About the inscription oh a stella from Lemnos island

The well-known inscription cut on a stone stella found in the Northern Aegean Greek island of Lemnos (see

Fig. 1) is regarded as an Etruscan written record, dated VI – VII century B.C. Here I speed to make a reservation that even the most cursorily (slightest) comparison of popular, fixed as “Etruscan” texts shows that despite a number of common written signs (“letters”), in the separate inscriptions there exist still lots of other different letters. That could mean that the likeliness between those ”Etruscan” languages is as big as between the Latin and the Slavonic languages for example. Even if there was a significant concurrence of the written signs there still existed the probability quite distant languages to stay hidden behind them, being as distant as the Bulgarian and the Mongolian, which but made use of one and the same alphabet. Let alone that some common written signs could have had different phonetic content in the different alphabets, as for example the letters C, B, H and P in the Latin and in the Cyrilic alphabet. According to me till an inscription has been not finally deciphered it could not be announced with certainty in which of the languages it has been written.

My task is of course to analyze the inscription from a linguistic position and from the position of the writing of the “Speaking Alphabet of the Asi-Protho-Bulgarians” in respect of the apparent similarity with the written signs of the monument and proceeding from the fact of the wide dissemination of the primarily expressive generative language in its capacity of a state language in the vast territories of the Asi-protho-Bulgarians states in the whole world. All archaeological data show that the find belongs to the culture of a small isolated community that was in being (existed) till the Athenians have conquered the island of Lemnos in the second half of the VI century B.C. The provincial dialect becomes apparent also by the uneven, distorted (cramped) and quite not elite appearance of the stone inscription, though in the respect of style the letters have been cut quite skillfully which speaks of the availability of a considerable experience in the writing.

It is necessary some preliminary particularizations to be done about some of the written signs of the monument. The letters Тъ [TL] – do, male, father, etc., as well as Ъ [L]– this, that, but, yes – probably started most often to be used together as it in the case of ТъЪ [TLL] or ЪТъ [LTL], similar to the nowadays analogues for example - this, these, those and so on, so that is why, according to my opinion, for their combination in the inscription one letter only was used see Fig.< 2). The often used word-making letter for Бъ – big, more, old – according to me has here a little bit more esthetic appearance (see Fig. 2). Slightly changed is also the letter used for У [u]– ear, sound - (see Fig. 2). The letter used for АЙ [AI] – sky, most, supreme, six-ray star, appears circled in the text of the monument (see fig. 2). The other signs are entirely identical with the described by me letters of the “Speaking Alphabet” of the generative language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER] (see “Speaking Alphabet of the Protho-Bulgarians”, sixth complimented edition). The sign for Ю [ju] – roof, back, wing – in the text of the stella is to be found except in a standard sketched, also in a slightly changed appearance (see Fig. 2). The difference is but so insignificant that, according to me it absolutely falls in the norms for the sketch of the sign.

From the text analysis I have ascertained the fact that the direction of cut of each of the signs in relation to the direction of reading is a constant one (in the language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER] only the location of some letters in the vertical is taken into account), with the exception of the two shortest phrases, which are the sole ones located in separate lines, obviously linearly not similar to the other lines and probably additionally cut beyond the basic text, which finds confirmation in their deciphering as phrases providing additional information. One of those providing information phrases is to be found on the very top of the inscription (see Fig. 3) and it says: БъТъ Мъ БъТъ [BLL ML BLTL] – (father/big father/ have/my/ father/big father) – which could only means that the case in point is a tombstone, memorial or cult gravestone of a highly respected and probably deified mythical ancestor, forefather, “Father of the Fathers”, “Great Progenitor”, “Elder of the Elders”, GREAT FATHER. The lexeme Бъ Тъ [BL TL] - older/bigger/ father/man/ - in the course of all the centuries from hoary antiquity to nowadays is used to title the chief/elder, the older brother, the great master, the big father.

The other short indicative text according the formal language should sound БъТъ БРъМъ Ъ [BLTL BRLML L] – father Brem this is – THIS IS FATHER BREM – so we learn the name of the divine forefather Brem (see Fig. 3). Moreover the letter writing in the reverse direction then did not consist any problem – first, because the very language allowed it and second, because the scriptors then used to write equally in both directions, as we are to find out some further down, when by ending one of the lines the text goes on in the other line but in a reverse direction of writing. By so doing a text in several consecutive lines constitutes something of the kind of a folded thread. It is a way of writing that is to be found even in much later times. A fully understandable freedom of placing the letters in lines over a surface, for the lack of enough quantity of samples, rules of writing, not to speak about any grammar norms in the time before the literary period.

Next comes the text of the title of the inscription of the first central line (see Fig. 3). БРъМъ ЮБъ МъУМъЮ – [BRLML JUBL MLUMLJU] Brem roof/cover big/ mummy - or THE MUMMY OF THE SARCOFAGUS OF BREM. МъУМъЮ [MLUMLJU] describes the notion “mummy” as МъЮ [MLJU] means “there is cover”, ‘own cover”, and in combination with МъУ [MLU] – I have winding, twisting/ear/ - it results in “twisted own cover”, the shortest characteristics of the mummy. The abstract Ю Бъ [JUBL] – cover(age)/roof/ big – with the Бъ [BL] at the back, which undoubtedly envisages the sarcophagus, shows one likely predestination of the tombstone – cover of the sarcophagus of Brem. According to me but more probably here the case in point is only a cult plate with the image of the sacred mummy of the sarcophagus of the forefather Brem, solid grounds for which are the specific proportions of the male figure in the plate. The side ovals of the figure are typical for a mummy, and the features of the male face are reminiscent to a great extent of the expressionless metal mask of a mummy.

The second line of the central text goes on, of course in reverse direction, and defines more accurately the drawn composition (see Fig. 3). БъТъ БРъМъ [BLTL BRLML] - father Brem – FATHER BREM, and then it follows БъТъ Шъ БРъ Гъ ЧъМъ ЪЗъ [BLTL SHL BRL GL CHLML LZL] - father/big father/ hand/hold(have hold of)/ leaf/branch/ tree image/head/ I,me/my/ - or: THAT IS MY IMAGE OF ELDER (CHIEF) HOLDING LEAF/SPEAR? Because used together/in combination ‘leaf' and ‘tree' form indication also for a ‘spear'/. There is a reason for a thought here. So if it happens that father Brem holds a leaf in hand, which of course would be quite natural, one that the leaf corresponds to his own name Brem – БРъМъ [BRLML] – leaves, branches – a lexeme with a general application in the sense of fruitfulness and it could be connected with a cult of the fertility, and except it the depicted object of the picture is very similar to a leaf of reed; it is known that reed stylos were used till the late centuries and they could quite normally be a cult sign of enlightenment and spirituality. Such a kind of configuration could mean a full collapse of the generally accepted perception of the image as ‘warrior with a spear”, because it could happen that it is in fact a mummy of a forefather warrior with a leaf. Of course there exists a dialect opportunity from БРъ [BRL] - leaves, branches – a lexeme for spear to come out, still more that in the phrase a Гъ [GL] - tree – directing maybe at the wooden part of the spear. In the formal case of the language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER], ‘spear' is obtained from КъО [KLO] – bone, needle – and a derivative of БъЕр [BLER] of Ер [ER] – leaf, language -, i.e. КъО БъЕр [KLO BLER] - needle leaf – i.e. spear. It is also known that mummies of outstanding figures of the antiquity keep in specially shaped hands traditional symbolic objects, corresponding to their rank and merits. Thank is why I am more inclined to accept that the sacred Brem holds in hand a big leaf according to his own name and cult, than a spear.

The third line of the central part of the inscription consists of two phrases separated by the oldest orthographic sign – the colon. The first phrase could be deciphered as АЙ Тъ МъЮ Нъ УШъБъ [AI TL MLJU NL USHLBL] - time/eternity/ make mummy/own cover/ give whisper – ‘the eternity gives to the mummy whisper” or ETERNALLY WHISPERS/REMINDS/ THE MUMMY. Here the used lexeme МъЮ [MLJU] – own cover – take part also in the lexeme for mummy, that is why also further on I shall use the word “mummy” in the sense of “own cover”.. У ШъБъ [U SHLBL] – ear whisper – today also sounds similar - whisper, I whisper, and also has a meaning of “reminds” An essential moment in this phrase consists the appearance of syntactic schemes in the face of the still not born definite article of Тъ [TL] – do, make – and the action- predicate in the case Нъ [NL] – “gives”. Apparently in the inceptive historical period of the grammar Тъ [TL] – “do, make” is the bearer of the operative characteristic of the subject. Figuratively said the subject is perceived as “the father of the action”. And the predicate defines the direct object. АЙ Тъ МъЮ Нъ УШъБъ [AI TL MLJU NL USHLBL] – the eternity/subject/ mummy/indirect object/ gives/predicate/ whisper/direct object/ - THE ETERNITY GIVES THE MUMMY WHISPER . However the possible similar semantic variations, as for example ETERNALLY GIVES THE MUMMY WHISPER or ETERNALLY WHISPERS/REMINDS/ THE MUMMY, which are equipollent from linguistic view point ЪЗъЕр [LZLER], reveal the different possible directions which take the future syntactic ways of the generations. Some choose the back positioned definite article, others – the preceding one, some make the choice of the analytic approach, others the synthetic one, but always retaining the inexpugnability of the meaning Because most important in generating the words and the phrases in the generative language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER] are the semantic, the meaning, the notion, setting the pattern for a system of speech codification through words-indicators to notions built by atomar sound (acoustic) signs that designate features of generative objects.

The sentence continues with a following predicate and accordingly a direct object preceded by attributes - Нъ АЙ ЗъТъ БРъШъ [NL AI ZLTL BRLSHL] – “give eternal fire brushwood” – GIVES ETERNAL FIRE (FUNERAL) PILE/PYRE or ETERNALLY BURNS THE (FUNERAL) PILE/PYRE. Here ЗъТъ [ZLTL] –‘make fire” – i.e. “burn, fiery' and БРъ Шъ [BRL SHL] - branches hand/bundle/ - from there comes the word of today “brushwood”, quite logically describe a burning (funeral) pile/pyre.. Deciphered in that way, the third line reads: ETERNALLY WHISPERS/REMINDS/ THE MUMMY, ETERNALLY BURNS THE (FUNERAL) PILE/PYRE. Till here Brem appears as a devout propagandist of the ritual ‘turning into a mummy” and its advantages before the concurrent rites cremation and burying. Keeping in mind the especially important place of the funeral ritual in the consciousness of the ancient people we may come to the conclusion that Brem has performed functions of spiritual leader, standing up for certain cult-ceremonial rituals. As confirmation come the found in the island of lemons other text fragments on pieces of earthen vessels, containing in most of them the same phrases as those of the monument taken into consideration. Still it is absolutely possible the cult to Brem to have gone beyond the Lemnos island boundaries and even to have been imported to there from other countries.

In the first vertical line near to the leaf-spear of Brem two phrases are cut which, according to the written tradition of the language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER] are read upside down (see Fig. 3). By the first phrase it is observed a similar to the above scrutinized syntactic scheme - Чъ Тъ МъЮ ТъУ Нъ Ю [CHL TL MLJU TLU NL JU] – ‘man makes mummy soul give protection/cover” - or THE HUMAN MUMMY GIVES PROTECTION TO SOUL, or, said in still more contemporary way, THE MUMMY GIVES COVER(SHELTER) TO THE HUMAN SOUL. As also in many other cases Чъ [CHL] – “nose, one, head”, - of course, meaning also “man”, and ТъУ [TLU] – blow, wind – except all its other meanings has also application in the meaning of ‘spirit, soul”. The first phrase continues with the already familiar text of the first fragment of the third central letter line of the plate (the stella) - Тъ МъЮ Нъ УШъБъ [TL MLJU NL USHLBL] – ‘make mummy/own cover/ give whisper – THE MUMMY REMINDS. And for the whole first phrase it turns out – THE MUMMY GIVES COVER TO THE HUMAN SOUL AND THE MUMMY REMINDS.

The second phrase of the line sounds (see Fig. 3) - ЧъМъ ЪЗъ МъЧъ МъЮ МъБРъ [CHLML LZL MLCHL MLJU MLBRL] – ‘image/head/ I(me) face/own face/ mummy/own cover/ leaf/own leaf/ - DEPICTED AM I, MY FACE, MY MUMMY, MY LEAF/SPEAR?/. The whole text of the line taken on the appearance of as follows – THE MUMMY GIVES COVER TO SPIRIT (SOUL) AND THE MUMMY REMINDS. DEPICTED AM I, MY FACE, MY MUMMY, MY LEAF/MY SPEAR ?/.

The second vertical text line in the lest side also reads upside down and it consists of two phrases (see Fig. 3). I shall examine them together - ТРъТъ БъУМъ БРъМъ Тъ УШъКРъМъ [TRLTL BLUML BRLML TL USHLKRLML] – return(give back) memory Lrem make sorrow – THE MEMORY OF BRAIM RETURNS/СПОМЕНЪТ ЗА БРЕМ ВРЪЩА/INSPIRES/ SADNESS(GLOOM). The lexeme ТРъ Тъ [TRL TL] – “revolve/turn, make” – could easily mean also “return”. Бъ УМъ [BL UML] – older mind – even to nowadays in Bulgarian is “remember, memory”. Also till nowadays we use У Шъ КРъ Мъ [U SHL KRL ML] – cry, shout hand wring. snap/curve, twist/ own – “cry and wring hands” logically leads to the notion of sorrow.

The last cut vertical text line on the right side of the stone plate is also read upside down and it consists of two phrases (see Fig. 3), the first one of which reads - АЙ ТРъЙО МъЮ P [AI TRLYO MLJU P] – “eternally flow,run/ last/ mummy – ETERNALLY LASTS THE MUMMY. The only special feature in the phrase is the word ТРъ ЙО [TRL YO] – “roll/flow, run/ water – building the image of durability fully according the ancient sentence “All flows......”. The last text of the inscription really sounds as a final phrase - БъШъ Тъ МъЧъ Нъ Е [BSHL TL MLCHL NL E]- write make face/own face/ give voice – THE WRITTEN GIVES VOICE TO MY FACE or, still better said – THE WRITTEN IS THE VOICE OF MY IMAGE (FACE). Without doubt here БъШъ [BLSHL] – brush, tail - means “write” and once more makes me accept Brem with his true reed pen in his capacity of a reputable spiritual leader for the hoary antiquity. The word Е – throat, voice – ends the phrase. For one more time the wide use of the primarily language of the syntactic construction Тъ [TL] – “make, do” - ...... Нъ [NL] – (I) give – which, by the way is still today in the basis of the analytics of the Bulgarian language, gets confirmed.

So, through the application of the generative language of the “Speaking Alphabet of the Asi-Protho-Bulgarians” for a final contemporary deciphering of the whole inscription of on the stone stella of Lemnos island The following result is achieved:

THE GREAT FATHER

FATHER OF BREM

THE MUMMY OF THE BREM SARCOFDAGUE

FATHER BREM, THAT IS MY IMAGE(APPEARANCE) OF A CHIEF(ELDER) HOLDING A LEAF/SPEAR?/

ALWAYS REMINDS THE MUMMY, ALWAYS BURNS THE FIRE (THE FUNERAL PILE).

THE MUMMY GIVES COVER OF THE HUMAN SOUL AND THE MUMMY REMINDS.

I AM DEPICTED, MY FACE, MY MUMMY, MY LEAF/SPEAR?/ .

THE MEMORY OF BREAM BRINGS SORROW (INSPIRES GLOOM).

ALWAYS EXISTS THE MUMMY. THE WRITTEN IS THE VOICE OF MY FACE .

Have the people is some way kept the memory of Brem through the centuries? It is fully possible that the legendary progenitor in the stella, preaching of eternally burning stake of faith, has given birth to the image of the mythical hero Prometeus, chained on the rock after the order of the Almightly Zeus because of his humanity, because he dared to give the people the divine fire, opened to them the light of the truth, of the knowledge, of the enlightenment. According to the ancient mythology it was explicitly Prometheus who taught people how to use the healing effect of the herbs. In the historical memory it is kept also the name of Brem, the brother of the mythical ancestor (founder) of the Bulgarians Bolg.. The supreme Hinduist God, the Prime Builder of the Universe and the humanity is named Brahma.

I would like to note here an impressing, according to me, peculiarity of that ancient monument – the entire synchron between text and picture. The image participates strongly connected with the text in building of the meaningful picture, where there is nothing strange. The amazing fact is the full synchronize between text and music. It is amazing that the image exerts influence over the word-generating process; it creates the semantic background, which allows for example instead of the whole writing of the word “mummy” - МъУМъЮ, [MLUMLJU] in the majority of cases to be written abbreviated “own cover” – МъЮ [MLYU], by which an optimization of the text is achieved and also saving of written resources. In the human speech there always exists a pursuit of abbreviated articulation of words, used in a clear meaningful context, simply because it saves time for pronunciation. For the same reason the drawing appears a kind of a key to the text driven information during that early historical stage of the development of the sound-sign writing and, maybe partially is a substitute of the kinemata/the gestures/ accompanying the live talks. Howsoever, the case in point is an il-literary primarily expressive language.

The time will to show how much reliable is the deciphering of the Lemnos “Etruscan” inscription done by using the generative language ЪЗъЕр [LZLER]. For me this deciphering demonstrates once more the absolutely real possibilities of implementing non-traditional informational models in finding solution of some of the most complex problems of the Antiquity.

IVANOV, Borislav Ivanov

January 11^th, 2004, the city of Bourgas