Tartaria tablets

Imaginea dinhttp://keywordsuggest.org/gallery/1446775.html

Desi foarte multi cercetatori au presupus existenta unui gen de scris in Civilizatia Danubiana si chiar a unui scris adevarat pe tablitele de la Tartaria, nu au putut demonstra acest lucru. Dintre ei, doar cercetatorul italian Marco Merlini a sustinut existenta unui scris adevarat pe aceste tablite, si mai putin decat altii sa fie capabil sa sustina concret acest fapt. Eu sant cel mai fervent sustinator al acestei ipoteze, si spre desosebire de oricine altcineva sant absolut singurul care pot sustine practic si concret acest lucru.     ————————————————–                                                           In primul rand trebuie sa va prezint o serie de particularitati unice ale tablitei rotunde gaurite:                                                                                                                                                     – Semnele continute in jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde, ies in evidenta, ca si cum ar constitui un grup separat, sa-i zicem “de alta opinie” , atat prin forma cat si prin istoricul folosirii lor in lume.                                                                                                                              – Jumatatea de sus pare a fi fost destinata sa fie purtata impreuna cu cealalta tablita dreptunghiulara gaurita si in plus, nu intamplator acoperita de aceasta.                                         – Tot poate nu intamplator aceasta jumatate prezinta cele mai noi sau moderne semne din intregul continut de semne al celor 3 tablite.                                                              – partea din dreapta prezinta o succesiune de semne dificila (cu mica frecventa lingvistica), aparent imposibil de interpretat, respectiv semne geminate “DD” si/sau “oo” (“oc”?)                                                                                                                                                       ————————————————–                                                                                                      Imaginea, din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

Semne:”HD“/”HP”                                                                                                                     Semnele relativ noi in istorie .  “H” si “D”, fiecare in parte, dar cu atat mai mult prin prezenta simultana exclud posibilitatea unei mari vechimi a tablitelor. Semnul D a fost folosit pentru D.                                                                                                                                  Din http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2010/03/qeiyafa-ostracon-inscription-this-large.html

                                                                                  [1] ‘ L T ` Sh  [Q] W? ` B D ‘ [L?] :  Z/T? H/Y?

[2] Sh P Tt . B W ‘ L M  [? ] [Sh] P Tt

[3] G L [Y/W?] [ T?] B ` L  S?  R? H/S? [ ]  Y?

[4] ‘ [ Q] M W N  Q? M Y B/Kh? D M L K .

[5] ‘ Q w/y M ` B D m? sh/m? Y : Ss? D Q T

Atentie,                                                                                                                                                    HP par a fi literele vechi ebraice Heth/Chet si Qof  , deci HP=Kh Q= COKH, kokh (indiferent daca citim de la stg.>dr. sau de la Dr>Stg!) :”nisa,locsor” 

  Din The Ossuary of James – The Nazarene Way https://www.thenazareneway.com/ossuary_of_james.htm                                       The ossuary was then placed in a niche (loculi or kokh) area of the burial cave               (?? KOKHAION=KOGAION =”nisa,locsorul,mormantul Vesnic??)

                                           in DDoc am putea avea semnul c =L (Lamed)                                                                        DDoC = Dalet, Dalet, ‘=Ain?/s?,  Lamed ?                                                                                        DD ‘/s L >> “DOD ‘L“,DoD AL:”BELOVED GOD“?                                                                          ————————————————————–                                                                                   Apoi (800 B.C.), semnele D si P au fost folosite de exemplu in Creta pentru litera “R”. Puteti vedea asta in urmatoarea inscriptie:                                     

An Archaic Greek Inscription from Crete
Author(s): Lilian H. Jeffery and Anna Morpurgo-Davies https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/jeffery-amd_archaic_greek_inscription_from_crete_british_museum_quarterly_36_1971.pdf 

 Semnul D incepand cu 800-500 B.C. a fost folosit pentru litera D si R. Ex: Inscriptie greaca 800 B.C. cu forma DIDOI=”DA”, unde este folosit D “modern”/rotunjit Din http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Art/Ancient/en/Mantiklos.html

        Asa cum am mai spus, semnul “H” ,cretan hieroglific PA3 a fost utilizat prima oara incepand cu 2.500-2.200 B.C., ulterior ca semn heth, heta si eta.                                        ——————————————————————————-                                                                     Imaginea, din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

Semne: Se/Su/Xe DDoo/DiDoo/DiDou/DDoc/DiDoc/Didoc(hos)/Didos/Diboo/Diboc=divos/Ddiou/Ddou/rroo/rroc                                                                                                                                                               —————————————-                                                                                                                  O incercare de citire ar fi teoretic mai usoara pentru parte stanga, care contine semnele HD/HP fiind compusa numai din 2 semne si conduce implicit la un numar mai mic de posibile combinatii. Partea din dreapta contine 4+1 semne, (din care 2 ar putea fi repetate “DD” si “oo”).                                                                                                                           —————————————————                                                                                                       Dupa forma si istoricul folosirii lor, semnele au dupa mine mai degraba o origine la est de Creta (intre Peninsula Italica si Iberia). Partea din stanga poate genera un numar de cuvinte, care se pot ordona intr-o ordine descrescatoare a sanselor, ordinea avand si un caracter subiectiv. Spre exemplu una din cele mai veche atestari posibile ar fi aceea ca reprezinta monograma zeitei Hera sau al numelui Heros. Partea din dreapta, prin prezenta geminarii, conduce pe de o parte: – la un grup de limbi putin cunoscute : familia tungusica, limba orok,terminatia -ddoo sau limba cariana cu aceeasi grupare. – ori la limbile siculiana, neapolitana “Ddio, ddiu” dar in mod curios si in scrierile Scolii Ardelene :”Ddeu”!, sau la limba greaca unde poate apare geminarea “DD”(Creta) sau ca “RR”, (aceasta din urma niciodata la inceputul cuvantului, deci nu incepe cu rr).Aici sirul cuvintelor posibile este de asteptat mai mare.                                                                                      ————————————————                                                                                                 In ordine aleatorie:                                                                                                                          CUVINTE POSIBILE IN STANGA: Her(a), Her(os), Her(acles)/Her(cle), Her(o), heres/here(des),Hora, Har, Haru,Har,HAR(is),HR(io),?HR(istos)?,hede/ede,…………. CUVINTE POSIBILE IN DREAPTA: surrou/surrou, serrou, Dibos/divos, roros, robou/robos, didou/dedou, ddoc,didoc(hos), Ddiou=ddiu, Ddou=Dzou, rroc/rrok……………… ============================                                                                                                    Nota                                                                                                                                                                  In aceste conditii, tare i-mi este teama ca nu cumva tablitele sa provina din artefactele din siturile romane gasite de cercetatori din proximitatea (ori chiar rude) Zsofiei Torma, sau chiar sa fie incercari practice (cu caracter didactic) de scriere a cuiva dintre acestia.                                                                                                                ===================== Exemplu : ===========================

HD/HP                   +++++     Di D o c/u                                                                                                   ED/EDe/HeRo(s)     Su       DiDos/DiDOU                                                                                              In handwritten Greek during the Hellenistic period (4th and 3rd centuries BC), the epigraphic form of Σ was simplified into a C-like shape.[4] It is also found on coins from the fourth century BC onward.[5] This became the universal standard form of sigma during late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is today known as lunate sigma (uppercase Ϲ, lowercase ϲ), because of its crescent-like shape

ied/mananca/erou,domn      Da  (tu)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Din PROTO-LANGUAGE – ENGLISH DICTIONARY – OoCities
www.oocities.org › proto-language › Pro…
Proto-Language-English Dictionary. … A (+ give), EAT; IE ed- (*e:d), eat .                                ————————————————                                                                                                            From Linear B to Greek: di-do-si to di-pi-si-jo – Konosos https://konosos.net/2013/12/21/linear-b-to-greek-de-u/

<<di-do-si | διδωσι (didosi) | to bind or to fetter PY Ma 365+ verb 3rd. sing. “To bind or to fetter” may essentially mean “to become devoted, to be bound through an offering”; hence, a latter meaning “to offer”  >>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       “DIDOS”:                                                                                                                                           The Present Indicative Active of δίδωμι (S 416; GPH p. 123):                                             δίδωμι I give                                                                                                                                δίδομεν we give                                                                                                                              δίδως you give                                                                                                                             δίδοτε y’all give                                                                                                                             δίδωσι (s)he, it gives                                                                                                             διδόασι they give

Din δίδου:  https://biblehub.com/greek/didou_1325.htm  Luke 11:3 V-PMA-2S
GRK: τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ
NAS: Give us each day
KJV: Give us day
INT: daily give us

Excerpts from:                                                                                                                                      Selected Papers of Beijing Forum 2004 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810012449

The Sumerian Account of the Invention of Writing —A New Interpretation                                                                                                      Gong Yushu Professor für Assyriology, Oriental Literature Research Centre / Dept. of Oriental Studies, Foreign Languages School, Peking University

“The invention of writing is something that fascinate not only modern scholars, but also their ancient counterparts. Almost all ancient people with a written history have their own accounts of the invention of writing. These accounts, embedded in their literature, reflect the annotations they could give on the origin of their own writing systems. These accounts are written forms of oral traditions, the beginning of which is lost in the darkness of history. The written forms of the accounts of the invention of writing usually came into existence several hundred years, or more, after the invention, at a time when the writing system had become capable of such an account. In the case of Mesopotamia, the earliest known account pertaining to the invention of writing which is usually interpreted as “the Sumerian account of the invention of writing” dates back to the Ur III (2112-2004 B.C.) period, was a millennium apart from the earliest evidence of the proto-cuneiform writing from Uruk. The Sumerian narrative poem (also called epic) containing such an account is known among modern scholars as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, first transliterated and translated into English and made available to the public by S.N.Kramer in 1943. ………….

According to the poem, Enmerkar, the second ruler of the First Dynasty of Uruk, sent a messenger to Aratta, a remote city separated from Uruk by seven great mountains, demanding that the people of Aratta bring gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and many other precious stones, and build for him various shrines and temples, particularly the Abzutemple in Eridu (lines 3364). ………….

Following the advice of Inanna, the protective deity of his city, Enmerkar selected an eloquent messenger and sent him to Aratta to deliver his demand and threat by repeating what he said to him verbatim. Refusing to submit, the Lord of Aratta raised each time a prerequisite condition for his subjugation that seemed impossible to meet. The messenger had to go back and forth playing the role of the verbal transmitter between the two kings. However, as the battle of words became more fierce and the content of the messages more complicated, the messenger became linguistically overwhelmed.                        ………………                                                                                                             The messenger, whose mouth was heavy, was not able to repeat it. (502) Because the messenger, whose mouth was heavy, was not able to repeat it, (503) the Lord of Kulaba patted some clay and wrote the message like (on) a tablet. (504) Previously, the writing of messages on clay did not exist. (505) Now, under that sun and on that day, it indeed so exist. (506) The Lord of Kulaba wrote the message like on a tablet. It was indeed so.” This passage is generally regarded as the Sumerian account of the invention of writing and the writing medium clay tablet, and Enmerkar as their inventor. In the words of Komoroczy: “It is clear, that the author of the epic here intended to describe the invention of clay tablet (viz. the Mesopotamian writing material) and the writing on it (viz. the cuneiform writing);…In the eyes of the author, Enmerkar is the inventor of the indigenous writing.”

First, although it is stated explicitly in this composition that the Lord of Kulaba patted some clay and wrote the message-like on a tablet and that the writing of messages on clay did not exist formerly, it is not stated here that the writing of messages on media other than clay tablet (DUB, IM) did not exist. This may imply that in the mind of the Sumerians the writing of messages on other medium had been in existence prior to the events described in this composition including writing message on clay by Enmerkar took place  …………..

Second, it is clearly stated in the following passage of the same composition that the Lord of Aratta could read and understand what was written on the tablet handed over to him by the messenger from Uruk.        ….……….                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           O Lord of Aratta, after you have examined the clay tablet, after you have learned the content of the message, (525) say whatever you will say to me” …………….

Otherwise it would be hard to imagine, how the Lord of Aratta could read and understand the written message on clay that was just invented. Third, there is still a passage that may be taken as evidence that the Lord of Aratta understood the written message on clay presented to him by the messenger of Enmerkar, his powerful challenger.  .………..

After he had spoken thus to him, (537538) the Lord of Aratta received his kiln-fired tablet from the messenger. (539) The Lord of Aratta looked at the tablet. (540) The spoken words were just nails, and his brow was full of anger. (541) The Lord of Aratta looked at his kiln-fired tablet.” The crucial message of this passage lies in line 540 which is, however, subject to different interpretations. Kramer translated this line as follows: “The commanded word is nail-like, the appearance is …” and commented further:                 This line “seems to describe the appearance of the written signs; on the other hand, it may perhaps describe in some way the Lord of Aratta’s despondency upon reading its contents.” This supposition presupposes that the Lord of Aratta understood the content of the written message he was looking at. Jacobsen agreed apparently with the supposition made by Kramer. His translation is “The words were fierce words, were frowning.” The Lord of  Aratta was frowning, because “the words were fierce words.” It is no question here that Jacobsen meant that the Lord of Aratta understood the content of the written message. The latest attempt to interpret this line is made by Glassner who allies himself with Jacobsen in opinion,xvii but differs from him slightly in wording: “The word spoken was the nail is inserted’, it was an imperious command.” For Komoroczy it is no doubt that “der Herr von Aratta die Note Enmerkars richtig verstanden hat.”  ……………                                                                                                                  as for his interpretation “The Lord of Aratta sees only nails where he had expected words. He is angry or depressed, however hard he keeps looking, it is hard for us to imagine how could the Lord of Aratta have “expected words” by not being reluctant to see the “nails.” Since Sumerian “words” can only be expressed by “nails,” the rudemental elements of the Sumerian (cuneiform) script, we must in fact pose the question, how could he not expect to see “nails,” if he had expected to see “words”?                                   Reading Sumerian is nothing but fingering out words from the interwoven “nails.” It is as true of the past as of the present. In other word, the assumption that the Lord of Aratta could not understand the message written by Enmerkar cannot be borne out by the text, however logical it may sound.  …………………                                                             In this sense, what Enmerkar did should not be regarded as the invention of writing, but as the initial transformation of the writing medium, from a certain material to clay. Furthermore, as we have seen from the argument we made above, that the Lord of Aratta did understand the message on clay written by Enmerkar has also textual support, and the literacy, or the ability, of the Lord of Aratta to understand the written message leads logically to the conclusion that writing on materials other than clay had already been in existence prior to Enmerkar’s “invention” of writing on clay.                         That is the point of this “Sumerian account of the invention of writing”! This conclusion, borne out by the text, can also be supported by the following facts and observations…………..                                                                                                                      (2) Some signs of the proto-cuneiform writing from Uruk do not seem to be the original invention on clay, but borrowings of signs already in existence on materials other than clay. The head of some animals such as donkey (ANŠE), ibex (DARA3), and ox (GIR3). and some other signs made up of curves and circles such as IDIGNA (a kind of bird), NAM (swallow) and even LAGAB (a circle depicting a kind of enclosure) and its incorporated derivatives which were difficult to draw on clay, may be taken as such examples.                                                                                                                                             (3) The proto-cuneiform writing system from Uruk displays such a high degree of complexity, stability and conventionality that it does not seem to represent the earliest stage of writing. This has already led many scholars to believe that the proto-cuneiform writing from Uruk represents a mature writing system, the beginning of which is lost in the darkness of prehistory. Unfortunately, traces of such an assumed earlier stage have not yet been discovered, so that “whether the pre-Uruk writing was on clay or perishable materials, took place in Uruk or elsewhere, and was used for sacred or economic purposes, we have no way of knowing.” But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.                                                                                                                     (4) Recently, Whittaker has propounded a theory about the origin of the proto-cuneiform writing that deserves our attention. He proposes that certain signs of the proto-cuneiform writing such as GIRI3 “foot” (sign-form is the picture of an ox’s head in profile) and GURUŠ “young, able-bodied worker” (sign-form is the picture of a vehicle in profile) might have been of Proto-Indo-European origin.

Image from  https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsstxV_ujijPUgIfQMe7hpKIBufUot1XBnkplXI52CXV3Ag0PX9w

2.Possible PIE-Pictograms Proposed by Whittaker

The Sumerians borrowed them and adapted them for their own use on the basis of the phonetic similarities, that is, similarities between the pronunciations of the words they stood for in the Proto-Indo-European script and those for which they were to stand in the Sumerian.                                                                                                                                                To be sure, his evidence so far lies entirely in the area of comparative linguistics and has not yet been favoured by archaeological substantiation, and his interpretation of the proto-cuneiform text W 16632,b of the Uruk IV in Proto-Indo-European is less convincing. But the direction of his thought is interesting. It coincides, to some extent, with the direction of thought which the Sumerian account of the invention of writing leads us to, that is, before the Sumerian invention of clay tablets, writing materials other than clay might have been in existence. Briefly stated, the passages we quoted above from the Sumerian epic composition Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta suggest that writing on materials other than clay was already in existence in southern Mesopotamia prior to the point when Enmerkar wrote the message on clay, and that Enmerkar was not the one who invented writing for the first time, but the one who transformed writing already in existence from a material that remains unmentioned in the text to clay, and that the transformation of the writing medium had its subsequent effect on the appearance of the signs. Furthermore, we see an explicit hint in them that the Sumerians ascribed the transformation of the writing  medium to man, while the invention of writing to gods, as is the case of another Sumerian literary composition known as Inanna and Enki.    We know for certain that the earliest evidence of the proto-cuneiform writing on clay tablet comes from Uruk IV, at the end of the fourth millennium B.C. (ca. 3200 B.C.), a time when the transformation of the writing medium described in our literary composition Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, must have taken place.          According to the Sumerian Kinglist, Enmerkar is the second ruler of the First Dynasty of Uruk,  who is assigned by most chronologies to the Early Dynastic II period, several hundred years later than the earliest evidence of the protocuneiform texts on clay from Uruk IV.

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                 This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions.  ==== Image, https://neptest1.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/imagine-mare.jpg?w=465&h=310

Upper-left corner “???” : Letters HP=HaR[uspices] ??                                                                                                           From Ancient Rome: A Sourcebookhttps://books.google.ro/books?isbn=1136761438

====================================

DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit „Pagane und christliche Armeepriester―
Verfasserin María de Gracia Caraballo Hoyos

Excerpts: SOME CHAPTERS:                                                                                                                 1 PAGANE UND CHRISTLICHE ARMEEPRIESTER…………………………………………………………. 4
2 DIE TRADITIONELLE RELIGION INNERHALB DER RÖMISCHEN ARMEE ……………….. 6
2.1 GRUNDZÜGE DER RELIGION IN DER ARMEE ………………………………………………………….. 6
2.2 HERKUNFT DER OFFIZIERE ………………………………………………………………………………………..8
2.3 PFLICHTEN DES OFFIZIERS …………………………………………………………………………………………9
2.4 RELIGIÖSE VERÄNDERUNGEN………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………..12
2.5 MILITÄRISCHE VERÄNDERUNGEN……………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
3 INSCHRIFTLICHE UND PAPYROLOGISCHE ZEUGNISSE FÜR PAGANE PRIESTER
INNERHALB DER ARMEE …………………………………………………………………………………………………16
3.1 NIEDRIGE PRIESTER……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
3.1.1 Pullarius …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
3.1.2 Marsus ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
3.1.3 Aedituus……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
3.1.4 Turarius…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
3.1.5 Victimarius………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
3.1.6 Der Haruspex.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
3.2 ZEUGNISSE FÜR PRIESTER-SOLDATEN ………………………………………………………………………. 48
3.2.1 Die Priester des Juppiter Dolichenus ……………………………………………………………………. 49
3.2.2 Zusammenfassung über die Inschriften für Juppiter Dolichenus ………………………….. 65
3.2.3 Weitere Inschriften aus denen Sacerdotes in der Armee zu vermuten sind. ………… 67
3.2.4 Zusammenfassung …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 83
4 LITERARISCHE UND PAPYROLOGISCHE ZEUGNISSE FÜR MILITÄRKAPLÄNE …………… 87
4.1 VERÄNDERUNGEN DURCH DAS CHRISTENTUM……………………………………………………………………….. 87
4.2 LITERARISCHE ZEUGNISSE…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
4.2.1 Sozomenos 1, 8………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 91
4.2.2 Palladios, De Vita Ioannis Chrysostomi, XX, 70-86…………………………………………………… 92
4.2.3 Chrysostomos Briefe ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 93
4.2.4 Theodoret von Kyrrhos.Ep.2 an Eusebius, Bischof von Ankyra ……………………………… 94
4.2.5 Kyrill von Skythopolis, Vita S. Sabae, 9…………………………………………………………………….. 95
4.2.6 Ein Brief des Papstes Pelagius I (556-561) an Laurentius ………………………………………… 97
4.2.7 Mauricius, Strategikon………………………………………………………………………………………………. 98
4.3 PAPYRI UND INSCHRIFTEN……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 98

4.3.5 Grabinschrift eines Diakons aus Thrakien……………………………………………………………….. 104
4.4 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG UND ABSCHLUSS………………………………………………………………………………… 105
5 TABELLEN INDEX ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 108
5.1 PULLARII …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 108
5.2 MARSI ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 109
5.3 AEDITUI………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 110
5.4 TURARII………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 111
5.5 VICTIMARII ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 112
5.6 HARUSPICES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 113
5.7 SACERDOTES DESDOLICHENUS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….114
5.8 ANDERE SACERDOTES…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 115
5.9 MILITÄRKAPLÄNE, LITERARISCHE ZEUGNISSE ……………………………………………………….. 116
5.10 MILITÄRKAPLÄNE, INSCHRIFTLICHE UND PAPYROLOGISCHE ZEUGNISSE………………………………….. 117

………….Die Menschen suchten die Nähe zu den Göttern, die vor allen bei orientalischen Religionen zu finden war.Beispiele dafür sind die Isis Mysterien oder die Verehrung des Äskulap.17………………………………….                                                                                                    Bei der Verbreitung des Kultes spielten die Soldaten an der Grenze von Rhein und Donau sowie im Illyricum eine besondere Rolle.43……………………………..                                                 AE 1965, 00030 Inschrift aus Apulum. Ende 2./Anfang 3. Jh.46
I(ovi) o(ptimo) m(aximo) D(olicheno) et Deae / Suriae Magna[e] ………………..                              3.1.6 Der Haruspex
Die haruspices waren ursprünglich etruskische Priester, die aus den Eingeweiden von
geschlachteten Opfertieren Weissagungen vornahmen. Das wichtigste Organ der
Opfertiere war die Leber, da diese das Zentrum der körperlichen Kraft darstellte. In der Leber fand man bestimmten Göttern zugehörige Regionen des Himmels wieder. Dadurch wurde festgelegt, ob die Götter Gefallen an dem geopferten Tier fanden und somit durch die vorgebrachte Gabe in ihren Zorn besänftigt oder wohlwollend gestimmt werden konnten. Der haruspex konnte auch Wunderzeichen (ostenta) deuten, wie beispielweise Blitze. Sie äußerten sich über die Zukunft der betroffenen Sachen oder Menschen, aber es war ihnen nicht erlaubt, diese Informationen weiter zu verwenden. Diese Aufgabe lag in den Händen der Staatspriester. Die haruspices kamen ursprünglich aus vornehmen etruskischen Familien, deren Söhne für diese Aufgabe von Kindesalter an vorbereitet wurden. Ab dem Ende der Republik finden wir in den Quellen eine ordo haruspicum LX mit einem haruspex maximus an der Spitze.111 Sie
agierten u.a. als Begleiter von Feldherren auf wichtigen Feldzügen, waren aber trotz ihrer wichtigen Rolle für den Staat keine eigentlichen Staatspriester.
Man findet in den Quellen aber auch die Figur des haruspex in Rollen, welche außerhalb
staatlicher Aufgaben lagen, beispielsweise als Prophet, der durch die Städte zog und
Privaten seine Dienste anbot.112 In der Kaiserzeit wurde versucht, den Missbrauch, der von solchen Scharlatanen betrieben wurde, zu verringern. Es kam jedoch nie zu einem richtigen Verbot. Unter Kaiser Claudius113 wurde die Tätigkeit der haruspices in einem Kollegium reguliert. Ab diesem Zeitpunkt findet man den haruspex auch als Berater von Kaisern, den ordines municipales und auch natürlich im Heer, bei den Legionen oder bei den Prätorianern. Der spanische Historiker Yébenes behandelt in einem ausführlichen Artikel die Rolle des haruspex innerhalb der Armee. Er stützt dabei seine Analyse vor allem auf inschriftliche Zeugnisse. Er stellt in chronologische Reihenfolge einen Großteil der Inschriften dar, in denen haruspices innerhalb der Rangordnung der Armee zu finden sind. Diese Inschriften erbringen den Nachweis, dass der haruspex als eigener „Rang― in der römischen Armee zu finden war. Als frühestes Zeugnis zitiert Yébenes eine Dedikationsinschrift für Mars Ultor115 aus dem Jahr 109 n. Chr. aus Adamklissi, in Memoriam der während Trajans Dakier-Kriegen gefallenen Soldaten. In dieser Inschrift ist, unter anderen principales, auch ein haruspex zu finden, dessen Name nicht mehr lesbar ist. Yébenes versucht in seinem Artikel den Nachweis zu führen, dass Anfangs die Offiziere sowie später die eigentlichen sacerdotes, bei Opferzeremonien auf die Hilfe eines haruspex angewiesen waren. Vor allem ab dem 3. Jh. n. Chr., als die epigraphische Zeugnisse zahlreicher werden, treten haruspices in dieser Rolle in Erscheinung.
Yébenes gründet seine Argumente auf die Beobachtung, dass die Offiziere höheren Ranges, wie beispielsweise die legati oder auch der Kaiser selbst, nicht immer alle Rituale durchführen konnten, schon gar nicht ab der Zeit, ab der zusätzlich zu den bereits bestehenden offiziellen Göttern die neuen orientalische Gottheiten ihren Platz innerhalb der religio castrensis fanden. Diese Zeremonien waren mit komplizierten Ritualen verbunden, die nur den eingeweihten bekannt waren. Die Durchführung mancher Zeremonien wurden daher bei besonderen Gelegenheiten wie der honesta missio oder die lustratio oft an Offizieren niedrigeren Ranges übergeben, vor allen an tribuni, centuriones und milites innerhalb der principales. Yébenes präsentiert auch zwei Beispiele von haruspices bei den Prätorianern in Rom, welche belegen, dass haruspices nicht nur bei den Legionen zu finden waren. Das erste Beispiel ist eine Grabinschrift, von einem Vater an seinen Sohn Gnaeus Iulius Picens, der haruspex ordinatus gewesen war. Im Gegensatz zu Yébenes argumentiert Wheeler hingegen, dass es möglich wäre, dass Iulius Picens schon haruspex war, bevor er Soldat der Cohortes Urbanae wurde.117 Eine Grabinschrift muss seiner Ansicht nach den cursus eines
Soldates nicht unbedingt in der chronologischen Reihenfolge zeigen. Die noch ungeklärte
Frage in Zusammenhang mit derartigen Inschriften ist somit, ob in den Fällen, in denen
militärische und religiöse Aufgaben beschrieben werden, die beiden Tätigkeiten tatsächlich auch zur selben Zeit ausgeübt wurden    ………………………………

Zeile 20-24
[—] Helvius Calvus cas(tris) har(uspex)
L(ucius) Aelius Rufus cas(tris)
C(aius) Antistius Saturn(inus) Tha(mugadi)
C(aius) Iulius Victor Utic(a)
L(ucius) Aelius Charitonian(us) cas(tris)                                                                     ………………………………………                                                                                                                   AE 1965, 00030132
Apulum (Dakien). Ende 2. Jh. n. Chr., Anfang 3. Jh. n. Chr.133 Altar für Juppiter Dolichenus und Dea Syria. I(ovi) o(ptimo) m(aximo) D(olicheno) et Deae
Suriae Magnae Caelesti pro salute perpetui imperi(i)
Romani et leg(ionis) XIII

Gem(inae) Flavius Barhadadi s(acerdos) I(ovis) D(olicheni) ad
leg(ionem) s(uper) s(criptam) v(otum) l(ibens) m(erito) p(osuit).
„Für Juppitter Dolichenus, den Besten und Größten, und für die Göttin Syria, die Größte und Himmlische, und zum Wohl des ewigen Kaiserreiches und der dreizehnten Legion Gemina hat Flavius Barhadadi, Priester des Juppiter Dolichenus bei der obergenannte Legion, dieses Gelübde gerne und nach Gebühr/Verdienst gemacht.―

CIL III 7760
Aus Apulum, Dakien. Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr., Anfang 3. Jh. n. Chr.

4.3.5 Grabinschrift eines Diakons aus Thrakien
Abschließend wird die Quelle einer Grabinschrift zitiert, welche für die Zeit des 5. Jh. bis 6.Jh. nach Chr. datiert wird. Die Inschrift liefert das Zeugnis für einen Priester der gleichzeitig auch Angehöriger der Armee war, was für die Zeit aus der die Inschrift stammt, nicht mehr außergewöhnlich gewesen zu sein scheint.295
JÖAI 23 (1926) Bbl., 155, 92

5.4 Turarii

Quelle  Fundstelle Zeit Religiöse Funktion Militärische Funktion     Person                               AE 2007,01197Apulum 2 Jh. Chr. Turarius turarius der legio XIIIgeminaAureliusLicinus

5.6 Haruspices                                                                                                                                  Quelle  Fundstelle Zeit Religiöse Funktion Militärische Funktion     Person E.Pais, Suppl.Ital. I, 39; Thulinen Diz. Epigr.,P.668Parentium,Histria1 Jh. n. Chr.? haruspex veteranus derVII Cohors derprätorianerLuciusPontiusRufus

                                                                                                                                         From https://www.quora.com/What-is-currently-known-about-the-T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria-tablets-and-the-Vin%C4%8Da-symbols

“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.

https://qphl2.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-17a830e4598016378251f97ac44564a4.webp

The Tărtăria tablets, containing the Vinča inscriptions in question. They date to 5300 BC, millennia before the first concrete evidence of true writing in Mesopotamia.

Assorted Vinča characters. The earliest use of the swastika – which was a positive religious symbol before WWII, and still is in Hinduism and Buddhism – is found among the Vinča inscriptions. From Wikipedia.

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.

Thanks for asking!”

5.5k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Slava Korshunov

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                          This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions.                                                                                                                                                       ======                                                                                                                                      ATTENTION:Not be confused: Tartaria tablets not pertain to Vinca-Turdas Culture, they are later products !

In many of my posts, I allready expressed my opininion regarding the subject. Allmost all scientists agree that neolithic Vinca-Turdas not got to the final stage in matter of writing. Even more.                                   I stressed that not ataint even the proto-writing stage (no single evidence or proof).On other opinions side, remained few scientists, in fact only one ,italian Marco Merlini wich remained in the “conservative” part. Folowing, is an excerpts wrom a paper wich is expressing in full my view regarding the supposed “Danubian writing”:

From ALL SHADES OF GRAY:THE CASE OF “VINČA SCRIPT”* Aleksandar Palavestra Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade https://www.academia.edu/36456625/ALL_SHADES_OF_GRAY_THE_CASE_OF_VIN%C4%8CA_SCRIPT_Archaica_5_2017_143-165

“Marco Merlini, an Italian journalist, a member of the Archaeomythological Institute and the author of the project “The Prehistory Knowledge“, laid down in a lengthy
contribution the semiotic approach to the features of “the Danube Script“, and
explained why the signs of the script can hardly be discerned from ornaments:

„Writing and decoration can both be finalized to transmit messages, packages of
information. The whole world outlook of prehistoric farmers was ex pressed in the
ornamentation: the Land and Under ground World, the Sky, the Sun, the Moon,
the Stars, the Plants, Animals, and People… Observant people can see complete
‘texts’ composed from ornaments: it is raining, grain is falling to the ground, it is
sprou ting… (Videiko 2002). (…) Some signs (for example, A, V, M, X, +, and some
naturalistic motifs such as sun, rain, bird, tree) can be, depending on the context,
either a written sign or decoration (Gimbutas 1991). Script signs and decoration
can live together on the same object. (…) Both written signs and decoration could
have been conceived for aesthetic purposes” (Merlini 2005, 239, 241).
Following such criteria, it is indeed very easy to recognize a script anywhere,
even among the clouds. The Merlini hypothesis is a good example of a bad
hypothesis in terms of Karl Popper – the one that does not exclude anything
and is therefore scientifically completely useless and non valid (Popper 1972),
impossible to refute since, according to Merlini’s criteria, everything can be a
sign, an ornament and a script at the same time.
After the same fashion, following the principle encompassing virtually
everything, Merlini states:

“The Danube Script is a very archaic system of writing, so
it consists probably of a mix of logograms, ideograms, pictograms and some limited
phonetic elements occasionally and marginally marked.                                                     Logograms, ideograms, pictograms were mainly derived from the language of abstract symbols” (Merlini 2005, 241).

At the same time, he neglects the fact that in the case of the most
ancient autonomous scripts (cuneiform, Egyptian, Chinese, Mayan) the cognitive
priority was to represent words rather than sounds, and that in all the known cases
the abstract form was a later stage in the development of literacy. In the words of……………………………………………..                                                                                                     According to Ranko Bugarski,

a script is „a system of communication among people via conventional visible signs, especially linguistic“, and „linguistic units on various levels of language structure can be considered as script“ (Bugarski 1997:10). A script mainly means WORDS that can be PRONOUNCED, not notions.                                                                                                                There is, of course, a notional script, but it is not abstract. Even if we accept more than dubious material and „recognition“ of signs among the abundance of ornaments, symbols, and accidental scratches, the Vinča signs are too abstract and geometrized even to be a notional script (where are notions and words?). On the other hand, these signs are too scarce, heterogeneous, isolated and unsystematic, without a single text, sentence, or even a word, to be a phonetic script. ………………………………                                                           Someone has to say out loud that this is, from the ingenious „discovery“ of
Pešić on, a case of the Emperor’s new clothes. On the grounds of the evidence
presented, it is conclusive that the Vinča script does not exist.                                                Not even a protoscript.
After the exhibition in Novi Sad and the published catalogue, I am
inclined to say that even signs are sporadic. It is more plausible that Pešić & co.
found their script on the pebbles from a beach.”

Careful/ Attention !                                                                                                                                                      This post is not a decipherment or reading of any actual written content of Tartaria tablets. Given that the signs do not belong to a single writing system but to several, the page has a purely didactic character. It has the role of trying and testing different writings, in the idea that the tablets would have used one of them. The signs on the tablets belong to several writing systems over a long period of time and which have been used in different geographical areas. In none of the trials did the signs fall into a single type of writing, there always remained signs that came from other writings (or as coming from the unknown). Most of the signs come from the Sumerian proto-cuneiform -shaped ones. The signs in the upper half of the round tablet seem to come from archaic Greek writing. This “collection” of signs seems to be the fruit of one’s rich imagination. As A. Falkenstein and A. A. Vaiman found, (this is also my firm opinion) the author was not a scribe, he had only vague notions about writing in general, and it is not known what he intended  or he was after. There are many elements of inconsistency as well as others that take the tablets out of the usual patterns and norms of honest logic, writing and intentions. =====

In my latest post “The Tartaria tablet’s scribe dilettante?” I presented the question wich is bothering me most:     “How could be explained the presence on Tartaria tablets of such a great amount of signs wich has allmost exact sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes?”  

From Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации. — ИИМК РАН
www.archeo.ru › annotations-of-issues
Because signs Nos.2, 4, 6, and 10 of the Tartaria tablets (fig.4) have only early proto- Sumerian parallels, it may be assumed that other …

                                  Because I must make known, from all known writing systems, the signs are closest to that sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, (folowed mabe by those Anatolian-ones, and not by that Aegeean-ones) *                                                                                                                      After a research wich lasted some years, only when got aquitance of the existence of sumerian proto-writing phase, I found absolutely all necessary signs needed for an reading attempt in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign lists.                                                             After my preceding post I realised that analising the signs, I get more clues regarding the tablets itself and olso the supposed writing, the signs beeing the only/single physical absolute certain evidence at hand!                                                                                           With regrets you must know that I could not rely on allmost or any data furnished by archeologists. When discussion comes to scribe and tablets origin archaeologists give an extremely large (and as consequence, of no much practical use )area and time line.Even more, as time is passed, instead some issues to be much precised, (luckily only some) archaeologists come with hypothesis of the existence of Danubian writing (Vinca-Turdas writing) with no concrete exemple, and come with a pure fictional dramatis personae as the shaman-priestess, “Lady of Tartaria” rather apropiate for a mooving-picture story.                                                                                      Nota bene, woman wich was allready dead some hundred even thousend of years before the tablets were written, so she cannot handle them.(5.300 BC for bones, 2.500-max 3.000 B.C. for tablets, upon world scientists)

SUMERIAN TABLETS AND SCRIBE ?                                                        

The hypothesis of an Sumerian origin for the tablets  was advanced for the first time by the tablets discoverer, archaeologist  N.Vlassa. For 100 reasons (from wich I am presenting to you only some) this is not feasable, beeing practical impossible.

– Original sumerian tablets with proto-writing on them were not found in other places that those in wich this incipient fase of writing appeared: Sumer/Irak, respective URUK(actual Warka), JEMDAT NASR and ELAM… and list is allmost ending.                    The explanation can be that this kind of tablets were used only there at the places where this kind of writing was discovered, only for a period of time and for purposes wich could be applied/useful only to high hierarchical social-economical developed societies.They used there and remained buried there.                                                                   Was of no use in other places, because cannot be interpreted only by those wich knowed how this writing works and what the signs are signifying.                                                                 – There was not found not a single-one even in Levant and less in Anatolia or Europe/Aegean areas.                                                   

– as the material support for writing beeing clay, there is hard to believe to be taken such a long distance unbroken.

– an hypothetical sumerian migrant if not forgot to write, in the years-long endeavour to Europe, could use them only in a sumerian comunity and not in one of tottaly different language and organisation or structure.                                 

– only half of the signs have exactly sumerian counterpart signs shape.

– the tablets contain some rather modern sign shapes (PA/Het/archaic Eta and D), used :    first :                                                                                                                                                         – “PA” after 2.500-2.200 B.C.. and – 2nd (“D”)only after 1.000 B.C., mainly from 500 B.C.

From https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-by-Evans-1909-232-3_fig1_273096050   Sign No.45

     From http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_dalet.html

Note                                                                                                                                                         Out of using D-shape for sound/letter “D“, it seems that little before, at least in Crete, D and P shapes were used for letter “R” See P/D shapes for R-letter:                                   An Archaic Greek Inscription from Crete
Author(s): Lilian H. Jeffery and Anna Morpurgo-Davies                                              https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/jeffery-amd_archaic_greek_inscription_from_crete_british_museum_quarterly_36_1971.pdf

 TABLET’S AEGEAN (or Anatolian?) ORIGIN HYPOTHESIS.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        This variant was embraced (probably out of options) by most of world scientists.Same by me, not finding a better one..

One of the possible explanations possible is that presented by greek scientists G.PAPAKITSOS and I.KENANIDIS, that first, early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants settled in Crete. Even so,

– there is only a single sumerian sign PA wich has the exact shape and sounding in Aegean writings, that beeing cretan hieroglyhic, linear A and B, “PA”.

– there was  found not a single tablet of this kind anywhere in Anatolia,Aegean area,Europe; none even in Levant.

– the artefacts wich contain kind of proto-writing (undeciphered Cretan hieroglyphic) have far, distant-related to sumerian signs.                                                                                      An sumerian influence certainly existed, but sign-pairs choosen by above mentioned scientists to show the sumerian proto-cuneiform influence, are not the best ones and not at all convincing. ( totally oposite when talking of Phoenician influence on early Mediterranean alphabetic writings)

– on any item found in Aegean, Balcans and Mediterranean  was not found so many identical and similar with sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, as on Tartaria tablets.(Identical sum.proto-cun. signs :AE,AS,PA,AMAR,BA,AB).

One possible explanation with very little chances, could be that tablets originated from Aegean (Crete!) from a period of time earlier than 2.200 B.C. when it is expected that sumerian proto-writing influence existed and was direct and strong, so Tartaria tablets beeing the single proof wich exists in the World.

But attention, other sign other signs are not so close in shape:

– sumerian SE not identical with Aegean TE                                    

-sumerian AS: have no Aegean counterpart in shape                            

– sumerian AMAR have only in some instances the same long-eared donkey-head in Aegean sign MA

– sumerian BA has no identical shape counterpart                

 – sumerian AB is only “like” Aegean sign LABRYS

 -the only pair wich is exact the same in shape and sound is the sign PA                                                           

TABLETS: SINGLETONS, SOARING IN UNCERTAINTY, TENDING TO BECOME IRELEVANT AND NOT FINDING OWN PLACE

Question:                                                                                                                                                if relevant for wich culture? Maybe for that sumerian wich is closest ? For Aegean?      Cause that Vinca-Turdas is excluded for many reasons allready displayed.

This in the situation that nothing is sure about them nor the age, excepting the reality of the signs. It is arising an stringent and acute question:                                                                – in what circumstances, where, when and how the scr ibe got aquitance of this group of signs used only around 3.000 B.C. !?                                                                            This could be possible in only two circumstances:

– in a period close to the above

– or sometime close to our time In any period of time this particular group of signs was not used and there were no means to transmit data from Sumer elsewhere, so to get aquitance of them as is easily possible nowdays.                                                                                   Note                                                                                                                                               To realise that even simple gathering of such signs is not an easy task, I can tell that even top-level assyrologists (even one specialised in sumerian proto-cuneiform, A.A.Vaiman) in their reading attempts passed over a couple of signs anaware that pertain to proto-sumerian sign list, wrong signs identification, and not giving an interpretation for others.I am reffering here to A.Falkenstein. A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev.  From my recolection, bu I am not sure, only Rumen Kolev noticed that signs could be related to those Aegean-ones. 

So in the place of conclusions, regarding different problems wich arise coresponding to different situations,

– the obstacles we are facing when considering the sign or writing transmission from Aegean to Tartaria are not of technical nature i.e. the movement of the scribe or of the tablets, but are basical-ones:                                                                                                               – the time-span between begining of writing in Sumeria and same Aegean fphase is more than some hundred years, is 1.000 years! ((3.200 B.C. visa 2.200 B.C.)                                                   Even when appeared in Crete (Cretan hieroglyphic writing 2.200 B.C), were not taken from sumerians as such; the sign shapes are quite far if one compare with sumerian counterpart.                                                                                                                       So the signs are not like Aegean-ones so an Aegean origin is in darkness/ incertainty, arising a big question mark.. So to be fair, the chances to com from modern time are greater than coming from deep ages.

THERE IS AN ETEROGEN SUMERIAN-LIKE GROUP OF SIGNS.                                              THE WRITING IS NOT GENUINE SUMERIAN NOR AEGEAN,                                                     AN COHERENT MESSAGE IS NOT EMERGING OUT OF THE THREE TABLETS,              BUT THERE ARE SLIGHT CHANCES TO HAVE TRUE WRITING IN THE UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET,                                                                                                                       Interesting the single-one(out of me) wich noticed similarity with archaic greek! From https://www.academia.edu/8899844/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_Europe_A_long_lasting_querelle_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe

                                                                                                                                                               SO WHO, WHEN AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE SCRATCHED THE SIGNS !?===========================================                                                                   “such as those of the Southern Italy (Vasić 1910).”                                                             From god in Sicilian https://glosbe.com/en/scn/god                                                                ddiu :A deity: An idol                                                                                                     

(DDou=DDIOU,ddiu?)

From https://www.academia.edu/9108229/Chapter_4_part_I_Debugging_the_process_of_building_a_repertory_of_the_Southeastern_European_signs_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe

• “Sixth, Makkay considered the signs from Vinča culture and neighboring cultures of Southeastern Europe as a whole. He did not deal with regional variants. Seventh, the author collected many signs from the Vinča culture and from its related and coeval cultures of Southeastern Europe, but contradicted himself maintaining that Turdaş signs have no contemporary European parallels at all because the occurrence of signs was restricted to the Vinča culture (Makkay 1969: 13, 14).Makkay did not care about this contradiction, because his statement that Turdaş and Vinča signs are isolated in Neolithic cultures of Southeastern Europe was instrumental in claiming their resemblance to Near Eastern-Anatolians signs and attempting consequently to prove that as early as the Vinča A period the appearance ofTurdaş signs belonged to the framework of Near Eastern influences, connected to a feature of the Vinča culture that was unique among Southeastern European cultures. The assumed close Anatolian connection was transliterated in his framework into actual Anatolian origin of some elements including the signs. In other words, “even during the period Vinča A, perhaps in its beginning, such influences of Anatolian backgroundand partly of Mesopotamian origin, directed towards the Danube region, have to be reckoned with, and thesewere accompanied by the appearance of pottery signs and ornamental motifs very similar to, even somehow connected with the Mesopotamian ones” (Makkay 1969: 14). For this reason, he did not create a historical framework for the
  not Vinča European signs and he did not investigate their interconnections with Vinča and neighboring cultures sign systems. The conflicting fact with is statement is that Turdaş and Vinča signs actually have many coeval or nearly coeval parallels in Southeastern Neolithic Europe.Eighth, another contradiction in Makkay’s framework negatively influenced the subsequent studies made byother scholars. On the one hand, he asserted he was attempting to compare Southeastern European
   signs with Mesopotamian pictographs, but on the other hand, he observed that usually the first ones were pottery signs whereas the second ones were pictographs. It is very important his stressing that very few of the European signs have a picture-like character which one may recognize as a living being or an object, etc. (Makkay1969: 11), but how to compare these abstract signs with Near Eastern pictorial writing symbols? Finally,Makkay’s collection and classification of signs compared them with the signs of the Near Eastern Chalcolithic rather than to develop an internal analysis of a Neolithic and Copper Age European system of signs.Makkay’s pioneering classification of Turdaş signs has some remarkable sights for the task of establishing an inventory of the Danube script. First, he attempted to identify, detect, and classify marks that were clearly not decorative motifs vs. the mood of the time dominated by scholars with the propensity to claim that any mark is a decoration. Second, it is the first systematic gathering and classification of signs from the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe. The survey enlarged the traditional geographic boundaries considering not only Turdaş and Vinča settlements, but also the whole Vinča culture as well as the related cultures of Southeastern Europe”

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                           Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste.

=====                                                                                                                                                            In ultima postare, “scribul tablitelor de la Tartaria diletant” am facut cunoscuta intrebarea al carei raspuns ma preocupa cel mai mult:                                                                                                                               – Cum se explica prezenta unor semne identice cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme ?                             Pentru ca trebuie sa va spun, dintre toate scrierile cunoscute, apropierea tuturor semnelor de cele sumeriene este maxima. Dupa o cercetare de cativa ani, de-abea dupa ce am aflat de existenta proto-scrierii sumeriane am vazut ca am in aceasta, toate semnele necesare pentru o eventuala citire. Dupa postarea precedenta am realizat ca pot extrage si mai multe concluzii din analiza semnelor, cai in privinta tablitelor, semnele sant singurul aspect cu o certitudine absoluta pe care il avem.                                            Cu regret trebuie sa va spun ca nu am putut sa pun nici-o baza pe elementele furnizate de arheologi. Acestea, atunci cand este vorba de originea tablitelor si a scribului, cuprind un spectru foarte larg, respectiv un posibil areal si interval temporal foarte mare. Inca si mai mult, in loc ca trecerea timpului sa precizeze niste lucruri, cativa arheologi (putini la numar) au gasit cu cale sa vina cu scenarii de domeniul fictiunii. Cum ar fi existenta scrierii in Cultura Vinca-Turdas si existenta unui personaj pur fictiv, a unei preotese-saman “Doamna de la Tartaria“.Doamna care fie vorba intre noi se pare ca murise cu sute si poate chiar mii de ani inainte de a fi scrise tablitele, (oasele 5.300 BCE ,tablitele spun cercetatorii 2500 max 3000 BCE)

TABLITE SI/SAU SCRIB SUMERIAN                                                                                                Ipoteza originii sumeriene a tablitelor, a fost pentru prima oara lansata chiar de catre descoperitor, N.Vlassa. Din 100 de motive (din care voi enumera doar cateva) va arat ca este practic imposibila o asemenea ipoteza.                                                                                                          – Tablite sumeriene originale nu au fost gasite in nici-un alt loc decat in acelea unde a aparut acest scris incipient Sumer/Irak respectiv Uruk(actual Warka), Jemdat Nasr, Elam...si aproape cam atat. Este si explicabil de ce, pentru ca au fost folosite doar in acele locuri, doar o anumita perioada de timp si pentru scopuri care sant aplicabile numai unei societati ierarhizate cu un nivel de dezvoltare social-economic ridicat. Le-au folosit doar lor si apoi au ramas ingropate si gasite doar acolo. Nu ar fi folosit nimanui sa fie duse in alte parti; nu se pot interpreta decat de aceia care stiu semnificatia semnelor si cum functioneaza acest mod de scriere. De fapt nu s-a gasit niciuna in alte locuri, eventual doar in Levant (Siria) dar nu in Anatolia si nici in Europa.                                                                                                                                                     – materialul relativ casant sau friabil (lutul) friabil  face imposibila pastrarea integritatii lor la transportul pe distante atat de mari.                                                                                          – un posibil migrant sumerian chiar daca initial stia sa scrie si nu ar fi uitat pana la ajungerea in Europa (ani de zile), nu putea folosi tablitele in alta comunitate decat in cea sumeriana relativ elevata                                                                                                                    – numai jumatate din semne sant exact ca cele sumeriene; restul doar seamana;                – tablitele contin in mod absolut inexplicabil semne mai degraba moderne (PA/Het/arhaic Eta si P/D) folosite :                                                                                                      – primul (PA) dupa 2.500-2.200 B.C. si                                                                                                – al doilea (“P/D”) dupa 800-500 BC.                                                                                                A se vedea folosirea in Creta, semnului P/D pentru litera “R“:                                                An Archaic Greek Inscription from Crete Author(s): Lilian H. Jeffery and Anna Morpurgo-Davies                       https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/jeffery-amd_archaic_greek_inscription_from_crete_british_museum_quarterly_36_1971.pdf

Din https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-by-Evans-1909-232-3_fig1_273096050 SEMNUL 45

Nota                                                                                                                                                          Vedeti asemanarea semnelor 55 si 56 cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme:              Din https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html                                        Sign ZAG~a

Sign ZAG~c 

IPOTEZA ORIGINII EGEEANE (sau ANATOLIENE) A SCRIBULUI SI/SAU TABLITELOR

Aceasta varianta a fost imbratisata, (mai mult in lipsa de alte optiuni) de catre foarte multi cercetatori. Recunosc ca nici eu nu am gasit vre-o explicatie mai buna. O posibila explicatie gasita de cercetatorii G.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis, imbratisata si de mine ar fi aceea ca primii minoani ar fi fost la origine colonisti sumerieni.                                                        Dar chiar si asa nu regasim in scrierile Egeene numai un singur semn identic cu cel proto-cuneiform (semnul sumerian Pa= semnul Egeean Pa)                                                   Insa chiar si o asemenea ipoteza are lipsurile ei:                                                                             – Nu s-a gasit nicaieri in Europa (deci nici in aria Egeeana), si daca retin bine nici in Levant ceva asemanator.                                                                                                                      – artefactele ce par a contine un gen de proto-scriere, cum ar fi scrierea nedescifrata inca Cretana hieroglifica, contin  semne doar extrem de distant-asemanatoare celor sumeriene. O influenta a scrierii sumeriene a existat categoric, insa perechile de exemple prezentate de D-nii Papakitsos si Kenanidis pentru a exemplifica originea sumeriana a semnelor Egeene, dupa mine nu sant cele mai fericite si sant deci neconvingatoare, din punctul meu de vedere. (Cu totul alta este situatia cand vine vorba de influenta scrierii feniciene in aria Mediteraneeana)                                                    – Pe nici-un artefact Ageean,Balcanic sau Mediteraneean inafara tablitelor de la Tartaria, nu s-au gasit atat de multe (si nici macar mai putine) semne identic-sumeriene (semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme Se, As, Pa, AMAR, BA, AB) ca pe tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                                                                                                   O posibilitate cu probabilitate foarte, nesemnificativ de mica, ar fi aceea ca tablitele provin totusi din aria Egeeana (cu cele mai mari sanse Creta) dintr-o perioada foarte veche (inainte de 2.200 B.C.) in care influentele sumeriene au fost mai directe si mai mari si din care aceste tablite ar putea reprezenta unica dovada ramasa.                                           Insa, atentie:                                                                                                                                          – semnul sumerian Se nu este identic cu presupusul echivalent Egeean Te                              – nu avem in scrierea Egeeana vre-un semn apropiat de semnul sumerian As                       – doar in cateva instante semnul Egeean Ma seamana cu semnul sumerian AMAR https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

care are urechi lungi.                                                                                                                                         – semnul sumerian BA nu are echivalent grafic identic/apropiat printre cele Egeene          -semnul Egeean PA3 doar seamana ca stilizare cu cel sumerian KU                                        – semnul sumerian AB                                                                                                                            – semnul sumerian AB https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html Sign AB~a

doar seamana pe departe cu semnul Egeean LABRYS                                                   – singurul semn care este oarecum identic in forma si pronuntie, atat la sumerieni si cu cel Egeean este semnul  PA https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html Sign PA

TABLITELE: UNICATE ASUPRA CARORA PLANEAZA O INCERTITUDINE MAXIMA, TINZAND A FI CATEGORISITE CA IRELEVANTE, NEINCADRABILE

Intrebare: daca ar fi relevante, pentru ce cultura? Eventual numai pentru cea sumeriana cu care se aseamana cel mai mult. Sau poate pentru cea Egeeana ? ca cea Vinca-Turdas se exclude din f. multe motive. Acestea in conditiile in care nu se cunoaste aproape nimic sigur despre ele si deloc varsta lor.                                                                        Se pune in mod cu totul stringent si acut o intrebare:                                                                   –  Cine era de fapt “scribul” si in ce circumstante, unde, cand, si cum a putut lua cunostinta de un grup de semne , grup folosit doar in 2.500-3.100 B.C.?                      Acest fapt ar fi fost posibil doar in doua perioade:                                                                       – una apropiata de intervalul de mai sus si alta                                                                          – extrem de apropiata de contemporaneitate.                                                                            In nici-o alta perioada acest grup particular de semne nu s-au folosit si nici nu existau mijloace de transmitere a informatiei din Sumer in alta parte si deci de a lua cunostinta de ele asa cum este extrem de facil in ziua de azi.                                                                          Nota                                                                                                                                                      Pentru ca dumneavoastra sa realizati ca nici macar adunarea unei asemenea grupari de semne nu este o treaba de ici-de colo, va pot spune ca inclusiv asirologi de top (unul chiar specializat in scrierea proto-cuneiforma A.A.VAIMAN), au trecut in analizele lor peste cate un semn-doua neputand da unora nici-o interpretare, iar la altele nerealizand ca sant de fapt sumeriene proto-cuneiforme si cu atat mai putin ce semne sant (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman.Rumen Kolev).                                                                 Daca retin. numai R.Kolev a facut o minima apropiere de semnele Egeene 

Asa incat ca un fel de concluzie, avand in vedere diferitele dificultati aferente diferitor situatii:                                                                                                                                                       – impedimentele legate de o transmisie din aria Egeeana la Tartaria nu ar fi unele de ordin sa zicem pur tehnic (deplasarea scribului a scrisului in sine sau tablitelor) ci apartin unei cauzalitati funciare :                                                                                                     – inceputul scrisului sumerian este despartit de inceputul scrisului Egeean de cca. 1000 de ani ! (3.200 visa 2.200).                                                                                                                    Chiar si cand au aparut in Creta (scrierea Cretan-hieroglifica 2.200 B.C., nu au fost preluate de la sumerieni ca atare, adica sa fie foarte asemanatoare cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme si deci nici nu prea seamana !                                                                                   Incat si o posibila origine Egeeana a tablitelor sta in cea mai mare masura sub semnul unei mari incertitudini si intrebari !                                                                                                         Astfel sansele ca tablitele sa fie legate de o perioada recenta sant cu mult mai mari decat cele de a fi foarte vechi.