In limba romana:
Atentie! Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste
===== Afirmatiile si sustinerile care urmeaza, nu au mai fost facute de altcineva/de nimeni. Pot oferi dovezi faptice si documentare pentru fiecare sustinere, atat din lucrarile mele cat si punctual, la cerere.
- Tablitele de la Tartaria categoric nu apartin niciunui strat al civilizatiei sau culturii Vinca. Ultima faza a culturii Vinca, Vinca-C s-a incheiat la 4.200 B.C. !! Doar reiterez concluziile foarte multora, deci nu-mi apartine intaietatea pentru afirmatie, dar sant mai mult decat de acord si pot sustine : Cultura Vinca nu a atins faza proto-scrierii si cu atat mai putin acea a scrierii. Modul in care tablitele au fost asociate Civilizatiei Vinca si unei vechimi apropiate de 5.300 B.C. nu ma priveste, dar pare sa avem de-a face posibil cu o grava eroare, unul din rarele si nedoritele “accidente arheologice”. 2. Tablitele de la Tartaria evidentiaza faza prot-scrierii ( posibil chiar scriere in tablita rotunda in special jumatatea de sus) 3. Cele 3 tablite posibil evidentiaza fiecare, cate una din cele 3 faze principale ale evolutiei scrisului: pictografica, ideografica si silabara/alfabetica. 4. Semnele par a apartine etapei proto-cuneiforme sumeriene dar totodata dau impresia unei colectii de semne apartinand unui mare ecart temporal, ex. 2.000 de ani. 5. Sansele ca cineva sa aiba acces la semne dintr-un asemenea ecart temporal cresc cu cat ne apropiem de timpurile noastre. 6. Tablitele desi prin compozitia dezlanata par a nu fi folosit unei necesitati practice uzuale si sociale in cadrul unei comunitati par sa fi folosit – spre a arata evolutia scrisului in lume. – Totusi, exista sanse reale sa fi fost folosite in scop religios: ofranda,jertfa unei zeitati constand din capre si cerele/paiine. 7. Semnele se apropie cel mai mult de cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme, observatie corecta care nu-mi apartine, urmand apoi ca apropiere literele din alfabetele Anatoliene. Aspectul neremarcat de altcineva este acela ca semnele reflecta in mod perfect, insa schitat semnele sumeriene.Semnele de pe tablita au posibil la origine semnele sumeriene insa au o forma cumva mai “rafinata” care arata o schimbare/adaptare/ evolutie in timp fiind prezente in multe scrieri ulterioare(Linear A, Canaanita,Feniciana, arhaica greaca etc.) 8. Pentru observatia ca scrisul nu este original sumerian si nici scribul nativ sumerian nu am intaietatea, dar am observat si demonstrat si eu acest fapt. Semnele si scriitorul desi reflecta o filiatie si legatura directa “de sange” cu Sumerul, pot proveni mai degraba din Levant (ex.Siria)aria, Egeeana (Creta, Ciclade), eventual Anatolia. 9.Vechimea lor poate apartine in extremis intervalului 3.000-300 B.C., ( N.Vlassa a avansat 2.700 B.C.) 10.Am facut un studiu comparativ al semnelor de pe t. Tartaria relativ la semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme pe de o parte si cele Egeene pe de alta parte. Am gasit si scos in evidenta o suma de elemente comune intre toate acestea trei ! …dovada certa a unei filiatii. ====================================================Careful/ Attention ! This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions. ======
The folowing ideas and assertions are the results of a deep focussed research, and were not made by anybody else before, there are all mine. For every of them, if asking, I can furnish strong evidences and additional documentation. 1. Some scientists stressed (so I could not claim authorship) that Tartaria tablets do not pertain to Vinca Culture.(Vinca culture. last phase Vinca-C ended in 4.200 B.C. They are newer than Petresti, Baden, Cotofeni cultures. Also stressed by others, and I am for it, Vinca Culture not reached the proto-writing phase, so less the writing phase. How the tablets were included by romanian archaeologist Lazarovici and italian Marco Merlini into the Vinca Culture, and how the innitial claimed/estimated age of the tablets was close to 5.300 B.C. is not my business, it seem to assist to an huge error, one of the rare cases of “archaeological accidents” One must go to school and learn that no society in entire World were developed enough in order to start proto-writing stage before 3.500 B.C. !! 2. Tartaria tablets could carry true writing. ( chances in entire round tablet but higher in the upper half) 3. Every of all 3 tablets show, if wanted or unwanted, one of three main stages of world writing developement: – pictographic, – ideographic and – syllabic/alphabetic 4. The signs on all 3 tablets, were used in a large time span, aprox. 1000-2.000 years. 5. The chances to have access to the signs used in such extended time period, are rising from past toward toward present time. 6. a)The tablets shows as an hodge-podge of signs, b)seem do not have been used for a practical purpose of members of a comunity, c)but there are some chances to have been used in religious rituals. d)An offering sacrifice ritual of cereals/bread & goats to a deity I’m claming only a)+d). 7. a)Many scientists stressed that the signs are closest in appearance to sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, b)folowed in order by Anatolian alphabets letters. Claiming only b) Signs are “alike” sumerian-ones but only as their sketches, cause shows kind of “refined shape” due of an evolution in the course of time. In actual Tartaria tablets shape there are present here and there in different writings, as Linear A, Old Canaanite, Phoenician, archaic Greek….and others. 8. Other scientists stressed before me that writing was not genuine sumerian nor the scribe a native sumerian. The disposition of sign and writing technique is not entirely sumerian ! Me: Even the signs origin is in Sumer, much more, even the writer ancestors origin could be in Sumer, the scribe “wrote” the tablets in Europe, Aegean area (Crete, Cyclades ?) 9. The age of the tablets (not the same as that of bones and rest of artifacts found near), seem upon my view could be in 3.000-300 B.C. range, ( discoverer N.Vlassa advanced 2.700 B.C. !!) 10. I compared the signs present on Tartaria tablets with sumerian proto-cuneiform ones and also with that Aegean ones. The similiraties are much greater with sumerian than to Aegean ! I found a lot of common elements, in my view, a certain evidence of a sumerian origin & filiation ! … (as found in the same time<?> , but not as well evidenced as me , by I.Papakitsos and G,Kenanidis ) ================== Addit. DOC.================== From Minoan Sumerian
A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts https://www.academia.edu/11423494/Minoan_Sumerian?fbclid=IwAR1cHsnj_dzaYsXN8Jj4sVLRfWcn_bUXlGoLn-ar6DqCHaISdo460zwKfCY - From Investigating the Origins of the Minoan Civilization https://www.sumerianz.com › pdf-files › sjss2(4)33-44 by EC Papakitsos ; Minoan civilization; Sumerian … Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a;2015; Willetts, 1977), each one created for a …
- From (PDF) Cretan Hieroglyphics & Protolinear Script | Giannhs …
https://www.academia.edu › Cretan_Hieroglyphics_and_Protolinear_ScriptThe conveyed language must be a conservative form of Sumerian, as Cretan … the original and mainstream Minoan culture and religion – in contrast to Linear-A … making use of an originally Sumerian script (Papakitsos & Kenanidis 2015; …
- From Commentary and Discussion
Reply to Rao et al. and Lee et al.
Richard Sproat∗
Center for Spoken Language Understanding https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_c_00031
<<2.1 Misunderstandings about Nonlinguistic Symbols
A large part of the discussion in Rao’s response centers, as it should, on the question
of the “Type 1” (random) and “Type 2” (rigidly ordered) models, which I argued did
not accurately characterize any nonlinguistic symbol systems. At the core of this debate
is the Old European sign system of the Vinca, which is claimed to be a good instance ˇof Type 1, and the Mesopotamian deity symbols found on kudurru stones, which are
claimed to be good instances of Type 2.
To support the claims for Vinca, Rao provides a quote from Winn (1990), which ˇ
notes that the signs do not seem to have anyordering, and are “characteristically
disarranged.” But if one sees the broader context of this quote, it becomes clear that
Winn is talking here about a subset of the corpus, which is found on small vessels
and spindle whorls. He contrasts the inscriptions discussed in the quote given by
Rao with “the more arranged format of tablets and seals” (page 270), and then again
(page 276) where he notes that “[d]ifferences in complexity of sign usage is denoted
bysign ordering, which occurs on tablets and other objects, such as the plaque from
Gradesnica.” On page 263 he refers to the “discovery of tablets with script-like content ˇ
at Tartaria in 1961,” a clear indicator that the Vinca tablets would seem to involve some form of sign ordering. >>
From The Indus Valley Script https://rahulbasu.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/the-indus-valley-script/
<< The Indus valley script — is it a language or a bunch of pictograms? There is a school of thought which believes it’s a bunch of pictograms — typically of fish, rings, cows’ heads, and men. It seems now that this is not true. ………….The entropy of this conditional probability is, then, a measure of how much order there is in the sequence. ……………With this in hand, we compare sequences of both linguistic and non-linguistic tokens : English, both words and letters, Sumerian, Old Tamil, Sanskrit (linguistic), and DNA code, Fortran code, Kudurru inscriptions and Vinca symbols (non-linguistic). The entropy of all the linguistic systems falls within a narrow band, while the non-linguist sequences either have large (DNA, …) or small (Fortran, …) entropy. Repeating the same for the Indus sequences, we find that they fall right in the middle of the linguistic band. Thus, in the sense of syntax, the Indus script is far more akin to natural language, than to non-linguistic systems like DNA, Fortran, Kudurru and Vinca. >>
Tartaria tablets 
Leave a Reply