Tartaria tablets

O cu totul noua si interesanta perspectiva asupra celor mai vechi scrieri din aria Danubiana si Egeeana.

Am obtinut foarte recent, (Aug.2018) o noua si proaspata perspectiva in urma studierii a doua lucrari :
– Autori, Iannis Kenanidis si E. Papakitsos “The Eteocretan Inscription from Psichro (Crete) is genuine ” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312038989_The_Eteocretan_Inscription_from_Psychro_Crete_is_Genuine pe de o parte, si a unei alte lucrari,
– autor A.A.Vaiman “On the quasi-sumerian tablets from Tartaria” http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1994.-vyp.-3.-annotacii#section-22

http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/arheologicheskie-vesti/AV_03.pdf/view

http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/arheologicheskie-vesti/AV_03.pdf

Ca elemente de noutate,
– in prima lucrare se incearca cumva “taierea nodului gordian” adica din multe ipoteze privind limba necunoscuta folosita in inscriptiile eteocretane, autorii avansaza ipoteza unui amestec initial de populatii (deci si de limbi), in care un rol primordial l-a avut ( si din a carei limba s-au pastrat caracteristicile), o populatie care a colonizat initial Creta si care era de factura sumeriana.

“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.”

Din cate am inteles eu, desi limba nu a mai pastrat integral toate carcteristicile limbii sumeriene, in schimb scrisul a functionat ca un gen de constanta, in sensul ca semnificatia ideogramelor a fost retinuta, cunoscuta si pastrata de migrantii sumerieni= minoani, pe tot parcursul timpului (chiar pana inspre era noastra).

“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. “

In legatura cu aceasta lucrare , eu am constatat (si nu am reusit pe moment si rapid sa-mi explic) de ce :
– tablitele pastreaza cumva in opinia mea un caracter dual, respectiv contin semne, si pot fi citite folosind atat scrierea sumeriana cat si separat folosind-o pe cea micaeniana (Linear A).            In plus,
– cea rotunda prezinta  semne f. apropiate de scrierea arhaica greceasca, mai precis de cea arhaica Cretana.

RELATIV LA CEA DE A 2-a LUCRARE,

– am fost intrigat si m-am necajit cumva ca lucrarea lui Aisik AbramovichVaiman are un parcurs sanatos si plin de chestiuni valoroase, constituind un gen de “concurent” al meu care cumva precede cercetarile mele cu cativa ani ( 1994 a dansului visa ultima editie 2018 ale mele).
-asta pe de o parte; in schimb lucrarea dansului are lacune, (doar cca. jumatate din semne sant interpretate!)

Atentie: in prima coloana este numarul semnului !

Semnele Nr.1? Nr.2 si 9 gresite, Nr.4? Nr.10? Nr.12,13? Nr.14? Nr.17?….pana acum cca. 8-9 semne….

Dar si la semnele gasite trebuia explicate la toate semnificatia, intelesul lor.

(exemple de intelesuri cautate si gasite :

semnul 2 nu este mas/sal ci :”Asz/As”:”grau, orz”:”

semnul 4: neidentificat,neinterpretat: este AN:”zeu,cer,zeul AN,ANU” dar si “spic de cereale”

semnele 8 si 10, semn identif.corect,”ab“: “casa,templu,altar“

Se ,semn identif.corect: semnifica”ratie,grau,cereale“

Sa, semn identif.corect dar neinterpretat de dansul ( Sza,Sa:”a usca“)

amar,da, semn identif.corect, dar neinterpretat: inseamna “vitel,taur, zeul-taur solar“..la fel ca si semnul 14

ba identificat ca semn: dar inseamna”a imparti,portie,a da,distribui“

semnul D, Nr.15,16 partial identificat, pentru dansul este numai “ges”= “60”,dar: este si “dis” cifra”1″ dar si “ninda””portie,portie de cereale,paiine“

o, neidentificat,neinterpretat: inseamna cifra”10“

semnul 9: este gresit,nu este plug (apin) ci semnul Ku “baza,a fonda,construi“

semnul din quadrantul dreapta jos (cel din dreapta) corect emblema orasului LARSA dar si “templul soarelui“

semnul >> neidentificat,neinterpretat; este RU:”dar”; “a da,trimite”

pe cand a mea este mai completa ( ex. explic clar si in amanunt, clar absolut toate semnele).

( In aceeasi situatie (lucrare incompleta tot numai cu cca. jumatate din semne interpretate) este lucrarea cercetatorului bulgar Rumen Kolev.)

A.A.Vaiman:“Altogether, sixteen of the eighteen Tartaria signs have been identified with the proto-Sumerian ones. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find proto-Sumerian prototypes for the two remaining signs as well.”

In fond rezultatul conteaza chiar daca este o contributie “colectiva”.
In fond posibil Michael Ventris nu obtinea rezultatele de varf daca nu coresponda cu Arthur Evans).
Ce este interesant este faptul ca avem o parere comuna ca cel care a scris tabletele nu a fost un locuitor nativ al Transilvaniei.

  Eu in plus afirm ca tablitele nu au fost scrise de mana unui sumerian.

Autorul avanseaza ipoteza unei origini si a unui autor de pe teritoriul Irakului (Sumer).

“Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, butthis hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents.”

Eu nu exclud nici-o ipoteza, dar dau mai multe sanse unei origini Cicladice-Egeene.

Note.                                                                                                                                                    The first 5 positions regarding other (than Tartaria) writings are quick reviews. Rather of no practical use. Figures are estimates, only for general reference.

NO SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN DECIPHERING INDUS/HARAPPA WRITING                   I understand why it is hard; there are so many signs and the writing is not highly organised, and remained at best at the stage of proto-writing.

SUPPOSED VINCA WRITING (5.700-4.200 B.C.)                                                                        No way of proper writing, no prooved proto-writing. The sign library is great, but writing stalled or stopped at a level situated  before proto-writing or rather near-close to proto-writing.

CUCUTENI-TRYPILLIA (somehow later than Vinca (highest developement at 4.800-3.000B.C.)            No prooven proto-writing, writing excluded.

PROTO-ELAMITE                                                                                                                                Progress in reasearch are made, due to similarity to sumerian (&proto iranian) but not entire solved (language?!) 3.400-2.500 B.C.

CRETAN HIEROGLIPHYC (2100–1700 B.C.) ,LINEAR A   (1800–1450 B.C.)                                                                                     Most of the signs known. But the rest no; for  some of them not unanimously agreeding of phonetical rendering. Some languages in focuss. Not sure about language. SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSING.

ETEOCRETAN   ( late 7th  to the 3rd century B.C.)                                                                                                                            Archaic greek alphabet/letters, but not sure what language (semitic proposed?).

TARTARIA TABLETS   (late Vinca? 4.800-4.200 B.C.)                                         

Settling discovery circumstances, dating and utilization of the Tărtăria …   https://www.researchgate.net/…/29726577_Settling_discovery_circumstances_dating_an…

                                                                     Hand-made by me, round Tartaria tablet replica / sinthetic clay:

                                                                                                                        Worst possible situation. From 1961 (discovery date) no consistent reasearch results. Maybe one notable contribution of Rumen Kolev (he is right in some 40%)                  World scholars seems to stay in a state of expectation and in real disarray. No eager to expose themselves as to utter definite statements.The range of hypothesis upon people,signs and language involved is so wide that one get in a maze; one don’t know what to take in account or consider more or less important.Understandable some-how, because:                                                                                                                                                   – It is not known  for sure real age > ? to what culture exactly pertain?                                     –tablets are kind of singletons, unique, no others in the area to compare with                        -not known the writing system; worse: every tablet is presenting an different type of writing .Those types of writings are usual distanced by 500-1000 yars. Eg.Pictographic used (4000-2200B.C.); proto-cuneiform /syllabary(3300-1500B.C.); syllabary/alphabetic (1500 B.C. onward)                                                                                                                                      -din’t know the timing (aprox. to what  period of time pertain) so not even guess what language family and less of the concrete language those peple spoke. (see the supposed 10 languages hypothesised for linear A!)

If for Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A one have to search in a kind of mist, you must realise that for tablets supposed older than this(Tartaria) the searching is much harder.

Luckily enough, out of 2 -3 writing systems wich were used on Tartaria tablets, the logical thinking is to consider  the age of  entire set of the tablets (3pcs) as having the age of the latest wryting system,newer/latest-one used.                                                            Also luckily as the writing is less evolved the meaning is general and could be deduced not necessary knowing the language ! Some of the religion-economical life icons were close related  in ancient past (if not some of them beeing the same on a large area in the far past Eg. corn, goat, bull,).

Out of this reasoning the preliminary conclusion is that upon that                                    T H E  T A B L E T S  A R E   N O T   S O   O L D ;                                                                          Forget 5.500 B.C. ! could not be take seriously in account; not even as joke only as a prank.                                                                                                                                                       ————————————————————————-————————————————————— EXPECTED READING, No. of POSSIBILITIES

We have 3 tablets: pictographic(*1); squarred with hole(*2); round-one (*3) We suppose that entire set was written in a definite time when used 1(one) definite language (“x”)            Note                                                                                                                                                       I could read:                                                                                                                                        *2 using Sumerian Proto-cuneiform library of signs and separate using Cretan hieroglyphic and linear A/B syllabogram                                                                                      *3 using Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A/B; also separate reading using archaic greek alphabet                                                                                                                             Note. Even the Anatolian writings got highest score relative to the signs used I not try to read cause those languages (and writing) are far out of my expertise.

In best (simple,easy) situation *2 and *3 are using syllabary and *1 is using pictograms as kind of help/Rebus principle-like.                                                                            —————————-      you could pass-over this don’t want to get you tired !    ——————–

Tablet  Language           Type of writing   Aprox. number of possible readings                        ——————————————————————————————————————————–      *1               x                        P(pictographic)                         P1-3

*2               x                       PC(Proto-cuneiform)?              B1-3                                                                             x                           S1(Syllabary*1) ?                   b1?

*3               x                        S2 (syllabary*2″)?                      C1?                                                                             x                         A(alphabet)        ?                     A~ 5-10

In best situation *2 and *3 are using syllabary and *1 is using pictogram as kind of help/Rebus principle-like.                                                                                                                    ———————————————————————————————————————————-        Note:                                                                                                                                                             The artefacts found near the tablets are evidencing relation to Cyclades. No matter if cultural exchange was  from north to south or reverse the result is the same.                       ———————————————————————————————————————————          In this case the meaning of the entire set will be :

a mixture: [b1 ;C1]      ?+ help of P?    Messages of the set:1  or with much more variants:           -“-         [B1-3 ; C1]                   -“-                         ~3                                                                               -“-        [B1-3 ; A5-10]              -“-        combinations of 3 by 10                                                         -“-        [b1 ; A5-10 ]                 -“-                        min  1o

—————————————————   you passed-over  !  ——————————————————Now everyone could realise  an weird abnormal situation when somebody is using 2 types of writing (PC+S; PC+A; S+A)                                                                                                   Note:  ! I not counted that pictographic wich could be for help!?

!? W H Y ? ?                                                                                                                                         …………………………………Only if was kind of preast=teacher !                            Or possible only the round-one is carring a precise message,                                                      and the rest of the signs on the other tablets are sacred, religion-associated icons (possible  with forgotten meanings),                                                                                          used in most of  religious rituals from far back in time (before the moment these tablets were written ).                                                          ============================================================================Where from those numbers of variants/series ?                                                                               Eg.    Round-tablet, upside-left quadrant ; using archaic greek alphabet                           signs H –P,D/D (Eta/heta-  Rho/D.Delta)                                                                                Possible readings:                                                                                                              monograms for deities: 1HeRos, 2HeRa, 3HeRos, 4HeRakles,                                      (gr.1″Lord”, 2″Lady”…….)                                                                                                              5HieRa, 6HaR, 7cHaR, 8HoRos,                                                                                                   (5″sacred objects”; 6″fitted in beautiful manner”:….)                                                                  9ED, 10EDe, 11EDo, 12HeDe, 13HeDus, 14*HeD,                                                                      9.alb.”kid-goat”…..10.lat.”eat!”/kid-goat!”11.gr.”I eat”

Prehistoric writing systems                                                                                                        From https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/writing
“must be projected from the later known to the earlier unknown. The oldest known written documents were excavated at the site of ancient Uruk (Biblical Erech, Gen 10:10), and were inscribed about 3000 b.c. These are Sumer. tablets inscribed with economic texts in the non-Semitic, non-Indo-European Sumer. language. However recent investigation has demonstrated that the writing system of the Uruk and all later Sumer. texts was prob. not the invention of the Sumerians, although they undoubtedly modified and expanded it to fit their essentially monosyllabic language.
1. These unknown literary predecessors of the Sumerians have been called Proto-Euphrateans, from their apparent place of settlement (B. Landsberger, “Mezopotamya ’da Mendeniyetin Doğuṩu,” Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Dergisi [1943-1945]). Some debate has ensued as to who these people were and from where they had come, but until an identifiable Proto-Euphratean settlement is excavated the problems will remain unsolved. However, the discovery in Rumanian Transylvania of an early neolithic village, Tartaria, with a cache of several tablets, all dated by stratigraphy to earlier than 3000 b.c., has enhanced the possibility that the elusive Proto-Euphrateans will be found. A comparison of Uruk and Tartaria signs is shown in figure 2. Perhaps the best solution is simply to denote the Tartaria texts as Proto-Balkan-Danubian. There is little question but that still older and more dispersed written materials will be discovered since the Proto-Balkan-Danubian signs appear to be at least logographic if not already syllabic.
3. Although the Uruk and Tartaria systems are the oldest now known, they were soon followed by a number of scripts of equally unknown origin and as yet quite resistant to decipherment. These all arose in Western Asia and are more hieroglyphic in the sense that the pictographic character of their execution is more obvious. Unlike either of the older systems they seem to be closer to simplified drawings of objects. Also the multiplicity of signs seems to indicate more than a syllabic system, although such a judgment is speculative. Sometime after 3000 b.c., the people of southwestern Iran known as Elamites produced an elaborate writing system called by scholars, Proto-Elamite. The Elamite language is non-Semitic and non-Indoeuropean. It is not related to any other known language, and so the texts as yet defy decipherment. From the placement of what appears to be numerical signs it is judged that they, like the Uruk texts, are economic in content. Dating from a slightly later time, there is a set of symbols on seals and inscribed pottery and metallic sheets. These were fabricated about 2300 b.c. at a group of towns on the Indus River, located at Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro. Specimens of the Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic signs are seen in figure 3. Hieroglyphics are usually associated with Egypt about whose writing system the name was coined. In the oldest glyptic representations an early almost pictographic form of sign is found. These are on the slate plates, or palettes excavated at Hieraconpolis in Upper Egypt. These palettes yield scenes of the campaigns of ancient prehistoric Egypt. rulers. Although attempts have been made to associate them with known historical figures there is little to base final conclusions upon other than the obvious interpretation of the pictographs (fig. 3). Just what the stages in the later development of the elaborate hieroglyphic system were is now lost but some relationships can be deduced. Before the full blown Egyptian system was completed and, in fact, prior to its founding, the Proto-Euphratean, later Sumer. syllabary had been established and was to be the dominant writing of the Near East from 3000 to 500 b.c. In time the Uruk signs became stylized, and the streamlined and uniform strokes became known as “nail-shaped,” “wedgeshaped” writing in Eng., Keilschrift in Ger., but the French name has stuck as it was derived from the Lat. “cuneus”—“forma.”
The semasiographic
systems fall into three categories: a. Pictographs, simple cartoonlike illustrations of universal recognizance value, such as a picture of an animal or structure with its unique characteristics made obvious, e.g. figure 1: a. Phraseographs, usually several pictographs arranged to indicate an action but sufficiently interrelated that in time they become one effective unit, often the verbal or action indicator in pictographic scripts, e.g. figure 1: b. Logographs are word symbols where one word in 1:1 correspondence with one sign is understood although it is neither drawn visually nor indicated phonetically. Often like the other two types it is totally separate from the languages of the writer or reader. Livestock brands, ownership marks, certain ligatured abbreviations and even trade marks fall into this category. Modern examples abound in such logographs as, “&,” “7-UP,” or “$,” none of which have any relationship whatsoever to the words with which they are read, or the notions with which they are associated. Ancient writing systems often contain so many logograms that the meaning of a text is utterly unintelligible. Another disconcerting aspect of logographs is that they become so completely conventionalized and stylized that like some pictographs the original meaning is lost. In some ancient documents the actual word meant is never written out. It is systematically symbolized with a logogram. The result is that the actual word in the language is unknown, as if all “ands” in the Eng. language should be replaced by “&,” and in time the full spelling of “and” became lost. Some representative logographs are shown for comparison 1:c. Along with and slightly after the rise of the semasiographic systems, the language based phonographic systems appeared in the developing writing systems.Ultimately these tend to ward pure symbolic representation of speech but they fall short due to the necessity to economize the number of signs. This economy usually leads to “polyphony” where one sign has more than one phonetic sound attached to it. It is this difficulty which so aggravates Eng. spelling.
2.Again, as with the semasiographic systems three related phonographic systems arose. They are: a. Syllabic in which every sign represents not simply a unitary sound but also a combination of vowel or vowel plus consonant or consonant plus vowel or in the extreme consonant plus vowel plus consonant. Such a system works quite well with certain types of languages which have monosyllabic words; b. Phonemic systems have one sign for one sound, either a vowel or a consonant. Most syllabaries have dispersed within them perfectly sound phonetic alphabets; c. Subphonemic or, as they may be called, prosodic systems are made up of elaborate diacriticals which like musical notations indicate all nuances of the spoken word.”

My note.                                                                                                                                         Hmm….Proto-Euphratean later Sumer…why not? Read, think and say nothing:
Gr. πέλεκυς pelekus (double bited axe) compared with
Full text of “Bomhard – A Critical Review of Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic …
https://archive.org/…/BomhardACriticalReviewOfDolgopolskysNostraticDictionary/Bo…Nostratic macrofamily
Pal[y]:”to split,to divide” …… *palUKu ‘axe, hammer’: weak. 1717.

Pelekus,yes… but Mycenaean a-qi—ja—i ‘axe’;?

The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=3110875640
Allan R. Bomhard, ‎John C. Kerns

(more…)

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

Here is the paper of the bulgarian scientist, assyrologist RUMEN KOLEV :                                                                          ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf

            Out of this, besides, de writing developement is a continous processus for wich there are ( or at least must be found some) evidences. Vinca culture devolepement toward true writing ceased short before (hundreds years?) the moment of reaching the proto-writing stage.                                                      NO SINGLE PROOFED EVIDENCE  OF PROTO-WRITING IN VINCA CULTURE                                                         -So, both of above cited authors (M.Merlini & R.Kolev), were not aware enough of the worldwide developement of humankind and their respective cultures. In a culture, the necesity of keeping evvidences, numeration or religious purposes, must have an coresponding high level of developement and an social stratified hierarchical structure.                                                                                                       THE AGE OF THE BONES CANNOT BE TRANSLATED AUTOMATICALLY AS BEEING THE AGE OF THE TABLETS, ALL WERE FOUND IN AN CULTIC SITE BUT NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHERE WAS IN REALITY PLACED EVERY ITEM !       

Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE  https://www.academia.edu/8899844/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_Europe_A_long_lasting_querelle_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe               << 3.C.d Approach 3: Reconciling the tablets with C14 dating evidence maintaining that they might havebeen intrusive from the upper strata >>

From all writing systems used throughout ages SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM shows closest. Remember, with proto-cuneiform signs, one cannot write, there is PROTO-WRITING !                     

       Only A.Falkenstein was for sumerian signs:                                                                                          Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                                                                                                          <<  The leading position was established by A. Falkenstein, responsible for the publication of the tablets fromUruk, who pointed out a strict correlation with Uruk III B that belonged to the same cultural horizon as thoseof Jemdet Nasr and argued that the signs were definitely Sumerian. Falkenstein’s line of reasoning was basedon four pilasters:……                                    Close, but not the same, not sumerian proper, as noticed before ,opinion of the scientists main stream: Makkay, A.A.Vaiman and others, including myself.                                                                                                                                                           Section II – STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHICAND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE                                                                                                                                               “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real  understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia andSouth-eastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing… It is well-known that theapotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people” (Makkay 1974/5: 24)     …                                                                                                                                                                                          He presupposed that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold by the Mesopotamian city-states, therefore the request was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines (Makkay 1974/5: 27) ………………                                                                                                                                                                                                          Merchant adventurers moving along the routes connecting the Middle and Lower Danube, the Cyclades, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia may have been the go-between. Makkay assumed that the gold of Transylvania made merchants from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Aegean establish contacts with that European area and pointed out that the ancient gold producing site of Zlatna in György valley is near Turdaş and Tărtăria. He presupposed that the mines in Anatolia could no longer satisfy the sudden increase in the demand for gold bythe Mesopotamian city-states, therefore the request was channeled – possibly via the entrepreneurial merchants of the Cycladic islands – to the efficient Transylvanian mines (Makkay 1974/5: 27)  …………….                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Gelb attributedthe tablets to Sumerian traders familiar with writing, or to a not better specified inhabitant of Transylvania who had a vague idea of Sumerian documents and aped them (Gelb 1967: 489).

Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации …                                                    A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi–Sumerian tablets from Tartaria.                                    ================= in my opinion =========                                                                           The signs are “like” that sumerian proto-cuneiform, (Quasy-sumerian/A.A.Vaiman).Most of the signs reflects some exactly and some close sumerian shapes, thus reflecting an sumerian origin.This genetic filiation is reflected by many writing systems throughout ages and different areas.                                                                                                              Otherwise the display of the signs create the impression of mixed signs (even hodge-podge I dare to say). Don’t know why the scribe choosed to select the signs on every of the three tablets in kind of historical evolution, in three groups.                                                           – Pictographic only, on that pictographic oblong, without hole                                                   – mostly ideogram-logograms  on that oblong with hole                                                             – and some wich became later syllabograms/letters in other writing sistems, on that round one.                                                                                                                                      The scribe seem, (created me the impression) that wanted to parade ond show off his knowledge of the signs.

============================================                                                                              R.Kolev corectly noticed that on the tablet there is ” a mixture of sumerian ideograms and signs”                                                        – As I will show, R.Kolev not to precise identify each sumerian sign and show sumerian appearance and name. But luckily enough he succeded to corect identify many of them (bull/cattle, god, temple, branch/corn, altar, idea of offering, >> =sign “RU”,etc.). Where he has the sun sign, I have the (sun)GOD sign wich is close. All this green underlined are common with mines ! 

• Folowing picture at the origin from Mr.Marco Merlini studies. http://static.actualdecluj.ro/uploads/2015/02/tartariasuprapuse.jpg
• 

 Either don’t know why , and finaly I not grasp his understanding: 

• As Mr. Merlini correctly observed that the tablets are made as to being carried/worn together around neck. In this situation the squared-one is covering uper side of that round-one. And not without reason. The writer intended that the covered message not to be seen by passer-by, probably is mystic-related and has a degree of power upon subjects on wich rituals were performed. Or used in rituals wich interfered with the people’s course of life or destiny.
• So I do not understand at all why Mr. Kolev choosed to read in the first time (and only !) the visible mesage, not realising that the covered mesage could have a paramount importance !?
• ==========================================                                                                THE EXOTERIC TEXT / OBLONG TABLET WITH HOLE                                                  Image from http://www.proel.org/index.php?pagina=alfabetos/tartaria
• 
• Out of the Kolev’s  “3 Moons” ,                                                                                                there are some 6 boxes, if one begin reading in circle, counterclockwise begining frum top. columns with signs.                                                                                                  Sign number from your sign-list table:                                                                                   ————————————
• 1.  you: meaning “3 Moons”                                                                                                   Me: Could be, but as well could be
• Me:   “3 x number 1″=”number 3” ?
•            30?
• From   An Historical Survey of Number Systems
  • Nikolai Weibull  https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Historical-Survey-of-Number-Systems-Weibull/2d938fac8cb4424df2171eee1ed181a1bf0ae534 
• 
• So “3 barley,grain ratios”
  ———————————————
  From 1-st column,                                                                                                                      2. you:Symbol CORN                                                                                                                     Me: GOOD rendering . Note that the sign has a name.                                                    It is “SZE”:”barley,grain” Image, from Hot Cup of Joe: The Rise of Sumerian Culture
• 
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• “Sze”                                                                                                                            ——————————————
• 3. You:?damaged sign?                                                                                                             NOT FOUND by you.                                                                                                                 Me: the sign cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns                                                                                      is PAP
• 
• Is sygnifying “1” or sign “BAD” “to open,to let out, to die”
  file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/2602-Article%20Text-5433-1-10-20150202.pdf
  Sumerian BAD ‘when, as’, ‘master, lord’, ‘to depart,’                                                           ————————————————-
  4. you:”sign ES”temple” ,                                                                                                          Me:There is NO “ES” with such shape !,                                                                                   but AB:”house,temple” it is.
  me: the sign is “AB” meaning “abode,temple,house”                                                   cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•   ———————————————————–
• 5. you: symbol “SUN”.NOT SHOWNED by you any SUN sign.
  Me: No, Mr. Kolev, the sign you showed was never an sumerian sign for sun !!!    (only in ancient Aegean realm)                                                                                                Could be sumerian sign  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns  SZENUR
• 
• Much close than “ SKY-GOD/SUN-GOD” is “Sky, heaven, Sky-God AN“, wich has a star-like shape    cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns    AN                                                                                                                                   —————————————
  6. you: GUD symbol :Bull/Enlil                                                                                                         Me:  could be Bull, but you did not specify or show wich sign.
  The sign is UD5
• 
• But not proper bull, cause the head has triangle-shaped !
•  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•  AMAR (CALF/vitellus)
• 
• Note: It seems that an early sign UD5 reprezented BOVIDAE, that mean bulls and/or goats !                                                                                                                                     From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns      UD5~c
• See No.7: Ud5                                                                                                        https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml?language=en
•  ————————————————————————————–
• 7. you: ? symbol “Cattle ?” me:
  YES “but not proper cattle , but BULL” The shape is much close to                                   From 7. What Is Known about Linear A
  http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                                                              Mu=”Bull”  the bull head #012 
  (? also could be,combined signs Hi+Bar+Bar:” be numerous,multiply,spread out”?) ———————————————————————————
•  8. Symbol ES “Temple” ; me: YES “Temple” but there is no proto-cuneiform sign ES:”temple”. You did not show the sign ES how
  is like! Sign AB showned before “Abode,house,temple” ===================================
  ROUND TABLET, LOWER HALF                                                                                                 9. you:SYMBOL BA :”give,offer”;                                                                                                                        me:YES (not exactly give,offer)
• 
• meaning:”divide into shares,share,halve, to allot”
  My note:
  In sumerian the signs house +bull it is representing “the house of sun-Bull”, 2-nd representation of
  the sun, underground Sun :”NERGAL”                                                                                   ——————————————
  10. you: symbol RU:“to sprinkle”( also:  to dedicate; to fall; to throw down”)                               me: YES.But you not show the sumerian sign and its name
•  cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• 
• But not read Ru-Ru as you said, ONLY “RU”
  meaning RU:”poor out, impregnate“
• R.Kolev: ” signs 9/Ba and 10/Ru combined has the meaning of “to offer an libation”.
• Me: No, Mr. Kolev their combined meanings are BaRu:
•  From Sumerian Lexicon … de JA Halloran … .A bārû, in ancient Mesopotamian religion, is a practitioner of a form of divination based on hepatoscopy, … ——————————————————-
  11. you:symbol ENSI,PA high priest, branch !??                                                                    ” Sign 11,with sumerian phonetic value of ‘PA’ may mean also ‘branch’,’sceptre’, associated with power but maybe also with the holy tree.Actually its meaning of ‘club’,’scepter’ was its primal meaning  followed by that of ‘someone with a club,scepter’,’overseer’, someone in power’, ‘high priest’.”                                                   Finally he chossed ‘priest‘                                                                                                         me:YES, yes PA, but sign PA not meaning ENSI !.                                                                 From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• 
• 1. From The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process by John A. Halloran
  http://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm
  pa4,5,6(-r): “irrigation ditch, small canal, dike” me:??
  2.meaning also: “swear, take an oath”
  3.From http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/intro/ob_lu_szu.html
  the word ugula “overseer” (line 145) is written with the PA-sign
  Combined signs Ba Ru Pa:”Give/OMEN”
  ———————————————————–
  12. KOLEV: “Signs 12 and 13,’fire’ and ‘altar’ taken together should mean ‘to make sacrifice’ ”                                                                                                                            symbol NE “fire” Labat 172 YOU DID NOT SHOW THE SHAPE not fire nor NE; I suppose you are refering to                                                                                              From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns   NE
  that on left !? Labat 172 is not proto-cuneiform!                                                                                                                                                                                                          me: Quite close.You see that our sign not reflect the sign NE shape ;  the sign is
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns 
•   SZA
• 
• Sza, Sa=”to dry”                                                                                                                     From Sumerian Lexicon – Sumerian.org  by JA Halloran                                                              ša: to dry up 
    This could be related to fire, in fact an portable altar and for burning incense !                                   ————————————-
  13.you ?symbol? Altar ?
  me: not found by you. It is
• From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
•   sign ARARMA
• 
• “Sun-God Shamas abode/temple,shrine”      (ud.ab)
•   From Notes and Links on Larsa | e n e n u r u
  << For instance, the shrine at Larsa devoted to the ‘sun–god‘ Utu/Shamash is represented by quite different … UNU˚, often simplified to ud.ab˚, and read in Sumerian as “Ararma” (MSL 11 p. 12, l. 6: ≠UD±.UNU≠árárma ki and p. 54, l. 10: [a.ra].                                                                                                                               ——————————————————————————————————-                      REGARDING UPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET (coverd part) SIGNS:
  SIgn with shape of Cheth/Heth/Heta/Archaic Eta;                                                 
• You:”Sign 1, looks somewhat damaged in
  the low left part.But what is left is enough to reconstruct it as the Sumerian sign” …and you sharply stopped explaing the sign.”Tell-tale sign is that the number 5 ( or 7 ) is connected with the First Quarter Moon, which happens really
  around the 5th-7th day after the appearance of the First Lunar Crescent.
  symbol or phonetic value: Meaning: Labat number 1: EN: Lord 99″
  me: NO way ! You said :”looks somewhat damaged in
  the low left part” Not at all.No trace of ligature from low end.I understand you are only imagining
  this, in order to have an other supposed sign wich is matching with an known proto=cuneiform sign.
  On proto-cuneiform signlist, https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
  NO EN/ENSI SIGNS COME OR EVEN RESEMBLING BY FAR OUR SIGN
  You suppose sign EN and Mr.A.Vaiman suppose an APIN sign. WRONG FOR BOTH OF YOU !.
  ———————————————————————————————
  It is close to proto-sumerian sign KU                                                                                From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
• 
  From: The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process by John A. Halloran http://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm
  ku: to base, found, build; to lie down (reduplication class) [KU archaic frequency: 64; concatenates 3 sign variants].From Sumerian Cuneiform Dictionary Mugsar Online mugsarsumerian.com/default.htm                                                                                     Sep 5, 1996 – The epochal Mugsar is the only standalone online Sumerian Cuneiform Dictionary … TRUE ETYMOLOGY | Proto Language Monosyllables PLM …… KU3, kug [1342x] = (to be) pure; [3875x] = metal, silver; (to be) bright, shiny .or
• 
• Note Signs D could mean also:
• oi.uchicago.edu › pdf › mad2                                                                                               old akkadian writing and grammar – Oriental Institute

  

  << NINDA KU “they eat bread” >>
•  ——————————————————————————————
  D-shape sign; you: symbol or phonetic value: Meaning: Labat number
  you,sign 2: symbol: Moon, The Moon god
  ?.Moon? maybe.But sumerians figured moon allwais lying:
• You did not show how sumerian were figuring Moon or Moon God (Sin/Nanna!).
  Sumerian Questions and Answers – Sumerian Language Page
  http://www.sumerian.org/sumerfaq.htmR. K. Englund & J.-P. Grégoire, The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr, …… itud, itid, itu, iti, id8; it4, id4: moon; month; moonlight (i3-, ‘impersonal verbal …
  They had other signs for month begining from the sign UD=”day” and modifying it to
  obtain in adition the signs for “month” and “year”
• me: Sumerian used to represent Moon only crescent-turkic shape
• “D-shape” sign, could be sign GAR
• 
• But much better “1”
• 
• KU & Sin/Suen
  my rendering :”BRIGHT,SHINY MOON”
  ——————————————————————————————–
  Sign +++++ you: “CORN”
• Me: Could be .You did not show the sumerian sign.It is SE/SZE:”barley,wheat”
• 
• In fact the sign +++++ is Asz !!                                                                                                 From cdli.ucla.edu › tools › SignLists › protocuneiform › archsigns
• Sign row D D o o                                                                                                                    you:”Phases of the moon” me: could be;
• https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2526a72d95e0dbe0c1d35ab835426981-c
• 
  You come first (may 22 2008-2010 )
  Bab Sky Science Dr. Varna.22May-15 June 2008материалознание известия на съюза на учените –
  варна 2’2Collection 01 Abstract | Babylonia | Astronomy – Scribd
  https://www.scribd.com › document › Ba…
• by Rumen Kolev A COLLECTION of writings from 2000 – 2010 …. DECODING of the TARTARIA TABLETS 010 44 плочките PDFwww.su-varna.org › izdanij МАТЕРИАЛОЗНАНИЕ. ИЗВЕСТИЯ НА
  СЪЮЗА НА УЧЕНИТЕ – ВАРНА 2’2010. 44. ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ …to propose
  moon phases and after you,second come Mr. Merlini to propose the same (moon phases ) in 2015.
  Chronograms from the Danube Civilization to procreate a Child of the Moon Constantin-Emil Ursu,
  Adrian Poruciuc, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici (eds.), From Symbols to Signs, Editura Karl A.
  Romstorfer, Suceava, 2015: 133-200
  ———————————————————————————————-
  me:number 22 or 1
• 
• ( see here DDD oo number 3+10+10 “23” /upside left corner/                                     Image, from https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_004_fig/Figure3.jpg
• 
• The interpretation of pictographic tablet is converging/consistent with the other two tablets interpretations:
•                                                                                                                                                      There is about of an offering/see the misty human silhuette (PA:”overseer), with outstreched hands, (Ba:”distribute, alot“) to the Sky-God (An) and to Sun-god Samas, this last represented by the calf (AMAR);  …..                                                             ? For good crops, for eating bread (Ninda-Ku) ?                                                                      We have also the Bull sign , related also to sun (but much similar in shape with Linear A:”Mu”=”Bull”)                                                                                                                           The  offering/sacrifice ritual was performed by a BaRu (a practitioner of a form of divination based on hepatoscopy, diviner), … he divide in shares, allot (Ba) and poor out, impregnate (Ru) with water?incense?                                                                  It consisted of some measures (DDoo 1+1+10+10=22?) of cereals, wheat (Asz/As) and goats (at least two on pictographic tablet; Ud5).                                                                          There are pictured also the religion signs :                                                                        ARARMA:’inner, sacred precinct of the Sun-God Samas temple and                               Sza. Sa: “to dry up” (incence?)
• Note:                                                                                                                                            As well could be involved the god  +++++=”As”:”single,unique” and “Sur” = AsSur, where “00” means “whole”
• ==========================

• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the …

  Julian Jaynes –

   << When the diviner, who was called baru,poured oil into a bowl of water which he held .>>

  http://www.etana.org › sites › default › files › coretexts                                                                       yale oriental series – Etana

  ancient mesopotamia – Oriental Institute – University of Chicago                           …   ” the baru “seer” or “inspector.” 

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

The Sacred Cryptograms from Tărtăria: Unique or Widespread Signs …

http://www.academia.edu/…/The_Sacred_Cryptograms_from_Tărtăria_Unique_or_Widespr&#8230;

 Note

There is a paper of a bulgarian scientist RUMEN KOLEV :

ПЛОЧКИТЕ ОТ ТАРТАРИЯ И ЧАШАТА ОТ СУВОРОВО – ДВА „НАДПИСА” НА РАННАТА ДУНАВСКА КУЛТУРА И РАЗШИФРОВАНЕТО ИМ Румен Колев http://www.su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf

 wich go close to my conclusions of my sumerian aproach, but he choosed not to precise identify each sumerian sign and show sumerian appearance and name. But luckily enough he succeded to corect identify many of them (bull/cattle, god, temple, branch/corn, altar, idea of offering, &gt;&gt;=sign “RU”,etc.). Where he has the sun sign, I have the (sun)GOD sign wich is close.                                      All this green underlined are common with mines !

 Either don’t know why he not took the tablets separately and choosed to get meanings reading them only as beeing superposed.     

 

I am admiring the monumental efforts and researches of this schollar in the large field of Vinca-Turdas 

 

Civilisation and especially those focussed on the supposed “Vinca writing”. My congratulations ! No Romanian 

spend more time and efforts on this field.Nor had more results.One to be noticed is Alex Imreh.

An italian is using and depassing  german-style and methods. Either in perseverence, acuracy, sharp-

reasoning or whatever you want.

The M.Merlini paper is very inciting. I wish would coment every line of it.

but must follow every line and not have sufficient time to follow and make comments on them.

So my first short comments are:

– You got in a kind of maze when compare Vinca Civilisation library of signs with Vinca (Tartaria tablets)

supposed writing signs.

 Talking of magic rituals is intersting but not of effective great help when  discuss is getting to 

writing signs and writing.Information could be transmited in many ways in proto-writing but only

 when are transmited words is proper-writing.And those ways cuould be mixed in intermediate 

phases of writing developement.

 

-Do not realise that Vinca civilisation realised the aproaching steps to writing but generally remained 

at those much earlier phases of writing.

Earlier phases than those of the tablets (5-6.000 BC for Vinca signs oposed/compared to say 3000-1500 BC

for Tartaria tablets writing).

– Hope you realised but not explained to people enough what is proto writing.The Vinca civilisation used 

mostly elementary signs (wich part of them could be or not abstractised signs for some notions) and ones 

wich could go to ornaments .You or someone else cannot  proove definitely that even come to the 

stage of proto-writing, (as to use icons and ideograms to express ideas ). If you can proove that, I am 

waiting one concrete case explained.Could be no your or someone-else guess or personal idea but that exemple 

must be agreed and accepted by anyone to wich are exposed the case. So strong and in a unique definite 

one way manner.So sound must be the interpretation.

-DEFINITION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing writing represents language and emotions with signs 

and symbols

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptogram cryptogram is a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted text.^[1] Generally the cipher used to encrypt the text is simple enough that the cryptogram can be solved by hand. there is no cypher here.

Not our case.IF THE READEAR DOES NOT KNOW THE RULE OF CRIPTING (CIPHER) NO EVER or nobody at medium level CAN READ.What the crap if the text suppose would be really cyphered !?

We have no proper cryptograms on Tartaria tablets so people could be in dissaray/derouted about your given paper title.

Not to beeing enough if we do not know the language of that supposed writing, nor the writing system what is missing now is the fact that the writing to be encrypted. “When nobody knows to write who knows to read?” as asked Mr. Napoleon Savescu.

You are not aware of the results when kept mixed and not fully explained the ideas of crypting a text with covering a text.The writer of tablets did not use an system to translate or hide the meaning.Only phisically covered the supposed writing/text.You realise the difference between cripting and covering.He/her (supposed writer) only phisically covered the thext wich is not CRYPTOGRAM(s) at all.

-Even if the information is available to everybody, I wonder why on Earth you not get close to :

– sumerian proto-cuneiform sign library (nor proto-elamite/Harappa proto-writing) 

– Anatolian writings ones, nor CARIAN, (even as we know of  many migration waves  between Anatolia and Aegean/Balcans).Not get close and compare Linear A signs or not talking of cretan hieroglyphic,archaic greek, anatolian,iberian venetic etruscan writings.

 

-not studied enough aegean  library of icons signs.You are telling of “clepsidra sign” ( I am sure you recognised our ancestors paramount sign ORION or LABRYS !?)

– You know old chinese/japanese  “ny” sign (sun) or old hebrew phoenician sign keth/heth/cheth or linear A/B pa3  or archaic greek Heta/Eta.

-Our common ancestors related to Vinca civilisation wich not dropped from  the sky. 

– You cannot relate Tartaria tablets signs to Vinca signs cause those are much earlier but why not compare anatolian (e.g. carian) old hebrew, iberian, venetic or other sistems of writing ? One could realise that have there all  needed signs? https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam6.jpg

 

– One think that a computer with whatever software can give better results than human mind?  Dat-Das comparison had very poor results (see percentages as 18%) ! You some-how passed-over old basic European. BALCANIC=AEGEAN areas ancient paramount-level signs. See Orion=LABRYS= Great Mother sign, supposed y-sign (see linear A/B cretan signs),W =Cassiopeia.  There is not much present the East, Aegean areas.You noticed  the Cycladic-type artefacts beside Tartaria tablets and not comented.

SMART DISCOVERY, (supposed mesage intentional covered);SOLE AUTHOR: MARCO MERLINI

If it is about magic and religion it is realy possible and we have many explanations at different levels for the fact that message to be hidden from view of the ordinary  passing-by people.                           – only individuals supposed to “charming” ritual had the right to hear the message.As to read….., you only could suppose in those times how many, in fact only few of them could read or understand the message/signs.                                                                                                                                       – we could think of the tablets as a holy component  comparing with an portable altar.                               If think as a component of a type of religion, as a church have an inner sanctum (begining with sumerians) so covered portion is the inner sanctum of the tablets.                                                               – think of tablets and other objects used in ritual as greek used MAGIKA HIERA=”SACRED MAGIC”

Isis Magic : Articles : Isis and Magika Hiera – Hermetic Fellowship

http://www.hermeticfellowship.org/Iseum/Articles/IsisAndMagikaHiera.html

Yes, this Great Egyptian Goddess is many other things, too—wisdom, power, … all these are magic, and specifically magika hiera, Greek for sacred magic.

On the ‘hiera’ of the Eleusinian Mysteries | Baring the Aegis baringtheaegis.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-hiera-of-eleusinian-mysteries.html

Sep 30, 2015 – Many ancient Hellenic religious traditions–and especialy Mystery Traditions–have ‘hiera‘ (ἱερὰ), sacred objects. These objects are usually …

 

WHAT COULD BE SACRED MESSAGE ON TABLET ??

 

exemple :

 signs HP                                            Se

 

                                                      R b o c

 

HaR/HeR(os)                           SeRBOS=SERVOS

 

 

 

Tăbliţele de la Tărtăria – Page 5 – Forumul Softpedia
https://forum.softpedia.com › topic › pag…
Mar 10, 2012 · 18 posts · 11 authors
Din What was the Proto-Indo -European religion like … This word comes from the root *xar-, meaning “to fit … *h2er “to assemble skilfully”, present in Greek harma …

PDFhttps://caio.ueberalles.net › Indo-Europea…
Chairs in Indo-European linguistics without particular ties to Sanskrit were created …. of chairs for Indo-European linguistics at universities. …… Cf. Proto-Gerrnanic ‘xar-ja- = Got.

 

http://biblehub.com/greek/5479.htm Cognate: 5479 xará (another feminine noun from the root xar-, “extend favor, lean towards, be favorably disposed”) – properly, the awareness (of God’s) grace, favor; joy (“grace recognized”).

And relation between servos and heros;

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Serb

Serb

Etymology

From Serbo-Croatian Srbi, from Proto-Slavic *sьrbъ (“ally, Serb, Sorb”), from Proto-Indo-European *ser- (“to protect, watch over”); akin to Latin servo (“I guard, I protect”), Old English searu (“weapons, armor”), Lithuanian sárgas (“watchman”), Greek ἥρως (hḗrōs, “hero”),

 

BUT MORE, AND EQUAL INTERESTING

See

1.the stroke inside 1-st “D”  ?”i”?

2.vertical line from 2-nd “D” upwards    ?”b“?

signs

HP/HD             Di b o c

reading

Hede,ede (“this here”)                                            Dibos /deibos/deivos (=GOD!)

Heros/Hera (Lord,Lady)

dios – Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dios

Asturian Wikipedia has an article on: dios … Ladino dio), from Latin deus, from Old Latin deivos, from Proto-Italic *deiwos, from Proto-Indo-European *deywós.

Deus – Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Deus
Deus is Latin for “god” or “deity”. Latin deus and dīvus “divine”, are descended from Proto- Indo-European *deiwos, “celestial” or “shining ”

The truth about Macedonia: – Network54
www.network54.com › Forum › message
of The Indo-European words: Reeka, Ree, Rea and River …. We also know that Zeus is the Supreme God and’ rules’ the other gods on the tallest … as “qibos [5] = Dibos = divos” This has very close affinity to the Greek word qeios=qeos which .

 

http://www.prehistory.it/ftp/images/24_inscriptions.jpg

 ALSO GOD=ZEUS,ZEU

“IF” Zoo=Zou=DDoo=DDou because of shift Z>>”DD”

Late Laconian dialect inscriptions and spoken Laconian in the Imperial Period …
www.academia.edu › Late_Laconian_dia…
… of Copenhagen – torerovskris@gmail.com 2.5.5 /d/ or /g/ + /i̯ / yields /dd/ in Laconian vs. Attic /zd/ or /dz/ – spelling vacillates between < ΔΔ> and <Ζ> since the Archaic period.

So, there are twoo posibilitiees to have written there the name of GOD !

 

Aion/Ion; Kogaion/Kugaion, (dar numai in greaca:“Kogaionon“ !)

Asa cum veti vedea, numele stramosului mitic ION,al zeului timpului AION si acela al muntelui sacru KOGAION sant mult timp in spate legate istoric..KOGAION, AION si ION.Origini si legaturi lingvistice.Originea lor este mult departe inapoi in timp.

De exemplu sumerienii obisnuiau sa asocieze un termen zeilor si regilor.
Pentru zei, foloseau inainte de cuvant un semn ca o stea * ce insemna DINGIR:”zeu,ceresc”.Acelasi semn il aplicau si in cazul unor regi (Lugal).Lingvistii de azi, cand traduc un text,inlocuiesc acest semn cu litera D pusa tot la fel inaintea cuvantului.
.Pentru regi acest semn avea rolul de a sublinia, scoate in evidenta  caracterul sacru asemanator-zeiesc .Denumirea sumeriana pentru rege era LUGAL:”LU-GAL”=”om-mare”.Ei asociau acestui Lugal=rege un termen care arata caracterul inalt,sacru al regelui.

Lu-gal  +Numele regelui + Kuga
om-mare+   Nume     + inalt,pur,sacru sau                                                                                   semnul*”zeu,zeiesc”(lingvistii il inlocuiesc cu “D”)+nume+kuga

From Ur-du-kuga – Wikipedia   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-du-kuga

Fundamentals of Sumerian Grammar / Grundzuge der Sumerischen Grammatik
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=1597522988 –
Arno Poebel, ‎K. C. Hanson ; kug-a „glänzend“, „rein“, „heilig“

kug-a:”stralucitor”,regesc,sfant.
Pentru presupusul nume KOGAION care pare a fi un nume cumva distorsionat, acesta poate fi interpretat rapid ca si:

1.KUGA-ION :”Bunicul,STRAMOSUL-Ion”, pentru ca Lycianul Kuga inseamna bunic.

Dumneavostra veti intreba, si ce avem noi in comun cu Lyceenii?
*Se spune ca originea comuna a Latinilor deci a Romanilor si Romanilor este respectiv in Lidia pentru romani si Lycia pentru daci,romani.
Romanii gandeau si erau invatati la scoala ca ei provin din Lidia, stramosul Enea care a plecat dupa razboiul din Troia in Peninsula Italica si deasemenea ca stramosul lor era LUDUS
Romanii stiu ca dacii aveau cultul lupului si venerau lupul.Lycos in greaca inseamna “lucitor” ca si lat.”luce” rom:”a luci” stralucitor.Denumirea lupului venea de la faptul ca baga groaza in oameni cu ochii sai care straluceau noaptea.

From Coniugazione verbo narro latino dating – Duck DNS biginfoysaz.duckdns.org › Coniugazione-verbo-narro-latino-dating                                                                                           << Bodies were first placed in a kokh –a deep, narrow cave –or on an … dead were …>>

From Authenticating the Activities of Jesus   https://books.google.ro › books

                                                                                                                                               greaca:ION=”umblator” A-ION:”fix”
2.KUGAION, KUGA-AION, “templul, asezamantul, salasul sacru al lui Ion” pentru ca asemanator,
MUSAION, sau HERAION sant MUSA+AION, HERA+AION :”locul fix,templul lui MUSA(arte),sau asezamantul zeitei  HERA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogaionon Kogaionon a fost muntele sacru al Daco-Getilor, locul unde Zalmoxis a stat intr-o pestera subterana pentru trei ani. Dupa disparitia in Kogaionon, el a fost considerat mort de catre geti dar dupa trei ani el a revenit la viata si s-a aratat poporului, care a devenit convins de rugile sale sfinte cand a iesit din Kogaionon. Strabo pretindea ca un rau cu acelasi nume curgea in vecinatate.
O traducere moderna Kogaionon ar fi “Muntele Sacru” care poate fi conexata cu un posibil cuvant Dacic kaga care inseamna sacru, cuvant atestat in doua inscriptii timpurii din Tomis.

ion,gr.”mergator,calator”, aion:”fix” aionon:”timp infinite,etern”
Astfel Kogaionon are doua intelesuri in acelasi timp.
koga-aionon : sacru-etern si templul sacrului-Ion sau mai degraba Zeul eternitatii, Aion.

Legaturi intre Aion si sumerianul Oannes:

Religion Before Adam – Lost History

De fapt KOGAIONON nu este distorsionat pentru ca Koga este o dezvoltare lingvistica comuna in limbile Indo-Europene (dar nu numai):
GOGA &gt;&gt; KOGA.
Goga are originile in preajma regelui GUGU, cunoscut si sub numele de Gyges.
GUG/GOG este o radacina lingvistica Indo-Europeana care semnifica:”rotund,mare,inalt,umflat”
Deasemenea are intelesul de conducator (cu radacina I.Europeana “Ag”) : vezi DEMAGOGOS:DEMOS-AGOGOS:”conducatorul poporului”
Relativ la Ion, a fost un stramos al popoarelor respectiv ca si ramurilor greaca si latina precum Pelegus (“pelasgian”) dar mult mai vechi.
Dar Ion are legaturi si cu sumerianul Oannes ,iar acesta prin particula AN cu “cer/zeu” sau cu zeul pamantului Enki (domn-pamant)
KUGA-ION este ca si  KUGA-AN care este gresit, nu pentru ca KugaAn este echivalentului zeului Azag, un zeu subteran asociat cu taramul mortii si moartea.In schimb  KUGA-an-na.
KUGA-AN-AN it is: “sacru,pur-zeu,cer”
An(En) + An=Domn,zeu+Cer———————————————————————————————————
Nu avem numai lantul muntos GODEANU/GOGEANU                                                              (GUD-ANU,Gudanna?) GOG-ANu:”mare-ceresc”
Encyclopedia fiarelor si monstrilorin mituri,legende si folclor
https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0786495057 Theresa Bane
Variatii: TAURUL CERESC, Gugalana :Un taur monstruos din Sumerul antic, Gudanna (“un atacator”) a fost descris ca fiind gigantic si avand respiratia atat de otravitoare ca putea sa omoare deodata 200 de luptatori …….

Gugalanna – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugalanna
In religia Sumeriana, Gugalanna este primul sot al zeitatii Ereshkigal, regina lumii de jos.
——————————————————————————————————-                  Instead
Azi avem printr-e popoarele din Asia kogea ; turk Hogea rom.kogeamite :”ceva (de dimensiuni?) anormal,excesiv de mari, foarte mare”
Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja
Khawaja or khwaja (Arabic: خواجة‎) este un titlu onorific folosit pe cuprinsul Orientului Mijlociu,Asia de Sud,Asia de Sud-Est si Asia Centrala in mod particular inspre invatatorii Sufi teach. Cuvantul vine din cuvantul iranian khwāja (Pharsi: خواجه khāje; Dari khājah; Tajik khoja) si se traduce ca maestru,invatator,domn si in sens arhaic “nobil,gentleman”. Pronuntiile hodja or hoca (Turkish), খাজা (Khaaja) (Bengali), hodža(Bosnian), hoxha (Albanian), hodža (Serbian), hotzakis (Greek), hogea (Romanian), koja (Javanese)[1] and al-khawaja[2] sant de asemenea folosite. Numele este deasemenea folosit in Egipt si Sudan pentru a indica o persoana de o nationalitate straina sau cu origine straina.  Khawaja este deasemenea un supra-nume printre etnicii  Kashmir.
I found another root:https://books.google.ro › books
Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns · 1994 · Language Arts &amp; Disciplines
Pokorny 1959:517-518 *kago-, *kogo-, -a- ‘ goat’; Walde 1927-1932.1:336-337 *qago-, * qogo-, -a-; Mann 1984-1987:459 *kag- ‘goat, kid, goatskin’; Gamkrelidze-Ivanov …

Uncategorized « Cradle of Civilization
https://aratta.wordpress.com › page
May 18, 2015 · … the first element is probably cognate with hedge, which derives from           PIE *kagh– ..…. 8000-9000 BCE) from the Zagros mountains and northern Mesopotamia , rather (hedge:imprejmuire,gard)
*********************************************************************************
*Nota
As vrea sa clarific niste lucruri, despre care nu stiu cum stau lucrurile de fapt.Nici cercetatorii de marca nu au clarificat aceste lucruri si au opinii diferite (si in legatura cu care eu am niste pareri si idei proprii):
1. Ce fel de oameni,markerul lor genetic si de unde au venit popoarele culturii VECHII EUROPE/Danubiene/Vinca-Turdas.
2.Cand, in cate valuri si pe ce ruta au venit popoarele Indo-Europene.
3.Daca Lycienii si Lidienii erau populatii native Anatoliei rude ale hititilor sau rude mai indepartate a sumerienilor.
4.Daca parte din ei au migrat inspre Europa sau a fost invers: o migratie timpurie a populatiei Danubiene inspre Anatolia (asemanator cum se presupune ca au fost Brugii&gt;&gt;Frigienii )
5.Cate valuri ale populatiei care au adus agricultura in Europa din Sumer sau Anatolia precum si cand.
6.Daca un numar relativ mic sau grupuri mici, familii de sumerieni sau Anatolieni au venit in Serbia si Dacia folosindu-se de prelucrarea metalelor ca indeletnicire primara si mai putin de abilitatile de agricultori.
7. Daca exista o legatura, a Dacilor, si in ce grad  cu popoarele Lycian,si al Gutilor (acestia din urma un popor din muntii Zagros, (care printre altele au cucerit la un moment dat Sumerul).
8.Care a fost exact relatia si legatura intre Danubieni si Egeeni.

Sumerian KUGA, altaic KOGEA, lycian XUGA/KUGA, tur.hodja rom.Hogea

Probably the innitial meaning was holy.sacred and continued to be applied in anatolian family languages , and I.-European/ lycian, as from expressing sacred, to “most revered”, for ancestors, here “grandfather”.                                                                                                      ————————————————————————–

From  Was Eridu The First City in Sumerian Mythology? Peeter Espak

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/EspakFsKulmar.pdf

“Hallo also tried to interpret an Early Dynastic Ukg. 15 based on the Neo- or Late Babylonian incantation-building ritual text that contains a creation myth usually titled “The Founding of Eridu” or “The Creation of the World by Marduk.” The mythological motives refl ected in the text might represent early prototypes of the later Enuma eliš myth, assuming that the original composition of the text might have taken place during the Kassite period. The idea that Marduk (or Enki/Ea) created the world, other gods, and also mankind is, however, nowhere to be found in the mythological texts in the earlier Sumerian or Old-Babylonian accounts. The fi rst lines of the myth state that before the creation started, there were no temples of the gods, reeds, trees, bricks (construction materials for the temples), or cities. It is stated that E-Kur in Nippur, E-Anna in Uruk, and Abzu in Eridu were not yet built. All the lands were sea, and in the middle of the sea there was a (fresh) water pipe or spring symbolising the emerging creation about to begin. The myth continues by saying that Eridu and the Esagil temple (of Marduk) were constructed. The latter seems to be created or constructed by the “primordial” god Lugaldukuga—the “king of the holy mountain.” The line in question may also be interpreted to mean that Lugaldukuga started residing in the holy mound. Lambert hypothesises that Lugaldukuga must be the name of the god Ea.38 However, the name might also indicate the known primordial deities considered to be the ancestors of Enlil.39 The following line then states that Babylon was built and the Esagil temple was created. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the initial mention of Eridu and Abzu as the names actually denoting the city of Babylon and Marduk’s temple situated there. Creation of the World by Marduk, 1–14:40

én é kù-ga é digir–e-ne ki MIN nu-mu-un-dù /

bītu el-lim bīt ilanimeš ina aš-ri el-lim ul e-pu-uš

gi nu-è geš nu-dím / qa-nu-ú ul a-ṣi i-ṣi ul ba-ni

sig4 nu-šub gešù-šub nu-dím /

li-bit-ti ul na-da-at na-al-ban-ti ul ba-na-át

é nu-dù uru nu-dím /

bītu ul e-pu-uš ālu ul ba-ni

uru nu-dím á-dam nu-mu-un-gar-gar /

ālu ul e-pu-uš nam-maš-šu-ú ul šá-kin

nibruki nu-dù é-kur-ra nu-dím /

ni-ip-pú-ru ul e-pú-uš é-kur ul ba-ni

unuki nu-dù é-an-na nu-dím /

 ú-ruk ul e-pú-uš é-MIN ul ba-ni

abzu nu-dù eriduki nu-dím /

ap-su-ú ul e-pú-uš eri4 -du10 ul ba-ni

é kù digir-e-ne ki-tuš-bi nu-dím /

bītu el-lum bīt ilānimeš šu-bat-su-nu ul ep-še-et

[gú? ] kur-kur-ra-ke4 a-ab-ba /

nap-ḫar ma-ta-a-tú tam-tum-ma

[igi šà] ab-ba-ke4 šìta na-nam /

i-nu šá qí-rib tam-tim ra-ṭu-um-ma

[u4 -ba eridu]ki ba-dú é-sag-íl-la ba-dím / ina u4 -mi-šú eri4 -du10 e-pu-uš é-MIN ba-ni

[é-sag-í]l-šà-abzu-ke4 –e-dè d lugal-du6 –kù-ga mu-ni-in-ri-a /

é-MIN šà ina qí-rib ap-si-i d lugal-du6-kù-ga ir-mu-ú

[ká-digir-rak ] i ba-dù é-sag-íl-la šu-du7 /

 bābiluki e-pú-uš é-sag-íl šuk-lul

Translation:

A pure temple, a temple of the gods, had not been built in a pure place Reed was not growing, tree was not created

Brick was not laid (in the brick-mould), brick-mould was not created Temple was not built, city was not created

City was not created, settlements were not established

Nippur was not built, E-Kur was not created

Uruk was not built, E-Anna was not created

Abzu (temple) was not built, Eridu was not created

The pure temple of the gods, their dwelling place, was not created

All the lands were sea

A spring in the sea was a water-pipe

Then Eridu was built, Esagil was created Esagil, founded by Lugaldukuga in Abzu / Or:

Esagil where Lugaldukuga dwelled in the Abzu

Babylon was built, Esagil was completed

From Sumerian Cuneiform Dictionary Mugsar Online  mugsarsumerian.com/default.htm

UNU, unu6 [1511x] = banquet; dining hall; the most sacred part of a temple; seat, …… KU3, kug = (to be) pure; = metal, silver; (to be) bright, shiny …

From Elementary Sumerian Glossary https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/…/Foxvog_Sumerian_…

.kù(g) (kug) to be sacred, holy; to sanctify kù(g) holy, sacred; shining, bright, clean, pure; kù(g) (kug) silver                                                                                                                  kú → gu7                                                                                                                                              gu7 (conventionally read kú) to eat; to have the use of; to consume (by some means)

From Sumerian Lexicon – IS MU https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2013/PAPVB_13/um/…/Halloran_version_3.pdf

kug, kù: n., silver; precious metal; money; noble

From Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy  https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=9004324747

… this goddess was not in Ascalon but in the “holy city” of Hierapolis, also known to the … the sacredness of the goddess—kù means “pure, sacred” in Sumerian.

From https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/7498/1/ZabbanTL.pdf          %5BE- . . . ]-kuga the temple of Misaru; House which [is pure] among the mountains.

. 2. The only Sumerian temple name hitherto associated with ∞ala is é.dúr.kù, probably in Adad’s southern cult-centre at Karkara (George 1993: 81 no. 232). Final kù matches our kù.ga, but dúr “seat” is an improbable source of puluhtu “fearsomeness”. Combining sub-columns (a) and (c) would produce a TN [é.ní.gal].kù.ga = bitu sa puluhtasu [ellet] “House whose fearsomeness is sacred”. In temple names the adjective kùg applies more commonly to concrete objects than to abstractions. Accordingly puluhtu here refers to the shrine’s numinous aura, which might certainly be considered “pure, sacred, holy”, and which, in a sense, was envisaged as a concrete attribute of divinity.

3. The only Sumerian temple name previously paired with Misaruis ur.sag.sum.kud.da, a chamber of the temple of Assur at Assur (George 1993: 156 no. 1187). What remains of the first and third sub-columns in the present entry suggests the temple name é.hur.sag.kù.ga, which is otherwise borne by a temple of the goddess Gula at Babylon (George 1993: 101 no. 485).
4. Perhaps [é.ní.gal.siki]l.la = bitu sa puluhtasu e[llet] “House whose fearsomeness (= radiance) is sacred”. The name of its resident is difficult to read on the photograph, and I cannot make up my mind whether it begins with mes, nun or sukkal. What deity could have intervened between Misaru and Isartu?

“               5. For Isartu “Fairness” as the wife of Adad’s son Misaru “Justice”, see An = Anum III 246–47 and Schwemer 2000: 67–68. No names are elsewhere known for sanctuaries or shrines of this goddess. The remnants of this one, si.sá = mustesiru “one who renders justice”, are clearly appropriate to her function as an arbiter of justice.

Note Very interesting, puluhu “fearsomeness” is reminding me of Proto-Nostratic root “pal(V)”

Enki – Wikipedia https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki

Cultul zeului Ea a fost recompus după modelul zeului sumerian Enki, dar uneori era confundat cu Nudimmud sau chiar cu Oannes.