Possible genetics of neolithic people of Tartaria-Turdas settlements

December 10, 2018

Here, “Tartaria people” is a didactic denomination of contemporary people to Tartaria’s tablets scribe, in  Tartaria-Turdas settlements                                                      (In the best case of an oldest age limit for the tablets, presumed by me / Cotofeni Culture 2500-2000 B.C.)

Din Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – [PDF Document] https://vdocuments.mx › Category Documents

“Astfel, E. Neustupny (E. Neustupny, 1968, p. 32-35), referindu-se la
tăbliţele de la Tărtăria, subliniază că, după părerea sa, nu există decât două
posibilităţi: ori datele C14 sunt fundamental greşite, ori tăbliţele nu aparţin
contextului arheologic de care au fost legate de descoperitor, adică stratului
Vinča-Turdaş de la Tărtăria. În argumentaţia sa, el înclină spre cea de-a doua
posibilitate, bazată, printre altele, pe faptul că la Simpozionul Internaţional
privind cultura Lengyel, ţinut la Nitra (Slovacia) în 1967, s-a precizat că, la
nivelul tăbliţelor, s-a descoperit şi o ancoră de lut de tip caracteristic culturii
Coţofeni şi bronzului egeean timpuriu.“…………….                                                                  “Consecinţa logică rezultată din coroborarea datelor amintite este că
tăbliţele ar putea fi atribuite unui orizont cultural mai nou şi anume orizontului
Coţofeni, deci eneoliticului târziu sau începutului epocii bronzului din
Transilvania şi nu orizontului neolitic corespunzător fazei Vinča-Turdaş, datată pe baza C14 în mileniul V, pe la 4500 î. Hr. (Makkay, 1990, Pl.2)”. ====================================================

This not means:                                                                                                                                      – that the scribe had relatives or is native of this comunity,                                                         – not the “writing” originated here,                                                                                                   – nor proof to be so old.

MY OWN SUPPOSITION IS FOR AN SOUTHWARD ORIGIN for both: for “writing” and the scribe (Near East,Anatolia or rather Aegean). This is in my opinion the place where this “writing” was originated: From  The Risch-Chadwick Theory: An Obstacle to Progress by J. Faucounau Member of the Linguistic Society of Paris, France

1)- A theory which disregards the ancient tradition

The first weakness of the RC Theory is its total disregard of the most ancient tradition. For all the ancient authors, the Ionians were “the first Greeks“. There are no conflicting views about this among Herodotus, Strabon or Pausanias, although there is one concerning the origin of the Ionians. We will notice, in particular, that Herodotus – who call them “Pelasgoi” – established a link between the Ionians and the oldest inhabitants of the Cycladic Islands. He wrote : “The inhabitants of the islands … were also a Pelasgic people. They were later called Ionians for the same reason as the Ionians who came from Athens..” (Herodotus VII,95).

The word “Pelasgoi” is important. Influenced by the RC Theory, and because the Pelasgoi were said to have been the first inhabitants of Greece, most modern scholars have considered the name as designing a “Pre-Greek” (and therefore “non-Greek”) population. But the obvious link with “Pelagos” : “the open sea” leads us to think that the primitive meaning of the word must have been “seafarers”, a good description indeed of the Cycladic people during the Early Bronze Age. The most natural guess coming from the Herodotus account is therefore that a)- the Ionians were “the first Greeks” b)- they were seafarers and came by sea c)- they were once settled in the Cycladic Islands, probably during the Early Bronze Age.     

2)- A theory which disregards the geographical data

…..The classification of the Greek dialects into four groups (Ionic-Attic, Arkado-Cypriot, Aiolic and West Greek) has been universally accepted, as has also been agreed by all scholars that “Greek” (or at least its Indo European component) has been brought by “immigrants from the north”. From where, is still a matter of discussion. But the most probable place seems to be in the Balkans, south of the Low Danubian Valley.

3)- A theory based upon a single linguistic fact    ……………”                      ===========================================================================From:                                                                                                                                             Balkan ‘Aryan’ waves: 2800-2500bc R1b Troy, 2000-1500bc R1a Macedonians/Ionians/Micenians, 1200BC – R1b Dorians                                                                                                                                          https://aleximreh.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/balkan-aryan-waves/

Some time before:

eupedia.com/R1b The first forays of steppe people into the Balkans happened between 4200 BCE and 3900 BCE, when cattle herders equipped with horse-drawn wagons crossed the Dniester and Danube and apparently destroyed the towns of the Gumelnita, Varna and Karanovo VI cultures in Eastern Romania and Bulgaria. A climatic change resulting in colder winters during this exact period probably pushed steppe herders to seek milder pastures for their stock, while failed crops would have led to famine and internal disturbance within the Danubian and Balkanic communities. The ensuing Cernavoda culture (Copper Age, 4000-3200 BCE), Coțofeni culture (Copper to Bronze Age, 3500-2500 BCE) and Ezero culture(Bronze Age, 3300-2700 BCE), in modern Romania, seems to have had a mixed population of steppe immigrants and people from the old tell settlements. These steppe immigrants were likely a mixture of both R1a and R1b lineages, with a probably higher percentage of R1a than later Yamna-era invasions.

Tartaria people begining

<< 2800-2500BCE. Around the Black Sea, in the North of Turkey, in the East of the Balkans – the R1b highway. Old Europe is still resisting, R1b jumps over Cucuteni/Vinca culture to ‘Transylvania’, the starting platform from where Western Europe will be conquered. >>

Tartaria-Turdas people contemporary with supposed tablets’ scribe:

<< 2500-2000 BCE. Most of Cucuteni Culture replaced by Cotsofeni R1b. Cernavoda and Ezero also mixed cultures – Old Europe mixed with R1b, same with Otomani and Glina, R1b military elite controls the area but they will be in the end melted into the Old I2(+J2+E1b1) mixture. R1b controls western part of Balkans, Bubanj-Hum Maliq Culture. Much of Old Europe is still resisting. Troy also R1b. >>

Tartaria’s people (Cotofeni Culture) contemporary with the scribe:


R1b migration – bronze age = R1b migrants melted into I2+E/J/G Enelolithic/Old Europe populations produce new cultures: Cernavoda in Dobrogea >> Gumelnita from Dobrogea to Olt river >> Salcuta between Olt river and Serbia >> Krivodol/Bubanj in Serbia >> Maliq in Albania; plus Ezero in Bulgaria and Cotofeni in Transilvania. These Bronze Age mixes are proto-Thracians, and proto-Illyrians from which the Iron Age populations resulted – Thracians, Dacians, Getae and Illyrians.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History

<< R1b coming from the Caucasus, N&S of Black Sea is ‘jumping’ over Old Europe to conquer Western Europe. R1a coming from the N is ‘jumping’ over Old Europe to conquer the the Balkans & ‘Greece’. Why the Hittites, such a strong empire, why they were not able to conquer the south shores of the Black Sea? Because that was R1b corridor, from Caucasus to Europe. Same Romania had a 7000 years continuity, Dacians had a ‘Latin language’ before the birth of Roman Empire and we preserved this ‘Latinity’ to present day!, BECAUSE we had the highest European population density in Neolithic. All migrations melted into this lower Danube area, the biggest European human reservoir, all migrating populations were absorbed by the I2 old Europeans, due to the best living conditions found in this area. First from the Lower Danube area,  Europe was colonized with I2 populations, than through the Balkans arrived in Europe the J2/G farming populations  and finally from the Lower Danube area, R1b made the celtic conquest of Western Europe,and from the north shores of the Black Sea R1a made the conquest of all East Europe.  As Herodotus used to say, thracians were the biggest, most powerful population of the known world, compared only to the population of India. All over the world the biggest rivers produced the biggest populations and consequently the biggest cultures. Nile > Egypt, Indus/Ganges > India, Tigris/Euphrates > Mesopotamia, Lower Danube + Black Sea shores > ‘Arian’ Old Europe.

In the above maps we can see, according to Eupedia, between 2800-2500BCE, a first R1b migration to the East Balkans and East of Greece, along the shores of the Black Sea, of R1b, coming from Caucasus/Kura Axes Culture and from the South Yamma Open Steppe Culture, Late Yamma Culture = ‘Proto Greek’?. Then between 2000-1500BCE, a second R1a migration of ‘Greco Macedonians and Thracians’ to ‘Bulgaria’ and down to the South of ‘Greece’. >>


From https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans?p=516963&mode=threaded                                                                                      As far as I have read and learnt, I also tend to believe that the Proto-Greeks were associated with the Babyno culture or perhaps even the Cotofeni (close enough to where Babyno culture would arise) or Vucedol, considering the increasing likeliness that the Proto-Greeks were from their beginning a largely EHG-admixed EEF-majority people who shifted to IE language and culture. That’d explain nicely the cultural links of Mycenaeans to northern cultures and also the relatively little impact of steppe-like component in Mycenaean Greece.                                                                                                See :

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts | iurii mosenkis – Academia …

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts?


Iurii Mosenkis   


‘Proto-Linear A’ of Troy II–V (2600–1900 BCE) is preceded by ‘pre-Linear A’ of Cucuteni A-B (4100–3800 BCE) and late Trypillia (Troianiv and Gorods’k, early 3rd m. BCE) which may be read in Greek or Greek-Armenian


Cucuteni-Trypillia source of Minoan culture is a very old idea which traced to early XX c. Old comparison of Butmir (a branch of Impresso) and Minoan art (without clear link), Impresso and Cycladic figurines (with a link in Cycladic Neolithic art) may be also mentioned.

As E. R. von Stern in early XX c. and V. V. Struwe in mid-XX c. compared Crete with Usatove, Yu. V. Andreev in late XX c. underlined that Minoan ornamental motifs have ‘especially close analogies’ in Cucuteni-Trypillia and Gumelnita ones.

Spindle-whorls were typical oblect of Trojan inscriptions similar to Linear A (above). Trypillian spindle-whorls (late 4th – early 3rd m. BCE, contemporaneous with Troy I) might be also readed in comparison with Linear A.

Presented Trypillian spindle-whorl might bear an inscription:

pa-we-a = Lin. B pa-we-a = Greek φάρεα, pl. of φᾶρος, ‘a large piece of cloth’.

The sign te, frequent on Trypillian  spindle-whorls, might be compared with Lin. A, B te, shortened designation of material possibly related to Lin. A ta-pa, Lin. B te-pa, τάπης, ‘carpet’.

Not only ‘linear’ but also ‘hieroglyphic’ Minoan signs have Trypillian parallels.

Seven Ж-symbols on the vessel which was found at the place of grain cult (dated to Trypillia BI) resemble Cretan Linear A, B syllabic sign si; Anatolian syllabic sign ha is also similar, in comparison to Hittite halki, ‘grain’. Σιτώ, ‘she of the Grain’, was cult title of Demeter. Si-to-po-ti-ni-ja, ‘Lady of the Grain’ is mentioned in the Linear B inscription from Mycenae. Ж-symbol is also depicted on the Late Trypyllia vessel. D. I. Pereverzev (pers. comm.) the same origin of Slavonic Ж letter while Slavic name of rue might be an adaptation of Greek sitos or even Sumerian zid, ‘flour’ (Sumerian Uruk influence on Trypillia?).

Rhombuses on Trypillian goddess figurines are similar with rhombus on Eleusinian Demeter figurine. Similar rhombuses are known in Vinča, Neolithic Greece (Tsani-Magoula), and Usatove. Among other meanings of Ancient Greek ῥόμβος was ‘membrum virile’.

Snake cult (esp. Trypillian cult of the snake skeleton) is related to previous: number of snake ribs is equated to number of days in month

Lunar cult was central in Trypillian and Minoan religions.

Lunar Dog, typical to Trypillian religious art, might be also reconstructed from Greek mythology. The word ἀργός means ‘shining’ and ‘swift’, and both meaning also are in Sanskrit (Skt. jrá, shining, swift), Vedic proper name Rji-śvan-, = possessing κύνες ἀργοί (Homeric). Ἄργος was Odysseus’ dog while Ἄργος Πανόπτης, a many-eyed guardian of Io, was killed by Hermes: the Moon (star-eyed Argos) disappears when morning Mercury (Hermes) appears. The same root is presented in the Greek name of silver, a ‘lunar’ metal.

  1. Burkert (following N. Platon) described Minoan ‘fire feast’ on a mountain in the night (lamps were used, clay figurines and animals were sacrificed)and compared them with similar festivals in classical Greece. Cucuteni-Trypillian rite of village-burning (ultimately related to proto-Halaf via Vinča) is well-known.

‘An amazingly and controversialinscribed Cucuteni A-B fragment from Lozna (Romania)’ contains two signs (the first word under the picture of killed bird) which, in comparison with Linear AB, may be read ra-ro, cf. Ancient Greek λάρος, ‘sea-mew, gull’, Pamphylian σισίλαρος: πέρδιξ, Περγαῖοι (Hesych.), Armenian lor, ‘quail’. The next word is ro-tu-ke : ὄρτυξ < ϝόρτυξ, ‘quail’, Vedic vártikā, ‘quail’. Cucuteni A-B is dated to 4100–3800 calBC

Late Trypillia (where inscribed spindle-whorls are known) chronologically preceded Troy II (where spindle-whorls and, particularly, inscribed spindle-whorl were increased). Some parts of Baden cultural circle, especially Ezero, might be a link between Trypilla and Troy. It was possible part of the transmission of linear script.

Aegean-related Trialeti culture might also include Greek element; some scholars linked names of Trialeti and Troy (Etruscan truj-al ‘Trojan’ and Tri-al-eti ‘Trojan place’?). There were similarities between Mycenaean and Trialeti elites, between Troy II, Alaca royal tombs, and Trialeti. Multi-Rolled > Abashevo > Timber Grave signs

Kura-Araxes culture influenced Alaca Hoyuk elite of early Hittites whereas Kura-Araxes signs (including ‘great king’!) influenced Anatolian hieroglyphs. Cretan hieroglyphs preceded Anatolian ones, and the latter couldn’t be a source. Instead, Khirbet-Kerak filiation of Kura-Araxes culture (existed until about the 2200 BCE chaos) and Trialeti as the Aegean-related descendant of Kura-Araxes might be links between Caucasus and Crete. Trypillia might contact with Kura-Araxes via Maikop (Maikop signs are similar to Anatolian hieroglyphs) while pre-Maikop was influenced by Trypillia. Cucuteni-Trypillia signs might be of Danube Vinča origin. ============================================

Note                                                                                                                                                          In my opinion, the folowings are related to Vinca culture, not as sugested below also to tablets wich I am sustaining that are later-time products !

From DRAVIDIAN TOKENS, UBAID, AND ITS TRACES IN BALKANS by Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/10909671/Dravidian_tokens_Ubaid_and_its_traces_in_Balkans

Ubaid Dravidian cult language of the Vinča
The Vinča, possibly Hurrian and similar to Indo-European Linear Pottery, might
be dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian
languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian
writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for
Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon
might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.                                                         The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for                                                                     1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin,                                                        2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately,                                                                                                                                         3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan scriptinvestigated by N. N. Kazanskii,                                                                              4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.                                                                               The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens asthe prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE.                 The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.The line of descendance Vinča (with the Dispilio Tablet closest to Linear A) >Tisza>Tiszapolgár > Bodrogkeresztúr (with Aegean relations) contacted with Baden might reflect the connection between the Vinča script and the Trojan script (Troy IIV) which N. N. Kazanskii interpreted as an intermediate element between the Vinča and Linear A.                                                                                                    As L. S. Klejn suggested, the Vinkovci / Somogyvar of the Baden origin was related to the culture of the Cretan Linear script A. So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic and Vinča because of the Dravidian relations of the Linear A, B signs, substrate words in Greek and Dacian, and the Tărtăria tablets. The Karanovo IV bearded figurines very similato the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”

Dovezi ca tablita rotunda de la Tartaria ar putea fi un calendar arhaic.

December 9, 2018

Dovezi ca tablita rotunda de la Tartaria este un calendar arhaic.

 Trei (sau mai multe) aspecte sant pregnante si totodata relevante, ele fiind rezultatul  cercetarilor mele anterioare si ale altora, ele constituind baza si osatura prezentei argumentatii:

1. Tablita are prezentarea grafica generala ca fiind un cerc impartit de o “cruce greceasca”, adica cruce cu brate egale.Aceasta forma (cruce in cerc) este comuna calendarelor de tip lunisolar.
2. Atunci cand tablitele erau purtate ca un pandantiv, agatate cu un snur in jurul gatului, jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde, deci si presupusul mesaj erau acoperite de tablita dreptunghiulara. Se presupune astfel ca mesajul continut ar fi avut un caracter secret.

Imaginea, din Semnificația “tăblițelor” de la Tărtăria. Muzeul de Istorie din Cluj …https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-d..    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7suVXIog04qKG_gkgCIpHbccBbYcV35_xh1jdHT-5SGyWJgHUh-DY

3Semnele continute in jumatatea de sus, dupa mine constituie un grup separat “de alta opinie” reprezentand la o adica silabograme (din silabarele Linear A sau Linear B), sau chiar litere prezente in alfabetul grec arhaicEste posibil ca doar jumatatea de sus sa contina un mesaj coerent sau important, restul semnelor de pe tablita avand un rol de semne ritualice.Totusi in ultima instanta se poate incerca si citirea acelor semne.                  ——————————————————————————————————————                      Se pare ca este vorba de un calendar arhaic, de sorginte Europeana, mai precis cu legaturi in Zona Egeeana, mai precis civilizatia Minoana (pelasgica?).

Mini (popolo) – WikiVividly
https://wikivividly.com › lang-it › wiki
Secondo la mitologia greca, i Mini – agg. minio, minia, minie, minii – (in greco Μινύες, ….. 

In primul rand, va fac cunoscut ca semnul “H” din grupul “HD” situat in sfertul din stanga reprezinta in scrierile hieroglifica cretana si Linear A semnul PA3 care reprezinta consoana PA sau PAi.http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ *56 (PA3),                      HT 9b.1, 132.2, 34.6

Semnul “D” nu a fost folosit cu exact aceasta forma in niciuna din scrierile vechi Egeene, prima oara aparand in Europa in alfabetul arhaic grec ca un urmas al phenicianului dalet si totodata semn urmas al lui delta.

Daca este vorba de un timp presupus foarte indepartat, atunci nici-un cercetator nu stie ce poate reprezenta. Totusi, marea majoritate, in lipsa de optiuni au presupus ca reprezinta Luna.

Daca ar fi dupa scrierea Linear A, am avea PA3 +”simbolul lunii

In ( inca nedescifrata complet) limba minoana, am avea:

PAMINI(pronuntare mene, meinei) sau MENO

PA:”tot, toate”

PAMENOPAMENOS este atestat ca insemnand 1 Bilingual Papyrological Archives In the course of the … – Trismegistos https://www.trismegistos.org/arch/archives/arch_paris.pdf Egyptian double name – Ptolemaios alias Pamenos –, and his daughters also had Greek.

Dinhttp://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2010/4473/pdf/Effland_Edfu.pdf              Wooden stela. The upper register shows the winged sun’s disc, here
shown as Horus of Edfu. In the central register the deceased is represented in
the costume of a priest, his arms upraised in adoration before the sun god Re,
shown with the falcon head of Horus, and Osirs. ‘May the King be gracious
and give to Horus of the Horizon, the great god, Lord of Heaven, of sparkling
feathers as he comes forth of the horizon an invocation offering of bread and
milk, of oxen and fowl, wine and milk, incense, ointment and clothing,
offerings, ka food for the Osiris Pamenes justified son of Herefernit justified
his mother being the lady of the house of Satweret, justified’”.

toate lunile“, deci “AN, (acest) AN”

Din A Greek-English Lexicon: Based on the German Work of Francis Passow https://books.google.ro/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ  Πάμμηνος, ον, (πάς, μήν) through all months, the whole year long, Soph. Εl. 851, π. σελήνη= πανσέληνος, ή, Ρlut. 2, 936 Α. Παμμηστωρ, ωρος, ό, ή, all-inυcntiυε, …

Din ANISTORITON Journal of History, Archaeology, ArtHistory: Viewpoints
www.anistor.gr › english › enback
One of the faces reads: Pa-me-ni po-lo 100 The foals (polo(i)) for this year (pameni has the dative ending, but cf. Greek pammenos)

Nota                                                                                                                                                         Vre-o 5 cercetatori (nu stiu daca luandu-se unul dupa altul sau nu) presupun in semnele “DDoo”  (in lipsa totala de alte optiuni) ca reprezinta fazele Lunii. Sigur, ar putea fi si asa.

Din John Jounger http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                   Sign *034  has been suggested by several scholars to represent MNA (or, if a disyllabic value can be accepted, MINA), based on its resemblance to the crescent moon (Pope and Raison 1978, 28; Packard 1974, 107; Furumark 1956, 24).

Eu, nu pentru ca as avea tendinta de a fi “Gica contra”, am avut propria ipoteza relativ la presupusele faze ale lunii.

1.Fazele Lunii reprezentate pictografic ne indeparteaza de o presupusa faza a vre-unui scris propriu-zis, ba la o adica ne scoate chiar inafara domeniului proto-scrierii.

  1. O legatura intre fazele lunii si ciclul lunar feminin, mai mult decat constatarea une suprapuneri a intervalului de timp, este un demers complex.Nu-i neglijez utilitatea. Se pare cadovezi scrise asupra faptului ca au inceput sa fie cunoscute anumite perioade de fertilitate si infertilitate in cadrul ciclului menstrual uman, apar de-abia cateva secole IEN in scrierile arabe daca tin bine minte.

3.Calendarul “clasic, astronomic, normal”era extrem de important intrucat era legatura oamenilor cu agricultura natura si implicit subzistenta.

http://www.crystalinks.com/calendarearly.html                                                                              A lunar calendar is one in which days are numbered within each lunar phase cycle. Because the length of the lunar month is not an even fraction of the length of the tropical year, a purely lunar calendar quickly drifts against the seasons. It does, however, stay constant with respect to other phenomena, notably tides. Lunar calendars are believed to be the oldest calendars invented by mankind. Cro-Magnon people are claimed to have invented one around 32,000 BC. Lunar calendars are also liked to feminine goddess energies. A lunisolar calendar is a lunar calendar that compensates by adding an extra month as needed to realign the months with the seasons. An example is the Jewish calendar which uses a 19 year cycle

What could be the oldest lunar calendar ever created has been identified on the walls of the famous, prehistoric caves at Lascaux in France. The interpretation that symbolic paintings, dating back 15,000 years, show the Moon going through its different phases comes from Dr Michael Rappenglueck, of the University of Munich.

The German researcher has previously associated patterns left in the caves with familiar stars and constellations. He now says groups of dots and squares painted among representations of bulls, antelope and horses depict the 29-day cycle of the Earth’s satellite.                                                                                                                                              Din The Oldest Lunar Calendar on Earth http://scribol.com/science/paleontology/the-oldest-lunar-calendar-on-earth/

The First (Lunar) Calendar –

The archaeological record’s earliest data that speaks to human awareness of the stars and ‘heavens’ dates to the Aurignacian Culture of Europe, c.32,000 B.C. Between 1964 and the early 1990s, Alexander Marshack published breakthrough research that documented the mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the Late Upper Paleolithic Cultures of Europe. Marshack deciphered sets of marks carved into animal bones, and occasionally on the walls of caves, as records of the lunar cycle. These marks are sets of crescents or lines. Artisans carefully controlled line thickness so that a correlation with lunar phases would be as easy as possible to perceive. Sets of marks were often laid out in a serpentine pattern that suggests a snake deity or streams and rivers.

Image: Notation dans les Gravures du Paléolithique Supérieur, Bordeaux, Delmas / Don’s Maps Aurignacian Lunar Calendar / diagram, drawing after Marshack, A. 1970


A Minoan Calendar of Bronze Age Time | Richard Heath – Academia.edu


30 July 2016 12:30 A Minoan Calendar of Bronze Age Time By Richard Heath First published in 2004 at http://www.MatrixOfCreation.com See also Sacred Number .
Vedeti si http://minoanastronomy.mikrob.com/                                                                              —————————————————————-                                                                                                                  Ce ar fi semnele din sfertul din dreapta?

Semnul +++++ .

Din The Number System of the Old European Script Eric Lewin Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D. https://arxiv.org/html/math/0309157v1

“Also common is the comb motif (Table 1) with three to eight teeth 33 inscriptions. As the comb motif is used with so many different numbers of teeth and as the comb inscriptions seem to be used in a similar manner, and are found in similar places on pottery as the score mark inscriptions, we think these signs also denote numbers. We translate a comb with n (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) teeth as 10+n. Other possibilities are the numbers or n+1 (n teeth plus the horizontal stroke), but these seem unlikely as there are already signs for n and n+1 (n or n+1 score marks).”

Deci 10+5=15 sau 5 (5+1/2=5,5?)

La minoani si micenieni  semnul – bara orizontala reprezenta 10 iar unitatile erau bare verticale, I de exemplu pentru 1.

Din https://plus.maths.org/content/fabulous-positional-system

Atunci am putea avea 10+1+1+1+1+1 =15?

Sau semne de tip raboj, si atunci “5”?

Daca aplicam aceeasi citire semnelor D, am avea MENO MENO   oo

Apoi Menomeno, menomenos in greaca insemna anormal .

01 vico historia – Sardegna Digital Library PDFwww.sardegnadigitallibrary.it › documenti 5 iun. 2008 · FRANCESCO MANCONI, The Kingdom of Sardinia, a Province …… Sardeña Menomenos en griego, y en latín Insanos

Dupa cum am dedus eu MENO inseamna “salas, a slaslui, a mana(ramane), etc” iar sufixul -Menos se foloseste pentru formarea participiului.dar tot sufixul menos atasat unei notiuni arata “putin”

…adica “putin acasa”, bolnav de cap.


Mare problema cu semnele “oo” sau “oc”                                                                                            Din http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/   *309, only TY 2 in three variations *309a , *309b , *309c

Daca luam timpul minoanilor 2200-2000 BC nu ar fi posibil sa avem in semnele OC literele aparute ulterior OS si atunci sa avem MENOMENOS

..pai cum?

Behind the Name: Name Element MENOS

https://www.behindthename.com › element

The meaning, origin and history of the name element “menos” … Greek element meaning ” mind, strength, courage, force”.

Oricum, important e ceea ce inseamna menomeno/menomenos:

01 vico historia – Sardegna Digital Library PDFwww.sardegnadigitallibrary.it › documenti 5 iun. 2008 · FRANCESCO MANCONI, The Kingdom of Sardinia, a Province …… Sardeña Menomenos en griego, y en latín Insanos

Daca in schimb am lua sensul lui MENO:”Luna”, atunci ar rezultat “luna…mai putin”

Ce ar putea fi?


Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁n̥s – Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁…                                      This ProtoIndoEuropean entry contains reconstructed words and roots. As such, the … From earlier **méh₁n̥ss, probably from *meh₁– (to measure”)

In toate limbile si aici vorbim de un cadru mai larg care excede familia limbilor Indo-Europene, denumirea Lunii reflecta printre altele:

– starea de corp mort in unele eg Iluna si in limba basca/euscara particula “I” mort, sau

– nu starea de a fi mort ci de a fi bolnava, palida si in acest sens anormala, adica  nesanatoasa,

-deasemenea in alte limbi (hitita) ARMA reflecta starea de deprivat.sARMAn, orfan 

Din http://www.kondaira.net/eng/Euskara2.html                                                                                    When someone passed by, he went to be a member of ‘the ones that live at night’ . He was led by the Moon or ‘Ilargi’ [i’ljargi = Light of the Deads (literal translation)] in the dark through a path up to a cavern called ‘Mari’s Cave’. During the trip, the deceased was protected from the bad spirits by the symbol of Mari, the ‘Lauburu’, that had previously been engraved on his tombstone.
Din http://www.sonic.net/~dweeks/work/samples/write/Hittite_Vocab.pdf                                       .53 — MOON — The Anatolian word for ‘moon’ was arma-; it appears in this shape in Hitt. and Luwian, in Hier. as MOON-ma-, and in very many Anatolian names like Lycian Gk. Ερμαμοας, Ερμενηνις, Lyc. erm͂menẽni, etc. It generally means ‘month’ as well, like the numerous reflexes of IE *mēnes, etc., but clearly does not continue that term of its basic sense of ‘measuring’. Although pronounced “ohne Etymologie” by Tischler (T 62), arma- has been connected (e.g. Laroche, RHR 148 [1955]: 18-21) with a large group of words having to do with ‘weakness, sickness, paleness’, including arma(n)-, irma(n)-, irmanant- 16 HITTITE VOCABULARY ‘sickness’, derived from IE *ormo- as seen in OE earm, ON armr, Goth. arms ‘wretched’ (and possible Arm. ołorm ‘pity’), and explained as ‘the pale one’, in contrast to both the daytime sun and the widespread IE replacement lunar designation as ‘the shining one’ (Lat. lūna, etc.; Gk. σελήνη; Skt. candrámas-). Also related are armai- ‘be pregnant’, armahh- ‘impregnate’ (4.73; Puhvel, Bi. Or. 36 [1979]: 58); full dicussion in P 151–60.                                                                             ——————————————————————————-                                                               Nu strica sa fac o revizuire.Initial, atat sumerienii cat si egiptenii au folosit anul impartit in 12 luni iar luna cu 30 de zile.Cel putin pe sumerieni nu i-a deranjat mult timp faptul ca aparea o decalare de cca 5.5 zile facand astfel socoteala.

Totusi primii care au stiut ca e vorba de 5 zile si au inceput sa aplice corectia in mod exact, au fost egiptenii.Ei au introdus o sarbatoare de 5 zile la sfarsitul anului si au corectat perfect problema.

A History of Time and Ancient Calendars – TimeCenter


The Egyptians divided each month into 30 days; however, at the end of every year there existed five additional days. … The citizens of Sumer-an ancient civilization that existed in modern-day Iraq-also used a calendar that included 12 months.

Altii au facut corectii mai primare. Vechii sumerienii,apoi egiptenii, grecii si popoarele semitice  adaugau o luna la 4 ani, ceea ce era mai bine decat socoteala grosiera dinainte, dar tot era departe de realitate .

Lunar Calendar http://www.crystalinks.com/sumercalendars.html                                                                               The lunar calendar was synchronized with the solar year (the seasons) by intercalation of a leap month every few years.

The Sumerians of Babylon were probably the first people to make a calendar. They used the phases of the moon, counting 12 lunar months as a year. To make up for the difference between this year and the year of the seasons, they inserted an extra month in the calendar about every four years.

The early Egyptians, Greeks, and Semitic peoples copied this calendar. Later the Egyptians worked out a calendar that corresponded almost exactly to the seasons.       The early Romans also used a calendar based on the moon. The year in this calendar was 355 days long. The months corresponding to March, May, July, and October each had 31 days; February had 28 days; and the rest had 29. An extra month was added about every fourth year.

Minoanii au observat ca dupa un anumit interval de timp pozitia lunii pe cer revine.Acel numar de ani a fost la ei 8 sau 9. culmea interval cumva egal cu numarul de ani ai domniei regelui Minos. S-a gasit la ei un calendar, in care printre altele foloseau 5 faze ale lunii nu 4 si intr-un an aveau 60 de faze lunare.In calendarul minoan gasit apar in colturi un numar de semne 2 si 3 care aveau rolul de a face decalarea/corectia.

The Minoan Calendar https://www.cretegazette.com/2008-12/minoan-calendar.php?fbclid=IwAR2gf3L-BBuZv7sWC9kRvLQ4YudvZB3ZKuLCEWtor0Hb_qq2MFLjdJq5T28

The two main patterns

His observed two main patterns in each vertical and horizontal row of the border: 62 colored crescent-shapes laid out in a 5-color sequence (orange, red, white, blue, black), and around those crescents, another pattern—16 rows of short black lines or “tracks,” the rows laid out in alternating orange and blue. The 16 rows make up 4 complete layers or circuits of the Fresco border. In Minoan Linear A script, a crescent signifies “moon,” and a short black “tick” is the numeral 1. Indeed, the two main patterns (62 colored crescents, and 390 tracks per circuit of the border) total close to a year of 5-phase moons and a 365-day solar year.

Why, though, did the border break its own established color-sequence and arrangement? And why had Minoan masters promised the eye a sharp rectangular border only to leave an awkward imbalance of “extra” tracks (in 3’s and 7’s) at the rectangle’s corners? The trick was to find by experiment the starting-point for counting through the fresco border’s features. Minoans read from left-to-right. When Herberger followed that one clue, an amazing series of patterns unfolded, with a logic that is fully answered by experiments and comparative evidences of many kinds.

The Minoan Great Year

The Minoan Great Year produces two signs in the actual sky that repeat every 8½ years: a New Crescent Moon at Winter Solstice (that is, New Year Day), followed six months later by a Full Moon at Summer Solstice. These unions, separations and returns (a known feature of Cretan folk dance) mark the observable unity of lunar/solar time and hence the “marriage of moon and sun” accomplished by all calendars.Based in direct observation, these signs require no intervention of a priestly class to “tell the time.” Computer-simulation research shows that the phase of each moon along the 8 years of Solar Solstices is remarkably consistent over thousands of years. They could be learned, memorized and used in both practical and symbolic ways.

If we begin counting colored crescents on the fresco at the lower right corner (because Minoans read left-to-right), the orange crescent there might signify a New Crescent Moon at Winter Solstice/New Year Day. Count upward thirty black “tracks,” pass through a red (waxing), white (full) and blue (waning, shadow) phase, and there is a black or perhaps Dark Moon.

Continue on counting the colored crescents through one 5-phase month at a time, across the horizontal top and beyond, and indeed the fresco’s border completes a 12-moon year precisely (12 x 5 = 60)—with two points where its own broken color logic requires that we “leap” them and the sets of “extra” black tracks close by them.


Daca este vorba de ceva anormal, lor nu li se parea absolut de loc ca miscarea soarelui sau lunii ar fi anormale.este adevarat ca ei nu puteau vedea pozitia soarelui fata de stele intrucat ziua soarele straluceste orbitor si nu avem referinta stelele.Deci numai luna putea fi referinta.

Ei vedeau ca daca anul incepe la soltstitiul de iarna la luna noua, dupa 6 luni la solstitiul de vara aveau luna plina. Aceasta pereche soare-luna executa un dans cosmic si era vorba si de o comuniune/casatorie a soarelui cu luna.

In menomenos este vorba de diminuarea nu a lunii sau ciclului lunar ci diminuare a anului care fara corectii avea 360 zile, care este mai putin si de aceea considerat anormal.Cercul cu cruce continand 3 luni in fiecare sfert nu este normal este diminuat fata de cel real! unui interval de cicluri lunare.

Si atunci am putea avea:

I stanga, “toate lunile”= “1 an”

In dreapta, menomenos:”luni diminuate”?”, intervalul lunilor mai mic”la care se adauga  5 zile pe an


Ar mai putea fi vorba de un posibil ciclu de 15 ani care este foarte apropiat de ciclul SAROS-18 ani/METONIC-19 ani unde corectia este si mai buna.
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)                                                            The saros (/ˈsɛərɒs/ (listen)) is a period of approximately 223 synodic months (approximately 6585.3211 days, or 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours), that can be used to predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon. One saros period after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to approximately the same relative geometry, a near straight line, and a nearly identical eclipse will occur, in what is referred to as an eclipse cycle. A sar is one half of a saros.[1]
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle?fbclid=IwAR3jo97Be0px2RGba2TaVUWlRgvqrF77ey3g7LMEWhNZXHI3JOz2a-pRLVA                       For astronomy and calendar studies, the Metonic cycle or Enneadecaeteris (from Ancient Greek: ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίς, “nineteen years“) is a period of very close to 19 years that is nearly a common multiple of the solar year and the synodic (lunar) month. The Greek astronomer Meton of Athens (fifth century BC) observed that a period of 19 years is almost exactly equal to 235 synodic months and, rounded to full days, counts 6,940 days. The difference between the two periods (of 19 years and 235 synodic months) is only a few hours, depending on the definition of the year.                                                                                                                                                          ————————————————————-                                                                                            Nota

In Linear a si linear B semnul “o” (cerc) reprezinta cifra 100.                                                 Din https://plus.maths.org/content/fabulous-positional-system

Minoan numerals

Atunci ar putea fi vorba de ciclul SAROS care are 223 de luni sinodice iar noi avem pe tablita doar oo =100 100 =200.

Ciclul SAROS are 18 ani si 223 lunatii.ia sa facem calculul cate lunatii ar corespunde la un ciclu mai mic de 15 ani

18 …223

15…..x             x=185 lunatii, iar noi avem cifra nu 223 ci 200, …..apropiat ?


Cu cat timpul este mai indepartat, trebuie sa asteptam un calendar de factura mai grosiera, iar cu cat ne apropiem de timpurile noastre putem avea pretentia de socoteli mai exacte.                                                                                                                                        P.S.                                                                                                                                                          Sa nu mai aduc vorba ca daca ar fi sa luam semnele ca litere grecesti arhaice am avea:
HP/HT =”HR iar DDoc =”RRos”

HoRa,ora /HoRo   ROROS

 Timp/Anotimp/limita RURAL(de la tara!).....................Unde cifra 5/15? ramane valabila !

1,000 Most Common Albanian Words (with AUDIO) – 101Languages.net
www.101languages.net › albanian › most…
A list of the most commonly spoken Albanian words. Translated into English. … Menu. Albanian Dictionary … Number, Albanian Word, in English …. 183, herë, time ….. 959, hera, time

Gossip around Tartaria tablets; how much % to be fakes, clever hoax, and how much not to be !?

December 5, 2018
  • I cannot number all the pro & contra arguments                                                                  – nor  measure their each of them real weight. So suppose for the beginning an fair starting point of  50% pro and 50% contra. I am reffering in the folowing to only PRO arguments for a fake/hoax:                                                                                           —————————————————————————————————————-
  1. THE REAL AGE OF THE TABLETS WILL REMANE FOREVER UNKNOWN                  The real age of the tablets was not determined by scientiphic metods (e.g. C14 method), nor other method. Only the age of the bones found near-by was determined (~5,000 B.C. !?). Some sentiments-pushed scientists equalled the age of the bones to that of the tablets.                                                                                                                             From Marco Merlini, Gheorghe Lazarovici,                                                                        Settling discovery circumstances, dating
    and utilization of the Tărtăria tablets http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats8/merlini.pdf                                               I. The rumors on the find circumstances of the tablets
    “As stated by some scholars, Vlassa was not present at the time of the historical discovery, which happened just some hours before the closing down of the excavation. The workers packed the last unearthed finds and he recovered the important und unexpected pile of ritual objects only in the laboratory of the museum. Many years ago, N. Vlassa talks about this circumstance with Gh. Lazarovici.   …………………..                                                                                                During the digging Vlassa claimed to have urgent tasks at home, then disappeared for for a long time. ……………………..                                                                                                              After a month, he presented the tablets inserted inside the stratigraphic sequence already sorted out for the archaeological site of Răhău. Attila Laszló who excavated at Tărtăria with Vlassa as student, does not remember when, where and how Vlassa recovered the tablets. However, Vlassa told to Gh. Lazarovici about his discovery and Vlassa and László have drawn the profile in section H. Therefore, a third wave of scholars maintains that Vlassa ran across the tablets re-organizing the collection of artifacts found by Baroness Zsófia Torma in Near East and kept at Cluj museum. Test of the assertion should be into a claimed missing page in Torma’s Notebook: the folios with the drawings of the mythical tablets.            II. The gossip about radiocarbon dating                                                                                The fact is that the tablets have never been analyzed by radiocarbon and they
    cannot be submitted to this analysis any more. After the discovery, the tablets were
    soft and appeared covered with calcareous deposits due to the humidity in the pit. A well-meaning but hasty restorer (Josif Korody) confused a matter mixed with
    calcium, as in fact the tablets are (pulverized live calcium mixed with water in order to bind clay, sand, and different minerals), with a calcium crust due to the moisture of the pit. Therefore, he put them under hydrochloric acid treatment that removed not only the surface calcium as a slip but also destroyed their internal structure. In a late article, Vlassa wrote to have noticed the emblematic signs only after the cleaning of the tablets. In order to harden them, he impregnated them in a vacuum autoclave with extractable organic material thereby submitting them to a baking process (Vlassa 1972: 371). Nobody knows at what temperature and how long they had been baked even if is not possible it was more then 1500
    , because nitro/chemical liquid used for impregnation blow up. We will look at these data in a deeper way in the paragraph questioning if the tablets could be a modern fake. For the moment, we will limit the analysis to the fact that after the heat treatment the pieces of Tărtăria will never be able to pass the carbon 14 test: the thermic stress has compromised the clay’s basic quality indispensable for carbon analysis (Masson1984: 115).                                                                                     III. The unclear stratigraphic position of the tablets inside the pit. Even if the general stratigraphy of the excavation at Tărtăria-Groapa Luncii has
    been reported with precision by Vlassa, the stratigraphy of the tablets inside the pit
    is unsure. The only little information one has is from the preliminary excavation
    report (Vlassa 1962) and its English version published one year later on the
    magazine Dacia (Vlassa 1963). As some scholars have already observed, Vlassa’s
    publications did not include any sectional drawing of the pit reproducing in situ
    either the remarkable hoard of bones and artifacts or how they appeared at the time of their discovery at the bottom of the pit (Whipp 1973: 148). Neither did they
    contain data about the dimensions of the pit or other important information on it,
    nor the circumstances of the dig, nor the exact location of the findings (Masson
    1984: 114)                                                                                                                                       ————————————————————————————————————                         2. PROTO-WRITING NOT APPEARED IN THE WORLD BEFORE 3.500 B.C.              In Sumer, Egypt, Indus valley   not before 3.200 B.C.                                                         ———————————————————————————————–                                          3.THE SIGNS ARE KIND OF MIXTURE    A mixture of pictographic with ideograms/logograms/?syllabic signs !?                                                                                  ———————————————————————————————————————                4. ANYWHERE AN SCRIBE USED IN THE SAME TIME 2 DIFFERENT TIPE OF WRITITINGS                                                                                                                                 ———————————————————————————————————–                            5.NOT known  “LEARNING TABLETS” of THIS KIND. (Sumerian learning tablets are organised as from nowdays schoolboys, to reproduce abd repeat some words and lines.                                                                                                                                        —————————————————————————————————————————–  6. CLUES for MODERN WRITING.                                                                                           Upper half of the round tablets is  showing evidences of philistine/old greek alphabets.The smoking gun/clue I’ve found is the phoenician/old hebrew exact shape of one of our signs, symilar to that of the letter Chet/het and only close to the shape of Aegean syllabogram PA3 but matching that of the folowing Mediterranean alphabets letter H.  From https://www.britannica.com/topic/H-letter (see number2 ) From https://www.britannica.com/topic/H-letter (see number2 ) 
  2.                                                                                                                                                          Also the modern shape “D”                                                                                ——————————————————————————————————————-                7. The tablets are singletons of their kind no one other similar tablet found in the area or in another place.                                                                                                            ——————————————————————————————————————————    8. No one of the upmost high-level scientist above  the level of the A.A. Vaiman ,Rumen Kolev got seriously involved.                                                                                      ———————————————————————————————————————————

9. No scientists stressed enough that Vinca Civilisation some-how stopped in evolution not much, but before proto-writing stage and absolutely sure before proper writing stage.                                                                                                                                                   The only place where civilisation and societies reached an complex and high level wich created the necesity of writing was the Aegean area. Is the same place of oldest European writing, Aegean proto-linear writing (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A&B).                       (Even later, the people wich lived in same Vinca area, thracians and dacians not prooved as hard writers.)                                                                                   ===================additional documentation===============================                           ENIGMA TĂBLIŢELOR DE LA TĂRTĂRIA SCHIŢĂ PRELIMINARĂ

Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – Scribd

Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – [PDF Document]

https://vdocuments.mx › Category Documents


“Astfel, E. Neustupny (E. Neustupny, 1968, p. 32-35), referindu-se la
tăbliţele de la Tărtăria, subliniază că, după părerea sa, nu există decât două
posibilităţi: ori datele C14 sunt fundamental greşite, ori tăbliţele nu aparţin
contextului arheologic de care au fost legate de descoperitor, adică stratului
Vinča-Turdaş de la Tărtăria. În argumentaţia sa, el înclină spre cea de-a doua
posibilitate, bazată, printre altele, pe faptul că la Simpozionul Internaţional
privind cultura Lengyel, ţinut la Nitra (Slovacia) în 1967, s-a precizat că, la
nivelul tăbliţelor, s-a descoperit şi o ancoră de lut de tip caracteristic culturii
Coţofeni şi bronzului egeean timpuriu.”…………….                                                                  “Consecinţa logică rezultată din coroborarea datelor amintite este că
tăbliţele ar putea fi atribuite unui orizont cultural mai nou şi anume orizontului
Coţofeni, deci eneoliticului târziu sau începutului epocii bronzului din
Transilvania şi nu orizontului neolitic corespunzător fazei Vinča-Turdaş, datată pe baza C14 în mileniul V, pe la 4500 î. Hr. (Makkay, 1990, Pl.2)”……………………………….                       “Într-o încercare indirectă de a sprijini şi argumenta datarea şi
încadrarea cultural-cronologică iniţială a tăbliţelor de la Tărtăria, N. Vlassa
publică unele descoperiri făcute (N. Vlassa, 1971, p. 21 sqq), la Cluj, cu prilejul unor săpături de caracter nearheologic, şi a unor cercetări întreprinse în
depozitele muzeului clujean. “…………………………..                                                                            ”  Faţă de toate aceste discuţii, ipoteze contradictorii şi propuneri, N. Vlassa ar fi trebuit să răspundă, în primul rând, prin reluarea săpăturilor de la Tărtăria, fie şi doar sub forma unei verificări de control stratigrafic. Din păcate nu a făcut-o. Nu discutăm, aici şi acum, motivele. Consideraţii pe marginea acestei probleme au fost făcute, tangenţial, şi de E. Masson (Masson, 1984, p. 89-123). Cert este că N. Vlassa a preferat să răspundă printr-o serie de articole, în bună parte polemice (Vlassa, 1971, Apulum, IX, p. 21 sqq.) şi, îndeosebi, prin aducerea în discuţie (Vlassa, 1975, AMN, 12, p. 1-12) a unor noi descoperiri, şi de data aceasta, în cea mai mare parte întâmplătoare, aflate în
„inepuizabila” colecţie Torma Zsofia.“…………….                                                                         ” 1 N. Vlassa, profund cunoscător al literaturii de specialitate din domeniu, a avut şansa şi poate ghinionul de a putea cunoaşte în amănunt Colecţia Torma Zsofia şi întreaga documentaţie asociată acesteia. Ori, în condiţiile săpăturilor sporadice de la noi, din Transilvania îndeosebi, aceasta reprezenta o adevărată „mină de aur”   ………….              “Nu s-a putut însă stabili, şi noi nu ne hazardăm s-o facem, aşa cum a
încercat D. G. Zanotti (Zanotti, 1983, p. 209-213), locul unde ar fi putut fi
plasat complexul cu tăbliţele (Makkay, 1990, Fig. 3). C “…………………………                              “În aceste condiţii, groapa cu tăbliţele ar putea apar ţine, practic, oricăreia dintre locuirile din aşezare.” …………                                                                                                          “În consecinţă, teoretic, îngroparea complexului şi a tăbliţelor de la
Tărtăria ar fi putut fi făcută în oricare din etapele de evoluţie ulterioare acestui
nivel sau în niciunul din ele.” ……….                                                                                                 ”  Dacă o astfel de „îngropare” a unui „complex” de amploarea celui
descris de N. Vlassa (Vlassa, 1963, p. 485-494; Vlassa, 1976, p. 161-197) a
fost efectiv făcută, atunci elementele sale componente ar fi fost firesc să fi fost
prezentate – şi păstrate (depozitate) – împreună, pentru a putea fi studiate ca
un tot, inclusiv prin compararea lor cu alte vestigii similare descoperite
anterior şi păstrate în colecţia Torma Zsofia spre pildă. Jurnalul meticulos
ilustrat al Zsofiei Torma, împreună cu materialele adunate, a intrat în
inventarul Muzeului din Cluj, sub forma unei colecţii. După ştiinţa noastră, la
această „colecţie” au avut acces, practic, două persoane. În primul rând, Márton Roska, care a studiat colecţia şi, pornind de la aceasta, a făcut verificarea stratigrafică de la Turdaş publicând apoi, cunoscutul Repertoriu (Roska, 1941). Apoi, spre sfârşitul anilor ’50, colecţia a fost studiată şi reorganizată de Nicolae Vlassa. “…………………….                          ” Deocamdată aş remarca, în treacăt, faptul că mormântul de inhumaţie, găsit în complex, sau în asociere cu acesta, a fost identificat, după căutări asidue în depozitele muzeului clujean, abia în ultimii ani, de Gh. Lazarovici şi Marco Merlini. Acesta din urmă întocmeşte un amplu şi documentat studiu, aflat sub tipar.”……………….                            “Din păcate, semnele de întrebare în loc să scadă s-au înmulţit.       Simpla parcurgere a bibliografiei existente ilustrează în bună parte şi motivele. De pildă, nimeni nu poate înţelege cum s-a putut săpa, preleva, transporta şi depozita un astfel de complex fără a sesiza prezenţa tăbliţelor, indiferent de starea lor de conservare şi, poate, tocmai datorită acestei „stări”.
De ce conţinutul acestui complex a fost împărţit în locuri diferite de
depozitare, fără legături între ele şi fără a fi făcute însemnările de
De ce şi pe ce criterii unele piese şi/sau materiale au fost publicate de
autor, selectiv, iar altele niciodată?
De ce, în ciuda publicării unei bune părţi a descoperirii, în special a
tăbliţelor, la un an după scoaterea la iveală a complexului (1962) şi a
interesului enorm pe care l-a suscitat conţinutul acesteia s-a impus un
„secret” total, parcă menit să dea uitării tot ceea ce era mai puţin
convenabil, de neînţeles sau greu de explicat?
Oricum, asupra materialelor (descoperirilor) de la Tărtăria s-a instaurat
un fel de embargo. După tăbliţe s-au făcut copii care au fost expuse în muzeu şi puse la dispoziţia cercetătorilor. Tot cu titlu informativ suntem nevoiţi să
menţionăm faptul că, în ciuda insistenţelor noastre repetate, nu am reuşit să
vedem tăbliţele „în original” şi să le fotografiem decât în anul 1998, cu
aprobarea specială a domnului director Ioan Pisso, fapt pentru care îi
mulţumim călduros şi pe această cale. “……………………                                                             “Despre sesizarea nepotrivirilor de ordin cronologic dintre tăbliţe şi contextul cultural-istoric la care acestea erau raportate, deocamdată atât.                                                     Putem adăuga, eventual, că sunt suficiente pentru a pune problema originalităţii acestora. Sunt şi în prezent mulţi specialişti care se îndoiesc – pe drept sau nu – că tăbliţele aparţin epocii şi contextului în care se pretinde că au fost găsite.”………………………………                                                                                                                 ”  Întrebările fundamentale legate, în bună parte, de descoperirea care le-a generat şi mai ales le-a amplificat, aceea a tăbliţelor de la Tărtăria, vor rămâne, încă o bună
perioadă de timp, sub semnul întrebării şi în atenţia continuă a cercetătorilor. În esenţă, ele pot şi trebuie rezumate, lapidar, astfel:
Unde, când, cum şi în ce condiţii (context) au apărut tăbliţele?
Răspunsul se află încă sub imperiul enigmei. Ne găsim în situaaţia, paradoxală, să putem încerca mai degrabă formularea unor ipoteze privind natura şi semnificaţia lor cultural-istorică decât consideraţii cât de cât articulate privind originea lor. Deocamdată pare a fi singura cale care ar putea duce spre o încercare de lămurire, fie şi parţială, a problemei. Partea, aparent cea mai simplă, a provenienţei acestora este învăluită, încă, în mister. Sigur ne putem întreba şi de ce s-a ajuns în această situaţie. Nici răspunsul la această
întrebare nu este atât de simplu pe cât ar putea părea la prima vedere. …………….. Găsirea unui vinovat cu orice preţ, mergând până la acuzaţia de rea intenţie sau chiar falsuri intenţionate, ar părea cea mai la îndemână. Si o astfel de soluţie a fost, precum ştim, vehiculată. Dar ne-ar fi oare de folos? Nu ar putea fi şi aceasta o pistă falsă care ar putea duce la ocultarea şi vicierea soluţiei? Dar şi înlăturarea din start a unei astfel de posibilităţi ar fi poate la fel de păguboasă. În orice caz, nu ne-ar ajuta, în chip real, la clarificarea lucrurilor.Poate ar trebui să ne întrebăm dacă nu cumva de situaţia în care ne aflăm se fac vinovate doar unele persoane şi manierele „de lucru” folosite de
acestea. Nu cumva viciul esenţial, nu numai în cazul în speţă, porneşte de la
metodologia şi terminologia folosite în cercetarea arheologică în general şi a
celei româneşti în special? În ce ne priveşte, am încercat, în lucrarea de faţă, să evidenţiem date, observaţii şi ipoteze mai puţin cunoscute şi/ sau uzitate, din varii motive, care ne-ar putea apropia, poate, de desluşirea acestei „enigme”. Fără intenţia de a acuza sau apăra pe cineva ci, doar de a ne apropia de înţelegerea unui fenomen
care, într-un fel, prin omisiuni voite sau nu, ori prin lipsa reală, deocamdată, a
unor date certe, verificabile, s-a transformat, în timp, într-un „mit al mitului”, aşa cum plastic şi inspirat l-a definit eseistul şi istoricul Marco Merlini (2006). …………………”Din păcate problemele, teoretice şi practice, dezbătute nu au ajuns la o soluţie general acceptată. A rămas în sarcina arheologilor, aparţinând diverselor epoci şi domenii, să caute şi să găsească mijloacele şi metodele adecvate, în funcţie de specificul fiecărei epoci şi zone geografice.”    =================================================                                                           Eugen Rau:!Tartaria tablets not pertain to Vinca Culture, rather to a Southward one ! ==================================================                                                    ORIGINS OF WRITING: MAGIC OR ACCOUNTANCY?
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Jossife%20Origin%20of%20Writing.pdfChristopher Josiffe

“Regarding the origin and source of the Vinča signs, this has been the source of much
debate. Following the discovery of incised signs from the Tordos site in 1879 (during
Zsofia Torma’s excavations of this very large site, yielding some 10,000 objects, from
1875-1891), and others found during the first Vinča excavation by M. Vasić in 1908, it
was the general view that the script must have arrived in the Balkans by means of
diffusion from elsewhere. Torma (1889) argued for an Assyro-Babylonian influence. The prevailing view at the turn of the nineteenth century was that early Troy and early
Dynastic Egypt shared a common script. Vasić (1908) argued firstly for a Trojan
influence, and then later suggested (1957) that there had been an Ionian colony at
Vinča. And the enormously influential V. Gordon Childe (1927, p.83) claimed “an ethnic
connexion between the first settlers at Vinča and the peoples of the Aegean”, also
noting (p.88) analogies between the cultures of predynastic Egypt, Troy, and Vinča…………………….                                                                                                                              Vlassa claimed the earliest level of the Tărtăria to be no older than 2,700 BC, this making a Mesopotamian origin tenable. Other writers such as Popović (1965), Hood (1967) and Makkay (1969) concur. Popović, taking a similar view to Gelb, does not regard the Balkan civilization to be sufficiently advanced as to develop a system of writing, and thus claims a Sumerian origin. ……………….                                                                                                           In a linguistic study, Haarmann (1995) examined the Vinča sign system, in comparison with those of ancient Mediterranean civilizations such as that of Crete – Linear A & B –
and the Cypro-Minoan script. He noted Winn’s refusal to ascribe ‘true writing’ status to
the Vinča signs, but pointed out Winn’s adherence to an American definition of writing
(Haarmann, 1995, pp.31-32): “[i]n American terminology, “true writing” or “full writing”
is reserved to mean ‘phonetic writing of some sort’” He suggested that instead of ‘prewriting’, the term ‘nuclear writing’ be used to describe early writing systems which,
whilst essentially logographic, were not yet phonetic. ……………………………                              By way of contrast, Renfrew (1999, p.204) noted that “the writing of the Near East, like
that of Crete, grew up in another context, that of the emerging palace economy, with
the need to record in- and out-payments and to indicate ownership.” In such an
emerging trade economy, the need for written signs which form a codified system which
may be readily understood by others, without the need for oral explication, is clear. The
agricultural society of the Vinča culture had no such economic imperative, and as
Renfrew pointed out (ibid), in terms of archaeological discoveries, “there is no evidence
for a redistribution system like that of early Bronze Age Greece, where the seals and
sealings were functional objects of real economic significance.” Instead, the inscribed
figurines and tablets of the Vinča culture:“…testify to a very real absorption in religious affairs: and it is in this context that the signs on the tablets and plaques have to be understood. I suggest, indeed, that this “writing” emerged in a religious context, not an economic one.”……………………………                                                                                                 The language spoken by these Neolithic Balkan peoples is totally unknown to us today. It
was not an Indo-European language, since, according to Gimbutas’ hypothesis, Kurgan
invaders from the Russian steppe first brought an early Indo-European language to
Europe, when they over-ran the Balkans and displaced the ‘Old European’ civilization
and peoples. (For a geneticist’s findings which lend support for this theory, see CavalliSforza,1997). We are thus unable to map the Vinča signs (as written language) against a spoken counterpart. Therefore, Gelb’s distinction between a ‘semasiographic stage of writing (conveying meanings and concepts loosely connected with speech) and
phonographic stage (expressing speech) is inapplicable – since we are unable to say
whether the signs merely conveyed certain ideas and notions that were expressed by
the spoken language, or whether they directly expressed speech (e.g. phonetically). It
will be recalled that Gelb would only ascribe the status of ‘true writing’ to a phonetic
system. It does seem unlikely that the Vinča signs are phonetic representations of a
spoken language; there do not seem to be sufficiently lengthy ‘strings’ of signs (as one
observes in, for instance, Sumerian tablets), so are they more likely to have been
pictographic or ideographic in character? ………………………                                                     Conclusion
As noted above, there is disagreement as to whether the Vinča signs may be regarded as
constituting ‘true writing’ or not. Winn ascribed to them the status of ‘pre-writing’, and Renfrew, by way of comparison with the rongorongo tablets, suggested that their
function was a mnemonic one, an aide memoire for oral religious practice. Haarmann
and Rudgley, however, insisted that the signs were a fully-fledged – if as yet
undeciphered – writing system………………………………….                                                        Notwithstanding the above controversies, Winn, Renfrew and Haarmann are all in
agreement that the signs originated in a ritual-ceremonial-religious domain, rather than
an economic one. The same may also be argued as to the development of early Chinese
scripts, namely, that the motivation was magico-religious in essence (i.e. divination)
rather than economic. For this reason, both Renfrew and Haarmann compared the Vinča
script with that of the ‘oracle-bones’. As noted above, the act of carving the ‘oraclebone’
signs itself was a part of the magico-ritual process, so perhaps a tentative analogy
might be drawn with the Vinča signs – particularly those carved on figurines which
apparently depict goddesses.
However, until such time as a Rosetta stone equivalent is discovered, bearing the Vinča characters alongside those of another (known) script, the former will continue to remain the subject of speculation as to their nature and meaning. But, whether we accept the Vinča script as being ‘true writing’ or not, it is, I believe, reasonable to regard religion rather than economics as the driving force behind the ‘invention’ of the signs. As Winn(1981, p.255) concluded:
In the final analysis, the religious system remains the principle source of motivation for the use of signs. The thousands of [inscribed] excavated figurines impressively demonstrate the cardinal role of domestic ritual in Vinča society.”                  ——————————  another posibility  hypothesis  ———————————————               ? Zsofia Torma’s own squetches of Anatolian, Cipriot and Sumerian writing ?—–                         

QUERELLE by Marco Merlini
3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossos 

The pioneer of the Danube-Balkan approach to writing was, as early as 1874, Baroness Zsófia Torma.Collecting artifacts from the Transylvanian site of Turdaş, beside the river Mureş that flows into the Tisza, a tributary of the Danube, the Hungarian archaeologist recovered many extraordinary female figurines, pots, artifacts made of stone, boons, as well as marble and fragments of pottery bearing strange signs intentionally
made. The excavations were not without effort because of the peasants’ superstitions that the exhumation of the prehistoric vestiges could cause natural calamities and put the harvest at risk. Nevertheless, Baroness Torma inventoried around 11,000 finds of Turdaş culture, among which over 300 appeared clearly incised or painted by means of not only a pictographic writing but also with abstract and linear signs.*1       

*1.   Viz. 4.C.a.1 “A range of 300 signs from Turdaş sorted out by Zsófia Torma”; 8.B.c.3.a “Script-like signs from the earliest excavations”.

…..”Presenting her discoveries at Turdaş and Valea Nandrului, Torma gave a special attention to the issue of the signs and compared their shapes to similar ones found in Asia Minor (Troy, Caria, and Panfilia) and Cyprus (Torma 1879; 1882: 19-44; after László 1991: 43). Later, in a collective publication, she orientated herself primarily towards Mesopotamia and believed to have identified “Babylonian cultural elements” at Turdaş, especially interpreting some inscriptions as names of Sumerian divinities (Torma 1902). Unfortunately, many of the signs and the unusual artifacts from Turdaş and Transylvania are known solely from the unpublished but meticulously illustrated notebook of Zsófia Torma where she hypothesized the existence of a “Turdaş script” (Makkay 1969; 1990 and bibl.). The discovery of the “Turdaş script” circulated around the world making even more spectacular the already extraordinary excavation due to its extent, an area unfortunately drastically reduced in a few years by the flooding of the river. Apropos Troy, from 1870 Heinrich Schliemann found there signs incised on vases and spindle-whorls (Schmidt 1902; Renfrew 1970: 45) which suggested him a comparison between Turdaş script and the inscriptions on Minoan vessels (Schmidt 1903: 457 ff.). From 1896, similar signs have been noted on pottery of Phylakopi in Melos Island (Society for the promotion of Hellenic studies 1904). William Matthew Flinders Petrie found comparable marks on vases of the late Predynastic and Protodynastic periods in Egypt (Petrie 1912, 1953). In addition, Arthur Evans wrestled with Turdaş signs. Having discovered similar marks carved on blocks of what was evidently a Bronze Age palace at Knossos (Crete) and on clay tablets bearing writing, he concluded that the Turdaş signs were remnants of a primitive system of writing (Evans 1987: 391; chart on
p. 386; 1904; 1909). 

From UNVEILING ZSÓFIA TORMA.THE DIARY OF A WOMAN, AN ARCHAEOLOGISTAND A VISIONARY  LAURA COLTOFEAN    https://www.academia.edu/9064726/Coltofean_L._2014._Unveiling_ Zs%C3%B3fia_Torma._The_Diary_of_a_Woman_an_Archaeologist_and_a_Visionary

Zsófia Torma was also interested in the cuneiform writing, studying important works byJules Oppert (1858-1863) and J. N. Strassmeier (1882-1886). She notes in her diary a series of Menant 1883: 187. 270 cuneiform characters, and their meanings.
What is interesting isthat the characters she chooses resemble the signs and symbolswhich can be found on the Turdaş pottery. Knowing that Zsófia Torma considered that the incised signs on her discoveries belonged to an earlysystem of writing, I believe that she was trying to decipher their meaning with the help of the cuneiform signs.All these examples offer us valuable information about the wayZsófia Torma was reading thescientific works, studies andarticles, and about the type of information she was searching for,selecting and extracting from these.The drawings from Zsófia Torma’s diary are actually interesting, some-times containing even hidden or surprising details of large compo-sitions – such as the Assyrian bas-reliefs or the engravings of the Oriental cylinders, and generally consisting of objects with special function, such as altars, scepters, all kinds of head coverings, gems, objects bearing signs, symbols, and inscriptions. In many cases, these can have symbolic and/or ritualistic values, such as cult objects, or symbols of a certain status or affiliation.Moreover, the articles and plates published by Zsófia Torma starting with the 1880s, are dominated by the presence of objects with special function and symbolism, which, typologically, belong to the same category as the objects drawn in the diary. In order to illustrate this idea, we can take as an example the article entitled

 A tordosiő stelep és hazánk népeő smythosának maradványai [The Prehistoric Site of Turdaş and the Remains of Ancient Myths in Our People’sCulture] (1897). The plates of this article contain images representing different altars and life trees from the Mesopotamian art. She considers that the elements of the Mesopotamian art were transmitted to the Thracian inhabitants of Troy and Turdaş and survived in the art and customs ofthe contemporary Hungarian, German and Romanian peasants.

Also, Zsófia Torma’s articles,studies and correspondence show that this period of her scientific activity is dominated by the search for analogies which would demonstrate the connection between her discoveries fromTurdaş and Troy, respectively the Near East.

Scientists says: when writing and language is unknown, close to ZERO chances to decypher.

December 4, 2018

Yes, but even so there are few examples when reading succseeded. Hrozny with hittite writing and language and Michael Ventrix for Linear B writing and micenaean language. Out of hundreds of work hours they had every of them an unimaginable luck and inspiration for the very 1-st step:                                                                                               – Hrozny to see a familiar sumerian sign for bread and thinking that the word would be later folowed by the word drink….                                                                                                       – Ventrix supposed to have written Pa-I-To and at some ten Km there was the ruins of the ancient harbour/town Phaistos…

Even when the writing is known cause the unknown language, even now Cretan hieroglyphic,Linear A and eteoCretan writings are not yet deciphered because the languages (minoan and eteocretan) are unknown. Maya glyphs and yukatec language, partly ” The phonetic value is known for 80% of these signs while the meaning of only 60% of them has been deciphered so far (but counting).”

Note that for sumerian writing and language at the time and nowdays there are hundred of thousend available tablets.Hrozny also had thousend of tablets in Instanbul lybrary, Ventrix had hundreds and today there are thousends of minoan tablets. One schollar,  Richard Vallance are inviting those who feel able to try to read some of them.                The existence of a minimal number of tablets is of paramount importance, as when one would test the right reading, could be checked/tested on others.

See http://mentalfloss.com/article/12884/8-ancient-writing-systems-havent-been-deciphered-yet


  1. the tablets are singletons (they are unique of this kind).No one others of the same type are available, in order to check some reading attempts toward a correct interpreting.
  2. unknown writing;                                                                                                         2.a.could have proto-cuneiform signs or                                                                           2.b. have logograms/syllabograms. Even when writing is known could not read (eg. Ezerovo ring:greek alphabet, unknown language). An distant ethnic group could write with another’s letters (tungusik inscription with greek letters, found in S.Mare Romania)
  3. unknown language; if the supposed age is real, scientists are expecting a supposed”proto-euphratean language“, that means pertaining to a time before sumerian, language about scientists only imagine how could be. 
  4. not sure the age; No single human in entire World, not lay down a single inscribed clay piece, even as “before writing” stage, “proto-writing” before 3,500 B.C. !
  5. not known where was the scribe from !?
  6. the number of resulting words/meanings is great. A number resulting from multiple “x combinations taken by Z”                                                                                 Eg. Out of only 2  greek signs “HD”, could have:                                                       har,haros,hera, heros hora, eros, era, hed, hede, ed,ede, hades, etc.                                 From R – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R
    From                                                                                                                                      What is currently known about the Tărtăria tablets and the Vinča symbols? https://www.quora.com/What-is-currently-known-about-the-T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria-tablets-and-the-Vin%C4%8Da-symbols

    “The Tartaria tablets and the Vinca symbols were found in Romania and Serbia, and dated to the 5th millennium BC. The Gradeshnitsa tablets also date from the 5th millennium BC, but were found in northwest Bulgaria. The Dispilio tablet dates from 5260 BC and was found in Macedonia.

    Oscar Tay, speaks a language Answered Oct 27, 2017 · Upvoted by Thomas WierAssistant Professor of Linguistics at the Free University of Tbilisi. and Nick PharrisPh.D. Linguistics, University of Michigan (2006)
    “As I’ve mentioned in earlier answers, writing was invented independently four times, three if you consider Egyptian hieroglyphs as being from Cuneiform. All modern writing systems, and every writing system to have ever existed, comes from one of those four.

    Well, almost every. Maybe.

    First, to get a strange idea out of the way, this is not the ancestor of any modern writing systems, especially not any alphabetic ones. (See also here.)

    Second, we’re not completely sure it’s a script, or even proto-writing. It’s complex enough that it may have represented things in more detailed ways than just drawing would, but it’s probably not a “true script”, i.e., one that can represent a full language. Mathematical notation, for example, is not a true script, because it can’t represent anything beyond, well, math.

    If the Vinča symbols do represent a language, we’ve got some issues. The first problem is that they might be a clever hoax, which is always an issue in script-deciphering.

    But let’s say they are authentic and do represent a language. Just this knowledge – not even which language it was, but whether it was a script – would be incredible: we would have physical evidence of a script from Neolithic, pre-Indo-European civilization, which is also named Vinča                                                           Let’s say it is a true script – and to be clear again, it likely isn’t; this is just for an example. We’re met immediately with a rather glaring issue: most of the inscriptions, which are scattered across eastern Europe and span centuries, are very short. The issue of having primarily or solely short inscriptions also plagues the decipherment of the Indus script, but the quest for Vinča has it worse, with many of the inscriptions only one or two characters long.

    Approximate location of the Vinča culture. From Wikipedia.

    But let’s pretend we do have a long text in Vinča, something that unfortunately eludes its crypto-archaeo-linguistic pursuers. There are three levels of difficulty in deciphering languages:

    1. The language is known, the script is not: You have a vocabulary you can work from, provided the script is long enough and has enough context. Find some proper nouns and you’re set.
    2. The script is known, the language is not: You can read the language and likely pronounce it and maybe recognize some loanwords if there are any.
    3. Neither the script nor the language are known: Well now you have a problem to the scale of hieroglyphs, Linear B, the Indus script, and the Voynich manuscript. Proper nouns and bilingual inscriptions will be your holy grails, if you can find any.

      Vinča sits at about a 4. Not only is the language not known and the script wholly undeciphered (if it is a script at all), but their proper nouns would be nothing like those in any languages we know of.

      Worse than that, Vinča’s contemporary languages are all reconstructed, because, well, we have no way of knowing exactly what they’d be like. To reconstruct a language, you need surviving descendants; the only surviving pre-Indo-European languages in Europe are the Uralic languages and Basque, and chances are the Vinča language is related to neither.

      • We don’t know what the script says; we don’t know if it’s a script.
      • We don’t know what the language is; we effectively can’t know.
      • If we could read it, we would push history back by thousands of years.

      I leave it as a virtually impossible task to the reader, if they’d be up to it: it’s only virtually impossible, after all. Until then, to answer your question, we know little about the language it encodes, if that.”




      5850 – Arrival of 
      Neolithic farmers speaking an unknown language, bringing elements of Samara culture (6,000 BCE).
      The Samara culture was an eneolithic (copper age) culture of the early 5th millennium BC at the Samara bend region of the middle Volga, discovered during archaeological excavations near the village of Syezzheye (Съезжее) in Russia.
      The Eneolithic culture of the region is a proper name, referring to the Samara culture, the subsequent Khvalynsk culture and the still later early Yamna culture. [Yamna = Kurgan]
      Samara culture sites: Other sites are Varfolomievka (on the Volga, actually part of the North Caspian culture) and Mykol’ske (on the Dnieper). Varfolomievka is as early as 5500 BC. These three cultures have roughly the same range. Marija Gimbutas was the first to regard it as the Urheimat (homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language and to hypothesize that the Eneolithic culture of the region was in fact Indoeuropean. If this model is true, then the Samara culture becomes overwhelmingly important for Indo-European studies.
      “Arrival of Neolithic farmers speaking a Proto-Euphratean language 5,850 BCE, bringing elements of Samara culture (6,000 BCE). The following Hadji Muhammed culture pioneers irrigation. Rivers, most Sumerian cities and crafts were named in Proto -Euphratean” [Sumer and Elam ppt]”                          ——————— see also ——————————————————-                                        
      Will the Indus Valley Script ever be deciphered in the absence of a “Rosetta Stone”?                                                                                https://www.quora.com/Will-the-Indus-Valley-Script-ever-be-deciphered-in-the-absence-of-a-Rosetta-Stone-1

      Hammad Shakil, interested in ancient history
      “the western scholars who are agenda based aryanist/invasionaist make it impossible to reach a common ground for decipherment to be acceptable, even if it is deciphered lets say by indian scholars, the hue and cry raised by these agenda based aryanists will make it highly controversial (if you read posshl’s book and his chapter on indus script, you will understand why these die hard aryanists are resisting decipherment of indus script, its purely political agenda nothing else)

      i do think that the script is very much decipherable and efforts have already been made in the right direction, there are somethings to keep in mind while deciphering indus script.

      1. to embrace the fact that indus script is logo syllabic
      2. to embrace the fact that brahmi script is derivative of indus script
      3. to embrace the fact that the script decipherment has the possibility of indo european language/ prakrit
      4. to embrace the fact that the script should not used to serve western aryanist agenda and leave it an open ground for neutral scholars to decide whether the script in logo syllabic or logographic, whether it is indo european or dravidian by making credible decipherment.
      5. embracing the script is not agglutinative but consists of prefixes and suffixes.

      these facts are not accepted by western aryanist scolars because embracing any of these facts may lead to indo european decipherment, embracing brahmi script as derivative of indus script makes indus very close to achieving father of all alphabetic system status, embracing indus’s syllabic status will lead to embracing brahmi similarities with the indus script (which will lead to acceptance of indus’s brahmi like characters like compund syllables, the vowel representation of indus like brahmi script etc which will designate the script as indo european even before deciperment), accepeting the script may not be agglutinative script and may contain prefixes (which will make indo european language a possibility) being open to indo european language is like a aryanist die hard fanatic to question his faith, the western scholars are still stuck in 19th century when british colonists and german indologists had lots of fun making aryan concocted stories before indus valley civilization was discovered in the 20th century, they need to grow out of this narrow minded thinking.                                                                                                                          the present scenario paints a very gloomy picture of a script which is being on the hands of political agenda of few aryaist western scholars and indian scholars either fully towing the british colonist agendas like romila thapar or not showing any visible interest to investigate their own history through archaeology, very little indian efforts have been made to decode indus script which leaves it an open ground for western aryanist (and few tamil dravidists) to exploit.                                                                                                                        Indian government should invest more in archaeology to explore and excavate the areas which have already revealed for example, a brahmi script copper plate which dates probably from late 2nd millennium BC early 1st mil BC, not many people about this artifact but this artifact is very important to establish earlier antiquity of the brahmi script, to negate western aryanists who keep repeating the mantra of 300 BC for brahmi, we already know that indus script was functional as late as 1100 BC, this will enable many scholars to open their minds for the possibility of brahmi origin from indus and thus acceptance of brahmi phonetics in indus script.”                                                        ————————————————————————————–                                            The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite
      Robert Englund, UCLA                                                                            https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P183.PDF

      With the continuing publication of the proto-cuneiform texts by the collaborators of the project Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI)2, we are achieving a more substantial basis for the continuing discussion of the early development of writing in Mesopotamia. Cuneiform represents a system of writing with a history of over three thousand years of use, and can boast of a text corpus unparalleled in number and breadth before the invention of the printing press. Cuneiform offers, moreover, a unique view of the earliest stages of development of an advanced writing system. In a career spanning over thirty years, Denise Schmandt-Besserat has published and discussed the
      significance of a means of accountancy employed in the ancient Near East that represents a clear precursor of the first proto-cuneiform tablets. Small clay objects unearthed in prehistoric strata were termed “tokens” by Schmandt-Besserat, who wished to underscore their use as markers in an ancient system of bookkeeping. These clay objects consist on the one hand of simple geometrical forms, for instance cones, spheres, etc., on the other of complex shapes or of simpler, but incised forms. Simple, geometrically formed tokens were found encased within clay balls (usually called “bullae”) dating to the period immediately preceding that characterized by the development of earliest proto-cuneiform texts; these tokens most certainly assumed numerical functions in emerging urban centers of the late
      4th millennium B.C. Indeed, impressed signs of an array of numerical systems found in protocuneiform accounts represented, in both form and function, many of the archaic tokens, so that the forerunner role of the simple tokens in the development of writing in Mesopotamia belongs, as the editor of this volume would understand the term, to the “core knowledge” of modern cuneiformists.
      The spate of new proto-cuneiform tablets on the London markets deriving from post-Kuwait War Iraq, including over 400 new texts of both Uruk III and Uruk IV3 period date, reputedly from the ancient city of Umma, have increased the size of the proto-cuneiform corpus to over 6000 tablets and
      fragments containing more than 38,000 lines of text. Two elements provide us with a relatively firm understanding of the contents of many of the earliest cuneiform documents. First, there is an evident continuous paleographic and semiotic progression of the cuneiform sign repertory into periods,
      beginning with the Early Dynastic IIIa period ca. 2600-2500 B.C., whose administrative and literary documents are increasingly comprehensible. Second and more importantly, a many centuries long scholastic tradition of compiling and copying lexical lists, ancient ‘vocabularies’, help bridge the gap
      between proto-historical and historical context. It should also not be forgotten that the seventy years in which a limited but quite involved circle of Sumerologists has worked on proto-cuneiform have resulted
      in a number of tools helpful in continuing research, including the first Uruk sign list of Falkenstein(1936) and its revision by Green and Nissen (1987), but also in a growing number of primary and secondary publications by, among others, Friberg (1978-1979; 1982; 1997-1998), Green (1980; 1981;
      1987), Charvat (1993; 1998), and the members of the CDLI. Despite such research tools enjoyed by those involved in the decipherment of proto-cuneiform, no definitive evidence has been produced that would identify the language of proto-cuneiform scribes. The onus to make the case one way or the other would appear to rest with specialists in the field of Sumerology, since, given its later linguistic presence and the strong cultural continuity in southern Babylonia, Sumerian must be the favorite candidate for an eventual decipherment. Yet neither the evidence for possible multivalent use of signs in
      the archaic period, nor, for instance, the more sophisticated argument of a unique connection between Sumerian number words and the sexagesimal numerical system, a notational system which appears to be attested already in the token assemblages of the prehistoric clay bullae, have sufficient weight to convince skeptics. On the contrary, it seems that a strong argument from silence can be made that Sumerian is not present in the earliest literate communities, particularly given the large numbers of sign sequences which with high likelihood represent personal names and thus should be amenable to grammatical and lexical analyses comparable to those made of later Sumerian onomastics.                                                                                                                        Despite these uncertainties in the proto-cuneiform record, many factors make the interpretation of the earliest phase of writing in Mesopotamia a study of considerable reward. In Mesopotamia we are
      favored with a substantially unbroken tradition of writing in both form and function through a period of three millennia, including most importantly an exceedingly conservative tradition of so-called Listenliteratur, that is, of compilation and transmission of thematically organized word lists beginning with those of the earliest, the Uruk IV-period phase of writing; we count large numbers of inscribed tablets and fragments from archaic Babylonia, now ca. 6000, which for purposes of graphotactical analysis and context-related semantic categorization of signs and sign combinations represents a text mass of high promise; and assuming populations in Babylonia were relatively stable through time, we can utilize language decipherments from texts of later periods in working hypotheses dealing with the linguistic affiliation of archaic scribes.
      Against this backdrop, the task of deciphering early texts from Persia seems all the more daunting.
      Although these texts have played an historically minor role relative to early cuneiform, the French excavations of Susa (Figure 2) made that script the first archaic Near Eastern writing system known to us. A quarter of a century before British-American excavators of Jemdet Nasr, and German excavators of Uruk unearthed their proto-cuneiform tablet collections, de Morgan’s archaeological earth-moving machine sent to the Louvre examples of an evidently very early writing system which, based on a
      presumed genetic relationship to the later attested Elamite-speaking peoples of the Susiana plain, has been only conventionally named proto-Elamite. The proto-Elamite corpus numbers just over 1600
      pieces, with ca. 10,000 lines of text, that is, about a quarter as many as from Babylonia (still, it represents a large amount of material compared to the relatively humble inscriptions of Linear A or of early Harappan).            The publication of tablets appears to have proceeded with little understanding of the text corpus and the accounting system it represented, and with little attention paid to an accurate representation in hand copies of the texts themselves.Accompanying sign lists were published with scant thought given to the high number of signs and the likelihood that the upwards of 5500 signs in the final list attached to a primary publication by Mecquenem (1949) contained large numbers of sign variants. The list published by Meriggi (1974)
      attempted to solve this problem by including under discrete headings presumed variant graphs and so arrived at a total of less than 400 sign entries. That list was unfortunately itself laced with incorrect identifications and graphic forms of many signs, in part reflecting the wayward decision of the author to opt to follow the original, rather than the established conventional orientation of the proto-Elamite tablets. This, added to the fact that seemingly all of the signs were published as mirror images, and that the important numerical sign systems were defectively organized, makes the Meriggi list a research tool of limited value. However, proto-Elamite inscriptions have been, and will remain highly problematic in a discussion of writing because they represent but a relatively short period of literacy, beginning around 3100 and ending around 2900 B.C., after which, unlike Mesopotamia, no writing tradition existed that might have served to reflect light back to this earliest phase. The few so-called Linear
      Elamite inscriptions from the late Old Akkadian period, that is, from a period some eight centuries after the proto-Elamite age, exhibit little graphic and no obvious semantic connection to the earlier writing system.
      Still, the proto-Elamite writing system exhibits high potential and, but for its uniqueness as a largely undeciphered script of an entirely unknown dead language, has some features which might have made
      it an even better candidate for decipherment than proto-cuneiform. Among these are a substantially more developed syntax evident in a linear “line of sight” in the writing practice (see below), and in an apparently more static graphotactical sign sequence.

      From The state of decipherment of proto-Elamite – Cuneiform Digital …    cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund2004c.pdf

      The prospects of discovering script characteristics that could lead to a decipherment of proto-Elamite are not great, but there are some areas of promise. In the first place, the proto-Elamite texts do contain sign sequences which are distinctly longer than the average of those from Mesopotamia. The texts are therefore more likely to consist of syntactical information than the very cursory notations in protocuneiform documents. But there is a more important, second point. Statistical analysis of text transliterations should point toward meaningful sign combinations of a fixed sign sequence which could reflect speech (Figure 20). Further, the “proto-Elamites” are not entirely foreign to us. We can assume that they were a people who used a decimal system to count discrete objects, and some of their number words, in particular the words for “hundred” and “thousand,” may have been used syllabically. In proto-Elamite accounts, the numerical notations follow counted objects and their qualifications. This deviation stands in contrast to Mesopotamian tradition (we have of late seen only one other example of such a convention, namely in the 24th century accounts from Syrian Tell Beydar47), and more importantly in contrast to the first ideographic tradition in Persia itself, that is, in the numeroideographic tablets from Susa and Godin Tepe presumably imposed on the local population by Babylonian accountants. We might therefore speculate that our so-called “proto-Elamite” derived from
      a language whose numerical qualifications were post-positional.
      A first step in the reevaluation of the proto-Elamite text corpus is necessarily the electronic transliteration of all texts. CDLI staff have completed this task, and are now beginning a new graphotactical examination of the texts. The following list demonstrates the use to which these data might be put. The proto-Elamite sign M371 (two round impressions connected by a single stroke)
      appears in the accounts in initial, intermediate, and final position, in altogether over 300 attestations.As seems evident from attestations of the sign in initial and final position, it represents a discrete object counted in the sexagesimal or decimal system. A quick check of the sources confirms that the system is in fact sexagesimal. Scheil (1905:no. 391), for instance, contains clear sexagesimal notations (1N34,2N34) of objects including M371. Scheil (1923:no. 94) and other accounts imply that M371 is related to the proto-Elamite sign for male laborers (M388), possibly, since M371 is not reckoned in the decimal system, in a supervisory capacity Current work on the proto-Elamite corpus thus can draw on both internal data from the Persian documents, and on comparative data from Babylonia. The Babylonian comparisons pose again the
      question of the ultimate relationship between the two writing systems. Clearly, proto-Elamite must be reckoned to those cases of secondary script origin known from many non-literate regions in contact with literate cultures. Yet it is too facile to declare that Susa imported this idea of writing, along with
      some few direct loans, at a time when Babylonia had passed into a second writing phase at least several generations after the origin of proto-cuneiform in Uruk IVa. It is evident from our data that those elements which are direct, or nearly direct loans from Babylonian tradition, for instance the numerical
      sign systems used in grain measures, point to a period within, and not at the conclusion of the initial writing phase Uruk IVa. Moreover, the examples of numero-ideographic accounts demonstrate that both centers employed the same signs at the earliest phase of writing development. At this moment,
      direct loans from Babylonia were frozen in the proto-Elamite system, whereas they were still subject to paleographic variation in Babylonia. In the case of the number sign N39, Uruk scribes of the Uruk IV period had not agreed upon one or the other of two possible forms, N39a ( ) and N39b ( ). By the
      beginning of the following period Uruk III, standardization had dictated in the school the use of only N39a. Persian accountants chose the equally plausible variant N39b from the Uruk IV pool of signs.
      This and other comparable agreements in the proto-Elamite syllabary point to a rapid development of a full writing system once its advantages in the administration were understood. One of the more important tasks ahead of us will be an attempt to eliminate from the current proto-Elamite sign list as
      many of the very numerous variant forms as possible. We count over 1900 discrete signs in 26,320 sign occurrences in our transliteration data set, clustered around approximately 500 basic forms. Of the 1900 forms, however, more than 1000 occur just once, another 300 only twice in the texts. These
      numbers are a clear indication that the writing system as it has been transmitted to us was in a stage of  flux, in which a scribal tradition had been unable to care for standardization of characters. Nonetheless, these numbers also tell us that the proto-Elamite system, like that of Babylonia, probably consisted of a mix of ideograms and syllabograms and comprised altogether between 600 and 900 discrete signs.
      Chronologically, the proto-Elamite system fits well into the development and expansion of Babylonian proto-cuneiform. We may picture the Uruk expansion into Persia and Syria during the 4th millennium characterized in the history of writing by the appearance of a systematic means of
      accounting through manipulation of small clay counters whose form indicated both numerical and ideographic qualities. This administrative tool crossed the barrier into transaction representation on one two-dimensional surface, namely on numero-ideographic tablets, when Uruk tradition was still strong
      in Persia, but the succeeding withdrawal of Babylonian influence, occasioned by developments in the south of Mesopotamia we cannot see, left Persian scribes to their own devices. An apparently continuous administrative apparatus, and a highly adaptable bureaucracy, formed the basis for the
      development of the proto-Elamite writing system that on its surface seems very foreign, but that on closer inspection reflects much of its Babylonian heritage.
      In the meantime, debates continue about the populations which might have been in contact with or even existing within the region of ancient Persia. Given later linguistic evidence, it is likely that an indigenous, Elamite-speaking population was living there at the end of the 4th millennium. And clearly elements from the Babylonian south must have had close, possibly adversarial contact with local peoples. But there may have been much more population movement in the area than we imagine,including early Hurrian elements and, if Whittaker (1998:111-147), Ivanov and others are correct, even


On mysterious presence of the contemporary “D-signs” on round Tartaria tablet.

December 4, 2018

Image, from KEYTH MASSEY http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

As an pure sign, D-shape had an absolutely scarce presence in deep antiquity.         Was only noticed  by scientiststs, but not found in any sumerian tablets. It appears in Egypt, but 90 deg. rotated as the sign for “loaf of breat” and consonant T. From that time, allmost 2.000 years was not used till the emergence of the greek alphabet. Precise-shaped as modern capital letter D was not used by minoans micenaeans (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A,Linear B).                                                                                                                             A Close shape was used by them for volumes and others for month and year; but only close shapes.

From Minoan language Blog/ Andras Zeke


From Richard Vallance’s Blog  https://linearbknossosmycenae.com https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/2015/02/19/mycenaean-linear-b-units-of-measurement-liquid-dry-weight-click-to-enlarge/


From Richard Vallance’s Blog,  https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/agriculture/


From JOHN JOUNGER http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                          Sign *034  has been suggested by several scholars to represent MNA (or, if a disyllabic value can be accepted, MINA), based on its resemblance to the crescent moon 

Till the archaic greek alphabet varians, where the sign D was used for D and for R-letters, the sign was not used in the supposed origin, canaanite or phoenician alphabets.                           (In fact not alphabet,from alfa,beta,first letters but  abugida, from alif,bait,gamal).They used for D the shape delta.  Only scarce here:                                                                          1991. Sass B. Studia alphabetica. On the origin and early history of the …www.academia.edu/…/1991._Sass_B._Studia_alphabetica._O…                                         The D shape is the South Semitic form found in several inscriptions of the …

-1-st time we heard about this sign was the research of Mrs. Denisse Schmandt Besserat. (Also it is in Mr’ Falkenstein sign-list) She (Mrs.Besserat) was eager and  the first one to  remark that early sumerian signs reproduced exactly the shape of the much-before, precedent used objects (tokens) put inside clay containers. This paralel existence of inside tokens and depicted signs on clay containers happened well before emergence of writing. She noticed the sign as direct related to the much older writing predecessor, the tokens and administrative accounds and much earlier counting/ numeration. Interesting enough it is appearing in her paper in the column of containers/jars. But if she know the significance and using of other pairs token-sign , under this D sign nothing was written. From http://en.finaly.org/index.php/The_earliest_precursor_of_writing              See 8-th column (on the table, IX), from top, 3-rd row                                                                                         From :                                                                                                                                                The Earliest Precursor of Writing DENISSE SCHMANDT BESSERAT   http://en.finaly.org/index.php/The_earliest_precursor_of_writing

“It is not necessary to theorize about some of these meanings; a number of ideographs on the Uruk tablets almost exactly reproduce in two dimensions many of the tokens. For example, Uruk arbitrary signs for numerals, such as a small cone-shaped impression for the number one, a circular impression for the number 10 and a larger cone-shaped impression for the number 60 are matched by tokens: small cones, spheres and large cones. ”                                                                                                                               me: sumerian made numbers only by pressing/imprinting , not by scratching, using the folowing middle-shape stylus: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/P3n8nbSE9YccCwG9YOL-ZD8ITYjUIfh8rxdvyH70AQok9RjhSwbm2xXBp4N-JiknPrZGNQ=s146  Image, from 5 – Ancient writing in Mesopotamia https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-literacy-and-technology/ancient-writing-in-mesopotamia/4CDCF7BA19958CD936AF8609A7FDC34F

The long row of Tartaria tablets researchers, at the point of confronting and analysing these signs, reacted differently. Some realised that faced a hard question and probably felt like heating an concrete wall. Others took the matter as easy as an everyday life, common issue. Much important, tey choosed different approaches or solutions, from that ones  usualy pertaining to ancient rock-art to sumerian products/numbers or even to sanskrit vedic.

From The skies of Lascaux http://www.iceageiconology.net/index-of-chapters/xi-the-proto-zodiac/   (19.000 years B.P.)

“Tuc, as well, shows the likeness of a human ancestor, and significantly, one who is juxtaposed with a “P” sign (Fig. 12 b). This configuration, which is located in the opposite end of the cave from the Chapel of Months (Fig. 19, at b), identifies the ancestral being by two circular eyes that are drawn on a roughly triangular face, which on closer inspection is also the standard image of a woman’s vulva, This character is, then, a likely “great grandmother” of the tribe, and her association with the “month” sign (Fig. 12 b) conveys the belief that the relationship between women and the moon (the menstrual cycle) was as old as the dawn of time.

 The First (Lunar) Calendar https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/oldest-lunar-calendars/


The archaeological record’s earliest data that speaks to human awareness of the stars and ‘heavens’ dates to the Aurignacian Culture of Europe, c.32,000 B.C. Between 1964 and the early 1990s, Alexander Marshack published breakthrough research that documented the mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the Late Upper Paleolithic Cultures of Europe. Marshack deciphered sets of marks carved into animal bones, and occasionally on the walls of caves, as records of the lunar cycle. These marks are sets of crescents or lines. Artisans carefully controlled line thickness so that a correlation with lunar phases would be as easy as possible to perceive. Sets of marks were often laid out in a serpentine pattern that suggests a snake deity or streams and rivers.                                      ——————————————————————————————————-

Moon phases from paleolithic, Imagini pentru rappengluck moon phasesGermany:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/19/200504.htm                           “Dr Rappengueck has recently identified some constellations and stars from the caves, but says the paintings also show the moon going through its different phases.”

From https://www.writtenchinese.com/lowdown-6-types-of-chinese-characters/The first type of writing was called oracle bone script 甲骨文 (jiǎ gǔ wén) thought to have been used between 1500 and 1000 BCE. The script was etched onto turtle shells and animal bones, and then heated until they cracked. The Shang Dynasty courtiers would use the bones to tell the future.

Folowing, I will present my opinion:                                                                                                 ——————————————————————————————-                                                     – If a very old age of the tablet is presumed (5.000 B.C>/M.Merlini) one could consider to have there the Moon phases.                                                                                                       Note                                                                                                                                                         No way for such great time depth, in better case would be 2.000-3.000 B.C. !

But this solution arise another set of  problems/another hard questions:                                                                                                                                                                                                   -In this case the Marco Merlini hard-sustained supposition that “scrittura e nata in Europa” is falling down, as we are not talking of writing, but at best of proto writing.            – We’ll have then kind of mixture, writing signs on the tablet mixed with proto-writing signs wich usually not happened.He choosed to interpret the signs as unknokn to us, of esoteric nature so he got himself out of the field of prooving that it is writing.                I cannot disregard the posibility of having moon phases, have no enough opposite strong/hard evidences.

But as long as humankind showed that scraped Moon Phases (Germany 18.000 B.C.) and in paleolithic (France caves) this could happen much easyer  later.                                  Later, minoans showed that were capable of making an lunisolar calendar, base on 8 years cycle. Image, from https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/04/researcher-cites-ancient-minoan-era.html

These “Moon-phases signs”, is only my 3rd option, or place in preffered renderings order.                                                                                                                                                      ————————————————————-                                                                                       My first option is upon folowing arguments:                                                                                 – writing emerged in high developed societies, bu not ultimate necessary as to fulfill practical needs, as to keep administrative, economical accounts.                                              – stars, planets and Moon could have been related to agriculture, nature cicles. calendar but also to direct related religious rituals.                                                                                       -Early world proto-writing writing in Indus valley, proto-Elamite, Sumer and Egypt not noticed these although very complex problem, but they made simple everyday life accounts. So if an old aged is supposed, this is my 1-st option:                                                    -Due of the similarity of sumerian GAR sign read Ninda(bread) with egyptian T/Ti (loaf of bread) . From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

GAR sign is an D with a paralel stroke inside, as could be our 1-st D on the tablet.         Sign GAR is read “NINDA” :”cereal ratio,BREAD”                                                                              From http://www.mummies2pyramids.info/hieroglyphics/hieroglyph-letter-t.htm

 Note If the signs were written by a sumerian hand we have the signs +++++ “As  first D‘: “sur?/Gar” ,

Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU  https://is.muni.cz › Halloran_version_3
de la JA Halloran ·…… sur: n., a garden plant; rushes; chaff, chopped

second D:”60” ,  o:”10″ , o:”10″   >> ” one grain ratio 80             The simple explanation for one/same sign is, that containers,vessels, cereal recipients, dishes had and has the same shape all over the world, as the main bread shape also is.

My preffered (“number one”) rendering:                                                                                      1.   SIGN D, “FOOD (CEREAL) PORTION/RATIO”                                                                         —————————————–                                                                                                               Second preffered rendering.                                                                                                          Due of my own concerns regarding the “strange” group or row of signs on the upper half of the round tablet, as I am accustomed with all writing systems, I sustain that only this       2. UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET COULD CONTAIN QUITE “MODERN” SIGNS

This upper half, usually covered by oblong tablet (noticed by sole Mr. Marco Merlini), is covered maybe because :                                                                                                                       – an mysterious/esoteric/secret message,                                                                                         – in equal measure could be read by contemporery literate bypassers and so not remain hidden

HR DDoo = HAR RORO/ar roro/ar roroo/ar rorou “up moisten

From http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/4854/arroro-arrorare-arroravi-arroratus?fbclid=IwAR1U52aOwoziJXj5xY8K33cNpjyFr0VH1Sj7sif3hi1AZBnZSGMddPUJQgU                 arroro, arrorare, arroravi, arroratus                                                                                               verb “moisten, bedew”                                                                                                                          Note                                                                                                                                                      Maybe related to: hori (rom. a hori=a ura)is a form of                                                   https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horior#Latin

horior (present infinitive horī(archaic) I encourage, urge !


Dravidian>ancient sumer-tamil>Indo-European

December 3, 2018

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages#Proposed_relations_with_other_families                                                                                                                                                            In the early 1970s, the linguist David McAlpin produced a detailed proposal of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran).[47] The Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis was supported in the late 1980s by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew and the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who suggested that Proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent.[48][49] (In his 2000 book, Cavalli-Sforza suggested western India, northern India and northern Iran as alternative starting points.[50]) However, linguists have found McAlpin’s cognates unconvincing and criticized his proposed phonological rules as ad hoc.[51][52][53] Elamite is generally believed by scholars to be a language isolate, and the theory has had no effect on studies of the language.[54]

Dravidian is one of the primary language families in the Nostratic proposal, which would link most languages in North Africa, Europe and Western Asia into a family with its origins in the Fertile Crescent sometime between the last Ice Age and the emergence of Proto-Indo-European 4,000–6,000 BCE. However, the general consensus is that such deep connections are not, or not yet, demonstrable.

https://indo-european.eu/tag/tamil/                                                                                                 It is presumed that proto-Dravidian language, most likely originated in Elam province of South Western Iran, and later spread eastwards with the movement of people to the Indus Valley and later the subcontinent India (McAlpin et al. 1975; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Renfrew 1996; Derenko et al. 2013). West Eurasian haplogroups are found across India and harbor many deep-branching lineages of Indian mtDNA pool, and most of the mtDNA lineages of Western Eurasian ancestry must have a recent entry date less than 10 Kya (Kivisild et al. 1999a).

You must undersand that dravidian was kind of large pool, not much more.                         ————————————————————————————————————————————Nostratic tree:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nostratic_tree.svg

From http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-nostratic-theory.html

                                            ———————————————————————————————————–                                           The only actual surviver is tamil language

http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sumtopics.html                                                Sumerian as Archaic Tamil Dr K.Loganathan, 2004 http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-as-arch-tamil.htm

From DRAVIDIAN TOKENS, UBAID, AND ITS TRACES IN BALKANS by Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/10909671/Dravidian_tokens_Ubaid_and_its_traces_in_Balkans

Ubaid Dravidian cult language of the Vinča
The Vinča, possibly Hurrian and similar to Indo-European Linear Pottery, might
be dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian
languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian
writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for
Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon
might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.                                                         The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for                                                                     1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin,                                                        2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately,                                                                                                                                         3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan scriptinvestigated by N. N. Kazanskii,                                                                              4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.                                                                               The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens asthe prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE.                 The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.The line of descendance Vinča (with the Dispilio Tablet closest to Linear A) >Tisza>Tiszapolgár > Bodrogkeresztúr (with Aegean relations) contacted with Baden might reflect the connection between the Vinča script and the Trojan script (Troy IIV) which N. N. Kazanskii interpreted as an intermediate element between the Vinča and Linear A.                                                                                                    As L. S. Klejn suggested, the Vinkovci / Somogyvar of the Baden origin was related to the culture of the Cretan Linear script A. So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic and Vinča because of the Dravidian relations of the Linear A, B signs, substrate words in Greek and Dacian, and the Tărtăria tablets. The Karanovo IV bearded figurines very similato the Harappan ones and contemporary of Vinča may be interpreted as anadditional argument.”


DNA Study Reveals Origins of Minoan Civilization

December 2, 2018

Mitochondrial DNA Study Reveals Origins of Minoan Civilization


A new study reported in the journal Nature Communications indicates that the Minoans, who 5,000 years ago established the first advanced Bronze Age civilization in present-day Crete, probably were descendents of the first Neolithic humans to reach the island around 7,000 BC and that they have the greatest genetic similarity with modern European populations.Now, scientists led by Dr John A. Stamatoyannopoulos and Prof George Stamatoyannopoulos, both from the University of Washington, have used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of Minoan skeletal remains to determine the likely ancestors of these ancient people.

The Minoans shared the greatest percentage of their mtDNA variation with European populations, especially those in Northern and Western Europe.

When plotted geographically, shared Minoan mtDNA variation was lowest in North Africa and increased progressively across the Middle East, Caucasus, Mediterranean islands, Southern Europe, and mainland Europe. The highest percentage of shared Minoan mitochondrial DNA variation was found with Neolithic populations from Southern Europe.


Geographic density map of mtDNA lineages shared between the Minoans and 11 Bronze Age, Iron Age and Neolithic populations, with the higher percentages represented in red and the lower in white.  The green dots indicate the origin of each of the 11 ancient populations (Jeffery R. Hughey et al)

“About 9,000 years ago, there was an extensive migration of Neolithic humans from the regions of Anatolia that today comprise parts of Turkey and the Middle East. At the same time, the first Neolithic inhabitants reached Crete. Our mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that the Minoan’s strongest genetic relationships are with these Neolithic humans, as well as with ancient and modern Europeans,” Prof George Stamatoyannopoulos said.

“Our data suggest that the Neolithic population that gave rise to the Minoans also migrated into Europe and gave rise to modern European peoples.”

Halafians,dravidians were Vincan’s ancestors? gutians, those of thracianns ?

December 1, 2018

Picture (Ubaid figure) from http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/serbiavinca.htm

The Vinča Culture: (‘Old Europe’). http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/serbiavinca.htm                               

The ‘Old European’ Vinca pottery, artefacts and writing all show an immediately noticeable similarity to what was originally thought to be an earlier Ubaid Sumerian influence from the middle east. In addition, the Cycladian/Cretan cultures are suspected of having close close artistic and possibly religious connections with the Vinca.                                                                                                                                               Both of these cultures appeared following the demise of the Old European Heartland, perhaps not so coincidentally, at the same time as several other important civilisations (Egyptian, Indus Valley, Western European, Maltese Etc) appeared in the prehistoric record.

Present day Y-haplogroups in Romania:
Before Farming Ro DNA – 33%: I1-4.5%, I2/I2a-26%, I2b-2.5%
Middle East Farmers DNA – 35%: J2/J1-15%, E1b1b-15%, G-5%
Old Europe DNA – 68% : I1/2-33% + J1/E1/G – 35%
Kurgan, Celt & Slav DNA – 29.5% : R1a-17.5% + R1b-12%.
Kurgan/Celt DNA 17.5% : R1a-17.5%,
Kurgan/Slav DNA – 12%: R1b-12%

j2-migration_thumb6000BC-5000BC – J1/2,E1b1,G bring farming from Middle Asia. 

2-4883031c1915508BC: An equal mix of hunters I1/2 (50%) and farmers J1/2+E1b1+G (50%) start The Old Europe Era.

On the origins of the first farmers in Anatolia 

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-origins-of-first-farmers-in-anatolia.html Sedentary farming communities emerged in parts of the Fertile Crescent during the tenth millennium and early ninth millennium calibrated (cal) BC and had appeared in central Anatolia by 8300 cal BC [ 4 ].                                                                           Farming spread into west Anatolia by the early seventh millennium cal BC and quasi-synchronously into Europe, although the timing and process of this movement remain unclear.                                                                                                                               Our results confirm that the earliest Neolithic central Anatolians belonged to the same gene pool as the first Neolithic migrants spreading into Europe.                         Further, genetic affinities between later Anatolian farmers and fourth to third millennium BC Chalcolithic south Europeans suggest an additional wave of Anatolian migrants, after the initial Neolithic spread but before the Yamnaya-related migrations.

Anatolia and the Balkans:archaeology 
Mehmet Özdogan https://www.academia.edu/5300302/Anatolia_and_the_Balkans                                     
Regarding archaeology, in assessing processes of neolithization in Europe, main-stream debate has focused on data from the Aegean coast and islands and the Balkans,where many Neolithic sites were extensively excavated in the second half of the 20thcentury. Within this region, there is an overall chronological sequence for the Neolithicfrom 6000bce onwards, commencing with a horizon variously termed Sesklo, Karanovo I, Kremikovci, Starčevo, Criş and Körös (Bailey 2000; Tringham 2000; Perlès2001). All through the Balkan peninsula, from the Aegean (Sesklo in Thessaly) to southern Hungary (Körös), even in the initial phase, there are hundreds of settlements that share more or less common material elements, such as white-on-red paintedpottery, triangular or rectangular pottery cult vessels, steatopygous female pottery figu-rines, baked clay decorated stamps (so-called pintaderras), bone spoons, and large flintblades. What is significant is that, with the exception of sites along the Aegean littoral,all sites begin with this horizon, without any predecessors. It seems evident that rather rapid and massive population movement took place, seemingly initiated fromthe Aegean.
Figure 17.1
The expansion of Neolithic cultures out of Anatolia towards the Caucasus and
the Balkans, 73005700bce. Developments between 10 000 and 7000
bce (Pre-Pottery Neolithic).Map production by Education and Multimedia Services, College of Asia and the Pacific, TheAustralian National University
Folowing map:Figure 17.2

The expansion of Neolithic cultures out of Anatolia towards the Caucasus and theBalkans, 73005700bce. Developments during the 7th millennium bce
, at the start of thePottery Neolithic phase in Anatolia and the Levant
Old core: Newly emerging complex societies                                                                           New core: Sustained village life                                                                                                   Old periphery: Becoming core for expanding Neolithic communities                              New periphery: Merging Mesolithic and Neolithic communities                                      
Continuing Mesolithic
Rapid and massive movement
The diversity in the regions of Neolithic expansion is best reflected in burial customs. Numerous sites have revealed Neolithic burials, either in cemeteries or under house floors, dis-playing a variety of burial practices even in the same site, ranging from simple inhumation to secondary burial or cremation. 
At around 6200bce, there seems to have been another more intensive migratory movement that originated in the eastern regions of central Anatolia. Possibly, unstableclimatic conditions related to the so-called Labrador/Hudson Bay Climatic Event hada triggering effect in this movement (Berger & Guillaine 2008). The sites of this newwave are rarely in the same locations as before (Özdogˇan 2008), yet many maintainedtheir locations over subsequent millennia, in time developing as major archaeologicalmounds. To this new group belong the Karanovo I, Sesklo, and Star
čevo cultures in the Balkans, all associated with new Neolithic elements.

Ancient DNA from the Carpathian Basin (5700 BCE to 3900 BCE)

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2015/06/ancient-dna-from-carpathian-basin-5700.html                                                                                                                                The first European farmers probably emerged from the highlands that form the Southern boundaries of Europe and West Asia, rather than from what we would conventionally think of as the “Near East” proper.

possible language and cult relations between Cucuteni-Trypillia, Vinča, and Halaf
Iurii Mosenkis file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/WHEN_AND_WHY_THE_TRYPILLIANS_BURNT_THEIR.pdf

Architecture of Cucuteni-Trypillia was related to one of the Thracian Eneolithic,
Lengyel, Tizsapolgár, and Vinča while the tradition of burning of settlements was
known in Vinča, Boian, Petreşti, and Trypillia2 and might reflect the homonymy of
Proto-Dravidian *ūr- ‘village’ (> Telugu ūru) and Proto-Dravidian *ur- ‘to burn’ (> Tamiluru). The magical impression of homonymy between two words, ‘village’ and ‘to burn’, might cause the rite while all cultures which had similarities with Cucuteni-Trypillia in architecture or in the rite of the village burning were Vinča-related. N. B. Burdo underlined the important role of the culture in the genesis of Cucuteni-Trypillia and other Carpathian-Balkan-Danube cultures.
The language of Vinča might be Dravidian because                                                                                                1) Vinča was related to Çatal Hüyük which art may be interpreted as created by Dravidian-spoken people;                                                                                                                          2) the Tărtăria tablets of Vinča are dated to the Ubaid time and similar to the Sumerian script of possible pre-Sumerian origin while strong Dravidian substrate presents in Sumerian;
3) the Cretan syllabary originated from Vinča via the Trojan script and the Dispilio
tablet may be interpreted in Dravidian;                                                                                                                   4) the Balkan-Anatolian relations was close until Karanovo IV, a contemporary of Vinča, according to M. Özdoğan, while the Karanovo IV statuette of a bearded man (see H. Todorova) is very similar to Harappan statuettes;
6) several unetymologized words of the Dacian substrate in Romanian and of Ancient Greek have Dravidian etymologies.
Ubaid Dravidian urbanization might also reflect in other names: Proto-Dravidian
*kōt.t.ai ‘fortress, palace’ might be related to the name of the Cretan town of Kutaion (possible Dravidian Alishar influence), Georgian Kutaisi (possible Anatolian Ubaid influence), and Hittite kutt- ‘wall’ (possible Anatolian Ubaid influence).
An intentional burning of houses related to burials was known in proto-Halaf Tell
Sabi Abyad (the second half of the 7th millennium BCE).
4 Halaf-Çatal Höyük-Vinča relationship in architecture and cult provided us to hypothesis of common Dravidian language of the sites.

===========================================================================Dravidian Ubaid influence on the Balkan Neolithic elite? Iurii Mosenkis   https://www.academia.edu/31086440/Dravidian_Ubaid_influence_on_the_Balkan_Neolithic_elite

 Elite/priest/cult language of Criş and Vinča might be Dravidian (of Anatolian Ubaid origin) because of:                                                                                                                               1) Dravidian etymologies for several Linear A, B signs related to the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet (Greek Macedonia; C14: 5260 BCE) and Trojan Script;

2) Tărtăria tablets (the age of the human bones found with the tablets: 5370-5140 cal BC, i. e. the Ubaid time) similar to Sumerian hieroglyphs of possible pre-Sumerian origin while Ubaid might be related to the Dravidian substrate in Sumerian;

3) Unetymologized words in Greek, Albanian, and Romanian (cf. Dravidian interpretation of tokens and their Balkan relationship);

4) A similarity between Vinča, especially the Parţa sanctuary (Gh. Lazarovici’s reconstruction), and Çatalhöyük which art may be interpreted in Dravidian;

5) A similarity between the Ubaid ‘lizard’ figurines and the Vinča figurines which had the Criş parallels;

6) Close similarity between the Karanovo IV beard figurine (synchronous with Vinča) and the Harappan ones;

7) Dravidian (?) H haplogroup in Starčevo and Dravidian (?) T haplogroup (close cognate of Dravidian L haplogroup) in Linear Pottery;

8) Chalcolithic rite of house-burning was spread in Vinča-related cultures while *ur- ‘village’ and *ur- ‘burning’ were homonyms in Proto-Dravidian; cf. Sumerian uru(2), ‘city, town, village’ and ùru, ‘watch fire; light; glowing, luminous object’. V. V. Khvoika-N. B. Burdo’s interpretation of Trypillian burned houses as houses of dead correlates with proto-Halaf burial rite in burning houses; cf. a rite of fire related to the Tărtăria tablets;

9) The similar round mace-heads in Vinča and Mesopotamia of the Uruk period (and pre-Dynastic Egypt as a result of the Uruk expansion).

The Vinča might be partially dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.

The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for 1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin, 2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately, 3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan script, 4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.

The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens as the prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE. The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.

So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic, Criş and Vinča Dravidian Ubaid traces in later Balkans are confirmed by several Albanian and Romanian words of substrate origin which have Dravidian parallels:                                                       Romanian < Dacian mal ‘shore’, Albanian mal ‘mountain’ : PD *màl- ‘mountain’                                                                                                                       Romanian < Dacian moș ‘old man’, Albanian moshë ‘age’, moshëm ‘old, aged’ : PD *mūt- ‘old’                                                                                                                                                       The Proto-Dravidian language might be a source of the Minoan Linear A signs, e. g.: Linear A, B mu (bull) : PD *mūr- ‘buffalo, cow’;

Linear A, B me (goat) : PD *mē-K- ‘goat’;

Linear A, B mi (fish) : PD *mīn- ‘fish’;

Lin A, B ra ‘dog’ : PD *er-Vc- ‘wild dog’ > Proto-Gondi *rac-i

Greek sukon, tukon ‘fig’ of unknown origin, Linear A, B tu (fig) : PD *tōɣ‘a kind of ficus’;

Greek sepia of unknown origin, Linear A, B sa (sepia) : PD *śip- ‘shell’ > ‘pearl-oyster’.

Ubaid Dravidians might be related to European cult of tree (Proto-Slavic *dombъ of unknown origin : Proto-Finnish *tamb of pre-Finno-Ugrian origin : Proto-Dravidian *tumb- ‘a kind of tree’) and pre-Greek words in Greek (Greek tuk- ‘fig-tree’ : Proto-Dravidian *tōɣ‘a kind of ficus’).      Greek drakon of unknown origin : PD *śàrac- > Telugu trā̃cu ‘serpen


Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts? Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/27943346/Danube-Trypillia_source_of_Minoan_scripts


Iurii L. Mosenkis      Pre-Mycenaean Greeks in Crete   https://www.academia.edu/24600947/Pre-Mycenaean_Greeks_in_CreteWeb-page: https://independent.academia.edu/iuriimosenkis                                                             Contents

Ethno-linguistic view on Aegean … 4                                                                                       Ethnic map of Ancient Balkans,Sea Peoples, and Troy … 4                                         Palaeoethnology of Crete … 8                                                                                     Pelasgians and their language … 13                                                                                Newfound Paleo-Balkan languagess: ‘Dithyrambic’ and Gutian… 14                       Phrygian-like language of ‘Eteocretan’ inscriptions … 16                                                   Greek vs ‘preGreek’ users of the Linear A script … 17                                                 Phrygian-like elements in Linear A?… 23
Bronze Age Greece: geography of countries and contacts … 24
 Mycenaean oecumene: Greek epic evidence … 24                                                           Minoan-Mycenaean Greeks in Colchis … 29               Minoan Greeks in Bronze Age Norway and Cypriot Hurrian trade elite of Proto-Germanipeople … 33
Multi-disciplinary periodization of Balkan prehistory … 37
Key role of climate events in socio-cultural changes … 37                                                     Climate changes, metal ages, and mythical generations … 39           Helladic culture and early Greek kingdoms … 41                                                                Greek ‘Floods’: natural and cultural interpretations … 42
Pre-Mycenaean Greek written language … 44
 Minoan painters were Greek-spoken … 44                                                                          Phrygian-like Greek language of Cretan Hieroglyphics … 45Greek constellation names on the
Phaistos Disc … 52                 Hieroglyphic/acrophonic origin of Linear A and B syllabic signs… 53                                   Phonetic features of Linear A: Hurrianized Graeco-Macedono-Phrygian … 56             Greek morphology of Indo-European origin in Linear A … 57
Greek names of sum and debt in Linear A … 58       Asiatic slaves in Minoan Zakros: Linear A evidence … 59                           Fates of Cretan slaves in the Linear A tablet HT 7 … 60
Minoan goddess as the queen of city … 6
Gutian language of the late 3rmillennium BCE invaders in Mesopotamia might also be Paleo-Balkan.
 The Gutians, Mesopotamian rulers during XXII c. BCE, were pale skinned and blonde haired or fair-skinned.They were described as the people of northern originThe Sumerians brutally called Gutian as a language of dogs. Perhaps, this opinion might be based on the frequent usage of initial
eu- and final eus in Greek.The ethnical name Gutor Kutmay reflecGreek
 κυδίων,noblercf. the Cretan tribe of Cydonians from kudos,glorycf. also the names of main ancient Cretan townsKnossos,famous’ as a variant of Greek
 gnostosPhaistos,most light(ed) from phanos,light’,Kudonia,
 glorious’ etc.The Gutian king’s name Ingeš uš oIngeš auš 
 may be possibly interpreted as γγυησευ󰏍ς,one who gives security’ from γγυάω
give security’. The name of Anchisos and its Philistine cognate may also be taken into consideration.According to a hypothesis, the Gutian language is Tocharian:
Two variants of another Gutian king’s name,Sarlagaand Iarlagab
may beinterpreted in comparison to the reconstructed Greek word*
Bερολογεύς‘one whospeaks sacral words’ from
 Bερολογέω, recount a BερCς λόγος. These variantreflect the possible s / alternation in pre-written Greek (later only from s). Anotherpair of the kings’ names,Silulumeš and Elulumešmay also contain the samealternation.The name Ibate may be compared with Greek α68εόςCretan and Pamphylian α6Aεός
 eagle’.The name Iarlagan oIarlaganda may be regarded as Greek*BερολαγενDς‘whowas born of priest’, cf.
Bερόλας=Bερεύς andγενDςγενέ%ς,
 who was born’ The name oTirigan is similar to Greek ριγενDςthrice-born’; cf.
ριγένν%ος,thricebornas an epithet ofAthena.Gudeathe famous ruler of Southern Mesopotamia ca. 2144–2124 BC, might bealso the Gutian.The Kutaioi as a name of the Colchians in Argonautica might be related with thename of the Gutians, Kuticf. the Caucasian Achaeans and Phryx the Phrygian whomigrated to Colchis in the beginning of the XIII c. BCE; cf. also Greek
teikhoswalland Georgian cixefortress’. Language contact between ‘pre-Greek’ and Kartvelianwere detaiinvestigated by R. V. Gordeziani.

INDO-EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOGENETICS      Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/28867344/Indo-European_archaeology_and_archaeogenetics

In our interdisciplinary model of the Indo-European origins, almost all previousmodelare combined. During 8-tm. BCE: Catalhöyük-Hacilar Neolithic (I. M. Diakonoff’s ‘pre-Proto-Indo-European’existed in Anatolia but natural events (the beginning of the Atlantic period about 7,050 / 6,910 possibly related to the Vesuvius eruption about 6940 BCE and theeruption of Erciyes Dagi, the highest mountain in central Anatolia, about 6,880 BCE)might cause the migrations in Rakushechnyi Yar culture Sesklo (from about 6850 BCE).Finish of the highest Anatolian Neolithic development was caused by global cooling and aridification 6200 BCEFrom early 7
tto mid 6-tm. BCE Neolithic peoples appeared in Europe in several waves (C. Renfrew’, V. A. Safronov’ models) but their initial language(s) are disputable.We must refer to achaeogenetics to identify the languages‘Only European’ male haplogroup is I (closely related to J, possibly Hurrian-Tyrsenian) which was presented in the earliest European Neolithic (Körös, Starčevo and Lengyel), but also in the post-Baden cultures like Vučedol-related Remedello and Vatya (‘Paleo-Balkan’?), Unetice and Urnfield (Italic-Celtic’ or ‘Celtic’?) etc. In contrast, main Y haplogroup of the European Neolithic was G (Kartvelian?while Y haplogroup of Indo-European elite was R1a of northern origin, akin to North Caucasian and Basque R1b, Burushaski R2, andYenisseian-Amerind Q. Archaeologically, Indo-European divergence appeared as Proto-Indo European Neolithic, migrated from Anatolia (I. M. Diakonoff’s ‘pre-Proto-Indo-European’Catalhöyük) to Europe in several waves (C. Renfrew’s model), and Vinča was the most developed among them (V. A. Safronov’s model) and gave Hittite-Luwian (or Hittite-Tocharian) Boian and the rest Indo-European Lengyel. Then Boian separated fromKaranovo IV–Vinča and divided into two branches, Gumelniţa-Varna and Cucuteni-Trypilla; common ancestors of the branches determined their common language orclosely cognate languages. Then Hittite-Luwian group correlated with the line Gumelniţa > Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop > Maikop > Alaca while Tocharian grouplinked with the line Gumelniţa > Cernavodă I (and Trypillia) > Skelya/Dereivka >Repin > Afanasevo > Okunevo > Tarim Basin. The rest of Indo-European languages  
were common among Lengyel > (a part of) Funnel Beaker > Corded Ware. If CordedWare was Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Venetic (and Illyric if it not belonged toPaleo-Balkan) then Baden was Paleo-Balkan and Globular Amphora was Indo-Iranian. If Corded Ware was all non-Hittite-Tocharian Indo-European then Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo-Balanovo were Indo-Iranian and cordized Baden-Coţofeni-KostolacCernavodă III-Ezero-(partially)Troy I-II were Paleo-Balkan.
Archaeology: Starčevoand Vinča(Proto-IE)> Boian > Gumelniţa(Hittite-Tocharian)> Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop > Maikop > Alaca (Hittite-Luwian)> Cernavodă I (and Trypillia?) > Skelya/Dereivka > Repin > Afanasevo >Okunevo > Tarim Basin (Tocharian)> Lengyel > (a part of)Funnel Beaker (resof IE)> Corded Ware (rest of IE or only Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Venetic)> Baden (Paleo-Balkan or cordized substrate of Paleo-Balkan)> Globular Amphora (Indo-Iranian or northen pre-IE priest elite of Indo-Iranian)Corded Ware> Malopolska Corded Ware / Kraków-Sandomierz Corded Ware > Mierzanowice >Trzciniec-(Komariv-)Sośnica (Baltic-Slavic) > Lusatian > Pomorska/Pomeranian >(Przeworsk-)Zarubyntsi > the Kyiv culture (Slavic) and Lebedivka > Juchnovo (Baltic)> northern groups of Corded Ware (Germanic)> Protruding Foot Beaker of Single Grave / Corded Ware (Celtic) indoevropeanized BellBeaker (Basque initially)> late Corded Ware of the Alpine pile dwellings in Switzerland and Southwest Germanyand Unetice-related Polada with pile dwellings in North Italy (Italic)> Middle Dnieper > Fatianovo-Balanovo > Abashevo (Indo-Iranian) > Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim-Andronovo (Indo-Aryan) and Timber Grave (Iranian)> cordized/indoeuropeanized Baden-Coţofeni-Kostolac-Cernavodă III-Ezero-EarlyHelladic II-(apparently)Troy II (Paleo-Balkan): Kostolac (Illyrian-Albanian), Coţofeni >Budzhak > Novotitorovka > Catacomb and Multi-Rolled > Sabatynivka (Phrygian),Cernavodă III (Thracian), Ezero (Greek), Early Helladic II (Pre-Greek Paleo-BalkanPelasgian’)Early Helladic III (Greek), Kostolac > Vučedol >Vinkovci-Somogyvár orEzero-related Sitagroi IV (Macedonian)
…………………….According to this hypothetical course of events, Linear Pottery, Vinča or their possible common Proto-Sesklo-Starčevo-Kriş or Anatolian ancestors, might be Proto-Indo-EuropeansIf the language of Anatolia-related Vinča culture was only Hittite-Luvian,then Linear Pottery might be ‘Narrow Indo-European’, in other words Indo-European without Hittite-Luvian. Cardium Pottery/Impresso (which might be also of Proto-Sesklo origin and which might have shared the G2a male haplogroup – the main haplogroup of the European Neolithicization creators – with Kriş and Linear Pottery)might be Hurro-Tyrrenian. Alternatively, only Linear Pottery might be of Proto-Indo-European origin while Vinča – of Hurro-Urartian and Impresso – of Tyrrenian.Linear Pottery and Vinča gave birth to both Boian and (via Stroked Pottery) Lengyelcultures. Boian as well as its Gumelniţa-Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillia descendants werepossibly Hittite-Tocharian or, if Vinča was Hittite-Luvian, only Tocharian. Cucuteni-Trypillia had an influence on Anatolia in the early stage of its development(M. Ozdogan).
Hittite-Luwian languages diverged from the other Indo-European ones around 6700 BCE,The GreekArmenian branch diverged from others about 5300 BCE, cf. the appearance of Vinča (the signs of which preceded Linear A) about 5500 BCE (the highestform ofdevelopment of sign system in Vinča is correlated with the parallel of Greek gropheus and Armenian
 grohscriber’, whereas the root had other meanings, not related to writing, in other Indo-European languages). The separation of the Baltic-Slavic language branch from others about 4500 BCE  Greek-Armenian-Albanian – about 5000 BCE, Indo-Iranian and Baltic-Slavic – soon after the latter date, Germanic-Italic-Celtic – about 4000 BCE
ICeltic-Germanic-Italic and Baltic-Slavic – before 4500 BCE                                                Celtic andGermanic-Italic – before 4000 BCE  The Celtic-Italic-Germanic  branch appeared about 3000 BCE (CordedWare),                                              Celtic – about 2500 BCE (Bell Beaker),                            Indian and Iranian divided after 3000 BCE,                                                                            Baltic and Slavic – before 1000 BCE. Proto-Slavs included two anthropological types – light
pigmented North Europeandolichocephalic was related to Corded Ware and dark-pigmented South European brachycephalic– to Bell Beaker; Southern Slavs, especially Bulgarians, included the leptoprosopic descendants of Linear Pottery-Boian-Trypillia through Thracians.;The divergence of Armenian-Greek-Albanian from other groups started about 3020BCE 
The divergence of Armenian, Greek, and Albanian languages
from each other started about 2590 BCE (the beginning of Troy II was related to the appearance of Baden inAnatolia oralternatively, the beginning of the Early Helladic period II); the corded waretradition from the Early Helladic II-III periods started spreading from the Coţofeni areaas A. Bulatović suggests, and the tradition might be Macedonian-Greek, while late Coţofeni might be the other part of the Paleo-Balkan  branch, perhaps Thracian-Phrygian;
The divergence of Italic and Germanic language groups took place about 2500 BCE;   Indo-Aryan and Iranian groups diverged about 2000 BCE (the appearance of Petrovka-Sintashta-Arkaim-Andronovo cultural complex and Timber Grave/Srubna cultures from common late Yamna/Poltavka-Catacomb-Abashevo sources).The Indo-Iranian cult of battle axe
Baltic and Slavic language groups diverged about 1210 BCE (the end of Trszciniec,the ancestor of possible Slavic
Lusatian culture and Milograd which generated thePomeranian culture, and possible Baltic Lebedivka, which developed Juchnovo). The appearance of the proto-Slavic Kyiv culture may hypothetically be reconstructed:Trzciniec(Komariv-)Sośnica > Lusatian > Pomorska/Pomeranian >(Przeworsk-)Zarubyntsi > the Kyiv culture. The end of the Kyiv culture (5-tcACE)coincided with the end of the Proto-Slavic language. In addition, the Proto-Slavic open- syllable structure of language resembles the Ukrainian CVCV-structure (C – consonant,V – vocal), pointing to the Proto-Slavic homeland in Ukraine.Fundamentally, Corded Ware might be the common ancestor of Indo-Europeans,without Hittite-Luwians but possibly including Tocharians (see below). If Slavic-Baltic,Italic-Germanic and Indo-
Iranian language branches were the results of the CordedWare
migration,then Celtic, Paleo-Balkan and Tocharian ones would be the results of the Corded Ware elite influence
.The primary divergence of Corded Ware might be related to climatic events about3300-2900 BCE (Piora Oscillation).Hittite
Luwian diverged from others about 4670 BCE (the Gumelniţa-Varna-Novodanylivka and Cucuteni-Trypillia influenced pre
Maikop PrickedPearls/Svobodnoe; appearance of Novodanylivka and Funnel Beaker)
. N. S. Kotovasuggests the Trypillia-Serednii Stig close contacts (including marriages) and the contactof Pre
Maikop with Trypillia, western and eastern Serednii Stig (with marriages in thelatter case).
Early Hittite-Luwian languages might belong to the Pricked Pearls culture,which was known in pre-Maikop (Svobodnoe), Maikop (Meshoko), Novosvobodnaia,and Dolmen times (the Maikop figurines are very similar to the Alaca ones), whereaslate Hittite-Luwian languages (Karanovo VII-Ezero, possibly under ‘Baden veil’) mighthave migrated not through Caucasus but straight from the Balkans
Another Hittite-Luwian culture might be ‘Early Bronze culture of the ColchianLowland’, a contemporary of the Maikop and Kura-Araxes cultures. The culture hadmany similarities with Ezero.
Bodrogkerezstúr was similar to proto- and early Kura-Araxes, possibly via Anatolia because of the absence of steppe links
J. Makkay regarded the Bodrogkerezstúr and Sălcuţă IV cultures as the Hittite-Luwian ‘Parnassian’ language of the pre
Greek substrate.Tocharian diverged from others about 3810 BCE (the appearance of Repinadescendant of Gumelniţa > Cernavodă I> Dereivka
and an ancestor of Afanasevo and then Okunevo). Cf. the climatic event 3900 BCE (
Bond event)the aridification,which caused migrations. Alternatively, N. S. Kotova underlines the closest relations  (including marriages) between Trypillia and Dereyivka,
so Trypillia mightbeTocharian.Tocharian languages demonstrate the close proximity with Greek, Phrygian, and Thracian, including the names of towns (possibly related to Gumelniţa) and Tocharian
nakt- ‘Sun god’ (possibly related to the Sun god images on the Okunevo steles) as a link between Greek-Phrygian (Minoan-Mycenaean)wanax
‘sacral king’ and Chinese
wang,king’ (Cretan Linear A, B syllabic sign
wis very similar to the Chinese hieroglyph for wang)cf. Cretan solar dynasty, Chinese Yellow Emperor, Chinese emperors’ yellowattire and the old hypothesis of Minoan-Chinese relationship.The hypothesis of relation between Tocharian Afanasevo-Okunevo and CordedWarcorrelates with the R1a haplogroup, which is common for Tocharians andCorded Ware. Novodanylivka and Dereivka had very similar anthropological types whereas Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian were close in: a) phonetics; b) grammar; c) basic lexicon; d) cultural lexicon. Moreover, the Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian languagegroups have the unique common name of town (possibly related to Gumelniţa). Thelinguistic similarities between the two aforementioned groups correlated with thearchaeological similarities of Serednii Stig I/Novodanylivka andSerednii Stig II/Dereivka as well as with the anthropological similitude betweenSeredniStig and North European ancestors of other Indo-Europeans (Polish Funnel-Beaker etc.), cf. N. S. Kotova’s hypothesis of the Funnel Beaker influence on theformation of Serednii Stig.The horizon of ‘Polgarized’ Trypillia with astronomical-related giant settlements andTrypillia-influenced horse-rich Dereivka might be a primary source of
Tocharian,inherited via Repin by Afanasevo with its round buildings. Polgar as the source of bothBodrogkerezstúr and the ‘Polgarization’ of Trypillia might be Hittite-Tocharian.Not only Boian and its descendantsGumelniţa and Cucuteni-Trypillia, but alsoSerednii Stig I-II might be Hittite-Tocharian. Cucuteni-Trypillia was interpreted asHittite-Tocharian by O. Menghin (basing on the correlation between Cucuteni-Trypilliaas ‘eastern Linear Pottery’ and the eastern location of Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian),however as Hittite by V. P. Petrov (basing on the comparison of Trypillian figurines andHittite reliefs). L. L. Zalizniak underlines the anthropological difference betweenNordic’ Hittite charioteers (maryanna) and their
‘Armenoid’ servants. It ought to beadded that the charioteers were Indo-Aryan.Therefore, ‘Kossinna was right‘, as L. S. Klejn estimates the hypothesis of the NorthEuropean origin of Indo-Europeans. According to G. Cossinna, the proto-Indo-European culture was
Corded Ware, the idea being confirmed by S. A. Starostin’srecalibrated’ glottochronology. As demonstrated above, the achaeogenetic,anthropological, glottochronological, and archaeological evidence may confirm theNorth European hypothesis and point to Corded Ware as a principle Indo
Europeaarchaeological culture. In search of the
cord ornament among suggested Hittite-Luviansand the ‘Parnassus language’ of Hittite-Luvian substrate in Greece, the Vinča-Gumelniţa-related Krivodol-Sălcuţă-Bubanj-Hum complex as a source of the earliestcord ornament in Greece must be mentioned.         

 Pe-Maikop and Maikop gold might be influenced by the Balkans.Copper spread from Gumelniţa to Steppe via Novodanylivka; some Caucasian copper objects of the pre-Maikop time might be related to the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province. Sumerians did not have their own copper, therefore Sumerian urudu, ‘copper’ might be derived from Indo-European*Həreudh-‘red, ruddy’ > Hittite-Luvian*Hərud/t-North Caucasian*rĕwc_wi‘red copper, gold’ and*HVrĕc󰁣Vcopper’might be related to the aforementioned words. Consequently, the ‘copper argument’links the Balkans and the Caucasus, including possible Sumerian Maikop from the pre-Maikop time.The ‘scepter argument’ gives the ‘hieroglyphic’ interpretation of the Balkan-SteppeEneolithic scepters basing on the comparison of Indo-European*g’hebhal-‘top, head(e. g., Tocharian Aśpāl, denoted ‘head’, while the closely-related Tocharian B śpālu meant superior, excellent’) and Greek kaballes, Laticaballus of possible Celtic origin,Proto-Slavic*kobylahorse’.                            Archaeoastronomy permits to interpret the mythical image of encircled world (AncientGreek Okeanos RiverOld Norse Jormungandr, Old Indian parallels) and entitles tointerpret Ancient Greek Galaksios kyklos‘the Milky Way’ (literally ‘the Milky circle) asan observation of the Milky Way as a whole circle. It is possible at the 52latitude. In the mid-5-tmillennium BCE, the Sun used to cross the Milky Way at the equinoxes andlocated near the centre of the Milky Way at the summer solsticeStroked Pottery andLengyel roundels were built near this latitude in the mid-5-t millennium BCE. Thus,Stroked Pottery and Lengyel might be among the ancestral Indo-European cultures.

Elite language mechanism.Corded Ware Northern Indo-European elite inherited itsNordic’ anthropological type (however not language) and Neolithic package from Kunda-Narva. The elite might accept Indo-European from haplogroup I carriers, the haplogroup, which was found not only in the earliest European Neolithic (Körös,Starčevo and Lengyel), but also in the post-Baden cultures like Vučedol-relatedRemedello and Vatya (‘Paleo-Balkan’?), Unetice and Urnfield (‘Italic-Celtic’ or ‘Celtic’?)etc. Urnfield’s case was extremely interesting: it included the R1a gaplogroup of theNorth European origin, Basque R1b of the Pyrenaean origin and I. Similarly, Indo-Aryanelite of Mitanni accepted the Hurrian language, whereas Kyiv Rus’ Norse dynasty and Turkic chiefs in Bulgaria accepted the language of Slavic people.According to T. O. Rudych, Vinča-Lengyel and Corded Ware male anthropology was similar; male and female skulls of Corded Ware were closethus, the Corded Waremen and their women migrated together and did not mix with previous people of populated territories or, more credibly, constituted varnalike social stratification. PolishFunnel Beaker
might be an anthropological intermediate between Vinča-Lengyel andCorded Ware (cf. the role of Lengyel in the formation of Corded Ware), according to
V. A. Safronov’s ‘Vinča-Lengyel-Funnel Beaker’ hypothesis of the Indo-European development.Therefore, Vinča-Lengyel and Polish Funnel Beaker might have been asource of southern influence on Corded Ware. The idea of an encircled world mighthave been inherited by late Indo-Europeans from Lengyel.
Conclusional models.
Archaeogenetics, anthropology, mythology, linguisticpaleontology, linguistic typology, and glottochronology made us choose the NorthEuropean / Corded Ware hypothesis of the (late phase of) Indo-European problemamong other archaeological versions. Archaeoastronomy points to Lengyel’s ancestralrole as a possible source of southern influence on Corded Ware. Ancient Iranianmythology makes it possible to identify the ancestral role of Funnel Beaker, whileHesiod’s mythical generations may point to the ancestral role of the Balkans. The earliesIndo-European cultures might be Karanovo IV-Vinča as a possible source of 1)Hittite-Tocharian Karanovo V-Boian (the common ancestor of Gumelniţa-Varna andCucuteni-Typillia) and 2) other Indo-European cultures such as Lengyel-(Polish)Funnel Beaker.The proposed interpretation of the Indo-European problem combinedC. Renfrew’sAnatolian-Neolithic version and the North European version ofG. Kossinna, L. S. Klejn, L. L. Zalizniak, S. V. Koncha and others.However, thecommon ancestor of non-Hittite-Tocharian Indo-Europeans might be not only Corded Ware, but also its Funnel Beaker ancestor, as it was shown above.Now I prefer to interprete Vinča (the most developed culture in VI–V m. BCE, withwriting and bronze) as Proto-Indo-European (a combination of the C. Renfrew andV. A. Safronov models). The culture had two main branches: 1) Gumelniţa-Trypillia, anancestor of Hittite-Luwian (via Skelya/Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop and Maikop >Alaca Höyük) and Tocharian (via Cernavodă I > Dereivka > Repin > Afanasevo >Okunevo) language groups, and 2) Lengyel > Funnel Beaker > Corded Ware, anancestor of other Indo
-European language groups. N. S. Kotova’s hypothesis of theparticipation of Funnel Beaker in the formation of Serednii Stig (the similar cord andzigzag ornament) explains western links of Tocharian, cf. A. A. Kovaliov’s model of theTocharian origin. However, Dereivka disappeared about 3700 BCE while Funnel Beaker appeared in Ukraine about 3600 BCE.Origin of three non-Hittite-Tocharian branches may be modeled in two ways: 1)Corded Ware gives all western-central groups (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic,Venetic, possibly Illyric if it isn’t a member of Paleo-Balkan branch, i. e. E. Krahe’s ‘OldEuropean’and Indo-Iranian groups (Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo-Balanovo), andalso ‘cordized’ the Baden circle cultures (Baden-Koţofeni-Kostolac-Ezero-Troy I–II),making Paleo-Balkan group/branch; 2) Funnel Beaker gives Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic Corded Ware, Paleo-Balkan Baden (with a participation of Lengyel,cfvery early separation of Greek in the Gray-Atkinson model), and Indo-IranianGlobular Amphora. Two models not exclude each other: Paleo-Balkan includes cordedand post-Baden components whereas Indo-Iranian – corded and amphoras components.
Perspectives may be related to the investigation of possible key role of the Badenculture in the last (post-Hittite-Tocharian) common period of the Indo-Europeandevelopment, i. e. the primary divergence of Paleo-Balkan, Indo-Iranian, and ‘OldEuropean’ branchesBaden 1) was the most developed culture in the IV millenniumBCE Europe, acc. to M. Yu. Videiko, 2) used vehicles, 3) had relations with Anatolia,Eastern and Central Europe, 4) partially took part in the formation of (possibly Indo-Iranian) Globular Amphora and (possibly ‘Old European’) Corded Ware, and 5) mighttransite European-specific male haplogroup of I, possibly related to the Indo-Europeanlanguage, from Lengyel to post-Baden cultures. Thus, ethnicity and mythology of theCorded Ware ‘northern elite’ and language of Baden might unit in the period of theBadenization’ of Funnel Beaker and the spread of Corded Ware. Hammers of PitGrave/Yamna (including a picture on the Kernosivka stele) and Catacomb culturesmight be related to the Corded Ware elite; Indo-Iranians might be formed in thecontacts of Yamna, Catacomb, GlobularAmphora, and Corded Ware (Fatyanovo,Balanovo, Abashevo) cultures. If common ‘Graeco-Aryan’ (Paleo-Balkan-Indo-Iranian) branch existed, it might be Coţofeni, a source of (probably Paleo-Balkan) Coţofeni-Kostolac and (probably Indo-Iranian) Budžak/Bugeac; so divergence of the branch intotwo sub-branches might be dated to about 3200 BCE.Alternatively, the Baden circle might be Hittite-Luwian, as L. S. Klejn suggests, orrather only Luwian, cf. the Baden-Klady (the Novosvobodnaya culture) and Ezero-Colchis relations as well as the Baden/post-Baden influence on Greece where theParnassus’/Luwian language was identified toponymically. So Funnel Beaker ofLengyel origin might be (partially) Hittite.

Proto-Greek language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language                                                  The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the assumed last common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., AtticIonicAeolicDoricAncient Macedonian and Arcadocypriot) and, ultimately, KoineByzantine and Modern Greek. The unity of Proto-Greek would have ended as Hellenic migrants, who spoke the predecessor of the Mycenaean language, entered the Greek peninsula sometime in the Neolithic or the Bronze Age.

Prehistory of Transylvania (continue)

On the other hand, farther east, along the Dniester River, groups that made Epigravette-Tardenois tools were breeding pigs and cattle around 5500 B.C. (!), and it is conceivable that their western cousins did likewise.

The Epipalaeolithical groups’ moves toward food production were interrupted by the arrival of people who belonged to the Starčevo-Körös culture of the southern Balkans. The latter brought from their homeland the practices, assimilated from Anatolian migrants, of wheat and barley cultivation and goat and sheep husbandry. The cultivation of millet and the domestication of cattle may have been their own ‘invention’.

Prehistory of Transylvania (continue)

On the other hand, farther east, along the Dniester River, groups that made Epigravette-Tardenois tools were breeding pigs and cattle around 5500 B.C. (!), and it is conceivable that their western cousins did likewise.

The Epipalaeolithical groups’ moves toward food production were interrupted by the arrival of people who belonged to the Starčevo-Körös culture of the southern Balkans. The latter brought from their homeland the practices, assimilated from Anatolian migrants, of wheat and barley cultivation and goat and sheep husbandry. The cultivation of millet and the domestication of cattle may have been their own ‘invention’.

Tartaria oblong tablet (with hole). Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A,B approach 2

December 1, 2018



We have folowing signs
– In upper most left side, those three “D/moon“-like signs.
In linear B were used units of volume measurements, but by them de D-like signs were 90 deg.rotated, in horizontal pozition:

Due of the fact that in other two ancient places the same sign was used:                                   – in Sumer, sign GAR (read ninda) : “grain,food ratio/bread” and                                              – in Egypt, sign “T” :”loaf of bread” The “D” sign will mean “volume/ratio”,rather than month or year, “3 years”,                                                                                                                 the meaning will be:                                    “3(three) grain ratios” (rather than being sign for month, 3 month ”
Image from https://linearbknossosmycenae.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/are-mycenaean-linear-b-fractions-fractions-or-something-else.jpg?w=640

the sign for “month”/MENE in linear B (but D-mirror reversed!):


MEN, gen. MENOS :”MONTH”; My note: !Not Moon !
Mirror reversed:
“MONTH” https://linearbknossosmycenae.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/space-saving-linear-b-ideograms-and-logograms.jpg

“MINI” gr.MENE :”MOON”  https://linearbknossosmycenae.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/minoan-linear-words-mi-mu-of-possible-proto-greek-origin.jpg

THREE GRAIN/CEREAL VOLUMES/RATIOS          ====================================================================
Next to these signs, dawnward, sign  ->->-> :

From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/  John Jounger                                                   TE (“from“? NAME).  TE/TI, “from/of


Usually associated with agriculural products as

In linear B https://i.pinimg.com/736x/95/40/78/9540781c6c839aa87a385ac46823b990.jpg


Linear A, John Jounger http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/  *04 (TE), common

Linear B, Cretan“TE” “Wheat

So could be “3 months/volume measures of some sort of grain”(gr.sitos) ?
Note that this sign we have rather pertain to proto-writing. In linear B we have signs for specific kind of grains:

So, both signs (DDD and ->->->-)could be, or “3 -MONTHS/years-ONE MAN?-RATION” , but rather:                THREE WHEAT VOLUMES/RATIOS
————————————————————————————————————— Downward,

in a kind of box, ” “-like sign, Table, from http://www.kairatos.com.gr/linear1.htm

263ieroglyfikasite                                                                                           You see is absolutely ISOLATE /very strange/very rare
Normally must be interpreted with an isolate meaning,but wich could be the meaning? Branch,distress (divergent) !??

Cretan hieroglyphic sign DA ?                                                                                                            From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                                                                “DA-I = “total”?: HT 12.6 (Schoep 2002, 162); cf. DA-I-PI-TA, ZA 8.5. If DA– (as in DA-DU-MA-TA) indicates in some way a completed action (like a perfect of A-DU), could DA-I be a completed transaction *516 I+[?] “
In my opinion could be.And I ad taking all the risks and folowing rumors,interpreted from many words as DA-I :”a completed transaction”?)from accounting tablets even from sacred I-DA,
DA= this “give,given/IT IS” (excuse same as in german)firm as EARTH

——————————————-                                                                                                          Cretan hieroglyfic meaning DA/SA ??
Arkalochori – Αρκαλοχωρι
on a Minoan inscription, found in a religious context dating to the 17th Century B.C. Another possible hypothesis for -DA- is connected to “dea/thea”
Hieroglyphic sign Y yet not solved,in testing.

It is now perhaps possible to ‘read’ I-DA-MA-TE on double axes from the Cave at Arkalochori as well as DA-MA-TE on a religious inscription from the peak-sanctuary above Kastri on Kythera.
The second part of the word -MA-TE is probably the Indo-European word for Mother, including the nomen agentis –TE. Mother is the most stable word in the Indo-European languages (excluding Hittite and Anatolian Languages) whereas the first part I-DA-/DA- could be interpreted as Mount Ida, just visible from the Arkalochori Cave, or perhaps DA/GA meaning Earth, i.e., Earth Mother, Dem.This would not be a surprise but it is interesting that it is on a Minoan inscription, found in a religious context dating to the 17th Century B.C. Another possible hypothesis for -DA- is connected to “dea/thea” according to Hesychios. It has also been suggested that Demeter be connected with *P.-I.-E. dms meaning house, (-inthos), thus she would be ‘Mistress of the House’ similar to ‘Lady of the Labyrinth’.eter.

I-DA-MA-TE                                                        NA-DA-TE  (Phaistos disc)                                         One must to choose between Da and Sa.                                                                                        It seems that cannot be DA because in linear A the sign has the “branch” toward right !      ————————————————————————

From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/  JOHN JOUNGER                                      SA (HT 114b.1) or SI (HT 30.1) = paid?                                                                                              ————————————————————————————————————-                                    Linear A,”SA”

Also could be linear B= “SA”

John Younger http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/
*31, SA, perhaps a logogram for *SA-SA-ME?; cf. HT 23a.4-5 SA-SA-ME, and PH 16b.1, HT 97b (cf. Linear B sa-sa-ma)
“Once again applying Linear B reading to the previous Linear A texts, we see the sign sequence ja-sa-sa-ra-me. This sequence is very interesting because it appears very often in many other such votive inscriptions in slightly different variants.

The shape of the sign is meaning  “diverging”, as someoane get to a crossroad in life !…the same as of the sumerian “BAD”, I will choose the reading:

SA :”completed, paid”                                                  ================================================
Next,downward,also “boxed”, folow a sign wich ressemble violin,labrys?/ 2 merged lozenges ?;
Could be interpreted as isolate,the evidence is that is separate in a box/compartment.

Cycladic Art and Art related to Cyclades Islands – Les Musées Barbier …


Note: the sign wich is repeated as the last sign on the tablet


Not much to see.  But here’s its Linear A counterpart: https://enijote.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/la-a.png

The sine qua non is the interpretation of labyrinth as “Place of the Double Axes,
The Cretan Hieroglyphic evidence is even more explicit:

See https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464222674072955464/

They are saying that the sign is at the origin of “A”:

See https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464222674072955464/

Image https://linearbknossosmycenae.wordpress.com/tag/syllabic-scripts/page/19/?iframe=true&preview=true%2Ffeed%2F

Such cyclades-tipe statuettes were found in entire Cycladic area.But in astonishing great number were found in Keros island.All broken.No pair could be matched.Scholars say that these statuettes were used in burial rituals (as is  the case with Tartaria artefacts !)Keros Island was an center for a kind of unknown ritual.

My opinion about labrys-like sign is that upon the sign had an unknown yet meaning with deep in time origin.
As weird could be for you, I suppose that the origin is further in the East,possible proto-cuneiform=proto-sumerian signs like:

SZITA~a3     and     ZAG~c

http://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf                                  zag, zà: boundary, border, limit, side; cusp, beginning; territory, district, place; sanctuary; percentage; a measure for fish; shoulder; right (side); front; outside of (life + to encircle) [ZAG archaic frequency: 71; concatenates 3 sign variants].                                                                            https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html Sign ZAG:


But much close, sign GA’ARb1 ;

      From https://is.muni.cz/www/408176/38744863/A_Descriptive_Grammar_of_Sumerian.pdf          The stem of the verb ĝar ‘place’, for instance, is usually written with a word sign, but the Ur III texts also contain dozens of attestations where it is written ĝá-ar (e.g., AUCT 1:552 7; D; 21).                                                                                                                                                   ————————————————————————————–                                                         Same  shape similarity was noticed by I.Kenanidis & E.Papakitsos.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279940914_Additional_Palaeographic_Evidence_for_the_Relationship_of_the_Aegean_Scripts_to_the_Sumerian_Pictography


They rather would pair the sumerian sign with the cretan hieroglyphic *175/”A”, adze/labrys. It is not “sumerian proto-cuneiform double-axe“, but it is proto-cuneiform sign GA’AR https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html


Table, from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-as-suggested-in-the-inscriptions-corpus-Olivier_fig3_273096050                                                Sign * 175 ,meaning:??”


This is the labrys sign, and it is the sign associated with God. So close to his sumerian counterpart “AB” “house,temple”.

Very interesting AB and Ga’ar has similar shapes, but also similar meanings: AB:”house,temple” visa  ĝá-ar “place”  So:                                                                                   1.MOTHER EARTH-GODDESS ICON?                                                                                   2.“the place/house ( ? labyrinthos of the Minotaur/Sun-God ?)”



Imagini pentru sumerian "GA'AR"


In upper part 2 little “V-like signs !? Maybe 1/2?

“V”-sign: Cretan hieroglyphic “Te” Table, from http://www.kairatos.com.gr/linear1.htm


================Next,=============================================== SEPARATED !, an insect/miriapod-like sign, is found in more and less simylar shape all over:

Overall apearance as umerian sign multiple superposed X-es“DINGIR”/God/sky
With not so many limbs,spikes
As a refference, Sumerian “AN”/God/sky

And sum.AN:”God,Heaven”https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmkD1S7pLtQ6Oj_gUMYBNg3gnnMIrZAuImmjhaMnqFSnZXp8PX

But much,much close,(if rotated 90deg)
(count the number of lines! totaly 12 in sumerian sign as in our)                                              ——————————————                                                                                                           From https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-as-suggested-in-the-inscriptions-corpus-Olivier_fig3_273096050                                                      SIGN 068 ,meaning :”??”


—————————————————————————————————                                        Close to Linear A “KE” http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                            *44 (KE), only in ligature

——————————————————————————————–                                                  Also, this sign *-like, close to this shape have Linear B

“KE”? (2-nd in the first row)

Linear B “KE-MA”?

From John Jounger http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                                 *44 (KE), only in ligature


A - | A+

螒委伪), Aifaia (>Aia), ethnic/place name.聽ai-wa-ta, 螒喂F维蟿伪蟼, Aifatas, personal name.聽ai-wo-ro/ a-wo-ro, 螒委F慰位慰蟼, Aivolos, personal/animal name (= ‘nibble’).聽ai-za, 伪委味伪 (>伪委纬伪),聽aiza聽(>aiga),聽goat.聽ai-za. Aizai (>Aigai ,place name)

The Linear B Decipherment Controversy Re-Examined
Saul Levin – 1964 – ‎Inscriptions, Linear B.
… close to the central city of Knosos nearly a thousand years earlier — yet the AI ~ A alternation gives an idea of what may have happened in the Linear B language to the nominative plural ending which Greek preserves as the diphthong -01. But whatever may be the merit of our subtle hypothesis to clarify the phenomena, ..                                    ——————————————————————————————————————————–
I am coming back.No, the head is too big. It is an bcranium/bull-head

From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                                                        Hieroglyphic *012 , a bull-head, becomes Linear AB 23  MU,

… *23 (MU)/BOS = cattle. *23 appears by itself (HT, ZA, KH 5.6) and may be “ox” or possibly “cow,” although the sign lacks the split stem that Linear B 109b has. The masculine variant ( *23m, with stem crossed                                                                                MU:cattle/BULL”                                                                                                                                  —————————————————————————————————                                                Underneath, the 2-nd “Labrys“-like sign

So entire tablet we have

3 measures/portions                                Mu/BULL
Of cereals, grain/wheat
SA            A/Labrys  GODdess   Ma
SA-RA                                                            LABRYS


Or better,overall reading,thought as an offering,

3 measures/portions                                       Bull(heavenly SUN)

It Is           Sacred (sign) GOD(dess) aMA       “sacred” icon

Both above signs, SUN’s ABODE

Tartaria oblong tablet with hole.Cretan hieroglyphic,Linear A,B approach

December 1, 2018

Read the rest of this entry »