Tartaria tablets

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.

 1.PRESENT PAGE IS CONSTITUTED AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, (IT IS TRUE BEEING SUPPORTED BY MANY REAL FACTS ).   BUT I STARTED WHEN MANY “STRANGE COINCIDENCES (by chance or not, we’ll see) WERE GATHERING.                                               2.AN AVERAGE-LEVEL READER, UNINITIATED IN WORLD WRITING DEVELOPEMENT WILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES REGARDING WORLD SIGN LIBRARY, SO I RECOMMEND TO REVIEW MAIN WRITING SISTEMS AT OMNIGLOT.COM                                                                                          *********************************************

• Tablets display a mixture of signs, for wich the closest writing sistem beeing sumerian proto-cuneiform, otherwise the signs beeing present in later periods of time and large cultural areas, from Near East to Europe. My denomination for the group of signs is ” a mixture of signs”, if not hodge-podge. Some of the signs are close and exactly as letters from archaic greek writing.                                                              
• There was found an inscription in Sannicolaul-Mare/Romania, “BUYLA INSCRIPTION”, written with greek letters but but written by a late wave of an asiatic migratory people of turkik/altaic stock, (avar) people.                                              I advance here the hipothesis that  Tartaria tablets were written by same people as Buyla inscription.                                                                                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• Sumerians, after one hipothesis were coming from Asia, beeing a branch of altaic family.

                                                                                                                                                           From  pdfs.semanticscholar.org › …                                                                                                  Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian …

  • by I Kenanidis –

    << the Sumerian is not a language isolate, as it is regarded so far, but that it may be classified as an r–Altaic language of the Bolgar branch.>>                                                          

  •  Geto-dacians linked with scitians, saka and KUSAN (Da yuezhi).                                                                                                                                                                                          From https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/getaewhatsinaname.htm            <<  It is, therefore, not rare to read in Indian scriptures about the Sakas, Kushans (Da Yuezhi), and even the Hunas (White Huns or Ephthalites) being considered as Mlecchas (foreigners, outcastes), Asuras (demons), etc. (Dhillon 1994, 15). Similar perspectives are alluded to in Persian or Chinese texts.                                                       …..  Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d’ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for “Great,” hence “Great Getae.” … Others have seen in this word an attempt to capture in Chinese the name of a tribe that is rendered in Greek as the Iatioi who are recorded in Ptolemy’s geography. The original pronunciation has been reconstructed as gwat-ti or got-ti or gut-si, which opens up distant lexical similarities with the Goths (the German tribes of northern and eastern Europe), the Getae (the Dacian, i.e., Balkan, tribes northwest of the Black Sea), the Guti (a people on the borderlands of Mesopotamia), the Kusha (our Kushans), the Gushi (a people mentioned in Han texts and regarded as brigands along with the peoples of Kroran), or a combination of some but not all of the above (Mallory and Mair 2000, 98-99).
    
    This comparison of like-sounding tribal names, although merely a paragraph in length, could potentially generate volumes of discussion and can help us understand more definitively the nature of the barbarian invasions in ancient Rome, the powerful Kushan Empire in India, the possible origins of the Guti people, the Guti kings of Mesopotamia, and the similarity between the Goths, Getae, and the Yuezhi. Moreover, this opens up the possibility that at least some of the people termed “Scythians” were a single tribe — the Getae. So could there have been a nation of nomads who knew themselves as Gets, Gats, Guts, or Yuts?
  ====================================================

  •   In my opinion, the tablets by far are not so old as was estimated in past time.Tartaria-Gura Luncii archaeological site by one hand is containing different cultures folowing one after another and by the other hand was turned upside-down by the river Mures and modern construction works. One of the most recent remains pertain to an fortification, maybe madeby tatars.
  •  
  • From  TĂRTĂRIA-GURA LUNCII. FORTIFICAȚIA MEDIEVALĂ TIMPURIE CARE TAIE TELLUL PREISTORIC / TARTARIA-GURA LUNCII.THE EARLY MEDIEVAL FORTIFICATION WICH CROSS THE PREHISTORIC TELL.        by Zeno-Karl Pinter
  •                                                                                                                                                             << În momentul de faţă, raportat la actualul stadiu al cercetării, suntem nevoiţi să avem în vedere două ipoteze de lucru privitoare la originea şi funcţionalitatea puternicei fortificaţii (Fig. 15 –conturarea tellului și fortificației) de la Tărtăria-Gura Luncii:
    • 1. O fortificaţie a tătarilor, un loc de adunare a cetelor tătărăşti înainte de atacul asupra centrului deputere de la Alba-Iulia.
    2. O fortificaţie a populaţiei din zonă, un punct de apărare şi în acelaşi timp de control al Văii

    Mureşului, în punctul cel mai bine plasat strategic, punct de control folosit încă în perioada hallstatiană şi apoi în secolele VIII-IX, aşa cum demonstrează descoperirile mai vechi, dar extrem de relevante, de la Blandiana şi Tărtăria.Pentru această ipoteză avem şi susţinerea singurului izvor scris: Carmen Miserabile în care clericul Roger (Rogerius) relatează în capitolul XL (40) despre existenţa unei populaţii numeroase în Transilvania, populaţie ce a ridicat numeroase fortificaţii după prima trecere a tătarilor spre vest, fortificaţii distruse însă, în cea mai mare parte de tătari, la întoarcerea lor spre Asia „…                                                                                                                     ….. Dacă fortificaţia de la Tărtăria face parte dintre cele multe ridicate: „castra plurima preparata”, atunci este foarte probabil că este şi dintre puţinele nepustiite: „exceptis castris quibustam”, deoarece urme ale unei incendieri sau ale unui conflict armat nu au fost surprinse arheologic. Aceasta ar fi putut, de asemenea, să fie rezultatul „cruţării” fortificaţiei de la Tărtăria, în scopul folosirii ei drept loc de reşedinţă, drept centru de putere al noii forţe militare ce se impune, pentru foarte scurt timp în Transilvania, într-un loc apropiat de centrul ecleziastic şi politic de la Alba Iulia, un loc dominant şi un excelent punct de observaţie şi control.>>

  • ===============================================
  • All scientists encountered difficulties with the interpretation of those “D–letter” shaped signs (otherwise not appearing only in much later time) on the round tablet.                                                                                                             Image,                                                              http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html
  • 
  • Some sought that represented the Moon. And near-by e.g. in the upper-left corner of the round tablet it is an H-like sign, wich represented in early chinese writing, in different times (beginning with Jiahu bones) Sun or Moon.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         From http://www.sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/Rabbit.html
  • 
  • What about IF indeed, trully represented the Sun and Moon !? !?                                                                                       Note.                                                                                                                       Surprisingly, the sing was archaic greek letter Heta/Eta, so I expected to be a monogram for Helios/ Elios…No way, not found !
  •  
  • ==========================================                                                        … but much rare than the D-signs itself, there is the sign group “D D o o”
  • Until now, only 3 main hypothesis were advanced:                                                             1- an sumerian-like number                                                                                         2- moon phases                                                                                                                 3 – greek word, written with archaic greek letters ; latin abbreviation D.D.O.C. (“de doctrina christiana”; “decretorum doctor” )
  • Afterwards, there is only one language in the World wich permit such a sequence !!                                                       =============================================

…..if my 2 days before post was entitled “AN CURIOUS-DUBIOUS ENTERTAINMENT” now I am not sure wich be the title.  There I reffered to an inscription found  in Sannicolau-Mare city, in the west of Romania wich has signs similar those on Tartaria tablets (at least regarding that round-one tablet).                                                                                                             Sannicolau Mare map, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/

                                                                                                                        In fact, at Sannicolau-Mare were found a hoard of inscriptions, on different artefacts. For all some scientists expressed their opinions:                                                                    VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Hungary,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg and                                                                                                   José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                       This article is reffering to another inscription found also there,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                THE BUYLA INSCRIPTION.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

“1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5^th and the 10^th centuries, the first half of the 9^thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8^th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.                                                                                                                                   It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.                                                                                                              It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *–da-gī,                               …………………………………                                                                                                                     3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Despite I read at least one of articles wich is reffering to this inscription, only yestarday I had a declic, some facts catched my attention, as those two:                                                          FIRST :                                                                                                                                                     We have in Buyla inscription the word:                                                                              “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *ičeregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even ič– and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ičulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai ičuči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”                                                                              That ΗΤΖΙΓΗ sounded me as hell close to  IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                                             2-ND:                                                                                                                                                       I found in the papers reffering to this inscription, that in tungusik linguistic family, more precise in OROK language, there is a grammar structure (used as suffixe, but also as a word) -DDoo.                                                                                                                                          Exactly as we have on Tartaria round tablet !   cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          (we have DDoo upon canaanite and greek alphabets)

From  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK.   The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something) designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

From  https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen †dedu-           to sleep

If using khazar alphabet, wi’ll have DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

From https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

ATTENTION,                                                                                                                                     THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY WE CAN READ THE TABLET USING KHAZAR ALPHABET OR ARCHAIC GREEK ALPHABET (last used mainly on S-Mare inscriptions)

BUT ANYBODY IS REALISING (beeing a question of logic and common-sense) CANNOT BE USED BOTH IN THE SAME TIME  !                                                                                                     ======================

In the before posting I’ve found in the signs  using khazar alphabet, letters  CS(Ci) and J(i).In this case, reading from R>L, we have ICsI (ICI) and from L>R  “CsI ” .( see above in Even, ič  , and in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”to see, observe“)         Note.                                                                                                                                                        It is not the time to rush, aserting that in this portion the writing is L>R or R>L, as long as the result is quite the same (ICI visa Ci), nor regarding the reading ; nobody is casing me !

exactly the denomination component of the tribes   ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

From https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) , 枝 (branch) , 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)    ===============

From Daxia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxia

Daxia, Ta-Hsia, or Ta-Hia (Chinese: 大夏; pinyin: Dàxià; literally: ‘Great Xia’) was apparently the name given in antiquity by the Han Chinese to Tukhara or Tokhara: the main part of Bactria, in what is now northern Afghanistan, and parts of southern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The name “Daxia” first appears in Chinese accounts from the 3rd century BCE, to designate a kingdom in the far west – possibly a consequence of the first contacts with the expansion of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom – and then is used by the explorer Zhang Qian in 126 BCE to designate Bactria.

It is possible that “Daxia”, in part, conflated or confused Tokhara with the country of the Dahae (on the south-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea), who were usually known in classical Chinese sources as the Dayi (Chinese: 大益; pinyin: Dayi).^[1]

Daxia is mentioned by, for instance, Chapter VIII (Xiao Kuang) of the Guanzi (7th Century BCE): “In the west [Duke Huan]… having passed through the valleys of the Taihang and Bier, took captive the chief of the Da Xia. Further to the west, he subjugated the Xi Yu of Liusha, and for the first time the Rong People of Qin were obedient.” (Taihang and Bier are located along the Shanxi-Hebei border in China.)

From (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yue–chi, which means Moon –Tribe“

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Clan”) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Branch”).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to Transoxiana, Bactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Map, from https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Then would be determined exactly the role and meaning of the structure  -DDoo.           

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             From folowing paper,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     –ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks

In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:

53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to

this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.

Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese

sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17

th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that

Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually

Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be

Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,

however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched

 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great

detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.

The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of

Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario

set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see

i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).

The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)

is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of

the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is

 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,

the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju(r )cen ‘Jurchen’

echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the

etymological intricacies of the term ju(r )cen, see Janhunen 2004).

 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-

ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:

xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›

merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other

conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,

Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,

Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the

other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu

and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized

nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter

does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,

i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of

English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOW THE DEEP FOG IN WICH WERE ENCLOSED TARTARIA TABLETS SEEMS TO BEGIN TO DISPERSE ;                                                                                                                        A SERIES OF UNELUCIDATED ASPECTS AND PARTICULARITIES OF THE WRITING ITSELF SEEMS TO BE CLEARED                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ON THE HONESTITY OF THE FINDER ARCHAEOLOGIST N.VLASSA, MOST HAD NO DOUBT;  IN THE SITUATION THAT TABLETS SEEMED TO COME RATHER FROM THE COSMIC VOID                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

THEIR ORIGIN OR PROVENANCE BY FAR WAS NOT CLEAR AT ALL.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                          SO MY CONCLUSIONS ARE:

                                                                                                                                                               1. The tablets are authentic,genuine and were found by Vlassa an his teamwork.                   It is natural that was puzzled by the writing, he not beeing an epigraphist. What to say about others, highly specialised in the field (assyrologists and others specialised in sumerian proto-writing wich got cathed in the net-eyes of own specialties )                                                                                                                                                                                              2. By far are not so old as innitialy was presumed. Could be made by a member of a migratory population of altaic-mongolic keen.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3. The writer was not mastering well the art of writing:                                                                                          from one’s paper  ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                   by the moment i canot conclude that the letters are coming from khazar or archaic greek alphabets.                                                                                                                                                “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Anycase not pertained to peoples with great writing heritage, also cultural heritage is another/not the same mater.

 

4. Beeing relative new, and having provenance from populations wich “weeped” an time span and extreme large area, one could have the explanation the aquisition of so many signs, coming from different time and places.                                                                        World top scientists in the field (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) get caught in own nets, and fooled trying attempting readings using sumerian proto-cuneiform signs.

 

5. It happens that before extended discusions that tablets were used in magic rituals, now we are dealing with exactly the population where shamanism was invented and practiced (and from where through russian language the word shaman come to us)

 

6. Hope you are realising that there is a connexion (as many scientists stated tens of years before) between  Kushan/ Samara/SAKA/ YUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI populations and Dacians  !                                                                                                                                Not to remind you that pecenegs, bulgars cumans and avars were inter-related populations wich hundreds of years almost without interuption, swept Europe coming from Asia

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                               The Yuezhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī; Wade–Giles: Yüeh⁴-chih¹, [ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European^[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese: 貴霜; pinyin: Guìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

 

 

7. Otherwise if talking of mongolian and chinese influence,:

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               

An interesting hypothesis if the signs :   

 

 represented by Chinese shining/ SUN (Ri) and MOON (Yue)

 

From https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml#sgal_0

 

From http://emeld.org/school/case/tofa/tree.html

See an interactive family tree on Linguist List.

From  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic

 

 

Din http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp › article › gengo1939 › _pdf                                                                      1. In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives are …

by J IKEGAMI – ‎1956 

                                                                                                                                                                   [ In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives endings:                                                                       –ddoo    <”as. (something) designated for someone’> ]

 

Din

Tungus etymology :

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=dataalttunget&first=1581

 

OROK , ER:”soul”

OROK  sufix –DDOO “for,to (smb.)”

ER-DDOO = FOR SOUL (al cuiva)

 

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *irg[ü]

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning: 1 brain 2 head

Russian meaning: 1 мозг 2 голова

Evenki: irge 1

Even: irgъ 1

Negidal: igge / ijge 1

Spoken Manchu: uǯu 2 (1)

Literary Manchu: uǯu 2

Jurchen: (h)u(i)ǯew (492) 2

Ulcha: iǯe 1

Orok:īde1

Nanai: īge 1

Oroch: igge 1

Udighe: igi 1

Solon: igge, irge 

 

IDE-DDOO = “destinated/for HEAD?mind?” 

 

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sē

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning:year, age

Russian meaning: год, возраст

Spoken Manchu: sē (2725)

Literary Manchu: se

Jurchen: sejŋ-ŋer (82)

Ulcha: sē

Nanai: sē

Oroch: sē

Udighe: se

 

           SE                                      YEAR/AGE

IDE-DDOO = HEAD/?MIND?– destinated/for   , (? added sign  +++++ reprez.50 years. ?)

 

             SE                      AGE

ER  – DDOO = SOUL –  As

(in greek , sign+++ is “Xi, Xe”  ; Xero ~ SERo)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sau       <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     –ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >

                                                                                                                                                                 ER –DDOO :” AS  SOUL“

—————————————-

From  Grammatical Outline ofUilta (Revised)
Toshiro TSUMAGARI https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac18/b34fe4cb96095cdc045c26ae082ab2ad69c0.pdf

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                                  Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste. 

======                                                                                                                                                            月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m. https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2161

**************   ATENTIE !   ****************                                                                                  UN CITITOR NEINITIAT IN PRIVINTA EVOLUTIEI SCRISULUI IN LUME AR PUTEA AVEA DIFICULTATI IN PRIVINTA BAGAJULUI FOARTE BOGAT SI DIVERSIFICAT DE SEMNE. CU RESPECT, SUGEREZ O TRECERE INITIALA IN REVISTA A LOR PE OMNIGLOT.COM                  *********************************************                                                                     PREZENTUL ARTICOL ESTE O IPOTEZA DE LUCRU, SI ARE LA BAZA O SUMA DE ELEMENTE FAPTICE DAR SI OBSERVATII SI ” STRANII? COINCIDENTE”, intamplatoare sau nu, urmeaza sa vedem.

• Tablitele prezinta un grup aparent eterogen de semne folosite pe o lunga perioada de timp si pe largi arii culturale, din Orientul Apropiat pana in Europa.Cea mai buna caracterizare pe care o pot da este accea de COLECTIE DE SEMNE. Spre exemplu unele semne par a apartine perioadei arhaice grecesti.                                              
• Inscriptia gasita la Sannicolau-Mare are litere grecesti, desi este facuta de o populatie asiatica de factura turcica=altaica. Se presupune ca ultimul val al unei asemenea populatii au fost avarii. Daca tablitele de la  Tartaria au fost inscriptionate de aceeasi populatie ca cea de la Sannicolaul-Mare, autoare a “BUYLA INSCRIPTION” !?
• Sumerienii, dupa o ipoteza au origine asiatica, altaica:
                                                                                                                                                           Din pdfs.semanticscholar.org › …                                                                                                  Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian …
  by I Kenanidis –

  << the Sumerian is not a language isolate, as it is regarded so far, but that it may be classified as an r–Altaic language of the Bolgar branch.>>                                                          

• Legatura geto-dacilor cu scitii, saka si KUSAN (Da yuezhi).                                                                                                                                                                                             Din https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/getaewhatsinaname.htm            <<  It is, therefore, not rare to read in Indian scriptures about the Sakas, Kushans (Da Yuezhi), and even the Hunas (White Huns or Ephthalites) being considered as Mlecchas (foreigners, outcastes), Asuras (demons), etc. (Dhillon 1994, 15). Similar perspectives are alluded to in Persian or Chinese texts.                                                       …..  Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d’ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for “Great,” hence “Great Getae.” … Others have seen in this word an attempt to capture in Chinese the name of a tribe that is rendered in Greek as the Iatioi who are recorded in Ptolemy’s geography. The original pronunciation has been reconstructed as gwat-ti or got-ti or gut-si, which opens up distant lexical similarities with the Goths (the German tribes of northern and eastern Europe), the Getae (the Dacian, i.e., Balkan, tribes northwest of the Black Sea), the Guti (a people on the borderlands of Mesopotamia), the Kusha (our Kushans), the Gushi (a people mentioned in Han texts and regarded as brigands along with the peoples of Kroran), or a combination of some but not all of the above (Mallory and Mair 2000, 98-99).
  
  This comparison of like-sounding tribal names, although merely a paragraph in length, could potentially generate volumes of discussion and can help us understand more definitively the nature of the barbarian invasions in ancient Rome, the powerful Kushan Empire in India, the possible origins of the Guti people, the Guti kings of Mesopotamia, and the similarity between the Goths, Getae, and the Yuezhi. Moreover, this opens up the possibility that at least some of the people termed “Scythians” were a single tribe — the Getae. So could there have been a nation of nomads who knew themselves as Gets, Gats, Guts, or Yuts?                                 ==============================                                                                                         Dupa mine tablitele nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi pe cat s-a apreciat, in special in urma cu ani de zile.Situl de la Tartaria-Lunca se prezinta ca sediul mai multor culturi succesive.Una din cele mai recente este o fortificatie dupa cat se pare a tatarilor. 
•   Din TĂRTĂRIA-GURA LUNCII. FORTIFICAȚIA MEDIEVALĂ TIMPURIE CARE TAIE TELLUL PREISTORIC Zeno-Karl Pinter
•                                                                                                                                                             << În momentul de faţă, raportat la actualul stadiu al cercetării, suntem nevoiţi să avem în vedere două ipoteze de lucru privitoare la originea şi funcţionalitatea puternicei fortificaţii (Fig. 15 –conturarea tellului și fortificației) de la Tărtăria-Gura Luncii:
  • 1. O fortificaţie a tătarilor, un loc de adunare a cetelor tătărăşti înainte de atacul asupra centrului de

    putere de la Alba-Iulia.

  2. O fortificaţie a populaţiei din zonă, un punct de apărare şi în acelaşi timp de control al Văii

  Mureşului, în punctul cel mai bine plasat strategic, punct de control folosit încă în perioada hallstatiană şi apoi în secolele VIII-IX, aşa cum demonstrează descoperirile mai vechi, dar extrem de relevante, de la Blandiana şi Tărtăria.Pentru această ipoteză avem şi susţinerea singurului izvor scris: Carmen Miserabile în care clericul Roger (Rogerius) relatează în capitolul XL (40) despre existenţa unei populaţii numeroase în Transilvania, populaţie ce a ridicat numeroase fortificaţii după prima trecere a tătarilor spre vest, fortificaţii distruse însă, în cea mai mare parte de tătari, la întoarcerea lor spre Asia „…                                                                       ….. Dacă fortificaţia de la Tărtăria face parte dintre cele multe ridicate: „castra plurima preparata”, atunci este foarte probabil că este şi dintre puţinele nepustiite: „exceptis castris quibustam”, deoarece urme ale unei incendieri sau ale unui conflict armat nu au fost surprinse arheologic. Aceasta ar fi putut, de asemenea, să fie rezultatul „cruţării” fortificaţiei de la Tărtăria, în scopul folosirii ei drept loc de reşedinţă, drept centru de putere al noii forţe militare ce se impune, pentru foarte scurt timp în Transilvania, într-un loc apropiat de centrul ecleziastic şi politic de la Alba Iulia, un loc dominant şi un excelent punct de observaţie şi control.>>

• ===============================================
• Foarte multi cercetatori nu au stiut ce interpretare sa dea semnului/semnelor “D” din tablita rotunda de la Tartaria.                                                                            Imaginea, http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html
• 
• Unii au afirmat ca reprezinta Luna. Dar langa el, in tablita rotunda sfertul stg-sus avem acel semn care culmea, in scrierea veche chineza reprezenta in diferite perioade soarele sau luna.                                                                                                                     Din http://www.sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/Rabbit.html
• 
• M-am gandit ca poate avem Soarele si Luna !? Nota. Culmea este ca acest semn “H” in greaca este Heta/Eta si ma asteptam sa fie monograma lui Helios/ Elios, dar nu am gasit deloc asa ceva !

…..daca articolul postat in urma cu numai 2 zile l-am intitulat “Divertisment curios-dubios” acum zau ca nu mai stiu ce titlu sa dau articolului.                                            Acolo faceam referire la o inscriptie gasita in Romania la Sannicolau-Mare, care are semne asemanatoare celor de pe tablitelor de la Tartaria (cel putin in ceea ce o priveste pe cea rotunda).Articolul acesta se refera tot la o inscriptie gasita la Sannicolau-Mare. Harta, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/                                                                                                                                                       De fapt la Sannicolau-Mare sau descoperit mai multe inscriptii aflate pe mai multe artefacte.Pentru acestea exista lucrarile unui grup de cercetatori, ca de exemplu: VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Ungaria,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg si                                                                                                    José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                             

ACUM ESTE VORBA DE INSCRIPTIA BUYLA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

“1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5^th and the 10^th centuries, the first half of the 9^thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8^th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *–da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Desi am citit cel putin unul din studiile care se refera la aceasta inscriptie, acum cativa ani, doar ieri “mi-a picat fisa”, respectiv mi-au atras atentia cateva lucruri, ca de exemplu acestea doua:                                                                                                                                        Primul :     avem in inscriptia de la Sannicolau-Mare cuvantul:                                                 “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *ičeregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even ič– and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ičulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai ičuči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

Acest ΗΤΖΙΓΗ mi-a sunat al dracului de asemanator cu IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                                  Al 2-lea:

Am gasit in alta lucrare referitoare la aceasta inscriptie, ca in familia limbilor altaice, mai precis in subfamilia limbilor tungusice, in limba OROK, exista o structura gramaticala (sufix) -DDoo. Adica exact cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          De data asta avem DDoo numai daca folosim literele grecesti

Din  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK.   The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something) designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

Din https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen †dedu-           to sleep

Daca folosim alfabetul khazar, avem DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

ATENTIE,                                                                                                                                     TEORETIC SI PRACTIC, TABLITA SE POATE CITI FOLOSIND ALFABETUL KHAZAR SAU ALFABETUL GREC, ORI ARHAIC GREC, ASA CUM ACESTA DIN URMA S-A FOLOSIT CU PRECADERE PE INSCRIPTIILE DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE.     

Din https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

INSA CRED CA ORICINE REALIZEAZA SI ESTE O CHESTIUNE DE LOGICA SI BUN-SIMT CA NU SE POT FOLOSI AMBELE SIMULTAN !                                                                                                     ======================

In postarea trecuta, am identificat in semnele  folosind alfabetul runic khazar, literele CS(Ci) respectiv J(i).In acest caz am putea avea,citind de la dreapta la stanga ICsI (ICI) si de la stg. la dreapta “CsI ” .(Vezi mai sus in Even, ič  , iar in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”a vedea, observa“)                                                                                       Nota.                                                                                                                                                        Nu este momentul sa ma grabesc afirmand cu certitudine ca aceasta portiune are scrisul de la dreapta la stanga, ori invers, atata timp cat rezultatul este asemanator (ICI visa Ci), nici in privinta citirii ; In fond nu ma fugareste nimeni!

chiar componenta denominarii triburilor  ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

Din https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) , 枝 (branch) , 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

Din (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yue–chi, which means Moon –Tribe“

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Clan”) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Branch”).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to Transoxiana, Bactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Din https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Apoi mai ramane de vazut ce rol are, cum se interpreteaza acea structura -DDoo.           

Din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             Din lucrarea de mai jos,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     –ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks

In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:

53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to

this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.

Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese

sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17

th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that

Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually

Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be

Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,

however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched

 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great

detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.

The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of

Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario

set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see

i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).

The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)

is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of

the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is

 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,

the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju(r )cen ‘Jurchen’

echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the

etymological intricacies of the term ju(r )cen, see Janhunen 2004).

 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-

ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:

xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›

merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other

conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,

Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,

Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the

other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu

and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized

nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter

does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,

i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of

English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994).       4 Berta/Róna-Tas (2011: 1163) claim that both Helimski’s hypothesis and Futaky’s Hungaro-Tungusica (see Excursus below) have been refuted somewhere else (Kara 2002 and Róna-Tas 2003). Unfortunately, the references provided by the authors concerns only Futaky’s work, with no mention whatsoever to the work of Helimski on the Buyla inscription. As shall be shown, Helimski’s and Futaky’s works require the adoption of different approaches, put another way, the conclusions of criticizing one, while having an impact to certain degree, cannot be uncritically applied to the other. This opinion is echoed in one of the obituaries about Helimski (Janhunen 2009:368–369, see also Janhunen 2013: 55 and Szalontai/Károly 2013: 367). Stachowski (2004) has spoken in support of Helimski’s hypothesis, at least as far as the possibility of identifying a Tungusic substratum in Europe is concerned, and made what seems best use of it by proposing a new etymology of English sabre (← French ←German ← Hungarian ← Avar? ← Manchu seleme ‘a dagger carried at the belt’ and other Tungusic related terms). However, there is no harm whatsoever in removing the Tungusic substratum element of the equation. This etymology can be judged in its own merits assuming, for instance, that sabre is a Kulturwort/Wanderwort. There is a causal relationship between linguistics and geopolitics. This fact apparently renders them incompatible with each other: if one claims that the Buyla inscription reflects a Turkic language, then it cannot be argued that the Tungusic were to be counted among the (Asian) Avars, and vice versa. But since the Avars were a multiethnic state, the idea that both Turkic and Tungusic populations may have been a part of it cannot be rejected out of hand. Be that as it may, it is necessary to highlight that Helimski’s hypothesis is coherent from the geopolitical, historical and linguistic viewpoints: it is theoretically plausible that (1) a fraction of the original Ruanruan population was Tungusic, (2) that fraction might have fled westwards to Europe after the attack of the Turkic-Chinese alliance in 552, (3) a linguistic substratum may have survived in the languages of the Carpathian basin region. The plausibility of this scenario set up by Helimski is what makes it unique: although everything sounds perfectly logical, it is totally indemonstrable unless very convincing linguistic evidence is presented. In the discussion below, it will be shown that the linguistic evidence actually does not stand up to serious scrutiny.                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACUMA SE PARE CA CEATA GROASA CARE INVALUIA TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA INCEPE SA SE RISIPEASCA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     O SERIE DE ASPECTE NEELUCIDATE SI PARTICULARITATI ALE SCRISULUI SE LAMURESC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ASUPRA PROBITATII DESCOPERITORULUI N.VLASSA NU A FOST NICI-O INDOIALA, TOTUSI TABLITELE AU PARUT A PROVENI DIN NEANT.

ORIGINEA SI PROVENIENTA LOR NU A PUTUT FI NICI PE DEPARTE LAMURITA                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1, Tablitele sant autentice si gasite de Vlassa cu echipa.                                                                 Este firesc sa fi fost derutat in privinta scrisului, nefiind specialist in epigrafie.                       Ce sa mai zic de altii; puteti constata cum specialisti de varf (asirologi si specialisti in proto-scriere s-au incurcat in hatisurile propriei lor specialitati)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2. Nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi.  Sant departe de orice estimare de vechime.          Par a fi opera unui membru al valurilor de popoare migratoare de factura altaic-mongolica.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3.Scriitorul nu stapanea prea bine scrisul.                                                                                           ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                                                                           In acest moment inca nu pot afirma daca este vorba de litere provenind din alfabetul arhaic grecesc ori din alfabetul khazar.                                                                                          “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Oricum nu facea parte din popoarele cu mare si indelungata traditie de scris, altfel traditia culturala este o cu totul alta chestiune.

4. Fiind relativ noi si provenind de la populatii care au “maturat” o arie extrem de larga, se explica “achizitia” atator semne provenind din diferite locuri si timpuri.                     Cercetatori de marca (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) s-au incurcat si pacalit incercand sa faca citiri folosind semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.

5.Intamplarea face ca este vorba chiar de populatiile unde s-a inventat samanismul

6. Cred ca realizati ca exista o legatura (asa cum de zeci de ani au supozitionat cercetatorii) intre populatiile Kushan/ Samara/SAKA/ YUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI si DACI !                                                                                                                                Ca sa nu mai spunem ca pecenegii,bulgarii,cumanii, avarii erau diferite ramuri si populatii care secole la rand au venit din Asia in Europa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YuezhiThe Yuezhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī; Wade–Giles: Yüeh⁴-chih¹, [ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European^[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese: 貴霜; pinyin: Guìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Altfel daca este vorba de influenta Mongola si chineza:”

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               am putea lua in considerare si ipoteza ca semnele

 au reprezentat la Chinezi stralucire/ soarele (Ri) si Luna (Yue)

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml#sgal_0

Din http://emeld.org/school/case/tofa/tree.html

See an interactive family tree on Linguist List.

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic

Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-

Tungus-Manchu: *eri-

Din http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp › article › gengo1939 › _pdf                                                                      1. In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives are …

by J IKEGAMI – ‎1956 

                                                                                                                                                                   [ In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives endings:                                                                       –ddoo    <”as. (something) designated for someone’> ]

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *irg[ü]

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning: 1 brain 2 head

Russian meaning: 1 мозг 2 голова

Evenki: irge 1

Even: irgъ 1

Negidal: igge / ijge 1

Spoken Manchu: uǯu 2 (1)

Literary Manchu: uǯu 2

Jurchen: (h)u(i)ǯew (492) 2

Ulcha: iǯe 1

Orok:īde1

Nanai: īge 1

Oroch: igge 1

Udighe: igi 1

Solon: igge, irge 

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sē

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning:year, age

Russian meaning: год, возраст

Spoken Manchu: sē (2725)

Literary Manchu: se

Jurchen: sejŋ-ŋer (82)

Ulcha: sē

Nanai: sē

Oroch: sē

Udighe: se

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                       Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste.

======                                                                                                                                                           Divertisment curios-dubios, sau loc de dat cu capul. Din Alsószentmihály inscription (INSCRIPTIA DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Als%C3%B3szentmih%C3%A1ly_inscription
The relic

 

 

The photo of the Alsószentmihály inscription

The stone was an ancient Roman building stone—proved by the leaf-symbol, a frequently applied ornamental element of ancient Roman inscriptions—reused in the 10th century. Alsószentmihály located on the territory of the late Province Dacia existed up to the middle of the 3rd century. Dénes showed that the Khavars (Khazar rebels joined the Hungarians in the 9th century^[1]) probably settled in this region (that time Transylvania).^[2] In some parts of Hungary, there are data of the Khavars even from the 13th century Script used for the Alsószentmihály inscription

Some quotations from historian Gábor Vékony about the identification of the script in this inscription:

• Vékony wrote in page 218: “Since the Alsószentmihály inscription was found not in the geographical area of the Old Hungarian script, and in the first line, only vowels could be read based on the Szekely alphabet, we can state surely that the possible transcription of the inscription is surely out of the Szekely script”^.
• Vékony wrote in page 230: “To summarize, we can state that the Alsószentmihály Village inscription is the relic of the Khavars settled into Transylvania, which is naturally written in Khazar ^{with Khazarian script.”}
• Vékony wrote in page 280: Similar symbol occurs in other Khazarian runic inscriptions ^{as well.}
• Vékony wrote in page 109:” “In Transylvania, the inscription of the reused stone built into the wall of the church of the Alsószentmihály Village is unambiguously written with Khazarian runic alphabet^.”

Based on the quotations above examples, it can be stated that Vékony identified the script of the Alsószentmihály relic as a Khazarian script. According to Vékony, another relic, namely the Homokmégy-Halom inscription ^{contains Khazarian text as well.}
The meaning of the inscription

The Alsószentmihály inscription was deciphered by archaeologist Gábor Vékony.

The transcription of Vékony (it uses IPA symbols):^[9]

	First Row	Second Row
Inscription
Transcription (using IPA)	ɛbi atlïɣ	jyedi • kyr qereji
Translating from Common Turkic,[10][11]	His mansion is famous.	Jüedi Kür Karaite. or Jüedi Kür (the) Kerei.

According to Vékony, the inscription was made by a Khavar leader, whose religion was Karaite.^[12] The first symbol of the first row is a ligature, its transcription: ^atl^ïɣ.^{[13] The first symbol (from left) in the second row is a Khazarian word separator.}

In the inscription, the third symbol of the first row (from left), and the symbol in the second and last place can be considered as the descendants of the Turkic ideograms. Nevertheless, their relation needs more evidence.
Critics, alternative theories

There are several critics of Vékony’s theories and translations, most notably the Hungarian linguist and historian, András Róna-Tas. The debates were summarized^{[how?] by István Riba in 1999 and 2000. =============================================== Noi avem la Tartaria: Poza din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html}

Vekony zis-a ca primul semn este separator de cuvinte iar al doilea ar fi “J” =========================

Altfel avem dupa/din: Khazarian Rovas https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

SEMNELE H D = CS J Ce inseamna ? numa’ Istenu stie ! ======================================

Apoi semnele din partea dreapta, “D D o c”

ar putea fi:
J(L?) J M Q

Ce inseamna? Vre-un mesaj extraterestru. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Din Listă de invazii https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%C4%83_de_invazii
….. Alte popoare migratoare
Khazarii, popor turcic de origine mongolă, era originar din Asia centrală și Siberia de sud. Ei au migrat în Europa alături de maghiari și alte popoare turcice. In secolul VII d.Hr își constituie un Hanat în nordul Mării Negre. In anul 890 o parte din ei migrează alături de Arpad și ceilalți maghiari în Panonia. Khazarii au fost singurul popor din istorie care s-a convertit la iudaism. Hanatul khazar era in sfera de influenta a Bizantului. În anul 969 el a fost distrus de cneazul rus Sviatoslav al Kievului. Ultimele sale rămășițe au fost înlăturate de o expeditie militară bizantină (1016). Khazarii se retrag în Caucazia și de acolo urmele lor se pierd în negura istoriei.
Pecenegii erau un popor din Turkestan și o ramură a turcilor. In secolul X d.Hr, sub presiunea triburilor selgiucide, turcii s-au islamizat. Turcii pecenegi au migrat însă in zona Volgăi, neacceptand Islamul. În 895, în același timp cu khazarii, unguri (cumanii apar ulterior) au migrat în Europa, stabilindu-se parțial în Muntenia și sudul Moldovei, unde cu timpul s-au integrat populației valahe autohtone. Acolo ei întemeiază mai tîrziu, temporar, un hanat alături de cumani, popor turcic. În 1091 pecenegii se infiltrează, la sud de Dunăre, în Balcani. Împăratul Constantinopolului, Alexios Comnen îi înfrânge și pecenegii vor dispare militar din istorie, după o ultimă confruntare cu Bizanțul în 1122.

Cumanii erau si ei popor turco-mongol ca pecenegii. Erau originari tot din Asia centrala si Turkestan. Hanii cumani au migrat in Europa cu pecenegii, ungurii si khazarii. Dupa caderea hanatului peceneg, cumanii le-au luat locul in Dacia. Atacau si jefuiau periodic cnezatele ruse si Ungaria. Cneazul Sviatoslav al Rusiei il infrange pe hanul cuman Kobiak. Apoi cumanii hanului Gza sufera o infrangere cand asediaza Novgorodul. Cneazul rus Igor este infrant de hanul Konkeak. In anul 1227 cumanii sunt infranti de mongoli si dispar din istorie. ============================== Vezi http://unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4080.pdf Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set
International Organization for Standardization
Organisation Internationale de Normalisation
Международная организация по стандартизации
Doc Type: Working Group Document
Title: Issues of encoding the Rovas scripts
Source: Gábor Hosszú (Hungarian National Body)
Status: National Body Contribution
Action: For consideration by WG2
Date: 2011-05-25
This document compares the static and dynamic models of the development of the Rovas /rovaːʃ/ scripts.
Please send any response regarding to this document to Gábor Hosszú (email: hosszu@eet.bme.hu).
In this document, the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols are applied for representing phonemes
extending with the symbols for the undetermined back /A/ and front /B/ vowels.
Contents
1. Latest proposals of the Hungarian National Body …………………………………………………………………………………1
2. Position of the Hungarian National Body…………………………………………………………………………………………….2
2.1. Purpose of encoding…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.2. Name of encoded scripts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
2.3. Present-day Hungarian orthographies …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.4. The family of the Rovas scripts …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Figure 5: The Alsószentmihály inscription (920-952)
Written with Khazarian Rovas font First row: Í ¬B
Second row: C jZaq ZK ìIuj
IPA phonetic transcription First row: ɛ
bi a
tlï
ɣ
Second row: jyedi • kyr qara
j
Translation from Common Turkic (Khazar) First row: ‘His mansion is famous.’
Second row: ‘Jüedi Kür (the) Karaite.’
Table 3: Transcription of the Alsószentmihály inscription
The word /ɛb/ was used for larger buildings in the Khazar building inscriptions;38 therefore, its meaning is
‘mansion’. The word /jye
di/ meant Jewish in Khazar language, in this case it could have used as a personal
name. The /kyr/ means ‘courageous’ and ‘fearless’ in Turkic, such personal names are typical in Turkic
languages. Therefore, the second row or at least the first two words (Jüedi Kür) formed the name of a Khavar
leader. The word Karaite also could have been a personal name. The Karaite Judaism is a branch of the Jewish
religion accepting the five books of Moses but not the Talmud, oppositely to the Rabbinic Judaism. The symbol
in the third row could have been a tamgha.39
In this relic, the KR q K /q/ is the ancestor of the SHR k K /k/, the KR Z R /r/ is the ancestor of the SHR
r R /r/. The KR u UE /y/ is ancestor of the SHR v V /y/v/ (see Subch. 4.7 in this document). The KR j J /j/ is
identical to the CBR j J /j/; the KR K KUE /ky/ is identical to the CBR ç KUE /ky/, the KR ì ANGLED I /i/ and
the a A /a/ are also common character with the CBR but not in the SHR.
The following Khazarian Rovas characters cannot be found in other Rovas scripts: B RAISED B /b/,
d ARCHED D /b/. The d ARCHED D is in a systematic KR ligature, the I DI /de/di/ed/. The symbol Í is the
ligature of T ANGLED T /t/ + l SIMPLE L /l/ + G GH /ɣ/.40
The punctuation symbol C KHAZARIAN ROVAS SEPARATOR LARGE is specific for the Khazarian Rovas
and it cannot be found in other Rovas scripts. The diacritic mark á SEPARATOR DOT ABOVE is also specific
for the Khazarian Rovas; however, it is descendant of the á COMBINING STOP ABOVE in the Inscriptional
Pahlavi script. It is used in the first row of this inscription.

Phoenician H HET /ħ/
> Early Aramaic H HETH /ħ/
> Imperial Aramaic À HETH /ħ/
> Parthian h HETH /ɣ/x/h/
> *Early Steppean *Q /ɣ/
> *Proto-Rovas *Q /ɣ/
> CBR (7th c.) Q, µ GH /ɣ/ > (21
st c.) Q GH /øː/
> SHR (*9th c., 12th c.) U GH /ɣ/
>SHR (15th c.) w, ¹ OPEN UE /ø/øː/y/yː/
> SHR (17th c.)¾ OPEN UEE /ø/øː/y/yː/ > (21st c.) /yː/
> SHR (20th c.) w OPEN UE /y/
> CBR (21
st c.) ¹ OE /ø/
> KR (8th c.) G, £, ù, ¥ GH /ɣ/, in Alan: /g/
> *Early Steppean *ó /y/ø/
> KR (8th-9th c.) ó UE /y/*ø/
> KR (9th-10th c.) u UE /y/ø/
> SHR (*9th c., 12th c.) v V /y/u/uː/
> SHR (14th-15th c.) u U /y/u/uː/
> SHR (16th c.) U UU /u/uː/ > (20th c.) /uː/
> SHR (17th c.) y UU /u/uː/
> SHR (15th c.) v V /v/
> SHR (20th c.) ® W /v/
> SHR (20th c.) ê W /v/
> SHR (21st c.) [ W /v/
> Old Turkic (Orkhon) M OE /ø/y/w/
> Inscriptional Pahlavi H HET /h/x/
> KR (8th c.) H ARCHED CH /x/
> Hebrew ח HET /ħ/x/
> Nabataean µ, h, H HETH /ħ/
> KR (8th c.) µ ANGLED CH /x/

××××××××××××××××××

Deci ne aflam in situatia mai mult decat rizibila sa fim nevoiti sa atribuim o data pentru tablitele de la Tartaria situata in intervalul 5.300 B.C.(Marco Merlini) si 900 A.D. (?Vekony) deci un interval total de cca. 6.200 ani ! Felicitari dragilor coledzi cercetatori !

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                          Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste.

=======                                                                                                                                                       Ca sa incepem cu inceputul,                                                                                                                  A – Imediat dupa descoperirea tablitelor de catre arheologul N.Vlassa, chiar acesta a creat o turbulenta initiala in comunitatea stiintifica prin atribuirea tablitelor  unei varste de aprox. 2700 B.C.                                                                                               Eu nu pun la indoiala onestitatea acestuia. In mod hotarat nu este participant la nici un gen de fals sau inselatorie. Activitatea dansului a fost prea bogata si lucrarile absolut serioase si remarcabile. Ca atare nu putea sa-si expuna propria persoana unui oprobiu general si nici activitatea precedenta unui asemenea risc major. Dar in schimb putea fi antrenat fara voia sa in expunerea unor artefacte care nu sant exact ce par si nici ceea ce credea dansul. Nefiind specialist in epigrafie si necunoscand lungul parcurs al aparitiei si evolutiei scrisului in lume, a atribuit tablitelor o varsta aflata oricum la o limita de timp extrema si implicit riscanta.Are in schimb meritul de a fi primul care a sesizat similaritatile cu inceputurile scrierii sumeriene.                                                                                  TOLERABIL !                                                                                                                                    ———————————————————-                                                                                        B – Apoi nu a fost destul, prin contributia cercetatorului italian Marco Merlini, a fost avansata o varsta si mai inaintata, cca. 5.300 B.C. Nici acesta nu a avut o imagine clara asupra parcursului scrierii in lume. Desi a sesizat similaritati mai mult ale semnelor cu cele prezente in alte scrieri nu a depasit deloc aceasta faza, neavand capacitatea unei analize de asemenea complexitate.                                       Dar inca si mai curios, nu gasesc o explicatie satisfacatoare pentru faptul ca a convins un arheolog absolut de marca ( Dl. Prof. Lazarovici), poate printre primii 5 cei mai mari din Romania, asupra unei varste atat de inaintate. Probabil ca cei doi au ramas cam singurii cercetatori din lume care au ales o asemenea optiune in privinta varstei. Parca l-a vrajit pe Dl. Profesor, pentru ca altfel i-mi scapa complet intelegerii.        Aceasta in conditiile in care toti arheologii, din tara si strainatate au luat la cunostinta de anumite aspecte si inadvertente:                                                                      – situl aflat pe un mal al Muresului a fost expus in mod constant erodarii si surparilor                                                                                                                                       – situl in sine prezinta un conglomerat de artefacte apartinand mai multor culturi                                                                                                                                               – chiar artefactele aparent gasite in imediata vecinatate a tablitelor fac apropierea de alte culturi decat cea neolitica Vinca-Turdas.                                            INTOLERABIL !                                                                                                                        Mai ales atribuirea direct a aceleiasi varste cu a  oaselor (5.300 B.C.) pentru tablite !    —————————————————–

C – Cercetatorii straini , desi multi dintre ei specialisti de marca in cele mai vechi forme de scriere, nu au avut suficient timp si nu au alocat suficient efort pentru evidentierea tuturor particularitatilor tablitelor. Avand la baza in principal, cu precadere analiza semnelor acestia au afirmat cu tarie ca nu sant sumeriene, nici scris sumerian autentic si nici mai vechi ca primele tablite sumeriene (3.000-3.200 B.C.).           Deci din start este exclusa o varsta mai mare de 3.000 B.C. Multi dintre ei au afirmat ca varsta maxima limita (dupa mine si aceasta exagerata) ar fi 2.700 B.C. (exact cum afirmase N.Vlassa!).Desi toate semnele pot fi asimilate celor proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, nu sant sumeriene ci “asemanatoare/ca si/- cele sumeriene” Ei nu dau nici-o explicatie plauzibila finala pentru acest fapt. Nici nu pot spune cu siguranta unde este locul unde au fost inscriptionate nici de cine (carei populatii ii apartinea scribul).       Si dupa mine, semnele prezinta similaritati maxime cu semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene.(~95% !) Faptul ca seamana cu scriere sumeriana nu se datoreaza unei asemenea origini ori contact direct, ci faptului ca filiatia scrierilor Europene are ca origine ultima scrierea sumeriana. (Acest fapt a fost remarcat si de  cercetatorii E.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis in ceea ce privesc strict scrierile Egeene).                                                         Alti cercetatori nu au remarcat, sau cel putin nu au facut vorbire ca urmatoarele scrieri (pe locurile 2 – 3) in ceea ce priveste asemanarile, ar fi scrierile Anatoliene (cariana, ~70%)) si cele Egeene (Hieroglifica Cretana, Linear A,B ~70%). Cercetatorii straini in special cei specialisti in scrisurile cele mai vechi nu s-au implicat in controverse legate de varsta si au incercat pe cat posibil sa se faca ca nu observa si sa tolereze o varsta cat mai veche. Aceasta probabil pentru a nu deranja sensibilitati si orgolii nationale !                                                                                                                       TOLERABIL                                                                                                                                  Inafara de tablita pictografica, care prin natura sa poate fi usor interpretabila, niciuna din celelalte doua nu poate fi citita folosind exclusiv si integralfolosind un singur sistem de scriere concret (din cele existente cunoscute: proto-cuneiform, silabar sau alfabet.).      Am incercat pe rand testarea prin folosirea mai multora, pe rand si astfel am constatat acest lucru.                                                                                                                                               ————————————————————-
D – Mult timp Dl. Marco Merlini nu a realizat ca civilizatia Vinca-Turdas desi a facut progrese remarcabile,nu a atins faza scrisului.De altfel nici-un cercetator nu a facut dovada cu vre-un artefact ca ar fi atins pe deplin faza proto-scrierii.                            Ulterior Dl. Merlini pare a-si fi revizuit putin parerile, fara a afirma aceasta cu tarie.                   Desi unii cercetatori au observat ceva de genul unui amestec de semne, nu au acordat suficienta importanta acestui fapt. Semnele par a fi trasate de cineva care pe o cale sau alta a luat cunostinta de existenta unor semne folosite anterior pe o arie foarte larga si un larg interval temporal. Ele sant oarecum mai mult decat o colectie de semne, fara ca sa fiu malitios ar fi mai degraba o adunatura, gramada (scuze, ghiveci de semne).     Altii nu au observat sau sustinut ca semnele de pe cele trei tablite reprezinta (aproximativ 3) faze evolutive ale scrisului, aceste faze fiind distantate in timp ! Apartinatorul unei civilizatii nu ar fi facut in mod normal asta, decat eventual sa arate cuiva principiile si evolutia scrisului. Este greu, ba chiar imposibil de demonstrat vre-o posibila legatura d.p.d.v. al mesajului intre cele 3 tablite. Majoritatea cercetatorilor sant de acord iar eu subscriu ca “scribul” evea vagi, mai exact incomplete cunostinte necesare scrisului, daca nu era cumva absolut iliterat.                                                           De asemenea, un aspect care in mod normal sare in ochi adica iese in mod pregnant in evidenta, este acela ca jumatatea de sus contine scris adevarat, apropiat de timpurile noastre (ex. scris arhaic grec sau roman; ~99%). Eu am demonstrat acest lucru, iar de ale altora din cat am cautat amanuntit stiu ca nu exista. Acesta incaodata reflecta carente, imperfectiune, are un caracter ezitant si schiopatat, al unei persoane care nu stapanea in masura suficienta nu limba ci scrisul.                                                                                       INTOLERABIL !                                                                                                                                    —————————————————————–
E – Pentru ca scrisul din jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde pare a proveni dintr-o faza incipienta (epichorica) a scrisului alfabetic inainte de a fi standardizat. In diferite locuri foloseau alfabete asemanatoare dar usor diferite. Unul si acelasi sunet era reprezentat de forme ale literelor diferite. Ex, intr-o parte forma D era pentru sunetul D, iar in alta forma D pentru sunetul R. (Acest fapt conduce de la un numar oarecare de citiri posibile, la marirea si mai mult a acestui numar). Din pacate alti cercetatori nu s-au aplecat cu suficienta atentie pentru a remarca acest fapt (desi Domnului Merlini i-a atras atentia ca aceasta portiune avea un caracter secret si era gandita sa fie ascunsa privirii directe). Dar atat si nimic mai mult.                                             INTOLERABIL !                                                                         ======================================                                                                   PENTRU VERIFICARE SI COMPARATIE, URMATOARELE SISTEME DE SCRIERE:

PROTO-CUNEIFORME SUMERIENE                                                                                                proto-cuneiform signs   https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html