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

  • Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                  This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions.                                             =====
  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
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

“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 ?—–                         

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.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: