After Neil Steede and I deciphered the ‘Salazer Brick’ from Comalcalco made it clear that you can read the Mayan script based on Olmec—while reading the inscriptions in the Mayan language. To test this theory I deciphered some the Ek-Chuah Black Trader god from the Tro-Crotensiana Codex.
It is interesting to note that the boys drilling are depicted as Blacks in the Dresden and Tro-Cotesianus Codexes.
To read the Mayan inscriptions I break down the Olmec syllabic signs which make up the Mayan hierogyphs. Once these signs are given a phonetic value I read them in Yucatec Maya.
Below we will discuss some of these inscriptions.
This is so much baloney. You can get away with interpreting little pieces of Olmec images in your idiosyncratic method because decipherment of Olmec and epi-Olmec writing is still in flux. However, Maya writing is now in the 80-90% stage of decipherment due to very rapid advances. As an experiment, why don't some of the other participants send these supposed translations to people like David Stuart at the University of Texas, or Stephen Houston at Brigham Young University. If they even consider it worth the time, they will roll around in the floor laughing at it.
For starters, translating the dots and lines of dates in maya calendar as if they were words is totally ridiculous.3 We went through this previously when you claimed that the Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela and the Tuxtla statuette were also writing. You finally admitted that these were calendar dates. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348;p=4. but, as usual, you backslide and ignore previous proofs or your mistakes.
BTW when Clyde gets in trouble, he fills the airwaves with spam. Notice this flurry of posts. LOL
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The beginning of a lot of spam as I predicted. Clyde . why do you persist in posting things that only contradict you and support the opposition? We see this on the thread on Tuareg. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The glottal stop is associated with the pronunciation of vowels and consonants. See:
A nice demonstration about how to make the glottal stop, but irrelevant here because the glottal stop in English does not change the meaning of the word as it does in Mayan and Arabic
quote:You attempt to make it appear that there is no relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages because of the glottal stop. You claim that you can not determine a relationship between these languages because the glottal stop in Mayan languages represent a consonant. This is not necessarially true. Granted there are five glottalized Mayan consonants ch’, k’, p’, t’ and ts’, but most glottal stops in the Mayan languages is associated with vowel sounds. See:
again, this does not support your point because the video is teaching the sounds of a vowel [a]. I'll use 7 as a sign for the glottal stop. In fact there are a number of glottal stops a7,e7,o7,i7,and u7 -- these are associated with vowels such as in the video below (which illustrates where you are wrong) ka7an =sky. There are also glottal stops that represent double consonants k7,p7,t7 , ts7,ch7,q7, and tz7. again from the video below k7aan =hammmock and k7an sky.
You can't even copy the number of glottal stops in Maya correctly
A Brief Introduction to Yucatec Mayan Copyright D. R. Shreve, 1999 Also see English-Mayan dictionary
To get a great phrase book by the late John Montgomery
Pronunciation Relatively little time has passed between the current way of spelling Mayan words and how they are pronounced. For that reason alone, there has been little opportunity for the oral to diverge from the written, and so, it is usually important to pronounce each letter shown. Commonly contracted word combinations will be spelled as such. Most letters shown here are pronounced as in English, except that the following are always pronounced as follows: a, like the a in father. b, silent if at the end of a plural noun or verb. e, as the a in lake. i, as the ee in feel. o, as the o in bowl. x, the sh as in shoe. Two vowels in a row are longer than a single vowel. In any situation, this tends to give the syllable they are in an emphasis. For example, beetik (to do) has more accent in the first syllable. Two vowels with an accent on the first one slightly emphasize that first vowel. Note that this does not create a second syllable in the word, just a slight shift in emphasis. Some consonants have an accent mark after them and are another matter. These are glottalized letters and are pronounced with a quick expulsion of air, for example: ch’, k’, p’, t’ and ts’ . One way to hear these letters glottalized is to go to your library and get a recording of Stephen Hawking speaking. When his artificial voice pronounces these letters at the end of a word, it glottalizes them. Barring this, the p’ is easiest to describe. Pretend you are disgusted with something, and spit out "Pah." Spit toward the ground and away from the wind. Now be a bit more amiable, and less explosive and try it in the word p’aak, or tomato, which is far different in meaning from paak, a verb meaning to double. With ch’, k’, t’ and ts’, what you need to do is to form the letters in your mouth as you normally would, but at the very beginning, force them out quickly. The k includes a clicking sound. Remember that in Yucatec, as far as pronunciation goes, the only difference between some words, such as kaax (a chicken) and k’aax (jungle) is the way you say the glottalized sound. This may not be a problem, since you are much more likely to refer to fried chicken (kaax tsabil) than to talk about felling some jungle (luubsik k’aax), but it could be confusing if you are trying to say k beetik (or, we do) instead of k’abeetik (it is very necessary to...). Vowels with an apostrophe following them indicate a glottal stop, such as when a person quickly says "oh oh," though the actual stoppage may seem barely noticeable, and may, at other times, be better described as a glottal pause. At the end of a word you cut the vowel in two by shutting it off with your windpipe. In any word of more than one syllable, the stop will tend to emphasize the preceding portion of the word. For example, waye’ (here) pronounced wa-YEAH, though with the glottal stop it is more like wa-YE, because you must cut it short. Once you realize that most Maya place names seem to be heavily accented in the last syllable, it is easy to assume the same for the other words, but that is not the case. One situation is when the word is normally a one syllable word that you have added to, the root word will still be accented. For example, when bel (road) is plural, as in belo'ob or you are referring to that road, as in le belo or even those roads le belo'obo, the accent will normally remain on bel. There will be the slight emphasis caused by a double vowel or a glottal stop, but, other than that, the best bet with a word of more than one syllable is to pronounce them all with equal emphasis.
Given this reality we can see a relationship between Mande Ku ‘sacre’ and Mayan K’u ‘god’ We still have the K sound, eventhough there is the glottal Mayan K’. See
Henderson completely contradicts you. There are glottal stops associated with consonants (i.e you get two consonants) and there are glottal stops associated with vowels. It's not true what you say that glottal stops are only associated with vowels. Notice that you are again trying to shift the goal posts because you have been adamant, in the past, that in your method we had to concentrate on consonants. LOL. Both Henderson and the video support my contention that apart from making the sound correspondence different glottal stops in Maya (unlike English) change the meaning of words. Even worse for your feeble attempts to make Maya and Mande similar is the fact that long and short vowels and tone ALSO change the meaning of words.
From your own video k7an =yellow;ka7an=sky; k7aan= hammock and kaan =snake
Lets play ( this from the Maya Cordemex dictionary) Since Mande [ku] has no glottal stop, if you were honest and a real linguist, the proper comparison would be the Maya [ku], not Maya [k7u]
ku=owl ku= expression meaning pain equivalent to oh!
k'u = god k'u= temple k'u =bird nest
All of your Maya Mande claims suffer from this same defect of ignoring the fact that the glottal stop changes both the sound and the meaning. Its like my saying that in Mande [n], [ng] and [ny] make no difference because they all have [n] in them.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Bernard you love to make an issue of the glottal stop to make it appear that this would deny the possibility of claiming a relationship between the Mande and Mayan languages this is false.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Still avoiding the issue of the non-existing glottal dtop in Mande and its crucial importance in Mayan languages.
A blast from the past 1998. Scott and Carrasquer Vidal are professional linguists
[QUOTE]From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology Subject: Re: New Olmec Religion Site Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:03:13 GMT Organization: Cleveland State University
On 24 Jan 1998 17:37:21 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
[snips]
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (mcv@wxs.nl) wrote: >: On 23 Jan 1998 00:08:53 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. >: Winters) wrote:
>: >Moreover, your comments about >: >ka'an and kan does not invalidate any of my arguments. The fact remains that in comparative linguistics we
>: We? I most strongly object!
>: >look for regular correspondence between letters and >: >sounds to prove correspondence.
>: I rest my case. This is so wrong, I don't even know how to begin to >: explain in how many different ways this sentence proves that Mr. >: Winters hasn't got the foggiest notion of comparative linguistics, or >: any kind of linguistics at all. The terms "letters" and "sounds" have >: not been used naively like this since the 19th century. >: "Correspondences between letters and sounds" is most definitely not >: what we're looking for in comparative linguistics. We don't "look for >: correspondences to prove correspondences", that doesn't make any kind >: of rational sense, let alone linguistical sense...
>This is nonsense.
No, it's a simple statement of fact.
> There is a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages >which is proven through the use of comparative and historical methods. > Linguistic evidence is the most convicing data supporting a >Mande relationship with the Maya, and the Mande origin of Olmec >culture.
In that case the theory is in serious trouble.
> A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate >words with common or similar meanings that have systematic >consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or >type of vowels.
That's a bit of an overstatement.
> Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance >of consonants at certain locations in words having similar >meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
Not necessarily; what are the 'similar speech sounds' in English <furrow> and Welsh <rhych>, which are cognate?
> An examination of Mayan and Mande homophones indicate >striking similarity. There is a connection between Malinke- >Bambara and Yucatec homonyms for 'high, sky and serpent'. > In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon >high,and sky'.
Then why do you give these words as <sa> in your table below?
> In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan >means ' serpent and heaven'.
Bernard has already pointed out (with documentation) that 'sky' is <ka'an>, which has three consonants, not two.
> Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/, appear as >/c/ in the Mayan languages. For example, Malinke Bambara, the >word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan >con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. For example we have
>Mayan Malinke-Bambara >can serpent sa >con to sell sa, san >can heaven, sky sa
At least one entry here, the last on the Maya side, is wrong.
> In these examples we see regular correspondence between the >Mayan /c/ and Malinke-Bambara /s/.
And does this correspondence hold up elsewhere? What in Malinke-Bambara corresponds to the glottal stop in <ka'an>?
Brian M. Scott %%%%%%% From: gkeyes6988@aol.com (GKeyes6988) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 25 Jan 1998 23:33:57 GMT Clyde Winters wrote <snip>
(: Winters claims that the Yucatec Maya word for “mother” is “naal” which : does not exist in Yucatec Maya according to the Cordemex dictionary. The : term for mother is:
: p. 545 na’ or naa’ (glottal stop and strong pronounciation) which is still : quite different from a simple “na”
(Winters) ..This is false there is no difference between na' and na.
This is the equivalent of saying there is no difference between English "to"and "top", "be" and "bet" or "do" and "dog". The glottal stop is a consonant-- not one that's important in English, but which is important indeed in Mayan. Again, it seems that the key to Mr. Winter's comparisons is not knowing much about Mayan or linguistics. %%%%%%% From: Akan@pizlink.net (Akan Ifriqiya) Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 26 Jan 1998 08:27:02 GMT
In article <6agu1n$cuv$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu says... > >Benjamin H. Diebold (benjamin.diebold@yale.edu) wrote: >: In article <6aemlc$qe$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu >: (Clyde A. Winters) wrote: SNIP >: > This is false there is no difference between na' and na. > >: Hello? > >: I don't know much about linguistics, but when I start dropping my glottal >: stops in Arabic, people stop understanding me (even more than usual). >: Winters absolutely has to be wrong here; he's simply imposing his own >: cultural paradigm on this linguistic argument. > > >For comparison purposes we don't have to refer to the pronunciation of >the word unless we are reconstructing the Proto-Language. > >C.A. Winters
What? Sahibi, the glottal stop is an integral part of the word, it is not some mere artefact of pronounciation! In arabic, as in other languages using the glottal, if you don't use the glottal, you have an utterly *different* word! Like na's versus na?s (where ? is the ain and ' is the glottal or hamza). What rubbish statements are you proposing here? Ramira Naka
Twelve years later. Clyde continues to make the same mistakes and demonstrate linguistic ignorance and he never admit errors. [/QUOTE
]Oh yes I remember this discussion. I used to post to sci.archaeology. This was a biased site. To make it appear I lost debates Doug Weller who was the moderator of the site would ban me from the site long enough to make sure the readers thought I had lost the debate. ---- . The discussants in the sci-archaeology post were just showing bias. They could get away with this because Doug Weller, wanted it to appear I was wrong.
.
Poor you, you posted megabytes in the science archeology list. If you think linguists in this list were mean -- how about the linguistics scholars in the "Ancient Near East list" about your claims of Mande and Dravidian. Perhaps you only shine in Afrocentric lists where your critics can be tarred as "racist." Has any mainstream linguist ever cited your work seriously? enjoy:
From: Jose Rubio Pardo <gonzalor@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:50:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Sumerian Related to African/Darvidian?
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Clyde A. Winters wrote:
>The appears to be close relationship between Dravidian, Manding (an African language) and the Sumerian languages. Although these people are separated in time and geographical space they show considerable anology.
When you say "Manding", I think you may mean "Mandingo". "Mandenga", "Mandingo" have been some of the names previously used to refer to a whole group of languages called nowadays (by most scholars) just "Mande". It includes many languages: Bambara, Beng, Mende, etc. Otherwise, you may be referring to just one Mande language called "Manding" or "Mandekan". Actually, the problems of dialectalization in Mande are so complex that what is regarded by some scholars as a language, according to others it's a whole family. Anyways, you might find interesting to read D. J. DWYER's paper in J. Bendor-Samuel (ed) _The Niger-Congo Languages_ (Lanham MD: University Press, 1989_, pp. 47 ff.
>There are similar place names found were these people live according to the research of Alain Anselin <Le Methe d'Europe>, Nayar <The Problem of Dravidian Origins>, and Vamos Toth Bator <Tamana>. Vamos Toth, has proven beyond a doubt that these people shared cultural items and placenames. >The ancestors of the speakers of these languages probably lived in middle Africa, in the highland regions 6000 years ago.(6) The practiced a sedentary-pastoral lifestyle:
I'm sure everybody could find similar coincidences between Basque and Tagalog, for instance, but that would be statistically irrelevant and methodologically pointless. Regarding the date, well, if one has enough imagination, 6000 years wouldn't be enough time (I mean, Sumerian was probably a spoken language 5000 years ago, so you should choose an earlier date).
Seriously, and very respectfully, just focussed on the Sumerian material you quote, well, some words seem not to exist (manus = lord ?) or they have different meanings (pap means, sometimes, brother [Akk. ahu], but not father; kalam means land, not boat --I take this as a lapsus because of the ancient Greek metaphor for state, or you are reading that sign as UN [Akk. ni:$u], people, the same sign but a different word--; etc.). Along with serious scholarship (like the wonderful PSD), you seem to rely on Gostony's dictionary (Paris 1975) which is a nice piece of "imaginative" writing. I think I already gave this reference in this kind of never-ending discussion, but please read Edzard's (_BSOAS_ 39 [1976]: 637 f) and Hru$ka's (_OLZ_ 74 [1979]: 337 ff.) reviews. Sincerely, I don't think scholars like those working on PSD or Emeneau deserve to share quotation with Gostony (who, I'm sure, is/was a nice or even fun person, but whose book has as many mistakes as pages).
Regarding |idian and the like. I understand some people have worked on that possible connection (I think Boisson has written something about that, although he has never published that stuff). However, the Mohenjo-daro/Harappa link is not clear at all, I'm afraid, in spite of Wilson's well-meaning attempt. Probably the most interesting book to read on that topic is Asko PARPOLA's _Deciphering the Indus Script_ (Cambridge 1994). He and his team seem to have identified just one possible Dravidian word (Tamil mi:n_ "fish"). However, one word is not enough (although there exist other arguments to point to a "Dravidian" hypothesis), we don't know too much on Dravidian in ancient times (even the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis --although McAlpin's work is quite interesting), and we are still at the beginning: lack of enough evidence.
For further discussion I dare suggest we should move this to the HISTLING list (I take my friend Andrew's good suggestion). Anyways, thanks. Gonzalo Rubio Near Eastern Studies Johns Hopkins University
From: Alexis Manaster Ramer <amr@CS.Wayne.EDU> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:50:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Sumerian Related to African/Darvidian?
Before we could even discuss such a claim, we would have to do a number of things which have not been done. The main one is that since Mande is part of a much larger language family, we would have to compare not Mande but the whole family to Dravidian and Sumerian. Without this, there is simply nothing to discuss: you are doing the equivalent of comparing Polish to Hebrew or a giraffe to an amoeba. There are other things, but they pale in comparison. These include the fact that you have get the forms and meanings right, which is a particular problem in the case of Dravidian whose reconstruction is in a very parlous state; you have to find parallels other than place names (which are to be ignored at an early stage like this because we know little about their original meanings) and names of domestic animals (which are notorious Wanderworter; compare English kangaroo, giraffe, okapi, etc.); and you have make at least a stab at saying something about the supposed correspondences, the morphology, etc., etc.
There is no need to ask, as Jim does, about historical or archeological evidence. There is NO LINGUISTIC evidence here at all.
Alexis MR
From: "Clyde A. Winters" <cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:14:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Sumerian Related to African/Darvidian?
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Alexis Manaster Ramer wrote:
>Before we could even discuss such a claim, we would have to do a number of things which have not been done. The main one is that since Mande is part of a much larger language family, we would have to compare not Mande but the whole family to Dravidian and Sumerian. Without this, there is simply nothing to discuss: you are doing the equivalent of comparing Polish to Hebrew or a giraffe to an amoeba. There are other things, but they pale in comparison. These include the fact that you have get the forms and meanings right, which is a particular problem in the case of Dravidian whose reconstruction is in a very parlous state; you have to find parallels other than place names (which are to be ignored at an early stage like this because we know little about their original meanings) and names of domestic animals (which are notorious Wanderworter; compare English kangaroo, giraffe, okapi, etc.); and you have make at least a stab at saying something about the supposed correspondences, the morphology, etc., etc.
>There is no need to ask, as Jim does, about historical or archeological evidence. There is NO LINGUISTIC evidence here at all.
>Alexis MR
From: "Clyde A. Winters" <cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:40:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re:Sumerian related to African/Dravidian
Alexis in his comments concerning my posting suggested that there was little to no linguistics in the piece. Granted, Manding is the French term used to refer to the Mandikan/Bambara group of Northern Mande languages (if you are interested in learning more about Proto-Mande please refer to my 1986 article in <Mankind>, footnoted in my original posting), but we can compare one language to another without referring to their proto-forms. This reality of linguistic comparison helped scholars discover the Indo-European group of languages. Any first year linguistics major knows that the people who discovered the Indo-European family did not compare proto-forms to determine the unity of this group.
As a result I beg to differ, this is linguistic evidence of a link between Sumerian and African/Dravidian languages. If you dispute my findings please use linguistic examples, rhetorical flair has little to do with scientific debate.
Concerning the Indus Valley writing i believe that more of this writing can be read than the word "Min" 'fish, illumination, etc". Parpola has failed to go farther in his decipherment because he is (1) not a linguist and totally unfamiliar with linguistic methods and (2) he is only familiar with Indo-Aryan culture, so he can not really understand much about Dravidian culture. If you wish to see a different view on this subject please refer to the following articles:
C.A. Winters,"The Harappan script", <Journa;l of Tamil Studies>, no.30 (1987) pp.89-111. C.A. Winters, "The inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic seals", <Tamil Civilization>, 2(1), (1984) pp.1-8. C.A. Winters, "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", <Central Asiatic Journal>, 34 (1-2), (1990). C.A. Winters, "The Dravidian language and the Harappan Script", <Archiv Orientalni>, (1989/1990).
This articles will help you discover a more realistic way of raeding the Indus-Valley writing.
C.A.Winters
-----------------------------
From: Jose Rubio Pardo <gonzalor@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 18:51:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Sumerian Related to African/Darvidian?
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Clyde A. Winters wrote:
>large classifications of language families. If you dispute my finding please use linguistic evidence, rhetorical flair has little consequence in scientific debate.
Regarding linguistic evidence, and with my deepest respect for you and your scholarship, I explained you that most of your alleged Sumerian evidence do not exist at all. I dare say, you are misunderstanding the complexities of cuneiform (for instance, reading kalam but with the meaning of un --as I told you: the same sign, but two words), which is perfectly normal. Also you seem to rely on some outdated or quite idiosyncratic works (like Gostony's). Unfortunately, my e-mail was down for some hours, so I'm not sure if you presented further evidence. However, I'd guess we should eliminate Sumerian form that hypothetical "Mandingo-Dravidian" group. Please, be sure most Sumeriologists would be quite happy if someone could establish a genetical relation between Sumerian and, let's say, Dravidian, or Munda, or whatever. It's a pity we seem not to have that evidence (at least now).
>You also mentioned Parpola as an expert on the Indus Valley writing. He is a fine Indo-Europeanist, but he is not a linguist and he knows very little about the Dravidian languages. He does admit that the Indus Valley writing may be Dravidian, but his total lack of linguistic methods and Dravidian languages has hindered his researches. If you are interested in seeing a more objective view of the Indus Valley script and its decipherment please refer to the following articles:
Well, Asko Parpola (I'd avoid to use just his last name, since his brother Simo is a very important and brilliant Assyriologist) is a very well known Indologist, and along with his Harappan project (in which a good team of scholars is working) he has published articles which do prove his expertise as a linguist ("India's names in early foreign sources", _Sri Venkateswara Univ. Ori. Jour._ 18 [1978], and his several and deep articles on Vedic and post-Vedic rituals you probably know very well --in most of them one finds always a clear respect for the core of the Neogrammarian approach, which is in essence the methodological framework most people doing Historical linguistics work within).
I try to follow what is going on regarding the Mohenjo-daro/Harappa studies, and I must say Asko Parpola's book is a good and very prudent status qaestionis, and many other people may agree with me. From my very humble point of view, that book represents a real advance from previous attempts by both Russian and Indian scholars.
Finally, on methodology. Although the "massive/intuitive" comparative method seems to be coming back (well, at least one quite brilliant scholar is using that, let's say, "anti-method" [the last Heidegger Derrida would write "method" under erasure here]), I must say, very respectfully, that, when I read your first message, it reminded me of the book the Chevalier de Paravey published in 1885, _Memoire sur l'origine japonaise, arabe et basque de la civilisation des peuples du plateau de Bogota_. I'm sure a conversation with that French gentleman (I guess) would have been more enjoyable and fun than hours of deep and serious discussion with Brugmann, Delbrueck, Osthoff, or Behagel. However, when I attempt to find methodologically sound answers to some questions, I must turn to them, to those "boring" Neogrammarians. Of course, their methodology has been enriched by many other approaches. For that, I would dare recommend you to read (I apologize if you are already familiar with them) at least two things: Raimo Anttila's wonderful _Historical and Comparative Linguistics_ (New York, 1972 & 1989), and the collective vol. Edgard Polome published in 1990 (NY), _Research Guide on Language Change_. Thanks a lot.
Gonzalo Rubio Near Eastern Studies Johns Hopkins University
-----------------------------
From: Peter Daniels <pdaniels@press-gopher.uchicago.edu> Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:04:21 -0500 Subject: Phantasy in language relations
I know nothing of the lexica of Dravidian, Niger-Congo, or Sumerian, some alleged items of which are placed in parallel rows and columns by Clyde A. Winters. I do know that the assertion that the three languages "used a similar writing system" is utter nonsense. I have not heard of this alleged "ancient Manding script", but until more is understood of the Indus Valley script than that it seems to have been logosyllabic and that Dravidian is the most likely language family for it to have recorded, it cannot be stated that it is "similar" to the (rather well understood) Sumerian.
From: Peter Daniels <pdaniels@press-gopher.uchicago.edu> Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:14:12 -0500 Subject: Rawlinson
Where does Clyde A. Winters get the nonsense he is putting out on the ANE List? I refer only to that of which I have certain knowledge. Rawlinson did not decipher "the cuneiform writing"; there is no such person as "C. B. Rawlinson" (this is proof enough that C.A.W. has not consiulted the material he cites!); and the person who did decipher Mesopotamian cuneiform, Edward Hincks, did not use "two African languages: one Semitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing." He was fully conversant with all the known Semitic languages (i.e. Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac), and his understanding of Semitic grammar was vital in his work; the principal article presenting the decipherment concerns the Urartian texts discovered by Schulz in the 1820s but published only in 1840; and Major, then Colonel, then Sir Henry Crswicke Rawlinson incorporated Hincks's work into his own publications without acknowledgment.
See Peter T. Daniels, "Edward Hincks's Decipherment of Mesopotamian Cunei- form," in *The Edward Hincks Bicentenary Lectures*, edited by Kevin Cathcart (Dublin: Near Eastern Studies Dept., University College Dublin, 1994); summary in my article in the first volume of *Civilizations of the Ancient Near East*.
-----------------------------
From: Alexis Manaster Ramer <amr@CS.Wayne.EDU> Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 08:26:08 -0400 Subject: Claimed Linguistic Relationships, Sumerian et al.
Since I have been challenged to provide substance and not merely rhetoric to back up my statement that the recently posted arguments do NOT constitute even the most elementary kind of linguistic evidence of kindship between Sumerian, Dravidian, and Mande, I thought I would supply a few basic references and a brief explanation.
Aside from the fact (noted by Gonzalo) that many of the Sumerian forms cited are mistakes (I have not seen anybody check the ones from the other languages, but I would still like to first be told what "Dravidian" means in this context, since there is no reconstruction of Proto-Dravidian to speak of as yet), the main objection is this: between any pair of languages you can find some startling resemblences: Aztec has at least the following accidental resemblances to one or another IE language: 1st person sg. is neh, the word for 'good' is huel (i.e., wel), the word for 'god' is teo-tl (-tl is the almost universal noun suffix), etc. etc. So, we have to have some way of distinguishing accidental resemblances from those which are significant in that they point to a common origin of the words in question (whether through borrowing of thee words or because the languages are related). The studies by Callaghan and Miller and by Campbell showed that it is all too easy to come up with long long lists of accidental resemblances between a single language (English or Finnish, as it happened) and a big family (Mixtecan or Amerind, as it happened). One of the things that helps us eliminate such spurious comparisons is the fact that we do not try to find distant cousins for English or Finnish, but rather place English within its IE context, Finnish within its Uralic context, and lo, most of the spurious comparisons between English (or Finnish) and various Amerindian groupings suddenly dissolve into nothingness. This is why I said there is no point even discussing a proposal for relating Sumerian to Mande without knowing the whole family Mande belongs to or to Dravidian without having a solid grasp of what is likely to have been Proto-Dravidian. I of course think that the proposed comparisons will then be discredited. BUT on the other hand, if they stood up to that test and if in fact more comparisons were then evident, then that would be an argument for at least looking at the proposal with some degree of interest, so those who support such proposals should be EAGER to subject their views to this kind of test. And if they are not, then the rest of us have reason to be suspicious.
Now, in addition, given that Sumerian itself has no close relatives, in this case we cannot talk of a protolanguage or a family of languages, and so we have no control. Thus, as discussed at some length in my forthcoming paper, languages without reasonably close relatives are a particular problem for classification because it is all too easy to find spurious resemblances between them and something else and there is no way to refute these (as there is in the case of English or Finnish, which do have large families). Thus, what I show is that two Amerindian languages Tonkawa and Zuni can equally easily be seen as being distantly related to different (and mutually exclusive) groupings, precisely because they have no close relatives. This does not mean that such languages as Sumerian, Tonkawa, Zuni (also Basque, Tarascan, Burushaski, and a few others) cannot be successfully related to other languages. But it does mean that, because it is relatively easier to come up with spurious comparisons for them, we must also demand a higher standard proof here. I think that this is all borne out by our experience: various crazy and sometimes even noncrazy people have tried to compare Sumerian to everything from Hungarian to Basque to whatever else is available (because such spurious comparisons are easy), whereas people usually do not try to do the same with a language that is firmly embedded within a large family (e.g., no one tries to separate Akkadian from the rest of Semitic and connect it to Hungarian or Dravidian, etc.). And so I think the skepticism which most experts in languages of the Near East now feel for ANY proposal linking Sumerian to anything else is very largely justified, and the standard of proof ought to be high. If Sumerian is related to anything else, this will not be as easy as to show as was the discovery that Armenian is Indo-European or some such. And while we are on the topic of IE, I guess I should have said this earlier: it may be that the discovery of the connection between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin was rather painless(and the addition of Gothic, Lithuanian, and Slavic as well) but it took a very long time for people to accept that Hittite was IE (long time and very strong evidence) and even longer for the acceptance of other Anatolian languages, notably Lycian. Armenian and Albanian did not take as long but they also required some time and serious work.
Alexis MR
Callaghan, Catherine A. and Wick R. Miller. 1962. Swadesh's Macro Mixtecan hypothesis and English. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28:278-285.
Campbell, Lyle. 1988. Review of Greenberg (1987). Language 64:591-615.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. In press. Tonkawa and Zuni: Two Test Cases for the Greenberg Classification. International Journal of American Ling (sometime this summer or fall).
-----------------------------
From: "Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289" <WHITING@cc.helsinki.fi> Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 16:16:41 +0300 Subject: Re: Sumerian Related to African/Darvidian?
I find this to be more on the line of a form of entertainment, like double-crostics, than any sort of research that anyone with any linguistic training could take seriously. In this spirit I have added a column for English to the categories orignally given so everyone can see how the game is played. Perhaps someone can fill in the two slots left blank or come up with some better "cognates". Others may wish to join in by adding a column for their own language. Finnish karitsa, "lamb," and koira, "dog," come to mind immediately for the first category, but I shouldn't jump the gun.
lamb/ sheep cattle horse/mule dog Dravidian kuri, kori naaku pari oori Manding sara gunga bari wuru Sumerian sar,zar gud, gu paru ur English kine foal cur
There is full correspondence between Dravidian, Manding and Sumerian lexical items in the initial consonants d, l,m,n,t, and s. Other phonetic correspondences include assimilation of k--g, p--f, b--p, s--c and l--r are interchangeable. For example: English Sumerian Manding Tamil English chief kal kele-tigi gaasa great, gross boat kalam kulu Kalam galley man tin tye kenten gander father pap pa appan pa, pappy lord manus mansa mannan man person uku moko uk moke, guy road sila sila caalai circuit body ni ni niram flesh uzu subu uu soup, sup child iti di kuttam kid container bar bara pai pail to send bala para bila bail to take dug du tekku take to cut tar teg tege
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QB] Still avoiding the issue of the non-existing glottal dtop in Mande and its crucial importance in Mayan languages.
A blast from the past 1998. Scott and Carrasquer Vidal are professional linguists
[QUOTE]From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology Subject: Re: New Olmec Religion Site Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:03:13 GMT Organization: Cleveland State University
On 24 Jan 1998 17:37:21 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
[snips]
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (mcv@wxs.nl) wrote: >: On 23 Jan 1998 00:08:53 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. >: Winters) wrote:
>: >Moreover, your comments about >: >ka'an and kan does not invalidate any of my arguments. The fact remains that in comparative linguistics we
>: We? I most strongly object!
>: >look for regular correspondence between letters and >: >sounds to prove correspondence.
>: I rest my case. This is so wrong, I don't even know how to begin to >: explain in how many different ways this sentence proves that Mr. >: Winters hasn't got the foggiest notion of comparative linguistics, or >: any kind of linguistics at all. The terms "letters" and "sounds" have >: not been used naively like this since the 19th century. >: "Correspondences between letters and sounds" is most definitely not >: what we're looking for in comparative linguistics. We don't "look for >: correspondences to prove correspondences", that doesn't make any kind >: of rational sense, let alone linguistical sense...
>This is nonsense.
No, it's a simple statement of fact.
> There is a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages >which is proven through the use of comparative and historical methods. > Linguistic evidence is the most convicing data supporting a >Mande relationship with the Maya, and the Mande origin of Olmec >culture.
In that case the theory is in serious trouble.
> A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate >words with common or similar meanings that have systematic >consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or >type of vowels.
That's a bit of an overstatement.
> Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance >of consonants at certain locations in words having similar >meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
Not necessarily; what are the 'similar speech sounds' in English <furrow> and Welsh <rhych>, which are cognate?
> An examination of Mayan and Mande homophones indicate >striking similarity. There is a connection between Malinke- >Bambara and Yucatec homonyms for 'high, sky and serpent'. > In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon >high,and sky'.
Then why do you give these words as <sa> in your table below?
> In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan >means ' serpent and heaven'.
Bernard has already pointed out (with documentation) that 'sky' is <ka'an>, which has three consonants, not two.
> Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/, appear as >/c/ in the Mayan languages. For example, Malinke Bambara, the >word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan >con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. For example we have
>Mayan Malinke-Bambara >can serpent sa >con to sell sa, san >can heaven, sky sa
At least one entry here, the last on the Maya side, is wrong.
> In these examples we see regular correspondence between the >Mayan /c/ and Malinke-Bambara /s/.
And does this correspondence hold up elsewhere? What in Malinke-Bambara corresponds to the glottal stop in <ka'an>?
Brian M. Scott %%%%%%% From: gkeyes6988@aol.com (GKeyes6988) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 25 Jan 1998 23:33:57 GMT Clyde Winters wrote <snip>
(: Winters claims that the Yucatec Maya word for “mother” is “naal” which : does not exist in Yucatec Maya according to the Cordemex dictionary. The : term for mother is:
: p. 545 na’ or naa’ (glottal stop and strong pronounciation) which is still : quite different from a simple “na”
(Winters) ..This is false there is no difference between na' and na.
This is the equivalent of saying there is no difference between English "to"and "top", "be" and "bet" or "do" and "dog". The glottal stop is a consonant-- not one that's important in English, but which is important indeed in Mayan. Again, it seems that the key to Mr. Winter's comparisons is not knowing much about Mayan or linguistics. %%%%%%% From: Akan@pizlink.net (Akan Ifriqiya) Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 26 Jan 1998 08:27:02 GMT
In article <6agu1n$cuv$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu says... > >Benjamin H. Diebold (benjamin.diebold@yale.edu) wrote: >: In article <6aemlc$qe$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu >: (Clyde A. Winters) wrote: SNIP >: > This is false there is no difference between na' and na. > >: Hello? > >: I don't know much about linguistics, but when I start dropping my glottal >: stops in Arabic, people stop understanding me (even more than usual). >: Winters absolutely has to be wrong here; he's simply imposing his own >: cultural paradigm on this linguistic argument. > > >For comparison purposes we don't have to refer to the pronunciation of >the word unless we are reconstructing the Proto-Language. > >C.A. Winters
What? Sahibi, the glottal stop is an integral part of the word, it is not some mere artefact of pronounciation! In arabic, as in other languages using the glottal, if you don't use the glottal, you have an utterly *different* word! Like na's versus na?s (where ? is the ain and ' is the glottal or hamza). What rubbish statements are you proposing here? Ramira Naka
The statements in this post are false. They claim that <ka’an> has three consonants. This was false . It only has two consonants <k-n>, /a’/ is just a glottalized vowel . See:
again, this does not support your point because the video is teaching the sounds of a vowel [a]. I'll use 7 as a sign for the glottal stop. In fact there are a number of glottal stops a7,e7,o7,i7,and u7 -- these are associated with vowels such as in the video below (which illustrates where you are wrong) ka7an =sky. There are also glottal stops that represent double consonants k7,p7,t7 , ts7,ch7,q7, and tz7. again from the video below k7aan =hammmock and k7an sky.
You can't even copy the number of glottal stops in Maya correctly
You are such a liar. In the video sky <kaan> did not have a glottal stop . See:
The informant even spelled out the word <kaan> in the video yet you claim a glottal stop is associated with the word. In fact you claim the <k>. in sky is glottal consonant this is false as illustrated by the video.
And even when he pronounced the Mayan terms for hammock the <k> sound did not disappear.
Moreover, there is no consonant after the Mayan vowels, there was just a stop which changed the sound of the vowel.
quote: Quetzalcoatl
Henderson completely contradicts you. There are glottal stops associated with consonants (i.e you get two consonants) and there are glottal stops associated with vowels. It's not true what you say that glottal stops are only associated with vowels. Notice that you are again trying to shift the goal posts because you have been adamant, in the past, that in your method we had to concentrate on consonants. LOL. Both Henderson and the video support my contention that apart from making the sound correspondence different glottal stops in Maya (unlike English) change the meaning of words. Even worse for your feeble attempts to make Maya and Mande similar is the fact that long and short vowels and tone ALSO change the meaning of words.
From your own video k7an =yellow;ka7an=sky; k7aan= hammock and kaan =snake
Lets play ( this from the Maya Cordemex dictionary) Since Mande [ku] has no glottal stop, if you were honest and a real linguist, the proper comparison would be the Maya [ku], not Maya [k7u]
ku=owl ku= expression meaning pain equivalent to oh!
k'u = god k'u= temple k'u =bird nest
All of your Maya Mande claims suffer from this same defect of ignoring the fact that the glottal stop changes both the sound and the meaning. Its like my saying that in Mande [n], [ng] and [ny] make no difference because they all have [n] in them.
LOL. It may change the meaning of the word but the structure of the word remains and we still have a <k> sound even if it has glottal stop.
The fact that Mande <ku> means sacre, and Mayan <k’u> = god show the terms are related.
You don’t know anything about comparative linguistics.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: This is so much baloney. You can get away with interpreting little pieces of Olmec images in your idiosyncratic method because decipherment of Olmec and epi-Olmec writing is still in flux. However, Maya writing is now in the 80-90% stage of decipherment due to very rapid advances. As an experiment, why don't some of the other participants send these supposed translations to people like David Stuart at the University of Texas, or Stephen Houston at Brigham Young University. If they even consider it worth the time, they will roll around in the floor laughing at it.
For starters, translating the dots and lines of dates in maya calendar as if they were words is totally ridiculous.3 We went through this previously when you claimed that the Long Count dates on the Mojarra Stela and the Tuxtla statuette were also writing. You finally admitted that these were calendar dates. see http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000348;p=4 . but, as usual, you backslide and ignore previous proofs or your mistakes.
BTW when Clyde gets in trouble, he fills the airwaves with spam. Notice this flurry of posts. LOL
You're just jealous that I can read the writing and get detailed meaning while others find little meaning. I said that some times the dots and lines can have calendric import. These dots and dashes also have meaning as words as I discuss my video on the tuxtla statuette.
again, this does not support your point because the video is teaching the sounds of a vowel [a]. I'll use 7 as a sign for the glottal stop. In fact there are a number of glottal stops a7,e7,o7,i7,and u7 -- these are associated with vowels such as in the video below (which illustrates where you are wrong) ka7an =sky. There are also glottal stops that represent double consonants k7,p7,t7 , ts7,ch7,q7, and tz7. again from the video below k7aan =hammmock and k7an sky.
You can't even copy the number of glottal stops in Maya correctly
You are such a liar. In the video sky <kaan> did not have a glottal stop . See:
The informant even spelled out the word <kaan> in the video yet you claim a glottal stop is associated with the word. In fact you claim the <k>. in sky is glottal consonant this is false as illustrated by the video.
And even when he pronounced the Mayan terms for hammock the <k> sound did not disappear.
Moreover, there is no consonant after the Mayan vowels, there was just a stop which changed the sound of the vowel.
lurkers can see and hear for themselves. If you scroll down to the comments you see:
quote:Faltaron unos acentos para poder reconocer la pronunciación escrita: k'áan - hamaca k'an - amarillo ka'an - cielo kaan - culebra
Additionally the Diccionario Maya Cordemex, the most complete Maya dictionary has the following k'aan= hammock p. 375 ka'an = sky p. 291 kan = snake p. 291 k'an = yellow p. 375
It's a tipoff, whenever you resort to insults ("you are a liar") its an indication that you are losing the argument. The multiplication of long posts is also a tipoff. This is obvious not only in my interactions with you but in al your interactions with other posters on ES.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I normally agree with you but in this case I see a Black African on the right carrying a spear with a copper head. The lack of paint on the feet doesn't convince me. The beard is also compelling along with the Yoruban style neklace.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
again, this does not support your point because the video is teaching the sounds of a vowel [a]. I'll use 7 as a sign for the glottal stop. In fact there are a number of glottal stops a7,e7,o7,i7,and u7 -- these are associated with vowels such as in the video below (which illustrates where you are wrong) ka7an =sky. There are also glottal stops that represent double consonants k7,p7,t7 , ts7,ch7,q7, and tz7. again from the video below k7aan =hammmock and k7an sky.
You can't even copy the number of glottal stops in Maya correctly
You are such a liar. In the video sky <kaan> did not have a glottal stop . See:
The informant even spelled out the word <kaan> in the video yet you claim a glottal stop is associated with the word. In fact you claim the <k>. in sky is glottal consonant this is false as illustrated by the video.
And even when he pronounced the Mayan terms for hammock the <k> sound did not disappear.
Moreover, there is no consonant after the Mayan vowels, there was just a stop which changed the sound of the vowel.
lurkers can see and hear for themselves. If you scroll down to the comments you see:
quote:Faltaron unos acentos para poder reconocer la pronunciación escrita: k'áan - hamaca k'an - amarillo ka'an - cielo kaan - culebra
Additionally the Diccionario Maya Cordemex, the most complete Maya dictionary has the following k'aan= hammock p. 375 ka'an = sky p. 291 kan = snake p. 291 k'an = yellow p. 375
It's a tipoff, whenever you resort to insults ("you are a liar") its an indication that you are losing the argument. The multiplication of long posts is also a tipoff. This is obvious not only in my interactions with you but in al your interactions with other posters on ES.
It is not an insult it is fact. In the video the informant makes it clear that sky is pronounced <kaan> and the same is documented in the video in writing posted on the screen.See:
If a person pronounces a word and the spelling of the word is posted on the screen, and someone claims that the word is spelt and pronounced differently that person is making a false statement. When you make a false statement you are a liar. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Moreover you say check the comments, the comments were written by someone who looked at the video.
You failed to provide the entire quote. The author wrote:" Los mas dificiles de diferenciar son k'áan y k'aan, pero bueno, es interesante y cultural". The author makes it clear in this statement that the cultural background of the speaker may influence the pronunciation of specific Mayan lexical items.
So let me be clear. The man on the left is wearing a Leopard suit and is a Native American. The man on the right, however, is clearly a Black African man with a beard and carrying a copper headed spear.
This is clearly obvious evidence of a contact event ever recorded and it is one of the most remarkable pieces of history but only Black people are interested in it or will even admit of its existence because of the social brainwashing done by the media.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So let me be clear. The man on the left is wearing a Leopard suit and is a Native American. The man on the right, however, is clearly a Black African man with a beard and carrying a copper headed spear.
This is clearly obvious evidence of a contact event ever recorded and it is one of the most remarkable pieces of history but only Black people are interested in it or will even admit of its existence because of the social brainwashing done by the media. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Just a question. Since Africans had iron, why would they make copper spears?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was the Mauritanian kingdom of exiled king Juba and King Alexander Helios in Illinois USA .Their kingdom was conquered by the Roman Emperor Caligula who wanted to steal king Juba ii huge treasure .The Mauritanian court,army and other people fled to south Morocco then to the modern Ghana area and build a fleet to travel to North America .The tomb of the Mauritanian was found in South Illinois by a gentleman call Burrows .The tomb was name burrows cave .7000 tablets found in the tomb show the different people of the mediteranean world like Maurs,Egyptian,West African,Phoenician,Roman,Hebrew,Spanish etc.The tablets showed different script lie Ogam,Medu Neter,Latin,Hebrew,Phoenicianetc. A large amount of gold coin and bars was found . USA academia stated that the Burrows cave was a fraud .But critics of academia stated how can one man fake 7000 tablets with different people of the ancient world picture,different script occult ritual picture and gold coin and bars .Some of the Burrows cave artifact are similar to Phoenician/Egyptian artifact collected by father Crespi in Ecuador from the Native people . There are report from the Newspaper Gazette of a Egyptian/Indian temple find in the Grand Canyon Colorado .The Smithsonian cover up the discovery .The temple section of the grand canyon was close to the public . Most of the USA states have Egyptian/Phoenician names example Mesu Ra,Mi issi cipi,Ala bama,Al Aska,Ari zona,Min Aten,Neb Ra Ka,Ka Nut ticut etc . Other countries name in the American continent that sound Afrigypt are Per u,Kuba,Ka nada etc . Internet reference Alexander Helios king or emperor of America .
So let me be clear. The man on the left is wearing a Leopard suit and is a Native American. The man on the right, however, is clearly a Black African man with a beard and carrying a copper headed spear.
This is clearly obvious evidence of a contact event ever recorded and it is one of the most remarkable pieces of history but only Black people are interested in it or will even admit of its existence because of the social brainwashing done by the media.
quote:Just a question. Since Africans had iron, why would they make copper spears? [/QB]
Because Africans had iron, copper, bronze, brass, and steel making technology.
Egyptians used mostly copper and bronze by the way.
Here is an Egyptian Cooper Spear between dated 2700 - 1700 BC:
posted
^ copper may have been more impressive to show than iron.
-------------------- 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:Originally posted by osirion: ^ copper may have been more impressive to show than iron.
Not to Mesoamericans who never had iron. Copper makes very inferior weapons. Mesoamericans used obsidian blades imbedded in wood in battle. People who chide me about knowledge of Egypt should learn a little bit about Mesoamerica instead of pontificating.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ yes but copper would have been impressive at first.
-------------------- 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 |
The tip of this spear point was probably not copper, even though copper was frequently used by Pre-Columbian Blacks to make tools and other artifacts.
The spear point was probably quanin.. Blacks usually sold this metal to Amerindians.
The Spanish mention Blacks coming to Espanola with spear points made of quanin. According to Las Casas quanin was made up of 18 parts gold, 6 parts of silver and 8 parts of copper.
The tip of this spear point was probably not copper, even though copper was frequently used by Pre-Columbian Blacks to make tools and other artifacts.
The spear point was probably quanin.. Blacks usually sold this metal to Amerindians.
The Spanish mention Blacks coming to Espanola with spear points made of quanin. According to Las Casas quanin was made up of 18 parts gold, 6 parts of silver and 8 parts of copper.
Both Van Sertima and you are wrong. Guain is an Arawak word and tertiary gold-silver-copper allows had been made in South America a thousand years before Columbus.
quote:In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence, Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. gold copper silver Columbus-guanin 56% 25% 19% Guinea 50% 25% 25% Guinea 65% 17.2% 17.2% Mochica 31% 60% 10% Moche 68% 13% 19% Moche 67% 11% 22% The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.(9) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.
The tip of this spear point was probably not copper, even though copper was frequently used by Pre-Columbian Blacks to make tools and other artifacts.
The spear point was probably quanin.. Blacks usually sold this metal to Amerindians.
The Spanish mention Blacks coming to Espanola with spear points made of quanin. According to Las Casas quanin was made up of 18 parts gold, 6 parts of silver and 8 parts of copper.
Both Van Sertima and you are wrong. Guain is an Arawak word and tertiary gold-silver-copper allows had been made in South America a thousand years before Columbus.
quote:In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence, Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. gold copper silver Columbus-guanin 56% 25% 19% Guinea 50% 25% 25% Guinea 65% 17.2% 17.2% Mochica 31% 60% 10% Moche 68% 13% 19% Moche 67% 11% 22% The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.(9) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.
posted
LOL. The Chama vase proves that you were wrong in claiming that Blacks did not possess quanin spearpoints .
Bernardo, Nobody cares what you say or think. You were not in America back in the 16th Century. Las Casas was. This is what he wrote:
“[Columbus] thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Españla who said that there had come to Española from the south and southeast, a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal they call quanin of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were gold, 6 of silver and 8 of copper.”[1]
What do we learn from this passage. First we learn that the Indians traded with ‘black people’. These Black people had spears made of gold, copper and silver. And finally these people called this metal quanin. .
.
Now what do we see in the picture above. First we find a Black man depicted as the trader god of the Maya at the court of a Mayan dignitary. This Black man has a reddish/orange-yellowish spear point [which would have been the color of a spear point made from copper and gold]. This vase supports the Indian tradition that Blacks introduced, and manufactured the spear point of the Black man on this vase.
This vase proves that Blacks carried reddish/orange-yellowish spear points on the tip of their spears which would have resembled the spear point depicted on this vase. This is further proof of the Pre-Columbian presence of Blacks in the Americas.
Reference
John Boyd Thacher, Christopher Columbus,(New York, 1903) Vol. 2, p.380.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing yoiu ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters.
The African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hahahahaha!!!!! I can see why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and why Dr Vanserima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertimad then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL lyde winters actually worked with Dr Ivan Van Sertima, this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 has stolen his name! Read the link below for the full scoop yall!
Now what do we see in the picture above. First we find a Black man depicted as the trader god of the Maya at the court of a Mayan dignitary. This Black man has a reddish/orange-yellowish spear point [which would have been the color of a spear point made from copper and gold]. This vase supports the Indian tradition that Blacks introduced, and manufactured the spear point of the Black man on this vase.
This vase proves that Blacks carried reddish/orange-yellowish spear points on the tip of their spears which would have resembled the spear point depicted on this vase. This is further proof of the Pre-Columbian presence of Blacks in the Americas.
Reference
John Boyd Thacher, Christopher Columbus,(New York, 1903) Vol. 2, p.380.
Unfortunately for you, Clyde ,people can really read Maya glyphs (and not by pulling out little bits and pieces by your own mysterious system, interpreting them through a 19th century invented script, and finally providing a reading that no one else can replicate. The interpretation above is purely your imagination and need to support a preconceived idea. BTW BOTH central figures have red feet and hands and are painted black. These Maya vases are funerary goods and this one represents the burial (going into the earth) of a Maya ruler.
A REINTERPRETATION OF THE CHAMÁ VASE Elin C. Danien
quote:Now, through an examination of the Chamá Vase from the Penn Museum collection, I can give a name to two of their rulers. The scene on the vessel (figure 3) shows two groups of figures facing each other across a kneeling figure flanked by two black painted individuals.
The interwoven mat design on the arms and legs of the kneeling figure is a symbol of royalty and identifies him as a member of the elite, perhaps a ruler of a small polity, although he wears nothing to announce such an exalted position. Judging from the combination of jaguar skin cape, elaborate jewelry, and fierce expression, the black-painted man holding the spear is the most important figure in the scene.
It had been generally accepted that the glyphs stood for the names of the actors, but they defied interpretation or sense in any of the highland idioms. However, in Eastern Cholan, the family of languages spoken in the Maya lowlands, they become clear. Thanks to the invaluable work of linguist Judith Storniolo of the University of Pennsylvania, a tentative interpretation of the inscription provides names for the figures, and conveys political and social information, including a previously unknown title for a religious office (Storniolo 2000: personal communication).
Reading the scene from left to right, the first two figures, K’an Chubi, Yellow, or Precious Turkey, and Holtab Balam, Forehead or Headband Jaguar, have no central role in the proceedings. The name of the third figure is Bas Ch’am, which can be read as “Wrapper of the Harvest.” The black painted figure next to Bas Ch’am is K’an ti Pop: Lord Fer de Lance.
The glyphs accompanying the kneeling figure have a more enigmatic meaning. Ch’o Tz’apah Ah Waxak Haab Sus can be understood as “Lord Puma, he who has ruled for eight years, set him or it in place, ” with the final glyph meaning blood, or purifying.
The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth. The final figure is K’an Moo Ch’ok Ajaw, Young Lord Yellow Macaw.
This vessel has been the object of differing interpretations, with its actors identified variously as supernaturals, underworld figures, and merchants. I argue that it commemorates a real event, and carries cultural information of importance in our understanding of the time, the place and the people.
The important event being commemorated is the funeral, or the entering the earth, of Lord Muwan. His heir, the young lord, is behind him, on the viewer’s right, observing the ceremonies. The phrase ch’ok ahaw, literally, young sprout, is frequently used to identify the heir apparent. Similar scenes with both the dead king and the living heir are known from Palenque, where the dead ruler Pacal and his living successor, Chan Bahlum face each other. Among the attendants on the vase is the person who dresses the dead, Bas Ch’am, the “Wrapper of the Harvest.” Such a description of his function reinforces the argument made by Marshall Becker (1992), that interment of the dead for the Lowland Maya was not burial, but rather, an offering to the Earth Lord. K’an ti P’op, Lord Fer de Lance, is a central participant in the ceremonies surrounding this offering.
The kneeling figure, Lord Puma is about to be sacrificed as part of the purification ritual in connection with Lord Muwan’s funerary ceremonies. The ‘sacrificial’ paper earrings he wears, his lack of other ornament, his position under the blade, all point to his imminent sacrifice (Schele and Miller 1986). The mat design on his thigh and arm identify him as a member of the elite class. When captives are shown on Lowland monuments, they are usually identified by their name glyphs on their bodies.
Now what do we see in the picture above. First we find a Black man depicted as the trader god of the Maya at the court of a Mayan dignitary. This Black man has a reddish/orange-yellowish spear point [which would have been the color of a spear point made from copper and gold]. This vase supports the Indian tradition that Blacks introduced, and manufactured the spear point of the Black man on this vase.
This vase proves that Blacks carried reddish/orange-yellowish spear points on the tip of their spears which would have resembled the spear point depicted on this vase. This is further proof of the Pre-Columbian presence of Blacks in the Americas.
Reference
John Boyd Thacher, Christopher Columbus,(New York, 1903) Vol. 2, p.380.
Unfortunately for you, Clyde ,people can really read Maya glyphs (and not by pulling out little bits and pieces by your own mysterious system, interpreting them through a 19th century invented script, and finally providing a reading that no one else can replicate. The interpretation above is purely your imagination and need to support a preconceived idea. BTW BOTH central figures have red feet and hands and are painted black. These Maya vases are funerary goods and this one represents the burial (going into the earth) of a Maya ruler.
A REINTERPRETATION OF THE CHAMÁ VASE Elin C. Danien
quote:Now, through an examination of the Chamá Vase from the Penn Museum collection, I can give a name to two of their rulers. The scene on the vessel (figure 3) shows two groups of figures facing each other across a kneeling figure flanked by two black painted individuals.
The interwoven mat design on the arms and legs of the kneeling figure is a symbol of royalty and identifies him as a member of the elite, perhaps a ruler of a small polity, although he wears nothing to announce such an exalted position. Judging from the combination of jaguar skin cape, elaborate jewelry, and fierce expression, the black-painted man holding the spear is the most important figure in the scene.
It had been generally accepted that the glyphs stood for the names of the actors, but they defied interpretation or sense in any of the highland idioms. However, in Eastern Cholan, the family of languages spoken in the Maya lowlands, they become clear. Thanks to the invaluable work of linguist Judith Storniolo of the University of Pennsylvania, a tentative interpretation of the inscription provides names for the figures, and conveys political and social information, including a previously unknown title for a religious office (Storniolo 2000: personal communication).
Reading the scene from left to right, the first two figures, K’an Chubi, Yellow, or Precious Turkey, and Holtab Balam, Forehead or Headband Jaguar, have no central role in the proceedings. The name of the third figure is Bas Ch’am, which can be read as “Wrapper of the Harvest.” The black painted figure next to Bas Ch’am is K’an ti Pop: Lord Fer de Lance.
The glyphs accompanying the kneeling figure have a more enigmatic meaning. Ch’o Tz’apah Ah Waxak Haab Sus can be understood as “Lord Puma, he who has ruled for eight years, set him or it in place, ” with the final glyph meaning blood, or purifying.
The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth. The final figure is K’an Moo Ch’ok Ajaw, Young Lord Yellow Macaw.
This vessel has been the object of differing interpretations, with its actors identified variously as supernaturals, underworld figures, and merchants. I argue that it commemorates a real event, and carries cultural information of importance in our understanding of the time, the place and the people.
The important event being commemorated is the funeral, or the entering the earth, of Lord Muwan. His heir, the young lord, is behind him, on the viewer’s right, observing the ceremonies. The phrase ch’ok ahaw, literally, young sprout, is frequently used to identify the heir apparent. Similar scenes with both the dead king and the living heir are known from Palenque, where the dead ruler Pacal and his living successor, Chan Bahlum face each other. Among the attendants on the vase is the person who dresses the dead, Bas Ch’am, the “Wrapper of the Harvest.” Such a description of his function reinforces the argument made by Marshall Becker (1992), that interment of the dead for the Lowland Maya was not burial, but rather, an offering to the Earth Lord. K’an ti P’op, Lord Fer de Lance, is a central participant in the ceremonies surrounding this offering.
The kneeling figure, Lord Puma is about to be sacrificed as part of the purification ritual in connection with Lord Muwan’s funerary ceremonies. The ‘sacrificial’ paper earrings he wears, his lack of other ornament, his position under the blade, all point to his imminent sacrifice (Schele and Miller 1986). The mat design on his thigh and arm identify him as a member of the elite class. When captives are shown on Lowland monuments, they are usually identified by their name glyphs on their bodies.
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
LOL. you are such a great deciever.
.
.
As usual, when losing you resort to spam and insults. The fact that the Maya vase has the names of all the participants is game set and match to this whole discussion. You can spin you whirl like dervish but the central figures are painted black with red hands and feet protruding. I'll get back to you about guanin-- which is not an african word but Arawak-- Please post a credible source (not self quoting) for it being an African word
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
LOL. you are such a great deciever.
.
.
As usual, when losing you resort to spam and insults. The fact that the Maya vase has the names of all the participants is game set and match to this whole discussion. You can spin you whirl like dervish but the central figures are painted black with red hands and feet protruding. I'll get back to you about guanin-- which is not an african word but Arawak-- Please post a credible source (not self quoting) for it being an African word
This debate is not about quanin it is about the ethnicity of the central figure in the chama vase.
You claim i am insulting you by calling you a Great Deciever. You can only insult someone when you are using false hood to describe that person. In the case of the chama vase you claim both personages have read feet. This is untrue.
In the picture above you can see the feet of the Mayan and Negro are totally different. Since the differences in color are evident I have to assume you are trying to decieve the readers of the forum. This dishonest behavior betrys you to be a great deciever.
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
LOL. you are such a great deciever.
.
.
As usual, when losing you resort to spam and insults. The fact that the Maya vase has the names of all the participants is game set and match to this whole discussion. You can spin you whirl like dervish but the central figures are painted black with red hands and feet protruding. I'll get back to you about guanin-- which is not an african word but Arawak-- Please post a credible source (not self quoting) for it being an African word
This debate is not about quanin it is about the ethnicity of the central figure in the chama vase.
You claim i am insulting you by calling you a Great Deciever. You can only insult someone when you are using false hood to describe that person. In the case of the chama vase you claim both personages have read feet. This is untrue.
In the picture above you can see the feet of the Mayan and Negro are totally different. Since the differences in color are evident I have to assume you are trying to decieve the readers of the forum. This dishonest behavior betrys you to be a great deciever.
.
The only one trying to deceive is you. The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote: The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here. Secondly the foot of Ochma Kab Pop Muwan is NOT black. Its different from the black painted leg. Just as there are variations in skin tone in Africans, there are variations in skin color in Indians, thus the small difference in redness between the two Mayans Lord Muwan and Bas Ch'am is meaningless.
You, as usual when losing, want to shift the goal posts. One of the big supporting pieces for the claim of Africans visiting is the supposed African origin of the supposedly (no evidence for this at all) spear made of guanin.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing yu ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing yu ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing yu ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The only one trying to deceive is you. The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote: The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here. Secondly the foot of Ochma Kab Pop Muwan is NOT black. Its different from the black painted leg. Just as there are variations in skin tone in Africans, there are variations in skin color in Indians, thus the small difference in redness between the two Mayans Lord Muwan and Bas Ch'am is meaningless.
You, as usual when losing, want to shift the goal posts. One of the big supporting pieces for the claim of Africans visiting is the supposed African origin of the supposedly (no evidence for this at all) spear made of guanin.
LOL. First you claimed the feet were red. Now you talk about variations in Indian skin color. You are really a great deciever.
My proof is that Amerindians talked about Blacks carry spear points made of copper-gold-silver. In the picture we see such a figure.
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The only one trying to deceive is you. The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote: The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here. Secondly the foot of Ochma Kab Pop Muwan is NOT black. Its different from the black painted leg. Just as there are variations in skin tone in Africans, there are variations in skin color in Indians, thus the small difference in redness between the two Mayans Lord Muwan and Bas Ch'am is meaningless.
You, as usual when losing, want to shift the goal posts. One of the big supporting pieces for the claim of Africans visiting is the supposed African origin of the supposedly (no evidence for this at all) spear made of guanin.
LOL. First you claimed the feet were red. Now you talk about variations in Indian skin color. You are really a great deciever.
My proof is that Amerindians talked about Blacks carry spear points made of copper-gold-silver. In the picture we see such a figure.
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
LOL. you are such a great deciever.
.
Spinnning and spining LOL The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote:The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Black man holding the spear is not named "Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth".
You can look at the vase and the top two glyphs next to the spear held by Black man is the Jaguar and Ahau glyphs. They would read Balam Ahau 'Jaguar Lord'.
You knew that the glyphs were jaguar and Ahau. Yet you wanted to pass on the fake name 'Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth..
The inscriptions in front of the Black man holding the spear read: Balam Ahau. Yu ta te ma se. Ta po be i. The translation reads: " Jaguar Lord. The vital spirit arives today. Pure and sacre (is here). Thou [Balam Ahau] exist as a sacre object".
1) black people don't have feet that are much lighter than the rest of their bodies so what's going on here?
.
, 2) In light of the fact that Mayan males painted themselves black who's to say the figure here is not supposed to be a person or deity who painted themsleves black as is implied by their hands and feet which are not black?
3) Africans don't typically have long stiff curving non coiling beards like that, what's going on here?
4) why would an African be represented by a jaguar, an animal indigenous to Central America not Africa?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing yu ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
1.Balam [Jaguar] Lord was painted black as was the Mayan tradition in representing elites in ceremonies, while the feet were represented in the natural dark color of Jaguar Lord.
2.It is clear that the figure painted black on the Chama vase, holding the spear was a dignitary—not a god--, since the hieroglyphic text in front of the figure, says he was named Balam Ahau. The dark color of Balam Ahau feet and hands show that he was negro.
3.The beard on Balam Ahau was a style favored by this elite. LOL. There is no such as an African type of beard.
4. The spotted feline is associated with African religious / political tradition it was transferred from Africa to Mexico . In Africa the spotted feline is the leopard, in the Americas it is the jaguar.
Balam [Jaguar] Lord was painted black as was the Mayan tradition in representing elites in ceremonies, while the feet were represented in the natural dark color of Jaguar Lord.
2.It is clear that the figure painted black on the Chama vase, holding the spear was a dignitary—not a god--, since the hieroglyphic text in front of the figure, says he was named Balam Ahau. The dark color of Balam Ahau feet and hands show that he was negro.
The elongated head of Balam Ahaun was formerly popular in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 2.It is clear that the figure painted black on the Chama vase, holding the spear was a dignitary—not a god--, since the hieroglyphic text in front of the figure, says he was named Balam Ahau. The dark color of Balam Ahau feet and hands show that he was negro.
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The only one trying to deceive is you. The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote: The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here. Secondly the foot of Ochma Kab Pop Muwan is NOT black. Its different from the black painted leg. Just as there are variations in skin tone in Africans, there are variations in skin color in Indians, thus the small difference in redness between the two Mayans Lord Muwan and Bas Ch'am is meaningless.
You, as usual when losing, want to shift the goal posts. One of the big supporting pieces for the claim of Africans visiting is the supposed African origin of the supposedly (no evidence for this at all) spear made of guanin.
LOL. First you claimed the feet were red. Now you talk about variations in Indian skin color. You are really a great deciever.
My proof is that Amerindians talked about Blacks carry spear points made of copper-gold-silver. In the picture we see such a figure.
The feet of the Mayan and Black man are different colors. you can clearly see above that the feet of the Negro is much darker.
Look at the photo below
You can see that the chin of the Mayan figure is the same color as his feet. The chin of the Negro is black.
LOL. you are such a great deciever.
.
Spinnning and spining LOL The figure you call "negro" is a Maya ruler, and we know what his name was:
quote:The glyphs before the commanding figure of the black-painted man holding the spear are read Ochma Kab Pop Muwan....Lord Owl, or Lord Muwan, entered the earth.
. You can dance and twist but there is no African here.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: [QB] The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas
the only problem with that is that African skeletal remains that exist have not been found at any sites in Central America
Feel free to link any discoveries of African remains in Central America merely stating it won't convince anybody chump
also you are anonymous nobody jelous wannabe Dr. Clyde Winters
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
3600 year old African skeletal remains have been found in Honduras Chimpboy.
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF OCEAN SAILING SHIPS IN CENTRAL AMERICA WEST AFRICAN CULTURE AND ARTIFACTS ARE VERY DISSIMILAR TO OLMEC, NOTHING REMOTELY SIMILAR TO OLMEC TEMPLES ARE FOUND IN AFRICA, NOR MULTIPLE COLOSSAL SIZED HEADS, NO ARCHITECTURAL SIMILARITY NO CONNECTION, stop beong ridiculous ANCIENT MESOAMEICAN ARCHITECTURE AND CULTURE WHILE IMPRESSIVE HAS LITTLE IF ANY INFLUENCE ON MODERN DAY SOCIETY SO THE BUNCHING UP OF PANTIES IS UNECESSARY
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
3600 year old African skeletal remains have been found in Honduras Chimpboy.
The chama vase proves absolutely nothing you ignorant fake ass pink ased fake ass Clyde Winters. What proves that Africans were in the Americas prior to Columbus are the African skeletal remains that exist all over the Americas, which are irrefutable proof that Africans sailed to the Americas prior to Columbus
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima thought that the REAL Clyde Winters was a nut job and it is the reason why Dr Vansertima regreted ever dealing with him! I can understand why Dr. Ivan Van Sertima then disowned the REAL Clyde winters! But since the REAL Clyde winters actually did work with Dr Ivan Van Sertima....That is the reason that this FAKE Clyde Winters Member # 10129 was created. this FAKE Clyde Winters has stolen the REAL Clyde Winters name and uses his work from the 1970's and 80's while creating recent work and combining the two and attributing it to the REAL Clyde Winters! It is highly illegal
This pink assed stringy haired, fake ass clyde winters mutha fuckka wants to talk about the Chama vase! This is the same faggot ass mutha fuccka that tried to tell us that Neanderthal originated and lived in Africa, in order to hide the fact that the cracker is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape! He wants to hide that these devils are ape hybrids and a sub species of Homo Sapien. Now this faggot is talking about the Chama Vase, which was created about 1200 years ago which is well after after the first mongoloid entered North America. It is even after the mogoloid settled Hawaii and right about the same rime that a wave of these murderous cannibalistic, illiterate mongoloids settled New Zealand. What kind of game is this faggot playing by talking about the Chama Vase, which was created during a time when mongoloids had already invaded, North Central and South America. the best prrof of Africans in the americas are the skeletal remains that show ZERO% Neanderthal and denisovan DNA The bast evidence of the OLMEC civilzatio. but this faggot wants to talk about a Chama vase that was made in 800 AD Whether there were blacks in the americas is not the issue! we already know that blacks were in the americas TENS OF THOUSANDS of years before the first cracker or monmgolid left their caves in their ancestral homelands in Central Asia
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Printer-friendly view of this topic