What do you guys think of Ivan Van Sertima? I just ordered his book, 'They Came Before Columbus' and have high hopes for it especially after reading his book about the Moors (which I STILL find a very good read). He doesn't seem like a sensationalist by any means...but an even-minded guy with some contreversial ideas. But I was turned on to this book after seeing a program on Discovery International I think about trans-atlantic theories and they shockingly said at the end that the first Americans may have come from all over the place!!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on 04 October, 2007 06:23 PM:
I'm reading Dr Van Seritma's book and am finishing it up right now. You're in for a treat! I'm playing catch-up on Africa's ancient past myself, just getting started on reading Dr Chiek Diop's book which everyone else here has long since already read.
As for They Came Before Columbus you'll learn a TON from this book. I didn't even know Columbus had a diary until I read this book, nor did I know about Africans using spearheads made of gold until this book. But that's only the tip of a VERY large iceberg of information in this book.
Not surprisingly white scholars characterized Van Sertima's work as "theories with no factual basis" at the time he wrote this book, (1976) today they call material like it "solid reasoning on early explorers to the Americas." Kind of like what they said when blacks asserted that Thomas Jefferson had black descendants, etc. The Scottish researcher-author Graham Hancock, the author of Fingerprints of the Gods in 1996, among other books on ancient civilizations, was the acclaimed writer who first broke the ice for white writers, telling them that the Olmec stone heads down in Mexico are unmistakably black Africans. His work has been followed by others and now what Van Sertima said thirty years ago is accepted truth now. Just goes to show if the issue is delved into deeply enough long enough the white "mainstream" will eventually come to the facts that we have been preaching all along --give or take twenty years. I hope a group of black authors get together and write the definitive book on Egypt as a black civilization. If I were the one writing it I'd call it simply, "Egypt: Land of the Blacks."
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 05 October, 2007 09:09 AM:
^ I myself am cautious about Sertima's claims. Not that I don't think it possible that Africans were able to cross the Atlantic as Heyerdahl's Ra expedition shows, or that it's not probable via certain West African legends and even written claims in West African documents.
What is needed even more to corroborate all this is archaeological evidence, and I don't mean slight similarities between Meso-American culture and West African culture. The problem is when you have people like Clyde Winters making claims that Meso-American civilization was founded by West African colonists!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 09:48 AM:
Ivan wrote a fine book. He was wrong about the Olmecs being related to the Nubians, yet both groups shared many cultural similarities and wore identical helmets.
Below is the pictorial evidence of the Olmec and Maya. It is clear that the Maya were native Americans but the Olmecs were Africans. [/b]
We claim the Olmecs as Africans because they came from Africa and spoke an African langauage.
The best evidence for African Olmecs is the Cascajal tablet. This tablet was found last year in Mexico.
The Olmec writing on the Cascajal tablet is an obituary for a King Bi Po. This writing is written in Hieroglyphic Olmec (Winters,2006). Hieroglyphic Olmec includes multiple linear Olmec signs which are joined together to make pictures of animals, faces and other objects.
Some researchers have recognized insects and other objects in the signs. In reality these signs are made up several different Olmec linear signs (Winters,1998).
To read the Olmec writing I use the Vai script. The Vai script includes a number of syllabic signs that have been used to engrave rocks in the Sahara for the past 4000 years. I read the signs in Malinke-Bambara which was the spoken language of the Olmec.
The Olmec writing is read right to left top to bottom. Each segment of the Olmec sign has to be broken down into its individual syllabic sign. In most cases the Olmec signs includes two or more syllabic characters. The Olmec signs can be interpreted as follows:
1. La fe ta gyo 2. Bi yu 3. Pa po yu 4. Se ta I su 5. Ta kye 6. Beb be 7. Bi Po Yu to 8. Tu fa ku 9. Tu pa pot u 10. Ta gbe pa 11. i-tu 12. Bi Yu yo po 13. Kye gyo 14. Po lu 15. Fe ta yo i 16. Be kye 17. Fe gina 18. Po bi po tu 19. Lu kye gyo to 20. Kye tu a pa 21. Yu gyo i 22. Pa ku pa 23. Po yu 24. Day u kye da 25. Po ta kye tap o 26. Ta gbe 27. Bi Fa yu 28. Bi Yu / Paw
Translation Reading the Cascajal Tablet from right to left we have the following:
(8) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb, (7) desiring to be endowed with mysterious faculties.
(6) This abode is possessed by the Governor . (5)…. (4) Bi Po Po.
(3) Bi (was), (2) an Artisan desires to be consecrated to the divinity. (1) (and He) merits thou offer of libations.
(14). Admiration (for) the cult specialist’s hemisphere tomb. (13) The inheritance of thou vital spirit is consecration to the divinity.
(12) In a place of righteous admiration, (11) Pure Bi (in a) pure abode
(10) A pure mark of admiration (is) this hemispheric tomb.
(9) [Here] lays low (the celebrity) [he] is gone.
(22) The place of righteousness, [is] (21) the pure hemispheric tomb
(20) (19) Thou (art) obedient to the Order. (18) Hold upright the Order (and) the divinity of the sacred cult.
(17) Pure Admiration this place of, (16) Bi the Vital Spirit. (15) [Truly this is ] a place consecrated to the divinity and propriety.
27) Lay low (the celebrity) to go to , (26) love the mystic order—thou vivid image of the race,
(25) The pure Govenor and (24) Devotee [of the Order lies in this] hemispheric tomb ,desires [to be] a talisman effective in providing one with virtue, (23) [He] merits thou offer of Libations.
(34) Command Respect. (33)….this place of admiration. (32) Thou sacred inheritance is propriety. (31) The Govenor commands existence in a unique state, (31) [in] this ruler’s hemispheric tomb. (29) The Royal (28) [was] a vigorous man.
(36) The pure habitation (35) [of a ]Ruler obedient to the Order. (37) This abode is possessed by the governor. (38) Admiration to you [who art] obedient to the Order. (49) Pure admiration [for this] tomb. (48) Thou hold upright the pure law. (47). Pure admiration [for this tomb]. (46) [It] acts [as] a talisman effective in providing one with virtue. (45) Bi Po, (44) a pure man, (43) of wonder, (42) [whose] inheritance is consecration to the Divinity. (41) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb, (40) desiring to be endowed with mysterious faculties. (62) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb. (61) [This] tomb [is a] sacred object, (60) a place of righteous wonder. (59) Bi’s tomb (58) [is in] accord [with] the law (57) Bi exist in a unique (and) pure state the abode of the Govenor is pure.. (56) The inheritance of [this] Ruler is joy. (55) [In] this tomb of King Bi (54) lays low a celebrity, [he] is gone. (53) The tomb of Bi (52) is a dormitory [of] love. A place consacreted to the divinity. (51) Thou the vivid image of the race love(d) the mystic order. (50) [He] merits [your] offer of Libations.
This translation of the Cascajal tablet makes it clear that the tablet was written for a local ruler at San Lorenzo called Bi Po. This tablet indicates that Bi Po’s tomb was recognized as a sacred site. It also indicates that the Olmecians believed that if they offered libations at the tombs of their rulers they would gain blessings.
The Cascajal Tablet according to the road builders at the village was found in a mound. The fact that a mound existed where the tablet was found offers considerable support to the idea that the mound where the tablet was found is the tomb of BiPoPo.
The obituary on the Cascajal Tablet may be written about one of the Royals among Olmec heads found at San Lorenzo. The Cascajal Tablet may relate to the personage depicted in San Lorenzo monument 3. Head 3 San Lorenzo
We have found that the names of these rulers is probably found among the symbols associated with the individual Olmec heads. The headband on monument 3 is made up of four parallel ropes encircling the head. In the parallel ropes there are two serrated figures that cross the ropes diagonally.
There is also a plaited diadem or four braids on the back of the figure covered with serrated element. On the side of the head of monument 3, two serrated elements on four parallel lines hang. This element ends with a three-tiered element hanging.
In the Olmec writing the serrated elements means Bi, while the boxes under the serrated element within the four parallel lines would represent the words PoPo. This suggest that the name for monument 3 was probably BiPoPo.
The hanging element on monument 3 is similar to one of the signs on the Cascajal tablet. Although symbol 57 on the Cascajal monument is hard to recognize it appears to include the Bi sign on the top of the symbol. This finding indicates that the BiPoPo of monument 3, is most likely the BiPo(Po) mentioned in the Cascajal Tablet.
Cascajal Sign 57
Stirling said that monument 3 was found at the bottom of a deep ravine half-a-mile southwest of the principal mound of San Lorenzo, along with ceramic potsherds. This is interesting because the village of Cascajal is situated southwest of San Lorenzo.
According to reports of the discovery of the road builders who found the Cascajal Tablet, the tablet came from a mound at Cascajal which was located about a mile from San Lorenzo. The coincidence of finding San Lorenzo Monument 3 in the proximity of the Cascajal mound where the Cascajal Tablet was found suggest that these artifacts concern the same personage. This leads to the possibility that the Cascajal mound was the tomb of BiPoPo.
In conclusion the Cascajal Tablet is an obituary for a Olmec ruler named BiPoPo.
Given the presence of similar signs on the Olmec head called San Lorenzo monument 3, which also read BiPoPo suggest that the Cascajal Tablet was written for the personage depicted in Olmec head 3.
Head 3 San Lorenzo
If the Cascajal Tablet really corresponds to one of the Olmec heads suggest that Cascajal may have been a royal burial site. If this is the case it is conceivable that other tablets relating to Olmec rulers may also be found at this locale, since some of these other mounds may be the “hemispheric” tombs of other Olmec rulers.
References to African Inscriptions:
M. Delafosse, Vai leur langue et leur ysteme d'ecriture,L'Anthropologie, 10 (1910).
Lambert, N. (1970). Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4, pp.15-62.
Lambert, N. L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226.
R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);
Kea,R.A. (2004). Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Research, 3, pp.723-816
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: I hope a group of black authors get together and write the definitive book on Egypt as a black civilization. If I were the one writing it I'd call it simply, "Egypt: Land of the Blacks."
See Van Sertima's, Egypt: Child of Africa.........
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 05 October, 2007 03:50 PM:
quote:KemsonReloaded's response to Clyde's usual silly spam: Great stuff!!!
LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
I won't even touch his "Atlantis" theory! Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 05 October, 2007 04:24 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I myself am cautious about Sertima's claims. Not that I don't think it possible that Africans were able to cross the Atlantic as Heyerdahl's Ra expedition shows, or that it's not probable via certain West African legends and even written claims in West African documents.
What is needed even more to corroborate all this is archaeological evidence, and I don't mean slight similarities between Meso-American culture and West African culture. The problem is when you have people like Clyde Winters making claims that Meso-American civilization was founded by West African colonists!
Van Sertima is a respectable scholar I would say. But I'm going to read 'They Came Before Columbus' to see if he provides any archeological evidence. Have you ever heard of the Cocaine Mummies (I'm sure you have)? I think that's in here too and some say that's evidence of New World and Old World contact.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 05 October, 2007 04:38 PM:
^ All I have to say is that Sertima is a hell of alot more respectable scholar than Clyde Winters!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on 05 October, 2007 05:02 PM:
As someone who's neither a linguist, nor anthropologist/archaeologist --or even a scientist/academic for that matter-- I will only say I am convinced for my part that black explorers came to the new world given the evidence mentioned in Seritma's book.
These weren't Africans saying they came to the New World, these were the European explorers in Columbus' coterie who said native Americans they came into contact with told them about Africans and even showed them Africans taken as prisoners and their golden sperheads they (the Native Americans) said the Africans called "guanine," which was of course Columbus learned was the same name the Africans' used for their golden spearheads and even the same metal alloy composition of gold, silver and copper.
Van Sertima's book is solid enough research in my admittedly unqualified opinion. I wouldn't dismiss it.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on 05 October, 2007 05:06 PM:
As for the "cocaine mummies" it's in here, and I read it in some other books as well.
Cocaine is a plant found normally only in the Americas, so how did Egytians come to have traces of it found in their bodies? Apparently Rameses had either cocaine or marijuana in his system.
Oh well, guess the stress of being pharaoh drove some people to need something to help them unwind at the end of the day.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 05 October, 2007 05:37 PM:
^ I've only seen the mention of pharaonic mummies with cocain in their bodies once in a program on TV (I forgot which station). If this was indeed true, then I would have seen more of it on programs let alone be found in more sources.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on 05 October, 2007 05:48 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I've only seen the mention of pharaonic mummies with cocain in their bodies once in a program on TV (I forgot which station). If this was indeed true, then I would have seen more of it on programs let alone be found in more sources.
^^A few references are cited therein also, including a transcript of the video I think you may have seen..
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on 05 October, 2007 06:30 PM:
I've read a few books that have mentioned it. like Gateway to Atlantis by Andrew Collins, which was where I'd first read about the "black" Olmec heads and Ramses alleged drug use.
I believe Graham Hancock mentioned it in one of his books as well. So Van Seritma's not the only one who has said the pharaoh's used coke.
You're never going to learn anything about Egypt by watching TV. I saw a so-called PBS "documentary," "Egypt's Golden Empire," I believe it was called. They were talking about Ramses leading his troops into battle and they described him as being majestic with his red hair flowing in the breeze. Laughable, but that's what they said! I've seen a few depictions of Ramses and NONE of them show him with red hair, much less letting it blow in the wind. I don't know much about Egypt, but I know that! Cecil B Demille didn't get much about the Egyptian right in the Ten Commandments, but at least he got the color of ramses hair right.
And (at the risk of sounding combative) just because someone hadn't heard of something themselves doesn't mean it isn't true, or isn't documented elsewhere as the posts in this thread show. It's always possible that information gets past us, no matter how well-informed we are.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 05 October, 2007 07:14 PM:
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: As for the "cocaine mummies" it's in here, and I read it in some other books as well.
Cocaine is a plant found normally only in the Americas, so how did Egytians come to have traces of it found in their bodies? Apparently Rameses had either cocaine or marijuana in his system.
Oh well, guess the stress of being pharaoh drove some people to need something to help them unwind at the end of the day.
I know the cocaine mummies were mentioned in Black Spark, White Fire.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 10:40 PM:
Islam in America before Columbus Hisham Zoubeir, 14 February 1998
Before I begin this article, I would like to extend my thanks to the creators of the Internet. It was there that I found my research on the topic that follows, and it is to the people who wrote the various articles and references that credit for this article should go to. I merely put two and two together for the benefit of those reading this now.
The history surrounding the followers of our proud faith is one of two shades; the truth and the lie. The lies surrounding our history have been spread to every corner of the globe; that we were and are (?) barbarians, no better than animals. The truth is that although there were certain parts of history that do show that some of our followers were ruthless and brutal (such as the Ottoman Empire), this is not unlike every nation and country in the world. And we have a much more worthy things to focus on.
Before the West declared themselves the great scientists of the earth, before their own Renaissance, Muslims already were making discoveries in science that took the West hundreds of years to even begin to imagine. What a shame that people in Europe were being persecuted by the Church for their suppositions that the earth was round; they should have come to the Islamic world--- an Afghan Muslim had proved that in 793 C.E.!
However, the studying of the universe brought forth more questions, and more curiosity. The Muslims in West Africa were so intrigued by what was on the other side of the Great Sea, that they began their expeditions into the great unknown. Early reports of these travels are sketchy, but we can be sure that they crossed the Atlantic by 889 C.E.
That was 603 years before Columbus. And that is not counting the actual physical evidence in the United States today that dates back even further; however, we do know, as De Lacy O'Leary pointed out, that Muslims definitely had the scientific knowledge and skill to make journeys across the Atlantic ocean.
We were in the Americas, hundreds of years before Columbus, and of that we can be sure. Clyde-Ahmad Winters. Barry Fell. Alexander Von Wuthenau. Ivan Van Sertima. What do they have in common? A lot. They all provided evidence to the above statement; and it is a statement of fact, not an opinion, although many have chosen to ignore it in the past.
Now, we are all aware of the grave tragedy that befell the various African people after the discovery of America. Many people from there were forcefully taken from their homes to America, to serve the people who had taken over that land. Black slavery. We also know, for a fact, that many of these people were indeed Muslims; that has never been in dispute, nor should it be. Clyde Ahmad Winters has given us details of how huge numbers of Muslims were brought to Latin America in a 1978 issue of Al-Ittihad: A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Studies, although later on in 1543, Muslims in Spanish colonies were ejected from them by the residing government.
Dr. Barry Fell, a noted New Zealand archaeologist and linguist of Harvard University showed detailed existing evidence in his work, "Saga America" that Muslims were not only in the Americas before Columbus arrived, but very active there as well. The language of the Pima people in the South West and the Algonquian language had many words in their vocabulary that were Arabic in origin, and Islamic petroglyphs were found in places such as California.
In the Inyo county of the State of California, according to Fell, there is another petroglyph that states, "Yasus bin Maria" which means in Arabic, "Jesus, son of Mary". This is not a Christian phrase; in fact, the phrase is to be found in the verses and ayahs of the Holy Quran. This glyph, as Fell believes, is centuries older than the US. In the Western states of the US he found texts, diagrams and charts engraved on rocks that were used for schooling that dated back to 700-800 C.E. The schooling was in subjects such as mathematics, history, geography, astronomy and sea navigation. The language of instruction was Kufic Arabic, from North Africa.
The German art historian, Alexander Von Wuthenau, also provides evidence that Islamic peoples were in America, in the time between 300 and 900 C.E. This was at least half a millennium before Columbus was born! Carved heads, that were described as "Moorish-looking" were dated between 300 and 900 C.E. and another group of heads dated between 900 and 1500 C.E. An artifact found in the earlier group was photographed, and when later examined was found to resemble an old man in a Fez, like the Egyptians.
Ivan Van Sertima is widely renowned for his work, "They Came Before Columbus" which showed that there was definitely contact between the ancient and early African people with the Native Americans. This and another of his works, "African Presence in Early America" both prove that there were African Muslim settlements in the Americas, before the expedition of Columbus was even conceived. His research has shown that Arab Muslim trade was active in America and one can only imagine that the marvellous culture that the Native Americans had that shared so much with Islamic teachings was of great attraction to the Muslims that came so far across the sea.
And for the record, Christopher Columbus, the man who so-called discovered America, himself declared that his impression of the Carib people (i.e., Caribbean people) were "Mohemmedans." He knew of the Mandinka presence in the New World (Muslims) and that Muslims from the West coast of Africa had settled down in the Carribean, Central, South and North America. Unlike Columbus, they had not come to enslave the populations or plunder the land; they had come to trade and they married among the Natives. Columbus further admitted that on October 21st, 1492, as he was sailing past Gibara on the coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque, and remnants of other masjids have been found in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada.
On the second voyage Columbus took to the West Indies, the people of Haiti told him that "black" people had been there before him. They showed him spears of these visitors, and further study of the metals involved in their construction showed that they could have been made only in one place: Guinea.
Another historian, P.V. Ramos, also showed in his essay in "African Presence in Early America" that the dietary regulations of the Carib were similar to Islamic teachings.
But let us say that we are wrong. Perhaps it is all just a coincidence; after all, there are no living survivors of the Native American Muslims, are they?
Wrong. And this last part is what originally drew me into this quest for knowledge: an exposé written by a Native Muslim.
Brother Mahir Abdal-Razzaaq El wrote in his account, recently posted on the Internet, about the Native Americans that were Muslims. He is of the Cherokee tribe; known as Eagle Sun Walker, and a Pipe Carrier Warrior of the Cherokees in New York. He tells of Muslim travellers that came to his land over one thousand years ago, and what is more important, existing evidence of legislation, treaties and resolutions that prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that Muslims were in the Americas and very active. Although these documents have not been written after 1492, it is still interesting to note that Islam was in fact there. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787 have the signatures of Abdel-Khak and Mohammed Bin Abdulla. According to a federal court case from the Continental Congress,
Native Muslims helped put life into the constitution.
These are a matter of record; they cannot be disputed. Go to the National Archives or the Library of Congress and see for yourself; the Treat of 1987 show that the Natives abided by an Islamic system in commerce, maritime shipping and government. The records of the State of Carolina has the Moors Sundry Act of 1790. The Cherokee Chief of 1866 was a man called Ramadhan Bin Wati. Native clothing up until 1832 was full Islamic wear. The name Tallahassee actually means," Allah will deliver you sometime in the future." In North America, there are no less than 565 names of tribes, villages, cities, mountains and other lands sites of Islamic or Arabic roots.
The truth of Islam and the truth of the Native American culture is one and the same; many people hundreds of years ago realised that. The protection of the land and of the animals; the non-wastage of resources and the non-pollution of nature are all Islamic concepts.
I finish this article with a few Native sayings. And then, I want you to tell me that Islam is not nurtured in the hearts of these people.
"Our belief is that the Great Spirit has created all things. Not just mankind but animals, all plants, all rocks, all on earth and amongst the stars with true soul. For us, all life is holy. All of nature is within us and we are part of all nature." Chief White Cloud
"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night." Crowfoot
"In the life of the Indian there was only one inevitable duty- the duty of prayer - the daily recognition of the Unseen and the Eternal." Ohiyesa
Allahu akbar. Salaam wa allaykum wa rakhmatullah wa barakatu.
When this article was written] Hisham Zoubeir is at the University of Sheffield undertaking a multi-disciplinary degree in law. He has lived in Abu Dhabi, Cairo and London. His main interests delves into peace, equality, righteousness and spirituality.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 10:44 PM:
BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA (MUU-LAN), MEXICO (XI)
Gigantic stone head of Negritic African during the Olmec (Xi) Civilization
By Paul Barton The earliest people in the Americas were people of the Negritic African race, who entered the Americas perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago, by way of the bering straight and about thirty thousand years ago in a worldwide maritime undertaking that included journeys from the then wet and lake filled Sahara towards the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and from West Africa across the Atlantic Ocean towards the Americas. According to the Gladwin Thesis, this ancient journey occurred, particularly about 75,000 years ago and included Black Pygmies, Black Negritic peoples and Black Australoids similar to the Aboriginal Black people of Australia and parts of Asia, including India.
Ancient African terracotta portraits 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C. Recent discoveries in the field of linguistics and other methods have shown without a doubt, that the ancient Olmecs of Mexico, known as the Xi People, came originally from West Africa and were of the Mende African ethnic stock. According to Clyde A. Winters and other writers (see Clyde A. Winters website), the Mende script was discovered on some of the ancient Olmec monuments of Mexico and were found to be identical to the very same script used by the Mende people of West Africa. Although the carbon fourteen testing date for the presence of the Black Olmecs or Xi People is about 1500 B.C., journies to the Mexico and the Southern United States may have come from West Africa much earlier, particularly around five thousand years before Christ. That conclusion is based on the finding of an African native cotton that was discovered in North America. It's only possible manner of arriving where it was found had to have been through human hands. At that period in West African history and even before, civilization was in full bloom in the Western Sahara in what is today Mauritania. One of Africa's earliest civilizations, the Zingh Empire, existed and may have lived in what was a lake filled, wet and fertile Sahara, where ships criss-crossed from place to place.
ANCIENT AFRICAN KINGDOMS PRODUCED OLMEC TYPE CULTURES
The ancient kingdoms of West Africa which occupied the Coastal forest belt from Cameroon to Guinea had trading relationships with other Africans dating back to prehistoric times. However, by 1500 B.C., these ancient kingdoms not only traded along the Ivory Coast, but with the Phoenicians and other peoples. They expanded their trade to the Americas, where the evidence for an ancient African presence is overwhelming. The kingdoms which came to be known by Arabs and Europeans during the Middle Ages were already well established when much of Western Europe was still inhabited by Celtic tribes. By the 5th Century B.C., the Phoenicians were running comercial ships to several West African kingdoms. During that period, iron had been in use for about one thousand years and terracotta art was being produced at a great level of craftsmanship. Stone was also being carved with naturalistic perfection and later, bronze was being used to make various tools and instruments, as well as beautifully naturalistic works of art.
The ancient West African coastal and interior Kingdoms occupied an area that is now covered with dense vegetation but may have been cleared about three to four thousand years ago. This includes the regions from the coasts of West Africa to the South, all the way inland to the Sahara. A number of large kingdoms and empires existed in that area. According to Blisshords Communications, one of the oldest empires and civilizions on earth existed just north of the coastal regions into what is today Mauritania. It was called the Zingh Empire and was highly advanced. In fact, they were the first to use the red, black and green African flag and to plant it throughout their territory all over Africa and the world.
The Zingh Empire existed about fifteen thousand years ago. The only other civilizations that may have been in existance at that period in history were the Ta-Seti civilization of what became Nubia-Kush and the mythical Atlantis civilization which may have existed out in the Atlantic, off the coast of West Africa about ten to fifteen thousand years ago. That leaves the question as to whether there was a relationship between the prehistoric Zingh Empire of West Africa and the civilization of Atlantis, whether the Zingh Empire was actually Atlantis, or whether Atlantis if it existed was part of the Zingh empire. Was Atlantis, the highly technologically sophisticated civilization an extension of Black civilization in the Meso-America and other parts of the Americas?
Stone carving of a Shaman or priest from Columbia's San Agustine Culture
An ancient West African Oni or King holding similar artifacts as the San Agustine culture stone carving of a Shaman
The above ancient stone carvings (500 t0 1000 B.C.) of Shamans of Priest-Kings clearly show distinct similarities in instruments held and purpose. The realistic carving of an African king or Oni and the stone carving of a shaman from Columbia's San Agustin Culture indicates diffusion of African religious practices to the Americas. In fact, the region of Columbia and Panama were among the first places that Blacks were spotted by the first Spanish explorers to the Americas.
From the archeological evidence gathered both in West Africa and Meso-America, there is reason to believe that the African Negritics who founded or influenced the Olmec civilization came from West Africa. Not only do the collosol Olmec stone heads resemble Black Africans from the Ghana area, but the ancient religious practices of the Olmec priests was similar to that of the West Africans, which included shamanism, the study of the Venus complex which was part of the traditions of the Olmecs as well as the Ono and Dogon People of West Africa. The language connection is of significant importance, since it has been found out through decipherment of the Olmec script, that the ancient Olmecs spoke the Mende language and wrote in the Mend script, which is still used in parts of West Africa and the Sahara to this day.
ANCIENT TRADE BETWEEN THE AMERICAS AND AFRICA
The earliest trade and commercial activities between prehistoric and ancient Africa and the Americas may have occurred from West Africa and may have included shipping and travel across the Atlantic. The history of West Africa has never been properly researched. Yet, there is ample evidence to show that West Africa of 1500 B.C. was at a level of civilization approaching that of ancient Egypt and Nubia-Kush. In fact, there were similarities between the cultures of Nubia and West Africa, even to the very similarities between the smaller scaled hard brick clay burial pyramids built for West African Kings at Kukia in pre Christian Ghana and their counterparts in Nubia, Egypt and Meso-America.
Although West Africa is not commonly known for having a culture of pyramid-building, such a culture existed although pyramids were created for the burial of kings and were made of hardened brick. This style of pyramid building was closer to what was built by the Olmecs in Mexico when the first Olmec pyramids were built. In fact, they were not built of stone, but of hardened clay and compact earth.
Still, even though we don't see pyramids of stone rising above the ground in West Africa, similar to those of Egypt, Nubia or Mexico, or massive abilisks, collosal monuments and structures of Nubian and Khemitic or Meso-American civilization. The fact remains, they did exist in West Africa on a smaller scale and were transported to the Americas, where conditions such as an environment more hospitable to building and free of detriments such as malaria and the tsetse fly, made it much easier to build on a grander scale.
Meso-American pyramid with stepped appearance, built about 2500 years ago
Stepped Pyramid of Sakkara, Egypt, built over four thousand years ago, compare to Meso-American pyramid
Large scale building projects such as monuent and pyramid building was most likely carried to the Americas by the same West Africans who developed the Olmec or Xi civilization in Mexico. Such activities would have occurred particularly if there was not much of a hinderance and obstacle to massive, monumental building and construction as there was in the forest and malaria zones of West Africa. Yet, when the region of ancient Ghana and Mauritania is closely examined, evidence of large prehistoric towns such as Kukia and others as well as various monuments to a great civilization existed and continue to exist at a smaller level than Egypt and Nubia, but significant enough to show a direct connection with Mexico's Olmec civilization.
The similarities between Olmec and West African civilization includes racial, religious and pyramid bilding similarities, as well as the similarities in their alphabets and scripts as well as both cultures speaking the identical Mende language, which was once widespread in the Sahara and was spread as far East as Dravidian India in prehistoric times as well as the South Pacific.
During the early years of West African trade with the Americas, commercial seafarers made frequent voyages across the Atlantic. In fact, the oral history of a tradition of seafaring between the Americas and Africa is part of the history of the Washitaw People, an aboriginal Black nation who were the original inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley region, the former Louisiana Territories and parts of the Southern United States. According to their oral traditions, their ancient ships criss-crossed the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Americas on missions of trade and commerce..
Some of the ships used during the ancient times, perhaps earlier than 7000 B.C. (which is the date given for cave paintings of the drawings and paintings of boats in the now dried up Sahara desert) are similar to ships used in parts of Africa today. These ships were either made of papyrus or planks lashed with rope, or hollowed out tree trunks.
These ancient vessels were loaded with all type of trade goods and not only did they criss-cross the Atlantic but they traded out in the Pacific and settled there as well all the way to California. In fact, the tradition of Black seafarers crossing the Pacific back and forth to California is much older than the actual divulgance of that fact to the first Spanish explorers who were told by the American Indians that Black men with curly hair made trips from California's shores to the Pacific on missions of trade.
On the other hand, West African trade with the Americas before Columbus and way back to proto historic times (30,000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C.), is one of the most important chapters in ancient African history. Yet, this era which begun about 30,000 years ago and perhaps earlier (see the Gladwin Thesis, by C.S.Gladwin, Mc Graw Hill Books), has not been part of the History of Blacks in the Americas. Later on in history, particularly during the early Bronze Age.
However, during the latter part of the Bronze Age, particularly between 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C., when the Olmec civilization began to bloom and flourish, new conditions in the Mediterranean made it more difficult for West Africans to trade by sea with the region, although their land trade accross the Sahara was flourishing. By then, Greeks, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians and others were trying to gain control of the sea routes and the trading ports of the region. Conflicts in the region may have pushed the West Africans to strengthen their trans-Atlantic trade with the Americas and to explore and settle there.
Ancient sea-going vessel used by the Egyptians and Nubians in ancient times.
West African Trade and Settlement in the Americas Increases Due to Conflicts in the Mediterranean The flowering of the Olmec Civilization occurred between 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C., when over twenty-two collosal heads of basalt were carved representing the West African Negritic racial type. This flowering continued with the appearance of "Magicians," or Shamanistic Africans who observed and charted the Venus planetary complex (see the pre-Christian era statuette of a West African Shaman in the photograph above) These "Magicians," are said to have entered Mexico from West Africa between 800 B.C. to 600 B.C. and were speakers of the Mende language as well as writers of the Mende script or the Bambara script, both which are still used in parts of West Africa and the Sahara.
These Shamans who became the priestly class at Monte Alban during the 800's to 600's B.C. ( ref. The History of the African-Olmecs and Black Civilization of the Americas From Prehistoric Times to the Present Era), had to have journied across the Atlantic from West Africa, for it is only in West Africa, that the religious practices and astronomical and religious practices and complex (Venus, the Dogon Sirius observation and the Venus worship of the Afro-Olmecs, the use of the ax in the worship of Shango among he Yoruba of West Africa and the use of the ax in Afro-Olmec worship as well as the prominence of the thunder God later known as Tlalock among the Aztecs) are the same as those practiced by the Afro-Olmec Shamans. According to Clyde Ahmed Winters (see "Clyde A. Winters" webpage on "search." Thus, it has been proven through linguistic studies, religious similarities, racial similarities between the Afro-Olmecs and West Africans, as well as the use of the same language and writing script, that the Afro-Olmecs came from the Mende-Speaking region of West Africa, which once included the Sahara.
Sailing and shipbuilding in the Sahara is over twenty thousand years old. In fact, cave and wall paintings of ancient ships were displayed in National Geographic Magazine some years ago. Such ships which carried sails and masts, were among the vessels that swept across the water filled Sahara in prehistoric times. It is from that ship-building tradition that the Bambara used their knowledge to build Thor Hayerdhal's papyrus boat Ra I which made it to the West Indies from Safi in Morroco years ago. The Bambara are also one of the West African nationalities who had and still have a religious and astronomical complex similar to that of the ancient Olmecs, particularly in the area of star gazing.
A journey across the Atlantic to the Americas on a good current during clement weather would have been an easier task to West Africans of the Coastal and riverine regions than it would have been through the use of caravans criss-crossing the hot by day and extremely cold by night Sahara desert. It would have been much easier to take a well made ship, similar to the one shown above and let the currents take it to the West Indies, and may have taken as long as sending goods back and forth from northern and north-eastern Africa to the interior and coasts of West Africa's ancient kingdoms. Add to that the fact that crossing the Sahara would have been no easy task when obsticales such as the hot and dusty environment, the thousands of miles of dust, sand and high winds existed. The long trek through the southern regions of West Africa through vallies, mountains and down the many rivers to the coast using beasts of burden would have been problematic particularly since malaria mosquitoes harmful to both humans and animals would have made the use of animals to carry loads unreliable.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 10:51 PM:
The Olmecs were a culture of ancient Native American Tribes. The were around from 1300-400 B.C of East Mexico.
They are known as the mother culture of the American civilizations. The other name for the Olmec are the Xi also known as the Shi..
The Olmec domain extended from the Tuxtlas mountains in the west to the lowlands of the Chontalpa in the east. over 170 Olmec monuments have been found. They occur at the three large Olmec centers, La Venta , Tabasco ,San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan , Veracruz,, and Lagu los Cerros, Veracruz. These are the three major Olmec centers that are spaced across the east and west across the domain.
The Olmec's were clever mathematics and astronomers who made accurate calendars. The epi-Olmec- from 31B.C - the peoples who subsequently inhabited the same lands and were probably descended at least in part of the Olmec , seem to have been the earliest users and dot system of recording time. The low relief on this stone shows the detail from a four digit numeric recording, read as 15.6.16.18. The Olmecs writing was very unique. The signs are very similar to the writing of West Africa. They also spoke the same language of the West Africans. Both Olmec and epi-Olmec had hieroglyphic writing system. This is a symbolic writing system used in the Olmec heartland from 900 BC-AD 450. The Olmec people introduced writing to the New World. The Olmec script is a logo syllabic script.
The Olmec had a very sophisticated society. The Olmec had developed in the tropical habitat of the Gulf Coast. Some think that they might have developed in another place and just migrated here.
The great Olmec centers that soon developed at La Venta , San Lorenza and Laguna de los Cerros , and the smaller centers such as Tres Zapote. Their not simply vacant sites , but dynamic settlements that include artisans and farmers , as well as religious specialist and the rulers. The Olmec both includes both public -ceremonial buildings , elite residences , and houses of commoners. Olmec public-ceremonial buildings were most typically earthen platform mounds, some larger then others. At La Venta we can see that after 900 B.C. such platform mounds were arranged around large plaza areas and include a new type of architecture.
An important feature at Olmec centers was their buried network of stone drain lines U-shaped rectangular blocks of basalt laid end and covered with capstones. The new San Lorenzo research suggest those systems were actually aqueducts used to provide drinking water to the different areas of the settlement. Some of the aqueducts stones such as San Lorenzo Monument 52, were also monuments, showing that aqueduct system had a secret charact as well.
Rubber ball games have great antiquity throughout the Americas, and the recent discovery of several rubber balls at the Olmec site of El Manati, near San Lorenzo, confirms that the game was played by the Olmec. Archeologists working at La Venta twenty years ago discovered what they hypostasized were the remains of a ball court there, and it was possible that such ball courts were also part of the architecture at Olmec centers.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 10:59 PM:
There is a general consensus that the Olmec spoke a language in the Mixe-Zoquean family, although the evidence is limited.
The Olmec may have been the first Mesoamericans to develop a writing system, but no examples of it have yet been found. At the present time, there is some debate as to whether or not symbols found in 2002 dated to 650 BC are actually a form of Olmec writing preceding the oldest Zapotec writing dated to about 500 BC.
There are other later hieroglyphs known as "Epi-Olmec". "Epi-Olmec" means "post Olmec", and while there are some who believe that Epi-Olmec may represent a transitional script between an earlier, unknown Olmec writing system and Maya writing, the matter is for the time being unsettled. Epi-Olmec Script The Olmec writing system is unique. The Signs are similar to the writing used by the Vai people of West Africa. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa.
Both the Olmec and epi-Olmec had hieroglyphic writing systems. Olmec is a syllabic writing system used in the Olmec heartland from 900 BC- AD 450.
The Olmec people introduced writing to the New World. The Olmec script is a logosyllabic script. The Olmec had both a syllabic and hieroglyphic script. The hieroglyphic signs were simply Olmec syllabic signs used to make pictures. There are two forms of Olmec hieroglyphic writing : the pure hieroglyphics ( or picture signs); and the phonetic hieroglyphics, which are a combination of syllabic and logographic signs.
The decipherment of the Olmec writing of ancient Mexico provides us with keen insight into the world of the Olmec.
Scholars have long recognized that the Olmecs engraved many symbols or signs on pottery, statuettes, batons/scepters, stelas and bas reliefs that have been recognized as a possible form of writing.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 11:04 PM:
WRITING
The Olmec Writing is Unique. The Signs are similar to the writing used by the Vai people of West Africa. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa.
web page Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 05 October, 2007 11:11 PM:
Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 06 October, 2007 12:49 AM:
quote:The earliest people in the Americas were people of the Negritic African race, who entered the Americas perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago,
It's true that the America's were settled in the paleolithic - perhaps as early as 30 thousand years ago, but not anywhere near 100 thousand years.
quote: by way of the bering straight and about thirty thousand years ago in a worldwide maritime undertaking that included journeys from the then wet and lake filled Sahara towards the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and from West Africa across the Atlantic Ocean towards the Americas.
This is kind of a convoluted half/truth. For example that could describe the peopling of the whole world from Africa which is....ultimately true.
quote:According to the Gladwin Thesis, this ancient journey occurred, particularly about 75,000 years ago and included Black Pygmies, Black Negritic peoples and Black Australoids similar to the Aboriginal Black people of Australia and parts of Asia, including India.
Again, some truth....75,000 years ago all people lived in Africa, and 1st begin migrating out to populate the world.
quote: Recent discoveries in the field of linguistics and other methods have shown without a doubt, that the ancient Olmecs of Mexico
How do we get from 75,000 years to Olmec aka 3000 years ago?
Sure Olmec civilization ultimately descendants from 80000 year old Africans.... so does Chinese and Japanese, and modern Russia, and everyone else on earth?
How does this help to show a demic diffusive relationship between historical West Africa and Olmec?
This the kind of misleading discourse that confuses and otherwise drives the bizarre-pseudo history of Marc Washington.
quote:Xi People, came originally from West Africa and were of the Mende African ethnic stock. According to Clyde A. Winters and other writers (see Clyde A. Winters website), the Mende script was discovered on some of the ancient Olmec monuments of Mexico and were found to be identical to the very same script used by the Mende people of West Africa.
Yes, according to you, but that is what is in dispute. You can't quote yourself as evidence per se, that's a tautology.
quote: Although the carbon fourteen testing date for the presence of the Black Olmecs or Xi People is about 1500 B.C., journies to the Mexico and the Southern United States may have come from West Africa much earlier, particularly around five thousand years before Christ. That conclusion is based on the finding of an African native cotton that was discovered in North America.
Cotton is also Native to the America's and Native American cotton is cultivated *by* Native Americans. It isn't clear that native Americans cultivated *African* cotton.
At least seven genomes, designated A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, are found in the genus (Endrizzi, 1984). Diploid species (2n=26) are found on all continents. Four species of Gossypium occur in the United States, are known as cotton, which is grown primarily for the seed hairs that are made into textiles. More later....
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 06 October, 2007 01:21 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 06 October, 2007 03:33 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
Ouch...lol. I wanted to get into a logical discussion about trans-atlantic contact. Not definitively saying things like "the Olmecs spoke Mande." Most (if not all) Meso-American scholars know very little about the Olmecs and who they were. You're not even a Meso-American scholar Clyde and you claim to know it all...you have it all figured out huh.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 06 October, 2007 07:26 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
I had nothing to do with the sites quoted above. These pages were produced by independent researchers who find my research convincing.
Please cite a linguist that disputes my conclusion, and provide the full citation.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 06 October, 2007 10:47 AM:
Hi Dr. Winters.
I'm actually going to assist you with something I found in your favor, at least documenting that you are not the -only one- to reach some of these conclusions...
History of Olmec Civilization
Who were the Olmecs? Little is know of them but they are believed to have been the first civilization to have a written language, cultivated and utilized the cacao tree, and generally were the forerunners of subsequent inhabitants of Mexico.
Enlarge ImageA History of Olmec Civilization. The first relatively modern awakening to the existence of the Olmecs was when plantation workers in 1862 came upon hat they thought was a large, buried, iron kettle. Upon further excavation, and driven by thoughts of buried treasure, they finally excavated a huge stone carved head, which turned out to be the first Olmec sculpture to be discovered in Mexico.
OLMEC ORIGINS. Who were the Olmecs? What is known about them is that they preceded the Mayans in Mesoamaerica, and are thought to be the foundation of all subsequent cultures in that part of the Americas, though there is evidence of humans going back to 20,000 B.C. There will always be differing opinions when it comes to dates, but the Olmes are believed to have originated in around 1250 B.C. and disappeared around 400 B.C. A common feature with theirs and later civilizations were that they:-
Followed a 365 day year. Built pyramids. Cultivated corn. All had similar religious rituals and the same Gods of fertility, war, sky & nature.
Regarding the thick-lipped Negroid features of their carvings, some researchers postulate that the Olmecs originally came from Africa, and indeed their language is very similar to that spoken today in Mali. Details of facial scaring & lines on Olmec statues also bear similarities to tribal marks found among the Yoruba peoples of West Africa. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2005-82836.asp Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on 06 October, 2007 11:11 AM:
You guys (namely Clyde) are aware that Van Sertima's research consists of much more than Pre-Columbian contact theories between Africans and Native Americans, right? Though I am convinced to a certain extent that Malian/Mande sailors reached America before Christopher (there's a lot of circumstantial evidence), I find Van sertima's "Afrikans in science" a lot more useful (maybe not as romantic), not to mention his contributions to the question (or better yet the answer) of ancient Egypt.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on 06 October, 2007 12:02 PM:
A Kem post.^^
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: You guys (namely Clyde) are aware that Van Sertima's research consists of much more than Pre-Columbian contact theories between Africans and Native Americans, right? Though I am convinced to a certain extent that Malian/Mande sailors reached America before Christopher (there's a lot of circumstantial evidence), I find Van sertima's "Afrikans in science" a lot more useful (maybe not as romantic), not to mention his contributions to the question (or better yet the answer) of ancient Egypt.
Not from having read them( now I definitely will), but from the title's alone, I agree full heartedly.
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: As for the "cocaine mummies" it's in here, and I read it in some other books as well.
Cocaine is a plant found normally only in the Americas, so how did Egytians come to have traces of it found in their bodies? Apparently Rameses had either cocaine or marijuana in his system.
Oh well, guess the stress of being pharaoh drove some people to need something to help them unwind at the end of the day.
I know the cocaine mummies were mentioned in Black Spark, White Fire.
^^ Yup.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 06 October, 2007 02:17 PM:
quote:'Did Roman explorers discover America 1,300 years ahead of Christopher Columbus' was the headline on page 25 of the DAILY MAIL for Thursday, 10 February 2000. On the same day THE EXPRESS ran a story on page 28 under the banner `Oldest Latin in America: Bust may prove Romans got there first'.
Both stories sought to highlight claims being made in the new issue of the magazine NEW SCIENTIST concerning the recent realisation that a small ceramic head found in 1933 at a site in the Toluca Valley, 72 kilometres west of Mexico City, is in fact Roman in origin.(1) A dating process known as thermoluminescence, which determines the age of ceramics, has found that the tiny bust is approximately 1800 years old. How it might have reached Mexico is the big mystery. The implication, however, is that the head, which shows a full-bearded individual in typical Latin style, was introduced to the New World prior to the age of Columbus.
David Kelley, an archaeologist at Canada's University of Calgary stated that the bust was found 'sealed under three floors. It is as close to archaeological certainty as you can get'.(2)
Such statements led anthropologist Roman Hristow, formerly of the Southern Methodist University, to conclude that the bust is firm evidence of transatlantic contact between the Old and New World as early as AD 200.(3) Having become interested in the Roman piece, he managed to track it down to a museum in Mexico City, where it had remained since its discovery.
It was the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, who conducted the tests which determined the age of the bust. Afterwards art experts were more willing to accept that it was of Roman manufacture. Hristow who then checked original excavation reports and realised that the bust must have been buried at least nine years before the arrival in Mexico of Hernando Cortés in 1519.
Yet this realisation begs the real question of whether or not Roman explorers were making journeys to the Americas around AD 200.Betty Meggers, an anthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, has stated that: `I see no reason why ancient contact is not possible'.(4) She herself has made an extensive study of the similarities between the prehistoric pottery of the Joman culture of Japan and the Valdivia culture of Ecuador. This she believes is evidence of transpacific contact with the Americas as early as 3000 BC.
In contrast, other archaeologists remain sceptical over the claims being made by scholars such as Hristow and Meggers. Andrew Selkirk, the editor of CURRENT ARCHAEOLOGY, is of the opinion that: `It is a big leap to claim that the Romans reached Mexico City when scientists are not certain whether they even reached the Canary Islands.
'You could imagine a ship being wrecked off Newfoundland and you could argue that it had been blown across the ocean, but to claim that a boat got as far as Mexico sounds a bit over the top'.
Indeed, Selkirk even went so far as to say: `It could have been dropped out of someone's pocket in the 1930s or [was] put there as a spoof. If you had three similar finds in three different places, then maybe that would be more credible'.(5)
On a slightly different tack, David Grove, an archaeologist with the University of Illinois, while accepting that the head is Roman, suggests that it could have been taken from a shipwreck during some later age. If this were so, it would remove any significance the bust might play in re-interpreting the history of Mexico.(6) He also points out that there is no significant evidence of the influence of Old World cultures on the development of Mesoamerican civilisations prior to the age of Columbus.(7)
Speaking in the wake of lingering rumours and stories of Roman wrecks awaiting investigation off the coasts of Central and South America, Simon Keay, a Roman expert at Southampton University, says that although evidence of Roman contact has been found as far east as India, there are no records of trading routes to the Americas.(8)
A Mystery of Two Heads
The idea of transoceanic contact between the ancient world and the Americas is a subject crucial to our understanding of how Plato came to write his account of an Atlantic island called Atlantis in around 350 BC. There is every reason to suppose that in order to construct the story he drew on vague maritime knowledge concerning what lay on the western Atlantic seaboard - information that most probably filtered into the Mediterranean world via Phoenicians from Spain and Carthaginian traders from North Africa.
Indeed, I feature the bust in the chapter of GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS entitled `Shipwrecks and Sailors'. After highlighting the discovery of North African amphorae disgorged from possible Roman wrecks in the so-called Bay of Jars outside of Rio de Janeiro during the 1980s, I introduce the evidence for Roman contact with Mexico. I cite the fired clay bricks used to construct various classical Maya sites in the Yucatán peninsular, in particular the great city of Comalcalco. The walls of its great palace show a remarkable similarity to fired clay structures of the Roman world, while maker's marks have been said to resemble characters from a south-east Asian script. This is territory dealt with in extraordinary detail by British transoceanic expert David Eccott and American archaeologist Neil Steede.
I go on to cite the tiny sculpted Roman head highlighted in the NEW SCIENTIST article and in subsequent national news stories in British papers such as THE DAILY MAIL and THE EXPRESS. The ceramic piece came originally from a site named Calixtlahuaca, located some 72 kilometres west of Mexico City. It was excavated in 1933 by archaeologist José Garcia Payón of Mexico's National Museum. According to the reports, it was found, along with various grave goods, in a truncated pyramid structure dating to the twelfth century and belonging to the Toltec culture which thrived during this era. This would then imply that the Roman bust could have been in Mexico for up to 1,000 years, not simply nine or ten years as has been claimed by anthropologist Roman Hristow. Initially it was thought that this fascinating artefact, which takes the form of a terracotta vessel several centimetres in height, is the one pictured in several books on transoceanic contact with a bushy beard and conical cap, like the Phrygian caps worn by the classical gods Perseus and Mithras.(9)
Yet the Roman bust that appeared originally in the NEW SCIENTIST article, and subsequently in THE EXPRESS, was an entirely different one without a hat and with much sharper features. After some initial confusion it has now been established that this picture had nothing whatsoever to do with the Calixtlahuaca head, and was used simply, and rather sloppily, to illustrate the news story.(10)
American Odyssey
So how might this priceless Roman artefact have come to be in Mexico in the first place? Austrian orientalist and anthropologist Dr Robert Heine-Geldern, a believer in transpacific contact in pre-Columbian times, was of the opinion in an article published in 1961 that the bust - which he describes as wearing a `Pylos', a knitted cap favoured among sailors from the Greek seaport of Pylos - had come across originally from Indo-China, where Roman artefacts have occasional been found.(11) In his view, it reached India via trade links with the Roman Empire, and then had been traded on to Indo-Chinese cultures in Southeast Asia who were themselves making transoceanic journeys during this age.(12) It was in this way that the head had reached Mexico, and not through direct Roman contact with the Americas.
I have no objection to the view that Roman explorers, or indeed traders, might have made transpacific journeys to Mexico as early as AD 200. However, we must also not ignore the clear evidence for transatlantic contact by Romans during this same epoch. We have the evidence of the amphorae and possible wrecks (yes, wrecks in plural) awaiting investigation off the coast of Brazil. There is another Roman wreck lying off the coast of Honduras in Central America. As early as 1976 it was disgorging amphorae which have been determined to be of Punic, i.e. North African, origin (See GATEWAY ATLANTIS).
There is also the case of the Roman coin hoard found washed up in a jar on a beach in north-east Venezuela. The age of the coins span an immensely-long period that stretches between the reign of Caesar Augustus (63 BC-AD 14) and a date of around AD 350. Since the hoard includes many duplicates, there seems very little likelihood that it could have been a discarded or buried collection of colonial origin, or that it might have been part of a national treasure trove on its way either to or from the New World. What seems more likely is that it is the wealth of a Roman trader lost overboard when his ship was wrecked sometime around AD 350. Remember, a vessel that follows the North Equatorial Current westwards from the Cape Verdes will be carried directly to the northern coast of Venezuela, almost precisely where the hoard was found. The coins are now in the possession of the Smithsonian Institution.(13)
In addition to this evidence there are numerous examples of Roman amphorae and coins having been found in New England, indicating that Roman vessels were also using the so-called Northwest Passage to reach North America via the Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Lastly, the sheer fact that Dr Heine-Geldern cites the fact that the Calixtlahuaca head sports a cap found among the sailors of Pylos hints at a possible maritime connection between this object and its arrival in Mexico. Pylos, by the way, was a town of Messenia, located on the western coast of the Peloponnesus, opposite the island of Sphacteria in the Ionian Sea.
So when considering the possibility of Roman contact across the Pacific, one should also not forget the Atlantic trade routes that were inherited by the Romans most probably from the Berbers and Taureg peoples of North Africa after the fall of Carthage in 147 BC.
With respect to Simon Keay's statement in the DAILY MAIL to the effect that there is no evidence of trade routes to the Americas I need only to cite the words of Statius Sebosus, a Roman geographer quoted in the works of Caius Solinus and Pliny the Elder. He recorded that the islands of the Hesperides lay 40 days' sail beyond the Gorgades. Since it can be adequately demonstrated that the Gorgades, or the islands of the Gorgons, were the Cape Verde islands, located off the coast of Senegal in West Africa, and the Hesperides were located in the Far West, there is every reason to believe that Sebosus was alluding to a transatlantic journey time between Africa and the West Indies. The Hesperides were certainly taken to be the West Indies by Spanish explorers and chroniclers shortly after the discovery of the New World, and there is every reason to believe that they got it right.
Solinus and Pliny would seem to have preserved a knowledge of transatlantic contact either prior to or contemporary with Sebosus' lifetime (he is thought to have lived in c. 100 BC). If so, then who exactly was making these journeys? Was it the Romans, or could Sebosus have been recalling much earlier journeys made to and from the West Indies by Iberic Phoenicians and Carthaginians?
With respect to the statement made by David Grove of the University of Illinois to the effect that although the Calixtlahuaca bust is Roman it could have come from a Roman shipwreck, I can say only this. If it did come from a shipwreck then it is yet further evidence that Roman vessels reached as far as Mexico. However, I feel it is far more likely that goods for trade were brought to the American mainland by Roman explorers in the time period of its manufacture. I cannot accept that the Roman head was introduced to the site during excavations in the 1930s, or that it is part of some kind of elaborate hoax.
What seems most important is that some scholars are now openly accepting that an item of Roman manufacture has been found through professional excavations at an archaeological site of Mesoamerican origin that predates the time of the conquest. This is an incredible revelation and one which is as significant as the announcement in the 1960s that evidence of Viking occupation had been found at a site named l'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. Previous to this time scholars have always considered that Roman artifacts found in the Americas were either dropped accidentally or planted deliberately in colonial times.
Posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on 06 October, 2007 03:11 PM:
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 06 October, 2007 03:47 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: You guys (namely Clyde) are aware that Van Sertima's research consists of much more than Pre-Columbian contact theories between Africans and Native Americans, right? Though I am convinced to a certain extent that Malian/Mande sailors reached America before Christopher (there's a lot of circumstantial evidence), I find Van sertima's "Afrikans in science" a lot more useful (maybe not as romantic), not to mention his contributions to the question (or better yet the answer) of ancient Egypt.
Yes I know about Ivan's research. In fact I was one of the founders of journal he published formany years. In addition, I know you probably read my article in the book you cite.
But you also have to rememberthat Ivan did very little original research outside of the fore mentioned book. His contribution to most of the books/Journals he published was usually only the introduction where he summarizes the works in the Journal/Books.
.
Posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on 06 October, 2007 04:30 PM:
I read Ivan Van Sertima's Columbus book and others too. It's a good book.
While some of you doubt the truth of this history, others have copied the idea.
The Lost Treasure of King Juba: The Evidence of Africans in America before Columbus (Paperback) by Frank Joseph (Author)
Editorial Reviews
Review The Bookwatch, October 2003, Vol.25 No.10 : "Frank Joseph provides an inheritently interesting and iconoclastic discourse on the evidence of Africans in America before Columbus."
Marquette Monthly, October 2003 : "Joseph's new book puts it all together. He gives an historical background of the people who are the cave's history."
Steven Sora, author of Secret Societies of America’s Elite : “Here is both a fascinating chronicle of one of history’s greatest treasure stories and a paradigm-shattering tale of a pre-columbian expedition to the New World. No one interested in the real story of America’s prehistory can afford to ignore this book.”
Convergence, Vol.13 Issue1 : "If you enjoy a good non-fiction mystery, a kind of arm chair treasure hunt, and are a bit of a closet archaeologist or a medievalist to boot, this is a book for you. Fascinating reading."
Book Description
The story of a mysterious southern Illinois treasure cave and its proof of the presence of Africans in North America long before Columbus.
• Includes over 100 photographs of the artifacts discovered.
• Re-creates the historic voyage of King Juba and his Mauretanian sailors across the Atlantic to rebuild their society in the New World.
• Explains the mystery of the Washitaws, a tribal group of African origin, first encountered by the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
In 1982 Russell E. Burrows, a treasure hunter in southern Illinois, stumbled on a cache of ancient weapons, jewels, and gold sarcophagi in a remote cave. There also were stone tablets inscribed with illustrations of Roman-like soldiers, Jews, early Christians, and West African sailors. These relics fueled a bitter controversy in the archaeological community regarding their authenticity, leading Burrows to destroy the entrance to the cave.
Researching more than 7,000 artifacts removed from the cave before it was sealed, Frank Joseph explains how these objects came to be buried in the middle of the United States. It started with Cleopatra, whose daughter was made queen of the semi-independent realm of Mauretania, present-day Morocco, which she ruled with her husband, King Juba II. Following the execution of their son, Ptolemy, by Emperor Caligula, the Mauretanians rebelled against their Roman overlords and made their way into what is now Ghana. There they constructed a fleet of ships for a transatlantic voyage to a land where they hoped to rebuild their kingdom safe from Roman rule. They took with them a great prize unsuccessfully sought by two Roman emperors: Cleopatra's golden treasure and King Juba's encyclopedic library of ancient wisdom.
Fully illustrated with many previously unpublished photographs of artifacts retrieved from the southern Illinois site, The Lost Treasure of King Juba is a compelling story that could force us to rethink the early history of our nation and the possibility that Africans arrived on our continent nearly fifteen centuries before Columbus.
Evidence of Mauretanians in the Midwest, September 21, 2003 By B.P. "tilley_traveler" (Wisconsin, United States) - See all my reviews
Accidentally found by an amateur named Russell Burrows, the extraordinary collection of artifacts taken from a cave in southern Illinois has been believed to be a fake and a hoax. Viewed with much opposition and skepticism by many lofty archeological experts. A large subterranean crypt which is accounted to contain gold statues, sarcophagi, coins and medallions, uncut diamonds and inscribed scrolls among many other valuable antiquities. But the most intriguing artifacts to come out of Burrows Cave are the hundreds of portrait stones. All depicting men and women in more than just Roman, Egyptian, Phoenician, Numidian and Hebrew appearances as well as their written languages. This mixture of ancient society found in one unusual setting seems all too good to be true, as nothing else like it has ever been found in the New World. But the author presents a large amount of curious evidence in how authenticity is considered possible, and explains the important links to pre-Columbian history. He tells of many other significant findings made in Illinois, North America, South America and the Old World that provide factual support for verification. Bringing it all together effectively with great persuasive detail. The author begins with a thorough history of King Juba II and how he and his wife, Cleopatra Selene became rulers of ancient Mauretania in North Africa. Then continues to explain the war waged by Rome against this semi-independent nation and it's effects, or the Mauertanian exodus it caused. All of these events the author illustrates in a slightly dramatized manner. With the majority of chapters that follow, he focuses on the Illinois site; it's relics and the comments of various experts, while giving his own viewpoints and understandings. The information is arranged well with perfect quotes at the start of each chapter, plenty of black and white photos and a summarizing timeline. Because there is still much that remains untold and undiscovered on the subject, could be why the book wasn't closed with a strong conclusion. And I also felt that a few more maps, besides the one of Illinois would have been beneficial to the book. But otherwise I was pleased with it overall.
Whether the existence of a "treasure house of gold" remains entirely true or not, it still is a very interesting and educational read. Even the actions and nature of Mr. Burrows, and the trouble he caused interested investigators, makes it read almost something like a fiction novel. And as controversial as theories can be, it still is a story that shouldn't be ignored or remain lost in time. For starters, Frank Joseph's book will entice your curiosity.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on 06 October, 2007 04:37 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes I know about Ivan's research. In fact I was one of the founders of journal he published formany years. In addition, I know you probably read my article in the book you cite.
I wasn't aware of that. You're referring to the Journal of African Civilization, correct? Yes, I know of your article, a lot of it in fact can be accessed from the book here, also.
quote:But you also have to rememberthat Ivan did very little original research outside of the fore mentioned book. His contribution to most of the books/Journals he published was usually only the introduction where he summarizes the works in the Journal/Books.
This is true is essence for a lot of his publications. I'd think of him like a Theodore Celenko, yet more involved. To his credit he does usually contribute to his projects and his bibliography is pretty solid. His seminars are really good aswell..
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 06 October, 2007 05:06 PM:
^^ I've heard about the King Juba story. A lot of people view the Burrow's Cave findings as fraudulent though.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 06 October, 2007 10:23 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes I know about Ivan's research. In fact I was one of the founders of journal he published formany years. In addition, I know you probably read my article in the book you cite.
I wasn't aware of that. You're referring to the Journal of African Civilization, correct? Yes, I know of your article, a lot of it in fact can be accessed from the book here, also.
quote:But you also have to rememberthat Ivan did very little original research outside of the fore mentioned book. His contribution to most of the books/Journals he published was usually only the introduction where he summarizes the works in the Journal/Books.
This is true is essence for a lot of his publications. I'd think of him like a Theodore Celenko, yet more involved. To his credit he does usually contribute to his projects and his bibliography is pretty solid. His seminars are really good aswell..
Ivan was a good popularizer of Africalogical themes. His contacts developed during his speaking engagements was an excellent foundation to ensure a wide readership for the Journal of African Civilization.
Ivan could only read English. This limited his ability to conduct original research.
His studies of Blacks in ancient America was handicapped by the fact that he did no know that Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America, was a three volume set. Ivan only read volume 1, and therefore he did not know about the influence of the Mande people in Meso-America.
Many people believed that Ivan knew much about ancient history due to his lectures. They did not know that Ivan usually just repeated what he had heard or was published in the journal.
Due to Ivan's failure to do original research he was not able to defend many of the theories he was associated with when Eurocentrists began to attack the field in the 1990's. This made it appear that Africalogical studies were groundless.
.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 07 October, 2007 01:33 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes I know about Ivan's research. In fact I was one of the founders of journal he published formany years. In addition, I know you probably read my article in the book you cite.
I wasn't aware of that. You're referring to the Journal of African Civilization, correct? Yes, I know of your article, a lot of it in fact can be accessed from the book here, also.
quote:But you also have to rememberthat Ivan did very little original research outside of the fore mentioned book. His contribution to most of the books/Journals he published was usually only the introduction where he summarizes the works in the Journal/Books.
This is true is essence for a lot of his publications. I'd think of him like a Theodore Celenko, yet more involved. To his credit he does usually contribute to his projects and his bibliography is pretty solid. His seminars are really good aswell..
Ivan was a good popularizer of Africalogical themes. His contacts developed during his speaking engagements was an excellent foundation to ensure a wide readership for the Journal of African Civilization.
Ivan could only read English. This limited his ability to conduct original research.
His studies of Blacks in ancient America was handicapped by the fact that he did no know that Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America, was a three volume set. Ivan only read volume 1, and therefore he did not know about the influence of the Mande people in Meso-America.
Many people believed that Ivan knew much about ancient history due to his lectures. They did not know that Ivan usually just repeated what he had heard or was published in the journal.
Due to Ivan's failure to do original research he was not able to defend many of the theories he was associated with when Eurocentrists began to attack the field in the 1990's. This made it appear that Africalogical studies were groundless.
.
Are you saying you're better than him? Am I feeling some scholarly "beef" brewing...lol? Truth is, many scholars of ALL fields do this...because at the end of the day most aren't well-versed in ALL aspects of various scientific fields. When you combine linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and now genetics.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 October, 2007 04:13 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I myself am cautious about Sertima's claims. . . . .
What is needed even more to corroborate all this is archaeological evidence, and I don't mean slight similarities between Meso-American culture and West African culture.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 08:35 AM:
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes I know about Ivan's research. In fact I was one of the founders of journal he published formany years. In addition, I know you probably read my article in the book you cite.
I wasn't aware of that. You're referring to the Journal of African Civilization, correct? Yes, I know of your article, a lot of it in fact can be accessed from the book here, also.
quote:But you also have to rememberthat Ivan did very little original research outside of the fore mentioned book. His contribution to most of the books/Journals he published was usually only the introduction where he summarizes the works in the Journal/Books.
This is true is essence for a lot of his publications. I'd think of him like a Theodore Celenko, yet more involved. To his credit he does usually contribute to his projects and his bibliography is pretty solid. His seminars are really good aswell..
Ivan was a good popularizer of Africalogical themes. His contacts developed during his speaking engagements was an excellent foundation to ensure a wide readership for the Journal of African Civilization.
Ivan could only read English. This limited his ability to conduct original research.
His studies of Blacks in ancient America was handicapped by the fact that he did no know that Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America, was a three volume set. Ivan only read volume 1, and therefore he did not know about the influence of the Mande people in Meso-America.
Many people believed that Ivan knew much about ancient history due to his lectures. They did not know that Ivan usually just repeated what he had heard or was published in the journal.
Due to Ivan's failure to do original research he was not able to defend many of the theories he was associated with when Eurocentrists began to attack the field in the 1990's. This made it appear that Africalogical studies were groundless.
.
Are you saying you're better than him? Am I feeling some scholarly "beef" brewing...lol? Truth is, many scholars of ALL fields do this...because at the end of the day most aren't well-versed in ALL aspects of various scientific fields. When you combine linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and now genetics.
I don't have a scholarly beef with Ivan. I loved his book, but I know it would have been better if he had read all three volumes of Africa and the discovery of America, by Leo Wiener.
I am versed in many fields. This results from the fact that when I was in undergraduate school I studied anthropology,political science, sociology and history. For my first Master's degree I studied Linguistics and Anthropology, my minor was Swahili. I got both degrees in June 1973, so I was very familiar with these fields when I began to write on Afrocentric history after University.
I studied French for 4 years in High School, and I picked up Arabic from the Muslims while I was growing up. My study of Arabic was supplemented by self-study at the University of Illinois. This was supplemented by studying African History under Charles Stewart, who specialized in African Islamic history. Under Stewart I studied West African Arabic documents in French. This meant that I was able to research sources many other scholars might miss because I could find information in non-English sources.
I did not go to the University of Illinois without a plan. I wanted to be the best teacher of Afro-American and African history in the world.
In High School the most important book in 1968 was the Man Who Cried I am. In this book the author discussed the King Alfred Plan, which was alledgely a plan to put Black Americans in Camps and kill us off. Although this was the theme, the main character of the book wondered why the Chinese and West Africans shared similar cultures and wore identical straw hats. The main character also wondered what was in the Yemeni Archives that could tell us about the role of Blacks in the Indian Ocean.
After reading this book I was on a mission to discover three things: 1) where my slave ancestors came from, 2) why did the people of China and West Africa share the same cultural items, and 3) what was the role of Blacks in the Indian Ocean. I completed a preliminary study of Blacks in the Indian Ocean in my master's thesis titled Zanj to Zanj. In this paper I discussed all of the Black nations that formerly existed in the Indian Ocean from Abyssinia and the Swahili cities to Southeast Asia and southern China. If you look at my work you will find that I have mainly been interested in these topics throughout my career.
I was never formerly trained to be an Afrocentric scholar. I had to learn the methods of Afrocentric research from my elders. My favorite researcher was J.A. Rogers. I noticed from his books that he always included sources written in French and German. This made me recognize right away that if I wanted to accurately research the history of Blacks in Ancient times, I had to learn various languages. As a result, when I studied Blacks in China, I had to get at least a reading knowledge of Chinese, to know the Dravidians I studied Tamil and Dravidian linguistics generally.
Sometimes its hard to believe that I am writing about the Olmecs today, since my main interest was the history of Blacks in Asia. What happened though, was I became very interested in the African discovery of America. At U of Illinois-Urbana I found the entire set of Leo Wiener's book. In volume 3, he mentioned the role of the Mande in the Americas, and the fact that they had their own writing system and that the engravings on the Tuxtla statutte were identical to the writing of the Mande speaking people. This fact was also commented on by Harold G. Lawrence, African Explorers of the New World, The Crisis, 69 (6):321-332. This made me decide to learn Malinke-Bambara so I could attempt to read the Olmec writing. Later I learned about the Vai writing system and decided to attempt to read the Olmec symbols by giving them the values from the Vai: Success.
To make sure Leo Wiener was right about the relationship between the Mayans and Mande speakers I studied the Mayan languages and determined that Malinke-Bambara is a substratum language of the Mayan group.
Later, researchers claimed that the Mixe languages were related to Olmec. I studied the Mixe group and found that this group was also related to the Malinke-Bambara group. Today we know that the Olmec did not speak Mixe, and the researchers who claimed they did have been proven to be wrong.
I had already read Obenga's work at University. From his book I learned that Dravidian and African languages were related. This was important because, when I discovered the people of the Indus Valley had their own writing and the signs compared favorably to the Vai writing I hypothesized that I could probably read the Indus Valley writing if I gave the Indus Valley signs the value of the Vai script, but reading the signs in Tamil-since Dravidian languages were related to West Atlantic and Mande languages .Success. I was able to decipher the Indus Valley writing.
During this same period (early 1980's) I began to seriously study Dravidian linguistics. As a result, of my research I began to write on the relationship between Japanese and Tamil, since the theme had been commented on by Japanese linguists. Again,since the Dravidian and Mande languages were related I hypothesized that Japanese must also be related to Mande. Success. I was able to confirm these theory and published my results in Japanese journal.
By 1983-84 I was primarially working on the Indus Script and Meroitic, since there were few if any Olmec text published before the 1990's. This meant that for the next decade I was mainly writing about Dravidian linguistics/History/ Anthropology and Meroitic.
In 1991 I returned to writing on ancient African history because Afrocentrism was being attacked and Ivan and Hunter Adams were unable to defend the field.
see: Jerry Adler, African Dreams, Newsweek, 23 September 1991: pp.42-49.
People began to attack the field because of Hunter Adams. I had worked with Hunter in the 1970's. Both of us met Ivan at the Kametic Institute in 75 or 76. In fact I translated the French material on the Dogon.
Hunter was a janitor at Argonne. He could have got his degree paid for by the U. of Chicago, that managed Argonne, but Hunter was hard headed and refused to do so. Although Hunter was only a janitor, he pretended he was a professional scientists. I don't know if Ivan knew Hunter was only a janitor, and not a professional scientists. Hunter began to talk about the Dogon in 1983 on a regular basis. There was no reason except laziness that Hunter did not earn a degree by 1991.
Erich Martel, investigated Hunter's background and Ivan and Hunter were made laughing stocks of the entire world, because they were the principal authors of the Portland Essays, a collection of African centered curriculum material for use in the schools. Articles attacking Afrocentrism were published in the New York Times, in addition to Newsweek and Time magazine between 1991-1994. It was easy to attack these guys because they did not know the research to support the claims they had made in lecture after lecture between 1981-1991.
They used the Portland Essays to attack Afrocentrism. This was wrong anyone who heard Ivan speak knew Ivan was not an Afrocentric researcher.
Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. People have made fun of the melanin research, but not one person criticizing this field ever interviewed Richard King, who is a professional psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher, the original research in this field began with his Black Dot studies.
As a result, I began to write on Afrocentrism again, to confirm the major paradigms associated with the field see:
C.A. Winters, Afrocentrism:A valid frame of Reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25(2) 1994:pp.170-190.
So, as you can see I have no beef with Ivan. The difference between Ivan and myself, was that he was a popularizer of Africalogical study; while I conduct original research.
You also couldn't understand how I could do research in genetics. The reason is I did take biology courses at University. As a result, once I studied the field it was easy to write papers in population genetics, since the collatoral evidence for these studies come from linguistics and anthropology. I have several more genetics articles which will be published soon that I hope will add additional material to this exciting field without Eurocentric bias.
I will admit, that since 1998, it is hard to keep up with the literature in many fields I am interested in because of the numerous journals and books publishing research in these areas--but I do the best I can.
J.A. Rogers, who was refused admission to University due to his race made it clear to me anyone committed to researching Afrocentric history can accomplish their goal if they just try. My entire research career has been aimed at spreading the truth based on scientific knowledge. I intend to continue the work in this same spirit.
Aluta continua........
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 07 October, 2007 10:38 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ His studies of Blacks in ancient America was handicapped by the fact that he did no know that Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America, was a three volume set. Ivan only read volume 1, and therefore he did not know about the influence of the Mande people in Meso-America.
. [/QB]
One of the good thngs about they Came before Columbus is than van Sertima did a good job of footnoting his material (which, unfortunately) he did not do in some of his later work).
Van Sertima cites Wiener's volume 3 in the following:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ His studies of Blacks in ancient America was handicapped by the fact that he did no know that Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America, was a three volume set. Ivan only read volume 1, and therefore he did not know about the influence of the Mande people in Meso-America.
.
One of the good thngs about they Came before Columbus is than van Sertima did a good job of footnoting his material (which, unfortunately) he did not do in some of his later work).
Van Sertima cites Wiener's volume 3 in the following:
You don't think Van Sertima's America Revisited, his two decades later followup effort to They Came Before Columbus, is well documented besides countering his ignorant detracters?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: One of the good thngs about they Came before Columbus is than van Sertima did a good job of footnoting his material (which, unfortunately) he did not do in some of his later work).
Van Sertima cites Wiener's volume 3 in the following:
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on 07 October, 2007 04:23 PM:
quote:I don't have a scholarly beef with Ivan. I loved his book, but I know it would have been better if he had read all three volumes of Africa and the discovery of America, by Leo Wiener.
I am versed in many fields. This results from the fact that when I was in undergraduate school I studied anthropology,political science, sociology and history. For my first Master's degree I studied Linguistics and Anthropology, my minor was Swahili. I got both degrees in June 1973, so I was very familiar with these fields when I began to write on Afrocentric history after University.
I studied French for 4 years in High School, and I picked up Arabic from the Muslims while I was growing up. My study of Arabic was supplemented by self-study at the University of Illinois. This was supplemented by studying African History under Charles Stewart, who specialized in African Islamic history. Under Stewart I studied West African Arabic documents in French. This meant that I was able to research sources many other scholars might miss because I could find information in non-English sources.
I did not go to the University of Illinois without a plan. I wanted to be the best teacher of Afro-American and African history in the world.
In High School the most important book in 1968 was the Man Who Cried I am. In this book the author discussed the King Alfred Plan, which was alledgely a plan to put Black Americans in Camps and kill us off. Although this was the theme, the main character of the book wondered why the Chinese and West Africans shared similar cultures and wore identical straw hats. The main character also wondered what was in the Yemeni Archives that could tell us about the role of Blacks in the Indian Ocean.
After reading this book I was on a mission to discover three things: 1) where my slave ancestors came from, 2) why did the people of China and West Africa share the same cultural items, and 3) what was the role of Blacks in the Indian Ocean. I completed a preliminary study of Blacks in the Indian Ocean in my master's thesis titled Zanj to Zanj. In this paper I discussed all of the Black nations that formerly existed in the Indian Ocean from Abyssinia and the Swahili cities to Southeast Asia and southern China. If you look at my work you will find that I have mainly been interested in these topics throughout my career.
I was never formerly trained to be an Afrocentric scholar. I had to learn the methods of Afrocentric research from my elders. My favorite researcher was J.A. Rogers. I noticed from his books that he always included sources written in French and German. This made me recognize right away that if I wanted to accurately research the history of Blacks in Ancient times, I had to learn various languages. As a result, when I studied Blacks in China, I had to get at least a reading knowledge of Chinese, to know the Dravidians I studied Tamil and Dravidian linguistics generally.
Sometimes its hard to believe that I am writing about the Olmecs today, since my main interest was the history of Blacks in Asia. What happened though, was I became very interested in the African discovery of America. At U of Illinois-Urbana I found the entire set of Leo Wiener's book. In volume 3, he mentioned the role of the Mande in the Americas, and the fact that they had their own writing system and that the engravings on the Tuxtla statutte were identical to the writing of the Mande speaking people. This fact was also commented on by Harold G. Lawrence, African Explorers of the New World, The Crisis, 69 (6):321-332. This made me decide to learn Malinke-Bambara so I could attempt to read the Olmec writing. Later I learned about the Vai writing system and decided to attempt to read the Olmec symbols by giving them the values from the Vai: Success.
To make sure Leo Wiener was right about the relationship between the Mayans and Mande speakers I studied the Mayan languages and determined that Malinke-Bambara is a substratum language of the Mayan group.
Later, researchers claimed that the Mixe languages were related to Olmec. I studied the Mixe group and found that this group was also related to the Malinke-Bambara group. Today we know that the Olmec did not speak Mixe, and the researchers who claimed they did have been proven to be wrong.
I had already read Obenga's work at University. From his book I learned that Dravidian and African languages were related. This was important because, when I discovered the people of the Indus Valley had their own writing and the signs compared favorably to the Vai writing I hypothesized that I could probably read the Indus Valley writing if I gave the Indus Valley signs the value of the Vai script, but reading the signs in Tamil-since Dravidian languages were related to West Atlantic and Mande languages .Success. I was able to decipher the Indus Valley writing.
During this same period (early 1980's) I began to seriously study Dravidian linguistics. As a result, of my research I began to write on the relationship between Japanese and Tamil, since the theme had been commented on by Japanese linguists. Again,since the Dravidian and Mande languages were related I hypothesized that Japanese must also be related to Mande. Success. I was able to confirm these theory and published my results in Japanese journal.
By 1983-84 I was primarially working on the Indus Script and Meroitic, since there were few if any Olmec text published before the 1990's. This meant that for the next decade I was mainly writing about Dravidian linguistics/History/ Anthropology and Meroitic.
In 1991 I returned to writing on ancient African history because Afrocentrism was being attacked and Ivan and Hunter Adams were unable to defend the field.
see: Jerry Adler, African Dreams, Newsweek, 23 September 1991: pp.42-49.
People began to attack the field because of Hunter Adams. I had worked with Hunter in the 1970's. Both of us met Ivan at the Kametic Institute in 75 or 76. In fact I translated the French material on the Dogon.
Hunter was a janitor at Argonne. He could have got his degree paid for by the U. of Chicago, that managed Argonne, but Hunter was hard headed and refused to do so. Although Hunter was only a janitor, he pretended he was a professional scientists. I don't know if Ivan knew Hunter was only a janitor, and not a professional scientists. Hunter began to talk about the Dogon in 1983 on a regular basis. There was no reason except laziness that Hunter did not earn a degree by 1991.
Erich Martel, investigated Hunter's background and Ivan and Hunter were made laughing stocks of the entire world, because they were the principal authors of the Portland Essays, a collection of African centered curriculum material for use in the schools. Articles attacking Afrocentrism were published in the New York Times, in addition to Newsweek and Time magazine between 1991-1994. It was easy to attack these guys because they did not know the research to support the claims they had made in lecture after lecture between 1981-1991.
They used the Portland Essays to attack Afrocentrism. This was wrong anyone who heard Ivan speak knew Ivan was not an Afrocentric researcher.
Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. People have made fun of the melanin research, but not one person criticizing this field ever interviewed Richard King, who is a professional psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher, the original research in this field began with his Black Dot studies.
As a result, I began to write on Afrocentrism again, to confirm the major paradigms associated with the field see:
C.A. Winters, Afrocentrism:A valid frame of Reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25(2) 1994:pp.170-190.
So, as you can see I have no beef with Ivan. The difference between Ivan and myself, was that he was a popularizer of Africalogical study; while I conduct original research.
You also couldn't understand how I could do research in genetics. The reason is I did take biology courses at University. As a result, once I studied the field it was easy to write papers in population genetics, since the collatoral evidence for these studies come from linguistics and anthropology. I have several more genetics articles which will be published soon that I hope will add additional material to this exciting field without Eurocentric bias.
I will admit, that since 1998, it is hard to keep up with the literature in many fields I am interested in because of the numerous journals and books publishing research in these areas--but I do the best I can.
J.A. Rogers, who was refused admission to University due to his race made it clear to me anyone committed to researching Afrocentric history can accomplish their goal if they just try. My entire research career has been aimed at spreading the truth based on scientific knowledge. I intend to continue the work in this same spirit.
Aluta continua........
.
Clyde,
I have read some works by Van Sertima , and he is different league than you... at bottom, compared to you.
But as I said, you need few lessons on population genetics, and I hope one day you will realize the slur behind population genetics---eugenics, and what harms it leads when you speak races in biology.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on 07 October, 2007 05:04 PM:
Yeah! I'm still convinced that the Olmecs were African because it hasn't been disproven yet ... Anywho ...
Van Sertima is excellent ...
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 October, 2007 06:35 PM:
Van Sertima says the Olmec were natives of the Americas. In the America Revisited book Van Sertima tells us which Americas people some of his own ancestors were. He has no reason to favor one ethnicity over the other and doesn't do so.
And, before anybody tries to do it, let's be careful not to put words into Van Sertima's mouth. He never claimed Africans to be the father of civilization in the Americas.
quote: "I think it necessary to make it clear -- since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship is the order of the day -- that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeaological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"
-- Journal of African Civilizations, V8#2, 1986 p. 16
quote: "Not all of these heads are African. I have said that over and over again. I have never claimed that Africans carved these heads or that they were the only models for them. What I have claimed, . . . is
that the skull and skeletal evidence examined in certain Olmec settlements show a distinct African physical prescence AMONG THEM
that this alien prescence is displayed not only in bones but in the features of SOME of the Olmec stones . . .
-- Early America Revisited, 1998, p. 52
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 07 October, 2007 06:46 PM:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Yeah! I'm still convinced that the Olmecs were African because it hasn't been disproven yet ... Anywho ...
Van Sertima is excellent ...
Yes, but were they Mande or Egyptians?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 06:46 PM:
Arwa
quote:
Clyde,
I have read some works by Van Sertima , and he is different league than you... at bottom, compared to you.
But as I said, you need few lessons on population genetics, and I hope one day you will realize the slur behind population genetics---eugenics, and what harms it leads when you speak races in biology.
Arwa I can understand where you're coming from but growing up in America we understand that race exist and will always exist. Liberal whites and Marxists have always told Blacks to ignore race and not write ancient Black History since DuBois' work.
Afrocentric scholars ignore this propaganda,because we know they just want us to keep the truth from our people so we remain ignorant of our true world history. By not claiming ancient founders of civilization were Black, while white Supremists paint them as "white", in every World History textbook used in the schools, only cause our people to feel inferior to the dominant group. I would be a fool to ignore race, when recognition of race, confirms our key role in the rise of civilization.
The Jena 6 protest highlights the racism that exist here, and will always exist here in the U.S.
I have wrote or I am writing genetics articles because much of what is published is Eurocentric in relation to African/ Black people.
In addition, I belong to other forums where linguists and anthropologists are getting fed up with some of the claims made by geneticists that ignore actual linguistic and anthropological research. While they criticize the field I plan to make changes which will get the science grounded in actual evidence confirming the unity of Black civilizations in Asia and Africa.
Some of my upcoming population genetics articles have nothing to do with Black civilizations, that I hope will further the field. I am glad I came to this forum.
You guys gave me a challenge--the idea that Dravidians and Africans are not related. This is a great challenge and part of the normal Afrocentric science. It will be fun to confirm the reality of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African people. My article caused a lot of excitement in India, and a number of researchers have written me for reprints.
My main research interest is still Brain based learning and, learning and emotion--but I still have a number of population genetics article, ideas I will write after my other articles are published. This is fun.
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 07 October, 2007 06:56 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hunter was a janitor at Argonne. He could have got his degree paid for by the U. of Chicago, that managed Argonne, but Hunter was hard headed and refused to do so. Although Hunter was only a janitor, he pretended he was a professional scientists. I don't know if Ivan knew Hunter was only a janitor, and not a professional scientists. Hunter began to talk about the Dogon in 1983 on a regular basis. There was no reason except laziness that Hunter did not earn a degree by 1991.
Erich Martel, investigated Hunter's background and Ivan and Hunter were made laughing stocks of the entire world, because they were the principal authors of the Portland Essays, a collection of African centered curriculum material for use in the schools. Articles attacking Afrocentrism were published in the New York Times, in addition to Newsweek and Time magazine between 1991-1994. It was easy to attack these guys because they did not know the research to support the claims they had made in lecture after lecture between 1981-1991.
. . . . Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. People have made fun of the melanin research, but not one person criticizing this field ever interviewed Richard King, who is a professional psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher, the original research in this field began with his Black Dot studies.
. [/QB]
Hunter Adams has two chapters on the Sirius Question and on the Dogon in Sertima's Blacks in Science. Are they valid in your opinion?
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on 07 October, 2007 07:31 PM:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Van Sertima says the Olmec were natives of the Americas. In the America Revisited book Van Sertima tells us which Americas people some of his own ancestors were. He has no reason to favor one ethnicity over the other and doesn't do so.
And, before anybody tries to do it, let's be careful not to put words into Van Sertima's mouth. He never claimed Africans to be the father of civilization in the Americas.
quote: "I think it necessary to make it clear -- since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship is the order of the day -- that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeaological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"
-- Journal of African Civilizations, V8#2, 1986 p. 16
quote: "Not all of these heads are African. I have said that over and over again. I have never claimed that Africans carved these heads or that they were the only models for them. What I have claimed, . . . is
that the skull and skeletal evidence examined in certain Olmec settlements show a distinct African physical prescence AMONG THEM
that this alien prescence is displayed not only in bones but in the features of SOME of the Olmec stones . . .
-- Early America Revisited, 1998, p. 52
The Olmecs have a history of about 3 thousand years in America ... There were people here long before the Olmecs ... so if someone does claim that the Olmecs were the Original of this land is highly mistaken ...
I personal haven't seen any reason why not to believe that the Olmecs were anything other then African ...
I personal believe that the Americas were like it is now with many cultures living here prior to the European invasion.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 07:33 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hunter was a janitor at Argonne. He could have got his degree paid for by the U. of Chicago, that managed Argonne, but Hunter was hard headed and refused to do so. Although Hunter was only a janitor, he pretended he was a professional scientists. I don't know if Ivan knew Hunter was only a janitor, and not a professional scientists. Hunter began to talk about the Dogon in 1983 on a regular basis. There was no reason except laziness that Hunter did not earn a degree by 1991.
Erich Martel, investigated Hunter's background and Ivan and Hunter were made laughing stocks of the entire world, because they were the principal authors of the Portland Essays, a collection of African centered curriculum material for use in the schools. Articles attacking Afrocentrism were published in the New York Times, in addition to Newsweek and Time magazine between 1991-1994. It was easy to attack these guys because they did not know the research to support the claims they had made in lecture after lecture between 1981-1991.
. . . . Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. People have made fun of the melanin research, but not one person criticizing this field ever interviewed Richard King, who is a professional psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher, the original research in this field began with his Black Dot studies.
.
Hunter Adams has two chapters on the Sirius Question and on the Dogon in Sertima's Blacks in Science. Are they valid in your opinion? [/QB]
Yes. Hunter may not have had a degree but his work was well researched.
.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on 07 October, 2007 07:35 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Yeah! I'm still convinced that the Olmecs were African because it hasn't been disproven yet ... Anywho ...
Van Sertima is excellent ...
Yes, but were they Mande or Egyptians?
They were Africans ... To say Mande or Egyptian ... it really doesn't matter because they both are Africans ...
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 07:46 PM:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
I personal haven't seen any reason why not to believe that the Olmecs were anything other then African ...
I personal believe that the Americas were like it is now with many cultures living here prior to the European invasion.
You are right.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmecs were not the first Africans to create a civilization in Mexico. These Africans came from the ancient Sahara and West Africa.
Africans founded many of the earliest civilizations in the New World. We do not know when these Blacks arrived in the Americas. Scientists theorize that over 5000 years ago a group of African settlers sailing along the West African coast, in their papyrus trading vessels were caught in a storm and drifted aimlessly out to sea. In the Atlantic ocean they were captured by the South Equatorial current and carried across the Atlantic towards the Americas.
We can assume that due to the ability of these explorers to navigate by the stars they were probably able to make a return trip to West Africa. Much of West Africa 5000 years ago was unoccupied. This means that the populations that later moved into West Africa were living in Middle Africa,and the Sahara. These people due to a different climate in the Sahara at this time traveled from community to community by sea. It seems logical to assume that one of these Paleo-African groups travelled down the long extinct rivers of Middle Africa and sailed out into the Atlantic Ocean and was carried to the Americas by the powerful currents found in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The African voyagers to the New World came here in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Africans came in when they sailed to the Americas. These boats were carried across the Atlantic ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast. It is interesting to note that papyrus boats are still being built in West Africa today.
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Cherla There continues to be no evidence that Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).
.....
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on 07 October, 2007 07:58 PM:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Van Sertima says the Olmec were natives of the Americas. In the America Revisited book Van Sertima tells us which Americas people some of his own ancestors were. He has no reason to favor one ethnicity over the other and doesn't do so.
And, before anybody tries to do it, let's be careful not to put words into Van Sertima's mouth. He never claimed Africans to be the father of civilization in the Americas.
quote: "I think it necessary to make it clear -- since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship is the order of the day -- that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeaological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"
-- Journal of African Civilizations, V8#2, 1986 p. 16
quote: "Not all of these heads are African. I have said that over and over again. I have never claimed that Africans carved these heads or that they were the only models for them. What I have claimed, . . . is
that the skull and skeletal evidence examined in certain Olmec settlements show a distinct African physical prescence AMONG THEM
that this alien prescence is displayed not only in bones but in the features of SOME of the Olmec stones . . .
-- Early America Revisited, 1998, p. 52
The Olmecs have a history of about 3 thousand years in America ... There were people here long before the Olmecs ... so if someone does claim that the Olmecs were the Original of this land is highly mistaken ...
I personal haven't seen any reason why not to believe that the Olmecs were anything other then African ...
I personal believe that the Americas were like it is now with many cultures living here prior to the European invasion.
I THINK what alTakruri means is that when the Olmecs built their empire, they were already indigenous. Of course now, they were around long before they built their empire and may have been influenced through trans-atlantic contact which I believe is Van Sertima's argument.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 October, 2007 08:15 PM:
alTakruri means just what he wrote. Olmecs, like other Americas populations are just that, peoples of the Americas not transplanted metal age Africans.
If you actually pick up the book and read what he says, no misinformative guesswork, you'll see precisely which dynasties he postulates Nile Valley folk reached Olmeca and which ethny he feels were the inspiration for some of the Big Heads.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 08:26 PM:
Some researchers claim that the Olmec civilization originated in Mexico, but this is not supported the evidence showing that other Meso-American civilizations were Olmecizied. It is interesting that even the main promoter of this theory Christopher A Pool, in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), noted that: Explaining the developments of these hierarchical sociopolitical systems remains a contentious issue in Olmec studies: indeed, one author identifies "Olmec" specifically with the system of "governmental practices based upon social stratification and kingship" that emerged about 1400 BC in the southern Gulf Lowlands (Clark 1997:213). Such a definition would exclude the more simply organized Early Formatie societies of the Tuxtla Mountains and the Papaloapan basin, however, unless they too were viewed as incorporated into larger, hierarchically organized polities--a view that is difficult to support with current archaeological evidence"(pg.134).
The Olmec civilization appeared already developed in Meso-America. This is supported by the research.
There continues to be no evidence that the Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that[b] “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery.... I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC” .
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 07 October, 2007 08:54 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hunter was a janitor at Argonne. He could have got his degree paid for by the U. of Chicago, that managed Argonne, but Hunter was hard headed and refused to do so. Although Hunter was only a janitor, he pretended he was a professional scientists. I don't know if Ivan knew Hunter was only a janitor, and not a professional scientists. Hunter began to talk about the Dogon in 1983 on a regular basis. There was no reason except laziness that Hunter did not earn a degree by 1991.
Erich Martel, investigated Hunter's background and Ivan and Hunter were made laughing stocks of the entire world, because they were the principal authors of the Portland Essays, a collection of African centered curriculum material for use in the schools. Articles attacking Afrocentrism were published in the New York Times, in addition to Newsweek and Time magazine between 1991-1994. It was easy to attack these guys because they did not know the research to support the claims they had made in lecture after lecture between 1981-1991.
. . . . Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. People have made fun of the melanin research, but not one person criticizing this field ever interviewed Richard King, who is a professional psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher, the original research in this field began with his Black Dot studies.
.
Hunter Adams has two chapters on the Sirius Question and on the Dogon in Sertima's Blacks in Science. Are they valid in your opinion?
Yes. Hunter may not have had a degree but his work was well researched.
. [/QB]
Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on. Doesn't this contradict your statement?
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on 07 October, 2007 09:35 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:KemsonReloaded's response to Clyde's usual silly spam: Great stuff!!!
LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
I won't even touch his "Atlantis" theory!
Oh no...not the buck tooth icons and "LOL's" again. I've realized this style of your response is a way is signaling your belief in the theories presented and your obsession to the member Dr. Clyde Winters is a form of appriciative gesture of his consistent work which he continues to publish. After all, it takes a while but in the end, people like you eventually come around to a full circle and accept that which is truth.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 07 October, 2007 10:03 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Some researchers claim that the Olmec civilization originated in Mexico, but this is not supported the evidence showing that other Meso-American civilizations were Olmecizied. It is interesting that even the main promoter of this theory Christopher A Pool, in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), noted that: Explaining the developments of these hierarchical sociopolitical systems remains a contentious issue in Olmec studies: indeed, one author identifies "Olmec" specifically with the system of "governmental practices based upon social stratification and kingship" that emerged about 1400 BC in the southern Gulf Lowlands (Clark 1997:213). Such a definition would exclude the more simply organized Early Formatie societies of the Tuxtla Mountains and the Papaloapan basin, however, unless they too were viewed as incorporated into larger, hierarchically organized polities--a view that is difficult to support with current archaeological evidence"(pg.134).
Clyde, you have to quote the whole thing not just a selective piece. This is the sort of thing that "scientific creationists" are famous for.
Pool p. 134 continues "The perspective taken in this book is that Olmec is best seen as a set of closely interacting, autonomous societies located in the southern Gulf lowlands during the Early and Middle Formative periods, which shared more similarities with one another in artifact styles and iconography than with more distant regions. From this perspective, Olmec culture and the symbolic system that identifies it were a flexible adaptation to a varied and dynamic environment, capable of encompassinga broad range of sociopolitical forms. the development of complex social ranking, then, was a prominent, but not universal, characteristic of these societies"
More importantly you should cite Pool's words that contradict your claim, i.e. p .132
"At the beginning of the chapter it was noted that the question of Olmec origins really encompassed three questions: one ethnic or cultural (where did the Olmec people come from?), one artistic (how and where did the Olmec art style develop?), and one sociopolitical (how did the complex institutions of Olmec society arise?). The answers to these are not simple. It now appears that the people entered the southern Gulf lowlands of Mesoamerica before 5100 B.C. However, the mere fact of human occupation does not necessarily mark the beginning of a continuous, evolving cultural tradition. It is likely that many groups passed through the region, and not all may have been related culturally or linguistically. Nevertheless, there does appear to have been a gradual evolution of ecological adaptations, with humans increasing their reliance on domesticated maize and other crops as a supplement to the natural abundance of wild foods in the lowlands (Pope et al. 2000). . . The emergence of Olmec culture, however, is more significantly one of the formation of a coherent identity, reinforced through actions and materialized in artifacts and their attendant iconography. Neither is cultural identity a static entity, but one which is actively reproduced and renegotiated. That is, we should not expect that the expressiion of Olmec culture should remain monolithically homogeneous through time, any more than the exprression of American, English, or Mexican [Quetzalcoatl-- or Mande] identity has remained static over time. Rather, archaeologists must look for continuity between changing forms and their proportional representation in the archaeological record. From this perspective, the beginnings of a distinctive Olmec tradition are evident by 1700 B.C. in the ritual offerings of El Manati, and their link to a florescent early Formative Olmec culture isdocumented in the gradually changing ceramic and ritual traditions there and in the "pre-Olmec" levels of San Lorenzo, San Andres, and other sites. In other words, there is no longer a basis for seeing Olmec culture as an intrusion from elsewhere in Mesoamerica.
quote: The Olmec civilization appeared already developed in Meso-America. This is supported by the research.
There continues to be no evidence that the Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery.... I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).
Again, quoting Diehl completely we get a different picture: p. 25:
"Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today we can trace its origins probably to at least 1660-1500 BC. during that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshippers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art. The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue."
thus Diehl is refering to the options of Mokaya versus local developement not some nebulous mystery origin.
further on p. 63 Diehl writes:
"[LaVenta]The second set of sculptures contains three Colossal heads placed in a line oriented east to west. David Grve believes thay proclaim La Venta's divine nature personified in its deified rulers, a very appropriate theme for the entrance to the dynastic center. Ivan van Sertima and other "Afrocentric" writers have recently tried to "prove" that the Olmecs were migrants from Africa with the false claim that Mattew W. Stirling found the heads gazing eastward toward their African homeland (Van Sertima 1976). In reality, Stirling clearly stated that all three faced north,"
quote: In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC” .
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
.
I'll leave the other 3 as an exercise in checking quotations.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 10:57 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Since Ivan and Hunter knew very little about what they talked about they could not defend what they wrote and lectured on.[/b] Doesn't this contradict your statement?
No. Hunter knew about the Dogon.
Hunter also lectured on Egyptian aeroneutics, Melenin, Blacks in Europe and etc. These were topics he lacked firsthand knowledge about.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 October, 2007 11:01 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
This is not true Leo Wiener was the first linguist to recognize this reality. Leo Wiener was a leading linguist at Harvard University.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 01:36 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
I had nothing to do with the sites quoted above. These pages were produced by independent researchers who find my research convincing.
Please cite a linguist that disputes my conclusion, and provide the full citation.
.
For starters Terence Kaufman and John Justenson
Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts downloadable at
compare their detailed methodological exposition with what you get in Clyde's web pages. They have published this in Science and in R.D. Woodward, ed 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of World Languages. Michael Coe and Stephen Houston have argued that their decipherment is not accurate and needs a bilingual text to show it is correct http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive04/Jan/Isthmian.
However, this disagreement should not take us to the logical fallacy of "the excluded middle" i.e. that their disagreement means that the only alternative is (or that they support) a Mande translation.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 06:08 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
I had nothing to do with the sites quoted above. These pages were produced by independent researchers who find my research convincing.
Please cite a linguist that disputes my conclusion, and provide the full citation.
.
For starters Terence Kaufman and John Justenson
Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts downloadable at
compare their detailed methodological exposition with what you get in Clyde's web pages. They have published this in Science and in R.D. Woodward, ed 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of World Languages. Michael Coe and Stephen Houston have argued that their decipherment is not accurate and needs a bilingual text to show it is correct http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive04/Jan/Isthmian .
However, this disagreement should not take us to the logical fallacy of "the excluded middle" i.e. that their disagreement means that the only alternative is (or that they support) a Mande translation.
What is the alternative view since Mixe, although related to the Mande languages, is not related to Olmec?
.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on 08 October, 2007 06:53 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote: LOL And you are aware that Clyde is the ONLY alleged linguist who claims the Olmec script and language is West African derived.
As you can see above many people recognize that the Olmec probably spoke a Mande language.
.
Please cite a linguist who claims that the Olmec spoke Mande, and who reached this conclusion independently. Endelssly citing your own papers only confirms that your work has not been independently replicated.
I had nothing to do with the sites quoted above. These pages were produced by independent researchers who find my research convincing.
Please cite a linguist that disputes my conclusion, and provide the full citation.
.
For starters Terence Kaufman and John Justenson
Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts downloadable at
compare their detailed methodological exposition with what you get in Clyde's web pages. They have published this in Science and in R.D. Woodward, ed 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of World Languages. Michael Coe and Stephen Houston have argued that their decipherment is not accurate and needs a bilingual text to show it is correct http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive04/Jan/Isthmian .
However, this disagreement should not take us to the logical fallacy of "the excluded middle" i.e. that their disagreement means that the only alternative is (or that they support) a Mande translation.
What is the alternative view since Mixe, although related to the Mande languages, is not related to Olmec?
.
Mixe isn't related to Mande. Mixe is part of the Mixe-Zoque family indigenous to Mesoamerica. Mande, on the other hand, belongs to the Niger-Congo family. There is no evidence that these two language groups have particularly close relations.
Bottom line
Stop hating your own culture. Instead, be proud of your culture:
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on 08 October, 2007 10:05 AM:
Not "Niger-Congo". It is "Negro-Egyptian".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 08 October, 2007 12:13 PM:
^ There is no such language group as "Negro-Egyptian", and one who is of African descent should feel insulted to have anything of his culture including language to given the racialist label of "negro"!
You also restrict African cultures and take away its diversity by denying Africans have more than one language phylum. Egyptian is part of one language phylum (Afrasian), while most West African languages are part of another (Niger-Congo).
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 12:45 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ There is no such language group as "Negro-Egyptian", and one who is of African descent should feel insulted to have anything of his culture including language to given the racialist label of "negro"!
You also restrict African cultures and take away its diversity by denying Africans have more than one language phylum. Egyptian is part of one language phylum (Afrasian), while most West African languages are part of another (Niger-Congo).
Negro-Egyptian is the name for African languages after Obenga and Diop.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 01:10 PM:
Mixe was not Olmec
-
There were three problems with the Justenson and Kaufman decipherments of Epi-Olmec: 1) there is no clear evidence of Zoque speakers in Olmec areas 3200 years ago, 2) there is no such thing as a "pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean language, 3)there is an absence of a Zoque substratum in the Mayan languages.
First of all ,Justenson and Kaufman in their 1997 article claim that they read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using "pre-Proto-Zoquean". This is impossible ,a "Pre-Proto" language Referes to the internal reconstruction of vowel patterns, not entire words. Linguists can reconstruct a pre-proto language , but this language is only related to internal developments within the target language.
Secondly, Justenson and Kaufman base their claim of a Zoque origin for the Olmec language on the presence of a few Zoque speakers around mount Tuxtla. Justeson and Kaufman manitain that the Olmec people spoke a
Otomanguean language. 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.
Finally, the Justenson and Kaufman 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.
Mayan tradition make 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 Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably 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 Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
.
This has nothing to do with proof that the Olmec spoke Mixe language. The noted scholar Cyrus H. Gordon, in <Forgotten Scripts>, claims that he has deciphered Linear A or Minoan, using the Semitic languages. Although he has made this claim, the decipherment is not accepted because it does not have collateral evidence to support the decipherment. Maurice Pope in <The story of Archaeological Decipherment> (1975), maintains that you reject a decipherment theory out riht on three grounds: the decipherment is arbitrary, the decipherment is based on false principles, or the decipherment has been ousted by a better decipherment. The Kaufman decipherment must be rejected because it is arbitrary and based on false principles. -
There are three problems with the Justenson and Kaufman decipherments of Epi-Olmec: 1) there is no clear evidence of Zoque speakers in Olmec areas 3200 years ago, 2) there is no such thing as a "pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean language, 3)there is an absence of a Zoque substratum in the Mayan languages. First of all ,Justenson and Kaufman in their 1997 article claim that they read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using "pre-Proto-Zoquean". This is impossible ,a "Pre-Proto" language refers to the internal reconstruction of vowel patterns, not entire words. Linguists can reconstruct a pre-proto language , but this language is only related to internal developments within the target language. Secondly, Justenson and Kaufman base their claim of a Zoque origin for the Olmec language on the presence of a few Zoque speakers around mount Tuxtla, this is a false principle. Justeson and Kaufman manitain that the Olmec people spoke a Otomanguean language.
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. This makes it very unlikely that Mixe was spoken on the Gulf 3200 years ago. Finally, the Justenson and Kaufman 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. Mayan tradition make 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 Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably 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 Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 01:33 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mixe was not Olmec
- 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 Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
Equally. There is even less evidence that 1) the Mande were in the ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago. At least there are a number of Olmec scholars (Diehl, Pohl, etc.) that have written that the Mesoamerican ancestors of the Olmecs left archaeological evidence 1700 BC in the region. Please quote with full citation any archeologist that says the Mande were present at the time. 2) There is no Mande substrate in Maya, and it is irrelevant to the question since Maya is a different language family from both Mande and Mixe/Zoque, and 3) there is no such thing by your definition as pre-proto-Mande.
QED your Mande Hypothesis is falsified. Kaufman/ Justeson have published their hypothesis in main-line refereed journals like Science and refereed Mesoamerican anthropology journals so that it has passed per review by qualified linguists and Mesoamericanists. Please quote with citation a Mesoamericanist linguist or archaeologist that supports the Mande/Olmec argument.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 02:32 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mixe was not Olmec
-
There were three problems with the Justenson and Kaufman decipherments of Epi-Olmec: 1) there is no clear evidence of Zoque speakers in Olmec areas 3200 years ago, 2) there is no such thing as a "pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean language, 3)there is an absence of a Zoque substratum in the Mayan languages.
First of all ,Justenson and Kaufman in their 1997 article claim that they read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using "pre-Proto-Zoquean". This is impossible ,a "Pre-Proto" language Referes to the internal reconstruction of vowel patterns, not entire words. Linguists can reconstruct a pre-proto language , but this language is only related to internal developments within the target language.
.
You are making up your own "rules" about what constitutes falsification. Please cite a refereed linguistic publication that uses these criteria.
Also you are attributing phrases to Kaufman/Justenson that don't exist. In the paper in question the terms used are proto-Zoquean nowhere does it say that they use "pre-proto-Zoquean"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/277/5323/207 Justeson, J.S. and T. Kaufman 1997 “A Newly Discovered Column in the Hieroglyphic Text on La Mojarra Stela 1: A Test of the Epi-Olmec Decipherment,” Science 277:207-210
"Additional progress in decipherment has been achieved through constant reanalysis and by applying insights from several years of descriptive and comparative work we have undertaken on the extant languages of the Mije-Sokean family. There has been a fair amount of revision in our knowledge of reconstructed proto-Sokean and proto– Mije-Sokean, based on Wichmann’s work (5) and on Kaufman’s comparative analysis of data from our own Mije-Sokean Language Documentation Project. Further evidence concerning the epi-Olmec script now depends chiefly on the recovery of more textual data written in it, but no new texts have since come to light." p. 207
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 02:32 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mixe was not Olmec
- 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 Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
Equally. There is even less evidence that 1) the Mande were in the ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago. At least there are a number of Olmec scholars (Diehl, Pohl, etc.) that have written that the Mesoamerican ancestors of the Olmecs left archaeological evidence 1700 BC in the region. Please quote with full citation any archeologist that says the Mande were present at the time. 2) There is no Mande substrate in Maya, and it is irrelevant to the question since Maya is a different language family from both Mande and Mixe/Zoque, and 3) there is no such thing by your definition as pre-proto-Mande.
QED your Mande Hypothesis is falsified. Kaufman/ Justeson have published their hypothesis in main-line refereed journals like Science and refereed Mesoamerican anthropology journals so that it has passed per review by qualified linguists and Mesoamericanists. Please quote with citation a Mesoamericanist linguist or archaeologist that supports the Mande/Olmec argument.
So what. Kaufman/Justeson published there paper in a refereed journal and the whole theory was proven to be false. The fact that the theory of these folks was found false--makes it clear that publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal says very little about the research published. If this was not the case Mixe theory would still exist.
The qualified linguist is Leo Wiener. See Leo Wiener, African and the Discovery of America, especially volume 3.
It was Leo Wiener, who maintained that the Tuxtla statuette was written in a Mande language.
The Kaufman/Justeson paper should never have been publshed once the reviewers read the researchers used a pre-Proto-language. This was a give-away that the decipherment was probably wrong since 1) a proto-language is a hypothetical language which is created/reconstructed by linguist and can not be proven to have existed;2) there is no such thing as a pre-proto-language; and 3) no ancient language has ever been published using a proto-language.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 02:36 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mixe was not Olmec
- 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 Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
Equally. There is even less evidence that 1) the Mande were in the ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago. At least there are a number of Olmec scholars (Diehl, Pohl, etc.) that have written that the Mesoamerican ancestors of the Olmecs left archaeological evidence 1700 BC in the region. Please quote with full citation any archeologist that says the Mande were present at the time. 2) There is no Mande substrate in Maya, and it is irrelevant to the question since Maya is a different language family from both Mande and Mixe/Zoque, and 3) there is no such thing by your definition as pre-proto-Mande.
QED your Mande Hypothesis is falsified. Kaufman/ Justeson have published their hypothesis in main-line refereed journals like Science and refereed Mesoamerican anthropology journals so that it has passed per review by qualified linguists and Mesoamericanists. Please quote with citation a Mesoamericanist linguist or archaeologist that supports the Mande/Olmec argument.
I have already outlined the archaeological evidence for continuity between Olmec and Pre-Olmec civilizations. Please outline this alledged evidence that support a link between Meso-Americans 1700 BC and the later Olmec civilization.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 08 October, 2007 03:23 PM:
Of course there's such a thing as a Negro-Egyptien super family of African languages. Theophile Obenga posited it and his being a contemptible black man who dares theorize different than white linguists (his supposed betters) is no reason to ignore his work. Critically analyze it, vehemently disagree with it, but only a willful ignoramus chasing leucogheisten could declare it nonexistant.
I don't agree with either its designation, its contents, its exclusions, but it sure in hell exists. There is such a thing as Negro-Egyptien.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ There is no such language group as "Negro-Egyptian", and one who is of African descent should feel insulted to have anything of his culture including language to given the racialist label of "negro"!
You also restrict African cultures and take away its diversity by denying Africans have more than one language phylum. Egyptian is part of one language phylum (Afrasian), while most West African languages are part of another (Niger-Congo).
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on 08 October, 2007 03:36 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Negro-Egyptian is the name for African languages after Obenga and Diop.
That's correct. The "Negro-Egyptian" classification was correctly labeled by Dr. Theopile Obenga who was actually more qualified than racists like Joseph Greenberg. The so-called "Niger-congo" language made up by the racist Joseph Greenberg, who based is classifications on regional assumptions rather than genneic comparative methods since humans are highly mobile species.
Lack of commonsense of many individuals never ceases to amaze me and I'll always enjoy showing pointing it out.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 08:54 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [
The qualified linguist is Leo Wiener. See Leo Wiener, African and the Discovery of America, especially volume 3.
It was Leo Wiener, who maintained that the Tuxtla statuette was written in a Mande language.
.
Your Mesoamerican linguist is Leo Wiener? A teacher of Slavic languages with no training whatever in Mesoamerica who wrote in the 1920s when no one knew where and if the Olmecs existed and when no one know the time depth of Mesoamerican civilizations. When we look at Wiener’s books we find that all his efforts are to “prove” that Mandingo was related to Maya and Nahuatl not Olmec. In volume 3, p 271 where the Tuxtla statuette is shown there is no effort to show what Mande hieroglyphs were to be compared with it. Wiener mentions a similarity but provides no evidence in support. Furthermore, Wiener thought the statuette was Aztec.
Here are a couple of passages about Wiener:
Nigel Davies. 1979 Voyagers to the New World Albuquerque: U. New Mexico Press
p.11-12 With certain exceptions, such as Basque, all the world’s languages can be divided into families or groups, not by the study of superficial likenesses, but by profound analysis of basic structure. In surveying a building, not the top floor but the foundations need first to be examined. Related tongues may best be identified by delving for common roots since all languages of a given groups follow similar laws of phonetic change: for instance, if p changes to f in the course of centuries in language of a group , the same process occurs in all its cousins. While the study of current vocabularies of, say Polish and English would yield scant results, common origins can be demonstrated beyond doubt by examining roots and structure.
With the exception of a few mavericks, the two thousand five hundred languages of America have been divided into groups in this manner, although much detailed work remains to be done to complete the process. Unfortunately, however, authors seeking signs of transoceanic contacts pay scant attention to such findings and confine themselves to viewing the mere tip of the linguistic iceberg. A single American language, not its parent group, is seized upon as an example and its relationship to some Asiatic or European tongue “proved”, not on the basis of common structure, but of similarities between a few words in everyday use.
A word-list game, as I prefer to call this practice is riddled with pitfalls, despite its popularity, and its value is slight since it relies on superficial likenesses. A virtual identity may be immediately apparent between the word for “god” in Ancient Greek (theos) and its equivalent in classical Nahuatl (teotl); mati means ‘eye’ in both Greek and Malaysia (mati in Nahuatl also means “to know” and, therefore, in sense, “ to perceive” or ”to see”). But words offer an infinite scope for chance coincidence, and Robert Wauchope has admirably stressed this point by making up his own list of near-duplicates between English and Maya.
No book that seeks a single Old world source for American culture, whether in the Near or Far East, incomplete without its list of common words, designed to clinch the matter. The game appeals to the beginner and the initiate alike: it was played by the eminent anthropologist Paul Rivet, in order to prove the common origin of south American Indians and Australian aborigines. In the 1920s Professor Leo Wiener of Harvard collected no less than three thousand Mayan and Nahuatl words and sought to show that both were derived from the Mandingo language of Africa. But, apart from loan-words no competent linguist nowadays admits serious links between Mayan and Nahuatl, which belong to two distinct Mexican groups, let alone between these tongues and Mandingo.
%%%%%%% Stephen Williams 1991 Fantastic Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Pp 251- “Leo Wiener (1862-1939) was a Professor of Slavic Languages and Literature at Harvard for more than thirty years. Born in Bialystock, Russian Poland, he was educated in Europe before emigrating to America in 1882. He seemed to have a natural facility for languages, and although he had no formal training in linguistics, he taught European languages at several institutions before coming to Harvard as an Instructor in Slavic in 1896... To all his research he brought “iron industry and penetrating observation”; he was not impressed with “establishment” or old school theories. “he was self-made and a self-taught man with strong points and shortcomings of his genus.” Personally he was an arresting figure, a famous character whose “lively temperament, genius and eccentricities lent color to Harvard Yard.” [footnote Harvard Memorial Minutes 1940]”.. . In 1926, Wiener published a volume entitled Maya and Mexican Origins.. . The major hypothesis contained in the lavish volume can be set forth in the author’s own words: “The major part of the religious concepts of the Mandingos [a West African tribe], hence of the Mayas and Mexicans, arises from linguistic speculation bequeathed by the Arabs in their astrology and astronomy, as derived from a Hindu source, hence it is now possible to maintain that the American [Indian] civilizations were derived from Africa after the ninth century [A.D.]. since it is only in the ninth and tenth centuries that the Hindu study of the sky became the preoccupation of the Arabs (Wiener, 1926: xxvii).”
Again,
Do you have any modern Mesoamerican linguist who supports your theory?
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 09:03 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [
The qualified linguist is Leo Wiener. See Leo Wiener, African and the Discovery of America, especially volume 3.
It was Leo Wiener, who maintained that the Tuxtla statuette was written in a Mande language.
.
Your Mesoamerican linguist is Leo Wiener? A teacher of Slavic languages with no training whatever in Mesoamerica who wrote in the 1920s when no one knew where and if the Olmecs existed and when no one know the time depth of Mesoamerican civilizations. When we look at Wiener’s books we find that all his efforts are to “prove” that Mandingo was related to Maya and Nahuatl not Olmec. In volume 3, p 271 where the Tuxtla statuette is shown there is no effort to show what Mande hieroglyphs were to be compared with it. Wiener mentions a similarity but provides no evidence in support. Furthermore, Wiener thought the statuette was Aztec.
Here are a couple of passages about Wiener:
Nigel Davies. 1979 Voyagers to the New World Albuquerque: U. New Mexico Press
p.11-12 With certain exceptions, such as Basque, all the world’s languages can be divided into families or groups, not by the study of superficial likenesses, but by profound analysis of basic structure. In surveying a building, not the top floor but the foundations need first to be examined. Related tongues may best be identified by delving for common roots since all languages of a given groups follow similar laws of phonetic change: for instance, if p changes to f in the course of centuries in language of a group , the same process occurs in all its cousins. While the study of current vocabularies of, say Polish and English would yield scant results, common origins can be demonstrated beyond doubt by examining roots and structure.
With the exception of a few mavericks, the two thousand five hundred languages of America have been divided into groups in this manner, although much detailed work remains to be done to complete the process. Unfortunately, however, authors seeking signs of transoceanic contacts pay scant attention to such findings and confine themselves to viewing the mere tip of the linguistic iceberg. A single American language, not its parent group, is seized upon as an example and its relationship to some Asiatic or European tongue “proved”, not on the basis of common structure, but of similarities between a few words in everyday use.
A word-list game, as I prefer to call this practice is riddled with pitfalls, despite its popularity, and its value is slight since it relies on superficial likenesses. A virtual identity may be immediately apparent between the word for “god” in Ancient Greek (theos) and its equivalent in classical Nahuatl (teotl); mati means ‘eye’ in both Greek and Malaysia (mati in Nahuatl also means “to know” and, therefore, in sense, “ to perceive” or ”to see”). But words offer an infinite scope for chance coincidence, and Robert Wauchope has admirably stressed this point by making up his own list of near-duplicates between English and Maya.
No book that seeks a single Old world source for American culture, whether in the Near or Far East, incomplete without its list of common words, designed to clinch the matter. The game appeals to the beginner and the initiate alike: it was played by the eminent anthropologist Paul Rivet, in order to prove the common origin of south American Indians and Australian aborigines. In the 1920s Professor Leo Wiener of Harvard collected no less than three thousand Mayan and Nahuatl words and sought to show that both were derived from the Mandingo language of Africa. But, apart from loan-words no competent linguist nowadays admits serious links between Mayan and Nahuatl, which belong to two distinct Mexican groups, let alone between these tongues and Mandingo.
%%%%%%% Stephen Williams 1991 Fantastic Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Pp 251- “Leo Wiener (1862-1939) was a Professor of Slavic Languages and Literature at Harvard for more than thirty years. Born in Bialystock, Russian Poland, he was educated in Europe before emigrating to America in 1882. He seemed to have a natural facility for languages, and although he had no formal training in linguistics, he taught European languages at several institutions before coming to Harvard as an Instructor in Slavic in 1896... To all his research he brought “iron industry and penetrating observation”; he was not impressed with “establishment” or old school theories. “he was self-made and a self-taught man with strong points and shortcomings of his genus.” Personally he was an arresting figure, a famous character whose “lively temperament, genius and eccentricities lent color to Harvard Yard.” [footnote Harvard Memorial Minutes 1940]”.. . In 1926, Wiener published a volume entitled Maya and Mexican Origins.. . The major hypothesis contained in the lavish volume can be set forth in the author’s own words: “The major part of the religious concepts of the Mandingos [a West African tribe], hence of the Mayas and Mexicans, arises from linguistic speculation bequeathed by the Arabs in their astrology and astronomy, as derived from a Hindu source, hence it is now possible to maintain that the American [Indian] civilizations were derived from Africa after the ninth century [A.D.]. since it is only in the ninth and tenth centuries that the Hindu study of the sky became the preoccupation of the Arabs (Wiener, 1926: xxvii).”
Again,
Do you have any modern Mesoamerican linguist who supports your theory?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 09:09 PM:
Quetzalcoatl
quote: Do you have any modern Mesoamerican linguist who supports your theory?
Yes. You answered your own question. He is Leo Wiener as you note below.
quote: In the 1920s Professor Leo Wiener of Harvard collected no less than three thousand Mayan and Nahuatl words and sought to show that both were derived from the Mandingo language of Africa. But, apart from loan-words no competent linguist nowadays admits serious links between Mayan and Nahuatl, which belong to two distinct Mexican groups, let alone between these tongues and Mandingo.
Just because some linguist do not agree with Wiener's work does not make his work incorrect. The fact that I used his pivotal research to read the Olmec confirms his hypotheses.
Tuxtla Statuette
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 09:27 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb]QED your Mande Hypothesis is falsified. Kaufman/ Justeson have published their hypothesis in main-line refereed journals like Science and refereed Mesoamerican anthropology journals so that it has passed per review by qualified linguists and Mesoamericanists. Please quote with citation a Mesoamericanist linguist or archaeologist that supports the Mande/Olmec argument.
So what. Kaufman/Justeson published there paper in a refereed journal and the whole theory was proven to be false. The fact that the theory of these folks was found false--makes it clear that publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal says very little about the research published. If this was not the case Mixe theory would still exist.
The Kaufman/Justeson paper should never have been publshed once the reviewers read the researchers used a pre-Proto-language. This was a give-away that the decipherment was probably wrong since 1) a proto-language is a hypothetical language which is created/reconstructed by linguist and can not be proven to have existed;2) there is no such thing as a pre-proto-language; and 3) no ancient language has ever been published using a proto-language.
.
Exactly where was Kaufman/Justeson's theory proved false? I already mentioned Coe and Houston's paper which only says that the hypothesis needs a bilingual text to really be proven-- not the same as the theory being falsified. They continue to publish merrily in refereed journals therefore qualified linguists still consider their work worth publishing.
You keep repeating erroneous claims as if repeating them will make them true. I showed you that you were wrong and that Kaufman/Justeson did not say they used the pre-proto-Zoquean in the 1997 paper you referred to Therefore your claim that the paper should not have been published because of that is baloney.
Of course proto-languages are reconstructed and published. Here, for the benefit of members of the ES are a couple of passages explaining the role of proto-language in the comparative genetic method (which you obviously don't use), and 4 examples of whole books on proto-languages
Philip Baldi. 1991. “Introduction: The Comparative Method.” pp. 1-13. In P. Baldi, ed. Patterns of Change. Change of Patterns. Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. New York : Mouton de Gruyter.
p. 2. [Re comparative linguistics-- central notions]. “1) A significant percentage of cognates in core vocabulary areas must be demonstrated in order to establish genetic affinity between languages. This is a crucial step in the comparison of lexical items across languages which allows the formation of reconstruction hypotheses. ..”
p.5-6. “When we claim that two or more languages are genetically related, we are at the same time claiming that they share common ancestry... We begin with the following assumption: if two or more languages share a feature which is unlikely to have arisen by accident, borrowing, or as the result of some typological tendency or language universal, then it is assumed to have arisen only once and to have been transmitted to two or more languages from a common source. The greater the number of features that are discovered and securely identified, the sounder the relationship. In determining genetic relationship and reconstructing proto-forms using the comparative method, we usually start with vocabulary. A list of possible cognates which is likely to produce a maximum number of common inheritance items, known as the basic vocabulary list, provides many of the words we might investigate, such as basic kinship terms, pronouns, body parts, lower numerals, and others.”
Andrew Pawley and Malcolm Ross. 1993. “Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History,” Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 425-459.
THE GENETIC COMPARATIVE METHOD OF LINGUISTICS
The linguist uses recurrent sound correspondences, together with a logic that species the conditions under which phonological distinctions must be attributed to the parent language in order to construct a theory of the sound system of the proto-language. This yields a formal reconstruction of the proto-form for each cognate set. Reconstruction of the meaning attributable to a proto-form is straightforward if all witnesses agree. Otherwise the meaning may be determined by a theory of semantic change together with subgrouping considerations (44,46,521,131). Unlike the typological method of historical reconstruction, the genetic comparative method classifies languages not on the basis of their shared similarities in a structure but according to the distribution and weighing of shared changes to a reconstructed ancestral language. Armed with a theory of the proto-phonology and proto-lexicon, the linguist may be able to identify innovations peculiar to certain members of a family and thus arrive at a reasonable family tree. A mass of uniquely shared innovations or a smaller number of unusual ones indicates a period of common development apart from other languages. The most significant innovations are usually certain kinds of regular sound changes, idiosyncratic sound changes in particular words, and changes in the structure of morphological paradigms.
Malcolm Ross 1988 Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia Australian National University,
Peter Schrijver 1991 The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin Amsterdam: Rodopi
Winfred Lehman 1974 Proto-Indo-European syntax, Austin, University of Texas Press [1974]
Christopher Ehret 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian) : vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary Berkeley: University of California Press
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 09:32 PM:
Name one language deciphered fully using a Proto-language.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb]QED your Mande Hypothesis is falsified. Kaufman/ Justeson have published their hypothesis in main-line refereed journals like Science and refereed Mesoamerican anthropology journals so that it has passed per review by qualified linguists and Mesoamericanists. Please quote with citation a Mesoamericanist linguist or archaeologist that supports the Mande/Olmec argument.
So what. Kaufman/Justeson published there paper in a refereed journal and the whole theory was proven to be false. The fact that the theory of these folks was found false--makes it clear that publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal says very little about the research published. If this was not the case Mixe theory would still exist.
The Kaufman/Justeson paper should never have been publshed once the reviewers read the researchers used a pre-Proto-language. This was a give-away that the decipherment was probably wrong since 1) a proto-language is a hypothetical language which is created/reconstructed by linguist and can not be proven to have existed;2) there is no such thing as a pre-proto-language; and 3) no ancient language has ever been published using a proto-language.
.
Exactly where was Kaufman/Justeson's theory proved false? I already mentioned Coe and Houston's paper which only says that the hypothesis needs a bilingual text to really be proven-- not the same as the theory being falsified. They continue to publish merrily in refereed journals therefore qualified linguists still consider their work worth publishing.
You keep repeating erroneous claims as if repeating them will make them true. I showed you that you were wrong and that Kaufman/Justeson did not say they used the pre-proto-Zoquean in the 1997 paper you referred to Therefore your claim that the paper should not have been published because of that is baloney.
Of course proto-languages are reconstructed and published. Here, for the benefit of members of the ES are a couple of passages explaining the role of proto-language in the comparative genetic method (which you obviously don't use), and 4 examples of whole books on proto-languages
Philip Baldi. 1991. “Introduction: The Comparative Method.” pp. 1-13. In P. Baldi, ed. Patterns of Change. Change of Patterns. Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. New York : Mouton de Gruyter.
p. 2. [Re comparative linguistics-- central notions]. “1) A significant percentage of cognates in core vocabulary areas must be demonstrated in order to establish genetic affinity between languages. This is a crucial step in the comparison of lexical items across languages which allows the formation of reconstruction hypotheses. ..”
p.5-6. “When we claim that two or more languages are genetically related, we are at the same time claiming that they share common ancestry... We begin with the following assumption: if two or more languages share a feature which is unlikely to have arisen by accident, borrowing, or as the result of some typological tendency or language universal, then it is assumed to have arisen only once and to have been transmitted to two or more languages from a common source. The greater the number of features that are discovered and securely identified, the sounder the relationship. In determining genetic relationship and reconstructing proto-forms using the comparative method, we usually start with vocabulary. A list of possible cognates which is likely to produce a maximum number of common inheritance items, known as the basic vocabulary list, provides many of the words we might investigate, such as basic kinship terms, pronouns, body parts, lower numerals, and others.”
Andrew Pawley and Malcolm Ross. 1993. “Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History,” Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 425-459.
THE GENETIC COMPARATIVE METHOD OF LINGUISTICS
The linguist uses recurrent sound correspondences, together with a logic that species the conditions under which phonological distinctions must be attributed to the parent language in order to construct a theory of the sound system of the proto-language. This yields a formal reconstruction of the proto-form for each cognate set. Reconstruction of the meaning attributable to a proto-form is straightforward if all witnesses agree. Otherwise the meaning may be determined by a theory of semantic change together with subgrouping considerations (44,46,521,131). Unlike the typological method of historical reconstruction, the genetic comparative method classifies languages not on the basis of their shared similarities in a structure but according to the distribution and weighing of shared changes to a reconstructed ancestral language. Armed with a theory of the proto-phonology and proto-lexicon, the linguist may be able to identify innovations peculiar to certain members of a family and thus arrive at a reasonable family tree. A mass of uniquely shared innovations or a smaller number of unusual ones indicates a period of common development apart from other languages. The most significant innovations are usually certain kinds of regular sound changes, idiosyncratic sound changes in particular words, and changes in the structure of morphological paradigms.
Malcolm Ross 1988 Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia Australian National University,
Peter Schrijver 1991 The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin Amsterdam: Rodopi
Winfred Lehman 1974 Proto-Indo-European syntax, Austin, University of Texas Press [1974]
Christopher Ehret 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian) : vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary Berkeley: University of California Press
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 09:38 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Exactly where was Kaufman/Justeson's theory proved false? I already mentioned Coe and Houston's paper which only says that the hypothesis needs a bilingual text to really be proven-- not the same as the theory being falsified.
quote:
Well, this isn't truly an impeccable model. There is still not enough information to argue that there wasn't an influx of people into the Isthmus and thus replacing earlier inhabitants. Also, the fundamental assumption that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean language is still debatable. In fact, the correctness of the Justeson/Kaufman decipherment was thrown into doubt with the discovery of a new mask. When veteran epigraphers Stephen Houston and Michael Coe plugged the values proposed by Justeson and Kaufman into the texts on the mask, they found the reading far from satisfactory.
There is still much to be done to either prove or disprove the Justeson and Kaufman decipherment. However, in the mean time, I will assume that their work is valid and present an overview based on their work. .
You may not understand this, but if you are not able to read an inscription using a particular model, the language has not been deciphered.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 09:40 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl [QUOTE]
Just because some linguist do not agree with Wiener's work does not make his work incorrect. The fact that I used his pivotal research to read the Olmec confirms his hypotheses.
Tuxtla Statuette
.
Some linguists? Name any. Citing your own work is an example of circular reasoning. Wiener presented no comparison of presumed Mande hieroglyphs that were identical to those on the Tuxtla statuette. His claim derived from his overall hypothesis that primarily Nahuatl , if you look at Wiener's vol iii, and Maya were related to Mande not from any actual evidence. Even if you are correct, you did not prove Wiener because he thought that the Statuette was Mande= Nahuatl not Mande=Olmec.
The point is which modern qualified linguist supports your hypothesis?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 09:45 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl [QUOTE]
Just because some linguist do not agree with Wiener's work does not make his work incorrect. The fact that I used his pivotal research to read the Olmec confirms his hypotheses.
Tuxtla Statuette
.
Some linguists? Name any. Citing your own work is an example of circular reasoning. Wiener presented no comparison of presumed Mande hieroglyphs that were identical to those on the Tuxtla statuette. His claim derived from his overall hypothesis that primarily Nahuatl , if you look at Wiener's vol iii, and Maya were related to Mande not from any actual evidence. Even if you are correct, you did not prove Wiener because he thought that the Statuette was Mande= Nahuatl not Mande=Olmec.
The point is which modern qualified linguist supports your hypothesis?
Stop playing dumb. You know that the Tuxtla statuette was not identified as an Olmec artifact until much later. This makes Wiener's identification of the writing on the artifact as Mande truely visionary.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 09:51 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: You keep repeating erroneous claims as if repeating them will make them true. I showed you that you were wrong and that Kaufman/Justeson did not say they used the pre-proto-Zoquean in the 1997 paper you referred to Therefore your claim that the paper should not have been published because of that is baloney.
I don't think you know where you are. This is not Maat.
Here you want to spread lies as if no one will correct your lies. You claim that Kaufman/Justeson did not claim they used pre-proto-Zoquean to read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions, when you know that this statement is a lie.
quote:
Among the researchers who have worked on this script were John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, who in 1993 published a paper in the journey Science describing the partial decipherment that they have arrived. Justeson and Kaufman proposed that the language this script recorded was pre-proto-Zoquean, which belongs to a small language family called Mixe-Zoquean. This family is still spoken today around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
Stop spreading lies and playing games. You know Leo Wiener was a linguist. This makes your arguments totally groundless. Go back to Maat where people support your Eurocentrism.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 10:08 PM:
Mesoamerican relic provides new clues to mysterious ancient writing system Recent scholarly translation reported inaccurate
A previously unknown ancient mask from southern Mexico contains an inscription that shows the language used there prior to the Maya civilization remains undecipherable, according to a new study by Brigham Young University archaeologist Stephen Houston and Yale University professor emeritus Michael Coe.
Translating the Isthmian script, the written form of one of the languages used in Mesoamerica from about 500 B.C. to A.D. 500, would be a tantalizing key to unlocking the mysteries of ancient American societies before the Maya. In 1993, two other scholars reported in the journal Science that they had deciphered the writing system, an assertion disputed in the new study, published in the new issue of the journal Mexicon. "This study subjects a claimed decipherment of an ancient New World script to rigid standards of proof, and shows that this script remains undeciphered," said Coe, author of the bestselling book "Breaking the Maya Code," in which he documented how he and others deciphered Maya hieroglyphs. "The inscriptions found on the mask amount to a 'test case' for the validity of the claimed decipherment," allowing researchers to apply purported meanings of symbols to a new inscription and see if the results make sense.
Controversy remains about the people who populated what is now Mexico and northern Guatemala prior to the Maya. Little is known about their way of life and system of government, areas that an understanding of a writing system of the period would illuminate.
"This is one of a very small class of undeciphered writing systems," said Houston. "They tend to be windows into ancient mentalities and ancient worlds, so if you could just open the veil you could see through to a level of detail about these people that just wouldn't have been possible before."
Although many thousands of languages were spoken in antiquity, the number of writing systems is much smaller -- roughly 100. Some of those remain undecipherable, like Rongorongo, found on Easter Island, and Indus, the writing of the ancient people of what is now Pakistan and India.
In order to decipher or translate a dead writing system, scholars need what they call a "bi-script," or a known writing system that is roughly equivalent to the unknown. The famed Rosetta stone offered such a key for ancient Egyptian, and Coe and other scholars of Maya used colonial Spanish writings that gave hints to the meaning of Maya glyphs. Maya writing also was often accompanied by images, so researchers could compare the actions depicted in the images with their translation. The researchers who claimed to decipher the Isthmian script call it "epi-Olmec," based on their belief that it is an ancestor to the family of languages spoken from Maya times to the present. Their decipherment is derived from inscriptions on the La Mojarra stela, a stone monument discovered in 1986 and dated to A.D. 159. Its roughly 400 characters, which make it one of the longest Native American inscriptions known, are accompanied by only one image, that of a ruler holding something that might be a flower.
"Maya glyphs tend to be in relatively short phrases," explained Houston. "The jaw-dropping attribute of the Isthmian writing system is how lengthy it is. That makes it all the more difficult to link it to any kind of imagery because you don't have a one-to-one correspondence." In addition to the problems Houston and Coe noted with the previous attempt at decipherment, they said the mask they analyzed further highlights the implausibility of a current translation of the Isthmian script. Since there are roughly 10,000 Mayan texts, but Isthmian is attested in only five to 10 samples, each new context provides invaluable opportunity for testing. "We have just found another inscription, which allows us to plug in some of the supposed readings, and it comes up with a nonsensical pattern," Houston said. "We evaluate earlier ideas and find them wanting."
In the previous study, the scholars concluded that the Isthmian signs on the La Mojarra stela corresponded to syllables rather than words, Houston said. But the newly analyzed mask adds another 25 signs to the Isthmian "alphabet," showing that there is still much scholars don't understand about the script and that it probably contains a combination of syllable and word signs.
The mask is part of a private collection and the exact location and context of its unearthing are unknown, but Houston is confident it was written sometime between A.D. 300 and 500, since these types of masks were only made after that period.
"This new mask is important because it adds significantly to the total corpus of texts in the Isthmian script," Coe said. "If someday a far larger body of texts should be discovered, or if a bilingual inscription in Maya and Isthmian should turn up -- which is highly unlikely -- then the text on the rear of the mask should tell us something significant about this lost civilization."
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on 08 October, 2007 10:30 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: You keep repeating erroneous claims as if repeating them will make them true. I showed you that you were wrong and that Kaufman/Justeson did not say they used the pre-proto-Zoquean in the 1997 paper you referred to Therefore your claim that the paper should not have been published because of that is baloney.
I don't think you know where you are. This is not Maat.
Here you want to spread lies as if no one will correct your lies. You claim that Kaufman/Justeson did not claim they used pre-proto-Zoquean to read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions, when you know that this statement is a lie.
quote:
Among the researchers who have worked on this script were John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, who in 1993 published a paper in the journey Science describing the partial decipherment that they have arrived. Justeson and Kaufman proposed that the language this script recorded was pre-proto-Zoquean, which belongs to a small language family called Mixe-Zoquean. This family is still spoken today around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
Stop spreading lies and playing games. You know Leo Wiener was a linguist. This makes your arguments totally groundless. Go back to Maat where people support your Eurocentrism.
.
You are right. and I apologize . Your original statement referred to the 1997 Science paper. When I looked at it the reference was to proto-Zoquean. However, the original 1993 Science paper and the commentary,which you cite, also referred to pre-proto-Zoquean. I stand corrected.
I pointed out the Wiener had no training in linguistics, more importantly he was writing in 1920!!!! Linguistics has come along way since then. We have also developed radiocarbon dating so we know that how old Mesoamerican civilization really was that was not known then. Other than saying it, what evidence did Wiener present that Mande hieroglyphs were the same as the script on the Tuxtla statuette?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 10:33 PM:
You act as if Leo Wiener had no support for his conclusion that the Mande languages was related to Amerind languages. It was noted in one of the reviews of his work that Europeans accepted many of his views.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 October, 2007 10:58 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: You keep repeating erroneous claims as if repeating them will make them true. I showed you that you were wrong and that Kaufman/Justeson did not say they used the pre-proto-Zoquean in the 1997 paper you referred to Therefore your claim that the paper should not have been published because of that is baloney.
I don't think you know where you are. This is not Maat.
Here you want to spread lies as if no one will correct your lies. You claim that Kaufman/Justeson did not claim they used pre-proto-Zoquean to read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions, when you know that this statement is a lie.
quote:
Among the researchers who have worked on this script were John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, who in 1993 published a paper in the journey Science describing the partial decipherment that they have arrived. Justeson and Kaufman proposed that the language this script recorded was pre-proto-Zoquean, which belongs to a small language family called Mixe-Zoquean. This family is still spoken today around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
Stop spreading lies and playing games. You know Leo Wiener was a linguist. This makes your arguments totally groundless. Go back to Maat where people support your Eurocentrism.
.
You are right. and I apologize . Your original statement referred to the 1997 Science paper. When I looked at it the reference was to proto-Zoquean. However, the original 1993 Science paper and the commentary,which you cite, also referred to pre-proto-Zoquean. I stand corrected.
I pointed out the Wiener had no training in linguistics, more importantly he was writing in 1920!!!! Linguistics has come along way since then. We have also developed radiocarbon dating so we know that how old Mesoamerican civilization really was that was not known then. Other than saying it, what evidence did Wiener present that Mande hieroglyphs were the same as the script on the Tuxtla statuette?
Linguistic methods have not changed. You use comparative and historical linguistics to study any relationship existing between two or more languages.
Leo Wiener published pictures of Mande inscriptions to support his identification of analogy between Mande and Tuxtla signs.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 October, 2007 09:41 AM:
The Olmec have left us many inscriptions. Inscriptions that provide keen insight into their culture and civilization.
A number of inscriptions come from Guerrero. This site has been heavily looted so it is hard to determine the exact location many artifacts from this site were found. Moreover, many of the Guerrero artifacts come from private collection.
Teo mask
Although Coe could not read the inscriptions on the Teo Mask I deciphered the inscriptions when they were first published.
Below is the reading of column F of the Teo mask: “(1) Cause (here) the confering of all virtue to this very good abode.(2)Admiration indeed (Oh) Governor. Indeed (you are) wonder. (3) Thou (art) a spirit of tranquility .(4) (Thou art like) the Jaguar (a master of the bush).(5) Righteousness takes root here in this tomb of (6) Na Po Ngbe.(7) This habitation of the devotee (is) a habitation of propriety. (8) Order (Na Po Ngbe) this object of respect to be an envoy on a mission (9) (to) hold upright purity. He who is a powerful spirit (in) thine tomb.(10) Righteousness takes root here (in your) tomb.(11) [Na Po Ngbe] A boundless source of great spiritual tranquility (your) abode. The tomb is powerful.(12) lay low (the celebrity) [in the tomb] to realize spiritual tranquility.”
The mask is of king Na Po Ngbe. This king is also mentioned in the Guerrero celt and Ahuelican tablet.
Ahuelican Tablet
The transliteration of the Tablet is as follows:
(Santuary) Po Ngbe Nde po Nde po Tu gbe Tu gbe Gyo gbe The Pyramid (Temple) Ya Fa Ga Se
Translation of Tablet:
“The sanctuary of Po Ngbe. Indeed purity is King Gbe. Ngbe (was) obedient to the order; the unblemished society consecrated to the cult. The temple (tomb??),the heart (here) purity exist. The growth (of purity to be) realized (here).
Guerrero Celt
The Guerrero celt makes it clear that Ngbe was recognized as a member of the craftsmen caste. He was ruler of the place where these artifacts were found.
Little archaeological excavation has taken place in Guerrero. But archaeologists have been able to excavate the main ceremonial center at Teopantecuanitlen ,Nahuatl for "place of the temple of the jaguar". One of the structures found at this site may be the temple discussed in the Tablet.
Teopantecuanitlen Earthmonster Carved Slabs
This view is supported by the sunken courtyard that is surrounded by four carved earthmonster faces. The head band of the earthmonsters records Po Ngbe's name. This is clearly the temple mentioned in the Ahuelican Tablet.
This celt also makes it clear that Ngbe was probably buried in a pyramid. This view is supported by the Ahuelican, Guerrero Tablet. The Ahuelican Tablet, Guerrero Celt was made of the same stone as the Teo mask .
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 09 October, 2007 09:44 AM:
^ You are right about that, Clyde-- linguistic methods have not changed.
However, you do not utilize any of these valid methods. Instead you utilize psuedo-scholarly methods which leads to connect Mande to Olmec to Dravidian, to Japanese.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course there's such a thing as a Negro-Egyptien super family of African languages. Theophile Obenga posited it and his being a contemptible black man who dares theorize different than white linguists (his supposed betters) is no reason to ignore his work. Critically analyze it, vehemently disagree with it, but only a willful ignoramus chasing leucogheisten could declare it nonexistant.
I don't agree with either its designation, its contents, its exclusions, but it sure in hell exists. There is such a thing as Negro-Egyptien.
That's what I'm saying-- if it's contents and exclusions are wrong, then it is invalid is it not? It's designation I find especially odd if not insulting-- a compound of the racialist term "negro" with Egyptian, just one of millions of languages yet given importance only because of the one out of dozens of civilizations in Africa solely focused by Westerners. If anything, the very designation and title reaks of Eurocentrism even though the author may not have intended such a thing.
I think I understand your point and Obenga when you say there is a relation between all native African languages. I myself have never doubted this in fact many white Western scholars including Greenberg have admitted to this. What I question is the very manner in which this phylum is constructed. We have had this conversation before. Of course Greenberg's system is far from perfect, and there are better ways of classifying Africa's languages but I seriously doubt Obenga's method is any better.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
All I have to say is that Sertima is a hell of alot more respectable scholar than Clyde Winters!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. Your original statement referred to the 1997 Science paper. When I looked at it the reference was to proto-Zoquean. However, the original 1993 Science paper and the commentary,which you cite, also referred to pre-proto-Zoquean. I stand corrected. 
The Olmec have left us many inscriptions. Inscriptions that provide keen insight into their culture and civilization.
