I would say, kind of finish of the Tartaria tablets research.

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.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT 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, were not sure and 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 sized that the “writing” finaly 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 the literature and data=bases regarding the discovery and evolution of writing, preffered not to recognise the spread abroad from other places, (transmit,transfer,“import” by mean of cultural transmition/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 specialty literature, I realised that I could not rely 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.

I had an ideal goal, to have an unique, ultimate reading ( wich of course 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)

The similarity with sumerian signs was noticed by many scientist begining with N.Vlassa (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 some slight inadvertencies /some incorect sign identifications/some incorect 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. Folowing an independent path I come to the same conclusions regarding the signs and the scribe. These, 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 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%

archaic greek writing (archaic greek alphabet), greek writer 50%

  • arch. greek writing close to present (800-0 B.C.) greek writer 60%

-writing after Christ (A.C.) 65 %

– years 1800-1900 contemporaneus writer 70%                                                                               ——————————————————                                                                                           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 “D-letter”-shaped are pushing only to only two large spanned in time outcomes:                                                                                                                                   1 – one when sumerian 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 alphapets and writing. So the only real credible result is that the tablets are quite new, at least 800-500 B.C. but with great chances much, much newer.                                —————————————————————————————————————                         After me, 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 knoledge of that signs and not skilled in such writings.

? 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.

ALL 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 (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.


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.                                                                                                                                          IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.

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: