posted
Clyde Winters and I have been involved in a lengthy thread but I feel that no one else is reading it because there has been no feedback. I would like to find out how others compare my evidence to Winters’. In the long thread, Clyde has agreed that there are two Initial Series Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela. This is the calendrical system that Mesoamerican scholars have shown evolved, beginning about 500 BC in Oaxaca, to the system used by the Classic Maya (250-900 AD) to date the stelae and monuments. The dates in question are:
Glyphs A1-9 3rd day 17th month 8.5.3.3.5 day 13 snake equivalent to May 1, 143 AD
Glyphs M8-16 15th day 1st month 8.5.16.9.7 day 5 deer equivalent to June 23, 156 AD
In order to achieve this precision the following elements must ALL be present 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. In order not to make this longer than it will be, the evidence for these statements and citations from a number of prominent Mesoamerican scholars are available in http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348;p=2
Clyde Winters has numerous claims but I want to stay with the basic essential claims 1) That Olmec writing, including the calendar, derives from Mande who sailed to the New World and that Mande writing is older than the Olmec. Since we now have the Cascajal block dated to 900 B.C., the Mande came over before that. 2) That he can read and fully translate Olmec writing into Mande but using Vai script that is some 5000 years old.
The Mesoamerican calendar has been described as unique in the world (Aveni, A. 1989 Empires of Time. Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures NY: Basic Books, p. 197) and I asked Clyde to provide evidence that the Mande had taught the Olmecs to calculate the Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela. This means that the Mande several hundred years BC had to have ALL the elements listed above because you have to have all of them to get the dates shown on the Mojarra stela.
His response, together with my analysis follows but there is a simple response: Clyde did not meet any of the requirements. 1) His post is primarily about the Sirius ceremony of the Dogon not the Mande (and his claim for Mande priority is asserted but not supported by evidence) 2) The data he presents was collected in the 20th century and can tell us very little about what was happening two thousand years ago. 3) He did not deal with a Mande (or Dogon) possession of an interlocking 260-day calendar with a 365-day calendar, with a starting date for the calendar of August 11 3114 B.C., with a place notation, or with a base-20 numerical system. Basically, he threw stuff at a wall hoping that something would stick but his post is mostly irrelevant to the evidence that has to be provided to prove that the Mande taught the calendar to the Olmecs.
Another characteristic I’ll demonstrate is that although literature is cited, it is not quoted and that often citations are not precise enough. More problematic is that Winters intersperses his own opinions and interpretations as if the cited scholar had written them, when, in fact, he had not.
quote:Clyde Winters posted 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 and astronomical 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.
Griaule and Dieterlein were writing about the Dogon, not the Mande, and we did not get a quote with a citation to document this claim. Furthermore, the use by a group of 20, 60, and 80 does NOT prove that a base-20 system is in use (as we will see) and does not deal with the two interlocking calendars used in Mesoamerica.
quote: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)
Again, Dieterle and Griaule are not cited or quoted. Page 80 in Temple has nothing to do with numbers, it concerns primarily Sirius B and the connection between the Dogon and Egypt. “Signes Graphiques des Dogons’ is cited on pp. 42-43 but, it too, says nothing about numbers. It is a description of the imagery associated with Digitaria. The numerology about 80 is Winters’ own unless supported by a quote from Griaule.
quote:The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is mu_a . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is deb_ ni- mu_a or 40+20 (=60).
Again an assertion by Winters with no evidence or citation. What his own sources say contradict the simple picture he is trying to draw. There are a number of different ways to say numbers in Mande, and a decimal system is actually more credible and systematic. There is a discussion of numbers in:
Delafosse, M. 1929. La langue Mandingue et ses dialectes Paris: Paul Geuthner, pp. 274-76
I’ll try to reproduce the phonetics, which is the only fair way to discuss and compare languages the approximate sound will be inside [] brackets. The sounds of letters with carets and accents are French.
number 20 can be said a number of ways: moű[gh]â (also tâ fila (10x2). But also a name based on 20 fingers and toes mňrň is used in counting higher numbers.
number 40 If were dealing with a base-20 system we would only see (20 x2) and we see that- mňrň fila (20x2) (but notice that moű[gh]â is not the term used). But we also see (10x4) tâ näni. And to complicate things even further, the word for “sleeping mat” debč also means 40. because a man and a woman lying together are 40 toes and fingers.
number 60
We find (20 x3) mňrň saba again using the alternate word for 20, but, we also have (10 x6) tâ or bi wôro. And, there is yet another way to get to 60 debč ni moű[gh]â (40+20)
number 80
mňrň näni (20 x4) is present, but also the use of 40 as a base number debe fila (40 x 2) and, as usual, the decimal tâ sęgi (10x8)
At a minimum, the situation with Mande numbers is much more complex than Winters presented it. The only really regular form is base 10, which is fact, next goes to (10x10)= 100 the next step in a base 10.
If, in fact, the Mande used a base-20 system then 400 should be 20 x20 as it is in the Maya system. However, (p. 276) in Mande a new system using 80 is employed: bâmana-nkeme or B keme l[ou]l[ou] (80 x5) = 400
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande.
Purely an unsupported assertion. Where is published quote for this?
quote: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)
Actually if you count the dots there are 23 not 20
quote: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.
Again this is Winters’s own interpretation neither Temple nor Griaule said this. Here is the relevant passage:
quote: P. 37. When it is time for the sigui, the elders gathered in the tana tono shelter at Yougou draw a symbol on the rock with red ochre (fig. i), which represents the kanaga mask; this in turn repreents the god Amma; a hole in the ground below is symbolizing the Sigui, and thus Amma in the egg of the world.”
There is no numerical interpretation of this figure.
quote:. 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.
We do not have a quote documenting that the Mande had a zero and DelaFosse’s dictionary does not list it. The Maya did not use 60 as a unit in the calendar and no quote is provided to support this assertion.
quote: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.
It is totally impossible to get an accurate date with a calendar that repeats every 260-days especially if there is no starting date for the calendar. Winters has produced no evidence for an initial date for the Mande, much less August 11 3114 BC. As we have seen, in other contexts, Winters ignores disproofs and keeps repeating erroneous claims. I provided a personal communication from Michael Coe, whom Winters, himself, cites as an authority on the Maya, to say that modern Maya do not keep an accurate calendar by only using the 260-day ritual calendar.
quote: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 kenč that means ‘day light, day’.
The Maya name k’in phonetically is k[glottal stop]in. As those of you who speak Arabic know glottal stops (hamza) are very important consonants. Mande does NOT have glottal stops, but Winters never puts glottal stops in his comparisons of Maya and Mande and his comparisons therefore are invalid.
Second, k’in (Barrera Vasquez, A. Ed. 1980 [QB]Diccionario Maya Cordemex[/QB] Merida: Ediciones Cordemex, p. 400) defines it as “day” generally, “sun” If this is the case, why does Winters try to compare it to kenč, kęna defined as “light, daylight, luminous space, open space” (Delafosse, 1955, p. 358)
Instead of the closest word; tele defined as “day (in general), sun, day (opposed to night)” (Delafosse 1955, p. 737)
quote:The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dő-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dő-gyăle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
This is wrong since tun means “precious stone, carved stone” (Diccionario Maya Cordemex, p. 822) this refers to the stelae carved at the end of time periods by the Maya. Occam’s razor applies—which is more likely. We have thousands of carved stelae with Maya dates or some Mande word that does not even resemble tun phonetically?
quote: 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.
Still awaiting proof of a Mande calendar with all the Mesoamerican bells and whistles.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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 kenč that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dő-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dő-gyăle-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.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Great Deciever, you are a sad person indeed you pretend to be a scholar, but you lose all reason when it comes to debating me. You did not check one reference mentioned in my post. If you had read Temple, you would know that Temple published an English translation of the M. Griaule and Dieterlen’s, A Sudanese Sirius System (pp.35-51). You claim I was not discussing the Mande system a cursory examination of the Temple text would have shown you how wrong you are.
Oh you Great Deciever, You.
If you would have read the Temple text, you would have gain an understanding of the Mande notation system.
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).
As noted previously the Malinke-Bambara calculations are based on 20. This resulted from the fact that the total number of toes and fingers equal 20.
The Malinke-Bambara numbers are mention in M. Delafosse, La Mandingue et ses dialectes volume 2. Below I will give the Malinke-Bambara numeral and the page number where it is found:
[list]
muġa twenty (p.520)
debč forty (p.111)
debč-ni muġa sixty (p.629 volume 1)
debč fila eighty (p.520) ( fila means double i.e. 40x2=80)
debč fila ni muġa hundred (p.111)
In relation to the numeral 40 debe, Delafosse wrote “nombre forme par le total des doigts et des orteils d'un couple couche sur une natte” (p.111), or number formed by the total number of toes and fingers of a couple layer on a mat or blanket. This reminds us of Griaule and Dieterlen discussion of the Bambara notation system as illustrated by the [b]koso wala .
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).
It is interesting that when Griaule and Dieterlen, discussed the Mande notation system they used a (colored blanket) wala koso, while Delafosse used the example of a (mat) degč, this suggest that the ancient Mande used mats to perform math computation and that these mats were made according to the base 20 notation system.
Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, in Signes Graphique soudanais (L’Homme , Cahiers d’Ethnologie de Geographie et de Linguistique,3, Paris (Hermann) 1951, the authors discuss the Mande graphic sign for zero fu.
The existence of a similar notation system based on 20 among the Maya illustrate the mande origin of Mayan calendrics.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [Q]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.
Basically, ad hominem but no substantive reply. I am more interested in feedback from other participants, which is why I started a new thread.
The Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela are:
Glyphs A1-9 3rd day 17th month 8.5.3.3.5 day 13 snake equivalent to May 1, 143 AD
Glyphs M8-16 15th day 1st month 8.5.16.9.7 day 5 deer equivalent to June 23, 156 AD
In order to achieve this precision the following elements must ALL be present 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.
Others can judge whether you dealt adequately with any of these. I am still waiting.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Clyde, this is a personal attack to avoid acknowledging the obvious and you know what the obvious is.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
You speak of evaluating evidence. Oh You Great Deciever, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
First of all science is based on hypotheses testing. Wiener made a number of claims:
1. West Africans had a 13 month zodiac. 2. There was a Mande origin for the Mayan notation system. 3. Mande writing was the source of the inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette.
These premises provides several testable hypothesis in relation to the Mande-Olmec and Mayan connection:
There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
Now that we have these hypotheses we will test them. Most of the solution for these hypotheses comes from Robert J. Sharer ,The Ancient Maya (5th Edition,1994)
The Mande use a base 20 notation syste,. The Maya did not use a base 10 system, the base number was 20 like the Mande system. Base 20 is vigesimal. Landa wrote:
quote:
Not only did the Indians have a count for the year and months, as has been said and previously set out, but they had a certain method of counting time and their affairs by their ages, which they counted by twenty year periods, counting thirteen twenties, with one of the twenty signs of their months, which they call Ahau/Ajaw
Sharer, p.572
This makes it clear that the Maya had a base 20 notation system. . The Mayan values like the Mande increased by powers of twenty (Sharer, p.558).
That they used this system to record time. Use of the term Ajaw “lord’is interesting. This term is cognate to the Olmec term gyo/ jo the term used to describe the Olmec rulers duties as both ruler and religious leaders. In addition to this term the Mayans adopted other Mande terms
English Mande Mayan
Birth si sij
God Ku Ku
Demi-God-King Gyo/Jo Ajaw
Day kene k’in
In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day ) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
This zodiac formed the bases of the Mayan sacre calendar which was 260 days or 13x20. The ceremonial practices of the Maya were determined by the sacre calendar.
Mats play an important role in Mande calculations. The mat and mat motifs play an important role in Mayan society as well. In fact the ruling title on mayan emblem signs is ah po ‘lord of the mat’. In fact the symbol of Mayan rulership was pop (a woven mat).
In conclusion, Wiener’s work provides three testable hypotheses:
There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
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 kenč that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dő-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dő-gyăle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
All of these hypotheses were confirmed. The Maya and Mande share similar zodics and base 20 notation system. In addition, many of the key terms relating to Mayan ritual and religion agree with Mande terms . The evidence leads us to only one conclusion the Mande speaking Olmec introduced base 20 notation systems and calendrics to the Mayan Indians.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: 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.
Clyde, this is a personal attack to avoid acknowledging the obvious and you know what the obvious is.
Yes I do, obviously the Mayan people obtained their calendrics from the Mande.
This is not a personal attack. He has no mind of his own. We have debated this issue for the past two years.
Quetzalcoatl has access to the Delafosse Manding dictionary and Sharer's work on the Maya (since this is the source of some of his graphics). His ability to find research articles, indicates that he is at University with a good library (probably Division 1) where he could also find the work of Griaule & Dieterlen, yet he declares that I was not discussing Mande calendrics, eventhough I provided citations to support my premises.
For Quetzalcoatl to begin this new thread without bothering to investigate my sources makes him either a lackey of the authorities he cites, or a fool.
Next he ask for help, and who comes to his aid without any evidence to back up his statements but Step and fetch it Bass.
Bass, for you to support this charlatan who has not rebutted any of my claims or disputed my citations leads me to suspect you lack basic understanding of research methods and debate.
Alas, poor Bass , it appears that anything said by a European you accept as the gospel. This is sad.
Just because you were taught white is right and black get back as child in Vicksberg, Mississippi, does not demand that you remain buried in an inferiority complex for ever.
I am sorry you didn't group in a large urban center where Blacks knew ancient Black history and did not fear Europeans. If you would have grew up outside the South, or spent some time away from the oppressive might of white supremacy in the South, maybe you might have some backbone.
Lucky for you there were scholars of courage, who didn't fall for the empty rhetoric of lackeys like Quetzalcoatl who speaks with fork tongue and is a Great Deciever.
Don't be decieved by this garbage Bass. You need to learn to love yourself and your people. Then you wouldn't be so easily led by he nose, by the ignorant to believe lies and distortions used by deceitful people to limit the ability of African people in ancient times.
Get up off your knees Bass and be a man, instead of a boy begging for acceptance by Masta and his lackeys.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Oh Great Deciever, you are a sad person indeed you pretend to be a scholar, but you lose all reason when it comes to debating me. You did not check one reference mentioned in my post. If you had read Temple, you would know that Temple published an English translation of the M. Griaule and Dieterlen’s, A Sudanese Sirius System (pp.35-51). You claim I was not discussing the Mande system a cursory examination of the Temple text would have shown you how wrong you are.
A little more ad hominem. Of course I read it . I quoted it to show you made up numerology about the katanga figure.
quote:Oh you Great Deciever, You.
If you would have read the Temple text, you would have gain an understanding of the Mande notation system.
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).
As noted previously the Malinke-Bambara calculations are based on 20. This resulted from the fact that the total number of toes and fingers equal 20.
The Malinke-Bambara numbers are mention in M. Delafosse, La Mandingue et ses dialectes volume 2. Below I will give the Malinke-Bambara numeral and the page number where it is found:
[list]
muġa twenty (p.520)
debč forty (p.111)
debč-ni muġa sixty (p.629 volume 1)
debč fila eighty (p.520) ( fila means double i.e. 40x2=80)
debč fila ni muġa hundred (p.111)
In relation to the numeral 40 debe, Delafosse wrote “nombre forme par le total des doigts et des orteils d'un couple couche sur une natte” (p.111), or number formed by the total number of toes and fingers of a couple layer on a mat or blanket. This reminds us of Griaule and Dieterlen discussion of the Bambara notation system as illustrated by the [b]koso wala .
Griaule and Dieterlein's article does not describe the Dogon system of numeration, much less the Mande, who are mentioned a couple of times. The article deals primarily with the calculations used by the Dogon to predict the cycle of Sirius. The reason why the number 60 keeps coming up is not that it is a basic part of a calendar but because the astronomical period for Sirius is 60 years and that is what the article is about.
I have repeatedly asked is for you to provide direct QUOTATIONS not paraphrases to support your assertions. You can show me to be a deceiver by quotes that support you and contradict me.
On the numbers ; What Winters' own sources say contradict the simple picture he is trying to draw. Griaiule and Dieterlein's article does not deal with Dogon OR Mande number systems. Did you, Clyde, READ my first post? I covered every number you just cited but in a more systematic way because Delafosse has a section that deals specifically with Mande number systems Here it is again, so that others can compare what you say and a more complete treatment by Delafosse.
There are a number of different ways to say numbers in Mande, and a decimal system is actually more credible and systematic. There is a discussion of numbers in:
Delafosse, M. 1929. La langue Mandingue et ses dialectes Paris: Paul Geuthner, pp. 274-76
I’ll try to reproduce the phonetics, which is the only fair way to discuss and compare languages the approximate sound will be inside [] brackets. The sounds of letters with carets and accents are French.
number 20 can be said a number of ways: moű[gh]â (also tâ fila (10x2). But also a name based on 20 fingers and toes mňrň is used in counting higher numbers.
number 40 If were dealing with a base-20 system we would only see (20 x2) and we see that- mňrň fila (20x2) (but notice that moű[gh]â is not the term used). But we also see (10x4) tâ näni. And to complicate things even further, the word for “sleeping mat” debč also means 40. because a man and a woman lying together are 40 toes and fingers.
number 60
We find (20 x3) mňrň saba again using the alternate word for 20, but, we also have (10 x6) tâ or bi wôro. And, there is yet another way to get to 60 debč ni moű[gh]â (40+20)
number 80
mňrň näni (20 x4) is present, but also the use of 40 as a base number debe fila (40 x 2) and, as usual, the decimal tâ sęgi (10x8)
At a minimum, the situation with Mande numbers is much more complex than Winters presented it. The only really regular form is base 10, which is fact, next goes to (10x10)= 100 the next step in a base 10.
If, in fact, the Mande used a base-20 system then 400 should be 20 x20 as it is in the Maya system. However, (p. 276) in Mande a new system using 80 is employed: bâmana-nkeme or B keme l[ou]l[ou] (80 x5) = 400. This is what one means when one claims that particular number is the base of a system, i.e. base (to the first power); base (square); base (cubed) etc. as in [x represents a superscript] 10x1 =10; 10x2=100,10x3)= 1000. Thus a base-20 should be 20x1=20;20x2=400,20x3=8000. As I show, the Mande system does NOT call 400 as 20x2 as it would if the Mande were a base-20 system
moű[gh]âmoű[gh]â or i]mňrň[/i]i]mňrň[/i].
The Maya are the best known of the base-20 systems but there others. The only one listed for Africa is the counting system of the Yoruba. Joseph, G. G. 2000 The Crest of the Peacock. Non-European Roots of Mathematics Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp 44-45 "The Yoruba system of numeration is essentially a base 20 counting system, its most unusual feature being a heavy reliance on subtraction... At thirty-five aarundinlogoji. however, there is a change in the way the first multiple of twenty is referred to: forty is expressed as 'two twenties (ogoji), while higher multiples are named ogota ('three twenties')[/I], ogerin ('four twenties') and so on."
You don't see the variety of names that we see in the Mande. Even though the Yoruba have a base-20 they do not use place value notation.
quote: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).
There are all sorts of numbers involved in this description and there is little reason to favor 20 over any other. More importantly, this has to do with the astronomical gyrations of Sirius, not with a calendar in the normal sense. Let's quote the passage completely:
{QUOTE]The Sirius system is depicted [ comment- this is a description of the orbits and behaviors NOT "a base- 20 notation in relation to it on the chequered blanket called koso wala, 'coloured picture,' consisting of ten sequences made up of some thirty rectangles coloured alternately indigo andwhite which symbolize, respectively, darkness and light, earth and sky, and, in Bambara mythology, Pemba and Faro. Scattered throughout there are twenty-three rectangles with different patterns of small stripes placed in the direction of thread, alternating the indigo, white and red. twenty represent stars and constellations; the other three respectively represent the rainbow, hailstones, and rain. The fifth sequence in the centre, in which there is no coloured rectangle, symbolizes the Milky Way. The ninth sequence, at one end, contians five black (not indigo) rectangles which point to the 'fifth,' creation, in darkness, which will occur with the arrival of the waters to come.{/QUOTE] All sorts of numbers are used in making this image. Twenty is not special, it actually is just a part of twenty-three. This is the reason I use entire quotes so people can judge fully what is being said. Who is a deceiver?
quote:It is interesting that when Griaule and Dieterlen, discussed the Mande notation system they used a (colored blanket) wala koso, while Delafosse used the example of a (mat) degč,]/QUOTE]
What follows is purely your hypothesis and Delafosse said nothing whatever about this-- the "sleeping mat" word was used , as I quoted above, because a man and a woman lying on the mat would total 40 NOT some "math calculation" (unless counting toes and fingers is a math calculation) using base-20. Who is the deceiver?
[QUOTE]this suggest that the ancient Mande used mats to perform math computation and that these mats were made according to the base 20 notation system.
Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, in Signes Graphique soudanais (L’Homme , Cahiers d’Ethnologie de Geographie et de Linguistique,3, Paris (Hermann) 1951, the authors discuss the Mande graphic sign for zero fu.
The existence of a similar notation system based on 20 among the Maya illustrate the mande origin of Mayan calendrics.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Oh Great Deciever, you are a sad person indeed you pretend to be a scholar, but you lose all reason when it comes to debating me. You did not check one reference mentioned in my post. If you had read Temple, you would know that Temple published an English translation of the M. Griaule and Dieterlen’s, A Sudanese Sirius System (pp.35-51). You claim I was not discussing the Mande system a cursory examination of the Temple text would have shown you how wrong you are.
A little more ad hominem. Of course I read it . I quoted it to show you made up numerology about the katanga figure.
quote:Oh you Great Deciever, You.
If you would have read the Temple text, you would have gain an understanding of the Mande notation system.
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).
As noted previously the Malinke-Bambara calculations are based on 20. This resulted from the fact that the total number of toes and fingers equal 20.
The Malinke-Bambara numbers are mention in M. Delafosse, La Mandingue et ses dialectes volume 2. Below I will give the Malinke-Bambara numeral and the page number where it is found:
[list]
muġa twenty (p.520)
debč forty (p.111)
debč-ni muġa sixty (p.629 volume 1)
debč fila eighty (p.520) ( fila means double i.e. 40x2=80)
debč fila ni muġa hundred (p.111)
In relation to the numeral 40 debe, Delafosse wrote “nombre forme par le total des doigts et des orteils d'un couple couche sur une natte” (p.111), or number formed by the total number of toes and fingers of a couple layer on a mat or blanket. This reminds us of Griaule and Dieterlen discussion of the Bambara notation system as illustrated by the [b]koso wala .
Griaule and Dieterlein's article does not describe the Dogon system of numeration, much less the Mande, who are mentioned a couple of times. The article deals primarily with the calculations used by the Dogon to predict the cycle of Sirius. The reason why the number 60 keeps coming up is not that it is a basic part of a calendar but because the astronomical period for Sirius is 60 years and that is what the article is about.
I have repeatedly asked is for you to provide direct QUOTATIONS not paraphrases to support your assertions. You can show me to be a deceiver by quotes that support you and contradict me.
On the numbers ; What Winters' own sources say contradict the simple picture he is trying to draw. Griaiule and Dieterlein's article does not deal with Dogon OR Mande number systems. Did you, Clyde, READ my first post? I covered every number you just cited but in a more systematic way because Delafosse has a section that deals specifically with Mande number systems Here it is again, so that others can compare what you say and a more complete treatment by Delafosse.
There are a number of different ways to say numbers in Mande, and a decimal system is actually more credible and systematic. There is a discussion of numbers in:
Delafosse, M. 1929. La langue Mandingue et ses dialectes Paris: Paul Geuthner, pp. 274-76
I’ll try to reproduce the phonetics, which is the only fair way to discuss and compare languages the approximate sound will be inside [] brackets. The sounds of letters with carets and accents are French.
number 20 can be said a number of ways: moű[gh]â (also tâ fila (10x2). But also a name based on 20 fingers and toes mňrň is used in counting higher numbers.
number 40 If were dealing with a base-20 system we would only see (20 x2) and we see that- mňrň fila (20x2) (but notice that moű[gh]â is not the term used). But we also see (10x4) tâ näni. And to complicate things even further, the word for “sleeping mat” debč also means 40. because a man and a woman lying together are 40 toes and fingers.
number 60
We find (20 x3) mňrň saba again using the alternate word for 20, but, we also have (10 x6) tâ or bi wôro. And, there is yet another way to get to 60 debč ni moű[gh]â (40+20)
number 80
mňrň näni (20 x4) is present, but also the use of 40 as a base number debe fila (40 x 2) and, as usual, the decimal tâ sęgi (10x8)
At a minimum, the situation with Mande numbers is much more complex than Winters presented it. The only really regular form is base 10, which is fact, next goes to (10x10)= 100 the next step in a base 10.
If, in fact, the Mande used a base-20 system then 400 should be 20 x20 as it is in the Maya system. However, (p. 276) in Mande a new system using 80 is employed: bâmana-nkeme or B keme l[ou]l[ou] (80 x5) = 400. This is what one means when one claims that particular number is the base of a system, i.e. base (to the first power); base (square); base (cubed) etc. as in [x represents a superscript] 10x1 =10; 10x2=100,10x3)= 1000. Thus a base-20 should be 20x1=20;20x2=400,20x3=8000. As I show, the Mande system does NOT call 400 as 20x2 as it would if the Mande were a base-20 system
moű[gh]âmoű[gh]â or i]mňrň[/i]i]mňrň[/i].
The Maya are the best known of the base-20 systems but there others. The only one listed for Africa is the counting system of the Yoruba. Joseph, G. G. 2000 The Crest of the Peacock. Non-European Roots of Mathematics Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp 44-45 "The Yoruba system of numeration is essentially a base 20 counting system, its most unusual feature being a heavy reliance on subtraction... At thirty-five aarundinlogoji. however, there is a change in the way the first multiple of twenty is referred to: forty is expressed as 'two twenties (ogoji), while higher multiples are named ogota ('three twenties')[/I], ogerin ('four twenties') and so on."
You don't see the variety of names that we see in the Mande. Even though the Yoruba have a base-20 they do not use place value notation.
quote: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).
There are all sorts of numbers involved in this description and there is little reason to favor 20 over any other. More importantly, this has to do with the astronomical gyrations of Sirius, not with a calendar in the normal sense. Let's quote the passage completely:
{QUOTE]The Sirius system is depicted [ comment- this is a description of the orbits and behaviors NOT "a base- 20 notation in relation to it on the chequered blanket called koso wala, 'coloured picture,' consisting of ten sequences made up of some thirty rectangles coloured alternately indigo andwhite which symbolize, respectively, darkness and light, earth and sky, and, in Bambara mythology, Pemba and Faro. Scattered throughout there are twenty-three rectangles with different patterns of small stripes placed in the direction of thread, alternating the indigo, white and red. twenty represent stars and constellations; the other three respectively represent the rainbow, hailstones, and rain. The fifth sequence in the centre, in which there is no coloured rectangle, symbolizes the Milky Way. The ninth sequence, at one end, contians five black (not indigo) rectangles which point to the 'fifth,' creation, in darkness, which will occur with the arrival of the waters to come.{/QUOTE] All sorts of numbers are used in making this image. Twenty is not special, it actually is just a part of twenty-three. This is the reason I use entire quotes so people can judge fully what is being said. Who is a deceiver?
quote:It is interesting that when Griaule and Dieterlen, discussed the Mande notation system they used a (colored blanket) wala koso, while Delafosse used the example of a (mat) degč,]/QUOTE]
What follows is purely your hypothesis and Delafosse said nothing whatever about this-- the "sleeping mat" word was used , as I quoted above, because a man and a woman lying on the mat would total 40 NOT some "math calculation" (unless counting toes and fingers is a math calculation) using base-20. Who is the deceiver?
[QUOTE]this suggest that the ancient Mande used mats to perform math computation and that these mats were made according to the base 20 notation system.
Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, in Signes Graphique soudanais (L’Homme , Cahiers d’Ethnologie de Geographie et de Linguistique,3, Paris (Hermann) 1951, the authors discuss the Mande graphic sign for zero fu.
The existence of a similar notation system based on 20 among the Maya illustrate the mande origin of Mayan calendrics.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 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.
I have shown time and again that this is not true. I even have provided an e-mail from Michael Coe (whom you often cite as an authority on the Maya) to this effect. You obviously think that repeating something that is not true over and over again, more and more emphatically will make it true. You are impervious to evidence but, other participants in ES can read the evidence for themselves http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348;p=4
quote: A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
You speak of evaluating evidence. Oh You Great Deciever, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
First of all science is based on hypotheses testing. Wiener made a number of claims:
1. West Africans had a 13 month zodiac. 2. There was a Mande origin for the Mayan notation system. 3. Mande writing was the source of the inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette.
These premises provides several testable hypothesis in relation to the Mande-Olmec and Mayan connection:
There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
To start with, you are playing a shell game the topic of this and the previous thread was your claimed Mande origin of the OLMEC calendar on the Mojarra Stela-not a presumed relationship with the Maya. Your claim that somehow, Wiener is the postulant is not so. Wiener never wrote the word 'Olmec" because in 1920 the archaeological Olmecs were unknown. The Mande-Olmec connection is all yours.
Secondly, you don't even know how to write a valid scientific hypothesis. You don't test a hypothesis by supposedly finding confirmatory data. You need to see how it can be falsified.
Here is a scientific hypothesis for you:
The Long Count Initial Series calendar system was developed by native Mesoamericans and by 32B.C. it involved the interaction of a 260-day calendar (20 day names combined with numbers 1-13) and a 365-day calendar (18 20-months + 1 5-day month). This "Calendar Round" was further combined with a count of the days since a hypothetical beginning of the calendar on August 11 3114 B.C.
All you need to falsify this hypothesis is to provide evidence that a calendar just like this existed somewhere else on earth.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
There are a number of different ways to say numbers in Mande, and a decimal system is actually more credible and systematic.
You admit that the Mande have varying numbering systems. The fact that diverse numbering systems exist, including one based on 20, does not make one system more credible than another except in your own eyes and therefore fails to invalidate the evidence I presented.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. A hypothesis is a reasonable testable explanation of a phenomena. A problem that does not imply testing is not a hypothesis.
Quetzacoatl this is your alleged hypothesis:
quote:
The Long Count Initial Series calendar system was developed by native Mesoamericans and by 32B.C. it involved the interaction of a 260-day calendar (20 day names combined with numbers 1-13) and a 365-day calendar (18 20-months + 1 5-day month). This "Calendar Round" was further combined with a count of the days since a hypothetical beginning of the calendar on August 11 3114 B.C.
This not a hypothesis. In this statement you are just telling us about the American calendar. There is no question to be answered. It is neither a difference hypothesis (used in a correlational study) or magnitudinal (used in an experimental study). It is non-falsifiable and simply a statement of fact realitive to the long count.
My hypotheses on the otherhand, can be testable. I stated the problem and then tested them in relation to the know evidence relating to the American calendar which began with the Olmecs
Leo Wiener’s work is germaine to this debate. He is germaine because it was Wiener who noted the relationship between the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette and Mande writing. Granted, the artifact was not know as an Olmec artifact back when Wiener wrote, but today it is recognized as an Olmec artifact so we know that his writing relates to the olmec people.
Secondly, 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).
These observations by Wiener formed the basis of my three counter hypotheses.
First of all science is based on hypotheses testing. We know the American calendar is based on a base 20 notation system, sacre calendar of 13 (months) and 20 days (per month). Wiener made a number of claims:
1. West Africans had a 13 month zodiac. 2. There was a Mande origin for the Mayan notation system. 3. Mande writing was the source of the inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette.
These premises provides several testable hypothesis in relation to the Mande-Olmec and Mayan connection: There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
I confirmed these hypotheses, the Mande used a script similar to the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette, 2) many of the Mayan terms are cognate to Mande terms, 3) the Mande have a 20 base notation system. It is now up to you to disconfirm them.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The following really is not relevant to our discussion because what I keep trying to get you back to is the Mande-Olmec connection. The Maya is a separate question. But just for grins I’ll do the work.
Clyde Winters wrote
quote:In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
]/QB]
As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”. I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
However, the time was not wasted because I got some interesting quotes from Sharer (whom you cite as an authority)
pp. 556-557 “It now appears that by the Late Preclassic the Maya had begun to use a system of numeration by position—one that is, much like our own, involving the use of the mathematical concept of zero, a notable intellectual accomplishment and apparently the earliest known instance of this concept in the world.”
pp. 560 “The three cyclic counts most frequently used by the ancient Maya—the 260-day sacred almanac, the 365-day vague year, and the 52-year calendar round— are very old concepts, shared by all Mesoamerican peoples... .. The Long Count operated independently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronology, by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date, deep in the past, to reach a given day recorded by these two basic calendar cycles.”
pp. 562 The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.” So your postulated “zodiac” of 13 “months” of 20 days DID NOT EXIST among the Maya
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
]/QB]
As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”. I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
Further, Sharer on p 562 wrote something that completely contradicts the "quote" you produced:
pp. 562 "The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.”
The bottom line is that you made up the quote and attributed it to Sharer.
Oh, well
I'll make it easier for you to falsify my hypothesis. I'll eliminate the Initial Series Long Count component.
A Calendar round in which each day has two names- one from a combination of numbers 1 to 13 and 20 day names and two from a 365-day calendar of 18 20-day months and 1 5-day month in which a day with the same two names will not repeat for 52 years can only be found in Mesoamerica and nowhere else in the world.
All you have to to falsify this hypothesis is to show evidence for the existence of this in Africa, or somewhere else in the world.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The following really is not relevant to our discussion because what I keep trying to get you back to is the Mande-Olmec connection. The Maya is a separate question. But just for grins I’ll do the work.
Clyde Winters wrote
quote:In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
]/QB]
As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”. I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
However, the time was not wasted because I got some interesting quotes from Sharer (whom you cite as an authority)
pp. 556-557 “It now appears that by the Late Preclassic the Maya had begun to use a system of numeration by position—one that is, much like our own, involving the use of the mathematical concept of zero, a notable intellectual accomplishment and apparently the earliest known instance of this concept in the world.”
pp. 560 “The three cyclic counts most frequently used by the ancient Maya—the 260-day sacred almanac, the 365-day vague year, and the 52-year calendar round— are very old concepts, shared by all Mesoamerican peoples... .. The Long Count operated independently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronology, by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date, deep in the past, to reach a given day recorded by these two basic calendar cycles.”
pp. 562 The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.” So your postulated “zodiac” of 13 “months” of 20 days DID NOT EXIST among the Maya
A calendar is a register of the months and days of a year. You can not have a calendar without months and days.
The sacre calendar of Native Americans has 260 days (20 x 13=260). Oh you great Deciever why do you keep lying when you know that a month for the Maya was 20 days, and if there were 13 of these twenty day periods in the sacre calendar these 13 periods had to be months.
You are a sad individual. You will do anything, including lie to decieve the readers on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
]/QB]
As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”. I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
Further, Sharer on p 562 wrote something that completely contradicts the "quote" you produced:
pp. 562 "The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.”
The bottom line is that you made up the quote and attributed it to Sharer.
Oh, well
I'll make it easier for you to falsify my hypothesis. I'll eliminate the Initial Series Long Count component.
A Calendar round in which each day has two names- one from a combination of numbers 1 to 13 and 20 day names and two from a 365-day calendar of 18 20-day months and 1 5-day month in which a day with the same two names will not repeat for 52 years can only be found in Mesoamerica and nowhere else in the world.
All you have to to falsify this hypothesis is to show evidence for the existence of this in Africa, or somewhere else in the world.
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America 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.
You can still keep time without the 365 day Mayan calendar as proven by contemporary Americans. 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 [b]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". " (p.74).
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The following really is not relevant to our discussion because what I keep trying to get you back to is the Mande-Olmec connection. The Maya is a separate question. But just for grins I’ll do the work.
Clyde Winters wrote
quote:In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
]/QB]
As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”. I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
However, the time was not wasted because I got some interesting quotes from Sharer (whom you cite as an authority)
pp. 556-557 “It now appears that by the Late Preclassic the Maya had begun to use a system of numeration by position—one that is, much like our own, involving the use of the mathematical concept of zero, a notable intellectual accomplishment and apparently the earliest known instance of this concept in the world.”
pp. 560 “The three cyclic counts most frequently used by the ancient Maya—the 260-day sacred almanac, the 365-day vague year, and the 52-year calendar round— are very old concepts, shared by all Mesoamerican peoples... .. The Long Count operated independently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronology, by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date, deep in the past, to reach a given day recorded by these two basic calendar cycles.”
pp. 562 The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.” So your postulated “zodiac” of 13 “months” of 20 days DID NOT EXIST among the Maya
A calendar is a register of the months and days of a year. You can not have a calendar without months and days.
The sacre calendar of Native Americans has 260 days (20 x 13=260). Oh you great Deciever why do you keep lying when you know that a month for the Maya was 20 days, and if there were 13 of these twenty day periods in the sacre calendar these 13 periods had to be months.
You are a sad individual. You will do anything, including lie to decieve the readers on this forum.
Shame on you.
.
I notice that you have not admitted that you made up a quote supposedly written by Sharer. Your own cited reference Sharer 5th ed. points out that the 260-day ritual "tzolkin was not considered to have "months" but just to run a continuous series of 260 days., I guess he is the great deceiver Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'll make it easier for you to falsify my hypothesis. I'll eliminate the Initial Series Long Count component.
A Calendar round in which each day has two names- one from a combination of numbers 1 to 13 and 20 day names and two from a 365-day calendar of 18 20-day months and 1 5-day month in which a day with the same two names will not repeat for 52 years can only be found in Mesoamerica and nowhere else in the world.
All you have to to falsify this hypothesis is to show evidence for the existence of this in Africa, or somewhere else in the world.
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America 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.
LOL. Apparently you don't know the meaning of "falsify" to do this you 1) have to deal with the entire hypothesis and 2) present some evidence. Assertions are not evidence. Let us start with Wiener. Wiener presents NO evidence, he makes assertions which are, in themselves valueless since he was not an expert on Mesoamerica or the Maya.
1) Notice that what you need to falsify is the non-existence of the 52-year Calendar Round not just the 260-day tzolkin anywhere else in the world.
2) Wiener: Hereis the total evidence presented by Wiener: From Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons Unlike Winters, I will quote the relevant passages
quote: pp. 270-71 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] 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.
The only evidence presented for African calabashes is a citation to F. Bork, 1916-17. "Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen," in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft vol. XXI pp. 266-ff BUT Wiener does not tell us what Bork found, does not have a picture of what these calabashes look like, etc. Thus, NO evidence is presented. I am in the process of getting Bork's paper so that we can all see what this evidence is supposed to be, but without it Wiener has not "proved" a thing.
Also notice that Wiener points out that dividing a year into 13 parts would require 28-day months and that he finds that the Berbers instead have 28"months" of 13-days each and goes on to ascribe these to Arab astrological calculations. Hardly a rousing proof of African 13 x20 time keeping and definitely not a 52-year "Calendar Round"
Another Wiener proofless assertion
quote:p. 278 In Arabic. . quimar refers to any game of chance. The Spanish-Arabic dictionary in the beginning of the XVI. Century translates Spanish “dados” and “naypes” by quimar, which shows that even at that late date “dice” and “cards” were not yet fully distinguished. But “cards” were called naypes in Spanish from Arabic () naib “lieutenant,” and the first fundamental row of the geomantic gadwal is called alanaua, (ref. 3) unquestionably from naib “lieutenant, regent,” for we find this word as laibe “story” in Wolof, which indicates that in the Western Sudan the game was closely related to the gadwal. Cards seem not to have been known before the end of the XIV. Century, and it is significant that, although the original deck of cards had 4X18 and more cards, it soon developed into a deck of 4X13 cards, in which the 13 is identical with the calabash zodiacs of western Africa. It, therefore, follows from this that in western Africa there was, for reasons which we do not at present know, in vogue the 4X13 astrological cycle, which forms the same cycle in Mexico and Central America
Again, pure assertion with no evidence. I cannot believe that readers of ES can think that this "proves" that the Mande brought the 260-day calendar, much less the 52-year Calendar Round, to the Olmecs, 500 B.C.
quote:You can still keep time without the 365 day Mayan calendar as proven by contemporary Americans. 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 [b]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". " (p.74). .
Sometimes I think that you must live in an alternate universe where repeating an error over and over again will somehow magically transmute it into being true. I won't waste any time reposting the reams of contrary evidence including an e-mail from Mike Coe explicitly telling you thqt you have misquoted and misunderstood him. You get by with this because your acolytes and others will not bother to check out your claims. If readers of ES are not too lazy or uninterested complete rebuttals are available here http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand exactly what I have read but it is you Quetzalcoatl who donot. You can not have a calendar without days and months as I stated earlier as a result, if the sacre calendar is 13 and 20=260 days and we know that there is 20 days in a month for the Americans, 13 has to be the number of months associated with this calendar. Quetzalcoatl, where is your deductive reasoning?
You claim that the people of ES are lazy because they don't support you, since you present statements from authorities that appear to support your prepositions, this is the wrong attitude. I don't think they are lazy I just think that if someone reads that the Americans continued to use the sacre calendar Toltecs, Maya, and etc., which totals 260 days--and a calendar has months and days-- the Tzolk'in must be made up of months and days and your contention that it only has 20 days, but no months, is a stupid interpretation of the components of a calendar,to say the least. I repeat, Quetzalcoatl, where is your deductive reasoning given the facts relating to the componets of a calendar (months and days)?
What you want ES posters to acknowledge is that you are right, simply because you are European, and the people you quote are Europeans. They are not going to do this because they know that these same Europeans declare that Egyptians were not Black--since this is the view of the status quo.
Your problem is that you think I write about things without studying them. I have already mentioned the fact that I not only write about Mayan and Arabic, I also studied these languages for years. As a result, I understand what a glottal stop is in relation to speaking these languages.
I have also studied linguistics since I got my first Master's degree in 1973. Do you really think someone would have let me teach linguistics at their University (Saint Xavier University- Chicago) or publish articles in this field if I didn't know what I was doing? If you do, then you don't know anything at all about scholarship.
If I thought you could learn something I would teach you how to evaluate evidence. But you disrespect me so much I won't waste my time--instead I'll just show the readers of ES how you don't know what you're talking about.
You are very arrogant and prideful. You have convinced yourself you are right and I am wrong so you argue about things you know nothing about.
Oh you great Deciever......You...may you remain in your ignorance and darkness.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I understand exactly what I have read but it is you Quetzalcoatl who donot. You can not have a calendar without days and months as I stated earlier as a result, if the sacre calendar is 13 and 20=260 days and we know that there is 20 days in a month for the Americans, 13 has to be the number of months associated with this calendar. Quetzalcoatl, where is your deductive reasoning?
You claim that the people of ES are lazy because they don't support you, since you present statements from authorities that appear to support your prepositions, this is the wrong attitude. I don't think they are lazy I just think that if someone reads that the Americans continued to use the sacre calendar Toltecs, Maya, and etc., which totals 260 days--and a calendar has months and days-- the Tzolk'in must be made up of months and days and your contention that it only has 20 days, but no months, is a stupid interpretation of the components of a calendar,to say the least. I repeat, Quetzalcoatl, where is your deductive reasoning given the facts relating to the componets of a calendar (months and days)?
What you want ES posters to acknowledge is that you are right, simply because you are European, and the people you quote are Europeans. They are not going to do this because they know that these same Europeans declare that Egyptians were not Black--since this is the view of the status quo.[QUOTE
When one runs out of legitimate arguments, the first refuge is to go ad hominem. I know that, on ES, a successful strategy is to invoke the race card and accuse people of eurocentrism. But, here, what you are doing is the same thing that ES complains about , i.e. "blacks are too dumb to have invented anything so europeans claim credit". How does that differ from "Amerindians are too dumb to develop a calendar, writing etc. so the Mande had to come over and teach them." If one statement is racist so is the other. Don't raise the "quote Europeans" defense I can just as easily quote Mexican archaeologists who are incensed at claims of Mande hegemony.
[QUOTE]Your problem is that you think I write about things without studying them. I have already mentioned the fact that I not only write about Mayan and Arabic, I also studied these languages for years. As a result, I understand what a glottal stop is in relation to speaking these languages.
You can assert whatever you want, but any objective observer can look at definitions of what a "glottal stop" is and know 1) that it does not involve an "open throat" as you said but a "closed throat" ; 2) that it is a consonant and therefore cannot be ignored as you do in Maya. People don't have to take my word, this can be checked independently by googling.
The same applies to your claims about short vowels and long vowels being tones. A tonal language involves changes in the inflection of the vowel -- not its length as for example from Wikipedia
quote:To illustrate how tone can affect meaning, let us look at the following example from Mandarin, which has five tones, which can be indicated by diacritics over vowels:
1. A long, high level tone: ā 2. Starts at normal pitch and rises to the pitch of tone 1: á 3. A low tone, dipping down briefly before slowly rising to the starting level of tone 2: ǎ 4. A sharply falling tone, starting at the height of tone 1 and falling to somewhere below tone 2's onset: ŕ 5. A neutral tone, sometimes indicated by a zero or a dot (·), which has no specific contour; the actual pitch expressed is directly influenced by the tones of the preceding and following syllables. Mandarin speakers refer to this tone as the "light tone" (輕聲).
These tones can lead to one syllable, e.g. "ma", having numerous meanings, of which five are exemplified below, depending on the tone associated with it, so that "mā" glosses as "mother", "má" as "hemp", "mǎ" as "horse", "mŕ" as "scold", and toneless "ma" at the end of a sentence acts as an interrogative particle. This differentiation in tone allows a speaker to create the (not entirely grammatical) sentence:.
A linguist would never try to make comparisons between words without first providing accurate phonetic transcriptions-- which you don't do. You write your words for comparison as if all the consonants and vowels were in English and you omit things like glottal stops, vowel length, the fact that in Mande "u" has 4 different pronunciations one of them /ou/, gy is /gui/, etc.
The proof of the pudding is in the performance. What confidence can one have in your linguistic claims if we see you doing things like these? Again, these are not European claims, they are linguistic claims and people can judge their accuracy by consulting other linguists, or the literature.
quote:I have also studied linguistics since I got my first Master's degree in 1973. Do you really think someone would have let me teach linguistics at their University (Saint Xavier University- Chicago) or publish articles in this field if I didn't know what I was doing? If you do, then you don't know anything at all about scholarship.
If I thought you could learn something I would teach you how to evaluate evidence. But you disrespect me so much I won't waste my time--instead I'll just show the readers of ES how you don't know what you're talking about.
You are very arrogant and prideful. You have convinced yourself you are right and I am wrong so you argue about things you know nothing about.
Oh you great Deciever......You...may you remain in your ignorance and darkness.
.
No comment, see above.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The same applies to your claims about short vowels and long vowels being tones. A tonal language involves changes in the inflection of the vowel -- not its length as for example from Wikipedia
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To illustrate how tone can affect meaning, let us look at the following example from Mandarin, which has five tones, which can be indicated by diacritics over vowels:
1. A long, high level tone: ā 2. Starts at normal pitch and rises to the pitch of tone 1: á 3. A low tone, dipping down briefly before slowly rising to the starting level of tone 2: ǎ 4. A sharply falling tone, starting at the height of tone 1 and falling to somewhere below tone 2's onset: ŕ 5. A neutral tone, sometimes indicated by a zero or a dot (·), which has no specific contour; the actual pitch expressed is directly influenced by the tones of the preceding and following syllables. Mandarin speakers refer to this tone as the "light tone" (輕聲).
These tones can lead to one syllable, e.g. "ma", having numerous meanings, of which five are exemplified below, depending on the tone associated with it, so that "mā" glosses as "mother", "má" as "hemp", "mǎ" as "horse", "mŕ" as "scold", and toneless "ma" at the end of a sentence acts as an interrogative particle. This differentiation in tone allows a speaker to create the (not entirely grammatical) sentence:. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before all tone is a change in the length of the vowel short, long and etc:
ā
ă
á
Oh you great Deceiver.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I haven't. Cultural chauvinism mars the ones that do present viable info. But what's so wrong with good ol' TNV? Why is nearly everyone afraid of it? Or, we could build up Myra's forum if TNV is going to remain shunned.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ditto, good thread.
AlTakruri - have you found and alternative African/Ancient Egypt forum to ES?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clyde Winters posted June 14, 2008 10:29 PM 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.
This is not accurate. According to the standard references, L. Schele and D. Friedel. 1990. A Forest of Kings. The Untold History of the Ancient Maya NY: William Morrow, p. 217 and Martin, S. and N. Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and QueensNY: Thames & Hudson, p. 156. The first ruler of the Palenque Dynasty, which began in AD 431, (1600 years AFTER the beginning of the Olmecs, and some 800 years after the Gulf Olmec sites declined) was Bahlum-K’uk’ (K’uk’ B’alam) “Jaguar-Quetzal”. This is not an Olmec U-Kix-Chan as Winters claims.
quote: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.
Miller and Taube said no such thing. This, again, is a made up paraphrase in which your ideas are attributed to respected scholars.
Miller. M. and K. Taube. 1993. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya NY: Thames & Hudson mention k’uk’ one time, on p. 141. Here is the complete quote:
quote:Although few Mexican or Maya ancient cities were in quetzal habitat (the Maya city of Chinkultik is an exception), the bird and its distinctive crest and feathers were well known throughout Mesoamerica. Bernal Diaz reported seeing quetzals in Motecuhzoma II’s zoo. Kuk was included in the name of a number of Maya kings, and quetzal, of course, formed part of QUETZALCOATL. In Nahuatl poetry, the quetzal feather was often mentioned metaphorically, and the idea of its tearing or decay referred to the transience of life on EARTH.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No I haven't. Cultural chauvinism mars the ones that do present viable info. But what's so wrong with good ol' TNV? Why is nearly everyone afraid of it? Or, we could build up Myra's forum if TNV is going to remain shunned.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ditto, good thread.
AlTakruri - have you found and alternative African/Ancient Egypt forum to ES?
Please be so thoughtful as to start your own "exodus" thread and stop contaminating this one.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl, You great Deciever You. Let's look at what Schele and Freidel wrote in A Forest of Kings about U-Kix-Chan, the Olmec
quote: He accomplished this by evoking the name of a legendary king, U-Kix-Chan. We know that this man was a figure of legend because Chan-Bahlum tells us he was born on March 11, 993 B.C., and crowned himself on March 28,967 B.C. ....
From the legendary "Olmec", U-Kix-Chan, Chan-Bahlum moved to the birth and accession of the founder of his own dynasty, Bahlum-Kuk (p.254).
The fact that some Mayan Kings claimed direct descent from the Olmecs, explains why the Mayan language possesses numerous Olmec/Malinke-Bambara lexical items.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Clyde Winters posted June 14, 2008 10:29 PM 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.
This is not accurate. According to the standard references, L. Schele and D. Friedel. 1990. A Forest of Kings. The Untold History of the Ancient Maya NY: William Morrow, p. 217 and Martin, S. and N. Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and QueensNY: Thames & Hudson, p. 156. The first ruler of the Palenque Dynasty, which began in AD 431, (1600 years AFTER the beginning of the Olmecs, and some 800 years after the Gulf Olmec sites declined) was Bahlum-K’uk’ (K’uk’ B’alam) “Jaguar-Quetzal”. This is not an Olmec U-Kix-Chan as Winters claims.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
This was a mistake. I was only trying to say that the Maya titled their kings Kuk, just like the Olmec King Tutu mentioned in the Tuxtla statuette. I was not trying to imply that these authors made such a connection since they can't read Olmec writing.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
This was a mistake. I was only trying to say that the Maya titled their kings Kuk, just like the Olmec King Tutu mentioned in the Tuxtla statuette. I was not trying to imply that these authors made such a connection since they can't read Olmec writing.
.
A few kings, it was not a general name. It is k'uk' with 2 glottal stops. kuk with no glottal stops means "elbow". Why would the Mande name a king "quetzal" since the bird in not found in Africa?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
This was a mistake. I was only trying to say that the Maya titled their kings Kuk, just like the Olmec King Tutu mentioned in the Tuxtla statuette. I was not trying to imply that these authors made such a connection since they can't read Olmec writing.
.
A few kings, it was not a general name. It is k'uk' with 2 glottal stops. kuk with no glottal stops means "elbow". Why would the Mande name a king "quetzal" since the bird in not found in Africa?
quote:A few kings, it was not a general name. It is k'uk' with 2 glottal stops. kuk with no glottal stops means "elbow". Why would the Mande name a king "quetzal" since the bird in not found in Africa?
Though I have been following the thread, I am at a disadvantage on the presented topic because I have no background in MesoAmerican or West African language. I can say with certainity that words within language(s) changes from time, with language drift (language being adopted by another group/groups) and the new meanings given by the adopted group (forced or chosen).
Tupi-Guarani, Carib/Arawak, Mayan (Southern Mexico/Guatemala/Belize) and even Yoruba (Nigeria vs New World definition of words) language have change/new meanings where words in one location have a specific meaning and another meaning in the new clime. Some friends from Belize (Corozal District)who speak Mayan tell me that the language understanding and meaning can colour the comprehension of said language. I am guessing that steppe Turkish would be different from the language of modern Turkey due to drift, location and modernism!
I would say that situation like this are common in all sciences where one's research, though logical, objective, will differ from another who came to a differnt conclusion. Like Democrat and Republican, if you adhere to those constructs, where both sides swear they are right on their beliefs and will not swerve! Then you have right wing or left wing of both POV and the middle of both sides and never the twain shall meet!
BE BOLD! Research the topic, show your scholarship and publish, and cite sources!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl, You great Deciever You. Let's look at what Schele and Freidel wrote in A Forest of Kings about U-Kix-Chan, the Olmec
quote: He accomplished this by evoking the name of a legendary king, U-Kix-Chan. We know that this man was a figure of legend because Chan-Bahlum tells us he was born on March 11, 993 B.C., and crowned himself on March 28,967 B.C. ....
From the legendary "Olmec", U-Kix-Chan, Chan-Bahlum moved to the birth and accession of the founder of his own dynasty, Bahlum-Kuk (p.254).
The fact that some Mayan Kings claimed direct descent from the Olmecs, explains why the Mayan language possesses numerous Olmec/Malinke-Bambara lexical items.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Clyde Winters posted June 14, 2008 10:29 PM 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.
This is not accurate. According to the standard references, L. Schele and D. Friedel. 1990. A Forest of Kings. The Untold History of the Ancient Maya NY: William Morrow, p. 217 and Martin, S. and N. Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and QueensNY: Thames & Hudson, p. 156. The first ruler of the Palenque Dynasty, which began in AD 431, (1600 years AFTER the beginning of the Olmecs, and some 800 years after the Gulf Olmec sites declined) was Bahlum-K’uk’ (K’uk’ B’alam) “Jaguar-Quetzal”. This is not an Olmec U-Kix-Chan as Winters claims.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Quetzal opined
quote:A few kings, it was not a general name. It is k'uk' with 2 glottal stops. kuk with no glottal stops means "elbow". Why would the Mande name a king "quetzal" since the bird in not found in Africa?
Though I have been following the thread, I am at a disadvantage on the presented topic because I have no background in MesoAmerican or West African language. I can say with certainity that words within language(s) changes from time, with language drift (language being adopted by another group/groups) and the new meanings given by the adopted group (forced or chosen).
Tupi-Guarani, Carib/Arawak, Mayan (Southern Mexico/Guatemala/Belize) and even Yoruba (Nigeria vs New World definition of words) language have change/new meanings where words in one location have a specific meaning and another meaning in the new clime. Some friends from Belize (Corozal District)who speak Mayan tell me that the language understanding and meaning can colour the comprehension of said language. I am guessing that steppe Turkish would be different from the language of modern Turkey due to drift, location and modernism!
Thanks for your comment
You are right, of course. However, at this stage, I'm just trying to establish that before you can do any meaningful linguistic comparisons, you have to provide as accurate as possible phonetic transcriptions of words including such things as glottal stops, long and short vowels, nasal and non-nasal consonants, etc.
After that, we can proceed to things such as accurately comparing Maya with supposed Mande using the inscription of Classical Maya, the proper language to use is Chol Yucatec not Yucatec Maya because that is what the inscriptions were written in. There is also the question of why Mande is supposed to have the same meanings and phonetics, and Vai script from 3000 BC (the Oued Mertoutek inscription), through 1200 BC (the Olmec connection) to the 1890's when Delafosse collected the dictionary and the Vai script that Winters uses.
quote:I would say that situation like this are common in all sciences where one's research, though logical, objective, will differ from another who came to a differnt conclusion. Like Democrat and Republican, if you adhere to those constructs, where both sides swear they are right on their beliefs and will not swerve! Then you have right wing or left wing of both POV and the middle of both sides and never the twain shall meet!
BE BOLD! Research the topic, show your scholarship and publish, and cite sources!
Interesting question, where to publish in a refereed journal?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can read the Oued Mertoutek inscription and Olmec inscriptions generally because of linguistic continuity of the Mande languages. I discussed this feature of African languages in a peer reviewed article published years ago see: Clyde A. Winters, Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 1996:34-52.
The rate at which languages change is variable. It appears that linguistic change is culture specific. Consequently, the social organization and political culture of a particular speech community can influence the speed at which languages change.
Based on the history of language change in Europe most linguists believe that the rate of change for all languages is both rapid and constant (Diagne, 1981, p.238). The idea that all languages change rapidly is not valid for all the World's languages.
The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since Neolithic times (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985; Anselin 1992a, 1992b). This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.
The political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa (Winters 1996). Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language Diop, 1987, 1991; Niane, 1984).
This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the continuity or stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:
First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time (pp.153-154).
In Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes , Diop wrote that:
The permanence of these forms not only, constitute today a solid base...upon which...[we are to re-]construct diachronic African [languages], but obliges also a radical revision of these ideas, a priori...on the evolution of these languages in general (p.17).
There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used Glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms.
African languages change much slower than European languages (Armstrong, 1962). For example, African vocabulary items collected by Arab explorers who visited Mande speaking people over a thousand years ago are analogous to contemporary lexical items (Diagne,1981, p.239).
In addition there are striking resemblances between the ancient Egyptian language and Coptic, and Pharonic Egyptian and African languages (Diagne, 1981; Diop, 1977; Obenga, 1988, 1992a, 1992b, 1993,).
The fact that Mande terms collected over a thousand years ago have not changed over this period of time highlights the continuity of Mande vocabulary items and explains the steady state linguistic reality of the Malinke-Bambara language. It is this slow process of change within the Mande languages which allow me to read ancient Olmec and Saharan inscriptions.
REFERENCES
Anselin, A. (1981). Le Question Peule. Paris: Editions Karthala.
Anselin, A. (1982). Le Mythe D' Europe. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Anselin, A. (1989). pour une morpologie elementaire du Negro-Africain, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
Anselin, A. (1992a). L'ibis du savoir-l'ecriture et le mythe en ancienne Egypte, ANKH, no.1, pp.79-88.
Anselin, A. (1992b). Samba. Guadeloupe: Editions de L'Unite de Recherche-Action Guadeloupe.
Anselin, A.(1993). Anamneses. Guadeloupe: Editions de l'UNIRAG.
Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.
Crawley,T. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delafosse,M. (1901). La Langue Mandigue. Paris.
Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentč gčnčtique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.
Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.
Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:Lawrence Hill Books.
Labov,W.(1965). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.
Labov.,W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stokwell,R.P. and Macaulay, R.K.S. (Eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory (101-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lord,R. (1966). Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul's House.
Meillet, A. 1926. Introduction ŕ l'etude comparatif des languages Indo-Europeennes. Paris.
Moitt,B. (1989) CHIEKH Anta Diop and the African diaspora: Historical continuity and socio-cultural symbolism. Presence Africaine, 149/150, 347-360.
Niane,D.T.(Ed.). (1984). Introduction. General History of Africa IV (1-14). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Obenga, T. (1973). L'Afrique dans l'antiquite-Egypte pharaonique-Afrique noire. Paris: Presence Africaine.
Obenga, T. (1978a). Africa in antiquity, Africa Quarterly, 18, no.1, pp.1-15.
Obenga,T. (1978b). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In UNESCO (Ed.), The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script (65-72). Paris: UNESCO.
Obenga, T. (1988). Esquisses d'une histoire culturelle de l'Afrique par la lexicologie, Presence Africaine, no.140, pp.1-25.
Obenga, T. (1992). Le chamito-semitique n'existe pas, ANKH , no.1, pp.51-58.
Obenga, T. (1993a). Origine commune de l'Egyptien Ancien du Copte et des langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.
Obenga, T. Origine Commune de l"Egyptien ancien du coptes et des langues negro-africaines modernes. Paris: Editions l'Harmattan.
Olderogge, L. (1981). Migrations and ethnic and linguistic differentiations. In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.),General History of Africa I: Methodology and African History (271-278). Paris: UNESCO.
Pawley,A. & Ross,M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425-459.
Pfouma, O. L'abeille royale, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
Robins, R.H. (1974). General Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana State University Press.
Ruhlen, M. 1994. The origin of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Senghor, L.S. (1961). Negritude and African socialism, African Affairs, pp.20-25.
Toukara, B. (1989). Problematique du comparatisme , egyptien ancien/langues africaines (wolof), Presence Africain, no.149/150, pp.313-320.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1977). "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, (1977), pages 941-967.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1979c). "Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 , pp. 61-97.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1980a). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service. 3, no1,pp. 103-110.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (December, 1981/ January 1982a) "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black Collegian,pp. 76-84.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1983a).The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ) pages 208-214.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad(June 1984c) "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil ,International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2, pp. 347-353.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985a). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no.1 , pp. 1-9.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985b). "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no.1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 , pp. 77-96.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3, no.2 , pp. 26-27.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986c). "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2,pp. 225-241.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). Common African and Dravidian place name elements, South Asian Anthropologist, 9, no.1 pp.33-36.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989)"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics ,18, no.l.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. The Dravidian Encyclopaedia. (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume 1.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991b). Linguistic evidence for Dravidian influence on trade and animal domestication in Central and East Asia, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20, no.2, pp.91-102.
posted
Again, Clyde to clarify in my mind what your thinking is. A brief answer if possible. You can replace erroneous statements in my outline.
1. Aren't these people the same, even if different time periods? proto-Mande, proto-Saharans, C-group people, round-headed Blacks, Temehu, Saharo-Sudanese tradition (Aqualithic)
2. The Homeland of Niger-Congo was the Upper Nile Valley, about 10,000 BC
3. The homeland of the proto-Mande were the Saharan Highlands. In period 8000-5500 BC they enjoyed the aqualithic life style. Around 5000 BC became pastoralists.
4. They migrated 1st north (westward) to ? (Crete,) then south to ?, and Dhar Tichitt (when). But did not arrive at Niger Bend region until after 500 BC (Question- all of the Niger Bend or a particular segment?)
5. In (1800, 1200 BC?) They sailed in papyrus boats from Tassili (Hoggar?) down the Tafassasset to Lake Chad, the lower Niger River, the North Equatorial Current to the Gulf of Mexico. How many were they? What size boat? Were there a number of trips? Were there return trips? What route?
6. Were there people in the area of arrival? Did Malinke/Bambara replace their language?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Assertions are not evidence. Let us start with Wiener. Wiener presents NO evidence, he makes assertions which are, in themselves valueless since he was not an expert on Mesoamerica or the Maya.
Wiener: Hereis the total evidence presented by Wiener: From Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons Unlike Winters, I will quote the relevant passages
quote: [QUOTE][QB]pp. 270-71 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] 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. The only evidence presented for African calabashes is a citation to F. Bork, 1916-17. "Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen," in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft vol. XXI pp. 266-ff BUT Wiener does not tell us what Bork found, does not have a picture of what these calabashes look like, etc. Thus, NO evidence is presented. I am in the process of getting Bork's paper so that we can all see what this evidence is supposed to be, but without it Wiener has not "proved" a thing.
Also notice that Wiener points out that dividing a year into 13 parts would require 28-day months and that he finds that the Berbers instead have 28"months" of 13-days each and goes on to ascribe these to Arab astrological calculations. Hardly a rousing proof of African 13 x20 time keeping and definitely not a 52-year "Calendar Round"
Another Wiener proofless assertion
quote:p. 278 In Arabic. . quimar refers to any game of chance. The Spanish-Arabic dictionary in the beginning of the XVI. Century translates Spanish “dados” and “naypes” by quimar, which shows that even at that late date “dice” and “cards” were not yet fully distinguished. But “cards” were called naypes in Spanish from Arabic () naib “lieutenant,” and the first fundamental row of the geomantic gadwal is called alanaua, (ref. 3) unquestionably from naib “lieutenant, regent,” for we find this word as laibe “story” in Wolof, which indicates that in the Western Sudan the game was closely related to the gadwal. Cards seem not to have been known before the end of the XIV. Century, and it is significant that, although the original deck of cards had 4X18 and more cards, it soon developed into a deck of 4X13 cards, in which the 13 is identical with the calabash zodiacs of western Africa. It, therefore, follows from this that in western Africa there was, for reasons which we do not at present know, in vogue the 4X13 astrological cycle, which forms the same cycle in Mexico and Central America Again, pure assertion with no evidence. I cannot believe that readers of ES can think that this "proves" that the Mande brought the 260-day calendar, much less the 52-year Calendar Round, to the Olmecs, 500 B.C.
I am still waiting for you to falsify the following:
"Nowhere in the world except in Mesoamerica did a Calendar Round exist that combined a 260-day count (20x 13) with a 365-day (18x20 +1x5) count so that a day would repeat only every 52 years."
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Again, Clyde to clarify in my mind what your thinking is. A brief answer if possible. You can replace erroneous statements in my outline.
1. Aren't these people the same, even if different time periods? proto-Mande, proto-Saharans, C-group people, round-headed Blacks, Temehu, Saharo-Sudanese tradition (Aqualithic)
No. The Proto-Saharans were the Dravidian, Elamite,Sumerian and Mande speaking people.
The Temehu and C-Group people are the same according to Quellec. The Aqualithic people were a combination of people including Niger-Congo, Egyptian and other speakers.
2. The Homeland of Niger-Congo was the Upper Nile Valley, about 10,000 BC
The Mande lived mainly in the Saharan highlands. They later migrated into Nubia.
3. The homeland of the proto-Mande were the Saharan Highlands. In period 8000-5500 BC they enjoyed the aqualithic life style. Around 5000 BC became pastoralists.
I don't believe the Mande were part of the Aqualithic. I see this group as basically semi-pastoralists.
4. They migrated 1st north (westward) to ? (Crete,) then south to ?, and Dhar Tichitt (when). But did not arrive at Niger Bend region until after 500 BC (Question- all of the Niger Bend or a particular segment?)
5. In (1800, 1200 BC?) They sailed in papyrus boats from Tassili (Hoggar?) down the Tafassasset to Lake Chad, the lower Niger River, the North Equatorial Current to the Gulf of Mexico. How many were they? What size boat? Were there a number of trips? Were there return trips? What route?
They probably did sail toward the Atlantic between 1300-1200BC. The rest of the questions I can't answer but they were probably carried to Mexico by ocean currents.
6. Were there people in the area of arrival? Did Malinke/Bambara replace their language?
The archaeological evidence indicates that LaVenta and San Lorenzo were not occupied when the Olmec arrived. For example,LaVenta is an Island.
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. The Malinke-Bambara speaking Olmecs probably 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
This hypothesis is supported by the Malinke-Bambara substratum in the Mayan and Mixe languages.
posted
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America 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.
You can still keep time without the 365 day Mayan calendar as proven by contemporary Americans. 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 [b]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". " (p.74).
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote: Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Assertions are not evidence. Let us start with Wiener. Wiener presents NO evidence, he makes assertions which are, in themselves valueless since he was not an expert on Mesoamerica or the Maya.
Wiener: Hereis the total evidence presented by Wiener: From Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons Unlike Winters, I will quote the relevant passages
quote:
quote:[QB]pp. 270-71 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] 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. The only evidence presented for African calabashes is a citation to F. Bork, 1916-17. "Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen," in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft vol. XXI pp. 266-ff BUT Wiener does not tell us what Bork found, does not have a picture of what these calabashes look like, etc. Thus, NO evidence is presented. I am in the process of getting Bork's paper so that we can all see what this evidence is supposed to be, but without it Wiener has not "proved" a thing.
Also notice that Wiener points out that dividing a year into 13 parts would require 28-day months and that he finds that the Berbers instead have 28"months" of 13-days each and goes on to ascribe these to Arab astrological calculations. Hardly a rousing proof of African 13 x20 time keeping and definitely not a 52-year "Calendar Round"
Another Wiener proofless assertion
I am still waiting for you to falsify the following:
"Nowhere in the world except in Mesoamerica did a Calendar Round exist that combined a 260-day count (20x 13) with a 365-day (18x20 +1x5) count so that a day would repeat only every 52 years."
You say we should reject Wiener because he was not a Meso-American expert this is ludicris. You are not an expert but you are making claims, claims which according to your reasoning we should reject.
You note that Wiener said:
quote:
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.
It is nothing here that says the calendar of the West Africans was 28 days. Dr. Wiener just discussed the diverse calendars used by different groups. This is something you made up in your mind.
It is not necessary to discuss the Ha'ab calendar since we know that many Americans continue to use the Tzolk'in which is 13 months of 20 days.
quote: Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Assertions are not evidence. Let us start with Wiener. Wiener presents NO evidence, he makes assertions which are, in themselves valueless since he was not an expert on Mesoamerica or the Maya.
Wiener: Hereis the total evidence presented by Wiener: From Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons Unlike Winters, I will quote the relevant passages
quote: [QUOTE][QB]pp. 270-71 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] 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. The only evidence presented for African calabashes is a citation to F. Bork, 1916-17. "Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen," in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft vol. XXI pp. 266-ff BUT Wiener does not tell us what Bork found, does not have a picture of what these calabashes look like, etc. Thus, NO evidence is presented. I am in the process of getting Bork's paper so that we can all see what this evidence is supposed to be, but without it Wiener has not "proved" a thing.
Also notice that Wiener points out that dividing a year into 13 parts would require 28-day months and that he finds that the Berbers instead have 28"months" of 13-days each and goes on to ascribe these to Arab astrological calculations. Hardly a rousing proof of African 13 x20 time keeping and definitely not a 52-year "Calendar Round"
Another Wiener proofless assertion
p. 278 In Arabic. . quimar refers to any game of chance. The Spanish-Arabic dictionary in the beginning of the XVI. Century translates Spanish “dados” and “naypes” by quimar, which shows that even at that late date “dice” and “cards” were not yet fully distinguished. But “cards” were called naypes in Spanish from Arabic () naib “lieutenant,” and the first fundamental row of the geomantic gadwal is called alanaua, (ref. 3) unquestionably from naib “lieutenant, regent,” for we find this word as laibe “story” in Wolof, which indicates that in the Western Sudan the game was closely related to the gadwal. Cards seem not to have been known before the end of the XIV. Century, and it is significant that, although the original deck of cards had 4X18 and more cards, it soon developed into a deck of 4X13 cards, in which the 13 is identical with the calabash zodiacs of western Africa. It, therefore, follows from this that in western Africa there was, for reasons which we do not at present know, in vogue the 4X13 astrological cycle, which forms the same cycle in Mexico and Central America Again, pure assertion with no evidence. I cannot believe that readers of ES can think that this "proves" that the Mande brought the 260-day calendar, much less the 52-year Calendar Round, to the Olmecs, 500 B.C.
I am still waiting for you to falsify the following:
"Nowhere in the world except in Mesoamerica did a Calendar Round exist that combined a 260-day count (20x 13) with a 365-day (18x20 +1x5) count so that a day would repeat only every 52 years."
]You say we should reject Wiener because he was not a Meso-American expert this is ludicris. You are not an expert but you are making claims, claims which according to your reasoning we should reject.
NO. I just quoted ALL that Weiner wrote to prove that these "Mesoamerican" calendars came from Africa. Anyone can see for themselves that these are just assertions and not evidence. Bork's paper is mentioned but the contents are not shown so that one can see what these calabashes prove. If, you still claim that Wiener "proved" something, all you have to do is quote was you think Wiener said that "proves" the origin of the calendars. The above quotes is all there is.
quote: You note that Wiener said: [QUOTE]
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.
quote:[QB]It is nothing here that says the calendar of the West Africans was 28 days. Dr. Wiener just discussed the diverse calendars used by different groups. This is something you made up in your mind.
Again, NO. all I'm doing is quoting Wiener. HE is the one who brings up the 28-day month used by the Berbers. If you read the quote, Wiener says nothing about any other West African calendars or any other groups with a 13 unit. I quoted Wiener verbatim, you are welcome to quote Wiener discussing other West African calendars using a 13 unit and 20-days. There is nothing.
quote:It is not necessary to discuss the Ha'ab calendar since we know that many Americans continue to use the Tzolk'in which is 13 months of 20 days. .
You are playing games. The question of importance is what the Mande brought and influenced hundreds of years BC. This is your big claim. Thus, again prove that this is false; "Nowhere in the world except in Mesoamerica, between 100 BC and AD 900 was there a Calendar Round which involved the interaction of a 260-day (13 x 20) day count and a 365-day (18x20 +1x5) day count so that a day name would not repeat in 52 years." Remember, you already admitted that there are Long Count Initial Series dates on the Mojarra Stela.
I am waiting.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have not proven that the Haab existed when the Mojarra stela was written. But what we do know is that the sacre calendar did exist and as a result we can read the date of the stela.
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America 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.
You can still keep time without the 365 day Mayan calendar as proven by contemporary Americans. 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 [b]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". " (p.74).
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You have not proven that the Haab existed when the Mojarra stela was written. But what we do know is that the sacre calendar did exist and as a result we can read the date of the stela.
I don't know why you keep repeating things you know are wrong. We went through this in excruciating detail in the previous long thread.
Remember the Calendar Round combines the haab (365) and the tzolkin(260). Your own source confirms the existence of this in antiquity. You posted 21 May, 2008 12:08 PM
quote: 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)
You use Mike Coe as a source. I posted 23 May, 2008 02:49 PM
quote: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 Maya 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 in the year 3114 BC, and which will end (perhaps with a bang) in AD 2012.
So, the Calendar Round developed many years before the Long Count and was incorporated into it. The initial date included the Calendar Round this is why the initial date includes both a name in the 260 and a name in the 365 (haab). As the days were counted track was kept in the Calendar Round so that dates always had the two names.
I posted 22 May, 2008 07:16 PM C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
quote: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[260 name] 8 Cumku[365 name], or 13 August 3114 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar.
In the Mojarra Stela the date is 8.5.3.3.5. 13 "snake"(260 name) 3 K'ayab(365 name) = 21 May 143 AD
quote:This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America 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.
No such thing! Please quote Wiener's words that 1) "falsify that the calendar round only existed in Mesoamerica; and/or Wiener's description of these supposed 13 zodiac calabashes. I double dare you. Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agreed that the Olmec probably had the sacre calendar of the Americans 13 months of 20 days. We also appears to have existed in Africa. I never said the Ha'ab calendar existed in ancient times because the Long Count notations are usaully found under an ISIG which as noted by Mongomery is the prologue to the date (p.65).
You are wrong. There is no evidence that the Haab calendar existed in ancient times. Just because it is used today to provide a past date does not mean that it was used formerly.
Moreover, I never agreed that the date on Mojarra was snake this, or k'ayb that.This is all made up and not evidence in the Mojarra stela since there is no evidence of an ISIG on this stela, to give you this made-up reading.
All we have on the Mojarra stela are dots and bars absent an ISIG.
You are wasting my time. You are repeating yourself. If you have to repeat the same thing over and over again this debate is going nowhere.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
No such thing! Please quote Wiener's words that 1) "falsify that the calendar round only existed in Mesoamerica; and/or Wiener's description of these supposed 13 zodiac calabashes. I double dare you.
How can anyone do such a thing when Wiener never discussed the calendar round. Wiener talked about the sacre American calendar that continues to be used in Meso-America today.
This is what he wrote:
quote: 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] and in America.
Here Wiener is discussing the sacre calendar of 13 months of 20days (Tzolk'in ), and that a similar zodiac appears on West African calabashes.
The Calendar Round (CR) includes: 1) the ISIG; 2) long count; and 3) the Tzolk'in and Ha'ab calendars. In relation to the 13 month zodiac as noted in the quote above, Wiener never mentions the CR.
Why are you making up things and putting them in Wiener's mouth? Also why do you insist that an ISIG exist on the Mojarra stela, that allow you to interpret this or that day as snake and etc., when none is found?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl
quote:
No such thing! Please quote Wiener's words that 1) "falsify that the calendar round only existed in Mesoamerica; and/or Wiener's description of these supposed 13 zodiac calabashes. I double dare you.
How can anyone do such a thing when Wiener never discussed the calendar round. Wiener talked about the sacre American calendar that continues to be used in Meso-America today.
Of course, that is what i've pointing out, since the Calendar Round is fundamental to Mesoamerican calendrics. It is clear that Wiener is not dealing adequately with the supposed African influence on Mesoamerica. i.e. the Amerindians independently developed the Calendar Round and the Long Count Initial Series none of which can be found anywhere in Africa.
quote:This is what he wrote:
quote: 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 , and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] and in America.
Here Wiener is discussing the sacre calendar of 13 months of 20days (Tzolk'in ), and that a similar zodiac appears on West African calabashes.
Yes, and this is the totality of what he has to say about it. How does this PROVE anything? This would be an "F" in a High School essay. Do you have any idea about what "evidence" and "proof" are? Of course you do, but you will never admit defeat in any of your claims and so you pretend.
quote:The Calendar Round (CR) includes: 1) the ISIG; 2) long count; and 3) the Tzolk'in and Ha'ab calendars. In relation to the 13 month zodiac as noted in the quote above, Wiener never mentions the CR.
Why are you making up things and putting them in Wiener's mouth? Also why do you insist that an ISIG exist on the Mojarra stela, that allow you to interpret this or that day as snake and etc., when none is found? .
Clyde, why are you pretending to be stupid? I have repeatedly , in this and other threads, quoted Coe and other authoritative sources defining exactly what a Calendar Round is. As you well know it does NOT include the ISIG or the Long Count. I have faithfully and accurately quoted Wiener, something you have not done, Any words you see (few as they are) are Wiener's. If Wiener does not say what you would like that is not my problem-- prove me wrong QUOTE Wiener yourself.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Clyde, why are you pretending to be stupid? I have repeatedly , in this and other threads, quoted Coe and other authoritative sources defining exactly what a Calendar Round is. As you well know it does NOT include the ISIG or the Long Count. I have faithfully and accurately quoted Wiener, something you have not done, Any words you see (few as they are) are Wiener's. If Wiener does not say what you would like that is not my problem-- prove me wrong QUOTE Wiener yourself.
You must be retarded if you think you have proven that the Mojarra stela has a CR, when all the components of this calendrical system is not even found on the monument in question.
Yes you quoted Wiener, and just as I said, he claimed that the sacre calendar of 13 months is probably related to African calabash zodiacs.
We have also discussed a calendar round symbol which has three parts and must include an ISIG. This feature is not found on the Mojarra stela so you have not proven anything except your gullibility in believing anything authority figures claim. Lets look at what Montgomery in How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs says about the CR
quote: The Calendar Round and Long Count together form the Initial Series, an interlocking set of cycles that usually provides a beginning date for an inscription.(p.64)
(....)
The Innial Series functions to a certain degree like the combined sequence of our own Gregorian calendar, as in January 1, 2001. In the Maya system, our day number and moth correspond to the Calendar Round, with the year 2001 corresponding to the Long Count. In hieroglyphic texts, the Initial Series serves as the "ancor" date from which later dates are derived. This record typically begins an inscription, and is located either above the head of the text or positioned in the upper left corner. (Note that exceptions abound in Maya hieroglyphic writing and that, on rare occasions, Initial Series occur within the actual body of the test.) Generally an Initial Series stands out from the text like a prominent advertisement, and starts with an oversized Introductory Gylph as a visual clue for the reader".(pp.64-65)
You claimed that this ISIG was the loopy sign. I have already proved that this was not the case. If there is no ISIG on the Mojarra stela why do you act stupid and pretend one exist. This is moronic behavior.
Oh you Great Deciever and Liar. You claim that the ISIG is not part of the Long Count. You claim that all the authorities you cite support this view. But lets look at what Montgomery has to say about this issue.
quote:
Initial Series Introductory Glyph [ISIG]:As a sort of prologue to the date, the In itial Series Introductory Glyph (or ISIG for short) "announces" that the Long Count and Calendar Round will follow. In this capacity it generally spans at least two glyph columns and occupies the space of two glyph blocks and more usually four (although as always the reader will find exceptions). [b] The ISIG consists of three constant signs and a central variable. The constant element consist of the Tun sign (T548 the same sign worn on the head of the god of numbers 'five' and 'fifteen') that functions in essence as the main sign and has the value AB', along with a superfix of scrolls that reads tsi or tso (T124), and two comb-like elements (T25:25) that flank the variable sign, each with the value ka.Combined, the ISIG reads [i] tzik ab', or 'count of years'.The variable element indicates the month in which the Calendar Round occurs and offers a sort of "preview" of the date that will follow in the Long Count".(p.65)
Here is your interpretation of the Mojarra stela dates
quote:
In A2a A2b— the 17th month (K’ayab) 3rd day
In M9a M9b- the 1st month (Pop) 15th day
If the "loopy sign" is an ISIG, what part of this sign is 1) the Tun, 2) the superfix scrolls, and 3) the comb-like elements.
Cursory examination of the Mojarra loopy sign and the ISIG and Long Count 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.
Quezalcoatl, you asked me why I am acting stupid, obviously you must be stupid to see the ISIG in the "loopy" sign on the Mojarra stela. 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.
5. Where are the cartouches of the month signs 'Pop' and K'yab' of the Ha'ab/Ja'ab calendar in the 'loopy sign' on the Mojarra stela.
In answering these questions please provide examples from Mayan inscriptions that support your answers.
I am still waiting.......
In an earlier post, 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.
posted
I've read most if not all the posts between Quetzalcoatl & Clyde Winters. Although Clyde tries to act like he knows what he is talking about, it's clear from this dialogue that Quetzalcoatl has shown that Winters does not practice scholarship with a sense of integrity. He manipulates supposed evidence to fit his twisted view and misrepresents his sources.
Calendrics: Winters has not shown any evidence that a similar calender existed for the Mande people. Instead he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. Only a fool would be convinced.
Linguistics: Winters has selectively chosen words in both Maya & Mande that do not have the same meaning nor share a linguistic root (as shown by Quetzalcoatl). In reference to the Maya receiving writing from another people, he keeps quoting Tozzer, 1941 with authority without citing the original document, de Landa specifically. According to Winters, Tozzer suggests that de Landa supposedly received information from the Yucateca Maya that they were introduced to writing by the Tutual Xiu. Ignoring the fact that De Landa was the raging Catholic responsible for the burning of Maya codices, we even see that Winters misrepresented that source of information. Returing to the source, de Landa doesn't state the Maya got writing from Tutul Xiu (Winters asserts that they were Mande people & later known as the Olmeca):
"The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all." (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates, 1937 p. 14)
This might assist Winters in his claims...However, two facts must be considered.
1) It says nothing about the Tutul-xiu bringing writing! (Note: I haven't posted the entire section where the Tutul-xiu are mentioned for the sake of space; if you read pgs 15-18 of that book, you will see no mention of them bringing writing).
2) de Landa mentions that this occurred during the time of Mayapán. A person with any sense of Maya history would know that Mayapán wasn't constructed until the 1200s CE coinciding with the Post-Classic period. Therefore, Mayapán didn't exist until 2400 yrs after the Olmeca supposedly arrived by boat! The Mayas already had writing at that time.
Now folks...this is, what many would say, the straw that broke the camel's back.
Winters, you can't claim the Tutul Xiu as Mande people because according to the very source you use, they didn't even exist in the understanding of the Yucateca Maya until the 1200s (CE not BCE), again...just to make sure you get it...2400 yrs after the Olmeca supposedly arrived by boat!. With this link broken, your translation must also be incorrect. Xiu does not mean "The Shi (/the race)" based on Mande. Again, from the original source of your citation:
"The word xiu is the common term for 'plant' in both Aztec and Maya, and we are told that the Tutul-xius were Mexicans." (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates, 1937 p. 14 note 14)
His reading of the Izapa Stela #5 also comes into question considering the crazies run together. Mormons have used this very stone as evidence of their similarly twisted ideas. Any respectable archaeologist (or lay person for that matter) can see what is represented is not a boat similar in fashion to the images of Mande pictorials of boats he always posts.
They don't even come close to resembling each other. In addition, Izapa Stela #5 does not have a represenation of a boat nor depict sea travel! Native cultures are highly metaphoric. However, depicting the tree of life (present in Mixteca, Maya, Mexica, & other native cultures) on a boat is a huge, huge stretch. Even if...if (big if)...it represented water travel, why isn't the Mande representation as metaphoric as the Olmeca? Because there is absolutely no chance the Mande became the Olmeca.
posted
We know the name of the Olmec from the Maya. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941). The Olmec originated writing in Mexico., so we can assume that the term Tutul Xiu refer to the Olmec.
You will find the information about the Tutul Xiu’s introduction of writing to the Maya in Brian Stross, Maya Hieroglyphic writing and Mixe-Zoquean, Antropological Linguistics, vol.24,no.1 (1982) pg.74. It is also mentioned in the A.M. Tozzer (ed), Landa's Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan:A Translation . Cambridge Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology (1941) ,p.28. In Spanish the /x/ is pronounced /sh/.The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated into Olmec which is a member of the Manding Superfamily of languages 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 Olmec/Manding term Si, which means race, lineage and etc. It was also used as an ethnonym. Since Si/Xi was used as an ethnonym by the Maya according to Landa, the Tutul Xi-u were the Olmec people.
Thus we can call the Olmec by their own name Xi. The name the Maya record as the inventors of their writing system in their oral traditions.
In summary, writing appear among the Maya before Christ. The Tutul Xi were foreigners. The Xi introduced writing to the Maya before the rise of Mayapan.
The research of the New World Archaeological Foundation indicate that this site has been continously occupied since 1500 B.C. Much of what we know about the art from Izapa comes from the work of Virginia Smith' Izapa Relief Carving (1984), Garth Norman's Izapa Sculpture (1976) and Jacinto Quirarte's Izapan-Style Art (1973). V. Garth Norman (1976) of the New World Archaeological Foundation has published many of the stone stalae and altars found at Izapa and discussed much of their probable religious significance. Most researchers including Norman believe that the Izapans were "Olmecoid". Smith (1984) disagrees with this hypothesis, but Michael D. Coe (1962: 99-100,1965:773-774, 1968:121), Ignacio Bernal (1969:172) support an Olmec origin for the Izapan style art. Quirarte (1973:32-33) recognized obvious Olmec cultural traits in the Izapa iconography.
ANCIENT MIGRATION STORIES OF MEXICO The Maya were not the first to occupy the Yucatan and Gulf regions of Mexico. It is evident from Maya traditions and the artifacts recovered from many ancient Mexican sites that a different race lived in Mayaland before the Mayan speakers settled this region. The Pacific area was early colonized by Olmec people in middle preclassic times.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1984) The Olmec civilization was developed along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the states of Tabasco and Veracruz. (Pouligny 1988:34) The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., a new linguistic group arrived in the Gulf region of Mexico.
M. Swadesh (1953) has presented evidence that at least 3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. Soustelle (1984: 29) tells us that "We cannot help but think that the people that shattered the unity of the Proto-Mayas was also the people that brought Olmec civilization to the region".
Traditions mentioned by Sahagun, record the settlement of Mexico by a different race from the present Amerindian population. Sahagun says that these "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotha, on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains. Other migration to Mexico stories are mention in the Popol Vuh, the ancient religious and historical text compiled by the Quiche Mayan Indians.
Friar Diego de Landa (1978:8,28) , in Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, wrote that "some old men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea". This tradition is most interesting because it probably refers to the twelve migrations of the Olmec people. This view is supported by the stone reliefs from Izapa, Chiapas , Mexico published by the New World Foundation. In Stela 5, from Izapa we see a group of men on a boat riding the waves.(Wuthenau 1980; Smith 1984 ; Norman 1976)
It is clear that Stela No.5, from Izapa not only indicates the tree of life, it also confirms the tradition recorded by Friar Diego de Landa that an ancient people made twelve migrations to Mexico. This stela also confirms the tradition recorded by the famous Mayan historian Ixtlixochitl, that the Olmec came to Mexico in "ships of barks " and landed at Pontochan, which they commenced to populate.(Winters 1984: 16) These Blacks are frequently depicted in the Mayan books/writings carrying trade goods. In the center of the boat on Stela No.5, we find a large tree. This tree has seven branches and twelve roots. The seven branches probably represent the seven major clans of the Olmec people. The twelve roots of the tree extending into the water from the boat probably signifies the "twelve roads through the sea", mentioned by Friar Diego Landa. The migration traditions and Stela No.5, probably relates to a segment of the Olmec, who landed in boats in Panotha or Pantla (the Huasteca) and moved along the coast as far as Guatemala. This would correspond to the non-Maya speaking group detected by Swadesh that separated the Maya and Huasteca speakers 2000 years ago.
Bernardino de Sahagun (1946) a famous authority on Mexico also supports the extra-American origin of the Olmecs when he wrote that "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotla on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains".The reported route of the Panotha settlers recorded by Sahagun interestingly corresponds to the spread of the Olmecs in Meso-America which extended from the Gulf of Mexico to Chalcatzingo, in the Mexican highlands along the Pacific coast.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1983, p.52)
Summary
3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. This linguistic evidence shows that a new ethnic group arrived in Mexico around the time that the Olmec appear on the scene.
Landa mentions the migration of a people from the East i.e., direction of the Atlantic Ocean, who made twelve voyages across the sea. Ixtlixochitl makes it clear that these people arrived in “ships of bark” probably a reference to large wooden boats.
The Izapa stela shows Olmec people in a boat that has a tree with twelve roots. Since the roots are placed in the waves, they probably refer to the twelve migrations made by the Olmec from Africa to America recorded by Landa.
This stela confirms the extra-Mexican origin of the Olmecs who arrived in Mexico in “ships of bark” and expanded across Mexico in a manner that corresponds to the archaeological evidence we have for the expansion of the Olmec people.
The skeletal evidence of Wiercinski is one of the best examples of West Africans in Mexico in Olmec times.
The red-and-black ware used by the Proto-Mande in the Saharan Highlands was also used by the Olmec. Examples of this pottery style include the so-called Blackware red pigmnet of Las Bocas and Tlatilco. Many of these vessels are inscribed with Olmec writing.
The Olmec spoke a variety of the Mande language closely related to the Malinke-Bambara group, which is still spoken in West Africa today. Many scholars refuse to admit that Africans early settled America.
But the evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. 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 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 fron this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
Rossum has criticized 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/Negro and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African/Oceanic skeletons have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang, (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68) The Archaeology of ancient China. These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Moreover skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
Secondly, Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection (SRC) they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian populations, include samples that are result of mixing between Native American, African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.
Wiercinski on the otherhand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African sample. This comparison avoided the use of skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade.
You can not compare contemporary Mexicans to Olmec because of racial admixture of Africans, Indians and mixed heritage Mexicans.
This is why when Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. It fails to show admixture because the sample they used includes Mexicans that have Negro features as indicated in the photo above.
The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection (SRC) they used in their comparison to Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian populations, include samples that are result of mixing between Native American, African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians as clearly indicated in the picture above.
Any comparison of Olmecs and Classical Maya on the otherhand indicate no resemblances at all.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I quoted it to show you made up numerology about the katanga figure.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic