Archive for September, 2020


September 20, 2020

Pity enough, for every folowing cases, some criteria increase the chances for case to be real, and not waiting, other criteria come lowering the chances.

3200-2500 B.C. SUMER; Sumerian/Syrian trader.

Pro/For: general sign shapes, similar to proto cuneiform, not genuine/proper sumerian, but “quasi-sumerian” !!; Contra/Agains: Extreme far distance from Mesopotamia, low chances to be brought from Sumer, n ot exact shape for many signs, signs order, casette spacing, presence of some newer signs (“D”, heth/PA3) etc. The “scribe” not followed sumerian technique, structure and management of the signs, + it seem that tried to imitate numbers. The “writer” was not aware, dropped off a clue: Instead of showing the shape of proto cuneiform sign KU/GA2 wich in proto-cuneiform is SQUARED/BOXED, put a much later shape: ladder “a scala”, (opened) as Linear A sign/syllabogram PA2 or with the same shape ancient canaanite HETH. If inscribed in 2.700-3.000 B.C. he does not know that ONLY in 2.200 and 1.000 B.C. will appear the signs PA2 and respective Heth ! Beside this, all upper half of the round tablet could contain newer signs ! Chance: 1% for native sumerian and 5% for born abroad Sumer, sumerian/syrian trader.

From See the shape of proto-cuneiform sign GA2 (boxed) wich is different on the round tablet (vertical bars off, staggered pattern)

File:Paleo Hebrew Letter Het.svg - Wikipedia

and sign ASZ2 wich is the same on round tablet..

The Mathematics of Uruk and Susa (c.3500-3000 BCE) « Mathematical Science &  Technologies


Expansión territorial de la cultura de Uruk (aubet, 2007).

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge › core › journals › antiquity › article The Tartaria Tablets – Volume 41 Issue 162 – M. S. F. Hood. “… It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand”

2.800-2.200 B.C. Levant (Syria), Anatolia, Aegean Pro/For: much close to Transylvania, itinerant trader or metal worker ; due of a trade network, there were “URUK” colonies or enclaves outside Mesopotamia (Anatolia, Syria). Contra/Against: newer sign heth/PA3 ;some newer signs: “D”. Proto cuneiform signs were used only in Sumer and Iran from 3.500 to ~2.800? B.C. for mainly (if not only)administrative purposes. They were used short time and after were discarded. The sumerian proto-cuneiform tablets remained burried until 1.920-1.925 !, not accesibible for any individual. So signs not known in Aegean but possible known in South-Eastern Anatolia.Cause of : – presence of much newer signs (exact shape of PA3/heth, D-shape) and not respecting sumerian technique and internal organising/structure of signs, – By my knowledge, not a single tablet with proper proto-cuneiform was found in Anatolia or Aegean areas, only in Syria. The chances for Anatolia/Aegean (Crete) are very low, 5/1 %, and for Syria are low 15%

From › results › filePDF Urbanized Landscapes in Early Syro-Mesopotamia and … – Unibo que les sites clefs de Hacinebi, Hassek Höyük et Arslantepe ont vu leur stratigraphie connectée au schéma … “Uruk colonies” did not produce full- fledged proto-cuneiform records, it has been postulated.


PDF] Uruk colonies and Anatolian communities : An interim report on the  1992-1993 excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey | Semantic Scholar

From › … › Annotations of issues Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации … “ 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.”

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge › core › journals › antiquity › articleThe Tartaria Tablets – Volume 41 Issue 162 – M. S. F. Hood. “… from it, may have spread to these regions and to the Balkans from Mesopotamia through Syria

From The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and … › dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073The discovery in 1961 (reported in 1963) of the three tablets of Tărtăria … Hood who, in order to suggest a Syrian origin of the tablets, chose for analysis only one .

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge › core › journals › antiquity › articleThe Tartaria Tablets – Volume 41 Issue 162 – M. S. F. Hood. “… if not actual writing, was practised in the rest of the Aegean and in Western Anatolia before the end…” 

2.800-1.500 B.C. Aegean, Syria, Anatolia. Pro/For: place pretty close, some signs present in Aegean protolinear or in Linear A /B. Extensive sumerian trade cultural expansion and trade network . Between Sumer, Crete, Cyclades and Eastern Anatolia. Contra/Against: Some signs on tablets has ambigous shapes, not found in proto cuneiform nor in other places (e.g. Aegean).Not sure in wich measure proto cuneiform signs were known in the area; some newer signs “D”,”c”. Relative to DDoo sequence on the round tablet, there are only folowing possibilities: – The “scribe” wanted and intended to depict numbers/food signs and inscribed signs used in his (unknown yet) area. For 5% – The “scribe” want and intented to depict number or food units and intentionally imitate sumerian-ones. For 10% Not found any proto cuneiform tablets in Anatolia, Aegean areas excepting Syria. Only few Aegean signs has proto cuneiform shapes (PA2,PA) maybe more in Anatolian writings. – Wanted to show the 4 moon-phases For: 15% For Anatolian origin: 10%; For Aegean origin: 8%.

AGAIN REMEMBER: Proto cuneiform signs were used roughly between 3.500 ~2.800 B.C. – Were used mainly or even only for accounting/administrative tablets – Useful & necessary for a short period of time (max. 1 year ?) – After this were discarded – From say ~ 2.800 B.C. (after wich were integrated as raw materials in construction of new temples ), until 1925-1935 REMAIN OUT OF HUMAN REACH/VIEW, BURRIED. This simple fact is sufficient for greatly lowering the chances that tablets to be genuine, made by a scribe and for practical purposes (administrative, economical), maybe even for religious purpose.

From “Neighbouring regions. The sources relating to the Uruk period derive from a group of sites distributed over an immense area, covering all of Mesopotamia and the neighbouring regions up to central Iran and southeastern Anatolia. …… exact relations with the Uruk culture were distant and are the object of debate, as well as the Levant, where the influence of southern Mesopotamia remains barely perceptible. But in other areas the Uruk culture is more evident, such as Upper Mesopotamia, northern Syria, western Iran and southeastern Anatolia. Me: Arslantepe, Kazane Hoyuk and many many others, mainly in Anatolia’s South-Eastern part, toward Cilicia and Syrian border.

From › Texts › HistoryPDF Civilizatoin before Greece and Rome – Joseph de Maistre by HWF Saggs · “mixture of word-signs (technically, ideograms or logograms) and syllable- signs ( syllograms) written … and some of the Tartaria signs are at least as similar to signs in the earliest Cretan script”

From Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin? – Novo … › 2019/09/28 › writing-in-neolith… The Tărtăria Tablets are now dated to the Vinča culture, c. 5300 B.C.*, i.e., within the European Neolithic period (see Lazarovici and Merlini 2008″

From The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and … › dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073Hood 1967) “or that the Tartaria tablets are not an isolated phenomenon but a manifestation of an influx of Near Eastern elements into the Aegean around 3000 …”

From Download Cypro- Aegean Relations In The Early Iron › “… “Approximately 250 objects—such as clay balls, cylinders, and tablets  and votive … found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact  sumerian migrants. “

From (PDF) Minoan Sumerian | Giannhs Kenanidhs – › Minoan_Sumerian*Corresponding Author: Evangelos C. Papakitsos. … Keywords: Aegean scripts, Minoan language, Sumerian language, Linear A, Linear B and Cretan ..

From “Dr. Cross said in an interview that several signs in the Ashkelon inscriptions “fit in with well-known Cypro-Minoan,” in particular from artifacts recovered at sites in Cyprus and at Ugarit, in Syria. He said the script had some characteristics of Linear A, the writing system used in the Aegean from 1650 B. C. to 1450 B. C. This undeciphered script was supplanted by another, Linear B, which was identified with the Minoan civilization of Crete and was finally decoded in the mid-20th century. Recent excavations have raised the estimation of Philistines. …Leon Levy Expedition “We can’t read the inscription, and that’s true as well of Cypro-Minoan writing found on Cyprus,” Dr. Cross said. “We will need a lot more samples before we can think of deciphering it.” The two researchers and other scholars said it was not surprising that the Ashkelon inscriptions were in an Aegean type of writing. The biblical Philistines are assumed to have been a group of the mysterious Sea Peoples who probably originated in the Greek islands and migrated to several places on the far eastern shores of the Mediterranean.”

From Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?

“-The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.

-It is suggested, if the above are in the correct direction, that future archaeological excavations in the Aegean-Greek peninsula must discover inscriptions and forms of Writing between the 6th and the 2nd millennium, to fill a logical evolutionary gap.”

1.000 B.C.-300 A.C. Levant, Aegean Pro/For: Archaic greek shape “D”, “heta/eta” ,”zeta” .Note that in Aegean writings one find distant relation with proto-cuneiform, in Anatolian writings there are much more similar signs (Alphabets of Asia Minor). Contra/Against: suppose not known by that time sumerian proto cuneiform signs, (Me:only influenced beginning of writing but: MINOANS USED SIMILAR HIERO/SACRED SIGNS ! ) Chances: Anatolian (e,g,carian): 30 % ; Aegean/Archaic greek: 25 %.

See signs similar to that on tablets (e.g. para-carian:”p”,”n/a”, “è“, “u”, “x“; sidetian “b”, “v”,”n” ; lycian “n”,”u”, “k”; carian “n”, “n/a”, “e1”, “u”) From ALPHABETS OF ASIA MINOR

Alphabets of Asia Minor
Alphabets of Asia Minor

From › publication
(PDF) Proto-elamite writing in Iran ” The evidence from Arslantepe. par Marcella” “… discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 1928″.

From Kenanidis Ioannis K., Papakitsos Evangelos C. A … › fileThis study presents a decipherment of the Eteocretan inscription from … linguistic evidence about the Sumerian origins of the Aegean scripts …”

From (PDF) The Eteocretan Substratum in Late Ancient Greek … › publication › 342692807_The_Et…Jul 12, 2020 – Kenanidis, 2015; 2018b). ” In this linguistic context. that identifies Eteocretan with a conservative. Sumerian dialect, the etymology of some words …”

300 A.C.-1.800 A.D. Pro: possible presence of signs in church libraries !? Vatican? Contra: Discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 192025. Not known proto-cuneiform signs until 1925 because until this year were burried Chances: 2 %

1.800 A.D.- 1961 Europe Pro: General appearance of the tablets: not as for a coherent/concrete/definite writing but as a pile of signs allready used in different types of writings. Schollars begun to know and made progress for all World writings and signs. Discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 1925. Some signs has refined, much newer shapes. Possibility to be modern fakes. Contra: slight or no hard evidences, no complete sustainable arguments. Chances: 50%

From › doc › dha_0755-7…
The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and further …
by S PALIGA · 1993 · Sorin PALIGA Université de Bucarest ” … It is admissible that the three tablets of Târtâria are false, a possibility about which little is written yet …”

From Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe: An Inquiry Into … › books… the object of extensive speculation as long as the approximate true age had not yet been established. There are the clay tablets from Tărtăria in Transsylvania

From Ancient Mysteries That Still Have Scientists Still Scratching … › History … the Tartaria Tablets are three stone tablets that are believed to depict the … their true age and who actually created them remains relatively unknown

From TARTARIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS.pdf | Pottery … – › document › TARTARIA-AND-THE-S…Jun 7, 2017 – … from Turdaș that do not have a straightforward stratigraphic context.The Tărtăria tablets are dubiously dated archaeological artifacts due .


It is weird that Zsofia Torma was convinced of presence in Transylvania of signs with a sumerian origin. Also from the beginning “discoverer” N.Vlassa stated first? (he who had no expertise in assyrology or proto cuneiform) from the very beginning that the signs are close to those used in Jemdet Nasr (probably and much sure heard some first echoes from western schollars).Otherwise Vlassa prejugment after discovery (1963) the similarity with Jemdet Nasr,  i.e. the Uruk III period when top-level scholars gave their opinions in and after 1965. (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman)

From › Tartaria_and_t…
(PDF) Tartaria and the sacret tablets | Marco Merlini –
TĂRTĂRIa AND THE SACRED TABLETS EURO INNOVANET ITALY … “Gelb denied any Jemdet Nasr script on the Transylvanian tablets”

The writer made some monumental mistakes (blunders, gaffes, faux pass):

  • collected pictograms, ideograms, logograms/syllabograms and even letters from different writing systems.
  • put them on different tablets
  • to show that in fact he know to write, possible wrote a line on upper half of the round tablet (wich by chance was hidden by the oblong punched tablet)
  • was or not aware that presence of much newer signs left evidence that the signs were inscribed after ~2.000 B.C., possible much later.