Tartaria tablets, latest advanced research. Answers to allmost possible questions.

October 31, 2019

Tartaria tablets, latest advanced research. Answers to allmost possible questions.

Picture,from https://www.descopera.ro/stiinta/3343280-misterele-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria

Map from https://cersipamantromanesc.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/adevarata-istorie-a-descendentei-noastre/

Image result for tartaria alba harta Tartaria village, Alba County

Only three important, crucial issues have been  in the attention of researchers, during decades since discovery of the tablets in ’61, until today.

N.Vlassa , chief in charge at the archaeological diggings. supposed discoverer .               His picture from https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-detine-cele-mai-vechi-scrieri-din-istoria-civilizatiei/

Image result for nicolae vlassa arheologul

Image result for tartaria tablets arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro Tartaria groapa Luncii from arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro

But also the same questions still surrounded by mistery, and interesting the audience at the highest level:                                                                                                                            1.real age  2. Genuine?  3. Whether or not carry a form of writing.                                       The answers to these questions will be, each of them detailed and almost dissected, and  have been the result of more than 10 years of dedicated research. Into the field of birth and followed by the evolution of writing in the world, various world writing systems, and then the comparative study customized and applied to Tartaria tablets (Tartaria tablets=TT)

1. Are TT as old as spoken/rumors ?

Various researchers have advanced different ages.There is no convergence of opinions. Their discoverer, N.Vlassa told of about 2.700 B.C. Then others went up to 5.300 B.C. (e.g. M.Merlini).                                                                                                                                             The age of 5.300 BC after me is completely out of  question, and the 2.400-2.700 BC is the maximum extreme theoretical! limit from which I can discuss after my humble opinion. I Will explain the reasons why even this latter age is not possible.

2.What are the arguments of most researchers for these TT ages (after me unrealistic)?

For 5,300 BC :                                                                                                                                          – the alleged finding of the tablets in the layer corresponding to the civilization of Vinca and the age same as of the bones (5,300 BC/C14) assumed to be found in the immediate vicinity. Image, from https://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

Image result for tartaria bones Tartaria Groapa Luncii, female bones dated 5.300 B.C.

At present, very few researchers are still claiming such an old age.                                     For 2400-2700 BC :                                                                                                                               – possible fallen down from above strata, so origin from newer layers (and hence the membership of artefacts to crops such as Cotofeni? Baden? Petresti?) and                          – related assessments of some artifacts found in the immediate proximity of TT, as pertaining to later cultures than Vinca A-C, as well as                                                                   – judgments and comparisons generally related to the time of appearance, and the evolution of writing in the world.

From https://alba24.ro/autenticitatea-tablitelor-cu-semne-pictografice-de-la-tartaria-enigma-pentru-unii-istorici-ce-spune-arheologul-horia-ciugudean-care-in-1989-a-participat-la-sapaturi-400800.html  :

Image result for tartaria groapa luncii Artefacts found alegedly with the tablets,

Image, from  https://fashiondocbox.com/90885882-Jewelry/Tartaria-and-the-sacred-tablets.html

Image result for  tartaria groapa luncii Tartaria-Groapa Luncii (the very site where tablets were found)

3.Were TT in that layer (VINCA) ? Were the tablets near the bones?

It is not known for sure;
“there are no photos or sketches, blueprints of the exact location of each artifact, and much more,

  • – Not known who were present/ all the persons close to the moment of discovery,        – where exactly were every of them, or walked in the ritual complex, when and how much time some missed (eg. Vlassa some hours)                                                           – Who was the very person who first saw or found TT                                                      – In fact who first touched them is not known.                                                                   – When, who gathered, packed the artefacts and transported to museum , when and to whom were given, where in the museum were put ?

In conclusion, there are no witnesses and no hard evidence of where exactly where every artefact/item including TT were placed or were found in the entire religious complex.                                                                                                                                               AS A RESULT, I HAVE ANY ASSISTANCE AND CANNOT RELY ON ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PLACE AND MOMENT OF DISCOVERY, AND THE SAME ON ESTIMATED AGE, REMAINING FOR ME THE SINGLE OPTION, THAT OF ANALISING THE SIGNS !

4.  There is available a scientific method of measuring their age exactly?

Their Age cannot be determined with any of the current methods. Worse not anymore, as the tablets have been baked in an owen (who has decided at an unknown temperature is not known) apparent, immediately after discovery, because they seemed to be friable.                                                                                                                                       (Not to be enough, before  chemical structure was changed , as were impregnated with nitrolack !)

5.Could be TT genuine  sumerian or how much could be related to the early stage of the sumerian handwriting?

There are not a sumerian, it is absolutely certain.                                                                          Top researchers in the proto-writing field said that although the signs are similar to the sumerian proto-cuneiform (proto-writing stage), the signs and writing are not authentic/genuine sumerian.                                                                                                              These researchers only mentioned these similarities and differencies in the passage and in a superficial way.                                                                                                                              I went into more detail and explained that the signs are similar in shape reflected only as blueprints, schematic way/sketch the proto-sumerian signs, but they have no their counterpart concrete shape.                                                                                                       Researchers shows shortcomings, they have                                                                                 – not identified all the signs, and they have                                                                                      – misidentified others. (Ex A. Vaiman, R.Kolev and others).                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The resemblance is due to the filogenesis of the writing in general. That is, the connection and the ultimate sumerian origin and transmission of the signs and in fact of many writing systems used in the Near East and in the Aegean area. Such a filiation, apart from the one noted by researchers I.Papakitsos and G. Kenanidis (relative to the Aegean proto-linear writing) is supported and explained by me and in addition and sometimes more detailed. However, I did not think of some assyrologists and specialists in sumerian proto-writing/proto-cuneiform (e.g. Falkenstein, A. Vaiman, R.Kolev) to approach a sumerian interpretation as long as they claim that signs are not proper/really sumerian?

From The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology                 Peter Damerow https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html

figure1

<<…. early writing systems seems to indicate, as Ignaz Gelb has pointed out in his famous Study of Writing (Gelb 1952: 212-220), that the idea spread in various directions at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC from centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Proto-Elamite writing occurs only a short time after proto-cuneiform. It was used for a short period in vast areas of the Iranian plateau. In the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, writing is attested as far to the north as Ebla in Syria and to the east as the Indus culture in modern Pakistan. Minoan writing starts at Crete around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At that time, cuneiform writing is also attested further north in the regions of Anatolia.>>

                                                                                                                                                                   6. What examples could be given  to support the fact that TT are not genuine sumerian ones ?

  • Always the sumerian signs/marks for numbers (with the apparent  D-letter shape) in the Sumer were made by imprinting, but ours are made by tracing/scratching.
  • Sumerian numbers : from https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing/
  • Image result for sumerian 3.200 proto writing numbers (Fig. 2) Impressed tablet featuring an account of grain, from Godin Tepe, Iran (Courtesy Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto)
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform Proto-cuneiform tablet (W 9578,g) from Uruk IV, 3350-3200 BC …
  • Only D-shaped proto-cuneiform sumerian NINDA/”bread” sign was traced/scraped. (on the right).                                                                                          Image from https://ro.pinterest.com/pin/488640628318570008/?lp=true
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform school tabletImage result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform
  •                                                                                                                                                     (We have on TT first D-sign on round TT very close to it, but not the same.            Image from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html                         
  • Image result for living moon tartaria)
  • Very many signs though reflecting by general way the shape of the sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, in fact their concrete and exact shape is much more like those that were later used in the Anatolian, Aegean (and even many in the Mediterranean) writings. As well as in the Near East (canaanite, phoenician).                 
  • IT IS A FACT THAT WAS NOT NOTICED NOt A WORD, BY ANY SCIENTIST, (ONLY BY ME) THAT:                                                                                                                                      – MANY SIGNS ON THE ROUND TABLET IS REFLECTING AN EVOLUTION, (CHANGED SHAPES THAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM), REFLECTING A LATER PERIOD OF TIME                                                                                                                                      One example:    Image result for moonlight tartaria     picture from  http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html                                                                                                                        The H-like sign (on the round tablet with 3 horizontal bars) looks much more like, and even is exactly the same as the folowing:                                                                          – the Heth sign from canaanite writing/1.500-1.200 BC,                                                    – the Pa3 sign from the Aegean/2.000-1.500 BC,                                                                     – the archaic ETA/Heta sign from the archaic Greek/ 800-500BC (apparent crooked-looking due of offset vertical bars). But the sign is actually further present throughout  Mediterranean. Only one sign is identical to that of proto-cuneiform, the sign +++++++, the sumerian ‘As’ and another is approaching (the 1-st D), the sumeria sign “Sur“.

The Sumerians, during any period, used a uniform writing corresponding to the time during which the scribe was living. They did not use pictograms and ideographic signs on separate tablets at/in a given time.

7. The shape of clay TT is very important?

I don’t think it is. Image from https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm

 Clay disc from Vinca, Serbia

Otherwise I know more examples  round tablets.                                                                  Sumerian star map, from                                                                                 https://curiosmos.com/this-5500-year-old-sumerian-star-map-recorded-the-impact-of-a-massive-asteroid/

Image result for sumerian star chart

and none sumerian ones with a hole. Then the Cretan tablets with the hole, but not perfectly round-shaped.

 Linear Script A/ http://arthistoryresources.net/greek-art-archaeology-2016/minoan-outline.html , and round ball:

 Cypro-Minoan clay ball in Louvre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypro-Minoan_syllabary

Folowing Karanovo tablet http://institutet-science.com/sakralna-plochica-karanovo/?lang=en

Image result for karanovo tablet

Another round tablet & holes, from Tartaria : https://adevarul.ro/locale/alba-iulia/tablita-secreta-tartaria-contine-obiectul-arheologic-descoperit-2014-semnele-erau-ascunse-privitorilor-1_57fcfa425ab6550cb876646f/index.html

Image result for tartaria tablet

Then the discussion about how flat or swelling/bulged are some or others do not see to be much productive.

 8. Are the TT genuine ?

YES. (More so yes than no! )                                                                                                                ( partly No, because it does not seem to be the result of a one’s intention to communicate by writing something connected with a particular economic or religious necessity.)

Yes, because the one who wrote them didn’t intended to fool somebody and whatever intented (we do not know what), the scribe was fair intended. It seems he wanted rather to practice the evolution of  writing or to show someone the same evolution and basic principles of writing.                                                                                                                     Maybe at the best succeded to write a short ritualic formula or short written economical token.

9. If the “writer” intended to show the evolution and writing principles, could be like/kind ofsumerian-like school scribal tablets ?

Definitely no. Because school scribal tablets:                                                                                  – put youngsters to copy teacher’s texts,                                                                                         – to divide tablets in writing sectors, and                                                                                    – were quite repetitive in content, as containing lexical lists, eg. of things, ocupations, etc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         From The tablet House: a scribal school in old Babylonian Nippur Eleanor Robson https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-assyriologie-2001-1-page-39.htm#

  • Types of school scribe, writing-learning tablets:

Table 1

Table 3 The order of the elementary curriculum in House F[20]
Table 3
tableau im13

10. What is the point, or why there are 3 tablets together?

The question can be asked because if you have something to say, you write everything on a tablet and  not spreading the message in three different places. Or at least write using the same writing system.                                                                                                 The answer is that he wanted to show the evolution of the writing from icons to ideograms, and even to some extent to syllables and letters.                                          We have                                                                                                                                                   – a rectangular (without hole) tablet with icons.                                                                            – another rectangular tablet (with hole) with ideograms.(These ideograms/logograms may have in the extreme the function of syllabograms)                                                         – a Round tablet (with hole) to all appearances shows the Aegean syllabograms, or even letters (Anatolian/archaic Greek).                                                                                              (except for 2 complex rituallic? marks/ideograms present in the right-hand lower quarter).

11. Are there any cases in the world of using by the same scribe of two or three writing systems?

Only exceptionally, two, e.g. the Roseta stone written with Egyptian hierogliphs and Greek letters, but there is no known case in which 3 writing systems appear (as in our case) and not with systems whose temporal spread  covers 2000-3000 years!      (Sumerian proto-cuneiform 3.300BC, Cretan  Hierogliphic 2,000 BC, linear A/B 1500 BC, Greek archaic writing 800-300BC) >> time span 3.000 years !

12. Is it claimed that the (by somewhat majority) the assumption  that the signs were used at religious ceremonies?

Although researchers make reference some for economic use and others for religious, none of them fully supports or demonstrate any of the alternatives. In other words, leave open the way for any interpretation (including a mixed one !?)
The scales is serious inclining for yes.                                                                                      (only slightly Not, since                                                                                                                        – the tablets contain only 2 complex ideograms (in the round of the right-bottom quarter) that could play a role in religious ceremonies,  otherwise all signs were used in different areas by different civilizations for true writing !                                                                           – many researchers noticed possible number marks, so economical purpose)                                Mainly Yes, since the round plate contains in the right-hand-bottom quarter 2 complex ideograms and in addition the rectangular one with the hole contains many ideograms/logograms, all of which are applicable to religious rites.                               And again, yes, as  it is possible that ONLY the upper half of the round tablet  contain a written/verbal/ritualic formula for use in such ceremonies. This may be, or sure it is the explanation, that this portion was usually hidden from the direct view of the passers-by, being covered by the rectangular one.

13. What about  scribe’s training on writing?

Most researchers claim that he was almost illiterated. I support the same idea. It seems that in general the tablets were covered with many signs from different writing systems and the only section where the scribe has managed to write is the upper half of the round tablet. Probably he was aware of this fact from the very beginning!                       (!…iliterated, but how happened he had the ability and the science to display signs used in large spatial and temporal expansion !)                                                                                          Having access to a large sign library, and an ordered, organized character of the signs on 3 different tablets,                                                                                                                                – Now, I am seeing the scribe different as in the past time, not as a person close to illiterate but maybe a priest(ess) ?, or rather kind of Berossus of his time !

14.How much new in extreme, could be the tablets ?

Theoretically and practically it could reach the very period of  archaic Greek writing 800-300 BC or that of the etheocretan wich goes/rich to our era/AC. 

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png

File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.pngBut it is excluded to be newer from the early Middle Ages due to certain aging traces. The possibility of a inscription of recent date does not exceed that of being written, by a catholic teacher-priest !!!, (… who had access to old writings and documents.)                          The tablets are shown as a collection of signs, apparently scattered from different areas and periods of time, but nevertheless ordered and somehow divided into three major  evolution of writing categories.                                                                                                  Who could have done this? It is all easier when we are approaching modern times ? where the possibility of access to signs used in the past is increasing.

15. The signs on the tablets belong to or are placed in a specific, particular writing in the world?

No! In fact my entire work mainly includes the testing of the various writing systems. Unfortunately no tablet is matching entirely with one writing. But no chance for all 3 tablets simultaneously ! The greatest closeness, that is, the largest number of signs can be found in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform and almost equal to the letters of the Anatolian writings.(the signs are found in the various Anatolian writings, the top being the carian writing/alphabets).

From Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

Then follows a series of Mediteranean writings, in the top  being Aegean  writings.               For these reasons, the writing and of course the tablets seem to have a subsequent age newer  of 2.400 BC. (See also Cretan hierogglyphic 2200-2000 BC ,linear A, 1800-1500 BC). None of the tablets can be read using a specific writing for each/no match. Much impossible to read/read using a single  writing system for all three !

16. Strictly on sign appreciation What age could be given to the  the signs ?

Although many signs and to a large extent only “look-like” the sumerian ones reflecting only by far their shape, in the general signs show to be much more recent (new). Unfortunately, a few (really few)  have not been used in the concrete form present on tablets absolutely no in the world before 1,200-1,500 BC !(e.g. sign D ; …oops present in Indus/Harappa writing)

From https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/qeiyafa-ostracon-2

                                                              Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C. ?)

17. The tablets belong to  Danube, Old Europe, or a Daco-Thracian civilisations ?

No, the Danube civilization/The Old Europe has come close, but it hasn’t even reached the stage of the proto-writing. cause was not a highly socially stratified society in this area, and there were no mach attraction or dedication to writing. In fact, the  tablets are singletones,  absolute unique. The tablets of Gradeshnita, Karanovo, Dispilio belong to other cultures and other phases of writing evolution (proto-writing).                     Regarding Cris-starcevo and Vinca Civilisations:

From Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

“Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28].                                                                                                                               …………..The first Neolithic inhabitants of Europe are described archeologically as belonging to the Aegean Early Neolithic cultures [27], from which the bearers of both the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in Serbia, Romania and Hungary [2837] and the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe (LBK) [21] emerged.                                                          …………These data are in line with the idea of a common origin of the LBK and Starčevo-Criş cultures from the Aegean Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece/Thessaly, the first Neolithic complex in Europe [24].                                                                                     ……………..Fernandez E, Perez-Perez A, Gamba C, Prats E, Cuesta P, Anfruns J, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C Near Eastern Farmers supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islans. “

18. Was the scribe a native of Tartaria ?

Definitely not ! The local community did not know the writing. The tablets were inscribed by an individual of different origin. From Anatolia and possibly from the Egeana area (Crete ?), or if you want of proto-Greek origin. Note that Anatolia is close, bordering  the Aegean, Syrian and Danube areas; (there are also indications of the presence of Anatolian craftsmen in the area of Vinca). TT could, however, be effectively inscribed by that person in his home-place or in extreme even in Tartaria.

19. What made for living the scribe; what could be his occupation/profession  ?

Others opinion is the same as mine, could be an prospector, craftsmen but much sure tradesman.

20.From the perspective of the evolution and existence of all writing systems in the world, which is the location occupied by TT signs ?

Here I have to say that because of the great similarity of the signs with the sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes, as well as the written signs used in the Aegean and Anatolia, to a large extent, it was possible and relatively easy interpretation of TT using each or any of these above writings This shows on the one hand the origin of the writing, but also the spread of the writing in space and time. The scribe and signs were coming  from somewhere in the space delimited by these civilizations.

From Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?  https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/28/writing-in-neolithic-europe-an-aegean-origin/

“For many years the earliest writing was assumed to have originated in Uruk, in Sumeria, Mesopotamia c. 3100 BC. Evidence from Egypt has now dated writing to c. 3400-3200 BC, while evidence from the Indus Valley suggests a date of 3500 BC for the development of writing there.  In the 1980s, a system of writing was noticed in the Balkans of the Final Neolithic period. This was identified as “pre-writing” by Shan Winn (1981) and Emilia Masson (1984) who considered whether this constituted a Vinča “script.” They each concluded that the Vinča signs represented a “precursor” to writing.

 

…   The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.”

 

21. The tablets could carry real script /true writing ?

 General opinion of scientists and scholars specialised in proto-writing is pointing for NO. Cause they realised that the signs are similar to those used in proto-writing, namely the proto-cuneiform signs. The use of proto-cuneiform signs is conducting only and unique to proto-writing ! And because almost all the signs are similar to those proto-sumerian it is about sumerian proto-writing.

Scientists also noticed that part of the signs are not identical in shape with those sumerian-ones, but probably thought that are a kind of variant, local adaptation, without explaining or detailing where or how this could happened. Thus begining with a basically “sumerian interpretation” their’s are in general close one to another and also close to mine.  Some told of economical tablets, seeing on the upper-right part of the round tablet only cereals and numbers.                                                                                                  But if taking as true that this section had ezoteric content and was intentionally hidden, it is cristal-clear that nobody was hiding numbers ! So numbers or ezoteric content, only one out of twoo !                                                                                                       But others, were pointing to an religious content, and not few saw ideograms wich not only could be used in religious rituals but in fact were practically used as such on a larger scale. In reality, the signs could be used for both purposes. In and describing an offering ritual ( cereals/bread and animals/goats). What I noticed myself that those ideograms are somehow similar to those used in ancient Aegean writings, (Cretan hierogliphic and Linear A), with the  result close interpretation. (even if  the signs are much close to those sumerian ones. )                                                                                    Exemple of closeness/similarities of Aegean signs to those sumerian ones:                                                              

Semn sumerian    Semn Egeean          Semnificatie                                                                             As,Se                          Te                          Cereale                                                                                  Gu,Gud                      Mu                           taur                                                                               Amar                        (a)Ma                     vitel/zeita-Mama                                                                 An                              ?                          zeu,cer                                                                                       Bad                            Da(Sa?)                        sacrificat,mort/                                                                 Ab /Zag/Ga’ar             Labrys               templu,stralucire/divin                                                      Ud                              capra,ied                         capra,ied                                                           Dara                                -”                                    -“-                                                               Ararma                      Asasara                          zeitate astrala?                                                         Gar                                   D                              masura volum cereale

From  https://enigmatica.ro/placutele-de-la-tartaria/

Image result for tablitele tartaria

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2015/cdlj2015_001.html                                                           BAD: …it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.”

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

From https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml (see no.7, UD/goat)

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

Folowing signs, from  https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Ab Amar An Ararma As Sze/Se Ud5 Zag~a Zag~c Dara~3d Ga’ar~b1 Sur  Gar

 

All interpretations, of scientists and mine are sending to, are in close touch with an -religious ritual !  !

22. But if you ask me of an possible true writing ?

I say, I hope yes, on the round table, the top half, although we have there a kind of “impossible” combination of signs (“Doo/DDoc” sequence) and apparently no way out. However, in that half of the round tablet, we could have the archaic Greek letters:

Image result for tablitele tartaria pic from http://www.ziare.com/cultura/documentar/tablitele-de-la-tartaria-cea-mai-veche-scriere-a-lumii-descoperita-in-romania-1090967

To the left: Eta/Heta Rho/D?                                                                                                            And to the right:    Doo, DDoc?/ Dtwo?/RRoo, Roc?

What could be written, what possible texts?

It seems that we will never be able to have absolute certainty anymore, of any message or text. By one side                                                                                                              – we don’t know the language used, and by the other side                                                           – because there can be more possibilities of letters and not know for sure whether the P/D signs actually are for D or R letters ; and also,                                                                      – a concrete number of letters (even they are few !) may lead to a relatively large number of combinations of n as many as m)

Can one make suppositions at least?

Yes, there would be a set of proposals to be considered, for example:

Here Roc Roc Albanian here Rrok= time grab, understand

HeRos DiBoc=DiVos Greek Lord/master Zeu (use in religious ritual?)

EDE DiDou Greek “now give!”/”give to eat!” (This proposal is of some interest, since the root of the ED is present in both food-related words (e.g. EDTA) and in that of kid Ed.educs. We have one or more kids on the pictGraphics? So through the icon of the iedului can suggest the word Ed,Ede !: Mananca!/kid, iedule)

HeDe Didou Greek now,already give! (do you give it?; religious ritual?)

! Caution, *hed is the root Proto Indo-Europeana for ‘mananca’!

HRist(s) DDoc Latin “of the doctrine of christiana”

Hero, ERO DDoc (Decreto Doctor) Latin will be a doctor (Lat.”Professor”) in the theological doctrine)

etc

23. Again. Why 3 tablets, each with different “writing”, and how to explain this (only the appearance !) are there signs?

In fact, it is not a pile of signs. It Is the fruit of a conscious and deliberate effort. Remember, as for me, who have come to keep in mind hundreds of signs from each writing system, it would not necessarily be easy for me. If I intend to show to a student or any reader the main steps in the appearance and evolution of  writing, maybe I would do much the same.

On a tablet I would show pure icons/pictographs, as the ones on the pictographic tablet. I would choose about the same kind of basic signs, which almost identical meaning in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform as with those of cretan hyierogliphic  and Linear A.               Cereal and goat icons. There is also an absolute unclear sign , possible ghost, man, gods !?                                                                                                                                                            On the second (like rectangular tablet with hole), I would figure sumerian ideograms that are almost entirely and close shape found in the Aegean syllabograms .                                                           Signs: Cereals, Gods, labriys, Gods, Taurus).

 picture from https://www.descopera.org/tablitele-de-la-tartaria/

On the third (round tablet) I would figure the pure phonetic writing (but not necessarily alphabetic!).Those signs have corespondence in sounds . As summerian ideograms , Aegeene syllabograms, and even  to Greek and Anatolian letter wich has every of them coresponding phonemes/sounds.

Examples:

On the pictographic tablet:                                                                                                                  the grain/cereal Sumerian icon, similar to the Cretan sign for cereals. And then the common icon for the goat.

On rectangular tablet with hole, 3 examples:                                                                                  1. The sumerian sign “Se” <> the linear A sign  “Te“, cereal, grain.                                                2. Then the sign ‘Animal head with long ears’:                                                                                 the “AMAR” sumerian /calf and Cretan Hierogliphic /linear A “Mu”/Bull , linear B “Ma“/sign of Mother Goddess.                                                                                                                         3. And the sign of the Orion constellation, the “Zag“/ the shine of metal, linear “Labrys” sign of the linear A divine power.

-On the round plate, only 2 examples:                                                                                                 1. The H-sign with 3 bars is the sumerian “Ku“, linear A “Pa3″,canaanit “Heth” and archaic Greek  “Heta/Eta“, old Latin “H“.
2. Sign (as with # but only with 1 vertical bar):sumerian “Pa” and linear A “Pa” (later “Z” in many writings)

I don’t know why, also on the round plate, the right-bottom quarter, two complex ideograms appear, Picture from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

e.g. one (on the right) is like the temple of solar gods Shamash/ 

Proto-cuneiform sign UD.UNUG:”sun -inner temple”

Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform

the sign of the punic Goddess Tanit, astral Goddess as Ishtar=the sign of the minoan astral Goddess Asasara.

From https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/baal-hammon-and-tanit-0012136                                                                                                                       Symbol of Tanit, the consort to the king of the Punic pantheon. (mrholle / CC BY-SA 2.0) Punic Goddess Tanit

WHEN THE TOPIC IS THE DEVELOPEMENT OF WRITING, WIKIPEDIA COMES ALSO (as TT scribe have done and I also would do) WITH 3 MAIN STAGES:                                                                                                                       Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages:

  • Picture writing system: glyphs (simplified pictures) directly represent objects and concepts. In connection with this, the following substages may be distinguished:
    • Mnemonic: glyphs primarily as a reminder;
    • Pictographic: glyphs directly represent an object or a concept
    • Ideographic: graphemes are abstract symbols that directly represent an idea or concept.
  • Transitional system: graphemes refer not only to the object or idea that it represents but to its name as well.
  • Phonetic system: graphemes refer to sounds or spoken symbols, and the form of the grapheme is not related to its meanings.                                                                         ———————————————————-

24. What was aiming at, or real purpose of the tablets ?

If, after a sustained and tenacious effort, I managed, succeed to have in my little finger or mind, (… where you want), thousands of signs grouped into different writing systems; (not discuss my ability or expertise compared with others, though I want such a challenge). If I could make a collection of signs in this way, that is grouped on the main types of writing folowing the course of time, with all the possibilities of 20th century documentaries at my disposal, probably the result will be close to those tablets.

Who, for God’s sake, from where and how long, does not discuss with what purpose, made a collection of ordered signs and divided into three major groups of historical evolution ? Note, signs with an extension of their use on a 2.500- years  time-span ( ~2.500-500 ECB)?

REMEMBER, SHOWING WRITING EVOLUTION NOT IMPLY THAT THE AUDIENCE PERSON WILL/TAUGHT TO WRITE

25.I put under scrutiny an important question and subject to follow; I am looking forward to your opinions with great interest.

Remember, the tablets are real an material and  not coming from somewhere from the virtual reality, and therefore do not hold as copies of others, so there are original, they were made by someone, though, and in this way original and not counterfeit, fakes. 

 Although they have taken note of the similarities between the signs on the TT and those in the sumerian, they have limited themselves to referring quickly and perhaps somewhat superficial only to a few aspects.                                                                             

What completely escaped my understanding is that none of them noticed and did not refer to the fact that the somewhat grouped signs, as if somebody divided them into three categories of historical evolution ??.

For example, a researcher with dozens of publications and books, who has literally exhausted attacking the topic TT from the perspective of all interdisciplinary branches (archeology, history, culture, seminary, etc.) starting from the Neolithic, (if not near the mesolithic) these essential aspects escaped him. Namely the similarities with the Levantine, Aegean, Anatolian and Mediterranean civilizations writings, and maybe worse, not noticed this kind of display of seemingly arranged signs in historical, in temporal evolution, and I am referring here to Mr Marco Merlini                                                                                                                            Image result for tartaria tablets                                                                  Mr. Marco Merlini, from http://www.prehistory.it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             (and mentioning his master, Prof. Gheorghe Lazarovici)

26. Possible explanation  ?

This spark-idea is mine, but not a recent-one, and could explain TT purpose and who wrote and/or used them . As to be brought at an unknown time and unknown religion by kind of missionary. The round tablet could have written on upper half,                                                                                                                                                                                               Pics from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

an ritualic formula, as out of the signs HP Di b o c , some could be:

greek : HEROS DIVOS = LORD GOD

latin:   HeRus  DeiVOS =    -“-      -“-

Note.                                                                                                                                                         “If” word God  is written, then like kind of Tetragrammaton m not to be pronounced, hidden like the name of YHWEH.(also have here 4 letters !)                                                   Was natural to be hidden from the view of passers-by, especially at the begining of christianism when followers were chased, ??

or a religious christian-like one ( “Our Father” pray: give us our daily bread

greek: HeDe/EDE !  DiDOS/DIDOU ! :Allready,this here,now/GIVE EAT !

latin:  ED/EDE   DeDou(i)=/DeDUI    : Kid-goat/EAT     GIVE!

From ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic … http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea                                                                                                           The barbarians were the ancient Europeans, non-Greeks, whose speech was not understood by the Greeks. ….. divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos.

From https://www.etymonline.com › word
deva | Origin and meaning of deva by Online Etymology Dictionary
… cognate with Greek dios “divine” and Zeus, and Latin deus “god” (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine,” in derivatives “sky,

From https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/  by Richard Vallance Janke

didomi-linear-b-archaic-new-testament

(in pictographic tablet we have an kid-goat and something totally unclear, as a human silhuette with hands forward as giving)

…. or you will wonder what other possible formula.                                                                   The presence of the other signs on TT, which apparently do not contain writing, explain it to me by the intention of creating a framework, appearance, but also the feeling and atmosphere of continuity and the transmission of knowledge and religious concepts of a eternal nature, originating in the very distant past.                                                                 The fact that all the signs on TT were used in a place, time or another for writing, raises my suspicions to me. As if that person had access to sources such as the library from Alexandria or the Vatican?.In fact, I shouldn’t be so much, as the priests really had access to such sources and were among the main propagators of culture in general.

IN THE WORK OF FINDING A PLACE, REAL &TRUE IDENTITY FOR TT, WE ALL FOUND SO MANY UNCOMMON, EVEN WEIRD & PUZZLING CHARACTERISTICS THAT THE TOPIC TEND TO MOOVE STEP BY STEP, FROM WRITING & SCIENCE FIELD TO OBJECTS FOUND ON EARTH FALLEN FROM OUTER SPACE.

 

 

 

 

Unexpected outcome (in romanian:”unde dai, si unde crapa!”)

November 19, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                                                                                                               I do not claim for a true nor an accurate reading, I am making only testings, showing samples for possible interpretations of the signs on the round Tartaria tablet. In romanian, “sample” is: “proba, exemplu, sondare”

Today I spent some hours searching for words in old languages begining with geminate D, “DD” ( in order  to solve and escape the weird, headaching, impossible sequence on the round tablet “D D o o/c” ).                                                                                                                      note:                                                                                                                                                         – The words with initial geminate consonants are extremely rare in I.E. languages   – As a result, we have a word with a geminate inside, word begining with the equivalent of the sign +++++ (Se,Su,Xi,Z. Zu..)                                                                                                                  – We do not know for sure if “D signs” are for d or for r, cause in archaic greek alphabets the sign was used as d in one place and as r in another !                                                                 – Carian, lycian and other Anatolian writings,  had greek-derived alphabets and signs/letters had different phonetic values as greek-ones ! From http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Carian                        Image result for lycian alphabet

 Picture, from    http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html                                                                                                                                       ———————————————

So I preffered to search in old languages.                                                                                        So for low chances hipothesys of a word begining with geminate, and supposing to be written with archaic greek letters. I found lycian Ddeu and Ddewe.                                         * The lycian language pertain to Anatolian branch of I.European family. wich  left earlier the  I.E. trunk/family. Lycians, “Lukka” (named by themselves  Trm̃mis, “trmily”) are supposed ancestors of Latins, see Aeneas story, Romanians included Lycaones/wolf people. The Lycian language has ancient characteristics, also an weird sounding and awkard language. Adding the scarcity of written material, the result is that there are only a few wich had the expertise.But even these few have no same opinions regarding the particular aspects, as in the folowing lines is true *

From A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz: Studies in … Yl Arbeitman, Yoël L. Arbeitman · 1988 · Language Arts & Disciplines Studies in Anatolian, Italic, and Other Indo- European Languages Yl Arbeitman, Yoël L. Arbeitman.                                             <<[4] mere … [9] ddewe (ou ddeu) : d’ après le contexte et l’ adjectif ddewezi >>

From WordGumbo Indo-European Comparative Indo-European – bulgari-istoria Ivanov V. Common Indo-European, Proto- Slavic and Anatolian Language Systems. Moscow.       << 3. ….. ddewe- (a city) dewi- B >>

From P. Serafimov – Etymological Analysis Of Thracian Toponyms And Hydronyms.pdf  “In my opinion Tabaya corresponds to Thracian DABA, DEVA, DAVA – gathering, camp, fortress, and of course to Modern Slavic tabor – camp (Sl, Blg, Cz). In Asia Minor Lycians used the word ddewe for a settlement, village and krte – city, enwalled place [7]”

My note:                                                                                                                                                   – for the moment I agree with settlement, village. This word could be a gramatical form of thracian: “Daua, Deba, Dewa?,Deva, Diza..”                                                                                    – But remember there is no consensus on meaning (eg. “city”) !

From (PDF) The Lycian ḫi-conjugation revisited. Arbeitstagung der … https://www.academia.edu › The_Lycian_ḫi-conjugation_revisited._Arbeitsta…                    Sep 23, 2015 – The inherited ḫi-conjugation in Lycian 2.1 The Lycian ḫi-verbs: the 3sg presents …. (2004 s.v.), denominative *-ye/o-verb to ddewe– ‘give, dedicate’ (?). ….. Neumann 2007) = Lyc. xi- Iterative Pret3Sg xi[st]te 55,6 ‘was offering …

———————————————————–                                                                                        Also as word-begining with geminate, I found:                                                                                 From https://books.google.ro › books
The Neapolitan Canzone in the Early Nineteenth Century as …
Pasquale Scialò, Francesca Seller, Anthony R. DelDonna · 2015 · Music
<< Furthermore, the word “dio” is pronounced [ ddìo]; “dio” also doubles in Neapolitan. … something significant while avoiding mention of the name of God), “Ddio” (God  >>  Signs DD o o/D D o u > reading> DDio, DDeu  ?                                                                               Note In a cultural movement named “Scoala ardeleana” in Romania (in order to reconstitute the original latin writing !?!),was used in writing DDeu for God/Dumnezeu                                                                                                                                                          From Transilvania – Feder.. – UAIC                                                                                                << pentru a reapuca opulu impacatiunii cu regatulu Ungariei , si a- lu duce cu voi’a lui Ddiou la o deslegarea folositoria si dorita de ambe partile >>                                              ——————————————————                                                                                                    On the greek side, I found also: From     The Archaic Cretan Greek Alphabet http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/archaic_alpha.html

<< zai (zeta): the sound denoted by this symbol seems to have varied in different Greek dialects. Some instances of classical ζ derive from earlier /sd/, e.g. ἵζω (hizo) “I seat” ← *si-sd-ō (cf. Latin: sīdō). The majority of cases, however, derive from a earlier */dj/, */gj/ suggesting that sound denoted by ‘z’ in transcriptions of Mycenaean Linear B was /dj/ or an affricate such as [ʤ] or [ʣ]. It would seem, however, that in the archaic and classical periods, by a process of assimilation or metathesis, the sound varied in the dialects between [dd], [zd] and [zz] with the latter becoming the norm by the Hellenistic period and giving way eventually to the modern Greek [z]. In Cretan Greek [dd] was the norm and the spelling δδ is also found. But there appears to have been a tendency in Crete to devoice this combination as ττ is also found for standard Greek ζ; indeed, we also occassionally find actual /tt/ spelled ζ. >>

My note:                                                                                                                                                   even if dd was found in the middle of words, why not :                                                                 From earlier PIE Dju > cretan Zu/Zou ( attested “Zou to lako” (for Zeus)!) or even unattested: DDou !?

From The Textualization of the Greek Alphabet Roger D. Woodard · 2014 · Foreign Language Study … λύγος (lugos), a term denoting ‘withe’, descended from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning ‘to … it is to the ‘Pelasgian Zeus of Dodona’ (Ζεῦ Δωδωναῖε Πελασγικέ [Zdeu

From On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods https://books.google.ro › books

Irmengard Rauch, ‎Gerald F. Carr, ‎Robert L. Kyes – 1992 – ‎Language Arts & Disciplines

… since forms with *dd < dj predominated, the modern Dutch form is hard ‘hard’, with a … But Van Wijk’s comparison of Balto-Slavic and Common IndoEuropean …

From Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic I | Human Voice …
https://www.scribd.com › document › Early-dialectal-diversity-in-South-Sl…
From How to pronounce the word ‘ddot’ – Quora
https://www.quora.com › How-do-you-pronounce-the-word-ddot
Jun 24, 2013 – I have never heard of this word, could you please elaborate on it’s meaning … Welsh uses an initialdd“, pronounced “th” as in “the”

——————————————————————————-                                                                    But after some time, I was turning by chance to the word Ardeal. Nobody knw when this toponim apeared and the true etymology. ( I found an entire polemic around the etymology on wikipedia)

Erdel — Brill
, Erdīl or Erdelistān , from the Hungarian Erdély ( erdö elve = beyond the forest); Ardeal in Rumanian; Siebenbürgen in German; the Latin name Terra Ultrasilvas and later Transsilvania being a translation of the Hungarian—the province of Transylvania which now constitutes the western portion …
referenceworks.brillonline.com

From Geto-Daci to Vlachs – Romanian History and Culture The Romanian word “Ardeal” was corrupted into “Erdel” and “Erdol” meaning “land of forested heights”. From the … “Ard” as an Indo -European root-word means “hill, forested ..

I had in mind the IE root ERD:”earth

Origins of European Peoples: Part One: Ancient History Mario Mosetto · 2018 · History Hen = tyúk = duck Then = atán = dann Beech = bükkfa = Buchse in German Salmon … Lohn (German) = salary Forest, forestry = erdő, erdel = Erde, earth Origin = eredet(Latin

https://books.google.ro › books
Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in …
P. J. Barber, Peter Jeffrey Barber · 2013 · History
other Indo-European languages. … ὀρθός ‘ straight, upright’; Lat. arduus ‘high, steep‘; OIr. ard ‘high’; ON. o ̨rðugr ‘upright’.72 However

( latin ARDEA :”Heron”) rom. batlan, cocostarc

In my opinion, there is ARD+ article EL (or ARDA+article AL) >> ARDEL, ARDAL, or ARDEA+ article L >>ARDEAL                                 =========================================

But begining from the root ERD, I realised that I have on the round tablet signs HP = “ER”

On the right, the signs D D o c.

But you seem inside the 1-st D there is an sign. Had an trembling hand, tremor the scribe when scraped this first D ? I think not, because the sign not begin at the finish of tracing the sign, when left tha sign tracing (getting the stylus upward).                                           This would be an “L”

So. out of H P D L >we obtain> ERDeL (or ERDELI, ERDELYI) What about the remaining ” Note                                                                                                                                                     Hope there was no such an idiot on earth,  in order to sustain a very early presence of hungarians in Transylvania/Ardeal and make forgeries !                                                                        But what about the remaining D o o”, or  “D o c” signs ?

Could be ERDELYI DOG: ” Ardeal carcass”………Brrr. scared to death !

One is making the connexion with the bones found close by. Another suposition would be “ERDELyi DOC” as for Erdelyi doctor <translated from latin> “Ardeal teacher”

Zsófia Torma – Wikipedia Zsófia Torma (September 26, 1832 – November 14, 1899) was a Hungarian … She was the first female to become an honorary doctor in Kolozsvári m. kir. Ferencz József Tudomány

Could be kind of gift from abroad, from an german? scientist or his brother who was also an archaeolog ? Or an gift handy-made by Torma  for herself waitng in vain the receiving of diploma? In fact the title become effective after she died !

This is the 2-nd time I am coliding with “doc”,                                                                                  cause the 1-st time was when I put D D o c” on Google the outcome was :                          latin abbreviation for “decretorum doctor”=”teacher/profesor of theological doctrine/canonical law”                                                                                                                       ( doceo: lat. “to teach”                                                                                                                           From doceo – Ancient Greek – English Dictionary (LSJ) https://lsj.gr › wiki › doceo             << dŏcĕo: cŭi, ctum, 2, v. a. root da; Zend. dā, to know; strengthened, dak-; Gr. διδάσκω; Lat. disco,  to teach, instruct, inform, show, tell, etc.   >>                                                                                                                                                                                                                            From Doctor (title) – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Doctor_(title)                                Doctor is an academic title that originates from the Latin word of the same spelling and meaning. The word is originally an agentive noun of the Latin verb docēre [dɔˈkeːrɛ] ‘to teach’.                                                                                                                                       Note: ….. and also DDOC, abbreviation for “DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA).                                                                                                                                                                                                        *This “doctor” title was given by Vatican authority around 1.500AD, to some hungarian priests, after finishing studies in superior catholic university, ?one from Romania/Cenad ?)                                                                                                                                                                  Not to forget that HP on the left could be for Hera (greek and latin for mistress)

So MISS TARTARIA of Mr. Marco Merlini, could not be his world-wide trumpeted neolithic sage/priestess, but who knows for sure who in fact was !?

*******************************************************************                              On the folowing picture, it is not clear if a tooth of the comb-sign go down to the D bar  or not ??. From  TARTARIA TABLETS – Prehistory knowledge

  My final opinion it is for NOT, the same as of Mr. Marco Merlini.

 But one must think that :                                                                               – there are slight chances when sombody is tracing separately the comb-like sign, and after this the “letter row” to result such a continuity/superposing of lines !    Try it !            – when tracing a letter with a ball-pen, we can do it in one step, without lifting the hand, but when scraping, tracing an “b”, is not possible !                                                                        – if it is the case of a religious-related word, we could expect kind of hiding, disguising of signs/letters, in order to not  be read by the  first passer-by at first sight.                                  – we do not know how thought the writer the succesion of steps or what in reality decided, done for writing those signs                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             From  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/First-tablet-from-Tartaria-Picture-483-478-pixels_fig2_331257472          Image result for tartaria tablets

So, taking as real such a posibility, signs : D b o c ??,                                                                   Note:                                                                                                                                                                 Big problem:                                                                                                                                    LUNATE SIGMA. The form of the Greek letter sigma used in Medieval Greek and occasionally in Greek Orthodox Church transcriptions: ϲ.    …. but not as bad I was afraid:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma#Lunate_sigma                                                           <<  In handwritten Greek during the Hellenistic period (4th and 3rd centuries BC), the epigraphic form of Σ was simplified into a C-like shape.>>                                                                                                                                                                                                                    reading: Di b o s >DIVOS                                                                                                                      ! note the  sign inside 1-st D, wanted to make an “I” and the hand trembled ?

From PIE in the Sky: The Proto-Indo-European Root of Zeus http://gorffennol.swansea.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Carys-Mills-PIE-in-the-Sky-the-proto-indo-european-root-of-Zeus.pdf

<<After all, PIE *w became the Latin consonantal u and the Greek ϝ. The ū present in the Latin diūs and Iū is thus explained by PIE *ēw > PItal. *ow > OL. ou > L. ū.

PIE Skt. Gr. Lat.
Nom. dyḗw-s dyaus Ζεύς diūs
Voc. dyew (dyaus) Ζεῦ Iū
Acc. dyḗ-m dyām Ζῆν diem
Gen. diw-ós divas Δι(ϝ)ός Iouis
Dat. diw-éy divē Δι(ϝ)εί-φιλος Iouī
Loc. dyéw-i diví/dyávi Δι(ϝ)ί Ioue
Abl. diw-ós divā Ioue

LATIN Dīvus, adj. ‘divine’
Nom. dīvus dīvī
Voc. dīve dīvī
Acc. dīvum dīvōs
Gen. dīvī dīvōrum
Dat. dīvō dīvīs
Abl. dīvō dīvīs  >>

From ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic …                                            http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea

<< The forms divo > diva > divi > dii are very similar and also provide an alternate meaning to the Latin words ‘dii > die > deus’. What is most interesting and significant is that ancient coins, which have been found in the Balkans with a form of the word “Divos” inscribed in them [8]:

qibos [9] =  Dibos  = divos”

qibos is similarly close to the Greek word qeios or qeos,  which today is widely used in a significant part of society.

It is important to note here that in other European languages, words associated with the word Theos > Deos > God have only shallow etymological and functional root relationships. Curtius [1] has hinted to the possibility that some present forms of the word Theos could have evolved from the root/concept relating to divos, but he did not provide complete and convincing arguments mainly because he did not consider the Slavic languages as platforms for his interpretation. He quotes the Italian etymologist Ascoli [10] who identified ‘Theos’ with the Sanskrit root div and divja-s ‘heavenly’ and from div-eo-s arrived at dveos and theos:

divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos >>

TARTARIA: HERO DIVOS : ” LORD GOD/DIVINE/CELESTial ” ?                                     romanian:

 “DOMNUL – ZEU D U M N E Z E U

Even using so-called hungarian rovasiras,

Out of the signs: wich are: Z-Ni, ZeN,  Dz-eNi,                                                                                                                                                                                                     From https://www.omniglot.com/writing/hungarian_runes.htm

Székely-Hungarian Rovás

The variants of the Ζεύς paradigm from the different Greek dialects are shown in the
table below:2
Nom. Ζεύς / Δεύς / Ζήν / Ζάς / Ζάν / Δίς
Voc. Ζεῦ
Acc. Ζῆν / Ζῆνα / Δῆν / Δῆνα / Ττῆνα / Τῆνα / Δι(ϝ)α / Δια / Ζᾶνα / Ζέα / Ζεῦν
Gen. Δι(ϝ)ός / Διός / Ζηνός / Ττηνός / Ζανός / Ζαντός / Ζεός

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik05/belchevsky_rea.htm                                             It is important at this point to also point out the conceptual relationship of woman to procreation, offspring, existence and life propagation, as most profoundly expressed in Macedonian/Slavic Languages: ???? (zhena), ???? (zhene), ???? (zheni), ?????? (zheneti) > gene > genesis > genetics

montes serrorum

November 13, 2019

Carpathian Mountains – Unionpedia, the concept map

https://en.unionpedia.org › Carpathian_Mountains

Montes Serrorum nu inseamna Muntii Serilor !                                                                             Pe de o parte denumirea vine din latina:                             http://www.dicolatin.com/FR/LAK/0/SERRI/index.htm

nom propre
SERRIUM, II, n
1 siècle après J.C.PLINIUS (Pline)
Serrium n. : montagne et promontoire de Thrace
nominatif pluriel SERRI
vocatif pluriel SERRI
accusatif pluriel SERROS
génitif pluriel SERRORUM

Iar pe de alta parte vine din latina vulgara care face parte din si cuprinde familia limbilor romanice (romance family) din care face parte romana si spaniola.                        De fapt, SERROU inseamna “retezat” : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228677946_WordNet_as_a_base_lexicon_model_for_the_computation_of_verbal_predicates

Ele serrou a ´arvore com a serra.
‘he sawed the tree with the saw’
Si probabil in latina SERRI=”retezati” >>gen.pl. SERRORUM:”(ai) RETEZATILOR”
Deci momtes Serrorum:”muntii RETEZATILOR”

Montes Serrorum – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Montes_Serrorum

(PDF) List of Greek and Latin roots in English List of Greek …


https://www.academia.edu › List_of_Greek_and_Latin_roots_in_English_…

IDA & DIKTE.

November 3, 2019

Muntii Ida au existat si venerati sub acest nume atat in Anatolia cat si in Creta. In Creta exista si muntele Dikte, in apropiere de Ida si de multe ori confundati unul cu altul.

M-am oprit de mai multe ori sa incerc sa deslusesc semnificatia lui Ida dintr-o serie de cuvinte minoice gen I-DA-MA-TE , I-DA-IA, IA-DI-KI-TE, etc.etc.

Pentru numele Ida, am gasit vre-o 7 cercetari cel outin, care fac referire si trimiteri in varii directii, precum ca ar avea legatura cu:                                                                                   ————————————————-

  • sumerianul IDA care inseamna rau, curs de apa
  •  

    Maximillien De Lafayette – 2014 – ‎Education

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

     

  • 7, 2012 – of many Sumerian and proto-Indo-European terms. C. The linguists have also ….. IDA, ID, I 7 river, canal, watercourse. ID 4,8 IT 4 moon, month     

  •             
  •  


  • sanscrit IDA libatie
  • Ida – Yoga  http://www.yogapedie.com › ida_(sanskrit)

     

    Iḍā (??? en devanāgarī) est un terme sanskrit signifiant : f. rafraîchissement, réconfort,; libation ; (au fig. ) flot de louanges,; soc. part de l’offrande que les …

  • The Vedic word idā means refreshing drink, libation. It is also the name of the Vedic libation-goddess Ida. She provides gods and men with her powerful drinks, based on milk and butter, for which she is associated with the cow (like the Vedic Mother goddess Aditī). The word I-DA is one of the most frequently recurring terms in the religious Minoan formulas that are inscribed on tables, ladles and cups used for the libation ritual. The inscriptions show I-DA on its own, as I-NA-I-DA (inā idā: mighty Ida), or as U-PA-MA-I-DA (upamā idā: excellent Ida). The text I-DA-MA-TE (libation-mother) is found on two votive double axes, of gold and silver, offered to a sacred mountain cave (cf. Duhoux 1994-1995 about the Linear A text DA-MA-TE inscribed on a Minoan libation spoon)….
  • DOC]

    The Minoan libation formulas

     

    http://www.minoa.nl › The Minoan libation formula

     

    by A van den Kerkhof –

Introduction

In the past century, various authors reported evidence for a link between the Harappan and Vedic civilizations of the Indus Valley and the Minoan culture of Crete (L.C. Fabri 1935; H. Mode 1944; S. Alexiou; R. Kamm 1967). In 1999, V. Sarianidi provided a plausible explanation for the observed similarities by reconstructing a migration route of Near Eastern Aryans into the Indian subcontinent. The present authors observed that Sarianidi’s theory implies the possibility that the Minoan language is close to Vedic and tested this hypothesis on the two best documented Linear A words from the Minoan language, KU-LO and PO-TO.  It was found that both words are indeed meaningful and grammatically correct Vedic in their Minoan context. This paper analyses the religious inscriptions on cups, ladles and tables that are known as the Minoan libation formulas in order to identify elements of Minoan religion.

The Vedic libation ritual

The Vedic gods have the important responsibility to keep the world in good order. However, they cannot achieve this without the power and strength delivered by libations and song. It is the task of man to supply these essential ingredients at the break of day, when “Night and Dawn” present themselves together. At that moment, according to Vedic religion, the Celestial Doors open and the gods come to accept the songs and the offerings of milk, butter and oil that are poured into the ritual fire. Food and drinks are the gifts of the Vedic mother goddesses; the only self-supporting entities of the Vedic world. One of her is the libation goddess Ida. Her name means refreshing drink or libation.

A-TA-I-*301-WA-JA  TU-RU-SA  DU-*314-RE

I-DA-A  U-NA-KA-NA-SI  I-PI-NA-MA  SI-RU-TE                                             (KO Za 1)

. The middle formula has the alternative I-DA-A (Vedic idās: libations) instead of the  ideogram. Idā, as a libation offering, is the milk or butter that is offered to the gods. The text writes I-DA-A with an extra –A, probably because the original form was idās (acc. pl): the euphonic rules of the Vedic language prescribe that the final –s must drop before the initial U of the following word, but this leaves an audible hiatus. The top formula (TL Za 1) replaces the  ideogram by JA-SA-SA-RA-ME. Since JA-SA-SA-RA-ME replaces idās and , it is likely to be an offering too. Indeed, yaçastaram occurs also in the Rig Veda (VIII 2,22) where it refers to an offering of soma (a Vedic libation). The ending -ME approximates the Vedic acc.sing. ending –m, showing the Cypriot treatment of trailing consonants.

  • ———————————————————————————————————-                         I-European IDA, pom, padure
  • ida (ide) ‘treeforest [Old-Ir. fid, Gen. fedo ‘tree, trees, forest’]. 
    —-

    A Grammatical Dictionary of Botanical Latin


    http://www.mobot.org › mobot › latindict › keyDetail

     

    ————————————————————————————

  • grec IDA lupta
  • http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/biblio.html
  • Kaczynvska, Elwira
    2002    “Greek ida ‘Battle, Fight, Combat’: A Term of Minoan Origin?” Kadmos 41: 137-140.
  • ————————————————————————-                                                                  incercarea mea I-DA :”astfel,acesta este” bazat pe prezenta lui Da intr-o serie de socoteli economice in dreptul rezultatului ca un fel de “da, este” ?
  • http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/#10
  • DA-I = “total“?: HT 12.6 (Schoep 2002, 162); cf. DA-I-PI-TA, ZA 8.5. If DA- (as in DA-DU-MA-TA) indicates in some way a completed action (like a perfect of A-DU), could DA-I be a completed transaction *516 I+[?] (q.v. under Ideograms/Logograms)?
  • A-DU = “assessment”?: HT 95.b1 (and elsewhere)                                                               A few words appear both in root form and with I- or J- prefixes (I+consonant, J+vowel). Duhoux 1997 identified these prefixes as meaning “to/at.I-DA-MA-TE (AR Zf 1, Zf 2), “to” DA-MA-TE (KY Za 2)
  • ————————————————————————————
  • Imaginea, din Pelasgians and Balto-Slavic. The search for common roots http://suyun.info/index.php?LANG=ENG&p=4_17062017_7_2
  • The Studies of L. A. Gindin and V. L. Tsymbursky show us, that ancient population from Indo-Europeans of the Balkans were Pelasgians, in this regard, i assume that the Pelasgians were the ancient ancestors of the Proto Greek-Italic tribes, and related Proto Balto-Slavic tribes. Of the my opinion that the ancestors of the Pelasgians came to the Balkans and the Italian Peninsula from Central Europe and the Baltic.
  • me: ????
  • Din http://www.biroz.net/words/minoan-notes.htm                                                                 43 – In the case of Mt.Ida, it is possible to consider ιδα from an archaic Fιδα, in turn from a Proto-Indo-European root, *wid- ‘to see’, assuming that Ida is a post-Minoan name. Similarly, under the same assumption, it is possible to link Mt.Dikte, δικτε, as a cognate of -dic-‘ in ‘indicate’, from Latin dicare ‘declare, point out’.
    HI-DA. MEANING = Ida = mountain where the epiphany
  • Din (PDF) Written evidence for the Minoan god from Dicte | Ratko …

     

    https://www.academia.edu › Written_evidence_for_the_Minoan_god_fro…

     

    15 G. Owens, “The Structure of the Minoan Language,” Journal of …. assumes that both toponymsIdaand Dicte have an IE origin, from the roots *wid and *dik, …
  • the two terms wich are connected with mountains, and wich later become oronims, i.e. dikte and Ida, are both derived from *Indo-European Roots that mean to point out, reveal, make clear, *dik- and to see *-wid, both of wich well describe the most scene of Minoan iconography, the epiphany of the Mother-Goddess on the mountain.
  • I-JA/NA cognate with *eis “holy, sacred”  I-NA-I-DA: “Holy mount Ida, or to “Holy Epiphany
  • Atentie, gr. eidolon si hitit idalu “rau” !?
  • Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon
  • In ancient Greek literature, an eidolon (plural: eidola or eidolons) (Greek εἴδωλον: “image, idol, double, apparition, phantom, ghost) is a spirit-image of a living or dead person; a shade or phantom look-alike of the human form.
  • Din http://archive.worldhistoria.com/minoan-civilization-originated-in-anatolia_topic24005_page2.html
  • Minoan                   Greek                   English
    DIKITE                    DIKNO                   Indicate
  • Ida = i saw in Greek

Sumerian Information of the Annunaki — compared to the …

http://www.mazzaroth.com › ChapterThree › SumerianInfoOfAnnunaki-Anakim

 

Europe’s first advanced civilisations originated from TURKEY: Early Greeks were descendants of early Neolithic farmers who migrated from Anatolia, DNA reveals https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4750460/Ancient-DNA-analysis-reveals-Minoan-Mycenaean-origins.html
  • Experts analysed tooth DNA from the remains of 19 ancient individuals 
  • They were identified as Minoans, Mycenaeans and people from Anatolia
  • The results showed that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically linked
  • Their shared ancestors are believed to have been Early Neolithic farmers  
  • They migrated from Anatolia thousands of years before the Bronze Age
Deci IDA ar fi dupa mine “APARITIE (fantomatica), VEDENIE” !

Cercetare avansata.Raspunsurile la orice intrebari imaginabile legate de tablitele de la Tartaria.

October 20, 2019

Cercetare avansata.Raspunsurile la orice intrebari imaginabile legate de tablitele de la Tartaria.

Doar trei chestiuni sant de o importanta fundamentala.Aceste chestiuni au fost si sant in continuare in centrul atentiei cercetatorilor, pe parcursul a zeci de ani de la descoperire, inclusiv pana astazi. Dar si inconjurate de mister interesand publicul in cel mai inalt grad:                                                                                                                  1.vechimea                                                                                                                                          2. originalitatea                                                                                                                                  3. daca prezinta sau nu o forma de scris.                                                                            Raspunsurile la aceste intrebari vor fi, fiecare in parte amanuntite si chiar disecate. Ele sant rodul unei cercetari de mai mult de 10 ani privind aparitia si evolutia scrisului in lume, diferite sisteme de scriere, si apoi studiul comparativ particularizat si aplicat tablitelor de la Tartaria (Tartaria tablets=TT)

1.Sant TT atat de vechi…pe cat se vorbeste ?

Diferiti cercetatori au avansat diferite date.Nu exista o convergenta de opinii:              4200-3900 BC (Tringham 1971: 114), ; 5000 BC (Neustupny 1968b: … ; 2900-2700 BC (Vlassa 1976: 33) ; 2500 BC (Hood 1967: 110).  Apoi altii au mers pana la 5.300 B.C. (ex. M.Merlini).                                                                                                                                     Varsta 5.300 BC dupa mine, iese complet din discutie, iar cea de 2.400-2.700 BC este limita maxima extrema de la care incoace dupa umila mea parere am putea discutaVoi explica mai incolo motivele pentru care chiar aceasta varsta nu este posibila.

2.Care sant argumentele majoritatii cercetatorilor pentru aceste varste ale TT (dupa mine nerealiste) ?

Pentru 5.300 BC argumentele  sant:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         – presupusa gasire a tablitelor in stratul corespunzator civilizatiei Vinca si varsta oaselor (5.300 BC/C14) presupus gasite in imediata vecinatate. In prezent, extrem de putini cercetatori mai sustin o vechime atat de mare.                                                              Pentru 2400-2700 BC argumentele sant:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              – marea asemanare a semnelor cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme cuplat cu o intarzie re a transmiterii semnelor din Sumer                                                                                 – posibila provenienta din straturi mai noi (si deci apartenenta la culturi cum ar fi Cotofeni? Baden? Petresti?) si                                                                                                               – aprecieri legate de originea catorva cateva artefacte gasite in imediata proximitate a TT, (ex. Ciclade)precum si                                                                                                                    – aprecieri si comparatii legate in general de aparitia, evolutia scrisului in lume.

Din The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology Peter Damerow https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html                                                                                                                                                                                               <<….early writing systems seems to indicate, as Ignaz Gelb has pointed out in his famous Study of Writing (Gelb 1952: 212-220), that the idea spread in various directions at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC from centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Proto-Elamite writing occurs only a short time after proto-cuneiform. It was used for a short period in vast areas of the Iranian plateau. In the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, writing is attested as far to the north as Ebla in Syria and to the east as the Indus culture in modern Pakistan. Minoan writing starts at Crete around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At that time, cuneiform writing is also attested further north in the regions of Anatolia.>>

figure1

3.Au fost TT in acel strat (VINCA) ? Au fost tablitele langa oase? Cine le-a gasit ?

Nu se stie deloc ;                                                                                                                                      – nu exista fotografii nici schite privind locul exact unde se afla fiecare artefact                – nu se stie cu exactitate ce persoane au fost prezente in preajma momentului descoperirii, unde se aflau exact sau pe unde au umblat in sit si nici care, cand si cat timp au mai si lipsit (ex. Vlassa)                                                                                                          – nu se cunoaste persoana care a vazut prima oara (gasit) TT (care le-a atins prima data)                                                                                                                                                         – nu se cunoaste cine si cand a impachetat artefactele, cine, cand le-a dus la muzeu si unde sau la cine le-a lasat                                                                                                                       – in concluzie, nu exista nici martori si nici-un fel de dovezi privitor la locul exact in care au fost gasite TT in cadrul intregului complex cultic, sau care a fost persoana care le-a atins prima data.Exista numai franturi de relatari disparate ale persoanelor care au participat la excavatii.Deasemenea vechimea estimata este intr-un mare ecart temporal.                                                                                                                                              CA ATARE, EU NU POT PUNE ,(CU TOT RESPECTUL) NICI-O BAZA PE ELEMENTELE CONCRETE DE LA LOCUL SI MOMENTUL DESCOPERIRII SI NICI PE VRE-O VECHIME ESTIMATA. CEL PUTIN MIE NU-MI SANT DE NICI-UN FOLOS, RAMANANDU-MI OPTIUNEA UNICA. ACEEA DE ANALIZA A SEMNELOR !

Iuliu Adrian PAUL ENIGMA TĂBLIŢELOR DE LA TĂRTĂRIA
SCHIŢĂ PRELIMINARĂ* http://bjastrasibiu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/130-iuliu.paul_.pdf

“Din păcate, semnele de întrebare în loc să scadă s-au înmulţit. Simpla
parcurgere a bibliografiei existente ilustrează în bună parte şi motivele. De
pildă, nimeni nu poate înţelege cum s-a putut săpa, preleva, transporta şi depozita un astfel de complex fără a sesiza prezenţa tăbliţelor, indiferent de
starea lor de conservare şi, poate, tocmai datorită acestei „stări”. ….                                   Am aşteptat, împreună cu studentul L.Attila, întoarcerea lui N. Vlassa după care, tot conform înţelegerii iniţiale am deschis şantierul de la Pianu, urmând ca la întoarcerea sa, N. Vlassa să mă contacteze pentru a hotărî procedura de urmat. Nu am mai primit nici o veste până în anul următor (1962) când am aflat despre descoperire şi publicarea acesteia în Dacia (N. Vlassa….). Ar mai fi de adăugat şi faptul că Laszló Attila, în prezent prof. univ. dr. în arheologie la Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, deşi a participat, de la începutul până la sfârşitul săpăturilor din 1961, nu a văzut – după propriile
sale mărturii, repetate – nici momentul descoperirii şi nici vreuna din piesele complexului. Tăbliţele le-a văzut pentru prima oară, la muzeu, după conservarea lor. “

4. Actualmente, exista vre-o metoda stiintifica de masurare exacta a varstei lor ?

La ora actuala nu exista. Varsta lor nu poate fi determinata cu niciuna din metodele actuale. De fapt mai exact, nu se mai poate, intrucat tablitele au fost arse in cuptor ; nu se cunoaste exact momentul, data, cine a hotarat si la ce temperatura, (necunoscuta). Cumva imediat dupa descoperire, pentru ca pareau a fi friabile.Si ca sa nu fie suficient, in plus, inainte de coacere au fost impregnate cu nitrolac !!

5.Pot fi sumeriene sau cat pot fi legate de faza incipienta a scrisului sumerian ?

Nu sant sumeriene, este absolut sigur.                                                                                    Cercetatori de top in domeniul proto-scrierii au afirmat ca desi prezinta asemanari cu faza proto-cuneiforma sumeriana, scrisul nu este autentic sumerian. Acesti cercetatori au amintit doar in trecere si superficial atat asemanarile cat si deosebirile. (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman si altii).                                                                                                  Eu am intrat inca si mai in detaliu si am explicat ca asemnele de pe tablite, prin forma lor reflecta doar in mare, schematic semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, dar nu au deloc forma lor concreta. Cercetarile lor prezinta lipsuri, adica:                                         – nu au identificat deloc unele semne, iar                                                                                       – pe altele le-au identificat gresit. (Ex. A.A.Vaiman. R.Kolev si altii).                                    Asemanarea semnelor cu cele sumeriene se datoreaza filogenezei scrisului. Adica filiatiei si originii ultime sumeriene a semnelor ( si de fapt a multor sisteme de scriere folosite in Orientul Apropiat si aria Egeeana). O asemenea filiatie, inafara de cea notata de cercetatorii I.Papakitsos si G.Kenanidis (relativ la scrisul proto-linear Egeean) am sustinut-o si explicat-o si eu in completarea lor si uneori mai detaliat.Totusi nu-mi explic care a fost gandirea unor asirologi  si specialisti in proto-scrierea sumeriana (nu a tuturora, ex. Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman, R.Kolev ) sa abordeze o interpretare sumeriana desi sustin ca nu sant propriu-zis sumeriene ? Totusi, ca sa fiu sincer, in general nu a abordat o interpretare pur sumeriana, adica sa foloseasca limba sumeriana ci in mare masura au interpretat semnele. Pentru ca interpretarea ideogramelor este asemanatoare (intelesuri asemanatoare) fie ca vorbim de scrierea sumeriana sau cea Egeeana. Imaginea, din  https://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

6.Care ar fi cateva exemple in sustinerea faptului ca TT nu sant original sumeriene ?

– intotdeauna semnele sumeriene pentru numere (cu forma aparenta a literei D) in Sumer au fost facute prin imprimare, ori la noi sant executate prin trasare/zgariere.Doar semnul sumerian proto-cuneiform NINDA=”paiine”, Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform asemanator cu primul semn D de la noi, era executat prin trasare.

Din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

– foarte multe semne desi reflecta schitat forma celor proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, de fapt forma lor concreta si exacta se aseamana mult mai mult cu cele aparute mult mai tarziu in scrierile Anatoliene, Egeene (ba chiar cu multe din aria Mediteraneana) precum si cele din Orientul Apropiat (canaanita, feniciana).                                         FAPTUL CA MAJORITATEA SEMNELOR DE PE TABLITA ROTUNDA REFLECTA O TRANSFORMARE SI EVOLUTIE, O PERIOADA ULTERIOARA PROTO-CUNEIFORMELOR, NU A FOST REMARCAT SI NICI CONSEMNAT DE ALTI CERCETATORI, CI NUMAI DE MINE !                                                                                             Un singur exemplu:                                                                                                                              – semnul H cu 3 bare orizontale, in forma lui concreta pe placuta, seamana mult mai mult, ba chiar este identic cu semnul Heth din vechea scriere canaanita, cu semnul Pa3 din cea Egeeana, sau cu semnul eta/heta din cea arhaica greceasca (cu aparenta de “semn strambat-inclinat”, cumva aparenta barelor verticale decalate).                                            Dar semnul este de fapt prezent in toata aria Mediteraneana.Doar un singur semn este identic cu cel proto-cuneiform, semnul +++++ ,”As” iar altul se apropie (primul D), de semnul sumerian “Sur“.

Sumerienii, in oricare perioada au folosit un scris unitar, corespunzator timpului in care traia scribul. Nu au folosit simultan si pe tablite separate si scrierea pictografica si cea ideografica, asa cum sant TT.

7. Forma TT este foarte importanta ?

Personal nu cred ca este. In fond putea fi optiunea unui individ. Altfel cunosc un exemplu de tablita rotunda (calendar sumerian)

Sumerian Star Chart 3300 BC     din  https://www.crystalinks.com/sumercalendars.html    si  niciuna sumeriana cu gaura.Apoi au existat tablite Egeene cu gaura, dar nu perfect rotunde.

Linear Script A, din http://arthistoryresources.net/greek-art-archaeology-2016/minoan-outline.html

Apoi discutia relativ la cat de plate sau bombate sant unele sau altele nu vad sa fie prea productiva.

8.TT sant  autentice ?

Depinde din ce punct de vedere privim autenticitatea.                                                                 DA. (In mai mare masura da decat nu ! )                                                                       (Oarecum, sau partial Nu, pentru ca nu par a fi rodul intentiei unui scrib de a comunica prin scris ceva legat de o necesitate stringenta sau concreta (fie ea de orice natura, economica sau religioasa.)

Da, pentru ca cel ce le-a scris se pare ca nu a urmarit sa pacaleasca pe cineva (din prezent sau viitor !?) si orice intentie concreta necunoscuta noua a avut, scribul a fost bine intentionat. Se pare ca a vrut sa exerseze evolutia scrisului sau sa arate cuiva aceeasi evolutie si principiile de baza ale scrisului.

9. Daca ar fi adevarat ca a vrut sa arate evolutia scrisului si principiile sale de baza, ar putea fi in plus un gen de tablite de scoala, precum cele de invatare a scrisului de catre scolarii scribi sumerieni ?

Nu, categoric, asta nu.Pentru ca in general asemenea tablite “de scolarizare”                         – puneau elevii sa copieze ce scria invatatorul, apoi                                                                     – invatau elevii sa imparta tablita in sectoare pentru texte, cu ajutorul liniilor de demarcatie si apoi                                                                                                                                 – aveu un continut cu caracter repetitiv, cum ar fi liste de obiecte sau meserii, etc.

Din  The tablet House: a scribal school in old Babylonian Nippur

Table 1

Table 3 The order of the elementary curriculum in House F[20]
Table 3
tableau im13

10. Care este rostul, explicatia pentru care  sant 3 tablite ?

Intrebarea se poate pune pentru ca daca ai ceva de comunicat scrii totul pe o tablita si nu imprastii mesajul in trei parti. Sau macar scrii folosind acelasi sistem de scriere. Raspunsul este tocmai acela ca a vrut sa arate evolutia scrisului  de la pictograme spre ideograme, ba chiar cumva pana inspre silabograme si litere.

                                                                                                 – Avem o tablita dreptunghiulara (negaurita) cu pictograme.                                                    – O tablita dreptunghiulara (gaurita) cu ideograme.(Aceste ideograme/logograme pot avea in extremis functia de silabograme)                                                                                        – Tablita rotunda (cu gaura) dupa toate aparentele prezinta silabograme Egeene, sau chiar litere (Anatoliene/arhaice grecesti), (inafara de 2 semne/ideograme complexe prezente in sfertul dreapta-jos.)

11. Exista cazuri in lume in care sa se foloseasca de catre acelasi scrib simultan doua sau trei sisteme de scriere ?

Doar cu titlu exceptional, cu doua da, de ex. piatra Roseta cu scris cuneiform egiptean si grec,                                                                                                                                                          – dar nu exista nici-un caz in care sa apara 3 sisteme de scriere (cum e cazul nostru) si deloc care inca in plus sa cuprinda sisteme a caror ecart de raspandire temporala sa acopere 2000-3000 de ani !                                                                                                                                                      (Proto-scrierea sumeriana 3.300BC, Cretana hieroglifica 2.000 BC, Linear A/B 1500 BC, scrierea arhaica greceasca 800-300BC)

12. Se sustine supozitia (oarecum majoritara) ca semnele au fost folosite in cadrul unor ceremonii religioase ?

Desi cercetatorii fac referinta unii pentru utilizare economica iar altii religioasa, niciunul nu sustine sau demonstreaza apartenenta completa la vreuna din alternative. Cu alte cuvinte lasa cale deschisa pentru oricare interpretare, (inclusiv una mixta !?)

Balanta inclina serios inspre afirmativ.                                                                                        ( ( usor Nu, intrucat tablitele contin doar 2 ideograme complexe (in cea rotunda sfertul dreapta-jos) care ar putea avea rol in ceremonii religioase, iar in rest toate semnele au fost folosite in diferite arii de diferite civilizatii pentru scris propriu-zis ! Multi cercetatori sustin o utilizare a lor in domeniul economic.)

Prepondrent Da, intrucat                                                                                                                    – tablita rotunda contine in sfertul dreapta-jos 2 ideograme complexe si apoi                  – cea dreptunghiulara cu gaura contine multe ideograme/logograme, toate acestea aplicabile ritualurilor religioase.                                                                                                   – Si iarasi da, intrucat este f. posibil ca DOAR jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde sa contina o formula verbala scrisa spre folosinta in asemenea ceremonii. Acesta poate fi sau este explicatia faptului ca aceasta portiune era in mod uzual ascunsa vederii directe a trecatorilor, fiind acoperita de cea dreptunghiulara.

13. Ce pregatire avea scribul in materie de scris ?

Majoritatea cercetatorilor sustin ca era aproape iliterat. Eu am sustinut total in trecut aceasta opinie generala. Se pare ca in general tablitele sant acoperite cu multe semne provenite din diferite sisteme de scriere si singura portiune unde scribul pare sa fi reusit sa scrie, este jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde.Probabil a avut constient in intentie acest lucru de la bun inceput !                      (!…iliterat-iliterat,…cat de iliterat putea fi? Putem mai repede doar afirma ca nu stapanea bine scrisul, pentru ca totusi a avut capacitatea si stiinta sa adune si sa expuna semne utilizate in mare extindere spatiala si temporala !). De aceea eu nu zic ca nu era aproape iliterat, ci doar canu stapanea foarte bine scrisul.                                                                                                                                            Indiferent de unde era, avand acces la o vasta biblioteca de semne, eu il vad mai degraba ca un gen de Berossus al timpului sau ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus

14.Cat ar putea fi de noi tablitele?

Dupa parerea mea, ar putea sa nu fie mai vechi de 1.200-1.500 B.C., timpul inceputului scrierii vechi canaanite.                                                                                                                             Teoretic si practic ar putea fi atat de noi incat sa atinga chiar perioada scrisului arhaic grecesc 800-300 BC sau cel eteocretan acare poate ajunge pana in Era noastra.

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.pngDar este exlus sa fie mai noi de Evul Mediu timpuriu datorita urmelor certe de oarece vechime.posibilitatea unei inscriptionari de data recenta nu depaseste aceea de a fi scrisa mai demult, de un preot catolic scolit !?!, care a avut acces la scrieri si documente vechi.                                                                                                                      Tablitele se prezinta ca o colectie de multe semne, aparent disparate provenite din arii si perioade de timp diferite, dar totusi ordonate si cumva impartite in 3 mari categorii evolutive. 

                                                                                             Cine si mai ales cand,unde ar fi putut face acest lucru ? Este cu atat mai usor cu cat ne apropiem de timpurile moderne unde posibilitatea accesului la semne folosite in trecut creste. 

15. Semnele de pe tablite apartin sau se incadreaza intr-un scris anume, particular din lume ? Adica pot fi citite toate 3 folosind un singur sistem de scriere ?

Nu ! De fapt intreaga mea munca cuprinde cu preponderenta testarea succesiva a diferitelor sisteme de scriere.Din pacate nici-o tablita nu se incadreaza complet in vreunul. Dar-mite (exclus) toate 3 tablietele simultan !                                                           Cea mai mare apropiere, respectiv cel mai mare numar de semne se regasesc in scrierea proto-cuneiforma sumeriana si aproape la egalitate cu semnele scrierilor Anatoliene.(semnele se regasesc disparat in diferitele scrieri Anatoliene, in top fiind scrierea cariana).

Din Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

Image result for carian alphabets

Urmeaza apoi ca apropiere, o serie de scrieri din aria Mediteraneana, aici in top fiind scriereile Egeene.Din aceste motive scrierea si desigur tablitele par a avea o vechime ulterioara lui 2.400 BC. (Vezi scrierea hieroglifica Cretana 2200-2000 BC si linear A, 1800-1500 BC).                                                                                                                                                   Niciuna din tablite nu se poate citi folosind nici macar pentru fiecare cate o anume scriere. Cu atat este si mai imposibil sa poata fi interpretate/citite folosind un sistem de scriere concret pentru toate trei !

16. Strict d.p.d.v. al semnelor ce apreciere se poate da vechimii semnelor ?

Daca tinem cont ca multe semne si in mare masura  seamana cu cele sumeriene (reflectand doar schitat forma lor), am putea lua in considerare ca reflecta acea scriere veche proto-cuneiforma si atunci ne-am putea apropia de 2.500 B.C. Dar daca tinem cont ca in general semnele arata a fi mult mai recente (noi); in pacate, cateva (e adevarat putine) nu au fost folosite in forma concreta prezenta pe tablite absolut deloc in lume inainte de 1.200-1.500 BC !(ex. semnul D).                                                                      Din aceasta perspectiva concreta, vechimea ar fi maxim 1.500 B.C. !

Din http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2010/03/qeiyafa-ostracon-inscription-this-large.html author Brian Colless
This large potsherd was found on the floor of a room at Khirbet Qeiyafa, overlooking the road to Philistia and the Elah Valley, SW of Jerusalem, and is now in the Israel Museum

Image result for qeiyafa ostracon age                                                                                                    Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C.?)…a se observa semnele D!

17. Tablitele ar putea apartine vre-unui scris Danubian, al Vechii Europe sau de sorginte daco-traca ?

Categoric nu. Civilizatia Danubiana/Vechii Europe s-a apropiat, dar nu a atins nici macar stadiul proto-scrierii, darmi-te scriere.Mai apoi in aceasta zona nefiind o societate inalt stratificata economic-social. Nu pot spune ca nefiind demonstrata o atractie sau daruire pentru scris, pentru ca aceasta civilizatie a lasat o colectie impresionanta de semne.De fapt tablitele sant un unicat absolut.Tablitele de la Gradeshnita, Karanovo, Dispilio si altele, apartin in mare civilizatiei Danubiene, dar unor segmente de culturi distincte. Oricum, altor faze ale evolutiei scrisului mai vechi decat cele de la Tartaria.

Din Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

“Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28].                                                                                                                               …………..The first Neolithic inhabitants of Europe are described archeologically as belonging to the Aegean Early Neolithic cultures [27], from which the bearers of both the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in Serbia, Romania and Hungary [2837] and the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe (LBK) [21] emerged.                                                          …………These data are in line with the idea of a common origin of the LBK and Starčevo-Criş cultures from the Aegean Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece/Thessaly, the first Neolithic complex in Europe [24].                                                                                     ……………..Fernandez E, Perez-Perez A, Gamba C, Prats E, Cuesta P, Anfruns J, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C Near Eastern Farmers supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islans. “

18. Scribul este nativ al Tartariei ?

Categoric nu ! Comunitatea locala nu stapanea scrisul. Tablitele au fost inscriptionate de un individ cu alta origine. Din Anatolia? si  posibil din aria Egeeana (Creta ?),sau daca vreti generic proto-greaca. A se retine ca Anatolia este limitrofa Sumerului, ariilor Egeeana, Siriana si Danubiana; (de asemenea exista indicii privind prezenta unor mestesugari Anatolieni in aria Vinca).                                                                                            TT puteau totusi sa fie inscriptionate efectiv de aceasta persoana in locul sau de bastina, sau in extremis chiar la Tartaria.

19. Care ar fi putut fi ocupatia sau meseria scribului ?

Parerea altora, (care a fost si a mea) este aceea ca sant sanse maxime sa fie vorba de un prospector sau comerciant.                                                                                                       Acum sub nici-o forma nu sustin vre-o varianta de prospector sumerian. Sant mai precaut si prefer sa nu ma exprim de maniera categorica in privinta ocupatiei personajului, dar putea fi un individ cu orizont cultural si poate un gen de “itinerant”.

20.Din perspectiva evolutiei si existentei tuturor sistemelor de scriere din lume, care este locul ocupat de TT ?

Aici trebuie sa spun ca datorita asemanarii mari cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme, dar si cu scrisul folosit aria Egeeana si  Anatolia, in mare masura a fost posibila interpretarea relativ facila a TT folosind fiecare sau oricare din aceste scrieri de mai sus. Aceasta arata pe de o parte originea dar si raspandirea scrisului in spatiu si timp.Scribul si scrisul provin de undeva din interiorul spatiului delimitat de aceste civilizatii. (Anatoliana-Sumeriana-Siriana-Egeeana-Danubiana)

Din Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?  https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/28/writing-in-neolithic-europe-an-aegean-origin/

“For many years the earliest writing was assumed to have originated in Uruk, in Sumeria, Mesopotamia c. 3100 BC. Evidence from Egypt has now dated writing to c. 3400-3200 BC, while evidence from the Indus Valley suggests a date of 3500 BC for the development of writing there.  In the 1980s, a system of writing was noticed in the Balkans of the Final Neolithic period. This was identified as “pre-writing” by Shan Winn (1981) and Emilia Masson (1984) who considered whether this constituted a Vinča “script.” They each concluded that the Vinča signs represented a “precursor” to writing.

 

…   The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.”

 

21. Tablitele pot purta sau poarta scriere adevarata ?

Parerea generala a cercetatorilor experti in proto-scriere este ca nu. Aceasta, intrucat ei fac apropierea semnelor de cele folosite in proto-scrierea sumeriana, respectiv semnele proto-cuneiforme.Folosirea semnelor proto-cuneiforme conduce implicit si in mod unic la proto-scriere ! 

Covarsitoarea majoritate a semnelor conduce inspre proto-scrierea sumeriana. Cercetatorii au observat ca o parte din semne nu sant identice cu cele sumeriene, dar probabil au avut in vedere o forma schimbata, fara ca sa explice cum, unde si de ce  aceasta schimbare si adaptare putea sa aiba loc. Avand la baza interpretarea sumeriana, in general interpretarile lor se aseamana si in plus se aseamana si cu interpretarea mea “sumeriana”                                                                                                     Unii au dat tablitelor o interpretare economica, si au vazut in jumatatea de sus-drepta a tablitei rotunde numere. Insa daca acceptam ca acea parte era ascunsa si avea continut ezoteric, ne dam seama ca nu are sens ca cineva sa ascunda numere ! Deci ori numere, ori continut ezoteric, una din doua ! Multi altii au remarcat ideograme nu numai aplicabile ci chiar au fost folosite in domeniul religios. Adevarul este ca ar putea foarte bine sa aiba un continut mixt, in situatia in care reflecta o ofranda de cereale si animale ! Ce am observat, este faptul ca prezinta mari similaritati cu scrierile vechi Egeene (hieroglifica Cretana si Linear A, desi asemanarea semnelor cu cele sumeriene este mai mare.)                                                                                                                                                                Exemple de asemanare a semnelor sumeriene cu cele egeene:

Semn sumerian    Semn Egeean          Semnificatie                                                                             As,Se                          Te                          Cereale                                                                                  Gu,Gud                      Mu                           taur                                                                               Amar                        (a)Ma                     vitel/zeita-Mama                                                                 An                              ?                          zeu,cer                                                                                       Bad                            Da(Sa?)                        sacrificat,mort/                                                                 Ab /Zag/Ga’ar             Labrys               templu,stralucire/divin                                                      Ud                              capra,ied                         capra,ied                                                           Dara                                -”                                    -“-                                                               Ararma                      Asasara                          zeitate astrala?                                                         Gar                                   D                              masura volum cereale

Din https://enigmatica.ro/placutele-de-la-tartaria/

Image result for tablitele tartaria

Din https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2015/cdlj2015_001.html                                                           BAD: …it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.”

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

Din https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

Din https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Ab Amar An Ararma As Sze/Se Ud5 Zag~a Zag~c Dara~3d Ga’ar~b1 Sur  Gar

 

Atat interpretarile altor cercetatori cat si interpretarile mele (atat cea sumeriana cat si cea Egeeana) , fac trimitere la o interpretare ritualica, religioasa !

22. Care este parerea mea, ar putea purta scriere adevarata ?

Eu sper ca da, pe tablita rotunda, jumatatea de sus;                                                                    ( cu toate ca avem acolo un gen de combinatie “imposibila“de semne  ( secventa “DDoo/DDoc”) si aparent fara iesire ).                                                                                           Totusi, chiar in acea jumatate de sus a tablitei rotunde, am putea avea literele arhaice grecesti:

  • In stanga: Eta/Heta  Rho/D?     si                                                                                               – in dreapta:DDoo, DDoc?/ Dboc?/RRoo, RRoc ?

23. Ce ar putea fi scris la o adica, ce posibile texte ?

Se pare ca nu vom putea avea vreodata o certitudine absoluta ce text concret.(Pentru ca pot fi mai multe posibilitati de litere si nu santem siguri daca semnele P/D sant de fapt D sau R ; un numar concret de litere poate conduce la un numar relativ mari de combinari de n cate m)

24. Macar se pot face supozitii ?

Da, ar exista un set de propuneri care merita analizate, de exemplu:

Here RRoc albaneza  here rrok= timp prinde,intelege

HeRos  DiBoc=DiVos greaca  Domn/stapan Zeu (utilizare in ritual religios ?)

EDe DiDou greaca “acum sa dai!”/”sa dai sa mananci !”                                                                                       (Aceasta propunere de mai sus este de oarece interes, intrucat radacina ED este prezenta atat in cuvinte legate de mancare (ex. EDibil) cat si in acela de ied Ed.hedus,edus. Pe tablita pictografica avem unul sau mai multi iezi?. Deci prin pictograma iedului ne poate sugera cuvantul Ed,Ede !: mananca!/ied, iedule)

HeDe Didou greaca acum,deja sa dai ! (sa dai iezi?; utilizare in ritual religios ?)

! Atentie, *hed este radacina Proto Indo-Europeana pentru ‘mananca‘ !

HRist(os) DDoc latina “de doctrina christiana”

HeRo, ERo DDoc(Decretorum Doctor)  latina voi fi doctor (lat.”profesor”) in doctrina teologica)etc.

25.Incaodata.                                                                                                                                        De ce 3 tablite, fiecare cu “scris” diferit, si cum se explica aceasta (doar aparenta !) ingramadire de semne ?

De fapt nu este o gramada ci o colectie de semne.Este rodul unui efort constient si intentionat. Retineti ca si pentru mine, care am ajuns sa retin sute de semne din fiecare sistem de scriere, nu mi-ar fi neaparat usor.Daca as vrea sa arat unui student sau oricarui cititor principalii pasi in aparitia si evolutia scrisului, as proceda asemanator.

Pe o tablita as figura semne pur pictografice, asa cum sant cele de pe tablita pictografica.As alege cam acelasi fel,gen de semne de baza, care sant aproape identice in proto-scriera sumeriana cu cele din scrierea hieroglifica cretana respectiv Linear A.Semnele pentru cereale, caprine.Acolo mai avem un semn absolut abscons, posibil duh, om, zeitate !?

Pe a doua (asa cum este tablita dreptunghiulara cu gaura), as figura ideograme sumeriene care aproape in totalitate se regasesc in silabogramele Egeene.(semne gen: cereale, zeitate, labrys,zeitate, taur).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Pe a treia (cazul celei rotunde) as figura trecerea la scrierea integral si pur fonetica (dar nu neaparat alfabetica !).Acele semne au corespondete fonetice atat in ideogramele sumeriane cat si in silabogramele Egeene, ba chiar pana la lierele Anatoliene si arhaice grecesti.

Exemple:

– pe tablita pictografica, pictograma sumeriana pentru cereale , asemanatoare cu semnul Cretan hieroglific pentru cereale si apoi pictograma comuna pentru capra.

– pe tablita dreptunghiulara cu gaura, 3 exemple: semnul sumerian Se= semnul linear A “Te”, cereale.Apoi semnul ‘cap de animal cu urechi lungi’, sumerian “Amar” /vitel si Cretan hieroglific/linear A “Mu”/bou, linear B “Ma”/zeita mama.Si inca semnul constelatiei Orion, sumerian “Zag”/stralucirea metalului, linear A “Labrys“/semnul puterii divine, linear B “A”

-Pe tablita rotunda, numai 2 exemple: semnul H cu 3 bare este sumerianul “Ku”, linear A “Pa3”,canaanit “Heth” si arhaic grecesc “Heta/Eta”, vechi latin “H”.

Semnul (ca si # dar numai cu 1 bara verticala) :sumerian “Pa” si cel din linear A “Pa” (ulterior “Z” in foarte multe scrieri)

Din nu stiu ce motiv, tot pe tablita rotunda, sfertul dreapta-jos, apar 2 ideograme complexe, ex. una este templul zeitatii solare Samas= semnul zeitatii punice Tanit=semnul zeitei astrale minoice Asasara.                                                                           From https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/baal-hammon-and-tanit-0012136

 Punic Goddess Tanit                                                                                  ——————————————————–

26. Ce a urmarit scribul de fapt, chiar si aratand ca stie cum a evoluat scrisul ?

Daca dupa un efort sustinut si tenace am reusit sa am oarecum “in degetul mic” sau in minte, (… unde vreti), mii de semne grupate in diferite sisteme de scriere; (nu compar abilitatea sau expertiza mea cu a altora, desi doresc o asemenea provocare).                                    Daca eu as vrea sa arat cuiva evolutia scrisului in lume, si as fi obligat sa o fac extrem de succint, ( ex. sa ma rezum la doar 3 tipuri/categorii), avand la dispozitie toate posibilitatile de documentare ale secolului XX, as proceda asemanator, sau aproape exact ca scribul.

CAND VINE VORBA DE A ARATA DEZVOLTAREA SCRISULUI, WIKIPEDIA OFERA TOT          3 STADII PRINCIPALE :                                                                                                                       Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages:

  • Picture writing system: glyphs (simplified pictures) directly represent objects and concepts. In connection with this, the following substages may be distinguished:
    • Mnemonic: glyphs primarily as a reminder;
    • Pictographic: glyphs directly represent an object or a concept
    • Ideographic: graphemes are abstract symbols that directly represent an idea or concept.
  • Transitional system: graphemes refer not only to the object or idea that it represents but to its name as well.
  • Phonetic system: graphemes refer to sounds or spoken symbols, and the form of the grapheme is not related to its meanings.
  • cine, de unde era si in ce timp, si cel mai important, cu ce scop, a facut o colectie de semne ordonata si impartita in 3 mari grupe de evolutie istorica ?.                                              Nota-bene, semne cu o extindere a folosintei lor pe un ecart temporal de vre-o 2.000 de ani ( ~2.500-500 BCE)?
  • RETINETI, FAPTUL DACA A ARATAT CUIVA EVOLUTIA SCRISULUI, ACEASTA NU IMPLICA DELOC FAPTUL CA ACEA “AUDIENTA” AR FI INVATAT ASTFEL SA SCRIE.                                                                     ———————————————————-

27. Urmeaza o mare intrebare; astept cu deosebit interes opiniile Dv.

Retineti, tablitele sant reale si materiale, nu vin de undeva din realitatea virtuala, si in consecinta nu sant copiile altora, deci exista in original, au fost facute totusi de cineva, si in aceasta acceptie sant originale si nu contrafacute, falsuri.

Apoi, explicati-mi va rog, cum cercetatori de top in domeniul proto-scrierii, respectiv al scrierii proto-cuneiforme, desi au luat nota de similaritatile semnelor de pe TT cu acelea sumeriene,s-au limitat in a se referi rapid si poate oarecum superficial  doar la cateva aspecte.

!!!    Ceea ce imi scapa complet intelegerii este faptul ca niciunul din acestia nu a observat si nu a facut referire la faptul ca semnele sant oarecum grupate, ca si cum cineva le-a impartit in 3 categorii de evolutie istorica ??. 

  Spre exemplu, unui cercetator cu zeci de publicatii si carti, care a epuizat literalmente  subiectul TT din perspectiva tuturor ramurilor interdisciplinare (arheologie, istorie, cultura, semiologie, etc. etc.) incepand din neolitic, (daca nu aproape de mezolitic) i-au scapat aceste aspecte esentiale. Respectiv similaritatile cu civilizatiile levantina, Egeeana, Anatoliana si Mediteraneeana.                                                                                   Si poate mai grav absenta absoluta a oricarei referinte la acest gen de display al semnelor aparent ordonate in evolutie istorica, temporala. Daca la unii fara inalta specializare in scriere si proto-scriere, si ma refer aici la persoana domnului Marco Merlini este oarecum scuzabil nu este scuzabil pleiadei de specialisti mondiali de top.                                                                                                                                                           ( prefer sa nu ma refer deloc la colaboratorul de rang intai al D-lui merlini, dl. Prof. Gheorghr Lazarovici)

28. O posibila explicatie ?

Aceasta idee mi-a venit mai demult, si ar putea explica rolul de fapt si de drept al tablitelor. Cum ar fi ca ele sa fie aduse de un gen de misionar al nu stiu carui timp si religii, iar tablita rotunda sa contina in jumatatea de sus,                                                                                                                                                                                                          (Fotografiile din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

pornind de la literele “HP” “Di b o c”,   tocmai o formula religioasa, gen:

greaca:  HeRo(s) DIVOS = DOMNUL ZEU = DUMNEZEU

latina:    HeRu(s) DeiVOS=    -“-           -“-   =           -“-

sau una religioasa/crestina (parte a rugaciunii “Tatal Nostru” da-ne noua (astazi) painea cea de toate zilele:

greaca:   EDE/HeDe ! DiDos/DIDOU !      :  DA   Acum/ MANANCA/SA MANANCI !

latina:       ED/EDE                DeDOU=DeDU(i) :                   IED/MANANCA             DA !

Din ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic … http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea                                                                                                           The barbarians were the ancient Europeans, non-Greeks, whose speech was not understood by the Greeks. ….. divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos.

Din https://www.etymonline.com › word
deva | Origin and meaning of deva by Online Etymology Dictionary
… cognate with Greek dios “divine” and Zeus, and Latin deus “god” (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine,” in derivatives “sky,

Din https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/  by Richard Vallance Janke

didomi-linear-b-archaic-new-testament

(pe tablita pictografica avem un ied si posibil o silueta umana cu ambele maiini intinse)

…. sau te miri ce alta posibila formula.                                                                                            Prezenta celorlalte semne, care se pare ca nu contin scris mi-o explic prin intentia de a crea un cadru, aparenta, dar si senzatia si atmosfera  unei continuitati si transmiterii  unor cunostinte si conceptii religioase de natura vesnic-imuabila, cu originea in trecutul foarte indepartat. Faptul ca absolut toate semnele de pe TT au fost folosite pentru scris, mie i-mi ridica mari suspiciuni. Ca si cum acea persoana ar fi avut acces la surse gen biblioteca din Alexandria sau cea a Vaticanului !?.De fapt nu ar trebui sa ma mire chiar asa mult intrucat preotii chiar aveau acces la asemenea surse si erau printre principalii propagatori ai culturii in general.

IN MUNCA SI AVENTURA GASIRII UNUI LOC SI A UNEI PROPRII IDENTITATI PENTRU TT, NOI TOTI AM FOST CONFRUNTATI CU ATATEA ASPECTE SI CARACTERISTICI NEOBISNUITE, CHIAR CIUDATENII, INCAT DISCUTIA PARE SA SE MUTE PAS CU PAS, DIN DOMENIUL SCRISULUI SI AL STIINTEI, IN CEL AL OBIECTELOR DE PE PAMANT CAZUTE DIN SPATIUL COSMIC !

 

 

CONFIRMAREA COMPLETA A CERCETARII MELE

August 15, 2019

Am gasit aici, pe un site australian, (ramanand sa identific autorul):

Guide The History of Proto-Writing, Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems

ENGLISH:                                                                                                                                              Found on an australian site, some conclusions with unknown ultimate source, but I can swear there are an good resume of my research.

Eg of my research:                                                                                                                        Moonlight in Romania: The Tărtăria Tablets – A Place of Brightness http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html.

                                                                                                                                                        COMMENT on upper half of round Tartaria tablet:                                                                 Rau December 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM
<< At the very begining you passed the “D”-shaped sign and take it as for moon.You did not recognized the phoenician/babylonian old “H” (the name it “Het“.In the folowing sequences (quadrants) you passed over some or few,or many (as you want)shapes used in ancient world writing as for letters.
Yours,Eugen Rau
eugenrau@gmail.com >>
I’ll be glad to be the very  fruits of somebody’s own research ? and I am curious to know the path followed or or in wich concrete way or with wich method, to come to this conclusions. My wondering is still greater as in general most of the other autors, researchers folowowed more or less an “conservative path“.
The conclusions or resume, cannot give a proper name, is reffering to writing and proto-writing issues in general, but particularly to Vinca-Turdas civilisation and also to Tartaria tablets.
From 2008 to nowdays, only some of my own conclusions (proved  with hard evidences) :
Vinca-Turdas culture not attained the stage of proto-writing (no one proved exemple)
– Despite this, there was used kind of (not fully understood) numeration system
– certainly there were signs wich were used in religious rituals ( Earth-Goddess, heavenly- bull, and other signs)
                                                                                                                                                                    -Tartaria tablets are genuine.                                                                                                          – Tartaria tablets unreletad to Vinca-turdas Culture, unrelated to bones,in fact have no age determination for the tablets itself.They are much newer.
– The scribe was not native sumerian nor genuine sumerian writing 
The closest writing system to tablets is sumerian proto-cuneiform.
– On Tartaria tablets were used mainly 2 types of signs: pictographic and ideograms/logograms/syllabar.
-There are hard evidences that on upper half of Tartaria tablet we have true writing; could have even letters ( eg.archaic greek-ones)
– As well, the upper-half signs were used in different writings (alphabets), eg. from Old Canaanite to Iberian.
– overall apearance of all 3 tablets is as an hodge-podge of signs (no known writing system can use all the signs)
– It is well possible that only this part contain an an clear ? message.
– The origin of the tablets could be Aegean (Cyclades, Crete).
-Otherwise talking only of the sumerian-inspired signs could reach Aegean trough Anatolia or Syria.Eg. syrian merchants.
-There are evidences of an sumerian writing philum begining from proto-cuneiform signs to Aegean linear A,B and finally to archaic greek, in fact to many Mediterranean writings (Etruscan, Venatic, Iberian etc.)
Folowing, some excerps from the above-mentioned paper:

ROMANIAN:                                                                                                                                        Niste concluzii a caror sursa ultima nu o cunosc, dar as jura ca poate fi un bun rezumat al cercetarilor mele. M-as bucura sa fie rodul cercetarilor proprii a unui autor ? si as fi curios sa cunosc calea pe care a mers, sau in ce mod a cercetat concret, ca sa ajunga la aceste concluzii. Cu atat mai mult ma mira, cu cat in general alti autori au mers pana acum pe diferite linii mai mult sau mai putin sa zicem “conservatoare” Concluziile sau rezumatul, nici nu stiu cum sa-l denumesc se refera atat la ceea ce este legat de tematica scrisului/proto-scrierii in general, pentru civilizatia Vinca-Turdas cat si pentru tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                                       Redau mai jos din lucrarea sus-mentionata :

…….. the author, Stephen Duren.? Stephen R. Duren (Author of The History of “Proto-Writing,” Indus … https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7344553.Stephen_R_Duren Published 2013.

And not Rajesh Rao ?

……..autorul, Stephen Duren, si nu Rajesh Rao ?

” Productspecificaties

This section lists alphabets used to transcribe phonetic or phonemic sound; not to be confused with spelling alphabets like the NATO phonetic alphabet. Alphabets may exist in forms other than visible symbols on a surface. Some of these are:. Published – December Submit your article! Read more articles – free! 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 years to reach proto writing and maybe later writing. Tartaria tablets shows evidence of proto-writing, as using proto-cuneiform signs symilar or the same as proto-cuneiform sumerian. So they are isolates. They are coming from somewhere outside area. There is a gap between Vinca-Turdas signs and organised Tartaria tablets signs.

Or finaly none of above, coming by some kind of economic-cultural exchange from Aegean area. Bringed by a? The round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half. Suspect connexion of Aegean writings to those of Near-East. Clues,hipothesys, arguments:. The inscribed clay tablets PL. 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.

Undeciphered writing systems – WikiVisually

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. Alternative approaches had been presented and commented in the recent past Hooker The two writing systems probably serve different needs e.

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:. There are still many thousands of tablets in the store rooms of museums but there are not enough experts to read them. The same wide regional coverage appears during the reign of Lugalanemundu BC , king of Adab Guisepi and Willis Their influence expanded to Indus Valley, Iran, Nile and probably Balkans as he suspects and we argue for as well.

  • Minoan Writing Systems.
  • The Vinča culture.
  • Please, I Want to Taste You!
  • Sacred Burial Grounds (An FBI/Romance Thriller Book 2)?

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.

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. While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the Minoan language, it is nevertheless remotely conceivable that one of them just might be.

But which one? Given the tangled mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, I am left with no alternative but to pronounce that none of these so-called proto-languages is liable to stand the test of linguistic verisimilitude. If age is around 3. 000 B.C. 

Folowing, marked *** is mine, from my paper-work https://tartariatablets.com/2018/06/27/tartaria-tablets-what-script-and-language-expecting/       taken by WikiVisually, Undeciphered writing systems

*** 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. Especially the round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half.***

=======================================================

Yes, I recognise my own topic/sentences, it seem that possible were taken parts of my posts on Wikipedia; Mr. Rao took in a critic way, adding some own personal remarks. i will urgently get in contact with him.

DA, IMI RECUNOSC TOPICA, SE PARE CA UNELE PARTI SANT PRELUATE DIN POSTARILE SI CONCLUZII DE-ALE MELE POSTATE PE WIKIPEDIA.

DL. STEPHEN R. DUREN? LE-A PRELUAT CUMVA CRITIC ADAUGAND UNELE MICI OBSERVATII PERSONALE. O sa iau legatura cu dansul urgent.

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language:
A Reply to R. Sproat

Rajesh P. N. RaoNisha YadavMayank N. VahiaHrishikesh Joglekar,

R. Adhikari, and Iravatham Mahadevan

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~rao/IndusCompLing.html

Figure 1: (a) Examples of the Indus script. Three square stamp seals, each with an Indus text at the top. Last image: three rectangular seals and three miniature tablets with inscriptions (image credit: J. M. Kenoyer / Harappa.com).                                              (b) Block entropy scaling of the Indus script compared to natural languages and other sequences. Symbols were signs for the Indus script, bases for DNA, amino acids for proteins, change in pitch for music, characters for English, words for English, Tagalog and Fortran, symbols in abugida (alphasyllabic) scripts for Tamil and Sanskrit, and symbols in the cuneiform script for Sumerian (see [ Rao et al. 2009a, Rao2010a] for details). The values for music are from [ Schmitt and Herzel1997]. To compare sequences over different alphabet sizes L, the logarithm in the entropy calculation was taken to base L (417 for Indus, 4 for DNA, etc.) …………………                                                                                                                                                                                             Does the similarity in block entropies with linguistic systems in Figure 1(b) prove that the Indus script is linguistic? We do not believe so. In fact, we contend that barring a full decipherment, one cannot prove either the linguistic or nonlinguistic thesis, unlike Sproat and colleagues who have previously claimed to have “proof” for the nonlinguistic hypothesis [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,pages 34 & 37],[Farmer2005]. What we do claim, as we state in our Science paper and as explained in more detail below, is that results such as the similarity in entropy in Figure 1(b) increase the evidence for the linguistic hypothesis, given other language-like properties of the Indus script.

6  Countless Non-Linguistic Sign Systems?

<< Sproat and colleagues have stated that the properties observed in the Indus script are also seen in “countless non-linguistic sign systems” [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,page 21]. Let us consider some of these nonlinguistic systems [ Sproat2010, Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004]. Medieval European heraldry, Boy Scout merit badges, and airport/highway signs are not linear juxtapositions of symbols that can be up to 17 symbols long, as we find in the case of the Indus script, nor do they exhibit a confluence of script-like properties as enumerated above. We invite the reader to compare examples of heraldry [Parker1894], Boy Scout badges [ Boy Scouts of America2010], and airport/highway signs with the Indus script sequences in Figure 1(a) and judge for themselves whether such a comparison bears merit.                                         Another nonlinguistic system mentioned in [ Sproat2010] is the Vinča sign system, which refers to the markings on pottery and other artifacts from the Vinča culture of southeastern Europe of ca. 6000-4000 BCE. Sproat believes there is order in the Vinča system and states that we “mis-cite” Winn. To set the record straight, here is what Winn has to say in his article in a section on Sign Groups [ Winn1990,page269]:        “Neither the order nor the direction of the signs in these (sign) groups is generally determinable: judging by the frequent lack of arrangement, precision in the order probably was unimportant…Miniature vessels also possess sign-like clusters (Figure 12.2j), which are characteristically disarranged.”

This contradicts [ Sproat2010] and suggests that the Vinča system, if it indeed lacks precision in the order of signs, would be closer to the maximum entropy (Max Ent) range than to the linguistic scripts in Figure 1(b). The actual amount of lack of precision unfortunately cannot be quantified in entropic terms because a large enough data set of Vinča sequences does not exist. Sproat also draws attention to the carvings of deities on Mesopotamian boundary stones known as kudurrus. He declares that our statement regarding kudurru deity sequences obeying rigid rules of ordering compared to linguistic scripts is “clearly false.” >>

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language: A Reply to R. Sproat: RPN Rao et al

://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.lang/1b6ShGAx6WI%5B1-25%5D

Filme cu teme in relatie cu Vechea Europa, Vinca si Tartaria http://cyberspaceandtime.com/vn7PUwMKH3k.video+related

************************************************************

Extras din articolul lui Richard Sproat caruia ii raspunde R. Rao,

Ancient Symbols, Computational Linguistics, and the Reviewing Practices of the General
Science Journals Richard Sproat∗ Center for Spoken Language
Understanding  https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011

<< 1. Introduction
Few archaeological finds are as evocative as artifacts inscribed with symbols. Whenever
an archaeologist finds a potsherd or a seal impression that seems to have symbols
scratched or impressed on the surface, it is natural to want to “read” the symbols. And
if the symbols come from an undeciphered or previously unknown symbol system it
is common to ask what language the symbols supposedly represent and whether the
system can be deciphered.
Of course the first question that really should be asked is whether the symbols are
in fact writing. A writing system, as linguists usually define it, is a symbol system that is used to represent language. Familiar examples are alphabets such as the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or Hangul alphabets, alphasyllabaries such as Devanagari or Tamil, syllabaries such as Cherokee or Kana, and morphosyllabic systems like Chinese characters. But symbol systems that do not encode language abound: European heraldry, mathematical notation, labanotation (used to represent dance), and Boy Scout merit badges are all examples of symbol systems that represent things, but do not function as part of a system that represents language.
Whether an unknown system is writing or not is a difficult question to answer.
It can only be answered definitively in the affirmative if one can develop a verifiable
decipherment into some language or languages. Statistical techniques have been used in decipherment for years, but these have always been used under the assumption that the system one is dealing with is writing, and the techniques are used to uncover patterns or regularities that might aid in the decipherment. Patterns of symbol distribution might suggest that a symbol system is not linguistic: For example, odd repetition patterns might make it seem that a symbol system is unlikely to be writing. But until recently nobody had argued that statistical techniques could be used to determine that a system is linguistic.1
It was therefore quite a surprise when, in April 2009, there appeared in Science
a short article by Rajesh Rao of the University of Washington and colleagues at two
research institutes in India that purported to provide such a measure (Rao et al. 2009a).
Rao et al.’s claim, which we will describe in more detail in the next section, was that  one could use conditional entropy as evidence that the famous symbol system of the third millenium BCE Indus Valley civilization was most probably writing, and not some other kind of system.
That the Indus symbols were writing is hardly a novel claim. Indeed, ever since the
first seal impression was found at Harappa (1872–1873 CE), it has been the standard
assumption that the symbols were part of a writing system and that the Indus Valley
civilization was literate. Over the years there have been literally hundreds of claims
of decipherment, the most well-known of these being the work of Asko Parpola and
colleagues over the last four decades (Parpola 1994). Parpola, who argues that the Indus
Valley people spoke an early form of Dravidian, has produced interpretations of a small
set of symbols, but nothing that can be characterized as a decipherment.
The first serious arguments against the idea that the Indus symbols were part of
a writing system were presented in work that Steve Farmer, Michael Witzel, and I
published in Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004), which reviews extensive support for that
view from archaeological evidence and comparisons with other ancient symbol systems.
Although our arguments were certainly not universally acknowledged—least of all
among people who had spent most of their careers trying to decipher the symbols—
they have been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, and established a viable
alternative view to the traditional view of these symbols. It was against this backdrop
that the Rao et al. (2009a) paper appeared.
Taken at face value, Rao et al.’s (2009a) paper would appear to have reestablished
the traditional view of the Indus symbols as the correct one, and indeed that is how the
paper was received by many who read it. A number of articles appeared in the popular
science press, with Wired declaring “Artificial Intelligence Cracks Ancient Mystery”
(Keim 2009). The Indian press had a field day; they had studiously ignored the evidence
reported in our paper, presumably because it led to the unpalatable conclusion that
India’s earliest civilization was illiterate. But Rao et al.’s paper, which appeared to
demonstrate the opposite, was widely reported.
The work has also apparently attracted attention beyond the popular science press
and those with some sort of axe to grind on the Indus Valley issue, for in March 2010
there appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, a paper that used similar techniques to Rao et al.’s (2009a) in order to argue that ancient Pictish symbols, which are found inscribed on about 300 standing stones in Scotland, are in fact a previously unrecognized ancient writing system (Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman 2010). A trend, it seems, has been established: We now have a set of statistical techniques that can distinguish among ancient symbol systems and tell you which ones were writing and which ones were not.
The only problem is that these techniques are in fact useless for this purpose, and
for reasons that are rather trivial and easy to demonstrate. The remainder of this article
will be devoted to two points. First, in Section 2, I review the techniques from the Rao
et al. (2009a) and Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman (2010) papers, and show why they don’t
work. The demonstration will seem rather obvious to any reader of this journal. And
this in turn brings us to the second point: How is it that papers that are so trivially and
demonstrably wrong get published in journals such as Science or the Proceedings of the
Royal Society? Both papers relate to statistical language modeling, which is surely one
of the core techniques in computational linguistics, yet (apparently) no computational
linguists were asked to review these papers. Would a paper that made some blatantly
wrong claim about genetics be published in such venues? What does this say about our
field and its standing in the world? And what can we do about that? Those questions
are the topic of Section 3. …………………………………………………….

major types of nonlinguistic systems are those that do not exhibit much sequential structure (‘Type 1’ systems) and those that follow rigid sequential order (‘Type 2’ systems). For example, the sequential order of signs in Vinca inscriptions appears to have been unimportant. On the other hand, the sequences of deity signs in Near Eastern inscriptions found on boundary stones (kudurrus) typically follow a rigid order that is thought to reflect the hierarchical ordering of the deities. (Rao et al. 2009a, page 1165)

On the face of it, it is not too surprising, given these descriptions, that the Type 1 system
shows rapid growth in the conditional entropy, whereas Type 2 stays close to zero. The
problem is that there is little evidence that either of these types accurately characterized
any ancient symbol system. So for example, the Vinca symbols of Old Europe were ˇ
certainly not random in their distribution according to the most authoritative source on the topic (Winn 1981).2 Indeed, Gimbutas (1989) and Haarmann (1996) even proposed that they represented a pre-Sumerian European script; although that is highly unlikely, it is also unlikely they would have proposed the idea in the first place if the distribution of symbols seemed random. Similarly, it is apparently not the case that the deity symbols in kudurrus were arranged in a rigid order (see subsequent discussion): Clearly it is not only computational linguists who should be bothered by the claims of this paper. In fact, as one learns only if one reads the supplementary material for the paper, the data for Type 1 and Type 2 were artificially generated from a rigid model (Type 2) and a random and equiprobable model (Type 1).
Various on-line discussions, starting with Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2009), criticized Rao et al. (2009a) for their use of artificial data.3 So, in subsequent discussion,
including a recently published paper (Rao 2010) that largely rehashes the issues of
both the Science paper and another paper in PNAS (Rao et al. 2009b),4 Rao backs off
from these claims and talks about the Type 1 and Type 2 curves as the limits of the
distribution. The take-home message appears to be that in principle symbol systems
could vary as widely as being completely rigid or completely random and equiprobable.
It is therefore surprising, the story goes, that the Indus symbols seem to fall right in
that narrow band that includes unequivocal writing systems. The problem with this
argument is that it is highly unlikely that there were ever any functional symbol systems that had either of these properties, and one can argue this point on basic information theoretic grounds. A symbol system that was completely rigid—had an entropy
of 0—would convey no information whatsoever.

2 Rao et al. (2009a) mis-cite Winn to claim that the Vinca sequences were random >>

I will send an e-mail to Stephen R. Duren :

VINCA-TURDAS PROTO-WRITING TARTARIA TABLETS admissions@usf.edu   mmock@mail.usf.edu.  help@usf.  usf-grad@grad.usf.edu estrom@usf.edu

Rau Eugen eugenrau@gmail.com

I found in Guide The History of Proto-Writing, Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems
some of your conclusions.
Maybe you know or not, I made an extensive research on Vinca proto-writing and Tartaria tablets issues.
What really puzzled me, is the fact that those conclusions are allmost superposing mines.
I found no available explanation.nor I found your detailed research regarding tartaria tablets.
But what is annoyng me is the fact that some (few) lines there, seem to be in my own topic or personal characteristics.For exemple i am sustaining from 2007 (12years) that upper half of Tartaria round tablet could contain true writing, (more than sylables, even letters /archaic greek-ones)
Probably you are not the autor or you took some ideas not beeing aware, or with good intentions from Wikipedia where I posted also my conclusions.
( my wondering. thoughts in romanian, are  at https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2272  .I will translate tomorow romanian text in english)
The problem is that I have tens of my work pages. there I was explaining in detail, comparing sign by sign different writing sistems with Tartaria tablet’s signs.
Critics and corrections on others scientists sumerian interpretations (A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev, etc.), another on totaly unsatisfying results of mr.Marco Merlini research, my Aegean-writing reading attempt, and many many others.
You are a great scientist, sure you sustain others wich work hard in this messy field of undeciphered ancient writings.
In the same time I am convinced you treat with fair-play scientific matters.
Probably also theres a real possibility, as a top neuro-scientists, you are smart enough that some-how you supposed or even realised (some sparks clicks in your mind, no matter what kind of thought processus).
You must understand that I have HARD EVIDENCES to sustain your and mine asertions.Like sombody sustaining a new unknown atomic particle and by the other side, other showing and proving that it exist in reality.
So if I was not annoyed or disturbed you (hope so), please enlight me.
I thank you much in advance.
My research/work pages are at :                                                             tartariatablets.com    tartariatablets.wordpress.com,
eng. Eugen Rau Timisoara Romania Str.Motilor nr. 3 mob. +4026620694

Proto Indo-European ed/h1ed:”eat”

July 25, 2019

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

 Eta/HEta-D >>>> ED.EDE/HED,HEDE ?

From The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World                                         https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ie-mallory-adams.pdf

<< In some instances we will find cognate sets that would appear to agree
perfectly, almost too perfectly, to be regarded as evidence for the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European word. This situation is likely to arise when, for
example, we Wnd a widely attested noun that has been clearly formed from a
well-attested verb by processes active in most of the Indo-European groups.
For example, Grk edanon, Hit adanna-, and Skt a´danam could all be derived
from a PIE *h1edonom ‘food’, but as all these words are fairly banal extensions
of the widespread PIE root *h1ed- ‘eat’ (hence the word literally indicates a
noun ‘eats’) we may be dealing with independent creations of a noun from an
inherited verbal form.>>

https://ro.bab.la/dictionar/engleza-romana/eats                                                         eats {substantiv}                                                                                                                         RO preparate                                                                                                                                        to eat {vb.}                                                                                                                                            ROa mânca a consuma a rumega a roade a păpa a ospăta a omeni a se înfrupta a îmbuca a hrăni a nutri a hali

https://latin.cactus2000.de/showverb.en.php?verb=edere                                                          

Infinitive present edere Imperative present ede / edēs
edite / edeste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language

Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *ede *edezo
2nd. Plur. *edete

=============================================================

https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/2886/                                                             dedo, dedis, dedere C, dedidi, deditumVerb

Translations
  1. to give up/in
  2. to surrender
  3. to abandon/consign/devote
  4. to yield
  5. An Introduction to Romance Linguistics, Its Schools and Scholars
    Iorgu Iordan, ‎John Orr – 1970 – ‎Linguistic geography

    431 f., derived it rightly from Slavonic dedu, ‘ old man *, ‘ grandfather ‘,

Vechea scriere Europeana

July 21, 2019

Vechea Scriere Europeana (Old European Script/ OES) este o denominare pentru semnificatiile rezultate din analiza intreagii biblioteci de semne gasite pe artefactele culturii Danubiene. Altfel se presupune ca este o forma incipienta si precursoare a scrisului. Deci proto-scriere. Din pacate nici pentru existenta unei proto-scrieri nu s-a facut dovada certa.                                                                                                                          Denumirea de “scriere” este total improprie, definitia scrisului fiind aceea prin care o limba sau cuvintele pot fi reproduse prin semne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

<< Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language with signs and symbols. For languages that utilize a writing system, inscriptions can complement spoken language by creating a durable version of speech that can be stored for future reference or transmitted across distance. Writing, in other words, is not a language, but a tool used to make languages readable. Within a language system, writing relies on many of the same structures as speech, such as vocabularygrammar, and semantics, with the added dependency of a system of signs or symbols. The result of writing is called text, and the recipient of text is called a reader.>>

Denumirea  OES are ca prima si principala exemplificare   “semnele culturii Vinca”.            Atentie, indiferent de clasificare, “cultura Vinca” ori “Vinca-Turdas” ori “Turdas” (si inca si altele apropiate in timp), semnele acestor culturi intra in OES.                                               Dar trebuie facuta o delimitare clara:

  • aceste semne ale OES, se gasesc pe artefacte ale culturii Vinca pe o mare arie, (din Serbia pana in Romania) si pot fi exemplificate cu artefactele gasite de Zsofia Torma.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols                                                       << The Vinča symbols, sometimes known as the Danube scriptVinča signsVinča scriptVinča–Turdaș scriptOld European script, etc., are a set of symbols found upon Neolithic era (6th to 5th millennia BC) artifacts from the Vinča culture of Central Europe and Southeastern Europe.[1] Most historians agree that those symbols are not a writing system, but some kind of private symbols or ornaments. A minority of historians claim that this is the earliest known writing system that has influenced other early writing systems.>>
  • Fotografia, din https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/do-tartaria-tablets-contain-evidence-earliest-known-writing-system-002103
  • In mod gresit s-a facut asocierea (mai mult in trecut si mai recent mai retinut) tablitelor de la Tartaria cu cultura Vinca si OES, apoi implicit cu o varsta foarte veche. Dupa cat retin au fost si mai sant inca doar doi cercetatori care sustin acest lucru, Dl. Prof. Gheorghe Lazarovici si cercetatorul italian Dr. Marco Merlini.             ========================================                                                           Exista un numar de lucrari in care s-a facut inventarul semnelor si s-a analizat OES, enumerand aici doar cativa autori: Marija Gimbutas, Harald Haarman, Shan Winn, Marco Merlini & Gheorghe Lazarovici si altii 
  • Griffen, Toby ………….
  • Dupa cunostinta mea, cea mai valoroasa si reprezentativa lucrare in care se analizeaza OES este:
  • The Number System of the Old European Script                                       Eric Lewin Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D. ,  Nicholas Christenfeld, Ph.D. https://arxiv.org/html/math/0309157v1

  • In aceasta lucrare se reliefeaza existenta unui sistem de numeratie incipient, (data fiind prezenta la baza vaselor a unor semne care conduc clar la numeratie), dar cu ale carui semne posibil se indica si natura ori cantitatile unor produse. Utilizarii semnelor in numeratie si scopuri economice in general i se dau mult mai multe sanse decat folosirea lor in scopuri religioase. Aceasta cel putin pentru semnele tip raboj/ strokes, pentru ca nu este teoretic exclusa folosirea altor semne de alt tip, in scopuri religioase gasite cu precadere pe statuete si obiecte decorative.
  • MAI MULT DECAT ORICE, UTILIZAREA SISTEMATICA PE O ARIE LARGA SI PE PARCURSUL A SUTE DE ANI  A UNUI SET RELATIV RESTRANS DE SEMNE NU A FOST FACUTA CA RELAXARE CI A FOLOSIT CU SIGURANTA UNUI SCOP PRACTIC.
  • ===========  extrase din lucrarea de mai sus ===========
  • << Writing, one of the most important human innovations, seems to have arisen independently only a few times (Robinson 1995).
  • Thus, it came as somewhat of a surprise when in 1875 excavations led by Z. Torma at Tordos in the gold and silver rich regions of Transylvania (Romania) yielded inscribed objects (Torma 1889).�� Excavations at Vinca, 120 km southwest of Tordos, yielded another cache of inscribed objects (Vas�c 1910).�� Initially it was thought that this Vinca-Tordos script had diffused from the Near East (Popovic 1965).� However, in more recent work C-14 dating shows that the Transylvanian objects are more than a thousand years older than the Uruk tablets (c. 4000 BC) (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; and refs. therein).� Also, examination of a more extensive corpus of approximately 940 inscribed objects from more than twenty cities over hundreds of square kilometers compiled in pioneering work by S.M.M. Winn (1981), including previously unpublished objects, shows that the Old European Script (OES) (Gimbutas 1991) has little similarity with Near Eastern writing.� These findings have led to the view that the OES probably arose independently (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Renfrew 1969).
  • The OES has not been deciphered.� It is also not known for what the script was used, but the prevailing theory (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996) is that it was used for religious purposes.� Here we show that nearly one-third of the inscribed pottery objects bear numerical inscriptions, and we suggest that the script may have been used for economic purposes.� For the incised score marks on the bottom of pots in particular, we greatly doubt that any religious purpose was intended.
  • The prevalence of score marks in the OES and their potential for helping to understand the OES has not been appreciated, though early work (Winn 1981, pp. 158, 164) actually suggested that tally marks could represent numbers.
  • Also common is the �comb� motif (Table 1) with three to eight teeth�33 inscriptions.� As the comb motif is used with so many different numbers of teeth and as the comb inscriptions seem to be used in a similar manner, and are found in similar places on pottery as the score mark inscriptions, we think these signs also denote numbers. We translate a comb with n (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) teeth as 10+n.� Other possibilities are the numbers or n+1 (n teeth plus the horizontal stroke), but these seem unlikely ………
  • For what was the OES used? The script seems too widespread and stereotyped to be mere �graffiti� or meaningless �doodling� (Winn 1981). The idea that the signs represent craftsmen�s or owners� marks is possible, but identifiers seems to be ruled out by the relative lack of care used in making many of the inscriptions, and the fact that there simply are not enough common signs for a script in use at tens of sites for hundreds of years (Winn 1981).� It is possible that the inscriptions denote the volume of the container.� However, even though all pottery has not been available to inspect (Winn 1981), there seems to be no obvious correlation between the size of a pot and the number of score marks on it.� For example, there are pots with more score marks with larger bases then those with less score marks.� As well, the gradations of sizes of pots would then seem overly fine.�

The most common theory is that the OES served a religious purpose (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996).�� For a number of reasons we do not ascribe to this belief: (1) Theinscriptions do not show the careful workmanship one might expect on religious objects.� Indeed, the inscriptions are not even as well-done as even the objects on which they are inscribed.� (2) As twenty-eight percent of the inscriptions are on the bottom of a pot, intuitively this seems to us a most unlikely and inglorious locus to honor a deity! To test this theory we examined the bottoms of ten modern pots from each of five modern locations�one home, one office/work location, one store, two houses of worship.� We did not find any pots or containers with religious inscriptions on their bottom.� (Some containers had more than one inscription on their bottoms.)� The most common markings on the base of a pot was the price, usually in the form of a barcode (fifteen container bottoms).� Thirteen bottoms indicated the place of manufacture of the container.

The OES may have been used for economic purposes, and the numbers indicate the value or price of what is in the pot.� An economic use for the OES is consistent with the wide distribution of inscribed objects and the fact that the Old European culture was material rich and seemed to be a mercantile one (Winn 1981; Chapman 1981).� Also, while the Old European culture is thought to have had a rich mythology and religious nature, the OES need not necessarily reflect this. Indeed, the Proto-Sumerian, Proto-Elamite, Minoan and Mycenean Greek cultures were rich in mythology and religiosity, but their scripts�Proto-Sumerian (NissonDamerow & Englund 1993), Proto-Elamite (Damerow & Englund 1989), Linear A (Chadwick 1987), and Linear B (Chadwick 1987)�are completely, or almost completely languages of accounting.� Interestingly, the Old European culture is contemporaneous with societies in the Near East that used tokens and inscribed bullae for accounting purposes (Schmandt-Besserat1992).� The large size of the Vinca agglomerations would have called for and required professional specialization, and thus exchange and redistribution (Chapman 1981; Winn 1981).� However, the use of number signs in the OES in objects thus far uncovered is not systematic as in the other scripts mentioned above.� Further study and finds may support or refute the notion the use of the OES for economic purposes.

In conclusion we find (1) that many signs in the OES seem to represent a number system (2) with 10 apparently an important base or unit.� (3) Scratched score marks on the bottom of a pot, in particular, and other OES signs convey no religious meaning, and (4) possibly could have had some economic purpose. (5) The delineation of the number signs of the Old European Script should facilitate further understanding of the rest of the script and of the Old European culture, especially as new archaeologic findings emerge. (6) The beauty and power of numbers wrought by our ancestors� hand so long ago speaks to us today with great clarity. >>

Nota Semnul +++++ de pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria,  http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

ar putea avea aceptia de 15 sau 5?

*********************   ATENTIE   ***********************

Este o diferenta ca de la cer la pamant intre semnele OES si cele de pe tablita de la Tartaria. Semnele de pe tablita de la Gradesnita si Dispilio, precum si multe altele (as putea spune aproape tot restul gasite in aria Civ. Vinca) apartin OES.

Prin natura si structura lor, DAR MAI ALES PRIN MAREA ASEMANARE A SEMNELOR CU ACELE FOLOSITE MULT ULTERIOR IN SILABARE SI ALFABETE , semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria indica o varsta mult mai recenta.                                                                                           Nota                                                                                                                                            Acest aspect nu este remarcat si nu este de domeniul unei evidente strigatoare la cer/batatoare la ochi pentru un cititor obisnuit. Adica neinitiat relativ la lungul parcurs al aparitiei, apoi al evolutiei scrisului sau necunoscand decat succint larga biblioteca de semne folosite in lume pe parcursul a multor milenii si pe o arie extrem de larga.

!! OES a avut un inceput de tip cuneiform (unii zic de tip digital, digitalizat) si nu unul pictografic ca la sumerieni.                                                                                                         Teoretic se putea ajunge la un set de semne care sa semnifice sunete=litere. cred ca aceasta presupune o mare capacitate intelectuala de analiza si sinteza simultan.                Insa nu stiu exact de ce, parcursul pictograme>ideograme>silabe,litere a fost cumva mai avantajos in descoperirea scrierii propriu-zise (silabar, alfabetica).                                Pe acest parcurs au mers scrierile sumeriana, egipteana si ugaritica, toti acestia incepand la un moment dat sa dea semnelor un corespondent fonetic.                                    Din pacate Civilizatia danubiana/OES poate avand de parcurs doar zeci/sute de ani nu a reusit sa finalizeze acest lucru, ca mai apoi sa se transforme, deplaseze si in final sa dispara.

Curios este ca

– pe de o parte aproape in totalitate semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria se regasesc intr-o forma schitata printre semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme

-pe de alta parte, (cumva in sens invers) oricare semn din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme se poate regasi in semnele folosite in aceste scrieri de tip silabar sau alfabetice ulterioare.

Aceasta arata in mod indubitabil o filiatie,                                                                                       – intre proto-scrierea sumeriana (ca origine) si toate aceste scrieri alfabetice ulterioare,   v. G.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis                                                                                         – ori la mai distanta si (foarte putin evidenta doar presupusa) filiatia OES (ca origine) cu toate aceste ulterioare enumerate mai sus (eventual incluzand-o intre ele si pe proto-scrierea sumeriana)

CEA MAI BUNA DEMONSTRATIE (si singura existenta) a unei LEGATURI SI CHIAR FILIATII INTRE ACESTE SCRIERI AVAND CA SUPORT DEMONSTRATIV TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA,                                                                                                                                           AM FACUT-O EU PRIN INCERCARILE MELE DE INTERPRETARE PRIN PRISMA MAI MULTOR SISTEME DE SCRIERE (sumeriana proto-cuneiforma, Linear A/B, dar si altele cum ar fi cea paleo-canaanita/paleo ebraica si kazara.                                                                 ( unde am facut apropierea intre semnele de pe tablite si semnele din aceste scrieri)

月氏 Yuèzhī, literally “MOON CLAN”/ 20-th of June, 2019, 4.45 a.m.

June 23, 2019

 

**************   A T T E N T I O N !   ****************                                                                     1.PRESENT PAGE IS CONSTITUTED AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, (IT IS TRUE BEEING SUPPORTED BY MANY REAL FACTS ).                                                                                         2.AN AVERAGE-LEVEL READER, UNINITIATED IN WORLD WRITING DEVELOPEMENT WILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES REGARDING WORLD SIGN LIBRARY, SO I RECOMMEND TO TAKE A LOOK AT OMNIGLOT.COM                                                                                          *********************************************

…..if my 2 days before post was entitled “AN CURIOUS-DUBIOUS ENTERTAINMENT” now I am not sure wich be the title.  There I reffered to an inscription found  in Sannicolau-Mare city, in the west of Romania wich has signs similar those on Tartaria tablets (at least regarding that round-one).                                                                                                             Sannicolau Mare map, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/

                                                                                                                        In fact, at Sannicolau-Mare were found a hoard of inscriptions, on different artefacts. For all some scientists expressed their opinions:                                                             VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Hungary,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg and                                                                                                   José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                       This article is reffering to another inscription found also there,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                THE BUYLA INSCRIPTION.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5th and the 10th centuries, the first half of the 9thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Despite I read at least one of articles wich is reffering to this inscription, only yestarday I had a declic, some facts catched my attention, as those two:                                                          FIRST :                                                                                                                                                     We have in Buyla inscription the word:                                                                              “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *eregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even – and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai uči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

That ΗΤΖΙΓΗ sounded me as hell close to  IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                              2-ND:

I found in the papers reffering to this inscription, that in tungusik linguistic family, more precise in OROK language, there is a grammar structure (used as suffixe, but also as a word) -DDoo.                                                                                                                                          Exactly as we have on Tartaria round tablet !   cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          (we have DDoo upon canaanite and greek alphabets)

From  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK  The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something)
designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

From  https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen dedu-           to sleep

If using khazar alphabet, wi’ll have DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

From https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

“umma (iimm‘at) “congrégation, corn munity of  .

 

ATTENTION,                                                                                                                                     THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY WE CAN READ THE TABLET USING KHAZAR ALPHABET OR ARCHAIC GREEK ALPHABET (last used mainly on S-Mare inscriptions)

BUT ANYBODY IS REALISING (beeing a question of logic and common-sense) CANNOT BE USED BOTH IN THE SAME TIME  !                                                                                                     ======================

In the before posting I’ve found in the signs  using khazar alphabet, letters  CS(Ci) and J(i).In this case, reading from R>L, we have ICsI (ICI) and from L>R  “CsI ” .( see above in Even,   , and in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”to see, observe“)         Note.                                                                                                                                                        It is not the time to rush, aserting that in this portion the writing is L>R or R>L, as long as the result is quite the same (ICI visa Ci), nor regarding the reading ; nobody is casing me !

From folowing paper,

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION*

                                                                                                                                                                << VIIicigi(ī-,y-,ī)icigii icä-rä.gii-Ø{see-PRT.AOR-3SG}iči-y.i < *iči-g-i{drink-DER-3SG.POSS}[izafet construction? >>

exactly the denomination component of the tribes   ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

From https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) ,  (branch) 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

From (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yuechi, which means Moon –Tribe

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Clan) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Branch).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to TransoxianaBactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Map, from https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Then would be determined exactly the role and meaning of the structure  -DDoo.           

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             From folowing paper,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks
In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:
53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to
this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.
Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese
sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17
th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that
Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually
Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be
Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,
however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched
 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great
detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.
The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of
Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario
set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see
i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).
The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)
is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of
the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is
 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,
the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju()cen ‘Jurchen
echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the
etymological intricacies of the term ju()cen, see Janhunen 2004).
 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-
ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:
xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›
merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other
conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,
Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,
Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the
other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu
and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized
nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter
does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,
i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of
English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW THE DEEP FOG IN WICH WERE ENCLOSED TARTARIA TABLETS SEEMS TO BEGIN TO DISPERSE ;                                                                                                                        A SERIES OF UNELUCIDATED ASPECTS AND PARTICULARITIES OF THE WRITING ITSELF SEEMS TO BE CLEARED                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ON THE HONESTITY OF THE FINDER ARCHAEOLOGIST N.VLASSA, MOST HAD NO DOUBT;  IN THE SITUATION THAT TABLETS SEEMED TO COME RATHER FROM THE COSMIC VOID                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
THEIR ORIGIN OR PROVENANCE BY FAR WAS NOT CLEAR AT ALL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                          SO MY CONCLUSIONS ARE:
                                                                                                                                                               1. The tablets are authentic,genuine and were found by Vlassa an his teamwork.                   It is natural that was puzzled by the writing, he not beeing an epigraphist. What to say about others, highly specialised in the field (assyrologists and others specialised in sumerian proto-writing wich got cathed in the net-eyes of own specialties )                                                                                                                                                                                              2. By far are not so old as innitialy was presumed. Could be made by a member of a migratory population of altaic-mongolic keen.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3. The writer was not mastering well the art of writing:                                                                                          from one’s paper  ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                   by the moment i canot conclude that the letters are coming from khazar or archaic greek alphabets.                                                                                                                                                “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Anycase not pertained to peoples with great writing heritage, also cultural heritage is another/not the same mater.
4. Beeing relative new, and having provenance from populations wich “weeped” an time span and extreme large area, one could have the explanation the aquisition of so many signs, coming from different time and places.                                                                        World top scientists in the field (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) get caught in own nets, and fooled trying attempting readings using sumerian proto-cuneiform signs.
5. It happens that before extended discusions that tablets were used in magic rituals, now we are dealing with exactly the population where shamanism was invented and practiced (and from where through russian language the word shaman come to us)
6. Hope you are realising that there is a connexion (as many scientists stated tens of years before) between  Kushan/ Samara/SAKA/ YUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI populations and Dacians  !                                                                                                                                Not to remind you that pecenegs, bulgars cumans and avars were inter-related populations wich hundreds of years almost without interuption, swept Europe coming from Asia

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                               The Yuezhi (Chinese月氏pinyinYuèzhīWade–GilesYüeh4-chih1[ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese貴霜pinyinGuìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Otherwise if talking of mongolian and chinese influence,:

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition
to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               
An interesting hypothesis if the signs :   
 represented by Chinese shining/ SUN (Ri) and MOON (Yue)
Another hypothesis:                                                                                                                              If HD sequence is to be read ICI, *iče :”to see, observe“, would be at hand that on upper half o the round tartaria tablet to have at left “to see, observe” and on the right D D O o /R D o c, the Moon phases.  !!
===========================================
DOCUMENTATION

Далай-лама: Монгольским племенам нужно развивать в себе дух …

savetibet.ru/2008/05/28/mongolia.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%B6r%C3%B6k                                                     EtymologyProbably from a Turkic language before the times of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries).                                        Adjective örök (not comparable) 1.eternal

Yuezhi 月氏, Tokharians                                         http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/yuezhi.html

########################################

Now, even the above demonstration would be tempting, attractive or convincing, there are remaining twoo main hipothesys regarding the tablets origin, both with quite equal chances, every of them having PRO/plus and CONTRA/minus arguments:

“FROM ASIA” MIGRATION

PLUS-es:                                                                                                                                                  – there were such real migrations wich left traces in Romania                                                            – reinforce dacians origin theories advanced by scientists from tens of years beforese regarding asian-related origin.                                                                                          – if related to Kushan/Tocharian people, then were of I.European origin, there is not more the problem of tablets origin or who brought them                                                     – there were found other inscriptions alike, true few but exists. Not anymore “the singleton difficulty/issue”                                                                                                                        – a long series of question marks, aspects and inadvertencies are cleared up with this hipothesys (magic rituals<>shaman? ; how could somebody know so many signs some close to our time)                                                                                                                        – the presence of D-signs exactly where an “secret,hidden message” whas supposed to be and where could have true writing and an clear-concrete message, is explained.

MINUS-es:                                                                                                                                               – consequence ,not so old age for the tablets.                                                                                    – artefacts found close-by indicates another origin, Aegean.Cycladic one.                            – if population was related to avars, tungus (and wonder wich else), that population risk  not to be  Indo-European.                                                                                                                  – if related to Kushan they used another type of writing                                                           – maximal similarity  (as a whole) of the signs with sumerian proto-cuneiform-ones, folowed by Aegean/Cretan/anatolian ones.                                                                                       – signs D not appearing only after 1500- 1800 B.C. in old-Canaanite and archaic Greek writings.

AN CLOSE, EUROPEAN ORIGIN                                                                                                                                                                              

PLUSes                                                                                                                                                      –  greater age (than khazar,avar,etc. variant)                                                                                  – artefacts found close-by  similar of that  Cycladic -; tablets could be as well carian.        – there are real chances for signs transmission from Sumer (early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants/Papakitsos and Kenanidis) via Syria to Aegean and as consequence an increased age.                                                                                                          – signs maximal similarities with (in order) : Sumerian , Aegean& Anatolian.

MINUSes                                                                                                                                                   – improbable (unatested) population movement from Aegean to North, rather reverse.                                                                                                                                                     – ramaining unsolved issue where were inscribed the tablets or who brought them (remain the hipothesys of “lost/unknown traveller/trader”                                                            – there are no similar inscriptions by us, there are unique/singletons.                                      – there were not used D-signs in proto sumerian script nor in Aegean ones, only in Old-canaanite and archaic Greek ones. 

 ADITIONAL DOCUMENTING

1. AMULETS.                                                                                                                              Among the Tungus groups and Manchus there is a belief that there are various things which may bring luck in different branches of human activity. Such things are usually incidentally found in the form of natural abnormalities, monstrosities, rare unknown things, etc. If the Tungus happen to learn something new along this line they include it into their complex without any hesitation. Owing to this there now is in vogue a belief into the possibility of finding treasures, ever-lasting food, etc., borrowed from the Chinese, Mongols and even Russians. The function of the amulets in Tungus life is not great, but they never refuse to collect them and keep, for nobody exactly knows what is true and what is not, but to keep these things is not difficult. Yet one likes to have a hope of finding a fortune, or luck. The coincidence of «luck» with finding or using amulets often brings confirmation of the supposedly existing correlation between amulets and luck. Owing to the character of this hypothesis of the amulets and particular hypotheses regarding relationship between particular amulets and particular forms (cases) of luck are subject to great variations, not only among the ethnical groups but also in the life of generations and individuals. I will here give a list of amulets which, as a matter of fact, may be extended by more detailed investigation of the groups and even individuals. Naturally the amulets are much more fashionable among the Tungus who are in close contact with the other ethnical groups, and especially among those who are under the Chinese influence.

The amulets are called among the Manchus and Tungus groups influenced by them, — bobai, [cf. Dahur baobai (Poppe), – «precious», «precious thing»; Manchu baobai (Zaxarov), – id. from Chinese bao-bei] while among the reindeer Tungus of Manchuria and those of the Amur Government it is called ajeya. Amulets may be carried on the cradles, with the tobacco bag, attached to the spirits. Many amulets have been formed from the placings for spirits and special things used for protection. Therefore to establish the line of demarcation between an amulet and former placing for spirits or protector against them, is impossible. Such is also the Tungus attitude in this matter. If such an amulet is found and if it is followed by luck in hunting there must be given sacrifice to the local spirits or to the spirit which is held responsible for the success.                                                                           Once I met with the hypothesis that all amulets are produced by the spirits and therefore one must consider any amulet as indicative of future luck to be produced by the spirits, — the spirits therefore must have regular sacrifices from those who carry the amulets, and if the sacrifice is not given it will be very bad for those who carry the amulets.                                                                                                            Indeed, this idea puts a certain limitation upon the collecting of amulets. However, this is not a general belief.

Here are a few examples of articles used for amulets: ……………………………”

Din [PDF] S. Starostin. Tungus- Manchu etymology                                   https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *epu

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 elder sister’s husband 2 grandfather, elder relative 3 bear 4 father’s elder brother
Russian meaning: 1 муж старшей сестры 2 дед, старший родственник 3 медведь 4 старший брат отца
Negidal: epo, epa 4
Spoken Manchu: efū 1 (905)
Literary Manchu: efu 1
Orok: ēpi2, epeke 2, 3
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sebe-
Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 ghost (shaman’s aid) 2 idol 3 God                                                                 (eugenrau:Tartaria tablet   Se                                                                                                                                                              D b o o )
Din https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *dēdu Altaic etymology:
Meaning: to care, like, love
Russian meaning: любить, оберегать, уважать
Negidal: dēdeluUlcha: dēdu(n)
Nanai: dēdu
Oroch: deduli
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *pedēAltaic etymology:
Meaning: to ford, cross over
Russian meaning: переехать, переправиться
413
Evenki: hedē
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *ēdeAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 silly 2 defect, shortcoming
Russian meaning: 1 глупый 2 недостаток, увечье
Literary Manchu: eden 2
Ulcha: ede(n) 1
Nanai: ēdẽ 1
Oroch: ede 1
Udighe: ēde 1
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *arAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to make, work, construct 2 to come to one’s senses 3 to cause fear (оf an evil ghost), to appear in one’s imagination 4 shape, form 5 evil spirit
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *erü-n
Altaic etymology:
Meaning: time
Russian meaning: время
Even: eri
Negidal: ejun
Spoken Manchu: erin (2648)
Literary Manchu: erin
Jurchen: erin (89)
Ulcha: eru(n)
Orok: eru
(n) / eri(n)
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *eriAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to breathe 2 breath 3 soul
Russian meaning: 1 дышать 2 дыхание 3 душа
Evenki: erī- 1, erīn 2, 3
Even: eri- 1, erin 2
Negidal: ejī- 1, ejgen 2, 3
Spoken Manchu: erǝxǝn ‘breath, life’ (39, 693, 2965)
Literary Manchu: erge- ‘to rest’, ergen 2, 3
Jurchen: erin-he ( = erhen) (517)
Ulcha: ersi- 1, erge(n) 2
Orok: er(i)- 1
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet&first=461
Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-

月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m.

June 20, 2019

月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m. https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2161

**************   ATENTIE !   ****************                                                                                  1.PREZENTA PAGINA SE CONSTITUIE INTR-O IPOTEZA DE LUCRU, ESTE ADEVARAT AVAND CA SUSTINERE FOARTE MULTE ELEMENTE FAPTICE                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2.UN CITITOR NEINITIAT IN PRIVINTA EVOLUTIEI SCRISULUI IN LUME ARE DIFICULTATI IN PRIVINTA BAGAJULUI DE SEMNE.SUGEREZ O TRECERE IN REVISTA PE OMNIGLOT.COM                                                                                          *********************************************

…..daca articolul postat in urma cu numai 2 zile l-am intitulat “Divertisment curios-dubios” acum zau ca nu mai stiu ce titlu sa dau articolului.                                            Acolo faceam referire la o inscriptie gasita in Romania la Sannicolau-Mare, care are semne asemanatoare celor de pe tablitelor de la Tartaria (cel putin in ceea ce o priveste pe cea rotunda).Articolul acesta se refera tot la o inscriptie gasita la Sannicolau-Mare. Harta, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/                                                                                                                                                       De fapt la Sannicolau-Mare sau descoperit mai multe inscriptii aflate pe mai multe artefacte.Pentru acestea exista lucrarile unui grup de cercetatori, ca de exemplu: VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Ungaria,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg si                                                                                                    José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                             

ACUM ESTE VORBA DE INSCRIPTIA BUYLA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5th and the 10th centuries, the first half of the 9thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Desi am citit cel putin unul din studiile care se refera la aceasta inscriptie, acum cativa ani, doar ieri “mi-a picat fisa”, respectiv mi-au atras atentia cateva lucruri, ca de exemplu acestea doua:                                                                                                                                        Primul :     avem in inscriptia de la Sannicolau-Mare cuvantul:                                                 “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *eregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even – and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai uči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

Acest ΗΤΖΙΓΗ mi-a sunat al dracului de asemanator cu IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                                  Al 2-lea:

Am gasit in alta lucrare referitoare la aceasta inscriptie, ca in familia limbilor altaice, mai precis in subfamilia limbilor tungusice, in limba OROK, exista o structura gramaticala (sufix) -DDoo. Adica exact cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          De data asta avem DDoo numai daca folosim literele grecesti

Din  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK  The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something) designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …
the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

Din https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen dedu-           to sleep

Daca folosim alfabetul khazar, avem DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

“umma (iimm‘at) “congrégation, corn munity of  .

 

ATENTIE,                                                                                                                                     TEORETIC SI PRACTIC, TABLITA SE POATE CITI FOLOSIND ALFABETUL KHAZAR SAU ALFABETUL GREC, ORI ARHAIC GREC, ASA CUM ACESTA DIN URMA S-A FOLOSIT CU PRECADERE PE INSCRIPTIILE DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE.     

Din https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

INSA CRED CA ORICINE REALIZEAZA SI ESTE O CHESTIUNE DE LOGICA SI BUN-SIMT CA NU SE POT FOLOSI AMBELE SIMULTAN !                                                                                                     ======================

In postarea trecuta, am identificat in semnele  folosind alfabetul runic khazar, literele CS(Ci) respectiv J(i).In acest caz am putea avea,citind de la dreapta la stanga ICsI (ICI) si de la stg. la dreapta “CsI ” .(Vezi mai sus in Even,   , iar in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”a vedea, observa“)                                                                                       Nota.                                                                                                                                                        Nu este momentul sa ma grabesc afirmand cu certitudine ca aceasta portiune are scrisul de la dreapta la stanga, ori invers, atata timp cat rezultatul este asemanator (ICI visa Ci), nici in privinta citirii ; In fond nu ma fugareste nimeni!

Din lucrarea de mai jos,

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION*

                                                                                                                                                                << VIIicigi(ī-,y-,ī)icigii icä-rä.gii-Ø{see-PRT.AOR-3SG}iči-y.i < *iči-g-i{drink-DER-3SG.POSS}[izafet construction? >>

chiar componenta denominarii triburilor  ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

Din https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) ,  (branch) 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

Din (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yuechi, which means Moon –Tribe

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Clan) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Branch).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to TransoxianaBactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Din https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Apoi mai ramane de vazut ce rol are, cum se interpreteaza acea structura -DDoo.           

Din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             Din lucrarea de mai jos,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks
In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:
53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to
this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.
Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese
sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17
th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that
Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually
Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be
Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,
however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched
 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great
detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.
The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of
Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario
set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see
i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).
The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)
is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of
the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is
 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,
the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju()cen ‘Jurchen
echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the
etymological intricacies of the term ju()cen, see Janhunen 2004).
 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-
ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:
xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›
merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other
conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,
Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,
Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the
other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu
and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized
nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter
does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,
i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of
English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACUMA SE PARE CA CEATA GROASA CARE INVALUIA TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA INCEPE SA SE RISIPEASCA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     O SERIE DE ASPECTE NEELUCIDATE SI PARTICULARITATI ALE SCRISULUI SE LAMURESC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ASUPRA PROBITATII DESCOPERITORULUI N.VLASSA NU A FOST NICI-O INDOIALA, TOTUSI TABLITELE AU PARUT A PROVENI DIN NEANT.
ORIGINEA SI PROVENIENTA LOR NU A PUTUT FI NICI PE DEPARTE LAMURITA                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1, Tablitele sant autentice si gasite de Vlassa cu echipa.                                                                 Este firesc sa fi fost derutat in privinta scrisului, nefiind specialist in epigrafie.                       Ce sa mai zic de altii; puteti constata cum specialisti de varf (asirologi si specialisti in proto-scriere s-au incurcat in hatisurile propriei lor specialitati)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2. Nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi.  Sant departe de orice estimare de vechime.          Par a fi opera unui membru al valurilor de popoare migratoare de factura altaic-mongolica.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3.Scriitorul nu stapanea prea bine scrisul.                                                                                           ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                                                                           In acest moment inca nu pot afirma daca este vorba de litere provenind din alfabetul arhaic grecesc ori din alfabetul khazar.                                                                                          “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Oricum nu facea parte din popoarele cu mare si indelungata traditie de scris, altfel traditia culturala este o cu totul alta chestiune.
4. Fiind relativ noi si provenind de la populatii care au “maturat” o arie extrem de larga, se explica “achizitia” atator semne provenind din diferite locuri si timpuri.                     Cercetatori de marca (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) s-au incurcat si pacalit incercand sa faca citiri folosind semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.
5.Intamplarea face ca este vorba chiar de populatiile unde s-a inventat samanismul
6. Cred ca realizati ca exista o legatura (asa cum de zeci de ani au supozitionat cercetatorii) intre populatiile Kushan/ Samara/SAKAYUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI si DACI !                                                                                                                                Ca sa nu mai spunem ca pecenegii,bulgarii,cumanii, avarii erau diferite ramuri si populatii care secole la rand au venit din Asia in Europa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YuezhiThe Yuezhi (Chinese月氏pinyinYuèzhīWade–GilesYüeh4-chih1[ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese貴霜pinyinGuìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Altfel daca este vorba de influenta Mongola si chineza:”

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition
to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               am putea lua in considerare si ipoteza ca semnele
 au reprezentat la Chinezi stralucire/ soarele (Ri) si Luna (Yue)
O alta ipoteza:                                                                                                                                 Daca secventa HD se citeste ICI, *iče :”a vedea, observa“, ar fi oarecum la indemana sau comod ca in jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde sa avem in stanga “a vedea, observa iar in dreapta sa avem, de ce nu, fazele lunii !
===========================================
DOCUMENTARE

Далай-лама: Монгольским племенам нужно развивать в себе дух …

savetibet.ru/2008/05/28/mongolia.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%B6r%C3%B6k                                                     EtymologyProbably from a Turkic language before the times of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries).                                        Adjective örök (not comparable) 1.eternal

Yuezhi 月氏, Tokharians                                         http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/yuezhi.html

########################################

Acum, desi demonstratia de mai sus poate fi tentanta, atractiva si eventual convingatoare, totusi dupa mine raman doua ipoteze  privind originea tablitelor, amandoua aproape egal de valabile,fiecare cu cate un set de argumente pro si contra.

IPOTEZA MIGRATIEI DIN ASIA

PLUSURI:                                                                                                                                                  – migratiile au existat in realitate si au lasat urme in Romania                                               – se imbina cu originea dacilor prezumata cu zeci de ani in urma de oamenii de stiinta    – daca ar avea legatura cu populatia Kushan, populatia rezulta a fi Indo-Europeana            – nu se mai pune problema cum au aparut sau cine le-a adus                                                 – sau mai gasit la noi inscrptii asemanatoare e adevarat putine dar exista.Dispare problema unicatului.                                                                                                                          – o serie de aspecte si inadvertente se lamuresc cu aceasta ipoteza (saman, cum putea cineva sa cunoasca atat de multe semne din trecut si aproape de prezent)                             –explica prezenta semnelor D, chiar in portiunea suspicionata ca ar contine un mesaj scris concret.

MINUSURI:                                                                                                                                               – rezulta o vechime foarte mica a tablitelor                                                                                   – artefactele gasite in apropiere par a indica o alta origine, Egeeana/Cicladica?                  – daca populatia are legatura cu avarii,tungusii si te miri care, acea populatie nu afost Indo-Europeana                                                                                                                                     – daca ar avea legatura cu populatia Kushan, aceea folosea alt tip de scris!                            – asemanare maxima (per global) a semnelor cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme, asemanare urmata de cele anatoliene(cariene) si scrierile Cretane.                                          – semnele D nu apar decat dupa 1800 B.C. in scrierile veche canaanita si greaca arhaica.

IPOTEZA UNEI ORIGINI MAI APROPIATE, EUROPENE                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PLUSURI                                                                                                                                                    – varsta posibil mult mai mare                                                                                                          – artefactele din apropiere sant similare celor Cicladice -; pot fi la o adica chiar si cariene                                                                                                                                                     – exista sanse pentru o transmisie a semnelor dinspre Sumer via Siria, aria Egeeana si in consecinta, posibil  varsta inca mult mai mare                                                                          – asemanare maxima a semnelor (in ordine) cu cele: Sumeriene, Anatoliene/Egeene

MINUSURI                                                                                                                                               – deplasari de populatie dinspre zona Egeeana inspre nord improbabile, mai probabile invers                                                                                                                                                       – ramane mica problema unde au fost inscriptionate tablitele ori cine le-a adus               (ramane ipoteza calatorului/ comerciantului “ratacit” )                                                                 – nu mai exista ceva asemanator pe la noi sant unicat                                                                – nu s-au folosit semnele D in proto-scrierea sumeriana nici in cele Egeene, ci doar in cele vechi-canaanite si arhaice grecesti.

DOCUMENTATIE ADITIONALA

1. AMULETS.                                                                                                                              Among the Tungus groups and Manchus there is a belief that there are various things which may bring luck in different branches of human activity. Such things are usually incidentally found in the form of natural abnormalities, monstrosities, rare unknown things, etc. If the Tungus happen to learn something new along this line they include it into their complex without any hesitation. Owing to this there now is in vogue a belief into the possibility of finding treasures, ever-lasting food, etc., borrowed from the Chinese, Mongols and even Russians. The function of the amulets in Tungus life is not great, but they never refuse to collect them and keep, for nobody exactly knows what is true and what is not, but to keep these things is not difficult. Yet one likes to have a hope of finding a fortune, or luck. The coincidence of «luck» with finding or using amulets often brings confirmation of the supposedly existing correlation between amulets and luck. Owing to the character of this hypothesis of the amulets and particular hypotheses regarding relationship between particular amulets and particular forms (cases) of luck are subject to great variations, not only among the ethnical groups but also in the life of generations and individuals. I will here give a list of amulets which, as a matter of fact, may be extended by more detailed investigation of the groups and even individuals. Naturally the amulets are much more fashionable among the Tungus who are in close contact with the other ethnical groups, and especially among those who are under the Chinese influence.

The amulets are called among the Manchus and Tungus groups influenced by them, — bobai, [cf. Dahur baobai (Poppe), – «precious», «precious thing»; Manchu baobai (Zaxarov), – id. from Chinese bao-bei] while among the reindeer Tungus of Manchuria and those of the Amur Government it is called ajeya. Amulets may be carried on the cradles, with the tobacco bag, attached to the spirits. Many amulets have been formed from the placings for spirits and special things used for protection. Therefore to establish the line of demarcation between an amulet and former placing for spirits or protector against them, is impossible. Such is also the Tungus attitude in this matter. If such an amulet is found and if it is followed by luck in hunting there must be given sacrifice to the local spirits or to the spirit which is held responsible for the success.                                                                           Once I met with the hypothesis that all amulets are produced by the spirits and therefore one must consider any amulet as indicative of future luck to be produced by the spirits, — the spirits therefore must have regular sacrifices from those who carry the amulets, and if the sacrifice is not given it will be very bad for those who carry the amulets.                                                                                                            Indeed, this idea puts a certain limitation upon the collecting of amulets. However, this is not a general belief.

Here are a few examples of articles used for amulets: ……………………………”

Din [PDF] S. Starostin. Tungus- Manchu etymology                                   https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *epu

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 elder sister’s husband 2 grandfather, elder relative 3 bear 4 father’s elder brother
Russian meaning: 1 муж старшей сестры 2 дед, старший родственник 3 медведь 4 старший брат отца
Negidal: epo, epa 4
Spoken Manchu: efū 1 (905)
Literary Manchu: efu 1
Orok: ēpi2, epeke 2, 3
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sebe-
Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 ghost (shaman’s aid) 2 idol 3 God                                                                 (eugenrau:Tartaria tablet   Se                                                                                                                                                              D b o o )
Din https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *dēdu Altaic etymology:
Meaning: to care, like, love
Russian meaning: любить, оберегать, уважать
Negidal: dēdeluUlcha: dēdu(n)
Nanai: dēdu
Oroch: deduli
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *pedēAltaic etymology:
Meaning: to ford, cross over
Russian meaning: переехать, переправиться
413
Evenki: hedē
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *ēdeAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 silly 2 defect, shortcoming
Russian meaning: 1 глупый 2 недостаток, увечье
Literary Manchu: eden 2
Ulcha: ede(n) 1
Nanai: ēdẽ 1
Oroch: ede 1
Udighe: ēde 1
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *arAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to make, work, construct 2 to come to one’s senses 3 to cause fear (оf an evil ghost), to appear in one’s imagination 4 shape, form 5 evil spirit
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *erü-n
Altaic etymology:
Meaning: time
Russian meaning: время
Even: eri
Negidal: ejun
Spoken Manchu: erin (2648)
Literary Manchu: erin
Jurchen: erin (89)
Ulcha: eru(n)
Orok: eru
(n) / eri(n)
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *eriAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to breathe 2 breath 3 soul
Russian meaning: 1 дышать 2 дыхание 3 душа
Evenki: erī- 1, erīn 2, 3
Even: eri- 1, erin 2
Negidal: ejī- 1, ejgen 2, 3
Spoken Manchu: erǝxǝn ‘breath, life’ (39, 693, 2965)
Literary Manchu: erge- ‘to rest’, ergen 2, 3
Jurchen: erin-he ( = erhen) (517)
Ulcha: ersi- 1, erge(n) 2
Orok: er(i)- 1
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet&first=461
Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-