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. =====
In the last time an apparent contradiction bothered me : – In what circumstances happened, and who was, who knew so many proto-cuneiform sumerian-like signs, and using writing wich is not proper/as usual sumerian. This could be the result of and local adapted writing wich distance from that sumerian-one, and/or due to poor level/ writing skills of the scribe ? ———————————————– LATER_TIME SIGNS ? LOCAL ADAPTATIONS ? Along with a overwhelming majority of sumerian signs, some (very few ~2) seem to be of later time, as: From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html
From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html – The “H-like“, (left), proto-cuneiform-like sign “Ku“=”to base, found, build; to lie down ” 
wich on tablet is rather/much close to Aegean PA3 and canaanite/paleo-hebrew Chet/Heth ?.
– The “D-letter” sign although not attested in writing, so allmost absent in proto-cuneiform, and found later in close shape in canaanite (dalet) and archaic greek “D“. I realised that: As writing processus began and originated & invented in Sumer (3.200-3.000 B.C.) followed in Europe by Aegean-script (2.200-1.500 B.C.), Tartaria tablets signs have surely an southward or eastern origin. I tried to explain myself how and when the scribe could have access to proto-cuneiform signs. As research of sumerian proto-writing begun only after 1800-1900 and no one of such very old tablets were unearthed before, I thought even to the posibility of a modern-time origin… From https://www.thoughtco.com/proto-cuneiform-earliest-form-of-writing-171675 “Proto-cuneiform writing was first identified on nearly 400 impressed clay tablets found in the sacred temple precinct of Eanna in the southern Mesopotamian city of Uruk. These were found during the early 20th century excavations by C. Leonard Woolley, and first published in 1935″ ….such as archaic greek alphabets time. But by that time (1000?-300 B.C.) the proto-cuneiform signs were allready forgotten even in Sumer. These above-mentioned signs were used in Aegean first as sign PA3 and second not in exact shape but close in Linear B as for “moon” and volume unit (0,8Liter). Many other sumerian proto-cuneiform signs apperead in Aegean and are prezent on our tablets. As Mr. E,Papakitsos and I.Kenanidis showed in their papers there is an “sumerian filum” (filiation) pointing to an Sumerian origin. In my posts, I revealed more signs and in much extension and detail than above mentioned authors this phenomenom. The possible explanation of proto-cuneiform sumerian “Ku“-like sign, “deliver,eat” is : – its changed shape toward canaanite & paleo-hebrew similar sounding “Ch“(chet,heth) From https://www.minimannamoments.com/back-to-the-future-past/ 
, with the meaning same as Ku ?,or – an adaptation to Aegean, cretan hierogliphic/Linear A , PA3-like sign, “all“. From https://www.slideserve.com/devika/the-civilization-of-the-greeks-1-minoan-2-mycenae-3-dark-ages
The “D-letter” sign could be an adaptation of the Mrs. Besserat’s sumerian proto-cuneiform sign for volume (very very old 3200BC!) ,or: https://russkiy.fun/ele/writing/
– taken and present in Aegean, micenaean- Linear B, also for volume (0,8Liter), or prezent in Aegean as for “month” Images from https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/category/lessons-linear-b/
I some oldest possible writing sistems “D-letter” shape was used in numeration, e.g.: – proto-cuneiform sign for kind of pot=volume unit? (3.500-3.200B.C., see D.S.Besserat), and – later, (3.200 B.C.) for numbers (1/60 but imprinted!), and also in proto-elamite – in close shape for “ninda”=”cereal, bread portion“, – egyptian sign “T“(horizontal position) “loaf of bread” and – Aegean numeration sistem of time (year, month) and volume (Lin.B ;0,8 Liter). So “D-letter”-shape in my opinion was devised for economical purpose ——————————————- QUASI-SUMERIAN”, NOT ORIGINAL/GENUINE SUMERIAN PROTO-WRITING !! If/despite overwhelming majority of signs are sumerian, and no other writing system is fitting better, there are many aspects wich are distancing the tablets from proper sumerian proto-writing begining with the signs and continuing with the technique of writing. So top-level scientist A.A.Vaiman not consider the tablets genuine sumerian, but “”Quasi-sumerian” From A. A. Vaiman.On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii ” In 1963 N.VIassa published a paper with a description of three baked clay tablets which were found during his excavations in Tàrtâria, Transylvania, Roumania (figs.1-3). On one of them (fig.l) a tree is depicted with two animals standing on its sides. The researcher compared this representation with the impression of a Sumerian seal. Two other tablets (figs.2,3) carry signs, many of which, according to Vlassa, are either identical with, or very similar to, those inscribed on the tablets from Uruk IV (early Proto-Sumerian script). The sensational find has gained a wide publicity. The most significant paper that has appeared so far is that by А.Falkenstein who has basically supported Vlassa’s conclusions. Falkenstein has compared the Tàrtâria tablets with those from layer III in Uruk and Jemdet-Nasr (late proto-Sumerian script) using a number of criteria, such as clay, format, stylus, structure of the text, signs. He has proved beyond doubt that the script of the Tàrtâria tablets had been directly influenced by the proto-Sumerian script. …… It has already been mentioned that not just the signs (possibly all of them) were borrowed, but other things as well, including the material for writing, the rectangular or round shape of the tablets (the latter occurs, although rarely, in layer IV of Uruk), the manner in which the text is divided into parts by means of vertical and horizontal incisions, and the technique of writing. However, the borrowed elements are transformed in such a way that one should speak of an independent Tartarian script rather than of a Tartarian version of the proto-Sumerian script. First and foremost, people who created this script, in contrast to the Sumerians, used only knife-shaped styluses. ……….. The Tartarian script differs from the proto-Sumerian one also in the construction of the texts. …… As it has been stated above, such a construction is not possible for the proto-Sumerian texts, in which just one line would suffice. Horizontal incisions on Tartaria tablets are situated directly under the signs of the top lines, which is never the case on the proto-Sumerian tablets. ….. Certain important differences between the Tartarian script and the proto-Sumerian one are related to the orientation of various elements. …….. While in proto-Sumerian texts the higher-order digits are placed above the lower-order ones, making up a column, in tablet 2, II 1, of Tartaria (fig.2) higher-order digits are situated to the left of the lower-order ones, making up a line. ……. The abundance of numerals on the tablets indicates that the latter were economical documents. The meaning of the numerals and of some other signs may be quite safely established by the meaning of their Sumerian prototypes. ….. there is a row of numerals: 600, 60, 10, 10 …. So the tablets described attest to the existence in Tartaria of an original script based on prolo-Sumerian prototypes. The belief that this script was invented prior to the proto-Sumerian one and influenced it, is totally unfounded. …… Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tablets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, but this hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents. “ ************************* AN UNCOMMON, PUZZLING, WEIRD ASPECT, NOT NOTICED YET, BY ANYBODY, IS THAT OUT OF ENTIRE SIGN-LIST USED AROUND 3.000 B.C. THE SCRIBE DECIDED !? TO SELECT : – PURE PICTOGRAPHIC SIGNS ON UNDRILLED OBLONG TABLET – THE PICTOGRAPHIC-LIKE SIGNS AND PUT ON OBLONG TABLET WITH HOLE, – AND IDEOGRAMS/SYLLABOGRAMS (eg: As, Ku ,Pa, etc) ON THE ROUND TABLET (If I want now to explane in a quick way, to an youngster or average-level audience the ancient evolution and writing principles, I would proceed exactly in the same way !!) *************************************
BECAUSE upon my study, ALL THE SIGNS ON THE TABLETS WICH ARE FOUND IN AEGEAN SCRIPTS ARE ALSO FOUND IN SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM BUT REVERSE NOT: ALL THE SIGNS ON THE TABLETS WICH ARE FOUND IN SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM ARE NOT FOUND ALL IN AEGEAN SCRIPTS! I come to the conclusion that THE SIGNS ARE Much CLOSE TO SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM, than to Aegean script ,and as SEEM TO ENCOUNTER PROTO-WRITING, SIGNS MUST BE NOT “READ” BUT “INTERPRETED” UPON OR CLOSE TO THE SUMERIAN MEANINGS ! ….but remain to be discussed/argue if upper-half signs on round tablet wich seem, or could be a later developement are an local (Aegean!) adaptation of those sumerian-ones. so, mainly: IF we had on the tablets Cretan hieroglific or Linear B script, we could expect a kind of proto-greek language WICH IS NOT THE CASE !. – the long eared-head sign is sumerian calf but rather goat than Aegean “Ma” ?; (Ma comes from sumerian aMAr,”calf”) – we have rather sumerian “Ku” than Aegean “PA3” ? ….and so on. – the sequence ” +++++ D D o o ” must be maybe interpreted : As–Sar volum-ration 10 10 or, As-Sar (Deity) 60 10 10
Signs, http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html 
are complex ideograms, – left: – “eschara/sacrificial/incense altar” and – right, “sun-god(ess?) adobe” My throughly observations aglutinate toward – an older age (3.000-2.700) and “genuine sumerian mark/markings” and – NOT, or less to an Aegean adaptation (wich begun in Cretan hieroglific ~ 2.500-2.200 B.C. ; D-shaped signs not used until Linear B)
Opinion of one of the first 5 top level scientists in life wich has expertise in the field of sumerian proto-cuneiform field (Ignace Gelb):
From Western-Pontic Culture Ambience and Pattern: In memory of Eugen Comsa Lolita Nikolova, Marco Merlini, Alexandra Comsa · 2016 · Social Science << Gelb attributed the tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to an unknown inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and mimicked them >>
From TARTARIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS.pdf | Pottery … – Scribd https://www.scribd.com › document › TARTARIA-AND-THE-SACRED-TA…
Note The interpretation of all signs inscribed on all 3 tablets, remain those allreaddy posted on pages: “Squared Tartaria tablet reading”, “”Round tablet sumerian reading” and also critics articles on A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev, M.Merlini and others interpretations !
IF MOST OF THE SIGNS (80-90%) ARE OF SUMERIAN ORIGIN, AND OTHER SCRIPTS NOT FIT/MATCHING AS WELL, ONE COULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE WRITING IS SOME-HOW KNOWN. REGARDING THE LANGUAGE, I AM NOT AS SHURE. COULD BE SUMERIAN. BUT ALSO COULD BE THE CASE SAME AS WRITING AKKADIAN WITH SUMERIAN CUNEIFORMS, OR MUCH CLOSE TO OUR CASE, USING THE PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS FOR AN (UNKNOWN YET) MINOAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN CRETE. ANY CASE, WE ALL ARE EXPECTING AN AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGE, OF TYPE Ba-Na-Na language, A-Sa-Sa-Ra-Me..) A GOOD START OR EXAMPLE COULD BE THE HIPOTHESIS OF MR. PAPAKITSOS OF USING SUMERIAN-INSPIRED SIGNS (Linear A) TO WRITE A LOCAL, MINOAN ( YET UNKNOWN FOR SURE ) LANGUAGE.
A GOOD NEWS IS THAT: PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS NOT CARRY A PROPER WRITING (not expressing through phonetics/phonemes the words of a given language ) the writing sistem is ideo-phonetic, and through pictures and ideograms we obtain a general image, understand the idea of the message even if not sufficient clear.
SO ONE COULD MAKE AN APPROACH TO THE MESSAGE, WITHOUTH REGARD/IRESPECTIVE OF THE MOTHER LANGUAGE OF THE SCRIBE/USED ! ================================================ Excerpts from latest paper I read, wich convinced me for a Levantine? Anatolian, Aegean-Crete?, but of ultimate Sumerian origin for the signs, (and not necessary the same for the tablets ).
An Application of Systems Science in Humanities: Investigating the Origins of the Minoan Civilization Evangelos C. Papakitsos University of West Attica, Greece https://www.sumerianz.com/pdf-files/sjss2(4)33-44.pdf
<<Abstract
The present preliminary study investigates the indirect evidences about the origins of the Minoan civilization and those settlers that initiated the relevant development process, based initially on linguistic evidences. According to the latter, it has been demonstrated in other studies that by using the rebus principle, every sign of the Aegean scripts of Bronze Age renders a phonetic value that corresponds to the equivalent (Archaic) Sumerian word for the depicted object by this sign. In many cases, this equivalence is also pictorial, related to the Sumerian pre-cuneiform writing. Thus, to demonstrate also that there is absolutely no reason for excluding the Sumerians from the overall debate about the origins of the Minoan civilization, indirect evidence other than linguistic are organized and presented in a systemic manner, by using the conceptual tool of the Organizational Method for Analyzing Systems. …………………….. 1.2.1. Linear B Syllabary ……… using the rebus principle, it has been demonstrated beyond statistical doubt that the creating language of LB signs (consisting of abstractly depicted objects) is a dialect close to but simpler than Archaic Sumerian (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a), since the phonetic value of every sign corresponds to the equivalent monosyllabic Sumerian word for the depicted object. According to Fischer (2004), the rebus principle that had been invented by the Sumerians is a gift of them to human kind, whose linguistic influence expanded to Iran, Nile, Indus Valley and (maybe) to Balkans (Kenanidis, 1992). In some occasions, the sign of the depicted object is identical to the equivalent Pre-cuneiform or Proto-cuneiform one (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a;2015; Papakitsos and Kenanidis, 2015. …………. 1.2.2. Linear A Syllabary ………………..since the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, and that “It can be assumed that the hieroglyphic script was partly derived from the older repertory of linear signs …” (Haarmann, 1996). This is an indirect reference to CP through LA. Scholars have made long and laborious efforts to reveal the languages that have been conveyed by LA scripts. There are several proposals about the underlying languages (Papakitsos and
Kenanidis, 2016), all of them reasonable considering that most of the suggested languages are very poorly known. Moreover, it is very probable that LA scripts had been used to express more than one spoken language of that era and area (Woudhuizen, 2008), just like the cuneiform script had been used as well to convey practically most of the languages of Near-East (Sumerian, Akkadian, Old Persian, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, etc.). Yet, the relevant proposals came to include even Proto-Kartvelian (Kvashilava, 2011;2016). A most recent study approaches the
decipherment of LA as a cryptographic problem (Patria, 2016). The novel concept is that the signs of the script (being syllabograms, ideograms or even both) were placed in a mixed manner, since the writing system (i.e., patterns) of LA was different than that of LB. The conveyed language is considered near to the Dorian Greek………. CV-type phonotactic is usually found in agglutinative languages, a feature that in LA has been ignored although observed very early by Duhoux (1998) and recently by Davis (2014) as well. Such a well-studied nearby agglutinative language of the 3rd millennium BCE were the Sumerian. Thus, instead of claiming that a very complex writing system had been intentionally devised, we may adopt a simpler explanation, according to the Ockham’s Razor principle (Rodríguez-Fernández, 1999), which is that
LA (and LB) script is a typical case of alloglottography (Rubio, 2006). According to the CP theory, the Sumerian scribes, who invented the original script, had to write in languages other than their own mother tongue, which can deduce that all the “non-Minoan” languages being written with LA/LB are quite distorted. It may also easily explain the nature of the spelling differences in words common to LA and LB, like qa-qa-ru/qa-qa-ro (Patria, 2016), since different scribes understood differently the sounds of another tongue. …………
1.2.3. Cretan Hieroglyphics Syllabary …………..Accordingly, the theory of the Sumerian origin of CP and consequently of CH is supported by 16 points of argument (Papakitsos and Kenanidis, 2016) plus one in
subsection 1.2.2 (Haarmann, 1996). In addition, Filippou (2014) argues for the common origin of the linear scripts (LA and LB) and CH, although in a different direction regarding the nature of the syllabary and the conveyed language (i.e., Greek).The Sumerian Origin Theory (henceforth SOT) provides interpretations of various CH
inscriptions so far (Papakitsos and Kenanidis, 2016), which are meaningful, coherent and of limited ambiguity. ……….. 1.3. Sumerian Origins Theory
To demonstrate that there is absolutely no reason for excluding the Sumerians from the overall debate about the origins of the Minoan civilization (SOT), indirect evidence other than linguistic will be presented in a systemic manner. Systems Science offers powerful conceptual tools that facilitate a holistic approach in the study of natural
and social phenomena (Luhmann, 1995; Parsons, 1977). A brief presentation of the utilized systemic methodology precedes the rest of the supportive evidence. …… 2. Systemic Methodology
In order to connect the origins of the Minoan civilization to the Sumerian culture, linguistic evidence can be supplemented by a series of non-linguistic data that were gathered and organized, according to a particular systemic methodology originating from software engineering (Papakitsos, 2013), which is called Organizational Method for Analyzing Systems (OMAS-III). ……. 3.1.2. Strategic Raw Materials
The technology of the Sumerian society had well entered the Bronze Age. Copper was known since 4000 BCE (Clough and Rapp, 1979), while by 2300 BCE they also knew of iron too Keegan (1997). There were ploughs used, wheeled vehicles (chariots), pottery wheels, metallurgy furnaces, baked-clay products, sailing boats and of course
skillful craftsmen (Clough and Rapp, 1979). Thus, there was already a great need for strategic raw materialsthat were absent from Mesopotamia and had to be imported from distant locations,like Cyprus (for copper), India (for gold), Anatolia and Central Asia (for tin as well as timber and many other materials), Afghanistan (for turquoise,
lapis lazuli and other precious stones) and Europe (Keegan, 1997). This kind of transaction is much older as the gradually collected data suggest (Radivojević et al., 2014). ……….. 3.1.3. Commerce
Otherwise, commerce (see 3.1.2) requires a producer who knows the needs of a potential purchaser and a consumer who knows where to find the desired goods of a certain quality. This is an information exchange process that was conducted through human communication,with all the associated implications of such activity (see also section: 3.3 Geographical Evidence). Sumerians proved to be excellent traders and colonists throughout the entire Near-East, even at the end of the Uruk period (Algaze, 2005a), while the Bronze Age in Crete is supposed to have started in a significant scale at about 2700 BCE (Chaniotis, 2004; Roebuck, 1966) …. 3.1.4. Politics
The referred period (3000-2700 BCE) had also been a transitional one regarding the organization of the Sumerian society. Kingdoms had not been fully established yet. The city-states were ruled by a council of elders that included the participation of women (Gannett, 1992; Jacobsen, 1939), who had a high social status analogous to that
of Minoan Crete, headed by a priest-king assisted by bureaucrats that had under their control large areas of fertile land (Keegan, 1997). Nevertheless, the lack of naturally protected borders (unlike Egypt) and the rise of the military power of city-states, like Uruk, led the Sumerian societies to a period of wars and to the substitution of priest-kings by military leaders(Keegan, 1997). Those socio-economic changes also resulted in the creation of a very wealthy class of officials (lords, priests, bureaucrats) and a very poor class of landless peasants (Clough and Rapp, 1979).
Because of the transition to the reign of dynasties, this time would have been ideal for the dissenters to leave, as social crises lead to immigration, also observed in the case of the Grand Ancient Greek Colonization (Manfredi and Braccesi 1997). ……. 3.2.2. Earliest Reports
Even before the era of Sargon, the earliest reports extend the rule of Sumerian kingdoms to the Mediterranean coast of Levant since the 28th century BCE, during the reign of Meskiaggasher, king of Uruk (Jacobsen, 1939). The same wide regional coverage appears during the reign of Lugalanemundu (2525-2500 BCE), king of Adab (Guisepi
and Willis, 2003) ………… 3.3.1. Migration Routes
The genomic analysis of the European populations and the associated development of dairying practices indicate that Middle Eastern farmers gradually immigrated into Europe during the Neolithic Age, through Anatolia and Greece (Curry, 2013). This route has always been the closest one to Europe in any instance of historical agitation in Middle East, evident nowadays as well(Foskolou and Kyrimi, 2016). Immigration of a female farmer from Mediterranean to Scandinavia is also detected in Early Bronze Age too Nicholls (2012). The entire pattern attests that, at least in prehistoric times, innovations were propagated not as information but through the presence ofknowledgeable persons …………… 3.3.2. The Island of Crete
Crete is located on this route (see 3.3.1) that in the course of Bronze Age had been bidirectional (Barako, 2001;Landau, 2003; Sherratt, 1998; Thalassinos, 2004; Woudhuizen, 2006), while there is no particular reason to believe that this phenomenon had happened just once or twice per a few millennia. The island is fertile enough to sustain large populations and conveniently situated for international marine trade (Douvitsas, 2005), being the perfect destination not only for nearby settlers (Betancourt, 2003; Hayden, 2003; Pagkalou-Zervou, 1988) but also for persons of a most civilized nation of that era, like the Sumerians (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a). Moreover, it
had been a relatively safe place for longer times in history, compared to the constant raids of other peoples in Mesopotamia (see 3.1.4). The flora of the island in Bronze Age had been much richer than nowadays Kenanidis and Papakitsos (2013a) and capable of sustaining various species. …………. 3.3.3. Commercial Routes
The commercial dispersion of the Sumerian influence had been initially determined by Kramer (1963), “… so that by the third millennium BC, there is good reason to believe that Sumerian culture and civilization had penetrated, at least to some extent, as far East as India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as Ancient
Ethiopia and as far North as the Caspian”. The discovery of clay tablets in Margiana of Central Asia (Sarianidi, 1998), bearing signs of remarkable resemblance to those of CP, rather supports this aspect. India is 2000 km by sea from the ancient estuaries of the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers to the estuary of Indus River. Ethiopia is about 3700 km
from the same starting point to Aden Straights, sailing around the Arabic Peninsula. Especially for India, the influence of Sumerian pictography to Indus script is visible (Davis, 2011), whether this script is a true writing system (Fournet, 2012) or not (Farmer et al., 2004). The distance from the northern Sumerian territories to the northern coast of the Levant, traveling upstream the Euphrates River, is just 800 km (the curious reader can easily verify these routes by using the distance-calculating facility of a relevant program like Google-Earth). This route had been well-known to Mesopotamians, not only since the Uruk period (Algaze, 2005b; Sundsdal, 2011) but even before that, during the Ubaid period (Carter and Graham, 2010). After all, the classification of the Sumerian language as an r-Altaic one of the Proto-Bolgar branch (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a) and the anthropological data for the very first Sumerians, denoting people from Central Asia (Kyriakidis and Konstas, 1974c), indicate that the Sumerians had immigrated to Mesopotamia through Iran. By 3000 BCE, Sumer had been the center of a “global” trading (Giorgetti, 1977). The most important trading for the technology of Bronze Age was that of tin. Extensive trading networks existed for this purpose (Maddin, 1998; Valera and Valera, 2003). Other minerals and materials like amber were also important and their trading routs expanded from Scandinavia to Cyprus (Flemming, 2015; Kalle, 2015; Ling and Stos-Gale, 2015). Notably, commercial activity doesn’t include only an exchange of goods but also an exchange of information and potentially an exchange of delegations from experts or agents to evaluate the traded goods (see 3.1.3). ……. 3.4. Maritime Technology (How) …………….Could the Sumerians have traveled as far as Crete? In the 1st millennium BCE, the Phoenicians traveled as far as Spain and beyond Gibraltar – they circled around
the whole Africa (Manfredi, 2004), having a similar naval technology to the one that is discovered through the shipwrecks of Mediterranean (Panousi, 2003). The Greeks had colonized the coasts from the Crimean Sea to Gibraltar as well, within a 2-3 centuries time (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997), while Enthymemes explored the coasts of West Africa as South as Senegal and Pytheus described glaciers as North as Northern Norway (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997). It may be argued, however, that all the above happened later than the Sumerian era. Yet, the Austronesians inhabited the entire Pacific Ocean, sailing for thousands of miles between remote islands, since 5000-2500 BCE and onwards (Gray et al., 2009; Pawley, 2002). Therefore more specifically: ……………. 3.4.1. Naval Vessels ………….. Nevertheless, Sumerians had attained the similar naval technology of sailing
ships to travel that distance from Levant to Crete, since the 35th century BCE (Guisepi and Willis, 2003). A sailing boat of those times could travel with an average speed of 8.5 km per hour (Johnstone, 1988; McGrail, 1981). In a day of sailing, a distance of 70-100 km could be covered (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997). According to Homer (The Odyssey: XIV, 256-262), the trip from Crete to Egypt lasted five days. The distance from the northern Levant coast (e.g., Ugarit) to the eastern coast of Crete (e.g., Zakros) is about 880 km. With a favorable weather alongside the southern coastline of Anatolia, the Sumerian inhabitants of the Levantine communities (Rohl, 1999) could have arrived at Crete in just 9-13 days. The above estimated traveling times are precise if the supplies for such a journey are carried onboard. Otherwise, those supplies should have been gradually gathered from ashore: Cyprus, Southern
Anatolia and Rhodes.
3.5. Anthropological Evidence (Who) There have been various attempts from scientists of many disciplines (archaeology; linguistics; anthropology) to identify the Minoans’ origins. Homer (The Odyssey: XIX, 172-180) mentions at least five ethnic groups (or subethnic in the case of Achaeans and Dorians), each one speaking its own language or dialect respectively (namely,
Achaeans, Eteocretans, Kydonians, Dorians and Pelasgians). Herodotus (Ι.173.1) mentions that in old times the entire Crete was inhabited by “barbaroi”, clearly meaning “foreigners” (i.e., non-Greeks; not “barbarians” in the modern sense of “savages”). Owens (2000) argues for the single nationality descent of the Minoan population
against Duhoux (1998), who mentions the above passage of Homer for justifying the multinational environment of prehistoric Crete. The debate of Owens is based on the population conditions of Crete at about the estimated time of having Odyssey written (800 BCE), which was indeed described as multinational. This debate, though, accounts
only for the Doric groups, the last ones to inhabit the island in ancient times (11th century BCE). For the rest of them, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus preserved ancient narrations of Eteocretans (“True Cretans”), stating that they were the oldest inhabitants of the island, besides a group of more ancient and primitive people (“Idaean Dactyls”) and also mentioning those groups that inhabited the island after them (Driessen, 1998-1999; Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013b). suggests among other that Eteocretans were the Sumerian population, Kydonians were the Akkadian settlers and Idaean Dactyls were the previous Neolithic inhabitants of Crete. He also proposes a settlement of Sumerians in large numbers since 3000 BCE. The relevant anthropological data will be considered next (see 3.5.1-3), to examine in what extent they support or reject the SOT 4. Discussion
The entire linguistic context of Minoan (pre-Mycenaean) Crete seems to be closer to Near East than to mainland Greece, either in terms of the existence of multilingual societies (Morpurgo and Olivier, 2012) or regarding the influence on the creation of the scripts (Hood, 1971; Olivier, 1986). It is estimated that the beginning period of the
creation of CH and LA lies somewhere between 3000-2600 BCE (Olivier, 1986). This is the exact crucial period of socio-economic changes in the Sumerian societies that has been estimated previously (see 3.1.4). Thus, we are looking for a period of the Sumerian (Proto-) literate history that their writing system had become largely phonetic
(Guisepi and Willis, 2003) but it had not yet been developed into cuneiform (after 2600-2500 BCE), although the transition of the Sumerian script from curvilinear to proto-cuneiform had started since the 30th century BCE (Woods et al., 2010). At this stage, their original phonetic signs (approximately 600) could have been developed to a more compact and easy syllabic system, like CP, still without any influence or trace of cuneiform. Moreover, the Sumerian people of that period wouldn’t have been affected yet by the notorious sprachbund (Deutscher, 2007; Woods, 2006), namely the bilingualism with the Akkadian, since CP is simply an evolution of the Archaic Sumerian script (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2015), dating from 3100 to 2600 BCE (Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a). Consequently, a suitable period of an arrival of the first Sumerian settlers at Crete can be defined between 2800-2600 BCE.
To summarize the presented socio-economic evidence, by the 26th and 27th centuries BCE the Sumerians had experienced:
urbanization and overpopulation (see 3.1.1);
the need for raw materials that were necessary for their advanced civilization but absent from Mesopotamia (see 3.1.2);
(because of the previous need) the knowledge of an extended commercial network that was exploited, even well before this period (see 3.1.3);
socio-economic changes accompanied by an increase of warfare and poverty for the lower classes (see 3.1.4).
Therefore by those times, the Sumerian socio-economic conditions were similar to those of the Greek city-states that triggered the Grand Ancient Greek Colonization of the 8th-6 th centuries BCE (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997).
To summarize the geographical evidence, it is exhibited that extended networks existed since Neolithic Age, particularly in Balkans as well (Maran, 2008), through which people (see 3.3.1, 3.3.4), strategic raw materials, other goods and information traveled from Scandinavia at North to Ethiopia at South and from the British Isles at West to
India at East, having the center of this network at Mesopotamia (see 3.3.3). The oldest so far direct evidence of such travels by sea in the afore-mentioned commercial networks is approximately dated to 1300 BC, from the famous Ulu-burun shipwreck (Pulak, 2005) that contained 17 tons of materials from 11 different cultures (Marchant, 2012), including amber from Baltics and tin from Afghanistan (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997). Crete had been a naturally and geographically privileged place on the center of the northwestern root of this network (see 3.3.2) that could be favorable for knowledgeable persons to settle.
5. Preliminary Conclusion
Considering the local (Mediterranean) origins of the Minoan inhabitants that have been found so far (see 3.5.1), the initial proposal about the settlement of Sumerian populations in large numbers(Kenanidis and Papakitsos, 2013a) is not anthropologically supported, at least not in the sense that entire families of Sumerians immigrated to Crete. What may have happened though is analogous to the Grand Ancient Greek Colonization, where the settlers were mostly unmarried men, getting brides from the local population after the settlement (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997). This analogy justifies the anthropological evidence about the Minoans regarding both their maternal lineage of Neolithic European origin(see 3.5.2) and the observed assimilation by the locals of the settlers from the
“Iranian/Armenian-type” (Kyriakidis and Konstas, 1974b). The Ancient Greek settlers, although less in number but bearing an advanced culture, influenced in many and different ways their neighboring Romans (Manfredi and Braccesi, 1997) and Etruscans (Laparidou, 2002), or other indigenous populations, from the Egyptians (Trianti et
al., 2011) to the remote culture of Gandara in Eastern Afghanistan (Grigorakou Parnassou, 2004).Therefore, the SOT as expressed herein argues that the settlers from East that arrived in Crete during the 28th–26th centuries BCE(Douvitsas, 2005; Kyriakidis, 1971; Kyriakidis and Konstas, 1974b) were people of Sumerian
cultural background: merchants (knowing the routes), craftsmen (carpenters, metal-workers, seals-makers, etc.) and scribes(actually accountants and administration clerks) in moderate numbers. The advanced level of their civilization compared to that of the local Neolithic population could have easily resulted in the complete adoption of their culture by the locals, during the eight-centuries long (2700-1900 BCE) Prepalatial era. In this respect, more direct evidence are being accumulated to be presented shortly. ” ================================== Pitty, Mr. Papakitsos and Kenanidis despite the fact that supposed that minoans were early sumerian migrants, not realised that they have in Tartaria tablets strongest possible hard evidence available on Earth for their theory.
In my opinion, the tablets are surely genuine, and were inscribed by an sumerian early settler/migrant, (next generation folower?) from Ciclades? , Tartaria ?? , but much more sure Crete, or by an sumerian prospector. Possible in Vinca-C/Transylvania come kind of craftsmen-miners-metalurgists. The tablets were used by a little comunity or were of single-person use, to perform an offering ritual (goats and cereal/bread) to some deities.The pictographic tablet is kind of resume of all action. ================================= 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.”
Tartaria tablets 