Contents:

Lead Tablets In Dacia and Moesia During Roman Occupation, 3rd century AD

Lead Tablets Defixiones from Istros-Histria, 4th century BC

Sinaia Lead tablets, Fake or Real?

Tablitele de la Sinaia - Wiki 

 The Vocabulary of the Sinaia Lead Plates.Dachean Kushan-Indian alphabet

Traduceri ale unor tablite de plumb de la Sinaia de la arimia.ro

Lead tablets analyzed 

Similarities in stile with Bactrian -Tocharian- Dacheans Inscriptions

  Lead plaque from Romula (3rd century CE) shows that Dacian appetite and capability for  representations in lead spread during Roman occupation. A lead plaque from Romula  represents a pair of Thracian-Dacian or Danubian riders, flying the Dacian Draco, heraldically facing the Great Mother -Bendis .

(Dacian Stones Speaks by Paul MacKendrick, fig 107, p.154) 

This plaque is not part of the controversial Sinaia lead plaques cache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Drafts/Dacian_Rider

 DACIAN RIDERS.

The so-called Dacian Riders were associated with a mystery religion of the Getae and the Dacians, peoples of Thracian stock who lived in ancient Dacia (roughly equivalent to modern-day Romania). The cult of the Dacian, or Danubian, Riders began to spread among Roman soldiers soon after 106 CE, when Dacia was conquered by Trajan and made a province of the Roman Empire. Traces of the cult have been found as far away as the Roman provinces of Gaul and Britain.

A relief from the city of Apulum in Dacia Superior is probably one of the earliest forms. Scene is represented on a plaque of white marble, measuring 35.5 cm x 30 cm x 5 cm with a rounded top. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Drafts/Dacian_Rider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Drafts/Dacian_Rider

Danubian Rider God in Dacia, Moesia and Pannonia relief from 2nd-3rd century AD

 http://books.google.ca/books?id=uP4JAQAAIAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Vasile+P%C3%A2rvan%22&dq=inauthor:%22Vasile+P%C3%A2rvan%22&hl=en&ei=KfWsTaXyEcHGgAfp2bCSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Numerous reliefs and gems depicting the Dacian Riders are extant. Of the 232 items catalogued by Dumitru Tudor (1969–1976), 60 were found in Dacia, 24 in Moesia Superior, 34 in Moesia Inferior, 47 in Pannonia Inferior, and 25 in Pannonia Superior. Most of the Dacian reliefs are made of marble. They were copied on a large scale in lead, a very expensive material whose use can be explained only by the magical purposes for which the images of the Dacian Riders were intended.

The most ancient reliefs show only one horseman, whose iconography was influenced by that of the Thracian Rider. Later monuments show two riders at either side of a goddess whose principal symbolic attribute is a fish. Of the 31 pieces belonging to the one-horseman type, 18 were found in Dacia. The two-horseman type belongs to the later period of this cult, which flourished in the third century CE and declined in the fourth.

Besides the two horsemen and the goddess with a fish, the iconography of the monuments includes prostrated characters, attendants, and various symbols, such as the sun, the moon, stars, and numerous animals (including the ram, dog, lion, eagle, peacock, raven, cock, snake, and sometimes even the bull). Scholarly identifications of the goddess are widely divergent. The two horsemen have been identified with the Dioscuri by some scholars and with the Cabiri brothers by others. The Greek iconography of the Dioscuri has had a particular impact on that of the Dacian Riders, but all these scholarly hypotheses are more or less fanciful.

It is likely that certain beliefs and practices, borrowed especially from Mithraism, were added to a local Dacian cult and that these borrowings changed the cult into a mystery religion. Although the myth of the Danubian Riders remains unknown, it is safe to state that it was based on some Dacian beliefs not shared by the Thracians south of the Danube. The two horsemen and the goddess were probably supposed to establish a link between three cosmic layers (heaven, earth, and underworld), as the partition of the reliefs into three registers seems to suggest.

Only three degrees of initiation were present in the mysteries of the Dacian Riders: Aries ("ram"), Miles ("soldier"), and Leo ("lion"). The first two were placed under the influence of the planet Mars, the last one under the influence of the sun. If we interpret the numerous animals depicted in the reliefs of the Danubian Riders as astrological entities, then we may surmise that the symbolism of this mystery religion was fairly complicated. Inscriptions are unusually scarce in number, short (especially those on gems), and indecipherable. Initiates in the mysteries identified their grade by badges and seals; for example, a gem of unknown provenance bears as its inscription the single word leon. In all probability, sacrifice of a ram played an important part in these mysteries.

Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Equitum Danuvinorum: by Dumitru Tudor. Read it on line at: http://books.google.com/books?id=utIUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=Lead+plaque+from+Romula&source=bl&ots=fDJuZ_OuOh&sig=tvCCWeoSPJ5Bd9RnohuQOYzd6QY&hl=en&ei=GWpZTPP_K8mHnQf4-pmoCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Lead%20plaque%20from%20Romula&f=false

Considerations Regarding the Polovragi Tablet of Equitum Danuvinorum

 http://mnir.academia.edu/EugenTeodor/Papers/321817/New_Considerations_regarding_the_Polovragi_Tablet

În descoperirile arheologice de la Polovragi o menţiune deosebită este descoperirea de pe terasa VII din partea de nord a „Cetăţuii”, care constă într-o plăcuţă dreptunghiulară din bronz având dimensiunile de 101 x 66 mm şi este lucrată în basorelief pe ambele feţe. Pe avers, central, este redat un cavaler văzut din profil, înaintând spre stânga, personajul este bărbos şi poartă pantaloni strâmţi, o cămaşă pe umeri care-i flutură ca o mantie, iar pe cap are o bonetă răsfrântă în faţă. Calul, care îl însoţeşte pe acesta este redat proporţional mai mic decât natural în comparaţie cu călăreţul. La stânga şi la dreapta călăreţului, privind spre el şi salutându-l parcă cu mâna dreaptă ridicată sunt două personaje identice, redate din profil, cu fizionomia şi îmbrăcămintea corespunzătoare lumii clasice greco-romane. Pe reversul piesei este redat în centru un cantaros (vas grecesc), încadrat de două păsări probabil doi cocoşi. Totul este încadrat într-un chenar de semiove.
Interpretarea unitară a plăcuţei, ca o piesă votivă, cu caracter religios, este dificilă, deoarece nu reprezintă nici o divinitate. Reversul îşi găseşte anumite analogii cu reprezentarea reliefurilor cu cavalerul trac sau cavalerii danubieni. Cu toate acestea, o explicaţie magico-religioasă ar fi posibilă ca o reflectare a contactului unei căpetenii dacice cu lumea sudică.
Fortificaţiile dacice de la Polovragi se datează în secolul I î.Hr., în acest sens pledând toate descoperirile arheologice: ceramică, fibule, monede şi tehnica de construcţie.

http://www.verticalonline.ro/pe-malul-oltetului-cetatea-dacica-de-la-polovragi 

Danubian Lead Plates

 "Danubian Horsemen Mystery Plaques Revisited"
By anoninus 7th March 2005

Introduction and Background

This thesis attempts to unravel an enigma which has intrigued scholars for more than a century - the ‘mystery’ portrayed on the ubiquitous lead plaques of the so-called "Danubian Horsemen". Although many words have already been written, much caution has precluded any meaningful interpretation of the symbols displayed on the plaques. What has been generally accepted is that they expressed the credo of a religious cult, active when the spiritual direction of the Roman Empire swayed in the balance.
Like Rome, religions were not built in a day. Both Christianity and Islam evolved from diverse beliefs which had slowly cross-pollinated over millennia. Similarly, in ‘Thracian’ realms a long-drawn cultural and religious evolution reached back far beyond the sixth century B.C. when Greek poets first drew from the shadows the mysterious "Hyperboreans" who lived ‘beyond the North Wind’ and the more proximate "Thracian Horsemen of the Sun".
These vaguely defined solar equestrians were almost certainly kin to other esoteric horse-cults along and north of the Danube, whose myths abound with ritual human sacrifice. Only the Haemus Mountains, the abode of Boreas the North Wind, stood between them and the city dwellers of Greece.
As such equestrian communities were habitually itinerant to ensure their large grazing herds prospered, any territorial demarkations remained fluid and frequently overlapped. Early Greek perceptions of the exact identities of shadowy nomadic horsemen moving across the northern fringes of their world may at best have been imprecise. ‘Hyperborean’, on the other hand, had long described far-off social groups in regular communion with the Greek priests of Apollo. That deity, having metamorphosed through numerous forms and attributes, finally emerged as the Lord of Spiritual Illumination, symbolized by the Sun. Significantly, the "Thracian Horsemen of the Sun" helped to bring about that result. Could the event have inspired the widely revered Balkans icon of Apollo enhorsed? 

Traditionally, it was in Thrace that fiery Ares was conceived, and likewise his antithesis, the watery charmer of beasts, Orpheus.  From the sixth century B.C. onwards, his Egyptian-oriented Orphic cult propogated a universal following throughout the ancient world.   Even earlier, Thrace had hosted the arrival of a heated Phoenician Bull, Dionysos, who not only came to share Apollo’s abode at Parnassus but who played an essential role in the Eleusinian rites of Demeter.  Far from being a barbarian backwater therefore, the Danubian realms seems to have fostered a spiritual plurality in which local traditions were freely supplemented from international sources.
Modern Bulgaria largely equates with the ancient territory known specifically as Thrace.   Since its easterly limits flanked the Pontic Sea and reached down to the Bosphorus, it was an open door to the East.  Through it the concepts of the Levant and ancient cultures far beyond flowed north of Greece into Danubia, Macedonia and the Balkan territories of Moesia and Illyricum.   At the same time Thrace maintained close links with Athens to allow a permeation from the south of Cretan, Phoenician and Egyptian influences.  During the fourth century B.C. the Macedonians conquered territories south of the Danube, including Thrace, later the springboard for Alexander’s invasion of Asia.   Macedonian kings, the Ptolemys, then subsequently ruled Egypt.   
There had been major cultural upheavals much earlier, however.  During the second millenium B.C. the Indo-European migrations began to flow west and east from Eastern Europe and the Pontic Steppes.   These included Aryans, who colonised western India as far as the Indus Valley.  The migrations also engulfed parts of Anatolia including the territory of the Mitanni, a number of whose rulers bore Indo-European names.  In 1380 B.C. the Mitanni concluded a treaty with the neighbouring Hittite king which cited the names of their principal gods, who included twins known as the ‘Nasatyas’.   This epithet also attached to deities of their Aryan counterparts, who appeared in Vedic Indian legends as the ‘Asvins’, twin horsemen born of the Dawn and the Sun.   It seems probable therefore that the migrants transplanted this concept of ‘twin Horsemen of the Sun’ from a Bronze Age icon originally rooted in the eastern Danubian region.
Twin equestrians certainly appear on the plaques, hence their assignment to some hypothesised ‘Danubian Horsemen’ cult.  Over a very long period therefore, ‘Danubians’ would have been subject to numerous external influences emanating from the fringes of Persia, Greek communities along the Black Sea coast, sea-traders from the Aegean, overland traders from Western Europe and Attica, and conquests by Celts, Macedonians and Romans.  

 

 
Found at Cioroiu Nou in Romania.

Sinaia Plaque 98

Having overviewed the cultural development of the region, it is now time to cut to the chase regarding the placques specifically.  Despite their potential ancient links, a pre-occupation with ‘Horsemen’ epithets may be totally misdirected.   That riders featured on the plaques is no proof the cult which incorporated them was by nature equestrian, or indeed that its adherents bore any relation to the original indigenous tribes in whose areas such plaques are now found.
The plaques were not manufactured until Illyricum, Moesia and Thrace had been taken under the umbrella of the Roman Empire.  From the beginning of the first century A.D. the regions along the Danube were once again subject to much upheaval.   Emperors and their armies, from Tiberius onwards, campaigned there.  At one stage as many as twelve Roman legions were stationed along the river limites. From whence their contingents were gathered, particularly perhaps cavalry units, may well have impacted on the development of any Danubian cult.  Likewise settlers in the newly established frontier towns were drawn from many quarters, bringing together wide-ranging religious concepts.
Somewhat conclusively perhaps, when the Romans embraced the Danube lands, although busts of their emperors were stamped upon the coinage, the legendes retained a Greek form and the reverse types exhibited Greek rather than Roman iconography.  Clearly, therefore, when the plaques were manufactured, traditional Greek concepts and symbologies had long been the established lingua-franca in "Danubia".


Logic would suggest then that the symbols incorporated in the plaques would also emulate Greek origins.   From where else could they have derived?   There is no evidence of any early literary tradition in the Danube area.  Although some Greek poets linked the Hyperboreans and Apollo to a far-off British Druidical culture, equally, that was devoid of a written convention.
As Caesar confirmed, the religious perceptions of such societies were carried only in memory, aided by Bardic nature lore and secret hand and body language.  In a developed cult of the late Classical period, strictly Danubian traditions could only have found expression by reference to Classical iconography, just as in Roman Britain, Celtic concepts were frequently translated into parallel Classical forms.   Tellingly, however, on those rare "horsemen" plaques which contain any form of legende, the Greek language does not feature.  Instead, they all bear Latin inscriptions in relief, such as – “COMES TIBIS O” terminated with a tendrilled vine leaf – i.e. “The Brotherhood of the Flute” – with unmistakeable Dionysian overtones.   
What then of the symbols displayed on the plaques?   They would be to the translation of the hidden mystic idea what the decipherment of an ancient text would be to a scriptural religion.    Such ideas could only have been expressed by specific imagery comprehensible to cult members, who dwelt in a Hellenised environment.   If what is known of parallel Hellenic icons is laid out, then the themes emerging should collectively reveal a coherent set of beliefs, bearing some relationship to what is known of mystery cults of the period.
For this process to advance it has been necessary to examine every symbol across a wide range of plaques, since their presentations varied with their time and place of manufacture.  For example, on one plaque a symbol appeared in a stylised, purely functional manner.  On another the same symbol was displayed with refining detail to reveal its true character.  It has been necessary also to contemplate that anything featured on the plaques, however apparently trivial, may have had significance.  Conversely, some aspects of ritual may have been so well comprehended that they required no iconisation.

 

I have always regarded these circular examples as the earliest examples of the plaque culture.  They are styled upon early hand mirrors and were deliberately so in the tradition that you could not look directly upon a deity - just as Perseus could not look at the Gorgon!!   They are obscure to the uninitiated and few clues are given regarding the rituals, unlike the later square examples with separated fields and lots of graphic detail.

 Here, the central goddess holds a rope across her waist, unlike other examples in which she holds the horses by the reins.   The reins may double for the rope?

All the usual ritual objects are present, a lion, a cockerel, a twin handled wine cup.   These represent the ancient three seasons of the year.   The snakes encompass the goddess with eternity and the equestrians flanking her are NOT the Dioscuri as some believe, but the Sun and Moon - Apollo and Artemis.  ( This comes from a study of later plaques.)  As I mentioned, these early plaques gave little away!!   In my view the earlier types could have predated their successors by as much as a century and might be dated to the end of the first century.  

 IDENTIFYING THE PLAQUE'S CHARACTERS.

Having surveyed the cultural and religious background of the region and noted that the plaques were the work of a Latinised cult operating widely along the Danube and across the Balkans, some attempt can be made to identify the icons portrayed.   The common identifying theme on virtually every plaque, is a goddess standing between two confronted equestrians.   Most often she is portrayed gripping their reins. She may also have between her hands, not reins, but what appears to be a rope.  Elsewhere, she may be represented with her hands raising the folds of her robe across her front to form a kind of cradle.
In ancient Greece such a cradle would have substituted for a liknos, or grain basket.   Women who sewed corn in the fields used their gown in this way to carry the grain they scattered.   In another context, a young child could be carried in such a makeshift crib, as Brimo was carried by Demeter in the ceremonies at Eleusis.   So why did this central figure adopt a varied pose?   The answer lies in the adherents to the cult.   With so many varieties of plaque being produced locally over such a wide area, there were bound to be preferences in the manner of portraying the objects of worship.   A study of these variations is the key to revealing the central themes.
Let us, for the moment, consider what the horse riders themselves represent.   Many plaques place identifiers above them.  In some instances this may be a star above one and a crescent above the other.  Similarly, a bust of the Sun and a bust of the Moon may be emphatically placed above.   The inference is clear.  As in coins that place a crescent moon on the head of a female deity, it is there to indicate that the deity is a moon goddess.   Why would plaque iconography differ?    What the plaque maker is indicating is that one rider is the Sun and the other, its twin, the Moon.   In a classical setting that would usually be Apollo and Artemis.  They are twin lights and they are being grasped together in the hands of the central goddess.   So who is this deity, grasping twin lights in her hands?

 There are really only two candidates, frequently portrayed holding light bearing, flaming torches; Artemis and Demeter.   Artemis can be disregarded because, as the Moon, she is already present on one twin horse.   Demeter however, has a long history of association with horses.   She began as a horse goddess and, as a mare, she was raped by Poseidon.   In her Phygalion cavern she was portrayed wearing a horse's head.   More tellingly, the portrayal of her robe as a corn bearing lyknos and cradle, immediately places her into the camp of an agrarian goddess and potential mother.   That latter aspect would eliminate Athena.
That one of the equestrians should transpire to be Apollo, need raise no great surprise.   If it is considered that the coinage of the Celtic nations was based on the Macedonian model, from the Crimea to Britain and down to the south of Spain, it bore a common obverse portrayal of the head of Apollo, and on the reverse was a horseman, generally also regarded as Apollo.   Added to that is the equally abundant iconic Celtic horseman, the little bronze figurine who sits on a crude horse with his right hand raised in a salute, just like the one on the plaques.   They are also found right across the Celtic world and were current well into the Roman period.
The plaque horseriders are often shown holding snakes aloft on the tips of their spears (as illustrated below) and twin snakes are virtually always portrayed on the plaques.   Apollo was from his earliest months a renowned snake slayer and later closely associated with the Pythonic oracles at Delphi.   Snakes were also used in the Balkans in a similar prophetic way, as Aelian recorded  (Animalia- XI. 2)

"The people of Epirus and all strangers sojourning there, besides any other sacrifice to Apollo, on one day in the year hold their chief festival in his honour with solemnity and great pomp.   There is a grove dedicated to the god, and round about it a precinct, and in the enclosure are serpents, and these self same serpents are the pets of the god.   Now the priestess, who is a virgin, enters unaccompanied, bringing food for the serpents.  And the people of Epirus maintain that the serpents are sprung from the Python at Delphi.   If, as the priestess approaches, the serpents look  graciously upon her and take the food with eagerness, it is agreed that they are indicating a year of prosperity and of freedom from sickness.  If however, they scare her and refuse the pleasant food she offers, then the serpents are foretelling the reverse of the above, and that is what the people of Epirus expect."


That the plaques are not after all purely Celtic but portray deities common to the Greco-Roman communities in which they were made, would explain why no written record of a "Danubian Horseman" cult has survived, or why no edifice specifically dedicated to them has ever been found.  In the tolerant ancient world any religion was open to any genuine pursuer of the truth and although cult members may have had their own personal adherences, nevertheless they were free to blend with other devotees.   Apollo as the god of intellectual light, symbolised by the Sun, was universally acclaimed and places for his worship already abounded.   There was no need to create more.

From antoninus.

12th April '10.
A feature often given central significance was the fish on an offering table, or ara sacra, placed immediately before the goddess.   The table is of interest because of its shape.   It replicates the pattern of the mythical tables made by Hephaestos for his wedding with Aphrodite.   They had three leonine legs but were generally regarded as sun wheels.  In Roman parlance, Hephaestos equated to Vulcan, the lame smithy god who employed the searing heat of flaming Vesuvius and Aetna to transform substances.
Pompeius Festus, in his Epitome of "De Verborum Significatu", written more or less contemporaneously with plaque production, recorded that King Numa skilfully brought about the abandonment of human sacrifice to Vulcan by replacing the human with a fish.   The odour of the fish burning in the sacrificial flames was sufficient to appease the God.   Ovid (Fasti) and Plutarch (Lives - Numa), both commented that the same king similarly replaced human sacrifice to Zeus with "pilchards", onions and hair.  Therefore, the plaque icon, of a fish placed on a sun-wheel ara, may have had a considerable significance, perhaps hinting at a sacrificial ceremony, and almost certainly designed as a double-entendre.
 
On a very rare, privately owned plaque, now located in Germany, a Latin inscription appears across the upper fields  -  the phrase " DAP  IMVS".   In these inscriptions, the last letters of the participles have been reoriented.  The 'P' has been reversed and the final 'S' has been rotated.

The Razgrad Abrittus Plaque http://en.journey.bg/bulgaria/bulgaria.php?guide=357

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0006%3Aentry%3Dabrittus

Place called Malak juk, north of Razgrad 2-nd - 3-rd cent. A.D.

Rectangular lead plaque, In the centre, a horseman tracelling to the right wearing a short chlamys and holding a rhyton in his raised right hand. In the top left corner, Luna (the god of moon), in the right corner, Sol (the god of sun). In front of the bull, a man in a tunic holds an axe. A ram appears between the horse's legs.

Quadrangular plaque. Two Corinthian columns hold triangle fronton with acroteria. In the center, a horseman wearing a phrygian hat, tunic and chlamys.

Eastern cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th century BC-4th century AD)  By Margarita Tacheva-Hitov http://books.google.com/books?id=NtQUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=Razgrad+plaque&source=bl&ots=N53QtEHLez&sig=CyAWfiHRE3xL8jdv_iCJAhHXISA&hl=en&ei=XBpaTObuCI-NnQfxy6TCCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Razgrad%20plaque&f=false  

Tăblițele de la Sinaia

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON THE BLACK SEA ANTIQUITIES
PRAGUE,2005
http://www.fhs.cuni.cz/conference/blacksea2005/default.asp?id=8

Avram, Alexandru, Defixiones d'Istros

Bien connu dans le monde des épigraphistes grâce notamment à ses lettres sur plomb, le Pont-Euxin n'avait livré, il y a peu de temps encore, que quelques documents de la catégorie, de plus en plus largement représentée ailleurs, des defixiones.

Dans sa thèse de 1904, A. Audollent en insérait cinq, alors que huit décennies plus tard, D. R. Jordan était en état d'en recenser sept autres.

Plus récemment, Olbi! a vient d'enrichir la moisson de six morceaux et une pièce fragmentaire fut découverte à Panticapée.

Si l'on ajoute les defixiones sur support d'argile, le Pont Nord figure avec 22 documents, à caractère judiciaire pour la plupart.

Il convient désormais d'ajouter le Pont Gauche, pour l'instant avec une seule localité représentée, Istros (Histria), mais celle-ci d'un coup avec huit defixiones sur des feuilles de plomb trouvées dans la zone de la nécropole tumulaire et datant toutes du IVe s. av. J.-C. En voici brièvement la présentation :

1. " J'enregistre le nom de Diogénès fils d'Onomastos et les discours de celui-ci et le nom, les discours! et la puissance d'action d'Agathènô
'99r fils de Dionysodôros, d'Hiérèx fils de Lykès, d'Arètos fils de Lykès, de Pythoklèidès fils de Xénophantos et de tous ceux qui marchent avec Diogénès fils d'Onomastos, du côté d'Aristobolos. " Vocabulaire et traits dialectaux intéressants

.
2. Liste de noms, presque tous plutôt rares. On remarque surtout le nom achéménide Mardonios.

3. Liste de noms (deux colonnes). Il y a, entre autres, quatre noms de femmes.

4. Liste de noms dont on ne conserve que les débuts des trois derniers.

5-7. Textes mal conservés dont on ne peut déchiffrer que des mots isolés.

8. Couvercle ovale d'une cassette de plomb destinée à abriter, selon toute probabilité, une figurine d'envoûtement ! (voodoo doll). Inscription fragmentaire : [Artem?]idôros. Ces " sarcophages " sont plutôt rares : on en trouve des analogies surtout dans la nécropole du Céramique d'Athènes.

 Defixiones d'Istros = Defixiones from Istros

Auteur(s) / Author(s)

Résumé / Abstract

Les auteurs publient huit tablettes de malédiction de plomb conservées d'une manière plus ou moins fragmentaire, trouvées fortuitement dans la nécropole tumulaire d'Istros et datant du IV^e siècle av. J.-C.

La première est manifestement une defixio iudiciaria, les n^os 2-4 sont des listes de noms (sans doute toujours des defixiones iudiciariae), les n^os 5-7 sont presque illisibles, alors que le n° 8 est un couvercle de plomb inscrit.

Le texte le plus important est révélé par le n° 1. Le commentaire porte surtout sur le verbum devotorium γpά́φεlν, la forme συνεπτόντων, les personnes concernées par la malédiction et leurs noms.

Les n^os 2-3 révèlent plusieurs anthroponymes plutôt rares commentés en détail. Le n° 8 semble être un fragment d'une cassette de plomb qui aurait pu abriter une « figurine vaudou ». On ne connaissait jusqu'ici que cinq cassettes de ce genre: quatre en Attique et une en mer Noire.

Revue / Journal Title

Source / Source

Langue / Language

Editeur / Publisher

Localisation / Location

http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/language4.htm

Vocabulary

The basic vocabulary core is not connected with the Indo-European area of influence (mato “king”, kotopolo “priest”, kopono “temple”, talipiko “citadel”, dabo “ancestry”); the basic Indo-European words lack from the texts of the plates (terms used for “brother”, “ancestry, family, tribe, clan, household”, “land, country, territory, bourn”, “year”, “month”, “season”, “sea, Pontus Euxinus”, “gold”, “silver”, “wheat and other cereals, grains”, “wine”, ”honey”, “wood”, “wool”, “sheep”, “horse”, “horseman”, “fire”, “name”, “enemy, foreigner”, “sacred, holy, to sacrifice”, etc. etc. – here are presented just a few terms from the Indo-European basic vocabulary, which would have been compatible, from the semantics point of view, with the object of the plates, and which would have been, at least partly found in the texts, if they had been written in an Indo-European language. The truth is that an Indo-European influence definitely exists, but it did not succeed to change the main character of the language (terms as dio “god”, on “in”, patrido “parental”). Furthermore, a strong Greek influence is added to the language of the plates from Dobrogea (normally, weaker than the ones that existed during the reign of Decebalus, at Sarmizegetusa) and a large number of Latin terms (quite numerous the ones dated recently), some of them borrowed from different languages, others with the same origin like the ones from Latin. Up to an extent the situation is rather similar with the Etruscan language subject matter, which has borrowed Indo-European terms and even some morphemes form the Latin language. The presence of a large amount of words that seem to be from Latin is quite awkward: were those early borrowed terms from Latin or they had similar origin in both languages? (ex.: paceo “peace”, armoso “army”, purcedeo “to leave, to proceed”). Mister Romalo’s daring assumption regarding a possible strong affinity between Latin and Dacian language – fact which would explain the fast process of Romanization – must be analyzed carefully. Similarities with Latin end at the level of vocabulary, which is known to be the most mobile area, exposed to changes, but the two languages are typologically disparate and quite probable genetically not related.    

Excepting nouns, there are some terms with certain meanings. For mato, Romalo gives the meaning of “master, ruler”, but it is probable that the meaning is exactly the one of ”king”, because mato is arrogated both to Burebista and Decebalus. Fairly, it appears together with the names of indistinct chieftains, but it is not excluded the fact that they could have been self-constituted as “kings”. Cotopolo is the almost permanent appanage of Ceneu, but also of Diegis and Vezina – hence with a great likelihood to have the meaning of “priest”, assigned by Romalo. Talipico is written under the name of Sarmigetuzo citadel on the 021 plate, but it also appears under the representation of Genucla citadel, on 079 plate – hence the approximate meaning of “citadel” (Romalo translates it as “high peak”), as opposed to dabo which probably means “ancestry”, “tribe”, or even “country, territory”. Dabo (= dava) frequently appears alone rather than within toponyms and stands for the element across which the chieftains, from the plates, rule, for example Boeribiseto mato dabo getio (012 plate).

Toponyms

The names for Dacian and foreign places – identified by Romalo, are: Arrubium, Dinogetia, Genucla, Carsium, Cumidava, Napoca, Sargetia, Sarmizegetusa, Segesta, Sirmium, and Ziridava. Capalna is added to this list, identified in the copono sequence, very frequently found in text, but which, also through its emergence in the original texts from Dobrogea, should still have the value of a common noun; or, if it is indeed a toponym, Copono = Capalna, establishment situated on the Sebes Valley, must have owned a distinct meaning even for the inhabitants of Dobrogea. The form under which these names appear is slightly different from the one established within their source. Ainrubio (toponym with a probable Celtic origin) recorded Arrubium in the Latin sources, with a genuine consonant group nr, assimilated in Latin. Comieodabo is closer to Ptolemy’s Comidava rather than to cumidavensium found in a recent inscription – naturally if we take into consideration the fact that this inscription was written in Latin, by a Roman person who distinguished the sounds of the natives in this manner.

We can also add several toponymes to these, resulting from a segmentation or a different interpretation than the one applied by Romalo: Tanato and Bonino in 123 text, which correspond, quite probably, to the citadels Tanatis and Bonina situated near the Danube, the first one being established by Ptolemy (III B.C.) and Procopius (IV. B.C.); the second one is known better, situated near the actual Vidin. The Tanato form represents for Mr. Olteanu an unbeatable reason in favor of counterfeit, because the actual form of the toponym would have been Taliata, as it results from the late sources, as Procopius and Ptolemy must have erroneously copied them. But how can Mr. Olteanu be sure that the situation did not happen vice versa, that the late sources present a corrupt form, diffused against the authentic one? Or, is it more likely that the Taliata form resides probably in a popular etymology, similar to the ones that describe the Ancient itineraries (we mention here just the Literata form, the Latinization of a domestic name Lederata)? How can one prove that the first certification, the one from Ptolemy, is fallacious and that Ptolemy erroneously copied it from somewhere and the ones that had written four centuries after him were right?  How can one know if we are talking about a Latin toponym and not a badly acknowledged domestic name by the Romans, distorted to gain a meaning in the Latin language, and perpetuated in this way?

The toponym Tulbiaco from 115 plates is very interesting, without any doubt the same as Tolbiacum situated on the Rhine, near Bonn. The name appears in Ptolemy’s Geografia, at Tacitus (Hist.IV, 79) and for others it belongs to the German area. In the text from the plate, although, it appears followed by the term bastarnio, besides, a normal thing, because it is known that Oroles, who is presented in the text, fought a war against the Bastarns (according to Dio Cassius and Trogus Pompey), but on the other side, surprisingly, because the provenance of the Bastarns is of a recently discovered German origin, provided by the archaeological researches conducted in the last centuries. The Ancient sources consider the Bastarns as Celts (even Getae), excepting Strabo, who says that they are “rather” from the same family as the Germans; the publication of an inscription in 1905, which mentioned a Bastarnus Germanicianus, did not  help to clarify the origin matter of this ethnic group, so that, whilst Xenopol does not even mention them, Iorga considers them to be Celts for sure, and Parvan discusses the Bastarno-Celts and of the Celts-German Bastarns (PETAN 2005:331).

Another identified toponym is Helis, recorded within the plates under the form of Elya. Its presence in the same text where the name of the king Dromichete appears and its frequent presence on stamps certify the value associated with this term. On 120 plates the chiliarchi of Burebista are cited together with the citadels they ruled over. Orolio, one of the main chiliarchi (together with Dapygeo and Zoraseo), is a ruler at Elya Carseu: maybe a double named citadel – an older one, a newer one, maybe two citadels, one on the left shore and the other on the right shore of Danube river. However, the diggings at Carsium did not reveal the traces of a Getic citadel (cf. EARI s. Carsium).

The presence of the toponym Moleodabo is remarkable, the home of the Getic chieftain Zurazieo (not according to the writings of Dio Cassius LI, 26, 5 who considered that this king was situated at Genucla). The similarity with the toponym Moldova is obvious. The kingdom of Zyraxes seems to have been situated in the North of Dobrogea – South of Moldavia, situation attested by his relations with the Scythians. The presence of this toponym on the plates may seem anachronistic and could serve as argument for the ones that believe it stands for a patriotic counterfeit: Hasdeu was a Moldavian. Although, this attestation is not singular: between the Thracian names identified on the leaden Byzantine walls from the VI-th century, it is found the name Moldozos (BARNEA 1984: 97). Besides, Moldava has the typical structure of a Dacian toponym realized with the dava termination. The transformation a>o is not isolated, it is found in some Dacian hydronyms (Marisos>Mures, Alutus>Olt etc.) and received several explanations (Slavic influence or an alteration produced in the early phase of the substrate). Of course, the survival of such toponym, assuming a continuity in the minds of the inhabitants, seems amazing, but there are several other toponyms which have survived with phonetically alterations (for ex. Carsium>Harsova).

The name of the Dacian capital always appears under the form of Sarmigetuzo, hence with a missing syllable unlike the attestations from the sources. However, this “short” form was known in the 16-17 centuries from the writings of some scholars. It appears in the paper of the Jesuit Philippe Briet, named Parallela geographiae veteris et novae, published in 1675, which, on a map of Dacia, next to the name of the citadel, makes the note Zarmigethusa, and in the text offers two forms of the name: Sarmizogethusa or Zarmigetusa. Regrettably, in this case, we don’t know which the sources of Briet were. In the maps of the cartographer Ortelius, who lived one century before Briet, the name of the citadel is Sarmisgetusa, with a missing syllable.

Antroponyms

Dacians had a single name and the literalism of the names of Roman characters raised some difficulties, because Romans used the tria nomina system borrowed from the Etruscans. Therefore Caius Antonius Hybrida is Caio Antonio, or simply Antonio, but Fonteius Agrippa is Fontio di Agrpa (with the omission of I, see plate no. 011). Most of the Dacian anthroponims known from sources also appear in the plates. Romalo identifies Dromichete, Boerebista, Deceneu, Vezina, Diegis, Dapyx, Zyraxes, and Oroles.

The name that most of all stirs our attention is the one of Deceneus, constantly rendered as Ceneo. There is no doubt that we are talking about the same character because the name is always followed by the term cotopolo or by the phrase megaso cotopolo meaning “great priest”. The advocates of the forgery hypothesis, have seen within the “alteration” of the character’s name an absolute argument, as “the real” name of the great priest was very well known in the XIX century, at least form the paper of Stabo, if not from the one belonging to Iordanes. Anyway, in all manuscripts, in VII-th excerpt, 3, 11, it is found exactly the form existing in the plates. Strabo was contemporary with Deceneus. He writes his name Keneos in the above mentioned excerpt, but within excerpt VII, 3, 5, from the manuscripts, appears under the form of Dekaineos. A third attestation, still under the form of Dekaineos, exists in the book XVI, but it is a late version, because the oldest manuscripts comprise just books I-X. So, the publishers found themselves facing two different forms and they had to choose one from the two. They chose the form Dekaineos, based on its existence in the texts of Iordanes (XI, 67). But it is known that Iordanes used Strabo as a reliable source. We have two possibilities: either the real name was Keneos, but, because of an error belonging to a scribe, it appeared earlier, or the form Dekaineos (maybe a contamination with the particle de, which might have been positioned in front of the name), used by Iordanes, or, if a forger existed, he knew the forms from the manuscripts, a remarkable situation, as, until today, nobody has observed this form (of course, excepting the publishers). The Keneos form was found in the oldest issues, unaltered, and even in the early Latin translations (XV century). It appears also in the geography book of Philippe Briet, in XVII century, surely taken from the Latin translation of the Geography of Strabo, realized a century earlier by Xylander.

The name of Burebista appears as Boerebiseto (and only one time as Bourebiseto). With Strabo the name of the Getic king is attested for five times, three times with oe, two times with y (Byrebista). This inconsistency might testify the existence of an unknown sound for the Greek people, which they did not know how to write down, not having a specific sign in the alphabet. The two epigraphs where the name of Burebista appears (the decree in honor of Acornion, discovered at Dionysopolis – Balcic (IGR I, 13) and an inscription from Mesembria – Nesebar (IGR I, 323) both use the second form, with Y. A similar situation is present with the name of the Thracian king Rhoemetalces, named Rimitacles or Rymithalces in some inscriptions, or even the doublet Moesia – Mysia.  

The name of Duras is unidentified by Romalo, present in many plates under the form of Duro. Besides the chieftains known from the sources, the two genealogies (091- from Helis and 058 from Sarmizegetusa) and other plates offer a very big number of names and portraits of Getic chieftains unattested by other sources. Among the Roman characters present in the plates outstanding are Fonteius Agrippa, Luculus, Caius Antonius Hibrida, Cornelius Fuscus, Tettius Iulianus, Domitianus, Octavianus. Trajan never appears the last events seemingly refer to the peace treaty with Domitian (year 83). Greek anthroponyms that can be recognized: Abariso, Antigoneo, Aristoteio, Kalisteio, Philipou, Lisimaky, Pietagorio.

Theonyms

Many theonyms are probably hidden in the names of the plates, but are hardly identifiable, because they are not certified in the sources. Zamolxes always appears under the form of Zamolxio (with some variations), as it appears at Strabo. He does not seem to be the supreme god that we know from Herodotus. In the text from plate no. 002, Zamolxes is associated with Pythagoras, but also with Abaris, association which we can find at Plato. Zamolxes is presented in a profile portrait, like mortals, not facing us, like the gods did. Remarkably interesting is that after Herodotus, most information about Zamolxes represent just borrowings and as the time passes, Zamolxes vanishes form the sources. During the Roman epoch, Dacians were seen first as prayers of a war god, assimilated to Mars (Virgil, Aeneis, III, 35; Ovid, Tristia, V, 2, 69; V, 3, 21-22; Iordanes, Getica, 39, 40). And in plates also appears a god of war, named Zabelio, very often invoked. But we haven’t identified yet the name of Gebeleizis, a celestial divinity (or another form of Zamolxe) mentioned by Herodotus. The representations of gods are numerous, but the corresponding names are very difficult to identify, during this phase. One thing is for sure, the Dacian and Getic people from the leaden plates were polytheist.

Ethnonyms

In the texts there is a large number of ethnonyms, but, surprisingly, we do not know how the Getae named the Greeks, because their names were not identified yet: they were probably named with a vernacular name. Scythians, Sarmatians, Bastarns, Iazyges, Celts, Boii, Dalmatians, Panonians, Dardanians, Albanians, Macedonians, and other stirpes are present in the texts from the plates. The Roman names seem to have rendering difficulties because the emphasized sequence could not be assimilated by the speakers, so, instead of romano, we have rumuno or riomino. The greatest interest is in the name of the Dacians and Getae. One can easily observe that daci are named only the ones from the plates of Decebalus, the other ones being Getae: Burebista is a Geta, as Strabo also used to say – he establishes the first capital at Genucla, from where he moves at Sarmizegetusa; even Duras, the predecessor of Decebalus, is a Geta, from where results that the Dacians, ruled by Dacibalo, are a branch from the same family as the Getae, a known branch due to the rising of its chieftain and his unification of the tribes and through his wars with the Romans. The Getae mention the Dacians quite rarely, and they do this under the name of dachieo, from where we can assume that they were less known before Decebalus and the Dacians also mention the Getae very rarely. Decebalus, does not only impose his own ethnonim, dismissing the one from the Getae, but comes with a different tradition – other representations, another type of writing, dialectal particularities, - with a very austere aura, contrasting with the Oriental based opulence found in the world of the Getae, with a drastic diminution of the personality cult (portraits utterly lack, also the royal signs and symbols). Obviously, there are some elements of continuity. We must admit that, if a forger existed, he must have been extremely ingenious when he thought of this distribution.

In the Dachean language of the Kushan Empire (see Dachean-Kushan page) we find the same patern of transliterations of names like on Sinaia lead plates:

The Kushan religious pantheon is extremely varied, as revealed by their coins and their seals, on which more than 30 different gods appear, belonging to the Hellenistic, the Iranian, and to a lesser extent the Indian world. Greek deities, with Greek names are represented on early coins.

 Gold coin of Kanishka I (late issue, c.150 AD). Kanishka standing, clad in heavy Kushan coat and long boots, flames emanating from shoulders, holding standard in his left hand, and making a sacrifice over an altar. Bactrian legend in Greek script (with the addition of the Kushan Ϸ "sh" letter): ϷΑΟΝΑΝΟϷΑΟ ΚΑΝΗϷΚΙ ΚΟϷΑΝΟ ("Shaonanoshao Kanishki Koshano"): "King of Kings, Kanishka the Kushan". British Museum.

During Kanishka's reign(127 - 151 CE) , the language of the coinage changes to Bactrian (though it remained in Greek script for all kings). After Huvishka, only two divinities appear on the coins: Ardoxsho and Oesho (see details below).

Representation of entities from Greek mythology and Hellenistic syncretism are:

• Ηλιος (Helios), Ηφαηστος (Hephaistos), Σαληνη (Selene), Ανημος (Anemos). Further, the coins of Huvishka also portray two demi-gods: erakilo Heracles, and sarapo Sarapis.

The Indic entities represented on coinage include:

• Βοδδο (boddo, Buddha)
• Μετραγο Βοδδο (metrago boddo, bodhisattava Maitreya)
• Mαασηνo (maaseno, Mahasena)
• Σκανδo koμαρo (skando komaro, Skanda Kumara)
• Ϸακαμανο Βοδδο (shakamano boddho, Shakyamuni Buddha)

The Iranic entities depicted on coinage include:

• Αρδοχϸο (ardoxsho, Ashi Vanghuhi)
• A?αειχ?o (ashaeixsho, Asha Vahishta)
• Αθϸο (athsho, Atar)
• Φαρρο (pharro, Khwarenah)
• Λροοασπο (lrooaspa, Drvaspa)
• Μαναοβαγο, (manaobago, Vohu Manah)
• Μαο (mao, Mah)
• Μιθρο, Μιιρο, Μιορο, Μιυρο (mithro and variants, Mithra)
• Μοζδοοανο (mozdooano, Mazda *vana "Mazda the victorious?")
• Νανα, Ναναια, Ναναϸαο (variations of pan-Asiatic nana, Sogdian nny, in a Zoroastrian context Aredvi Sura Anahita)
• Οαδο (oado Vata)
• Oαxϸo (oaxsho, "Oxus")
• Ooρoμoζδο (ooromozdo, Ahura Mazda)
• Οραλαγνο (orlagno, Verethragna)
• Τιερο (tiero, Tir)

Additionally,

Adrian Bucurescu – Tainele tăbliţelor de la Sinaia

LEXIC (selecţie)

Pe lângă „traducerea” textelor aflate pe plăcuţele de la Sinaia, autorul a alcătuit pentru fiecare şi câte un lexic. Noi am selectat pe acelea pe care le socotim a fi moştenite/ autohtone, chiar şi pentru simplul motiv că au corp fonic şi grafic asemănător şi chiar identic cu cele din limba română actuală. Pentru fiecare cuvânt am indicat şi pagina ediţiei din 2005 – Editura Arhetip, Bucureşti.

AHI – „îndată”; cf. rom. aici, acu (p. 128)

LUOZO – „ a născut”; cf. rom. lăuză (p. 131)

HYEO – „fii” (cf. rom. hii – forma populară şi regională pentru fii, ca substantiv; vezi şi „hi-tu”, „hi-ta” – n. n.) – p. 133

ESY – „ieşi” (în limbajul popular şi cel cotidian, neîngrijit, se pronunţă „eşi”, „eşire” – n. n.) – p. 133

MATOSO – „de maica”; cf. rom. mătuşă (p. 133) Notă: Pe alte plăcuţe apare şi forma apropiată de cea din româna actuală – MATUSO

ENAPOIO – „înapoiat” (p. 134)

HET – „tare”; cf. rom. hăt (p. 134)

VOYN – „tare”; cf. rom. voinic (şi nume de persoană Voinea – n. n.) – p. 136

O RYPINO – „luându-l”; cf. rom. a răpi (p. 137)

SORSO – „izvorul”; cf. franc. „source” = sursă (în limba română actuală, ca neologism), izvor (p. 139)

GLOTO – „toţi”; cf. rom. gloată (p. 139)

DAMER – „înţelepciune”; cf. rom. a se dumiri (p. 142)

SPICO – „(aşa) a spus; cf. engl. to speak; rom. a spicui (neologism) – p. 142

SETYVO – „crescut”; cf. rom. stivă (p. 144)

FORIE – „curaj”; cf. rom. furie (p. 144)

REGA – „domnind”; cf. rom. rigă (p. 145)

GHICUE – „a prezice”; (cf. rom. a ghici – n. n.) – p. 145

SORUAE – „soră” (p. 145)

ETERN – „întotdeauna”; cf. lat. aeternus, rom. etern (neologism) – p. 145

DIOSO – „îndrăgostit”; cf. rom. duios (p. 147)

TETOE – „tatăl”; cf. rom. tată, tataie („tetea” – regionalism”) – p. 149

TOROPS – „au adormit”; cf. rom. toropit (p. 149) (DEX-ul dă ca etimon „toropyty” – cuvânt provenit din ucraineană. Dacă ar fi fost împrumutat din această limbă, în română ar fi trebuit să apară *toroputu – n. n.) – p. 149

IST – „cel”; (cf. rom. şi pop. ăst, regional – ist – n. n.) – p. 150

TOPSOEM – „(pe) colină; cf. rom tăpşan (cf. sanscrit tap – sati n. n.). DEX-ul dă următoarea definiţie – „TĂPŞÁN, tăpşane, s.n. 1. Loc neted şi uşor înclinat care apare la baza versantelor şi povârnişurilor în regiunile de deal şi de munte. ♦ Coastă a unui deal sau a unui munte; pantă, povârniş. 2. Loc viran mai ridicat, aflat de obicei în mijlocul unui sat sau în mijlocul unei curţi. ♦ Loc mai ridicat, neted, necultivat. – Tăpşi + suf. -an.” – p. 150

EN ODAE – „acasă”; cf. rom odaie (p. 153)

GHETOU – „frumoasă”; cf. rom. gătită (p. 155)

O GHYOTYO – „au plâns cu ţipăt” cf. rom. chiot (DEX-ul dă pentru chiot şi chiu următoarele definiţii: „CHÍOT, chiote, s.n. Strigăt puternic, răsunător, prelung (care exprimă bucurie, izbândă etc., care serveşte drept chemare, ca îndemn etc.). – Din chiu.

CHIU s.n. 1. Strigăt de bucurie. 2. (În expr.) Chiu şi vai = suferinţă, durere; fig. sărăcie, mizerie. Cu chiu, cu vai sau cu chiu şi vai = cu mare greutate, după multe eforturi. – Onomatopee.” Noi considerăm că toate onomatopeele din limba română sunt autohtone! De altfel, şi Paul Lazăr Tonciulescu opina că limba dacilor era cea mai bogată în onomatopee. (p. 156)

STERE – „întunecaţi”, „răi”; (cf. nume de persoană Stere – n. n.) – p. 157

POOYCOE – „pe mulţi”; (cf. rom. purcoi – n. n. DEX-ul dă următoarea definiţie: „PORCÓI, porcoaie, s.n. Grămadă de fân sau de paie; spec. căpiţă. ♦ Prin generalizare: Grămadă, morman, maldăr. [Variantă: purcói s.n.] – Porc + suf. -oi.” Şi acest cuvânt neavând menţionată etimologia îl socotim ca fiind moştenit de la geto-daci) – p. 161

CLOPOE – „prinţi”, „căpetenii”; (cf. rom. clop – regionalism, în Ardeal – n. n.) – p. 161

VASYLEO – „regi”; cf. gr. Vasileos; cf. rom. Vasile; (bazileu – n. n.) – p- 164

SACOTO – „a eliberat”; (cf. rom. a seca – n. n. Notă: DEX-ul dă ca etimon latinescul siccare. Potrivit lingviştilor, specific limbii române este fenomenul închiderii vocalelor. Ca atare, nu se putea ca i să treacă la e, ci invers; acest cuvânt de origine dacă a fost preluat de romani şi adaptat fonetismului limbii latine.) – p. 167

LARMY – „anunţând”, „dând de veste”; (cf. rom. larmă – n. n.). În legătură cu larmă, DEX este ambiguu, în privinţa etimologiei: lármă (lárme), s.f. – 1. (Înv.) Alertă, alarmă. – 2. Gălăgie, tărăboi, zgomot mare. Germ. Alarm (‹ it. all’arme), prin intermediul sl. (pol., sb., cr. larma), sau al mag. lárma (Cihac, II, 165; Gáldi, Dict., 179). Este un dublet al lui alarmă, s.f., din fr. alarme. Sec. XVIII. – Derivat – lărmălău, s.n. (Trans., gălăgie), sing. reconstituit din pl. lărmălaie, cf. hărmălaie; lărmui, vb. (înv., a alarma; a face zgomot)”. Şi acest cuvânt noi îl socotim ca fiind autohton! (p. 168)

LOCOS – „locuitorii” (cf. rom. locaş – n. n.) – p. 168

CENYO – „cină” (p. 168). Notă: şi pentru acest cuvânt DEX-ul este ambiguu, în privinţa etimonului – „cínă (cíne), s.f. – Masă de seară. istroromână cirę. Lat. cēna (Puşcariu 362; Candrea-Dens., 341; REW 1806; DAR); cf. it., prov., sp. cena, port. cea. – Derivat – cinioară, s.f. (ceasul cinei), cf. prânzişor; cuvînt pe care Drăganu, Dacor., III, 693-5 şi DAR îl consideră reprezentant al lat. cinae hora, dar care este un dim. cu suf. -oară, cf. Graur, BL, III, 19.” Pentru un cuvânt uzual în vocabularul limbii române se oferă cam multe aşa-zis soluţii lexicale! Şi cină e tot de sorginte geto-dacă în opinia noastră.

OGOE – „(îi) va alina”; cf. rom. a ogoi. Notă: În DEX, găsim următoarea definiţie: „OGOÍ, ogoiesc, vb. IV. Refl. şi tranz. (Pop.) A (se) linişti, a (se) potoli, a (se) domoli, a (se) calma. ♦ Tranz. A menaja, a cruţa. [Var. ogoiá vb. I] – Din scr. ugojiti. Cf. sl. g o ĩ „pace”.” Respingem această propunere de etimon, căci nu se poate evolua de la u la o, conform fenomenului închiderii vocalice, invers da, însă nu e cazul pentru acest cuvânt! (p. 173)

FALANGEO – „falange” (p. 186)

PURCEDE – „trecut”; cf. rom. a purcede. Notă: DEX-ul şi în acest caz este ambiguu în privinţa etimologiei , în sensul că autorii ar fi trebuit să explice că s-ar fi ajuns la această formă în română, prin metateză, aceasta reprezentând o modificare fonetică produsă prin schimbarea locului sunetelor sau al silabelor dintr-un cuvânt. – „PURCÉDE, purcéd, vb. III. Intranz. (Pop.) A pleca, a porni la drum. ♦ Intranz. şi refl. (Despre lucruri şi despre fenomene văzute în mişcare, în evoluţie) A începe, a (se) porni, a (se) dezlănţui. ♦ A întreprinde, a începe o acţiune. ♦ A proceda, a acţiona (într-un anumit fel). – Lat. Procedere.” Noi credem că ultimul sens al cuvântului a purcede – precizat de autorii DEX-ului – acela de „a proceda (într-un anumit fel)” a fost adăugat, spre a justifica etimonul latinesc. Cei care folosesc acest cuvânt cunosc sensul „a pleca, a porni la drum”. (p. 186)

PRYNSO – „prinse” (p. 187)

CIUDEO – „pe blestemaţii”; (cf. rom. ciudaţii – n.n.) – p. 187

O DUESIO – „ca pe un drag”; cf. rom duios (p. 187)

TERO – „din cer”; cf. rom. tărie (de obicei, cu sensul de pe tăbliţă, în limba română actuală, se foloseşte la plural – tării – n. n.) – p. 216

ONCHE – „mai marele”, „care creşte”; cf. rom unchi. Notă: cu sensul de pe plăcuţă, în Banat, are înţelesul de „tată moş” – n. n. (p. 220)

PATRU – „patru” Notă: etimonul precizat de autorii DEX-ului (lat. quattuor) este improbabil. Evoluţia de la grupul qua la pa şi metateza – ttuor – tru este complicată şi improprie, având în vedere fenomenul simplificării în vorbire/ scriere, care presupune aglutinarea unor sunete. În italiană, această evoluţie este evidentă – lat. quattuor → it. quattro (p. 220)

CENCIO – „cinci” Notă: Aceleaşi observaţii le avem şi pentru acest numeral – italiana a păstrat forma din latină: lat. Cinque → it. cinque (p. 222)

SETO – „poftă”; cf. rom. sete (p. 225)

DOYE – „cei doi” Notă: în acest caz, DEX-ul dă ca etimon o formă neatestată – lat. *dui, duae. O asemenea explicaţie pentru un numeral des uzitat în vorbire ridică un mare semn de întrebare în privinţa probităţii lingviştilor.

CATE – „au căutat”, „au privit”; cf. rom. a căuta. Notă: de remarcat că verbul a căuta, în varianta sa populară şi regională – a căta – are şi sensul de a privi. (p. 227)

MIORYEO – „mioară”. Notă: pentru acest substantiv – derivat cf. DEX – se menţionează: „MIOÁRĂ, mioare, s.f. Oaie tânără de la vârsta de 1 an până la 2 ani; prin generalizare – oaie. ♦ (Adjectival; despre oi) tânără. – Mia + suf. -ioara. Din nou, nu avem etimon în DEX ! Cuvântul de bază de la care se porneşte e mea şi este geto-dac! (p. 228)

TROSCOT – „hrană”, „nutreţ”; cf. rom. troscot. Notă: DEX-ul dă următoarea definiţie: „TRÓSCOT s.m. Plantă erbacee cu tulpina ramificată, întinsă pe pământ, cu numeroase frunze mici, cu flori hermafrodite verzi, pe margine roşii sau albe (Polygonum aviculare). – Din sl. troskotŭ.” Să fi hrănit strămoşii noştri oile şi vitele cu troscot (nutreţ) şi să nu-i fi dat nume? Aşa ceva e de neconceput! Categoric: NU E ÎMPRUMUT DIN LIMBA SLAVĂ! Strămoşii noştri n-au aşteptat să vină slavii şi să le „boteze” iarba cu care îşi hrăneau animalele, mai cu seamă că acest neam de migratori nu prea se omorau cu creşterea animalelor… (p. 232)

ONGELO – „îngeresc”. Notă: faimosul DEX menţionează pentru înger etimologie latinească – lat. angelus. Noi ne îndoim că ar fi de origine latină. Iată de ce: it. – angelo; franc. – ange; catalană – àngel; spaniolă – ángel ; portugheză – anjo. După cum se poate observa, în toate limbile neolatine a iniţial rămâne vocală neschimbată. De ce oare în română – singura limbă de aceeaşi origine – apare î în loc de a ? Simplu – pentru că limba latină nu avea pe î şi atunci, acest cuvânt a fost adaptat la sistemul său fonetic. Să fie clar: romanii au împrumutat acest cuvânt de la daci, adaptându-l la sistemul lor fonetic, iar angelus este etimon pentru echivalentul său în celelalte limbi romanice! (p. 234)

PORTYE – „poartă” (p. 235)

ONOARE – „frumoşi”, „curajoşi”, „cinstiţi”; cf. rom. onoare. Notă: iată, mai întâi, ce se menţionează în DEX: „ONOÁRE, onoruri, s.f. 1. Integritate morală, probitate, corectitudine; demnitate, cinste. Loc. adj. De onoare = a) demn de încredere, cinstit, onest; b) care angajează cinstea, demnitatea cuiva; c) onorific. ● Expr. Pe cuvântul meu (sau tău etc.) de onoare sau pe onoarea mea, a ta etc. = formulă folosită pentru a întări o afirmaţie sau pentru a garanta respectarea unei promisiuni. 2. Reputaţie, prestigiu, faimă, vază. ● Expr. A face (cuiva) onoare = a servi (cuiva) spre laudă, spre fală; a onora. ♦ Mândrie, demnitate. 3. Preţuire deosebită, consideraţie, respect, stimă. Cavaler (sau domnişoară) de onoare = persoană care însoţeşte mirii la ceremonia cununiei. Doamnă (sau damă) de onoare = doamnă ataşată unei regine, unei prinţese. ● Loc. adj. De onoare = de frunte, de cinste. ● Loc. adj. şi adv. În onoarea cuiva (sau a ceva) = (care se face) pentru a cinsti pe cineva (sau ceva). 4. Favoare, cinste. ● Expr. (În formule de politeţe) A avea onoarea să… (sau a…) = a avea cinstea să… A face (cuiva) onoarea să… (sau a…) = a face (cuiva) favoarea de a…, a face cinstea de a…, a socoti demn de… (Fam.) Am onoarea (să vă salut), formulă respectuoasă de salut. 5. Manifestare a stimei, a consideraţiei pentru cineva, exprimată prin semne de cinstire, de respect;

(Mil.; de obicei cu verbele „a da”, „a prezenta”; în forma onor) Prezentarea armei în semn de salut la întâmpinarea unei autorităţi militare sau civile superioare, la paradă, la înmormântare etc.; semnal de goarnă care însoţeşte de obicei această prezentare. ● Expr. Pentru onor! = comandă pentru darea onorului.”

În al doilea rând, trebuie să facem următoarea precizare: forma de plural pe care DEX-ul o indică – onoruri – este specifică compartimentului militar, unde la singular avem forma onor.

Onoare – substantiv feminin – cu cele 5 sensuri (pe care le-am reprodus) are aceeaşi formă la plural: oameni de onoare; femei de onoare.

CETEO – „să citească”. Notă: În DEX, se precizează şi forma populară a cetí şi că ar proveni din sl. čitati, čisti. Tocmai forma populară, apropiată de cea geto-dacă, relevă că acest cuvânt nu provine din slavonă!

SORA – „sora” (p. 244)

SO CARPO – „cu veşminte”; cf. rom cârpă. Notă: DEX-ul dă ca etimologie bg. kărpa, scr. Krpa, iar DER (Dicţionarul etimologic român) – sl. krŭpa. (p. 244)

ORT – „bani”; cf. rom ort (în expresia a da ortul popii – n. n.) – p. 248

ZECIO – „cu zecile”, „zeci”. Notă: etimonul latin decem se regăseşte în catalană diez, franc. dix, it. dieci, port. dez, provensală detz, însă în dialectul istroromân este zece. (p. 249)

COYCEO – „murdar”; cf. rom. cocină. Notă: DEX-ul indică două etimoane – bgulgară, sârbo-croată: kočina, iar DER pe lângă acestea două dă forma identică ce apare în dialectul meglenoromân – cocină. (p. 253)

ONGADIO – „ca să fie iertat”; cf. rom. a îngădui. Notă: DEX dă ca etimon un cuvânt din maghiară – engedni. Cum ar putea grupul consonantic dn (greu de pronunţat) să dea o vocală – u? (p. 253)

TONU – „au strigat”; cf. rom. tună. Notă: se spune despre cineva care vorbeşte tare şi răstit că tună şi fulgeră. (p. 253)

ONDOE – „s-a îndoit”; cf. rom. a se undui – n. n. Notă: în limba franceză există cuvântul ondoyer. (p. 254)

A SIESO – „al şaselea” (p. 257)

TRY – „trei”; cf. rom. regional tri (p. 258)

IYSO – „au venit”, „au mers”; cf. rom. a ieşi (franc. issu – participiu – n. n.) – p. 258

NERODU – „a poporului”; cf. rom învechit norod – n. n. (p. 260)

TIPO – „a strigat”; cf. rom. a ţipa. Notă: pentru verbul a ţipa DEX-ul trece cu nonşalanţă – „etimologie necunoscută”! E inadmisibil ca un asemenea verb uzual să nu aibă etimon! Ţipătul e „ la ordinea zilei”; s-a ţipat şi se ţipă, numai lingviştii români tac mâlc!

DIA GROPIA – „unei hrube”, „unei gropi”. Notă: pentru groapă, DEX-ul propune compararea cu un cuvânt din albaneză – cf. alb. gropë. Aplicând „regula” lingviştilor: când un cuvânt românesc nu are corespondent în limbile popoarelor din jur, ci doar în albaneză (considerată o limbă arhaică, nealterată de latină), înseamnă că avem de-a face cu un cuvânt autohton. De ce oare autorii DEX-ului au uitat să precizeze „regula”? (p. 263)

RYINO – „a fost ruinată” (p. 265)

POM – „pom” (p. 265)

REGI – „regi” (p. 265)

ZAVELIO – „Zavelio” – supranume al lui Appolon – Zamolxis; (cf. nume de persoană Zavela; dar şi zaveră. Notă: DEX-ul menţionează: „ZAVÉRĂ, zavere, s.f. (învechit şi regionalism). Nume dat răscoalei organizate de greci în 1821 împotriva stăpânirii turceşti (cu ramificaţie şi în ţările româneşti); prin generalizare – revoltă, răscoală, răzvrătire. – Din sârbo-croată, bg. zavera.” Noroc cu răscoala de la 1821, că am fi rămas fără acest cuvânt! Ceea ce ne uimeşte e faptul că răscoala a fost făcută de greci, iar cuvântul apare în limbile sârbo-croată şi bulgară! Halal lingvişti mai avem! (p. 269)

TALPION – „au înălţat”; cf. rom tulpină. Notă: curios e faptul că geto-dacii un popor care creştea animale şi cultiva plante, conform DEX habar nu aveau de cuvântul tulpină. El chipurile provine din bulgară şi scrârbo-croată – turpina. (p. 269)

BOYERO – „boierii”. Notă: şi în cazul acestui cuvânt, căruia DEX-ul îi dă ca etimon „sl. boljarinŭ (pl. boljare)” „s-au pierdut” cam multe litere (l şi n) pe drumul slavilor migratori… (p. 270)

COCON – „cocon”. Notă: acelaşi DEX indică „etimologie necunoscută! De unde să ştie lingviştii noştri că în basmele noastre populare pruncii de împăraţi erau numiţi coconi? (p. 273)

ONCEA – „pe cel sfânt” (cf. rom. nume de familie Oancea – n. n.) – p. 284

VYO – „viaţă”; cf. rom. viu. Notă: Dex-ul dă pentru viaţă o formă latinească neatestată – *vivitia. Dacă şi pentru acest cuvânt lingviştii s-au străduit să scornească o formă hibridă, când de când lumea şi pământul trebuie să se fi ştiut despre viaţă şi moarte, atunci ce să le mai cerem probitate! (p. 284)

CHEIO PATRI – „cei patru” (p. 284)

ONTURNO – „se întorcea”; cf. rom. a se înturna. Notă: Dex-ul consideră acest cuvânt format pe tărâm autohton – în + turna. Nimic rău în asta, numai că în nici un dicţionar explicativ nu am găsit forma turna ca antonim pentru înturna. Asta înseamnă că modul de formare a acestui cuvânt e greşit precizat. El este autohton şi nu s-a format prin compunere! (p. 288)

TYATO – „au tăiat” (p. 289)

CALIS – „calea” (p. 289)

PEGHI – „pagul”. Notă: şi pentru acest cuvânt DEX este la fel de inventiv: etimonul propus este un cuvânt slav neatestat – *pĕgŭ (p. 292)

RESIFIROT – „au împrăştiat”; cf. rom. răsfirat. Notă: Ca şi pentru a înturna, şi pentru a răsfira, DEX-ul dă ca mod de formare prefixarea, însă această modalitate nu are nicio logică, cel puţin pentru al doilea şi al treilea sens pe care poate să-l capete cuvântul (în funcţie şi de context). Iată ce se spune în faimosul dicţionar. „RĂSFIRÁ, răsfír, vb. I. 1. Refl. şi tranz. A (se) desface fir cu fir, a (se) separa, a (se) depărta între ele (firele părului, ale bărbii etc.) fără a strica întregul. 2. Refl. şi tranz. A (se) împrăştia, a (se) întinde în diferite direcţii; a (se) răzleţi. 3. A risipi, a împrăştia, a presăra. [Var.: resfirá vb. I] – Răs- + fir. (p. 304)

CUE COROLO – „cu coroană”; (cf. rom. neologic corolă; vezi Blaga, poezia Eu nu strivesc corola de minuni a lumii – n. n.) – p. 312

PACEO – „pace” (p. 315)

DEY – „să i se dea”; (cf. rom. şi pop. să i se dee; în expresia Dee Domnul! – n. n.) – p. 315

FAPTOI – „în faptul” (p. 315)

SIEDI – „să şadă” (p. 315)

MY SERATO – „pe înserat”. Notă: pentru cuvântul înserat, DEX-ul se mulţumeşte să fie expeditiv, fără a preciza etimonul: „ÎNSERÁT s. n. Amurg, crepuscul, înserare. – V. însera.” După cum se vede, ne trimite să vedem cum s-a format verbul: „ÎNSERÁ, înserez, vb. I. 1. Intranz. şi refl. impers. (La pers. 3) A se face seară, a amurgi. ● Loc. adv. Pe (sau la) înserat (sau înserate) = în amurg. 2. Intranz. A rămâne undeva până seara, a-l surprinde pe cineva seara undeva. – În + seară.” Modalitatea de formare – prin prefixare – este pe teren propriu limbii române. Ca atare, înserat este un cuvânt autohton, însă lingviştilor le e jenă să recunoască! (p. 317)

REPO –­ „să taie”; cf. rom a rupe. Notă: dacă e să ne luăm după faptul că regional şi popular, pentru verbul a rupe apare forma rupe (întâlnită şi în versurile lui Eminescu), înseamnă că omul din popor ştia latină, deoarece cf. DEX, etimonul acestui verb este latinescul rumpĕre. Noi socotim că acest cuvânt a fost şi el împrumutat de romani de la geto-daci, nu invers. Este încă o dovadă că strămoşii noştri vorbeau acea lingua prisca – latina vulgara de care se tot face caz în aşa-zisele studii docte. (p. 322)

DUPIO – „apoi”; cf. rom după (şi varianta populară şi mai puţin îngrijită – dupe – n. n.) – p. 322

ADESIO – „mereu”; cf. rom. adesea (cu varianta adese, ades – n. n.). Notă: suntem convinşi că adverbele, prepoziţiile, conjuncţiile şi onomatopeele sunt de origine geto-dacă! – p. 322

DUROR – „durere” (p. 322)

DOE URSO” – „doi urşi” (p. 324)

SOAEVO – „gingaşi”; cf rom. suav – n. n. (p. 325)

VOENA – „în luptă”; (cf. rom. voinic; dar şi nume de familie Voinea – n. n.) – p. 328

DACIEO – „Dacii” (p. 328)

SOMO – „mulţi” cf. rom. o seamă de (şi varianta populară samă; sumă – n. n.) – p. 331

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4008665/BIBLIOTHECA-DACICATEZAURUL-DE-LA-SINAIAPLACUTELE-DE-PLUMB 

Tablitele de plumb de la Sinaia, Lead Tablets Best Video at:

Dacicanii at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=knqSKD_w8hE 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=700hJVT_TcA

A Possible Dacian Royal Archive on Lead Plates 

Antiquity Vol 79 No 303 March 2005 Article number 79006

Text and pictures at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/petan/index.html 

By Aurora Petan

Aurora Petan: Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, Romania. [email protected]

Antiquity Vol 79 No 303 March 2005 Article number 79006

The Story In the second half of the nineteenth century an impressive archive composed of over 200 inscriptions on lead plates turned up at the Museum of Antiquities in Bucharest. The inscriptions were made in relief, using the Greek alphabet, written in an unknown language. The texts obviously refer to the Dacian civilization, involving names of some known Dacian kings, toponyms and hydronyms. The plates were considered as fakes, probably due to the unknown provenance and to their brand-new appearance, without any traces of corrosion to indicate that the lead had laid underground for almost 2000 years. An inventory of the pieces was never performed and no research of them has ever been conducted by specialists.	Figure 1. Two types of scripts, rending, probably, the same text, the second one 'translating' the first one. Click to enlarge.
Figure 2. Dacian victorious soldiers and roman prisoners are received by priests at the gate of the Sarmizegetusa fortress. Click to enlarge.	Nowadays, there are only 35 pieces left, together with some photos taken of other pieces in the time of the Second World War (Romalo 2003). However, the oral tradition testifies that the lead plates represent copies, made in 1875 by order of King Carol I, of some gold originals. The copying of the hundreds of pieces was accomplished at the nails factory in Sinaia, and the copies were stored first at the Sinaia Monastery and afterwards were transported to Bucharest. Nobody knows what happened to the gold originals. The detailed analyses of the samples extracted from all the 35 surviving artefacts, performed at the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Bucharest, stated that the composition of the plates is typical for the printing lead from the second half of the nineteenth century.
Description The plates are rectangular, except for one which is round. The dimensions vary between 93 x 98mm and 354 x 255mm. Many of them present hanging traces, like holes. Most of them are written in the Greek alphabet, together with three foreign signs: V from the Latin alphabet and the signs for the palatal consonants [ce] and [ge], specific for the Cyrillic alphabet. Besides the Greek alphabet, there are some unknown scripts, monograms and strange symbols. Most of the pieces seem to be originated in Burebista's time, in Sarmizegetusa, the capital of the Dacian kingdom. The Decebal's ones are fewer, smaller and less elaborated. The texts are written in scriptio continua and the easiest words to identify are the names, anthroponyms, toponyms and ethnonyms - Dacian and foreign as well.	Figure 3. Alliance between Dacians and Scythians. Click to enlarge.
Figure 4. Royal genealogy. Click to enlarge.	Besides the texts, on the plates there are many illustrations. The representations are extremely complex and cover a great part of the realia domain: armies, fortresses, portraits of kings (even detailed royal genealogies), totemic animals, gods, temples, religious symbols, war machines, trophies, various buildings, vegetation etc. The representation of the plan of Sarmizegetusa stronghold is striking at a time when the first systematic excavations had not started yet. Equally amazing is the detailed representation of the Burebista's two-storied limestone temple, discovered only in 1956 (Crisan 1986: 176-180).
The language of the texts has somehow an Indo-European appearance, but it is not like the expected Dacian language: that language seems to have nothing in common with the known remains of the Romanian substratum. There are some Indo-European words, but no final consonants, no desinences or inflection, and subsequently no grammatical marks for gender, number, case or person. Almost all the nouns end in -o, including the feminine ones ending in -a in the Greek and Latin sources: Boerobiseto, Dacibalo; Napoko, Sarmigetuzo. The groups of consonants are infrequent, proving the predisposition to open syllables. There are some words borrowed from Greek, especially in the field of military terminology (basileo, chiliarcho) and some from Latin. The most important words do not have cognates in other Indo-European languages: mato 'king', kotopolo 'priest', talipiko 'fortress'.	Figure 5. The plan of the Sarmizegetusa fortress. The west-gate is the main entrance. On the other side of the east-gate is the complex of sanctuaries. Click to enlarge.
Figure 6. The two-storied temple in Sarmizegetusa is represented in the upper right corner. The ruins of the four rows of columns, the stairs turning to right at the west side, the wall and the tower at east side, the gallery and the platform of the second floor were discovered only in the second half of the twentieth century. Click to enlarge.	Conclusion The hundreds of pieces are extremely elaborate, nevertheless nobody was ever tempted to take advantage of them, either pecuniary or ideologically, which is opposite to the logic of a forgery. Besides, the plates provide data that could not be known at that time and nobody has succeeded in proving the forgery so far. As a consequence, the authenticity of this archive is a plausible hypothesis. Unfortunately, the artefacts have not proper conditions for conservation or security and are gradually deteriorating. Specialists have lacked interest in the written pieces for more than a century and most of the archive is now lost. At this moment there is no official program or project for studying and protecting these intriguing testimonies.
References CRISAN, I.H. 1986. Spiritualitatea geto-dacilor. Bucharest: Albatros. ROMALO, D. 2003. Cronica apocrifa pe placi de plumb? Bucharest: Arvin Press.
Aurora Petan: Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, Romania. (Email: [email protected])

BLIOTHECA DACICA WEBSITE OF AURORA PETAN AT:

http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/frames_en.htm

The Dacica Library represents a pioneer attempt as it is the first and only web site that scientifically approaches this subject. Its purpose is to make this corpus known to the public and to attract as many specialists as possible in the debate regarding the authenticity of the records. Given the magnitude and complexity that surrounds the subject, we chose to discuss only a few aspects that are relevant for this debate, with an emphasis on linguistic analysis. You will not find translations of the inscriptions here. The materials found here represent the basis of an ample monograph to be published in the future.

The absence of any valid proof of a forgery, the impossibility to identify the author of the forgery and its purpose – moreover the dazzling complexity of these artifacts, filled with elements that were not accessible to a nineteenth century forger – form the first arguments in favor of the authenticity claim. We are still waiting for solid arguments, from scientists that uphold the forgery hypothesis, which will establish who, when and with what purpose the plates were created.

 




More can be found here: http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/frames_en.htm

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Tibet/brahmi.html

Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes

The Dacian language was a Satem Indo European Language. Integral text at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_to_Dacian_sound_changes     

Language

The language appears to have some Indo-European languages|Indo-European traits, but it has nothing in common with what linguists expect to be Dacian language, as no correlation with the Romanian language substrate can be found. Also, unlike any known Indo-European language, it appears to have almost no inflections, nor declinations. In addition, almost all nouns end in '-o', including names which had other endings in Latin and Greek, e.g. ''Boerobiseto'', ''Dacibalo'', ''Napoko'' and ''Sarmigetuzo''. There are some words borrowed from Greek and Latin, but some important words such as the word for 'king' (''mato'') and 'priest' (''kotopolo'') do not have any known Indo-European cognates.

Debate and authors

There is a debate among historians whether the plates are real or fake.

Arguments for being fake:

The language from the tablets does not look like the expected Dacian language

*The writing does not respect the writing norms of the Greek alphabet (however they were written in Dacian, not in Greek).
*The language has many similar words with Romanian, but very few from the Dacian substratum.

*Some symbols from the tablets show close resemblance to those used in francmasonic secret societies (thus pointing to a politically made fake).
*Most of the lead tablets seem to have been made in the XIX century.

*The plates contain glyphs and some writing styles extremely similar to Arabic.

*The language from the tablets has some words which we know originated in Slavic languages.

*The tablets contain some personal names (Mary, Joseph) which we know entered later in the Romanian-Dacian language, during Christianization (although some linguists like Adrian Bucurescu claim the tablets contain the history of the Carpato-Danubian space, up to the middle ages).

*At least one tablet contains a scene of battle represented in typical medieval style, in which an army seems to obviously use cannons in besieging a fortress over the Danube, and one flag from that scene is similar to that used in Moldavia during the time of Ştefan cel Mare.

Arguments for being original:

*The city of Sarmizegetusa is represented with pinpoint accuracy, even with details unknown at the time at which the plates were presumably forged.

*The plates contain much information about Dacian history, information that does not appear in any other sources - names of yet unknown kings, queens, cities, gods, etc. If someone would have wanted to make a fake, it would make it as plausible as possible.

*There was found an original medallion found with Burebista, which is inscribed in a similar language to that of the tablets. The medallion is from the Dacian period.

*There exists a letter in which it is clearly mentioned that the plates were lead copies of the original gold ones.

*Napoleon Săvescu, a Romanian historian known for his strong interest in Dacian history, managed to find similar tablets (golden ones) originating from Bulgaria.

*In the XIX century, the common view was that the Dacian alphabet was the old  one, view sustained by both Romanian historians of the time, Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu and Nicolae Densuşianu, both with interest in ancient Dacian history. However, the alphabet of the tablets is Greek.

Fragments (translated and adapted into English)

 If fakes who could have done it?

The main suspect is: 

 Tadeu Hasdeu; Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu (1836-1907) (Pseud) Romanian

http://www.freemanart.ca/greatest_art_forgers_fakers.html
A scholar and archivist who was a pioneer in Romanian language and historical studies but was likely responsible for the so-called 'Dacian' or 'Sinaia' lead plates. These were gibberish texts, probably manufactured to substantiate Romanian cultural nationalism in the 1880s.
Legend has it that the lead plates are in fact copies made at the Nail Factory of Sinaia in about 1875 from the originals, which were made out of gold.
They first appeared when the 200 lead plates were discovered in the archive warehouse of the Bucharest Museum of Antiquities in the late 19th century. Up to now, they have been widely ignored and considered as fakes because they looked so new, not showing any traces of corrosion.
Renewed interest in the plates has been shown however by experts more than a century later.

  For more information: Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project (TDML)

Thesaurus Relictorum Linguarum Thraco-Dacicarum (TRLTD)

 at: http://soltdm.com/index.htm

Sinaia lead plates

http://www.dracones.ro/?operatie=miniaturi&locatie=PLACUTE 

PLĂCUŢELE DE PLUMB

        Această secţiune a sitului, prezintă 56 de bucăţi din ansamblul de inscripţii şi imagini criptice pe plăci de plumb, care zăceau prăfuite în subsolul Institutului de Arheologie. Ele conţin, după cum lesne se poate vedea, informaţii referitoare la istoria veche a României. Povestea lor este întortocheată, nu se ştie de unde şi când au apărut, cert este că istoricii le cunosc de generaţii, ele fiind considerate falsuri, cunoscute mai exact drept "falsurile lui Haşdeu". Aducerea lor în lumină se datorează unui inginer, pasionat de istorie şi anume lui Dan Romalo.
        Ele conţin text şi imagini. Textul este scris în principal cu caractere greceşti. Deşi alfabetul este majoritar grecesc, mai există şi alte caractere iar limba în care sunt scrise este necunoscută şi se presupune a fi chiar limba dacică. Argumente în acest sens însă sunt puţine.
        Argumentele care susţin ipoteza că ele ar fi scrise în perioada dacică sunt:
                1. Anumite surse declară că plumbul a fost atestat în laboratoare din Anglia ca având o vechime de aproximativ 2000 de ani.
                2. Îşi găsesc corespondentul contemporan lor în decretele greceşti prezente în oraşe (v. Decretul Dyonisopolitan).
                3. Imaginile prezente pe tăbliţe sunt în stil asemănător cu cel al falerelor de la Coada Malului, ş.a.
                4. Stindardul dacic este reprezentat corect. (În perioada în care se crede a fi falsificate, lumea istoriografică românească înregistrează stindardul dacic ca un corp de peşte cu cap de mistreţ).
                5. Plăcuţele par a fi grupate corect în perioade temporale din punct de vedere al textului, caracterelor, etc.
                6. Au necesitat un volum de resurse umane, materiale şi informaţionale imens.
        Argumentele care susţin ipoteza că ele nu ar fi scrise în perioada dacică sunt:
                1.Se presupune că originalele ar fi fost din aur, regele Carol I le-ar fi copiat în plumb, pentru a valorifica aurul, în timp ce plumbul este atestat din perioada dacică.
                2.Prezenţa unor simboluri aparent creştine (de ex. îngeri, chivotul aurit) sau feniciene (heruvimi, etc).
        Toate aceste argumente atât de-o parte, cât şi de alta sunt necesare nu şi suficiente. Ceea ce este sigur în toată povestea lor romanţată, este că că ele există şi că nici veridicitatea lor, nici falsitatea lor, nu poate fi afirmată, neexistând dovezi incontestabile.
        Ce este de reţinut:
                1.Evidentele nume dacice.
                2.Prezenţa unei limbi necunoscute (chiar dacă este una inventată).
                3.Orice informaţie istorică merită cercetată la modul serios şi catalogată conform adevărului istoric, până acum nici un studiu de specialitate nefiind dedicat acestor piese.
                4.Ineditul lor indiferent de valoarea istorică. Aceste materiale nu merită să zacă în praf, ci expuse chiar dacă sub ele se scrie "falsurile lui Haşdeu".
                5.Pe lângă alfabetul elen, mai există un număr de caractere după modelul prezentat mai jos, precum şi toate aceste caractere uneori mult "înflorate":
        Posibilităţi:
                1.Dacă tăbliţele sunt din perioada dacică, atunci ele probabil, sunt scrise în limba dacică şi se stabileşte dovada de netăgăduit a existenţei scrisului la daci. În plus, ele probabil înfrumuseţau zidurile unui oraş, atât din punct de vedere estetic cât şi informaţional (lăudând faptele unor personalităţi dacice), cu corespondent în modelul grecesc.
                2.Dacă sunt o cronică postdacică, atunci ele afirmă existenţa unei limbi necunoscute, în plus oferă preţioase informaţii despre civilizaţia geto-dacă, informaţii care se cer verificate şi valorificate.
                3.Dacă sunt un "fals", atunci ele reprezintă, o operă de artă, cu multe trăsături deosebite şi trebuie expusă şi făcută publică ca atare.
        Alte note:

ALFABETUL GRECESC:

A - alfa (a)
B - beta (b)
G - gamma (g)
D - delta (d)
E - epsilon (e scurt)
Z - dzeta (dz)
H - eta (e lung)
Q - theta (th)
I - iota (i)
K - kappa (k)
L - lambda (l)
M - miu (m)
N - niu (n)
X - x (x, cs)
O - omicron (o)
P - pi (p)
R - ro (r)
S - sigma (s dur)
T - tau (t)
U - iupsilon (u,y)
F - fi (f)
X - hi (ch)
Y - psi (ps)
W - omega (o lung)

        În plus pe tăbliţe mai apar:


        În plus pe tăbliţe mai apar culorile roşu, albastru şi verde cu semnificaţiile:
1.Roşu : cuvânt cu evidente conotaţii cu realitatea.
2.Albastru : cuvânt cu mari asemănări cu realitatea.
3.Verde : cuvânt cu uşoare conotaţii cu realitatea, cuvinte, părţi gramaticale, care se repetă în mai multe plăcuţe.
4.Nu se ţine cont de grupurile de litere româneşti "ce", "ci", "ge", "gi","che", "chi", "ghe", "ghi".
        În unele cercuri de istorici amatori, pe baza acestor plăcuţe, se creează istorii alternative ale perioadei antice, fiind considerate fără dovezi ştiinţifice absolut necesare, ca provenind din perioada dacică, conţinând informaţii veridice despre istoria veche a României, fiind scrise în limba dacică, etc., ceea ce, cu siguranţă este o abordare greşită.
        ATENŢIONARE! Această prezentare nu se doreşte o pledare în favoarea originii dacice a acestor relicve ci o prezentare obiectivă a lor însoţită de simple şi amatoriceşti observaţii pe text.

        În încheiere, cu atenţionarea de mai sus în minte, vă invit să vizionaţi galeria de imagini a acestor plăcuţe în galeria foto.

BIBLIOGRAFIE:
1. Sursa imaginilor: http://www.dacia.org

   http://forum.softpedia.com/lofiversion/index.php/t494910.html

http://www.jurnalul.ro/jurnalul-national/jurnalul-national/scripturile-dacilor-317301.html

http://www.miracol.ro/carte.php?carte=243&titlu=Impactul%20ROMEI%20asupra%20DACIEI 

http://www.ariminia.ro/geto-dacii/dacii.html 

This site has good documentary information, but we can not agree or condone the bad language full of  invectives spread all over the text.

T 43 Turnată de boero Bisto Semicerc sus COO(coa: trebuie să) IRIM(irimă: inimă) GETO

Semicerc jos: KOTO(cotă: a căuta) DAM(dam: şură mică, bordei) OCI(oci: întin-dere mare de apă) LUTU DU MUSTOI(a musti) SO. Interior cerc de la stînga la dreapta: ON(on: soţi) CENEO(ceme: creştetul capului) DIEO(sfînt) ZABELIO OSOI(osi: a se întări ca osul) GEOS(jos) POR (por: grămadă de fîn, stog) LOA(a lua) TRI DUS(a duce) GIG(gig: tînăr, frumos) MATO(conducător) SO.

 Semicerc sus Poporul trebuie să ştie că inima marelui conducător get a fost lovită de un chin cunoscut. Anul trecut cînd dormea pe un mal nisipos(plajă) a fost lovit vai! fără pricină(pe la spate) după ceafă, dar Zabelo l-a înviat şi nu l-a lăsat omorît. Pentru cetatea getă au urmat zile chinuite şi fără strălucire(putere). Semicerc jos Astfel, pe malul mării a fost căutat un bordei cu pământ umed pe jos unde a fost dus el.
Interior cerc de la stînga la dreapta Trei dintre soţi l-au luat şi l-au dus pe frumosul lor conducător, aşezîndu-l jos pe o grămadă de fîn unde sfîntul Zabelio l-a vindecat(întărit ca osul).

 T 20 Turnată pe la 320 î.e.n. după moartea lui Alexandru Macedon. OROLO SIOE(sîi: a fi) GERO

(giri: a închide gura cuiva, a se mînia; cîrîi: a critica, a fi bolnav grav) SIO(sîi: a fi) SIL(silă: obligaţie, dispreţ; sili: a prăda, a alunga) GETO DU(a duce) NE SABIO(sabie). DI(di: a spune) SILE(silă: obligaţie, dispreţ; sili: a prăda, a despărţi) LOI(lui) BESE ROI(roi: a pleca, a dispărea) KO BASTARNO(bastarnii) I(i: a merge, a goni) FO(a fi) SOLI(solie, înţelegere) STO(a sta) AGEO(agie: conducere, organ de administrare şi conducere în Moldova şi Muntenia în feudalism). NALI(nălăi: a năvăli, a ataca) TAURO(puternic, violent) MATO(conducătorul) PERSO MACIDONIO REKAI (rîcăi: a răcni, a urla, a se opinti) KO MATO(conducător) RARE(rare: încet, pe îndelete, în linişte) KO ESE(a ieşi, a pleca). A OFO(of: amărăciune, disperare). NI(uite!, priveşte!, atenţie) DO(a duce, a porni) PETRA MEZIO. OROLO SOI(soi: murdar, josnic) KO MATO(conducător) RAGE(a striga, a plînge, a ruga) TO MERSEO(a merge, a pleca) NOI(noi: apă neîncepută, a tăcea chitic, a muri) FAE(fae: plantă erbacee foarte toxică, laur; fai: stofă de mătase neagră cu fir gros). IO EDE(e-de: a se ridica, a spune, a judeca) CASO(casa) TO BASTARNO AGEO(agie: conducere) SENI(sinii: tavă mare şi rotundă pentru copt plăcinte; sîni: a înălbăstri, a se însenina) OP(op: listă de acte, registru, inventar) MITA (miţă: lînă scurtă tunsă de pe miel, fire lungi de lînă care atîrnă în smocuri) MATO(conducător) RAGE(a striga, a plînge, a ruga) TO. Medalion: DELIGO S(Sarmisetuzo) MT(mato: conducătorul).

Orolo este mîniat pentru că a fost silit să-şi ducă săbiile(luptătorii) sub comanda geţilor. În dispreţul lui, spune că besii împreună cu bastarnii au mers să facă solie şi să stea(să slujească) la agie(conducerea Macedoniei). Puternicul conducător (Lisimah) al armatelor perso-macedonene i-a pîndit şi atacat pe îndelete(peste tot) şi cu răcnete l-a făcut pe conducătorul Petra din Mesio să plece plin de necaz. Ca un conducător nevrednic, Orolo plînge că toţi au mers către moarte sigură(să se îmbrace în mătase neagră şi să fie stropiţi cu agheasmă). Eu am spus conducerii caselor tuturor bastarnilor că nu poţi umbla cu părul în ochi să vezi numai tava cu plăcinte din tot ce este pe masă aşa cum te plîngi tu, conducătorule! [Eu am spus conducerii caselor tuturor bastarnilor că nu poţi vedea numai cer senin dacă ai părul în ochi aşa cum te plîngi tu conducătorule!] Conducătorul Deligo din luminata Sarmisetuzo. 

T 21 Turnată pe la 320 î.e.n. OROLO SO(astfel) MADA(madea: pricină, om neserios)

Astfel neseriosul Orolo s-a bătut şi a căzut într-o groapă. Dorind o ie pentru femei tinere, a ieşit cu luptă iar el a fost rănit rău. Nu geţii l-au rănit ci setea de avere a acestui neam lacom. Eu am cercetat această minciună şi ca orice get sănătos la cap, l-am sfătuit să meargă la Lia pentru a face schimbul dorit. Femeia Lia a trăit în cinste cu macedonenii şi aici cu geţii. Nu este pentru Lia plecăciunea plină de duşmănie şi chiuitura răutăcioasă. Bre! cu această bucată de pînză de in cusută cu beteală se iese la ilău iar pericolul sînt bastarnii. Sfîntul Zabelo şi geţii adunaţi au spus: cearta şi mînia se însoţesc una pe alta. Se şopteşte pe marginea şanţului să daţi dracului beteala. Medalion: Conducătorul Guto al adunării Sarmisetuzei.

T 22 Turnată pe la 290 î.e.n.   DOPA(după) CAPO(cap, judecată) DIO(sfînt)

1. Latin alphabet
2. Some of the signs used by the Dacians in their writings on tablets of lead currently in high Squeezebox Bucharest Institute of Archaeology.
3. Signs of the Cretan Linear B script from 1500-1300 BC phonetic value of which did not speak.
4. Signs used   of the Bistrita plutaşii in 1880, notching wood!
5. Alphabet, "Cyrillic" as they used rumunii for over 3000 years.
6. Ionic alphabet used for centuries Vlll - Vl BC
7. Alphabet sixth century BC used beoţian
8. Modern Greek alphabet.
9. Székely alphabet used around 1200.
10. Niscaiva runes used on the 1500 Hungarian in Transylvania and Hungary!
11. Some Goths runes used since lV century.

In 1597, Belgian Vulcanius Bonaventure wrote his work on Latin or Gothic letters and printed Getae language in Brussels, reached the lands mioritical Romanian Academy in the year 1900,   partly published in the journal Getica tom 1, nr. 5-6, 2005, p. 161-189, where I give some   extracted.   

For instance, the oldest

Languages ​​of the Dacians

BON. VULCANIUS

                                                               editor

1. The analysis carried out at the Physics and Nuclear Engineering Institute in Bucharest by Dr. Bogdan Constantinescu in may 2004 showed a lead composition very similar to that used in typography lead in the 19th century, confirming the hypothesis of the copies or of a possible forgery.

2. Although, analysis carried out on a single item in Oxford, item 023, by Dr. Peter Northover, left the debate open, as he proved that the lead from this item is nearly similar to that of a cramp removed from Sarmizegetusa’s wall and used as witness item. (ROMALO 2005: 291-292). The lack of funding, destined to more precise analysis of all remaining items, impedes us from drawing a clearer conclusion.

 See tablet 023 at:

http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/frames_en.htm 

Photo Gallery and then R023

This slide shows a small selection of forms which illustrate the position of Bactrian amongst the Iranian languages. In particular I have chosen forms which show the connection between Bactrian and the languages of the surrounding area: medieval Sogdian and Choresmian; modern Pashto, Yidgha-Munji, and Ishkashmi. Shows word endings in o.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bactrian_language

http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/27/12_IIASNewsletter27.pdf

Because Bactrian was written predominantly with the Greek alphabet, Bactrian is sometimes referred to as "Greco-Bactrian", "Kushan" or "Kushano-Bactrian". In medieval times, Bactria was also known as Tocharistan, after the incoming Tokharoi tribes, and until the 1970s Bactrian was sometimes referred to as 'Eteo-Tocharian', but it is now certain that Bactrian is not closely related to the Tocharian languages, which do not belong to the Iranian language group. An older notion that the language of the Avesta represented (Old) Bactrian "had rightly fallen into discredit by the end of the 19th century" (Gershevitch 1983, p. 1250).

Following the conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, for about two centuries Greek was the administrative language of his Hellenistic successors, that is, the Seleucid and the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. At some time after 124 BCE, Bactria was overrun by Yuezhi (Tokharoi) tribes. Subsequently, one of the tribes advanced to found the Kushan dynasty in the 1st century CE.

The Kushans at first retained the Greek language for administrative purposes, but soon began to use Bactrian, which however was then written using the Greek alphabet. The Bactrian Rabatak inscription (discovered in 1993 and deciphered in 2000) records that the Kushan king Kanishka (c. 120 CE) discarded Greek and adopted Bactrian as "his speech", and the Greek language accordingly vanishes from official use and only Bactrian is attested. The use of the Greek alphabet however remained.

The territorial expansion of the Kushans helped propagate Bactrian to Northern India and parts of Central Asia. Sites at which Bactrian language inscriptions have been found are (in North-South order) Afrasiab, Kara-Tepe, Airtam, Delbarjin, Balkh, Kunduz, Baglan, Ratabak/Surkh Kotal, Shatial Bridge, Kabul, Dasht-e Navur, Ghazni, Jagatu, Islamabad, Orozgan and Tochi Valley. Of eight known manuscript fragments in Greco-Bactrian script, one is from Lou-lan and seven from Toyoq, where they were discovered by the second and third Turpan expeditions under Albert von Le Coq. One of these may be a Buddhist text. One other manuscript, in Manichean script, was found at Qočo by Mary Boyce in 1958.

Among Iranian languages, the use of the Greek alphabet is unique to Bactrian. The Greek alphabet is however not ideal for representing Iranian languages. Although ambiguities remain, some of the disadvantages were overcome by using heta (Ͱ, ͱ) for /h/ and by introducing sho (þ, ϸ) to represent /ʃ/. Xi (Ξ, ξ) and psi (Ψ, ψ) were not used for writing Bactrian as the ks and ps sequences do not occur in Bactrian. They were however probably used to represent numbers (just as other Greek letters were).

New Findings in Ancient Afghanistan
--- the Bactrian documents discovered from the Northern Hindu-Kush
Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams (University of London)
http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Surkh_Kotal 

"Era-year 299, on the 9th [day] of [month] Dios, King of Kings Ooëmo Takpiso, the majesty, the Kuṣāṇa, had the canal d[ug here]."

Unfortunately, the fragments of an inscription from the period of Kanishka's reign contain only about one fifth (124 letters altogether) of the original inscription. They have been translated as:

the lord, K[ing of Kings], the mighty Kaneṣko . . .] and so on

Several further Bactrian inscriptions have been discovered since that of Surkh Kotal, but most of them are too poorly preserved to add significantly to our knowledge of the language. However, in 1993 a new inscription of fundamental importance was discovered by chance at a site named Rabatak, not far from Surkh Kotal [Slide 4 18KB]. The inscription of Rabatak describes events of the first year of Kanishka in words strikingly reminiscent of those of Darius the Great in the inscription of Bisitun. Since Joe Cribb and I have already published a detailed study of this inscription in the most recent issue of Silk Road Art and Archaeology, I will limit my remarks to a few of the most important points.

The opening lines refer to Kanishka as "the great salvation, the righteous, just autocrat, worthy of divine worship, who has obtained the kingship from Nana and from all the gods, who has inaugurated the year one as the gods pleased". Then comes the significant statement: "He issued(?) an edict(?) in Greek and then he put it into the Aryan language". In principle, any of the Indo-European languages of Iran or India could be called "Aryan"; but when Kanishka refers to "the Aryan language" he surely means Bactrian, the language of this inscription, just as Darius meant Old Persian, the language of his inscription, when he wrote: "By the grace of Auramazda, I made another text in Aryan, which previously did not exist". It is difficult not to associate Kanishka's emphasis here on the use of the "Aryan language" with the replacement of Greek by Bactrian on his coinage. The numismatic evidence shows that this must have taken place very early in Kanishka's reign, quite possibly in his very first year.

The Rabatak inscription is an inscription written on a rock in the Bactrian language and the Greek script, which was found in 1993 at the site of Rabatak, near Surkh Kotal in Afghanistan. The inscription relates to the rule of the Kushan emperor Kanishka, and gives remarkable clues on the genealogy of the Kushan dynasty.

 
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Rabatak_inscription#1.

"The Rabatak inscription claims that in the year 1 Kanishka I's authority was proclaimed in India, in all the satrapies and in different cities like Koonadeano (Kundina), Ozeno (Ujjain), Kozambo (Kausambi), Zagedo (Saketa), Palabotro (Pataliputra) and Ziri-Tambo (Janjgir-Champa). These cities lay to the east and south of Mathura, up to which locality Wima had already carried his victorious arm. Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself."
—"Ancient Indian Inscriptions", S. R. Goyal, p. 93.

Language of the Dacian Lead Plaques

The language appears to have some Indo-European languages|Indo-European traits, but it has nothing in common with what linguists expect to be Dacian language, as no correlation with the Romanian language substrate can be found. Also, unlike any known Indo-European language, it appears to have almost no inflections, nor declinations. In addition, almost all nouns end in '-o', including names which had other endings in Latin and Greek, e.g. ''Boerobiseto'', ''Dacibalo'', ''Napoko'' and ''Sarmigetuzo''. (Like on the Bactrian inscriptions WMN.) There are some words borrowed from Greek and Latin, but some important words such as the word for 'king' (''mato'') and 'priest' (''kotopolo'') do not have any known Indo-European cognates.

 Rohonc Codex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohonc_Codex

The Rohonc Codex (pronounce like 'ro-honts') is a set of writings in an unknown writing system. This codex is also referred to as Rohonczi Codex which is the Hungarian name of the codex spelled according to the old Hungarian orthography that was reformed in the first half of the 20th century. This spelling has spread on-line probably due to the book of V. Enăchiuc (see Bibliography below). Today the name of the codex is written in Hungarian as Rohonci-kódex.

History

The codex was named after the city of Rohonc, in Western Hungary (now Rechnitz, Austria), where it was kept until 1838, when it was donated to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences by Gusztáv Batthyány, a Hungarian count, together with his entire library.

The origin of the codex is uncertain. Possible trace of its past may be an entry in the 1743 catalogue of the Batthyánys' Rohonc library, which says "Magyar imádságok, volumen I. in 12.", that is, Hungarian prayers in one volume, size duodecimo. The size and the assumable content agree with those of the codex, but this is all information given in the catalogue, so it may only be a hint. (See Jerney 1844, and Némethi 1892 in the Bibliography.)

The codex was studied by the Hungarian scholar Ferenc Toldy around 1840, and later by Pál Hunfalvy, but with no result. It was also examined by the Austrian paleography expert Dr. Mahl in vain. Josef Jireček and his son, Konstantin Josef Jireček, both university professors in Prague, studied 32 pages of the codex in 1884–1885 without success. In 1885 the codex was also sent to a German researcher, Bernhard Jülg, a professor at the Innsbruck University, but he was not able to decipher it either. Mihály Munkácsy, the celebrated Hungarian painter, took the codex with him to Paris in the years 1890–1892 to study it, but this also yielded no result.

The majority of Hungarian scholars take the codex to be a hoax of Sámuel Literáti Nemes (1796–1842), Transylvanian-Hungarian antiquarian, co-founder of the National Széchényi Library in Budapest, infamous for many historical forgeries (made mostly in the 1830s) which even deceived some of the most renowned Hungarian scholars of the time. This opinion goes back as far as 1866, to Károly Szabó (1824–1890), Hungarian historian. (See the Bibliography below "Of the Old Hun-Székely Writing System".) This opinion is also held by Fejérpataky (1878), and Pintér (1930). Béla Tóth (1899) and Csaba Csapodi (1973) mention this opinion as probable. (For their titles, see the Bibliography below.)

Features

An illustration

The codex has 448 paper pages (12x10 cm), each one having between 9 and 14 rows of symbols, which may or may not be letters. Besides the text, there are 87 illustrations that include religious, laic, and military scenes. The crude illustrations seem to indicate an environment where Christian, pagan, and Muslim religions coexist, as the symbols of the cross, crescent, and sun/swastika are all present.

The number of symbols used in the codex is about ten times higher than any known alphabet, but some symbols are used rarely, so the symbols in the codex might not be an alphabet, but a syllabary, or something like Chinese characters. The justification of the right margin would seem to imply the symbols were transcribed from right to left.

Study of the paper on which the codex is written shows that it is probably a Venetian paper made in the 1530s. However, it may simply have been transcribed from an earlier source, or the paper could have been used long after it was produced.

Language and script

The language in which it is written is unknown. Although Hungarian, Dacian, early Romanian or Cuman, even Hindi (Brahmi) have been proposed, there is nothing that could indicate what language it is.

Those who claim the codex's Hungarian authenticity, either assume that it is a paleo-Hungarian script, or try to find resemblances to the Old Hungarian script, that is Hungarian (Székely) runes ("rovásírás"). According to others, in the Dobruja region in Romania similar characters or symbols are engraved in Scythian monk caves. Still others tried to find resemblance to the letters of the Greek charter of the Veszprémvölgy Nunnery (Hungary). Another claims it to be a version of the Brahmi script.

An attempt to list the symbols of the codex was first made by Kálmán Némethi (Némethi, 1889 & 1892).

Systematic research of the symbols was first done by Ottó Gyürk, who examined repeated sequences to find the direction of writing (he argues for RLTB, pages also going right-to-left), and identified numbers in the text (Gyürk, 1970). His later remarks suggest that he also has many unpublished conjectures, based on a large amount of statistical data (Gyürk, 1996).

Miklós Locsmándy did some computer-based research on the text in the mid-90's. He confirmed the published findings of Gyürk, adding several others. He claimed the symbol "i" to be a sentence delimiter (but also the symbol of 11 (eleven), and possibly also a place value delimiter in numbers). He studied the diacriticals of the symbols (mostly dots), but found no order. As he could see no traces of case endings (which are typically characteristic to the Hungarian language), he assumed that the text was probably in a language different from Hungarian. He could not prove that the codex is not a hoax; however, seeing the regularities of the text, he denied that it was pure gibberish. (Locsmándy, 2004–2005)

Translation attempts

Attila Nyíri of Hungary proposed a solution after studying two pages of the codex. He simply turned the codex upside down, then took the letters (usually) most similar to the symbols. However, he sometimes transliterated the same symbol with different letters, and vice versa, the same letter was decoded from several symbols. He even had to rearrange the order of the letters to produce words. The text, if taken as meaningful, is of religious, perhaps liturgical character. His solution was published in Theologiai Szemle, 39 (1996), pp. 91-98.

Its beginning: Eljött az Istened. Száll az Úr. Ó. Vannak a szent angyalok. Azok. Ó. -- Your God has come. The Lord flies. Oh. There are the holy angels. Them. Oh.

A translation has been attempted by Romanian philologist Viorica Enăchiuc, but the language (that ought to be Vulgar Latin or some kind of early Romanian) does not resemble Romanian. The alleged translation indicates that it is a history of the Blaki (Vlachs) people in their fights against Cumans and Pechenegs.

Solrgco zicjra naprzi olto co sesvil cas - O Sun of the live let write what span the time is the beginning chapter (p224) transligaturized in order RLBT.

Another alleged solution was made by the Indian M K Singh,. His claim is that the codex is written LRTB with a regional variant of the Brahmi script which he can read. He transliterated the first 24 pages of the codex to get a Hindi text which was translated to Hungarian. His solution is mostly like the beginning of an apocryphal gospel (previously unknown), with a meditative prologue, then going on to the infancy narrative of Jesus. His results were published in Turán, 2004/6 = 2005/1, pages 12-40.

According to Mahesh Kumar Singh, the upper two rows of page 1 go like: he bhagwan log bahoot garib yahan bimar aur bhookhe hai / inko itni sakti aur himmat do taki ye apne karmo ko pura kar sake (Hungarian: Óh, Istenem! Itt a nép nagyon szegény, beteg és szűkölködik, ezért adj nekik elegendő tehetséget és erőt, hogy kielégíthessék a szükségleteiket! -- English: Oh, my God! Here the people is very poor, ill and starving, therefore give them sufficient potency and power that they may satisfy their needs.)

None of these solutions has widespread acceptance among the academic community.

A sample from Attila Nyíri's attempt

The cover of V. Enăchiuc's book

A sample from Mahesh Kumar Singh's attempt

Bibliography

In chronological order

See also

• Voynich manuscript
• Old Hungarian script, also called "Székely rovásírás"
• Middle Bronze Age alphabets

External links

• Scanned pictures of the Codex
• Introduction to the Codex (in Romanian)
• Ungureanu, Dan: Nu trageti in ambulanta, Observator Cultural, 167 (May 6-12, 2003.) A debunking of the book of Viorica Enăchiuc (in Romanian)
• Némethi Kálmán: Rohonczi Codex Tantétel. Scanned images of a Hungarian book claiming the Codex to be entirely Hungarian. Also has table of symbols, and a drawing of the watermark of the paper of the codex

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License;  

  ALFABETUL ” AETHICUS ” IN TREI REPRODUCERI DIFERITE : Prezbiterul Ieronim, intr-un manuscris din veacul VIII 

 By ARP

http://studiiprotoromane.com/2007/06/21/92/

  Alfabetul lui Aethicus Histricus se gaseste reprodus , in versiunea probabil cea mai veche care s-a pastrat , intr-un manuscris din veacul VIII, alcatuit de prezbiterul Ieronim ,la manastirea Freising din Germania ; el va fi editat in 1853 intr-o editie devenita clasica , a eruditului german H. Wuttke ,fara consultarea careia nici o cercetare serioasa in aceasta materie nu este posibila.

 Tablita de la Policiori- Muntii Buzaului-Tara Luanei

Policiori Insemne in piatra

http://www.formula-as.ro/2008/845/societate-37/pietrele-scrise-din-muntii-buzaului-10460

http://dezordinea.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/page/3/