O serie de aspecte sesizate de mine , unele de la inceput (sanse mari de avea scriere) apoi cuplate cu altele observate pe parcurs (doar mare similaritate cu proto-scrierea sumeriana+ multe inadvertente) au condus in final la acest rezultat.                                     Pot spune cu satisfactie, ca din cei mai de seama specialisti in proto-scriere, inafara de oarecare retinere din partea unora (probabil pentru a nu risca sa atinga orgoliul national) nu au fost siguri si nu au pus exact “punctul pe i” de la inceput, dar in general au exprimat opinii extrem de pertinente.                                                                                                                 Cum ar fi acelea, ca desi semnele reflecta in cea mai mare masura  faza proto-cuneiforma a scrierii sumeriene, totusi nu se incadreaza complet in anumite caracteristici, in special de ordin tehnic.    De acelasi profesionalism nu au dat dovada cercetatorii romani si nici cei straini aflati in imediata apropiere a lor.         ( Noi de fapt nici nu avem cercetatori asirologi)

Dupa ce unul dintre primii cercetatori, ( Dl. Marco Merlini )a observat un real inceput al demersului umanitatii in ceea ce priveste scrierea in cultura Vinca, din pacate nu a sesizat nici pe parcursul demersului sau ca acceptiunea de scriere nu poate fi aplicata acestei culturi, si zic eu nici macar pe deplin aceea de proto-scriere, desi cea mai mare parte din pasi au fost  facuti.

Nu inteleg, ca desi a avut ca si mine la dispozitie intreaga literatura si biblioteca informationala in ceea ce priveste aparitia si evolutia scrisului in lume, a preferat sa nu recunoasca “importul” sau transferul cultural a nici unui semn.                                             A preferat ca pentru toate semnele, (care aproape fiecare din ele, fie vorba intre noi a fost prezent in alte zeci de scrieri in lume) sa le atribuie o “semnificatie religioasa, mistica” care atentie, se sustine ca nu era cunoscuta de toti membrii civilizatiei respective (e.g.Vinca), ci cunoscuta doar de o stricta comunitate locala a acelei civilizatii .   Adica pe scurt, numai presupusul scrib de la Tartaria si cei din aceasta asezare cunosteau semnificatia semnelor !                                                                                   ——————————————————————————————-                                               Nu stiu cum sa sintetizez mai bine si mai scurt; dar orice lucru are un inceput, asa ca voi incepe        ———————————————————————————————-                             Acest subiect al tablitelor a creat o agitatie si zarva mondiala zic eu nemeritata.

Pentru ca desi initial o serie de aspecte legate de momentul efectiv al descoperirii nu erau pe deplin lamurite, o serie de binevoitori romani si straini inca de la inceput au lansat zvonul celei mai vechi scrieri din lume si anume a unei scrieri pre-sumeriene.     A fost atribuit un caracter si semnificatie, respectiv interpretari misterioase, mistice, ascunse (ezoterice) a.semnelor, Deci inca de la inceput le-au fost atribuite un caracter si aspect mitic.Adica semnele erau expresia unor mituri ancestrale cu inteles pierdut definitiv (ce comod!)                                                                                                          Pai nu a fost destul, pe masura ce a trecut timpul a inceput sa fie inconjurate de straturi concentrice din ce in ce mai groase de interpretari si comentarii de tot felul, subiectul a inceput sa devina unul inconjurat de o aura de mister, un subiect mitic , pana a nu mai putea sa distingi ceva ( asa cum nu poti vedea gaura neagra din interiorul unei galaxii).     Mit (secundar, independent celui asociat semnelor) creat de unii cercetatori si aici nu ma sfiesc sa spun ca cel mai mare contributor a fost Dl.Marco Merlini. Faptul ca a a avut de la inceput si tot timpul cele mai bune intentii, nu il pun la indoiala.

Dansul a asociat pur si simplu oasele unei defuncte persoane, (gasite in cadrul complexului ritualic-funerar, pe undeva in apropierea tablitelor, apartinand culturii Vinca (5-6.000 BC) direct cu tablitele.

Tablite a caror varsta nu se cunoaste si nici nu va putea fi cunoscuta vreodata.

Studiind literatura arheologica de specialitate, am realizat ca din zeci de cercetatori exista foarte putine doua opinii apropiate in privinta varstei tablitelor. Bineinteles ca dansii au avut ca referinta doar analiza unor artefacte gasite in apropiere si oarecum o reflectie a semnelor prezente pe tablite.

Mi-am dat seama ca nu pot sa am nici-o baza in privinta niciunei varste asa incat nu am avut de ales si am analizat doar ceea ce era o certitudine, respectiv semnele.                Mi-am propus de la inceput o tinta de natura ideala si anume de a ajunge la o citire unica si ultimativa ( care sa fie validata de comunitatea stiintifica, si deci care pe cat posibil sa nu fie contestata ).                                                                                                               ——————————————————————                                                                                    Mai apoi am parcurs urmatoarele faze principale:

– In urma unei analize comparative am realizat ca cel mai mare procentaj de semne se regasesc in lista semnelor sumeriene proto-cuneiforme (in urma cu de-abia un an) si in alfabetele Anatoliene (carian in special).

Acelasi lucru l-au sesizat, (dar doar in privinta semnelor proto-sumeriene) multi cercetatorii asirologi dintre care amintesc doar cativa, S.Hood, A.A.Vaiman , Rumen Kolev si altii. Acestia au realizat o foarte buna si apropiata interpretare (A.A.Vaiman/R.Kolev) pornind de la semnele proto-cuneiforme. Ca observatie, eu fiind in mai mare masura si mai mult aplecat si focalizat doar pe aceste tablite am remarcat:        – corecta interpretare a dansilor, dar si                                                                                              – unele usoare abateri si inadvertente in privinta interpretarile dansilor a semnelor  (vezi articolele mele).      ( am luat la cunostinta relativ de curand de observatiile privind abaterile si inadvertentele fata de linia si cursul scrisului sumerian prezente pe tablite.) Acestea sant sa zicem “de ordin tehnic” dar constituie un gen de dovezi concrete ( dovedesc dupa cum au afirmat o parte din dansii, dar si eu ), ca nu au fost inscriptionate de un nativ sumerian. Pe o cale independenta, din pacate necunoscand mai demult lucrarile dansilor am ajuns la concluzii similare.                                            Acest fapt se poate vedea si verifica urmarind cronologia postarilor mele anterioare. Avantajul ca nu am stiut mai demult si ca au fost independente este dublu. Pe de o parte cateva aspecte au fost constatate numai de mine si pe de alta parte mi-au intarit convingerea ca constatarile mele sant corecte.                                                                                                   ———————————————————————————————-                             Bineinteles ca mi-am pus si problema perioadei in care ar fi putut fi inscriptionate si a locului de origine, asta in urma analizarii diferitelor scrieri din diferite arii si diferite perioade,                                                                                                                                                Si mai pe scurt, analizand “n” tipuri de scriere si presupuse perioade in care au fost folosite, precum si locul de origine, si aici am ajuns (in mod absolut surprinzator si imbucurator) la unele concluzii similare ;

Am incercat sa fac o lista in privinta sanselor si probabilitatilor de veridicitate.                 Nota

P.S. Dupa ce in zeci de lucrari Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut existenta unui  scris al civilizatiei Vinca, in final a ajuns sa se cantoneze in a presupune ce fel de migrant sau comerciant si a cata spita de la origine era sumerian. Sau sumerian stabilit in Transilvania ori comerciant din zona Egeeana care ar fi ajuns sa transmita acele semne sumeriene. (Semne care au fost aparent scrise aici la noi, dupa analiza argilei!)                                                                                     ——————————–                                                             Inca si mai pe scurt,                                                                                                                          DATORITA PREZENTEI UNUI AMALGAM (CA SA NU ZIC AMESTECATURA/GHIVECI) DE CEL PUTIN 2 CATEGORII DE SEMNE (care de fapt as putea arata ca pot  fi chiar 3) sansele in privinta originii tablitelor si a “scribului”, acum la cateva ore inainte de anul Nou sant urmatoarele (cifre aproximative, fiind atribuite de mine, subiective):

– Semne inscriptionate in perioada 5.000-3.500 I.E.N   0%

– Scris sumerian, scrib nativ sumerian 3500-3.000 I.E.N. 0,1%

-scris quasi-sumerian, urmas sumerian/comerciant sumerian sau syrian 3.000-2.000 B.C. 5%

– scris quasi-sumerian urmas sumerian (minoan!),comerciant sau urmas sumerian (minoan) din Creta 3.000-2.000 B.C. 50%

– scris  eteo-cretan, (din Creta) 800 B.C. 300 E.N. 25 %

-scris din perioada arhaica, alfabet arhaic grec 800-300 I.E.N. 60 %

-scris dintr-o perioada apropiata 500-100 I.E.N I.E.N. 65 %

-scris al unei persoane quasi-contemporane E.N. 70%

– “scrib” contemporan. E.N. perioada 1800-1900 80 %

Dupa mine pare a fi un exercitiu sau incercare de a trasa, inscriptiona semne, ale unei persoane care avea relativa cunostinta (dar nu complet stapana) de semnele sumeriene, dar cunostea si semnele din zona Anatoliana . dupa toate aparentele, o asemenea persoana ar putea fi cineva din grupul :

– Zsofia Torma, (ea avea cunostinta de semnele cuneiforme sumeriene dar si de cele anatoliene si le compara cu semnele gasite de ea pe artefacte ). A cercetat si artefactele din Dacia si din perioada ocupatiei romane )Posibil ca a facut un exercitiu de scriere; avand cunostinta de semne sumeriene si anatoliene asa se explica amestecatura quasi-omogena de semne Sumeriene, egeene si anatoliene)

–Torma Jozsef, tatal, arheolog, de religie catolica

–Karoly Torma, fratele ei, arheolog si epigraf de marca, cunoscator de latina si doctor in arte/ bölcsészdoktor (A cercetat si artefactele din Dacia si din perioada ocupatiei romane )

– un cercetator maghiar,german sau roman (care i-a facut un cadou, posibil in proximitatea doctoratului)

TOTUL AR PUTEA FI  LEGAT DE ZSOFIA, TATAL SAU  FRATELE SAU prin secventa  D D o c de pe tablita rotunda.

Aceasta este prescurtarea/abrevierea in latina a titlului de “decretorum doctor” care inseamna “profesor in doctrina (teologica) ”                                                                                                      ! Singura si unicul rezultat de afisare pe Google a atestarii scrise a succesiunii  “DDOC” este legata de prescurtarea latina a lui “decretorum doctor”

Sa speram ca aceasta ultima varianta este doar “o gaselnita sugubeata” si nu are nici-o legatura cu realitatea, ( si pentru faptul ca ar fi infinit mai mult decat as putea sa suport.)

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                These posts are not contain a satisfactorily decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Especially since we are dealing with proto-cuneiform signs, and therefore consequently with proto-writing.  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 scarce knowledge/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  logics, writing and honest intentions.                                                                                                      ==========

The folowing paper it is an extended analisis of metal ores exploitation in romanian teritory from neolithic time:

IT IS BASED ON SOME ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND MINE SUPPOSITIONS:

• I found clues of sumerian-related toponims especially in Banat and Transylvania areas, in the same areas wich are rich metal deposit ores.
• Archaeologists supposititions of sumerian craftsmen migrants in Vinca-Turdas civilisation, and metal-related finds
• Close similarity of Tartaria tablets signs with that sumerian proto-cuneiform ones.
• Sudden, explosive aparition “out of nowhere” of “allready developed” comunities and sttlements of Turdas and Tartaria. (Gh. Lazarovici)
• =========================================
• From Gheorghe Lazarovici15 and Marco Merlini Tărtăria Tablets: The Latest Evidence in an Archaeological Thriller17 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?zx=5altn8zeq797#inbox?projector=1“Figure 4.3: Tărtăria and the way to gold mines from West Mountain.                          The prehistoric settlement mound of Tărtăria-Groapa Luncii is not very far from the copper and gold deposits of Zlatna region and some 18-20 kilometers from two important Neolithic settlements: Turdaş and Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă. Tărtăria-Groapa Luncii is located near the railway station “Tărtăria”, on a small promontory 300-350 meters long and 150 wide which is 15 meters high on the Mureş River and is orientated E-W. Some time ago, a branch of the Mureş River flowed under this mound receiving fresh water from a small stream and other springs, all sourcing out from the high terrace of the settlement river which was very much eroded in time by floods. The Tărtăria mound is located inside an intensely cultivated area just 500 m from another Neolithic settlement, Balomir-Gura Văii Cioarei (Vlassa 1967: 404-408; 1969: 513-540; 1976: 114-118), famous for one of the first evidence of utilization of metals (Vlassa 1976: 118)).   ……………………………                                                                                             Generally speaking, this group of researchers believes that idea of a local independent invention of a South-eastern European Neolithic system of writing is an absurd one because of the lack of complex phenomena and processes indispensable to the invention of writing listed, for example, by Gelb (Gelb 1967: 488): developed agriculture, full metallurgy, cities with large public buildings and monumental art (Makkay 1974/5: 23). Therefore they emphasize a Sumerian influence not only in the sphere of writing but also in economic affairs (i.e. the presumption of the exploitation of copper and gold deposits in Transylvania by Sumerian prospectors and the expertise on metallurgy). Taking into account the South-eastern European Neolithic phenomena in general under Anatolian and Near Eastern umbrella, they propound the influence of the earliest Sumerian writing system and they also maintain that Europe adopted latterly inventions of other important developments, e.g. the chariot, the pottery wheel (Makkay 1974/5: 23). In conclusion, the viewpoint of an eastern-west drift of culture diffusion from 3100 and 2500 BC was based on four pillars: the identification of typological connections between the two systems of signs; the existence of a general cultural influence from the east; the difference in levels of economic, social and cultural development; the adoption by Europe of some inventions from the Near East at a later date.   ……………                                                                                                           Hood applied Cirillus’ and Metodius’ mission of evangelization along the Danube to the Neolithic South-eastern Europe and Sumerian times. Indeed according to him, the Tărtăria tablets, found in a ritual context and resembling the early tablets of Crete and Mesopotamia, may harmonize with Vasić’s idea that the Vinča ruling class consisted of mining prospectors-cum-witch-doctors from the south engaged in the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Middle Danube region by exerting a hold over their native subjects through religion and magic (Vasić 1929). Popović undertook a complex exegesis of the epic of Gilgamesh in order to find traces of a Sumerian colonization of Transylvania and thereby provide a rationale for the ritual deposition at Tărtăria (Popović 1965). Gelb attributed the tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to an unknown inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and mimicked them (Gelb 1967: 489). Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting the Middle and Lower Danube, the Cyclades, Anatolia and Mesopotamia may have provided the connection. Makkay assumed that the gold from Transylvania precipitated contacts between merchants from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Aegean and that European area and pointed out that the ancient gold producing site of Zalatna in György valley is near Turdaş and Tărtăria. He concluded that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold by the Mesopotamian city-states and that therefore the request was channeled-possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands-to the efficient Transylvanian mines (Makkay 1974/5: 27).”

From Old Europe https://drakenberg.weebly.com/vinca.html

“Traditionally, the Sumerian site of Uruk had been dated to 3500-3200 BC. Vlassa’s discovery was initially (before the carbon dating results) further confirmation that the “Vinca Culture” had strong parallels with Sumer. Everyone agreed that the Sumerians had influenced Vinca Culture (and the site of Tartaria), which had therefore been assigned a date of 2900-2600 BC (by the traditional, comparative methodology, which relied on archaeologists’ logic, rather than hard scientific evidence). Sinclair Hood suggested that Sumerian prospectors had been drawn by the gold-bearing deposits in the Transylvanian region, resulting in these off-shoot cultures. “

Apropos of the sign in the lower-right quadrant of the round tablet;on the right-side: (Picture from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html )

From FRED C. WOUDHUIZEN DOCUMENTS IN MINOAN LUWIAN, SEMITIC, AND PELASGIAN https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MlXuANT4kcZHS4RZCLwSj1TS_lNP-JJaO9dfHtIqmI0/edit

“I. Cretan hieroglyphic 30 of Asherah served as an asylum for international trade. More in general, the zealous veneration of the goddess may be compared to the predilection of the miners in Sinai for Baaalat of which their inscriptions in the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, variously dated c. 1850 BC, c. 1600 BC or c. 1500 BC, bear testimony. “                                         ——————————————————————————————————————– Transylvanian city CUGIR                                                                                                                             From http://www.anvilfire.com/21centbs/stories/rsmith/mesopotamia_2.htmThe Sumerian terms for gold (KU.GI – ‘bright out of earth’) and silver (KU.BABBAR – ‘bright gold’) retained the original association of the precious metals with the bright (KU) domain of the gods.

sumerian GIR :”furnace”

KU–GIR: “metal–furnace” ?

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                             This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Especially since we are dealing with proto-cuneiform signs, and therefore consequently with proto-writing. 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  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 concluded, (this being also my firm opinion) that the author was not a scribe, he had only scarce knowledge/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  logics, writing and honest intentions.                                                                                                                                                      ======

Image, from http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=8;t=009931;go=older

Up to date, no consistent unanimous opinions regarding:                                                             – the real age of the tablets                                                                                                                 – the kind of “writing”                                                                                                                          –origin, location for the tablet and the scribe

The real age cannot be determined anymore. Taking acount of finding circumstances, not only the age (strata in wich were found the tablets) but also the exact location of cultic pit, of the pit house, and also location of every item/artefact in the ritualic-funerary complex is not sure. Taking account of the fact that begining of writing in the World is not older than 3.500 B.C. in all three places, Mesopotamia, Indus-Valley/Elam, and Egypt, (note that then was not yet proper writing), – From the start, the tablet’s age could not depass 3.500 B.C. As you see later, I show evidences that the tablets could be much, much newer. So the supposed deceased shaman/priestes with the age of the bones determined 5.500-6.000 B.C. is not at all related with the tablets.                           P.S.                                                                                                                                                          A make-up story around the poor unknokn before-deceased person, wich in the course of time unfortunately become the supposed “Lady Tartaria”, as would be good  for a novel or mooving-picture, is of no help in the scientific endeavour. On contrary, in an allready misty subject, the result is to completely envolope the matter in an undesirable deep fogg.                                                                                                                                                No way to even think to connect the bones/person (carbon c14-determined at 5.000-6.000 B.C.) with a “writing” wich with indulgence was at 3.000 B.C. !                                                     —————————————————————————————-                                                          The main researchers on the field are sustaining a proto-writing in Vinca-Culture area. It is an undisputed issue. Even so, this must be proofed/!not yet !. From the begining there are only twoo main directions:                                                                                               

A- Sustaining an Danubian/Vinca early “writing” wich precedes that sumerian-one.             B -An sumerian-inspired writing. not early than that sumerian one. 

A. Is out of discussion.Scientists agree.    See talking of “before-sumerians” and of sumerians traders:

From Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory Author(s): Colin Renfrew https://archive.org/stream/BauerA.A.A.S.AgbeDavies2010SocialArchaeologyOfTradeAndExchange/Renfrew,%20Colin_1969_Trade%20and%20Culture%20Process%20in%20European%20Prehistory_djvu.txt

The Tartaria tablets. If one accepted these three objects at their face
value, one might indeed, like Brentjes, see them as "the earliest evidence 
of Oriental trade in Europe (and of real trade at all)" and accept the 
vision of Sumerian traders proselytising Neolithic Europe. First published 
by Vlassa (1963), these three small baked clay plaques, bearing incised 
signs, were found in levels reportedly of the earlier Vinca culture, dated 
by C 14 (on other sites) to the earlier 4th millennium B.C. — earlier than 
the Sumerians or their protoliterate predecessors who are supposed to 
have written them. Milojcic (1965) eagerly seized on them in his campaign 
against the C 14 method itself and enlisted the distinguished Sumerologist 
Falkenstein to testify to the similarity of the signs with those of 
protoliterate Sumer. Various scholars, notably Popovic (1965), have used 
them to revive the old theory of Near Eastern influence on the Vinca culture.

                                                                                                                                                                     From V. M. Masson. Interaction of cultures and cultural integration http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii

 “An appreciable shift occurred in the early agricultural period, when societies which had attained similar levels of cultural and intellectual development displayed considerable receptivity to integrational processes. Yet here as well the “rejection” is evident. If the decoding of the famous tablets from the early agricultural site of Tartaria, Romania, proposed by A. A. Weiman, one of the world’s most authoritative experts in Proto-Sumerian texts (see this issue), is correct, a highly peculiar picture emerges.           In the depth of the early agricultural Balkan area with its remarkable achievements in the artistic and intellectual domains a stable complex is found which is related to the temple structures of the Sumerian civilization. No matter whether the kulturtrager from Uruk had actually built their temple somewhere in the vicinity or whether we have before us a unique case of import having no pragmatic value, it is absolutely clear that these hallmarks of urban civilizationhad in no way been integrated into the system of early agricultural communities, which, in my opinion, had achieved the initial stage of the early complex society.                                                                                                        Numerous and diverse signs found on the artefacts from the early agricultural Balkan sites are doubtless related to some symbolic and magic system, but do not represent a system of writing, which is a phenomenon different, in quality. So the Proto-Sumerian prototype did not in any way affect the local society, which was probably content with the available systems of storage and transmission of information (probably the oral and the artistic ones).”

An original independent developed Danubian/Vinca “writing” is in thin air , without support, as long as not was proofed that Danubians invented writing, more than this, they even not attained the proto-writing phase.

Now, as a ultimate option, having no sufficient confidence in the archeologic data, nor in the support of some utmost skilled in writings researchers,                                                       I had a last option to throughly analise the signs, to compare them with the main writing systems, counting the common number of signs, test those tablet signs with the known writings, as to see in wich measure they match every wryting sistem, an as result how “friendly” they behave. It seems that even later Cotofeni Culture not developed yet writing.                                                                                                                                                    ————————————————————————————————-
B. Sumerian-inspired, ( I say, at the limit) could be, as opinated prestige assyorologists Adam Falkenstein, M.S.Hood, H.Haarman, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev.                                                                                                                                                                                  Only some opinions here:

From 3 EXISTENCE OF AN ARCHAIC SCRIPT IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE: A LONG LASTING QUERELLE by Marco Merlini
3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossosfile:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script.pdf

The leading position was established by A. Falkenstein, responsible for the publication of the tablets from Uruk, who pointed out a strict correlation with Uruk III B that belonged to the same cultural horizon as those of Jemdet Nasr and argued that the signs were definitely Sumerian. Falkenstein’s line of reasoning was based on four pilasters:
a) The Tărtăria signs, especially those on the rounded tablet, are highly comparable with those on the early tablets from Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr as the scholar synthesized in a chart (Falkenstein 1965:
271). According to his point of view, the connections with the early Sumerian pictograms (= protocuneiform signs) are particularly clear in the case of the symbolic hunting scene on the rectangular undrilled tablet, which was a more naturalistic representation and resembled the well-documented Mesopotamian seals impressions
b) Some signs appear to have been derived from Mesopotamian marks as numerals
c) Both the Transylvanian and the early Mesopotamian tablets show no occurrences of the wedge-shaped instrument employed for cuneiform writing
d) The shape of the rectangular tablets (relatively flat) occurred also in Mesopotamia
e) The system of dividing groups of signs within sections, which are separated by incised lines, is present also in Mesopotamia.
Establishing these connections, Falkenstein dated the Transylvanian signs around 2900-2700 BC and tried to establish parallels between them and the signs from the most ancient pre-cuneiform Sumerian documents found at Jemdet Nasr, Tell el-Far’ah, and Uruk. Unfortunately, he did not consider or did not care to consider as important some counterarguments about the same issues:
i. the Tărtăria designs show striking resemblances not only to the Pre-dynastic Mesopotamian writing but also to other scripts;                                                                             ii. on the Uruk tablets the whole shape of the sign in the case of numerals is sunk in the clay with a round-ended stylus, while at Tărtăria the equivalent signs are incised in outline;
iii. in Mesopotamia only some larger rectangular tablets are relatively flat and there are also very few small circular tablets to compare with the Transylvanian one;
iv. in addition, the string-holes on two of the Tărtăria tablets have no parallels among the early tablets of Mesopotamia (Falkenstein 1965: 269-273).
It is significant to note that the tablets from Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr do not bear a merely primitive stage of writing because they display signs that are not only ideographic but also contain a phonetic element. In this occurrence signs stand for words and not for objects, animals or structures which they literally represent, and
signs with recognized sound values are combined together to make words (Diringer 1962: 21). Then the main question regarding the marks on the Tărtăria tablets became: could they represent a similarly advanced stage of writing or had they just a superficial resemblance without any writing implications to the early Mesopotamian tablets? (Hood 1967: 104). The group of scholars which drew attention to a strict correlation between the Tărtăria signs and the Mesopotamian signs considered the graphic influence in the framework of a more general cultural strong drift from the Near East which occurred at the point of transition from the fourth to the third millennium BC or during the 3rd millennium BC (it depends on the author). Within Southeastern Europe, the culture most markedly affected was considered “that one of the Vinča-Turdaş” (Makkay 1973: 1). Müller-Karpe pointed out that human representation in relief was a common practice in Mesopotamia and that it occurred in Southeastern Europe only at Turdaş possibly because of Near Eastern influences (Müller-Karpe 1968: 307).
Makkay investigated the advent of cylinder seals in Europe as result of a strong influence from the cylinder seals of the Jemdet Nasr and Predynastic periods. According to him, in the Final Neolithic the knowledge of making cylinders or cylinder seals was possibly bridged on the European continent by early settlements on the Cycladic Islands and via the export of obsidian from Melos to as far as Thessaly and Thrace.

NO MR.MERLINI, NOT :”A.FALKENSTEIN …argued that the signs were definitely Sumerian.” He said that the tablets show to be sumerian-influenced

From Siebenbürgen: Das Geheimnis der Tartarijské Tontafeln Sueee …https://de.suenee.cz/zahada-tartarijskych-hlinenych-tabulek                                                 In 1965 brachte der deutsche Sumerologe Adam Falkenstein die … dass die Texte in Tartaria unter dem Einfluss von Sumer entstanden sind.

From 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                                                     

“It has already been mentioned that not just the signs (possibly all of them) were borrowed, but other things as well, including the material for writing, the rectangular or round shape of the tablets (the latter occurs, although rarely, in layer IV of Uruk), the manner in which the text is divided into parts by means of vertical and horizontal incisions, and the technique of writing. However, the borrowed elements are transformed in such a way that one should speak of an independent Tartarian script rather than of a Tartarian version of the proto-Sumerian script. First and foremost, people who created this script, in contrast to the Sumerians, used only knife-shaped styluses.                                                                                                                                                    The Tartarian script differs from the proto-Sumerian one also in the construction of the texts. ” ……………….                                                                                                                          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, but this hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents. ”                                                                                       ‘

From Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets  Attila László http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf                                                                       

“….the study of A. Falkenstein, the first Assyriologist who thoroughly checked Vlassa’s conclusions and who comparatively examined, one by one, the signs from the Tărtăria tablets and their early Mesopotamian parallels. He established the existence of certain similarities in terms of the form of the tablets, the division of the surface in columns and partitions (Fächer), in which the signs were then inscribed. He noticed that, from the 20 (or 24, with variants) signs on the second and third Tărtăria tablets, precise analogies were drawn for five, and similar forms were found for six among the archaic texts from Uruk (in German, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, abbreviated: ATU)25. All the 11 correspondences belong to the Uruk IIIb period (Djemdet Nasr), which can be dated to the time frame between 2800 and 2750 BC, also representing the chronological reference for dating the Tărtăria tablets. In Falkenstein’s opinion, the correlations established between the Tărtăria clay tablets and the Sumerian ones indicate an impulse (Anregung) from Mesopotamia. At the same time, he stressed the fact that, unlike the Mesopotamian written clay tablets, the Tărtăria tablets were made
from coarse material, were perforated (in order to be suspended?) and fired, the signs were incised (not impressed), the signs for numbers (characteristic to the Mesopotamian tablets, having an economic character) were (partially?) missing, etc.  ……………………….                                                                                                                                Among the differences between the signs on the Tărtăria tablets and the ones on the
Mesopotamian tablets E. Qasim notices the fact (already remarked by Falkenstein in 1965) that the signs for numbers, which are constantly present on the compartmentalized Mesopotamian tablets (which contain economic texts), cannot be identified on the Tărtăria tablets. However, Qasim finds that the sign in the form
of the letter D, followed by two small circles (marked with no. 7 on the Tiumenev 1 tablet and on the second Tărtăria tablet) can be identified with the conventional sign used in the Assyriology literature for the graphic transcription of the signs impressed on the clay tablets, corresponding to the numbers 1 and 10. In order to perfect her “indictment”, E. Qasim appreciates that those two signs (in fact: two simple motifs, a semicircle or half‑moon and circle), which do not have correspondences in the real Mesopotamian signs, were imitations of the conventional transcriptions of certain signs copied from the secondary Assyriology literature, “

From http://cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf                                                                                                         “M.S. Hood, an English archeologist, who states that the disk and tablets were carried by Sumerian merchants to Tatárlaka, where the native inhabitants did not understand the written signs but copied them and used them for religious purposes.”

A.A.Vaiman, corectly named “quasi-sumerian Tartaria tablets”. But in my opinion, as that of others, not a sumerian hand scraped the signs, nor an native sumerian scribe. My opinion is that  the signs are not proper (exactly) proto-cuneiform signs. The smoking gun for other origin for the signs than directly from sumerian, by short, is the presence of the D-signs, (unused in sumerian proto-writing), the Chet/het shape of the H-sign wich in a similar shape appeared in Europe first on Aegean area (Crete).

Certainly, there is a link with the sumerian signs. And not “some signs”, but all the signs could be found in an exact shape or close in the proto-cuneiform sign list. It is not  “by chance”, the signs not appeared there by random. And retain, the first instance when such signs appeared in the World was in Sumer in the proto-writing fase.     One have the exact shape of some signs as AB(house), ARARMA(bull calf) and many others: PA, SE, LAGAB, etc. and with close shape: GAR, SA,RU, sun-God temple…

B. Other writings wich are suspected are those Cretan-ones (with 3 main variants:Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B…+Cypro-Minoan). Here also we have not all the signs from those writings. Here, we are encountering the same problem, D-shape sign was not used by them. But I found on Tartaria tablets a good bunch of signs (ideograms/logogram/syllabograms) common /(paired!) ,and present in both writings: Sumerian and Aegean ! :                                                                                                      sumerian ARARMA/ Aegean MA ; sumerian SE/Aegean TE; sumerian PA/Aegean PA; sumerian KU/Aegean PA3

C. Phoenician/Old hebrew writings not sufficient matching.We have the exact chet/het-shape, also HD could be phoenician/old hebrew “het-qopf”.                                                   <so ? qoch:”ossuary/loculus”-KoK(aion?> Have also signs/letters “zain”, and probably “samech”.But in those writings there was no D-shaped signs.They had P sign for qof and dalet/delta sign for D.

D. Anatolian writing could be also a goot candidate (especially carian alphabets).               The only writings in wich I found 90% of the signs was sumerian and carian !

From the begining I tried to find the writing wich matching close; *only after this, in the case of “D-letter” signs, runing out of options I gave the “Moon” significance.

In my opinion, by 3.000 B.C., not moon-phases killing them but everyday necessities for making a living and apropiate the nature-gods in order to have good crops. As Mrs. Denisse Schmand Besserat demonstrated writing appeared first as a counting goods necesity.

  *! Not the case of sumerian approach where we had sumerian GAR(ninda) signs as egyptian “T”:”loaf of bread”!                                                                                                             

In a way, one could “depass” the phonetics/interpretation and translation of the signs, whatever sumerian or Aegean, having an “up from high” vision, and take directly the meaning of ideograms !                                                                                                                 eg:                                                                                                                                                      The signs on squared Tartaria tablet with hole, Image, from                                       http://su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPrYdeD189MSKLzKIXmzILQSZ1K0n_h1eFtByuYrEClb90EJbnoQ 

In sumerian, signs:Ararma (bull-calf) + nigin5 +ABhttp://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/signlist.php

LAL×LAL.LAGAB Borger: LAL2.LAGAB

niĝin5

nigin5: sum,whole,to enclose, confine; to encircle; to search; to turn; to return; to go around; …

bull-calf+nigin5+ AB =(sun) Bull/calf+ turning, whole +house =house,abode (of) turning(sun)   , or only last 2 signs :                                                                                              (sun) bull +house interpreted as:” house,abode (of) bull(sun) ;                                                in sumerian this sign pair could be read NERGAL wich is the pair or underground instance of the Sun-God, 

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html                  NERGAL~x                                                                                                ————————————————————————————————–                                    From  http://enenuru.proboards.com/thread/329/nergal                                                      me: What is for in this above pair on the left sign DARA;”ibex”!? (we have on pict. tablet Ibex

  as in Aegean:  bull sign+ labrys =MU + labyrinth = house of (AMu,Ama?) = house of the Bull(Sun), house of MINOTAUR, labyrinth, house of the Sun-God/Sun-Bull/MINOTAURUS.                         ————————————————————————————–

Now, I will present you a particularity of the signs, wich I noticed (beeing the single one who noticed /Why ?) :

The signs are a bunch or unusual mixture of mainly three type of signs, so having an eterogen nature :

–pure pictographic signs/pictograms (sqarred without hole)

–ideogram/syllabograms (squarred with hole)

–syllabogram/letters (round-one with hole) ; pure letters (upper half of round-one)

Due of this above, the age of the tablets could be the age of the newest type of writing.The D-shaped signs first appeared in epichoric variants of archaic greek alphabets (for letter D in a plece and for letter R in another).

So we could have in that upper half archaic greek letters.This archaic shape of eta was pronounced at the begining “He”; in this shape was used in Crete, and later in all Mediteranean as for H-letter.                                                                                       https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcTqDynC22_KwCL0oLlpAu3HnTvwBisR1bQcP-kqdlTV-Puybhep

         From Unicode Character: PHOENICIAN LETTER HET (U+10907) https://www.fontspace.com/unicode/char/10907-phoenician-letter-het                          

HERE WE HAVE HERE AN IMPORTANT CLUE:                                                                              BESIDES OLDEST “D/P?” shape found as old hebrew shape P=”KOF/KOPF/kuph”,               THIS H-SHAPE OF HETA/ETA WITH VERTICAL REAL OFF-SET VERTICAL BARS (or the appearance of off-set bars cause of slanted horiz.bars),                                               IT IS A STRONG INDICATION OF AN PHOENICIAN-AEGEAN ROUTE/PATH !                         

 THE AGE OF THE WRITING, IT IS IN MY OPINION THE AGE OF THE NEWEST group of SIGNS (in our cas P=qopf , H=het/chet/heta/eta/h, D:delta,d/r,rho)

THAT HP/HD and DDoc signs, sory for Romanian scientist wich are expecting an very old age for the tablets,

 ALL ARE POINTING  TOWARD A POSSIBLE SHORT AGE OF THE TABLETS !                         Note:                                                                                                                                                              1.This sign with off-set bars was used as letters by many peoples:                                          by cretans,etruscans, in some italic alphabets as venetic but not only,old latins, in Old Iberian writing and some writings left by migratory peoples in Europe (tungusic,gepids,etc.)                                                                                                                            2. This particularity offset-slanted it is not showing (at least not evidentiating) in Aegean writings (CH,Linear A,B), only in that listed above.

As I said, is possible to have an local-derived from archaic greek writing in upper half.

Archaic greek letter shapes, from http://www.codex99.com/typography/13.html

Archaic greek, but even old latin, venetic could be. The rest of the signs (out of upper half) could have only an magic-religious-ritual role. Not necessary carring an concrete message.
Unlike the case of Linear A/B where we have at disposal hundreds of tablets, Tartaria tablets are unique of their kind (and in the area), some strange if not weird singletons.

———————————————————————————————————————-                     For the place of origin. In my opinion, not originated, nor “written” at Tartaria, Romania.Place of origin south and again south.                                                             Image, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4HZP0phF6ULSoKMAAZoyrqIbV2Bv3OYkQtCnoZ-1Y8OdzlTvIUQ

Taken or written by an Aegean migrant, but rather originated somewhere in actual Greece teritory, rather in Aegean area, say Cyclades(Syros) or Crete.

This hypothesis is in total acordance with studies of Mr. Evangelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis wich found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants.                                                                                                                                          As a consequence, an direct sumerian contact and cultural infusion with Balkan/Danubian civilisation is not necessary, as the influence could be transmited via Aegean.                                                                                                                                             Some (not few !) common elements (read “signs”) in Tartaria tablets (regarding the writing) to both civilisations, were evidenced independently by me in my papers.

Besides, especially due of the “cursed, damned” ,unexplained, “accidental”, but also “new” characteres/charagmata “D-letter” shaped signs, present on upper half, in/from the time perspective, the supposed tablets’s age  would be expanded in an untolerable span:                                                                                                                                 – between 3.000 B.C. (close-shaped signs, but imprinted used for bread-portions/?Moon phases?) and 800 B.C. (archaic greek letters) ,D-shaped signs were not used in any world writing systems ,or                                                                                                                        – any age from “xyz” B.C. to “uvw” A.D., even as new “as could be made yersterday”.   Don’t know exact intention of the writer, so who what wanted to show to whom.

By short, we are forced to choose only one out of two (large distanced in time) possiblities:                                                                                                                                             – and old age close to 3.000 B.C. with the ununswered question regarding the meaning of the D-signs, or                                                                                                                                         – a quite new age close to 800-300 B.C.

Any world writing sistem was not invented in a couple of years, nor in the 100 years course, it is quite a long and complex matter, not depend as one expect on some local human abilities, but as a responce in complex(social and economical) societies  to their necessities and needs. 

===================================================================  From DRAVIDIAN TOKENS, UBAID, AND ITS TRACES IN BALKANS by Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/10909671/Dravidian_tokens_Ubaid_and_its_traces_in_Balkans

“Ubaid Dravidian cult language of the Vinča
The Vinča, possibly Hurrian and similar to Indo-European Linear Pottery, might
be dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian
languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian
writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for
Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon
might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.                                                         The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for                                                                     1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin,                                                        2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately,                                                                                                                                         3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan scriptinvestigated by N. N. Kazanskii,                                                                              4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.                                                                               The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens asthe prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE.                 The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.The line of descendance Vinča (with the Dispilio Tablet closest to Linear A) >Tisza>Tiszapolgár > Bodrogkeresztúr (with Aegean relations) contacted with Baden might reflect the connection between the Vinča script and the Trojan script (Troy II–V) which N. N. Kazanskii interpreted as an intermediate element between the Vinča and Linear A.                                                                                                    As L. S. Klejn suggested, the Vinkovci / Somogyvar of the Baden origin was related to the culture of the Cretan Linear script A. So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic and Vinča because of the Dravidian relations of the Linear A, B signs, substrate words in Greek and Dacian, and the Tărtăria tablets. The Karanovo IV bearded figurines very similar to the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”

=============================================                                                            The bablets could be so new as to have:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serbare#Conjugation                         Italian servare Etymology From Latin servāre, present active infinitive of servō.

Serbare to keep or maintain/to preserve or reserve    “Io serbo”

From..https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servos                                      Latin servos m accusative plural of servus

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servus#Latin                                                                   servus Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *ser-wo (“guardian”), possibly from *ser- (“watch over, protect”).                                                                                                   1.a servant                                                                                                                                  2.a serf                                                                                                                                       3.a slave

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hora#Latin                                  hōra f (genitive hōrae); first declension

1. hour
2. time
3. o’clock
4. season; time of year
5. vocativesingular of hōra

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heros                                                                         heros 1.(literally) demigod, hero       2.(transferred sense, Ciceronian) an illustrious man

From The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal             https://books.google.ro/books?id=JiM8AQAAMAAJ

the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr, (Master, Lord.) The whole meaning of the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr :

So from               +++++                                                                                                                             HP    D b o c

HR      Se  R b o s    

?  Lord slaves / Lord servants /HERO** servants/ time keep,maintain /serbian *HRistos  / HAR*** keeper    ?                                                                                                             ? HAR/haro/Ede DiDou “give charis; give death; give eat”   ?

(* I not found anywhere the Christ monogram, only and only as XP ! ; **thracian heros ; *** har,slavonic haru “gift,CHARM”)  ….proto-Indo-European root Xar(Char) :”fitted in a pleasant,beautiful manner”

From allmost 12 years, I sustained and stressed in a continous way that in upper half, in the left corner we have the signs for letters “HR”.This could be checked on my all previous posts. Now take a look toward what could pointing:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81er-                                                                                                                Etymology. Of unknown origin. Possibly a late West Central Indo-European dialectal word. Within Nostratic framework derived from Proto-Nostratic *ʔer-a (“earth, ground”) (Bomhard 2015) or *ʔarV̄ (“earth, land, place”) (Dolgopolsky) with cognates such as:

• Proto-Afro-Asiatic*ʔ[e]r-t͜ɬ’ (“earth, ground”): Proto-Semitic *ʾarṣ́-, West Chadic *HVrit͜ɬ’- (“earth”), East Chadic *ʔirt͜ɬ’- (“valley”).
• Dravidian: Kannada [script needed](ere, “black soil”), Telugu రేగడ (rēgaḍa), రేగడి (rēgaḍi, “clay”), (prefixed forms of గడ్డ (gaḍḍa, “clod”))

Root *h₁er-                                                                                                                 1.earth

• Ancient Greek     :*ἔρα (*éra) in ἔραζε (éraze, “on the ground”) and compounds
• From  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82er-Proto-Indo-European

Root *h₂er-

1. to fit, to fix, to put together

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83er-                         Root*h₃er-                                                                                                                                   1.to move,to stir                                                                                                                                      2.to rise, to spring

• Ancient Greek:ὄρος (óros)                                                                                                        —————————————————————————————————–
• These three roots (wich are not much different) are the roots of the basic and of paramount importance things (with same numbers and order):
• 1. h1er/EARTH (related to Earth-Mother and agriculture)  
• 2. h2er/ religion Chartus concept (wich has the root char)
• 3, h3er/tiling,turning the earth upside-down=plowing, and the sky-sacred mountain Note.                                                                                                                                             There are research papers where is sustained that Horus,Horos, Hora, ora, Hera are close-related (probably through pre-Indo-European languages)                                 ——————————————————————————————————————————–
• From Proto-Indo-European Religion http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/whatwasreligion.htm
• “Rather than go into the deities, though, I would like to concentrate here on two principles. These interact with each other, but I will try to explain them separately.The first is what I call the ghosti-principle. *ghostis is a PIE word which means “one with whom one has a reciprocal obligation of hospitality.” ….The second is the *Xartus, which is the pattern of the universe. This word comes from the root *xar-, meaning “to fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern.“ Both linguistically and ideologically Xartus is the root of the Vedic rta, and the concept is similar as well to the Germanic wyrd. The Xartus is the pattern of the cosmos, but not one that’s imposed from without. Instead it grows from the cosmos itself.The Proto-Indo-Europeans saw the cosmos as centered around a tree and surrounded by water, which also rose up through a well to feed the tree. The tree was the cosmos itself, an ordered arrangement of things and actions, and the water was chaos, disorder. Notice that order is fed by disorder. Left to itself, order, like an unwatered tree, becomes brittle and dead. An influx of chaos is vital to its life. Chaos is dangerous and not capable of supporting life on its own, however, and only becomes meaningful when it is drawn into Order. It is through this interaction (a kind of ghosti-relationship) that the universe can continue to exist.Order gifts chaos in another way. Things passing out of existence, not only as in living things dying, but even as each moment passing away, are going from order into disorder. If cosmos is seen as the tree, then its dying bits are fruits or nuts. This imagery is found clearly in the Norse cosmology, in which drops of honeydew fall into the surrounding waters. In this way again chaos and cosmos are joined together into a relationship. Chaos gifts order, and order gifts chaos.

  If the cosmos is a tree, then its branches form a pattern, which is the Xartus. Notice a number of things. First, the pattern forms itself out of the growth of the tree itself – as the cosmos grows, and actions and things arise and are added to the cosmos, the pattern of the branches changes. The Xartus therefore arises from the cosmos, rather than from outside it.

  Note as well that although the cosmos grows the Xartus, the Xartus has an affect on the cosmos. The growth of the tree is not completely free; branches can’t grow from anywhere, and they can’t grow in any way they wish. It may be said that the Xartus impels but does not compel.

  We form our lives within the organizing Xartus, and then our lives, like all things that happen in the cosmos, are fed into the Xartus. The things we do, as they pass away, and eventually we ourselves, also fall into the waters of chaos. Eventually, however, like the water from the well, all that we have given to chaos returns to cosmos, transformed first in the waters, and then by the tree. Like the tree, we have been fed by chaos, and we then feed chaos in turn.

  In both the ghosti-principle and the functioning of the Xartus, we see the working of the central ideology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, that of reciprocity. This is at the root of our relationship with other people and with the gods, and at the nature of the cosmos. It is impossible to understand PIE religion without understanding reciprocity.                                                                                                                                     ———————————————————————————————————                         My note                                                                                                                                              This Xar is also the root of gr. charis, charisma of the harmony and rom.Har:”unmerited gift,charm” With this meaning charm could be also used on the Tartaria round tablet, as the tablet was supposed to be used in sorcery, witchcraft purposes. One more possible association is the graphic/icon representation of Xar/char/har:” fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern” for wich was used the CROSS from the most ancient time maybe conquered only by the swastika.                                                                                                                  —————————————————————————————————————————     Apropos of “the pattern of the Universe“:

• From Cuina Turcului – a rock shelter in the Iron Gates gorges of the Danube  https://www.donsmaps.com/cuina.html Firstly, Cuina Turcului is firmly in the Gravettian – Epigravettian/microlithic tradition with a large number of backed blades and bladelets and geometric microlithic tools.                                                      The following information is taken from the excellent monograph ‘The Iron Gates Mesolithic’ by Ivana Radovanović: Cuina Turcului is situated in the Ciucarul Mare Massif between Moara Dracului and Proluca hill. The Epipalaeolithic living floors were excavated between 1964 – 1969 over an area of 160 – 180 sq. m.
  Horse bone decorated with rhomboid designs
  Photo: http://library.thinkquest.org/C006353/cuina_turcului.html The bone is decorated front and back, and is covered with small paired incisions as decoration.

  Photo: http://www.drobetaturnuseverin.net/book/export/html/2502

• ? Mother Earth-Goddess coupled with Life/Cosmic-Tree ?                                                  —————————————————————————————–
• upon one’s interpretation,  it is the goddess of birth and life (me: as later Goddess Hera wi’ll be)                                                                                                                        From Seimeni – neolitic şi pre-neolitic
  https://sites.google.com/site/seimenineoliticsipreneolitic/
  EA MAI VECHE REPREZENTARE A ZEIŢEI NAŞTERII ŞI A VIEŢII – O INTERPRETARE SIMILARĂ A SIMBOLURILOR INCIZATE PE FALANGA DE ECVIDEU, DESCOPERITĂ LA CUINA TURCULUI

  La Cuina Turcului-Dubova, în Oltenia, s-au descoperit, într-un inventar litic bogat, aşchii din oase, fragmente de coaste şi de corn, toate încrustate – pare-se după un scenariu – s-a descoperit o falangă de ecvideu incizată cu multă grijă. Data la care s-au făcut inciziile, calibrată C14, este stabilită de laborator ca fiind în urmă cu 12. 650 ani.

• and on the oblong Tartaria tablet it is also the Life-Tree.
• 

Here, “Tartaria people” is a didactic denomination of contemporary people to Tartaria’s tablets scribe, in  Tartaria-Turdas settlements                                                      (In the best case of an oldest age limit for the tablets, presumed by me / Cotofeni Culture 2500-2000 B.C.)

Din Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – [PDF Document] https://vdocuments.mx › Category Documents

“Astfel, E. Neustupny (E. Neustupny, 1968, p. 32-35), referindu-se la
tăbliţele de la Tărtăria, subliniază că, după părerea sa, nu există decât două
posibilităţi: ori datele C14 sunt fundamental greşite, ori tăbliţele nu aparţin
contextului arheologic de care au fost legate de descoperitor, adică stratului
Vinča-Turdaş de la Tărtăria. În argumentaţia sa, el înclină spre cea de-a doua
posibilitate, bazată, printre altele, pe faptul că la Simpozionul Internaţional
privind cultura Lengyel, ţinut la Nitra (Slovacia) în 1967, s-a precizat că, la
nivelul tăbliţelor, s-a descoperit şi o ancoră de lut de tip caracteristic culturii
Coţofeni şi bronzului egeean timpuriu.“…………….                                                                  “Consecinţa logică rezultată din coroborarea datelor amintite este că
tăbliţele ar putea fi atribuite unui orizont cultural mai nou şi anume orizontului
Coţofeni, deci eneoliticului târziu sau începutului epocii bronzului din
Transilvania şi nu orizontului neolitic corespunzător fazei Vinča-Turdaş, datată pe baza C14 în mileniul V, pe la 4500 î. Hr. (Makkay, 1990, Pl.2)”. ====================================================

This not means:                                                                                                                                      – that the scribe had relatives or is native of this comunity,                                                         – not the “writing” originated here,                                                                                                   – nor proof to be so old.

MY OWN SUPPOSITION IS FOR AN SOUTHWARD ORIGIN for both: for “writing” and the scribe (Near East,Anatolia or rather Aegean). This is in my opinion the place where this “writing” was originated: From  The Risch-Chadwick Theory: An Obstacle to Progress by J. Faucounau Member of the Linguistic Society of Paris, France

1)- A theory which disregards the ancient tradition

The first weakness of the RC Theory is its total disregard of the most ancient tradition. For all the ancient authors, the Ionians were “the first Greeks“. There are no conflicting views about this among Herodotus, Strabon or Pausanias, although there is one concerning the origin of the Ionians. We will notice, in particular, that Herodotus – who call them “Pelasgoi” – established a link between the Ionians and the oldest inhabitants of the Cycladic Islands. He wrote : “The inhabitants of the islands … were also a Pelasgic people. They were later called Ionians for the same reason as the Ionians who came from Athens..” (Herodotus VII,95).

The word “Pelasgoi” is important. Influenced by the RC Theory, and because the Pelasgoi were said to have been the first inhabitants of Greece, most modern scholars have considered the name as designing a “Pre-Greek” (and therefore “non-Greek”) population. But the obvious link with “Pelagos” : “the open sea” leads us to think that the primitive meaning of the word must have been “seafarers”, a good description indeed of the Cycladic people during the Early Bronze Age. The most natural guess coming from the Herodotus account is therefore that a)- the Ionians were “the first Greeks” b)- they were seafarers and came by sea c)- they were once settled in the Cycladic Islands, probably during the Early Bronze Age.     

2)- A theory which disregards the geographical data

…..The classification of the Greek dialects into four groups (Ionic-Attic, Arkado-Cypriot, Aiolic and West Greek) has been universally accepted, as has also been agreed by all scholars that “Greek” (or at least its Indo European component) has been brought by “immigrants from the north”. From where, is still a matter of discussion. But the most probable place seems to be in the Balkans, south of the Low Danubian Valley.

3)- A theory based upon a single linguistic fact    ……………”                      ===========================================================================From:                                                                                                                                             Balkan ‘Aryan’ waves: 2800-2500bc R1b Troy, 2000-1500bc R1a Macedonians/Ionians/Micenians, 1200BC – R1b Dorians                                                                                                                                          https://aleximreh.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/balkan-aryan-waves/

Some time before:

eupedia.com/R1b The first forays of steppe people into the Balkans happened between 4200 BCE and 3900 BCE, when cattle herders equipped with horse-drawn wagons crossed the Dniester and Danube and apparently destroyed the towns of the Gumelnita, Varna and Karanovo VI cultures in Eastern Romania and Bulgaria. A climatic change resulting in colder winters during this exact period probably pushed steppe herders to seek milder pastures for their stock, while failed crops would have led to famine and internal disturbance within the Danubian and Balkanic communities. The ensuing Cernavoda culture (Copper Age, 4000-3200 BCE), Coțofeni culture (Copper to Bronze Age, 3500-2500 BCE) and Ezero culture(Bronze Age, 3300-2700 BCE), in modern Romania, seems to have had a mixed population of steppe immigrants and people from the old tell settlements. These steppe immigrants were likely a mixture of both R1a and R1b lineages, with a probably higher percentage of R1a than later Yamna-era invasions.

Tartaria people begining

<< 2800-2500BCE. Around the Black Sea, in the North of Turkey, in the East of the Balkans – the R1b highway. Old Europe is still resisting, R1b jumps over Cucuteni/Vinca culture to ‘Transylvania’, the starting platform from where Western Europe will be conquered. >>

Tartaria-Turdas people contemporary with supposed tablets’ scribe:

<< 2500-2000 BCE. Most of Cucuteni Culture replaced by Cotsofeni R1b. Cernavoda and Ezero also mixed cultures – Old Europe mixed with R1b, same with Otomani and Glina, R1b military elite controls the area but they will be in the end melted into the Old I2(+J2+E1b1) mixture. R1b controls western part of Balkans, Bubanj-Hum Maliq Culture. Much of Old Europe is still resisting. Troy also R1b. >>

Tartaria’s people (Cotofeni Culture) contemporary with the scribe:

R1b migration – bronze age = R1b migrants melted into I2+E/J/G Enelolithic/Old Europe populations produce new cultures: Cernavoda in Dobrogea >> Gumelnita from Dobrogea to Olt river >> Salcuta between Olt river and Serbia >> Krivodol/Bubanj in Serbia >> Maliq in Albania; plus Ezero in Bulgaria and Cotofeni in Transilvania. These Bronze Age mixes are proto-Thracians, and proto-Illyrians from which the Iron Age populations resulted – Thracians, Dacians, Getae and Illyrians. < eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History

<< R1b coming from the Caucasus, N&S of Black Sea is ‘jumping’ over Old Europe to conquer Western Europe. R1a coming from the N is ‘jumping’ over Old Europe to conquer the the Balkans & ‘Greece’. Why the Hittites, such a strong empire, why they were not able to conquer the south shores of the Black Sea? Because that was R1b corridor, from Caucasus to Europe. Same Romania had a 7000 years continuity, Dacians had a ‘Latin language’ before the birth of Roman Empire and we preserved this ‘Latinity’ to present day!, BECAUSE we had the highest European population density in Neolithic. All migrations melted into this lower Danube area, the biggest European human reservoir, all migrating populations were absorbed by the I2 old Europeans, due to the best living conditions found in this area. First from the Lower Danube area,  Europe was colonized with I2 populations, than through the Balkans arrived in Europe the J2/G farming populations  and finally from the Lower Danube area, R1b made the celtic conquest of Western Europe,and from the north shores of the Black Sea R1a made the conquest of all East Europe.  As Herodotus used to say, thracians were the biggest, most powerful population of the known world, compared only to the population of India. All over the world the biggest rivers produced the biggest populations and consequently the biggest cultures. Nile > Egypt, Indus/Ganges > India, Tigris/Euphrates > Mesopotamia, Lower Danube + Black Sea shores > ‘Arian’ Old Europe.

In the above maps we can see, according to Eupedia, between 2800-2500BCE, a first R1b migration to the East Balkans and East of Greece, along the shores of the Black Sea, of R1b, coming from Caucasus/Kura Axes Culture and from the South Yamma Open Steppe Culture, Late Yamma Culture = ‘Proto Greek’?. Then between 2000-1500BCE, a second R1a migration of ‘Greco Macedonians and Thracians’ to ‘Bulgaria’ and down to the South of ‘Greece’. >>

===============================================================

From https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans?p=516963&mode=threaded                                                                                      As far as I have read and learnt, I also tend to believe that the Proto-Greeks were associated with the Babyno culture or perhaps even the Cotofeni (close enough to where Babyno culture would arise) or Vucedol, considering the increasing likeliness that the Proto-Greeks were from their beginning a largely EHG-admixed EEF-majority people who shifted to IE language and culture. That’d explain nicely the cultural links of Mycenaeans to northern cultures and also the relatively little impact of steppe-like component in Mycenaean Greece.                                                                                                See :

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts | iurii mosenkis – Academia …

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                                 Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste.

===== Tablita rotunda de la Tartaria este un calendar arhaic ? ====

 Trei (sau mai multe) aspecte sant pregnante si totodata relevante, ele fiind rezultatul  cercetarilor mele anterioare dar si ale altora, ele constituind baza si osatura prezentei argumentatii:

1. Tablita are prezentarea grafica generala ca fiind un cerc impartit de o “cruce greceasca”, adica cruce cu brate egale.Aceasta forma (cruce in cerc) este comuna calendarelor de tip lunisolar.
2. Atunci cand tablitele erau purtate ca un pandantiv, (agatate cu un snur in jurul gatului), jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde, deci si presupusul mesaj erau acoperite de tablita dreptunghiulara. Se poate logic presupune astfel, ca mesajul continut ar fi avut un caracter secret.

Imaginea, din Semnificația “tăblițelor” de la Tărtăria. Muzeul de Istorie din Cluj …https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-d..    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7suVXIog04qKG_gkgCIpHbccBbYcV35_xh1jdHT-5SGyWJgHUh-DY

3. Semnele continute in jumatatea de sus, dupa mine constituie un grup separat “de alta opinie” in raport cu restul semnelor de pe celelalte tablite, reprezentand la o adica silabograme (din silabarele Linear A sau Linear B), sau chiar litere prezente in alfabetul grec arhaic. Este posibil ca doar jumatatea de sus sa contina un mesaj coerent sau important, restul semnelor de pe tablita avand un rol de semne ritualice.Totusi in ultima instanta se poate incerca si citirea restului, celorlalte semne.                  ——————————————————————————————————————                      Se pare ca este vorba de un calendar arhaic, (de sorginte Europeana?),  cu legaturi in Zona Egeeana, mai precis civilizatia Minoana (? pelasgica?).

Mini (popolo) – WikiVividly
https://wikivividly.com › lang-it › wiki
Secondo la mitologia greca, i Mini – agg. minio, minia, minie, minii – (in greco Μινύες, ….. 

In primul rand, va fac cunoscut ca semnul “H” din grupul “HD” situat in sfertul din stanga reprezinta in scrierile hieroglifica cretana si Linear A semnul PA3 care reprezinta consoana PA sau PAi.                                                                   http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ *56 (PA₃),                      HT 9b.1, 132.2, 34.6

Semnul “D” nu a fost folosit cu exact aceasta forma in niciuna din scrierile vechi Egeene, prima oara aparand in Europa in alfabetul arhaic grec (alfabetul chalcidian/Chalcis/Euboia), ca un urmas al phenicianului dalet si totodata urmas al lui delta.

Daca este vorba de un timp presupus foarte indepartat, atunci nici-un cercetator nu stie ce poate reprezenta. Totusi, marea majoritate, in lipsa de optiuni au presupus ca reprezinta Luna. Dupa mine, as avea rezerve in a acredita comunitatea din care provine scribul cu o inteligenta iesita din comun, sau preocupari filozofice ori aprehenta pentru cercetari in domeniul biologiei.

Daca ar fi dupa scrierea Linear A, am avea PA3 +”simbolul lunii“

In ( inca nedescifrata complet) limba minoana, am avea:

PA-MINA/MINI(pronuntare mene, meinei) sau MENO

PA:”tot, toate”

PAMENO, PAMENOS este atestat ca insemnand 1 Bilingual Papyrological Archives In the course of the … – Trismegistos https://www.trismegistos.org/arch/archives/arch_paris.pdf Egyptian double name – Ptolemaios alias Pamenos –, and his daughters also had Greek.

sau: “toate lunile“, deci “AN, (acest) AN”

Din A Greek-English Lexicon: Based on the German Work of Francis Passow https://books.google.ro/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ  Πάμμηνος, ον, (πάς, μήν) through all months, the whole year long, Soph. Εl. 851, π. σελήνη= πανσέληνος, ή, Ρlut. 2, 936 Α. Παμμηστωρ, ωρος, ό, ή, all-inυcntiυε, …

Din ANISTORITON Journal of History, Archaeology, ArtHistory: Viewpoints
www.anistor.gr › english › enback
One of the faces reads: Pa-me-ni po-lo 100 The foals (polo(i)) for this year (pameni has the dative ending, but cf. Greek pammenos)

Nota                                                                                                                                                         Vre-o 5 cercetatori (nu stiu daca luandu-se unul dupa altul sau nu) presupun in semnele “DDoo”  (in lipsa totala de alte optiuni) ca reprezinta fazele Lunii. Sigur, ar putea fi si asa.

Din John Jounger http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                   Sign *034  has been suggested by several scholars to represent MNA (or, if a disyllabic value can be accepted, MINA), based on its resemblance to the crescent moon (Pope and Raison 1978, 28; Packard 1974, 107; Furumark 1956, 24).

Eu, nu pentru ca as avea tendinta de a fi “Gica contra”, am avut propria ipoteza relativ la presupusele faze ale lunii.

1.Fazele Lunii reprezentate pictografic ne indeparteaza de o presupusa faza a vre-unui scris propriu-zis, ba la o adica ne scoate chiar inafara domeniului proto-scrierii.

2. O legatura intre fazele lunii si ciclul lunar feminin, mai mult decat constatarea une suprapuneri a intervalului de timp, este un demers complex.Nu-i neglijez utilitatea. Se pare cadovezi scrise asupra faptului ca au inceput sa fie cunoscute anumite perioade de fertilitate si infertilitate in cadrul ciclului menstrual uman, apar de-abia cateva secole IEN in scrierile arabe daca tin bine minte.

3.Calendarul “clasic, astronomic, normal”era extrem de important intrucat era legatura oamenilor cu agricultura natura si implicit subzistenta.

http://www.crystalinks.com/calendarearly.html                                                                              A lunar calendar is one in which days are numbered within each lunar phase cycle. Because the length of the lunar month is not an even fraction of the length of the tropical year, a purely lunar calendar quickly drifts against the seasons. It does, however, stay constant with respect to other phenomena, notably tides. Lunar calendars are believed to be the oldest calendars invented by mankind. Cro-Magnon people are claimed to have invented one around 32,000 BC. Lunar calendars are also liked to feminine goddess energies. A lunisolar calendar is a lunar calendar that compensates by adding an extra month as needed to realign the months with the seasons. An example is the Jewish calendar which uses a 19 year cycle

What could be the oldest lunar calendar ever created has been identified on the walls of the famous, prehistoric caves at Lascaux in France. The interpretation that symbolic paintings, dating back 15,000 years, show the Moon going through its different phases comes from Dr Michael Rappenglueck, of the University of Munich.

The German researcher has previously associated patterns left in the caves with familiar stars and constellations. He now says groups of dots and squares painted among representations of bulls, antelope and horses depict the 29-day cycle of the Earth’s satellite.                                                                                                                                              Din The Oldest Lunar Calendar on Earth http://scribol.com/science/paleontology/the-oldest-lunar-calendar-on-earth/

The First (Lunar) Calendar –

The archaeological record’s earliest data that speaks to human awareness of the stars and ‘heavens’ dates to the Aurignacian Culture of Europe, c.32,000 B.C. Between 1964 and the early 1990s, Alexander Marshack published breakthrough research that documented the mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the Late Upper Paleolithic Cultures of Europe. Marshack deciphered sets of marks carved into animal bones, and occasionally on the walls of caves, as records of the lunar cycle. These marks are sets of crescents or lines. Artisans carefully controlled line thickness so that a correlation with lunar phases would be as easy as possible to perceive. Sets of marks were often laid out in a serpentine pattern that suggests a snake deity or streams and rivers.

Image: Notation dans les Gravures du Paléolithique Supérieur, Bordeaux, Delmas / Don’s Maps Aurignacian Lunar Calendar / diagram, drawing after Marshack, A. 1970

——————————————————————————————–

A Minoan Calendar of Bronze Age Time | Richard Heath – Academia.edu

www.academia.edu/…/A_Minoan_Calendar_of_Bronze_Age…

30 July 2016 12:30 A Minoan Calendar of Bronze Age Time By Richard Heath First published in 2004 at http://www.MatrixOfCreation.com See also Sacred Number .
Vedeti si http://minoanastronomy.mikrob.com/                                                                              —————————————————————-                                                                                                                  Ce ar fi semnele din sfertul din dreapta?

Semnul +++++ .

Din The Number System of the Old European Script Eric Lewin Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D. https://arxiv.org/html/math/0309157v1

“Also common is the comb motif (Table 1) with three to eight teeth 33 inscriptions. As the comb motif is used with so many different numbers of teeth and as the comb inscriptions seem to be used in a similar manner, and are found in similar places on pottery as the score mark inscriptions, we think these signs also denote numbers. We translate a comb with n (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) teeth as 10+n. Other possibilities are the numbers n or n+1 (n teeth plus the horizontal stroke), but these seem unlikely as there are already signs for n and n+1 (n or n+1 score marks).”

Deci 10+5=15 sau 5 (5+1/2=5,5?)

La minoani si micenieni  semnul – bara orizontala reprezenta 10 iar unitatile erau bare verticale, I de exemplu pentru 1.

Din https://plus.maths.org/content/fabulous-positional-system

Atunci am putea avea 10+1+1+1+1+1 =15?

Sau semne de tip raboj, si atunci “5”?

Daca aplicam aceeasi citire semnelor D, am avea MENO MENO   oo

Apoi Menomeno, menomenos in greaca insemna anormal .

01 vico historia – Sardegna Digital Library PDFwww.sardegnadigitallibrary.it › documenti 5 iun. 2008 · FRANCESCO MANCONI, The Kingdom of Sardinia, a Province …… Sardeña Menomenos en griego, y en latín Insanos

Dupa cum am dedus eu MENO inseamna “salas, a slaslui, a mana(ramane), etc” iar sufixul -Menos se foloseste pentru formarea participiului.dar tot sufixul menos atasat unei notiuni arata “putin”

…adica “putin acasa”, bolnav de cap.

Nota

Mare problema cu semnele “oo” sau “oc”                                                                                            Din http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/   *309, only TY 2 in three variations *309a , *309b , *309c

Daca luam timpul minoanilor 2200-2000 BC nu ar fi posibil sa avem in semnele OC literele aparute ulterior OS si atunci sa avem MENOMENOS

..pai cum?

Behind the Name: Name Element MENOS

https://www.behindthename.com › element

The meaning, origin and history of the name element “menos” … Greek element meaning ” mind, strength, courage, force”.

Oricum, important e ceea ce inseamna menomeno/menomenos:

01 vico historia – Sardegna Digital Library PDFwww.sardegnadigitallibrary.it › documenti 5 iun. 2008 · FRANCESCO MANCONI, The Kingdom of Sardinia, a Province …… Sardeña Menomenos en griego, y en latín Insanos

Daca in schimb am lua sensul lui MENO:”Luna”, atunci ar rezultat “luna…mai putin”            Ce ar putea fi?                                                                                                                              Nota.                                                                                                                                                            Din Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁n̥s – Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁…                                      This Proto–Indo–European entry contains reconstructed words and roots. As such, the … From earlier **méh₁n̥ss, probably from *meh₁– (“to measure”)

In toate limbile si aici vorbim de un cadru mai larg care excede familia limbilor Indo-Europene, denumirea Lunii reflecta printre altele:

– starea de corp mort in unele eg Iluna si in limba basca/euscara particula “I” mort, sau

– nu starea de a fi mort ci de a fi bolnava, palida si in acest sens anormala, adica  nesanatoasa,

-deasemenea in alte limbi (hitita) ARMA reflecta starea de deprivat.sARMAn, orfan 

Din http://www.kondaira.net/eng/Euskara2.html                                                                                    When someone passed by, he went to be a member of ‘the ones that live at night’ . He was led by the Moon or ‘Ilargi’ [i’ljargi = Light of the Deads (literal translation)] in the dark through a path up to a cavern called ‘Mari’s Cave’. During the trip, the deceased was protected from the bad spirits by the symbol of Mari, the ‘Lauburu’, that had previously been engraved on his tombstone.
Din http://www.sonic.net/~dweeks/work/samples/write/Hittite_Vocab.pdf                                       .53 — MOON — The Anatolian word for ‘moon’ was arma-; it appears in this shape in Hitt. and Luwian, in Hier. as MOON-ma-, and in very many Anatolian names like Lycian Gk. Ερμαμοας, Ερμενηνις, Lyc. erm͂menẽni, etc. It generally means ‘month’ as well, like the numerous reflexes of IE *mēnes, etc., but clearly does not continue that term of its basic sense of ‘measuring’. Although pronounced “ohne Etymologie” by Tischler (T 62), arma- has been connected (e.g. Laroche, RHR 148 [1955]: 18-21) with a large group of words having to do with ‘weakness, sickness, paleness’, including arma(n)-, irma(n)-, irmanant- 16 HITTITE VOCABULARY ‘sickness’, derived from IE *ormo- as seen in OE earm, ON armr, Goth. arms ‘wretched’ (and possible Arm. ołorm ‘pity’), and explained as ‘the pale one’, in contrast to both the daytime sun and the widespread IE replacement lunar designation as ‘the shining one’ (Lat. lūna, etc.; Gk. σελήνη; Skt. candrámas-). Also related are armai- ‘be pregnant’, armahh- ‘impregnate’ (4.73; Puhvel, Bi. Or. 36 [1979]: 58); full dicussion in P 151–60.                                                                             ——————————————————————————-                                                               Nu strica sa fac o revizuire.Initial, atat sumerienii cat si egiptenii au folosit anul impartit in 12 luni iar luna cu 30 de zile.Cel putin pe sumerieni nu i-a deranjat mult timp faptul ca aparea o decalare de cca 5.5 zile facand astfel socoteala.

Totusi primii care au stiut ca e vorba de 5 zile si au inceput sa aplice corectia in mod exact, au fost egiptenii.Ei au introdus o sarbatoare de 5 zile la sfarsitul anului si au corectat perfect problema.

Din A History of Time and Ancient Calendars – TimeCenter https://www.timecenter.com/…/a-history-of-time-and-ancient…

“The Egyptians divided each month into 30 days; however, at the end of every year there existed five additional days. … The citizens of Sumer-an ancient civilization that existed in modern-day Iraq-also used a calendar that included 12 months.”

Altii au facut corectii mai primare. Vechii sumerienii,apoi egiptenii, grecii si popoarele semitice  adaugau o luna la 4 ani, ceea ce era mai bine decat socoteala grosiera dinainte, dar tot era departe de realitate .

Lunar Calendar http://www.crystalinks.com/sumercalendars.html                                                                               The lunar calendar was synchronized with the solar year (the seasons) by intercalation of a leap month every few years.

The Sumerians of Babylon were probably the first people to make a calendar. They used the phases of the moon, counting 12 lunar months as a year. To make up for the difference between this year and the year of the seasons, they inserted an extra month in the calendar about every four years.

The early Egyptians, Greeks, and Semitic peoples copied this calendar. Later the Egyptians worked out a calendar that corresponded almost exactly to the seasons.       The early Romans also used a calendar based on the moon. The year in this calendar was 355 days long. The months corresponding to March, May, July, and October each had 31 days; February had 28 days; and the rest had 29. An extra month was added about every fourth year.

Minoanii au observat ca dupa un anumit interval de timp pozitia lunii pe cer revine.Acel numar de ani a fost la ei 8 sau 9. culmea interval cumva egal cu numarul de ani ai domniei regelui Minos. S-a gasit la ei un calendar, in care printre altele foloseau 5 faze ale lunii nu 4 si intr-un an aveau 60 de faze lunare.In calendarul minoan gasit apar in colturi un numar de semne 2 si 3 care aveau rolul de a face decalarea/corectia.

The Minoan Calendar https://www.cretegazette.com/2008-12/minoan-calendar.php?fbclid=IwAR2gf3L-BBuZv7sWC9kRvLQ4YudvZB3ZKuLCEWtor0Hb_qq2MFLjdJq5T28

The two main patterns

His observed two main patterns in each vertical and horizontal row of the border: 62 colored crescent-shapes laid out in a 5-color sequence (orange, red, white, blue, black), and around those crescents, another pattern—16 rows of short black lines or “tracks,” the rows laid out in alternating orange and blue. The 16 rows make up 4 complete layers or circuits of the Fresco border. In Minoan Linear A script, a crescent signifies “moon,” and a short black “tick” is the numeral 1. Indeed, the two main patterns (62 colored crescents, and 390 tracks per circuit of the border) total close to a year of 5-phase moons and a 365-day solar year.

Why, though, did the border break its own established color-sequence and arrangement? And why had Minoan masters promised the eye a sharp rectangular border only to leave an awkward imbalance of “extra” tracks (in 3’s and 7’s) at the rectangle’s corners? The trick was to find by experiment the starting-point for counting through the fresco border’s features. Minoans read from left-to-right. When Herberger followed that one clue, an amazing series of patterns unfolded, with a logic that is fully answered by experiments and comparative evidences of many kinds.

The Minoan Great Year

The Minoan Great Year produces two signs in the actual sky that repeat every 8½ years: a New Crescent Moon at Winter Solstice (that is, New Year Day), followed six months later by a Full Moon at Summer Solstice. These unions, separations and returns (a known feature of Cretan folk dance) mark the observable unity of lunar/solar time and hence the “marriage of moon and sun” accomplished by all calendars.Based in direct observation, these signs require no intervention of a priestly class to “tell the time.” Computer-simulation research shows that the phase of each moon along the 8 years of Solar Solstices is remarkably consistent over thousands of years. They could be learned, memorized and used in both practical and symbolic ways.

If we begin counting colored crescents on the fresco at the lower right corner (because Minoans read left-to-right), the orange crescent there might signify a New Crescent Moon at Winter Solstice/New Year Day. Count upward thirty black “tracks,” pass through a red (waxing), white (full) and blue (waning, shadow) phase, and there is a black or perhaps Dark Moon.

Continue on counting the colored crescents through one 5-phase month at a time, across the horizontal top and beyond, and indeed the fresco’s border completes a 12-moon year precisely (12 x 5 = 60)—with two points where its own broken color logic requires that we “leap” them and the sets of “extra” black tracks close by them.

——————————————————————————————–

Daca este vorba de ceva anormal, lor nu li se parea absolut de loc ca miscarea soarelui sau lunii ar fi anormale.este adevarat ca ei nu puteau vedea pozitia soarelui fata de stele intrucat ziua soarele straluceste orbitor si nu avem referinta stelele.Deci numai luna putea fi referinta.

Ei vedeau ca daca anul incepe la soltstitiul de iarna la luna noua, dupa 6 luni la solstitiul de vara aveau luna plina. Aceasta pereche soare-luna executa un dans cosmic si era vorba si de o comuniune/casatorie a soarelui cu luna.

In menomenos este vorba de diminuarea nu a lunii sau ciclului lunar ci diminuare a anului care fara corectii avea 360 zile, care este mai putin si de aceea considerat anormal.Cercul cu cruce continand 3 luni in fiecare sfert nu este normal este diminuat fata de cel real! unui interval de cicluri lunare.

Si atunci am putea avea:

I stanga, “toate lunile”= “1 an”

In dreapta, menomenos:”luni diminuate”?”, intervalul lunilor mai mic”la care se adauga  5 zile pe an

—————————————————————

Ar mai putea fi vorba de un posibil ciclu de 15 ani care este foarte apropiat de ciclul SAROS-18 ani/METONIC-19 ani unde corectia este si mai buna.
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)                                                            The saros (/ˈsɛərɒs/ (listen)) is a period of approximately 223 synodic months (approximately 6585.3211 days, or 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours), that can be used to predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon. One saros period after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to approximately the same relative geometry, a near straight line, and a nearly identical eclipse will occur, in what is referred to as an eclipse cycle. A sar is one half of a saros.[1]
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle?fbclid=IwAR3jo97Be0px2RGba2TaVUWlRgvqrF77ey3g7LMEWhNZXHI3JOz2a-pRLVA                       For astronomy and calendar studies, the Metonic cycle or Enneadecaeteris (from Ancient Greek: ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίς, “nineteen years“) is a period of very close to 19 years that is nearly a common multiple of the solar year and the synodic (lunar) month. The Greek astronomer Meton of Athens (fifth century BC) observed that a period of 19 years is almost exactly equal to 235 synodic months and, rounded to full days, counts 6,940 days. The difference between the two periods (of 19 years and 235 synodic months) is only a few hours, depending on the definition of the year.                                                                                                                                                          ————————————————————-                                                                                            Nota                                                                                                                                                      In Linear a si linear B semnul “o” (cerc) reprezinta cifra 100.                                                 Din https://plus.maths.org/content/fabulous-positional-system

Atunci ar putea fi vorba de ciclul SAROS care are 223 de luni sinodice iar noi avem pe tablita doar oo =100 100 =200.

Ciclul SAROS are 18 ani si 223 lunatii.ia sa facem calculul cate lunatii ar corespunde la un ciclu mai mic de 15 ani

18 …223

15…..x             x=185 lunatii, iar noi avem cifra nu 223 ci 200, …..apropiat ?
————————————————————-                                                                                      ATENTIE                                                                                                                                                Cu cat timpul este mai indepartat, trebuie sa asteptam un calendar de factura mai grosiera, iar cu cat ne apropiem de timpurile noastre putem avea pretentia de socoteli mai exacte.                                                                                                                                        P.S.                                                                                                                                                          Sa nu mai aduc vorba ca daca ar fi sa luam semnele ca litere grecesti arhaice am avea:
HP =”HR“ iar DDoc =”RRos”

HoRa,ora /HoRo   ROROS                                                                                                              Din Etruscan Glossary A (spreadsheet containing 2,500 Etruscan words …http://www.academia.edu/…/Etruscan_Glossary_A_spreadsheet_containing_2_500_Etrusca…   One of several Latin towns taken by Tarquin 600 B.C. CaMaReM (L. 1st decl. …… K31, K109 1896 rural, to live in the country (L. ruro-are) ROROS (RVRVS) (See …

Timp/Anotimp/limita RURAL(de la tara!).....................Unde cifra 5/15? ramane valabila !

1,000 Most Common Albanian Words (with AUDIO) – 101Languages.net
www.101languages.net › albanian › most…
A list of the most commonly spoken Albanian words. Translated into English. … Menu. Albanian Dictionary … Number, Albanian Word, in English …. 183, herë, time ….. 959, hera, time                                                                              ==========================================

Avem o mare problema, intrucat semnele din jumatatea de sus ar putea fi la o adica litere arhaice grecesti.In aceasta situatie, scrisul din jumataea de sus ar putea fi din orice perioada incepand cu 750 B/C. inspre zilele noastre.

Daca scrisul provine din periada alfabetelor epichorice (inainte de stabilizarea si standardizarea lor) atunci am putea avea echivalentul literelor

HP    RRoc

Acum ar mai putea interveni un fapt.nimeni nu poate afirma cu certitudinre care este exact relatia intre albanezi, dorieni si iliri; si mai complicat, nu ar fi exclus ca albanezii/ilirii sa provina de undeva mai de sus, mai din nord, eventual de pe teritoriul Panoniei. Acesti albanezi, iliri rude directe cu proto-romanii se stie ca aveau o arie de desfasurare foarte mare pe axa nord-sud, prin intermediul fenomenului transhumantei. Asa incat puteau avea cunostintaq de inceputurile scrierii grecesti si o puteau chiar transporta.Ca atare am putea avea:

HP   RRoc                                                                                                                                        HeRe   RRok                                                                                                                                                  Din https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#en/sq/time

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#view=home&op=translate&sl=en&tl=sq&text=grasp

“masor, smulg, prinde”, deci:

“MASURA TIMPului“

P.S.                                                                                                                                                       Calendarele lunisolare, au figurata crucea,                                                                      Din Researcher cites ancient Minoan-era ‘computer’ http://www.access.edu.gr/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2320  https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP2ukkzc5LcdCL-ctBws1KSEcq4QtDbatfu2kimJIpMrtbxBoW                                                                                                                                                                cruce care reprezinta punctele cardinale precum si impartirea anului in 4 (anotimpuri?).                                                                                                                                      In semnul +++++ am putrea avea cifra 5 care reprezinta corectia anuala de la luna cu 30 de zile  la anul cu 365 de zile !