The Bass advises Clyde Winters and Marc Washington to really get their act together. Please proves unequivocally that:
1) Whites are actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Hi Charlie
Why don't you get your act together. You should know by now you can not prove anything, since belief is based on a person's perspective of what is right and wrong.
As a result, you can only confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. I have presented an abundance of evidence in support of my propositions. It is up to you to disconfirm my hypotheses.
If you disagree with my research feel free to provide a detailed discussion of the reasons you disagree with my research--with supporting evidence that counters my evidence and we can debate the issues.
Until you meet the basic requirements of the scientific method--remain silent.
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bass - YOU:
PROVE:
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bass - YOU:
PROVE:
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
Good Bass. Let's get the debate started. Here is a paper I presented at the Central States Anthropological Association Meeting in 1997. It discussed my decipherment with citations. Since you disagree, please disconfirm my claim.
If you don't want to begin the debate with this paper, why don't we debate the issue of Olmec skeletons: Olmec African Skeletons
Maybe on second thought you may want to discuss the Shang of China. Here is a debate I had with a Chinese scholar on the origins of Chinese writing and the Negro skeletons of China. Check out the information here and let's debate: Shang and Xia Chinese were Africans
Let the debate begin.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
The Bass, why dont you think the olmecs and Shang were black? Or is it a question of emphasis, that they had black elements but population itself wasnt black.
Winters why do you use Negroid and not Africoid?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Bass Wrote: The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
That is absolutely true. But what you missed while blindly doing this.....
Was that they supplied evidence far superior to anything supplied by those who try to prove the contrary.
Has it ever occurred to you, that the only evidence that White people are indigenous to Europe, is that they say so, and the fact that they are there. Using YOUR logic, should I now call you Geronimo? And; should I STOP arguing that Egyptians were Black?
Then there is your intellectual laziness, your apparent comfort in the lap of the Masta, has robbed you of the ability to even think, much less, activity investigate the issue. If you had, you would have found that even the Mastas own children, have produced volumes of material which supports their position.
As a matter of fact, ALL new studies, except those by the obvious racists, tend to prove their position. But you would never know that: you can't be bothered. You would much rather bask in the Mastas love and approval.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Clyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
This is not argument Bass this is opinion.
Debate is based on proposition construction and evidence in support of a proposition. I made the proposition that the Olmec writing is of African origin. In support of this I provided evidence that:
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Eventhough I have provided this evidence in support of my prositions you present no evidence disputing any of this material. How can we have a debate when you are too ignorant of African and American epigraphy to provide counter evidence disconfirming my propositions.
Please cite your counter evidence. The paper on my decipherment of Olmec was delivered at the Central States Anthro meeting. Before this paper could be presented it went through peer-review by a committee to determine if it was appropriate for presentation at the Conference.
Although this evaluation process took place I am waiting for your citation of any counter evidence disconfirming my theorems.
Shame on you. You make a big deal of argument and then you fail to debate.
Bass I am waiting for your propositions and counter evidence.....
.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Clyde winters wrote: 1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
How is this possible? the olmecs lived some 3000 years ago and according to wikipedia (i know a bad source but i'm too lazy now, and the references looks to be in order) The Mande N'Ko is created in 1949, so how can it possibly be older?
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Clyde winters wrote: Although this evaluation process took place I am waiting for your citation of any counter evidence disconfirming my theorems.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that there is no refutation of your work by members of Academia simply because no one takes it seriosuly enough so to engage in any disconformation of your theories? Shouldn't this ring a bell?
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.[/quote]
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
I am a bit dusty with all this, but do our other African scholars agree with you Dr. Winters? I don't recall Van Sertima making the same argument as you re Mande script.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
You are correct.
In terms of the origins of Europeans the following scholars make the following claims supported by evidence from their various disciplines.
* All human beings descend from Africans, including Modern Africans, Asians, Australians, Oceanians, Americans [native], *and* white Europeans too. [Tishkoff, Wells, Keita, Sforza, Underhill]
* Modern Europeans descend in the main directly from Paleolithic Europeans. [Underhill, Wells, Keita, Sforza, Brace]
* The original ancestors of modern Europeans, that is the -indigenous- or 1st Europeans, were not 'leucoderm' or pale skinned. [Jablonski, Sforza, Kittles, Harding]
* Pale skin developed recently among the ancestors of modern European populations between 6 to 12 thousand years ago, in Europe. [Kittles, Shriver, Sforza]
* The original human population was 'melanoderm', Black skinned, and tropically adapted in skeletal form.
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
As for Winters, he has decided to go the passive aggressive route and refuse to assert anything, [here where it can be refuted].
Fine.
- Winters claims nothing. - He is then free to dis-claim the above information by the following scholars.
Looking forward to another failed attempt at debating from Winters, Washington and Mike, who simply do not understand modern anthropology and have yet to ever engage the topic in and intelligible manner.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
Good post rasol, modern Europeans do descend from Paleolithic Europeans, the DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports this. Clyde and Marc are simply associating Indo-European languages with being white, but they fail to realize that Indians and Iranians, who both speak Indo-European languages, are not white and are not European, so their flawed argument has already failed. Europe was already inhabited before the rise of Indo-European langauges and genetic evidence does not suggest a recent colonization of Europe by white people during medieval times, something that both Winters and Washington ignores flat out.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Rasol/Bass - The two of you are pathetic.
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
C. Loring Brace *, , Noriko Seguchi , Conrad B. Quintyn , Sherry C. Fox , A. Russell Nelson ||, Sotiris K. Manolis **, and Pan Qifeng
Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Rasol wrote: * Pale skin developed recently among the ancestors of modern European populations between 6 to 12 thousand years ago, in Europe. [Kittles, Shriver, Sforza]
Show us the study, I have never seen the study which claimed that Whites turned White in Europe. As a matter of fact, they tend to shy away from being specific about when and where they turned White. One reason for that, is because of course, they don't know.
But; this does NOT mean that the two of you should STOP feeding each others ignorance. I think that it's funny.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Bass you sound very stupid. You say I cited myself. You are correct. In a debate you cite your propositions and evidence, this is my work.
In a debate it is your job to disconfirm my evidence. Just pointing out that other people say something different does not win an argument. A debater is only checked when you disconfirm the Debaters propositions. You have not challenged my propositions you just posted websites which discuss Mayan languages and etc. None of these sites dirrectly challenge my propositions.
Here I restate my points:
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.[/quote]
You have not provided any research that contradicts any of the above propositions.
You have failed to list any paper disputing a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages.
You have not presented any article disputing my research.
I have claimed that Delafosse recorded a tradition that the Vai script was ancient. You say it is recent. Where is your research that it is not ancient?
Here we compare the signs and clearly they are not recent.
This is supported by the similarity between the Mande/Vai writing and other ancient scripts.
Here is one of the ancient Mande inscriptions
Where is your research showing that the Vai writing did not exist in ancient times when the characters relating to the Vai script are found throughout North and West Africa along the migration route the Mande took during their expansion from Nubia to West Africa.
Please present your evidence showing that these scripts are not cognate.
In the film I present specific lexical items. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, also presents lexical items showing a connection between Mayan and Mande langauges. In your replay below you do not dispute any of the terms I claim that relate to the Mayan group.
How can you cliam that you have disputed my propositions concerning the relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages when you have not discussed the lexical items and confirmed that they do not relate to one another?
You sound very ignorant of debate. My articles and research is my propositions. What you have to do is specifically dispute any on my fidings by directly challenging my evidence. You have not challenged any of my propositions. All you have done is publish some websites.
All you have done is publish web pages. These web pages do not dispute any of my research. I am still waiting for you to disconfirm my research.
Failure to disconfirm my research does nothing to confirm your position. In a debate you have to present conter evidence.
I am waiting for your disconfirmation of my propositions--a list of web pages that do not discuss my work have no status in this debate.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists. [/QUOTE]
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
For anyone interested in the relationship between Mayan, and Olmec/Mande writing you can check out my Blog
Marc has done a fantastic job of using iconographic and craniometric evidence to support his thesis. Evidence you have failed to disconfirm.
.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
Hi Mike. Yes. The Upper Paleolithic did belong to us. Grimaldi here is picture A2. The Khoisan men are slender while the women often steatophygous. In the page, B2, B2, B3, and B4 are steatophygous. B6 and D4 might be, too.
According to the archeological evidence, I'd say that the Middle East was African so a movement from the Middle East to Europe was a movement of Africans from the Middle East to Europe. For example:
While stories of Mesopotamia recount how they gave gifts of cattle and agriculture to the people of the Steppes (many African - by phenotype in Steppe as in first poster above) from Africa itself traditions began that made it to the Near East and from there to Europe in a demic movement. Pottery studies (see 5 below) and cattle brecia show this. Evaluate the analogies of columns A, D, and F:
Mike. I hope the following is related to your thread. You are trying to separate out when today's population entered resulting in a replacement of and/or phenotypic modification of the original population of Europe which was phenotypically African.
This map shows from where and when whites entered the western and southern parts of Europe; this was in pretty recent times:
Interesting!!! Are you saying modern Europeans ancestors were tropical black Africans as recently as about 15kybp?? That's why there is no evidence of their modern form/remains found in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Says who??? THE ASS - There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Opps!! THE BASS -
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Says who??? THE ASS - There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Charlie Bass, you are absolutely wrong. What is called the Mende-Script was not created long after the Olmec. As a matter of fact, can you scientifically prove your claim? The script was based on one or more extremely old ancient Black African writing system and was only re-purposed to accommodate certain needs. This is the same idea with most Black African writing systems; many of which were destroyed by Euro-Western explorers specialists. An excellent example of this would be the tragic story of the Shumom writing systems of Cameroon found here in detail, which over 1,100 of the Shumom/Bamum original manual scripts, most of which now sit in British museums:
Such attempts and half-baked success in stealing, concealing and destroying original ancient Black African works; in addition to teaching false knowledge that Black Africans have no history is what gives rise to what is sometimes seen as surprisingly ignorant questions and flaws logic from many Eurocentric conditioned individuals; even when they are college educated with multiple degrees.
The idea that almost any Black African writing system was developed after the the Olmec presence in the very ancient Mexico, without any scientific proof is logically absurd, especially when these ancient Olmec are in fact Black Africans themselves.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
^ True. Sometimes it gets tiresome trying to inform and educate on this forum.
On a personal note, my father was Mende. His paternal and maternal lineages were from warrior clans that hailed from Melle (present day Mali). The Mende (part of the Mane Invasions) fought their way into present day Sierra Leone during the 15th & 16th centuries. And they arrived as a literate people.
In my family home, we had books and texts written in Vai and Mende that had been compiled by the Portuguese who landed on the shores of present day Sierra Leone in 1462.
I've never understood why anyone would claim that the Vai or Mende script was invented in the 19th century and later????
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
So do you think Vai is older than Olmec and Olmec derived from it, as clyde winters think?
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
The Mende, Kono, Manding/Madinka, Vai, Kpelle, Loma, Gissi etc are all clans and tribes of the so called Mande nation that hail from ancient Kush.
Oral histories among these nations do report of a trans- oceanic(atlantic) trade with the lands known as the Caribbean and Americas today.
Moreover, it is also reported that Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who was a seaman along the west African coast for over 20 years was informed (along with the Portuguese) by West Africans of the sea currents that would take them back and forth to their so called New World.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Some on this forum may demand written evidence of my assertions.
Suffice to say, the written evidence that survived the destruction and decimation of the scribal/priestly class by Arabs and Europeans in these societies were stolen, spirited away and are now stashed in libraries and private collections in the Euro-American world.
The Arabs simply burnt the written records.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Same with the Catholic priests and written records over here. Those Abrahamic faiths really suck.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QB] Good post rasol, modern Europeans do descend from Paleolithic Europeans, the DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports this. Clyde and Marc are simply associating Indo-European languages with being white, but they fail to realize that Indians and Iranians, who both speak Indo-European languages, are not white and are not European, so their flawed argument has already failed.
Correct, there are Black Indians who are just as much Indo-European speakers, and white Europeans who are not now and never have been Indo European speakers.
You' think this would be easy to grasp, but it goes right over the heads of some of ES 'new breed puppy' posters.
They keep this forum mired down in a state of ineducable adolescence.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages. You are right the southern Blacks spoke Malinke-Bambara , Egyptian and Phonesian.The Black Greeks, for example spoke Achaioi or Achaean.
The white Greeks: Ionian and Dorians spoke Aeolic. It is important to remember that 52.2% of Greek has an unknown etymology.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Interesting!!! Are you saying modern Europeans ancestors were tropical black Africans as recently as about 15kybp?? That's why there is no evidence of their modern form/remains found in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
Yeah I want to know this answer too? When did people turn from black tropical adapted people to non-black cold adapted people. And what color or type were white Europeans before 15kya?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^ Rasol made a silly statement, which he knew fully well, had no factual foundation. And which no one is even close to being able to answer. They don't even know how or why they turned white, much-less When! The only thing certain, is that it happened in the Eurasian Plains.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yeah I want to know this answer too?
This has been answered. Do a search. You and Mike111 are quite stupid, and not worth my time, so I don't address your every mindless grunting. Sorry.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben08: [It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
quote:Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: So do you think Vai is older than Olmec and Olmec derived from it, as clyde winters think?
->
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: The Mende, Kono, Manding/Madinka, Vai, Kpelle, Loma, Gissi etc are all clans and tribes of the so called Mande nation that hail from ancient Kush.
Oral histories among these nations do report of a trans- oceanic(atlantic) trade with the lands known as the Caribbean and Americas today.
Moreover, it is also reported that Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who was a seaman along the west African coast for over 20 years was informed (along with the Portuguese) by West Africans of the sea currents that would take them back and forth to their so called New World.
^ Did not answer the question.
Provide - origin date for Vai. - orign date for Olmec.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
There is no way to give an origin date for these writing systems. But we can date the earliest dated monuments written in these scripts:
[IMG] [/IMG]
Vai 3000 BC Oued Mertoutek
Olmec 1200 BC La Venta
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben08: [It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
quote:Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others, or you are not sure they will? Let me explain: the southern blacks in India did not speak Indo European until after the invasion which would be after around 1200 bc or so - irrelevant to the case Winters is making.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Charlie Bass, you are absolutely wrong. What is called the Mende-Script was not created long after the Olmec. As a matter of fact, can you scientifically prove your claim? The script was based on one or more extremely old ancient Black African writing system and was only re-purposed to accommodate certain needs. This is the same idea with most Black African writing systems; many of which were destroyed by Euro-Western explorers specialists. An excellent example of this would be the tragic story of the Shumom writing systems of Cameroon found here in detail, which over 1,100 of the Shumom/Bamum original manual scripts, most of which now sit in British museums:
Such attempts and half-baked success in stealing, concealing and destroying original ancient Black African works; in addition to teaching false knowledge that Black Africans have no history is what gives rise to what is sometimes seen as surprisingly ignorant questions and flaws logic from many Eurocentric conditioned individuals; even when they are college educated with multiple degrees.
The idea that almost any Black African writing system was developed after the the Olmec presence in the very ancient Mexico, without any scientific proof is logically absurd, especially when these ancient Olmec are in fact Black Africans themselves.
Looka here, shut up, stop trolling and post evidence of when the Mende and Vai scripts came into being and show that they precede the Olmec and Mayan scripts as well as proving that the Olmec and Mayan languages are substrates of Mande languages, all of this trolling dribble and strawmans and still no evidence.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Just a question for clarity. The Bass does not accept the African presense among the Olmecs?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]Looka here, shut up, stop trolling and post evidence of when the Mende and Vai scripts came into being and show that they precede the Olmec and Mayan scripts as well as proving that the Olmec and Mayan languages are substrates of Mande languages, all of this trolling dribble and strawmans and still no evidence.
I have presented evidence of the Mande substratum in the Mayan languages and I also published the Oued Mertoutek inscription showing the antiquity of the Vai script.
You have presented no counter evidence. You are the one trolling, since you started this thread and up to now has presented no counter evidence disconfirming the claims of Marc and I.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Please provide a list of the publications you "Africanists" have authored that will be adversely affected by the material in this thread.
If you haven't published anything how can you be producing Africanists literature?
The only real Africanists on this form is Supercar/Mystery Solver who now has a very interesting Blog.
.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^That's cool.
You know, Clyde, I respect you for some your work and input on this forum.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Please provide a list of the publications you "Africanists" have authored that will be adversely affected by the material in this thread.
If you haven't published anything how can you be producing Africanists literature?
The only real Africanists on this form is Supercar/Mystery Solver who now has a very interesting Blog.
.
LOL Good point, I respect that you aren't lazy like these other pretentious fucks on here and actually PUBLISH your work and are in the works of creating a database, writing books and I have seen your websites.
The greatest attributes in niggers like Rasol and other faux pas scientists is they have a propensity to have a "monkey see monkey do" philosophy. Whatever the white man says I will do , they are weak by nature and usually coerce others to help support him like he has done with many sycophants on this board.
Yet, they never have the will to actually DO anything. They sit and wait for OTHER to do for them and have irreverence for people that get off of their ass and do things for the cause unless they 100% agree with them--very childish.
Nigger par excellence Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Somebody's panties are in a bunch.
Apparently rasol's sharp words hit a little too close to home. He has that effect.
Perhaps that means you will go home?..........
Nah don't count on it.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Then i am sorry for him as he is assuming i am not familiar with the issues. Maybe he should let me worry abut being "duped".
But you know, maybe you could help me. Iv been trying to get past the insults to understand each side spoint of view. I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them? Winters is not the only one saying this.
As for blacks in early Europe, didn't Van Sertima et al show where blacks were in England during time of Roman invasion of Britian and even in Scandenavia? Or is it a question of how many? What? I don't get it.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Moreover, an African with Mende/Vai lineage asserts the Mande nation in West Africa has always been literate and 'others' demand evidence????
I don't get it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Moreover, an African with Mende/Vai lineage asserts the Mande nation in West Africa has always been literate and 'others' demand evidence????
I don't get it.
Some people on the forum feel that if the European do not say something is so, it can not be possible.
Here is a discussion of the fact the Mande people have never stopped writing in the script for 1000's of years. The Mande have never Stopped Writing
Enjoy
.
.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Thanks Clyde.
Poro members in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia have always been privy to and familiar with the ancient scripts from ancient Kush. Hardly surprising, as Kush is the ancestral homeland.
The European invaders in the 19th century were never allowed access to the ancient scripts. Therefore, by way of diversion, those scripts, which are in the public domain were 'designed' for public consumption; in order not to offend the Poro Society or attract the destructive attention of the European invaders and occupiers.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Somebody's panties are in a bunch.
Apparently rasol's sharp words hit a little too close to home. He has that effect.
Perhaps that means you will go home?..........
Nah don't count on it.
^^^Sycophant my point exactly
Apparently I am a man and I have instinct to smell bitches in heat please don't go the same route as them LOL!!!!!!!
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Then i am sorry for him as he is assuming i am not familiar with the issues. Maybe he should let me worry abut being "duped".
quote:But you know, maybe you could help me. Iv been trying to get past the insults to understand each side spoint of view. I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them? Winters is not the only one saying this.
Me neither.
quote:As for blacks in early Europe, didn't Van Sertima et al show where blacks were in England during time of Roman invasion of Britian and even in Scandenavia? Or is it a question of how many? What? I don't get it.
However, when someone starts claiming that these civilizations were African with no solid substantiation...
I mean, it's documented that Africans sailed.
But to say a civilization is African with no real proof is no better than saying the Egyptians were somehow caucasian or mediterranean (with no substantial evidence).
As for the Brittish, I believe I to have read of "brown skinned" people in the Isles, though, if existant, they were just European populations isolated from the selection of fair skin that took place in Europe.
I would have to read that myself, though.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben08: [It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
quote:Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
quote:You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence?
I didn't. You are reflecting your own insecurity. But let's move on...
quote: Let me explain: the southern blacks in India did not speak Indo European until after the invasion which would be after around 1200 bc or so - irrelevant to the case Winters is making.
rotfl. You've completely missed my point, as I predicted you would.
You do not get, the Clyde Winters attributes Meroitic [Sudanese African writing] to Indo-"Aryan" speakers, do you?
You do not see the irony of this do you?
Right over your head. lol.
This is why I don't bother engaging ES new breed of puppy posters anymore.
It's simply a waste of time.
Do you know who does understand, the irony, the hypocrisy, and the sheer absurdity of Dr. Winters claims.....
Dr. Winters does, that's who, which is why he chooses to not engage this point, but rather allows puppies like you to mislead themselves...with his cynical assistence.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them.
I don't respect a disingenuous debator.
The claim is not that Olmec's and Shang had Blacks among them.
Modern Chinese and Mexicans have millions of Blacks 'among them'.
Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa.
This is a very different claim. Quite frankly, you give the game away by not even being willing to honestly state it - much less defend it.
This is analagous to claiming the Ancient Egypt was a Nordic civilisation, and then asking why it is so hard for some to accept and Asiatic prescense in Ancient Egypt.
Formally it's and inverted burden of proof fallacy in which a wild claim is supposedly defended by a reasonable contention.
A contention which in fact, contests no point at issue, and does not prove the claim under contention.
Anyone who does this, effectively admits that the original claim is far fetched.
Thus, your argument is disingenuous.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them.
I don't respect a disingenuous debator.
The claim is not that Olmec's and Shang had Blacks among them.
Modern Chinese and Mexicans have millions of Blacks 'among them'.
Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa.
As I told the Bass, instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence with citations disconfirming the evidence I have presented in support of these claims. If you don't have any...remain silent like a good little boy.
.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Ah yes, there you go again. You definitely need to get over yourself quickly Rasol. Not everybody is out to get you or challenge your "vast intellect". You see, to be a "disingenuous debater" on the origins of the Olmec and Shang it would mean I have to be in a debate of some kind with you. I am unaware of this. I am just a "new breed' asking questions to get clarification on where everybody stands in here. Been a long time since I am involved in these types of arguments.
But what is truly entertaining though is that you think being new in here means being new to these issues. Sorry to disappoint you but there is nothing you have posted in here (expect Winters theory of Mandingo and Olmec, I give you that lol) that I didn't already know from our various scholars like Dr. Ben etc years ago. In fact following your posts: the insults, rush to judgements, bursting enthusiasm and false pride (so obvious a defence mechanism) you seem to fit the description of someone who has just discovered blackness. Seems it is you who is the newbie. lol
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:As I told the Bass, instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence with citations disconfirming the evidence I have presented in support of these claims. If you don't have any...remain silent like a good little boy.
The fact is, your claims are simply outrageous. And you know it. You just need an outlet (this forum) to express them having been relegated to the fringe.
^ In doing the above you (along with marc washington and others) have single-handedly destroyed the intellectual quality and credibility of this forum by fogging it up with psuedo-science and spam.
quote: instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence with citations disconfirming the evidence I have presented in support of these claims.
Doing so would be like asserting pigs could grow wings and fly, saying you have "evidence" of such, and then asking for counter-evidence to disprove this asssertion.
Too bad others on this forum are not so keen and fall prey to your bait time and again. So you post here in part because you know their are some on this forum who will give you the attention you cry out for.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Mmmkay - You kind of just jumped in, without stating the object of your ire. So I'm assuming that it is this > rasol wrote: "Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilizations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa". If that is the case, then I can treat both together.
Which is it that you disagree with?
That Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo's?
That the people who founded those civilizations were from West Africa?
Or that the people who founded those civilizations were Black?
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Too bad others on this forum are not so keen and fall prey to your bait time and again.
Yeh, like Rasol's constant replies to Winter and his head to head "debate" with Washington in another thread. Makes me wonder why a man of his superior intellectual (lol) would spend so much time with someone making what he believes are absurd claims. Maybe it is indicative of his cantankerous nature, I mean, even a half-wit looking my posts would not read them as a "defense" of Winters theory but simply seeking clarity. Maybe Rasol is stressd out. lol
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
I definitely don't, and will never contest anyone's use of 'black' again, after seeing how 'new-breed-puppy-trolls' have demonstrated how retarded contesting 'black' is.
rasol's back from banking on that show, I see.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa.
This is a very different claim. Quite frankly, you give the game away by not even being willing to honestly state it - much less defend it.
^Needless to say. Or at least it should be.
Now for two hilarions quotes:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Do you know who does understand, the irony, the hypocrisy, and the sheer absurdity of Dr. Winters claims.....
Dr. Winters does, that's who, which is why he chooses to not engage this point, but rather allows puppies like you to mislead themselves...with his cynical assistence.
LMBAO
quote:akoben08:
Ah yes, there you go again. You definitely need to get over yourself quickly Rasol.
lol..
Reminds me of when people (usually other guys, in a competative context) tell me "you think you sweet[./!]" or when some girls who know nothing about my personality say "you think you/you're all that and a bag of chips"
to the latter, in my mind, struck I think "No. I don't, honey, ... but I see you sure do ".
^Which is why now phrases like "Ay dawg I think he fillin' himself, homey" mean someone's doing well for themself...
Chillax.
If you're gonna go ad-homina, at least do it the way the vets on here do it:
Clyde Winters posted:
^Directly demeaning/belittling his opponent - or at least it's intended to.
I honestly didn't read your page 1 posts, til just now. Now that I have, I don't know what in his posts you take issue with, as all I see in yours is: *self defend/ ad homina/ self defend*.
Is it this hilarious [the first bolded] bit?:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script. [^^ ] lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together,...
If you feel someone is making an ad-homina argument attacking you, The difference between the way you and they are doing it is this:
They are implying F. F = [X doesn't make sense and therefore anyone who believes X is rediculous]
Unless you disagree, and think X does make sense then there is really no need to take issue .. unless one feels what Clyde is saying isn't that rediculous, or one feels 'attacked'/alerted.
Alerted/insecure about 'F', because you (for whatever reason) think F applies to you.
*
If that be the case, then simply (and straight-forwardly .. if that's a word) come out and defend X, and if need be, do so while exposing the rediculous nature you see in your opponents flaws.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08:
Not everybody is out to ... challenge you ..... I am just a "new breed'
^lol.
Anywho, rasol:
I haven't paid attention to you guys's linguistic exchanges since that time you and Djehuti were arguing with Clyde while he spamned a long ass thread full of this long ass quote I didn't feel like reading. I was new at the time.
I'm just getting into the bio-anthropology.
This is why I never defend, nor do I attack Clyde Winter's linguistic position as do you, Dj, and Bass-Master.
The gist of it, I always thought, was Clyde generally trying to claim a Mande link to other peoples.
However, you wrote:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
So this time .. it's ...
Clyde Winters claims an Indo-European lingual origin of Meroitic???
Yom??? Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Alive-(What Box) who is going ad-homina?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:As I told the Bass, instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence with citations disconfirming the evidence I have presented in support of these claims. If you don't have any...remain silent like a good little boy.
The fact is, your claims are simply outrageous. And you know it. You just need an outlet (this forum) to express them having been relegated to the fringe.
^ In doing the above you (along with marc washington and others) have single-handedly destroyed the intellectual quality and credibility of this forum by fogging it up with psuedo-science and spam.
Too bad others on this forum are not so keen and fall prey to your bait time and again. So you post here in part because you know their are some on this forum who will give you the attention you cry out for.
Agree...but...
quote: Originally posted by Mmkay:
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters to rasol:
instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence with citations disconfirming the evidence I have presented in support of these claims.
[What Clyde just said is akin to] asserting pigs could grow wings and fly, saying you have "evidence" of such, and then asking for counter-evidence to disprove this asssertion.
QUIT TROLLIN BOY!
And don't you mean "Cali-forn-I-A"?
Actually, if there is'evidence' and it is so rediculous, it is better to demonstrate how that's the case or keep quiet (at least a 'little', as in the case of rasol and others in Marc's Charlemagne thread) rather than troll.
If there's no evidence, than there is little need to do anything other than to toy with / and make fun of the person.
If there is sufficient but faulty evidence ... you know what to do (dismantle it).
Currently, there is no genetic evidence, and I'm not even sure of the linguistic evidences.
I think I remember seeing it having been demonstrated on this forum before that he uses words that are similar in appearance but not in meaning (cases as you will find in any two languages) .. the same mistake a few Eurocentrists have done.
But let me do my part in demonstrating:
Many of Islamic West African nations used the Arabic script.
Does this make them Arab, or even founded by Arabs?
Winters has not proved anything, he's simply made claims which he hasn't backed up and instead asks for evidence to refute his claims. What he fails to realize is that a claim must be proven true to be considered as true, it isn't true by default until someone comes along and disproves it, this is the same way Eurocentrists think, they say whites created everything and then put the burden of proof on others to refute it, while simultaneously holding their claims to be true until proven otherwise
Number two, Clyde was given a reply about about the Medne and Vai scripts regarding their origins, which the Bass posted and Winters simply ignored them and refused to answer to the question of how two scripts invented almost 2000 years later could be copied by someone 2000 years earlier.
Winters has provided no linguistic evidence that Mayan and Olmec language are substrates on Mande languages. In fact, no source could be found gives credibility to this claim. Winters simply resorts to citing himself as proof for his own claims.
Winters is now resorting to attacks out of frustration of not being able to actually back up his claims when challenged. This is why the Bass said this nonsense has to end.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: Actually, if there is 'evidence' and it is so rediculous, it is better to demonstrate how that's the case or keep quiet (at least a 'little', as in the case of rasol and others in Marc's Charlemagne thread) rather than troll.
I agree it is better to ignore them or atleast try to explain why they are wrong, however that analogy was for the purpose of helping them to understood how nonsensical his assertion was.
Claims like that usually don't need to be "addressed" because making the claim that for example:
--> the mandingos created chinese civilisation
^ Violates causality and simple logical deduction, hence the occams razor references. Such claims don't need to be addressed at all.
quote: And don't you mean "Cali-forn-I-A"?
Thats not how governor "ahnold" says it. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Bass you sound very stupid. You continue to request evidence when you have failed to falsify any of my claims.
You say I cited myself. You are correct. In a debate you cite your propositions and evidence, this is my work.
In a debate it is your job to disconfirm my evidence. Just pointing out that other people say something different does not win an argument. A debater is only checked when you disconfirm the Debaters propositions. You have not challenged my propositions you just posted websites which discuss Mayan languages and etc. None of these sites dirrectly challenge my propositions.
Here I restate my points:
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.[/quote]
You have not provided any research that contradicts any of the above propositions.
You have failed to list any paper disputing a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages.
You have not presented any article disputing my research.
I have claimed that Delafosse recorded a tradition that the Vai script was ancient. You say it is recent. Where is your research that it is not ancient?
Here we compare the signs and clearly they are not recent.
This is supported by the similarity between the Mande/Vai writing and other ancient scripts.
Here is one of the ancient Mande inscriptions
Where is your research showing that the Vai writing did not exist in ancient times when the characters relating to the Vai script are found throughout North and West Africa along the migration route the Mande took during their expansion from Nubia to West Africa.
Please present your evidence showing that these scripts are not cognate.
In the film I present specific lexical items. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, also presents lexical items showing a connection between Mayan and Mande langauges. In your replay below you do not dispute any of the terms I claim that relate to the Mayan group.
How can you cliam that you have disputed my propositions concerning the relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages when you have not discussed the lexical items and confirmed that they do not relate to one another?
You sound very ignorant of debate. My articles and research is my propositions. What you have to do is specifically dispute any on my fidings by directly challenging my evidence. You have not challenged any of my propositions. All you have done is publish some websites.
All you have done is publish web pages. These web pages do not dispute any of my research. I am still waiting for you to disconfirm my research.
Failure to disconfirm my research does nothing to confirm your position. In a debate you have to present conter evidence.
I am waiting for your disconfirmation of my propositions--a list of web pages that do not discuss my work have no status in this debate.
Here is a site providing a pictorial history of the Vai writing.
Jo has provided the oral traditions of the Mande regarding the antiquity of the Mande writing and I have discussed the textual and epigraphic evidence for the antiquity of the Mande writing here .
You make empty comments bare of evidence. You are the nonesence maker. It is you who are the deciever.
There is no way to give an origin date for these writing systems. But we can date the earliest dated monuments written in these scripts:
[IMG] [/IMG]
Vai 3000 BC Oued Mertoutek
Olmec 1200 BC La Venta
Please present the counter evidence to Jo's oral traditions and my epigraphic and textual evidence.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: The Mende, Kono, Manding/Madinka, Vai, Kpelle, Loma, Gissi etc are all clans and tribes of the so called Mande nation that hail from ancient Kush.
Oral histories among these nations do report of a trans- oceanic(atlantic) trade with the lands known as the Caribbean and Americas today.
Moreover, it is also reported that Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who was a seaman along the west African coast for over 20 years was informed (along with the Portuguese) by West Africans of the sea currents that would take them back and forth to their so called New World.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Lets get a few things straight:
In the above comparison charts winters cites no sources for such charts, We don't where he got them or how those charts came to their conclusions.
quote:You say I cited myself.
The problem is, there is no corroboration to your stated claims, you can cite yourself all you want, if their is no peer review, the vailidity of your stated claims are in question.
So again I restate
quote:The fact is, your claims are simply outrageous. And you know it. You just need an outlet (this forum) to express them having been relegated to the fringe.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Lets get a few things straight:
In the above comparison charts winters cites no sources for such charts, We don't where he got them or how those charts came to their conclusions.
quote:You say I cited myself.
The problem is, there is no corroboration to your stated claims, you can cite yourself all you want, if their is no peer review, the vailidity of your stated claims are in question.
So again I restate
quote:The fact is, your claims are simply outrageous. And you know it. You just need an outlet (this forum) to express them having been relegated to the fringe.
It is clear you seek peer review of any statement because you feel that unless the establishment okays a proposition it is untrue.
This is not debate. In a debate you state a premise(s) with evidence. The opposition presents counter primise(s) and evidence. Bass, Rasol have not even done this basic rule of argument. In the case of you guys, instead of argument you try to seek authority by any European as the standard of what is right and what is wrong.
This will not suffice. Do some research to counter my evidence by present specific evidence that dispute my evidence.
If you want to join the debate, fine. Why don't you present evidence that these symbols do not exist in the writing systems I have assigned them. I don't need an outlet I have already made many of these claims at International and National Conferences.
I have presented papers on Olmec writing at many National Conferences including: The decipherment of the Olmec writing. 74th Ann Meet Cent. States Anth Soc;Jaguar kings: Olmec Royalty and religious leaders in the first person 75th Ann Meet Cent States Anth Soc;The Olmec Religion,75th Ann Meet Cent States Anth Soc;Olmec symbolism in Mayan Writing 76th Ann Meet Cent States Anth Soc;Olmec voices: The syllabic signs. 98Ann Meet Am Anth Asoc.The programs of these meetings are on line.Check the programs of meetings to verify. You may not know this but papers are not presented at professional conferences unless they are peer reviewed.
As you can see I am just sharing knowledge to end the ignorance some people have about the Olmec writing and other topics.
.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ I don't have to *present* anything. The *burden of proof* is not upon me. No amount of irrelevant posturing such as the above will change the fact that:
a) Your claims obviously violate causality unless you prove that they don't, leading to the second point that
b) Thus the burden of proof, will full citations and peer reviewed corroborated evidence, is upon you.
^ Anything less is not addressing the issue and not worth me or any sane posters time.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ I don't have to *present* anything. The *burden of proof* is not upon me. No amount of irrelevant posturing such as the above will change the fact that:
a) Your claims obviously violate causality unless you prove that they don't, leading to the second point that
b) Thus the burden of proof, will full citations and peer reviewed corroborated evidence, is upon you.
^ Anything less is not addressing the issue and not worth me or any sane posters time.
Fine don't present anything. If you can't counter my evidence remain silent.
Given your absence of knowledge on this theme I will ignore you and allow you to continue in your blissful ignorance.
.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ So you can't prove contrary the above point I made in the preceding post?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
OH! I GET IT!
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote: And don't you mean "Cali-forn-I-A"?
Thats not how governor "ahnold" says it.
LOL
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
The Bass cannot believe that Clyde is relying upon faulty argumentation to supposedly advance science. A claim has to be proven to be true in order to be considered as true. It isn't true by default until someone proves otherwise, shame on you Clyde. For example, the Bass can claim green men live on the moon, but unless the Bass proves it to be true its just all talk. If anyone including the Bass took that claim to be true until proven otherwise they would be believing in a lie and or unproven speculation.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Winters, I havent seen any online sources of those conferences. BTW what does Van Sertima think of your claims re the Olmec?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Winters, I havent seen any online sources of those conferences. BTW what does Van Sertima think of your claims re the Olmec?
Van Sertima attributes the influence on the Olmecs on Egypto/Nubians. The Mande/Bambara/Mandingo influences are due to the voyages in 1300 AD and the influences are on the Aztecs and Maya. Winters and Van Sertima are opposing claims.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: ^ True. Sometimes it gets tiresome trying to inform and educate on this forum.
On a personal note, my father was Mende. His paternal and maternal lineages were from warrior clans that hailed from Melle (present day Mali). The Mende (part of the Mane Invasions) fought their way into present day Sierra Leone during the 15th & 16th centuries. And they arrived as a literate people.
In my family home, we had books and texts written in Vai and Mende that had been compiled by the Portuguese who landed on the shores of present day Sierra Leone in 1462.
I've never understood why anyone would claim that the Vai or Mende script was invented in the 19th century and later????
HMMM. What I find peculiar is how certain people claim Literacy arrived in Mali with the Arabs..?
Is this true...?
I does'nt make sense in a way becuase if the population of Mali was so ignorant and illetarate why does the Ghana Empire which used Stone constuction and other complex methods that demand writing in some form.
Maybe the popultaion of Mali and Ghana had a different method of "Writing" until the Arab Script and Language and Methods UNIFIED and SIMPLIFED the original West African custom.
Also I have seen some artiles on West African sea faring...don't know if it is Afrocentrism though..
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Winters, I havent seen any online sources of those conferences. BTW what does Van Sertima think of your claims re the Olmec?
Van Sertima attributes the influence on the Olmecs on Egypto/Nubians. The Mande/Bambara/Mandingo influences are due to the voyages in 1300 AD and the influences are on the Aztecs and Maya. Winters and Van Sertima are opposing claims.
I can't belive certian people get upset when Europeans use their diffusionst claims on African nations like Egypt but turn around and claim the Meso American cultures were African in origin.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: I can't belive certian people get upset when Europeans use their diffusionst claims on African nations like Egypt but turn around and claim the Meso American cultures were African in origin.
We "people" get upset because while there is evidence for African influence in early America there is none for White in Egypt.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them.
I don't respect a disingenuous debator.
The claim is not that Olmec's and Shang had Blacks among them.
Modern Chinese and Mexicans have millions of Blacks 'among them'.
Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa.
quote:As I told the Bass, instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence
^ Counter to what? Again, the disingenuous debator who won't even directly state his own claims.
I'll state one of your ridiculous claims for you then, and point out the evidence to the contrary.
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
Nor does China have any Benin Hbs, the West African gene the provides resistence to Malaria, and which is found in places like Arabia and Greece....even though South China has traditionally very high malaria rates which would subject Benin Hbs to positive selection.
This is evidence against West African founding Ancient China.
There is no evidence to the contrary in fact. Your ridiculous pseudo-linguist attempts to prove that words like Tai, [found in dozens of Asian languages] originate with recent West African migrants is simply laughable.
But your puppy fan club lacks any ability to descern what makes sense, from what does not.
These puppies and their intellectual immaturity is what you rely on, to get your stuff off.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them.
I don't respect a disingenuous debator.
The claim is not that Olmec's and Shang had Blacks among them.
Modern Chinese and Mexicans have millions of Blacks 'among them'.
Winters Claims that Chinese and Olmec civilisations were founded by Mandingo from West Africa.
quote:As I told the Bass, instead of giving your opinion provide counter evidence
^ Counter to what? Again, the disingenuous debator who won't even directly state his own claims.
I'll state one of your ridiculous claims for you then, and point out the evidence to the contrary.
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
Nor does China have any Benin Hbs, the West African gene the provides resistence to Malaria, and which is found in places like Arabia and Greece....even though South China has traditionally very high malaria rates which would subject Benin Hbs to positive selection.
This is evidence against West African founding Ancient China.
There is no evidence to the contrary in fact. Your ridiculous pseudo-linguist attempts to prove that words like Tai, [found in dozens of Asian languages] originate with recent West African migrants is simply laughable.
But your puppy fan club lacks any ability to descern what makes sense, from what does not.
These puppies and their intellectual immaturity is what you rely on, to get your stuff off.
^ See what I mean? Can't help himself. lol Is rasshole just jealous he doesn't have puppy fan club too?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Even if I were 'jealous', you'd still be a puppy, according to your admission above, so what good does that do you? A non-puppy would directly address the issue of the lack of genetic evidence for Mandingo origin of Chinese. Did you do this? No. I rest my case.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Bass you sound very stupid. You continue to request evidence when you have failed to falsify any of my claims.
You say I cited myself. You are correct. In a debate you cite your propositions and evidence, this is my work.
^ Actually this is incorrect. You primarily *state* your propositions and *cite* evidence to support them.
When you cite your own *claims* as evidence that is a logical fallacy, known as "Argument ad Nauseum".
It literally means repeating your claim to the point of producing nausea in anyone listening, however it specifically references, repeating a claim instead of presenting evidence for the claim, and not knowing the difference between the two.
Again - I submit that your arguments are only effective to the intellectually unsophisticated puppies.
For any one else - you systematically commit basic travesties against logic and reason, that moot all your arguments.
ps - The puppies can continue their whining as puppies will.
After all, whine, beg or pee the carpet, what else can puppies do? - having *no bite*.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
I agree. And well said. If he hasn't listened to anything yet, this tone will probably give him something to listen to.
quote:But your puppy fan club lacks any ability to descern what makes sense, from what does not.
These puppies and their intellectual immaturity is what you rely on, to get your stuff off.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ And deep down, they know it, which is why it angers them.
In order to not be puppies, they would have show -understanding- and mastery of topic, and not simply fall for anyone who tells them any condescending lie that they want to hear.
Notice, no response still on Winters claims or the Indo-European origins of Meriotic script.
They don't want to there. Better to whine about 'meanie-rasol' who calls them puppies.
But as long as they whine instead of man-ing up and addressing the topic - puppies they remain.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Even if I were 'jealous', you'd still be a puppy, according to your admission above, so what good does that do you? A non-puppy would directly address the issue of the lack of genetic evidence for Mandingo origin of Chinese. Did you do this? No. I rest my case.
Not my fault my sarcasm re the puppy claim went over your head. I don't need to address every absurd claim in here - guess that makes me a puppy in your warped thinking – not my problem. LOL
Notice, no response still on Winters claims or the Indo-European origins of Meriotic script.
Stop looking for a lynch mob, go attack him yourself. You seem capable of it. But in the process please don't be a little weasel and imply that I agree with him simply by not joining your little crusade.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Rasol
quote:
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Stop looking for a lynch mob
Lynch mob?
Civil discourse is about understanding, truth, and is done in civility.
This comment implies that you perceive Winters as being under attack, but Truth is not about being evasive.
It's about directly handling the issue.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Stop looking for a lynch mob, go attack him yourself. You seem capable of it. But in the process please don't be a little weasel and imply that I agree with him simply by not joining your little crusade.
^ Must be that time of the month Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:Stop looking for a lynch mob, go attack him yourself. You seem capable of it. But in the process please don't be a little weasel and imply that I agree with him simply by not joining your little crusade.
^ Must be that time of the month
Mmmkay, stop being a little cock tease and lets see all of you... Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol
quote:
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
.
LOLOL!!!! Come on man you can do better than that. The funny thing is I am actually rooting for you.
And I think it is rather convenient that now *all of the sudden* you mention this telling revelation that anytime you ascribe Africans to starting a Civilization and there is no genetic evidence that it is because they were ALL killed off lol.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:LOLOL!!!! Come on man you can do better than that.
he can't. that's the sad part.
charlatans routinely make excuses for the lack evidence, in hopes that it will be *mistaken* for evidence.
two favorites of winters involve 'the evidence was killed off', or the evidence was destroyed in the 'great flood'.
people who buy into such conniving, deserve what they get i suppose.
quote:The funny thing is I am actually rooting for you.
why? you only earn Winters contempt for appearing to be daft enough to believe in any of his nonsense.
he doesn't. why should you?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol
quote:
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
.
LOLOL!!!! Come on man you can do better than that. The funny thing is I am actually rooting for you.
And I think it is rather convenient that now *all of the sudden* you mention this telling revelation that anytime you ascribe Africans to starting a Civilization and there is no genetic evidence that it is because they were ALL killed off lol.
I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII. Kwang-chih Chang, makes it clear that the Qiang were often sacrificed by the Anyang-Shang (1). Craniometrics make it clear that most of the sacrificial victims were Negro Qiang (2) The Yin (classical mongoloid) people sacrificed the Qiang usually a 100 at a time along with cattle according to the Shang Oracle Bone inscriptions (3).
There are thousands of Oracle bone inscriptions. At the rate of 100 sacrificial victims per sacrifice the murder of Blacks in China were probably in the 100,000's. Is it any wonder that E3a lineages is not found among native Chinese who are the descendents of the Han/Hua people of the Zhou dynasty.
It is interesting to me that the Qiang bodies were buried separately from the heads. Scientist have been able to identify the Negro Qiang based on skulls recovered from separate burial sites.
Due to continuous wars with the Yin and later Han/Hua peoples the Qiang retreated from the Anyang area, back to Kansu and Shansi. Later they migrated into Central Asia and India.
References:
1. Kwang-chih Chang, Shang Civilization, ISBN 0-300-02428-2
2. _________.The Archaeology of Ancient China, ISBN 0-300-03784-8
3. ___________.Studies in Shang Archaeology,ISBN 0-300-03578-0
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII
This is the sort of broad brush approach I have a problem with because the example you gave is not accurate, Jews did not "disappear" after WW2. And the numbers are inflated anyway. Re the Shang being a "black civilization", I remember reading about Zho describing blacks among the Shang, not that they were the entire population.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII
This is the sort of broad brush approach I have a problem with because the example you gave is not accurate, Jews did not "disappear" after WW2. And the numbers are inflated anyway. Re the Shang being a "black civilization", I remember reading about Zho describing blacks among the Shang, not that they were the entire population.
Are you a NAZI or something. What evidence do you have that the number of Jews murdered during WWII are inflated?
In relation to the Blacks of China, instead of reading others people's work why don't you learn to read Chinese and check the documents for yourself.
What evidence do you have that the number of Jews murdered during WWII are inflated?
Jews themselves.
instead of reading others people's work why don't you learn to read Chinese and check the documents for yourself.
By "other peoples" work you mean yours? But no I don't intend to learn Chinese, I can read English and your sources (like Chang from Yale) on the Shang are same as Van Sertima's. I just think you are overstating your case as you do the Olmec.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: What evidence do you have that the number of Jews murdered during WWII are inflated?
Jews themselves.
instead of reading others people's work why don't you learn to read Chinese and check the documents for yourself.
By "other peoples" work you mean yours? But no I don't intend to learn Chinese, I can read English and your sources (like Chang from Yale) on the Shang are same as Van Sertima's. I just think you are overstating your case as you do the Olmec.
What are you talking about, Ivan never wrote about the Shang. In all of his books (Journals of African Civilizations) he usually writes the introduction to the papers he edited in each (Book/issue of the Journal), he never conducted original research into the Blacks of China.
No I don't mean mine. My research is original. Most of my work is based on primary Chinese sources. I attempt to post English language sources so people can follow up on what I post.
.
Here you make the statement "I just think you are overstating your case as you do the Olmec", without any counter evidence about Anyang-Shang sacrifice of the Qiang. This suggest to me that you base your ideas on conjecture instead of research and your purpose here is to spread disinformation.
You said you would never learn Chinese. That's the difference between you and me, to get at knowledge I learn at least a reading knowledge of the languages I need to know to get at that knowledge: for example Swahili, Sumerian, Elamite, Mayan (Yucatec), Tamil, Arabic and etc.
Much of this may be the result of the present system of learning. Back in the day, to attend seminar courses in African history you usually had to read French and/or Arabic and a African language to get at the primary sources. In addition, you rarely got a Master's degree in Anthropology or History without knowledge of at least one foriegn language. Today things are different you join a cohort and you may not even have to do original research.
It is only a matter of time that other posters will see through your mask of "blackness" akoben08. I am happy to see the real you now.
.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: [qb] I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII
This is the sort of broad brush approach I have a problem with because the example you gave is not accurate, Jews did not "disappear" after WW2. And the numbers are inflated anyway. Re the Shang being a "black civilization", I remember reading about Zho describing blacks among the Shang, not that they were the entire population.
Are you a NAZI or something.
^ No he's just an idiot. Dare I say you might even be intellectually one step ahead of him.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
The American Native Americans were basically eliminated by the end of the anglo invasion campaign. All natives of the five civilized tribes were uprooted and slaughtered. The lone tribe to remain unsettled were the Florida Seminoles. The highest estimate of the devastation caused by the english germ warfare campaign is, 95% of all native americans perished due to exposure to the disease.
What you see today are primarily the offspring of Anglos who interbred with the remaining few thousands of survivors. In 1876 it was shown that between the Seminole, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Crow, only approx. 14,000 were of pure native american blood.
This is also why the US implemented "Indian" restitution. Most of the beneficaries were/are 50% or more anglo. In 1926, 1551 black Americans were examined and found 1/3 to have partial Native American ancestry.
The majority of black indians receive no restitution due to lack of documentation for obvious reason.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Good for you Winters! You must be the envy of this forum since you can see what others can't. And Mmmkay agrees with you, maybe she will show you her pink panties soon! lol
But glad to see you dropped your Jewish WW2 analogy, even someone with a vivid imagination as yourself could see that cant hold water. As for Van Sertima, no I wasn't referring to his writings per say, just the book Africans in Early Asia and the person who wrote on the Chang used your sources but did not come to the same conclusions, Van Sertima in his introduction agreed with the findings that suggested blacks were among the Shang, they were not the base population.
And as far as the Olmec goes I will go with him over you anyday. Please don't start the bring-counter-evidence game with me. I can accept that the blacks among the Shang would have been killed off, I just don't accept your thesis they were the entire population.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Meanwhile, these four contentions still have yet to be suffienciently addressed in this thread:
quote: 1) Whites are actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Not taking any particular position: Historically there are many examples of genocide. Rwanda (Tutsi/Hutu), South Africa (Whites/San), Yugoslavia (Serbs/Croats), Britain (Celts/Anglo-Saxons), New Zealand (Whites/Blacks), Americas (Whites/Amerindians-Blacks). In the Americas, wholesale slaughter in the guise of religion is well attested.
As to the issue of the Shang: No one has much in the way of empirical data, therefore circumstantial and anecdotal data must suffice.
The Chinese government website referrers to the Xia/Shang period, as a period of Slavery which was overcome. That does not suggest a harmonious mixed society. There is no indication that the Mongols were in any way an advanced culture before that. The best evidence for the condition of the Mongols in that period is actually in Japan.
At about 350 B.C. when the Mongol Yayoi invaded Japan. They brought no civilization with them. It seems likely that if they had a unique civilization or culture, they would have copied it in Japan.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Mmmkay, stop being a little cock tease and lets see all of you... Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Meanwhile, these four contentions still have yet to be suffienciently addressed in this thread:
quote: 1) Whites are actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
Will the pound puppies who push absurd theories finally address them? Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Winters believes in biological races? Yet he calls me Nazi...
Wow, Mmmkay you delete your second insult to me today! Am I to assume you are now apologising?
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ How about addressing the thread topic?
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol
quote:
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
.
LOLOL!!!! Come on man you can do better than that. The funny thing is I am actually rooting for you.
And I think it is rather convenient that now *all of the sudden* you mention this telling revelation that anytime you ascribe Africans to starting a Civilization and there is no genetic evidence that it is because they were ALL killed off lol.
I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII. Kwang-chih Chang, makes it clear that the Qiang were often sacrificed by the Anyang-Shang (1). Craniometrics make it clear that most of the sacrificial victims were Negro Qiang (2) The Yin (classical mongoloid) people sacrificed the Qiang usually a 100 at a time along with cattle according to the Shang Oracle Bone inscriptions (3).
There are thousands of Oracle bone inscriptions. At the rate of 100 sacrificial victims per sacrifice the murder of Blacks in China were probably in the 100,000's. Is it any wonder that E3a lineages is not found among native Chinese who are the descendents of the Han/Hua people of the Zhou dynasty.
It is interesting to me that the Qiang bodies were buried separately from the heads. Scientist have been able to identify the Negro Qiang based on skulls recovered from separate burial sites.
Due to continuous wars with the Yin and later Han/Hua peoples the Qiang retreated from the Anyang area, back to Kansu and Shansi. Later they migrated into Central Asia and India.
References:
1. Kwang-chih Chang, Shang Civilization, ISBN 0-300-02428-2
2. _________.The Archaeology of Ancient China, ISBN 0-300-03784-8
3. ___________.Studies in Shang Archaeology,ISBN 0-300-03578-0
But Clyde, even I understand that in population genetics *alleles* are left over in living populations despite "your claim" of all *blacks* in China being killed. It is impossible that none of those blacks wouldn't have mixed with another Chinese..IMPOSSIBLE; and have left over even a minute trace of African *alleles*(baring out of Africa ABO traces of course).
And when is your dating for all this diatribe Clyde? I am on your side remember, but that also means that I care about your research and by caring I would want for it to be accurate for the sake of ALL Africanists.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ How about addressing the thread topic?
The thread topic has already been discussed and exhausted. Winters cannot bring any evidence, except himself, for most of his claims. But if he wants to start talking about Jews disappearing after WW2, then count me out. He's getting too weird with his claims. lol
I just want to know if your deleting of that second insult was an apology of some sort. Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Its been discussed but not *addressed*
Thats the problem. And the problem arises out of the fact that he funadamentally *can't* address it.
These are the things he *can* address however:
----> YOUR emotions
quote:You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
LOL
ES is not an emotional get-together.
quote:I just want to know if your deleting of that second insult was an apology of some sort
I discovered I could make better use of that post by addressing the topic. Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists. [/QUOTE]
These topics, and others, were discussed at length 10 years ago. Do a google groups search 1996-1999 for mande maya, mande olmec in sci-archaeology
Most of these kinds of topics have been discussed over and over years ago. I am not familiar with the site you posted but I can tell you, from just a quick glance at the names, any forum with the buffoon de Montellano must be a festival of ignorance! lol
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Just because selected webpages do not indicate a relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages does not mean a relationship does not exist. This relationship is evident in a comparative analysis of the Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages.
Malinke-Bambara Loan Words in the Mayan Languages
In this paper we review the Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages . This evidence of Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages is probably the result of Mayan people living among the Mande speaking Olmecs 3000 years ago in a bilingual environment.
LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE OF AFRICAN INFLUENCE IN
ANCIENT AMERICA
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman (1976) have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda (1975,1983) believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus (1989) is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus (1989:148-151) believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabsco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee (1989:223) noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
The Olmec probably spoke a Manding language. Manding speaking Olmec probably came from West Africa. As a result, we find that the Olmec-Manding language is a substrata language in many Amerindian languages including Yucatec, and Otomi. The Olmec-Manding substrata in Otomi and Maya suggest that Maya and Otomanguean speaking invanders caused the disruption of the homogeneous Olmec language spoken in the riverine cities of the Olmec.
The most influential group in the rise of American civilization were the Manding speakers of West Africa. The Manding speaking people founded the first civilizations in much of West Africa 3500 years ago. They also founded the Olmec civilization in the New World and left numerous toponyms in Mexico and Panama.
The migration of Olmec speaking people from West Africa to Meso-America would explain the sudden appearence of the Olmec civilization . The Olmec culture appears suddenly in Meso-America, and archaeologist have failed to find any evidence of incipient Olmec religion and culture in this area. Commenting on this archaeological state of affairs Coe (1989:82) noted that "... the Olmec mental system , the Olmec art style, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared in full-fledged form about 1200 B.C."
The Proto Olmec or Manding people formerly lived in North Africa in the Saharan Highlands : and Fezzan.(see C. A. Winters, "The Migration routes of the Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.77 98) . Here the ancestors of the Olmecs left their oldest inscription written in the Manding script (which some people call Libyco Berber, eventhough they can not be read in Berber) : was found at Oued Mertoutek and dated by Wulsin in , Papers of the peabody Museum of American Arcaheology and Ethnology (Vol.19(1), 1940), to 3000 B.C. This indicates that the Manding hand writing 2000 years before they settled the Gulf of Mexico.
These Proto-Olmec people lived in the Highlands of the Sahara. Here we find numerous depictions of boats engraved in the rock formations that these people used to navigate the Sahara before it became a desert.
The Olmec, another Central American culture and probably the first Americans to develop a number and math system, influenced their Mayan neighbors. Mayans borrowed much of their art and architecture from the Olmecs, including the pyramid structures that the Mayans are so famous for. The first of these great Mayan structures appeared between 400 B.C. and 150 A.D.
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence. (Winters 1979,1980,1981) The most important finding of Wiener (1922) was the identification of Manding inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette. Although Wiener (1922) was unaware of the great age of the Tuxtla statuette his correct identification of the African origin of the signs on the statuette helped us to decipher the Olmec script and lead to the determination that the Olmec spoke a Manding language.
The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya. (Swadesh 1953) This linguistic evidence is supplemented by Amerindian traditions regarding the landing of colonist from across the Atlantic in Huasteca (we will discuss this tradition later).
The Manding speakers were early associated with navigation/sailing along the many ancient Rivers that dotted Africa in neolithic times. (McCall 1971; McIntosh and McIntosh 1981) These people founded civilization in the Dar Tichitt valley between 1800-300 B.C, and other sites near the Niger River which emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. (Winters 1986a)
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980) This has been proven by the decipherment of the Olmec inscriptions. Due to the early spread of the manding language during the Olmec period Manding is a substratum language of many Amerind languages.
The Manding languages are a member of the Mande family of languages.(Platiel 1978; Galtier 1980) Mann and Dalby (1987), give Mande a peripheral status in the Niger-Congo superset.
As has been shown throughout this book the Manding settled many parts of the ancient world. The Olmec language has a high frequency of disyllabic roots of the CVCV,CV and CVV kind. Monosyllabic roots of the CV kind often reflect the proto-form for many Manding words.(Winters 1979)
As in most other Olmec languages, words formed through compounding CVCV and CV roots, e.g., (gyi/ji 'water') da-ji 'mouth-water, saliva', ny -ji 'eye-water:tear'. Manding has a well established affxial system, typified by the use of suffixes as useful morphemes expressing grammatical categories. Although tone is important in the Manding languages, it was least important in the Olmec group.
It is clear that contemporary Amerinds share few if any biological characteristics with Africans. Yet Greenberg (1987) has found many loan words in Amerind of possible African origin.
In addition to Malinke-Bambara loan words, there are numerous toponyms which unite the New World and Africa. (Vamos-Toth Bator 1983; Duarte 1895) For example, the Olmec/Manding suffix of nationality or locality -ka, is represented in Mexico as -ca, e.g., Juxllahuaca,Oaxoca, Toluca and etc. In addition Dr. Vamos-Toth (1983), has found over fifty identical toponyms in West Africa and Meso-America.
Below we will compare Manding and selected Amerind languages. Some of the diacritic features of the Amerind languages will be noted in this paper. But in the case of Manding/Olmec , on the other hand, diacritic marks will not be used in conformity with the African Reference Alphabet.(Mann and Dalby 1987, p.214)
OTOMI
Otomi and Manding also share many features in grammar, phonology and morphology. This is interesting because Dixon (1923) and Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that the Otomi had probably mixed in the past with Africans. Quatrefages (1889, pp.406-407) also believed that Africans formerly lived in Florida, the Caribbean and Panama. Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (1972, p.107) admits a profound influence of Manding slaves in colonial America, but due to their enslavement the slavery period can not account for the genetic relationship which exist between Otomi and Manding.
Manding is closely related to old Otomi, rather than the Mezquital dialect. As a result most of the terms compared herein are taken from Neve y Molina (1975) and Manuel Orozcoy y Berra's Geografia da las lenguas y Carta Ethgrafica de Mexico.
Although Neve y Molina's work is over 200 years old, most of the terms he collected agree with contemporary Otomi terms in most details, except for the lack of diacritic marks and nasalized vowels or glottalized consonants. For example, whereas in the Muger Otomi dialect we find danxu 'woman', Neve y Molina (NyM) had dansu; Mudurar dialect da 'ripe, mature', NyM da 'id.' ;Ojo Na daa 'eye', NyM daa 'id.'; Hija ttixu 'son', NyM ti; and Diente Na tzi 'tooth', NyM tsi.
The phonology of contemporary Otomi can be explained by evolution. The sound change from s > z in the terms for 'woman' and s > x for 'tooth', can be explained as a normal historical transition from one Otomi phoneme to another. The addition of the Otomi possessive na to the actual words for 'eye' and 'tooth'.
The orthography for Otomi dialects has been a focus of controversy for many years. D. Bartholomew , is a leading advocate for the illustration of tone in any discussion of Otomi. H.R. Bernard on the other hand, has noted the desirability of vowels in a practical spelling/orthography of Otomi. But, both in Otomi and Manding, tone plays an important role.
Other affinities exist between Otomi and Manding. As in Taino, the phonemic syllable is primarily CV and a tone.
All of these languages are agglutinative. In both Olmec/Manding and Otomi the words are formed by adding two different terms together or an affix. Manual Orozco (p.129) records ka-ye as the Otomi word for 'holy man'. This term is formed by ka 'holy' and ye 'man'. Another word is da-ma 'mature woman'. This word is formed by ma 'woman' and da 'mature,ripe'.
Otomi and Olmec/Manding share grammatical features. The Otomi ra 'the', as in ra c, 'the cold' agrees with the Manding -ra suffix used to form the present participle e.g., kyi-ra 'the envoy'. The Otomi use of bi to form the completed action agrees with the Manding verb 'to be' bi. For example, Otomi bi du 'it died' and bi zo-gi 'he left it" ,is analogous to Manding a bi-sa. Otomi da is used to form the incomplete action e.g., ci 'eat': daci 'he will eat'. This agrees with the Manding da, la affix which is used to form the factitive or transitive value e.g., la bo 'to take the place'. In addition Otomi ? no , is the comple-tive e.g., bi ?no mbo ra 'he was inside his house'. This shows affinity to the Manding suffix of the present participle -no, e.g., ji la-sigi-no 'dormant water'.
The Mezquital Otomi pronominal system shows some analogy to that of Manding, but Neve y Molina's Otomi pronouns show full agreement :
First Second Third
Otomi ma i, e a
Manding n', m' I ,e a
Otomi and Manding also share many cognates from the basic vocabulary including
English Otomi Manding
son/daughter t?I,ti de,di
eyes da do
brother ku koro
sister nkhu ben-k
lip sine sine
mouth ne ne
man ta/ye tye/kye
The Otomi and Manding languages also have similar syntax e.g., Otomi ho ka ra 'ngu 'he makes the houses', and Manding a k nu 'he makes the family habitation (houses)'.
MAYA
The Manding and Mayan languages share many grammatical and lexical affinities. In both these languages there is striking similar distinctions between alienable and inalienable possessed nouns. (Welmers 1973)
The Mayan languages are spoken in an area from Yucatan and E Chiapas in Mexico, into much of Guatemala and Belize, and W Honduras. The Quiche language is a member of the Mayan family, spoken in the western highlands of Guatemala. It is most closely related to the Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Sacapultee, and Sipacapa languages of central Guatemala and more distantly related to Pocomam, Pocomchí, Kekchí, and other languages of the Eastern Mayan group .
The Manding and Mayan languages have similar pronominal systems:
First Second Third
Manding ni,n',na e a
Maya in ech a
J.A. Fox (1985) observed that Maya had a previous third person prefix *i, which was joined to many Maya kinship and body part terms. This discovery by Fox, is most interesting because Winters (1986b, p.87) suggested that a *y and/or *-i- was prefixed to Mande terms for the head and face. In Taino an i- , is also joined to names for parts of the body e.g., iz 'eyes'.
There are many Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages including:
Maya English Manding
naal parent,mother na
ba father pa
ba lord ba
In addition to finding Malinke-Bambara loan words from the basic vocabulary in the Mayan languages, Manding and Mayan languages share formational elements. For example, there is parallel use of -ma- to form the negative mood in Maya and Manding. And in both these languages the suffix -na is used to indicate possession.
The Olmec settled many early sites in the lands occupied by the Mayan speaking people.
As a result the Mayan speaking people adopted many Olmec/Mande terms. As a result we find numerous Mande words copied into the Yucatec and Quiche Mayan languages.
Below we compare the Quiche and Malinke-Bambara languages. The terms compared in this study come from the following sources:
Delafosse, Maurice.(1929). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais Mandingue).Paris: Librarie. Orientaliste Paul Geuthner
Campbell,Lyle.(1977). Quichean linguistic prehistory .Berkeley : University of California Press.University of California publications in linguistics. v. 81
Tedlock,Dennis.(1996). Popol Vuh. New York: A Touchstone Book.
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient times.
Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/ , appear as /c/ ,/x/ or /k/ in the Mayan languages. For example, Malinke Bambara, the word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. In Quiche we have ka:x 'sky' which corresponds to Mande sa / ka 'sky'. In Quiche many words beginning with /ch/ correspond to words they borrowed from the Malinke-Bambara languages possessing an initial /k/, e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
ch'ich' bird kono
achi man kye
chi>ic bite ki
chhix rock kaba
It is also interesting to note that many Quiche words beginning with /x/ which is pronounced 'sh', correspond to words borrowed from Malinke-Bambara with an initial /s/ e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
xab' rain sa
ixa? seed si
uxe root sulu, suru
Other loan words in Quiche from Malinke-Bambara include:
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
saq'e daytime,sunlight sa 'heaven, sky'
k'i many kika
ja lineage, family ga, gba
ja water ji
q'aq fire ga-ndi
palo lake, sea ba, b'la
k'oto to carve, cut ka
k':um squash kula, kura
Ba father fa
Ba lord Ba 'great' (Person)
ka 'land,earth' ka 'suffix joined to names of lands,etc.
ich eye n'ya
le the, that, this le
ma no ma
naal parent, mother na
ni point, at the point na
cah earth, land ka (see above)
balam jaguar/tiger balan 'leopard worship'
sib' smoke sisi
xolo:m head ku
xuku? boat, canoe kulu
ca<al neck ka
qul neck ka
k'u?sh chest kesu
k'o:x mask ku
pu:m stomach furu
pach bark fara
The loan words in Quiche from Malinke-Bambara show the following patterns
a------->a
c------->s
o------->u
c------->k
u------->a
z------->s
x ---------s
k------->k
x--------- k
p------->f
q------->k
ch------>k
Below we compared Yucatec and Malinke-Bambara terms. I have placed the page number where each Mayan term can be found in Maurice
Swadesh, Critina Alvarez and Juan R. Bastarrachea's, "Diccionario de
Elementos del Maya Yucatec Colonial" (Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico Centro de Estudios Mayas, 1970). The Malinke-Bambara terms come from Delafosse, Maurice.(1929). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais Mandingue).Paris: Librarie. Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Phonetic correspondences exists between the Malinke-Bambara and Yucatec. There is full agreement between k, m,n, and t. There is also assimilation of c to k, z to s.
Yucatec Malinke Bambara
z s
Zuu, 'joined,unite su,' shape p.95
Zul 'to wet' su, 'precipitation p.95
Zou, 'to entagle' su, 'be i mixture' p.95
Zay, 'assemble' se, 'join' p.94
c k
Earth cab ka p.15
Serpent can kan p.18
Rock chhix kaba
To cause cal ku
Sky caan ka p.15, p.38
Village cah ka 'suffix joined to names of towns p.15
Maize co 'grain of maize' ka p.40
k k
kun kin k'le p.58
Buckle kal koli p.57
To kill kim ki
Sky kan kan
God, sacre ku ku, ko p.60
t t
Man ta' tye p.79
Come tal ta p.79
To cover too tu
Law toh tu
Truth toh tu, 'fact, real' p.81
Forest te tu
Male ton,'male sexual organ' tye, khon p.81
Saliva tub tu p.82
b b
Went,gone bin bi p.36
Water bak ba
Water ha a p.15
Lord ba ba
Arrows been bine
Balan 'jaguar'/tiger balan 'leopard worship' p.17
n n
Mother na' na p.66
House nu nu
House na nu p.66
Nose ni nu p.16
p p
To be pe pe
To break pa'a pe p.71
There are many kinship terms in the Mayan languages probably of Malinke-Bambara origin including :
Maya English Manding
Naal parent,mother na
Ba father pa
Ba lord ba
An examination of Mayan and Mande homophones also indicates striking similarity. There is a connection between Malinke- Bambara and Yucatec homonyms for 'high, sky and serpent'.
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient times.
Often we find that some borrowed Mande words beginning with /s/ , through nativization appear as /c/ in the Mayan languages. For example, word the Malinke-Bambara word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. We also have other examples
Mayan Malinke-Bambara
Can serpent sa
Con to sell sa, san
Caan heaven, sky sa
Cah 'small village' so 'village, home'
The copying of Mande /s/ words into Mayan lexicons as /c/ words are probably the result of phonological interference of Mayan /c/, which influenced how Malinke-Bambara words were lexicalized by biligual Yucatec speakers. Interference occurs when speakers carry features from their first language over into a second language. Thus, we have Yucatec con 'to sell', and Malinke-Bambara san 'to sell. Many of the Mayan sites were first settled by the Olmec.
This is supported by the fact that the Mayan inscriptions from Palenque claim that the first ruler of this city was the Olmec leader U-Kix-chan. In addition, some Mayan kings were styled Kuk according to Mary Miller and Karl Taube,in "The Gods and symbols of ancient Mexico and Maya, said this term was also used in the Olmec inscriptions, like those from Tuxtla, to denote the local ruler of many Olmec sites. It was probably during this period of contact that the Maya began to copy Mande terms and incorporate them in their lexicon. It is time that we stop the name calling and work together to explain to the world the African presence in ancient America.
Many of these loan words are from the basic vocabulary. They support the hypothesis that in ancient times Mayan speakers lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking Olmec people. Moreover this is further confirmation of Leo Wiener's theory in Africa and the Discovery of America that the religion and culture of the Meso-Americans was influenced by Mande speaking people from West Africa.
The Manding, Maya , Otomi and Taino languages share pronouns:
Manding Taino Otomi Maya
Sing./Plural
n,m,na /n-te mi, m' nga, na in
e /i-te ti,t' i,e,ni ech
a /a-te li na,a a
This pattern of Amerind and African pronoun agreement is quite interesting. Greenberg (1987) has observed that Amerind languages are characterized by first-person n, and second person m. But in the case of Otomi and Maya, we find first person n, second person e/i, and third person a, the same pronoun pattern found in the Manding group. This shows considerable influence of the Manding /Olmec over the Maya, and the probable identification of the Otomi and Taino languages as genetically related to the Manding group.
There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people probably gave writing to the Maya. Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991) found that the Proto Maya term for "write" is *c'ihb' or *c'ib'. Since the Olmec people probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan term for writing would probably correspond to the Mande term for writing. A comparison of these terms confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for writing *c'ib' or *c'ihb' is derived from the Olmec/Manding term for writing *se'be'. The ancient Mayans wrote their inscriptions in Chol, Yucatec and probably Quiche.
My comparison of Quiche and Yucatec to the Mande languages is a valid way to illustrate the ancient relationship between the Pre-Classic Maya and Mande speaking Olmec. Archaeologist and epigraphers no longer believe that the Classic Maya inscriptions were only written in Cholan Maya. Now scholars recognize that many Mayan inscriptions written during the Classic period were written in Yucatec and probably the language spoken in the area where the Mayan inscriptions are found. See:
1. R. J. Sharer," Diversity and Continuity in Maya civilization: Quirigua as a case study", in (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History,( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996)
p. 187. 2. N. Hammond, "Inside the black box:defining Maya polity". In (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History, ( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996) p.254. 3. J.S. Justeson, W. M. Norman, L. Campbell, & T.S. Kaufman, The Foreign impact on Lowland Mayan languages and Script. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University, 1985.
This would also explain why the Maya, according to Landa had Universities where elites learned writing and other subjects. He noted that the Ahkin May or Ahuacan May (High Priest) "...and his disciples appointed the priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies...he provided their books and sent them forth. They in turn attended to the service of the temples, teaching their sciences and writing books upon them" (see: Friar Diego de Landa, Yucatan before and After the Conquest, (trs.) by William Gates, Dover Publications ,New York, 1978).
In conclusion, the evidence of Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages, and shared grammatical paradigms between Manding, Maya, and Otomi exhibit an intimate and prolonged early contact between the speakers of these languages. This contact is also proven by the decipherment of the Olmec inscriptions.
This evidence of Manding, Maya , Otomi and Taino pronominal agreement is striking because there is, as noted by Greenberg,Turner and Zegura (1986) "not a single authenticated borrowing of a first-or-second person pronoun". Thus the evidence of a: n,na,n' and e, i/a pronoun pattern clustered in Africa and the New World supports Greenberg's (1987) hypothesis of an African influence on the Amerind languages, and Wiener's (1922) view that the dominant ethnic group in developing American civilization was the Manding speaking people.
It is improbable to suggest that coincidence can account for the pronominal agreement between Manding Taino and Otomi for two reasons: (1) the accepted historical date for the meeting of the speakers of these languages is far too late to account for the grammatical affinities and corresponding terms found within these languages; and (2) borrowing is very rare from a culturally subordinate linguistic group (the African slaves) into a culturally dominant linguistic group (the Amer-indians), particularly in the basic vocabulary areas. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the Taino words were collected before Mande speaking slaves were taken to the Americas. The European slave traders moved from north to south in their recruitment of slaves. As a result, we find that up until the 1550's most African slaves taken to Spanish America came from areas above the Gambia river. Most of the earliest Mande speaking slaves did not begin arriving in the Americas until slaves began to be exported from the Gambian region of West Africa.
Above is my evidence of Malinke-Bambara substratum in Mayan languages. Now why don't you present the counter evidence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Antiquity of the Vai Script
The Mande speaking people have never stopped writing in their ancient script. It appears that the Mande are keeping alive use of the script in Secret Societies like the Poro Secret Society.
There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script .
Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839. David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133) reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai. Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21) believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.
The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script .
We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed" (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.
If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system.
When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.
This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.
Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" (see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months .
If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.
The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why even though the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.
This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it , so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.
Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".
Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71) found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.
David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"(see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skeptical because Beslow had made the same claim.
In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.
Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.
The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.
References:
S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)
David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)
K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)
D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mande Origin Mayan Writing
Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, made the discovery that the characters on the Tuxtla statuette were of Malinke-Bambara origin. This was a striking discovery. This artifact, along with other engraved Olmec artifacts is credible evidence that the Olmec probably came from Africa. This leads to the hypothesis that if writing was created first by African Olmec, the term used for writing will be of African origin.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing. Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.
The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing.
Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
The Manding origin for the Mayan term for writing , leads to a corollary hypothesis. This hypothesis stated simply is that an examination of the Mayan language will probably indicate a number of Olmec-Manding loans in Mayan.
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
Coe, Tate and Pye mention 1200 BC as a terminal date in the rise of Olmec civilization. This is interesting. For example, the linguistic evidence of Morris Swadesh in The language of the archaeological Haustecs (Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnography, no.114 ,1953) indicates that the Huastec and Mayan speakers were separated around 1200 BC by a new linguistic group. This implies that if my hypothesis for African settlers of Mexico wedged in between this group 3000 years ago, we can predict that linguistic evidence would exist in these languages to support this phenomena among contemporary Meso-American languages.
Some people claim that the Olmec probably spoke a Mixe language, given the relationship between the following words and the Mayan words. But as you can see below these words also find cognate forms in Malinke –Bambara.
Linguistic Evidence Mixe English Mayan Malinke-Bambara *koya tomato ko:ya koya *cumah gourd kuum kula *ciwa squash c’iwan si to:h rain to tyo, dyo *ma deer me m’na ‘antelope’ kok maize co ka
Mixe ta:k kam ‘land of cultivation’ Malinke-Bambara ta ka ga ‘place for plant cultivation’
The Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages share many other terms as listed below.
English Chol Yucatec Malinke Earth caban cab ka Sky chan caan Sa, kan Serpent chan caan Sa, kan Sun kin, cin kin, cin kle Holy ch’uk k’uk ko Holy ba ba ba Write c’ib’ c’i:b’ sebe Chief kuk ku
In a recent article in article by S.D. Houston and M.D. Coe, “Has Isthmian writing been deciphered?”, Mexicon 25 (December 2003), these researchers attempted to read Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the decipherment of Justeson/Kaufman and found the reading of the text was impossible. This supports my earlier articles showing that the Olmec did not speak Mixe.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ oh my god! Winters is going crazy with this trolling now! How long does this have to be?!
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence.
This is not enough to claim West African origins of the Olmec. The evidence you present for Mande origins of the Olmec are yourself, again. Sometimes you slip in others:
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980)
But Wuthenau was a German aristocrat and an art historian not a linguist.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
African Origin of Olmecs: Science and Myth
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain Africans in ancient America, I use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the African origin of the Olmecs hypothesis. Just because these people may live in the Olmec heartland today, says very little about the inhabitants of this area 3000 years ago.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical knowledge to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through yes of the variables associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. Many commentators maintain that the Olmecs weren't Africans. In support of this conjecture they maintain: 1) Africans first came to America with Columbus; 2) Amerindians live in Mesoamerica; 3) the Olmec look like the Maya; 4) linguistic groups found in the Olmec heartland have always lived in areas they presently inhabit. These are all logical deduction, but they are mainly nonfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
Granted we see Zoquean and Maya speakers in Olmecland today. But the linguistic evidence of Swadesh indicate that they were not in this area 3000 years ago when a new linguistic group appears to have entered the area.
Secondly, any comparison of Mayans depicted in Mayan art, and the Olmec people depicted in Olmec art especially the giant heads, indicate that these people did not look alike http://geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/heads.htm
Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type:
Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters. A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD. Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation; 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing; 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages; 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations; and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.
In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.
The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
This makes it clear that we can not ignore the evidence. I have tried to keep up with the literature in this field over the past 30 years and I would appreciate someone reproducing on this forum citations of the articles which have conclusively disconfirmed the skeletal evidence of Wiercinski.
The fact remains African skeletons were found in Mesoamerica. This archaeological evidence supports the view that the Olmec were predominately African when we examine the anthropological language used to describe the Olmec skeletons analyzed by Wiercinski. See: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
There is clear linguistic evidence that the Malinke Bambara language of the Xi people, is a substratum in the major languages spoken in the former centers of Olmec civilization.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”. Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46). You try to claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, made the discovery that the characters on the Tuxtla statuette were of Malinke-Bambara origin. This was a striking discovery. This artifact, along with other engraved Olmec artifacts is credible evidence that the Olmec probably came from Africa. This leads to the hypothesis that if writing was created first by African Olmec, the term used for writing will be of African origin.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing. Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system. The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing.
Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
The Manding origin for the Mayan term for writing , leads to a corollary hypothesis. This hypothesis stated simply is that an examination of the Mayan language will probably indicate a number of Olmec-Manding loans in Mayan.
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
Coe, Tate and Pye mention 1200 BC as a terminal date in the rise of Olmec civilization. This is interesting. For example, the linguistic evidence of Morris Swadesh in The language of the archaeological Haustecs (Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnography, no.114 ,1953) indicates that the Huastec and Mayan speakers were separated around 1200 BC by a new linguistic group. This implies that if my hypothesis for African settlers of Mexico wedged in between this group 3000 years ago, we can predict that linguistic evidence would exist in these languages to support this phenomena among contemporary Meso-American languages.
Some people claim that the Olmec probably spoke a Mixe language, given the relationship between the following words and the Mayan words. But as you can see below these words also find cognate forms in Malinke –Bambara.
Linguistic Evidence Mixe English Mayan Malinke-Bambara *koya tomato ko:ya koya *cumah gourd kuum kula *ciwa squash c’iwan si to:h rain to tyo, dyo *ma deer me m’na ‘antelope’ kok maize co ka
Mixe ta:k kam ‘land of cultivation’ Malinke-Bambara ta ka ga ‘place for plant cultivation’
The Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages share many other terms as listed below.
English Chol Yucatec Malinke Earth caban cab ka Sky chan caan Sa, kan Serpent chan caan Sa, kan Sun kin, cin kin, cin kle Holy ch’uk k’uk ko Holy ba ba ba Write c’ib’ c’i:b’ sebe Chief kuk ku
In a recent article in article by S.D. Houston and M.D. Coe, “Has Isthmian writing been deciphered?”, Mexicon 25 (December 2003), these researchers attempted to read Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the decipherment of Justeson/Kaufman and found the reading of the text was impossible. This supports my earlier articles showing that the Olmec did not speak Mixe.
This comparison of words used by “indigenous” people in the Olmec heartland confirmed cognition between these languages, and suggests a former period of bilingualism among speakers of these languages in ancient times.
In other words, in the case of the linguistic variable alone, the proposition of my African origin theory, matches the observed natural phenomena. The predicting power of this theory, confirmed by cognate lexical items in Malinke-Bambara, the Mayan, Otomi and Taino languages, indicates that the theory is confirmed. The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Malinke-Bambara and Mesoamerican languages, is confirmation of the theory, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
In conclusion, there is abundant evidence for the African origin of the Olmec civilization. We controlled this theory by comparing Malinke-Bambara and Meso-American terms, skeletal evidence, and iconographic representation of the indigenous Mayan people and the Olmec people, and the technology of writing. Each variable proved to be supported of an African origin for the Olmec. This theory was first identified by Leo Wiener who noted the presence of many Malinke-Bambara terms in the cultural, especially religious lexicon of the Aztec and Maya speakers. Since we have predicted reliably this variable of my African origin of the Olmec theory, this variable must be disconfirmed, to "defeat" my hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
In this paper I have attempted to demonstrate the difference between science and conjecture. My ability to predict successfully, a linguistic relationship between Malinke-Bambara and Mesoamerican languages, makes it unnecessary to search for a different underlying explanation for the Olmec heads, which look like Africans. They look like Africans, because they were Africans who modeled for the heads.
My confirmation of variables in the African origin of Olmec theory indicates the systematic controlled , critical and empirical investigation of the question of African origins of the Olmec. This is validation of the Malinke-Bambara theory first proposed by Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, which presumed relations among the Olmec and Black Africans.
This research evidence, illustrates that the Olmec proposition lacks firm evidence is clearly without foundation. Any rejection of the Olmec hypothesis appears to be based on the method of knowing called tenacity, you believe Africans could not have migrated in America in ancient times and that’s that. You need to read more below are some of my sites that can inform you about the African origin of the Olmecs. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/
The migration of Olmec speaking people from Saharan Africa to Meso-America would explain the sudden appearance of the Olmec civilization . The Olmec culture appears suddenly in Meso-America , and archaeologist have failed to find any evidence of incipient Olmec religion and culture in this area. Commenting on this archaeological state of affairs Coe (1989) noted that "... the Olmec mental system , the Olmec art style, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared in full-fledged form about 1200 B.C." (p.82).
Many researchers have not read my work, because they constantly maintain that I believe that the ancestors of the Olmec came from West Africa-I believe they came from the Saharan region before it dried up.
I hope this discussion of the scientific method and Africans in ancient America can help you gain more insight into my theories of African origins of Olmec culture, and see the firm scientific basis for this reality.
• •
References Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580. Carolina Bonilla et al. (2005) Admixture analysis of a rural population in the state of Gurerrero , Mexico, Am. Jour Phys Anthropol 128(4):861-869. retrieved 2/9/2006 at : http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/111082577/ABSTRACT
M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.
Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Underhill, et al (1996) " A pre-Columbian Y chromosome specific transition with its implications for human evolutionary history", Proc. Natl. Acad. Science USA, 93, pp.196-200.
Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137. Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press. Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces. Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131. Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544. MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press. Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico. Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122. Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200. Van Rossum,P. (1996). Olmec skeletons African? No, just poor scholarship. http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso/rossum.html. Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980. Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143. Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252. Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174. Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ oh my god! Winters is going crazy with this trolling now! How long does this have to be?!
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence.
This is not enough to claim West African origins of the Olmec. The evidence you present for Mande origins of the Olmec are yourself, again. Sometimes you slip in others:
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980)
But Wuthenau was a German aristocrat and an art historian not a linguist.
This shows how dumb you are. How can someone be trolling if they are answering a question?
I presented the linguistic connections from Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
There are numerous lexical items discussed above and pronouns. I am waiting for you to discuss specific linguistic examples that do not illustrate a connection. The Mayan words and Malinke-Bambara words have been referenced, I also provide the page numbers where they are found. Let's get to work and prove their is no connection.
. .
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
I presented the linguistic connections. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
and so we are right back where we started with the you-bring-counter-evidence game...lol
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
read vertically downwards single column
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I do not use this list of Vai signs. I use the Vai signs collected by Delafosse here .
Also I list 81 Olmec signs/symbols in this paper not 30.
Please notice that different signs can have the same phonemic values.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: I presented the linguistic connections. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
and so we are right back where we started with the you-bring-counter-evidence game...lol
Yes we are. That's what a debate consist of making premises with evidence, that are opposed by counter premises.
If you don't present counter evidence how can you say a premise is wrong?
.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
I like it when you make wild claims and stick to them no matter what (except the Jew disappearance claim, it wouldve been interesting to see where you would have gone with that one! lol), but as the Bass says this nonsense has to end. **sign off**
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I do not use this list of Vai signs. I use the Vai signs collected by Delafosse here .
Also I list 81 Olmec signs/symbols in this paper not 30.
Please notice that different signs can have the same phonemic values.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
Rather than try to see the murky Delafosse symbols compare the ones here : http://www.omniglot.com/writing/vai.htm which vary very little from the ones Winters says he uses
with the symbols he uses to decipher
[IMG] [/IMG]
Vai 3000 BC Oued Mertoutek
Olmec 1200 BC La Venta
Winters uses pieces of Vai symbols or vaguely similar figures rather than the actual Vai syllables. You can write anything you want with this much latitude.
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
King Yo Pe
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Don't take my word or Winters. Look at the symbols on the Mojarra Stela, which has two Long-Count dates equivalent to May 21, 143 AD and July 13, 156 AD i.e. 500 years later than the La Venta celts and over a 1000 after the claimed arrival of the Mande to the Olmec area. A further question why did the Mande use Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela but never back in Africa?
We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
King Yo Pe
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Don't take my word or Winters. Look at the symbols on the Mojarra Stela, which has two Long-Count dates equivalent to May 21, 143 AD and July 13, 156 AD i.e. 500 years later than the La Venta celts and over a 1000 after the claimed arrival of the Mande to the Olmec area. A further question why did the Mande use Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela but never back in Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
This is nonsense. There are hundreds of date inscriptions that don't have day signs on them. To list a few from the canonical source on the calendar, M. S. Edmonson 1988 The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press p. 27 Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo (36 BC) p. 28 Stela C, Tres Zapotes (32 BC) P. 28 Stela 1 El Baul (AD 37) p. 30 Tuxtla Statuette (AD 162) p. 34 Stela 6, Cerro de las Mesas p. 34 Stela 8, Cerro de las Mesas
quote: For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
Totally idiosyncratic-- please cite any Mesoamerica scholar who thinks that this is NOT a date but a text?
quote: It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
Of course all the Mesoamerican scholars, who have studied this subject for years and published extensively on this are wrong , while you are right. some quotes:
Richard A. Diehl 2004 The Olmecs. America's First Civilization p. 184 "The Statuette's most unusual feature is the 12-column text composed of 75 lightly incised glyphs, including the Long count date 8.6.2.4.17 (D 162)."
Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz. 2002 Mexico. From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 5th ed. NY:Thames & Hudson p. 100 'There are two Long count dates on the Mojarra stela: 8.5.3.3.5 and 8.5.16.9.7, corresponding respectiely to 21 May AD 143 and 13 July AD 156 (the latter only 6 years earlier than the Tuxtla statuette."
R, J, Sharer with L.P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya Stanford: Stanford University Press p. 227 "Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162."
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, p. 260 "The story of its deciphermant begins in 1902, when a small jade statuette of a shaman wearing a duck mask and dressed in a winged costume was found in a field near San Andres Tuxtla, Veracruz (holmes 1907). the Tuxtla Statuette, as it is called, bore a long count date of 8.6.2.4.17 in A.D. 162 and an inscription of 64 signs clearly different from Maya hieroglyphics..."
[
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
I was wondering why you shifted the discussion to the Tuxtla Statuette when I referred to the presence of Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela and here's why: the Mojarra Long Counts do have day signs clearly stated which clearly contradicts what you said:
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
The ciitation here is T. Kaufman and J. Justeson 2001 "Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts" in Notebook for the XXV Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop Art History Department. Austin University of Texas. I use this to get the column numbers so people can find them on the Mojarra stela. p. 34 column symbols A1-9 (running translation)" It was the third day of the seventeenth month; the long count was 8.3.3.5 and the day was 13 SNAKE."
p. 40. symbols M8-16 (running translation)" It was the 15th day of the 1st month; the long count was 8.5.16.9.7 and the day was 5 DEER."
as a matter of fact, the Tuxtla Statuette DOES have day signs. Members of the discussion group can clearly see symbols both above and at the bottom of the number column. There is no reason to arbitrarily stop the translation without them. From Kaufman and Justeson p. 75 symbols A1-7 (running translation) "It was the fourteenth month; the long count was 8.6.2.4.17, and the day was 8 EARTHQUAKE."
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
These inscriptions appear to be Olmec. The absence of day signs proves they were not dates. Just because a group of people agree on something does not make them right; especially when they do not conform to traditional Mayan long-count inscriptions.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
This is nonsense. There are hundreds of date inscriptions that don't have day signs on them. To list a few from the canonical source on the calendar, M. S. Edmonson 1988 The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press p. 27 Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo (36 BC) p. 28 Stela C, Tres Zapotes (32 BC) P. 28 Stela 1 El Baul (AD 37) p. 30 Tuxtla Statuette (AD 162) p. 34 Stela 6, Cerro de las Mesas p. 34 Stela 8, Cerro de las Mesas
quote: For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
Totally idiosyncratic-- please cite any Mesoamerica scholar who thinks that this is NOT a date but a text?
quote: It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
Of course all the Mesoamerican scholars, who have studied this subject for years and published extensively on this are wrong , while you are right. some quotes:
Richard A. Diehl 2004 The Olmecs. America's First Civilization p. 184 "The Statuette's most unusual feature is the 12-column text composed of 75 lightly incised glyphs, including the Long count date 8.6.2.4.17 (D 162)."
Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz. 2002 Mexico. From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 5th ed. NY:Thames & Hudson p. 100 'There are two Long count dates on the Mojarra stela: 8.5.3.3.5 and 8.5.16.9.7, corresponding respectiely to 21 May AD 143 and 13 July AD 156 (the latter only 6 years earlier than the Tuxtla statuette."
R, J, Sharer with L.P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya Stanford: Stanford University Press p. 227 "Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162."
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, p. 260 "The story of its deciphermant begins in 1902, when a small jade statuette of a shaman wearing a duck mask and dressed in a winged costume was found in a field near San Andres Tuxtla, Veracruz (holmes 1907). the Tuxtla Statuette, as it is called, bore a long count date of 8.6.2.4.17 in A.D. 162 and an inscription of 64 signs clearly different from Maya hieroglyphics..."
[
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You must be tripping. Above is the so-called long-count on the Mojarra inscription. As you can see there is no day sign associated with this inscription.
The day-sign is usually identified by the cartouche which surrounds (an oval border frequently with curls at the bottom of the sign.
Above we see the Mayan day signs. Non of these day signs, or any oval with curls is associated with the Mojarra so-called long-count. Absence of this feature support the view it is not a date.
This is why researchers can not make up their mind what date the left column shows. For example researchers interpreting the Long Count date of 8.5.16.9.9, give a date of 162 CE or June 23, 152 CE. How can the same numbers have two different dates?
You expect people here to agree with you because you appear to be objective. You are not objective and always spread lies which have little support when one looks at the evidence. Shame on you.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I was wondering why you shifted the discussion to the Tuxtla Statuette when I referred to the presence of Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela and here's why: the Mojarra Long Counts do have day signs clearly stated which clearly contradicts what you said:
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
The ciitation here is T. Kaufman and J. Justeson 2001 "Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts" in Notebook for the XXV Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop Art History Department. Austin University of Texas. I use this to get the column numbers so people can find them on the Mojarra stela. p. 34 column symbols A1-9 (running translation)" It was the third day of the seventeenth month; the long count was 8.3.3.5 and the day was 13 SNAKE."
p. 40. symbols M8-16 (running translation)" It was the 15th day of the 1st month; the long count was 8.5.16.9.7 and the day was 5 DEER."
as a matter of fact, the Tuxtla Statuette DOES have day signs. Members of the discussion group can clearly see symbols both above and at the bottom of the number column. There is no reason to arbitrarily stop the translation without them. From Kaufman and Justeson p. 75 symbols A1-7 (running translation) "It was the fourteenth month; the long count was 8.6.2.4.17, and the day was 8 EARTHQUAKE."
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Instead of being a long-count we read the following
... se
______ i
. li
________ tu ________ ________
.... me
______ i
.... me
______ i
se i
li tu
me i
me i
"Merit is yours (Yo Pe). Indeed this ruler--thou (art) the raison d'etre , thou (art) a source of spiritual tranquility".
.
King Yo Pe
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You must be tripping. Above is the so-called long-count on the Mojarra inscription. As you can see there is no day sign associated with this inscription.
The day-sign is usually identified by the cartouche which surrounds (an oval border frequently with curls at the bottom of the sign.
Above we see the Mayan day signs. Non of these day signs, or any oval with curls is associated with the Mojarra so-called long-count. Absence of this feature support the view it is not a date.
Your requirements for absolute orthodoxy in these dates is amusing considering that in [QB]your translations using "Vai" script you read a symbol the same whether its upside down, turned 90 or 180 degrees, and even extremely distorted. 1) the Mojarra is not a Maya stela and should not be required to fit the pattern of Maya stelae written hundreds of years later-- as the day symbols you showed are from the Classic era.
2) even here you are mistaken because there is a whole set of different variants for the Maya day symbols-- called the "head variants"
quote: This is why researchers can not make up their mind what date the left column shows. For example researchers interpreting the Long Count date of 8.5.16.9.9, give a date of 162 CE or June 23, 152 CE. How can the same numbers have two different dates?
LOL This is what happens when all you know or refer to is Wikipedia- anyone can put stuff into wikipedia. If you had read the original Science paper or if you look at my references above Coe, and Sharer you'll see that the date is AD 156. If you type 8.5.16.9.9 (actually should be 8.5.16.9.7 as you can see in the stela] in Google you get 156 over and over again. I have no idea where you got AD 152-- a typo?
quote: You expect people here to agree with you because you appear to be objective. You are not objective and always spread lies which have little support when one looks at the evidence. Shame on you.
So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
I did type the numbers in late last night after teaching a class from wiki and the last number should have been seven and not nine.
If we read the last sign as 7, gyo i. We have "Thou (art) (like) a talisman effective in providing one with virtue".
All of these signs are found on the Tuxtla statuette.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Based on this particular subject it would appear Coe et al has the stronger argument over Winters. But this is not to their credit as they cannot match up to Van Sertima in the end though.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Based on this particular subject it would appear Coe et al has the stronger argument over Winters. But this is not to their credit as they cannot match up to Van Sertima in the end though.
It's funny that you bring up Coe, because Coe and Stone Reading the Maya Glyphs maintain that in the Calendar Round date we always have the day-sign (p.40).
In addition, the Calendar Round in ancient and modern times is used by the Aztecs, Zapotecs, Maya and Mixtecs (J. Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hierogyphs, p 88). It is probable that if the Olmec used or invented the Calendar Round systen they would have practiced use of day signs when they were writing a date.
The Epi-Olmec figures make it clear that the day sign probably did not exist back at this time.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Above are initial series glyphs. If you notice carefully we find that the initial series glyphs usually include the tun (T548 often worn on the head of number '5') main sign, along with a superfix of scrolls and two comb like figures, flanked by a pair of fish or fish fins. Between these signs is situated either a deity, a glyph or a glyph combination, which is the patron god of the month in the Haab.
None of the features of the Initial Series signs tun sign scrolls or two comb figures are found in the Majorra stela you depict below.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
First, let's acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the supposed absence of day signs led to a disagreement on dating between Capitaine and Diehl.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I have explained the components of the Initial Series, and provided a source Montgomery, How to read Maya Hieroglyphs, which you can check. I don't know what field of study you are in but in anthropology, linguistics, and APA etc., you rarely make full quotations. You usually paraphrase a quote instead of writing the entire quote and provide the publication, date and page number.
I also cited the page where Diehl gave the date 157 AD which is a published date in a book by an expert, if an expert can make this mistake how many other mistakes have they made.
I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.This may help you to get a better understanding of this aspect of Maya Hieroglyphics.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
First, let's acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the supposed absence of day signs led to a disagreement on dating between Capitaine and Diehl.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII.
^ Not a good example.
Jews *didn't disappear* even from Germany. The genetic evidence still exists - including in Germans who would otherwise deny Jewish ancestry.
Then there are the millions of Jews found throughout Europe still, and many of whom have provable Levantine and African ancestry.
This is logical since they have to *get* to Germany thru Europe and the Levantine, somehow.
Evidence is there.
Evidence leaves a trail.
Evidence does not just disappear.
And intelligent person sees the absense of West African lineages in China, in Japan, in South Asia, in India - KILLS YOUR CLAIM DEAD.
It then becomes mere comedy to listen to you insist on it, anyway.
The puppies you preach to of course, don't get it, and will believe anything, as long as you tell them a story they want to hear.
No matter how nonsensical it may be.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You can't read. I never said the Jews disappeared. I said that they were murdered.????
.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII.
^ Not a good example.
Jews *didn't disappear* even from Germany. The genetic evidence still exists - including in Germans who would otherwise deny Jewish ancestry.
Then there are the millions of Jews found throughout Europe still, and many of whom have provable Levantine and African ancestry.
This is logical since they have to *get* to Germany thru Europe and the Levantine, somehow.
Evidence is there.
Evidence leaves a trail.
Evidence does not just disappear.
And intelligent person sees the absense of West African lineages in China, in Japan, in South Asia, in India - KILLS YOUR CLAIM DEAD.
It then becomes mere comedy to listen to you insist on it, anyway.
The puppies you preach to of course, don't get it, and will believe anything, as long as you tell them a story they want to hear.
No matter how nonsensical it may be.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Then there are the millions of Jews found throughout Europe still, and many of whom have provable Levantine ... ancestry.
This is logical since they have to *get* to Germany thru Europe and the Levantine, somehow.
Evidence is there.
Evidence leaves a trail.
care to help out ausarian in another thread and try back up that? lol
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: . I don't know what field of study you are in but in anthropology, linguistics, and APA etc., you rarely make full quotations. You usually paraphrase a quote instead of writing the entire quote and provide the publication, date and page number.
It's not a question of what field of study one is in. It is question of good versus sloppy scholarship. As you have seen, I check references and people have seen that sometimes you mischaracterize what papers say (for example what Kivisild really says about M1 in India). Since, I want to practice what I preach I want readers to trust what I say and providing full quotes and full references is a way to let readers, if they want, verify the accuracy and completeness of my citations. This is not a paper in a journal with limited pages, and ,considering the bandwidth you use up with dumps of your web pages, asking for quotes rather than paraphrases is not too onerous.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.This may help you to get a better understanding of this aspect of Maya Hieroglyphics.
I've done a few of these myself . You should have explained a full date stela such as this: Initial Series inscription. This date (glyphs A2, B2, …, A5) is 10.2.9.1.9 9 Muluk 7 Sak, equivalent to July 28, 878 (GMT Gregorian).
and pointed out that between the date and the day name you seek there are a number of glyphs dealing with night hour gods and lunar calendar details
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
quote: I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
Again, you did not answer the relevant question because the description you gave referred to Classical Maya date stelae, but in the Mojarra stela dates we are dealing with epi-Olmec date formats. In my previous post I provided examples of dates of this period which are one column and, contrary to your main claim,HAVE A DAY SIGN AT THE BOTTOM, BUT AN EPI-OLMEC ONE. I'll paraphrase a story to show this . In the late 30's, the Stirlings were excavating Tres Zapotes and found Stela C, which had been broken. The piece found had a Long Count date .
quote:"The crucial first coefficient had been broken off with the upper fragment of the stela, but below the column of numerals appeared the date 6 Etznab in the 260-day sacred almanac, or tzolkin,. . . The preservation of the tzolkin glyph allowed Marion Stirling to reconstruct the entire date as (7).16.6.16.18 6 Etznab (1 Uo), corresponding to 32 B.C.
Exactly what I've been telling you, there ARE day names in Long Count dates in Olmec areas although they occur in single column format. What we also have here, is very much like a scientific experiment. Marion Stirling, based on her knowledge of Mesoamerican Long Count calendarsmade a prediction that the missing piece of the stela had a date of 7 bak'tuns. At the time this created a storm because it would make the Olmecs older than the Maya and Maya scholars reacted fiercely in the 1940s-50s. The scientific prediction of Marion Stirling was proved to be correct when in 1970 the upper section of Stela C was found and it DID have a coefficient of 7. (C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 41).
In my next post, since this one is long already, I'll quote scholars on the presence of the Long Count and day names before the rise of the Maya.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Above are initial series glyphs. If you notice carefully we find that the initial series glyphs usually include the tun (T548 often worn on the head of number '5') main sign, along with a superfix of scrolls and two comb like figures, flanked by a pair of fish or fish fins. Between these signs is situated either a deity, a glyph or a glyph combination, which is the patron god of the month in the Haab.
None of the features of the Initial Series signs tun sign scrolls or two comb figures are found in the Majorra stela you depict below.
I don't kow how many more ways I can tell you 1) that the epi-Olmec Long count dates have day signs at the bottom of the column but they are Olmec. not Classical Maya one and 2) that the Mojarra stela dates BOTH have a tri-loop sigh at the top that is the epi-Olmec version of the Initial Glyph.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
The Long Count was present years before the Classical Maya, who you keep bringing up although they are not relevant to the discussion. The following are quotes of scholars in the area. I'm sorry that you consider the opinions of those scholars who have actually done research for years and published peer reviewed papers, in the relevant journals as irrelevant and of no consequence compared to yuor opinion, but, perhaps, others will be less obtuse.
R. J. Sharer and L. P. Traxler 2006. The Ancient Maya 6th ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
pp. 225-227 There are also similarities between the Isthmian and the Maya scripts, suggesting these two writing systems developed together. Both systems have the Long count calendrical system with a fixed zero date (Chapter 3), often used to record specific events and carved on stone stelae that serve as durable memorials to rulers and symbols of political and religious legitimacy. La Mojarra Stela 1 is a prime example of this use of both carved imagery and text, including several Long Count dates. It is also clear that the origins of both writing systems must be earlier than the fully carved monuments and earlier written records were kept on perishable materials such as bark paper, like those used in later times for the Maya codices. Evidence for this lies in the Mayan word for “to write” which is based on the root for “to paint” (with a fine brush). Inked or painted glyphs on bark paper might have recorded celestial events, calendrical cycles, tribute lists or inventories of trades goods, all of which would have been useful for tracking the seasons, religious rituals, and even economic transactions. Long Count dates in the Isthmian tradition used a single vertical column of bar-and-dot numerals. The earliest known example is Stela C at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, with a simple bar-and-dot inscription was based on the same zero date used by the Classic Maya, the Stela C date corresponds to 31 BC. Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long Count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162. Another date probably associated with the Isthmian tradition is found on Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas. Although incomplete, the most plausible reconstruction would be 7.16.3.2.13, or 36 BC. %%%%% Since you quote Coe as an authority elsewhere, perhaps this will count, or does it only count when you cite someone?
M. D. Coe. 2000 The Maya 6th ed. NY: Thames & Hudson
pp. 62-63 It is generally agreed that the Long count must have been set in motion long after the inception of the Calendar Round, but just how many centuries or millennia is uncertain. Be that as it may, the oldest recorded Long count dates fall within Bak’tun 7, and appear on monuments which lie outside the Maya area. At present, the most ancient seems to be Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo, a major ceremonial center which had been in existence since Early Preclassic times in the dry Grijalva Valley of central Chiapas: in a vertical column are carved the numerical coefficients [7].6.3.2.13, followed by the day 6 Ben, the “month” of the Vague Year being suppressed as in all these early inscriptions. [there ARE day signs in these stelae— what is missing from the Classical Maya model are the “Year” signs]. This would correspond to 7 December 36 BC. Five years later, the famous Stela C at the Olmec site of Tres Zapotes in Veracruz was inscribed with the date 7.16.6.18 6 Etz’nab. On the Chiapa de Corzo monument, the initial coefficients are missing but reconstructable. Now, the sixteenth k’atun of Bak’tun 7 would fall within the Late Preclassic and we can be sure that unless these dates are to be counted forward from some base other than 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u (as the end of the last Great Cycle recorded), which seems improbable, then the “Maya” calendar had reached what was pretty much its final form by the first century BC among peoples who were under powerful Olmec influence and who may not even have been Maya. Who might they have been? It will be remembered from Chapter 1 that the most likely candidate for the language of the Olmecs was an early form of Mixe-Zoquean; languages belonging to this group are still spoken on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and in western Chiapas. Many scholars are now willing to ascribe the earliest Long count monuments outside the Maya area proper to Mixe-Zoquean as well, and a recent discovery in southern Veracruz may provide confirmation. This is Stela 1 from La Mojarra, a magnificent monument inscribed with two Bak’tun 8 dates accompanied by a text of about 400 signs, in a script which is now called “Isthmian” (the famous “Tuttle Statuette,” also found in southern Veracruz, is in the same system, and dates to AD 162). In 1993, Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson announced their decipherment of the Isthmian script and the text on Stela 1, which they assert is in Mixe-Zoquean, but their decipherment has not yet been fully accepted by other glyph specialists. %%%%%%% The book on Mesoamerican calendars M.S. Edmonson 1988. The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
All of the earliest archaeological evidence for the Long count is Olmec (see 36, 32 BC and A.D. 37,126, 162, in Chapter 2). It does not appear among the Maya until A.D. 292 (q.v.). The two cultures wrote the dates quite differently: Mayan dates used period glyphs for baktun, katun, uinal, and kin; Olmec dates did not. They also used different glyphs for the 20 days of the day count— a less useful discrimination because these are not always legible in the early inscriptions. %%%%%%% R. A. Diehl 2004 he Olmecs. America’s First Civilization NY: Thames & Hudson
p. 85-96. The final important Mesoamerican calendar was the “Long Count,” a much longer time cycle that the Classic Maya believed began on 13 August 3114 BC. Scholars once considered the Long Count a Maya achievement, but today we know it was in use in the Trans-Isthmian zone of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Guatemala centuries before the Maya adopted it, and some authorities believe it too may have been an Olmec invention.
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 255-257 In Mesoamerica, the Late Terminal Formative period saw the emergence of at least three distinctive writing systems (Figs. 7.8-7.10). One of these, believed to have been written by speakers of a Zapotecan language, began to develop in Oaxaca before 500 B.C. (Flannery and Marcus 2003; cf. Pohl et al. 2002). After 450 B.C., another style of hieroglyphic writing appears on Izapan and early Maya monuments from the Pacific Coast and highlands of southern Guatemala and Chiapas. Though variable in their execution and geographic distribution epigraphers and linguists often lump these texts into a single Maya-Izapan writing tradition (e.g. Justeson and Matthews 1990). Traces of glyphs in the eroded inscription accompanying the Long Count date on Tres Zapotes Stela C show that it belonged to a different tradition, known variously as epi-Olmec, Isthmian and Tuxtlatec, which extended from south-central Veracruz to central Chiapas, an area that corresponds closely to a historical distribution of the Mije-Sokean language family (Justeson and Kaufman 1993; Justeson and Matthews 1990; Meluzin 1992; Stross 1990).
All of the Late Formative writing systems share features that suggest a common origin (Justeson and Matthews 1990). For example, they were written in columns read from top to bottom and usually from left to right, and profile heads used as signs for names and titles face the direction from which they were read (typically left). Particularly indicative of common origins, because they are arbitrary, are conventions for writing numerals and calendrical signs. Numerals for 1 through 4 were represented by dots, the numeral 5 was represented by a bar, and higher numerals up to 19 were formed by a stack of bars combined with 0 to 4 dots. Signs representing named days were usually enclosed in a cartouche. Another shared peculiarity was the practice of infixing a rectangular field at the wrist of signs depicting hands, whose char act eristic gestures were employed to represent verbs, such as “to scatter” (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 104). Specific features of the epi-Olmec and Mayan-Izapan scripts suggest they are closely related and that the latter diverged from the former. Most telling is the fact that some signs in Mayan texts do not have a clear basis in Mayan languages, but are interpretable as logograms (signs representing whole words or morphemes) in Mije-Sokean languages (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 115). . . . p. 259 One of the greatest innovations of the epi-Olmec cultures was the creation of the Long count, literally a count of the days from the beginning of the current creation, which corresponded to a Calendar Round date of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, or 13 August 3114 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote: All of the earliest archaeological evidence for the Long count is Olmec (see 36, 32 BC and A.D. 37,126, 162, in Chapter 2). It does not appear among the Maya until A.D. 292 (q.v.). The two cultures wrote the dates quite differently: Mayan dates used period glyphs for baktun, katun, uinal, and kin; Olmec dates did not. They also used different glyphs for the 20 days of the day count— a less useful discrimination because these are not always legible in the early inscriptions. %%%%%%% R. A. Diehl 2004 he Olmecs. America’s First Civilization NY: Thames & Hudson
p. 85-96. The final important Mesoamerican calendar was the “Long Count,” a much longer time cycle that the Classic Maya believed began on 13 August 3114 BC. Scholars once considered the Long Count a Maya achievement, but today we know it was in use in the Trans-Isthmian zone of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Guatemala centuries before the Maya adopted it, and some authorities believe it too may have been an Olmec invention.
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 255-257 In Mesoamerica, the Late Terminal Formative period saw the emergence of at least three distinctive writing systems (Figs. 7.8-7.10). One of these, believed to have been written by speakers of a Zapotecan language, began to develop in Oaxaca before 500 B.C. (Flannery and Marcus 2003; cf. Pohl et al. 2002). After 450 B.C., another style of hieroglyphic writing appears on Izapan and early Maya monuments from the Pacific Coast and highlands of southern Guatemala and Chiapas. Though variable in their execution and geographic distribution epigraphers and linguists often lump these texts into a single Maya-Izapan writing tradition (e.g. Justeson and Matthews 1990). Traces of glyphs in the eroded inscription accompanying the Long Count date on Tres Zapotes Stela C show that it belonged to a different tradition, known variously as epi-Olmec, Isthmian and Tuxtlatec, which extended from south-central Veracruz to central Chiapas, an area that corresponds closely to a historical distribution of the Mije-Sokean language family (Justeson and Kaufman 1993; Justeson and Matthews 1990; Meluzin 1992; Stross 1990).
All of the Late Formative writing systems share features that suggest a common origin (Justeson and Matthews 1990). For example, they were written in columns read from top to bottom and usually from left to right, and profile heads used as signs for names and titles face the direction from which they were read (typically left). Particularly indicative of common origins, because they are arbitrary, are conventions for writing numerals and calendrical signs. Numerals for 1 through 4 were represented by dots, the numeral 5 was represented by a bar, and higher numerals up to 19 were formed by a stack of bars combined with 0 to 4 dots. Signs representing named days were usually enclosed in a cartouche. Another shared peculiarity was the practice of infixing a rectangular field at the wrist of signs depicting hands, whose char act eristic gestures were employed to represent verbs, such as “to scatter” (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 104). Specific features of the epi-Olmec and Mayan-Izapan scripts suggest they are closely related and that the latter diverged from the former. Most telling is the fact that some signs in Mayan texts do not have a clear basis in Mayan languages, but are interpretable as logograms (signs representing whole words or morphemes) in Mije-Sokean languages (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 115). . . . p. 259 One of the greatest innovations of the epi-Olmec cultures was the creation of the Long count, literally a count of the days from the beginning of the current creation, which corresponded to a Calendar Round date of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, or 13 August 3114 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar.
Again you print the wrong date. Here you claim the long count began 13 August 3114 BC in the Gregorian Calendar, while Ignacio Bernal in The Olmec World, claims that the actual date was 13 August 3113 (p.94).
You make it appear that the Maya long count is easy to compute. Bernal makes it clear that there are two correlations used to determine long count dates. Bernal wrote:
" With such a system no problem should arise in correlating Maya dates with our own, but unfortunately full Long Count notations were abandoned toward the end of the Classic Period. Although the matter has been throughly studied, scholars have not reached a definite solution, and a number of correlations have been proposed. The two most accepted ones--the others are mainly variants--are called Correlation A and Correlation B.
For our purposes the essential fact with respect to the two correlations is the 260-year difference in linking the Maya Long Count to our own calendar. In correlation A a beginning point--certainly a mythical one, perhaps referring to the birth of gods--is fixed in our computation, at October 4, 3373 BC. Correlation B places the beginning point at August 13, 3113BC of our calendar.(p.93-94)"
As a result, Stela C, can be dated to 4 November 291BC according to correlation A, and 2 September 31 BC, according to correlation B. Thus depending on the correlation used the date can vary. Clearly, researchers have arbitrarily chose which dating method they will use to provide dates for Olmec artifacts.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Dating Olmec artifacts based on long count is all conjecture. These authors admit that the so-called long-count of the Epi-Olmec is not related to the Mayan--but they claim both systems have the same origin date, when they know full well the date can vary depending on which correlation is used to interpret the inscription.
In your post you imply that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean based on the work of Kaufman and Justeson. You know that Coe after attempting to use Kaufman and Justeson's pre-proto-Mixe to read the Teo mask, disconfirmed this theory. Since this theory has been disconfirmed why do you continue to use these researchers as your source for reading Epi-Olmec, when researchers claim it is not written in pre-proto-Mixe. Moreover, it is Kaufman and Justeson'who claim there were Olmec day names deer and snake. If they were wrong about being able to read Epi-Olmec using pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean how can we seriously accept their reading of the Mojarra Stela?
Secondly, you claim that the the "loopy" or tri-loop sign on the Mojarra stela is the initial Olmec glyph. This is your own conjecture. If this was true why isn't the same sign found on other Epi Olmec text along with the dot and bar pattern?
You argue that the symbol above the jaguar head on Stela C, is probably a variation of the Mojarra "loopy" sign. A simple eye-ball test make it clear that these two signs do not look alike.
In conclusion, there is no way we can say the dot and bar signs on the Olmec text are actual dates; and even if they were dates the date of the Olmec text can vary based on correlation A or B.
Bernal's entry of 13 August 3113, while American scholars use the correlation B date of 13 August 3114 shows that when Diehl gave a different date for the Mojarra Stela from other researchers may have resulted from confusion when computing dates using correlation B,rather than a typo. Confusion resulting from the absence of an Olmec initial series sign which would accurately assign a date to a particular period.
Using correlation A, if the Olmec dot and bar signs were long count dates would situate the Epi-Olmec during the late Olmec period. It is obvious that the dates assigned Epi-Olmec text may be too late and is used to make it appear that there was a break in continuity between Epi-Olmec and the classical Olmec. It is too late to get Carbon 14 dates for the Mojarra and Tuxtla artifacts, but it is clear that we need these dates to verify that the dot and bars found on the Epi-Olmec text correspond to carbon 14 dates for materials found in association with Epi-Olmec text.
Use of readings of the Mojarra stela using pre-proto-Mixe, which is discredited adds little credibility to your argument. There is no "proof" that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean eventhough all the people you cite suggest that they did. This along with your making up of an alledged Olmec Initial sign fails to support the idea that the dot and bar symbols are numerals, instead of lexical items, as I maintain.
Also, just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it "true". It only says that the author of the article , wrote a piece his/her peers agree with--nothing more.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: A mysterious ancient stone mask from Mexico has spoken — but apparently only to say that its people's written language remains undeciphered.
A study by Brigham Young University archaeologist Stephen Houston and his colleague from Yale University, Michael D. Coe, say the mask disproves earlier claims that the language had been cracked.
Their paper is to be published in "Mexicon," a journal about news and research from Mesoamerica. The title is "Has Isthmian Writing Been Deciphered?"
The "Teo Mask" may be about 1,600 to 1,900 years old. It was carved in a hard, greenish stone. The inside surface is covered with mysterious hieroglyphs.
In 1993, two researchers — John S. Justeson of the State University of New York, Albany, and Terrence Kaufman of the University of Pittsburgh, both anthropology professors — claimed in the journal Science that they had deciphered that written language.
Kaufman and Justeson call the writing "epi-Olmec script." However, Houston and Coe term it "Isthmian" because it was written by people who lived on and around Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec. They date to within five centuries before and after A.D. 1.
Kaufman and Justeson said they had deciphered the writings based on semantic clues associated with known cultural practices and a similarity of the hieroglyphs to other writings in the region that had been deciphered.
They claimed to be able to read the earliest writings known from North America, inscriptions on large stone carvings called stela found in Veracruz, Mexico. The dates on the stones, they added, were A.D. 159 and A.D. 162.
The announcement made international headlines. But Houston and Coe doubt anyone can read the script.
Houston, an anthropology professor who is an expert on ancient Mesoamerica, won a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship in 2002. When he attended Yale, he was a student of Coe's.
Coe, a retired anthropology professor from Yale, was author of the 1992 book, "Breaking the Maya Code." The book details the work of Coe and colleagues in deciphering the written Mayan language. Houston had a role in that effort.
They write in their new paper that Justeson and Kaufman are respected scholars, but they disagree that the writings have been deciphered.
The writing is "immensely complex. That is, it's very well developed with a large number of signs," Houston told the Deseret Morning News.
If it really were readable, he said, "it would open the window to a big chunk of the past."
The mask turned up about 15 years ago. Its extensive number of symbols means it is an important addition to the tiny canon of writings in the script. In a private collection, the mask was brought to the attention of Houston and Coe by a colleague of theirs.
"It's one of the very few well-preserved examples that's ever come to light of this writing system," Houston said.
The find allowed scientists to check the supposed meaning of hieroglyphs as published by Justeson and Kaufman.
Coe has outlined factors that need to be in place before a persuasive decipherment can be made of an ancient written language. Some sort of parallel script should be available from a language that has been deciphered. The unknown script should represent a language that is well-understood, with cross-ties to imagery that allow scientists to check the meanings.
"The fact of the matter is, that none of these were in place for this proposed decipherment," Houston said.
A huge problem, as he sees it, is that few examples of this writing system are known. Writings by the Maya may number 10,000 examples. With this script, however, the number may be just over 10, he said.
When the mask became available, it presented a new opportunity to evaluate Kaufman and Justeson's claims.
"Mike and I diligently plugged in the values" that were cited for the hieroglyphs in the earlier research, he said.
The results? The message would be an odd series of words like "Blood . . . mouth . . . take he take . . . "
Houston and Coe write in their paper that the "decipherment" carried out on the mask's symbols "tells us nothing new, unexpected or even expected about this Isthmian text and the mask that displays it.
"Instead, the inserted values yield a semantic mishmash."
Justeson's and Kaufman's purported decipherment "is, in our view, unlikely to be valid," they concluded.
Despite repeated attempts to reach them by telephone and e-mail, Justeson and Kaufman did not agree to an interview. But Justeson sent a one-sentence comment by e-mail concerning Houston and Coe's study: "Their arguments against our methods and results are easily answered, and we will answer them in an appropriate scientific outlet." The statement is signed by both Justeson and Kaufman.
Houston said the definite way in which the original findings were posted hampered scientific discussion. It "has made it more difficult to discuss, because now it has become an uglier issue, disagreeing with these two fellows," he said.
"I really believe, on our present evidence, it's impossible to decipher this writing system," Houston said. "We just don't have the elements in place to make it happen."
.:Story originally published by:. Deseret Morning News / UT | Diane Urbani - Jan 26.04
This article is over 4 years old and Justeson and Kaufman has have not responded to Houston and Coe yet. If you have seen their response please let me know.
You can find my decipherment of the Teo Mask here .
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Experts will go to great lengths to make up dates. For example,above is the Chiapa de Corzo stela 2 (wall panel) found by the NWAF. Researchers decided that the "stela" probably represented a date so they hypothesized that the date for the monument was 7 16 3 2 18, because they felt it was similar to the "calendrial pattern" of Tuxtla statuette, Stela C and etc; eventhough we only visibly see 10 3 2 18. This date is recognized as the earliest Epi-Olmec dated artifact.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
It is amusing to see the contortions used to distract from the key argument. It is also interesting to see the similarity to the methods used by “Scientific creationists” and Intelligent Design proponents to argue against evolution: “quote mining” i.e. looking for any quote from a geneticist (or Mesoamerican scholar) that seems to disagree with other scientists and then proclaiming that evolution is controversial and disproved and ID or creationism is affirmed. Apart from the fact that, the basics of evolution as well as the broad outlines of Mesoamerica are indisputable, there is huge logical fallacy involved, the “excluded middle.” Even if, evolution, or the translation of epi-Olmec, is not accurate, it does not follow that Intelligent Design or the Mande is the explanation, there are other, more likely interpretations available. It not an either-or question.
Next, before I deal with your specific assertions. The essential points, that you keep trying to obfuscate, is that 1) I have shown, and all the authoritative scholars I’ve cited agree, that there was a Long Count calendar in use before the Classic Maya and before the Mojarra Stela; 2) That it does not matter if Justeson and Kaufman are wrong about the translation of the Mojarra script, or that the correlation used is incorrect- the essential point is that the Mojarra Stela contains two Mesoamerican Long Count dates and they are NOT text to be translated.
Clyde Winters said
quote:Dating Olmec artifacts based on long count is all conjecture. These authors admit that the so-called long-count of the Epi-Olmec is not related to the Mayan
NO, you are, as you are accustomed to, misquoting these authors- they say that the epi-Olmec (Isthmian-Izapa) invented the Long count that was eventually refined by the Classic Maya. The epi-Olmec Long Count was the source of the Maya Long count. Here is a quote from Coe: M.D. Coe. 1999 Breaking the Maya Code, rev. ed. NY; Thames & Hudson
“p. 61-62 By about 600 BC, in and near Monte Alban, a hilltop redoubt-city in the Valley of Oaxaca, Zapotec rulers began to erect monuments celebrating victories over rival chiefdoms; these not only showed their unfortunate captives after torture and sacrifice, but they recorded the name of the dead chief, the name of his polity, and the date on which the victory (or sacrifice) had occurred. Thus, it was the Zapotec, and not the Mata or Olmec, who invented writing in Mesoamerica.. .[describes the calendar round] Somehow or other, the Calendar Round was diffused down from the Zapotec-speaking highlands to the late Olmec of the Gulf Coast and among peoples on the western and southwestern fringes of the Maya realm. Within that broad arc, an even more extraordinary development took place in the last century before Christ, near the end of the Pre-Classic. This was the appearance of that most typical of all Maya traits, the Long Count calendar, among peoples for whom the Maya was probably (at best) a foreign language. Unlike dates in the Calendar Round, which are fixed only within a never-ending cycle of 52 years and thus recur once every 52 years, Long count dates are given in a day-to-day count, which began I the year 3114 BC, and which will end (perhaps with a bang) in AD 2012.”
quote:--but they claim both systems have the same origin date, when they know full well the date can vary depending on which correlation is used to interpret the inscription.
Again, you are misparaphrasing these authors (this is why I ask that in your posts you provide exact quotes). These authors all agree on the starting date for the Long Calendar. Your citing a slight difference by Bernal is not relevant— Bernal’s book was published 40 years ago a lot of evidence has come in since. Another characteristic of “creationists” is citing 19th century scientists as if they were relevant to today’s discussions. The GMT correlation (the one agreed to for many years) is NOT arbitrary it is supported by archeological and radiocarbon data. More quotes:
M.D. Coe. 1999 Breaking the Maya Code, rev. ed. NY; Thames & Hudson “p. 112-114 [Joseph T. Goodman] But far more significant than these was an article blandly entitled “Maya dates” which appeared in 1905 in the American Anthropologist, which proposed a correlation between the Maya Long count calendar and our own, backed by solid evidence from Landa and other colonial sources, and from the codices. This was an amazing achievement, not so much for the decipherment as for Maya culture history in general, for until then the Maya Long count dates on Classic Maya monuments had been “floating”: the scholarly world did not really know exactly which centuries were included in Copan’s span, for example, or when the last Long count date marking the end of the Classic occurred.. .[Goodman’s discovery forgotten till 1926 Juan Martinez Hernandez revived and further proof of validity. Erick Thomson later corrected it by 3 days]. In spite of the oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right; and when we say, for instance, that Yax Pac, King of Copan, died on 10 February 822 in the Julian Calendar, he did just that, Goodman lives.”
And R. J. Sharer and L. P. Traxler 2006. The Ancient Maya 6th ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
p.114 [Correlation of the Maya calendar] The generally accepted correlation, and the one followed throughout this book, is the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (the GMT correlation), which places the Long Count K’atun ending of 11.16.0.0.0 134 Ajaw 8 Xul on the Gregorian date of November 12, 1539. This correlation accords best with chronological evidence from both archaeological and historical sources, including radiocarbon dates. Numerous other correlations have been proposed, however. One of these, the Spinden correlation, also generally satisfies the documentary evidence and in some ways accords better with the archaeological data from the northern lowlands (although it is in les agreement with the evidence from archeology in the rest of the Maya area). The Spinden correlation would require all Maya dates to be placed 260 years earlier than the GMT correlation, since it establishes the K’atun 13 Ajaw Short Count date at 12.9.0.0.0 in the Long count. Another correlation, advanced by George Valliant, places K’atun 13 Ajaw at 11.3.0.0.0: this would add 260 years to the dates given in the GMT correlation, placing the end of the Classic period at about 1150 and greatly compressing the Postclassic era.. . Additional correlations, based on astronomical criteria such as the lunar tables in the Dresden Codex, tend to lack support from archaeological or historical sources. The advent of radiocarbon dating provided an opportunity to test these various correlations. Although not infallible, radiocarbon dating can increase the certainty of archeological results. The tests were run with sapodilla wood samples from the dated lintels at Tikal. The earliest test. Before the radiocarbon method was perfected, seemed to favor the Spinden correlation. However, a much larger sample was later tested, using an improved radiocarbon procedure. In one of these later tests, twelve samples were dated from Temple IV. Of these, ten were consistent with the age span predicted by the GMT correlation (AD 741-51) and only one fell within the span based on the Spinden correlation (AD 481-91). This, and the one remaining sample that fell halfway between these two spans, were probably from older beams reused in Temple IV. This test, along with those based on samples from other Tikal temples, offers strong support for the GMT correlation.”
quote:In your post you imply that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean based on the work of Kaufman and Justeson. You know that Coe after attempting to use Kaufman and Justeson's pre-proto-Mixe to read the Teo mask, disconfirmed this theory. Since this theory has been disconfirmed why do you continue to use these researchers as your source for reading Epi-Olmec, when researchers claim it is not written in pre-proto-Mixe. Moreover, it is Kaufman and Justeson' who claim there were Olmec day names deer and snake. If they were wrong about being able to read Epi-Olmec using pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean how can we seriously accept their reading of the Mojarra Stela?
Wrong, as I pointed out above, the presence of Long Count dates in the Mojarra Stela, is acknowledged by everyone (except you ) and is independent of what Justeson and Kaufman say. I wrote Michael Coe just to get it from the author of the critique which you cite, and, of course, he agreed with me.
quote:From: OlmecC@aol.com [Add to Address Book] Subject: Re: Long count dates Mojarra Date: May 23, 2008 11:12 AM
The dates on La Mojarra are in same system as the Maya Long Count, It's OK to call the day signs "snake" and "deer". I wouldn't call them Olmec, though. The only Olmec writing that we have is on the Cascajal Block, and there are no day signs in that text. K and J insist on calling the Isthmian script "epi-Olmec", which is a complete misnomer.
quote:In conclusion, there is no way we can say the dot and bar signs on the Olmec text are actual dates; and even if they were dates the date of the Olmec text can vary based on correlation A or B.
Bernal's entry of 13 August 3113, while American scholars use the correlation B date of 13 August 3114 shows that when Diehl gave a different date for the Mojarra Stela from other researchers may have resulted from confusion when computing dates using correlation B, rather than a typo. Confusion resulting from the absence of an Olmec initial series sign which would accurately assign a date to a particular period.
You are just getting in deeper and also demonstrating how little you know about the Olmec and the Maya. Please re read my quote from Sharer and Traxler. Call things by their proper names, i.e. The GMT correlation (B) and the Spinden correlation (A). The Spinden correlation makes dates 260 YEARS earlier than the GMT Therefore the Bernal date difference of one year and the Diehl typo error of one year have absolutely nothing to do with a mistake due to using a different correlation than GMT. Why do you persist on attributing Diehl’s typo to a deliberately caused error? I posted an e-mail from Diehl attesting that the date printed was a type and that he adhered to the 3114 BC date. You did the same thing when it was shown to you that Kivisild, himself, wrote that his 1999 paper mislabeled a different haplotype as M1 and that there was no M1 in India. Even after this, you kept on claiming that Kivisild’s 1999 paper proved that there was M1 in India.
You can’t even keep your own claims straight. You argued that it was the absence of a day sign (erroneously, as I have shown) NOT the absence of an Initial Series sign that made it impossible to read the dates on the Mojarra stela!
quote:Using correlation A, if the Olmec dot and bar signs were long count dates would situate the Epi-Olmec during the late Olmec period. It is obvious that the dates assigned Epi-Olmec text may be too late and is used to make it appear that there was a break in continuity between Epi-Olmec and the classical Olmec. It is too late to get Carbon 14 dates for the Mojarra and Tuxtla artifacts, but it is clear that we need these dates to verify that the dot and bars found on the Epi-Olmec text correspond to carbon 14 dates for materials found in association with Epi-Olmec text.
Use of readings of the Mojarra stela using pre-proto-Mixe, which is discredited adds little credibility to your argument. There is no "proof" that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean even though all the people you cite suggest that they did. This along with your making up of an alleged Olmec Initial sign fails to support the idea that the dot and bar symbols are numerals, instead of lexical items, as I maintain.
I’ve already dealt with this. The Maya calendar was deciphered in the 19th century before anyone could read the Maya glyphs which shows that the proving the existence of Long Count calendar dates in the Mojarra Stela is independent of what language it is written in, as Michael Coe, who does not believe in Mixe-Zoquean wrote in the e-mail I posted and which you will disregard as usual.
quote:(QB]Also, just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it "true". It only says that the author of the article, wrote a piece his/her peers agree with-- nothing more.
[/QB]
Right, so a paper by S.O.Y. Keita and the genetics and craniometrics of North Africans or Agustin Holl’s papers on archaeology are just their opinions and those of his peers, and they can be ignored by people who disagree with them.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I took the time to decipher the monument and you are right this is a date. In the inscription we are told that King Yo Pe was born on this day. Just because this was a date does not take away the fact that dots and bars can also represent lexical items.
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
i Snake
(Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
[list]
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."
It appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
I did not decipher the entire Mojarra 1 inscription. But I have deciphered the syllabic signs on the side of the Mojarra stela. This is an obituary. And reads as follows:
" Rigteous King (art) thou. Thou (art) pure (Oh King) offer libations to the unique Ba (of) the Se Gyo. this pure grand refuge is smooth....Pure cleansing (obtained from) this refuge of the santified King. The pure principle of life is in possession of this abode. The Ba of the celebrity lays low in the prodigious tomb....
Yo Pe. pure is thine refuge. (Here your) Principle of life is to realize no vice (in this) good abode/habitation on the terrain near the water. the prodigious tomb (is here) the Existence of spiritual tranquility (is ) established. (Here) the vital spirit of (Yo Pe has been) put to bed. Purity (is here). The soul is pure righteousness great ancestor: Yo Pe.
A pure libation/offering; (that) holds upright the hemispheric tomb. Hold upright the hemispheric sepulcre. (The tomb it) exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility.
Pure is thine refuge. Yo Pe (is) the righteous King. The pure head of the government. (This) devotee (of the cult) is (like) a raising star. (He is) the summit of righteousness a shinning star) at this moment. At this moment now.
Yo Pe. The pure image of the race and the mystic order is full of propriety."
One day I may decipher the rest of the inscription.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:
Right, so a paper by S.O.Y. Keita and the genetics and craniometrics of North Africans or Agustin Holl’s papers on archaeology are just their opinions and those of his peers, and they can be ignored by people who disagree with them.
Yes this is true. Look how many researchers continue to claim the Egyptian are caucasian or Arab, eventhough Keita's work is well known in the field.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I took the time to decipher the monument and you are right this is a date. In the inscription we are told that King Yo Pe was born on this day.
I thought you had already deciphered the whole thing. At any rate, I'm very pleased that you now agree that these are dates in the Mesoamerican Long Count and that you used the GMT correlation. This brings up a number of issues. It has taken me while to respond because it is excruciatingly difficult to try to replicate your translations-- the same symbol sometimes means different syllables, widely varying shapes mean the same thing, I cannot predict how you break apart figures into their component syllables, etc. Apart from this I have to try to reconcile your numbering with the standard numbering in the Mojarra Stela. I still don't know if I understand your reading completely.
The basic critique I have is that- once you agree that the Mojarra dates are Mesoamerican Long Count, then several things are also automatically included. 1) we have a calendar round which is composed of any day having two names . One in the "sacred" 260-day calendar resulting from a combination of 20 day-names and numbers 1 to 13 and one in the "vague year" 365-day calendar. This calendar is composed of 18 20-day "months" and 1 5-day period. 2) This also means that this date: 8.5.3.3.5 (21 May 143 AD) has the "vague" name of 3 (the epi-Olmec equivalent of K'ayab) at the beginning of the date and the "sacred" name of 13 "Snake" at the end of the date.
quote:Just because this was a date does not take away the fact that dots and bars can also represent lexical items.
That is a problem as we shall see.
quote:
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
We disagree. I think this is the first glyph A1 in the usual nomenclature (what I labelled the "loopy" symbol). You said that this was an invention of mine but, Makri and Stark, Capitaine and Justeson& Kaufman label this symbol as "an Initial Series" Glyph.
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1 , LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1" F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, MexicoWashington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14. T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
quote: 2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
As I mentioned in the begining, what you read as "Ba da yo" and "po da yo" correspond to A2 (A2a and A2b) in the usual numbering. This has to be the 'Vague Year" symbol for the name equivalent of K'ayab and the 3 dots you translated as 'se" A3 in the usual numbering has to be the number 3 because this is the correct day name in the Mesoamerican calendar.
quote: 4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
No what you number (6) and is A9a in the usual number system has to be the number 13 because this is the day name 13 Snake that corresponds to this date in the Mesoamerican calendar in the GMT corrrelation. There is an additional problem in that, in the Mojarra translation you posted earlier, you also translated glyph V3b (2 bars and 2 dots) as "Se gyo" shold it not be "pe gyo"?
quote: i Snake (Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
[list]
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."
It appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
I did not decipher the entire Mojarra 1 inscription. But I have deciphered the syllabic signs on the side of the Mojarra stela. This is an obituary. And reads as follows:
" Rigteous King (art) thou. Thou (art) pure (Oh King) offer libations to the unique Ba (of) the Se Gyo. this pure grand refuge is smooth....Pure cleansing (obtained from) this refuge of the santified King. The pure principle of life is in possession of this abode. The Ba of the celebrity lays low in the prodigious tomb....
Yo Pe. pure is thine refuge. (Here your) Principle of life is to realize no vice (in this) good abode/habitation on the terrain near the water. the prodigious tomb (is here) the Existence of spiritual tranquility (is ) established. (Here) the vital spirit of (Yo Pe has been) put to bed. Purity (is here). The soul is pure righteousness great ancestor: Yo Pe.
A pure libation/offering; (that) holds upright the hemispheric tomb. Hold upright the hemispheric sepulcre. (The tomb it) exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility.
Pure is thine refuge. Yo Pe (is) the righteous King. The pure head of the government. (This) devotee (of the cult) is (like) a raising star. (He is) the summit of righteousness a shinning star) at this moment. At this moment now.
Yo Pe. The pure image of the race and the mystic order is full of propriety."
One day I may decipher the rest of the inscription.
We now come back to my intial question that precipitated this long discussion: How de you explain the presence of the unique Mesoamerican Calendar Round with of two calendars (260-day sacred (20x13) and 360-day (18 x20 +5) and a Long Count based on a modified base 20 arithmetic calculation, place notation, a true zero, and an initial zero date when this combination never occurred in Africa, and/or the Mande?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I can not tell you anything about the traditional Mande calendar. Today they use the Islamic calendar.
You are correct the sign should have read pe gyo 'progigious cult leader/prodigious religious leader', not se gyo.
Below are the bar and dat signs I believe are lexical items.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Granted Mojarra 1 was published before the side Mojarra inscription, but I never got around to deciphering the text.
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
i Snake
(Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."
As I stated in the original post it appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
To understand the designation of Yo Pe as Se Gyo (Se Jo) is explained by Mande traditional culture. As I said earlier I made a mistake and transliterated Pe gyo, as Se gyo. Reading the signs as Pe gyo tells us that Yo Pe was considered a powerful religious specialist in addition to be the King.
I do not believe the "loopy" sign was an Initial Series character. It was just a description of the potent supernatural power Yo Pe possessed.
As Se gyo, Yo Pe appears to have had great knowledge of sorcery or nyama. Se (foot, foundation) represents the beginning of knowledge. The se symbolizes beginning, an advance of success and power. The se represents man's progression in pursuit of knowledge. Since Se, means foundation and gyo, is spiritual knowledge. Se gyo would = "foundation of spiritual knowledge".
Nyama is occult power or special energy of supernatural origin. Nyama is considered source of power behind every task. Among the Mande the pinnacle of potency is the knowledge of sorcery. Sorcery is important among the Mande says McNaughton because "for the vast majority [of Mande] sorcery provide a means for analyzing situations and a tool for responding to them, and these people can be quite open about their use of it" (p.13).
Since I published the first translation of the sign on Friday I reread P.R. McNaughton's The Mande Blacksmiths: Knowledge, Power and Art in West Africa. This book gives us keen insight into Mande traditional beliefs and helps explain much of Olmec social concepts and religion. In the Friday transliteration of the signs I gave the following interpretation:
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
Instead of translating this middle sign as i po ki se, I believe it should read i po kilisi. In the Friday decipherment of the loopy sign I failed to include transliteration of the dot sign: li. The lexical item li, is represented by the black dot inside the middle symbol. Since "li" is in the middle of the figure I am reading the se sign as si, instead of se, thus we have Kilisi. Reading the signs as follows i po kilisi, we have "Thou pure secret speech".
Kilisi means secret speech. Kilisi is a potent formula of human sounds rich with supernatural energy. It is kilisi that provides an object with nyama.
In relation to the serpent/snake in the inscription it does not relate to a date. Before the sa or snake we have se gyo "Foundation of spiritual knowledge". I believe that Ye Po was a Satigi[/]: Master of Snakes.
Among the Mande the snake is used in divination. The snake diviner studies the reptiles movements which he mystically interprets to answer clients questions. The Satigi, communicated with snakes for numerous purposes, e.g., to forsee future events and obtain secret knowledge, because he shares a supernatural bond with the serpent. The Satigi is recognized as one of the most powerful diviners of the Mande people who has the ability to perform supernatural acts (McNaughty, p.52).
This suggest that Se gyo Sa (Snake) may be interpreted as The Se Gyo and Sa(tigi).
In Row 2 we read the following:
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
The monkey figure probably has an important meaning in this inscription and may represent an emblem. Among the Mande [b]sulaw monkeys indicates the initiates awareness of his own animality. This suggest that Sula tu in row 2, should read "A king aware of his animality".
In conclusion it is safe to say that Yo Pe had immense supernatural power, thus his nickname "Se Gyo". He was also a Satigi, and thus could see into the future and obtain supernatural knowledge via his snake totem. As a result of this I do not believe that Se gyo Snake, is a day sign. These signs probably related to the immense supernatural powers of Yo Pe.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I can not tell you anything about the traditional Mande calendar. Today they use the Islamic calendar.
You are correct the sign should have read pe gyo 'progigious cult leader/prodigious religious leader', not se gyo.
Below are the bar and dat signs I believe are lexical items.
Thanks for these. However, I repeat neither the Mande, the Egyptians, nor any other African, European etc. ever had the unique Mesoamerican calendar. Why should we believe the Mande brought writing to the Olmecs when the calendar, which is an essential component of it, is clearly native and not imported?
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE] Why should we believe the Mande brought writing to the Olmecs when the calendar, which is an essential component of it, is clearly native and not imported?
^ good point.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Granted Mojarra 1 was published before the side Mojarra inscription, but I never got around to deciphering the text.
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
i Snake
(Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
You can repeat your translation over and over again, but it is fundamentally flawed. You have conceded that glyphs A1-9 of the Mojarra stela are a date in the Long Count Mesoamerican calendar and the date fits the GMT correlation.. This means that it ABSOLUTELY has 1) the "vague year" month date 3 K'ayab (the epi-Olmec equivalent) in positions A2 A3 and 2) the "sacred calendar" day name 13 Snake in the last position A 9. Your (6) "se gyo" is impossible. This is the number 13 in Mesoamerican numbers. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
quote:Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."As I stated in the original post it appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
To understand the designation of Yo Pe as Se Gyo (Se Jo) is explained by Mande traditional culture. As I said earlier I made a mistake and transliterated Pe gyo, as Se gyo. Reading the signs as Pe gyo tells us that Yo Pe was considered a powerful religious specialist in addition to be the King.
I do not believe the "loopy" sign was an Initial Series character. It was just a description of the potent supernatural power Yo Pe possessed.
Since this is a Long Count Initial Series date, it must be headed by an Initial Series glyph. I cited 3 references that say so, and Occam's razor also applies. Which is more likely: that the inscription follows the pattern of all Mesoamerican Long Count dates or that somehow it is a Mande religious symbol?
quote:As Se gyo, Yo Pe appears to have had great knowledge of sorcery or nyama. Se (foot, foundation) represents the beginning of knowledge. The se symbolizes beginning, an advance of success and power. The se represents man's progression in pursuit of knowledge. Since Se, means foundation and gyo, is spiritual knowledge. Se gyo would = "foundation of spiritual knowledge".
Nyama is occult power or special energy of supernatural origin. Nyama is considered source of power behind every task. Among the Mande the pinnacle of potency is the knowledge of sorcery. Sorcery is important among the Mande says McNaughton because "for the vast majority [of Mande] sorcery provide a means for analyzing situations and a tool for responding to them, and these people can be quite open about their use of it" (p.13).
Since I published the first translation of the sign on Friday I reread P.R. McNaughton's The Mande Blacksmiths: Knowledge, Power and Art in West Africa. This book gives us keen insight into Mande traditional beliefs and helps explain much of Olmec social concepts and religion. In the Friday transliteration of the signs I gave the following interpretation:
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
Instead of translating this middle sign as i po ki se, I believe it should read i po kilisi. In the Friday decipherment of the loopy sign I failed to include transliteration of the dot sign: li. The lexical item li, is represented by the black dot inside the middle symbol. Since "li" is in the middle of the figure I am reading the se sign as si, instead of se, thus we have Kilisi. Reading the signs as follows i po kilisi, we have "Thou pure secret speech".
Kilisi means secret speech. Kilisi is a potent formula of human sounds rich with supernatural energy. It is kilisi that provides an object with nyama.
In relation to the serpent/snake in the inscription it does not relate to a date. Before the sa or snake we have se gyo "Foundation of spiritual knowledge". I believe that Ye Po was a Satigi: Master of Snakes.
Among the Mande the snake is used in divination. The snake diviner studies the reptiles movements which he mystically interprets to answer clients questions. The Satigi, communicated with snakes for numerous purposes, e.g., to forsee future events and obtain secret knowledge, because he shares a supernatural bond with the serpent. The Satigi is recognized as one of the most powerful diviners of the Mande people who has the ability to perform supernatural acts (McNaughty, p.52).
This suggest that Se gyo Sa (Snake) may be interpreted as The Se Gyo and Sa(tigi).
[/QB]
All this is really spam to the points I made about what glyphs A1, (Initial Series) A2(month K'ayab). A3(number 3) and A9(13 snake) have to be. It is also interesting that you break the translation pattern in reading A9a as a whole glyph (i.e. logogram) "snake" instead of breaking it apart and reading the components.
quote:In Row 2 we read the following:
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
The monkey figure probably has an important meaning in this inscription and may represent an emblem. Among the Mande sulaw monkeys indicates the initiates awareness of his own animality. This suggest that Sula tu in row 2, should read "A king aware of his animality".
In conclusion it is safe to say that Yo Pe had immense supernatural power, thus his nickname "Se Gyo". He was also a Satigi, and thus could see into the future and obtain supernatural knowledge via his snake totem. As a result of this I do not believe that Se gyo Snake, is a day sign. These signs probably related to the immense supernatural powers of Yo Pe.
The date is 8.5.3.3.5 3 K'ayab 13 Chicchan = 21 May 143 AD following the pattern of all the Long Count dates
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
As I said before this is not an initial series sign it just relates to the introduction to the text. But if this is your opinion --its fine with me.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before this is not an initial series sign it just relates to the introduction to the text. But if this is your opinion --its fine with me.
.
Mine and the leading experts on the Mojarra Stela:
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1 , LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1"
F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, Mexico Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14.
T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
Please quote and cite a leading scholar (other than your own opinion) who thinks this glyph is a Mande theological statement.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before this is not an initial series sign it just relates to the introduction to the text. But if this is your opinion --its fine with me.
.
Mine and the leading experts on the Mojarra Stela:
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1 , LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1"
F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, Mexico Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14.
T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
Please quote and cite a leading scholar (other than your own opinion) who thinks this glyph is a Mande theological statement.
Again you are using the method of authority to imply that you are right. I totally disagree with these authors.
Moreover, Kaufman and Justeson decipherment has been dsicredited so their is nothing these two researchers can say about the Mojarra stela that anyone can accept as valid.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I can not tell you anything about the traditional Mande calendar. Today they use the Islamic calendar.
You are correct the sign should have read pe gyo 'progigious cult leader/prodigious religious leader', not se gyo.
Below are the bar and dat signs I believe are lexical items.
I repeat neither the Mande, the Egyptians, nor any other African, European etc. ever had the unique Mesoamerican calendar. Why should we believe the Mande brought writing to the Olmecs when the calendar, which is an essential component of it, is clearly native and not imported?
We don’t really know if Africans never had this calendar. This is because the Mande today use the Islamic calendar.
But there is considerable evidence that the Maya and other Meso-American people obtained their calendar from the Mande speaking people.John G. Jackson in Introduction to African Civilization, noted that “It is necessary to say something about the strange calendrical system pf ancient America since it was ultimately of Olmec origin, and contained African elements” (p.246).
Ivan van Se rtima in They Came Before Columbus, wrote that:
quote:
“D.G. Brinton, in his Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, describes this tree, a central design in the Chilam Balam, or Sacred Book of Mani. This work reveals the Mayan design of the Cosmos, known as the Tableau of the Bacabs or the Plate of the Bacabs, an exact representation of the Bambara altar and of the bowl on the lower branches of the tree, with a celestrial vase catching the rain from the cloud-mass” (p.81).
“….Thus the thirteen heads in the Plate represent the division of the Zoidiac into thirteen parts, and this Zodiacal division into thirteen has been found in thirteen-headed zodiacal designs on calabashes in West Africa”(p.82).
Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America also discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
In relation to the Plate of Bacabs Wiener wrote: “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculations based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique”(p.270).
Even if we did not have evidence that the Mayan people probably got their calendar from the Mande speaking Olmec there is other evidence proving the African origin of Olmec writing. We can accept that the writing is of African origin eventhough we don't know if the Mande had this type of calendar because 1) the signs are clearly Vai; 2) the Olmec people called themselves Xi-u (Shi-u) the same name for the Mande race; 3) the name for the Mayan writing: *c’i:b' which is descendent from Olmec writing has the same name as Mande writing sebe ( The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. );4) there is a Mande substratum in the Mayan languages which indicate a long interaction between Mande speaking Olmec people and the Mayan people and suggest an earlier period of Olmec-Mayan bilingualism;5)Olmec religion is of Mande origin;6) Izapa Stela 5 Migration Story; 7) and Rafinesque and Leo Wiener discovered Vai and Libyco-Berber signs on Olmec and Mayan artifacts .
Appendix:
1.Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system. The evidence indicates that Mayan writing was invented by the Olmecs who probably called their writing[ib] sebe[/ib].
2. Landa supports the linguistic evidence (Tozzer, 1941) that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).
The Tutul Xi were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:
Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order". Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)". "The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".
The term Shi, is probably related to the Manding term Si, which was also used as an ethnonym.
Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be
References
Brown, C.H. (1991). Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from linguistics data. Current Anthropology, 32(4), 489-495.
Coe, M. (1989). The Olmec Heartland: evolution of ideology . In R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmecs (pp.68-82). New York: Cambridge University Press.
M. Delafosse, "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthrpologie 10, 1899.
Morley, S.G., Brainered, G.W. & Sharer, R.J. (1983). The Ancient Maya. Stanford: Standford University Press.
Landa, D. de. (1978). Yucatan before and after the Conquest.(Trans. by) William Gates. New York: Dover Publications.
Pouligny, D. (1988). Les Olmeques. Archeologie, 12, p.194.
Rafineque, C. (1832). "Second letter to Mr. Champollion on the Graphic systems of America and the glyphs of Ololum [Mayan] of Palenque in central America-elements of the glyphs", Atlantic Journal 1, (2) :44-45.
Leo Wiener, Africa and the Discovery of America. 1922.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Van Sertima in Early America Revisited says their calendar is indigenous.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before this is not an initial series sign it just relates to the introduction to the text. But if this is your opinion --its fine with me.
.
Mine and the leading experts on the Mojarra Stela:
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1 , LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1"
F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, Mexico Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14.
T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
Please quote and cite a leading scholar (other than your own opinion) who thinks this glyph is a Mande theological statement.
Again you are using the method of authority to imply that you are right. I totally disagree with these authors.
This is just an evasion. If I say something, this is just my opinion, but when I support that statement by referencing leading authorities epi-Olmec epigraphy- I'm "using the method of authority" . According to you, your extraordinary and unorthodox opinion, totally unsupported by any Mesoamerican epigrapher or scholar, is superior. Of course I cite authorities to show that this view is the one held by experts in the field, that is how scholarship works, and the burden of proof is not with the orthodox view but with the person who is making an "extraordinary claim" and he/she is the one who has to present "extraordinary evidence." You have not done so. Why don't you post images of this glyph in African rock paintings, other stelae where it is clearly not in a first position in a calendar date, etc.
quote:Moreover, Kaufman and Justeson decipherment has been dsicredited so their is nothing these two researchers can say about the Mojarra stela that anyone can accept as valid. . [/QB]
This is not how science proceeds. Coe disagreed with Justeson & Kaufman, they (I understand) are replying in a volume from Dumbarton Oaks in press. Coe, no doubt will respond to that, etc Justeson and Kaufman's long detailed and explicit proposed translation is still the one to crtitique, correct and build on. Coe did NOT falsify or even critique the presence of Long Count Initial Series in the Mojarra Stela, nor did he disagree with Justenson & Kaufman's interpretation of the dates. Thus your comment is not applicable, unless you can quote Coe stating that these are not Long Count calendars or that glyph A1 is not an introductory glyph.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Van Sertima in Early America Revisited says their calendar is indigenous.
I have cited my sources, especially Leo Wiener so they speak for themselves.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I can not tell you anything about the traditional Mande calendar. Today they use the Islamic calendar. We don’t really know if Africans never had this calendar. This is because the Mande today use the Islamic calendar.
If you don't know what the Mande calendar was, why are you claiming that they brought it to the New World?
quote: But there is considerable evidence that the Maya and other Meso-American people obtained their calendar from the Mande speaking people.John G. Jackson in Introduction to African Civilization, noted that “It is necessary to say something about the strange calendrical system pf ancient America since it was ultimately of Olmec origin, and contained African elements” (p.246).
Ivan van Se rtima in They Came Before Columbus, wrote that: [QUOTE]
“D.G. Brinton, in his Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, describes this tree, a central design in the Chilam Balam, or Sacred Book of Mani. This work reveals the Mayan design of the Cosmos, known as the Tableau of the Bacabs or the Plate of the Bacabs, an exact representation of the Bambara altar and of the bowl on the lower branches of the tree, with a celestrial vase catching the rain from the cloud-mass” (p.81).
“….Thus the thirteen heads in the Plate represent the division of the Zoidiac into thirteen parts, and this Zodiacal division into thirteen has been found in thirteen-headed zodiacal designs on calabashes in West Africa”(p.82).
Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America also discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
In relation to the Plate of Bacabs Wiener wrote: “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculations based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique”(p.270).
The interesting aspect is, again, how similar these arguments are to the kind of thing the "creationists" do about evolution. They cite Lord Kelvin (19th century) on the age of the earth, as if he were relevant today. Here too, the works cited (skipping Van Sertima, who in this area is just quoting Wiener) are Wiener 1922 (but citing much older works), Brinton 1899, Seler 1905, Delafosse 1899, etc. At that time, no one knew that the Olmecs had been in the Gulf of Mexico area, or how old Mesoamerican civilization was. It is as if we went into a time capsule, where the work of the hundreds of archaeologists, linguists, and anthropologists who have done research in Africa and in Mesoamerica did not exist.
I'll have to quote (oh horrors!) and show 1) that Weiner misquoted Seler 2) Van Sertima (and now you) mischaracterized the strength of Weiner's "evidence" and that Weiner did not understand the Mesoamerican calendar (It was 1922, after all and his background was in Slavic linguistics).
This thread is too long now without getting into the evidence for writing, let's stick to the Mesoamerican calendar. Later, we can discuss the real age of the Oued Merkoutek-- for example, can you quote any recognized African rock art scholar who thinks that scripts that use dots are really ancient? I've deleted these arguments.
BTW Your references omitted Tozzer but included Morley and Coe who are not cited, and no page numbers are provided
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
This is not evasion. I have already shown that Africans had a 13 month calendar and that the Americans probably got their calendar from the Mande.
This is supported by the early dates on the Olmec artifacts. Eventhough the Olmec introduced the 13 month calendar to the Americans, this still does not mean that the "loopy" sign was an initial series sign.
Eventhough Coe did not falsify the idea that A.1 or 1.1 is an initial series sign, I have shown that it is a lexical item.
I knew Kaufman and Juteson's decipherment would never stand the test of time because of its basic premise that it was written in pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean. I have reconstructed many proto-languages e.g., Mande and Dravidian to name a few and I know there is no such thing as a pre-proto- language. How can there be a pre-proto-language when a proto language is a theorectical construct that is supposely the earliest language of a group or groups of languages.
Science is based on hypothesis testing. Kaufman and Justeson said you could read Epi-Olmec using pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean. Houston and Coe tested the hypothesis based on their vocabularies and it was disconfirmed. Failure to confirm kaufman and Justeson's hypothesis makes it clear that we must reject their findings since the construct of pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean proved invlaid,and lacking both external and internal validity .
Whereas their hypothesis on the nature of Olmec writing and calenedrics was falsified, Leo Wiener's hypotheses concerning the Mande origin of the Olmec and American calendars and writing has been confirmed. Leo Wiener hypothesized that the Mande invented the American 13 mont calendar and Olmec writing found on the Tuxtla statuette.
Wiener supported his hypothesis by citing evidence of the 13 month zodiacs found on clabashes. He presented evidence that the Mande used symbols in Africa situated on Mande habitation sites found on American artifacts including the Tuxtla statuette.
Wiener's theories have been confirmed by archaeological research. Firstly, Mande writing has been found on earlier Olmec artifacts such as the LaVenta Celts discovered through excavation of Olmec sites; and dates have been found on Olmec artifacts. Given the confirmation of Leo Wiener's theories we must conclude that the Olmec, spoke a Mande language and wrote inscriptions in Mande writing.
Finally, I don't have to present extradinary evidence to prove the Mande origin of the Mayan and Olmec calendrics this was already proven by Wiener and Bork's discussion of the 13 month zodiacs found on African calabashes, and Mande writing on American artifacts.This along with the Mande origin of the Mayan term for writing and Mande substratum in the Mayan and Mixe languages support the view the Olmec spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before this is not an initial series sign it just relates to the introduction to the text. But if this is your opinion --its fine with me.
.
Mine and the leading experts on the Mojarra Stela:
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1 , LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1"
F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, Mexico Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14.
T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
Please quote and cite a leading scholar (other than your own opinion) who thinks this glyph is a Mande theological statement.
Again you are using the method of authority to imply that you are right. I totally disagree with these authors.
This is just an evasion. If I say something, this is just my opinion, but when I support that statement by referencing leading authorities epi-Olmec epigraphy- I'm "using the method of authority" . According to you, your extraordinary and unorthodox opinion, totally unsupported by any Mesoamerican epigrapher or scholar, is superior. Of course I cite authorities to show that this view is the one held by experts in the field, that is how scholarship works, and the burden of proof is not with the orthodox view but with the person who is making an "extraordinary claim" and he/she is the one who has to present "extraordinary evidence." You have not done so. Why don't you post images of this glyph in African rock paintings, other stelae where it is clearly not in a first position in a calendar date, etc.
quote:Moreover, Kaufman and Justeson decipherment has been dsicredited so their is nothing these two researchers can say about the Mojarra stela that anyone can accept as valid. .
This is not how science proceeds. Coe disagreed with Justeson & Kaufman, they (I understand) are replying in a volume from Dumbarton Oaks in press. Coe, no doubt will respond to that, etc Justeson and Kaufman's long detailed and explicit proposed translation is still the one to crtitique, correct and build on. Coe did NOT falsify or even critique the presence of Long Count Initial Series in the Mojarra Stela, nor did he disagree with Justenson & Kaufman's interpretation of the dates. Thus your comment is not applicable, unless you can quote Coe stating that these are not Long Count calendars or that glyph A1 is not an introductory glyph. [/QB]
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: If you don't know what the Mande calendar was, why are you claiming that they brought it to the New World?
The interesting aspect is, again, how similar these arguments are to the kind of thing the "creationists" do about evolution. They cite Lord Kelvin (19th century) on the age of the earth, as if he were relevant today. Here too, the works cited (skipping Van Sertima, who in this area is just quoting Wiener) are Wiener 1922 (but citing much older works), Brinton 1899, Seler 1905, Delafosse 1899, etc. At that time, no one knew that the Olmecs had been in the Gulf of Mexico area, or how old Mesoamerican civilization was. It is as if we went into a time capsule, where the work of the hundreds of archaeologists, linguists, and anthropologists who have done research in Africa and in Mesoamerica did not exist.
I'll have to quote (oh horrors!) and show 1) that Weiner misquoted Seler 2) Van Sertima (and now you) mischaracterized the strength of Weiner's "evidence" and that Weiner did not understand the Mesoamerican calendar (It was 1922, after all and his background was in Slavic linguistics).
Of course you must be joking, how can this discussion be like the creationist? First of all, granted we do not know what the Mande calendar was, but we do know that they made 13 month zodiacs which are the same number of months as the American calendrics. In addition we know that much of the American ideational systems are of Mande origin and include Mande terms and iconography in their presentations.
Granted Wiener did not know the Olmecs existed. But he did say the script on the Tuxtla statuette was of Mande origin. The Tuxtla statuette is accepted as an Olmec artifact, so although Wiener didn't know the affiliation of the Tuxtla statuette it is an Olmec artifact and therefore represents a Mande influence on Olmec writing. This Mande influence was supported by symbols on the LaVenta and El Sitio celts.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Antiquity of the oued mertoutek Inscription
Controversy surrounds my dating of the Mande/ Libyco-Berber
/Ancient Libyan inscription found at Oued Mertoutek by Wulsin
(1940). I have proposed a 2nd millennium date for this document
while Wulsin dates the inscription to the 5th century of the
Christian era.
At Oued Mertoutek Wulsin found an engraving of an ovicaprid
(sheep/goat) with an ancient Libyco-Berber inscription placed
inside the figure. Although the patina for the inscription and
the goat/sheep figure were the same , Wulsin claimed that the goat/sheep figure dated to the 1st-3rd millennium BC, and the writing dated back to the horse period of the "Saharan Rock Art" which he assumed was 500-600 AD.
The separate dates for the Oued Mertoutek engraving are
clearly inconsistent, given the identical patina of the figure
and the writing. There is no way the figure and inscription could
be separated by 1500-2500 years and still show identical patina.
Reason, dictates summary rejection of Wulsin's hypothesis
supporting the late introduction of writing to the Sahara.
Wuslin based his dating of the Libyco-Berber writing on the
Oued Mertoutek engraving on the Hamitic paradigm. This paradigm
maintains that writing, the horse and other cultural features
were given to Africans by Semitic speaking culturally superior
people from the East. In Wulsin's day, researchers believed that
the horse arrived in North Africa and the Sahara around 500 AD.
If we accept the discredited Hamitic hypothesis for the
introduction of writing to the Sahara, we would have to push the
day for the introduction of writing back 800-1400 years. Because
1) the chariot period which is associated with Libyco-Berber
writing is believed to have begun in the 2nd millennium BC; and
2) archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest that writing
existed in the Sahara by at least 800 BC.
Close (1980) and Galand have reported that an inscribed
pottery vessel with Libyco-Berber inscriptions was found at
Tiddis, which dates back to 300 BC. This is 800 years earlier
than Wulsin's date for the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions.
In addition, Close (1980)claims that other evidence indicates
that Libyco-Berber inscriptions can be pushed back to between
600-700 BC. This archaeological evidence clearly contradict
Wulsin's estimation of the Oued Mertoutek inscription's age.
Other evidence for the antiquity of the Oued Mertoutek
inscription comes from there association with Saharan chariots.
The inscriptions and chariots share the same patina. These
chariots have been dated to around 1200 BC according to Desanges
(1981, p.433).
Originally, researchers believed that the Saharan chariots
were introduced into the Sahara by Egyptians and/or the Peoples
of the Sea. This hypothesis is now discredited because there are
few similarities between the Saharan and Aegean portrayals of
Chariots (Desanges, 1981,p.432).
In addition, whereas the Horse Period was considered to be
500-600 AD in Wulsin's day, today the horse period is dated
between 1500-500 BC (Sahnouni,1996, p.29). The horse depicted in
the Sahara was not the Arabian horse typified by the Berber and
Taurag horsemen. Barbary horses drew the Saharan chariots
horses (Desanges, 1981, p.432). This horse is smaller than the
Arabian horses which were not introduced into Africa
until the Christian era. The lack of similarity between the
Saharan, and eastern chariots, and the horses that drew them
indicate the unique nature of Saharan civilization.
The archaeological evidence makes it clear that Wulsin
(1940, p.129) made a mistake in his dating of the Oued Mertoutek
inscription. The fact that the contemporary epigraphers date the
Libyco-Berber inscriptions back to 700 BC and those associated
with the Saharan chariots date to 1500 BC, support my contention
that the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions date to the 2nd
millennium, just like the goat/sheep figure which shares the
same patina as the writing according to Wulsin (1940, p.128)
himself.
Some researchers refuse to date the Libyco-Berber
inscriptions earlier than 700 BC, because the Semitic alphabet
was not used until around 800 BC. They claim that Libyco-Berber
can not be any older than 800 BC because the Semitic alphabet is
suppose to be the parent of the Libyco-Berber writing.
This is a false analogy. Firstly, this view has to be
rejected because the Libyco-Berber script includes many signs
which are different from Semitic scripts. Although these signs
are not found in the Berber alphabet, they are found in the Indus
Valley, Linear A and Egyptian pottery signs.
J.T. Cornelius (1954, 1956-1957) illustrated how the
Libyco-Berber signs are identical to the Egyptian, South Indian
and Linear A writing. Moreover, a cursory comparison of the
Thinite postmarks from Upper and Lower Egypt compare favorably to
the Libyco-Berber signs ( Petrie, 1900; van de Brink, 1992). All
of these writing systems date to the 3rd millennium BC.
Secondly, these writing systems correlate well with Wulsin's
dating of the goat/sheep figure at Oued Mertoutek. This
congruency supports a 3rd millennium date for the Oued Mertoutek
inscriptions, and explains the fact that both the goat/sheep and
Libyco-Berber inscriptions share the same patina.
In conclusion, the Oued Mertoutek inscription probably dates
back to the 3rd Millennium BC. Two factors dispute Wulsin's
dating of the Oued Mertoutek inscription: 1) the archaeological
evidence which has pushed back the dating of Libyco-Berber
inscriptions to between 300-700 BC; and 2) the dating of the
Horse Period in Saharan history to 1500 BC, rather than 500-600
AD.
The dating of the Horse period in the Sahara is
now pushed back to 1500 BC. This factor alone disconfirms the
hypothesis of Wulsin, that the Oued Mertoutek inscription was
written around 500-600 AD, because Wulsin had formed this
conclusion based on the dating of the Horse Period of Saharan
Rock Art. Changes in the dating of the Horse Period from those
accepted by Wulsin 50 years ago automatically changes our dating
of the Oued Mertoutek inscription.
The ancient origin of Libyco-Berber writing is further
confirmed by the common symbols shared by the Oued Mertoutek
inscriptions, and contemporary 3rd Millennium writing systems in
Mesopotamia, Crete, Egypt and the Indus Valley. This along with
the same patina for the goat/sheep figure and Oued Mertoutek
inscription is congruent with the determination that the Oued
Mertoutek inscription is 5000 years old.
References Close, A.E. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon
dates from northern Africa", , 21,
pp.145-167.
Cornelius, J.T. (1954). The Dravidian Question,
Culture>, 3 (2), pp.92-102.
Cornelius, J.T. (1956-1957). Are Dravidian Dynastic
Egyptians?,
India, 1956-1957, pp.89-117.
Desanges, J. (1981). The Proto-Berbers. In
of Africa II> (Ed.) by G.M. Mokhtar (pp.423-440). Berkeley,CA:
(Ed.) by Theodore Celenko (pp.28-30). Bloomington,IN:Indianapolis
Museum of Art.
van den Brink, E.C.M.(1992). Corpus and numerical evaluation
of the Thinite potmarks. In
Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman> (pp.265-296). Oxbow Books.
Park End Place, Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association
Publication. No.2.
Wulsin,F.R. (1940).
Northwest Africa>. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol.19 (1).
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'll have to quote (oh horrors!) and show 1) that Weiner misquoted Seler 2) Van Sertima (and now you) mischaracterized the strength of Weiner's "evidence" and that Weiner did not understand the Mesoamerican calendar (It was 1922, after all and his background was in Slavic linguistics).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters Of course you must be joking, how can this discussion be like the creationist? First of all, granted we do not know what the Mande calendar was, but we do know that they made 13 month zodiacs which are the same number of months as the American calendrics.[/QB
This is so wrong It's clear that Wiener knew nothing about the Mesoamerican calendar and Van Sertima and ,now you, copied him blindly. None of the Mesoamerican calendars has 13 months Please quote ANY Mesoamerican textbook, scholar etc. that says this. Don't you read my posts? on 25 May, 2008 04:16 PM I posted a description
quote:The basic critique I have is that- once you agree that the Mojarra dates are Mesoamerican Long Count, then several things are also automatically included. 1) we have a calendar round which is composed of any day having two names. One in the "sacred" 260-day calendar resulting from a combination of 20 day-names and numbers 1 to 13 and one in the "vague year" 365-day calendar. This calendar is composed of 18 20-day "months" and 1 5-day period. 2) This also means that this date: 8.5.3.3.5 (21 May 143 AD) has the "vague" name of 3 (the epi-Olmec equivalent of K'ayab) at the beginning of the date and the "sacred" name of 13 "Snake" at the end of the date.
The Mesoamerican calendar is composed by the combination of a "sacred" tonalpohualli 260-day calendar (20 day-names) and numbers 1-13) and a 'vague year" haab 360-day calendar of 18 20-DAY MONTHS + ONE 5-DAY MONTH. A name of a day will not repeat in 52 years. this unit is called a "Calendar Round". This was the only calendar that the Aztecs knew. The Olmecs and the Classic Maya knew an additional calendar-- the "Long Count Initial Series" Starting from a zero date the days are counted while keeping track of the Calendar Round so that you know that the day 8.5.3.3.5. has the name 13 Snake in the tonalpohualli and 3 K'ayab in the Haab. This is which is WE have been discussing so this stuff by Wiener, Van Sertima is completely irrelevant. they have nothing to say about the Long Count calendar.
Now to the "wonderful" evidence for the presence of 13 "zodiacs" in Mesoamerica:
Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons
[Later, I’ll get to the so-called “Plate of the Bacabs” which is really the tonalamatl and the 5 directions of the earth. This is the total of the supposed definitive evidence. Basically, Wiener throws mud at a wall to see what sticks].
quote:p. 270 “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculation based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique. Travelers have taken no trouble to ascertain African calendars and chronologies. The following few facts are about all we know. The Habbes have a lunar months of five weeks and six days each (Desplagnes, Comment- not applicable to 13 zodiacs question]. The Tchi tribes have a seven-day week of varying length (Ellis, 1894 comment not applicable to the zodiac question), while the Yorubas have a week of five days, six of them making a lunar month (Ellis, ibid. comment- not applicable to the zodiac question). The Islamic week has everywhere else taken the place of the native time reckoning, but as the numeration of the Mandes, like that of most Sudanese people, is based on “five” (Delafosse comment- not applicable and disproves the whole proposition since Mesoamerica used base 20 not base 5 in counting], the original week as unquestionably the same as that of the Yorubas. For astrological purposes there was in use a division of the zodiac in thirteen parts, such as has been found ion three calabashes in western Africa (Bork comment- this is the total amount of evidence— 3 calabashes found in the 19th century ?, and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan and in America.”
quote:Clyde Winters posted In addition we know that much of the American ideational systems are of Mande origin and include Mande terms and iconography in their presentations.
Granted Wiener did not know the Olmecs existed. But he did say the script on the Tuxtla statuette was of Mande origin. The Tuxtla statuette is accepted as an Olmec artifact, so although Wiener didn't know the affiliation of the Tuxtla statuette it is an Olmec artifact and therefore represents a Mande influence on Olmec writing. This Mande influence was supported by symbols on the LaVenta and El Sitio celts. .
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Antiquity of the oued mertoutek Inscription
Controversy surrounds my dating of the Mande/ Libyco-Berber
/Ancient Libyan inscription found at Oued Mertoutek by Wulsin
(1940). I have proposed a 2nd millennium date for this document
while Wulsin dates the inscription to the 5th century of the
Christian era.
/[QB]
You should then not cite Wulsin as the source for the 3000 BC date. It is your own opinion. Look at your references-- completely unsatisfactory-- Names of journals, volumes, page numbers etc. How can a reader look at your references without a lot of detective work?The purpose of scholarly bibliographies is to make it easy for the reader to find the source of quotations or paraphrases.
My question stands despite the dump-- please quote a rock art expert who thinks that inscriptions with dots in them are old.
I'd still like to stay with the calendar. Look at my post and see that Wiener's "'so-called" proof of 13 month zodiacs in either Africa or the New World is practically non-existent. Pretend that this "proof" was submitted for publication in any refered journal today-- it would not get by the office secretary.
quote:References Close, A.E. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon
dates from northern Africa", , 21,
pp.145-167.
Cornelius, J.T. (1954). The Dravidian Question,
Culture>, 3 (2), pp.92-102.
Cornelius, J.T. (1956-1957). Are Dravidian Dynastic
Egyptians?,
India, 1956-1957, pp.89-117.
Desanges, J. (1981). The Proto-Berbers. In
of Africa II> (Ed.) by G.M. Mokhtar (pp.423-440). Berkeley,CA:
(Ed.) by Theodore Celenko (pp.28-30). Bloomington,IN:Indianapolis
Museum of Art.
van den Brink, E.C.M.(1992). Corpus and numerical evaluation
of the Thinite potmarks. In
Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman> (pp.265-296). Oxbow Books.
Park End Place, Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association
Publication. No.2.
Wulsin,F.R. (1940).
Northwest Africa>. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol.19 (1).
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Antiquity of the oued mertoutek Inscription
Controversy surrounds my dating of the Mande/ Libyco-Berber
/Ancient Libyan inscription found at Oued Mertoutek by Wulsin
(1940). I have proposed a 2nd millennium date for this document
while Wulsin dates the inscription to the 5th century of the
Christian era.
/[QB]
You should then not cite Wulsin as the source for the 3000 BC date. It is your own opinion. Look at your references-- completely unsatisfactory-- Names of journals, volumes, page numbers etc. How can a reader look at your references without a lot of detective work?The purpose of scholarly bibliographies is to make it easy for the reader to find the source of quotations or paraphrases.
My question stands despite the dump-- please quote a rock art expert who thinks that inscriptions with dots in them are old.
I'd still like to stay with the calendar. Look at my post and see that Wiener's "'so-called" proof of 13 month zodiacs in either Africa or the New World is practically non-existent. Pretend that this "proof" was submitted for publication in any refered journal today-- it would not get by the office secretary.
quote:References Close, A.E. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon
dates from northern Africa", , 21,
pp.145-167.
Cornelius, J.T. (1954). The Dravidian Question,
Culture>, 3 (2), pp.92-102.
Cornelius, J.T. (1956-1957). Are Dravidian Dynastic
Egyptians?,
India, 1956-1957, pp.89-117.
Desanges, J. (1981). The Proto-Berbers. In
of Africa II> (Ed.) by G.M. Mokhtar (pp.423-440). Berkeley,CA:
(Ed.) by Theodore Celenko (pp.28-30). Bloomington,IN:Indianapolis
Museum of Art.
van den Brink, E.C.M.(1992). Corpus and numerical evaluation
of the Thinite potmarks. In
Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman> (pp.265-296). Oxbow Books.
Park End Place, Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association
Publication. No.2.
Wulsin,F.R. (1940).
Northwest Africa>. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol.19 (1).
Based on the Patina of of the Oued Mertoutek monument I can give it an early date.
The fact that the Vai script has dot and bar signs make it clear that ancient African writing systems did have dot and bar symbols.
You imply that the Mande did not have writing in ancient times. Dr. Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Olmec probably used a Mande writing system [18]. Dr. Wiener after comparing the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was analogous Manding writing engraved on rocks in Mandeland. Wiener (1922) and Lawrence (1961) maintain that the Olmec writing was identical to the Manding writing used in Africa. [19]
There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt.The Tichitt dwellings were built by Mande speaking people and date back to 2000-800 BC. Researchers claim that the inscriptions are along the chariot routes and other sites in Dar Tichitt.. This suggest that some of the inscriptions may date back to 1500-2000BC, this is the date for the appearance of the horse in the Sahara.
(See: Nicole Lambert, Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4(1970),pp.15-62;
Nicole Lambert, L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226;
R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);
R.A. Kea, Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Reserach, 3(2004), pp.723-816 ).
The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Mande, Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
If this article was peer reviewed, a peer who is expert in Meso-American calendars would know that the 13 month calendar continues to be used in Meso-America and the finding that Africans also used this calendar would provide great import into the origin of this calendar in MesoAmerica.
You are such a deciever and will do anything to win an argument. Leo Wiener was talking about the sacre calendar of the Maya called Tzolk'in. This calendar is where we get the Calendar Round. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed.[b] No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine moth period of human gestation" (p.74).
As you can see experts don't know where this calendar originated. Dr. Wiener, as an astute scholars suggested that it originated in Africa, where we see the 13 month zodiac calabashes.
Shame on you. Why can't you tell the truth instead of attacking great scholars such as Leo Wiener.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'll have to quote (oh horrors!) and show 1) that Weiner misquoted Seler 2) Van Sertima (and now you) mischaracterized the strength of Weiner's "evidence" and that Weiner did not understand the Mesoamerican calendar (It was 1922, after all and his background was in Slavic linguistics).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters Of course you must be joking, how can this discussion be like the creationist? First of all, granted we do not know what the Mande calendar was, but we do know that they made 13 month zodiacs which are the same number of months as the American calendrics.[/QB
This is so wrong It's clear that Wiener knew nothing about the Mesoamerican calendar and Van Sertima and ,now you, copied him blindly. None of the Mesoamerican calendars has 13 months Please quote ANY Mesoamerican textbook, scholar etc. that says this. Don't you read my posts? on 25 May, 2008 04:16 PM I posted a description
quote:The basic critique I have is that- once you agree that the Mojarra dates are Mesoamerican Long Count, then several things are also automatically included. 1) we have a calendar round which is composed of any day having two names. One in the "sacred" 260-day calendar resulting from a combination of 20 day-names and numbers 1 to 13 and one in the "vague year" 365-day calendar. This calendar is composed of 18 20-day "months" and 1 5-day period. 2) This also means that this date: 8.5.3.3.5 (21 May 143 AD) has the "vague" name of 3 (the epi-Olmec equivalent of K'ayab) at the beginning of the date and the "sacred" name of 13 "Snake" at the end of the date.
The Mesoamerican calendar is composed by the combination of a "sacred" tonalpohualli 260-day calendar (20 day-names) and numbers 1-13) and a 'vague year" haab 360-day calendar of 18 20-DAY MONTHS + ONE 5-DAY MONTH. A name of a day will not repeat in 52 years. this unit is called a "Calendar Round". This was the only calendar that the Aztecs knew. The Olmecs and the Classic Maya knew an additional calendar-- the "Long Count Initial Series" Starting from a zero date the days are counted while keeping track of the Calendar Round so that you know that the day 8.5.3.3.5. has the name 13 Snake in the tonalpohualli and 3 K'ayab in the Haab. This is which is WE have been discussing so this stuff by Wiener, Van Sertima is completely irrelevant. they have nothing to say about the Long Count calendar.
Now to the "wonderful" evidence for the presence of 13 "zodiacs" in Mesoamerica:
Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons
[Later, I’ll get to the so-called “Plate of the Bacabs” which is really the tonalamatl and the 5 directions of the earth. This is the total of the supposed definitive evidence. Basically, Wiener throws mud at a wall to see what sticks].
quote:p. 270 “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculation based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique. Travelers have taken no trouble to ascertain African calendars and chronologies. The following few facts are about all we know. The Habbes have a lunar months of five weeks and six days each (Desplagnes, Comment- not applicable to 13 zodiacs question]. The Tchi tribes have a seven-day week of varying length (Ellis, 1894 comment not applicable to the zodiac question), while the Yorubas have a week of five days, six of them making a lunar month (Ellis, ibid. comment- not applicable to the zodiac question). The Islamic week has everywhere else taken the place of the native time reckoning, but as the numeration of the Mandes, like that of most Sudanese people, is based on “five” (Delafosse comment- not applicable and disproves the whole proposition since Mesoamerica used base 20 not base 5 in counting], the original week as unquestionably the same as that of the Yorubas. For astrological purposes there was in use a division of the zodiac in thirteen parts, such as has been found ion three calabashes in western Africa (Bork comment- this is the total amount of evidence— 3 calabashes found in the 19th century ?, and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan and in America.”
quote:Clyde Winters posted In addition we know that much of the American ideational systems are of Mande origin and include Mande terms and iconography in their presentations.
Granted Wiener did not know the Olmecs existed. But he did say the script on the Tuxtla statuette was of Mande origin. The Tuxtla statuette is accepted as an Olmec artifact, so although Wiener didn't know the affiliation of the Tuxtla statuette it is an Olmec artifact and therefore represents a Mande influence on Olmec writing. This Mande influence was supported by symbols on the LaVenta and El Sitio celts. .
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote: My question stands despite the dump-- please quote a rock art expert who thinks that inscriptions with dots in them are old.
Instead of quoting a source for the dot and bar presence in ancient inscription I have decided to post one. See above illustration.
Here we see chariots and horse. This inscription would date to the horse period which began around 1500-2000BC. The Olmec writing dates after this period.
As usual you declare things based on your own opinion instead of fact. Oh you are a great deciever.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If this article was peer reviewed, a peer who is expert in Meso-American calendars would know that the 13 month calendar continues to be used in Meso-America and the finding that Africans also used this calendar would provide great import into the origin of this calendar in MesoAmerica.
It does not. I keep asking you to quote a Mesoamerican scholar saying that "mesoamericans use a 13-month calendar". John Montgomery does not say that-- he just restates what I've already told you ad nauseam- that a 260-day calendar exists.
We must keep out eye on the ball. This thread is about the existence of a Long Count calendar date on the Mojarra Stela. You keep bringin up peripheral and extraneous questions. The Long Count means includes ALL of these: the 260-day calendar + the 365-day calendar + a day count from a zero date in 3114 B.C. a base 20 counting system + positional notation with a real zero. They do not stand alone. No one in the world (Africans included) had this combination. Even if it was proved that Africans had ONE of these (which, in fact, Wiener did not do), it would not affect the question of the existence and provenience of a Long Count date on the Mojarra Stela.
quote:You are such a deciever and will do anything to win an argument. Leo Wiener was talking about the sacre calendar of the Maya called Tzolk'in. This calendar is where we get the Calendar Round. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed.[b] No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42)./
quote:
Insults only reflect poverty in arguments.
This is just what I've told you repeatedly. However, you are NOT quoting Coe and Stone completely- you omitted the key part; [QUOTE]p. 40 The basic part of the Maya calendar is the Calendar Round[emphasis by Coe], an ever repeating cycle of 52 years of exactly 365 years each. This is probably the oldest way of writing dates, since the calendar round was used not only by the Maya, but by all other peoples in Mesoamerica, including the Aztecs. In Maya inscriptions, it always follows Long Count dates (see 3.4) and Distance Numbers [emphasis Coe] (3.5). The Calendar Round is expressed by 1) a day in the 260-day Count, with its coefficient, and 2) a month in the Haab or 365 "year." with its coefficent.
people can compare what I posted on 26 May, 2008 11:51 PM , i.e. and see that Coe and Stone's description is exactly the same. The point, which you keep obscuringis that the 260-day calendar was NOT a stand alone calendar. In Mesoamerica two calendars ran simultaneously: the 260 and the 365-day ones.
quote:Don't you read my posts? on 25 May, 2008 04:16 PM I posted a description quote: The basic critique I have is that- once you agree that the Mojarra dates are Mesoamerican Long Count, then several things are also automatically included. 1) we have a calendar round which is composed of any day having two names. One in the "sacred" 260-day calendar resulting from a combination of 20 day-names and numbers 1 to 13 and one in the "vague year" 365-day calendar. This calendar is composed of 18 20-day "months" and 1 5-day period. 2) This also means that this date: 8.5.3.3.5 (21 May 143 AD) has the "vague" name of 3 (the epi-Olmec equivalent of K'ayab) at the beginning of the date and the "sacred" name of 13 "Snake" at the end of the date. The Mesoamerican calendar is composed by the combination of a "sacred" tonalpohualli 260-day calendar (20 day-names) and numbers 1-13) and a 'vague year" haab 360-day calendar of 18 20-DAY MONTHS + ONE 5-DAY MONTH. A name of a day will not repeat in 52 years. this unit is called a "Calendar Round". This was the only calendar that the Aztecs knew. The Olmecs and the Classic Maya knew an additional calendar-- the "Long Count Initial Series" Starting from a zero date the days are counted while keeping track of the Calendar Round so that you know that the day 8.5.3.3.5. has the name 13 Snake in the tonalpohualli and 3 K'ayab in the Haab. This is which is WE have been discussing so this stuff by Wiener, Van Sertima is completely irrelevant. they have nothing to say about the Long Count calendar.
quote: Clyde Winters posted This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine moth period of human gestation" (p.74).
As you can see experts don't know where this calendar originated.
Montgomery, again, just describes the 260-day calendar. Again, you fail the logic of the "excluded middle" Just because scholars don't know precisely the calendar originated does not mean that it had to come from Africa. Many scholars think that it arose from the importance of the number 13 and the fact that Mesoamericans want to use 20s. i.e. 20 different day names; others, as suggested think that it comes from the resemblance of this number to the period of gestation.
[ QUOTE]Clyde Winters posted Dr. Wiener, as an astute scholars suggested that it originated in Africa, where we see the 13 month zodiac calabashes.
Shame on you. Why can't you tell the truth instead of attacking great scholars such as Leo Wiener.
/[QB]
Again, insults just reflect the weakness of your position. People can read my quote from Wiener and see just how weak the argument is for the "13 month" position. You can always quote Wiener, if you think i'm misrepresenting him. I am still transcribing Wiener, but I'll give you a preview. In connection with this "13 month" he says that in Africa this would require 28-day months but that the Berbers actually have 28 months of 13 days each. Bottom line this in no way resembles the Mesoamerican calendar system. I'll give you another hint-- when the 260-day calendar is represented in codices you get 20 "months" of 13 days.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: It does not. I keep asking you to quote a Mesoamerican scholar saying that "mesoamericans use a 13-month calendar". John Montgomery does not say that-- he just restates what I've already told you ad nauseam- that a 260-day calendar exists.
You are such a deciever. There are 20 Mayan day signs. If 20x13= the 260 day calendar, the number 13=months.
If a 260-day calendar of 13 months exist, the Americans used a 13 month calendar.Why is it so hard for you to digest this fact.
You pretend you can't read, because both Montgomery and Coe say that the calendar is still being used in Meso America today. I will repeat my original quote:
Clyde Winters
quote:
You are such a deciever and will do anything to win an argument. Leo Wiener was talking about the sacre calendar of the Maya called Tzolk'in. This calendar is where we get the Calendar Round. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation. It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Here is the Calendar Round. Note the 20 day signs on the outside and the 13 months inside.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: It does not. I keep asking you to quote a Mesoamerican scholar saying that "mesoamericans use a 13-month calendar". John Montgomery does not say that-- he just restates what I've already told you ad nauseam- that a 260-day calendar exists.
You are such a deciever. There are 20 Mayan day signs. If 20x13= the 260 day calendar, the number 13=months.
If a 260-day calendar of 13 months exist, the Americans used a 13 month calendar.Why is it so hard for you to digest this fact.
You pretend you can't read, because both Montgomery and Coe say that the calendar is still being used in Meso America today. I will repeat my original quote:
Clyde Winters
quote:
You are such a deciever and will do anything to win an argument. Leo Wiener was talking about the sacre calendar of the Maya called Tzolk'in. This calendar is where we get the Calendar Round. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation. It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute.
.
Let's draw a deep breath. This thread, and the important question it deals with is whether the epi-Olmec had the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. It is clear that there are two such dates on the Mojarra Stela and in others such as Tres Zapotes Stela C. This gets us back to several hundred years B.C. You claim that the Mande brought this calendar over-- thus there should be evidence of this in this time period.
Now to recent posts. I think we have been talking past each other. I keep emphasizing that the Long Count dates mean that ALL the factors must be present and working together (i.e. the tzolkin 260-day, the haab 365-day, initial date, calendar round, base 20, zero with positional notation. I think you have focused on just one calendar-- the tzolkin as an independent unit.
Another misunderstanding is the way the tzolkin is described and pictured. I have focused on the way this calendar is described in the Mesoamerican literature and is pictured in the codices. People talk about the existence of 20 trecenas "Thirteenths"- they are just not called "months"-- but , from your perspective these are "months." The codices also picture the tzolkin as 20 sets of 13s not 13 sets of 20. for example;
The problem I have with the tzolkin as a free-standing calendar is that in the time period relevant to the Olmec question It was not used independently. It was always a part of the Calendar Round as Coe and Stone point out in the passage I quoted. However, you are right that the Mesoamerican calendar is still being used (although I have never denied that it is). But-- as a consequence of the Conquest and the time that has passed--you are correct that the tzolkin is being used independently. What has happened is that in some places only the Haab (365-day) is used, some use only the 260-day and a some use both BUT not combined as a Calendar Round. References for this: Villa Rojas A. 1986 “Los Conceptos de Espacio y Tiempo entre los Grupos Mayances Contemporaneos” in Leon-Portilla, M. Tiempo y Realidad en el Pensamiento Maya pp. 121-167 Mexico: UNAM
p. 149 [Highlands in Chiapas, Tzetzal, Tzotzil] only preserve the Haab “vague year”
p. 155 [Ixil in Guatemala] keep both the Haab and the tzolkin but not the Calendar round
Gossen, G.H. 1974. Chamulas in the World of the Sun Prospect Park, IL: Waveland Press
p. 27 most important is Haab
Guiteras Holmes, C. 1965 Los Peligros del Alma. Vision del Mundo de un Tzotzil. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica
pp. 35-37 both Haab and tzolkin but not calendar round.
Here is a quote to put the matter in perspective
Lopez Austin, A. 1990. Myths of the Opossum Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press
quote:p.108 An example of little resistance to the impact of the Conquest is the calendrical system. One of the most noteworthy differences between Mesoamerican religious thought and that of natives today is their relationship to the calendar, a fundamental system in the past which is almost absent today. The calendar was one of the most solid and well-elaborated creations of Mesoamerica; but its solidity was linked to politics. In fact, its history was tied to those of writing and of power. As Joyce Marcus (1979) says, "When writing emerged in the Middle Formative Period, it took the form of political information presented in a calendrical structure." During the Mayan Classic Period, one of its principal functions was legitimizing the ruler's power. In Oaxaca it had a similar function, at least at the end of the Classic and the beginning of the Postclassic Period (Marcus 1979; 1980). With the collapse of the Classic Period, the Mayan calendar was greatly simplified, but nevertheless it still held a privileged position in the most important areas of social life, including that of government. This happened in all of Mesoamerica during the Postclassic Period, until the arrival of the Europeans. According to documental sources, which give us very detailed information about the Postclassic Period, the calendar strongly permeated all aspects of human existence, being one of the obsessions of Mesoamerican thought, and, of course, it was allied to power. But, after two thousand years of being one of the most stable pillars of the religious tradition, the Spanish Conquest overthrew its preeminence. Sustained and controlled by the centers of political power, the calendric system fell with the disappearance of the indigenous states. Today derivations of it can be found here and there--in Guatemala, Chiapas, Oaxaca--helping men to face the forces of destiny, but they are mere shadows of the robust prehispanic omnipresence. If a judgment on the survival of ancient thought rested only on the preservation of the calendar, we would have scanty remnants.
We will return to the Wiener book subsequently. If you read the quotes I've already provided, you must admit that the evidence is hardly conclusive. There is only one citation that referes to 13 zodiacs and it is just a statement with no clear description, no provenance, etc. The existence of 3 calabashes somere in West Africa in the 19th century can hardly prove that the Mande 1000-500 BC had a calendar based on 13 months.
I will cite some more of Wiener's evidence but, in fact, it really deals with what is called the Maya "Short Count" a period of 13 x 20 years that was in use at time of the conquest.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I am glad we finally agree that the Long Count is based on 20 days x 13 month=260 day count and that this calendar continues to be in use today as noted by Leo Wiener.
I disagree that the loopy sign was an initial series character of the Olmecs.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am glad we finally agree that the Long Count is based on 20 days x 13 month=260 day count .
[QB] No. That is not totally correct. yes, the Long Count was based on the 260-calendar but it was also based on the 365-day calendar and it was also based on an initial date in 3114 BC and it was also based on the Calendar Round and it was also based on positonal notation with a real zero.
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters [QB]and that this calendar continues to be in use today as noted by Leo Wiener
Yes, in some parts both the 260-day and the 365-day calendars continue to be used but not the Calendar Round, but this is not relevant to the presence of Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela. Wiener did not say this. You cited John Montgomery and I gave you 3 more references.
quote:I disagree that the loopy sign was an initial series character of the Olmecs.
.
Too bad, you are the only one.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Understanding the Tzolk'in or sacre calendar is important to understanding why the Mojarra monument can have a date on it without necessarialy having an initial series introductory glyph (ISIG). The ISIG announces that the Long Count and Calendar Round will follow.
In the illustration above we have the components of the Calendar Round. The first part of this process is Tzolk'in sacre calendar. Any date determined by the Tzolk'in can then be converted into the Ja'ab calendar of 20 days and 18 months. Thus we have the interlocking cogs of the Tzolk'in and Ja'ab calendars.
It has been made clear that you can arrive at a reliable date using just the Tzolk'in calendar which existed prior to the invention of the Ja'ab. This is supported by the continued use of Tzolk'in by Americans throughout Meso-America.
The Olmec dates are made up usually of the bar and dot pattern, without the ISIG. Even without the ISIG researchers have determined reliable dates for the Olmec artifacts. This suggest that using Tzolk'in you can determine a date without employing an ISIG. This is why I maintain that the loopy sign is lexical items, rather than the ISIG.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Understanding the Tzolk'in or sacre calendar is important to understanding why the Mojarra monument can have a date on it without necessarialy having an initial series introductory glyph (ISIG). The ISIG announces that the Long Count and Calendar Round will follow.
In the illustration above we have the components of the Calendar Round. The first part of this process is Tzolk'in sacre calendar. Any date determined by the Tzolk'in can then be converted into the Ja'ab calendar of 20 days and 18 months. Thus we have the interlocking cogs of the Tzolk'in and Ja'ab calendars.
It has been made clear that you can arrive at a reliable date using just the Tzolk'in calendar which existed prior to the invention of the Ja'ab. This is supported by the continued use of Tzolk'in by Americans throughout Meso-America.
Several things: yes the tzolkin existed a couple of hundred years before the haab. NO. you can't get a reliable date using just the tzolkin. You can't get a reliable date using BOTH the haab and the tzolkin, i,e, the calendar round. This is the only thing that the Aztecs had. The date repeats every 52 years and you need some other marker to fix the date. For example, I I said "it happened in 49" is this 1849, 1949? If I said, "Truman did it in 49," or "the 49 Gold Rush" then you have a precise date. When the Olmecs managed set up a beginning date and a day count. i.e. the "initial series Long Count" THEN you can get a reliable date, even if you only use the day name in the tzolkin, (or for that matter only the day number in the month of the Haab) because they go together automatically. this is how epigraphers reconstruct dates that are badly eroded.
The Olmec dates are made up usually of the bar and dot pattern, without the ISIG. Even without the ISIG researchers have determined reliable dates for the Olmec artifacts. This suggest that using Tzolk'in you can determine a date without employing an ISIG. This is why I maintain that the loopy sign is lexical items, rather than the ISIG.
. [/QB][/QUOTE] No, you have to have a Long Count date so you can run the calendar round for the required number of days from the start of the calendar, but, if you are just saying that we have a long count date and we just differ on the nature of the "Initial Series glyph" then its your opinion versus mine and the references I cited. I'll see if I can find more evidence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^Agreed. If the Mayan people continue to determine dates with the Tzolk'in the ISIG is not necessary .
.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^Agreed. If the Mayan people continue to determine dates with the Tzolk'in the ISIG is not necessary .
.
.
Current Maya use the same calendar we use to determine dates. The 260-day calendar, if used, is used for divinatory and ritual purposes. The Initial Series and the Long Count have not been used for a thousand years.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^Agreed. If the Mayan people continue to determine dates with the Tzolk'in the ISIG is not necessary .
.
.
Current Maya use the same calendar we use to determine dates. The 260-day calendar, if used, is used for divinatory and ritual purposes. The Initial Series and the Long Count have not been used for a thousand years.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation. It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^Agreed. If the Mayan people continue to determine dates with the Tzolk'in the ISIG is not necessary .
.
.
Current Maya use the same calendar we use to determine dates. The 260-day calendar, if used, is used for divinatory and ritual purposes. The Initial Series and the Long Count have not been used for a thousand years.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation.
Like the "scientific creationists" you are "quote mining", i,e finding quotes that you cling to like a raft in a sea ignorance. I'm getting you a quote from Mike Coe clarifying your quote, but I'll tell you now what he will say:
You cannot get an accurate date without the use of the Long Count which has not been used in over a thousand years. The Short count repeated every 260 years and it, too, has not been used for over 500 years.
The modern Maya use the "tzolkin" for divinatory and religious purposes not for determining what the date is- because you can't do it by using the tzolkin alone. The religious component of tzolkin is often syncretized with the Catholic festival cycle based on "Western" calendar.
One more quote for you:
Gossen, G. H. 1974 Chamulas in the World of the Sun. Time and Space in a Maya Oral Tradition Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
quote:p. 362. “10. There is no evidence for the survival of the Ancient Maya Long Count and Short Count cycles among the modern chamulas. See Coe (1966), Whelan (1967). . . .
11. For the civil-religious festivals celebrated in Chamula, see Gossen (1970: 109), Pozas (1959: 171). Of the thirty-two festivals celebrated in 1968, the major ones in terms of duration and intensity of ritual activity and public attendance were: Change of Offices, December 31-January 3; San Sebastian, January 18-20; Carnival or Festival of Games, 5 days preceding Ash Wednesday;. . .”
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute. [
It is very interesting that Wiener is repeatedly cited but not quoted directly. Wiener is not saying that Mesoamericans had 13 months in a 365 solar year (what the word "year" usually means). If this is your claim, please provide a documented quote from Wiener saying this.
Wiener cites ONE paper for the existence of a 13 part zodiac in Africa, but provides no discussion, no summary, no illustrations of the 3 calabashes found somewhere is West Africa presumably in the 19th century. How is this convincing evidence that the Mande had a 13 month zodiac at any time- much less 500 B.C.?
Let me quote Wiener directly. Please notice that he feels that a 13 month "year" requires a 28-day month. There is no evidence whatsoever of a 28-day time unit in Mesoamerica. They always tried to get everything into 20-units because their math was base 20. Also, because, in 1920, Wiener had no idea about the time of the existence of these cultures; Wiener attributes the division into 13 to Arab and Hindu influence not Mande.
Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons
[QUOTE]p. 120-71 For astrological purposes there was in use a division of the zodiac in thirteen parts, such as has been found on three calabashes in western Africa [Cite F. Bork. no date Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, vol. XXI, p. 266 ff.], and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes and in America. The division of the year into thirteen parts would demand a twenty-eight day month, but, in reality, the order is reversed, for we still have among the Berbers a division of the year into twenty-eight parts, of thirteen days each, (. . .), which is based on the astronomical or astrological calculations of the Arabs, whose twenty-eight lunar mansions of thirteen days each were, in the IX. Century or later, adopted from the Hindus, (Nallino..), who had by that time arranged the twenty-eight nakshatras, or constellations, into equally spaced divisions of the Zodiac, which naturally led to the thirteen days unit of time.
To save time, don't bother to bring up Wiener's citation of Brinton on p. 265 because Brinton is speaking of 13 20 year units not months.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America also discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
Wiener wrote: “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculations based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique”(p.270).
Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Wiener noted the existence of 13 month 20 day zodiacs in West Africa, and the American sacre calendar of 20 days and 13 months. Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemala and other cultures up to today.
This proves that you are making claims without any foundation. It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation.
Like the "scientific creationists" you are "quote mining", i,e finding quotes that you cling to like a raft in a sea ignorance. I'm getting you a quote from Mike Coe clarifying your quote, but I'll tell you now what he will say:
You cannot get an accurate date without the use of the Long Count which has not been used in over a thousand years. The Short count repeated every 260 years and it, too, has not been used for over 500 years.
The modern Maya use the "tzolkin" for divinatory and religious purposes not for determining what the date is- because you can't do it by using the tzolkin alone. The religious component of tzolkin is often syncretized with the Catholic festival cycle based on "Western" calendar.
. .”
As promised a clarification from Mike Coe:
quote: From: OlmecC@aol.com [Add to Address Book]
Subject: Re: yet another one (oy veh) Date: Jun 1, 2008 1:35 PM
You're absolutely right on all counts. The 260-day count is still being observed in the Maya highlands, but the 52-year Calendar Round (52 x 365 days) hasn't been in use for centuries.
Those are definitely Introducing Glyphs at the head of the two Long Count dates on the La Mojarra stela. We have no idea of the language that they're in, but Mande is not a viable candidate!
Bst,
Mike
In a message dated 5/30/2008 12:54:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight :
Dear Mike,
Let me know when you get bored with this or it becomes time consuming. I know all of this stuff and have cited the relevant literature (i.e. ethnographic studies, by guiters Holmes, Vogt, Gossen, Villa Rojas etc.). Clyde Winters continues to cite you as the authority and tries to use a strictly literal reading as evidence against my statements.
The following is a quoted statement:
"Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacred calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74). Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation. It further supports Leo Wiener's discussion of the 13 month calendar of the Americans that you dispute."
I don't want to get you into the intricacies of the dispute . I have gotten him to agree that the dates on the Mojarra Stela ARE Long Count dates (A major victory since he has always insisted in translating the bars and dots as Mande syllables) He is disputing that glyph A1 and the M8 are the Isthmian equivalent of the Initial Series Glyph and wants to translate it into Mande. . . . Part of the Winters' argument is that an Initial Series Glyph is not needed because the date can be obtained from the name of the day in the tzolkin at the bottom of the date. In connection, with this claim, Winters' argues , based on a simplistic reading of the quotes I give above, that TODAY Mayas can get accurate dates based solely on the tzolkin.
I have pointed out that dates can only be reconstructed if only the tzolkin or the haab date is available IF the long count is being used because one can then run the calendar round and find the corresponding missing name. I also pointed out that the Long Count has not been used since the end of the Classic period and that Mayas today do not even use the Calendar Round. For ordinary purposes these Maya populations use the same calendar we use, and the "tzolkin" is used for ritual divination BUT not for determining what day it is.
Could I get a statement from you on this issue, clarifying the quote and any other point that you care to comment on.
Winters also claims that your Mexicon paper totally falsifies everything Justeson & Kaufman say about deciphering the Mojarra Stela. I doubt that you had anything to say about the translations of the dates on it.
Thanks and have a good wekend.
To reiterate Coe says "You're absolutely right on all counts. to the following statements:
quote:I don't want to get you into the intricacies of the dispute . I have gotten him to agree that the dates on the Mojarra Stela ARE Long Count dates (A major victory since he has always insisted in translating the bars and dots as Mande syllables) He is disputing that glyph A1 and the M8 are the Isthmian equivalent of the Initial Series Glyph and wants to translate it into Mande. . . . Part of the Winters' argument is that an Initial Series Glyph is not needed because the date can be obtained from the name of the day in the tzolkin at the bottom of the date. In connection, with this claim, Winters' argues , based on a simplistic reading of the quotes I give above, that TODAY Mayas can get accurate dates based solely on the tzolkin.
I have pointed out that dates can only be reconstructed if only the tzolkin or the haab date is available IF the long count is being used because one can then run the calendar round and find the corresponding missing name. I also pointed out that the Long Count has not been used since the end of the Classic period and that Mayas today do not even use the Calendar Round. For ordinary purposes these Maya populations use the same calendar we use, and the "tzolkin" is used for ritual divination BUT not for determining what day it is.
So let's stop using "quote mined" statements from Michael Coe to imply that I'm wrong.
Also, now, the following agree that there ARE introductory glyphs at A1 M8 on the Mojarra; Macri, Capitaine, Justeson & Kaufman, Coe and me.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Above are initial series glyphs. If you notice carefully we find that the initial series glyphs usually include the tun (T548 often worn on the head of number '5') main sign, along with a superfix of scrolls and two comb like figures, flanked by a pair of fish or fish fins. Between these signs is situated either a deity, a glyph or a glyph combination, which is the patron god of the month in the Haab.
None of the features of the Initial Series signs tun sign scrolls or two comb figures are found in the Majorra stela you depict below.
I disagree with you, Coe and the others. The ISIGs published above do not correspond to the symbols on the Mojarra stela. As a result I do not believe this was an ISIG.
Please answer these questions:
1.What ISIG is the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month noted in the ISIG is related the Mojarra sign?
4. What is the patron god of the alledge Mojarra introductory gylph.
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
i Snake
(Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."
As I stated in the original post it appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
To understand the designation of Yo Pe as Se Gyo (Se Jo) is explained by Mande traditional culture. As I said earlier I made a mistake and transliterated Pe gyo, as Se gyo. Reading the signs as Pe gyo tells us that Yo Pe was considered a powerful religious specialist in addition to be the King.
I do not believe the "loopy" sign was an Initial Series character. It was just a description of the potent supernatural power Yo Pe possessed.
As Se gyo, Yo Pe appears to have had great knowledge of sorcery or nyama. Se (foot, foundation) represents the beginning of knowledge. The se symbolizes beginning, an advance of success and power. The se represents man's progression in pursuit of knowledge. Since Se, means foundation and gyo, is spiritual knowledge. Se gyo would = "foundation of spiritual knowledge".
Nyama is occult power or special energy of supernatural origin. Nyama is considered source of power behind every task. Among the Mande the pinnacle of potency is the knowledge of sorcery. Sorcery is important among the Mande says McNaughton because "for the vast majority [of Mande] sorcery provide a means for analyzing situations and a tool for responding to them, and these people can be quite open about their use of it" (p.13).
Since I published the first translation of the sign on Friday I reread P.R. McNaughton's The Mande Blacksmiths: Knowledge, Power and Art in West Africa. This book gives us keen insight into Mande traditional beliefs and helps explain much of Olmec social concepts and religion. In the Friday transliteration of the signs I gave the following interpretation:
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
Instead of translating this middle sign as i po ki se, I believe it should read i po kilisi. In the Friday decipherment of the loopy sign I failed to include transliteration of the dot sign: li. The lexical item li, is represented by the black dot inside the middle symbol. Since "li" is in the middle of the figure I am reading the se sign as si, instead of se, thus we have Kilisi. Reading the signs as follows i po kilisi, we have "Thou pure secret speech".
Kilisi means secret speech. Kilisi is a potent formula of human sounds rich with supernatural energy. It is kilisi that provides an object with nyama.
In relation to the serpent/snake in the inscription it does not relate to a date. Before the sa or snake we have se gyo "Foundation of spiritual knowledge". I believe that Ye Po was a Satigi[/]: Master of Snakes.
Among the Mande the snake is used in divination. The snake diviner studies the reptiles movements which he mystically interprets to answer clients questions. The Satigi, communicated with snakes for numerous purposes, e.g., to forsee future events and obtain secret knowledge, because he shares a supernatural bond with the serpent. The Satigi is recognized as one of the most powerful diviners of the Mande people who has the ability to perform supernatural acts (McNaughty, p.52).
This suggest that Se gyo Sa (Snake) may be interpreted as The Se Gyo and Sa(tigi).
In Row 2 we read the following:
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
The monkey figure probably has an important meaning in this inscription and may represent an emblem. Among the Mande [b]sulaw monkeys indicates the initiates awareness of his own animality. This suggest that Sula tu in row 2, should read "A king aware of his animality".
In conclusion it is safe to say that Yo Pe had immense supernatural power, thus his nickname "Se Gyo". He was also a Satigi, and thus could see into the future and obtain supernatural knowledge via his snake totem. As a result of this I do not believe that Se gyo Snake, is a day sign. These signs probably related to the immense supernatural powers of Yo Pe.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
This is and interesting debate.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: From: OlmecC@aol.com [Add to Address Book]
Subject: Re: yet another one (oy veh) Date: Jun 1, 2008 1:35 PM
You're absolutely right on all counts. The 260-day count is still being observed in the Maya highlands, but the 52-year Calendar Round (52 x 365 days) hasn't been in use for centuries.
Those are definitely Introducing Glyphs at the head of the two Long Count dates on the La Mojarra stela. We have no idea of the language that they're in, but Mande is not a viable candidate!
Bst,
Mike
This does not change a thing. This is the same thing I claimed earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America also discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
Wiener wrote: “In the first place, the central square contains the Mandingo tutelary god with his attributes and appurtenances. The numerical calculations based on 20 and 13, which is the essence of the American calendars, is surely built on African models. Here again we possess but the scantiest material for verification, but just enough to be startling and unique”(p.270).
Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine month period of human gestation" (p.74).
Lets recap Coe and Montgomery says the 13 month 260-day calendar continues to be used in Guatemalan and other cultures up to today. This proves that you are making claims without any foundation.
I never said anything about the 52 year system. Moreover, this is just Coe’s opinion about Mojarra having an ISIG.
I disagree and read the sign as a lexical item as discussed above.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Diehl in The Olmecs make it clear that the Mojarra stela had been visible for many years on the property of the Dominguez family before it eroded into the river 50 years ago.
The Mojarra side inscription makes it clear that a tomb for Yo Pe was situated near the stela. This suggest that artifacts may be found in this tomb which is probably under the sea.
Diehl and Zarate have been searching the area near the Acula river for more artifacts. Since the stela eroded into the Acula river there is a good chance the tomb and related grave goods may also be found in the river.
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
King Yo Pe
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [I never said anything about the 52 year system. Moreover, this is just Coe’s opinion about Mojarra having an ISIG.
I disagree and read the sign as a lexical item as discussed above.
It's amusing that, after repeatedly posting quotes from Coe an as authority on the Maya and the Olmec and loudly declaiming that he had completely falsified Justeson & Kaufman's proposed translation of epi-Olmec, when Coe agrees with everything I claimed, including the fact that there are Initial Series Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela, this is "just Coe's opinion."
Since you, yourself, have cited him as a great authority on these topics, his "opinion" is orders of magnitude more authoritative than "your" opinion.
I'm getting a reprint of the 3 calabashes paper and will start a new thread on Wiener's "evidence" when I get it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You are mistaken, I have never claimed that Coe was an authority on Olmec writing. I quote him as an authority on Mayan writing.
I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.
This worksheet shows that the ISIG is made up of several parts. If there is an ISIG on the Mojarra Stela it should have these parts.
Below I present the Mayan ISIGs.
Cursory examination of the Mojarra loopy sign and the ISIGs above show no affinity. As a result,I disagree with you, Coe and the others.
The ISIGs published above do not correspond to the symbols on the Mojarra stela. As a result I do not believe this “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela was an ISIG.
If you believe this is an ISIG you should be able to answer the following questions.
Answer these questions by comparing the ISIGs above and the loopy sign on the Mojarra stela.:
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You are mistaken, I have never claimed that Coe was an authority on Olmec writing. I quote him as an authority on Mayan writing.
I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series. Cursory examination of the Mojarra loopy sign and the ISIGs above show no affinity. As a result,I disagree with you, Coe and the others.
The ISIGs published above do not correspond to the symbols on the Mojarra stela. As a result I do not believe this “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela was an ISIG.
If you believe this is an ISIG you should be able to answer the following questions.
Answer these questions by comparing the ISIGs above and the loopy sign on the Mojarra stela.:
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
.
Your teachers would be quite disappointed with what you learned. I shall continue your education. What your worksheet deals with is with the full-blown Classical Maya period ISIG Long Count. This system did not spring into being full-blown it evolved over time. This may be a foreign concept since your interpretation of Vai/Mande script can be used to read inscriptions dating from 3000 BC in Africa, 900 BC and 146 AD in Mexico and 1898 in Mali with no change or evolution needed. Truly a wonder!
Just one of a number of citations (one more Mesomerican scholar) Marcus, J. 1976. “The Origins of Mesoamerican Writing,” Annual Reviews of Anthropology 5: 35-67.
quote:p. 64 [Summary] Our oldest evidence for the 260-day ritual calendar comes from Middle Formative Oaxaca. By Late Formative times, this 260-day Sacred Round had been combined with the 365-day Vague Year to produce the 52-year Calendar Round. Ironically, although the Long Count (which made use of all the above) is popularly associated with the Lowland Maya our earliest examples of Cycle 7 Long Count monuments come from the Zoque region (Chiapa de Corzo), Veracruz, and the Guatemalan Pacific piedmont. Not until the third century A.D. was the earliest known dated stela erected in the Maya lowlands. However, it was in that region that mesoamerican hieroglyphic writing was to achieve its maximum versatility, greatest complexity, and closest proximity to the spoken language.
In a susequent publication Marcus, J. 1992. Mesoamerican Writing Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press says:
quote:p. 140 At the moment, our oldest stone monument with an exact-day date— known as a “Long Count” date—is Stela 2 of Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas (Fig. 4.28). If we assume the same base date of 3114 B.C. used by the later Maya, Stela 2’s date (7.16.3.2.13) works out to December 9, 36 B.C.. Our next oldest Long count date is carved on Stela C at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz (Fig. 4.29). This date—7.1`6.6.16.18 [6 Etznab]—corresponds to September 3, 32 B.CD.. Stela C at Tres Zapotes gives us our first example of an Initial Series Introductory Glyph, the hieroglyph which signals that a long count date will follow (Stirling 1940). It is possible that Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo also had an Initial Series Introductory Glyph, but that damaged monument lacks the first part of the Long Count date
Now, let us go sequentially to trace the development. The oldest exact-day date is Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo(36 B.C.) while the first Initial Series Glyph is on Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 B.C.)
Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo
Stela C Tres Zapotes
Marcus (1976; 52-53) say about Stela C:
quote:This apparent Long Count date consists of a vertical column of bars and dots placed horizontally. The numbers are not accompanied by period glyphs (e.g. days, months, years, an so forth). However, on the basis of position-value notation, Stirling reconstructed the Long Count date as (7).16.6.16.18. Having recovered only the lower half of Stela C in 1939, he inferred that if the top half should ever be found it would include the Initial Series Introducing Glyph and the number 7, for Baktun 7. His reconstruction has been confirmed by the recent discovery of the top half of Stela C, which indeed includes both the Introducing Glyph and a (Baktun) 7 (Cohn 17; Figure 7). The variable element in the Initial Series Introducing Glyph resembles a jaguar head, which is the patron of the month Pop. .. The ISIG variable element is either a jaguar (patron of Pop) or the jaguar sun (patron of Uo).. . The important characteristics of Stela C are: 1. Two columns of hieroglyphs. 2. An Initial Series Introducing Glyph. 3. A column of horizontally placed bars and dots. 4. a vertical coefficient and day glyph. 5.No month coefficient or month glyph .
Glyph A5 is the Introductory Series Glyph, i.e. a "trinary" " glyph and A6 "Jaguar" is the patron God
The Tuxtla Statuette also has a "trinary" Introductory Series Glyph A1 and A2 is month H and A10 8 Quake (Olmec)
Marcus (1976: 56) says:
quote:[the Tuxtla Statuette] In most respects, the Initial Series on the Tuxtla Statuette is quite similar to that recorded on Stela C at Tres Zapotes. The Introducing Glyph carries a trinary superfix, in this case three scrolls. The Introducing Glyph is followed by a column of horizontally placed bar and dot numerals.
The two dates on La Mojarra also have a "trinary" Initial Series Glyph
The first Long Count date in the Maya area is Stela 29 Tikal, which has some other changes (i.e. evolution)
Marcus (1976:56) says:
quote:. [Stela 29 Tikal] July 6, 292 A.D.] For the first time, we have a bar and dot system of numeration set up vertically in order to serve as prefixes to the period glyphs. . . Thus for the first time, the bars and dots appear vertically and act as coefficients for specified period glyphs which are of the “head-variant” type.
In the continuing evolution of the Maya system the next example is the Leyden Plaque
Marcus (1976: 61) says
quote:[Leyden Plaque 15 September 320 A.D.] The inscription on the Leyden plaque is similar in most respects to he earlier Stela 29 from Tikal: both include “head variant” period glyphs, which are prefixed by vertical bar-and-dot coefficients. However, there are some very important differences: 1. The Leyden Plaque gives us our oldest complete example of an Initial Series Introducing Glyph which includes the patron god for the month to be reached by the Long count date. 2. The Leyden Plaque includes (for the first time) some information about the lunar cycle. 3. The Leyden Plaque is the first text to include the month position and glyph.
As you see, there are tons of prior examples that do not fit the canonical full-Blown example you try to foist on us. The simple answers that you are awaiting is that your questions are irrelvant because in the Mojarra we are dealing with a system that was still developing--{QB]but still was a Initial Series Long Count date[/QB].
Here is what a full blown date looks like including the Lunar corrections that had not been included at the time of the Leyden Plaque Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You have not answered my questions. You have not explained the components of the loopy sign that make it an ISIG. I will provide my interpretation of the Mojarra inscription below.
Mojarra 1 .
The first column of the Mojarra inscription reads as follows:
Row 1 (reading right to left).
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
2)Ba da Yo
The Great Da Yo.
3. Se po Da Yo
The victorious and Pure Da Yo
4. Po tu
Pure birth (was on)
5. 8 5 3 3 5
May 21 ,143 AD
6. Se Gyo
(Thou art) Se gyo
i Snake
(Se gyo is a surname given to an enfant whose people ascribe the intervention of a divinity.)
"Thou sacre raising exist (now). Thou (art) the Pure Protector. The Great Da Yo. The victorious and pure Da Yo's pure birth ( was on ) May 21 143 AD. Thou (art) the Se Gyo. Thou Snake"
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
Po tu Pe pe Ngbe Yo Pe Papa Po gbe Papa Yo Pe Pe po pe Da Yo da
"The pure King (he has) Prodigious purity and virtue. The pure Yo, very much purity and virtue (is due) Yo Pe. Very much admiration for Da Yo at this moment the king."
lu ma tu gyo Yo Pe
[/b]
"Hold upright spiritual tranquility for the ruler and cult leader: Yo Pe."
As I stated in the original post it appears that the first date relates to the birth of Yo Pe who was recognized as Se Gyo. The inscription makes it clear that Yo Pe was recognized as a god and the leader of his people's religion.
To understand the designation of Yo Pe as Se Gyo (Se Jo) is explained by Mande traditional culture. As I said earlier I made a mistake and transliterated Pe gyo, as Se gyo. Reading the signs as Pe gyo tells us that Yo Pe was considered a powerful religious specialist in addition to be the King.
I do not believe the "loopy" sign was an Initial Series character. It was just a description of the potent supernatural power Yo Pe possessed.
As Se gyo, Yo Pe appears to have had great knowledge of sorcery or nyama. Se (foot, foundation) represents the beginning of knowledge. The se symbolizes beginning, an advance of success and power. The se represents man's progression in pursuit of knowledge. Since Se, means foundation and gyo, is spiritual knowledge. Se gyo would = "foundation of spiritual knowledge".
Nyama is occult power or special energy of supernatural origin. Nyama is considered source of power behind every task. Among the Mande the pinnacle of potency is the knowledge of sorcery. Sorcery is important among the Mande says McNaughton because "for the vast majority [of Mande] sorcery provide a means for analyzing situations and a tool for responding to them, and these people can be quite open about their use of it" (p.13).
Since I published the first translation of the sign on Friday I reread P.R. McNaughton's The Mande Blacksmiths: Knowledge, Power and Art in West Africa. This book gives us keen insight into Mande traditional beliefs and helps explain much of Olmec social concepts and religion. In the Friday transliteration of the signs I gave the following interpretation:
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Ki se. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. Thou the pure Protector / or You (art) Pure Kise.
Instead of translating this middle sign as i po ki se, I believe it should read i po kilisi. In the Friday decipherment of the loopy sign I failed to include transliteration of the dot sign: li. The lexical item li, is represented by the black dot inside the middle symbol. Since "li" is in the middle of the figure I am reading the se sign as si, instead of se, thus we have Kilisi. Reading the signs as follows i po kilisi, we have "Thou pure secret speech".
Kilisi means secret speech. Kilisi is a potent formula of human sounds rich with supernatural energy. It is kilisi that provides an object with nyama.
In relation to the serpent/snake in the inscription it does not relate to a date. Before the sa or snake we have se gyo "Foundation of spiritual knowledge". I believe that Ye Po was a Satigi[/]: Master of Snakes.
Among the Mande the snake is used in divination. The snake diviner studies the reptiles movements which he mystically interprets to answer clients questions. The Satigi, communicated with snakes for numerous purposes, e.g., to forsee future events and obtain secret knowledge, because he shares a supernatural bond with the serpent. The Satigi is recognized as one of the most powerful diviners of the Mande people who has the ability to perform supernatural acts (McNaughty, p.52).
This suggest that Se gyo Sa (Snake) may be interpreted as The Se Gyo and Sa(tigi).
In Row 2 we read the following:
Row 2
Ni Po Kyu gyo Po tu Yo po bo po ta Monkey Tu Yo pa po Ta Se lu la Tu ku tu Yo Pe
" (1)The pure house, (2)the big hemisphere sepulcre (burial Pyramid?) is a talisman. (3)Pure King Yo, is pure moral gradeur (and) a pure Propriety. (4) The Monkey King. (5) Yo (6) has much purity (7) the devotee is pure. (8) To realize and hold upright a good situation. (9) The king and Governor is obedient to the law. (10) (Oh) Yo Pe."
The monkey figure probably has an important meaning in this inscription and may represent an emblem. Among the Mande [b]sulaw monkeys indicates the initiates awareness of his own animality. This suggest that Sula tu in row 2, should read "A king aware of his animality".
In conclusion it is safe to say that Yo Pe had immense supernatural power, thus his nickname "Se Gyo". He was also a Satigi, and thus could see into the future and obtain supernatural knowledge via his snake totem. As a result of this I do not believe that Se gyo Snake, is a day sign. These signs probably related to the immense supernatural powers of Yo Pe.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.
This worksheet shows that the ISIG is made up of several parts. If there is an ISIG on the Mojarra Stela it should have these parts.
Below I present the Mayan ISIGs.
Cursory examination of the Mojarra loopy sign and the ISIGs above show no affinity. As a result,I disagree with you, Coe and the others.
The ISIGs published above do not correspond to the symbols on the Mojarra stela. As a result I do not believe this “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela was an ISIG.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You have failed to answer my direct question relating to the Mojarra “loopy sign”. Quet you declare that “The two dates on La Mojarra also have a "trinary" Initial Series Glyph “. Okay you claim this is a trinary glyph. If this is your interpretation of the glyph please explain what month it represents, and what god is part of this alleged ISIG
Below is my interpretation of the loopy sign above.
(1) i ta ki yo.(1a) i po Kilise. (1b) i ta ki yo.
1/1b. Thou sacre raising (as) a vital spirit exist (now).
1a. "Thou pure secret speech
Kilisi means secret speech. Kilisi is a potent formula of human sounds rich with supernatural energy. It is kilisi that provides an object with nyama.
In relation to the serpent/snake in the inscription it does not relate to a date. Before the sa or snake we have se gyo "Foundation of spiritual knowledge". I believe that Ye Po was a Satigi: Master of Snakes.
Among the Mande the snake is used in divination. The snake diviner studies the reptiles movements which he mystically interprets to answer clients questions. The Satigi, communicated with snakes for numerous purposes, e.g., to forsee future events and obtain secret knowledge, because he shares a supernatural bond with the serpent. The Satigi is recognized as one of the most powerful diviners of the Mande people who has the ability to perform supernatural acts .
This suggest that Se gyo Sa (Snake) may be interpreted as The Se Gyo and Sa(tigi).
The ISIGs published above do not correspond to the symbols on the Mojarra stela. As a result I do not believe this “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela was an ISIG.
If you believe this is an ISIG you should be able to answer the following questions.
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Clyde:
You can fill the airwaves with your idosyncratic translations, and repeat the same irrelevant questions over and over again but, if anyone else is reading this thread, it is clear that, on the issue of the Initial Series Long count dates on the Mojarra, it is game set and match.
I'll return to Wiener and the 13 zodiac year later in a new thread as well as the whole question of exactly what Vai script is being used.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
You are the one claiming that mojarra 1 has an ISIG not me. Since you feel this way, as does the authorities you cite you should be able to answer these questions .
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
Instead of evading the questions why don't you admit that you are wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Clyde:
You can fill the airwaves with your idosyncratic translations, and repeat the same irrelevant questions over and over again but, if anyone else is reading this thread, it is clear that, on the issue of the Initial Series Long count dates on the Mojarra, it is game set and match.
I'll return to Wiener and the 13 zodiac year later in a new thread as well as the whole question of exactly what Vai script is being used.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Clyde:
You can fill the airwaves with your idosyncratic translations, and repeat the same irrelevant questions over and over again but, if anyone else is reading this thread, it is clear that, on the issue of the Initial Series Long count dates on the Mojarra, it is game set and match.
I'll return to Wiener and the 13 zodiac year later in a new thread as well as the whole question of exactly what Vai script is being used.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl You have not proven anything except that your arrogance blinds you to reality and when you are asked tough questions you go hide your head in the sand.
You are the one claiming that mojarra 1 has an ISIG not me. Since you feel this way, as does the authorities you cite you should be able to answer these questions .
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
Instead of evading the questions why don't you admit that you are wrong?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Not taking sides, but this is the best debate form I've seen from Dr. Winters.
The questions are fair and were not answered.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Not taking sides, but this is the best debate form I've seen from Dr. Winters.
The questions are fair and were not answered.
I am very surprised at this reaction. Winters' questions presupposed that an ISIG at 146 AD would be the same as the fully developed ISIG of the Classical Maya period 250-900 AD.
1) The Initial Series Long Count date on the Mojarra Stela, which Winters finally acknowledged IS a date and not dots and bars that he can read as Mande with Vai script, is a Maya date but an epi-Olmec date. Therefore there is no reason to expect that it should have identical glyphs to a Maya inscription several hundred years younger.
2) I showed, with quotes from authorities and images of the relevant dates, that the Initial Series Long Count evolved and increased in completeness over the years therefore there is no reason to expect that a system in the process of development should have all the details of the final product at earlier stages. For instance a date in the Classic Maya period, which would have all the details that Winters' asks for such as this: Quirigua Stela F January 22, 771A.D. in the Classic Period
There are significant differences between this and even Maya earlier stelae such as Tikal 29 (292 AD) and the Leyden Plaque 320AD)
1) This date has the date numbers in two columns A2 to A4 while both the Leyden and Tikal have the date number in a single column A3 to B7 in Leyden and A3 to A7 in Tikal.
2) Quirigua has an extensive Lunar correction A5 to A9. Leyden has the first instance of lunar info A9 and Tikal has none.
3) Quirigua has the month and its patron god in the ISIG as Winters describes but the Leyden Plaque is the first time an ISIG has a patron god. Tikal 29 and the previous epi-Olmec Long Count dates did not have a patron god in the ISIG.On this basis,, Winters' could equally claim that Tikal Stela 29 is not a valid Maya inscription.
4) Tikal stela 29 is the first time that the number coefficients of the time units are placed vertically- as they are in the full Quirigua date-- but before then, in epi-Olmec dates, the coeficients of the date units were in a column horizontally (as in the Mojarra, Tuxtla, Stela C in tres Zapotes, etc. For comparison see
Tikal Stela 29 (292 AD)
Leyden Plaque (320 AD)
The bottom line, is that Winter's demands answers to questions that are inappropriate and irrelevant because ISIG's in the beginning of the evolution of the complete Long Count (36 BC to 292AD) were different from those used in the Classic Maya format of 771 AD. Since you like genetics, the equivalent claim would be that Afarensis is not a hominid because it is not as tall and does not have all the facial characteristics of Homo sapiens. Scripts , like language. evolve and change over time. (Vai and Mande seem to be the sole exceptions).
The second qustion: Are the 3 loops in the Mojarra Stela dates ISGS?
We see that there is a common trinary aspect to ISIGs even at the top of the Quirigua stela. And the question then becomes who do yuo believe-- Winter's opinion, that is his alone or the published statements of a number of the major Mesoamerican epigraphers and scholars. (see my post above for cites)
Marcus says:
quote: Marcus, J. 1992. Mesoamerican Writing Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press says: p. 140 At the moment, our oldest stone monument with an exact-day date— known as a “Long Count” date—is Stela 2 of Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas (Fig. 4.28). If we assume the same base date of 3114 B.C. used by the later Maya, Stela 2’s date (7.16.3.2.13) works out to December 9, 36 B.C.. Our next oldest Long count date is carved on Stela C at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz (Fig. 4.29). This date—7.1`6.6.16.18 [6 Etznab]—corresponds to September 3, 32 B.CD.. Stela C at Tres Zapotes gives us our first example of an Initial Series Introductory Glyph, the hieroglyph which signals that a long count date will follow (Stirling 1940). It is possible that Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo also had an Initial Series Introductory Glyph, but that damaged monument lacks the first part of the Long Count date
.
other supporters are:
Michael Coe.
M.J. Macri and L. M. Stark. 1993 A Sign Catalog of the Mojarra Script San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. p. 18 [sign 95] "LM A1, LM M8 The Initial Series Introductory Glyph for the two central dates on La Mojarra Stela 1"
F. Winfield Capitaine. 1988. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, MexicoWashington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research, p. 14.
T. Kaufman and J. Justeson, 2001. Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, p.34
Marcus, J. 1976. “The Origins of Mesoamerican Writing,” Annual Reviews of Anthropology 5: 35-67.
I could get dozens more, if I wrote and asked directly since the existence of ISIG in these dates is not a controversial issue and thus is not written often.
Please, look again at my long illustrated post on the development of the Initial Series Long Count date.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^ You can get as many Mayan inscriptions discussing the development of the ISIG glyphs, you wish, but if you claim they did not exist in Olmec times, or were in development what gives you the right to interpret them based on Mayan examples? Moreover, if they are based on Mayan examples you should be able to answer the questions I have posed. If you can not answer these questions you are wrong about the "loopy sign" being an ISIG .
Since you feel the loopy sign is an ISIG, as does the authorities you cite you should be able to answer these questions .
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
Instead of evading the questions why don't you admit that you are wrong?
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I am very surprised at this reaction.
Why? Do you feel that you have answered the above questions, or do you feel the questions are unfair, irrelevant, etc.?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoalt
quote: I am very surprised at this reaction. Winters' questions presupposed that an ISIG at 146 AD would be the same as the fully developed ISIG of the Classical Maya period 250-900 AD.
1) The Initial Series Long Count date on the Mojarra Stela, which Winters finally acknowledged IS a date and not dots and bars that he can read as Mande with Vai script, is a Maya date but an epi-Olmec date. Therefore there is no reason to expect that it should have identical glyphs to a Maya inscription several hundred years younger.
2) I showed, with quotes from authorities and images of the relevant dates, that the Initial Series Long Count evolved and increased in completeness over the years therefore there is no reason to expect that a system in the process of development should have all the details of the final product at earlier stages.For instance a date in the Classic Maya period, which would have all the details that Winters' asks for such as this: Quirigua Stela F January 22, 771A.D. in the Classic Period
You are the one claiming that mojarra 1 has an ISIG not me. Since you feel this way, as does the authorities you cite you should be able to answer these questions .
1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
I am still waiting.......
You claim that the ISIGs were under construction. If they did not exist in Olmec times how can you and the authorities you cite say this or that is an Olmec ISIG and relate it to Mayan ISIGs without any point of reference.
Your explanation for not being able to answer my questions illustrate the fiction in claiming that the Mojarra "loopy sign" was an ISIG. It did not have to be an ISIG because the inscription includes use of the term "birth" before the date was provided. Moreover, the fact that the 13 month 20 day calendar existed back then as it does today meant that the Olmec could record any date without use of the ISIG.
Instead of evading the questions why don't you admit that you are wrong?
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I am very surprised at this reaction.
Why? Do you feel that you have answered the above questions, or do you feel the questions are unfair, irrelevant, etc.?
If you had read my long post on the development of the Long Count closely, I would have thought that the answer was clear. I am also curious that you feel that the published (and reviewed) interpretation of these glyphs by a number of acknowledged experts and scholars ara insignificant compared to Winters's opinion.
However:
quote:1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
The sign is probably better described as a trinary symbol with two arches and a fancy bar in the middle. Found at both A1 (143 A.D.) and M8 (156 A.D.) It is the epi-Olmec version of the Initial Series Introductory glyph that indicates that the following numbers indicate a Long Count date with a zero at August 11 3114 B.C.
quote:2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
Similar glyphs are seen in:
Two epi-Olmec
The Tuxtla statuette (162 A.D.) — the 3 “question mark” looking scrolls at A1
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 B.C.)— the trinary symbol 2 arches with a central vertical bar above the Jaguar head
These are early Maya
Stela 29 Tikal (292 A.D.) A1 trinary glyph 2 loops with a central vertical bar
Leyden Plaque (320 A.D.) a trinary glyph with two arches and a middle vertical bar on A1
quote:3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
In A2a A2b— the 17th month (K’ayab) 3rd day
In M9a M9b- the 1st month (Pop) 15th day
In Tuxtla Statuette- the 14th month (Kankin) day 0
In Tikal Stela 29- the 3rd month (Zip) day 3
In Leyden Plaque- the 7th month (Yaxkin) day 0
quote:4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
As Marcus (1976, 2002) points out— The Leyden Plaque is the first instance of a patron god being inserted in the ISIG- therefore the question is not valid for the Mojarra Stela, the Tuxtla Statuette, Stela C Tres Zapotes as well as the early Maya, Tikal Stela 29
On the Leyden plate see the kin or “sun god’s head” (like a little cross with dots) in the middle of A1-B2 who is the patron of the month Yaxkin which is repeated in A9
Now I would like to pose a question for Winters.
Since you now have admitted that the Mojarra stela has 2 Initial Series Long count dates similar to the date on the Tuxtla Statuette, please document the Mande source, at let’s say 32 B.C.) for a calendar that MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You have not answered my questions. Again you talk about the development of the Mayan ISIGs but you have not shown that the Mojarra stela had an ISIG. Your response is based on conjecture and authority without any comparative examples from Mayan examples and the Mojarra stela.
You are a fraud. You use authority as if it is the sole repository of truth. This is not so, to confirm an hypothesis you must provide examples from the propositions at hand. We are talking about the Mojarra stela so you should show examples from Mayan literature that connect the two you have failed to do so so I must reject your preposition as fanciful and lacking truth.
You are a sad warrior for the establishment. You come on this forum and attack my premises I support with evidence with a few quotes from authorities who have not even explained how this or that is so.
This is not like forums I debated issues relating to the Olmec back in the 1990's. On the archaeology list it always appeared I lost a debate when in reality Doug Weller would not post my responses. Here you will not be that lucky. You will have to confirm your premise with evidence, there is no moderator here to help you.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I am very surprised at this reaction.
Why? Do you feel that you have answered the above questions, or do you feel the questions are unfair, irrelevant, etc.?
If you had read my long post on the development of the Long Count closely, I would have thought that the answer was clear. I am also curious that you feel that the published (and reviewed) interpretation of these glyphs by a number of acknowledged experts and scholars ara insignificant compared to Winters's opinion.
However:
quote:1.What ISIG is the “loopy sign” on the Mojarra stela?
The sign is probably better described as a trinary symbol with two arches and a fancy bar in the middle. Found at both A1 (143 A.D.) and M8 (156 A.D.) It is the epi-Olmec version of the Initial Series Introductory glyph that indicates that the following numbers indicate a Long Count date with a zero at August 11 3114 B.C.
quote:2. What ISIG is the Mojarra symbol related too?
Similar glyphs are seen in:
Two epi-Olmec
The Tuxtla statuette (162 A.D.) — the 3 “question mark” looking scrolls at A1
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 B.C.)— the trinary symbol 2 arches with a central vertical bar above the Jaguar head
These are early Maya
Stela 29 Tikal (292 A.D.) A1 trinary glyph 2 loops with a central vertical bar
Leyden Plaque (320 A.D.) a trinary glyph with two arches and a middle vertical bar on A1
quote:3. What month is noted in the alledged Mojarra ISIG?
In A2a A2b— the 17th month (K’ayab) 3rd day
In M9a M9b- the 1st month (Pop) 15th day
In Tuxtla Statuette- the 14th month (Kankin) day 0
In Tikal Stela 29- the 3rd month (Zip) day 3
In Leyden Plaque- the 7th month (Yaxkin) day 0
quote:4. What is the patron god of alledged Mojarra introductory gylph.
As Marcus (1976, 2002) points out— The Leyden Plaque is the first instance of a patron god being inserted in the ISIG- therefore the question is not valid for the Mojarra Stela, the Tuxtla Statuette, Stela C Tres Zapotes as well as the early Maya, Tikal Stela 29
On the Leyden plate see the kin or “sun god’s head” (like a little cross with dots) in the middle of A1-B2 who is the patron of the month Yaxkin which is repeated in A9
Now I would like to pose a question for Winters.
Since you now have admitted that the Mojarra stela has 2 Initial Series Long count dates similar to the date on the Tuxtla Statuette, please document the Mande source, at let’s say 32 B.C.) for a calendar that MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote: The Tuxtla statuette (162 A.D.) — the 3 “question mark” looking scrolls at A1
There is no ISIG on the Tuxtla statuette. These bars and dots represent lexical items.
There are two rows of inscriptions on the front of the Tuxtla statuette. Some people claim that the inscription on the right under the duck bill is a date because of the bars and dots in this inscription.
Controversy surrounds the Tuxtla statuette because the long count can be read as either as 162 AD or the 3rd century BC.
The person mentioned in this inscription is Govenor TuTu.
The glyphs on the right side front of the Tuxtla statuette is not a date. The introductory glyph is not an ISIG it says: Su Po Ku I nu, which can be translated “Offer pure cleansing libations in thou habitation”, or Su Su Su Po ku i “At this moment the dead one to be honored as a sacrifice. The pure Governor at thine habitation”.
Since there is no mention of a birth, I don’t read the glyphs 8 6 2 4 17 as a date, I read them as lexical items Se (3) i(1) or “You reached your final destination”. The next line li (dot) i(1 or bar) “Indeed thou…”; next pe (2 dots) gyu (4 dots) “to assume a source spiritual tranquility”. Thusly, li i pe gyu = “Indeed thou to astonish as a source of spiritual tranquility”.
The bottom signs read Po ka i se “Your pure family mansion (it is) realized”.
The inscription on the left is as follows:
"This is the home of thou spirit. It is here. This abode (it is) thrust (down) in the groud here. He (Tutu) was (indeed) an important personage (with) considerable and effective wonder working Powers".
Mande tradition helps us understand the duck-bill orientation of the Tuxtla statuette. The division of ancestors of the Manding people were divided into birds and hyenas, this may explain the appearence of the Olmec priests-chiefs as birds and jaguars.
Among the Bambara, who have become less Islamized than the Malinke, 'birds' are associated with the totality of spiritual realities, its emblem is a reed pipe which initiates use as musical instrument.
The duck bill probably represented Tutu in a duck mask. The mask is a theophany a visible manifestation of a god.
In Olmec-Mande, the term for duck is buru. This is interesting because buru means "Supreme chief, king, governor". Thus this depiction Tutu with a duck bill denoted his high status.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl
quote: The Tuxtla statuette (162 A.D.) — the 3 “question mark” looking scrolls at A1
There is no ISIG on the Tuxtla statuette. These bars and dots represent lexical items.
There are two rows of inscriptions on the front of the Tuxtla statuette. Some people claim that the inscription on the right under the duck bill is a date because of the bars and dots in this inscription.
Controversy surrounds the Tuxtla statuette because the long count can be read as either as 162 AD or the 3rd century BC.
The person mentioned in this inscription is Govenor TuTu.
The glyphs on the right side front of the Tuxtla statuette is not a date. The introductory glyph is not an ISIG it says: Su Po Ku I nu, which can be translated “Offer pure cleansing libations in thou habitation”, or Su Su Su Po ku i “At this moment the dead one to be honored as a sacrifice. The pure Governor at thine habitation”.
Since there is no mention of a birth, I don’t read the glyphs 8 6 2 4 17 as a date, I read them as lexical items Se (3) i(1) or “You reached your final destination”. The next line li (dot) i(1 or bar) “Indeed thou…”; next pe (2 dots) gyu (4 dots) “to assume a source spiritual tranquility”. Thusly, li i pe gyu = “Indeed thou to astonish as a source of spiritual tranquility”.
The bottom signs read Po ka i se “Your pure family mansion (it is) realized”.
The inscription on the left is as follows:
"This is the home of thou spirit. It is here. This abode (it is) thrust (down) in the groud here. He (Tutu) was (indeed) an important personage (with) considerable and effective wonder working Powers".
Mande tradition helps us understand the duck-bill orientation of the Tuxtla statuette. The division of ancestors of the Manding people were divided into birds and hyenas, this may explain the appearence of the Olmec priests-chiefs as birds and jaguars.
Among the Bambara, who have become less Islamized than the Malinke, 'birds' are associated with the totality of spiritual realities, its emblem is a reed pipe which initiates use as musical instrument.
The duck bill probably represented Tutu in a duck mask. The mask is a theophany a visible manifestation of a god.
In Olmec-Mande, the term for duck is buru. This is interesting because buru means "Supreme chief, king, governor". Thus this depiction Tutu with a duck bill denoted his high status.
.
You are the only one that denies that this is a Long Count date, since you already admitted that the Mojarra Stela has two Long Count dates and they are the same format as the Tuxtla Statuette, why not admit this too?
Why are you avoiding this?
Since you now have admitted that the Mojarra stela has 2 Initial Series Long count dates similar to the date on the Tuxtla Statuette, please document the Mande source, at let’s say 32 B.C.) for a calendar that MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote:
You are the only one that denies that this is a Long Count date, since you already admitted that the Mojarra Stela has two Long Count dates and they are the same format as the Tuxtla Statuette, why not admit this too?
Why are you avoiding this?
I am avoiding this interpretation because I can read the entire artifact instead of guessing the meaning like your authorities.
Whereas your authorities can not read an entire Mayan text, I can read the Olmec texts in their entirety.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl Questions:
quote:
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
You have not answered my questions but I will answer yours to the best of my ability. Wiener has already shown that the Mande probably had a calendar with 13 months of 20 days as evident from the Calabash zodiacs.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
The Mande have several calendars, lunar, ritual and etc. The Mande system of notation is based on 20, 60 and 80 according to M. Griaule & G.Dieterlen.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande. The importance of the number 20 is evident in the discussion of the trajectory of the star Digitaria around Serius, as illustrated in Figure iii, above. Note the small cluster of 20 dots (DL) in the figure that represent the star when it is furtherest from Sirius (R. Temple, Sirius Mystery (1976) p.40)
In the figure of Kanaga sign above Figure i, also illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 as illustrated in Figure ii.
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala. For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
The Mayan system like the Mande system is also based on 60 and 20. For example as you note in your question the basic part of the Haab year is the Tun 18 month 20 day calendar, plus the five day month of Wayeb.
The basic unit of the calendar is the Tun made up of 18 winal (months) of 20 k’in (days) or 360 days. Thus we have 18x20=360; 360÷60=6.
Next we have the K’tun,(20 Tun) which equals 7200 days, 7200÷60=120÷60=2; or 7200÷20=360÷20=18.
After K’tun comes Baktun (=400 Tun) 144,000 days, 144,000÷60=2400÷60=40; or 144,000÷20=7200÷20=360÷20=18.
Yes the Mande had the zero. The Mayan symbol for ‘zero’ means completion. M. Griaule in Signes d’Ecriture Bambara, says the Malinke-Bambara sign for zero is fu ‘nothing, the emptiness preceding creation’ (see Signes graphique soudanais, (eds) Marcel Griaule & Germaine Dieterlen
In conclusion, Mayan calendrics are probably based on the Mande notation system of 20 and 60. And the Malinke-Bambara people possessed the zero.
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term kenè that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dõ-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dõ-gyãle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
Here are the answers to your questions. As you can see they support Wiener’s view that the Mayan system of notation was of Mande origin just as I claimed in the original post.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain. To remind you of the essential claim you make: about 100 BC the Mande were the source for the Initial Series Long Count calendar used in Mesoamerica. This means, as I asked you, That ALL THESE FEATURES HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
Your post does not even come close to answering any of these points.
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain. To remind you of the essential claim you make: about 100 BC the Mande were the source for the Initial Series Long Count calendar used in Mesoamerica. This means, as I asked you, That ALL THESE FEATURES HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
Your post does not even come close to answering any of these points.
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
I have already answered your question. Both systems are based on 20 and 60. The site you list has nothing to do with the Mande terms for 20 and 60 that are discussed below.
You just can't handle the truth. You believe the Olmec were not Mande speakers and because this is the opinion of your Masters,you can't handle the reality that the Mayan system of Writing is of African origin as is much of the religion of the Maya as first made clear by Wiener.
I know for a fact you have access to the Delofosse Malinke-Bambara dictionary so you know the Mande terms I used here exist and have the meanings I provide. In addition, you are near a large library given your frequent access to up-to-date sources so you could easy verify my citations , your failure to falsify my citations betry your lack of scholarly acumen and goal to be a deciever.
Oh, you are a great deciever.
You may ignore the material if you which to your loss. Instead of going to the WWW you should consult a library. My answers are clearly referenced so there is no need to comment further on your spurious claims.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
The Mande have several calendars, lunar, ritual and etc. The Mande system of notation is based on 20, 60 and 80 according to M. Griaule & G.Dieterlen.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande. The importance of the number 20 is evident in the discussion of the trajectory of the star Digitaria around Serius, as illustrated in Figure iii, above. Note the small cluster of 20 dots (DL) in the figure that represent the star when it is furtherest from Sirius (R. Temple, Sirius Mystery (1976) p.40)
In the figure of Kanaga sign above Figure i, also illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 as illustrated in Figure ii.
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala. For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
The Mayan system like the Mande system is also based on 60 and 20. For example as you note in your question the basic part of the Haab year is the Tun 18 month 20 day calendar, plus the five day month of Wayeb.
The basic unit of the calendar is the Tun made up of 18 winal (months) of 20 k’in (days) or 360 days. Thus we have 18x20=360; 360÷60=6.
Next we have the K’tun,(20 Tun) which equals 7200 days, 7200÷60=120÷60=2; or 7200÷20=360÷20=18.
After K’tun comes Baktun (=400 Tun) 144,000 days, 144,000÷60=2400÷60=40; or 144,000÷20=7200÷20=360÷20=18.
Yes the Mande had the zero. The Mayan symbol for ‘zero’ means completion. M. Griaule in Signes d’Ecriture Bambara, says the Malinke-Bambara sign for zero is fu ‘nothing, the emptiness preceding creation’ (see Signes graphique soudanais, (eds) Marcel Griaule & Germaine Dieterlen
In conclusion, Mayan calendrics are probably based on the Mande notation system of 20 and 60. And the Malinke-Bambara people possessed the zero.
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term kenè that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dõ-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dõ-gyãle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
Here are the answers to your questions. As you can see they support Wiener’s view that the Mayan system of notation was of Mande origin just as I claimed in the original post.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain.,
This information has everything to do with the MesoAmerican calendar. First, it shows that both systems were based on 20 & 60. Secondly, it shows that the Mande had the zero, and the names for day and calendar in the Mayan languages is of Mande origin.
Although I have presented this evidence you have failed to show that the Mojarra loopy sign is an ISIG.
As usual you are evading the fact that Griaule & Dieterlen make it clear that the Dogon and most West African calendars are based on the Mande model and the terms for numbers, day and etc. used in the previous post come from Delafosse's Malinke-Bambara Dictionary, or from the research of Griaule and Dieterlen.
You have not denied the existence of these features you are just trying to change the discussion
Oh you great Deciever....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^^^^Up
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Up^^^^^
Bernardo you Great deciever You.....
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by kahanyah: I'd say Clyde Winters. He was dumb enough to venture into native asian culture to try and hijack theirs, but was duly answered by a "Salasin" - who destroyed his claims over the olmecs.
Salasin has never destroyed any of my claims. He can not deny that the skeletons of the Olmec are of Africans, they used an African script, they used similar white pottery, they made jade tools like Blacks did in Africa. The Maya got writing from the Olmecs. The Mayan word for writing is of Mande origin. The abundance of evidence supports the Mande origin of the Olmec.
Bernardo you did not disprove any of my research. I have pushed up the discussion if anyone is interested.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the [qb]Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain. To remind you of the essential claim you make: about 100 BC the Mande were the source for the Initial Series Long Count calendar used in Mesoamerica. This means, as I asked you, That ALL THESE FEATURES HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
Your post does not even come close to answering any of these points.
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
I have already answered your question. Both systems are based on 20 and 60. The site you list has nothing to do with the Mande terms for 20 and 60 that are discussed below.
You just can't handle the truth. You believe the Olmec were not Mande speakers and because this is the opinion of your Masters,you can't handle the reality that the Mayan system of Writing is of African origin as is much of the religion of the Maya as first made clear by Wiener.
I know for a fact you have access to the Delofosse Malinke-Bambara dictionary so you know the Mande terms I used here exist and have the meanings I provide. In addition, you are near a large library given your frequent access to up-to-date sources so you could easy verify my citations , your failure to falsify my citations betry your lack of scholarly acumen and goal to be a deciever.
Oh, you are a great deciever.
You may ignore the material if you which to your loss. Instead of going to the WWW you should consult a library. My answers are clearly referenced so there is no need to comment further on your spurious claims.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
The Mande have several calendars, lunar, ritual and etc. The Mande system of notation is based on 20, 60 and 80 according to M. Griaule & G.Dieterlen.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande. The importance of the number 20 is evident in the discussion of the trajectory of the star Digitaria around Serius, as illustrated in Figure iii, above. Note the small cluster of 20 dots (DL) in the figure that represent the star when it is furtherest from Sirius (R. Temple, Sirius Mystery (1976) p.40)
In the figure of Kanaga sign above Figure i, also illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 as illustrated in Figure ii.
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala. For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
The Mayan system like the Mande system is also based on 60 and 20. For example as you note in your question the basic part of the Haab year is the Tun 18 month 20 day calendar, plus the five day month of Wayeb.
The basic unit of the calendar is the Tun made up of 18 winal (months) of 20 k’in (days) or 360 days. Thus we have 18x20=360; 360÷60=6.
Next we have the K’tun,(20 Tun) which equals 7200 days, 7200÷60=120÷60=2; or 7200÷20=360÷20=18.
After K’tun comes Baktun (=400 Tun) 144,000 days, 144,000÷60=2400÷60=40; or 144,000÷20=7200÷20=360÷20=18.
Yes the Mande had the zero. The Mayan symbol for ‘zero’ means completion. M. Griaule in Signes d’Ecriture Bambara, says the Malinke-Bambara sign for zero is fu ‘nothing, the emptiness preceding creation’ (see Signes graphique soudanais, (eds) Marcel Griaule & Germaine Dieterlen
In conclusion, Mayan calendrics are probably based on the Mande notation system of 20 and 60. And the Malinke-Bambara people possessed the zero.
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term kenè that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dõ-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dõ-gyãle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
Here are the answers to your questions. As you can see they support Wiener’s view that the Mayan system of notation was of Mande origin just as I claimed in the original post.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Prudence M. Rice in Maya Calendar Origin, makes it clear that the Maya sacre calendar of 13 month 20 days include the day names: ‘rain, Lord, world, snake ,deer and rabbit (see p.34). This is interesting because the same characters are found on the 13month calabash from West Africa.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
Mats play an important role in Mande calculations. The mat and mat motifs play an important role in Mayan society as well.
If you look at this calabash you will notice that in the center of the calabash we have a figure that resembles the Kanaga sign. It also very interesting that this Kanaga figure also includes a mat constituting the central design in the figure.
The characters on this calabash are explained by Mande cosmology. We see the following charaters on this almanac.
1. 2 lizards pointing out the four directions (North, South, East and West) plus the mat in the center of the four directions. These lizard figures probably represent the world. 2. Antelope (deer) 3. 7 circles or the Pleides 4. butterfly 5. bow/ double sword 6. grain/tree 7. 2 people representing humanity and the headrest denoting royalty in African societies 8. Crescent Moon & star (Venus?) 9. heart or ace of club figure 10. rabbit/hare 11. crocodile & snake 12. Crane 13. Calabash or bowl
These figures on the Calabash are ritual emblems associated with Malinke-Bambara.The Malinke-Bambara recognized the Sirius system in their cosmology.
In relation to the Lizard in facing upward we see the calabash or bowl on the right hand side. This calabash may represent the water bowl of Faro, the leading god of the Bambara. On the left hand side of this Lizard we see the seven circles, which are believed to have represented the seven stars of the Pleides. Among the Malinke-Bambara and other West African people the Pleides was a marker of the growing season.
The second Lizard is facing left. Above the right arm we see the seven stars of the Pleides. Below the right are we see the double sword which may represent Orion’s sword. Orion’s sword is that region of the sky below Orion’s belt that includes the Orion Nebula. It is interesting that in relation to the Pleides and Sword of Orion, we see the rabbit/hare. This is most interesting because Orion was said to be the hunter of the hare/rabbit.
The Antelope is believed to have taught human beings to farm. It relates to the Malinke-Bambara tradition that a half-man half-antelope introduced agriculture to mankind.
The Crane is also related to Malinke-Bambara tradition. Among the Bambara the Crested Crane is credited with the birth of speech.
The adult figure on the calabash and the head rest make it clear that this figure represented a Lord of dignitary. Finally the heart shaped or ace of clubs figure probably represents the flani da. The flani da symbolized the One Creator.
This interpretation of the calabash from the Guinea coast suggest that it records some event that involved agriculture. It also suggest that it corresponds to Malinke-Bambara traditions.
The Maya day signs: Lord ,World, snake, deer, and rabbit are found on the sacre calendar of the Maya. As noted above these same signs are found on the Guinea calabash calendar (or almanac ?). We have shown how the signs on the Guinea calabash are explained by Malinke-Bamabara ideology. The similarity in Mayan and Malinke-Bambara ideology found in the calendrics can best be explained by the fact that the Maya and other Amerind groups got this calendar from the Olmecs, who I have shown spoke Malinke-Bambara. These shared ideology for the figures on the sacre Mayan calendars and the Guinea coast calabash support the view of Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America that the calendars were related.
In summary this calabash confirms the theory of Leo Wiener, that the Mayan sacre calendar was related to calendars in West Africa.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I don't really disagree with Bork except in the fact that what he calls a buffalo, I identify as an antelope, and the figure, he calls an antelope I recognize as a hare. Hare
I believe this is a hare because it accurately depicts the ears and form of a hare instead of an antelope.
Antelope
I do not believe the small human figure is a man. I believe it represents a child.
What he calls a fetish stool, looks to me to be a head rest. Also I do not see a bird in the tree/plant so I refer to the figure as a tree.
I believe that this calabash may be recording the coronation of a king, or the almanac is discussing someones initiation into a secret society. Thus the man and child may indicate the role initiation plays in the transformation of the child into a man.
African Buffalo
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Bernardo, you are such a deciever and will do anything to win an argument. Leo Wiener was talking about the sacre calendar of the Maya called Tzolk'in.
This calendar is where we get the Calendar Round. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed.[b] No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacre calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". The origins of the 260-day calendar are debatable although a number of scholars have suggested it corresponds to the nine moth period of human gestation" (p.74).
As you can see experts don't know where this calendar originated. Dr. Wiener, as an astute scholars suggested that it originated in Africa, where we see the 13 month zodiac calabashes.
Shame on you Bernardo. Why can't you tell the truth instead of attacking great scholars such as Leo Wiener.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
".
]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
