Careful/ Attention ! This post is not a satisfactorily decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Especially since we are dealing with proto-cuneiform signs, and therefore consequently with proto-writing. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only scarce knowledge/vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of logics, writing and honest intentions. =====
OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV), AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING: MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS. AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS, I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND RELATED MEANINGS. THERE ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME. =============================================
A series of aspects noticed by me, some from the very beginning (great chances to have a kind of writing) then coupled with others, sized in the course of time ( a close symilarity with sumerian proto-cuneiform writing + more inadvertencies ) got to these conclusions and results. My gratitude for the most of the top-level schollars in the field of proto-writing, wich not beeing completely sure, not “hitted the nail on the head” from the begining, but generally expressed pertinent opinions. Even the signs are reflecting in a greate measure the sumerian proto-cuneiform phase, nevertheless not match sumerian proto-writng in some aspects, especially some pure technical-ones.
After that, some of the first researchers of the Danubian writing, (e.g. Mr.Marco Merlini) correctly showed the real beginning and developement of the humanity writing , pity not realised that the finaly “writing” was not yed been discovered, and the term “writing” cannot be attached to Vinca Culture. Even not that of “(fully) proto-writing”, despite the fact that most of the necessary steps were made.
I do not understand also, even the above-mentioned schollar had at disposal the literature and data=bases regarding the discovery and evolution of writing, preffered not to recognise the difussion, spread abroad from other places, (transmit,transfer,“import” by mean of cultural transmision/infusion) of any sign.
Instead he preffered for all the signs (wich every of them could be found in different period of time in tens of writings and places in the World) to atribute, religious conotations, thus unknown, mistycal, esoteric meanings. But attention! ; in his opinion, the meaning not known by entire Vinca comunity members, but only by the writer and the local (in this case Tartaria village) comunity members.
Don’t know how to synthetises better and by short, anyway I’ll begin:
This subject of Tartaria tablets created a global excitement and brawling, at an unmerited level I would say.
Cause of initial moment of discovery circumstances, are not clear, a series of good-willing romanians, but also foreign schollars spread “the oldest writing in the world“, a pre-sumerian one. From the very beginning the tablets were enclosed in a mist and mystical aura, some of above scientists beeing sure before any research that the signs had an unknown, long time-ago forgotten meaning, wich was of hidden, mystical and esoteric nature .(how comfortable !)
Besides that was attached an mystical content to the signs, carriers of ancient forgotten myths, the subject itself was encircled in mistery. So the subject and the tablets become mythical agai, and appeared an (unrelated to the signs and their meanings) an secondary myth. Secondary mith fueled by some scientists, (e.g. Mr. Marco Merlini). He contributed by sustaining an very old age of the tablets. He associated the bones of a deceased person with the tablets.The bones were found in the proximity, somewhere in the rituallic-funerary complex.The bones seem to pertain to Vinca Culture, being dated at 5.500-6.000 B.C. In turn the real age of the tablets is not known and will be not known forever. I am not accusing anybody of anything, even if this assertion have unexpected bad consequences.
Studing the speciality literature, I realised that I could not rely AT ALL upon archeological data. As by my part, cannot atribute any age to the tablets, so I had no choice but to analyse what is 100% sure in front of me: the signs present on the tablets.
My aim was an an ideal goal, to obtain an unique, ultimate reading ( wich of course it is not possible in proto-writing) and must be validated by the scientific comunity (and so not being contested).
After this, I folowed the main phases:
Making an analysis of the signs, I found that the highest percentage of the tablet signs were found in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign list (this 1 year before) and in Anatolian alphabets (especially carian-ones), fallowed by Aegean writings (Linear A,B)
The similarity with sumerian signs was noticed by many scientist begining with N.Vlassa (Adam Falkenstein,Vasic, S.Hood, A.A.Vaiman, R.Kolev and others). The last two had a very good interpretation of the signs. Comparing my readings with their readings, I sized in their papers some slight inadvertencies incorrect sign identifications/some incorrect interpretations. But only late I got acquainted of the differencies and inadvertencies of some tablet signs from the common evolution line of sumerian proto-writing. These are mainly technical ones (relating to the technique of writing).But these very differencies are evidencies that the scribe was not a native sumerian. (E.g. If some signs are simylar in shape wit sumerian numbers signas, we have no proper sumerian numbers there). Folowing an independent path I come to the same conclusions regarding the signs and the scribe. These conclusions of mine can be seen in my before posts, also read my explanations and check posting dates. Of course, also I was curious in wich period were written the tablets and from wich place could be, and after comparing when and where were used such signs, I obtained some symilar conclusions;
After my research I realised that regarding the place and age are resulting different posibilities wich has every of them different chances to be real, so I put them in increasing chances order. Note DUE OF THE PRESENCE ON THE TABLET OF A HODGEPODGE OF SIGNS, wich could be of two, even three different categories. Folowing the chances to a corect identification of the scribe and the writing time and place, (the figures are raw estimates not nail-fixed):
– sumerian writing, native sumerian scribe, 3.200-2.500 B.C., 0%
-quasi-sumerian writing, scribe of sumerian ancestry, settled in Europe, or ” of sumerian/syrian ancestors” trader with little knowledge of writing 3.000-2.000 B.C., 5%
-quasy-sumerian writing, of innitial sumerian ancestry, (minoan) settled in Aegean area (Crete), 2500-1.200 B.C., 20%
–writing close to/derived from sumerian, toward Linear A/B (a local variant), minoan/Micenaean from Aegean area 2.000-1.000 B.C., 40% E.g.: From Cretan Hieroglyphics & Protolinear Script | Giannhs Kenanidhs and … http://www.academia.edu/…/Cretan_Hieroglyphics_and_Protolinea… Linear-A is still regarded as a direct descendant of the Cretan Hieroglyphics, … making use of an originally Sumerian script (Papakitsos & Kenanidis 2015; ….. the “ma” sign is a sketch of a calf’s face (from Sumerian “amá(r)” meaning a calf), .
– Eteo-Cretan-like writing, eteoCretan scribe (of sumerian ancestry sumerian settler in Crete) 1.000 B.C.-200 A.D., 25%
-presence partly of archaic greek writing (archaic greek alphabet), greek writer 50%. close to present (800-0 B.C.) greek writer 60%
-writing after Christ (A.C.) 55 %
– years 1800-1900 contemporaneus writer 20% —————————————————— You see, I have no confidence at all in archaeological data at all, especially those regarding the age. Having the only tool, (analising the signs ), I concluded that there are zero chances to have an original sumerian writing; it could be at best an sumerian-influenced/inspired writing.But the very signs “P and D-letter”-shaped , also Heta/phoenician chet signare pushing only to only two large spanned in time outcomes: 1 – one very early time,when sumerians only begun to scratch D-singns on tokens (clay volume bullae), and not on clay tablets ! (3.500-3.200 B.C.), wich has close to zero chances, and 2 – after another 2500 years later, (at least!) when begun to be used those signs in archaic greek (epichoric/local!)alphabets and writing. So the only real credible result is that the tablets are quite new, at least 800-500 B.C. but with chances to be much newer. ————————————————————– As a posibility, would be even an old signs scraping exercise or sqetch of an unknown person, wich had relative knowledge of, and knows some sumerian signs also knows some Anatolian signs, but have slight knowledge of that signs and not skilled in such writings !??
Nicolae Vlassa ? ? Zsofia Torma, knew sumerian and also Anatolian signs, she currently compared the signs from this 2 writings with those found on artefacts wich had discovered.It is more than strange that 1-2 years before, I found those 2 writings (proto-cuneiform and Anatolian) were closest to tablet’s writing.This could be an veridic, close to reality explanation for the presence on the tablets of a hodgepodge of signs. She made archeological research also in places containing roman artefacts. Possible she made for herself the tablets, only to exercise tracing of the signs on clay, as sumerians does before.It is weird an totaly uncommon for a true scribe to mix sumerian,Anatolian and Aegean signs!
- ? Torma Jozsef, father archaeologist, catolic religion
– ? Karoly Torma, brother, archaeologist, catolic religion. Top-level epigraphist of his time.Made archeological research in many Dacian archaeological sites and related to romans.Knew many languages, and received the title of doctor in philology.
–an german, hungarian or romanian archaeologist and researcher, close aquintance of Mr. Zsofia Torma.
NO ! AS YOU WILL SEE BELOW, BY ’61 THERE WERE NO BOOKS IN ROMANIAN LIBRARYES REGARDING ASSYROLOGY AND EVEN LESS ON THE MUCH AWKARD NARROW DOMAIN OF PROTO-CUNEIFORM WRITING. ALSO THEN, THERE WERE NO SUCH SCHOLLARS OR EXPERTS IN ROMANIA. LESS CHANCES IN ZSOFIA TORMA’S TIME ONLY NOWDAY IN THE INTERNET AGE, IT IS SOMEHOW POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE WICH HAS KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD AND HAS GREAT POSSIBILITIES TO DOCUMENT , TO SCRATCH SOMETHING CLOSE.
( ALSO I SOUGHT THAT SIGNS COULD BE RELATED TO Mrs. TORMA, father and brother through the title DDoc THIS WAS THE ONLY RESULTobtained by Google search-engine :ATESTATION IN WRITING OF THIS “D D o c” SEQUENCE ; it is the abbreviation of the latin “decretorum doctor” wich is “profesor of canonic(theologic) doctrine” .Possible she received them (the tablets) as a gift from somebody, no wonder,could be in vicinity time of receiveng the academic title of doctor in science.The cruel reality is the fact that when the doctor title becomed effective she was allready dead.
Hope this last hypothesys is only a funny-one, cause if would be true will be too much for me, wich I cannot bear.
ATTENTION ! I DO NOT SUSPECT ANY PERSON TO HAD BAD INTENTIONS, NOR TO MAKE A FAKE. Nothing on this part.
PROBABLY IS AN OMENED/ILL-FATED CHAIN OF EVENTS OR ONE COULD SAY: ”A SUCCESION OF MISSFORTUNATE EVENTS” ======================================================
OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV), AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING: MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS. AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS, I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW MUCH MORE AND CLOSE MEANINGS. THERE ARE SOME ICONS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA , WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.
==========================================================================
“IF” the upper half of the round tablet is containing archaic greek letters, the reading would not be easy because before the standardisation of greek letters, there were different alphabets in different places (epichoric alpabets, epichoros=”regional”).In a place D shape was for R phoneme, in another for D.P was for R in a place and P in another.
“HEDE SE DIDOU”
Not probably, but sure, the people are wondering how the things comes that I not show an sure, unique reading. As I explained before, this would be unbelieveble hard, because: – There is not known for sure the writing system, nor the language -It is true, that it seems that is closest to sumerian, followed by Aegean/Anatolian writings and corespondent languages. Overall I did not encounter great dificulties for reading tha tablets using both sumerian and Aegean systems. But the upper half of the round tablet some-how cannot match or be, fully enclosed in that systems. – Beside this, I cannot explaine myself how exactly the section supposed to be hidden and contain an esotheric message (upper half of the round tablet), happens to contain newest signs (e.g. archaic greek). Consequently, I came with the assumption :that’s why this portion was intentionaly covered, because is the only portion of the all tablets wich is containing an quite clear, readable, undersandable messageby the contemporaneous fellows of the scribe.
OTHERWISE, IF ONE OF YOU GIVE A BETTER SUPPOSITION/EXPLANATION, I WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW THAT ONE.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet 
! ! that’s why we do not know for sure what was intended to be written ! ! ————————————————————————- HD :hede
+++++ : Se
D -D -o –? =D D o o/u/c?, in fact has also an “i” inside first D=>DiDoo,DiDou,DiDos ?
Note: in greek, DIDOU=DIDOS=GIVE! (Voc.)
“THIS one here THEE GIVE!” > THIS YOU GIVE !, or “GIVE YOU THIS !”
kind of acknowledgment, receipt, voucher for what?some measures of cereals, goats !?
https://biblehub.com/greek/3592.htm hode, héde, tode: this (referring to what is present)
this one here, it refers to what precedes, to what follows: neuter these (viz. the following) things, as follows, thus, i
BEFORE GREEK ALPHABET COME TO BE STABLE,STANDARDISED, there was some regional (epichoric) variants in wich the sign D was for R in a place and for sound D in another ! ————————————————————————————— or: hed,EDE! (eat!) or HERA/HER(OS) SE DIDOU :”THIS/DEFEND GIVE YOU ,: “this/eat/ LORD/watch-over,protect, defend- give you ”
gr. HERA “protector,lady“, gr. hiera:”sacred objects”!
ἥρως – Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἥρως
The word hero comes from the Greek ἥρως (hērōs), “hero” (literally “protector” or “defender”),[3] particularly one such as Heracles with divine ancestry or later given divine honors.[4] Before the decipherment of Linear B the original form of the word was assumed to be *ἥρωϝ-, hērōw-, but the Mycenaean compound ti-ri-se-ro-e demonstrates the absence of -w-.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the Proto-Indo-European root is *sermeaning “to protect”. According to Eric Partridge in Origins, the Greek word Hērōs “is akin to” the Latin seruāre, meaning to safeguard. Partridge concludes, “The basic sense of both Hera and hero would therefore be ‘protector’.” R. S. P. Beekes rejects an Indo-European derivation and asserts that the word has a Pre-Greek origin.[5]
The Gentleman’s Magazine https://books.google.ro/books?id=tGI3AQAAMAAJ The ancient manor of Wanstead was granted by Edward VI. to Robert Lord Rich, … the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr (Master, Lord). … the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr: the Greek Mestor, another .
5:42 GIVE DIDOU 1325 {V/PAM/2S} TO THO TW 3588 {T/DSM} WHO ASKS AITOUNTI 154 {V/PAP/DSM} THEE SE 4571 {PP/2AS} AND
KAI 2532 {CONJ} TURN AWAY FROM APOSTRAFHS 654 {V/2APS/2S} NOT MH 3361 {PRT/N} THO TON 3588 {T/ASM} WHO
WANTS QELONTA 2309 {V/PAP/ASM} TO BORROW DANEISASQAI 1155 {V/AMN} FROM APO 575 {PREP} THEE SOU 4675
{PP/2GS}
SO IN THIS HARSH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE EVEN THE NATURE OF THE MESSAGE, AN ECONOMICAL TRANSACTION OR AN RELIGIOUS-RELATED ONE.
Tartaria tablets 
Leave a Reply