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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain. To remind you of the essential claim you make: about 100 BC the Mande were the source for the Initial Series Long Count calendar used in Mesoamerica. This means, as I asked you, That ALL THESE FEATURES HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
Your post does not even come close to answering any of these points.
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
I have already answered your question. Both systems are based on 20 and 60. The site you list has nothing to do with the Mande terms for 20 and 60 that are discussed below.
You just can't handle the truth. You believe the Olmec were not Mande speakers and because this is the opinion of your Masters,you can't handle the reality that the Mayan system of Writing is of African origin as is much of the religion of the Maya as first made clear by Wiener.
I know for a fact you have access to the Delofosse Malinke-Bambara dictionary so you know the Mande terms I used here exist and have the meanings I provide. In addition, you are near a large library given your frequent access to up-to-date sources so you could easy verify my citations , your failure to falsify my citations betry your lack of scholarly acumen and goal to be a deciever.
Oh, you are a great deciever.
You may ignore the material if you which to your loss. Instead of going to the WWW you should consult a library. My answers are clearly referenced so there is no need to comment further on your spurious claims.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
The Mande have several calendars, lunar, ritual and etc. The Mande system of notation is based on 20, 60 and 80 according to M. Griaule & G.Dieterlen.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande. The importance of the number 20 is evident in the discussion of the trajectory of the star Digitaria around Serius, as illustrated in Figure iii, above. Note the small cluster of 20 dots (DL) in the figure that represent the star when it is furtherest from Sirius (R. Temple, Sirius Mystery (1976) p.40)
In the figure of Kanaga sign above Figure i, also illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 as illustrated in Figure ii.
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala. For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
The Mayan system like the Mande system is also based on 60 and 20. For example as you note in your question the basic part of the Haab year is the Tun 18 month 20 day calendar, plus the five day month of Wayeb.
The basic unit of the calendar is the Tun made up of 18 winal (months) of 20 k’in (days) or 360 days. Thus we have 18x20=360; 360÷60=6.
Next we have the K’tun,(20 Tun) which equals 7200 days, 7200÷60=120÷60=2; or 7200÷20=360÷20=18.
After K’tun comes Baktun (=400 Tun) 144,000 days, 144,000÷60=2400÷60=40; or 144,000÷20=7200÷20=360÷20=18.
Yes the Mande had the zero. The Mayan symbol for ‘zero’ means completion. M. Griaule in Signes d’Ecriture Bambara, says the Malinke-Bambara sign for zero is fu ‘nothing, the emptiness preceding creation’ (see Signes graphique soudanais, (eds) Marcel Griaule & Germaine Dieterlen
In conclusion, Mayan calendrics are probably based on the Mande notation system of 20 and 60. And the Malinke-Bambara people possessed the zero.
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term 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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Aluta continua.......
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzacoatl
quote:
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I admit to not reading the original thread.
I sure wish there was this much in depth research and presentation on Ancient Egypt and other bona fide Africana topics.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I admit to not reading the original thread.
I sure wish there was this much in depth research and presentation on Ancient Egypt and other bona fide Africana topics.
ditto, good thread.
AlTakruri - have you found and alternative African/Ancient Egypt forum to ES?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
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).
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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 Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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=000348 Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzalcoatl
quote:
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.
.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:
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.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
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?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
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?
Very funny.
.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
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!
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!
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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 by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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
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."
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
My answers are in italics
[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 by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: T
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 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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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).
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
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?
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quezalcoatl
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 by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
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.
Sorry Winters....You got crushed...again.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Olmec do not look like the ancient Mexicans such as the Maya.
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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 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.
As usual Winters is using partial quotations to claim support that does not exist.
quote: 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
Brian Stross paper, in fact, contradicts Winter since Stross argues that the source of Maya writing is Mixe-Zoque not Mande. The abstract of the paper says
quote: “This essay proposes a hypothesis that Mixe-Zoquean speakers- more specifically Mixeans— were involved in the initial stages and subsequent development of the Maya hieroglyphic system, traces of which we see in the inscriptions of the Classic period and in the codices of post-classic and later traditions. The hypothesis is supported by evidence that the well-known “alphabet” provided by Bishop Diego de Landa contains at last some symbols that can be viewed as icons whose phonetic values can be derived more easily from Mixean languages than from Mayan languages.
On pp. 74-75, Stross points out that the Tutul Xiu episodes took place only a few hundred years before the Spanish conquest (just as Nicantlaca13 pointed out above); Quote:
quote:According to the Yucatecs, the Tutul Xiu who were “foreigners” from Zuiva in Nonoalco territory taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write(Tozzer 1941:28). These traditions are generally supposed to relate to a period not greatly removed from the time of the Spanish Conquest and to a location that on the eve of the conquest was occupied by Nahuat and Maya Chontal speakers, whereas Maya hieroglyphic writing is known to have existed throughout the lowland May region more than six hundred years previously
A couple of points: 1) Stross quotes Tozzer so that Winters has just one source, not two, for his claim about the Tutul Xiu. 2) Stross points out that Maya hieroglyphic writing existed more than 600 years BEFORE the supposed introduction by the Tutul Xiu. 3) These “foreigners” are identified as coming from Zuiva (also Zuyua) an area occupied by Nahuatl and Chontal Maya speakers, i.e. related to the Toltecs— as we will see when we get the full Tozzer context. None of this supports Winters’s claims.
Winters continues
quote: 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.
Tozzer (p. 30) contradicts Winters by pointing out that there is a perfectly good translation of Tutul Xiu from Nahuatl with no need of claiming a strained Mande source
quote:The name Tutul Xiu is a Mexican word, xiuhtototl “turquoise bird” in Nahuatl, according to Spinden. Brinton (1882, 109-13) discusses the possible Mexican origin of the word Xiu and also notes a similar source for the other three proper names in the Mani passage. There are several other references to the fact that the Tutul Xius were foreigners. We read in the Relacion of Mama (RY, 1: 161). “ They were subject to a lord called Tutulxiu, a Mexican name, who they said was a foreigner from the West. . . Morley and Roys also point out other evidence of the Mexican origin of the Xiu in the Mexican name of Ah Cuat Xiu, son of Ah Uitz, in the genealogical tree in the Xiu manuscript (frontispiece and Pl. 3) Cuat is a variant of the Nahuatl coatl, and also the crown worn by the founder of the family which strongly suggests the xiuhtzontli or turquoise mosaic crown of the Aztecs which could only by their supreme ruler, the Tlacatecuhtli. This turquoise crown is the same as that represented in many of the Chichen bas-reliefs dating from the Mexican period. There seems more reason to consider the Tutul Xius as Mexicans than to regard the Itzas as of Mexican or foreign origin. The name of the former, as just shown, is Nahuatl and the “turquoise bird” seen on the headdress and breasts of many of the conquerors of Chichen as shown on the frescos and bas-reliefs may serve to place the Xius as the victorious Mexicans.
Thus Tozzer provides both linguistic as well as archaeological EVIDENCE (not just unsupported claims) that the Tutul Xius were Mexican i.e. Toltec (or Central Mexican) conquerors who came some time after AD 1000 much later than the supposed Mande excursion. Once again, this is why Winters does not provide full quotations.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
First off Winters, thank you for referring me to the sources you used. It helped shed light on who the “Tutul Xiu” really were.
Let’s start with the quote from A.M. Tozzer (ed), Landa's Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Cambridge Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology (1941) upon which I’m guessing you are basing your understanding (even though you gave the page number you didn’t give the footnote…not a good start).
pg 28 N. 154 "And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land (Relaciones de Yucatan, 1: 156)”
What I find interesting is the use of the pronoun “he,” showing reference to a single person, and not they, indicating a group of people. Keep that in mind as I use the very source you utilized to totally disprove your asseration: “Tutul='Very good subjects of the Order' & Xiu = 'The Shi (/the race)' Also keep in mind the reference to “the lords of Mani.”
Now, if you were to actually read the text you’re citing, you would have gotten a totally different picture of what you’re wrongfully portraying.
I’ll even outline my rebuttal: 1) Where the “Tutul Xiu” came from? 2) Where the “Tutul Xiu” went? 3) When did all this take place 4) Who were the “Tutul Xiu”?
1) Where they came from:
We’ll focus on your assertion that the “Tutul Xiu” came from Nonoualco, which in your mind is across the ocean in Africa. Let’s go straight from your source (Tozzer, 1941):
Tozzer, 1941 pg 29 N. 159: "These tribes from the south were the Tutul Xius. Herrera (4, 10, 11, Appendix) tells us that 'great companies of people entered from the south from the slopes of the sierras of Lacandon who, they were sure, were from Chiapas' and, later, he calls them Tutul Xius. In the Chilam Balam of Mani (Brinton, 1882, 100) we read, 'This is the arrangement of the katuns since the departure was made from the land, from the Nonoual, where were the four Tutulxiu, from Zuiva at the west: they came from the land Tulapan, having formed a league." Nonoual or Nonoualco is the Onoualco of Torquemada, 'the territory where the foreign language changes.'" Sahagun (10, XXIX) writes 'the people of the east [relative to Mexico-Tenochtitlan] are not called Chichimecs but Olmecs, Uixtotin, Nonoualco." This place is usually located near Xicalango on the frontier separating those speaking Nahuatl from those using Maya. See Seler, 1898a, 1:91-7; and 1904, 1040-1."
Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 159 (cont.) "…The Xius, from Nonoualco, are certainly nearer Mexico in their original homes than the Itzas, so far as any actual data are given. As already noted, Nonoualco is on the linguistic frontier of Nahuatl and Maya."
Well, I see you got the Nonoualco part from here. If you were reading carefully, so far your source says that Nonoualco represents a place where the languages change (specifically Nahuatl & Maya). Again, this is your source. Also note they mention Tulapan in the previous quote. Tulapan...that looks familiar right? It should to any one with an understanding of ancient Mexico. It’s an easy connection with Tula of the famed Toltecas. So far, the Tutul Xiu are said to come from Tula(pan) & Nonoalco. I found an interesting source in Brinton, Daniel G. ed. The Maya Chronicles (2006)
"Nonoalco was also the name of a small village near the city of Mexico which still appears on the maps. Sahagun tells us that some extreme eastern tribes in Mexico called themselves Nonoalca (Historia de la Nueva Espana, Lib. X, cap, XXIX, p 12)."
Nonoalco is referenced 5 times in In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature – Pre-Columbians to the Present by Miguel Leon-Portilla & Earl Shorris...this during the fall of Tenochtitlan (Annals of Tlatelolco):
“And during all this time, while we were being attacked, the Tenochca appeared nowhere on all the roads here in Yacacolco, Atizaapan, Coatlan, Nonoalco, Xoxohuiltitlan, and Tepeyacac.” pg. 280
“Then they left; then they took them to Nonoalco, at Ayauhcalco, where the Captain, Marina, Tonatiuh [Alvarado], Sandoval, and all the rulers of the various altepetl were gathered.” Pg 281
You get it…I’ll spare you further citations.
So we have a part of the story…the “Tutul Xiu” originated in Tula(pan) (northwest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan) & Nonoalco (just east of Mexico-Tenochtitlan). That does not equal east across the Atlantic to Africa. Do you need a map? 2) Now, where did the “Tutul Xiu” go to?
Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 161 “This probably refers to the founding of Uxmal, which, according to the Mani manuscript (Brinton, 102; Martinez H., 1927, 8) reads as follows, 'In the Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007) Ah Zuytok Tutul Xiu founded Uxmal...and ten score years they ruled with the governor of Chichen Itza and of Mayapan.'”
Tozzer, 1941 pg 30 N 161 "It is somewhat difficult to reconcile the idea that the Tutul Xius came from Mexico with so few evidences of Mexican features in the architecture of Uxmal. The Tlaloc heads in the court of the Monjas, the Mexican type of ball court and several minor points may well show the evidence of perhaps a small band of people, called the Tutul Xiu, from Mexico. It may have been, however, that like the Itzas, the Xius resided so long in the southern part of the peninsula that their former Mexican ideas had worn rather thin."
So where did the “Tutul Xiu”[b] go? They [b]founded Uxmal[b] of course. Their [b]leader was Ah Zuytok Tutul Xiu. Follow? They went from Central Mexico to Uxmal. 3) Now, when did all this take place?
Did you notice the reference to Uxmal, Chichen Itza, & Mayapan? Did you see any dates? Like this one “Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007)”? Yes that is around 1000 CE…not BCE so you’re not confused. So according to your source, the “Tutul Xiu” founded Uxmal…to be fair, Uxmal was already in existence. They simply intermarried and rose to prominence around 1000 CE. (see William Gates 1937 p 14) Now for where Chichen Itza and Mayapan fit in (again, from your source):
Tozzer, 1941 pg. 36 N 176 "Landa fails here to bring out the length of time (from about 1200 to about 1457), over two hundred and fifty years, which intervened between the Cocom, possibly Hunac Ceel, who by bringing in Mexican troops conquered Chichen Itza, and this Cocom who also brought troops from Mexico in a vain attempt to defend Mayapan against a conspiracy of the Tutul Xius."
So…now we have 1200 to 1457 CE. It pretty much coincides with accepted dates for the rise and fall of Mayapan. After all, the source you cite deals primarily with interactions between the people of Mayapan and the “Tutul Xius.” Since you supposedly read it (a necessary step in citing it), you already knew this.
Now…I told you to remember that your source mentions “Tutulxiu” as “he” in reference to the “lords of Mani.”
Tozzer 1941 pg. 36 N 177 "Morley and Roys believe that this Xiu was Ah Xupan, the father of Ah Dzun I who appears in the first generation in Document 3 of the Xiu papers. This is borne out by the reference in the Relacion of Cancacabo (Kansahcab, Relacion de Yucatan, 1:192-3) where we read, 'Because in the time of their heathenism, the Indians had a lord. The city where they live was called Mayapan and a lord who was called Ah Xupan settled there and from this place came the lords of Mani of the royal line who are called Tutul Xiu."
From Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates, 1937 pg 121 1: “A genealogical tree showing the members of the Xiu family, from the Tutul Xiu, born about 1380, who led the family from Uxmal to Maní after the destruction of Mayapán in 1420, down to Juan Xiu, who became head of the family in 1640, and died about 1690.” So to recap…Ah Zuytok Tutul Xiu (a person not a group) led his people (referred to as “Tutul Xius”) from Tula(pan) & Nonoalco (both in Central Mexico) to the Yucatan to become the ruling family in Uxmal. They overran the people at Mayapan later to settle in Mani. Now, it’s not clear if the “Tutulxiu” (again, “he”) referenced in the initial quote is Ah Zuytok Tutul Xiu (began rule of Uxmal around 1000 CE) or Tutul Xiu (born about 1380 CE; led his family to Mani around 1420). My guess is that “Tutulxiu” (again, a person not a group) who is referenced to have "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years" was the Tutul Xiu (born about 1380) who moved his family line from Uxmal to Mani ("which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land") after the destruction of Mayapán around 1420.
4) Now the fun part…who were the “Tutul Xiu”?
Let’s think. From Central Mexico (Tulapan & Nonoalco) to Uxmal in the time span of…oh say from 900 to 1000 CE…they stayed in Uxmal for a while (little over 400 yrs)…they then moved their capital to Mani in…oh say around 1420 CE. Could the mysterious “Tutul Xiu” be the Olmecas like you propose. Well, so far…we know that the Olmeca thrived from around well, even though the date is being pushed back to 1500 BCE or further, I’ll give you 1200 BCE…so 1200 BCE to around 200 BCE. Now “Tutul Xiu” came around 1000 CE. If my math is correct, that is 1200 yrs after the decline of the Olmecas. Wait, the Maya developed their system of writing in 400 BCE. That’s 1400s yrs between when the Maya started writing and the time when you assert the "Tutul Xiu" taught them writing. Doesn’t quite work…Therefore, the "Tutul Xiu" were not the Olmeca. which brings me to: Does “Tutul” mean “very good subjects of the order” and “Xiu” mean “the race.” Let’s find out, again using your source:
Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 159 (cont.) "There is abundant evidence that the Tutul Xius were foreigners. Landa tells us that the Cocoms called them 'foreigners and traitors.' In the Relacion of Teabo, quoted in N. 271, we learn that the Cocoms said they were 'natural lords and the Tutul Xius, foreigners.' The name Tutul Xiu is a Mexican word, xiuhtototl, 'turquoise bird' in Nahuatl, according to Spinden...Morley and Roys also point out other evidence of the Mexican origin of the Xiu in the Mexican name of Ah Cuat Xiu, son of Ah Uitz, in the genealogical tree in the Xiu manuscript. Cuat is a variant of the Nahuatl coatl, and also the crown suggest the xiuhtzontli or turquoise mosaic crown of the Aztecs which could only be worn by their supreme ruler, the Tlacatecuhtli. This turquoise crown is the same as that represented in many of the Chichen bas-reliefs dating from the Mexican period."
Yes, foreigners. But did you catch the point about translation? “Tutul Xiu” comes from Xiuhtototl, a Nahuatl word meaning “turquoise bird.” Did you miss that in your reading of this source that you’re quoting from…literally 2 pages away from your citation. Umm…I don’t think the source that you cited supports your assertion. Therefore, “Tutul” does not mean “very good subjects of the order” and “Xiu” does not mean “the race.”
Now…This is my understanding. The “Tutul Xiu” were a people who got their name from the Maya probably (in my opinion) because the name of the "Tutul Xiu" leader was Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (turquoise bird on the side). In the mistranslation, the Maya then referred to him in the best way they could: Aztitoc Xiuhtototl became Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu (I’m very sure about Xiuhtototl…not so much on Aztitoc). His whole people were then referred to as "Tutul Xiu" or "Xiu" for short. Based on all this information, the "Tutul Xiu" were probably a Nahuatl speaking group who migrated progressively from Central Mexico into the Yucatan. Therefore, they were seen as foreigners in the land of the Maya. They obviously adopted much of the Maya culture. Our elders say that they were a group of Toltecas. Many respected archaeologists have been stating as much...considering they mentioned Tula(pan).
On a side note, “Xiu” is definitely Nahuatl. In fact, a friend I know is nicknamed Xiu because his name is Xiuhtecpatl (Turquoise Knife). Other Nahuatl words come to mind as well: xiuhtecuhlti, xiuhtepalcatl, xiuhcoatl, xiuhpohualli…I could go on but I’ll stop.
Sorry Winters...you lost this one...bad too. Actually...like was said in Friday: "You got knocked the f#$% out!" LMAO
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Just wanted to be super, super clear that your assertion...
quote: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.
is shown to be contradicted by the evidence you present from Tozzer, 1941 (see previous post for details). The "Tutul Xiu" were not Mande people. Nor were they Olmeca. They were Toltecas from Central Mexico (predominantly Nahuatl-speaking populations) who established themselves in Uxmal around 1000 CE. They couldn't have taught the Maya writing because the Maya had used their own system of writing for some 1400 yrs. "Tutul Xiu" does not come from the Manding family of languages. Due to the facts already stated, it derives from the Nahuatl word "Xiuhtototl," meaning "turquoise bird."
Based on this evidence, I propose the following occurred to reverse the parts of the word as well as make people think "Tutul Xiu" were a group of people. In the mistranslation from Nahuatl to Maya, the name of the Toltecas' leader, most likely Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side), was changed in the minds of many people to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people were then referred to as "Tutul Xiu" by the Maya. This was later shortened to just "Xiu," now seen as a family name.
Again...no connection between the "Tutul Xiu" and Mande.
Again...no connection between the "Tutul Xiu" and the Olmeca.
Therefore, there isn't any reasonable way the language of the Olmeca would be connected to Mande...read in a different way: The Mande did not travel from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico & definitely did not become the Olmeca.
Another false claim by Clyde Winters based on misrepresented evidence & outright lies. How can anybody believe his lies of Africans (Mande specifically) coming to the Americas and showing Indigenous people civilization? Only a fool would believe him...
As I've said before...We, as Indigenous people of this continent, respect the great accomplishments of Africans in establishing civilizations in Africa. We respect your history. Please respect ours by not trying to take credit for it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzacoatl you finally got something right, Stross does mention that the Maya got writing from the Tutul Xi. Granted, he does claim that they may have been Mixe speakers. The major problem with this idea is that the Mixe do not have a word for writing. The absence of a Mixe word for writing makes it impossible to credit Mayan writing to the Mixe speakers.
First of all the Tutul Xiu who introduced writing were foreigners a claim made by Landa.
You fail to understand the obvious. You acknowledge the early date of writing among the Maya, this predates any identification of the Toltecs, since this group appeared much later than the origin of Mayan writing. This means that the Tutul Xiu could not have been Toltecs.
Moreover, since the Mayan tradition attributes the introduction of writing to the Tutul Xiu there is no way that the Mayan tradition dates to 150AD given the antiquity of writing among the Maya.
You next imply that Tutul Xiu probably spoke a Mixe/Mije-Zoquean language. And thusly the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquan language.
Some researchers assume that since Mixe-Zoquan is spoken in the Olmec heartland today, this language was spoken by the ancient inhabitants of Olman: the Olmecs, in ancient times.
But the location of Mixe-Zoquan speakers in this region today does not mean it was spoken in the region in the past. Today it is spoken in the Tuxtla Mountains.The Otomanguean family include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi to name a few. The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of the languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area.Thomas Lee in R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmecs , New York: Cambridge University Press (1989, 223) noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous villages in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an Old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders...."
If this linguistic evidence is correct, many of the languages in the Otomanguean family are spoken by people who may have only recently settled in the Olmec heartland, and may not reflect the people that invented the culture we call Olmecs today.
Moreover if the Olmec had spoken a Mixe-Zoquean language and gave the Maya writing they should have influenced the Mayan language. This is not the case.
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term for writing c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language family.
Due to the lack of evidence for a Mixe origin of the Olmec writing Houston and Coe believe that that the Olmec must of spoken another language. They suggest that the language may have been Huastec .
The Huastec hypothesis is not supported by the linguistic evidence. Swadesh provides linguistic evidence that suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya.This linguistic evidence is supplemented by Amerindian traditions regarding the landing of colonist from across the Atlantic in Huasteca .
Consequently, you have presented no evidence that Tutul Xiu was not the name of the Olmec.
.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
While Mande have nothing to do with Olmec Malinke did indeed travel from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico.
Evidence exists for possible African contact with Olmec but I see no reason why a Cabeza Colosal like this could not have been inspired by original Americans like this
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: ...read in a different way: The Mande did not travel from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico & definitely did not become the Olmeca.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77). This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
Finally, the Mixe hypothesis is not supported by the evidence for the origin of the Mayan term for writing. The Mayan term for writing is not related to Zoque.
In summary Mayan tradition makes it clear that they got writing from another Meso-American group. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941). Xiu is not the name for the Zoque. Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and nYucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language.
The fact that there is no evidence that 1)the Zoque were in the ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in Mayan, and 3) there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" falsifies the hypothesis that the Mixe were the Olmec people. This evidence makes it clear that the Olmec were called Xiu, and they did not speak Mixe languages.
It also supports the hypothesis that the Olmec spoke a Mande language.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: While Mande have nothing to do with Olmec Malinke did indeed travel from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
This is your opinion. Granted the Mande did arrive in America during Medieval Times with Abubakari. By this time the Mayan civilization was highly.
Given the highly developed nature of the Mayan civilization at this time there is no way that the Mande loan words related to religion and writing would have been adopted by the Mayan people who probably would not have had any need to adopt aspects of the Mande culture of the Abubakari colonists.
People adopt new words when they are in a situation where one culture is superior to the other and the people find the terms associated with the new culure as status symbols. The Maya got many aspects of their culture from the Olmec, given the fact that these culture items such as writing correspond to Mande terms we can infer that the Olmec spoke a Mande language a fact confirmed by the Olmec use of Vai symbols to write messages on stone and other artifacts.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Notice how Winters has yet to address my rebuttal of his "Tutul Xiu"-Olmeca-Mande claim. He simply reposts it. Winters: repeating a lie again and again does not make it any less of a lie. As I've told you before, it's not a matter of you not knowing. It's a matter of you knowing and being dishonest.
Again, your own source proves you wrong. You have yet to address my rebuttal.
1) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" come from? Your source (Tozzer, 1941) mentions that they were foreigners to the Yucatan and points to Tulapan & Nonoalco as their origin. Any person with knowledge of ancient Mexican history would know Tulapan is Tula (city of the Toltecas; northwest of modern-day Mexico City). Nonoalco, as evidenced in the sources I provided, is east of modern-day Mexico City. Both places are located in Central Mexico not to the east across the Atlantic in Africa
2) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" go? Again using the source you cited, I demonstrated that the historical record indicates that the "Tutul Xiu" progressively moved into the Yucatan and became the ruling family in Uxmal.
3) When did the "Tutul Xiu" make this migration? Using your source, we saw that this occurred in Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007) (Tozzer, 1941; p. 30 N. 161). They intermarried and rose to prominence in Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD(see William Gates 1937 p 14). de Landa (William Gates 1937 p 14) also mentions the Tutul Xiu (from Uxmal) initially forming an alliance with Chichen Itza & Mayapan (cities that rose and fell during the Late Classic & Post-Classic). They then overwhelmed Mayapan in the mid 1400s to settle into the city of Mani. (William Gates, 1937; p. 121 N 1)
4) Who were the "Tutul Xiu?" Were they Olmeca? Were they Mande?
Review Their origin: Central Mexico (where Nahuatl was predominant) Time period: around 900 to 1450s CE/AD (actually the present since the "Xiu" is a familial line) Time period of the Toltecas: mid 900 to late 1100 CE/AD Time period of the Olmeca: 1200 BCE (or earlier) to around 200 BCE First proof Mayan writing: 400 BCE # of yrs between the Olmeca's appearance & the "Tutul Xiu" appearance in the Yucatan: 2200 yrs # of yrs between Mayan development of writing & "Tutul Xiu" appearance in Yucatan: 1400 yrs
Olmeca?: Definitely not Taught writing to Maya: Not possible since they arrived so much later
Who were they? It has been shown: due to their origin (Nahuatl speaking areas) and the appearance of connections to Nahuatl (cuat close to coatl; Tutul Xiu comes from xiuhtototl meaning "turquoise bird"; xiu is present in many Nahuatl words: xiuhtecuhlti, xiuhtepalcatl, xiuhcoatl, xiuhpohualli; a friend of mine is nicknamed "Xiu" because his name is "Xiuhtecpatl") that they were Nahuatl (or a related langauge) speaking people. Due to the time period and the influences reflected at Chichen Itza & Uxmal, they were probably a group of Toltecas (Tula came to power from around mid 900 CE/AD & fell around late 1100s; same time period).
But it says that "Tutulxiu" "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years." Tozzer (1941; p.28 N. 154) The reference of "Tutulxiu" is made to "he," twice. "Tutulxiu" was one person. In referencing the relevant documents, it was actually the name of two prominent men (Xiu became a family name): Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu (led his people in establishing themselves at Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD; Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 161) & Tutul Xiu (born around 1380 CE/AD; took his people to Mani after the colllapse of Mayapan in mid 1400s; William Gates, 1937 p 121 N 1). Tozzer is referencing the later "Tutul Xiu" due to him teaching writing "which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."(Tozzer, 1941; p.28 N. 154) Tozzer quotes a claim that "Tutul Xiu" taught the people of Mani writing, a definite possibility. However, he could not have taught writing to the Maya people due to the facts presented thus far (Maya writing: 400 BCE/BC; "Tutul Xiu" appearance in Yucatan: 1000 CE/AD; the referenced "Tutul Xiu" took his family to Mani around mid 1400 CE/AD).
Possible explanation: The "Tutul Xiu" were a group of Toltecas who left Central Mexico around 900 CE/AD to settle and then rise to prominance in the Maya city of Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD. They were seen as foreigners in the land of the Maya because they weren't from there. In the mistranslation from Nahuatl to Maya, the name of the Toltecas' leader, most likely Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side), was changed in the minds of many people to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people were then referred to as "Tutul Xiu" by the Maya. This was later shortened to just "Xiu," now seen as a family name. (William Gates, 1937 p. 121 N 1)
Again: The "Tutul Xiu" were not Olmeca. Nor were they Mande. They were Nahuatl (or related language) speaking Toltecas. "Tutul" does not mean "Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande. "Xiu" does not mean "The Shi (the race)" in Mande. "Tutul" comes from "tototl," the Nahuatl word for bird. "Xiu" comes from "xiuh," the Nahuatl word for the color turquoise. The "Tutul Xiu" were known as such because their leader was probably named Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side) but the Maya mispronounced it in translation to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people then became known as "Tutul Xiu" or just "Xiu."
I await your response.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Quick note: In referencing some more sources, I realized that I was incorrect in the sequencing (specifically the "Tutul Xiu" ruling in Uxmal and then overwhelming Mayapan). I missed one critical step: the departure from Uxmal to be a part of Mayapan. I can accept when I've made a mistake...hint, hint.
Based on my rereading of de Landa & referencing other sources (including Aldana, Gerardo. K'uk'ulkan at Mayapán: Venus and Postclassic Maya Statecraft published in Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 34 Part 1, February 2003, No. 114 pp. 33–51) it appears that the Xiu family did rule in Uxmal starting in around 1000 CE/AD. Kokom (or Cocom) ruled Chich'en Itza. K’uk’ulkan left Chich’en Itza "'and in order to tranquilize the country he agreed to found another city where all affairs should go.'" (quoted in Aldana, p. 35) According to the Aldana, he named this city Mayapán.(p. 35)
However, as de Landa references (Gates 1937 p 14), the Xiu later left their home at Uxmal to settle in Mayapan. "In any case, the Xiu — coming from Uxmal — and the Kokom — from Chich’en Itza — were the most powerful families at Mayapán." (Aldana, p. 40)
Everything was going well in Mayapan. However, the situation changed drastically. (Gates 1937 p 14)
"Around 1452, while the Kokom lineage ruled the city of Mayapán, the Xiu family devised a conspiracy. Rallying some of the other noble families residing within the city walls, the conspiracy proved successful in killing all but one of the Kokom lords (the one to escape was on a trading venture at the time of the attack). This coup dissolved the government of Mayapán, the Xiu took up their new residence at Maní, a small town not far to the north."(Aldana, p. 33)
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Quetzacoatl you finally got something right, Stross does mention that the Maya got writing from the Tutul Xi. Granted, he does claim that they may have been Mixe speakers. The major problem with this idea is that the Mixe do not have a word for writing. The absence of a Mixe word for writing makes it impossible to credit Mayan writing to the Mixe speakers.
Xicano, you don't know anything about Mayan history. You are a myth maker. If the Maya got writing from the Olmecs, how can the Tutul Xi, be associated with the Toltecs.
First of all the Tutul Xiu who introduced writing were foreigners a claim made by Landa.
You fail to understand the obvious. You acknowledge the early date of writing among the Maya, this predates any identification of the Toltecs, since this group appeared much later than the origin of Mayan writing. This means that the Tutul Xiu could not have been Toltecs.
Moreover, since the Mayan tradition attributes the introduction of writing to the Tutul Xiu there is no way that the Mayan tradition dates to 150AD given the antiquity of writing among the Maya.
You next imply that Tutul Xiu probably spoke a Mixe/Mije-Zoquean language. And thusly the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquan language.
Some researchers assume that since Mixe-Zoquan is spoken in the Olmec heartland today, this language was spoken by the ancient inhabitants of Olman: the Olmecs, in ancient times.
But the location of Mixe-Zoquan speakers in this region today does not mean it was spoken in the region in the past. Today it is spoken in the Tuxtla Mountains.The Otomanguean family include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi to name a few. The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of the languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area.Thomas Lee in R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmecs , New York: Cambridge University Press (1989, 223) noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous villages in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an Old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders...."
If this linguistic evidence is correct, many of the languages in the Otomanguean family are spoken by people who may have only recently settled in the Olmec heartland, and may not reflect the people that invented the culture we call Olmecs today.
Moreover if the Olmec had spoken a Mixe-Zoquean language and gave the Maya writing they should have influenced the Mayan language. This is not the case.
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term for writing c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language family.
Due to the lack of evidence for a Mixe origin of the Olmec writing Houston and Coe believe that that the Olmec must of spoken another language. They suggest that the language may have been Huastec .
The Huastec hypothesis is not supported by the linguistic evidence. Swadesh provides linguistic evidence that suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya.This linguistic evidence is supplemented by Amerindian traditions regarding the landing of colonist from across the Atlantic in Huasteca .
Consequently, you have presented no evidence that Tutul Xiu was not the name of the Olmec.
.
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Notice how Winters has yet to address my rebuttal of his "Tutul Xiu"-Olmeca-Mande claim. He simply reposts it. Winters: repeating a lie again and again does not make it any less of a lie. As I've told you before, it's not a matter of you not knowing. It's a matter of you knowing and being dishonest.
Again, your own source proves you wrong. You have yet to address my rebuttal.
1) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" come from? Your source (Tozzer, 1941) mentions that they were foreigners to the Yucatan and points to Tulapan & Nonoalco as their origin. Any person with knowledge of ancient Mexican history would know Tulapan is Tula (city of the Toltecas; northwest of modern-day Mexico City). Nonoalco, as evidenced in the sources I provided, is east of modern-day Mexico City. Both places are located in Central Mexico not to the east across the Atlantic in Africa
2) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" go? Again using the source you cited, I demonstrated that the historical record indicates that the "Tutul Xiu" progressively moved into the Yucatan and became the ruling family in Uxmal.
3) When did the "Tutul Xiu" make this migration? Using your source, we saw that this occurred in Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007) (Tozzer, 1941; p. 30 N. 161). They intermarried and rose to prominence in Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD(see William Gates 1937 p 14). de Landa (William Gates 1937 p 14) also mentions the Tutul Xiu (from Uxmal) initially forming an alliance with Chichen Itza & Mayapan (cities that rose and fell during the Late Classic & Post-Classic). They then overwhelmed Mayapan in the mid 1400s to settle into the city of Mani. (William Gates, 1937; p. 121 N 1)
4) Who were the "Tutul Xiu?" Were they Olmeca? Were they Mande?
Review Their origin: Central Mexico (where Nahuatl was predominant) Time period: around 900 to 1450s CE/AD (actually the present since the "Xiu" is a familial line) Time period of the Toltecas: mid 900 to late 1100 CE/AD Time period of the Olmeca: 1200 BCE (or earlier) to around 200 BCE First proof Mayan writing: 400 BCE # of yrs between the Olmeca's appearance & the "Tutul Xiu" appearance in the Yucatan: 2200 yrs # of yrs between Mayan development of writing & "Tutul Xiu" appearance in Yucatan: 1400 yrs
Olmeca?: Definitely not Taught writing to Maya: Not possible since they arrived so much later
Who were they? It has been shown: due to their origin (Nahuatl speaking areas) and the appearance of connections to Nahuatl (cuat close to coatl; Tutul Xiu comes from xiuhtototl meaning "turquoise bird"; xiu is present in many Nahuatl words: xiuhtecuhlti, xiuhtepalcatl, xiuhcoatl, xiuhpohualli; a friend of mine is nicknamed "Xiu" because his name is "Xiuhtecpatl") that they were Nahuatl (or a related langauge) speaking people. Due to the time period and the influences reflected at Chichen Itza & Uxmal, they were probably a group of Toltecas (Tula came to power from around mid 900 CE/AD & fell around late 1100s; same time period).
But it says that "Tutulxiu" "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years." Tozzer (1941; p.28 N. 154) The reference of "Tutulxiu" is made to "he," twice. "Tutulxiu" was one person. In referencing the relevant documents, it was actually the name of two prominent men (Xiu became a family name): Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu (led his people in establishing themselves at Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD; Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 161) & Tutul Xiu (born around 1380 CE/AD; took his people to Mani after the colllapse of Mayapan in mid 1400s; William Gates, 1937 p 121 N 1). Tozzer is referencing the later "Tutul Xiu" due to him teaching writing "which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."(Tozzer, 1941; p.28 N. 154) Tozzer quotes a claim that "Tutul Xiu" taught the people of Mani writing, a definite possibility. However, he could not have taught writing to the Maya people due to the facts presented thus far (Maya writing: 400 BCE/BC; "Tutul Xiu" appearance in Yucatan: 1000 CE/AD; the referenced "Tutul Xiu" took his family to Mani around mid 1400 CE/AD).
Possible explanation: The "Tutul Xiu" were a group of Toltecas who left Central Mexico around 900 CE/AD to settle and then rise to prominance in the Maya city of Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD. They were seen as foreigners in the land of the Maya because they weren't from there. In the mistranslation from Nahuatl to Maya, the name of the Toltecas' leader, most likely Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side), was changed in the minds of many people to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people were then referred to as "Tutul Xiu" by the Maya. This was later shortened to just "Xiu," now seen as a family name. (William Gates, 1937 p. 121 N 1)
Again: The "Tutul Xiu" were not Olmeca. Nor were they Mande. They were Nahuatl (or related language) speaking Toltecas. "Tutul" does not mean "Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande. "Xiu" does not mean "The Shi (the race)" in Mande. "Tutul" comes from "tototl," the Nahuatl word for bird. "Xiu" comes from "xiuh," the Nahuatl word for the color turquoise. The "Tutul Xiu" were known as such because their leader was probably named Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side) but the Maya mispronounced it in translation to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people then became known as "Tutul Xiu" or just "Xiu."
I await your response.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Hint: If I was you, I would stop cutting and pasting your responses (from before I posted). It doesn't appear that you've actually considered my rebuttal & makes you look even more dishonest. You've yet to respond to my rebuttal point by point and with the evidence available. Instead you attack my character ("don't know anything about Mayan history") & call me names ("myth maker"). Real mature.
Nobody, except you, is saying the people known as the Tutul Xiu introduced writing to the Maya...not the Maya...not even your source. Why? Because the Tutul Xiu didn't arrive from Central Mexico in the Yucaton until around 1000 CE/AD. Those are the facts.
Here is the quote:
"And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land." (Tozzer, 1941; p. 28 N. 154)
He is talking about a person (thus, "he") not a group of people. This person taught writing to the people of Mani ("lords of Mani"), not the whole of the Maya, around the mid 1450 (since that's when Tutul Xiu, a man born in 1380, took his family after the collapse of Mayapan).
The first time the "Tutul Xiu" are shown in the historical record comes in Diego de Landa's writing.
"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)
In reference to arriving in the Yucatan and buidling fine houses, your source (Tozzer) says this:
"This probably refers to the founding of Uxmal, which, according to the Mani manuscript (Brinton, 102; Martinez H., 1927, 8) reads as follows, 'In the Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007) Ah Zuytok Tutul Xiu founded Uxmal...and ten score years they ruled with the governor of Chichen Itza and of Mayapan.'" (Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 161)
Again, he is talking about Uxmal, Chich'en Itza, & Mayapan in reference to the Tutul Xiu. You seem to not understand the meaning of context. You ignore 99% of what your source is saying about the Tutul Xiu arriving in 1000 CE/AD into the Yucatan and their interactions with the people there (Uxmal, Chich'en Itza, & Mayapan?!) in order to make the ill-articulated quote that you misread support your claim. That's called poor scholarship. Are you saying that 99% of your source is made up?
You still don't understand my argument and the extensive evidence I used to dismiss your lies. A friend of mine read this dialogue and commented how easy it is see the high level of fabrication found in your work. My 11 yr old niece could do a better job of understanding this very simple history.
I feel sorry for you.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Since you haven't provided a substantive response, I'll post my rebuttal for you again. If you noticed, I have added your claims to the 4 questions I ask. Please explain how the sources available proves your claim over mine, point by point.
1) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" come from?
Your claim: "foreigners from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941)"
My claim: Your source (Tozzer, 1941) mentions that they were foreigners to the Yucatan and points to Tulapan & Nonoalco as their origin. Any person with knowledge of ancient Mexican history would know Tulapan is Tula (city of the Toltecas; northwest of modern-day Mexico City). Nonoalco, as evidenced in the sources I provided, is east of modern-day Mexico City. Another citation for you: "Two sites with proposed New Fire dumps are located in the Basin of Mexico on the eastern (Nonoalco) and western (Chiconautla) edge of Lake Texcoco." (Elson, Christina M. and Michael E. Smith. Archaeological Deposits from the Aztec New Fire Ceremony. Ancient Mesoamerica, 12 (2001), p. 161. Both places are located in Central Mexico not to the east across the Atlantic in Africa.
2) Where did the "Tutul Xiu" go?
Your claim: "arrived in the Gulf...wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya."
My claim: Again using the source you cited, I demonstrated that the historical record indicates that the "Tutul Xiu" progressively moved into the Yucatan and became the ruling family in Uxmal.
3) When did the "Tutul Xiu" make this migration?
Your claim: "around 1200 B.C."
My claim: Using your source, we saw that this occurred in Katun 2 Ahau (11.2.0.0.0, 984-1004: 10.9.0.0.0, 987-1007) (Tozzer, 1941; p. 30 N. 161). They intermarried and rose to prominence in Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD(see William Gates 1937 p 14). de Landa (William Gates 1937 p 14) also mentions the Tutul Xiu (from Uxmal) initially forming an alliance with Chichen Itza & Mayapan (cities that rose and fell during the Late Classic & Post-Classic). They then overwhelmed Mayapan in the mid 1400s to settle into the city of Mani. (William Gates, 1937; p. 121 N 1)
4) Who were the "Tutul Xiu?"
Your claim: "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."
My claim: Review Their origin: Central Mexico (where Nahuatl was predominant) Time period of migration (as cited in your source): around 900 to 1450s CE/AD (actually the present since the "Xiu" is a familial line) Time period of the Toltecas: mid 900 to late 1100 CE/AD Time period of the Olmeca: 1200 BCE (or earlier) to around 200 BCE First proof Mayan writing: 400 BCE # of yrs between the Olmeca's appearance & the "Tutul Xiu" appearance in the Yucatan: 2200 yrs # of yrs between Mayan development of writing & "Tutul Xiu" appearance in the Yucatan: 1400 yrs
Olmeca?: Definitely not Taught writing to Maya?: Not possible since they arrived so much later
Who were they? It has been shown: due to their origin (Nahuatl speaking areas) and the appearance of connections to Nahuatl (cuat close to coatl; Tutul Xiu comes from xiuhtototl meaning "turquoise bird"; xiu is present in many Nahuatl words: xiuhtecuhlti, xiuhtepalcatl, xiuhcoatl, xiuhpohualli; a friend of mine is nicknamed "Xiu" because his name is "Xiuhtecpatl") that they were Nahuatl (or a related langauge) speaking people. Due to the time period and the influences reflected at Chichen Itza & Uxmal, they were probably a group of Toltecas (Tula came to power from around mid 900 CE/AD & fell around late 1100s; same time period).
But it says that "Tutulxiu" "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years." Tozzer (1941; p.28 N. 154) The reference of "Tutulxiu" is made to "he," twice. "Tutulxiu" was one person. In referencing the relevant documents, it was actually the name of two prominent men (Xiu became a family name): Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu (led his people in establishing themselves at Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD; Tozzer, 1941 pg. 30 N 161) & Tutul Xiu (born around 1380 CE/AD; took his people to Mani after the colllapse of Mayapan in mid 1400s; William Gates, 1937 p 121 N 1). Tozzer is referencing the later "Tutul Xiu" due to him teaching writing "which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."(Tozzer, 1941; p.28 N. 154) Tozzer quotes a claim that "Tutul Xiu" taught the people of Mani writing, a definite possibility. However, he is not saying that "Tutul Xiu" taught writing to the Maya in general because he couldn't have due to the facts presented thus far (Maya writing: 400 BCE/BC; "Tutul Xiu" appearance in Yucatan: 1000 CE/AD; the referenced "Tutul Xiu" took his family to Mani around mid 1400 CE/AD).
Possible explanation: The "Tutul Xiu" were a group of Toltecas who left Central Mexico around 900 CE/AD to settle and then rise to prominance in the Maya city of Uxmal around 1000 CE/AD. They were seen as foreigners in the land of the Maya because they weren't from there. In the mistranslation from Nahuatl to Maya, the name of the Toltecas' leader, most likely Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side), was changed in the minds of many people to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people were then referred to as "Tutul Xiu" by the Maya. This was later shortened to just "Xiu," now seen as a family name. (William Gates, 1937 p. 121 N 1)
Again: The "Tutul Xiu" were not Olmeca. Nor were they Mande. They were Nahuatl (or related language) speaking Toltecas. "Tutul" does not mean "Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande. "Xiu" does not mean "The Shi (the race)" in Mande. "Tutul" comes from "tototl," the Nahuatl word for bird. "Xiu" comes from "xiuh," the Nahuatl word for the color turquoise. The "Tutul Xiu" were known as such because their leader was probably named Aztitoc Xiuhtototl (Turquoise Bird on the Side) but the Maya mispronounced it in translation to Ah Zuytoc Tutul Xiu. His people then became known as "Tutul Xiu" or just "Xiu." Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
One more thing...
Found some more evidence to back my claims...
As noted in In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature – Pre-Columbians to the Present, Miguel Leon-Portilla sees the Tutul Xiu as Nahuatl speaking people from Central Mexico:
"During the 'Flower Katun,' the Itza had to resist the Spanish presence and that of the Xius, Mayanized people of Nahuatl origin." (p. 453)
"The Tizimin is mainly the story of the Itza (Water Witches) of the Yucatan and the Xiu (a Toltec people) who came later to the peninsula." (p. 497)
"They claimed indentification with Nonohualco, Zuyua, Chiconauhtla, and 'the great city of Tula.'" (quoted in Leon-Portilla, p. 506)
And then...from The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel tr. by Ralph L. Roys Washington D.C.; Carnegie Institution (1933)
"The name Zuyua is inseparably connected with the Toltec penetration of Yucatan, which left a number of Nahuatl words in the Maya language...The Xius believed that they had come from a place called West Zuyua, and Brinton has identified Zuyua with the Mexican Zuiven, "the name of the uppermost heaven, the abode of the Creator, Hometecutli, the father of Quetzalcoatl, and the place of his first birth as a divinity." (p. 192)
"Landa tells us that when they arrived in Yucatan, their only weapon was the dart and throwing-stick, or atlatl, which points strongly to a Nahua origin. Elsewhere we read of the town of Mama near Mani that 'they were subject to a lord whom they called Tutul Xiu, a Mexican name, who, they say, was a foreigner. He came from the west, and having come to this province the leading people raised him with common consent to be their king.' If further confirmation of the Mexican origin of this family were needed, we might cite the Xiu family tree, according to which two members of the family have the name or title of Ah Cuat Xiu. Cuat is simply another form of the Nahuatl coatl which means serpent." (p. 193)
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Xicano nothing you wrote support your claim that the Tutul Xiu who gave the Maya writing were Nahuatl speakers. These people entered Mexico long after the rise of the Maya and they show no evidence of spreading writing among the Maya. As I told you on an earlier forum:Xicano you know nothing about Mexican history as you attempt to steal the heritage of the ancient Africans in the Americas. .
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: One more thing...
Found some more evidence to back my claims...
As noted in In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature – Pre-Columbians to the Present, Miguel Leon-Portilla sees the Tutul Xiu as Nahuatl speaking people from Central Mexico:
"During the 'Flower Katun,' the Itza had to resist the Spanish presence and that of the Xius, Mayanized people of Nahuatl origin." (p. 453)
"The Tizimin is mainly the story of the Itza (Water Witches) of the Yucatan and the Xiu (a Toltec people) who came later to the peninsula." (p. 497)
"They claimed indentification with Nonohualco, Zuyua, Chiconauhtla, and 'the great city of Tula.'" (quoted in Leon-Portilla, p. 506)
And then...from The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel tr. by Ralph L. Roys Washington D.C.; Carnegie Institution (1933)
"The name Zuyua is inseparably connected with the Toltec penetration of Yucatan, which left a number of Nahuatl words in the Maya language...The Xius believed that they had come from a place called West Zuyua, and Brinton has identified Zuyua with the Mexican Zuiven, "the name of the uppermost heaven, the abode of the Creator, Hometecutli, the father of Quetzalcoatl, and the place of his first birth as a divinity." (p. 192)
"Landa tells us that when they arrived in Yucatan, their only weapon was the dart and throwing-stick, or atlatl, which points strongly to a Nahua origin. Elsewhere we read of the town of Mama near Mani that 'they were subject to a lord whom they called Tutul Xiu, a Mexican name, who, they say, was a foreigner. He came from the west, and having come to this province the leading people raised him with common consent to be their king.' If further confirmation of the Mexican origin of this family were needed, we might cite the Xiu family tree, according to which two members of the family have the name or title of Ah Cuat Xiu. Cuat is simply another form of the Nahuatl coatl which means serpent." (p. 193)
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
quote:Xicano nothing you wrote support your claim that the Tutul Xiu who gave the Maya writing were Nahuatl speakers. These people entered Mexico long after the rise of the Maya and they show no evidence of spreading writing among the Maya. As I told you on an earlier forum:Xicano you know nothing about Mexican history as you attempt to steal the heritage of the ancient Africans in the Americas.
You prove to everyone that you can't refute my claims point by point using evidence. Again, personal attacks. In your response, I bolded a specific phrase "the Tutul Xiu who gave the Maya writing." It is interesting how you are operating from a space in which that statement has been proven as fact. It hasn't.
Answer me this: What proof do you have of your claim?
You said this:
quote:the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).
You have referred to 2 sources to support the idea: Stross & Tozzer.
Quetzalcoatl pointed out that
quote: Stross quotes Tozzer so that Winters has just one source, not two, for his claim about the Tutul Xiu.
As a source to support your claim, Stross is out the window. As for Tozzer (translated version of de Landa), I proved that this source doesn't support your claim. In fact, I demonstrated that Tozzer contradicts this assertion. You have yet to prove otherwise. I have been the one who has posted the quote in question and discussed its relevance. You have yet to even point out how this quote supports your assertion. I've noticed that you no longer refer to him as a source, which is a good thing.
Since you can't address how Tozzer supports your claim, we can just eliminate him as your source. de Landa is also out of the question due to the following facts: 1) the quote in question isn't from de Landa 2) Tozzer provides the translation along with discussion of de Landa's writing. The following quote does not have a source proving its accuracy. What proof do you have of your claim?
quote:the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.
I want a quote that specifically refers to the Tutul Xiu, as a people, giving writing to the Maya...obviously from a reputable source.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
This is your claim:
quote: the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.
You can't defend yourself using your initial sources (Stross & Tozzer) which have been proven do not support this assertion. You have yet to cite a specific quote from a reputable source that supports your claims.
What proof do you have?
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
You said it yourself:
quote:These people entered Mexico long after the rise of the Maya and they show no evidence of spreading writing among the Maya.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: This is your claim:
quote: the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.
You can't defend yourself using your initial sources (Stross & Tozzer) which have been proven do not support this assertion. You have yet to cite a specific quote from a reputable source that supports your claims.
What proof do you have?
The statement of Landa is all the proof I need. This along with the date for the transmission of the Olmec writing to the Maya support the fact that the Olmec were the Tutul Xiu, not the Toltecs who entered Mexico long after the Maya had adopted writing.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: This is your claim:
quote: the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.
You can't defend yourself using your initial sources (Stross & Tozzer) which have been proven do not support this assertion. You have yet to cite a specific quote from a reputable source that supports your claims.
What proof do you have?
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. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Stross quotes Tozzer so that Winters has just one source, not two, for his claim about the Tutul Xiu.
As a source to support your claim, Stross is out the window. As for Tozzer (translated version of de Landa), I proved that this source doesn't support your claim. In fact, I demonstrated that Tozzer contradicts this assertion. You have yet to prove otherwise. I have been the one who has posted the quote in question and discussed its relevance. You have yet to even point out how this quote supports your assertion. I've noticed that you no longer refer to him as a source, which is a good thing.
[/QUOTE]
It supports my claim because in it Landa claimed the Tutul Xi gave the Maya writing. You discussed the footnote Tozzer wrote relating to this statement. The footnote was not Landa's statement it is the opinion of Tozzer. Since it is his opinion it does nothing to dispute my contention.
He wrote his opinion conerning the Tutul Xi and I wrote mine . My opinion is supported by the Mande origin for the Mayan term for writing which would be expected if writing came to the Maya by way of the Olmec, and the ethnonym is easily explained by the Olmec/Mande language.
It is only in your mind that you have proven the Tutul Xi were Toltecs.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Aside from the footnote, the translation Tozzer offers here of de Landa says nothing about the Tutul Xiu (Tozzer's footnotes take up 15/16ths of the page; the translation of de Landa is like 3-4 lines of text). This might be new to you Winters because it sounds like you haven't even read this book.
Only when referencing the footnotes on that page do we get any mention of "Tutulxiu."
quote:And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land. 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 N 154.
This was actually something de Landa wrote in the untranslated Relaciones de Yucatan 1, p. 156. Tozzer is including it in that section of de Landa's translated words in reference to the learned individuals in the Maya world who were responsible for maintaining the knowledge and teaching the people. For this reason, de Landa says "he" (twice), referring to the lord Tutulxiu. de Landa references the "lords of Mani" because that's where lord Tutulxiu took his people after the collapse of Mayapan in the mid 1400s. It is saying one person, lord Tutulxiu, taught writing to the people of Mani. If the context of the quote is considered as well as the focus of the book (the interactions of the Cocoms, Itzas, Xius...all families living in the Mayan cities of Chich'en Itza, Uxmal, & Mayapan from the time period of around 1000 to 1450)
How does this prove that the Tutul Xiu, as a people, taught the Maya writing?
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
If we were to keep with the historical record, it's Tutulxiu not Tutul Xi. Stop fabricating evidence.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Aside from the footnote, the translation Tozzer offers here of de Landa says nothing about the Tutul Xiu (Tozzer's footnotes take up 15/16ths of the page; the translation of de Landa is like 3-4 lines of text). This might be new to you Winters because it sounds like you haven't even read this book.
Only when referencing the footnotes on that page do we get any mention of "Tutulxiu."
quote:And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land. 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 N 154.
This was actually something de Landa wrote in the untranslated Relaciones de Yucatan 1, p. 156. Tozzer is including it in that section of de Landa's translated words in reference to the learned individuals in the Maya world who were responsible for maintaining the knowledge and teaching the people. For this reason, de Landa says "he" (twice), referring to the lord Tutulxiu. de Landa references the "lords of Mani" because that's where lord Tutulxiu took his people after the collapse of Mayapan in the mid 1400s. It is saying one person, lord Tutulxiu, taught writing to the people of Mani. If the context of the quote is considered as well as the focus of the book (the interactions of the Cocoms, Itzas, Xius...all families living in the Mayan cities of Chich'en Itza, Uxmal, & Mayapan from the time period of around 1000 to 1450)
How does this prove that the Tutul Xiu, as a people, taught the Maya writing?
You keep mentioning the footnote of Tozzer. This footnote is his own opinion of who the Tutul Xiu were. All but the retarded would understand that if the Toltecs did not appear in Mexico until 800 years after the Maya got writing, there is no way they could have taught the Maya this technology. Xicano: THINK.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: If we were to keep with the historical record, it's Tutulxiu not Tutul Xi. Stop fabricating evidence.
I don't need to fabricate anything. What you need to do is present to us the Toltec heiroglyphics the Maya learned from your alledged Toltec Tutul Xiu .
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
If you read what I wrote, I was wrong before when I said it wasn't a quote from de Landa (I'm humble enough to admit when I'm mistaken). It was actually a quote from de Landa that Tozzer translated from untranlsated Relaciones de Yucatan 1. Therefore it is de Landa's words.
Since you didn't read what I wrote, here it is again laid out a little clearer for you:
Aside from the footnote, the translation Tozzer offers on pg. 28 (your citation) of de Landa says nothing about the Tutul Xiu. Tozzer's footnotes take up 15/16ths of the page where he quotes other documents to provide historical context to de Landa's account. The translation of de Landa is only 3-4 lines of text. This might be new to you Winters because it seems as if you haven't even read this book.
If you are saying your citation does not come from the footnote, you are fabricating information because no where in the actual text on page 28 of your source does it mention "Tutulxiu." Only when referencing the footnotes on that page do we get any mention of "Tutulxiu."
If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing, post the quote for all to see.
Unlike you, I read all the pages where "Tutulxiu" is mentioned several times to understand the context (as they say, "with a fine-tooth comb") and recently.
My guess is that you read Stross or another source that cited Tozzer and provided the page #. You simply recopied the citation without actually picking up Tozzer's translation of de Landa & reading the quote in question. Anybody want to bet some money that's what he did?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: If we were to keep with the historical record, it's Tutulxiu not Tutul Xi. Stop fabricating evidence.
I don't need to fabricate anything. What you need to do is present to us the Toltec heiroglyphics the Maya learned from your alledged Toltec Tutul Xiu .
.
The entire problem is that you take myth i.e. that the Maya learned to write from Tutul Xiu as if were accurate historical truth. What we have been telling you, ad nauseam, is that, whatever the identity of the Tutul Xiu, the Maya had NOT got writing from them because they had already been writing for at least 1200 years. Thus, your request is ridiculous on its face.
For the same reason, you can spin, you can dance, you can fill the air with spam BUT Landa was writing 2500 years after the supposed arrival of the Mande, and therefore the Mande cannot be the Tutul Xiu. As we have shown, from your own source Tozzer, there is overwhelming evidence (archaeological, historical, and linguistic) that the Tutul Xiu (or better, the people of Zuyua) were Chontal Maya heavily acculturated to Central Mexico, if not Toltecs directly.
If not writing, nevertheless, there are new symbols and conventions introduced into the Maya at the time of the Tutul Xiu invasion-- butterfly symbols in the breastplates of warriors, different helmets-- directly traceable to Tula in Central Mexico. A new emphasis on human sacrifice with stone skullracks, new modes of building temples with flat roofs and decorated benches that emphasized a broader participation by the laity in religious ceremonies, a new emphasis on feathered serpent imagery. All of these replicas of Toltec Central Mexican practices.
So I have a question for you--- Please prove that all of the above characteristics occur among the Mande-- or the Olmecs for that matter.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: If you read what I wrote, I was wrong before when I said it wasn't a quote from de Landa (I'm humble enough to admit when I'm mistaken). It was actually a quote from de Landa that Tozzer translated from untranlsated Relaciones de Yucatan 1. Therefore it is de Landa's words.
Since you didn't read what I wrote, here it is again laid out a little clearer for you:
Aside from the footnote, the translation Tozzer offers on pg. 28 (your citation) of de Landa says nothing about the Tutul Xiu. Tozzer's footnotes take up 15/16ths of the page where he quotes other documents to provide historical context to de Landa's account. The translation of de Landa is only 3-4 lines of text. This might be new to you Winters because it seems as if you haven't even read this book.
If you are saying your citation does not come from the footnote, you are fabricating information because no where in the actual text on page 28 of your source does it mention "Tutulxiu." Only when referencing the footnotes on that page do we get any mention of "Tutulxiu."
If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing, post the quote for all to see.
Unlike you, I read all the pages where "Tutulxiu" is mentioned several times to understand the context (as they say, "with a fine-tooth comb") and recently.
My guess is that you read Stross or another source that cited Tozzer and provided the page #. You simply recopied the citation without actually picking up Tozzer's translation of de Landa & reading the quote in question. Anybody want to bet some money that's what he did?
Xicano you can read all the pages you wish but you have to remember that Landa's statements represent a primary historical document. Tozzer in his footnote is only stating an opinion which is easily falsified by the fact that the Maya got writing around 600 BC, a 1000 years before the Toltecs arrive in Mexico.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: If we were to keep with the historical record, it's Tutulxiu not Tutul Xi. Stop fabricating evidence.
I don't need to fabricate anything. What you need to do is present to us the Toltec heiroglyphics the Maya learned from your alledged Toltec Tutul Xiu .
.
The entire problem is that you take myth i.e. that the Maya learned to write from Tutul Xiu as if were accurate historical truth. What we have been telling you, ad nauseam, is that, whatever the identity of the Tutul Xiu, the Maya had NOT got writing from them because they had already been writing for at least 1200 years. Thus, your request is ridiculous on its face.
For the same reason, you can spin, you can dance, you can fill the air with spam BUT Landa was writing 2500 years after the supposed arrival of the Mande, and therefore the Mande cannot be the Tutul Xiu. As we have shown, from your own source Tozzer, there is overwhelming evidence (archaeological, historical, and linguistic) that the Tutul Xiu (or better, the people of Zuyua) were Chontal Maya heavily acculturated to Central Mexico, if not Toltecs directly.
If not writing, nevertheless, there are new symbols and conventions introduced into the Maya at the time of the Tutul Xiu invasion-- butterfly symbols in the breastplates of warriors, different helmets-- directly traceable to Tula in Central Mexico. A new emphasis on human sacrifice with stone skullracks, new modes of building temples with flat roofs and decorated benches that emphasized a broader participation by the laity in religious ceremonies, a new emphasis on feathered serpent imagery. All of these replicas of Toltec Central Mexican practices.
So I have a question for you--- Please prove that all of the above characteristics occur among the Mande-- or the Olmecs for that matter.
None of these elements have anything to do with Mayan writing. Where are the Toltec symbols that correspond to Mayan hieroglyphics. You have presented no evidence which proves that the Toltecs introduced writing to the maya. You are making speculations yourself I quote:
quote:
As we have shown, from your own source Tozzer, there is overwhelming evidence (archaeological, historical, and linguistic) that the Tutul Xiu (or better, the people of Zuyua) were Chontal Maya heavily acculturated to Central Mexico, if not Toltecs directly.
You can't even make up your mind what nationality Landa recognized as aliens. Your reasoning is faulty. Why would the Maya describe the Tutul Xiu as aliens, if they were Maya speakers?
You claim that we should ignore the Mayan tradition recorded by the Landa because of the opinions of Tozzer, when we know 1) writing originated in Mexico with the Olmecs; 2)the Mayan term for writing corresponds to the Mande term for writing; and 3) writing was transmitted to the Maya by Olmecs who were the first inhabitants of Mayan sites, e.g., Palenque.
This supports Landa's comment that the Maya got writing from a non-Maya group called Tutul Xiu.
Oh you Great Deciever....You. Stop trying to steal the heritage of African Olmecs in Mexico.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Let me do Winters real quick (what probably happened):
I (Winters) just read a quote from Brian Stross, Maya Hieroglyphic writing and Mixe-Zoquean, Antropological Linguistics, vol.24, no.1 (1982) pg.74
Here it is:
quote:According to the Yucatecs, the Tutul Xiu who were “foreigners” from Zuiva in Nonoalco territory taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write(Tozzer 1941:28)
Oh, there is some proof to assist in my claim. According to this source, the Maya claimed that the Tutul Xiu were foreigners and taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write. Let me look up this source. Oh, Tozzer is translating Diego de Landa. That's perfect. I'll just reword this quote and say that they were de Landa's original words since I haven't actually read Tozzer's book (the source I'm citing) nor the exact quote in reference...which reminds me, I should avoid at all costs to actually write the quote out that I'm referring to because...well, I haven't actually read it. Oh well. Oh yeah, one last thing. I won't actually cite the page number so nobody can follow up with the source.
Nevertheless, here is my assertion with proper citation:
quote:Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).
There is my evidence to back my claim. Now I got my proof. I'll attack others who actually question the validity of my claim and just point to de Landa. I'll defend this claim until I die. Oh yeah...I can never ever write out the quote I'm referring to because...I can't. I didn't read it.
Oh, damn...they discovered me. What should I do? Let me go back to Stross...oh wait, there is a page number. I'll just provide it hoping that 1) they either don't check my source or 2) the source confirms what I'm saying.
What do you all think? Did I do a good job playing Winters? Too funny
Admit it Winters...you got busted taking a short cut. It's very obvious that you didn't even read Tozzer's translation of de Landa.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Let me do Winters real quick (what probably happened):
I (Winters) just read a quote from Brian Stross, Maya Hieroglyphic writing and Mixe-Zoquean, Antropological Linguistics, vol.24, no.1 (1982) pg.74
Here it is:
quote:According to the Yucatecs, the Tutul Xiu who were “foreigners” from Zuiva in Nonoalco territory taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write(Tozzer 1941:28)
Oh, there is some proof to assist in my claim. According to this source, the Maya claimed that the Tutul Xiu were foreigners and taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write. Let me look up this source. Oh, Tozzer is translating Diego de Landa. That's perfect. I'll just reword this quote and say that they were de Landa's original words since I haven't actually read Tozzer's book (the source I'm citing) nor the exact quote in reference...which reminds me, I should avoid at all costs to actually write the quote out that I'm referring to because...well, I haven't actually read it. Oh well. Oh yeah, one last thing. I won't actually cite the page number so nobody can follow up with the source.
Nevertheless, here is my assertion with proper citation:
quote:Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).
There is my evidence to back my claim. Now I got my proof. I'll attack others who actually question the validity of my claim and just point to de Landa. I'll defend this claim until I die. Oh yeah...I can never ever write out the quote I'm referring to because...I can't. I didn't read it.
Oh, damn...they discovered me. What should I do? Let me go back to Stross...oh wait, there is a page number. I'll just provide it hoping that 1) they either don't check my source or 2) the source confirms what I'm saying.
What do you all think? Did I do a good job playing Winters? Too funny
Admit it Winters...you got busted taking a short cut. It's very obvious that you didn't even read Tozzer's translation of de Landa.
You keep saying the same thing. This does not dispute the Mayan tradition of Tutul Xiu. We know that the Toltecs were invanders. There is no evidence that they were the original inhabitants of Zuiva in Nonoalco . And we definitely know that the Toltecs did not originate writing among the Maya.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing, post the quote for all to see. Tell us how it backs your claim.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
Ok Winters...Since I'm a middle school teacher and have grown accustomed to modeling what I want my students to do, let me show you how to provide a quote from a source you're going to cite since you apparently don't know how to:
According to the Chilam Balam of Mani (quoted in Tozzer, 1941 pg 29 N. 159), "This is the arrangement of the katuns since the departure was made from the land, from the Nonoual, where were the four Tutulxiu, from Zuiva at the west: they came from the land Tulapan, having formed a league."
Did you see how I did that "Dr."? Now, that's not a Spanish priest writing what he heard. As you should know, the books of Chilam Balam were put down on paper by Maya people. Since this one is from Mani, where the Xiu family (the "Tutul Xiu") finally settled in the 1450s, I would guess it was probably written by someone from the family. Do you see the difference? de Landa is writing what he heard. This is writing straight from the Maya themselves (in this case, probably Mayanized Toltecas/Nahuatl speakers) about the origin of the Tutuxiu.
Of course, as Quetzalcoatl mentioned, it is necessary to confirm this account with archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence. We have provided ample evidence and used the quotes from our sources.
Now...It's your turn. If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing (supporting your claim), post the quote for all to see. Tell us how it backs your claim.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing, post the quote for all to see. Tell us how it backs your claim.
.
According to the Yucatecs, the Tutul Xiu who were “foreigners” from Zuiva in Nonoalco territory taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write(Tozzer 1941:28).
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
You can't see past your claim (Tutul Xiu equals Olmec). We are not saying the Toltecas introduced writing to the Maya. As far as anybody knows, the Olmec or another group did. Or maybe they came up with it on their own. Nobody knows for sure.
One thing is for sure though, based on the archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence:
Tutul Xiu does not equal Olmec
The "Tutul Xiu" traveled into the area much too late and it's very obvious of their origin (Nahuatl speakers from Central Mexico). I know this breaks the chain of evidence for you because you can no longer claim that "Tutul" means "Very good subjects of the Order" nor that "Xiu" means "The Shi (the race)"...both in Mande.
You either accept the facts ('cause that's what they are), or end up looking like a fool who is dishonest and untrustworthy. That puts your entire career and credibility at risk. You saw what happened to Ward Churchill, American Indian scholar from the University of Colorado, Boulder. I was one of his students. I saw how they basically lynched him in the media and in an academic setting (in addition to being ridiculed in the media, he lost his job). He is an amazing researcher who not only devours books, but also writes articles & books with such easy and speed. Most of all, he is very meticulous in his citations to the point of being anal. They got him on less than what Quetzalcoatl and I have exposed about you. I'm not sure what University you're at...I searched for a while but didn't find anything...interesting. I won't comment.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Ok Winters...Since I'm a middle school teacher and have grown accustomed to modeling what I want my students to do, let me show you how to provide a quote from a source you're going to cite since you apparently don't know how to:
According to the Chilam Balam of Mani (quoted in Tozzer, 1941 pg 29 N. 159), "This is the arrangement of the katuns since the departure was made from the land, from the Nonoual, where were the four Tutulxiu, from Zuiva at the west: they came from the land Tulapan, having formed a league."
Did you see how I did that "Dr."? Now, that's not a Spanish priest writing what he heard. As you should know, the books of Chilam Balam were put down on paper by Maya people. Since this one is from Mani, where the Xiu family (the "Tutul Xiu") finally settled in the 1450s, I would guess it was probably written by someone from the family. Do you see the difference? de Landa is writing what he heard. This is writing straight from the Maya themselves (in this case, probably Mayanized Toltecas/Nahuatl speakers) about the origin of the Tutuxiu.
Of course, as Quetzalcoatl mentioned, it is necessary to confirm this account with archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence. We have provided ample evidence and used the quotes from our sources.
Now...It's your turn. If I'm wrong on identifying the quote you're referencing (supporting your claim), post the quote for all to see. Tell us how it backs your claim.
The Olmec origin of the Tutul Xiu is supported by the archaeological evidence of Olmec rulers and people at many early Mayan site. The Olmec/Mande linguistic influence on the Maya is supported by the Olmec loan words in the Mayan language, and the Olmec origin of the Mayan writing.
What more evidence do we need to confirm the fact that the Olmec were the Tutul Xiu of Mayan traditions, not the Toltecs as you claim.
.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
You can't see past your claim (Tutul Xiu equals Olmec). We are not saying the Toltecas introduced writing to the Maya. As far as anybody knows, the Olmec or another group did. Or maybe they came up with it on their own. Nobody knows for sure.
One thing is for sure though, based on the archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence:
Tutul Xiu does not equal Olmec
The "Tutul Xiu" traveled into the area much too late and it's very obvious of their origin (Nahuatl speakers from Central Mexico). I know this breaks the chain of evidence for you because you can no longer claim that "Tutul" means "Very good subjects of the Order" nor that "Xiu" means "The Shi (the race)"...both in Mande.
You either accept the facts ('cause that's what they are), or end up looking like a fool who is dishonest and untrustworthy. That puts your entire career and credibility at risk. You saw what happened to Ward Churchill, American Indian scholar from the University of Colorado, Boulder. I was one of his students. I saw how they basically lynched him in the media and in an academic setting (in addition to being ridiculed in the media, he lost his job). He is an amazing researcher who not only devours books, but also writes articles & books with such easy and speed. Most of all, he is very meticulous in his citations to the point of being anal. They got him on less than what Quetzalcoatl and I have exposed about you. I'm not sure what University you're at...I searched for a while but didn't find anything...interesting. I won't comment.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: You can't see past your claim (Tutul Xiu equals Olmec). We are not saying the Toltecas introduced writing to the Maya. As far as anybody knows, the Olmec or another group did. Or maybe they came up with it on their own. Nobody knows for sure.
One thing is for sure though, based on the archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence:
Tutul Xiu does not equal Olmec
The "Tutul Xiu" traveled into the area much too late and it's very obvious of their origin (Nahuatl speakers from Central Mexico). I know this breaks the chain of evidence for you because you can no longer claim that "Tutul" means "Very good subjects of the Order" nor that "Xiu" means "The Shi (the race)"...both in Mande.
You either accept the facts ('cause that's what they are), or end up looking like a fool who is dishonest and untrustworthy. That puts your entire career and credibility at risk. You saw what happened to Ward Churchill, American Indian scholar from the University of Colorado, Boulder. I was one of his students. I saw how they basically lynched him in the media and in an academic setting (in addition to being ridiculed in the media, he lost his job). He is an amazing researcher who not only devours books, but also writes articles & books with such easy and speed. Most of all, he is very meticulous in his citations to the point of being anal. They got him on less than what Quetzalcoatl and I have exposed about you. I'm not sure what University you're at...I searched for a while but didn't find anything...interesting. I won't comment.
You have exposed nothing. The association of the Tutul Xiu who gave writing to the Maya with the Toltecs is based on speculation. There is no evidence that the Toltecs gave the Mayan people writing.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Mayan people had Universities where they taught students their history, culture and civilization generally. Landa wrote in Yucatan before and after the Conquest:
quote:
The people of Yucatan were as attentive to matters of religion as of government, and had a High Priest whom they called Ahkin May , or also Ahaucan May , meaning the Priest May, or the High Priest May. He was held in great reverence by the chiefs, and had no allotment of Indians for himself, the chiefs making presents to him in addition to the offerings, and all the local priests sending him contributions. He was succeeded in office by his sons or nearest kin. In him lay the key to their sciences, to which they most devoted themselves, giving counsel to the chiefs and answering their inquiries. With the matter of sacrifices he rarely took part, except on it festivals or business of much moment. He and his disciples appointed priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies; put in their charge the affairs of their office, and the setting of a goodexample to the people; he provided their books and sent them forth. They in turn attended to the service of the temples, teaching their sciences and writing books upon them.
They taught the sons of the other priests, and the second sons of the chiefs, who were brought to them very young for this purpose, if they found them inclined toward this office.
The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings.
According to the Yucatec Maya, the Tutul Xiu, a group of foreigners from Zuiva, in Nonoualco territory taught the Yucatec how to read and write (Tozzer,1941 , p.28). The fact that the foreigners brought the Maya writing and other secret knowledge that was transmitted by hereditary clans or specialists would explain why the Maya had institutions where branches of this knowledge could be taught.
Stross (1982) believes that the Mixe-Zoquean speakers transmitted writing to the Maya, other scholars suggest the Toltecs. Although the Toltecs may have conquered the Maya I seriously doubt that this nomadic group gave secret language to the Maya since they appear in Mexico a 1000 years after the Mayan people employed writing to record their history.
Epigraphic evidence make it clear that the Mayan people received writing from the Olmec. This is supported by the bilingual Olmec-Mayan bricks found at Colcomalco,Mexico.
It is interesting to note that the people who taught the Maya writing originated at Zuyua or Zuiva made it necessary for the Maya to set up centers of learning where elites could study this writing system and the arts. This resulted from the fact that a class of skilled scribes were necessary to record business transactions and inscribe Mayan monuments and artifacts.
Landa mentions the fact that the heads of Mayan towns had to know a secret language(s) due to periodic interrogations (examinations?) of the chiefs. These interrogations determined if a chief was fit to remain head of a Mayan town (Roys,1967).
In the Chilam Balam of Chummayel , Zuiva is spelt Zuyua . This text declares that the “head chiefs” of a town were periodically examined in the language of the Zuyua.
The language of Zuyua was suppose to have been understood by the mayan elites. Scholars are not sure about the meaning of the mysterious term zuyua. But it has affinity to Olmec terms. The actual sound value of /z/ in zuyua is /s/. If we compare zuyua, with Olmec su-yu-a and zuiva and su-i-wa we find interesting meanings that suggest that zuyua was probably a secret code known only by the Chiefs., rather than a placename. Su-yu-a can be translated as the “Shaper of Life”, while Su-i-wa means “The Shaper of Good” or “The Thing which hurries your welfare”.
These translations of su-i-wa and su-yu-a , because they are associated with leadership, and the role of both secular and religious leaders made them semantically appropriate terms to interpret zuyua or zuiva, since a priest or head chief is a shaper of the welfare of his people it was only natural that this group of specialists probably had to know secret terms and symbols to manifest their great power.
This makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu or “The Xis who are very good supporters of the Order” who came from Zuiva in Nonoualco were Mande speaking Olmec scholars who passed on writing and a leadership association to the Maya, when they entered Yucatan. Universities such as Colcalmalco, were constructed to ensure the traiing of Mayan elites to become Zuyua and support the needs of Mayan government and religion.
References:
Roys,R.L. (1967). The Book of Chilam Balam Chumayel. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Steede,N. (1984). Preliminary Catalogue of the Comalcalco Bricks. Cardenas, Tabasco: Centro de Investigacion Pre-Colombina.
Stross,B. (1982). Maya Hieroglyphic writing and Mixe-Zoquean, Anthropological Linguistics 24 (1): 73-134.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
quote:The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings.
Thank you. This is what appears as text on pg 28 of Tozzer. Ummm...I don't see any reference to Tutulxiu.
This is where the footnote comes in:
quote:"And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land (quoted in Tozzer, 1941: 28 N. 154 )”
You would know this if you actually read the source you're citing! That's why de Landa says "he" (twice), referring to a person not a group of people. He is talking about the head of the Xiu family (named Tutulxiu) who established the town of Mani in the 1450s! He was the one who "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
quote:According to the Yucatecs, the Tutul Xiu who were “foreigners” from Zuiva in Nonoalco territory taught the Yucatec Maya how to read and write(Tozzer 1941:28).
This is not a quote from de Landa. I want a quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
quote:The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings.
Thank you. This is what appears as text on pg 28 of Tozzer. Ummm...I don't see any reference to Tutulxiu.
This is where the footnote comes in:
quote:"And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land (quoted in Tozzer, 1941: 28 N. 154 )”
You would know this if you actually read the source you're citing! That's why de Landa says "he" (twice), referring to a person not a group of people. He is talking about the head of the Xiu family (named Tutulxiu) who established the town of Mani in the 1450s! He was the one who "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."
Landa is not talking about a single person he was talking about an entire tribe. Lets look at Landa's statement:
quote: 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. These tribes lived in such peace that they had no conflicts and used neither arms nor bows, even for the hunt, although now today they are
excellent archers. They only used snares and traps, with which they took much game. They also had a certain art of throwing darts by the aid of a stick as thick as three fingers, hollowed out for a third of the way, and six palms long; with this and cords they threw with force and accuracy. † They had laws against delinquents which they executed rigorously; such as against an adulterer, whom they turned over to the injured party that he might either put him to death by throwing a great stone down upon his head, or he might forgive him if he chose. For the adulteress there was no penalty save the infamy, which was a very serious thing with them. One who ravished a maiden was stoned to death, and they relate a case of a chief of the Tutul-xiu who, having a brother accused of this crime, had him stoned and afterwards covered with a great heap of rocks. They also say that before the foundation of the city they had another law providing the punishment of adulterers by drawing out the intestines through the navel.
The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.
In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed. This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man
patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country. http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/ybac/ybac12.htm
. .
This quotation makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu were a tribal group.
It makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu were highly respected by the Maya. It also makes it clear they were not Mexicans. The Maya saw the Mexicans as mean spirited oppressors.
quote:
The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.
In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed.
In fact Landa indicates that the Tutul Xiu helped the Maya overthrow the Mexicans who were unjust rulers.
quote:
This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country.
Clearly the Xius were not recognized as Mexicans or Tobascans. They fought with the Maya to expel the Mexicans. It appears that after this war the Mexicans and Tobascans were driven out of the region.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
I was talking about Tozzer's claim that the Tutul Xius were Toltecs.
.
Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
What I find painfully ironic is the following: Up to this point when both of you found this translation of Diego de Landa, which by the way is the same text from de Landa translated at an earlier point (Gates: 1937; Tozzer: 1941),
it appears that I was the only one who read & understood de Landa. Ummm...Winters, I had cited that same quote that you (by miracle) just read (further proof that you didn't actually read de Landa's words before citing them). lol
Here is my post a while back (July 08, 2008 05:20 PM):
quote:According to Winters,...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.
We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa that says that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu taught writing to the Maya. Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
I want a quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid. Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
I want a quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Move it up.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Check out my videos on the Mande origin of the Meso-American calendars
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I quoted it to show you made up numerology about the katanga figure.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
