O noua si interesanta perspectiva asupra celor mai vechi scrieri din aria Danubiana si Egeeana.

O cu totul noua si interesanta perspectiva asupra celor mai vechi scrieri din aria Danubiana si Egeeana.

Am obtinut foarte recent, (Aug.2018) o noua si proaspata perspectiva in urma studierii a doua lucrari :
Autori, Iannis Kenanidis si E. PapakitsosThe Eteocretan Inscription from Psichro (Crete) is genuine https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312038989_The_Eteocretan_Inscription_from_Psychro_Crete_is_Genuine pe de o parte, si a unei alte lucrari,
– autor A.A.Vaiman “On the quasi-sumerian tablets from Tartaria” http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii#section-22

Ca elemente de noutate,
– in prima lucrare se incearca cumva “taierea nodului gordian” adica din multe ipoteze privind limba necunoscuta folosita in inscriptiile eteocretane, autorii avansaza ipoteza unui amestec initial de populatii (deci si de limbi), in care un rol primordial l-a avut ( si din a carei limba s-au pastrat caracteristicile), o populatie care a colonizat initial Creta si care era de factura sumeriana.
“Thus, to all those readers interested in the Eteocretan languages of ancient Crete, a novel approach of decipherment is presented herein, for the first time based on the Cretan Protolinear script theory [12] that suggests the affinity of the Psychro inscription to the Sumerian dialect of Crete. It will be demonstrated that the application of the Sumerian language for this decipherment provides a coherent and meaningful interpretation of the text on this inscription.”
Din cate am inteles eu, desi limba nu a mai pastrat integral toate carcteristicile limbii sumeriene, in schimb scrisul a functionat ca un gen de constanta, in sensul ca semnificatia ideogramelor a fost retinuta, cunoscuta si pastrata de migrantii sumerieni= minoani, pe tot parcursul timpului (chiar pana inspre era noastra).
As explained in previous works, the Cretan Protolinear script was created by the Minoans, who were Sumerian settlers [12,20,21,22]; the Cretan Protolinear script in the form of Linear A and Linear B was used by all the different nations that inhabited Crete and the Aegean. However, in the hands of non-Minoans (i.e. Hands of nonSumerians) the Cretan Protolinear script was distorted as time passed, and eventually forgotten, because the script was difficult for nonMinoans (=non-Sumerians). On the other hand, in the hands of Minoan Sumerians the Cretan Protolinear script could not be significantly distorted or forgotten, no matter how many generations would pass. This is because the Cretan Protolinear script (henceforth in this work referred to simply as “Protolinear”) was phonetic and pictographic at the same time: every phonetic (syllabic) sign was a sketch of a readily recognizable object in the Minoan Sumerian culture. So, for those who had Minoan Sumerian as their first language, every syllabic sign had the native name of the thing that the sign depicted, and they always knew what the signs depicted. They could not alter the shape of the signs lest they would be no more recognizable and if a sign was not recognizable it could not have a native (Minoan Sumerian) name, so it could not have a phonetic value. This is why the Protolinear script could not be altered in Minoan hands; while for non-Minoans there was no connection between depicted object and phonetic use of the Protolinear signs.Therefore, the Protolinear script survived unaltered as long as the Minoan nation existed. And we know that the Minoan Sumerian language, as other non-Greek languages spoken in Crete, was spoken not only until 300 BC but also much later [21], because those populations were relatively isolated geographically and socially. “
In legatura cu aceasta lucrare , eu am constatat (si nu am reusit pe moment si rapid sa-mi explic) de ce :
– tablitele pastreaza cumva in opinia mea un caracter dual, respectiv contin semne, si pot fi citite folosind atat scrierea sumeriana cat si separat folosind-o pe cea micaeniana (Linear A).            In plus,
– cea rotunda prezinta  semne f. apropiate de scrierea arhaica greceasca, mai precis de cea arhaica Cretana.
RELATIV LA CEA DE A 2-a LUCRARE,

– am fost intrigat si m-am necajit cumva ca lucrarea lui Aisik AbramovichVaiman are un parcurs sanatos si plin de chestiuni valoroase, constituind un gen de “concurent” al meu care cumva precede cercetarile mele cu cativa ani ( 1994 a dansului visa ultima editie 2018 ale mele).
-asta pe de o parte; in schimb lucrarea dansului are lacune, (doar cca. jumatate din semne sant interpretate!)
Atentie: in prima coloana este numarul semnului !
Semnele Nr.1? Nr.2 si 9 gresite, Nr.4? Nr.10? Nr.12,13? Nr.14? Nr.17?….pana acum cca. 8-9 semne….
Dar si la semnele gasite trebuia explicate la toate semnificatia, intelesul lor.
(exemple de intelesuri cautate si gasite :
semnul 2 nu este mas/sal ci :”Asz/As”:”grau, orz”:”
semnul 4: neidentificat,neinterpretat: este AN:”zeu,cer,zeul AN,ANU” dar si “spic de cereale”
semnele 8 si 10, semn identif.corect,”ab“: “casa,templu,altar
Se ,semn identif.corect: semnifica”ratie,grau,cereale
Sa, semn identif.corect dar neinterpretat de dansul ( Sza,Sa:”a usca“)
amar,da, semn identif.corect, dar neinterpretat: inseamna “vitel,taur, zeul-taur solar“..la fel ca si semnul 14
ba identificat ca semn: dar inseamna”a imparti,portie,a da,distribui
semnul D, Nr.15,16 partial identificat, pentru dansul este numai “ges”= “60”,dar: este si “dis” cifra”1″ dar si “ninda””portie,portie de cereale,paiine
o, neidentificat,neinterpretat: inseamna cifra”10
semnul 9: este gresit,nu este plug (apin) ci semnul Ku “baza,a fonda,construi
semnul din quadrantul dreapta jos (cel din dreapta) corect emblema orasului LARSA dar si “templul soarelui
semnul >> neidentificat,neinterpretat; este RU:”dar”; “a da,trimite”



pe cand a mea este mai completa ( ex. explic clar si in amanunt, clar absolut toate semnele).
( In aceeasi situatie (lucrare incompleta tot numai cu cca. jumatate din semne interpretate) este lucrarea cercetatorului bulgar Rumen Kolev.)
A.A.Vaiman:“Altogether, sixteen of the eighteen Tartaria signs have been identified with the proto-Sumerian ones. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find proto-Sumerian prototypes for the two remaining signs as well.”
In fond rezultatul conteaza chiar daca este o contributie “colectiva”.
In fond posibil Michael Ventris nu obtinea rezultatele de varf daca nu coresponda cu Arthur Evans).
Ce este interesant este faptul ca avem o parere comuna ca cel care a scris tabletele nu a fost un locuitor nativ al Transilvaniei.
  Eu in plus afirm ca tablitele nu au fost scrise de mana unui sumerian.
Autorul avanseaza ipoteza unei origini si a unui autor de pe teritoriul Irakului (Sumer).
“Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, butthis hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents.”
Eu nu exclud nici-o ipoteza, dar dau mai multe sanse unei origini Cicladice-Egeene.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: