EXTRACTING THE LAST BIT FROM THE SIGNS SHAPE

Picture from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science_laboratory

In my latest post “The Tartaria tablet’s scribe dilettante?” I presented the question wich is bothering me most:                                                                                                                        
“How could be explained the presence on Tartaria tablets of such a great amount of signs wich has allmost exact sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes?”                                         
Because I must make known, from all known writing systems, the signs are closest to that sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, (folowed mabe by those Anatolian-ones, and not by that Aegeean-ones)                                                                                                                       
After a research wich lasted some years, only when got aquitance of the existence of sumerian proto-writing phase, I found absolutely all necessary signs needed for an reading attempt in sumerian proto-cuneiform sign lists.                                                             
After my preceding post I realised that analising the signs, I get more clues regarding the tablets itself and olso the supposed writing, the signs beeing the only/single physical absolute certain evidence at hand!
                                                                                           
With regrets you must know that I could not rely on allmost or any data furnished by archeologists. When discussion comes to scribe and tablets origin archaeologists give an extremely large (and as consequence, of no much practical use )area and time line.Even more, as time is passed, instead some issues to be much precised, (luckily only some) archaeologists come with hypothesis of the existence of Danubian writing (Vinca-Turdas writing) with no concrete exemple, and come with a pure fictional dramatis personae as the shaman-priestess, “Lady of Tartaria” rather apropiate for a mooving-picture story.                                                                                      Nota bene, woman wich was allready dead some hundred even thousend of years before the tablets were written, so she cannot handle them.(5.300 BC for bones, 2.500-max 3.000 B.C. for tablets, upon world scientists)
                                                                                 
SUMERIAN TABLETS AND SCRIBE ?  
                                                      
The hypothesis of an Sumerian origin for the tablets  was advanced for the first time by the tablets discoverer, archaeologist  N.Vlassa. For 100 reasons (from wich I am presenting to you only some) this is not feasable, beeing practical impossible.

- Original sumerian tablets with proto-writing on them were not found in other places that those in wich this incipient fase of writing appeared: Sumer/Irak, respective URUK(actual Warka), JEMDAT NASR and ELAM… and list is allmost ending.                    
The explanation can be that this kind of tablets were used only there at the places where this kind of writing was discovered, only for a period of time and for purposes wich could be applied/useful only to high hierarchical social-economical developed societies.They used there and remained buried there.                                                                  
 Was of no use in other places, because cannot be interpreted only by those wich knowed how this writing works and what the signs are signifying. 
                                                                
- There was not found not a single-one even in Levant and less in Anatolia or Europe/Aegean areas.  
                                                 
- as the material support for writing beeing clay, there is hard to believe to be taken such a long distance unbroken.   
                                           
- an hypothetical sumerian migrant if not forgot to write, in the years-long endeavour to Europe, could use them only in a sumerian comunity and not in one of tottaly different language and organisation or structure.                                 
 - only half of the signs have exactly sumerian counterpart signs shape.
- the tablets contain some rather modern sign shapes (D an Het/archaic Eta), used mainly after 1.000 B.C.

 TABLET’S AEGEAN (or Anatolian?) ORIGIN HYPOTHESIS.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        This variant was embraced (probably out of options) by most of world scientists.Same by me, not finding a better one..
One of the possible explanations possible is that presented by greek scientists G.PAPAKITSOS and I.KENANIDIS, that first, early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants settled in Crete. Even so,                                           
 - there is only a single sumerian sign PA wich has the exact shape and sounding in Aegean writings, that beeing cretan hieroglyhic, linear A and B, “PA”. 

- there was  found not a single tablet of this kind anywhere in Anatolia,Aegean area,Europe; none even in Levant.   
                                                            
- the artefacts wich contain kind of proto-writing (undeciphered Cretan hieroglyphic) have far, distant-related to sumerian signs.
                                                                                     
 An sumerian influence certainly existed, but sign-pairs choosen by above mentioned scientists to show the sumerian proto-cuneiform influence, are not the best ones and not at all convincing. ( totally oposite when talking of Phoenician influence on early Mediterranean alphabetic writings) 

- on any item found in Aegean, Balcans and Mediterranean  was not found so many identical and similar with sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, as on Tartaria tablets.(Identical sum.proto-cun. signs :AE,AS,PA,AMAR,BA,AB).

One possible explanation with very little chances, could be that tablets originated from Aegean (Crete!) from a period of time earlier than 2.200 B.C. when it is expected that sumerian proto-writing influence existed and was direct and strong, so Tartaria tablets beeing the single proof wich exists in the World. 
                                       
But attention, other sign other signs are not so close in shape:
- sumerian SE not identical with Aegean TE                                    
-sumerian AS: have no Aegean counterpart in shape                            
- sumerian AMAR have only in some instances the same long-eared donkey-head in Aegean sign MA
- sumerian BA has no identical shape counterpart                
 - sumerian AB is only “like” Aegean sign LABRYS
 -the only pair wich is exact the same in shape and sound is the sign PA                                                                                                                                       
TABLETS: SINGLETONS, SOARING IN UNCERTAINTY, TENDING TO BECOME IRELEVANT AND NOT FINDING OWN PLACE

Question:                                                                                                                                               
 if relevant for wich culture? Maybe for that sumerian wich is closest ? For Aegean?     
 Cause that Vinca-Turdas is excluded for many reasons allready displayed.
This in the situation that nothing is sure about them nor the age, excepting the reality of the signs. It is arising an stringent and acute question:                                                               
  - in what circumstances, where, when and how the scr ibe got aquitance of this group of signs used only around 3.000 B.C. !?                                                                            
This could be possible in only two circumstances:                         
- in a period close to the above                                                                
 - or sometime close to our time In any period of time this particular group of signs was not used and there were no means to transmit data from Sumer elsewhere, so to get aquitance of them as is easily possible nowdays. 
                                                                                  
Note                                                                                                                                              
To realise that even the simple gathering of such signs is not an easy task, I can tell that even top-level assyrologists (even one of them specialised in sumerian proto-cuneiform, A.A.Vaiman) in their reading attempts passed over a couple of signs anaware that pertain to proto-sumerian sign list, wrong signs identification, and not giving an interpretation for others.I am reffering here to A.Falkenstein. A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev.  From my recolection, bu I am not sure, only Rumen Kolev noticed that signs could be related to those Aegean-ones. 
So in the place of conclusions, regarding different problems wich arise coresponding to different situations,  
                  
- the obstacles we are facing when considering the sign or writing transmission from Aegean to Tartaria are not of technical nature i.e. the movement of the scribe or of the tablets, but are basical-ones: 
                                                                                                             
 - the time-span between begining of writing in Sumeria and same Aegean fphase is more than some hundred years, is 1.000 years! ((3.200 B.C. visa 2.200 B.C.)                                                   
Even when appeared in Crete (Cretan hieroglyphic writing 2.200 B.C), were not taken from sumerians as such; the sign shapes are quite far if one compare with sumerian counterpart.                                                                                                                       
So the signs are not like Aegean-ones so an Aegean origin is in darkness/ incertainty, arising a big question mark.. So to be fair, the chances to com from modern time are greater than coming from deep ages. 
                                                                
THERE IS AN ETEROGEN SUMERIAN-LIKE GROUP OF SIGNS.
                                             
THE WRITING IS NOT GENUINE SUMERIAN NOR AEGEAN,                                                     
AN COHERENT MESSAGE IS NOT EMERGING OUT OF THE THREE TABLETS,
              
BUT THERE ARE SLIGHT CHANCES TO HAVE TRUE WRITING IN THE UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET,
                                                                                                                         
SO WHO, WHEN AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE SCRATCHED THE SIGNS !?

Totusi, de unde semne sumeriene pe tablitele de la Tartaria !?

Imaginea, din https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-literacy-and-technology/ancient-writing-in-mesopotamia/4CDCF7BA19958CD936AF8609A7FDC34F

In ultima postare, "scribul tablitelor de la Tartaria diletant" am facut cunoscuta intrebarea al carei raspuns ma preocupa cel mai mult: 
   
   - Cum se explica prezenta unor semne de tip sumerian proto-cuneiform ?                     
Pentru ca trebuie sa va spun, dintre toate scrierile cunoscute, apropierea de acestea este maxima. Dupa o cercetare de cativa ani, de-abea dupa ce am aflat de existenta proto-scrierii sumeriane am vazut ca am in aceasta, toate semnele necesare pentru o eventuala citire.Dupa postarea precedenta am realizat ca pot extrage si mai mult din analiza semnelor, semnele fiind singurul aspect cu o certitudine absoluta pe care il avem.                                                                                                                                                       Cu regret trebuie sa va spun ca aproape nu am putut sa pun nici-o baza pe elementele furnizate de arheologi. Elementele acestea, ex. atunci cand este vorba de originea tablitelor si a scribului, cuprind un spectru foarte larg, respectiv un posibil areal si interval temporal foarte mare. Inca si mai mult, in loc ca trecerea timpului sa precizeze niste lucruri, cativa arheologi (putini la numar) au gasit cu cale sa vina cu scenarii de domeniul fictiunii. Cum ar fi existenta scrierii in Cultura Vinca-Turdas si existenta unui personaj pur fictiv, a unei preotese-saman "Doamna de la Tartaria".
Doamna care fie vorba intre noi se pare ca murise inainte cu sute si poate chiar mii de ani de a fi scrise tablitele; (5.300 visa 2.500-3.000 )

TABLITE SI/SAU SCRIB SUMERIAN?

O asemenea ipoteza a fost pentru prima oara lansata chiar de catre descoperitor, N.Vlassa. Din 100 de motive (din care voi enumera doar cateva) va arat ca este practic imposibila o asemenea ipoteza.                                                                                                         
 - Tablite sumeriene originale nu au fost gasite in nici-un alt loc decat in acelea unde a aparut acest scris incipient Sumer/Irak respectiv Uruk(actual Warka), Jemdat Nasr, Elam...si aproape cam atat. Este si explicabil de ce, pentru ca au fost folosite doar in acele locuri, doar o anumita perioada de timp si pentru scopuri care sant aplicabile doar unei societati cu un nivel de dezvoltare social-economic ridicat. Le-au folosit doar lor si apoi au ramas ingropate si gasite doar acolo. Nu ar fi folosit nimanui sa fie duse in alte parti; de fapt nu s-a gasit niciuna in alte locuri, eventual doar in Levant (Siria) dar nu in Anatolia si nici in Europa.                                                                                                           
 - materialul relativ friabil nu face posibila pastrarea integritatii lor la transportul pe distante atat de mari.                                                                                                                            

- un posibil migrant sumerian chiar daca initial stia sa scrie si nu ar fi uitat pana la ajungerea in Europa (ani de zile), nu putea folosi tablitele in alta comunitate decat in cea sumeriana relativ elevata                                                                                                                   
- numai jumatate din semne sant exact ca cele sumeriene; semne mai degraba moderne ((PA/Het/arhaic Eta si D) folosite :                                                                                                      

- primul (PA) dupa 2.500-2.200 B.C. si                                                                                                

- al doilea ("D") dupa 800-500 BC.

Din https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-by-Evans-1909-232-3_fig1_273096050 SEMNUL 45



Nota                                                                                                                                                          Vedeti asemanarea semnelor 55 si 56 cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme:              

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

IPOTEZA ORIGINII EGEEANE (sau ANATOLIENE) A SCRIBULUI SI/SAU TABLITELOR

Aceasta varianta a fost imbratisata, mai mult in lipsa de alte optiuni de catre foarte multi cercetatori. Recunosc ca nici eu nu am gasit vre-o explicatie mai buna. O posibila explicatie gasita de cercetatorii G.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis, imbratisata si de mine ar fi aceea ca minoanii ar fi fost la origine colonisti sumerieni.                                                        
Dar chiar si asa nu regasim in scrierile Egeene numai un singur semn identic cu cel proto-cuneiform (semnul sumerian Pa= semnul Egeean Pa)             Insa chiar si o asemenea ipoteza are lipsurile ei:                                                                            
 - Nu s-a gasit nicaieri in Europa (deci nici in aria Egeeana), ci numai in cel mai apropiat loc, in levant pe teritoriul Siriei ceva asemanator.                                                          

 - artefactele ce contin proto-scriere, cum ar fi scrierea Cretana hieroglifica, contin  semne doar extrem de distant-asemanatoare celor sumeriene. O influenta a scrierii sumeriene a existat categoric, insa exemplele gasite de D-nii Papakitsos si Kenanidis dupa mine nu sant cele mai fericite si neconvingatoare, din punctul meu de vedere. (Cu totul alta este situatia cand vine vorba de influenta scrierii feniciene in aria Mediteraneeana)                                                                                                                                    
- Pe nici-un artefact Ageean,Balcanic sau Mediteraneean nu s-au gasit atat de multe (si nici macar mai putine) semne identic-sumeriene (semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme Se, As, Pa, AMAR, BA, AB) ca pe tablitele de la Tararia.                                        
O posibilitate cu probabilitate foarte mica, ar fi aceea ca tablitele provin totusi din aria Egeeana (cu cele mai mari sanse Creta) dintr-o perioada foarte veche (inainte de 2.200 B.C.) in care influentele sumeriene au fost mai directe si mai mari si din care aceste tablite sant singura dovada ramasa.

TABLITELE: UNICATE ASUPRA CARORA PLANEAZA O INCERTITUDINE MAXIMA, TINZAND A FI CATEGORISITE CA IRELEVANTE, NEINCADRABILE

Intrebare: daca ar fi relevante, pentru ce cultura? Eventual numai pentru cea sumeriana cu care se aseamana cel mai mult. Sau poate pentru cea Egeeana ? ca cea Vinca-Turdas se exclude din f. multe motive. Acestea in conditiile in care nu se cunoaste aproape nimic sigur despre ele si deloc varsta lor.   Se pune in mod cu totul stringent si acut o intrebare:  
                                                                
 -  Cine era de fapt "scribul" si in ce circumstante, unde, cand, si cum a putut lua cunostinta de un grup de semne , grup folosit doar in 2.500-3.100 B.C.?                      Acest fapt ar fi fost posibil doar in doua perioade:                                                                      
 - una apropiata de intervalul de mai sus si alta                                                                          
- extrem de apropiata de contemporaneitate.                                                                            
In nici-o alta perioada acest grup particular de semne nu s-au folosit si nici nu existau mijloace de transmitere a informatiei din Sumer in alta parte si deci de a lua cunostinta de ele asa cum este extrem de facil in ziua de azi.                                                                          
Nota                                                                                                                                                      Pentru ca dumneavoastra sa realizati ca nici macar adunarea unei asemenea grupari de semne nu este o treaba de ici-de colo, va pot spune ca inclusiv asirologi de top (unul chiar specializat in scrierea proto-cuneiforma), au trecut in analizele lor peste cate un semn-doua nerealizand ca sant de fapt sumeriene proto-cuneiforme si cu atat mai putin ce semne sant (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman.Rumen Kolev).                                        
Daca retin. numai R.Kolev a facut o minima apropiere de semnele Egeene 
Asa incat ca un fel de concluzie, avand in vedere diferitele dificultati aferente diferitor situatii:                                                                                                                                                       - Impedimentele legate de o transmisie din aria Egeeana la Tartaria nu sant de ordin pur tehnic (deplasarea scribului a scrisului in sine sau tablitelor) ci apartin unei cauzalitati funciare :                                                                                                                             
 - inceputul scrisului sumerian este despartit de inceputul scrisului Egeean de cca. 1000 de ani ! (3.200 visa 2.200).                                                                                                             
Astfel sansele ca tablitele sa fie legate de o perioada recenta sant cu mult mai mari decat cele de a fi foarte vechi.

SCRIBUL TABLITELOR UN DILETANT ?

SCRIBUL TABLITELOR UN DILETANT ?

https://eugenrau.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/ganditorul-de-la-hamangia-1-197x300.jpg?w=1462

Scribul tablitelor In primul rand sant obligat sa va reamintesc ca tablitele contin mai degraba o adunatura, as putea spune chiar ghiveci de semne.

Mai rau se pare ca este vorba in mare de 3 categorii de semne:                    

- unele pur pictografice, pe tablita dreptunghiulara pictografica negaurita. Fiecare pictograma este reflectarea exacta, aproape fotografica a obiectului intentionat. Icoana caprei pentru capra. icoana vegetala pentru vegetale, cereale si silueta nereusita pentru o creatura se pare totusi umanoida. 

- o categorie de semne cumva intre pictograme si silabograme. Chiar daca avem silueta cap de magar si forma aceea cu contur poligonal, ele nu sant nici magar respectiv caseta, ingradire.Ele sant mai degraba logograme sau ideograme, chiar silabograme.reprezinta respectiv “vitel” si “casa/templu”. Acestea sant pe tablita dreptunghiulara gaurita.                                     

 - pe tablita rotunda, co categorie de semne care pot fi ideograme si chiar la o adica silabograme. In ultima instanta chiar litere (in jumatatea de sus).                                                                

Semnele de pe cele trei tablite in ansamblu, nu apartin niciunui sistem de scriere cunoscut. Semnele par sa apartina unor sisteme de scriere din diferite arii si perioade de timp.Chiar pare ca sant mai multe semne decat ar fi necesar.Acest numar mare de semne este caracteristic fazei pre-cuneiforme.

  --------------------------------------------------------                            

Cei care au incercat sa interpreteze tablitele folosind semnele pre-cuneiforme sumeriene, au constatat ca doar jumatate din ele sant exact ca cele sumeriene, iar cealalta jumatate doar seamana cumva.  In nici-o ocazie sumerienii nu au folosit semnul D trasat, ci au obtinut o forma care seamana prin imprimare (cifra 1 sau 60)                                                                                         Semnul GAR care se citeste “ninda” =”portie de cereale, paine” seamana cumva. Insa este un d care are in interior o liniuta paralela cu bara D-ului (eventual ca primul d de pe tablita rounda).Astfel tablita nu este original sumeriana.Sumerienii si nici altii nu obisnuiau sa amestece diferite semne, pictograme cu ideograme si silabograme.fiecare tip de scriere reflecta stadiul atins in perioada in care a fost scris.Chiar daca cineva a vrut sa arate altuia cum se scrie, sumerienii nu procedau asa.Ei faceau tablite pentru scoala cu liste de meserii, semne determinative pentru categorii precum ‘lemn”, “animale”,”numere”.                                                                          ---------------------------------------------------------  

Desi am gasit multe semne in scrierile Anatoliene, nu am putut folosi niciuna, chiar daca pentru a folosi scrierea cariana mi-ar fi lipsit doar cateva semne.                                                                                      ------------------------------------------------------ 

Aceasta as putea-o denumi “lipsa cronica de semne” s-a resimtit incercand sa folosesc oricare scriere cunoscuta, exemplu scrierile hieroglifica cretana, Linear A, Linear B s.a.m.d.                                                                                                 ==========================================         DE CE DILETANT ?    

Pentru ca nicaieri si in nici-o imprejurare oriunde in lume, vre-un scrib serios nu a lasat in urma o aglomerare asemanatoare, aparent haotica de semne.    Apoi nu gasesc explicatii rezonabile pentru o serie de aspecte constatate:                                                                                 

- ar fi posibil ca personajul nostru de fapt sa nici nu fi avut intentia sa scrie ?                                                                 

- lipsa cunostintelelor elementare de baza necesare pentru a scrie                

 - scribul nu a fost constient sau nu l-a interesat deloc ca lasa in urma o ingramadeala de semne care nu pot fi regasite intr-un timp si loc concret.                     (si nici bineinteles ca urmeaza ca altii isi vor bate capul cu ele)                                                                                     

 Exemple:                                                                             

- Forma absolut exacta D trasata, nu a fost folosita de sumerieni.D-ul in exact aceasta forma nu a fost folosit de nimeni (poate cu exceptie egiptenilor, dar rotit 90 gr.) de nimeni pana la scrierile arhaice grecesti.primul loc in care a aparut D-ul cu curbura a fost chalcis/Euboia.

Forma tip “scarita” nu a fost folosita in aceasta forma concreta de sumerieni, ci doar sub forma inchisa, cutie, semnul “KU”.Intr-o forma asemanatoare a fost folosita in scrierea hieroglifica cretana si Linear A, Linear B.Dar sub forma cu bare decalate ori inclinate, forma care o avem pe tablita a fost folosita numai in scrierile feniciana. Paleo-ebraica,scrierea arhaica cretana si intro serie de scrieri direct derivate din cea feniciana ori greaca (etruscana, venetica, sud-iberiana etc.) 

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

Totusi cateva intrebari raman deocamdata fara raspuns:

- in ce periada (care teoretic se poate apropia oricat de mult de zilele noastre) a trait scriitorul ?

- Apoi chiar daca inteleg ca incepand cu Epoca bronzului timpurie aria egeeana si in mod special Creta au fost un focar in care s-au amestecat influentat diferite culturi, avand se pare la origine comertul, (Creta fiind intr-un puct de intersectia a multor rute comerciale), o intrebare ma framanta in mod deosebit si nu-mi da pace deloc:

- Cand si de unde a avut scribul cunostinta de semnele sumerian AB:”casa templu” sau de acela “cap de magar”=”AMAR”=”vitel”= Egeean “MA” !?    

                                                                               

Nota

In aceasta conjunctura, nimeni nu se asteapta ca fiecare tableta sa poarte cate un mesaj inteligibil concret, si mai putin sa se arate o legatura intre mesajele de pe fiecare tableta, ca fiind ceva unitar.                                                                                                                                                                                  Chiar si in aceasta situatie incalcita, exista unele indicii ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde ( exact acea portiune a caror semne ar fi fost acoperite deci ascunse privirii de celalta tablita drept. cu gaura) ar putea contine scris adevarat. Anatolian, ex. Carian sau mai degraba arhaic grec. 

         Dintre toti oamenii de stiinta, numai Dl. Marco Merlini a sustinut ideea unui :scris Danubian”. dar fara ca sa sustina prin nici macar un singur exemplu ca civilizatia Vinca-Turdas ar fia atins faza scrierii adevarate. Acelasi lucru, cu regret trebuie sa spun, este valabil si pentru sustinerea existentei unei proto-scrieri a acestei culturi.dansul nu a oferit vre-o interpretare la nici-un semn, sustinad ca semnificatiile semnelor au conotatii mistico-religioase de mult uitate si ca atare imposibil de a fi reconstituite si cunoscute.

Alti oameni de stiinta au evidentiat asemanare scrierii cu faza celei sumeriene pre-cuneiforme (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaimen, R.Kolev) dar au facut clar faptul ca nu este scris original sumerian (Falkenstein, Vaiman)                                                                                  

Foarte multi cercetatori (fiind derutati probabil de amestecul de semne si aspectul general ciudat al tablitelor) au opinat pentru o mimare a scrisului sumerian.                        Ca atare poate nici scribul nu a reusit sa inscrie un mesaj inteligibil concret. Pentru ca altfel foarte multi dintre dansii sustin ca este foarte posibil ca cel care a inscris semnele sa nu fi avut cunostintele nexesare sau suficiente pentru a scrie, deci din acest punct de vedere sa fi fost iliterat=analfabet.                                                  Se sustine ideea ca tablitele ar fi putut avea mai mult un rol de ajutor si accesoriu (parafernalii, hiera) in desfasurarea unor ritualuri mistico-religioase.      ==================================================   
From The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0684862700 Richard Rudgley
“But the string-holes on two of the Tartaria tablets appear to be a feature without ... that the tablets represented a garbled and 'senseless' mimicry of Near Eastern ..”

From an investigation into the origins of writing - Forums.gr www.forums.gr/filedata/fetch?id=1875482
”It should be pointed out that the early date ascribed to the Tărtăria tablets has .... made as mimicry of the signs themselves, in imitation of an admired culture”

From the tartaria tablets - jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/24926226 by MSF Hood 
“SUMERIAN WRITING of the period around 3000 B.C. covers a clay tablet found at Jemdet. Nasr' in Mesopotamia. ... on tablets found at Tartaria in Romania (see illustration on opposite page). ..... prehending imitation of more civilized peoples' …”

From The Mystery of Tatárlaka • Klára Friedrich - Cakravartin cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/.../mystery-of-tatarlaka-klara-friedrich.pdf
” Tatárlaka signs were just an imitation of the Sumerian writing and were brought to…”

From Chapter 3 “Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A ... https://www.academia.edu/.../Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeas...
”Tărtăria tablets, the icon on the possibility of a European Neolithic writing ..... It is well-known that the apotropaic power is specially felt among illiterate people” …

From THE ORIGIN OF WRITING: - Dacia.org www.dacia.org/no-one.html
”These tablets revealed a much older version of the same flood legend. .... a way to extend memory but also a tool for the elite to justify their rule upon the common, illiterate people. .”.
From Protochronism - Wikiwand www.wikiwand.com/en/Protochronism
”Also noted are the exploitation of the Tărtăria tablets as certain proof that writing originated on proto-Dacian ... A Dacian script or the work of an illiterate potter?

From Aspects of the Balkans: Continuity and Change: Contributions to the ... https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=311088593X
Henrik Birnbaum, ‎Speros Vryonis -Analogies to the Vinča script occur in the earliest Sumerian writing of the Late ... A. Falkenstein, “Zu den Tontafelnaus Tartaria”,      ". Of 24 signs on the Tartaria tablets five correspond to signs from Mesopotamia."

From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Core https://www.cambridge.org/.../tartaria-tablets/C824E021256A41A254FF5A847EB57E0... by MSF Hood - ‎1967 -
“It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian .... [25] A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Ausgrabungen in .”

From interdisciplinarity in archaeology and historical linguistics https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/lepaarq/article/download/4888/4476 by M Mertzani -
"(GIMBUTAS, 1982) such as the Vinča–Turdaș tablets ca. .... scripts also demonstrate similarities; that is, half of the signs are similar to Linear A scripts. ..... MERLINI, M. A comparison between the signs from Tartaria, the Danube script and ..."

From Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis https://books.google.ro/books?id=q-pjwVI1Vz0C
“The hypothesis that the Tartaria tablets represent only a writing-like design was ... made with a magic purpose without any real understanding, possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets .”

From The Civilization of Ancient Crete https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=0520034066 Ronald Frederick Willetts 
“copied for magical purposes, without understanding of their meaning, from the ... Similarities between the Tartaria tablets and the earliest known clay tablets of ..”

From TĂRTĂRIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS http://www.cimec.ro/pdf/dl.asp?filename=Lazarovici-Merlini-Tartaria-and-the-Sacred-Tablets-2011.pdf 
  “We also note when single Transylvanian signs are in alignment with the set of signs established by subsequent ancient scripts such as the Indus script, the Akkadian cuneiform, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Cretan Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic, and Cypriot syllabary. The main aim is not to find hazardous hits from analogies with other systems of writing in order to implement the ‘decipherment’ of the messages encoded in the tablets. It is to verify whether or not the Transylvanian informational geometries are restricted to the Danube script, or if they are also rooted in other literacy systems of the ancient world…………………                                                               
We will investigate the signs from Tărtăria starting from the observation we have already formulated in different articles and books concerning the coexistence on them of an exoteric message and an esoteric one1181. It is noteworthy to consider the possibility of overlapping the two tablets, both bearing a round puncture and divided into cells. The hole on the rectangular tablet fi ts precisely the hole on the circular tablet, and the former artifact perfectly covers the upper register of the latter with their cells in perfect alignment. The lower edge of the oblong tablet exactly superimposes the horizontal line running on the round tablet, and the vertical line incised on the fi rst artifact from the edge of the hole downwards meets exactly the vertical line incised on the lower register of the larger artifact thus forming a continuous line. This superimposability could mean that the rectangular and circular drilled tablets have been worn one over the other as pendants of a necklace, the small rectangular tablet placed over the larger disc-shaped one. Mo re signifi cantly, the possibility to overlap the two artifacts could also mean that overt (seen) signs and esoteric (hidden) signs both occur in the resulting assemblage between them (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). The tablets aggregate the attributes of ritual artifacts, amulet-tablets, and amulet-archives possibly worn by Milady Tărtăria1182.                      The message to be conveyed by the tablets is likely based on a relationship between exot eric and esoteric signs. The fact that the two punctured tablets could have been utilized as superimposed exoteric and esoteric amulets is indicative of the magical associations of the script1183. The upper esoteric register of the disk-shaped tablet was hidden to uninitiated persons. It was necessary to lift up the oblong tablet in order to see the secret text incised on the upper register of the circular tablet. The question of the non-visibility of some texts is not only indicative of magical associations of the Danube script and its employment in liturgies, but it reveals even the sacral nature connected with initiation processes of this kind of literacy. Was the sacr ed inscribed compound particularly in use during initiation ceremonies?                                   
If this was the case, it does not facilitate any attempts to decipher the incised signs since one is dealing with texts that challenge the un-expressible, not only reveal but also conceal and sidetrack, and finally indicate something to mean something else. …………………..
                                                                                                                         They were worn or hung, one over the other, and the resulting combination may have created a relationship of overt (seen) and esoteric (hidden) signs (i.e., the signs on the upper register of the circular tablet would have been covered). ………………

Nonetheless, the original Near Eastern signs of literacy might have lost their authentic functions having been merely copied and used as symbols of a religious or magical character without an understanding of what they actually meant.Semiotically, the hypothesis that the Tărtăria tablets bear only a writing-like design is based on the argument that the signs of literacy do not appear together in the same groups as they do on the Mesopotamian tablets. Two signs that occur separated, but in adjacent groups, on the Tărtăria discoid tablet are joined together on some of the Jemdet Nasr tablets to compose the name of a god: EN-GI.                                                                                       A Transylvanian “intellectual” copied two Sumerian signs, but was not capable to unite them to write properly the divine name. No scholar from that side expresses doubts that perhaps the ancient Transylvanians had no intention to write down the name of a Sumerian god. According to them, the illiterate presence of signs of literacy at Tărtăria might refl ect the awareness that they were marks of great power, combined with ignorance of the signifi cance of writing. The conviction that signs of literacy are carriers of magic powers is exactly the reason why their mere graphic imitations have been deposited in a ritual pit-grave with fragments of human bones.        “The tablets, in all probability, are mere imitation of original Mesopotamian ones, made with a magic purpose without any real understanding,possibly by a person who saw the usage of such tablets somewhere, between Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Europe, without a real knowledge, however, of the art of writing…”  
                                                           ==============================

In my long-term research, (allmost 10-12 years), in the Tartaria tablets sumerian approach/reading attempts, I extracted all possible meanings. 
I could say even more, if comparing with other scientists reading attempts.                                            As one easily can see in my papers with critics on A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and Rumen Kolev interpretations.
As you will se I found in their papers some wrong sign identifications, missing interpretation of some signs etc.                                                                                        
 Even they are top-level assyrologists and some high-specialised in sumerian proto-writing= sumerian proto-cuneiform, I have no explanation at hand, probably this was caused only by rush?/ not having/according sufficient time for analisis, in order to get as close as possible to every single sign.

Also without emphasys, from my recollection, I was the single one to close-compare the signs with Aegean writings signs (Cretan hieroglyphic, Linear A and Linear B) trying to interpret them and extract possible meanings