Archive for October, 2019

Tartaria tablets, latest advanced research. Answers to allmost possible questions.

October 31, 2019

Tartaria tablets, latest advanced research. Answers to allmost possible questions.

Picture,from https://www.descopera.ro/stiinta/3343280-misterele-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria

Map from https://cersipamantromanesc.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/adevarata-istorie-a-descendentei-noastre/

Image result for tartaria alba harta Tartaria village, Alba County

Only three important, crucial issues have been  in the attention of researchers, during decades since discovery of the tablets in ’61, until today.

N.Vlassa , chief in charge at the archaeological diggings. supposed discoverer .               His picture from https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-detine-cele-mai-vechi-scrieri-din-istoria-civilizatiei/

Image result for nicolae vlassa arheologul

Image result for tartaria tablets arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro Tartaria groapa Luncii from arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro

But also the same questions still surrounded by mistery, and interesting the audience at the highest level:                                                                                                                            1.real age  2. Genuine?  3. Whether or not carry a form of writing.                                       The answers to these questions will be, each of them detailed and almost dissected, and  have been the result of more than 10 years of dedicated research. Into the field of birth and followed by the evolution of writing in the world, various world writing systems, and then the comparative study customized and applied to Tartaria tablets (Tartaria tablets=TT)

1. Are TT as old as spoken/rumors ?

Various researchers have advanced different ages.There is no convergence of opinions. Their discoverer, N.Vlassa told of about 2.700 B.C. Then others went up to 5.300 B.C. (e.g. M.Merlini).                                                                                                                                             The age of 5.300 BC after me is completely out of  question, and the 2.400-2.700 BC is the maximum extreme theoretical! limit from which I can discuss after my humble opinion. I Will explain the reasons why even this latter age is not possible.

2.What are the arguments of most researchers for these TT ages (after me unrealistic)?

For 5,300 BC :                                                                                                                                          – the alleged finding of the tablets in the layer corresponding to the civilization of Vinca and the age same as of the bones (5,300 BC/C14) assumed to be found in the immediate vicinity. Image, from https://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

Image result for tartaria bones Tartaria Groapa Luncii, female bones dated 5.300 B.C.

At present, very few researchers are still claiming such an old age.                                     For 2400-2700 BC :                                                                                                                               – possible fallen down from above strata, so origin from newer layers (and hence the membership of artefacts to crops such as Cotofeni? Baden? Petresti?) and                          – related assessments of some artifacts found in the immediate proximity of TT, as pertaining to later cultures than Vinca A-C, as well as                                                                   – judgments and comparisons generally related to the time of appearance, and the evolution of writing in the world.

From https://alba24.ro/autenticitatea-tablitelor-cu-semne-pictografice-de-la-tartaria-enigma-pentru-unii-istorici-ce-spune-arheologul-horia-ciugudean-care-in-1989-a-participat-la-sapaturi-400800.html  :

Image result for tartaria groapa luncii Artefacts found alegedly with the tablets,

Image, from  https://fashiondocbox.com/90885882-Jewelry/Tartaria-and-the-sacred-tablets.html

Image result for  tartaria groapa luncii Tartaria-Groapa Luncii (the very site where tablets were found)

3.Were TT in that layer (VINCA) ? Were the tablets near the bones?

It is not known for sure;
“there are no photos or sketches, blueprints of the exact location of each artifact, and much more,

  • – Not known who were present/ all the persons close to the moment of discovery,        – where exactly were every of them, or walked in the ritual complex, when and how much time some missed (eg. Vlassa some hours)                                                           – Who was the very person who first saw or found TT                                                      – In fact who first touched them is not known.                                                                   – When, who gathered, packed the artefacts and transported to museum , when and to whom were given, where in the museum were put ?

In conclusion, there are no witnesses and no hard evidence of where exactly where every artefact/item including TT were placed or were found in the entire religious complex.                                                                                                                                               AS A RESULT, I HAVE ANY ASSISTANCE AND CANNOT RELY ON ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PLACE AND MOMENT OF DISCOVERY, AND THE SAME ON ESTIMATED AGE, REMAINING FOR ME THE SINGLE OPTION, THAT OF ANALISING THE SIGNS !

4.  There is available a scientific method of measuring their age exactly?

Their Age cannot be determined with any of the current methods. Worse not anymore, as the tablets have been baked in an owen (who has decided at an unknown temperature is not known) apparent, immediately after discovery, because they seemed to be friable.                                                                                                                                       (Not to be enough, before  chemical structure was changed , as were impregnated with nitrolack !)

5.Could be TT genuine  sumerian or how much could be related to the early stage of the sumerian handwriting?

There are not a sumerian, it is absolutely certain.                                                                          Top researchers in the proto-writing field said that although the signs are similar to the sumerian proto-cuneiform (proto-writing stage), the signs and writing are not authentic/genuine sumerian.                                                                                                              These researchers only mentioned these similarities and differencies in the passage and in a superficial way.                                                                                                                              I went into more detail and explained that the signs are similar in shape reflected only as blueprints, schematic way/sketch the proto-sumerian signs, but they have no their counterpart concrete shape.                                                                                                       Researchers shows shortcomings, they have                                                                                 – not identified all the signs, and they have                                                                                      – misidentified others. (Ex A. Vaiman, R.Kolev and others).                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The resemblance is due to the filogenesis of the writing in general. That is, the connection and the ultimate sumerian origin and transmission of the signs and in fact of many writing systems used in the Near East and in the Aegean area. Such a filiation, apart from the one noted by researchers I.Papakitsos and G. Kenanidis (relative to the Aegean proto-linear writing) is supported and explained by me and in addition and sometimes more detailed. However, I did not think of some assyrologists and specialists in sumerian proto-writing/proto-cuneiform (e.g. Falkenstein, A. Vaiman, R.Kolev) to approach a sumerian interpretation as long as they claim that signs are not proper/really sumerian?

From The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology                 Peter Damerow https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html

figure1

<<…. early writing systems seems to indicate, as Ignaz Gelb has pointed out in his famous Study of Writing (Gelb 1952: 212-220), that the idea spread in various directions at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC from centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Proto-Elamite writing occurs only a short time after proto-cuneiform. It was used for a short period in vast areas of the Iranian plateau. In the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, writing is attested as far to the north as Ebla in Syria and to the east as the Indus culture in modern Pakistan. Minoan writing starts at Crete around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At that time, cuneiform writing is also attested further north in the regions of Anatolia.>>

                                                                                                                                                                   6. What examples could be given  to support the fact that TT are not genuine sumerian ones ?

  • Always the sumerian signs/marks for numbers (with the apparent  D-letter shape) in the Sumer were made by imprinting, but ours are made by tracing/scratching.
  • Sumerian numbers : from https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing/
  • Image result for sumerian 3.200 proto writing numbers (Fig. 2) Impressed tablet featuring an account of grain, from Godin Tepe, Iran (Courtesy Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto)
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform Proto-cuneiform tablet (W 9578,g) from Uruk IV, 3350-3200 BC …
  • Only D-shaped proto-cuneiform sumerian NINDA/”bread” sign was traced/scraped. (on the right).                                                                                          Image from https://ro.pinterest.com/pin/488640628318570008/?lp=true
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform school tabletImage result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform
  •                                                                                                                                                     (We have on TT first D-sign on round TT very close to it, but not the same.            Image from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html                         
  • Image result for living moon tartaria)
  • Very many signs though reflecting by general way the shape of the sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, in fact their concrete and exact shape is much more like those that were later used in the Anatolian, Aegean (and even many in the Mediterranean) writings. As well as in the Near East (canaanite, phoenician).                 
  • IT IS A FACT THAT WAS NOT NOTICED NOt A WORD, BY ANY SCIENTIST, (ONLY BY ME) THAT:                                                                                                                                      – MANY SIGNS ON THE ROUND TABLET IS REFLECTING AN EVOLUTION, (CHANGED SHAPES THAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM), REFLECTING A LATER PERIOD OF TIME                                                                                                                                      One example:    Image result for moonlight tartaria     picture from  http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html                                                                                                                        The H-like sign (on the round tablet with 3 horizontal bars) looks much more like, and even is exactly the same as the folowing:                                                                          – the Heth sign from canaanite writing/1.500-1.200 BC,                                                    – the Pa3 sign from the Aegean/2.000-1.500 BC,                                                                     – the archaic ETA/Heta sign from the archaic Greek/ 800-500BC (apparent crooked-looking due of offset vertical bars). But the sign is actually further present throughout  Mediterranean. Only one sign is identical to that of proto-cuneiform, the sign +++++++, the sumerian ‘As’ and another is approaching (the 1-st D), the sumeria sign “Sur“.

The Sumerians, during any period, used a uniform writing corresponding to the time during which the scribe was living. They did not use pictograms and ideographic signs on separate tablets at/in a given time.

7. The shape of clay TT is very important?

I don’t think it is. Image from https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm

 Clay disc from Vinca, Serbia

Otherwise I know more examples  round tablets.                                                                  Sumerian star map, from                                                                                 https://curiosmos.com/this-5500-year-old-sumerian-star-map-recorded-the-impact-of-a-massive-asteroid/

Image result for sumerian star chart

and none sumerian ones with a hole. Then the Cretan tablets with the hole, but not perfectly round-shaped.

 Linear Script A/ http://arthistoryresources.net/greek-art-archaeology-2016/minoan-outline.html , and round ball:

 Cypro-Minoan clay ball in Louvre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypro-Minoan_syllabary

Folowing Karanovo tablet http://institutet-science.com/sakralna-plochica-karanovo/?lang=en

Image result for karanovo tablet

Another round tablet & holes, from Tartaria : https://adevarul.ro/locale/alba-iulia/tablita-secreta-tartaria-contine-obiectul-arheologic-descoperit-2014-semnele-erau-ascunse-privitorilor-1_57fcfa425ab6550cb876646f/index.html

Image result for tartaria tablet

Then the discussion about how flat or swelling/bulged are some or others do not see to be much productive.

 8. Are the TT genuine ?

YES. (More so yes than no! )                                                                                                                ( partly No, because it does not seem to be the result of a one’s intention to communicate by writing something connected with a particular economic or religious necessity.)

Yes, because the one who wrote them didn’t intended to fool somebody and whatever intented (we do not know what), the scribe was fair intended. It seems he wanted rather to practice the evolution of  writing or to show someone the same evolution and basic principles of writing.                                                                                                                     Maybe at the best succeded to write a short ritualic formula or short written economical token.

9. If the “writer” intended to show the evolution and writing principles, could be like/kind ofsumerian-like school scribal tablets ?

Definitely no. Because school scribal tablets:                                                                                  – put youngsters to copy teacher’s texts,                                                                                         – to divide tablets in writing sectors, and                                                                                    – were quite repetitive in content, as containing lexical lists, eg. of things, ocupations, etc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         From The tablet House: a scribal school in old Babylonian Nippur Eleanor Robson https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-assyriologie-2001-1-page-39.htm#

  • Types of school scribe, writing-learning tablets:

Table 1

Table 3 The order of the elementary curriculum in House F[20]
Table 3
tableau im13

10. What is the point, or why there are 3 tablets together?

The question can be asked because if you have something to say, you write everything on a tablet and  not spreading the message in three different places. Or at least write using the same writing system.                                                                                                 The answer is that he wanted to show the evolution of the writing from icons to ideograms, and even to some extent to syllables and letters.                                          We have                                                                                                                                                   – a rectangular (without hole) tablet with icons.                                                                            – another rectangular tablet (with hole) with ideograms.(These ideograms/logograms may have in the extreme the function of syllabograms)                                                         – a Round tablet (with hole) to all appearances shows the Aegean syllabograms, or even letters (Anatolian/archaic Greek).                                                                                              (except for 2 complex rituallic? marks/ideograms present in the right-hand lower quarter).

11. Are there any cases in the world of using by the same scribe of two or three writing systems?

Only exceptionally, two, e.g. the Roseta stone written with Egyptian hierogliphs and Greek letters, but there is no known case in which 3 writing systems appear (as in our case) and not with systems whose temporal spread  covers 2000-3000 years!      (Sumerian proto-cuneiform 3.300BC, Cretan  Hierogliphic 2,000 BC, linear A/B 1500 BC, Greek archaic writing 800-300BC) >> time span 3.000 years !

12. Is it claimed that the (by somewhat majority) the assumption  that the signs were used at religious ceremonies?

Although researchers make reference some for economic use and others for religious, none of them fully supports or demonstrate any of the alternatives. In other words, leave open the way for any interpretation (including a mixed one !?)
The scales is serious inclining for yes.                                                                                      (only slightly Not, since                                                                                                                        – the tablets contain only 2 complex ideograms (in the round of the right-bottom quarter) that could play a role in religious ceremonies,  otherwise all signs were used in different areas by different civilizations for true writing !                                                                           – many researchers noticed possible number marks, so economical purpose)                                Mainly Yes, since the round plate contains in the right-hand-bottom quarter 2 complex ideograms and in addition the rectangular one with the hole contains many ideograms/logograms, all of which are applicable to religious rites.                               And again, yes, as  it is possible that ONLY the upper half of the round tablet  contain a written/verbal/ritualic formula for use in such ceremonies. This may be, or sure it is the explanation, that this portion was usually hidden from the direct view of the passers-by, being covered by the rectangular one.

13. What about  scribe’s training on writing?

Most researchers claim that he was almost illiterated. I support the same idea. It seems that in general the tablets were covered with many signs from different writing systems and the only section where the scribe has managed to write is the upper half of the round tablet. Probably he was aware of this fact from the very beginning!                       (!…iliterated, but how happened he had the ability and the science to display signs used in large spatial and temporal expansion !)                                                                                          Having access to a large sign library, and an ordered, organized character of the signs on 3 different tablets,                                                                                                                                – Now, I am seeing the scribe different as in the past time, not as a person close to illiterate but maybe a priest(ess) ?, or rather kind of Berossus of his time !

14.How much new in extreme, could be the tablets ?

Theoretically and practically it could reach the very period of  archaic Greek writing 800-300 BC or that of the etheocretan wich goes/rich to our era/AC. 

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png

File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.pngBut it is excluded to be newer from the early Middle Ages due to certain aging traces. The possibility of a inscription of recent date does not exceed that of being written, by a catholic teacher-priest !!!, (… who had access to old writings and documents.)                          The tablets are shown as a collection of signs, apparently scattered from different areas and periods of time, but nevertheless ordered and somehow divided into three major  evolution of writing categories.                                                                                                  Who could have done this? It is all easier when we are approaching modern times ? where the possibility of access to signs used in the past is increasing.

15. The signs on the tablets belong to or are placed in a specific, particular writing in the world?

No! In fact my entire work mainly includes the testing of the various writing systems. Unfortunately no tablet is matching entirely with one writing. But no chance for all 3 tablets simultaneously ! The greatest closeness, that is, the largest number of signs can be found in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform and almost equal to the letters of the Anatolian writings.(the signs are found in the various Anatolian writings, the top being the carian writing/alphabets).

From Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

Then follows a series of Mediteranean writings, in the top  being Aegean  writings.               For these reasons, the writing and of course the tablets seem to have a subsequent age newer  of 2.400 BC. (See also Cretan hierogglyphic 2200-2000 BC ,linear A, 1800-1500 BC). None of the tablets can be read using a specific writing for each/no match. Much impossible to read/read using a single  writing system for all three !

16. Strictly on sign appreciation What age could be given to the  the signs ?

Although many signs and to a large extent only “look-like” the sumerian ones reflecting only by far their shape, in the general signs show to be much more recent (new). Unfortunately, a few (really few)  have not been used in the concrete form present on tablets absolutely no in the world before 1,200-1,500 BC !(e.g. sign D ; …oops present in Indus/Harappa writing)

From https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/qeiyafa-ostracon-2

                                                              Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C. ?)

17. The tablets belong to  Danube, Old Europe, or a Daco-Thracian civilisations ?

No, the Danube civilization/The Old Europe has come close, but it hasn’t even reached the stage of the proto-writing. cause was not a highly socially stratified society in this area, and there were no mach attraction or dedication to writing. In fact, the  tablets are singletones,  absolute unique. The tablets of Gradeshnita, Karanovo, Dispilio belong to other cultures and other phases of writing evolution (proto-writing).                     Regarding Cris-starcevo and Vinca Civilisations:

From Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

“Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28].                                                                                                                               …………..The first Neolithic inhabitants of Europe are described archeologically as belonging to the Aegean Early Neolithic cultures [27], from which the bearers of both the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in Serbia, Romania and Hungary [2837] and the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe (LBK) [21] emerged.                                                          …………These data are in line with the idea of a common origin of the LBK and Starčevo-Criş cultures from the Aegean Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece/Thessaly, the first Neolithic complex in Europe [24].                                                                                     ……………..Fernandez E, Perez-Perez A, Gamba C, Prats E, Cuesta P, Anfruns J, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C Near Eastern Farmers supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islans. “

18. Was the scribe a native of Tartaria ?

Definitely not ! The local community did not know the writing. The tablets were inscribed by an individual of different origin. From Anatolia and possibly from the Egeana area (Crete ?), or if you want of proto-Greek origin. Note that Anatolia is close, bordering  the Aegean, Syrian and Danube areas; (there are also indications of the presence of Anatolian craftsmen in the area of Vinca). TT could, however, be effectively inscribed by that person in his home-place or in extreme even in Tartaria.

19. What made for living the scribe; what could be his occupation/profession  ?

Others opinion is the same as mine, could be an prospector, craftsmen but much sure tradesman.

20.From the perspective of the evolution and existence of all writing systems in the world, which is the location occupied by TT signs ?

Here I have to say that because of the great similarity of the signs with the sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes, as well as the written signs used in the Aegean and Anatolia, to a large extent, it was possible and relatively easy interpretation of TT using each or any of these above writings This shows on the one hand the origin of the writing, but also the spread of the writing in space and time. The scribe and signs were coming  from somewhere in the space delimited by these civilizations.

From Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?  https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/28/writing-in-neolithic-europe-an-aegean-origin/

“For many years the earliest writing was assumed to have originated in Uruk, in Sumeria, Mesopotamia c. 3100 BC. Evidence from Egypt has now dated writing to c. 3400-3200 BC, while evidence from the Indus Valley suggests a date of 3500 BC for the development of writing there.  In the 1980s, a system of writing was noticed in the Balkans of the Final Neolithic period. This was identified as “pre-writing” by Shan Winn (1981) and Emilia Masson (1984) who considered whether this constituted a Vinča “script.” They each concluded that the Vinča signs represented a “precursor” to writing.

 

…   The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.”

 

21. The tablets could carry real script /true writing ?

 General opinion of scientists and scholars specialised in proto-writing is pointing for NO. Cause they realised that the signs are similar to those used in proto-writing, namely the proto-cuneiform signs. The use of proto-cuneiform signs is conducting only and unique to proto-writing ! And because almost all the signs are similar to those proto-sumerian it is about sumerian proto-writing.

Scientists also noticed that part of the signs are not identical in shape with those sumerian-ones, but probably thought that are a kind of variant, local adaptation, without explaining or detailing where or how this could happened. Thus begining with a basically “sumerian interpretation” their’s are in general close one to another and also close to mine.  Some told of economical tablets, seeing on the upper-right part of the round tablet only cereals and numbers.                                                                                                  But if taking as true that this section had ezoteric content and was intentionally hidden, it is cristal-clear that nobody was hiding numbers ! So numbers or ezoteric content, only one out of twoo !                                                                                                       But others, were pointing to an religious content, and not few saw ideograms wich not only could be used in religious rituals but in fact were practically used as such on a larger scale. In reality, the signs could be used for both purposes. In and describing an offering ritual ( cereals/bread and animals/goats). What I noticed myself that those ideograms are somehow similar to those used in ancient Aegean writings, (Cretan hierogliphic and Linear A), with the  result close interpretation. (even if  the signs are much close to those sumerian ones. )                                                                                    Exemple of closeness/similarities of Aegean signs to those sumerian ones:                                                              

Semn sumerian    Semn Egeean          Semnificatie                                                                             As,Se                          Te                          Cereale                                                                                  Gu,Gud                      Mu                           taur                                                                               Amar                        (a)Ma                     vitel/zeita-Mama                                                                 An                              ?                          zeu,cer                                                                                       Bad                            Da(Sa?)                        sacrificat,mort/                                                                 Ab /Zag/Ga’ar             Labrys               templu,stralucire/divin                                                      Ud                              capra,ied                         capra,ied                                                           Dara                                -”                                    -“-                                                               Ararma                      Asasara                          zeitate astrala?                                                         Gar                                   D                              masura volum cereale

From  https://enigmatica.ro/placutele-de-la-tartaria/

Image result for tablitele tartaria

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2015/cdlj2015_001.html                                                           BAD: …it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.”

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

From https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml (see no.7, UD/goat)

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

Folowing signs, from  https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Ab Amar An Ararma As Sze/Se Ud5 Zag~a Zag~c Dara~3d Ga’ar~b1 Sur  Gar

 

All interpretations, of scientists and mine are sending to, are in close touch with an -religious ritual !  !

22. But if you ask me of an possible true writing ?

I say, I hope yes, on the round table, the top half, although we have there a kind of “impossible” combination of signs (“Doo/DDoc” sequence) and apparently no way out. However, in that half of the round tablet, we could have the archaic Greek letters:

Image result for tablitele tartaria pic from http://www.ziare.com/cultura/documentar/tablitele-de-la-tartaria-cea-mai-veche-scriere-a-lumii-descoperita-in-romania-1090967

To the left: Eta/Heta Rho/D?                                                                                                            And to the right:    Doo, DDoc?/ Dtwo?/RRoo, Roc?

What could be written, what possible texts?

It seems that we will never be able to have absolute certainty anymore, of any message or text. By one side                                                                                                              – we don’t know the language used, and by the other side                                                           – because there can be more possibilities of letters and not know for sure whether the P/D signs actually are for D or R letters ; and also,                                                                      – a concrete number of letters (even they are few !) may lead to a relatively large number of combinations of n as many as m)

Can one make suppositions at least?

Yes, there would be a set of proposals to be considered, for example:

Here Roc Roc Albanian here Rrok= time grab, understand

HeRos DiBoc=DiVos Greek Lord/master Zeu (use in religious ritual?)

EDE DiDou Greek “now give!”/”give to eat!” (This proposal is of some interest, since the root of the ED is present in both food-related words (e.g. EDTA) and in that of kid Ed.educs. We have one or more kids on the pictGraphics? So through the icon of the iedului can suggest the word Ed,Ede !: Mananca!/kid, iedule)

HeDe Didou Greek now,already give! (do you give it?; religious ritual?)

! Caution, *hed is the root Proto Indo-Europeana for ‘mananca’!

HRist(s) DDoc Latin “of the doctrine of christiana”

Hero, ERO DDoc (Decreto Doctor) Latin will be a doctor (Lat.”Professor”) in the theological doctrine)

etc

23. Again. Why 3 tablets, each with different “writing”, and how to explain this (only the appearance !) are there signs?

In fact, it is not a pile of signs. It Is the fruit of a conscious and deliberate effort. Remember, as for me, who have come to keep in mind hundreds of signs from each writing system, it would not necessarily be easy for me. If I intend to show to a student or any reader the main steps in the appearance and evolution of  writing, maybe I would do much the same.

On a tablet I would show pure icons/pictographs, as the ones on the pictographic tablet. I would choose about the same kind of basic signs, which almost identical meaning in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform as with those of cretan hyierogliphic  and Linear A.               Cereal and goat icons. There is also an absolute unclear sign , possible ghost, man, gods !?                                                                                                                                                            On the second (like rectangular tablet with hole), I would figure sumerian ideograms that are almost entirely and close shape found in the Aegean syllabograms .                                                           Signs: Cereals, Gods, labriys, Gods, Taurus).

 picture from https://www.descopera.org/tablitele-de-la-tartaria/

On the third (round tablet) I would figure the pure phonetic writing (but not necessarily alphabetic!).Those signs have corespondence in sounds . As summerian ideograms , Aegeene syllabograms, and even  to Greek and Anatolian letter wich has every of them coresponding phonemes/sounds.

Examples:

On the pictographic tablet:                                                                                                                  the grain/cereal Sumerian icon, similar to the Cretan sign for cereals. And then the common icon for the goat.

On rectangular tablet with hole, 3 examples:                                                                                  1. The sumerian sign “Se” <> the linear A sign  “Te“, cereal, grain.                                                2. Then the sign ‘Animal head with long ears’:                                                                                 the “AMAR” sumerian /calf and Cretan Hierogliphic /linear A “Mu”/Bull , linear B “Ma“/sign of Mother Goddess.                                                                                                                         3. And the sign of the Orion constellation, the “Zag“/ the shine of metal, linear “Labrys” sign of the linear A divine power.

-On the round plate, only 2 examples:                                                                                                 1. The H-sign with 3 bars is the sumerian “Ku“, linear A “Pa3″,canaanit “Heth” and archaic Greek  “Heta/Eta“, old Latin “H“.
2. Sign (as with # but only with 1 vertical bar):sumerian “Pa” and linear A “Pa” (later “Z” in many writings)

I don’t know why, also on the round plate, the right-bottom quarter, two complex ideograms appear, Picture from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

e.g. one (on the right) is like the temple of solar gods Shamash/ 

Proto-cuneiform sign UD.UNUG:”sun -inner temple”

Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform

the sign of the punic Goddess Tanit, astral Goddess as Ishtar=the sign of the minoan astral Goddess Asasara.

From https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/baal-hammon-and-tanit-0012136                                                                                                                       Symbol of Tanit, the consort to the king of the Punic pantheon. (mrholle / CC BY-SA 2.0) Punic Goddess Tanit

WHEN THE TOPIC IS THE DEVELOPEMENT OF WRITING, WIKIPEDIA COMES ALSO (as TT scribe have done and I also would do) WITH 3 MAIN STAGES:                                                                                                                       Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages:

  • Picture writing system: glyphs (simplified pictures) directly represent objects and concepts. In connection with this, the following substages may be distinguished:
    • Mnemonic: glyphs primarily as a reminder;
    • Pictographic: glyphs directly represent an object or a concept
    • Ideographic: graphemes are abstract symbols that directly represent an idea or concept.
  • Transitional system: graphemes refer not only to the object or idea that it represents but to its name as well.
  • Phonetic system: graphemes refer to sounds or spoken symbols, and the form of the grapheme is not related to its meanings.                                                                         ———————————————————-

24. What was aiming at, or real purpose of the tablets ?

If, after a sustained and tenacious effort, I managed, succeed to have in my little finger or mind, (… where you want), thousands of signs grouped into different writing systems; (not discuss my ability or expertise compared with others, though I want such a challenge). If I could make a collection of signs in this way, that is grouped on the main types of writing folowing the course of time, with all the possibilities of 20th century documentaries at my disposal, probably the result will be close to those tablets.

Who, for God’s sake, from where and how long, does not discuss with what purpose, made a collection of ordered signs and divided into three major groups of historical evolution ? Note, signs with an extension of their use on a 2.500- years  time-span ( ~2.500-500 ECB)?

REMEMBER, SHOWING WRITING EVOLUTION NOT IMPLY THAT THE AUDIENCE PERSON WILL/TAUGHT TO WRITE

25.I put under scrutiny an important question and subject to follow; I am looking forward to your opinions with great interest.

Remember, the tablets are real an material and  not coming from somewhere from the virtual reality, and therefore do not hold as copies of others, so there are original, they were made by someone, though, and in this way original and not counterfeit, fakes. 

 Although they have taken note of the similarities between the signs on the TT and those in the sumerian, they have limited themselves to referring quickly and perhaps somewhat superficial only to a few aspects.                                                                             

What completely escaped my understanding is that none of them noticed and did not refer to the fact that the somewhat grouped signs, as if somebody divided them into three categories of historical evolution ??.

For example, a researcher with dozens of publications and books, who has literally exhausted attacking the topic TT from the perspective of all interdisciplinary branches (archeology, history, culture, seminary, etc.) starting from the Neolithic, (if not near the mesolithic) these essential aspects escaped him. Namely the similarities with the Levantine, Aegean, Anatolian and Mediterranean civilizations writings, and maybe worse, not noticed this kind of display of seemingly arranged signs in historical, in temporal evolution, and I am referring here to Mr Marco Merlini                                                                                                                            Image result for tartaria tablets                                                                  Mr. Marco Merlini, from http://www.prehistory.it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             (and mentioning his master, Prof. Gheorghe Lazarovici)

26. Possible explanation  ?

This spark-idea is mine, but not a recent-one, and could explain TT purpose and who wrote and/or used them . As to be brought at an unknown time and unknown religion by kind of missionary. The round tablet could have written on upper half,                                                                                                                                                                                               Pics from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

an ritualic formula, as out of the signs HP Di b o c , some could be:

greek : HEROS DIVOS = LORD GOD

latin:   HeRus  DeiVOS =    -“-      -“-

Note.                                                                                                                                                         “If” word God  is written, then like kind of Tetragrammaton m not to be pronounced, hidden like the name of YHWEH.(also have here 4 letters !)                                                   Was natural to be hidden from the view of passers-by, especially at the begining of christianism when followers were chased, ??

or a religious christian-like one ( “Our Father” pray: give us our daily bread

greek: HeDe/EDE !  DiDOS/DIDOU ! :Allready,this here,now/GIVE EAT !

latin:  ED/EDE   DeDou(i)=/DeDUI    : Kid-goat/EAT     GIVE!

From ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic … http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea                                                                                                           The barbarians were the ancient Europeans, non-Greeks, whose speech was not understood by the Greeks. ….. divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos.

From https://www.etymonline.com › word
deva | Origin and meaning of deva by Online Etymology Dictionary
… cognate with Greek dios “divine” and Zeus, and Latin deus “god” (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine,” in derivatives “sky,

From https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/  by Richard Vallance Janke

didomi-linear-b-archaic-new-testament

(in pictographic tablet we have an kid-goat and something totally unclear, as a human silhuette with hands forward as giving)

…. or you will wonder what other possible formula.                                                                   The presence of the other signs on TT, which apparently do not contain writing, explain it to me by the intention of creating a framework, appearance, but also the feeling and atmosphere of continuity and the transmission of knowledge and religious concepts of a eternal nature, originating in the very distant past.                                                                 The fact that all the signs on TT were used in a place, time or another for writing, raises my suspicions to me. As if that person had access to sources such as the library from Alexandria or the Vatican?.In fact, I shouldn’t be so much, as the priests really had access to such sources and were among the main propagators of culture in general.

IN THE WORK OF FINDING A PLACE, REAL &TRUE IDENTITY FOR TT, WE ALL FOUND SO MANY UNCOMMON, EVEN WEIRD & PUZZLING CHARACTERISTICS THAT THE TOPIC TEND TO MOOVE STEP BY STEP, FROM WRITING & SCIENCE FIELD TO OBJECTS FOUND ON EARTH FALLEN FROM OUTER SPACE.

 

 

 

 

Cercetare avansata.Raspunsurile la orice intrebari imaginabile legate de tablitele de la Tartaria.

October 20, 2019

Cercetare avansata.Raspunsurile la orice intrebari imaginabile legate de tablitele de la Tartaria.

Doar trei chestiuni sant de o importanta fundamentala.Aceste chestiuni au fost si sant in continuare in centrul atentiei cercetatorilor, pe parcursul a zeci de ani de la descoperire, inclusiv pana astazi. Dar si inconjurate de mister interesand publicul in cel mai inalt grad:                                                                                                                  1.vechimea                                                                                                                                          2. originalitatea                                                                                                                                  3. daca prezinta sau nu o forma de scris.                                                                            Raspunsurile la aceste intrebari vor fi, fiecare in parte amanuntite si chiar disecate. Ele sant rodul unei cercetari de mai mult de 10 ani privind aparitia si evolutia scrisului in lume, diferite sisteme de scriere, si apoi studiul comparativ particularizat si aplicat tablitelor de la Tartaria (Tartaria tablets=TT)

1.Sant TT atat de vechi…pe cat se vorbeste ?

Diferiti cercetatori au avansat diferite date.Nu exista o convergenta de opinii:              4200-3900 BC (Tringham 1971: 114), ; 5000 BC (Neustupny 1968b: … ; 2900-2700 BC (Vlassa 1976: 33) ; 2500 BC (Hood 1967: 110).  Apoi altii au mers pana la 5.300 B.C. (ex. M.Merlini).                                                                                                                                     Varsta 5.300 BC dupa mine, iese complet din discutie, iar cea de 2.400-2.700 BC este limita maxima extrema de la care incoace dupa umila mea parere am putea discutaVoi explica mai incolo motivele pentru care chiar aceasta varsta nu este posibila.

2.Care sant argumentele majoritatii cercetatorilor pentru aceste varste ale TT (dupa mine nerealiste) ?

Pentru 5.300 BC argumentele  sant:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         – presupusa gasire a tablitelor in stratul corespunzator civilizatiei Vinca si varsta oaselor (5.300 BC/C14) presupus gasite in imediata vecinatate. In prezent, extrem de putini cercetatori mai sustin o vechime atat de mare.                                                              Pentru 2400-2700 BC argumentele sant:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              – marea asemanare a semnelor cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme cuplat cu o intarzie re a transmiterii semnelor din Sumer                                                                                 – posibila provenienta din straturi mai noi (si deci apartenenta la culturi cum ar fi Cotofeni? Baden? Petresti?) si                                                                                                               – aprecieri legate de originea catorva cateva artefacte gasite in imediata proximitate a TT, (ex. Ciclade)precum si                                                                                                                    – aprecieri si comparatii legate in general de aparitia, evolutia scrisului in lume.

Din The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology Peter Damerow https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html                                                                                                                                                                                               <<….early writing systems seems to indicate, as Ignaz Gelb has pointed out in his famous Study of Writing (Gelb 1952: 212-220), that the idea spread in various directions at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC from centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Proto-Elamite writing occurs only a short time after proto-cuneiform. It was used for a short period in vast areas of the Iranian plateau. In the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, writing is attested as far to the north as Ebla in Syria and to the east as the Indus culture in modern Pakistan. Minoan writing starts at Crete around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At that time, cuneiform writing is also attested further north in the regions of Anatolia.>>

figure1

3.Au fost TT in acel strat (VINCA) ? Au fost tablitele langa oase? Cine le-a gasit ?

Nu se stie deloc ;                                                                                                                                      – nu exista fotografii nici schite privind locul exact unde se afla fiecare artefact                – nu se stie cu exactitate ce persoane au fost prezente in preajma momentului descoperirii, unde se aflau exact sau pe unde au umblat in sit si nici care, cand si cat timp au mai si lipsit (ex. Vlassa)                                                                                                          – nu se cunoaste persoana care a vazut prima oara (gasit) TT (care le-a atins prima data)                                                                                                                                                         – nu se cunoaste cine si cand a impachetat artefactele, cine, cand le-a dus la muzeu si unde sau la cine le-a lasat                                                                                                                       – in concluzie, nu exista nici martori si nici-un fel de dovezi privitor la locul exact in care au fost gasite TT in cadrul intregului complex cultic, sau care a fost persoana care le-a atins prima data.Exista numai franturi de relatari disparate ale persoanelor care au participat la excavatii.Deasemenea vechimea estimata este intr-un mare ecart temporal.                                                                                                                                              CA ATARE, EU NU POT PUNE ,(CU TOT RESPECTUL) NICI-O BAZA PE ELEMENTELE CONCRETE DE LA LOCUL SI MOMENTUL DESCOPERIRII SI NICI PE VRE-O VECHIME ESTIMATA. CEL PUTIN MIE NU-MI SANT DE NICI-UN FOLOS, RAMANANDU-MI OPTIUNEA UNICA. ACEEA DE ANALIZA A SEMNELOR !

Iuliu Adrian PAUL ENIGMA TĂBLIŢELOR DE LA TĂRTĂRIA
SCHIŢĂ PRELIMINARĂ* http://bjastrasibiu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/130-iuliu.paul_.pdf

“Din păcate, semnele de întrebare în loc să scadă s-au înmulţit. Simpla
parcurgere a bibliografiei existente ilustrează în bună parte şi motivele. De
pildă, nimeni nu poate înţelege cum s-a putut săpa, preleva, transporta şi depozita un astfel de complex fără a sesiza prezenţa tăbliţelor, indiferent de
starea lor de conservare şi, poate, tocmai datorită acestei „stări”. ….                                   Am aşteptat, împreună cu studentul L.Attila, întoarcerea lui N. Vlassa după care, tot conform înţelegerii iniţiale am deschis şantierul de la Pianu, urmând ca la întoarcerea sa, N. Vlassa să mă contacteze pentru a hotărî procedura de urmat. Nu am mai primit nici o veste până în anul următor (1962) când am aflat despre descoperire şi publicarea acesteia în Dacia (N. Vlassa….). Ar mai fi de adăugat şi faptul că Laszló Attila, în prezent prof. univ. dr. în arheologie la Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, deşi a participat, de la începutul până la sfârşitul săpăturilor din 1961, nu a văzut – după propriile
sale mărturii, repetate – nici momentul descoperirii şi nici vreuna din piesele complexului. Tăbliţele le-a văzut pentru prima oară, la muzeu, după conservarea lor. “

4. Actualmente, exista vre-o metoda stiintifica de masurare exacta a varstei lor ?

La ora actuala nu exista. Varsta lor nu poate fi determinata cu niciuna din metodele actuale. De fapt mai exact, nu se mai poate, intrucat tablitele au fost arse in cuptor ; nu se cunoaste exact momentul, data, cine a hotarat si la ce temperatura, (necunoscuta). Cumva imediat dupa descoperire, pentru ca pareau a fi friabile.Si ca sa nu fie suficient, in plus, inainte de coacere au fost impregnate cu nitrolac !!

5.Pot fi sumeriene sau cat pot fi legate de faza incipienta a scrisului sumerian ?

Nu sant sumeriene, este absolut sigur.                                                                                    Cercetatori de top in domeniul proto-scrierii au afirmat ca desi prezinta asemanari cu faza proto-cuneiforma sumeriana, scrisul nu este autentic sumerian. Acesti cercetatori au amintit doar in trecere si superficial atat asemanarile cat si deosebirile. (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman si altii).                                                                                                  Eu am intrat inca si mai in detaliu si am explicat ca asemnele de pe tablite, prin forma lor reflecta doar in mare, schematic semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, dar nu au deloc forma lor concreta. Cercetarile lor prezinta lipsuri, adica:                                         – nu au identificat deloc unele semne, iar                                                                                       – pe altele le-au identificat gresit. (Ex. A.A.Vaiman. R.Kolev si altii).                                    Asemanarea semnelor cu cele sumeriene se datoreaza filogenezei scrisului. Adica filiatiei si originii ultime sumeriene a semnelor ( si de fapt a multor sisteme de scriere folosite in Orientul Apropiat si aria Egeeana). O asemenea filiatie, inafara de cea notata de cercetatorii I.Papakitsos si G.Kenanidis (relativ la scrisul proto-linear Egeean) am sustinut-o si explicat-o si eu in completarea lor si uneori mai detaliat.Totusi nu-mi explic care a fost gandirea unor asirologi  si specialisti in proto-scrierea sumeriana (nu a tuturora, ex. Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman, R.Kolev ) sa abordeze o interpretare sumeriana desi sustin ca nu sant propriu-zis sumeriene ? Totusi, ca sa fiu sincer, in general nu a abordat o interpretare pur sumeriana, adica sa foloseasca limba sumeriana ci in mare masura au interpretat semnele. Pentru ca interpretarea ideogramelor este asemanatoare (intelesuri asemanatoare) fie ca vorbim de scrierea sumeriana sau cea Egeeana. Imaginea, din  https://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

6.Care ar fi cateva exemple in sustinerea faptului ca TT nu sant original sumeriene ?

– intotdeauna semnele sumeriene pentru numere (cu forma aparenta a literei D) in Sumer au fost facute prin imprimare, ori la noi sant executate prin trasare/zgariere.Doar semnul sumerian proto-cuneiform NINDA=”paiine”, Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform asemanator cu primul semn D de la noi, era executat prin trasare.

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

– foarte multe semne desi reflecta schitat forma celor proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, de fapt forma lor concreta si exacta se aseamana mult mai mult cu cele aparute mult mai tarziu in scrierile Anatoliene, Egeene (ba chiar cu multe din aria Mediteraneana) precum si cele din Orientul Apropiat (canaanita, feniciana).                                         FAPTUL CA MAJORITATEA SEMNELOR DE PE TABLITA ROTUNDA REFLECTA O TRANSFORMARE SI EVOLUTIE, O PERIOADA ULTERIOARA PROTO-CUNEIFORMELOR, NU A FOST REMARCAT SI NICI CONSEMNAT DE ALTI CERCETATORI, CI NUMAI DE MINE !                                                                                             Un singur exemplu:                                                                                                                              – semnul H cu 3 bare orizontale, in forma lui concreta pe placuta, seamana mult mai mult, ba chiar este identic cu semnul Heth din vechea scriere canaanita, cu semnul Pa3 din cea Egeeana, sau cu semnul eta/heta din cea arhaica greceasca (cu aparenta de “semn strambat-inclinat”, cumva aparenta barelor verticale decalate).                                            Dar semnul este de fapt prezent in toata aria Mediteraneana.Doar un singur semn este identic cu cel proto-cuneiform, semnul +++++ ,”As” iar altul se apropie (primul D), de semnul sumerian “Sur“.

Sumerienii, in oricare perioada au folosit un scris unitar, corespunzator timpului in care traia scribul. Nu au folosit simultan si pe tablite separate si scrierea pictografica si cea ideografica, asa cum sant TT.

7. Forma TT este foarte importanta ?

Personal nu cred ca este. In fond putea fi optiunea unui individ. Altfel cunosc un exemplu de tablita rotunda (calendar sumerian)

Sumerian Star Chart 3300 BC     din  https://www.crystalinks.com/sumercalendars.html    si  niciuna sumeriana cu gaura.Apoi au existat tablite Egeene cu gaura, dar nu perfect rotunde.

Linear Script A, din http://arthistoryresources.net/greek-art-archaeology-2016/minoan-outline.html

Apoi discutia relativ la cat de plate sau bombate sant unele sau altele nu vad sa fie prea productiva.

8.TT sant  autentice ?

Depinde din ce punct de vedere privim autenticitatea.                                                                 DA. (In mai mare masura da decat nu ! )                                                                       (Oarecum, sau partial Nu, pentru ca nu par a fi rodul intentiei unui scrib de a comunica prin scris ceva legat de o necesitate stringenta sau concreta (fie ea de orice natura, economica sau religioasa.)

Da, pentru ca cel ce le-a scris se pare ca nu a urmarit sa pacaleasca pe cineva (din prezent sau viitor !?) si orice intentie concreta necunoscuta noua a avut, scribul a fost bine intentionat. Se pare ca a vrut sa exerseze evolutia scrisului sau sa arate cuiva aceeasi evolutie si principiile de baza ale scrisului.

9. Daca ar fi adevarat ca a vrut sa arate evolutia scrisului si principiile sale de baza, ar putea fi in plus un gen de tablite de scoala, precum cele de invatare a scrisului de catre scolarii scribi sumerieni ?

Nu, categoric, asta nu.Pentru ca in general asemenea tablite “de scolarizare”                         – puneau elevii sa copieze ce scria invatatorul, apoi                                                                     – invatau elevii sa imparta tablita in sectoare pentru texte, cu ajutorul liniilor de demarcatie si apoi                                                                                                                                 – aveu un continut cu caracter repetitiv, cum ar fi liste de obiecte sau meserii, etc.

Din  The tablet House: a scribal school in old Babylonian Nippur

Table 1

Table 3 The order of the elementary curriculum in House F[20]
Table 3
tableau im13

10. Care este rostul, explicatia pentru care  sant 3 tablite ?

Intrebarea se poate pune pentru ca daca ai ceva de comunicat scrii totul pe o tablita si nu imprastii mesajul in trei parti. Sau macar scrii folosind acelasi sistem de scriere. Raspunsul este tocmai acela ca a vrut sa arate evolutia scrisului  de la pictograme spre ideograme, ba chiar cumva pana inspre silabograme si litere.

                                                                                                 – Avem o tablita dreptunghiulara (negaurita) cu pictograme.                                                    – O tablita dreptunghiulara (gaurita) cu ideograme.(Aceste ideograme/logograme pot avea in extremis functia de silabograme)                                                                                        – Tablita rotunda (cu gaura) dupa toate aparentele prezinta silabograme Egeene, sau chiar litere (Anatoliene/arhaice grecesti), (inafara de 2 semne/ideograme complexe prezente in sfertul dreapta-jos.)

11. Exista cazuri in lume in care sa se foloseasca de catre acelasi scrib simultan doua sau trei sisteme de scriere ?

Doar cu titlu exceptional, cu doua da, de ex. piatra Roseta cu scris cuneiform egiptean si grec,                                                                                                                                                          – dar nu exista nici-un caz in care sa apara 3 sisteme de scriere (cum e cazul nostru) si deloc care inca in plus sa cuprinda sisteme a caror ecart de raspandire temporala sa acopere 2000-3000 de ani !                                                                                                                                                      (Proto-scrierea sumeriana 3.300BC, Cretana hieroglifica 2.000 BC, Linear A/B 1500 BC, scrierea arhaica greceasca 800-300BC)

12. Se sustine supozitia (oarecum majoritara) ca semnele au fost folosite in cadrul unor ceremonii religioase ?

Desi cercetatorii fac referinta unii pentru utilizare economica iar altii religioasa, niciunul nu sustine sau demonstreaza apartenenta completa la vreuna din alternative. Cu alte cuvinte lasa cale deschisa pentru oricare interpretare, (inclusiv una mixta !?)

Balanta inclina serios inspre afirmativ.                                                                                        ( ( usor Nu, intrucat tablitele contin doar 2 ideograme complexe (in cea rotunda sfertul dreapta-jos) care ar putea avea rol in ceremonii religioase, iar in rest toate semnele au fost folosite in diferite arii de diferite civilizatii pentru scris propriu-zis ! Multi cercetatori sustin o utilizare a lor in domeniul economic.)

Prepondrent Da, intrucat                                                                                                                    – tablita rotunda contine in sfertul dreapta-jos 2 ideograme complexe si apoi                  – cea dreptunghiulara cu gaura contine multe ideograme/logograme, toate acestea aplicabile ritualurilor religioase.                                                                                                   – Si iarasi da, intrucat este f. posibil ca DOAR jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde sa contina o formula verbala scrisa spre folosinta in asemenea ceremonii. Acesta poate fi sau este explicatia faptului ca aceasta portiune era in mod uzual ascunsa vederii directe a trecatorilor, fiind acoperita de cea dreptunghiulara.

13. Ce pregatire avea scribul in materie de scris ?

Majoritatea cercetatorilor sustin ca era aproape iliterat. Eu am sustinut total in trecut aceasta opinie generala. Se pare ca in general tablitele sant acoperite cu multe semne provenite din diferite sisteme de scriere si singura portiune unde scribul pare sa fi reusit sa scrie, este jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde.Probabil a avut constient in intentie acest lucru de la bun inceput !                      (!…iliterat-iliterat,…cat de iliterat putea fi? Putem mai repede doar afirma ca nu stapanea bine scrisul, pentru ca totusi a avut capacitatea si stiinta sa adune si sa expuna semne utilizate in mare extindere spatiala si temporala !). De aceea eu nu zic ca nu era aproape iliterat, ci doar canu stapanea foarte bine scrisul.                                                                                                                                            Indiferent de unde era, avand acces la o vasta biblioteca de semne, eu il vad mai degraba ca un gen de Berossus al timpului sau ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus

14.Cat ar putea fi de noi tablitele?

Dupa parerea mea, ar putea sa nu fie mai vechi de 1.200-1.500 B.C., timpul inceputului scrierii vechi canaanite.                                                                                                                             Teoretic si practic ar putea fi atat de noi incat sa atinga chiar perioada scrisului arhaic grecesc 800-300 BC sau cel eteocretan acare poate ajunge pana in Era noastra.

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.pngDar este exlus sa fie mai noi de Evul Mediu timpuriu datorita urmelor certe de oarece vechime.posibilitatea unei inscriptionari de data recenta nu depaseste aceea de a fi scrisa mai demult, de un preot catolic scolit !?!, care a avut acces la scrieri si documente vechi.                                                                                                                      Tablitele se prezinta ca o colectie de multe semne, aparent disparate provenite din arii si perioade de timp diferite, dar totusi ordonate si cumva impartite in 3 mari categorii evolutive. 

                                                                                             Cine si mai ales cand,unde ar fi putut face acest lucru ? Este cu atat mai usor cu cat ne apropiem de timpurile moderne unde posibilitatea accesului la semne folosite in trecut creste. 

15. Semnele de pe tablite apartin sau se incadreaza intr-un scris anume, particular din lume ? Adica pot fi citite toate 3 folosind un singur sistem de scriere ?

Nu ! De fapt intreaga mea munca cuprinde cu preponderenta testarea succesiva a diferitelor sisteme de scriere.Din pacate nici-o tablita nu se incadreaza complet in vreunul. Dar-mite (exclus) toate 3 tablietele simultan !                                                           Cea mai mare apropiere, respectiv cel mai mare numar de semne se regasesc in scrierea proto-cuneiforma sumeriana si aproape la egalitate cu semnele scrierilor Anatoliene.(semnele se regasesc disparat in diferitele scrieri Anatoliene, in top fiind scrierea cariana).

Din Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

Image result for carian alphabets

Urmeaza apoi ca apropiere, o serie de scrieri din aria Mediteraneana, aici in top fiind scriereile Egeene.Din aceste motive scrierea si desigur tablitele par a avea o vechime ulterioara lui 2.400 BC. (Vezi scrierea hieroglifica Cretana 2200-2000 BC si linear A, 1800-1500 BC).                                                                                                                                                   Niciuna din tablite nu se poate citi folosind nici macar pentru fiecare cate o anume scriere. Cu atat este si mai imposibil sa poata fi interpretate/citite folosind un sistem de scriere concret pentru toate trei !

16. Strict d.p.d.v. al semnelor ce apreciere se poate da vechimii semnelor ?

Daca tinem cont ca multe semne si in mare masura  seamana cu cele sumeriene (reflectand doar schitat forma lor), am putea lua in considerare ca reflecta acea scriere veche proto-cuneiforma si atunci ne-am putea apropia de 2.500 B.C. Dar daca tinem cont ca in general semnele arata a fi mult mai recente (noi); in pacate, cateva (e adevarat putine) nu au fost folosite in forma concreta prezenta pe tablite absolut deloc in lume inainte de 1.200-1.500 BC !(ex. semnul D).                                                                      Din aceasta perspectiva concreta, vechimea ar fi maxim 1.500 B.C. !

Din http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2010/03/qeiyafa-ostracon-inscription-this-large.html author Brian Colless
This large potsherd was found on the floor of a room at Khirbet Qeiyafa, overlooking the road to Philistia and the Elah Valley, SW of Jerusalem, and is now in the Israel Museum

Image result for qeiyafa ostracon age                                                                                                    Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C.?)…a se observa semnele D!

17. Tablitele ar putea apartine vre-unui scris Danubian, al Vechii Europe sau de sorginte daco-traca ?

Categoric nu. Civilizatia Danubiana/Vechii Europe s-a apropiat, dar nu a atins nici macar stadiul proto-scrierii, darmi-te scriere.Mai apoi in aceasta zona nefiind o societate inalt stratificata economic-social. Nu pot spune ca nefiind demonstrata o atractie sau daruire pentru scris, pentru ca aceasta civilizatie a lasat o colectie impresionanta de semne.De fapt tablitele sant un unicat absolut.Tablitele de la Gradeshnita, Karanovo, Dispilio si altele, apartin in mare civilizatiei Danubiene, dar unor segmente de culturi distincte. Oricum, altor faze ale evolutiei scrisului mai vechi decat cele de la Tartaria.

Din Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

“Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28].                                                                                                                               …………..The first Neolithic inhabitants of Europe are described archeologically as belonging to the Aegean Early Neolithic cultures [27], from which the bearers of both the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in Serbia, Romania and Hungary [2837] and the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe (LBK) [21] emerged.                                                          …………These data are in line with the idea of a common origin of the LBK and Starčevo-Criş cultures from the Aegean Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece/Thessaly, the first Neolithic complex in Europe [24].                                                                                     ……………..Fernandez E, Perez-Perez A, Gamba C, Prats E, Cuesta P, Anfruns J, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C Near Eastern Farmers supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islans. “

18. Scribul este nativ al Tartariei ?

Categoric nu ! Comunitatea locala nu stapanea scrisul. Tablitele au fost inscriptionate de un individ cu alta origine. Din Anatolia? si  posibil din aria Egeeana (Creta ?),sau daca vreti generic proto-greaca. A se retine ca Anatolia este limitrofa Sumerului, ariilor Egeeana, Siriana si Danubiana; (de asemenea exista indicii privind prezenta unor mestesugari Anatolieni in aria Vinca).                                                                                            TT puteau totusi sa fie inscriptionate efectiv de aceasta persoana in locul sau de bastina, sau in extremis chiar la Tartaria.

19. Care ar fi putut fi ocupatia sau meseria scribului ?

Parerea altora, (care a fost si a mea) este aceea ca sant sanse maxime sa fie vorba de un prospector sau comerciant.                                                                                                       Acum sub nici-o forma nu sustin vre-o varianta de prospector sumerian. Sant mai precaut si prefer sa nu ma exprim de maniera categorica in privinta ocupatiei personajului, dar putea fi un individ cu orizont cultural si poate un gen de “itinerant”.

20.Din perspectiva evolutiei si existentei tuturor sistemelor de scriere din lume, care este locul ocupat de TT ?

Aici trebuie sa spun ca datorita asemanarii mari cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme, dar si cu scrisul folosit aria Egeeana si  Anatolia, in mare masura a fost posibila interpretarea relativ facila a TT folosind fiecare sau oricare din aceste scrieri de mai sus. Aceasta arata pe de o parte originea dar si raspandirea scrisului in spatiu si timp.Scribul si scrisul provin de undeva din interiorul spatiului delimitat de aceste civilizatii. (Anatoliana-Sumeriana-Siriana-Egeeana-Danubiana)

Din Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?  https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/28/writing-in-neolithic-europe-an-aegean-origin/

“For many years the earliest writing was assumed to have originated in Uruk, in Sumeria, Mesopotamia c. 3100 BC. Evidence from Egypt has now dated writing to c. 3400-3200 BC, while evidence from the Indus Valley suggests a date of 3500 BC for the development of writing there.  In the 1980s, a system of writing was noticed in the Balkans of the Final Neolithic period. This was identified as “pre-writing” by Shan Winn (1981) and Emilia Masson (1984) who considered whether this constituted a Vinča “script.” They each concluded that the Vinča signs represented a “precursor” to writing.

 

…   The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.”

 

21. Tablitele pot purta sau poarta scriere adevarata ?

Parerea generala a cercetatorilor experti in proto-scriere este ca nu. Aceasta, intrucat ei fac apropierea semnelor de cele folosite in proto-scrierea sumeriana, respectiv semnele proto-cuneiforme.Folosirea semnelor proto-cuneiforme conduce implicit si in mod unic la proto-scriere ! 

Covarsitoarea majoritate a semnelor conduce inspre proto-scrierea sumeriana. Cercetatorii au observat ca o parte din semne nu sant identice cu cele sumeriene, dar probabil au avut in vedere o forma schimbata, fara ca sa explice cum, unde si de ce  aceasta schimbare si adaptare putea sa aiba loc. Avand la baza interpretarea sumeriana, in general interpretarile lor se aseamana si in plus se aseamana si cu interpretarea mea “sumeriana”                                                                                                     Unii au dat tablitelor o interpretare economica, si au vazut in jumatatea de sus-drepta a tablitei rotunde numere. Insa daca acceptam ca acea parte era ascunsa si avea continut ezoteric, ne dam seama ca nu are sens ca cineva sa ascunda numere ! Deci ori numere, ori continut ezoteric, una din doua ! Multi altii au remarcat ideograme nu numai aplicabile ci chiar au fost folosite in domeniul religios. Adevarul este ca ar putea foarte bine sa aiba un continut mixt, in situatia in care reflecta o ofranda de cereale si animale ! Ce am observat, este faptul ca prezinta mari similaritati cu scrierile vechi Egeene (hieroglifica Cretana si Linear A, desi asemanarea semnelor cu cele sumeriene este mai mare.)                                                                                                                                                                Exemple de asemanare a semnelor sumeriene cu cele egeene:

Semn sumerian    Semn Egeean          Semnificatie                                                                             As,Se                          Te                          Cereale                                                                                  Gu,Gud                      Mu                           taur                                                                               Amar                        (a)Ma                     vitel/zeita-Mama                                                                 An                              ?                          zeu,cer                                                                                       Bad                            Da(Sa?)                        sacrificat,mort/                                                                 Ab /Zag/Ga’ar             Labrys               templu,stralucire/divin                                                      Ud                              capra,ied                         capra,ied                                                           Dara                                -”                                    -“-                                                               Ararma                      Asasara                          zeitate astrala?                                                         Gar                                   D                              masura volum cereale

Din https://enigmatica.ro/placutele-de-la-tartaria/

Image result for tablitele tartaria

Din https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2015/cdlj2015_001.html                                                           BAD: …it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.”

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

Din https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

Din https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Ab Amar An Ararma As Sze/Se Ud5 Zag~a Zag~c Dara~3d Ga’ar~b1 Sur  Gar

 

Atat interpretarile altor cercetatori cat si interpretarile mele (atat cea sumeriana cat si cea Egeeana) , fac trimitere la o interpretare ritualica, religioasa !

22. Care este parerea mea, ar putea purta scriere adevarata ?

Eu sper ca da, pe tablita rotunda, jumatatea de sus;                                                                    ( cu toate ca avem acolo un gen de combinatie “imposibila“de semne  ( secventa “DDoo/DDoc”) si aparent fara iesire ).                                                                                           Totusi, chiar in acea jumatate de sus a tablitei rotunde, am putea avea literele arhaice grecesti:

  • In stanga: Eta/Heta  Rho/D?     si                                                                                               – in dreapta:DDoo, DDoc?/ Dboc?/RRoo, RRoc ?

23. Ce ar putea fi scris la o adica, ce posibile texte ?

Se pare ca nu vom putea avea vreodata o certitudine absoluta ce text concret.(Pentru ca pot fi mai multe posibilitati de litere si nu santem siguri daca semnele P/D sant de fapt D sau R ; un numar concret de litere poate conduce la un numar relativ mari de combinari de n cate m)

24. Macar se pot face supozitii ?

Da, ar exista un set de propuneri care merita analizate, de exemplu:

Here RRoc albaneza  here rrok= timp prinde,intelege

HeRos  DiBoc=DiVos greaca  Domn/stapan Zeu (utilizare in ritual religios ?)

EDe DiDou greaca “acum sa dai!”/”sa dai sa mananci !”                                                                                       (Aceasta propunere de mai sus este de oarece interes, intrucat radacina ED este prezenta atat in cuvinte legate de mancare (ex. EDibil) cat si in acela de ied Ed.hedus,edus. Pe tablita pictografica avem unul sau mai multi iezi?. Deci prin pictograma iedului ne poate sugera cuvantul Ed,Ede !: mananca!/ied, iedule)

HeDe Didou greaca acum,deja sa dai ! (sa dai iezi?; utilizare in ritual religios ?)

! Atentie, *hed este radacina Proto Indo-Europeana pentru ‘mananca‘ !

HRist(os) DDoc latina “de doctrina christiana”

HeRo, ERo DDoc(Decretorum Doctor)  latina voi fi doctor (lat.”profesor”) in doctrina teologica)etc.

25.Incaodata.                                                                                                                                        De ce 3 tablite, fiecare cu “scris” diferit, si cum se explica aceasta (doar aparenta !) ingramadire de semne ?

De fapt nu este o gramada ci o colectie de semne.Este rodul unui efort constient si intentionat. Retineti ca si pentru mine, care am ajuns sa retin sute de semne din fiecare sistem de scriere, nu mi-ar fi neaparat usor.Daca as vrea sa arat unui student sau oricarui cititor principalii pasi in aparitia si evolutia scrisului, as proceda asemanator.

Pe o tablita as figura semne pur pictografice, asa cum sant cele de pe tablita pictografica.As alege cam acelasi fel,gen de semne de baza, care sant aproape identice in proto-scriera sumeriana cu cele din scrierea hieroglifica cretana respectiv Linear A.Semnele pentru cereale, caprine.Acolo mai avem un semn absolut abscons, posibil duh, om, zeitate !?

Pe a doua (asa cum este tablita dreptunghiulara cu gaura), as figura ideograme sumeriene care aproape in totalitate se regasesc in silabogramele Egeene.(semne gen: cereale, zeitate, labrys,zeitate, taur).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Pe a treia (cazul celei rotunde) as figura trecerea la scrierea integral si pur fonetica (dar nu neaparat alfabetica !).Acele semne au corespondete fonetice atat in ideogramele sumeriane cat si in silabogramele Egeene, ba chiar pana la lierele Anatoliene si arhaice grecesti.

Exemple:

– pe tablita pictografica, pictograma sumeriana pentru cereale , asemanatoare cu semnul Cretan hieroglific pentru cereale si apoi pictograma comuna pentru capra.

– pe tablita dreptunghiulara cu gaura, 3 exemple: semnul sumerian Se= semnul linear A “Te”, cereale.Apoi semnul ‘cap de animal cu urechi lungi’, sumerian “Amar” /vitel si Cretan hieroglific/linear A “Mu”/bou, linear B “Ma”/zeita mama.Si inca semnul constelatiei Orion, sumerian “Zag”/stralucirea metalului, linear A “Labrys“/semnul puterii divine, linear B “A”

-Pe tablita rotunda, numai 2 exemple: semnul H cu 3 bare este sumerianul “Ku”, linear A “Pa3”,canaanit “Heth” si arhaic grecesc “Heta/Eta”, vechi latin “H”.

Semnul (ca si # dar numai cu 1 bara verticala) :sumerian “Pa” si cel din linear A “Pa” (ulterior “Z” in foarte multe scrieri)

Din nu stiu ce motiv, tot pe tablita rotunda, sfertul dreapta-jos, apar 2 ideograme complexe, ex. una este templul zeitatii solare Samas= semnul zeitatii punice Tanit=semnul zeitei astrale minoice Asasara.                                                                           From https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/baal-hammon-and-tanit-0012136

 Punic Goddess Tanit                                                                                  ——————————————————–

26. Ce a urmarit scribul de fapt, chiar si aratand ca stie cum a evoluat scrisul ?

Daca dupa un efort sustinut si tenace am reusit sa am oarecum “in degetul mic” sau in minte, (… unde vreti), mii de semne grupate in diferite sisteme de scriere; (nu compar abilitatea sau expertiza mea cu a altora, desi doresc o asemenea provocare).                                    Daca eu as vrea sa arat cuiva evolutia scrisului in lume, si as fi obligat sa o fac extrem de succint, ( ex. sa ma rezum la doar 3 tipuri/categorii), avand la dispozitie toate posibilitatile de documentare ale secolului XX, as proceda asemanator, sau aproape exact ca scribul.

CAND VINE VORBA DE A ARATA DEZVOLTAREA SCRISULUI, WIKIPEDIA OFERA TOT          3 STADII PRINCIPALE :                                                                                                                       Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages:

  • Picture writing system: glyphs (simplified pictures) directly represent objects and concepts. In connection with this, the following substages may be distinguished:
    • Mnemonic: glyphs primarily as a reminder;
    • Pictographic: glyphs directly represent an object or a concept
    • Ideographic: graphemes are abstract symbols that directly represent an idea or concept.
  • Transitional system: graphemes refer not only to the object or idea that it represents but to its name as well.
  • Phonetic system: graphemes refer to sounds or spoken symbols, and the form of the grapheme is not related to its meanings.
  • cine, de unde era si in ce timp, si cel mai important, cu ce scop, a facut o colectie de semne ordonata si impartita in 3 mari grupe de evolutie istorica ?.                                              Nota-bene, semne cu o extindere a folosintei lor pe un ecart temporal de vre-o 2.000 de ani ( ~2.500-500 BCE)?
  • RETINETI, FAPTUL DACA A ARATAT CUIVA EVOLUTIA SCRISULUI, ACEASTA NU IMPLICA DELOC FAPTUL CA ACEA “AUDIENTA” AR FI INVATAT ASTFEL SA SCRIE.                                                                     ———————————————————-

27. Urmeaza o mare intrebare; astept cu deosebit interes opiniile Dv.

Retineti, tablitele sant reale si materiale, nu vin de undeva din realitatea virtuala, si in consecinta nu sant copiile altora, deci exista in original, au fost facute totusi de cineva, si in aceasta acceptie sant originale si nu contrafacute, falsuri.

Apoi, explicati-mi va rog, cum cercetatori de top in domeniul proto-scrierii, respectiv al scrierii proto-cuneiforme, desi au luat nota de similaritatile semnelor de pe TT cu acelea sumeriene,s-au limitat in a se referi rapid si poate oarecum superficial  doar la cateva aspecte.

!!!    Ceea ce imi scapa complet intelegerii este faptul ca niciunul din acestia nu a observat si nu a facut referire la faptul ca semnele sant oarecum grupate, ca si cum cineva le-a impartit in 3 categorii de evolutie istorica ??. 

  Spre exemplu, unui cercetator cu zeci de publicatii si carti, care a epuizat literalmente  subiectul TT din perspectiva tuturor ramurilor interdisciplinare (arheologie, istorie, cultura, semiologie, etc. etc.) incepand din neolitic, (daca nu aproape de mezolitic) i-au scapat aceste aspecte esentiale. Respectiv similaritatile cu civilizatiile levantina, Egeeana, Anatoliana si Mediteraneeana.                                                                                   Si poate mai grav absenta absoluta a oricarei referinte la acest gen de display al semnelor aparent ordonate in evolutie istorica, temporala. Daca la unii fara inalta specializare in scriere si proto-scriere, si ma refer aici la persoana domnului Marco Merlini este oarecum scuzabil nu este scuzabil pleiadei de specialisti mondiali de top.                                                                                                                                                           ( prefer sa nu ma refer deloc la colaboratorul de rang intai al D-lui merlini, dl. Prof. Gheorghr Lazarovici)

28. O posibila explicatie ?

Aceasta idee mi-a venit mai demult, si ar putea explica rolul de fapt si de drept al tablitelor. Cum ar fi ca ele sa fie aduse de un gen de misionar al nu stiu carui timp si religii, iar tablita rotunda sa contina in jumatatea de sus,                                                                                                                                                                                                          (Fotografiile din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

pornind de la literele “HP” “Di b o c”,   tocmai o formula religioasa, gen:

greaca:  HeRo(s) DIVOS = DOMNUL ZEU = DUMNEZEU

latina:    HeRu(s) DeiVOS=    -“-           -“-   =           -“-

sau una religioasa/crestina (parte a rugaciunii “Tatal Nostru” da-ne noua (astazi) painea cea de toate zilele:

greaca:   EDE/HeDe ! DiDos/DIDOU !      :  DA   Acum/ MANANCA/SA MANANCI !

latina:       ED/EDE                DeDOU=DeDU(i) :                   IED/MANANCA             DA !

Din ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic … http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea                                                                                                           The barbarians were the ancient Europeans, non-Greeks, whose speech was not understood by the Greeks. ….. divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos.

Din https://www.etymonline.com › word
deva | Origin and meaning of deva by Online Etymology Dictionary
… cognate with Greek dios “divine” and Zeus, and Latin deus “god” (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine,” in derivatives “sky,

Din https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/  by Richard Vallance Janke

didomi-linear-b-archaic-new-testament

(pe tablita pictografica avem un ied si posibil o silueta umana cu ambele maiini intinse)

…. sau te miri ce alta posibila formula.                                                                                            Prezenta celorlalte semne, care se pare ca nu contin scris mi-o explic prin intentia de a crea un cadru, aparenta, dar si senzatia si atmosfera  unei continuitati si transmiterii  unor cunostinte si conceptii religioase de natura vesnic-imuabila, cu originea in trecutul foarte indepartat. Faptul ca absolut toate semnele de pe TT au fost folosite pentru scris, mie i-mi ridica mari suspiciuni. Ca si cum acea persoana ar fi avut acces la surse gen biblioteca din Alexandria sau cea a Vaticanului !?.De fapt nu ar trebui sa ma mire chiar asa mult intrucat preotii chiar aveau acces la asemenea surse si erau printre principalii propagatori ai culturii in general.

IN MUNCA SI AVENTURA GASIRII UNUI LOC SI A UNEI PROPRII IDENTITATI PENTRU TT, NOI TOTI AM FOST CONFRUNTATI CU ATATEA ASPECTE SI CARACTERISTICI NEOBISNUITE, CHIAR CIUDATENII, INCAT DISCUTIA PARE SA SE MUTE PAS CU PAS, DIN DOMENIUL SCRISULUI SI AL STIINTEI, IN CEL AL OBIECTELOR DE PE PAMANT CAZUTE DIN SPATIUL COSMIC !