Deciphering the language of the caves

Volume 2 - Book 1

DECIPHERING CAVE LANGUAGE

READ THE SYNOPSIS BELOW AND ACCESS FREE ONLINE READING OF AN EXCERPT OR THE FULL VERSION IN PDF FORMAT

READERS' RATING

0 / 5⭐

Synopsis

For the first time in history, this landmark book deciphers prehistoric cave paintings and demonstrates that Adam, the primordial man, was deified after his death and became the object of prehistoric man’s worship in cave sanctuaries as the father of the gods, under his own name Adam, as well as under his synonyms, Kish (which gave its name to the first dynasty of Sumer) and Gizeh (which gave its name to the Egyptian site of the cult of his rebirth).
To do this, in the first major chapter, he demonstrates in an academic manner, based on the research carried out on Upper Paleolithic rock frescoes by the greatest archaeologists (Abbé Breuil, A. Leroy-Gourhan, G.S. Sauvet and A. Wlodarczyk), that the animals and signs they have exhaustively catalogued and analyzed correspond perfectly to the oldest known ideographic language: proto-Sumerian, both in terms of the corpus of signs and the semiological rules observed.
In a second major chapter, he goes on to decipher the major rock frescoes at Lascaux, Marsoulas and Pindal, thanks to his knowledge of proto-Sumerian and the related archaic ideographic languages. This deciphering proves that rock art was indeed used by the prehistoric priesthood to represent, name and venerate the father-ancestor of mankind as the father of the gods of their mythological religion.
This book is the first in Volume 2, a volume devoted exclusively to the analysis of prehistoric religion.
His surprising revelations will undoubtedly appeal to believers, atheists and agnostics alike.
This book is thus the starting point for a detailed explanation of the entire sacred belief system of prehistoric mythological religion, which subsequently permeated all religions of the ancient world.
It’s to this far-reaching deciphering, at the confluence of history, science and religion, that I invite you.
For believers, it confirms the historicity of Adam’s existence, and hence of the Genesis story, but it also proves to all that the language of prehistory and history are one and the same, and that the mythology and religion of prehistory and history are one and the same.
This book turns the page on the truncated vision of prehistory,
and a new, truly extraordinary first page in the history of religion, of humanity, opens…

Thanks for sharing. Impressive work, whatever the "scientific establishment" may think. It takes courage (and conviction) to turn the tables. Bravo for this incredible work. A blend of intimate conviction that gives impetus and direction to the research, and scientific rigor that triangulates years of deciphering our languages, this book opens up new perspectives, and so much the better. Without answering the existential questions of our origins, it proposes a red thread for the development of ways of transmitting the knowledge (ça voir) of humanity to subsequent generations.

!!! After a twelve-hour flight, an eight-hour train journey and a few evenings out: bravo! What a body of work, what erudition, what a singular and seductive point of view! Congratulations

Hello, Yvar. I've come to the end of this second part, which is as ambitious and impressive as ever, thanks to the immense amount of research and synthesis that has gone into it. I don't know where to start, as the subject is so vast, so I'll do my best to answer the question... Did you convince me? Not really, since I was already convinced that most beliefs, including archaic ones, were born out of the same myths, which aimed to better apprehend death, explain natural phenomena that had long eluded comprehension, appease the wrath of the god or gods who were supposed to provoke them, create a hierarchy, instrumentalize power, awaken awareness of good and evil... Which is to say, I'm convinced that today's religions, with the exception of Buddhism (a non-theistic religion, of course ;-)), have their origins in this initial myth of the God as judge and creator. But yes, you've convinced me by focusing on the symbolic rather than literal meaning of ideographic languages with multiple meanings, by pointing out their similarities from one site to another, from one civilization to another, by minimizing the impact of coincidences through the improbability of their number, because in so doing you've reduced the margin of error. Could the effect be the same if we only speculate on the literal meaning? I don't know. In other words, it's best to ignore your inner Cartesian to be totally convinced ;-). However, by reducing the margins of interpretation, the demonstration by symbolic similarities becomes rational, ... In any case, if my eyes and my few words as a neophyte encourage you, I'm delighted. Thank you for this talented sharing, Yvar. May my candid intervention motivate readers to tackle your work!