Folowing picture, is from: ancient-origins-grece-theme-month                       

I am an electrical engineer from Timisoara, Romania.The subject of my research is the well-known tablets from Tartaria, wich was supposed by now to show an early type of writing, produced by the Vinca-Turdas Culture. The hypothesis is that could be the oldest evidence available at least from Europe.

From the very begining either the subject and the tablets were shrouded in a aura of mistery, and and started world-wide controversial discussions. There was no (and still now) concert  upon a reduced number of main aspects.What is all-about ?

Some eleven years before, seeing a picture of the tablets, found that despite of showing strong evidences of writing, no one could tell much more about. In less than 48 hrs.,after I revised the signs used in World oldest writings,I found some few signs in common.Later on this number increased, but not enough for a reading attempt.                                                                                  It is understood that every writing system used own set of signs, also that all discoverers of unknown writings had at disposal from tens to thousends written tablets. Here we have kind of singletons, and from the begining did not found an corresponding matching writing. Maybe, this due of having on Tartaria tablets signs from different writings. (Interesting, almost becoming a rule, unknown writings decipherers were ( as me too) not specialised in this field, Eg. Champollion, Hrozny, Ventrix)

For some years, my research not advanced, till consistently advanced in two occasions: when found Aegean writings, and most when got knowledge of sumerian proto-writing. Soon found some scientists(A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev…) papers regarding sumerian interpretations of Tartaria tablets.They found, as me also that the Tartaria tablets type of writing is very close to early sumerian writing.That is the proto-writing fase, when they used first proto-cuneiform signs.And I was the sole (no recollection of others) wich noticed that Tartaria tablets signs are in a way mirrored in Aegean writings (or reverse).To see to what writing is close, I used the method of test-readings, so found that is real,the similarity to sumerian proto-writing is astounding.   But as single-one wich noticed only half of the signs has exact sumerian shape, the other half are rough copies of those sumerian-ones.So it seems that the writing is not genuine sumerian, nor the scrib a native sumerian. In decreasing order (but at the same level) the likeness is with anatolian and aegean writings.Was only me wich noticed on the tablets af a rather hodge podge of signs, and the fact that there are three main categories/types of signs (from pictographic, then an intermediate form, to syllabograms/letters. There was, and still it is an array of divergent opinions regarding the circumstances of discovery and the tablet’s age. Because tha tablets were put in an owen at an unknown temperature (around 800 C deg.?) the carbond traces were degraded or burned, so the age determination, (at least with C14 method) is not possible forever.  Thus I realised that cannot rely-on data furnished by archaeologists, especially regarding the age. Luckily my focuss is not the age but the signs! The scientists opinions are in two groups:                                                                                                                 – Some fewer (Romanian-ones/Lazarovici and italian Marco Merlini as leading sustainer) wich are for an Vinca-Turdas Culture (neolithic!)production with the age same as of a deceassed female bones found near-by, 5.300 B.C. !  As for writing: “an unknown forever-lost type of writing” (!?), (not explaining of wich phase or type)

– Others (all foreign, only two Romanians:deceassed N.Vlassa and Dumitrescu) wich sustain an age for the tablets around 2750 B.C.E. (copper/bronze age and other later Cultures as Cotofeni,etc).  Writing (World top-level assyrologists/sumerologs): of Quasy-sumerian type

As I said, the single real physical, direct available element (as the clay was degraded) are the signs, wich could be analysed. As read other scientists papers, found some minor mistakes, inadvertencies, wrong sign identifications, missing sign identifications, for wich I’ve posted my comentaries.

One must understand that the descovery of writing was not easy, in a single or some steps, but lasted a long time.Was preceded by cave-art signs, pictograms and folowed by proto-writing phase.Writng is only when using signs, phonemes as words base units in a language, and language words could be transmited.

In proto-writing, the signs (pictograms,ideograms and logograms) could indicate notions and concepts only in a rough, general way, so we have no a proper readingbut rather an interpretation of the signs.   My conclusions are not superposed completely on others, or follow other scientists, classical comon course.

Main actual theories are, that:

– The tablets partain to Vinca-Turdas civilisation, the writing is local, and the scribe was one of  ancient Tartaria village members (the same as deceassed woman high esteemed person or priest).Due of archaic character the writing cannod be deciphered

– The tablets are from early sumerian writing phase (wich begun at 3.300 B.C.) but rather folowing this starting point, from around 2.750 B.C. Have no proper sumerian writing on them but of a sumerian-like type, “quasi-sumerian”.The scribe was supposed to be an sumerian trader, but my guess is for an trader coming from Aegean area, Cyclades but much sure from Crete.   For this last one I subscribe.                                  (I have arguments and evidences/see and analyse the other artefacts found close-by!)  =======================                                                          IT SEEMS THAT IN THE INADVERTENCIES SERIES, SOME ARE MAJOR-ONES. THERE ARE NONE GUILTY ( WICH WERE AWARE, AND PROPAGATE UNTRUE THINGS), BUT WERE WELL-INTENDED. THERE WAS AT THE ORIGIN AN EXAGERATED OPTIMISM AND WERE TOOK BY OVERFLOWING SENTIMENTS, ALSO UNJUSTIFIED EXUBERANCE AND LOCAL PATRIOTISM,LEADING TO OPOSITE, NOT BENEFITING FOR ROMANIA AND SCIENCE !

I don’t want even think, but the results are pushing me only to suppose, as an unwanted alternative, the fact that some chased an international recognition of personal merits in the field of science, exploiting as a trampoline de initial high-impact level of the subject in media.                                                                                                         =============================                                                                                                   The results of a dedicated in-depth research wich lasted  eleven years is entitling me to assert that:

  • THE TABLETS NOT PERTAIN TO NEOLITHIC/VINCA-TURDAS CIVILISATION, and are later to 3.300 B.C., possible 2.500-2.000 B.C.                                                                    Note                                                                                                                                                  This dating proposal has nothing to do with a physical exact dating of the tablets, but it is a result of analisis by a group of scientists of the other artefacts (excluded bones) and signs.

THE BONES, AND DECEASSED PERSON ARE IN NO WAY RELATED TO TABLETS;they are separated by a time span much more larger than 1.000 years, in fact could be 2.000-2.500 years !(5.300-2.700=2.600)

  • WRITING: PROTO-WRITING, QUASI-SUMERIAN (sumerian-like) Note “writing” because is not writing proper.There are clues that the upper half of the round tablet could be true writing (archaic greek)
  • SCRIBE COMUNITY LANGUAGE: KIND OF CREOLE(dialect showing sumerian/ aglutinative language characteristicss)

Only if we have proper writing (wich is not the case) remain a problem to be solved. Even we are able to extract words if the language is not known, the meaning of the words and message remain hidden.Same problem is encountered by those wich are trying to decipher proto-elamite, cretan hierogliphic, Linear A and eteocretan inscriptions ! (eg. correspondent language for Linear A writing is minoan)

Upon me, if there is about an early kind of writing, two possibilities remain:

– An local, European:Aegean reflection, adaptation of sumerian proto-writing (a local variant)

-quite same as above, imitation + true writing in upper half of the round tablet                          

Kind of luck (if we can say this) is that in proto-writing case in a measure it is not used a language in full, the meaning is transcending, leaping over words to meanings. So we can deduce and understand something without needing or knowing the respective language.

The human evolution are respecting some general say principles or governing laws; there is something common to all World populations and cultures. Because people, irespective of geographical position, have same needs for living. Direct related to life as feeding and others of spiritual kind.They mast produce and circulate, exchange food and goods inside and outside their society.Besides they had spiritual and social related needs in order to undersand the outer world and nature.Was thought that world was ruled by some powerful entities as ghosts and gods, and tried to get in kind of relation with them, to apropiate and make benevolent.Deities related to natural forces, the sky (abode of) gods and celestial ones (Sun and Moon).Those entities were perceived later to be in shape and behaviour as human-like.     They made places and earth houses for gods to meet, comunicate and give gifts, offerings.By short, early on, they made and depicted icons paired/for every main human things in focuss :cereals, gods of earth and sky, abode/temple,sun-god,etc.

But no others got so deep inside as me, to the point I realised that some signs represent in fact these type of important things; more than this,                                                                SOME SIGNS PRESENT ON TARTARIA TABLETS ARE IN FACT ICONS WICH ARE PRESENT IN SIMILAR SHAPE AND ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN OTHER CULTURES, separated each-other by time or at least by great distances: INDUS VALLEY, EGYPT, SUMER AND AEGEAN.                                                                                                     My focuss was mainly and only on SUMERIAN AND AEGEAN CULTURES !

I made my mind, why common ? Because they had as initial reason and trigger the same common motivations of existential nature for life and livingIn the tablets I’ve found common signs and icons eg:                                                                                                    – signs for plants, cereals                                                                                                                      -signs for food ratios (cereals,bread)                                                                                                 – sun-bull-god signs                                                                                                                               – signs for celestial /sun deities – signs for house,god’s abode,temple

It represents the bones of the skeleton for the life understanding, sustaining and functioning. Now an interesting question:                                                                                 What kind of explanation is for the fact that most of the signs found in many places,(concrete case Tartaria tablets) far away of Sumer are sumerian-like?      Are original,brought from Sumeria or coppied,faked,mimics !?

The explanation is one and quite simple: those signs are reflecting an original matrix wich stood at the base of others wich dispersed, in a close or distant shape and possible with changed meanings. Some old cultural traits and miths dispersed in different and wide areas as neolithic,agriculture,people and culture dissipated. Agriculture developement was soon folowed by demographic explosion and consequent migrations.So if not people carried the cultural elements and signs directly there was kind of “cultural transmission” wich is not necessary to happen in short periods of time.Otherwise demic and cultural transmission together.                                                                                    Thats why an writing from Danubian or Aegean area presents similarities with eastern-ones, in our case with sumerian,not for the fact that were sumerian proper or original sumerian. So Archaeologists and Linguists are aware that in different places found kind of cultural unity as Anatolian-Balcanic continuum in artefacts and language.Like there was kind of comunication, in long time span. For writing invention trading had the function of turbo-jet engine.                                                                                    ————————————————————————-


Image result for indus  script metal ingot

From Image result for labrys linear a


Image result for cretan hierogliphic axe


Image result for linear a axeFrom CALENDAR  HOUSE                                                

Image result for labrys axe minoan

======================================================                                                From What is “Old Europe”?


From Minoan Sumerian | Giannhs Kenanidhs –

The signs are those that are common to both Linear-A and Bscripts (62) and those that are exclusive to each syllabary. So, we have a script of simplified icons(signs) depicting items, where the phonetic value of each sign is related to the Archaic Sumerian word for the depicted item. Many of them are related to the associated signs of the Cretan Hieroglyphic, also to theSumerian pictograms and sometimes to the cuneiform equivalents. A sample is presented in the next section,for the curious reader. One debatable feature of such ascript would be the interpretation of the items depicted by the icons and another is the assignment of the phonetic value to each sign.”

From A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1 , Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian.pdf

It is clear that the Aegean scripts are syllabic of the CVtype (consonant-vowel); i.e., all signs represent syllables ending in a vowel only, with no consonant clusters. This means that the script was originally devised for a CV-type language, namely a language in which all consonants are followed by vowels. There are many such languages, a very well-known of them being the Japanese. When a script is devised for a CV-type language, it is naturally a CV-type syllabary, as it is actually the case with the Japanese kana syllabaries. A CV-type pure syllabary was never initially devised for any language other than a CV-type language. While today we know of many CV-type languages, all Greek dialects were (and remain) foreign to the CV pattern. Another linguistic direction is required [2]: “In contrast with mainland Greece, Cyprus and Crete in the 2nd millennium are both multilingual societies in which the different languages are written down. It is tempting to assume that this points to stronger links with the Near East than with Greece.” It is recognized by eminent Greek linguists that there was a linguistic substratum in the Aegean area (e.g., see [33][41]). Other proposals about an adstratum instead [42] do not change the essence of our argument. This substratum is not regarded as Indo-European (IE), based on the unknown etymology of plant-names and toponyms [33]. The Aegean scripts denote that a CVtype language was spoken by those who created them. None of the IE languages is of the CV-type. The mainland of Greece and of Anatolia was inhabited by people speaking IE languages. The existence of a Semitic language (e.g., Akkadian) is also very probable in Crete, but it is not of a CV-type either. All such proposals roughly correspond to all the different ethnic groups that may have inhabited Crete or retained merchant delegations there. None of them, though, spoke a CV-type language. Ancient Egyptian was not of the CV-type, if we judge from Coptic, from renderings of Ancient Egyptian in other languages and from the ancient Egyptian script itself. Egyptian was an AfroAsiatic language, and those languages are generally not of the CV-type. Consequently [9]: “Without doubt, the Minoans at the beginning of the second millennium did not ‘re-invent’ writing independently, even if they were well able to take their first steps in this direction without knowledge of the Mesopotamian or Egyptian systems. However, starting with ideas from elsewhere, they created an original and astonishingly uncomplicated system for recording the sounds of their language by means of signs.” So, the issue of identifying the language behind the Aegean scripts remains the same: all the languages around Aegean, which we know of hitherto, are incompatible to the CV-pattern. CV-type languages are usually agglutinative ones. Duhoux suggests that Linear-A is “agglutinative rather than conjugatingbecause of the high number of affixes it contains (in 59% of the words) compared to Linear-B (12% respectively) [43]. What we seek is a non-IE agglutinative language of those times (3rd millennium BC) to fit with the “kana” pattern of Linear-A/B and their predecessor. Olivier states that [9]: “A priori, no language attested in the third or second millennium from the eastern Mediterranean or its surrounding areas can be excluded …                                                                                     the languages spoken by people from the coasts of Asia Minor or Syro-Palestine must be favoured. …                                                                                                                                   Between 3000/2600 and 1450, the period of the birth and development of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A, … the introduction of a language known to us from elsewhere is unlikely.” The nearby agglutinative language of the 3rd millennium BC, well-studied and recorded, is the Sumerian. Additionally, the only highly civilized people close enough, speaking an agglutinative language well known to have CV-type phonotactics, were the Sumerians (or the bilingual Akkadian scribes / scholars because of the “sprachbund” [44][45]). Thus, the present research had been directed towards a comparative study for discovering any relation between the Sumerian language and the Aegean scripts.                                                                 EVIDENCE                                                         Firstly, we will concentrate on some aspects of linguistic taxonomy and methodology before we proceed to the direct evidence of the last subsection (A Sample).                                                             A Protolinear Script. There is a suggestion that Linear-A constitutes a linearization of the Akkadian cuneiform signs [22]. However, it is normal for a script to evolve from pictorial signs (as the Sumerian pre-cuneiform and the Aegean writing signs too) into non-recognizable forms (as the late cuneiform), and rarely the reverse. ………………                                                                           In other words, the Protolinear could be the parent of Linear-A and Linear-B, while the Cretan Hieroglyphic could be regarded mainly, but not exclusively [8], as the decorative and ritual form of that system for use especially on seals  There is an important rule that always goes together with this principle: the whole name of the depicted object is used and not a part of the name (unlike the acrophonic principle). The rebus principle had been invented by the Sumerians, according to Fischer [4], whose influence expanded to Nile, Iran, Indus Valley and maybe to the Balkans (as he suspects, and it is argued too herein, through the Aegean scripts). The phonology of the used words is of a dialect close to, but simpler than, the Archaic Sumerian (the reconstruction is explained, together with the transcription system, in [49])……………………………

This is a reasonable explanation for the observed incongruity of Linear-B to the phonotactics of the Mycenaean Greek language, provided we deduce that the scribes were non-Greeks, and their script was originally devised from a nonGreek language. ………………….        Even for the case of bilingual Akkadian scribes, the choice of the Sumerian language for devising the Aegean scripts would be a significant advantage, because monosyllabic words could be easily found in order to match common or culturally important objects for the signs of a syllabary. ………………..                                             According to Kramer [57]: “…by the third millennium BC, there is good reason to believe that Sumerian culture and civilization had penetrated, at least to some extent, as far East as India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as Ancient Ethiopia and as far North as the Caspian”. Crete was known to Mesopotamia at least since the era of Sargon the Great, who lived approximately between the 24th and the 23rd centuries BC [58]. …………………….                                                                             CONCLUSION                                                                                                                                      In conclusion, the inadequacy of the Linear-A/B scripts to convey properly the phonology of the Mycenaean Greek, or the other languages proposed in Crete, is attributed herein to the origins of those syllabaries. ………….                                                                                  Based on the previous linguistic evidence and conditions, it has been suggested that a very suitable candidate language as the base for creating the Aegean scripts could be the Sumerian. Being an agglutinative language, it both exhibits the matching syllabic pattern of the CV-type, and it can justify the phonetic values of the Linear-A/B and Cypro-Minoan signs as well, through the rebus principle. It is also suggested that the formation of each Aegean script could have been conducted in the late 3rd millennium BC by means of absorption from a parent script, named Protolinear, being created by a scribal guild of Sumerian linguistic origin.

 From A Decipherment of the Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro (Crete) Ioannis K. Kenanidis1* and Evangelos C. Papakitsos file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Kenanidis432017ARJASS36988deciphermentofinscription.pdf

First by Marinatos [1] and later on by Brown [5] and Duhoux [6], the inscription was attributed to an Eteocretan language. Numerous attempts have been made to interpret the text. The proposed languages included Hittite [7] and Semitic [8,9], even Slavic [10]! ………………..                                                                                                                                     Thus, to all those readers interested in the Eteocretan languages of ancient Crete, a novel approach of decipherment is presented herein, for the first time based on the Cretan Protolinear script theory [12] that suggests the affinity of the Psychro inscription to the Sumerian dialect of Crete. ………………….                                                                                       As explained in previous works, the Cretan Protolinear script was created by the Minoans, who were Sumerian settlers [12,20,21,22]; the Cretan Protolinear script in the form of Linear A and Linear B was used by all the different nations that inhabited Crete and the Aegean. However, in the hands of non-Minoans (i.e. Hands of nonSumerians) the Cretan Protolinear script was distorted as time passed, and eventually forgotten, because the script was difficult for nonMinoans (=non-Sumerians). On the other hand, in the hands of Minoan Sumerians the Cretan Protolinear script could not be significantly distorted or forgotten, no matter how many generations would pass.                                    This is because the Cretan Protolinear script (henceforth in this work referred to simply as “Protolinear”) was phonetic and pictographic at the same time: every phonetic (syllabic) sign was a sketch of a readily recognizable object in the Minoan Sumerian culture.                                                                                                                                                 So, for those who had Minoan Sumerian as their first language, every syllabic sign had the native name of the thing that the sign depicted, and they always knew what the signs depicted.                                                                                                                                                   They could not alter the shape of the signs lest they would be no more recognizable and if a sign was not recognizable it could not have a native (Minoan Sumerian) name, so it could not have a phonetic value.                                                                                                           This is why the Protolinear script could not be altered in Minoan hands; while for non-Minoans there was no connection between depicted object and phonetic use of the Protolinear signs. Therefore, the Protolinear script survived unaltered as long as the Minoan nation existed.                                                                                                                  And we know that the Minoan Sumerian language, as other non-Greek languages spoken in Crete, was spoken not only until 300 BC but also much later [21], because those populations were relatively isolated geographically and socially.                                 The Sumerian language in Mesopotamia remained in use as a classical and hieratic language until about the year 100 AD [25].                                                                    It was easy for a language to be kept for many centuries among different languages when there was no obligatory schooling and no mass media. …………..                   We shall also briefly mention what is detailed in [21], that even after the pre-Greek languages were forgotten, they left some impressive phonological traits in some dialects of Crete and other islands: the most outstanding being a retroflex “l”; also, a strong tendency to eliminate consonant clusters, and the emphatic pronunciation of some stop consonants, to mention only a few traits that have been left from Sumerian……………………                                                                                                              To be serious with the interpretation, on the right of Fig. 2, the coin’s verso depicts a double axe which is the most renowned religious symbol of the Minoans. The double axe symbolised the power and the duality of God An, the supreme deity of both the Minoans [12] and the Mesopotamian Sumerians [30]. The double axe symbol was also used as a very common syllabic (phonetic) sign in the Aegean scripts [12,20,21,23] and it is present, although not so common in the Sumerian (preCuneiform) pictography [17,22].

  1. CONCLUSION                                                                                                                               It has been demonstrated so far that the Psychro inscription can be meaningfully deciphered through the conservative Sumerian dialect of Crete, spoken by the the scribe’s ancestors who had invented the Cretan Protolinear syllabary.This particular scribe used the Greek alphabet for the most part of this inscription, because it was the writing system known by all people in Crete and around the Aegean, and alsobecause the Greek alphabet was the only available writing system proper for writing on hard material, and the only system actually used for stone inscriptionsOn the other hand, the Cretan Protolinear syllabary was used almost exclusively on unbaked clay tablets, ………..                                                                      Although it is only this stone that we know of the whole structure built, the inscription was true when it said “this shrine will not ever collapse”: it is the shrine of the Minoan civilization.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: