Archive for the ‘PROTO-CUNEIFORM’ Category

WRITING: DEMIC AND CULTURAL DIFFUSION

September 14, 2021

To see how powerful and extended is demic and cultural difussion, I bring it to your attention the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign “ladder with 3 rungs”, Ku: “shine of metals, sacred,silver, precious metal, noble..”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-6.png
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/KU~a.jpg

wich was probably at the origin of other signs: minoan/linear B sign for bronze

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png
https://drdudsdicta.com/2014/09/28/linear-b-decipherment-credit-where-credit-is-due/

 From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                       *140 [] AES bronze/copper ,and chinese signs for sun/moon:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-9.png
https://www.digmandarin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/htw4.jpg

Note: Our “ladder” sign on Tartaria round tablet has exact PA3/ cheth shape and not sumerian proto-cuneiform sign Ku shape.Using that sign, the scribe disclosed (intentionally or not) that not used sumerian 3.000B.C. sign(s).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png

https://eastasiastudent.net › japan › j…Japan in Japanese: Nihon · にほん · 日本 | East Asia StudentSo that’s how you write the ni from Nihon in hiragana. … This character

literally means ‘sun’.

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/03/20 Guarded by beasts: a porthole stone from Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe. A monumental porthole stone from the northwestern hilltop areas (Photo O. Dietrich).

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Review the age and authenticity of Tartaria tablets.

September 13, 2021

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

See ACADEMIE ROUMAINE INSTITUT D’ARCHEOLOGIE « V. PARVAN » DACIA REVUE D’ARCHEOLOGIE ET D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE NOUVELLE SÉRIE LX 2016 Cui bono? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro › …PDF Rezultate de pe web of the Tărtăria tablets – Dacia

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

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

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/KU~a.jpg

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

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/GAR.jpg

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

https://neptest1.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/imagine-mare.jpg

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

https://linearbknossosmycenae.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/so-called-cretan-hieroglyphs-are-not-hieroglyphs-at-all-example-2/amp/
Above, Linear A sign PA3

Above, alphabet_chart_hhet_2.jpg

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

Compare the cuneiform sign ninda , a logogram which represents the Sumerian word for “food” or “bread”. The first image is of ninda in a tablet from Ur ~3000 BCE, while the others are of ninda in a fragment of a medical text from Nineveh ~650 BCE. Big difference. https://mobile.twitter.com/Moudhy/status/1160935592420663296/photo/2

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

Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.
See https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/D-d/273894

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

https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2732
https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam41.gif

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

http://www.visitalbaiulia.city/worlds-oldest-writing-system IMG_1895low.jpg

————- If one not take “H” and D-s signs as beeing archaic Greek or Anatolian but imitating sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, then entire tablet’s content appear sumerian-like.That’s why scholars A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and R.Kolev. First twoo, realised instantly that the writing was not proper sumerian, but sumerian-like. Even the title of a paper explicitated this : http://www.archeo.ru › izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. With this understanding they interpreted tablets as beeing sumerian. A.Falkenstein noted that some signs are not exact like those proto-cuneiform but alike, imitated sumerian, sumerian-like. The proto-cuneiform signs were used for a relatively short period of time (3,500-3,000 BC), then from 3,000 BC until 1935 no human eye saw them. Because they were buried (a few meters underground under Eanna temple, Uruk). Thus, the diffusion of these signs was somehow limited. See Uruk culture expansion: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Expansion-territorial-de-la-cultura-de-Uruk-aubet-2007_fig2_269696365 ———– Please see, Uruk culture expansion not reached inner Anatolia or Aegean.The scribe definitely was not sumerian, rather Aegean or Anatolian trader, or even from a much close place. Probably signs interpretation is not conducting to a consistent message; some meanings are single, emerging from the signs itself. – I have no explanation for the scribe intention to show sumerian-like signs. Or: – I will never understand the motivation of the scribe in his ambition to show somebody how writing evolved throughout time, or show (us) how many Sumerian signs he knows. ——– I searched throughly, kept researching in detail and after deep thought, I finally came to the same conclusion as Emilia Masson: “If it was fake, their manufacture would be attributed to a great expert in the field, at the same time a fine connoisseur of archaic writings which to my knowledge Romania does not have ” eugenrau: …If chasing our tails/rainbows of course we can see moon phases, but an epigraphist must follow rules and search for signs of writing. As naturally Adam Falkenstein and Aizik Abramovich Vaiman exactly did.

Anlaşılması kolay: Göbeklitepe sütunları aslında neydi?

March 27, 2021

Scientists hypothesized that at 9.600 B.C. were not worshiped antropomorphic deities, but probably spirits. Ancestor spirits or otherwise. As a term of comparison, despite the enormous temporal distance, IF WE SUPPOSE THAT – Göblekitepe PEOPLES WERE DISTANT ANCESTORS OF SUMERIANS, AND SOME IMPORTANT ICONS AND THEIR MEANINGS LASTED THOUSEND OF YEARS, we could have had something like that:

PDF) The Transformations of a Goddess: Lillake, Lamashtu, and Lilith.
ResearchGate PDF) The Transformations of a Goddess: Lillake, Lamasht https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendilyn-Emrys/publication/337155280/figure/fig2/AS:823766137442312@1573412560586/figure-fig2_Q320.jpg

Merriam-Webster’ın Dünya Dinleri Ansiklopedisibooks.google.ro ›booksWendy Doniger, MERRIAM-WEBSTER STAFF, Merriam-Webster, Inc · 1999 · Religion \ la-‘mash-, tu \ (Akadian), Sumerian Dimme, MEZOPOTAMYA dilinde DİN, tüm dişi İBARLAR arasında en korkunç olanı, gökyüzü tanrısı ANU’nun kızı (Sümer: An).

Şimdi Dim-me’den Dim’in ne olduğunu görün: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%81%B4?fbclid=IwAR0pgOjTAADZgkfrIP9K4OQ1cD53FngdGjEcrRQq24AfxLwkrutBNw8Kdbs Sümerce İsim (DIM)

direk, direk, direk
bağlama, düğüm, bağ

Ve daha önceki gönderilerden Ben: “ilahi güç / öz” ve “olmak / arı olmak”

Öyleyse, Dim-Me = “PILLAR-İlahi güç / ARI”

============== bir referans terimi olarak ========

Tanrı Dim-Me-ir: archive.org ›akış› 527757_djvu “Dil Olarak Sümer” in tam metni – İnternet Arşivi Bu dimir gerçek bir ES’dir. form = daha olağan dimmer (dim-me-ir) ‘tanrı.’ Bkz. S. v. digir ve dir = AN. Cf. Semitik ödünç kelime dimmerU ‘tanrı’.

Not. Dim’in 2 numaralı anlamını genişletmemek için kendimi sınırladım: 2. “bağlama, düğüm, bağ” Romanian: “legare, nod, legătură”

SCRIBUL TABLITELOR DE LA TARTARIA, UN DILETANT ?

March 28, 2019

SCRIBUL TABLITELOR DE LA TARTARIA,UN DILETANT ?

Scribul tablitelor In primul rand sant obligat sa va reamintesc ca tablitele contin mai degraba o adunatura, as putea spune chiar ghiveci de semne.

Mai rau se pare ca este vorba in mare de 3 categorii de semne:

– unele pur pictografice, pe tablita dreptunghiulara pictografica negaurita. Fiecare pictograma este reflectarea exacta, aproape fotografica a obiectului intentionat. Icoana caprei pentru capra. icoana vegetala pentru vegetale, cereale si silueta nereusita pentru o creatura se pare totusi umanoida.

– o categorie de semne cumva intre pictograme si silabograme. Chiar daca avem silueta cap de magar si forma aceea cu contur poligonal, ele nu sant nici magar respectiv caseta, ingradire.Ele sant mai degraba logograme sau ideograme, chiar silabograme.reprezinta respectiv “vitel” si “casa/templu”. Acestea sant pe tablita dreptunghiulara gaurita.

– pe tablita rotunda, co categorie de semne care pot fi ideograme si chiar la o adica silabograme. In ultima instanta chiar litere (in jumatatea de sus).

Semnele de pe cele trei tablite in ansamblu, nu apartin niciunui sistem de scriere cunoscut. Semnele par sa apartina unor sisteme de scriere din diferite arii si perioade de timp.Chiar pare ca sant mai multe semne decat ar fi necesar.Acest numar mare de semne este caracteristic fazei pre-cuneiforme.

——————————————————–

Cei care au incercat sa interpreteze tablitele folosind semnele pre-cuneiforme sumeriene, au constatat ca doar jumatate din ele sant exact ca cele sumeriene, iar cealalta jumatate doar seamana cumva.                                                                                        In nici-o ocazie sumerienii nu au folosit semnul D trasat, ci au obtinut o forma care seamana prin imprimare (cifra 1 sau 60)                                                                                         Semnul GAR care se citeste “ninda” =”portie de cereale, paine” seamana cumva. Insa este un “D” care are in interior o liniuta paralela cu bara D-ului (eventual ca primul d de pe tablita rounda).                                                https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html SIGN GAR

Astfel tablita nu este original sumeriana.Sumerienii si nici altii nu obisnuiau sa amestece diferite semne, pictograme cu ideograme si silabograme.fiecare tip de scriere reflecta stadiul atins in perioada in care a fost scris.Chiar daca cineva a vrut sa arate altuia cum se scrie, sumerienii nu procedau asa.Ei faceau tablite pentru scoala cu liste de meserii, semne determinative pentru categorii precum ‘lemn”, “animale”,”numere”.                                               ———————————————————                                                                                               Desi am gasit multe semne in scrierile Anatoliene, nu am putut folosi niciuna, chiar daca pentru a folosi scrierea cariana mi-ar fi lipsit doar cateva semne.                               ——————————————————

Aceasta as putea-o denumi “lipsa cronica de semne” s-a resimtit incercand sa folosesc oricare scriere cunoscuta, exemplu scrierile hieroglifica cretana, Linear A, Linear B s.a.m.d.                                                                                                 ==========================================

DE CE DILETANT ?    

Pentru ca nicaieri si in nici-o imprejurare oriunde in lume, vre-un scrib serios nu a lasat in urma o aglomerare asemanatoare, aparent haotica de semne.    Apoi nu gasesc explicatii rezonabile pentru o serie de aspecte constatate:                                                              – ar fi posibil ca personajul nostru de fapt sa nici nu fi avut intentia sa scrie ?

lipsa cunostintelelor elementare de baza necesare pentru a scrie

– scribul nu a fost constient sau nu l-a interesat deloc ca lasa in urma o ingramadeala de semne care nu pot fi regasite intr-un timp si loc concret.                                                         (si nici bineinteles ca urmeaza ca altii isi vor bate capul cu ele)                                                                                      Exemple:

– Forma absolut exacta D trasata, nu a fost folosita de sumerieni.D-ul in exact aceasta forma nu a fost folosit de nimeni (poate cu exceptie egiptenilor, dar rotit 90 gr.) de nimeni pana la scrierile arhaice grecesti.Primul loc in care a aparut D-ul cu curbura pentru litera D, a fost Chalcis/Euboia.                                                                                             Dar se pare ca inca putin inainte, putem 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

Forma tip “scarita nu a fost folosita in aceasta forma concreta de sumerieni, ci doar sub forma inchisa, cutie, semnul “KU”.Intr-o forma asemanatoare a fost folosita in scrierea hieroglifica cretana  (incepand cu 2.500-2.200 B.C.), Linear A, Linear B.                                     Dar sub forma cu bare decalate ori inclinate, forma care o avem pe tablita a fost folosita numai in scrierile canaanita, feniciana, paleo-ebraica,arhaica cretana si in cele derivate din ele din Mediterana.

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

Dar sub forma cu bare decalate ori inclinate, forma care o avem pe tablita a fost folosita numai in scrierile canaanita, feniciana, paleo-ebraica,arhaica cretana si in cele derivate din ele din Mediterana.

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

Totusi cateva intrebari raman deocamdata fara raspuns:

in ce periada (care teoretic se poate apropia oricat de mult de zilele noastre) a trait scriitorul ?

– Apoi chiar daca inteleg ca incepand cu Epoca bronzului timpurie aria egeeana si in mod special Creta au fost un focar in care s-au amestecat influentat diferite culturi, avand se pare la origine comertul, (Creta fiind intr-un puct de intersectia a multor rute comerciale), o intrebare ma framanta in mod deosebit si nu-mi da pace deloc:

Cand si de unde a avut scribul cunostinta de semnele sumerian AB:”casa templu” https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html sau de acela “cap de magar”=”AMAR”=”vitel” = Egeean “MA” !?   https://crewsproject.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/cats-in-the-aegean-scripts/                                                                                                          Nota                                                                                                                                                            In aceasta conjunctura, nimeni nu se asteapta ca fiecare tableta sa poarte cate un mesaj inteligibil concret, si mai putin sa se arate o legatura intre mesajele de pe fiecare tableta, ca fiind ceva unitar.                                                                                                                                                                                  Chiar si in aceasta situatie incalcita, exista unele indicii ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde ( exact acea portiune a caror semne ar fi fost acoperite deci ascunse privirii de celalta tablita drept. cu gaura) ar putea contine scris adevarat. Anatolian, ex. Carian sau mai degraba arhaic grec.

Dintre toti oamenii de stiinta, numai Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut ideea unui “scris Danubian”. dar fara ca sa sustina prin nici macar un singur exemplu ca civilizatia Vinca-Turdas ar fia atins faza scrierii adevarate. Acelasi lucru, cu regret trebuie sa spun, este valabil si pentru sustinerea existentei unei proto-scrieri a acestei culturi.dansul nu a oferit vre-o interpretare la nici-un semn, sustinad ca semnificatiile semnelor au conotatii mistico-religioase de mult uitate si ca atare imposibil de a fi reconstituite si cunoscute.

Alti oameni de stiinta au evidentiat asemanare scrierii cu faza celei sumeriene pre-cuneiforme (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaimen, R.Kolev) dar au facut clar faptul ca nu este scris original sumerian (Falkenstein, Vaiman)                                                                                   Foarte multi cercetatori (fiind derutati probabil de amestecul de semne si aspectul general ciudat al tablitelor) au opinat pentru o mimare a scrisului sumerian.                        Ca atare poate nici scribul nu a reusit sa inscrie un mesaj inteligibil concret. Pentru ca altfel foarte multi dintre dansii sustin ca este foarte posibil ca cel care a inscris semnele sa nu fi avut cunostintele nexesare sau suficiente pentru a scrie, deci din acest punct de vedere sa fi fost iliterat=analfabet.                                                                        Se sustine ideea ca tablitele ar fi putut avea mai mult un rol de ajutor si accesoriu (parafernalii, hiera) in desfasurarea unor ritualuri mistico-religioase.

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

From The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0684862700&nbsp;Richard Rudgley

“But the string-holes on two of the Tartaria tablets appear to be a feature without … that the tablets represented a garbled and ‘senseless’ mimicry of Near Eastern ..”

From an investigation into the origins of writing – Forums.gr http://www.forums.gr/filedata/fetch?id=1875482

It should be pointed out that the early date ascribed to the Tărtăria tablets has …. made as mimicryof the signs themselves, in imitation of an admired culture”

 From the tartaria tablets – jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/24926226 by MSF Hood

“SUMERIAN WRITING of the period around 3000 B.C. covers a clay tablet found at Jemdet. Nasr’ in Mesopotamia. … on tablets found at Tartaria in Romania (see illustration on opposite page). ….. prehending imitation of more civilized peoples’ …”

From The Mystery of Tatárlaka • Klára Friedrich – Cakravartin cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/…/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf

 Tatárlaka signs were just an imitation of the Sumerian writing and were brought to…”

From Chapter 3 “Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A … https://www.academia.edu/…/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeas&#8230;

Tărtăria tablets, the icon on the possibility of a European Neolithic writing ….. It is well-known that the apotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people” …

From THE ORIGIN OF WRITING: – Dacia.org www.dacia.org/no-one.html

These tablets revealed a much older version of the same flood legend. …. a way to extend memory but also a tool for the elite to justify their rule upon the common, illiterate people. .”.

From Protochronism – Wikiwand www.wikiwand.com/en/Protochronism

Also noted are the exploitation of the Tărtăria tablets as certain proof that writing originated on proto-Dacian … A Dacian script or the work of an illiterate potter?

 From  Aspects of the Balkans: Continuity and Change: Contributions to the … https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=311088593X

Henrik Birnbaum, ‎Speros Vryonis -Analogies to the Vinča script occur in the earliest Sumerian writing of the Late … A. Falkenstein, “Zu den Tontafelnaus Tartaria”,     “. Of 24 signs on the Tartaria tablets five correspond to signs from Mesopotamia.”

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Core https://www.cambridge.org/…/tartaria-tablets/C824E021256A41A254FF5A847EB57E0…&nbsp;by MSF Hood – ‎1967 –

It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian …. [25] A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Ausgrabungen in .”

From interdisciplinarity in archaeology and historical linguistics https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/lepaarq/article/download/4888/4476 by M Mertzani –

“(GIMBUTAS, 1982) such as the Vinča–Turdaș tablets ca. …. scripts also demonstrate similarities; that is, half of the signs are similar to Linear A scripts. ….. MERLINI, M. A comparison between the signs from Tartaria, the Danube script and …”

From Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis https://books.google.ro/books?id=q-pjwVI1Vz0C

“The hypothesis that the Tartaria tablets represent only a writing-like design was … made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets .”

 From The Civilization of Ancient Crete https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0520034066 Ronald Frederick Willetts

copied for magical purposes, without understanding of their meaning, from the … Similarities between the Tartaria tablets and the earliest known clay tablets of ..”

From TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS http://www.cimec.ro/pdf/dl.asp?filename=Lazarovici-Merlini-Tartaria-and-the-Sacred-Tablets-2011.pdf

“We also note when single Transylvanian signs are in alignment with the set of signs established by subsequent ancient scripts such as the Indus script, the Akkadian cuneiform, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Cretan Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic, and Cypriot syllabary. The main aim is not to find hazardous hits from analogies with other systems of writing in order to implement the ‘decipherment’ of the messages encoded in the tablets. It is to verify whether or not the Transylvanian informational geometries are restricted to the Danube script, or if they are also rooted in other literacy systems of the ancient world…………………                                                               We will investigate the signs from Tărtăria starting from the observation we have already formulated in different articles and books concerning the coexistence on them of an exoteric message and an esoteric one1181. It is noteworthy to consider the possibility of overlapping the two tablets, both bearing a round puncture and divided into cells. The hole on the rectangular tablet fi ts precisely the hole on the circular tablet, and the former artifact perfectly covers the upper register of the latter with their cells in perfect alignment. The lower edge of the oblong tablet exactly superimposes the horizontal line running on the round tablet, and the vertical line incised on the fi rst artifact from the edge of the hole downwards meets exactly the vertical line incised on the lower register of the larger artifact thus forming a continuous line. This superimposability could mean that the rectangular and circular drilled tablets have been worn one over the other as pendants of a necklace, the small rectangular tablet placed over the larger disc-shaped one. Mo re signifi cantly, the possibility to overlap the two artifacts could also mean that overt (seen) signs and esoteric (hidden) signs both occur in the resulting assemblage between them (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). The tablets aggregate the attributes of ritual artifacts, amulet-tablets, and amulet-archives possibly worn by Milady Tărtăria1182.The message to be conveyed by the tablets is likely based on a relationship between exot eric and esoteric signs. The fact that the two punctured tablets could have been utilized as superimposed exoteric and esoteric amulets is indicative of the magical associations of the script1183. The upper esoteric register of the disk-shaped tablet was hidden to uninitiated persons. It was necessary to lift up the oblong tablet in order to see the secret text incised on the upper register of the circular tablet. The question of the non-visibility of some texts is not only indicative of magical associations of the Danube script and its employment in liturgies, but it reveals even the sacral nature connected with initiation processes of this kind of literacy. Was the sacr ed inscribed compound particularly in use during initiation ceremonies?1184 If this was the case, it does not facilitate any attempts to decipher the incised signs since one is dealing with texts that challenge the un-expressible, not only reveal but also conceal and sidetrack, and finally indicate something to mean something else. …………………..                     They were worn or hung, one over the other, and the resulting combination may have created a relationship of overt (seen) and esoteric (hidden) signs (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). ………………

Nonetheless, the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.Semiotically, the hypothesis that the Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design is based on the argument that the signs of literacy do not appear together in the same groups as they do on the Mesopotamian tablets. Two signs that occur separated, but in adjacent groups, on the Tărtăria discoid tablet are joined together on some of the Jemdet Nasr tablets to compose the name of a god: EN-GI.

A Transylvanian “intellectual” copied two Sumerian signs, but was not capable to unite them to write properly the divine name. No scholar from that side expresses doubts that perhaps the ancient Transylvanians had no intention to write down the name of a Sumerian god. According to them, the illiterate presence of signs of literacy at Tărtăria might refl ect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the signifi cance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy are carriers of magic powers is exactly the reason why their mere graphic imitations have been deposited in a ritual pit-grave with fragments of human bones. “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding,possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing…”                                                          ================================

In my long-term research, (10-12 years), in the sumerian approach reading attempts of the tablets, I extracted all possible meanings. I could say even more, if comparing with other scientists reading attempts.                                                                                              As one easily can notice on my papers with critics on A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev interpretations.As you will se I found in their papers some wrong sign identifications, missing interpretation of some signs etc.                                               Even they are top-level assyrologists and some high-specialised in sumerian proto-writing= sumerian proto-cuneiform, I have no explanation at hand, probably this was caused only by rush?/ not according sufficient time for analisis, in order to get as close as possible to every single sign.

Also without emphasys, from my recollection, I was the single one to close-compare the signs with Aegean writings (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B) trying to interpret them and extract possible meanings

 

Un alt simbol prezent pe tablita de la Tartaria, comun civilizatiilor sumeriana si minoica

March 7, 2019

Un alt semn prezent pe tablita dreptunghiulara cu gaura de la Tartaria, este acel “cap de magar” Imaginea, din 3.1. Interpretarea simbolurilor neolitice https://sites.google.com/site/seimenisatdinneolitic/prima-traducere-corecta-a-unui-simbol-neolitic?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1

Acest semn apare in civilizatia minoica cu forma apropiata, ca simbol “MA” Din https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/2017/06/24/early-minoan-hieroglyphic-roundels-and-seals-may-lend-some-insight-into-the-later-development-of-the-linear-a-syllabary/

Se pare ca originea atat pentru semnul de pe tablita de la Tartaria, cat si pentru semnul minoic este semnul sumerian proto-cuneiform https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html AMAR:”vitel”/engl.CALF Taurul a fost un simbol comun civilizatiilor sumeriene si minoice:                                                                                        Possible connection between the cultures of Ancient Sumer and Minoan Crete http://mmtaylor.net/Holiday2000/Legends/Sumer-Crete.html&nbsp;                                                      “There are certain hints that the Minoan civilization might have been influenced by, or even descended from, the Sumerian / Mesopotamian civilization of a thousand years earlier. According to David Rohl(Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation, London, Arrow Books 1998), the Phoenecians and Canaanites who inhabited the coast of what is now Israel and Lebanon came from Sumeria (Ur, Uruk, Eridu) at the same time as others from the same region went to Bahrain and then to the Upper Nile, some time around 3000 BC. If the Minoan culture was actually derived from the Sumerian, as seems not unlikely, it must have happened before writing became common in Sumer, around 3000 BC. Rohl’s dates tend to be more recent than the conventional dates, so when Rohl mentions 3000 BC, he refers to a time conventionally dated rather earlier, perhaps 3500 BC.           …………………………..                                                                                                                      The bull was important in the Minoan religion and culture, as it was in Sumer. Gilgamesh (who, according to Rohl, ruled in Uruk around 2487 BC) is shown as half-bull, half-man, as is the Cretan Minotaur in the much later Greek legend. The picture on the seal looks remarkably like depictions of the Minotaur, and it is possible that the Greeks knew of such depictions as well as of the bull cult in Minoan Crete. There are many other bull-man representations in images from Mesopotamia. Sometimes the body is bull in part or whole and the head human, sometimes the reverse. Perhaps there were similar Minoan images known to the Greeks, but as yet not discovered by modern archaeologists. So, one can assume that the bull-man “monster” was an image known to the Early Greeks of Minoan times.

Cercetatorii avanseaza ipoteza ca simbolul sumerian aMAr (vitel,taur), sau aMA (mama) a fost la originea minoicului MA, care de fapt a fost simbolul minoic al zeitei-mama.

Din Cretan Hieroglyphics & Protolinear Script | Giannhs Kenanidhs and … https://www.academia.edu/27866745/Cretan_Hieroglyphics_and_Protolinear_Script

 

 

DinThe Arkalochori Axe and its siblings | Giannhs Kenanidhs – Academia … http://www.academia.edu/27866963/The_Arkalochori_Axe_and_its_siblings

 

One World-wide ancient sign

February 17, 2019

From Indus Script & More http://indusscriptmore.blogspot.com/2010/10/&nbsp; Friday, October 22, 2010 Pinwheel, Wy, and Man

inscriptm244                                                                                         The ZEE PINWHEEL, which I enumerate V21, is shaped something like our letter “Z” turned sideways.  Alternatively, it may be considered a “ladder” in which the post on the right does not descend to the ground but stops at the bottom rung.  In addition, the post on the left does not ascend above the top rung.  In most cases, this zee-shaped PINWHEEL has three horizontal lines or rungs, but in some cases there are four (M-133 and M-425), in one case five (M-1087), and occasionally the striping is vertical (H-611).  The whole PINWHEEL is tilted diagonally in two instances (M-636 and M-1320).

TARTARIA SQUARED TABLET WITH HOLE/19 Linear A/B approach

February 8, 2019

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

This page must be understood to be kind of probe and testing, as to check in wich measure, or how close the supposed Tartaria tablet writing goes toward, or fitts the Aegean-one. You must know that the signs on the tablets are closest to sumerian proto-cuneiform ones. Then follow at the same level Anatolian and Aegean writings. The conclusion is:                           – there is no genuine sumerian nor genuine Aegean writing on tablets.              MANY ASSYROLOGISTS (AND ME ALSO) SUSTAIN (in the best case), AN QUASI-SUMERIAN WRITING                             But no wonder, is reflecting an Anatolian-European continuum, and there would be a simple explanation for this fact:                                                                                  Possible, as hypothesised Mr.I.Kenanidis and G.Papakitsos for minoan writing, the Minoans were early sumerian migrants.I AM EXPECTING THAT UNDER DIRECT SUMERIAN INFLUENCE, MINOANS SOME-HOW ADAPTET THEIR CONCEPTS (particularly that of the signs) TO THEIR CULTURE OF OLD-EUROPE TYPE ;                                                                                                   DON’T KNOW FROM WICH STAGE OF THIS PROCESSUS ARE COMING THE TABLETS !  ==============================================================

TARTARIA SQUARED TABLET WITH HOLE/2018 Linear A/B approach

Image from ESCRITURA DE TARTARIA http://www.proel.org/index.php?pagina=alfabetos/tartaria

tartaria1

We have upper-left side, those D-s (3 signs)

(In close shape, but by imprinting, sumerians used to express numbers.

Were found in economic transactions.Signs are not imprinted as in sumerian (cuneus cuneiform) technique with the opposite edge of sharpened-one edge of stylus, so I wonder if  the writer was a native sumerian.

From https://www.voceavalcii.ro/39794-decrypting-of-tartaria-inscription-part-2-rectangular-amulet.html

Here maybe No.2, where the indication line is black.

Those 3 signs, “>>>”?, “)))”,could be (as in sumerian) number 3 or 30.                                                    (after Rumen Kolev http://www.su -varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf interpretation:”3 (months ?)                                                                                                      CONCLUSION: “30/3 (Months ?)”                                                                                                              ——————————————————————————–

  1. Close to these signs, downward, we have sign No.1 as ear of cereal
  2.  
  3. Usually associated with agriculural products as barley:                                             Image,from http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/story/page06.html
  4.                                                                                  From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/

LINEAR A *04 (TE), common

In linear B,

Linear B, Cretan“TE” “Wheat

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRykURVevP7C91htJQXSWtUoIKlv_VE7Zk8RacOILleQApR07vw

Note that this sign rather pertain to proto-writing. Cause in linear B we have signs for specific kind of grains (wheat visa barley):

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHPdQSYyE8qr4n115PLPH_UBTyeNB9XKrQDADDWG3bdzC2-UEQZQ

(Rumen Kolev http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf interpretation, with the sign underneath:”3-months corn in the temple”                            CONCLUSION: Together those 2 signs,could be interpreted as                                                                                        “ (30), 3 /volume measures of some sort of cereal grain”(gr.sitos) ?”                                  =====================================================

Next downward,this Y-shaped sign (! drawn separately in a box !)will see what could be.

  1. (sign No.3)

Table from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-as-suggested-in-the-inscriptions-corpus-Olivier_fig3_273096050

the-cretan-hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-as-suggested-in-the-inscriptions-corpus-olivier No.019 ;024 ?                                                                                                                                                        Y-sign= linear B= “SA?

From http://www.ancientscripts.com/lineara.html “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.

lineara_ladle

FINAL READING: “SA”                                                                                                                            From   http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/&nbsp;                                                                     *31, SA, perhaps a logogram for *SA-SA-ME?;

From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/&nbsp;                                                                                     JOHN JOUNGER SA (HT 114b.1) or SI (HT 30.1) = paid?

FINAL READING: “SA”  ========================================================                                     Next, to the right, vertical separation line ! sign 4

Next,downward, folow a sign No.4

wich ressemble violin,labrys?/ 2 merged lozenges ?;

b4dd6746fe84b265e714daef471f2b89

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

Close to the cretan hierogliphic sign 042 (Labrys) <see table above>

https://enijote.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/double-axes-and-the-limits-of-knowledge/

Not much to see.  But here’s its Linear A counterpart:

The sine qua non is the interpretation of labyrinth as “Place of the Double Axes,

The Cretan Hieroglyphic evidence is even more explicit:

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

From Essays on Ancient Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C. https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=3447039671

Prince Mikasa no Miya Takahito (son of Taishō, Emperor of Japan) – 1998 – ‎Civilization, Assyro-Babylonian

reconstructed an IE *peleku14 of sacred use that would go back to a pre-IE digging implement of the Mesolithic of NW Europe and pre-Mesolithic … Mycenaean dapur-, Hittite tabarna/tla- barna/labarna(s) from a Sumerian balag, Assyrian pilakku, Sanskrit paraqu, Greek pelekus, designating a certain type of axe.

    (Rumen Kolev:”temple”,good!)

By one side, the sign has the exact shape of the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign “AB=house,temple” and by the other side labrys is the king, divinity icon, and present in most of the minoan temple/shrines, especially in Minos palace. So could be the house of the labrys :LABYRINTHOS.                                                                                                    CONCLUSION:  LABRYSICON related either to Goddess A-Sa-Sa-Ra  and ITS HOUSE-TEMPLE, cave-shrine, LABYRINTHOS                                                                                                ——————————————————————————————                                                  Next, an insect/miriapod-like sign !?! is found in more and less simylar shape all over:

As a refference, Sumerian “DINGIR”/God/sky    From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html&nbsp; sign “AN

      

          sum.AN it is:God, Heaven

But! If URUK “dingir” has 8-11 spikes our sign have 12 (limbs)

Note that is not in a shape of wheat-ear or plant but is in a star-like shape.The difference in “spikes” number is not much problematic in my opinion.So why not,or possible to be something star-like i.e. “a GOD”?   But much,much close,(if rotated 90deg)    (count the number of lines! totaly 12 in sumerian sign as in our)                           ——————————————————————

From http://www.namuseum.gr/collections/prehistorical/mycenian/mycenian13-en.html

“KE”? (2-nd in the first row) ??

(Rumen Kolev rendering:”Sun”)                                                                                    CONCLUSION:                                                                                                                                            I will change my final interpretation of the sign, from “God, Heaven” ,”Sky-God” to “SUN”, cause beginning from minoan time, appeared the multy-rayed symbol and sure was the Sun !                                                                                                                                          —————————————————-                                                                                                 Next, donkey head-like picture or sign shape.In sumerian the sign was AMAR:”CALF”, but minoans took the sign and changed finaly to a kat-like shape.

 LINEAR B “MA

Note the scribal hand sign Ma with big ears as in our tablet!

(Rumen Kolev rendering:”bull Enlil”)

  CONCLUSION                                                                                                                                  The “long-eared head” is not related as in sumerian to AMAR “calf” ,Sun- calf/bull , but derived from the sumerian root “ama=mother”, it is MA: Aegean Mother-Goddess MA: Aegean Mother-Goddess                                                                                 ————————————————

Second sign from the end backward,right edge,upper sign.Sincerely at this sign I run out of… resources.

Sign Mo, MU !

See the paper: BUCRANIUM SYMBOL AND SIGN Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Gheorghe Corneliu … – Arheovest  arheovest.com/simpozion/arheovest3/03.pdf

“In Vinca-Turdas culture were found hundreds of artefacts of different kinds with the shape of a bucranium (bull-head). Or shape intricated or depicted in a way or another in them.”

The horned-head as poor as is depicted could be that of a bull. Especially cause of the sturdy/massif head.

But I explain why radher is bull. (Rumen Kolev http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf rendering “bull” and the underneath sign “in/of/for the sacrifice”!?)

Cause the Bull was related to Gods/SUN and rullers (MinoTAUR).As in ancient East the bull was associated with the Sun.                                                                                            CONCLUSION                                                                                                                                        Horned-like icon is the Aegean Bull, “MU“, whoever was related to.                                       ——————————————–                                                                                                            And downward we have the very icon of  Sky-God and of the Earth counter-part,ruller Minos the DOUBLE-AX shape,

Note: By sumerians bull head associated with double ax-shape was sign AMAR + sign AB

Meaning         Bull-calf  + House/abode

Wich by them those pair-signs, ment       NERGAL      (a pair of the Sun, underground hypostasis)

(the fierry hott Sun of the mid-day time, later an underwold&death GOD(dess)

So, we have the heavenly Bull=SUN asociated with his GOD/royal sign LABRYS and his temple-house LABYRINTHOS

As Zeus Labraundos,Keraunos was depicted with the axe in his hand.

In this case nothing is necessary to be added and those signs don’t need to be much comented/translated or interpreted, it could be,

INTERPRETATION OF THE WHOLE TABLET:                                                                          AN OFFERING, ( 3/30 grain, wheat? units) SACRIFICE on THE SHRINE,TEMPLE TO THE MOTHER-GODDESS and to the SUN-BULL-GOD.                                                                                                                       ———————————————     

From ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА
РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ
Румен Колев         interpretation of the last 2 signs: “cattle in/of/for the sacrificed”)

IDENTIFIED: AGE, PLACE OF ORIGIN, THE SCRIBE AND WRITING FOR TARTARIA TABLETS

February 4, 2019

IDENTIFIED:                                                                                                                                  AGE, PLACE OF ORIGIN, THE SCRIBE AND WRITING FOR TARTARIA TABLETS

In the Tartaria tablets research endeavour, participated the folowing professional categories:

– Archaeologs without epigraphy qualifications

– Archaeologs with epigraphy specialisation

-Specialists in the writing systems field (Assyrology>sumerology>early sumerian writing=proto-cuneiform=proto writing)

– Multidisciplinary specialists (usualy not excelling in none of them)

– Autodidact/amateur individuals researchers

So the resulting opinions are an array of diverse and dispersed (not necessary the same or converging) on particular issues.There are as diverse as grouping in folowing categories:

-The tablest are pertaing to danubian Civilisation (in particular to Vinca-Turdas Culture), “Turdas villager” scribe, local script, and due of the complex and archaic nature, cannot be “read”

-The tablets are close folowing the very begining of sumerian writing (proto cuneiform=Late Uruk 3.200 B.C.)  so could be somwhere 2.750 B.C. Not sumerian writing proper but quasi-sumerian.The scribe could have been an sumerian prospector/trader?

– Were evidentiated connexions and symilarities betwen sumerian and Aegean writings.In Aegean the PROTOLINEAR SCRIPT, not apeared as a local invention, but carried by sumerian migrants wich were in fact early minoans.The spoke a creole language having sumerian characteristics. )./E.PAPAKITSOS & I.KENANIDIS                        Out of me,no one compared, paired or evidenced similarities of the tartaria tablets signs with those sumerian proto-cuneiform and Aegean scripts.

– One low-level comparison attempt  between Tartaria tablets signs and Linear B-ones/ COGNIARCHAE

If allmost some moths before, close to one year, I allready stressed that Tartaria tablets signs are similar and has the closest correspondence in sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, and weighting that it is improbale to have an native sumerian scribe, I hypothesised that the tablets are somhow originating from Aegean area.The scribe could be an sumerian prospector or trader? Bu rather an sumerian follower relative. Despite I read some four Evangelos Papakitsos si Iannis Kenanidis papers,wich showed that Aegean scrpts (begining with Aegean Proto-Linear) were originating insumerian early writing, and minoans were in fact early sumerians migrants settled in Crete. They’re opinion is that the sumerian matrix and was preserved and mentained till, toward our era, and could be noticed also in eteocretan script. Maybe due I took those assertions rather as hypothesis, and because their excursus was not much convincig to me, not gave much attention. In particular cause in one of my papers I analised their comparisons where I put my remarks that there are not the best choosen ones , me beeig able to give some much accurate, and much better ones. Interesting enough at that time I was still searching for the place of the scribe, where was from!!. With consistent delay came the “flash”, and realised that much more than sugesting the origin of Aegean writing (wich allready I noticed to be similar to the tablets) but also minoan’s origin.

I searched for the scribe in every places, but realising that could not be an sumerian native only if teleported ! …..But the “sumerian” fellow was at only two steps away in Crete, “disguised” as a So wasn’t necessary to search for a trader wich arrived in Vinca area, from far-away Sumer, could com easier from much closer Crete.If the tablets were written in Crete, there is no need for travelling of the scribe.Now I explain completely myself why the signs are in great measure alike, but not identical with those sumerian ones, but a part of them are similar with those used in Anatolian and Aegean writings. Knowing at an satisfying level sumerian proto-cuneiform writing, but also those Aegean-ones, I was able to make an double comparison (in the same time with those sumerians and also with those Aegeans).This task was’nt complete by anybody else You see, there happened many times in history, when scientists are anticipating an phenomenom, thing,etc. But only after this phenomenom was practicaly phisically evidenced, the hypothesis become an real fact Here, we have something alike, scientists Papakitsos and Kenanidis come with the theory that early minoans were sumerian migrants wich knew sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, and adapted them to Aegean (Crete) as Cretan proto-linear script appeared.Papakitsos &Kenanidis showed how this fact is real,interpreting Psycro inscription and Malia stone.  But the perfect exemple is coming from tartaria tablets, because its showing and preserving in a much great measure, pregnant and strong sumerian characters.

In the summer, got in touch with canadian scientist Richard Vallance, and he encouraged me, enlisting me in an World List of Aegean Bronze Age researchers.

When got in touch with Papakitsos-Kenanidis team, and told them that I found similarities and connections of Tartaria tablets signs with Aegean writings, they were rather reticent, making me to understand that our tablets are preceding (by far?) the Aegean-ones and not commented on some possible connections.

NOW, I AM SURE AND AFFIRM, ALLEGE, ASSERT THAT:

1-THE TABLETS ARE REAL, NOT FAKES;                                                                              THEIR AGE IS AFTER 3.000 B.C., POSSIBLE EVEN 2.500-2.000B.C                                              Note                                                                                                                                                     This not the real age of the tablets (wich cannot be known forever), but an estimate based of an exhaustive analisis of the signs !

2- PLACE OF ORIGIN: AEGEAN AREA (CYCLADES BUT MUCH SURE CRETE), BUT EVEN TARTARIA village (see clay analisis)

3 SCRIBE IDENTITY: MINOAN (SUMERIAN MIGRANT SETTLED IN CRETE,OR A RELATIVE/FOLLOWER) OCCUPATION:CRAFTSMEN/METTALURGIST-PROSPECTOR/TRADESMAN

4. THE SCRIBE (WHOEVER COULD HAVE BEEN) WAS FAMILIAR WITH ANCIENT SIGNS, ESPECIALLY THOSE SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIPHORM-ONES (used in 3.000 B.C.).

5WRITING : QUASI-SUMERIAN                                                                                             Note:                                                                                                                                               Apparently there are on all three tablets a mixture of 3 type/cattegories of signs.  There are strong clues that upper half of the round tablet is the only part wich is containing TRUE WRITING so, kind of coherent message; and it is written using newer signs ( archaic greek).

6 LANGUAGE: KIND OF CREOLE (probably PRESENTING STRONG SUMERIAN TRAITS).                      It seems that one would face the same difficulty that encounter scientists to decipher minoan language and correspondent Linear A writing (UNKNOWN LANGUAGE !)

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

Now, upon me, remain only two possibilities.If it is about an early phase of writing, it could be:

1-A reflection,exemplification, local European production of that sumerian-ones or minoan-micenaean, or more, even a true local variant of such early writings.

2- a reflection (imitation) of one cited above, and more having added a true writing only in upper half (of round-one)

BUT ONE LAST OBSTACLE REMAIN:
EVEN IF ONE COULD “READ” THE TABLETS, (EG. HAVING WORDS COMPOSED FROM LATIN LETTERS WITH APARENT RANDOM SUCCESION) IS DIFICULT TO EXTRACT WORDS WITH MEANINGS, AS YOU DON’T KNOW THE LANGUAGE WICH WAS USED, SO IN FACT CANNOT “LISTEN” THOSE WORDS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LANGUAGE.                                               
AS IN THE CASE OF MINOAN LANGUAGE and WRITING(LINEAR A),WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE SPOKE THE SCRIBE !              =============================================================

EXCERPTS FROM MR. EVANGELOS PAPAKITSOS and IANNIS KENANIDIS PAPERS:

A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1 , Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian.pdf

COMMENTARY                                                  Every script in the world always conforms to the special features of the language it is initially devised for, and every script always is precise enough in phonemically representing the language it is created for. It is clear that the Aegean scripts are syllabic of the CVtype (consonant-vowel); i.e., all signs represent syllables ending in a vowel only, with no consonant clusters. This means that the script was originally devised for a CV-type language, namely a language in which all consonants are followed by vowels. There are many such languages, a very well-known of them being the Japanese. When a script is devised for a CV-type language, it is naturally a CV-type syllabary, as it is actually the case with the Japanese kana syllabaries. A CV-type pure syllabary was never initially devised for any language other than a CV-type language. While today we know of many CV-type languages, all Greek dialects were (and remain) foreign to the CV pattern. Another linguistic direction is required [2]: “In contrast with mainland Greece, Cyprus and Crete in the 2nd millennium are both multilingual societies in which the different languages are written down. It is tempting to assume that this points to stronger links with the Near East than with Greece.” It is recognized by eminent Greek linguists that there was a linguistic substratum in the Aegean area (e.g., see [33][41]). Other proposals about an adstratum instead [42] do not change the essence of our argument. This substratum is not regarded as Indo-European (IE), based on the unknown etymology of plant-names and toponyms [33]. The Aegean scripts denote that a CVtype language was spoken by those who created them. None of the IE languages is of the CV-type. The mainland of Greece and of Anatolia was inhabited by people speaking IE languages. The existence of a Semitic language (e.g., Akkadian) is also very probable in Crete, but it is not of a CV-type either. All such proposals roughly correspond to all the different ethnic groups that may have inhabited Crete or retained merchant delegations there. None of them, though, spoke a CV-type language. Ancient Egyptian was not of the CV-type, if we judge from Coptic, from renderings of Ancient Egyptian in other languages and from the ancient Egyptian script itself. Egyptian was an AfroAsiatic language, and those languages are generally not of the CV-type. Consequently [9]: Without doubt, the Minoans at the beginning of the second millennium did not ‘re-invent’ writing independently, even if they were well able to take their first steps in this direction without knowledge of the Mesopotamian or Egyptian systems. However, starting with ideas from elsewhere, they created an original and astonishingly uncomplicated system for recording the sounds of their language by means of signs.” So, the issue of identifying the language behind the Aegean scripts remains the same: all the languages around Aegean, which we know of hitherto, are incompatible to the CV-pattern. CV-type languages are usually agglutinative ones. Duhoux suggests that Linear-A is “agglutinative rather than conjugatingbecause of the high number of affixes it contains (in 59% of the words) compared to Linear-B (12% respectively) [43]. What we seek is a non-IE agglutinative language of those times (3rd millennium BC) to fit with the “kana” pattern of Linear-A/B and their predecessor. Olivier states that [9]: “A priori, no language attested in the third or second millennium from the eastern Mediterranean or its surrounding areas can be excluded … the languages spoken by people from the coasts of Asia Minor or Syro-Palestine must be favoured. … Between 3000/2600 and 1450, the period of the birth and development of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A, … the introduction of a language known to us from elsewhere is unlikely.” The nearby agglutinative language of the 3rd millennium BC, well-studied and recorded, is the Sumerian. Additionally, the only highly civilized people close enough, speaking an agglutinative language well known to have CV-type phonotactics, were the Sumerians (or the bilingual Akkadian scribes / scholars because of the “sprachbund” [44][45]). Thus, the present research had been directed towards a comparative study for discovering any relation between the Sumerian language and the Aegean scripts.                                                                   EVIDENCE                                                                                                                                    Firstly, we will concentrate on some aspects of linguistic taxonomy and methodology before we proceed to the direct evidence of the last subsection (A Sample).                             A Protolinear Script. There is a suggestion that Linear-A constitutes a linearization of the Akkadian cuneiform signs [22]. However, it is normal for a script to evolve from pictorial signs (as the Sumerian pre-cuneiform and the Aegean writing signs too) into non-recognizable forms (as the late cuneiform), and rarely the reverse. It has been recognized that Linear-B is not simply a derivative of Linear-A, just as the creation of the Aegean scripts does not constitute a simple process of evolution, from the Cretan Hieroglyphics to Linear-B [27][35]. There are Aegean inscriptions found in various places (Tel Haror, Tel Lachish, Samothrace and Troy) that both Linear-A and B scripts have to be taken into account for their interpretation [46]. Although there are several different theories for explaining this necessity, there is also the possibility of a Protolinear script [47], which both Linear-A/B evolved from, for conveying different languages. In other words, the Protolinear could be the parent of Linear-A and Linear-B, while the Cretan Hieroglyphic could be regarded mainly, but not exclusively [8], as the decorative and ritual form of that system for use especially on seals [48].The hypothesized Protolinear script consists of 120 syllabograms of the V and CV patterns, as they have been found in Linear-A/B scripts, one for each syllable of a dialect close to the Archaic Sumerian language. There are also a few signs of disyllabic nature. The signs are those that are common to both Linear-A and B scripts (62) and those that are exclusive to each syllabary. So, we have a script of simplified icons (signs) depicting items, where the phonetic value of each sign is related to the Archaic Sumerian word for the depicted item. Many of them are related to the associated signs of the Cretan Hieroglyphic, also to the Sumerian pictograms and sometimes to the cuneiform equivalents. A sample is presented in the next section, for the curious reader. One debatable feature of such a script would be the interpretation of the items depicted by the icons and another is the assignment of the phonetic value to each sign.                                                    THE.METHODOLOGY                                                                                                                       We cannot recognize what an ancient sign depicted by simply looking at a modern hand copy of it in a list presenting a tentatively reconstructed syllabary and putting our imagination to work. To go to the pictorial origin, we have to see all forms of the letter in all related scripts, and observe carefully how objects are usually depicted in the Minoan art. We have to study, in addition, the logograms of Linear-A/B and the Cretan Hieroglyphic too, and also observe the tendencies of each script. When the hitherto unknown phonetic value of signs (e.g., /ru/, /to/) is discovered, then it is tested in the actual context of the signs and so confirms that it makes really good sense. It should be understood that the original script was pictographic as much as it was linear: every sign was a sketch readily recognizable by all as a common object, the whole name of which was instantly recalled by all speakers of the language of the nation that created the script. The comparative study was conducted in parallel including four factors: § the depicted object and its sign of the Aegean script, § the relation and similarity of the previous sign to equivalent Sumerian ones, § the assigned phonetic value of the sign of the Aegean script, § the similarity of the previous phonetic value to Sumerian words denoting the depicted object. At least three factors should match in order to confirm the relation. Following the above mentioned methodology, the entire set of Linear-A/B signs can be identified as monosyllabic (rarely disyllabic) Sumerian words naming the depicted objects, noting that in Sumerian language a closing consonant of a monosyllabic word (i.e., CV-C) was not pronounced unless it was followed by a vowel in the case of compounding or affixation. Thus, in all the following examples, the closing consonant is separated by a dash. This is a predominant rule of the Sumerian phonology that facilitated the process of creating the syllabary by using the rebus principle. The rebus principle is merely the use of a picture to stand not for the object depicted, but for the name of the depicted object, even in context where the sound of that name stands for something totally different than the object shown. There is an important rule that always goes together with this principle: the whole name of the depicted object is used and not a part of the name (unlike the acrophonic principle). The rebus principle had been invented by the Sumerians, according to Fischer [4], whose influence expanded to Nile, Iran, Indus Valley and maybe to the Balkans (as he suspects, and it is argued too herein, through the Aegean scripts). The phonology of the used words is of a dialect close to, but simpler than, the Archaic Sumerian (the reconstruction is explained, together with the transcription system, in [49])……………………………

DISCUSSION                                                                                                                                   Based on the very small number of different handwritings that are recognized on Linear-B tablets of Knossos and Pylos (111 of the so called “Hands”), Hooker [54] suggested the existence of a scribal guild, favored also by Finkelberg [46]. This is a reasonable explanation for the observed incongruity of Linear-B to the phonotactics of the Mycenaean Greek language, provided we deduce that the scribes were non-Greeks, and their script was originally devised from a nonGreek language. This can also explain why they did not even slightly enhance the script in order to represent the Greek language somewhat more precisely, for their own convenience, just as the Cypriot Greeks did with the Cypriot Syllabary. This could also be the reason why Linear-B was completely forgotten when the Achaean palaces declined, so the non-Greek scribes working there could not find employment. Then, no documented writing system was used in Greece for a period of about 350 years, after which the Greeks adopted a non-Greek script again: the Phoenician alphabet………………………..

The notion of a scribal guild can be extended in the past, for the creation of Linear-A and the Cretan Hieroglyphics, as a minimalistic reasonable assumption (although many evidence regarding culture and religion indicate a much stronger oriental relationship that its presentation is beyond the scope of this article). A relatively small number of Sumerian seals-makers and scribes could have been hired, from the communities of the Levant [55], in order to create the necessary infrastructure for the development of the contemporary commercial best practices. They were, after all, the original inventors of such practices with a long tradition and expertise at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Even for the case of bilingual Akkadian scribes, the choice of the Sumerian language for devising the Aegean scripts would be a significant advantage, because monosyllabic words could be easily found in order to match common or culturally important objects for the signs of a syllabary. The creation of these scripts is a distinct trade-mark compared to the rest (Eastern Mediterranean) of that era, which is an ever-lasting desirable commercial asset. Once the Minoan authorities / society had decided to develop their commerce, both domestically and overseas, they would inevitably have to deal with the contemporary international best-practices (i.e., sealing of goods and keeping records). For example, about the usage of clay sealings [9]: “As in the Near East such objects generally served to secure the integrity of the contents of various types of container.” About the usage of scripts, it is suggested that Linear-A conveys a Semitic language (as a lingua franca) written by Luwian scribes in order to adhere to international standards [22]. In this respect, generally and diachronically, there are only two options: § to develop the required practices from scratch, which is usually a costly and slow trial-anderror process or § to hire professionals, being experts in the required practices. The latter option is mutually beneficial. The employer acquires the proper practices quickly and safely, while the employees assure their prosperity by having the monopoly of know-how. Who possessed such know-how at the end of the 3rd millennium BC? Sumerians proved to be excellent traders and colonists throughout the entire Near East, even at the end of the Uruk period [56]. According to Kramer [57]: “…by the third millennium BC, there is good reason to believe that Sumerian culture and civilization had penetrated, at least to some extent, as far East as India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as Ancient Ethiopia and as far North as the Caspian”. Crete was known to Mesopotamia at least since the era of Sargon the Great, who lived approximately between the 24th and the 23rd centuries BC [58]. On the tablets of Mari (18th century BC) it is stated that “the hand of Sargon” had reached places beyond the “upper sea” (Mediterranean) as far as the island of copper (Cyprus) and Kaptara. The latter is regarded as the most ancient reference to Crete, “Kaptara” being its Akkadian name [14]. The name for Mediterranean in Sumerian is “ab-ba igi-nim”, found in many texts, e.g. in the inscription on the statue of Gudea (Period: Lagash II, ca. 2200-2100 BC): “a-ab-ba igi-nim-ta (from the Upper Sea = Mediterranean) a-ab-ba sig-gasze3” (to the Lower Sea = Persian Gulf). Even with some chronological inaccuracy, the previous period (24th to 18th centuries BC) adequately covers the creation time of the Aegean scripts. What could be the “hand” of Sargon the Great other than merchant stations and/or delegations, at least? Nevertheless, both linguistic and non-linguistic pieces of evidence, that will be presented shortly, indicate a longer and deeper Sumerian influence on the Aegean civilization of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the inadequacy of the Linear-A/B scripts to convey properly the phonology of the Mycenaean Greek, or the other languages proposed in Crete, is attributed herein to the origins of those syllabaries. Notably, considering the conveyed languages by Linear-A, all proposals are based on the comparative study of toponyms and anthroponyms or divinity names. Such a study, though, is not necessary when an Akkadian name is written in Akkadian cuneiform or a Luwian one in a relevant script. The Aegean scripts are acting like a distorting filter for the languages that they convey, making their identification even more difficult. Such a distortion is more or less always expected in the conveyance of words transmitted through a foreign writing system. Based on the previous linguistic evidence and conditions, it has been suggested that a very suitable candidate language as the base for creating the Aegean scripts could be the Sumerian. Being an agglutinative language, it both exhibits the matching syllabic pattern of the CV-type, and it can justify the phonetic values of the Linear-A/B and Cypro-Minoan signs as well, through the rebus principle. It is also suggested that the formation of each Aegean script could have been conducted in the late 3rd millennium BC by means of absorption from a parent script, named Protolinear, being created by a scribal guild of Sumerian linguistic origin.

A Decipherment of the Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro (Crete) Ioannis K. Kenanidis1* and Evangelos C. Papakitsos file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Kenanidis432017ARJASS36988deciphermentofinscription.pdf

INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                   In 1958, Marinatos [1] reported the existence of an inscription from Psychro (Crete) that belonged to the private collection of Dr. S. Giamalakis (Fig. 1). It was engraved on a piece of stone, the shape of which showed that it was made to fit into an architectural construction, namely into an empty triangle formed over a door of a very small structure. Based essentially on Kritzas [2], Brown [3] attempted to prove that the inscription is a modern fake, his main argument being that it contains what appear to be Minoan syllabic signs (those three at the bottom of the inscription), that is signs of a script supposed to have been extinct 900 years before the inscription that was dated to 300 BC; another one of Kritzas’ arguments is that the inscription is on baked clay and not stone – something that has nothing to do with the language of the inscription anyway. Kenanidis & Papakitsos [4] have presented all arguments proving that the inscription is genuine. Those who discarded the inscription as a fake have relieved themselves of the obligation to interpret it, however, as we hold that the inscription is genuine, we must interpret it here in accordance to all our previous research.

First by Marinatos [1] and later on by Brown [5] and Duhoux [6], the inscription was attributed to an Eteocretan language. Numerous attempts have been made to interpret the text. The proposed languages included Hittite [7] and Semitic [8,9], even Slavic [10]! The shortcomings of each one of the previous attempts were reasonably exposed by Brown [11], although the latter implies that there was only one non-Greek language spoken in Crete (contrary to the linguistic evidence which makes it clear that more than one non-Greek languages were spoken in Crete [12,13,14]). Thus, to all those readers interested in the Eteocretan languages of ancient Crete, a novel approach of decipherment is presented herein, for the first time based on the Cretan Protolinear script theory [12] that suggests the affinity of the Psychro inscription to the Sumerian dialect of Crete. It will be demonstrated that the application of the Sumerian language for this decipherment provides a coherent and meaningful interpretation of the text on this inscription.                                                                                2. DECIPHERMENT GUIDELINES                                                                                            Knowing that the conventionally called Eteocretan inscriptions convey more than one language, we had to determine which language is conveyed by the Psychro inscription. One factor that makes this difficult is that the inscription language is for the most part rendered in a script foreign to the language conveyed, so the phonemes are not expected to be rendered with precision [4]. Another difficulty is that even when the language is determined, we still have to understand the specific features of that language for the given date and place. These difficulties have been overcome by following the latest linguistic evidence about the affinity of the Aegean scripts to Sumerian [15,16,17,18] and especially by confirming the existence of a Cretan Protolinear script [12,19,20,21,22,23, 24]. It is exactly the following three facts that made others regard the inscription as fake or unreadable, which opened our way to read it:1) We were facilitated by the fact that this inscription is well preserved, with not even one letter missing or unreadable. 2) The three Minoan syllabograms on the inscription clearly point to the fact that the whole inscription is in the language of those who originally created the Minoan civilization along with the Cretan Protolinear script. 3) It was impossible for others to explain how the Minoan script survived until 300 BC, while that very fact confirms the existence of the Cretan Protolinear script: As explained in previous works, the Cretan Protolinear script was created by the Minoans, who were Sumerian settlers [12,20,21,22]; the Cretan Protolinear script in the form of Linear A and Linear B was used by all the different nations that inhabited Crete and the Aegean.                                               However, in the hands of non-Minoans (i.e. Hands of nonSumerians) the Cretan Protolinear script was distorted as time passed, and eventually forgotten, because the script was difficult for nonMinoans (=non-Sumerians).                                                              On the other hand, in the hands of Minoan Sumerians the Cretan Protolinear script could not be significantly distorted or forgotten, no matter how many generations would pass.                                                                                                                          This is because the Cretan Protolinear script (henceforth in this work referred to simply as “Protolinear”) was phonetic and pictographic at the same time: every phonetic (syllabic) sign was a sketch of a readily recognizable object in the Minoan Sumerian culture.                                                                                                                           So, for those who had Minoan Sumerian as their first language, every syllabic sign had the native name of the thing that the sign depicted, and they always knew what the signs depicted.                                                                                                                       They could not alter the shape of the signs lest they would be no more recognizable and if a sign was not recognizable it could not have a native (Minoan Sumerian) name, so it could not have a phonetic value.                                                                       This is why the Protolinear script could not be altered in Minoan hands; while for non-Minoans there was no connection between depicted object and phonetic use of the Protolinear signs.                                                                                                             Therefore, the Protolinear script survived unaltered as long as the Minoan nation existed.                                                                                                                                             And we know that the Minoan Sumerian language, as other non-Greek languages spoken in Crete, was spoken not only until 300 BC but also much later [21], because those populations were relatively isolated geographically and socially.                     The Sumerian language in Mesopotamia remained in use as a classical and hieratic language until about the year 100 AD [25].                                                                    It was easy for a language to be kept for many centuries among different languages when there was no obligatory schooling and no mass media. An example is the many languages mentioned in the Bible, Acts 2, all spoken during the 1st century AD, including Elamite, a language no less old than Sumerian, and languages “of Mesopotamian people” among which were Sumerian and Akkadian – all those languages, when the eastern part of the Roman empire was rapidly Hellenised and the empire’s official language was Latin. We shall also briefly mention what is detailed in [21], that even after the pre-Greek languages were forgotten, they left some impressive phonological traits in some dialects of Crete and other islands: the most outstanding being a retroflex “l”; also, a strong tendency to eliminate consonant clusters, and the emphatic pronunciation of some stop consonants, to mention only a few traits that have been left from Sumerian. Apart from linguistic evidence, there is an abundance of cultural instances that show the influence and lingering of the Minoan Civilization even through the Classical times. The comparison of the Bronze Age Aegean (culturally Minoan) wall paintings to the Etruscan ones reveals a remarkable resemblance [26]. Those who have an idea of the Minoan religious symbols and ideas will be impressed by the coins of Tenedos island (Fig. 2) minted in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Such coins are presented here because they most loudly prove that the Minoan Sumerian culture and religious ideas were totally alive in some Greek city states inhabited by Greeks of Minoan ancestry at least until the 4th century BC, while those symbols are a mystery for modern archaeologists as they were for the other ancient Greeks as well, who could only make up some totally fanciful and frivolous interpretations [27,28,29]. To be serious with the interpretation, on the right of Fig. 2, the coin’s verso depicts a double axe which is the most renowned religious symbol of the Minoans. The double axe symbolised the power and the duality of God An, the supreme deity of both the Minoans [12] and the Mesopotamian Sumerians [30]. The double axe symbol was also used as a very common syllabic (phonetic) sign in the Aegean scripts [12,20,21,23] and it is present, although not so common in the Sumerian (preCuneiform) pictography [17,22]. On the coin’s recto, the double-face head (manly face left, woman’s face right) clearly symbolised the same duality of the deity (masculine-feminine, yin-yang Kenanidis and Papakitsos; ARJASS, 4(3): 1-10, 2017;as we would say in modern terms). Although this representation can be interpreted as Zeus and Hera (or another mythological couple) as many scholars speculate [29], yet such a dual head representation has never been seen elsewhere in the entire Antiquity: it was a non Greek symbol that surprised the Greeks, but it was quite ordinary for the Minoans who saw a dual deity everywhere and represented the duality of the deity by all their religious symbols. Since such important Minoan Sumerian cultural elements were kept alive in a Greek city state during the 5th and 4th century BC, we cannot find any justification for considering strange a Minoan inscription in Crete of the year 300 BC. We understand that the Psychro inscription (Fig. 1) spoke about something related to building and dedicating a small shrine, because of the stone’s triangular shape that was obviously made to fit into a triangle formed over a door of a small structure …………………..

  1. CONCLUSION

It has been demonstrated so far that the Psychro inscription can be meaningfully deciphered through the conservative Sumerian dialect of Crete, spoken by the the scribe’s ancestors who had invented the Cretan Protolinear syllabary.This particular scribe used the Greek alphabet for the most part of this inscription, because it was the writing system known by all people in Crete and around the Aegean, and also because the Greek alphabet was the only available writing system proper for writing on hard material, and the only system actually used for stone inscriptions. On the other hand, the Cretan Protolinear syllabary was used almost exclusively on unbaked clay tablets, and it was only suited for writing on soft material; still, the word “cətiləə”, being so important culturally and ritually as explained, had to be written in the Cretan Protolinear that was the national script, hailing from a most ancient tradition, for the person who wrote the inscription. It is something analogous to using some Greek phrases in the Orthodox Eucharist ceremony conducted in a non-Greek language. Although it is only this stone that we know of the whole structure built, the inscription was true when it said this shrine will not ever collapse”: it is the shrine of the Minoan civilization.

 

 

AM IDENTIFICAT “SCRIITORUL”,LOCUL DE ORIGINE SI SCRISUL PENTRU TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA

February 4, 2019

La cercetarea tablitelor, au participat pana acum urmatoarele categorii profesionale:         – arheologi fara specializare in epigrafie                                                                                        – arheologi cu cunostinte de epigrafie                                                                                                – specialisti in sisteme de scriere>asirologie>scriere sumeriana >proto-scriere sumeriana                                                                                                                                               -specialisti pluridisciplinari (din fiecare un pic….)                                                                      -cercetatori autodidacti “amatori”

Ca atare, au rezultat opinii care doar partial si sporadic sant convergente; principalele teorii sant:                                                                                                                                               – tablitele apartin civilizatiei Danubiene (Vinca), scrib “Turdasean”, scrisul este autohton si datorita complexitatii si caracterului extrem de arhaic al tipului de scris nu poate fi descifrat                                                                                                                                 

– tablitele dateaza imediat dupa faza proto-scrierii sumeriene care a inceput la 3200BC si au varsta cca 2750 BC si nu prezinta scris sumerian propriu-zis ci scris “de factura sumeriana”. Autorul presupus a fi comerciant (sumerian?)                                                                                 

 – Au fost evidentiate legaturi directe intre scrierile Egeene si cea sumeriana. Scrierile Egeene nu au aparut din neant nici local ci au avut la origine scrierea sumeriana.Minoanii au fost la origine migranti sumerieni, care vorbeau un dialect apropiat de limba sumeriana. Nu au fost observate nici consemnate  legaturi ale tablitelor de la Tartaria cu acest fenomen (nici cu scrierea sumeriana nici cu ceele Egeene)./E.PAPAKITSOS & I.KENANIDIS                                                                                      

– Legaturi intre semnele tablitelor si scrierea Linear B/in rev. ANISTORITON

Desi deja in urma cu lunide zile, aproape 1 an am afirmat ca semnele tablitelor au cel mai apropiat corespondent si similaritate cu cele sumeriene, si apreciind ca fiind cu totul improbabil ca scribul sa fie nativ sumerian, am apreciat ca tablitele provin din aria Egeeana si scribul ar fi putut fi un prospector sau comerciant sumerian, dar mai degraba un urmas al unui nativ sumerian.                                                                                                  Cu toate ca am citit cca 4 lucrari ale cercetatorilor Evangelos Papakitsos si Iannis Kenanidis care au afirmat ca scrierile egeene sant rezultatul direct al adaptarii scrierii sumeriene, ca minoanii au fost de fapt urmasii primilor migranti sumerieni stabiliti in Creta.Au spus deasemenea ca amprenta si caracterul tipic sumerian s-a conservat si transmis pana inspre era noastra si pana in scrierea eteo-cretana.                                Probabil datorita faptului ca acele afirmatii le-am considerat mai degraba ipoteze, si datorita faptului ca demonstratia dansilor nu mi s-a parut prea convingatoare, nu i-am dat importanta cuvenita. Mai ales ca intr-o lucrare de-a mea am analizat exemplificarile dansilor si am remarcat si spus ca nu sant cele mai fericite, pentru ca eu pot da exemplificari mai bune, si care au o mai mare acuratete. Foarte interesant, pe undeva eu inca tot cautam sa gasesc de unde provine scribul !!.                                                                Cu oarece intarziere “mi-a cazut fisa” ca dansii tocmai mai mult decat au sugerat originea scrierilor Egeene, dar si a minoanilor. Asta seamana a fi la mine reactie intarziata, lentoare in gandire? Eu cautam scribul nu stiu pe unde, realizand totusi ca nu putea sa fi fost sumerian numai daca era teleportat. !                                                                                   ……………Dar “sumerianul” era de fapt la 2 pasi in Creta, “deghizat” in minoan. Asa incat nu a mai fost necesar sa banuiesc ca un comerciant ar fi ajuns in aria Vinca tocmai din Sumer, putea sa vina de mai aproape din Creta.                                                                          Daca tablitele au fost scrise in Creta nici nu ar mai fi necesara deplasarea scribului.    Acum i-mi explic complet de ce semnele seamana in cea mai mare masura cu cele sumeriene, nefiind identice dar o parte sant similare cu cele folosite in scrierile Egeene si Anatoliene.Cunoscand la nivel multumitor scrierea sumeriana pre-cuneiforma, dar si cele Egeene, am putut face o dubla comparatie ( a semnelor de pe tablite simultan cu cele sumeriene si totodata cu cele Egeene).Acest lucru nu l-a mai facut nimeni.

Vedeti dumneavoastra, de multe ori s-a intamplat in istorie ca oamenii de stiinta sa anticipeze existenta unui fenomen sau obiect initial ca o ipoteza, pe baze pur teoreticeDupa ce fenomenul sau obiectul a fost decelat faptic, fizic, de-abea atunci teoria s-a confirmat  dovedit ca fiind adevarata. Aici avem asemanator, cercetatorii Papakitsos si Kenanidis au emis ipoteza aparitiei scrierilor Egeene ca urmare directa a influentei scrierii sumeriene.Au putut si incepe prin a exemplifica faptic prin incercarile de citire a doua inscriptii, cea de la Psychro si cea de la…                               Dar sprijinul perfect vine de la tablitele de la Tartaria.Din Grecia avenit fundamentul teoretic si inceputul demonstratiei existentei fenomenului, dar sprijinul si dovada, echivalentul fizic perfect sant tablitele de la Tartaria.Pentru ca prezinta caracteristici aproape depline a unei scrieri de tip sumerian.

In vara, atunci cand am gasit similaritati cu scrierile Egeene, si am luat legatura cu cercetatorul canadian Richard Vallance  , acesta m-a incurajat si m-a inclus in lista mondiala a cercetatorilor care studiaza Epoca bronzului Egeeana.

Cand am luat legatura cu cercetatorii Papakitsos si Kenanidis, acestia avand in minte vechimea exagerata a tablitelor atot-vehiculata anterior, s-au exprimat ca nu ar fi scriere egeeana si nici legatura cu scrierile Egeene intrucat tablitele de la Tartaria sant mai vechi preced (scrierile Egeene).                               =============================================

ACUM SANT SIGUR,SI POT AFIRMA CA: 

1-TABLITELE AU VECHIMEA ULTERIOARA LUI 3.000BC, f.f.POSIBIL 2500-2000BC        Nota                                                                                                                                             Aceasta nu este o datare propriu-zisa a tablitelor, (acest lucru nemaifiind posibil),ci este o apreciere bazata exclusiv pe o analiza exhaustiva a semnelor.

2 – TABLITELE NU SANT CONTRAFACERI ORI FALSURI  

3- LOCUL DE ORIGINE A TABLITELOR: aria EGEEANA,Ciclade(?) dar mai sigur CRETA (sau chiar TARTARIA?/vezi analiza argilei)

4- IDENTITATEA SCRIBULUI: MINOAN= MIGRANT SUMERIAN STABILIT  IN CRETA, sau mai degraba URMAS AL UNUI NATIV SUMERIAN STABILIT IN CRETA OCUPATIE: MESERIAS ex.metalurg SAU PROSPECTOR/COMERCIANT   

5- “SCRIS”: “DE FACTURA SUMERIANA”                                                                                       Nota                                                                                                                                                           Scris intre ghilimele deoarece este proto-scriere,semnele fiind cel mai aproape de cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Exista indicii puternice ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde contine scris propriu-zis, de genul arhaic grec.

6- LIMBA , UN GEN DE “CREOLA (mai apropiata de sumeriana decat de orice alta limba?)

DAR RAMANE O PROBLEMA SI INCA UNA FOARTE MARE:                                                       CHIAR DACA PRIN EXTREM IDENTIFICAND SEMNELE, AM EXTRAGE ECHIVALENTUL IN SUNETE SAU CUVINTE, NU AM STI CE INSEAMNA, NECUNOSCAND LIMBA IN CARE AU FOST SCRISE.                                                                                                                                 ACEEASI PROBLEMA O AU CEI CARE LA ORA ACTUALA FAC MARI EFORTURI SA IDENTIFICE SCRISUL LINEAR A SI LIMBA CORESPONDENTA,MINOICA.

==================================================================            Acum dupa mine au ramas in mare doar doua posibilitati. Daca sant o faza incipienta de scris, ar putea fi,                                                                                                                                        – o reflectare ,exemplificare deci o productie locala Europeana a proto-scrierii sumeriene sau a a celei minoane-miceniene sau mai mult decat atat chiar o asemenea varianta locala de scris incipient.                                                                                                      – o reflectare grosiera (imitatie) a uneia din acestea de mai sus, si posibil continand in plus scris adevarat doar in jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde.

==================================================================             EXTRASE DIN LUCRARILE DOMNILOR EVANGELOS PAPAKITSOS si IANNIS KENANIDIS:

A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1 , Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Minoan_Sumerian.pdf

 

COMMENTARY Every script in the world always conforms to the special features of the language it is initially devised for, and every script always is precise enough in phonemically representing the language it is created for. It is clear that the Aegean scripts are syllabic of the CVtype (consonant-vowel); i.e., all signs represent syllables ending in a vowel only, with no consonant clusters. This means that the script was originally devised for a CV-type language, namely a language in which all consonants are followed by vowels. There are many such languages, a very well-known of them being the Japanese. When a script is devised for a CV-type language, it is naturally a CV-type syllabary, as it is actually the case with the Japanese kana syllabaries. A CV-type pure syllabary was never initially devised for any language other than a CV-type language. While today we know of many CV-type languages, all Greek dialects were (and remain) foreign to the CV pattern. Another linguistic direction is required [2]: “In contrast with mainland Greece, Cyprus and Crete in the 2nd millennium are both multilingual societies in which the different languages are written down. It is tempting to assume that this points to stronger links with the Near East than with Greece.” It is recognized by eminent Greek linguists that there was a linguistic substratum in the Aegean area (e.g., see [33][41]). Other proposals about an adstratum instead [42] do not change the essence of our argument. This substratum is not regarded as Indo-European (IE), based on the unknown etymology of plant-names and toponyms [33]. The Aegean scripts denote that a CVtype language was spoken by those who created them. None of the IE languages is of the CV-type. The mainland of Greece and of Anatolia was inhabited by people speaking IE languages. The existence of a Semitic language (e.g., Akkadian) is also very probable in Crete, but it is not of a CV-type either. All such proposals roughly correspond to all the different ethnic groups that may have inhabited Crete or retained merchant delegations there. None of them, though, spoke a CV-type language. Ancient Egyptian was not of the CV-type, if we judge from Coptic, from renderings of Ancient Egyptian in other languages and from the ancient Egyptian script itself. Egyptian was an AfroAsiatic language, and those languages are generally not of the CV-type. Consequently [9]: “Without doubt, the Minoans at the beginning of the second millennium did not ‘re-invent’ writing independently, even if they were well able to take their first steps in this direction without knowledge of the Mesopotamian or Egyptian systems. However, starting with ideas from elsewhere, they created an original and astonishingly uncomplicated system for recording the sounds of their language by means of signs.” So, the issue of identifying the language behind the Aegean scripts remains the same: all the languages around Aegean, which we know of hitherto, are incompatible to the CV-pattern. CV-type languages are usually agglutinative ones. Duhoux suggests that Linear-A is “agglutinative rather than conjugating”because of the high number of affixes it contains (in 59% of the words) compared to Linear-B (12% respectively) [43]. What we seek is a non-IE agglutinative language of those times (3rd millennium BC) to fit with the “kana” pattern of Linear-A/B and their predecessor. Olivier states that [9]: “A priori, no language attested in the third or second millennium from the eastern Mediterranean or its surrounding areas can be excluded … the languages spoken by people from the coasts of Asia Minor or Syro-Palestine must be favoured. … Between 3000/2600 and 1450, the period of the birth and development of Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A, … the introduction of a language known to us from elsewhere is unlikely.” The nearby agglutinative language of the 3rd millennium BC, well-studied and recorded, is the Sumerian. Additionally, the only highly civilized people close enough, speaking an agglutinative language well known to have CV-type phonotactics, were the Sumerians (or the bilingual Akkadian scribes / scholars because of the “sprachbund” [44][45]). Thus, the present research had been directed towards a comparative study for discovering any relation between the Sumerian language and the Aegean scripts. EVIDENCE Firstly, we will concentrate on some aspects of linguistic taxonomy and methodology before we proceed to the direct evidence of the last subsection (A Sample). A Protolinear Script There is a suggestion that Linear-A constitutes a linearization of the Akkadian cuneiform signs [22]. However, it is normal for a script to evolve from pictorial signs (as the Sumerian pre-cuneiform and the Aegean writing signs too) into non-recognizable forms (as the late cuneiform), and rarely the reverse. It has been recognized that Linear-B is not simply a derivative of Linear-A, just as the creation of the Aegean scripts does not constitute a simple process of evolution, from the Cretan Hieroglyphics to Linear-B [27][35]. There are Aegean inscriptions found in various places (Tel Haror, Tel Lachish, Samothrace and Troy) that both Linear-A and B scripts have to be taken into account for their interpretation [46]. Although there are several different theories for explaining this necessity, there is also the possibility of a Protolinear script [47], which both Linear-A/B evolved from, for conveying different languages. In other words, the Protolinear could be the parent of Linear-A and Linear-B, while the Cretan Hieroglyphic could be regarded mainly, but not exclusively [8], as the decorative and ritual form of that system for use especially on seals [48].The hypothesized Protolinear script consists of 120 syllabograms of the V and CV patterns, as they have been found in Linear-A/B scripts, one for each syllable of a dialect close to the Archaic Sumerian language. There are also a few signs of disyllabic nature. The signs are those that are common to both Linear-A and B scripts (62) and those that are exclusive to each syllabary. So, we have a script of simplified icons (signs) depicting items, where the phonetic value of each sign is related to the Archaic Sumerian word for the depicted item. Many of them are related to the associated signs of the Cretan Hieroglyphic, also to the Sumerian pictograms and sometimes to the cuneiform equivalents. A sample is presented in the next section, for the curious reader. One debatable feature of such a script would be the interpretation of the items depicted by the icons and another is the assignment of the phonetic value to each sign. THE METHODOLOGY                                                                                                                                We cannot recognize what an ancient sign depicted by simply looking at a modern hand copy of it in a list presenting a tentatively reconstructed syllabary and putting our imagination to work. To go to the pictorial origin, we have to see all forms of the letter in all related scripts, and observe carefully how objects are usually depicted in the Minoan art. We have to study, in addition, the logograms of Linear-A/B and the Cretan Hieroglyphic too, and also observe the tendencies of each script. When the hitherto unknown phonetic value of signs (e.g., /ru/, /to/) is discovered, then it is tested in the actual context of the signs and so confirms that it makes really good sense. It should be understood that the original script was pictographic as much as it was linear: every sign was a sketch readily recognizable by all as a common object, the whole name of which was instantly recalled by all speakers of the language of the nation that created the script. The comparative study was conducted in parallel including four factors: § the depicted object and its sign of the Aegean script, § the relation and similarity of the previous sign to equivalent Sumerian ones, § the assigned phonetic value of the sign of the Aegean script, § the similarity of the previous phonetic value to Sumerian words denoting the depicted object. At least three factors should match in order to confirm the relation. Following the above mentioned methodology, the entire set of Linear-A/B signs can be identified as monosyllabic (rarely disyllabic) Sumerian words naming the depicted objects, noting that in Sumerian language a closing consonant of a monosyllabic word (i.e., CV-C) was not pronounced unless it was followed by a vowel in the case of compounding or affixation. Thus, in all the following examples, the closing consonant is separated by a dash. This is a predominant rule of the Sumerian phonology that facilitated the process of creating the syllabary by using the rebus principle. The rebus principle is merely the use of a picture to stand not for the object depicted, but for the name of the depicted object, even in context where the sound of that name stands for something totally different than the object shown. There is an important rule that always goes together with this principle: the whole name of the depicted object is used and not a part of the name (unlike the acrophonic principle). The rebus principle had been invented by the Sumerians, according to Fischer [4], whose influence expanded to Nile, Iran, Indus Valley and maybe to the Balkans (as he suspects, and it is argued too herein, through the Aegean scripts). The phonology of the used words is of a dialect close to, but simpler than, the Archaic Sumerian (the reconstruction is explained, together with the transcription system, in [49])……………………………

DISCUSSION                                                                                                                                   Based on the very small number of different handwritings that are recognized on Linear-B tablets of Knossos and Pylos (111 of the so called “Hands”), Hooker [54] suggested the existence of a scribal guild, favored also by Finkelberg [46]. This is a reasonable explanation for the observed incongruity of Linear-B to the phonotactics of the Mycenaean Greek language, provided we deduce that the scribes were non-Greeks, and their script was originally devised from a nonGreek language. This can also explain why they did not even slightly enhance the script in order to represent the Greek language somewhat more precisely, for their own convenience, just as the Cypriot Greeks did with the Cypriot Syllabary. This could also be the reason why Linear-B was completely forgotten when the Achaean palaces declined, so the non-Greek scribes working there could not find employment. Then, no documented writing system was used in Greece for a period of about 350 years, after which the Greeks adopted a non-Greek script again: the Phoenician alphabet………………………..

The notion of a scribal guild can be extended in the past, for the creation of Linear-A and the Cretan Hieroglyphics, as a minimalistic reasonable assumption (although many evidence regarding culture and religion indicate a much stronger oriental relationship that its presentation is beyond the scope of this article). A relatively small number of Sumerian seals-makers and scribes could have been hired, from the communities of the Levant [55], in order to create the necessary infrastructure for the development of the contemporary commercial best practices. They were, after all, the original inventors of such practices with a long tradition and expertise at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Even for the case of bilingual Akkadian scribes, the choice of the Sumerian language for devising the Aegean scripts would be a significant advantage, because monosyllabic words could be easily found in order to match common or culturally important objects for the signs of a syllabary. The creation of these scripts is a distinct trade-mark compared to the rest (Eastern Mediterranean) of that era, which is an ever-lasting desirable commercial asset. Once the Minoan authorities / society had decided to develop their commerce, both domestically and overseas, they would inevitably have to deal with the contemporary international best-practices (i.e., sealing of goods and keeping records). For example, about the usage of clay sealings [9]: “As in the Near East such objects generally served to secure the integrity of the contents of various types of container.” About the usage of scripts, it is suggested that Linear-A conveys a Semitic language (as a lingua franca) written by Luwian scribes in order to adhere to international standards [22]. In this respect, generally and diachronically, there are only two options: § to develop the required practices from scratch, which is usually a costly and slow trial-anderror process or § to hire professionals, being experts in the required practices. The latter option is mutually beneficial. The employer acquires the proper practices quickly and safely, while the employees assure their prosperity by having the monopoly of know-how. Who possessed such know-how at the end of the 3rd millennium BC? Sumerians proved to be excellent traders and colonists throughout the entire Near East, even at the end of the Uruk period [56]. According to Kramer [57]: “…by the third millennium BC, there is good reason to believe that Sumerian culture and civilization had penetrated, at least to some extent, as far East as India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as Ancient Ethiopia and as far North as the Caspian”. Crete was known to Mesopotamia at least since the era of Sargon the Great, who lived approximately between the 24th and the 23rd centuries BC [58]. On the tablets of Mari (18th century BC) it is stated that “the hand of Sargon” had reached places beyond the “upper sea” (Mediterranean) as far as the island of copper (Cyprus) and Kaptara. The latter is regarded as the most ancient reference to Crete, “Kaptara” being its Akkadian name [14]. The name for Mediterranean in Sumerian is “ab-ba igi-nim”, found in many texts, e.g. in the inscription on the statue of Gudea (Period: Lagash II, ca. 2200-2100 BC): “a-ab-ba igi-nim-ta (from the Upper Sea = Mediterranean) a-ab-ba sig-gasze3” (to the Lower Sea = Persian Gulf). Even with some chronological inaccuracy, the previous period (24th to 18th centuries BC) adequately covers the creation time of the Aegean scripts. What could be the “hand” of Sargon the Great other than merchant stations and/or delegations, at least? Nevertheless, both linguistic and non-linguistic pieces of evidence, that will be presented shortly, indicate a longer and deeper Sumerian influence on the Aegean civilization of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.

CONCLUSION

 In conclusion, the inadequacy of the Linear-A/B scripts to convey properly the phonology of the Mycenaean Greek, or the other languages proposed in Crete, is attributed herein to the origins of those syllabaries. Notably, considering the conveyed languages by Linear-A, all proposals are based on the comparative study of toponyms and anthroponyms or divinity names. Such a study, though, is not necessary when an Akkadian name is written in Akkadian cuneiform or a Luwian one in a relevant script. The Aegean scripts are acting like a distorting filter for the languages that they convey, making their identification even more difficult. Such a distortion is more or less always expected in the conveyance of words transmitted through a foreign writing system. Based on the previous linguistic evidence and conditions, it has been suggested that a very suitable candidate language as the base for creating the Aegean scripts could be the Sumerian. Being an agglutinative language, it both exhibits the matching syllabic pattern of the CV-type, and it can justify the phonetic values of the Linear-A/B and Cypro-Minoan signs as well, through the rebus principle. It is also suggested that the formation of each Aegean script could have been conducted in the late 3rd millennium BC by means of absorption from a parent script, named Protolinear, being created by a scribal guild of Sumerian linguistic origin.

 

A Decipherment of the Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro (Crete) Ioannis K. Kenanidis1* and Evangelos C. Papakitsos file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Kenanidis432017ARJASS36988deciphermentofinscription.pdf

 

  1. INTRODUCTION In 1958, Marinatos [1] reported the existence of an inscription from Psychro (Crete) that belonged to the private collection of Dr. S. Giamalakis (Fig. 1). It was engraved on a piece of stone, the shape of which showed that it was made to fit into an architectural construction, namely into an empty triangle formed over a door of a very small structure. Based essentially on Kritzas [2], Brown [3] attempted to prove that the inscription is a modern fake, his main argument being that it contains what appear to be Minoan syllabic signs (those three at the bottom of the inscription), that is signs of a script supposed to have been extinct 900 years before the inscription that was dated to 300 BC; another one of Kritzas’ arguments is that the inscription is on baked clay and not stone – something that has nothing to do with the language of the inscription anyway. Kenanidis & Papakitsos [4] have presented all arguments proving that the inscription is genuine. Those who discarded the inscription as a fake have relieved themselves of the obligation to interpret it, however, as we hold that the inscription is genuine, we must interpret it here in accordance to all our previous research.

First by Marinatos [1] and later on by Brown [5] and Duhoux [6], the inscription was attributed to an Eteocretan language. Numerous attempts have been made to interpret the text. The proposed languages included Hittite [7] and Semitic [8,9], even Slavic [10]! The shortcomings of each one of the previous attempts were reasonably exposed by Brown [11], although the latter implies that there was only one non-Greek language spoken in Crete (contrary to the linguistic evidence which makes it clear that more than one non-Greek languages were spoken in Crete [12,13,14]). Thus, to all those readers interested in the Eteocretan languages of ancient Crete, a novel approach of decipherment is presented herein, for the first time based on the Cretan Protolinear script theory [12] that suggests the affinity of the Psychro inscription to the Sumerian dialect of Crete. It will be demonstrated that the application of the Sumerian language for this decipherment provides a coherent and meaningful interpretation of the text on this inscription.                          2. DECIPHERMENT GUIDELINES

Knowing that the conventionally called Eteocretan inscriptions convey more than one language, we had to determine which language is conveyed by the Psychro inscription. One factor that makes this difficult is that the inscription language is for the most part rendered in a script foreign to the language conveyed, so the phonemes are not expected to be rendered with precision [4]. Another difficulty is that even when the language is determined, we still have to understand the specific features of that language for the given date and place. These difficulties have been overcome by following the latest linguistic evidence about the affinity of the Aegean scripts to Sumerian [15,16,17,18] and especially by confirming the existence of a Cretan Protolinear script [12,19,20,21,22,23, 24]. It is exactly the following three facts that made others regard the inscription as fake or unreadable, which opened our way to read it:1) We were facilitated by the fact that this inscription is well preserved, with not even one letter missing or unreadable. 2) The three Minoan syllabograms on the inscription clearly point to the fact that the whole inscription is in the language of those who originally created the Minoan civilization along with the Cretan Protolinear script. 3) It was impossible for others to explain how the Minoan script survived until 300 BC, while that very fact confirms the existence of the Cretan Protolinear script: As explained in previous works, the Cretan Protolinear script was created by the Minoans, who were Sumerian settlers [12,20,21,22]; the Cretan Protolinear script in the form of Linear A and Linear B was used by all the different nations that inhabited Crete and the Aegean. However, in the hands of non-Minoans (i.e. Hands of nonSumerians) the Cretan Protolinear script was distorted as time passed, and eventually forgotten, because the script was difficult for nonMinoans (=non-Sumerians). On the other hand, in the hands of Minoan Sumerians the Cretan Protolinear script could not be significantly distorted or forgotten, no matter how many generations would pass. This is because the Cretan Protolinear script (henceforth in this work referred to simply as “Protolinear”) was phonetic and pictographic at the same time: every phonetic (syllabic) sign was a sketch of a readily recognizable object in the Minoan Sumerian culture. So, for those who had Minoan Sumerian as their first language, every syllabic sign had the native name of the thing that the sign depicted, and they always knew what the signs depicted. They could not alter the shape of the signs lest they would be no more recognizable and if a sign was not recognizable it could not have a native (Minoan Sumerian) name, so it could not have a phonetic value. This is why the Protolinear script could not be altered in Minoan hands; while for non-Minoans there was no connection between depicted object and phonetic use of the Protolinear signs. Therefore, the Protolinear script survived unaltered as long as the Minoan nation existed. And we know that the Minoan Sumerian language, as other non-Greek languages spoken in Crete, was spoken not only until 300 BC but also much later [21], because those populations were relatively isolated geographically and socially. The Sumerian language in Mesopotamia remained in use as a classical and hieratic language until about the year 100 AD [25]. It was easy for a language to be kept for many centuries among different languages when there was no obligatory schooling and no mass media. An example is the many languages mentioned in the Bible, Acts 2, all spoken during the 1st century AD, including Elamite, a language no less old than Sumerian, and languages “of Mesopotamian people” among which were Sumerian and Akkadian – all those languages, when the eastern part of the Roman empire was rapidly Hellenised and the empire’s official language was Latin. We shall also briefly mention what is detailed in [21], that even after the pre-Greek languages were forgotten, they left some impressive phonological traits in some dialects of Crete and other islands: the most outstanding being a retroflex “l”; also, a strong tendency to eliminate consonant clusters, and the emphatic pronunciation of some stop consonants, to mention only a few traits that have been left from Sumerian. Apart from linguistic evidence, there is an abundance of cultural instances that show the influence and lingering of the Minoan Civilization even through the Classical times. The comparison of the Bronze Age Aegean (culturally Minoan) wall paintings to the Etruscan ones reveals a remarkable resemblance [26]. Those who have an idea of the Minoan religious symbols and ideas will be impressed by the coins of Tenedos island (Fig. 2) minted in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Such coins are presented here because they most loudly prove that the Minoan Sumerian culture and religious ideas were totally alive in some Greek city states inhabited by Greeks of Minoan ancestry at least until the 4th century BC, while those symbols are a mystery for modern archaeologists as they were for the other ancient Greeks as well, who could only make up some totally fanciful and frivolous interpretations [27,28,29]. To be serious with the interpretation, on the right of Fig. 2, the coin’s verso depicts a double axe which is the most renowned religious symbol of the Minoans. The double axe symbolised the power and the duality of God An, the supreme deity of both the Minoans [12] and the Mesopotamian Sumerians [30]. The double axe symbol was also used as a very common syllabic (phonetic) sign in the Aegean scripts [12,20,21,23] and it is present, although not so common in the Sumerian (preCuneiform) pictography [17,22]. On the coin’s recto, the double-face head (manly face left, woman’s face right) clearly symbolised the same duality of the deity (masculine-feminine, yin-yang Kenanidis and Papakitsos; ARJASS, 4(3): 1-10, 2017;as we would say in modern terms). Although this representation can be interpreted as Zeus and Hera (or another mythological couple) as many scholars speculate [29], yet such a dual head representation has never been seen elsewhere in the entire Antiquity: it was a non Greek symbol that surprised the Greeks, but it was quite ordinary for the Minoans who saw a dual deity everywhere and represented the duality of the deity by all their religious symbols. Since such important Minoan Sumerian cultural elements were kept alive in a Greek city state during the 5th and 4th century BC, we cannot find any justification for considering strange a Minoan inscription in Crete of the year 300 BC. We understand that the Psychro inscription (Fig. 1) spoke about something related to building and dedicating a small shrine, because of the stone’s triangular shape that was obviously made to fit into a triangle formed over a door of a small structure …………………..

  1. CONCLUSION
  2. It has been demonstrated so far that the Psychro inscription can be meaningfully deciphered through the conservative Sumerian dialect of Crete, spoken by the the scribe’s ancestors who had invented the Cretan Protolinear syllabary.This particular scribe used the Greek alphabet for the most part of this inscription, because it was the writing system known by all people in Crete and around the Aegean, and also because the Greek alphabet was the only available writing system proper for writing on hard material, and the only system actually used for stone inscriptions. On the other hand, the Cretan Protolinear syllabary was used almost exclusively on unbaked clay tablets, and it was only suited for writing on soft material; still, the word “cətiləə”, being so important culturally and ritually as explained, had to be written in the Cretan Protolinear that was the national script, hailing from a most ancient tradition, for the person who wrote the inscription. It is something analogous to using some Greek phrases in the Orthodox Eucharist ceremony conducted in a non-Greek language. Although it is only this stone that we know of the whole structure built, the inscription was true when it said “this shrine will not ever collapse”: it is the shrine of the Minoan civilization.

 

SINTEZA si CONCLUZII rezultate din cercetarea tablitelor de la Tartaria

February 2, 2019

Aceaste lucrari, sant un omagiu adus cercetatorilor:                                                                    Zsofia Torma si Nicolae Vlassa care au intuit, apoi pe baze stiintifice au indicat corect (poate in mai mare masura decat oamenii de stiinta actuali) natura semnelor si varsta tablitelor.

zsofia_torma_01vlassatartaria

Acesta este rezultatul unei cercetari personale minutioase pe parcursul a circa 11 ani. Pe scurt, a fost atat o aventura atat palpitanta, iesita din comun, careia nici sa fi vrut nu ma puteam sustrage, cat si, constat acum, consumatoare de resurse interne adica extenuanta ori istovitoare.

UNELE DIN CONCLUZIILE EXPRIMATE PAR SOCANTE, PENTRU CA SE ABAT MAI MULT SAU MAI PUTIN DE LA CURSUL COMUN SI DE LA LA CEEA CE ERA STIUT PANA ACUM.

Pentru fiecare concluzie, la cerere pot furniza argumentatia mea plus inca altele minimum 3 ale altor cercetatori.

Argumentatia mea are la baza o cercetare profunda si  in amanuntime (analitica si sintetica) a scrisului, din care usor se poate vedea contributia personala.                    Nota                                                                                                                                                   Fiecare concluzie la care nu am paternitatea absoluta este marcata cu *.Cele care sant numai ale mele, cu ***.                                                                                                                              Am avut intentia sa le enumar intr-un soi de ordine (dar nu stricta) descrescatoare  dupa criteriul sa zicem al importantei aspectelor, dar de fapt enumerarea lor dupa un anumit criteriu este mai putin importanta:                                                                                                                                  ————————————————————————————

  1. VARSTA TABLITELOR ESTE DEPARTE DE DIFERITELE ESTIMARI FACUTE DE DIFERITI OAMENI DE STIINTA PANA ACUM, IN SENSUL CA POT FI INCA MAI NOI.*   ACOLO, IN SITUL ARHEOLOGIC S-A PETRECUT CEVA INGROZITOR DE RAU, SA-I ZICEM “ACCIDENT ARHEOLOGIC”, AVAND CONSECINTE PE MASURA (IN PRIVINTA DATARII SPRE EXEMPLU) ***                                                                                                        ————————————————————————                                                        2. TABLITELE NU AU FOST SCRISE DE UN NATIV SUMERIAN.                       JUMATATE DIN SEMNE DOAR REFLECTA SCHITAT SEMNELE SUMERIENE*                                                ——————————————————————————-                                          3. TABLITELE NU AU FOST SCRISE DE UN NATIV AL TARTARIEI SAU TURDASULUI.                                                                                                                                —————————————————————————————-                             4. TABLITELE AR FI PUTUT FI SCRISE DE UN COMERCIANT SAU MESERIAS  stabilit in zona, dar cu sanse mari PROVENIND DIN ARIA EGEEANA (Ciclade,Creta ?).(vasul din alabastru, idolul de tip “fara fata” si bratara Spondylus indica/reflecta  zona Cicladelor)*                                                                                                                          ———————————————————–                                                                 5. TABLITELE CONTIN SEMNE CARE ARATA O INFLUENTA PUTERNICA SI DIRECTA DINSPRE ORIENTUL APROPIATEVENTUAL CHIAR SUMER. *                                      ——————————————————————————                                         6.  TABLITELE PREZINTA SEMNE SI ICOANE CARE AU UN ECHIVALENT IN SCRIERILE EGEENE (Hieroglifica Cretana, LinearA,LinearB si eteocretana)  *** Nota                                                                                                                                        EVANGELOS PAPAKITSOS si IANNIS KENANIDIS au aratat doar influenta scrierii sumeriene asupra celei Egeene in general, fara ca sa ia in vizor ori sa exemplifice cu tablitele de la Tartaria                                                                                                         —————————————————————–                                                                         7. DEASEMENEA AM GASIT SIMILARITATI CU SCRIERILE ANATOLIENE in general (in special CARIANA)***                                                                                                  ——————————————————————-                                                  8.  TABLITELE CONTIN O AMESTECATURA DE SEMNE, DIN 3 TIPURI/CATEGORII DIFERITE CARE SE PARE CA NU AU O LEGATURA DIRECTA SI INTERNA INTRE ELE, SI DE ACEEA ESTE IMPOSIBIL SA FIE INTERPRETATE UNITAR IN SENSUL IN CARE SE CITESTE UN MESAJ CARE ARE O CONTINUITATE.***                                                     ———————————————-                                                                                               9.  O PARTE DIN CONCLUZIILE MELE COINCID CU CELE ALE ALTOR CERCETATORI, DAR DEVIN FOARTE MULTE (daca le numaram ale fiecaruia),CAND VINE VORBA DE ASIROLOGII A.A.VAIMAN SI RUMEN KOLEV                                                   ——————————————————————————–                                                10. ANALIZANDINTERPRETARILE “SUMERIENE” ALE ALTOR CERCETATORI, AM GASIT IDENTIFICARI GRESITE, SEMNE CARE NU AU FOST GASITE etc. PE CARE LE-AM NOTAT SI PUS LA PUNCT. ASTFEL LUCRAREA MEA SE SITUEAZA FARA SA DAU DOVADA DE FALSA MODESTIE CA FIIND UNA DE CEL MAI INALT NIVEL.           ———————————————————————-                                                          11. TABLITELE PER GLOBAL NU CONTIN UN SCRIS PROPRIU-ZIS, IN SENSUL ASTEPTAT DE PUBLIC, ADICA TOATE TABLITELE SA TRANSMITA IMPREUNA UN MESAJ COERENT SAU MAI PUTIN.CONTIN IDEOGRAME,LOGOGRAME SI SILABOGRAME CARE SE INTERPRETEAZA SI NU SE CITESC PROPRIU-ZIS, ICOANE CARE AU AVUT O ENORMA SI IMPORTANTA SEMNIFICATIE IN TRECUT SI PE O ARIE LARGA.***                                                                                                                                ———————————————————————————————————-             12. TOTUSI EXISTA MAI MULTE INDICII CA TOCMAI JUMATATEA DE SUS A TABLITEI ROTUNDE CONTINE SCRIS (arhaic Grec).                                                  SPUN “TOCMAI” PENTRU CA  INTAMPLATOR ACEA JUMATATE ERA ASCUNSA PRIVITORULUI (fiind acoperita de cea dreptunghiulara), PROBABIL NU FARA UN ROST ANUME. ***                                                                                                                         ——————————————————————————————————–                        13.INDICIUL CARE IMI SUGEREAZA CA TABLITELE NU SANT SUMERIENE SI NU DEPASESC 2.000 B.C. ESTE PREZENTA FORMEI SPECIFICE A LITEREI CHET/HETH CARE ARATA O INFLUENTA SEMITICA.***