Archive for June, 2018


June 29, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Tartaria tablets.What script and language is expected !?

June 27, 2018


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

The Tartaria Tablets M. S. F. Hood

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

From Anistoriton Journal, vol. 15 (2016-2017) Essays 5

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

An Introduction to the Study of the Danube Script Harald Haarmann and Joan Marler

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

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

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

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


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

From Anistoriton Journal, vol. 15 (2016-2017) Essays 1  Cretan Hieroglyphics The Ornamental and Ritual Version of the Cretan Protolinear Script

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

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

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

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

▪ a Proto-Indo-European (Hicks 2005),

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

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

▪ the Lycian (Kazansky 2012) and

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

From                                                                   John Younger (                                                                                           Linear A Texts & Inscriptions
in phonetic transcription & Commentary

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

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

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

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


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


This is a supplement to CRETO-SEMITICA

The Kaptarian logo-syllabary of Crete (Linear A)

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


by CH Gordon – ‎1984


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


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

Were the ancient Minoans of Crete Semitic? Did they speak a Semitic language?

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

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



June 4, 2018

There is a paper of a bulgarian scientist RUMEN KOLEV :


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

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

 Either don’t know why 

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