Archive for the ‘Tartaria tablets’ Category

Revederea vârstei și autenticității tabletelor Tartaria.

September 16, 2021

Chiar eram pe punctul de a scrie un articol cu intentia de a demonstra ca autenticitatea tabletelor de la Tartaria nu se susține, având mai mult de 50 de argumente pentru aceasta, contra numai 10 împotrivă. Dar recitind articolul profesorului iesean Attila Laslo: “Cui bono? Gândul pentru reconsiderarea tabletelor de la Tartaria” în care acesta răspunde acuzațiilor asiriologului Erika Qasim cu privire la arheologi și tabletele în sine.   Qasim, Erika: Die Tărtăria-Täfelchen – eine Neubewertung. In: Das Altertum, ISSN 0002-6646, vol.58, 4 (2013),p. 307–318 Vedeti: ACADEMIE ROUMAINE INSTITUT D’ARCHEOLOGIE « V. PARVAN » DACIA REVUE D’ARCHEOLOGIE ET D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE NOUVELLE SÉRIE LX 2016 Cui bono? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro › …PDF Rezultate de pe web of the Tărtăria tablets – Dacia

Pasajele (dintre cele referitoare la semne) care m-au convins: << În opinia ei (Masson, E. 1984 L ‘écriture dans les civilisations danubiennes néolithiques. Kadmos 23, 2, 89-123. Berlin & New York.), <<…chiar dacă locația, data și condițiile descoperirii tabletelor rămâne nesigura până la clarificări suplimentare, examinarea atentă a tabletelor, existența urmelor de uzura pe suprafața lor, de exemplu, atestă faptul că nu erau falsuri: „… Pe tabletele 1 și 2, observăm semne speciale de uzură, părți ale semnelor puțin decolorate sau frecvente fisuri în jurul gravurilor. Astfel de fenomene mărturisesc vechimea; dacă ar fi falsuri, fabricarea lor ar fi atribuită unui mare expert în domeniu, în același timp o înțelegere fină a scrierilor arhaice pe care România nu le are la cunoștința mea ”53. Un alt fapt poate fi adăugat la aceste observații: în cazul unui fals, falsificatorul s-ar fi străduit să producă un obiect cât mai fidel posibil modelului mesopotamian pe care dorea să-l imite, ar fi avut grijă să aleagă materie primă de calitate, și să respecte formatul tabletelor (care nu ar fi trebuit perforate și arse), să aplice tehnicile de scriere corespunzătoare (prin impresie) și să reproducă unele dintre cele mai caracteristice semne. De asemenea, el ar fi avut grijă să asigure documentația de excavare adecvată pentru a preveni suspiciuni ulterioare cu privire la circumstanțele descoperirii.
Dincolo de aceste argumente logice, observațiile de fapt care atestă autenticitatea (caracterul antic) al
tabletelor, dintre care unele au fost deja menționate mai sus, sunt decisive. De asemenea, trebuie remarcat faptul că existența unei acoperiri calcaroase pe suprafața tabletelor, care a trebuit îndepărtată pentru a face vizibile semnele, a fost o dovadă reală a faptului că obiectele au rămas sub pământ o suficienta de lunga perioada, de timp pentru a putea forma acumularea de calcar. ….. Până la efectuarea unor astfel de analize, observația rezultată din investigațiile microscopice recente pe suprafața tabletelor, conform căreia, în conturul canelat al unora dintre semnele de pe tablete, s-au găsit urme de sol, rămâne decisiv: „Examinarea atentă a tabletelor indică rămășițe de
sol în conturul mai multor semne
[…] Solul amestecat cu roci și minerale poate proveni doar din groapa ritualică. Acesta este un alt element faptic în favoarea afirmației privind autenticitatea artefactelor inscripționate. Prezența solului încapsulat exclude acuzațiile că sunt un fals modern neidentificat de N. Vlassa sau doar un „joc” al descoperitorului ” (sublinierea mea, A. L.). >> eugenrau: A. Laszlo a fost prezent la săpături chiar în ziua în care au fost găsite tablete, dar ciudat, total inexplicabil, nu le-a văzut (!?). Argumentele sale din articolul Qui bono? ….. mi-au schimbat din nou părerea și m-au convins că tabletele nu sunt contrafăcute. (M-am răzgândit înainte, alternativ de mai multe ori, pana a fi convins ca tablitele sunt autentice și nu contrafăcute.) Ca sa fiu sincer, articolul său ar putea fi în principal o reacție reflexă de aparare. Pentru apărarea și susținerea întregii activități a arheologilor participanti atunci la sapaturile sitului Tartaria-Lunca, lucrări care au fost criticate fără milă și au fost avansate grave acuzații.Tabletele nu sunt contrafăcute, dar în același timp nu sunt sumeriene originale, foarte vechi. Tabletele sunt reale, au fost inscriptionate de cineva și în această perspectivă sunt „autentice”. De obicei, un scrib folosea de obicei semnele folosite uzual în timpul și zona sa, ceea ce cu siguranță nu este cazul aici. Dar vă voi arăta dovezile că tablitele nu sunt mai vechi de 2.000 î.e.n. ! Un scrib nu poate nici cunoaște și nici utiliza la un moment dat semne care au fost inventate sute de ani mai târziu. ! … Cum este cazul aici, unde pe tableta rotundă, întregul rând superior conține semne surprinzator de noi : pe partea stângă, un tip de H (o scară cu 3 trepte) și în dreapta, unele D-uri și O-uri. ————- Semne cu exact această formă nu exista printre semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene. Sumerienii foloseau semnul proto-cuneiform Ku care are o formă „încasetata”. Din From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-13.png
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/KU~a.jpg

Semnul următor este GAR, adică ninda = “rație, pâine”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-14.png
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/GAR.jpg

———- Deci, dacă consideram ca avem de-a face cu tablete de factura sumeriana, aceste semne nu ar trebui să fie prezente pe tablete. Rețineți faptul că pe tablita, „H” are o formă „deschisă” și bare verticale decalate, iar D este litera noastră /latina de tipar D.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png
https://neptest1.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/imagine-mare.jpg

Prima oara acest semn “H” apare exact în aceeași formă în scrierile hieroglifica Cretana și Lineare A si B (2.000 î.Hr. ca semn Pa3) și mai târziu în vechea scriere canaanita/ feniciana, ca semn Cheth / Heth (1.500 î.Hr.).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-1.png
https://linearbknossosmycenae.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/so-called-cretan-hieroglyphs-are-not-hieroglyphs-at-all-example-2/amp/
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png
Above, Linear A sign PA3
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-11.png
alphabet_chart_hhet_2.jpg

Privitor la semne cu forma D, cel mai vechi semn cu forma asemanatoare este:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-4.png
Comparați semnul cuneiform ninda, o logogramă care reprezintă cuvântul sumerian pentru „mâncare” sau „pâine”. Prima imagine este de ninda într-o tabletă din Ur ~ 3000 î.Hr., în timp ce celelalte sunt de ninda într-un fragment al unui text medical din Ninive ~ 650 î.Hr. Mare diferență. https://mobile.twitter.com/Moudhy/status/1160935592420663296/photo/2

Unii cercetători au spus că „scribul” a imitat semnele sumeriene pentru numere (A.Falkenstein: D = 1 și o = 10), iar alții au spus că semnele D imita reprezentarea rațiilor, pâinilor sau ca secventa DDoc reprezinta fazele lunii (M.Merlini).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-2.png
Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.
See https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/D-d/273894
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png

Oricum, scribul cunostea bine semnele care se foloseau deja în jurul său, nu trebuia să inventeze niciunul dintre aceste semne asa, instantaneu „pe loc”. Semnul D a fost folosit pentru litere (D si R) mai târziu în greacă arhaică (850 î.e.n.) și puțin mai târziu in alfabetele Anatoliene. Din Chapter 8 Europe-II – The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 << Vechile alfabete anatoliene Lycian, Carian și Lydian datează toate din primul mileniu î.e.n. și au fost folosite pentru a scrie diferite limbi indo-europene antice din vestul și sud-vestul Anatoliei >> ———– Deci, semnele de pe tablete nu trebuie să aibă o origine obligatoriu sumeriană și nici scribul să fie un sumerian nativ. Pentru ca altfel, multe din semnele de pe tablete pot fi găsite în toate scrierile Egeene și în scrierile Anatoliene. Deci, locul și timpul originii ar putea fi mai degrabă zona Egee (Creta? 2.000 -500 î.e.n.) sau Anatolia. (200 î.e.n.-500 d.Hr.)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-5.png
https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2732
https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam41.gif

AVEM MULTE SEMNE PE TABLETE DIN ALFABETELE ARHAICE GRECEȘTI ȘI ANATOLIENE, INCLUSIV FOARTE PROBLEMATICE, AMBELE SEMNE H si D ! Mă întreb dacă unele pictograme și ideograme (de origine sumeriană) ar fi putut fi transmise de-alungul timpurilor, chiar cu semnificații pierdute dar poate utilizate în ritualuri?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-12.png
http://www.visitalbaiulia.city/worlds-oldest-writing-system IMG_1895low.jpg

———— Dacă nu luam semnele „H” și D-s ca fiind arhaice Grecești sau Anatoliene, ci ca semne ce le imita pe cele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, atunci întregul conținut al tabletelor pare pe de-antregul sumerian. De aceea savanții A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman și R.Kolev le-au interpretat ca si cum ar fi sumeriene. Primii doi, au realizat de la bun inceput că scribul este ezitant, iar semnele nu sunt sumeriene propriu-zis, ci ca-si-sumeriene. Chiar și titlul uneia din lucrări expliciteaza acest aspect: http://www.archeo.ru ›izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. Cu această înțelegere au interpretat tabletele ca fiind sumeriene. A. Falkenstein a remarcat faptul că unele semne nu sunt exact precum cele proto-cuneiforme, ci doar imitat-sumeriene, asemănător-sumeriene. Semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene au fost utilizate pentru o perioadă de timp relativ scurtă (3.500-3.000 î.Hr.), apoi de la 3.000 î.Hr. până în 1935 niciun ochi uman nu le-a văzut. Pentru că au stat ascunse privirii, îngropate la câțiva metri sub pământ (sub templu Eanna, Uruk). Astfel, difuzarea acestor semne a fost cumva limitată. Vedeti expansiunea culturii Uruk: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Expansion-territorial-de-la-cultura-de-Uruk-aubet-2007_fig2_269696365 Pe harta se vede ca cultura Uruk, descoperitoarea scrisului, nu s-a extins pana in interiorul Anatoliei ori ariei Egeene. ——- Scribul cu siguranță nu era sumerian, mai degrabă negustor din Marea Egee sau Anatolia, (…sau poate cineva dintr-un loc foarte apropiat ?). Falkenstein si Vaiman dar si eu, toti am constatat ca interpretarea semnelor nu conduce la un mesaj consistent; unele semnificații sunt unice, semnificatia reieșind din semnele în sine. – Nu am nicio explicație pentru intenția scribului de a arăta semne asemănătoare celor sumeriene. Sau: – Nu voi înțelege niciodată motivația, ce l-a determinat, ambitia scribului de a arăta cuiva cum a evoluat scrisul de-a lungul timpului sau să arate câte semne sumeriene știe. ——– Am căutat în amanunt, suspectand o multime de persoane, continuand să cercetez în detaliu, și după ce le-am tot cantarit, am ajuns în cele din urmă la aceeași concluzie cu Emilia Masson: „Dacă ar fi fost falsuri, fabricarea lor ar fi fost atribuită unui mare expert în domeniu. , în același timp, un bun cunoscător al scrierilor arhaice pe care, după știința mea, România nu ii are „ eugenrau: … Dacă am cauta cai verzi pe pereti, atunci desigur, putem vedea inclusiv fazele lunii, dar un epigrafist trebuie să respecte niste principii si reguli și să caute semne apartinand unor sisteme de scriere. Așa cum au si făcut în mod firesc savantii Adam Falkenstein și Aizik Abramovich Vaiman.

WRITING: DEMIC AND CULTURAL DIFFUSION

September 14, 2021

To see how powerful and extended is demic and cultural difussion, I bring it to your attention the sumerian proto-cuneiform sign “ladder with 3 rungs”, Ku: “shine of metals, sacred,silver, precious metal, noble..”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-6.png
https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/KU~a.jpg

wich was probably at the origin of other signs: minoan/linear B sign for bronze

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png
https://drdudsdicta.com/2014/09/28/linear-b-decipherment-credit-where-credit-is-due/

 From http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/&nbsp;                      *140 [] AES bronze/copper ,and chinese signs for sun/moon:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-9.png
https://www.digmandarin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/htw4.jpg

Note: Our “ladder” sign on Tartaria round tablet has exact PA3/ cheth shape and not sumerian proto-cuneiform sign Ku shape.Using that sign, the scribe disclosed (intentionally or not) that not used sumerian 3.000B.C. sign(s).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png

https://eastasiastudent.net › japan › j…Japan in Japanese: Nihon · にほん · 日本 | East Asia StudentSo that’s how you write the ni from Nihon in hiragana. … This character

literally means ‘sun’.

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/03/20 Guarded by beasts: a porthole stone from Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe. A monumental porthole stone from the northwestern hilltop areas (Photo O. Dietrich).

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Review the age and authenticity of Tartaria tablets.

September 13, 2021

I was about to write an article in order to finaly prove that the authenticity of the Tartaria tablets is not supported, having more than 50 arguments to sustain this, with some 10 against. But I re-read Attila Laslos article: “Cui bono?Thought about reconsideration of Tartaria tablets” in wich he responded to assyoriologist Erika Qasim accusations regarding the archaeologists and tablets itself.   Qasim, Erika: Die Tărtăria-Täfelchen – eine Neubewertung. In: Das Altertum, ISSN 0002-6646, vol.58, 4 (2013),p. 307–318

See ACADEMIE ROUMAINE INSTITUT D’ARCHEOLOGIE « V. PARVAN » DACIA REVUE D’ARCHEOLOGIE ET D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE NOUVELLE SÉRIE LX 2016 Cui bono? THOUGHTS ABOUT A “RECONSIDERATION” OF THE TĂRTĂRIA TABLETS ATTILA LÁSZLÓ* http://www.daciajournal.ro › …PDF Rezultate de pe web of the Tărtăria tablets – Dacia

The passages (out of those regarding the signs) wich convinced me: << In her opinion (Masson, E. 1984 L’ écriture dans les civilisations danubiennes néolithiques. Kadmos 23, 2, 89-123. Berlin & New York. ), <<……even though the location, date and conditions of the discovery of the tablets remain uncertain until further clarifications, the careful examination of the tablets, the existence of the wear traces on their surface, for example, attest to the fact that they were not fakes: “…on observe notamment sur les tablettes 1 et 2 des traces d’usure, des parties de signes un peu effaces ou des fissures fréquentes autour des gravures. De tels fénomènes témoignent en faveur de l’ancienneté ; s’il s’agissait de faux, leur fabrication serait à attributer à un grand expert dans la matière, en même temps fin conaisseur des écritures archaïques qu’à ma conaissance la Roumanie ne possède pas”53. Another fact can be added to these observations: in the case of a fake, the forger would have striven to produce an object as faithfully similar as possible to the Mesopotamian model which he wanted to imitate, would have taken care to choose quality raw material, and to respect the format of the tablets (which should not have been perforated and fired), to apply the corresponding writing techniques (by impression), and to reproduce some of the most characteristic signs. He would also have taken care to ensure the proper excavation documentation in order to prevent later suspicions regarding the circumstances of the discovery.
Beyond these logical arguments, the factual observations attesting to the authenticity (ancient character) of
the tablets, some of which have already been mentioned above, are decisive. It should also be noted that the existence of a calcareous coating on the surface of the tablets, which had to be removed in order to make the signs visible, was an actual proof of the fact that the objects had lain underground for a sufficiently long
period of time to be able to form the lime accumulation.
….. Until such analyses are carried out, the observation resulting from the recent microscopic investigations
on the surface of the tablets, according to which, in the grooved outline of some of the signs on the tablets, traces of soil have been found, remains decisive: “The close examination of the tablets indicates remains of
soil inside the contour of several signs […] The humus mixed with rocks and minerals can only come from the ritual pit‐grave. This is another factual element in favour of the statement concerning the authenticity of the inscribed artefacts. The presence of the encapsulated soil excludes the accusations that they are a modern fake not identified by N. Vlassa, or just a “game” of the discoverer”56 (my underlining, A. L.). >>

A. Laszlo was present at the diggins in the very day in wich tablets were found, but weird, totally unexplained, he did not saw them (!?). His arguments in the article Qui bono?….. turned my opinion again and convinced me that the tablets are not counterfaits. (I changed my mind before many times beeing convinced alternate that are genuine and counterfaits.)To be sincere his article could be mainly an reflex or defensive reaction. To defence and sustain the entire work of archaeologists then in charge at Tartaria site, work wich was criticised without mercy, and were advanced accusations. ————- The tablets are not counterfaits but in the same time not authentic ‘original, very old sumerian.The tablets are real indeed, were inscribed by somebody and in this perspective are “genuine”. Usually an scribe usually used the signs available in his time and area, wich definitely is not the case here.Tablets contain signs used in a large time span and extended area. More than that, there are pure pictographic signs on a tablet, ideograms on another (rectangular drilled) and syllabograms/letters (on that round one).But I will show you the evidence of not beeing older than 2.000 B.C. ! A scribe cannot know and use at a given moment signs wich were invented hundreds years later. ! … Wich is the case here, where on round tablet, entire upper row contain unexpected new signs: on the left side, an H-like (a ladder with 3 rungs) and at the right, some D-s and O-s. These signs with exact this shape not existed in proto-cuneiform by sumerians. ———– Sumerians used the proto-cuneiform Ku sign wich has a “boxed” shape. From https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

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

Folowing sign is GAR, meaning ninda = “ration/bread” See https://books.google.ro › booksTranslation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual …Jay Crisostomo — 2019 · Religion The sign gar, for example, iconically depicted a ration bowl in its original use in the late fourth millennium but …

https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns/GAR.jpg

————- So if we are expecting sumerian-like tablets those signs should not be present on tablets. Keep pleas in mind that “H” has an “open” shape and offset/slanted vertical bars and D is our/latin capital D.

https://neptest1.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/imagine-mare.jpg

First time this sign apperead in exact same shape for the first time in Cretan hieroglyphics and Linear A (2.000 B.C. as sign Pa3) and later in old canaanite/phoenician, as sign Cheth/Heth (1.500B.C.).

https://linearbknossosmycenae.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/so-called-cretan-hieroglyphs-are-not-hieroglyphs-at-all-example-2/amp/
Above, Linear A sign PA3

Above, alphabet_chart_hhet_2.jpg

Regarding D-shaped signs, oldest similar signs (sumerian) are:

Compare the cuneiform sign ninda , a logogram which represents the Sumerian word for “food” or “bread”. The first image is of ninda in a tablet from Ur ~3000 BCE, while the others are of ninda in a fragment of a medical text from Nineveh ~650 BCE. Big difference. https://mobile.twitter.com/Moudhy/status/1160935592420663296/photo/2

Some scholars said that the “scribe” imitated sumerian signs for numbers (A.Falkenstein: D=1 and o=10) and others said that D’s imitated rations,breads or DDoc are the Moon phases (M.Merlini).

Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (Iron Age I–II transition) 10 century B.C.
See https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/D-d/273894

Anyway, the scribe knew well that signs, wich allready existed around him, he did not need to invent any of these signs instantly “on the spot“. D sign was used for letters later in archaic Greek (850 B.C.) and a little later Anatolian alphabets.The ladder sign also, for heta/eta by greeks and for e by Anatolians. From Chapter 8 Europe-II – The Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 <<The ancient Anatolian alphabets Lycian, Carian, and Lydian all date from the first millennium bce, and were used to write various ancient Indo-European languages of western and southwestern Anatolia>> ————- So the signs on tablets not must have necessary a sumerian origin, nor the scribe to be a native sumerian. Otherwise many signs on tablets could be found in all Aegean writings and in Anatolian writing.So the place and time of origin could be rather Aegean area (Crete? 2.000 -500 B.C) or Anatolia.(200 B.C-500 A.D.)

https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2732
https://tied.verbix.com/project/script/asiam41.gif

FROM ARCHAIC GREEK AND ANATOLIAN ALPHABETS WE HAVE MANY SIGNS ON THE TABLETS AND BOTH VERY PROBLEMATIC H & D SIGNS ! I am asking myself if some pictograms and ideograms (of sumerian origin) could be transmited through ages with lost meanings and used in rituals ?

http://www.visitalbaiulia.city/worlds-oldest-writing-system IMG_1895low.jpg

————- If one not take “H” and D-s signs as beeing archaic Greek or Anatolian but imitating sumerian proto-cuneiform signs, then entire tablet’s content appear sumerian-like.That’s why scholars A.Falkenstein, A.A.Vaiman and R.Kolev. First twoo, realised instantly that the writing was not proper sumerian, but sumerian-like. Even the title of a paper explicitated this : http://www.archeo.ru › izdaniya-1Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria. With this understanding they interpreted tablets as beeing sumerian. A.Falkenstein noted that some signs are not exact like those proto-cuneiform but alike, imitated sumerian, sumerian-like. The proto-cuneiform signs were used for a relatively short period of time (3,500-3,000 BC), then from 3,000 BC until 1935 no human eye saw them. Because they were buried (a few meters underground under Eanna temple, Uruk). Thus, the diffusion of these signs was somehow limited. See Uruk culture expansion: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Expansion-territorial-de-la-cultura-de-Uruk-aubet-2007_fig2_269696365 ———– Please see, Uruk culture expansion not reached inner Anatolia or Aegean.The scribe definitely was not sumerian, rather Aegean or Anatolian trader, or even from a much close place. Probably signs interpretation is not conducting to a consistent message; some meanings are single, emerging from the signs itself. – I have no explanation for the scribe intention to show sumerian-like signs. Or: – I will never understand the motivation of the scribe in his ambition to show somebody how writing evolved throughout time, or show (us) how many Sumerian signs he knows. ——– I searched throughly, kept researching in detail and after deep thought, I finally came to the same conclusion as Emilia Masson: “If it was fake, their manufacture would be attributed to a great expert in the field, at the same time a fine connoisseur of archaic writings which to my knowledge Romania does not have ” eugenrau: …If chasing our tails/rainbows of course we can see moon phases, but an epigraphist must follow rules and search for signs of writing. As naturally Adam Falkenstein and Aizik Abramovich Vaiman exactly did.

A.I. + an possible new God ?

September 2, 2021


Recently (in 2021) Elon Musk, on the occasion of announcing the future production of BOT robots, reiterated some of the future implications of artificial intelligence on humanity. In this regard, I have some comments to make.

AI, a possible new divinity/ God ?

He referred to this aspect made statements mainly only related to the future major impact of A.I. on humanity. Thus, he states that no consequences are to be expected in the near future, and the effects will be both positive and negative. It is important that after overcoming the singularity point (level IA = that of human intelligence) it is expected that humanity will enter a period of oscillations, uncertainty and even instability. I also want to refer to that enormous force and impact. As defined:

From  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity Divinity as a quality has two distinct usages:

1. The divine force or power - powers or forces universal or that exceed human capacities
2. The divinity applied to mortals - qualities of individuals who are considered to have a certain access or special relationship with the divine.
AI, is and will be perceived by humans as a force that exceeds human capabilities, and in this acceptance can be an attribute of divinity. There is a tendency that a decision made by a computer (as opposed to that of a human being) should not be subject to doubt or discussion. Then, even if the capabilities were equal, that of AI is overestimated and considered superior. Not to mention that in the future, AI capabilities will far exceed human capabilities.

It is easy to understand, with these definitions and explanations that AI can easily be deified and become a kind of deity.AI, is and will be perceived by humans as a force that exceeds human capabilities, and in this acceptance can be an attribute of divinity. There is a tendency that a decision made by a computer (as opposed to that of a human being) should not be subject to doubt or discussion. Then, even if the capabilities were equal, that of AI is overestimated and considered superior. Not to mention that in the future, AI capabilities will far exceed human capabilities.

RETURNING to some attributes of some primitive societies?

The oldest form of religious manifestation is animism. It also implies the existence of personalities, so kind of "non-human people". That is, entities that are not alive to be perceived as having a soul, a spirit. Be it the mountain, the storm or even the computer. They are perceived as animated by their own spirit. Thus the computer can be perceived extremely easily as an entity with its own spirit, all the more it has thoughts and can make its own decisions. We are not as far away as I will show you. Such as speech comprehension, thinking, and feelings. In fact, some go so far as to perceive their cat or dog as a kind of family member. be perceived as a personality other than human?

Humanoid robots.

Really why humanoids? In modern society we have more and more obese people and the average physical effort is less and less. Thus we can think that due to this aspect there is a tendency of the species to degenerate. Let's make robots like humans, why? The consistent part of human effort today is intellectual in nature, and software companies use AI to eliminate repetitive, automated phases.(E.g. romanian success company UIPath). Otherwise, the so-called physical effort is limited to moving some parts and tools and pressing some buttons. I see these robots as the presence on Earth (after the disappearance of humans) of the old hunter-gatherers of 12,000 years ago. Apart from the humanoid form (I don't see why, should they be familiar to us as relatives?) The eventual human facial conformation will only have the effect of inducing a feeling of strangeness, and even the alienation of people. could have. In the sense that robots are perceived as beings with supernatural abilities, superhumans. Thus they will be able to be idolized, so to become a kind of idol.

What are the bigger chances of extinction of the species: Artificial intelligence or human stupidity?

I know, after overcoming the point of singularity, man can no longer limit or control the level or quality of IA. But as someone rhetorically asks, what will be harder to fight in the future, with the super-intelligence of robots or the classic human stupidity ? Hard to say, I don't have the slightest idea how to make assumptions. That way I can't answer the title question. In fact, it doesn't even matter what we assumed before if one of the variants happens.

Where are we already in the future?

Maybe I will disappoint you a little, in the erotic field. Especially for sex dolls. There are already about 10 companies that produce ultra-realistic reproductions of the human body, equipped with AI capabilities. They can have facial expressions, watch, smile, talk, etc. The culmination is that I found the story of a case in which the husband bought one, has sex with her 3x a week. But also with the wife alternately. The culmination is that the wife knows and agrees with the situation. The problem is actually extreme. Someone might rightly say that reproduction lacks only the soul to be complete if not assimilated, then confused with a human being. But that depends exclusively on the real existence of the soul. And do not feel offended, but it depends on how alienated some of us might be.

A.I. – un posibil nou Dumnezeu ?

September 2, 2021

https://theconversation.com/amp/artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-irresponsibility-the-devil-in-the-machine-157128

Recent (in 2021) Elon Musk, cu ocazia anuntarii productiei viitoare a robotilor BOT, a reiterat o parte din implicatiile viitoare ale inteligentei artificiale asupra omenirii. In legatura cu asta, am de facut niste comentarii.

A.I.-o viitoare divinitate/zeitate ?

Dansul a facut referire la acest aspect si in principal a facut doar afirmatii legate de impactul major viitor al A.I. asupra omenirii. Astfel afirma ca nu sunt de asteptat consecinte in viitorul apropiat, iar efectele vor fi atat pozitive cat si negative. Important este ca dupa depasirea punctului de singularitate (nivelul IA=cel al inteligentei umane) este de asteptat ca omenirea sa intre intr-o perioada de oscilatii, incertitudine chiar instabilitate. Eu vreau sa fac referire tot la acea forta si impact enorm. Conform definitiei:Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity Divinitatea ca si calitate are doua intrebuintari distincte:

  • 1.Forța sau puterea divină – puteri sau forțe universale sau care depășesc capacitățile umane
  • 2.Divinitatea aplicată muritorilor – calități ale indivizilor despre care se consideră că au un anumit acces sau relație specială cu divinul.

IA, este si va fi perceputa de oameni ca o forta care depaseste capacitatile umane, si in aceasta acceptie poate fi un atribut al divinitatii. Exista tendinta ca o decizie luata de un computer (spre deosebire de aceea a unui om) sa nu fie supusa indoielii si nici discutiei. Apoi chiar daca capacitatile ar fi egale, aceea a IA este supraestimata si considerata superioara.Aceasta se intampla pentru ca oamenii considera ca judecata computerului este neutra !Nemaivorbind ca in viitor, capacitatile IA le vor depasi enorm de mult pe cele umane.

Este usor de inteles, cu aceste definitii si explicatii ca IA poate fi usor divinizata si robotul deveni un gen de divinitate.

Revenirea la unele atribute ale unor societati primitive ?

Cea mai veche forma de manifestare religioasa este animismul. Acesta presupune inafara de oameni si animale si existenta inca a altor personalitati, deci gen de “persoane neumane”. Adica entitati care nu sunt vii sa fie percepute ca avand suflet, spirit. Fie cestea munte, furtuna sau chiar calculator. Ele sunt percepute ca fiind animate de un spirit propriu. Astfel computerul poate fi perceput extrem de usor ca o entitate cu un spirit propriu cu atat mai mult cu cat gandeste si poate lua propriile decizii.Nici acum nu suntem tocmai departe dupa cum va voi arata.Unii dintre ubitorii de animale de companie atribuie animalelor lor calitati umane.Cum ar fi intelegerea vorbirii, gandire si sentimente.De fapt unii merg atat de departe incat isi percep pisica sau caiinele ca un fel de membru de familie.Atunci ce sa ne miram ca un computer care “gandeste” si ia decizii autonom nu ar fi perceput ca o personalitate, alta decat omeneasca ?

Roboti umanoizi.

Chiar de ce umanoizi ? In societatea moderna avem tot mai multi obezi iar efortul fizic mediu este din ce in ce mai mic. Astfel ne putem gandi ca datorita acestui aspect exista o tendinta de degenerescents a speciei. Sa facem roboti asemanatori oamenilor, de ce? Partea consistenta a efortului omenesc este astazi de natura intelectuala, iar firmele de soft folosesc IA pentru a elimina fazele cu caracter de automatism, repetitive. (Vezi firma romaneasca de succes UIPath).Altfel asa-zisul efort fizic se rezuma la deplasarea unor piese si unelte si apasarea unor butoane. Eu vad acesti roboti (o gluma amaruie..)ca fiind prezenta pe Pamant (dupa disparitia oamenilor) a vechilor culegatori-vanatori de acum 12.000 de ani. In afara formei umanoide (nu vad de ce, sa ne fie familiari ca si un fel de rude ?) eventuala conformatie faciala umana nu va avea ca efect decat inducere unei puternice senzatii de stranietate, si chiar alienarea oamenilor.Daca alineatele precedente au avut tangenta cu religia si acesta ar putea avea.In sensul ca robotii sa fie perceputi ca fiinte cu capacitati supranaturale, superoameni. Astfel vor putea fi idolatrizati, deci sa devina un gen de idoli.

Ce sanse sunt mai mari sa ne duca extinctia speciei: Inteligenta artificiala sau prostia umana ?

Stiu, dupa depasire punctului de singularitate, omul nu mai poate nici limita si nici controla nivelul sau calitatea IA.Cineva intreba odata retoric: “cu ce va fi mai greu sa te lupti in viitor, cu super- inteligenta robotilor sau cu clasica prostie omeneasca?”Greu de spus, nu am nici cea mai vaga idee sa pot face supozitii.Astfel nu pot raspunde intrebarii din titlu.De fapt nici nu mai are importanta ce am presupus noi inainte daca una dintre variante se va fi intamplat.

In ce domeniu suntem deja in viitor ?

Poate o sa va dezamagesc putin, in domeniul erotic.Mai precis in cel al papusilor pentru sex.Deja exista in lume spre 10 firme care produc reproduceri ultrarealistice ale corpului omenesc, dotate cu capacitati AI.Pot avea mimica, urmaresc cu privirea, zambesc, vorbesc, etc.Culmea este ca am gasit relatarea unui caz (India)in care sotul si-a cumparat una, face sex cu ea de 3x pe saptamana…. Dar si cu sotia /alternativ.Culmea este ca sotia stie si nu are nimic impotriva.Problema este de fapt extrem de delicata si serioasa.Cineva ar putea afirma indreptatit ca papusii nu i-ar lipsili decat sufletul ca sa fie daca nu complet asimilata, atunci confundata cu o fiinta omeneasca.Dar asta nu depinde exclusiv de existenta reala a sufletului.Si sa nu va simtiti jigniti, ci depinde de cat de alienati am putea fi unii dintre noi.

Mars, radiation and artificial gravity

August 31, 2021

Lack of gravity is not a problem for short time intervals. But it becomes a big problem when we think of a trip to Mars (& much more when return). At time intervals such as 180 days (6 months) and over, lack of gravity it results in muscle atrophy, decalcification and a poor physical and mental condition. It seems that for now for Elon Musk the need of artificial gravity is not a priority, ( ie not a first degree priority ). On the first flight(s), the crew will not be tourists but probably astronauts with good physical condition and trained. Now, for E.Musk only the safety of the mission and that of the astronauts is very important. That is, practically not to explode something and for the crew to stay alive . Not to forget, every extra gram of wxtra weight costs. He didn’t even bother much with concrete solutions for generating Artificial Gravity. He was shown a proposal with 2 twin Starship rockets to be spaced with a kind of side tether rod + for safety an cable then rotated. Solution described here: https://www.universetoday.com/143368/real-artificial-gravity-for-spacexs-starship/ “To address this, Youtuber smallstars has proposed a concept that he calls the Gravity Link Starship (GLS), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CRiJTJikjk a variation of SpaceX’s Starship that will be able to provide its own artificial gravity. ” Elon Musk said that it is good so (!?). There is another proposal that the rocket be made by attaching 2 longitudinal sections of the rocket and then rotated 90 degrees.

Gravité artificielle avec Starship – Exploration spatiale
https://blogs.letemps.ch/pierre-brisson/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2021/05/Capture-decran-2021-05-10-162857-750×410.jpg

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
I come up with a proposal that is simple and safe. It is somehow a cut of the Gordian knot. I was surprised to learn that the center of gravity of a Starship rocket ship is somewhere very close to the middle.

from Study of artificial gravity systems for long duration space …https://upcommons.upc.edu › bitstream › handle

  1. PDFby Ó Santín Blanco · 2020 — GLS2 Artificial Gravity for SpaceX Starship (smallstars) . … Starship’s center of mass (which we will consider to be in the middle of the ship

Why not splitting the rocket right in the middle?

Starship SN4 assembly diagram V4.8 - Updated 04/17/2020: StarshipDevelopment
Starship SN4 assembly diagram V4.8 – Updated 04/17/2020: StarshipDevelopment https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWfGd9Aw3BCLcin4f0HKoIOrs1yadZ_ziS-N4V5VITpPpdoskoidZwycM9PTZqOL_xxgs&usqp=CAU
Starship Compendium – ElonX.net
https://www.elonx.net/wp-content/uploads/EU5wwatXYAA4ali_Rafael_Adamy-scaled.jpg

Then separate the halves, sliding along long axis.(one is the payload and the second CH4 + Lox and engines). They are joined with a tether rod (+ cable for safety?). Once separated, the rotation begins. (The “halves” could remain so along initial axis, or turned 90deg.)Luckily, one half contains the fuel tanks and the engines and the other half the cargo bay contains the means of support. of life and crew.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1572478168_spacex-starship-cutaway-diagram-by-julian-schindler.jpg
https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-10/thumbs/1572478168_spacex-starship-cutaway-diagram-by-julian-schindler.jpg

The crew does not need the fuel tanks and main engines to be nearby.

Cutaway diagram of SpaceX Starship | human Mars
https://eugenrau.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/3e235-spacex2bstarship2bcutaway2bdiagram.jpg

I see a length of tether = the connection between the two halves of about 100 m? to get 1G of gravity at a reasonable rotation speed .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity <<For example, to produce standard gravityɡ0 = 9.8 m/s2 with a rotating spacecraft period of 15 s, the radius of rotation would have to be 56 m (184 ft), while a period of 30 s would require it to be 224 m (735 ft).>>

The lower the rotation speed, the more the difference between natural and artificial gravity is no longer discerned. (Minimal side effects). , otherwise when the length of the connection decreases, the speed increases. I propose that the joints and connections between the two halves and the stretcher have some degrees of freedom, allow pivoting / rotation. of uncontrolled rotation, a situation in which large forces can appear that break structural elements. Elon Musk will have to deal with both, the radiation shield and the artificial gravity because he cannot take the tourists’ money and then when returned leave them on the ground in a pitiful state, decalcified, with mental problems, most possibly human wrecks.

A Sanctuary … or so fair a House ?

August 31, 2021

Although this English translation of the theme it seems lame : Göbekli Tepe’s buildings has “so fair a house”. And if the translation were from Chinese,it would have sounded better. As far as I know there was no moment or person directly interested in what they are exactly the enclosures of Gobekli Tepe: temples or constructions for living. The moment when subject raised high and got hot, was when begun discussions and nobody knew what were so called “handbags” on Vulture Stone Vulture Stone, Göbekli Tepe (Illustration) – World History Encyclopedia

I am giving much credit to the opinions of regreted Professor Klaus Schmidt, and at least as much to the researcher Jens Notroff. The latter has a broad vision, a great mobility of thought and a capacity for scientific analysis. In opposition to their views, I believe that if the views of Canadian researcher E.B. Banning despite he have some valuable opinions , his conclusions have no support. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Klaus Schmidt

:

From https://www.archaeology.org › issues Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers? – Archaeology Magazine “a team led by German Archaeological Institute (DAI) archaeologist Klaus Schmidt reached a stunning conclusion: The buildings and their multiton pillars, along with smaller, rectangular structures higher on the slope of the hill, were monumental communal buildings erected by people at a time before they had established permanent settlements, engaged in agriculture, or bred domesticated animals. Schmidt did not believe that anyone had ever lived at the site.

E B Banning:

His paper: So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of …https://www.journals.uchicago.edu › doi › pdfplusby EB Banning 

From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “Just recently a colleague challenged the existence of pure domestic or ritual structures for the Neolithic, arguing that archaeologists tend to impose modern western distinctions of sacred vs. profane on prehistory, while anthropology in most cases shows these two spheres to be inseparably interwoven (Banning 2011, 624-627). In his eyes, Göbekli Tepe rather was a settlement with buildings rich in symbolism, but nevertheless domestic in nature.” Fig 4 – uploaded by Edward Bruce Banning https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

Jens Notroff https://jensnotroff.com/curriculum-vitae/

:From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “From its discovery onwards, the interpretation of Göbekli Tepe’s suprising architecture has centered around the terms ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude), ‘sanctuaries’, or even ‘temples’. Naturally, this line of interpretation has been called into question. As already discussed here, it is indeed quite challenging to use a rather strictly defined historical terminology and complex spiritual concepts to describe the material remains of prehistoric phenomena. Even more while cult, ritual and ultimately religion are concepts often cited but rarely clearly defined by archaeologists. …Banning’s arguments that in-house inhumations, caches and wall paintings are demonstrating that ‘the sacred’ clearly is leaking into everyday live in the Near Eastern Neolithic (Banning 2011, 627-629) and that therefore a clear distinction is impossible to define, is valid, too, of course.In fact the idea of manifestations of the sacred in houses or parts of houses is neither new, nor surprising as already M. Eliade pointed out in his seminal work on the entanglement of the sacred and profane.z…So, even though we cannot know if these buildings actually were really meant to house gods or deities, the peculiar role of these larger-than-life anthropomorphic images forming the centre and main element of the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe remain conspiciously disctinctive to the life-sized sculpture heads which were apparently carefully deposited in the backfill. … Summing up, from our point of view there seems to be ample evidence to interpret Göbekli Tepe as a peculiar place formed of special purpose structures related to cult and ritual with distinct and fixed life-cycles of building, use, deconstruction and burial. All of these stages seem to be marked by specific ritual acts, of which the last, i.e. those related to burial and deposition of symbolic objects are naturally best visible in the archaeological record. …If ‘temple’ is understood as a technical term for specialized cult architecture, one could indeed consider this label for Göbekli Tepe. If the term is defined in our western perception as a place where a god is present, maybe ‘sanctuary’’ would be a more neutral description; alternatively the auxiliary construction of ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude) may be used to escape any trap of culturally bound denominations.BUT IN ANY CASE ONE THING IzS SURE: THE IDEA THAT GOBEKLI TEPE’s BUILDINGS ARE “SO FAIR A HOUSE” SEEMS NOT THE MOST CONVINCING INTERPRETATION OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SO FAR.

eugenrau:

  • it is an impiety (and only to think, not to mention to write) that the T-pillars with deep meaning and bearing signs with symbolic, sacred meaning could have been pillars that support a roof!
  • – the sockets of the pillars in the bedrock are designed only to support, sustain (even so, precarious) the pillars in vertical position.
  • the T-pillars represent a sacred symbol perpetuated, not forgotten and repeated AT LEAST 2000 years (9,600-7,600)
  • pillars can break easily due to the rock with poor consistency and small thickness.(Blade-like) https://content.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mikeyperes2.jpg
  • if they had the support in mind, there is evidence on the site that in the are there were trees and it was 100x easier to make wooden poles.
  • totem poles are never used to support something they are singular, solitary.
  • – even in low intensity winds, the forces transmitted to the pillars would have tensed and cracked very easily. Cannot support stress, (cannot be in slightest measure bended !)
A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams

http://www.dainst.blog
A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams
  • -The “bag” symbols have those “bows”/ “handles” offset (forced asymmetrically) only to make room for those symbols.
  • Mr. Banning, in addition to some otherwise common sense and correct statements, even some valuable ones, pushed forward an enormity that by no means finds its place.

Clădirile din Göbekli Tepe sunt „atât de convenabil, o casa”

August 30, 2021

Desi pare schioapa, aceasta e traducerea din engleza a temei:Göbekli Tepe’s buildings are “so fair a house”.Si daca traducerea ar fi fost din chineza, tot ar fi sunat mai bine.Din cate stiu nu a existat un moment sau persoana direct interesata ce sunt exact incintele de la Gobekli Tepe, temple sau constructii pentru locuit. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3-RhylpeHhARqfR27uL73lFhHW7F5ru8y6A&usqp=CAU Din amintirile mele,o discutie aplicata pe acest subiect a inceput cu ocazia disputei a ceea ce reprezinta gentutele de pe "pilonul vulturului"(vulture stone).Imaginea, din 
World History Encyclopedia
Vulture Stone, Göbekli Tepe (Illustration) - World History Encyclopedia                         Eu acord un foarte mare credit opiniilor regretatului profesor Klaus Schmidt, si cel putin tot atata cercetatorului Jens Notroff.Acesta din urma are o viziune larga,o mare mobilitate de gandire si o capacitate de analiza stiintifica pe masura.In opozitie cu opiniile acestora, consider ca nu au sustinere si nici valoare opiniile cercetatorului canadian E.B. Banning ...
Although it seems lame, this is the English translation of the theme: Göbekli Tepe's buildings has "so fair a house". And if the translation were from Chinese,it would have sounded better. As far as I know there was no moment or person directly interested in what they are exactly the enclosures of Gobekli Tepe: temples or constructions for living.                                     I am giving much credit to the opinions of regreted Klaus Schmidt, and at least as much to the researcher Jens Notroff. The latter has a broad vision, a great mobility of thought and a capacity for scientific analysis.   In opposition to their views, I believe that if the views of Canadian researcher E.B. Banning have some value his conclusions have no support. 
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷                           
Klaus Schmidt :
Din https://www.archaeology.org › issues
Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers? - Archaeology Magazine
"a team led by German Archaeological Institute (DAI) archaeologist Klaus Schmidt reached a stunning conclusion: The buildings and their multiton pillars, along with smaller, rectangular structures higher on the slope of the hill, were monumental communal buildings erected by people at a time before they had established permanent settlements, engaged in agriculture, or bred domesticated animals. Schmidt did not believe that anyone had ever lived at the site."                                      O echipa condusă de arheologul Institutului German de Arheologie (DAI) Klaus Schmidt a ajuns la o concluzie uimitoare: clădirile și stâlpii lor multitonali, împreună cu structuri mai mici, dreptunghiulare, mai sus pe versantul dealului, erau clădiri monumentale comunale ridicate de oameni la un moment dat înainte au stabilit așezări permanente, s-au angajat în agricultură sau au crescut animale domestice. Schmidt nu credea că cineva ar fi trăit vreodată in sit. "

E B Banning: 
Din https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24
A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams                               
"Recent, un coleg a contestat existența unor structuri rurale sau domestice pure pentru neolitic, susținând că arheologii tind să impună distincții occidentale moderne de sacru față de profan în preistorie, în timp ce antropologia arată în cele mai multe cazuri că aceste două sfere sunt inseparabil întrețesute (Banning 2011 , 624-627). În ochii lui, Göbekli Tepe era mai degrabă o așezare cu clădiri bogate în simbolism, dar totuși de natură domestică. Fig 4 - uploaded by Edward Bruce Banning https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913 

Jens Notroff https://jensnotroff.com/curriculum-vitae/ :                                            Din https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24
A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams                               

"De la descoperirea sa incoace, interpretarea surprinzatoarei arhitecturi a lui Göbekli Tepe s-a centrat în jurul termenilor „clădiri cu destinație specială” (Sondergebäude), „sanctuare” sau chiar „temple”. În mod firesc, această linie de interpretare a fost pusă sub semnul întrebării. După cum s-a discutat deja aici, este într-adevăr destul de dificil să folosești o terminologie istorică destul de strict definită și concepte spirituale complexe pentru a descrie rămășițele materiale ale fenomenelor preistorice. Chiar mai mult, în timp ce cultul, ritualul și în cele din urmă religia sunt concepte adesea citate, dar rareori clar definite de arheologi.Argumentele lui Banning conform cărora inhumările interne, cache-urile și picturile murale demonstrează că „sacrul” se scurge în mod clar în viața de zi cu zi în neoliticul din Orientul Apropiat (Banning 2011, 627-629) și că, prin urmare, o distincție clară este imposibil de definit, este valabil, de asemenea, desigur. De fapt, ideea manifestărilor sacrului în case sau părți ale caselor nu este nici nouă, nici surprinzătoare, așa cum a subliniat deja M. Eliade în lucrarea sa fundamentală despre încurcarea sacrului și profanului. .. Deci, chiar dacă nu putem ști dacă aceste clădiri au fost de fapt menite să găzduiască zei sau zeități, rolul specific al acestor imagini antropomorfe mai mari decât in realitate care formează centrul și elementul principal al incintelor de la Göbekli Tepe rămân în mod conștient disctincte fata de capetele de sculptate în mărime naturală care aparent au fost depuse cu grijă în implutura. ...                 Din punctul nostru de vedere, rezumam ca par să existe suficiente dovezi care să interpreteze Göbekli Tepe ca un loc aparte format din structuri cu scop special legate de cult și ritual, cu cicluri de viață distincte și fixe de construire, utilizare, de construcție și înmormântare. ...                                                              Toate aceste etape par a fi marcate de acte rituale specifice, dintre care ultimele, adică cele legate de înmormântare și depunere a obiectelor simbolice sunt în mod natural vizibile cel mai bine în evidența arheologică. ...                          Dacă „templul” este înțeles ca un termen tehnic pentru arhitectura cultului specializat, s-ar putea lua într-adevăr această etichetă pentru Göbekli Tepe. Dacă termenul este definit în percepția noastră occidentală ca un loc în care este prezent un zeu, poate „sanctuar” ar fi o descriere mai neutră; în mod alternativ, construcția auxiliară a „clădirilor cu destinație specială” (Sondergebäude) poate fi utilizată pentru a scăpa de orice capcană a confesiunilor legate cultural.
  DAR, ÎN ORICE CAZ, UN SINGUR LUCRU ESTE SIGUR: IDEEA CĂ CLĂDIRILE GOBEKLI TEPE SUNT „O CASĂ ATAT DE POTRIVITA” SE SE PARE CA NU ESTE CEA MAI CONVINGATOARE INTERPRETARE A EVIDENȚEI DISPONIBILE PÂNĂ
ACUM." 
Imaginea, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhWe8qGW0AAvoE4.jpg 

eugenrau:                                   
- este o impietate (si numai sa-i treaca cuiva prin cap,nemaivorbind sa exprime) ca pilonii T cu adanca semnificatie si purtand semne cu incarcatura simbolica ar fi putut fi stalpi care sustin un acoperis !        - locasele-postament ale pilonilor in roca de baza sunt gandite doar pentru sustinerea (si asa precara) a pilonilor in pozitie verticala.
- pilonii reprezinta un simbol sacru perpetuat si reiterat CEL PUTIN 2000 de ani (9.600-7.600)
-pilonii se pot rupe usor datorita rocii cu slaba consistenta si a grosimii mici.https://content.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mikeyperes2.jpg 
- daca aveau in cap sustinerea, exista dovezi in sit ca existau pomi si era de 100x mai facila executia unor stalpi din lemn.
- stalpii totemici nu se folosesc niciodata pentru a sprijini ceva sunt singulari, solitari.                                   - chiar la vanturi de mica intensitate fortele transmise pilonilor i-ar fi tensionat si crapat foarte usor, pentru ca nu suporta indoire.            
-Simbolurile "gentute" au acel arce, "manere" deplasate (fortat asimetrice) pentru a face loc acelor simboluri.
- Mr. Banning, pe langa niste afirmatii de bun simt si corecte, chiar unele de valoare, a impins in fata o enormitate care nicidecum nu-si gaseste locul.

La 9.600 î.e.n. nu erau zei propriu-zisi!

August 25, 2021

Oamenii de știință nu știu sigur dacă stâlpii T ai lui Gobeli Tepe reprezentau sau nu zei. Mulți dintre ei (în special în afara câmpului săpat), datorită trăsăturilor umanoide ale stâlpilor, înclină spre zei. În umila mea părere, asistăm la Gobekli Tepe chiar momentul în care omenirea schimbă credința din spirite în închinarea la zei. Locuitorii au trecut de la:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jens2go/status/1104064601988255745/photo/1

Către (de vârstă necunoscută), poate puțin mai târziu? :

https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2019/03/20/a-rather-odd-figure-the-so-called-kilisik-sculpture-from-adiyaman-turkey/

Zeu? Spirit? Sau ar putea exista spirite antropomorfe? Da !: Wikipedia: ”Antropomorfismul este atribuirea unor trăsături, emoții sau intenții umane entităților neumane. … De la începuturile modernității comportamentale umane în paleoliticul superior, cu aproximativ 40.000 de ani în urmă, apar exemple de opere de artă zoomorfe (în formă de animal) care pot reprezenta cele mai vechi dovezi cunoscute de antropomorfism.

Una dintre cele mai vechi cunoscute este o sculptură în fildeș, figurina Löwenmensch, Germania, o figurină în formă de om cu cap de leoaică sau de leu, stabilită ca având aproximativ 32.000 de ani. ”

Figurina Löwenmensch... - Secret World
https://m.sworld.co.uk/2/440208/photoalbum/figurina-lowenmensch

eugenrau: în animism există și o mulțime de entități non-umane care erau sau aveau spirite! De la https://journals.sagepub.com ›pdfRezultate de pe webLiterature. – Jurnalele SAGE <<’(i) Există spiritele antropomorfe, gândite ca locuind în regiuni îndepărtate și vag concepute și ca fiind foarte puternice pentru a interveni.>>

De la https://publishing.cdlib.org ›viewStelae: The Emergence of Human Figuration – UC Press E-Books … ” Nu este o simplă coincidență faptul că aceste prime reprezentări figurative descriu spiritele antropomorfe mai degrabă decât indivizii propriu-zisi.Plutind în aceasta jumătate de lume între aici și viitor – între, adică umanul și divinul – sunt primele manifestări ale unei religiozități emergente. …. În acea „conștiință de sine” în continuă creștere, am începe să ne sculptăm primele reprezentări antropomorfe în mod deliberat figurative. Totuși, de la bun început, nu suntem pe noi înșine, dar, așa cum am menționat deja, acei gardieni, acele figuri staționate la jumătatea distanței dintre uman și divin “.

Din https://mythology.stackexchange.com › &#8230; Are there any hunter gatherer gods? – Mythology Stack Exchange ”După cum ați întrebat despre zeii din perioada vânătorilor de culegători. Nu au existat zei sau zeități înalte active ca și noi astăzi. De ex. din perspectiva hinduismului, Shiva-Vishnu-Devi sau Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo etc. al zeului grec, care pedepsesc moral. În schimb, ei urmăreau animismul. Un mod de viață care crede în suflete sau spirite. Aceste suflete sau spirite există nu numai la oameni, ci și la animale, plante, roci, caracteristici geografice, cum ar fi munții, râurile și alte entități ale mediului natural, cum ar fi vântul, focul, gheața, ploaia etc. Potrivit acestora, toate aceste elemente dețineau puterea. Cu alte cuvinte, ei urmau religii „naturale”. Aceste elemente naturale erau zeii lor așa cum numim astăzi un zeu. Adesea aceste forțe sau zei ai Vânătorilor-Adunători aveau puteri foarte limitate nu erau atotștiutoare, atotputernice și nu prea se preocupă de problemele umane și de moralitate. ”

Din https://www.encyclopedia.com › me&#8230; Mesopotamian Religions: History of Study | Encyclopedia.com „Cea mai timpurie încercare de a prezenta o prezentare cuprinzătoare a vechilor religii mesopotamiene este in lucrarea La magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes (1874) a lui François Lenormant. Lenormant a susținut o etapă animistă timpurie a credinței sumeriene (numită atunci akkadiană) în spirite care erau controlate de magi. Credințele sumeriene în spirite care erau controlate de un corp de oameni de medicină au fost denumite de Sayce „animism organizat”. Se credea că cuvântul sumerian pentru spirit era zi și „zi era pur și simplu ceea ce manifesta viața, iar testul manifestării vieții era mișcare” (p. 327). Spiritele din acele elemente cosmice majore care au fost considerate bune s-au dezvoltat treptat în zei. Nivelul puterii de mișcare posedat de un obiect, sau într-o forță a naturii, a fost testul supranaturalismului său (adică al existenței unui spirit în interiorul său). „

Din https://www.giffordlectures.org › lec&#8230; Lecture 3: The Gods of Babylonia – The Religions of Ancient Egypt …<<… Titlul sumerian al lui En-lil,„ stăpânul lumii-fantomă ”. Dar era doar un titlu; „stăpânul fantomelorera el însuși o fantomă, deși șeful dintre ele. Faptul trebuie ținut cont cu atenție. Încă nu exista un zeu în sensul corect al termenului. Puterile supraomenești care erau temute și propice erau doar fantome, ca fantomele oamenilor morți; și, la fel ca aceștia din urmă, erau cetățeni ai mormântului și ai lumii subterane. Abia noaptea au ieșit din retragerea lor și au îngrozit trecătorul. Omul primitiv se teme de întuneric la fel de mult ca și copilul; Atunci puterile răului sunt active și dușmanii spirituali sau supranaturali se ascund în spatele fiecărui colț gata să-l rănească sau să-l distrugă. În consecință, fantomele nopții sunt obiecte de teroare, ființe dăunătoare din care provin toate formele de boală și nebunie. Dar chiar și aceste fantome pot fi controlate de cei care cunosc cuvintele magice sau riturile mistice pe care sunt obligați să le respecte. Între fantomă și victima sa, vrăjitorul sau medicul se pot interpune și, prin intermediul vrăjilor sale, forțează spiritul să părăsească corpul celui care suferă sau să intre în corpul unui dușman. Prin urmare, alături de fantomă se află vrăjitorul, care este în același timp stăpânul și slujitorul lumii spiritelor >> eugenrau: vrăjitor, stăpânul și ministrul lumii spiritelor este ȘAMANUL!

Din http://sss.trnava.sk › uploads › gobe…gobekli tepe 2021 – SSS Trnava  „Nu era necesar un zeu, aveau spirite. Asemănări inexplicabile între Göbekli Tepe, Insula Paștelui și alte situri antice. ”

Din https://knotma gick101.wordpress.com › …Rezultate de pe webGobekli Tepe – my uninformed ramblings | Knot Magick <<Deși Gobekli Tepe a fost observat pentru prima dată într-un sondaj din 1963 … aproape universal a sugerat că stâlpii reprezintă ființe spirituale superioare. Al doilea element al religiilor native este credința în spirite (la plural). Lumea este plină de spirite – atât spiritele ființelor umane moarte, cât și spiritele „naturale” care au existat întotdeauna în mod incorporat. Așa cum E.B. Idowu scrie despre religia tradițională africană: „Nu există o zonă a pământului, niciun obiect sau creatură care să nu aibă un spirit propriu sau care să nu poată fi locuit de un spirit” (1975, p.174). La fel ca Marele Spirit în sine, spiritele individuale nu sunt ființe antropomorfe cu personalități, precum zeii. Nu sunt deloc ființe. După cum scrie Idowu, „de cele mai multe ori sunt gândite ca puteri aproape abstracte, ca nuanțe sau vapori” (pp. 173–4). Și spiritele sunt implicate în lume într-un mod în care zeii nu sunt. Spre deosebire de zei, ei nu sunt niciodată separați de el, ci se mișcă întotdeauna prin el sau trăiesc în stâncile, copacii și râurile sale.>>

Din Wikipedia / Divinitatea <<Divinitatea ca calitate are două utilizări distincte: 1.Forța sau puterea divină – puteri sau forțe care sunt universale sau transcend capacitățile umane
2.Divinitatea aplicată muritorilor >>
Deci divinitatea ar putea fi antropomorfă. Ca divinitate = putere divină, aceasta implică faptul că: divinitate = putere divină, mai târziu simbol proto-cuneiform sumerian „T”: „Eu”, „puteri divine”

Din https://www.worldhistory.org › article Enki in Ancient Literature – World History Encyclopedia <<Enki este un zeu al mitologiei sumeriene și, mai târziu în timp, … El a fost păstrătorul puterilor divine numite Me-uri”

Din https://cdli.ucla.edu › tools › archsigns proto-cuneiform signs sign “Me

CONCLUZIE: Deoarece OmulLeu are trăsături antropomorfe și cu siguranță la 32.000 de ani. nu existau inca zei, așa că stâlpii T (ușor antropomorfi) la începutul sitului Gobekli Tepe (stratul III) nu ar fi putut fi încă zei, ci spirite. Scuzati-mă, revin din nou: divinitate = puteri divine = spirit (ar putea avea trăsături antropomorfe) = ulterior sumerian “Me”: „puteri divine” cu semn proto cuneiform „T“ = formă de T stâlpi Gobekli Tepe

Un alt spirit cu trăsături antropomorfe (omenesti): Wikipedia: ‘The Sorcerer (cave art)’: ”este un nume pentru o pictură rupestră enigmatică găsită în peștera cunoscută sub numele de„ Sanctuarul ”din Peștera Trei-Frati, Ariège, Franța, realizată în jurul anului 13.000 î.Hr. Semnificația figurii este necunoscută, dar este interpretată de obicei ca un fel de mare spirit sau stăpân al animalelor “.

Din Of animals and a headless man. Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 43  <<După moarte spiritele războinicului au coborât în ​​marea lume subterană (semnul făcut de stâlpii în formă de„ T mari) ..>>

Din  https://curiosmos.com › BlogGöbekli Tepe: Ancient Site That Predates The Pyramids Was Built … <<Stâlpii site-ului ar fi putut fi totemuri antice reprezentând fie spirite protectoare, strămoși sau chiar constelații.>>

Din  https://a1.monographs.ru › …Masks of Exploit Göbekli Tepe & Pillars of the Pharaoh System— <<Semnele, stâlpii în formă de T ai Göbekli Tepe, reprezintă exploatarea, aducând solul … poate să semene cu spiritele strămoșilor morți.>>

Din https://www.rampagingdinosaur.com › …Göbekli Tepe, mankind’s first step towards civilization – Rampaging …— <<Apropierea mâinilor umane pe unul dintre stâlpi, ceea ce înseamnă că acestia reprezintă spirite.>>

At 9,600 B.C. there were not gods proper!

August 22, 2021

Scientists not know for sure if Gobeli Tepe’s T-pillars represented gods or not. Many of them (especially outside of digging field), due of pillars humanoid traits incline toward gods. In my humble opinion, we witness at Gobekli Tepe the very moment when humankind change faith from spirits to gods-worshiping. Changing from:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jens2go/status/1104064601988255745/photo/1

To/toward (of unknown age), maybe little later ? :

https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2019/03/20/a-rather-odd-figure-the-so-called-kilisik-sculpture-from-adiyaman-turkey/

God? Spirit ? Or could exist anthropomorphic spirits ? Yes!: Wikipedia:” Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. … From the beginnings of human behavioral modernity in the Upper Paleolithic, about 40,000 years ago, examples of zoomorphic (animal-shaped) works of art occur that may represent the earliest known evidence of anthropomorphism.

One of the oldest known is an ivory sculpture, the Löwenmensch figurine, Germany, a human-shaped figurine with the head of a lioness or lion, determined to be about 32,000 years old.” eugenrau: in animism there are also plenty of non-human entities wich were or had spirits ! From https://journals.sagepub.com › pdf – SAGE Journals’ << (i) There are the anthropomorphic spirits, thought of as dwelling in remote and vaguely conceived regions and as very powerful to intervene in.>>

From https://publishing.cdlib.org › viewStelae: The Emergence of Human Figuration – UC Press E-Books … ” It’s no mere coincidence that these first figurative representations happen to depict anthropomorphic spirits rather than individuals proper. Hovering in that half-world between the here and the hereafter—between, that is, the human and the divine—they’re the first manifestations of an emergent religiosity. …. In that ever-growing “self-consciousness,” we’d begin carving our first deliberately figurative, anthropomorphic representations. At the very outset, however, it isn’t ourselves we portray but, as already mentioned, those guardians, those figures stationed halfway between the human and the divine.”

From https://mythology.stackexchange.com › &#8230; Are there any hunter gatherer gods? – Mythology Stack Exchange << As you have enquired about the Gods from hunter gatherers period. There were no active high gods or deities as we have today. For e.g. from Hinduism perspective Shiva-Vishnu-Devi , or Greek god’s Zeus , Poseidon , Apollo etc. who are morally punishing. Instead they were following Animism. A way of life that believes in souls or spirits. These souls or spirits exists not only in humans, but also in animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains, rivers and other entities of natural environment like wind , fire , ice , rain etc. According to them all these elements were holding the power. In other words they were following “natural” religions ” These natural elements were their gods as we today call a god. Often these forces or gods of Hunter-Gatherers were having very limited powers were not omniscient ,omnipotent and they do not very much concerning about human affairs and morality. >>

From https://www.encyclopedia.com › me&#8230; Mesopotamian Religions: History of Study | Encyclopedia.com “The earliest attempt at a comprehensive presentation of ancient Mesopotamian religions is François Lenormant’s La magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes (1874). Lenormant posited an early Sumerian (then called Akkadian) animistic stage of belief in spirits that were controlled by magicians. The Sumerian beliefs in spirits that were controlled by a body of medicine men was termed by Sayce “organized animism.” The Sumerian word for spirit was thought to be zi, and “the zi was simply that which manifested life, and the test of the manifestation of life was movement” (p. 327). The spirits in those major cosmic elements that were considered good gradually developed into gods. The level of power of motion possessed by an object, or in a force of nature, was the test of its supernaturalism (that is, of the existence of a spirit within it). “

From https://www.giffordlectures.org › lec&#8230; Lecture 3: The Gods of Babylonia – The Religions of Ancient Egypt … “….Sumerian title of En-lil, “the lord of the ghost-world.” But it was a title only; the “lord of the ghosts” was himself a ghost, albeit the chief among them.The fact must be kept carefully in mind. As yet there was no god in the proper sense of the term. The superhuman powers that were dreaded and propitiated were ghosts only, like the ghosts of dead men; and, like the latter, they were denizens of the grave and the underground world. It was only at night that they emerged from their retreat, and terrified the passer-by. Primitive man fears the dark as much as does the child; it is then that the powers of evil are active, and spiritual or supernatural foes lurk behind every corner ready to injure or destroy him. The ghosts of the night are accordingly objects of terror, harmful beings from whom all forms of sickness and insanity are derived. But even these ghosts can be controlled by those who know the magic words or the mystic rites which they are compelled to obey. Between the ghost and his victim the sorcerer or medicine-man can interpose, and by means of his spells force the spirit to quit the body of the sufferer or enter the body of an enemy. By the side of the ghost, therefore, stands the sorcerer, who is at once the master and the minister of the spirit-world.”

eugenrau: sorcerer, the master and the minister of the spirit-world is the SHAMAN !

From http://sss.trnava.sk › uploads › gobe…gobekli tepe 2021 – SSS TrnavaNot necessary needed a god, they had spirits. Inexplicable Similarities Between Göbekli Tepe, Easter Island, And Other Ancient Sites.”

From https://knotmagick101.wordpress.com › …Rezultate de pe webGobekli Tepe – my uninformed ramblings | Knot Magick <<Although Gobekli Tepe was first noticed in a 1963 survey … almost universally suggested that the pillars represent higher spiritual beings.The second element of native religions is belief in spirits (in the plural). The world teems with spirits—both the spirits of dead human beings and ‘natural’ spirits which have always existed incorporeally. As E.B. Idowu writes of traditional African religion, ‘There is no area of the earth, no object or creature, which has not a spirit of its own or which cannot be inhabited by a spirit’ (1975, p.174). Like the Great Spirit itself, individual spirits are not anthropomorphic beings with personalities, like gods. They are not beings at all. As Idowu writes, ‘they are more often than not thought of as powers which are almost abstract, as shades or vapours’ (pp. 173–4). And spirits are involved in the world in a way that gods are not. Unlike gods, they are never separate from it, but always moving through it, or living within its rocks, trees and rivers.>>

Wikipedia/Divinity “Divinity as a quality has two distinct usages:

  • 1.Divine force or power – powers or forces that are universal, or transcend human capacities
  • 2.Divinity applied to mortals “
  • So divinity could be antropomorphic. As divinity=divine power, this imply that :divinity=divine power, later sumerian proto-cuneiform symbol “T”:”Me”, “divine powers”

From https://www.worldhistory.org › article Enki in Ancient Literature – World History Encyclopedia “Enki is a god of Sumerian mythology and, later in time, … He was the keeper of the divine powers called me-s”

From https://cdli.ucla.edu › tools › archsigns proto-cuneiform signs sign “Me

CONCLUSION: As Löwenmensch has anthropomorphic traits and for sure at 32,000 y.o. was not a god, so T-pillars (slightly anthropomorphic shaped ) could be at the Gobekli Tepe very begining (layer III) not yet gods but spirits. Excuse me, again: divinity=divine powers=spirit(could have anthropomorphic traits)=later sumerian Me :”divine powers“with proto cuneiform sign “T“=T-shape Gobekli Tepe pillars

Another spirit with human traits: Wikipedia: ‘The Sorcerer (cave art)’:” is one name for an enigmatic cave painting found in the cavern known as ‘The Sanctuary’ at the Cave of the Trois-Frères, Ariège, France, made around 13,000 BCE. The figure’s significance is unknown, but it is usually interpreted as some kind of great spirit or master of animals.”

A D D I T I O N A L D O C U M E N T A T I O N

From Wikipedia Deity “Modern archaeologists now generally recognize that it is impossible to conclusively identify any prehistoric figurines as representations of any kind of deities, let alone goddesses.Nonetheless, it is possible to evaluate ancient representations on a case-by-case basis and rate them on how likely they are to represent deities. The Venus of Willendorf, a female figurine found in Europe and dated to about 25,000 BCE has been interpreted by some as an exemplar of a prehistoric female deity.A number of probable representations of deities have been discovered at ‘Ain Ghazaland the works of art uncovered at Çatalhöyük reveal references to what is probably a complex mythology.”

From Of animals and a headless man. Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 43 “After death the warrior’s spirits descended into the great underworld (the sign made by the Large “T” shaped pillars)..”

From https://curiosmos.com › BlogGöbekli Tepe: Ancient Site That Predates The Pyramids Was Built … — “The site’s pillars may have been ancient totems representing either protective spirits, ancestors, or even constellations.”

From https://a1.monographs.ru › …Masks of Exploit Göbekli Tepe & Pillars of the Pharaoh System— “Signs, the T-shaped pillars of Göbekli Tepe repre- exploitation, bringing about soil … perhaps to resemble the spirits of dead ancestors.”

From https://www.rampagingdinosaur.com › …Göbekli Tepe, mankind’s first step towards civilization – Rampaging …— “Close up of human hands on one of the pillars, implying that they represent spirits.

From https://books.google.ro › books Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case StudyIan Hodder — 2010 · Social Science “While human figures do appear in the Palaeolithic paintings and in the ‘Venus … but there is no evidence of a central human divinity over animals.”

From http://ewa.home.amu.edu.pl › …PDFCreated using PDFonline.com , a Free PDF Creation service16 dec. 2005 — “…suggest humans may have mediated with the spirit world, but there is no evidence of a central human divinity.

Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural … *People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods, a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious belief is a “default setting” for humans.*16 feb. 2016https://www.cam.ac.uk › news › dis…

Wikipedia Prehistoric religion “The Neolithic Revolution, which established agriculture as the dominant lifestyle, occurred around 12,000 BC and ushered in the Neolithic. Neolithic society grew hierarchical and inegalitarian compared to its Paleolithic forebears, and their religious practices likely changed to suit. Neolithic religion may have become more structural and centralised than in the Paleolithic, and possibly engaged in ancestor worship both of one’s individual ancestors and of the ancestors of entire groups, tribes, and settlements.”

https://www.scribd.com › document Art and Religious Beliefs in The Neolithic and Aeneolithic From…”The pottery published on this occasion showed that it is possible to … specifically choosen places for the ritual; they recognize spirits, not gods.”

From https://www.worldhistory.org › Kac…Kachina Cult – World History Encyclopedia de JB Wiener — “Pottery designs dating to the 1300s & 1400s CE from the Hopi … are thus not gods, per se, but rather animistic and ancestral spirits.”

From https://www.scientificamerican.com › …Rezultate de pe webComplex Societies Evolved without Belief in All-Powerful Deity — “The emergence of politically sophisticated societies may be assisted by faith in supernatural spirits but does not require “big god” 

From https://science.jrank.org › pages › R…Religion – Africa – Gods And Spirits – People, Divinities, Orisha, and … “In the divine hierarchy, divinities and spirits are ranked below God.”