I would say, kind of finish of the Tartaria tablets research.
OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),
AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING: MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS. AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS, I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, ( BETWEEN NEAR-EAST AND AEGEAN AREAS ) AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW YOU MANY MORE AND CLOSE -RELATED MEANINGS.
IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, (COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA) ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME. =========================================================
A series of aspects noticed by me, some from the very beginning (great chances to have a kind of writing) then coupled with others sized in the course of time ( only a symilarity with proto-cuneiform writing + more inadvertencies ) got to these conclusions and results.
I would say with satisfaction and gratitude that most of the top-level schollars in the field of proto-writing, out of some retention (probably do not disturb the Romanian scientists initial statements or do not touch the national pride?) were not sure what in fact is all about and not “hitted the nail on the head” from the begining, but generally expressed pertinent opinions. Despite the fact that the signs are reflecting in a greate measure the sumerian proto-cuneiform phase, neverthless not fully match sumerian proto-writng in some aspects, especially some pure technical-ones.Pity, romanian scientists were not at the same high-level (in fact we have no specialised asyrologists)
After that, one of the first subject researchers, (as Mr. Marco Merlini wich correctly showed the real beginning of the humanity's begining and developement of writing in Europe, Vinca civilization), pity not all of them sized that the “writing” was not yed discovered. The term "writing"cannot be attached to the Vinca Culture, even not that of “fully proto-writing” Despite the fact that most of the necessary steps were made.
I do not understand also, even he had at disposal (as me and all others interested) entire literature and data=bases regarding the discovery and evolution of writing, de above-mentioned schollar preffered not to recognise the spread abroad, transmitting, transfer,“import” by mean of cultural infusion of any sign.
Instead he preffered for all the signs (wich every of them could be found in different period of time in tens of writings and places in the World) to atribute, religious conotations, thus unknown, mistycal, esoteric meanings. But attention, not sufficient ! The meaning was not known by entire Vinca comunity members, but only by the writer and the local (in this case Tartaria village) comunity members.
Don’t know how to synthetises better and by short, anyway I’ll begin:
This subject of Tartaria tablets created a global excitement and brawling, at an unmerited level I would say.
Cause the circumstances of initial moment of discovery, are not clear, a series of good-willing romanians, but also foreign schollars stated from the begining of the "oldest writing in the world", a pre-sumerian one. From the very beginning the tablets were enclosed in a mist and mystical aura, some scholars beeing sure before any research was made that the signs had an unknown, long time-ago fergotten meaning, wich was of hidden, mystical and esoteric nature .(how comfortable !)
Besides to the signs was attached a mystical nature, carriers of ancient forgotten myths, the subject itself was encircled in mistery. So the subject and the tablets become mythical, and appeared an (unrelated to the signs and their meanings) an secondary myth. Secondary mith fueled by some scientists, wich contributed by sustaining an very old age of the tablets. Some of them directly associated the bones of a deceased person with the tablets. The bones were found in the proximity, somewhere in the rituallic-funerary complex.The bones not only seem, but pertain to Vinca Culture, being dated at 5.500-6.000 B.C. In turn, the real age of the tablets is not known and will be not known forever. I am not accusing anybody, even if this assertion have unexpected consequences
Studing the specialty literature, I realised that I could not rely upon archeological data. As by my part, I cannot atribute any age to the tablets, so I had no choice but to analyse what is 100% sure in front of me: the signs present on the tablets.
I had an ideal goal, to have a unique, ultimate reading ( wich of course must be validated by the scientific comunity and so not being contested).
After this, I folowed the main phases:
Making an analysis of the signs, I found that the highest percentage of the tablet signs were found in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign list (this 1 year before) and in Anatolian alphabets (especially carian-ones)
The similarity with sumerian signs was noticed by many scientists begining with N.Vlassa (S.Hood, A.A.Vaiman, R.Kolev and others).The last two had a very good interpretations of the signs. Comparing my readings with their readings, I sized some slight inadvertencies ,few incorect sign identifications ond some other incorrect interpretations. I think this is due of the fact that I spend a lot much more time with that signs, like in the course of the time, I become specialised in these particular signs or on the tablets. But only late I got acquainted of the differencies and inadvertencies of some tablet signs from the common evolution line of sumerian proto-writing. These are mainly technical ones (relating to the technique of writing).But these very differencies are evidencies that the scribe was not a native sumerian. VERY INTERESTING, NO-ONE NOTICED THE HODGE-PODGE OF THE SUMERIAN.AEGEAN AND ANATOLIAN SIGNS, NOR THE MUCH NEWER SIGNS ON UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET. In sumerian-influenced writing hypothesis, -folowing an independent path I come to the same conclusions (as R.Kolev and A.A.Vaiman) regarding the signs and the scribe. These, of mine can be seen in my before posts, also read my explanations and check posting dates. . Of course I was curios in wich period were written the tablets and from wich place could be, and after comparing when and where were used such signs, I obtained some symilar conclusions;
After my research I realised that regarding the place and age are resulting different posibilities wich has every of them different chances to be real, so I put them in a list.
Even much by short, DUE OF THE PRESENCE ON THE TABLET OF A HODGEPODGE OF SIGNS, wich could be of two, even three different categories, the chances to a corect identification of the scribe and the writing time and place, are as falows, in increasing order to be real (the figures are raw estimates not nail-fixed):
- sumerian writing, native sumerian scribe. Chances 0%
-quasi-sumerian writing, of sumerian ancestry scribe, settled “sumerian folower” or sumerian-syrian trader with little knowledge of writing 30%
-quasy-sumerian writing, of innitial by origin sumerian ancestry, (minoan) settled in Aegean area (1.Crete 2.Cyclades) 40%
-writing Linear A/B -derived (a local variant), minoan/Micenaean from Aegean area/Crete/Cyclades 50%
- Eteo-Cretan writing, eteoCretan scribe (of sumerian ancestry sumerian settler in Crete) 25%
-archaic greek writing (archaic greek alphabet 700-200 B.C.), greek writer with knowledge of ancient writing icons 60%
-writing after Christ (A.C.) 65%
- years 1800-1900 contemporaneus writer 80% ----------------------------------------------------------------
You see, I have no confidence at all in archaeological data at all, especially those regarding the age.
Having the only tool, (analising the signs ), I concluded that there are zero chances to have an original sumerian writing; it could be at best an sumerian-influenced/inspired writing.But the very signs "D-letter"
-sThose signs are pushing to only two large spanned in time possible outcomes/conclusions :
1 - When sumerian only begun to scratch D-singns on tokens (clay volume bullae), and not yet on clay tablets ! (3.500-3.200 B.C.), wich has close to zero chances, and
2 - after another 2500 years (at least!) ,later, when begun to be used those signs in archaic greek alphapets and writing. So the only real credible result , with much more chances, is that the tablets are quite new, at least 800-500 B.C. ,but with great chances much, much newer. (You see, even at 2.200-1.000 B.C./Cretan hieroglyphic,Linear A/B, those D-signs were not used!) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After me, could be, wery well, an scraping, old signs exercise or sqetch of an unknown person, wich hade relative knowledge and knows some sumerian signs also knows some Anatolian signs, but have poor knoledge of that signs and not skilled in such writings.
? Zsofia Torma, knew sumerian and also Anatolian signs, she currently compared the signs from this 2 writings with those found on artefacts wich had discovered. It is more than strange that 1-2 years before, I found those 2 writings (proto-cuneiform and Anatolian) were closest to tablet’s writing.This could be an veridic, close to reality explanation for the presence on the tablets of a hodgepodge of signs. She made archeological research also in places containing roman artefacts. Possible she made for herself the tablets, only to exercise tracing of the signs on clay, as sumerians does before. It is weird an totaly uncommon for a true scribe to mix sumerian,Anatolian and Aegean signs!
?-Torma Jozsef, father archaeologist, catolic religion
?- Karoly Torma, brother, archaeologist, catolic religion. Top-level epigraphist of his time.Made archeological research in many places related to romans.Knew many languages, and received the title of doctor in philology.
?-an german, hungarian or romanian archaeologist and researcher, close aquintance of Mr. Zsofia Torma./ ? related to catholic church
as a hypothesis, ALL COULD BE RELATED TO Mrs. TORMA, father and brother through the DDoc THIS LETTER SEQUENCE DDoc itroduced in Google search-engine got: " the abbreviation of the latin “decretorum doctor” wich is “profesor of (theologic) doctrine”/hun." .kánonjogi doktor" /rom."profesor in doctrina canonica" https://histadfontes02.uzh.ch/en/ressourcen/abkuerzungen/cappelli-online/category/up/21/2
Possible she received the tablets as a gift from somebody, in a time not far to the moment when she expected to receive the academic title of doctor in science.
Consideraţii privind pregătirea intelectuală a episcopilor ... - Diacronia
(1425), decretorum doctor (1430)Possible she received the tablets as a gift from somebody, in a time not far to the moment when she expected to receive the academic title of doctor in science.
Hope this last hypothesys is only a funny-one, cause if would be true will be too much for me, wich I cannot bear.
ATTENTION ! I DO NOT SUSPECT ANY PERSON TO HAVE/HAD BAD INTENTIONS, NOR TO MAKE A FAKE. Nothing on this part.
PROBABLY IS AN OMENED/ILL-FATED CHAIN OF EVENTS OR ONE COULD SAY: ”A SUCCESION OF MISSFORTUNATE EVENTS” ================================================
OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),
AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING: MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS. AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS, I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, ( BETWEEN NEAR-EAST AND AEGEAN AREAS ) AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW YOU MANY MORE AND CLOSE -RELATED MEANINGS.
IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, (COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA) ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.
OUT OF SOME OUTSTANDING INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH SUMERIAN (A.A.VAIMAN and RUMEN KOLEV),
AFTER SOME YEARS OF RESEARCH, A CLEAR IMAGE IS EMERGING: MANY SUMERIAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGNS HAS EQUIVALENTS IN SHAPE IN AEGEAN WRITINGS. AS MR. RUMEN KOLEV FIRST NOTICED AND MADE SUCH ATTEMPTS, I FOUND ALSO MUCH MORE SIMILARITIES AND CULTURAL RELATIONS, ( BETWEEN NEAR-EAST AND AEGEAN AREAS ) AS BEEING ABLE TO DEDUCE/EXTRACT AND SHOW YOU MANY MORE AND CLOSE -RELATED MEANINGS.
IT IS ABOUT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, (COMMON IN AN EXTENDED AREA) ICONS, WITH THE ORIGIN FAR BACK IN TIME.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu