Tartaria tablets, advanced research. (Latest). Answers to allmost possible questions.

October 31, 2019

Tartaria tablets, latest advanced research. Answers to allmost possible questions.

Picture,from https://www.descopera.ro/stiinta/3343280-misterele-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria

Map from https://cersipamantromanesc.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/adevarata-istorie-a-descendentei-noastre/

Image result for tartaria alba harta Tartaria village, Alba County

Only three important, crucial issues have been  in the attention of researchers, during decades since discovery of the tablets in ’61, until today.

N.Vlassa , chief in charge at the archaeological diggings. supposed discoverer .               His picture from https://actualdecluj.ro/semnificatia-tablitelor-de-la-tartaria-muzeul-de-istorie-din-cluj-detine-cele-mai-vechi-scrieri-din-istoria-civilizatiei/

Image result for nicolae vlassa arheologul

Image result for tartaria tablets arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro Tartaria groapa Luncii from arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro

But also the same questions still surrounded by mistery, and interesting the audience at the highest level:                                                                                                                            1.real age  2. Genuine?  3. Whether or not carry a form of writing.                                       The answers to these questions will be, each of them detailed and almost dissected, and  have been the result of more than 10 years of dedicated research. Into the field of birth and followed by the evolution of writing in the world, various world writing systems, and then the comparative study customized and applied to Tartaria tablets (Tartaria tablets=TT)

1. Are TT as old as spoken/rumors ?

Various researchers have advanced different ages.There is no convergence of opinions. Their discoverer, N.Vlassa told of about 2.700 B.C. Then others went up to 5.300 B.C. (e.g. M.Merlini).                                                                                                                                             The age of 5.300 BC after me is completely out of  question, and the 2.400-2.700 BC is the maximum extreme theoretical! limit from which I can discuss after my humble opinion. I Will explain the reasons why even this latter age is not possible.

2.What are the arguments of most researchers for these TT ages (after me unrealistic)?

For 5,300 BC :                                                                                                                                          – the alleged finding of the tablets in the layer corresponding to the civilization of Vinca and the age same as of the bones (5,300 BC/C14) assumed to be found in the immediate vicinity. Image, from https://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

Image result for tartaria bones Tartaria Groapa Luncii, female bones dated 5.300 B.C.

At present, very few researchers are still claiming such an old age.                                     For 2400-2700 BC :                                                                                                                               – possible fallen down from above strata, so origin from newer layers (and hence the membership of artefacts to crops such as Cotofeni? Baden? Petresti?) and                          – related assessments of some artifacts found in the immediate proximity of TT, as pertaining to later cultures than Vinca A-C, as well as                                                                   – judgments and comparisons generally related to the time of appearance, and the evolution of writing in the world.

From https://alba24.ro/autenticitatea-tablitelor-cu-semne-pictografice-de-la-tartaria-enigma-pentru-unii-istorici-ce-spune-arheologul-horia-ciugudean-care-in-1989-a-participat-la-sapaturi-400800.html  :

Image result for tartaria groapa luncii Artefacts found alegedly with the tablets,

Image, from  https://fashiondocbox.com/90885882-Jewelry/Tartaria-and-the-sacred-tablets.html

Image result for  tartaria groapa luncii Tartaria-Groapa Luncii (the very site where tablets were found)

3.Were TT in that layer (VINCA) ? Were the tablets near the bones?

It is not known for sure;
“there are no photos or sketches, blueprints of the exact location of each artifact, and much more,

  • – Not known who were present/ all the persons close to the moment of discovery,        – where exactly were every of them, or walked in the ritual complex, when and how much time some missed (eg. Vlassa some hours)                                                           – Who was the very person who first saw or found TT                                                      – In fact who first touched them is not known.                                                                   – When, who gathered, packed the artefacts and transported to museum , when and to whom were given, where in the museum were put ?

In conclusion, there are no witnesses and no hard evidence of where exactly where every artefact/item including TT were placed or were found in the entire religious complex.                                                                                                                                               AS A RESULT, I HAVE ANY ASSISTANCE AND CANNOT RELY ON ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PLACE AND MOMENT OF DISCOVERY, AND THE SAME ON ESTIMATED AGE, REMAINING FOR ME THE SINGLE OPTION, THAT OF ANALISING THE SIGNS !

4.  There is available a scientific method of measuring their age exactly?

Their Age cannot be determined with any of the current methods. Worse not anymore, as the tablets have been baked in an owen (who has decided at an unknown temperature is not known) apparent, immediately after discovery, because they seemed to be friable.                                                                                                                                       (Not to be enough, before  chemical structure was changed , as were impregnated with nitrolack !)

5.Could be TT genuine  sumerian or how much could be related to the early stage of the sumerian handwriting?

There are not a sumerian, it is absolutely certain.                                                                          Top researchers in the proto-writing field said that although the signs are similar to the sumerian proto-cuneiform (proto-writing stage), the signs and writing are not authentic/genuine sumerian.                                                                                                              These researchers only mentioned these similarities and differencies in the passage and in a superficial way.                                                                                                                              I went into more detail and explained that the signs are similar in shape reflected only as blueprints, schematic way/sketch the proto-sumerian signs, but they have no their counterpart concrete shape.                                                                                                       Researchers shows shortcomings, they have                                                                                 – not identified all the signs, and they have                                                                                      – misidentified others. (Ex A. Vaiman, R.Kolev and others).                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The resemblance is due to the filogenesis of the writing in general. That is, the connection and the ultimate sumerian origin and transmission of the signs and in fact of many writing systems used in the Near East and in the Aegean area. Such a filiation, apart from the one noted by researchers I.Papakitsos and G. Kenanidis (relative to the Aegean proto-linear writing) is supported and explained by me and in addition and sometimes more detailed. However, I did not think of some assyrologists and specialists in sumerian proto-writing/proto-cuneiform (e.g. Falkenstein, A. Vaiman, R.Kolev) to approach a sumerian interpretation as long as they claim that signs are not proper/really sumerian?

From The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology                 Peter Damerow https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2006/cdlj2006_001.html

figure1

<<…. early writing systems seems to indicate, as Ignaz Gelb has pointed out in his famous Study of Writing (Gelb 1952: 212-220), that the idea spread in various directions at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC from centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Proto-Elamite writing occurs only a short time after proto-cuneiform. It was used for a short period in vast areas of the Iranian plateau. In the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, writing is attested as far to the north as Ebla in Syria and to the east as the Indus culture in modern Pakistan. Minoan writing starts at Crete around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At that time, cuneiform writing is also attested further north in the regions of Anatolia.>>

                                                                                                                                                                   6. What examples could be given  to support the fact that TT are not genuine sumerian ones ?

  • Always the sumerian signs/marks for numbers (with the apparent  D-letter shape) in the Sumer were made by imprinting, but ours are made by tracing/scratching.
  • Sumerian numbers : from https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing/
  • Image result for sumerian 3.200 proto writing numbers (Fig. 2) Impressed tablet featuring an account of grain, from Godin Tepe, Iran (Courtesy Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto)
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform Proto-cuneiform tablet (W 9578,g) from Uruk IV, 3350-3200 BC …
  • Only D-shaped proto-cuneiform sumerian NINDA/”bread” sign was traced/scraped. (on the right).                                                                                          Image from https://ro.pinterest.com/pin/488640628318570008/?lp=true
  • Image result for proto-cuneiform school tabletImage result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform
  •                                                                                                                                                     (We have on TT first D-sign on round TT very close to it, but not the same.            Image from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html&nbsp;                        
  • Image result for living moon tartaria)
  • Very many signs though reflecting by general way the shape of the sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, in fact their concrete and exact shape is much more like those that were later used in the Anatolian, Aegean (and even many in the Mediterranean) writings. As well as in the Near East (canaanite, phoenician).                 
  • IT IS A FACT THAT WAS NOT NOTICED NOt A WORD, BY ANY SCIENTIST, (ONLY BY ME) THAT:                                                                                                                                      – MANY SIGNS ON THE ROUND TABLET IS REFLECTING AN EVOLUTION, (CHANGED SHAPES THAN PROTO-CUNEIFORM), REFLECTING A LATER PERIOD OF TIME                                                                                                                                      One example:    Image result for moonlight tartaria     picture from  http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html&nbsp;                                                                                                                       The H-like sign (on the round tablet with 3 horizontal bars) looks much more like, and even is exactly the same as the folowing:                                                                          – the Heth sign from canaanite writing/1.500-1.200 BC,                                                    – the Pa3 sign from the Aegean/2.000-1.500 BC,                                                                     – the archaic ETA/Heta sign from the archaic Greek/ 800-500BC (apparent crooked-looking due of offset vertical bars). But the sign is actually further present throughout  Mediterranean. Only one sign is identical to that of proto-cuneiform, the sign +++++++, the sumerian ‘As’ and another is approaching (the 1-st D), the sumeria sign “Sur“.

The Sumerians, during any period, used a uniform writing corresponding to the time during which the scribe was living. They did not use pictograms and ideographic signs on separate tablets at/in a given time.

7. The shape of clay TT is very important?

I don’t think it is. Image from https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/Escrituras_3__antiguas_BALKAN_DANUBE-SCRIPT.htm

 Clay disc from Vinca, Serbia

Otherwise I know more examples  round tablets.                                                                  Sumerian star map, from                                                                                 https://curiosmos.com/this-5500-year-old-sumerian-star-map-recorded-the-impact-of-a-massive-asteroid/

Image result for sumerian star chart

and none sumerian ones with a hole. Then the Cretan tablets with the hole, but not perfectly round-shaped.

 Linear Script A/ http://arthistoryresources.net/greek-art-archaeology-2016/minoan-outline.html , and round ball:

 Cypro-Minoan clay ball in Louvre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypro-Minoan_syllabary

Folowing Karanovo tablet http://institutet-science.com/sakralna-plochica-karanovo/?lang=en

Image result for karanovo tablet

Another round tablet & holes, from Tartaria : https://adevarul.ro/locale/alba-iulia/tablita-secreta-tartaria-contine-obiectul-arheologic-descoperit-2014-semnele-erau-ascunse-privitorilor-1_57fcfa425ab6550cb876646f/index.html

Image result for tartaria tablet

Then the discussion about how flat or swelling/bulged are some or others do not see to be much productive.

 8. Are the TT genuine ?

YES. (More so yes than no! )                                                                                                                ( partly No, because it does not seem to be the result of a one’s intention to communicate by writing something connected with a particular economic or religious necessity.)

Yes, because the one who wrote them didn’t intended to fool somebody and whatever intented (we do not know what), the scribe was fair intended. It seems he wanted rather to practice the evolution of  writing or to show someone the same evolution and basic principles of writing.                                                                                                                     Maybe at the best succeded to write a short ritualic formula or short written economical token.

9. If the “writer” intended to show the evolution and writing principles, could be like/kind ofsumerian-like school scribal tablets ?

Definitely no. Because school scribal tablets:                                                                                  – put youngsters to copy teacher’s texts,                                                                                         – to divide tablets in writing sectors, and                                                                                    – were quite repetitive in content, as containing lexical lists, eg. of things, ocupations, etc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         From The tablet House: a scribal school in old Babylonian Nippur Eleanor Robson https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-assyriologie-2001-1-page-39.htm#

  • Types of school scribe, writing-learning tablets:

Table 1

Table 3 The order of the elementary curriculum in House F[20]
Table 3
tableau im13

10. What is the point, or why there are 3 tablets together?

The question can be asked because if you have something to say, you write everything on a tablet and  not spreading the message in three different places. Or at least write using the same writing system.                                                                                                 The answer is that he wanted to show the evolution of the writing from icons to ideograms, and even to some extent to syllables and letters.                                          We have                                                                                                                                                   – a rectangular (without hole) tablet with icons.                                                                            – another rectangular tablet (with hole) with ideograms.(These ideograms/logograms may have in the extreme the function of syllabograms)                                                         – a Round tablet (with hole) to all appearances shows the Aegean syllabograms, or even letters (Anatolian/archaic Greek).                                                                                              (except for 2 complex rituallic? marks/ideograms present in the right-hand lower quarter).

11. Are there any cases in the world of using by the same scribe of two or three writing systems?

Only exceptionally, two, e.g. the Roseta stone written with Egyptian hierogliphs and Greek letters, but there is no known case in which 3 writing systems appear (as in our case) and not with systems whose temporal spread  covers 2000-3000 years!      (Sumerian proto-cuneiform 3.300BC, Cretan  Hierogliphic 2,000 BC, linear A/B 1500 BC, Greek archaic writing 800-300BC) >> time span 3.000 years !

12. Is it claimed that the (by somewhat majority) the assumption  that the signs were used at religious ceremonies?

Although researchers make reference some for economic use and others for religious, none of them fully supports or demonstrate any of the alternatives. In other words, leave open the way for any interpretation (including a mixed one !?)
The scales is serious inclining for yes.                                                                                      (only slightly Not, since                                                                                                                        – the tablets contain only 2 complex ideograms (in the round of the right-bottom quarter) that could play a role in religious ceremonies,  otherwise all signs were used in different areas by different civilizations for true writing !                                                                           – many researchers noticed possible number marks, so economical purpose)                                Mainly Yes, since the round plate contains in the right-hand-bottom quarter 2 complex ideograms and in addition the rectangular one with the hole contains many ideograms/logograms, all of which are applicable to religious rites.                               And again, yes, as  it is possible that ONLY the upper half of the round tablet  contain a written/verbal/ritualic formula for use in such ceremonies. This may be, or sure it is the explanation, that this portion was usually hidden from the direct view of the passers-by, being covered by the rectangular one.

13. What about  scribe’s training on writing?

Most researchers claim that he was almost illiterated. I support the same idea. It seems that in general the tablets were covered with many signs from different writing systems and the only section where the scribe has managed to write is the upper half of the round tablet. Probably he was aware of this fact from the very beginning!                       (!…iliterated, but how happened he had the ability and the science to display signs used in large spatial and temporal expansion !)                                                                                          Having access to a large sign library, and an ordered, organized character of the signs on 3 different tablets,                                                                                                                                – Now, I am seeing the scribe different as in the past time, not as a person close to illiterate but maybe a priest(ess) ?, or rather kind of Berossus of his time !

14.How much new in extreme, could be the tablets ?

Theoretically and practically it could reach the very period of  archaic Greek writing 800-300 BC or that of the etheocretan wich goes/rich to our era/AC. 

From Wikimedia Commons,File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.png

File:CretanEpichoricAlphabets.pngBut it is excluded to be newer from the early Middle Ages due to certain aging traces. The possibility of a inscription of recent date does not exceed that of being written, by a catholic teacher-priest !!!, (… who had access to old writings and documents.)                          The tablets are shown as a collection of signs, apparently scattered from different areas and periods of time, but nevertheless ordered and somehow divided into three major  evolution of writing categories.                                                                                                  Who could have done this? It is all easier when we are approaching modern times ? where the possibility of access to signs used in the past is increasing.

15. The signs on the tablets belong to or are placed in a specific, particular writing in the world?

No! In fact my entire work mainly includes the testing of the various writing systems. Unfortunately no tablet is matching entirely with one writing. But no chance for all 3 tablets simultaneously ! The greatest closeness, that is, the largest number of signs can be found in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform and almost equal to the letters of the Anatolian writings.(the signs are found in the various Anatolian writings, the top being the carian writing/alphabets).

From Alphabets of Asia Minor https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam.html

Then follows a series of Mediteranean writings, in the top  being Aegean  writings.               For these reasons, the writing and of course the tablets seem to have a subsequent age newer  of 2.400 BC. (See also Cretan hierogglyphic 2200-2000 BC ,linear A, 1800-1500 BC). None of the tablets can be read using a specific writing for each/no match. Much impossible to read/read using a single  writing system for all three !

16. Strictly on sign appreciation What age could be given to the  the signs ?

Although many signs and to a large extent only “look-like” the sumerian ones reflecting only by far their shape, in the general signs show to be much more recent (new). Unfortunately, a few (really few)  have not been used in the concrete form present on tablets absolutely no in the world before 1,200-1,500 BC !(e.g. sign D ; …oops present in Indus/Harappa writing)

From https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/qeiyafa-ostracon-2

                                                              Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (1.000 B.C. ?)

17. The tablets belong to  Danube, Old Europe, or a Daco-Thracian civilisations ?

No, the Danube civilization/The Old Europe has come close, but it hasn’t even reached the stage of the proto-writing. cause was not a highly socially stratified society in this area, and there were no mach attraction or dedication to writing. In fact, the  tablets are singletones,  absolute unique. The tablets of Gradeshnita, Karanovo, Dispilio belong to other cultures and other phases of writing evolution (proto-writing).                     Regarding Cris-starcevo and Vinca Civilisations:

From Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

“Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28].                                                                                                                               …………..The first Neolithic inhabitants of Europe are described archeologically as belonging to the Aegean Early Neolithic cultures [27], from which the bearers of both the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in Serbia, Romania and Hungary [2837] and the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe (LBK) [21] emerged.                                                          …………These data are in line with the idea of a common origin of the LBK and Starčevo-Criş cultures from the Aegean Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece/Thessaly, the first Neolithic complex in Europe [24].                                                                                     ……………..Fernandez E, Perez-Perez A, Gamba C, Prats E, Cuesta P, Anfruns J, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C Near Eastern Farmers supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islans. “

18. Was the scribe a native of Tartaria ?

Definitely not ! The local community did not know the writing. The tablets were inscribed by an individual of different origin. From Anatolia and possibly from the Egeana area (Crete ?), or if you want of proto-Greek origin. Note that Anatolia is close, bordering  the Aegean, Syrian and Danube areas; (there are also indications of the presence of Anatolian craftsmen in the area of Vinca). TT could, however, be effectively inscribed by that person in his home-place or in extreme even in Tartaria.

19. What made for living the scribe; what could be his occupation/profession  ?

Others opinion is the same as mine, could be an prospector, craftsmen but much sure tradesman.

20.From the perspective of the evolution and existence of all writing systems in the world, which is the location occupied by TT signs ?

Here I have to say that because of the great similarity of the signs with the sumerian proto-cuneiform shapes, as well as the written signs used in the Aegean and Anatolia, to a large extent, it was possible and relatively easy interpretation of TT using each or any of these above writings This shows on the one hand the origin of the writing, but also the spread of the writing in space and time. The scribe and signs were coming  from somewhere in the space delimited by these civilizations.

From Writing in Neolithic Europe; an Aegean origin?  https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/28/writing-in-neolithic-europe-an-aegean-origin/

“For many years the earliest writing was assumed to have originated in Uruk, in Sumeria, Mesopotamia c. 3100 BC. Evidence from Egypt has now dated writing to c. 3400-3200 BC, while evidence from the Indus Valley suggests a date of 3500 BC for the development of writing there.  In the 1980s, a system of writing was noticed in the Balkans of the Final Neolithic period. This was identified as “pre-writing” by Shan Winn (1981) and Emilia Masson (1984) who considered whether this constituted a Vinča “script.” They each concluded that the Vinča signs represented a “precursor” to writing.

 

…   The Neolithic expansion, as is generally accepted in our time, started from the Aegean towards the North and not the opposite (of course, there also exists the controversial issue of some supposed initial migrations from Anatolia-Near East which, as we have presented with the help of officially published material, do not seem to be the case. It is more likely that domesticated seeds and animals were adopted by the Aegeans, through Trade, from the East rather than that the Aegeans were…substituted by some ‘ghost’ Eastern population that does not at all culturally-archaeologically appear in the Aegean or Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic). Therefore we must derive that Writing expanded from the Aegean to the North and not the opposite as some researchers have suggested in the past.”

 

21. The tablets could carry real script /true writing ?

 General opinion of scientists and scholars specialised in proto-writing is pointing for NO. Cause they realised that the signs are similar to those used in proto-writing, namely the proto-cuneiform signs. The use of proto-cuneiform signs is conducting only and unique to proto-writing ! And because almost all the signs are similar to those proto-sumerian it is about sumerian proto-writing.

Scientists also noticed that part of the signs are not identical in shape with those sumerian-ones, but probably thought that are a kind of variant, local adaptation, without explaining or detailing where or how this could happened. Thus begining with a basically “sumerian interpretation” their’s are in general close one to another and also close to mine.  Some told of economical tablets, seeing on the upper-right part of the round tablet only cereals and numbers.                                                                                                  But if taking as true that this section had ezoteric content and was intentionally hidden, it is cristal-clear that nobody was hiding numbers ! So numbers or ezoteric content, only one out of twoo !                                                                                                       But others, were pointing to an religious content, and not few saw ideograms wich not only could be used in religious rituals but in fact were practically used as such on a larger scale. In reality, the signs could be used for both purposes. In and describing an offering ritual ( cereals/bread and animals/goats). What I noticed myself that those ideograms are somehow similar to those used in ancient Aegean writings, (Cretan hierogliphic and Linear A), with the  result close interpretation. (even if  the signs are much close to those sumerian ones. )                                                                                    Exemple of closeness/similarities of Aegean signs to those sumerian ones:                                                              

Semn sumerian    Semn Egeean          Semnificatie                                                                             As,Se                          Te                          Cereale                                                                                  Gu,Gud                      Mu                           taur                                                                               Amar                        (a)Ma                     vitel/zeita-Mama                                                                 An                              ?                          zeu,cer                                                                                       Bad                            Da(Sa?)                        sacrificat,mort/                                                                 Ab /Zag/Ga’ar             Labrys               templu,stralucire/divin                                                      Ud                              capra,ied                         capra,ied                                                           Dara                                -”                                    -“-                                                               Ararma                      Asasara                          zeitate astrala?                                                         Gar                                   D                              masura volum cereale

From  https://enigmatica.ro/placutele-de-la-tartaria/

Image result for tablitele tartaria

From https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2015/cdlj2015_001.html&nbsp;                                                          BAD: …it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.”

Image result for damerow proto-cuneiform

From https://brill.com/view/book/9789004352223/BP000008.xml (see no.7, UD/goat)

Image result for goat proto-cuneiform

Folowing signs, from  https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

Ab Amar An Ararma As Sze/Se Ud5 Zag~a Zag~c Dara~3d Ga’ar~b1 Sur  Gar

 

All interpretations, of scientists and mine are sending to, are in close touch with an -religious ritual !  !

22. But if you ask me of an possible true writing ?

I say, I hope yes, on the round table, the top half, although we have there a kind of “impossible” combination of signs (“Doo/DDoc” sequence) and apparently no way out. However, in that half of the round tablet, we could have the archaic Greek letters:

Image result for tablitele tartaria pic from http://www.ziare.com/cultura/documentar/tablitele-de-la-tartaria-cea-mai-veche-scriere-a-lumii-descoperita-in-romania-1090967

To the left: Eta/Heta Rho/D?                                                                                                            And to the right:    Doo, DDoc?/ Dtwo?/RRoo, Roc?

What could be written, what possible texts?

It seems that we will never be able to have absolute certainty anymore, of any message or text. By one side                                                                                                              – we don’t know the language used, and by the other side                                                           – because there can be more possibilities of letters and not know for sure whether the P/D signs actually are for D or R letters ; and also,                                                                      – a concrete number of letters (even they are few !) may lead to a relatively large number of combinations of n as many as m)

Can one make suppositions at least?

Yes, there would be a set of proposals to be considered, for example:

Here Roc Roc Albanian here Rrok= time grab, understand

HeRos DiBoc=DiVos Greek Lord/master Zeu (use in religious ritual?)

EDE DiDou Greek “now give!”/”give to eat!” (This proposal is of some interest, since the root of the ED is present in both food-related words (e.g. EDTA) and in that of kid Ed.educs. We have one or more kids on the pictGraphics? So through the icon of the iedului can suggest the word Ed,Ede !: Mananca!/kid, iedule)

HeDe Didou Greek now,already give! (do you give it?; religious ritual?)

! Caution, *hed is the root Proto Indo-Europeana for ‘mananca’!

HRist(s) DDoc Latin “of the doctrine of christiana”

Hero, ERO DDoc (Decreto Doctor) Latin will be a doctor (Lat.”Professor”) in the theological doctrine)

etc

23. Again. Why 3 tablets, each with different “writing”, and how to explain this (only the appearance !) are there signs?

In fact, it is not a pile of signs. It Is the fruit of a conscious and deliberate effort. Remember, as for me, who have come to keep in mind hundreds of signs from each writing system, it would not necessarily be easy for me. If I intend to show to a student or any reader the main steps in the appearance and evolution of  writing, maybe I would do much the same.

On a tablet I would show pure icons/pictographs, as the ones on the pictographic tablet. I would choose about the same kind of basic signs, which almost identical meaning in the Sumerian proto-cuneiform as with those of cretan hyierogliphic  and Linear A.               Cereal and goat icons. There is also an absolute unclear sign , possible ghost, man, gods !?                                                                                                                                                            On the second (like rectangular tablet with hole), I would figure sumerian ideograms that are almost entirely and close shape found in the Aegean syllabograms .                                                           Signs: Cereals, Gods, labriys, Gods, Taurus).

 picture from https://www.descopera.org/tablitele-de-la-tartaria/

On the third (round tablet) I would figure the pure phonetic writing (but not necessarily alphabetic!).Those signs have corespondence in sounds . As summerian ideograms , Aegeene syllabograms, and even  to Greek and Anatolian letter wich has every of them coresponding phonemes/sounds.

Examples:

On the pictographic tablet:                                                                                                                  the grain/cereal Sumerian icon, similar to the Cretan sign for cereals. And then the common icon for the goat.

On rectangular tablet with hole, 3 examples:                                                                                  1. The sumerian sign “Se” <> the linear A sign  “Te“, cereal, grain.                                                2. Then the sign ‘Animal head with long ears’:                                                                                 the “AMAR” sumerian /calf and Cretan Hierogliphic /linear A “Mu”/Bull , linear B “Ma“/sign of Mother Goddess.                                                                                                                         3. And the sign of the Orion constellation, the “Zag“/ the shine of metal, linear “Labrys” sign of the linear A divine power.

-On the round plate, only 2 examples:                                                                                                 1. The H-sign with 3 bars is the sumerian “Ku“, linear A “Pa3″,canaanit “Heth” and archaic Greek  “Heta/Eta“, old Latin “H“.
2. Sign (as with # but only with 1 vertical bar):sumerian “Pa” and linear A “Pa” (later “Z” in many writings)

I don’t know why, also on the round plate, the right-bottom quarter, two complex ideograms appear, Picture from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

e.g. one (on the right) is like the temple of solar gods Shamash/ 

Proto-cuneiform sign UD.UNUG:”sun -inner temple”

Image result for borger ud.unug proto-cuneiform

the sign of the punic Goddess Tanit, astral Goddess as Ishtar=the sign of the minoan astral Goddess Asasara.

From https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/baal-hammon-and-tanit-0012136&nbsp;                                                                                                                      Symbol of Tanit, the consort to the king of the Punic pantheon. (mrholle / CC BY-SA 2.0) Punic Goddess Tanit

WHEN THE TOPIC IS THE DEVELOPEMENT OF WRITING, WIKIPEDIA COMES ALSO (as TT scribe have done and I also would do) WITH 3 MAIN STAGES:                                                                                                                       Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

A conventional “proto-writing to true writing” system follows a general series of developmental stages:

  • Picture writing system: glyphs (simplified pictures) directly represent objects and concepts. In connection with this, the following substages may be distinguished:
    • Mnemonic: glyphs primarily as a reminder;
    • Pictographic: glyphs directly represent an object or a concept
    • Ideographic: graphemes are abstract symbols that directly represent an idea or concept.
  • Transitional system: graphemes refer not only to the object or idea that it represents but to its name as well.
  • Phonetic system: graphemes refer to sounds or spoken symbols, and the form of the grapheme is not related to its meanings.                                                                         ———————————————————-

24. What was aiming at, or real purpose of the tablets ?

If, after a sustained and tenacious effort, I managed, succeed to have in my little finger or mind, (… where you want), thousands of signs grouped into different writing systems; (not discuss my ability or expertise compared with others, though I want such a challenge). If I could make a collection of signs in this way, that is grouped on the main types of writing folowing the course of time, with all the possibilities of 20th century documentaries at my disposal, probably the result will be close to those tablets.

Who, for God’s sake, from where and how long, does not discuss with what purpose, made a collection of ordered signs and divided into three major groups of historical evolution ? Note, signs with an extension of their use on a 2.500- years  time-span ( ~2.500-500 ECB)?

REMEMBER, SHOWING WRITING EVOLUTION NOT IMPLY THAT THE AUDIENCE PERSON WILL/TAUGHT TO WRITE

25.I put under scrutiny an important question and subject to follow; I am looking forward to your opinions with great interest.

Remember, the tablets are real an material and  not coming from somewhere from the virtual reality, and therefore do not hold as copies of others, so there are original, they were made by someone, though, and in this way original and not counterfeit, fakes. 

 Although they have taken note of the similarities between the signs on the TT and those in the sumerian, they have limited themselves to referring quickly and perhaps somewhat superficial only to a few aspects.                                                                             

What completely escaped my understanding is that none of them noticed and did not refer to the fact that the somewhat grouped signs, as if somebody divided them into three categories of historical evolution ??.

For example, a researcher with dozens of publications and books, who has literally exhausted attacking the topic TT from the perspective of all interdisciplinary branches (archeology, history, culture, seminary, etc.) starting from the Neolithic, (if not near the mesolithic) these essential aspects escaped him. Namely the similarities with the Levantine, Aegean, Anatolian and Mediterranean civilizations writings, and maybe worse, not noticed this kind of display of seemingly arranged signs in historical, in temporal evolution, and I am referring here to Mr Marco Merlini                                                                                                                            Image result for tartaria tablets                                                                  Mr. Marco Merlini, from http://www.prehistory.it&nbsp;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (and mentioning his master, Prof. Gheorghe Lazarovici)

26. Possible explanation  ?

This spark-idea is mine, but not a recent-one, and could explain TT purpose and who wrote and/or used them . As to be brought at an unknown time and unknown religion by kind of missionary. The round tablet could have written on upper half,                                                                                                                                                                                               Pics from http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

an ritualic formula, as out of the signs HP Di b o c , some could be:

greek : HEROS DIVOS = LORD GOD

latin:   HeRus  DeiVOS =    -“-      -“-

Note.                                                                                                                                                         “If” word God  is written, then like kind of Tetragrammaton m not to be pronounced, hidden like the name of YHWEH.(also have here 4 letters !)                                                   Was natural to be hidden from the view of passers-by, especially at the begining of christianism when followers were chased, ??

or a religious christian-like one ( “Our Father” pray: give us our daily bread

greek: HeDe/EDE !  DiDOS/DIDOU ! :Allready,this here,now/GIVE EAT !

latin:  ED/EDE   DeDou(i)=/DeDUI    : Kid-goat/EAT     GIVE!

From ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic … http://www.korenine.si › zborniki › zbornik05 › belchevsky_rea                                                                                                           The barbarians were the ancient Europeans, non-Greeks, whose speech was not understood by the Greeks. ….. divos > dibos > qibos > qeios > qeos.

From https://www.etymonline.com › word
deva | Origin and meaning of deva by Online Etymology Dictionary
… cognate with Greek dios “divine” and Zeus, and Latin deus “god” (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine,” in derivatives “sky,

From https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/ionic-greek/&nbsp; by Richard Vallance Janke

didomi-linear-b-archaic-new-testament

(in pictographic tablet we have an kid-goat and something totally unclear, as a human silhuette with hands forward as giving)

…. or you will wonder what other possible formula.                                                                   The presence of the other signs on TT, which apparently do not contain writing, explain it to me by the intention of creating a framework, appearance, but also the feeling and atmosphere of continuity and the transmission of knowledge and religious concepts of a eternal nature, originating in the very distant past.                                                                 The fact that all the signs on TT were used in a place, time or another for writing, raises my suspicions to me. As if that person had access to sources such as the library from Alexandria or the Vatican?.In fact, I shouldn’t be so much, as the priests really had access to such sources and were among the main propagators of culture in general.

IN THE WORK OF FINDING A PLACE, REAL &TRUE IDENTITY FOR TT, WE ALL FOUND SO MANY UNCOMMON, EVEN WEIRD & PUZZLING CHARACTERISTICS THAT THE TOPIC TEND TO MOOVE STEP BY STEP, FROM WRITING & SCIENCE FIELD TO OBJECTS FOUND ON EARTH FALLEN FROM OUTER SPACE.

 

 

 

 

Sümer kültürü. “Me” üzerine kurulu toplum

November 23, 2021


https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Metavirus
Metavirüs, Metaviridae ailesindeki bir virüs cinsidir. Bunlar, bir ökaryotik konak genomunu istila eden retrotranspozonlardır ve ancak virüs konakçıya bulaştıktan sonra çoğalabilirler. Bu genetik elementler, konak genomlarında bulaşmak ve çoğalmak için mevcuttur ve konakçılarıyla ilgisi olmayan atalara ait elementlerden türetilir.

https://assuefazione.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/sumerian-me-memes-and-neurolinguistics/ Sümerler, hayatın, inancın, teknolojinin, davranışın ve insan koşullarının her yönünü kapsayan benim adı verilen bir dizi kural ve düzenleme geliştirmiştir. Onlar erken dönem kodlardı, insanların okuması ve kendilerini aktarmaları için kodlanmış memlerdi. Bütün bir popülasyonu nörolinguistik olarak programlama girişimiydi. ====================

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7673797-sumerian-culture—-the-society-based-on-me—-was#:~:text=%E2%80%9CSumerian%20culture%20%2D%2D%20the%20society%20based%20on%20me%20%2D%2D%20was,linguistic%20form%20rather%20than%20DNA.%22

Neal Stephenson

“Sümer kültürü — bana dayalı toplum — başka bir şeydi.Metavirüsün tezahürü. Bunun dışında, bu durumda, bir DNA’dan ziyade dilsel form.”
“Affedersiniz,” diyor Bay Lee. “Medeniyetin bir varlık olarak başladığını söylüyorsunuz.
enfeksiyon?

“İlkel haliyle medeniyet, evet. Her ben bir tür virüstü, tekmelendi metavirüs ilkesine göre. Bana ekmek pişirme örneğini alın. Bir kere Benim topluma dahil olmam, kendi kendine yeten bir bilgi parçasıydı. Bu bir
doğal seçilimin basit sorusu: ekmek yapmayı bilen insanlar nasıl olduğunu bilmeyen insanlardan daha iyi yaşa ve üremeye daha yatkın ol. Doğal olarak, bu kendini kopyalama için ev sahibi olarak hareket ederek beni yayacaklar. bilgi parçası. Bu onu bir virüs yapar. Sümer kültürü —
benimle dolu tapınaklar — sadece başarılı virüslerin bir koleksiyonuydu. bin yılda birikmiştir. Bir franchise operasyonuydu, bunun dışında altın kemerler yerine zigguratlar ve üç halka yerine kil tabletler
bağlayıcılar. “‘Akıl’ veya ‘bilgelik’ anlamına gelen Sümerce sözcük, ‘kulak’ sözcüğüyle aynıdır.Tüm bu insanlar şunlardı: bedenleri bağlı kulaklar. Pasif alıcılar bilgi. Ama Enki farklıydı. Enki daha yeni olan bir tr’di
özellikle işinde iyi. Yeni ben yazma konusunda alışılmadık bir yeteneği vardı — o
bir bilgisayar korsanıydı. Aslında ilk modern insandı, tam bilinçli bir insandı.
olmak, tıpkı bizim gibi. “Bir noktada Enki, Sümer’in bir çıkmaza saplandığını fark etti.
hep aynı eski beni yaşatmak, yenilerini bulamamak, kendileri için düşünmek. Birkaç kişiden biri olduğu için yalnız olduğundan şüpheleniyorum — belki de dünyadaki tek bilinçli insan. içinde olduğunu anladı
insan ırkının ilerlemesi için, onların pençesinden kurtulmaları gerekiyordu.
bu viral medeniyet. “Böylece aynı yerde yayılan bir karşı virüs olan Enki’nin nam-shub’ını yarattı.
ben ve metavirüs olarak yollar. Derin yapıların içine girdi. beyin ve onları yeniden programladı. Bundan böyle Sümer dilini kimse anlayamadı. dil veya başka herhangi bir derin yapı tabanlı dil. Ortaklığımızdan kes derin yapılar, ortak hiçbir yanı olmayan yeni diller geliştirmeye başladık birbirleriyle. Ben artık çalışmıyordu ve yeni yazmak mümkün değildi ben mi. Metavirüsün daha fazla bulaşması engellendi.”
“Neden ekmek yapma işini kaybeden herkes ekmek kıtlığından açlıktan ölmedi? ben mi?” dedi Enzo Amca.

“Muhtemelen bazıları yaptı. Diğer herkes yüksek beyinlerini kullanmak ve anlamaya çalışmak zorundaydı.
dışarı. Yani Enki’nin nam-shub’ının insanlığın başlangıcı olduğunu söyleyebilirsiniz. bilinç — ilk önce kendimiz için düşünmemiz gerektiğinde. bu başlangıçtı akılcı dinin de, insanların ilk kez düşünmeye başladıkları Tanrı, İyi ve Kötü gibi soyut konular. Babel adı buradan gelir. itibaren. Kelimenin tam anlamıyla ‘Tanrı’nın Kapısı’ anlamına gelir. Tanrı’nın izin verdiği kapıydı insan ırkına ulaşmak. Babil, zihnimizde bir kapıdır, bir kapıdır. bizi metavirüsten kurtaran ve bize veren Enki’nin nam-shub’ı tarafından açıldı
düşünme yeteneği — bizi materyalist bir dünyadan dualist bir dünyaya taşıdı — ikili bir dünya — hem fiziksel hem de ruhsal bir bileşene sahip.” ====== Not: Sümer proto-çivi yazısı işareti “ben” aynı şekle sahiptir

Göbekli Tepe’nin T sütunları olarakas Göbekli Tepe T sütunları olarak

===== ELEŞTİRİ, YORUMLAR =======

Kabul edelim ki bende virüslerin özellikleri var. Ama şu ifadelere katılmıyorum: – “Bu insanların hepsi bu kadardı: bedenleri bağlı kulaklar. Pasif bilgi alıcıları.” Pasif alıcılardan uzaktılar. Çalışkan bir nüfustular ve entelektüel olarak çok yetenekli ve yaratıcıydılar. Ne de bununla: “Ama Enki farklıydı. Enki işinde özellikle iyi olan bir adamdı. Yeni bir ben yazma konusunda alışılmadık bir yeteneği vardı – o bir bilgisayar korsanıydı. Aslında, ilk modern insandı. , tam bilinçli bir insan, tıpkı bizim gibi. Bir noktada, Enki Sümer’in bir rutine sıkışıp kaldığını fark etti. İnsanlar her zaman aynı eski meleri yapıyorlardı, yenilerini değil. Kendileri için düşünmediler.” Hayır!: Enki bir tanrıydı ya da Stephenson gerçekten insanların melerini paylaşan akıllı bir lider istiyorsa. Bunlar ilahi bir kökene sahip olacaktı ama bunun bir efsane olduğunu biliyoruz, Sümerler (çalışkan ve yetenekli bir halk) me’leri yarattılar ve sürekli olarak yenilerini yaratma yeteneğine sahiptiler. Ve şiddetle söylüyorum: kendileri için düşünüyorlar! “Yalnız olduğundan şüpheleniyorum, dünyadaki birkaç – belki de tek – bilinçli insandan biri olarak. İnsan ırkının ilerlemesi için bu viral uygarlığın pençesinden kurtulması gerektiğini fark etti.” Bu yüzden benimle ve metavirüsle aynı yollara yayılan ve beynin derin yapılarına girip onları yeniden programlayan bir antivirüs olan Enki’nin Nam-Shub’ını yarattı.” “Belki de dünyadaki tek bilinçli insan!” Yazık olsun. Viral bir uygarlığın pençesi değildi. Nam-shub: “parlayan”, Enki tarafından yaratılmadı ve şuydu:

Wikipedia Asaruludu 《Sümer ve Akad mitolojisinde Asaruludu, Anunnakilerden biridir. Adı da Asarludu olarak yazılmıştır, Asarluhi ve Namshub. Adının etimolojisi ve anlamı belirsizdir. Asaruludu, Sümer dini ritüellerinde şeytan kovucu olarak görev yaptı. Namshub (parlayan) olarak koruyucu bir tanrı, “yolumuzu aydınlatan parlayan tanrı” olarak kabul edilir…. Asaruludu Kuara’nın koruyucu tanrısı olarak, Eridu (Enki’nin şehri) panteonuna dahil edilmiş ve böylece sihir tanrısı rolünü kazanmış olabilir. hastayı Enki / Ea ile tanıştıran bir ara rol. Daha sonraki metinler Asaruludu’yu Enki/Ea’nın zeka, tavsiye ve “geniş akıl” niteliklerini ve ayrıca büyülerdeki uzmanlığı paylaşan Enki/Ea’nın oğlu olarak tanımlar.>>

me’leri de insanlara dağıttı ve bana karşı hiçbir şey (“metavirüs” gibi) yaratmadı; bu son nokta olurdu! Bu nedenle, beynin derin yapılarını yeniden programlamak için hiçbir şey yoktu! “Bundan böyle ne Sümer dilini ne de derin bir yapıya sahip başka bir dili kimse anlayamadı.” Kalk, Sümer dili derin bir yapıya dayanmaz, aksine dil yapısı son derece basit ve mantıklıdır.

John Halloran Proto-Sümer dili icat sürecini görün. <<Diakonoff 1983’te şöyle yazmıştı: “Sözcüksel düzeyde, soyut fikirleri ifade etmek için hiç ya da çok az gelişmiş araçlara sahip olmayan ve dilbilgisi düzeyinde, ‘eylem-karşıtlık’ karşıtlığına dayanan herhangi bir dili ‘arkaik’ olarak tanımlayacağım. . durum’.” “Arkaik bir dilde, ‘zaman’, ‘mekân’, ‘özne’, ‘nesne’, ‘neden’, ‘güzellik’, ‘özgürlük’, “icat”, “çarpma”, “bölme” ve bazıları bize temel görünen, örneğin “karanlık”, “felaket”, “hastalık” ve “acı” vb. arasındaki ayrım gibi, diğerleri, veya ‘iyi’, ‘keyifli’, ‘nazik’, ‘mutlu’, ‘yararlı’, ‘şanslı’ vb. arasında. Ancak, tümevarımsal düşünme, yani belirli olgulardan bir genellemeye ilerleyen düşünce olmadan insan düşüncesi imkansızdır. ” … Diakonoff devam ediyor, “Sümerce, soyut fikirlerin oluştuğu arkaik bir dildir: bu yüzden hem Sümer dili hem de Sümer mitolojisi çok ilginçtir.Özne-nesne ilişkisini ifade etmek için hiçbir aracı yoktur ve zaman fikrini vb. ifade etmek için çok yetersiz araçlardır.” >> “Derin ortak yapılarımızdan kopup, birbirimizle hiçbir ortak yanı olmayan yeni diller geliştirmeye başladık. Ben artık çalışmıyor ve yeni benler yazmak mümkün değildi.”

Eugenrau: ?????? Yeni diller ve diller, Bay Neal Stephenson’dan hiç bilmediği daha fazla ortak noktaya sahiptir. Açıkça bir bağlantı ve ebeveynlik var. “Yani Enki’nin Nam-Shub’ının insan bilincinin başlangıcı olduğunu söyleyebilirsiniz – kendi başımıza düşünmemiz gerektiğinde. Aynı zamanda rasyonel dinin de başlangıcıydı, insanların ilk kez soyut konular hakkında düşünmeye başladıkları zamandı. Tanrı, İyi ve Kötü gibi. , bu nedenle, kelimenin tam anlamıyla “Tanrı’nın Kapısı” anlamına gelen Babil adı. Tanrı’nın insan ırkına ulaşmasına izin veren kapıydı. Babil, zihnimizdeki bir kapıdır, Enki’nin nam-shub’ı tarafından açılan, bizi metavirüsten kurtaran ve düşünme yeteneği veren – bizi materyalistlikten uzaklaştıran bir kapıdır. dünyadan dualist bir dünyaya – ikili bir dünyaya. hem fiziksel hem de ruhsal bir bileşen.”” Hayır !: Bay Stephenson’ın bunu tarihlendirmeye ve onaylamaya istekli olduğu zaman insan bilincinin başlangıcı !? “Rasyonel din” ?? sorunlar” https://bc805.medium.com/abstract-thinkt-how-is-it-significant-and-how-does-it-define-the-basis-for-modern-humanity-a98a5b92fb9f << Soyut düşüncenin geliştirdiği Paleolitik arkeolojik kayıtların alet keşiflerinde bazı ipuçları var.>> Soyut semboller, Göbekli Tepe 9.600 M.Ö.

Her şeyden önce, yazarın antropoloji, psikoloji, arkeoloji, dilbilim ve bilgisayar bilimleri alanlarındaki yüzeysel bilgileri karıştırarak, yazarın zihninde şekillenen bir halüsinasyona yol açtığı izlenimini edindim. Yazık ki, hâlâ kısmen yabancılaşmış bir dünyada yaşayan bizler, tarihsel ve kültürel bir gerçekliğin tecavüzüne ve saptırılmasına tanık oluyoruz. İnsanlığın ilk büyük medeniyeti, bu kadar kolay ve yüzeysel bir yaklaşımı ve böyle bir muameleyi kesinlikle hak etmiyor.

Sumerian culture.The society based on “Me”

November 22, 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metavirus Metavirus is a genus of viruses in the family Metaviridae.[1] They are retrotransposons that invade a eukaryotic host genome and may only replicate once the virus has infected the host.[2] These genetic elements exist to infect and replicate in their host genome and are derived from ancestral elements unrelated from their host.

https://assuefazione.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/sumerian-me-memes-and-neurolinguistics/ The Sumerians developed a set of rules and regulations called me that encompassed every aspect of life, belief, technology, behaviour and human conditions. They were early code, memes codified for human perusal and to pass themselves on. It was an attempt to neurolinguistically program a whole population.

From https://me.me/i/neal-stephenson-snow-crash-sumerian-culture-the-society-based-on-me-quote-5e51c8cedf84436eb8d73366f67c6451

https://me.me › neal-stephenson-sno…Sumerian Culture — The Society Based on Me – MEME

https://me.me/market?s=pop

Note: sumerian proto-cuneiform sign “me” has the same shape as Gobekli Tepe’s T-pillars

CRITICISM, COMMENTS

Let’s admit that me’s had the characteristics of viruses. But I do not agree with the statements: – “That’s all those people were: ears with bodies attached. Passive receivers of information.” They were far from passive receivers. They were an industrious population and very intellectually gifted and inventive. Nor with this: “But Enki was different. Enki was a guy who happened to be particularly good at his job. He had an unusual ability to write a new me – he was a hacker. He was, in fact, the first modern man, a fully conscious human being, just like us. At one point, Enki realized that the Sumer was stuck in a routine. People were always doing the same old mees, not new ones. they didn’t think for themselves.” No!: Enki was a deity, or if Stephenson really wanted a smart leader who shared people’s mees. These would have had a divine origin but we know that this is a myth, the Sumerians (a hardworking and gifted people) created the me’s and continuously had the ability to create new ones. And I say strongly : they think for themselves ! “I suspect he was alone, being one of the few – perhaps the only – conscious human being in the world. He realized that in order for the human race to advance, it had to be freed from the grip of this viral civilization.” So he created Enki’s Nam-Shub, an antivirus that spread on the same routes as me and the metavirus, and went into the deep structures of the brain and reprogrammed them.” “perhaps the only conscious human being in the world!” Shame on you ! It was no grip of a viral civilization. Nam-shub: “shining”, was not created by Enki and was: Wikipedia Asaruludu 《In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology, Asaruludu is one of the Anunnaki. His name is also written Asarludu, Asarluhi and Namshub. The etymology and meaning of his name are unclear. Asaruludu served as an exorcist in Sumerian religious rituals. As Namshub (shining), he is considered a protective deity, “the shining god who lights our way.” …. Asaruludu, as the patron deity of Kuara, may have been incorporated into the pantheon of Eridu (Enki’s city) and thus acquired the role of god of incantations. Asalluhi sometimes plays an intermediate role, introducing the patient to Enki / Ea. Subsequent texts describe Asaruludu as the son of Enki / Ea, who shares Enki / Ea’s qualities of intelligence, advice and “broad reason”, as well as expertise in incantations.>> Enki was a god not an inhabitant of Sumer and the depositor of me’s, he also distributed them to the people and did not create anything (like “metavirus”) against me’s; that would have been the culmination! As such, there was nothing to reprogram the deep structures of the brain! “From now on, no one could understand the Sumerian language, or any other language based on a deep structure.” Get up, the Sumerian language is not based on a deep structure, on the contrary language structure is extremely simple and logical. See John Halloran Proto-Sumerian language invention process. <<Diakonoff wrote in 1983, “I shall define as ‘archaic’ any language which, on the lexical level, has no or only poorly developed means of expressing abstract ideas, and on the grammatical level, is based on the opposition ‘action vs. state’.” “In an archaic language there are no adequate means, either lexical or grammatical, to express such abstract ideas as ‘time’, ‘space’, ‘subject’, ‘object’, ’cause’, ‘beauty’, ‘liberty’, ‘invention’, ‘multiplication’, ‘division’ and many others, some of which appear to us elemental, as, e.g., the distinction between ‘darkness’, ‘calamity’, ‘illness’, and ‘pain’, etc., or between ‘good’, ‘enjoyable’, ‘kind’, ‘happy’, ‘useful’, ‘lucky’, etc. However, human thought is impossible without inductive thinking, i.e., thought which proceeds from particular facts to a generalization.”Diakonoff continues, “Sumerian is an archaic language in which abstract ideas were in the making: this is why both Sumerian language and Sumerian mythology are so interesting. It has no means to express a subject-object relation, and very inadequate means to express the idea of time etc. >>

Cut off from our deep common structures, we began to develop new languages ​​that had nothing in common with each other. The me no longer worked and it was not possible to write new me’s. ” Eugenrau: ?????? The new languages ​​and languages ​​have more in common than Mr. Neal Stephenson that he has no knowledge of. There is clearly a connection and parentage. “So you could say that Enki’s Nam-Shub was the beginning of human consciousness – when we had to think for ourselves. It was also the beginning of rational religion, the first time people started thinking about abstract issues. like God and Good and Evil, hence the name Babel, literally meaning “Gate of God.” It was the gate that allowed God to reach the human race.Babel is a gate in our minds, a gate that was opened by Enki’s nam-shub that freed us from the metavirus and gave us the ability to think – moved us from a materialistic world to a dualistic world – a binary world. a physical as well as a spiritual component.” “No !: The beginning of human consciousness when Mr. Stephenson was willing to date and certify it !? “Rational religion” ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationalitythe first time people started thinking about abstract issueshttps://bc805.medium.com/abstract-thought-how-is-it-significant-and-how-does-it-define-the-basis-for-modern-humanity-a98a5b92fb9f <<There are some clues in the tool discoveries of the Palaeolithic archaeological record that abstract thought is developing.>>

Abstract symbols at Gobekli Tepe 9,600B.C.

First of all, I have the impression that the author mixes superficial knowledge from the fields of anthropology, psychology, archeology, linguistics and computer science, resulting in a hallucination that took shape in the author’s mind. It is a pity that we are witnessing the rape and perversion of a historical and cultural reality, we who still live in a partially alienated world. Certainly the first greatest civilization of mankind does not deserve such an easy and superficial approach and no such treatment.

Cultura sumeriana.Societatea bazata pe “me”

November 22, 2021

Wikipedia: Metavirusul este un gen de virusuri din familia Metaviridae. Acestea sunt retrotranspozonii care invadează un genom gazdă eucariotă și se pot reproduce numai după ce virusul a infectat gazda. 

https://assuefazione.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/sumerian-me-memes-and-neurolinguistics/ <<  Sumerienii au dezvoltat un set de reguli și reglementări numite me care a cuprins fiecare aspect al vieții, credințe, tehnologie, comportament și condiții umane. >>

https://www.goodreads.com › quotesQuote by Neal Stephenson: “Sumerian culture – Goodreads Neal Stephenson

Cultura sumeriană — societatea bazată pe me — a fost o altă manifestare a metavirusului. Cu excepția faptului că, în acest caz, a fost mai degrabă într-o formă lingvistică decât în ​​ADN.” – „Scuzați-mă”, spune domnul Lee. „Spuneți că civilizația a început ca o infecție?” – „Civilizația în forma ei primitivă, da. Fiecare me era un fel de virus, dat afară de principiul metavirusului. Luați exemplul me-ului pentru coptul pâinii. Odată ce a intrat în societate, a fost o informație care se autosusținea. Este o chestiune simplă de selecție naturală: oamenii care știu să coacă pâine vor trăi mai bine și vor fi mai predispuși să se reproducă decât cei care nu știu cum. Desigur, ei vor răspândi me-ul, acționând ca gazde pentru această informație care se auto-replicheaza. Asta îl face să fie un virus. Cultura sumeriană — cu templele pline de me-uri — era doar o colecție de viruși de succes care se acumulaseră de-a lungul mileniilor. Era o operațiune de franciză, cu excepția faptului că avea zigurate în loc de arcade de aur și tăblițe de lut în loc de lianți cu trei inele. „Cuvântul sumerian pentru „minte” sau „înțelepciune” este identic cu cuvântul pentru „ureche”. Atât erau acei oameni: urechi cu corpuri atașate. Receptori pasivi de informații. Dar Enki era diferit. Enki era un tip care se întâmplase să fie deosebit de bun in meseria lui. Avea abilitatea neobișnuită de a scrie un me nou — era un hacker. El a fost, de fapt, primul om modern, o ființă umană pe deplin conștientă, la fel ca noi. „La un moment dat, Enki și-a dat seama că Sumerul era blocat într-o rutină. Oamenii înfăptuiau tot timpul același me-uri vechi, nu veneau cu altele noi, nu gândeau singuri. Bănuiesc că era singur, fiind una dintre puținele — poate singura – dintre ființe umane conștiente din lume. Și-a dat seama că, pentru ca rasa umană să avanseze, trebuia să fie eliberată din strânsoarea acestei civilizații virale. „Așa că a creat Nam-Shub-ul lui Enki, un contravirus care s-a răspândit pe aceleași rute ca me și metavirusul. A intrat în structurile profunde ale creierului și le-a reprogramat. De acum înainte, nimeni nu a putut înțelege limba sumeriană, sau orice alt limbaj bazat pe o structură profundă. Despărțiți de structurile noastre profunde comune, am început să dezvoltăm noi limbaje care nu aveau nimic în comun unul cu celălalt. Me-ul nu mai funcționa și nu a fost posibil să scriem noi me-uri. Transmiterea ulterioară a metavirusul a fost blocată. – „De ce nu au murit toată lumea din cauza lipsei de pâine, pierzându-mă pe mine care făceam pâine?” spune unchiul Enzo. – “Unii probabil că au făcut-o. Toți ceilalți au trebuit să-și folosească creierul in mod superior și să-și dea seama. Așa că ați putea spune că Nam-Shub-ul lui Enki a fost începutul conștiinței umane — atunci când a trebuit să gândim pentru noi înșine. A fost și începutul religiei raționale, prima dată când oamenii au început să se gândească la probleme abstracte precum Dumnezeu și Bine și Rău. De aici provine numele Babel. Literal înseamnă „Poarta lui Dumnezeu”. A fost poarta care a permis lui Dumnezeu să ajungă în rasa umană. Babel este o poartă în mintea noastră, o poartă care a fost deschisă de nam-shub-ul lui Enki care ne-a eliberat de metavirus și ne-a dat capacitatea de a gândi — ne-a mutat dintr-o lume materialistă într-o lume dualistă — o lume binară. Lume — atât cu o componentă fizică, cât și una spirituală

C R I T I C I

Sa admitem ca me-urile au avut caracteristicile virusilor. Insa nu sunt de acord cu afirmatiile: “Atât erau acei oameni: urechi cu corpuri atașate. Receptori pasivi de informații.” Nu erau nici pe departe receptori pasivi. Erau o populatie harnica si deosebit de dotata intelectual si inventiva. Nici cu aceasta: “Dar Enki era diferit.Enki era un tip care se întâmplase să fie deosebit de bun in meseria lui. Avea abilitatea neobișnuită de a scrie un me nou — era un hacker. El a fost, de fapt, primul om modern, o ființă umană pe deplin conștientă, la fel ca noi. La un moment dat, Enki și-a dat seama că Sumerul era blocat într-o rutină. Oamenii înfăptuiau tot timpul același me-uri vechi, nu veneau cu altele noi, nu gândeau singuri.” Enki era o zeitate, sau daca vrea neaparat Stephenson un conducator destept care impartea me-urile oamenilor. Acestea ar fi avut origine divina insa stim ca acesta e un mit, sumerienii (un popor harnic si dotat) au creat me-urile si au avut incontinuu capacitatea de a crea unele noi. Nu !: “Bănuiesc că era singur, fiind una dintre puținele — poate singura – dintre ființe umane conștiente din lume. Și-a dat seama că, pentru ca rasa umană să avanseze, trebuia să fie eliberată din strânsoarea acestei civilizații virale. „Așa că a creat nam-shub-ul lui Enki, un contravirus care s-a răspândit pe aceleași rute ca me și metavirusul. A intrat în structurile profunde ale creierului și le-a reprogramat. “Poate singura-dintre fiintele umane constiente din lume”!? Să vă fie rușine ! Nu a fost nici-o stransoare a unei civilizatii virale.Nam-shub:”stralucitor”, nu a fost creat de Enki și era :

Wikipedia Asaruludu《În mitologia sumeriană și akkadiană, Asaruludu este unul dintre anunnaki. Numele său este scris și Asarludu, Asarluhi și Namshub. Etimologia și semnificația numelui său sunt neclare.Asaruludu a servit ca exorcist în ritualurile religioase sumeriene. Ca Namshub (strălucitor), el este considerat o zeitate protectoare, „zeul strălucitor care ne luminează calea”. …. Asaruludu, ca zeitate patroană a lui Kuara, este posibil să fi fost înglobat în panteonul Eridu (orașul lui Enki) și astfel și-a dobândit rolul de zeu al incantațiilor. Uneori, Asalluhi joacă un rol intermediar, prezentând pacientul la Enki/Ea.Textele ulterioare îl descriu pe Asaruludu ca fiind fiul lui Enki/Ea, care împărtășește calitățile lui Enki/Ea de inteligență, sfat și „rațiune largă”, precum și expertiza în incantații.》

Enki era zeu nu locuitor si depozitarul me-urilor, tot el le și distribuia si nu a creat nimic (gen “metavirus”)contra me-urilor asta ar fi fost culmea ! Ca atare nu a existat nici ceva sa reprogrameze structurile profunde ale creierului! “De acum înainte, nimeni nu a putut înțelege limba sumeriană, sau orice alt limbaj bazat pe o structură profundă.” Limba sumeriana nu se bazeaza pe o structura profundă, dimpotrivă structurs este extrem de simpla si logica.Vezi John Halloran Proto-sumerian language invention process. << Diakonoff scria în 1983: „Voi defini ca „arhaica” orice limbă care, la nivel lexical, nu are mijloace de exprimare, sau doar slab dezvoltate a ideilor abstracte, iar la nivel gramatical, se bazează pe opoziția „acțiune vs. stare.” „Într-o limbă arhaică nu există mijloace adecvate, fie lexicale, fie gramaticale, pentru a exprima idei abstracte precum „timp”, „spațiu”, „subiect”, „obiect”, „cauză”, „frumusețe”, „libertate”, „invenție”, „înmulțire”, „împărțire” și multe altele, dintre care unele ni se par elementare, cum ar fi, de exemplu, distincția dintre „întuneric”, „calamitate”, „boală” și „durere” etc., sau între „bun”, „plăcut”, „bună”, „fericit”, „util”, „norocos” etc. Cu toate acestea, gândirea umană este imposibilă fără gândirea inductivă, adică gândirea care trece de la fapte particulare la o generalizare. ” … Diakonoff continuă: „Sumerianul este o limbă arhaică în care ideile abstracte se dezvoltau: de aceea atât limba sumeriană, cât și mitologia sumeriană sunt atât de interesante. Nu are mijloace de a exprima o relație subiect-obiect și mijloace foarte inadecvate. pentru a exprima ideea de timp etc.”>>

Despărțiți de structurile noastre profunde comune, am început să dezvoltăm noi limbaje care nu aveau nimic în comun unul cu celălalt. Me-ul nu mai funcționa și nu a fost posibil să scriem noi me-uri. ” Eugenrau: ?????? Noile limbi si limbaje au mai multe in comun decat se face Dl. Neal Stephenson că nu are cunoștința. Exista in mod clar o legatura si filiație. “Așa că ați putea spune că Nam-Shub-ul lui Enki a fost începutul conștiinței umane — atunci când a trebuit să gândim pentru noi înșine. A fost și începutul religiei raționale, prima dată când oamenii au început să se gândească la probleme abstracte precum Dumnezeu și Bine și Rău. De aici provine numele Babel. Literal înseamnă „Poarta lui Dumnezeu”. A fost poarta care a permis lui Dumnezeu să ajungă în rasa umană. Babel este o poartă în mintea noastră, o poartă care a fost deschisă de nam-shub-ul lui Enki care ne-a eliberat de metavirus și ne-a dat capacitatea de a gândi — ne-a mutat dintr-o lume materialistă într-o lume dualistă — o lume binară. Lume — atât cu o componentă fizică, cât și una spirituală. ” Nu!: Inceputul constiintei umane atunci cand a binevoit Dl.Stephenson să-l dateze si certifice !? Religie raționala?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality Au inceput să se gândeasca la probleme abstracte

Abstract thought’ -How is it significant and how does it define …https://medium.com › abstract-thought-how-is-it-signifi… Există câteva indicii în descoperirile uneltelor din documentarile arheologice paleolitice pe care le dezvoltă gândirea abstractă.

…Apoi de la poarta lui Dumnezeu deraiază complet.Cum ar fi : – o poartă care a fost deschisă de nam-shub-ul lui Enki care ne-a eliberat de metavirus și ne-a dat capacitatea de a gândi ?? Si inainte nu exista capacitatea de a gandi ?? – la sumerieni la un moment dat (și deloc inainte) “au inceput să existe simultan componentele fizică si cea spirituală“.

In primul rand am impresia ca se amesteca cunostinte superficiale din domeniile antropologiei, psihologiei, arheologiei, lingvisticii si informaticii, rezultand o nalucire care a prins contur in mintea autorului. Este pacat ca asistam la siluirea si pervertirea unei realitati istorice si culturale, noi cei cei care si asa traim intr-o lume partial alienata. Cu siguranta prima cea mai mare civilizatie a omenirii nu merita o asemenea abordare facila si nici un asemenea tratament.

Göbekli Tepe gerçek bir medeniyetin özelliklerini taşıyor mu?

November 17, 2021

Arkeolojik açıdan, yaşı ne olursa olsun, kendine has özellikleri olan her arkeolojik yer bir medeniyettir, örn. Natufian, Vinca. Bir gönderiden: Tanrı ve Güneş: Göbekli Tepe’deki Yazı Robert M. Schoch, Catherine Ulissey ile.

<< Geleneksel tarihçiler ve arkeologlar, kişinin gerçek uygarlığı tanımlayabileceği üç ana ayırt edici özelliğe sıklıkla dikkat çekmiştir: 1) Anıtsal taş mimarisi, 2) Yerleşik kentsel (şehir) yaşamı ve 3) Yazı. Tarihöncesi genellikle bir toplumun okuryazar olmasıyla eşitlenir; herhangi bir yazılı kitabeleri veya kayıtları yoksa, o zaman gerçek bir kayıtlı tarihleri ​​yoktur ve hem tarih öncesi hem de uygarlık öncesidirler. Ayrıca, geleneksel statüko düşüncesine göre, yazı ilk olarak MÖ 3000’den hemen önce Sümer ve Mısır’da icat edildi; bu nedenle, gerçek uygarlığın başlangıcını bu zamana kadar tarihlendirebiliriz. Ancak, 6000 yıldan fazla bir süre önce Kuzey Mezopotamya’da inanılmaz derecede sofistike Göbekli Tepe sitesini bulduk. Pek çok ana akım tarihçi, Göbekli Tepe’nin inşaatçılarına gerçek uygarlık etiketini uygulama konusunda tereddüt ediyor, ama neden? Anıtsal mimariye ve olası kentsel yerleşimlere rağmen, Göbekli Tepe’nin yaratıcılarına gerçek medeniyet unvanını inkar edecek olan araştırmacılar için en iyi argüman, görünüşe göre herhangi bir yazı biçimine sahip olmadıklarıdır (ya da öyleydi). Bununla birlikte, en son kanıtlar bu görüşü tamamen değiştirdi ve şüphecilerin bile medeniyetin kökenlerinin ne zaman ve nerede olduğunu yeniden düşünmesini talep ediyor.>>

Bu kriterle benim görüşüm Bay Schoch’unkiyle çelişiyor,

1) Anıtsal taş mimari, EVET 2) Yerleşik kent (şehir) yaşamı ve HAYIR (sadece hafif izler) 3) Yazı. HAYIR (yalnızca ilkel bir senaryo+işaret koleksiyonu, ilk yazma aşamasına ulaşmamış) Doğru değil Bay Schoch’un ifadesinin herhangi bir yazı biçimi yokmuş.

GENEL SONUÇ = Gerçek bir medeniyet değil. …..

Ancak çok ilginç bir şey buldum:  << Şimdi, meslektaşım Dr. Manu Seyfzadeh’in öngörüsü sayesinde, Göbekli Tepe’de bulunan sembolik gösterim için potansiyel bir bağlam ve karşılaştırmaya sahibiz. Seyfzadeh’in belirttiği gibi, Göbekli Tepe’deki bazı semboller, bin yıl sonra aynı genel bölgede (modern Türkiye) kullanılan Anadolu Hiyerogliflerine (Luwian ve/veya Hitit Hiyeroglifleri olarak da anılır) oldukça benzerdir. Bu tamamen tesadüf mü? olmadığını düşünüyoruz. Gerçekten de Anadolu Hiyeroglifleri ile Göbekli Tepe sütunlarından bazılarına oyulmuş semboller arasındaki bazı önemli benzerliklere işaret eden teknik bir makale yayınladık (Manu Seyfzadeh ve Robert Schoch, Arkeolojik Keşif, Şubat 2019, cilt 7, sayfa 31-53). … Anadolu Hiyeroglif yazıtları genellikle MÖ ikinci ve erken birinci bin yıllara tarihlenir (çoğu MÖ 1300-900 arası döneme aittir). Bu, Göbekli Tepe’nin inşasından 8000 yıl veya daha fazla bir süre sonra, ancak Göbekli Tepe halkı tarafından kullanılan bir yazı sisteminin en azından parçalarının hayatta kaldığını ve bazı durumlarda çeşitli değişikliklerle Anadolu Hiyeroglifleri sistemine dahil edildiğini gösteren dikkate değer korelasyonlar var. – ki bu oldukça anlaşılır ve hatta bu kadar uzun bir zaman diliminde beklenen bir durumdur. >>

Onlar (Schoch, Seyfzadeh) bilmiyorlar, daha çok bilmiyormuş gibi yapıyorlar ve Göbekli Tepe’den nispeten fazla sayıda işaret (12-20?) gösterdiğim son araştırmamdan haberdar değiller, onları çok daha yakın buldum o döneme (2500 yıl daha yakın) Sümer proto-çivi yazısı işaretleri arasında.

Ve sütunların “T” işaretini, “Ben” proto-çiviyazısı işaretinin eşdeğerine sahip olarak tanımlamaktan gurur duyuyorum. İnsan, toplum hayatı, ilahi ilişki alanında karmaşık bir anlamı vardır.

http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge3/image_4996_1e-Gobekli-Tepe.jpg

….Ama sanırım önemli bir düzeltmeyle geri dönmem gerekiyor. Anladığım kadarıyla, (aslında başkaları da) toplumu, Göbekli Tepe toplulukları eşi görülmemiş düzeyde bir sistem ve organizasyona sahipti, sadece mevcut Çinli ve Almanlarla karşılaştırılabilir (ama çok ötesinde). : Mevcut işaretler göz önüne alındığında, yeryüzünde yok olana kadar insan türünün, ister “uygarlık” desek, ister “medeniyet” olarak tanımlasak da, ne derseniz deyin, böyle bir düzeye gelemeyecek gibi görünüyor.

Gobekli Tepe have the characteristics of a true civilisation ?

November 17, 2021

From archaeological point of view, every archaeological place with own characteristics, not matter age is a civilisation, e.g. Natufian, Vinca. From a post: God and the Sun: The Writing at Göbekli Tepe By Robert M. Schoch, with Catherine Ulissey

<< Traditional historians and archaeologists have often pointed to three major distinguishing characteristics by which one can identify true civilization: 1) Monumental stone architecture, 2) Settled urban (city) life, and 3) Writing. Prehistoric is often equated with a society being pre-literate; if they do not have any written inscriptions or records, then they do not have a true recorded history and are both pre-historic and pre-civilized. Furthermore, according to conventional status quo thinking, writing was first invented just prior to around 3000 BCE in Sumer and Egypt; therefore, we can date the onset of true civilization to this time. However, over 6000 years earlier in Northern Mesopotamia we find the incredibly sophisticated site of Göbekli Tepe. Many mainstream historians are hesitant to apply the label of true civilization to the builders of Göbekli Tepe, but why? Despite monumental architecture and possible urban settlements, the best argument, for those researchers who would deny the title of true civilization to the creators of Göbekli Tepe, is (or was) that they apparently did not have any form of writing. However, the latest evidence has completely changed this notion and demands that even the skeptics must rethink the when and where of the origins of civilization.>>

With this criteria, my opinion is contrary that of Mr. Schoch,

1) Monumental stone architecture, YES 2) Settled urban (city) life, and NO (only slight traces) 3) Writing. NO (only a rudimentary script+collection of signs, not reached proto-writing stage) Not accurate Mr. Schoch statement apparently did not have any form of writing.(e.g. proto-writing is a stage before true writing !)

OVERALL RESULT = Not a true civilisation. …..

But I found something very interesting:  << Now, through the insight of my colleague, Dr. Manu Seyfzadeh, we do have a potential context and comparison for the symbolic notation found at Göbekli Tepe. As Dr. Seyfzadeh noted, some of the symbols at Göbekli Tepe are remarkably similar to the Anatolian Hieroglyphs (also referred to as Luwian and/or Hittite Hieroglyphs) used in the same general region (modern Turkey) millennia later. Is this purely coincidental? We think not. Indeed, we published a technical paper pointing out some major similarities between the Anatolian Hieroglyphs and the symbols carved on some of the Göbekli Tepe pillars (Manu Seyfzadeh and Robert Schoch, Archaeological Discovery, February 2019, volume 7, pages 31-53). … The Anatolian Hieroglyphic inscriptions generally date to the second and early first millennia BCE (with many from the period of circa 1300–900 BCE). This is 8000 years or more after the construction of Göbekli Tepe, yet there are remarkable correlations suggesting that at least fragments of a writing system used by the Göbekli Tepe people survived and were incorporated into the system of Anatolian Hieroglyphs, in some cases with various modifications – which is quite understandable, and even expected, over such a vast length of time. >>

They (Schoch, Seyfzadeh) do not know, rather they pretend not to know and are not aware from my recent research in which I showed that a relatively large number of signs (12-20?) from Gobekli Tepe, I found them much closer to that period, (with 2,500 years closer) among the Sumerian proto-cuneiform signs.

And I am most proud of identifying the “T” sign of the pillars, as having the equivalent of the proto-cuneiform sign “Me”. It has a complex meaning in the sphere of the relationship man, society life, divine. http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge3/image_4996_1e-Gobekli-Tepe.jpg

Monumental round-oval buildings with their characteristic T-shaped monolithic pillars at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. Image credit: Nico Becker, Göbekli Tepe Archive, German Archaeological Institute.

..But I think I need to come back with an essential correction. From what I begin to deduce, (in fact also others) society, the communities of Gobekli Tepe had a system and organization of an unprecedented level, comparable only (but far beyond) with the current Chinese and German.So the answer is rather this: Given the current signs, it seems likely that the human species will not reach such a level, whether we call it or define “civilization” or whatever you want, until its extinction on earth.

Breakthrough: Gobekli Tepe’s handbags

November 8, 2021

I must confess you, I studied sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, when made research regarding Tartaria tablets. I was stunned to see one sign, repeated three times, on one of Gobekli Tepe pillars (No.43).In my mind cannot conceal the presence of a later sumerian sign at a allmost 6.000 years time span back.( or reverse: presence of Gobekli Tepe symbols 6,000 years ahead from sumerian proto-writing) I sought that possible Gobekli Tepe site is not so old !?

Dating Gobekli Tepe: the evidence doesn’t support a PPNB date, but instead a possibly much later one
Dimitrios S. Dendrinos Ph.D., MArchUD, DiplArchEng. Emeritus Professor, School Of Architecture and Urban Design, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. In residence at Ormond Beach, Florida. Contact at: cbf-jf@earthlink.net
September 19, 2016 https://www.plutorules.com/uploads/7/2/6/8/72681811/dating_gobekli_tepe_september_19_2016.pdf << Abstract
The paper analyzes the evidence regarding the dating of the Gobekli Tepe complex. First, it examines the C14 dating information supplied by the archeologist in charge of the Gobekli Tepe excavation, Klaus Schmidt, and a number of others. This is claimed as evidence that Gobekli Tepe is of the at least PPNB period. The evidence they analyzed was obtained from both the fill, as well
as from the plaster at the surface of certain Gobekli Tepe structures. The paper also examines the lithic based evidence regarding the fill at the site. Clear evidence that counters these claims is presented in this paper. Although the Gobekli Tepe site can be shown to be of much later construction date than PPPNB, the paper sets as a modest aim to show that the structures at GT so far analyzed are of a later than PPNB date. Evidence covering both C14 dating, as well as architectural, urban design, urban planning, demography and art evidence is offered to back this argument. Extensive use is made of architectural elements from PPNA Natufian settlements, as well as PPNA/B settlements Hallan Cemi and Jerf el-Ahmar.>>



12  thousand years ago: Göbekli Tepe, pillar 43 in enclosure D https://eugenrau.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/9303f-1bxyfapfb9mw3j4in23kmug.jpeg

Most of the scientists think symbols are representing bags.Were related to prosperty, good wealth and used in religious rituals such as purification and fertility, and containing water, polen or seeds. ======== There are 3 signs among sumerian proto-cuneiform ones, wich are very close to the shapes of that “handbags”, and which I would like to consider and examine: Ga2, DUB, and URUDU. ====== 1.FIRST SIGN. Proto-cuneiform sign GA2

I PAY ATTENTION TO THIS SIGN NOT DUE OF THE SHAPE, BUT BECAUSE MANY SCIENTIST ARE EXPECTING KIND OF CONTAINER, AS SEEN AND SPREAD IN MANY SCULPTURES/BASS-RELIEFS THROUGHOUT THE EARTH

I suppose that the sign on the pillar,along the time wasstilised, and become by sumerians sign Ga2 :

https://ro.scribd.com/document/353794019/PROTO-LANGUAGE-MONOSYLLABLES-With-Their-Principal-Meanings-by-Patrick-C-Ryan

From Archaeology of Food: An Encyclopedia Karen Bescherer Metheny, ‎Mary C. Beaudry file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Vessels_and_other_containers_for_the_sto.pdf                         “This frame or container sign is reletad to a symilar basket or box, namely the sign GA2”   

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-6.png

with sign value https://www.oocities.org/proto-language/SumerianSignValueRegister.htm&nbsp; ba4, ga2, ma3, pisan, sita.

Sumerian Lexicon – Sumerian Language Pagewww.sumerian.org › sumerianPDFAug 11, 1999 — The Sumerian lexicon has benefitted from several classes at UCLA with … pisań(2/3), pisan(2/3): (open) basket; box, chest; frame 

The sumerian word for basket, container, chest is : http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com › …PDF Sumerian Cuneiform English Dictionary 12013CT – bulgari-istoria 5 mai 2000 — The niftiest ‘Sumerian Cuneiform English Dictionary’ in the university world: … GA2 (ga2 / ), mal, bisag / bisaĝ [ 704x] (pisan) = basket | [208x] … The wooden

http://www.academia.edu › Interpreting_J… (DOC) Interpreting John.A. Halloran’s Sumerian Lexicon … *gá: basket; house; stable (cf., gar) [GA2 archaic frequency: 125; concatenation of 5 sign variants] . ga – has the composition- ka- and the meaning-of the word iskukai-cave…

pisannu [THE SIGN GA₂] http://oracc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/dcclt/signlists/cbd/akk/x00021680.html?fbclid=IwAR12vD3clUldzJXSraso3Oga3tf_GGrMR2bslHkvX4sLsB7rdmPcI6d0Ig8

http://www.federatio.org › mi_biblPDF Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian (EDH) 22 ian. 2007 — to a relative small common Sumerian-Hungarian basis of … have always adhered to the Sumerian-Hungarian theory or … Sum. + gur … Sum. ga2 (pronounced nga) “I”

Proposal ; ZATU 751~b

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png

From Handbags of the Gods. https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1132912/pg1?fbclid=IwAR29xOv15LmiBxatY8str-6lbz6KjGfrhL-urOIzGqPFnWfvw4ZQKFkZ2C8 <<… they could be made of sheep hide or wicker work or beads, have metal handles or wooden, but they held such symbolic importance that they were Deified having their own Temple. …. In discussing why this was so from the Hittite perspective i’ll illustrate this with images from Jiroft curiously enough, as that culture silent in terms of translated text i consider as having the best recovered artifacts relating to this cult, suggesting an earlier common source to that of the Hittites, that being very ancient, indeed Kursa being seen at Gobekli Tepe. … We can see then that the symbolic hand bag would have had association with life, vigor and longevity and the general well being of the land, at Jiroft i think one sees all aspects of this mythos in the context of grave goods were the bag illustrates the relationship of a Telipinu type hero illustrating his relationship to nature, the connectivity between the Eastern and Western horizons in terms of constellations seen mirrored, and the cosmological palace of the great Palace and the windows of the horizon, an edifice of three layers generally. >>

https://oi.uchicago.edu//sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as26.pdf Do you know what else is missing? Let’s start wondering why a hunting bag was such a powerful symbol in a population of hunter-gatherers?

https://www.academia.edu › The_Hi…The Hittite kursa similar with the Greek aegis ? (and the impact of …

https://www.academia.edu › The_m…The mother of the hunting god and a kursa on the eya tree.

======== 2. Second SIGN, “DUB” This is much close to our sign. From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html sign “DUB

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/DUB~c.jpg

The notion of tablet or imprinting was not unknown for Gobekli Tepe’s people:

Collection of plaquettes bearing iconographic symbolism from Göbekli Tepe. (Photo: N. Becker, DAI)

You see, the idea of knowledge received from ancestors or from heaven, sky divine beings is very old through-out the World, and sure preceded writing. Thus divine knowledge was before smelting metals discovery, the second sign in my opinion is a little newer than those on the pillar. DUB is known, DUBSAR:”scribe” (DUB/(clay)tablet-SAR/write,writer) But the initial old meaning is to imprint and to seal, because seals preceded writing.  

http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2015/05/sumerian-and-indo-european-surprising.html << – Sum. dub ‘tablet‘, dubsar ‘scribe’ (‘tablet-writer’), dub ‘to push away, down; to smash, abolish’ (Akkadian translation), ‘to hammer’ (Civil’s Glossary), -Today I give the proposal based on Arams Suggestions:
Sumerian Dub ”Scribe” with PIE *tup- “to push, stick, knock, beat” the root of English Type – Old Persian dipi- ‘writing’ is considered as coming from Elamite tippi, more ancient tuppi, supposed to be an evolution of Sum. dub itself. But in this context we can propose that the Elamite form is connected with a common root dub/tup- ‘to stamp, impress‘. >> You see, the shape of DUB is like of a portable handle-seal or stamp, see curved handle.

So the handbags are containing tablets wich carry divine knowledge, “the tablets of destiny”

From Tablet of Destinies (mythic item) – Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Tablet_of_Destinies_(…In Mesopotamian mythology, the Tablet of Destinies (Sumerian: 𒁾𒉆𒋻𒊏 dub namtarra; Akkadian: ṭup šīmātu, ṭuppi šīmāti) was envisaged as a clay tablet

From Nimrud – Ninurta, Sumerian god – Pinteresthttps://www.pinterest.com › … › Egypt…  Sumerian god of the plough attacks Anzu to regain the stolen Tablets of Destinies. … Inside The Anunnaki Purse

Those handbags, tablets of destinies have in common the idea of divine decree, destiny

Me (mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_(mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_(mythology) << In Sumerian mythology, a me (𒈨; Sumerian: me; Akkadian: parsu) is one of the decrees of the divine that is foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible. They are fundamental to the Sumerian understanding of the relationship between humanity and the gods. …. The mes were originally collected by Enlil and then handed over to the guardianship of Enki, who was to broker them out to the various Sumerian centers, beginning with his own city of Eridu and continuing with Ur, Meluhha, and Dilmun. …. The Sumerian tablets never actually describe what any of the mes look like, but they are clearly represented by physical objects of some sort.>>

THERE WERE SETS OF ME’s AS BUNDLES OF TABLETS

Enki in Ancient Literature – World History Encyclopediahttps://www.worldhistory.org › article › enki-in-ancient…Jan 15, 2017 — Enki is a god of Sumerian mythology and, later in time, … He was the keeper of the divine powers called me-s (Tablets of Destiny)

Inside The Alien Anunnaki Purse https://www.afrikaiswoke.com/anunnaki-purse/

Inside The Anunnaki Purse
https://i2.wp.com/www.afrikaiswoke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Annunaki_Handbag1Cover.jpg?fit=770%2C471&ssl=1

Ultimately, both mainstream Historians and Ancient Astronaut Theorists agree that the Anunnaki carried MEs in their purses.What is not clear is the exact nature of these devices which are only described as ‘splendid’ in the Sumerian Texts. However, if we consider what MEs were used for, and what they helped to accomplish in the Sumerian Civilization, then its possible that they were some kind of advanced database or computation device that was used by the advanced Race of Ancient Astronaut Alien Beings called the Anunnaki that established Civilization on Earth.

The Last Apkalllu | Sumerian Arthttps://sumerians.creator-spring.com › listing › the-last-…The Apkallu (Akkadian) or Abgal (Sumerian), are seven Sumerian sages

Apkallu – Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apkallu <<Apkallu (Akkadian) and Abgal (Sumerian:𒉣𒈨 ) are terms found in cuneiform inscriptions that in general mean either “wise” or “sage”.>>

Mario Brun – Bird-headed sages (apkallu) In order to… | Facebookhttps://ne-np.facebook.com › posts·  Bird-headed sages (apkallu) In order to protect a household, figures would be buried beneath the floor in groups of seven.

Nu este disponibilă nicio descriere pentru fotografie.
900-612 BC
From Nimrud and Niveveh, northern Iraq
From the British Museum collection
London 2014 photo by me on a research trip https://www.facebook.com/benxmann/photos/a.310341352648287/310379882644434/

The Meaning of the Sumerian Tablets of Destiny – Warlock …https://warlockasyluminternationalnews.com › the-mean… https://warlockasyluminternationalnews.com/aspects-of-the-necronomicon/the-meaning-of-the-sumerian-tablets-of-destiny/ The tablet can be compared with the concept of the Me, divine decrees …. Both this poem and the Akkadian Anzû poem concern the theft of the tablet by the bird Imdugud (Sumerian) or Anzû (Akkadian).Supposedly, whoever possessed the tablet ruled the universe. …..

(PDF) The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythologyhttps://www.researchgate.net › … › Mythologyand mythological meaning of the term me: VEmelianov, Calendar Ritual in Sumerian. Religion and Culture (ME’s and the Spring Festivals) (2009)

========= very interesting =========

Shape T of pillars= sumerian proto-cuneiform sign Me :”Divine powers, divine decree,…”( and others ) On wich we have three symbols (“marks,seals, tablets” ?) so maybe three tablets. In fact three sets of tablets of destinies. Maybe every of (3?) tribes received his set of instructions (see different animals relating to each tribe)

IT IS ABSOLUTELY WEIRD THAT PROTO-CUNEIFORM SIGN DUB “TABLET” HAS CLOSE SHAPE WITH THAT OF BAG/CONTAINER/BASKET …AND BESIDE BASKET SIGN IS ALSO HOUSE! :

3-rd sign, “URUDU” (urudu:”luminous objectmould,cast” = “copper“) :

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is URUDU~c.jpg
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/URUDU~c.jpg

Of course metals were not present at Gobekli Tepe, at least in the LAYER II time/9,000 B.C. By sumerians appeared later. Interpretation of John. A. Halloran’s Sumerian Lexicon … – NanoPDFhttps://nanopdf.com › download › interpreation-of-j…PDF <<urudu, uruda, urud: copper; metal (ùru, ‘luminous object, + dù, ‘to mould, cast’) [URUDU archaic frequency: 61; concatenates 3 sign variants] >> …..Metals are generally luminous (except iron, lead?)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bfca7-tat2.jpg
https://eugenrau.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/bfca7-tat2.jpg

=========

After documenting, I got a clear image and could advance a hypothesis on the origin, evolution and meaning of so called “handbag” sign. Surprisingly is not the fact that the symbol is very old and oripginated at Gobekli Tepe, but the fact that the first ordinary meaning is near identical to bag. In fact it seems that was a hunting bag, and not at all an ordinary one. but used in religios-related rituals and was as much sacred that at the hittites there was also a God with the name Kursa:”hunting bag”/”breastplate-shield”?

https://www.academia.edu › The_m… The mother of the hunting god and a kursa on the eya tree. He remarked that, in Sumerian, the bird is the sign for fate and destiny

The cult of the Kursa in the kingdom of Hattusa, the Illuyanka myth and the way to Colchis. https://www.academia.edu/6064994/The_cult_of_the_Kursa_in_the_kingdom_of_Hattusa_the_Illuyanka_myth_and_the_way_to_Colchis?fbclid=IwAR12vD3clUldzJXSraso3Oga3tf_GGrMR2bslHkvX4sLsB7rdmPcI6d0Ig8

The Kursa and the Golden Fleece Sjur Cappelen Papazian https://aratta.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/9863/amp/?fbclid=IwAR1b8nr3vdrllooik0jAXPFgDE65MF5sgYwrW77T9w0cbF0-lizZXzJvV1Y

The mother of the hunting god and a kursa on the eya tree. Joost Blasweiler https://www.academia.edu/4853772/The_mother_of_the_hunting_god_and_a_kursa_on_the_eya_tree << The scholar Maciej Popko stated in his dissertation of 1978 that the kursa (the fleece) played animportant role in religion and many old Hittite festivals. The kursa was a sacral attribute and was offered as a representative of a god.Popko explained how the Hittite kursa, a bag of leather … … Some texts indicate that the kursa could have also be in the form of a shield or a cloth. It is then a cult symbol, which stands next to the sacral container with 20 arrows. Popkoremarked that there is a possibility that the kursa was not a shield but a skin, a fleece, which protected the arrow container.>> See in the extreme right a bag is hunging from stylized (eya) tree

https://html.scribdassets.com/vjqizqf285r6hkm/images/2-8c9a392e1a.jpg

————————————————— I was impressed at what extent spread this symbol, and in how many cultures.Evidence is the presence in so many places. Probably the Gobekli Tepe symbol had complex meaning, beside bag, basket container having also that of house and impression, inprinting. The root DUB is present in IE languages ast the root Typ, greek typos> tipografy, to type.

Sumerian and Indo-European: a surprising connection – New …http://new-indology.blogspot.com › 2015/05 › sumeria…May 2, 2015 — Sumerian Dub ”Scribe” with PIE *tup- “to push, stick, knock, beat” the root of English Type etc, compare Akkadian tup Persian dabir/dapir, Arm ..

The root dub/tup- ‘to stamp, impress‘, make me to think that on the pillar they wanted to stamp,impress leave the mark of the main tribes, as near every symbol was a different animal (TOTEM !)

The evidence of meaning “impress,tablet” are the tablets with signs found at Gobekli Tepe, and the shape of proto-cuneiform sign “DUB” . For the meaning “house” the evidence is the close shape of GA2 sign, of course modified, stilised in passing thousend years, toward vedged-cuneiform.

—————– Not one scientist, but many hypothesised that those symbols could signify houses:

(PDF) So Fair a House Gobekli Tepe and the Identification of …https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 25956191…Sep 24, 2015 — Relief on pillar 43 in structure D. Note the “box-like” objects near the … One possible interpretation of these objects is as houses with …

Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth’s Lost …https://books.google.ro › booksGraham Hancock · 2015 · ‎HistoryFigure 52: Astronomer Giulio Magli notes of Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe (right) that the ‘bags’ in the top register are similar to the ‘houses in the sky‘ …

Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the …https://books.google.ro › booksAndrew Collins · 2014 · ‎Body, Mind & SpiritOn Pillar 43’s western face are three vultures, one of which is a juvenile. … are most likely animal pens or houses, situated on what could be the edge of 

From So Fair a House Gobekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East

Edward Bruce Banning University of Toronto https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259561913_So_Fair_a_House_Gobekli_Tepe_and_the_Identification_of_Temples_in_the_Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_of_the_Near_East https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

Conjectural reconstruction of the roof framing of structure B at Göbekli Tepe with (a) plan view and (b) cross section along the line A-B. Peripheral rafters are omitted from a, some pillars are conjectural, and scale is only very approximate (E. Banning)
Fig 4 – uploaded by Edward Bruce Banning

YOU SEE, IT SEEMS THAT FROM THAT CONCRETE SYMBOL ON THE PILLAR, APPARENTLY DERIVED IN THE COURSE OF TIME OTHER CLOSE SHAPED SIGNS WITH THE MEANINGS: GA2: “HOUSE” ; “BASKET” > Hitt.Kursa, “hunting bag ?” (At Gobekli Tepe, there was any Gucci yet, so rather baskets) DUB:”STAMP, IMPRESS,TABLET” URUDU:”COPPER” (much later)

In my opinion, at Gobekli Tepe were sacred symbols, wich represented SACRED BASKETS/HANDBAGS USED IN RELIGIOUS RITUALS IN THE SAME WAY AS HITTITE USED CURSAS.

Today I had a revelation: It is not by chance that Vulture stone/pillar 43 has on it depicted in the same time the bags and a lot of birds.Birds are later sumerian Apkallu=”wise,sage” (… these figurines include fish-man hybrids representing the seven sages, but also include bird-headed and other figures.) and Anzu birds. An mean sky and zu wisdom intelligence, so wisdom and knowledge from sky. From Wikipedia:”AN.ZU could therefore mean simply “heavenly eagle” Also I learned that close around shifting North Pole there were those many bird-constellations.Probably as at siberian hunter-gatherers, the north pole was the channel used by shamans to comunicate with the Other World From Axis Mundi Wikipedia: 《A common shamanic concept, and a universally told story, is that of the healer traversing the axis mundi to bring back knowledge from the other world.》

https://earthsky.org/upl/2014/06/summer-triangle-sq-e1559769506547.jpg

Folowing image, from

GÖBEKLI TEPE’S PILLAR 43:
AN ASTRONOMICAL INTERPRETATION

Andrew Collins and Rodney Hale

.

Movement of the North Celestial Pole: https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/precession-changing-pole-star.png

Gobekli Tepe not so old ?

November 7, 2021

Doing my research regarding Gobekli Tepe site ,I cannot explain why some things especially symbols and signs are so close related to that sumerian ones.

Despite great time span between this civilisations of 6,000 years,(from 9,600/Gobekli to 3,600/sumerian).I not comprehend how cultural achievent (symbols and marks) have been continously transmitted from generation to generation such a long time. As knowing well sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, I was shocked finding some of them at Gobekli Tepe. There are many of them, e.g. those handbags,sign T,sign H, and so on. In my mind aroused a quick explanation, as Gobekli Tepe not beeing so old or was in contact /visited by (proto?) sumerians a long time period. Very interesting, as allmost all scientists are for very old dates (level III, beginning at PPNA)

https://www.dainst.blog › 2016/06/22 How old is it? Dating Göbekli Tepe.

very-very few are contesting this dating. One is Professor Dimitrios S. Dendrinos of Kansas University :

https://www.researchgate.net › 3174…(PDF) Dating Gobekli Tepe – ResearchGate — Why Gobekli Tepe isn’t a PPNA or a PPNB site

https://www.researchgate.net › 3189…(PDF) Gobekli Tepe, Tell Qaramel, Tell Es-Sultan – Research Gate — 10th millennium BC PPNA down to the 7th millennium BC late PPNB

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352881173_MORE_ON_CARBON-14_EVIDENCE_AND_GOBEKLI_TEPE Another same opinion: https://such.forumotion.com/t9998-to-the-archaeologically-curious-a-comment-on-the-ancient-gobekli-tepe-in-turkey 《Furthermore, since the site (“temples” for example ) at GT required cutting and shaping of huge stone pillars etc. (weighing in tons, as much as 50 tons), that type of enormous task would not have been carried out by builders without the help of metallic tools (made from copper, bronze or iron etc.) or at least until 5000 BC (7000 years ago) when humans first learnt the use of metals (or perhaps even as late as 4000 BC when the use of metallic tools became common). Thus the GT site, rather than being of a Pre Pottery Neolithic era, appears to be much younger, belonging probably to the post-metallic age and coming after 4000 BC (perhaps even as late as 1900 BC, after making corrections to the apparent radiocarbon date of 10000 BC).》

https://groups.google.com › msg › s…Oldest Writing? – Google Groups First, the Göbekli Tepe culture was not Natufian

https://www.eupedia.com › index.phpAncient Egyptian dna-Kraus et al [Archive] – Eupedia Forum –Natufian comprises basal European ancestry and the Neolithic expansion with megalithic

Göbekli Tepe dating plain wrong https://www.academia.edu/39378001/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe_dating_plain_wrong https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mistery-of-gobekli-tepe

========== – I will be not happier if the site is in reality younger. – On some points, Mr.Dendrinos is right (what samples were age-determined, comparison with other Natufian sites) – If wonder why not found pottery: https://such.forumotion.com/t9998-to-the-archaeologically-curious-a-comment-on-the-ancient-gobekli-tepe-in-turkey 《Considering humans have used pottery (including clay pots and pans) since prehistoric times (well before 15000 BC), the association with PPN for GT (with questionable radiocarbon date 10000 BC) is quite preposterous 》 – Gobekli Tepe society was at least as highly organised as that sumerian, (taking account how much earlier was). -As sumerians received sets of divine decrees, sets of Me, possible hunter-gatherers tribes received also sets of instructions. – Gobekli Tepe was later DuKusacred mound” ! – Gobekli saman was later Ur-Bau, Ur-Meme, divine-healer goddess Gula ? – Periodically Gobekli gatherings for keeping fertility feasts and festivals continued with annual sumerian festivals.

https://second.wiki › wikiArchaic Spirituality in Systematized Religions – second.wiki 《The most original cult forms of the pre-Hittite period, in which Semitic and Indo-European populations mixed, were found in Göbekli Tepe in southern Anatolia and in Çatalhöyük》

Anatolian origin for Indo-European and sumerian languages ?

November 2, 2021

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages 《The hypothetical ancestral language of the Nostratic family is called Proto-Nostratic.Proto-Nostratic would have been spoken between 15,000 and 12,000 BCE, in the Epipaleolithic period, close to the end of the last glacial period.

The Sumerian and Etruscan languages, usually regarded as language isolates, are thought by some to be Nostratic languages as well. Others, however, consider one or both to be members of another macrofamily called Dené–Caucasian.》 ========== https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture 《The view that the Natufians spoke an Afroasiatic language is accepted by Vitaly Shevoroshkin. Alexander Militarev and others have argued that the Natufian may represent the culture that spoke the proto-Afroasiatic language, which he in turn believes has a Eurasian origin associated with the concept of Nostratic languages. The possibility of Natufians speaking proto-Afroasiatic, and that the language was introduced into Africa from the Levant, is approved by Colin Renfrew with caution, as a possible hypothesis for proto-Afro-Asiatic dispersal. .. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern pre-proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fp1TvPT3pZg/RgHK_vCheBI/AAAAAAAAACU/ucOC61z8Ymk/s1600-h/Pg_nostratic.gif

========= I.E. and sumerian, originated not in the same place, but close one of another ? E.g. I.E. in Central Turkey and Sumerian in South- Eastern Turkey ?https://images.app.goo.gl/rXfMfxBGokP3AazL7

=== Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family === REMCO BOUCKAERTPHILIPPE LEMEYMICHAEL DUNNSIMON J. GREENHILLALEXANDER V. ALEKSEYENKOALEXEI J. DRUMMONDRUSSELL D. GRAYMARC A. SUCHARDAND QUENTIN D. ATKINSON  https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1219669?doi=10.1126/science.1219669 A Family of Languages English is part of the large Indo-European language family, which includes Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian languages. The origin of this family is hotly debated: one hypothesis places the origin north of the Caspian Sea in the Pontic steppes, from where it was disseminated by Kurgan semi-nomadic pastoralists; a second suggests that Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey, is the source, and the language radiated with the spread of agricultureBouckaert et al. (p. 957) used phylogenetic methods and modeling to assess the geographical spread of the Indo-European language group. The findings support the suggestion that the origin of the language family was indeed Anatolia 7 to 10 thousand years ago—contemporaneous with the spread of agriculture. Abstract There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago. We used Bayesian phylogeographic approaches, together with basic vocabulary data from 103 ancient and contemporary Indo-European languages, to explicitly model the expansion of the family and test these hypotheses. We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago. These results highlight the critical role that phylogeographic inference can play in resolving debates about human prehistory.

https://images.app.goo.gl/rXfMfxBGokP3AazL7

=== https://phys.org/news/2012-08-indo-european-languages-anatolia.html ===

Atkinson PIE Homeland Map

==== From https://phys.org/news/2012-08-indo-european-languages-anatolia.html ====

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png
https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2012/indoeuropean.jpg Map showing the inferred geographic origin of the Indo-European language family. The inferred point of origin is plotted in translucent red such that darker areas correspond to increased probability. The blue polygons delineate the proposed origin area under the Steppe hypothesis; dark blue represents the initial suggested Steppe homeland, and light blue denotes a later version of the Steppe hypothesis. The yellow polygon delineates the proposed origin under the Anatolian hypothesis. A green star in the steppe region shows the location of the centroid of the sampled languages. © MPI for Psycholinguistics

The majority view in historical linguistics is that the homeland of the Indo-European language family was located in the Pontic steppes (present day Ukraine) around 6000 years ago. The evidence for this comes from linguistic paleontology: in particular, certain words to do with the technology of wheeled vehicles are arguably present across all the branches of the Indo-European family; and archaeology tells us that wheeled vehicles arose no earlier than this date. The minority view links the origins of Indo-European with the spread of farming from Anatolia 8000-9500 years ago. The minority view is decisively supported by the present analysis in this week’s Science. This analysis combines a model of the evolution of the lexicons of individual languages with an explicit spatial model of the dispersal of the speakers of those languages.》

=== Addendum to The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process by John A. Halloran ==== https://www.sumerian.org/prot-add.htm

<<This note follows up on the conclusions at the end of my 1996 paper on “The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process”.

After the proto-Sumerians made the conceptual breakthrough of mapping important things in the world to vocalic symbols, i.e., inventing spoken language, the concept spread to other nearby cultures.

Archaeologists now describe the very early megalithic temple site of Göbekli Tepe in south-eastern Turkey/Anatolia as an important supra-regional pilgrimage site, whose “rich and varied material culture suggests its visitation by peoples from three distinct cultural regions: Upper Mesopotamia, the Zagros and the southern Levant” (where proto-Sumerian arose to the east in the Zagros mountains and proto-Semitic arose down in the southern Levant). “Research indicates the site was created by hunter-gatherers, rather than farmers, who came from across a large area to build and then visit the site for religious purposes.” In an informative program for the National Geographic Channel called Cradle of the Gods, archaeologist Dr. Jeff Rose devoted an hour to exploring what the site of Göbekli Tepe might have been used for and where its builders might have lived.

In parallel with the archaeology, language studies are increasingly indicating that it was these same inhabitants of southeastern Anatolia who created and perfected the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, the ancestor of English, Russian, Sanskrit, Persian, Latin, Greek, Hittite, Armenian, Kurdish, etc. According to an article in the August 23, 2012 issue of the journal Science, an evolutionary biologist, Quentin Atkinson of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and a large international team have adapted a technique normally used to study the evolution and spread of disease (Bayesian phylogeographic analysis) to analyze the existing vocabulary and geographical range of 103 Indo-European languages and computationally walk them back in time and place to their statistically most likely origin. The result is that “we found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin.” Both the timing and the root of the tree of Indo-European languages “fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8,000 to 9,500 years ago“.

The creators of PIE did not originate the concept of spoken mouth gestures for communication, but living at the center of a vibrant multi-cultural community, they probably had extensive experience in communicating using bodily gestures. They applied that background to develop what in effect was an improved Language 2.0, versions of which then spread far and wide from the Göbekli Tepe pilgrimage site.

In an episode of the TV sit-com Two and a Half Men from 2003, Jon Cryer’s character Alan says, “I mean, why doesn’t anyone speak Sumerian anymore?” Compared to the other languages that it inspired, Sumerian had a more primitive design structure. You might as well ask why computer programmers no longer write code directly in machine assembly language, preferring instead one of the more modern high-level programming languages, which are conceptually flexible and user-friendly.Notes

  1. R. Bouckaert, P. Lemey, M. Dunn, S. J. Greenhill, A. V. Alekseyenko, A. J. Drummond, R. D. Gray, M. A. Suchard, Q. D. Atkinson. “Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family”. Science, 2012; 337 (6097): 957 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669 >>

==== From Proto-Indo-European homeland south of the Caucasus? Carlos Quiles ==== https://indo-european.eu/2018/03/proto-indo-european-homeland-south-of-the-caucasus/

Ancient DNA available from this time in Anatolia shows no evidence of steppe ancestry similar to that in the Yamnaya (although the evidence here is circumstantial as no ancient DNA from the Hittites themselves has yet been published). This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians. If this scenario is right the population sent one branch up into the steppe-mixing with steppe hunter-gatherers in a one-to-one ratio to become the Yamnaya as described earlier- and another to Anatolia to found the ancestors of people there who spoke languages such as Hittite.

https://www.facebook.com/bronzeagecollapse/posts/the-archaeology-dna-of-anatolia-and-the-caucasuspictured-caucasus-mountains-map-/1389920471195018/

eugenrau: Armenia Turkey Iran ….rather than Steppes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Euphratean_languageProto-Euphratean is a hypothetical unclassified language or languages which was considered by some Assyriologists (for example, Samuel Noah Kramer) to be the substratum language of the people who introduced farming into Southern Iraq in the Early Ubaid period (5300-4700 BC). …. A related proposal by Gordon Whittaker[3] is that the language of the proto-literary texts from the Late Uruk period (c. 3350–3100 BC) is an early Indo-European language that he terms “Euphratic“.》

ASIA MINOR (MODERN TURKEY) WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST CROSS-ROADS OF CIVILIZATION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD http://www.peraair.com/timeline-and-history-of-asia-minor-anatolia See how close were even later:

http://www.peraair.com/myimages/filemanager/Map1Anatolia2500BC.jpg
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6568-What-haplogroup-is-associated-with-the-site-of-Gobekli-Tepe/page4

The Urheimat of the Nostratic Languages Valentin Stetsyuk https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Nostratic.html 《The later speakers of this parent language could move to other places, but there was the ancestral home of their descendants. H.Birnbaum expressed this most accurately: And probably, if the main spreading space of the Nostratic language – as intended – should be really identified with the South Caucasus, the eastern (and southern) Anatolia and upper course of the Tigris and Euphrates, it is natural to assume that the later areas of the spread of the Proto-Indo-European language was closer to the Black Sea – the Pontic steppe areas in northern and western Anatolia…(BIRNBAUM H. 1993: 16)》 ======= Eurasiatic > prot.-Afro-Asiatic > (prot.)-Sumerian From same Eurasiatic >Anatolian- I.European

Kutsal sembol T’nin Göbekli Tepe’den iletilmesi ve genişletilmesi

November 1, 2021

Kültürler ve medeniyetler alanında aktarım olgusu bilinmektedir. Örneğin, Neolitik çağın veya tarımın Orta Doğu’dan Avrupa’ya geçişi. Bu demik ve/veya kültürel olarak ortaya çıkabilir. Burada ikisiyle de uğraşıyoruz. ——— Önceki gönderilerde, sütunların yapımında kullanılan kutsal sembol T’nin anlamı ile ilgili bir hipotez ileri sürdüm. Özetle, esas olarak şunlara güvendim: – Sümer işareti T’nin daha sonra kabulü: “Ben”. Karmaşık bir anlamı vardı, İnanna ve Enki Mitinde ME Listesi – Angelfirehttps://www.angelfire.com › tintirbabylon › ME <> Rus araştırmacı V.V.’nin çıkardığı etimolojiye güvendim. Emelianov, yani “yaşama iradesi” – Göbekli Tepe nüfusunun olduğu dinin gelişme aşamasının paganizm olduğu gerçeği. Paganizm büyük ölçüde doğaya tapınma anlamına gelir. ekliyorum ve hayat. – Yukarıdakiler göz önüne alındığında, T sembolü için önerdiğim anlam “HAYATIN RUHU”dur. Umarım, daha sonra tapınakların ve kiliselerin Rab’bin meskeni olduğu gibi, T sütununun, içinde yaşam ruhuna sahip olduğu tapınak olduğu belirtimi ile geri dönmeye gerek yoktur. ————————————— ————– The T sign is found in a more or less close form in different areas, with meanings related to life:

1 SÜMER

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ME~a.jpg
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/ME~a.jpg

Platonik formlar vs. Sümer ME? https://www.reddit.com/r/pagan/comments/c0pumf/platonic_forms_vs_sumerian_me/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body << Çivi yazısı işareti

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ME~a.jpg

— ME olarak adlandırılır ve şu değerleri temsil eder: išib, ma ve me — Sümer dilinde “olmak” fiilinin köküdür. Tek başına veya ME işaretiyle birlikte yazılan logografik kelimeler ve bileşikler, “varlık” kavramı, yani bir şeyin doğuştan gelen özü ile ilgilidir.>>

Ben (mitoloji) – Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Me_(mitoloji)Sümer mitolojisinde, bir ben bu sosyal kurumların, dini uygulamaların, teknolojilerin temelini oluşturan ilahi hükümlerden biridir.

The Mes…Antik Sümer Planları … – Okar Research http://balkhandshambhala.blogspot.com › 2013/09 › th…8 Eylül 2013 — “Mes, medeniyetin planları olan belgeler veya tabletlerdi

Somut Bir Nesne Olarak Sümer Ben – De Gruyterhttps://www.degruyter.com › aofo.1997.24.2.211 › pdf, J KLEIN · 1997 · 13 tarafından alıntılanmıştır — ben “olmak”2 fiili, temel anlamı ile: “öz”, yani “bir şeyin ilahi olarak belirlenmiş özü” veya “bir şeyin ne olması gerektiği”

https://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm << ben, mì; e: n., işlev, ofis, sorumluluk; ideal norm; bir tanrının gücünün olağanüstü alanı; ilahi hüküm, kehanet; kült. v. olmak; Sümer kopulası; söylemek, anlatmak. eki, bizim. ben3,6,7,9: savaş. me6: hareket etmek, davranmak. >>

Nostratik Makro Ailesi (Indo’ya özel referansla …https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › pdfby AR Bomhard · 1992 · Alıntı 66 — Hint-Avrupa (IE) karşılaştırmasının en eski günlerinden … Proto-Uralik *ben 1. tekil şahıs şahıs zamiri kökü: ‘1, ben’:

2 MISIR

Ankh işareti hayatın tüm çirkinliklerinde farklı anlamlar taşır, örneğin “SONSUZ YAŞAM”. Döngünün sonsuzluğu ve çapraz hayatınızı temsil edeceğini buldum. Aslında döngünün ek bir ikincil anlamı olabilir ve T işaretinin bir tutamacı olabilir. Https://store.signsofspirit.com/ankh-egyptian-eternal-life- Ancient-septre-of-the-firavun-tau /? fbclid = IwAR09urjMxPmABFsZZmcUPwTUpYRUPhcYkS_n9YWPQFBmkJhjzYAxE3cQEec << Ebedi Yaşamın Mısır hiyeroglifi, Eylül’ün Che’si, F, N ve Che’nin N ve Che’si olarak bilinir, Bu sembol veya “hayatınızın” çaprazını birleştiren “sonsuzluğu” ve dişil enerjiyi temsil eden döngü veya daire ile eril enerji. >> also in Egypt, this could be a gate to future life:

3 EGE ALANI

Doğrusal İşaret B “Za” https://images.app.goo.gl/tfWdQ77mLzASMsBR7

oldeuropeanculture בטוויטר: "And it looks like Egyptian Ankh could have  come from Sumerian An+Ki = Sky+Earth = Sky Father+Earth Mother = Life.  From: https://t.co/VM6XSserM1… https://t.co/9l8VlRtt4f"
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Syllable+ZA+Luvian+update+Minoan+Aegean+Sign+Concordance.png
Eski Yazıların Hece Tablosu: ZA Luvian’ın Minos Ege İşareti Uyumuna Luvian Güncellemesi Andis Kaulins tarafından MinAegCon https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-G0auyIJyaWc/TXUSnF0B8nI/AAAAAAAABB0/D3r9ZrKL1ME/s1600/Syllable+ZA+Luvian+update+Minoan+Aegean+Sign+Concordance.png

4 MENORKA, İSPANYA

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png
Taulas of Menorca. The Torralba d’en Salort. Image: Historic Mysteries.

Wikipedia: “Arkeolog Michael Hoskin, taulaların eski bir şifa kültünün parçası olabileceğini öne sürdü.” Şifa aslında yaşamla ilgilidir.

5 CIRCASSIA/ADYGHE

Adige / Çerkes Habze https://aratta.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/adyghe-circassian-habze/?fbclid=IwAR3W4VOJxDgVOvAfPLQ1b0KHzbrKXuLBFp9JgPq3cBg ayrıca “veya Hahabze”, Habze”, Habze” Habzism olarak da adlandırılan, Adıge veya Çerkeslerin Pagan etnik dinini, felsefesini ve dünya görüşünü tanımlar.

File:Kors, Antoniuskors, Nordisk familjebok.png
Tanrı Tha’yı temsil eden Adige “çekiçli haç”. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Kors%2C_Antoniuskors%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png

Her şeyden önce, Tha, tüm varlıkların doğal olarak oluştuğu, içsel yasalarla gelişen ilkel kalıp olan Sözü veya kozmik Yasayı (Khy) ürettiğini ifade eder. Erkekler için aydınlanma, Tha Yasasının anlaşılmasına karşılık gelir. Tha, yaratılışında her yerde mevcuttur (pıhtılaşma); Adıge kozmolojik metinlerine göre “ruhu uzaya dağılmıştır”.>>

===== A S U M P T I O N ======

AÇILIŞLAR, KAPILAR, T-şekilli KAPILAR ?

Mısır’da ve Kolomb öncesi uygarlıklarda T şeklindeki tapınakların açıklıklarını veya girişlerini buldum. Bakınız: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/t- shape-doorways.html Pueblo Bonito: https://www.abrock.com/InterimReports/Chaco1/Chaco1.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-5.png

https://gamblershouse.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/the-gila-cliff-dwellings/amp/

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png
T Şeklinde Kapı, Gila Cliff Konutları Ulusal Anıtı

Antik Amerika: Hovenweep http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/967

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png

Açıklıkların T şeklinden başka ortak noktaları olup olmadığını merak ediyorsunuz. Daha önceki yazılarımda M.Ö. 9500-8.000 yıllarında varsayımımı açıklamıştım. orada, Göbekli Tepe’de insanlar pagan evresindeydiler, insan figürlerini/insan gövdelerini andıran T sütunları, aslında hayatın ruhlarını simgeliyordu. Ruhların genellikle somut bir şekli yoktur ve yoktur, bu T-şekli bir stilizasyondur, özdür. Görünüşe göre ataların ruhlarının T-şekli diğer kültürlere yayılmış. Diğer dünyaya geçmek için ruhların bir açıklığa, geçide ihtiyacı vardı ve mantıksal olarak kapının aynı şekle sahip olması gerekirdi. Bu benim hipotezim olurdu. Tabii ki, herhangi birine sorması gerekir (ve tam bir destek için tercih ederdim): – Neden diğer kısımlarda (T açıklığının olduğu yerlerde) yaşamın ruhları (veya ne olacak) T şeklinde görünmüyor? ve – Anadolu’da neden T-açıklığımız yok?

Transmission and extension of the sacred symbol T from Göbekli Tepe

October 28, 2021

In the field of cultures and civilizations, the phenomenon of transmission is known. For example, the transmission of the Neolithic or agriculture from the Middle East to Europe. This can occur demically and / or culturally. Here we are dealing with both. ——— In the previous posts I advanced a hypothesis regarding the meaning of the sacred symbol T used in the construction of the pillars. In summary, I relied mainly on: – the subsequent acceptance of the Sumerian sign T: “Me”. It had a complex meaning, The List of MEs in the Myth of Inanna and Enki – Angelfirehttps://www.angelfire.com › tintirbabylon › ME <<ME is a Sumerian word (probably pronounced “May”) that has no exact English equivalent >>

– I relied on the etymology deduced by the Russian researcher V.V. Emelyanov, namely the “will to live” – ​​the fact that the stage of development of the religion in which the population of Gobekli Tepe was was that of paganism. Paganism largely means the worship of nature. I add, and life. – Given the above, the meaning I proposed for the symbol T is “THE SPIRIT OF LIFE”.

I hope that it is no longer necessary to return with the specification that the T pillar was the temple, in which the abode had the spirit of life, similar to how later the temples and churches are the Lord’s abode.

————– The T sign is found in a more or less close form in different areas, with meanings related to life:

1 SUMERIA https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ME~a.jpg
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/ME~a.jpg

Platonic forms vs. Sumerian ME? https://www.reddit.com/r/pagan/comments/c0pumf/platonic_forms_vs_sumerian_me/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body << The cuneiform sign

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ME~a.jpg

— called ME and representing the values: išibma, and me — is the root of the verb “to be” in the Sumerian language. Logographic words and compounds, written alone or in conjunction with the ME-sign, deal with the concept of “being,” i.e. a thing’s innate essence.>>

Me (mythology) – Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Me_(mythology)In Sumerian mythology, a me is one of the decrees of the divine that is foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies

The Mes…Ancient Sumerian Blueprints to … – Okar Researchhttp://balkhandshambhala.blogspot.com › 2013/09 › th…Sep 8, 2013 — “The Mes were documents or tablets which were blueprints to civilization

The Sumerian me as a Concrete Object – De Gruyterhttps://www.degruyter.com › aofo.1997.24.2.211 › pdf by J KLEIN · 1997 · Cited by 13 — the verb me “to be“,2 with the basic meaning: “essence,” i.e. “a thing’s divine- ly ordained essence,” or “what a thing should be

https://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm << me, mì; gtildee: n., function, office, responsibility; ideal norm; the phenomenal area of a deity’s power; divine decree, oracle; cult. v., to be; the Sumerian copula; to say, tell.     poss. suffix, our. me3,6,7,9: battle. me6: to act, behave. >>

The Nostratic Macrofamily (with special reference to Indo …https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › pdfby AR Bomhard · 1992 · Cited by 66 — From the  very earliest days of IndoEuropean (IE) comparative … Proto-Uralic *me 1st person sg. personal pronoun stem: ‘1, me‘:

Hardly could be explained a continous transmission 6 000 years through generations (from 9,600 to 3,600 B.C.), but possible if the site could be not so old:

https://www.researchgate.net › 3174…(PDF) Dating Gobekli Tepe – ResearchGate — Dating Gobekli Tepe: the evidence doesn’t support a PPNB date, but instead a possibly much later one. Dimitrios S. Dendrinos Ph.D.,

2 EGYPT The sign Ankh has different meanings all in the ugliness of life, for example “ETERNAL LIFE”. I found that the loop would represent eternity and your cross life. In fact the loop can have an additional secondary meaning and can be a handle of the T sign. Https://store.signsofspirit.com/ankh-egyptian-eternal-life- ancient-septre-of-the-pharaoh-tau /? fbclid = IwAR09urjMxPmABFsZZmcUPwTUpYRUPhcYkS_n9YWPQFBmkJhjzYAxE3cQEec << Egyptian hieroglyph of the Eternal Life, known as the Che of the Sept, N and Che of the F, N and Che, This symbol combines “yours” or the T-shaped cross, which means “life” and masculine energy, with the loop or circle representing “eternity” and feminine energy. >>

also in Egypt, this could be a gate to future life:

3 AEGEAN AREA Linear Sign B “Za” https://images.app.goo.gl/tfWdQ77mLzASMsBR7

oldeuropeanculture בטוויטר: "And it looks like Egyptian Ankh could have  come from Sumerian An+Ki = Sky+Earth = Sky Father+Earth Mother = Life.  From: https://t.co/VM6XSserM1… https://t.co/9l8VlRtt4f"
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Syllable+ZA+Luvian+update+Minoan+Aegean+Sign+Concordance.png
Syllabic Grid of Ancient ScriptsZA Luvian Update to the Minoan Aegean Sign Concordance MinAegCon by Andis Kaulins https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-G0auyIJyaWc/TXUSnF0B8nI/AAAAAAAABB0/D3r9ZrKL1ME/s1600/Syllable+ZA+Luvian+update+Minoan+Aegean+Sign+Concordance.png

4 MENORCA, SPAIN

Taulas of Menorca. The Torralba d’en Salort. Image: Historic Mysteries.

Wikipedia:”Archeologist Michael Hoskin has suggested the taulas may have been part of an ancient healing cult.” Healing is indeed related to life.

5 CIRCASSIA/ADYGHE Adyghe / Circassian Habze https://aratta.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/adyghe-circassian-habze/?fbclid=IwAR3W4VOJxDgVOvAfPLQ1b0KHzbrKXuLBFp9JgPq3cBg2pf53_TXnXTbZSao << Habze, or Habza, also spelled “Khabze” or “Khabza”, also called Habzism, defines the Pagan ethnic religion, philosophy and worldview of the Adyghe or Circassians

File:Kors, Antoniuskors, Nordisk familjebok.png
The Adyghe “hammer cross” representing god Tha. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Kors%2C_Antoniuskors%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png

First of all, Tha expresses himself generating the Word or cosmic Law (Khy), the primordial pattern from which all the beings form naturally, developing by internal laws. Enlightenment for men corresponds to an understanding of Tha’s Law. Tha is omnipresent in his creation (coagulation); according to Adyghe cosmological texts, “his spirit is scattered throughout space”.>>

===== A S S U M P T I O N ====== OPENINGS, DOORS, T-shaped GATES ?

I have found in Egypt and in the pre-Columbian civilizations openings or entrances to T-shaped temples. See: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/t-shaped-doorways.html Pueblo Bonito: https://www.abrock.com/InterimReports/Chaco1/Chaco1.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-5.png

https://gamblershouse.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/the-gila-cliff-dwellings/amp/

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png
T-Shaped Doorway, Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument

Ancient America: Hovenweep http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/967

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png

You wonder if the openings may have anything in common other than the T-shape. In my previous posts I explained my assumption that at 9,500-8,000 B.C. people there, at Gobekli Tepe were in the pagan phase, the T-pillars resembling human figures/human trunks, signified in fact the spirits of life. Spirits generally did not have and do not have a concrete shape, this T-shape being a stylization, essence. Well, it seems that the T-shape of the ancestral spirits spread to other cultures. To pass to the other world the spirits needed an opening, passage, and logically it would be that the gate had the same shape. This would be my hypothesis. Of course anyone it is ustified to ask, (and I would have preferred for a full support): – Why do not appear in other parts (where we have T openings) the spirits of life (or what will be) T-shaped? and – Why don’t we have T-openings in Anatolia?