<< work in progress>>
MR. MARCO MERLINI, WITH DEEP RESPECT: DESPITE THE MONUMENTAL WORK, SPENDING THOUSEND OF HOURS, TRAVELING TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND CORESPONDING ARTEFACTS RESEARCH, CONDENSED IN MANY BOOKS AND PAPERS, – THE RESULTS GATHERED RATHER IN AN EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTARY WORK THAN OBTAINING THE CONCLUSIVE RESULTS. THE EXPECTED RESULT WAS, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, TO PROOVE THAT THE VINCA SCRIPT IS A WRITING, AS WAS THE GOAL AND TARGET ANOUNCED SOME 12 YEARS BEFORE.
ATTENTION ! THE WORD-CONCEPT OF “SCRIPT” IS TRICKY, BEEING EQUATED AS “PUTTING DOWN SIGNS WITH HAND”, BUT ATTENTION IF A MANUSCRIPT CONTAIN SIGNS MADE BY HAND AND IT IS INDEED WRITING, A SCRIPT COULD NOT BE NECESSARY A WRITING, BUT ONLY A COLLECTION OF SIGNS MADE BY HAND EVEN IF SIGNS ARE UNKNOWN OR UNKNOWN MEANING. SO WITH THIS WORD An AVERAGE CULTURAL LEVEL PERSON COULD BE FOOLED or THE OTHER, THE STORYTELLER, COULD ELUDE, CIRCUMVENT AND ESCAPE, INDUCING THE ILLUSION THAT A SCRIPT IS VERY CLOSE TO, OR A TRUE WRITING ! THIS NO WAY MEAN THAT THE SIGNS ARE SURE RANDOMLY OR SURE THERE IS NOT WRITING. COULD BE SOMEDAY DECIPHERED ; ( AS WAS THE CASE OF LINEAR B. BEFORE MICHAEL VENTRIS DECIPHERMENT WAS “A SCRIPT” )
FROM THIS, BECAUSE ONE MUST EXTRACT FROM A SCRIPT MESSAGES. NOT PROOVED YET THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE PROTO WRITING. PROTO-WRITING NOT USE A LANGUAGE, BUT ICONS (PICTOGRAMS,LOGOGRAMS,IDEOGRAMS) TO COMUNICATE AND TRANSMIT SOMETHING. IN PROTO-WRITING THE MESSAGES ARE RAW, GENERAL AND NOT AS CLEAR AS IN WRITING. WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT IS THE DAM WICH STOPPED HIM ? THERE ARE SOME REASONS AND EXPLANATIONS: – HE IS NOT REALISING THAT AT SO OLD EXPECTED AGES (5.300-3.500). SOCIETIES ADVANCED VERY SLOWLY TOWARD TRUE WRITING; – THERE ARE NO HARD EVIDENCES OF PROTO-WRITING FOUND BEFORE 3.500 B.C. – FOR A SOCIETY IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE DEVELOPED IN SOME ASPECTS ONLY, IN ORDER TO BE IN GOOT HEALTH, GOOD LIVING, INCREASING DEMOGRAPHIC RATE, FOOD PRODUCTION TO BE PUSHED OR TO APPEAR THE NECESITY TO HAVE PERMANENT NOTATIONS OTHERS THAN PRODUCER/OWNER MARKS OR RELIGIOUS RELATED MARKINGS/ICONS. EVIDENCES SHOW THAT ONLY HIGH DEVELOPED SOCIETIES WITH AN SOCIAL HIERARCHY NEDED TO KEEP ACCOUNTS BETWEEN MEMBERS , AND SAY IN A SIMILAR WAY WITH KEEPING RELIGIOUS RITES. – LOOKING ON THOUSENDS OF SIGNS, IT IS HARD TO FIND A TYPE OF ORDER, AT NECESSARY LEVEL WHERE THERE IS NOT. I NOT SAID ANY ORDER; A SCRIPT IF NOT WRITING DOES NOT IMPLY THAT NOT HAVE OTHER CHANNELS TO TRANSMIT DATA.THE SAME PROBLEM ARE ENCOUNTERING SCIENTISTS WITH THE INDUS SCRIPT. WORSE THAN THIS, FOR HIM, SIGNS ARE LIKE FALLEN FROM SKY METEORITES, NOT RELATED. IF FOR EVERY SIGN HE FOUND TENS OF SIMILAR SIGNS WICH WERE USED IN ENTIRE WORLD, SOME IN AN EXTENSIVE WAY FOR WRITING THIS NOT AFECT HIM NOT IN SLIGHTES MEASURE. FINALLY HE CHOOSE AND PREFERED TO GIVE TO THE MOST OF SIGNS AN ” ALLREADY FROM LONG-TIME FORGOTTEN, UNKNOWN MEANING” BUT NOT AT ALL, SUSPENDED IN THIN AIR, BUT RATHER EQUATED VITH HIS OWN PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. WHY? BECAUSE IS CONVINCED THAT THE SIGNS E.G. ON TARTARIA TABLETS ARE MUCH (OR TO MUCH ?) OLDER ! NOT TOOK ACCOUNT OF MIGRATIONS, OR ECONOMICAL CONNEXIONS (TRADE) AND CULTURAL TRANSMISSION. IT IS NOT SO HARD, NOR IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE HOW CULTURAL ELEMENTS (WRITING INCLUDED) ARE EVEN DISTANT, RELATED. E.G. AS NOWDAYS ALL EUROPE IS USING LETTERS OF GREEK ORIGIN, SO PHOENICIAN WRITING WAS RELATED TO THAT GREEK-ONE. (ABC IS IN FACT ABUGIDA). PHOENICIAN IN THIS TURN RELATED TO OLD-CANAANITE. SCIENTISTS AS G.PAPAKITSOS AND I.KENANIDIS FOUND AEGEAN WRITINGS ARE RELETAD TO PROTO-SUMERIAN. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY MR. MERLINI IS DEPRIVED OF SUCH A NECESSARY AERIAL-LIKE, LARGE PERSPECTIVE OF THE WRITING PHENOMENOM. I ONLY SUPPOSE BUT IF NOT SURE, PREFER NOT TO ENTER IN DETAILS; EG. SEARCHING IN SIGNS IN A TIME SPAN OF ALLMOST 6.000 YEARS !…BETWEEN SOME OLDER (PROTO-CUNEIFORM 3.000 B.C) AND OTHERS “NEW” (LINEAR B; SZEKELY RUNIC 500-1000 A.D), AN ORIGIN IN DANUBIAN SCRIPT (WICH IN MY OPINION THERE WAS NOT ), BUT INFLUENCE AS WELL SURE EXISTED. YOU REALISE THAT IF LINEAR A (2.000-1.500 B.C.) CRETAN HIEROGLYPHIC (~2.200 B.C.) (NOT TALKING OF ETEOCRETAN 500 BC- 200 A.C.) ARE NOT FULLY DECIPHERED YET, WHAT ABOUT A WRITING SUPPOSED TO BE (ONLY BY TWO PERSONS IN THE WORLD) OF 5.300-4.000 B.C. ?? BUT WE ARE NOT IN A HOPELESS SITUATION. FORTUNATELY THE TARTARIA TABLETS ARE NEWER THAN 3.000 B.C. WHERE WE KNOW FROM, OR HOW WE ARE SURE ? THE SIMPLYEST EXPLANATION FOR AN AVERAGE LEVEL PERSON, IS THAT UPON : MOST OF THE SIGNS PRESENT ON TARTARIA TABLETS WERE ALLREADY INVENTED AND FOUND ON SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM TABLETS IN, AND AFTER 3.000 B.C. SO NO NEED TO SEARCH FOR OTHER INVENTORS, IN ANOTHER PLACES THAN THOSE ALLREADY PROOVED E.G.VINCA. OTHERWISE IS NO DOUBT THAT PRIMITIVE, EARLY VINCA SIGNS, OR DANUBE SCRIPT ARE MUCH OLDER THAN SUMERIAN ONES, DESPITE, DEEP SORROW,, NOT FINISHED AT LEAST IN A PROTO-WRITING. VINCA CIVILISATION “LEAPED” PICTOGRAPHIC STAGE (wich was otherwise for other civilisation of immense importance and proffed necessary for writing developement toward folowing stages, and finally to true writing) and jumped directly to an early proto-linear stage, sistematising and ordering elementary signs to make a writing, beeing quite a task, wich can be fulfilled only by a computer…(asisted by a human). From A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1, Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian.pdf
“A Protolinear Script
There is a suggestion that Linear-A constitutes a linearization of the Akkadian cuneiform signs [22].However, it is normal for a script to evolve from
pictorial signs (as the Sumerian pre-cuneiform and the Aegean writing signs too) into non-recognizable forms (as the late cuneiform), and rarely the reverse. …… Although there are several different theories for explaining this necessity, there is also the possibility of a Protolinear script [47], which both Linear-A/B evolved from, for conveying different languages. In other words, the Protolinear could be the parent of Linear-A and Linear-B, while the Cretan Hieroglyphic could be regarded mainly, but not exclusively [8], as the decorative and ritual form of that
system for use especially on seals [48] The hypothesized Protolinear script consists of 120 syllabograms of the V and CV patterns, as they have been found in Linear-A/B scripts, one for each syllable
of a dialect close to the Archaic Sumerian language.There are also a few signs of disyllabic nature. The signs are those that are common to both Linear-A and B
scripts (62) and those that are exclusive to each syllabary. So, we have a script of simplified icons (signs) depicting items, where the phonetic value of each sign is related to the Archaic Sumerian word for the depicted item. Many of them are related to the associated signs of the Cretan Hieroglyphic, also to the Sumerian pictograms and sometimes to the cuneiform equivalents. ” BUT HOW THESE INFLUENCES, IN WHAT DIRECTIONS, AND IN WICH MEASURE EXISTED AND WORKED MUST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES COULD TELL. … EVEN I AM TAKING ACCOUNT OF A DELAY TIME IN THE TRANSMISSION PROCESSUS, EG AS TABLETS TO BE LATER THAN 2.700 B.C. , AS WAS FROM THE START THE HYPOTHESIS OF MR. VLASSA (AND NOT ONLY!). I PUT THE TARTARIA TABLETS RATHER WITH MINOAN PLACES AND ON DIRECT SUMERIAN INFLUENCE. ADDING TO THIS, IN MY OPINION, THERE ARE CLUES THAT WE HAVE SOME SIGNS WICH APPEARED LATER. WORSE THAN THIS, I AM SUSPECTING, WE COULD BE CONFRONTED WITH NOT QUITE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION (WITH SLIGHT CHANCES)TO HAVE EVEN A FEW SIGNS WICH ARE ONLY SOME HUNDRED YEARS B.C. OLD EG. AS TO BE FROM ETEOCRETAN/ARCHAIC GREEK WRITINGS ! —————————————————– The paper under scrutiny is:
Tartaria and the Sacred Tablets – cIMeC.ro
=========================== Rectangular undrilled tablet
Picture, from http://www.dacoromania-alba.ro/nr27/cultura_si_civilizatiile_la_tartaria.htm
M.Merlini : – is representing a hunting scene – three pictures: 1. unclear shape 2. a standing vegetal motif (tree) 3. a quadruped (goat) – The unclear shape could be zoomorphic or atropomorphic figure —————————- me: unexpected short & resumed analysis – maybe not “hunting scene”, “goat-hunter” !?!; what are your “pro” arguments ? – he not stressed that there are no groups of pictograms (and that isolated are rare) in Vinca and Danubian script , as these civilisations seem to elude/has leaped over this phase, using mainly proto-linear, elementary signs – yes, either antropomorphic or zoomorphic, but the upright position and forward extension of limbs, make me to favor antropomorphic, anthropoid, human siluette. He not choosed one. I propose to conciliate this dilemma: if animal, what scene will be? Of two or more acting/(fighting !?) animals? So, could be rather a human silhuette, an god(ess) or in extremis, even a ghost – not tree, mut much out of general “vegetal motif” something more precise (eg.branch, cereal ear, cereal/s ) – much exactly than goat, in fact “goats !), due of the horns shape and length, of caprinae family indeed, could be ibex or better Cretan wild goats, “cri-cri’s” Picture, from Wikimedia Commons File:Cri – cri, Soutěska Samaria – Kréta
What do you say Mr. Merlini about: From https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/Sumerian_Cuneiform_English_Dictionary_12.pdf
DARA3 ~ IBEX | durah (dara3) [89x] = wild goat, mountain goat | Image, from https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
“DARA 3~c”
– remembering a sumerian proto-cuneiform tablet, my opinion is that we have on tablet depicted an offering (of goats) ritual to some deity. For this scenario no matter if ordinary human or god(dess) note Some of my attempted tablets interpreting/reading proposals contain by chance or not, words: “goat” in sumerian and IE,greek, also “eat” (sum. ud and ku; gr. hed,ede )
====================== Round tablet Picture, from https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-detine-cele-mai-vechi-scrieri-din-istoria-civilizatiei/
Folowing images figuring parts of the tablet, from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html
LADDER SIGN Mr. Merlini compared the sign with ATU 260 ,with 4 rungs, but much likely would be after him Labat 436. Noticed that after Badiny it is “TUD,TUR”=”settlement foundations”. After R.Kolev it is Labat 99,”EN” !Wrong! Merlini say, that it is convergent with Indus 53 and Luwian “trone”. Not completely found in Linear A, AB55, but in Linear B “Pa3”. In Szekely runic is “Z” After Hruskaq it is “agricultural field” In akkadian is partlyL 99″Lord,God” or L 436 “settlement foundations”
Merlini concluded that: – it is an abstract sign (me:!?) wich make introduction of ezoteric message” ; an incipit that introduce a message” – also could be “an auspicious sign or an invocation”. ========================= me: IF YOU SUSTAIN AND PERSIST FOR AN OLD AGE (5.300-..??) FOR THE TABLETS, THEN YOU MUST COMPARE THE SIGNS FROM THE TABLETS FIRST WITH SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM ONES, USED AROUND 3.000 BC, NOT WITH SIGNS USED LATER !
I checket, mistake, (you hurried?), NOT LABAT 436, WRONG! ; why you not show us the shape of the signs wich found by you to be similar ?? From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html :
Could be “GA2”
, but much sure, IT IS LABAT 536 “KU”, and From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
“KU~a”
From The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process ku: to base, found, build; to lie down
From Cuneiform Basics https://www.theishtargate.com/cuneiform-basics.html
1. “Linear A does not have logograms for arms and armor (except AB 191 GAL helmet), spices (AB 123 = *123 AROM is only a phoneme in A [Hiero *157 occurs on seals #291 and CMS II 3.23 as a logogram]), or metals (unless A 327 [





—————————
Invention of Writing
(8-th column) Falkensein ATU 527, otherwise not found in a single tablet inscribed/traced ! ============================================ UPPER HALF, RIGHT SIDE











From https://indusscriptmore.blogspot.com/search/label/Linear%20B << In proto-cuneiform, a “D” shape with a single internal stripe is GAR, which came to mean “storeroom; to form.” Another sign resembles a “D” with three short backslashes inside: IR~c, which came to mean “scent, odor; perfume, fragrance.” Neither represents a musical instrument. In contrast, “round harp” is BALAG, a curved “b” shape with three backslashes joining the rounded, lower segment with the upper stem. This is a representation of a real stringed instrument. Note that it does not resemble the Indus STRIPED DEE.
Inscription from M-73: STRIPED DEE / SPEAR / COMB.
There is another “D” whose meaning one should consider, this one found among the Luwian hieroglyphs. In this case, the rounded side faces downward, with the flat side up. Its meaning is CAELUM, “sky.” This “D” shape contains a single stripe paralleling the flat side and four short strokes perpendicular to the stripe. These last four join the stripe and the flat side of the “D.” Variants of the proto-cuneiform GAR also include short strokes at a 90 degree angle to the long internal stripe. The “b” variant has two and the “a” variant three. Proto-Elamite contains a single sign that is essentially “D” shaped, again with the rounded side downward, flat side upward (M378). There are, in addition, two stripes inside the “D” that parallel the flat side, each stripe also extending a bit beyond the edges of the “D” shape. Also, inside the basic “D” shape is another, smaller “D” shape that shares the same flat side. The meaning of this sign is unknown. >>
So, anywhere plain “D”
———————————–


.jpg)

https://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf NIGIN niñin(2): n.,enclosure, circle; capacity; whole (cf. kilib and gur4-gur4
)


















A question we have left unexplored pending further reading, is another view of the AB/UNU sign itself. While it may be called in general terms the ‘base’ or ‘stand’ in the city seal, on a closer examination this symbol and its corresponding cuneiform sign are shown to mean “abode” and to refer to the inner sanctum of the temple of the city god.”




by John A. Halloran. ba, ‘to give’);







%7C.jpg)




1, sign 14
AB04, EXACTLY AS OURS !

and 15 )





Interpretation Gong Yushu












– no cat, no bull, not the sign ATU47 wich has another shape! – not GUD SUN, not POWERFUL BULL, not SHINING BULL !, because was GUD-ANU, GUD-ANNA:”heavenly Bull”









Web results
The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process – Sumerian.org
Nov 2, 2014 · Paper analyzing the Sumerian proto-language. … u: ten (usually written: u). he, hi: to mix [HI archaic frequency: 291]
Full text of “Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from …
3 In Sumerian, Inanna’s name means literally “Queen of Heaven,” and she was called both the First Daughter of … (In Sumerian, the word for wind, Hi also means “ghost” and
Elementary Sumerian Glossary
by DA Foxvog · Cited by 11 · Related articles
Elementary Sumerian. Glossary. (after M. Civil 1967). Daniel A Foxvog … bar outside,exterior; outer appearance; body; back, edge
Sumerian as a Language – jstor
by JD Prince · 1907 · Cited by 1 · Related articles
between Sumerian words and similar sounding Semitic vocables. In fact, I have … also = bar = BAR ‘ cut, sever,
From The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic …
THESAURUS AND LEXICON OF SIMILAR WORDS AND SYNONYMS IN 21 DEAD AND …
Maximillien De Lafayette · 2015 · Fiction
Bar-bar: Sumerian. Noun. A chain
From wrdingham.co.uk › cybalist › msg Re: [tied] lat. barbatus
Web results
Sumerian Dictionary – GEOCITIES.ws
… restored, and you may also be interested in John Halloran’s Sumerian Language Page at: … rising sun bahar – potter barbar – flashing
Sumerian Chinese – Forgotten Books
The linear form of the Sumerian character Iii. —. HI BAR,. ‘ spread out extended o f a net an d o ther things From tixili.gq › 900761-cale-johnson-sum… Web results Cale johnson sumerian | tixili cale johnson sumerian Sumerian adjectival passives using the imprefix: the old Babylonian evidence and some possible third millennium … HiBarBar: be OUT
From V3.COMPARATIVE ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY OF MESOPOTAMIAN …
—————————————– From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ ” the bull head #012 “. See cretan hieroglyphic https://teicrete.gr/daidalika/documents/phaistos_disk/signary.pdf sign H 016
CONCLUSION, 2-nd option: is not the sign *23 (MU)/BOS = cattle , but



Leave a Reply