First writing signs in history, Göbekli Tepe !?


In human history there are some signs as cross and swastica wich are present in rock-art lasted millenia. So it seem that the tau cross is much older than tau, stauros the pillar to which the bulls were tied. From First pictorial representation of Göbekli Tepe T-pillars found on tiny bone plaque Andrew Collins* http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/plaque.htm

<< It was found during routine excavations at the 11,500-year-old site of Göbekli Tepe in southeast Turkey, but no one had recognised exactly what the carved lines on the small bone plaque showed. This was until Matthew Smith, a British telecommunications consultant living in Qatar, visited Sanliurfa Museum, which houses a large collection of portable objects found at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) site of Göbekli Tepe, located around 8 miles (13 kilometres) away to the northeast. Smith recognised something that everyone else appears to have missed, this being that the little plaque – just 6 cm in length, 2.5 cm in width and 3-4 mm in thickness – bears on its upper surface two T-shaped features positioned side by side (see fig. 1). The context of the plaque’s discovery, i.e. at Göbekli Tepe, makes it clear these T-like etchings are pictorial representations of the familiar T-shaped pillars found in all the key enclosures uncovered at the site. >

Yes, T signs could be the first pictorial representations of Gobekli Tepe.

BUT MUCH MORE THAN THIS, THOSE SIGNS ARE RELATED TO WRITING ! Misters Smith and Collins are not realizing, supporting or trying to prove that the “pictograms” as you call them, are related to writing. Because those T signs has multiple resemblances or the same shape to later signs used in writing. This is an proof, argument and support for the early direct connection with writing.

I will not enter in what Collins say “debate over the axial orientation of the site’s main enclosures and any potential astronomical targets” because is highly risky, I enter a swampy ground . 

From https://en.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 that introduced farming into Southern Iraq in the Early Ubaid period (5300-4700 BC).”

We have later sumerian proto-writing=proto-cuneiform signs Me and Urudu wich has the T shape. It is possible that this icon were known much more earlier and signified something (had attached an meaning). If the shape remained unchanged throughout the time we are not 100% sure about significance.

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

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/ME~a.jpg

And sign urudu

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/URUDU~a.jpg

Both sumerian signs has meanings related to divinity and power

From https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2013/PAPVB_13/um/40794229/Halloran_version_3.pdf me, mì; ñe: n., function, office, responsibility; ideal norm; the phenomenal area of a deity’s power; divine
decree, oracle; cult
[ME archaic frequency: 363; concatenates 2 sign variants].
v., to be; the Sumerian copula; to say, tell

From https://www.angelfire.com/tx/tintirbabylon/ME.html << ME(1) is a Sumerian word (perhaps pronounced “may”) that has no single exact English equivalent. Samuel Kramer explained Me as the “fundamental, unalterable, comprehensive assortment of powers and duties, norms and standards, rules and regulations, relating to the cosmos and its components, to gods and humans, to cities and countries, and to the varied components of civilized life.” The usual Akkadian translation is parsu, “rite, ordinance, office.” Although the Me in general are referred to frequently in hymns, prayers, and stories, few specific Me are mentioned. We are told that there are 7, 50, or 3600 Me. These numbers are collective numbers symbolizing completeness and totality. Me was obviously a fluid concept that could apply to any type of power, Above or Below.>>

From ON ТНЕ ORIGINAL МEANING OF SUМERIAN МЕ (lmages of Weltanschauung and the Methods of Тheir Study) V.V. Yemelyanov http://vdi.igh.ru › issues › articles <<The article discusses the problem of translating and interpreting Sumerian МЕ bу means of the Old Babylonian cuneiform vocabularies and the Neo-Sumerian Gudea texts. The main supposition is that the word was derived from the verb МЕ «to bе apparent, visible» and its original meaning was «will to live». >>

From oldeuropeanculture on Twitter: “Sumerian word for copper is …https://twitter.com › serbiaireland › status https://www.academia.edu › Sumerian urudu and Kartvelian Metallurgy.pdf | Anna … Thus, the ultimate meaning of the Sumerian urudu is uro ‘a big hammer+ du ‘head, chief’, i.e. ‘the chief big hammer’, ‘the leading big hammer’...

One must agree that T shape is the shape of a hammer wich indeed is inspiring power, does not matter, of metal or stone.

From ANCIENT METAL NAMES AND THE FIRST USE OF METAL Janos Makkay https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox?projector=1

<< …. On the other hand, Mallory believes that there was a contact relation of Sumerian with PIE and the classic example is Sumerian urud and PIE *reudh-. In the opinion of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov the stem *reudh- is of interest confirming the connection between metallurgy in the PIE period with that of the ancient East. (As it is well-known, they locate the PIE homeland to the area of eastern Turkey, i. e. near to the supposed – primordial – source of the stem urudu). According to Diakonov (who also locates a very early, common PIE – -Prot-Kartvelian homeland to the east Anatolian area) a meaning of ‘red ore’ would be more correct, but in his opinion Sumerian urudu probably comes from a pre-Sumerian substratum. These opinions adequetely reflect the uncertainties surrounding the “ethnic” origins of urudu. E. Risen, for example, did not deal with the origin of the borrowed IE root *reudh-. E. Meyer argued that urud/u was borrowed from an – unidentified – Mediterranean language both into Sumerian and also Indo-European dialects. G. Devoto’s opinion stands close to Meyer’s for he suggested that the counterinfluence of non-IndoEuropean peoples could be felt on the peripheries of Indo-European seats, in cluding also the Balkans. In the Balkans these counterinfluences probably oc curred during the Neolithic revolution and are reflected in the distribution of cereal names as well as in the adoption of – – Mediterranean or Sumerian – -urud/u among the Indo-Europeans.
There is at present only one possibility for solving these contradictions, especially in view of the fact that evidence for the oldest copper metallurgy is at present known from the Euphrates region, namely from Cayönü Tepesi.
In 1944 B. Landsberger pub lished two important studies in the scholarly journal of the Ankara University. On the basis of the old city names of Mesopotamia such as Urim, Uruk, Larsam, Adab, LagaS and Zimbir he
reconstructed a substrate language which he called Proto-Euphratic. In northern Babilonia, on the other hand, on the evidence of divine names such asDagan, Zambomba, Amba, as well as Шаг and Adad he concluded that before the arrival of the earliest Semites the area was settled by another original population that differed from the Proto-Euphratians. These people he held to be identical with the original population of Assyria, northern Mesopotamia, and possibly also Syria, whom he called Proto-Tigridians. This probably coincides with the sug gestion of I. J. Gelb in 1961: “… the protopopulation of North Syria was of un known lingustic affiliation (that is, non-Semitic and non-Hurrian)…”.24
Landsberger made an attempt to isolate within the Sumerian vocabulary. …..

… Only in the Turkish variant of Landsberger’s study is the possible origin of the word URUDU discussed which according to Landsberger is neither Sumerian, nor Proto-Euphratic, but was borrowed to the PIE. Theese contradictory hypotheses (to which further confusion was added by P. Kretschmer who assumed a Bell Beaker /¡/contribution to the history of the stem *reudh- , *roudhom ‘red metal)26 can be resolved if we assume that the expression URUDU ‘metal, red ore, copper’ can only have originated from an area where extensive copper metallurgy can be documented already prior to the fifth mill. В. С. and from an area which presumably was not the prehistoric seat of Protosumerians and/or early Semites. Since an IE and Semitic etymology for the word can be rejected out of hand, and a Sumerian etymology is most unlikely, a substrate similar to the Proto-Euphratic or Proto-Tigridian is to be easily assumed. It is the latter which for geographical reasons corresponds best to the presently known location of very early (or earliest) copper metallurgy,Cayönü Tepesi. The geographical position and very early (i. e. 8-7. mill. B. C.) dating of the copper industry in Cayönü opens up new possibilities to review the origins of IE and other stocks relating metal names from pre-Sumerian and Protosemitic sources. >>

BONE PLAQUE BEEING AN AMULET, MAKE SENSE AS TO HAVE SIGNS TT=sumerian Me-Me, “divine powers” ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Another Gobekli Tepe’s artefact, a stone tablet : Image, from Gobekli Tepe, The First Megalith http://antiquatedantiquarian.blogspot.com/2014/08/humanitys-first-megaliths.html?m=1

Farmers have been here for as long as anyone can remember, thousands of  years in fact. As a local farme… | Ancient writing, Ancient artifacts,  Ancient civilizations
Called the “Snake, Tree, and Eagle” stone, the true meaning of these markings are completely unknown

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

sign Bir

sign Gal

Sign Zatu 644~b

3 Responses to “First writing signs in history, Göbekli Tepe !?”

  1. EL Says:

    So, the writing on Tartaria Tablets is questionable, without ever taking in account the broadness of the area of the prehistorical Turdas-Vincha Culture (which is full of similar kind of inscribed writings) to which those tablets belong and which were studied by some of the World’s most known specialists in old writings and ancient languages and cultures while…was enough that a…”Mr. Matthew Smith, a British telecommunications consultant”, a – no doubt – “World’s famous specialist” in old writings, noticed some drawings carved into some plaques from Göbekli Tepe which, in his “specialist’s” opinion, resemble I don’t know what kind of T-shaped pillars discovered at Göbekli Tepe and, BANG !!!, it was already slingshoted the idea of, no more no less than, the “First writing signs in history” !!! Wow !!! That’s what I call a…”solid science”…!!! It is ridiculous…!!!

    Like

  2. eugenrau Says:

    First writing in history, Gobekli Tepe, the author is reffering to a sign close to luwian sign for God.

    Like

  3. eugenrau Says:

    Tartaria tablets not belong to Vinca-Turdas script.A script is not a writing, only a collection of signs.No one Vinca-TurdS prooved to have on it writing, not even proto-writing.Vinca-Turdas has only a script.It seems that Tartaria tablets, due of much newer, modern sign shapes to partain to much later period.In my opinion somebody put a bunch of fifferent signs, ALL USED IN WRITING in different period and areas .So, a mixture (hodge-podge) of signs.
    Gobekli Tepe was far at distance back in time from the very beginning of writing (Sumerian proto-writing 3.500 B.C.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: