PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
This article will decipher the ideographic figure of the headless equid in the Lascaux cave. This deciphering will be done using the proto-Sumerian ideographic language and its associated languages: Sumerian and Hieroglyphic (as well as Demotic). This article is one of ten deciphering examples taken from the book “Deciphering the language of caves” that illustrate in concrete terms the fact that the pairs of animals and signs identified by archaeologists and dated to the Upper Palaeolithic actually correspond in every respect to the protosumerian ideographic language, the oldest known ideographic language.
Table of contents
LINK THIS ARTICLE TO THE ENTIRE LITERARY SERIES “THE TRUE HISTORY OF MANKIND’S RELIGIONS”
This article is an excerpt from the book also available on this site:
Volume 2 Book 2 Deciphering the language of the caves
You can also find this book here :
Already published books
To find out why this book is part of the literary series The True Stories of Mankind’s Religions, go to page :
Introduction / Structure and Content
I hope you enjoy reading this article, which is available in its entirety below:
Deciphering the ideographic figure of the headless equine in the Lascaux cave
I’d now like to draw your attention to another equally telling sign, found in the feline diverticulum.
This is the next sign[1] which, as you can see below, is associated with an acephalous equine:
This is undoubtedly the figure mentioned by André Leroi-Gourhan in his essay and listed as his figure 198[2] :
anše and kiš
Already, the acephalous figure of the equid should speak to us, for we have already seen both through its meaning of anše and through its ideogram kiš, who it designates…
The fact that he was portrayed as headless (or with a broken spine) will be explained, as I’ve already said in the following books.
Dugud
What is less clear, and what I need to explain to you, is the meaning of the sign above it:
In fact, this sign is easy to understand when you know proto-cuneiform, as it is basically the same as [3] or or
Note that in the prehistoric sign, the arrows are interspersed between the 4 strokes, whereas in the proto-cuneiform they are placed above them. This in itself is a simple variation, but the idea is the same.
Also note in passing that its shape is that of a tectiforme, which might explain the meaning of some.
What’s the idea?
The idea of heavy rain, massive rain, deluge, because refers to the logogram dugud[4] which means heavy rain, massive rain [5] and also something heavy, hard, difficult.
But please, let’s go a little further than the literal meaning of deluge.
Indeed, of what, or rather of whom, is the Flood synonymous?
From the father by e4, a which means the father and also a deluge[6] !
Do you understand what’s going on?
Review the synonymic meanings of “a” the father in the note.
There aren’t 36 for “a”: water, canal, tears, flood.
Do you understand how prehistoric man represented the primordial father?
This is another example of what we saw earlier:
They used either of its synonymous meanings.
As many synonyms as there were, so many possible ways of illustrating it.
We’ve seen the canal.
Well, now they’re just using its synonym “deluge” to refer to it.
It’s not very complicated to understand.
So you have to understand that a plurality of symbols with completely different appearances and meanings could nevertheless be used to evoke the same concept, the same being, by playing with the homonyms of the concept or being you were trying to represent.
But it’s possible to go even further in explaining this dugud symbol
Indeed, one wonders why dugud was chosen as a logogram to be a synonym for the primordial father.
Beyond the symbolism of lamentations, which we’ll see later, it’s worth noting that dugud is a contraction of du and gud, as the Halloran lexicon breaks it down into: the ox gud complete with du by du7.
These are two logograms that we have already discussed:
In the examination of the sign zatu, it has already been said in a very synthetic way that du / tu has the meaning of that which makes, causes to be reborn, is reborn, is transformed into…
We’ll come back to the meanings of du / tu, for if these are very common logograms in Sumerian (if only for the common meaning of faire) we’ll see that they probably constitute one of the most important pairs of phonemes (along with “kur / gur“, which we’ll also see) in sumerian to convey the thought of the false religion on the origin and fate of Adam.
Insofar as this book endeavors to reveal this thought in a progressive way, it is premature to reveal all its meanings at this stage of the presentation.
For the moment, let’s confine ourselves to the first category of meanings, directly related to what we’ve already developed.
The first idea, then, is that du/tu par tu, dú (and tud) carry the idea of giving birth, engendering, being born; of making, shaping, creating; and of bearing, being reborn, being transformed[7] .
As far as gud is concerned, we’ve already seen a few brief elements (the meaning of the cross in the number XIII, which refers to the auroch in the unicorn panel) that demonstrate that this gud ox is an avatar of the primordial father deified in the same way as the auroch, the wild bull. I’ve already mentioned that this is the very origin of the English word for god.
We’ll look at all this in detail in the next book, along with the deep polysemic meaning of this word and how it refers us to the ancestral father.
We can simply mention here the fact that gud by gu4[8] is equivalent to ku by the g/k equivalence already mentioned.
And we know that the term “ku” designates a biological procreative ancestor.
Conclusion
This fresco associates the horse anše / kiš in its acephalous form with the dugud, evoking the imagery of the primordial father-ancestor, who, although decapitated, was reborn as a divinity.
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
[1]https://www.persee.fr/doc/galip_0072-0100_1979_sup_12_1_2668 / The Nave and the Feline Diverticulum
André Leroi-Gourhan / Gallia Préhistoire Year 1979 Suppl. 12 pp. 301-342 /
[2]https://www.persee.fr/doc/bspf_0249-7638_1958_num_55_7_3675 / p.393
[3] (Falkenstein, 1936, p. 56)
[4] (CNIL, 1996?, p. 46)
[5] dugud: n., weight; cloud adj., massive; heavy; difficult, hard (du7, ‘complete’, + gud, ‘bull’). (A.Halloran, 1999, p. 53) Volume 4 / Sumerian-French Lexicon: dugud = weight, cloud. heavy; difficult, hard (du7 “complete” + gud “bull”).
[6] a, e4 = noun. : water; watercourse, canal; seminal fluid; offspring; father; tears; flood (A.Halloran, 1999, p. 3) with translation in Volume 4 / Sumerian-French Lexicon: a, e4 = nominative = water, watercourse, canal, seminal fluid, offspring, father, tears, flood.
[7] tud, tu, dú : to bear, give birth to; to beget; to be born; to make, fashion, create; to be reborn, transformed, changed (to approach and meet + to go out). (A.Halloran, 1999, p. 24) Volume 4 / Sumerian-French Lexicon: Tud, tu, dú = to bear, to give birth to; to beget; to be born; to make, fashion, create; to be reborn, transformed, changed (to approach and meet + to go out).
[8] gud, guð, gu4 = n., domestic ox, bull (regularly followed by rá ; cf., gur4 (voice/sound with repetitive processing – refers to the bellow of a bull) v., to dance, leap (cf., gu4-ud). (A.Halloran, 1999, p. 23); Tome 4 / Sumerian-French lexicon: gud, guð, gu4 = domestic ox (regularly followed by rá; cf., gur4) (recurring sound referring to the mooing of the ox. Verbs: dance, jump (cf., gu4-ud).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Proto-sumerian :
CNIL. Full list of proto-cuneiform signs
& Falkenstein, A. (1936). Archaische Texte aus Uruk. https://www.cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=late_uruk_period :
Sumerian :
A.Halloran, J. [1999]. Sumerian Lexicon 3.0.
Heroglyphic :
Faulkner. [réed .2017]. Concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian.
Hiero (hierogl.ch) (Hiero – Pierre Besson)
Demotic :
Hieroglyphic Hittite :
Mnamon / Antiche scritture del Mediterraneo Guida critica alle risorse elettroniche / Luvio geroglifico – 1300 a.C. (ca.) – 600 a.C.
https://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Scrittura&id=46
https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/luwglyph/Signlist_2012.pdf
Archaeology :
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1958). Le symbolisme des grands signes dans l’art pariétal paléolithique. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française Année 55-7-8 pp. 384-398.
G.& S Sauvet et André Wlodarczyk (1977) : Essai de sémiologie préhistorique (pour une théorie des premiers signes de l’homme). Bulletin de la société préhistorique française / année 1977 / E&T 47-2 / p.545-558
Science of Symbols :
Chevalier-Gheebrant [2005]. Dictionnaire des Symboles. Paris: Robert Laffont.
Mythologies :
Guirand, J. [1996]. Mythes et Mythologie. Paris ; Larousse
Link between Chaldean and the Catholic religion :
A.Hislop. [s .d.]. Les deux Babylones.
REMINDER OF THE LINK BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND THE ENTIRE LITERARY SERIES “THE TRUE HISTORY OF MANKIND’S RELIGIONS”
This article is an excerpt from the book also available on this site:
Volume 2 Book 2 Deciphering the language of the caves
You can also find this book here :
Already published books
To find out why this book is part of the literary series The True Stories of Mankind’s Religions, go to page :
Introduction / Structure and Content
COPYRIGHT REMINDER
As a reminder, please respect copyright, as this book has been registered.
©YVAR BREGEANT, 2023 Tous droits réservés
The French Intellectual Property Code prohibits copies or reproductions for collective use.
Any representation or reproduction in whole or in part by any process whatsoever without the consent of the author or his successors is unlawful and constitutes an infringement punishable by articles L335-2 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code.
See the explanation at the top of this section. the author’s preliminary note on his book availability policy :