11Ian'19/ Clarificarea a doua aspecte fundamentale privind Tablitele de la Tartaria

Ulterior am realizat ca urmatoarele aspecte necesita o revenire si clarificare:

I. Supozitia ca tablitele nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi si au fost facute ulterior. 

Am avansat anterior ca ipoteza o origine relativ recenta a tablitelor. Cum ar fi in perioada de activitate a Zsofiei Torma si chiar ulterioara. In buna masura aceasta ipoteza nu se sustine, intrucat:     - Inainte de 1900 domeniul scrierii proto-cuneiforme nu era aproape deloc cercetat.Foarte putini cercetatori de talia lui A.H.Sayce, contemporani cu Zsofia Torma erau in acea vreme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Sayce                                                                           Archibald Henry Sayce (25 September 1845 – 4 February 1933), was a pioneer British Assyrologist and linguist , who held a chair as Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford from 1891 to 1919                                                                                   Chiar si Falkenstein (nascut dupa moartea Zsofiei T.) de-abea mai tarziu a scos lista semnelor proto-cuneiforme, nedand nici-unui semn vre-o interpretare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Falkenstein                                                                 Adam Falkenstein (September 17, 1906 – October 15, 1966) was a German Assyrologist Falkenstein studied Assyrology in Mubich and Leipzig. He was involved primarily with cuneiform, particularly discoveries in Uruk, and with the Sumerian and their language . From 1930 onward, Falkenstein taught as a professor of Assyriology at the Gottingen University.
Tablitele prezinta aspecte complexe, as zice eu chiar "sofisticate" care reflecta o relatie intre culturile Orientale si cea Aegeeana. Aceasta complexitate depaseste nivelul mediu. ca atare nici macar un specialist in zilele noastre, nu ar putea sa reflecte ( a se citi sa imite) aceste legaturi. Deci supozitia ca cineva relativ contemporan ar fi facut un gen de incercare, cade.                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATENTIE
Un anume aspect  nu a fost sesizat de altii, ci numai de mine, si anume ca semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria sant comune a doua mari civilizatii, cea sumeriana si cea Egeeana, iar icoanele au fost de o importanta culturala covarsitoare in aambele civilizatii.
. Semnele doarau legatura cu cele sumeriene si de fapt apartin preistoriei Europei in general si celei Vinca si Egeene in particular. Aceasta observatie nu a fost revendicata de nimeni pana acum.Savantii s-au limitat la a face doar legatura cu semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme si a le atribui interpretarea sumeriana ! Deci fara ca sa depaseasca aceste limite.   
     Exemple de asemenea lucrari:                                                                                                         A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts Ioannis K. Kenanidis1, Evangelos C. Papakitsos*2 file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-31E332-346%20(1).pdf                                                                                                             Additional Palaeographic Evidence for the Relationship of the Aegean Scripts
to the Sumerian Pictography    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SJAHSS-33C734-737Additionalevidence.pdf                                                                                                               
In aceastea, foarte multe exemple nu sant fericit gasite, nu sant convingatoare si nici prea concludente, iar in privinta semnelor sumeriene nu este data denumirea sumeriana si nici semnificatia lor.Doar in ultima lucrare sant cateva asocieri relativ corecte :                                                       Linear B,"A"(labrys) cu sumer."double axe" cand semnul sum. nu este nici-o dubla-secure, este semnul ZAG;C,apoi sum.AMAR nu este bine asociat. Corect asoc. :Lin.B(LA32)"JA", apoi sum.Se cu Egeean Te....si cam atat. Bineinteles, posibil pentru ca nici nu si-au propus, ca nu apare nici-o ref. la tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                              

 Ex., doar cateva  SEMNE COMPARATE de mine:

Sumerian               Aegean

  GAR                    UNIT de VOLUM       (Egypt, T,"loaf of bread" )                                                         SE                         TE                              Cereale-boabe,grau                                                                 AMAR                   MA                                                                                                                               Y                              Y                                                                                                                           KU                         PA3                                                                                                                             AB                     LABRYS                                                                                                                            PA                         PA                                                                                                                                 etc                        etc                                                                                                                              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------      

II. Supozitia (altfel corecta) ca jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde contine un "mesaj" intentionat ascuns.
Da, mai mult decat posibil.Dar din ce perioada, de ce ar fi fost ascuns, si mai ales de ce natura ar fi putut fi !?
Aici, prezenta unui semn care nu se regaseste nici macar in scrierile Egeene (nici macar scrierea eteo-Cretana nu poate intra in discutie) ne conduce din pacate spre perioada scrierii arhaice grecesti.            Este vorba despre semnul "D". In jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde doar semnele Egeean PA3 (arh. grec eta) si "o"au existat, in schimb semnul "D" nu a aparut decat doar in primele alfabete grecesti.
Acest fapt ne indeparteaza total de o presupusa perioada extrem de veche (3.500-3.000 B.C.) si ne indreapta direct spre perioada 800-300 B.C.   Totusi ar mai ramane o sansa infinitesimala ca semnele D sa reprezinte asa cum in scrierea minoana semnul pentru unitate de volum este foarte apropiat de un D.Ar putea fi vorba in acest caz de o varianta de scriere locala.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                           Acuma ce ar putea fi scris acolo ?  

 Atentie, aici ma indepartez de cursul acceptat al oamenilor de stiinta, care fac o directa legatura cu scrierea sumeriana.                                                                                                                         Eu zic ca autorul "scrierii" nu a fost  literatul"lor" , ci al nostru, adica din aria Egeana/Dunareana, aceasta independent de faptul  ca ar fi fost mai vechi sau mai nou.       Aspectul sesizat ca semnele sant comune unor mari civilizatii, Sumeriana si Egeeana nu a fost sesizat si nici revendicat de altcineva inaintea mea. Cercetatorii s-au limitat la o interpretare facand doar legatura cu civilizatia sumeriana.                                                                                                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                Inca acum cativa ani, am gasit cea mai veche atestare a asociatiei de semne "HP" a fost gasita pe bucati de artefacte din lut in Grecia si poate mai multe in Orientul Apropiat si Egipt. Sa intelegeti prin "HP" archaic eta-rho. Adica arhaic eta sub forma "boxed/cutie" adica cu contur inchis sau forma "in scarita".                                                                                                                    Cercetatorii au avansat ipoteza ca arfi monograma sau prescrtarea pentru Hera sau Heros. La fel zic si eu. Avand in vedere ca se pare ca                                                                                                             - zeitatea Hera il precede cumva pe Zeus, si avand in vedere:                                                             -lunga perioada anterioara de venerare a unei zeite Pamant-Mama (Earth Goddess), dar si natura complexa a numelui Hera, eu dau intaietate lui Hera ,urmat indeaproape de un eventual Heros. (A se retine ca Heros a fost un gen de erou salvator precursor a lui Cristos)
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera#Etimologie                                                                                   Una dintre primele instanțe ale numelui zeiței apare pe tablele din Pylos, scrise în linear B un sistem de scriere care a fost găsit și pe datând încă din 1450 iHr, folosit de civilizațiile miceniene până la colapsul acestora în secolul XII iHr. Aici apare ca Qo-wi-ja (Guōwiā „cea asemenea vacilor” un cunoscut epitet homeric.^]
Numele Herei poate avea mai multe etimologii se exclud reciproc; o explicație leagă numele de ὥρα transliterat hōra, însemnând sezon, interpretându-l ca o vreme propice pentru căsătorie. Pe de altă parte, Platon  consideră că e legat de ἐρατή transliterat eratē, adică „preiubit”, deoarece se spune că Zeus s-a căsătorit cu ea din dragoste, sau că numele zeiței este anagramă a aēr (ἀήρ, „aer“).^[3] Plutarh susține a doua variantă sugerând că este un nume alegoric pentru poziția înălțată a acesteia.^[4]
aiurea...      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%AD%CF%81%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek   EtymologyUncertain. Possibly a feminine form of ἥρως (hḗrōs) or related to ὥρα (hṓra).^[1][2]
varza! eu leg numele de era:"pamant" ,hiera:"sfanta" si hera "doamna" !!

Tartaria tablets signs compared or Tartaria tablets, sign by sign

Tartaria tablets signs compared, or                                     Tartaria tablets, sign by sign

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. =============================================

More or less, almost all the signs could be fount in exact shape or as a sqetch the sumerian proto-cuneiform signs. But some of them reflect the exact shape of the signs from later writings. 

Where the signs has the exact shape of a writing,I will mark with*.

Round tablet’s signs (R)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoHnmGyZZHx37HuCFCpYRgIJdQxE5vuc7vcNlb00JtKMccyZpjqA



No1. sign "+++++"                                                                                                  

 No.2.1 sign :1-st "D"                                                                                                                      

No.2.2: 2-nd "D"                                                                                                                            

 No.2.3, sign"o"                                                                                                                             

No.2.4, sign"o/c"?                                                                                                                               



No.3 sign: Downward-Right quarter,  on the right                                                                   



No.4, sign:Downward-right quarter,  on the left (red)                                      



No.5. sign "Z-like"lower sign                                                                                 

No.6/left, sign "bow&arrow"                                                                                                      No.6/up, sign ">>"                                                                                                                        



No.7, sign "H"-like                                                                                   

No.8,sign "P/D"-like

Squarred tablet’s signs (Sq):

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGmJn6uRzrDVyluR0qaLWHqYbn2UJsQbNcrjbnze7I27mP1riVZg


Table in wich is showed every sign in wich writing was found in exact shape and most frequent:

Note:”Anatolian, means mostly Carian)

Tabl.  Sign No.    Most frequent  2-nd frequecy

R             1                               Sum.*,Anat.
R           2.1                     Anat.,Arch.Gr.*.Old.Lat.*
R           2.2                     Anat.,Arch.Gr.*.Old.Lat.*
R           2.3                Sum.*Anat.*Aegean*,Arch.Gr.*
R  2.4.(“o”/”c”?)     if "o": Anat.*,Aegean*; if "c" Anat.,Arch.Gr.*,Old Lat.*
R           3                        Sum.* 
R           4                           None
R           5(Z-like)             Sum.,Anat.*,Aegean*,Arch.Gr.*,Old.Hebr.*
R    6(left,"bow-arrow")                  Sum.,Anat.
R     6(up,">>")                             Anat.*
R          7                     Aegean*,Old Hebrew*
R          8                  Old Hebrew*,Arch.Gr.*,Old Lat.*                                                                               ---------------------------------------------------
Sq         1                          Sum.*
Sq         2                         Sum.*,Anat.
Sq         3                     Sum.*,Anat.,Aegean
Sq         4                        Sum.*,Anat.
Sq         5                      Sum.,Cypr.
Sq         6                  Sum.*,Aegean*
Sq  above 7            (Anat.elements, Aegean?)
Sq        7                         Sum.*

If every sign< pair >type of writing  has 1 point, then, out of 20 signs,number of signs found in the writings:

Sumerian  12    ************
Anatolian  11    ***********
Aegean      6 ******
Arch.Gr.   6 ******
Old Hebr.  3 ***
Cypriot    1 *
Old Lat.   4 ****

NOTE

1. IF the tablets are genuine show a direct/great sumerian influence/inspiration (11 sumerian-like signs)

2. After sumerian , much plausible is Aegean writing ( sumerian close-influenced) 

3.Signs "D" were used by sumerian only before 3.200 B.C., but very few and only on the ext. surface of clay tokens (bullae) with unknown meaning.                                                                      It seems due the fact that were put in the recipients column on proto-sumerian signs table, could be for "pot,jar,vessel",                 ?measure-ration?

4. Otherwise the D-shape was not used after in writing 2.500 years till archaic greek writing,(3.200-2.500=700)

5. .The "H'-sign                                                       http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html


has the exact phoenician/old hebrew (Cheth/Het) shape



and only close to Aegean (PA3) writings .Linear A sign PA3 has no shifted vertical bars , as our sign and Old Hebrew is.                                                                   Image from https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/linear-a-decipherment/page/2/

P.S.Capital old Hebrew and Phoenician "het" and  is identical with archaic greek Heta(boxed eta) and 



sumerian proto-cuneiform "Ku" (Number 3,first)

6. Sign ">>" found only in Anatolian (Carian ) writing

7. I DO NOT EXPLAIN MYSELF, 
HOW EXACTLY THE UPPER HALF OF THE ROUND TABLET, SUPPOSED COVERED/HIDDEN CONTAIN MOST MODERN SIGNS.                      

 POSSIBLE THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY SECTION OUT OF ENTIRE BOTH TABLETS WICH CONTAIN AN DIRECT READABLE MESSAGE ? 

WHAT KIND COULD BE? MILITARY SECRET NO !, ESOTERIC, RELIGIOUS-MYSTIC ?.                                                                                               YES, COULD BE THE CASE.


8.DON'T KNOW WHAT SCRIBE WOULD MIX (real name "hodge-podge"), PICTOGRAPHIC SIGNS WITH IDEOGRAMS / SYLLABOGRAMS ! =========================
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. 

I would say, kind of finish of the Tartaria tablets research.

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                   

Consideraţii privind pregătirea intelectuală a episcopilor ... - Diacronia

www.diacronia.ro/indexing/details/A26158/pdf

(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.