Acum inspre acest final, am sentimente amestecate (stiinta nu este locul sentimentelor ci al faptelor si dovezilor):
- dezamagire, in privinta a ceea ce era de asteptat sa obtin dar si in privinta unor asteptati sustinatori ai cercetarii, si aici ma refer la unii oameni de stiinta din care unii au dat dovada, sa zicem de superficialitate, si care nu au dat dovada de cea mai mica urma de remuscare - un continuu sentiment personal de frustrare, care inafara de efectul pozitiv de a nu ma opri in demersul meu, in mod continuu a avut un efect de obosire si erodare - un continuu si profund sentiment de insatisfactie, pentru ca nu am reusit mai repede sa ajung la o asa-zisa tinta si anume o citire ultima/sigura a tablitelor - oboseala adunata in ani de zile, cu rezultate absolut dezamagitoare, altele decat cele asteptate de mine si in special de public - dar si oarecare satisfactie, in ceea ce priveste rezultatele (lamuritoare zic eu in aspectele esentiale ) obtinute de mine
O serie de aspecte sesizate de mine , unele de la inceput (sanse mari de avea scriere) apoi cuplate cu altele observate pe parcurs (doar mare similaritate cu proto-scrierea sumeriana+ multe inadvertente) au condus in final la acest rezultat. Pot spune cu satisfactie, ca unii din cei mai de seama specialisti in proto-scriere, inafara de oarecare retinere din partea unora (probabil de a nu jigni orgoliul national) nu au fost siguri si nu au pus exact "punctul pe i" de la inceput, dar in general au exprimat opinii extrem de pertinente. Cum ar fi acelea, ca desi semnele reflecta in cea mai mare masura semnele folosite in faza proto-cuneiforma a scrierii sumeriene, totusi nu se incadreaza in anumite caracteristici, in special de ordin tehnic. De acest lucru nu au dat dovada cercetatorii romani ( noi de fapt nu avem cercetatori in domeniu, acestia se numesc "asirologi') si nici cei straini aflati in imediata apropiere a lor.
Dupa ce unul dintre primii cercetatori, si aici ma refer la Dl. Marco Merlini a observat un real inceput al demersului umanitatii in ceea ce priveste scrierea in cultura Vinca, din pacate nu a sesizat nici pe parcursul demersului sau ca acceptiunea de scriere nu poate fi aplicata acestei culturi, si zic eu nici macar pe deplin aceea de proto-scriere, desi primii pasi au inceput sa fie facuti.
Nu inteleg, ca desi a avut ca si mine la dispozitie intreaga literatura si biblioteca informationala in ceea ce priveste aparitia si evolutia scrisului in lume, a preferat sa nu recunoasca "importul" sau transferul cultural a nici unui semn. A preferat ca pentru toate semnele, care fiecare din ele, fie vorba intre noi a fost prezent in alte zeci de scrieri in lume sa le atribuie o "semnificatie religioasa, mistica" care atentie nu era cunoscuta de civilizatia respectiva in ansamblu, ci cunoscuta doar de o stricta comunitate locala a acelei civilizatii (zice dansul Vinca). Adica pe scurt, numai presupusul scrib de la Tartaria stia ce inseamna semnele ! Nu prea inteleg, ca desi a avut partial cunostinta de cercetarile mele, - ne-am cunoscut personal la Bucuresti in urma cu cca 12 ani, - i-am scris vre-o 4 e-mailuri, si probabil la orice tastare pe Google a tablitelor de la Tartaria sau a numelui sau apareau zeci de pagini ale mele in care - apareau inadvertentele sesizate de mine in cercetarea mondiala dar si in lucrarile dansului a preferat sa stea in turnul sau de fildes de cercetator de varf fara ca sa aiba cea mai mica reactie sau feed-back. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nu stiu cum sa sintetizez mai bine swi mai scurt; dar orice lucru are un inceput, asa ca voi incepe ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acest subiect al tablitelor a creat o agitatie si zarva mondiala zic eu nemeritata.
Pentru ca desi initial o serie de aspecte legate de momentul efectiv al descoperirii nu erau pe deplin lamurite, o serie de binevoitori romani si straini inca de la inceput au lansat zvonul celei mai vechi scrieri din lume si anume a unei scrieri pre-sumeriene. Inca in faza de inceput a fost atribuit un caracter si semnificatie, respectiv interpretari misterioase, mistice, ascunse (ezoterice) a.semnelor,
Deci inca de la inceput le-au fost atribuite un caracter si aspect mitic.Adica semnele erau expresia unor mituri ancestrale cu inteles pierdut definitiv (ce comod!)
Pai nu a fost destul, pe masura ce a trecut timpul a inceput sa fie inconjurate de straturi concentrice din ce in ce mai groase de interpretari si barfe, subiectul a inceput sa devina unul mitic , pana a nu mai putea sa distingi ceva asa cum nu poti vedea gaura neagra din interiorul unei galaxii.
Mit (secundar, independent celui asociat semnelor) creat de unii cercetatori si aici nu ma sfiesc sa spun ca cel mai mare contributor a fost Dl.Marco Merlini. Ca a avut de la inceput si tot timpul cele mai bune intentii, nu pun la indoiala.
Dansul a asociat pur si simplu oasele unei defuncte persoane, gasite pe undeva in apropiere,apartinand culturii Vinca (5-6.000 BC) direct cu tablitele.
Tablite a caror varsta nu se cunoaste si nici nu va putea fi cunoscuta vreodata.
Studiind literatura arheologica de specialitate, am realizat ca din zeci de cercetatori exista foarte putine doua opinii apropiate in privinta varstei tablitelor. Bineinteles ca dansii au avut ca referinta doar analiza unor artefacte gasite in apropiere si oarecumva reflectie a semnelor prezente pe tablite.
Mi-am dat seama ca nu pot sa am nici-o baza in privinta niciunei varste asa incat nu am avut de ales si am analizat doar ceea ce era o certitudine, respectiv semnele. ------------------------------------
Asa pe scurt, analiza semnelor a fost un gen de vector care a facut multe zig-zaguri si a indreptat si condus treptat cercetarea mea spre zona actuala in care am ajuns. Bineinteles ca nu aveam de unde sa stiu unde voi ajunge dinainte, acea zona i-mi era absolut necunoscuta. Recunosc ca , ca tinta mea era ceva ideal si anume de a ajunge la o citire unica si ultimativa care pe cat posibil sa nu fie contestata. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Ca o remarca si parere personala, mi-a fost de mare folos un gen de abilitate pe care nu stiam ca o am, in domeniul semnelor.Aceasta mi-a fost de folos in primele 24 de ore dupa ce am vazut fotografiile tablitelor. In intervalul celor 24 de ore deja vazusem cateva sute de semne folosite in diferite scrieri din lume si dupa 24 de ore am avut un gen de declic si anume ca mai multe semne apartin acelui grup.
Mai apoi am parcurs urmatoarele faze principale:
- In urma unei analize comparative am realizat ca cel mai mare procentaj de semne se regasesc in lista semnelor sumeriene proto-cuneiforme (acesta specificat inainte cu de-abia in urma cu un an) si in alfabetele Anatoliene (carian in special).
Acelasi lucru l-au sesizat, (dar doar in privinta semnelor proto-sumeriene) cercetatorii asirologi S.Hood, A.A.vaiman , Rumen Kolev si altii.Acestia au realizat o foarte buna si apropiata interpretare pornind de la semnele proto-cuneiforme. Ca observatie, eu fiind in mai mare masura si mai mult aplecat si focalizat doar pe aceste tablite am observat si remarcat unele usoare abateri si inadvertente in privinta interpretarile semnelor dansilor (vezi articolele mele).
Deasemenea am luat la cunostinta (relativ de curand) de observatiile privind abaterile si inadvertentele fata de linia si cursul scrisului sumerian prezente pe tablite. Acestea sant sa zicem de ordin tehnic dar constituie un gen de dovezi concrete si dovedesc dupa cum au afirmat o parte din dansii, dar si eu, ca nu au fost inscriptionate de un nativ sumerian.Pe o cale independenta, din pacate necunoscand mai demult lucrarile dansilor am ajuns la concluzii similare. Acest fapt se poate vedea si verifica urmarind cronologia postarilor mele anterioare. Avantajul ca nu am stiut mai demult si ca au fost independente este dublu. Pe de o parte cateva aspecte au fost constatate numai de mine si pe de alta parte mi-au intarit convingerea ca constatarile mele sant corecte.
Bineinteles ca mi-am pus si problema perioadei in care ar fi putut fi inscriptionate si a locului de origine, asta in urma analizarii diferitelor scrieri din diferite arii si diferite perioade, Si mai pe scurt, analizand "n" tipuri de scriere si presupuse perioade in care au fost scrise, precum si locul de origine, si aici am ajuns in mod absolut surprinzator si imbucurator la unele concluzii similare cu ale altor cercetatori;
Din cercetarea mea rezulta un gen de scara descrescatoare in privinta sanselor si probabilitatilor de varsta si origine. Nota
Dupa ce in zeci de lucrari Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut un presupus scris al civilizatiei Vinca, in final a ajuns sa se cantoneze in a presupune ce fel de migrant sau comerciant si a cata spita la origine sumerian sau sumerian stabilit in Transilvania ori din zona Egeeana ar fi ajuns sa transmita acele semne sumeriene. (Semne care au fost aparent scrise aici la noi, dupa analiza argilei!) --------------------------------
Inca si mai pe scurt, DATORITA PREZENTEI UNUI AMALGAM DE CEL PUTIN 2 CATEGORII DE SEMNE (dar de fapt as putea arata ca pot fi chiar 3) sansele in privinta originii tablitelor si a "scribului", acum la cateva ore inainte de anul Nou sant urmatoarele (cifre aproximative, fiind atribuite de mine, subiective):
- Scris sumerian, scrib nativ sumerian 0%
-scris quasi-sumerian, urmas/comerciant sumerian 5%
- scris quasi-sumerian urmas sumerian,comerciant urmas sumerian din Creta 20%
- scris eteo-cretan, din Creta 25 %
-scris din perioada arhaica, alfabet arhaic grec 35 %
-scris dintr-o perioada apropiata I.E.N. 40%
-scris al unei persoane quasi-contemporane E.N. 50%
- scrib contemporan. E.N. perioada 1800-1900 80 %
Dupa mine pare a fi un exercitiu sau incercare de a trasa,inscriptiona semne ale unei persoane care avea relativa cunostinta (dar nu complet stapana) de semnele sumeriene, dar cunostea si semnele din zona Anatoliana . dupa toate aparentele, o asemenea persoana ar putea fi cineva din grupul :
- Zsofia Torma, (ea avea cunostinta de semnele cuneiforme sumeriene dar si de cele anatoliene si le compara cu semnele gasite de ea pe artefacte. Posibil ca a facut un exercitiu de scriere; avand cunostinta de semne sumeriene si anatoliene asa se explica amestecatura quasi-omogena de semne Sumeriene, egeene si anatoliene)
-Torma Jozsef, tatal, arheolog, de religie catolica
-Karoly Torma, fratele ei, arheolog si epigraf de marca, cunoscator de latina si doctor in filologie
- un cercetator maghiar sau german (care i-a facut un cadou, posibil in proximitatea doctoratului)
TOTUL AR PUTEA FI LEGAT DE ZSOFIA, TATAL SAU FRATELE SAU prin titlul de "decretum doctor" care inseamna "invatator in doctrina (teologica) " ! Singura si unicul rezultat de afisare pe Google a atestarii scrise a succesiunii "DDOC" este legata de prescurtarea latina a lui "decretorum doctor"
Sa speram ca aceasta ultima varianta este "o gaselnita nebuna" si nu are nici-o legatura cu realitatea, pentru ca ar fi infinit mai mult decat as putea sa suport.
luni, 31 decembrie 2018
duminică, 23 decembrie 2018
Tracking, looking for traces and evidences on Tartaria tablets
Image, from http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=8;t=009931;go=older
Up to date, no consistent results regarding: - the real age of the tablets - the kind of "writing" -origin, location for the tablet and the scribe
The real age cannot be determined anymore. Taking acount of finding circumstances, not only the age (strata in wich were found the tablets) but also the exact location of cultic pit, of the pit house, and also location of every item/artefact in the ritualic-funerary complex is not sure. Taking account of the fact that begining of writing in the World is not older than 3.500 B.C. in all three places, Mesopotamia, Indus-Valley/Elam, and Egypt, (note that then was not yet proper writing), - From the start, the tablet's age could not depass 3.500 B.C. As you see later, I show evidences that the tablets could be much, much newer. So the supposed deceased shaman/priestes with the age of the bones determined 5.500-6.000 B.C. is not at all related with the tablets.
P.S. A make-up story around the supposed "Lady Tartaria", as good would be for a novel or mooving-picture, is of no help in the scientific endeavour. On contrary, in an allready misty subject, the result is to completely envolope the matter in an undesirable deep fogg. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The main researchers on the field are sustaining a proto-writing in Vinca-Culture area. It is an undisputed issue. Even so, this must be proofed/!not yet !. From the begining there are only twoo main directions:
A- Sustaining an Danubian/Vinca early "writing" wich precedes that sumerian-one.
B -An sumerian-inspired writing. not early than that sumerian one.
A. Is out of discussion.Scientists agree.
An Danubian/Vinca "writing" is in thin air , without support, as long as not was proofed that Danubians invented writing, more than this, they even not attained the proto-writing phase.
Now, as a ultimate option, having no sufficient confidence in the archeologic data, nor in the support of some utmost skilled in writings researchers, I had a last option to throughly analise the signs, to compare them with the main writing systems, counting the common number of signs, test those tablet signs with the known writings, as to see in wich measure they match every wryting sistem, an as result how "friendly" they behave. It seems that even later supposed culture of the tablets, Cotofeni Culture, not developed yet writing.
B. Sumerian-inspired, ( I say, at the limit) could be, as opinated prestige assyorologists Adam Falkenstein, M.S.Hood, H.Haarman, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev.
From Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets Attila László http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf
"....the study of A. Falkenstein, the first Assyriologist who thoroughly checked Vlassa’s conclusions and who comparatively examined, one by one, the signs from the Tărtăria tablets and their early Mesopotamian parallels. He established the existence of certain similarities in terms of the form of the tablets, the division of the surface in columns and partitions (Fächer), in which the signs were then inscribed. He noticed that, from the 20 (or 24, with variants) signs on the second and third Tărtăria tablets, precise analogies were drawn for five, and similar forms were found for six among the archaic texts from Uruk (in German, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, abbreviated: ATU)25. All the 11 correspondences belong to the Uruk IIIb period (Djemdet Nasr), which can be dated to the time frame between 2800 and 2750 BC, also representing the chronological reference for dating the Tărtăria tablets. In Falkenstein’s opinion, the correlations established between the Tărtăria clay tablets and the Sumerian ones indicate an impulse (Anregung) from Mesopotamia. At the same time, he stressed the fact that, unlike the Mesopotamian written clay tablets, the Tărtăria tablets were made
from coarse material, were perforated (in order to be suspended?) and fired, the signs were incised (not impressed), the signs for numbers (characteristic to the Mesopotamian tablets, having an economic character)
were (partially?) missing, etc. ............................ Among the differences between the signs on the Tărtăria tablets and the ones on the
Mesopotamian tablets E. Qasim notices the fact (already remarked by Falkenstein in 1965) that the signs for numbers, which are constantly present on the compartmentalized Mesopotamian tablets (which contain economic texts), cannot be identified on the Tărtăria tablets. However, Qasim finds that the sign in the form
of the letter D, followed by two small circles (marked with no. 7 on the Tiumenev 1 tablet and on the second Tărtăria tablet) can be identified with the conventional sign used in the Assyriology literature for the graphic transcription of the signs impressed on the clay tablets, corresponding to the numbers 1 and 10. In order to perfect her “indictment”, E. Qasim appreciates that those two signs (in fact: two simple motifs, a semicircle or half‑moon and circle), which do not have correspondences in the real Mesopotamian signs, were imitations of the conventional transcriptions of certain signs copied from the secondary Assyriology literature, "
From http://cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf "M.S. Hood, an English archeologist, who states that the disk and tablets were carried by Sumerian merchants to Tatárlaka, where the native inhabitants did not understand the written signs but copied them and used them for religious purposes."
A.A.Vaiman, corectly named "quasi-sumerian Tartaria tablets". But in my opinion, as that of others, not a sumerian hand scraped the signs, nor an native sumerian scribe. My opinion is that the signs are not proper (exactly) proto-cuneiform signs. The smoking gun for other origin for the signs than directly from sumerian, by short, is the presence of the D-signs, (unused in sumerian proto-writing), the Chet/het shape of the H-sign wich in a similar shape appeared in Europe first on Aegean area (Crete).
Certainly, there is a link with the sumerian signs. And not "some signs", but all the signs could be found in an exact shape or close in the proto-cuneiform sign list. It is not "by chance", the signs not appeared there by random. And retain, the first instance when such signs appeared in the World was in Sumer in the proto-writing fase. One have the exact shape of some signs as AB(house), ARARMA(bull calf) and many others: PA, SE, LAGAB, etc. and with close shape: GAR, SA,RU, sun-God temple...
B. Other writings wich are suspected are those Cretan-ones (with 3 main variants:Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B...+Cypro-Minoan). Here also we have not all the signs from those writings. Here, we are encountering the same problem, D-shape sign was not used by them. But I found on Tartaria tablets a good bunch of signs (ideograms/logogram/syllabograms) common /(paired!) ,and present in both writings: Sumerian and Aegean ! : sumerian ARARMA/ Aegean MA ; sumerian SE/Aegean TE; sumerian PA/Aegean PA; sumerian KU/Aegean PA3
C. Phoenician/Old hebrew writings not sufficient matching.We have the exact chet/het-shape, also HD could be phoenician/old hebrew "het-qopf". <so ? qoch:"ossuary/loculus"-KoK(aion?> Have also signs/letters "zain", and probably "samech".But in those writings there was no D-shaped signs.They had P sign for qof and dalet/delta sign for D.
D. Anatolian writing could be also a goot candidate (especially carian alphabets). The only writings in wich I found 90% of the signs was sumerian and carian !
From the begining I tried to find the writing wich matching close; *only after this, in the case of "D-letter" signs, runing out of options I gave the "Moon" significance.
In my opinion, by 3.000 B.C., not moon-phases killing them but everyday necessities for making a living and apropiate the nature-gods in order to have good crops. As Mrs. Denisse Schmand Besserat demonstrated writing appeared first as a counting goods necesity.
*! Not the case of sumerian approach where we had sumerian GAR(ninda) signs as egyptian "T":"loaf of bread"!
In a way, one could "depass" the phonetics/interpretation and translation of the signs, whatever sumerian or Aegean, having an "up from high" vision, and take directly the meaning of ideograms ! eg: The signs on squared Tartaria tablet with hole, Image, from http://su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPrYdeD189MSKLzKIXmzILQSZ1K0n_h1eFtByuYrEClb90EJbnoQ
In sumerian, signs:Ararma (bull-calf) + nigin5 +ABhttp://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/signlist.php
nigin5: sum,whole,to enclose, confine; to encircle; to search; to turn; to return; to go around; ...
bull-calf+nigin5+ AB =(sun) Bull/calf+ turning, whole +house =house,abode (of) turning(sun) , or only last 2 signs : (sun) bull +house interpreted as:" house,abode (of) bull(sun) ; in sumerian this sign pair could be read NERGAL wich is the pair or underground instance of the Sun-God,
From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html NERGAL~x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From http://enenuru.proboards.com/thread/329/nergal me: What is for in this above pair on the left sign DARA;"ibex"!? (we have on pict. tablet Ibex
as in Aegean: bull sign+ labrys =MU + labyrinth = house of (AMu,Ama?) = house of the Bull(Sun), house of MINOTAUR, labyrinth, house of the Sun-God/Sun-Bull/MINOTAURUS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I will present you a particularity of the signs, wich I noticed (beeing the single one who noticed /Why ?) :
The signs are a bunch or unusual mixture of mainly three type of signs, so having an eterogen nature :
-pure pictographic signs/pictograms (sqarred without hole)
-ideogram/syllabograms (squarred with hole)
-syllabogram/letters (round-one with hole) ; pure letters (upper half of round-one)
Due of this above, the age of the tablets could be the age of the newest type of writing.The D-shaped signs first appeared in epichoric variants of archaic greek alphabets (for letter D in a plece and for letter R in another).
So we could have in that upper half archaic greek letters. E.g. The archaic shape of eta was pronounced at the begining H/He, and was used first in Crete and later diffused in all Mediteranean as for letter H. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqDynC22_KwCL0oLlpAu3HnTvwBisR1bQcP-kqdlTV-Puybhep
Also is possible to have an local-derived from archaic greek writing in upper half.
From http://www.codex99.com/typography/13.html http://www.codex99.com/typography/images/ancient/greek_sign.gif
Archaic greek, but even old latin, venetic could be. The rest of the signs (out of upper half) could have only an magic-religious-ritual role. Not necessary carring an concrete message.
Unlike the case of Linear A/B where we have at disposal hundreds of tablets, Tartaria tablets are unique of their kind (and in the area), some strange if not weird singletons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the place of origin. In my opinion, not originated, nor "written" at Tartaria, Romania.Place of origin south and again south. Image, from https://www.boone.kyschools.us/docs/building/9/unit%202%20chapter%2004.pdf
Taken or written by an Aegean migrant, but rather originated somewhere in actual Greece teritory, rather in Aegean area, say Cyclades(Syros) or Crete.
This hypothesis is in total acordance with studies of Mr. Evangelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis wich found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants. As a consequence, an direct sumerian contact and cultural infusion with Balkan/Danubian civilisation is not necessary, as the influence could be transmited via Aegean. Some (not few) common elements (regarding the writing) to all three civilisations, were evidenced independently by me in my papers.
Besides, especially due of the "cursed, damned" ,unexplained, "accidental", but also "new" characteres/charagmata "D-letter" shaped signs, present on upper half, in/from the time perspective, the supposed tablets's age would be expanded in an untolerable span:
- between 3.000 B.C. (close-shaped signs, but imprinted used for bread-portions/?Moon phases?) and 800 B.C. (archaic greek letters) ,D-shaped signs were not used in any world writing systems ,or
- any age from "xyz" B.C. to "uvw" A.D., even as new "as could be made yersterday". Don't know exact intention of the writer, so who what wanted to show to whom.
By short, we are forced to choose only one out of two (large distanced in time) possiblities: - an old age close to 3.000 B.C. with the ununswered question regarding the meaning of the D-signs, or - a quite new age close to 800-300 B.C.
Any world writing sistem was not invented in a couple of years, nor in the 100 years course, it is quite a long and complex matter, not depend as one expect on some local human abilities, but as a responce in complex (social and economical) societies to their social and economical life, by short to their necessities and needs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bablets could be so new as to have:
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serbare#Conjugation Italian servare Etymology From Latin servāre, present active infinitive of servō.
Serbare to keep or maintain /to preserve or reserve “Io serbo”
From..https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servos Latin servos m accusative plural of servus
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servus#Latin servus Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *ser-wo (“guardian”), possibly from "ser" (“watch over, protect”). 1.a servant 2.a serf 3.a slave
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hora#Latin hōra f (genitive horae
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heros heros 1.(lliteraly) demigod, hero 2.(transferred sense, Ciceronian) an iilustrious man
From The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal https://books.google.ro/books?id=JiM8AQAAMAAJ
the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr, (Master, Lord.) The whole meaning of the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr :
So from +++++ HP D b o c
HR Se R b o s
? Lord slaves / Lord servants /HERO** servants/ time keep,maintain /serbian *HRistos / HAR*** keeper ? ? HAR/haro/Ede DiDou "give charis; give death; give eat" ?
(* I not found anywhere the Christ monogram, only and only as XP ! ; **thracian heros ; *** har,slavonic haru "gift,CHARM") ....proto-Indo-European root Xar(Char) :"fitted in a pleasant,beautiful manner"
The real age cannot be determined anymore. Taking acount of finding circumstances, not only the age (strata in wich were found the tablets) but also the exact location of cultic pit, of the pit house, and also location of every item/artefact in the ritualic-funerary complex is not sure. Taking account of the fact that begining of writing in the World is not older than 3.500 B.C. in all three places, Mesopotamia, Indus-Valley/Elam, and Egypt, (note that then was not yet proper writing), - From the start, the tablet's age could not depass 3.500 B.C. As you see later, I show evidences that the tablets could be much, much newer. So the supposed deceased shaman/priestes with the age of the bones determined 5.500-6.000 B.C. is not at all related with the tablets.
P.S. A make-up story around the supposed "Lady Tartaria", as good would be for a novel or mooving-picture, is of no help in the scientific endeavour. On contrary, in an allready misty subject, the result is to completely envolope the matter in an undesirable deep fogg. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The main researchers on the field are sustaining a proto-writing in Vinca-Culture area. It is an undisputed issue. Even so, this must be proofed/!not yet !. From the begining there are only twoo main directions:
A- Sustaining an Danubian/Vinca early "writing" wich precedes that sumerian-one.
B -An sumerian-inspired writing. not early than that sumerian one.
A. Is out of discussion.Scientists agree.
An Danubian/Vinca "writing" is in thin air , without support, as long as not was proofed that Danubians invented writing, more than this, they even not attained the proto-writing phase.
Now, as a ultimate option, having no sufficient confidence in the archeologic data, nor in the support of some utmost skilled in writings researchers, I had a last option to throughly analise the signs, to compare them with the main writing systems, counting the common number of signs, test those tablet signs with the known writings, as to see in wich measure they match every wryting sistem, an as result how "friendly" they behave. It seems that even later supposed culture of the tablets, Cotofeni Culture, not developed yet writing.
B. Sumerian-inspired, ( I say, at the limit) could be, as opinated prestige assyorologists Adam Falkenstein, M.S.Hood, H.Haarman, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev.
From Thoughts about a “reconsideration” of the Tărtăria tablets Attila László http://www.daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf
"....the study of A. Falkenstein, the first Assyriologist who thoroughly checked Vlassa’s conclusions and who comparatively examined, one by one, the signs from the Tărtăria tablets and their early Mesopotamian parallels. He established the existence of certain similarities in terms of the form of the tablets, the division of the surface in columns and partitions (Fächer), in which the signs were then inscribed. He noticed that, from the 20 (or 24, with variants) signs on the second and third Tărtăria tablets, precise analogies were drawn for five, and similar forms were found for six among the archaic texts from Uruk (in German, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, abbreviated: ATU)25. All the 11 correspondences belong to the Uruk IIIb period (Djemdet Nasr), which can be dated to the time frame between 2800 and 2750 BC, also representing the chronological reference for dating the Tărtăria tablets. In Falkenstein’s opinion, the correlations established between the Tărtăria clay tablets and the Sumerian ones indicate an impulse (Anregung) from Mesopotamia. At the same time, he stressed the fact that, unlike the Mesopotamian written clay tablets, the Tărtăria tablets were made
from coarse material, were perforated (in order to be suspended?) and fired, the signs were incised (not impressed), the signs for numbers (characteristic to the Mesopotamian tablets, having an economic character)
were (partially?) missing, etc. ............................ Among the differences between the signs on the Tărtăria tablets and the ones on the
Mesopotamian tablets E. Qasim notices the fact (already remarked by Falkenstein in 1965) that the signs for numbers, which are constantly present on the compartmentalized Mesopotamian tablets (which contain economic texts), cannot be identified on the Tărtăria tablets. However, Qasim finds that the sign in the form
of the letter D, followed by two small circles (marked with no. 7 on the Tiumenev 1 tablet and on the second Tărtăria tablet) can be identified with the conventional sign used in the Assyriology literature for the graphic transcription of the signs impressed on the clay tablets, corresponding to the numbers 1 and 10. In order to perfect her “indictment”, E. Qasim appreciates that those two signs (in fact: two simple motifs, a semicircle or half‑moon and circle), which do not have correspondences in the real Mesopotamian signs, were imitations of the conventional transcriptions of certain signs copied from the secondary Assyriology literature, "
From http://cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf "M.S. Hood, an English archeologist, who states that the disk and tablets were carried by Sumerian merchants to Tatárlaka, where the native inhabitants did not understand the written signs but copied them and used them for religious purposes."
A.A.Vaiman, corectly named "quasi-sumerian Tartaria tablets". But in my opinion, as that of others, not a sumerian hand scraped the signs, nor an native sumerian scribe. My opinion is that the signs are not proper (exactly) proto-cuneiform signs. The smoking gun for other origin for the signs than directly from sumerian, by short, is the presence of the D-signs, (unused in sumerian proto-writing), the Chet/het shape of the H-sign wich in a similar shape appeared in Europe first on Aegean area (Crete).
Certainly, there is a link with the sumerian signs. And not "some signs", but all the signs could be found in an exact shape or close in the proto-cuneiform sign list. It is not "by chance", the signs not appeared there by random. And retain, the first instance when such signs appeared in the World was in Sumer in the proto-writing fase. One have the exact shape of some signs as AB(house), ARARMA(bull calf) and many others: PA, SE, LAGAB, etc. and with close shape: GAR, SA,RU, sun-God temple...
B. Other writings wich are suspected are those Cretan-ones (with 3 main variants:Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B...+Cypro-Minoan). Here also we have not all the signs from those writings. Here, we are encountering the same problem, D-shape sign was not used by them. But I found on Tartaria tablets a good bunch of signs (ideograms/logogram/syllabograms) common /(paired!) ,and present in both writings: Sumerian and Aegean ! : sumerian ARARMA/ Aegean MA ; sumerian SE/Aegean TE; sumerian PA/Aegean PA; sumerian KU/Aegean PA3
C. Phoenician/Old hebrew writings not sufficient matching.We have the exact chet/het-shape, also HD could be phoenician/old hebrew "het-qopf". <so ? qoch:"ossuary/loculus"-KoK(aion?> Have also signs/letters "zain", and probably "samech".But in those writings there was no D-shaped signs.They had P sign for qof and dalet/delta sign for D.
D. Anatolian writing could be also a goot candidate (especially carian alphabets). The only writings in wich I found 90% of the signs was sumerian and carian !
From the begining I tried to find the writing wich matching close; *only after this, in the case of "D-letter" signs, runing out of options I gave the "Moon" significance.
In my opinion, by 3.000 B.C., not moon-phases killing them but everyday necessities for making a living and apropiate the nature-gods in order to have good crops. As Mrs. Denisse Schmand Besserat demonstrated writing appeared first as a counting goods necesity.
*! Not the case of sumerian approach where we had sumerian GAR(ninda) signs as egyptian "T":"loaf of bread"!
In a way, one could "depass" the phonetics/interpretation and translation of the signs, whatever sumerian or Aegean, having an "up from high" vision, and take directly the meaning of ideograms ! eg: The signs on squared Tartaria tablet with hole, Image, from http://su-varna.org/izdanij/Magazin%201%20conf/Pages%20from%2046%20to%2053.pdf https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPrYdeD189MSKLzKIXmzILQSZ1K0n_h1eFtByuYrEClb90EJbnoQ
In sumerian, signs:Ararma (bull-calf) + nigin5 +ABhttp://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/signlist.php
| LAL×LAL.LAGAB Borger: LAL2.LAGAB |   | niĝin5 |
bull-calf+nigin5+ AB =(sun) Bull/calf+ turning, whole +house =house,abode (of) turning(sun) , or only last 2 signs : (sun) bull +house interpreted as:" house,abode (of) bull(sun) ; in sumerian this sign pair could be read NERGAL wich is the pair or underground instance of the Sun-God,
From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/signlists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html NERGAL~x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From http://enenuru.proboards.com/thread/329/nergal me: What is for in this above pair on the left sign DARA;"ibex"!? (we have on pict. tablet Ibex
https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/.../Sumerian_Cuneiform_English_Dictionary_12....
DAG dwelling | E2 house | EN ..... DARA3 ~ IBEX |durah (dara3) [89x] = wild goat, mountain goat | )
"-I am convinced that Nergal is the netherworld aspect of the sun-god, on the basis of late mystical texts which I had looked at in the Erra thread . One text states dšamaš u nergal(U.GUR) istēn(1)en ("Šamaš and Nergal are one ") -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I will present you a particularity of the signs, wich I noticed (beeing the single one who noticed /Why ?) :
The signs are a bunch or unusual mixture of mainly three type of signs, so having an eterogen nature :
-pure pictographic signs/pictograms (sqarred without hole)
-ideogram/syllabograms (squarred with hole)
-syllabogram/letters (round-one with hole) ; pure letters (upper half of round-one)
Due of this above, the age of the tablets could be the age of the newest type of writing.The D-shaped signs first appeared in epichoric variants of archaic greek alphabets (for letter D in a plece and for letter R in another).
So we could have in that upper half archaic greek letters. E.g. The archaic shape of eta was pronounced at the begining H/He, and was used first in Crete and later diffused in all Mediteranean as for letter H. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqDynC22_KwCL0oLlpAu3HnTvwBisR1bQcP-kqdlTV-Puybhep
Also is possible to have an local-derived from archaic greek writing in upper half.
From http://www.codex99.com/typography/13.html http://www.codex99.com/typography/images/ancient/greek_sign.gif
Archaic greek, but even old latin, venetic could be. The rest of the signs (out of upper half) could have only an magic-religious-ritual role. Not necessary carring an concrete message.
Unlike the case of Linear A/B where we have at disposal hundreds of tablets, Tartaria tablets are unique of their kind (and in the area), some strange if not weird singletons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the place of origin. In my opinion, not originated, nor "written" at Tartaria, Romania.Place of origin south and again south. Image, from https://www.boone.kyschools.us/docs/building/9/unit%202%20chapter%2004.pdf
Taken or written by an Aegean migrant, but rather originated somewhere in actual Greece teritory, rather in Aegean area, say Cyclades(Syros) or Crete.
This hypothesis is in total acordance with studies of Mr. Evangelos Papakitsos and Iannis Kenanidis wich found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants. As a consequence, an direct sumerian contact and cultural infusion with Balkan/Danubian civilisation is not necessary, as the influence could be transmited via Aegean. Some (not few) common elements (regarding the writing) to all three civilisations, were evidenced independently by me in my papers.
Besides, especially due of the "cursed, damned" ,unexplained, "accidental", but also "new" characteres/charagmata "D-letter" shaped signs, present on upper half, in/from the time perspective, the supposed tablets's age would be expanded in an untolerable span:
- between 3.000 B.C. (close-shaped signs, but imprinted used for bread-portions/?Moon phases?) and 800 B.C. (archaic greek letters) ,D-shaped signs were not used in any world writing systems ,or
- any age from "xyz" B.C. to "uvw" A.D., even as new "as could be made yersterday". Don't know exact intention of the writer, so who what wanted to show to whom.
By short, we are forced to choose only one out of two (large distanced in time) possiblities: - an old age close to 3.000 B.C. with the ununswered question regarding the meaning of the D-signs, or - a quite new age close to 800-300 B.C.
Any world writing sistem was not invented in a couple of years, nor in the 100 years course, it is quite a long and complex matter, not depend as one expect on some local human abilities, but as a responce in complex (social and economical) societies to their social and economical life, by short to their necessities and needs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bablets could be so new as to have:
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serbare#Conjugation Italian servare Etymology From Latin servāre, present active infinitive of servō.
Serbare to keep or maintain /to preserve or reserve “Io serbo”
From..https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servos Latin servos m accusative plural of servus
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servus#Latin servus Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *ser-wo (“guardian”), possibly from "ser" (“watch over, protect”). 1.a servant 2.a serf 3.a slave
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hora#Latin hōra f (genitive horae
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heros heros 1.(lliteraly) demigod, hero 2.(transferred sense, Ciceronian) an iilustrious man
From The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal https://books.google.ro/books?id=JiM8AQAAMAAJ
the Latin Herus, the Low German Heer, the High German Herr, (Master, Lord.) The whole meaning of the Homeric Heros is preserved in the German Herr :
So from +++++ HP D b o c
HR Se R b o s
? Lord slaves / Lord servants /HERO** servants/ time keep,maintain /serbian *HRistos / HAR*** keeper ? ? HAR/haro/Ede DiDou "give charis; give death; give eat" ?
(* I not found anywhere the Christ monogram, only and only as XP ! ; **thracian heros ; *** har,slavonic haru "gift,CHARM") ....proto-Indo-European root Xar(Char) :"fitted in a pleasant,beautiful manner"
sâmbătă, 15 decembrie 2018
My years-long in-depth observations regardind possible "writing" 90% confirmed by scientists
I studied those Tartaria tablets analising the signs and only from "writing history" perspective. My conclusions, were obtained in this way independent by others. Proof for obtaining my own conclusions are my postings along years before. Beside quite common conclusions with others I claim at least twoo own conclusions.(marked by asterisc *):
Some scientists have the opinion that Vinca Civilisation used "rude linear figures"as simple ideographs rather than as syllables or letters. My opinion: - Vinca sign-list is rich, but all the signs and Vinca civilisation developement not fused, and not converged in a "writing". *pity nor in a proto-writing system.
Scientists: they (Cretan tablets) are almost certainly a good deal later than the Tartaria tablets. * I have my own reserve on this statement. *The time when tablets were written (not older than 3.500, but possible newer than 1000 B.C.) It is not superposing the Vinca Civilisation timeline (6.000-4.000 B.C.) !
From https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm 3500 a.c. secondo il filologo e linguista bulgaro Vladimir Georviev, membro dell'accademia di Sofia.
3300-3000 a.c. secondo D. G. Zenotti, libro "The position of the Tartaria tablets within the Southeast European Copper Age", American Journal of Archaeology, 87 (2) 1983, pag. 209-213. Note
Correct age (maximal!); A.C. above, hope is for "Ante Christ"
* This "archeology/science accident" happened because unknow for sure the real age of the tablets, disregarding minimal scientiphic ethics, was atributed to the tablets the same age as that of the bones found near-by !
Scientists said about the sign used at Turdas and Tartaria:they might reflect the existence of some primitive system of writing. * I am stressing that the tablets carry at least ideograms/logograms but possible also some syllabograms or even letters.nca civilisation (6.000-4.000 B.C.) do not superpose with the time when tablets were written (3.500-1000 B.C.) .
Scientists:-"The closest parallels for the Tartaria signs are Mesopotamian" YES.From all World writing systems I know, only sumerian proto-cuneiform could furnish all of the signs.This fact was noticed also in the course of the time by many scientists.From this is resulting the posibility of reading. (Of course it is about proto-writing). * I am claming to be the sole researcher wich found absolutely all the signs in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign lists.
Evans:"The closest parallels for the Tartaria signs are Mesopotamian, but some of the signs of the Cretan scripts, especially those of the earliest, called by Evans the Hieroglyphic or Pictographic"....."the signs would appear to be closer than the Mesopotamian in one or two cases" YES!- Beside this there are similarities with Aegean writings.The fact that the signs are in the same time similar to that proto-cuneiform ones and to Aegean ones was noticed by me. The similarity is of such extent that I could made reading atempts from Sumerian and from Aegean perspective (point of view). * I am the single-one wich made double-approach reading of the tablets.I found common traits (read signs/ideograms !) of both civilisations, in an amount beyond one's expectations.
- Folowing an independent path, I concluded also that even the tablets were scratched folowing an sumerian pattern, at close analysis my conclusion is the same of R,E.Willets, A.A. Vaiman that the tablets were not "written" by a sumerian hand. *Out of others evidences (A.A.Vaiman), I have my own set of evidences to support this asertion
- Folowing an independent path, I concluded also that even the tablets were scratched folowing an sumerian pattern, at close analysis my conclusion is the same of R,E.Willets, A.A. Vaiman that the tablets were not "written" by a sumerian hand. *Out of others evidences to support this (A.A.Vaiman), I have my own-ones Average, untrained people are seeing signs on all three tabletss, (of course, undrilled-one with pictographic singns), but at a close inspection, there is an unusual, unexplained bunch or mixture: *There are three different categories of signs wich normally reprezent the main writing developement stages (these 3 would be the best choosed by a teacher to show this to schoolboys). No-one seems to be bothered by this fact ! : 1. pure pictographic signs (on rectangular undriled tablet) 2. ideograms/logograms/syllabograms (on rectangular tablet with hole) 3. signs close to/or true letters (on that round-one)
* .No one shared my finding that the upper half of the round tablet (by chance, the same wich was supposed when the tablets were worn around the neck, beeing covered) have letters from archaic greek alphabet !
* Due of the possibility that the sign +++++ is for a syllabe/phoneme, we must consider with slight chances, a variant of the archaic Cretan alphabet (eteocretan).So EteoCretan writing and language. (but in this case a break/difficulty arise: eteocretan not used shape D but triangle/Delta !)
Scientists: "in Western Anatolia and in Rumania, if not in Crete, the first spread of writing or of signs derived from writing may have been in a strictly religious or magical context."
Maybe,yes(see Cretan hieroglyphic/Among the best-known are the 'magic' texts-Linear A), or maybe not ( rather not) The writing appeared in economical and social evolved societies, and begin with accountancy needs..First signs of writing in Sumer and many tablets were economical-ones.
On early greek alphabets, scientists: "This means that the Greek alphabet is a creation of the Phoenicians, and the different forms of the Greek alphabet are,at least in part, occasioned by the particular part of Greece where the Phoenicians settled, learned Greek, and tried to write it. The same process seems to have taken place in Crete. Herodotos only mentions the Phoenician settlement on the island of Thera (4.147), but linguistic, epigraphical and archaeological evidence suggests the presence of Phoenicians in Crete as well."
YES,I gone much further than also supposing the phoenician colonisers role,in alphabet issue, starting from an mixture reasoning-feeling, that - the writer could be an Phoenician/Syrian at origin but living in Aegean area. * Noticing the close shape of "H-sign" to phoenician/old hebrew letter het/chet I found that on some pot-sherds found in Thera,Naukratis and Al Mina was stamped the "monogram HP"with archaic shape of Eta, HETA more precise eta-heta "a scala/open eta/ ladder-shape".Scientists suposed to be (in order):a monogram for 1. HERA (Goddess) 2. HEROS 3.proper name Heros
From
... as E. It would be equivalent to heta-rho as B P, or Ionic eta-rho as HP.24 The distinction between ...Hera or hero are possibilities, but more likely, the marks signify a man's name by a monogram or siglum.26 [HjepaxXeLoac; is mentioned in ...
Some common points of view, as exemple, only from one scientist (Sinclair Hood /R,F.Willets):
Some scientists have the opinion that Vinca Civilisation used "rude linear figures"as simple ideographs rather than as syllables or letters. My opinion: - Vinca sign-list is rich, but all the signs and Vinca civilisation developement not fused, and not converged in a "writing". *pity nor in a proto-writing system.
Scientists: they (Cretan tablets) are almost certainly a good deal later than the Tartaria tablets. * I have my own reserve on this statement. *The time when tablets were written (not older than 3.500, but possible newer than 1000 B.C.) It is not superposing the Vinca Civilisation timeline (6.000-4.000 B.C.) !
From https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm 3500 a.c. secondo il filologo e linguista bulgaro Vladimir Georviev, membro dell'accademia di Sofia.
3300-3000 a.c. secondo D. G. Zenotti, libro "The position of the Tartaria tablets within the Southeast European Copper Age", American Journal of Archaeology, 87 (2) 1983, pag. 209-213. Note
Correct age (maximal!); A.C. above, hope is for "Ante Christ"
* This "archeology/science accident" happened because unknow for sure the real age of the tablets, disregarding minimal scientiphic ethics, was atributed to the tablets the same age as that of the bones found near-by !
Scientists said about the sign used at Turdas and Tartaria:they might reflect the existence of some primitive system of writing. * I am stressing that the tablets carry at least ideograms/logograms but possible also some syllabograms or even letters.nca civilisation (6.000-4.000 B.C.) do not superpose with the time when tablets were written (3.500-1000 B.C.) .
Scientists:-"The closest parallels for the Tartaria signs are Mesopotamian" YES.From all World writing systems I know, only sumerian proto-cuneiform could furnish all of the signs.This fact was noticed also in the course of the time by many scientists.From this is resulting the posibility of reading. (Of course it is about proto-writing). * I am claming to be the sole researcher wich found absolutely all the signs in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign lists.
Evans:"The closest parallels for the Tartaria signs are Mesopotamian, but some of the signs of the Cretan scripts, especially those of the earliest, called by Evans the Hieroglyphic or Pictographic"....."the signs would appear to be closer than the Mesopotamian in one or two cases" YES!- Beside this there are similarities with Aegean writings.The fact that the signs are in the same time similar to that proto-cuneiform ones and to Aegean ones was noticed by me. The similarity is of such extent that I could made reading atempts from Sumerian and from Aegean perspective (point of view). * I am the single-one wich made double-approach reading of the tablets.I found common traits (read signs/ideograms !) of both civilisations, in an amount beyond one's expectations.
- Folowing an independent path, I concluded also that even the tablets were scratched folowing an sumerian pattern, at close analysis my conclusion is the same of R,E.Willets, A.A. Vaiman that the tablets were not "written" by a sumerian hand. *Out of others evidences (A.A.Vaiman), I have my own set of evidences to support this asertion
- Folowing an independent path, I concluded also that even the tablets were scratched folowing an sumerian pattern, at close analysis my conclusion is the same of R,E.Willets, A.A. Vaiman that the tablets were not "written" by a sumerian hand. *Out of others evidences to support this (A.A.Vaiman), I have my own-ones Average, untrained people are seeing signs on all three tabletss, (of course, undrilled-one with pictographic singns), but at a close inspection, there is an unusual, unexplained bunch or mixture: *There are three different categories of signs wich normally reprezent the main writing developement stages (these 3 would be the best choosed by a teacher to show this to schoolboys). No-one seems to be bothered by this fact ! : 1. pure pictographic signs (on rectangular undriled tablet) 2. ideograms/logograms/syllabograms (on rectangular tablet with hole) 3. signs close to/or true letters (on that round-one)
* .No one shared my finding that the upper half of the round tablet (by chance, the same wich was supposed when the tablets were worn around the neck, beeing covered) have letters from archaic greek alphabet !
* Due of the possibility that the sign +++++ is for a syllabe/phoneme, we must consider with slight chances, a variant of the archaic Cretan alphabet (eteocretan).So EteoCretan writing and language. (but in this case a break/difficulty arise: eteocretan not used shape D but triangle/Delta !)
Scientists: "in Western Anatolia and in Rumania, if not in Crete, the first spread of writing or of signs derived from writing may have been in a strictly religious or magical context."
Maybe,yes(see Cretan hieroglyphic/Among the best-known are the 'magic' texts-Linear A), or maybe not ( rather not) The writing appeared in economical and social evolved societies, and begin with accountancy needs..First signs of writing in Sumer and many tablets were economical-ones.
On early greek alphabets, scientists: "This means that the Greek alphabet is a creation of the Phoenicians, and the different forms of the Greek alphabet are,at least in part, occasioned by the particular part of Greece where the Phoenicians settled, learned Greek, and tried to write it. The same process seems to have taken place in Crete. Herodotos only mentions the Phoenician settlement on the island of Thera (4.147), but linguistic, epigraphical and archaeological evidence suggests the presence of Phoenicians in Crete as well."
YES,I gone much further than also supposing the phoenician colonisers role,in alphabet issue, starting from an mixture reasoning-feeling, that - the writer could be an Phoenician/Syrian at origin but living in Aegean area. * Noticing the close shape of "H-sign" to phoenician/old hebrew letter het/chet I found that on some pot-sherds found in Thera,Naukratis and Al Mina was stamped the "monogram HP"with archaic shape of Eta, HETA more precise eta-heta "a scala/open eta/ ladder-shape".Scientists suposed to be (in order):a monogram for 1. HERA (Goddess) 2. HEROS 3.proper name Heros
From
The Temple of Apollo Bassitas: The architecture
Frederick A. Cooper - 1992 - Architecture
In 6th-5th century BC the ancient Thracians borrowed the ... - De Gruyter
- Traducerea acestei pagini
some Thracian words inscribed on a fragmentary inscription and .... The "open" heta occured in .... The letter rho is an Ionic borrowing typical of the 6th century.
Some common points of view, as exemple, only from one scientist (Sinclair Hood /R,F.Willets):
ANCIENT CRETE R.F.WILLETTS
https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_b2Y1E4Qi8eoC/bub_gb_b2Y1E4Qi8eoC_djvu.txt
"Evans devoted a preliminary chapter of his Scripta Minoa to a survey of the antiquity and European diffusion of the Pictographs and Linear signs. He likened to the early figures on rock carvings in various areas the linear signs that make their appearance on primitive pottery. 11 The best collection of such signs on primitive European pottery, except for the Aegean area, had been found at Broos in Transylvania - on the borders of the great Thracian province whose primitive culture showed so many points of affinity with that of Western Asia Minor. Me: Orăștie is a city in Hunedoara County, south-western Transylvania, Romania.The town was referred to by its German name, Bros or Broos.
Signs on the whorls and vessels from this site displayed a remarkable parallelism with those found by Schliemann on similar materials at Hissarlik. So far as they might be regarded as signs, it seemed safest to interpret these rude linear figures on the Neolithic and Early Metal Age pottery of Hissarlik and Broos as simple ideographs rather than as syllables or letters. 14 During excavations in 1961 at the prehistoric settlement of Tartaria in the valley of the Maros (Mures) in Rumania, three prehistoric clay tablets were discovered by the excavator Dr N. Vlassa of the Historical Museum at Cluj and were subsequently published. Their discovery and publication led to a highly interesting and informative discussion of the similarities between them and early writing in Mesopotamia and Crete by Sinclair Hood in 1967.' Certain of his remarks and conclusions which are particularly relevant to the wider implications of the study of the Cretan writing systems may be conveniently mentioned at this stage. As a preliminary, we should bear in mind that what Evans and others referred to as Broos lies to the east of Tordos,which now replaces Broos as a key place-name in the literature.' 6 Tartaria lies some 20km. east of Tordos. In 1927 the late Gordon Childe drew attention to the similarities between signs found on pottery from the prehistoric tells or settlement mounds of Vinca in Jugoslavia and Tordos in Rumania and signs in Predynastic Egypt and at Troy. 1 ? The settlement at Vinca was on the south bank of the Danube near Belgrade,Tordos beside the river Maros (Mures) which flows into the river Tisza(Theiss), a northern tributary of the Danube. Tordos was thus situated in the gold-bearing parts of Transylvania, to which the valleys of the Tisza and the Maros provide the easiest route of access from the Danube region round Vinca, from which Tordos is some 200km. distant in a direct line. Settlers at Vinca and Tordos shared a common culture and they spread from an apparently original area of settlement in the Morava valley and on the Danube round Vinca north and east into Transylvania. Excavations of a kind were begun at Tordos in 1874, Vinca was first excavated in 1908. Many fragments of pottery with incised signs were found at Tordos and similar signs were later observed on pottery from Vinca and neighbouring sites. Similarities between the Tordos and Trojan signs were noted; and comparable marks were found onvases of the late Predynastic and Protodynastic periods in Egypt, and from 1896 onwards on pottery at Phylakopi, capital of the obsidian-exporting island of Melos. The signs on the pottery from Tordos, like those at Troy and elsewhere, can be interpreted as potters' or owners' marks; but their variety and their similarity to the signs associated with writing in Crete and Egypt,together with their occasional appearance in groups like the comparable Trojan signs, made it reasonable to suppose that they might reflect the existence of some primitive system of writing. Hence the interest shown by Evans in the Tordos signs in his Scripta Minoa. Thereafter in this country there was a waning of interest in these signs, though Childe had still remembered their relevance to writing in 1929. There was more excavating at Tordos in 1910 which resulted in the discovery of many fragments of vases with signs on them, duly reported in the eventual publication of these excavations in 1941. Excavations were started at Tartaria in 1942-3 and resumed by Dr Vlassa in 1961 . The three clay tablets were found at the bottom of a small pit along with 26 burnt clay idols; and they may have survived because they were baked by the fire into which they had been put together with the idols. Signs on the tablets were considered comparable with those of the script of the Late Pre-dynastic (Uruk III-Jemdet Nasr) period in Mesopotamia, though it seems unlikely that they were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in ihe Sumerian language of early Mesopotamia; but the signs are so comparable with the early tablets from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr as to make it virtually certain that they are somehow connected. Several of the signs apparently derive from Mesopotamian signs for numerals. The closest parallels for the Tartaria signs are Mesopotamian, but some of the signs of the Cretan scripts, especially those of the earliest, called by Evans the Hieroglyphic or Pictographic, can also be compared. Indeed the Cretan parallels for the signs would appear to be closer than the Mesopotamian in one or two cases. There is also a remarkable similarity in shape between the Tartaria tablets and some of the earliest clay tablets yet recovered in Crete, especially those from the so-called Hieroglyphic Deposit in the Knossos Palace. 19 Two of the Tartaria tablets have string-holes of a kind foreign to the early tablets of Mesopotamia but which are a regular feature of the tabletsfrom the Hieroglyphic Deposit and which occur on other early tablets from Crete. Most of the tablets from the Hieroglyphic Deposit were long bars,square or almost square in section. A few were rectangular and similar in shape and section to two from Tartaria. Tablets of similar shape were found in a rather earlier deposit at Phaistos and others at Mallia. The roundel tablet from Tartaria resembles those from Mallia and from the Hieroglyphic Deposit at Knossos, except that the top edge of the Cretan roundels is scalloped on each side of the string-hole; and one or two of the roundels and tablets from the Hieroglyphic Deposit show the same system of dividing the sign groups into compartments as on the Tartaria and Mesopotamian tablets. These could be late examples of a practice once standard in Crete. The Cretan tablets on the conventional dating must be a thousand years or more later than those of Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr in Mesopotamia, and they are almost certainly a good deal later than the Tartaria tablets. In the course of more detailed examination of problems of comparison and dating, Hood observes that not only the technique of writing on clay tablets,but many of the signs of the Cretan scripts may derive from the early pre-cuneiform script of Mesopotamia. Syria is likely to have been the intermediary for their transmission to Crete. Some of the earliest Cretan seals are remarkably similar to the stamp seals which have been found in Syria from a very remote period, perhaps even sixth millennium bc. 2 ° The ivory of which many of the earliest Cretan seals are made again points to Syria, where elephants lived and provided ivory until they became extinct in Assyrian times. If seals and seal usage reached Crete from Syria, it is very possible that writing did also;though no clay tablets of a date before c.2000 bc have yet been found in Syria. Yet the idea of writing on clay tablets might have been introduced to Crete from Syria along with new styles in pottery at the beginning of Early Minoan II, f.2600 bc or earlier; but the oldest clay tablets of Crete are assignable at the earliest to Mid.dle Minoan IIa or Ib and can hardly be dated before 2000 bc and may be as late as c. 1 750 bc. The Knossos Hieroglyphic Deposit, containing tablets comparable in some respects with the Tartaria tablets, appears to belong to Middle Minoan IIb, c. 1700 bc; and the similar tablets from Mallia may be even later. In conclusion of his survey Hood makes the following points which seem valid in the light of the evidence adduced. The discovery of comparable signs on pottery at Tordos in Rumania, at Troy, on Melos and in Egypt had already at the beginning of this century produced a widespread belief that a single system of writing had developed at an early period throughout this area. It now begins to look as if this belief, apparently fantastic, might not be entiry unfounded. The most likely centre from which either ideas about writing or the signs used tor writing may have spread is likely to have been Mesopotamia or some adjacent region rather than Egypt. Signs similar to those of Melos,Tordos and Troy have now been supplemented from the Greek mainland, in the Peloponnese and as far north as Thessaly. Most of the Peloponnesian signs date from the Early Bronze Age or later and could reflect an acquaintance with, if not the use of writing. Signs on the underneath of the bases of two pots from a horizon of the local Neolithic at Tsangli in Thessaly are reminiscent of Tordos; and from the same level came a rectangular four-footed dish comparable with the 'altars' of the Tordos-Vinca and earlier Starcevo cultures.Burial pithoi with stamps, or in some cases with incised designs composed of sign-like pictures, come from a cemetery assignable to the period of Troy I and early Troy II at Karatas-Semayiik in Lycia. Some of the signs are like the signs on Trojan pots and whorls; and beehive-like huts on stilts have been compared with a sign on the Phaistos Disk. 2 ' The Lycian pithoi call to mind the stamped pithoi used for burials at Byblos (in Eneolithic B). The 'libation-formula' on some early Cretan Hieroglyphic seals may have some funerary connexion. It could be that in Western Anatolia and in Rumania, if not in Crete, the first spread of writing or of signs derived from writing may have been in a strictly religious or magical context. It could also be that the signs on the Tartaria tablets do not represent true writing. If that should prove to be the case, the signs must then have been copied for magical purposes, without understanding of their meaning, from the actual written documents of a civilized people somewhere in the Levant. Similarities between the Tartaria tablets and the earliest known clay tablets of Crete suggest that the source of these documents could have been in Cilicia or Syria, whence it is likely that the art of writing reached Crete. 22 Even if the Tartaria tablets should not be examples of true writing, they do argue the existence of remarkably close connexions between Rumania and the East in early times, which must have been through Troy, perhaps established by sea around the south coast of Anatolia with Cilicia and Syria rather than overland. Evidence exists for close connexions between Early Bronze Cilicia and Troy II,which had the use of the fast potter's wheel from the East before it was adopted on the central Anatolian plateau. One reason for the establishment of these connexions was no doubt the Oriental demand for metals - and above all for the gold of Transylvania in the heart of which lies Tartaria. 2 ? There are plausible reasons for the continued use of hieroglyphic script in the early part of the New Palace period even though a linear syllabic script,known in its early form as protolinear, had already been introduced alongside it at the close of the Old Palace period. The new script could have developed as a stylized, simplified version of the older hieroglyphic signs, being adapted to include abbreviations, combinations of syllabic signs, and more determinative elements. Ideographs would have continued in use to render concrete meanings in pictorial terms, these being of enormous help to the first students of the Minoan script in their efforts to guess the subjects of the texts.Some of these texts, like those incised on some of the Knossian frescoes, on some jars,and on ritual stone utensils of the kind found at Apodoulou in the Rethimno district are closer to protolinear, meaning that Linear Script A must have developed directly out of the protolinear script. Unlike Linear Script "B, used in Crete only at Knossos, Linear A was in use over a wider area, although examples of it outside Crete are comparatively rare. In Cyprus, the early Cypro-Minoan script seems to have developed out of Linear A, but then followed a completely independent course. Many local variants of Script A can be distinguished, but in general they all bear great resemblance to one another. Among the best-known are the 'magic' texts, written spirally on the insides of the two conical cups found in the house of the monolithic pillars near the Knossos Palace. These texts were written in cuttlefish ink, which shows that writing in ink on a suitable material was quite usual. There can be no doubt about the religious nature of the texts carved on the vessels used in sacred rituals, tables of offering, stone ladles, ritual cups and so on. 24 About i 500 bc a system of writing which differs from that of the Minoans appeared in Cyprus, and is called the Cypriot syllabic script. Its signs are linear, combinations of straight and curved lines, incised on clay tablets, and either incised or painted on vessels. Towards the end of the second millennium bc,the signs were also engraved on bronze surfaces. The first definite example of Cypriot writing is on part of a rectangular clay tablet of about 1500 bc found at Enkomi in 1955, the writing being incised on one face of the tablet in three rows separated by lines. The signs, fairly large and complex, are in many respects similar to the signs of Cretan Linear A. There are examples of writing from the period between 1 400-1 150 bc on vessels and tablets. A famous clay cylinder from Enkomi, of thirteenth or twelfth century bc dating, has its whole surface covered by writing on 27 rows with divisions between the words. An example of an Aegean script of a Cypro-Minoan character has been found at Ugarit, with signs similar to those on the Enkomi tablets. This discovery of Cypro-Minoan writing on the Syrian coast is not surprising since a community of Cypriot merchants was probably established in the commercial centre of Ugarit. From the last phase of the Late Bronze Age (11 50-1050 bc) there is a great variety of objects with writing inscribed on them, including bronze bowls,tools, farming equipment, votive rods, Eastern-type cylinder seals, loom weights, and inscribed tablets from Enkomi, supplemented by inscriptions on clay vessels. Although knowledge of the script of this period is sketchy, the great number and variety of inscribed objects and the spread of the script to many parts of the island show that it was in general use towards the end of the Bronze Age. Successful decipherment of the Cypriot syllabic script of the Classical period during the latter half of the nineteenth century encouraged philologists to formulate theories about the earlier script. The Cypriot syllabic script which appeared around the end of the eighth century bc, to be replaced in part by the Greek alphabetic script in the fourth century bc was the last form of the Minoan linear system of writing. Sayce (in 1905) showed that there was a second script in Cyprus similar to the Classical script but earlier and it was this second script which had evidently been in use during the Bronze Age. About the origin and evolution of this script two theories have been proposed. According to the first theory, the Minoan Linear A script was the forerunner of the Cypriot Bronze Age script. The Cypro-Minoan, or Cypro-Mycenaean script, as Evans called it, was then succeeded by the Cypriot syllabic script of the Classical period. According to the second theory, the script was introduced into Cyprus from mainland Greece during the period of Achaean colonization after 1200 bc. The archaeological evidence, however, for example the sixteenth century tablet from Enkomi with its writing similar to that of Cretan Linear A, proves that the Cypriot script must be earlier than the Mycenaean colonization. Since there is no archaeological evidence for direct links betweenCyprus and Crete at the time, the possibility has been suggested that the Cypriote must have learnt the script from Minoan merchants who had settled in the commercial centres on the Syro-Palestinian coast. 25The term 'Linear Class A' was applied by Evans to distinguish earlier Cretan scripts from the 'Linear Class B' script used at Knossos when the Palace was finally destroyed in the fourteenth century bc ; and fragments of more than 3000 clay tablets inscribed in Linear B have been recovered from the ruins of the Palace and other buildings destroyed at the same time, which is a total about ten times greater than the total of Linear A inscriptions so far discovered. Heavy winter rains in Crete render unlikely the possibility of survival of clay tablets unless they were deposited in some building destroyed by fire whichhad baked the clay. Clay tablets with linear inscriptions have thus been recovered from houses and palaces burnt down at the time of the disasters round about 1450 bc, mostly trom Ayia Triada and from Zakro. Despite local differences the scripts are apparently closely related and are classed as Linear A together with the linear scripts which were current in the Middle Minoan III period. In 1939 tablets with writing in the Linear B script were recovered on the mainland of Greece near Messenian Pylos. Since 1945 more were found at Mycenae, Tiryns and Thebes. So far as Crete is concerned the only Linear B tablets so far assignable to a period after the disasters of round about 1450 bc are those from Knossos. Vases with signs or short inscriptions painted or scratched on them from Khania and elsewhere in the west and centre of the island suggest that the practice of writing was not then restricted to Knossos;and vases with similar painted signs are known from several mainland sites. Many of the Linear B signs differ from those of the Linear A scripts, the signs for numerals being dissimilar and the system used for fractions changed from one corresponding with the Egyptian system to one apparently based on the Mesopotamian. 26 Linear B texts were normally written on small clay tablets. Scribes evidently ruled a series of parallel lines on the moist surface of the clay and subsequently inserted the signs from left to right between the ruled lines and from top to bottom of the tablets. Short groups of signs, forming words, were divided from each other by short, vertical strokes. The tablets mainly, if not all, are lists of persons, animals and a variety of commodities. The writing is composed of words, singly or in short sequences, sometimes in longer sequences, and also of ideograms which apparently represent commodities, quantities, values and numerals. The signs are virtually the same in number and in form and the same words recur. Therefore, it seems, a single language was current in all localities. However, the tablets which Evans found at Knossos he ascribed to the Late Minoan II period terminating at roughly 1400 bc, while the mainland tablets in the main belong to the time of the destruction of Pylos and Mycenae at roughly 1200 bc. Since the writing is virtually the same, despite the interval of about two centuries between the Knossos and mainland examples, it has been suggested that a redating is necessary for the final phases of the Knossos Palace. 27 There have been suggested decipherments of the various prehistoric Aegean scripts as forms of Greek for nigh on a century. That which is now best known and widely accepted is the decipherment of the late Michael Ventris in association with Dr. John Chadwick. An account of this decipherment was first published in the Journal of Hellenic Studies in 1953. The language of the Linear B tablets was understood as an early kind of Greek, pre-Dorian, and allied to the Classical Arcadian and Cypriot scripts. As already mentioned, the relevant Cypriot inscriptions are written in a special syllabary; the Linear B script is likewise mainly a syllabary. By studying the way in which the syllabic signs are used and in part inferring the meaning of the documents from signs which are ideographic and not syllabic, the possibility of discovering the phonetic value of the syllabic signs was maintained. This decipherment of Linear B as a form of Greek has not been universally accepted and there is still division of opinion in the scholarly world. 28 Under the stimulus of the Ventris-Chadwick decipherment and subsequent sustained discussion and elaboration, renewed attempts have been made to decipher the Linear A script; and these include decipherments of this script as akin to Hittite by Davis and as a form of North-west Semitic by Gordon. 29 ………………………………………………………………………………………………. LANGUAGE AND THE ALPHABET The passage of the Odyssey discussed in the last chapter, 1 describing Crete as an island of 90 cities and with a mixture of tongues, certainly so far as Crete is concerned, indicates that Greek was not the only language prevalent in Mycenaean times. Commenting on this passage, Strabo cited the authority of the historian Staphylos of Naukratis for saying that the Dorians occupied the part of Crete towards the east, the Kydonians the western part, the Eteocretans the southern ; and that to the Eteocretans belonged the town of Praisos, where there was the temple of Diktaian Zeus. The other peoples, since they were more powerful, dwelt in the plains. It was likely that the Eteocretans and the Kydonians were autochthonous, that is to say, indigenous peoples and that the others, that is to say, the Dorians, were foreigners who, according to Andron (a fourth-century bc writer on genealogical relationships between Greek tribes and cities), came from Thessaly, from the country which in earlier times was called Doris. 2 From this citation of Andron, it may be inferred that there was a tradition of a Dorian community or communities, perhaps quite small,in the extreme east of the island, beyond Praisos. We may also infer from Strabo's commentary that the Eteocretans represented surviving elements of earlier pre-Greek inhabitants. The town of Praisos, in the centre of the eastern tip of the island, which belonged to them, preserved an ancient language at least until the third century bc. In fact, six or seven inscriptions have survived from Praisos in three of which at least - one of the sixth, one of the fourth, and one of the third century bc - this 'Eteo-cretan' language is written in the Greek alphabet. 3 Some traces of this still undeciphered language have been detected in two other places on the island. A decipherment of these texts would give us valuable information of a non-Greek language perhaps by no means restricted to Crete. Herodotos makes it clear that the Praisians had close connections with the old Minoan population; and they could represent a surviving testimony into historical times of a Cretan affinity with Asia Minor so characteristic of Cretan Bronze Age institutions.^ When overseas contacts were renewed in the early archaic period, the establishment of the town and trading centre of Al Mina, at the mouth of the Orontes in North Syria, probably in the later ninth century bc, apparently played a major part in Greek intercourse with the Eastern Mediterranean. 6 There is evidence that Crete was early to the tore in receiving technical innovations suggesting instruction by immigrant craftsmen. Boardman observes that the late ninth century saw the arrival in Knossos of metalsmiths skilled in working gold filigree and granulation, and in cutting hard stones -techniques forgotten in Greece since the Bronze Age. North Syrian metal-workers reached Crete perhaps as early as the Knossos goldsmiths and established a strong tradition for beaten metal work, which in its beginnings is quite oriental but becomes progressively more hellenized. 7 Later, during the first half of the seventh century, sites in south central Crete (notably Afrati) yield several objects in clay which imitate North Syrian objects in other materials. The possibility that such finds indicate the arrival of foreigners who were to some extent able to impose their taste on local studios may be supported by the fact that many cremation burials at Afrati are subsequently of a distinctive type, with urns set on dishes and covered by inverted pots, matched closely only in the Iron Age cemetery of Carchemish on the Euphrates. Boardman suggests further that it is perhaps right to associate with this immigration the evidence of authors and epigraphy which places the first codification of laws in Greece in Crete and in this period, since written laws were regular in the east and there is much in Greek law which recalls the east. 8 This remarkable early development of Cretan epigraphy and of the codification of law depended upon another technical borrowing from the east which must be counted among the supreme achievements of civilized man. Alphabetic writing has taken different forms in different parts of the world, but has not significantly changed in its essentials. The various scripts which have used the alphabet owe their ultimate origin to a group of Semitic alphabets current in the Near East in the latter half of the second millennium bc. The European alphabets derived from the Greek, whose model was the North Semitic script. Phoenician origin is indicated by the names of the letters in the Greek alphabet, which derive from Phoenician names, and also by the letter-forms which often resemble Phoenician originals. Some Greek letters indeed correspond with Phoenician letters of the tenth century bc or earlier, but some do not appear in Phoenician inscriptions until the ninth century. Semitic languages make extensive use of vowel gradation (cf. English sing, sang, sung, song) enabling a reader readily to supply vowels from the context. Since Greek needed vowel signs, some Phoenician signs which represented consonants not existing in Greek were used for vowels. Quite the darkest mystery of the Dark Ages is the absence of written records between the latest Bronze Age linear script evidence and the earliest examples of alphabetic writing in the eighth century bc. We cannot exclude the possibility that writing continued to be done on such perishable materials as leather, wood or papyrus, but this is a matter of conjecture. The habit of inscribing a clumsy syllabary on clay tablets should, in theory, be a suggestive aid to the habit of painting simple letters on clay pots. Yet this not very difficult technical innovation appears, in the present state of the evidence, to have taken several centuries to accomplish. The earliest surviving Greek inscription appears to be on an Attic vase of c.720 bc attesting that this shall be 'the prize of the dancer who dances more gaily than others' - at least a most auspicious proclamation of a civilized technique of communication. This is not an isolated instance of the practice, for we now have various examples of graffiti on pots from the late eighth century bc; and there is a verse inscription, which could be even a little earlier in its date than the Attic vase, from the Euboean colony of Pithekoussai on the island of Ischia. Crete, Rhodes and Al Mina have all been suggested as candidates for the birth place of the Greek alphabet. This was being used by the Phrygians before the end of the eighth century bc, and it may be that they found it in use at Al Mina or some other place on the Syrian or Cilician coast. 10 The important archaic inscription from Crete published in 1970 11 does perhaps to some extent improve the claim for a Cretan origin. However that may be, the new Greek alphabet, as it became established during the course of the Greek colonial expansion of the eighth and seventh centuries bc, acquired a variety of forms in different places, 12 falling into the two principal groups of East and West Greek; and the subsequent standard form was derived from the Attic, included in the East Greek group. The Greeks of Cyprus were exceptional in the sense that they continued to make use of a pre-alphabetic script, known as the Cypriot syllabary, until as late as the third century bc. This peculiarity may be compared with the interesting survival of the Eteocretan language in Greek letters which has been noticed already.
page 185
<poiviKia. At first glance this does not seem to be more than a confirmation of the well-known fact that the Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians. A careful examination of the evidence, however, leads to a somewhat different conclusion. Herodotos (5.58) tells us how the Phoenicians who had come to Boeotia wrote Greek before anybody else did. Subsequently, the Greek neighbours of the Phoenicians - Heredotos calls them 'Ionians' and means with this term the Euboeans and Athenians - adopted the alphabet from the Phoenicians, which these had used to write Greek. Naturally, they made changes, to adjust it to their own language and dialect. They called the letters <poiviKia>, not because they had derived them from the Phoenician alphabet, but because they had taken them from the Phoenicians who had used them to write Greek. This means that the Greek alphabet is a creation of the Phoenicians, and the different forms of the Greek alphabet are,at least in part, occasioned by the particular part of Greece where the Phoenicians settled, learned Greek, and tried to write it. The same process seems to have taken place in Crete. Herodotos only mentions the Phoenician settlement on the island of Thera (4.147), but linguistic, epigraphical and archaeological evidence suggests the presence of Phoenicians in Crete as well. In particular the title of the scribe, (poiviKactT&s, is derived from the verb of action, <poiviK&3eiv, which must mean 'to write (Greek) the way the Phoenicians do'. There also appeared in 1972 a thoroughly documented article by Chantraine in which he too discussed the TroiviKcVjev of this inscription and explored the possibility that its original meaning was something like 'to make red' and had no direct connection with 'Phoenician'. Pointing out that painting inscriptions in red is a well-known practice he suggested, in the light of this practice, that the Cretan poinikastas, in a small community, might have fulfilled the three functions of secretary, engraver and painter - a citizen charged with the duty of transcribing official texts (in red characters) and supervising their correction. Chantraine invoked supporting testimony from three epigraphic texts anda gloss of Hesychios. In two inscriptions of Lesbos (Mytilene) 82 there is an official called a <poiviKoypc«pos. Perhaps he was rather like the Cretan poinikastas. And, since these two inscriptions are Hellenistic, when the Phoenician origin of the alphabet would have been largely forgotten, it is more likely that <poiviKoypc«pos would signify a person who inscribed red letters rather than on who wrote Phoenician letters. The third inscription, from Teos, 83 dated about 475 bc, has the same adjective <poiviKr)ios which is used by Herodotos (5.58). Hesychios glosses the word cKcpotvi^ai by avocyvwaai which, says Chantraine,can only mean 'persuade' - the gloss is corrupt. Latte boldly corrects to dvaxpcocrcci. dvayvcovcu would be more cautious but is not very likely, thoughit would bring us back to writing. Chantraine's conclusion was that these new,remarkable terms do not relate to the borrowing by the Greeks of the Phoenician alphabet. Neither does Lesbian (poiviKoypd<pos. If he hesitated, perhaps wrongly, about <poivn<r|ia, this is because the word is used by Herodotos, but its use in the Tean inscription would seem strange. Before the emergence of poinikastas in 1970 scholars had speculated about the use of engraved signs and red paint in early Cretan writing. 84 Some have suggested that the term cpoiviKriia could have been applied originally to Bronze Age syllabic writing rather than to the Phoenician alphabet. Thus G.E. Mylonas in 1966 - (though painted Linear B inscriptions are actually in various colours) - understood the legend of Kadmos as most probably referring to the introduction of letters painted in red colour and he suggested that these painted letters might be identified with the Linear B script. 85 In their Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, published in 1969, Meiggs and Lewis included several pieces of evidence relating to paint on inscriptions which are helpful in examining a wider landscape than is provided by Cretan writing and Cypriot lexicology. Their no. 32 (p. 69), a Halicarnassian Law concerning disputed Property (? 465-450 bc) perhaps, they say, had the dot in its thetas coloured to distinguish it from omicron. Their three other pieces of evidence are more substantial. Their no. 30 (p. 62) comprises two fragments of public imprecations at Teos round about 470 bc. The concluding lines of the second Ci3) fragment (35-41), apply a curse to anyone who breaks the stelai, cuts ou' the letters, or makes them unreadable. The editors comment: 'For cpoiviKrjia (11 37 ff) =letters, reflecting the Phoenician origin of the Greek alphabet, see Herodotos 5.58. d9aveas (11 38 f) : letters would be regarded as unreadable if the red paint were removed; cf. Thucydides' d|iu6pois ypd|a|jaai (6. 54.7) of the letters on the altar of Peisistratos'. Their no. 14 (p. 25), perhaps ? late sixth century bc, an Athenian decree concerning Salamis, is the earliest Athenian decree to have survived, having to do with the status and obligations of men living on Salamis. The editors state, without further comment: 'Wilholm [Beitrage 240 n. 5] asserts that alternate lines of this text were coloured red and blue.' Most interesting of all is their no. 11 (p. 19), the dedication of Peisistratos,son of Hippias, round about 521 bc, discussed by many scholars. There are many incidental historical problems which cannot be discussed here, but there is a matter immediately relevant to the context of the present discussion. Thucydides (6. 54.6) records that the grandson of the tyrant Peisistratos, to commemorate his archonship, dedicated the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora and of Apollo in the Pythion. Thucydides says that the Pythian inscription can still be seen, though in faded letters : eti kcu vuv 5fjA6v eoriv d|Ju5poisypauuacn Acyov Tabs ; and he quotes this version. Meiggs-Lewis comment: 'The epithet d|iu6pois is surprising, since the letters are still clear; it almost certainly refers to the disappearance of the paint with which the letters had been filled.' The Gomme-Andrewes-Dover commentary on this passage says : '. . . the inscription survives - and its letters are by no means "faint" to us, as Greek inscriptions go ; but no doubt the letters of any inscription a hundred years old were faint to Thucydides by contrast with the great number of much more recent inscriptions to be seen in Athens. Possibly too, they had once been painted and the paint had largely worn off. Allowance must perhaps be made for rhetorical exaggeration of the difference between old and recent inscriptions, for Thucydides is not above pride in the trouble he has taken.' It seems fairly safe to conclude from this glance at a wider perspective (a)that any paint used in these times in written records on stone did, not surprisingly, fade; and (b) that we should be grateful, in spite of the incidental problems, for any surviving traces of paint on any surviving documents. Those who hold that a 'red letter' explanation of poinikastas has plausibility or those who (like P. and R. Edwards in their Kadmos article) of 1974 more strongly incline to the 'Phoenician' explanation would agree that the problem is in need of further clarification and that scholarly debate is likely to continue. For the issue as posed in these terms has to do with the origin and transmission of alphabetic writing as well with the determination of the meaning of the itle and function of an important official in a period when Cretan state institutions were in process of being established. However, these two explanations which have been discussed above are notthe only possibilities. It should be clear that the appearance of poinikastas in 1970 has generated much fruitful discussion about some fundamental social problems in archaic Crete. The most substantial and far-ranging discussion of major historical problems posed by the text since its publication has been written by AJ. Beattie. 86 He offers a quite different explanation of the meaning of the title of the new official. He proposes that noun and verb, poinikastas and poinikazen should be taken away from the sphere of writing, whether Phoenician characters or in red paint, and transferred to the vocabulary of the law-courts. The official should be regarded as a judge, not a scribe; and he should be called a 'Reeve'. We know many things for certain about the society and government of historical Crete. However, even in documents which have been familiar to scholars for many years, there are matters which are much less certain of definition. Small wonder that, when a new document is discovered of the kind which has been considered above, with new words in new contexts, certainty about the problems they pose should be even more difficult to achieve. But even when agreement on certain points seems out of reach, the discussion provoked by the study of new documents often throws fresh light on old problems and leads to their solution, in whole or in part. As the two preceding chapters have indicated, the Cretans of the archaic period were prominent in their pioneering of such indispensable components of the Classical civilization associated with the whole era of the Greek city-states as alphabetic writing and law-making. It would be surprising if these intellectual achievements had not also served as stimulating influences in a variety of contemporary artistic developments.
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)