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

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 !!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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


%d bloggers like this: