posted
Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:
posted
Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?
The mainstream media jumped all over Kinnewick man but no one seems to talk about Luiza. So again, is it possible that the first native americans were Black and mixed with migrating Asians later. Were the Olmecs possibly related to Luiza?
Skull alters theory on colonization of Americas RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) Anthropologists unveiled the oldest known human fossil from the Americas on Monday, a woman's skull with African features that could revolutionize theories about the continent's early inhabitants.
The fossil — first discovered in Brazil in 1975 but only recently found to come from a woman who lived 11,500 years ago — shows there were human beings on the continent long before Asian immigration, said anthropologist Ricardo Ventura Santos.
"This is a piece that, in practice, is important toward understanding ... the settlement of the Americas," said Ventura Santos, of the National Museum and the prestigious Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).
"There's a lot of curiosity about it, that's why we're showing it to the media today."
Scientists dubbed the woman "Luiza," Brazil's answer to the famed "Lucy," just over a year ago when new methods proved she was the earliest known American. Luiza's namesake is a 3.2 million-year-old human ancestor found in Ethiopia and now on display in a Paris museum.
Scientists say Luiza was a nomad who wandered with about a dozen relatives in an area of what is now central Brazil, eating the natural vegetation or, on occasion, animal meat. She died at around age 20 in some sort of accident.
Before Luiza's appearance, paleontologists had been working on the theory that the earliest Americans were the Asian ancestors of the Indians that European colonizers encountered when they arrived on the American continents 500 years ago.
These ancestors would have come from what we now know as Siberia and Mongolia, having crossed the Bering Strait between Asia and North America on a glacial bridge at the end of the last Ice Age.
About a year ago, archaeologist Walter Neves, one of the few specialists in human paleontology in Brazil, took an interest in the unusual shape of Luiza's skull, which had been packed away for decades in the museum's vast archives.
He believed the skull, which had been found in a 13-meter-deep cavern in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, showed Negroid features rather than the Mongoloid features typical of Brazil's Indians.
"Its characteristics are very different in relation to the native population. Therefore, it has a very big importance, above all in explaining the settlement of the Americas and also for the history of humanity," said Jose Henrique Vilhena, UFRJ's director.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people. Whether from Europeans or Africans...they always interpret the evidence in the manner they wish...all to support White Supremacist claims to this land ("The Indigenous people weren't here first. They wiped out this other people. Therefore, what Europeans did and continue to do in occupying our land is ok.") Give me a break.
Posts: 34 | From: Turtle Island | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:nicantlaca13As Wrote: As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:
Dont mind Clyde winters no one takes him seriously anyways, the history of Abya Yala belongs to your people regardless of how many freaks claim the opposite. Don't waste energy on proving the obvious.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people. Whether from Europeans or Africans
Well the earliest Native Americans were neccessarily either from Asia, and or Europe and or Pacifica and or Africa.
The real beef you should have is the double standard that implies that if they were from NorthEast Asia - that makes them *native americans* - and not say, Asians, or Siberians, or Chinese - but if they are from anywhere else, then supposedily this invalidates their native status.
If you think it through logically - it doesn't matter where Paleo-Americans came from - they are still the original/indigenous/native Americans.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:
Whatever your beef with Dr. Winters you cannot escape the fact of African influence on ancient America. The debate with Winters is really a distraction from this fact.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Don't come with this stuff. Everybody tries to bring up all this so-called evidence to say other people were before Indigenous people.
Only Africans are indigenous to their geography so I am not following your logic.
Lets stay on topic here. I am not supporting Clyde's argument but rather positing my own.
Here's my point: African features found in Olmec art can easily be explained by the skeletal remains of the first wave of migrants known as the Paleo-Indians. Paleo-Indians intermarried with the Clover culture to such a degree that their phenotype has not been well preserved but are indeed part of the diversity of modern day peoples of central America.
Not sure what your issue is with that. Its still your heritage and no one elses.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming OlmecsPosts: 34 | From: Turtle Island | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Go to the following link to read how Clyde Winters has fabricated lies about the "Tutul Xiu," a people he claims 1) were of Mande descent and 2) introduced writing to the Maya. I've clearly refuted his claims with the very source he used to base them. He has yet to dispute my rebuttal, point by point. Instead, he posts irrelevant and long explanations meant to overwhelm the reader with his supposed authority in the material. In addition, he continues to use immature personal attacks to back up his lies. As an Indigenous person of Abya Yala (the continent known as the Americas today), I continue to defend the heritage of my people from those who wish to take credit for our accomplishments (read: steal). We do not appreciate other people's attempts to basically claim that we were savages before somebody else brought us civilization. Again, go to this link to find out more:
Whatever your beef with Dr. Winters you cannot escape the fact of African influence on ancient America. The debate with Winters is really a distraction from this fact.
Since all people are necessarily African then all cultures have necessarily African influence. When does a culture exhibit indigenous influence is the question that needs to be explored.
I would stand on the theory that Olmec culture is indigenous since the people that defines it did not bring the culture from somewhere else but rather developed it in situ.
What is indigenous? In situ evolution or cultural innovations are by defintion indigenous. Significant aspects of Olmec culture is indigneous and I do not buy the Mande connection.
Olmec culture is indigenous to the people of central America. Its their heritage and not an African one. Of course, however, the first people to arrive in America were tropically adapted and probably similar to people of the Andaman islands.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs
I have seen the video before. Thats a lot of effort. However, please answer my questions. Was Luiza not a Negrito similar to South-East Asian Islanders?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: Thanks for your responses. For a very well-done video rebuttal of Winters, Luiza as "Black" or "African," and the supposed "African influence on ancient America," visit: For Afrocentrics claiming Olmecs
LMAO! Saw the rubbish youtube video. Yep, this guy is definitely Salsassin/Jamie and based on his reply Osirion has no idea what I was talking about.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the problem Osirion for Nicantlaca13/Xicano. He wants to deny the history of African people in the Americas. Luiza was not the only Black in the Americas. Research indicates that the first people enter America from Siberia were Bushman and Pygmy type people.
I feel soory for you. This video by Jaime presents no contradictions of the evidence given in my film. You make it appear that Blacks were not native to America, why spread this lie when Marquez and Irwin also found Negro skulls and Luiza, the oldest skeleton found in the Americas was a Negro. You are racist denying the existence of Blacks in America before the Amerindians. Provide a date for the earliest Amerind skeleton found in Mexico. Wiercinski,Marquez, Irwin talk about Black skeletons.
You know nothing , the earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).
By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza.Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Xiczno, cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.
Dr. Wiercinski compared Olmec crania to sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda . Wiercinski's Olmec crania represent the Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid types. These terms are euphemisms for the "Hamitic Race" Blacks with caucasian features or plain Negroes. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of Negro.Other researchers found Negro skeletons in Mexico:Marquez Estudios arqueologicas y ethcograficas (1956, 179-80) and Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces.
We have numerous ancient skeletons of early American Negroes. Where are the skeletal remains of American Indians.If they were in the Americas before Negroes, there would be skeletons of these people like the skeletons of Negroes.
You have to admit that the first homosapiens to leave Africa were pygmies or bushman that settled Asia. We assume that the native Americans came from Asia,if this is so they would have had to originate long after these Black Asians, Because the earliest skeletons in Asia were of Melanoid/Negro people. These Negroes entered America after the glaciers, not native Americans.
Xicano stop stealing the heritage of Negroes in America. Native Americans made the splendid Aztec and Mayan civilizations. As I stated before, your roots Xicano are those of the Mixed blood: part native American, African and European .
Stop trying to steal the heritage of the Black people like the Olmecs, who represent the Mother Culture of Mexico.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?
The mainstream media jumped all over Kinnewick man but no one seems to talk about Luiza. So again, is it possible that the first native americans were Black and mixed with migrating Asians later. Were the Olmecs possibly related to Luiza?
Skull alters theory on colonization of Americas RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) Anthropologists unveiled the oldest known human fossil from the Americas on Monday, a woman's skull with African features that could revolutionize theories about the continent's early inhabitants.
The fossil — first discovered in Brazil in 1975 but only recently found to come from a woman who lived 11,500 years ago — shows there were human beings on the continent long before Asian immigration, said anthropologist Ricardo Ventura Santos.
"This is a piece that, in practice, is important toward understanding ... the settlement of the Americas," said Ventura Santos, of the National Museum and the prestigious Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).
"There's a lot of curiosity about it, that's why we're showing it to the media today."
Scientists dubbed the woman "Luiza," Brazil's answer to the famed "Lucy," just over a year ago when new methods proved she was the earliest known American. Luiza's namesake is a 3.2 million-year-old human ancestor found in Ethiopia and now on display in a Paris museum.
Scientists say Luiza was a nomad who wandered with about a dozen relatives in an area of what is now central Brazil, eating the natural vegetation or, on occasion, animal meat. She died at around age 20 in some sort of accident.
Before Luiza's appearance, paleontologists had been working on the theory that the earliest Americans were the Asian ancestors of the Indians that European colonizers encountered when they arrived on the American continents 500 years ago.
These ancestors would have come from what we now know as Siberia and Mongolia, having crossed the Bering Strait between Asia and North America on a glacial bridge at the end of the last Ice Age.
About a year ago, archaeologist Walter Neves, one of the few specialists in human paleontology in Brazil, took an interest in the unusual shape of Luiza's skull, which had been packed away for decades in the museum's vast archives.
He believed the skull, which had been found in a 13-meter-deep cavern in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, showed Negroid features rather than the Mongoloid features typical of Brazil's Indians.
"Its characteristics are very different in relation to the native population. Therefore, it has a very big importance, above all in explaining the settlement of the Americas and also for the history of humanity," said Jose Henrique Vilhena, UFRJ's director.
The research of the New World Archaeological Foundation indicate that this site has been continously occupied since 1500 B.C. Much of what we know about the art from Izapa comes from the work of Virginia Smith' Izapa Relief Carving (1984), Garth Norman's Izapa Sculpture (1976) and Jacinto Quirarte's Izapan-Style Art (1973). V. Garth Norman (1976) of the New World Archaeological Foundation has published many of the stone stalae and altars found at Izapa and discussed much of their probable religious significance. Most researchers including Norman believe that the Izapans were "Olmecoid". Smith (1984) disagrees with this hypothesis, but Michael D. Coe (1962: 99-100,1965:773-774, 1968:121), Ignacio Bernal (1969:172) support an Olmec origin for the Izapan style art. Quirarte (1973:32-33) recognized obvious Olmec cultural traits in the Izapa iconography.
ANCIENT MIGRATION STORIES OF MEXICO The Maya were not the first to occupy the Yucatan and Gulf regions of Mexico. It is evident from Maya traditions and the artifacts recovered from many ancient Mexican sites that a different race lived in Mayaland before the Mayan speakers settled this region. The Pacific area was early colonized by Olmec people in middle preclassic times.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1984) The Olmec civilization was developed along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the states of Tabasco and Veracruz. (Pouligny 1988:34) The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., a new linguistic group arrived in the Gulf region of Mexico.
M. Swadesh (1953) has presented evidence that at least 3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. Soustelle (1984: 29) tells us that "We cannot help but think that the people that shattered the unity of the Proto-Mayas was also the people that brought Olmec civilization to the region".
Traditions mentioned by Sahagun, record the settlement of Mexico by a different race from the present Amerindian population. Sahagun says that these "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotha, on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains. Other migration to Mexico stories are mention in the Popol Vuh, the ancient religious and historical text compiled by the Quiche Mayan Indians.
Friar Diego de Landa (1978:8,28) , in Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, wrote that "some old men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea". This tradition is most interesting because it probably refers to the twelve migrations of the Olmec people. This view is supported by the stone reliefs from Izapa, Chiapas , Mexico published by the New World Foundation. In Stela 5, from Izapa we see a group of men on a boat riding the waves.(Wuthenau 1980; Smith 1984 ; Norman 1976)
It is clear that Stela No.5, from Izapa not only indicates the tree of life, it also confirms the tradition recorded by Friar Diego de Landa that an ancient people made twelve migrations to Mexico. This stela also confirms the tradition recorded by the famous Mayan historian Ixtlixochitl, that the Olmec came to Mexico in "ships of barks " and landed at Pontochan, which they commenced to populate.(Winters 1984: 16) These Blacks are frequently depicted in the Mayan books/writings carrying trade goods. In the center of the boat on Stela No.5, we find a large tree. This tree has seven branches and twelve roots. The seven branches probably represent the seven major clans of the Olmec people. The twelve roots of the tree extending into the water from the boat probably signifies the "twelve roads through the sea", mentioned by Friar Diego Landa. The migration traditions and Stela No.5, probably relates to a segment of the Olmec, who landed in boats in Panotha or Pantla (the Huasteca) and moved along the coast as far as Guatemala. This would correspond to the non-Maya speaking group detected by Swadesh that separated the Maya and Huasteca speakers 2000 years ago.
Bernardino de Sahagun (1946) a famous authority on Mexico also supports the extra-American origin of the Olmecs when he wrote that "Eastern settlers of Mexico landed at Panotla on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a time until they moved south in search of mountains".The reported route of the Panotha settlers recorded by Sahagun interestingly corresponds to the spread of the Olmecs in Meso-America which extended from the Gulf of Mexico to Chalcatzingo, in the Mexican highlands along the Pacific coast.(Morley, Brainerd & Sharer 1983, p.52)
Summary
3200 years ago a non- Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and the Maya. This linguistic evidence shows that a new ethnic group arrived in Mexico around the time that the Olmec appear on the scene.
Landa mentions the migration of a people from the East i.e., direction of the Atlantic Ocean, who made twelve voyages across the sea. Ixtlixochitl makes it clear that these people arrived in “ships of bark” probably a reference to large wooden boats.
The Izapa stela shows Olmec people in a boat that has a tree with twelve roots. Since the roots are placed in the waves, they probably refer to the twelve migrations made by the Olmec from Africa to America recorded by Landa.
This stela confirms the extra-Mexican origin of the Olmecs who arrived in Mexico in “ships of bark” and expanded across Mexico in a manner that corresponds to the archaeological evidence we have for the expansion of the Olmec people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rafineque and Wiener were sure that the Mayan writing was of African origin.
1.Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system. The evidence indicates that Mayan writing was invented by the Olmecs who probably called their writing[ib] sebe[/ib].
2. Landa supports the linguistic evidence (Tozzer, 1941) that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941).
The Tutul Xi were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:
Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order". Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)". "The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".
The term Shi, is probably related to the Manding term Si, which was also used as an ethnonym.
The Olmecs probably founded writing in the Mexico. Dr. Coe, in "Olmec Jaguar and Olmec Kings" (1968), suggested that the beliefs of the Maya were of Olmec origin and that the pre Maya were Olmecs (1968,p.103). This agreed with Brainerd and Sharer's, The ancient Maya (1983,p.65) concept of colonial Olmec at Maya sites. Moreover, this view is supported by the appearance of jaguar stucco mask pyramids (probably built by the Olmecs) under Mayan pyramids e.g., Cerros Structure 5-C-2nd, Uxaxacatun pyramid and structure 5D-22 at Tikal. This would conform to Schele and Freidel's belief that the monumental structures of the Maya were derived from Olmec prototypes.
An Olmec origin for many PreClassic Maya sites, would explain the cover-up of the jaguar stucco mask pyramids with classic Maya pyramids at these sites. It would also explain Schele and Freidel's (1990) claim that the first king of Palenque was the Olmec leader U-Kix-chan; and that the ancient Maya adopted many Olmec social institutions and Olmec symbolic imagery. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa (Winters, 1979, 1980, 1981,1984).
B. Stross (1973) mentions the Mayan tradition for a foreign origin of Mayan writing. This idea is also confirmed by Mayan oral tradition (Tozzer, 1941), and C.H. Brown (1991) who claimed that writing did not exist among the Proto-Maya.
Terrence Kaufman has proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mexe-Zoquean speech and therefore the authors of Olmec writing were Mexe-Zoquean speakers. This view fails to match the epigraphic evidence. The Olmec people spoke a Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language and not Zoquean.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing (Schele & Freidel, 1990; Soustelle, 1984). Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.
quote:
Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing
Malinke se'be Serere safe Bambara se'be Susu se'be Dioula se'we' Samo se'be Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa Proto-Term for writing *se'be
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'. This would explain the identification of the Olmec or Xi/Shi people as Manding speakers.
References
Brown, C.H. (1991). Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from linguistics data. Current Anthropology, 32(4), 489-495.
Coe, M. (1989). The Olmec Heartland: evolution of ideology . In R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmecs (pp.68-82). New York: Cambridge University Press.
M. Delafosse, "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthrpologie 10, 1899.
Morley, S.G., Brainered, G.W. & Sharer, R.J. (1983). The Ancient Maya. Stanford: Standford University Press.
Landa, D. de. (1978). Yucatan before and after the Conquest.(Trans. by) William Gates. New York: Dover Publications.
Pouligny, D. (1988). Les Olmeques. Archeologie, 12, p.194.
Rafineque, C. (1832). "Second letter to Mr. Champollion on the Graphic systems of America and the glyphs of Ololum [Mayan] of Palenque in central America-elements of the glyphs", Atlantic Journal 1, (2) :44-45.
Leo Wiener, Africa and the Discovery of America. 1922.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
STOP THE PRESSES. WE HAVE BEEN WASTING ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF TIME AND BANDWITH. LANDA NEVER WROTE THAT THE TUTUL-XIU GAVE WRITING TO THE MAYA. WINTERS MADE IT UP
I can't believe, knowing Winters' track record, that I did not verify the total quote about Tutul-Xiu and writing. The section in Landa dealing with the Tutul-Xiu says nothing about writing. The discussion of writing comes in a previous chapter dealing with the education the Mayas provided to the children of the priests and nobles. What follows are the relevant passages from the Gates' translation of Landa- which shows the division into chapters (available for checking n Google Books). The same passages from the Tozzer translation, which Winters cites, and the same passages from the Spanish edition-- not a translation- showing that Gates was more faithful to the original.
Yucatan Before and After the Conquest
by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates
[1937] Available from Google books
p. 12 SEC. VII. GOVERNMENT, PRIESTHOOD, SCIENCES, LETTERS AND BOOKS IN YUCATAN. On the departure of Cuculcán the chiefs agreed that for the permanence of the state the house of the Cocoms should exercise the chief authority, it being the oldest and richest, or perhaps because its head was at that time a man of greater power. This done, they ordained that within the enclosure there should only be temples and residences of the chiefs, and of the High Priest; that they should build outside the walls dwellings where each of them might keep some serving people, and whither the people from the villages might come whenever they had business at the city. In these houses each one placed his mayordomo, who bore as his sign of authority a short thick baton, and who was called the Caluac. This officer held supervision over the villages and those in charge of them, to whom he sent advices as to the things needed in the chief's establishment, as birds, maize, honey, salt, fish, game, clothing and other things. The Caluac always attended in the chief's house, seeing what was needed and providing it promptly, his house standing as the office of his chief. It was the custom to hunt out the crippled and the blind in the villages, and give them their necessities. The chiefs appointed the governors and, if worthy, confirmed their offices to their sons. They enjoined upon them good treatment of the common people, the peace of the community, and that all should be diligent in their own support and that of the lords. Upon all the lords rested the duty of honoring, visiting and entertaining Cocom, accompanying and making festivals for him, and of repairing to him in difficult affairs. They lived in peace with each other, and with much diversion according to their custom, in the way of dances, feasts and hunting. The people of Yucatan were as attentive to matters of religion as of government, and had a High Priest whom they called Ahkin May, or also Ahaucan May, meaning the Priest May, or the High Priest May. He was held in great reverence by the chiefs, and had no allotment of Indians for himself, the chiefs making presents to him in addition to the offerings, and all the local priests sending him contributions. He was succeeded in office by his sons or nearest kin. In him lay the key to their sciences, to which they most devoted themselves, giving counsel to the chiefs and answering their inquiries. With the matter of sacrifices he rarely took part, except on it festivals or business of much moment. He and his disciples appointed priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies; put in their charge the affairs of their office, and the setting of a good p. 13 example to the people; he provided their books and sent them forth. They in turn attended to the service of the temples, teaching their sciences and writing books upon them. They taught the sons of the other priests, and the second sons of the chiefs, who were brought to them very young for this purpose, if they found them inclined toward this office. The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings. They wrote their books on a long sheet doubled in folds, which was then enclosed between two boards finely ornamented; the writing was on one side and the other, according to the folds. The paper they made from the roots of a tree, and gave it a white finish excellent for writing upon. Some of the principal lords were learned in these sciences, from interest, and for the greater esteem they enjoyed thereby; yet they did not make use of them in public. %%%%%%% p. 14
SEC. XIII. ARRIVAL OF THE TUTUL-XIUS AND THE ALLIANCE THEY MADE WITH THE LORDS OF MAYAPAN. TYRANNY OF COCOM, THE RUIN OF HIS POWER AND OF THE CITY OF MAYAPAN.
The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all. *
p. 15
These tribes lived in such peace that they had no conflicts and used neither arms nor bows, even for the hunt, although now today they are
excellent archers. They only used snares and traps, with which they took much game. They also had a certain art of throwing darts by the aid of a stick as thick as three fingers, hollowed out for a third of the way, and six palms long; with this and cords they threw with force and accuracy. †
They had laws against delinquents which they executed rigorously; such as against an adulterer, whom they turned over to the injured party that he might either put him to death by throwing a great stone down upon his head, or he might forgive
him if he chose. For the adulteress there was no penalty save the infamy, which was a very serious thing with them. One who ravished a maiden was stoned to death, and they relate a case of a chief of
the Tutul-xiu who, having a brother accused of this crime, had him stoned and afterwards covered with a great heap of rocks. They also say that before the foundation of the city they had another law providing the punishment of adulterers by drawing out the intestines through the navel.
The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.
In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed.
This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another
p. 16
one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill the Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country. %%%%%%%% Tozzer, A. E. ed. and trans. 1941 Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan Papers of the Peabody Museum Harvard University vol. XVIII Cambridge: Harvard University Press
pp. 27- 35 (skipping the footnotes) The natives of Yucatan were as attentive to the matters of religion as to those of government, and they had a high priest whom they called Ah Kin Mai, or the High Priest Mai. He was very much respected by the lords and had no repartimiento of Indians, but besides the offerings, the lords made him presents and all the priests of the towns bro9ught contributions to him, and his sons or his nearest relatives succeeded him in his office. In him was the key of their learning and it was to these matters that they dedicated themselves mostly; and they gave advice to the lords and replies to their questions. He seldom dealt with matters pertaining to the sacrifices except at the time of the principal feasts or in very important matters of business. They provided priests for the towns when they were needed, examining them in the sciences and ceremonies, and committee to them the duties of their office, and the good example to the people and provided them with books and send them forth. And they employed themselves in the duties of the temples and in teaching their sciences as well as in writing books about them.
They taught the sons of the other priests and the second sons of the lords who brought them for this purpose from their infancy, if they saw that they had an inclination for this profession.
The sciences which they taught were he computation of the years, months, and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the fateful days and seasons, their methods of divination and their prophesies, events and the cures for diseases, and their antiquities and how to read and write with the letters and characters, with which they wrote, and drawings which illustrate the meaning of the writings.
Their books were written on a large sheet doubled in folds, which was enclosed entirely between the two boards which they decorated, and they wrote on both sides in columns following the order of the folds. And they made this paper of the roots of a tree and gave it a white gloss upon which it was easy to write. And some of the principal lords leaned about these sciences from curiosity and were very highly thought of on this account although they never made use of them publicly. [NOTE—a whole new paragraph separate from the previous section] The Indians say that numerous tribes with their chiefs came to Yucatan from the south, and it appears that they came from Chiapas, although the Indians have no more knowledge about it. But this author [Landa] conjectures it because many terms and word constructions are identical in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and because there are in Chiapas many remains of places which have been abandoned. And they say that these tribes wandered around in the uninhabited parts of Yucatan for forty years, without there being any water in that time except that which came from the rain, and that at the end of that time they reached the mountains which lie almost opposite the city of Mayapan and ten leagues from it. And there they began to settle and construct very good buildings in many places, and the people of Mayapan became very good friends with them and were glad to see that they cultivated the land as the natives do; and in this way those of Tutul Xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapan and they thus intermarried, and as the Lord Xiu of the Tutul Xius was such he came to be very much esteemed by everybody. . . . . The Governor Cocom began to covet riches and for this reason he arranged with the troops of the garrison, which the kings of Mexico kept at Tabasco and Xicalango, to hand over the city to them. And thus he brought the Mexican people into Mayapan, and oppressed the poor and made many slaves, and the lords would have put him to death but for the fear which they had of the Mexicans. %%%%%%%
Landa, Fr. D. de 1973[1864] Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán 10th ed. A. Ma. Garibay, ed. Mexico:Porrua
The original Spanish version instead of a translation. It has the division into sections which Tozzer omitted and Gates kept. [My rough translation]
pp. 14-15 VII GOVERNMENT, PRIESTHOOD, SCIENCES, LETTERS AND BOOKS OF YUCATAN . . . They [the people of Yucatan] taught the sons of the other priests and the second sons of the lords, who were led to this since childhood, if they saw that they had an aptitude for this.
That the sciences they taught them were the count of the years, months, and days, the feasts and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the evil days and periods, their ways of divination, their cures for diseases, the antiquities, to read and write with their letters and characters with which they wrote with symbols that represented their writing.
That they wrote their books on a large sheet that was doubled in folds that were enclosed between two boards which they highly decorated and they wrote on both sides in columns according to the folds. And they made this paper from the roots of a tree, which they colored white on which it was easy to write. And that some principal lords learned about these sciences through curiosity, and for this they were more respected even if they did not use them in public.
pp. 15-17 VIII ARRIVAL OF THE TUTUL-XIU AND THE ALLIANCE THEY MADE WITH THE LORDS OF MAYAPAN.—TYRANNIES OF COCOM, RUINATION OF HIS POWER AND OF THE CITY
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Question: Are Paleo-Indians the same as the so called Clovis culture Indians? Is it possible that the first Americans were of African or Australoid descent?
Yes; studies by Neves et al. for instance, show that early Paleo-American samples had strong affinities with tropical groups like those in Africa and Australia. Now of course, this doesn't mean that because the said specimens bear affinities with those from tropical Africa, that Paleo-Americans must then be continental Africans. These Paleo-Americans have been determined to have clear craniofacial contrasts with later aged specimens. At the least, it shows that there had been a number of migrations of a.m.hs in the late paleolithic period and thereof, and not some single wave which would result in some kind of a homogenous social entity, as the term "Native American" seems to implicate when some people use it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do these extreme Afrocentrists (I am talking about the likes of Clyde, Marc, etc.) apparently want to find black people everywhere? Black Olmecs, black Chinese, black Israelites, even black Beethoven...I am tired of it. It seems to me a sympton of the underexposure of most African history (and the de-Africanizing of Ancient Egypt, the one African culture that does get a lot of exposure). If black African history was more widely appreciated and AE accepted as a black African culture, then hopefully African diaspora people will not feel like their history is being untold and the extreme Afrocentrics won't have any more incentive to distory.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Why do these extreme Afrocentrists (I am talking about the likes of Clyde, Marc, etc.) apparently want to find black people everywhere? Black Olmecs, black Chinese, black Israelites, even black Beethoven...I am tired of it. It seems to me a sympton of the underexposure of most African history (and the de-Africanizing of Ancient Egypt, the one African culture that does get a lot of exposure). If black African history was more widely appreciated and AE accepted as a black African culture, then hopefully African diaspora people will not feel like their history is being untold and the extreme Afrocentrics won't have any more incentive to distory.
T-rex have you reported me to the Jews as you threatened? LOL jacka** liberal.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there were blacks among the Olmec. Chinese records themselves tell of their blacks. R' Eliezer wrote that Shem was made black and beautiful.
Is it a problem for you to care to see blacks outside the negro caricature and steer clear of the illogical assumption that to be black is to be "sub-saharan" African? I think not, maybe something else is at play.
This is understandable. You being a white boy just cannot come to turns that you owe your religious morality to a black people, that you'd be worshipping a pantheon of bloody warrior gods more morally bankrupt than their worshippers were it not for your people co-opting the spirituality of the Israelites who at the time their books are dated to have been written down were a majority black people as data about Lachish from its ossuary (and osteo remains from within that city's environs) and Sennacherib's throne room panels in Iraq clearly reveal.
As for Beethoven, a careful perview of his genealogy will show whether his antecedents were all European though you're right that he was not black except by 18th - 20th century USA colour system -- Beethoven had even more of the Moor in his looks than his master. His front teeth, owing to the singular flatness of the roof of his mouth, protuded, and, of course, thrust out his lips; the nose too, was rather broad and decidedly flattened, while the forehead was remarkably full and round per A. W. Thayer -- .
quote:The research team also said that future DNA analysis might answer lingering questions about Beethoven's ethnicity. As a young man, the dark-complexioned Beethoven sometimes was called "the Moor," and some historians have questioned whether he had African blood. Walsh said his analysis of the hair strands showed "no wrinkles or bends" typical among people of African descent, but that more tests may be conducted.
William Claiborne Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 18, 2000; Page A03
Who can procure a full report on Beethoven's DNA as revealed by his hair sample? Being male it's possible to have his mtDNA as well as his nrY-DNA for a complete basic matrilineal and patrilineal descents.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:. At the least, it shows that there had been a number of migrations of a.m.hs in the late paleolithic period and thereof, and not some single wave which would result in some kind of a homogenous social entity, as the term "Native American" seems to implicate when some people use it.
^ Exactly. And it is this un-necessary and unrealistic notion that some cling to, and then feel threatened by when it is falsified.
There is no single ban of pure blood "Indians" who cross the Bering Straight, and become the common ancestors of *all* "Indians".
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it a problem for you to care to see blacks outside the negro caricature and steer clear of the illogical assumption that to be black is to be "sub-saharan" African? I think not, maybe something else is at play.
I suffer from no delusion that black = "negro caricature". I know there has always been phenotypical diversity in Africa. What makes you think otherwise?
quote:This is understandable. You being a white boy just cannot come to turns that you owe your religious morality to a black people, that you'd be worshipping a pantheon of bloody warrior gods more morally bankrupt than their worshippers.
Read your Old Testament. Notice how often the Israelites, under Yahweh's command, destroy entire cities, killing every man, woman, child, and even livestock. Hell, Yahweh even hardens the hearts of enemy kings so he can punish their people with plagues. Now while indigenous European religions had their faults, I've never heard of any European gods commanding genocide on that scale.
Noit all modern Western morality derives from Judeo-Christian traditions anyway. For instance, it was the pagan Romans who developed much of our modern law code. Our democratic system was inspired by Athens, the British Parliament, and possibly the Iroquois Confederacy in northeastern North America. And much of the rest of modern morality comes from Enlightenment Age philosophers who actually disdained fundamentalist Christianity, favoring deism or even atheism. If anything, those people who adopt Abrahamic morality are probably the most evil people on Earth: Bible-thumpers, Zionists, and Islamic terrorists.
quote:were it not for your people co-opting the spirituality of the Israelites who at the time their books are dated to have been written down were a majority black people as data about Lachish from its ossuary (and osteo remains from within that city's environs) and Sennacherib's throne room panels in Iraq clearly reveal.
Lachish is believed to have had Egyptian soldiers stationed within (and thus it may have had an unusually large amount of black admixture for all we know), and those Assyrian engravings show no paint indicating skin color. Try harder.
Basically these are pre-Columbian Black Americans we are talkign about which are part of the heritage of MesoAmerica.
Indigenous cultures of the new worlds.
The real question is in which direction did Africans make it to the New World. Keep in mind that everyone is essentially African so there's no point arguing that aspect. Its only a matter of whether or not Africans made it to the Americas via the Pacific or the Atlantic. How did they make it quick enough so that their tropical adaption was not lost?
There are of course Blacks throughout the Pacific ocean. Scant evidence for Blacks crossing the Atlantic.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The sciences which they taught were the reckoning of the years, months and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, the omens of the days, their methods of divination and prophecies, events, remedies for sicknesses, antiquities, and the art of reading and writing by their letters and the characters wherewith they wrote, and by pictures that illustrated the writings.
Thank you. This is what appears as text on pg 28 of Tozzer. Ummm...I don't see any reference to Tutulxiu.
This is where the footnote comes in:
quote:"And they say (of Tutulxiu) that he was very learned, for he taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land (quoted in Tozzer, 1941: 28 N. 154 )”
You would know this if you actually read the source you're citing! That's why de Landa says "he" (twice), referring to a person not a group of people. He is talking about the head of the Xiu family (named Tutulxiu) who established the town of Mani in the 1450s! He was the one who "taught the natives the letters and the reckoning of the months and years which the lords of Mani were using when we conquerors entered the land."
.
Landa is not talking about a single person he was talking about an entire tribe.
Lets look at Landa's statement: [QUOTE] The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all. These tribes lived in such peace that they had no conflicts and used neither arms nor bows, even for the
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mayan people had Universities where they taught students their history, culture and civilization generally. Landa wrote in Yucatan before and after the Conquest:
quote:
The people of Yucatan were as attentive to matters of religion as of government, and had a High Priest whom they called Ahkin May , or also Ahaucan May , meaning the Priest May, or the High Priest May. He was held in great reverence by the chiefs, and had no allotment of Indians for himself, the chiefs making presents to him in addition to the offerings, and all the local priests sending him contributions. He was succeeded in office by his sons or nearest kin. In him lay the key to their sciences, to which they most devoted themselves, giving counsel to the chiefs and answering their inquiries. With the matter of sacrifices he rarely took part, except on it festivals or business of much moment. He and his disciples appointed priests for the towns, examining them in their sciences and ceremonies; put in their charge the affairs of their office, and the setting of a good p. 13 see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/ybac/ybac11.htm
According to the Yucatec Maya, the Tutul Xiu, a group of foreigners from Zuiva, in Nonoualco territory taught the Yucatec how to read and write (Tozzer,1941 , p.28). The fact that the foreigners brought the Maya writing and other secret knowledge that was transmitted by hereditary clans or specialists would explain why the Maya had institutions where branches of this knowledge could be taught.
Stross (1982) believes that the Mixe-Zoquean speakers transmitted writing to the Maya, other scholars suggest the Toltecs. Although the Toltecs may have conquered the Maya I seriously doubt that this nomadic group gave secret language to the Maya since they appear in Mexico a 1000 years after the Mayan people employed writing to record their history.
Epigraphic evidence make it clear that the Mayan people received writing from the Olmec. This is supported by the bilingual Olmec-Mayan bricks found at Colcomalco,Mexico.
It is interesting to note that the people who taught the Maya writing originated at Zuyua or Zuiva made it necessary for the Maya to set up centers of learning where elites could study this writing system and the arts. This resulted from the fact that a class of skilled scribes were necessary to record business transactions and inscribe Mayan monuments and artifacts.
Landa mentions the fact that the heads of Mayan towns had to know a secret language(s) due to periodic interrogations (examinations?) of the chiefs. These interrogations determined if a chief was fit to remain head of a Mayan town (Roys,1967).
In the Chilam Balam of Chummayel , Zuiva is spelt Zuyua . This text declares that the “head chiefs” of a town were periodically examined in the language of the Zuyua.
The language of Zuyua was suppose to have been understood by the mayan elites. Scholars are not sure about the meaning of the mysterious term zuyua. But it has affinity to Olmec terms. The actual sound value of /z/ in zuyua is /s/. If we compare zuyua, with Olmec su-yu-a and zuiva and su-i-wa we find interesting meanings that suggest that zuyua was probably a secret code known only by the Chiefs., rather than a placename. Su-yu-a can be translated as the “Shaper of Life”, while Su-i-wa means “The Shaper of Good” or “The Thing which hurries your welfare”.
These translations of suiwa and su-yu-a , because they are associated with leadership, and the role of both secular and religious leaders made them semantically appropriate terms to interpret zuyua or zuiva, since a priest or head chief is a shaper of the welfare of his people it was only natural that this group of specialists probably had to know secret terms and symbols to manifest their great power.
This makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu or “The Xis who are very good supporters of the Order” who came from Zuiva in Nonoualco were Mande speaking Olmec scholars who passed on writing and a leadership association to the Maya, when they entered Yucatan. Universities such as Colcalmalco, were constructed to ensure the traiing of Mayan elites to become Zuyua and support the needs of Mayan government and religion.
References:
Roys,R.L. (1967). The Book of Chilam Balam Chumayel. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Steede,N. (1984). Preliminary Catalogue of the Comalcalco Bricks. Cardenas, Tabasco: Centro de Investigacion Pre-Colombina.
Europe wholescale adapted the Israelite's deity. A deity who didn't go around fucking every lady who couldn't get away. Greeks, too afraid their adaptation couldn't be slapped onto Hebrew books, invented a Horny Ghost to impregnate the mother (a woman who was technically married) of the demi- god of the Greek Scriptures. This is so much the same as the god of adultery, Zeus, impregnating the Alcmena, the wife of Amphitryon, to engender mangod Heracles -- or pick any of Zeus' daliances.
You surely don't believe something as foolish as a billet of soldiers being responsible for setting the phenotype of the entire Gaza and southern Judea? That's akin to the notion that a lost Roman legion is responsible for fathering the Fulani (don't laugh, this was one time posited as the paternal origin of the Fulani by serious academicians).
You wisely chose to ignore R' Eliezer's assertion that Shem was made black and beautiful. Greco-Latin authors also remarked on the Judeans dark skin and at least one outright explained them as Aithioian spawn. Why?
Because that Lachish - Joppa area was considered the Aithiopia once ruled over by Cepheus father of Andromeda whom Perseus wed. Would it make sense to call Joppa an Aithiopia if people didn't see the people there as dark enough to be Aithiop?
No paint huh? When you look at the unpainted sculptures of ancient Greco-Roman manufacture you mean to tell me you don't know if the effigies are white people or not?
Yeah I know, there's no question about defining white. It's only defining black that presents an unsolvable problem.
But enough of this.
Yes, there were blacks among the Olmec. Chinese records tell of their blacks. The Levant had its black and beautiful Israelites.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
quote:Is it a problem for you to care to see blacks outside the negro caricature and steer clear of the illogical assumption that to be black is to be "sub-saharan" African? I think not, maybe something else is at play.
I suffer from no delusion that black = "negro caricature". I know there has always been phenotypical diversity in Africa. What makes you think otherwise?
quote:This is understandable. You being a white boy just cannot come to turns that you owe your religious morality to a black people, that you'd be worshipping a pantheon of bloody warrior gods more morally bankrupt than their worshippers.
Read your Old Testament. Notice how often the Israelites, under Yahweh's command, destroy entire cities, killing every man, woman, child, and even livestock. Hell, Yahweh even hardens the hearts of enemy kings so he can punish their people with plagues. Now while indigenous European religions had their faults, I've never heard of any European gods commanding genocide on that scale.
Noit all modern Western morality derives from Judeo-Christian traditions anyway. For instance, it was the pagan Romans who developed much of our modern law code. Our democratic system was inspired by Athens, the British Parliament, and possibly the Iroquois Confederacy in northeastern North America. And much of the rest of modern morality comes from Enlightenment Age philosophers who actually disdained fundamentalist Christianity, favoring deism or even atheism. If anything, those people who adopt Abrahamic morality are probably the most evil people on Earth: Bible-thumpers, Zionists, and Islamic terrorists.
quote:were it not for your people co-opting the spirituality of the Israelites who at the time their books are dated to have been written down were a majority black people as data about Lachish from its ossuary (and osteo remains from within that city's environs) and Sennacherib's throne room panels in Iraq clearly reveal.
Lachish is believed to have had Egyptian soldiers stationed within (and thus it may have had an unusually large amount of black admixture for all we know), and those Assyrian engravings show no paint indicating skin color. Try harder.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Try harder at what?
Europe wholescale adapted the Israelite's deity. A deity who didn't go around fucking every lady who couldn't get away. Greeks, too afraid their adaptation couldn't be slapped onto Hebrew books, invented a Horny Ghost to impregnate the mother (a woman who was technically married) of the demi- god of the Greek Scriptures. This is so much the same as the god of adultery, Zeus, impregnating the Alcmena, the wife of Amphitryon, to engender mangod Heracles -- or pick any of Zeus' daliances.
How is it then that the Europeans "adapted" the Israelite deity(ies) using attributes belonging to Greek deities? Doesn't it make more sense that the Europeans just changed the names of the Greek deities they already had? The NT deity(ies) have little in common with the OT deity(ies).
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.
Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu. Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.
I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.
Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu. Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.
I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.
Knowledge production is not the single property of one scholar. Each scholar must read the evidence, interpret the evidence and then report their results.
The evidence is clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans or Tabascans as noted by Landa, my identification of these people as Olmec is more valid than any determination by the authorities you mention who believe they were Toltecs or Mixe speakers given the fact the Mixe speakers also speak of immigrants into their territory as well.
Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
posted
LOL T-rex, don't let Takruri get to you. While he makes some valid points, it's obvious the guy's paranoia about you being racist has gotten the better of him (as it usually does). Perhaps this stems to his incident with his white racist 6th grade teacher. Who knows.
We all get your points. You are specifically referring to Clyde and Marc's claims of Africans taking credit for all civilizations worldwide.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.
Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu. Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.
I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.
Knowledge production is not the single property of one scholar. Each scholar must read the evidence, interpret the evidence and then report their results.
The evidence is clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans or Tabascans as noted by Landa, my identification of these people as Olmec is more valid than any determination by the authorities you mention who believe they were Toltecs or Mixe speakers given the fact the Mixe speakers also speak of immigrants into their territory as well.
You can dance and you spin but your unsupported opinion is of little value compared to that of several real scholars who have thoroughly studied the literature, done fieldwork in Mesoamerica, and know the languages well.
quote:Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers. .
As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k
The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque. If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find painfully ironic is the following: Up to this point when both of you found this translation of Diego de Landa, which by the way is the same text from de Landa translated at an earlier point (Gates: 1937; Tozzer: 1941),
it appears that I was the only one who read & understood de Landa. Ummm...Winters, I had cited that same quote that you (by miracle) just read (further proof that you didn't actually read de Landa's words before citing them). lol
Here is my post a while back (July 08, 2008 05:20 PM):
quote:According to Winters,...de Landa supposedly received information from the Yucateca Maya that they were introduced to writing by the Tutual Xiu. Ignoring the fact that De Landa was the raging Catholic responsible for the burning of Maya codices, we even see that Winters misrepresented that source of information. Returing to the source, de Landa doesn't state the Maya got writing from Tutul Xiu (Winters asserts that they were Mande people & later known as the Olmeca):
"The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all." (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa, tr. William Gates, 1937 p. 14)
This might assist Winters in his claims...However, two facts must be considered.
1) It says nothing about the Tutul-xiu bringing writing! (Note: I haven't posted the entire section where the Tutul-xiu are mentioned for the sake of space; if you read pgs 15-18 of that book, you will see no mention of them bringing writing).
2) de Landa mentions that this occurred during the time of Mayapán. A person with any sense of Maya history would know that Mayapán wasn't constructed until the 1200s CE coinciding with the Post-Classic period. Therefore, Mayapán didn't exist until 2400 yrs after the Olmeca supposedly arrived by boat! The Mayas already had writing at that time.
posted
We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.Posts: 34 | From: Turtle Island | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But Winters says that Tozzer's footnotes are just his opinion. Where does Landa, in the passage cited here from Gates' translation, say that the Tutul Xiu taught the Maya to write?
If it was not made clear before, I am stating it again; Tozzer's statement that the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs is his own opinion.
Apart from the fact that Tozzer cites a number of other scholars: Brinton, Morley, Roys, Thompson, etc. He quotes several primary sources, i.e. 16th century publications that are as valid as Landa: Relacion de Teayo, Herrera (1601),Relacion de Mama, Chilam Balam de Mani, Chilam Balam of Tizimin. These all support the "Mexican, i.e. connection of the Tutul Xiu. Apart from this evidence, Tozzer's opinion, as one of the foremost Mayan scholars of his time is a HELL of a lot more informed than your completely devoid of evidence ramblings.
I still want you to show me where Landa, in the the Gates and Tozzer translations I posted, says that "Tutul xiu taught the Maya to write" You cn't and people on ES don't havee to take my word they can go to Google Books and see for themselves.
Knowledge production is not the single property of one scholar. Each scholar must read the evidence, interpret the evidence and then report their results.
The evidence is clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans or Tabascans as noted by Landa, my identification of these people as Olmec is more valid than any determination by the authorities you mention who believe they were Toltecs or Mixe speakers given the fact the Mixe speakers also speak of immigrants into their territory as well.
You can dance and you spin but your unsupported opinion is of little value compared to that of several real scholars who have thoroughly studied the literature, done fieldwork in Mesoamerica, and know the languages well.
quote:Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers. .
As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k
The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque. If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.
Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.
Mayan tradition make it clear that they got writing from another Meso-American group. Tozzer noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941). Xiu is not the name for the Zoque, Mexicans or Toltecs.
The fact that there is no evidence that 1)the Zoque were in the ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in Mayan, 3) you can not read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the Justenson and Kaufman method, an 4)there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" falsifies Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis that the Olmec were Mixe speakers.
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
Due to the lack of evidence for a Mixe origin of the Olmec writing Houston and Coe (2003) believe that that the Olmec must of spoken another language. They suggest that the language may have been Huastec (Houston & Coe, 2003).
The Huastec hypothesis is not supported by the linguistic evidence. The linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya. (Swadesh 1953) .This linguistic evidence is supplemented by Amerindian traditions regarding the landing of colonist from across the Atlantic in Huasteca .
A study of the Mixe languages make it clear that they were influenced by the Mande speaking Olmecs.
Mixe ...................Malinke-Bambara
Cahp heaven sa
ci squach si
su night su
co:n to leave ta, tyo
it place ta
Kahp small town ka, suffix joined to the name of a locality
kam planting field ga, gba, ka
ko/ku head ku(n)
koh to plant, build ko ‘to create’
ko:ng king, lord ko ‘person deserving respect’
koya tomato koya
kok maize flower ka
kats black maize ka
kushi calendar priest jose ‘priest of a cult’
may ‘to divine’ ma ‘happy issue; to understand’
koya tomato koya
kok maize flower ka
kats black maize ka
kushi calendar priest jose ‘priest of a cult’
may ‘to divine’ ma ‘happy issue; to understand’
ni:p to plant mgba
po:b white bo, po (superlative of white)
poh,po’ wind fo ‘arid air’
purap cultivating tool faalo , faaro ‘hoe’
shi day,sun si-soro
It is interesting to note that the so-called Mixe loan words found in the Mayan languages show correspondence to Malinke-Bambara terms.
This list of words make it clear that the so-called Mixe loan words in the Mayan languages may be the result of a Mande substratum in these languages.
The Mixe make it clear that cultivation takes place on the humid bottom land they call ta : k kam /b]. This Mixe word can not be explained in Mixe-Zoque. But when we look at this word from the perspective of the Olmec language we find that it comes from three Malinke-Bambara words [b]ta ka ga 'this is the place of cultivation':
ta 'place'
ka 'to be'
ga 'terrain of cultivation, act of planting, to plant'
The loans in Mixe make it clear that they were probably hunter-gatherers when the Olmec (Malinke-Bambara) speaking people carne to Qaxaca in search of minerals to make their giant heads and jade for their many artifacts.
The Mixe appear to have used the loan ko 'head of something' , to construct many words in Mixe. For example:
Mixe..............................Bambara
ko ca'ny 'chief snake'......kun-sa 'head snake'
kocu 'of the night'........ku su 'head night'
kodung 'mayor'................ku(n)dugu 'head of land, chief'
The Mixe term for calendar priest or kushi is probably also a loan from Olmec. The Olmec (Malinke-Bambara) term for 'time' is sinye and san means 'year, sky'. This suggest that the Mixe term kushi 'calendar priest, head priest', may come from the combination of Olmec ko 'head' and sinye 'time' or ko-sinye 'head time (keeper)'.
The Mixe nativization of ko-sinye > kushi , would not be too surprising, since the Mixe,if they were originally hunter-gatherers would have had no need for a person to record the seasons " a calendar priest", until they began the domestication of the crops introduced to Qaxaca by the Olmec people when they settled the region to exploit the rich mineral deposits found in this part of Mexico.
Otomi is considered a Mixe-Zoque language. Otomi were described by the early Europeans as Negroes.
This is interesting because Dixon (1923) and Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that the Otomi had probably mixed in the past with Afficans. Quatrefages (1889, pp.406-407) also believed that Afficans formerly lived in Florida, the Caribbean and Panama.
It is interesting to note that the Otomi language is genetically related to Olmec/Mande.
In both Olmec/Manding and Otomi the words are formed by adding two different terms together or an affix. Manual Orozco (p.129)records ka-ye as the Otomi word for 'holy man'. This term is formed by ka 'holy' and ye 'man'. Another word is da-ma 'mature woman'. This word is formed by ma 'woman' and da 'mature,ripe'.
Otomi and Olmec/Manding share grammatical features. The Otomi ra 'the', as in ra c,'the cold' agrees with the Manding -ra suffix used to form the present participle e.g., kyi-ra 'the envoy'.
The Otomi use of bi to form the completed action agrees with the Manding verb 'to be'hi. For example, Otomi hi du 'it died' and hi zo-gi 'he left it" ,is analogous to Manding a bi sa. Otomi da is used to form the incomplete action e.g., ci 'eat': daci 'he will eat'. This agrees with the Manding da, la affix which is used to form the factitive or transitive value e.g., la bo 'to take the place'. In addition Otomi ? no , is the completive e.g., bi ?no mbo ra'he was inside his house'. This shows affinity to the Manding suffix of the present participle -no, e.g., ji la-sigi-no 'dormant water'.
The Mezquital Otomi pronominal system shows some analogy to that of Manding, but Neve y Molina's, Otomi pronouns show full agreement:
First Second Third
Otomi ma i,e a
Manding n', m' i,e a
Here are a few other Malinke- Bambara and Otomi cognate terms from the basic vocabulary:
English ......Otomi...... Manding
son/daughter... t?i,ti...... de,di
eyes ..........da............ do
brother........ ku.......... koro
sister....... nkhu........... ben-k
lip........... sine ...........sine
mouth.......... ne ..............ne
man........... ta/ye........... tye/kye
The Otomi and Manding languages also have similar syntax e.g., Otomi ho ka ra 'ngu 'he makes the houses', and Manding a k nu 'he makes the family habitation (houses)'.
In conclusion, the widespread adoption of Olmec/ Malinke-Bambara lexical and grammatical features in the Mayan, Mixe languages indicate a close relationship among the speakers of these languages in Pre-Classic Mexico. The shared diffused grammatical, lexical and phonological features discussed in this paper are probably the result from an extended period of bilingualism in ancient Mexico involving the Malinke-Bambara speaking Olmecs, and their Mayan and Mixe neigbors.
The comparison of Yucatec and Mixe to the Malinke-Bambara languages is a valid way to illustrate the ancient relationship between the Pre-Classic Maya and Olmec people who spoke a Manding language related to Malinke-Bambara.
It is clear that the Mixe were hunter-gathers when they came in contact with the olmecs. The genetic relationship between Otomi and Olmec/Mande make it clear that the so Olmec speakers became part of the Mixe nationality. As a result, when Lipp records the tradition of people entering the Mixe region who spoke a Mixe language different from their own they were accurately speaking about the Olmec whoes descendants are the Otomi speakers.
References:
Delafosse, M. (1899). Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L' Anthropologie,10, .
Delafosse, M. (1955). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara,Dioula). Vol I. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue). Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Justeson,S., William, N.M., Campbell, L, kaufman, T.S., The Foreign impact on Lowland Mayan languages and Script. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University, 1985.
Kaufman, T. (1976). Archaeological and inguistic correlations in Mayaland and associated areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology, 8, lO1-118.
Manuel Orozcoy y Berra's Geografia da las lenguas y Carta Ethgrafica de Mexico, 1975.
Scotton,C.M. & Okeju,J (1973). Neighbors and lexical borrowings. Language. 49,871-889.
Sharer,RJ (1996). Diversity and Continuity in Maya civilization: Quirigua as a case study", in (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History, (p.187). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swadesh, M. (1953). The Language of the Archeological Haustecs.
Swadesh,M. Alvarez, C. and Bastarrachea, JR (1970). "Diccionario de Elementos del Maya Yucatec Colonial. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Centro de Estudios Mayas.
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.
I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.
I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.
.
.
The evidence you refer to consists primarily of your unsupported assertions. There is a much larger amount of evidence supporting Tozzer's conclusions that the Tutul Xiu were mexicanized Chontal (Putun) Maya.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers. .
As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k
The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque. If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.
quote:Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.
Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.
quote:
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language. .
As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.
Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.
I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.
Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers. .
As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k
The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque. If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.
quote:Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.
Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.
quote:
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language. .
As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.
Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.
I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.
Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.
Your research has not refuted any of my claims. The only thing you have done is say that this authority says this or that. You have failed to prove 1) that the Mayan calendar was not of African origin; 2)that Tozzer did not say that the Tutul Xiu introduced writing to the Maya; 3) the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs or Mexicans4) that the Olmec symbols are not found in the Vai script.
You are a fraud Bernardo. You troll the internet attacking my claims and at every term I show the fool you are. Your entire "fame" is based on attacking Ivan's work.
Your problem is that Ivan was never a primary researcher. He could only speak English so he was limited to English language resources. I use primary data which you can not defeat.
Your method of research is the method of authority. My research method is science hypothesis construction and hypothesis testing.
The linguistic evidence supports the Mande origin of the Olmec. This linguistic evidence is from the natural languages of the Mixe, Maya, Otomi and Olmec/Mande. Therefore the linguistic evidence is not my "own" it is neutral.
It also proves that the Mixe and Mayan languages were influenced by the Olmec/Mande speakers and that the words authorities accept as Mixe in origin found in the Mayan languages are really of Olmec/Mande origination.
quote:Originally posted by nicantlaca13: We're still waiting for a direct quote from de Landa saying that the Yucateca Maya told him that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.
I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.
.
.
The evidence you refer to consists primarily of your unsupported assertions. There is a much larger amount of evidence supporting Tozzer's conclusions that the Tutul Xiu were mexicanized Chontal (Putun) Maya.
Landa makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans as you falsely claim.Lets look at Landa's statement:
quote: The Indians relate that there came into Yucatan from the south many tribes with their chiefs, and it seems they came from Chiapas, although this the Indians do not know; but the author so conjectures from the many words and verbal constructions that are the same in Chiapas and in Yucatan, and from the extensive indications of sites that have been abandoned. They say that these tribes wandered forty years through the wilderness of Yucatan, having in that time no water except from the rains; that at the end of that time they reached the Sierra that lies about opposite the city of Mayapán, ten leagues distant. Here they began to settle and erect many fine edifices in many places; that the inhabitants of Mayapán held most friendly relations with them, and were pleased that they worked the land as if they were native to it. In this manner the people of the Tutul-xiu subjected themselves to the laws of Mayapán, they intermarried, and thus the lord Xiu of the Tutul-xius came to find himself held in great esteem by all. These tribes lived in such peace that they had no conflicts and used neither arms nor bows, even for the hunt, although now today they are
excellent archers. They only used snares and traps, with which they took much game. They also had a certain art of throwing darts by the aid of a stick as thick as three fingers, hollowed out for a third of the way, and six palms long; with this and cords they threw with force and accuracy. † They had laws against delinquents which they executed rigorously; such as against an adulterer, whom they turned over to the injured party that he might either put him to death by throwing a great stone down upon his head, or he might forgive him if he chose. For the adulteress there was no penalty save the infamy, which was a very serious thing with them. One who ravished a maiden was stoned to death, and they relate a case of a chief of the Tutul-xiu who, having a brother accused of this crime, had him stoned and afterwards covered with a great heap of rocks. They also say that before the foundation of the city they had another law providing the punishment of adulterers by drawing out the intestines through the navel.
The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.
In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed. This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man
patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country. http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/ybac/ybac12.htm
. .
This quotation makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu were a tribal group.
It makes it clear that the Tutul Xiu were highly respected by the Maya. It also makes it clear they were not Mexicans. The Maya saw the Mexicans as mean spirited oppressors.
quote:
The governing Cocom began to covet riches, and to that end negotiated with the garrison kept by the kings of Mexico in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he would put the city in their charge.
In this way he introduced the Mexicans into Mayapán, oppressed the poor, and made slaves of many. The chiefs would have slain him but for fear of the Mexicans. The lord of the Tutul-xiu never gave his consent to this. Then those of Yucatan, seeing themselves so fixed, learned from the Mexicans the art of arms, and thus became masters of the bow and arrow, of the lance, the axe, the buckler, and strong cuirasses made of quilted cotton ‡ together with other implements of war. Soon they no longer stood in awe of nor feared the Mexicans, but rather held them of slight moment. In this situation several years passed.
In fact Landa indicates that the Tutul Xiu helped the Maya overthrow the Mexicans who were unjust rulers.
quote:
This Cocom was the first who made slaves; but out of this evil carne the use of arms to defend themselves, that they might not all become slaves. Among the successors of the Cocom dynasty was another one, very haughty and an imitator of Cocom, who made another alliance with the Tabascans, placing more Mexicans within the city, and began to act the tyrant and to enslave the common people. The chiefs then attached themselves to the party of Tutul-xiu, a man patriotic like his ancestors, and they plotted to kill e Cocom. This they did, killing at the same time all of his sons save one who was absent; they sacked his dwelling and possessed themselves of all his property, his stores of cacao and other fruits, saying that thus they repaid themselves what had been stolen from them. The struggles between the Cocoms, who claimed that they had been unjustly expelled, and the Xius, went on to such an extent that after having been established in this city for more than five hundred years, they abandoned and left it desolate, each going to his own country.
Clearly the Xius were not recognized as Mexicans or Tobascans. They fought with the Maya to expel the Mexicans. It appears that after this war the Mexicans and Tobascans were driven out of the region.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: []Your research has not refuted any of my claims. The only thing you have done is say that this authority says this or that. You have failed to prove 1) that the Mayan calendar was not of African origin; 2)that Tozzer did not say that the Tutul Xiu introduced writing to the Maya; 3) the Tutul Xiu were Toltecs or Mexicans4) that the Olmec symbols are not found in the Vai script.
You have the shoe on the wrong foot. The person who makes the claim, especially if if it is an extraordinary claim that wants to revise the conventional wisdom, is the one who has to provide the evidence.
quote:You are a fraud Bernardo. You troll the internet attacking my claims and at every term I show the fool you are. Your entire "fame" is based on attacking Ivan's work.
Your problem is that Ivan was never a primary researcher. He could only speak English so he was limited to English language resources. I use primary data which you can not defeat.
Your method of research is the method of authority. My research method is science hypothesis construction and hypothesis testing.
I.e. I have been caught falsifying evidence and misquoting my sources again. I have made claims that have been instantly refuted; therefore, I'll resort to ad hominem attacks to deflect attention from my academic faults and weaknesses.
You would not know a scientific hypothesis if it bit you in the ...
Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing
quote:Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that:
"The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers. .
As usual, you quit quoting just before the cited work blows your claim to pieces. Lipp continues p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say [I]mahktugi:k
The source clearly says that these "people" were Mixe not unknown, Olmec or Mande. As a matter of fact, a little work shows that they were Zoque. If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word in Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
BUSTED AGAIN just like a creationist misquoting your sources.
quote:Not really. Some Olmec became part of the Mixe nation and thus were recognized as Mixe, eventhough they spoke a different language. The best representative of this reality were probably the Otomi speakers.
Purely, ad hoc special pleading. You can spin. you can spam, you can fill the air with ink like an octopus, BUT you were caught falsifying a reference by misquoting and asserting it supported your Mande hypothesis, when in reality, it completely contradicted it. Lipp's informants clearly said that the people who came in were MIXE and provided examples of words that were Zoque-- clearly not Mande. You are just evading the fact that you were caught doing something no reputable scholar would do.
quote:
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language. .
As usual faulty research, and a logical fallacy. The logical error, which you and creationists do repeatedly is "the excluded middle" e.g. "just because evolution cannot explain fact A does not automatically mean that creationism is valid" Like wise, even if a particular Mesoamerican language is not the source of *tz'ihb' (since you mangle the word) this does not support the Mande hypothesis- there may be another Mesoamerican language involved.
Of course there are words for writing in Mixe Zoque- again disproving one of your, as usual, unsupported assertions.
I'm getting tired of doing research to refute your baseless evidence free claims. You need to stop distractions with data such as Landa and Lipp which are thousands of years after the supposed arrival of the Mande and the beginning of writing. Provide data that deal with this period.
Perhaps, we should return to Africa. Please post the quotes from Wiener that Mande writing is the same as Olmec writing. BTW I double dare you to post the images from Wiener's book. Please also provide a quote from someone else than yourself that thinks thre is a proto-Mande word for "to write." Hint, there isn't.
You have not shown that any of the Mixe words I have presented were false. You have not provided any evidence disputing the genetic relationship between Otomi and Olmec/Mande.
Like any deciever you mention the Mixe-Zoque words: [i]tunja and [i]haypa as if they have something to do with Mayan writing. These terms have nothing to do with Mayan writing. But the Mande term for writing is clearly the source for the Mayan term for 'writing'.
B. Stross (1973) mentions the Mayan tradition for a foreign origin of Mayan writing. This idea is also confirmed by Mayan oral tradition (Tozzer, 1941), and C.H. Brown (1991) who claimed that writing did not exist among the Proto-Maya.
Terrence Kaufman has proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mexe-Zoquean speech and therefore the authors of Olmec writing were Mexe-Zoquean speakers. This view fails to match the epigraphic evidence. The Olmec people spoke a Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language and not Zoquean.
There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922). All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing (Schele & Freidel, 1990; Soustelle, 1984). Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C.
This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.
Tozzer (1941) supports the linguistic evidence that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers. Tozzer noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.
The Tutul Xiu were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:
Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order". Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)".
"The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".
The term Shi, is probably related to the Manding term Si, which was also used as an ethnonym.
The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing. _________________________________________________________________ [list] Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing
Malinke se'be .... Serere safe
Bambara se'be ... Susu se'be
Dioula se'we'..... Samo se'be
Sarakole safa ..... W. Malinke safa
Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ _________________________________________________________________
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'.
As you can see [i]haypa and [i]tunja have nothing to do with the Mayan writing. Don't you think that if the Mixe were the Tutul Xiu, the Maya would have adopted their term for writing, instead of the Olmec/Mande terms.
Again Bernardo and Xicano I show the falsehoods you publish on this forum for what they are "wishful thinking" of Eurocentrists seeking to deny the African heritage of the Olmecs.
Oh you Great Decievers...Yall .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.
Wow..Winters actually conceded he was wrong...wait he just shifted responsibility. Fine...
We're still waiting for a direct quote from Tozzer saying that the Yucateca Maya claim that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.Posts: 34 | From: Turtle Island | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing
Yes lets look at the Wiener evidence and see how it compares to Olmec writing.
.
.
As you can see the Mande writing does correlate with Olmec writing.
quote:I admit. It was Tozzer who made this claim, not Landa. This view is supported by abundant evidence as discussed in this forum.
Wow..Winters actually conceded he was wrong...wait he just shifted responsibility. Fine...
We're still waiting for a direct quote from Tozzer saying that the Yucateca Maya claim that a group of people called the Tutul Xiu gave the Maya their system of writing. You assert that he says this. I want proof (a quote w/ citation).
Either that, or I want a quote from a Yucateca Maya person saying this.
Until you provide this, none of your other claims can be considered valid.
Tozzer's statement is just one support for the Olmec/Mande origin of the Mayan writing and the identification of the Olmec/Mande as the Tutul Xiu. We have the following supporting evidence: 1) Olmec/Mande subtratum in Mayan and Mixe languages;2) probable Olmec/Mande origin for Mayan term for writing the Mixe terms has no cognition to Mayan terms;3) Olmec introduced writing to the Maya since we have bilingual Olmec-Mayan text; 4) the Tutul Xiu were not Mexicans; 5) Swadesh used linguistics to prove that a new linguistic group separated the Huastec and Maya speakers around the time the Olmec appear in Mexico;and finally 6) Olmec artifacts have been found which are written in Mande/Vai symbols and Malinke-Bambara language.
You have not shown that any of the Mixe words I have presented were false. You have not provided any evidence disputing the genetic relationship between Otomi and Olmec/Mande.
Like any deciever you mention the Mixe-Zoque words: tunja and haypa as if they have something to do with Mayan writing. These terms have nothing to do with Mayan writing. But the Mande term for writing is clearly the source for the Mayan term for 'writing'.
Here you are trying to shuffle the pea under the timble to muddy the waters- mixing metaphors. The issue was never that the Mixe words cited were involved in Maya writing. The point was that you were lying and misquoting Lipp and these words proved it. To remind ES readers you made the following claim:
quote:quote: Mixe tradition also suggest that another people lived in the Olmec heartland when they arrived in the area. In "The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing", by Frank J. Lipp it is noted that: "The elders say that there was a people who possessed considerable knowledge and science and that they could make children sick by simply looking at them. At one time they came from a part of Veracruz and took up residence here. However, they spoke a different language. Clearly, they were also Mixe but their language was very modified, and we did not understand the words they spoke"(p.77).
This group was probably the Mande speaking Olmec. This would explain their inability to understand the language of these new settlers.
I pointed out that you had deliberately NOT finnished the quote because it directly contradicted your claim that the newcomers were Mande continuing Lipp on p. 77
quote:Clearly they were also Mixe [COMMENT- They definitely stated that the "people" were Mixe NOT Mande] but their language was very modified and we did not understand the words they spoke. In place of [I]tum for 'one' we say tu"k., and in place of of pagac, 'thirteen', we say mahktugi:k
I then doing some original research showed that the example words given by Lipp's informants showed that the newcomers spoke Zoque (NOT MANDE)
If you go to http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml the Mixe word for "one' is ]tu'k just as Lipp's informants say AND the word that Lipp's informants say the newcomers used was Zoque for "one" is tum so there is no mystery as to their identity and it was not Mande. The Mande word for "one" is kele and thirteen is ta ni soba which have no resemblance whatsoever to the MIxe numbers.
You can spin, fill the air with ink like an octopus BUT you misquoted Lipp and lied about what the meaning of what Lipp's informants said. ES readers should not be confused by the volume of spam. What you did is clear and evident.
quote: There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922).
Oh yeah, another worthless and devoid of evidence Wiener claim of 80 years ago. When no one knew where and when the Olmecs were. In my previous post I showed what passes for evidence in Wiener. Dogon NOT MANDE rock art that has little resemblance to epi-Olmec nor to Vai script.
Secondly, these rock paintings are thousands of years too young to have been the source of epi-Olmec writing as Wiener claims for the Tuxtla statuette. Se Mayor, A. et al., 2005 "Population Dynamics and Paleoclimate over the past 3000 years in the Dogon Country, Mali," [IJ. Anthropological Archaeology 24 : 25-61
quote:p. 31 The arrival date of the first Dogon groups in the Cliff region should be earlier than 1430 AD, the estimated age of the earliest large mask of the Sigui conserved at Ibi (Griaule, 1938),3 and earlier than the reign of the Mossi prince of Yatenga Naba Rawa (1470– 1500 AD), to whom traditions attribute the first driving back of the Dogon toward the Cliff zone (Izard, 1985). . . . Historically, the first Dogon settlement of the Cliff zone can be placed within a range of two centuries, between 1230 and 1430 AD.
.
In 1922, Wiener can be excused for not knowing this, but in 2008 it is inexcusable for you to blindly quote him as an authority.
Here a modern image of the rock art Wiener used as evidence . Please point out the Vai script or epi-Olmec symbols.
quote: The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing. _________________________________________________________________ [list] Figure 2.Manding Term for Writing
Malinke se'be .... Serere safe
Bambara se'be ... Susu se'be
Dioula se'we'..... Samo se'be
Sarakole safa ..... W. Malinke safa
Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ ________________________________________________________________ .
I'm afraid that you will have to do a better job of "proving" this claim. I wrote Valentin Vydrin who is the author of of a new Manding-English dictionary and hs over 100 publications in African linguistics.
Here is the relevant part:
quote:One argument being made >is that the proto-Maya word for "writing" was borrowed >from the proto-Mande word for writing > >The word claimed is : > >The Proto-Manding term for >writing is <*se'be', *safa^. > >Malinke se'be' >Serere safe > >Bambara se'be' >Susu se'be > >Dioula se'we' >Samo se'be > >Sarakole safa W. Malinke >safa > >I would be very grateful if you >could comment on this. What is the proto-Mande term for >"writing"; How old is the term? If there are >proto-words for "writing" in other Niger-Congo languages.
For me, this root, very widely spread among the languages of the Mande family, is undoubtedly an Arabic loan. Most probably, the Arabic source word is cafh.a 'page, leaf, sheet'; by the way, in many Mande languages the meaning of the root in question is only 'amulet' (made by muslim clerics, i.e., a sheet of paper with Coranic versets, covered with leather').
I'm sure that there is no proto-Mande term for "writing", let alone a proto-Niger-Congo one. Writing was unknown to the ancestors of Mande ethnic groups before the arrival of Arabs and Islam; even the enthusiasts of the Nko writing admit this fact (otherwise, they try their best to ascribe all kind of cultural and intellectual achievements to their ancestors; but not on this point.
Please provide us with a quote from an African linguist that there was a proto-Mande word for "writing."
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Just for fun let's go to Wiener (v. 3; 270-) tell us how the following rock art (which BTW is Dogon NOT Mande) is the source of Olmec writing
Yes lets look at the Wiener evidence and see how it compares to Olmec writing.
.
.
As you can see the Mande writing does correlate with Olmec writing.
.
You can "prove " anything" with such faint images and but here is a clearer picture and ES readers can judge for themselves. Also as I pointed out these pictures were painted over 1000 years after the Tuxtla statuette and could not possibly have been the source for it. Please provide a quote that proves that these paintings existed 100 BC or earlier.
BTW I am in contact with the Harvard Library and will get the paper on calabash zodiacs to prove how shallow Wiener was there also
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
. Please point out the Vai script or epi-Olmec symbols.
Printer-friendly view of this topic