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. 

=========                                                                                                                                               Am gasit aici, pe un site australian, (ramanand sa identific autorul):

Guide The History of Proto-Writing, Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems

ROMANIAN:                                                                                                                                        Niste concluzii a caror sursa ultima nu o cunosc, dar as jura ca poate fi un bun rezumat al cercetarilor mele. M-as bucura sa fie rodul cercetarilor proprii a unui autor ? si as fi curios sa cunosc calea pe care a mers, sau in ce mod a cercetat concret, ca sa ajunga la aceste concluzii. Cu atat mai mult ma mira, cu cat in general alti autori au mers pana acum pe diferite linii mai mult sau mai putin sa zicem “conservatoare” Concluziile sau rezumatul, nici nu stiu cum sa-l denumesc se refera atat la ceea ce este legat de tematica scrisului/proto-scrierii in general, pentru civilizatia Vinca-Turdas cat si pentru tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                                       Redau mai jos din lucrarea sus-mentionata :

…….. the author, Stephen Duren.? Stephen R. Duren (Author of The History of “Proto-Writing,” Indus … https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7344553.Stephen_R_Duren Published 2013.

And not Rajesh Rao ?

……..autorul, Stephen Duren, si nu Rajesh Rao ?

” Productspecificaties

This section lists alphabets used to transcribe phonetic or phonemic sound; not to be confused with spelling alphabets like the NATO phonetic alphabet. Alphabets may exist in forms other than visible symbols on a surface. Some of these are:. Published – December Submit your article! Read more articles – free! In neolithic, Vinca-Turdas culture developed toward writing slowly , step by step. On its own independently or influenced, by pressure of incoming migrating people waves. Pity, despite the fact that the social life was well, quite-high developed, the stage of organisation was not so high, at the level of those sumerian, egyptian or proto-elamite ones.

Vinca culture become highly developed, but even in later Cucuteni-Tyripilia culture writing not reached the proto-writing stage. Not known or found exemples of writing from this later than Vinca cultures my recollecction, not even of proto-writing. Vincans missed another more years to reach proto writing and maybe later writing. Tartaria tablets shows evidence of proto-writing, as using proto-cuneiform signs symilar or the same as proto-cuneiform sumerian. So they are isolates. They are coming from somewhere outside area. There is a gap between Vinca-Turdas signs and organised Tartaria tablets signs.

Or finaly none of above, coming by some kind of economic-cultural exchange from Aegean area. Bringed by a? The round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half. Suspect connexion of Aegean writings to those of Near-East. Clues,hipothesys, arguments:. The inscribed clay tablets PL. It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian language of early Mesopotamia. The shapes of the tablets and some of the signs are paralleled in the Minoan scripts of Crete , but the tablets do not seem to be Cretan.

Undeciphered writing systems – WikiVisually

There are indications that a similar use of signs, if not actual writing, was practised in the rest of the Aegean and in Western Anatolia before the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. A knowledge of writing, or the use of signs derived from it, may have spread to these regions and to the Balkans from Mesopotamia through Syria. This was perhaps one aspect of a common inheritance of religious or magical beliefs and practices. Alternative approaches had been presented and commented in the recent past Hooker The two writing systems probably serve different needs e.

Yet, the relationship was rejected as impossible because of the large distance between the two areas Mesopotamia and Crete. The rejection was very premature considering the next points:. There are still many thousands of tablets in the store rooms of museums but there are not enough experts to read them. The same wide regional coverage appears during the reign of Lugalanemundu BC , king of Adab Guisepi and Willis Their influence expanded to Indus Valley, Iran, Nile and probably Balkans as he suspects and we argue for as well.

• Minoan Writing Systems.
• The Vinča culture.
• Please, I Want to Taste You!
• Sacred Burial Grounds (An FBI/Romance Thriller Book 2)?

This is supportive for the herein argument, since every sign in written Akkadian has a Sumerian origin. However, the natural process for a script is to evolve from pictorial signs like the Sumerian pre-cuneiform into non-recognizable forms like the late cuneiform and not the reverse e.

So, we make the reverse proposal herein: both the early Aegean scripts and Cuneiform were two evolutionary branches of the same trunk Sumerian pre-cuneiform signs. While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the Minoan language, it is nevertheless remotely conceivable that one of them just might be.

But which one? Given the tangled mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, I am left with no alternative but to pronounce that none of these so-called proto-languages is liable to stand the test of linguistic verisimilitude. If age is around 3. 000 B.C. 

Folowing, marked *** is mine, from my paper-work https://tartariatablets.com/2018/06/27/tartaria-tablets-what-script-and-language-expecting/       taken by WikiVisually, Undeciphered writing systems

*** But I looked close to those signs, and the tablets are not so old. The entire scientific comunity was fooled by supposed C14 age determination 5. Especially the round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half.***

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

Yes, I recognise my own topic/sentences, it seem that possible were taken parts of my posts on Wikipedia; Mr. Rao took in a critic way, adding some own personal remarks. i will urgently get in contact with him.

DA, IMI RECUNOSC TOPICA, SE PARE CA UNELE PARTI SANT PRELUATE DIN POSTARILE SI CONCLUZII DE-ALE MELE POSTATE PE WIKIPEDIA.

DL. STEPHEN R. DUREN? LE-A PRELUAT CUMVA CRITIC ADAUGAND UNELE MICI OBSERVATII PERSONALE. O sa iau legatura cu dansul urgent.

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language:
A Reply to R. Sproat

Rajesh P. N. Rao, Nisha Yadav, Mayank N. Vahia, Hrishikesh Joglekar,

R. Adhikari, and Iravatham Mahadevan

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~rao/IndusCompLing.html

Figure 1: (a) Examples of the Indus script. Three square stamp seals, each with an Indus text at the top. Last image: three rectangular seals and three miniature tablets with inscriptions (image credit: J. M. Kenoyer / Harappa.com).                                              (b) Block entropy scaling of the Indus script compared to natural languages and other sequences. Symbols were signs for the Indus script, bases for DNA, amino acids for proteins, change in pitch for music, characters for English, words for English, Tagalog and Fortran, symbols in abugida (alphasyllabic) scripts for Tamil and Sanskrit, and symbols in the cuneiform script for Sumerian (see [ Rao et al. 2009a, Rao2010a] for details). The values for music are from [ Schmitt and Herzel1997]. To compare sequences over different alphabet sizes L, the logarithm in the entropy calculation was taken to base L (417 for Indus, 4 for DNA, etc.) …………………                                                                                                                                                                                             Does the similarity in block entropies with linguistic systems in Figure 1(b) prove that the Indus script is linguistic? We do not believe so. In fact, we contend that barring a full decipherment, one cannot prove either the linguistic or nonlinguistic thesis, unlike Sproat and colleagues who have previously claimed to have “proof” for the nonlinguistic hypothesis [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,pages 34 & 37],[Farmer2005]. What we do claim, as we state in our Science paper and as explained in more detail below, is that results such as the similarity in entropy in Figure 1(b) increase the evidence for the linguistic hypothesis, given other language-like properties of the Indus script.

6  Countless Non-Linguistic Sign Systems?

<< Sproat and colleagues have stated that the properties observed in the Indus script are also seen in “countless non-linguistic sign systems” [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,page 21]. Let us consider some of these nonlinguistic systems [ Sproat2010, Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004]. Medieval European heraldry, Boy Scout merit badges, and airport/highway signs are not linear juxtapositions of symbols that can be up to 17 symbols long, as we find in the case of the Indus script, nor do they exhibit a confluence of script-like properties as enumerated above. We invite the reader to compare examples of heraldry [Parker1894], Boy Scout badges [ Boy Scouts of America2010], and airport/highway signs with the Indus script sequences in Figure 1(a) and judge for themselves whether such a comparison bears merit.                                         Another nonlinguistic system mentioned in [ Sproat2010] is the Vinča sign system, which refers to the markings on pottery and other artifacts from the Vinča culture of southeastern Europe of ca. 6000-4000 BCE. Sproat believes there is order in the Vinča system and states that we “mis-cite” Winn. To set the record straight, here is what Winn has to say in his article in a section on Sign Groups [ Winn1990,page269]:        “Neither the order nor the direction of the signs in these (sign) groups is generally determinable: judging by the frequent lack of arrangement, precision in the order probably was unimportant…Miniature vessels also possess sign-like clusters (Figure 12.2j), which are characteristically disarranged.”

This contradicts [ Sproat2010] and suggests that the Vinča system, if it indeed lacks precision in the order of signs, would be closer to the maximum entropy (Max Ent) range than to the linguistic scripts in Figure 1(b). The actual amount of lack of precision unfortunately cannot be quantified in entropic terms because a large enough data set of Vinča sequences does not exist. Sproat also draws attention to the carvings of deities on Mesopotamian boundary stones known as kudurrus. He declares that our statement regarding kudurru deity sequences obeying rigid rules of ordering compared to linguistic scripts is “clearly false.” >>

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language: A Reply to R. Sproat: RPN Rao et al

://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.lang/1b6ShGAx6WI%5B1-25%5D

Filme cu teme in relatie cu Vechea Europa, Vinca si Tartaria http://cyberspaceandtime.com/vn7PUwMKH3k.video+related

************************************************************

Extras din articolul lui Richard Sproat caruia ii raspunde R. Rao,

Ancient Symbols, Computational Linguistics, and the Reviewing Practices of the General
Science Journals Richard Sproat∗ Center for Spoken Language
Understanding  https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011

<< 1. Introduction
Few archaeological finds are as evocative as artifacts inscribed with symbols. Whenever
an archaeologist finds a potsherd or a seal impression that seems to have symbols
scratched or impressed on the surface, it is natural to want to “read” the symbols. And
if the symbols come from an undeciphered or previously unknown symbol system it
is common to ask what language the symbols supposedly represent and whether the
system can be deciphered.
Of course the first question that really should be asked is whether the symbols are
in fact writing. A writing system, as linguists usually define it, is a symbol system that is used to represent language. Familiar examples are alphabets such as the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or Hangul alphabets, alphasyllabaries such as Devanagari or Tamil, syllabaries such as Cherokee or Kana, and morphosyllabic systems like Chinese characters. But symbol systems that do not encode language abound: European heraldry, mathematical notation, labanotation (used to represent dance), and Boy Scout merit badges are all examples of symbol systems that represent things, but do not function as part of a system that represents language.
Whether an unknown system is writing or not is a difficult question to answer.
It can only be answered definitively in the affirmative if one can develop a verifiable
decipherment into some language or languages. Statistical techniques have been used in decipherment for years, but these have always been used under the assumption that the system one is dealing with is writing, and the techniques are used to uncover patterns or regularities that might aid in the decipherment. Patterns of symbol distribution might suggest that a symbol system is not linguistic: For example, odd repetition patterns might make it seem that a symbol system is unlikely to be writing. But until recently nobody had argued that statistical techniques could be used to determine that a system is linguistic.1
It was therefore quite a surprise when, in April 2009, there appeared in Science
a short article by Rajesh Rao of the University of Washington and colleagues at two
research institutes in India that purported to provide such a measure (Rao et al. 2009a).
Rao et al.’s claim, which we will describe in more detail in the next section, was that  one could use conditional entropy as evidence that the famous symbol system of the third millenium BCE Indus Valley civilization was most probably writing, and not some other kind of system.
That the Indus symbols were writing is hardly a novel claim. Indeed, ever since the
first seal impression was found at Harappa (1872–1873 CE), it has been the standard
assumption that the symbols were part of a writing system and that the Indus Valley
civilization was literate. Over the years there have been literally hundreds of claims
of decipherment, the most well-known of these being the work of Asko Parpola and
colleagues over the last four decades (Parpola 1994). Parpola, who argues that the Indus
Valley people spoke an early form of Dravidian, has produced interpretations of a small
set of symbols, but nothing that can be characterized as a decipherment.
The first serious arguments against the idea that the Indus symbols were part of
a writing system were presented in work that Steve Farmer, Michael Witzel, and I
published in Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004), which reviews extensive support for that
view from archaeological evidence and comparisons with other ancient symbol systems.
Although our arguments were certainly not universally acknowledged—least of all
among people who had spent most of their careers trying to decipher the symbols—
they have been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, and established a viable
alternative view to the traditional view of these symbols. It was against this backdrop
that the Rao et al. (2009a) paper appeared.
Taken at face value, Rao et al.’s (2009a) paper would appear to have reestablished
the traditional view of the Indus symbols as the correct one, and indeed that is how the
paper was received by many who read it. A number of articles appeared in the popular
science press, with Wired declaring “Artificial Intelligence Cracks Ancient Mystery”
(Keim 2009). The Indian press had a field day; they had studiously ignored the evidence
reported in our paper, presumably because it led to the unpalatable conclusion that
India’s earliest civilization was illiterate. But Rao et al.’s paper, which appeared to
demonstrate the opposite, was widely reported.
The work has also apparently attracted attention beyond the popular science press
and those with some sort of axe to grind on the Indus Valley issue, for in March 2010
there appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, a paper that used similar techniques to Rao et al.’s (2009a) in order to argue that ancient Pictish symbols, which are found inscribed on about 300 standing stones in Scotland, are in fact a previously unrecognized ancient writing system (Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman 2010). A trend, it seems, has been established: We now have a set of statistical techniques that can distinguish among ancient symbol systems and tell you which ones were writing and which ones were not.
The only problem is that these techniques are in fact useless for this purpose, and
for reasons that are rather trivial and easy to demonstrate. The remainder of this article
will be devoted to two points. First, in Section 2, I review the techniques from the Rao
et al. (2009a) and Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman (2010) papers, and show why they don’t
work. The demonstration will seem rather obvious to any reader of this journal. And
this in turn brings us to the second point: How is it that papers that are so trivially and
demonstrably wrong get published in journals such as Science or the Proceedings of the
Royal Society? Both papers relate to statistical language modeling, which is surely one
of the core techniques in computational linguistics, yet (apparently) no computational
linguists were asked to review these papers. Would a paper that made some blatantly
wrong claim about genetics be published in such venues? What does this say about our
field and its standing in the world? And what can we do about that? Those questions
are the topic of Section 3. …………………………………………………….

major types of nonlinguistic systems are those that do not exhibit much sequential structure (‘Type 1’ systems) and those that follow rigid sequential order (‘Type 2’ systems). For example, the sequential order of signs in Vinca inscriptions appears to have been unimportant. On the other hand, the sequences of deity signs in Near Eastern inscriptions found on boundary stones (kudurrus) typically follow a rigid order that is thought to reflect the hierarchical ordering of the deities. (Rao et al. 2009a, page 1165)

On the face of it, it is not too surprising, given these descriptions, that the Type 1 system
shows rapid growth in the conditional entropy, whereas Type 2 stays close to zero. The
problem is that there is little evidence that either of these types accurately characterized
any ancient symbol system. So for example, the Vinca symbols of Old Europe were ˇ
certainly not random in their distribution according to the most authoritative source on the topic (Winn 1981).2 Indeed, Gimbutas (1989) and Haarmann (1996) even proposed that they represented a pre-Sumerian European script; although that is highly unlikely, it is also unlikely they would have proposed the idea in the first place if the distribution of symbols seemed random. Similarly, it is apparently not the case that the deity symbols in kudurrus were arranged in a rigid order (see subsequent discussion): Clearly it is not only computational linguists who should be bothered by the claims of this paper. In fact, as one learns only if one reads the supplementary material for the paper, the data for Type 1 and Type 2 were artificially generated from a rigid model (Type 2) and a random and equiprobable model (Type 1).
Various on-line discussions, starting with Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2009), criticized Rao et al. (2009a) for their use of artificial data.3 So, in subsequent discussion,
including a recently published paper (Rao 2010) that largely rehashes the issues of
both the Science paper and another paper in PNAS (Rao et al. 2009b),4 Rao backs off
from these claims and talks about the Type 1 and Type 2 curves as the limits of the
distribution. The take-home message appears to be that in principle symbol systems
could vary as widely as being completely rigid or completely random and equiprobable.
It is therefore surprising, the story goes, that the Indus symbols seem to fall right in
that narrow band that includes unequivocal writing systems. The problem with this
argument is that it is highly unlikely that there were ever any functional symbol systems that had either of these properties, and one can argue this point on basic information theoretic grounds. A symbol system that was completely rigid—had an entropy
of 0—would convey no information whatsoever.

2 Rao et al. (2009a) mis-cite Winn to claim that the Vinca sequences were random >>

I will send an e-mail to Stephen R. Duren :

VINCA-TURDAS PROTO-WRITING TARTARIA TABLETS admissions@usf.edu   mmock@mail.usf.edu.  help@usf.  usf-grad@grad.usf.edu estrom@usf.edu

This entry was posted on August 15, 2019 at 10:32 pm and is filed under Tartaria tablets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.