posted
Dr. Winters, your transcription/decyphering of the symbols on the ram seems possibly in error: the syllable "pe" apparently includes 4 different signs - .. (two dots) W M 3 (a sideways W)
Are all 4 signs indicating the same syllable? In Phoenician, Hebrew and Egyptian, I think "pe" was symbolized by the mouth pictograph, a partly-open mouth.
- - -
Your symbol for "gyo" is two horizontal lines like an equal (=) sign.
In Chinese, (=) is 2, pronounced "erh".
In Hebrew-Phoenician (=) means sweat of the brow and pronounced "ze'ah", later becoming the letter Z.
- - -
According to the Thinite/Vai script article, numbers 1 - 9 are drawn distinctly different from truly archaic "Arabic" (Phoenician) numbers.
For example, the original '7' had a horizontal line through the mid-section. The Vai '7' has none. This indicates a recent sign. The slashed 7 of antiquity indicated the total sum of angles, 7. In the same manner, the number 1 originally had no bottom line, it had only a single angle connecting the vertical and diagonal lines. The number 2 was originally Z, having 2 angles. The number 3 had 3 angles, and so on...
I'm not saying Thinite/Vai did not have ancient origin of some form or substance, only that the number forms are clearly not ancient, since they follow the west European/modern American style.
In Hebrew-Phoenician (=) means sweat of the brow and pronounced "ze'ah", later becoming the letter Z."
(=) became (z) due to habit of not lifting the pen or brush completely between the top and bottom horizontal lines.
Interestingly, sweat may root the words sea, ocean, azure, the taste of salty water on the skin universal, thus antedating ancient AMHs rainforest hominins/humans moving to salt water shores.
So (ze'ah) + (erh) = (a)zure, (o)se'a(n), thus (Eau)xi'ne, thus likely Yue Zhih (people of the Black Sea region post-deluge 7.7ka.)
There are only two signs for pe (:, W) in the Vai script, not four. The pe (W) , sign in the Oued Mertoutek inscription is just written in different directions. You can find the /pe/ signs on page 311 below. Click on this link learn more about the Ancient Manding Script here.
. .
.
The ancient writing systems of West Africa are based on Thinite writing. Its best example in West Africa is the Vai Writing system. Delafosse 1899 (pp. 308-309)
Delafosse 1899 (pp. 310-311)
Delafosse 1899 (pp. 312-13)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
[/qb][/QUOTE]
The Vai characters agree with the Thinite symbols.
Antiquity of the oued mertoutek Inscription
Controversy surrounds my dating of the Mande/ Libyco-Berber
/Ancient Libyan inscription found at Oued Mertoutek by Wulsin (1940). I have proposed a 2nd millennium date for this document while Wulsin dates the inscription to the 5th century of the Christian era.
At Oued Mertoutek Wulsin found an engraving of an ovicaprid (sheep/goat) with an ancient Libyco-Berber inscription placed inside the figure.
Although the patina for the inscription and the goat/sheep figure were the same , Wulsin claimed that the goat/sheep figure dated to the 1st-3rd millennium BC, and the writing dated back to the horse period of the "Saharan Rock Art" which he assumed was 500-600 AD.
The separate dates for the Oued Mertoutek engraving are clearly inconsistent, given the identical patina of the figure and the writing. There is no way the figure and inscription could be separated by 1500-2500 years and still show identical patina.
Reason, dictates summary rejection of Wulsin's hypothesis supporting the late introduction of writing to the Sahara.
Wuslin based his dating of the Libyco-Berber writing on the Oued Mertoutek engraving on the Hamitic paradigm. This paradigm maintains that writing, the horse and other cultural features were given to Africans by Semitic speaking culturally superior people from the East. In Wulsin's day, researchers believed that the horse arrived in North Africa and the Sahara around 500 AD.
If we accept the discredited Hamitic hypothesis for the introduction of writing to the Sahara, we would have to push the day for the introduction of writing back 800-1400 years. Because 1) the chariot period which is associated with Libyco-Berber writing is believed to have begun in the 2nd millennium BC; and 2) archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest that writing existed in the Sahara by at least 800 BC.
Close (1980) and Galand have reported that an inscribed pottery vessel with Libyco-Berber inscriptions was found at Tiddis, which dates back to 300 BC. This is 800 years earlier than Wulsin's date for the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions.
In addition, Close (1980)claims that other evidence indicates that Libyco-Berber inscriptions can be pushed back to between 600-700 BC. This archaeological evidence clearly contradict Wulsin's estimation of the Oued Mertoutek inscription's age.
Other evidence for the antiquity of the Oued Mertoutek inscription comes from there association with Saharan chariots.
The inscriptions and chariots share the same patina. These chariots have been dated to around 1200 BC according to Desanges (1981, p.433).
Originally, researchers believed that the Saharan chariots were introduced into the Sahara by Egyptians and/or the Peoples of the Sea. This hypothesis is now discredited because there are few similarities between the Saharan and Aegean portrayals of Chariots (Desanges, 1981,p.432).
In addition, whereas the Horse Period was considered to be 500-600 AD in Wulsin's day, today the horse period is dated between 1500-500 BC (Sahnouni,1996, p.29). The horse depicted in the Sahara was not the Arabian horse typified by the Berber and Taurag horsemen. Barbary horses drew the Saharan chariots horses (Desanges, 1981, p.432). This horse is smaller than the Arabian horses which were not introduced into Africa until the Christian era. The lack of similarity between the Saharan, and eastern chariots, and the horses that drew them indicate the unique nature of Saharan civilization.
The archaeological evidence makes it clear that Wulsin (1940, p.129) made a mistake in his dating of the Oued Mertoutek inscription. The fact that the contemporary epigraphers date the Libyco-Berber inscriptions back to 700 BC and those associated with the Saharan chariots date to 1500 BC, support my contention that the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions date to the 2nd millennium, just like the goat/sheep figure which shares the same patina as the writing according to Wulsin (1940, p.128)himself.
Some researchers refuse to date the Libyco-Berber inscriptions earlier than 700 BC, because the Semitic alphabet was not used until around 800 BC. They claim that Libyco-Berber can not be any older than 800 BC because the Semitic alphabet is suppose to be the parent of the Libyco-Berber writing.
This is a false analogy. Firstly, this view has to be rejected because the Libyco-Berber script includes many signs which are different from Semitic scripts. Although these signs are not found in the Berber alphabet, they are found in the Indus Valley, Linear A and Egyptian pottery signs.
J.T. Cornelius (1954, 1956-1957) illustrated how the Libyco-Berber signs are identical to the Egyptian, South Indian and Linear A writing. Moreover, a cursory comparison of the Thinite postmarks from Upper and Lower Egypt compare favorably to the Libyco-Berber signs ( Petrie, 1900; van de Brink, 1992). All of these writing systems date to the 3rd millennium BC.
Secondly, these writing systems correlate well with Wulsin's dating of the goat/sheep figure at Oued Mertoutek. This congruency supports a 3rd millennium date for the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions, and explains the fact that both the goat/sheep and Libyco-Berber inscriptions share the same patina.
In conclusion, the Oued Mertoutek inscription probably dates back to the 3rd Millennium BC. Two factors dispute Wulsin's dating of the Oued Mertoutek inscription: 1) the archaeological evidence which has pushed back the dating of Libyco-Berber inscriptions to between 300-700 BC; and 2) the dating of the Horse Period in Saharan history to 1500 BC, rather than 500-600 AD.
The dating of the Horse period in the Sahara is now pushed back to 1500 BC. This factor alone disconfirms the hypothesis of Wulsin, that the Oued Mertoutek inscription was written around 500-600 AD, because Wulsin had formed this conclusion based on the dating of the Horse Period of Saharan Rock Art. Changes in the dating of the Horse Period from those accepted by Wulsin 50 years ago automatically changes our dating of the Oued Mertoutek inscription.
The ancient origin of Libyco-Berber writing is further confirmed by the common symbols shared by the Oued Mertoutek inscriptions, and contemporary 3rd Millennium writing systems in Mesopotamia, Crete, Egypt and the Indus Valley. This along with the same patina for the goat/sheep figure and Oued Mertoutek inscription is congruent with the determination that the Oued Mertoutek inscription is 5000 years old.
Based on the Patina of of the Oued Mertoutek monument I can give it an early date.
Below is a Saharan inscription with the bar and dot pattern.
The fact that the Vai script has dot and bar signs make it clear that ancient African writing systems did have dot and bar symbols.
References
Close, A.E. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon dates from northern Africa", , 21,pp.145-167.
Cornelius, J.T. (1954). The Dravidian Question, Culture>, 3 (2), pp.92-102.
Cornelius, J.T. (1956-1957). Are Dravidian Dynastic Egyptians?, India, 1956-1957, pp.89-117.
Desanges, J. (1981). The Proto-Berbers. In of Africa II> (Ed.) by G.M. Mokhtar (pp.423-440). Berkeley,CA: UNESCO.
Sahnouni,M. (1996). Saharan rock art. In ,(Ed.) by Theodore Celenko (pp.28-30). Bloomington,IN:Indianapolis , Museum of Art.
van den Brink, E.C.M.(1992). Corpus and numerical evaluation of the Thinite potmarks. In Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman> (pp.265-296). Oxbow Books. Park End Place, Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association Publication. No.2.
Wulsin,F.R. (1940). Northwest Africa>. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol.19 (1).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
In Hebrew-Phoenician (=) means sweat of the brow and pronounced "ze'ah", later becoming the letter Z."
(=) became (z) due to habit of not lifting the pen or brush completely between the top and bottom horizontal lines.
Interestingly, sweat may root the words sea, ocean, azure, the taste of salty water on the skin universal, thus antedating ancient AMHs rainforest hominins/humans moving to salt water shores.
So (ze'ah) + (erh) = (a)zure, (o)se'a(n), thus (Eau)xi'ne, thus likely Yue Zhih (people of the Black Sea region post-deluge 7.7ka.)
In Chinese, (=) is not only 2, pronounced "erh". This sign (=) is also pronounced Shang ‘ heaven, superior, mount, final, up, above; (=) Xia, ‘below, down’ and (=) tu, ‘ top soil, earth’. Shang (=) corresponds to Malinke -Bambara gyo (=) ‘amulet, talisman effective in providing one with virtue, all, forward’ and gyu ‘base, foundation, origin, behind’. To be ‘superior’, is the same as being a ‘talisman’. Shang ‘final’, and erh "that is done', agrees with Gyu ‘behind’, since both terms signify the end of a phenomena, or something that has been completed.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Per Colles, Sinai script indicates that (=) was pronounced Dh and meant "this".
No clear link to Vai/Thinite.
Most scripts include dots or stars and bars.
We can agree that ancient Vai/Thinnite did not use modern American number forms, right?
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters, how does your note (=) "gyo" correspond to the tableau? I don't see the (=) symbol there. The symbols for "gyo" appear very different there, with 2 diagonal slashes and right-side spiral, or 4 diagonal slashes.
- - -
Recall this:
quote:In Hebrew-Phoenician (=) means sweat of the brow and pronounced "ze'ah", later becoming the letter Z."
(=) became (z) due to habit of not lifting the pen or brush completely between the top and bottom horizontal lines.
Interestingly, sweat may root the words sea, ocean, azure, the taste of salty water on the skin universal, thus antedating ancient AMHs rainforest hominins/humans moving to salt water shores.
So (ze'ah) + (erh) = (a)zure, (o)se'a(n), thus (Eau)xi'ne, thus likely Yue Zhih (people of the Black Sea region post-deluge 7.7ka.)
posted
Dr. Winters, since you claim to know Chinese, please see this link showing the Chinese rod numerals, note that the number 7 is just the Phoenician number 7 inverted, with slash.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Dr. Winters, since you claim to know Chinese, please see this link showing the Chinese rod numerals, note that the number 7 is just the Phoenician number 7 inverted, with slash.
Topic Closed
[/QB][/QUOTE]
[/qb][/QUOTE] 
Printer-friendly view of this topic