This is topic OT: Proof of Winter's fabrications about the Olmec in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000443

---

Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
 
Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:

Evaluating Evidence
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?

The mainstream media jumped all over Kinnewick man but no one seems to talk about Luiza. So again, is it possible that the first native americans were Black and mixed with migrating Asians later. Were the Olmecs possibly related to Luiza?




Skull alters theory on colonization of Americas
RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) Anthropologists unveiled the oldest known human fossil from the Americas on Monday, a woman's skull with African features that could revolutionize theories about the continent's early inhabitants.

The fossil — first discovered in Brazil in 1975 but only recently found to come from a woman who lived 11,500 years ago — shows there were human beings on the continent long before Asian immigration, said anthropologist Ricardo Ventura Santos.

"This is a piece that, in practice, is important toward understanding ... the settlement of the Americas," said Ventura Santos, of the National Museum and the prestigious Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).

"There's a lot of curiosity about it, that's why we're showing it to the media today."

Scientists dubbed the woman "Luiza," Brazil's answer to the famed "Lucy," just over a year ago when new methods proved she was the earliest known American. Luiza's namesake is a 3.2 million-year-old human ancestor found in Ethiopia and now on display in a Paris museum.

Scientists say Luiza was a nomad who wandered with about a dozen relatives in an area of what is now central Brazil, eating the natural vegetation or, on occasion, animal meat. She died at around age 20 in some sort of accident.

Before Luiza's appearance, paleontologists had been working on the theory that the earliest Americans were the Asian ancestors of the Indians that European colonizers encountered when they arrived on the American continents 500 years ago.

These ancestors would have come from what we now know as Siberia and Mongolia, having crossed the Bering Strait between Asia and North America on a glacial bridge at the end of the last Ice Age.

About a year ago, archaeologist Walter Neves, one of the few specialists in human paleontology in Brazil, took an interest in the unusual shape of Luiza's skull, which had been packed away for decades in the museum's vast archives.

He believed the skull, which had been found in a 13-meter-deep cavern in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, showed Negroid features rather than the Mongoloid features typical of Brazil's Indians.

"Its characteristics are very different in relation to the native population. Therefore, it has a very big importance, above all in explaining the settlement of the Americas and also for the history of humanity," said Jose Henrique Vilhena, UFRJ's director.
 

---

Posted by nicantlaca13 (Member # 15513) on :
 
Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people. Whether from Europeans or Africans...they always interpret the evidence in the manner they wish...all to support White Supremacist claims to this land ("The Indigenous people weren't here first. They wiped out this other people. Therefore, what Europeans did and continue to do in occupying our land is ok.") Give me a break.
 

---

Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
 

quote:

---

nicantlaca13As Wrote:
As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people. Whether from Europeans or Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:

Evaluating Evidence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:

Evaluating Evidence

---

Whatever your beef with Dr. Winters you cannot escape the fact of African influence on ancient America. The debate with Winters is really a distraction from this fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?

The mainstream media jumped all over Kinnewick man but no one seems to talk about Luiza. So again, is it possible that the first native americans were Black and mixed with migrating Asians later. Were the Olmecs possibly related to Luiza?




Skull alters theory on colonization of Americas
RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) Anthropologists unveiled the oldest known human fossil from the Americas on Monday, a woman's skull with African features that could revolutionize theories about the continent's early inhabitants.

The fossil — first discovered in Brazil in 1975 but only recently found to come from a woman who lived 11,500 years ago — shows there were human beings on the continent long before Asian immigration, said anthropologist Ricardo Ventura Santos.

"This is a piece that, in practice, is important toward understanding ... the settlement of the Americas," said Ventura Santos, of the National Museum and the prestigious Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).

"There's a lot of curiosity about it, that's why we're showing it to the media today."

Scientists dubbed the woman "Luiza," Brazil's answer to the famed "Lucy," just over a year ago when new methods proved she was the earliest known American. Luiza's namesake is a 3.2 million-year-old human ancestor found in Ethiopia and now on display in a Paris museum.

Scientists say Luiza was a nomad who wandered with about a dozen relatives in an area of what is now central Brazil, eating the natural vegetation or, on occasion, animal meat. She died at around age 20 in some sort of accident.

Before Luiza's appearance, paleontologists had been working on the theory that the earliest Americans were the Asian ancestors of the Indians that European colonizers encountered when they arrived on the American continents 500 years ago.

These ancestors would have come from what we now know as Siberia and Mongolia, having crossed the Bering Strait between Asia and North America on a glacial bridge at the end of the last Ice Age.

About a year ago, archaeologist Walter Neves, one of the few specialists in human paleontology in Brazil, took an interest in the unusual shape of Luiza's skull, which had been packed away for decades in the museum's vast archives.

He believed the skull, which had been found in a 13-meter-deep cavern in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, showed Negroid features rather than the Mongoloid features typical of Brazil's Indians.

"Its characteristics are very different in relation to the native population. Therefore, it has a very big importance, above all in explaining the settlement of the Americas and also for the history of humanity," said Jose Henrique Vilhena, UFRJ's director.

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


The research of the New World Archaeological Foundation indicate that this site has been continously occupied since 1500 B.C. Much of what we know about the art from Izapa comes from the work of Virginia Smith' Izapa Relief Carving (1984), Garth Norman's Izapa Sculpture (1976) and Jacinto Quirarte's Izapan-Style Art (1973). V. Garth Norman (1976) of the New World Archaeological Foundation has published many of the stone stalae and altars found at Izapa and discussed much of their probable religious significance. Most researchers including Norman believe that the Izapans were "Olmecoid". Smith (1984) disagrees with this hypothesis, but Michael D. Coe (1962: 99-100,1965:773-774, 1968:121), Ignacio Bernal (1969:172) support an Olmec origin for the Izapan style art. Quirarte (1973:32-33) recognized obvious Olmec cultural traits in the Izapa iconography.

ANCIENT MIGRATION STORIES OF MEXICO The Maya were not the first to occupy the Yucatan and Gulf regions of Mexico. It is evident from Maya traditions and the artifacts recovered from many ancient Mexican sites that a different race lived in Mayaland before the Mayan speakers settled this region. The Pacific area was early colonized by Olmec people in middle preclassic times.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1984) The Olmec civilization was developed along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the states of Tabasco and Veracruz. (Pouligny 1988:34) The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., a new linguistic group arrived in the Gulf region of Mexico.

M. Swadesh (1953) has presented evidence that at least 3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. Soustelle (1984: 29) tells us that "We cannot help but think that the people that shattered the unity of the Proto-Mayas was also the people that brought Olmec civilization to the region".

Traditions mentioned by Sahagun, record the settlement of Mexico by a different race from the present Amerindian population. Sahagun says that these "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotha, on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains. Other migration to Mexico stories are mention in the Popol Vuh, the ancient religious and historical text compiled by the Quiche Mayan Indians.

Friar Diego de Landa (1978:8,28) , in Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, wrote that "some old men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea". This tradition is most interesting because it probably refers to the twelve migrations of the Olmec people. This view is supported by the stone reliefs from Izapa, Chiapas , Mexico published by the New World Foundation. In Stela 5, from Izapa we see a group of men on a boat riding the waves.(Wuthenau 1980; Smith 1984 ; Norman 1976)

It is clear that Stela No.5, from Izapa not only indicates the tree of life, it also confirms the tradition recorded by Friar Diego de Landa that an ancient people made twelve migrations to Mexico. This stela also confirms the tradition recorded by the famous Mayan historian Ixtlixochitl, that the Olmec came to Mexico in "ships of barks " and landed at Pontochan, which they commenced to populate.(Winters 1984: 16) These Blacks are frequently depicted in the Mayan books/writings carrying trade goods.
In the center of the boat on Stela No.5, we find a large tree. This tree has seven branches and twelve roots. The seven branches probably represent the seven major clans of the Olmec people. The twelve roots of the tree extending into the water from the boat probably signifies the "twelve roads through the sea", mentioned by Friar Diego Landa.
The migration traditions and Stela No.5, probably relates to a segment of the Olmec, who landed in boats in Panotha or Pantla (the Huasteca) and moved along the coast as far as Guatemala. This would correspond to the non-Maya speaking group detected by Swadesh that separated the Maya and Huasteca speakers 2000 years ago.

Bernardino de Sahagun (1946) a famous authority on Mexico also supports the extra-American origin of the Olmecs when he wrote that "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotla on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains".The reported route of the Panotha settlers recorded by Sahagun interestingly corresponds to the spread of the Olmecs in Meso-America which extended from the Gulf of Mexico to Chalcatzingo, in the Mexican highlands along the Pacific coast.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1983, p.52)

Summary

3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. This linguistic evidence shows that a new ethnic group arrived in Mexico around the time that the Olmec appear on the scene.

Landa mentions the migration of a people from the East i.e., direction of the Atlantic Ocean, who made twelve voyages across the sea. Ixtlixochitl makes it clear that these people arrived in “ships of bark” probably a reference to large wooden boats.




The Izapa stela shows Olmec people in a boat that has a tree with twelve roots. Since the roots are placed in the waves, they probably refer to the twelve migrations made by the Olmec from Africa to America recorded by Landa.

This stela confirms the extra-Mexican origin of the Olmecs who arrived in Mexico in “ships of bark” and expanded across Mexico in a manner that corresponds to the archaeological evidence we have for the expansion of the Olmec people.


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Rafineque and Wiener were sure that the Mayan writing was of African origin.


1.Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.

. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system. The evidence indicates that Mayan writing was invented by the Olmecs who probably called their writing[ib] sebe[/ib].


2. Landa supports the linguistic evidence (Tozzer, 1941) that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).

The Tutul Xi were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:

• 
  Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order".
  Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)".
  "The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".

quote:

---

• Figure 1. Mayan Terms for Writing
  Yucatec c'i:b' Chorti c'ihb'a Mam c'i:b'at
  Lacandon c'ib' Chol c'hb'an Teco c'i:b'a
  Itza c'ib' Chontal c'ib' Ixil c'ib'
  Mopan c'ib' Tzeltalan c'ib'
  Proto-Term for write *c'ib'

---

quote:

---

• 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
  

  ---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
Why do these extreme Afrocentrists (I am talking about the likes of Clyde, Marc, etc.) apparently want to find black people everywhere? Black Olmecs, black Chinese, black Israelites, even black Beethoven...I am tired of it. It seems to me a sympton of the underexposure of most African history (and the de-Africanizing of Ancient Egypt, the one African culture that does get a lot of exposure). If black African history was more widely appreciated and AE accepted as a black African culture, then hopefully African diaspora people will not feel like their history is being untold and the extreme Afrocentrics won't have any more incentive to distory.

---

quote:

---

The research team also said that future DNA analysis might answer lingering questions about Beethoven's ethnicity. As a young man, the dark-complexioned Beethoven sometimes was called "the Moor," and some historians have questioned whether he had African blood. Walsh said his analysis of the hair strands showed "no wrinkles or bends" typical among people of African descent, but that more tests may be conducted.

William Claiborne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2000; Page A03

---

quote:

---

. At the least, it shows that there had been a number of migrations of a.m.hs in the late paleolithic period and thereof, and not some single wave which would result in some kind of a homogenous social entity, as the term "Native American" seems to implicate when some people use it.

---

quote:

---

Is it a problem for you to care to see blacks outside
the negro caricature and steer clear of the illogical
assumption that to be black is to be "sub-saharan"
African? I think not, maybe something else is at play.

---

quote:

---

This is understandable. You being a white boy just
cannot come to turns that you owe your religious morality
to a black people, that you'd be worshipping a pantheon
of bloody warrior gods more morally bankrupt than
their
worshippers.

---

quote:

---

were it not for your people co-opting the
spirituality of the Israelites who at the time their
books are dated to have been written down were a majority
black people as data about Lachish from its ossuary
(and osteo remains from within that city's environs)
and Sennacherib's throne room panels in Iraq clearly reveal.

---

quote:

---

The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?

---

quote:

---

The people of Yucatan were as attentive to matters of religion as of government, and had a High Priest whom they called Ahkin May , or also Ahaucan May , meaning the Priest May, or the High Priest May. He was held in great reverence by the chiefs, and had no allotment of Indians for himself, the chiefs making presents to him in addition to the offerings, and all the local priests sending him contributions. He was succeeded in office by his sons or nearest kin. In him lay the key to their sciences, to which they most devoted themselves, giving counsel to the chiefs and answering their inquiries. With the matter of sacrifices he rarely took part, except on it festivals or business of much moment. He and his disciples appointed priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies; put in their charge the affairs of their office, and the setting of a good
p. 13
see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/ybac/ybac11.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:

quote:

---

Is it a problem for you to care to see blacks outside
the negro caricature and steer clear of the illogical
assumption that to be black is to be "sub-saharan"
African? I think not, maybe something else is at play.

---

I suffer from no delusion that black = "negro caricature". I know there has always been phenotypical diversity in Africa. What makes you think otherwise?

quote:

---

This is understandable. You being a white boy just
cannot come to turns that you owe your religious morality
to a black people, that you'd be worshipping a pantheon
of bloody warrior gods more morally bankrupt than
their
worshippers.

---

Read your Old Testament. Notice how often the Israelites, under Yahweh's command, destroy entire cities, killing every man, woman, child, and even livestock. Hell, Yahweh even hardens the hearts of enemy kings so he can punish their people with plagues. Now while indigenous European religions had their faults, I've never heard of any European gods commanding genocide on that scale.

Noit all modern Western morality derives from Judeo-Christian traditions anyway. For instance, it was the pagan Romans who developed much of our modern law code. Our democratic system was inspired by Athens, the British Parliament, and possibly the Iroquois Confederacy in northeastern North America. And much of the rest of modern morality comes from Enlightenment Age philosophers who actually disdained fundamentalist Christianity, favoring deism or even atheism. If anything, those people who adopt Abrahamic morality are probably the most evil people on Earth: Bible-thumpers, Zionists, and Islamic terrorists.

quote:

---

were it not for your people co-opting the
spirituality of the Israelites who at the time their
books are dated to have been written down were a majority
black people as data about Lachish from its ossuary
(and osteo remains from within that city's environs)
and Sennacherib's throne room panels in Iraq clearly reveal.

---

Lachish is believed to have had Egyptian soldiers stationed within (and thus it may have had an unusually large amount of black admixture for all we know), and those Assyrian engravings show no paint indicating skin color. Try harder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Try harder at what?

Europe wholescale adapted the Israelite's deity.
A deity who didn't go around fucking every lady
who couldn't get away. Greeks, too afraid their
adaptation couldn't be slapped onto Hebrew books,
invented a Horny Ghost to impregnate the mother
(a woman who was technically married) of the demi-
god of the Greek Scriptures. This is so much the
same as the god of adultery, Zeus, impregnating the
Alcmena, the wife of Amphitryon, to engender mangod
Heracles -- or pick any of Zeus' daliances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?

---

If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?

---

If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.

---

Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu.
Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.

I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?

---

If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.

---

Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu.
Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.

I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.

---

Knowledge production is not the single property of one scholar. Each scholar must read the evidence, interpret the evidence and then report their results.

The evidence is clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans or Tabascans as noted by Landa, my identification of these people as Olmec is more valid than any determination by the authorities you mention who believe they were Toltecs or Mixe speakers given the fact the Mixe speakers also speak of immigrants into their territory as well.

---

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

quote:

---

According to Winters,...de Landa supposedly received information from the Yucateca Maya that they were introduced to writing by the Tutual Xiu. Ignoring the fact that De Landa was the raging Catholic responsible for the burning of Maya codices, we even see that Winters misrepresented that source of information. Returing to the source, de Landa doesn't state the Maya got writing from Tutul Xiu (Winters asserts that they were Mande people & later known as the Olmeca):

"The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all." (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates, 1937 p. 14)

This might assist Winters in his claims...However, two facts must be considered.

1) It says nothing about the Tutul-xiu bringing writing! (Note: I haven't posted the entire section where the Tutul-xiu are mentioned for the sake of space; if you read pgs 15-18 of that book, you will see no mention of them bringing writing).

2) de Landa mentions that this occurred during the time of Mayapán. A person with any sense of Maya history would know that Mayapán wasn't constructed until the 1200s CE coinciding with the Post-Classic period. Therefore, Mayapán didn't exist until 2400 yrs after the Olmeca supposedly arrived by boat! The Mayas already had writing at that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?

---

If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.

---

Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu.
Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.

I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.

---

Knowledge production is not the single property of one scholar. Each scholar must read the evidence, interpret the evidence and then report their results.

The evidence is clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans or Tabascans as noted by Landa, my identification of these people as Olmec is more valid than any determination by the authorities you mention who believe they were Toltecs or Mixe speakers given the fact the Mixe speakers also speak of immigrants into their territory as well.

---

You can dance and you spin but your unsupported opinion is of little value compared to that of several real scholars who have thoroughly studied the literature, done fieldwork in Mesoamerica, and know the languages well.

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque.
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery.
The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.

BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.

---

• Mixe ...................Malinke-Bambara
  
  Cahp heaven sa
  
  ci squach si
  
  su night su
  
  co:n to leave ta, tyo
  
  it place ta
  
  Kahp small town ka, suffix joined to the name of a locality
  
  kam planting field ga, gba, ka
  
  ko/ku head ku(n)
  
  koh to plant, build ko ‘to create’
  
  ko:ng king, lord ko ‘person deserving respect’
  
  koya tomato koya
  
  kok maize flower ka
  
  kats black maize ka
  
  kushi calendar priest jose ‘priest of a cult’
  
  may ‘to divine’ ma ‘happy issue; to understand’
  
  koya tomato koya
  
  kok maize flower ka
  
  kats black maize ka
  
  kushi calendar priest jose ‘priest of a cult’
  
  may ‘to divine’ ma ‘happy issue; to understand’
  
  ni:p to plant mgba
  
  po:b white bo, po (superlative of white)
  
  poh,po’ wind fo ‘arid air’
  
  purap cultivating tool faalo , faaro ‘hoe’
  
  shi day,sun si-soro

• Mayan....Mixe-Zoquean...English..Malinke-Bambara
  
  
  *pat.................bark, skin.......fata
  
  chowen...pMZ. *cawi.....monkey.......sula
  
  me'.... pZO..*m 'a....deer.....m'na 'antelope'
  
  ....pZO..*sah......... WIng.....si 'insect wing'
  
  c'iwan...pMi...*ciwa.....squash........ SI
  
  koya... Mi...koya........tomato......koya
  
  to'.....pMi...:to:h.....rain......tyo, dyo 'precipitation,2

• Mixe..............................Bambara
  
  
  ko ca'ny 'chief snake'......kun-sa 'head snake'
  
  
  kocu 'of the night'........ku su 'head night'
  
  
  kodung 'mayor'................ku(n)dugu 'head of land, chief'

• First Second Third
  
  Otomi ma i,e a
  
  Manding n', m' i,e a

• 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).

Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.

Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).

Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.

Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.

---

I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.

.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque.
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery.
The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.

BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.

---

quote:

---

Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.

---

quote:

---

Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque.
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery.
The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.

BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.

---

quote:

---

Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.

---

Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.

quote:

---

Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
.

---

As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.

Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.

http://www.famsi.org/research/mltdp/item109/ms_coll_700_item109_wk1_body0120.html Vocabulario de la lengua Zoque p. 120

Zoque "to write" haypa

The MIxe-Popoluca dictionary at http://www.sil.org/MEXICO/mixe/popoluca-sayula/S104b-Dic-pos.pdf p. 63

Mixe "to write" tunja.yp

I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.

Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).

Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.

Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.

---

I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.

.

.

---

The evidence you refer to consists primarily of your unsupported assertions. There is a much larger amount of evidence supporting Tozzer's conclusions that the Tutul Xiu were mexicanized Chontal (Putun) Maya.

---

quote:

---

The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices
in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all.
These tribes lived in such peace that they had no conflicts and used neither arms nor bows, even for the hunt, although now today they are

excellent archers. They only used snares and traps, with which they took much game. They also had a certain art of throwing darts by the aid of a stick as thick as three fingers, hollowed out for a third of the way, and six palms long; with this and cords they threw with force and accuracy. †
They had laws against delinquents which they executed rigorously; such as against an adulterer, whom they turned over to the injured party that he might either put him to death by throwing a great stone down upon his head, or he might forgive him if he chose. For the adulteress there was no penalty save the infamy, which was a very serious thing with them. One who ravished a maiden was stoned to death, and they relate a case of a chief of the Tutul-xiu who, having a brother accused of this crime, had him stoned and afterwards covered with a great heap of rocks. They also say that before the foundation of the city they had another law providing the punishment of adulterers by drawing out the intestines through the navel.


The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.

In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed.
This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man

patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/ybac/ybac12.htm

.
.

---

quote:

---

The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.

In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed.

---

quote:

---

This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[]Your research has not refuted any of my claims. The only thing you have done is say that this authority says this or that. You have failed to prove 1) that the Mayan calendar was not of African origin; 2)that Tozzer did not say that the Tutul Xiu introduced writing to the Maya; 3) the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs or Mexicans4) that the Olmec symbols are not found in the Vai script.

---

quote:

---

You are a fraud Bernardo. You troll the internet attacking my claims and at every term I show the fool you are. Your entire "fame" is based on attacking Ivan's work.

Your problem is that Ivan was never a primary researcher. He could only speak English so he was limited to English language resources. I use primary data which you can not defeat.

Your method of research is the method of authority. My research method is science hypothesis construction and hypothesis testing.

---

I.e. I have been caught falsifying evidence and misquoting my sources again. I have made claims that have been instantly refuted; therefore, I'll resort to ad hominem attacks to deflect attention from my academic faults and weaknesses.

You would not know a scientific hypothesis if it bit you in the ...

Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque.
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery.
The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.

BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.

---

quote:

---

Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.

---

Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.

quote:

---

Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
.

---

As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.

Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.

http://www.famsi.org/research/mltdp/item109/ms_coll_700_item109_wk1_body0120.html Vocabulario de la lengua Zoque p. 120

Zoque "to write" haypa

The MIxe-Popoluca dictionary at http://www.sil.org/MEXICO/mixe/popoluca-sayula/S104b-Dic-pos.pdf p. 63

Mixe "to write" tunja.yp

I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.

Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.

---

• Figure 1. Mayan Terms for Writing
  
  Yucatec c'i:b' .... Chorti c'ihb'a
  
  Mam c'i:b'at
  
  Lacandon c'ib'.. Chol c'hb'an ... Teco c'i:b'a
  
  Itza c'ib'...Chontal c'ib'..... Ixil c'ib'
  
  Mopan .....c'ib'.... Tzeltalan ....c'ib'
  
  Proto-Term for write *c'ib'

quote:

---

I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing

---

Yes lets look at the Wiener evidence and see how it compares to Olmec writing.




.


.



As you can see the Mande writing does correlate with Olmec writing.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:

quote:

---

I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.

---

Wow..Winters actually conceded he was wrong...wait he just shifted responsibility. Fine...

We're still waiting for a direct quote from Tozzer saying that the Yucateca Maya claim that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).

Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.

Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[

You have not shown that any of the Mixe words I have presented were false. You have not provided any evidence disputing the genetic relationship between Otomi and Olmec/Mande.

Like any deciever you mention the Mixe-Zoque words: tunja and haypa as if they have something to do with Mayan writing. These terms have nothing to do with Mayan writing. But the Mande term for writing is clearly the source for the Mayan term for 'writing'.

---

quote:

---

p. 31 The arrival date of the first Dogon groups in the Cliff region should be earlier than 1430 AD, the estimated
age of the earliest large mask of the Sigui conserved
at Ibi (Griaule, 1938),3 and earlier than the reign of
the Mossi prince of Yatenga Naba Rawa (1470–
1500 AD), to whom traditions attribute the first driving
back of the Dogon toward the Cliff zone (Izard,
1985). . . . Historically, the first Dogon settlement of the Cliff zone can be placed within a range of two centuries, between 1230 and 1430 AD.

---

.

In 1922, Wiener can be excused for not knowing this, but in 2008 it is inexcusable for you to blindly quote him as an authority.

Here a modern image of the rock art Wiener used as evidence . Please point out the Vai script or epi-Olmec symbols.

quote:

---

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.
_________________________________________________________________
[list]
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
________________________________________________________________
.

---

quote:

---

One argument being made
>is that the proto-Maya word for "writing" was borrowed
>from the proto-Mande word for writing
>
>The word claimed is :
>
>The Proto-Manding term for
>writing is <*se'be', *safa^.
>
>Malinke se'be'
>Serere safe
>
>Bambara se'be'
>Susu se'be
>
>Dioula se'we'
>Samo se'be
>
>Sarakole safa W. Malinke
>safa
>
>I would be very grateful if you
>could comment on this. What is the proto-Mande term for
>"writing"; How old is the term? If there are
>proto-words for "writing" in other Niger-Congo languages.

For me, this root, very widely spread among the languages of the Mande family, is undoubtedly an Arabic loan. Most probably, the Arabic source word is cafh.a 'page, leaf, sheet'; by the way, in many Mande languages the meaning of the root in question is only 'amulet' (made by muslim clerics, i.e., a sheet of paper with Coranic versets, covered with leather').

I'm sure that there is no proto-Mande term for "writing", let alone a proto-Niger-Congo one. Writing was unknown to the ancestors of Mande ethnic groups before the arrival of Arabs and Islam; even the enthusiasts of the Nko writing admit this fact (otherwise, they try their best to ascribe all kind of cultural and intellectual achievements to their ancestors; but not on this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing

---

Yes lets look at the Wiener evidence and see how it compares to Olmec writing.




.


.



As you can see the Mande writing does correlate with Olmec writing.

.

---

You can "prove " anything" with such faint images and but here is a clearer picture and ES readers can judge for themselves. Also as I pointed out these pictures were painted over 1000 years after the Tuxtla statuette and could not possibly have been the source for it. Please provide a quote that proves that these paintings existed 100 BC or earlier.


BTW I am in contact with the Harvard Library and will get the paper on calabash zodiacs to prove how shallow Wiener was there also
 

---

Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
...or so I've read over the years, the bearded white God Quetzalcoatl was hanging out in that area long ago and legend says he will return. Only thing is some locals think he was black. Hmm, don't suppose all those Olmec statues mean anything... do they? So the statues do look like white boys after all? I Don't know how I could have mistaken them for black folks. I cleaned my glasses twice.

Or maybe they look like Indians. Or maybe they do look like Africans from across the ocean... someplace. Or maybe they aren't even there. Maybe the indians built that likeness to fool people all the way up to the present, including the guy who calls himself Quetzalcoatl, who, legend says, is a white guy—maybe—just so some folks can accuse blacks of lifting another culture, not this Quetzalcoatl though, the other guy with the long funny name on this topic, and that the locals were too dumb to know how to make statues of people they undoubtedly saw that maybe didn't look like them.

Or maybe the statue makers fashioned them themselves after their own likeness... on route to someplace else for whatever reason?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
[QB]You can "prove " anything" with such faint images and but here is a clearer picture and ES readers can judge for themselves. Also as I pointed out these pictures were painted over 1000 years after the Tuxtla statuette and could not possibly have been the source for it. Please provide a quote that proves that these paintings existed 100 BC or earlier.

---

Any comparison of the Tuxtla statuette with the Mande signs are going to show cognition because the authors of the statuette were the Olmec/Mande speaking people.





 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
You can "prove " anything" with such faint images and but here is a clearer picture and ES readers can judge for themselves. Also as I pointed out these pictures were painted over 1000 years after the Tuxtla statuette and could not possibly have been the source for it. Please provide a quote that proves that these paintings existed 100 BC or earlier.

---

Any comparison of the Tuxtla statuette with the Mande signs are going to show cognition because the authors of the statuette were the Olmec/Mande speaking people.

---

quote:

---

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:

posted 23 May, 2008 11:32 PM
I took the time to decipher the monument and [QB]you are right this is a date. In the inscription we are told that King Yo Pe was born on this day. Just because this was a date does not take away the fact that dots and bars can also represent lexical items.

---

Readers of ES are welcome to compare the Via script (in a much clearer image than he usually presents) Winters uses with his interpretations of the Dogon rock art; look at
representations actuelles since these are the 1898 values; see if you can find his rectangles, etc.







Also compare the Dogn rock art as well as the Vai script to in the Oued Mertoutek inscription, which would be the one that the Mande would have brought over to the Olmec- see if all 3 are identical which is what Winters's thesis demands


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
[/QB][/QUOTE]


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Bandiagara in near Mopti, a site where numerous ancient artifacts have been found. Why do you keep calling these inscriptions Dogon. In this area Malinke-Bambara and other ethnic groups reside besides the Dogon.

These inscriptions have been found throughout the Sahara and even near Dar Tichitt sites which are older than sites in Mexico. Archaeologist agree that Dar Tichitt was founded by Mande speakers.

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
You can "prove " anything" with such faint images and but here is a clearer picture and ES readers can judge for themselves. Also as I pointed out these pictures were painted over 1000 years after the Tuxtla statuette and could not possibly have been the source for it. Please provide a quote that proves that these paintings existed 100 BC or earlier.

---

Any comparison of the Tuxtla statuette with the Mande signs are going to show cognition because the authors of the statuette were the Olmec/Mande speaking people.

---

A couple of points 1) As I pointed out before, these rock paintings are Dogon not Mande and 1200 years [QB[after the Tuxtla statuette.
2) You have already admitted that the Mojarra stela and the Tuxtla statuette have Initial Series Long Count Dates so that the dots you claim to be Mande words are parts of numbers[/QB in the Long Count dates. Here:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348;p=2

quote:

---

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:

posted 23 May, 2008 11:32 PM
I took the time to decipher the monument and you are right this is a date. In the inscription we are told that King Yo Pe was born on this day. Just because this was a date does not take away the fact that dots and bars can also represent lexical items.

---

Readers of ES are welcome to compare the Via script (in a much clearer image than he usually presents) Winters uses with his interpretations of the Dogon rock art; look at
representations actuelles since these are the 1898 values; see if you can find his rectangles, etc.







Also compare the Dogn rock art as well as the Vai script to in the Oued Mertoutek inscription, which would be the one that the Mande would have brought over to the Olmec- see if all 3 are identical which is what Winters's thesis demands

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
[/QB][/QUOTE]



Antiquity of the oued mertoutek Inscription

Controversy surrounds my dating of the Mande/ Libyco-Berber

/Ancient Libyan inscription found at Oued Mertoutek by Wulsin

(1940). I have proposed a 2nd millennium date for this document

while Wulsin dates the inscription to the 5th century of the

Christian era.



At Oued Mertoutek Wulsin found an engraving of an ovicaprid

(sheep/goat) with an ancient Libyco-Berber inscription placed

inside the figure. Although the patina for the inscription and

the goat/sheep figure were the same , Wulsin claimed that the goat/sheep figure dated to the 1st-3rd millennium BC, and the writing dated back to the horse period of the "Saharan Rock Art" which he assumed was 500-600 AD.


The separate dates for the Oued Mertoutek engraving are

clearly inconsistent, given the identical patina of the figure

and the writing. There is no way the figure and inscription could

be separated by 1500-2500 years and still show identical patina.

Reason, dictates summary rejection of Wulsin's hypothesis

supporting the late introduction of writing to the Sahara.



Wuslin based his dating of the Libyco-Berber writing on the

Oued Mertoutek engraving on the Hamitic paradigm. This paradigm

maintains that writing, the horse and other cultural features

were given to Africans by Semitic speaking culturally superior

people from the East. In Wulsin's day, researchers believed that

the horse arrived in North Africa and the Sahara around 500 AD.



If we accept the discredited Hamitic hypothesis for the

introduction of writing to the Sahara, we would have to push the

day for the introduction of writing back 800-1400 years. Because

1) the chariot period which is associated with Libyco-Berber

writing is believed to have begun in the 2nd millennium BC; and

2) archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest that writing

existed in the Sahara by at least 800 BC.



Close (1980) and Galand have reported that an inscribed

pottery vessel with Libyco-Berber inscriptions was found at

Tiddis, which dates back to 300 BC. This is 800 years earlier

than Wulsin's date for the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions.


In addition, Close (1980)claims that other evidence indicates

that Libyco-Berber inscriptions can be pushed back to between

600-700 BC. This archaeological evidence clearly contradict

Wulsin's estimation of the Oued Mertoutek inscription's age.

Other evidence for the antiquity of the Oued Mertoutek

inscription comes from there association with Saharan chariots.

The inscriptions and chariots share the same patina. These

chariots have been dated to around 1200 BC according to Desanges

(1981, p.433).

Originally, researchers believed that the Saharan chariots

were introduced into the Sahara by Egyptians and/or the Peoples

of the Sea. This hypothesis is now discredited because there are

few similarities between the Saharan and Aegean portrayals of

Chariots (Desanges, 1981,p.432).

In addition, whereas the Horse Period was considered to be

500-600 AD in Wulsin's day, today the horse period is dated

between 1500-500 BC (Sahnouni,1996, p.29). The horse depicted in

the Sahara was not the Arabian horse typified by the Berber and

Taurag horsemen. Barbary horses drew the Saharan chariots

horses (Desanges, 1981, p.432). This horse is smaller than the

Arabian horses which were not introduced into Africa

until the Christian era. The lack of similarity between the

Saharan, and eastern chariots, and the horses that drew them

indicate the unique nature of Saharan civilization.

The archaeological evidence makes it clear that Wulsin

(1940, p.129) made a mistake in his dating of the Oued Mertoutek

inscription. The fact that the contemporary epigraphers date the

Libyco-Berber inscriptions back to 700 BC and those associated

with the Saharan chariots date to 1500 BC, support my contention

that the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions date to the 2nd

millennium, just like the goat/sheep figure which shares the

same patina as the writing according to Wulsin (1940, p.128)

himself.

Some researchers refuse to date the Libyco-Berber

inscriptions earlier than 700 BC, because the Semitic alphabet

was not used until around 800 BC. They claim that Libyco-Berber

can not be any older than 800 BC because the Semitic alphabet is

suppose to be the parent of the Libyco-Berber writing.

This is a false analogy. Firstly, this view has to be

rejected because the Libyco-Berber script includes many signs

which are different from Semitic scripts. Although these signs

are not found in the Berber alphabet, they are found in the Indus

Valley, Linear A and Egyptian pottery signs.

J.T. Cornelius (1954, 1956-1957) illustrated how the

Libyco-Berber signs are identical to the Egyptian, South Indian

and Linear A writing. Moreover, a cursory comparison of the

Thinite postmarks from Upper and Lower Egypt compare favorably to

the Libyco-Berber signs ( Petrie, 1900; van de Brink, 1992). All

of these writing systems date to the 3rd millennium BC.

Secondly, these writing systems correlate well with Wulsin's

dating of the goat/sheep figure at Oued Mertoutek. This

congruency supports a 3rd millennium date for the Oued Mertoutek

inscriptions, and explains the fact that both the goat/sheep and

Libyco-Berber inscriptions share the same patina.

In conclusion, the Oued Mertoutek inscription probably dates

back to the 3rd Millennium BC. Two factors dispute Wulsin's

dating of the Oued Mertoutek inscription: 1) the archaeological

evidence which has pushed back the dating of Libyco-Berber

inscriptions to between 300-700 BC; and 2) the dating of the

Horse Period in Saharan history to 1500 BC, rather than 500-600

AD.

The dating of the Horse period in the Sahara is

now pushed back to 1500 BC. This factor alone disconfirms the

hypothesis of Wulsin, that the Oued Mertoutek inscription was

written around 500-600 AD, because Wulsin had formed this

conclusion based on the dating of the Horse Period of Saharan

Rock Art. Changes in the dating of the Horse Period from those

accepted by Wulsin 50 years ago automatically changes our dating

of the Oued Mertoutek inscription.

The ancient origin of Libyco-Berber writing is further

confirmed by the common symbols shared by the Oued Mertoutek

inscriptions, and contemporary 3rd Millennium writing systems in

Mesopotamia, Crete, Egypt and the Indus Valley. This along with

the same patina for the goat/sheep figure and Oued Mertoutek

inscription is congruent with the determination that the Oued

Mertoutek inscription is 5000 years old.


Based on the Patina of of the Oued Mertoutek monument I can give it an early date.

Below is a Saharan inscription with the bar and dot pattern.





The fact that the Vai script has dot and bar signs make it clear that ancient African writing systems did have dot and bar symbols.

You imply that the Mande did not have writing in ancient times. Dr. Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Olmec probably used a Mande writing system [18]. Dr. Wiener after comparing the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was analogous Manding writing engraved on rocks in Mandeland. Wiener (1922) and Lawrence (1961) maintain that the Olmec writing was identical to the Manding writing used in Africa. [19]


There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt.The Tichitt dwellings were built by Mande speaking people and date back to 2000-800 BC. Researchers claim that the inscriptions are along the chariot routes and other sites in Dar Tichitt.. This suggest that some of the inscriptions may date back to 1500-2000BC, this is the date for the appearance of the horse in the Sahara.

(See: Nicole Lambert, Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4(1970),pp.15-62;

Nicole Lambert, L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226;

R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);

R.A. Kea, Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Reserach, 3(2004), pp.723-816 ).

The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Mande, Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times.


.


References
Close, A.E. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon

dates from northern Africa", , 21,

pp.145-167.

Cornelius, J.T. (1954). The Dravidian Question,

Culture>, 3 (2), pp.92-102.

Cornelius, J.T. (1956-1957). Are Dravidian Dynastic

Egyptians?,

India, 1956-1957, pp.89-117.

Desanges, J. (1981). The Proto-Berbers. In

of Africa II> (Ed.) by G.M. Mokhtar (pp.423-440). Berkeley,CA:

UNESCO.

Petrie, W.M.F. (1900).

Dynasties>, London: Egypt Exploration Society. No.18.

Sahnouni,M. (1996). Saharan rock art. In ,

(Ed.) by Theodore Celenko (pp.28-30). Bloomington,IN:Indianapolis

Museum of Art.

van den Brink, E.C.M.(1992). Corpus and numerical evaluation

of the Thinite potmarks. In

Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman> (pp.265-296). Oxbow Books.

Park End Place, Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association

Publication. No.2.

Wulsin,F.R. (1940).

Northwest Africa>. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American

Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol.19 (1).
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Antiquity of the Vai Script

The Mande speaking people have never stopped writing in their ancient script. It appears that the Mande are keeping alive use of the script in Secret Societies like the Poro Secret Society.

There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script .

Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839. David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133) reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai. Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21) believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.









The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script .

We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed" (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).

The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.

If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system.

When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.


This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.

Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level
with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" (see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)

Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months .

If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.

The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why even though the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.

This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).

What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it , so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.

Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".

Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71) found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.

David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"(see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).

Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skeptical because Beslow had made the same claim.

In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.

Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.

The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.

References:


S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)

David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)

K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).

S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)

T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).

Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)

D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).

.
 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 
A more scientific approach to this question is to present alternate hypotheses and test them. For the moment, we will not presuppose a date for this inscription.

One hypothesis is that the Oued Mertoutek inscription is written in Vai script that is still the same in 1898.
Rather than depend on Winters’s interpretations we can see for ourselves. Let’s identify 1898 Vai signs in the Oued Mertoutek image:
I find 3 definite(fe, figbe, me) and 2 possible if one rotates them (these are the W looking ones) (to?,pe?). A total of 5 signs.
In this proposal the script is syllabic

.









A different hypothesis would be that the script on the Oued Mertoutek is a form of Lybico-Berber or Tifinagh. This script is alphabetic.



These alphabets from W. Pichler 2007 Origin and Development of the Libyco-Berber Script Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag

Archaic Libyco-Berber


In this case, I find 7 definite (g,b,m,s3,y,l) and 2 possible if rotated or flattened (d,r). A total of 9 signs.

Classic Libyco-Berber


In this case, I find 9 definite (t,n,w,d,t,g,s3,z3,l). A total of 9 signs.

Tifinagh Script


In this case, I find 8 definite (a,h,n,w,t,m,r,b,d,l) and 2 possible if rotated (d,y). A total of 10 signs.

I see that the Lybico-Berber hypothesis accounts for more of the Oued Mertoutek symbols than the Vai hypothesis and that the more recent the Lybico-Berber script, the more symbols matched. I wrote Werner Pichler, the author of the most comprehensive and most recent work on Libyco-Berber and got this reply:


I asked

quote:

---

Dear Dr. Pichler,
Clyde Winters, has based many of his claims about Mande influence on the Olmecs on one inscription from Oued Mertoutek (which I attach). Supposedly,this inscription dates to 2000 BC and is written in Vai script rather than lybico-berber or tifinagh.

1) Is this inscription 4000 year old? What is the oldest known Saharan inscription?

2) What alphabet is this inscription in and can it be interpreted?

---

quote:

---

To your questions:
First of all: I do not know the inscription from own experience. So I can only judge the drawing from 1938. My experience is that most of the older documentations are faulty/incorrect.
With the exception of one sign in the left line all signs could be Libyco-Berber script. The usage of pointed signs indicates that the inscription belongs to the young Tifinagh period (A.D.). Anyway, a Libyco-Berber inscription never can be 4000 years old. According to my thesis the oldest LB-inscription can be found in the Moroccan High Atlas and date back to about the 7th century BC.

---

quote:

---

A different hypothesis would be that the script on the Oued Mertoutek is a form of Lybico-Berber or Tifinagh. This script is alphabetic.

---

quote:

---

There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt.The Tichitt dwellings were built by Mande speaking people and date back to 2000-800 BC. Researchers claim that the inscriptions are along the chariot routes and other sites in Dar Tichitt.. This suggest that some of the inscriptions may date back to 1500-2000BC, this is the date for the appearance of the horse in the Sahara.

(See: Nicole Lambert, Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4(1970),pp.15-62;

Nicole Lambert, L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226;

R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);

R.A. Kea, Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Reserach, 3(2004), pp.723-816 ).

The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Mande, Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzacoatl

quote:

---

A different hypothesis would be that the script on the Oued Mertoutek is a form of Lybico-Berber or Tifinagh. This script is alphabetic.

---

I don't care about your opinion I have explained why the Oued Mertoutek inscription is so old. In addition, you can't really recognize Vai/Mande signs as indicated by your failure to recognize the affinity between the signs from Mali mentioned by Wierner and the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette. A correspondence that Wiener recognized while you denied any relationship between the two scripts.

First of all I used the Delafosse Vai list to decipher the Olmec writing.

I will repeat the following:

Winters

quote:

---

There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt.The Tichitt dwellings were built by Mande speaking people and date back to 2000-800 BC. Researchers claim that the inscriptions are along the chariot routes and other sites in Dar Tichitt.. This suggest that some of the inscriptions may date back to 1500-2000BC, this is the date for the appearance of the horse in the Sahara.

(See: Nicole Lambert, Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4(1970),pp.15-62;

Nicole Lambert, L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226;

R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);

R.A. Kea, Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Reserach, 3(2004), pp.723-816 ).

The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Mande, Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times.

---

Secondly, we know that these signs are not written in Tifinagh because you can not read the Libyco-Berber writing using Tifinagh. Moreover, many of the so-called Libyco-Berber inscriptions found along the chariot routes and other sites in the Sahara, were written by Mande speaking people who occupied an extensive area reaching from the Fezzan to Tichitt in ancient times.

.

---

quote:

---

Pichler, a modern authority says all but one of the Oued Mertoutek symbols can be found in Tifinagh and albert Muzzolini, who has done most of the work on Sahararock art says the "horse period" starts i 700 BC.

---

quote:

---

Tassili-n-Ajjer in Algeria is one of the most famous North African sites of rock painting. Its imagery documents a verdant Sahara teeming with life that stands in stark contrast to the arid desert the region has since become. Tassili paintings and engravings, like those of other rock art areas in the Sahara, are commonly divided into at least four chronological periods based on style and content. These are: an archaic tradition depicting wild animals whose antiquity is unknown but certainly goes back well before 4500 B.C.; a so-called bovidian tradition, which corresponds to the arrival of cattle in North Africa between 4500 and 4000 B.C.; a "horse" tradition, which corresponds to the appearance of horses in the North African archaeological record from about 2000 B.C. onward; and a "camel" tradition, which emerges around the time of Christ when these animals first appear in North Africa. Engravings of animals such as the extinct giant buffalo are among the earliest works, followed later by paintings in which color is used to depict humans and animals with striking naturalism. In the last period, chariots, shields, and camels appear in the rock paintings. Although close to the Iberian Peninsula, it is currently believed that the rock art of Algeria and Tassili developed independently of that in Europe.


http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tass/hd_tass.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
You can whirl and you can spin but readers on ES can see for themselves and can, as is done in science, easily replicate what I have done because I have clear definite images and clearly state how I proceeded. Your work cannot be replicated by others because it is so idiosyncratic and depends so much in what piece of a complex symbol you decide to pull out and call a Mande syllable. Why don't you explain what all the remaining parts of the mutilated symbol (particularly in Olmec and Maya glyphs that re pictoric and logographic) mean- or why people put them in, if they are meaningless. The images you post are so small and confusing that others are not able to independently replicate your work. Why aren't others publishing translations using Vai script?

Pichler, a modern authority says all but one of the Oued Mertoutek symbols can be found in Tifinagh and albert Muzzolini, who has done most of the work on Sahararock art says the "horse period" starts i 700 BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzalcoatl

quote:

---

Pichler, a modern authority says all but one of the Oued Mertoutek symbols can be found in Tifinagh and albert Muzzolini, who has done most of the work on Sahararock art says the "horse period" starts i 700 BC.

---

As usual you don't know what you're talking about. The horse appeared in Saharan rock art around 2000 BC.

quote:

---

Tassili-n-Ajjer in Algeria is one of the most famous North African sites of rock painting. Its imagery documents a verdant Sahara teeming with life that stands in stark contrast to the arid desert the region has since become. Tassili paintings and engravings, like those of other rock art areas in the Sahara, are commonly divided into at least four chronological periods based on style and content. These are: an archaic tradition depicting wild animals whose antiquity is unknown but certainly goes back well before 4500 B.C.; a so-called bovidian tradition, which corresponds to the arrival of cattle in North Africa between 4500 and 4000 B.C.; a "horse" tradition, which corresponds to the appearance of horses in the North African archaeological record from about 2000 B.C. onward; and a "camel" tradition, which emerges around the time of Christ when these animals first appear in North Africa. Engravings of animals such as the extinct giant buffalo are among the earliest works, followed later by paintings in which color is used to depict humans and animals with striking naturalism. In the last period, chariots, shields, and camels appear in the rock paintings. Although close to the Iberian Peninsula, it is currently believed that the rock art of Algeria and Tassili developed independently of that in Europe.


http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tass/hd_tass.htm

---

---

quote:

---

p. 26 Not until the 1990s did a systematic field research by Pichler and Rodrigue lead to an increase of documented inscriptions (Pichler 2000a, 2000d, Pichler/Rodrigue 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, Rodrigue/Pichler 2002). However, the situation was still a confused muddle that could not be disentangled: there were so many variations concerning the shape of the signs, the patina, the context etc. The confusion lasted until the conclusive realization that the whole corpus of Moroccan inscriptions can be divided roughly into two groups:

1. “Ancient” inscriptions with dark patina, without dotted signs, with ancient context: circles, weapons, carts etc. Sites: Msemrir, Meskaou, Taous, Azib n’Ikkis, Oukaimeden etc.

2. “Modern” inscriptions; with pale patina, with dotted signs, with LB context: linear horses and camels, horsemen etc. Sites: Foum Chenna, Ikhf n’Ouraoun, Tazzarine, Wiggane etc.
. . . .
pp. 97. [Oldest Inscriptions in the Sahara] In 1997 [sic 1995] Muzzolini made a very interesting attempt of searching for the oldest Saharan rock inscriptions using indirect dating (unpublished documented by private letters to the author). He was naturally aware of the enormous problems of comparing criteria like ”style” or “patina”, but he attempted to construct a relative chronology, and followed it with a very rough absolute chronology based only on rock art criteria. A second step involved an epigraphist checking that these chronologies were compatible with what can be deduced from the forms of signs, the existence and absence of signs etc.
Muzzolini’s general position was that more than 99% of the Saharan inscriptions belong to the “Camel Period”, with very few (perhaps half a dozen) possibly belonging to the end of the “Horse Period”. Since there is no undisputed absolute chronology for African rock art to date, there is of course no agreement among the researchers about a temporal limit of these periods. While Muzzolini dates the transition to c. 200 BC, other researchers like Lutz estimate it to about 200 years later. However, Muzzolini’s goal was to search for inscriptions dating from the end of the Horse Period of from “Early Cameline”.

---

quote:

---

pp. 113-15[Rock art patterns Large Village of Akhrejit, Dhar Tichitt (2000-500 BC]

Dark patina (Cattle- 26; goat-2; bovids- 2; human- 3)

Light patina (horse rider- 21; camel rider- 9; ostrich- 8; antelope- 8; Tifinagh inscriptions 4)

---

quote:

---

p. 465 In attempting to assess the date of horse paintings in the Tagant region of the Mauritanian Sahara, one is faced with a far greater time-depth, much of it unrecorded historically, and with relatively few archaeological studies. In general western Saharan terms, Mauny placed the ‘horse period’ from 1,200 BC to the present, 36 yet this early date has been brought into question: Muzzolini holds that horses and chariots enter the Sahara no earlier than 700 BC;37 in Mauritania, Vernet and Naffe place images of chariots, and some horses between 500 and 0 BC, with other horses in the later Islamic period from AD 700 onwards.38


p.466 Somewhat controversially, MacDonald doubts such an early date for the Western Sahara, holding that horses only appear with certainty in the stratigraphic record by AD 600.39 He does, however, dismiss the example of a horse tooth in Rop rock shelter in Nigeria dating to the first millennium BC.


36. Mauny, R. 1954 “Gravures, peintures etinscriptions rupestres de l’Ouest Africain”, Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental de l’Afrique Noire, Initiations Africaines 11.

37. Muzzolini, A. 1996 “Les equides dans les figurations rupestres sahariennes”, Anthropologie (Brno) 24/1–2: 185–202; Muzzolini, A 2003 “Livestock in Saharan Rock Art,” in R.M. Blench and K.C. MacDonald (eds.), The origins and development of African livestock: archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography London: UCL Press, p. 102.

38.Vernet, R and B. Naffe, 2003 Dictionaire archaeologique de la Mauritanie Nouakchott: University of Nouakchott

39. MacDonald, K.C. and R.H. MacDonald 2003 “The origins and development of domesticated animals in arid West Africa,” in R.M. Blench and K.C. MacDonald, (eds.), The origins and development of African livestock: archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography London: UCL Press

40. Muzzolini, A. 1996 “Les equides dans les figurations rupestres sahariennes,” Anthropologie (Brno) 24/1–2: 185–202; Muzzolini ,A. 2003 “Livestock in Saharan Rock Art,” in R.M. Blench and K.C. MacDonald (eds.), The origins and development of African livestock: archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography. London: UCL Press, p. 102. Muzzolini, A. 1995 Les Images Rupestres du Sahara Toulouse: Collection pre´histoire du Sahara 1.

---

quote:

---

Finally this sequence was articulated into four school-periods: Bubaline, Bovidian, Caballine, Cameline. The first consists of engravings only, while it was claimed that the last three included both engravings and paintings.

Contrary to a statement frequently found in the literature we must emphasise that this classification-chronology was not built up "according to fauna": Buffalo, Cattle, Horse and Camel are in no way discriminant criteria - they are only labels, linked to the four classes/ periods after these were defined and constituted entirely on the basis of the usual criteria (technique, patina, and above all style).

This harmonious sequence of four schools/periods is still widely used by many researchers. Indeed it constitutes the traditional vulgate. However, it has become a target for criticism in recent decades. Some researchers (e.g. Jelinek for Mathendous, M. Hachid for the Saharan Atlas, C. Dupuy for Adrar des Iforas) have modified it appreciably. Others - including the present writer (1995)- retain only some of its elements and propose a more complex sequence of schools in which the most conspicuous difference concerns the "Bubaline" school. The latter differs from the "Bovidian" school on account of its style, but nevertheless is claimed to be contemporary with the Early Bovidian paintings (Table 1).

Table 1. Chronologies.

Approx dates [6000-3000BC Engravings of the Bubaline School (Monumental, Tazina, Decadent)]; [3000-1000 BC Bovidian]; [700BC-200BC Horse Period];[200BC-AD Camel Period)

Atlas (Engravings)(4000-2000 Naturalistic Bubaline; 2000-1000 Tazina Style]

Fezzan (Engravings)(4000-2000 BC Naturalistic Bubaline style; 1800-1000BC Tazina Style; 700-100 BC horse period; 200BC-1000 AD Camel Period]

Tassili-Acacus [4000-2500 BC Naturalistic Bubaline School; 1800-1000BC Abaniora group; 700-100 BC horse period; 200BC-1000 AD Camel period)

Tssili-Acacus (Painting)[4000-2500BC Sefar-Ozaneare group (‘Early Bovidian’ with negroid figures); 1800-700BC Iheren Tahilahi Group (Final Bovidian with europoid fig); 500-100BC Horse period; 200BC- 1000AD camel period]

Tassili-Acacus (painting)[4000-1500BC round heads)?); 500-100BC horse period;200BC- 1000 AD camel period)

Air, Adrar des Iforas (engraving)[4000-900BC no rock pictures; 900-500BC semi-naturalistic engraving (pseudo bubaline-rare);500 BC-AD “Libyan Warrior School]

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
So I see the Clyde still keeps the 'good fight' for his "African Olmecs"...
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
This is good clean debate. Let's keep it that way.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The horse period is dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.

There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found ((A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165).

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.










At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rampart (W.B. Emery, A master-work of Egyptian military architecture 3900 years ago" Illustrated London News, 12 September, pp.250-251). This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt.

The Kushites appear to have rode the horses on horseback instead of a chariot. This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horseback. This supports supports the early habit of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.

This tradition was continued throughout the history of Kush. The Kushites and upper Egyptians were great horsemen, whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Kushite calvary of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty usually rode on horseback (W.A. Fairservis, The ancient kingdoms of the Nile (London,1962) p.129).
 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The horse period is dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.

---

quote:

---

There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

---

quote:

---

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found ((A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165).

---

quote:

---

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

---

quote:

---

Rock art traditions in the Western Sahara and Mauritania
Engravings of the Third Period (Lybico-Berbers included)

The images of this phase are represented with a wide pecked line or are entirely carved. However, some engravings are still incised, for example those depicting horses, which here have an important chronological meaning.
. . .


Balbín dates this phase between 3,500 and 2,400 BP.[[ comment 1500-400 BC] However, we should also take into account the later Lybico-Berber engravings and paintings, which appear at the end of the period[Comment i.e. 400 BC, just as I have been saying]. . . . In the Western Sahara, the last of the Lybico-Berber period is not so present as in Mauritania, where many more camels were depicted. This animal was introduced a little after 2.000 BP [ AD 0](Wilson 1984).
. . . .
The pictorial styles from the Zemmur

The most recent one, the Linear Style (fig. 7), could date between 2,400 and 2,000 BP [ 400 Bc-AD 0]because of the presence of Lybico-Berber texts and the lack of camels.
. . . .

The paintings and engravings of the Adrar

The depictions of horses indicate that some of the paintings may be recent. However no Lybico-Berber inscriptions or camel depictions (which belong to the last Mauritanian rock art tradition) have been discovered. . . .

In general Vernet (1993) proposes a chronology between 4,000 and 2,500 BP for the paintings in the Adrar because there are no carts or metallic weapons.

The two most significant engraved sites in the Adrar are those from El Beyyed (Monod 1938) and El Rhallouiya (Vernet 1996). The latter has a particular interest due to the superimpositions
of engravings from three different periods. Among the ancient engravings (4,000 – 2,500 BP) there still are depictions of wild fauna, which are superimposed by more recent figures of cattle
and carts (2,500 – 2,000 BP) (figs. 10, 11). Finally, with a lighter patina, cattle are related to Lybico-Berber texts. These last engravings are dated to around 2,000 BP (Vernet 1993, 1996).

---

quote:

---

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

---

quote:

---

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.

---

quote:

---

The horse paintings attributed to the Proto-Berbers are often painted in the wellknown ‘double triangle’, or even in the more linear style of the ‘Libyan Warrior’ school.69 Double triangle horses are found at Guilemsi, and in profusion in the Oued Jrid where over sixty mounted horses are painted....
Indeed the double triangle the Garamantes used to depict themselves72 would seem to bear this out.

---

The Garamantes were 500BC on

quote:

---

At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rampart (W.B. Emery, A master-work of Egyptian military architecture 3900 years ago" Illustrated London News, 12 September, pp.250-251). This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt.

The Kushites appear to have rode the horses on horseback instead of a chariot. This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horseback. This supports supports the early habit of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.

This tradition was continued throughout the history of Kush. The Kushites and upper Egyptians were great horsemen, whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Kushite calvary of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty usually rode on horseback (W.A. Fairservis, The ancient kingdoms of the Nile (London,1962) p.129).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The horse period is dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.

---

In this entire passage you keep mixing apples and oranges indiscriminately. Dates and information regarding Egypt are irrelevant to the topic in question-- the date of horse representations in the Sahara that correlate with Lybico-Berber/Tifinagh inscriptions.
This sentence is clearly incorrect. Regardless of the initial date the horse period lasted until the "Camel Period" at 200 BC.

quote:

---

There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

---

The above passages are irrelevant to our discussion.

quote:

---

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found ((A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165).

---

I'm getting this paper- but I doubt that Holl actually says that. He does not mention this in his other works that I have and most other authors speak of the scarcity of horse remains. The one mentioned is ONE tooth at Nok, Nigeria and that has not been carbon dated.

quote:

---

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

---

As usual. Winters' sources contradict him., and cattle-pulled carts are irrelevant. The constant theme in Sublis's paper is that any time horses or Libyco-Berber are found the point is made that these are recent

quote:

---

Rock art traditions in the Western Sahara and Mauritania
Engravings of the Third Period (Lybico-Berbers included)

The images of this phase are represented with a wide pecked line or are entirely carved. However, some engravings are still incised, for example those depicting horses, which here have an important chronological meaning.
. . .


Balbín dates this phase between 3,500 and 2,400 BP.[[ comment 1500-400 BC] However, we should also take into account the later Lybico-Berber engravings and paintings, which appear at the end of the period[Comment i.e. 400 BC, just as I have been saying]. . . . In the Western Sahara, the last of the Lybico-Berber period is not so present as in Mauritania, where many more camels were depicted. This animal was introduced a little after 2.000 BP [ AD 0](Wilson 1984).
. . . .
The pictorial styles from the Zemmur

The most recent one, the Linear Style (fig. 7), could date between 2,400 and 2,000 BP [ 400 Bc-AD 0]because of the presence of Lybico-Berber texts and the lack of camels.
. . . .

The paintings and engravings of the Adrar

The depictions of horses indicate that some of the paintings may be recent. However no Lybico-Berber inscriptions or camel depictions (which belong to the last Mauritanian rock art tradition) have been discovered. . . .

In general Vernet (1993) proposes a chronology between 4,000 and 2,500 BP for the paintings in the Adrar because there are no carts or metallic weapons.

The two most significant engraved sites in the Adrar are those from El Beyyed (Monod 1938) and El Rhallouiya (Vernet 1996). The latter has a particular interest due to the superimpositions
of engravings from three different periods. Among the ancient engravings (4,000 – 2,500 BP) there still are depictions of wild fauna, which are superimposed by more recent figures of cattle
and carts (2,500 – 2,000 BP) (figs. 10, 11). Finally, with a lighter patina, cattle are related to Lybico-Berber texts. These last engravings are dated to around 2,000 BP (Vernet 1993, 1996).

---

The same Vernet, as I cited above, wrote in 2003 "in Mauritania, Vernet and Naffe place images of chariots, and some horses between 500 and 0 BC, with other horses in the later Islamic period from AD 700 onwards."
How this web page supports the presence of horses in the Sahara 2000-1200 BC is beyond me.

quote:

---

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

---

Irrelevant to the point. Horses ridden at the time of the Arabs!

quote:

---

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.

---

Purely circular logic. How do these pictures PROVE what the date is since that is the question that is being debated. Actually your first image is evidence for its late date;

quote:

---

The horse paintings attributed to the Proto-Berbers are often painted in the wellknown ‘double triangle’, or even in the more linear style of the ‘Libyan Warrior’ school.69 Double triangle horses are found at Guilemsi, and in profusion in the Oued Jrid where over sixty mounted horses are painted....
Indeed the double triangle the Garamantes used to depict themselves72 would seem to bear this out.

---

The Garamantes were 500BC on

quote:

---

At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rampart (W.B. Emery, A master-work of Egyptian military architecture 3900 years ago" Illustrated London News, 12 September, pp.250-251). This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt.

The Kushites appear to have rode the horses on horseback instead of a chariot. This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horseback. This supports supports the early habit of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.

This tradition was continued throughout the history of Kush. The Kushites and upper Egyptians were great horsemen, whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Kushite calvary of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty usually rode on horseback (W.A. Fairservis, The ancient kingdoms of the Nile (London,1962) p.129).

---

Egypt is irrelevant to the discussion.

Bottom line the papers and dating by Muzzolini presented by me above still hold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
T
The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found ((A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165).I

---

quote:

---

p. 150 The first came from controlled excavation of a compound dated to ca. 2500 B.P. (Gif 6083) and systematic surface sampling of the 12-ha settlement of Akhreijit, the second from a surface site (Site 46) located in the interdunal depression near a former fresh-water lake, and the third through judgemental sampling implemented du ing a survey conducted by the Dhar Tichitt Prehistoric Mission in 1980 (Holl 1985a, 1986).
Seventeen taxa have been identified in the Akhreijit village samples, Nile perch (3 vertebras), 14 of wild mammals and 2 of
livestock. [Wild mammals are distributed into 80 gazelles (39.02%), 39 bovids (19.02%), 10 oryx (4.8%), 9 addax (4.3%), 5 eland (2.43%),3(1.46%) each of Tragelaphus sp. and Gazella dama, 2 each (0.97%) of Hippotragus equinus, Mellivora capensis, and Kobus sp., and finally, 1 (0.48%) each of Equus sp. , Panthera leo, Cricetomys sp., and Genetta genetta. Domestic animals are represented by 34 (16.58%) cattle and 12 (5.85%) sheep/goat bones. Site 46 sample comprises 16 identified taxa; one fragment of Crocodylus niloticus carapace, 145 burned ostrich eggshell fragments, and five large Nile perch vertebras measuring 26 to 32 mm in length and 25 to 32 mmin diameter have been collected. Wild mammals are distributed into 21(35%) Bovidae sp., 12 (20%) Gazella dorcas, 6 (10%) H. equinus, 5(8.33%) Oryx algazel, 3 (5%) Addax nasomaculatus, 2 (3.33%) Tragelaphus sp., and 1 (1.66%) each for Equus sp., Taurotragus der- bianus, G. dama, and finally, Hippopotamus amphibius. Three domestic species are attested: 4 (6.66%) for cattle, 1 (1.66%) for sheep/goat, and 2 (3.33%) for camel. The camel bones singled out by their white patina, are clearly intrusive. The third sample is patently characterized by its loose chronological resolution. Sixteen taxa have been determined; domestic mammals are represented by (32.14%) cattle and 9 (10.71%) sheep/goat bones. Eleven wild mammals 13 (15.47%) Bovidae sp., 6 (7.14%) H. amphibius, 5 (5.95%) each for O. algazel and G. dorcas, 4 (4.76%) each for T. derbianus, G. dama, and H. equinus, 2 (2.38%) A. naso-maculatus, and, finally, 1 (1.19%) each for Equus sp., Acinonyx jubatus, M. capensis and Ceratotherium simum (white rhinoceros).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Muzzolina paper does not hold because he based his dating of the horse in Africa is based on dating the introduction of the horse to Africa to the Hysos, and that the Libyco-Berber writing was created by "Berbers" who introduced writing to West Africa and the Sahara. This is pure speculation. First we see the oldest examples of Libyco-Berber writing appearing in the Sahara, not North Africa. Secondly, Saharan Africans preferred horseback riding instead of using chariotss. Therefore the association of writing to the expansion of Fezzanese from the Fezzan to Mauritania after 1000BC is not supported by the archaeological evidence for the horse in the Sahara.


Maadi is not irelevent to this discussion. As we have discussed earlier the Proto-Mande speakers originally lived in the Sahara and Nubia before hey migrated into West Africa and the Fezzan. As a result, the fact that 1) horses were found at Maadi and throughout the Sahara between 4000 and 5000 plus BP; and the Kushites were horseback riding is important in understanding the antiquity writing in Africa.

Researchers have assumed that the Libyco Berber writing appear around 700 BC because it is associated with horses and horses they claim do not appear in rock art until 200-1500 BC. The archaeological evidence of horese in the Sahara at this early time make it clear that horses were in Africa years before the Hysos arrived on the Continent, and that a horse native to Saharan Africa was alread in existence before this time as well.

Secondly we have Kushites horsebackriding at Buhen in 4th millennium BP. This shows that while Asians used the horse for chariots Africans had long recognized that they could ride the horse. As a result, the presence of writing and Saharans horseback riding support a probably much earlier origin than the late horse period (e.g., 700 BC) assigned these inscriptions by some researchers.

Finally, we know that the bovidian period of Saharan Africa goes back to 6000 BC. The antiquity of cattle herding among the Mande speakers support the antiquity of the Oued Mertoutek inscription.

In summary, horses existed in Africa before the Hysos entered Egypt. This horse was native to Africa and used by Mande calvary up until the rise of the Ghana empire.

Saharan use of the horse for transportation can not be dated back to the introduction of the chariot (a cart pulled by a horse) because Saharans already had carts before the Hysos entered Egypt. The rock art makes it clear that Africans early possessed carts pulled by cattle. Since they had carts pulled by cattle there was not need to use this animal to pull chariots since they already had their own technology.

The rock art from the Sahara and North Africa make it clear that people here preferred horseback riding instead of using chariots for transportation. This tradition of horeseback writing in Saharan Africa make it clear that the dating of the Libyco-Berber writing after 1000 BC is probably to late, and fail to accurately reflect the date of writing in Saharan Africa, a view supported by the Oued Mertoutek inscription.

The early presence of horses and writing; and writing associated with the Oued Mertoutek inscription make it clear that the Mande speaking people had been familiar with writing long before they traveled to Mexico to found the Olmec civilization. It was this writing that the Olmec used to leave us inscrib objects throughout Olmecland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
T
The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found ((A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165).I

---

Clyde, why do you this? You know I'm going to check your references. As I predicted, Holl does not say what Clyde implies. In all the sites discussed by Holl, wild horse bones (not skeletons) are only found in the Dhar Tichitt area. This dates [QB from 2000BC-AD0. But the only date provided is at Akhreijit and dated 500BC not 2000BC.

quote:

---

p. 150 The first came from controlled excavation of a compound dated to ca. 2500 B.P. (Gif 6083) and systematic surface sampling of the 12-ha settlement of Akhreijit, the second from a surface site (Site 46) located in the interdunal depression near a former fresh-water lake, and the third through judgemental sampling implemented du ing a survey conducted by the Dhar Tichitt Prehistoric Mission in 1980 (Holl 1985a, 1986).
Seventeen taxa have been identified in the Akhreijit village samples, Nile perch (3 vertebras), 14 of wild mammals and 2 of
livestock. [Wild mammals are distributed into 80 gazelles (39.02%), 39 bovids (19.02%), 10 oryx (4.8%), 9 addax (4.3%), 5 eland (2.43%),3(1.46%) each of Tragelaphus sp. and Gazella dama, 2 each (0.97%) of Hippotragus equinus, Mellivora capensis, and Kobus sp., and finally, 1 (0.48%) each of Equus sp. , Panthera leo, Cricetomys sp., and Genetta genetta. Domestic animals are represented by 34 (16.58%) cattle and 12 (5.85%) sheep/goat bones. Site 46 sample comprises 16 identified taxa; one fragment of Crocodylus niloticus carapace, 145 burned ostrich eggshell fragments, and five large Nile perch vertebras measuring 26 to 32 mm in length and 25 to 32 mmin diameter have been collected. Wild mammals are distributed into 21(35%) Bovidae sp., 12 (20%) Gazella dorcas, 6 (10%) H. equinus, 5(8.33%) Oryx algazel, 3 (5%) Addax nasomaculatus, 2 (3.33%) Tragelaphus sp., and 1 (1.66%) each for Equus sp., Taurotragus der- bianus, G. dama, and finally, Hippopotamus amphibius. Three domestic species are attested: 4 (6.66%) for cattle, 1 (1.66%) for sheep/goat, and 2 (3.33%) for camel. The camel bones singled out by their white patina, are clearly intrusive. The third sample is patently characterized by its loose chronological resolution. Sixteen taxa have been determined; domestic mammals are represented by (32.14%) cattle and 9 (10.71%) sheep/goat bones. Eleven wild mammals 13 (15.47%) Bovidae sp., 6 (7.14%) H. amphibius, 5 (5.95%) each for O. algazel and G. dorcas, 4 (4.76%) each for T. derbianus, G. dama, and H. equinus, 2 (2.38%) A. naso-maculatus, and, finally, 1 (1.19%) each for Equus sp., Acinonyx jubatus, M. capensis and Ceratotherium simum (white rhinoceros).

---

Noice that the Equus sp are listed among the wild[/QB species not associated with human riders and that there is one bome at each location.

Coming attractions: Neither 1898-1899 Vai script nor Mande dictionaries are valid at 500 BC much less 3000BC. Yes, Virginia both scripts and language changes over 5000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Muzzolina paper does not hold because he based his dating of the horse in Africa is based on dating the introduction of the horse to Africa to the Hysos, and that the Libyco-Berber writing was created by "Berbers" who introduced writing to West Africa and the Sahara. This is pure speculation. First we see the oldest examples of Libyco-Berber writing appearing in the Sahara, not North Africa. Secondly, Saharan Africans preferred horseback riding instead of using chariotss. Therefore the association of writing to the expansion of Fezzanese from the Fezzan to Mauritania after 1000BC is not supported by the archaeological evidence for the horse in the Sahara.


Maadi is not irelevent to this discussion. As we have discussed earlier the Proto-Mande speakers originally lived in the Sahara and Nubia before hey migrated into West Africa and the Fezzan. As a result, the fact that 1) horses were found at Maadi and throughout the Sahara between 4000 and 5000 plus BP; and the Kushites were horseback riding is important in understanding the antiquity writing in Africa.

Researchers have assumed that the Libyco Berber writing appear around 700 BC because it is associated with horses and horses they claim do not appear in rock art until 200-1500 BC. The archaeological evidence of horese in the Sahara at this early time make it clear that horses were in Africa years before the Hysos arrived on the Continent, and that a horse native to Saharan Africa was alread in existence before this time as well.

Secondly we have Kushites horsebackriding at Buhen in 4th millennium BP. This shows that while Asians used the horse for chariots Africans had long recognized that they could ride the horse. As a result, the presence of writing and Saharans horseback riding support a probably much earlier origin than the late horse period (e.g., 700 BC) assigned these inscriptions by some researchers.

Finally, we know that the bovidian period of Saharan Africa goes back to 6000 BC. The antiquity of cattle herding among the Mande speakers support the antiquity of the Oued Mertoutek inscription.

In summary, horses existed in Africa before the Hysos entered Egypt. This horse was native to Africa and used by Mande calvary up until the rise of the Ghana empire.

Saharan use of the horse for transportation can not be dated back to the introduction of the chariot (a cart pulled by a horse) because Saharans already had carts before the Hysos entered Egypt. The rock art makes it clear that Africans early possessed carts pulled by cattle. Since they had carts pulled by cattle there was not need to use this animal to pull chariots since they already had their own technology.

The rock art from the Sahara and North Africa make it clear that people here preferred horseback riding instead of using chariots for transportation. This tradition of horeseback writing in Saharan Africa make it clear that the dating of the Libyco-Berber writing after 1000 BC is probably to late, and fail to accurately reflect the date of writing in Saharan Africa, a view supported by the Oued Mertoutek inscription.

The early presence of horses and writing; and writing associated with the Oued Mertoutek inscription make it clear that the Mande speaking people had been familiar with writing long before they traveled to Mexico to found the Olmec civilization. It was this writing that the Olmec used to leave us inscrib objects throughout Olmecland.

---

Pure Winters opinion. Not a single reference much less a quote. As I just showed in the Holl paper, you cannot even trust his references, even when Winters quotes he does it partially, as I showed in the case of Lipp. You rely on the acolytes and web readers never checking your paraphrases and cites. It won't work with me.
.

---

quote:

---

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found (A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165 ).

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.

---

quote:

---

Clyde, why do you this? You know I'm going to check your references. As I predicted, Holl does not say what Clyde implies. In all the sites discussed by Holl, wild horse bones (not skeletons) are only found in the Dhar Tichitt area. This dates [QB from 2000BC-AD0[/QB]. But the only date provided is at Akhreijit and dated 500BC not 2000BC.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p. 150 The first came from controlled excavation of a compound dated to ca. 2500 B.P. (Gif 6083) and systematic surface sampling of the 12-ha settlement of Akhreijit, the second from a surface site (Site 46) located in the interdunal depression near a former fresh-water lake, and the third through judgemental sampling implemented du ing a survey conducted by the Dhar Tichitt Prehistoric Mission in 1980 (Holl 1985a, 1986).
Seventeen taxa have been identified in the Akhreijit village samples, Nile perch (3 vertebras), 14 of wild mammals and 2 of
livestock. [Wild mammals are distributed into 80 gazelles (39.02%), 39 bovids (19.02%), 10 oryx (4.8%), 9 addax (4.3%), 5 eland (2.43%),3(1.46%) each of Tragelaphus sp. and Gazella dama, 2 each (0.97%) of Hippotragus equinus, Mellivora capensis, and Kobus sp., and finally, 1 (0.48%) each of Equus sp. , Panthera leo, Cricetomys sp., and Genetta genetta. Domestic animals are represented by 34 (16.58%) cattle and 12 (5.85%) sheep/goat bones. Site 46 sample comprises 16 identified taxa; one fragment of Crocodylus niloticus carapace, 145 burned ostrich eggshell fragments, and five large Nile perch vertebras measuring 26 to 32 mm in length and 25 to 32 mmin diameter have been collected. Wild mammals are distributed into 21(35%) Bovidae sp., 12 (20%) Gazella dorcas, 6 (10%) H. equinus, 5(8.33%) Oryx algazel, 3 (5%) Addax nasomaculatus, 2 (3.33%) Tragelaphus sp., and 1 (1.66%) each for Equus sp., Taurotragus der- bianus, G. dama, and finally, Hippopotamus amphibius. Three domestic species are attested: 4 (6.66%) for cattle, 1 (1.66%) for sheep/goat, and 2 (3.33%) for camel. The camel bones singled out by their white patina, are clearly intrusive. The third sample is patently characterized by its loose chronological resolution. Sixteen taxa have been determined; domestic mammals are represented by (32.14%) cattle and 9 (10.71%) sheep/goat bones. Eleven wild mammals 13 (15.47%) Bovidae sp., 6 (7.14%) H. amphibius, 5 (5.95%) each for O. algazel and G. dorcas, 4 (4.76%) each for T. derbianus, G. dama, and H. equinus, 2 (2.38%) A. naso-maculatus, and, finally, 1 (1.19%) each for Equus sp., Acinonyx jubatus, M. capensis and Ceratotherium simum (white rhinoceros).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noice that the Equus sp are listed among the wild[/QB species not associated with human riders and that there is [QB]one bome at each location.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Oh you Great Deciever You. I have referenced my piece . Your problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. This is not Maat where you get the final word by banning people from the site. Here you write and I write back.

I have been a scholar researcher for over 30 years. I would not have as many publications in linguistics and anthropology if I did not conduct good research.Now I even have around five (5) articles published relation to population genetics.

---

quote:

---

Your problem Bernardo, is that you have made a career attacking Ivan, and publishing your work in biased journals that would not allow one to respond. This made you spoiled and believe you were right. But I am here to show you that you are full of hot air.[/QUOE]

When there is no data or evidence, ad hominem is the only recourse.

Clyde Winters

quote:

---

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found (A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165 ).

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.

---

. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Oh you Great Deciever You. I have referenced my piece . Your problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. This is not Maat where you get the final word by banning people from the site. Here you write and I write back.

I have been a scholar researcher for over 30 years. I would not have as many publications in linguistics and anthropology if I did not conduct good research.Now I even have around five (5) articles published relation to population genetics.

---

A search of ES will show that 1) the genetics "articles" were unrefereed letters to the Editor and the 2) Kivisild 's reply showed your claims were nonsense.

quote:

---

Your problem Bernardo, is that you have made a career attacking Ivan, and publishing your work in biased journals that would not allow one to respond. This made you spoiled and believe you were right. But I am here to show you that you are full of hot air.[/QUOE]

When there is no data or evidence, ad hominem is the only recourse.

Clyde Winters

quote:

---

Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between around 2000 BC, have been found (A.Holl, Livestock husbandry, pastoralism and territoriality: The west African record, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1998):143-165 ).

In the Sahel-Saharan zone the first carts were driven by cattle and date between 4000 and 3000 BP between the Tichitt and Tagant region according to Joaquim Soler Subils. It is in the Tichitt region that we find many Libyco-Berber inscriptions, horses, mounted horses and of course the cattle driven carts see: J.S. Subils, Sub-Zone1: Mauritania-Western Sahara web page . In many of these scenes the Mande are riding horses to hunt ostriches.

Daniel McCall said the African horse is small in size and lived in the Sahara during the 2nd Millennium BC (D.P. McCall, The cultural map and time profile of the mande-speaking people. In D. Dalby (Ed.), Papers on the Manding (Bloomington,In:1976)pp.76-78). African calvary used these horses up until rise of the empire of Ghana according to the Arab historian al-Bekri.

Sahelian-Saharan rock art depict horse being rode horseback by personages or people captuing horses.

---

.

---

As I stated above, Egyptian data is not relevant to the question of domesticated horse bones in the Sahara. I just showed that you misparaphrased Holl's paper. Please provide us with a quote that Holl said' horse skeletons[were found that dated 2000 BC [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

I have seen the video before. Thats a lot of effort. However, please answer my questions. Was Luiza not a Negrito similar to South-East Asian Islanders?

---

Not even close. The Philippine Aeta group close to the Malays craniometricaly and the Andamanese group in between the Europeans and Africans.
Luzia grouped closest to the Tolai, Tasmanians and then Eskimos and Australians. But part of the problem was that The samples Neves used for modern Native Americans was not from any tropical Native American population.


You always have to go to the primary sources. I have actually read all of Walter's studies. But Walter's studies were purely craniometric, and as such were questioned by many who stated that skull shapes were much more malleable to environment than thought before. So his conclusions weren't without controversy even before now.

Early peopling and evolutionary diversification in America, Pucciarelli et al, Quaternary International, Volumes 109-110, 2003, Pages 123-132 (Which stated that environmental conditions and genetic drift could be the main factors for craniometric differentiation.)

But before the last three studies, two published and one about to be published, there was at least some uncertainty. Just last year, geneticists and physical anthropologists decided to actually work together instead of coming up with separate conclusions. They looked at all the raw data and finally concluded that indeed, the Lagoa Santa, Kennewick, Fueguian, Pericu, Peñon, etc samples are all within the Amerindian range of variability.

Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): Implications for South American peopling, Perez et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 133 Issue 4, Pages 1067 - 1079, 25 May 2007 (Looked at both DNA and craniometrics and concluded both genetic drift and environment played role, but still pure Amerindian)

The Peopling of America: Craniofacial Shape Variation on a Continental Scale and its Interpretation From an Interdisciplinary View, Gonzalez-Jose et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137:175187 (2008) (which is a direct rebuttal to Neves' prior claims based on both DNA and anthropometric studies)

The nail in the coffin is the study by Walter Neves' own protegé, João Paulo Verrazani Atui still in the process of being published (I correspond with him as well), who took a much more extensive sampling of Native American populations than ever before. In Neves' studies, the groups sampled weren't even Amazonian. The samples he used were from Howell's and were the Yauyos Indians from the Coast of Peru (desert), Yokut and Ohlone Indians from Santa Cruz California (Similar environment to Lima, Peru) and the Arikara Indians from North Dakota. Do I need to mention a trend here? Only those three samples were used by Neves as far as modern Indigenous people. All three are from desert regions. None are from tropical regions. The Olmec, Lagoa Santa, etc were all from tropical regions.

Prior studies had already used Amazonian tribes and thus severely questioned Walter's methodology

Relações biológicas entre populações indígenas atuais e pré-históricas do Brasil, Carvalho de Mello et al, Série Arqueológica, UFPe, Recife, v. 1, n. 6, 1990 : 69-79 (Showed a close relationship between the Botocudos and Lagoa Santa)

Atui decided to sample Amazonian populations like the Botocudo, Kaingang, Krenak, Guarani, etc. with the same methodology Walter used and found much closer matches for the Lagoa Samples than any in the Howell's data base. Yet these populations genetically test fully within the Amerindian population without any admixture.

Demographic and Evolutionary Trajectories of the Guarani and Kaingang Natives of Brazil, Marrero et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:301310 (2007) (Shows that the Kaingang were purely indigenous, yet they were a match in Atui's study when compared to the Lagoa Santa population)

Molecular Approach to the Peopling of the Americas by Sequencing mtDNA from Extinct Fueguians and Patagons, García-Bour et al, Chungará (Arica) v.32 n.2 Arica jul. 2000 (Genetic markers in the Fueguians again show purely Amerindian haplotypes A, B, C and D)

Análise Da Estrutura Genética Da População Do Rio Grande Do Sul Através De Microssatélites Autossômicos E De Cromossomos Sexuais, Pereira Das Neves Leite, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Tese submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, 2006 (Where it was found the Southern Indigenous populations of Brazil had Asiatic haplotypes typical in Indigenous groups)

This conclusively debunks Walter's theory of a separate Australoid migration.

Now what is still quite true is that Australo-Melanesians and Native Americans both share common ancestors from the Sunda region. But not from the Sahul region.

An interesting fourth set of date exploration that complements the data from genetics, anthropometrics and linguistics is the study of oral histories:
http://www.laiesken.net/arxjournal/pdf/berezkin.pdf

I made two newer videos a while back.
Working on a revamp.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 1.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 2.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
You are not worth my time. I will not debate you. You proved in our Youtube discussion that when you are confronted with the truth you run and hide like a little child.

Here are my films in response to your garbage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oapn9nUOSFE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K07l7aIXcfk


I have already shown what a fool you are at your own site. I will discuss the substance of our Youtube debate in another film.

You coward when the going gets tough you ban people from a debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

I have seen the video before. Thats a lot of effort. However, please answer my questions. Was Luiza not a Negrito similar to South-East Asian Islanders?

---

Not even close. The Philippine Aeta group close to the Malays craniometricaly and the Andamanese group in between the Europeans and Africans.
Luzia grouped closest to the Tolai, Tasmanians and then Eskimos and Australians. But part of the problem was that The samples Neves used for modern Native Americans was not from any tropical Native American population.


You always have to go to the primary sources. I have actually read all of Walter's studies. But Walter's studies were purely craniometric, and as such were questioned by many who stated that skull shapes were much more malleable to environment than thought before. So his conclusions weren't without controversy even before now.

Early peopling and evolutionary diversification in America, Pucciarelli et al, Quaternary International, Volumes 109-110, 2003, Pages 123-132 (Which stated that environmental conditions and genetic drift could be the main factors for craniometric differentiation.)

But before the last three studies, two published and one about to be published, there was at least some uncertainty. Just last year, geneticists and physical anthropologists decided to actually work together instead of coming up with separate conclusions. They looked at all the raw data and finally concluded that indeed, the Lagoa Santa, Kennewick, Fueguian, Pericu, Peñon, etc samples are all within the Amerindian range of variability.

Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): Implications for South American peopling, Perez et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 133 Issue 4, Pages 1067 - 1079, 25 May 2007 (Looked at both DNA and craniometrics and concluded both genetic drift and environment played role, but still pure Amerindian)

The Peopling of America: Craniofacial Shape Variation on a Continental Scale and its Interpretation From an Interdisciplinary View, Gonzalez-Jose et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137:175187 (2008) (which is a direct rebuttal to Neves' prior claims based on both DNA and anthropometric studies)

The nail in the coffin is the study by Walter Neves' own protegé, João Paulo Verrazani Atui still in the process of being published (I correspond with him as well), who took a much more extensive sampling of Native American populations than ever before. In Neves' studies, the groups sampled weren't even Amazonian. The samples he used were from Howell's and were the Yauyos Indians from the Coast of Peru (desert), Yokut and Ohlone Indians from Santa Cruz California (Similar environment to Lima, Peru) and the Arikara Indians from North Dakota. Do I need to mention a trend here? Only those three samples were used by Neves as far as modern Indigenous people. All three are from desert regions. None are from tropical regions. The Olmec, Lagoa Santa, etc were all from tropical regions.

Prior studies had already used Amazonian tribes and thus severely questioned Walter's methodology

Relações biológicas entre populações indígenas atuais e pré-históricas do Brasil, Carvalho de Mello et al, Série Arqueológica, UFPe, Recife, v. 1, n. 6, 1990 : 69-79 (Showed a close relationship between the Botocudos and Lagoa Santa)

Atui decided to sample Amazonian populations like the Botocudo, Kaingang, Krenak, Guarani, etc. with the same methodology Walter used and found much closer matches for the Lagoa Samples than any in the Howell's data base. Yet these populations genetically test fully within the Amerindian population without any admixture.

Demographic and Evolutionary Trajectories of the Guarani and Kaingang Natives of Brazil, Marrero et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:301310 (2007) (Shows that the Kaingang were purely indigenous, yet they were a match in Atui's study when compared to the Lagoa Santa population)

Molecular Approach to the Peopling of the Americas by Sequencing mtDNA from Extinct Fueguians and Patagons, García-Bour et al, Chungará (Arica) v.32 n.2 Arica jul. 2000 (Genetic markers in the Fueguians again show purely Amerindian haplotypes A, B, C and D)

Análise Da Estrutura Genética Da População Do Rio Grande Do Sul Através De Microssatélites Autossômicos E De Cromossomos Sexuais, Pereira Das Neves Leite, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Tese submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, 2006 (Where it was found the Southern Indigenous populations of Brazil had Asiatic haplotypes typical in Indigenous groups)

This conclusively debunks Walter's theory of a separate Australoid migration.

Now what is still quite true is that Australo-Melanesians and Native Americans both share common ancestors from the Sunda region. But not from the Sahul region.

An interesting fourth set of date exploration that complements the data from genetics, anthropometrics and linguistics is the study of oral histories:
http://www.laiesken.net/arxjournal/pdf/berezkin.pdf

I made two newer videos a while back.
Working on a revamp.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 1.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You are not worth my time. I will not debate you. You proved in our Youtube discussion that when you are confronted with the truth you run and hide like a little child.

Here are my films in response to your garbage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oapn9nUOSFE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K07l7aIXcfk


I have already shown what a fool you are at your own site. I will discuss the substance of our Youtube debate in another film.

You coward when the going gets tough you ban people from a debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

I have seen the video before. Thats a lot of effort. However, please answer my questions. Was Luiza not a Negrito similar to South-East Asian Islanders?

---

Not even close. The Philippine Aeta group close to the Malays craniometricaly and the Andamanese group in between the Europeans and Africans.
Luzia grouped closest to the Tolai, Tasmanians and then Eskimos and Australians. But part of the problem was that The samples Neves used for modern Native Americans was not from any tropical Native American population.


You always have to go to the primary sources. I have actually read all of Walter's studies. But Walter's studies were purely craniometric, and as such were questioned by many who stated that skull shapes were much more malleable to environment than thought before. So his conclusions weren't without controversy even before now.

Early peopling and evolutionary diversification in America, Pucciarelli et al, Quaternary International, Volumes 109-110, 2003, Pages 123-132 (Which stated that environmental conditions and genetic drift could be the main factors for craniometric differentiation.)

But before the last three studies, two published and one about to be published, there was at least some uncertainty. Just last year, geneticists and physical anthropologists decided to actually work together instead of coming up with separate conclusions. They looked at all the raw data and finally concluded that indeed, the Lagoa Santa, Kennewick, Fueguian, Pericu, Peñon, etc samples are all within the Amerindian range of variability.

Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): Implications for South American peopling, Perez et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 133 Issue 4, Pages 1067 - 1079, 25 May 2007 (Looked at both DNA and craniometrics and concluded both genetic drift and environment played role, but still pure Amerindian)

The Peopling of America: Craniofacial Shape Variation on a Continental Scale and its Interpretation From an Interdisciplinary View, Gonzalez-Jose et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137:175187 (2008) (which is a direct rebuttal to Neves' prior claims based on both DNA and anthropometric studies)

The nail in the coffin is the study by Walter Neves' own protegé, João Paulo Verrazani Atui still in the process of being published (I correspond with him as well), who took a much more extensive sampling of Native American populations than ever before. In Neves' studies, the groups sampled weren't even Amazonian. The samples he used were from Howell's and were the Yauyos Indians from the Coast of Peru (desert), Yokut and Ohlone Indians from Santa Cruz California (Similar environment to Lima, Peru) and the Arikara Indians from North Dakota. Do I need to mention a trend here? Only those three samples were used by Neves as far as modern Indigenous people. All three are from desert regions. None are from tropical regions. The Olmec, Lagoa Santa, etc were all from tropical regions.

Prior studies had already used Amazonian tribes and thus severely questioned Walter's methodology

Relações biológicas entre populações indígenas atuais e pré-históricas do Brasil, Carvalho de Mello et al, Série Arqueológica, UFPe, Recife, v. 1, n. 6, 1990 : 69-79 (Showed a close relationship between the Botocudos and Lagoa Santa)

Atui decided to sample Amazonian populations like the Botocudo, Kaingang, Krenak, Guarani, etc. with the same methodology Walter used and found much closer matches for the Lagoa Samples than any in the Howell's data base. Yet these populations genetically test fully within the Amerindian population without any admixture.

Demographic and Evolutionary Trajectories of the Guarani and Kaingang Natives of Brazil, Marrero et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:301310 (2007) (Shows that the Kaingang were purely indigenous, yet they were a match in Atui's study when compared to the Lagoa Santa population)

Molecular Approach to the Peopling of the Americas by Sequencing mtDNA from Extinct Fueguians and Patagons, García-Bour et al, Chungará (Arica) v.32 n.2 Arica jul. 2000 (Genetic markers in the Fueguians again show purely Amerindian haplotypes A, B, C and D)

Análise Da Estrutura Genética Da População Do Rio Grande Do Sul Através De Microssatélites Autossômicos E De Cromossomos Sexuais, Pereira Das Neves Leite, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Tese submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, 2006 (Where it was found the Southern Indigenous populations of Brazil had Asiatic haplotypes typical in Indigenous groups)

This conclusively debunks Walter's theory of a separate Australoid migration.

Now what is still quite true is that Australo-Melanesians and Native Americans both share common ancestors from the Sunda region. But not from the Sahul region.

An interesting fourth set of date exploration that complements the data from genetics, anthropometrics and linguistics is the study of oral histories:
http://www.laiesken.net/arxjournal/pdf/berezkin.pdf

I made two newer videos a while back.
Working on a revamp.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 1.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 2.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You are not worth my time. I will not debate you. You proved in our Youtube discussion that when you are confronted with the truth you run and hide like a little child.

Here are my films in response to your garbage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oapn9nUOSFE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K07l7aIXcfk


I have already shown what a fool you are at your own site. I will discuss the substance of our Youtube debate in another film.

You coward when the going gets tough you ban people from a debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs

---

I have seen the video before. Thats a lot of effort. However, please answer my questions. Was Luiza not a Negrito similar to South-East Asian Islanders?

---

Not even close. The Philippine Aeta group close to the Malays craniometricaly and the Andamanese group in between the Europeans and Africans.
Luzia grouped closest to the Tolai, Tasmanians and then Eskimos and Australians. But part of the problem was that The samples Neves used for modern Native Americans was not from any tropical Native American population.


You always have to go to the primary sources. I have actually read all of Walter's studies. But Walter's studies were purely craniometric, and as such were questioned by many who stated that skull shapes were much more malleable to environment than thought before. So his conclusions weren't without controversy even before now.

Early peopling and evolutionary diversification in America, Pucciarelli et al, Quaternary International, Volumes 109-110, 2003, Pages 123-132 (Which stated that environmental conditions and genetic drift could be the main factors for craniometric differentiation.)

But before the last three studies, two published and one about to be published, there was at least some uncertainty. Just last year, geneticists and physical anthropologists decided to actually work together instead of coming up with separate conclusions. They looked at all the raw data and finally concluded that indeed, the Lagoa Santa, Kennewick, Fueguian, Pericu, Peñon, etc samples are all within the Amerindian range of variability.

Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): Implications for South American peopling, Perez et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 133 Issue 4, Pages 1067 - 1079, 25 May 2007 (Looked at both DNA and craniometrics and concluded both genetic drift and environment played role, but still pure Amerindian)

The Peopling of America: Craniofacial Shape Variation on a Continental Scale and its Interpretation From an Interdisciplinary View, Gonzalez-Jose et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137:175187 (2008) (which is a direct rebuttal to Neves' prior claims based on both DNA and anthropometric studies)

The nail in the coffin is the study by Walter Neves' own protegé, João Paulo Verrazani Atui still in the process of being published (I correspond with him as well), who took a much more extensive sampling of Native American populations than ever before. In Neves' studies, the groups sampled weren't even Amazonian. The samples he used were from Howell's and were the Yauyos Indians from the Coast of Peru (desert), Yokut and Ohlone Indians from Santa Cruz California (Similar environment to Lima, Peru) and the Arikara Indians from North Dakota. Do I need to mention a trend here? Only those three samples were used by Neves as far as modern Indigenous people. All three are from desert regions. None are from tropical regions. The Olmec, Lagoa Santa, etc were all from tropical regions.

Prior studies had already used Amazonian tribes and thus severely questioned Walter's methodology

Relações biológicas entre populações indígenas atuais e pré-históricas do Brasil, Carvalho de Mello et al, Série Arqueológica, UFPe, Recife, v. 1, n. 6, 1990 : 69-79 (Showed a close relationship between the Botocudos and Lagoa Santa)

Atui decided to sample Amazonian populations like the Botocudo, Kaingang, Krenak, Guarani, etc. with the same methodology Walter used and found much closer matches for the Lagoa Samples than any in the Howell's data base. Yet these populations genetically test fully within the Amerindian population without any admixture.

Demographic and Evolutionary Trajectories of the Guarani and Kaingang Natives of Brazil, Marrero et al, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:301310 (2007) (Shows that the Kaingang were purely indigenous, yet they were a match in Atui's study when compared to the Lagoa Santa population)

Molecular Approach to the Peopling of the Americas by Sequencing mtDNA from Extinct Fueguians and Patagons, García-Bour et al, Chungará (Arica) v.32 n.2 Arica jul. 2000 (Genetic markers in the Fueguians again show purely Amerindian haplotypes A, B, C and D)

Análise Da Estrutura Genética Da População Do Rio Grande Do Sul Através De Microssatélites Autossômicos E De Cromossomos Sexuais, Pereira Das Neves Leite, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Tese submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, 2006 (Where it was found the Southern Indigenous populations of Brazil had Asiatic haplotypes typical in Indigenous groups)

This conclusively debunks Walter's theory of a separate Australoid migration.

Now what is still quite true is that Australo-Melanesians and Native Americans both share common ancestors from the Sunda region. But not from the Sahul region.

An interesting fourth set of date exploration that complements the data from genetics, anthropometrics and linguistics is the study of oral histories:
http://www.laiesken.net/arxjournal/pdf/berezkin.pdf

I made two newer videos a while back.
Working on a revamp.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 1.
Untold Black History?: Why Olmec were Indigenous Americans, not African. Part 2.

---

---

quote:

---

Are you kidding? Chimu/Salsassin wiped the floor with you on youtube

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Are you kidding? Chimu/Salsassin wiped the floor with you on youtube

---

^ i don't agree with Winters, but at least he doesn't write fake self promoting posts under false alias. sick stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Are you kidding? Chimu/Salsassin wiped the floor with you on youtube

---

^ i don't agree with Winters, but at least he doesn't write fake self promoting posts under false alias. sick stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Are you kidding? Chimu/Salsassin wiped the floor with you on youtube

---

^ i don't agree with Winters, but at least he doesn't write fake self promoting posts under false alias. sick stuff.

---

That's funny. Chimu/Salsassin and I aren't the same person. Do your research before commenting. I'm the one that started this thread back in July 2008 focusing on the "Tutulxiu," a group of Nahuatl-speakers who traveled from central Mexico into the Yucatan in 1000 CE (W incorrectly claims they were Mande-speakers who arrived 2000 yrs earlier!). W even knows that we are different people. I have simply been involved in the debate regarding the Olmecas and Indigenous people of Turtle Island. In fact, W and I battled here and on youtube. Look at his video comments. I'm xicanopower13. I received an email indicating the thread I started here had new posts and reviewed the comments on the url Chimu/Salsassin posted. Simple as that.

Although Chimu/Salsassin and I agree on the issue of defending Indigenous heritage against pseudo-science that says other people (European, African, etc.) were here before Native peoples, we differ in our opinions regarding self-identity and the BS (Bering Strait) theory. I don't believe in the BS theory that Indigenous people arrived here from Asia. We have always been here...which brings me to the issue of identity. Even though I recognize some admixture in my people as a result of invasion & cultural/physical rape, I identify as an Indigenous person. You can cross-check that info with what Chimu/Salsassin has said regarding those topics (he actively uses the BS theory within his work; he has commented about mixed heritage and not identifying as Indigenous).

Regardless...I have much respect for his work and stand as another person (among others) in opposition to W's wild and wacky claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Are you kidding? Chimu/Salsassin wiped the floor with you on youtube

---

^ i don't agree with Winters, but at least he doesn't write fake self promoting posts under false alias. sick stuff.

---

LOL. Rasshole. Don't make me laugh you still are seeing me in any intelligent poster that disagrees with your delusions? Sorry bub. I am not Mexican. I am Peruvian. Oh wait, you think all dark skinned people in the world are Black. So no surprise you would generalize all indigenous descent Latinos. Pendejo.

---

quote:

---

Hmmmmm. Have we exchanged posts on Youtube? Are you pegenbras? I believe in the coastal route theory because the genetics supports it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
That was a good one...We have W and his sidekick Rasshole. Los Dos Pendejos

---

quote:

---

Nah...not pegenbras. I'm xicanopower13. We exchanged a few posts (not many). I commented on your videos bringing up the temples/pyramids in Caral being built 200-300 yrs before those in Kemet/Egypt (saying that if we thought like Afrocentrics, we would say Indigenous peoples of your homeland of Peru traveled to Egypt to teach them civilization). I also brought up the issue of the "bottleneck theory" and said I needed to find the article that critiques it.

---

quote:

---

Naw, Clyde and Rasol are both Afrocentrics, but their delusions are different. Rasol is more Africa is all Black focused, while Clyde is more let's claim the world was Black focused. Clyde's sidekick is Mark Washington and company while Rasol's little click is guy's like Djehuti. THey shoot each other down all the time. Until they circle the wagons for outsiders.

---

quote:

---

I vaguely remember something like that. So are you against the Bering theory or the Out of Africa theory? Because genetics s quite clear humans came from Africa through Asia to the Americas. The only thing usually debated is how and when.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicantlaca13:
I'm against both. I find it problematic that folks (especially Afrocentrics) embrace the "Out of Africa" theory because its historical basis in "scientists" trying to prove supposed white supremacy. They postulated that since whites left the remaining population were supposedly less evolved...thus explaining their belief in their own supposed superiority.

---

quote:

---

I also reject theories regarding Indigenous peoples arriving on this continent from elsewhere as they are based on a history of Europeans trying to excuse their invasion and the genocide they carried out here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
That is actually not true at all. The Multi-Regional Theory was what was favored by Eurocentrists. To admit that they descended from African populations was a hard pill for them to swallow. much like many Native Americans do not like admitting their creation myths might be inaccurate. Afrocentrists harp on the claims because of their ignorance on evolution. All humans have evolved and no human is closer to those ancient Africans than another.

---

Actually, as explained to you over and over, just because no modern population resembles these ancient Africans totally , they are indeed of course closer to Africans and Oceanians, than any other human population..... Now, I know this is a hard pill for you to swallow!

Damn that Afro-centrist Erik Trinkaus; huh?

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*



"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........ "As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Actually, as explained to you over and over, just because no modern population resembles these ancient Africans totally , they are indeed of course closer to Africans and Oceanians, than any other human population..... Now, I know this is a hard pill for you to swallow!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. More stupidity. Try distantly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Sure Australians are the closest in resemblance? Sure. Are Africans closer than Europeans? Sure. They still aren't the same people. Just because a jackal resembles a wolf more than a poodle doesn't make a jackal a wolf.

---

Wow, are you really that obtuse? I mean, a jackal is not a wolf, and a wolf is not a jackal.

But these ancient Africans in Africa (and around the world), were in fact anatomically modern humans, and we're today still anatomically modern humans. So it's the same species, homo sapien sapien, anatomically modern human.

Only a bigoted idiot would think ancient anatomically modern humans in Africa, were a different species than modern Africans, with totally different features, and post a comparison to that of a jackal and a wolf.

Your logic in comparison between a wolf and a jackal, to that of anatomically modern humans is erroneous and imbecilic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
You had a point?

---

Sure did, you're a fraud just like Clyde Winters.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Oh, by the way, not claiming either way as I haven't seen the raw data to make such a claim, but I do find it interesting that in the Lagoa Santa study, the Paleo Indians classified closer to the Tolai and Tazmanians and somewhere between Australians and Eskimo.

Now we know modern Australains and the recently extinct Tasmanians classify closer to Archaic humans than modern Africans do.

We also know there are tribes that classified closer to Lagoa Santa than the Australo Melanesians did.

But that also means they classified somewhere close to AustraloMelanesians.

So it is quite plausible that there is a Amazonian group out there that is craniometrically closer to Archaic humans than modern Africans are. LOL

I make no speculation on the rest of the anthropometric measures as I do not think AustraloMelanesians are closer in body type to the ancients (it would be interesting to find out). But just craniometrically it might be..
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Originally posted by Chimu:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Wow, are you really that obtuse? I mean, a jackal is not a wolf, and a wolf is not a jackal.

---

quote:

---

But these ancient Africans in Africa (and around the world), were in fact anatomically modern humans, and we're today still anatomically modern humans. So it's the same species, homo sapien sapien, anatomically modern human.

---

quote:

---

Only a bigoted idiot would think ancient anatomically modern humans in Africa, were a different species than modern Africans, and post a comparison to that of a jackal and a wolf.

Your logic in comparison between a wolf and a jackal, to that of anatomically modern humans is erroneous and imbecilic.

---

quote:

---

Sure did, you're a fraud just like Clyde Winters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Originally posted by Chimu:

---

Try more robust individuals than modern, hence more primitive yes, yet as explained the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton , lies at, or exceeds two standard deviations for modern African males.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Wow, are you really that obtuse? I mean, a jackal is not a wolf, and a wolf is not a jackal.

---

No duh. Still interbreeding populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

But these ancient Africans in Africa (and around the world), were in fact anatomically modern humans, and we're today still anatomically modern humans. So it's the same species, homo sapien sapien, anatomically modern human.

---

Oh you tested them genetically? You know for a fact they could bread with a modern human now?

Sorry, but anthropometric measurements do not guarantee that information. Again. Dogs are just a subspecies of wolves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Only a bigoted idiot would think ancient anatomically modern humans in Africa, were a different species than modern Africans, and post a comparison to that of a jackal and a wolf.

Your logic in comparison between a wolf and a jackal, to that of anatomically modern humans is erroneous and imbecilic.

---

No the idiocy is yours. For not having a clue about zoology. Again, the example is perfectly valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Sure did, you're a fraud just like Clyde Winters.

---

No, but you sure are a moron like he is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Strawman fallacy, it lies at, or exceeds, and as I already said they were not exactly the same, but of course Africans do in fact resemble these ancient Africans as explained.

---

quote:

---

Please cite an anthropologist who says these individuals were/are not anatomically modern humans the way we are today(I.e a subspecies.); can you?

---

quote:

---

Of course you're a fraud as proven here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Strawman fallacy, it lies at, or exceeds, and as I already said they were not exactly the same, but of course Africans do in fact resemble these ancient Africans as explained.

---

Less than Australians, Melanesians, and possibly some Amazonians. So again. Not the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Please cite an anthropologist who says these individuals were/are not anatomically modern humans the way we are today(I.e a subspecies.); can you?

---

Again, please cite a geneticist that says they were. No genetic evidence. There are wolf like fossils we assume are related but we don't know for a fact they are a species. We assume based on bone structure. They could be as distant as a subspecies or even have evolved sufficiently that they were no longer matable with us. We just don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Of course you're a fraud as proven here

---

LOL. No dumb ass. I just don't have time to keep up with every debate I am in. But thanks for reminding me.

---

Sure.
 

---

Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Please cite an anthropologist who says these individuals were/are not anatomically modern humans the way we are today(I.e a subspecies.); can you?

---

Again, please cite a geneticist that says they were. No genetic evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
You said no modern human populations resembled them more than another, and you're wrong, hence I corrected you, these individuals features lied at, or exceeded two SD for African males. Lies at, or exceeds.

---

I will await your evidence that all modern non Africans exceed two standard deviations from them.

quote:

---

Strawman, as we actually do know that they are in fact anatomically modern humans through anthropological measurements, same exact species, no subspecies, you pseudo fraud.

---

Yeah, nice try. That is the same debate they were having about Neanderthals and it took genetics to settle that one. Again, you have no idea if they would be considered another species or subspecies if they were alive today.

I know it is a tough pill to swallow, but the evidence only gives us an idea, a theory, not a certainty.

quote:

---

Sure.

---

LOL. Unlike you, I have a life and don't stay interminably on a message board. I post on many and do things offline as well. I was in DC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Please cite an anthropologist who says these individuals were/are not anatomically modern humans the way we are today(I.e a subspecies.); can you?

---

Again, please cite a geneticist that says they were. No genetic evidence.

---

Typical of whiteboy myspace Jamie. Answers questions with questions. lol

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chimu:
You said no modern human populations resembled them more than another, and you're wrong, hence I corrected you, these individuals features lied at, or exceeded two SD for African males. Lies at, or exceeds.

---

I will await your evidence that all modern non Africans exceed two standard deviations from them.

---

Strawman, which of course all you're good for, anyway you're false, since it lies at, or exceeds two SD for modern African males.

What does "lies at" mean to you?

I'll wait for you to show otherwise; can you?

Damn that Afro-centrist Erik Trinkaus; huh?

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*



"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........ "As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB][QUOTE]Strawman, as we actually do know that they are in fact anatomically modern humans through anthropological measurements, same exact species, no subspecies, you pseudo fraud.

---

Yeah, nice try. That is the same debate they were having about Neanderthals and it took genetics to settle that one. Again, you have no idea if they would be considered another species or subspecies if they were alive today.

---

quote:

---

I know it is a tough pill to swallow, but the evidence only gives us an idea, a theory, not a certainty.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sure.

---

LOL. Unlike you, I have a life and don't stay interminably on a message board. I post on many and do things offline as well. I was in DC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Sorry bub, it is the advantage of one who doesn't claim fact based on theory. I don't make claims of certainty. You guys do.

---

Don't you agree with OOA? Nice contradiction.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Strawman, which of course all you're good for, anyway you're false, since it lies at, or exceeds two SD for modern African males.

---

quote:

---

False, Neanderthals were never considered to be anatomically modern humans, what was postulated was that anatomically modern humans mated with these individuals. Two different situations you pseudo fraud.

---

quote:

---

Don't you agree with OOA? Nice contradiction. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Strawman, which of course all you're good for, anyway you're false, since it lies at, or exceeds two SD for modern African males.

---

LOL. Nice try. Please define how much is two standard deviations. You can't because you don't have a reference point. For the claim that Africans are so much more similar to Ancient Africans, you need to show that other populations are beyond that parameter. No ther group would be able to be within 2 standard deviations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

False, Neanderthals were never considered to be anatomically modern humans, what was postulated was that anatomically modern humans mated with these individuals. Two different situations you pseudo fraud.

---

LOL. Nice try. Trinkaus, Brace and Wolpoff believe they are the direct ancestors of humans. Not a separate speciation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Don't you agree with OOA? Nice contradiction.

---

Nice Try. Out of Africa is supported by genetics. Not just cranimetrics. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
You must be illiterate.

The following clearly explains that the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations of the means for modern African males.

---

quote:

---

The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. Eurasian UP crania do not particularly resemble those of earlier Eurasian Neandertals (16), nor are they especially similar to recent human crania from sub-Saharan Africa (12). The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males, whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa (table S3). The Hofmeyr molars are large. The buccolingual diameter of M2 exceeds recent African and Eurasian UP sample means by more than 2 SD (table S3). The infraorbital plate is tall and flat and lacks an inframalar curve. As such, it differs from the condition that characterizes recent southern African crania (12, 25). Frontal and parietal thickness (6 to 7mm) is comparable to that of recent humans. The glabella projects to a greater degree than in modern Africans but is comparable to that of UP crania. Although the supraorbital torus is comparable in thickness to that in UP crania, its continuous nature represents a more archaic morphology (26). In this regard, Hofmeyr is more primitive than later sub-Saharan LSA and North African UP specimens.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns. Hofmeyr is contemporaneous with later Eurasian Neandertals, but it clearly does not evince the cranial and mandibular apomorphies that define that clade (28). This is not surprising, given its geographic location. Although Hofmeyr is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori).
Hofmeyr shows low posterior and typicality probabilities for all recent humans, but much higher probabilities for the UP sample (posterior 0.76, typicality 0.43). The unweighted pair group method with arithmetic average (UPGMA) cluster and 3D minimum spanning trees calculated from the Mahalanobis generalized (D2) distances highlight Hofmeyr's phenetic affinity to the UP specimens and its distinction from recent sub-Saharan Africans (Fig. 3).
Hofmeyr and the UP Eurasian specimens tend to have comparatively high loadings on factor 2, which is indicative of a trend toward relatively longer crania with relatively shorter orbits than those in recent populations from these same geographic areas. This perhaps attests to a common trend for change in craniofacial shape over the past 36,000 years in both Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The results of the 3D geometric and linear morphometric analyses suggest that Hofmeyr shares close affinity with Eurasian UP specimens but is more distant from recent sub-Saharan African populations.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Yes, from anatomically modern humans from Africa, with a Neanderthal touch, this was actually debunked by genetics.

Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were never considered the same species, or ever confused when found.

---

quote:

---

The Qafzeh material from Israel dating from over 90,000 to over 100,000 B.P. regularly tests via multivariate analysis to be tied to sub Saharan Africans although it is almost always said to be "modern" Homo sapiens. And its teeth are fully the size of those of the classic Neanderthals. But then when European Neanderthals are compared to any of the worlds living people via multivariate analysis, they always tie to living Europeans and nobody else.

What Larry Angel saw in the Levantine Mesolithic was just larger teeth (and hence prognathism) than in more recent samples. It was the same reason that Albert Gaudry and Marcellin Boule claimed to see something African in the Grimaldi specimen from Monaco. In fact, Boule had taken out the deciduous molars, excavated the premolars and permanent second and third molars and in fact installed an adult dentition on the face of a ten-year-old child whose face was shortened by a third by the removal of those adult teeth from their alveolar location. Of course he had prognathism. But as you get back into the Pleistocene, teeth are larger and prognathism more pronounced, but it is not African influence but just larger jaws and teeth. And carried back another 20,000 years or so, the form is simply called Neanderthal.

The data I have collected show that early Homo sapiens evolved in situ from Neanderthal ancestors. What is being called the "multiregional" hypothesis is just a spin-off from my regional continuity view. And, yes, there were African Neanderthals. The famous "Rhodesian" specimen is a fine representative of that. I have a book, The Stages of Human Evolution (5th edition, 1995) which treats those matters. The portrait of the Rhodesian skull is on page 178.

The likelihood of separate species is virtually nil. If one looks at the archaeological evidence, it is clear that there are no boundaries between adjacent people throughout the entire inhabited world, and wherever there is cultural continuity -- which is everywhere -- there almost certainly was genetic continuity as well. The DNA differences between Neanderthals and living humans is less than the DNA differences between and even within chimpanzee groups.

Qafza looks startlingly like living West Africans but with markedly bigger teeth. The Qafza dentition is noticeably larger than the Neanderthal dentition for all but the incisors which are of exactly the same size. Compared with Ashanti teeth, the measurements show perfectly parallel lines. Neanderthal tooth size is also perfectly parallel to that of living European tooth size, but very different from Qafza or living West Africans.

C. L. Brace

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
You must be illiterate.

The following clearly explains that the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations of the means for modern African males.

---

LOL. The only illiterate one here is yourself.

From the same Hofmeyr study.

quote:

---

The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. Eurasian UP crania do not particularly resemble those of earlier Eurasian Neandertals (16), nor are they especially similar to recent human crania from sub-Saharan Africa (12).

---

Grine et al are obviously speaking of distance, not proximity. They basically say that except for some key features a lot of the proportions are like neanderthal except for the cranial and mandibular apomorphies. LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Yep, they grouped Hofmyer (HOF) right next to Sub Saharan Africans (AFR). They were soooo similar.
Yep. 2 Standard Deviations or more means the skull was just like you. LMAO!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[b]LOL. Try again. There were and still are those who believe Neanderthals are just archaic humans. Brace still states that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
You idiot, Grine states Hofmeyrs strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians, and it does not resemble Neanderthal.

---

quote:

---

Redundant strawman, I never said Hofmeyr, or any of these UP specimens exactly resembled modern Africans.

Point was you made a statement implying no modern population is closer to these ancient Africans than one another.

^This was false, and has been proven to be false, since the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations of the means for modern African males.....

---

quote:

---

You're slow.

Yes Neanderthal were archaic humans, and so were homo Erectus, but both were NOT anatomically modern humans and have never ever been considered as such.

---

quote:

---

CB: The latest I heard on this is that , I think , mitochondria DNA has been used to remove Neanderthals from the species homo sapiens.

Here's the critical difference between species ( the category in Darwin's title) and genus, order, family, the other taxa ( or is that phyla ?) etc. The species defines the point at which interbreeding is limited. Different genuses cannot interbreed. Different "sub-species" can interbreed. To say Neanderthals are the same species as we are is to say we could interbreed
with them.

---

quote:

---

Brace is implying that humans in Europe might have evolved from Neanderthal, the same way anatomically modern humans in Africa evolved from homo Erectus.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
You idiot, Grine states Hofmeyrs strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians, and it does not resemble Neanderthal.

---

I am well aware of that moron. I stated that. But he also states that if it weren't for those specific traits Neanderthal would be in the mix. Meaning a lot of the facial, not overall cranial features where much the same. [/qb]

---

Quote specifically where Grine states this; can you?

I doubt it as Grine specifically states...

Eurasian UP crania do not particularly resemble those of earlier Eurasian Neandertals (16), nor are they especially similar to recent human crania from sub-Saharan Africa (12).

Also note more indication that they did not share traits as you say as many, with Neandertal, but rather are abundantly derived autopomorphic traits from Middle Paleolithic modern humans (MPMHs) from Africa.

quote:

---

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*

The Relevant Fossils

To evaluate human reproductive patterns when indispersing
modern humans met indigenous Neandertal populations in
Europe, it is necessary to establish the currently known potential
ancestral populations. It is only from these lineages that the
European early modern humans (EEMHs) are likely to have
acquired their phylogenetically informative characteristics.
The first sample comprises the oxygen isotope stage 4 and 3
Neandertals, established as a regional lineage in western Eurasia
since the Middle Pleistocene. They occupied all of Mediterranean
Europe and much of Europe north of the Alps and Balkans
until at least 42–43 thousand calendar years before the present
(ka B.P.), possibly persisting later in pockets of central and
northwestern Europe but remaining throughout most of Iberia
until
35 ka B.P. (all dates in calendar years B.P.). They are also
known from southwestern Asia and eastward into central Asia.
Second are the east and northeast African earliest modern
humans, currently known principally from the sites of Aduma,
Bouri, Haua Fteah, Herto, and Omo-Kibish, and dating between

75 to perhaps in excess of 160 ka B.P. They are joined by the
Qafzeh and Skhul samples, largely if not exclusively dating to
between 80 and 100 ka B.P. in extreme southwestern Asia.
Multiple lines of evidence (15, 16) indicate that the Qafzeh–
Skhul sample represents a temporary northward expansion of
these earliest modern humans into that region, after which they
were replaced by Neandertal populations dispersing southward.
This combined sample is referred to as the Middle Paleolithic
modern humans (MPMHs).


The Relevant Framework

It is assumed that the EEMHs were derived principally from the
MPMHs, expanding and dispersing through southwestern Asia
and then westward across Europe subsequent to at least
41 ka
B.P. (the date of the oldest EEMH, Oase 1). This hypothesis is
supported by the first appearance of a long list of autapomorphic
modern human character states in the MPMH sample (33) and
their persistence in the EEMH sample. Among others, these
EEMH autapomorphic traits include absence of a supraorbital
torus, distinct canine fossae, narrow nasal apertures, chiselshaped
maxillary incisors, expanded parietal arcs, prominent
parietal bosses, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, projecting
mentum osseum, narrow mandibular corpus, marked gluteal
buttress, pilastric femoral diaphysis, and angular tibial and
fibular diaphyses. In addition, their nasal aperture inferior
margins and the body proportions inferred biomechanically from
femoral diaphyseal proportions (15, 27–29) indicate evolutionarily
recent tropical ancestry, similar to that seen in the Qafzeh–
Skhul sample (15, 16).
The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics
in the EEMH sample are therefore inferred to have come from
that MPMH lineage. The question is the extent to which they had
productive reproductive interactions with the Neandertal populations.
Evidence for such encounters should consist principally
of autapomorphic Neandertal characteristics in the EEMH or
subsequent Gravettian samples.

"The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics in the EEMH sample are therefore inferred to have come from that MPMH lineage."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Redundant strawman, I never said Hofmeyr, or any of these UP specimens exactly resembled modern Africans.

Point was you made a statement implying no modern population is closer to these ancient Africans than one another.

^This was false, and has been proven to be false, since the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations of the means for modern African males.....

---

Nice try. that statement means absolutely nothing to disporve my statement that they did not resemble Ancient Africans more than other populations. You would have to show that only Africans were within 2 standard deviations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
He obviously saw Neanderthal as Homo sapiens, just not Homo sapiens sapiens.[/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Brace is implying that humans in Europe might have evolved from Neanderthal, the same way anatomically modern humans in Africa evolved from homo Erectus.

---

Wrong. He is saying all humans evolved from Neandertals and Rodesian man is evidence Africans did as well.

I don't agree with the claim, but that is his postulation. He sees them as archaic humans, not just hominids.

Brace's own words again:

quote:

---

---

---

Yes Neanderthal as explained, are considered archaic humans, but not anatomically modern humans, he sees them as the ancestor of anatomically modern humans who evolved, you dimwitted chimp.

Btw, this is what Brace says about Ethiopians and Herto....

Herto Man - That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 


The physical difference in this chart between all modern humans and Hofmeyr is at least 25, no recent humans are closer to Hofmeyr, than they are to eachother.

The difference between Hofmeyr and modern Europeans is 28.

The difference between recent Europeans, and current Bantu is only 13.

While all the modern skull are different from Hofmeyr, the closest moderns are those of NEW GUINEA and Australia [Oceania] at 25..

The distance between Bantu and Oceana in the chart is only 9.

This is closer than modern Europeans are to 'anyone else' in the chart....modern or ancient.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Quote specifically where Grine states this; can you?

---

quote:

---

I doubt it as Grine specifically states...

Eurasian UP crania do not particularly resemble those of earlier Eurasian Neandertals (16), nor are they especially similar to recent human crania from sub-Saharan Africa (12).

---

quote:

---

Also note more indication that they did not share traits as you say as many, with Neandertal, but rather are derived autopomorphic traits from anatomically modern humans fro Africa.

---

quote:

---

Actually, it means a lot, as Trinkaus makes it clear that these UP specimens do not resemble the modern inhabitants of Europe, and more closely resemble modern African males, in that the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males.

---

quote:

---

Why modern African males, why not all human populations kid?

---

quote:

---

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........ "As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.---Trinkaus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:


The physical difference in this chart between all modern humans and Hofmeyr is at least 25, no recent humans are closer to Hofmeyr, than they are to each other.

---

Which is a stawman. As I specifically stated that Africans were not closer to Archaic humans than any other human. And I was right.
Hofmeyr is closest to Upper Paleolithic, then is followed by Oceania with 25 then is followed by West Eurasia (Europeans fall within this group) with 27, then Africans with 33, and then East Asians with 35.

Again, Archaic humans are not closer to modern Africans.



 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Now to clarify once again, because if not you are going to make a facetious comment of mine your argument and dodge the central issue:

Neanderthals are not the closest to Hofmeyr, they are a different species with whole different cranimetric parameters. But they do both show plesiomorphic facial features in their robusticity. Both would stand out in a modern crown. THat is all about that.

But my point that you have yet to refute is that Archaic Africans did not look like modern Africans. Nor were they more similar to them than to other populations.

And don't give me this strawman of modern humans to each other as I didn't mention closeness of modern populations to each other as any comparison with Hofmeyr's closeness to modern humans in this discussion. Not even in a comedic sense like neanderthals. Nor did I ever mention that Europeans were closer as Europeans and Africans aren't all the populations in the world. But it does so happen that in that chart, Europeans are closer than Africans, to my surprise as well.
 

---

Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
 
We can all see now why you delete embarrassing posts from your stupid youtube video page. lol
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Quote specifically where Grine states this; can you?

---

In so many words no because he states there are major differences, but in many facial traits they were similar. Especially the robusticity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

I doubt it as Grine specifically states...

Eurasian UP crania do not particularly resemble those of earlier Eurasian Neandertals (16), nor are they especially similar to recent human crania from sub-Saharan Africa (12).

---

quote:

---

Also note more indication that they did not share traits as you say as many, with Neandertal, but rather are derived autopomorphic traits from anatomically modern humans fro Africa.

---

LOL, sorry bub, not that big a deal for me, as that was a side joke. They still had lots of facial similarites. The point still was and still is that Africans are in no way the closest to these Archaics humans nor were these Archaic humans looking like modern Africans.

They had generic plesiomorphic features that were seen the world around at that time.
Triknaus does not invalidate Brace's statement sorry. You made a claim no one had made such a claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Actually, it means a lot, as Trinkaus makes it clear that these UP specimens do not resemble the modern inhabitants of Europe, and more closely resemble modern African males, in that the maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males.

---

Sorry bub, you are confusing Hann with Trinkaus now. And he clearly states that the UP specimens do not resemble modern Africans or modern Europeans. Neither does Hofmeyr.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Why modern African males, why not all human populations kid?

---

Because the Hofmeyr skull was found in South Africa genius.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........ "As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.---Trinkaus

---

Mixing and matching quotes from different sudies now? LMAO!!.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
By the way, the reason Neanderthal wasn't considered homo sapiens sapiens was not because of facial characteristics but cranial ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
But my point that you have yet to refute is that Archaic Africans did not look like modern Africans. Nor were they more similar to them than to other populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:
We can all see now why you delete embarrassing posts from your stupid youtube video page. lol [/QB]
Nice try.

There is nothing to be embarrased about. Although I shouldnt have mixed in facetiousness of neanderthal similarity with the main point of the debate.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Of course not, becuase he never said this, and indeed there were major differences.
What facial characteristics were similar despite these major differences; where did he say this?
Please post.

---

I concede on this one. He just says the face is robust. Now back to the original point.

quote:

---

While blatantly denying Trinkaus?

---

quote:

---

Nobody said, I repeat, nobody said these ancient Africans looked just like modern Africans.

---

quote:

---

Point is, these ancient Africans are resembled more by some modern populations I mentioned, than another, hence you're debunked, when you say that no modern population resembles these populations more than another.

---

quote:

---

You dumb clown. Where do I confuse Hann with Trinkaus?

---

quote:

---

Trinaus says exactly what I said.

---

quote:

---

The point is again, they resemble modern Africans more than Europeans, basically you.

---

quote:

---

..and of course because they resembled recent Africans, in most of the facial skeleton measurements, and length and breadth of the neurocranium, after being analysed as noted...

---

quote:

---

The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."

---

quote:

---

Show me one anthropologist who says the maximum length and breadth of the neurcocranium as well as MOST of the measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceeds means for any other modern population.

---

quote:

---

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........

---

quote:

---

"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.---Trinkaus

---

quote:

---

Trinkaus discusses hofmeyr, as well as all EUP specimens.

---

quote:

---

A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than ≈33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans. However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans.

---

quote:

---

These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:
We can all see now why you delete embarrassing posts from your stupid youtube video page. lol [/QB]
Nice try.

There is nothing to be embarrased about. Although I shouldnt have mixed in facetiousness of neanderthal similarity with the main point of the debate.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Of course not, becuase he never said this, and indeed there were major differences.
What facial characteristics were similar despite these major differences; where did he say this?
Please post.

---

I concede on this one. He just says the face is robust. Now back to the original point.

quote:

---

While blatantly denying Trinkaus?

---

quote:

---

Nobody said, I repeat, nobody said these ancient Africans looked just like modern Africans.

---

quote:

---

Point is, these ancient Africans are resembled more by some modern populations I mentioned, than another, hence you're debunked, when you say that no modern population resembles these populations more than another.

---

quote:

---

You dumb clown. Where do I confuse Hann with Trinkaus?

---

quote:

---

Trinaus says exactly what I said.

---

quote:

---

The point is again, they resemble modern Africans more than Europeans, basically you.

---

quote:

---

..and of course because they resembled recent Africans, in most of the facial skeleton measurements, and length and breadth of the neurocranium, after being analysed as noted...

---

quote:

---

The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."

---

quote:

---

Show me one anthropologist who says the maximum length and breadth of the neurcocranium as well as MOST of the measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceeds means for any other modern population.

---

quote:

---

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)." ........

---

quote:

---

"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.---Trinkaus

---

quote:

---

Trinkaus discusses hofmeyr, as well as all EUP specimens.

---

quote:

---

A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than ≈33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans. However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans.

---

quote:

---

These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions

---

quote:

---

Endocardial fibroelastosis, neurologic dysfunction and unusual facial appearance in two brothers, coincidentally associated with dominantly inherited macrocephaly
Abstract
We describe two brothers with endocardial fibroelastosis, unusual facial appearance, and cryptorchidism. The surviving brother has mental retardation, seizures and possible hypothalamic dysfunction. Both brothers have a head size greater than two standard deviations above normal; this appears to be related to superimposed presence of coincidental autosomal dominant macrocephaly in this family.

---

Macrocephaly is defined as a head circumference that exceeds two standard deviations


A head circumference smaller than two standard deviations defines microcephaly


And the study said most all the craniofacial features where two standard deviations or more.

quote:

---

The skull is large and robust. The maximum
estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium,
as well as most measurements of the facial
skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations
(SD) of the means for modern African males

---

I guess a bunch of macrocephalic males is normal to you guys.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^Lmao, that's your best response saying these ancient Africans around the world had macrocephalia now; because the length and breadth of the neurocranium, and most measurements of the facial skeleton lie at or exceed two standard deviations for modern African males?

Gee, there seems to be no limit as to where you will go to deny that these ancient Africans, were just that, ancient Africans and would be closest resembled by recent Africans.

Being ancient Africans, evolving in Africa for around 200kya, yet you think 30kya these a.m.h possessed no qualities that would be similar to modern humans today.

Do tell why they would be even considered anatomically modern humans if features they possessed couldn't be found amongst modern humans?

Again, we already know we didn't look exactly like them, but the point is that some populations do resemble these ancient Africans more than the other, and these populations are of course Africans and Oceanians.

An anthropologist specifically states the neurocranium, upon most of the measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceed the means for modern African males, yet you still deny it, and say they don't resemble recent Africans at all, that is really fricken pathetic to say the least, you're an undercover racist chimp.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
LOL. Keep ignoring the charts presented.

Try Oceania and West Eurasia are closer

And in this chart:


Try Oceania and West Eurasia and East Asia.

And in this chart:


Follow the lines, and surprise surprise order of affinity goes: European Upper Paleolithic, East Asia/New World Western Eurasia and Oceania followed only then by Africa.

Yeah, those charts are really shouthing that modern Africans are just like Hofmeyr.

The only racist here is yourself
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Who said modern Africans were just like hofmeyr? Why do you keep insisting on this strawman fallacy?

I already told you if we are going to go by the phenetic maps posted, well we basically already know the selected African samples tested (Bantu, Khoisan etc.) do not represent all of Africa and according to the phenetic maps, Oceanians are closest to hofmeyr anyway.

Hence, it's not surprising that hofmeyr didn't exactly resemble the few selected Africans tested.

So far I've shown you specifically from a written assessment that most measurements for the facial skeleton and the maximum length and breadth of the neurocranium lie at, or exceed two SD of the means for modern African males,

Can you show any other human populations who are similar as such, besides say Oceanians?

All you've done is repetitively whine and whine again, about them not exactly resembling recent Africans, when in actuality, nobody here is even saying this in the first place.


Show me one anthropologist who says that the maximum length and breadth of the neurcocranium as well as MOST of the measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceeds two standard deviations (SD) of the means for another modern population; can you, will you, ever.......?

The fact that an anthropologist specifically states the neurocranium, upon most of the measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceed the means for modern African males, yet you still deny it, and say they don't resemble recent Africans at all, is really fricken pathetic to say the least.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
What a dumb ass. If the same study that states that Modern Africans are two deviations or more also states that other samples are closer then they will be within those parameters as well. Including West Eurasia. And please spare me the claim that not enough Samples were used for Africa. The onus is on you to show that there is a more robust population than that of the Bantu in Africa.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
What a dumb ass. If the same study that states that Modern Africans are two deviations or more

---

False you slow chimp, the study states the maximum length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most of the measurements of the FACIAL SKELETON, LIES AT , or EXCEEDS two SD of the means for modern African males.

What does most measurements of the facial skeleton lie at, or exceed mean to you?

You couldn't even find an anthropologist to say this about the Neanderthal, that you so adamantly suggested shared many facial resemblances with these ancient Africans.

When in fact I have shown you this from recent Africans, of which most of the measurements of the facial skeleton lies at, or exceeds two SD of the means for modern African males.

Again, this NOT saying they looked just like recent Africans, but rather the maximum length and breadth of the neuro-cranium as well as most of the measurements of the facial skeleton lies at, or exceeds two SD of the means for modern African males.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The Chimpoo likes to call others dumb, yet he was refuted, debunked, and humiliated numerous times before. Now he comes back not only spouting the same nonsense but using the same 'charts' and graphs!!...

Well you know what Einstein said what stupidity is: when you keep doing something over and over expecting different results.

Yet this describes the Chimpskat and every other troll in here to a tee.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindlessMatter718:
the study states the maximum length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most of the measurements of the FACIAL SKELETON, LIES AT , or EXCEEDS two SD of the means for modern African males.

---

quote:

---

The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males, whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa (table S3).

---

Lets look the values of Table S3 compared to Neanderthal values from Chris Stringer. LOL

quote:

---

Mahalanobis squared distances among samples were calculated to establish the group to which Hofmeyr has the greatest similarity (table S6). Hofmeyr shows low posterior and typicality probabilities for all recent humans, but much higher probabilities for the UP sample (posterior 0.76, typicality 0.43). The unweighted pair group method with arithmetic average (UPGMA) cluster and 3D minimum spanning trees calculated from the Mahalanobis generalized (D2) distances highlight Hofmeyr's phenetic affinity to the UP specimens and its distinction from recent sub- Saharan Africans (Fig. 3).

---

Both graphs have been shown. Enough said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duh hootie:
[QB] ^ The Chimpoo likes to call others dumb, yet he was refuted, debunked, and humiliated numerous times before. Now he comes back not only spouting the same nonsense but using the same 'charts' and graphs!!...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindlessMatter718:
the study states the maximum length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most of the measurements of the FACIAL SKELETON, LIES AT , or EXCEEDS two SD of the means for modern African males.

---

Lies at or EXCEEDS. So some are two standard deviations and some are more.

---

Point is as explained recent Africans do in fact share facial characteristics with ancient Africans. Modern Europeans and East Asians, didn't look how they look today until quite recently, So of course recent Europeans and East Asians look absolutely nothing like ancient Africans.

Note;

quote:

---

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry:

They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes. - Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

---

quote:

---

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*

The relevant fossils

Second are the east and northeast African earliest modern humans, currently known principally from the sites of Aduma, Bouri, Haua Fteah, Herto, and Omo-Kibish, and dating between 75 to perhaps in excess of 160 ka B.P. They are joined by the Qafzeh and Skhul samples, largely if not exclusively dating to between 80 and 100 ka B.P. in extreme southwestern Asia. Multiple lines of evidence (15, 16) indicate that the Qafzeh– Skhul sample represents a temporary northward expansion of these earliest modern humans into that region, after which they were replaced by Neandertal populations dispersing southward. This combined sample is referred to as the Middle Paleolithic modern humans (MPMHs).


The Relevant Framework

It is assumed that the EEMHs were derived principally from the MPMHs, expanding and dispersing through southwestern Asia and then westward across Europe subsequent to at least 41 ka B.P. (the date of the oldest EEMH, Oase 1). This hypothesis is supported by the first appearance of a long list of autapomorphic modern human character states in the MPMH sample (33) and their persistence in the EEMH sample. Among others, these EEMH autapomorphic traits include absence of a supraorbital torus, distinct canine fossae, narrow nasal apertures, chiselshaped maxillary incisors, expanded parietal arcs, prominent parietal bosses, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, projecting mentum osseum, narrow mandibular corpus, marked gluteal buttress, pilastric femoral diaphysis, and angular tibial and fibular diaphyses. In addition, their nasal aperture inferior margins and the body proportions inferred biomechanically from femoral diaphyseal proportions (15, 27–29) indicate evolutionarily recent tropical ancestry, similar to that seen in the Qafzeh– Skhul sample (15, 16). The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics in the EEMH sample are therefore inferred to have come from that MPMH lineage. The question is the extent to which they had productive reproductive interactions with the Neandertal populations. Evidence for such encounters should consist principally of autapomorphic Neandertal characteristics in the EEMH or subsequent Gravettian samples.

"The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics in the EEMH sample are therefore inferred to have come from that MPMH lineage."

---

quote:

---

Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features , including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Point is as explained recent Africans do in fact share facial characteristics with ancient Africans. Modern Europeans and East Asians, didn't look how they look today until quite recently, So of course recent Europeans and East Asians look absolutely nothing like ancient Africans.

---

quote:

---

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry:

They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

---

quote:

---

Note; Qazfa was included in the MPMH sample (looking startlingly like living west Africans, but with bigger archaic teeth), and the EEMH sample share an abundance of autamorphic traits, which indicates EEMH derive from the MMPH lineage from Africa.

---

LOL. Yes Brace said the same thing. Qafza resembled modern Africans except for the larger teeth that also affected the jaw etc.

I am aware of the Qafzeh sample. But that is Qafzeh, still doesn't look like modern humans because of that huge jawline even if the browridge robusticity had gone down in that group.
Of course other Qafzeh skulls which was contemporaneous was not the same.

Again, robust eyebrow ridges.

quote:

---

Hofmeyr was simply a primitive African, only an illogical bigot would argue against Africans resembling recent Africans at least in some features being that humans have been evolving in Africa over 100kya years before ancestors of modern non Africans even left to populate the world.

---

quote:

---

Qazfa is a clear example of this, yet you say over 40ky later Hofmeyr from South Africa would have looked nothing like Africans, since they were still primitive? No sense.

---

Qafzeh was not in southern Africa and only some of the Qafzeh samples show less developed browridges. Again we are talking about looks, not cranio spacial anatomy that helps distinguish modern from archaic. Most of that is covered by hair anyway. Craniofacial features. A huge jaw or a huge browridge, huge teeth, etc would make them look different.

Sorry bub, they did not look similar to modern Africans.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Oh man, you're still coming back? Oh well let me debunk this kid some more...

The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics in the EEMH sample come from the MPMH lineage. Qazfa (clear sub-saharan affinities 90kya), Herto, Omo etc.. were part of the MPMH lineages from Africa, that Early European Modern Humans derive their abundance of autapomorphic traits from. Hofmeyr was from South Africa, contemporaneous with, and resembled humans from Eurasia in the UP except for it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori). European upper Paleolithic and Nazlet Khater (NK) also bare many resemblences, and there is also a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.

Modern humans who closely resemble these UP individuals are Oceanians, closest individuals to Oceanians, are of course Africans (Hanihara et al.), and Oceanians ultimately retain the most primitive morphology when compared to early humans. All early humans around the world still resembled these individuals; Australian and African.

You can run, but you can't hide.

Note;

Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie


The Qafzeh material from Israel dating from over 90,000 to over 100,000 B.P. regularly tests via multivariate analysis to be tied to sub Saharan Africans. [/b].......Qafza looks startlingly like living West Africans but with markedly bigger teeth. --C. L. Brace


As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).


The Relevant Framework

It is assumed that the EEMHs were derived principally from the MPMHs, expanding and dispersing through southwestern Asia and then westward across Europe subsequent to at least 41 ka B.P. (the date of the oldest EEMH, Oase 1). This hypothesis is supported by the first appearance of a long list of autapomorphic modern human character states in the MPMH sample (33) and their persistence in the EEMH sample. Among others, these EEMH autapomorphic traits include absence of a supraorbital torus, distinct canine fossae, narrow nasal apertures, chiselshaped maxillary incisors, expanded parietal arcs, prominent parietal bosses, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, projecting mentum osseum, narrow mandibular corpus, marked gluteal buttress, pilastric femoral diaphysis, and angular tibial and fibular diaphyses. In addition, their nasal aperture inferior margins and the body proportions inferred biomechanically from femoral diaphyseal proportions (15, 27–29) indicate evolutionarily recent tropical ancestry, similar to that seen in the Qafzeh– Skhul sample (15, 16). The abundant autapomorphic modern human characteristics in the EEMH sample are therefore inferred to have come from that MPMH lineage. The question is the extent to which they had productive reproductive interactions with the Neandertal populations. Evidence for such encounters should consist principally of autapomorphic Neandertal characteristics in the EEMH or subsequent Gravettian samples. -- Erik Trinkaus*



The Colombian skeletal remains were divided in two chronological subgroups: Paleocolombians (11.0-6.0 kyr) and Archaic Colombians (5.0-3.0 kyr). Both quantitative techniques generated convergent results: ****the Paleocolombians show remarkable similarities with Lagoa Santa and ****with modern Australo-Melanesians**** .


Herto would've looked just like the picture below, per Chris stringer. He said Herto was more robust, but his face would've looked as it does in this picture, i.e., a broad wide flat face, and prognathous. The thing Chris stated for the reason Herto being unlike modern humans, is because he does possess some archaic features, and is more robust which we can see.




Pes¸tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology
of early modern Europeans

Oase 2 and the penecontemporaneous Nazlet Khater 2 (22) fall with the modern samples. Oase 2 and Nazlet Khater 2 are also close with respect to the relative lengths and breadths of their occipital planes (lambda--inion chord vs. bi-asterionic breadth; Fig. 4) and exhibit fully modern human proportions. In the facial skeleton, the superciliary arches are modest, separated from the lateral trigones and the orbital margins, and associated with angled superior orbital margins (Fig. 2). The orbits are subrectangular with straight inferior margins. The infraorbital regions have pronounced canine fossae, which form ovoid depressions distinct from the adjacent anterior maxillae. The superior nasal aperture margins are damaged, but the inferior margin has separate lateral crests with joined turbinal and spinal crests [category 3 (23)] and is level with the nasal cavity floor. The zygomatic bones are sharply angled, such that the zygomaxillary suture faces anteriorly. The nasal aperture is narrow [nasal breadth (M-54) 25.5 mm; Fig. 2], similar to the apertures of Nazlet Khater 2 (28.4 mm) and more recent human crania (EUP 26.5 2.4 mm, n 4; MUP 25.9, 2.1 mm, n 21) and contrasting with Neandertals (31.9 3.3 mm, n 14) and MPMH (31.2 1.6 mm, n 4).

Among the early modern humans, Oase 2 is most closely approached by Cioclovina1(frontal arc/chord residual:5.6) and secondarily by Nazlet Khater 2 (4.3) and Skhul 5 (4.3,





----------

Multivariate Analysis of the Postcranium of Markina Gora (Kostenki XIV), A 30,000-Year-Old Skeleton from Russia

"The Markina Gora skeleton was excavated in 1954. Debets (1955, Sovetskaia Etnografiia 1: 43--53) described it as "negroid" based on its marked alveolar prognathism and high brachial and crural indices"


-------


Earliest Known Human Had Neanderthal Qualities
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News


"Omo I," as the researchers refer to the find, would probably have been considered healthy-looking and handsome by today's standards, despite the touch of Neanderthal.

"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.

Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."

"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.


-----
Originally posted by Evergreen:

A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils

Osbjorn M. Pearson

Journal of Human Evolution

August 2008

"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course, the lunatic latino does not understand that nobody is saying modern Africans look very similar to prehistoric ones, but that they carry the most similarities (as well as Oceanians) compared to non-tropical modern populations.

It's as simple as that. But apparently the moron's mind is too mixed-up to think clearly! Viva La Raza! LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimpoo:

Keep wishing you were Black you Pinoy Pendejo.

---

Actually I don't. I'm quite satisfied and actually proud of my Asian identity. Don't confuse my acceptance that all humans were originally black Africans for "wishing to be black"! LOL Again, it shows how your logic is very twisted or rather 'mixed'.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Before I continue, I realize I did a typo:

quote:

---

Nce strawman. Of course Hofmeyr was a primitive European. So much so that he did not resemble modern ones.

---

quote:

---

Nice strawman. Of course Hofmeyr was a primitive African. So much so that he did not resemble modern ones.

---

quote:

---

I would not have any confidence that the superficial parts (hair, color etc.) of the reconstruction are accurate, although the underlying shape probably is. Every population has evolved over the last 150,000 years and we cannot assume that our last common ancestor (which may or may not have been something like Herto) had any particular "racial" characteristics. The Herto skull is huge and robust, and thus very different from the crania of modern people. Of any crania in the recent past it most resembles material like those from the late Pleistocene of Australia, but whether they show a retention of ancestral characteristics or re-evolved robusticity within Australia is uncertain.

---

I showed Chris the problem's I had with Jay Matterness' artistic reconstruction (Nature Cover) (which is never as good as an actual physical reconstruction). To put it bluntly, when you superimpose the Idaltu skull on his drawing the browridge is too small and the mouth isn't far down enough. Which would alter the face markedly. The rest of the facial tissue is speculation.

All your out of context quotes don't hold a lick to raw data. Using the Hofmeyr data from table S3 and adding Neanderthal and Modern European populations:

In seven of them Neanderthals were closer. In four out of the eight parameters analyzed, both Neanderthals and modern Europeans were closer than Africans.
And only in ONE measurement was a modern African sample closer than both the European and Neanderthal ones.
I could not find the Buccolingual diameter for modern Europeans, but even if modern Africans were greater, which is speculative, that would still mean that in fully half the parameters measured, modern Europeans were closer to Hofmyer than modern Africans were.

Of course, we can also throw Homo Idaltu into the mix as you think he looks so similar.


Raw data will kick the crap out of your foolish out of context quotes every day.

Hey Dumbdoodie,

So do you try to act Black here in Atlanta? LOL
 

---

Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Keep wishing you were Black you Pinoy Pendejo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T. Rex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Keep wishing you were Black you Pinoy Pendejo.

---

*notices Chimu has resorted to cheap racial slurs*

---

Since when is Black a racial slur?
Dhejuti obsesses an Afrocentric board about claiming a lot of populations as Black. So the wannabe title fits.
Pinoy is a common term for people from the Philippines in the US. It is not a racial slur.
Pendejo is moron or literally pubic hair. Please explain how that is racial. Pendejo.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Actually this board is NOT an 'Afrocentric' one or at least is not meant to be; it's about Ancient Egypt which I am interested in!

I don't obsess over anything, and just because I acknowledge the simple FACT that all indigenous populations of the tropics not just in Africa but throughout Eurasia and Oceania are black, only makes me sane which unfortunately I can't say the same for you.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

I would not have any confidence that the superficial parts (hair, color etc.) of the reconstruction are accurate, although the underlying shape probably is . Every population has evolved over the last 150,000 years and we cannot assume that our last common ancestor (which may or may not have been something like Herto) had any particular "racial" characteristics. The Herto skull is huge and robust, and thus very different from the crania of modern people. Of any crania in the recent past it most resembles material like those from the late Pleistocene of Australia, but whether they show a retention of ancestral characteristics or re-evolved robusticity within Australia is uncertain.

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

From a new analysis of a human skull discovered in South Africa more than 50 years ago, scientists say they have obtained the first fossil evidence establishing the relatively recent time for the dispersal of modern Homo sapiens out of Africa.

The migrants appeared to have arrived at their new homes in Asia and Europe with the distinct and unmodified heads of Africans.

An international team of researchers reported yesterday that the age of the South African skull, which they dated at about 36,000 years old, coincided with the age of the skulls of humans then living in Europe and the far eastern parts of Asia, even Australia.

In a report in today’s issue of the journal Science, a research team led by Frederick E. Grine of the State University of New York at Stony Brook concluded that the South African skull provided critical corroboration of the archaeological and genetic evidence indicating that humans in fully modern form originated in sub-Saharan Africa and migrated, almost unchanged, to populate Europe and Asia.

Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/science/12skull.html

---

quote:

---

The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.

In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modem specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant.

In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modem African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations.

The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.

Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations.

---

quote:

---

Pes¸tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology
of early modern Europeans

Among the early modern humans, Oase 2 is most closely approached by Cioclovina1(frontal arc/chord residual:5.6) and secondarily by Nazlet Khater 2 (4.3) and Skhul 5 (4.3,

---

quote:

---

Conclusions

The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Its indications are clear. Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record.

---

quote:

---

A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils

Osbjorn M. Pearson

Journal of Human Evolution

August 2008

"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."

---

Europeans 11.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Chimu;


I'm also wondering from your point of view as to how the Oceanians look the way they do, if ultimately original humans did not look similar this (but perhaps more archaic and robust)?


Now, if you say it's a re-adaptation to a tropical environment, well, being that humans have been in equatorial tropical Africa over 100,000 years before the first migration to successfully populate the world, would they not have this same or similar phenotype?

Do tell what other phenotype evolves in a tropical environment, and ultimately would have been present amongst these individuals when they left Africa from this tropical environment (unless you know of another adaption attributed towards humans who adapted to a tropical environment) especially since you say this phenotype is an adaptation to a tropical environment; correct?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Now, if you say it's a re-adaptation to a tropical environment, well, being that humans have been in equatorial tropical Africa over 100,000 years

---

Which is why skin color experts such as Nina Jablonski state that the original human population, which is of equatorial african origin had the dark skin color of *current* equatorial africans.


This sensible theory [opposed by Jamie/Chimu in illogical and disingenuous fashion] is affirmed by genetics, which confirms that the genes for skin color found in equatorial africans and melanesians are underived - literally therefore original [it is a redundancy actually].

Even the less dark skinned Black populations of temperate zone south africa have genes that are derived from equatorial genes found in the darkest Blacks of Africa and Melanesia.

In order to dispute the fact that Black skin is the original state of all ancestors of all humans, you must find a non Black population, with underived genes. [original whites]

No such population exists.

Chimu understands this.

He is ideologically opposed to admitting that the original population of humnans - equatorial africans - had skin color like the modern population of equatorial africans, ie BLACKS.


He's as bad on this point as the target of his obsession - Clyde Winters - who can't admit that Dravidians don't come from neolithic Africa but rather descend from Paleolithic Asians.

They are two of a kind with two juxtaposed ideological axes to grind.

And deep down, I believe they both know it.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Actually this board is NOT an 'Afrocentric' one or at least is not meant to be; it's about Ancient Egypt which I am interested in!

I don't obsess over anything, and just because I acknowledge the simple FACT that all indigenous populations of the tropics not just in Africa but throughout Eurasia and Oceania are black, only makes me sane which unfortunately I can't say the same for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
He's as bad on this point as the target of his obsession - Clyde Winters - who can't admit that Dravidians don't come from neolithic Africa but rather descend from Paleolithic Asians.

They are two of a kind with two juxtaposed ideological axes to grind.

And deep down, I believe they both know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:

"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).

This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec.
This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
.

---

As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77

quote:

---

Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k

---

The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque.
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery.
The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.

BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.

---

quote:

---

Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.

---

Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.

quote:

---

Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
.

---

As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.

Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.

http://www.famsi.org/research/mltdp/item109/ms_coll_700_item109_wk1_body0120.html Vocabulario de la lengua Zoque p. 120

Zoque "to write" haypa

The MIxe-Popoluca dictionary at http://www.sil.org/MEXICO/mixe/popoluca-sayula/S104b-Dic-pos.pdf p. 63

Mixe "to write" tunja.yp

I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.

Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.
Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.

---

I'm curious, what are your credentials Quetzalcoatl?
Your argument my be accepted by most on here but I'm curious - what makes one scholars work more legit then the others? Could it be that you accept any scholarship that agrees with your ideal or desires?
I ask this because your debating with a credentialed man yet I don't know your credentials. This man (Mr. Winters) is using his own works as a professor but who's reviewed your writings?
I'm just curious

---

As a Professor? No, Clyde Winters is not.
http://www.govst.edu/coe/t_coe_faculty.aspx?id=1194
Clyde Winters
Lecturer in Education
Ph.D. Loyola University, 2000, Educational Psychology
Minors: Research Methods; Special Education; Curriculum and Instruction
M.S. Chicago State University, 1994, Education - Special Education
M.A. University of Illinois, 1973, Social Science (Must have been a one year program as he got his B.A in the same year)
B.A. University of Illinois, 1973, Sociology/History
Research Interests:
Brain-based learning, educational linguistics and student attributions

Nowhere does it say his expertise is linguistics, anthropology or archaeology. Nor is he a tenured professor, which speaks volumes as to how he is regarded in academia.

Now Bernard, on the other hand, I’ll give just a few:
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Wayne State University
PH.D. University of Texas at Austin, 1965, Organic Chemistry
B.S. Magna Cum Laude, University of Texas at Austin, 1960 Chemistry

1971-1974 Director, Chicano Studies, University of Utah
Professor Chemistry, Chicano Studies
(as a professor he took anthro courses on Aztec culture and language)
1975-1976 Coordinator Minority Academic Affairs, University of Wyoming
Professor, Arts and Sciences
1976-1980 Professor, Science and Technology, Wayne State University
1980-1985 Director Chicano-Boricua Studies Center, Wayne State University
1982-1998 Professor of Anthropology, Wayne State University

Founding member of SACNAS

And right now Clyde just got thumped on an email discussion I started with a bunch of geneticists and the editor of the International Journal of Human Genetics, a minor Indian journal.

What I didn't know was that Clyde has been trying to publish his BS for a while in mainstream journals of some weight and got turned down because he failed to meet peer review editing standards.

Clyde is truly the joke of the genetics circles.
Unfortunately I can't publish some of the peer review editing he received because it is protected by the peer review process. But, wow, some were literally saying (paraphrased) that in their professional lives reviewing a ton of manuscripts they had never seen a manuscript submitted that was so bad. One geneticist even stated that he was at a loss for words because all he could say for advice was to go take a course in genetics.

It would not surprise me at all that the same thing has happened in the linguistics journals.

Well have to go. TTYL.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ ^

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
He's as bad on this point as the target of his obsession - Clyde Winters - who can't admit that Dravidians don't come from neolithic Africa but rather descend from Paleolithic Asians.

They are two of a kind with two juxtaposed ideological axes to grind.

And deep down, I believe they both know it.

---

Indeed, they do know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:
[I'm curious, what are your credentials Quetzalcoatl?

Your argument my be accepted by most on here but I'm curious - what makes one scholars work more legit then the others? Could it be that you accept any scholarship that agrees with your ideal or desires?

I ask this because your debating with a credentialed man yet I don't know your credentials. This man (Mr. Winters) is using his own works as a professor but who's reviewed your writings?

I'm just curious [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Will respond to the rest in time but I have more important things to take care of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.
Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.

---

I'm curious, what are your credentials Quetzalcoatl?
Your argument my be accepted by most on here but I'm curious - what makes one scholars work more legit then the others? Could it be that you accept any scholarship that agrees with your ideal or desires?
I ask this because your debating with a credentialed man yet I don't know your credentials. This man (Mr. Winters) is using his own works as a professor but who's reviewed your writings?
I'm just curious

---

As a Professor? No, Clyde Winters is not.
http://www.govst.edu/coe/t_coe_faculty.aspx?id=1194
Clyde Winters
Lecturer in Education
Ph.D. Loyola University, 2000, Educational Psychology
Minors: Research Methods; Special Education; Curriculum and Instruction
M.S. Chicago State University, 1994, Education - Special Education
M.A. University of Illinois, 1973, Social Science (Must have been a one year program as he got his B.A in the same year)
B.A. University of Illinois, 1973, Sociology/History
Research Interests:
Brain-based learning, educational linguistics and student attributions

Nowhere does it say his expertise is linguistics, anthropology or archaeology. Nor is he a tenured professor, which speaks volumes as to how he is regarded in academia.

Now Bernard, on the other hand, I’ll give just a few:
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Wayne State University
PH.D. University of Texas at Austin, 1965, Organic Chemistry
B.S. Magna Cum Laude, University of Texas at Austin, 1960 Chemistry

1971-1974 Director, Chicano Studies, University of Utah
Professor Chemistry, Chicano Studies
(as a professor he took anthro courses on Aztec culture and language)
1975-1976 Coordinator Minority Academic Affairs, University of Wyoming
Professor, Arts and Sciences
1976-1980 Professor, Science and Technology, Wayne State University
1980-1985 Director Chicano-Boricua Studies Center, Wayne State University
1982-1998 Professor of Anthropology, Wayne State University

Founding member of SACNAS

And right now Clyde just got thumped on an email discussion I started with a bunch of geneticists and the editor of the International Journal of Human Genetics, a minor Indian journal.

What I didn't know was that Clyde has been trying to publish his BS for a while in mainstream journals of some weight and got turned down because he failed to meet peer review editing standards.

Clyde is truly the joke of the genetics circles.
Unfortunately I can't publish some of the peer review editing he received because it is protected by the peer review process. But, wow, some were literally saying (paraphrased) that in their professional lives reviewing a ton of manuscripts they had never seen a manuscript submitted that was so bad. One geneticist even stated that he was at a loss for words because all he could say for advice was to go take a course in genetics.

It would not surprise me at all that the same thing has happened in the linguistics journals.

Well have to go. TTYL.

---

I have not been bested in this debate. And once this debate is published in the IJHG everyone will see.

Moreover, I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University for three years until I took my present position.

Below is a copy of my student evaluations for the course




As you can see I have experience teaching Linguistics. This is supplemental to the numerous articles I have published in Linguistics and Anthropology. Now why don't you post your articles and have Bernardo post articles he published besides the work he did attacking Afrocentrism.

You're just jealous I showed how ignorant you are at your own site. And I promise you I will have other articles published on population genetics. And when I desire I will make you look like the fool and liar you are in any forum.

.
.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I have not been bested in this debate. And once this debate is published in the IJHG everyone will see.

Moreover, I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University for three years until I took my present position.

Below is a copy of my student evaluations for the course




As you can see I have experience teaching Linguistics. This is supplemental to the numerous articles I have published in Linguistics and Anthropology. Now why don't you post your articles and have Bernardo post articles he published besides the work he did attacking Afrocentrism.

You're just jealous I showed how ignorant you are at your own site. And I promise you I will have other articles published on population genetics. And when I desire I will make you look like the fool and liar you are in any forum.

---

quote:

---

English as a Second Language and Bilingual Approval Program
The English as a Second Language (ESL) and Bilingual Approval Program prepares teacher education candidates and certified teachers to design and deliver effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students. The six-course sequence focuses on teaching the English language arts (reading, writing, speaking and listening) across content areas to children who are second-language learners and on effective teaching in bilingual programs. Each course is (3), resulting in a total of (18) for the program. The required ESL and/or bilingual clinical experience equal 100 clock-hours or three months' teaching experience with ESL and/or bilingual students. This clinical component is met within the six-course sequence. It may be possible to complete field experience hours for a bilingual/ESL course while concurrently completing field experience hours for a professional education course in a Type 03/Type 04/Type 09/Type 10 certification program if the field experience goals of each of the two concurrent courses can be fulfilled simultaneously in the same field setting. Teacher education candidates must obtain approval from their course instructors to fulfill field experience requirements in the same field setting for concurrent courses. Individuals who are granted an ESL and/or bilingual approval may teach in this capacity only at the grade levels for which their regular certificate is valid.
Program Requirements
EDU 363/EDUG 479 Theoretical Foundations of Teaching ESL and Bilingual Education (3)
EDU 364/EDUG 480 Methods and Materials for Teaching ESL (3)
EDU 365/EDUG 481 Cross-Cultural Studies in a Bilingual Program (3)
EDU 366/EDUG 482 Methods and Materials for Teaching English in a Bilingual Program (3)
EDU 367/EDUG 483 Linguistics for Educators (3)
EDU 368/EDUG 484 Assessment of Bilingual Students (3)

EDUG 483 - Linguistics for Educators (3)
Cross Ref: EDU 367
Offered as needed
Introduction to contemporary theories of language structure, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Concentrates on applied linguistics relevant to the K-12 classroom and includes a review of pertinent professional literature. (10 field experience hours)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I have not been bested in this debate. And once this debate is published in the IJHG everyone will see.

Moreover, I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University for three years until I took my present position.

Below is a copy of my student evaluations for the course




As you can see I have experience teaching Linguistics. This is supplemental to the numerous articles I have published in Linguistics and Anthropology. Now why don't you post your articles and have Bernardo post articles he published besides the work he did attacking Afrocentrism.

You're just jealous I showed how ignorant you are at your own site. And I promise you I will have other articles published on population genetics. And when I desire I will make you look like the fool and liar you are in any forum.

---

LMAO. Linguistics for Educators?

quote:

---

English as a Second Language and Bilingual Approval Program
The English as a Second Language (ESL) and Bilingual Approval Program prepares teacher education candidates and certified teachers to design and deliver effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students. The six-course sequence focuses on teaching the English language arts (reading, writing, speaking and listening) across content areas to children who are second-language learners and on effective teaching in bilingual programs. Each course is (3), resulting in a total of (18) for the program. The required ESL and/or bilingual clinical experience equal 100 clock-hours or three months' teaching experience with ESL and/or bilingual students. This clinical component is met within the six-course sequence. It may be possible to complete field experience hours for a bilingual/ESL course while concurrently completing field experience hours for a professional education course in a Type 03/Type 04/Type 09/Type 10 certification program if the field experience goals of each of the two concurrent courses can be fulfilled simultaneously in the same field setting. Teacher education candidates must obtain approval from their course instructors to fulfill field experience requirements in the same field setting for concurrent courses. Individuals who are granted an ESL and/or bilingual approval may teach in this capacity only at the grade levels for which their regular certificate is valid.
Program Requirements
EDU 363/EDUG 479 Theoretical Foundations of Teaching ESL and Bilingual Education (3)
EDU 364/EDUG 480 Methods and Materials for Teaching ESL (3)
EDU 365/EDUG 481 Cross-Cultural Studies in a Bilingual Program (3)
EDU 366/EDUG 482 Methods and Materials for Teaching English in a Bilingual Program (3)
EDU 367/EDUG 483 Linguistics for Educators (3)
EDU 368/EDUG 484 Assessment of Bilingual Students (3)

EDUG 483 - Linguistics for Educators (3)
Cross Ref: EDU 367
Offered as needed
Introduction to contemporary theories of language structure, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Concentrates on applied linguistics relevant to the K-12 classroom and includes a review of pertinent professional literature. (10 field experience hours)

---

You taught kids how to teach English as a second language, not how to interpret foreign languages. Congratulations, you know how to teach English grammar well. Although with all the mistakes I see in your manuscripts, I wonder.

Has nothing to do with deciphering ancient languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:
[]I'm curious, what are your credentials Quetzalcoatl?

Your argument my be accepted by most on here but I'm curious - what makes one scholars work more legit then the others? Could it be that you accept any scholarship that agrees with your ideal or desires?

I ask this because your debating with a credentialed man yet I don't know your credentials. This man (Mr. Winters) is using his own works as a professor but who's reviewed your writings?

I'm just curious [/QB]

---