We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Archaeologists in Bulgaria have found writing that dates back 5000 years. Reese makes it clear for Ancient Origins that the Tărtăria Tablets, or Vinča Turdas tablets, were discovered by Nicolae Vlassa.
Finding the Tărtăria Tablets
The Tărtăria tablets were found in what N. Vlassa, the archaeologist who worked on this site in 1961, called a "ritual pit" along with 26 burnt clay idols and two Cycladic alabaster idols, plus the scorched and disjointed bones of a man. He described this site as a magic-religious complex. Although Dr. Vlassa has suggested that this man was probably a sacrifice, the research of Dr. Vamos Toth Bator indicates that the man was more likely a priest who had died in a fire and was then buried with ritual items he valued while alive.
The Hungarian scholar, Dr. Vamos Toth Bator believes that the Tărtăria tablets are written in Magyar. Using Magyar, Vamos Toth Bator believed he could read these mysterious inscriptions.
- Do the Tartaria Tablets contain evidence of earliest known writing system?
- Justice, Myths, and Biblical Evidence: The Wealth of Information Held in the Ebla Clay Tablets
Monument for the Neolithic Tărtăria tablets discovered in 1961 at Tărtăria, Alba County, Romania. (Țetcu Mircea Rareș/ CC BY SA 3.0 )
Dr. Vamos Toth Bator has opened up the world to new knowledge about the toponyms and cultural traits that connected ancient civilizations around the world. He has been able to use linguistic, anthropological, and historical-toponymic evidence to vividly make us aware of the Tamana culture.
Difficulty Deciphering the Tărtăria Tablets
There are three Tărtăria tablets and controversy surrounds their content. Reese wrote that: “Some believe the etchings are a primitive form of writing, while others believe they are pictograms, random scribbles, religious symbols, or symbols of ownership.”
Up until now no one has conclusively deciphered the Tărtăria tablets. However, various researchers have stated that the signs on the tablets have affinities to Proto-Sumerian, pre-Dynastic Egyptian, Libyco-Berber, Proto- Elamite, and Trojan writing. Zanotti has suggested that the dates for the tablets may be between 3300 and 3000 BC, or contemporary with Uruk IV, of the Jemdet Nasr period in Mesopotamia. Many signs engraved on Vinča pots are comparable to pottery marks from Asia Minor ceramic ware, especially pottery from Troy. Hood observed that :
"Many of the vases made by Vinca potters have shapes that are basically akin to Trojan ones. Pots with dark, polished surfaces, often decorated with incisions filled with a white paste, are common both in the first settlement at Troy, and in the earlier phase of the Vinca culture. Vinca ware also show affinity with later pottery at Troy".
A modern drawing of a Vinča vessel (Nikola Smolenski/ CC BY SA 3.0 ) and a Vinča symbol resembling the Latin letter ‘M’. (Nikola Smolenski/ CC BY SA 3.0 )
Is the Script on the Tărtăria Tablets from the Magyar Language?
Paliga believes that Tartarian writing was the proto-type script for the Cypriot syllabary or Cretan Linear A signs. The finding by Paliga, that the Tărtăria Tablets may relate to the Linear A signs, was very interesting because Crete was settled by the Garamante - who originally lived in Fezzan, Libya.
The Hungarian people speak the Magyar language. Many researchers have assumed that the Magyar people only recently arrived in the Carpathian Basin from Asia, but this is not necessarily true for all the Magyar.
- 7,000-Year-Old Ceramic Fragment with Signs, Symbols and Swastika May Be One of the Oldest Examples of Writing
- Ten Mysterious Undeciphered Codes and Inscriptions
The Carpathian Basin was a center for cattle rearing and copper mining during the middle Neolithic. Dr. Vamos-Toth Bator has found thousands of toponyms that connect the Carpathian basin to other parts of the world.
The Magyar trace their origins back to ancient Nubia. The Arvisurak, an ancient book of the Magyar said that the name Uz was applied to the ancient Magyar, the largest tribe of the Black Huns.
Tibor Barath, in ‘The Early Hungarians’, has given a considerable amount of data which indicates that the Kushites from Nubia played an important role in the formation of the Magyar. As a result, we find that the Magyar/Hungarian language is closely related to Malinke-Bambara and the Dravidian languages which were formerly spoken in Nubia.
Tripolye and Nubian Figurines. (Author provided)
The Hungarian scholar Janos Makkay has examined incised Tartarian tablets/signs from thirty-seven (37) sites spread throughout Hungary and Romania. The presence of these tablets highlight the highly developed character of the ancient Magyar culture in Europe.
Many scholars have attempted to decipher these tablets in the past. Jaki Gaber believed the inscriptions were written in Sumerian and discussed taxation. In another attempt at decipherment, Barath recognized that the tablets were written in Magyar and believed that they recorded an astrological event.
Drawing of the Tărtăria tablets. ( Youtube Screenshot )
Vamos Toth used his knowledge of the Proto-Saharan writing system to decipher the Vinča Turdas or the Tărtăria tablets. Clyde Winters in ‘Archaeological Decipherment of Ancient Writing Systems’ makes it clear that the Proto-Saharan script was based on Thinite writing. Vamos Toth believed that the Vinčians used symbols identical to the Proto-Saharan script to represent Magyar phonetic values.
Even though the Hungarian scholar Tibor Barath was correct in reading the tablets in Magyar, his interpretation of the words is incorrect. In 1983, Vamos-Toth Bator deciphered a Tărtăria tablet and discovered that it is not related to an astrological event, it was an amulet worn by a Proto-Magyar dignitary.
- Bucegi Mountains: Strange Happenings, Conspiracies and Folk Legends
- Easy as Alep, Bet, Gimel? Cambridge Research Explores Social Context of Ancient Writing
The writing on a Tărtăria tablet (author provided) with the corresponding amulet. ( CC BY 3.0 )
Interpreting the Tărtăria Amulet’s Writing
This amulet was deciphered by giving the characters of the Tărtăria tablet phonetic values consistent with the Proto-Saharan script. Vamos-Toth read the Tartarian inscription from left to right – and in Magyar we have:
Jo taj dogo ko: "Goodness here adheres (to you from) the Deity.
Taj-a to bo: Here the source of abundance .
To egybe: (The Deity is) the source of Unity.
Ko ne: The Deity (is) for me.
Mi ont ke: Which integrates (me) into one Unity (with the Deity)."
Breakdown of symbols on the Tărtăria amulet. (Author provided)
Significance of Deciphering the Tărtăria Tablet’s Text
The decipherment of the Tărtăria tablet by Dr. Vomas-Toth Bator and Dr. C.A. Winters is important because it offers the first written evidence that man paid homage to a Supreme Power in Europe over 5000 years ago. The Tărtăria amulet is also important to world history because it is the earliest written document to appear in Europe. Moreover, the fact that Ko may relate to powerful leaders suggests that the Proto-Magyar people, as evidenced by the excavation of other Tărtăria type tablets on 37 sites, had a powerful elite that welded the prehistoric Carpathian basin villages into one of the world's early empires.
I made some research on these Tartaria tablets.Absolutely all elementary signs on them can be found among different ancient alphabets.I wonder how so few realised this.I do not understand why highly specialised schollars got near zero output on this matter.These tablets were written using : the round-one mostly phoenician-like letters e.g archaic greek . See on upper-left quarter those greek archaic letters HP/HD (H in the archaic shape of heta and Rho in the form of P or D).The other-one, squarred seems to have on it signs or letters from anatolian alphabets ( lycian/carian ?)..User:eugenrau It is showing a clear phase when writing systems were not stabilised,or not finished.See archaic greek alphabets= greek epichoric alphabets
Pure speculation.--Mazarin07 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Hi Eugen. Newcomers often do as you did above, but Wikipedia talk pages should be for discussing changes to the article or comments intended to affect the content of the article directly, not merely pertaining to the subject matter (for example, on Talk:Cigarette, I shouldn't just talk about cigarettes, but preferably relate it to the article Cigarette directly). Alexander 007 07:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) In fact, your post can be interpreted as spam (by calling it spam, I do not pass judgment on its merits, merely implying that the only purpose of your post seems to be to direct people to your blogs and your research), and I was about to remove it, but I did not want to be rude. Alexander 007 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Spam is too harsh a word, I dont think it was deliberate advertisement, more along the lines of original research. HuronKing Mazarin 07: Take a look on Archaic Greek and Anatolian alphabets and after this respond again to me.User:eugenrau 11:08, 08 October 08 2012
- We did decide to go on hunting. (upper left)
- We followed the foot-marks in the forest. (Or: five of us followed the foot-marks) (upper right)
- We managed to kill the (two?) prey animals, with the bow (using two arrows?)(lower left)
- Back at home we cooked the meat in a cauldron (see the smoke and/or steam raising to the sky), while dancing around. Wow! (lower right)
The other Tartaria tablets have similar subjects: hunting, prey animals, means of hunting (bow, ambush), tree/forest, means of preparing the meat (skinning knives etc.), and the feast that follows (cauldron, dance). All is like an ancient cartoon! You just need to add the speech balloons.--Mazarin07 09:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
. and exactly how this isn't pure speculation too? Giuseppe86 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) I admit that my theory is just another speculation. -)--Mazarin07 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that Mazarin07 meant it as a joke, but really his interpretation is probably just as good as anyone elses. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
User : eugenrau . Of course is a jokethis kind of reasoning and reading could be aplied to that squarred tablet (on wich is a vegetal motiv and kind of goat) . In any case not to that round one wich has on it signs wich seems to be true letters.Please compare some of the signs on it with those found on archaic greek alphabets. Shame on you Mazarin, those signs wich you made fool of, and interpreted as
"1.We did decide to go on hunting." (upper left) are in fact archaic greek leters: 1.Heta/eta/open heta . it is about old h with 3 close to horizontal bars,initialy pronounced h,H(eta) later in time E, E(ta) and 2.P (rho) !! Heta-rho was used in that form of archaic h/heta and P(rho) e.g. mainly for writing HP= HP(A)=Hera . but not only : "HP(AKLES)" http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/AVRASYA_dosyalar/image006.gif or http://www.webtopos.gr/archives/languages/greek/alphabet/chart_gre_anc_alphabets_cities_1369x1301_tr.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Radiocarbon dating - is it applicable to clay? Where are the tablets now? --Ghirla -трёп- 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Radiocarbon dating may only be applied to organic artifacts. The original Tartaria tablets were of dried, unbaked clay. The Romanian scientists baked them in an oven, to avoid their decay, but any subsequent dating by thermoluminescence (which is the usual method for the age determnation of ceramic artifacts) became impossible.--Mazarin07 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC) The radio-carbon dating was performed not on the tablets themselves but on the bones with which they were found and with which they are presumed to have been buried. The article's (currently) second external link is to a report dated 2004 of an investigation of the bones, tablets etc that dates the bones to a calibrated r-c span of 5370-5140BC. Incidentally, that report also corrects several of the original excavator's incorrect assumptions which the article currently still contains. For example, the bones were not burnt, and are of an elderly female, not a male. I leave it to someone with more wiki-fu to study the report and update the article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
User: eugenrau. The tablets are containing only few/small amounts of carbon, so an accurate radiocarbon dating was not possible in the past with those tiny amounts.But now is impossible mainly because the tablets were baked in a furnace and as a result of elevatet temperature the carbon was degradated and this is the final reason for wich never will possible a direct radiocarbon dating.My sincere opinion regarding the age of the tablets : as in forensic sciences also in archeology one cannot atribute the age of an object to other object even when both were found close one of each-other.Especially when we have such circumstances related tothe very moment of finding covered with fogg. Think to a possibility that some items could fall from an upper earth layer.Eugenrau (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Just because someone writes something and publishes it, doesn't make it so. There are a lot of controveries surrounding the research of Vlassa. Future excavations at some of his sites have shown stragraphies completely different from what he reported. As well, he didn't keep (or didn't make public) his excavation notes. Regarding the tablets, it's not even known if they in fact came from Tartaria. They were only documented years after the excavation, and then after being fired (supposedly for preservation). The technician who fired them wasn't even sure which excavation box they came from. Why was nothing similar found in the Vinca layers during later excavations at Tartaria? Without documentation, we have no way of knowing which layer they came from (or even if they were in fact found at Tartaria). During Vlassa's era, people could publish anything as long as it wasn't contradictory to Party doctrine and especially if it promoted Romania's image. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Merlini's publications. again, just because he's published a lot about the topic doesn't make his theories any more correct than other people's. He rarely published in refereed journals and often just repeats himself and cites his own publications as references.--Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
User: eugenrau You`re damn right, Fata Muntilor ! But with a corection regarding Mr. M. Merlini work and articles. My opinion is like this:1. He has a mount/big amount of valuable work related to Danubian Writing phenomenom,with sharp,detailed analises, (as any before him), studied and gathered fresh and scientific perspectives regarding the Danubian Proto-Writing (if we not have at the final stage tru-writing.2. He is not sustaining directly with sound arguments and not analysed the writing proper (analisys of those signs)on that round Tartaria tablet.At least not as me wich I was comparing every signg on round Tartaria tablet with many other signs wich existed in the world (from sumerian ones to European eg. greek).Remember that writing could exist despite, out of carring sounds or words proper ! In respect of this aspect, he knows better as many scientists,and is aware of the complexity of ancient or not using of signs (semiotic science).His scientific level on this matters is not that of a student , but that of a true, high-level scientist. Eugenrau (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
"Nicolae Vlassa, an archaeologist at the Cluj Museum, unearthed three inscribed but unbaked clay tablets, together with 26 clay and stone figurines and a shell bracelet. ".
No, it is not him who "unearthed" the artifacts, but some students and workers. he was not present at the very spot in the very moment of discovery. He was told about a full day later.After that,(moment of discovery) some hours or more exactly one day Vlassa was not been found and any contact was made. Eugenrau (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Eugenrau (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Eugenrau (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Eugenrau (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Eugenrau (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
[Inserted leading colons to repair layout of preceding post.
I wonder if a page should be made also for the Tartaria site itself. I see that there is a page for the village of Tartaria (from which te site gets it's name). The site itself has several cultural phases. Vinca, Petresti and Cotofeni (if i remember correctly). There are also connections between this site and other sites in the area, such as Turdas (aka Tordos) a little ways down the Mures river, Piatra Tomii across the river where likely they mined flint from, Vintu-de-Jos also nearby along the Mures river with contemporary finds. --Fata Muntilor (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
User: eugenrau I am not sure at all to wich those described phases are pertaining each discovered item. cause was a pile of them, in total some 28 artefacts. My opinion is like that (and advancing with this ocasion): Not all artefacts partaining to a single/same age, or culture phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I've removed quite a bit of them as unsourced. In one case the person mentioned seems to have no qualifications in the field and the only source I could find was his blog. This article needs good academic sources. I'll add, not directly related to today's edits, that I'm dubious about Merlini. I haven't removed the bit about the Cyclades and origin yet as I hope to be able to rewrite this with a source (and simplify the section heading). Sorry about this - oh hell, that's you isn't it! You obviously have a keen interest in this and I'm glad you're participating, no insult meant,. I've also tried to improve the English (of course, I couldn't write in your language to save my life, so no disrespect meant). Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
- If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
- If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That twoo signs situate on upper/left quadrant of the round Tartaria tablet are TRUE letters, as a result we have there TRUE WRITING. See in attic pot/sherd and other places the sequence/monogram/mason mark "eta/heta-rho".Other noticed on Sevilla ancient phoenician inscription the same sequence h-r, their opinion beeing that hr is for hu/ru (hr strt huru ashtoreth huru Astarte, syro/phoenician astarte)
CELE 2 SEMNE ALE CADRANULUI SITUAT ÎN STG. SUS PE TABLITA ROTUNDA DE LA TARTARIA SANT LITERE MARII SAVANTI AI LUMII INCA SE INTREABA DACA PE TABLITA AVEM PROTO SCRIERE AU IDEOGRAME AU SCRIERE EVENTUAL see the sign/archaic greek letter eta,heta vezi semnul H,He "eta-heta-e-he-h cu 3 bare-heta ala scala" http://upload.wikime. _Eta_08.svg.png http://www.google.ro. 29,r:6,s:0,i:85 see sign D used in archaic greek/epichoric greek writing as for "R" vezi semnul D folosit initial ba pentru d ba pentru R http://upload.wikime. t_Varianten.png http://www.codex99.c. /greek_sign.gif
Right at the the very begining or in the begining resume, as you wish, right not far under the title "Tartaria tablets" there is stated that "the bones are of a male human" wich is entirely wrong. The bones, as were analysed by an anthropologist at the Cluj History Museum under the direction of Mr. Marco Merlini was concluded that the bones were of a female, average 1,50 m height, 50 y.o. and suffering of some chronic disease wich directly afected her bones , at least or especially the bones of one leg wich is/was shorter. Please make urgently the necessary corection. [eugenrau/23.03.2013/18.27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenrau (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The article does not tell us where these tablets are - are they in a museum? Are they on pubic display? Who now owns them? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ) Talk to Andy Andy's edits 15:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"The dating of the tablets is difficult as they cannot be carbon dated" states the lead.
But further on this WP article claims that they WERE indeed carbon-dated AFTER being fired. Which one is true? If there is a debate, which are the arguments?
Where does the indicated age (c. 5300 BC) actually come from, and how reliable is it? If no C14-dating and no stratigraphy, isn't it just wishful thinking? Arminden (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Carbon-dating of clay is usually very hard, as carbon-dating needs (as the name says) carbon. It is certainly impossible after firing (which will burn most of the carbon, while contaminating it with new carbon). The article states there were carbon-dates on other objects. But the article states that the stratigraphy of the find is unclear, and the leading scientist had never been willing to answer questions about it. Al things considering it has too many similarities to the very disputed Phaistos Disc to take it very seriously. Also the step of firing it after the find seem to me last thing you want to do to an important object you want to study (I've never heard of anything similar to it!) and seems to me something you would only do to destroy any evidence of it's origin. So probably best to lay these tables aside in the study of this fascinating proto-script. --Codiv (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm moving the this text here for the time being. Originally it was in the section "Dating" but (if from valid sources) should be moved to "Purpose and meaning" or "Context". However, I cannot find and verify the references specified:
The symbols are Sumerian pictograms (not cuneiform signs). A. Falkenstein )1965), J. Harmatta (1966, 1973), A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))
As a celestial map we can see constellations on the Tartarian disk (M. Merlini 2004 2008), or rather the half of the starry sky, from Auriga to Archer/Aquila (A. Záhonyi 2018).
With the help of precession the estimated time of manufacturing (of the Tartaria findings) is 4500 B. C. (M. Merlini: Milady Tartaria and the riddle of dating Tartaria tablets. Dacia Magazine 14 (2004 2008), T. Rumi: Two circles. Imagent, Budapest (2007), A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018)).
The Sumerian reading of the disk signs: PA(.BIL) (Sagittarius), MUSH (Hydra), HUN(.GA) (Aries). (A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))
The symbolic meeting point of the Zodiac and the Milky Way can be observed on the third (rectangular) tablet. (A. Záhonyi (2011, 2018))
When the politics of fragile nationalism get tied up in anthropology and archaeology, people tend to rush right out and try to claim "firsts." A race begins to solidify in the history books that a certain group of ancestors living in a certain area were the first to create something. When it comes to written language, there&aposs still a lot of argument about which people were the first to turn spoken words into writing. Examples of notches cut in stone or clay are held out as definitive proof that a particular culture invented writing, but when one looks at the profusion of artifacts spread over the Eurasian Continent and African Continent, two things become clear: while the Vinლ certainly seem to have been the first to make specific, repeated notches in clay (setting aside scratch-designs that may be protolingustic in nature on cave walls in France, the Swabian Jura or even going back as far as the Neanderthals) clay is unlikely to be the first and original medium that language was written down in. Wood, hides and skins may have been the first tablets to bear meaningful marks because of their ease and softness. Studies of Sumerian linguistic technology also indicates that, before there was writing, there were notation marks and memory aides, most composed of tokens of varying sizes and shapes pressed into fist-sized balls of clay.
The idea of "who was first" often obscures the true nature of humanity, that we borrow useful technologies (words included) from each other relentlessly. Even in our modern age, languages borrow words heavily from one another, and our languages are full of endless examples of relic words borrowed from other languages going all the way back into precursor languages and beyond.
Algiz / Elhaz of the Elder Futhark. This rune is also present in the Old European (Vinლ) rune system.
To assume that this wasn&apost happening when the first expressions of writing and proto-writing appeared is folly, especially when you consider that the first people to make and keep written records were clergy and merchants, both classes of people which are known for traveling widely and for interacting regularly with people from all classes of society as well as those from distant lands. Looking at the countless examples of cultural diffusion in the historical record, I think it is extremely likely that basic notations and memory aides became more complex as new ideas and new systems of written notation were created and spread from culture to culture. You see this in all the oldest languages, especially when you compare the early symbol marks of Proto-Cuneiform to the marks of the Vinლ, and also when you cross-compare other Vinლ symbols with those of Venetic, Raetic, Hugarian/Bosnian runic scripts, Camunic, Lepontic and Turkic runes. Even the Dalrunes are an example of this, borrowing steadily more and more from Latin until the runic nature was almost wholly obscured. With all this in mind, a picture begins to form of diffusion on a large scale, both temporally and geographically. As clergy and merchants from different cultures came into contact with one another, and as military forces occupied or overwhelmed other cultures, tools of language were exchanged and new hybrids were created. The Elder Futhark Rune system is one such hybrid, with some of its deepest roots visible in the script markings used by the Vinლ.
What is writing?
Any discussion of early writing of course brings up the question: what IS writing? The difference between proto-writing and writing is that, while the former encodes information, the latter encodes language. Almost anyone in Western civilization will answer that writing is a way of presenting language using alphabetic, i.e. phonetic, symbols. This kind of writing is called phonographic, because it is based on sound, either individual letters or syllables.
However, if you ask people in China or Japan what writing is, the answer will be quite different, for these methods of writing present an entire word or concept in a single symbol or composite of symbols. This is called logographic or ideographic writing. It is significantly more abstract. Ancient writing systems are unique in the large number of signs used, because they are primarily logographic, whereas phonographic systems of writing in comparison have relatively few signs.
There are several examples of proto-writing from around the world, perhaps the most significant being the Vinca symbols from Serbia and the Jiahu symbols from China, which predate the Dispilio tablet by 1,000 years. Both of these are extraordinarily old (
6000-5000 BCE) and, crucially, there are multiple examples of each. A 2003 report in Antiquity interpreted the Jiahu symbols “not as writing itself, but as features of a lengthy period of sign-use which led eventually to a fully-fledged system of writing”.
The Dispilio tablet, inscribed with symbols similar to those of the Vinca Culture, fits into an understood framework in a way that is extremely interesting but requires some nuance.
The Tărtăria tablets (Romanian pronunciation: [tərtəˈri.a] ) are three tablets, reportedly discovered in 1961 at a Neolithic site in the village of Tărtăria (about 30 km (19 mi) from Alba Iulia), in Romania. 
The dating of the tablets is difficult as they cannot be carbon-dated and the stratigraphy is uncertain. Some scientists  suppose that they may date to around 5300 BC.
The tablets bear incised symbols and have been the subject of considerable controversy among archaeologists, some of whom claimed in the past that the symbols represent the earliest known form of writing in the world. The symbols are thought to be Vinča symbols, although some scholars have considered them to be Sumerian.  The signs are Sumerian proto-cuneiform-like, so quasi-Sumerian. 
The First European Writing: 7,500 Year Old Tărtăria Tablets
Various styles of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines are hallmarks of the culture, as are the Vinča symbols, which some conjecture to be an early form of proto-writing.
The Tărtăria tablets refers to a group of three tablets, discovered in 1961 by archaeologist Nicolae Vlassa at a Neolithic site in the village of Tărtăria (about 30 km (19 mi) from Alba Iulia), in Romania. Two of the tablets are rectangular and the third is round. They are all small, the round one being only 6 cm (2½ in) across, and two – one round and one rectangular – have holes drilled through them. All three have symbols inscribed only on one face.
The tablets, dated to around 5,300 BC, bear incised symbols – the Vinča symbols – and have been the subject of considerable controversy among archaeologists, some of whom claim that the symbols represent the earliest known form of writing in the world. Subsequent radiocarbon dating on the Tărtăria finds pushed the date of the tablets (and therefore of the whole Vinča culture) much further back, to as long ago as 5,500 BC, the time of the early Eridu phase of the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia. This finding has reversed our concept of the origin of writing, and it is now believed that the Sumerians inherited a Vinca tradition of ‘magical’ or ‘meaningful’ scripture, probably following the collapse of the Vinca homeland c. 3,500 BC.
Similar motifs have been found on pots excavated at Gradeshnitsa in Bulgaria, Vinča in Serbia and a number of other locations in the southern Balkans.
Ancient tablets found in South Bulgaria are written in the oldest European script found ever, German scientists say. The tablets, unearthed near the Southern town of Kardzhali, are nearly 7,000 years old, and bear the ancient script of the Cretan (Minoan) civilization, according to scientists from the University of Heidelberg, who examined the findings. This is the Cretan writing, also known as Linear A script, which dates back to XV-XIV century B.C. The discovery proves the theory of the Bulgarian archaeologists that the script on the findings is one of the oldest known to humankind, the archaeologist Nikolay Ovcharov announced Wednesday. Ovcharov, who is heading the archaeological expedition in the ancient Perperikon complex near Kardzhali, called the discovery “revolutionary”. It throws a completely different light on Bulgaria’s history, he said in an interview for the National Television.
5 An Egyptian Worker Refused to Take A Sick Day
In 1500 BC, Egyptian workers lived in a town called Deir el-Medina near the Valley of the Kings. These men would make the trek to the tombs of the pharaohs to work, leaving their families for a week at a time.
Papyrus scrolls show that the workers were given paid leave when sick and a physician would be dispatched to their homes to take care of them.
A reprimanding record tells us that one worker named Merysekhmet drudged through his work while ill, refusing to take time off. For two days, he worked despite the pain&mdashuntil he couldn&rsquot do it anymore.
Merysekhmet was forced to take a few days off to recover. But as soon as he was able, he headed back to work on a project that would outlive even the kings for whom he built it.
Are the Tărtăria Tablets Actually Written in Hungarian? - History
Paliga Sorin. The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and further perspectives. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 19, n°1, 1993. pp. 9-43.
THE TABLETS OF TARTÀRIA - AN ENIGMA ? A reconsideration and further perspectives
Sorin PALIGA Université de Bucarest
The archaic bright triad, now giving light through the night of ages, dawn of history. Ch. Musu
During the 1961 excavations at the site of Târtària, Nicolae Vlassa (then aged 27, dead prematurely in 1984) discovered three clay tablets in an early Turda§ layer. The report (published in 1963) offered less details concerning this discovery but a quite extensive comparison regarding the would-be Sumerian influences in the Vinca-Turdaç complex. Few archaeological discoveries have provoked such a world-scale polemic discussions connected to both the report and the important relations between the Orient and southeast Europe or Transylvania in prehistory.
3200-2500 B.C. SUMER Sumerian/Syrian trader.
Pro/For: general sign shapes, similar to proto cuneiform, not genuine/proper sumerian, but “quasi-sumerian” !! Contra/Agains: Extreme far distance from Mesopotamia , low chances to be brought from Sumer, n ot exact shape for many signs, signs order, casette spacing, presence of some newer signs (“D”, heth/PA3) etc. The “ scribe” not followed sumerian technique, structure and management of the signs , + it seem that tried to imitate numbers . The “writer” was not aware, dropped off a clue: Instead of showing the shape of proto cuneiform sign KU/GA2 wich in proto-cuneiform is SQUARED/BOXED , put a much later shape: ladder “a scala”, (opened) as Linear A sign/syllabogram PA2 or with the same shape ancient canaanite HETH. If inscribed in 2.700-3.000 B.C. he does not know that ONLY in 2.200 and 1.000 B.C. will appear the signs PA2 and respective Heth ! Beside this, all upper half of the round tablet could contain newer signs ! Chance: 1% for native sumerian and 5% for born abroad Sumer, sumerian/syrian trader.
From http://mathscitech.org/articles/mathematics-uruk-susa See the shape of proto-cuneiform sign GA2 (boxed) wich is different on the round tablet (vertical bars off, staggered pattern)
and sign ASZ2 wich is the same on round tablet..
2.800-2.200 B.C. Levant (Syria), Anatolia, Aegean Pro/For: much close to Transylvania, itinerant trader or metal worker due of a trade network, there were “URUK” colonies or enclaves outside Mesopotamia (Anatolia, Syria). Contra/Against: newer sign heth/PA3 some newer signs: “D”. Proto cuneiform signs were used only in Sumer and Iran from 3.500 to
2.800? B.C. for mainly (if not only)administrative purposes. They were used short time and after were discarded. The sumerian proto-cuneiform tablets remained burried until 1.920-1.925 !, not accesibible for any individual . So signs not known in Aegean but possible known in South-Eastern Anatolia.Cause of : – presence of much newer signs (exact shape of PA3/heth, D-shape) and not respecting sumerian technique and internal organising/structure of signs, – By my knowledge, not a single tablet with proper proto-cuneiform was found in Anatolia or Aegean areas, only in Syria . The chances for Anatolia/Aegean (Crete) are very low, 5/1 %, and for Syria are low 15%
From site.unibo.it › results › filePDF Urbanized Landscapes in Early Syro-Mesopotamia and … – Unibo que les sites clefs de Hacinebi, Hassek Höyük et Arslantepe ont vu leur stratigraphie connectée au schéma … “ Uruk colonies” did not produce full- fledged proto-cuneiform records, it has been postulated.
From www.archeo.ru › … › Annotations of issues Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации … “ Falkenstein has compared the Tàrtâria tablets with those from layer III in Uruk and Jemdet-nasr (late proto-Sumerian script) using a number of criteria, such as clay, format, stylus, structure of the text, signs. He has proved beyond doubt that the script of the Tàrtâria tablets had been directly influenced by the proto-Sumerian script.”
From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Corewww.cambridge.org › core › journals › antiquity › articleThe Tartaria Tablets – Volume 41 Issue 162 – M. S. F. Hood. “… from it, may have spread to these regions and to the Balkans from Mesopotamia through Syria”
From The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and …www.persee.fr › dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073The discovery in 1961 (reported in 1963) of the three tablets of Tărtăria … Hood who, in order to suggest a Syrian origin of the tablets, chose for analysis only one .
From The Tartaria Tablets | Antiquity | Cambridge Corewww.cambridge.org › core › journals › antiquity › articleThe Tartaria Tablets – Volume 41 Issue 162 – M. S. F. Hood. “… if not actual writing, was practised in the rest of the Aegean and in Western Anatolia before the end…”
2.800-1.500 B.C. Aegean, Syria, Anatolia. Pro/For: place pretty close, some signs present in Aegean protolinear or in Linear A /B. Extensive sumerian trade cultural expansion and trade network . Between Sumer, Crete, Cyclades and Eastern Anatolia. Contra/Against: Some signs on tablets has ambigous shapes, not found in proto cuneiform nor in other places (e.g. Aegean).Not sure in wich measure proto cuneiform signs were known in the area some newer signs “D”,”c”. Relative to DDoo sequence on the round tablet, there are only folowing possibilities: – The “scribe” wanted and intended to depict numbers/food signs and inscribed signs used in his (unknown yet) area. For 5% – The “scribe” want and intented to depict number or food units and intentionally imitate sumerian-ones. For 10% Not found any proto cuneiform tablets in Anatolia, Aegean areas excepting Syria. Only few Aegean signs has proto cuneiform shapes (PA2,PA) maybe more in Anatolian writings. – Wanted to show the 4 moon-phases For: 15% For Anatolian origin: 10% For Aegean origin: 8%.
AGAIN REMEMBER: Proto cuneiform signs were used roughly between 3.500
2.800 B.C. – Were used mainly or even only for accounting/administrative tablets – Useful & necessary for a short period of time (max. 1 year ?) – After this were discarded – From say
2.800 B.C. (after wich were integrated as raw materials in construction of new temples ), until 1925-1935 REMAIN OUT OF HUMAN REACH/VIEW, BURRIED. This simple fact is sufficient for greatly lowering the chances that tablets to be genuine, made by a scribe and for practical purposes (administrative, economical), maybe even for religious purpose.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period?fbclid=IwAR3qlAaJHvDBhzaqsvrIYzu0IZ_vqCsXDGuBlQvuUzHLY4wc4gtqPZGZrcc “Neighbouring regions. The sources relating to the Uruk period derive from a group of sites distributed over an immense area, covering all of Mesopotamia and the neighbouring regions up to central Iran and southeastern Anatolia. …… exact relations with the Uruk culture were distant and are the object of debate, as well as the Levant , where the influence of southern Mesopotamia remains barely perceptible. But in other areas the Uruk culture is more evident, such as Upper Mesopotamia, northern Syria, western Iran and southeastern Anatolia“ . Me: Arslantepe, Kazane Hoyuk and many many others, mainly in Anatolia’s South-Eastern part, toward Cilicia and Syrian border.“
From maistre.uni.cx › Texts › HistoryPDF Civilizatoin before Greece and Rome – Joseph de Maistre by HWF Saggs · “mixture of word-signs (technically, ideograms or logograms) and syllable- signs ( syllograms) written … and some of the Tartaria signs are at least as similar to signs in the earliest Cretan script”
From Writing in Neolithic Europe an Aegean origin? – Novo …novoscriptorium.com › 2019/09/28 › writing-in-neolith… “ The Tărtăria Tablets are now dated to the Vinča culture, c. 5300 B.C.*, i.e., within the European Neolithic period (see Lazarovici and Merlini 2008″
From The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and …www.persee.fr › dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073Hood 1967) “or that the Tartaria tablets are not an isolated phenomenon but a manifestation of an influx of Near Eastern elements into the Aegean around 3000 …”
From Download Cypro- Aegean Relations In The Early Iron Agel.godcomplexuk.com › “… “Approximately 250 objects—such as clay balls, cylinders, and tablets and votive … found evidences that at least of early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants. “
From (PDF) Minoan Sumerian | Giannhs Kenanidhs – Academia.eduwww.academia.edu › Minoan_Sumerian*Corresponding Author: Evangelos C. Papakitsos. … Keywords: Aegean scripts, Minoan language, Sumerian language, Linear A, Linear B and Cretan ..
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305817709_The_Philistine_Inscription_45_from_Ashkelon_Israel “Dr. Cross said in an interview that several signs in the Ashkelon inscriptions “fit in with well-known Cypro-Minoan,” in particular from artifacts recovered at sites in Cyprus and at Ugarit, in Syria. He said the script had some characteristics of Linear A, the writing system used in the Aegean from 1650 B. C. to 1450 B. C. This undeciphered script was supplanted by another, Linear B, which was identified with the Minoan civilization of Crete and was finally decoded in the mid-20th century. Recent excavations have raised the estimation of Philistines. …Leon Levy Expedition “We can’t read the inscription, and that’s true as well of Cypro-Minoan writing found on Cyprus,” Dr. Cross said. “We will need a lot more samples before we can think of deciphering it.” The two researchers and other scholars said it was not surprising that the Ashkelon inscriptions were in an Aegean type of writing. The biblical Philistines are assumed to have been a group of the mysterious Sea Peoples who probably originated in the Greek islands and migrated to several places on the far eastern shores of the Mediterranean.”
“- The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.
-It is suggested, if the above are in the correct direction, that future archaeological excavations in the Aegean-Greek peninsula must discover inscriptions and forms of Writing between the 6th and the 2nd millennium, to fill a logical evolutionary gap.”
1.000 B.C.-300 A.C. Levant, Aegean Pro/For: Archaic greek shape “D”, “heta/eta” ,”zeta” .Note that in Aegean writings one find distant relation with proto-cuneiform, in Anatolian writings there are much more similar signs (Alphabets of Asia Minor). Contra/Against: suppose not known by that time sumerian proto cuneiform signs, (Me:only influenced beginning of writing but: MINOANS USED SIMILAR HIERO/SACRED SIGNS ! ) Chances: Anatolian (e,g,carian): 30 % Aegean/Archaic greek: 25 %.
From www.researchgate.net › publication
(PDF) Proto-elamite writing in Iran ” The evidence from Arslantepe. par Marcella” “… discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 1928″.
From Kenanidis Ioannis K., Papakitsos Evangelos C. A …www.twirpx.com › file “ This study presents a decipherment of the Eteocretan inscription from … linguistic evidence about the Sumerian origins of the Aegean scripts …”
From (PDF) The Eteocretan Substratum in Late Ancient Greek …www.researchgate.net › publication › 342692807_The_Et…Jul 12, 2020 – Kenanidis, 2015 2018b). ” In this linguistic context. that identifies Eteocretan with a conservative. Sumerian dialect, the etymology of some words …”
300 A.C.-1.800 A.D. Pro: possible presence of signs in church libraries !? Vatican? Contra: Discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 1920–25. Not known proto-cuneiform signs until 1925 because until this year were burried Chances: 2 %
1.800 A.D.- 1961 Europe Pro: General appearance of the tablets: not as for a coherent/concrete/definite writing but as a pile of signs allready used in different types of writings. Schollars begun to know and made progress for all World writings and signs. Discovery of the first proto-cuneiform tablets in Uruk from 1925. Some signs has refined, much newer shapes. Possibility to be modern fakes. Contra: slight or no hard evidences, no complete sustainable arguments. Chances: 50%
From www.persee.fr › doc › dha_0755-7…
The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and further …
by S PALIGA · 1993 · Sorin PALIGA Université de Bucarest ” … It is admissible that the three tablets of Târtâria are false, a possibility about which little is written yet …”
From Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe: An Inquiry Into …books.google.ro › books… the object of extensive speculation as long as the approximate true age had not yet been established. There are the clay tablets from Tărtăria in Transsylvania
From Ancient Mysteries That Still Have Scientists Still Scratching …www.pastfactory.com › History … the Tartaria Tablets are three stone tablets that are believed to depict the … their true age and who actually created them remains relatively unknown
From TARTARIA AND THE SACRED TABLETS.pdf | Pottery … – Scribdwww.scribd.com › document › TARTARIA-AND-THE-S…Jun 7, 2017 – … from Turdaș that do not have a straightforward stratigraphic context. … The Tărtăria tablets are dubiously dated archaeological artifacts due .
It is weird that Zsofia Torma was convinced of presence in Transylvania of signs with a sumerian origin. Also from the beginning “discoverer” N.Vlassa stated first? (he who had no expertise in assyrology or proto cuneiform) from the very beginning that the signs are close to those used in Jemdet Nasr (probably and much sure heard some first echoes from western schollars).Otherwise Vlassa prejugment after discovery (1963) the similarity with Jemdet Nasr, i.e. the Uruk III period when top-level scholars gave their opinions in and after 1965. (A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman)
From www.academia.edu › Tartaria_and_t…
(PDF) Tartaria and the sacret tablets | Marco Merlini – Academia.edu
TĂRTĂRIa AND THE SACRED TABLETS EURO INNOVANET ITALY … “Gelb denied any Jemdet Nasr script on the Transylvanian tablets”
The writer made some monumental mistakes (blunders, gaffes, faux pass):
- collected pictograms, ideograms, logograms/syllabograms and even letters from different writing systems.
- put them on different tablets
- to show that in fact he know to write, possible wrote a line on upper half of the round tablet (wich by chance was hidden by the oblong punched tablet)
- was or not aware that presence of much newer signs left evidence that the signs were inscribed after
The History of Data Storage and Backup Part Two: Tablets, Patterns, and Paper
Author’s note: This article is part two of The History of Data Storage and Backup. Read part one here.
Early human evolution was complicated. Various developments occurred in different parts of the world at different times and in different societies.
Last time we introduced data, information storage, and backup by exploring methods primitive humans would have used to record information. This time, we’ll look at the unified evolution of technology and humans, and examine the way that biological and technical marriage enriched the methods humans used to record and restore information throughout early history.
You’ll recall that the driving factor in advancing knowledge was the need to understand and record patterns, which was assisted by the unity of human and technological evolution.
Patterns are extremely important when it comes to existence. Patterns are how humans and animals learn. Patterns and learning allow life to flourish—even your genetic material is composed of patterns of the four basic ingredients A, G, C, and T inside of your DNA. Without data and its various patterns, life cannot exist.
Humans began to recognize and record patterns and utilized their records to share the information with others on cave walls, but looking back a little earlier in history, humans developed another communication pattern that would influence written forms of communication: human speech.
Researchers speculate that a symbolic language (sounds associated with meanings) was first used by Homo Habilis about 2.5 million years ago. There are many theories, but this early language probably consisted of primitive grunts. Although this form of communication developed many years before the earliest recorded cave paintings or tally sticks, speech—along with reading and writing— influenced the development of various forms of information recording, storage, processing, and recovery.
As humans progressed, patterns and thoughts became more complex and the tree of knowledge grew along with humanity’s need for practical systems to organize information—a practice we’re still perfecting today. Humans eventually advanced the simple deer and buffalo images found on cave walls into Sumerian cuneiform, writing composed of a system of pictographs, written on the earliest known medium for writing: clay tablets.
Things that were written on these fragile clay tablets were generally in forms of writing that we understand very little of today. Early tablets bearing symbols are very rare, possibly owing to the fact that the earliest clay tablets were never fire-hardened and were merely left in the sun to dry. This allowed the user to submerge the tablet in water to erase the symbols and start again fresh—a procedure that would quickly ruin a modern tablet.
The first of Sumerian tablets are dated around 2,900 years ago (YA), many years following the origins of pottery in Far East Asia around 19,000 YA, but the earliest known tablets are the Tărtăria tablets, dated around 5,500 BCE. Archaeologists speculate that these tablets contain a form of writing even earlier than that of Sumerian cuneiform called Vinča symbols, which are sometimes considered the earliest form of proto-writing. Note that writing systems are generally distinguished from things like cave paintings and proto-writing in that they require at least one associated spoken language.
This was an interesting era in time because several different methods for writing began to develop in different parts of the world at nearly the same time and there is little we can do but wonder which early form of writing was actually first, but the development of writing is considered the point at which pre-history becomes history. And, interestingly enough, the fact that similar technologies advanced in isolated societies seems to suggest that technological advancement is a natural part of human evolution, and backup and recovery is part of it.
Since these early eras left us little that we can actually understand, archaeologists must learn about early societies based on the archaeological remains alone. As we saw with DNA, there’s information stored inside organic matter as well. Anything that dies leaves enough information backed up in its molecules for researchers to determine its age through the awesome data recovery process called radiocarbon dating. Researchers use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of things like the earliest clay tablets and the Ishango bone.
Media for writing continued to develop from clay tablets to wooden tablets, to papyrus scrolls, to wooden and paper codices—which are considered the very first books (manuscripts and even modern books are technically codices). Codices were developed through the need to have more and more information consolidated in one location, but also filled the need for people to randomly access information inside—much the way we randomly access information on a modern hard drive (this is probably why even call it “reading” and “writing” data to hard drives). The word codex comes from the Latin caudex meaning “trunk of a tree” and codices serve as such: the book itself is like the trunk and the various sections and chapters are like the branches.
In the early stages of writing, all of these mediums for data storage faced the same issue—there was generally only one copy. These works had to be created by hand and were written on early forms of paper scrolls and codices that were very fragile.
As more writing was produced, the need to store the various codices and scrolls increased until humans developed the first data center: the library. Tablets were kept in the earliest known library in Ebla (modern Syria), and many scrolls were kept in the largest and most significant ancient library, the Egyptian Library of Alexandria. As both of these archives show, libraries have a long history of burning down—Ebla was destroyed around 2250 BCE and, according to Greek Historian Plutarch, the Library of Alexandria was burned in a fire started by Julius Caesar in the Alexandrian War in 48 BCE, though there are a few theories surrounding its destruction.
Writers would’ve learned very quickly that having only one copy meant their work was extremely vulnerable. Given site destroying events like those that took the libraries of Elba and Alexandria, they likely realized the importance of having not just one extra copy on site, but keeping a copy at a disparate site as well—these are likely the first instances in which people realized the need for an archaic type of backup and disaster recovery plan.
No copies meant that months of work could be irrecoverably destroyed in minutes. Books were extremely fragile and something so small as dropping the sole copy of a manuscript in a puddle would likely ruin the work and get an unlucky apprentice thrown out on the street. Attempting to recover the information from the book probably meant that with some luck, a few pages would survive. While large site-destroying events did happen, it’s likely that in those days, just as now, user error was the greatest cause of data or information loss.
Luckily, in time, early book producers developed new ways to copy the content from their manuscripts to ensure they could be passed on into the future these methods allowed one of the world’s best-selling and widely distributed book of all time to make it into the modern era and also allowed the masses to learn and develop in ways previously only available to the aristocratic elite.
We continue our look at the history of data storage and backup in part three: patterns and print.