posted
Not taking any particular position: Historically there are many examples of genocide. Rwanda (Tutsi/Hutu), South Africa (Whites/San), Yugoslavia (Serbs/Croats), Britain (Celts/Anglo-Saxons), New Zealand (Whites/Blacks), Americas (Whites/Amerindians-Blacks). In the Americas, wholesale slaughter in the guise of religion is well attested.
As to the issue of the Shang: No one has much in the way of empirical data, therefore circumstantial and anecdotal data must suffice.
The Chinese government website referrers to the Xia/Shang period, as a period of Slavery which was overcome. That does not suggest a harmonious mixed society. There is no indication that the Mongols were in any way an advanced culture before that. The best evidence for the condition of the Mongols in that period is actually in Japan.
At about 350 B.C. when the Mongol Yayoi invaded Japan. They brought no civilization with them. It seems likely that if they had a unique civilization or culture, they would have copied it in Japan.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Winters believes in biological races? Yet he calls me Nazi...
Wow, Mmmkay you delete your second insult to me today! Am I to assume you are now apologising?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
You claim that Shang China was founded by Mandingo.
Yet West African Mandingo have West African genetic lineage E3a.
China has none.
You are right. Chinese don't have any E3a genes because they killed off the Qiang (Blacks of China) through sacrifice rituals and genocide.
.
LOLOL!!!! Come on man you can do better than that. The funny thing is I am actually rooting for you.
And I think it is rather convenient that now *all of the sudden* you mention this telling revelation that anytime you ascribe Africans to starting a Civilization and there is no genetic evidence that it is because they were ALL killed off lol.
I don't understand why you can't believe an entire people can disappear as a result of genocide given the murder of Jews during WWII. Kwang-chih Chang, makes it clear that the Qiang were often sacrificed by the Anyang-Shang (1). Craniometrics make it clear that most of the sacrificial victims were Negro Qiang (2) The Yin (classical mongoloid) people sacrificed the Qiang usually a 100 at a time along with cattle according to the Shang Oracle Bone inscriptions (3).
There are thousands of Oracle bone inscriptions. At the rate of 100 sacrificial victims per sacrifice the murder of Blacks in China were probably in the 100,000's. Is it any wonder that E3a lineages is not found among native Chinese who are the descendents of the Han/Hua people of the Zhou dynasty.
It is interesting to me that the Qiang bodies were buried separately from the heads. Scientist have been able to identify the Negro Qiang based on skulls recovered from separate burial sites.
Due to continuous wars with the Yin and later Han/Hua peoples the Qiang retreated from the Anyang area, back to Kansu and Shansi. Later they migrated into Central Asia and India.
References:
1. Kwang-chih Chang, Shang Civilization, ISBN 0-300-02428-2
2. _________.The Archaeology of Ancient China, ISBN 0-300-03784-8
3. ___________.Studies in Shang Archaeology,ISBN 0-300-03578-0
But Clyde, even I understand that in population genetics *alleles* are left over in living populations despite "your claim" of all *blacks* in China being killed. It is impossible that none of those blacks wouldn't have mixed with another Chinese..IMPOSSIBLE; and have left over even a minute trace of African *alleles*(baring out of Africa ABO traces of course).
And when is your dating for all this diatribe Clyde? I am on your side remember, but that also means that I care about your research and by caring I would want for it to be accurate for the sake of ALL Africanists.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ How about addressing the thread topic?
The thread topic has already been discussed and exhausted. Winters cannot bring any evidence, except himself, for most of his claims. But if he wants to start talking about Jews disappearing after WW2, then count me out. He's getting too weird with his claims. lol
I just want to know if your deleting of that second insult was an apology of some sort. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists. [/QUOTE]
These topics, and others, were discussed at length 10 years ago. Do a google groups search 1996-1999 for mande maya, mande olmec in sci-archaeology
posted
Most of these kinds of topics have been discussed over and over years ago. I am not familiar with the site you posted but I can tell you, from just a quick glance at the names, any forum with the buffoon de Montellano must be a festival of ignorance! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because selected webpages do not indicate a relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages does not mean a relationship does not exist. This relationship is evident in a comparative analysis of the Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages.
Malinke-Bambara Loan Words in the Mayan Languages
In this paper we review the Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages . This evidence of Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages is probably the result of Mayan people living among the Mande speaking Olmecs 3000 years ago in a bilingual environment.
LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE OF AFRICAN INFLUENCE IN
ANCIENT AMERICA
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman (1976) have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda (1975,1983) believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus (1989) is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus (1989:148-151) believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabsco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee (1989:223) noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
The Olmec probably spoke a Manding language. Manding speaking Olmec probably came from West Africa. As a result, we find that the Olmec-Manding language is a substrata language in many Amerindian languages including Yucatec, and Otomi. The Olmec-Manding substrata in Otomi and Maya suggest that Maya and Otomanguean speaking invanders caused the disruption of the homogeneous Olmec language spoken in the riverine cities of the Olmec.
The most influential group in the rise of American civilization were the Manding speakers of West Africa. The Manding speaking people founded the first civilizations in much of West Africa 3500 years ago. They also founded the Olmec civilization in the New World and left numerous toponyms in Mexico and Panama.
The migration of Olmec speaking people from West Africa to Meso-America would explain the sudden appearence of the Olmec civilization . The Olmec culture appears suddenly in Meso-America, and archaeologist have failed to find any evidence of incipient Olmec religion and culture in this area. Commenting on this archaeological state of affairs Coe (1989:82) noted that "... the Olmec mental system , the Olmec art style, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared in full-fledged form about 1200 B.C."
The Proto Olmec or Manding people formerly lived in North Africa in the Saharan Highlands : and Fezzan.(see C. A. Winters, "The Migration routes of the Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.77 98) . Here the ancestors of the Olmecs left their oldest inscription written in the Manding script (which some people call Libyco Berber, eventhough they can not be read in Berber) : was found at Oued Mertoutek and dated by Wulsin in , Papers of the peabody Museum of American Arcaheology and Ethnology (Vol.19(1), 1940), to 3000 B.C. This indicates that the Manding hand writing 2000 years before they settled the Gulf of Mexico.
These Proto-Olmec people lived in the Highlands of the Sahara. Here we find numerous depictions of boats engraved in the rock formations that these people used to navigate the Sahara before it became a desert.
The Olmec, another Central American culture and probably the first Americans to develop a number and math system, influenced their Mayan neighbors. Mayans borrowed much of their art and architecture from the Olmecs, including the pyramid structures that the Mayans are so famous for. The first of these great Mayan structures appeared between 400 B.C. and 150 A.D.
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence. (Winters 1979,1980,1981) The most important finding of Wiener (1922) was the identification of Manding inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette. Although Wiener (1922) was unaware of the great age of the Tuxtla statuette his correct identification of the African origin of the signs on the statuette helped us to decipher the Olmec script and lead to the determination that the Olmec spoke a Manding language.
The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya. (Swadesh 1953) This linguistic evidence is supplemented by Amerindian traditions regarding the landing of colonist from across the Atlantic in Huasteca (we will discuss this tradition later).
The Manding speakers were early associated with navigation/sailing along the many ancient Rivers that dotted Africa in neolithic times. (McCall 1971; McIntosh and McIntosh 1981) These people founded civilization in the Dar Tichitt valley between 1800-300 B.C, and other sites near the Niger River which emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. (Winters 1986a)
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980) This has been proven by the decipherment of the Olmec inscriptions. Due to the early spread of the manding language during the Olmec period Manding is a substratum language of many Amerind languages.
The Manding languages are a member of the Mande family of languages.(Platiel 1978; Galtier 1980) Mann and Dalby (1987), give Mande a peripheral status in the Niger-Congo superset.
As has been shown throughout this book the Manding settled many parts of the ancient world. The Olmec language has a high frequency of disyllabic roots of the CVCV,CV and CVV kind. Monosyllabic roots of the CV kind often reflect the proto-form for many Manding words.(Winters 1979)
As in most other Olmec languages, words formed through compounding CVCV and CV roots, e.g., (gyi/ji 'water') da-ji 'mouth-water, saliva', ny -ji 'eye-water:tear'. Manding has a well established affxial system, typified by the use of suffixes as useful morphemes expressing grammatical categories. Although tone is important in the Manding languages, it was least important in the Olmec group.
It is clear that contemporary Amerinds share few if any biological characteristics with Africans. Yet Greenberg (1987) has found many loan words in Amerind of possible African origin.
In addition to Malinke-Bambara loan words, there are numerous toponyms which unite the New World and Africa. (Vamos-Toth Bator 1983; Duarte 1895) For example, the Olmec/Manding suffix of nationality or locality -ka, is represented in Mexico as -ca, e.g., Juxllahuaca,Oaxoca, Toluca and etc. In addition Dr. Vamos-Toth (1983), has found over fifty identical toponyms in West Africa and Meso-America.
Below we will compare Manding and selected Amerind languages. Some of the diacritic features of the Amerind languages will be noted in this paper. But in the case of Manding/Olmec , on the other hand, diacritic marks will not be used in conformity with the African Reference Alphabet.(Mann and Dalby 1987, p.214)
OTOMI
Otomi and Manding also share many features in grammar, phonology and morphology. This is interesting because Dixon (1923) and Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that the Otomi had probably mixed in the past with Africans. Quatrefages (1889, pp.406-407) also believed that Africans formerly lived in Florida, the Caribbean and Panama. Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (1972, p.107) admits a profound influence of Manding slaves in colonial America, but due to their enslavement the slavery period can not account for the genetic relationship which exist between Otomi and Manding.
Manding is closely related to old Otomi, rather than the Mezquital dialect. As a result most of the terms compared herein are taken from Neve y Molina (1975) and Manuel Orozcoy y Berra's Geografia da las lenguas y Carta Ethgrafica de Mexico.
Although Neve y Molina's work is over 200 years old, most of the terms he collected agree with contemporary Otomi terms in most details, except for the lack of diacritic marks and nasalized vowels or glottalized consonants. For example, whereas in the Muger Otomi dialect we find danxu 'woman', Neve y Molina (NyM) had dansu; Mudurar dialect da 'ripe, mature', NyM da 'id.' ;Ojo Na daa 'eye', NyM daa 'id.'; Hija ttixu 'son', NyM ti; and Diente Na tzi 'tooth', NyM tsi.
The phonology of contemporary Otomi can be explained by evolution. The sound change from s > z in the terms for 'woman' and s > x for 'tooth', can be explained as a normal historical transition from one Otomi phoneme to another. The addition of the Otomi possessive na to the actual words for 'eye' and 'tooth'.
The orthography for Otomi dialects has been a focus of controversy for many years. D. Bartholomew , is a leading advocate for the illustration of tone in any discussion of Otomi. H.R. Bernard on the other hand, has noted the desirability of vowels in a practical spelling/orthography of Otomi. But, both in Otomi and Manding, tone plays an important role.
Other affinities exist between Otomi and Manding. As in Taino, the phonemic syllable is primarily CV and a tone.
All of these languages are agglutinative. In both Olmec/Manding and Otomi the words are formed by adding two different terms together or an affix. Manual Orozco (p.129) records ka-ye as the Otomi word for 'holy man'. This term is formed by ka 'holy' and ye 'man'. Another word is da-ma 'mature woman'. This word is formed by ma 'woman' and da 'mature,ripe'.
Otomi and Olmec/Manding share grammatical features. The Otomi ra 'the', as in ra c, 'the cold' agrees with the Manding -ra suffix used to form the present participle e.g., kyi-ra 'the envoy'. The Otomi use of bi to form the completed action agrees with the Manding verb 'to be' bi. For example, Otomi bi du 'it died' and bi zo-gi 'he left it" ,is analogous to Manding a bi-sa. Otomi da is used to form the incomplete action e.g., ci 'eat': daci 'he will eat'. This agrees with the Manding da, la affix which is used to form the factitive or transitive value e.g., la bo 'to take the place'. In addition Otomi ? no , is the comple-tive e.g., bi ?no mbo ra 'he was inside his house'. This shows affinity to the Manding suffix of the present participle -no, e.g., ji la-sigi-no 'dormant water'.
The Mezquital Otomi pronominal system shows some analogy to that of Manding, but Neve y Molina's Otomi pronouns show full agreement :
First Second Third
Otomi ma i, e a
Manding n', m' I ,e a
Otomi and Manding also share many cognates from the basic vocabulary including
English Otomi Manding
son/daughter t?I,ti de,di
eyes da do
brother ku koro
sister nkhu ben-k
lip sine sine
mouth ne ne
man ta/ye tye/kye
The Otomi and Manding languages also have similar syntax e.g., Otomi ho ka ra 'ngu 'he makes the houses', and Manding a k nu 'he makes the family habitation (houses)'.
MAYA
The Manding and Mayan languages share many grammatical and lexical affinities. In both these languages there is striking similar distinctions between alienable and inalienable possessed nouns. (Welmers 1973)
The Mayan languages are spoken in an area from Yucatan and E Chiapas in Mexico, into much of Guatemala and Belize, and W Honduras. The Quiche language is a member of the Mayan family, spoken in the western highlands of Guatemala. It is most closely related to the Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Sacapultee, and Sipacapa languages of central Guatemala and more distantly related to Pocomam, Pocomchí, Kekchí, and other languages of the Eastern Mayan group .
The Manding and Mayan languages have similar pronominal systems:
First Second Third
Manding ni,n',na e a
Maya in ech a
J.A. Fox (1985) observed that Maya had a previous third person prefix *i, which was joined to many Maya kinship and body part terms. This discovery by Fox, is most interesting because Winters (1986b, p.87) suggested that a *y and/or *-i- was prefixed to Mande terms for the head and face. In Taino an i- , is also joined to names for parts of the body e.g., iz 'eyes'.
There are many Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages including:
Maya English Manding
naal parent,mother na
ba father pa
ba lord ba
In addition to finding Malinke-Bambara loan words from the basic vocabulary in the Mayan languages, Manding and Mayan languages share formational elements. For example, there is parallel use of -ma- to form the negative mood in Maya and Manding. And in both these languages the suffix -na is used to indicate possession.
The Olmec settled many early sites in the lands occupied by the Mayan speaking people.
As a result the Mayan speaking people adopted many Olmec/Mande terms. As a result we find numerous Mande words copied into the Yucatec and Quiche Mayan languages.
Below we compare the Quiche and Malinke-Bambara languages. The terms compared in this study come from the following sources:
Delafosse, Maurice.(1929). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais Mandingue).Paris: Librarie. Orientaliste Paul Geuthner
Campbell,Lyle.(1977). Quichean linguistic prehistory .Berkeley : University of California Press.University of California publications in linguistics. v. 81
Tedlock,Dennis.(1996). Popol Vuh. New York: A Touchstone Book.
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient times.
Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/ , appear as /c/ ,/x/ or /k/ in the Mayan languages. For example, Malinke Bambara, the word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. In Quiche we have ka:x 'sky' which corresponds to Mande sa / ka 'sky'. In Quiche many words beginning with /ch/ correspond to words they borrowed from the Malinke-Bambara languages possessing an initial /k/, e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
ch'ich' bird kono
achi man kye
chi>ic bite ki
chhix rock kaba
It is also interesting to note that many Quiche words beginning with /x/ which is pronounced 'sh', correspond to words borrowed from Malinke-Bambara with an initial /s/ e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
xab' rain sa
ixa? seed si
uxe root sulu, suru
Other loan words in Quiche from Malinke-Bambara include:
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
saq'e daytime,sunlight sa 'heaven, sky'
k'i many kika
ja lineage, family ga, gba
ja water ji
q'aq fire ga-ndi
palo lake, sea ba, b'la
k'oto to carve, cut ka
k':um squash kula, kura
Ba father fa
Ba lord Ba 'great' (Person)
ka 'land,earth' ka 'suffix joined to names of lands,etc.
ich eye n'ya
le the, that, this le
ma no ma
naal parent, mother na
ni point, at the point na
cah earth, land ka (see above)
balam jaguar/tiger balan 'leopard worship'
sib' smoke sisi
xolo:m head ku
xuku? boat, canoe kulu
ca<al neck ka
qul neck ka
k'u?sh chest kesu
k'o:x mask ku
pu:m stomach furu
pach bark fara
The loan words in Quiche from Malinke-Bambara show the following patterns
a------->a
c------->s
o------->u
c------->k
u------->a
z------->s
x ---------s
k------->k
x--------- k
p------->f
q------->k
ch------>k
Below we compared Yucatec and Malinke-Bambara terms. I have placed the page number where each Mayan term can be found in Maurice
Swadesh, Critina Alvarez and Juan R. Bastarrachea's, "Diccionario de
Elementos del Maya Yucatec Colonial" (Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico Centro de Estudios Mayas, 1970). The Malinke-Bambara terms come from Delafosse, Maurice.(1929). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais Mandingue).Paris: Librarie. Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Phonetic correspondences exists between the Malinke-Bambara and Yucatec. There is full agreement between k, m,n, and t. There is also assimilation of c to k, z to s.
Yucatec Malinke Bambara
z s
Zuu, 'joined,unite su,' shape p.95
Zul 'to wet' su, 'precipitation p.95
Zou, 'to entagle' su, 'be i mixture' p.95
Zay, 'assemble' se, 'join' p.94
c k
Earth cab ka p.15
Serpent can kan p.18
Rock chhix kaba
To cause cal ku
Sky caan ka p.15, p.38
Village cah ka 'suffix joined to names of towns p.15
Maize co 'grain of maize' ka p.40
k k
kun kin k'le p.58
Buckle kal koli p.57
To kill kim ki
Sky kan kan
God, sacre ku ku, ko p.60
t t
Man ta' tye p.79
Come tal ta p.79
To cover too tu
Law toh tu
Truth toh tu, 'fact, real' p.81
Forest te tu
Male ton,'male sexual organ' tye, khon p.81
Saliva tub tu p.82
b b
Went,gone bin bi p.36
Water bak ba
Water ha a p.15
Lord ba ba
Arrows been bine
Balan 'jaguar'/tiger balan 'leopard worship' p.17
n n
Mother na' na p.66
House nu nu
House na nu p.66
Nose ni nu p.16
p p
To be pe pe
To break pa'a pe p.71
There are many kinship terms in the Mayan languages probably of Malinke-Bambara origin including :
Maya English Manding
Naal parent,mother na
Ba father pa
Ba lord ba
An examination of Mayan and Mande homophones also indicates striking similarity. There is a connection between Malinke- Bambara and Yucatec homonyms for 'high, sky and serpent'.
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient times.
Often we find that some borrowed Mande words beginning with /s/ , through nativization appear as /c/ in the Mayan languages. For example, word the Malinke-Bambara word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. We also have other examples
Mayan Malinke-Bambara
Can serpent sa
Con to sell sa, san
Caan heaven, sky sa
Cah 'small village' so 'village, home'
The copying of Mande /s/ words into Mayan lexicons as /c/ words are probably the result of phonological interference of Mayan /c/, which influenced how Malinke-Bambara words were lexicalized by biligual Yucatec speakers. Interference occurs when speakers carry features from their first language over into a second language. Thus, we have Yucatec con 'to sell', and Malinke-Bambara san 'to sell. Many of the Mayan sites were first settled by the Olmec.
This is supported by the fact that the Mayan inscriptions from Palenque claim that the first ruler of this city was the Olmec leader U-Kix-chan. In addition, some Mayan kings were styled Kuk according to Mary Miller and Karl Taube,in "The Gods and symbols of ancient Mexico and Maya, said this term was also used in the Olmec inscriptions, like those from Tuxtla, to denote the local ruler of many Olmec sites. It was probably during this period of contact that the Maya began to copy Mande terms and incorporate them in their lexicon. It is time that we stop the name calling and work together to explain to the world the African presence in ancient America.
Many of these loan words are from the basic vocabulary. They support the hypothesis that in ancient times Mayan speakers lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking Olmec people. Moreover this is further confirmation of Leo Wiener's theory in Africa and the Discovery of America that the religion and culture of the Meso-Americans was influenced by Mande speaking people from West Africa.
The Manding, Maya , Otomi and Taino languages share pronouns:
Manding Taino Otomi Maya
Sing./Plural
n,m,na /n-te mi, m' nga, na in
e /i-te ti,t' i,e,ni ech
a /a-te li na,a a
This pattern of Amerind and African pronoun agreement is quite interesting. Greenberg (1987) has observed that Amerind languages are characterized by first-person n, and second person m. But in the case of Otomi and Maya, we find first person n, second person e/i, and third person a, the same pronoun pattern found in the Manding group. This shows considerable influence of the Manding /Olmec over the Maya, and the probable identification of the Otomi and Taino languages as genetically related to the Manding group.
There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people probably gave writing to the Maya. Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991) found that the Proto Maya term for "write" is *c'ihb' or *c'ib'. Since the Olmec people probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan term for writing would probably correspond to the Mande term for writing. A comparison of these terms confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for writing *c'ib' or *c'ihb' is derived from the Olmec/Manding term for writing *se'be'. The ancient Mayans wrote their inscriptions in Chol, Yucatec and probably Quiche.
My comparison of Quiche and Yucatec to the Mande languages is a valid way to illustrate the ancient relationship between the Pre-Classic Maya and Mande speaking Olmec. Archaeologist and epigraphers no longer believe that the Classic Maya inscriptions were only written in Cholan Maya. Now scholars recognize that many Mayan inscriptions written during the Classic period were written in Yucatec and probably the language spoken in the area where the Mayan inscriptions are found. See:
1. R. J. Sharer," Diversity and Continuity in Maya civilization: Quirigua as a case study", in (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History,( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996)
p. 187. 2. N. Hammond, "Inside the black box:defining Maya polity". In (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History, ( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996) p.254. 3. J.S. Justeson, W. M. Norman, L. Campbell, & T.S. Kaufman, The Foreign impact on Lowland Mayan languages and Script. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University, 1985.
This would also explain why the Maya, according to Landa had Universities where elites learned writing and other subjects. He noted that the Ahkin May or Ahuacan May (High Priest) "...and his disciples appointed the priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies...he provided their books and sent them forth. They in turn attended to the service of the temples, teaching their sciences and writing books upon them" (see: Friar Diego de Landa, Yucatan before and After the Conquest, (trs.) by William Gates, Dover Publications ,New York, 1978).
In conclusion, the evidence of Malinke-Bambara loan words in the Mayan languages, and shared grammatical paradigms between Manding, Maya, and Otomi exhibit an intimate and prolonged early contact between the speakers of these languages. This contact is also proven by the decipherment of the Olmec inscriptions.
This evidence of Manding, Maya , Otomi and Taino pronominal agreement is striking because there is, as noted by Greenberg,Turner and Zegura (1986) "not a single authenticated borrowing of a first-or-second person pronoun". Thus the evidence of a: n,na,n' and e, i/a pronoun pattern clustered in Africa and the New World supports Greenberg's (1987) hypothesis of an African influence on the Amerind languages, and Wiener's (1922) view that the dominant ethnic group in developing American civilization was the Manding speaking people.
It is improbable to suggest that coincidence can account for the pronominal agreement between Manding Taino and Otomi for two reasons: (1) the accepted historical date for the meeting of the speakers of these languages is far too late to account for the grammatical affinities and corresponding terms found within these languages; and (2) borrowing is very rare from a culturally subordinate linguistic group (the African slaves) into a culturally dominant linguistic group (the Amer-indians), particularly in the basic vocabulary areas. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the Taino words were collected before Mande speaking slaves were taken to the Americas. The European slave traders moved from north to south in their recruitment of slaves. As a result, we find that up until the 1550's most African slaves taken to Spanish America came from areas above the Gambia river. Most of the earliest Mande speaking slaves did not begin arriving in the Americas until slaves began to be exported from the Gambian region of West Africa.
Above is my evidence of Malinke-Bambara substratum in Mayan languages. Now why don't you present the counter evidence.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Mande speaking people have never stopped writing in their ancient script. It appears that the Mande are keeping alive use of the script in Secret Societies like the Poro Secret Society.
There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script .
Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839. David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133) reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai. Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21) believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.
The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script .
We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed" (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.
If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system.
When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.
This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.
Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" (see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months .
If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.
The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why even though the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.
This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it , so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.
Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".
Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71) found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.
David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"(see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skeptical because Beslow had made the same claim.
In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.
Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.
The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.
References:
S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)
David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)
K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)
D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, made the discovery that the characters on the Tuxtla statuette were of Malinke-Bambara origin. This was a striking discovery. This artifact, along with other engraved Olmec artifacts is credible evidence that the Olmec probably came from Africa. This leads to the hypothesis that if writing was created first by African Olmec, the term used for writing will be of African origin.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing. Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.
The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing.
Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
The Manding origin for the Mayan term for writing , leads to a corollary hypothesis. This hypothesis stated simply is that an examination of the Mayan language will probably indicate a number of Olmec-Manding loans in Mayan.
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
Coe, Tate and Pye mention 1200 BC as a terminal date in the rise of Olmec civilization. This is interesting. For example, the linguistic evidence of Morris Swadesh in The language of the archaeological Haustecs (Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnography, no.114 ,1953) indicates that the Huastec and Mayan speakers were separated around 1200 BC by a new linguistic group. This implies that if my hypothesis for African settlers of Mexico wedged in between this group 3000 years ago, we can predict that linguistic evidence would exist in these languages to support this phenomena among contemporary Meso-American languages.
Some people claim that the Olmec probably spoke a Mixe language, given the relationship between the following words and the Mayan words. But as you can see below these words also find cognate forms in Malinke –Bambara.
Linguistic Evidence Mixe English Mayan Malinke-Bambara *koya tomato ko:ya koya *cumah gourd kuum kula *ciwa squash c’iwan si to:h rain to tyo, dyo *ma deer me m’na ‘antelope’ kok maize co ka
Mixe ta:k kam ‘land of cultivation’ Malinke-Bambara ta ka ga ‘place for plant cultivation’
The Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages share many other terms as listed below.
English Chol Yucatec Malinke Earth caban cab ka Sky chan caan Sa, kan Serpent chan caan Sa, kan Sun kin, cin kin, cin kle Holy ch’uk k’uk ko Holy ba ba ba Write c’ib’ c’i:b’ sebe Chief kuk ku
In a recent article in article by S.D. Houston and M.D. Coe, “Has Isthmian writing been deciphered?”, Mexicon 25 (December 2003), these researchers attempted to read Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the decipherment of Justeson/Kaufman and found the reading of the text was impossible. This supports my earlier articles showing that the Olmec did not speak Mixe.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ oh my god! Winters is going crazy with this trolling now! How long does this have to be?!
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence.
This is not enough to claim West African origins of the Olmec. The evidence you present for Mande origins of the Olmec are yourself, again. Sometimes you slip in others:
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980)
But Wuthenau was a German aristocrat and an art historian not a linguist.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain Africans in ancient America, I use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the African origin of the Olmecs hypothesis. Just because these people may live in the Olmec heartland today, says very little about the inhabitants of this area 3000 years ago.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical knowledge to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through yes of the variables associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. Many commentators maintain that the Olmecs weren't Africans. In support of this conjecture they maintain: 1) Africans first came to America with Columbus; 2) Amerindians live in Mesoamerica; 3) the Olmec look like the Maya; 4) linguistic groups found in the Olmec heartland have always lived in areas they presently inhabit. These are all logical deduction, but they are mainly nonfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
Granted we see Zoquean and Maya speakers in Olmecland today. But the linguistic evidence of Swadesh indicate that they were not in this area 3000 years ago when a new linguistic group appears to have entered the area.
Secondly, any comparison of Mayans depicted in Mayan art, and the Olmec people depicted in Olmec art especially the giant heads, indicate that these people did not look alike http://geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/heads.htm
Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type:
Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters. A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD. Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation; 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing; 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages; 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations; and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.
In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.
The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
This makes it clear that we can not ignore the evidence. I have tried to keep up with the literature in this field over the past 30 years and I would appreciate someone reproducing on this forum citations of the articles which have conclusively disconfirmed the skeletal evidence of Wiercinski.
The fact remains African skeletons were found in Mesoamerica. This archaeological evidence supports the view that the Olmec were predominately African when we examine the anthropological language used to describe the Olmec skeletons analyzed by Wiercinski. See: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
There is clear linguistic evidence that the Malinke Bambara language of the Xi people, is a substratum in the major languages spoken in the former centers of Olmec civilization.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”. Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46). You try to claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, made the discovery that the characters on the Tuxtla statuette were of Malinke-Bambara origin. This was a striking discovery. This artifact, along with other engraved Olmec artifacts is credible evidence that the Olmec probably came from Africa. This leads to the hypothesis that if writing was created first by African Olmec, the term used for writing will be of African origin.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing. Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system. The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing.
Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
The Manding origin for the Mayan term for writing , leads to a corollary hypothesis. This hypothesis stated simply is that an examination of the Mayan language will probably indicate a number of Olmec-Manding loans in Mayan.
Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman have proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech, while Manrique Casteneda believes that they spoke a Mayan language. Most researchers believe that the Olmec spoke one of the Otomanguean languages which include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi, to name a few.
Marcus is a strong advocate of the Otomangue hypothesis. Marcus believes that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language and also practiced the Proto-Otomangue religion.
The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of languages spoken in the Tabasco/Veracruz area. Thomas A. Lee noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous village in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption, made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders..."
Coe, Tate and Pye mention 1200 BC as a terminal date in the rise of Olmec civilization. This is interesting. For example, the linguistic evidence of Morris Swadesh in The language of the archaeological Haustecs (Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnography, no.114 ,1953) indicates that the Huastec and Mayan speakers were separated around 1200 BC by a new linguistic group. This implies that if my hypothesis for African settlers of Mexico wedged in between this group 3000 years ago, we can predict that linguistic evidence would exist in these languages to support this phenomena among contemporary Meso-American languages.
Some people claim that the Olmec probably spoke a Mixe language, given the relationship between the following words and the Mayan words. But as you can see below these words also find cognate forms in Malinke –Bambara.
Linguistic Evidence Mixe English Mayan Malinke-Bambara *koya tomato ko:ya koya *cumah gourd kuum kula *ciwa squash c’iwan si to:h rain to tyo, dyo *ma deer me m’na ‘antelope’ kok maize co ka
Mixe ta:k kam ‘land of cultivation’ Malinke-Bambara ta ka ga ‘place for plant cultivation’
The Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages share many other terms as listed below.
English Chol Yucatec Malinke Earth caban cab ka Sky chan caan Sa, kan Serpent chan caan Sa, kan Sun kin, cin kin, cin kle Holy ch’uk k’uk ko Holy ba ba ba Write c’ib’ c’i:b’ sebe Chief kuk ku
In a recent article in article by S.D. Houston and M.D. Coe, “Has Isthmian writing been deciphered?”, Mexicon 25 (December 2003), these researchers attempted to read Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the decipherment of Justeson/Kaufman and found the reading of the text was impossible. This supports my earlier articles showing that the Olmec did not speak Mixe.
This comparison of words used by “indigenous” people in the Olmec heartland confirmed cognition between these languages, and suggests a former period of bilingualism among speakers of these languages in ancient times.
In other words, in the case of the linguistic variable alone, the proposition of my African origin theory, matches the observed natural phenomena. The predicting power of this theory, confirmed by cognate lexical items in Malinke-Bambara, the Mayan, Otomi and Taino languages, indicates that the theory is confirmed. The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Malinke-Bambara and Mesoamerican languages, is confirmation of the theory, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
In conclusion, there is abundant evidence for the African origin of the Olmec civilization. We controlled this theory by comparing Malinke-Bambara and Meso-American terms, skeletal evidence, and iconographic representation of the indigenous Mayan people and the Olmec people, and the technology of writing. Each variable proved to be supported of an African origin for the Olmec. This theory was first identified by Leo Wiener who noted the presence of many Malinke-Bambara terms in the cultural, especially religious lexicon of the Aztec and Maya speakers. Since we have predicted reliably this variable of my African origin of the Olmec theory, this variable must be disconfirmed, to "defeat" my hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
In this paper I have attempted to demonstrate the difference between science and conjecture. My ability to predict successfully, a linguistic relationship between Malinke-Bambara and Mesoamerican languages, makes it unnecessary to search for a different underlying explanation for the Olmec heads, which look like Africans. They look like Africans, because they were Africans who modeled for the heads.
My confirmation of variables in the African origin of Olmec theory indicates the systematic controlled , critical and empirical investigation of the question of African origins of the Olmec. This is validation of the Malinke-Bambara theory first proposed by Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, which presumed relations among the Olmec and Black Africans.
This research evidence, illustrates that the Olmec proposition lacks firm evidence is clearly without foundation. Any rejection of the Olmec hypothesis appears to be based on the method of knowing called tenacity, you believe Africans could not have migrated in America in ancient times and that’s that. You need to read more below are some of my sites that can inform you about the African origin of the Olmecs. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/
The migration of Olmec speaking people from Saharan Africa to Meso-America would explain the sudden appearance of the Olmec civilization . The Olmec culture appears suddenly in Meso-America , and archaeologist have failed to find any evidence of incipient Olmec religion and culture in this area. Commenting on this archaeological state of affairs Coe (1989) noted that "... the Olmec mental system , the Olmec art style, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared in full-fledged form about 1200 B.C." (p.82).
Many researchers have not read my work, because they constantly maintain that I believe that the ancestors of the Olmec came from West Africa-I believe they came from the Saharan region before it dried up.
I hope this discussion of the scientific method and Africans in ancient America can help you gain more insight into my theories of African origins of Olmec culture, and see the firm scientific basis for this reality.
• •
References Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580. Carolina Bonilla et al. (2005) Admixture analysis of a rural population in the state of Gurerrero , Mexico, Am. Jour Phys Anthropol 128(4):861-869. retrieved 2/9/2006 at : http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/111082577/ABSTRACT
M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.
Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Underhill, et al (1996) " A pre-Columbian Y chromosome specific transition with its implications for human evolutionary history", Proc. Natl. Acad. Science USA, 93, pp.196-200.
Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137. Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press. Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces. Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131. Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544. MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press. Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico. Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122. Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200. Van Rossum,P. (1996). Olmec skeletons African? No, just poor scholarship. http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso/rossum.html. Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980. Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143. Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252. Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174. Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ oh my god! Winters is going crazy with this trolling now! How long does this have to be?!
Although Wiener (1922) and Sertima (1976) believe that the Manding only influenced the medieval Mexican empire, the decipherment of the Olmec scripts and a comparative analysis of the Olmec and Manding civilizations show correspondence.
This is not enough to claim West African origins of the Olmec. The evidence you present for Mande origins of the Olmec are yourself, again. Sometimes you slip in others:
The Olmecs spoke a Manding language. (Wuthenau 1980)
But Wuthenau was a German aristocrat and an art historian not a linguist.
This shows how dumb you are. How can someone be trolling if they are answering a question?
I presented the linguistic connections from Mayan and Malinke-Bambara languages. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
There are numerous lexical items discussed above and pronouns. I am waiting for you to discuss specific linguistic examples that do not illustrate a connection. The Mayan words and Malinke-Bambara words have been referenced, I also provide the page numbers where they are found. Let's get to work and prove their is no connection.
posted
I presented the linguistic connections. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
and so we are right back where we started with the you-bring-counter-evidence game...lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
posted
I do not use this list of Vai signs. I use the Vai signs collected by Delafosse here .
Also I list 81 Olmec signs/symbols in this paper not 30.
Please notice that different signs can have the same phonemic values.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: I presented the linguistic connections. Now you prove that there is no connection between the Mayan and Mande languages based on the linguistic data presented.
and so we are right back where we started with the you-bring-counter-evidence game...lol
Yes we are. That's what a debate consist of making premises with evidence, that are opposed by counter premises.
If you don't present counter evidence how can you say a premise is wrong?
posted
I like it when you make wild claims and stick to them no matter what (except the Jew disappearance claim, it wouldve been interesting to see where you would have gone with that one! lol), but as the Bass says this nonsense has to end. **sign off**
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I do not use this list of Vai signs. I use the Vai signs collected by Delafosse here .
Also I list 81 Olmec signs/symbols in this paper not 30.
Please notice that different signs can have the same phonemic values.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Tha air fills with spam. Following Bass's neglected post--
If you are willing to do a little independent research- click on the script sites and compare them to see if they are identical and/or follow Winters' decipherment :
The Mayan script is logosyllabic combining about 550 logograms (which represent whole words) and 150 syllabograms (which represent syllables). There were also about 100 glyphs representing place names and the names of gods. About 300 glyphs were commonly used.
Many syllables can be represented by more than one glyph
The script was usually written in paired vertical columns reading from left to right and top to bottom in a zigzag pattern.
Rather than try to see the murky Delafosse symbols compare the ones here : http://www.omniglot.com/writing/vai.htm which vary very little from the ones Winters says he uses
with the symbols he uses to decipher
[IMG] [/IMG]
Vai 3000 BC Oued Mertoutek
Olmec 1200 BC La Venta
Winters uses pieces of Vai symbols or vaguely similar figures rather than the actual Vai syllables. You can write anything you want with this much latitude.
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Don't take my word or Winters. Look at the symbols on the Mojarra Stela, which has two Long-Count dates equivalent to May 21, 143 AD and July 13, 156 AD i.e. 500 years later than the La Venta celts and over a 1000 after the claimed arrival of the Mande to the Olmec area. A further question why did the Mande use Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela but never back in Africa?
posted
We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
King Yo Pe
Here is a translation of the Epi-Olmec inscription from Mojarra of King Yo Pe.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
Don't take my word or Winters. Look at the symbols on the Mojarra Stela, which has two Long-Count dates equivalent to May 21, 143 AD and July 13, 156 AD i.e. 500 years later than the La Venta celts and over a 1000 after the claimed arrival of the Mande to the Olmec area. A further question why did the Mande use Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela but never back in Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
This is nonsense. There are hundreds of date inscriptions that don't have day signs on them. To list a few from the canonical source on the calendar, M. S. Edmonson 1988 The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press p. 27 Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo (36 BC) p. 28 Stela C, Tres Zapotes (32 BC) P. 28 Stela 1 El Baul (AD 37) p. 30 Tuxtla Statuette (AD 162) p. 34 Stela 6, Cerro de las Mesas p. 34 Stela 8, Cerro de las Mesas
quote: For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
Totally idiosyncratic-- please cite any Mesoamerica scholar who thinks that this is NOT a date but a text?
quote: It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
Of course all the Mesoamerican scholars, who have studied this subject for years and published extensively on this are wrong , while you are right. some quotes:
Richard A. Diehl 2004 The Olmecs. America's First Civilization p. 184 "The Statuette's most unusual feature is the 12-column text composed of 75 lightly incised glyphs, including the Long count date 8.6.2.4.17 (D 162)."
Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz. 2002 Mexico. From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 5th ed. NY:Thames & Hudson p. 100 'There are two Long count dates on the Mojarra stela: 8.5.3.3.5 and 8.5.16.9.7, corresponding respectiely to 21 May AD 143 and 13 July AD 156 (the latter only 6 years earlier than the Tuxtla statuette."
R, J, Sharer with L.P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya Stanford: Stanford University Press p. 227 "Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162."
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, p. 260 "The story of its deciphermant begins in 1902, when a small jade statuette of a shaman wearing a duck mask and dressed in a winged costume was found in a field near San Andres Tuxtla, Veracruz (holmes 1907). the Tuxtla Statuette, as it is called, bore a long count date of 8.6.2.4.17 in A.D. 162 and an inscription of 64 signs clearly different from Maya hieroglyphics..."
posted
I was wondering why you shifted the discussion to the Tuxtla Statuette when I referred to the presence of Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela and here's why: the Mojarra Long Counts do have day signs clearly stated which clearly contradicts what you said:
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
The ciitation here is T. Kaufman and J. Justeson 2001 "Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts" in Notebook for the XXV Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop Art History Department. Austin University of Texas. I use this to get the column numbers so people can find them on the Mojarra stela. p. 34 column symbols A1-9 (running translation)" It was the third day of the seventeenth month; the long count was 8.3.3.5 and the day was 13 SNAKE."
p. 40. symbols M8-16 (running translation)" It was the 15th day of the 1st month; the long count was 8.5.16.9.7 and the day was 5 DEER."
as a matter of fact, the Tuxtla Statuette DOES have day signs. Members of the discussion group can clearly see symbols both above and at the bottom of the number column. There is no reason to arbitrarily stop the translation without them. From Kaufman and Justeson p. 75 symbols A1-7 (running translation) "It was the fourteenth month; the long count was 8.6.2.4.17, and the day was 8 EARTHQUAKE."
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
These inscriptions appear to be Olmec. The absence of day signs proves they were not dates. Just because a group of people agree on something does not make them right; especially when they do not conform to traditional Mayan long-count inscriptions.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
This is nonsense. There are hundreds of date inscriptions that don't have day signs on them. To list a few from the canonical source on the calendar, M. S. Edmonson 1988 The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press p. 27 Stela 2 Chiapa de Corzo (36 BC) p. 28 Stela C, Tres Zapotes (32 BC) P. 28 Stela 1 El Baul (AD 37) p. 30 Tuxtla Statuette (AD 162) p. 34 Stela 6, Cerro de las Mesas p. 34 Stela 8, Cerro de las Mesas
quote: For example lets look at the Tuxtla statuette.
Here we see the alledged numbers 8,6,2,4 17. These numbers can give either the date 162AD or the 3rd century BC based on the two present Mayan correlations.
If we read these alleged Mayan numerals, as syllabic Olmec signs we read:
"Thine [hast] reached your final destination. Your vast source of spiritual tranquility [lies in] this abode of peace/rest"
Totally idiosyncratic-- please cite any Mesoamerica scholar who thinks that this is NOT a date but a text?
quote: It appears to me that the absence of day sign support the view the Epi-Olmec did not use the long count.
I am of the opinion that the Maya invented the long-count.
Of course all the Mesoamerican scholars, who have studied this subject for years and published extensively on this are wrong , while you are right. some quotes:
Richard A. Diehl 2004 The Olmecs. America's First Civilization p. 184 "The Statuette's most unusual feature is the 12-column text composed of 75 lightly incised glyphs, including the Long count date 8.6.2.4.17 (D 162)."
Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz. 2002 Mexico. From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 5th ed. NY:Thames & Hudson p. 100 'There are two Long count dates on the Mojarra stela: 8.5.3.3.5 and 8.5.16.9.7, corresponding respectiely to 21 May AD 143 and 13 July AD 156 (the latter only 6 years earlier than the Tuxtla statuette."
R, J, Sharer with L.P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya Stanford: Stanford University Press p. 227 "Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162."
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, p. 260 "The story of its deciphermant begins in 1902, when a small jade statuette of a shaman wearing a duck mask and dressed in a winged costume was found in a field near San Andres Tuxtla, Veracruz (holmes 1907). the Tuxtla Statuette, as it is called, bore a long count date of 8.6.2.4.17 in A.D. 162 and an inscription of 64 signs clearly different from Maya hieroglyphics..."
You must be tripping. Above is the so-called long-count on the Mojarra inscription. As you can see there is no day sign associated with this inscription.
The day-sign is usually identified by the cartouche which surrounds (an oval border frequently with curls at the bottom of the sign.
Above we see the Mayan day signs. Non of these day signs, or any oval with curls is associated with the Mojarra so-called long-count. Absence of this feature support the view it is not a date.
This is why researchers can not make up their mind what date the left column shows. For example researchers interpreting the Long Count date of 8.5.16.9.9, give a date of 162 CE or June 23, 152 CE. How can the same numbers have two different dates?
You expect people here to agree with you because you appear to be objective. You are not objective and always spread lies which have little support when one looks at the evidence. Shame on you.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I was wondering why you shifted the discussion to the Tuxtla Statuette when I referred to the presence of Long Count dates on the Mojarra stela and here's why: the Mojarra Long Counts do have day signs clearly stated which clearly contradicts what you said:
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can not be sure that there is a long-count date on the Mojarra or Tuxtla statuette, two alleged Epi-Olmec text. These signs may not be long-count dates because their are no day signs associated with these artifacts, symbols which are associated with Mayan calendar text.
The ciitation here is T. Kaufman and J. Justeson 2001 "Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing and Texts" in Notebook for the XXV Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop Art History Department. Austin University of Texas. I use this to get the column numbers so people can find them on the Mojarra stela. p. 34 column symbols A1-9 (running translation)" It was the third day of the seventeenth month; the long count was 8.3.3.5 and the day was 13 SNAKE."
p. 40. symbols M8-16 (running translation)" It was the 15th day of the 1st month; the long count was 8.5.16.9.7 and the day was 5 DEER."
as a matter of fact, the Tuxtla Statuette DOES have day signs. Members of the discussion group can clearly see symbols both above and at the bottom of the number column. There is no reason to arbitrarily stop the translation without them. From Kaufman and Justeson p. 75 symbols A1-7 (running translation) "It was the fourteenth month; the long count was 8.6.2.4.17, and the day was 8 EARTHQUAKE."
You must be tripping. Above is the so-called long-count on the Mojarra inscription. As you can see there is no day sign associated with this inscription.
The day-sign is usually identified by the cartouche which surrounds (an oval border frequently with curls at the bottom of the sign.
Above we see the Mayan day signs. Non of these day signs, or any oval with curls is associated with the Mojarra so-called long-count. Absence of this feature support the view it is not a date.
Your requirements for absolute orthodoxy in these dates is amusing considering that in [QB]your translations using "Vai" script you read a symbol the same whether its upside down, turned 90 or 180 degrees, and even extremely distorted. 1) the Mojarra is not a Maya stela and should not be required to fit the pattern of Maya stelae written hundreds of years later-- as the day symbols you showed are from the Classic era.
2) even here you are mistaken because there is a whole set of different variants for the Maya day symbols-- called the "head variants"
quote: This is why researchers can not make up their mind what date the left column shows. For example researchers interpreting the Long Count date of 8.5.16.9.9, give a date of 162 CE or June 23, 152 CE. How can the same numbers have two different dates?
LOL This is what happens when all you know or refer to is Wikipedia- anyone can put stuff into wikipedia. If you had read the original Science paper or if you look at my references above Coe, and Sharer you'll see that the date is AD 156. If you type 8.5.16.9.9 (actually should be 8.5.16.9.7 as you can see in the stela] in Google you get 156 over and over again. I have no idea where you got AD 152-- a typo?
quote: You expect people here to agree with you because you appear to be objective. You are not objective and always spread lies which have little support when one looks at the evidence. Shame on you.
So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
I did type the numbers in late last night after teaching a class from wiki and the last number should have been seven and not nine.
If we read the last sign as 7, gyo i. We have "Thou (art) (like) a talisman effective in providing one with virtue".
All of these signs are found on the Tuxtla statuette.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Based on this particular subject it would appear Coe et al has the stronger argument over Winters. But this is not to their credit as they cannot match up to Van Sertima in the end though.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: So far I haven't had any feedback from other participants. I don't know if they have taken the trouble to compare the various scripts as I asked them and decide for themselves how convincing your arguments are. I hope they are willing to do so. I hope they also notice that I try not to use insults as a way to argue. I hope they also notice that I try to provide quotes with full refences so that they, if they so wish, can verify that I'm quoting accurately and not providing tendentious paraphrases and hard to check citations and/or pages of spam. I also try to cite refereed papers and/or books by scholars who are experts in the field-- not dodgy web sites, Wikipedia, etc.
Based on this particular subject it would appear Coe et al has the stronger argument over Winters. But this is not to their credit as they cannot match up to Van Sertima in the end though.
It's funny that you bring up Coe, because Coe and Stone Reading the Maya Glyphs maintain that in the Calendar Round date we always have the day-sign (p.40).
In addition, the Calendar Round in ancient and modern times is used by the Aztecs, Zapotecs, Maya and Mixtecs (J. Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hierogyphs, p 88). It is probable that if the Olmec used or invented the Calendar Round systen they would have practiced use of day signs when they were writing a date.
The Epi-Olmec figures make it clear that the day sign probably did not exist back at this time.
Above are initial series glyphs. If you notice carefully we find that the initial series glyphs usually include the tun (T548 often worn on the head of number '5') main sign, along with a superfix of scrolls and two comb like figures, flanked by a pair of fish or fish fins. Between these signs is situated either a deity, a glyph or a glyph combination, which is the patron god of the month in the Haab.
None of the features of the Initial Series signs tun sign scrolls or two comb figures are found in the Majorra stela you depict below.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
First, let's acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the supposed absence of day signs led to a disagreement on dating between Capitaine and Diehl.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have explained the components of the Initial Series, and provided a source Montgomery, How to read Maya Hieroglyphs, which you can check. I don't know what field of study you are in but in anthropology, linguistics, and APA etc., you rarely make full quotations. You usually paraphrase a quote instead of writing the entire quote and provide the publication, date and page number.
I also cited the page where Diehl gave the date 157 AD which is a published date in a book by an expert, if an expert can make this mistake how many other mistakes have they made.
I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.This may help you to get a better understanding of this aspect of Maya Hieroglyphics.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
The method of authority tells us nothing about the confirmation of your premise, when the material can be interpreted in different ways.
For example, Winfield Capitaine gives the date 156 for 8.5.16.9.7; while Diehl, in The Olmecs, claims that his calculations give the date 157 (p.187).This shows how the absence of a day-sign can affect the interpretation of the signs.
Nonsense. It is clear that Diehl's number is a typo. I wrote him asking if the number was a typo and this is his reply:
From: "Diehl, Richard" <rdiehl@as.ua.edu> [Add to Address Book] Subject: RE: Mojarra stela Date: May 21, 2008 1:15 PM
"Yes, that was a typo. George Stuart read it as 13 July AD 156 and that is the reading I accept."
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
I never said the Mande wrote the inscriptions. The inscriptions were written by Olmec people, the Xiu, who spoke a Malinke-Bambara language.
.
First, let's acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the supposed absence of day signs led to a disagreement on dating between Capitaine and Diehl.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Then there are the millions of Jews found throughout Europe still, and many of whom have provable Levantine ... ancestry.
This is logical since they have to *get* to Germany thru Europe and the Levantine, somehow.
Evidence is there.
Evidence leaves a trail.
care to help out ausarian in another thread and try back up that? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: . I don't know what field of study you are in but in anthropology, linguistics, and APA etc., you rarely make full quotations. You usually paraphrase a quote instead of writing the entire quote and provide the publication, date and page number.
It's not a question of what field of study one is in. It is question of good versus sloppy scholarship. As you have seen, I check references and people have seen that sometimes you mischaracterize what papers say (for example what Kivisild really says about M1 in India). Since, I want to practice what I preach I want readers to trust what I say and providing full quotes and full references is a way to let readers, if they want, verify the accuracy and completeness of my citations. This is not a paper in a journal with limited pages, and ,considering the bandwidth you use up with dumps of your web pages, asking for quotes rather than paraphrases is not too onerous.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I know the requirements of the Long Count because I studied Mayan hierogyphics under J. Kathryn Josserand and Nicholas A. Hopkins so I have a pretty good understanding of Maya Hieroglyphs and know that the Initial Series is important in finding the date of a monument. Here is a worksheet we had to do that points out aspects of the Initial Series.This may help you to get a better understanding of this aspect of Maya Hieroglyphics.
I've done a few of these myself . You should have explained a full date stela such as this: Initial Series inscription. This date (glyphs A2, B2, …, A5) is 10.2.9.1.9 9 Muluk 7 Sak, equivalent to July 28, 878 (GMT Gregorian).
and pointed out that between the date and the day name you seek there are a number of glyphs dealing with night hour gods and lunar calendar details
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^You can cite as many people as you wish the fact remains that their is no day-sign and without the day-sign you can not know if the sign is a date or not.
All these side issues are evading the main point: that the Mojarra stela has Long Count Mesoamerican dates and that there is no way the Mande wrote these.
quote: I am not evading anything. You can not claim an inscription is a long count if the inscriptions fails to have the major requirements common to the traditional long count signs.
.
since you obviously don't know the major requirements for writing Long count dates in Mesoamerica, please quote not paraphrase , with a full citation, a description of the essential components for a long count date before the Classic Maya period from a Mesoamerican scholar.
As usual you ignore inconvenient facts such as my posting a number of indisputable Long count dates which resemble the Mojarra dates and have day signs which, just like the Mojarra ones, are Olmec not the one form of the classic Maya version which you keep pushing-- remember I showed you a completely different form of these day signs which you ignored.
Again, you did not answer the relevant question because the description you gave referred to Classical Maya date stelae, but in the Mojarra stela dates we are dealing with epi-Olmec date formats. In my previous post I provided examples of dates of this period which are one column and, contrary to your main claim,HAVE A DAY SIGN AT THE BOTTOM, BUT AN EPI-OLMEC ONE. I'll paraphrase a story to show this . In the late 30's, the Stirlings were excavating Tres Zapotes and found Stela C, which had been broken. The piece found had a Long Count date .
quote:"The crucial first coefficient had been broken off with the upper fragment of the stela, but below the column of numerals appeared the date 6 Etznab in the 260-day sacred almanac, or tzolkin,. . . The preservation of the tzolkin glyph allowed Marion Stirling to reconstruct the entire date as (7).16.6.16.18 6 Etznab (1 Uo), corresponding to 32 B.C.
Exactly what I've been telling you, there ARE day names in Long Count dates in Olmec areas although they occur in single column format. What we also have here, is very much like a scientific experiment. Marion Stirling, based on her knowledge of Mesoamerican Long Count calendarsmade a prediction that the missing piece of the stela had a date of 7 bak'tuns. At the time this created a storm because it would make the Olmecs older than the Maya and Maya scholars reacted fiercely in the 1940s-50s. The scientific prediction of Marion Stirling was proved to be correct when in 1970 the upper section of Stela C was found and it DID have a coefficient of 7. (C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 41).
In my next post, since this one is long already, I'll quote scholars on the presence of the Long Count and day names before the rise of the Maya.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Above are initial series glyphs. If you notice carefully we find that the initial series glyphs usually include the tun (T548 often worn on the head of number '5') main sign, along with a superfix of scrolls and two comb like figures, flanked by a pair of fish or fish fins. Between these signs is situated either a deity, a glyph or a glyph combination, which is the patron god of the month in the Haab.
None of the features of the Initial Series signs tun sign scrolls or two comb figures are found in the Majorra stela you depict below.
I don't kow how many more ways I can tell you 1) that the epi-Olmec Long count dates have day signs at the bottom of the column but they are Olmec. not Classical Maya one and 2) that the Mojarra stela dates BOTH have a tri-loop sigh at the top that is the epi-Olmec version of the Initial Glyph.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Another epi-Olmec site Stela 6 cerro de las mesas (AD 468)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
The Long Count was present years before the Classical Maya, who you keep bringing up although they are not relevant to the discussion. The following are quotes of scholars in the area. I'm sorry that you consider the opinions of those scholars who have actually done research for years and published peer reviewed papers, in the relevant journals as irrelevant and of no consequence compared to yuor opinion, but, perhaps, others will be less obtuse.
R. J. Sharer and L. P. Traxler 2006. The Ancient Maya 6th ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
pp. 225-227 There are also similarities between the Isthmian and the Maya scripts, suggesting these two writing systems developed together. Both systems have the Long count calendrical system with a fixed zero date (Chapter 3), often used to record specific events and carved on stone stelae that serve as durable memorials to rulers and symbols of political and religious legitimacy. La Mojarra Stela 1 is a prime example of this use of both carved imagery and text, including several Long Count dates. It is also clear that the origins of both writing systems must be earlier than the fully carved monuments and earlier written records were kept on perishable materials such as bark paper, like those used in later times for the Maya codices. Evidence for this lies in the Mayan word for “to write” which is based on the root for “to paint” (with a fine brush). Inked or painted glyphs on bark paper might have recorded celestial events, calendrical cycles, tribute lists or inventories of trades goods, all of which would have been useful for tracking the seasons, religious rituals, and even economic transactions. Long Count dates in the Isthmian tradition used a single vertical column of bar-and-dot numerals. The earliest known example is Stela C at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, with a simple bar-and-dot inscription was based on the same zero date used by the Classic Maya, the Stela C date corresponds to 31 BC. Allowing for the same zero date, the two Long Count dates on La Mojarra Stela 1 equate with AD 143 and 156, and the single date on the Tuxtla statuette would be AD 162. Another date probably associated with the Isthmian tradition is found on Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas. Although incomplete, the most plausible reconstruction would be 7.16.3.2.13, or 36 BC. %%%%% Since you quote Coe as an authority elsewhere, perhaps this will count, or does it only count when you cite someone?
M. D. Coe. 2000 The Maya 6th ed. NY: Thames & Hudson
pp. 62-63 It is generally agreed that the Long count must have been set in motion long after the inception of the Calendar Round, but just how many centuries or millennia is uncertain. Be that as it may, the oldest recorded Long count dates fall within Bak’tun 7, and appear on monuments which lie outside the Maya area. At present, the most ancient seems to be Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo, a major ceremonial center which had been in existence since Early Preclassic times in the dry Grijalva Valley of central Chiapas: in a vertical column are carved the numerical coefficients [7].6.3.2.13, followed by the day 6 Ben, the “month” of the Vague Year being suppressed as in all these early inscriptions. [there ARE day signs in these stelae— what is missing from the Classical Maya model are the “Year” signs]. This would correspond to 7 December 36 BC. Five years later, the famous Stela C at the Olmec site of Tres Zapotes in Veracruz was inscribed with the date 7.16.6.18 6 Etz’nab. On the Chiapa de Corzo monument, the initial coefficients are missing but reconstructable. Now, the sixteenth k’atun of Bak’tun 7 would fall within the Late Preclassic and we can be sure that unless these dates are to be counted forward from some base other than 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u (as the end of the last Great Cycle recorded), which seems improbable, then the “Maya” calendar had reached what was pretty much its final form by the first century BC among peoples who were under powerful Olmec influence and who may not even have been Maya. Who might they have been? It will be remembered from Chapter 1 that the most likely candidate for the language of the Olmecs was an early form of Mixe-Zoquean; languages belonging to this group are still spoken on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and in western Chiapas. Many scholars are now willing to ascribe the earliest Long count monuments outside the Maya area proper to Mixe-Zoquean as well, and a recent discovery in southern Veracruz may provide confirmation. This is Stela 1 from La Mojarra, a magnificent monument inscribed with two Bak’tun 8 dates accompanied by a text of about 400 signs, in a script which is now called “Isthmian” (the famous “Tuttle Statuette,” also found in southern Veracruz, is in the same system, and dates to AD 162). In 1993, Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson announced their decipherment of the Isthmian script and the text on Stela 1, which they assert is in Mixe-Zoquean, but their decipherment has not yet been fully accepted by other glyph specialists. %%%%%%% The book on Mesoamerican calendars M.S. Edmonson 1988. The Book of the Year. Middle American Calendrical Systems Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
All of the earliest archaeological evidence for the Long count is Olmec (see 36, 32 BC and A.D. 37,126, 162, in Chapter 2). It does not appear among the Maya until A.D. 292 (q.v.). The two cultures wrote the dates quite differently: Mayan dates used period glyphs for baktun, katun, uinal, and kin; Olmec dates did not. They also used different glyphs for the 20 days of the day count— a less useful discrimination because these are not always legible in the early inscriptions. %%%%%%% R. A. Diehl 2004 he Olmecs. America’s First Civilization NY: Thames & Hudson
p. 85-96. The final important Mesoamerican calendar was the “Long Count,” a much longer time cycle that the Classic Maya believed began on 13 August 3114 BC. Scholars once considered the Long Count a Maya achievement, but today we know it was in use in the Trans-Isthmian zone of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Guatemala centuries before the Maya adopted it, and some authorities believe it too may have been an Olmec invention.
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 255-257 In Mesoamerica, the Late Terminal Formative period saw the emergence of at least three distinctive writing systems (Figs. 7.8-7.10). One of these, believed to have been written by speakers of a Zapotecan language, began to develop in Oaxaca before 500 B.C. (Flannery and Marcus 2003; cf. Pohl et al. 2002). After 450 B.C., another style of hieroglyphic writing appears on Izapan and early Maya monuments from the Pacific Coast and highlands of southern Guatemala and Chiapas. Though variable in their execution and geographic distribution epigraphers and linguists often lump these texts into a single Maya-Izapan writing tradition (e.g. Justeson and Matthews 1990). Traces of glyphs in the eroded inscription accompanying the Long Count date on Tres Zapotes Stela C show that it belonged to a different tradition, known variously as epi-Olmec, Isthmian and Tuxtlatec, which extended from south-central Veracruz to central Chiapas, an area that corresponds closely to a historical distribution of the Mije-Sokean language family (Justeson and Kaufman 1993; Justeson and Matthews 1990; Meluzin 1992; Stross 1990).
All of the Late Formative writing systems share features that suggest a common origin (Justeson and Matthews 1990). For example, they were written in columns read from top to bottom and usually from left to right, and profile heads used as signs for names and titles face the direction from which they were read (typically left). Particularly indicative of common origins, because they are arbitrary, are conventions for writing numerals and calendrical signs. Numerals for 1 through 4 were represented by dots, the numeral 5 was represented by a bar, and higher numerals up to 19 were formed by a stack of bars combined with 0 to 4 dots. Signs representing named days were usually enclosed in a cartouche. Another shared peculiarity was the practice of infixing a rectangular field at the wrist of signs depicting hands, whose char act eristic gestures were employed to represent verbs, such as “to scatter” (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 104). Specific features of the epi-Olmec and Mayan-Izapan scripts suggest they are closely related and that the latter diverged from the former. Most telling is the fact that some signs in Mayan texts do not have a clear basis in Mayan languages, but are interpretable as logograms (signs representing whole words or morphemes) in Mije-Sokean languages (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 115). . . . p. 259 One of the greatest innovations of the epi-Olmec cultures was the creation of the Long count, literally a count of the days from the beginning of the current creation, which corresponded to a Calendar Round date of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, or 13 August 3114 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: All of the earliest archaeological evidence for the Long count is Olmec (see 36, 32 BC and A.D. 37,126, 162, in Chapter 2). It does not appear among the Maya until A.D. 292 (q.v.). The two cultures wrote the dates quite differently: Mayan dates used period glyphs for baktun, katun, uinal, and kin; Olmec dates did not. They also used different glyphs for the 20 days of the day count— a less useful discrimination because these are not always legible in the early inscriptions. %%%%%%% R. A. Diehl 2004 he Olmecs. America’s First Civilization NY: Thames & Hudson
p. 85-96. The final important Mesoamerican calendar was the “Long Count,” a much longer time cycle that the Classic Maya believed began on 13 August 3114 BC. Scholars once considered the Long Count a Maya achievement, but today we know it was in use in the Trans-Isthmian zone of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Guatemala centuries before the Maya adopted it, and some authorities believe it too may have been an Olmec invention.
C. A. Pool 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 255-257 In Mesoamerica, the Late Terminal Formative period saw the emergence of at least three distinctive writing systems (Figs. 7.8-7.10). One of these, believed to have been written by speakers of a Zapotecan language, began to develop in Oaxaca before 500 B.C. (Flannery and Marcus 2003; cf. Pohl et al. 2002). After 450 B.C., another style of hieroglyphic writing appears on Izapan and early Maya monuments from the Pacific Coast and highlands of southern Guatemala and Chiapas. Though variable in their execution and geographic distribution epigraphers and linguists often lump these texts into a single Maya-Izapan writing tradition (e.g. Justeson and Matthews 1990). Traces of glyphs in the eroded inscription accompanying the Long Count date on Tres Zapotes Stela C show that it belonged to a different tradition, known variously as epi-Olmec, Isthmian and Tuxtlatec, which extended from south-central Veracruz to central Chiapas, an area that corresponds closely to a historical distribution of the Mije-Sokean language family (Justeson and Kaufman 1993; Justeson and Matthews 1990; Meluzin 1992; Stross 1990).
All of the Late Formative writing systems share features that suggest a common origin (Justeson and Matthews 1990). For example, they were written in columns read from top to bottom and usually from left to right, and profile heads used as signs for names and titles face the direction from which they were read (typically left). Particularly indicative of common origins, because they are arbitrary, are conventions for writing numerals and calendrical signs. Numerals for 1 through 4 were represented by dots, the numeral 5 was represented by a bar, and higher numerals up to 19 were formed by a stack of bars combined with 0 to 4 dots. Signs representing named days were usually enclosed in a cartouche. Another shared peculiarity was the practice of infixing a rectangular field at the wrist of signs depicting hands, whose char act eristic gestures were employed to represent verbs, such as “to scatter” (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 104). Specific features of the epi-Olmec and Mayan-Izapan scripts suggest they are closely related and that the latter diverged from the former. Most telling is the fact that some signs in Mayan texts do not have a clear basis in Mayan languages, but are interpretable as logograms (signs representing whole words or morphemes) in Mije-Sokean languages (Justeson and Matthews 1990: 115). . . . p. 259 One of the greatest innovations of the epi-Olmec cultures was the creation of the Long count, literally a count of the days from the beginning of the current creation, which corresponded to a Calendar Round date of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, or 13 August 3114 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar.
Again you print the wrong date. Here you claim the long count began 13 August 3114 BC in the Gregorian Calendar, while Ignacio Bernal in The Olmec World, claims that the actual date was 13 August 3113 (p.94).
You make it appear that the Maya long count is easy to compute. Bernal makes it clear that there are two correlations used to determine long count dates. Bernal wrote:
" With such a system no problem should arise in correlating Maya dates with our own, but unfortunately full Long Count notations were abandoned toward the end of the Classic Period. Although the matter has been throughly studied, scholars have not reached a definite solution, and a number of correlations have been proposed. The two most accepted ones--the others are mainly variants--are called Correlation A and Correlation B.
For our purposes the essential fact with respect to the two correlations is the 260-year difference in linking the Maya Long Count to our own calendar. In correlation A a beginning point--certainly a mythical one, perhaps referring to the birth of gods--is fixed in our computation, at October 4, 3373 BC. Correlation B places the beginning point at August 13, 3113BC of our calendar.(p.93-94)"
As a result, Stela C, can be dated to 4 November 291BC according to correlation A, and 2 September 31 BC, according to correlation B. Thus depending on the correlation used the date can vary. Clearly, researchers have arbitrarily chose which dating method they will use to provide dates for Olmec artifacts.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Several items to back up the calendrical inscriptions in the Mojarra Stela
This is a better image of glyphs M8-16 notice the "loopy" symbol to the right of the number 18. This is the symbol for Initial Series which tells you that a Long Count follows
This shows the bottom of the M8-16 calendar inscription, which the previous images have not. The bottom glyph below the number 7 is the Olmec not Maya symbol for the day name "deer"
The next view is glyphs A1-9 the second date. Notice that the top symbol on the number column is the same "Initial Series" symbol as in the other date M8-16. Also the symbol under the number 5 is the Olmec not Maya day name "snake.'
The following are unambiguous date stelae dating to before the full Maya notation. You can see a progression but notice that they are single columns just like the La Mojarra ones
Monte Alban stelae 12 and 13 ; stela 12- 594 BC; stela 13 563 BC). They also show that the calendar was developed in Oaxaca by the Zapotecs not only the Olmec
Stela C Tres Zapotes (32 BC, the symbol just above jaguar head is initial series glyph resembling the one in La Mojarra.
Dating Olmec artifacts based on long count is all conjecture. These authors admit that the so-called long-count of the Epi-Olmec is not related to the Mayan--but they claim both systems have the same origin date, when they know full well the date can vary depending on which correlation is used to interpret the inscription.
In your post you imply that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean based on the work of Kaufman and Justeson. You know that Coe after attempting to use Kaufman and Justeson's pre-proto-Mixe to read the Teo mask, disconfirmed this theory. Since this theory has been disconfirmed why do you continue to use these researchers as your source for reading Epi-Olmec, when researchers claim it is not written in pre-proto-Mixe. Moreover, it is Kaufman and Justeson'who claim there were Olmec day names deer and snake. If they were wrong about being able to read Epi-Olmec using pre-proto-Mixe-Soquean how can we seriously accept their reading of the Mojarra Stela?
Secondly, you claim that the the "loopy" or tri-loop sign on the Mojarra stela is the initial Olmec glyph. This is your own conjecture. If this was true why isn't the same sign found on other Epi Olmec text along with the dot and bar pattern?
You argue that the symbol above the jaguar head on Stela C, is probably a variation of the Mojarra "loopy" sign. A simple eye-ball test make it clear that these two signs do not look alike.
In conclusion, there is no way we can say the dot and bar signs on the Olmec text are actual dates; and even if they were dates the date of the Olmec text can vary based on correlation A or B.
Bernal's entry of 13 August 3113, while American scholars use the correlation B date of 13 August 3114 shows that when Diehl gave a different date for the Mojarra Stela from other researchers may have resulted from confusion when computing dates using correlation B,rather than a typo. Confusion resulting from the absence of an Olmec initial series sign which would accurately assign a date to a particular period.
Using correlation A, if the Olmec dot and bar signs were long count dates would situate the Epi-Olmec during the late Olmec period. It is obvious that the dates assigned Epi-Olmec text may be too late and is used to make it appear that there was a break in continuity between Epi-Olmec and the classical Olmec. It is too late to get Carbon 14 dates for the Mojarra and Tuxtla artifacts, but it is clear that we need these dates to verify that the dot and bars found on the Epi-Olmec text correspond to carbon 14 dates for materials found in association with Epi-Olmec text.
Use of readings of the Mojarra stela using pre-proto-Mixe, which is discredited adds little credibility to your argument. There is no "proof" that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Soquean eventhough all the people you cite suggest that they did. This along with your making up of an alledged Olmec Initial sign fails to support the idea that the dot and bar symbols are numerals, instead of lexical items, as I maintain.
Also, just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it "true". It only says that the author of the article , wrote a piece his/her peers agree with--nothing more.
quote: A mysterious ancient stone mask from Mexico has spoken — but apparently only to say that its people's written language remains undeciphered.
A study by Brigham Young University archaeologist Stephen Houston and his colleague from Yale University, Michael D. Coe, say the mask disproves earlier claims that the language had been cracked.
Their paper is to be published in "Mexicon," a journal about news and research from Mesoamerica. The title is "Has Isthmian Writing Been Deciphered?"
The "Teo Mask" may be about 1,600 to 1,900 years old. It was carved in a hard, greenish stone. The inside surface is covered with mysterious hieroglyphs.
In 1993, two researchers — John S. Justeson of the State University of New York, Albany, and Terrence Kaufman of the University of Pittsburgh, both anthropology professors — claimed in the journal Science that they had deciphered that written language.
Kaufman and Justeson call the writing "epi-Olmec script." However, Houston and Coe term it "Isthmian" because it was written by people who lived on and around Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec. They date to within five centuries before and after A.D. 1.
Kaufman and Justeson said they had deciphered the writings based on semantic clues associated with known cultural practices and a similarity of the hieroglyphs to other writings in the region that had been deciphered.
They claimed to be able to read the earliest writings known from North America, inscriptions on large stone carvings called stela found in Veracruz, Mexico. The dates on the stones, they added, were A.D. 159 and A.D. 162.
The announcement made international headlines. But Houston and Coe doubt anyone can read the script.
Houston, an anthropology professor who is an expert on ancient Mesoamerica, won a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship in 2002. When he attended Yale, he was a student of Coe's.
Coe, a retired anthropology professor from Yale, was author of the 1992 book, "Breaking the Maya Code." The book details the work of Coe and colleagues in deciphering the written Mayan language. Houston had a role in that effort.
They write in their new paper that Justeson and Kaufman are respected scholars, but they disagree that the writings have been deciphered.
The writing is "immensely complex. That is, it's very well developed with a large number of signs," Houston told the Deseret Morning News.
If it really were readable, he said, "it would open the window to a big chunk of the past."
The mask turned up about 15 years ago. Its extensive number of symbols means it is an important addition to the tiny canon of writings in the script. In a private collection, the mask was brought to the attention of Houston and Coe by a colleague of theirs.
"It's one of the very few well-preserved examples that's ever come to light of this writing system," Houston said.
The find allowed scientists to check the supposed meaning of hieroglyphs as published by Justeson and Kaufman.
Coe has outlined factors that need to be in place before a persuasive decipherment can be made of an ancient written language. Some sort of parallel script should be available from a language that has been deciphered. The unknown script should represent a language that is well-understood, with cross-ties to imagery that allow scientists to check the meanings.
"The fact of the matter is, that none of these were in place for this proposed decipherment," Houston said.
A huge problem, as he sees it, is that few examples of this writing system are known. Writings by the Maya may number 10,000 examples. With this script, however, the number may be just over 10, he said.
When the mask became available, it presented a new opportunity to evaluate Kaufman and Justeson's claims.
"Mike and I diligently plugged in the values" that were cited for the hieroglyphs in the earlier research, he said.
The results? The message would be an odd series of words like "Blood . . . mouth . . . take he take . . . "
Houston and Coe write in their paper that the "decipherment" carried out on the mask's symbols "tells us nothing new, unexpected or even expected about this Isthmian text and the mask that displays it.
"Instead, the inserted values yield a semantic mishmash."
Justeson's and Kaufman's purported decipherment "is, in our view, unlikely to be valid," they concluded.
Despite repeated attempts to reach them by telephone and e-mail, Justeson and Kaufman did not agree to an interview. But Justeson sent a one-sentence comment by e-mail concerning Houston and Coe's study: "Their arguments against our methods and results are easily answered, and we will answer them in an appropriate scientific outlet." The statement is signed by both Justeson and Kaufman.
Houston said the definite way in which the original findings were posted hampered scientific discussion. It "has made it more difficult to discuss, because now it has become an uglier issue, disagreeing with these two fellows," he said.
"I really believe, on our present evidence, it's impossible to decipher this writing system," Houston said. "We just don't have the elements in place to make it happen."
.:Story originally published by:. Deseret Morning News / UT | Diane Urbani - Jan 26.04
This article is over 4 years old and Justeson and Kaufman has have not responded to Houston and Coe yet. If you have seen their response please let me know.
You can find my decipherment of the Teo Mask here .
Experts will go to great lengths to make up dates. For example,above is the Chiapa de Corzo stela 2 (wall panel) found by the NWAF. Researchers decided that the "stela" probably represented a date so they hypothesized that the date for the monument was 7 16 3 2 18, because they felt it was similar to the "calendrial pattern" of Tuxtla statuette, Stela C and etc; eventhough we only visibly see 10 3 2 18. This date is recognized as the earliest Epi-Olmec dated artifact.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I like it when you make wild claims and stick to them no matter what (except the Jew disappearance claim, it wouldve been interesting to see where you would have gone with that one! lol), but as the Bass says this nonsense has to end. **sign off**
[/IMG] 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. You should have explained a full date stela such as this: Initial Series inscription. This date (glyphs A2, B2, …, A5) is 10.2.9.1.9 9 Muluk 7 Sak, equivalent to July 28, 878 (GMT Gregorian).
Printer-friendly view of this topic