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. =====
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing#Developmental_stages In the history of how writing systems have evolved in different human civilizations, more complete writing systems were preceded by proto-writing, systems of ideographic or early mnemonic symbols (symbols or letters that make remembering them easier). True writing, in which the content of a linguistic utterance is encoded so that another reader can reconstruct, with a fair degree of accuracy, the exact utterance written down, is a later development. It is distinguished from proto-writing, which typically avoids encoding grammatical words and affixes, making it more difficult or even impossible to reconstruct the exact meaning intended by the writer unless a great deal of context is already known in advance.
From https://pdfslide.net/documents/history-of-writing.html Developmental stages A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages: Picture writing system: glyphs directly represent objects and ideas or objective and ideational situations. In connection with this the following substages may be distinguished: The mnemonic: glyphs primarily a reminder; The pictographic (pictography): glyphs represent directly an object or an objective situation such as (A) chronological, (B) notices, (C) communications, (D) totems, titles, and names, (E) religious, (F) customs, (G) historical, and (H) biographical; The ideographic (ideography): glyphs represent directly an idea or an ideational situation. Transitional system: glyphs refer not only to the object or idea which it represents but to its name as well. Phonetic system: glyphs refer to sounds or spoken symbols irrespective of their meanings. This resolves itself into the following substages: The verbal: glyph (logogram) represents a whole word; The syllabic: glyph represent a syllable; The alphabetic: glyph represent an elementary sound. Nota mea: Sistemele ideografic si cel de tranzitie sant cele cu care ne confruntam in tablitele de la Tartaria !…. …..dar este posibil ca partial sa intram si in faza fonetica, in special in ceea ce priveste jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde.
Textul in limba romana: Imaginea, din http://www.serbia.com/visit-serbia/cultural-attractions/archaeological-sites/vinca-the-cradle-of-european-civilization/ 
Folosirea aici a termenului “descifrare” ar avea doar rolul de a augmenta un presupus aspect ascuns si ezoteric al unui artefact inscriptionat (si nu neaparat “scris”) si al mesajului purtat. De fapt in covarsitoarea majoritate a cazurilor, nu avem de-a face cu un mesaj criptat, (…asta le mai trebuia celor de demult pe langa dificultatile legate de scris, sa se chinuie sa-l mai si ascunda cripteze-incifreze). Cu modestie, trebuie sa spunem ca vorbim de incercari de interpretare si doar eventual de citire. —————————————————– Totusi exista in domeniul paleografiei ceva apropiat de incifrare, in vin in minte cazurile tetragrammatonului (ebraic si grec), adica prescurtarea ascunsa a numelui zeitatii supreme, precum si simbolurile din perioada timpurie a crestinismului, cand crestinii erau prigoniti. Se pare ca nu-i nici vorba de tetragrammaton aici! —————————————————– Tablitele de la Tartaria ar intra in categoria cea mai grea a incercarii de citire a unui scris necunoscut, anume aceea in care nu se cunosc nici limba si nici sistemul de scriere. Daca s-a putut face putin de tot lumina in cazul scrisului, limba ramane necunoscuta. Chiar si daca ar ramane de exemplu numai limbile imediat apropiate, greaca, latina si traca, numarul cuvintelor rezultate in urma combinarilor intre x limbi si y semne este enorm. Cu situatii asemanatoare s-au confruntat in trecut Michael Ventris si Beddrich Hrozny ( dintre care primul a descoperit limba miceniana si scrierea linear B iar celalalt limba si scrierea hitita.) Dar si in ziua de azi ne confruntam cu asemenea incercari de descifrari, si aici dau cu titlu de exemplu, numai pe acelea ale inscriptiilor elamite, Linear A si a discului de la Faistos. In cazul scrierii linear A, desi se cunoaste sistemul de scriere, in sensul ca 90% este similar scrierii linear B descifrate, exista o sumedenie de ipoteze in privinta limbii folosite. Nu se stie cu certitudine nici macar familia din care face parte. Cat despre discul de la Faistos, exista vre-o 15 incercari de citire, toate facute de cei mai reputati cercetatori, de nivel mondial si nu exista o convergenta de opinii a ceea ce este scris pe el. Cazul tablitelor de la Tartaria se apropie de aceste ultime doua exemple, cu atat mai mult cat dupa mine o parte din semne apartin unei perioade de timp apropiate.
Din Massimo Vidale, 2007, ‘The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel’, East and West,vol. 57 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2kknbd/Massimos-arguments-are-convincing-in-the-context-of-Wanderworter-evidence-from/ << In order to decipher a lost writing system, you have to guess the language, guess the content, and you need relevant contexts on which independently and reasonably test your ideas…>> traducere: “ pentru a descifra un sistem de scriere, trebuie sa se depisteze limba, sa se depisteze continutul, si aveți nevoie de contexte relevante pentru care să vă testați ideile în mod independent și rezonabil” ….iar noi nu avem context relevant, nici alte texte, ci avem doar aceste tablite-unicat In privinta tablitelor de la Tartaria, exista incercari de interpretare folosind semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme (A.Falkenstein, A.Abramovici, R.Kolev si altii). Astfel au obtinut un gen de interpretare, pentru ca in stadiul proto-scrierii, adica al folosirii semnelor proto-cuneiforme, nu putem vorbi de scriere propriu-zisa ci doar de proto scriere. Astfel nimeni nu a putut face dovada ca ar putea fi vorba de scris propriu-zis. Imaginile, din https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm 
Daca semnele pe doua dintre tablite par a fi foarte vechi, situatia este diferita la cea rotunda.De notat ca si o parte din savantii enumerati, ca si mine au observat ca semnele cumva “mimeaza” semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene si nu sant toate original sumeriene. In plus fata de dansii, eu am accentuat faptul ca semnele reflecta o evolutie in timp prin aspectul lor mai “rafinat” si reflecta o evolutie in timp, fiind mult apropiate de semnele folosite in epoci ulterioare ! Exemplu de semne mai tarzii: Din Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html 
In mod natural si obiectiv, numarul combinatiilor posibile intre diferite limbi cuplat cu numarul mare de combinatii ale semnelor care genereaza idei si cuvinte este in final enorm.
From Helmut Stumfohl Die Entstehung der Schrift und das Problem
der Vinca-Schrift https://mdc.ulpgc.es/utils/getfile/collection/almog/id/80/filename/343.pdf ” Eine mehr oder minder begrenzte Zahl von Bildern oder reinen Zeichen
gestattet beliebig viele Möglichkeiten auszudrücken: einer endlichen Zahl von
Zeichen steht eine unendliche Zahl von Kombinationen des sprachlichen Stoffes gegenüber. ………….. Die Tartaria-Täfelchen enthalten natürlich nicht alle Zeichen der VincaSchrift, aber alle Zeichen der Tartaria-Täfelchen sind in der Vinca-Schrift vertreten.” Asa incat daca initial am gresit punand stacheta la o inaltime la care nu numai ca nu pot ajunge eu, dar se pare si altii, acum sant nevoit nu sa ma resemnez ci sa inteleg despre ce este vorba cu adevarat. Obtinerea unui mesaj, interpretari ori in caz extrem text adevarat, unic si ultimativ este mai mult decat o iluzie. Este demna de consemnat cercetarea Domnului Marco Merlini, extinsa si publicata in zeci de articole si carti, care desi a gasit toate semnele, doar disparat (!), in diferite locuri si scrieri din lume, nu a realizat ca folosind asemenea semne, in mai multe locuri in lume, s-a “cam” scris cu ele. Nu a putut face nici macar vre-un gen de conexiune legata de scris si a ajuns la concluzia socanta ca numai persoana care a inscriptionat semnele stia semnificatia lor, semnificatia lor fiind una de natura magica. Ba mai mult, dupa cate am inteles nici macar altii din alte comunitati chiar relativ apropiate, cum as zice “de peste deal” nu puteau intelege acea semnificatie !
Acestea fiind spuse, va propun in plus un exercitiu de imaginatie: – sa presupunem ca cineva, sau eu “gaseste” si publica aceasta versiune reala , care reflecta exact ce a vrut scribul in cap, de care nu stie nici autorul publicarii ca este cea reala. Rezultatul posibil ? Ceilalti cercetatori vor veni unul dupa altul si din spiritul competitivitatii, de la inaltimea pozitiei lor academice vor demonta complet aceasta versiune, eventual incercand sa demonstreze ca a lor este buna si adevarata. Apoi mai intervine un aspect: – Daca intradevar continutul este de natura mistico-religioasa, putem avea de-a face cu o incercare de comunicare a unui individ cu divinitatea.Aceasta comunicare, de o natura inefabila, nu poate fi descrisa si nici inteleasa fiind unica, particularizata persoanei, asa cum fiecare individ este unic. Ar insemna sa intram “cu picioarele” nu numai in mintea, dar si in sufletul lui. Ar fi poate un gen de violare si profanare atat a mesajului de adresare catre divinitate, cat si a intimitatii persoanei.
Daca ar fi vorba in extremis de o perioada a Culturii Vechii Europe, cu atat mai mult, cu cat acea societate pare a fi fost de factura edenica, negasindu-se arme cu care se puteau lupta intre ei sau cu altii, Asa incat se presupune ca am intra in lumea lor de o curatenie etica si morala, chiar noi aceia provenind dintr-o societate partial “cariata”, sa nu zic depravata.Cu atat mai mult ar fi un gen de impietate. Asa incat neintrand in intimitatea si sufletul lor am da dovada de respect, in primul rand a memoriei si a ceea ce au fost si reprezinta pentru umanitate: unul din leaganele de baza ale civilizatiei pamantenilor actuali. ATENTIE: Scrisul a aparut in Europa in principal pornind din aria Egeeana. Cel din aria Anatoliana (Luvian,Hitit) nu a fost asimilat sau folosit decat in Anatolia si nu s-a bucurat de succes, nu s-a pretat la o utilizare larga sau practica. Deci in principal scrisul a aparut in aria Egeeana. Originea ultima pare sa fi fost in Orient, Sumer. Sub influente din Anatolia (luviana) si aria Levantului (filistina). s-a dezvoltat apoi “local” (Creta). Rezultatele au fost proto-scrierea Cretana hieroglifica, urmata apoi de scrierile Linear A si Linear B. Din aria Egeeana scrierea s-a raspandit in toata aria Mediteraneana, (prin cea derivata cariana a ajuns si in Egipt) si apoi inspre nord in Balcani. Asa incat a. cea mai veche forma de scris gasita la noi indreptatit o putem suspiciona ca provine din sud, aria Egeeana/Creta. In plus constat o asemanare lingvistica intr o serie de limbi din spatiul Balcanic, ceea ce intareste ipoteza lingvistilor privitor la existenta unui initial continuum lingvistic Balcanic. Este vorba de limbile greaca, latina, italiana, albaneza, romana si poate si slava.
EXPUNERE CU CARACTER DIDACTIC :
Referitor la continut, daca asteptarile se indreapta spre o mare vechime, atunci: Din A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN – Academia Prisca “In Proto-Indo-European, simple sentences may be composed of only one word, a noun or a verb; as, God!, or (it) rains. NOTE 1. Nominal sentences of this type are usually Interjections and Vocatives. Verbal sentences of this type include Imperatives (at least of 2nd P.Sg.) ” traducere: << In Proto-Indo-Europeana, propozitiile simple pot fi compuse numai dintr-un singur cuvant, un substantiv sau un verb; ca si “Doamne!“, sau “ploua” NOTA 1. Propozitiile nominale de acest tip includ imperative (cel putin ale persoanei a II-a singular) >> Ex. latina “da !” greaca :”dos/didou!”
Din https://indo-european.info/WebHelp/7_verbs.htm << While the oldest PIE had possibly only indicative and imperative, a subjunctive and an optative were common in Late Indo-European, both used in the present, perfect and aorist. Not all dialects, however, developed those new formations further into a full system. ……3. The imperative is used for exhortation, entreaty, or command. >>
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_languag Third Conjugation << The bulk of Proto-Italic verbs were third-conjugation verbs, which were derived from Proto-Indo-European root thematic verbs. However, some are derived from other PIE verb classes, such as *linkʷō (PIE nasal-infix verbs) and *dikskō (PIE *sḱe-suffix verbs). Example Conjugation: *ed-e/o- (to eat)
| Present Imperative | Active | Passive |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd. Sing. | *ede | *edezo |
| 2nd. Plur. | *edete | — |
>> Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%94%CE%B4%CF%89 ἔδω • (édō) Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *h₁ed- Active, Imperative singular, 2-nd : ἔδε
In acelasi timp cu *h₁ed- “mananca”, avem proto-albanez
Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/edh << edh m (indefinite plural edha, definite singular edhi, definite plural edhat)
- goat kid (under a year old)>> Aici am impresia ca sant cot la cot cu “scriitorul”, cumva la un pas in urma lui, uitandu-ma peste umarul lui. A facut absolut tot posibilul sa transmita un mesaj, respectiv “sa dai sa mananci”. A figurat pe tablita pictografica capara, ied, apoi a incercat sa scrie edh, ede. e dhi pe cea rotunda. A incercat sa reproduca stangaci gestul de a da pe tablita pictografica prin acea silueta ce pare umana cu maiinile intinse, apoi a incercat sa scrie “da, sa dai” la imperativ? didos, didou, dedou, Din https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/
Timpul in care au fost scrise tablitele poate fi cuprins intre 2.700 I.E.N. si mergand pana in extrem la a fi de sute de ani IEN ====================== In english:
The term deciphering” would bee used here, only to magnify the hidden and ezoteric character of the “written” artefact and coresponding message. In fact, most of ancient writings were not encriped, had practical use economical or religious ; the dificulties of writing-reading process was quite hard and enough for them, so no need for encription. Then not deciphereing, but interpreting and reading attempts. But there is a situation which arise in my mind, that of tetragrammatons (hebrew and greek) wich was the hidden abbreviation of the true name of God. Also hidden messages of hunted early christians.
The Tartaria tablets pertain to the hardest category of unknown writings, that in wich it is not known either the writing, nor the language. If the signs or writing was slightly lighted, the language remain unknown. With same difficulties were confronted in the past, Michael Ventris and Bedrich Hrozny, wich one of them discovered micenaean language and coresponding Linear B writing, and the other, the hittite language and writing. But every of them had at disposal tens of tablets, and Ventris changed opinions with Chadwick and Sir Arthur Evans. But we have even nowdays unknown writing systems and : ancient elamite, Linear A and Faistos plate. Many attempts were made; in the Linear A case, allmost all the signs are similar to Linear B ones, but for the language, even the linguistic family remain unknown. For Faistos disc/plate there are some 15 (!) reading attempts, but no one get general agreement. Tartaria tablets case is close to those above (the writing is even hard), in my opinion their age beeing close to Linear A/Faistos . There were some interpretation attempts, using sumerian proto-cuneiform signs (A.Falkenstein, A.Abramovici, R.Kolev and others). “Interpreting”, as the stage of using proto-cuneiform signs is a proto-writing stage, so it is no reading, nor true writing. So till now nowbody got the proof that Tartaria tablets carry true writing if using an sumerian approach.. Some say not carry. Images, from https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm On two tablets, the signs show to have old shapes, bu for the round tablet the situation is different.The scientists noted, (me also) that the signs are a mimicry of that proto-cuneiform ones, there are no original sumerian signs. What I stressed and others not, it is the fact that the signs show evolved shapes, close to other folowing stages of writing in the world. From Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html 
From Massimo Vidale, 2007, ‘The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel’, East and West,vol. 57 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2kknbd/Massimos-arguments-are-convincing-in-the-context-of-Wanderworter-evidence-from/ << In order to decipher a lost writing system, you have to guess the language, guess the content, and you need relevant contexts on which independently and reasonably test your ideas…>>
Because the language is not known, so could be used different languages by one hand, and combining the signs in-between by the other hand, the number of resulting meanings and words alone beeing great also. These combined cause the final number of possible reading attempts of the tablets be highly great.
From Helmut Stumfohl Die Entstehung der Schrift und das Problem
der Vinca-Schrift https://mdc.ulpgc.es/utils/getfile/collection/almog/id/80/filename/343.pdf ” Eine mehr oder minder begrenzte Zahl von Bildern oder reinen Zeichen
gestattet beliebig viele Möglichkeiten auszudrücken: einer endlichen Zahl von
Zeichen steht eine unendliche Zahl von Kombinationen des sprachlichen Stoffes gegenüber. ………….. Die Tartaria-Täfelchen enthalten natürlich nicht alle Zeichen der VincaSchrift, aber alle Zeichen der Tartaria-Täfelchen sind in der Vinca-Schrift vertreten.”
If in the past I rised the bar too much high, aiming direct to a final reading (!?) now I understand what is all about in reality. Obtaining an raw, unclear message beeing some-how possible, but An original, true and ultimate interpretation (in extreme,message (or even more) a text) is much more than an illusion. Worth to be noted, Mr. Marco Merlini, made an extensive reasearch on “Danubian writing” and Tartaria tablets, having tens of published papers and books. He found all the signs, but disparate, in different places and writings in the world. Not realised that most of them were used in different writings and others used them for writing. Any connexion related to writing made by him, getting to the shocking conclusion that only the writer knew the meaning of the signs !!, wich were not writing signs, but magic-ones . Even the other comunities members does not grasp the meanings. So I understand that people “over the hill” understood nothing. Mr. Merlini squeezed out not a single meaning out of a pile of known signs from 3.200 B.C. onward .
That beeing told, I’m proposing you to imagin: – suppose that somebody even me, find and publish the real version wich it is reflecting what had the “writer” in mind, of wich the autor of the published article has no knowledge that is that-one true. The result? The other scientists pushing themselves in a hurry to completely demolish that variant, even trying that theirs is that true one. Then another aspect:
If indeed, the containt is one of religious-mystic nature, we could face that writer initiated to comunicate with God, to cast a prey or to ask for something. In this case, the mesage has an inefable nature, cannot be described or understood by others, cause it is particular to that unique person, as every is only in best case “like” the other. It is only “his” message. That means that we are entering, with bare feet, not only in his mind, but also in his soul. Could be kind of violation, and profanate either the divine-nature message but either the intimacy of that person.
If would be in extremis about the Old Europe Culture, the impiety would be greater, as long as that society was of edenic-nature ( were found any warfare weapons). So we are entering an quite ethic and moral pure world, we, wich are from a partly “decayed” world. Would be kind of impiety. So not entering in they’re intimacy, will be a token of evidence, of respect, in the first time for their memory and what they represents for humanity: members of the cradles of present earthlings.
Earliest writings in Europe appeared in Anatolia (eg. Luwian, hittite) and Aegean area (Cretan hierogliphic, Linear A and Linear B). Cuneiform writing got no much success out of Anatolia and died there, cause was hard to be used by average cultured people. Aegean writing minoan Cretan hieroglific and Linear A seem to have a filiation to Eastern Sumer. But later alphabetic writing (not much related to Linear A/B), seem to emerged from an “hot pot” caused by intense comerce. In the middle are phoenicians and philistines, (not clear if philisines originated in Crete or in Levant). Alphabetic writing not much related to Linear A/B, spread in entire Mediteranean area and beyond. In Balcan got from south. If want to see what kind of writing we have on Tartaria tablets, no need to google so far away to Sumer, the origin could be only in Aegean Sea (Crete).
I know this feeling that I am folowing the tablet’s writer closer and closer to only one step behind.The writer could be a native of Macedonia or Epirus. You know, proto romanians have a mixed past with albanians and maybe macedonians/aromanians. Cold be much more than a goat-herder or tradesman. He parciced kind of cultural and religious misionarism. But surely wanted hard and made considerable efforts to explain how writing works. Out of many testings on upper side of the round tablet, remain two main options: – one wich contain Hera/Here/Hero on the left, and Divos/Deivos/Didou/rrok ? on the right – another contain ede/hede/ e dhi on left side and didou/didos on the right
The 1-st could be related to: Heros=Lord or Hera=lady and Divos=God or: Heros, heroa/Hero=dead and Divos=divine or give (ofering), or Hera=time and rrok=grasp 2-nd could be related to: Ede,hede: “allraedy this”, *hed, ede,e dhi=the goat, edh=kid goat and didou/didos=give (+++++ 5? 50? goats or σε/σύ = you ) ========================================== Our task is close to folowing (1,2,4,8) 8 Ancient Writing Systems That Haven’t Been Deciphered Yet BY ARIKA OKRENT https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12884/8-ancient-writing-systems-havent-been-deciphered-yet?fbclid=IwAR0QSWKVxjmRWw-9TeoTBv97pAyEILw1V0RJzliDeuiGdPG50N03t4g53v4
1. Linear A 2. Cretan Hieroglyphics 4. Sitovo inscription 8. Proto-Elamite This ancient writing system was used more than 5000 years ago in what is now Iran. Written from right to left, the script is unlike any other ancient scripts; while the proto-Elamites appear to have borrowed the idea for a written language from their Mesopotamian contemporaries, they apparently invented their own symbols—and didn’t bother to keep track of them in an organized way, proto-Elamite expert and Oxford University scholar Jacob Dahl told the BBC in 2012. Around that time, he and his Oxford colleagues asked for help from the public in deciphering proto-Elamite. They released high-quality images of clay tablets covered in Proto-Elamite, hoping that crowdsourcing could decode them. Now a collaboration involving several institutions, the project is ongoing.
Tartaria tablets 
Leave a Reply