HEDE SE DIDOU !

January 15, 2019

 Imagini pentru tartaria tablets

Not probably, but sure, the people are wondering how the things comes that I not show an sure, unique readingAs I explained before, this would be unbelieveble hard, because:                                                                                                                                                   – There is not known for sure the writing system, nor the language                                      -It is true, that it seems that is closest to sumerian, followed by Aegean/Anatolian writings and corespondent languages.                                                                               Overall I did not encounter great dificulties for reading tha tablets using both sumerian and Aegean systems. But the upper half of the round tablet some-how cannot match or be, fully enclosed in that systems.                                                                                                      – Beside this, I cannot explaine myself how exactly the section supposed to be hidden and contain an esotheric message (upper half of the round tablet), happens to contain newest signs (e.g. archaic greek).                                                                                              Consequently, I came with the assumption :that’s why this portion was intentionaly covered, because is the only portion of the all tablets wich is containing an quite clear, readable, undersandable messageby the contemporaneous fellows of the scribe.

OTHERWISE, IF ONE OF YOU GIVE A BETTER SUPPOSITION/EXPLANATION, I WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW THAT ONE.

————————————————————————————————

BEFORE GREEK ALPHABET COME TO BE STABLE, “STANDARDISED”, there was some regional, (epichoric) variants in wich                                                                                     the sign D was for sound R in a place and for sound D in another !                                  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet

                                                                                                                   ! !  that’s why we do not know for sure what was intended to be written  ! !                                   ————————————————————————-                                                                       HD :hede

+++++ : Se

D -D -o –? =D D o o/u/c?, in fact has also an “i” inside first D=>DiDoo,DiDou,DiDos ?

Note: in greek, DIDOU=DIDOS=GIVE! (Voc.)

THIS one here THEE GIVE!” > THIS YOU GIVE !, or “GIVE YOU THIS !”

kind of acknowledgment, receipt, voucher for what?some measures of cereals, goats !?

https://biblehub.com/greek/3592.htm                                                                                       hode, héde, tode: this (referring to what is present)

this one here,  it refers to what precedes, to what follows: neuter  these (viz. the followingthings, as follows, thus, i

BEFORE GREEK ALPHABET COME TO BE STABLE,STANDARDISED, there was some regional (epichoric) variants in wich the sign D was for R in a place and for sound D in another !                                                                                                                                                  —————————————————————————————                                                         or: hed,EDE! (eat!) or                                                                                                                        HERA/HER(OS) SE DIDOU :”THIS/DEFEND  GIVE YOU ,:                                                                          “this/eat/ LORD/watch-over,protect, defend- give you

gr. HERA “protector,lady“, gr. hiera:”sacred objects”!

ἥρως – Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἥρως

The word hero comes from the Greek ἥρως (hērōs), “hero” (literally “protector” or “defender”),[3] particularly one such as Heracles with divine ancestry or later given divine honors.[4] Before the decipherment of Linear B the original form of the word was assumed to be *ἥρωϝ-hērōw-, but the Mycenaean compound ti-ri-se-ro-e demonstrates the absence of -w-.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the Proto-Indo-European root is *sermeaning “to protect”. According to Eric Partridge in Origins, the Greek word Hērōs “is akin to” the Latin seruāre, meaning to safeguard. Partridge concludes, “The basic sense of both Hera and hero would therefore be ‘protector’.” R. S. P. Beekes rejects an Indo-European derivation and asserts that the word has a Pre-Greek origin.[5]

The Gentleman’s Magazine https://books.google.ro/books?id=tGI3AQAAMAAJ                 The ancient manor of Wanstead was granted by Edward VI. to Robert Lord Rich, … the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr (Master, Lord). … the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr: the Greek Mestor, another .

-ου
Alternative forms[edit]

5:42 GIVE DIDOU 1325 {V/PAM/2S} TO THO TW 3588 {T/DSM} WHO ASKS AITOUNTI 154 {V/PAP/DSM} THEE SE 4571 {PP/2AS} AND
KAI 2532 {CONJ} TURN AWAY FROM APOSTRAFHS 654 {V/2APS/2S} NOT MH 3361 {PRT/N} THO TON 3588 {T/ASM} WHO
WANTS QELONTA 2309 {V/PAP/ASM} TO BORROW DANEISASQAI 1155 {V/AMN} FROM APO 575 {PREP} THEE SOU 4675
{PP/2GS}

SO IN THIS HARSH CIRCUMSTANCES,                                                                                           WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE EVEN THE NATURE OF THE MESSAGE, AN ECONOMICAL TRANSACTION OR AN RELIGIOUS-RELATED ONE.

Sumerian influence on Aegeean writing

January 14, 2019

From Sumer,Indus Valley, in Anatolia, Cyprus,Crete,Sicily,Sardinia to North America (northern Pacific coast indian tribes), the metal ingost had all-over in ancient times (Bronze Age ),the same physical shape:                                                                            “OXHIDE”

From Who invented the oxhide ingot shape? Meluhha artisans. An archaemetallurgical journey along the Maritime Tin Route.                                                                               http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2017/04/who-invented-oxhide-ingot-shape-meluhha.html

                                                                           The large oxhide ingots were signified by ḍhālako a large metal ingot

From https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Oxhide_ingot.html

                                                                                                    Copper ingot from Zakros, Crete, displayed at the Heraklion Archaeological Museum.

1.IN THE FOLOWINGS, I WILL SHOW SOME SIMILIRATIES OF AEGEAN SIGNS WTH THOSE SUMERIAN-ONES; such relation was noticed also not so succesfully I expecte by Iannis Kenanidis and Evangelos Papakitsos.

2. Following the transmission of meaning is another matter. Early after proto-cuneiform phase the sumerian writing evolved as one sign do add other meanings that original pictographic-one. At the point that the original meaning was lost even by sumerians!    So, if signs were transmitted, one reasonable expect, that only the shape was some-how mantained, no talking that in another distant place (Aegean) to acquire another, different meaning. So, regarding the meanings I only notice some aspects, (in the limits of my understanding), not sustain an transmition of meaning.                                                        =======================================================

First Tartaria-sumerian Aegean triplet:

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

1.<metal ingot?<Pr-cuneif, sign KU < 2.KU:”metal,silver,shiny” > 3.Aegean sign JA and PA3 

1.https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html  Sign KU~a

sign Ga2;

INDUS SCRIPT , http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/04/bronze-age-glyphs-and-writing-in.html                                                                                                                               “Impressions of two cylinder seals (Sumer) and glyph of ‘ingot’. The person at the feet of the eagle-winged person carries a (metal) dagger on his left-hand, clearly demonstrating the link with this metalware catalog.Note the one-horned bull below the person who has his foot on mountain-summit.                                                                                                        Sumerian sign for the term ZAG ‘purified precious’. The ingot had a hole running through its length Perhaps a carrying rod was inserted through this hole.

From http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/04/indus-script-16-inscriptions-with.html

Seal stamp m-308 Mohenjo-daro (DK 11794) Hieroglyph: Three strokes connecting two linear strokes: dula ‘two’ Rebus:dul ‘cast metal’ PLUS kolmo ‘three’ Rebus: kolimi ‘smithy, forge’ Thus forge for cast metal

3. From http://www.kairatos.com.gr/linear1.htm See signs JA and PA.

.

Fromhttps://www.minoanatlantis.com/End_Minoan_Writing.php                                        See Linear A sign AB56:

———————————————————————-

http://www.oocities.org/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm                   K?A                                                                                                                                            The Sumerian sign (Jaritz #458) depicts a ‘tubular basket’; a variant, #458a, tapers toward the top; both have top-covers; both presumably and read ga2 (among others). Another recorded reading for it is pisan, which means ‘basket’ but perhaps also ‘*shallow tray’.

An archaic variant form for Sumerian sign above (Jaritz #458), Jaritz #458a, looks very much as if it could be the ‘head’ without the hair and neck we see in Jaritz #15 under K?XA; and therefore might be a sign for ‘jaw’; but it also may be just another shape of ‘basket’. As mentioned below under K?XA, the most promising prospect for ‘jaw’ in Sumerian is ga14, a reading of Jaritz #15 that is currently without an assigned meaning. I believe the the idea of ‘jaw’ provided the prototype and nomenclature for a ‘shallow basket tray’ but there is no trace of this meaning (‘jaw’) for this Sumerian sign

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

Second Tartaria-Sumerian-Aegean triplet:

                                                     See in the lowest row, from L>to> R: 2-nd and last signs

1.sum.pr-cuneif sign ZAG < 2.sum.ZAG:”the shine of metals; boundary, border, district’, ” > 3.Aegean sign A,Labrys,?Labyrinthos?

  1. From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html                        Sign ZAG~a

and sign ZAG~c  sign GA’AR:

GA’AR= GAR                                                                                                                                       From https://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/cdlj2012_002.pdf                                                   The sign GAR was used, thus, in order to denote all cereal products counted bisexagesimally, that is, virtually all barley
product rations except beer.2. Akkadian called Sumerian – Sumerian Dictionary – Turkic World s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/…/SumerDictionaryEn.ht…                                          SUMERIAN DICTIONARY. Links … Common Sumerian words for magical purposes ….. Holy of Holies, BARAGGAL … Metals, ZAG (the shine of metals).

Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2013/PAPVB_13/um/…/Halloran_version_3.pdf            (derives from zag, ‘boundary, border, district’, just as þúb relates to gùb). zeþ[SAL.ÁŠ.

3.

From https://sites.google.com/site/raghavg602/economic-life                                                     see Cretan hieroglyphic signs 042 and *175

From https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/labrys/

So this shape could reflect:                                                                                                               the shine of metals > double-axe.labrys, but also

boundary,border,district> place of  the other underground sumerian’s Sun,NERGAL and at Aegeans, the place of Minotaur , in fact place of Sun-Bull-God (labyrinthos)

Proto-cuneiform sign for house, temple “AB” has the close sign: https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nergal                                                                                      Nergal seems to be in part a solar deity, sometimes identified with Shamash, but only representative of a certain phase of the sun.

Minotaur – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur                                                     In Greek mythology, the Minotaur is a mythical creature portrayed in Classical times with the … In Crete, the Minotaur was known by the name Asterion, a name shared with Minos’ foster-father.   ………                                                                                                                Some modern mythologists regard the Minotaur as a solar personification and a Minoan adaptation of the Baal-Moloch of the Phoenicians.

He dwelt at the center of the Labyrinth

Asterion (/əˈstɪriən/GreekἈστερίων, gen.: Ἀστερίωνος, literally “starry“) or Asterius (/əˈstɪriəs/Ἀστέριος)

http://www.unmuseum.org/minot.htm                                                                                        However, they have found what looks like a labyrinth. The labyrinth wasn’t built in a cave below the palace, though. It was the palace.

labbyrinth, in fact was somebody’s house: “house,temple” =====================================

This is Mr. Kenanidis and Papakitsos aproach:

So Mr. Kenanidis and Papakitsos, no double-axe !, even the sign is like, see above “signify all barley product rations”                         ================================================================

Apropos of above sign 57 (Linear B LA32),                                                                                    (Only sumerian -Aegean:

sumerian GA2 <> Aegean JA Sumerian sign GA2~a3                                                                     from : https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Two main remained unclarified issues regarding Tartaria tablets

January 11, 2019

11 jan.’19/Two main remained unclarified issues regarding Tartaria tablets

Later on, I realised that two fundamental issues regarding Tartaria tablets remained unclarified:

I.The suposition that the tablets are not (by far) so old, and could be made later than innitialy suposed.

I advanced before the hypothesis about an recent origin of the tablets. As a posibility in a time contemporaneous with the scientist Zsofia Torma, and maybe later. I will show that this hypothesis is not fesable, cause:                                                                                                 – Before 1900 the proto-writing field and research  was quite empty, thre were not research papers Even now-days the research it is in a continous progress (see proto-Elamite, Dahl, Englund).  There were very few ew schollars at the level of A.H.Sayce, in Zsofia Torma’s time.                                                                                                                      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Sayce                                                                           “Archibald Henry Sayce (25 September 1845 – 4 February 1933), was a pioneer British Assyriologist and linguist, who held a chair as Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford from 1891 to 1919″     

Even A.Falkenstein (born after the death of Z.Torma) only later got a sumerian proto-cuneiform sign list, notice, without giving any corespondent meanings or interpretations to signs,

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Falkenstein                                                     “Adam Falkenstein (September 17, 1906 – October 15, 1966) was a German Assyriologist. Falkenstein studied Assyriology in Munich and Leipzig. He was involved primarily with cuneiform, particularly discoveries in Uruk, and with the Sumerians and their language. From 1930 onward, Falkenstein taught as a professor of Assyriology at the Göttingen University.”

The tablets are revealing complex aspects, I would say even “sofisticated”-ones wich are reflecting an relation between Near-East and Aegean cultures. This complexity is depassing the medium level, as even an now-days specialist, practically cannot easy show this  with a now-made written tablet as exemple.  So, the suposition that somebody contemporaneous had tried and made such a try is falling down. ”                                           ——————————————————————————-                                                              Beware, here I distance myself from the main schollar’s path, wich are talking only of       “A relation at some degree of Tartaria tablets signs with proto-sumerian writing”.

I stress that the scribe was not “their literate person”, but “ours”,meaning by this that was somebody settled in Danubian/Aegean area, even don’t bother if was an sumerian descendant or not, and totally disregarding how old would be the writing.

The aspect sized by no others, only by me, that the signs on Tartaria tablets are common to two great civilisations, Sumerian and Aegean and are icons of paramount cultural importance. The signs are only related to those sumerian-ones but pertain to whole European prehistory.                                                                                          This very aspect was not sized nor revendicated by somebody before me. The schollars limited only to notice the similarity with sumerian proto cuneiform writing and so forced to interpret the “writing” within these limits.   

Exemple of such papers:                                                                                                                     A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1, Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2                       file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-31E332-346%20(1).pdf                                                     Additional Palaeographic Evidence for the Relationship of the Aegean Scripts to the Sumerian Pictography                                                                          file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-33C734-737Additionalevidence.pdf                              In these papersmany exemples are not the best choosen-ones, not much convincing and regarding sumerian signs, there is not shown their sumerian name nor what signify or the meaning.  Only in the last mentioned paper there are scarce correct associations:  Linear B,sign”A”(labrys) with sumer.”double axe”, where sumerian sign is no double-axe, it is sum. sign ZAG, then sum.AMAR it is not correct associated.              Only in the last paper there are some few correct associated.Corect assoc. :Lin.B(LA32)”JA”, then sum.Se with Egeean Te….and that’s all.                                                 Of course because probably was not their goal, no reference to Tartaria tablet’s signs.

Eg., only some SIGNS COMPARED by me:

Sumerian           Aegean

GAR                    VOLUME UNIT       (Egypt, T,”loaf of bread” )                                                    SE                         TE                              Cereal,grain                                                                         AMAR                   MA                                                                                                                               Y                              Y                                                                                                                           KU                         PA3                                                                                                                             AB                     LABRYS                                                                                                                          PA                         PA                                                                                                                                 etc                        etc

                                       ——————————————————————————-

II. The suposition (otherwise corect) that the upper half of the round tablet is containing kind of willingly hidden, or esoteric message.

Yes, more than possible. But from wich period of time, and why to be hidden, especially the nature of the message !?

Here, the presence of one sign wich is not be found even in Aegean writings (nor in eteo-Cretan-ones) are pitty conducting us to the archaic greek writing.

It is about the well-known “D-letter” shaped sign. In the upper half of the round Tartaria tablet, only the Aegean signs Pa3(arch. Gr.Eta), sign “o” and some-how the sign “+++++” seem to existed before, and sign D appeared only in the first regional/epichoric archaic greek alphabets.                                                                                                                                This fact is pushing us away from an extremely old period, to the 800-300 years B.C. Now, what could be written there?                                                                                                     Note                                                                                                                                                         1.One don’t expect necessary an continous message as in a sentence, there could be isolated icons wich has independent meanings but close related to an single solid religious system of notions and values.                                                                                          2. I did not know before, there are even sentences wit only 2 words!                                          ———————————————————————————

Even before some years, I found that the oldest atestation in writing of the “HP” monogram, was found on some broken pot clay sherds, in some places, (probably at the origin from, or related to Samos), much more outside Greece, in the Levantine coast and Egypt.

You understand from “HP”,: “archaic eta-Rho”, where archaic eta was in the shape of “boxed-eta”, meaning closed contour, or with some earlier shape, “eta/heta a scala” meaning in the “ladder” shape.

Scholars are opinating that this sequence was abbreviation for                                     1.Hera                                                                                                                                                 2.Heros (Hero)                                                                                                                         3.proper name Heros. Same me saying.

Cause :                                                                                                                                                      – The oldest Aegean deity was at the origin Vinca mother-goddess followed by later minoan Asasara and Ida-mater,/Damater, and aftyerwards by Dione,                                     – Hera somehow is preceding Zeus,                                                                                                  – Complex nature of the Hera’s role and etymology,                                                                      I put on first place Hera, and only close-after an supposed Heros.           (remember that both Horus as Heros were kind of people saviors, Christ precursors)

From http://www.crystalinks.com/hera.html                                                                       ”Unlike some Greek gods, such as Zeus and Poseidon, Hera’s name is not analyzable as a Greek or Indo-European word. She therefore seems to be a survival of a pre-Greek “great goddess” figure – perhaps one of the powerful female divinities of the Minoan pantheon, or of some unidentified pre-Greek (“Pelasgian”) people.

From https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera#Etimologie                                                                     ”Una dintre primele instanțe ale numelui zeiței apare pe tablele din Pylos, scrise în Linearul B,[1] un sistem de scriere care a fost găsit și pe datând încă din 1450 î.Hr.[2] folosit de civilizațiile miceniene până la colapsul acestora în secolul XII î.Hr. Aici apare ca Qo-wi-ja (Guōwiā „cea asemenea vacilor” un cunoscut epitet homeric).[1]

Numele Herei poate avea mai multe etimologii se exclud reciproc; o explicație leagă numele de ὥρα transliterat hōra, însemnând sezon, interpretându-l ca o vreme propice pentru căsătorie. Pe de altă parte, Platon consideră că e legat de ἐρατή transliterat eratē, adică „preiubit”, deoarece se spune că Zeus s-a căsătorit cu ea din dragoste, sau că numele zeiței este anagramă a aēr (ἀήρ, „aer“).[3] Plutarh susține a doua variantă sugerând că este un nume alegoric pentru poziția înălțată a acesteia.[4]

nonsense…

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%AD%CF%81%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek   ”HERA EtymologyUncertain. Possibly a feminine form of ἥρως (hḗrōs) or related to ὥρα (hṓra).”

Not convinced! I am binding the Hera’s name out of “protectress”, also to: er,era:”EaRth” ,hiera:”holy” and hera “Lady” !!

From https://www.etymonline.com/word/hera                                                                               ”sister and wife of Zeus, the type of virtuous womanhood, from Greek Hēra, literally “protectress,” related to hērōs “hero,” originally “defender, protector” (see hero (n.1)).”

 

11Ian’19/Clarificarea a doua aspecte fundamentale privind Tablitele de la Tartaria

January 11, 2019

Ulterior am realizat ca urmatoarele aspecte necesita o revenire si clarificare:

I. Supozitia ca tablitele nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi si au fost facute ulterior. 

Am avansat anterior ca ipoteza o origine relativ recenta a tablitelor. Cum ar fi in perioada de activitate a Zsofiei Torma si chiar ulterioara. In buna masura aceasta ipoteza nu se sustine, intrucat:                                                                                                                         – Inainte de 1900 domeniul scrierii proto-cuneiforme nu era aproape deloc cercetat.Foarte putini cercetatori de talia lui A.H.Sayce, contemporani cu Zsofia Torma erau in acea vreme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Sayce                                                                           Archibald Henry Sayce (25 September 1845 – 4 February 1933), was a pioneer British Assyriologist and linguist, who held a chair as Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford from 1891 to 1919                                                                                   Chiar si Falkenstein (nascut dupa moartea Zsofiei T.) de-abea mai tarziu a scos lista semnelor proto-cuneiforme, nedand nici-unui semn vre-o interpretare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Falkenstein                                                                 Adam Falkenstein (September 17, 1906 – October 15, 1966) was a German Assyriologist. Falkenstein studied Assyriology in Munich and Leipzig. He was involved primarily with cuneiform, particularly discoveries in Uruk, and with the Sumerians and their language. From 1930 onward, Falkenstein taught as a professor of Assyriology at the Göttingen University.

Tablitele prezinta aspecte complexe, as zice eu chiar “sofisticate” care reflecta o relatie intre culturile Orientale si cea Aegeeana. Aceasta complexitate depaseste nivelul mediu. ca atare nici macar un specialist in zilele noastre, nu ar putea sa reflecte ( a se citi sa imite) aceste legaturi. Deci supozitia ca cineva relativ contemporan ar fi facut un gen de incercare, cade.                                                                                                                              ————————————————————————————————————————————

ATENTIE

Un anume aspect  nu a fost sesizat de altii, ci numai de mine, si anume ca semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria sant comune a doua mari civilizatii, cea sumeriana si cea Egeeana, iar icoanele au fost de o importanta culturala covarsitoare in aambele civilizatii.

. Semnele doar au legatura cu cele sumeriene si de fapt apartin preistoriei Europei in general si celei Vinca si Egeene in particular. Aceasta observatie nu a fost revendicata de nimeni pana acum.                                                                                                                     Savantii s-au limitat in a face doar o legatura cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme si a le atribui interpretarea sumeriana !                                                          Deci fara ca sa depaseasca aceste limite.                                                                               Exemple de asemenea lucrari:                                                                                                         A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1, Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-31E332-346%20(1).pdf                                                     Additional Palaeographic Evidence for the Relationship of the Aegean Scripts
to the Sumerian Pictography    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-33C734-737Additionalevidence.pdf                                                                                                               In aceastea, foarte multe exemple nu sant fericit gasite, nu sant convingatoare si nici prea concludente, iar in privinta semnelor sumeriene nu este data denumirea sumeriana si nici semnificatia lor.Doar in ultima lucrare sant cateva asocieri relativ corecte :    Linear B,”A”(labrys) cu sumer.”double axe” cand semnul sum. nu este nici-o dubla-secure, este semnul ZAG;C,apoi sum.AMAR nu este bine asociat. Corect asoc. :Lin.B(LA32)”JA”, apoi sum.Se cu Egeean Te….si cam atat. Bineinteles, posibil pentru ca nici nu si-au propus, ca nu apare nici-o ref. la tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                     

Ex., doar cateva  SEMNE COMPARATE de mine:

Sumerian               Aegean

  GAR                    UNIT de VOLUM       (Egypt, T,”jimbla de paiine” )                                              SE                          TE                              Cereale-boabe,grau                                                          AMAR                    MA                                                                                                                               Y                              Y                                                                                                                              KU                           PA3                                                                                                                             AB                       LABRYS                                                                                                                        PA                         PA                                                                                                                                etc                        etc           =========================================================================        II. Supozitia (altfel corecta) ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde contine un “mesaj” intentionat ascuns.

Da, mai mult decat posibil.Dar din ce perioada, de ce ar fi fost ascuns, si mai ales de ce natura ar fi putut fi !?

Aici, prezenta unui semn care nu se regaseste nici macar in scrierile Egeene (nici macar scrierea eteo-Cretana nu poate intra in discutie) ne conduce din pacate spre perioada scrierii arhaice grecesti.                                                                                                                 Este vorba despre semnul “D”. In jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde doar semnele Egeean PA3 (arh. grec eta) si “o”au existat, in schimb semnul “D” nu a aparut decat doar in primele alfabete grecesti.

Acest fapt ne indeparteaza total de o presupusa perioada extrem de veche (3.500-3.000 B.C.) si ne indreapta direct spre perioada 800-300 B.C.                                                              Acuma ce ar putea fi scris acolo ?                                                                                                      ————————————————————————————–                                                 Atentie, aici ma indepartez de cursul acceptat al oamenilor de stiinta, care fac o directa legatura cu scrierea sumeriana.                                                                                   Eu zic ca autorul “scrierii” nu a fost “intelectualul lor” ci al nostru, adica din aria Egeana/Dunareana, aceasta independent de faptul  ca ar fi fost mai vechi sau mai nou.       Aspectul sesizat ca semnele sant comune unor mari civilizatii, Sumeriana si Egeeana nu a fost sesizat si nici revendicat de altcineva inaintea mea. Cercetatorii s-au limitat la o interpretare facand doar legatura cu civilizatia sumeriana.                                                ———————————————————————————————————                                Inca acum cativa ani, am gasit cea mai veche atestare a asociatiei de semne “HP” a fost gasita pe bucati de artefacte din lut in Grecia si poate mai multe in Orientul Apropiat si Egipt. Sa intelegeti prin “HP” archaic eta-rho. Adica arhaic eta sub forma “boxed/cutie” adica cu contur inchis sau forma “in scarita”.                                                                         Cercetatorii au avansat ipoteza ca arfi monograma sau prescrtarea pentru Hera sau Heros. La fel zic si eu. Avand in vedere ca se pare ca                                                                    – zeitatea Hera il precede cumva pe Zeus, si avand in vedere:                                                  -lunga perioada anterioara de venerare a unei zeite Pamant-Mama (Earth Goddess), dar si natura complexa a numelui Hera, eu dau intaietate lui Hera ,urmat indeaproape de un eventual Heros. (A se retine ca Heros a fost un gen de erou salvator precursor a lui Cristos)

Din http://www.crystalinks.com/hera.html                                                                             Unlike some Greek gods, such as Zeus and Poseidon, Hera’s name is not analyzable as a Greek or Indo-European word. She therefore seems to be a survival of a pre-Greek “great goddess” figure – perhaps one of the powerful female divinities of the Minoan pantheon, or of some unidentified pre-Greek (“Pelasgian”) people.

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera#Etimologie                                                                               Una dintre primele instanțe ale numelui zeiței apare pe tablele din Pylos, scrise în Linearul B,[1] un sistem de scriere care a fost găsit și pe datând încă din 1450 î.Hr.[2] folosit de civilizațiile miceniene până la colapsul acestora în secolul XII î.Hr. Aici apare ca Qo-wi-ja (Guōwiā „cea asemenea vacilor” un cunoscut epitet homeric).[1]

Numele Herei poate avea mai multe etimologii se exclud reciproc; o explicație leagă numele de ὥρα transliterat hōra, însemnând sezon, interpretându-l ca o vreme propice pentru căsătorie. Pe de altă parte, Platon consideră că e legat de ἐρατή transliterat eratē, adică „preiubit”, deoarece se spune că Zeus s-a căsătorit cu ea din dragoste, sau că numele zeiței este anagramă a aēr (ἀήρ, „aer“).[3] Plutarh susține a doua variantă sugerând că este un nume alegoric pentru poziția înălțată a acesteia.[4]

aiurea…      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%AD%CF%81%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek   EtymologyUncertain. Possibly a feminine form of ἥρως (hḗrōs) or related to ὥρα (hṓra).[1][2]

varza! eu leg numele de Hera/er,era:”pamant” ,hiera:”sfanta” si hera “doamna” !!

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hera                                                                                          sister and wife of Zeus, the type of virtuous womanhood, from Greek Hēra, literally “protectress,” related to hērōs “hero,” originally “defender, protector” (see hero (n.1)).

Tartaria tablets signs compared or Tartaria tablets, sign by sign

January 8, 2019

OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),                                                                                                                          AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING:                               MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS.                                                                                                                                           AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV  FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS,                              I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND CLOSE  MEANINGS.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME. =================================================================

More or less, almost all the signs could be fount in exact shape or as a sqetch the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign lists. But some of them reflect the exact shape of the signs from later-time writings. Where the signs has the exact shape of a writing,I  marked with*.

Round tablet’s signs (R)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoHnmGyZZHx37HuCFCpYRgIJdQxE5vuc7vcNlb00JtKMccyZpjqA

No1. sign “+++++”   

All-three-have-symbols-inscribed-only-on-one-face.-Photo-Credit-640x480                                                                                                                       

No.2.1 sign :1-st “D”                                                                                                                      No.2.2: 2-nd “D”                                                                                                                             No.2.3, sign”o”                                                                                                                          No.2.4, sign”o/c”?                                                                                                                               No.3 sign: Downward-Right quarter,  on the right

  SEgrid                               

No.4, sign:Downward-right quarter,  on the left (red)                                                              cristian_luchian_tartaria_tablets   

No.5.sign “Z-like”lower sign                                 

 SWgrid                                                                                                                                      No.6/left sign “bow&arrow”                                                                                                      No.6/up, sign “>>”                                                                                                                             The-meaning-if-any-of-the-symbols-is-unknown.-Photo-Credit-640x480   

No.7, sign on the left, “H”-like                                                                           

No.8,sign,on right “P/D”-like

Squared tablet’s signs (Sq):

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGmJn6uRzrDVyluR0qaLWHqYbn2UJsQbNcrjbnze7I27mP1riVZg

fig-202

Table in wich is showed every sign in wich writing was found in exact shape and most frequent: Table, from https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

asiam6

Note:”Anatolian, means mostly Carian) Table from https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

asiam41

NOTE                                                                                                                                                          Even one could find most of the signs in entire Anatolian sign library, cannot find all necessary signs in a single writing (e.g. carian or lycian).That’s why out of some attempts, I renounced, also due of little known even by specialists (e.g. Ignacio Adiego) of those awkard languages and writing systems.

Tabl.  Sign No.    Most frequent  2-nd frequecy

R             1                                  Sum.* ,Anat.

R           2.1                       Anat., Arch.Gr.*,Old.Lat.*

R           2.2                       Anat., Arch.Gr.*,Old.Lat.*

R           2.3                       Sum.*Anat.*Aegean*,Arch.Gr.*

R  2.4.(“o”/”c”?)     if “o”: Anatol.*,Aegean*; if “c” ,Anat.,Arch.Gr.*,Old Lat.*

R           3                                             Sum.*

R           4                                               None

R           5 (z-like)              Sum.,Anat.*,Aegean*,Arch.Gr.*,Old.Hebr.*

R       6(up;>>)                                      Anat.*

R    6(left)/bow-arrow                      Sum.,Anat.

R          7                                Anat*.,Aegean*,Old Hebrew*

R          8 (P?D?)                 Anatol.,Old Hebrew*,Arch.Gr.*,Old Lat.*                                                                               —————————————————

Sq         1                            Sum.*

Sq         2                         Sum.* Anat.

Sq         3                       Sum.*,Anatol.,Aegean

Sq         4                        Sum.*,Anatol.

Sq         5                       Sum.*Cypriot

Sq         6                       Sum.*,Aegean*

Sq  above 7              (Aegean?,elements in Anatol,)

Sq        7                            Sum.*

If every sign< pair >type of writing  has 1 point, then, out of 20 signs,number of signs found in:

Sumerian  12    ************

Anatolian  13    *************

Aegean     6 *******

Arch.Gr.   6 ******

Old Hebr.  3 ***

Cypriot    1 *

Old Lat.   4 ****


NOTE

1. IF the tablets are genuine show a direct/great sumerian influence/inspiration (11 sumerian-like signs)

2. After some unknown,direct-sumerian influenced !? , much plausible is Anatolian writing, close folowed by Aegean writing 

3.Signs “D” were used by sumerian only before 3.200 B.C., but very few and only on the ext. surface of clay tokens (bullae) with unknown meaning.                                                                      It seems due the fact that were put in the recipients column on proto-sumerian signs table, could be for “pot,jar,vessel”,                 ?measure-ration?

4. Otherwise the D-shape was not used after in writing 2.500 years till archaic greek writing,(3.200-2.500=700)

5.The “H’-sign                                                       http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

NWgridhas the exact phoenician/old hebrew (Cheth/Het) shape 58537889_m

and only close to Aegean (PA3) writings .Linear A sign PA3 has no shifted vertical bars , as our sign and Old Hebrew is.                                                                   Image from https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/linear-a-decipherment/page/2/

ht-88-kikina-01-datare-figs

P.S.Capital old Hebrew and Phoenician “het” and  is identical with archaic greek Heta(boxed eta) and sumerian proto-cuneiform “Ku” (Number 3,first)Imagini pentru letter archaic eta

6. Sign>>found only in Anatolian (Carian ) writing

7. I DO NOT EXPLAIN MYSELF, HOW EXACTLY THE UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET, SUPPOSED COVERED/HIDDEN CONTAIN MOST “RECENT” SIGNS.                       POSSIBLE THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY SECTION OUT OF ENTIRE BOTH TABLETS WICH CONTAIN AN DIRECT READABLE MESSAGE ? WHAT KIND COULD BE? MILITARY SECRET NO !, ESOTERIC, RELIGIOUS-MYSTIC ?.                                                                                               YES, COULD BE THE CASE.


DON’T KNOW WHAT SCRIBE WOULD MIX (real name hodge-podge”), PICTOGRAPHIC SIGNS WITH IDEOGRAMS / SYLLABOGRAMS ?! =========================================

OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),                                                                                                                          AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING:                               MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS.                                                                                                                                           AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV  FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS,                              I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND CLOSE  MEANINGS.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.

I would say, kind of finish of the Tartaria tablets research.

January 1, 2019

OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),                                                                                                                          AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING:                               MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS.                                                                                                                                           AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV  FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS,                              I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND CLOSE  MEANINGS.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME. =============================================

A series of aspects noticed by me, some from the very beginning (great chances to have a kind of writing) then coupled with others, sized in the course of time ( a close symilarity with sumerian proto-cuneiform writing + more inadvertencies ) got to these conclusions and results.                                                                                                                                                     My gratitude for the most of the top-level schollars in the field of proto-writing, were not sure and not “hitted the nail on the head” from the begining, but generally expressed pertinent opinions.                                                                                                           Even the signs are reflecting in a greate measure the sumerian proto-cuneiform phase, nevertheless not match sumerian proto-writng in some aspects, especially some pure technical-ones.

After that, some of the first  researchers of the Danubian writing, (e.g. Mr.Marco Merlini) correctly showed the real beginning and developement of the humanity writing , pity not sized that the “writing” finaly was not yed been discovered, and the term “writing” cannot be attached to Vinca Culture, even not that of “fully proto-writing”, despite the fact that most of the necessary steps were made.

I do not understand also, even the above-mentioned schollar had the literature and data=bases regarding the discovery and evolution of writing, preffered not to recognise the spread abroad from other places, (transmit,transfer,“import” by mean of cultural transmition/infusion) of any sign.

Instead he preffered for all the signs (wich every of them could be found in different period of time in tens of writings and places in the World) to atribute, religious conotations, thus unknown, mistycal, esoteric meanings. But attention! ; in his opinion, the meaning not known by entire Vinca comunity members, but only by the writer and the local (in this case Tartaria village) comunity members.

Don’t know how to synthetises better and by short, anyway I’ll begin:

This subject of Tartaria tablets created a global excitement and brawling, at an unmerited level I would say.

Cause of initial moment of discovery circumstances, are not clear, a series of good-willing romanians, but also foreign schollars spread “the oldest writing in the world“, a pre-sumerian one. From the very beginning the tablets were enclosed in a mist and mystical aura, some of above scientists beeing sure before any research that the signs had an unknown, long time-ago forgotten meaning, wich was of hidden, mystical and esoteric nature .(how comfortable !)

Besides that was attached an mystical content to the signs, carriers of ancient forgotten myths, the subject itself was encircled in mistery. So the subject and the tablets become mythical agai, and appeared an (unrelated to the signs and their meanings)  an secondary myth. Secondary mith fueled by some scientists, (e.g. Mr. Marco Merlini). He contributed by sustaining an very old age of the tablets. He associated the bones of a deceased person with the tablets.The bones were found in the proximity, somewhere in the rituallic-funerary complex.The bones seem to pertain to Vinca Culture, being dated at 5.500-6.000 B.C. In turn the real age of the tablets is not known and will be not known forever. I am not accusing anybody of anything, even if this assertion have unexpected bad consequences.

Studing the specialty literature, I realised that I could not rely upon archeological data. As by my part, cannot atribute any age to the tablets, so I had no choice but to analyse what is 100% sure in front of me: the signs present on the tablets.

I had an ideal goal, to have an unique, ultimate reading ( wich of course must be validated by the scientific comunity and so not being contested).

After this, I folowed the main phases:

Making an analysis of the signs, I found that the highest percentage of the tablet signs were found in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign list (this 1 year before) and in Anatolian alphabets (especially carian-ones)

The similarity with sumerian signs was noticed by many scientist begining with N.Vlassa (S.Hood, A.A.Vaiman, R.Kolev and others).The last two had a very good interpretation of the signs. Comparing my readings with their readings, I sized some slight inadvertencies /some incorect sign identifications/some incorect interpretations.                                        But only late  I got acquainted of the differencies and inadvertencies of some tablet signs from the common evolution line of sumerian proto-writing. These are mainly technical ones (relating to the technique of writing).But these very differencies are evidencies that the scribe was not a native sumerian. Folowing an independent path I come to the same conclusions regarding the signs and the scribe. These, of mine can be seen in my before posts, also read my explanations and check posting dates.                                          Of course, also I was curious in wich period were written the tablets and from wich place could be, and after comparing when and where were used such signs, I obtained some symilar conclusions;

After my research I realised that regarding the place and age are resulting different posibilities wich has every of them different chances to be real, so I put them in increasing chances order.                                                                                                             Note                                                                                                                                                         DUE OF THE PRESENCE ON THE TABLET OF A HODGEPODGE OF SIGNS, wich could be of two, even three different categories. Folowing the chances to a corect identification of the scribe and the writing time and place, (the figures are raw estimates not nail-fixed):

– sumerian writing, native sumerian scribe, 3.200-2.500 B.C., 0%

-quasi-sumerian writing, scribe of sumerian ancestry, settled in Europe,  or ” of sumerian/syrian ancestors” trader with little knowledge of writing 3.000-2.000 B.C., 5%

-quasy-sumerian writing, of innitial sumerian ancestry, (minoan) settled in Aegean area (Crete), 2500-1.200 B.C.,  20% 

writing close to/derived from Linear A/B (a local variant), minoan/Micenaean from Aegean area  2.000-1.000 B.C., 40%                                                                                       E.g.: From Cretan Hieroglyphics & Protolinear Script | Giannhs Kenanidhs and … http://www.academia.edu/…/Cretan_Hieroglyphics_and_Protolinea…                                                Linear-A is still regarded as a direct descendant of the Cretan Hieroglyphics, … making use of an originally Sumerian script (Papakitsos & Kenanidis 2015; ….. the “ma” sign is a sketch of a calf’s face (from Sumerian “amá(r)” meaning a calf), .

Eteo-Cretan-like writing, eteoCretan scribe (of sumerian ancestry sumerian settler in Crete) 1.000 B.C.-200 A.D.,  25%

archaic greek writing (archaic greek alphabet), greek writer 50%

  • arch. greek writing close to present (800-0 B.C.) greek writer 60%

-writing after Christ (A.C.) 65 %

– years 1800-1900 contemporaneus writer 70%                                                                               ——————————————————                                                                                           You see,                                                                                                                                                  I have no confidence at all in archaeological data at all, especially those regarding the age.                                                                                                                                                       Having the only tool, (analising the signs ), I concluded that there are zero chances to have an original sumerian writing; it could be at best an sumerian-influenced/inspired writing.But the very signs “D-letter”-shaped are pushing only to only two large spanned in time outcomes:                                                                                                                                   1 – one when sumerian only begun to scratch D-singns on tokens (clay volume bullae), and not on clay tablets !  (3.500-3.200 B.C.), wich has close to zero chances, and                  2 – after another 2500 years later, (at least!) when begun to be used those signs in archaic greek alphapets and writing. So the only real credible result is that the tablets are quite new, at least 800-500 B.C. but with great chances much, much newer.                                —————————————————————————————————————                         After me, would be even an old signs scraping  exercise or sqetch of an unknown person, wich had relative knowledge of, and knows some sumerian signs also knows some Anatolian signs, but have slight knoledge of that signs and not skilled in such writings.

? Zsofia Torma, knew sumerian and also Anatolian signs, she currently compared the signs from this 2 writings with those found on artefacts wich had discovered.It is more than strange that 1-2 years before, I found those 2 writings (proto-cuneiform and Anatolian) were closest to tablet’s writing.This could be an veridic, close to reality explanation for the presence on the tablets of a hodgepodge of signs. She made archeological research also in places containing roman artefacts. Possible she made for herself the tablets, only to exercise tracing of the signs on clay, as sumerians does before.It is weird an totaly uncommon for a true scribe to mix sumerian,Anatolian and Aegean signs!

  • ? Torma Jozsef, father archaeologist, catolic religion

– ? Karoly Torma, brother, archaeologist, catolic religion. Top-level epigraphist of his time.Made archeological research in many Dacian archaeological sites and related to romans.Knew many languages, and received the title of doctor in philology.

an german, hungarian or romanian archaeologist and researcher, close aquintance of Mr. Zsofia Torma.

ALL COULD BE RELATED TO Mrs. TORMA, father and brother through the title DDoc THIS WAS THE ONLY RESULTobtained by Google  search-engine :ATESTATION IN WRITING OF THIS “D D o c” SEQUENCE ; it is the abbreviation of the latin “decretorum doctor” wich is “profesor of (theologic) doctrine” .Possible she received them (the tablets) as a gift from somebody, no wonder,could be in vicinity time of receiveng the academic title of doctor in science.The cruel reality is the fact that when the doctor title becomed effective she was allready dead.

Hope this last hypothesys is only a funny-one, cause if would be true will be too much for me, wich I cannot bear.

ATTENTION ! I DO NOT SUSPECT ANY PERSON TO HAD BAD INTENTIONS, NOR TO MAKE A FAKE. Nothing on this part.

PROBABLY IS AN OMENED/ILL-FATED CHAIN OF EVENTS OR ONE COULD SAY:                A SUCCESION OF MISSFORTUNATE EVENTS” ======================================================

OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),                                                                                                                          AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING:                               MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS.                                                                                                                                           AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV  FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS,                              I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND CLOSE  MEANINGS.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.

As putea spune, un fel de final al cercetarii tablitelor de la Tartaria

December 31, 2018

O serie de aspecte sesizate de mine , unele de la inceput (sanse mari de avea scriere) apoi cuplate cu altele observate pe parcurs (doar mare similaritate cu proto-scrierea sumeriana+ multe inadvertente) au condus in final la acest rezultat.                                     Pot spune cu satisfactie, ca din cei mai de seama specialisti in proto-scriere, inafara de oarecare retinere din partea unora (probabil pentru a nu risca sa atinga orgoliul national) nu au fost siguri si nu au pus exact “punctul pe i” de la inceput, dar in general au exprimat opinii extrem de pertinente.                                                                                                                 Cum ar fi acelea, ca desi semnele reflecta in cea mai mare masura  faza proto-cuneiforma a scrierii sumeriene, totusi nu se incadreaza complet in anumite caracteristici, in special de ordin tehnic.    De acelasi profesionalism nu au dat dovada cercetatorii romani si nici cei straini aflati in imediata apropiere a lor.         ( Noi de fapt nici nu avem cercetatori asirologi)

Dupa ce unul dintre primii cercetatori, ( Dl. Marco Merlini )a observat un real inceput al demersului umanitatii in ceea ce priveste scrierea in cultura Vinca, din pacate nu a sesizat nici pe parcursul demersului sau ca acceptiunea de scriere nu poate fi aplicata acestei culturi, si zic eu nici macar pe deplin aceea de proto-scriere, desi cea mai mare parte din pasi au fost  facuti.

Nu inteleg, ca desi a avut ca si mine la dispozitie intreaga literatura si biblioteca informationala in ceea ce priveste aparitia si evolutia scrisului in lume, a preferat sa nu recunoasca “importul” sau transferul cultural a nici unui semn.                                             A preferat ca pentru toate semnele, (care aproape fiecare din ele, fie vorba intre noi a fost prezent in alte zeci de scrieri in lume) sa le atribuie o “semnificatie religioasa, mistica” care atentie, se sustine ca nu era cunoscuta de toti membrii civilizatiei respective (e.g.Vinca), ci cunoscuta doar de o stricta comunitate locala a acelei civilizatii .   Adica pe scurt, numai presupusul scrib de la Tartaria si cei din aceasta asezare cunosteau semnificatia semnelor !                                                                                   ——————————————————————————————-                                               Nu stiu cum sa sintetizez mai bine si mai scurt; dar orice lucru are un inceput, asa ca voi incepe        ———————————————————————————————-                             Acest subiect al tablitelor a creat o agitatie si zarva mondiala zic eu nemeritata.

Pentru ca desi initial o serie de aspecte legate de momentul efectiv al descoperirii nu erau pe deplin lamurite, o serie de binevoitori romani si straini inca de la inceput au lansat zvonul celei mai vechi scrieri din lume si anume a unei scrieri pre-sumeriene.     A fost atribuit un caracter si semnificatie, respectiv interpretari misterioase, mistice, ascunse (ezoterice) a.semnelorDeci inca de la inceput le-au fost atribuite un caracter si aspect mitic.Adica semnele erau expresia unor mituri ancestrale cu inteles pierdut definitiv (ce comod!)                                                                                                          Pai nu a fost destul, pe masura ce a trecut timpul a inceput sa fie inconjurate de straturi concentrice din ce in ce mai groase de interpretari si comentarii de tot felul, subiectul a inceput sa devina unul inconjurat de o aura de mister, un subiect mitic , pana a nu mai putea sa distingi ceva ( asa cum nu poti vedea gaura neagra din interiorul unei galaxii).     Mit (secundar, independent celui asociat semnelor) creat de unii cercetatori si aici nu ma sfiesc sa spun ca cel mai mare contributor a fost Dl.Marco Merlini. Faptul ca a a avut de la inceput si tot timpul cele mai bune intentii, nu il pun la indoiala.

Dansul a asociat pur si simplu oasele unei defuncte persoane, (gasite in cadrul complexului ritualic-funerar, pe undeva in apropierea tablitelor, apartinand culturii Vinca (5-6.000 BC) direct cu tablitele.

Tablite a caror varsta nu se cunoaste si nici nu va putea fi cunoscuta vreodata.

Studiind literatura arheologica de specialitate, am realizat ca din zeci de cercetatori exista foarte putine doua opinii apropiate in privinta varstei tablitelor. Bineinteles ca dansii au avut ca referinta doar analiza unor artefacte gasite in apropiere si oarecum o reflectie a semnelor prezente pe tablite.

Mi-am dat seama ca nu pot sa am nici-o baza in privinta niciunei varste asa incat nu am avut de ales si am analizat doar ceea ce era o certitudine, respectiv semnele.                Mi-am propus de la inceput o tinta de natura ideala si anume de a ajunge la o citire unica si ultimativa ( care sa fie validata de comunitatea stiintifica, si deci care pe cat posibil sa nu fie contestata ).                                                                                                               ——————————————————————                                                                                    Mai apoi am parcurs urmatoarele faze principale:

– In urma unei analize comparative am realizat ca cel mai mare procentaj de semne se regasesc in lista semnelor sumeriene proto-cuneiforme (in urma cu de-abia un an) si in alfabetele Anatoliene (carian in special).

Acelasi lucru l-au sesizat, (dar doar in privinta semnelor proto-sumeriene) multi cercetatorii asirologi dintre care amintesc doar cativa, S.HoodA.A.Vaiman , Rumen Kolev si altii. Acestia au realizat o foarte buna si apropiata interpretare (A.A.Vaiman/R.Kolev) pornind de la semnele proto-cuneiforme. Ca observatie, eu fiind in mai mare masura si mai mult aplecat si focalizat doar pe aceste tablite am remarcat:        – corecta interpretare a dansilor, dar si                                                                                              – unele usoare abateri si inadvertente in privinta interpretarile dansilor a semnelor  (vezi articolele mele).      ( am luat la cunostinta relativ de curand de observatiile privind abaterile si inadvertentele fata de linia si cursul scrisului sumerian prezente pe tablite.) Acestea sant sa zicem “de ordin tehnic” dar constituie un gen de dovezi concrete ( dovedesc dupa cum au afirmat o parte din dansii, dar si eu ), ca nu au fost inscriptionate de un nativ sumerian. Pe o cale independenta, din pacate necunoscand mai demult lucrarile dansilor am ajuns la concluzii similare.                                            Acest fapt se poate vedea si verifica urmarind cronologia postarilor mele anterioare. Avantajul ca nu am stiut mai demult si ca au fost independente este dublu. Pe de o parte cateva aspecte au fost constatate numai de mine si pe de alta parte mi-au intarit convingerea ca constatarile mele sant corecte.                                                                                                   ———————————————————————————————-                             Bineinteles ca mi-am pus si problema perioadei in care ar fi putut fi inscriptionate si a locului de origine, asta in urma analizarii diferitelor scrieri din diferite arii si diferite perioade,                                                                                                                                                Si mai pe scurt, analizand “n” tipuri de scriere si presupuse perioade in care au fost folosite, precum si locul de origine, si aici am ajuns (in mod absolut surprinzator si imbucurator) la unele concluzii similare ;

Am incercat sa fac o lista in privinta sanselor si probabilitatilor de veridicitate.                 Nota

P.S. Dupa ce in zeci de lucrari Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut existenta unui  scris al civilizatiei Vinca, in final a ajuns sa se cantoneze in a presupune ce fel de migrant sau comerciant si a cata spita de la origine era sumerian. Sau sumerian stabilit in Transilvania ori comerciant din zona Egeeana care ar fi ajuns sa transmita acele semne sumeriene. (Semne care au fost aparent scrise aici la noi, dupa analiza argilei!)                                                                                     ——————————–                                                             Inca si mai pe scurt,                                                                                                                          DATORITA PREZENTEI UNUI AMALGAM (CA SA NU ZIC AMESTECATURA/GHIVECI) DE CEL PUTIN 2 CATEGORII DE SEMNE (care de fapt as putea arata ca pot  fi chiar 3) sansele in privinta originii tablitelor si a “scribului”, acum la cateva ore inainte de anul Nou sant urmatoarele (cifre aproximative, fiind atribuite de mine, subiective):

– Semne inscriptionate in perioada 5.000-3.500 I.E.N   0%

– Scris sumerian, scrib nativ sumerian 3500-3.000 I.E.N. 0,1%

-scris quasi-sumerian, urmas sumerian/comerciant sumerian sau syrian 3.000-2.000 B.C. 5%

– scris quasi-sumerian urmas sumerian (minoan!),comerciant sau urmas sumerian (minoan) din Creta 3.000-2.000 B.C. 50%

– scris  eteo-cretan, (din Creta) 800 B.C. 300 E.N. 25 %

-scris din perioada arhaica, alfabet arhaic grec 800-300 I.E.N. 60 %

-scris dintr-o perioada apropiata 500-100 I.E.N I.E.N. 65 %

-scris al unei persoane quasi-contemporane E.N. 70%

– “scrib” contemporan. E.N. perioada 1800-1900 80 %

Dupa mine pare a fi un exercitiu sau incercare de a trasa, inscriptiona semne, ale unei persoane care avea relativa cunostinta (dar nu complet stapana) de semnele sumeriene, dar cunostea si semnele din zona Anatoliana . dupa toate aparentele, o asemenea persoana ar putea fi cineva din grupul :

Zsofia Torma, (ea avea cunostinta de semnele cuneiforme sumeriene dar si de cele anatoliene si le compara cu semnele gasite de ea pe artefacte ). A cercetat si artefactele din Dacia si din perioada ocupatiei romane )Posibil ca a facut un exercitiu de scriere; avand cunostinta de semne sumeriene si anatoliene asa se explica amestecatura quasi-omogena de semne Sumeriene, egeene si anatoliene)

Torma Jozsef, tatal, arheolog, de religie catolica

Karoly Torma, fratele ei, arheolog si epigraf de marca, cunoscator de latina si doctor in arte/ bölcsészdoktor (A cercetat si artefactele din Dacia si din perioada ocupatiei romane )

– un cercetator maghiar,german sau roman (care i-a facut un cadou, posibil in proximitatea doctoratului)

TOTUL AR PUTEA FI  LEGAT DE ZSOFIA, TATAL SAU  FRATELE SAU prin secventa  D D o c de pe tablita rotunda.

Aceasta este prescurtarea/abrevierea in latina a titlului de “decretorum doctor” care inseamna “profesor in doctrina (teologica) ”                                                                                                      ! Singura si unicul rezultat de afisare pe Google a atestarii scrise a succesiunii  “DDOC” este legata de prescurtarea latina a lui “decretorum doctor”

Sa speram ca aceasta ultima varianta este doar “o gaselnita sugubeata” si nu are nici-o legatura cu realitatea, ( si pentru faptul ca ar fi infinit mai mult decat as putea sa suport.)

Sumerian metal prospectors, metal-craftsmen in Romania/Serbia ?

December 29, 2018

The folowing paper of Mrs. Lazarivici and Mr Lazarovici are containing :                              – some valuable assertions  wich I did not know before, (or more precisely from/at the time when published), and by an independent path or way (using only close signs analysis) I came to same or a close conclusion                                                                                  – assertions wich as a consequence of my independent research, I do not agree.                       Hope the autors not get angry, but the simpliest way for me is to comment every statements or here in text the main lines, so sorrow their every assertions will be folowed by my comments.

TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS GHEORGHE LAZAROVICI CORNELIA-MAGDA LAZAROVICI MARCO MERLINI     2011                                                                                                    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Tartaria_and_the_sacret_tablets.pdf

“WRITING WITHOUT BEING CAPABLE OF WRITING
Following the line of reasoning of the Mesopotamian-gate, the main questions are when and how the idea of writing, the inventory of signs of literacy, the system of writing, and the technique of inscribing clay tablets were transmitted from Mesopotamia to Transylvania. However, the answer to this issue requires the previous resolution of too many inconsistencies that affect this approach. They concern the implausibility in dating of the tablets and the culture to which they belong, as well as their diverse
time frame (from 2900 to 500 BC), inadequate chronological and factual correspondences between the Danube region and Southern Mesopotamia, the assumption of a file rouge relationship between two very distant regions, and the presence of Sumerian signs of literacy on tablets that were not imported goods, being made from local clay. ”                                                                                                                          ———————————————————————————-                                                        Comment                                                                                                                                           Yes, it is out of doubt that the tablets are of direct sumerian influence/inspiration. I came to this conclusion checking that all the signs on the tablets has  an identical or close shape with those wich could be found in the proto-cuneiform sign lists. To be more clear, if not exact shape, but the exact blueprint/sqetch of the signs. Of course, if not genuine sumerian writing, at least arise the question how those signs were transmitted from a such distant place.                                                                                                                            Yes, “implausibility in dating of the tablets and the culture to which they belong, as well as their diverse time frame (from 2900 to 500 BC)”.                                                           I totally agree with both assertions, I concluded of the same time frame 2900 to 500 BC.   I am not fully confident of beeing made of local clay, but generally agree.                             —————————————————————————-

“Since the discovery of the tablets, fertile imaginations have been put in motion in order to make up for these incongruities. If we cannot move the goods, since the tablets were processed locally in Transylvania, we can imagine the people who produced them. Was there some form of East-Southern colonization of the Balkans during this remote period? N. Vlassa strictly connected what he called “the question of the primitive script” with the issue of a possible Near Eastern origin for this literate population. Gábor speculates about a Sumerian population that emigrated in Transylvania to settle
down there forever. They utilized very early signs of writing from Ur and the surrounding area. Şt. Kovács specifies that the migration occurred about 3400 BC. Sumerians settled down there as Hungarians.J. Harmatta arrives to interpret some incisions on artifacts as depictions of Sumerian wagons and considers some Neolithic villages in Transylvania to be settled by Sumerian populations. They actually are from the Linear pottery with musical note heads culture that belongs to the Middle Neolithic
with a date to 5000–4950 CAL BC1118. However, the conjecture of Sumerian migrants from Mesopotamia who settle in Transylvania and in the northern area of the Balkans is not plausible according to the archaeological record.”                                                            ———————————————————————–                                                                       Comment                                                                                                                                              From quite long time before, I hardly suspected a kind of sumerian migration, if not directly from Sumer (cause “ is not plausible according to the archaeological record”), in one step, then through Anatolia and/or Aegean area, through one or few generations. I base this on:                                                                                                                  – generally allready agreed opinion of a demic and cultural infusion in neolithic from Near-East.                                                                                                                                                – my independent observations an clues for groups of suthern and Near-East craftsmen and  families wich entered Vinca-Turdas area (Serbia, Banat, Transylvania).                           The suspected setlements are related to metal ores locations.I will present separately the arguments (mainly from linguistics field/toponyms) for exactly metal prospectors and metal craftsmen.                                                                                                                                    ———————————————————————————————————————“Alternatively, was the transmission of literacy channeled only through indirect methods such as “contacts”? Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting Mesopotamia, Anatolia,Cyclades, and the Middle and Lower Danube may represent the links between the Fertile Crescent and the Balkans. J. Makkay investigates the advent of cylinder seals in Europe as a result of a strong impact from similar artifacts of the Jemdet Nasr and Pre-dynastic periods. According to him, in the Final Neolithic, the knowledge of making cylinders or cylinder seals was possibly bridged on the European
continent by early settlements on the Cycladic Islands and via the export of obsidian from Melos to as far away as Thessaly and Thrace. He considers the small fragment of light-colored trachyte tuff with engraved signs found by Torma at the Transylvanian site of Nádorválya to be the most distant example of a cylinder seal made locally under indirect influences of the Mesopotamian prototypes.
What attracted eastern traders and adventurers to Transylvania? Makkay assumes that the gold of Transylvania made traders from the Near East, Anatolia, and the Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area, and points out that the ancient gold producing site of Zlatna (in the György valley) is located near Tărtăria and Turdaș. ”

Comment                                                                                                                                           Yes, totally agree,  if not in my opinion “merchant adventurers” (” Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting Mesopotamia, Anatolia,Cyclades, and the Middle and Lower Danube may represent the links between the Fertile Crescent and the Balkans” ) then, I specify: “prospectors, craftsmen and merchants”              Yes, Makkay:” the gold of Transylvania made traders from the Near East, Anatolia, and the Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area”.                                              I am adding, not only gold but also copper !                                                                                    —————————————————————————————————–

“He presupposes that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold by the Mesopotamian city-states. Therefore the request
was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines. I. J. Gelb attributes the tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to a less specified “inhabitant of Transylvania” who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them.”                                                                          Comment                                                                                                                                           So sorry, with consistent efforts, along time, in a paralel research, having no confidence in contradicting archeological data, based  only on the signs analysis, without knowing the Makkay opinion, I got independently to same conclusion, that could be ” via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands”. ( I specify a much larger group not only merchants) .                                                                                                                      The difference between Makkay assertion and mine, is that I found and could present evidences for an Egean, and more precise Cycladic route.                                                      No, I give not much credit of Gelb hypothesis that tablets were “written” by an Sumerian trader, cause an sumerian had no reason not to use original sign and to distort the signs. —————————————————————————————–                                                “Among the different options concerning the identikit of the person who made and inscribed the clay tablets found by N. Vlassa, according to J. Makkay, one has to contemplate as the most plausible scenario, a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to Transylvania in person; otherwise the artifacts could not have been produced from local clay.        

Comment                                                                                                                                          Between                                                                                                                                                 – “merchants of the Cycladic islands” and                                                                                     – “to a less specified inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them.”,                                                                                                          is hard to choose, cause have no sufficient evidences to a strong support of one of them, but rather somebody from the much “accustomed with writing” area as Aegean than some Transylvania inhabitant.Could be Transylvanian inhabitant only if had an southward, eastern origin or if the tablets are so recent that I am really afraid to think of. (as to be an writing exercise of some close-fellows scientists of Zsofia Torma!)                                       ——————————————————————————————————————
“Did the trading contacts have a mere economic character or a religious nature? Vl. Popović made a complex exegesis on the epic of Gilgamesh in order to find traces of a Sumerian colonization of Transylvania and therefore a rationale for the ritual deposition at Tărtăria. S. Hood applied the schema of Cirillus’ and Metodius’ mission of evangelization along the Danube, postulating Sumerian proselytizers in prehistoric Southeastern Europe: “in Romania… the first spread of writing or of signs derived from it may have been in a strictly religious or magical context… It is not impossible that the missionaries of an earlier religion from the East brought a first knowledge of writing during the third millennium BC”. According to him, the Tărtăria tablets resemble the early tablets from Crete and Mesopotamia and were found in a ritual context because they might harmonize with the imaginative suggestion advanced by M. Vasić that the Vinča ruling class consisted of mining prospectors-cum-witchdoctors from the south. They were engaged in the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Middle
Danube region keeping a hold over their native subjects by means of religion and magic.”                                                                                                                                                     ————————————————————————————-                                                 Comment:                                                                                                                                              S.Hood:”the first spread of writing or of signs derived from it may have been in a strictly religious or magical context” . I am not so sure, cause  all scientists including S.Hood’s emphasys of religious aspect, beeing inable to identify the inner structure and purpose of that writing, all pushed the matter in the ” x-zone” of religious-magical field. Spiritual life is only a reflection of the everyday real-life !                                                                                “M. Vasić that the Vinča ruling class consisted of mining prospectors-cum-witchdoctors from the south. They were engaged in the exploitation of the mineral resources”         Not necessary “rulling class” , but more advanced culturally, and possible literate ones. Not “keeping a hold over their native subjects by means of religion and magic.”                         ——————————————————————————————————
A number of scholars who accept the Vinča (or Vinča-Turdaș according to the oldest terminology) horizon for the Transylvanian tablets and are puzzled by the correspondences between the oldest European inscriptions and early Sumerian pictograms/ideograms propose a different solution, preferring to recognize the parallels only in sign shape, but not in meaning. They state that the inscribed blueprint
of the Tărtăria finds, especially on the rounded one, is so similar to writing on early Mesopotamian tablets that it must have derived, even if indirectly, from it. Nonetheless, the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.                                                        ————————————————————————————————————                           Comment                                                                                                                                         Yes, somehow,:                                                                                                                                 “the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.” Aegeans took the signs and used whenever they need, they surely “renamed” the signs, atributed another another phonetics, (possible retaining some meaning ?)                                                                        E.g. sumerian sign Ku become Aegean PA3, sumerian Pa become Aegean Pa, sumerian Se become Aegean Te….                                                                                                                             ———————————————————————————————–
Semiotically, the hypothesis that the Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design is based on the argument that the signs of literacy do not appear together in the same groups as they do on the Mesopotamian tablets. Two signs that occur separated, but in adjacent groups, on the Tărtăria discoid tablet are joined together on some of the Jemdet Nasr tablets to compose the name of a god: EN-GI. A Transylvanian “intellectual” copied two Sumerian signs, but was not capable to unite them to write properly the divine name. No scholar from that side expresses doubts that perhaps the ancient Transylvanians had no intention to write down the name of a Sumerian god. According to them, the illiterate presence of signs of literacy at Tărtăria might reflect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the significance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy are carriers of magic powers is exactly the reason why their mere graphic imitations have been deposited in a ritual pit-grave with fragments of human bones. “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… It is well-known that the
apotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people”, explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ”                                             Comment                                                                                                                                              On ”  Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design ”  comments and explanations are inconsistent, as long as many researchers not lean on sufficient on the signs real shape.I discovered by their turn superfice approaches.                                                                             ” at Tărtăria might reflect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the significance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy arecarriers of magic powers“….                                                                                                          … not much convinced, I sustain that (they/the scribe) new quite well the significance of the signs.                                                                                                                                            The folowing asertion may be partly true:                                                                                         ” The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… ”                                          I am adding:    ”  by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe” and wich could be at the upper time-limit, even contemporaneous with us.                                                                                              “ explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ”    or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ” Hard to believe “sumerian merchant” and what do you understand that could be   ” a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania” ?                                                                                                                                                               NO! The writer is from Aegean area !!                                                                                            ——————————————————————————————————————– Transylvanian city CUGIR                                                                                                                             From http://www.anvilfire.com/21centbs/stories/rsmith/mesopotamia_2.htmThe Sumerian terms for gold (KU.GI – ‘bright out of earth’) and silver (KU.BABBAR – ‘bright gold’) retained the original association of the precious metals with the bright (KU) domain of the gods.

de JA Halloran

dág: brilliant; pure; clean (‘to go out’ + aga(3), ‘diadem, circlet, crown’). … kug, : n., silver; precious metal; money; noble (ku, ‘to base, build’ + aga(3), ‘diadem, circlet, …

sumerian GIR :”furnace”

KUGIR:metalfurnace” ?

The assessment that Sumerian H (diacritical mark below the letter) ….. GIR 4 kiln

Borrowed from Sumerian 𒌋𒀜 (gir, “oven, kiln


On Tartaria round tablet we have the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign KU

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

NWgrid

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

KUa

-ba i[ni]m ba-a-ĝá-ar
kù.g =be =÷a inim =Ø Ø -ba -e -ĝar -Ø
silver=this=LOC word=ABS VP-MM-on-place-3N.S/DO
‘This silver was claimed (lit. “A word was placed upon this silver”).’ (NG 212 2; U; 21)

Tracking, looking for traces and evidences on Tartaria tablets

December 22, 2018

Image, from http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=8;t=009931;go=older

scribe-ptahchepses

Up to date, no consistent results regarding: – the real age of the tablets – the kind of “writing” -origin, location for the tablet and the scribe
The real age cannot be determined anymore. Taking acount of finding circumstances, not only the age (strata in wich were found the tablets) but also the exact location of cultic pit, of the pit house, and also location of every item/artefact in the ritualic-funerary complex is not sure. Taking account of the fact that begining of writing in the World is not older than 3.500 B.C. in all three places, Mesopotamia, Indus-Valley/Elam, and Egypt, (note that then was not yet proper writing), – From the start, the tablet’s age could not depass 3.500 B.C. As you see later, I show evidences that the tablets could be much, much newer. So the supposed deceased shaman/priestes with the age of the bones determined 5.500-6.000 B.C. is not at all related with the tablets.                           P.S.                                                                                                                                                          A make-up story around the poor unknokn before-deceased person, wich in the course of time unfortunately become the supposed “Lady Tartaria”, as would be good  for a novel or mooving-picture, is of no help in the scientific endeavour. On contrary, in an allready misty subject, the result is to completely envolope the matter in an undesirable deep fogg.                                                                                                                                                No way to even think to connect the bones/person (carbon c14-determined at 5.000-6.000 B.C.) with a “writing” wich with indulgence was at 3.000 B.C. !                                                     —————————————————————————————-                                                          The main researchers on the field are sustaining a proto-writing in Vinca-Culture area. It is an undisputed issue. Even so, this must be proofed/!not yet !. From the begining there are only twoo main directions:                                                                                               

A- Sustaining an Danubian/Vinca early “writing” wich precedes that sumerian-one            B -An sumerian-inspired writing. not early than that sumerian one. 

A. Is out of discussion.Scientists agree.                                                                                      From V. M. Masson. Interaction of cultures and cultural integration http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii

 “An appreciable shift occurred in the early agricultural period, when societies which had attained similar levels of cultural and intellectual development displayed considerable receptivity to integrational processes. Yet here as well the “rejection” is evident. If the decoding of the famous tablets from the early agricultural site of Tartaria, Romania, proposed by A. A. Weiman, one of the world’s most authoritative experts in Proto-Sumerian texts (see this issue), is correct, a highly peculiar picture emerges.           In the depth of the early agricultural Balkan area with its remarkable achievements in the artistic and intellectual domains a stable complex is found which is related to the temple structures of the Sumerian civilization. No matter whether the kulturtrager from Uruk had actually built their temple somewhere in the vicinity or whether we have before us a unique case of import having no pragmatic value, it is absolutely clear that these hallmarks of urban civilizationhad in no way been integrated into the system of early agricultural communities, which, in my opinion, had achieved the initial stage of the early complex society.                                                                                                        Numerous and diverse signs found on the artefacts from the early agricultural Balkan sites are doubtless related to some symbolic and magic system, but do not represent a system of writing, which is a phenomenon different, in quality. So the Proto-Sumerian prototype did not in any way affect the local society, which was probably content with the available systems of storage and transmission of information (probably the oral and the artistic ones).”

An original independent developed Danubian/Vinca “writing” is in thin air , without support, as long as not was proofed that Danubians invented writing, more than this, they even not attained the proto-writing phase.

Now, as a ultimate option, having no sufficient confidence in the archeologic data, nor in the support of some utmost skilled in writings researchers,                                                       I had a last option to throughly analise the signs, to compare them with the main writing systems, counting the common number of signs, test those tablet signs with the known writings, as to see in wich measure they match every wryting sistem, an as result how “friendly” they behave. It seems that even later Cotofeni Culture not developed yet writing.                                                                                                                                                    ————————————————————————————————-
B. Sumerian-inspired, ( I say, at the limit) could be, as opinated prestige assyorologists Adam Falkenstein, M.S.Hood, H.Haarman, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev.                                                                                                                                                                                  Only some opinions here:

From 3 EXISTENCE OF AN ARCHAIC SCRIPT IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE: A LONG LASTING QUERELLE by Marco Merlini
3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossosfile:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script.pdf

The leading position was established by A. Falkenstein, responsible for the publication of the tablets from Uruk, who pointed out a strict correlation with Uruk III B that belonged to the same cultural horizon as those of Jemdet Nasr and argued that the signs were definitely Sumerian. Falkenstein’s line of reasoning was based on four pilasters:
a) The Tărtăria signs, especially those on the rounded tablet, are highly comparable with those on the early tablets from Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr as the scholar synthesized in a chart (Falkenstein 1965:
271). According to his point of view, the connections with the early Sumerian pictograms (= protocuneiform signs) are particularly clear in the case of the symbolic hunting scene on the rectangular undrilled tablet, which was a more naturalistic representation and resembled the well-documented Mesopotamian seals impressions
b) Some signs appear to have been derived from Mesopotamian marks as numerals
c) Both the Transylvanian and the early Mesopotamian tablets show no occurrences of the wedge-shaped instrument employed for cuneiform writing
d) The shape of the rectangular tablets (relatively flat) occurred also in Mesopotamia
e) The system of dividing groups of signs within sections, which are separated by incised lines, is present also in Mesopotamia.
Establishing these connections, Falkenstein dated the Transylvanian signs around 2900-2700 BC and tried to establish parallels between them and the signs from the most ancient pre-cuneiform Sumerian documents found at Jemdet Nasr, Tell el-Far’ah, and Uruk. Unfortunately, he did not consider or did not care to consider as important some counterarguments about the same issues:
i. the Tărtăria designs show striking resemblances not only to the Pre-dynastic Mesopotamian writing but also to other scripts;                                                                             ii. on the Uruk tablets the whole shape of the sign in the case of numerals is sunk in the clay with a round-ended stylus, while at Tărtăria the equivalent signs are incised in outline;
iii. in Mesopotamia only some larger rectangular tablets are relatively flat and there are also very few small circular tablets to compare with the Transylvanian one;
iv. in addition, the string-holes on two of the Tărtăria tablets have no parallels among the early tablets of Mesopotamia (Falkenstein 1965: 269-273).
It is significant to note that the tablets from Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr do not bear a merely primitive stage of writing because they display signs that are not only ideographic but also contain a phonetic element. In this occurrence signs stand for words and not for objects, animals or structures which they literally represent, and
signs with recognized sound values are combined together to make words (Diringer 1962: 21). Then the main question regarding the marks on the Tărtăria tablets became: could they represent a similarly advanced stage of writing or had they just a superficial resemblance without any writing implications to the early Mesopotamian tablets? (Hood 1967: 104). The group of scholars which drew attention to a strict correlation between the Tărtăria signs and the Mesopotamian signs considered the graphic influence in the framework of a more general cultural strong drift from the Near East which occurred at the point of transition from the fourth to the third millennium BC or during the 3rd millennium BC (it depends on the author). Within Southeastern Europe, the culture most markedly affected was considered “that one of the Vinča-Turdaş” (Makkay 1973: 1). Müller-Karpe pointed out that human representation in relief was a common practice in Mesopotamia and that it occurred in Southeastern Europe only at Turdaş possibly because of Near Eastern influences (Müller-Karpe 1968: 307).
Makkay investigated the advent of cylinder seals in Europe as result of a strong influence from the cylinder seals of the Jemdet Nasr and Predynastic periods. According to him, in the Final Neolithic the knowledge of making cylinders or cylinder seals was possibly bridged on the European continent by early settlements on the Cycladic Islands and via the export of obsidian from Melos to as far as Thessaly and Thrace.

From A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria    http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii                                                     

It has already been mentioned that not just the signs (possibly all of them) were borrowed, but other things as well, including the material for writing, the rectangular or round shape of the tablets (the latter occurs, although rarely, in layer IV of Uruk), the manner in which the text is divided into parts by means of vertical and horizontal incisions, and the technique of writing. However, the borrowed elements are transformed in such a way that one should speak of an independent Tartarian script rather than of a Tartarian version of the proto-Sumerian script. First and foremost, people who created this script, in contrast to the Sumerians, used only knife-shaped styluses.                                                                                                                                                    The Tartarian script differs from the proto-Sumerian one also in the construction of the texts. ” ……………….                                                                                                                          Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, but this hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents. ”                                                                                       ‘

From Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets  Attila László http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf                                                                       

“….the study of A. Falkenstein, the first Assyriologist who thoroughly checked Vlassa’s conclusions and who comparatively examined, one by one, the signs from the Tărtăria tablets and their early Mesopotamian parallels. He established the existence of certain similarities in terms of the form of the tablets, the division of the surface in columns and partitions (Fächer), in which the signs were then inscribed. He noticed that, from the 20 (or 24, with variants) signs on the second and third Tărtăria tablets, precise analogies were drawn for five, and similar forms were found for six among the archaic texts from Uruk (in German, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, abbreviated: ATU)25. All the 11 correspondences belong to the Uruk IIIb period (Djemdet Nasr), which can be dated to the time frame between 2800 and 2750 BC, also representing the chronological reference for dating the Tărtăria tablets. In Falkenstein’s opinion, the correlations established between the Tărtăria clay tablets and the Sumerian ones indicate an impulse (Anregung) from Mesopotamia. At the same time, he stressed the fact that, unlike the Mesopotamian written clay tablets, the Tărtăria tablets were made
from coarse material, were perforated (in order to be suspended?) and fired, the signs were incised (not impressed), the signs for numbers (characteristic to the Mesopotamian tablets, having an economic character)
were (partially?) missing, etc.  ……………………….                                                                            Among the differences between the signs on the Tărtăria tablets and the ones on the
Mesopotamian tablets E. Qasim notices the fact (already remarked by Falkenstein in 1965) that the signs for numbers, which are constantly present on the compartmentalized Mesopotamian tablets (which contain economic texts), cannot be identified on the Tărtăria tablets. However, Qasim finds that the sign in the form
of the letter D, followed by two small circles (marked with no. 7 on the Tiumenev 1 tablet and on the second Tărtăria tablet) can be identified with the conventional sign used in the Assyriology literature for the graphic transcription of the signs impressed on the clay tablets, corresponding to the numbers 1 and 10. In order to perfect her “indictment”, E. Qasim appreciates that those two signs (in fact: two simple motifs, a semicircle or half‑moon and circle), which do not have correspondences in the real Mesopotamian signs, were imitations of the conventional transcriptions of certain signs copied from the secondary Assyriology literature, “

From http://cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf                                                                                                         “M.S. Hood, an English archeologist, who states that the disk and tablets were carried by Sumerian merchants to Tatárlaka, where the native inhabitants did not understand the written signs but copied them and used them for religious purposes.”

A.A.Vaiman, corectly named “quasi-sumerian Tartaria tablets”. But in my opinion, as that of others, not a sumerian hand scraped the signs, nor an native sumerian scribe. My opinion is that  the signs are not proper (exactly) proto-cuneiform signs. The smoking gun for other origin for the signs than directly from sumerian, by short, is the presence of the D-signs, (unused in sumerian proto-writing), the Chet/het shape of the H-sign wich in a similar shape appeared in Europe first on Aegean area (Crete).

Certainly, there is a link with the sumerian signs. And not “some signs”, but all the signs could be found in an exact shape or close in the proto-cuneiform sign list. It is not  “by chance”, the signs not appeared there by random. And retain, the first instance when such signs appeared in the World was in Sumer in the proto-writing fase.     One have the exact shape of some signs as AB(house), ARARMA(bull calf) and many others: PA, SE, LAGAB, etc. and with close shape: GAR, SA,RU, sun-God temple

B. Other writings wich are suspected are those Cretan-ones (with 3 main variants:Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B…+Cypro-Minoan). Here also we have not all the signs from those writings. Here, we are encountering the same problem, D-shape sign was not used by them. But I found on Tartaria tablets a good bunch of signs (ideograms/logogram/syllabograms) common /(paired!) ,and present in both writings: Sumerian and Aegean ! :                                                                                                      sumerian ARARMA/ Aegean MA ; sumerian SE/Aegean TE; sumerian PA/Aegean PA; sumerian KU/Aegean PA3

C. Phoenician/Old hebrew writings not sufficient matching.We have the exact chet/het-shape, also HD could be phoenician/old hebrew “het-qopf”.                                                   <so ? qoch:”ossuary/loculus”-KoK(aion?> Have also signs/letters “zain”, and probably “samech”.But in those writings there was no D-shaped signs.They had P sign for qof and dalet/delta sign for D.

D. Anatolian writing could be also a goot candidate (especially carian alphabets).               The only writings in wich I found 90% of the signs was sumerian and carian !

From the begining I tried to find the writing wich matching close; *only after this, in the case of “D-letter” signs, runing out of options I gave the “Moon” significance.

In my opinion, by 3.000 B.C., not moon-phases killing them but everyday necessities for making a living and apropiate the nature-gods in order to have good crops. As Mrs. Denisse Schmand Besserat demonstrated writing appeared first as a counting goods necesity.

  *! Not the case of sumerian approach where we had sumerian GAR(ninda) signs as egyptian “T”:”loaf of bread”!                                                                                                             

In a way, one could “depass” the phonetics/interpretation and translation of the signs, whatever sumerian or Aegean, having an “up from high” vision, and take directly the meaning of ideograms !                                                                                                                 eg:                                                                                                                                                      The signs on squared Tartaria tablet with hole, Image, from                                       http://su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPrYdeD189MSKLzKIXmzILQSZ1K0n_h1eFtByuYrEClb90EJbnoQ 

Imagini pentru tartaria tablets

In sumerian, signs:Ararma (bull-calf) + nigin5 +ABhttp://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/signlist.php

LAL×LAL.LAGAB
Borger: LAL2.LAGAB
SignSign niĝin5

nigin5: sum,whole,to enclose, confine; to encircle; to search; to turn; to return; to go around; …

bull-calf+nigin5+ AB =(sun) Bull/calf+ turning, whole +house =house,abode (of) turning(sun)   , or only last 2 signs :                                                                                              (sun) bull +house interpreted as:” house,abode (of) bull(sun) ;                                                in sumerian this sign pair could be read NERGAL wich is the pair or underground instance of the Sun-God, 

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html                  NERGAL~x                                                                                                ————————————————————————————————–                                    From  http://enenuru.proboards.com/thread/329/nergal                                                      me: What is for in this above pair on the left sign DARA;”ibex”!? (we have on pict. tablet Ibex

 DAG dwelling | E2 house | EN ….. DARA3 ~ IBEX |durah (dara3) [89x] = wild goat, mountain goat)                                                                 
“-I am convinced that Nergal is the netherworld aspect of the sun-god, on the basis of late mystical texts which I had looked at in the Erra thread . One text states                            dšamaš u nergal(U.GUR) istēn(1)en     (“Šamaš and Nergal are one “)                                        —————————————————————————————–     

  as in Aegean:  bull sign+ labrys =MU + labyrinth = house of (AMu,Ama?) = house of the Bull(Sun), house of MINOTAUR, labyrinth, house of the Sun-God/Sun-Bull/MINOTAURUS.                         ————————————————————————————–

Now, I will present you a particularity of the signs, wich I noticed (beeing the single one who noticed /Why ?) :

The signs are a bunch or unusual mixture of mainly three type of signs, so having an eterogen nature :

pure pictographic signs/pictograms (sqarred without hole)

ideogram/syllabograms (squarred with hole)

syllabogram/letters (round-one with hole) ; pure letters (upper half of round-one)

Due of this above, the age of the tablets could be the age of the newest type of writing.The D-shaped signs first appeared in epichoric variants of archaic greek alphabets (for letter D in a plece and for letter R in another).

So we could have in that upper half archaic greek letters.This archaic shape of eta was pronounced at the begining “He”; in this shape was used in Crete, and later in all Mediteranean as for H-letter.                                                                                       https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcTqDynC22_KwCL0oLlpAu3HnTvwBisR1bQcP-kqdlTV-Puybhep

                                                                                                                                                     Also is possible to have an local-derived from archaic greek writing in upper half.

Archaic greek letter shapes, from http://www.codex99.com/typography/13.html

Archaic greek, but even old latin, venetic could be. The rest of the signs (out of upper half) could have only an magic-religious-ritual role. Not necessary carring an concrete message.
Unlike the case of Linear A/B where we have at disposal hundreds of tablets, Tartaria tablets are unique of their kind (and in the area), some strange if not weird singletons.

———————————————————————————————————————-                     For the place of origin. In my opinion, not originated, nor “written” at Tartaria, Romania.Place of origin south and again south.                                                             Image, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4HZP0phF6ULSoKMAAZoyrqIbV2Bv3OYkQtCnoZ-1Y8OdzlTvIUQ

Imagini pentru crete archaic eta

Taken or written by an Aegean migrant, but rather originated somewhere in actual Greece teritory, rather in Aegean area, say Cyclades(Syros) or Crete.

This hypothesis is in total acordance with studies of Mr. Evangelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis wich found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants.                                                                                                                                          As a consequence, an direct sumerian contact and cultural infusion with Balkan/Danubian civilisation is not necessary, as the influence could be transmited via Aegean.                                                                                                                                             Some (not few !) common elements (read “signs”) in Tartaria tablets (regarding the writing) to both civilisations, were evidenced independently by me in my papers.

Besides, especially due of the “cursed, damned” ,unexplained, “accidental”, but also “new” characteres/charagmata “D-lettershaped signs, present on upper half, in/from the time perspective, the supposed tablets’s age  would be expanded in an untolerable span:                                                                                                                                 – between 3.000 B.C. (close-shaped signs, but imprinted used for bread-portions/?Moon phases?) and 800 B.C. (archaic greek letters) ,D-shaped signs were not used in any world writing systems ,or                                                                                                                        – any age from “xyz” B.C. to “uvw” A.D., even as new “as could be made yersterday”.   Don’t know exact intention of the writer, so who what wanted to show to whom.

By short, we are forced to choose only one out of two (large distanced in time) possiblities:                                                                                                                                             – and old age close to 3.000 B.C. with the ununswered question regarding the meaning of the D-signs, or                                                                                                                                         – a quite new age close to 800-300 B.C.

Any world writing sistem was not invented in a couple of years, nor in the 100 years course, it is quite a long and complex matter, not depend as one expect on some local human abilities, but as a responce in complex(social and economical) societies  to their necessities and needs. 

===================================================================  From DRAVIDIAN TOKENS, UBAID, AND ITS TRACES IN BALKANS by Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/10909671/Dravidian_tokens_Ubaid_and_its_traces_in_Balkans

Ubaid Dravidian cult language of the Vinča
The Vinča, possibly Hurrian and similar to Indo-European Linear Pottery, might
be dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian
languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian
writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for
Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon
might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.                                                         The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for                                                                     1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin,                                                        2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately,                                                                                                                                         3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan scriptinvestigated by N. N. Kazanskii,                                                                              4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.                                                                               The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens asthe prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE.                 The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.The line of descendance Vinča (with the Dispilio Tablet closest to Linear A) >Tisza>Tiszapolgár > Bodrogkeresztúr (with Aegean relations) contacted with Baden might reflect the connection between the Vinča script and the Trojan script (Troy IIV) which N. N. Kazanskii interpreted as an intermediate element between the Vinča and Linear A.                                                                                                    As L. S. Klejn suggested, the Vinkovci / Somogyvar of the Baden origin was related to the culture of the Cretan Linear script A. So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic and Vinča because of the Dravidian relations of the Linear A, B signs, substrate words in Greek and Dacian, and the Tărtăria tablets. The Karanovo IV bearded figurines very similato the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”

=============================================                                                            The bablets could be so new as to have:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serbare#Conjugation                         Italian servare Etymology From Latin servāre, present active infinitive of servō.

Serbare to keep or maintain/to preserve or reserve    “Io serbo”

From..https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servos                                      Latin servos m accusative plural of servus

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servus#Latin                                                                   servus Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *ser-wo (“guardian”), possibly from *ser- (“watch over, protect”).                                                                                                   1.a servant                                                                                                                                  2.a serf                                                                                                                                       3.a slave

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hora#Latin                                  hōra f (genitive hōrae); first declension

  1. hour
  2. time
  3. o’clock
  4. season; time of year
  5. vocativesingular of hōra

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heros                                                                         heros 1.(literallydemigodhero       2.(transferred sense, Ciceronian) an illustrious man

From The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal             https://books.google.ro/books?id=JiM8AQAAMAAJ

the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr, (MasterLord.) The whole meaning of the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr :

So from               +++++                                                                                                                             HP    D b o c

HR      Se  R b o s    

?  Lord slaves / Lord servants /HERO** servants/ time keep,maintain /serbian *HRistos  / HAR*** keeper    ?                                                                                                             ? HAR/haro/Ede DiDou “give charis; give death; give eat”   ?

(* I not found anywhere the Christ monogram, only and only as XP ! ; **thracian heros ; *** har,slavonic haru “gift,CHARM”)  ….proto-Indo-European root Xar(Char) :”fitted in a pleasant,beautiful manner”

 

Basics, or starting point for I-European and Tartaria people rituals

December 12, 2018

From allmost 12 years, I sustained and stressed in a continous way that in upper half, in the left corner we have the signs for letters “HR”.This could be checked on my all previous posts. Now take a look toward what could pointing:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81er-                                                                                                                Etymology. Of unknown origin. Possibly a late West Central Indo-European dialectal word. Within Nostratic framework derived from Proto-Nostratic *ʔer-a (“earth, ground”) (Bomhard 2015) or *ʔarV̄ (“earth, land, place”) (Dolgopolsky) with cognates such as:

Root *h₁er-                                                                                                                 1.earth

  • Ancient Greek     :*ἔρα (*éra) in ἔραζε (éraze, “on the ground”) and compounds
  • From  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82er-Proto-Indo-European

Root *h₂er-

  1. to fit, to fix, to put together

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83er-                         Root*h₃er-                                                                                                                                   1.to move,to stir                                                                                                                                      2.to rise, to spring

  • Ancient Greek:ὄρος (óros)                                                                                                        —————————————————————————————————–
  • These three roots (wich are not much different) are the roots of the basic and of paramount importance things (with same numbers and order):
  • 1. h1er/EARTH (related to Earth-Mother and agriculture)  
  • 2. h2er/ religion Chartus concept (wich has the root char)
  • 3, h3er/tiling,turning the earth upside-down=plowing, and the sky-sacred mountain Note.                                                                                                                                             There are research papers where is sustained that Horus,Horos, Hora, ora, Hera are close-related (probably through pre-Indo-European languages)                                 ——————————————————————————————————————————–
  • From Proto-Indo-European Religion http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/whatwasreligion.htm
  • “Rather than go into the deities, though, I would like to concentrate here on two principles. These interact with each other, but I will try to explain them separately.The first is what I call the ghosti-principle. *ghostis is a PIE word which means “one with whom one has a reciprocal obligation of hospitality.” ….The second is the *Xartus, which is the pattern of the universe. This word comes from the root *xar-, meaningto fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern. Both linguistically and ideologically Xartus is the root of the Vedic rta, and the concept is similar as well to the Germanic wyrd. The Xartus is the pattern of the cosmos, but not one that’s imposed from without. Instead it grows from the cosmos itself.

    The Proto-Indo-Europeans saw the cosmos as centered around a tree and surrounded by water, which also rose up through a well to feed the tree. The tree was the cosmos itself, an ordered arrangement of things and actions, and the water was chaos, disorder. Notice that order is fed by disorder. Left to itself, order, like an unwatered tree, becomes brittle and dead. An influx of chaos is vital to its life. Chaos is dangerous and not capable of supporting life on its own, however, and only becomes meaningful when it is drawn into Order. It is through this interaction (a kind of ghosti-relationship) that the universe can continue to exist.

    Order gifts chaos in another way. Things passing out of existence, not only as in living things dying, but even as each moment passing away, are going from order into disorder. If cosmos is seen as the tree, then its dying bits are fruits or nuts. This imagery is found clearly in the Norse cosmology, in which drops of honeydew fall into the surrounding waters. In this way again chaos and cosmos are joined together into a relationship. Chaos gifts order, and order gifts chaos.

    If the cosmos is a tree, then its branches form a pattern, which is the Xartus. Notice a number of things. First, the pattern forms itself out of the growth of the tree itself – as the cosmos grows, and actions and things arise and are added to the cosmos, the pattern of the branches changes. The Xartus therefore arises from the cosmos, rather than from outside it.

    Note as well that although the cosmos grows the Xartus, the Xartus has an affect on the cosmos. The growth of the tree is not completely free; branches can’t grow from anywhere, and they can’t grow in any way they wish. It may be said that the Xartus impels but does not compel.

    We form our lives within the organizing Xartus, and then our lives, like all things that happen in the cosmos, are fed into the Xartus. The things we do, as they pass away, and eventually we ourselves, also fall into the waters of chaos. Eventually, however, like the water from the well, all that we have given to chaos returns to cosmos, transformed first in the waters, and then by the tree. Like the tree, we have been fed by chaos, and we then feed chaos in turn.

    In both the ghosti-principle and the functioning of the Xartus, we see the working of the central ideology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, that of reciprocity. This is at the root of our relationship with other people and with the gods, and at the nature of the cosmos. It is impossible to understand PIE religion without understanding reciprocity.                                                                                                                                     ———————————————————————————————————                         My note                                                                                                                                              This Xar is also the root of gr. charis, charisma of the harmony and rom.Har:”unmerited gift,charm” With this meaning charm could be also used on the Tartaria round tablet, as the tablet was supposed to be used in sorcery, witchcraft purposes. One more possible association is the graphic/icon representation of Xar/char/har:” fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern” for wich was used the CROSS from the most ancient time maybe conquered only by the swastika.                                                                                                                  —————————————————————————————————————————     Apropos of “the pattern of the Universe“:

  • From Cuina Turcului – a rock shelter in the Iron Gates gorges of the Danube  https://www.donsmaps.com/cuina.html Firstly, Cuina Turcului is firmly in the Gravettian – Epigravettian/microlithic tradition with a large number of backed blades and bladelets and geometric microlithic tools.                                                      The following information is taken from the excellent monograph ‘The Iron Gates Mesolithic’ by Ivana Radovanović: Cuina Turcului is situated in the Ciucarul Mare Massif between Moara Dracului and Proluca hill. The Epipalaeolithic living floors were excavated between 1964 – 1969 over an area of 160 – 180 sq. m.
    Horse bone decorated with rhomboid designs
    Photo: http://library.thinkquest.org/C006353/cuina_turcului.html The bone is decorated front and back, and is covered with small paired incisions as decoration.

    Photo: http://www.drobetaturnuseverin.net/book/export/html/2502 Cuina  bone

  • ? Mother Earth-Goddess coupled with Life/Cosmic-Tree ?                                                  —————————————————————————————–
  • upon one’s interpretation,  it is the goddess of birth and life (me: as later Goddess Hera wi’ll be)                                                                                                                        From Seimeni – neolitic şi pre-neolitic
    https://sites.google.com/site/seimenineoliticsipreneolitic/

    EA MAI VECHE REPREZENTARE A ZEIŢEI NAŞTERII ŞI A VIEŢII – O INTERPRETARE SIMILARĂ A SIMBOLURILOR INCIZATE PE FALANGA DE ECVIDEU, DESCOPERITĂ LA CUINA TURCULUI

    La Cuina Turcului-Dubova, în Oltenia, s-au descoperit, într-un inventar litic bogat, aşchii din oase, fragmente de coaste şi de corn, toate încrustate – pare-se după un scenariu – s-a descoperit o falangă de ecvideu incizată cu multă grijă. Data la care s-au făcut inciziile, calibrată C14, este stabilită de laborator ca fiind în urmă cu 12. 650 ani.

  • and on the oblong Tartaria tablet it is also the Life-Tree.