1 Ocak 2014 Çarşamba

Güney Amerika Kıtasında bulunan Sumer Çivi yazıları

Sumerian relationship with The Fuente Magna of Pokotia Bolivia

Bernardo's discovery of the Pokotia monument supports the research of the Verrills that the Sumerians came to South America in search of metals. A.H Verrill and R. Verrill, Americas ancient civilizations (New York: Putnam, 1953), and J. Bailey Sailing to Paradise, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994) maintain that the area around Lake Titicaca may have been called Lake Manu, by the Sumerians. According to the Verrills and Bailey the Sumerians came to this area in search of tin. They support this view by a discussion of the Sumerian traditions, that Sumerians set sail to the land west of the Mediterranean that they called the "Tin land of the West" or "Sunset Land". It is interesting to note that a major center in this area is Potosi. Bailey suggest that Potosi may relate to the Sumerian term Patesi the Sumerian term for 'priest king'.

The writing on the Pokotia monument makes it clear that the Pokotia oracle was a heard by many people in ancient Bolivia. This is interesting because the Pachacamac oracle was very popular in this area in historic times. According to Moseley , satellite shrines of one or another of his offspring were worshipped by South Americans (p.68).

During Inca (Sumerian: En-ka "Great Lord") times, the temple city of Pachacamac , contained the idol of Pachacamac which was a commanding oracle drawing devotees from Ecuador in the North through Bolivia in the South. People came from far and wide for a Pachacamac prophesy (Moseley, p.68). The Pokotia statue makes it clear that the popularity of oracles in this part of South America existed all the way back in time to the creation of the Putaki oracle.

There is other support of the early presence of writing in South America dating back to ancient times. Moseley published a number of inscribed Moche bricks and a Tiwanaku portrait head. The characters on the bricks and statue are identical to the Pokotia writing. The symbols on the inscribed Moche bricks are identical to the na, I, a, mash/bi, mi, ma, po, ki, ta and su signs listed on the Pokotia sign list above. The symbols on the Tiwanaku head are identical to the me and mash/bi signs found on the Pokotia statue.

In addition to evidence from South American popular culture (oracle worship) and archaeology there is linguistic evidence that support the Sumerian presence in Bolivia. Mario Montano has found startling linguistic evidence that indicates a Sumerian substratum in the Aymara and Quechua languages. These languages are spoken in Peru-Bolivia.

Many Aymara terms relate to the metaphysical world. This is not surprising given this decipherment of the Pokotia statue and the Magna Fuente bowl which indicated that the Sumerians had established many aspects of their religion in Bolivia.

The linguistic evidence supports the view that many of these Sumerians were miners. The Sumerian term for copper was urudu, this term agrees with the Aymara terms for gold 'ouri' and copper 'anta, yawri'. The similarity between urudu and, yawri and ouri suggest that the Sumerians may have been the first people in the area to exploit the metals found throughout the Titicaca area and Bolivia.

The presence of Sumerian terms in the Aymara language, and Sumerian writing on the Fuente Magna bowl and Pokotia statue make it obvious that Sumerian civilization was formerly widespread in South America.

This leads me to believe that Bolivia and Peru, may represent the "Tin Land of the West" mentioned in the Sumerian inscriptions. If this is ture ancient Bolivia-Peru may have been called the mountains of Sunset or the "Sunset Land", by the ancient Sumerians.


In summary , the Pokotia statue is an oracle. The name of this oracle was Putaki. It would appear that formerly the area where the Pokotia monolithic was found was recognized as a major religious center where citizens came to hear the oracle recited by soothsayers or shamen. The Pokotia area along with other areas further north was probably the Sunset Land.

It is interesting to note that the name for the oracle Putaki is very close to the name of the site (Pokotia) where the artifact was found. This suggest continuity between the name of the oracle and the contemporary place name.

It is also interesting to note that the Pokotia statue and Tiahuanaco monuments share similar headdresses and rib impressions along the chest area of several monuments.

These statues appear to have the same headdress and similar scarification across the chest or rib cage area. The general situation of similar "scarification" across the chest and headdress suggest that these artifacts may date back to the same period.

I can not provide a date to the figure. But the fact that it was written in Sumerian, like the Fuente Magna bowl suggest that the Sumerian language continued to be spoken in this area for an extended period of time ( ). This suggest that we may find some Sumerian linguistic relations with the languages presently spoken in the area.

Additional Comments by Dr. C. A. Winters

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 langauges), 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.

Using archaeological and historical evidence I soon discovered that the Sumerians, Proto-Mande and Proto-Dravidians probably lived in the highland regions of Africa. I also found that through out the former homeland of the speakers of the language there were a number of symbols used by these people called Libyco-Berber writing.

During the research of these symbols I discovered that Libyco-Berber writing could not be read using the Taurag, Berbers, and Punic languages. This made it clear that the language of this writing had to be different from the speakers of these langauges.

Research indicated that the Mande speaking people formerly lived in the Sahara and ancient Libya, and that they were pushed southward as a result of the Sahara becoming a desert. Eventually I discovered the evidence that the Vai maintained that their writing was very ancient. Given the fact that the Vai syllabary had phonectic values suggested that I could use the phonectic values of the Vai writing to read the ancient Libyco-Berber writing. I tested this hypothesis, and learned that whereas the writing could not be read using Taurag and Punic, they could be read in Mande.

This discovery was quite illuminating. Because it suggested that I could read other writing systems associated with the ancient Proto-Saharans (Dravidian, Sumerian and Mande speakers).

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 Dravdian language.

Again, I used the Vai writing. 

First I gave the Indus Valley signs, the phonectic 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. 

Copyright 2002 Dr. C. A. Winters


In his influenceful book „The science of language“, in 1891, F. Max Müller, comprised amongst the „Turanian language family“ the following language families: Samoyedic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Finnic (incl. Hungarian), Taic, Malaic, Gangetic, Lohitic, Munda, Tamulic. The Turanian languages thus comprise, according to Müller, not only the FU and A languages, but a geographically vastly extended group of languages reaching, roughly speaking, from the Ice Sea via China to the South Seas. 

In my „Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian“ (EDH), I have shown that following the identity of at least 1042 basic Sumerian words with their respective Hungarian cognates according to Gostony  (1975), all of Müller‘s language families are genetically related with one another – up to a certain degree that goes from 61% down to 3%:


The Fuente Magna bowl was found accidentally by a worker from the CHUA Hacienda, property of the Manjon family located near Lake Titicaca about 75-80 km from the city of La Paz, Bolivia . The site where it was found had not been studied for artifacts previously. The Fuente Magna is beautifully engraved in earthen-brown both inside and out and bears zoological motifs and anthropomorphic characters within.

The Bolivian archeologist, don Max Portugal-Zamora, learned of the Fuente Magna’s existence around 1958-1960 from his friend Pastor Manjon. Both gave the site the name it bears today, "Fuente Magna".

A controversy arose about the cuneiform script on the Fuente Magna. Dr. Alberto Marini, translated it and reported that it was Sumerian.. After a careful examination of the Fuente Magna, linear script Dr. Clyde A. Winters determined that it was probably Proto-Sumerian, which is found on many artifacts from in Mesopotamia. An identical script was used by the Elamites called Proto-Elamite.

Dr. Winters believed that researchers had been unable to read the writing because they refused to compare Proto-Elamite and Proto-Sumerian writing with other writing systems used in 3000-2000 BC. He compared the writing to the Libyco-Berber writing used in the Sahara 5000 years ago. This writing was used by the Proto-Dravidians (of the Indus Valley), Proto-Mande , Proto-Elamites and Proto-Sumerians.

These people formerly lived in Middle Africa, until the extensive desertification of the Sahara began after 3500 BC. A Mr. Rawlinson, was sure that the Sumerians had formerly lived in Africa, and he used Semitic and African languages spoken in Ethiopia to decipher the cuneiform writing. Rawlins called the early dwellers of Mesopotamia: Kushites, because he believed that the ancestors of these people were the Western Kushites of Classical literature.

Winters noted that the Libyco-Berber script couldn’t be read using the Berber language, because the Berbers only entered Africa around the time the Vandals conquered much of North Africa. Although the Libyco-Berber script cannot be read using the Berber language, it can be read using the Mande language. This is because the Proto-Mande formerly lived in Libya, until they migrated from this area into the Niger valley of West Africa.

The Vai script has signs similar to the Libyco-Berber, Indus valley, Linear A of Crete, Proto-Elamite and Proto-Sumerian signs. The Vai people spoke a Mande language.

Using the phonetic values of the Vai script, Dr. Winters has been able to decipher the Indus Valley and Linear A writing. The Sumerian language is closely related to the Dravidian and Mande languages, and the Proto-Sumerian , Libyco-Berber and Vai scripts are similar. Thus, it is possible to read the script on the Fuente Magna by using the phonetic values of the Vai script. Once Winters had transliterated the Fuente Magna signs, he was able to translate the inscription using the Sumerian language.

By comparing the Fuente Magna scripts and symbols with the Vai writing, Winters found many matches. Then after referring to several published works on the Sumerian language and writing system, e.g., C.S. Ball, Chinese and Sumerian (London, 1913), and John A. Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon, he was able to decipher the Fuente Magna writing.

He found that the Fuente Magna inscriptions are in the Proto-Sumerian script, and the symbols have several Proto-Sumerian signs joined together to represent words and sentences. He presented two figures that separate the Fuente Magna signs into their constituent parts so they could be interpreted using the phonetic values of the Vai writing he showed the separation of the Fuente Magna signs into their separate parts.

Sumerian relationship with The Fuente Magna of Pokotia Bolivia

Following is a transliteration of the inscriptions on the right side of the Fuente Magna, reading from top to bottom and right to left.

1. Pa ge gi
2. Mi lu du
3. I mi ki
4. me su du
5. Nia po
6. Pa
7. Mash
8. Nia mi
9. Du lu gi
10 . Ka me lu
11 . Zi
12 . Nan na pa-I

Winters then gave the following translation:

"(1) Girls take an oath to act justly (this) place. (2) (This is) a favorable oracle of the people. (3) Send forth a just divine decree. (4) The charm (the Fuente Magna) (is) full of Good. (5) The (Goddess) Nia is pure. (6) Take an oath (to her). (7) The Diviner. (8) The divine decree of Nia (is) , (9) to surround the people with Goodness/Gladness. (10) Value the people's oracle. (11) The soul (to), (12) appear as a witness to the [Good that comes from faith in the Goddess Nia before] all mankind."

Then the transliteration of the inscriptions on the left side of the Fuente Magna is as follows: 

1. Tu ki a mash pa
2a . Lu me lu ki mi
2b. Pa be ge
3. Zi
4. lu na
5 . ge
6. du po
7. I tu po
8. lu mi du

This section was translated as follows :

" (1) Make a libation (this) place for water (seminal fluid?) and seek virtue. (2a) (This is) a great amulet/charm, (2b) (this) place of the people is a phenomenal area of the deity [Nia's] power. (3) The soul (or breath of life). (4) Much incense, (5) to justly, (6) make the pure libation. (7) Capture the pure libation (/or Appear (here) as a witness to the pure libation). (8) Divine good in this phenomenal proximity of the deity's power."

This decipherment of the inscriptions on the Fuente Magna indicates that it was used to make libations to the Goddess Nia to request fertility, and to offer thanks to the bountiful fauna and flora in the area that made it possible for these Sumerian explorers to support themselves in Bolivia.

Of particular interest is that the people of the Fuente Magna, referred to the Goddess as Nia. Nia, is the Linear-A term for Neith. Neith is the Greek name for the Egyptian Goddess Nt or Neit, Semitic Anat. This goddess was very popular among the ancient people of Libya and other parts of Middle Africa, before these people left the region to settle Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and Minoan Crete.

Dr. Winters noted that his translation of the Fuente Magna inscriptions supports the hypothesis of Awen Dawn that the Fuente was used in celebration of the Goddess religion of the ancient people of Bolivia. Awen Dawn recognized that the figure on the Fuente Magna was in a Goddess pose, with open arms and legs spread, which supports Winters’ translation.. In addition, the identification of symbols on the bowl by Awen that relate to European signs for the Mother Goddess, probably reflects the early influence of the Goddess Neith on the mainland of Greece and Crete.

It is believed that the Fuente Magna was probably crafted by Sumerian people who settled in Bolivia sometime after 2500 BC. The Sumerians used seaworthy ships that were known to sail to the distant Indian Subcontinent. Some Sumerian ships most likely made their way around South Africa and entered one of the currents in the area that lead from Africa across the Atlantic to South America and thence to the Pacific Ocean. They would have then searched for areas on the high plateau of Bolivia where food was being produced by the local inhabitants. They held the bowl in high esteem and were fastidious about its transport around the area (see Transportaciόn) It should be noted that there was one challenge to the authenticity of the Fuente Magna by skeptics who suggested that it was a fabrication by archeologists to gain international attention. The overwhelming support from the major portion of the academic community should discredit this criticism, as it has in times past when challenges arose to the existence of any writing at all in the Americas (e.g., that of the Olmec and Maya). 

A Sumerian Inscription of the Fuente Magna, La Paz, Bolivia
Cuniform inscribed in a stone bowl ,
by Alberto Marini
The Epigraphic Society,vol 13, 1985

other ıssue - link



Sumerian relationship with The Fuente Magna of Pokotia Bolivia
 and Man Statues

Göbeklitepe / MÖ.12.000

Altay Türk Taşbaba-Daşbaba

Altay Taşbaba

Altay Taşbaba

Hakkari Balbalları / MÖ. 2000  Türklerin Anadolu'da varlığının kanıtıdır.

Kıpçak Ukrayna / Türk Taşbaba

DAŞBABA - Prof.Dr.Firudin Ağasıoğlu





Kastamonu Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi tarafından "Yeni Kıtada Eski Türk İzleri, Mayalar Ve Türlük" konulu konferans düzenlendi.

Kastamonu Üniversitesi Rektör Yardımcıları Prof. Dr. Önder Çağıran, Prof. Dr. Temel Sarıyıldız, Prof. Dr. Ali Rafet Özkan, fakülte dekanları, öğretim üyeleri ve öğrenciler katıldı. Ordu Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili Edebiyatı Bölümü Başkanı Doç. Dr. İsmail Doğan konuşmacı olarak katıldığı konferansta, farklı tarihlerde Mayalar hakkında tarihçiler tarafından değişik fikirler ortaya atıldığını belirterek, yapılan araştırmaların, iki ırkın büyük benzerlikler taşıdığını ortaya koyduğunu bildirdi. Doğan, gündemdeki bir konu olan Maya takvimine de değindi ve Maya takviminin 2012'de bitmesinin 'kıyametin başlaması' değil, 'dünyanın 4. dönemine girmesi' olduğunu söyledi. Maya tarihi üzerine araştırma, rapor, makale ve 'Mayalar ve Türkler' konulu basılı bir eseri de bulunan Doç. Dr. İsmail Doğan, bazı kesimlerin Mayalara özellikle 'gizem' yükleme peşinde olduğunu belirtti. Mayaların ilk yazılı kayıtlarının M.Ö. 4 bin yıllarına kadar sözlü

kayıtların ise, 10 bin yıl öncesine kadar gittiğini belirten Doç. Dr. Doğan, Mayalar'ın astronomide çok ileri seviyede olduğunu ve gökyüzü ile oldukça ilgilendiklerini belirterek, Maya takviminin 2012'de sona ermesini ise, "Önümüzdeki dönem Maya takvimi 4. dönemine giriyor. Bu dünyanın bittiği, kıyametin koptuğu anlamında değildir. Bunu maalesef bazıları dünyanın sonu deyip Mayalara bir gizem yüklüyorlar. Eğer Mayalar kıyametin kopacağını bilseydi 1526'da ülkelerini işgale gelen İspanyollara mücadele

eder, ülkelerini vermezlerdi. Maya takviminde böyle bir yorum yoktur. Takvim bir dördüncü döneme başlıyor o kadar. 2012'de dünyanın sonu iddiası safsatadır, uydurmadır, insanların duygularıyla oynamadır. Daha çok para kazanma oyunlarıdır" dedi.


2012'de bir başka adıyla Nibiru olan Marduk gezegeninin 3666 yıl sonra dünyaya çarpacağı iddialarının da 'saçma' olduğunu belirten Doç. Dr. Doğan şunları söyledi:

"Marduk diye bir gezegen olabilir. Aynı Venüs gezegeninin dünyaya yaklaşması gibi Marduk da değişik zamanlarda yaklaşabilir. Gezegenlerin birbirine yaklaşması bir takım fiziki ve tabiat olaylarına sebebiyet verebilir. Bu durum insanların ruh hallerini etkileyebilir. Ama Marduk'un dünyaya gelip falan yere çarpacağı, dünyanın kaderini etkileyeceği hiçbir kayıtta yoktur. Bu ne Maya takviminde vardır ne de başka yerde vardır. Tamamen uydurmadır."

Efsanevi Kayıp 'Mu kıtası' gibi iddialarında 2012 ve Marduk iddialarından bir parça olduğunu vurgulayan Doç. Dr. Doğan, "Atlantis doğrudur ama Mu uydurmadır. Atlantis vardır ama Mu efsanesi apayrı bir efsanedir" dedi.

Konferansın ardından Kastamonu Üniversitesi Rektör Yardımcısı Prof. Dr. Önder Çağıran, Doğan'a teşekkür etti. (basın,2011)


WHY ?