Winters’ final refuge was a claim that Wiener in the 1920’s had “proved” that the Mande had invented a zodiac divided into 13 parts which was also found in Mesoamerica. Further, that this dated to epi-Olmec times 100 BC, or so, because Wiener had also claimed that the Olmec Tuxtla statuette was written in Mande.
As I showed, for example in the following post, Wiener actually presented no evidence to support his claim. Winters took refuge, here and numerous subsequent posts, in arguing that the “PROOF” was to be found in the 1916 paper by Bork cited, with no details, by Wiener.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'll make it easier for you to falsify my hypothesis. I'll eliminate the Initial Series Long Count component.
A Calendar round in which each day has two names- one from a combination of numbers 1 to 13 and 20 day names and two from a 365-day calendar of 18 20-day months and 1 5-day month in which a day with the same two names will not repeat for 52 years can only be found in Mesoamerica and nowhere else in the world.
All you have to to falsify this hypothesis is to show evidence for the existence of this in Africa, or somewhere else in the world.
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
LOL. Apparently you don't know the meaning of "falsify" to do this you 1) have to deal with the entire hypothesis and 2) present some evidence. Assertions are not evidence. Let us start with Wiener. Wiener presents NO evidence, he makes assertions which are, in themselves valueless since he was not an expert on Mesoamerica or the Maya.
1) Notice that what you need to falsify is the non-existence of the 52-year Calendar Round not just the 260-day tzolkin anywhere else in the world.
2) Wiener: Here is the total evidence presented by Wiener: From Wiener, Leo. 1922 [1971 Kraus Reprint Co.] Africa and the discovery of America vol. 3. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons Unlike Winters, I will quote the relevant passages
quote: pp. 270-71 For astrological purposes there was in use a division of the zodiac in thirteen parts, such as has been found ion three calabashes in western Africa, and it is a curious fact that a similar division into thirteen is recorded only among the Kirghizes [in Afghanistan] and in America. The division of the year into thirteen parts would demand a twenty-eight day month, but, in reality, the order is reversed, for we still have among the Berbers a division of the year into twenty-eight parts, of thirteen days each, (. . .), which is based on the astronomical or astrological calculations of the Arabs, whose twenty-eight lunar mansions of thirteen days each were, in the IX. Century or later, adopted from the Hindus, (Nallino..), who had by that time arranged the twenty-eight nakshatras, or constellations, into equally spaced divisions of the Zodiac, which naturally led to the thirteen days unit of time.
The only evidence presented for African calabashes is a citation to F. Bork, 1916-17. "Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen," in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft vol. XXI pp. 266-ff BUT Wiener does not tell us what Bork found, does not have a picture of what these calabashes look like, etc. Thus, NO evidence is presented. I am in the process of getting Bork's paper so that we can all see what this evidence is supposed to be, but without it Wiener has not "proved" a thing.
Also notice that Wiener points out that dividing a year into 13 parts would require 28-day months and that he finds that the Berbers instead have 28 "months" of 13-days each and goes on to ascribe these to Arab astrological calculations. Hardly a rousing proof of African 13 x20 time keeping and definitely not a 52-year "Calendar Round"
Another Wiener proofless assertion
quote:p. 278 In Arabic. . quimar refers to any game of chance. The Spanish-Arabic dictionary in the beginning of the XVI. Century translates Spanish “dados” and “naypes” by quimar, which shows that even at that late date “dice” and “cards” were not yet fully distinguished. But “cards” were called naypes in Spanish from Arabic () naib “lieutenant,” and the first fundamental row of the geomantic gadwal is called alanaua, (ref. 3) unquestionably from naib “lieutenant, regent,” for we find this word as laibe “story” in Wolof, which indicates that in the Western Sudan the game was closely related to the gadwal. Cards seem not to have been known before the end of the XIV. Century, and it is significant that, although the original deck of cards had 4X18 and more cards, it soon developed into a deck of 4X13 cards, in which the 13 is identical with the calabash zodiacs of western Africa. It, therefore, follows from this that in western Africa there was, for reasons which we do not at present know, in vogue the 4X13 astrological cycle, which forms the same cycle in Mexico and Central America
Again, pure assertion with no evidence. I cannot believe that readers of ES can think that this "proves" that the Mande brought the 260-day calendar, much less the 52-year Calendar Round, to the Olmecs, 500 B.C.
quote:You can still keep time without the 365 day Mayan calendar as proven by contemporary Americans. Coe and Stone, Reading the Maya Glyphs wrote : "The first part of a Calendar Round is the 260-day Count, often called in the literature by the ersatz Maya name "tsolk'in". This is the eternally repeating cycle , and concist of the numbers 1 through 13, permuting against a minicycle of 20 named days. Since 13 and 20 have no common denominator, a particular day name will not recur with a particular coefficient until 260 days have passed. No one knows exactly when this extremely sacred calendar was invented, but it was certainly already ancient by the time the Classic period began. There are still highland Maya calendar priests who can calculate the day in the 260-day Count, and [b]it is apparent that this basic way of time-reckoning has never slipped a day since its inception" (pp.41-42).
This sacred calendar has 13 months of 20 days (13x20=260). John Montgomery, How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs, wrote "The Tzolk'in or 260 day Sacred Almanac, was widely used in ancient times for divinatory purposes. Guatemalan Maya and other cultures in Mexico still use it as a means of "day keeping". " (p.74). .
quote:Sometimes I think that you must live in an alternate universe where repeating an error over and over again will somehow magically transmute it into being true. I won't waste any time reposting the reams of contrary evidence including an e-mail from Mike Coe explicitly telling you that you have misquoted and misunderstood him. You get by with this because your acolytes and others will not bother to check out your claims. If readers of ES re not too lazy or uninterested complete rebuttals are available here http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348
It took months for me to track down the paper and get a copy. I had to get a friend of mine who teaches at Harvard to send a graduate student to the library and Xerox a copy.
As I expected, the paper was totally useless as evidence of a Mande 13 zodiac that would be the basis of a “medieval” Mesoamerican zodiac (Wiener’s claims were based on the Abubakari AD 1310 supposed trip to the New World) much less evidence of an epi-Olmec calendar in 100 B.C, which is what Winters claims). It is a 4 page paper with no pictures of the 3 calabashes that supposedly had the 13 division zodiac in them. Here is the “extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.”
Wiener is not being honest on several levels. 1) As I will show later, this paper actually contradicts Wiener’s claim. 2) Bork makes no claim that these calabashes are Mande, that they date to AD 1300, or that they have anything to do with Mesoamerica—these are all Wiener’s inventions. 3) This paper is really a supplement to a much longer paper: Bork, F. 1914 “Tierkreisforschungen,” Anthropos 9:66-80 4) Wiener does not cite the original paper describing the calabashes: Dahse, J. 1911 “Ein Zweites Goldland Salomos. Vorstudien zur Geschichte Westafrikas,” Zeitscrift fur Ethnologie 34: 1-79 where we finally get images of these calabashes. 5) Only 2 calabashes have zodiacs not three. 6) Bork’s paper p. 267 in listing the figures in the zodiac for calabash 2 lists a “ship”, which in itself would disprove his supposed model for Mesoamerica. BUT if Wiener (or Winters) had looked at the images of the calabash, he would have seen that the ship was flying an English flag disproving any claim for its dating back to AD 1300 much less 10BC
Here is Dahse’s paper. The relevant calabashes 2 and 3 were brought from the coast of West Africa in the 19th century to the Museum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin where Dahse describes them. They are definitely 19th century and there is no evidence that they came from a Mande area.
Here is calabash 1 with no zodiac on it
Here is calabash 2 with a clear European ship flying the English flag. Disproving both Wiener and Winters
calabash 3 is also irrelevant
The point is that a real scholar tracks down references down to the primary source and confirms claims.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoalt neither Wiener nor I said the calabashes date back to the preColumbian era. We only stated that West Africans had a 13 month calendar.
Please post the description of Calabash 3. Thanks.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The easy reply is that you evaded my questions completely. You provided a mishmosh of arguments about the numbers 20 and 60 but from the Dogon and in relation to their mythology concerning Sirius and a 60 year ceremony. This has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican calendar or a Mande calendar . Scattered babbling will not explain what you have to explain. To remind you of the essential claim you make: about 100 BC the Mande were the source for the Initial Series Long Count calendar used in Mesoamerica. This means, as I asked you, That ALL THESE FEATURES HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. an interlocking 260-day calendar of 13 numbers and 20 day names AND a 365-day calendar composed of 18 20-months and 1 5-day month. 2. A starting date for this interlocking calendar of August 11, 3114 B.C. 3. A vertical place notation of a modified base-20 number system 4. A true zero
Your post does not even come close to answering any of these points.
I am waiting for an answer since you claim all the Olmec writing is Mande
I have already answered your question. Both systems are based on 20 and 60. The site you list has nothing to do with the Mande terms for 20 and 60 that are discussed below.
You just can't handle the truth. You believe the Olmec were not Mande speakers and because this is the opinion of your Masters,you can't handle the reality that the Mayan system of Writing is of African origin as is much of the religion of the Maya as first made clear by Wiener.
I know for a fact you have access to the Delofosse Malinke-Bambara dictionary so you know the Mande terms I used here exist and have the meanings I provide. In addition, you are near a large library given your frequent access to up-to-date sources so you could easy verify my citations , your failure to falsify my citations betry your lack of scholarly acumen and goal to be a deciever.
Oh, you are a great deciever.
You may ignore the material if you which to your loss. Instead of going to the WWW you should consult a library. My answers are clearly referenced so there is no need to comment further on your spurious claims.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
The Mande have several calendars, lunar, ritual and etc. The Mande system of notation is based on 20, 60 and 80 according to M. Griaule & G.Dieterlen.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
The Dogon claim they got their calendric system from the Mande. The importance of the number 20 is evident in the discussion of the trajectory of the star Digitaria around Serius, as illustrated in Figure iii, above. Note the small cluster of 20 dots (DL) in the figure that represent the star when it is furtherest from Sirius (R. Temple, Sirius Mystery (1976) p.40)
In the figure of Kanaga sign above Figure i, also illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 as illustrated in Figure ii.
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala. For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
The Mayan system like the Mande system is also based on 60 and 20. For example as you note in your question the basic part of the Haab year is the Tun 18 month 20 day calendar, plus the five day month of Wayeb.
The basic unit of the calendar is the Tun made up of 18 winal (months) of 20 k’in (days) or 360 days. Thus we have 18x20=360; 360÷60=6.
Next we have the K’tun,(20 Tun) which equals 7200 days, 7200÷60=120÷60=2; or 7200÷20=360÷20=18.
After K’tun comes Baktun (=400 Tun) 144,000 days, 144,000÷60=2400÷60=40; or 144,000÷20=7200÷20=360÷20=18.
Yes the Mande had the zero. The Mayan symbol for ‘zero’ means completion. M. Griaule in Signes d’Ecriture Bambara, says the Malinke-Bambara sign for zero is fu ‘nothing, the emptiness preceding creation’ (see Signes graphique soudanais, (eds) Marcel Griaule & Germaine Dieterlen
In conclusion, Mayan calendrics are probably based on the Mande notation system of 20 and 60. And the Malinke-Bambara people possessed the zero.
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term kenè that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dõ-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dõ-gyãle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
Here are the answers to your questions. As you can see they support Wiener’s view that the Mayan system of notation was of Mande origin just as I claimed in the original post.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Great Deciever, you are a sad person indeed you pretend to be a scholar, but you lose all reason when it comes to debating me. You did not check one reference mentioned in my post. If you had read Temple, you would know that Temple published an English translation of the M. Griaule and Dieterlen’s, A Sudanese Sirius System (pp.35-51). You claim I was not discussing the Mande system a cursory examination of the Temple text would have shown you how wrong you are.
Oh you Great Deciever, You.
If you would have read the Temple text, you would have gain an understanding of the Mande notation system.
The base of the Mande calculation is 60 (60÷20=3; 3x20=60). The Malinke-Bambara term for 20 is muġa . The Malinke-Bambara term for 60 is debė ni- muġa or 40+20 (=60).
As noted previously the Malinke-Bambara calculations are based on 20. This resulted from the fact that the total number of toes and fingers equal 20.
The Malinke-Bambara numbers are mention in M. Delafosse, La Mandingue et ses dialectes volume 2. Below I will give the Malinke-Bambara numeral and the page number where it is found:
muġa twenty (p.520)
debè forty (p.111)
debè-ni muġa sixty (p.629 volume 1)
debè fila eighty (p.520) ( fila means double i.e. 40x2=80)
debè fila ni muġa hundred (p.111)
In relation to the numeral 40 debe, Delafosse wrote “nombre forme par le total des doigts et des orteils d'un couple couche sur une natte” (p.111), or number formed by the total number of toes and fingers of a couple layer on a mat or blanket. This reminds us of Griaule and Dieterlen discussion of the Bambara notation system as illustrated by the [b]koso wala .
Further confirmation of the base 20 notation in relation to the Sirius system is the kosa wala . For example on the koso wala we have 10 sequences made up of 30 rectangles (10x30 =300), which can be divided by 20: 300÷20=15; and 60: 300÷60=5. And as noted by Griaule & Dieterlen in addition to the above, 20 reactangles in the koso wala represent stars and constellations (R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (1976) p.48).
It is interesting that when Griaule and Dieterlen, discussed the Mande notation system they used a (colored blanket) wala koso, while Delafosse used the example of a (mat) degè, this suggest that the ancient Mande used mats to perform math computation and that these mats were made according to the base 20 notation system.
Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, in Signes Graphique soudanais (L’Homme , Cahiers d’Ethnologie de Geographie et de Linguistique,3, Paris (Hermann) 1951, the authors discuss the Mande graphic sign for zero fu.
The existence of a similar notation system based on 20 among the Maya illustrate the mande origin of Mayan calendrics.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As pointed out on numerous occasions during this debate many Mayan groups record successfully time only using the 13 month 20 day calendar so there was no need for the Olmec to record a date and use a system like the Haab (Tun+ Wayeb ) to determine its actual time. A similar calendar of 13 months and 20 days was recorded on West African calabashes.
You speak of evaluating evidence. Oh You Great Deciever, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
First of all science is based on hypotheses testing. Wiener made a number of claims:
1. West Africans had a 13 month zodiac. 2. There was a Mande origin for the Mayan notation system. 3. Mande writing was the source of the inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette.
These premises provides several testable hypothesis in relation to the Mande-Olmec and Mayan connection:
There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
Now that we have these hypotheses we will test them. Most of the solution for these hypotheses comes from Robert J. Sharer ,The Ancient Maya (5th Edition,1994)
The Mande use a base 20 notation syste,. The Maya did not use a base 10 system, the base number was 20 like the Mande system. Base 20 is vigesimal. Landa wrote:
quote:
Not only did the Indians have a count for the year and months, as has been said and previously set out, but they had a certain method of counting time and their affairs by their ages, which they counted by twenty year periods, counting thirteen twenties, with one of the twenty signs of their months, which they call Ahau/Ajaw
Sharer, p.572
This makes it clear that the Maya had a base 20 notation system. . The Mayan values like the Mande increased by powers of twenty (Sharer, p.558).
That they used this system to record time. Use of the term Ajaw “lord’is interesting. This term is cognate to the Olmec term gyo/ jo the term used to describe the Olmec rulers duties as both ruler and religious leaders. In addition to this term the Mayans adopted other Mande terms
English Mande Mayan
Birth si sij
God Ku Ku
Demi-God-King Gyo/Jo Ajaw
Day kene k’in
In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day ) 13x20= 260.This agrees with the calabash calendars in West Africa.
This zodiac formed the bases of the Mayan sacre calendar which was 260 days or 13x20. The ceremonial practices of the Maya were determined by the sacre calendar.
Mats play an important role in Mande calculations. The mat and mat motifs play an important role in Mayan society as well.
In fact the ruling title on mayan emblem signs is ah po ‘lord of the mat’. In fact the symbol of Mayan rulership was pop (a woven mat).
In conclusion, Wiener’s work provides three testable hypotheses:
There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan languages. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan numerals and system of notation. There will be a relationship between Mande and Mayan calendrics.
As illustrated above the Mande notation system of 20 and 60 is also the system of the Maya. The Mayan name for day k’in, may also be of Mande origin since it agrees with the Malinke-Bambara term kenè that means ‘day light, day’. The Mayan term for series of 360 days is tun, this corresponds to the Mande term dõ-na ‘an arrangement of dates/days’, the Mande term for calendar is dõ-gyãle-la. The Mayan speakers probably used tun, because they learned the Mande calendar in association with ritual days of the Mande speaking Olmecs.
All of these hypotheses were confirmed. The Maya and Mande share similar zodics and base 20 notation system. In addition, many of the key terms relating to Mayan ritual and religion agree with Mande terms . The evidence leads us to only one conclusion the Mande speaking Olmec introduced base 20 notation systems and calendrics to the Mayan Indians.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
Mats play an important role in Mande calculations. The mat and mat motifs play an important role in Mayan society as well.
Aspects of the Mande notation system is found among most West Africans. Griaule in Signes grapheques des Dogon, made it clear that the number 80 also represented 20 (80÷20=20; 20 x 4=80) and probably relates to the Mande people (see: R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery, (1976) p.80)
Below we have the kanaga sign.
The Kanaga sign above illustrates the base notation 20 and 60. The head, tail and four feet each represent 20 ,i.e., 6 x 20=120; 120÷60=2. The calculation of Sigui also indicates the Mande notation system of 20 and 60.
Now lets look at Calabash 3. In calabash 3 we see many elements of Mande calendrics.
If you look at this calabash you will notice that in the center of the calabash we have a figure that resembles the Kanaga sign. It also very interesting that this Kanaga figure also includes a mat constituting the central design in the figure.
posted
Bernard, do you still think Nubians and Egyptians don't have phenotype of the "slave ancestors of African-Americans"? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoalt neither Wiener nor I said the calabashes date back to the preColumbian era. We only stated that West Africans had a 13 month calendar.
Please post the description of Calabash 3. Thanks.
.
LOL Clyde, sometimes I wonder how you can post with a straight face You and your governor suffer from the same malady-- "I can say anything because no one is listening to my phone calls" What the hell have we been debating for months? If not that Wiener and you are claiming that the Mande showed the Olmecs and Mayas how to run a calendar? And that finally, when cornered, you claimed that PROOF of this was to be found in the 3 calabashes. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000393 and others.
You, of course, had never bothered to look up the cited paper or the actual paper with the images of these calabashes. The description of calabash 3 is on p. 267 as posted above and in Bork's fuller 1914 paper, which you can look up-- after all I can't do all your work for you.
Participants in ES know that, when refuted, Clyde fills the airwaves with irrelevant spam, so we can ignore the following posts which merely repost from the thread I gave the URL above.
The bottom line, is that these- unknown provenance 19th century calabashes can no longer be used to claim that the Mande taught the 13 division zodiac to the Olmecs 2000 years previously, or even as Wiener (and Van Sertima) claim to the Mesoamericans in the 14th century AD.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Bernard, do you still think Nubians and Egyptians don't have phenotype of the "slave ancestors of African-Americans"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoalt neither Wiener nor I said the calabashes date back to the preColumbian era. We only stated that West Africans had a 13 month calendar.
Please post the description of Calabash 3. Thanks.
.
LOL Clyde, sometimes I wonder how you can post with a straight face You and your governor suffer from the same malady-- "I can say anything because no one is listening to my phone calls" What the hell have we been debating for months? If not that Wiener and you are claiming that the Mande showed the Olmecs and Mayas how to run a calendar? And that finally, when cornered, you claimed that PROOF of this was to be found in the 3 calabashes. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000393 and others.
You, of course, had never bothered to look up the cited paper or the actual paper with the images of these calabashes. The description of calabash 3 is on p. 267 as posted above and in Bork's fuller 1914 paper, which you can look up-- after all I can't do all your work for you.
Participants in ES know that, when refuted, Clyde fills the airwaves with irrelevant spam, so we can ignore the following posts which merely repost from the thread I gave the URL above.
The bottom line, is that these- unknown provenance 19th century calabashes can no longer be used to claim that the Mande taught the 13 division zodiac to the Olmecs 2000 years previously, or even as Wiener (and Van Sertima) claim to the Mesoamericans in the 14th century AD.
This what I wrote:
quote:
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
I did not provide a date for the calendars. I just said they were 13 month calendars.
The fact that many Mayan words relating to calendrics and numerals correspond to Mande terms was the reason I said the Mande speaking Olmecs introduced the calendar to the Mayan people.
The 13 month calendars can be used to say the Mande/Olmecs introduced this calendar to the Amerinds because these calendars are of 13 months and include most features associated with the Mande including the mat on the back of the lizard forming the shape of the kanaga sign as illustrated in calabash 3.
Your publication of these calabashes in no way disputes the fact Africans and Mayan people had 13 month calendars.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoalt neither Wiener nor I said the calabashes date back to the preColumbian era. We only stated that West Africans had a 13 month calendar.
Please post the description of Calabash 3. Thanks.
.
LOL Clyde, sometimes I wonder how you can post with a straight face You and your governor suffer from the same malady-- "I can say anything because no one is listening to my phone calls" What the hell have we been debating for months? If not that Wiener and you are claiming that the Mande showed the Olmecs and Mayas how to run a calendar? And that finally, when cornered, you claimed that PROOF of this was to be found in the 3 calabashes. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000393 and others.
You, of course, had never bothered to look up the cited paper or the actual paper with the images of these calabashes. The description of calabash 3 is on p. 267 as posted above and in Bork's fuller 1914 paper, which you can look up-- after all I can't do all your work for you.
Participants in ES know that, when refuted, Clyde fills the airwaves with irrelevant spam, so we can ignore the following posts which merely repost from the thread I gave the URL above.
The bottom line, is that these- unknown provenance 19th century calabashes can no longer be used to claim that the Mande taught the 13 division zodiac to the Olmecs 2000 years previously, or even as Wiener (and Van Sertima) claim to the Mesoamericans in the 14th century AD.
This what I wrote:
quote:
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
I did not provide a date for the calendars. I just said they were 13 month calendars.
The fact that many Mayan words relating to calendrics and numerals correspond to Mande terms was the reason I said the Mande speaking Olmecs introduced the calendar to the Mayan people.
The 13 month calendars can be used to say the Mande/Olmecs introduced this calendar to the Amerinds because these calendars are of 13 months and include most features associated with the Mande including the mat on the back of the lizard forming the shape of the kanaga sign as illustrated in calabash 3.
quote:Your publication of these calabashes in no way disputes the fact Africans and Mayan people had 13 month calendars.
LOL This is irrelevant. What I published, however, proves that these unknown provenance 19th century calabashes cannot be used as evidence that the Mesoamericans did not independently develop their calendar and number system and that they got it from the Mande.
BTW ad nauseam-- the Mesoamerican ritual calendar has 20 months of 13 days NOT 13 months.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoalt neither Wiener nor I said the calabashes date back to the preColumbian era. We only stated that West Africans had a 13 month calendar.
Please post the description of Calabash 3. Thanks.
.
LOL Clyde, sometimes I wonder how you can post with a straight face You and your governor suffer from the same malady-- "I can say anything because no one is listening to my phone calls" What the hell have we been debating for months? If not that Wiener and you are claiming that the Mande showed the Olmecs and Mayas how to run a calendar? And that finally, when cornered, you claimed that PROOF of this was to be found in the 3 calabashes. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000393 and others.
You, of course, had never bothered to look up the cited paper or the actual paper with the images of these calabashes. The description of calabash 3 is on p. 267 as posted above and in Bork's fuller 1914 paper, which you can look up-- after all I can't do all your work for you.
Participants in ES know that, when refuted, Clyde fills the airwaves with irrelevant spam, so we can ignore the following posts which merely repost from the thread I gave the URL above.
The bottom line, is that these- unknown provenance 19th century calabashes can no longer be used to claim that the Mande taught the 13 division zodiac to the Olmecs 2000 years previously, or even as Wiener (and Van Sertima) claim to the Mesoamericans in the 14th century AD.
This what I wrote:
quote:
This was falsified by Dr. Wiener almost 100 years ago. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America discussed the fact that the West African zodiacs are of 13 months like that of the Amerindians ( Vol.3, p.279). This information is based on the work of F.Bork, Tierkreise auf westafrikanischen Kalebassen, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Vol.21, p.266.
I did not provide a date for the calendars. I just said they were 13 month calendars.
The fact that many Mayan words relating to calendrics and numerals correspond to Mande terms was the reason I said the Mande speaking Olmecs introduced the calendar to the Mayan people.
The 13 month calendars can be used to say the Mande/Olmecs introduced this calendar to the Amerinds because these calendars are of 13 months and include most features associated with the Mande including the mat on the back of the lizard forming the shape of the kanaga sign as illustrated in calabash 3.
quote:Your publication of these calabashes in no way disputes the fact Africans and Mayan people had 13 month calendars.
LOL This is irrelevant. What I published, however, proves that these unknown provenance 19th century calabashes cannot be used as evidence that the Mesoamericans did not independently develop their calendar and number system and that they got it from the Mande.
BTW ad nauseam-- the Mesoamerican ritual calendar has 20 months of 13 days NOT 13 months.
In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day ) . Are you disagreeing with Sharer?
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Bernard, do you still think Nubians and Egyptians don't have phenotype of the "slave ancestors of African-Americans"?
Why do you think I didn't read your racist insults in "Robbing Native American Cultures"? Explain how I misinterpreted you. I understand you want to focus on plants. However I'm not an expert so I wont know if your lying, again. I do however know a thing or two about Nile Valley. So I want to know if you still hold your racist views expressed in "Robbing Native American Cultures", especially under "The Colossal Olmec Heads"? If I have misrepresented what you have said please do explain.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to interupt the flow of debate, but I am interested in learning more about the calender systems of pre-colonial Africans. Does anybody have any resources where I can learn more about this subject?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The iconographic evidence of the ancient Nubians clearly indicate that there were many round faced, thick lipped, flat nosed Nubians described in the Classical literature (Snowden, 1996: 106)
--------------------------------------------
I KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT THE NILE VALLEY AS WELL. kushite(NUBIANS) HAD FLAT NOSES AND WOOLLY HAIR AND MOST CHRISTIAN NUBIANS,MOST POST MEROTIC NUBIANS AS WELL .
PRE-KERMA NUBIANS, ARABIZED NUBIANS AND MOST A-GROUP NUBIANS ,and most egyptians had flat noses and woolly hair.
EVEN TODAY MANY MODERN NUBIANS SPEAKERS INCLUDING HILL NUBIANS AS WELL.
THE MAIN POINT IS THE NUBIANS OF THE PAST ARE BLACK AND LOOK BLACK AND THEY LOOKED NO DIFFERENT THAN WEST AFRICANS AND CENTRAL AFRICANS.
MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS LOOK BLACK AS WELL. --------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), although not a food plant, was domesticated early because of its usefulness as a container. The wild gourd is endemic to tropical Africa and originated there (Whitaker 1971, Whitaker and Bemis 1976). However, cultivated bottle gourds earlier than 7000 B.C. were recovered in the Ocampo caves in Mexico (Whitaker, Cutler, and MacNeish 1957, Whitaker and Bemis 1976), while the oldest cultivated forms in South America date to about 3000 B.C. (Whitaker 1971). Lanning (1963) reported a much earlier site, but the gourds there were probably gathered rather than cultivated. Remains of L. siceraria were found in Egyptian tombs dated about 3300-3500 B.C. (Whitaker and Bemis 1976). Thus gourds were cultivated in the New World much earlier than in Egypt.
Uhh Bernard, I was reading your work, and umm... I see you mentioned gourds didn't appear in Egypt until 3300-3500 BCE. Well this would be wrong.
quote: Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.
Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.
But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ]In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day ) . Are you disagreeing with Sharer?
quote:As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”). I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
However, the time was not wasted because I got some interesting quotes from Sharer (whom you cite as an authority)
pp. 556-557 “It now appears that by the Late Preclassic the Maya had begun to use a system of numeration by position—one that is, much like our own, involving the use of the mathematical concept of zero, a notable intellectual accomplishment and apparently the earliest known instance of this concept in the world.”
pp. 560 “The three cyclic counts most frequently used by the ancient Maya—the 260-day sacred almanac, the 365-day vague year, and the 52-year calendar round— are very old concepts, shared by all Mesoamerican peoples... .. The Long Count operated independently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronology, by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date, deep in the past, to reach a given day recorded by these two basic calendar cycles.”
pp. 562 The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.” So your postulated “zodiac” of 13 “months” of 20 days DID NOT EXIST among the Maya.
and on June 14
quote: I notice that you have not admitted that you made up a quote supposedly written by Sharer. Your own cited reference Sharer 5th ed. points out that the 260-day ritual "tzolkin was not considered to have "months" but just to run a continuous series of 260 days., I guess he is the great deceiver.
quote:The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), although not a food plant, was domesticated early because of its usefulness as a container. The wild gourd is endemic to tropical Africa and originated there (Whitaker 1971, Whitaker and Bemis 1976). However, cultivated bottle gourds earlier than 7000 B.C. were recovered in the Ocampo caves in Mexico (Whitaker, Cutler, and MacNeish 1957, Whitaker and Bemis 1976), while the oldest cultivated forms in South America date to about 3000 B.C. (Whitaker 1971). Lanning (1963) reported a much earlier site, but the gourds there were probably gathered rather than cultivated. Remains of L. siceraria were found in Egyptian tombs dated about 3300-3500 B.C. (Whitaker and Bemis 1976). Thus gourds were cultivated in the New World much earlier than in Egypt.
Uhh Bernard, I was reading your work, and umm... I see you mentioned gourds didn't appear in Egypt until 3300-3500 BCE. Well this would be wrong.
quote: Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.
Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.
But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans.
Thank you for a fact-based and footnoted reply. The problem is that Lagenaria siceraria the "bottle gourd" is not edible. thus we are referring to different gourds. Unfortunately Ehret's paper does not provide a botanical name so identification is not crystal clear.
Here is more recent paper on the topic: D. L. Erickson, et al. 2006 “An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas,” roc. Natl Acad. Sci. (USA) 102: 18315-18320.
quote:New genetic and archaeological approaches have substantially improved our understanding of the transition to agriculture, a major turning point in human history that began 10,000–5,000 years ago with the independent domestication of plants and animals in eight world regions. In the Americas, however, understanding the initial domestication of New World species has long been complicated by the early presence of an African enigma, the bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria). Indigenous to Africa, it reached East Asia by 9,000–8,000 before present (B.P.) and had a broad New World distribution by 8,000 B.P. Here we integrate genetic and archaeological approaches to address a set of long-standing core questions regarding the introduction of the bottle gourd into the Americas. Did it reach the New World directly from Africa or through Asia? Was it transported by humans or ocean currents? Was it wild or domesticated upon arrival? Fruit rind thickness values and accelerator mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating of archaeological specimens indicate that the bottle gourd was present in the Americas as a domesticated plant by 10,000 B.P., placing it among the earliest domesticates in the New World. Ancient DNA sequence analysis of archaeological bottle gourd specimens and comparison with modern Asian and African landraces identify Asia as the source of its introduction. We suggest that the bottle gourd and the dog, two ‘‘utility’’ species, were domesticated long before any food crops or livestock species, and that both were brought to the Americas by Paleoindian populations as they colonized the New World.
posted
Note: I wasn't making a connection between Egypt and the Americas, I was just noting domestication occurred in Africa, in situ, earlier than thought.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why do you think I didn't read your racist insults in "Robbing Native American Cultures"? Explain how I misinterpreted you. I understand you want to focus on plants. However I'm not an expert so I wont know if your lying, again. I do however know a thing or two about Nile Valley. So I want to know if you still hold your racist views expressed in "Robbing Native American Cultures", especially under "The Colossal Olmec Heads"? If I have misrepresented what you have said please do explain.
Don't want to expose yourself eh?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ]In relation to the Mayan zodiac Sharer wrote:” The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen houses” (months) or a 13 uinal (month) 20 k’in (day ) . Are you disagreeing with Sharer?
quote:As often happens, we can’t tell where Sharer ends and Winters begins. Where are the ending quotation marks? What page is this supposed to be in? I went through every index entry in Sharer for calendar, and— SURPRISE Sharer did not say “The ancient Maya may have had a zodiac, composed of thirteen house (months”). I did not expect him to say any such thing, and the word “zodiac” does not occur in the index. Zodiac is not used in referring to the Mayan calendar- the word is not in the index of Coe, Sharer, Schele, Thompson, and other standard texts on the Maya.
However, the time was not wasted because I got some interesting quotes from Sharer (whom you cite as an authority)
pp. 556-557 “It now appears that by the Late Preclassic the Maya had begun to use a system of numeration by position—one that is, much like our own, involving the use of the mathematical concept of zero, a notable intellectual accomplishment and apparently the earliest known instance of this concept in the world.”
pp. 560 “The three cyclic counts most frequently used by the ancient Maya—the 260-day sacred almanac, the 365-day vague year, and the 52-year calendar round— are very old concepts, shared by all Mesoamerican peoples... .. The Long Count operated independently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronology, by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date, deep in the past, to reach a given day recorded by these two basic calendar cycles.”
pp. 562 The sacred almanac was not divided into months, but was, rather a single succession of 260 days, each day uniquely designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before one of the twenty Maya day names.” So your postulated “zodiac” of 13 “months” of 20 days DID NOT EXIST among the Maya.
and on June 14
quote: I notice that you have not admitted that you made up a quote supposedly written by Sharer. Your own cited reference Sharer 5th ed. points out that the 260-day ritual "tzolkin was not considered to have "months" but just to run a continuous series of 260 days., I guess he is the great deceiver.
The 260 day cycle consists of the complete cycle constructed by the interlocking of the first 13 numbers with the 20 named days. The fact that there are 20 days, means that the 13 numbers represents months. A calendar is a register of the months and days of a year. You can not have a calendar without months and days.
The sacre calendar of Native Americans has 260 days (20 x 13=260). Oh you great Deciever why do you keep lying when you know that a month for the Maya was 20 days, and if there were 13 of these twenty day periods in the sacre calendar these 13 periods had to be months.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Note: I wasn't making a connection between Egypt and the Americas, I was just noting domestication occurred in Africa, in situ, earlier than thought.
OK. Still, the quote you cited referred to the inedible bottle gourd, which did appear late as I pointed out. From my paper in Hallofmaat
quote:Specimens [of bottle gourd] were found in Zambia and South Africa dated at about 2000 B.C. and in Kenya dated about 800 B.C. (Sauer 1994: 51).
quote:OK. Still, the quote you cited referred to the inedible bottle gourd, which did appear late as I pointed out. From my paper in Hallofmaat
Actually no. It refers to the edible bottle gourd.
quote: But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why do you think I didn't read your racist insults in "Robbing Native American Cultures"? Explain how I misinterpreted you. I understand you want to focus on plants. However I'm not an expert so I wont know if your lying, again. I do however know a thing or two about Nile Valley. So I want to know if you still hold your racist views expressed in "Robbing Native American Cultures", especially under "The Colossal Olmec Heads"? If I have misrepresented what you have said please do explain. Don't want to expose yourself eh?
Since you haven't read it or looked at the figures, how do you know what I said? The whole question of who is or isn't "black" is a swamp as we can see from the inexaustible and vituperous discussions on ES on this topic. Focus on dolicocephalic and prognathous in regard to the Olmec heads.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since you haven't read it or looked at the figures, how do you know what I said? The whole question of who is or isn't "black" is a swamp as we can see from the inexaustible and vituperous discussions on ES on this topic. Focus on dolicocephalic and prognathous in regard to the Olmec heads.
Don't play this game with me old man. We are talking "social races" (know that term?), and you know damn well what I mean by "black". Which is why you even used Brace 1993 (of all studies) to "debunk" the so-called Afrocentric argument that Nile Valley inhabitants were black. And this, "Some Afrocentrists have argued that modern populations of Egyptians and Nubians look different from those of antiquity, but both Trigger (1978) and Berry, Berry, and Ucko (1967) point to a "remarkable degree of homogeneity" in this area for 5,000 years." As if you even knew what was said here.
I ask again, "do you still think Nubians and Egyptians don't have phenotype of the "slave ancestors of African-Americans"?Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Accordingly, civilization was said to have originated with the "black" peoples of the Upper Nile in Ethiopia and the Sudan and to have been transmitted from there to the ancient Egyptians, also defined as "black" regardless of their skin color and their other physical characteristics.
Salsassin, since you seem to have this belief that Ancient Egyptians weren't indigenous East Africans.
Like these individuals
But instead you think they looked like this....
I therefore propose this evidence, in hope of a serious rebuttal. A scholarly reply.....??
The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests.The results indicate overallpopulation continuity over the Predynastic and earlyDynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, therebysuggesting that state formation occurred as a mainlyindigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied. Am J Phys Anthropol 132:501–509, 2007.
Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid”body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).
This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicatesthat the Egyptians generallyhave tropical bodyplans.Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clusteredtogether as compared to the other populations. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------
Christopher Ehret
"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
------
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
---------
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.
During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The people claimed by Van Sertima and other Afrocentrists to have influenced the Olmecs (and to be the models for the heads) are Nubians or Egyptians, that is, North and East Africans, whereas the slave ancestors of African-Americans came primarily from tropical West Africa. These groups are very different and do not look alike. [17] Flat noses are particularly inappropriate as racial markers, because the shape of the nose is primarily a function of climatic factors such as the ambient temperature and the moisture content of the air.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold the phone, what is this about? Please explain? Slave ancestors??
Don't look alike?
East Africans
hmmm I see some sort of an epicanthal eye fold on this East African Dinka
West Africans
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK. Still, the quote you cited referred to the inedible bottle gourd, which did appear late as I pointed out. From my paper in Hallofmaat
Actually no. It refers to the edible bottle gourd.
quote: But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans.
You forced me to do some research. I have Ehret 1993 what it says on p. 119 is :
quote:... no later than the proto-Sahelian period, which followed the proto-Saharo-Sahelian era and is estimated to have been about the mid-seventh millennium. the linguistic evidence also suggests something not yet followed up in archaeological investigations: thus this period may have seen the domestication of indigenous cucurbits in the Saharo-Sudanese neolithic.
note that at this time all he had was linguistic evidence-- but it refers to cucurbits not Lagenaria
I googled and found the Ehret citation you started with to find his footnotes, which actually were sloppy and his source for botanical identification. Ehret's source is Wendorf, et al. 1992 [not 1982] "Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P." Nature 359: 721-723. Basically, in an excavation in southermost Egypt Wendorf et al found carbonized remains they identified as cucurbits not Lagenaria
If you go to Heiser, C. B. (the accepted expert on gourds) 1979 The Gourd Book Norman: University of Oklahoma Press Heiser points out that common names are confusing.
on p. 4 Heiser a gourd [like Lagenaria ]are "hard-shelled durable fruit grown for ornaments, utensils, and general interest."
on pp 5-7
quote:{cucurbits} members of the family are not very common in the wild in the United States (withthe exceptioin of the Buffalo gourd in the Southwest), but some of them are very familiar in cultivation. they include pumpkins and squashes, various species of the genus Cucurbita; the watermelon, Citrullus vulgaris; and the cucumber and muskmelon, different species of Cucumis
]
It is clear that the word "gourd" used by Ehret is misleading what was cultivated were the edibleCucurbits like cucumbers etc. But not what I was dealing with the hard-shelled inedibleLagenariaPosts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: You forced me to do some research. I have Ehret 1993 what it says on p. 119 is :
Well, that's the wrong paper. This paper, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture" was published in 1996. In this paper he clearly states edible gourds.
quote:But not what I was dealing with the hard-shelled inedible Lagenaria
Oh, so now it's the inedible ones?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: TE]Salsassin, since you seem to have this belief that Ancient Egyptians weren't indigenous East Africans.
I an not Salsassin and I've never said that Egyptians were not native Africans. so the following is irrelevant.
L
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: TE]Salsassin, since you seem to have this belief that Ancient Egyptians weren't indigenous East Africans.
I an not Salsassin and I've never said that Egyptians were not native Africans. so the following is irrelevant.
L
Actually it's completely relevant as I was reading your work and you seem to think Ancient Egyptians were not, as you put it "black Africans".
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: TE]Salsassin, since you seem to have this belief that Ancient Egyptians weren't indigenous East Africans.
I an not Salsassin and I've never said that Egyptians were not native Africans. so the following is irrelevant.
L
Actually it's completely relevant as I was reading your work and you seem to think Ancient Egyptians were not, as you put it "black Africans".
As I pointed out the question of "black" is a swamp that immediately gets vituperous and contentious. Basalt is a black rock and is not evidence in and of its own. Our argument about the Olmec heads NOT being images of Egyptians does not hinge on the color of the statues.
Since you and I have a reasonable conversation going, I’ll explain the reasoning behind the statements in the paper. The great majority of the slaves that came from Africa to the United States came from sub-Saharan West Africa as shown in the following http://wysinger.homestead.com/mapofafricadiaspora.html. The reason why Van Sertima’s or Winters’ proposals resonate with African Americans is that when they see the black basalt colossal Olmec Heads they have an immediate (but superficial reaction) “they look like us!” They are immediately receptive and uncritical to the rest of the “evidence” proposed. We had to deal with the question that, in fact, there is an enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation in Africa— the Khoisan, Akan, Senegalese, Egyptian, etc. etc. are ALL African but they don’t look alike. Because of the enormous variation that exists in Africa you can produce photographs to prove almost anything (as we see to excess is ES ). However, there are generalities that apply to the majority of people in a particular ecologic situation for example—people all over the world that live in dry environments (deserts, high altitudes) have longer noses because they need to moisten the air before it reaches the lungs. The point is that when we really take a good look at ALL 19 Olmec heads they do not resemble EITHER Egyptians OR people from Benin (as a representative sub-Saharan West African) so that neither Van Sertima’s Egyptians (particularly in his revised time table of 1100 BC nor Winters’ Mande were the models for these heads. The money quote from p. 423 of the paper
quote: The people represented in the Olmec sculptures had short, round, flat faces with thick lips, flat noses, and epicanthic folds; that is, they resembled people who still live in the tropical lowlands of Mexico (see figs. 10 and 11).
i.e. flat noses but not prognathous or dolicocephalic.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I pointed out the question of "black" is a swamp that immediately gets vituperous and contentious.
Indeed, I'll admit, it(black) can be subjective. But, I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you to please give me an example of what you mean by "black African"??
The rest of the post is irrelevant as I'm not arguing for Africans as the Olmecs. I point out that genetic and anthropological evidences provide clear indication of Asian genetic lineages and skeletal morphology. The fault of Clyde is limited understanding of OOA.
OOA provides evidence confirming that African-Australian resembling humans, inhabited East Asia during the Paleolithic, but not as a direct migration from Africa(as Clyde would want to believe), but as a result of expansion of OOA migrants. Since one of the confirmation stipulations are to find skeletons/skulls similar to those in Australia, Asia, Europe, and the Americas around the time of OOA. This confirms OOA. (Out Of Africa)
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Our argument about the Olmec heads NOT being images of Egyptians does not hinge on the color of the statues.
Straw man.
quote: The reason why Van Sertima’s or Winters’ proposals resonate with African Americans is that when they see the black basalt colossal Olmec Heads they have an immediate (but superficial reaction) “they look like us!” They are immediately receptive and uncritical to the rest of the “evidence” proposed.
Notice this racist bastard talks about African Americans in the most condescending way as fools only capable of superficial reasoning.
Notice too that he misrepresents Van Sertima who never said ALL 19 Olmec heads were Africans. And when the Great Deceiver talks of "generalities that apply to the majority of people" he over looks the fact that even as you can find Egyptian and Nubians that don't "look like" the heads you can find native Americans that don't look like the heads either. So when he condescendingly talks of blacks as having immediate but superficial reaction to the heads he is really confessing his superficiality.
If Africa has enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation why did you selectively choose those Nubians when there are clearly others that "look like us!"? If Africa has enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation how can you imply Africans didn't have epicanthic folds? You admit your deception when you said photographs can prove almost anything, well isn't that what you where trying to do: provide pictorial "evidence" that the Egyptians and Nubians didn't look like stereotypical true Negro, or even native African? Which is exactly why you used Brace and Cavalli-Sforza with their nineteenth century craniology and theories of "Caucasian Ethiopians". You knew damn well what "black" was and you were out to prove Nile Valley civilisation was not black.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: TE]Salsassin, since you seem to have this belief that Ancient Egyptians weren't indigenous East Africans.
I an not Salsassin and I've never said that Egyptians were not native Africans. so the following is irrelevant.
L
The reason why Van Sertima’s or Winters’ proposals resonate with African Americans is that when they see the black basalt colossal Olmec Heads they have an immediate (but superficial reaction) “they look like us!” They are immediately receptive and uncritical to the rest of the “evidence” proposed. We had to deal with the question that, in fact, there is an enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation in Africa— the Khoisan, Akan, Senegalese, Egyptian, etc. etc. are ALL African but they don’t look alike.
Yes there blacks of africa that do not look exactly alike but if they look black they bascially do look alike despite the varied looks. The ethnic groups, the french,english,germans and folks of sweden do not look exactly alike either but they all like white,so they basically look alike.the point is you could tell a white from a black PERSON WHEN YOU SEE THEM despite variation of looks in all groups.
So a ancient egyptian that looks black is going to look like a black person from senegal,or a person from sweden is going to look like someone from greece or germany,or someone from laos is going to look alike some ONE from japan.
Brothers and sisters at times from the same family will not exactly look alike either,alot do but some do not but you could tell THEY have the same background.
There are folks in the same ethnic background that do not look exactly alike either, EVEN IF RACIALLY THEY LOOK THE SAME
.(OF COURSE THERE ARE A FEW BLACKS WHO DO NOT LOOK BLACK OR EXACTLY BLACK BUT WANT TO BE CALLED BLACK.)
example- jessica simpson does not look exactly like katie holmes but they do look alike racially or they do look white,so they belong to the same group.same thing goes for africans that look black or east asians that look like east asians.
If a black ancient egyptian or a black person from mali was living in the u.s. in the 50's, he or she will be ask to sit at the back of the bus because they are black and look black.
quote: Our argument about the Olmec heads NOT being images of Egyptians does not hinge on the color of the statues.
Straw man.
quote: The reason why Van Sertima’s or Winters’ proposals resonate with African Americans is that when they see the black basalt colossal Olmec Heads they have an immediate (but superficial reaction) “they look like us!” They are immediately receptive and uncritical to the rest of the “evidence” proposed.
Notice this racist bastard talks about African Americans in the most condescending way as fools only capable of superficial reasoning.
Notice too that he misrepresents Van Sertima who never said ALL 19 Olmec heads were Africans. And when the Great Deceiver talks of "generalities that apply to the majority of people" he over looks the fact that even as you can find Egyptian and Nubians that don't "look like" the heads you can find native Americans that don't look like the heads either. So when he condescendingly talks of blacks as having immediate but superficial reaction to the heads he is really confessing his superficiality.
If Africa has enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation why did you selectively choose those Nubians when there are clearly others that "look like us!"? If Africa has enormous amount of both genetic and morphological variation how can you imply Africans didn't have epicanthic folds? You admit your deception when you said photographs can prove almost anything, well isn't that what you where trying to do: provide pictorial "evidence" that the Egyptians and Nubians didn't look like stereotypical true Negro, or even native African? Which is exactly why you used Brace and Cavalli-Sforza with their nineteenth century craniology and theories of "Caucasian Ethiopians". You knew damn well what "black" was and you were out to prove Nile Valley civilisation was not black.
THERE IS SO MUCH PROOF SHOWING EARLY NUBIANS,MOST MODERN NUBIANS AND MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS LOOK CLEARLY BLACK and they look like west africans and central africans.
THESE GUYS NEVER GIVE UP.I get tired dealing with folks like this,that's why i do not read blogs as much anymore.anyone could say anything that's false.that's why i stick to books that have good historians etc..instead of going to websites these days.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I pointed out the question of "black" is a swamp that immediately gets vituperous and contentious.
Indeed, I'll admit, it(black) can be subjective. But, I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you to please give me an example of what you mean by "black African"??
The rest of the post is irrelevant as I'm not arguing for Africans as the Olmecs. I point out that genetic and anthropological evidences provide clear indication of Asian genetic lineages and skeletal morphology. The fault of Clyde is limited understanding of OOA.
OOA provides evidence confirming that African-Australian resembling humans, inhabited East Asia during the Paleolithic, but not as a direct migration from Africa(as Clyde would want to believe), but as a result of expansion of OOA migrants. Since one of the confirmation stipulations are to find skeletons/skulls similar to those in Australia, Asia, Europe, and the Americas around the time of OOA. This confirms OOA. (Out Of Africa)
And what is all this talk of Slave Ancestors...? LOL....you all out Clyde for misunderstanding History and make a generalized racist comment like Slave Ancestors, when the Native Americans especially those decended from the Mexica, Incas, and other Meso Americans were the Slaves BEFORE us African Americans...LOL...and the sad part is it happened in your own land by Europeans...The only reason African Slaves were brought over was to replace your people so don't start feeling your self.....
Second, how are the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians not a representation of a Black African state..? Where is your evidence of a Non Black..Non African origin and peopling of Egypt and Nubia..?
Last I checked Egypt, its culture, people, religion, and state came from the South of Africa amoung people we would label black....
Debates over the ancestral origins of Ancient Egypt continue to this present day, despite numerous conclusive scientific studies which all seem to point in the same direction. Because the Badarians were obviously ancestors of the ancient Egyptians, numerous anthropological studies were performed after two successful excavations were made in the mid- to late-1920s. Summarizing the results of them all, in 1971 Physical Anthropologist Eugen Strouhal, discusses and re-analyzes over a dozen independent scientific studies (a couple of which were his own) performed previously. He concludes that the Badarians were predominantly a mixture of races: ...the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small [in the sample of 117 Badarian skulls studied] (6-8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12.9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. It can be interpreted by the supposition that the mixture of both components began many generations previously (The Journal of African History, 1971, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 1-9).
In the end of his paper, Strouhal further enumerates several archaeological studies that point to a migration of cultural knowledge (actually, lack of knowledge) and practices and beliefs from African regions located to the west and south of the Badarian sites.
That is just the tip of the Ice Berg...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That comment was for Quetxqaut non Knowledge..sorry...
I thought I quoted Quetzquatl
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Badari The Badarian culture provides the earliest direct evidence of agriculture in Upper Egypt. It flourished between 4500 to 3250 BCE, and might have already existed as far back as 5000 BCE. It was first identified in El-Badari, Asyut.
Ancestral origins The Badarian culture seems to have had multiple sources, of which the Western Desert was probably the most influential. Badari culture was probably not restricted to solely the Badari region, because related finds have been made farther to the south at Mahgar Dendera, Armant, Elkab and Nekhen (named Hierakonpolis by the Greeks) and to the east in the Wadi Hammamat.
Near the end of his paper (1971), Professor Strouhal further enumerated several archaeological studies that suggest a migration of culture, practice and belief from African regions located to the west and south of the Badarian sites. Strouhal's work is noted in a 2005 study of the Badari which concluded: "The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Second, how are the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians not a representation of a Black African state..? Where is your evidence of a Non Black..Non African origin and peopling of Egypt and Nubia..?
Last I checked Egypt, its culture, people, religion, and state came from the South of Africa amoung people we would label black....
Badarian - Ancestral origins
Debates over the ancestral origins of Ancient Egypt continue to this present day, despite numerous conclusive scientific studies which all seem to point in the same direction. Because the Badarians were obviously ancestors of the ancient Egyptians, numerous anthropological studies were performed after two successful excavations were made in the mid- to late-1920s. Summarizing the results of them all, in 1971 Physical Anthropologist Eugen Strouhal, discusses and re-analyzes over a dozen independent scientific studies (a couple of which were his own) performed previously. He concludes that the Badarians were predominantly a mixture of races: ...the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small [in the sample of 117 Badarian skulls studied] (6-8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12.9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. It can be interpreted by the supposition that the mixture of both components began many generations previously (The Journal of African History, 1971, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 1-9).
posted
Anthropologist do not know the name for the Amerind sacred calendar or the 13 numbers so they gave it a name. The Maya, for example, in using the calendar allowed them to recognize the seasonal events. For example, we see the moon for a period of 20 days, and then the moon is waxing for 13 days.
In addition to studying the moon, the Maya were also interested in Venus. The third brightest star in the heavens is Venus. Among the Maya, Venus is associated with several events of the maize cycle : 1) planting maize with Venus of morning star ; and Venus as evening star when maize grows.
A significant aspect of American calendrics is the wedding of rituals and the Sacred Round. We see Twenty Signs at intervals of 13. The Four year Bearers are Rabbit, Reed, Flint and House. If you look carefully at the almanac we see ritual plants/trees elk/deer,heart , crescent moon, (Royal) Lord, bowl, four world quarters, bird. In addition to these elements we see a number of Toltec gods: Black Elk, Hill Heart, Maize God and etc. and Nine Figures.
.
Here we see another Toltec almanac. In this calendar we see many cultural elements of Toltec society including the crocodile, bird, trees/plants,deer, snake, sun, and moon
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Anthropologist do not know the name for the Amerind sacred calendar or the 13 numbers so they gave it a name.
Just showing ignorance. WE know the Aztec name perfectly well tonalpohualli "count of the days". The Yucatec Maya Diccionario Cordemex on p 384 lists tsol'kin as the name for this 260-day sacred calendar .
quote:The Maya, for example, in using the calendar allowed them to recognize the seasonal events. For example, we see the moon for a period of 20 days, and then the moon is waxing for 13 days.
In addition to studying the moon, the Maya were also interested in Venus. The third brightest star in the heavens is Venus. Among the Maya, Venus is associated with several events of the maize cycle : 1) planting maize with Venus of morning star ; and Venus as evening star when maize grows.
Humbug. You have no references for this.
quote:
A significant aspect of American calendrics is the wedding of rituals and the Sacred Round. We see Twenty Signs at intervals of 13. The Four year Bearers are Rabbit, Reed, Flint and House. If you look carefully at the almanac we see ritual plants/trees elk/deer,heart , crescent moon, (Royal) Lord, bowl, four world quarters, bird. In addition to these elements we see a number of Toltec gods: Black Elk, Hill Heart, Maize God and etc. and Nine Figures.[
This is NOT a Toltec or Maya tonalpohualli. Its folio 1 of the Fejervary-Mayer Codex that belongs to the Borgia group of codices. There is no such god in Mesoamerica as "Black Elk". You just make up things as you go along-- it only shows the depth of your ignorance. .
quote:
Here we see another Toltec almanac. In this calendar we see many cultural elements of Toltec society including the crocodile, bird, trees/plants,deer, snake, sun, and moon
.
This representation is clearly colonial and definitely NOT toltec. The bottom line-- more spam to avoid acknowledging that the supposed PROOF by the (unknown provenance 19th century) 2 not 3 calabashes from West Africa that the Mande taught the Olmecs about a supposed 13 unit zodiac is totally worthless.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
This Quetzalcoatl boy must have went to the Marc Washington school of scholarship. The links below blow your race mythology lies completely out of the water.
LOL! We don't buy Marc's photoshop make believe and we're certainly not buy yours.
As someone said "You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts"
Curtin began the myth that only 10 million Africans came to the Americas. This was a guesstimation. Back in the 1970's there was considerable debate showing that this was just revisionist history.
posted
You don't know what you're talking about Prudence M. Rice, in Maya Calendar Origins (see chapter 1, makes it clear that we don't know the name of the Mayan sacre calendar.
Gordon Brotherston, in Image of the New World (pp.139-141 discussed the Toltec calendar discussed below. I am quoting his discription of the artifact. He wrote: "The emblem from which the tree between Tlaloc and his partner Hill Heart grows is a bowl, like that shown to Black Elk, with the sky reflected in it, while the opposite, between Dead Land Lord and Maize-God, is the sign Ground positioned to show a deep hole"(p.140).
Quetzalcoatl you Great Deciever....You.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Anthropologist do not know the name for the Amerind sacred calendar or the 13 numbers so they gave it a name.
Just showing ignorance. WE know the Aztec name perfectly well tonalpohualli "count of the days". The Yucatec Maya Diccionario Cordemex on p 384 lists tsol'kin as the name for this 260-day sacred calendar .
quote:The Maya, for example, in using the calendar allowed them to recognize the seasonal events. For example, we see the moon for a period of 20 days, and then the moon is waxing for 13 days.
In addition to studying the moon, the Maya were also interested in Venus. The third brightest star in the heavens is Venus. Among the Maya, Venus is associated with several events of the maize cycle : 1) planting maize with Venus of morning star ; and Venus as evening star when maize grows.
Humbug. You have no references for this.
quote:
A significant aspect of American calendrics is the wedding of rituals and the Sacred Round. We see Twenty Signs at intervals of 13. The Four year Bearers are Rabbit, Reed, Flint and House. If you look carefully at the almanac we see ritual plants/trees elk/deer,heart , crescent moon, (Royal) Lord, bowl, four world quarters, bird. In addition to these elements we see a number of Toltec gods: Black Elk, Hill Heart, Maize God and etc. and Nine Figures.[
This is NOT a Toltec or Maya tonalpohualli. Its folio 1 of the Fejervary-Mayer Codex that belongs to the Borgia group of codices. There is no such god in Mesoamerica as "Black Elk". You just make up things as you go along-- it only shows the depth of your ignorance. .
quote:
Here we see another Toltec almanac. In this calendar we see many cultural elements of Toltec society including the crocodile, bird, trees/plants,deer, snake, sun, and moon
.
This representation is clearly colonial and definitely NOT toltec. The bottom line-- more spam to avoid acknowledging that the supposed PROOF by the (unknown provenance 19th century) 2 not 3 calabashes from West Africa that the Mande taught the Olmecs about a supposed 13 unit zodiac is totally worthless.
Prudence M. Rice in Maya Calendar Origin, makes it clear that the Maya sacre calendar of 13 month 20 days include the day names: ‘rain, Lord, world, snake ,deer and rabbit (see p.34). This is interesting because the same characters are found on the 13month calabash from West Africa.
Mande calendrics are the result of a combination climatic, social andastronomical factors. The moon, seasons and stars are used for reckoning time. The major star studied by the Mande is Sirius.
Mats play an important role in Mande calculations. The mat and mat motifs play an important role in Mayan society as well.
If you look at this calabash you will notice that in the center of the calabash we have a figure that resembles the Kanaga sign. It also very interesting that this Kanaga figure also includes a mat constituting the central design in the figure.
The characters on this calabash are explained by Mande cosmology. We see the following charaters on this almanac.
1. 2 lizards pointing out the four directions (North, South, East and West) plus the mat in the center of the four directions. These lizard figures probably represent the world. 2. Antelope (deer) 3. 7 circles or the Pleides 4. butterfly 5. bow/ double sword 6. grain/tree 7. 2 people representing humanity and the headrest denoting royalty in African societies 8. Crescent Moon & star (Venus?) 9. heart or ace of club figure 10. rabbit/hare 11. crocodile & snake 12. Crane 13. Calabash or bowl
These figures on the Calabash are ritual emblems associated with Malinke-Bambara.The Malinke-Bambara recognized the Sirius system in their cosmology.
In relation to the Lizard in facing upward we see the calabash or bowl on the right hand side. This calabash may represent the water bowl of Faro, the leading god of the Bambara. On the left hand side of this Lizard we see the seven circles, which are believed to have represented the seven stars of the Pleides. Among the Malinke-Bambara and other West African people the Pleides was a marker of the growing season.
The second Lizard is facing left. Above the right arm we see the seven stars of the Pleides. Below the right are we see the double sword which may represent Orion’s sword. Orion’s sword is that region of the sky below Orion’s belt that includes the Orion Nebula. It is interesting that in relation to the Pleides and Sword of Orion, we see the rabbit/hare. This is most interesting because Orion was said to be the hunter of the hare/rabbit.
The Antelope is believed to have taught human beings to farm. It relates to the Malinke-Bambara tradition that a half-man half-antelope introduced agriculture to mankind.
The Crane is also related to Malinke-Bambara tradition. Among the Bambara the Crested Crane is credited with the birth of speech.
The adult figure on the calabash and the head rest make it clear that this figure represented a Lord of dignitary. Finally the heart shaped or ace of clubs figure probably represents the flani da. The flani da symbolized the One Creator.
This interpretation of the calabash from the Guinea coast suggest that it records some event that involved agriculture. It also suggest that it corresponds to Malinke-Bambara traditions.
The Maya day signs: Lord ,World, snake, deer, and rabbit are found on the sacre calendar of the Maya. As noted above these same signs are found on the Guinea calabash calendar (or almanac ?). We have shown how the signs on the Guinea calabash are explained by Malinke-Bamabara ideology. The similarity in Mayan and Malinke-Bambara ideology found in the calendrics can best be explained by the fact that the Maya and other Amerind groups got this calendar from the Olmecs, who I have shown spoke Malinke-Bambara. These shared ideology for the figures on the sacre Mayan calendars and the Guinea coast calabash support the view of Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America that the calendars were related.
In summary this calabash confirms the theory of Leo Wiener, that the Mayan sacre calendar was related to calendars in West Africa.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: As someone said "You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts
Your post only contained a link with trumped up numbers and then ascribed to groups that the writer feels will best serve eurocentric propaganda.
You can't even explain how the number's were achieved or how accurate they were. Plus on top of that it either intentionally or unintentionally left off several other areas/regions.
Which means if it was intentional then they purposefully engaged in deception and false information. If it was unintentional then they are merely unscholarly, incompetent, and have low intellect.
In either case it means that your sources of sloppy scholarship are not worth a doodie ball in a sceptic tank and so are dismissed like the last class on a Friday.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). However, there are generalities that apply to the majority of people in a particular ecologic situation for example—people all over the world that live in dry environments (deserts, high altitudes) have longer noses because they need to moisten the air before it reaches the lungs. The point is that when we really take a good look at ALL 19 Olmec heads they do not resemble EITHER Egyptians OR people from Benin (as a representative sub-Saharan West African) so that neither Van Sertima’s Egyptians (particularly in his revised time table of 1100 BC nor Winters’ Mande were the models for these heads. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic