SCRIBUL TABLITELOR DE LA TARTARIA, UN DILETANT ?


SCRIBUL TABLITELOR DE LA TARTARIA,UN DILETANT ?

Scribul tablitelor In primul rand sant obligat sa va reamintesc ca tablitele contin mai degraba o adunatura, as putea spune chiar ghiveci de semne.

Mai rau se pare ca este vorba in mare de 3 categorii de semne:

– unele pur pictografice, pe tablita dreptunghiulara pictografica negaurita. Fiecare pictograma este reflectarea exacta, aproape fotografica a obiectului intentionat. Icoana caprei pentru capra. icoana vegetala pentru vegetale, cereale si silueta nereusita pentru o creatura se pare totusi umanoida.

– o categorie de semne cumva intre pictograme si silabograme. Chiar daca avem silueta cap de magar si forma aceea cu contur poligonal, ele nu sant nici magar respectiv caseta, ingradire.Ele sant mai degraba logograme sau ideograme, chiar silabograme.reprezinta respectiv “vitel” si “casa/templu”. Acestea sant pe tablita dreptunghiulara gaurita.

– pe tablita rotunda, co categorie de semne care pot fi ideograme si chiar la o adica silabograme. In ultima instanta chiar litere (in jumatatea de sus).

Semnele de pe cele trei tablite in ansamblu, nu apartin niciunui sistem de scriere cunoscut. Semnele par sa apartina unor sisteme de scriere din diferite arii si perioade de timp.Chiar pare ca sant mai multe semne decat ar fi necesar.Acest numar mare de semne este caracteristic fazei pre-cuneiforme.

——————————————————–

Cei care au incercat sa interpreteze tablitele folosind semnele pre-cuneiforme sumeriene, au constatat ca doar jumatate din ele sant exact ca cele sumeriene, iar cealalta jumatate doar seamana cumva.                                                                                        In nici-o ocazie sumerienii nu au folosit semnul D trasat, ci au obtinut o forma care seamana prin imprimare (cifra 1 sau 60)                                                                                         Semnul GAR care se citeste “ninda” =”portie de cereale, paine” seamana cumva. Insa este un “D” care are in interior o liniuta paralela cu bara D-ului (eventual ca primul d de pe tablita rounda).                                                https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html SIGN GAR

Astfel tablita nu este original sumeriana.Sumerienii si nici altii nu obisnuiau sa amestece diferite semne, pictograme cu ideograme si silabograme.fiecare tip de scriere reflecta stadiul atins in perioada in care a fost scris.Chiar daca cineva a vrut sa arate altuia cum se scrie, sumerienii nu procedau asa.Ei faceau tablite pentru scoala cu liste de meserii, semne determinative pentru categorii precum ‘lemn”, “animale”,”numere”.                                               ———————————————————                                                                                               Desi am gasit multe semne in scrierile Anatoliene, nu am putut folosi niciuna, chiar daca pentru a folosi scrierea cariana mi-ar fi lipsit doar cateva semne.                               ——————————————————

Aceasta as putea-o denumi “lipsa cronica de semne” s-a resimtit incercand sa folosesc oricare scriere cunoscuta, exemplu scrierile hieroglifica cretana, Linear A, Linear B s.a.m.d.                                                                                                 ==========================================

DE CE DILETANT ?    

Pentru ca nicaieri si in nici-o imprejurare oriunde in lume, vre-un scrib serios nu a lasat in urma o aglomerare asemanatoare, aparent haotica de semne.    Apoi nu gasesc explicatii rezonabile pentru o serie de aspecte constatate:                                                              – ar fi posibil ca personajul nostru de fapt sa nici nu fi avut intentia sa scrie ?

lipsa cunostintelelor elementare de baza necesare pentru a scrie

– scribul nu a fost constient sau nu l-a interesat deloc ca lasa in urma o ingramadeala de semne care nu pot fi regasite intr-un timp si loc concret.                                                         (si nici bineinteles ca urmeaza ca altii isi vor bate capul cu ele)                                                                                      Exemple:

– Forma absolut exacta D trasata, nu a fost folosita de sumerieni.D-ul in exact aceasta forma nu a fost folosit de nimeni (poate cu exceptie egiptenilor, dar rotit 90 gr.) de nimeni pana la scrierile arhaice grecesti.Primul loc in care a aparut D-ul cu curbura pentru litera D, a fost Chalcis/Euboia.                                                                                             Dar se pare ca inca putin inainte, putem vedea folosirea in Creta, semnului P/D pentru litera “R“:                                                                                                                                             An Archaic Greek Inscription from Crete Author(s): Lilian H. Jeffery and Anna Morpurgo-Davies                                                                                                                     https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/jeffery-amd_archaic_greek_inscription_from_crete_british_museum_quarterly_36_1971.pdf

Forma tip “scarita nu a fost folosita in aceasta forma concreta de sumerieni, ci doar sub forma inchisa, cutie, semnul “KU”.Intr-o forma asemanatoare a fost folosita in scrierea hieroglifica cretana  (incepand cu 2.500-2.200 B.C.), Linear A, Linear B.                                     Dar sub forma cu bare decalate ori inclinate, forma care o avem pe tablita a fost folosita numai in scrierile canaanita, feniciana, paleo-ebraica,arhaica cretana si in cele derivate din ele din Mediterana.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-by-Evans-1909-232-3_fig1_273096050 Semnul Nr.45

Dar sub forma cu bare decalate ori inclinate, forma care o avem pe tablita a fost folosita numai in scrierile canaanita, feniciana, paleo-ebraica,arhaica cretana si in cele derivate din ele din Mediterana.

==================================

Totusi cateva intrebari raman deocamdata fara raspuns:

in ce periada (care teoretic se poate apropia oricat de mult de zilele noastre) a trait scriitorul ?

– Apoi chiar daca inteleg ca incepand cu Epoca bronzului timpurie aria egeeana si in mod special Creta au fost un focar in care s-au amestecat influentat diferite culturi, avand se pare la origine comertul, (Creta fiind intr-un puct de intersectia a multor rute comerciale), o intrebare ma framanta in mod deosebit si nu-mi da pace deloc:

Cand si de unde a avut scribul cunostinta de semnele sumerian AB:”casa templu” https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html sau de acela “cap de magar”=”AMAR”=”vitel” = Egeean “MA” !?   https://crewsproject.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/cats-in-the-aegean-scripts/                                                                                                          Nota                                                                                                                                                            In aceasta conjunctura, nimeni nu se asteapta ca fiecare tableta sa poarte cate un mesaj inteligibil concret, si mai putin sa se arate o legatura intre mesajele de pe fiecare tableta, ca fiind ceva unitar.                                                                                                                                                                                  Chiar si in aceasta situatie incalcita, exista unele indicii ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde ( exact acea portiune a caror semne ar fi fost acoperite deci ascunse privirii de celalta tablita drept. cu gaura) ar putea contine scris adevarat. Anatolian, ex. Carian sau mai degraba arhaic grec.

Dintre toti oamenii de stiinta, numai Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut ideea unui “scris Danubian”. dar fara ca sa sustina prin nici macar un singur exemplu ca civilizatia Vinca-Turdas ar fia atins faza scrierii adevarate. Acelasi lucru, cu regret trebuie sa spun, este valabil si pentru sustinerea existentei unei proto-scrieri a acestei culturi.dansul nu a oferit vre-o interpretare la nici-un semn, sustinad ca semnificatiile semnelor au conotatii mistico-religioase de mult uitate si ca atare imposibil de a fi reconstituite si cunoscute.

Alti oameni de stiinta au evidentiat asemanare scrierii cu faza celei sumeriene pre-cuneiforme (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaimen, R.Kolev) dar au facut clar faptul ca nu este scris original sumerian (Falkenstein, Vaiman)                                                                                   Foarte multi cercetatori (fiind derutati probabil de amestecul de semne si aspectul general ciudat al tablitelor) au opinat pentru o mimare a scrisului sumerian.                        Ca atare poate nici scribul nu a reusit sa inscrie un mesaj inteligibil concret. Pentru ca altfel foarte multi dintre dansii sustin ca este foarte posibil ca cel care a inscris semnele sa nu fi avut cunostintele nexesare sau suficiente pentru a scrie, deci din acest punct de vedere sa fi fost iliterat=analfabet.                                                                        Se sustine ideea ca tablitele ar fi putut avea mai mult un rol de ajutor si accesoriu (parafernalii, hiera) in desfasurarea unor ritualuri mistico-religioase.

=====================================================

From The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0684862700 Richard Rudgley

“But the string-holes on two of the Tartaria tablets appear to be a feature without … that the tablets represented a garbled and ‘senseless’ mimicry of Near Eastern ..”

From an investigation into the origins of writing – Forums.gr http://www.forums.gr/filedata/fetch?id=1875482

It should be pointed out that the early date ascribed to the Tărtăria tablets has …. made as mimicryof the signs themselves, in imitation of an admired culture”

 From the tartaria tablets – jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/24926226 by MSF Hood

“SUMERIAN WRITING of the period around 3000 B.C. covers a clay tablet found at Jemdet. Nasr’ in Mesopotamia. … on tablets found at Tartaria in Romania (see illustration on opposite page). ….. prehending imitation of more civilized peoples’ …”

From The Mystery of Tatárlaka • Klára Friedrich – Cakravartin cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/…/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf

 Tatárlaka signs were just an imitation of the Sumerian writing and were brought to…”

From Chapter 3 “Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A … https://www.academia.edu/…/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeas…

Tărtăria tablets, the icon on the possibility of a European Neolithic writing ….. It is well-known that the apotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people” …

From THE ORIGIN OF WRITING: – Dacia.org www.dacia.org/no-one.html

These tablets revealed a much older version of the same flood legend. …. a way to extend memory but also a tool for the elite to justify their rule upon the common, illiterate people. .”.

From Protochronism – Wikiwand www.wikiwand.com/en/Protochronism

Also noted are the exploitation of the Tărtăria tablets as certain proof that writing originated on proto-Dacian … A Dacian script or the work of an illiterate potter?

 From  Aspects of the Balkans: Continuity and Change: Contributions to the … https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=311088593X

Henrik Birnbaum, ‎Speros Vryonis -Analogies to the Vinča script occur in the earliest Sumerian writing of the Late … A. Falkenstein, “Zu den Tontafelnaus Tartaria”,     “. Of 24 signs on the Tartaria tablets five correspond to signs from Mesopotamia.”

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Core https://www.cambridge.org/…/tartaria-tablets/C824E021256A41A254FF5A847EB57E0… by MSF Hood – ‎1967 –

It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian …. [25] A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Ausgrabungen in .”

From interdisciplinarity in archaeology and historical linguistics https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/lepaarq/article/download/4888/4476 by M Mertzani –

“(GIMBUTAS, 1982) such as the Vinča–Turdaș tablets ca. …. scripts also demonstrate similarities; that is, half of the signs are similar to Linear A scripts. ….. MERLINI, M. A comparison between the signs from Tartaria, the Danube script and …”

From Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis https://books.google.ro/books?id=q-pjwVI1Vz0C

“The hypothesis that the Tartaria tablets represent only a writing-like design was … made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets .”

 From The Civilization of Ancient Crete https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0520034066 Ronald Frederick Willetts

copied for magical purposes, without understanding of their meaning, from the … Similarities between the Tartaria tablets and the earliest known clay tablets of ..”

From TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS http://www.cimec.ro/pdf/dl.asp?filename=Lazarovici-Merlini-Tartaria-and-the-Sacred-Tablets-2011.pdf

“We also note when single Transylvanian signs are in alignment with the set of signs established by subsequent ancient scripts such as the Indus script, the Akkadian cuneiform, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Cretan Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic, and Cypriot syllabary. The main aim is not to find hazardous hits from analogies with other systems of writing in order to implement the ‘decipherment’ of the messages encoded in the tablets. It is to verify whether or not the Transylvanian informational geometries are restricted to the Danube script, or if they are also rooted in other literacy systems of the ancient world…………………                                                               We will investigate the signs from Tărtăria starting from the observation we have already formulated in different articles and books concerning the coexistence on them of an exoteric message and an esoteric one1181. It is noteworthy to consider the possibility of overlapping the two tablets, both bearing a round puncture and divided into cells. The hole on the rectangular tablet fi ts precisely the hole on the circular tablet, and the former artifact perfectly covers the upper register of the latter with their cells in perfect alignment. The lower edge of the oblong tablet exactly superimposes the horizontal line running on the round tablet, and the vertical line incised on the fi rst artifact from the edge of the hole downwards meets exactly the vertical line incised on the lower register of the larger artifact thus forming a continuous line. This superimposability could mean that the rectangular and circular drilled tablets have been worn one over the other as pendants of a necklace, the small rectangular tablet placed over the larger disc-shaped one. Mo re signifi cantly, the possibility to overlap the two artifacts could also mean that overt (seen) signs and esoteric (hidden) signs both occur in the resulting assemblage between them (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). The tablets aggregate the attributes of ritual artifacts, amulet-tablets, and amulet-archives possibly worn by Milady Tărtăria1182.The message to be conveyed by the tablets is likely based on a relationship between exot eric and esoteric signs. The fact that the two punctured tablets could have been utilized as superimposed exoteric and esoteric amulets is indicative of the magical associations of the script1183. The upper esoteric register of the disk-shaped tablet was hidden to uninitiated persons. It was necessary to lift up the oblong tablet in order to see the secret text incised on the upper register of the circular tablet. The question of the non-visibility of some texts is not only indicative of magical associations of the Danube script and its employment in liturgies, but it reveals even the sacral nature connected with initiation processes of this kind of literacy. Was the sacr ed inscribed compound particularly in use during initiation ceremonies?1184 If this was the case, it does not facilitate any attempts to decipher the incised signs since one is dealing with texts that challenge the un-expressible, not only reveal but also conceal and sidetrack, and finally indicate something to mean something else. …………………..                     They were worn or hung, one over the other, and the resulting combination may have created a relationship of overt (seen) and esoteric (hidden) signs (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). ………………

Nonetheless, the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.Semiotically, the hypothesis that the Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design is based on the argument that the signs of literacy do not appear together in the same groups as they do on the Mesopotamian tablets. Two signs that occur separated, but in adjacent groups, on the Tărtăria discoid tablet are joined together on some of the Jemdet Nasr tablets to compose the name of a god: EN-GI.

A Transylvanian “intellectual” copied two Sumerian signs, but was not capable to unite them to write properly the divine name. No scholar from that side expresses doubts that perhaps the ancient Transylvanians had no intention to write down the name of a Sumerian god. According to them, the illiterate presence of signs of literacy at Tărtăria might refl ect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the signifi cance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy are carriers of magic powers is exactly the reason why their mere graphic imitations have been deposited in a ritual pit-grave with fragments of human bones. “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding,possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing…”                                                          ================================

In my long-term research, (10-12 years), in the sumerian approach reading attempts of the tablets, I extracted all possible meanings. I could say even more, if comparing with other scientists reading attempts.                                                                                              As one easily can notice on my papers with critics on A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev interpretations.As you will se I found in their papers some wrong sign identifications, missing interpretation of some signs etc.                                               Even they are top-level assyrologists and some high-specialised in sumerian proto-writing= sumerian proto-cuneiform, I have no explanation at hand, probably this was caused only by rush?/ not according sufficient time for analisis, in order to get as close as possible to every single sign.

Also without emphasys, from my recollection, I was the single one to close-compare the signs with Aegean writings (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B) trying to interpret them and extract possible meanings

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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


%d bloggers like this: