Tartaria tablets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settling discovery circumstances, dating and utilization of the Tărtăria …   https://www.researchgate.net/…/29726577_Settling_discovery_circumstances_dating_an…

                                                                     Hand-made by me, round Tartaria tablet replica / sinthetic clay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prehistoric writing systems                                                                                                        From https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/writing
“must be projected from the later known to the earlier unknown. The oldest known written documents were excavated at the site of ancient Uruk (Biblical Erech, Gen 10:10), and were inscribed about 3000 b.c. These are Sumer. tablets inscribed with economic texts in the non-Semitic, non-Indo-European Sumer. language. However recent investigation has demonstrated that the writing system of the Uruk and all later Sumer. texts was prob. not the invention of the Sumerians, although they undoubtedly modified and expanded it to fit their essentially monosyllabic language.
1. These unknown literary predecessors of the Sumerians have been called Proto-Euphrateans, from their apparent place of settlement (B. Landsberger, “Mezopotamya ’da Mendeniyetin Doğuṩu,” Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Dergisi [1943-1945]). Some debate has ensued as to who these people were and from where they had come, but until an identifiable Proto-Euphratean settlement is excavated the problems will remain unsolved. However, the discovery in Rumanian Transylvania of an early neolithic village, Tartaria, with a cache of several tablets, all dated by stratigraphy to earlier than 3000 b.c., has enhanced the possibility that the elusive Proto-Euphrateans will be found. A comparison of Uruk and Tartaria signs is shown in figure 2. Perhaps the best solution is simply to denote the Tartaria texts as Proto-Balkan-Danubian. There is little question but that still older and more dispersed written materials will be discovered since the Proto-Balkan-Danubian signs appear to be at least logographic if not already syllabic.
3. Although the Uruk and Tartaria systems are the oldest now known, they were soon followed by a number of scripts of equally unknown origin and as yet quite resistant to decipherment. These all arose in Western Asia and are more hieroglyphic in the sense that the pictographic character of their execution is more obvious. Unlike either of the older systems they seem to be closer to simplified drawings of objects. Also the multiplicity of signs seems to indicate more than a syllabic system, although such a judgment is speculative. Sometime after 3000 b.c., the people of southwestern Iran known as Elamites produced an elaborate writing system called by scholars, Proto-Elamite. The Elamite language is non-Semitic and non-Indoeuropean. It is not related to any other known language, and so the texts as yet defy decipherment. From the placement of what appears to be numerical signs it is judged that they, like the Uruk texts, are economic in content. Dating from a slightly later time, there is a set of symbols on seals and inscribed pottery and metallic sheets. These were fabricated about 2300 b.c. at a group of towns on the Indus River, located at Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro. Specimens of the Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic signs are seen in figure 3. Hieroglyphics are usually associated with Egypt about whose writing system the name was coined. In the oldest glyptic representations an early almost pictographic form of sign is found. These are on the slate plates, or palettes excavated at Hieraconpolis in Upper Egypt. These palettes yield scenes of the campaigns of ancient prehistoric Egypt. rulers. Although attempts have been made to associate them with known historical figures there is little to base final conclusions upon other than the obvious interpretation of the pictographs (fig. 3). Just what the stages in the later development of the elaborate hieroglyphic system were is now lost but some relationships can be deduced. Before the full blown Egyptian system was completed and, in fact, prior to its founding, the Proto-Euphratean, later Sumer. syllabary had been established and was to be the dominant writing of the Near East from 3000 to 500 b.c. In time the Uruk signs became stylized, and the streamlined and uniform strokes became known as “nail-shaped,” “wedgeshaped” writing in Eng., Keilschrift in Ger., but the French name has stuck as it was derived from the Lat. “cuneus”—“forma.”
The semasiographic
systems fall into three categories: a. Pictographs, simple cartoonlike illustrations of universal recognizance value, such as a picture of an animal or structure with its unique characteristics made obvious, e.g. figure 1: a. Phraseographs, usually several pictographs arranged to indicate an action but sufficiently interrelated that in time they become one effective unit, often the verbal or action indicator in pictographic scripts, e.g. figure 1: b. Logographs are word symbols where one word in 1:1 correspondence with one sign is understood although it is neither drawn visually nor indicated phonetically. Often like the other two types it is totally separate from the languages of the writer or reader. Livestock brands, ownership marks, certain ligatured abbreviations and even trade marks fall into this category. Modern examples abound in such logographs as, “&,” “7-UP,” or “$,” none of which have any relationship whatsoever to the words with which they are read, or the notions with which they are associated. Ancient writing systems often contain so many logograms that the meaning of a text is utterly unintelligible. Another disconcerting aspect of logographs is that they become so completely conventionalized and stylized that like some pictographs the original meaning is lost. In some ancient documents the actual word meant is never written out. It is systematically symbolized with a logogram. The result is that the actual word in the language is unknown, as if all “ands” in the Eng. language should be replaced by “&,” and in time the full spelling of “and” became lost. Some representative logographs are shown for comparison 1:c. Along with and slightly after the rise of the semasiographic systems, the language based phonographic systems appeared in the developing writing systems.Ultimately these tend to ward pure symbolic representation of speech but they fall short due to the necessity to economize the number of signs. This economy usually leads to “polyphony” where one sign has more than one phonetic sound attached to it. It is this difficulty which so aggravates Eng. spelling.
2.Again, as with the semasiographic systems three related phonographic systems arose. They are: a. Syllabic in which every sign represents not simply a unitary sound but also a combination of vowel or vowel plus consonant or consonant plus vowel or in the extreme consonant plus vowel plus consonant. Such a system works quite well with certain types of languages which have monosyllabic words; b. Phonemic systems have one sign for one sound, either a vowel or a consonant. Most syllabaries have dispersed within them perfectly sound phonetic alphabets; c. Subphonemic or, as they may be called, prosodic systems are made up of elaborate diacriticals which like musical notations indicate all nuances of the spoken word.”

My note.                                                                                                                                         Hmm….Proto-Euphratean later Sumer…why not? Read, think and say nothing:
Gr. πέλεκυς pelekus (double bited axe) compared with
Full text of “Bomhard – A Critical Review of Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic …
https://archive.org/…/BomhardACriticalReviewOfDolgopolskysNostraticDictionary/Bo…Nostratic macrofamily
Pal[y]:”to split,to divide” …… *palUKu ‘axe, hammer’: weak. 1717.

Pelekus,yes… but Mycenaean a-qi—ja—i ‘axe’;?

The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=3110875640
Allan R. Bomhard, ‎John C. Kerns

(more…)

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                     This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions.  ====

Here is the paper of the bulgarian scientist, assyrologist RUMEN KOLEV :                                                                          ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf

            Out of this, besides, de writing developement is a continous processus for wich there are ( or at least must be found some) evidences. Vinca culture devolepement toward true writing ceased short before (hundreds years?) the moment of reaching the proto-writing stage.                                                      NO SINGLE PROOFED EVIDENCE  OF PROTO-WRITING IN VINCA CULTURE                                                         -So, both of above cited authors (M.Merlini & R.Kolev), were not aware enough of the worldwide developement of humankind and their respective cultures. In a culture, the necesity of keeping evvidences, numeration or religious purposes, must have an coresponding high level of developement and an social stratified hierarchical structure.                                                                                                       THE AGE OF THE BONES CANNOT BE TRANSLATED AUTOMATICALLY AS BEEING THE AGE OF THE TABLETS, ALL WERE FOUND IN AN CULTIC SITE BUT NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHERE WAS IN REALITY PLACED EVERY ITEM !       

Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE  https://www.academia.edu/8899844/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_Europe_A_long_lasting_querelle_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe               << 3.C.d Approach 3: Reconciling the tablets with C14 dating evidence maintaining that they might havebeen intrusive from the upper strata >>

From all writing systems used throughout ages SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM shows closest. Remember, with proto-cuneiform signs, one cannot write, there is PROTO-WRITING !                     

       Only A.Falkenstein was for sumerian signs:                                                                                          Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                                                                                                          <<  The leading position was established by A. Falkenstein, responsible for the publication of the tablets fromUruk, who pointed out a strict correlation with Uruk III B that belonged to the same cultural horizon as thoseof Jemdet Nasr and argued that the signs were definitely Sumerian. Falkenstein’s line of reasoning was basedon four pilasters:……                                    Close, but not the same, not sumerian proper, as noticed before ,opinion of the scientists main stream: Makkay, A.A.Vaiman and others, including myself.                                                                                                                                                           Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                                                                                                               “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real  understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia andSouth-eastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… It is well-known that theapotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people” (Makkay 1974/5: 24)     …                                                                                                                                                                                          He presupposed that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold by the Mesopotamian city-states, therefore the request was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines (Makkay 1974/5: 27) ………………                                                                                                                                                                                                          Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting the Middle and Lower Danube, the Cyclades, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia may have been the go-between. Makkay assumed that the gold of Transylvania made merchants from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area and pointed out that the ancient gold producing site of Zlatna in György valley is near Turdaş and Tărtăria. He presupposed that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold bythe Mesopotamian city-states, therefore the request was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines (Makkay 1974/5: 27)  …………….                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Gelb attributedthe tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to a not better specified inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them (Gelb 1967: 489).

Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации …                                                    A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi–Sumerian tablets from Tartaria.                                    ================= in my opinion =========                                                                           The signs are “like” that sumerian proto-cuneiform, (Quasy-sumerian/A.A.Vaiman).Most of the signs reflects some exactly and some close sumerian shapes, thus reflecting an sumerian origin.This genetic filiation is reflected by many writing systems throughout ages and different areas.                                                                                                              Otherwise the display of the signs create the impression of mixed signs (even hodge-podge I dare to say). Don’t know why the scribe choosed to select the signs on every of the three tablets in kind of historical evolution, in three groups.                                                           – Pictographic only, on that pictographic oblong, without hole                                                   – mostly ideogram-logograms  on that oblong with hole                                                             – and some wich became later syllabograms/letters in other writing sistems, on that round one.                                                                                                                                      The scribe seem, (created me the impression) that wanted to parade ond show off his knowledge of the signs.

============================================                                                                              R.Kolev corectly noticed that on the tablet there is ” a mixture of sumerian ideograms and signs”                                                        – As I will show, R.Kolev not to precise identify each sumerian sign and show sumerian appearance and name. But luckily enough he succeded to corect identify many of them (bull/cattle, god, temple, branch/corn, altar, idea of offering, >> =sign “RU”,etc.). Where he has the sun sign, I have the (sun)GOD sign wich is close. All this green underlined are common with mines ! 

• Folowing picture at the origin from Mr.Marco Merlini studies. http://static.actualdecluj.ro/uploads/2015/02/tartariasuprapuse.jpg
• 

 Either don’t know why , and finaly I not grasp his understanding: 

• As Mr. Merlini correctly observed that the tablets are made as to being carried/worn together around neck. In this situation the squared-one is covering uper side of that round-one. And not without reason. The writer intended that the covered message not to be seen by passer-by, probably is mystic-related and has a degree of power upon subjects on wich rituals were performed. Or used in rituals wich interfered with the people’s course of life or destiny.
• So I do not understand at all why Mr. Kolev choosed to read in the first time (and only !) the visible mesage, not realising that the covered mesage could have a paramount importance !?
• ==========================================                                                                THE EXOTERIC TEXT / OBLONG TABLET WITH HOLE                                                  Image from http://www.proel.org/index.php?pagina=alfabetos/tartaria
• 
• Out of the Kolev’s  “3 Moons” ,                                                                                                there are some 6 boxes, if one begin reading in circle, counterclockwise begining frum top. columns with signs.                                                                                                  Sign number from your sign-list table:                                                                                   ————————————
• 1.  you: meaning “3 Moons”                                                                                                   Me: Could be, but as well could be
• Me:   “3 x number 1″=”number 3” ?
•            30?
• From   An Historical Survey of Number Systems
  • Nikolai Weibull  https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Historical-Survey-of-Number-Systems-Weibull/2d938fac8cb4424df2171eee1ed181a1bf0ae534 
• 
• So “3 barley,grain ratios”
  ———————————————
  From 1-st column,                                                                                                                      2. you:Symbol CORN                                                                                                                     Me: GOOD rendering . Note that the sign has a name.                                                    It is “SZE”:”barley,grain” Image, from Hot Cup of Joe: The Rise of Sumerian Culture
• 
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• “Sze”                                                                                                                            ——————————————
• 3. You:?damaged sign?                                                                                                             NOT FOUND by you.                                                                                                                 Me: the sign cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns                                                                                      is PAP
• 
• Is sygnifying “1” or sign “BAD” “to open,to let out, to die”
  file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/2602-Article%20Text-5433-1-10-20150202.pdf
  Sumerian BAD ‘when, as’, ‘master, lord’, ‘to depart,’                                                           ————————————————-
  4. you:”sign ES”temple” ,                                                                                                          Me:There is NO “ES” with such shape !,                                                                                   but AB:”house,temple” it is.
  me: the sign is “AB” meaning “abode,temple,house”                                                   cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•   ———————————————————–
• 5. you: symbol “SUN”.NOT SHOWNED by you any SUN sign.
  Me: No, Mr. Kolev, the sign you showed was never an sumerian sign for sun !!!    (only in ancient Aegean realm)                                                                                                Could be sumerian sign  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns  SZENUR
• 
• Much close than “ SKY-GOD/SUN-GOD” is “Sky, heaven, Sky-God AN“, wich has a star-like shape    cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns    AN                                                                                                                                   —————————————
  6. you: GUD symbol :Bull/Enlil                                                                                                         Me:  could be Bull, but you did not specify or show wich sign.
  The sign is UD5
• 
• But not proper bull, cause the head has triangle-shaped !
•  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•  AMAR (CALF/vitellus)
• 
• Note: It seems that an early sign UD5 reprezented BOVIDAE, that mean bulls and/or goats !                                                                                                                                     From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns      UD5~c
• See No.7: Ud5                                                                                                        https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml?language=en
•  ————————————————————————————–
• 7. you: ? symbol “Cattle ?” me:
  YES “but not proper cattle , but BULL” The shape is much close to                                   From 7. What Is Known about Linear A
  http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                                                              Mu=”Bull”  the bull head #012 
  (? also could be,combined signs Hi+Bar+Bar:” be numerous,multiply,spread out”?) ———————————————————————————
•  8. Symbol ES “Temple” ; me: YES “Temple” but there is no proto-cuneiform sign ES:”temple”. You did not show the sign ES how
  is like! Sign AB showned before “Abode,house,temple” ===================================
  ROUND TABLET, LOWER HALF                                                                                                 9. you:SYMBOL BA :”give,offer”;                                                                                                                        me:YES (not exactly give,offer)
• 
• meaning:”divide into shares,share,halve, to allot”
  My note:
  In sumerian the signs house +bull it is representing “the house of sun-Bull”, 2-nd representation of
  the sun, underground Sun :”NERGAL”                                                                                   ——————————————
  10. you: symbol RU:“to sprinkle”( also:  to dedicate; to fall; to throw down”)                               me: YES.But you not show the sumerian sign and its name
•  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• 
• But not read Ru-Ru as you said, ONLY “RU”
  meaning RU:”poor out, impregnate“
• R.Kolev: ” signs 9/Ba and 10/Ru combined has the meaning of “to offer an libation”.
• Me: No, Mr. Kolev their combined meanings are BaRu:
•  From Sumerian Lexicon … de JA Halloran … .A bārû, in ancient Mesopotamian religion, is a practitioner of a form of divination based on hepatoscopy, … ——————————————————-
  11. you:symbol ENSI,PA high priest, branch !??                                                                    ” Sign 11,with sumerian phonetic value of ‘PA’ may mean also ‘branch’,’sceptre’, associated with power but maybe also with the holy tree.Actually its meaning of ‘club’,’scepter’ was its primal meaning  followed by that of ‘someone with a club,scepter’,’overseer’, someone in power’, ‘high priest’.”                                                   Finally he chossed ‘priest‘                                                                                                         me:YES, yes PA, but sign PA not meaning ENSI !.                                                                 From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• 
• 1. From The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process by John A. Halloran
  http://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm
  pa4,5,6(-r): “irrigation ditch, small canal, dike” me:??
  2.meaning also: “swear, take an oath”
  3.From http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/intro/ob_lu_szu.html
  the word ugula “overseer” (line 145) is written with the PA-sign
  Combined signs Ba Ru Pa:”Give/OMEN”
  ———————————————————–
  12. KOLEV: “Signs 12 and 13,’fire’ and ‘altar’ taken together should mean ‘to make sacrifice’ ”                                                                                                                            symbol NE “fire” Labat 172 YOU DID NOT SHOW THE SHAPE not fire nor NE; I suppose you are refering to                                                                                              From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns   NE
  that on left !? Labat 172 is not proto-cuneiform!                                                                                                                                                                                                          me: Quite close.You see that our sign not reflect the sign NE shape ;  the sign is
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns 
•   SZA
• 
• Sza, Sa=”to dry”                                                                                                                     From Sumerian Lexicon – Sumerian.org  by JA Halloran                                                              ša: to dry up 
    This could be related to fire, in fact an portable altar and for burning incense !                                   ————————————-
  13.you ?symbol? Altar ?
  me: not found by you. It is
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•   sign ARARMA
• 
• “Sun-God Shamas abode/temple,shrine”      (ud.ab)
•   From Notes and Links on Larsa | e n e n u r u
  << For instance, the shrine at Larsa devoted to the ‘sun–god‘ Utu/Shamash is represented by quite different … UNU˚, often simplified to ud.ab˚, and read in Sumerian as “Ararma” (MSL 11 p. 12, l. 6: ≠UD±.UNU≠árárma ki and p. 54, l. 10: [a.ra].                                                                                                                               ——————————————————————————————————-                      REGARDING UPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET (coverd part) SIGNS:
  SIgn with shape of Cheth/Heth/Heta/Archaic Eta;                                                 
• You:”Sign 1, looks somewhat damaged in
  the low left part.But what is left is enough to reconstruct it as the Sumerian sign” …and you sharply stopped explaing the sign.”Tell-tale sign is that the number 5 ( or 7 ) is connected with the First Quarter Moon, which happens really
  around the 5th-7th day after the appearance of the First Lunar Crescent.
  symbol or phonetic value: Meaning: Labat number 1: EN: Lord 99″
  me: NO way ! You said :”looks somewhat damaged in
  the low left part” Not at all.No trace of ligature from low end.I understand you are only imagining
  this, in order to have an other supposed sign wich is matching with an known proto=cuneiform sign.
  On proto-cuneiform signlist, https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
  NO EN/ENSI SIGNS COME OR EVEN RESEMBLING BY FAR OUR SIGN
  You suppose sign EN and Mr.A.Vaiman suppose an APIN sign. WRONG FOR BOTH OF YOU !.
  ———————————————————————————————
  It is close to proto-sumerian sign KU                                                                                From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
• 
  From: The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process by John A. Halloran http://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm
  ku: to base, found, build; to lie down (reduplication class) [KU archaic frequency: 64; concatenates 3 sign variants].From Sumerian Cuneiform Dictionary Mugsar Online mugsarsumerian.com/default.htm                                                                                     Sep 5, 1996 – The epochal Mugsar is the only standalone online Sumerian Cuneiform Dictionary … TRUE ETYMOLOGY | Proto Language Monosyllables PLM …… KU3, kug [1342x] = (to be) pure; [3875x] = metal, silver; (to be) bright, shiny .or
• 
• Note Signs D could mean also:
• oi.uchicago.edu › pdf › mad2                                                                                               old akkadian writing and grammar – Oriental Institute

  

  << NINDA KU “they eat bread” >>
•  ——————————————————————————————
  D-shape sign; you: symbol or phonetic value: Meaning: Labat number
  you,sign 2: symbol: Moon, The Moon god
  ?.Moon? maybe.But sumerians figured moon allwais lying:
• You did not show how sumerian were figuring Moon or Moon God (Sin/Nanna!).
  Sumerian Questions and Answers – Sumerian Language Page
  http://www.sumerian.org/sumerfaq.htmR. K. Englund & J.-P. Grégoire, The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr, …… itud, itid, itu, iti, id8; it4, id4: moon; month; moonlight (i3-, ‘impersonal verbal …
  They had other signs for month begining from the sign UD=”day” and modifying it to
  obtain in adition the signs for “month” and “year”
• me: Sumerian used to represent Moon only crescent-turkic shape
• “D-shape” sign, could be sign GAR
• 
• But much better “1”
• 
• KU & Sin/Suen
  my rendering :”BRIGHT,SHINY MOON”
  ——————————————————————————————–
  Sign +++++ you: “CORN”
• Me: Could be .You did not show the sumerian sign.It is SE/SZE:”barley,wheat”
• 
• In fact the sign +++++ is Asz !!                                                                                                 From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• Sign row D D o o                                                                                                                    you:”Phases of the moon” me: could be;
• https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2526a72d95e0dbe0c1d35ab835426981-c
• 
  You come first (may 22 2008-2010 )
  Bab Sky Science Dr. Varna.22May-15 June 2008материалознание известия на съюза на учените –
  варна 2’2Collection 01 Abstract | Babylonia | Astronomy – Scribd
  https://www.scribd.com › document › Ba…
• by Rumen Kolev A COLLECTION of writings from 2000 – 2010 …. DECODING of the TARTARIA TABLETS 010 44 плочките PDFwww.su-varna.org › izdanij МАТЕРИАЛОЗНАНИЕ. ИЗВЕСТИЯ НА
  СЪЮЗА НА УЧЕНИТЕ – ВАРНА 2’2010. 44. ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ …to propose
  moon phases and after you,second come Mr. Merlini to propose the same (moon phases ) in 2015.
  Chronograms from the Danube Civilization to procreate a Child of the Moon Constantin-Emil Ursu,
  Adrian Poruciuc, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici (eds.), From Symbols to Signs, Editura Karl A.
  Romstorfer, Suceava, 2015: 133-200
  ———————————————————————————————-
  me:number 22 or 1
• 
• ( see here DDD oo number 3+10+10 “23” /upside left corner/                                     Image, from https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_004_fig/Figure3.jpg
• 
• The interpretation of pictographic tablet is converging/consistent with the other two tablets interpretations:
•                                                                                                                                                      There is about of an offering/see the misty human silhuette (PA:”overseer), with outstreched hands, (Ba:”distribute, alot“) to the Sky-God (An) and to Sun-god Samas, this last represented by the calf (AMAR);  …..                                                             ? For good crops, for eating bread (Ninda-Ku) ?                                                                      We have also the Bull sign , related also to sun (but much similar in shape with Linear A:”Mu”=”Bull”)                                                                                                                           The  offering/sacrifice ritual was performed by a BaRu (a practitioner of a form of divination based on hepatoscopy, diviner), … he divide in shares, allot (Ba) and poor out, impregnate (Ru) with water?incense?                                                                  It consisted of some measures (DDoo 1+1+10+10=22?) of cereals, wheat (Asz/As) and goats (at least two on pictographic tablet; Ud5).                                                                          There are pictured also the religion signs :                                                                        ARARMA:’inner, sacred precinct of the Sun-God Samas temple and                               Sza. Sa: “to dry up” (incence?)
• Note:                                                                                                                                            As well could be involved the god  +++++=”As”:”single,unique” and “Sur” = AsSur, where “00” means “whole”
• ==========================

• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the …

  Julian Jaynes –

   << When the diviner, who was called baru,poured oil into a bowl of water which he held .>>

  http://www.etana.org › sites › default › files › coretexts                                                                       yale oriental series – Etana

  ancient mesopotamia – Oriental Institute – University of Chicago                           …   ” the baru “seer” or “inspector.”