Point of Origin: Gobekli Tepe and the Spiritual Matrix for the World’s Cosmologies

I appreciate what the author tried to do with this book. But I must point out the mistakes in his translations. Dealing with a language is not easy, especially when you dont understand it properly. One letter used differently would mean something entirely different or would make the word meaningless. Understanding the meaning of a word is not simple as looking up a dictionary for explanation. So doing a research work regarding languages is shaky at best if you are not educated in it.Below I pointed out the mistakes author made regarding the Turkish translations and meanings of the words he used. I am not sure where he got his information, how he verified it or how he made some basic mistakes such as inventing meanings or words which actually dont exist. I also could have talked about his translations regarding eyptian translations too and compare them to the indigenous peoples translations which is championed by the stephen mehler in his work. But I am going to talk about my indigenous knowledge regarding the language I use which is not portrayed or researced respectfully in this book.I hope the author would benefit reading this as I benefit reading his work in certain areas.so here it goes...p.70 aurhor says, "Turkish word ak means light and rep means hand."Correction: "ak" doesnt mean light per se, it actually means "white" and if you force the usage of the word in some commonly used proverbs you can say it means unhidden, having nothing to hide. But light which is "ışık" not "isik" and "ak" which is white doesnt have the same meaning or implication. there is a reason for different words implying each other if you force it but in reality they are different words, different roots, different usages and different meanings. f.e. lets take the word "akış" to make my point clear. using author's reasoning we can say that we used ak and ış (maybe seen as a phonetic root for ışık which is light yes?) and we come to the conclusion that it means "white light" . Unfortunately nothing will be further from the truth. Because "akış" means "flow". So you can see what I am trying to say here hopefullyAs for "rep" there is no such word in Turkish. Hand means "el" in Turkish not "rep".p.71 aurhor says, "Turkish word for creation 'atama' suggests the Dogon creator god Amma, and cosmologically related concept of knowledge is expressed by the Turkish word 'analama'. The concept of nonexistence is given in the Turkish language as olmama"Correction: Oh man, where should I begin? The only correct thing here is the meaning of "ana". But again it doesnt mean "mother earth" when you just say "ana". It just means mother or you can say it means "mommy". It is mostly used in villages or as an emphasis for affection for the mother when you are speaking among the family. "mother earth" in Turkish is "toprak ana" . You cant just say "ana" and mean mother earth. sorry but it doesnt work that way."atama" doesnt mean creation it means to assign. and again there is no Turkish word as "analama" as the author suggests.author says, "Turkish word circumcision is mitzvah"Correction: There is no Turkish word as "mitzvah" . The Turkish word for circumcision is "sünnet"author says, "Turkish word cabala means mystery"Correction: Again, there is no Tukish word as "cabala" and most close word is "çabala" or "çabalamak" which means to try. (see writing one letter wong is important for the meaning) So there is no relation to word "mystery" which is "gizem" in Turkishauthor says, "A hebrew word for charity sedaka compares favorably to the Turkish word sadakat meaning loyalty"Correction: actually hebrew sedaka is "sadaka" in Turkish. So there is no need to use a similar word "sadakat" and try to invent a relationship between unrelated words.p.66 author says "gebe can also mean "to impregnate"Correction: "gebe" on its own does not imply any action,it is not a verb. it is just a description of the state that a woman is in, when she is pregnant. and you can call her "gebe" even if she does not have a big belly to show for it. So his suppositions with gobek would not applyp.67 author says, "the Turkish word "becki" means guardian, caretaker or watcher."Correction: There is no word as "becki" in Turkish. The word, author should use here is "bekçi" which can be used as a guardian, caretaker or watcher only if you dont know why the meaning and usage change among these 3 words in Turkish. Bekçi is correct if the place he is guarding have no one else beside him to guard it. f.e. when owners are away for a trip or if he is patrolling the empty streets at night. As a word, BEKÇİ 's root has nothing similar to the root of the egyptian term bekh which according to the author means to give birth, to produce. bekci simply means a person whose job is to patrol a certain place or area. Word gets its root meaning from the action of "waiting" which is "beklemek" in Turkish. so it just means a person who waits at that place to keep it safe. now it looks like it means same as the guardian or watcher to an english speaking person but unfortunately it is not the same in Turkish. Some languages have different structures which diversify the meanings of the words because they have many words influenced from different languages other than just egyptian. It makes the language more complex, so you just cant say bekci while hoping it would mean guardian which actually can be said with 20 other words in Turkish like vasi, kayyum, koruyucu ect. Also same for the "watcher". Turkish word for watcher is "gözcü" which comes from the action of watching or looking as you might expect, which is "gözlem" in Turkish and which gets its root meaning from the eye, "göz" in Turkish. So author wrote the Turkish word wrong and got the actual meaning and usage wrong and establishing any connection with wrong leads made the ends and the suppositions wrongp.67 author says, "Turkish term for a hawk or falcon is pronounced dogan and that its likely phonetic root, dogu means "to orient, east and eastward."Correction: First of all, "doğan" s etymologic root is togan. And secondly just because a word sounds and looks like "dogu" which means east, doesnt make "doğu" its phonetic root as the author suggested. To give an example "Doğal" looks and sounds more like doğan right? but does it have any connection or relation of meaningful usage link to "doğu" as in east or "doğan" as in hawk? sorry but no. because "doğal" means "natural" which as you can see has nothing to do with east, falcon or hawk.. now you can say everything is related to nature and that might only make your book sell more but it doesnt make what you are reporting right.p.68 author says, "Turkish word for bustard is toy kuso, meaning green bird"Correction: it is actually "toy kuşu" and it most definitely does not mean green bird. even the bird itself is not green, it is a big brown bird. and "toy" as a meaning has nothing to do with the color green which is "yeşil" in turkish. toy actually means young, unexperienced, vulnerable.p.70 author says, "term for worship is saygi"Correction: term for worship is "tapınmak" which comes from "tapmak" same phonetic root for "tapınak" which means "temple" in english. Word "saygı" means "respect" which is very different from worship not just verbally but the implication of the word and usage related to the culture. One can not just pick words he/she likes and ignore the living cultural meanings and the reasons of common usages behind them.Sorry for the long analysis but it is important and it should be for the potential reader and author as well

I purchased this because I'm interested in Gobekli Tepe -- which is featured both in the cover photo and the book's subtitle -- but in that regard it was a disappointment. Scranton does have some very interesting thoughts about Gobekli Tepe, but they amount to no more than ten or twelve pages of a 186-page text.The rest of the book is a continuation -- so I gather -- of Scranton's previous books in which he analyzes words and historical data in search of shared origins of the world's cosmologies and "spiritual matrix". This is a considerably drier topic than the discoveries at Gobekli Tepe, though not without interest, and I essentially assumed that Scranton must be an authoritative commentator on the subject, but I appear to have been at least somewhat mistaken there, too. I should have paid more attention to the sentence on page 68: "The Turkish word for 'bustard' (a type of vulture) is toy kuso, meaning 'green bird'." I knew to begin with that bustards are not a type of vulture, and they're not green; but I let it slide, more or less saying OK, Scranton doesn't know birds, but I still assume he knows words. Now that appears to have been wrong too. Other comments posted here explain how Scranton's translations of many Turkish words are faulty, and given that, the new likelihood is that his handling of other languages is just as suspect. It seems that Scranton is working from dictionaries, rather than any familiarity with the languages as spoken or written, and this makes for problems. I once tried using a dictionary to translate a graphic novel I'd acquired in another language, and found that the dictionary was inadequate for doing a real translation, and in many cases not even enough to make sense of what was being said. Many words have a variety of meanings and are open to being misconstrued out of context. In the example mentioned above, it turns out that rather than ''green bird'' the Turkish means something like ''inexperienced or vulnerable'' bird -- which made me think of the northwestern forest grouse commonly called a ''fool hen''.Still looking for a comprehensive book on Gobekli Tepe.

Great book if you are interested in comparative ancient middle eastern glyphics. Not a book for lay persons interested in more information on this, relatively, newly revealed ancient site which has turned our human history upside down.

A really good unification of his previous works that tie everything together and makes some very insightful and intelligent speculations. However, Laird's writing style can be academic and cumbersome at times and hard to follow, hence 4 stars instead of 5. Clearly groundbreaking insights and paradigm-shifting ideas presented by a very intelligent thorough scholar.

Great read if you are interested in ancient symbols and religion. Helps to tie together how various ancient beliefs may have evolved from one common source that introduced civilizing knowledge such as agriculture.

Laird Scranton is an amazing researcher and intellect, we owe him much for opening our eyes and imaginations. Outstanding content, a lifetimes worth of great study, Fundamental knowledge all can benefit from.

Very interesting. Well written. Useful reference. I've visited Gobekli Tepe, and Scranton's hypothesis resonates with me much more than some others I've read.

Somewhat misleading, this book examines the spiritual beliefs of ancient peoples rather than the archaeology of their civilizations.

Every once in a while a book comes along to help change a tired paradigm, This is one of those.Scranton's methods of investigation, his knowledge of symbolism, cosmology and language have all gone into making this a thoroughly interesting read.

not extremely in depth.. but covers most of the lesser known and lesser heard of old cultures' languages..so worth having in the library:)

Excellent

Good

The blurb on the back cover of this book starts with the question of “how multiple ancient cultures, spanning both years and geography, have strikingly similar creation myths and cosmologies?” In the book, the latest in a series, Scranton postulates that the centre of this web of shared cosmological values and symbols is the ancient megalithic site of Göbekli Tepe in South east Turkey. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the originator of this universal cosmological environment; an ancient university disseminating ancient knowledge. Scranton’s main tool is linguistic. This certainly is a major task and I would suggest that it is a task well beyond the use of language dictionaries which seem to be his most important resources. Scranton clearly isn’t a linguist and it shows; it simply isn’t possible to play word association games using dictionaries for several languages each of which is from a different language group with completely different structures and then to produce a coherent hypothesis. It’s certainly possible to decipher one language using a word matrix from languages in the same group – Hittite was deciphered in this way. But Turkish and ancient Egyptian? Or Dogon and Ancient Tibetan? These languages are in completely different groups, have a completely different structure and a completely different chronology of development and simply inventing a rubric that states cosmologically significant terms transcend mundane matters like time and space simply isn’t good enough.However, this is how it works……..Scranton makes much of a supposed connection between the word “tepe” in the Turkish name “Göbekli Tepe” and the ancient Egypt'an word “tipi” in the term “Zep Tipi” which is the Egyptian founding myth. The logic of this connective argument is so garbled it’s hard to make sense of it but he continues to pursue this line of reasoning. One of the many synonyms for “tepe” is roof……and this may be relevant because one idea has it that Göbekli Tepe was roofed at one time. Or Turkish “tepe” sounds like Egyptian “tipi” as in “sep tepi”……and “sep” can be written as a fox hieroglyph and there are foxes depicted at Göbekli Tepe. Alternatively, and for good measure, “sep” could also mean “worm” or “serpent”………and there are many snakes depicted at Göbekli Tepe – see pages 41 to 45. And then just to bludgeon the point home Scranton points out that the Egyptian word tepi also means ancestor and, as we know, Gobekli Tepe has anthropomorphic pillars that may represent ancestors……..and the Turkish word tepe primarily means “peak” or “hill” while the Egyptian word tep means “high ground” or the “top of anything.” The fact is that all of the synonyms for the Turkish word “tepe” relate to a feature that stands proud of the surrounding environment whether it is a roof or a mound. That’s it. But Scranton then proceeds to beat the Turkish word “göbekli” to death with same analytical hammer. This exercise just goes on and on in a train of cosmological and lexical non sequiturs for the whole book.Scranton makes the point that “these comparisons demonstrated that when the ancient Egyptians used the words tep or tipi, they likely understood the meaning in the same essential ways as someone in ancient Turkey.” No they didn’t Laird. One is left wondering why, when this book was in manuscript form or when Scranton was discussing his ideas on the alternative history radio show/ conference circuit with like minded colleagues such as Graham Hancock, Anthony West, James Swagger or Andrew Collins, nobody had the decency to point out that any lexical references to the Turkish language in relation to Göbekli Tepe and ancient Egyptian or Dogon are meaningless because the Turks didn’t arrive in Anatolia until the early 11th century AD and didn’t establish themselves in the region where Göbekli Tepe is located until the late 14th century AD. It was later still before Turkish was established as the common language in the area.Just as an illustration of how this game works, I’ll have a little play at it……..the Kurdish name for Göbekli Tepe is Gire Navoke. It has the same meaning. But the word “gire” looks very like the old English word “gyre” - to move in a circular motion and remaining now only in the word gyrate. Circular motion is clearly replicated in the circular arrangement of the oldest Göbekli Tepe enclosures. The henges and many barrow tombs of the British Isles are built in a circular configuration suggesting a circular processional imperative. Bingo! There is a connection between Göbekli Tepe and Stonehenge, Seahenge, Newgrange and the Ring of Brodgar in the British Isles …….and therefore with ancient Egypt and the Dogans. There must be a priesthood connecting the oldest to the newest…….an academy or university if you will. Never mind that old English didn’t establish itself in the British Isles until after the 7th century AD. But I suspect that the Neolithic British Isles is going to be the next target for Laird Scranton’s ridiculous cosmological scrabble game anyway.