Review the age and authenticity of Tartaria tablets.

I was about to write an article in order to finaly prove that the authenticity of the Tartaria tablets is not supported, having more than 50 arguments to sustain this, with some 10 against. But I re-read Attila Laslos article: “Cui bono?Thought about reconsideration of Tartaria tablets” in wich he responded to assyoriologist Erika Qasim accusations regarding the archaeologists and tablets itself.   Qasim, Erika: Die Tărtăria-Täfelchen – eine Neubewertung. In: Das Altertum, ISSN 0002-6646, vol.58, 4 (2013),p. 307–318


The passages (out of those regarding the signs) wich convinced me: << In her opinion (Masson, E. 1984 L’ écriture dans les civilisations danubiennes néolithiques. Kadmos 23, 2, 89-123. Berlin & New York. ), <<……even though the location, date and conditions of the discovery of the tablets remain uncertain until further clarifications, the careful examination of the tablets, the existence of the wear traces on their surface, for example, attest to the fact that they were not fakes: “…on observe notamment sur les tablettes 1 et 2 des traces d’usure, des parties de signes un peu effaces ou des fissures fréquentes autour des gravures. De tels fénomènes témoignent en faveur de l’ancienneté ; s’il s’agissait de faux, leur fabrication serait à attributer à un grand expert dans la matière, en même temps fin conaisseur des écritures archaïques qu’à ma conaissance la Roumanie ne possède pas”53. Another fact can be added to these observations: in the case of a fake, the forger would have striven to produce an object as faithfully similar as possible to the Mesopotamian model which he wanted to imitate, would have taken care to choose quality raw material, and to respect the format of the tablets (which should not have been perforated and fired), to apply the corresponding writing techniques (by impression), and to reproduce some of the most characteristic signs. He would also have taken care to ensure the proper excavation documentation in order to prevent later suspicions regarding the circumstances of the discovery.
Beyond these logical arguments, the factual observations attesting to the authenticity (ancient character) of
the tablets, some of which have already been mentioned above, are decisive. It should also be noted that the existence of a calcareous coating on the surface of the tablets, which had to be removed in order to make the signs visible, was an actual proof of the fact that the objects had lain underground for a sufficiently long
period of time to be able to form the lime accumulation.
….. Until such analyses are carried out, the observation resulting from the recent microscopic investigations
on the surface of the tablets, according to which, in the grooved outline of some of the signs on the tablets, traces of soil have been found, remains decisive: “The close examination of the tablets indicates remains of
soil inside the contour of several signs […] The humus mixed with rocks and minerals can only come from the ritual pit‐grave. This is another factual element in favour of the statement concerning the authenticity of the inscribed artefacts. The presence of the encapsulated soil excludes the accusations that they are a modern fake not identified by N. Vlassa, or just a “game” of the discoverer”56 (my underlining, A. L.). >>

A. Laszlo was present at the diggins in the very day in wich tablets were found, but weird, totally unexplained, he did not saw them (!?). His arguments in the article Qui bono?….. turned my opinion again and convinced me that the tablets are not counterfaits. (I changed my mind before many times beeing convinced alternate that are genuine and counterfaits.)To be sincere his article could be mainly an reflex or defensive reaction. To defence and sustain the entire work of archaeologists then in charge at Tartaria site, work wich was criticised without mercy, and were advanced accusations. ————- The tablets are not counterfaits but in the same time not authentic ‘original, very old sumerian.The tablets are real indeed, were inscribed by somebody and in this perspective are “genuine”. Usually an scribe usually used the signs available in his time and area, wich definitely is not the case here.Tablets contain signs used in a large time span and extended area. More than that, there are pure pictographic signs on a tablet, ideograms on another (rectangular drilled) and syllabograms/letters (on that round one).But I will show you the evidence of not beeing older than 2.000 B.C. ! A scribe cannot know and use at a given moment signs wich were invented hundreds years later. ! … Wich is the case here, where on round tablet, entire upper row contain unexpected new signs: on the left side, an H-like (a ladder with 3 rungs) and at the right, some D-s and O-s. These signs with exact this shape not existed in proto-cuneiform by sumerians. ———– Sumerians used the proto-cuneiform Ku sign wich has a “boxed” shape. From

Folowing sign is GAR, meaning ninda = “ration/bread” See › booksTranslation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual …Jay Crisostomo — 2019 · Religion The sign gar, for example, iconically depicted a ration bowl in its original use in the late fourth millennium but …

————- So if we are expecting sumerian-like tablets those signs should not be present on tablets. Keep pleas in mind that “H” has an “open” shape and offset/slanted vertical bars and D is our/latin capital D.

First time this sign apperead in exact same shape for the first time in Cretan hieroglyphics and Linear A (2.000 B.C. as sign Pa3) and later in old canaanite/phoenician, as sign Cheth/Heth (1.500B.C.).
Above, Linear A sign PA3

Above, alphabet_chart_hhet_2.jpg

Regarding D-shaped signs, oldest similar signs (sumerian) are:

Compare the cuneiform sign ninda , a logogram which represents the Sumerian word for “food” or “bread”. The first image is of ninda in a tablet from Ur ~3000 BCE, while the others are of ninda in a fragment of a medical text from Nineveh ~650 BCE. Big difference.

Some scholars said that the “scribe” imitated sumerian signs for numbers (A.Falkenstein: D=1 and o=10) and others said that D’s imitated rations,breads or DDoc are the Moon phases (M.Merlini).

Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.

Anyway, the scribe knew well that signs, wich allready existed around him, he did not need to invent any of these signs instantly “on the spot“. D sign was used for letters later in archaic Greek (850 B.C.) and a little later Anatolian alphabets.The ladder sign also, for heta/eta by greeks and for e by Anatolians. From Chapter 8 Europe-II – The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 <<The ancient Anatolian alphabets Lycian, Carian, and Lydian all date from the first millennium bce, and were used to write various ancient Indo-European languages of western and southwestern Anatolia>> ————- So the signs on tablets not must have necessary a sumerian origin, nor the scribe to be a native sumerian. Otherwise many signs on tablets could be found in all Aegean writings and in Anatolian writing.So the place and time of origin could be rather Aegean area (Crete? 2.000 -500 B.C) or Anatolia.(200 B.C-500 A.D.)

FROM ARCHAIC GREEK AND ANATOLIAN ALPHABETS WE HAVE MANY SIGNS ON THE TABLETS AND BOTH VERY PROBLEMATIC H & D SIGNS ! I am asking myself if some pictograms and ideograms (of sumerian origin) could be transmited through ages with lost meanings and used in rituals ? IMG_1895low.jpg

————- If one not take “H” and D-s signs as beeing archaic Greek or Anatolian but imitating sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, then entire tablet’s content appear sumerian-like.That’s why scholars A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and R.Kolev. First twoo, realised instantly that the writing was not proper sumerian, but sumerian-like. Even the title of a paper explicitated this : › izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. With this understanding they interpreted tablets as beeing sumerian. A.Falkenstein noted that some signs are not exact like those proto-cuneiform but alike, imitated sumerian, sumerian-like. The proto-cuneiform signs were used for a relatively short period of time (3,500-3,000 BC), then from 3,000 BC until 1935 no human eye saw them. Because they were buried (a few meters underground under Eanna temple, Uruk). Thus, the diffusion of these signs was somehow limited. See Uruk culture expansion: ———– Please see, Uruk culture expansion not reached inner Anatolia or Aegean.The scribe definitely was not sumerian, rather Aegean or Anatolian trader, or even from a much close place. Probably signs interpretation is not conducting to a consistent message; some meanings are single, emerging from the signs itself. – I have no explanation for the scribe intention to show sumerian-like signs. Or: – I will never understand the motivation of the scribe in his ambition to show somebody how writing evolved throughout time, or show (us) how many Sumerian signs he knows. ——– I searched throughly, kept researching in detail and after deep thought, I finally came to the same conclusion as Emilia Masson: “If it was fake, their manufacture would be attributed to a great expert in the field, at the same time a fine connoisseur of archaic writings which to my knowledge Romania does not have ” eugenrau: …If chasing our tails/rainbows of course we can see moon phases, but an epigraphist must follow rules and search for signs of writing. As naturally Adam Falkenstein and Aizik Abramovich Vaiman exactly did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: