you want.

The M.Merlini paper is very inciting. I wish would coment every line of it.

but must follow every line and not have sufficient time to follow and make comments on them.

So my first short comments are:

– You got in a kind of maze when compare Vinca Civilisation library of signs with Vinca (Tartaria tablets)

supposed writing signs.

 Talking of magic rituals is intersting but not of effective great help when  discuss is getting to 

writing signs and writing.Information could be transmited in many ways in proto-writing but only

 when are transmited words is proper-writing.And those ways cuould be mixed in intermediate 

phases of writing developement.


-Do not realise that Vinca civilisation realised the aproaching steps to writing but generally remained 

at those much earlier phases of writing.

Earlier phases than those of the tablets (5-6.000 BC for Vinca signs oposed/compared to say 3000-1500 BC

for Tartaria tablets writing).

– Hope you realised but not explained to people enough what is proto writing.The Vinca civilisation used 

mostly elementary signs (wich part of them could be or not abstractised signs for some notions) and ones 

wich could go to ornaments .You or someone else cannot  proove definitely that even come to the 

stage of proto-writing, (as to use icons and ideograms to express ideas ). If you can proove that, I am 

waiting one concrete case explained.Could be no your or someone-else guess or personal idea but that exemple 

must be agreed and accepted by anyone to wich are exposed the case. So strong and in a unique definite 

one way manner.So sound must be the interpretation.

-DEFINITION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing writing represents language and emotions with signs 
and symbols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptogram cryptogram is a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted text.[1] Generally the cipher used to encrypt the text is simple enough that the cryptogram can be solved by hand. there is no cypher here.



Not our case.IF THE READEAR DOES NOT KNOW THE RULE OF CRIPTING (CIPHER) NO EVER or nobody at medium level CAN READ.What the crap if the text suppose would be really cyphered !?

We have no proper cryptograms on Tartaria tablets so people could be in dissaray/derouted about your given paper title.

Not to beeing enough if we do not know the language of that supposed writing, nor the writing system what is missing now is the fact that the writing to be encrypted. “When nobody knows to write who knows to read?” as asked Mr. Napoleon Savescu.

You are not aware of the results when kept mixed and not fully explained the ideas of crypting a text with covering a text.The writer of tablets did not use an system to translate or hide the meaning.Only phisically covered the supposed writing/text.You realise the difference between cripting and covering.He/her (supposed writer) only phisically covered the thext wich is not CRYPTOGRAM(s) at all.
-Even if the information is available to everybody, I wonder why on Earth you not get close to :
– sumerian proto-cuneiform sign library (nor proto-elamite/Harappa proto-writing) 
– Anatolian writings ones, nor CARIAN, (even as we know of  many migration waves  between Anatolia and Aegean/Balcans).Not get close and compare Linear A signs or not talking of cretan hieroglyphic,archaic greek, anatolian,iberian venetic etruscan writings.
 
-not studied enough aegean  library of icons signs.You are telling of “clepsidra sign” ( I am sure you recognised our ancestors paramount sign ORION or LABRYS !?)
– You know old chinese/japanese  “ny” sign (sun) or old hebrew phoenician sign keth/heth/cheth or linear A/B pa3  or archaic greek Heta/Eta.
-Our common ancestors related to Vinca civilisation wich not dropped from  the sky. 
– You cannot relate Tartaria tablets signs to Vinca signs cause those are much earlier but why not compare anatolian (e.g. carian) old hebrew, iberian, venetic or other sistems of writing ? One could realise that have there all  needed signs? https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam6.jpg
 
– One think that a computer with whatever software can give better results than human mind?  Dat-Das comparison had very poor results (see percentages as 18%) ! You some-how passed-over old basic European. BALCANIC=AEGEAN areas ancient paramount-level signs. See Orion=LABRYS= Great Mother sign, supposed y-sign (see linear A/B cretan signs),W =Cassiopeia.  There is not much present the East, Aegean areas.You noticed  the Cycladic-type artefacts beside Tartaria tablets and not comented.

SMART DISCOVERY, (supposed mesage intentional covered);SOLE AUTHOR: MARCO MERLINI



If it is about magic and religion it is realy possible and we have many explanations at different levels for the fact that message to be hidden from view of the ordinary  passing-by people.

only individuals supposed to “charming” ritual had the right to hear the message.As to read….., you only could suppose in those times how many, in fact only few of them could read or understand the message/signs.

we could think of the tablets as a holy component  comparing with an portable altar.

If think as a component of a type of religion, as a church have an inner sanctum (begining with sumerians) so covered portion is the inner sanctum of the tablets.

– think of tablets and other objects used in ritual as greek used MAGIKA HIERA=”SACRED MAGIC”

Isis Magic : Articles : Isis and Magika Hiera – Hermetic Fellowship

Yes, this Great Egyptian Goddess is many other things, too—wisdom, power, … all these are magic, and specifically magika hiera, Greek for sacred magic.


On the ‘hiera’ of the Eleusinian Mysteries | Baring the Aegis


baringtheaegis.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-hiera-of-eleusinian-mysteries.html


Sep 30, 2015 – Many ancient Hellenic religious traditions–and especialy Mystery Traditions–have hiera‘ (ἱερὰ), sacred objects. These objects are usually …


WHAT COULD BE SACRED MESSAGE ON TABLET ??


exemple :


signs HP                                            Se


                                                       R b o c


HaR/HeR(os)                           SeRBOS=SERVOS


 


Tăbliţele de la Tărtăria – Page 5 – Forumul Softpedia
https://forum.softpedia.com › topic › pag…
Mar 10, 2012 · 18 posts · 11 authors
Din What was the Proto-Indo -European religion like … This word comes from the root *xar-, meaning “to fit … *h2er “to assemble skilfully”, present in Greek harma …

 

PDFhttps://caio.ueberalles.net › Indo-Europea…
Chairs in Indo-European linguistics without particular ties to Sanskrit were created …. of chairs for Indo-European linguistics at universities. …… Cf. Proto-Gerrnanic ‘xar-ja- = Got.
 
http://biblehub.com/greek/5479.htm Cognate: 5479 xará (another feminine noun from the root xar-, “extend favor, lean towards, be favorably disposed”) – properly, the awareness (of God’s) gracefavorjoy (“grace recognized”).
And relation between servos and heros;
 

Etymology

From Serbo-Croatian Srbi, from Proto-Slavic *sьrbъ (ally, Serb, Sorb), from Proto-Indo-European *ser- (to protect, watch over); akin to Latin servo (I guard, I protect)Old English searu (weapons, armor)Lithuanian sárgas (watchman)Greek ἥρως (hrōshero),
 

BUT MORE, AND EQUAL INTERESTING

See

 

1.the stroke inside 1-st “D”  ?”i”?

2.vertical line from 2-nd “D” upwards    ?”b“?

 

signs
HP/HD             Di b o c
reading
Hede,ede (“this here”)                                            Dibos /deibos/deivos (=GOD!)

Heros/Hera (Lord,Lady)

dios – Wiktionary

Asturian Wikipedia has an article on: dios … Ladino dio), from Latin deus, from Old Latin deivos, from Proto-Italic *deiwos, from Proto-Indo-European *deywós.

Deus – Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Deus
Deus is Latin for “god” or “deity”. Latin deus and dīvus “divine”, are descended from Proto- Indo-European *deiwos, “celestial” or “shining



The truth about Macedonia: – Network54
www.network54.com › Forum › message
of The Indo-European words: Reeka, Ree, Rea and River …. We also know that Zeus is the Supreme God and’ rules’ the other gods on the tallest … as “qibos [5] = Dibos = divos” This has very close affinity to the Greek word qeios=qeos which .

 

 ALSO GOD=ZEUS,ZEU



“IF” Zoo=Zou=DDoo=DDou because of shift Z>>”DD”



Late Laconian dialect inscriptions and spoken Laconian in the Imperial Period …
www.academia.edu › Late_Laconian_dia…
… of Copenhagen – torerovskris@gmail.com 2.5.5 /d/ or /g/ + /i̯ / yields /dd/ in Laconian vs. Attic /zd/ or /dz/ – spelling vacillates between < ΔΔ> and <Ζ> since the Archaic period.



So, there are twoo posibilitiees to have written there the name of GOD !

 

 



 

 

Aion/Ion; Kogaion/Kugaion ;(dar numai in greaca:”Kogaionon” !)

May 10, 2018

Aion/Ion; Kogaion/Kugaion, (dar numai in greaca:”Kogaionon” !)


Asa cum veti vedea, numele stramosului mitic ION,al zeului timpului AION si acela al muntelui sacru KOGAION sant mult timp in spate legate istoric..KOGAION, AION si ION.Origini si legaturi lingvistice.Originea lor este mult departe inapoi in timp.
De exemplu sumerienii obisnuiau sa asocieze un termen zeilor si regilor.
Pentru zei, foloseau inainte de cuvant un semn ca o stea * ce insemna DINGIR:”zeu,ceresc”.Acelasi semn il aplicau si in cazul unor regi.Lingvistii de azi, cand traduc un text,inlocuiesc acest semn cu litera D pusa tot la fel inaintea cuvantului.
.Pentru regi acest semn avea rolul de a sublinia, scoate in evidenta  caracterul sacru asemanator-zeiesc .Denumirea sumeriana pentru rege era LUGAL:”LU-GAL”=”om-mare”.Ei asociau acestui Lugal=rege un termen care arata caracterul inalt,sacru al regelui.

Lu-gal  +Numele regelui + Kuga
om-mare+   Nume     + inalt,pur,sacru sau                                                                                   semnul*zeu,zeiesc“(lingvistii il inlocuiesc cu “D“)+nume+kuga

Ur-du-kuga – Wikipedia

Ur-dukuga, written durdu6-kù-ga, ca. 1767 BC – 1764 BC (short chronology) or ca. 1830–1828 BC (middle chronology), was the 13th king of the 1st dynasty of Isin and reigned for 4 years according to the Sumerian King List,


Fundamentals of Sumerian Grammar / Grundzuge der Sumerischen Grammatik
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=1597522988 –
Arno Poebel, ‎K. C. Hanson ; kug-a „glänzend“, „rein“, „heilig

kug-a:”stralucitor”,regesc,sfant.
Pentru presupusul nume KOGAION care pare a fi un nume cumva distorsionat, acesta poate fi interpretat rapid ca si:

1.KUGA-ION :”Bunicul,STRAMOSUL-Ion”, pentru ca Lycianul Kuga inseamna bunic.
Dumneavostra veti intreba, si ce avem noi in comun cu Lyceenii?
*Se spune ca originea comuna a Latinilor deci a Romanilor si Romanilor este respectiv in Lidia pentru romani si Lycia pentru daci,romani.
Romanii gandeau si erau invatati la scoala ca ei provin din Lidia, stramosul Enea care a plecat dupa razboiul din Troia in Peninsula Italica si deasemenea ca stramosul lor era LUDUS
Romanii stiu ca dacii aveau cultul si venerau lupul.Lycos in greaca inseamna ca si lat.”luce” rom:”a luci” stralucitor.Denumirea lupului venea de la faptul ca baga groaza in oameni cu ochii sai care straluceau noaptea.

greaca:ION=”umblator” A-ION:”fix”
2.KUGAION, KUGA-AION, “templul,asezamantul,salasul sacru al lui Ion” pentru ca asemanator,
MUSAION, sau HERAION sant MUSA+AION, HERA+AION :”locul fix,templul lui MUSA(arte),sau asezamantul zeitei  HERA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogaionon Kogaionon a fost muntele sacru al Daco-Getilor, locul unde Zalmoxis a stat intr-o pestera subterana pentru trei ani. Dupa disparitia in Kogaionon, el a fost considerat mort de catre geti dar dupa trei ani el a revenit la viata si s-a aratat poporului, care a devenit convins de rugile sale sfinte cand a iesit din Kogaionon. Strabo pretindea ca un rau cu acelasi nume curgea in vecinatate.
O traducere moderna Kogaionon ar fi “Muntele Sacru” care poate fi conexata cu un posibil cuvant Dacic kaga care inseamna sacru, cuvant atestat in doua inscriptii timpurii din Tomis.

ion,gr.”mergator,calator”, aion:”fix” aionon:”timp infinite,etern”
Astfel Kogaionon are doua intelesuri in acelasi timp.
koga-aionon :sacru-etern si templul sacrului-Ion sau mai degraba Zeul eternitatii, Aion.

Legaturi intre Aion si sumerianul Oannes:

Religion Before Adam – Lost History

lost-history.com/adam.php

A Babylonian priest named Berossus reinvigorated interest in the figure during the 200’s B.C., using the name of Oannes, a corruption of U-an, another name of …… He was also known as Aeon, a word used by Gnostics to describe the angel-like emanations of God, or in the oneness of God, such as the name Aion teleos, …

De fapt KOGAIONON nu este distorsionat pentru ca Koga este o dezvoltare lingvistica comuna in limbile Indo-Europene (dar nu numai):
GOGA &gt;&gt; KOGA.
Goga are originile in preajma regelui GUGU, cunoscut si sub numele de Gyges.
GUG/GOG este o radacina lingvistica Indo-Europeana care semnifica:”rotund,mare,inalt,umflat”
Deasemenea are intelesul de conducator (cu radacina I.Europeana “Ag”) : vezi DEMAGOGOS:DEMOS-AGOGOS:”conducatorul poporului”
Relativ la Ion, a fost un stramos al popoarelor respectiv ca si ramurilor greaca si latina precum Pelegus (“pelasgian”) dar mult mai vechi.
Dar Ion are legaturi si cu sumerianul Oannes ,iar acesta prin particula AN cu “cer/zeu” sau cu zeul pamantului Enki (domn-pamant)
KUGA-ION este ca si  KUGA-AN care este gresit, nu pentru ca KugaAn este echivalentului zeului Azag, un zeu subteran asociat cu taramul mortii si moartea.In schimb  KUGA-an-na.
KUGA-AN-AN it is: “sacru,pur-zeu,cer”
An(En) + An=Domn,zeu+Cer———————————————————————————————————
Nu avem numai lantul muntos GODEANU/GOGEANU                                                              (GUD-ANU,Gudanna?) GOG-ANu:”mare-ceresc”
Encyclopedia fiarelor si monstrilorin mituri,legende si folclor
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0786495057 Theresa Bane
Variatii: TAURUL CERESC, Gugalana :Un taur monstruos din Sumerul antic, Gudanna (“un atacator”) a fost descris ca fiind gigantic si avand respiratia atat de otravitoare ca putea sa omoare deodata 200 de luptatori …….

Gugalanna – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugalanna
In religia Sumeriana, Gugalanna este primul sot al zeitatii Ereshkigal, regina lumii de jos.
——————————————————————————————————- Instead
Azi avem printr-e popoarele din Asia kogea ; turk Hogea rom.kogeamite :”ceva (de dimensiuni?) anormal,excesiv de mari, foarte mare”
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja
Khawaja or khwaja (Arabic: خواجة‎) este un titlu onorific folosit pe cuprinsul Orientului Mijlociu,Asia de Sud,Asia de Sud-Est si Asia Centrala in mod particular inspre invatatorii Sufi teach. Cuvantul vine din cuvantul iranian khwāja (Pharsi: خواجه khāje; Dari khājah; Tajik khoja) si se traduce ca maestru,invatator,domn si in sens arhaic “nobil,gentleman”. Pronuntiile hodja or hoca (Turkish), খাজা (Khaaja) (Bengali), hodža(Bosnian), hoxha (Albanian), hodža (Serbian), hotzakis (Greek), hogea (Romanian), koja (Javanese)[1] and al-khawaja[2] sant de asemenea folosite. Numele este deasemenea folosit in Egipt si Sudan pentru a indica o persoana de o nationalitate straina sau cu origine straina.  Khawaja este deasemenea un supra-nume printre etnicii  Kashmir.
I found another root:https://books.google.ro › books
Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns · 1994 · Language Arts &amp; Disciplines
Pokorny 1959:517-518 *kago-, *kogo-, -a- ‘ goat’; Walde 1927-1932.1:336-337 *qago-, * qogo-, -a-; Mann 1984-1987:459 *kag- ‘goat, kid, goatskin’; Gamkrelidze-Ivanov …


Uncategorized « Cradle of Civilization
https://aratta.wordpress.com › page
May 18, 2015 · … the first element is probably cognate with hedge, which derives from PIE *kagh– ..…. 8000-9000 BCE) from the Zagros mountains and northern Mesopotamia , rather (hedge:imprejmuire,gard)
*********************************************************************************
*Nota
As vrea sa clarific niste lucruri, despre care nu stiu cum stau lucrurile de fapt.Nici cercetatorii de marca nu au clarificat aceste lucruri si au opinii diferite (si in legatura cu care eu am niste pareri si idei proprii):
1. Ce fel de oameni,markerul lor genetic si de unde au venit popoarele culturii VECHII EUROPE/Danubiene/Vinca-Turdas.
2.Cand, in cate valuri si pe ce ruta au venit popoarele Indo-Europene.
3.Daca Lycienii si Lidienii erau populatii native Anatoliei rude ale hititilor sau rude mai indepartate a sumerienilor.
4.Daca parte din ei au migrat inspre Europa sau a fost invers: o migratie timpurie a populatiei Danubiene inspre Anatolia (asemanator cum se presupune ca au fost Brugii&gt;&gt;Frigienii )
5.Cate valuri ale populatiei care au adus agricultura in Europa din Sumer sau Anatolia precum si cand.
6.Daca un numar relativ mic sau grupuri mici, familii de sumerieni sau Anatolieni au venit in Serbia si Dacia folosindu-se de prelucrarea metalelor ca indeletnicire primara si mai putin de abilitatile de agricultori.
7. Daca exista o legatura, a Dacilor, si in ce grad  cu popoarele Lycian,si al Gutilor (acestia din urma un popor din muntii Zagros, (care printre altele au cucerit la un moment dat Sumerul).
8.Care a fost exact relatia si legatura intre Danubieni si Egeeni.

Kogaion/Kugaion, Aion, Ion (dar numai in greaca:”Kogaionon” !)

April 27, 2018

Kogaion/Kugaion, Aion, Ion (dar numai in greaca:”Kogaionon” !)

Aion or Aeon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_(deity)
God of Time, Eternity and Zodiac
Member of the Primordial Gods

Aion, god of eternity, in a celestial sphere decorated with zodiacal signs, between a green and a dismantled tree (summer and winter). Before him is the mother-earth Tellus (Roman Gaia) with four children, the four seasons personified
Roman equivalent Aeternitas

Asa cum veti vedea, numele stramosului mitic ION,al zeului timpului AION si acela al muntelui sacru KOGAION sant mult timp in spate legate istoric.                              KOGAION, AION si ION.Origini si legaturi lingvistice.Originea lor este mult departe inapoi in timp.
De exemplu sumerienii obisnuiau sa asocieze un termen zeilor si regilor.
Pentru zei, foloseau inainte de cuvant un semn ca o stea * ce insemna DINGIR:”zeu,ceresc”.Acelasi semn il aplicau si in cazul unor regi.Lingvistii de azi, cand traduc un text,inlocuiesc acest semn cu litera D pusa tot la fel inaintea cuvantului.
.Pentru regi acest semn avea rolul de a sublinia, scoate in evidenta  caracterul sacru asemanator-zeiesc .Denumirea sumeriana pentru rege era LUGAL:”LU-GAL”=”om-mare”.Ei asociau acestui Lugal=rege un termen care arata caracterul inalt,sacru al regelui.

Lu-gal  +Numele regelui + Kuga
om-mare+   Nume     + inalt,pur,sacru sau                                                                                     */D(zeiesc)-nume-kuga                                                                                                        Exemplu:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-du-kuga                                                              Ur-dukuga, written dur-du6kù-ga, ca. 1767 BC – 1764 BC (short chronology) or ca. 1830–1828 BC (middle chronology), was the 13th king of the 1st dynasty of Isin and reigned for 4 years according to the Sumerian King List

Fundamentals of Sumerian Grammar / Grundzuge der Sumerischen Grammatik
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=1597522988 –
Arno Poebel, ‎K. C. Hanson ; kug-a „glänzend“, „rein“, „heilig

kug-a:”stralucitor”,regesc,sfant.

Pentru presupusul nume KOGAION care pare a fi un nume cumva distorsionat, acesta poate fi interpretat rapid ca si:

1.KUGA-ION :”Bunicul,STRAMOSUL-Ion”, pentru ca Lycianul Kuga inseamna bunic.
Dumneavostra veti intreba, si ce avem noi in comun cu Lyceenii?
*Se spune ca originea comuna a Latinilor deci a Romanilor si Romanilor este respectiv in Lidia pentru romani si Lycia pentru daci,romani.
Romanii gandeau si erau invatati la scoala ca ei provin din Lidia, stramosul Enea care a plecat dupa razboiul din Troia in Peninsula Italica si deasemenea ca stramosul lor era LUDUS
Romanii stiu ca dacii aveau cultul si venerau lupul.Lycos in greaca inseamna ca si lat.”luce” rom:”a luci” stralucitor.Denumirea lupului venea de la faptul ca baga groaza in oameni cu ochii sai care straluceau noaptea.

greaca:ION=”umblator” A-ION:”fix”
2.KUGAION, KUGA-AION, “templul,asezamantul,salasul sacru al lui Ion” pentru ca asemanator,
MUSAION, sau HERAION sant MUSA+AION, HERA+AION :”locul fix,templul lui MUSA(arte),sau asezamantul zeitei  HERA.

Legaturi intre Aion si sumerianul Oannes:                                                                                 The Book of God the Apocalypse of Adam-Oannes – Scribd https://www.scribd.com/document/…/The-Book-of-God-the-Apocalypse-of-Adam-Oann&#8230;

Oannes. is. also the. same. as. Sanconiathon’s Protogonos, or the First-born, as he was the first. heaven-sent Messenger and his wife : is. said to. have. been Aion, which. is. said to. mean the. first. v/ho found out. ihe food which. is. gathered from trees. — in other words she. The anvehicle of all the. was. skilled in horticulture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogaionon Kogaionon a fost muntele sacru al Daco-Getilor, locul unde Zalmoxis a stat intr-o pestera subterana pentru trei ani. Dupa disparitia in Kogaionon, el a fost considerat mort de catre geti dar dupa trei ani el a revenit la viata si s-a aratat poporului, care a devenit convins de rugile sale sfinte cand a iesit din Kogaionon. Strabo pretindea ca un rau cu acelasi nume curgea in vecinatate.
O traducere moderna Kogaionon ar fi “Muntele Sacru” care poate fi conexata cu un posibil cuvant Dacic kaga care inseamna sacru, cuvant atestat in doua inscriptii timpurii din Tomis.

ion,gr.”mergator,calator”, aion:”fix” aionon:”timp infinite,etern”
Astfel Kogaionon are doua intelesuri in acelasi timp.
koga-aionon :sacru-etern si templul sacrului-Ion sau mai degraba Zeul eternitatii, Aion.

de fapt KOGAIONON nu este distorsionat pentru ca Koga este o dezvoltare lingvistica comuna in limbile Indo-Europene (dar nu numai):
GOGA &gt;&gt; KOGA.
Goga are originile in preajma regelui GUGU, cunoscut si sub numele de Gyges.
GUG/GOG este o radacina lingvistica Indo-Europeana care semnifica:”rotund,mare,inalt,umflat”
Deasemenea are intelesul de conducator (cu radacina I.Europeana “Ag”) : vezi DEMAGOGOS:DEMOS-AGOGOS:”conducatorul poporului”
Relativ la Ion, a fost un stramos al popoarelor respectiv ca si ramurilor greaca si latina precum Pelegus (“pelasgian”) dar mult mai vechi.
Dar Ion are legaturi si cu sumerianul Oannes ,iar acesta prin particula AN cu “cer/zeu” sau cu zeul pamantului Enki (domn-pamant)
KUGA-ION este ca si  KUGA-AN care este gresit, nu pentru ca KugaAn este echivalentului zeului Azag, un zeu subteran asociat cu taramul mortii si moartea.In schimb  KUGA-an-na.
KUGA-AN-AN it is: “sacru,pur-zeu,cer”
An(En) + An=Domn,zeu+Cer———————————————————————————————————
Nu avem numai lantul muntos GODEANU/GOGEANU                                                              (GUD-ANU,Gudanna?) GOG-ANu:”mare-ceresc”
Encyclopedia fiarelor si monstrilorin mituri,legende si folclor
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0786495057 Theresa Bane
Variatii: TAURUL CERESC, Gugalana :Un taur monstruos din Sumerul antic, Gudanna (“un atacator”) a fost descris ca fiind gigantic si avand respiratia atat de otravitoare ca putea sa omoare deodata 200 de luptatori …….

Gugalanna – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugalanna
In religia Sumeriana, Gugalanna este primul sot al zeitatii Ereshkigal, regina lumii de jos.
——————————————————————————————————- Instead
Azi avem printr-e popoarele din Asia kogea ; turk Hogea rom.kogeamite :”ceva (de dimensiuni?) anormal,excesiv de mari, foarte mare”
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja
Khawaja or khwaja (Arabic: خواجة‎) este un titlu onorific folosit pe cuprinsul Orientului Mijlociu,Asia de Sud,Asia de Sud-Est si Asia Centrala in mod particular inspre invatatorii Sufi teach. Cuvantul vine din cuvantul iranian khwāja (Pharsi: خواجه khāje; Dari khājah; Tajik khoja) si se traduce ca maestru,invatator,domn si in sens arhaic “nobil,gentleman”. Pronuntiile hodja or hoca (Turkish), খাজা (Khaaja) (Bengali), hodža(Bosnian), hoxha (Albanian), hodža (Serbian), hotzakis (Greek), hogea (Romanian), koja (Javanese)[1] and al-khawaja[2] sant de asemenea folosite. Numele este deasemenea folosit in Egipt si Sudan pentru a indica o persoana de o nationalitate straina sau cu origine straina.  Khawaja este deasemenea un supra-nume printre etnicii  Kashmir.
*********************************************************************************
*Nota
As vrea sa clarific niste lucruri, despre care nu stiu cum stau lucrurile de fapt.Nici cercetatorii de marca nu au clarificat aceste lucruri si au opinii diferite (si in legatura cu care eu am niste pareri si idei proprii):
1. Ce fel de oameni,markerul lor genetic si de unde au venit popoarele culturii VECHII EUROPE/Danubiene/Vinca-Turdas.
2.Cand, in cate valuri si pe ce ruta au venit popoarele Indo-Europene.
3.Daca Lycienii si Lidienii erau populatii native Anatoliei rude ale hititilor sau rude mai indepartate a sumerienilor.
4.Daca parte din ei au migrat inspre Europa sau a fost invers: o migratie timpurie a populatiei Danubiene inspre Anatolia (asemanator cum se presupune ca au fost Brugii&gt;&gt;Frigienii )
5.Cate valuri ale populatiei care au adus agricultura in Europa din Sumer sau Anatolia precum si cand.
6.Daca un numar relativ mic sau grupuri mici, familii de sumerieni sau Anatolieni au venit in Serbia si Dacia folosindu-se de prelucrarea metalelor ca indeletnicire primara si mai putin de abilitatile de agricultori.
7. Daca exista o legatura, a Dacilor, si in ce grad  cu popoarele Lycian,si al Guttilor (acestia din urma un popor din muntii Zagros, (care printre altele au cucerit la un moment dat Sumerul).
8.Care a fost exact relatia si legatura intre Danubieni si Egeeni.