Tartaria tablets

…..este usor de spus “pe intelesul tuturor“, dar nici eu nu realizez pe deplin ca ma adresez poate unui cititor a carui cunostinte lingvistice, sau in acest domeniu specific al epigrafiei, sa fie de nivel mediu (sau sub ?). Si care spre exemplu sa nu fi retinut pana in acest moment decat forma catorva litere grecesti (bineinteles, si acelea actuale), eventual care sa fi vazut cateva litere disparate, ex. feniciene sau din te miri ce alte alfabete disparate si mai departe….nu am cum sa stiu, necum sa fiu sigur; …ce sa vorbim despre semne minoice si silabograme miceniene (scierile Cretana hieroglifica, Linear A si Linear B), alfabete Anatoliene,etc.                                                                                                                Si nu stiu daca cumva constientizeaza macar intuitiv etapele foarte incete si lungi, (in special la inceput), etapele fragmentate ale evolutiei scrisului !?                            Si spre exemplu, si ma pot astepta, ca de-abea dupa ce i se explica cuiva care este mecanismul tehnic si psihologic, va intelege ca o inscriptie proto-cuneiforma nu are o citire in sensul propriu-zis, ci numai o interpretare, a carui inteles nu este foarte clar si nici unic.      Probabil trebuie sa ma impac cu gandul ca vor intelege in primul rand, (sau mai mult) cei care pe o cale sau alta s-au apropiat cat de cat de domeniul arheologiei si epigrafiei.                                                                                                                     Si pentru ca veni vorba, din pacate chiar arheologilor de la noi si din alte parti, nu le este foarte familiar domeniul  inscriptiilor; am avut ocazia sa vad din unele opinii exprimate de ei, cat de novici sant unii (mai bine nu nominalizez) in aceasta privinta.             ————————————————————————————                                                       In principiu totul este in aparenta simplu, este vorba de confruntarea si intersectia a doua domenii:                                                                                                                                         – Cel al aparitiei si evoutiei scrisului, care indiferent de locul pe pamant are la baza aceleasi principii, a caror convergenta este exprimarea cu ajutorul unui set de semne, cat mai simpla si exacta a “orice” (actiuni,idei,sentimente,etc)                                              – Celalat apartine artefactelor noastre concrete Este de asteptat sa obtinem concluzii de genul:                                                                                                                                                daca este scris; daca da, din ce faza a evolutiei lui si mai apoi daca si cat de independent este si daca, de unde a fost influentat si mai apoi care este modalitatea concreta (explicitarea amanuntita) in care se transmit informatii. Bineinteles scopul ultim, este sa aflam ce ar fi putea fi “scris” acolo.

APARITIA NEOLITICULUI IN EUROPA

Harta, din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe

(Reprezinta cumva varianta “demica” (demografica) adica introducerea agriculturii prin migratii directe de populatii din ANATOLIA , populatii care au fost anterior mai avansate in agricultura)

INCEPUTURILE SCRISULUI IN LUME

– scrisul a aparut in diferite locuri in lume mai degraba in focare independente, (Sumer, Indus, Egipt) nefiind cazul sa fi fost descoperit doar intr-un loc si de-acolo sa difuzeze in altele. A se retine, ca nicaieri in lume nu exista artefacte care sa ateste folosirea proto-scrierii (proto-cuneiforma) inainte de 3.500 B.C.                                                                                          Imaginea, din https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html

De fapt nu ar avea cum sa fie nici macar mai vechi de 3.000 B.C. Din cele ce urmeaza, voi pune in discutie chiar si aceasta varsta.                                                                                   (Dupa mine este absolut exclus ca tablitele sa aiba aceeasi varsta cu oasele, deci ca oasele sa apartina preotesei-saman care a scris tablitele !) contrar povestii sustinute si umflate de ani de zile de dl. Marco Merlini. 

Foarte interesant este faptul ca primele incercari de scris ale sumerienilor au fost in cea mai mare parte economice si numai in mica parte exercitii de scriere.Nimic religios sau de alta natura !                                                                                                                                    Din The Archaic Texts from Uruk Author(s): Hans J. Nissen https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2011/PAPVA_31/um/Nissen__1986__Archaic_Texts.pdf

“The basic questions can be reduced to why at all and when. As to why, we are helped by
the fact that c. 85 per cent of all the Archaic Texts from Uruk are what we call ‘economic
texts’, while c. 15 per cent may be classified as ‘lexical lists‘.                                           Neither literary nor religious nor historic inscriptions are present, and since, for the time being, we cannot attribute the lexical lists to any particular functional area, we have to conclude that because of their overwhelming majority and their character the economic texts should give us a better hint as to why the script was introduced.   ……….. The expression ‘economic‘ essentially categorizes the texts as parts of the book-keeping system: receipts, lists of expenses, of animals, of all kinds of goods, or of raw materials. ” 

INCEPUTURILE SCRISULUI IN ARIA DANUBIANA SI A CIVILIZATIEI VINCA-TURDAS

Inventia scrisului in diferite locuri in lume, a fost un proces de durata, care necesita in plus o serie de conditii minimale.  Cum ar fi atingerea de catre o cultura sau societate a unui nivel de dezvoltare economica suficient de inalt, si existenta unei societati cu o structura si organizare (cumva ierarhizata) relativ complexe.                                                                       Si in final necesitatea unei comunicari si schimb de informatie, atat in ce priveste viata si activitatea social-religioasa, dar mai ales necesitatea evidentei miscarii fizice si a distributiei bunurilor.    Aceasta avand ca rezultat intocmirea unor socoteli administrative privind aceste bunuri sau comoditati.                                                                     Da, Civilizatia Vinca a fost una din cele mai dezvoltate si complexe civilizatii (daca nu chiar cea mai  dezvoltata) pentru acele timpuri (nota-bene, inainte de cea Sumeriana si Egipteana !).Dar se pare (parerea mea) ca din pacate a fost, nu stiu cum sa zic,                                                                                                                                                             – a avut nesansa de a fi prea timpurie pentru desfasurarea unui ciclu complet al acestui fenomen al scrisului.                                                                                                            – societatea nu era una puternic ierarhizata care sa necesite o evidenta centralizata a distribuirii si redistribuirii bunurilor si serviciilor,ci era una edenica matriarhala si egalitarista.Intr-o societate in care am presupune ca bunurile sant la comun totul s-ar imparti la toti si nu mai necesita socoteli si evidente complexe !?

–inceputul sscrisului a inceput cu stangul; nu a pornit de la pictograme si treptat sa treaca la ideograme, ci de la inceput a avut un “caracter digital”. “Caracter digital” insemna obtinerea unor semne complexe folosind elemente liniare (ex: I,-,L,X etc.).Daca evolua ajungea in final la una asemanatoare cu cea chineza (cu dezavantajul folosirii a mii de ideograme; la chinezi 20.000)

Din Anthrogenica https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4342.

                                                                                                                                                              Din Chapter Two. GREEK WRITTEN LANGUAGE FROM 3000 BC| iurii …www.academia.edu/…/Chapter_Two._GREEK_WRITTEN_…                                            GREEK WRITTEN LANGUAGE FROM 3000 BC Iurii Mosenkis Fifteen centuries …     “Trypilla culture was a descendant of highly developed Balkan culture of Vinča.”

Ca atare, Civilizatia Vinca, a lasat in urma un bagaj impresionant de semne, care nu probabil, ci banuiesc sigur, au inceput oarecum sa fie folosite in tangenta cu activitatile economice si religioase. Privind etapele necesare care trebuiau parcurse pentru a se ajunge la scrisul propriu-zis , primii si cei mai importanti pasi au fost facuti.                           Insa din pacate, se pare ca, chiar cand ar mai fi lipsit putin ( sau putin mai mult ; acest lucru este relativ) sa se ajunga efectiv la scris, dezvoltarea culturii Vinca s-a oprit ; (ca mai apoi aceasta civilizatie sa sufere deplasari si transformari, si in final, dupa un anumit moment sau punct sa nu mai existe ca atare.)                                                                Din pacate, nu a fost inca demonstrat nici ca ar fi ajuns macar la faza proto-scrierii. Aceasta ar insemna practic, si ar presupune  existenta a macar a unui exemplar de gen de inscris, a carui mesaj sa poata fi interpretat, si mai apoi sa existe un punct de vedere comun al cercetatorilor ca acest fapt s-a intamplat si e o certitudine.
Este adevarat ca majoritatea cercetatorilor au opinii si puncte de vedere comune, si anume ca semnele civilizatie Vinca par a fi “un gen de”sau “inceput de” scris, inceput de scris a carui natura in schimb tot dansii nu o pot preciza.                                  Desigur este vorba de o faza a evolutiei scrisului inspre proto-scriere.                    Unii chiar suspicioneaza existenta unui gen de/ sau a fazei de proto-scriere. Dansii se bazeaza pentru aceasta varianta, sau mai bine-zis dau ca exemplu, tablitele de la Dispilio, Gradesnita si Tartaria.     ( Pentru care fie vorba intre noi nu exista o unitate absoluta a parerilor privind vechimea si exact caror culturi le apartin.)                                                         Acest fapt, (ca nu s-a ajuns aproape de scriere) a fost acceptat si inteles de majoritatea cercetatorilor, dar nu chiar de toti (exemplu de cercetator cu o alta opinie, Dl.Marco Merlini, care sustine existenta unui scris, dar care nu poate fi citit; atunci, intreb eu mai este scris !?)  
———————————————————————-

CE ESTE SPECIFIC CULTURII VINCA IN ACEI PASI PARCURSI INSPRE SCRIS

O serie de civilizatii ,(foarte multe, ex.Sumeriana,Egipteana,Ugaritica si altele) printr-un concurs particular de imprejurari, au urmat o cale pe care azi o numim “clasica”, de la pictograme spre scriere adevarata adica in final semnele aveau echivalent fonetic.          Fapt ce a permis exprimarea in scris, IN ORICE LIMBA, a oricarei idei, actiuni, sentiment sau concept. Nu-mi dau seama din ce motiv (chiar stiind aceasta desfasurare odata realizata nu mai poate fi schimbata), civilizatia Vinca-Turdas nu a urmat un astfel de parcurs.Acum, cand stau si ma gandesc, de fapt pictogramele pe zeci de mii de artefacte sant ca si inexistente. In schimb sant prezente din plin, as putea spune exclusiv semne obtinute din combinatii ale unor semne elementare liniare. Eu zic plastic ca CVILIZATIA VINCA-TURDAS A AVUT UN PARCURS  “DIGITALIZAT”. Acesta are avantajul simplitatii, in sensul creerii unor semne mai complexe pornind de la elemente simple.Apoi mai e avantajul ca pot fi standardizate. Dezavantajul este ca nu exista suportul intuitiv, adica pictograma care reprezinta obiectul. In acest fel este extrem de dificil daca nu imposibil sa se ajunga DIRECT la ideograme care sa reprezinte obiecte,idei si actiuni. Se pare ca asta a fost nesansa lor.                                                      Cred ca urmatorul exemplu este extrem de intuitiv:                                                                  incercati sa va ganditi ca cineva va da sarcina sa scrieti ceva (un act economic,rugaciune sau povestire) scriind cu semne, dar folosind doar semnele O si 1 .(sau oricare 2 semne)

( SUMERIENII AU AJUNS SA FOLOSEASCA IDEOGRAME COMPLEXE,                                           – DAR AU PORNIT DE LA PICTOGRAME PE CARE LE-AU STILIZAT SI FACUT TOT MAI COMPLEXE ;                                                                                                                                            – IN TIMP IDEOGRAMELE AU INCEPUT SA AIBA SI ECHIVALENT FONETIC (PARTIAL),          – PENTRU CA IN FINAL CHIAR EI NEMAISTIIND PENTRU ACELE IDEOGRAME COMPLEXE DE LA CE PICTOGRAME S-A PORNIT CU SUTE DE ANI INAINTE. )

OPINIILE CERCETATORILOR PRIVIND VARSTA SI CULTURA CAREIA LE APARTIN TABLITELE

Privind vechimea si cultura careia ii apartin tablitele de la Tartaria, nu exista o opinie comuna, si cu atat mai putin unica. Initial majoritatea cercetatorilor au luat in considerare primele ipoteze si parerea D-lui Vlassa (filiatie sumeriana, 3.200-3.000 B.C.). Apoi unii cercetatori au marit varsta; apoi dupa ce mult timp au fost centrati pe o varsta foarte veche/mare, chiar daca unii aveau si alte opinii nu le-au exprimat hotarat, probabil sa nu deranjeze orgoliul national si profesional al cercetatorilor romani.
Insa cativa totusi au facut-o (Dumitrescu s.a.).

Din Din CUI BONO? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf

4 Cf. Vlassa 1963, p. 492, 494. It is worth mentioning that, following the analysis of the dating possibilities,A. Falkenstein 1965, p. 273 suggested the very near time frame 2850‑2750 BC to date Uruk IIIb; based on this dating, V. Milojčić 1965, p. 267‑268 appreciated that the Vinča A phase and the contemporary cultures, the Tărtăria tablets,
respectively, could not date prior to 2800±50 BC.

Din Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, VII, 2008
SETTLING DISCOVERY CIRCUMSTANCES, DATING AND UTILIZATION OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS  Marco Merlini  Gheorghe Lazarovici http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats8/merlini.pdf

“Consequently, the Transylvanian tablets have brought into sharper focus the
discrepancy between dates based upon radiocarbon method and those based upon
archaeological correlations (upgraded to “historical evidence”15): the chronological
gap was too large and the two options totally irreconcilable. If the radiocarbon
dating was truthful, the Tărtăria tablets could not be squared with the Jemdet Nasr
period even if one accepted a very early date for it, being much earlier than it. If the
Vinča culture was correlated with the Jemdet Nasr period, radiocarbon dating was
not only useless but also misleading (Milojčić 1965: 268).
We have to frame this crossroads within a period when the proponents of the
new radiocarbon chronology moved to attack and the defenders of the traditional,
conventional chronology were in defense. Indeed, the latter were open to direct
criticism from radiocarbon regarding concerning not only the Balkans and the
supposed links with the Aegean early Bronze Age on which Milojčić grounded his
chronology, but also other European areas. These difficulties “suggested that the
traditional chronology might be seriously in error in the Balkans” (Renfrew 1973:
68) regarding the estimated dates, the durations of cultures, the idea that the
historical process is based on sequential series of archaeological cultures, the
diffusionist paradigm according to which the first farmers spread agriculture across
the globe sowing seeds also for most of today’s languages and system of writing. “

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ARABIAN GULF THE EXPERIENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
Series editor: Andrew Wheatcroft University of Stirling                      
https://archive.org/stream/TheArchaeologyOf_258/Rice-TheArchaeologyOfTheArabianGulf_djvu.txtA group of tablets excavated at Tartaria in Rumania, has been thought by some observers to bear some resemblance to early Sumerian forms and to be ancestral to them. If this was the case, it would hint at yet another point of origin for the Sumerian people themselves; however, the Tartaria tablets may be later than first thought or, at best, may simply represent another direction from which some powerful, contributing influence travelled.

Aceasta nu fara temei, ci pentru faptul ca multe elemente nu se potriveau si nu rezulta o imagine unitara.Au avut banuiesc la baza considerente de natura arheologica si posibil si tipul de semne.Unii au reliefat faptul ca ar putea apartine unei alte culturi, ulterioare culturii Vinca (Petresti,Baden,Cotofeni,etc.) Deasemenea cercetatorii au observat o similaritate cu scrierea sumeriana proto-cuneiforma. Dar si aici au fost suficient de atenti incat au ajuns la parerea ca doar se aseamana in mare masura cu scrierea sumeriana, deci “scriere quasi-sumeriana” (A.A.VAIMAN/” On the quasi-sumerian tablets from Tartaria”), si nu poate fi de origine sumeriana.                                                 Aici sant cateva din listele primelor semne sumeriene pre-cuneiforme, unde puteti vedea si compara chiar fiecare si oricare din Dv. unele din aceste semne cu semnele existente pe tablitele de la Tartaria :                                                                                            Din  http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=late_uruk_period full list of proto-cuneiform signs (very large file [93 MB]) https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Apoi si a ceasta: Proto-Cuneiform Signs by Ashur Cherry https://www.academia.edu/33396974/Proto-Cuneiform_Signs?fbclid=IwAR1jQW8KW3Esx_KIVEeHF1McmpZLIwduQgUsnm5QJccCbm7iWJYgv-dngkM

Mai exista si lista semnelor proto-cuneiforme a lui Adam Falkenstein (ATU care inseamna Archaishe Texte aus Uruk),                                                                                             Late Uruk Period [CDLI Wiki]  cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=late_uruk_period May 17, 2016 – A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Archaische Texte aus Uruk 1; Berlin-Leipzig 1936) PDF copy (80.6 MB). https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/ATU1.pdf si altele.                                                                                                                                                        Din pacate fiecarui semn din lista lui Falkenstein ii este asociat un numar de identificare si atat.Nici-o indicatie despre denumirea semnului,ori a notiunii desemnate sau vre-o legatura cu fonemele limbii sumeriene.Asa incat va dati seama cat foloseste….

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols                                                         “Around 3200 BC, the culture of Old Europe migrated, to the Aegean Sea and to Crete. Today, they are considered to be the origin of the Minoan civilisation, though it is a dimension that few Minoan scholars have included in their writing, instead largely opting to see Crete as yet another “stand alone” civilisation. Gimbutas stated that: “the civilisation that flourished in Old Europe between 6500 and 3500 BC and in Crete until 1450 BC enjoyed a long period of uninterrupted peaceful living.” Motifs such as the snake, intertwined with the bird goddess motif, the bee and the butterfly, with the distinctive motif of the double axe, are found both in Old Europe and Crete. But the best evidence is in the writing of Old Europe and the Linear A script of Crete, which are to all intents and purposes identical.   …………………………..
The Vinča culture appears to have traded its wares quite widely with other cultures (as demonstrated by the widespread distribution of inscribed pots), so it is possible that the “numerical” symbols conveyed information about the value of the pots or their contents. Other cultures, such as the Minoans and Sumerians, used their scripts primarily as accounting tools; the Vinča symbols may have served a similar purpose.   …………….        The discovery of smelting gave the Vinča culture – already one of the most dynamic in Europe – a near monopoly. The production of the first metal tools and jewelry unleashed a rush by cultures as far as the Atlantic and Baltic to possess Balkan products. Like the Hallstatt culture, which would later sit at the heart of one of Europe’s richest trade networks during the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age, because of its salt deposits, Vinča was momentarily in the enviable position of possessing a technology and material unknown to anyone else. Soon, cultures as far away as Scandinavia were doing their best to imitate Balkan copper axes and daggers – but rather desperately in stone. The appetite for copper objects stimulated indirect trade with the amber-producing areas around the Baltic, extending elaborate networks and creating the first consistent trans-continental exchange system. In the meantime, coppersmith magicians noted for a particular set of grave goods, including characteristic bell beakers, spread throughout western Europe, remaining mysteriously apart from the populations they traveled amongst, at least when they were enterred in distinct tombs. ……………………                       But the advance of metallurgy during Phase C also strengthened cultures in mineralogically richer zones to the east that could specialize in production. Despite the discovery of slag and metal products at such Vinča sites as Selevac and Gomolava, the culture centered in Serbia was far more active in diffusing the new goods than producing them. Partly as a consequence, the Bulgarian Marica-Karanova V culture extended its influence along the Maritsa, then along the east bank of the Morava – enriching the Vinča sphere even as it encroached upon it. The initiative passed definitively to Varna and other metal-working centers near the mouth of the Danube once the Gumelnitsa and Karanova VI cultures of Bulgaria and southern Romania began to exploit mines at Aibunar and Stara Zagora in the second half of the 5th millennium. While Vinča was gradually forced to withdraw to the west of the Morava and abandon it’s type-site for Banjica, Varna was lavishing its dead with thousands of prestige goods made of copper and Transylvanian gold. “

Din https://drakenberg.weebly.com/vinca.html                                                                                There is no debate about it: the artefacts from the Vinca culture and Sumer are very much alike. And it is just not some pottery and artefacts: they share a script that seems highly identical too. In fact, the little interest that had been shown in the Vinca culture before the 1960s all revolved around their script. Vlassa’s discovery only seemed to confirm this conclusion, as he too immediately stated that the writing had to be influenced by the Near East. Everyone, including Sinclair Hood and Adam Falkenstein, agreed that the two scripts were related and Hood also saw a link with Crete. Finally, the Hungarian scholar Janos Makkay stated that the “Mesopotamian origin [of the Tartaria pictographs] is beyond doubt.”

Multi cercetatori au afirmat ca artefactele de la Tartaria din perioada culturii Vinca isi gasesc un echivalent apropiat in cele de la Hacilar si Beycesultan din aceeasi perioada. Intamplator am mai gasit o referinta; aici este vorba de  Creta legata de Beycesultan.

DOCUMENTS IN MINOAN LUWIAN,SEMITIC, AND PELASGIAN FRED C. WOUDHUIZEN file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Documents_in_Minoan_Luwian_Semitic_and_P.pdf            Appendix I: Architectural Relations between the Palace of
Beycesultan and the Palaces of Minoan Crete.………………………… 359

        Dar aici este vorba de o perioada mai tarzie decat cea a statuetelor de la Tartaria si a civ. Vinca.(tablitele sant mai tarzii decat Civ. Vinca !)

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets

Possibly related finds in the region

This group of artefacts, including the tablets, have some relation with the culture developed in the Black Sea – Aegean area. Similar artefacts are found in Bulgaria (e.g. the Gradeshnitsa tablets) and northern Greece (the Dispilio Tablet). The material and the style used for the Tartaria artefacts show some similarities to those used in the Cyclades area, as two of the statuettes are made of alabaster.
—————————————————————————-                                                                         MAJORITATEA CERCETATILOR ASIROLOGI SPECIALIZAT IN SCRIEREA PRE-CUNEIFORMA AFIRMA CA NU SANT SUMERIENE CI DE “FACTURA sau INFLUENTA SUMERIANA”

Din CUI BONO? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf                                                                “A. Falkenstein, the first Assyriologist who thoroughly checked Vlassa’s conclusions and who comparatively examined, one by one, the signs from the Tărtăria tablets and their early Mesopotamian parallels. He established the existence of certain similarities in terms of the form of the tablets, the division of the surface in columns and partitions (Fächer), in which the signs were then inscribed. He noticed that, from the 20 (or 24, with variants) signs on the second and third Tărtăria tablets, precise analogies were drawn
for five, and similar forms were found for six among the archaic texts from Uruk (in German, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, abbreviated: ATU)25. All the 11 correspondences belong to the Uruk IIIb period (Djemdet Nasr), which can be dated to the time frame between 2800 and 2750 BC, also representing the chronological reference for dating the Tărtăria tablets. In Falkenstein’s opinion, the correlations established between the
Tărtăria clay tablets and the Sumerian ones indicate an impulse (Anregung) from Mesopotamia. At the same time, he stressed the fact that, unlike the Mesopotamian written clay tablets, the Tărtăria tablets were made from coarse material, were perforated (in order to be suspended?) and fired, the signs were incised (not impressed), the signs for numbers (characteristic to the Mesopotamian tablets, having an economic character) were (partially?) missing, etc”

Deci cam jumatate (11) din totalul de 20-24 au corespondente cu semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene.                                                                                                        

OPINIA MEA IN PRIVINTA VARSTEI SI CULTURII CARORA LE APARTIN TABLITELE

In mod gresit s-a facut identificarea varstei tablitelor cu cea a oaselor.Oasele au vechimea culturii Vinca, (cca5.500 B.C.), pe cand varsta exacta a tablitelor nu se cunoaste. Aparent dupa analiza scrisului, tablitele sant de data mult mai recenta. Nu se poate face o identitate intre varsta tablitelor si cea a oaselor intrucat ELE NU AU FOST GASITE IMPREUNA,UNELE LANGA ALTELE (OASELE CU TABLITELE). Nu se cunoaste exact care unde erau in cadrul complexului ritualic.

Iuliu Adrian Paul Enigma tăbliţelor de la Tărtăria                                            http://bjastrasibiu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/130-iuliu.paul_.pdf

“Prin urmare, această etapă cultural-cronologică reprezintă termenul post quem pentru posibila practicare a gropii de cult şi, implicit, a tăbliţelor. 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. …………………………………………                                                          Ar mai fi de adăugat şi faptul că Laszló Attila, în prezent prof. univ. dr. în arheologie la Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, deşi a participat, de la începutul până la sfârşitul săpăturilor din 1961, nu a văzut – după propriile sale mărturii, repetate – nici momentul descoperirii şi nici vreuna din piesele complexului. Tăbliţele le-a văzut pentru prima oară, la muzeu, după conservarea lor. Acesta pare a fi motivul care l-a determinat pe Laszlo Attila să se preocupe îndeaproape de cercetările Zsofiei Torma într-un amplu şi documentat studiu ce ar putea fi considerat, implicit, ca o invitaţie pentru reluarea studiului asupra activităţii şi a colecţiei Zsofiei Torma, în lumina noilor cercetări privind utilizarea şi semnificaţia semnelor grafice în preistorie (Laszlo Attila, 1991,p. 37-50).”

SANSE MINIME SA FIE CONTRAFACERI ALE CUIVA (ex.Vlassa, si cu atat mai putin Torma sau cineva din anturajul ei)

Nota                                                                                                                                                    Mai multi cercetatori, au luat in calcul si ipoteza ca tablitele ar proveni de fapt din colectia Zsofiei Torma.Initial m-am gandit, ca daca apartineau colectiei sale, dansa nu ar fi scapat sa le prezinte intregii Europe, ea fiind cea mai mare sustinatoare a originii semnelor din civilizatia Vinca-Turdas in civilizatia sumeriana. Dar, fapt interesant, initial tablitele erau acoperite cu un strat gen carbonat de calciu, si posibil (nu stiu inca),nu se vedea nimic, adica nu se vedeu semnele !?!?.                                                                        Poate de-abea dupa ce au fost introduse in acid clorhidric semnele au inceput sa fie vizibile.

Din http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf Attola Laszlo                                       “The truth is that, although with a certain delay, Vlassa himself admitted that both the tablets and the idols, which had been covered by a calcareous crust, were immersed in a hydrochloric acid bath, and it was only after this treatment that the signs incised on the tablets became visible, subsequently undergoing an air‑free impregnation process of the tablets in an autoclave, using a reversible impregnating agent, for preservation purposes14. “

Asa s-ar putea eventual explica de ce Zsofia Torma nu le-a aratat nimanui pentru ca nu avea de fapt ce sa arate.Printr-un concurs atat fericit (in acest caz) de imprejurai, de-abea dupa ce s-au vazut semnele a inceput sa se faca mare zarva in jurul lor.

Western-Pontic Culture Ambience and Pattern: In memory of Eugen Comsa https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=3110500825 Lolita Nikolova, ‎Marco Merlini, ‎Alexandra Comsa – 2016 –                                                                                                      “The tablets were wet, soft and covered with limestone. … the pit, the restorer put the tablets under a hydrochloric acid treatment, removing not only the ..”   

***************************************************                                                          DAR CUM VETI VEDEA SI MAI JOS,                                                                                             PRIN ’61 NU SE GASEA IN BIBLIOTECILE DIN ROMANIA DOCUMENTATIE DIN DOMENIUL ASIROLOGIEI, SI CU ATAT MAI PUTIN DIN DOMENIUL MAI INGUST SI DIFICIL AL SCRIERII PRE-CUNEIFORME.                                                                                   IN PLUS ROMANIA NU AVEA ASEMENEA SPECIALISTI. SI                                                      CU ATAT MAI PUTINE ERAU SANSELE PE VREMEA ZSOFIEI TORMA.                                DOAR PENTRU CINEVA DIN ZIUA DE AZI, REALATIV PREGATIT SI IN CONDITIILE IN CARE DOCUMENTAREA SE POATE FACE FACIL PE INTERNET, AR FI OARECUM POSIBIL SA INJGHEBE CEVA ASEMANATOR.                            ***********************************************

Din Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets Attila László http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf

 2. In what these remarks are concerned, it is worth mentioning that indeed Vlassa did not find in the Romanian libraries of the 1960’s specialized Assyriology literature, since there were no Romanian specialists in this discipline then23. As a good expert in the field noted, Vlassa quoted,but probably did not use Falkenstein’s fundamental work (1936). Thus, contrary to the malicious remark of E. Qasim, one may consider it a true performance that, relying solely on comparisons with the Assyriology literature for the wider audiences, Vlassa succeeded to find parallels for the signs on the Tărtăria tablets24.                                                                                                                                                 —————————————————————————————————–
In orice caz, nepunandu-ma baza pe opiniile usor divergente ale arheologilor, am tras niste concluzii minimale proprii.                                                                                                Cu toate acestea, si ma asteptam cumva, multe din concluziile mele sant oarecum asemanatoare iar altele pur si simplu se suprapun pe acelea ale altor cercetatori.                   ————————————————————————————

CONCLUZII REZULTATE DIN CERCETAREA MEA INDEPENDENTA

Concluzii rezultand EXCLUSIV DIN ANALIZA SEMNELOR !

Aceastea au la baza urmatoarele elemente:
– Desi semnele prezinta asemanari cu scrierea sumeriana proto-cuneiforma, multe doar se aseamana schitat, dar nu sant la fel.                                                                                  Concluzie, nu este scriere original-sumeriana, este doar de influenta sumeriana.

Din      Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit
Bauer, Josef; Englund, Robert K.; Krebernik, Manfred  https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/151545/1/Bauer_Englund_Krebernik_1998_Mesopotamien.pdf                                                                                                                                                “The presumption that decorated tokens appearing from approximately the middle of the 5th millennium B.C. in Uruk (but only from co . 3500 B.C. in Iron and Syria) led di rectly to pictographic script is the element of Schmondt-Besserot’s work which has been most debated .Comparing the graphic forms, she was able to propose the correspondence of o Iorge number of decorated tokens with later ideograms, and these identifications ore now moving through the secondary literature as if they had been justified or even in port accepted by experts. The basic argument against such facile identifications is that we know graphic similarity, in the absence of contextual proof, con be notoriously misleading, placing as it has Sumerian scribes as for afield as Rumania and China . This is the more dangerous when not even the objects being analyzed con be shown to have been included in meaningful token assemblages, i . e., when complex tokens ore not found within, or at least in context with clay balls. “
– Asemanarile cele mai mari sant (in ordine descrescatoare), cu:                                                             – scrierea Sumeriana, urmata foarte aproape de cea Anatliene si Egeene.

TABEL CU PROCENTAJELE (aproximative) IN CARE SEMNELE DE PE TABLITE SE REGASESC IN DIFERITE SCRIERI:

 Scrierea sumeriana (proto-cuneiforma)                      90%

Alfabete Anatoliene in ansamblu                                 80%

Alfabetele Cariene in ansamblu                                    50%

Scrierile Egeene Linear A/B in ansamblu                    50%

Daca in schimb luam doar semnele din jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde, in alf.arhaic grec 94%si apoi restul semnelor din semnele proto-cuneiforme 98%, ar rezulta o medie de 96% ! !                                                                                                                                 Aceasta analiza comparativa are doua rezultate practice:                                                  – ne poate da o imagine referitor la ce fel de scris a fost folosit, si ne poate da indicii privind eventuala origine                                                                                                                     – arata ce influente au fost exercitate (de unde) si in ce masura 

A se vedea,                                                                                                                                   DOCUMENTS IN MINOAN LUWIAN, SEMITIC, AND PELASGIAN FRED C. WOUDHUIZEN         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MlXuANT4kcZHS4RZCLwSj1TS_lNP-JJaO9dfHtIqmI0/edit                                                                                 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/KtbxLxGgHpVDpdzfFNRNfRjtcCkfXtZpgV?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1                                                                                                                          

Un fapt care nu m-a mirat foarte mult; cred ca ma si asteptam cumva, a fost constatarea unei asemanari a ideogramelor/syllabogramelor sumeriene cu cele Egeene.   

Din Linear A Script – Ancient History Encyclopedia https://www.ancient.eu/Linear_A_Script                                                                                             “The Linear A script was the writing system used by the Minoan civilization. … that Linear A is related to the Old European Vinca culture. “

 Din https://people.well.com/user/mareev/portal/prehistory/ancient_prehistory_timeline6a.html                                                                                                                                                              “(Romania Tartaria Vinca writing [of 6000 BC] – Some of the signs incised on the Tartaria tablets proved to be almost identical with Sumerian ones of the period around 3000 B.C.  The Tartaria tablets also looked much like the written records produced in Crete ca 2000 B.C., when the earliest archives uncovered at Knossos were established.) (Scientific American – May 1968)”                                                                                                                     

The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Core https://www.cambridge.org/…/C824E021256A41A254FF5A… de MSF Hood – ‎1967

   Vedeti si un studiu comparativ privind semnele din aceste doua regiuni:                     Minoan Sumerian | Giannhs Kenanidhs Academia.edu  http://www.academia.edu/11423494/Minoan_Sumerian

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts | iurii mosenkis – Academia … http://www.academia.edu/…/Danube-Trypillia_source_of_Minoan…

 La sfarsitul paginii, aveti mai multe surse pentru documentarea unor legaturi intre civilizatiile din Orient (in principal Sumer) si aria Egeeana (ex. civilizatia minoana)

Mie mi-au atras atentia, si ma mir cum altor cercetatori le-au scapat, doua aspecte majore as zice eu:                                                                                                                                     I. Caracterul eterogen al semnelor. respectiv semne provenind din arii diferite si din perioade diferite.De fapt, inafara de asta sant  3 categorii de semne:                                        -pictograme                                                                                                                                             -ideograme si sau silabograme                                                                                                           – semne folosite in mod sigur in alte scrieri ca litere                                                               II. Jumatatea superioara face “opinie separata“, respectiv semnele de acolo ar parea cele mai noi/moderne/recente.Acuma ca este o intamplare sau nu, aceasta este chiar jumatatea presupus a fi intentionat ascunsa vederii,fiind acoperita de tableta dreptunghiulara cu gaura.                                                                                                               III. Da, sant mai multe feluri de semne.Ar rezulta doua ipoteze:                                              a)- sa fie un fel de exercitiu scolar sau cineva sa-i arate altcuiva cum se scrie.Dar nicaieri nu exista ceva asemanator, iar sumerienii altfel procedau cu invataceii. Invatatorul scria pe o jumatate si elevul copia textul pe cealalta jumatate,sau scriau liste cuprinzand categorii, (exemplu lista cu diferite meserii)                                                                            b)Mai rezulta ceva si mai important si complex: cel care a facut semnele avea cunostinta de asemenea semne folosite in Sumer sau aria Egeeana. Numai ca avem o mare problema, acel cineva ori era din acea vechime si loc sau “scriitorul,scribul” apartine unei perioade mult mai apropiata de zilele noastre si le stie din documentare proprie.

Din ATTILA LÁSZLÓ, Cui bono? Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdfn

“In her attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the tablets, E. Qasim proceeded exactly the other way around: she selected those signs from the available comparative material presented by Vlassa which also appeared on the Tărtăria tablets. By applying an intricate
logic, she thus attempted to demonstrate that the signs represented on the Tărtăria tablets were rendered (= were copied!) following the model of some Mesopotamian signs which were reproduced as an illustration in the popularizing works which were at the disposal of the Transylvanian archaeologist.”

Vlasa nu parte sa fie un bun candidat:                                                                                  ATTILA LÁSZLÓ, Cui bono? Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf

  “In what these remarks are concerned, it is worth mentioning that indeed Vlassa did not find in the Romanian libraries of the 1960’s specialized Assyriology literature, since there were no Romanian specialists in this discipline then23. As a good expert in the field noted, Vlassa quoted, but probably did not use Falkenstein’s fundamental work (1936). Thus, contrary to the malicious remark of E. Qasim, one may consider it a true performance that, relying solely on comparisons with the Assyriology literature for the wider audiences, Vlassa succeeded to find parallels for the signs on the Tărtăria tablets24. “

Si cu atat mai mult, inca inainte cand se stia si mai putin despre inceputul scrierii sumeriene, nu putea fi Torma si nici oricine din cercetatorii epocii sau din anturajul apropiat !                                                                                                                                                 ————————————————————————————–                        ACEASTA AGLOMERARE (daca as fi rau, “GHIVECI“) DE SEMNE INDREAPTA TABLITELE INSPRE A FI UNICATE (engl.SINGLETONS) SI CHIAR “CIUDATE”.                            NU SANT IN LINIE, CONFORME CU LINIA GENERALA  A EVOLUTIEI SCRISULUI IN LUME.                                                                                                                                                    PRIN STRUCTURA SI SEMNE REPREZINTA O ABATERE SI DEVIERE DE LA ACEEA CE AM PUTEA CONSIDERA NORMALITATE 

IV. Avand in preocupare de ani de zile semne folosite in scrieri, din aspectul grafic (forma)   concreta a unor semne am putut face niste observatii. Exemplu:                              – Semnul “H cu 3 bare orizontale sau usor inclinate” nu a aparut sub aceasta forma concreta decat in aria Egeeana la maximum  2300 B.C in scrierea cretetana hieroglifica si mai apoi in scrierile Linear A si Linear B(sylabograma PA3).Mai apoi a aparut in alfabetele arhaice grecesti ca fiind litera heta/eta.
– Semnul “D” nu au aparut decat in 2 ocazii:                                                                                      – ori extrem de rar la 3.200B.C. in Sumer, (unde au fost atestate D.S.Besserat dar nu se stie exact ce reprezentau), ori                                                                                                                 – peste inca 2.500 de ani in aria Egeeana  reprezentand in alfabetele arhaice grecesti , (care erau la inceput diferite in diferite regiuni “epichoros=”local”),ex. forma “D mare de tipar” era litera D intr-un loc sau R in alt loc.
-Inafara semnului +++++ care

ar putea reprezenta (eteocretan X,dd,tt,,Su ?)

<The Archaic Cretan Greek Alphabet http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/archaic_alpha.html >

1. semk:  is found on Praisos #1. As stated above, we can discount the value /ks/ given to this symbol by the Ionians. It would be a gross anachronism to find it used this way in a late 7th century or early 6th century inscription from Crete. There are only two credible possibilities:
   • As in some other local scripts, it is merely used as a variant of  and, therefore, presumably denotes either /dd/ or /tt/.
   • It really is semk and is being used to represent a sibilant not known in contemporary Greek. The clear presence of Ϝσ (ws) on Praisos #3 may indicate that Eteocretan possessed a labialized sibilant [sʷ]].

sau ar putea fi un numeral (50), in rest, toate semnele din jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde se regasesc in alfabetele arhaice grecesti (800-500 B.C.). 

Tabelul, din http://www.codex99.com/typography/13.html

                                                                                                                                                                    Din http://www.bardotbooks.com/blog/?m=201212                                               https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjV9KL_rozgAhVB46QKHXVIBi0Qjxx6BAgBEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bardotbooks.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fm%3D201212&psig=AOvVaw0oFOfZMAobdvJUPai_Z6cm&ust=1548623703265514

                         ————————————————————————————                                                                      Nota                                                                                                                                                Oricine is pate pune problema, si mi-am pus-o si eu, daca exista semne de scris, la ce mai folosesc pictogramel de pa tablita pur pictografica?

 Din https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istoria_scrisului                                                                            “Primele sisteme de scriere apărute la începutul epocii bronzului nu au reprezentat o invenție bruscă. Mai degrabă, ele s-au dezvoltat pe baza unor tradiții mai vechi ce constau din diferite sisteme de simboluri care nu pot fi clasificate ca scrieri proprii deși au multe caracteristici izbitor de asemănătoare cu scrierea. Aceste sisteme pot fi descrise ca fiind „protoscriere”. Aceste sisteme folosesc simboluri ideografice și/sau primele simboluri mnemonice pentru a transmite informații încă au fost, probabil, lipsite de conținut lingvistic direct. Aceste sisteme au apărut în perioada neoliticului timpuriu, încă din mileniul al VII-lea î.Hr..   …………..                                                                                     În 300 de ani, Mesopotamia a făcut (deși parțial) pasul următor (nereușit încă de alte civilizații): semnul în loc să indice un obiect, a început să reprezinte un sunet, ajungându-se astfel la posibilitatea ca scrierea să exprime limba cu relațiile existente între cuvinte.^[5] Cele două tipuri de semne au continuat să existe deoarece ideogramele nu au fost înlocuite complet de scrierea fonetică. Semnele numite silabice, ce aveau valoare gramaticală și foloseau la exprimarea acelor părți de vorbire care, prin natura lor, nu puteau fi reprezentate figurativ, erau derivate din ideograme, al căror sens îl pierdeau păstrând doar sunetul. Așadar sumeriana nu a atins niciodată stadiul final din evoluția scrierii (crearea unui alfabet), neelaborându-se semne distincte pentru fiecare vocală și consoană.”

In evolutia scrisului, semnele pictografice au inceput sa aiba si semnificatie fonetica, adica sa semnifice si sunetul cu care incepe denumirea obiectului reprezentat in pictograma.Acesta se numeste “principiul acrofonic, sau rebus”                                               

Din https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discul_din_Phaistos                                                             “Glifa numărul unu, “băiatul ce aleargă”, invocă pentru Jean Faucounau numele homeric al acestuia, *κο-ρFος (transcris de altfel în codul beta astfel: kou=ros). Cititorii proto-Ionieni ai glifei nu fac, privind-o, decât să recite silaba inițială [ku] pe care scribul a imprimat-o mai înainte. Iar cu această silabă se poate nota și oricare alt cuvânt care începe cu aceleași sunete. Următoarele două glife pot adăuga, de pildă, silabele [su] și [te]. Iar cu toate trei se poate astfel scrie cuvântul ku-su-te, sau cel fonetic echivalent, grecesc, românesc, ori al oricărei alte limbi. După contextul dat, sensul aceluiași cuvânt rostit poate fi desigur foarte diferit. Singura condiție a biunivocității lecturii pentru cititor și pentru scrib este ca aceștia să se refere la aceeași limbă.                                                                                                                                             Principiul acrofonic, înrudit cu cel al rebusului, este universal, deoarece el poate astfel nota orice limbă. Totuși, spre deosebire de rebusuri , el trebuie pus la lucru numai într-una și aceeași limbă, astfel ca el să producă reprezentarea unei scrieri fonetice și nu a unei scrieri ideografice cum sunt cele vechi egiptene sau chinezești.”

M-am gandit ca pictogramele pot fi un gen de rezumat (ex ofranda de iezi si cereale adusa unei zeitati sau un gen de ruga, etc), dar mai ales ar putea fi un ajutor pentru citirea semnelor nepictografice de pe celelate tablite.                                                               Ex.

pictograma “ied” <> semne HD :”hedus,ed,ede” =ied                                                                     pictograma “simbol vegetal” <> semn Se sau Te “cereale” deci ceva de genul asta
Deci mai degraba rezulta o varsta apropiata de scrierile Egeene (hieroglifica Cretana, Linear A si LinearB, 2200 1300 B.C.) sau scrierea Anatoliana (ex. cea cariana) si in concluzie, o varsta sub 2500 B.C.

======================================================================         IN EVENTUALITATEA CA TABLITELE AU OARECARE VECHIME, (SAU O VECHIME CAT DE CAT APRECIABILA), ESTE POSIBIL CA ELE SA FIE DE FACTURA PELASGICA, DAR CU ORIGINE IN FOCARUL IN CARE S-AU DEZVOLTAT DIFERITE SCRIERI EGEENE.SPRE EXEMPLU CHIAR DIN CRETA, UNDE PRINTRE ALTE POPULATII A FOST DETECTATA (DAR NU SI ATESTATA) SI O POPULATIE PELASGICA

Din DOCUMENTS IN MINOAN LUWIAN,
SEMITIC, AND PELASGIAN FRED C. WOUDHUIZEN                                https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/KtbxLxGgHpVDpdzfFNRNfRjtcCkfXtZpgV?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1 

“If the aforegoing analysis of the GNs Damater and Idamater holds water, it is of relevance to note that Pelasgians are recorded among the population groups of Crete by Homeros in his Odyssey XIX, 177. Moreover, the identity of this particular ethnonym to the Biblical Philistines as argued by a substantial number of scholars provides welcome additional evidence for a Cretan homeland of the Pelasgians (< *Pelastoi), as the Bible consistently traces the for the southern Levant foreign Philistines back to Kaphtor. The latter country name, namely, actually consists of the Biblical name for “Crete”,related to Akkadian Kaptara and Egyptian Keftiu.         ………………………………                                    However, the evidence for the Pelasgian language in Minoan Crete is not confined to divine names, but includes personal names of the Minoan rulers as preserved by literary tradition and collected by Fritz Schachermeyr in his stemma of Cretan rulers.17………………………………                                                                                                            Yet another category of evidence for the Pelasgian language in Minoan Crete may be provided by Minoan evidence analogous to that for an Old Indo-European substrate in Luwian of western Anatolia.  ……………………                                                                                 the leader in the Trojan war of the Peraibians and the people from Dodona and the Peneios region in Thessaly according to Homeros, Iliad II, 748-755, Gouneuv~. If so, it
deserves our attention in this connection that according to Simonides in Strabo, Geography 9.5.20 the Perrhaibians (= Homeric Peraibians) are Pelasgiotes, which is nothing but a variant form of Pelasgians.26 …………………………………….                                           All in all, we arrive at the following reconstruction in so far the Indo-European languages of Minoan Crete are concerned when viewed within the wider framework of the eastern Mediterranean migrations (see Table XVI):36

IE population group time of arrival
1. Pelasgians c. 3100 BC
2. Luwians c. 2300 BC
3. Greeks c. 1450 BC
Table XVI. Overview of the Minoan IE population groups and their approximate time of arrival in Crete. It is certainly true that of these three Indo-European languages
of Minoan Crete Luwian is recorded earliest, on Cretan hieroglyphic seals dating from c. 2000 BC onwards. As we have seen in the above, however, there is ample evidence of an Old Indo-European substrate in the Cretan Luwian context, which, in like manner as the
one in the western Anatolian Luwian context, can positively be identified as Pelasgian. This latter language, then, in all probability happens to be the vernacular of the earliest recordable Indo-European settlers in Crete. But the Linear A texts conducted in the Pelas-
gian language are of later date, being assigned to c. 1600 BC and the late 15th or early 14th century BC. It is true that I was too rash in claiming in an earlier stage of my work that the Luwians were the earliest Indo-Europeans in Crete (paper presented in 2004 included in the bibliography as Woudhuizen forthc.). On the other hand, the vindication of the three Linear A texts conducted in the Pelasgian language as the earliest evidence of Indo-European as claimed by Gareth Owens and referred to in section II.1 above37 is only valid on the basis of the deduction that this particular language indeed constitutes an Indo-European substrate, and finds no support in the actual dates of the documents in question. …………………………………………..                                                                                                 It is well known that the language of the Linear B tablets consists of an early form of Greek, the so-called Mycenaean Greek. As opposed to this, the Linear A texts on tablets as well as other objects are mainly conducted in a Semitic tongue, but, on the basis of secondary Luwian and Pelasgian influences, it can be deduced that this form of Semitic was used, at least to a certain extent, as a lingua franca for administrative and religious purposes by representatives of population groups of which the mother tongue was something other than Semitic, namely Luwian or Pelasgian, both belonging, like
Greek, to the Indo-Europan language family. Finally, the Cretan hieroglyphic documents also show evidence for the Semitic language, and even of an occasional Egyptian loan, but in the main these texts bear testimony of a local Cretan dialectal variant of Luwian as the matrix-language, which is otherwise most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic—the script which, by the way, as we have seen in section I.1.2 above also provided the model for the bulk of the Cretan hieroglyphic signary.  ……………………….

As I have argued in Woudhuizen 2016: 81-95, these phenomena can in the western Anatolian Luwian context be attributed to an Old Indo-European substrate, the speakers of which are positively identifiable as Pelasgians. The same verdict no doubt applies in the Cretan Luwian context as well.

====================================================                                           Legaturi ale Orientului Apropiat si ariei Egeeane cu Civilizatia Vinca

Din DRAVIDIAN ÇATAL HÖYÜK, UBAID, BALKANIC AND WEST EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC PRIEST ELITE         Iurii Mosenkis   https://www.academia.edu/28607704/DRAVIDIAN_%C3%87ATAL_H%C3%96Y%C3%9CK_UBAID_BALKANIC_AND_WEST_EUROPEAN_NEOLITHIC_PRIEST_ELITE

“Proto-Dravidian tokens and Çatal Höyük                                                                                   The first tokens (related to the Sumerian or pre-Sumerian hieroglyphs) were usedfrom about 9,000–8,000 BCE in Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Mureybet in Syria, and GanjDareh in Iranian Zagros. E. g., the token sign for ‘sheep’ (about 7,000 BCE) depicted asthe cross might reflect the homonymy between the names of the Sun and sheep inSumerian and Dravidian ……………………………..The second wave of the Nostratic Natufian divergence (after the first wave, probablyKartvelian) might be mainly Dravidian PPNB, Çatal Höyük, and Ubaid.Çatal Höyük bird scenes were similar to Vinča ones (V. A. Safronov), on the onehand, and to Göbekli Tepe, on the other hand. The reconstruction of the Vinča sanctuaryat Parţa (Gh. Lazarovici) is very similar to theÇatal Höyük temple…………… 

Legaturi Orientul Apropiat(Sumer)-aria Egeeana:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Din http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/serbiavinca.htm 

Similarities to Other Cultures.

What we have then is the record of a civilisation that flourished in Europe between 6,000 and 3,500 BC and which appears to have enjoyed a long period of uninterrupted and peaceful living. The ‘Old European’ Vinca pottery, artefacts and writing all show an immediately noticeable similarity to what was originally thought to be an earlier Ubaid Sumerian influence from the middle east. In addition, the Cycladian/Cretan cultures are suspected of having close close artistic and possibly religious connections with the Vinca. Both of these cultures appeared following the demise of the Old European Heartland, perhaps not so coincidentally, at the same time as several other important civilisations (Egyptian, Indus Valley, Western European, Maltese Etc) appeared in the prehistoric record. ====================================================

Legaturi Orientul Apropiat(Sumer)-aria Egeeana:   

 Din Dravidian Ubaid influence on the Balkan Neolithic elite? | iurii …www.academia.edu/…/Dravidian_Ubaid_influence_on_the_…

                                                                                                                                                                     A se vedea,                                                                                                                                    Evangelos Papakitsos Ioannis Kenanidis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273885539_A_Comparative_Linguistic_Study_about_the_Sumerian_Influence_on_the_Creation_of_the_Aegean_Scripts file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-31E332-346%20(3).pdf

Din SUMERIAN, UGUR (HURRIAN), HATTI, SIBERIAN / EURASIAN STEPPE, ANATOLIAN INDO-EUROPEAN FOUNDERS OF ANCIENT GREEK CIVILIZATION: MINOAN, MYCENAEAN, ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL GREECE by Mehmet Kurtkaya http://sumerianturks.org/sumerian_ancientgreece.htm

“…Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran.    …….. At the time of the founding of Minoan Greece, in the 3rd Millenium BC, there were only two major civilizations in Turkey: Ugur (Hurrian) and Ugat (Hatti). In addition to these two, Sumerians had colonies in Southeast Turkey where Hurrians lived. Hence we can easily deduct the identity of the founders of Ancient Minoan Greece, a combination of these three people: Hurrian, Sumerian and Hatti. The composition of the people and their effect on founding Minoan Greece can be found using both archaeological records as well as linguistic data from Cretan hieroglyphs and Minoan Linear A. .”

Din Agricultura in Europa a venit din aria Egeeana ?                                                                      Early farmers from across Europe directly descended
from Neolithic Aegeans https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/25/6886.full.pdf

 “We use a novel approach to recalibrate raw reads and call genotypes from ancient
DNA and observe striking genetic similarity both among Aegean early farmers and with those from across Europe. Our study demonstrates a direct genetic link between Mediterranean and Central European early farmers and those of Greece and Anatolia, extending the European Neolithic migratory chain all the way back to southwestern Asia.   …………….                                                                                                                             Concluding Remarks
Over the past 7 years, ancient DNA studies have transformed our understanding of the European Neolithic transition (1–4, 12, 13), demonstrating a crucial role for migration in central and southwestern Europe. Our results further advance this transformative understanding by extending the unbroken trail of ancestry and migration all of the way back to southwestern Asia.The high levels of shared drift between Aegean and all available Early Neolithic genomes in Europe, together with the inferred unique drift between Neolithic Aegeans and Early Neolithic genomes from Northern Spain to the exclusion of Early Neolithic genomes from central Europe, indicate that Aegean Neolithic populations can be considered the root for all early European farmers and that at least two independent colonization routes were followed. A key remaining question is whether this unbroken trail of ancestry and migration extends all the way back to southeastern Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent, where the earliest Neolithic sites in the world are found.”

Dar si migratii dinspre nord inspre aria Egeeana : Din https://indo-european.info/ie/Anatolian

Possible connection between the cultures of Ancient Sumer and Minoan Crete http://mmtaylor.net/Holiday2000/Legends/Sumer-Crete.html

There are certain hints that the Minoan civilization might have been influenced by, or even descended from, the Sumerian / Mesopotamian civilization of a thousand years earlier. According to David Rohl(Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation, London, Arrow Books 1998), the Phoenecians and Canaanites who inhabited the coast of what is now Israel and Lebanon came from Sumeria (Ur, Uruk, Eridu) at the same time as others from the same region went to Bahrain and then to the Upper Nile, some time around 3000 BC. If the Minoan culture was actually derived from the Sumerian, as seems not unlikely, it must have happened before writing became common in Sumer, around 3000 BC. Rohl’s dates tend to be more recent than the conventional dates, so when Rohl mentions 3000 BC, he refers to a time conventionally dated rather earlier, perhaps 3500 BC.

A thousand years later, around the time of the Minoan civilisation and later, the Phoenecians of Byblos (near present-day Beirut) were great sailing traders who had a long trading history with Egypt. They knew Amnissos, the port of Knossos, and presumably traded there. The Minoans likewise were great sailing traders, who are known to have traded all around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. There must have been at least some cultural interchange between these traders who shared the same sea and presumably many of the same ports. Minoan pottery from around 2500 BC is reminiscent of Syrian pottery of the same date. This was at the height of the Ebla trading system, which traded at least from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea, and from Afghanistan to Byblos, though the Eblaites left the sea trade to Byblos.

Part of a Sumerian seal from about 2000 BC. Rohl ,1998 inteprets the bull-man as Gilgamesh (Rohl,p170), but the bull-man image goes back to much earlier times.

The bull was important in the Minoan religion and culture, as it was in Sumer. Gilgamesh (who, according to Rohl, ruled in Uruk around 2487 BC) is shown as half-bull, half-man, as is the Cretan Minotaur in the much later Greek legend. The picture on the seal looks remarkably like depictions of the Minotaur, and it is possible that the Greeks knew of such depictions as well as of the bull cult in Minoan Crete. There are many other bull-man representations in images from Mesopotamia. Sometimes the body is bull in part or whole and the head human, sometimes the reverse. Perhaps there were similar Minoan images known to the Greeks, but as yet not discovered by modern archaeologists. So, one can assume that the bull-man “monster” was an image known to the Early Greeks of Minoan times.

There are other similarities in the iconography of the Minoan and Sumerian cultures. The Knossos object that is said to represent bull horns looks remarkably like an Altar to the Moon on Bahrain, which Rohl says is from the Sumerian diaspora. According to Castleden, in Minoan Crete, the bull and the moon were probably aspects of the same deity, who later became Poseidon in Classical Greece. Poseidon, perhaps not coincidentally, was the Greek god of earthquakes. This linkage ties the Sumerian (according to Rohl) Altar in the Temple of the Moon even more closely to the similarly shaped bull-horn shape that was a religious element in Knossos.

Beyond these, there were other similarities between pre-literate Sumerian religious elements and those of Minoan Crete. According to Georges Roux (Ancient Iraq, Penguin 1992), the primary religious symbols in the Halaf and Ubaid periods of Sumer (covering about 5000 BC to 3300 BC) were the double-axe, the bull-head, doves, and women. According to Castleden (Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete, London: Routledge, 1990), the double-axe and the bull-head were the primary religious symbols for the Minoans, and doves were associated with goddesses to the extent that sometimes the dove was taken to represent the goddess. In both Sumer and Minoan Crete, a priestess would “become” the goddess in some ceremonies.

	Common symbols? (Left) The Temple of the Moon–the Altar of Sin / Suen / Nanna on Bahrain. Plate 34 from Rohl’s book: (Middle) Knossos: Formalised bull horns (Right) part of a fresco in Knossos, showing many of these bull horn objects in an obviously elite area known as “the Tripartite Shrine” for spectators of some event.

Not only the iconography, but also the architecture seems to have some connection with that of Sumer. The typical Sumerian temple, at least from Ubaid times, had a “tripartite” structure. A long rectangular central courtyard was flanked on both sides by a complex of small rooms, and at one end may have had a crosswise rectangular large antechamber. The Minoan temple-palaces have this same structure, grown large. A long central courtyard, kinown in Knossos as the Bull court, is flanked by a very complex system of small rooms, and at one end (at least in Knossos) there was a crosswise rectangular room.

The architectural similarities extend to the so-called tholos tombs, beehive-shaped circular structures, which were used in Halaf time (5500 BC to 4500BC) as houses, but survived in more northern Mesopotamia as tombs into the Ubaid times (up to about 3750 BC). They appear again in Minoan Crete, and more particularly in later times in Mycenean Greece, where they were first discovered (e.g. the so-called “Treasury of Atreus in Mycenae).

It seems that the Minoan culture owed a great deal to that of pre-literate Sumer, and that contacts were maintained with the Levantine coast, which was often part of Mesopotamian empires over the years. Sumer almost always had trading relations as far afield as Anatolia and India, even as far back as 4000 BC.

The Minoans were Caucasian: DNA debunks longstanding theory that Europe’s first advanced culture was from Africa https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2325768/The-Minoans-Caucasian-DNA-debunks-longstanding-theory-Europes-advanced-culture-Africa.html                                                                                                                           “The highest percentage of shared Minoan mitochondrial DNA variation was found with Neolithic populations from Southern Europe.“

Din Ancient DNA Origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans                                  http://www.en.uni-muenchen.de/news/newsarchiv/2017/stockhammer_minoans.html

“The researchers found that the Minoans, rather than coming from a distant civilization, were locals, descended from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean. They found that the Minoans and Mycenaeans were very closely related, but with some specific differences that made them distinct from each other. Both the Bronze Age Minoans and Mycenaeans, as well as their neighbors in Bronze Age Anatolia, derived most of their ancestry from a Neolithic Anatolian population, and a smaller component from farther east, related to populations in the Caucasus and Iran.”

This entry was posted on January 18, 2019 at 4:09 pm and is filed under Tartaria tablets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.