“How could be explained the presence on Tartaria tablets of such a great amount of signs wich has allmost exact sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes?”
From Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации. — ИИМК РАН
www.archeo.ru › annotations-of-issues
Because signs Nos.2, 4, 6, and 10 of the Tartaria tablets (fig.4) have only early proto- Sumerian parallels, it may be assumed that other ...
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 (PA/Het/archaic Eta and D), used : first :
- "PA" after 2.500-2.200 B.C.. and
- 2nd ("D")only after 1.000 B.C., mainly from 500 B.C.
From https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Cretan-Hieroglyphic-table-of-signs-by-Evans-1909-232-3_fig1_273096050 Sign No.45
From http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_dalet.html
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 simple gathering of such signs is not an easy task, I can tell that even top-level assyrologists (even one 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,
Interesting the single-one(out of me) wich noticed similarity with archaic greek! From https://www.academia.edu/8899844/Chapter_3_Existence_of_an_archaic_script_in_Southeastern_Europe_A_long_lasting_querelle_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe
"Subsequently, between 1908 and 1926, Miloje M. Vasić excavated the tell of Vinča, on the south bank of the Danube 14 kilometers from Belgrade, and other settlement mounds nearby where he unearthed numbers of statuettes and vessels bearing geometric motifs which reminded him the inscriptions found on the archaic Greek vessels from Lesbos, Troy and Melos. Then he made the reasonable assumption that the “incised signs and marks” on the artifacts held at Vinča in a complete block of households with a fascinating stratigraphy of almost 10 meters, belonged to an early Greek colony of the 7th and 6th centuries BC, such as those of the Southern Italy (Vasić 1910). He also took for granted that some incised incisions were letter signs or potters’marks; a presumption historically justified by the parallels - both graphical and conceptual – he made with the archaic Greek signs."
SO WHO, WHEN AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE SCRATCHED THE SIGNS !?===========================================
"such as those of the Southern Italy (Vasić 1910)." From god in Sicilian https://glosbe.com/en/scn/god
ddiu :A deity: An idol
(DDou=DDIOU,ddiu?)
From https://www.academia.edu/9108229/Chapter_4_part_I_Debugging_the_process_of_building_a_repertory_of_the_Southeastern_European_signs_from_the_book_Neo-Eneolithic_Literacy_in_Southeastern_Europe
- "Sixth, Makkay considered the signs from Vinča culture and neighboring cultures of Southeastern Europe as a whole. He did not deal with regional variants. Seventh, the author collected many signs from the Vinča culture and from its related and coeval cultures of Southeastern Europe, but contradicted himself maintaining that Turdaş signs have no contemporary European parallels at all because the occurrence of signs was restricted to the Vinča culture (Makkay 1969: 13, 14).Makkay did not care about this contradiction, because his statement that Turdaş and Vinča signs are isolated in Neolithic cultures of Southeastern Europe was instrumental in claiming their resemblance to Near Eastern-Anatolians signs and attempting consequently to prove that as early as the Vinča A period the appearance ofTurdaş signs belonged to the framework of Near Eastern influences, connected to a feature of the Vinča culture that was unique among Southeastern European cultures. The assumed close Anatolian connection was transliterated in his framework into actual Anatolian origin of some elements including the signs. In other words, “even during the period Vinča A, perhaps in its beginning, such influences of Anatolian backgroundand partly of Mesopotamian origin, directed towards the Danube region, have to be reckoned with, and thesewere accompanied by the appearance of pottery signs and ornamental motifs very similar to, even somehow connected with the Mesopotamian ones” (Makkay 1969: 14). For this reason, he did not create a historical framework for thenot Vinča European signs and he did not investigate their interconnections with Vinča and neighboring cultures sign systems. The conflicting fact with is statement is that Turdaş and Vinča signs actually have many coeval or nearly coeval parallels in Southeastern Neolithic Europe.Eighth, another contradiction in Makkay’s framework negatively influenced the subsequent studies made byother scholars. On the one hand, he asserted he was attempting to compare Southeastern Europeansigns with Mesopotamian pictographs, but on the other hand, he observed that usually the first ones were pottery signs whereas the second ones were pictographs. It is very important his stressing that very few of the European signs have a picture-like character which one may recognize as a living being or an object, etc. (Makkay1969: 11), but how to compare these abstract signs with Near Eastern pictorial writing symbols? Finally,Makkay’s collection and classification of signs compared them with the signs of the Near Eastern Chalcolithic rather than to develop an internal analysis of a Neolithic and Copper Age European system of signs.Makkay’s pioneering classification of Turdaş signs has some remarkable sights for the task of establishing an inventory of the Danube script. First, he attempted to identify, detect, and classify marks that were clearly not decorative motifs vs. the mood of the time dominated by scholars with the propensity to claim that any mark is a decoration. Second, it is the first systematic gathering and classification of signs from the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe. The survey enlarged the traditional geographic boundaries considering not only Turdaş and Vinča settlements, but also the whole Vinča culture as well as the related cultures of Southeastern Europe"
