Расшифровка славянского слогового и буквенного письма

Февраль 17, 2007

Five Inscriptions on the Bronze Things. Are they Venetian?

Автор 02:49. Рубрика Статьи на английском языке

Five Inscriptions on the Bronze Things. Are they Venetian?

Choodeenov Valery

To Venetian were referred 5 inscriptions on the bronze things the drawings of which we can see in the article of Andrey Rant [1, p. 189-190], although the archaeologists suggested that these things were of the bronze epoch. In connection with it comes a question about possibility of existing of Venetians in such remote in time period as the Bronze Age (3-2 thousand years BC). I suppose that it is quite possible and that in this period the language of Venetians was perfectly developed (to the stage AB or maybe A). To estimate the stage more exactly we have to read the inscriptions and see the composition of the words. It is doubtfully to reveal here the main criterion, the verb TO BE in the III-d person, such word is usual absent. But we can use if our reading would lucky the additional criterion, for example the word VRH. If we can find the word in the form VRH, it will be the A-stage, in the form VERH/VERHЪ, then it could be B-stage, in the form VEREH/VEREHЪ we can estimate the C-stage. Although these inscriptions were written by Runica we can distinguish tree types of writing in its first and second signs. The A-stage has to manifest itself in Runica signs as VИ, the second B-stage as <И, the third C-stage as <Ь.

My reading inscriptions on the copper sickle from Ljubljana

Fig. 1. My reading inscriptions on the copper sickle from Ljubljana

The inscriptions on the sickle and their readings. The inscriptions on the sickle from Ljubljana [2], are shown on the Fig 1. Left on the top we see a drawing of a sickle and in the center of it an inscription found probably from A. Rant. The signs on the sickle (No. 1) are well seen, they are known as Runica syllabographs CHE and LO, that together have the sentence CHELO, FACE SIDE OF THE SICKLE, AVERS. Such inscription was made by user to distinguish one side of a tool from another. This inscription is rather big.

On the photograph of a fragment of sickle with these signs we can see under big enlarging a lot of micro inscriptions (on the Fig. 1 they are on the top rights) and the same in the negative photograph (below left). Some inscriptions in the frames I read: No. 2, 3 and 4 SERhPh, sickle (h is “hard sign”, reduced vowel). Here we see the name of a tool. But problem is in the script: I have read it as Runica, but there remains another possibility, Cyrillic, and then we have to read SRP (with the same sense).

We can solve the problem if we compare these inscriptions with the same on the iron sickles found in Russia. I have read some of them. On the Fig. 2 we see inscriptions on the sickles from the town Slobodka [3, p. 241, fig. 90-1 and 90-2].

My reading inscriptions on the sickles of town Slobodka in Russia

Fig. 2. My reading inscriptions on the sickles of town Slobodka in Russia

On the first sickle we cam read the mixed (from Cyrillic charters and Runica signs) inscription SERP, SERP MASTERA OZJKhRA, (SICKLE, SICKLE OF MASTER OSKAR). Then once again are written the words OSJKARA, OZJKARA, SERhP and SERP, that means OSKARA and SICKLE. OSKAR is master’s name. The second sickle is practically the same as the first one. Here we can find the same words SERP MASThRA OSKhRh (SICKLE OF MASTER OSKAR). From these two examples we can see that the word SICKLE has only one reading being written as SRP: SERP. Therefore on the sickle of Ljubljana we have to read the word SERP written by Runica signs.

But if it is so the language of the tribe on the Ljubljana place in Bronze epoch belonged to B-stage and not to A-stage as Venetian. Of course before such serious statement we have to check up this conclusion and find out minimum one another word. Really we can find on that fragment of sickle several other inscriptions. And we have to note that tradition to write on the sickles begun not in the Iron epoch, but much earlier, in the Bronze epoch. In the Iron epoch on a sickle was written the name of its master. Maybe such tradition has existed during the Bronze epoch? Therefore we have to look for that.

Next inscriptions on the Ljubljana sickle (5-7) I read MASTERSKAYA MASTERA (THE MASTER’S WORKSHOP). Here we see another feature of similarity between the sickle of Ljubljana and the sickles of Slobodka. But the master’s name is absent. This fact forces us to continue our searches. In the frames 8-9 we find the missing words: HRAMA RODA (OF THE RHOD TEMPLE). The name Rhod belongs to the ancient Slavic god. Now the whole inscription in 6 words on the sickle of Ljubljana is CHELO, SERP. MASTERSKAYA MASTERA HRAMA RODA (FACE, SICKLE. MASTER’S WORKSHOP OF RHOD TEMPLE).

The problem of the Rhod temple. The beginning of 2003 year I was busy with investigation of a problem of the Slavs pagan temples. During this research work it becomes clear that 1) such temples deed exist in great number in all the Europe, 2) they have had regular structure consisting of three buildings where the inside building was Makosh (the Slavic Goddess of life and love) temple, below it, in earth, there was Mara (the Slavic Goddess of deth) temple, and outside and biggest in space building was Rhod (The Slavic God of birth, fate and astrology) temple. The Rhod temple surrounded the inner temples and was in sight before a visitor can see other buildings. Every temple have had its workshop with semi-holy status. The tasks of the Rhod workshop were rather different: to built the temples (the work with earth and stone), to do astronomical observation and calculate astrological horoscopes, to make the equipment for religious purposes. And from the inscription on the Ljubljana sickle we can know about a new task: to make equipment for agricultural purposes. The sense of this inscription is in contradiction with Marx-Engel’s theory of civilization history. According such theory there were two great public work divisions: first of all the arable-farming was separated from cattle-breeding, and then craft was separated from agriculture. But from the inscription we can see that craft was a part not of agriculture, but of temple business. Therefore in real history not labor but worship to gods came to craft and modern industry.

The surface of the main part of Ljubljana sickle and my reading of its inscriptions

Fig. 3. The surface of the main part of Ljubljana sickle and my reading of its inscriptions

But to do such conclusions we have to prove that the inscription RHOD TEMPLE was written on the sickle not by chance. Therefore we have to investigate the surface of the sickle further.

We have a possibility to see the whole sickle surface, not a fragment, as in the same article of Andrey Rant it was put in the same figure 1 left [1, p. Slika 1]. Enlarged and lighter photograph is given here on the Fig.3. We can see on it no less than three times repeated expression HRAM RODA, THE RHOD TEMPLE. Apart in the frame No.5 we can read the word RODA (OF RHOD) written more clear than before. Although there are several dozens of such inscriptions on this surface of sickle the inspected ones were enough for our purposes.

Other inscriptions. We can continue our investigation of the sickle surface; now we take the top part of the sickle representation and turn it up in color; it means that we shall go from positive to negative picture. This part of the sickle surface is shown on the fig. 4 left.

The negative main part and positive remained part of the sickle and my reding of inscriptoins

Fig.4. The negative main part and positive remained part of the sickle and my reding of inscriptoins

In the big frame we can read a word written twice; the word is MASTERSKAYA (WORKSHOP). Such word we can read on the remained part of the sickle taken in positive and shown right (frame 5). And on the previous part of the sickle we can recognize two words yet: HRAMA RODA (of rhod temple). So we could find the affirmation to the first readings.

Other bronze tools and their insciptions. There are some other inscriptions [1, p. 190, Slika 2], Fig. 5. The first was written on the bronze warrior axe found in Ljubljana in 1840 year [2, p. 246, T 13/73]. The inscription on it consists of 3 signs, which I can determine as Runica ones. I read them VERhHh that means TOP. The sense of it is TOP OF WARRIOR AXE (it was made from bronze meanwhile an absent handle has to be made from wood). As we have suggested instead of VRH here is written VERH, as in modern Russian, but not as in modern Slovenian. Therefore we have right to say that the language of the inscription is not Venetian. This language is its predecessor wich belonged not to A-stage as Venetian, but to B-stage. The last sign is very interesting; its shapeang-r1.gif is between the outlook of Runica signang-r2.gifand Glagolica signang-r3.gif. Therefore we can suggest that Glagolica was developed from Runica (ang-r2.gif>ang-r1.gif>ang-r3.gif) starting in Bronze epoch.

The inscriptions 2 and 3 on Fig.5 [2, p. 375, T142 B/1] were made on the bronze warrior axe from Lokev. The inscription 2 one have to turn out; I read here the word ZHALO (STING). We see that there is some difference from previous warrior axe; here the sharp edge is much narrower that allow to warrior not to cut down the enemy, but to breach a hole in his shield or armour. Therefore here is written the name of this type arms. We see also a projection on the right side of this ZHALO; there is a small inscription here, it is ligature. After disconnection of two signs we can read the inscription (syllabograph C is as in mirror), it sounds RUSJ (RUSSIA). It means that Central Europe in the bronze epoch was still (from the Palaeolithic Age) Russia=Europe. The invasion of non-Slavic tribes began in the Late bronze age.

In the cited book its author [1, p.189] tells us that the same semi-inscriptions namely X, were found on two others warrior axes, from Chermozhish and from Zagorje. They are the same inscriptions ZHA(LO), but the second sign LO was omitted. Therefore existence of the sign X (ZHA) is an affirmation of the reading ZHALO although it was read turned dawn.

The most interesting is the inscription on a spear top from Serbia [1, p. 190, Slika 2 c]. First sign looks out as in the mirror, there is a ligature between the 5-th and 6-th signs. Here we can read two words, SEKIRhI VISHJKh (WARRIOR AXE TOP). The signs hI are very interesting: it is from the complex hI appeared the Cyrillic character Ы.

My reading the inscriptions on the bronze warrior axes

Fig. 5. My reading the inscriptions on the bronze warrior axes

Conclusions. In Bronze epoch in the territory of modern Slovenia and Serbia there exist Slavic population wich spoke a Slavic language of B- or maybe (from the similarity to modern Russian) of C-stage. In this language there were such words as CHELO, HRAM, ROD, MASTERSKAYA, MASTER, VERH, ZHALO, RUSJ, SEKIRA, VISHKA. All these words are the same as in modern Russian and the name of the land was Russia too (as in Paleolithic time). In this language there exist Genitive case wich have the same endings as in modern Russian. We have good reasons to suggest that it is common-Slavic language very near to modern Russian and the same is true in respect to the workshop inscriptions. Therefore Venetian language started from it in III-d thousand year BC and finished as Venetian (the language of A-stage) in first century AD. Now we know the very beginning of the Venetian language and approximately the time of it and during further investigation we can discover all the intermediate steps of it.


1. Rant Andrej. Pismenstvo v Jugovzhodnih Alpah v pragzodovini // Zbornik prve mednarodne Konference “Veneti v etnogenezi Srednjeevropskega prebivalstva. Ljubljana, 2001

2. Tržan B. Depojske in pozamezne najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem. Ljubljana, Narodni muzej, 1995

3. Никольская Т.Н. Земля вятичей. К истории населения бассейна верхней и средней Оки в IX-XIII вв. М., 1981 (Nikolskaya T.N. The land of Vyatichi. To the history of population of upper and middle Oka basin in IX-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1981

This article represents the full variant. The shorten variant was published:

4. Valery A. Choodeenov. Five inscriptions on bronze tools. Are they Venetic? // Proceedings of the Third International Topical Conference ANCIENT SETTLERS OF EUROPE. Ljubljana, Založništvo jutro, 2005, pp. 131-134

Написать отзыв

Вы должны быть зарегистрированны ввойти чтобы иметь возможность комментировать.

[сайт работает на WordPress.]

WordPress: 7.2MB | MySQL:12 | 0.174sec

. ...





Май 2024
Пн Вт Ср Чт Пт Сб Вс
« Июнь    


. ..

21 запросов. 0.263 секунд