Archive for August, 2020

Questionable archaeological results and conclusions ?

August 20, 2020

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. ======== Quite early I realised and come to the conclusion that innitial estimated “age determination” (5.300 B.C.)/M.Merlini) of the tablets is terrible wrong. From › document › All-…
All Shades of Gray – The Case of ‘Vinča Script’ | Runes | Writing
” The tablets from Tartaria in Romania (Makkay 1969), from a dubious archaeological and stratigraphic context, were one of …”

From › Settling_disco…
(PDF) Settling discovery circumstances, dating and …
“David G. Zanotti advanced the possibility that the tablets were intrusive from the upper strata most likely connected with the Bronze Age presence on the site, in particular with Baden-Kostolac culture.” Image, from

Even an age as old as 2.700 B.C. must be sustained (see other archaeologists proposals) with hard evidences and proved/demonstrated. Even further I am not convinced that C14 age determination of the bones (5.300 B.C.) is accurate. Could be in extreme the bones of an ancient ancestor of the local community, but not the Merlini’s scribe & revered person (priestess? “Lady of Tartaria”) . From

The Tartaria Tablets: The oldest writing in the world? Redefining ...

Due the fact that the signs on upper half of the round tablet are much newer than the proto cuneiform time (~3.000 B.C.). Those signs appeared 1000-2000 years after. The “H”-like sign is like, but not proto cuneiform sign “GA2” From › tools › archsigns

and the same GA2: Sign No. 458 

 with sign value  ba4, ga2, ma3, pisan, sita.

nor proto-cuneiform sign “KU”, wich had a “boxed” shape: From  ucla arch signs proto-cuneiform › tools › archsigns

Semnele LABRYS si cele de pe tablita de la Tartaria de origine sumeriana ?  | Tartaria tablets

From The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention › prot-sum ku: to base, found, build; to lie down

E.g. could be asimilated with archaic greek letters; From › … Greek Alphabet – NumisWiki, The Collaborative Numismatics …


Archaic Greek alphabets | Алфавит

You must agree with one simple fundamental and rational conclusion: At a given time, (Eg, 3000-2700 BC ) one cannot know and use the signs wich appeared later (2.200 -600 B.C.) !!!. I advance here the hypothesis that :

What are some examples of obsolete letters from the Greek alphabet ...

Dative Sing: τῷ ἥρῳ / ἥρωῐ̈ tôi hḗrōi / hḗrōï Accusative Sing τὸν ἥρω / ἥρωᾰ tòn hḗrō / hḗrōa ἥρωε hḗrōe See: From

“‘to the hero’ or ‘to the deceased’…Is the slab a votive for a proper hero or a grave stele of an undistinguished mortal?” (Greenewalt).

NOTE. The sign +++++ could be for “OS” or “50” (age of the deceased?!) From › pulg
The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the …
The review of the literary evidence concludes with a discussion on the use and meaning of the specification of some sacrifices as ὡς ἥρῳ (OS:

  1. like asasjust as
  2. according as)

For the sequence D D o o (Di D o c/o/u?)

From › AULAS…
… ῥάζζω que se precipita 15. antídoto ἀληί + δίδωκη (remédio) dado contra

From › tomo_3PDF
O estudo de metaplasmos tem sido uma das atividades fundamentais …
(bhárati); dar: lat. do, gr. δίδωκη, sânscr. dád ti)

From The Cult of Thracian Hero. A Religious Syncretism … – › download › pdf from the latin doto or the Greek verb “δίδωκη” which means “to give”

From › packs
Rezultate de pe web
Greek > Verbs > Flashcards – Brainscape
Greek > Verbs > Flashcards. Study These Flashcards. Study These Flashcards. Flashcards in Verbs Deck (32). 0 … I chase ( didoko

From What does “δίδω προνόμιο” (dído̱ pronómio) mean in Greek? › what-is– Traducerea acestei paginiprivilege. More meanings for δίδω προνόμιο (dído̱ pronómio). privilege verb. παραχωρώ προνόμιο … δίδω verbdído̱ give, lendadminister

From δῐ́δου  (dídou)

  1. second-person singular present active imperative of δῐ́δωμῐ (dídōmi)
  2. third-person singular imperfect active indicative of δῐ́δωμῐ (dídōmi) (Epic)

Reconsidering the Hera-Pottery from the Samian Heraion and … › index.php › article › download

PDFthe goddess: HPH (eta rho eta), HP (eta rho), PH (rho eta). The same symbols are also found on oinochoai, hydriai, amphoras, and lekanai,

Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt Ceramic inscriptions – British … › johnston_ceramic_incriptions_new
Eta-rho (if we extend the search to Hera/e) occurs just once under a 4th century black-glaze bowl, possibly Attic (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge,. GR 336.1899) …

The Temple of Apollo Bassitas: The › books… or Ionic eta-rho as HP.24 The distinction between long epsilon and eta is not to be taken as a chronological indicator but as a … Hera or hero are possibilities ..

(PDF) Ariel D.T. Stamped Amphora Handles from Tel Mikhal … › Ariel_D_T_Stamped_Amphora_Ha…(eta-rho ligature) This prolific fabricant is dated between c. … and maintained that the monogram stood for Hera or her sanctuary.

Remain a big question mark : Could somebody (supposed writer) know the rest of the signs ? From wich area ? Syro-Phoenician, (Aegean included) Probably used only as sacred signs in religious rituals? ———————————————————————

We have also on upper half of the round tablet as well, etruscan letters : From › stable
An Etruscan Inscription on a Statuette of Herakles – jstor

Top-level sumerologists come to the conclusion that there are not genuine sumerian tablets (A.Falkenstein 1965 : Zu den Tontafeln aus Târtària) and nor writen by a sumerian scribe ( Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации … › izdaniya-1 A. A. Vaiman. On the QuasiSumerian tablets from Tartaria). They all agree that in best case the “scribe” tried to trace numbers in proto-cuneiform fashion. But sumerians in that stage allways imprint shape numbers, not tracing them ! From › articles › ma… The Mathematics of Uruk and Susa (c.3500-3000 BCE …

If a sumerian wanted to make D D o o (1+1+10+10) he must imprint the signs! Despite (From A.Falkenstein/The texte aus Uruk) there is a sign “D” as ATU 527, there is no one instance of inscribed “D”, only punctured !

From Hans J. Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East: 9000-2000 BC , translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier with Kenneth J. Northcott. 1988 by the University of Chicago] “In these early phases, the uses of writing were limited and, because of its basis in trade, consisted just as much of numbers as of words. Among the signs, for example, there was one which had a D-shape: there was a straight edge which was deep-cut and a round end which was much shallower, reducing to nothing. What gave the game away was that these Ds were grouped into clusters, ranging from one to nine. Here then was the making of a decimal system. In some cases, a circular punchhole, formed by means of a cylindrical reed”

Otherwise as other scientist noticed the sumerian put biger numbers on the left side !

In my opinion, the signs resemble that sumerian proto-cuneiform because of a large cultural difussion along time.Due of the fact that allmost all signs are symilar to that sumerian they interpreted the tablet as beeing sumerian (included Rumen Kolev/Bulgaria/Varna/2010

Румен Колев )


A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev gave one of the best interpretations of the tablet message (interpreting not reading as long as we have no true writing ). Mr. Marco Merlini analasided the signs, for every sign he found 20-50 corespondences in world writings. But not depassed this stage and was not capable to extract tinyest meaning out of the tablet’s signs. Mainly cause he remain fixed on Vinca-Turdas signary on the tablet wich is truly and far unreal.

I tried to interpret them using sumerian proto cuneiform signs and Aegean writings signs and syllabograms.I obtained consistent meaning interpretations (same as scientists above, with slight differences on sign interpretations). Be aware : “test interpretations” or “probes”!

Even an age around 2.700 B.C. is nquestionable, because I found myself details wich appeared in writing much later : – H-like sign exactly Aegean PA3, ~2.000 B.C./cannanite,old hebrew Heth shape~1.000 B.C.


Who or What is the Mystery of the Choter, or is it Both ...


PDF) On Decipherment of the Inscriptions of Linear A in the Common ...

– Capital letter- like sign “D” not prezent traced, scrached in proto cuneiform, ONLY IMPRINTED !


Clay tokens mapped to the pictographs and numerical values assigned to them. (Source: Besserat/1977]

Not present in any early writings, it appeared as capital D shape only much-much later in archaic greek alphabets/Chalcis.  Another D-shaped sign, proto-canaanite dalet: From › first-… Origins and meanings of the first alphabet letters – Nature …

Ioannis K. KENANIDIS, Evangelos C. PAPAKITSOS, sustain the theory that Aegean protolinear appeared under direct influence of sumerian migrants wich were early minoans in Crete. NOTE Very-very interesting:

– the shape of sumerian proto-cuneiform sign GAR “food ration/bread” is as capital D with additional paralel stroke inside. From › tools › archsigns

See the sign in the middle/right (the compund sign is GU:”to eat”):


GAR GAR [FORMER] wr. GAR “former, retired” aĝarak [FLUID] wr. a-ĝar; ĝa2-ar; ĝar “depilation fluid” gar [HEAP] wr. gar “to heap up” Akk. garānu ĝar [PLACE] wr. ĝar; ĝa2; ĝa2-ar; ĝa2ĝar; ĝarar; mar; ĝa2ĝarar “to put, place, lay down; to give in place of something, replace; to posit (math.)” Akk. šakānu Signs KU+GAR ? From The Chaldean Account Of Genesis (Illustrated Edition) books << There are two principal or key-words, naqbi and kugar; the first of which means “a channel,” and is more particularly applied to the canals with which Babylonia was intersected and watered, while the second is the compound ideograph which literally signifies “minister” or “servant of work.”>>

– egyptian sign “T”=”loaf of bread” is a horizontal D

– Aegean writings used for volume units an D-like sign.


Beer | SpringerLink

This observation can converge to the conclusion that due probably of cultural diffusion and/or large-scale commerce, there was a common sign for food rations or units ! So there are some slight chances that our sign “D” was used as sumerian proto cuneiform sign GAR=NINDA=food ration/Bread ! Also the round signs are not twoo signs for ten (wich in proto cuneiform are imprinted) but if traced, rather: From › tools › archsigns 2(LAGAB~a) wich from my recollection would be “NIGIN”

See Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian … › Ye… A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts. Ioannis K. Kenanidis, Evangelos C. Papakitsos2015. 3.

If so, Tartaria tablets could be the best ever hard evidence to sustain their theory. . If the tablets were inscribed in Aegean bronze age, one must give an explanation how the scribe new some sumerian signs from 1.000 years back in the past (1.700 Aegean-2.700 Sumerian proto-cuneiform). Even worse: if were written when appeared alphabets in Levant, Anatolia and Greece (1.000 B.C. alphabets-2.700 B.C. proto-cuneiform ! 2.000 years apart !) Remember, or be aware that all sumerian proto-cuneiform signs were not known by minoans nor by mycaenians or greeks, tablets were digged and come to light after 1900 ! In antiquity there were not libraries !

From 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. All of them date to the very end of the Uruk period [3500 t0 3200 BC] and the Jemdet Nasr phase [3200 to 3000 BC].

What is intriguing me much more is the fact that apparently the tablets presents itself as a pile, collection of different type and categories signs, from different areas and time origin: pure pictographic, ideograms/logograms, syllabograms and letters.

From M.Merlini/Tartaria tablets: › books Web results Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis Magazine “It consists probably of a mix of logograms, ideograms, pictograms and only some phonetic elements occasionally and marginally marked”

From › library
“Both Egyptian and Sumerian writing retained both ideograms and syllabic phonograms right … developed the added connotation of a mixed pictographic-logographic and syllabic script”

Covering from Mesopotamia to Levant/Syro-Phoenicia, Anatolia and Aegean areas. This complex and messy situation logically increase very much the possibility that a person toward nowdays with unknown motivation or goal to display this bunch of signs. I took in account all possible situations, including some fantastic ones as tablets beeing written by a high scientific ranked catholic priest or a relative of Zsofia Torma, eg. brother epigraphist Karoly Torma or somebody else in the iminence of receiving her title of doctor in science.In fact the paper certifying this was not received by her in hand when alive !

DDoc “latin abbreviation for decretorum doctor=professor in theological doctrine” Hera:”greek & latin for Lady”. In fact many scientists hypotheside that the “writer” was not a scribe and possible allmost illiterate. I advance even stress that the person at most had poor knowledge of greek and latin. =================


Somebody, much later than sumerian proto-cuneiform sign’s time, tried to imitate proto cuneiform signs. Not without success, because some top-level scientists were blinded or fooled by the proto cuneiform-like, general appearance.They noted that the “scribe” not followed sumerian technique structure and management of the signs, + tried to imitate numbers, but not succeded because sumerians not inscribed/traced the numbers but imprinted. Also the ‘scribe” was not aware enough to know that the signs “H”-like has not the shape of proto cuneiform signs GA2 or KU but rather close to Aegean syllable PA3 or proto-canaanite heth or archaic greek heta/eta or etruscan and archaic latin H. He made a bunch/pile of signs originated from very different writing sistems and periods of time. Not at first sight, but for me is evident that on every of the three tablets, therea are three types/categories of signs: – pictographic – ideogram/logogram -like – syllabogram/letter – like

From › tib… A Magyar-Megmaradásért – Our history – Tibor E. Barath: THE … · The testimony of the Tatárlaki (Tartaria) tablets. 1. … “The sound-signs appearing on the round tablet are, in our opinion, not Sumerian picture-signs, but more advanced carved signs.”

From › Talk:Paleo-Eu…
Talk:Paleo-European history overview – FrathWiki
“The only items that look like early writing are the Tartaria tablets, and these are utterly atypical and probably spurious

What had the supposed scribe in mind, and what was his motivation to proceed this way ? To show his vast knowledge or to show the principles anf evolution of writing? Out of upper half of the round tablet, the rest of the signs maybe had a religious role as liturgical aids in religious rituals (as nowdays priest are using different books)

From Language Isolates – Page 40 – Google Books Result › books “Discussions of evidence for early writing and language in Europe often invoke three clay tablets found in 1961 at the Rumanian site of Tartaria with symbols that some have described as early writing or proto-writing. These objects were found in a pit that may have been of ritual significance, but the archaeological context is somewhat murky, and therefore dating is insecure. They may have come from ca. 4000 bce or ca. 2500, but the issue is still debated (for reassessment of the archaeological context and much of ensuing debate, see Zanotti 1983, Merlini and Lazarovici 2008).”


As a Church we have a ‘language’ that helps us put expression to the moments of grace that mark our lives. This language is expressed in symbols and rituals (which are beyond words) and also, of course, in words that help us communicate the mystery of our relationship with the Divine. This is the language of the liturgy. Let’s look at a few of these symbols:”

From (PDF) Use of Aegean Bronze Age Symbols by the local Elites … › 33050… – Use of Aegean Bronze Age Symbols by the local Elites of prehistoric Europe … one of the early signs of the birth of … rituals of Minoan Crete.

Chronological and typological chart of the Bronze Age pendants. Illustration by author

From Not Just Counters: Clay Tokens and Ritual Materiality in the … › publications › not-just-counters.

” In the ancient Near East, clay tokens were used in temples, human burials, pilgrimage shrines, and ritual caches, which indicates that tokens served in ritual contexts and not just as counters. Cross-culturally, worshipers utilize small clay objects for ceremonial purposes, such as pilgrims’ tokens. Clay absorbs spiritual power at shrines in many cultures, making it a significant material for ritual offerings, blessings, or protection. Worshipers place clay tokens at shrines or take them home for family members and sick persons to touch or consume. Similar material contexts suggest that ancient people in the Near East used some clay tokens to gain merit from deities for prosperity, health, and religious devotion.”

At the place of a disaster ?

August 5, 2020

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. ========= Of course is about Tartaria tablets. It is not like a plane crash with hundreds of passengers on board, but something of another nature and far much worse. Because science, our understanding of cultural developement (particularly writing) is implied or even hard hitted and many researchers in the field are involved. Possible beautiful stories and neolithic-related scenarios (Lady of Tartaria) must be abandonded or at least changed. PARTICULARITIES, FLAGRANT DEVIATIONS FROM A NATURAL, NORMAL STRUCTURATION OF DISPLAYED SIGNS, OTHERWISE NECESSARY TO TRANSMIT A MESSAGE, AND EVEN OUTMOST WEIRD ASPECTS DEFYING WHATEVER LOGIC OR PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. There are many clues/signs and hard evidences that something wrong, intended or not, happened in an unknown past when Tartaria tablets were made. Don’t know why, so many scientists wich were leaning on the subject, did not noticed at all many aspects wich are allmost “shouting” themselves .Normaly this not become visible at the first glance and result after analising throughly the signs. To begin, I will focuss and detailing the first striking one. Not in first moments, but if one ponder and analise not much more than the sign shapes, will remark that every tablet is using different type or category of signs, (but alike inside a tablet), if you want, pertaining to three main categories: – the undrilled tablet has on it pure pictographic signs. Eg. goat picture signfy goat. – the rectangular/oblong tablet with hole has on it ideograms wich could be as well logograms, even syllabograms. Eg. donkey-like head, is in sumerian sign AMAR/calf wich was used also for sun-god, Aegean cat-head sign MA wich they say that MA comes from AMAR, meaning Mother (Goddess). – the round, drilled tablet wich have signs mainly of same shape. The sign shapes has remote origin in sumerian proto cuneiform signs, but were used in Aegean, Canaanite, Phoenician, Anatolian (carian!) and archaic Greek writings. (This happened as took place a large, continous and strong cultural difussion wich happened along time). In the last ones writings : in Aegean as syllabograms and in canaanite, phoenician and greek as pure letters. Eg: ladder sign with three rungs: – sumerian proto cuneiform-like sign Ku – Aegean syllabogram (Linear A &B syllabogram PA3 – cannanite, paleo- hebrew, phoenician HETH – archaic greek Heta-Eta Note: The round tablet has on it in underside right quadrant, 2 complex ideograms. Me, as well everybody would expect that a scribe would use to comunicate one and the same type of writing, namely that one used in his time and area. Why the scribe or writer choose to proceed differently ? Total mistery. Possible explanations: – The tablets were used as paraphernalia, items/adds used in religious rituals, not intended to other more mundane practical porposes (eg. goods recordings). – One want to show to others his knowledges/cultural achievements or the principles and evolution of writing. The signs from all three tablets as a whole, not mach entirely any known writing sistem. Even if most of the signs could be found in the raw shape in sumerian proto-cuneiform or partly in Aegean writings and Anatolian alfabets. I made interpreting/reading attempts testing many languages.Best result were using proto-sumerian cuneiform and Aegean writings. I encountered great difficulties with Anatolian (carian) due of scarce knowlege of carian language and writing. Another particular aspect. All 3 tablets were treated as a set written at the same time by same person. Due the fact that there are no similar inscriptions the set is a real singleton. No other tablets to compare with or use as aids.Note that for Cretan hierogliphic, Linear A and Linear B (from wich only Linear B is partly deciphered) scientists has at their disposal different numbers (tens hundreds and thousends) of tablets. Please compare the difficulties encountered with deciphering Aegean writings for wich we had at disposal many tablets and allready tens of years of research and top-level scientists: Another aspect, noticed (in my recollection only by me): – the whole bunch of signs contain signs wich cover a great geographic area (Sumer, Levant, Anatolia, Aegean) and a large time span (3.000-2.200-500 B.C.?). In a way not accesible to an individual in past but as much accesible as we go toward nowdays time. The hardest question wich need an answer is: – How, when, where and who on Earth could know so many sumerian proto-cuneiform-like signs ? Until now, most of researchers took tablets (in a sumerian proto-cuneiform approach) as a set/whole unit and tried to interpret them together as 3 folowing pages of a book. In my opinion this was a wrong approach. Possible every tablet has its definite own role in an religious ritual or simply used as religious holy items. Many scientists allready noticed (me also), that the so-called “scribe” was not a real scribe and has no neccessary knowledge level to write.I say rather a trader or kind of (itinerant?) priest. But….upper row on the round tablet strikingly get in evidence. Cause there are signs wich were used in archaic greek alphabets. So in that mixture of signs could have a short line with real writing. Possible the autor intended to hide the tree in the wood .Note that Mr. Marco Merlini was the first one to detect that this portion could be covered by the other tablet when both were worn as a necklace. This possibility has great implications, in the first row upon presumed age of the tablets. If was on the verge that a new religion to be introduced in a new teritory, one must be cautios on the people impact. Eg. “HP” signs could be for Hera,Heros, Heracles or simply greek/latin hera/ hero:” LADY,GODDES/LORD,GOD”