Pokotia Monolith

[Ishtar]

At the risk of being boring, and going back to topic, has anyone dated this monolith yet, or the bowl even?

I did read through the thread but may have missed it.

Thanks.

[Forum Monk]

Unlike the Fuente Magna, the Monolith was discovered in situ by a team of archaeologists. It was dated by that method to have been there since 1900BC.

They recognized that the inscriptions on it resembled ancient Sumerian. So they requested that Clyde Winters attempt to translate them.

Winters did that, and the translation was amazingly similar to what one would expect from the legendary figure that Graham Hancock described.
He also further dated the monolith to 3500BC from the age of the language.

Many believe the bowl is fake. I don't know of any trustworthy dates.

[Minimalist]

I've never seen a site which declares the items to be fakes.

In fact, The Club seems to give them a great big leaving-alone....which they frequently do when they are uncertain about something which is dangerous to their existing point of view.

[Ishtar]

I've never seen a site which declares the items to be fakes.

In fact, The Club seems to give them a great big leaving-alone....which they frequently do when they are uncertain about something which is dangerous to their existing point of view.

Or when it's Indian. They hate it if they find something Indian before their date of 1200 BC for the oldest Vedic book, the Rig-veda. It upsets their whole apple cart.

[effigy]

At least two fake 'sister bowls' appeared after the FM bowl became news. They were rejected on the spot by B. Biados et al as piss poor attempts by people trying to make some bucks.

The FM bowl is made of local basalt, which is extremely hard. It likely took considerable time and effort to shape.

Please don't ask for a link, Monk -- this from personal communication with Biados.

[Forum Monk]

The whole language issue is becoming a bit muddled for me, especially in light of these comments -
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arque ... seta_5.htm

First of all the Sumerian language is not Semitic. Cuneiform was not just used to write Semitic languages, it was also used to write Hurrian, Hittite (Indo-European languages), Sumerian and Elamite, languages which were not Semitic.


As a result, I hold the belief that the authors of the Fuente Bowl and Pokotia monument spoke a Sumerian language because of the appearance of both cuneiform and Proto-Sumerian symbols on these figures. Given this visual identification of two writing systems on these artifacts we have to look at Mesopotamian history and see who used both Proto-Sumerian writing and who used cuneiform writing at the same time? The answer is: the Sumerians.


Once I arrived at this hypothesis, I had to test the Sumerian hypothesis. To test this hypothesis I had to attempt to decipher the writing by interpreting the signs using the Sumerian language. Before I could read the text on these monuments I had to explore the origins of the Sumerian speaking people. Following the lead of Rawlinson, I compared the Sumerian language to the Dravidian and Mande languages. The languages show affinity in grammar and vocabulary. This made it clear that the speakers of this language probably came from the same original homeland.

Next I tried to decipher the Indus Valley writing. I knew from my linguistic work that Dravidian was a substratum in the Indo-European languages spoken in India and that there was still a Dravidian language spoken in Pakistan called Brahui. This suggested that the Indus Valley people may have spoken a Dravidian language. Again, I used the Vai writing.


First I gave the Indus Valley signs, the phonetic values of identical Vai signs. Then I read the inscriptions using the Tamil language. Voila, I was able to read the writing. Since my decipherment of the script in the 1980's I have published a grammar and dictionary of the signs which was published in three issues of the Journal of Tamil Studies.



Given the success in reading Libyco-Berber and the Indus Valley writing, it was only natural for me to read the Proto-Sumerian and Minoan A writing using Vai symbolism, because as I said earlier, the speakers of Sumerian (and the Eteo-Cretans) originally came from the Sahara. As a result, when I recognized cuneiform writing on the Fuente Bowl I hypothesized that the other symbols on the bowl might be Proto-Sumerian, my subsequent reading of the inscriptions confirmed the hypothesis.


Today, hundreds of languages can be written using our alphabet. And in ancient times cuneiform was used to write: Hurrian, Hittite, Elamite, Akkadian, Sumerian and etc. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Sumerians, Minoans, Indus Valley people, Libyco-Berber people and Mande used the same writing.

Is it correct or not, to say there is enough similarity between so called proto-sumerian and Indus valley languages that knowing one, allows you to read the other and perhaps these languages are very closely related?

[Minimalist]

I've never seen a site which declares the items to be fakes.

In fact, The Club seems to give them a great big leaving-alone....which they frequently do when they are uncertain about something which is dangerous to their existing point of view.

Or when it's Indian. They hate it if they find something Indian before their date of 1200 BC for the oldest Vedic book, the Rig-veda. It upsets their whole apple cart.

True, Ishtar, you pal Marduk was positively apoplectic when NIOT released the C14 dates for some wood they found in the Gulf of Khambay. We had a big argument about that one.

[Ishtar]

True, Ishtar, you pal Marduk was positively apoplectic when NIOT released the C14 dates for some wood they found in the Gulf of Khambay. We had a big argument about that one.

I missed that....can you remember the dates they came up with?

I know, at one point down there, a few years ago now, they found a conch - and that was it as far as some of them were concerned. Krishna's town, Dwarka, must have been there as Krishna was known to carry a conch! Cracked me up, that one! They were exacavating under the sea, for heavens sake! Did they not think that they'd find any sea shells?

So I don't know, but maybe that's why a certain person got mad about it. The Hindu nationalists really muddy the waters (no pun intended!) sometimes, and make it very difficult for the serious people, like NIOT, to be heard, or trusted in their assessments.

[Ishtar]

Is it correct or not, to say there is enough similarity between so called proto-sumerian and Indus valley languages that knowing one, allows you to read the other and perhaps these languages are very closely related?

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of Sumerian and (slightly less limited) knowledge of Sanskrit has shown me that these languages are clearly linked. There are so many similar words for the same thing.

But back to South America, there are also probably hundreds of very similar words for the same thing in the Inca language and Sanskrit.

I'm sure you know that Sanskrit was the language of the Vedic priests (rather like Latin was used in Catholic church), and it was heavily influenced by Dravidian and Mande, and vice versa.

[Minimalist]

True, Ishtar, you pal Marduk was positively apoplectic when NIOT released the C14 dates for some wood they found in the Gulf of Khambay. We had a big argument about that one.

I missed that....can you remember the dates they came up with?

I know, at one point down there, a few years ago now, they found a conch - and that was it as far as some of them were concerned. Krishna's town, Dwarka, must have been there as Krishna was known to carry a conch! Cracked me up, that one! They were exacavating under the sea, for heavens sake! Did they not think that they'd find any sea shells?

So I don't know, but maybe that's why a certain person got mad about it. The Hindu nationalists really muddy the waters (no pun intended!) sometimes, and make it very difficult for the serious people, like NIOT, to be heard, or trusted in their assessments.

You might start here. http://www.niot.res.in/m3/arch/index.htm

There are a couple of links to papers on Gulf of Khambay sites.

[Ishtar]

Crikey, some of that stuff is almost 10,000 years old!

[Beagle]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arque ... seta_3.htm

We are dealing with an object which was made in keeping with Mesopotamian tradition.

It contains two texts, one in cuneiform and another Semitic language of possible Sinaitic extraction cuneiform influences.

According to the symbols used one would be before an object that evidently shows itself to be from the transitional period between ideographical writing and cuneiform.

Chronologically, this leads us to the 3500/3000 B.C., the Sumerian/Akkadian period.

Here is a short article from the archaeologists that found Putaki. Some rational for the way it was dated. There is interesting stuff about the astronomical inscriptions also. I'll try to find it.

[Forum Monk]

There is interesting stuff about the astronomical inscriptions also. I'll try to find it.

If you are thinking about the Eta Carina supernova, it is probably a wasted post. How can the marking be read by Dr. Winters if they were intended to be a star map?

[Beagle]

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... %26hl%3Den

This is a smattering of talk about the pokotia and star explosion. It's not the one I was thinking of though.

I'll post those pics separately for a little better viewing.

[Beagle]

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... %26hl%3Den

Here are some pics. Click to enlarge. The page that I'm interested in finding is also in Spanish. I'll run across it.