Archive for December, 2018

As putea spune, un fel de final al cercetarii tablitelor de la Tartaria

December 31, 2018

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.semnelorDeci 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.HoodA.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.)

? Sumerian metal prospectors, metal-craftsmen in Romania/Serbia !?

December 29, 2018

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

SUPPOSITIONS:

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.

From SETTLING DISCOVERY CIRCUMSTANCES, DATING ANDUTILIZATION OF THE TART

ARIA TABLETS Marco Merlini Gheorghe Lazarovici
“Makkay investigated the advent of cylinder seals inEurope as result of a strong influence from the cylinder seals of the Jemdet Nasr andPredynastic 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. The small fragment of light-coloredtrachyte tuff with engraved signs found by Torma at the Transylvanian site of  Nádorválya (
Torma 1882: 44, pl. IV, 7; Vlassa 1970: 21, fig 19) was considered the most distant example of a cylinder seal made locally under the indirect influences of the Mesopotamian ones (
 Makkay 1974/5: 26 .This group of researchers believed that the idea of a local independent invention of a Southeastern European Neolithic system of writing was an absurd because of the lack of complex phenomena and processes indispensable to the invention of writing as 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 emphasized 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 know-how on metallurgy). Having taken into account the SoutheasternEuropean Neolithic phenomena in general under Anatolian and Near Eastern umbrella, they propounded the influence of the earliest Sumerian writing system maintaining alsothat Europe adopted latterly inventions of the other e.g. the chariot, the potterywheel (Makkay 1974/5: 23)

 

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.

de JA Halloran

dág: brilliant; pure; clean (‘to go out’ + aga(3), ‘diadem, circlet, crown’). … kug, : n., silver; precious metal; money; noble (ku, ‘to base, build’ + aga(3), ‘diadem, circlet, …

sumerian GIR :”furnace”

KUGIR:metalfurnace” ?

The assessment that Sumerian H (diacritical mark below the letter) ….. GIR 4 kiln

Borrowed from Sumerian 𒌋𒀜 (gir, “oven, kiln


On Tartaria round tablet we have the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign KU

Picture from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

NWgrid

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

KUa

-ba i[ni]m ba-a-ĝá-ar
kù.g =be =÷a inim =Ø Ø -ba -e -ĝar -Ø
silver=this=LOC word=ABS VP-MM-on-place-3N.S/DO
‘This silver was claimed (lit. “A word was placed upon this silver”).’ (NG 212 2; U; 21)

WE HAVE ON THE ROUND TABLET THE SIGN KU:”kug, : n., silver; precious metal; money; noble, and on the squared-one with hole two signs (lower row 2-nd and last-one) wich resembles with proto-cuneiform sign ZAG

BOTH ARE RELATED TO METAL AND IMETAL INGOT !! https://ro.pinterest.com/rhartley5598/greek-world/                                              http://apxaioc.com/media-gallery/detail/37/327

From Mesopotamia II https://www.anvilfire.com/21centbs/stories/rsmith/mesopotamia_2.htm?fbclid=IwAR2Ou34J9HiFfX_PaudelDhE3Ldaoh4Johy-I92t5SgruokOwd-Wa1vBpr4

“There, the ores were taken to Bad-Tibira, whose name literally meant ‘the foundation of metalworking.’ Smelted and refined, the ores were cast into ingots whose shape remained unchanged throughout the ancient world for millennia. Such ingots were actually found at various Near Eastern excavations, confirming the reliability of the Sumerian pictographs as true depictions of the objects they ‘wrote’ out; the Sumerian sign for the term ZAG (‘purified precious’), was the picture of such an ingot. In earlier times it apparently had a hole running through its length, through which a carrying rod was inserted. Several depictions of a God of the Flowing Waters show him flanked by bearers of such precious metal ingots, indicating that he was also the Lord of Mining.

The various names and epithets for Ea’s African Land of Mines are replete with clues to its location and nature. It was known as A.RA.LI (‘place of the shining lodes’), the land from which the metal ores come. A text listing the mountains and rivers of the Sumerian world states: ‘Mount Arali – home of the gold’; and a fragmented text confirms that Arali was the land on which Bad-Tibira depended for its continued operations.

The Mesopotamian texts spoke of the Land of Mines as mountainous, with grassy plateaux and steppes, and lush with vegetation. The capital city of that land was described by the Sumerian texts as being in the GAB.KUR.RA (‘in the chest of the mountains’), well inland. It was a land, all texts suggest, with bright days, awash with sunshine. The 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.

Pictographic signs employed as Sumer’s first writing reveal great familiarity not only with diverse metallurgical processes but also with the fact that the sources of the metals were mines dug down into the earth. The terms for copper and bronze (‘handsome bright stone’), gold (‘the supreme mined metal’), or ‘refined’ (‘bright – purified’) were all pictorial variants of a mineshaft (‘opening/mouth for dark-red’ metal).

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

From http://vimfox.info/other/indus-script-crystalinks.html

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

Despre fazele A1 ale Grupelor Ariuşd şi Cucuteni https://www.academia.edu/9439222/Despre_fazele_A1_ale_grupelor_Ariu%C5%9Fd_%C5%9Fi_Cucuteni?auto=download        file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Despre_fazele_A1_ale_grupelor_Ariusd_si.pdf              Abstract
“In the first part we have presented arguments regarding the meaning of the Copper Age and have underlined the interest of the Neolithic population for some of the most important raw material sources, such as salt copper and gold. We have also mentioned the civilisations related with the Copper Age in Romanian territory: late Vinča, Sălcuţa, Petreşti,Gumelniţa, Cucuteni, Tiszapolgár, Bodrogkeresztúr-Toarte pastilate. After we have discussed the problem related with PreCucuteni discoveries on Transylvanian territory, where in the last period new excavations and radiocarbon data, related with the stratigraphic situations offer new information regarding the beginning of the Ariuşd group. The analyse of the Precucuteni materials in Transylvania show that mainly they are related with phase Precucuteni I. Such materials have been discovered in early Turdaş sites (=Vinča C1), in Foeni complexes (Alba Iulia), in levels Foeni-Petreşti A, in levels Iclod I and II (contemporary with Foeni group; until Iclod-Petreşti synthesis), in Petreşti A levels.                                                                                                                                           ——————————————————————————————————————————-

From SITUAŢIA EPOCII ŞI METALURGIA CUPRULUI DIN TRANSILVANIA ŞI ZONELE ÎNVECINATE, CIVILIZAŢIILE ŞI METALURGIA CUPRULUI
CUPRUL
“Metalurgia cuprului începe în lume odată cu zorii civilizaţiei neolitice. Cele mai vechi
obiecte de cupru, nu puţine ci variate, nu câteva ci zeci de piese, au fost descoperite în
multe din staţiunile preceramice sau ceramice foarte timpurii în nordul Mesopotamiei, apoi în podişul Iranian cu sursele lui1, în Levant cu sursele lui (Tina), în Anatolia, dar şi în numeroase zone din Europa2. În acele zone sunt activităţi metalurgice şi siderurgice
(Tapeh Sialk, Arismann ş.a.), exploatări miniere (zona Anarac, minele, Dorreh,Darhand, Vshnaveh) în Levant, Anatolia, Iran ş.a.3, zone cu care regiunile Carpato-Dunărene au avut contacte etno-culturale neîntrerupte de la începutul neoliticului dezvoltat. Începând cu finele Neoliticul Timpuriu, în fazele târzii Starčevo-Criş (SC), dar şi în Neoliticul Dezvoltat din România la nivel Vinča A4, care sunt contemporane, există obiecte lucrate din cupru nativ la Dubova, Gornea, Balomir, Iernut5. La Iernut există un lingou de cupru similar unora din Sardinia6, fie mai degrabă unei bucăţi de cupru nativ, similar celor
descoperite la Ergani Maden în Nordul Mesopotamiei, în sud-estul Anatoliei. Piesele
de la Iernut şi Balomir, publicate de multă vreme de N. Vlassa sunt asociate cu materialele Starčevo–Criş târzii şi Vinča A de aici”

BAZA ECONOMICĂ A ENEOLITICULUI
AURUL
Alături de cupru, metalurgia aurului, aurul, a jucat un rol important încă din neolitic. În
epoca cuprului devine deja un element de prestigiu în civilizaţiile acesteia din România58, şi special în cultura Cucuteni-Ariuşd59. Asupra metalurgiei cuprului ne-am ocupat mai sus. Tipologic, piesele din România au fost analizate de Al. Vulpe60. Despre metalurgia cuprului, bronzului şi aurului, surse, analize, s-au preocupat pe larg Mircea Rusu, Dorin Popescu şi Eugen Stoicovici61. Aurul transilvan a jucat un rol important în civilizaţiile din sud-estul Europei, aşa cum arăta J. Makkay61, dacă ar fi să îi amintim doar pe unii arheologi. Despre sursele de aur din România şi analizele lor sunt studii recente63, dar şi altele mai vechi64. Atelierul de la Cheile Turzii–Peştera Ungurească, de bijuterii de aur în primul rând (după numărul pieselor), dar şi de obiecte şi podoabe de cupru, os, scoică şi piatră aduce o nouă lumină asupra metalurgiei aurului in Transilvania. Descoperirea unui atelier cu cuptor cu instalaţii de suflat, a unor vetre de foc cu obiecte de aur pe ele, aflate în diferite stadii de prelucrare, instrumente de tăiat (cuţite şi pumnale), tuburi de os de suflat şi sudat, oase pentru îndoit şi sudat aurul, fragmente de lut cu aur în ele rămas de la topiri, plăci prelucrate sau în curs de prelucrare, plăci îndoite, resturi de la curele sau ţesături ş.a. (fig. 9), toate vorbesc despre o evoluată şi specializată metalurgie a prelucrării aurului şi cuprului65. ”

The folowing paper of Mrs. Lazarivici and Mr Lazarovici are containing :                              – some valuable assertions  wich I did not know before, (or more precisely from/at the time when published), and by an independent path or way (using only close signs analysis) I came to same or a close conclusion                                                                                  – assertions wich as a consequence of my independent research, I do not agree.                       Hope the autors not get angry, but the simpliest way for me is to comment every statements or here in text the main lines, so sorrow their every assertions will be folowed by my comments.

TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS GHEORGHE LAZAROVICI CORNELIA-MAGDA LAZAROVICI MARCO MERLINI     2011                                                                                                    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Tartaria_and_the_sacret_tablets.pdf

“WRITING WITHOUT BEING CAPABLE OF WRITING
Following the line of reasoning of the Mesopotamian-gate, the main questions are when and how the idea of writing, the inventory of signs of literacy, the system of writing, and the technique of inscribing clay tablets were transmitted from Mesopotamia to Transylvania. However, the answer to this issue requires the previous resolution of too many inconsistencies that affect this approach. They concern the implausibility in dating of the tablets and the culture to which they belong, as well as their diverse
time frame (from 2900 to 500 BC), inadequate chronological and factual correspondences between the Danube region and Southern Mesopotamia, the assumption of a file rouge relationship between two very distant regions, and the presence of Sumerian signs of literacy on tablets that were not imported goods, being made from local clay. ”                                                                                                                          ———————————————————————————-                                                        Comment                                                                                                                                           Yes, it is out of doubt that the tablets are of direct sumerian influence/inspiration. I came to this conclusion checking that all the signs on the tablets has  an identical or close shape with those wich could be found in the proto-cuneiform sign lists. To be more clear, if not exact shape, but the exact blueprint/sqetch of the signs. Of course, if not genuine sumerian writing, at least arise the question how those signs were transmitted from a such distant place.                                                                                                                            Yes, “implausibility in dating of the tablets and the culture to which they belong, as well as their diverse time frame (from 2900 to 500 BC)”.                                                           I totally agree with both assertions, I concluded of the same time frame 2900 to 500 BC.   I am not fully confident of beeing made of local clay, but generally agree.                             —————————————————————————-

“Since the discovery of the tablets, fertile imaginations have been put in motion in order to make up for these incongruities. If we cannot move the goods, since the tablets were processed locally in Transylvania, we can imagine the people who produced them. Was there some form of East-Southern colonization of the Balkans during this remote period? N. Vlassa strictly connected what he called “the question of the primitive script” with the issue of a possible Near Eastern origin for this literate population. Gábor speculates about a Sumerian population that emigrated in Transylvania to settle
down there forever. They utilized very early signs of writing from Ur and the surrounding area. Şt. Kovács specifies that the migration occurred about 3400 BC. Sumerians settled down there as Hungarians.J. Harmatta arrives to interpret some incisions on artifacts as depictions of Sumerian wagons and considers some Neolithic villages in Transylvania to be settled by Sumerian populations. They actually are from the Linear pottery with musical note heads culture that belongs to the Middle Neolithic
with a date to 5000–4950 CAL BC1118. However, the conjecture of Sumerian migrants from Mesopotamia who settle in Transylvania and in the northern area of the Balkans is not plausible according to the archaeological record.”                                                            ———————————————————————–                                                                       Comment                                                                                                                                              From quite long time before, I hardly suspected a kind of sumerian migration, if not directly from Sumer (cause “ is not plausible according to the archaeological record”), in one step, then through Anatolia and/or Aegean area, through one or few generations. I base this on:                                                                                                                  – generally allready agreed opinion of a demic and cultural infusion in neolithic from Near-East.                                                                                                                                                – my independent observations an clues for groups of suthern and Near-East craftsmen and  families wich entered Vinca-Turdas area (Serbia, Banat, Transylvania).                           The suspected setlements are related to metal ores locations.I will present separately the arguments (mainly from linguistics field/toponyms) for exactly metal prospectors and metal craftsmen.                                                                                                                                    ———————————————————————————————————————“Alternatively, was the transmission of literacy channeled only through indirect methods such as “contacts”? Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting Mesopotamia, Anatolia,Cyclades, and the Middle and Lower Danube may represent the links between the Fertile Crescent and the Balkans. J. Makkay investigates the advent of cylinder seals in Europe as a result of a strong impact from similar artifacts of the Jemdet Nasr and Pre-dynastic 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 away as Thessaly and Thrace. He considers the small fragment of light-colored trachyte tuff with engraved signs found by Torma at the Transylvanian site of Nádorválya to be the most distant example of a cylinder seal made locally under indirect influences of the Mesopotamian prototypes.
What attracted eastern traders and adventurers to Transylvania? Makkay assumes that the gold of Transylvania made traders from the Near East, Anatolia, and the Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area, and points out that the ancient gold producing site of Zlatna (in the György valley) is located near Tărtăria and Turdaș. ”

Comment                                                                                                                                           Yes, totally agree,  if not in my opinion “merchant adventurers” (” Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting Mesopotamia, Anatolia,Cyclades, and the Middle and Lower Danube may represent the links between the Fertile Crescent and the Balkans” ) then, I specify: “prospectors, craftsmen and merchants”              Yes, Makkay:” the gold of Transylvania made traders from the Near East, Anatolia, and the Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area”.                                              I am adding, not only gold but also copper !                                                                                    —————————————————————————————————–

“He presupposes that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold by the Mesopotamian city-states. Therefore the request
was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines. I. J. Gelb attributes the tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to a less specified “inhabitant of Transylvania” who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them.”                                                                          Comment                                                                                                                                           So sorry, with consistent efforts, along time, in a paralel research, having no confidence in contradicting archeological data, based  only on the signs analysis, without knowing the Makkay opinion, I got independently to same conclusion, that could be ” via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands”. ( I specify a much larger group not only merchants) .                                                                                                                      The difference between Makkay assertion and mine, is that I found and could present evidences for an Egean, and more precise Cycladic route.                                                      No, I give not much credit of Gelb hypothesis that tablets were “written” by an Sumerian trader, cause an sumerian had no reason not to use original sign and to distort the signs. —————————————————————————————–                                                “Among the different options concerning the identikit of the person who made and inscribed the clay tablets found by N. Vlassa, according to J. Makkay, one has to contemplate as the most plausible scenario, a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to Transylvania in person; otherwise the artifacts could not have been produced from local clay.        

Comment                                                                                                                                          Between                                                                                                                                                 – “merchants of the Cycladic islands” and                                                                                     – “to a less specified inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them.”,                                                                                                          is hard to choose, cause have no sufficient evidences to a strong support of one of them, but rather somebody from the much “accustomed with writing” area as Aegean than some Transylvania inhabitant.Could be Transylvanian inhabitant only if had an southward, eastern origin or if the tablets are so recent that I am really afraid to think of. (as to be an writing exercise of some close-fellows scientists of Zsofia Torma!)                                       ——————————————————————————————————————
“Did the trading contacts have a mere economic character or a religious nature? Vl. Popović made a complex exegesis on the epic of Gilgamesh in order to find traces of a Sumerian colonization of Transylvania and therefore a rationale for the ritual deposition at Tărtăria. S. Hood applied the schema of Cirillus’ and Metodius’ mission of evangelization along the Danube, postulating Sumerian proselytizers in prehistoric Southeastern Europe: “in Romania… the first spread of writing or of signs derived from it may have been in a strictly religious or magical context… It is not impossible that the missionaries of an earlier religion from the East brought a first knowledge of writing during the third millennium BC”. According to him, the Tărtăria tablets resemble the early tablets from Crete and Mesopotamia and were found in a ritual context because they might harmonize with the imaginative suggestion advanced by M. Vasić that the Vinča ruling class consisted of mining prospectors-cum-witchdoctors from the south. They were engaged in the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Middle
Danube region keeping a hold over their native subjects by means of religion and magic.”                                                                                                                                                     ————————————————————————————-                                                 Comment:                                                                                                                                              S.Hood:”the first spread of writing or of signs derived from it may have been in a strictly religious or magical context” .                                                                                                        I am not so sure, cause  all scientists including S.Hood’s emphasys of religious aspect, beeing unable to identify the inner structure and purpose of that writing, all pushed the matter in the ” x-zone” of religious-magical field. Spiritual life is only a reflection of the everyday real-life !                                                                                                                            “M. Vasić that the Vinča ruling class consisted of mining prospectors-cum-witchdoctors from the south. They were engaged in the exploitation of the mineral resources”         Not necessary “rulling class” , but more advanced culturally, and possible literate ones. Not “keeping a hold over their native subjects by means of religion and magic.”                         ——————————————————————————————————
A number of scholars who accept the Vinča (or Vinča-Turdaș according to the oldest terminology) horizon for the Transylvanian tablets and are puzzled by the correspondences between the oldest European inscriptions and early Sumerian pictograms/ideograms propose a different solution, preferring to recognize the parallels only in sign shape, but not in meaning. They state that the inscribed blueprint
of the Tărtăria finds, especially on the rounded one, is so similar to writing on early Mesopotamian tablets that it must have derived, even if indirectly, from it. Nonetheless, the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.                                                        ————————————————————————————————————                           Comment                                                                                                                                         Yes, somehow,:                                                                                                                                 “the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.” Aegeans took the signs and used whenever they need, they surely “renamed” the signs, atributed another another phonetics, (possible retaining some meaning ?)                                                                        E.g. sumerian sign Ku become Aegean PA3, sumerian Pa become Aegean Pa, sumerian Se become Aegean Te….                                                                                                                             ———————————————————————————————–
Semiotically, the hypothesis that the Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design is based on the argument that the signs of literacy do not appear together in the same groups as they do on the Mesopotamian tablets. Two signs that occur separated, but in adjacent groups, on the Tărtăria discoid tablet are joined together on some of the Jemdet Nasr tablets to compose the name of a god: EN-GI. A Transylvanian “intellectual” copied two Sumerian signs, but was not capable to unite them to write properly the divine name. No scholar from that side expresses doubts that perhaps the ancient Transylvanians had no intention to write down the name of a Sumerian god. According to them, the illiterate presence of signs of literacy at Tărtăria might reflect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the significance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy are carriers of magic powers is exactly the reason why their mere graphic imitations have been deposited in a ritual pit-grave with fragments of human bones. “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… It is well-known that the
apotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people”, explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ”                                             Comment                                                                                                                                              On ”  Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design ”  comments and explanations are inconsistent, as long as many researchers not lean on sufficient on the signs real shape.I discovered by their turn superfice approaches.                                                                             ” at Tărtăria might reflect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the significance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy arecarriers of magic powers“….                                                                                                          … not much convinced, I sustain that (they/the scribe) new quite well the significance of the signs.                                                                                                                                            The folowing asertion may be partly true:                                                                                         ” The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… ”                                          I am adding:    ”  by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe” and wich could be at the upper time-limit, even contemporaneous with us.                                                                                              “ explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of explained J. Makkay some years before advancing the aforementioned suggestion of a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania, or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ”    or a Sumerian merchant trading to this region. ” Hard to believe “sumerian merchant” and what do you understand that could be   ” a Sumerian scribe native of Transylvania” ?                                                                                                                                                               NO! The writer is from Aegean area !!

Tracking, looking for traces and evidences on Tartaria tablets

December 22, 2018

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

scribe-ptahchepses

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 

Imagini pentru tartaria tablets

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

LAL×LAL.LAGAB
Borger: LAL2.LAGAB
SignSign 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

 DAG dwelling | E2 house | EN ….. DARA3 ~ IBEX |durah (dara3) [89x] = wild goat, mountain goat)                                                                 
“-I am convinced that Nergal is the netherworld aspect of the sun-god, on the basis of late mystical texts which I had looked at in the Erra thread . One text states                            dšamaš u nergal(U.GUR) istēn(1)en     (“Šamaš and Nergal are one “)                                        —————————————————————————————–     

  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                          Unicode character U+10907 for Aegean fontUnicode character U+10907 for MPH 2B Damase fontUnicode character U+10907 for Quivira fontUnicode character U+10907 for FreeSans fontUnicode character U+10907 for Tuffy fontUnicode character U+10907 for Tuffy font

HERE WE HAVE HERE AN IMPORTANT CLUE                                                                             BESIDES OLDEST “D/P?” shape found as old hebrew shape P=”KOF/KOPF/kuph”,  Image result for paleo hebrew quph             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=qopfH=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

Imagini pentru crete archaic eta

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-lettershaped 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 IIV) 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 similato 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.(literallydemigodhero       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, (MasterLord.) 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”

 

Basics, or starting point for I-European and Tartaria people rituals

December 12, 2018

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:

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-, meaningto 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 Cuina  bone

  • ? 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.

Possible genetics of neolithic people of Tartaria-Turdas settlements

December 10, 2018

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:

early-bronze-age

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 …

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts?

 

Iurii Mosenkis   

 

‘Proto-Linear A’ of Troy II–V (2600–1900 BCE) is preceded by ‘pre-Linear A’ of Cucuteni A-B (4100–3800 BCE) and late Trypillia (Troianiv and Gorods’k, early 3rd m. BCE) which may be read in Greek or Greek-Armenian

 

Cucuteni-Trypillia source of Minoan culture is a very old idea which traced to early XX c. Old comparison of Butmir (a branch of Impresso) and Minoan art (without clear link), Impresso and Cycladic figurines (with a link in Cycladic Neolithic art) may be also mentioned.

As E. R. von Stern in early XX c. and V. V. Struwe in mid-XX c. compared Crete with Usatove, Yu. V. Andreev in late XX c. underlined that Minoan ornamental motifs have ‘especially close analogies’ in Cucuteni-Trypillia and Gumelnita ones.

Spindle-whorls were typical oblect of Trojan inscriptions similar to Linear A (above). Trypillian spindle-whorls (late 4th – early 3rd m. BCE, contemporaneous with Troy I) might be also readed in comparison with Linear A.

Presented Trypillian spindle-whorl might bear an inscription:

pa-we-a = Lin. B pa-we-a = Greek φάρεα, pl. of φᾶρος, ‘a large piece of cloth’.

The sign te, frequent on Trypillian  spindle-whorls, might be compared with Lin. A, B te, shortened designation of material possibly related to Lin. A ta-pa, Lin. B te-pa, τάπης, ‘carpet’.

Not only ‘linear’ but also ‘hieroglyphic’ Minoan signs have Trypillian parallels.

Seven Ж-symbols on the vessel which was found at the place of grain cult (dated to Trypillia BI) resemble Cretan Linear A, B syllabic sign si; Anatolian syllabic sign ha is also similar, in comparison to Hittite halki, ‘grain’. Σιτώ, ‘she of the Grain’, was cult title of Demeter. Si-to-po-ti-ni-ja, ‘Lady of the Grain’ is mentioned in the Linear B inscription from Mycenae. Ж-symbol is also depicted on the Late Trypyllia vessel. D. I. Pereverzev (pers. comm.) the same origin of Slavonic Ж letter while Slavic name of rue might be an adaptation of Greek sitos or even Sumerian zid, ‘flour’ (Sumerian Uruk influence on Trypillia?).

Rhombuses on Trypillian goddess figurines are similar with rhombus on Eleusinian Demeter figurine. Similar rhombuses are known in Vinča, Neolithic Greece (Tsani-Magoula), and Usatove. Among other meanings of Ancient Greek ῥόμβος was ‘membrum virile’.

Snake cult (esp. Trypillian cult of the snake skeleton) is related to previous: number of snake ribs is equated to number of days in month

Lunar cult was central in Trypillian and Minoan religions.

Lunar Dog, typical to Trypillian religious art, might be also reconstructed from Greek mythology. The word ἀργός means ‘shining’ and ‘swift’, and both meaning also are in Sanskrit (Skt. jrá, shining, swift), Vedic proper name Rji-śvan-, = possessing κύνες ἀργοί (Homeric). Ἄργος was Odysseus’ dog while Ἄργος Πανόπτης, a many-eyed guardian of Io, was killed by Hermes: the Moon (star-eyed Argos) disappears when morning Mercury (Hermes) appears. The same root is presented in the Greek name of silver, a ‘lunar’ metal.

  1. Burkert (following N. Platon) described Minoan ‘fire feast’ on a mountain in the night (lamps were used, clay figurines and animals were sacrificed)and compared them with similar festivals in classical Greece. Cucuteni-Trypillian rite of village-burning (ultimately related to proto-Halaf via Vinča) is well-known.

‘An amazingly and controversialinscribed Cucuteni A-B fragment from Lozna (Romania)’ contains two signs (the first word under the picture of killed bird) which, in comparison with Linear AB, may be read ra-ro, cf. Ancient Greek λάρος, ‘sea-mew, gull’, Pamphylian σισίλαρος: πέρδιξ, Περγαῖοι (Hesych.), Armenian lor, ‘quail’. The next word is ro-tu-ke : ὄρτυξ < ϝόρτυξ, ‘quail’, Vedic vártikā, ‘quail’. Cucuteni A-B is dated to 4100–3800 calBC

Late Trypillia (where inscribed spindle-whorls are known) chronologically preceded Troy II (where spindle-whorls and, particularly, inscribed spindle-whorl were increased). Some parts of Baden cultural circle, especially Ezero, might be a link between Trypilla and Troy. It was possible part of the transmission of linear script.

Aegean-related Trialeti culture might also include Greek element; some scholars linked names of Trialeti and Troy (Etruscan truj-al ‘Trojan’ and Tri-al-eti ‘Trojan place’?). There were similarities between Mycenaean and Trialeti elites, between Troy II, Alaca royal tombs, and Trialeti. Multi-Rolled > Abashevo > Timber Grave signs

Kura-Araxes culture influenced Alaca Hoyuk elite of early Hittites whereas Kura-Araxes signs (including ‘great king’!) influenced Anatolian hieroglyphs. Cretan hieroglyphs preceded Anatolian ones, and the latter couldn’t be a source. Instead, Khirbet-Kerak filiation of Kura-Araxes culture (existed until about the 2200 BCE chaos) and Trialeti as the Aegean-related descendant of Kura-Araxes might be links between Caucasus and Crete. Trypillia might contact with Kura-Araxes via Maikop (Maikop signs are similar to Anatolian hieroglyphs) while pre-Maikop was influenced by Trypillia. Cucuteni-Trypillia signs might be of Danube Vinča origin. ============================================

Note                                                                                                                                                          In my opinion, the folowings are related to Vinca culture, not as sugested below also to tablets wich I am sustaining that are later-time products !

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 IIV) 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 similato the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”

Tablita rotunda de la Tartaria ar putea fi un calendar arhaic ?

December 9, 2018

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 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 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

3Semnele continute in jumatatea de sus, dupa mine constituie un grup separat “de alta opinie” reprezentand la o adica silabograme (din silabarele Linear A sau Linear B), sau chiar litere prezente in alfabetul grec arhaicEste 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 acelor semne.                  ——————————————————————————————————————                      Se pare ca este vorba de un calendar arhaic, de sorginte Europeana, mai precis 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 ca un urmas al phenicianului dalet si totodata semn 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.

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

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

PAMINI(pronuntare mene, meinei) sau MENO

PA:”tot, toate”

PAMENOPAMENOS 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.

Dinhttp://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2010/4473/pdf/Effland_Edfu.pdf              Wooden stela. The upper register shows the winged sun’s disc, here
shown as Horus of Edfu. In the central register the deceased is represented in
the costume of a priest, his arms upraised in adoration before the sun god Re,
shown with the falcon head of Horus, and Osirs. ‘May the King be gracious
and give to Horus of the Horizon, the great god, Lord of Heaven, of sparkling
feathers as he comes forth of the horizon an invocation offering of bread and
milk, of oxen and fowl, wine and milk, incense, ointment and clothing,
offerings, ka food for the Osiris Pamenes justified son of Herefernit justified
his mother being the lady of the house of Satweret, justified’”.

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.

  1. 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 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.

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁n̥s – Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁…                                      This ProtoIndoEuropean 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.

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

Minoan numerals

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/HT =”HR iar DDoc =”RRos”

HoRa,ora /HoRo   ROROS

 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

Gossip around Tartaria tablets; how much % to be fakes, clever hoax, and how much not to be !?

December 5, 2018
  • I cannot number all the pro & contra arguments                                                                  – nor  measure their each of them real weight. So suppose for the beginning an fair starting point of  50% pro and 50% contra. I am reffering in the folowing to only PRO arguments for a fake/hoax:                                                                                           —————————————————————————————————————-
  1. THE REAL AGE OF THE TABLETS WILL REMANE FOREVER UNKNOWN                  The real age of the tablets was not determined by scientiphic metods (e.g. C14 method), nor other method. Only the age of the bones found near-by was determined (~5,000 B.C. !?). Some sentiments-pushed scientists equalled the age of the bones to that of the tablets.                                                                                                                             From Marco Merlini, Gheorghe Lazarovici,                                                                        Settling discovery circumstances, dating
    and utilization of the Tărtăria tablets http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats8/merlini.pdf                                               I. The rumors on the find circumstances of the tablets
    “As stated by some scholars, Vlassa was not present at the time of the historical discovery, which happened just some hours before the closing down of the excavation. The workers packed the last unearthed finds and he recovered the important und unexpected pile of ritual objects only in the laboratory of the museum. Many years ago, N. Vlassa talks about this circumstance with Gh. Lazarovici.   …………………..                                                                                                During the digging Vlassa claimed to have urgent tasks at home, then disappeared for for a long time. ……………………..                                                                                                              After a month, he presented the tablets inserted inside the stratigraphic sequence already sorted out for the archaeological site of Răhău. Attila Laszló who excavated at Tărtăria with Vlassa as student, does not remember when, where and how Vlassa recovered the tablets. However, Vlassa told to Gh. Lazarovici about his discovery and Vlassa and László have drawn the profile in section H. Therefore, a third wave of scholars maintains that Vlassa ran across the tablets re-organizing the collection of artifacts found by Baroness Zsófia Torma in Near East and kept at Cluj museum. Test of the assertion should be into a claimed missing page in Torma’s Notebook: the folios with the drawings of the mythical tablets.            II. The gossip about radiocarbon dating                                                                                The fact is that the tablets have never been analyzed by radiocarbon and they
    cannot be submitted to this analysis any more. After the discovery, the tablets were
    soft and appeared covered with calcareous deposits due to the humidity in the pit. A well-meaning but hasty restorer (Josif Korody) confused a matter mixed with
    calcium, as in fact the tablets are (pulverized live calcium mixed with water in order to bind clay, sand, and different minerals), with a calcium crust due to the moisture of the pit. Therefore, he put them under hydrochloric acid treatment that removed not only the surface calcium as a slip but also destroyed their internal structure. In a late article, Vlassa wrote to have noticed the emblematic signs only after the cleaning of the tablets. In order to harden them, he impregnated them in a vacuum autoclave with extractable organic material thereby submitting them to a baking process (Vlassa 1972: 371). Nobody knows at what temperature and how long they had been baked even if is not possible it was more then 1500
    , because nitro/chemical liquid used for impregnation blow up. We will look at these data in a deeper way in the paragraph questioning if the tablets could be a modern fake. For the moment, we will limit the analysis to the fact that after the heat treatment the pieces of Tărtăria will never be able to pass the carbon 14 test: the thermic stress has compromised the clay’s basic quality indispensable for carbon analysis (Masson1984: 115).                                                                                     III. The unclear stratigraphic position of the tablets inside the pit. Even if the general stratigraphy of the excavation at Tărtăria-Groapa Luncii has
    been reported with precision by Vlassa, the stratigraphy of the tablets inside the pit
    is unsure. The only little information one has is from the preliminary excavation
    report (Vlassa 1962) and its English version published one year later on the
    magazine Dacia (Vlassa 1963). As some scholars have already observed, Vlassa’s
    publications did not include any sectional drawing of the pit reproducing in situ
    either the remarkable hoard of bones and artifacts or how they appeared at the time of their discovery at the bottom of the pit (Whipp 1973: 148). Neither did they
    contain data about the dimensions of the pit or other important information on it,
    nor the circumstances of the dig, nor the exact location of the findings (Masson
    1984: 114)                                                                                                                                       ————————————————————————————————————                         2. PROTO-WRITING NOT APPEARED IN THE WORLD BEFORE 3.500 B.C.              In Sumer, Egypt, Indus valley   not before 3.200 B.C.                                                         ———————————————————————————————–                                          3.THE SIGNS ARE KIND OF MIXTURE    A mixture of pictographic with ideograms/logograms/?syllabic signs !?                                                                                  ———————————————————————————————————————                4. ANYWHERE AN SCRIBE USED IN THE SAME TIME 2 DIFFERENT TIPE OF WRITITINGS                                                                                                                                 ———————————————————————————————————–                            5.NOT known  “LEARNING TABLETS” of THIS KIND. (Sumerian learning tablets are organised as from nowdays schoolboys, to reproduce abd repeat some words and lines.                                                                                                                                        —————————————————————————————————————————–  6. CLUES for MODERN WRITING.                                                                                           Upper half of the round tablets is  showing evidences of philistine/old greek alphabets.The smoking gun/clue I’ve found is the phoenician/old hebrew exact shape of one of our signs, symilar to that of the letter Chet/het and only close to the shape of Aegean syllabogram PA3 but matching that of the folowing Mediterranean alphabets letter H.  From https://www.britannica.com/topic/H-letter (see number2 ) From https://www.britannica.com/topic/H-letter (see number2 ) 
  2.                                                                                                                                                          Also the modern shape “D”                                                                                ——————————————————————————————————————-                7. The tablets are singletons of their kind no one other similar tablet found in the area or in another place.                                                                                                            ——————————————————————————————————————————    8. No one of the upmost high-level scientist above  the level of the A.A. Vaiman ,Rumen Kolev got seriously involved.                                                                                      ———————————————————————————————————————————

9. No scientists stressed enough that Vinca Civilisation some-how stopped in evolution not much, but before proto-writing stage and absolutely sure before proper writing stage.                                                                                                                                                   The only place where civilisation and societies reached an complex and high level wich created the necesity of writing was the Aegean area. Is the same place of oldest European writing, Aegean proto-linear writing (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A&B).                       (Even later, the people wich lived in same Vinca area, thracians and dacians not prooved as hard writers.)                                                                                   ===================additional documentation===============================                           ENIGMA TĂBLIŢELOR DE LA TĂRTĂRIA SCHIŢĂ PRELIMINARĂ

Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – Scribd

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)”……………………………….                       “Într-o încercare indirectă de a sprijini şi argumenta datarea şi
încadrarea cultural-cronologică iniţială a tăbliţelor de la Tărtăria, N. Vlassa
publică unele descoperiri făcute (N. Vlassa, 1971, p. 21 sqq), la Cluj, cu prilejul unor săpături de caracter nearheologic, şi a unor cercetări întreprinse în
depozitele muzeului clujean. “…………………………..                                                                            ”  Faţă de toate aceste discuţii, ipoteze contradictorii şi propuneri, N. Vlassa ar fi trebuit să răspundă, în primul rând, prin reluarea săpăturilor de la Tărtăria, fie şi doar sub forma unei verificări de control stratigrafic. Din păcate nu a făcut-o. Nu discutăm, aici şi acum, motivele. Consideraţii pe marginea acestei probleme au fost făcute, tangenţial, şi de E. Masson (Masson, 1984, p. 89-123). Cert este că N. Vlassa a preferat să răspundă printr-o serie de articole, în bună parte polemice (Vlassa, 1971, Apulum, IX, p. 21 sqq.) şi, îndeosebi, prin aducerea în discuţie (Vlassa, 1975, AMN, 12, p. 1-12) a unor noi descoperiri, şi de data aceasta, în cea mai mare parte întâmplătoare, aflate în
„inepuizabila” colecţie Torma Zsofia.“…………….                                                                         ” 1 N. Vlassa, profund cunoscător al literaturii de specialitate din domeniu, a avut şansa şi poate ghinionul de a putea cunoaşte în amănunt Colecţia Torma Zsofia şi întreaga documentaţie asociată acesteia. Ori, în condiţiile săpăturilor sporadice de la noi, din Transilvania îndeosebi, aceasta reprezenta o adevărată „mină de aur”   ………….              “Nu s-a putut însă stabili, şi noi nu ne hazardăm s-o facem, aşa cum a
încercat D. G. Zanotti (Zanotti, 1983, p. 209-213), locul unde ar fi putut fi
plasat complexul cu tăbliţele (Makkay, 1990, Fig. 3). C “…………………………                              “În aceste condiţii, groapa cu tăbliţele ar putea apar ţine, practic, oricăreia dintre locuirile din aşezare.” …………                                                                                                          “În consecinţă, teoretic, îngroparea complexului şi a tăbliţelor de la
Tărtăria ar fi putut fi făcută în oricare din etapele de evoluţie ulterioare acestui
nivel sau în niciunul din ele.” ……….                                                                                                 ”  Dacă o astfel de „îngropare” a unui „complex” de amploarea celui
descris de N. Vlassa (Vlassa, 1963, p. 485-494; Vlassa, 1976, p. 161-197) a
fost efectiv făcută, atunci elementele sale componente ar fi fost firesc să fi fost
prezentate – şi păstrate (depozitate) – împreună, pentru a putea fi studiate ca
un tot, inclusiv prin compararea lor cu alte vestigii similare descoperite
anterior şi păstrate în colecţia Torma Zsofia spre pildă. Jurnalul meticulos
ilustrat al Zsofiei Torma, împreună cu materialele adunate, a intrat în
inventarul Muzeului din Cluj, sub forma unei colecţii. După ştiinţa noastră, la
această „colecţie” au avut acces, practic, două persoane. În primul rând, Márton Roska, care a studiat colecţia şi, pornind de la aceasta, a făcut verificarea stratigrafică de la Turdaş publicând apoi, cunoscutul Repertoriu (Roska, 1941). Apoi, spre sfârşitul anilor ’50, colecţia a fost studiată şi reorganizată de Nicolae Vlassa. “…………………….                          ” Deocamdată aş remarca, în treacăt, faptul că mormântul de inhumaţie, găsit în complex, sau în asociere cu acesta, a fost identificat, după căutări asidue în depozitele muzeului clujean, abia în ultimii ani, de Gh. Lazarovici şi Marco Merlini. Acesta din urmă întocmeşte un amplu şi documentat studiu, aflat sub tipar.”……………….                            “Din păcate, semnele de întrebare în loc să scadă s-au înmulţit.       Simpla parcurgere a bibliografiei existente ilustrează în bună parte şi motivele. De pildă, nimeni nu poate înţelege cum s-a putut săpa, preleva, transporta şi depozita un astfel de complex fără a sesiza prezenţa tăbliţelor, indiferent de starea lor de conservare şi, poate, tocmai datorită acestei „stări”.
De ce conţinutul acestui complex a fost împărţit în locuri diferite de
depozitare, fără legături între ele şi fără a fi făcute însemnările de
rigoare?
De ce şi pe ce criterii unele piese şi/sau materiale au fost publicate de
autor, selectiv, iar altele niciodată?
De ce, în ciuda publicării unei bune părţi a descoperirii, în special a
tăbliţelor, la un an după scoaterea la iveală a complexului (1962) şi a
interesului enorm pe care l-a suscitat conţinutul acesteia s-a impus un
„secret” total, parcă menit să dea uitării tot ceea ce era mai puţin
convenabil, de neînţeles sau greu de explicat?
Oricum, asupra materialelor (descoperirilor) de la Tărtăria s-a instaurat
un fel de embargo. După tăbliţe s-au făcut copii care au fost expuse în muzeu şi puse la dispoziţia cercetătorilor. Tot cu titlu informativ suntem nevoiţi să
menţionăm faptul că, în ciuda insistenţelor noastre repetate, nu am reuşit să
vedem tăbliţele „în original” şi să le fotografiem decât în anul 1998, cu
aprobarea specială a domnului director Ioan Pisso, fapt pentru care îi
mulţumim călduros şi pe această cale. “……………………                                                             “Despre sesizarea nepotrivirilor de ordin cronologic dintre tăbliţe şi contextul cultural-istoric la care acestea erau raportate, deocamdată atât.                                                     Putem adăuga, eventual, că sunt suficiente pentru a pune problema originalităţii acestora. Sunt şi în prezent mulţi specialişti care se îndoiesc – pe drept sau nu – că tăbliţele aparţin epocii şi contextului în care se pretinde că au fost găsite.”………………………………                                                                                                                 ”  Întrebările fundamentale legate, în bună parte, de descoperirea care le-a generat şi mai ales le-a amplificat, aceea a tăbliţelor de la Tărtăria, vor rămâne, încă o bună
perioadă de timp, sub semnul întrebării şi în atenţia continuă a cercetătorilor. În esenţă, ele pot şi trebuie rezumate, lapidar, astfel:
Unde, când, cum şi în ce condiţii (context) au apărut tăbliţele?
Răspunsul se află încă sub imperiul enigmei. Ne găsim în situaaţia, paradoxală, să putem încerca mai degrabă formularea unor ipoteze privind natura şi semnificaţia lor cultural-istorică decât consideraţii cât de cât articulate privind originea lor. Deocamdată pare a fi singura cale care ar putea duce spre o încercare de lămurire, fie şi parţială, a problemei. Partea, aparent cea mai simplă, a provenienţei acestora este învăluită, încă, în mister. Sigur ne putem întreba şi de ce s-a ajuns în această situaţie. Nici răspunsul la această
întrebare nu este atât de simplu pe cât ar putea părea la prima vedere. …………….. Găsirea unui vinovat cu orice preţ, mergând până la acuzaţia de rea intenţie sau chiar falsuri intenţionate, ar părea cea mai la îndemână. Si o astfel de soluţie a fost, precum ştim, vehiculată. Dar ne-ar fi oare de folos? Nu ar putea fi şi aceasta o pistă falsă care ar putea duce la ocultarea şi vicierea soluţiei? Dar şi înlăturarea din start a unei astfel de posibilităţi ar fi poate la fel de păguboasă. În orice caz, nu ne-ar ajuta, în chip real, la clarificarea lucrurilor.Poate ar trebui să ne întrebăm dacă nu cumva de situaţia în care ne aflăm se fac vinovate doar unele persoane şi manierele „de lucru” folosite de
acestea. Nu cumva viciul esenţial, nu numai în cazul în speţă, porneşte de la
metodologia şi terminologia folosite în cercetarea arheologică în general şi a
celei româneşti în special? În ce ne priveşte, am încercat, în lucrarea de faţă, să evidenţiem date, observaţii şi ipoteze mai puţin cunoscute şi/ sau uzitate, din varii motive, care ne-ar putea apropia, poate, de desluşirea acestei „enigme”. Fără intenţia de a acuza sau apăra pe cineva ci, doar de a ne apropia de înţelegerea unui fenomen
care, într-un fel, prin omisiuni voite sau nu, ori prin lipsa reală, deocamdată, a
unor date certe, verificabile, s-a transformat, în timp, într-un „mit al mitului”, aşa cum plastic şi inspirat l-a definit eseistul şi istoricul Marco Merlini (2006). …………………”Din păcate problemele, teoretice şi practice, dezbătute nu au ajuns la o soluţie general acceptată. A rămas în sarcina arheologilor, aparţinând diverselor epoci şi domenii, să caute şi să găsească mijloacele şi metodele adecvate, în funcţie de specificul fiecărei epoci şi zone geografice.”    =================================================                                                           Eugen Rau:!Tartaria tablets not pertain to Vinca Culture, rather to a Southward one ! ==================================================                                                    ORIGINS OF WRITING: MAGIC OR ACCOUNTANCY?
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Jossife%20Origin%20of%20Writing.pdfChristopher Josiffe
gef_investigation@hotmail.com

“Regarding the origin and source of the Vinča signs, this has been the source of much
debate. Following the discovery of incised signs from the Tordos site in 1879 (during
Zsofia Torma’s excavations of this very large site, yielding some 10,000 objects, from
1875-1891), and others found during the first Vinča excavation by M. Vasić in 1908, it
was the general view that the script must have arrived in the Balkans by means of
diffusion from elsewhere. Torma (1889) argued for an Assyro-Babylonian influence. The prevailing view at the turn of the nineteenth century was that early Troy and early
Dynastic Egypt shared a common script. Vasić (1908) argued firstly for a Trojan
influence, and then later suggested (1957) that there had been an Ionian colony at
Vinča. And the enormously influential V. Gordon Childe (1927, p.83) claimed “an ethnic
connexion between the first settlers at Vinča and the peoples of the Aegean”, also
noting (p.88) analogies between the cultures of predynastic Egypt, Troy, and Vinča…………………….                                                                                                                              Vlassa claimed the earliest level of the Tărtăria to be no older than 2,700 BC, this making a Mesopotamian origin tenable. Other writers such as Popović (1965), Hood (1967) and Makkay (1969) concur. Popović, taking a similar view to Gelb, does not regard the Balkan civilization to be sufficiently advanced as to develop a system of writing, and thus claims a Sumerian origin. ……………….                                                                                                           In a linguistic study, Haarmann (1995) examined the Vinča sign system, in comparison with those of ancient Mediterranean civilizations such as that of Crete – Linear A & B –
and the Cypro-Minoan script. He noted Winn’s refusal to ascribe ‘true writing’ status to
the Vinča signs, but pointed out Winn’s adherence to an American definition of writing
(Haarmann, 1995, pp.31-32): “[i]n American terminology, “true writing” or “full writing”
is reserved to mean ‘phonetic writing of some sort’” He suggested that instead of ‘prewriting’, the term ‘nuclear writing’ be used to describe early writing systems which,
whilst essentially logographic, were not yet phonetic. ……………………………                              By way of contrast, Renfrew (1999, p.204) noted that “the writing of the Near East, like
that of Crete, grew up in another context, that of the emerging palace economy, with
the need to record in- and out-payments and to indicate ownership.” In such an
emerging trade economy, the need for written signs which form a codified system which
may be readily understood by others, without the need for oral explication, is clear. The
agricultural society of the Vinča culture had no such economic imperative, and as
Renfrew pointed out (ibid), in terms of archaeological discoveries, “there is no evidence
for a redistribution system like that of early Bronze Age Greece, where the seals and
sealings were functional objects of real economic significance.” Instead, the inscribed
figurines and tablets of the Vinča culture:“…testify to a very real absorption in religious affairs: and it is in this context that the signs on the tablets and plaques have to be understood. I suggest, indeed, that this “writing” emerged in a religious context, not an economic one.”……………………………                                                                                                 The language spoken by these Neolithic Balkan peoples is totally unknown to us today. It
was not an Indo-European language, since, according to Gimbutas’ hypothesis, Kurgan
invaders from the Russian steppe first brought an early Indo-European language to
Europe, when they over-ran the Balkans and displaced the ‘Old European’ civilization
and peoples. (For a geneticist’s findings which lend support for this theory, see CavalliSforza,1997). We are thus unable to map the Vinča signs (as written language) against a spoken counterpart. Therefore, Gelb’s distinction between a ‘semasiographic stage of writing (conveying meanings and concepts loosely connected with speech) and
phonographic stage (expressing speech) is inapplicable – since we are unable to say
whether the signs merely conveyed certain ideas and notions that were expressed by
the spoken language, or whether they directly expressed speech (e.g. phonetically). It
will be recalled that Gelb would only ascribe the status of ‘true writing’ to a phonetic
system. It does seem unlikely that the Vinča signs are phonetic representations of a
spoken language; there do not seem to be sufficiently lengthy ‘strings’ of signs (as one
observes in, for instance, Sumerian tablets), so are they more likely to have been
pictographic or ideographic in character? ………………………                                                     Conclusion
As noted above, there is disagreement as to whether the Vinča signs may be regarded as
constituting ‘true writing’ or not. Winn ascribed to them the status of ‘pre-writing’, and Renfrew, by way of comparison with the rongorongo tablets, suggested that their
function was a mnemonic one, an aide memoire for oral religious practice. Haarmann
and Rudgley, however, insisted that the signs were a fully-fledged – if as yet
undeciphered – writing system………………………………….                                                        Notwithstanding the above controversies, Winn, Renfrew and Haarmann are all in
agreement that the signs originated in a ritual-ceremonial-religious domain, rather than
an economic one. The same may also be argued as to the development of early Chinese
scripts, namely, that the motivation was magico-religious in essence (i.e. divination)
rather than economic. For this reason, both Renfrew and Haarmann compared the Vinča
script with that of the ‘oracle-bones’. As noted above, the act of carving the ‘oraclebone’
signs itself was a part of the magico-ritual process, so perhaps a tentative analogy
might be drawn with the Vinča signs – particularly those carved on figurines which
apparently depict goddesses.
However, until such time as a Rosetta stone equivalent is discovered, bearing the Vinča characters alongside those of another (known) script, the former will continue to remain the subject of speculation as to their nature and meaning. But, whether we accept the Vinča script as being ‘true writing’ or not, it is, I believe, reasonable to regard religion rather than economics as the driving force behind the ‘invention’ of the signs. As Winn(1981, p.255) concluded:
In the final analysis, the religious system remains the principle source of motivation for the use of signs. The thousands of [inscribed] excavated figurines impressively demonstrate the cardinal role of domestic ritual in Vinča society.”                  ——————————  another posibility  hypothesis  ———————————————               ? Zsofia Torma’s own squetches of Anatolian, Cipriot and Sumerian writing ?—–                         

From      STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHIC
AND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                       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 Knossos 

The pioneer of the Danube-Balkan approach to writing was, as early as 1874, Baroness Zsófia Torma.Collecting artifacts from the Transylvanian site of Turdaş, beside the river Mureş that flows into the Tisza, a tributary of the Danube, the Hungarian archaeologist recovered many extraordinary female figurines, pots, artifacts made of stone, boons, as well as marble and fragments of pottery bearing strange signs intentionally
made. The excavations were not without effort because of the peasants’ superstitions that the exhumation of the prehistoric vestiges could cause natural calamities and put the harvest at risk. Nevertheless, Baroness Torma inventoried around 11,000 finds of Turdaş culture, among which over 300 appeared clearly incised or painted by means of not only a pictographic writing but also with abstract and linear signs.*1       

*1.   Viz. 4.C.a.1 “A range of 300 signs from Turdaş sorted out by Zsófia Torma”; 8.B.c.3.a “Script-like signs from the earliest excavations”.

…..”Presenting her discoveries at Turdaş and Valea Nandrului, Torma gave a special attention to the issue of the signs and compared their shapes to similar ones found in Asia Minor (Troy, Caria, and Panfilia) and Cyprus (Torma 1879; 1882: 19-44; after László 1991: 43). Later, in a collective publication, she orientated herself primarily towards Mesopotamia and believed to have identified “Babylonian cultural elements” at Turdaş, especially interpreting some inscriptions as names of Sumerian divinities (Torma 1902). Unfortunately, many of the signs and the unusual artifacts from Turdaş and Transylvania are known solely from the unpublished but meticulously illustrated notebook of Zsófia Torma where she hypothesized the existence of a “Turdaş script” (Makkay 1969; 1990 and bibl.). The discovery of the “Turdaş script” circulated around the world making even more spectacular the already extraordinary excavation due to its extent, an area unfortunately drastically reduced in a few years by the flooding of the river. Apropos Troy, from 1870 Heinrich Schliemann found there signs incised on vases and spindle-whorls (Schmidt 1902; Renfrew 1970: 45) which suggested him a comparison between Turdaş script and the inscriptions on Minoan vessels (Schmidt 1903: 457 ff.). From 1896, similar signs have been noted on pottery of Phylakopi in Melos Island (Society for the promotion of Hellenic studies 1904). William Matthew Flinders Petrie found comparable marks on vases of the late Predynastic and Protodynastic periods in Egypt (Petrie 1912, 1953). In addition, Arthur Evans wrestled with Turdaş signs. Having discovered similar marks carved on blocks of what was evidently a Bronze Age palace at Knossos (Crete) and on clay tablets bearing writing, he concluded that the Turdaş signs were remnants of a primitive system of writing (Evans 1987: 391; chart on
p. 386; 1904; 1909). 

From UNVEILING ZSÓFIA TORMA.THE DIARY OF A WOMAN, AN ARCHAEOLOGISTAND A VISIONARY  LAURA COLTOFEAN    https://www.academia.edu/9064726/Coltofean_L._2014._Unveiling_ Zs%C3%B3fia_Torma._The_Diary_of_a_Woman_an_Archaeologist_and_a_Visionary

Zsófia Torma was also interested in the cuneiform writing, studying important works byJules Oppert (1858-1863) and J. N. Strassmeier (1882-1886). She notes in her diary a series of Menant 1883: 187. 270 cuneiform characters, and their meanings.
What is interesting isthat the characters she chooses resemble the signs and symbolswhich can be found on the Turdaş pottery. Knowing that Zsófia Torma considered that the incised signs on her discoveries belonged to an earlysystem of writing, I believe that she was trying to decipher their meaning with the help of the cuneiform signs.All these examples offer us valuable information about the wayZsófia Torma was reading thescientific works, studies andarticles, and about the type of information she was searching for,selecting and extracting from these.The drawings from Zsófia Torma’s diary are actually interesting, some-times containing even hidden or surprising details of large compo-sitions – such as the Assyrian bas-reliefs or the engravings of the Oriental cylinders, and generally consisting of objects with special function, such as altars, scepters, all kinds of head coverings, gems, objects bearing signs, symbols, and inscriptions. In many cases, these can have symbolic and/or ritualistic values, such as cult objects, or symbols of a certain status or affiliation.Moreover, the articles and plates published by Zsófia Torma starting with the 1880s, are dominated by the presence of objects with special function and symbolism, which, typologically, belong to the same category as the objects drawn in the diary. In order to illustrate this idea, we can take as an example the article entitled

 A tordosiő stelep és hazánk népeő smythosának maradványai [The Prehistoric Site of Turdaş and the Remains of Ancient Myths in Our People’sCulture] (1897). The plates of this article contain images representing different altars and life trees from the Mesopotamian art. She considers that the elements of the Mesopotamian art were transmitted to the Thracian inhabitants of Troy and Turdaş and survived in the art and customs ofthe contemporary Hungarian, German and Romanian peasants.

Also, Zsófia Torma’s articles,studies and correspondence show that this period of her scientific activity is dominated by the search for analogies which would demonstrate the connection between her discoveries fromTurdaş and Troy, respectively the Near East.

Scientists says: when writing and language is unknown, close to ZERO chances to decypher.

December 4, 2018

Yes, but even so there are few examples when reading succseeded. Hrozny with hittite writing and language and Michael Ventrix for Linear B writing and micenaean language. Out of hundreds of work hours they had every of them an unimaginable luck and inspiration for the very 1-st step:                                                                                               – Hrozny to see a familiar sumerian sign for bread and thinking that the word would be later folowed by the word drink….                                                                                                       – Ventrix supposed to have written Pa-I-To and at some ten Km there was the ruins of the ancient harbour/town Phaistos…

Even when the writing is known cause the unknown language, even now Cretan hieroglyphic,Linear A and eteoCretan writings are not yet deciphered because the languages (minoan and eteocretan) are unknown. Maya glyphs and yukatec language, partly ” The phonetic value is known for 80% of these signs while the meaning of only 60% of them has been deciphered so far (but counting).”

Note that for sumerian writing and language at the time and nowdays there are hundred of thousend available tablets.Hrozny also had thousend of tablets in Instanbul lybrary, Ventrix had hundreds and today there are thousends of minoan tablets. One schollar,  Richard Vallance are inviting those who feel able to try to read some of them.                The existence of a minimal number of tablets is of paramount importance, as when one would test the right reading, could be checked/tested on others.

See http://mentalfloss.com/article/12884/8-ancient-writing-systems-havent-been-deciphered-yet

WHY THE DECYPHERING ATTEMPT OF TARTARIA TABLETS WOULD BE  UNIMAGINABLE HARD :

  1. the tablets are singletons (they are unique of this kind).No one others of the same type are available, in order to check some reading attempts toward a correct interpreting.
  2. unknown writing;                                                                                                         2.a.could have proto-cuneiform signs or                                                                           2.b. have logograms/syllabograms. Even when writing is known could not read (eg. Ezerovo ring:greek alphabet, unknown language). An distant ethnic group could write with another’s letters (tungusik inscription with greek letters, found in S.Mare Romania)
  3. unknown language; if the supposed age is real, scientists are expecting a supposed”proto-euphratean language“, that means pertaining to a time before sumerian, language about scientists only imagine how could be. 
  4. not sure the age; No single human in entire World, not lay down a single inscribed clay piece, even as “before writing” stage, “proto-writing” before 3,500 B.C. !
  5. not known where was the scribe from !?
  6. the number of resulting words/meanings is great. A number resulting from multiple “x combinations taken by Z”                                                                                 Eg. Out of only 2  greek signs “HD”, could have:                                                       har,haros,hera, heros hora, eros, era, hed, hede, ed,ede, hades, etc.                                 From R – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R
    From                                                                                                                                      What is currently known about the Tărtăria tablets and the Vinča symbols? https://www.quora.com/What-is-currently-known-about-the-T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria-tablets-and-the-Vin%C4%8Da-symbols

    “The Tartaria tablets and the Vinca symbols were found in Romania and Serbia, and dated to the 5th millennium BC. The Gradeshnitsa tablets also date from the 5th millennium BC, but were found in northwest Bulgaria. The Dispilio tablet dates from 5260 BC and was found in Macedonia.

    Oscar Tay, speaks a language Answered Oct 27, 2017 · Upvoted by Thomas WierAssistant Professor of Linguistics at the Free University of Tbilisi. and Nick PharrisPh.D. Linguistics, University of Michigan (2006)
    “As I’ve mentioned in earlier answers, writing was invented independently four times, three if you consider Egyptian hieroglyphs as being from Cuneiform. All modern writing systems, and every writing system to have ever existed, comes from one of those four.

    Well, almost every. Maybe.

    First, to get a strange idea out of the way, this is not the ancestor of any modern writing systems, especially not any alphabetic ones. (See also here.)

    Second, we’re not completely sure it’s a script, or even proto-writing. It’s complex enough that it may have represented things in more detailed ways than just drawing would, but it’s probably not a “true script”, i.e., one that can represent a full language. Mathematical notation, for example, is not a true script, because it can’t represent anything beyond, well, math.

    If the Vinča symbols do represent a language, we’ve got some issues. The first problem is that they might be a clever hoax, which is always an issue in script-deciphering.

    But let’s say they are authentic and do represent a language. Just this knowledge – not even which language it was, but whether it was a script – would be incredible: we would have physical evidence of a script from Neolithic, pre-Indo-European civilization, which is also named Vinča                                                           Let’s say it is a true script – and to be clear again, it likely isn’t; this is just for an example. We’re met immediately with a rather glaring issue: most of the inscriptions, which are scattered across eastern Europe and span centuries, are very short. The issue of having primarily or solely short inscriptions also plagues the decipherment of the Indus script, but the quest for Vinča has it worse, with many of the inscriptions only one or two characters long.

    Approximate location of the Vinča culture. From Wikipedia.

    But let’s pretend we do have a long text in Vinča, something that unfortunately eludes its crypto-archaeo-linguistic pursuers. There are three levels of difficulty in deciphering languages:

    1. The language is known, the script is not: You have a vocabulary you can work from, provided the script is long enough and has enough context. Find some proper nouns and you’re set.
    2. The script is known, the language is not: You can read the language and likely pronounce it and maybe recognize some loanwords if there are any.
    3. Neither the script nor the language are known: Well now you have a problem to the scale of hieroglyphs, Linear B, the Indus script, and the Voynich manuscript. Proper nouns and bilingual inscriptions will be your holy grails, if you can find any.

      Vinča sits at about a 4. Not only is the language not known and the script wholly undeciphered (if it is a script at all), but their proper nouns would be nothing like those in any languages we know of.

      Worse than that, Vinča’s contemporary languages are all reconstructed, because, well, we have no way of knowing exactly what they’d be like. To reconstruct a language, you need surviving descendants; the only surviving pre-Indo-European languages in Europe are the Uralic languages and Basque, and chances are the Vinča language is related to neither.

      • We don’t know what the script says; we don’t know if it’s a script.
      • We don’t know what the language is; we effectively can’t know.
      • If we could read it, we would push history back by thousands of years.

      I leave it as a virtually impossible task to the reader, if they’d be up to it: it’s only virtually impossible, after all. Until then, to answer your question, we know little about the language it encodes, if that.”

      ==================================================================From

      START OF THE COPPER AGE, START OF INDO-EUROPEANS

      https://people.well.com/user/mareev/portal/prehistory/ancient_prehistory_timeline4.html


      5850 – Arrival of 
      Neolithic farmers speaking an unknown language, bringing elements of Samara culture (6,000 BCE).
      The Samara culture was an eneolithic (copper age) culture of the early 5th millennium BC at the Samara bend region of the middle Volga, discovered during archaeological excavations near the village of Syezzheye (Съезжее) in Russia.
      The Eneolithic culture of the region is a proper name, referring to the Samara culture, the subsequent Khvalynsk culture and the still later early Yamna culture. [Yamna = Kurgan]
      Samara culture sites: Other sites are Varfolomievka (on the Volga, actually part of the North Caspian culture) and Mykol’ske (on the Dnieper). Varfolomievka is as early as 5500 BC. These three cultures have roughly the same range. Marija Gimbutas was the first to regard it as the Urheimat (homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language and to hypothesize that the Eneolithic culture of the region was in fact Indoeuropean. If this model is true, then the Samara culture becomes overwhelmingly important for Indo-European studies.
      “Arrival of Neolithic farmers speaking a Proto-Euphratean language 5,850 BCE, bringing elements of Samara culture (6,000 BCE). The following Hadji Muhammed culture pioneers irrigation. Rivers, most Sumerian cities and crafts were named in Proto -Euphratean” [Sumer and Elam ppt]”                          ——————— see also ——————————————————-                                        
      Will the Indus Valley Script ever be deciphered in the absence of a “Rosetta Stone”?                                                                                https://www.quora.com/Will-the-Indus-Valley-Script-ever-be-deciphered-in-the-absence-of-a-Rosetta-Stone-1

      Hammad Shakil, interested in ancient history
      “the western scholars who are agenda based aryanist/invasionaist make it impossible to reach a common ground for decipherment to be acceptable, even if it is deciphered lets say by indian scholars, the hue and cry raised by these agenda based aryanists will make it highly controversial (if you read posshl’s book and his chapter on indus script, you will understand why these die hard aryanists are resisting decipherment of indus script, its purely political agenda nothing else)

      i do think that the script is very much decipherable and efforts have already been made in the right direction, there are somethings to keep in mind while deciphering indus script.

      1. to embrace the fact that indus script is logo syllabic
      2. to embrace the fact that brahmi script is derivative of indus script
      3. to embrace the fact that the script decipherment has the possibility of indo european language/ prakrit
      4. to embrace the fact that the script should not used to serve western aryanist agenda and leave it an open ground for neutral scholars to decide whether the script in logo syllabic or logographic, whether it is indo european or dravidian by making credible decipherment.
      5. embracing the script is not agglutinative but consists of prefixes and suffixes.

      these facts are not accepted by western aryanist scolars because embracing any of these facts may lead to indo european decipherment, embracing brahmi script as derivative of indus script makes indus very close to achieving father of all alphabetic system status, embracing indus’s syllabic status will lead to embracing brahmi similarities with the indus script (which will lead to acceptance of indus’s brahmi like characters like compund syllables, the vowel representation of indus like brahmi script etc which will designate the script as indo european even before deciperment), accepeting the script may not be agglutinative script and may contain prefixes (which will make indo european language a possibility) being open to indo european language is like a aryanist die hard fanatic to question his faith, the western scholars are still stuck in 19th century when british colonists and german indologists had lots of fun making aryan concocted stories before indus valley civilization was discovered in the 20th century, they need to grow out of this narrow minded thinking.                                                                                                                          the present scenario paints a very gloomy picture of a script which is being on the hands of political agenda of few aryaist western scholars and indian scholars either fully towing the british colonist agendas like romila thapar or not showing any visible interest to investigate their own history through archaeology, very little indian efforts have been made to decode indus script which leaves it an open ground for western aryanist (and few tamil dravidists) to exploit.                                                                                                                        Indian government should invest more in archaeology to explore and excavate the areas which have already revealed for example, a brahmi script copper plate which dates probably from late 2nd millennium BC early 1st mil BC, not many people about this artifact but this artifact is very important to establish earlier antiquity of the brahmi script, to negate western aryanists who keep repeating the mantra of 300 BC for brahmi, we already know that indus script was functional as late as 1100 BC, this will enable many scholars to open their minds for the possibility of brahmi origin from indus and thus acceptance of brahmi phonetics in indus script.”                                                        ————————————————————————————–                                            The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite
      Robert Englund, UCLA                                                                            https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P183.PDF

      Introduction
      With the continuing publication of the proto-cuneiform texts by the collaborators of the project Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI)2, we are achieving a more substantial basis for the continuing discussion of the early development of writing in Mesopotamia. Cuneiform represents a system of writing with a history of over three thousand years of use, and can boast of a text corpus unparalleled in number and breadth before the invention of the printing press. Cuneiform offers, moreover, a unique view of the earliest stages of development of an advanced writing system. In a career spanning over thirty years, Denise Schmandt-Besserat has published and discussed the
      significance of a means of accountancy employed in the ancient Near East that represents a clear precursor of the first proto-cuneiform tablets. Small clay objects unearthed in prehistoric strata were termed “tokens” by Schmandt-Besserat, who wished to underscore their use as markers in an ancient system of bookkeeping. These clay objects consist on the one hand of simple geometrical forms, for instance cones, spheres, etc., on the other of complex shapes or of simpler, but incised forms. Simple, geometrically formed tokens were found encased within clay balls (usually called “bullae”) dating to the period immediately preceding that characterized by the development of earliest proto-cuneiform texts; these tokens most certainly assumed numerical functions in emerging urban centers of the late
      4th millennium B.C. Indeed, impressed signs of an array of numerical systems found in protocuneiform accounts represented, in both form and function, many of the archaic tokens, so that the forerunner role of the simple tokens in the development of writing in Mesopotamia belongs, as the editor of this volume would understand the term, to the “core knowledge” of modern cuneiformists.
      The spate of new proto-cuneiform tablets on the London markets deriving from post-Kuwait War Iraq, including over 400 new texts of both Uruk III and Uruk IV3 period date, reputedly from the ancient city of Umma, have increased the size of the proto-cuneiform corpus to over 6000 tablets and
      fragments containing more than 38,000 lines of text. Two elements provide us with a relatively firm understanding of the contents of many of the earliest cuneiform documents. First, there is an evident continuous paleographic and semiotic progression of the cuneiform sign repertory into periods,
      beginning with the Early Dynastic IIIa period ca. 2600-2500 B.C., whose administrative and literary documents are increasingly comprehensible. Second and more importantly, a many centuries long scholastic tradition of compiling and copying lexical lists, ancient ‘vocabularies’, help bridge the gap
      between proto-historical and historical context. It should also not be forgotten that the seventy years in which a limited but quite involved circle of Sumerologists has worked on proto-cuneiform have resulted
      in a number of tools helpful in continuing research, including the first Uruk sign list of Falkenstein(1936) and its revision by Green and Nissen (1987), but also in a growing number of primary and secondary publications by, among others, Friberg (1978-1979; 1982; 1997-1998), Green (1980; 1981;
      1987), Charvat (1993; 1998), and the members of the CDLI. Despite such research tools enjoyed by those involved in the decipherment of proto-cuneiform, no definitive evidence has been produced that would identify the language of proto-cuneiform scribes. The onus to make the case one way or the other would appear to rest with specialists in the field of Sumerology, since, given its later linguistic presence and the strong cultural continuity in southern Babylonia, Sumerian must be the favorite candidate for an eventual decipherment. Yet neither the evidence for possible multivalent use of signs in
      the archaic period, nor, for instance, the more sophisticated argument of a unique connection between Sumerian number words and the sexagesimal numerical system, a notational system which appears to be attested already in the token assemblages of the prehistoric clay bullae, have sufficient weight to convince skeptics. On the contrary, it seems that a strong argument from silence can be made that Sumerian is not present in the earliest literate communities, particularly given the large numbers of sign sequences which with high likelihood represent personal names and thus should be amenable to grammatical and lexical analyses comparable to those made of later Sumerian onomastics.                                                                                                                        Despite these uncertainties in the proto-cuneiform record, many factors make the interpretation of the earliest phase of writing in Mesopotamia a study of considerable reward. In Mesopotamia we are
      favored with a substantially unbroken tradition of writing in both form and function through a period of three millennia, including most importantly an exceedingly conservative tradition of so-called Listenliteratur, that is, of compilation and transmission of thematically organized word lists beginning with those of the earliest, the Uruk IV-period phase of writing; we count large numbers of inscribed tablets and fragments from archaic Babylonia, now ca. 6000, which for purposes of graphotactical analysis and context-related semantic categorization of signs and sign combinations represents a text mass of high promise; and assuming populations in Babylonia were relatively stable through time, we can utilize language decipherments from texts of later periods in working hypotheses dealing with the linguistic affiliation of archaic scribes.
      Against this backdrop, the task of deciphering early texts from Persia seems all the more daunting.
      Although these texts have played an historically minor role relative to early cuneiform, the French excavations of Susa (Figure 2) made that script the first archaic Near Eastern writing system known to us. A quarter of a century before British-American excavators of Jemdet Nasr, and German excavators of Uruk unearthed their proto-cuneiform tablet collections, de Morgan’s archaeological earth-moving machine sent to the Louvre examples of an evidently very early writing system which, based on a
      presumed genetic relationship to the later attested Elamite-speaking peoples of the Susiana plain, has been only conventionally named proto-Elamite. The proto-Elamite corpus numbers just over 1600
      pieces, with ca. 10,000 lines of text, that is, about a quarter as many as from Babylonia (still, it represents a large amount of material compared to the relatively humble inscriptions of Linear A or of early Harappan).            The publication of tablets appears to have proceeded with little understanding of the text corpus and the accounting system it represented, and with little attention paid to an accurate representation in hand copies of the texts themselves.Accompanying sign lists were published with scant thought given to the high number of signs and the likelihood that the upwards of 5500 signs in the final list attached to a primary publication by Mecquenem (1949) contained large numbers of sign variants. The list published by Meriggi (1974)
      attempted to solve this problem by including under discrete headings presumed variant graphs and so arrived at a total of less than 400 sign entries. That list was unfortunately itself laced with incorrect identifications and graphic forms of many signs, in part reflecting the wayward decision of the author to opt to follow the original, rather than the established conventional orientation of the proto-Elamite tablets. This, added to the fact that seemingly all of the signs were published as mirror images, and that the important numerical sign systems were defectively organized, makes the Meriggi list a research tool of limited value. However, proto-Elamite inscriptions have been, and will remain highly problematic in a discussion of writing because they represent but a relatively short period of literacy, beginning around 3100 and ending around 2900 B.C., after which, unlike Mesopotamia, no writing tradition existed that might have served to reflect light back to this earliest phase. The few so-called Linear
      Elamite inscriptions from the late Old Akkadian period, that is, from a period some eight centuries after the proto-Elamite age, exhibit little graphic and no obvious semantic connection to the earlier writing system.
      Still, the proto-Elamite writing system exhibits high potential and, but for its uniqueness as a largely undeciphered script of an entirely unknown dead language, has some features which might have made
      it an even better candidate for decipherment than proto-cuneiform. Among these are a substantially more developed syntax evident in a linear “line of sight” in the writing practice (see below), and in an apparently more static graphotactical sign sequence.

      From The state of decipherment of proto-Elamite – Cuneiform Digital …    cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund2004c.pdf

      Conclusion
      The prospects of discovering script characteristics that could lead to a decipherment of proto-Elamite are not great, but there are some areas of promise. In the first place, the proto-Elamite texts do contain sign sequences which are distinctly longer than the average of those from Mesopotamia. The texts are therefore more likely to consist of syntactical information than the very cursory notations in protocuneiform documents. But there is a more important, second point. Statistical analysis of text transliterations should point toward meaningful sign combinations of a fixed sign sequence which could reflect speech (Figure 20). Further, the “proto-Elamites” are not entirely foreign to us. We can assume that they were a people who used a decimal system to count discrete objects, and some of their number words, in particular the words for “hundred” and “thousand,” may have been used syllabically. In proto-Elamite accounts, the numerical notations follow counted objects and their qualifications. This deviation stands in contrast to Mesopotamian tradition (we have of late seen only one other example of such a convention, namely in the 24th century accounts from Syrian Tell Beydar47), and more importantly in contrast to the first ideographic tradition in Persia itself, that is, in the numeroideographic tablets from Susa and Godin Tepe presumably imposed on the local population by Babylonian accountants. We might therefore speculate that our so-called “proto-Elamite” derived from
      a language whose numerical qualifications were post-positional.
      A first step in the reevaluation of the proto-Elamite text corpus is necessarily the electronic transliteration of all texts. CDLI staff have completed this task, and are now beginning a new graphotactical examination of the texts. The following list demonstrates the use to which these data might be put. The proto-Elamite sign M371 (two round impressions connected by a single stroke)
      appears in the accounts in initial, intermediate, and final position, in altogether over 300 attestations.As seems evident from attestations of the sign in initial and final position, it represents a discrete object counted in the sexagesimal or decimal system. A quick check of the sources confirms that the system is in fact sexagesimal. Scheil (1905:no. 391), for instance, contains clear sexagesimal notations (1N34,2N34) of objects including M371. Scheil (1923:no. 94) and other accounts imply that M371 is related to the proto-Elamite sign for male laborers (M388), possibly, since M371 is not reckoned in the decimal system, in a supervisory capacity Current work on the proto-Elamite corpus thus can draw on both internal data from the Persian documents, and on comparative data from Babylonia. The Babylonian comparisons pose again the
      question of the ultimate relationship between the two writing systems. Clearly, proto-Elamite must be reckoned to those cases of secondary script origin known from many non-literate regions in contact with literate cultures. Yet it is too facile to declare that Susa imported this idea of writing, along with
      some few direct loans, at a time when Babylonia had passed into a second writing phase at least several generations after the origin of proto-cuneiform in Uruk IVa. It is evident from our data that those elements which are direct, or nearly direct loans from Babylonian tradition, for instance the numerical
      sign systems used in grain measures, point to a period within, and not at the conclusion of the initial writing phase Uruk IVa. Moreover, the examples of numero-ideographic accounts demonstrate that both centers employed the same signs at the earliest phase of writing development. At this moment,
      direct loans from Babylonia were frozen in the proto-Elamite system, whereas they were still subject to paleographic variation in Babylonia. In the case of the number sign N39, Uruk scribes of the Uruk IV period had not agreed upon one or the other of two possible forms, N39a ( ) and N39b ( ). By the
      beginning of the following period Uruk III, standardization had dictated in the school the use of only N39a. Persian accountants chose the equally plausible variant N39b from the Uruk IV pool of signs.
      This and other comparable agreements in the proto-Elamite syllabary point to a rapid development of a full writing system once its advantages in the administration were understood. One of the more important tasks ahead of us will be an attempt to eliminate from the current proto-Elamite sign list as
      many of the very numerous variant forms as possible. We count over 1900 discrete signs in 26,320 sign occurrences in our transliteration data set, clustered around approximately 500 basic forms. Of the 1900 forms, however, more than 1000 occur just once, another 300 only twice in the texts. These
      numbers are a clear indication that the writing system as it has been transmitted to us was in a stage of  flux, in which a scribal tradition had been unable to care for standardization of characters. Nonetheless, these numbers also tell us that the proto-Elamite system, like that of Babylonia, probably consisted of a mix of ideograms and syllabograms and comprised altogether between 600 and 900 discrete signs.
      Chronologically, the proto-Elamite system fits well into the development and expansion of Babylonian proto-cuneiform. We may picture the Uruk expansion into Persia and Syria during the 4th millennium characterized in the history of writing by the appearance of a systematic means of
      accounting through manipulation of small clay counters whose form indicated both numerical and ideographic qualities. This administrative tool crossed the barrier into transaction representation on one two-dimensional surface, namely on numero-ideographic tablets, when Uruk tradition was still strong
      in Persia, but the succeeding withdrawal of Babylonian influence, occasioned by developments in the south of Mesopotamia we cannot see, left Persian scribes to their own devices. An apparently continuous administrative apparatus, and a highly adaptable bureaucracy, formed the basis for the
      development of the proto-Elamite writing system that on its surface seems very foreign, but that on closer inspection reflects much of its Babylonian heritage.
      In the meantime, debates continue about the populations which might have been in contact with or even existing within the region of ancient Persia. Given later linguistic evidence, it is likely that an indigenous, Elamite-speaking population was living there at the end of the 4th millennium. And clearly elements from the Babylonian south must have had close, possibly adversarial contact with local peoples. But there may have been much more population movement in the area than we imagine,including early Hurrian elements and, if Whittaker (1998:111-147), Ivanov and others are correct, even
      Indo-Europeans.

       

On mysterious presence of the contemporary “D-signs” on round Tartaria tablet.

December 4, 2018

Image, from KEYTH MASSEY http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

As an pure sign, D-shape had an absolutely scarce presence in deep antiquity.         Was only noticed  by scientiststs, but not found in any sumerian tablets. It appears in Egypt, but 90 deg. rotated as the sign for “loaf of breat” and consonant T. From that time, allmost 2.000 years was not used till the emergence of the greek alphabet. Precise-shaped as modern capital letter D was not used by minoans micenaeans (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A,Linear B).                                                                                                                             A Close shape was used by them for volumes and others for month and year; but only close shapes.

From Minoan language Blog/ Andras Zeke

Mycenaean-measurement-systems

From Richard Vallance’s Blog  https://linearbknossosmycenae.com https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/2015/02/19/mycenaean-linear-b-units-of-measurement-liquid-dry-weight-click-to-enlarge/

units-of-mesurement-in-mycenaean-linear-b

From Richard Vallance’s Blog,  https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/agriculture/

are-mycenaean-linear-b-fractions-fractions-or-something-else

From 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 

Till the archaic greek alphabet varians, where the sign D was used for D and for R-letters, the sign was not used in the supposed origin, canaanite or phoenician alphabets.                           (In fact not alphabet,from alfa,beta,first letters but  abugida, from alif,bait,gamal).They used for D the shape delta.  Only scarce here:                                                                          1991. Sass B. Studia alphabetica. On the origin and early history of the …www.academia.edu/…/1991._Sass_B._Studia_alphabetica._O…                                         The D shape is the South Semitic form found in several inscriptions of the …

-1-st time we heard about this sign was the research of Mrs. Denisse Schmandt Besserat. (Also it is in Mr’ Falkenstein sign-list) She (Mrs.Besserat) was eager and  the first one to  remark that early sumerian signs reproduced exactly the shape of the much-before, precedent used objects (tokens) put inside clay containers. This paralel existence of inside tokens and depicted signs on clay containers happened well before emergence of writing. She noticed the sign as direct related to the much older writing predecessor, the tokens and administrative accounds and much earlier counting/ numeration. Interesting enough it is appearing in her paper in the column of containers/jars. But if she know the significance and using of other pairs token-sign , under this D sign nothing was written. From http://en.finaly.org/index.php/The_earliest_precursor_of_writing              See 8-th column (on the table, IX), from top, 3-rd row                                                                                         From :                                                                                                                                                The Earliest Precursor of Writing DENISSE SCHMANDT BESSERAT   http://en.finaly.org/index.php/The_earliest_precursor_of_writing

“It is not necessary to theorize about some of these meanings; a number of ideographs on the Uruk tablets almost exactly reproduce in two dimensions many of the tokens. For example, Uruk arbitrary signs for numerals, such as a small cone-shaped impression for the number one, a circular impression for the number 10 and a larger cone-shaped impression for the number 60 are matched by tokens: small cones, spheres and large cones. ”                                                                                                                               me: sumerian made numbers only by pressing/imprinting , not by scratching, using the folowing middle-shape stylus: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/P3n8nbSE9YccCwG9YOL-ZD8ITYjUIfh8rxdvyH70AQok9RjhSwbm2xXBp4N-JiknPrZGNQ=s146  Image, from 5 – Ancient writing in Mesopotamia https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-literacy-and-technology/ancient-writing-in-mesopotamia/4CDCF7BA19958CD936AF8609A7FDC34F

The long row of Tartaria tablets researchers, at the point of confronting and analysing these signs, reacted differently. Some realised that faced a hard question and probably felt like heating an concrete wall. Others took the matter as easy as an everyday life, common issue. Much important, tey choosed different approaches or solutions, from that ones  usualy pertaining to ancient rock-art to sumerian products/numbers or even to sanskrit vedic.

From The skies of Lascaux http://www.iceageiconology.net/index-of-chapters/xi-the-proto-zodiac/   (19.000 years B.P.)

“Tuc, as well, shows the likeness of a human ancestor, and significantly, one who is juxtaposed with a “P” sign (Fig. 12 b). This configuration, which is located in the opposite end of the cave from the Chapel of Months (Fig. 19, at b), identifies the ancestral being by two circular eyes that are drawn on a roughly triangular face, which on closer inspection is also the standard image of a woman’s vulva, This character is, then, a likely “great grandmother” of the tribe, and her association with the “month” sign (Fig. 12 b) conveys the belief that the relationship between women and the moon (the menstrual cycle) was as old as the dawn of time.

 The First (Lunar) Calendar https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/oldest-lunar-calendars/

10-3-11_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.                                      ——————————————————————————————————-

Moon phases from paleolithic, Imagini pentru rappengluck moon phasesGermany:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/19/200504.htm                           “Dr Rappengueck has recently identified some constellations and stars from the caves, but says the paintings also show the moon going through its different phases.”

From https://www.writtenchinese.com/lowdown-6-types-of-chinese-characters/The first type of writing was called oracle bone script 甲骨文 (jiǎ gǔ wén) thought to have been used between 1500 and 1000 BCE. The script was etched onto turtle shells and animal bones, and then heated until they cracked. The Shang Dynasty courtiers would use the bones to tell the future.

Folowing, I will present my opinion:                                                                                                 ——————————————————————————————-                                                     – If a very old age of the tablet is presumed (5.000 B.C>/M.Merlini) one could consider to have there the Moon phases.                                                                                                       Note                                                                                                                                                         No way for such great time depth, in better case would be 2.000-3.000 B.C. !

But this solution arise another set of  problems/another hard questions:                                                                                                                                                                                                   -In this case the Marco Merlini hard-sustained supposition that “scrittura e nata in Europa” is falling down, as we are not talking of writing, but at best of proto writing.            – We’ll have then kind of mixture, writing signs on the tablet mixed with proto-writing signs wich usually not happened.He choosed to interpret the signs as unknokn to us, of esoteric nature so he got himself out of the field of prooving that it is writing.                I cannot disregard the posibility of having moon phases, have no enough opposite strong/hard evidences.

But as long as humankind showed that scraped Moon Phases (Germany 18.000 B.C.) and in paleolithic (France caves) this could happen much easyer  later.                                  Later, minoans showed that were capable of making an lunisolar calendar, base on 8 years cycle. Image, from https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/04/researcher-cites-ancient-minoan-era.html

These “Moon-phases signs”, is only my 3rd option, or place in preffered renderings order.                                                                                                                                                      ————————————————————-                                                                                       My first option is upon folowing arguments:                                                                                 – writing emerged in high developed societies, bu not ultimate necessary as to fulfill practical needs, as to keep administrative, economical accounts.                                              – stars, planets and Moon could have been related to agriculture, nature cicles. calendar but also to direct related religious rituals.                                                                                       -Early world proto-writing writing in Indus valley, proto-Elamite, Sumer and Egypt not noticed these although very complex problem, but they made simple everyday life accounts. So if an old aged is supposed, this is my 1-st option:                                                    -Due of the similarity of sumerian GAR sign read Ninda(bread) with egyptian T/Ti (loaf of bread) . From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

GAR sign is an D with a paralel stroke inside, as could be our 1-st D on the tablet.         Sign GAR is read “NINDA” :”cereal ratio,BREAD”                                                                              From http://www.mummies2pyramids.info/hieroglyphics/hieroglyph-letter-t.htm

 Note If the signs were written by a sumerian hand we have the signs +++++ “As  first D‘: “sur?/Gar” ,

Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU  https://is.muni.cz › Halloran_version_3
de la JA Halloran ·…… sur: n., a garden plant; rushes; chaff, chopped

second D:”60” ,  o:”10″ , o:”10″   >> ” one grain ratio 80             The simple explanation for one/same sign is, that containers,vessels, cereal recipients, dishes had and has the same shape all over the world, as the main bread shape also is.

My preffered (“number one”) rendering:                                                                                      1.   SIGN D, “FOOD (CEREAL) PORTION/RATIO”                                                                         —————————————–                                                                                                               Second preffered rendering.                                                                                                          Due of my own concerns regarding the “strange” group or row of signs on the upper half of the round tablet, as I am accustomed with all writing systems, I sustain that only this       2. UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET COULD CONTAIN QUITE “MODERN” SIGNS

This upper half, usually covered by oblong tablet (noticed by sole Mr. Marco Merlini), is covered maybe because :                                                                                                                       – an mysterious/esoteric/secret message,                                                                                         – in equal measure could be read by contemporery literate bypassers and so not remain hidden

HR DDoo = HAR RORO/ar roro/ar roroo/ar rorou “up moisten

From http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/4854/arroro-arrorare-arroravi-arroratus?fbclid=IwAR1U52aOwoziJXj5xY8K33cNpjyFr0VH1Sj7sif3hi1AZBnZSGMddPUJQgU                 arroro, arrorare, arroravi, arroratus                                                                                               verb “moisten, bedew”                                                                                                                          Note                                                                                                                                                      Maybe related to: hori (rom. a hori=a ura)is a form of                                                   https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horior#Latin

horior (present infinitive horī(archaic) I encourage, urge !

URGE MOISTENING/ (rain) !!

Dravidian>ancient sumer-tamil>Indo-European

December 3, 2018

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages#Proposed_relations_with_other_families                                                                                                                                                            In the early 1970s, the linguist David McAlpin produced a detailed proposal of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran).[47] The Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis was supported in the late 1980s by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew and the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who suggested that Proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent.[48][49] (In his 2000 book, Cavalli-Sforza suggested western India, northern India and northern Iran as alternative starting points.[50]) However, linguists have found McAlpin’s cognates unconvincing and criticized his proposed phonological rules as ad hoc.[51][52][53] Elamite is generally believed by scholars to be a language isolate, and the theory has had no effect on studies of the language.[54]

Dravidian is one of the primary language families in the Nostratic proposal, which would link most languages in North Africa, Europe and Western Asia into a family with its origins in the Fertile Crescent sometime between the last Ice Age and the emergence of Proto-Indo-European 4,000–6,000 BCE. However, the general consensus is that such deep connections are not, or not yet, demonstrable.

https://indo-european.eu/tag/tamil/                                                                                                 It is presumed that proto-Dravidian language, most likely originated in Elam province of South Western Iran, and later spread eastwards with the movement of people to the Indus Valley and later the subcontinent India (McAlpin et al. 1975; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Renfrew 1996; Derenko et al. 2013). West Eurasian haplogroups are found across India and harbor many deep-branching lineages of Indian mtDNA pool, and most of the mtDNA lineages of Western Eurasian ancestry must have a recent entry date less than 10 Kya (Kivisild et al. 1999a).

You must undersand that dravidian was kind of large pool, not much more.                         ————————————————————————————————————————————Nostratic tree:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nostratic_tree.svg

From http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-nostratic-theory.html

                                            ———————————————————————————————————–                                           The only actual surviver is tamil language

http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sumtopics.html                                                Sumerian as Archaic Tamil Dr K.Loganathan, 2004 http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-as-arch-tamil.htm

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 IIV) 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 similato the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”