Peter Revesz: Minoan-Indus Valley trade relations
Foreword
In Crete Island Ugric language there’s no such meaning as minoa. The only suitable candidates are ме нас (me nas) and ми нас (mi nas). As accustom to the Ugric world view and governance there are elected elder and elected elders’ council.
Ме нас (me nas) stand for my way (governing) and ми нас (mi nas) stands for our way (governing). The Crete Island Ugric culture represents the same principle as the Čumiruans with their ču mi ru which represents the same functional oath taking meaning where the person swears by saying the native faith oath.
Because functional expressions do not suit for names and they are not nouns, we will in the article call the widely spread among the English-speaking world Minoan Culture as Crete Island Ugric culture. Thus, we are correcting the 19th century British aristocracy misconception with their desire to find the king Minos, from which the Minoan Culture name stems from, and giving them for time being a proper designator in order to clearly indicate who they were and not to use the non-existent meaning.
When someone says Minoans then the person should be asked what is meant by that term – ме нас (me nas) or ми нас (mi nas).
Due Professor Peter Revesz from Nebraska University used during his presentation and the series the name Minoan and Minoans, we are retaining the meaning in the heading, as this was his chosen title and we clarify our choice of preference in the article by this foreword.
As accustom to the Ugric peoples we don’t have kings, only elected elders and elders’ council. Thus, any reference to kings, princes, princesses, rulers or any other Christianity and kingdom related governing titles have to be automatically translated in the head as elder, as elected elder, and elder’s council elders.
The concept stems from the meaning ur, or squirrel, which runs at least into the last Ice Age.
The lecture
On August 26, 2022 Peter Revesz gave a presentation at the 26th International Database Engineered Applications Symposium (IDEAS) in Budapest, Hungar, his native homeland.
“Presentation by: Peter Z. Revesz 26th International Database Engineered Applications Symposium (IDEAS) Budapest, Hungary, August 2022 Introduction by: Michalis Georgoulakis P. Z. Revesz, Data science applied to discover ancient Minoan-Indus Valley trade routes implied by common weight measures, Proc. 26th IDEAS, ACM Press, 150-155, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3548785.3548804”
During the presentation were listed names of the possible trade cities [11] given in reference to the possible trade route and relations to Indus Valley. In addition, to pollster the argument such trade relation took place, beside the published data analysis work on standardised weights, the trading relation destinations to the North from the Crete Island Ugric culture were listed like Marmaros, in Hungarian language, and Maramures, in Rumenian language.
The Crete Ugric substrate
The discovery of method accessing the Crete Island Ugric substrate opened door for details of the period and explanation of certain Ugric cultural heritage tradition that can be not just explained but understood and measure how far back in time they go. Having this tool at disposal it is the only next logical conclusion to probe the toponyms Crete Island Ugric civilization had trade relation with. Probing toponyms will reveal hidden features we weren’t even aware of existing.
The river Mureș, Marmaros, and marble.
During the presentation Peter Revesz revealed he wanted to have additional support to the trade relation theory and stumbled upon an 1880 Hungarian paper [1, @ 9:45] in regard the weights used by traders in region called Mármaros in Hungarian or Maramures in Romanian on the territory of the contemporary Romania. The specifics weights were omitted from the original paper but the weight of 12,6 grams has only connection to Minoan civilization, namely to Crete city Knossos.
The toponymy Marmaros has very peculiar features – first it has repeating root mar, additionally it is having a specific ending os. Probing in the appropriate substrate method requires each languages have their own respective sound change rules applied to the text to make the meaning as close to the original as possible before probing in the substrate as we will use both Crete Island Ugric and Čumiruan substrate to show that they are in the respective substrate only. As there’s little to none possible changes between the Hungarian root mar and Crete Island Ugric substrate we will take mar as-is.
Mar has no meaning in the Crete Island Ugric substrate having the closest match as мыр (mõr) standing for (EE) känd, (HU) fatönk, (ENG) stump. Мыр мыр as an agglutinated compound word stands for тырмы (tõrmõr) or (EE) mitte jätkuma, puudu, (HU) sem elég, hiányzik, (ENG) run short / come short / fall short / at deficit.
When the ending os is probed in the Crete Island Ugric substrate it comes out as the meaning ас (as) or (EE) ajaline, (HU) időbeli, (ENG) timely. In Crete Island Ugric there’s also ending оз (oz) that negates the meaning. As, with different languages, the s and z sounds might not differ phonetically and be presented as one letter, they have different distinctions which is the case here. Also, the оз (oz) ending creates the only compound word that has meaning within the toponymy context – reflecting trading relation. Agglutinating further тырмы (tõrmõ) and оз (oz) we get тырмыны (tõrmõnõ) standing for (EE) piisama, jätkuma, jaguma, (HU) kitart, osztódik, (ENG) suffice, be in supply, be enough.
The meaning тырмыны (tõrmõnõ) is indication to trade relation with the region but the context needs clarification. The analysis of Marmaros reveals another important hidden trait on the plain sight, that not just confirms the validity of the Hungarian 1880 paper, but also shows a direct connection between Marmaros region toponymy.
It cannot be overlooked the fact of similarity between Greek word μαρμάρος [marmáros], standing for marble, and Romanian region name Marmaros. The Greek pronunciation of marble is exactly the same up to every stress on the syllables like in Estonian. This clearly indicates the Ancient Greek took over the Crete Island Ugric toponymy of the region and associated it with the high-quality precious stone that became for the future European known as marble. Romania is known for high quality marble up to this day and those quarries are from quite the distance from the Marmaros region which clearly shows the goods were brought to the market where the buyers came for that. The Crete Island Ugric тырмыны (tõrmõnõ) pinpoint the desired good of trade to be suffice, in supply, be enough that eventually ended as a noun.
The claim Crete Island Ugric Marmaros has been transferred into Estonian and Ancient-Greek is basing on other finds from Crete Island Ugric Linear-A findings where on the Phaistos disc in the section A1 first two glyphs of head and a constellation of settlements as a compound word is юркар (jurkar) which stands for (EE) pealinn, (HU) fő város. There’s no appropriate meaning in English beside capital but it undermines and obscures the true meaning of the glyphs and the relation between Crete Island Ugric, Linear-A and the legacy it has left into Ancient-Greek substrate and has been directly inherited to Estonian by the very Crete Island Ugric peoples. Юркар (jurkar) in direct translation has to be headcity.
Marmaros, Marmoris and birth of Estonian seesütlev kääne (inessive case).
Meaning Marmaros in Estonian would be at the first glance marmarus, which has no meaning or purpose due to peculiar grammatical form and missing etymology. The most logical alternative is marmoris. Marmoris, per Estonian grammar rules, mean (being) in marble as the -is suffix is indicative of seesütlev kääne or inessive case pointing a person being in something that is called Marmor or Marble. At first this construction might seem odd but when looked deeper into the wider meaning marmoris, as in the region called Marmaros, it starts to make sense, shows we have discovered the possible root of inessive case, the grammatical case was born before the emergence of Ancient Greeks and this wouldn’t be possible to pinpoint in Estonian before as it’s not easily recognizable. This is first time it could be researched in terms of how languages evolve, how cases in Estonian emerged and date at which point it might have occurred compared to the when the Marmaros substrate was born.
Estonia is not known for its marble artefacts nor have we discovered any shards of marble which also contributes to this discovery as why we have clear reference to the Crete Island Uric toponymy and no visible traces of being there trading or marble artefacts in Estonia is now one of the questions.
We can clearly see marble have got its name from the Ancient-Greeks who named the precious rock by the trading toponymy that the Crete Island Ugric people have gave to the region.
Maros and Marmaros as toponyms of two different substrates.
In Romania there’s also river Mureș or Maros in Hungarian. At the first glance seems the names Maros and Marmaros are related and the initial success with probing Marmaros in Greek Ugric substrate give a lot of hope. In reality the example of river Maros and region Marmaros is a good example how things are deceptive and the need to probe in proper substrate is crucial, also revealing the old past of the topo- or hydronym that was at the plain sight but hidden.
Attempts to get meaningful result from Maros by probing in the Crete Island Ugric substrate fail as there’s no match, no match that satisfies the root words or any result that has any significant meaning as a toponymy. It turns out the hydronym Maros, or Mures in Romanian, cannot be resolved in the Crete Island Ugric substrate unlike the regional name Marmaros. The name Maros can only be resolved in Čumiruan substrate where it stands for (read from left to right) 𒌼𒈨𒁕 мураш (muraš) – (EE) kõlama hakkama, laulma (inimeste, lindude kohta); (HU) fel csendül, dalol;(ENG) to start to sound, singing.
By a comparative analysis we showed that hydronym Maros can be resolved only via Čumiruan substrate and Marmaros only via Crete Island Ugric substrate. The result indicates the hyrotoponymy has been created by the Čumiruans but the local regional toponyms were made by Crete Island Ugric culture. An analogous situation can be seen in the Koola peninsula case where the name Koola is clearly a Čumiruan toponymy and local place names, like Murmansk, are established by the Crete Island Ugric peoples.
This pattern raises interesting question how topo- and hydronyms get being born, remain in the history and under which conditions one or another toponym have changed in the past.
The Indus Valley meaning in the Crete Island Ugric substrate is derived from the activities in regard trade relation with the Indus Valley residents by marking, routing, setting instructions for reaching various destinations the better way. First match индіс (indis) indicates the trade route has been significant for a very long time as the name in the Crete Island Ugric substrate clearly showing pawing out the route for future trade convoys to the multiple destinations. The activities and tasks involved with индіс (indis) were so fundamental and structured it has led to another meaning индӧс (indös) that has ended up via Ancient-Greek in modern Germanic languages indicating very crucial classification of various destinations to whom / to where the goods have to be delivered.
The meaning индӧс (indös) was taken from the Komi language who are the direct descendants of the Crete Island Ugric peoples, thus clearly indicating the meaning is from the Crete Island Ugric substrate, and into the modern Germanic languages it has been brought via the Ancient-Greeks preserving the initial concept of the meaning.
The fact Indus Valley name can be explained and shown to be a Crete Island Ugric substrate does not mean they were the pioneers of Indus Valley trade relations. Languages tend to solidify the most recent influences on them by taking over the specific term and rendering into a new meaning in the new substrate because the knowledge of etymology has been lost but the vague concept of that has been remembered.
Indus as a Čumiruan substrate meaning
Despite the fact Indus Valley toponym can be probed with success in Crete Island Ugric substrate the same can be done in Čumiruan substrate. It has to be noted the Indus Valle toponymy in Čumiruan substrate can be classified as very difficult. The toponymy requires vast knowledge of the period mindset and understanding the meaning of derived compound words. On top of that there’s no attested glyphs for the root words beside 𒄷 ту (tu).
The difficulty and success in correctly deriving the meaning of compound word of indus as ийын ту уш (ijõn tu uš ) lies in identifying the glyphs or compound glyphs for root words ийын (ijõn) and уш (uš) where the emphasis will be on the ийын (ijõn) as it has fundamentally different meanings in different context.
Ийын (ijõn) stands for (EE) ujudes, (HU) elúszik, (ENG) by swimming where meaning has to be understood as travelling by waterways. In Estonia the ships swim, and the means of transportation ride and that’s a fundamental basis in Estonian where in English denoting travelling is by putting the preposition by. The other meaning of ийын (ijõn) stands for (EE) aastal, (HU) évben, (ENG) in year that as the root for the agglutinated word with 𒄷 ту (tu) and later with уш (uš ) gives a better meaning that can be related to trade relation.
Despite all this uncertainty it can be asserted toponymy Indus is Čumiruan toponymy that has been taken over by Crete Island Ugric civilization adding the meaning into their substrate with another etymology.
In proper Čumiruan Indus name is <x>𒄷<x> where <x> represents yet unidentified cuneiform glyphs.
Kultepe, Nippur, Ur, Ebla and other toponyms
During the presentation Peter Revesz listed also these sites [2, @ 5:45] which are known as to have had trade relation with Indus Valley. Going deeper with some of those locations we are deriving the following discoveries.
Kultepe, Nippur, Ur, Ebla, and Cape Gelidonya are Čumiruan substrate toponyms. Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Chanhu-Daro are Crete Island Ugric toponyms. Note the latter were specifically noted by Peter Revesz that the weights at those sites do not have corresponding matches at Fertile Crescent sites.
𒌨 ур (ur) or Ur stands for squirrel or elected elder. The whole 𒌨 ур (ur) or squirrel as an elected elder concept runs so deep among all Ugric peoples that this concept has been around with us since the last Ice Age. Ur 𒌨 (ур) as a city and 𒌨 ур (ur) as a concept of an elected Ugric elder are different concepts and those concepts are clearly separated in written cuneiform texts. Thus, that has to be kept in mind when an Čumiruan cuneiform glyph 𒌨 ур (ur) is seen on the clay slates.
Nippur or 𒉌<x>𒁔 ний ӱп пур (nij üp pur), where <x> represents yet unidentified cuneiform glyphs, is its proper name. At the current development of Sumerian studies, the oriental scholars are referencing to Nippur as 𒂗𒆤𒆠, which stands for йолагай (jolagaj) or (EE) elumees, (HU) kéjenc, (ENG) playboy as an agglutinated word consisting of root words (read from right-to-left) еҥ йоча чий (eŋ joča čij) or person newborn flawless. This is the case with all the city names and the referenced cuneiform text which does not correspond the slightest with the name. Thus, those names and cuneiform sentences will be shown how they should appear in actual cuneiform writing. Whether or not they are present in the real written text, and does the mentioned city name corresponds to reality, has to be determined later when the original texts are correctly translated.
The root words in the name Nippur as 𒉌<x>𒁔 ний ӱп пур (nij üp pur) stand for (read from right-to-left) (EE) niin juukse hammustav, (HU) háncs haj harapós (ENG) bast hair bait where the 𒉌 ний (nij) clearly refers to their hemp growing tradition and making bast for producing clothes and other necessary household items.
As an important sidenote it has to be stated due to the current approach of scholars who deal with Crete Island Ugric, Čumiruan, and also Egyptian hieroglyphs, in their efforts to digitalize the old texts, bend everything under their understanding how things must be, disregarding the actual way how the ancient text has been written. The beginning of Čumiruan texts on clay slates have to be established by each slate separately. There are rules where the writing begins and what is the reading direction but it differs between the city states. For instance, Ur-Ru, which has never been called Ur-Ruk, slates have to be read from right-to-left and from bottom-to-up, sometime from up-to-bottom but first the slate has to be turned into the right reading direction. All the Čumiruan glyphs inside a space have to be read up-to-down and right-to-left beginning from the upper right corner. All the Čumiruan clay slates have to have the longer side horizontal. Also, when more than one line is present, the beginning of the text has to be determined. That beginning is usually fixed per grammar rules of city state it represents. Thus, that will be the task of the reader to correct the slate into the right reading order.
Because all the clay slates have been treated by one approach in regard their orientation prior digitalization the layout of the text direction of the original text has not been preserved.
Also, the current efforts of digitalization of the content does not honour necessity to preserve the spacing inside a space and separated words have been destroyed by removal of the spaces between the compound words and in result all the separated compound words glyphs are put into one long line with no clear indication which words should be agglutinated prior. On top of that all the digitalized Čumiruan texts begin from the most upper right corner making the all the text begin with the last word of the line of the original text. To make the matter worse all so far published corpus texts and papers on Čumiruans are fundamentally flawed, incorrect, unusable and can’t be regarded as source material due to their sever misinterpretation of the original texts.
All Crete Island Ugric Linear-A texts have to be read in the direction the text have been written as Peter Revesz has shown previously [3, @ 24:48] on the Phaistos disc example.
Because the current effort digitalize written texts in Egyptian hieroglyphs is also bent under the Greco-Roman signs system [4] as the only possible understandable representation of language of scholars leading the effort, the current problems with Čumiruan and Crete Island Ugric texts will skyrocket as the Egyptian hieroglyphs are carbon copy of Čmiruan writing system, including glyphs as a word-based approach, all the future computer readable texts will be untranslatable by anyone but native speakers and people who understand the grammar rules.
For instance, Egyptian hieroglyph 
is Čumiruan 𒇲<𒇲𒆸> куралаш (EE) kündma, (HU) szánt, (ENG) plough, 
is 𒇺𒆸 нылияш (EE) neljane (HU) négy éves (ENG) four-year-old, or is 𒈝<𒇕𒇲> лумаҥше (EE) lumine, lumega kaetud, (HU) havas, (ENG) snowy, covered with snow. The Egyptian hieroglyph glyphs were taken from a bigger wall carving shown below.
Considering all this, where possible, the necessary Čumiruan cuneiform texts will be represented as they should have been written.
The correct way of Čumiruan meanings 𒉌<x>𒁔 ний ӱп пур (nij üp pur) and 𒂗𒆤𒆠 йолагай (jolagaj) are shown on the left.
The shown Egyptian glyphs in correct Čumiruan 𒇲<𒇲𒆸>, 𒈝<𒇲𒇕>, and 𒇺𒆸 are also show on the left below.
(Read inside the space right-to-left and up-to- down)
Kultepe, in proper Čumiruan is кул теве (kul teve) standing for slave trade (market), where tepe or теве (teve) is oldest known designation for seasonal trading place. Closest seasonal market location is worldwide known Göbekli tepe where a massive neolithic sacrificial construction was discovered recently. Up until this moment the purpose of the Göbekli tepe native faith construction remained unknown until Kultepe name has been identified via the Čumiruan substrate as their toponymy, also clearly showing Göbekli tepe had the same designation as a seasonal trading destination.
At the moment the proper glyphs for кул (kul) and теве (teve) have not been located, thus no proposed written name in cuneiform glyphs. The importance of determining root word tepe as теве (teve) will be elaborated below.
The city state Ebla can’t be and never has been called by such name. The site came to the wider prominence when in 1973-75 Italian archaeologist Paolo Matthiae discovered 1800 complete clay slates, 4700 fragments, and many thousand chips [5]. The name for the ancient site was derived after that and the possible language the residents of the ancient city state spoke was called Elbaite, despite the fact the locals call the site by its true name Tell Mardikh.
There is no word in Čumiruan as ebla and the only closest match to the name by sound and by syllables could only be эрла (erla) standing for (EE) homme, (HU) hol napi, (ENG) tomorrow.
The word ebla have been derived from derived from “Nanna-Suen’s journey to Nibru” where on lines 49 sounds eb-la-ka -⸢še₃⸣ and on line 69 sounds eb-la-ta have been transliterated into the corpus texts [7].
The only possible cuneiform word for falsely derived eb-la-ka on line 49 is 𒌨𒐕– 𒀠𒇲–𒆠 эрласе (erlase) (EE) homne, (HU) holnapi, (ENG) tomorrow’s where the ending must only be 𒆠 чий (čij) as there has never been a KI-sound and 𒀭кӱ (kü) is grammatically incorrect. Thus, this renders the line 49 sounds eb-la-ka into an incorrect one.
The line 69 sounds eb-la-ta clearly indicated the ending has to be a compound word rendering the whole word in proper cuneiform as 𒌨𒐕– 𒀠𒇲– 𒌓𒄷 эрлалан (erlalan) (EE) homseks, (HU) műsort, (ENG) for tomorrow.
On top of that the transliterated sentence on line 49 contains the ending -⸢še₃⸣ that stands for Čumiruan meaning 𒊺 ше (še) or (EE) kurat, (HU) kísértő, (ENG) devil. By this we clearly can show the name ebla was mistakenly derived from a sentence that actually has always being 𒌨𒐕– 𒀠𒇲–𒆠 / 𒊺 эрласе ше (erlase še) (EE) homne kurat, (HU) holnapi kísértő, (ENG) tomorrow’s devil.
The proposed named for Elba in cuneiform 𒌈𒆷 [6] stands for том эмен (tom emen) that, as an agglutinated word, stands for эстон (eston) or (EE) eesti, (HU) észt, (ENG) Estonian or oldest written record of mentioning Estonia as an adjective. As an ethnic identification the word 𒌈𒆷𒂗 – эстон еҥ stand for (EE) eestlane, (HU) észt, (ENG) Estonian.
The source of cuneiform 𒌈𒆷 has not yet been identified but there has not been a single incorrect or forged cuneiform writing spotted securing the confidence the compound word is valid.
The reference to Estonians is also confirmed by the Tell Mardikh name where Tell stands for tepe or теве (teve) which indicates seasonal trading. In Estonian is an old tradition to run Marti or Mardisanti in November where boys are going around the households and by performing their songs earning sweets and produce, they later will share among themselves. Tell Maradikh is first and oldest reference to that ethnic tradition with corresponding seasonal November market or Mardi market known as Marditurg.
Oldest known reference to Mardisandid or Marti in cuneiform is 𒀭𒄿𒋾–𒀭𒂗𒍪 марты пынегым (martõn põnegõm) or (EE) mardipojad, mardikutsikad where pojad/kutsikad is reference to cubs. This also confirms, first time, why in Estonian puppies are called pojad, or boys, regardless of their actual sex.
The name ebla has to be phased out at all cost. The place has to be called by its original name Tell Mardikh or if necessary to reference to Estonians, then Mardi turg or Mardi market or Mardi tere would be suffice. The original toponymy Tell Mardikh is preferred name. Continuation of use of the noun ebla will lead to more severe issues that disregard the actual findings of the site, misinterpretation of the findings, and continuing overlooking the emerging facts the current theories and conclusions do not match with the archaeological evidence and the written text on the clay slates.
By whom Tell Mardikh was founded and how the toponymy came to be is a matter further research because the current provided evidence and corpus text can’t provide the answer.
As ebla is an artificial structure and not suitable to be used as identification this also clearly concludes there is no such language as Eblite and thus, that concept must be phased out together with Ebla name.
Tepe or теве (teve) as proto tere
In Estonian the greeting word for a person is tere. Only after discovering the 2nd root word in toponymy Kultepe is the same as in Göbekli tepe where tepe is Turkic modification for Čumiruan теве (teve). When teve is pronounced in the way it’s written in Čumiruan Estonians regard it to be a severe logopaedic deficiency that has to be tackled as it shows the person has sever inability to pronounce the r-sound. This detail led to the discovery the Estonian tere is evolved meaning of теве (teve) fully retaining its etymology.
It has to be noted Göbekli tepe came to the wider knowledge after a Turkish farmer by accident discovered the Mesolithic cult shrine with carved into stone figures and animals. Now, when we have developed tool to have access to the Čumiruan and Crete Island Ugric substrates, we can show Göbekli tepe toponymy to be clearly Čumiruan substrate predating the language by at least 7000 years which indicates clearly the written clay slates are not first written records of humanity which is clearly felt when the written texts are read as they are linguistically too mature and rich to be just be born recently.
The dispute over where and when human languages was born, but especially the development and evolution of Ugric languages, has now got a new method to probe this in more credible way to the point these can be probed back into the last Ice Age and most probably the Ice Age prior that.
The relation between tepe-теве (teve)-tere is fundamental and has reset the whole scientific study in linguistic where the hard questions can now be probed and tested on real old written text and meanings.
The non-Turkic derivates of tepe-теве (teve)-tere are tell, tel, teke root words in the toponyms, which is why Tell Mardikh is the only correct toponymy to be used.
Chanhu-Daro, Mohenjo Daro, Mohenjo Daro and other toponyms
Toponymy Harappa in Crete Island Ugric substrate is better revealed when looked at the original Punjabi pronunciation [ɦəɽəppaː] [8] where can be clearly distinct the name derives from three root words кар эм пу (kar em pu). It should be emphasized the double-p consonant transition in English name clearly shows the ending pa and the ap are two different root words of the name. Also, it’s common Crete Island Ugric k-sound transitions into ch or h sounds.
Proper name of Harappa кар эм пу (kar em pu) stands for (read right-to-left) (EE) asula säilinud puudest; (HU) telep marad fáktól; (ENG) settlement remained (from) timber that indicate to the possibility the city faced a major fire accident that wiped out most of the settlement but it was rebuild. That detail is revealed with the root word эм (em) that specifically refers to grammar structure to refer to something that has remained after some event. The root word эм (em) stands for (EE) säilinud; (HU) marad; (ENG) remained.
The Crete Island Ugric meaning кар (kar) will become the meaning for city and ends up in Estonian as the meaning linn; (HU) város.
Toponyms Chanhu-Daro and Mohenjo Daro both jointly share the same root word in their names, daro, which is an explicitly only applicable to the Crete Island Ugric civilisation due to its importance in Ugric world creation mythology and its role in the future world’s perception of demons. Daro in proper Crete Island Ugric is тар (tar) standing for (EE) teder; (HU) nyírfajd; (ENG) grouse. This detail is crucial as du to linguistic misinterpretation or other reasons the Ancient-Greeks will take the concept and turn into minotaur meaning despite the fact the Crete Island Ugric people even at that time called it ми ай тар (mi aj tar) or (EE) me isa(s) teder; (HU) mi hím nyírfajd (ENG) our male grouse. Ми ай тар (mi aj tar) explicitly means black grouse which is always rooster.
Chanhu-Daro in Crete Island Ugric is тан гу тар (tan gu tar) which stands for (EE) siinse koopa teder, (HU) itteni barlang nyírfajd, (ENG) of that cave grouse. It has to be noted the beginning of toponymy in Crete Island Ugric has to be тан (tan) rather than кан (kan) were the latter stands for (EE) riiklik; (HU) áll; (ENG) state, governmental, imperial and does not fit into the contextual meaning of the toponymy despite the English part of Chanhu begins with the ch-sound. That necessity of having т-sound at the beginning of toponymy has to be preserved in local variation of the toponymy. Note the гу тар (gu tar) part of the toponymy will play the crucial role in inception of Minotaur by the future Ancient-Greeks who associate Minotaur to be in underground cave despite the fact the it’s always have been rooster grouse associated with cave.
Mohenjo Daro in Crete Island Ugric is мог ен зон тар (mog en zon tar) standing for (EE) asja pärast (tulev / saabuv) isas teder (HU) ügy miatt hím nyírfajd (ENG) for business (coming/arriving) male (rooster) grouse. It has to be emphasized Mohenjo Daro contains structure зон тар when in the Crete Island Ugric there’s the other, most widely used form of male grouse ай тар (ak tar). This difference is crucial and has to be researched later as this is one of main reasons Mohenjo Daro has got its toponymy.
Mohenjo-daro phonetic form moʊˌhɛndʒoʊ ˈdɑːroʊ [10] reveal another important detail where the transitions between words мог ен (mog en) is having stress on the second root word beginning transitioning the end of the prior word at the beginning and making the г-sound (g-sound) to be pronounced as the h-sound. This feature is the most important phonetic feature of Ukrainian language differentiation and that phonetic trait is the common denominator of the ethnic groups to indicate which of them has had been under Ukraine language influence or are descending from it.
Biggest surprise with Mohenjo-daro toponymy is the deeply Ugric dry down to earth approach of мог ен (mog en) or for business (arriving) where among Ugric peoples is very common approach to wonder from just arrived people to did, they arrive for (serious) business. This revelation is quite impactful and most probably most high priority in research on the trade relations between Crete Island Ugric and Indus Valley Mohenjo Daro trade relations.
It has to be noted that the region in Pakistani where the city Harappa was located the spoken language is Urdu language [8]. Urdu is Čumiruan substrate meaning 𒌨𒄷 ур ту (ur tu) standing for as an agglutinated word тул (tul) (EE) tuli, valguslaik; (HU) tűz, fény petty; (ENG) light, light smudge. The exact etymology of the Urdu language as Čumiruan тул (tul) remains subject of further research. What is clear the Indus Valle was known to Mesopotamia region long before Crete Island Ugric peoples arrived to make trade but they established their own trade places and -partners.
The Indus Valley glyphs as Čumiruan grammar.
In 2011 Dr. Rajesh Rao on his TED talk [9] provided a screenshot of Indus Valley slate with glyphs. Having experience with Čumiruan written grammar it can be stated this is another carbon copy of Čumiruan grammar and syntax where the glyphs are less modified than as the Egyptian hieroglyphs and represent the actual meaning more clearly with the difference the Indus Valley texts have to be read from right-to-left and from bottom-to-up, which is the feature of Ur-Ru grammar style.
The upper most line on the screenshot stand for in proper Čumiruan for a sentence (read from right-to-left) “lin grooming / prejudices / dissolve” where such an important process as (EE) linasugemise, (MAR) шондашмаш, (HU) len csutakol, (ENG) lin grooming is shown which is the very essence of Ugric world, and especially for Estonians, where we still till this day have deep knowledge and tradition for hemp processing and lin production in our root vocabulary. The appropriate Čumiruan glyphs representing the Indus Valley written sentence is following (read from right-to-left by turning 90 deg clockwise): <𒊩–<𒑙𒈖>>–<𒊩–<𒑙𒈖>> /<<𒊒<𒄭𒃰>><<𒋰𒋰>𒌚>>/ <𒀸<𒋰𒋰>>–<<𒑋𒀸>>
With this it has been clearly proven the trade relation with Indus Valley by Čumiruan civilization has had taken place long before the emergence of Crete Island Ugric civilizations.
Concluding remarks
As we have shown the approach of probing topo- and hydronymy in Crete Island Ugric and Čumiruan substrates gives a powerful tool to look into the process of their emergence and to see what impact toponyms have had on languages. Also, surprising details are starting to emerge by properly understanding the toponyms which starts to reveal connections between the languages and how substrate migrates from one to another.
On top of that we were able to correct falsely derived toponym Ebla and show the proposed cuneiform word is oldest known written reference to Estonia as an adjective.
Also, we have shown strong evidence of both the Crete Island Ugric civilization, as the Mesopotamian Ugric civilizations had direct trade relations with Indus Valley.
Sources:
1 – Peter Revesz, Minoan-Indus Valley trade relations | Minoans Part 7, @ 9:45 https://youtu.be/pW5mbJL4Xyo?t=585
2 – @ 5:45 https://youtu.be/pW5mbJL4Xyo?t=345
3 – Why do Ancient Scripts have Mirror Symmetry? | Minoans Part 5, @ 24:48 https://youtu.be/XVWa0WEn-e0?t=1488
4 – On 28.h September 2022 the Oriental Institute YouTube channel uploaded Jorke Grotenhuis speech where he pointed out under current Unicode effort to digitalize Egyptian hieroglyphs where they will be subjected to Greko-Roman signs. Unfortunately, the OI has removed the video the very next day and replaced with another Jorke Grotenhuis presentation video Hieroglyphic Sign Lists: The Thoth Sign List, Towards a Unicode Expansion. Despite the original vide to be inaccessible the screenshot of the presentation is provided.
5 – Wikipedia, Ebla tablets, first paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets
6 – Wikipedia, Ebla, first paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla
7 – University of Pennsylvania, The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, 1. 1 (2x/100%) http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/literary/cbd/qpn-x-places/o0043978.html
8 – Wikipedia, Harappa, first paragraph, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa
9 – YouTube, TED, Rajesh Rao: Computing a Rosetta Stone for the Indus script, https://youtu.be/kwYxHPXIaao?t=166
10 – Wikipedia, Mohenjo-daro, first paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro
11 – @8:48 https://youtu.be/pW5mbJL4Xyo?t=528