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

Prehistoric writing systems                                                                                                        From
“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 ……/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
Allan R. Bomhard, ‎John C. Kerns


June 4, 2018

  •                  There is a paper of a bulgarian scientist RUMEN KOLEV :                                                                          ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев

     wich go close to my conclusions of my sumerian aproach, but 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 this green underlined are common with mines !

     Either don’t know why                                                                                                                                             – he not took the tablets separately and choosed to get meanings reading them only as beeing superposed.      

  • 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 !?