“TO BE OR NOT TO BE”(i.e.”Danubian writing”; NOT A NEVER-ENDING STORY !


Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                          This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions.                                                                                                                                                       ======                                                                                                                                      ATTENTION:Not be confused: Tartaria tablets not pertain to Vinca-Turdas Culture, they are later products !

In many of my posts, I allready expressed my opininion regarding the subject. Allmost all scientists agree that neolithic Vinca-Turdas not got to the final stage in matter of writing. Even more.                                   I stressed that not ataint even the proto-writing stage (no single evidence or proof).On other opinions side, remained few scientists, in fact only one ,italian Marco Merlini wich remained in the “conservative” part. Folowing, is an excerpts wrom a paper wich is expressing in full my view regarding the supposed “Danubian writing”:

From ALL SHADES OF GRAY:THE CASE OF “VINČA SCRIPT”* Aleksandar Palavestra Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade https://www.academia.edu/36456625/ALL_SHADES_OF_GRAY_THE_CASE_OF_VIN%C4%8CA_SCRIPT_Archaica_5_2017_143-165

Marco Merlini, an Italian journalist, a member of the Archaeomythological Institute and the author of the project “The Prehistory Knowledge“, laid down in a lengthy
contribution the semiotic approach to the features of “the Danube Script“, and
explained why the signs of the script can hardly be discerned from ornaments:

„Writing and decoration can both be finalized to transmit messages, packages of
information. The whole world outlook of prehistoric farmers was ex pressed in the
ornamentation: the Land and Under ground World, the Sky, the Sun, the Moon,
the Stars, the Plants, Animals, and People… Observant people can see complete
‘texts’ composed from ornaments: it is raining, grain is falling to the ground, it is
sprou ting… (Videiko 2002). (…) Some signs (for example, A, V, M, X, +, and some
naturalistic motifs such as sun, rain, bird, tree) can be, depending on the context,
either a written sign or decoration (Gimbutas 1991). Script signs and decoration
can live together on the same object. (…) Both written signs and decoration could
have been conceived for aesthetic purposes” (Merlini 2005, 239, 241).
Following such criteria, it is indeed very easy to recognize a script anywhere,
even among the clouds. The Merlini hypothesis is a good example of a bad
hypothesis in terms of Karl Popper – the one that does not exclude anything
and is therefore scientifically completely useless and non valid (Popper 1972),
impossible to refute since, according to Merlini’s criteria, everything can be a
sign, an ornament and a script at the same time.
After the same fashion, following the principle encompassing virtually
everything, Merlini states:

The Danube Script is a very archaic system of writing, so
it consists probably of a mix of logograms, ideograms, pictograms and some limited
phonetic elements occasionally and marginally marked.                                                     Logograms, ideograms, pictograms were mainly derived from the language of abstract symbols” (Merlini 2005, 241).

At the same time, he neglects the fact that in the case of the most
ancient autonomous scripts (cuneiform, Egyptian, Chinese, Mayan) the cognitive
priority was to represent words rather than sounds, and that in all the known cases
the abstract form was a later stage in the development of literacy. In the words of……………………………………………..                                                                                                     According to Ranko Bugarski,

a script is „a system of communication among people via conventional visible signs, especially linguistic“, and „linguistic units on various levels of language structure can be considered as script“ (Bugarski 1997:10). A script mainly means WORDS that can be PRONOUNCED, not notions.                                                                                                                There is, of course, a notional script, but it is not abstract. Even if we accept more than dubious material and „recognition“ of signs among the abundance of ornaments, symbols, and accidental scratches, the Vinča signs are too abstract and geometrized even to be a notional script (where are notions and words?). On the other hand, these signs are too scarce, heterogeneous, isolated and unsystematic, without a single text, sentence, or even a word, to be a phonetic script. ………………………………                                                           Someone has to say out loud that this is, from the ingenious „discovery“ of
Pešić on, a case of the Emperor’s new clothes. On the grounds of the evidence
presented, it is conclusive that the Vinča script does not exist.                                                Not even a protoscript.
After the exhibition in Novi Sad and the published catalogue, I am
inclined to say that even signs are sporadic. It is more plausible that Pešić & co.
found their script on the pebbles from a beach.”

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 )

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: