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!