Tartaria tablets, advanced research. (Latest). Answers to allmost possible questions.

October 31, 2019

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

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

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

Image result for tartaria alba harta Tartaria village, Alba County

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

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

Image result for nicolae vlassa arheologul

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

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

1. Are TT as old as spoken/rumors ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

7. The shape of clay TT is very important?

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

 Clay disc from Vinca, Serbia

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

Image result for sumerian star chart

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

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

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

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

Image result for karanovo tablet

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

Image result for tartaria tablet

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

 8. Are the TT genuine ?

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

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

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

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

  • Types of school scribe, writing-learning tablets:

Table 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. What about  scribe’s training on writing?

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

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

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

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                              Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C. ?)

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

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

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

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

18. Was the scribe a native of Tartaria ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Image result for tablitele tartaria

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

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

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

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

What could be written, what possible texts?

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

Can one make suppositions at least?

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

Here Roc Roc Albanian here Rrok= time grab, understand

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

26. Possible explanation  ?

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

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


latin:   HeRus  DeiVOS =    -“-      -“-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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






Final conclusion.H symbols on Gobekli Tepe.

September 26, 2021

H symbol is a rare sign from petroglyphs along ages onward.


It is coming to surface only from prehistory, much frequently in later time, when was used in writing. Weird enough it is appearing frequently on T-pillars at Gobekli Tepe in two shapes, H and I. From Wayne Herschel paper http://thehiddenrecords.com/gobekli-tepe-taurus-bull

If you try to find a source of inspiration for H sign oŕigin from Earth and Sky will be very hard to find one, especially in such deep past. Could not be a phosphene or instant-out of one’s mind. There were other proposals and explanations for H signs at Gobekli Tepe: – As beeing a pair, two united humans; – H composed of two T-signs(Ray Urbaniak). – This one ăbove, in my view mean two T=me signs, me-me (under+above=cosmos). – The “H”-shaped Luwian symbol is the logogram for PORTA (“gate”; Petra Goedegebuure, personal communication).

Not so many fellows know that the ancestor of latin/greek H letter were folowing signs: – linear elamite signs da,

  • – Old chinese sun/moon ideograms,
  • Linear A sign Pa3
  • Luwian sign porta/door
  • And canaanite-phoenician-old hebrew cheth/heth.

And all theese having in their turn (maybe? I hypothesise) at the origin the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign Ku.


H, Heth and Ku all have the same blueprint/sketch, depending how one is uniting 6 points.


—— But what is much important is the fact that this is the sqetch of the shape of the Orion constellation.This “ladder”-like shape is linked in Egyptian lore with heaven/future life From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris “Through the hope of new life after death, Osiris began to be associated with the cycles observed in nature, in particular vegetation and the annual flooding of the Nile, through his links with the heliacal rising of Orion and Sirius at the start of the new year.” In old chinese writing is linked with shiny and light.(see the old shape of sun and moon ideograms).Not to pass unnoticed the ‘above’ and ‘under’ ideograms wich are half of a H sign! ——- No wonder that H/Ku shape appeared in PPNA culture of Gobekli Tepe in two instances: as H symbols on pillars and as Ku/Ladder/gate signs in so called port-holes.

https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/03/20 https://ro.pinterest.com/pin/353251164495504746/

———- No matter what was first: Biggest on sky, Orion constellation; sumerian Ur “light” (Uru-An-Na, light of heaven),or some ancient sign for door,gate/gateway ========


From https://ttlawson.com › in-plain-sight-…In Plain Sight: The identity of the Twin Pillars of Göbekli Tepe “I venture that, as with the “O” and the “C,” the “H” also represents a celestial figure, and furthermore that a likely candidate would be Orion — a highly visible and widely recognized constellation. Orion can be visualized as an “H.” A row of three bright stars, the readily identifiable “Orion’s belt,” would constitute the crosspiece, with the four most brilliant stars in the constellation serving in pairs as the uprights, forming, roughly in parallel, two imaginary straight lines.There have been a number of technical interpretations of celestial configurations having to do with Göbekli Tepe, many with respect to the positioning of the structures themselves in relation to heavenly events. These have support in the orientation of Stonehenge and other Stone Age monuments in respect to the solstices. My finding the “H” of the moon emblem to stand for Orion is of a different sort, but it does present a perplexity having to do with the time and place of the observer. As it happens, owing to the precession of the equinoxes, in 9000 BC Orion would have been visible in the southern sky at Göbekli Tepe only from the belt up. This, need not necessarily, however, stand in the way of the interpretation. The constellation would have been visible in full in southern Mesopotamia. And there had come into play in the late Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic high levels of intergroup communication and interchange over the whole of the region: “This was a highly connected world. There were multiple channels of communication along which a symbolic repertoire could have spread and been renewed” (Hodder and Meskell, 2011, p. 259). It is therefore by no means implausible that the constellation in full might have become a fixture in the human imagination throughout the region, even though Orion was visible in full in only part of it. Moreover, such a bright and distinctive figure in the night sky as Orion would invite interpretation. Consider that someone today, looking up at Orion, would not, without its being in some way explained, readily conjure up the image of a mighty hunter. That the constellation is seen as such, however, supplies a further ground for the idea of Orion here: Orion is portrayed in myth as a hunting companion of the Great other goddess Artemis — whose emblem was the crescent moon — and who was also goddess of the hunt. Another notably bright star, Sirius, is directly associated with Orion, appearing in a straight line from Orion’s distinctive belt. Called the “Dog Star,” it is linked in legend with Orion as one of his hunting dogs. All taken, these connections should warrant a provisional treatment of the “H” as a symbol for Orion, at least until a surer explanation might present itself. The crescent of the moon newly rising before dawn is oriented toward the eastern horizon from which it arises, as might be a bow bent to send an arrow back in that direction. By contrast, the bow of the crescent of the waxing moon seen before sunset points in the opposite direction, toward the western horizon into which it sinks. The two “C’s” framing the “H” figure on the belt of the moon pillar would accurately replicate, therefore, the positioning of an astral figure such as Orion — or another, the Milky Way, for instance — as standing between the opposed crescents as they might be pondered at break of day and at dusk by ancient scanners of the night sky.”

eugenrau: Related to Orion visibility extension, Kebaran and Natufian cultures extended mainly in southern Mesopotamia. From Gobekli Tepe and rebirth of Sirius http://www.andrewcollins.com


THE PROTOTYPE OF SUMERIAN, OLD CHINESE, PHOENICIAN, LINEAR A AND ALL H-LIKE SIGNS (WICH MENT SHINE, LIGT) IS TO BE FOUND AT GOBEKLI TEPE 9,600 B.C. ! Related to the purpose and meaning of the sign, I suppose that: – was used in death, ancestor cult rituals (seelenloch=soul-hole;see temple portholes) and possible in astronomy/calendrics. – the exact meaning was possible already fergotten even then.At least was not a name for Orion. If guess a meaning of the sign, this could be: “shiny, light”…(heaven gate?) As Gobekli Tepe hunter-gatherers practiced sky burial, it is natural to expect they sought afterlife in the sky. Orion, the biggest visible constellation could have been the gateway, portal through they needed to pass.

Documentation https://symbolsage.com/sumerian-gods-list/ “Gula, also known as Ninkarrak, was the goddess of healing as well as the patroness of doctors. She was known by many names including Nintinuga, Meme, Ninkarrak, Ninisina, and ‘the lady of Isin’, which were originally the names of various other goddesses.”

Göbekli Tepe, the power of life, the will to live.

September 22, 2021

There were a number of ideas and proposals regarding the role and purpose of the Gobekli Tepe cult complex and the significance of the T-pillars. I also searched trying to understand the meaning of the T-shaped pillars, sinthesysed as follows: – the pillars have the shape of Tau-cross or capital letter T. – the sign T had in the Sumerian (proto-cuneiform) writing, a complex meaning, summarized in the word Me: “divine powers”. – Russian schollar V. Yemelianov showed that the etymology of the word Me leads to the end meaning of “will to live” – ​​My conclusion was that the T-shaped pillars, (and maybe even the small stone statuettes), mean “power, spirit, essence of life” . The stone pillars were the house where the spirit of life lived. Proof that there is a real chance that my hypothesis will be confirmed is found in the old religion of the Maori people in New Zealand. From https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3960?fbclid=IwAR3II_gTZJcv7N9pccLW_IsTi5oI2pfRAQEXMTlQIw6q-y2yE6RmwnDumDg << Mauri 1. (noun) principle of life, life force, vital essence, special nature, material symbol of a principle of life, source of emotions – the quality and essential vitality of a being or entity. It is also used for a physical object, individual, ecosystem or social group in which this essence is located. >> From a previous post of mine: Regarding the T-shaped pillars, “anthropomorphic” is perhaps a little too much for the name. Because the T-pillars did not represent a deity or a man. The people of Gobekli Tepe were animists. In general, temples are houses of the gods. The shape of the pillars is abstract, because it is a house, temple and not the divinity itself. At the same time it is temple and spirit, idol. A stone idol that is inhabited by a spirit, so largely “alive”. tartariatablets.com From https://books.google.ro › booksMythical Stone “It is not the stones per se that are worshipped in these cases, but the spirits inhabiting them.”

From Mauri, mana and nature as an ancestor – Sustainable … https: //sustainable.org.nz ›SBN News << Mana refers to an extraordinary power, essence, presence and charisma. It is an ever-present energy and applies to humans, the cosmos and the natural world. When this supernatural force is allowed to flow, all life is improved and invigorated. However, without the Mauri/ life force, the hand cannot flow into a person or object. Mauri is the energy of life that connects and animates all things in the physical world. Without Mauri or the essence of life, the hand cannot flow into a person or object. The actions we take can improve or diminish the Mauri in the same way that caring for our health improves and neglects our health, degrades it. >> From https://teara.govt.nz/en/speech/14063/mauri-stone << Te Ara Mauri stone – Te ngahere – forest lore – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand This Moorish stone was found on Moutohorā (Whale Island) in the Gulf of Plenty. Māori believed that the principle of life or the mauri of a forest, tree or waterway could be concentrated in a stone or other object of protection. >>

Mauri stone – Te ngahere – forest lore – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

From https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/11584/mauri-stone << This Moorish stone depicts Horoirangi, a female ancestor from the Rotorua area. It was believed that such stones kept the Mauri (life force) in the areas that provided food. Horoirangi was dug into a rock to preserve the fertility of her people’s lands. The stone was later removed from the rock so that it would not be stolen. >>

Mauri stone – Kaitiakitanga – guardianship and conservation – Te Ara  Encyclopedia of New Zealand

From https://www.alamy.com/a-stone-mauri-probably-placed-by-growing-sweet-potatoes-or-groups-image60274788.html << A stone Mauri, probably placed by cultivating sweet potatoes or groups of trees in the forest, to maintain the life force of the plants >>

A stone mauri, probably placed by growing sweet-potatoes, or groups of  forest trees, to hold the life-force of the plants Stock Photo - Alamy

From Gobekli Tepe: http://thehiddenrecords.com/gobekli-tepe-taurus-bull

Wayne Herschel - Author - The Hidden Records - discovered 35 ancient star  map cases around the world showing human origins from one of three sun  stars near the Pleiades

… see same position of the hands on belly.. From Quora Is Gobekli Tepe older than Jericho? – Quora

Is Gobekli Tepe older than Jericho? - Quora

From Ancient OriginsGöbekli Tepe Shamans and their Cosmic Symbols – Part I | Ancient Origins

Göbekli Tepe Shamans and their Cosmic Symbols – Part I | Ancient Origins
Mauri (Stone Talisman)
Mauri Stones – Lux Deluxe

At Gobekli Tepe :

First Pictorial Representation of Gobekli Tepe Found | Ancient Origins |  Ancient aliens, Ancient civilizations, Ancient humans
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/8e/78/288e78d6a8b80c437b204660c36be338.jpg http://www.andrewcollins.com/pics/7.%20stone%20ring%20GT.jpg

From Gobekli Tepe Pillar 43 – Vulture Stone


From https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/losing-your-head-at-gobekli-tepe/

Losing your head at Göbekli Tepe | The Tepe Telegrams

Göbekli Tepe, puterea vietii, vointa de a trai.

September 21, 2021

Au existat o serie de idei si propuneri privind rolul si scopul complexului cultic de la Gobekli Tepe si a semnificatiei pilonilor T. Am cercetat si eu incercand sa deslusesc semnificatia stalpilor in forma de T. Am facut o serie de observatii si cercetari rezumate in pasii dupa cum urmeaza: – pilonii au forma crucii Tau sau literei T . – semnul T a avut in scrierea sumeriana, o semnificatie complexa, rezumata la Me: “puterile divine“. – Cercetatorul rus V.Yemelianov a aratat ca etimologia cuvantului Me conduce la intelesul “vointa de a trai” – Concluzia mea a fost ca pilonii in forma de T , dar poate si micile statuete de piatra, semnifica “puterea, spiritul, esenta vietii“. Pilonii de piatra au fost casa in care salasluia spiritul vietii. Dovada ca sunt sanse reale ca ipoteza mea sa se confirme se gaseste in vechea religie a poporului maori din Noua Zeelanda. Din https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3960?fbclid=IwAR3II_gTZJcv7N9pccLW_IsTi5oI2pfRAQEXMTlQIw6q-y2yE6RmwnDumDg << mauri 1.  (substantiv) principiu de viață, forță de viață, esență vitală, natură specială, simbol material al unui principiu de viață, sursă de emoții – calitatea și vitalitatea esențială a unei ființe sau entități. De asemenea, este utilizat pentru un obiect fizic, individual, ecosistem sau grup social în care se află această esență.>> Dintr-o postare de-a mea anterioara: În ceea ce privește stâlpii în formă de T, „antropomorf” este poate puțin prea mult pentru denumire. Deoarece stâlpii în T nu reprezentau o divinitate sau un om. Oamenii Gobekli Tepe-ului erau animiști. in general, templele sunt case ale zeilor. Forma pilonilor este abstractă, deoarece este un templu și nu divinitatea în sine. În același timp templu și spirit, idol. Un idol de piatră care este locuit de un spirit, deci în mare măsură viu . tartariatablets.com Din https://books.google.ro › booksMythical Stone “Nu pietrele per se sunt venerate in aceste cazuri, ci spiritele pe care le salasluiesc. “

Din Mauri, mana and nature as an ancestor – Sustainable …https://sustainable.org.nz › SBN News <<Mana se referă la o putere, esență, prezență și carismă extraordinare. Este o energie mereu prezentă și se aplică oamenilor, cosmosului și lumii naturale. Când această forță supranaturală este lăsată să curgă, toată viața este îmbunătățită și revigorată. Cu toate acestea, fără mauri / forța vieții, mana nu poate curge într-o persoană sau obiect. Mauri este energia vieții care leagă și animă toate lucrurile din lumea fizică. Fără mauri sau esența vieții, mana nu poate curge într-o persoană sau obiect. Acțiunile pe care le întreprindem pot îmbunătăți sau diminua mauri în același mod în care grija pentru sănătatea noastră o îmbunătățește și ne neglijează sănătatea, o degradează.>>

Din https://teara.govt.nz/en/speech/14063/mauri-stone << Te AraMauri stone – Te ngahere – forest lore – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand Această piatră mauri a fost găsită pe Moutohorā (Insula Balenelor) în Golful Plenty. Māori credeau că principiul vieții sau mauriul unei păduri, copaci sau căi navigabile ar putea fi concentrat într-o piatră sau alt obiect de protecție.>>

Mauri stone – Te ngahere – forest lore – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand


Din https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/11584/mauri-stone << Această piatră de mauri îl înfățișează pe Horoirangi, un strămoș feminin din zona Rotorua. Se credea că astfel de pietre mențin mauri (forța vieții) în zonele care furnizau hrană. Horoirangi a fost săpată într-o stâncă pentru a păstra fertilitatea ținuturilor poporului ei. Mai târziu piatra a fost scoasă de pe stâncă, astfel încât să nu fie furată. >>

Mauri stone – Kaitiakitanga – guardianship and conservation – Te Ara  Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Din https://www.alamy.com/a-stone-mauri-probably-placed-by-growing-sweet-potatoes-or-groups-image60274788.html << Un mauri de piatră, probabil plasat prin cultivarea de cartofi dulci sau grupuri de copaci din pădure, pentru a menține forța vieții plantelor>>

A stone mauri, probably placed by growing sweet-potatoes, or groups of  forest trees, to hold the life-force of the plants Stock Photo - Alamy

—————– De la Gobekli Tepe: Din http://thehiddenrecords.com/gobekli-tepe-taurus-bull

See the same hands position on belly as on mauri stone. Din Quora Is Gobekli Tepe older than Jericho? – Quora

Wayne Herschel - Author - The Hidden Records - discovered 35 ancient star  map cases around the world showing human origins from one of three sun  stars near the Pleiades
Is Gobekli Tepe older than Jericho? - Quora

Din Ancient OriginsGöbekli Tepe Shamans and their Cosmic Symbols – Part I | Ancient Origins

Göbekli Tepe Shamans and their Cosmic Symbols – Part I | Ancient Origins

Mauri (Stone Talisman)
Mauri Stones – Lux Deluxe

—— Gobekli Tepe:

First Pictorial Representation of Gobekli Tepe Found | Ancient Origins |  Ancient aliens, Ancient civilizations, Ancient humans
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/8e/78/288e78d6a8b80c437b204660c36be338.jpg http://www.andrewcollins.com/pics/7.%20stone%20ring%20GT.jpg

Din Gobekli Tepe Pillar 43 – Vulture Stone


Din https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/losing-your-head-at-gobekli-tepe/

Losing your head at Göbekli Tepe | The Tepe Telegrams

Revederea vârstei și autenticității tabletelor Tartaria.

September 16, 2021

Chiar eram pe punctul de a scrie un articol cu intentia de a demonstra ca autenticitatea tabletelor de la Tartaria nu se susține, având mai mult de 50 de argumente pentru aceasta, contra numai 10 împotrivă. Dar recitind articolul profesorului iesean Attila Laslo: “Cui bono? Gândul pentru reconsiderarea tabletelor de la Tartaria” în care acesta răspunde acuzațiilor asiriologului Erika Qasim cu privire la arheologi și tabletele în sine.   Qasim, Erika: Die Tărtăria-Täfelchen – eine Neubewertung. In: Das Altertum, ISSN 0002-6646, vol.58, 4 (2013),p. 307–318 Vedeti: ACADEMIE ROUMAINE INSTITUT D’ARCHEOLOGIE « V. PARVAN » DACIA REVUE D’ARCHEOLOGIE ET D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE NOUVELLE SÉRIE LX 2016 Cui bono? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro › …PDF Rezultate de pe web of the Tărtăria tablets – Dacia

Pasajele (dintre cele referitoare la semne) care m-au convins: << În opinia ei (Masson, E. 1984 L ‘écriture dans les civilisations danubiennes néolithiques. Kadmos 23, 2, 89-123. Berlin & New York.), <<…chiar dacă locația, data și condițiile descoperirii tabletelor rămâne nesigura până la clarificări suplimentare, examinarea atentă a tabletelor, existența urmelor de uzura pe suprafața lor, de exemplu, atestă faptul că nu erau falsuri: „… Pe tabletele 1 și 2, observăm semne speciale de uzură, părți ale semnelor puțin decolorate sau frecvente fisuri în jurul gravurilor. Astfel de fenomene mărturisesc vechimea; dacă ar fi falsuri, fabricarea lor ar fi atribuită unui mare expert în domeniu, în același timp o înțelegere fină a scrierilor arhaice pe care România nu le are la cunoștința mea ”53. Un alt fapt poate fi adăugat la aceste observații: în cazul unui fals, falsificatorul s-ar fi străduit să producă un obiect cât mai fidel posibil modelului mesopotamian pe care dorea să-l imite, ar fi avut grijă să aleagă materie primă de calitate, și să respecte formatul tabletelor (care nu ar fi trebuit perforate și arse), să aplice tehnicile de scriere corespunzătoare (prin impresie) și să reproducă unele dintre cele mai caracteristice semne. De asemenea, el ar fi avut grijă să asigure documentația de excavare adecvată pentru a preveni suspiciuni ulterioare cu privire la circumstanțele descoperirii.
Dincolo de aceste argumente logice, observațiile de fapt care atestă autenticitatea (caracterul antic) al
tabletelor, dintre care unele au fost deja menționate mai sus, sunt decisive. De asemenea, trebuie remarcat faptul că existența unei acoperiri calcaroase pe suprafața tabletelor, care a trebuit îndepărtată pentru a face vizibile semnele, a fost o dovadă reală a faptului că obiectele au rămas sub pământ o suficienta de lunga perioada, de timp pentru a putea forma acumularea de calcar. ….. Până la efectuarea unor astfel de analize, observația rezultată din investigațiile microscopice recente pe suprafața tabletelor, conform căreia, în conturul canelat al unora dintre semnele de pe tablete, s-au găsit urme de sol, rămâne decisiv: „Examinarea atentă a tabletelor indică rămășițe de
sol în conturul mai multor semne
[…] Solul amestecat cu roci și minerale poate proveni doar din groapa ritualică. Acesta este un alt element faptic în favoarea afirmației privind autenticitatea artefactelor inscripționate. Prezența solului încapsulat exclude acuzațiile că sunt un fals modern neidentificat de N. Vlassa sau doar un „joc” al descoperitorului ” (sublinierea mea, A. L.). >> eugenrau: A. Laszlo a fost prezent la săpături chiar în ziua în care au fost găsite tablete, dar ciudat, total inexplicabil, nu le-a văzut (!?). Argumentele sale din articolul Qui bono? ….. mi-au schimbat din nou părerea și m-au convins că tabletele nu sunt contrafăcute. (M-am răzgândit înainte, alternativ de mai multe ori, pana a fi convins ca tablitele sunt autentice și nu contrafăcute.) Ca sa fiu sincer, articolul său ar putea fi în principal o reacție reflexă de aparare. Pentru apărarea și susținerea întregii activități a arheologilor participanti atunci la sapaturile sitului Tartaria-Lunca, lucrări care au fost criticate fără milă și au fost avansate grave acuzații.Tabletele nu sunt contrafăcute, dar în același timp nu sunt sumeriene originale, foarte vechi. Tabletele sunt reale, au fost inscriptionate de cineva și în această perspectivă sunt „autentice”. De obicei, un scrib folosea de obicei semnele folosite uzual în timpul și zona sa, ceea ce cu siguranță nu este cazul aici. Dar vă voi arăta dovezile că tablitele nu sunt mai vechi de 2.000 î.e.n. ! Un scrib nu poate nici cunoaște și nici utiliza la un moment dat semne care au fost inventate sute de ani mai târziu. ! … Cum este cazul aici, unde pe tableta rotundă, întregul rând superior conține semne surprinzator de noi : pe partea stângă, un tip de H (o scară cu 3 trepte) și în dreapta, unele D-uri și O-uri. ————- Semne cu exact această formă nu exista printre semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene. Sumerienii foloseau semnul proto-cuneiform Ku care are o formă „încasetata”. Din From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-13.png

Semnul următor este GAR, adică ninda = “rație, pâine”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-14.png

———- Deci, dacă consideram ca avem de-a face cu tablete de factura sumeriana, aceste semne nu ar trebui să fie prezente pe tablete. Rețineți faptul că pe tablita, „H” are o formă „deschisă” și bare verticale decalate, iar D este litera noastră /latina de tipar D.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png

Prima oara acest semn “H” apare exact în aceeași formă în scrierile hieroglifica Cretana și Lineare A si B (2.000 î.Hr. ca semn Pa3) și mai târziu în vechea scriere canaanita/ feniciana, ca semn Cheth / Heth (1.500 î.Hr.).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-1.png
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png
Above, Linear A sign PA3
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-11.png

Privitor la semne cu forma D, cel mai vechi semn cu forma asemanatoare este:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-4.png
Comparați semnul cuneiform ninda, o logogramă care reprezintă cuvântul sumerian pentru „mâncare” sau „pâine”. Prima imagine este de ninda într-o tabletă din Ur ~ 3000 î.Hr., în timp ce celelalte sunt de ninda într-un fragment al unui text medical din Ninive ~ 650 î.Hr. Mare diferență. https://mobile.twitter.com/Moudhy/status/1160935592420663296/photo/2

Unii cercetători au spus că „scribul” a imitat semnele sumeriene pentru numere (A.Falkenstein: D = 1 și o = 10), iar alții au spus că semnele D imita reprezentarea rațiilor, pâinilor sau ca secventa DDoc reprezinta fazele lunii (M.Merlini).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-2.png
Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.
See https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/D-d/273894
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png

Oricum, scribul cunostea bine semnele care se foloseau deja în jurul său, nu trebuia să inventeze niciunul dintre aceste semne asa, instantaneu „pe loc”. Semnul D a fost folosit pentru litere (D si R) mai târziu în greacă arhaică (850 î.e.n.) și puțin mai târziu in alfabetele Anatoliene. Din Chapter 8 Europe-II – The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 << Vechile alfabete anatoliene Lycian, Carian și Lydian datează toate din primul mileniu î.e.n. și au fost folosite pentru a scrie diferite limbi indo-europene antice din vestul și sud-vestul Anatoliei >> ———– Deci, semnele de pe tablete nu trebuie să aibă o origine obligatoriu sumeriană și nici scribul să fie un sumerian nativ. Pentru ca altfel, multe din semnele de pe tablete pot fi găsite în toate scrierile Egeene și în scrierile Anatoliene. Deci, locul și timpul originii ar putea fi mai degrabă zona Egee (Creta? 2.000 -500 î.e.n.) sau Anatolia. (200 î.e.n.-500 d.Hr.)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-5.png

AVEM MULTE SEMNE PE TABLETE DIN ALFABETELE ARHAICE GRECEȘTI ȘI ANATOLIENE, INCLUSIV FOARTE PROBLEMATICE, AMBELE SEMNE H si D ! Mă întreb dacă unele pictograme și ideograme (de origine sumeriană) ar fi putut fi transmise de-alungul timpurilor, chiar cu semnificații pierdute dar poate utilizate în ritualuri?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-12.png
http://www.visitalbaiulia.city/worlds-oldest-writing-system IMG_1895low.jpg

———— Dacă nu luam semnele „H” și D-s ca fiind arhaice Grecești sau Anatoliene, ci ca semne ce le imita pe cele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, atunci întregul conținut al tabletelor pare pe de-antregul sumerian. De aceea savanții A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman și R.Kolev le-au interpretat ca si cum ar fi sumeriene. Primii doi, au realizat de la bun inceput că scribul este ezitant, iar semnele nu sunt sumeriene propriu-zis, ci ca-si-sumeriene. Chiar și titlul uneia din lucrări expliciteaza acest aspect: http://www.archeo.ru ›izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. Cu această înțelegere au interpretat tabletele ca fiind sumeriene. A. Falkenstein a remarcat faptul că unele semne nu sunt exact precum cele proto-cuneiforme, ci doar imitat-sumeriene, asemănător-sumeriene. Semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene au fost utilizate pentru o perioadă de timp relativ scurtă (3.500-3.000 î.Hr.), apoi de la 3.000 î.Hr. până în 1935 niciun ochi uman nu le-a văzut. Pentru că au stat ascunse privirii, îngropate la câțiva metri sub pământ (sub templu Eanna, Uruk). Astfel, difuzarea acestor semne a fost cumva limitată. Vedeti expansiunea culturii Uruk: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Expansion-territorial-de-la-cultura-de-Uruk-aubet-2007_fig2_269696365 Pe harta se vede ca cultura Uruk, descoperitoarea scrisului, nu s-a extins pana in interiorul Anatoliei ori ariei Egeene. ——- Scribul cu siguranță nu era sumerian, mai degrabă negustor din Marea Egee sau Anatolia, (…sau poate cineva dintr-un loc foarte apropiat ?). Falkenstein si Vaiman dar si eu, toti am constatat ca interpretarea semnelor nu conduce la un mesaj consistent; unele semnificații sunt unice, semnificatia reieșind din semnele în sine. – Nu am nicio explicație pentru intenția scribului de a arăta semne asemănătoare celor sumeriene. Sau: – Nu voi înțelege niciodată motivația, ce l-a determinat, ambitia scribului de a arăta cuiva cum a evoluat scrisul de-a lungul timpului sau să arate câte semne sumeriene știe. ——– Am căutat în amanunt, suspectand o multime de persoane, continuand să cercetez în detaliu, și după ce le-am tot cantarit, am ajuns în cele din urmă la aceeași concluzie cu Emilia Masson: „Dacă ar fi fost falsuri, fabricarea lor ar fi fost atribuită unui mare expert în domeniu. , în același timp, un bun cunoscător al scrierilor arhaice pe care, după știința mea, România nu ii are „ eugenrau: … Dacă am cauta cai verzi pe pereti, atunci desigur, putem vedea inclusiv fazele lunii, dar un epigrafist trebuie să respecte niste principii si reguli și să caute semne apartinand unor sisteme de scriere. Așa cum au si făcut în mod firesc savantii Adam Falkenstein și Aizik Abramovich Vaiman.


September 14, 2021

To see how powerful and extended is demic and cultural difussion, I bring it to your attention the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign “ladder with 3 rungs”, Ku: “shine of metals, sacred,silver, precious metal, noble..”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-6.png

wich was probably at the origin of other signs: minoan/linear B sign for bronze

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png

 From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/&nbsp;                      *140 [] AES bronze/copper ,and chinese signs for sun/moon:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-9.png

Note: Our “ladder” sign on Tartaria round tablet has exact PA3/ cheth shape and not sumerian proto-cuneiform sign Ku shape.Using that sign, the scribe disclosed (intentionally or not) that not used sumerian 3.000B.C. sign(s).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png

https://eastasiastudent.net › japan › j…Japan in Japanese: Nihon · にほん · 日本 | East Asia StudentSo that’s how you write the ni from Nihon in hiragana. … This character

literally means ‘sun’.

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/03/20 Guarded by beasts: a porthole stone from Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe. A monumental porthole stone from the northwestern hilltop areas (Photo O. Dietrich).

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Review the age and authenticity of Tartaria tablets.

September 13, 2021

I was about to write an article in order to finaly prove that the authenticity of the Tartaria tablets is not supported, having more than 50 arguments to sustain this, with some 10 against. But I re-read Attila Laslos article: “Cui bono?Thought about reconsideration of Tartaria tablets” in wich he responded to assyoriologist Erika Qasim accusations regarding the archaeologists and tablets itself.   Qasim, Erika: Die Tărtăria-Täfelchen – eine Neubewertung. In: Das Altertum, ISSN 0002-6646, vol.58, 4 (2013),p. 307–318


The passages (out of those regarding the signs) wich convinced me: << In her opinion (Masson, E. 1984 L’ écriture dans les civilisations danubiennes néolithiques. Kadmos 23, 2, 89-123. Berlin & New York. ), <<……even though the location, date and conditions of the discovery of the tablets remain uncertain until further clarifications, the careful examination of the tablets, the existence of the wear traces on their surface, for example, attest to the fact that they were not fakes: “…on observe notamment sur les tablettes 1 et 2 des traces d’usure, des parties de signes un peu effaces ou des fissures fréquentes autour des gravures. De tels fénomènes témoignent en faveur de l’ancienneté ; s’il s’agissait de faux, leur fabrication serait à attributer à un grand expert dans la matière, en même temps fin conaisseur des écritures archaïques qu’à ma conaissance la Roumanie ne possède pas”53. Another fact can be added to these observations: in the case of a fake, the forger would have striven to produce an object as faithfully similar as possible to the Mesopotamian model which he wanted to imitate, would have taken care to choose quality raw material, and to respect the format of the tablets (which should not have been perforated and fired), to apply the corresponding writing techniques (by impression), and to reproduce some of the most characteristic signs. He would also have taken care to ensure the proper excavation documentation in order to prevent later suspicions regarding the circumstances of the discovery.
Beyond these logical arguments, the factual observations attesting to the authenticity (ancient character) of
the tablets, some of which have already been mentioned above, are decisive. It should also be noted that the existence of a calcareous coating on the surface of the tablets, which had to be removed in order to make the signs visible, was an actual proof of the fact that the objects had lain underground for a sufficiently long
period of time to be able to form the lime accumulation.
….. Until such analyses are carried out, the observation resulting from the recent microscopic investigations
on the surface of the tablets, according to which, in the grooved outline of some of the signs on the tablets, traces of soil have been found, remains decisive: “The close examination of the tablets indicates remains of
soil inside the contour of several signs […] The humus mixed with rocks and minerals can only come from the ritual pit‐grave. This is another factual element in favour of the statement concerning the authenticity of the inscribed artefacts. The presence of the encapsulated soil excludes the accusations that they are a modern fake not identified by N. Vlassa, or just a “game” of the discoverer”56 (my underlining, A. L.). >>

A. Laszlo was present at the diggins in the very day in wich tablets were found, but weird, totally unexplained, he did not saw them (!?). His arguments in the article Qui bono?….. turned my opinion again and convinced me that the tablets are not counterfaits. (I changed my mind before many times beeing convinced alternate that are genuine and counterfaits.)To be sincere his article could be mainly an reflex or defensive reaction. To defence and sustain the entire work of archaeologists then in charge at Tartaria site, work wich was criticised without mercy, and were advanced accusations. ————- The tablets are not counterfaits but in the same time not authentic ‘original, very old sumerian.The tablets are real indeed, were inscribed by somebody and in this perspective are “genuine”. Usually an scribe usually used the signs available in his time and area, wich definitely is not the case here.Tablets contain signs used in a large time span and extended area. More than that, there are pure pictographic signs on a tablet, ideograms on another (rectangular drilled) and syllabograms/letters (on that round one).But I will show you the evidence of not beeing older than 2.000 B.C. ! A scribe cannot know and use at a given moment signs wich were invented hundreds years later. ! … Wich is the case here, where on round tablet, entire upper row contain unexpected new signs: on the left side, an H-like (a ladder with 3 rungs) and at the right, some D-s and O-s. These signs with exact this shape not existed in proto-cuneiform by sumerians. ———– Sumerians used the proto-cuneiform Ku sign wich has a “boxed” shape. From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html


Folowing sign is GAR, meaning ninda = “ration/bread” See https://books.google.ro › booksTranslation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual …Jay Crisostomo — 2019 · Religion The sign gar, for example, iconically depicted a ration bowl in its original use in the late fourth millennium but …


————- So if we are expecting sumerian-like tablets those signs should not be present on tablets. Keep pleas in mind that “H” has an “open” shape and offset/slanted vertical bars and D is our/latin capital D.


First time this sign apperead in exact same shape for the first time in Cretan hieroglyphics and Linear A (2.000 B.C. as sign Pa3) and later in old canaanite/phoenician, as sign Cheth/Heth (1.500B.C.).

Above, Linear A sign PA3

Above, alphabet_chart_hhet_2.jpg

Regarding D-shaped signs, oldest similar signs (sumerian) are:

Compare the cuneiform sign ninda , a logogram which represents the Sumerian word for “food” or “bread”. The first image is of ninda in a tablet from Ur ~3000 BCE, while the others are of ninda in a fragment of a medical text from Nineveh ~650 BCE. Big difference. https://mobile.twitter.com/Moudhy/status/1160935592420663296/photo/2

Some scholars said that the “scribe” imitated sumerian signs for numbers (A.Falkenstein: D=1 and o=10) and others said that D’s imitated rations,breads or DDoc are the Moon phases (M.Merlini).

Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.
See https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/D-d/273894

Anyway, the scribe knew well that signs, wich allready existed around him, he did not need to invent any of these signs instantly “on the spot“. D sign was used for letters later in archaic Greek (850 B.C.) and a little later Anatolian alphabets.The ladder sign also, for heta/eta by greeks and for e by Anatolians. From Chapter 8 Europe-II – The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 <<The ancient Anatolian alphabets Lycian, Carian, and Lydian all date from the first millennium bce, and were used to write various ancient Indo-European languages of western and southwestern Anatolia>> ————- So the signs on tablets not must have necessary a sumerian origin, nor the scribe to be a native sumerian. Otherwise many signs on tablets could be found in all Aegean writings and in Anatolian writing.So the place and time of origin could be rather Aegean area (Crete? 2.000 -500 B.C) or Anatolia.(200 B.C-500 A.D.)


FROM ARCHAIC GREEK AND ANATOLIAN ALPHABETS WE HAVE MANY SIGNS ON THE TABLETS AND BOTH VERY PROBLEMATIC H & D SIGNS ! I am asking myself if some pictograms and ideograms (of sumerian origin) could be transmited through ages with lost meanings and used in rituals ?

http://www.visitalbaiulia.city/worlds-oldest-writing-system IMG_1895low.jpg

————- If one not take “H” and D-s signs as beeing archaic Greek or Anatolian but imitating sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, then entire tablet’s content appear sumerian-like.That’s why scholars A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and R.Kolev. First twoo, realised instantly that the writing was not proper sumerian, but sumerian-like. Even the title of a paper explicitated this : http://www.archeo.ru › izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. With this understanding they interpreted tablets as beeing sumerian. A.Falkenstein noted that some signs are not exact like those proto-cuneiform but alike, imitated sumerian, sumerian-like. The proto-cuneiform signs were used for a relatively short period of time (3,500-3,000 BC), then from 3,000 BC until 1935 no human eye saw them. Because they were buried (a few meters underground under Eanna temple, Uruk). Thus, the diffusion of these signs was somehow limited. See Uruk culture expansion: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Expansion-territorial-de-la-cultura-de-Uruk-aubet-2007_fig2_269696365 ———– Please see, Uruk culture expansion not reached inner Anatolia or Aegean.The scribe definitely was not sumerian, rather Aegean or Anatolian trader, or even from a much close place. Probably signs interpretation is not conducting to a consistent message; some meanings are single, emerging from the signs itself. – I have no explanation for the scribe intention to show sumerian-like signs. Or: – I will never understand the motivation of the scribe in his ambition to show somebody how writing evolved throughout time, or show (us) how many Sumerian signs he knows. ——– I searched throughly, kept researching in detail and after deep thought, I finally came to the same conclusion as Emilia Masson: “If it was fake, their manufacture would be attributed to a great expert in the field, at the same time a fine connoisseur of archaic writings which to my knowledge Romania does not have ” eugenrau: …If chasing our tails/rainbows of course we can see moon phases, but an epigraphist must follow rules and search for signs of writing. As naturally Adam Falkenstein and Aizik Abramovich Vaiman exactly did.

A.I. + an possible new God ?

September 2, 2021

Recently (in 2021) Elon Musk, on the occasion of announcing the future production of BOT robots, reiterated some of the future implications of artificial intelligence on humanity. In this regard, I have some comments to make.

AI, a possible new divinity/ God ?

He referred to this aspect made statements mainly only related to the future major impact of A.I. on humanity. Thus, he states that no consequences are to be expected in the near future, and the effects will be both positive and negative. It is important that after overcoming the singularity point (level IA = that of human intelligence) it is expected that humanity will enter a period of oscillations, uncertainty and even instability. I also want to refer to that enormous force and impact. As defined:

From  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity Divinity as a quality has two distinct usages:

1. The divine force or power - powers or forces universal or that exceed human capacities
2. The divinity applied to mortals - qualities of individuals who are considered to have a certain access or special relationship with the divine.
AI, is and will be perceived by humans as a force that exceeds human capabilities, and in this acceptance can be an attribute of divinity. There is a tendency that a decision made by a computer (as opposed to that of a human being) should not be subject to doubt or discussion. Then, even if the capabilities were equal, that of AI is overestimated and considered superior. Not to mention that in the future, AI capabilities will far exceed human capabilities.

It is easy to understand, with these definitions and explanations that AI can easily be deified and become a kind of deity.AI, is and will be perceived by humans as a force that exceeds human capabilities, and in this acceptance can be an attribute of divinity. There is a tendency that a decision made by a computer (as opposed to that of a human being) should not be subject to doubt or discussion. Then, even if the capabilities were equal, that of AI is overestimated and considered superior. Not to mention that in the future, AI capabilities will far exceed human capabilities.

RETURNING to some attributes of some primitive societies?

The oldest form of religious manifestation is animism. It also implies the existence of personalities, so kind of "non-human people". That is, entities that are not alive to be perceived as having a soul, a spirit. Be it the mountain, the storm or even the computer. They are perceived as animated by their own spirit. Thus the computer can be perceived extremely easily as an entity with its own spirit, all the more it has thoughts and can make its own decisions. We are not as far away as I will show you. Such as speech comprehension, thinking, and feelings. In fact, some go so far as to perceive their cat or dog as a kind of family member. be perceived as a personality other than human?

Humanoid robots.

Really why humanoids? In modern society we have more and more obese people and the average physical effort is less and less. Thus we can think that due to this aspect there is a tendency of the species to degenerate. Let's make robots like humans, why? The consistent part of human effort today is intellectual in nature, and software companies use AI to eliminate repetitive, automated phases.(E.g. romanian success company UIPath). Otherwise, the so-called physical effort is limited to moving some parts and tools and pressing some buttons. I see these robots as the presence on Earth (after the disappearance of humans) of the old hunter-gatherers of 12,000 years ago. Apart from the humanoid form (I don't see why, should they be familiar to us as relatives?) The eventual human facial conformation will only have the effect of inducing a feeling of strangeness, and even the alienation of people. could have. In the sense that robots are perceived as beings with supernatural abilities, superhumans. Thus they will be able to be idolized, so to become a kind of idol.

What are the bigger chances of extinction of the species: Artificial intelligence or human stupidity?

I know, after overcoming the point of singularity, man can no longer limit or control the level or quality of IA. But as someone rhetorically asks, what will be harder to fight in the future, with the super-intelligence of robots or the classic human stupidity ? Hard to say, I don't have the slightest idea how to make assumptions. That way I can't answer the title question. In fact, it doesn't even matter what we assumed before if one of the variants happens.

Where are we already in the future?

Maybe I will disappoint you a little, in the erotic field. Especially for sex dolls. There are already about 10 companies that produce ultra-realistic reproductions of the human body, equipped with AI capabilities. They can have facial expressions, watch, smile, talk, etc. The culmination is that I found the story of a case in which the husband bought one, has sex with her 3x a week. But also with the wife alternately. The culmination is that the wife knows and agrees with the situation. The problem is actually extreme. Someone might rightly say that reproduction lacks only the soul to be complete if not assimilated, then confused with a human being. But that depends exclusively on the real existence of the soul. And do not feel offended, but it depends on how alienated some of us might be.

A.I. – un posibil nou Dumnezeu ?

September 2, 2021


Recent (in 2021) Elon Musk, cu ocazia anuntarii productiei viitoare a robotilor BOT, a reiterat o parte din implicatiile viitoare ale inteligentei artificiale asupra omenirii. In legatura cu asta, am de facut niste comentarii.

A.I.-o viitoare divinitate/zeitate ?

Dansul a facut referire la acest aspect si in principal a facut doar afirmatii legate de impactul major viitor al A.I. asupra omenirii. Astfel afirma ca nu sunt de asteptat consecinte in viitorul apropiat, iar efectele vor fi atat pozitive cat si negative. Important este ca dupa depasirea punctului de singularitate (nivelul IA=cel al inteligentei umane) este de asteptat ca omenirea sa intre intr-o perioada de oscilatii, incertitudine chiar instabilitate. Eu vreau sa fac referire tot la acea forta si impact enorm. Conform definitiei:Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity Divinitatea ca si calitate are doua intrebuintari distincte:

  • 1.Forța sau puterea divină – puteri sau forțe universale sau care depășesc capacitățile umane
  • 2.Divinitatea aplicată muritorilor – calități ale indivizilor despre care se consideră că au un anumit acces sau relație specială cu divinul.

IA, este si va fi perceputa de oameni ca o forta care depaseste capacitatile umane, si in aceasta acceptie poate fi un atribut al divinitatii. Exista tendinta ca o decizie luata de un computer (spre deosebire de aceea a unui om) sa nu fie supusa indoielii si nici discutiei. Apoi chiar daca capacitatile ar fi egale, aceea a IA este supraestimata si considerata superioara.Aceasta se intampla pentru ca oamenii considera ca judecata computerului este neutra !Nemaivorbind ca in viitor, capacitatile IA le vor depasi enorm de mult pe cele umane.

Este usor de inteles, cu aceste definitii si explicatii ca IA poate fi usor divinizata si robotul deveni un gen de divinitate.

Revenirea la unele atribute ale unor societati primitive ?

Cea mai veche forma de manifestare religioasa este animismul. Acesta presupune inafara de oameni si animale si existenta inca a altor personalitati, deci gen de “persoane neumane”. Adica entitati care nu sunt vii sa fie percepute ca avand suflet, spirit. Fie cestea munte, furtuna sau chiar calculator. Ele sunt percepute ca fiind animate de un spirit propriu. Astfel computerul poate fi perceput extrem de usor ca o entitate cu un spirit propriu cu atat mai mult cu cat gandeste si poate lua propriile decizii.Nici acum nu suntem tocmai departe dupa cum va voi arata.Unii dintre ubitorii de animale de companie atribuie animalelor lor calitati umane.Cum ar fi intelegerea vorbirii, gandire si sentimente.De fapt unii merg atat de departe incat isi percep pisica sau caiinele ca un fel de membru de familie.Atunci ce sa ne miram ca un computer care “gandeste” si ia decizii autonom nu ar fi perceput ca o personalitate, alta decat omeneasca ?

Roboti umanoizi.

Chiar de ce umanoizi ? In societatea moderna avem tot mai multi obezi iar efortul fizic mediu este din ce in ce mai mic. Astfel ne putem gandi ca datorita acestui aspect exista o tendinta de degenerescents a speciei. Sa facem roboti asemanatori oamenilor, de ce? Partea consistenta a efortului omenesc este astazi de natura intelectuala, iar firmele de soft folosesc IA pentru a elimina fazele cu caracter de automatism, repetitive. (Vezi firma romaneasca de succes UIPath).Altfel asa-zisul efort fizic se rezuma la deplasarea unor piese si unelte si apasarea unor butoane. Eu vad acesti roboti (o gluma amaruie..)ca fiind prezenta pe Pamant (dupa disparitia oamenilor) a vechilor culegatori-vanatori de acum 12.000 de ani. In afara formei umanoide (nu vad de ce, sa ne fie familiari ca si un fel de rude ?) eventuala conformatie faciala umana nu va avea ca efect decat inducere unei puternice senzatii de stranietate, si chiar alienarea oamenilor.Daca alineatele precedente au avut tangenta cu religia si acesta ar putea avea.In sensul ca robotii sa fie perceputi ca fiinte cu capacitati supranaturale, superoameni. Astfel vor putea fi idolatrizati, deci sa devina un gen de idoli.

Ce sanse sunt mai mari sa ne duca extinctia speciei: Inteligenta artificiala sau prostia umana ?

Stiu, dupa depasire punctului de singularitate, omul nu mai poate nici limita si nici controla nivelul sau calitatea IA.Cineva intreba odata retoric: “cu ce va fi mai greu sa te lupti in viitor, cu super- inteligenta robotilor sau cu clasica prostie omeneasca?”Greu de spus, nu am nici cea mai vaga idee sa pot face supozitii.Astfel nu pot raspunde intrebarii din titlu.De fapt nici nu mai are importanta ce am presupus noi inainte daca una dintre variante se va fi intamplat.

In ce domeniu suntem deja in viitor ?

Poate o sa va dezamagesc putin, in domeniul erotic.Mai precis in cel al papusilor pentru sex.Deja exista in lume spre 10 firme care produc reproduceri ultrarealistice ale corpului omenesc, dotate cu capacitati AI.Pot avea mimica, urmaresc cu privirea, zambesc, vorbesc, etc.Culmea este ca am gasit relatarea unui caz (India)in care sotul si-a cumparat una, face sex cu ea de 3x pe saptamana…. Dar si cu sotia /alternativ.Culmea este ca sotia stie si nu are nimic impotriva.Problema este de fapt extrem de delicata si serioasa.Cineva ar putea afirma indreptatit ca papusii nu i-ar lipsili decat sufletul ca sa fie daca nu complet asimilata, atunci confundata cu o fiinta omeneasca.Dar asta nu depinde exclusiv de existenta reala a sufletului.Si sa nu va simtiti jigniti, ci depinde de cat de alienati am putea fi unii dintre noi.

Mars, radiation and artificial gravity

August 31, 2021

Lack of gravity is not a problem for short time intervals. But it becomes a big problem when we think of a trip to Mars (& much more when return). At time intervals such as 180 days (6 months) and over, lack of gravity it results in muscle atrophy, decalcification and a poor physical and mental condition. It seems that for now for Elon Musk the need of artificial gravity is not a priority, ( ie not a first degree priority ). On the first flight(s), the crew will not be tourists but probably astronauts with good physical condition and trained. Now, for E.Musk only the safety of the mission and that of the astronauts is very important. That is, practically not to explode something and for the crew to stay alive . Not to forget, every extra gram of wxtra weight costs. He didn’t even bother much with concrete solutions for generating Artificial Gravity. He was shown a proposal with 2 twin Starship rockets to be spaced with a kind of side tether rod + for safety an cable then rotated. Solution described here: https://www.universetoday.com/143368/real-artificial-gravity-for-spacexs-starship/ “To address this, Youtuber smallstars has proposed a concept that he calls the Gravity Link Starship (GLS), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CRiJTJikjk a variation of SpaceX’s Starship that will be able to provide its own artificial gravity. ” Elon Musk said that it is good so (!?). There is another proposal that the rocket be made by attaching 2 longitudinal sections of the rocket and then rotated 90 degrees.

Gravité artificielle avec Starship – Exploration spatiale

I come up with a proposal that is simple and safe. It is somehow a cut of the Gordian knot. I was surprised to learn that the center of gravity of a Starship rocket ship is somewhere very close to the middle.

from Study of artificial gravity systems for long duration space …https://upcommons.upc.edu › bitstream › handle

  1. PDFby Ó Santín Blanco · 2020 — GLS2 Artificial Gravity for SpaceX Starship (smallstars) . … Starship’s center of mass (which we will consider to be in the middle of the ship

Why not splitting the rocket right in the middle?

Starship SN4 assembly diagram V4.8 - Updated 04/17/2020: StarshipDevelopment
Starship SN4 assembly diagram V4.8 – Updated 04/17/2020: StarshipDevelopment https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWfGd9Aw3BCLcin4f0HKoIOrs1yadZ_ziS-N4V5VITpPpdoskoidZwycM9PTZqOL_xxgs&usqp=CAU
Starship Compendium – ElonX.net

Then separate the halves, sliding along long axis.(one is the payload and the second CH4 + Lox and engines). They are joined with a tether rod (+ cable for safety?). Once separated, the rotation begins. (The “halves” could remain so along initial axis, or turned 90deg.)Luckily, one half contains the fuel tanks and the engines and the other half the cargo bay contains the means of support. of life and crew.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1572478168_spacex-starship-cutaway-diagram-by-julian-schindler.jpg

The crew does not need the fuel tanks and main engines to be nearby.

Cutaway diagram of SpaceX Starship | human Mars

I see a length of tether = the connection between the two halves of about 100 m? to get 1G of gravity at a reasonable rotation speed .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity <<For example, to produce standard gravityɡ0 = 9.8 m/s2 with a rotating spacecraft period of 15 s, the radius of rotation would have to be 56 m (184 ft), while a period of 30 s would require it to be 224 m (735 ft).>>

The lower the rotation speed, the more the difference between natural and artificial gravity is no longer discerned. (Minimal side effects). , otherwise when the length of the connection decreases, the speed increases. I propose that the joints and connections between the two halves and the stretcher have some degrees of freedom, allow pivoting / rotation. of uncontrolled rotation, a situation in which large forces can appear that break structural elements. Elon Musk will have to deal with both, the radiation shield and the artificial gravity because he cannot take the tourists’ money and then when returned leave them on the ground in a pitiful state, decalcified, with mental problems, most possibly human wrecks.

A Sanctuary … or so fair a House ?

August 31, 2021

Although this English translation of the theme it seems lame : Göbekli Tepe’s buildings has “so fair a house”. And if the translation were from Chinese,it would have sounded better. As far as I know there was no moment or person directly interested in what they are exactly the enclosures of Gobekli Tepe: temples or constructions for living. The moment when subject raised high and got hot, was when begun discussions and nobody knew what were so called “handbags” on Vulture Stone Vulture Stone, Göbekli Tepe (Illustration) – World History Encyclopedia

I am giving much credit to the opinions of regreted Professor Klaus Schmidt, and at least as much to the researcher Jens Notroff. The latter has a broad vision, a great mobility of thought and a capacity for scientific analysis. In opposition to their views, I believe that if the views of Canadian researcher E.B. Banning despite he have some valuable opinions , his conclusions have no support. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Klaus Schmidt


From https://www.archaeology.org › issues Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers? – Archaeology Magazine “a team led by German Archaeological Institute (DAI) archaeologist Klaus Schmidt reached a stunning conclusion: The buildings and their multiton pillars, along with smaller, rectangular structures higher on the slope of the hill, were monumental communal buildings erected by people at a time before they had established permanent settlements, engaged in agriculture, or bred domesticated animals. Schmidt did not believe that anyone had ever lived at the site.

E B Banning:

His paper: So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of …https://www.journals.uchicago.edu › doi › pdfplusby EB Banning 

From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “Just recently a colleague challenged the existence of pure domestic or ritual structures for the Neolithic, arguing that archaeologists tend to impose modern western distinctions of sacred vs. profane on prehistory, while anthropology in most cases shows these two spheres to be inseparably interwoven (Banning 2011, 624-627). In his eyes, Göbekli Tepe rather was a settlement with buildings rich in symbolism, but nevertheless domestic in nature.” Fig 4 – uploaded by Edward Bruce Banning https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

Jens Notroff https://jensnotroff.com/curriculum-vitae/

:From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “From its discovery onwards, the interpretation of Göbekli Tepe’s suprising architecture has centered around the terms ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude), ‘sanctuaries’, or even ‘temples’. Naturally, this line of interpretation has been called into question. As already discussed here, it is indeed quite challenging to use a rather strictly defined historical terminology and complex spiritual concepts to describe the material remains of prehistoric phenomena. Even more while cult, ritual and ultimately religion are concepts often cited but rarely clearly defined by archaeologists. …Banning’s arguments that in-house inhumations, caches and wall paintings are demonstrating that ‘the sacred’ clearly is leaking into everyday live in the Near Eastern Neolithic (Banning 2011, 627-629) and that therefore a clear distinction is impossible to define, is valid, too, of course.In fact the idea of manifestations of the sacred in houses or parts of houses is neither new, nor surprising as already M. Eliade pointed out in his seminal work on the entanglement of the sacred and profane.z…So, even though we cannot know if these buildings actually were really meant to house gods or deities, the peculiar role of these larger-than-life anthropomorphic images forming the centre and main element of the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe remain conspiciously disctinctive to the life-sized sculpture heads which were apparently carefully deposited in the backfill. … Summing up, from our point of view there seems to be ample evidence to interpret Göbekli Tepe as a peculiar place formed of special purpose structures related to cult and ritual with distinct and fixed life-cycles of building, use, deconstruction and burial. All of these stages seem to be marked by specific ritual acts, of which the last, i.e. those related to burial and deposition of symbolic objects are naturally best visible in the archaeological record. …If ‘temple’ is understood as a technical term for specialized cult architecture, one could indeed consider this label for Göbekli Tepe. If the term is defined in our western perception as a place where a god is present, maybe ‘sanctuary’’ would be a more neutral description; alternatively the auxiliary construction of ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude) may be used to escape any trap of culturally bound denominations.BUT IN ANY CASE ONE THING IzS SURE: THE IDEA THAT GOBEKLI TEPE’s BUILDINGS ARE “SO FAIR A HOUSE” SEEMS NOT THE MOST CONVINCING INTERPRETATION OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SO FAR.


  • it is an impiety (and only to think, not to mention to write) that the T-pillars with deep meaning and bearing signs with symbolic, sacred meaning could have been pillars that support a roof!
  • – the sockets of the pillars in the bedrock are designed only to support, sustain (even so, precarious) the pillars in vertical position.
  • the T-pillars represent a sacred symbol perpetuated, not forgotten and repeated AT LEAST 2000 years (9,600-7,600)
  • pillars can break easily due to the rock with poor consistency and small thickness.(Blade-like) https://content.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mikeyperes2.jpg
  • if they had the support in mind, there is evidence on the site that in the are there were trees and it was 100x easier to make wooden poles.
  • totem poles are never used to support something they are singular, solitary.
  • – even in low intensity winds, the forces transmitted to the pillars would have tensed and cracked very easily. Cannot support stress, (cannot be in slightest measure bended !)
A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams

A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams
  • -The “bag” symbols have those “bows”/ “handles” offset (forced asymmetrically) only to make room for those symbols.
  • Mr. Banning, in addition to some otherwise common sense and correct statements, even some valuable ones, pushed forward an enormity that by no means finds its place.