Archive for the ‘PROTO-WRITING’ Category


February 6, 2019




The very begining was in ‘61, when at Tartaria village, site LUNCA, in unclear circumstances was unearthed a group of artefacts.Their exact or relative position is even now an enigma.Anyways the first wrong step was to atribute the same origin,age and culture to entire bunch.                                                                                  But only the bone’s age was determined with accuracy (5.300B.C.)                                   After this bone age determination, in an optimistic exuberance burst, this 5.300 B.C. age was atributed to all artefacts. (mainly by Romanian scientists an italian Marco Merlini). Soon, later on, some foreign archaeologists realised that something is wrong.   This given age seemed too old (from artefacts/20pcs., and writing analisis) .                                     Now begun an array of given ages. Note that some of artefacts pertain indeed to Vinca Culture! For few artefacts and the tablets, luckily all somwhere around 2.750 -2.500 B.C. :

From  Chapter 3 “Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A ……/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_E… …… “presupposing they belonged to much later, to the Coţofeni cultural horizon”               me: (3.500-2.500B.C.)

From Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis            “2900-2500 BC as the anchor evidences (Dumitrescu 1969a: 92, 99-100, 588-589)”.

(Maybe N.Vlassa in his way was close-by as before all, to advance an age around 2.800 BC.

From Chapter 3 “Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A ……/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_E…   tablets from about 2900-2700 BC (Vlassa 1976: 33) to 2500 BC (Hood 1967: 110)

From Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis “the Tartaria tablets as Cotofeni finds (G.I. Georgiev and V.I. Georgiev 1969). … e.g. Petresti, Baden-Kostolac or Cotofeni

The Romanian conservative group maintained 5.300 B.C. for all artefacts.                 My recollection is that due of sustaining tablet’s age same as of the bones, Mr. Marco Merlini , baptised deceassed woman “Lady of Tartaria”.He imagined that this lady (wrote the tablets?) used them in religious rituals beeing a high esteemed person in comunity, and kind of priestess. Attention, all over the World no one artefact carring pre-writing was found before 3.300 B.C.                                

THE REAL AGE OF THE TABLETS WAS NOT DETERMINED (tablets were put in a kiln,and carbon was degraded) AND CANNOT BE DETERMINED ANYMORE                          …………Until a new scientific method will be discovered, there is no chance for exact,real age determination.    For the tablets there is no other way to determine whatever you want than signs analisis.

Out of some romanians and Marco Merlini, most of foreign archaelogists and all sumerologists, give for the tablets an maximum-maximorum age of 3.200 B.C.but most of them around 2750.

Now I am asking you : how could a person deceased at 5.300 BC to write or use some tablets wich were made in 3.200 or 2750 B.C.E?

Now 5.300-3.200=2.100 5300-2750=2.550

After priestess died, passed 2.100 years or maybe 2.550 till the tablets were written.Even if great-grandchildrens had the clay passed another (2.100-3×40):40=50 generations to be written !   Then the deceased could be in her spare time anything she wanted lady-shaman/witch or priestes. But don’t know for sure because she had no at least these very tablets in her hands to perform rituals with them.But scientists,unlike to to take the work slow and steady, with caution, rushed with astounding figures. World media was filled with “the oldest writing in the World” (of course writing before Sumer)                                                                                   —————————————————————————-                        It seems that the raw reality is pushing toward an quasi-sumerian writing on the tablets (not sumerian proper,but sumerian-like).This sumerian-like writing was introduced in Europe by sumerians, in Crete.The greek top-level researchers  EVANGELOS PAPAKITSOS si IANNIS KENANIDIS, hypothesises that early sumerian migrants were first minoans.Also their folowers/relatives in crete were also of the same stock, minoans. Greek researchers that even Aegean people had the capacity to invent a writing, they took an allready mede one.The sumerian proto-cuneiform signs were at the origin of Aegean Proto-Linear script.This script is at the base of all other folowing Aegean writings as Cretan hierogliphic, Linear a ,cipro-minoan and Linear B.                                                 ———————————————————                           You maybe know that the language and writing of minoans it is inthe course of deciphering.Bu the greatest dificulty or task are not signs, wich most of them are alike that Linear B-ones, but the language.No clear family language was found for sure for minoan language.It show characteristics as Luwian has of a banana-language.This means that there are repeting phonemes like in word ba-NA-NA.Exemple minoan Goddess A-SA-SA-ra.The above mentioned scientists searched for a language wich has agluttinative caracter (glued phonemes).Glued phonemes of the type CV(consonant-vowel)The only close-by language found was sumerian.                                    ———————————————————————

So my result research finding is that’s why  the Tartaria tablets has an type of writing by far much close to sumerian (as first noticed and atested top-level assyrologistas as:Adam Falkenstein,A.A.Vaiman,Rumen Kolev, and many others; and me also).

So it seems that the Tartaria tablets writing is coming from Aegean area,much sure Crete,where an writing and language close to sumerian-ones was used. But this not happened before 2.500 B.C. (oldest age for the oldest Agean type of writing=Cretan hierogliphic) So with indulgence and adding an securing time, this kind of writing CANNOT BE OLDER THAN 2.500 B.C. SAME FOR THE AGE OF TARTARIA TABLETS.In this case, the void span between the living “TARTARIA LADY” and the age of the tablets could be 2.800 YEARS !                                               NOTE THAT THE CRETAN HIEROGLIPHIC USED ICONS,AND ONLY FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES,AND WAS NOT YET A WRITING!                                  Linear A is a writing system used by the Minoans (Cretans) from 2500 to 1450 BC. Along with Cretan hieroglyphic, it is one of two undeciphered writing systems used by ancient Minoan and peripheral peoples. Linear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization.

So imagine a Lady wich not existed, (at least in the time when tablets were made) is worth of S.F. So inventing a lady can loosing the trust in science and scientists.

It is understandable that the tablets could contain something old, relating to ancient religions and miths. But the tablets were encircled by a mythical aura.So a myth around an object wich contain myths.Mith in a myth.

But relative to “Lady of Tartaria”,an fictional  person, a priestess(?) was created and constant artificialy inflated. Not beeing enough a entire story was constructed around Lady of Tartaria. A story good for a best-seller,or mooving-picture.But not good at all for science wich was not pushed forward with this contribution, no one milimeter, but rather pushed back in the dark of nescience.



February 5, 2019


Parca denominarea “Lady of Tartaria” apartine cercetatorului italian Marco Merlini.       Dansul bine a remarcat, ca a existat inainte de Sumer si Egypt o civilizatie Vinca extrem de dezvoltata si complexa, care a lasat multe urme si semne, dar cand mai avea doar doi pasi sa descopere scrisul, s-a destructurat,mutat ori transformat.   De unde a pornit si pe ce se bazeaza ?

Se bazeaza pe faptul ca in situl de la Tartaria/Lunca in 1961 in conditii nu prea clare s-a gasit un grup de artefacte: 3 tablite , oasele unei persoane decedate si alte cca.22 de artefacte.Localizarea lor relativa a ramas pana in ziua de azi o enigma.                        Oricum, primul pas gresit a fost acela ca s-a presupus ca au fost toate in acelasi loc.        De aici si varsta a fost declarata ca fiind aceeasi pentru toate artefactele.                   Insa doar oasele au fost datate (cca 5300 IEN) si astfel au fost incadrate ca apartinand Culturii Vinca.                                                                                                                                  Ulterior, diferiti arheologi au realizat ca ceva nu este in ordine. Pe de o parte                       – unele artefacte (excluzand tablitele) ii indreptau spre o perioada mai tarzie, iar pe de alta parte                                                                                                                                                 – chiar tablitele (dupa analiza semnelor) au inceput deasemenea sa conduca spre o perioada care nu ar fi mai veche de  3.000 IEN.                                                                                                  Trebuie retinut ca pe intreg Globul Pamantesc nu s-a gasit nici-o urma de proto-scriere inainte de 3.500 IEN. De fapt varsta tablitelor nu se va mai putea determina exact niodata (cel putin pana nu se va gasi o noua metoda de determinare).Acum se pune problema cum se rezolva urmatoare dilema,avand :                   – pe de o parte oasele  cu varsta determinata ca fiind 5.300 IEN , apoi                                 – alte artefacte cu varsta incerta intre 5.300 si 2750 (2750 exprimata de unii arheologi), si                                                                                                                                                                – tablitele cu varsta necunoscuta, dar cea mai mare vechime nu poate depasi 3200 dupa unii si 2750 IEN dupa altii (exprimata de arheologi si epigrafisti de marca)                                         ———————————————————————-                                                                           Acuma va intreb eu, cum poate o persoana decedata la 5.300 I.E.N sa scrie (sau sa foloseasca !!) niste tablite din 2.750 I.E.N !??                                                                                                                                        Daca socotim:5.300-2.750=2.550 de ani. Buun! Acum sa vedemde curiozitate,sau de amorul artei cate generatii ar fi cuprinse.Am inteles ca in vechime o generatie se poate socoti ca avand 30-40 ani.Sa luam maximum, adica ca ar fi trait mult.2550:40=63,75~64generatii.Deci chiar daca ar fi scris tablitele stranepotii decedatei,tot mai raman 60 de generatii in care inca nu puteau fi scrise.Deci decedata putea fi in timpul liber orice,si doamna si saman si persoana de vaza ori preoteasa.Dar nu putem fi siguri, pentru ca nu ne mai putem baza pe faptul ca ea ascris tablitele si le folosea la ritualuri. Si arheologii sau alti oameni de sttinta, in loc sa ia lucrurile mai cu incetul,cu scrupulozitate si precautii, s-au angrenat inca de la inceput impreuna cu altii cercetatori straini in “descoperirea celui mai vechi scris din lume’ sau “scris inainte de Sumer”.                                                                                                                                                    —————————————————————————-                                                                     Se pare ca realitatea cruda ne indreapta spre un scris de tip sumerian, adica quaasi-sumerian, introdus in Europa (Creta) de primii colonizatori ai insulei.                              Cercetarile actuale evidentiaza ca minoanii au fost de fapt primii colonisti sumerieni si mai apoi urmasii lor.Acest fapt este sustinut de cercetatorii, (culmea, chiar greci !)EVANGELOS PAPAKITSOS si IANNIS KENANIDIS, care sustin ca desi minoanii ar fi putut inventa scrisul un scris al lor, (pentru ca puteau,de ce nu ?) insa au preferat sa ia unul gata facut (semne sumeriene) cu atat mai mult cu cat se potrivea limbii lor de tip aglutinativ. Adica banana- language, o limba in care cuvintele se formeaza prin legare de particole fara prea multa gramatica ba-na-na , sau ex. in minoana zeita I-SA-SA-RA).Astfel inventand o Doamna care nu a existat in sensul ca manevra tablitele, riscam sa decolam de pe realitate si sa ne facem de rasul lumii. ACEASTA INTRODUCERE A SEMNELOR IN CRETA, SE PARE CA A AVUT LOC INTRE 2.500-2.200 IEN . IN 2500 I.E.N au inceput sa fie folosite semnele, dar altfe 2.200 IEN ESTE TIMPUL CAND SE FOLOSEA SCRIEREA CRETANA HIEROGLIFICA ( urmata aproape instantaneu de scrierile: Linear A, cipro-minoana si apoi Linear B) Acesti cercetatori sustin ca la baza acestor scrieri enumerate mai sus a stat o biblioteca de semne PROTO-LINEARE EGEEANE.




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.


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 !




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)

AS IN THE CASE OF MINOAN LANGUAGE and WRITING(LINEAR A),WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE SPOKE THE SCRIBE !              =============================================================


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.


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 …………………..


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.



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                                               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 (see number2 ) From (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] › Category Documents


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

December 4, 2018

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Well, almost every. Maybe.

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

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

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

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

    Approximate location of the Vinča culture. From Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

      From The state of decipherment of proto-Elamite – Cuneiform Digital …

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


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

December 4, 2018

Image, from KEYTH MASSEY

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

From Minoan language Blog/ Andras Zeke


From Richard Vallance’s Blog


From Richard Vallance’s Blog,


From JOHN JOUNGER                                          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 ……/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              See 8-th column (on the table, IX), from top, 3-rd row                                                                                         From :                                                                                                                                                The Earliest Precursor of Writing DENISSE SCHMANDT BESSERAT

“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:  Image, from 5 – Ancient writing in Mesopotamia

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   (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


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:                           “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 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

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

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

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

Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU › 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                 arroro, arrorare, arroravi, arroratus                                                                                               verb “moisten, bedew”                                                                                                                          Note                                                                                                                                                      Maybe related to: hori (rom. a hori=a ura)is a form of                                         

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


Hera, Horos, Orion, calendar in Old Europe civilisation and in the tablets ?.

November 26, 2018

Hera, Horos and Orion related to Old Europe civilisation and the tablets ?



“The image above shows the front and back of a carved fragment of mammoth ivory measuring 38 mm x 14 mm x 4 mm that was discovered in 1979 inside the Geißenklösterle cave in the Swabian Alps of south-western Germany…… According to research published by Dr Rappenglück, the figure must be Orion, since the slim waist of the figure corresponds to the Belt of Orion, and the sword he sees hanging from the waist of the figure is easy to see in the real constellation. Moreover, Dr Rappenglück is at some pains to point out that the figurines’ left leg is somewhat shorter than the right leg, just as it is in the constellation. Therefore, the figure on the ivory fragment is Orion the Hunter.………….                                                                                                                               Does the figure represent the constellation Orion, which would make it the oldest known star map with an age of about 32,000 years, or is the fragment merely a testament to the skill of the carver, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the stars?                                         The reverse side of the Orion carving is dotted with 86 notches, which Dr Rappenglück claims is a “birth calendar”. According to Dr Rappenglück, if one subtracts 86 from the number of days in a year (365), one arrives at the average human gestation period, which is around 279 days, or nine months, give or take a few days either way. “

It seems that this paper will be quite extended, due of the data volume aquired by me in the course of the time, and because there are many things inter-related.                             At the begining I will present you an aspect of the tablets wich could be a good starting point. Is not been noticed and not easy to be realised by an average unskilled viewer. Anyway I will analise if real or not, both possibilities. Remember: in reality only one could be true!
This twoo posibillities conducts to little divergent research fields, and has great consequences, because one is aiming to a period of time close to our time and the other one is aiming to much older time and ages.The difference one-between could be as 2.000 years!

1-st possibility (LETTERS)
What is about:
It seems that I am the single one wich noticed that: – upper half of the round tablet is containing a group of signs wich seems to be “allien” or of a “different part or opinion” side. Anyway all the signs on all tablets give the impression of a mixture of signs. Anyway, the signs are very familiar to me, cause I know the signs are from archaic greek alphabets.(interesting, not as easy matching the older Aegean writings, Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and LinearB. Why? Because the exact D-shape sign was not used in those writings. Not for moon, nor for measure units.
In archaic greek, at the begining there was different alphabets in different places, from where:”epichoric alphabets” (epichoros:”local”).Eg, for letter D used delta in one place and D in another.For R used P in one place and D in another place. So it’s not easy, because out of this fact could be combination of letters wich give different words. We could have in the left side HP or HD (HD or HR).On the right side could have DDoo:ddoo or rroo ! could be generated many words !                                                                                – If the suposition of Mr. Marco Merlini is true, upon the upper half was hidden by the oblong tablet, in order to hide the message, then we can take in account that mainly or only upper half contain an message, possible in “true writing”.The rest could be seen by passing-by viewers cause for them are only some misterious signs.

Many years before I wondered if there are there the archaic greek signs eta/heta and Rho what would be the monogram for?
Note.                                                                                                                                                    Old shape of eta had 3 horizontal or slanted bars.At the begining was for consonontal eta, and for the sound H,He.That’s why was named also heta. Reminder of this are words like Hera wich in past was pronounced HEra, (words were written begining with H) even if later pronounced Era.In all rest of Mediterranean world was kept H eg. In Etruscan, latin, venetic language and writing.Some years before wanting to know where is the oldest atestation of HP/HD group of signs or monogram, I found that there were some found on Levantine sherds and in Egypt, written vith this archaic eta shape. Image, from


Only a few, course many were written with boxed-eta.
Scientists wondered and said that monogram would be, in descending probabilities for:   – Her                                                                                                                                                      – HerosHercles/Hercules                                                                                                                      – Heros, proper name
After some years of research, I supposed that HP/HD monogram could be for:
Hera,Heros,Horos/horo,Horio,etc. As for :                                                                            goddes Hera=Lady,hero=lord, limit/time/mountain,village.
On the right side, would have :sign +++++ :”Se”: seed,sow,plant/you,your
And DDoo/DDoc: “RoRo/roros” (moisten,bedew/countryside/RURAL)                 Aroros :”plughman”
So possible:
Horos/Horo Roros
Mountain/limit/time/hour country(side),rural

HD          R R o o                                                                                                                                     Hera rhoo,rhou,rroo (from rheo) Note: in greek roo,rhou:”flux”                                                   From The Ancient Greek Philosophy Collection: The Works of Plato, … Phronesis (wisdom), which may signify phoras kai rhou noesis (perception of motion and flux), or perhaps phoras onesis (the blessing of motion), ..

Hera flow,flux,river
In most ancient times, the main deity was a female-one Dione/Rhea/Hera and Zeus was 2-nd.
Also minoans had 1-st order deity an astral female-one, Asasara.                                      Later Ida-Mater/Damater, mistress of animal :”Potnia teron”.

If you asked yourself why I’ve posted in the title Orion, I explain:
– many noticed and supposed that in Vinca-Turdas/Danubian civilisation, one of the Mother-Goddess sign was the triangle. Upon my research (wich I’ve psted in a separate post) I showed that the stylised shape of Orion constellation was the sign of the Mother-Goddess.
– In greek oros/horos is “mountain” probaly coming from a root meaning rise/arise/ high,up. Oros/Horos:”boundary,limit/mountain) has in declination the form Orion/Horion !

From strongs – that SHEPHERDPUPLINUX.US…
ὅριον horion hor’-ee-on Neuter of a derivative of an apparently primary word ὅρος horos (a bound or limit); a boundary line is (by …

IDA related to sanskrit-tamil Ida river. Could be Mountain Ida, rather than river-mountain, maybe IDA:”headwaters,runnel,source,spring”, mountain IDA;”spring Mountain”??

Beside this approach, we could have another set of readings:
HD DDoo/DDou
gr.Hede(here-now) gr.edo,lat.ede (eat) gr.hedus,lat ede “kid-goat””<>DiDou (give!)
Note: there is a stroke inside first D !
And another set:
HP  D B o c

Note: at a close look +++++ and 2-nd D signs are ligatureted !, so Di b o c=Di V o s                      Gr.&Lat.Heros,her:”Lord”/Hera:”Lady” <>DiVoS:gr.GOD,lat.”Gods.divine”

I will stop here and come later back to refine this above.

2.The other possibility:

-Due of the fact that an D-shape sign was not used in any ancient writings before greeks, this was very hard for all before researchers of the tablets.
They had only twoo possible renderings:
– as numbers
– as signs for Moon/Moon phases?

2-nd possibility (AS NUMBERS)

In sumerian proto-cuneiform writing, there is only one instance in wich the sign D was found. Not on the tablets, only in proto-cuneiform sign list (Falkenstein ATU 527). Also as the very precursor of the signs, sumerian tokens (Denisse Schmand Besserat). Nobody knows or even not hypotethised what that sign was for by sumerians !
Folowing the observation that signs folowed tokens, I make an assumption in the reversing-time way that D-shape token and D-sign represented (as later sign), number 60.
Even if one choose that the sign would be a number or Moon this is not taken away the charge to explain the other,rest of the signs !(expecting in an time and writing related context) !!

Even if one take the sumerian approach, out of the number-signs, remain the rest of it. There is known that in proto-writing stage, one sign had multiple meanings.                     So wich to choose !? They say that sumerians choosed the meaning from the context.  But we know wich is the context here ?? NOT !
In minoan (Linear A) writings the phonetics of the signs is not know entirely.                  But even the language is still unknown.
Micenaean is known due to deceased Michael Ventrix.
In Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B the shape “D” was not used. Only some similar different signs for month and measure units!

Many scientists hypothesized one after another, in a long row (K.Massey,R,Kolev,M.Merlini,& al; not know wich was 1-st…) that the DDoo-sequence was intended for moon phases.
I was not sustaining this as my 1-st grade rendering. But I am some-how forced to re-analyse the issue. I did not this till yesterday read that in an paleolithic inscripion (that at the begining) the moon-phases signs could be related to female cycle, so I took this matter seriously back again in study.
This hypothesis has some consistency and support in the folowing:
humans observed exact astronomic time cycles, but
not come to an end and solve the matter of exact time superposition of number of days in the year, so Moon cycle with solar astronomic year
(nor in our time XXI century we have months with 30 and 31 days even with 28!).
– Even one of the great scientists, Dr Rappenglück, consider that was possible that humans even in remote time, to relate lunar phases with human gestation period.
Me: !! I am not at all convinced !
So I took a decision:
No matter how the supposed ancient civilisation of the writer solved the calendar problem or not (searching in tablets for timings/numbers) suffice for me that they noticed some kind of relation and maybe only expressed this in kind of a raw manner,
As could be the graphic representation of the lunisolar calendar. Four seasons,maybe 3 months in every of them. But no matter how many tdays in every quarter of year or in a month, in an analogic way (not digital/numbers) the time superposition is made.
a)Is a matter of further research if they some-how solved or not the problem.There are hundreds of calendars wich are dealing with leap-time issue.
When tried to read, I was conducted in sumerian to “pure-sacred one” (Ku-Dis), in Linear A.B to shepperd: (Linear A Pa-men/Pai-men? gr. “Poimen= shepperd”), also in sumerian to Enki’s (Erth-God) sacred number 40, to death rituals (number 40=nimin-nis(20)x min(2)),etc. Albanian rrok”term” sorok russ.=” Term,40”, rom.”term”….                            Note
Interesting, note that in sumerian MIN:”2” and in egyptian Min/Men:”unchanged,constant,still”
– In minoan language (unknown, not direct related to no language out of a bundle of language familyies, comprising Indo-European,Luwian,hebrew, greek etc.) MIN from – Minos they say to be related also to “still,constant,unchanged”
– there are research papers of Evangelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis wich traced that Aegean proto-linear writing as a whole, present influence of sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, Also they made the assumption that the initial cretans were in fact sumerians !


If upper half of the round tablets is containing letters,
– We could have in left-side Hera wich was related to nature, conception and family and in the right side those 4 moon quarters. (?)
– Many ancient civilisations begin the time counting and the year with new moon, as surely could be our case ! (1-st sign seem to be new moon) – It seems also that new moon was depicted in neolithic as a sickle having stroke(s) inside.
When I made sumerian reading attempt, I took only 1-2 signs for moon:                               H D signs
Ku sign  sign of Moon-God Sin/SuEn or DIS(1,unique,God)                                           SACRED,PURE ONE/Moon-God ? and for the signs:
D D o o


D-sign:Moon-God/1                                                                                                                           sign OO:”Nigin”
AsSUR one whole…                                                     ________________________________________________________

It seems that could be a lunisolar calendar, (?from the time of Ashur, or from somewhere):

30 day/month  12 month and 360+5 days/year

These 5 days were aded at the finish of the year.

Those 5 days are probably figured by the sign +++++ ?…….or:                                              ++++++                                                                                                                                             D D o o


 SUR/flow Moon/month full >> “one AsSur full,entire month flow

Yes, also DDoo is full Moon with four phases :                                                                              1. new moon, 2. 1-st quarter, 3. full mon, and 4. vaning


Number  Sumerian Akkadian
1 diš,  išten
6  šediš

On Mr.MARCO MERLINI’s “TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS XC. Investigating the signs on the circular tablet” 

November 24, 2018
         In memory of Sabin Adrian Luca

   ! !  <<<<<<<   A T T E N T I O N >>>>>>>  !


  • Due the fact that Mr.Merlini is believing that the tablets have a very old age (much olders with 2K Years than the real age wich could be in fact)
  • Deep inside beeing not sure  what is in fact that age
  • He is expecting Neolithic and even not think of Bronze age.
  • Not know that proto-writing emerged in the world around 3.200 B.C. (Sumer,Egypt,Indus). No single proto-writing before 3,500 in the World!
  • His reasearch wich is regarding the signs, is extending at an extremely wide time span and too far back in time. The time spanning / period of time/ timeline from paleolithic to late neolithic.                                                                                                                                          S O R R Y, D E E P L Y  W R O N G !
  • He did not realise even now, that the Vinca Civilisations stopped at the verge of discovering the writing.
  • I mean, out of those singleton tablets ( wich could be made yesterday by one as me, who has elementary knowledge of some dispersed ancient signs) no other writing proove that even proto-writing existed in Vinca-Turdas civilisation.
  • So, he is mainly searching in such a big pile of ancient signs as finaly cannot decide, and he DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO CHOOSE.
  • Writing developed as a stringent necesity in high developed societies (Sumer, Minoan)..”high” I mean really high in respect of every single aspect of economical and social activity. (Remember only the Hamurabi code or minoan streets and houses.) The hearth of writing in Europe was in the Aegean. I wonder wich was the supposed path of “Kadmus road”… probably close to that of commerce. The writing emerged close to places where thousends of tablets were found !
  • Nobody knows how cultural transmission happened (by air like flu or how?) Evidences points that Aegean was influenced by sumerians (see papers of Evanghelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis).Early minoans seem to be native sumerians.
  • There were population movements that only now with genetics developements could be traced.
  • An “laboratory”-like scientific analysis of the sign is stormed by “Mylady Tartaria” story, otherwise introducing more mistery not scientific needed and beeing your own contribution or production.

UPPER HALF:                                                                                                                                 From

First, begining from the left, H-like sign

  The folowing, from

From Marco Merlini                                                                                                                        THE ESOTERIC MESSAGE ON THE DISK-SHAPED TABLET
“A throne that is not a throne
The (sign)is very frequent and well known, with an assortment of variants, in several inventories of ancient systems of writing. The Mesopotamian examples highlight an implausible correspondence between this Transylvanian sign and the pictogram from Uruk ATU 260 1470 or Jemdet Nasr 1471.Badiny forced the supposed similarities selectin g the Proto-Sumerian pictogram1472. Nonetheless, any correspondence in shape is remote1473. These scholars find equivalence only by maintaining that
the Tărtăria sign is damaged in the lower left segmen ts; they reconstruct it arbitrarily in an outline resembling the Proto-Sumerian counterpart.
Correspondences in Akkadian cuneiform are not very clear. It is Labat number 436 according to Badiny with sound TUD, DUR meaning ‘settlement foundations’
1474. However, it is Labat number 99 with meaning ‘Lord’, ‘God’ with a phonetic value EN according to Kolev1475.The sign resembling a tri-rung lame ladder or a limping chair occurs also in Semitic scripts, in particular in the Phoenician alphabet where a similar sign represents the letter heth (phonetic value h),. Subsequently, it became the Latin H. The occurs also in other ancient Asiatic scripts, as well as in
the East Orient systems of writing. In particular, there is a complete graphic convergence with the sign 53 of the Indus script 1476.”
Despite :                                                                                                                                                   -the large excursus wich is comprising almost all close-shape ancient signs                           – not even noticed exactly HET-shape (apropos, sound Kh as in ger. koCH not H!)                 -not found the exact construction of the proto-cuneiform sign KU/GA2 wich has also as our sign 3 horiz. bars                                                                                                                            -not get to a final conclusion and not choosed or found any concrete sign or meaning : (………….In any case, to my thinking it will be productive to explore the possible abstract meanings of the as the opening that introduces the esoteric inscription.”)
– if The (sign)is very frequent and well known then why you not take the bull by the horns ? (romanian exprasion translated < de ce nu luati taurul de coarne>?
2-nd “D-shape sign” on the right,
Merlini:”The second sign on the upper left quadrant is a rounded D-shape with a tail,” me: no tail, scribe shaking hand. It is exactly ATU 527!
Merlini:”In the Danube civilization, its occurrence is restricted to Tărtăria, and it is not present in other ancient scripts. ”                                                                                                  Me: Yes,In the Danube civilization, its occurrence is restricted to Tărtăria but is present in other ancient scripts as:                                                                                                 sumerian,                                                                                                                                        Anatolian writings and alphabets                                                                                                      archaic greek (as for letters D and R),                                                                                             in venetic script, …I’m not squeezing my memory further.

Merlini:”In the Late Neolithic Vinča C culture, the D is engraved on the forehead of a statuette discovered at Medvednjak (Republic of Serbia)1493. Due to positioning, Winn considers this sign as “symbolic”149

Me: In hundreds of statuettes not on forehead there were not cyclops were exactly in the eyes places. (See my post :”Common… in early writing”)More than symbolic, the eye shape is direct related to light through light to deities and sun!

Merlini:”In Akkadian cuneiform, the D is the Labat number 480 with sound DIS, meaning ‘praised one’

Me: yes, but only “one” and not “praised one” because there is no particle there for praise it is only “one” meaning of course the God,praysed-one.Attention, dis much used for numbers; for “one” ment the unique single ONEis +++++ “AS” present on tablet.           1 is “Dis” and “Dili”
Merlini:”At Tărtăria, the tail on the D was incised intentionally. We have to deduce that the ‘scribe’ applied this small auxiliary marker to the root-sign in order to produce a variation to its conceptual meaning or to differentiate some phonetic units of the spoken language. Unfortunately, we are blind concerning the denotation of the D sign and its sound value.

Me: Pitty enough, no sign connection less a given meaning.

COMB-like sign                                                                                                                             Merlini:”As already mentioned in the previous chapter, on the upper right quadrant of the circular tablet, a ligature between the incised on the higher register and the biggest D on the lower register is nonexistent, although common in literature1507″
Me: the ligature exist, but what this element can push to other divergent interpretations remain to be discussed.
….bla bla bla to conclusion:

Merlini:”In conclusion, if the comb-like sign from Tărtăria finds some parallels in the Mesopotamian pictography and in other ancient scripts, the best semiotic correspondences are from other settlements in Transylvania and in Serbia of the subsequent Neolithic Vinča C and Turdaș cultures of the Danube civilization where it is a component of a numeric system

Me: yes could be numeric as 10+5 or 50 ( deceased female’s age), but you only said:” finds some parallels in the Mesopotamian pictography”,did not noticed the exact proto-cuneiform sign AS (one,single,unique)
-In respect of he said above, no given number meaning
First “D-sign”

Merlini:”The crescent moon is visible in the shape of a celestial D1522. The variant

is not recorded in the inventory of the signs of the Danube script.It is very similar to the shape individuated by Gh.  Lazarovici with code 238f, meaning ‘first quarter of the moon’. The same sign was utilized to render the first crescent in a lunar cycle engraved on a stone around the second part of IV millennium BC at Knowth (Boyne Valley, Ireland)
1523. The graphic concept is similar to that at the base of the ancient form of the Chinese character Yue4, meaning ’moon’. In the beginning, the pictograph was a new moon hanging in the sky. Gradually, a vertical stroke was added inside. I also assume the
a s a symbol for the ‘first quarter of the moon’.”                                                                    
Correct:                                                                                                                                                    “At Tărtăria, the tail on the D was incised intentionally. We have to deduce that the ‘scribe’ applied this small auxiliary marker to the root-sign in order to produce a variation to its conceptual meaning or to differentiate some phonetic units of the spoken language. Unfortunately, we are blind concerning the denotation of the D sign and its sound value.However, the Transylvanian D is the same as the sign of the moon on the Chinese divination bones. Is the rounded D-shape with a tail representing the abstract
concept of the Moon (the divinity of the Moon?)”
Me: Yes, could be 1-st quarter of the moon, but out of your rendering ATU 528 of the sign wich has 2 paralel strokes inside, I’ve found an exactly pair of our sign wich has an L-like sign inside.It is the sign SUR.
Second D-sign
Merlini:”The sharp incised on the upper right quadrant finds graphic parallels with ATU 527. As substantiated in the next chapter, if the D is a lunar symbol in several early systems of writing and in rock art, at Tărtăria it stands for the Full Moon as the best suitable moment for human fecundation.
Me:If I am not for precisely ” full Moon” but as I run out of better solution, I agree for Moon (as I found only exact shape ATU 527 but there no indication for sign name nor meaning!)
“o o” signs

Merlini: (directly up to conclusions):”In conclusion, the sequence D– D – O –o

incised on the lower register of the upper right quadrant of the Tărtăria tablet seems to indicate the moon according to the following phases: First Quarter Moon, Full Moon, Last Quarter Moon, and New/Black Moon.”
Me: Yes could be, but the main  posibilities  are :
– o o =sumerian 10 10
– two sumerian signs “o” LAGAB(circle) =sumerian 2xLAGAB=”o o”=”nigin”: “encircle,roaming around,full,total,etc.etc….

Left side,”Merlini:The stylized bow+arrow sign

Merlini:”The bow+arrow sign finds some parallels with pictography from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr: sign ATU721,, with the sound BA, meaning ‘eye’ and also ‘to see’1352. In Ak kadian cuneiform, it has the sound IGI, meaning ‘eye’, Labat number 449 1353. Vaguer is the resemblance with the sign with sound BA (‘offer’,‘give’), Labat number 5135″
Me: Yes, BA (‘offer’,‘give’).                                                                                                                 Ba is by no way is eye, IGI is meaning eye.The Ba (“offer etc,) has one shape, and IGI (eye) another shape.. But seeing the position of the arrow related to the cord, the sign is definitely much close to our sign is Ba !! (“offer,give”).

Merlini:(conclusion) “These observations, when crossed with the identity of Milady Tărtăria as a magic-religious practitioner, open the possibility that the sign on the tablet symbolizes a communication tool utilizing the image of a hunting weapon. It could depict the dynamic, magical moment/action in which the arrow is shot, and the charm has taken off”

Me: Milady Tărtăria’s story is for any help; in my opinion the deceased ~ 5.200 B.C. is not direct related with the tablets (unknown age).No human made any proto-writing signs before 4.000 B.C. other than pictographic!                                                                             I feel so frustated as somebody is recognising that is down, have no drop of energy/resource and signaling indirectly and asking for help…..
Signs >> (double-arrow)
After an excursus of where and in how many instances from paleolithic humans used arrows, he (Merlini) come to conclude:

Merlini”On the circular tablet from Tărtăria, the sign >>represents two arrows in abstract style pursuing the target. It might be indicated by the sign incised below,

, with an unfortunately obscure meaning.”
Me: Fortunately noticed the proto-cuneiform RU-sign (close to >>) but not know the meaning, and that there was also an sign >(wich theoretically could be doubled >> as to form plural)
Double-cross” sign upon Merlini (me:Z-like):  
Image, from  KEITH MASSEY                                                
Merlini:The ” sign”does not find parallelism with the Proto-cuneiform pictogram ATU 295, 1397= Jaritz#560 1398. It is just the duplication of the sign ATU 223 = Jaritz #101,
, which indicates a ’branch growingfrom a stem’, and symbolizes ’grow (large), swell up, bud’. However, the is partially present at Jemdet
Nasr as the 90 grades rotated(JN 47). Regularizing and standardizing the Proto-Sumerian pictograms, Zakar believes to have found the Transylvanian sequence also at Jemdet Na sr ( ), and at Knossos (in the form)1399. In Akkadian cuneiform, the double-bar sign has the Labat n umber 295 with phonetic value PA, KUN, meaning branch’, ‘club’, ‘scepter’
1400. Denoting also someone holding these tokens of authority, it acquired the meaning of someone in power1401. However, some convergences are also with Labat number 467: a ‘god’, ‘the hero’1402
Me: The sign is present from Cretan hierogliphyc through Linear A/B as sign PA2, and is also present coincidentaly in sumerian as PA,”branch” but also as “branch,upper part,supervisor,someone in power,etc”
No wonder by my side: no direct sign connection, the sign remain suspended in the thin air of the Vinca civilisation.Mr.Merlini is bounded to the conception that some-how Vincans wrote. Dissapointment, they made big steps but stopped at the point to discover and use proto-writing!

Merlini:”The analysis of the convergences of the

from Tărtăria with early writing systems evidences a common thread from the Danube script to the Aegean writings. The occurrence within inscriptions of the Danube script documents its use on ceremonial objects of the Danube civilization, and its very rare
presence on daily utilitarian articles confirms the magic-religious significance of this sign.
Me:Not given a chance to sumerians, (apropos Ba+Ru=Baru, barupa”: “magician”                          ;also Ba+Ru=Pa). Nor the slightest chance to Cretan hierogliphyc 2200B.C, or Linear A 2.000 B.C. or even for Linear B 1500 B.C. They wrote for nothing.                                    Again, so sorry.
Those “complex” ideograms on the right side,
Left ideogram/logogram

Merlini:”The finds no obvious correspondences in Akkadian cuneiform. It is paralleled with Labat sign n. 353 by Badiny, with phonetic value ŠA, meaning ‘face’, ‘care’ 1415. But it is the Labat sign n. 172, with sound NE and meaning ‘fire’, according to Kolev 1416. As a representation of a fireplace, a similar symbol occurs on an Assyrian relief from the 9

th century BC, or even older. The sign means ‘throne’ or ‘table’ in the inscriptions of the Hieroglyphic Luwian1417. The assumed convergence between the Transylvanian and the, A330 in Linear A, is unconvincing 1418. In this Cretan writing, the correlated sign is the A3 18,1419.To summarize, even if the (sign)is more or less present in different repertories of ancient systems of writing, it is typical of the Danube civilization and finds the best correspondences within the Vinča and Turdaș cultures as elements of the symbolic code1420. It is not a sign of the Danube script.Its naturalistic rendering indicates it as an altar for fire sacrifice, with three columns that seem to designate three tongues of fire. In the present book, Gh. Lazarovici advances the interpretation and
related archaeological evidence that this symbol represents an altar model, an altar for the worship of fire. Analogies with ancient rituals might support this interpretation. Hindu fire worship begins with an off ering to the three tongues of fire that represent the Orient, the Occident and the central place,followed by an invocation to the divinities. In the Manuscripts from Qumran Cave1, 1Q29 1Q is the “Liturgy of the Three Tongues of Fire” 1421
Me: Has simylarities with Cretan hierogliphyc and Linear A&B as showed in my papers.
So you’re right It is not a sign of the Danube script .It is of Sumerian/Aegean origin.            Closest is proto-cuneiform SA (“sieve”) wich was and is my rendering
An altar, yes, but not necessary an altar for fire sacrifice.An altar for burning incences in many rituals.Gr.eskara lat.asa
Right ideogram/logogram
Merlini:THE ORANTE-DANCER The ‘orante-dancer’,(sign 13a and 13b in fi g. VIIC.6b), incised on the right of the and on the edge of the quadrant, occurs only at Tărtăria.
Me: Not like an orante dancer but like a female astral deity!                                              There it is not in upper part the sign UD or PIR “pine” it is udu,utu:SUN” and precisely U:day,SUN
At the base is the sign AB or UNUG :”abode
So if it is 90% sumerian sign then close to “Sun-shrine/abode” and in our case could be with equal chances also an female astral deity, simylar to TANIT (70% same graphics) and much close than Tanit a deity as ASASARA.
It seems that at minoans and before them, topmost deity in the Balcans was a GODDESS not a God.
See my Cretan hierogliphyc-Linear A,B reading attempt.
Merlini 2011
“sign of SAMAS, Sun-God”
PROTO CUNEIFORM SUMERIAN SIGNS (Late Uruk)                                                                ALL SIGNS ARE PRESENT ON TARTARIA ROUND TABLET
Sumerian proto-cuneiform signs are from  from UCLA
(otherwise also take a look at Mr. Fackelmann sign-list )
AB present in the ideogram of Sun-abode=sign of city LARSA
present in ideogram of sun-abode, sign of city LARSA
AMAR (calf)
ARARMA, sign present on emblem of cty Larsa (sun-abode)
ASZ,AS (upper half,right, up)
BA bow-arrow sign
ENSI Lord, (here first sign) present in downward half, left side, most underside
Ga2 ! but there is other sign rotated 90deg,) wich is our sign in upper first from the left
(same as above Gur)
sign GAR read NINDA (portion,cereal,BREAD), possible present as ?close? imitation in D D o o sequence
sign KU (upper half utmost left)
Sign LAGAB “hole,circle” present in D D o o sequence
LAGAB LAGAB (2 times LAGAB=or “2 round circles”=”NIGIN” present in D D o o
also NIGIN “whole,total,enclosed,roaming around”… etc etc.
sign LISZ, present in downward left quadrant doubled, as >>
sign MAS present as the cross wich divedes tablet (?remember”twin, kid”?)
sign PA “overseer inspector” on extreme down-leftward sign/quarter
PA3 possible those 2 signs in the quarter mentioned above
same quarter, sign RU ……forgot meaning
sign SUR “rain,flow,press,squeze,warrior,,etc.etc” 2-nd D in the D D o o row
SZA, SA         present as such in the downward side, right, 2-nd from right to left.
U4 It is day=SUN! present in LARSA stamp=sun-God abode sign on downward side, first from R to L
sign UDU sheep ?related to the cross wich divides the tablet?
also UDUb
UNUG quite same with AB “house,abode” present in sun-God abode
twoo rounds twooxLAGAB ..number 10 10 =20

Common traits in the very beginning of writing

November 22, 2018

Some other scientists found that one particular pictogram was used in different places in writing .Quite slightly different in shape. It is about the eye. But every scientist showed mainly symilar eye-shapes for only twoo different places. I discovered that there was an much extended phenomenom. I will show you more than 4-5 places in the world. The explanation I’ve found is the fact that humans have the same physical body, and nervous system (read basic way of thinking).

But there was another pictogram used in the same semantic field, the fish. There is no other simple connection for humans for the idea of light other than eye. Light is entering in us through eyes.Close yes and have no light. Eye-light is kind of short-cut between, eliminating every word or philosophy upon.

It is true, light is coming mainly from Sun, but if you figure sun thinking possible turn in first time to celestial star and the light is only 2-nd, close-associated.

I discovered that it seems that the eye-shape was used for logograms and phonemes for light. I suppose the fish-shape was used for bright-light or “bright,shining”.

I will show you some 6 exemples:

A (1). Vinca-culture.So many statuettes with the eyes depicted as letter D with, or without eye-lashes. My personal suppozition, (expressed one year before) was that upon if the sign has an associated meaning that was the light, whatever sounded. For “shiny-bright” they used fish. Vinca-culture 6.000-4.000 B.C. Image, from Neolithic Vinca Terracotta Human/Bison Head – Ancient Art & Antiquities

Image, from

The fish was for the idea of bright (bright, shiny-God), the same to identical later sumerian Oanes and old hebrew Dagon ( dag was for fish). Vinca-culture, Bel Brdo 6.000 B.C. See, from


Imagini pentru fish-god Bronze AgeThe god Dagon first appears in extant records about 2500 BC in the Mari texts and in personal Amorite names in which the Mesopotamian gods Ilu (Ēl), Dagan, and Adad are especially common. (my note, phoenician Dagon, hebrew Dagan)

B(2) Jiahu writing

                                                                                                                                                  From                                            Here’s a collection of 目 (eye) characters in the oracle script:


.T “the former qualification, in subsequent periods used to denote
the distribution of above all rations to dependent workers and animals, seems best translated in archaic
sources with ‘inspected’ (‘and found to be available’, pictogram “eye”), roughly corresponding to later Sumerian gub or gal, or possibly gurum (IGI+GAR). 10 ” My note:probable reffering to sign IGI?

“The Sumerian noun is typically a one or two syllable root (igi “eye, e2 …”

Imagini pentru proto-cuneiform sumerian

B(2) Indus script From

C(3) Hieroglyphic Cretan ?Do/Du”?

Hierogliphyc Cretan, sign No.005 From

Note: Unknown rendering

Linear A. From

The major obstacle here is the missing phonetic value for Linear A *301 (the ‘slave’ or ‘acrobat’ sign). Since it is not an easy task to find the missing value (more on this in a later post), we have almost no clue of the meaning of this word. Unless we make a bold move and substitute a fitting Etruscan-Lemnian stem here. The best (given the context, and the rare *AI diphtongal cluster) appears to be the etruscan word-stem *AIS = “God, Divinity”. If so, the value for *301 needs to be of either the S- or the Z-series (perhaps *ZU). Notwithstanding, the reading for a libation text beginning with ‘This/The god…’ appears incorrect. Therefore we have to assume that whatever A-I-*301-… meant, was more of a “divine gift” or “divine sacrifice” than being simply ‘god’ or ‘gods’.

Image from The most peculiar Minoan sign ever seen

My note. Close to egyptian eye !! “the eye of Horus”

Linear B, sign “Zu?” From Richard Wallance’s blog,

Me: yes, “Zu” as P.I.E.-root “Di”>DIas/Zeu,Zou,Zu,Zeus:”light”

From  Documents in Minoan, Luwian, Semitic and Pelasgian  Fred Woudhuizen file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Documents_in_Minoan_Luwian_Semitic_and_P.pdf     

“In their table of comparisons, Olivier & Godart plausibly propose the correspondence of CHIC038 “gate” to L32 ya, CHIC092 “horn” to L55 ru, and CHIC005 eye to L101 zu.”
49 ……………                                                                                                                                       “This inference is further emphasized by the fact that the Cretan hieroglyphic “eye” sign is more remotely related to Luwian hieroglyphic *191, which depicts three pairs of eyes in a row and stands for the all-seeing sun-god, TIWATA, ti6—thus leading us to the syllabic value ti6 according to the acrophonic principle.56 “

Socoteala “sumeriana”, fazele Lunii in jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde ?

November 18, 2018

Socoteala “sumeriana”, fazele Lunii in jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde ?

Foarte multi cercetatori au avansat ipoteza ca scrisul tablitelor nu este sumerian autentic ci doar “de factura sumeriana”



DWritten Records.
1.Daca tablitele sant de inspiratie sumeriana, nu prea cred ca ar fi vorba de fazele lunii. Nu stiu din ce motiv, sumerienii nu au prea folosit in scris Luna ca si corp ceresc. Luna ca si corp ceresc era figurata in imagini ca si o secera in pozitia “tine apa”.Nu au avut termeni distictinti. Foloseau pentru Luna calendaristica/month si pentru Luna corp ceresc/Moon (Id,Idi,ITI/SuEN,Sin), semnul pentru soare, pe care aplicau numarul de 30 de zile.

tat5b                                                                                                                         Sau in scris ma simplu, (banuiesc ca pentru luna calendaristica/month) doar semnul “30”:
1230D <<< U+U+U | ESH / EŠ = 30 (numeric) | UŠU3 | SIN = moon

See “30”


Nu au folosit deloc forma de literei D.Cat priveste “fazele lunii” singura aparitie de care stiu este o inscrptie din paleolitic din Europa (18.000 B.C.!).Asa ca strict d.p.d.v. al fazelor lunii aceste faze puteau sa fie figurate pe o intindere in timp (vechime) de multe mii de ani, pana inspre zilele noastre.Inafara de durata egala a ciclului Lunii cu cel menstrual, se pare ca cunostinte legate de fertilitate in cadrul ciclului menstrual (asa cum maimulti cercetatori au speculat) apar doar cu putin timp inaintea erei noastre.

2.Daca tablitele sant de influenta sumeriana, se pare ca nu ar prezenta nici numere

Ex.1 (socoteala proto-elamita):



GRAIN-RATION RECORD FROM PROTO-ELAMITE SUSA is read from right to left. The text begins with a «hairy triangle», thought to be the issuing authority. Next is a «plow» sign that is probably a field worker. The number signs that follow continue at the right of the bottom line: 1 X 60 + 3 X 10 + 3. Next is a sign like a sheaf of grain; it means barley. Last is a capacity number: 6 X 6 C + 1 C + 1 m. The sense is that 93 workers receive two minor units each (Source: Alan D. Iselin).
Noi avem la Tartaria semnul SUR (primul D) si ? posibil imitatii de numere sumeriene ?:(citire de la dreapta la stanga):semnele 00: (2×6=12C)unitati de capacitate
+ semnulD:D(“1 masura” m)
“12c+1m (12 unitati capacitate+1 masura ?”)                                                                            Ex.2 Sumerian:
Imagine,    sau

Retineti ca sumerienii puneau unitatile mari in stanga apoi descrescator spre dreapta; citirea o faceau de la stg. La dreapta
Asa avem si noi pe tablita :
Semnul SUR (primul D)si un numar Doo.
SUR  ???


(D-urile sant mai mari ca 0-urile! Deci D-ul este “60” si nu “1” iar o-urile nu sant mari,O=”3600” ci mici o=”10”:

Din A New Edition of the Proto-Elamite
Text MDP 17, 112 Laura F. Hawkins


Figure 3.3: Relations between length measures on proto-cuneiform tablets

(1 nindan = 6 meters The basis of the system was the nindan, with a size of approximately six meters,)
SUR D(60) si oo (10 10)
? Sur 60 + 20 = sur 80 ?

Daca am fi avut numai numere, am fi avut:
D D o o = 1,1 10,10= 2 ,2o. dublul lui 20; 29×2 = 40
Automated joining of cuneiform tablet fragments – PURE – University of …
….. und nimin „40“, was offensichtlich aus *niš-min „2 mal die 20

Daca am scrie denumirea cifrelor

MIN(2) Nis/ni(20) =NIMIN(40)…….iar ne lovim de sorok =40…….. SIRARA6) was a temple complex in Lagash – it may also (or instead) have been a city as mentioned in The Royal Chronicle of Lagaš.[1] It has been suggested that the city-state known as Sirara was also called Nina or Nimin which was probably a seaport.[2]
Daca tablitele sant de inspiratie sumeriana, nu prea cred ca ar fi vorba nici de fazele lunii.
1230D <<< U+U+U | ESH / EŠ = 30 (numeric) | UŠU3 | SIN = moon See “30” Daca nu avem numai cifre, am inlocui cifrele cu denumirea lor. Am avea Sur giš/geš niš ?? 3.Atunci sa analizam semnele +++++ Dv D o o Semnele sumeriene sant: AS SUR Dis 2x LAGAB

Din ASZ2


As:”unu , unul” Appendix:Sumerian Swadesh list – Wiktionary 22, one, aš. 23, two, mina. introduction to sumerian grammar – ANE Languages.COM

Din by DA FOXVOG – subject among other scholars specializing in Sumerian grammar. …… values such as sumun/sun “old,” súmun/ sún “wild cow,” sumur/súrangry“,

Din Preferred Reading Sign Name Meaning sur SUR v. to divide, to press, to brew 4 Sumerian Phonology…/42TurkicAndSumer/HamoriFSumerianPhonetics&soun… The basic pronunciation of the sounds of the Sumerian language, that is it’s “phonemes” and the key sound changes it ….. *śurwe > sar ~ šur=to stabb, pierce, insert;

Šúr: Sumerian. Adjective. a-Aggressive. b- Violent. c-Enraged. Súr: Sumerian. Adjective. a-Determined. b-Self-assured. Šur: Sumerian.…

the unity of hamito-semitic and sumerian language families 1 – › THE_UNITY_OF_…
204 Sumerian šur, sur “ to rain, to flow” 204 Sumerian
As-Sur: Aššur is the name of the city, of the land ruled by the city, and of its tutelary deity from which the natives take their name, as did the entire nation of Assyria

Nu este Dis:”unu” pentru ca cifrele in general erau facute prin imprimare.


Urma lasata pe lut pentru numarul 1/(“dis”) cam asa arata la sumerieni:


Semnul GAR, din


Semnul gar in proto-cuneiform nu era imprimat ci zgariat si arata putin diferit: Din Historical Epistemology …


Doua semne Lagab=Nigin “intreg” engl.whole

reading sumerian names, ii: gilgameš – … › jcunestud.64.0003
by G Rubio · 2012 · Cited by 11 · Related articles
in Sumerian and Gilgameš in Akkadian. ….. LAGAB.LAGAB = nigin (niŋin) = nin3 in Ea 1: 46–47a (MSL 14, 178) and

Unicode Cuneiform Fonts – HPM Hethitologie-Portal Mainz › …
For Old Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian sign NIGIN (MeZL, n° 804) = LAGAB-LAGAB ( U121B8+ U121B8), we get

Chapter II – Springer Link › content › pdf
interpreted as a contracted LAGAB.LAGAB. In all four … LAGAB.LAGAB – as nigin, “to make surround”, which gives some sense. In the

The ancient settlement of Nigin was part, with the cities of Girsu and Lagash,

The Vocabulary of Sumerian – jstor
by JD Prince
etymological study of the Sumerian word-list is attended by. ‘ Die Entstehung des …… ‘canal,’ lit. ‘collection (nigin) of waters’ (Br. 11676). I The Babylonian .

Maximillien De Lafayette . Nigin: Sumerian. Noun. The whole amount. Nigin: Sumerian. 61.

Encyclopedia of Cosmology (Routledge Revivals): Historical, …
Norriss S. Hetherington
In this compound term, the Sumerian element “NIGIN” corresponds to the meaning”to move in circle” or “to encircle,” hence the semantic force of the whole encompassed by heaven and …

Nigin ;”intreg,tot”

+++++ AS
Dv D o o SUR Dis/Gar Nigin

Curge un intreg / ? o colectare/intreaga ploaie/rau

              !                 Unul(zeitatea!)

                      Ploaie       paiine      tot                 !

In sfertul din stanga al tabletei:


H D = Ku/Gu Gar?/Dis?

1.Ku Gar= ku ninda  (semnul gar se citeste ninda:”cereale,paiine“)

Ninda-ku:”mananca paine

2.Gad (deity) | Revolvy
The English word god continues the Old English god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, guð in Old ..

2.Ku:”pur, sacru” ; dis;”unu”

“Unu,Cel Sacru”                                                                                                                                     ——————————————————————————————————-

  1. 2018

Doua sau trei sisteme de scriere permit citirea celor 3 tablite pentru ca cuprind aproape toate semnele prezente pe tablite. Este vorba despre scrierile sumeriana,cea cretana si cariana. Singura scriere care cuprinde cele mai multe semne este cea sumeriana. In incercarile de citire am abordat cu egala deschidere fiecare scriere.Pacatul este ca daca prima nu mai prezinta multe necunoscute, in a doua se fac progrese in schimb nu prea exista specialisti pentru scrierea si limba cariana. Eu stiu ca exista doar unul in lume in varf, ADIEGO.

Cu toate ca am incercat sa fac citiri folosind sxrierea proto-cuneiforma sumeriana, inca am unele intrebari si nemultumiri.

– Daca cateva semne nu sant identice cu proto-cuneiformele (ex “D”), au fost imitate? Cine si cum le-a imitat ?.

– Daca au fost niste migranti din Orient, se pare ca au fost familii care nu s-au integrat complet in populatia locala.Banuiesc ca este vorba de meseriasi in prelucrarea metalelor proveniti di aria Gutium-Siria.

-Daca ar fi reale citirile acestea ultime, cum puteau sa faca referire la ei ca fiind peregrini? Singura explicatie ar fi ca gutii, mai putin avansati cultural au folosit termenii existenti in acel timp pentru ei !?


“During my years of research, I observed that most scientists tend to “fall in love” with their own theories: and that is where trouble starts. After all, you should be critical with your own results, even more so than with the results of others. Only so can you ensure the quality of research you provide.”(ANDRAS ZEKE/Hu

 ……asta inseamna ca revin.Inafara de o posibila citire cu zeitate ploaie “paiine”,” tot”,

va propun:


Sumerian / English

As-Hur/All-seeing-one          AS-SUR”all seeing-one:/ONE WARRIOR







RAZBOINIC  UN   CALATOR/da roata                 !vedeti pe tablita cei doi “UN,unu” sant legati !!

Šúr: Sumerian. Adjective. a-Aggressive. b- Violent. c-Enraged. Súr: Sumerian. Adjective. a-Determined. b-Self-assured. Šur: Sumerian.…

 Sumerian / English           Warrior/Sur

niĝin [ENCIRCLE]. niĝin [TOTAL].

The Class Reunion—An Annotated Translation and Commentary on the …

  1. Cale Johnson, ‎Markham J. Geller… see tashiru sahharu (see sahhiru) turning (Kou 50) sahhirat āli = Sum. uru nigin roaming around the city’ 251 sahhirat duri = Sum. bad nigin roamingaround…

Sumerian Lexicon | Linguistic Typology | Linguistics – Scribd   gur 4-gur 4) [NIGINarchaic frequency: 11]. to surround. to halt. concatenation …Sumerian /

English                                                … Nigin/Wander/(to) Nig-Inim-Bala/Interpretation

 to wander {vb}  RO                           ahoinări                                                                                                                                                 a cutreiera                                                                                                                                               a vântura                                                                                                                                              a umbla                                                                                                                                                 a străbate                                                                                                                                             a pluti                                                                                                                                                     a ocoli                                                                                                                                                    a călători

Nigin “a calatori in jurul, a inconjura, a da tarcoale, a se vantura, a cutreiera, a hoinari


2: MAN ; 20:NIS

Some Reflections on Numerals in Sumerian towards a History of … – jstor by IM Diakonoff

THE SUMERIAN NUMERALS HAVE MORE THAN ONCE since Samuel …. number of Middle Indian and Middle and Neo-Iranian … (a) without a suffix, as, e.g., I – /as/, 2 – /man,min/,.


  1. M. Murdock, Acharya S · 2014 · Religion Stele from MesopotamiaUr-Nammuwas the builder of the Great Ziggurat at Ur, the best … Ur-Nammu Menes/Manes, Manis and Mannus


Apoi DD oo = MIN NIS > ? MINIS ?

2(doi): “MIN”   20(douazeci):”NIS”

Neo Babylonian Sign Lists [CDLI Wiki] › wiki › doku › id=neo_ba… Mar 16, 2016 · Neo Babylonian Sign Lists. Work in progress. Filter: ….. Labat 471 / Borger 708, man, niš, ešra = 20.


 Mini (popolo) – WikiVividly › lang-it › wiki
Secondo la mitologia greca, i Mini – agg. minio, minia, minie, minii – (in greco Μινύες, ….. The adjective indigenous is derived from the Latin word indigena, which is based on the

 MINIS, Μινύες,. minoans !??                                                                                                              ————————————————————————–

In stanga, semnele Ku GAR= ku ninda= ninda ku Ninda-ku:”mananca paine”
PDF] old akkadian writing and grammar – Oriental Institute – University of …

Aug 6, 2010 … NINDA KU “they eat bread” (= Sumerian ninda {-ku -e; cf. also the .