Studying Tartaria tablets, I noticed overhelming similarities of the signs on them (aproximately 90% !) with that sumerian proto-cuneiform ones. I made also “didactic” test-readings on Tartaria tablets, in order to see if we have one of Aegean writing on them, the result beeing that noted closeness was lower than that with sumerian. But Aegean signs are either reflecting a relation (much distant than that of Tartaria tablets) with sumerian proto-cuneiform ones. So, Aegean signs beeing supposed of ultimate Sumerian origin. ——————————— Then the research of E.Papakitsos and G.Kenanidhs come to reinforce the distant relation I’ve detected.
First, they advanced the hypothesis that at least part of minoans were early sumerian settlers:
From https://www.sumerianz.com/pdf-files/sjss2(4)33-44.pdf << 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). …….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. >>
Upon their hypothesis, there existed a set of signs “Aegean Proto-Linear” wich preceded all Aegean known writings. The above authors paired some Aegean signs with their sumerian counterparts. The pairs were probably not the best ones and the result was not overhelming convincing me.
From http://www.cclbsebes.ro › 03_IKKenanidis_ECPapakitsos An Interpretation of the Malia Stone Inscription in Terms of the … “Cretan Protolinear script, which is considered herein as the original script that all the Aegean scripts evolved from. ”
See Minoan Sumerian Giannhs Kenanidhs Evangelos C Papakitsos https://www.academia.edu/11423494/Minoan_Sumerian <<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. …. 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. >> —————————————— When I tested to find my own pairs of signs, I was quite dissapointed to find far fewer pairs than expected. So, even if some of early minoans were of sumerian origin, i.e. sumerian migrants, seems that they not come with their proto-writing signs in a bag. This is why was not found in Crete genuine sumerian proto-writing or writing. My opinion is that the transmission was less direct and much mediated, by a cultural transmission, realised in the course of the time. + they met different kinds of local people. Writing was not an activity and goal per se, must fulfill their practical needs Writing appeared in complex, high-developed societies with a hierarchical social structure, having at the origin the necesity of comunication and distribution of goods.Economical activity and trade eased the the developement and spreading.
From file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian%20(1).pdf <<Once the Minoan authorities / society had decided to develop their commerce, both domestically and overseas, they would inevitably have to deal with the contemporary
international best-practices (i.e., sealing of goods and keeping records). ……Sumerians proved to be excellent traders and colonists throughout the entire Near East, even at the end of the Uruk period [56]. According to Kramer [57]: “…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”. Crete was known to Mesopotamia at least since the era of Sargon the Great, who lived approximately between the 24th and the 23rd centuries BC [58]. >>
Otherwise writing (in fact proto-writing) appeared independentely in different places in the World, some-how at the same time (around 3.500 B.C.). Aegeans not stayed still, waiting for an saviour with a book under the arm, to fall from the sky. If they took the writing entirely, as a “package” from Near East, probably nowdays all of us, Europeans would write with ideograms as chinese does. ———————————- EVEN FOR SAME SOCIETY, EVOLUTION OF WRITING IS SUPPOSING: – beggining from pictograms – these become to be much sketches, simplified, – from beginning, they attached phonetic values related to word root, toward logograms/ideograms – aquired many meanings, – appeared combined=complex ideograms – in short time, they forgot the original shape either the meanings of the original signs picture(word)=logogram > simplified shape; word root >+ + root-derived associated meanings=ideograms > mainly lost orig. word, remain derived meanings > id+id=complex ideogr.=++ complex meanings
TRUE WRITING: Picture > Root=Syllable/syllabogram=syllabogr.,syllabic writing ; Lin. B: “i-da–ma-te/Ida– Mother“
syllable/syllabogram > letters,Alphabetic writing ; Alph.today: eM, Ai, eN >MAN ——————————– If one try to translate this complex phenomenom, even slowly trying not to disturb it, in a place where many languages are spoken, then at least you EXPECT TO HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. So, we could NOT FIND EXACTLY THE SAME: – pictogram, sign shape – associated meaning/word – innitial/original word root IN ANOTHER ENVIROMENT, – ! root=phonetic value=syllable could come from other (out of many) word-meanings of the sign !
ONE CANNOT MOOVE A HOUSE FROM URUK TO CRETE WITHOUT FALLING OR MISSING AT LEAST SOME TILES ! Of course, not so simple/easy as the above authors innitial expected, they realised that writing must be fitted on the particular, local conditions; they have to compare how adaptation worked and evolved:
From file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian%20(1).pdf <<The comparative study was conducted in parallel including four factors:
the depicted object and its sign of the Aegean script,
the relation and similarity of the previous sign to equivalent Sumerian ones,
the assigned phonetic value of the sign of the Aegean script,
the similarity of the previous phonetic value to Sumerian words denoting the depicted object. At least three factors should match in order to confirm the relation. …….. It is a typical sample of 18 signs, among the most easily recognizable and readily interpretable ones. Provided the reader can recognize that every sign is quite close to a sketch of the depicted item, then this sample, comprising about 20% of the Linear-A and of the Linear-B syllabic repertoire, is statistically enough to prove that the Sumerian influence is not a coincidence and therefore the origins of the Aegean scripts can be of oriental origin. >> ===============================
AS DANUBIAN CULTURE WAS CLOSE THAN SUMER FOR CRETANS, WHY NOT AN DANUBIAN INSPIRATION ?
Timisoara/Romania- Crete 1.200 Km ; Crete-Vinca(Belgrad) 1.127Km; Crete-Al Warka (uruk) 1.944 Km
Din Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit
Bauer, Josef ; Englund, Robert K. ; Krebernik, Manfred https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/151545/1/Bauer_Englund_Krebernik_1998_Mesopotamien.pdf
“The presumption that decorated tokens appearing from approximately the middle of the 5th millennium B.C. in Uruk (but only from co . 3500 B.C. in Iron and Syria) led directly to pictographic script is the element of Schmandt-Besserat’s work which has been most debated .Comparing the graphic forms, she was able to propose the correspondence of o large number of decorated tokens with later ideograms, and these identifications are now moving through the secondary literature as if they had been justified or even in part accepted by experts. The basic argument against such facile identifications is that we know graphic similarity, in the absence of contextual proof, con be notoriously misleading, placing as it has Sumerian scribes as for afield as Rumania and China”
Despite Danubian/Vinca civilisations made great advances toward true-writing, they ceased to exist just before the supposed discovery wich woul be expected (3.500-4.000 B.C.). Until then, sure it influenced Aegean Civilisation, but how, and at wich extent nobody know. “Vinca script” gathered an impressive collection of elementary signs, wich were first stages of a Proto-Linear script, but not reached the “proto-writing” stage. Probably they not knew what will follow and be the options. They had no necessary time for testing, in order to choose between ideographic or syllabary/alphabetic writing. Missing the initial pictographic stage slowed-down the advancing, even acted as a barrier.
From file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian%20(1).pdf << 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.
Beside thees above, geneticist found that minoan had their roots in Anatolia and Eastern Europe.
From Ancient DNA analysis reveals Minoan and Mycenaean origins https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civilizations-greece-revealing-stories-science.html
” Study results show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically highly similar – but not identical – and that modern Greeks descend from these populations. The Minoans and Mycenaeans descended mainly from early Neolithic farmers, likely migrating thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age from Anatolia, in what is today modern Turkey.
“Minoans, Mycenaeans, and modern Greeks also had some ancestry related to the ancient people of the Caucasus, Armenia, and Iran. This finding suggests that some migration occurred in the Aegean and southwestern Anatolia from further east after the time of the earliest farmers,” said Lazaridis.
While both Minoans and Mycenaeans had both “first farmer” and “eastern” genetic origins, Mycenaeans traced an additional minor component of their ancestry to ancient inhabitants of Eastern Europe and northern Eurasia. This type of so-called Ancient North Eurasian ancestry is one of the three ancestral populations of present-day Europeans, and is also found in modern Greeks.”
Anyway there is an insurmontable gap of allmost 1.000-2.000 years between Vinca script signs (5.000-4.000 B.C.) and Aegean Proto-Linear script (3.000 B.C.), so hard to consider kind of transmission. Note Tartaria tablets by no means, NOT pertain to Vinca Culture. An “determined!?” age as 5.300 B.C. is the most stupid joke I heard of. They are much later products, somewhere after beginning of sumerian proto-writing and toward Aegean proto-Linear, in the best scenario for an old age.
Tartaria tablets 
Leave a Reply