Archive for the ‘PROTO-CUNEIFORM’ Category

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 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…

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… 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                                                       “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/  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 testing, as to check in wich measure, or how close the supposed Tartaria tablet writing goes toward, or fitting 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 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, the Minoans were early sumerian migrants.

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

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.

See A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the … https://www.researchgate.net/…/273885539_A_Comparative_Linguistic_Study_about_t…A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts.

Minoan Sumerian | Giannhs Kenanidhs – Academia.edu http://www.academia.edu/11423494/Minoan_Sumerian

Aegean scripts used this sign only as volume units, but HORIZONTALY ! Image from RICHARD VALLANCE Blog : https://linearbknossosmycenae.files.wordpress.com

  1. Those 3 signs, could be (as in sumerian) number 3 or 30.                                                    (Rumen Kolev http://www.su -varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf interpretation:”3 months”)                                                           ——————————————————————————–
  2. Close to these signs, downward, we have sign No.1 as ear of cereal
  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

Together those 2 signs,could be interpreted as                                                                                        “3 /volume measures of some sort of grain”(gr.sitos) ?”                                                      (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”   =====================================================

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/                                                                      *31, SA, perhaps a logogram for *SA-SA-ME?;

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

sign SA, :”PAID

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

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”:

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

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.

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. ICON RELATED EITHER TO LABRYS AND ITS HOUSE, LABYRINTHOS                                                                                                                                        (Rumen Kolev:”temple”,good!) ——————————————————————————————

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  sign “AN

                                                                 

And sum.AN:”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) ??

Final interpretation of the sign: “GOD, HEAVEN” ,”SKY-GOD”                                                    (Rumen Kolev rendering:”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!

Final reading of the sign: MA, beeing rebus for A-MA, MOTHER-GODDESS                                   (Rumen Kolev rendering:”bull Enlil”)                                                                                        ————————————————

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.

And downward we have the very icon of  ruller Minos the DOUBLE-AX shape,

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,

AN OFFERING, SACRIFICE on THE SHRINE,TEMPLE TO THE MOTHER-GODDESS AND TO THE SUN-BULL-GOD.                                                                                                                    —————————————————————————–     

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.***

Sumerian influence on Aegean writing

January 14, 2019

From Sumer,Indus Valley, in Anatolia, Cyprus,Crete,Sicily,Sardinia to North America (northern Pacific coast indian tribes), the metal ingost had all-over in ancient times (Bronze Age ),the same physical shape:                                                                            “OXHIDE”

From Who invented the oxhide ingot shape? Meluhha artisans. An archaemetallurgical journey along the Maritime Tin Route.                                                                               http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2017/04/who-invented-oxhide-ingot-shape-meluhha.html

                                                                           The large oxhide ingots were signified by ḍhālako a large metal ingot

From https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Oxhide_ingot.html

                                                                                                    Copper ingot from Zakros, Crete, displayed at the Heraklion Archaeological Museum.

1.IN THE FOLOWINGS, I WILL SHOW SOME SIMILIRATIES OF AEGEAN SIGNS WTH THOSE SUMERIAN-ONES; such relation was noticed also not so succesfully I expecte by Iannis Kenanidis and Evangelos Papakitsos.

2. Following the transmission of meaning is another matter. Early after proto-cuneiform phase the sumerian writing evolved as one sign do add other meanings that original pictographic-one. At the point that the original meaning was lost even by sumerians!    So, if signs were transmitted, one reasonable expect, that only the shape was some-how mantained, no talking that in another distant place (Aegean) to acquire another, different meaning. So, regarding the meanings I only notice some aspects, (in the limits of my understanding), not sustain an transmition of meaning.                                                        =======================================================

First Tartaria-sumerian Aegean triplet:

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

1.<metal ingot?<Pr-cuneif, sign KU < 2.KU:”metal,silver,shiny” > 3.Aegean sign JA and PA3 

1.https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html  Sign KU~a

sign Ga2;

INDUS SCRIPT , http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/04/bronze-age-glyphs-and-writing-in.html                                                                                                                               “Impressions of two cylinder seals (Sumer) and glyph of ‘ingot’. The person at the feet of the eagle-winged person carries a (metal) dagger on his left-hand, clearly demonstrating the link with this metalware catalog.Note the one-horned bull below the person who has his foot on mountain-summit.                                                                                                        Sumerian sign for the term ZAG ‘purified precious’. The ingot had a hole running through its length Perhaps a carrying rod was inserted through this hole.

From http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/04/indus-script-16-inscriptions-with.html

Seal stamp m-308 Mohenjo-daro (DK 11794) Hieroglyph: Three strokes connecting two linear strokes: dula ‘two’ Rebus:dul ‘cast metal’ PLUS kolmo ‘three’ Rebus: kolimi ‘smithy, forge’ Thus forge for cast metal

3. From http://www.kairatos.com.gr/linear1.htm See signs JA and PA.

.

Fromhttps://www.minoanatlantis.com/End_Minoan_Writing.php                                        See Linear A sign AB56:

———————————————————————-

http://www.oocities.org/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm                   K?A                                                                                                                                            The Sumerian sign (Jaritz #458) depicts a ‘tubular basket’; a variant, #458a, tapers toward the top; both have top-covers; both presumably and read ga2 (among others). Another recorded reading for it is pisan, which means ‘basket’ but perhaps also ‘*shallow tray’.

An archaic variant form for Sumerian sign above (Jaritz #458), Jaritz #458a, looks very much as if it could be the ‘head’ without the hair and neck we see in Jaritz #15 under K?XA; and therefore might be a sign for ‘jaw’; but it also may be just another shape of ‘basket’. As mentioned below under K?XA, the most promising prospect for ‘jaw’ in Sumerian is ga14, a reading of Jaritz #15 that is currently without an assigned meaning. I believe the the idea of ‘jaw’ provided the prototype and nomenclature for a ‘shallow basket tray’ but there is no trace of this meaning (‘jaw’) for this Sumerian sign

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

Second Tartaria-Sumerian-Aegean triplet:

                                                     See in the lowest row, from L>to> R: 2-nd and last signs

1.sum.pr-cuneif sign ZAG < 2.sum.ZAG:”the shine of metals; boundary, border, district’, ” > 3.Aegean sign A,Labrys,?Labyrinthos?

  1. From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html                        Sign ZAG~a

and sign ZAG~c  sign GA’AR:

GA’AR= GAR                                                                                                                                       From https://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/cdlj2012_002.pdf                                                   The sign GAR was used, thus, in order to denote all cereal products counted bisexagesimally, that is, virtually all barley
product rations except beer.2. Akkadian called Sumerian – Sumerian Dictionary – Turkic World s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/…/SumerDictionaryEn.ht…                                          SUMERIAN DICTIONARY. Links … Common Sumerian words for magical purposes ….. Holy of Holies, BARAGGAL … Metals, ZAG (the shine of metals).

Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2013/PAPVB_13/um/…/Halloran_version_3.pdf            (derives from zag, ‘boundary, border, district’, just as þúb relates to gùb). zeþ[SAL.ÁŠ.

3. From https://sites.google.com/site/raghavg602/economic-life                                                 

 see Cretan hieroglyphic signs 042 and *175

From https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/labrys/

So this shape could reflect:                                                                                                               the shine of metals > double-axe.labrys, but also

boundary,border,district> place of  the other underground sumerian’s Sun,NERGAL and at Aegeans, the place of Minotaur , in fact place of Sun-Bull-God (labyrinthos)

Proto-cuneiform sign for house, temple “AB” has the close sign: https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nergal                                                                                      Nergal seems to be in part a solar deity, sometimes identified with Shamash, but only representative of a certain phase of the sun.

Minotaur – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur                                                     In Greek mythology, the Minotaur is a mythical creature portrayed in Classical times with the … In Crete, the Minotaur was known by the name Asterion, a name shared with Minos’ foster-father.   ………                                                                                                                Some modern mythologists regard the Minotaur as a solar personification and a Minoan adaptation of the Baal-Moloch of the Phoenicians.

He dwelt at the center of the Labyrinth

Asterion (/əˈstɪriən/GreekἈστερίων, gen.: Ἀστερίωνος, literally “starry“) or Asterius (/əˈstɪriəs/Ἀστέριος)

http://www.unmuseum.org/minot.htm                                                                                        However, they have found what looks like a labyrinth. The labyrinth wasn’t built in a cave below the palace, though. It was the palace.

labbyrinth, in fact was somebody’s house: “house,temple” =====================================

This is Mr. Kenanidis and Papakitsos aproach:

So Mr. Kenanidis and Papakitsos, no double-axe !, even the sign is like, see above “signify all barley product rations”                         ================================================================

Apropos of above sign 57 (Linear B LA32),                                                                                    (Only sumerian -Aegean:

sumerian GA2 <> Aegean JA Sumerian sign GA2~a3                                                                     from : https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

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

December 5, 2018

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

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

Enigma Tablitelor de La Tartaria – Iuliu Adrian Paul – Scribd

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

https://vdocuments.mx › Category Documents

 

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

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

From      STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHIC
AND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                       3 EXISTENCE OF AN ARCHAIC SCRIPT IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE: A LONG LASTING
QUERELLE by Marco Merlini
3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossos 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 4, 2018

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

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

From Minoan language Blog/ Andras Zeke

Mycenaean-measurement-systems

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

units-of-mesurement-in-mycenaean-linear-b

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

are-mycenaean-linear-b-fractions-fractions-or-something-else

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10-3-11_calendar


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

URGE MOISTENING/ (rain) !!