Mande and Maya connections

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:56:34 -0400, bor...@earthlink.net (Bernard
Ortiz de Montellano) wrote:

>Clyde Winters states that he wanted to frame the discussion in terms of
>comparative linguistics. To do so in a serious manner discussions must
>include grammatical aspects. But, even before that stage is reached, it
>must be made clear that there is a siginificant resemblance between the
>morphemes and phonemes of the languages to be compared. We cannot just
>compare words randomly. There is an established procedure involving
>standard word lists of those words which have proven to be resistant to
>change. At the moment I don't have access to these lists, but perhaps one
>of the linguists on the ng could post the Swadesh standard 100 and 200
>word lists. Then Winters could post documented Mande equivalents clearly
>specifying the phonemes involved such as tone, nasalized vowels, and
>variations in vowel and consonantal sounds. This list can then be compared
>to the same words preferably in Chorti again fully specifying such items
>as glottal stops and tone.

Later, I suggested that if Winters did this and correspondence beyond
statistically expected frequencies were to be found that these results
would be publishable in a reputable journal. I have now done this for the
Swadesh 100 word list. Donąt expect a publication. There is not the
faintest resemblance between Mande and Yucatec, Chorti, Chol, or Chontal.
Miguel previously showed no correspondence with Cakchikel. There is no
reason to expend the effort to do the Swadesh 219 word list. The issue is
dead. Donąt expect Winters to retract his Web page or to cease publishing
in his usual venues.

Swadesh's original 100-list, as quoted in T. Bynon, "Historical
Linguistics, CUP 1977, as quoted in C. Renfrew "Archaeology and Language",
1987. Data from John M. Dienhart. 1989. *The Mayan Languages a Comparative
Vocabulary* Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press and *Diccionario Maya
Cordemex* 1980. Merida: Cordemex. Delafosse, Maurice. 1929. *La Langue
Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro.
Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue).Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner

Mande Yucatec Chorti

ALL byE tulAcal tunoąr
ASH bugu-ri-gbE cąat
BARK fara pach pat
BELLY furu nacą nacą
BIG bon nojoch nojtaą
BIRD kono chąichą mut
BITE ki chi>ąic chi>ąic
BLACK jE bosh
BLOOD gyOli cąic chąichą
BONE kolo bac bac
BREASTS si im uchuą
BURN gyeni chuj pur
CLAW wasa ichąac ejchąac
CLOUD kabasen muyaąl tocar
muntan
COLD su-ma ceąEl sis
COME se tal tar
DOG wulu pecą tzią
DIE sa cimil cham
DRY tele cąin ajcąin
DRINK mi Śucąic uche, unchi
EAR tulo shicin shicin
EARTH dugu luum rum
EAT dun cąush weą
EGG bye jeą cuąm
EYE nye Śich ut
FEATHER si cąucąun tzutz
FIRE ta cąacą cąajc
FISH yegE cay chay
FLESH soro bacą
FLY pa yashcach us
FOOT sen ocą oc
FULL fa-la tul butąur
GIVE di tzaj ajcąu(n)
GOOD sobE Śutz butz
GREASE tolo tzatz chąchąim
GREEN bulalama yAash yashyash
HAIR kunsigi tzootz tzutzer
HAND tege, bolo cąab cąab
HEAD kun pol jor
HEAR ye Śu>ąuy ubi(n)
HEART so pucsicąal
HORN bye shulub cachąu
HOT gba-na chocO
I ne ten nąen
KILL fara cimes chamse
KNEE kumbere pish pish
KNOW dOn Śojel naąt
LEAF fira leą yopor
LIE la chil chaąr
LIVER gyusu tamnel shemem
LONG jan tąul sojsoj
LOUSE gara-gba Śucą uch
MAN chE winic winic
MANY mu-mba nocuch meąira
MOON kalo uj uj
MOUNTAIN kulu (ba) witz witz
MOUTH da chią tią
NAME jamu cąaba cąaba
NECK ka ca<al nucą
NEW kura tumulben topop
NIGHT su acąab acąbar
NOSE nun nią nią
NOT ma ma
ONE kelen jun inteą
PATH sira be
PERSON morO mac
RAIN san, sanji chaąac jajaąr
RED bilen chac chacchac
ROOT lili motz wiąr
ROUND kiri-ma wolis shoyoyoj
SAND kenye chąich jią
SAY fO Śa>ąal aąr
SEE ye pacat wira
SEED foli sicil jinaj
SIT sigi cul-en turu
SKIN gbOlo cucutil
SLEEP si-nOrO wenelą way
SMOKE sisi butzą butzą
STAND wuli watal war
STAR lolo ecą eąc
STONE kaba tunich tun
SUN tele cąin cąin
SWIM no bab nujsh
SMALL dogo mejen chuchu
TAIL ku nej nej
THAT o, ni jeąla jaąsheyajA
THIS o, ni lay jaąshera
TONGUE nE wacą acą
TOOTH nyi coj utej
TREE jiri cheą teą
TWO fila ca>ąaj chaąteą
WALK tara-ma shimbal shan
WATER ji jaą jaą
WE an toąon nąon
WHAT mu, gyo bal tucąa
WHITE gbE, kuru sac sacsac
WHO jOn mash chi
WOMAN muso shchąup ishic
YELLOW kibiriki cąan cąancąan
YOU aw tech nąet

In Bambara capitals are accents. In Yucatec, Spanish jota, c is /k/ <'> is
glottal stop or ejective consonant, capital letters represent accents,< is
a rising tone, > is a falling tone.

Mande Chol Chontal
ALL byE jalol upeąte
ASH bugu-ri-gbE cąajtyin
BARK fara
BELLY furu chuyib chut
BIG bon bujul noj
BIRD kono muty mut
BITE ki tzic-ushon
BLACK jE iąicą ic
BLOOD gyOli chąich chicheą
BONE kolo bac bac
BREASTS si chuą chu
BURN gyeni pul pulU
CLAW wasa ejchaq ichec
CLOUD kabasen tyocal buclA
muntan
COLD su-ma tzuan sis
COME se tyilel
DOG wulu tzią wicho
DIE sa chu-mel
DRY tele cąin cąin
DRINK mi u-chel
EAR tulo shicin shicin
EARTH dugu lum caam
EAT dun cąush tebee
EGG bye tumut sictoc
EYE nye a-jut a-jut
FEATHER si cąucąun macu
FIRE ta cac caac
FISH yegE chuy maluj
FLESH soro
FLY pa us ajajun
FOOT sen cąoc coc
FULL fa-la
GIVE di aceniUn benet
GOOD sobE utząat utz
GREASE tolo lEu jupąemal
GREEN bulalama yash yush
HAIR kunsigi tzutze tzuc
HAND tege, bolo cąub cebuc
HEAD kun jol apam
HEAR ye ubin
HEART so pusical pusica
HORN bye shu-lub
HOT gba-na
I ne jonyon nAtsun
KILL fara chamse
KNEE kumbere pish pish
KNOW dOn yujil
LEAF fira yopol yoctE
LIE la ya ca-shashuche
LIVER gyusu tanamel yolmA
LONG jan
LOUSE gara-gba uch uch
MAN chE winiq vinic
MANY mu-mba on amo-cąen
MOON kalo uj uj
MOUNTAIN kulu (ba) witz witz
MOUTH da ti cetI
NAME jamu caba
NECK ka bic cucub
NEW kura tzihib chac
NIGHT su acąalel acąap
NOSE nun ni ni
NOT
ONE kelen jumpąejl chA-pe
PATH sira
PERSON morO
RAIN san, sanji haal no-ja
RED bilen chachaq chuc
ROOT lili chac wite
ROUND kiri-ma petE
SAND kenye ji ji
SAY fO al
SEE ye cąel
SEED foli pa-c ubec
SIT sigi buchląen
SKIN gbOlo
SLEEP si-nOrO wyEl ta-vaye
SMOKE sisi butzą butzą
STAND wuli wa-til
STAR lolo ecą eq
STONE kaba tun jituąn
SUN tele cąin cąin
SWIM no alasja nUshi
SMALL dogo chochąoc chichoc
TAIL ku nyej ne
THAT o, ni jajanI jini
THIS o, ni jali jindA
TONGUE nE aąq ca-ac
TOOTH nyi E ej
TREE jiri teą te
TWO fila chaąpąejl chA-pe
WALK tara-ma majlel shumAa
WATER ji ja ja
WE an jonyonla natzun-toc-up
WHAT mu, gyo bajcheą cwa
WHITE gbE, kuru sasac tzuc
WHO jOn maci maj
WOMAN muso ishiq ishiq
YELLOW kibiriki cąuncąun cąan
YOU aw jatet ande
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

[Clyde A. Winters]

When I posted the original article Mande and Mayan conections I framed
the discussion
in terms of Comparative linguistics. Throughout this debate you have
been trying to change the framework to meet what you precieve as
important issues relative to your understanding of this thread.
The basic tenet of the comparative method is recognition that words
possessing similar phonetic shape and identical meaning are cognates.
My comparison of Mande and Maya met this standard. You irst claimed
that
I made up the Maya terms I compared to the Mande words, which I proved
in an earlier post were Yucatec and Quiche.
Next you claimed that the Mande terms I used in my study do not
exist. This was also proven false. I collected the Mande terms in my
demonstration of
Mande Mayan connections over many years. Yet below I was able to
confirm
that they were in fact Mande. But I have not tried to falsify my data.
>1) łbine˛ is not listed in Delafosse (1955: 57).
This should have been binye pg. 474
>(2) łpe˛ in Delafosse (1955:594) is referred to p. 44 or p. 191 where
>łpe˛, łbe˛, or łfe˛ is given as the name given to the fifth son.
>(3) łpč˛ in Delafosse (II: 594) referred to łpčrč˛ łplate, plane
surface˛;
>pe(n) łto nail˛. None of the definitions are łbreak˛ or łto be˛

Pe can be interpreted as 'to be'. As illustrated above be words are
analogous to pe,through analogical extension be, 'to be' could be
pronounced as pe in Mande languages. Moreover, one of the definitions
of pe, is 'enfoncer' 'to break in' (See Cassel's French English
Dictionary,
p.298), this confirms my finding that Mande pe 'to break in 'is
analogous
to Mayan pa'a 'to break'.

>(4) ta Delafosse (1955) pp.709-715 has the following definitions: ta
>łfire˛, ta łplace, distance˛, ta łact of carrying˛, ta(n) [nasalized
>vowel]˛ten˛, ta(n) łrecoil˛, ta(n) łalone˛ but NOT łto come˛

You are right ta, does not mean "to come', it means 'to go'

>5) łtu˛ Delafosse (II: 774) łspittle˛; łt/ou/˛ łforest˛; łt/ou/ łget a
>blow on the head˛, łtu(n) łmound˛ but NOT łto cover˛

tu, means forest p. 476, but not 'to cover'

>(6) None of the various definitions for variations in /a/ of ka in
>Delafosse (1955: 313-322) mean łearth.˛

The term -ka, p.315 is joined to words to provide them with the
meaning 'land', e.g., Bamana 'A Bambara', Bamana-nka 'land of the
Bambara'.

>(7) Delafosse (1955: 856) has no yu listed. ły/oun/˛ is a łlarge
>hemispherical drum˛
>(8) Delafosse (1955: 9) is clearly a loan word from Arabic. None of
the
>meanings of łko˛ (1955: 374-382) nor łku˛ (1955: 415-420) mean łgod˛.

The word ku p.381 means to be sacred or be holy, this term would
agree
with the Mayan term for god.

>(9) Delafosse (1955: 528-532) na = łmother˛ none of the other variants
of
>the vowel mean house; Delafosse (1955: 557) nu = łnose˛ none of the
other
>variants mean house.

I did not say that na, meant house in Mande, I said it meant house in
the Mayan languages. On p.473, nu ="habitation of the family".

>(10) Delafosse (1955: 364-365) none of the variants of ki mean łto
kill.˛
>(11) Delafosse (1955: 15-20) variants of ba mean łmother,˛ łriver˛ or
>łgoat˛ but none of them mean łlord. (p. 21) ba(as in pate)ba =
łfather,
>lord, patriarch.˛

The term Ba, can be interpreted as 'lord' in Mande. In Mande when used
before the name of a dignitary or important person ba, means great,
this would be equivalent to our use of lord.

>(12) Delafosse (1955: 15-20) ba does not mean łwater˛

ba means 'river, stream of water'

>(13) Delafosse (1955: 689-695) none of the variants of su mean łto
wet˛;
>(p.608) sa-ndyi = łrain.˛

In Delafosse, Maurice. 1929. *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes

(Malinke,
Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique
Francais-Mandingue).

Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, p. 500 su-ma means 'wet'.

Ka "maize" is found in Delafosse, Maurice. 1929. *La Langue Mandingue

et ses Dialectes (Malinke,
Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique
Francais-Mandingue).

Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, p. 500 su-ma means 'wet'.

Ka "maize" is found in Delafosse, Maurice. 1929. *La Langue Mandingue

et ses Dialectes (Malinke,
Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique
Francais-Mandingue).

Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, p.524.

This shows that I did not "inaccurate[ly]" use the Mande sources.
It supports my finding of a Mande Maya connection just like my Yucatec
and Quiche sources.
My use of Mande and Mayan terms met the requirements for a
comparative
study of these two languages. The comparative method is interested in
three things:
"phonetic laws", analogy and loan words. It is founded on two
hypotheses.
First, there is the relatedness hypothesis which means that
similarities between
different languages is explained by assuming that these languages
are descended froma common ancestor, or they are loan words resulting
from some interaction in the past by speakers of those languages that
share similar lexical items.
The second hypothesis, is "sound regularity". The sound regularity
hypothesis assumes that related languages change similarly in every
occurence in like manner, when they change at all. My study posted
originally met both of these criteria for a good comparative study.
You are asking for cognates to be recognized as cognates only if
they have the exact same meaning. This is not really necessary. You
look at words to find internal regularity between the placement of
phonemes.
In my original post I showed analogy between Mayan and Mande terms:

Phonetic correspondences exists between the Malinke-Bambara
Yucatec and Quiche. There is full agreement between k, m,n, and t.
There
is also assimilation of c to k, z to s.
Yucatec, Quiche Malinke Bambara

zuu, 'joined,unite su,' shape
zul 'to wet' su, 'precipitation
zou, 'to entagle' su, 'be i mixture'
zay, 'assemble' se, 'join'

earth cab ka
serpent can kan
rock chhix kaba
to cause cal ku
sky caan ka
village cah ka 'suffix joined to
names of towns
maize co 'grain of maize' ka

sun kin k'le
buckle kal koli
to kill kim ki
sky kan kan
god, sacre ku ku, ko
k'oto 'to carve' ka 'to cut
squash k':um 'ayote' kula, kura

man ta' tye
to place ta ta
to cover too tu
law toh tu
truth toh tu, 'fact, real'
forest te tu
male ton,'male sexual organ' tye, khon
saliva tub tu

went,gone bin bi
water bak ba
water ha a
lord ba ba
arrows been binye
balam 'jaguar'/tiger balan 'leopard worship'

mother na' na
house nu nu
house na nu
nose ni nu

to be pe pe
to break pa'a pe

seed ixa? si
rain xab sa
head xolo:m ku
boat xuxu? kulu
neck ca<al ka
neck qul ka
chest k'u'sh kesu
rain ka:x sa, ka
mask k'o:x ku
water ja ji
stomach pu:m furu
bark pach fara
rain cha'ac sa, san, sanji
bird ch'ich kono
man achi kye
bite chi>ic ki
no ma:n ma
smoke sib' sisi
you a a
I n'en, in ne, ni
you ech e
These cognates show the following patterns
a------->a c------->s
o------->u c------->k
u------->a z------->s
x s k------->k
x k p------->f
q------->k ch------>k
I have also illustrated sound regularity in relation to Mayan
and Mande lexical items. In my post I noted that:
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon
high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan
means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share
the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact
between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient
times.
Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/ , appear as
/c/ or /k/ 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
*c'ib' *se'be
can serpent sa
con to sell sa, san
caan heaven, sky sa
cah 'small village' so 'village, home'
The copying of Mande /s/ words into Mayan lexicons as /c/ words
are probably the result of phonological interference of Mayan /c/,
which influenced how Malinke-Bambara words were lexicalized by biligual
Yucatec and Quiche Mayan speakers.
The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
my hypothesis.

As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.

C.A. Winters

Donąt expect Winters to retract his Web page or to cease publishing
: in his usual venues.

I have confirmed my hypothesis, there is no reason to change any of my
web pages.

C. A. Winters

: Swadesh's original 100-list, as quoted in T. Bynon, "Historical

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <6cepde$74b$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu
(Clyde A. Winters) wrote:

>MAJOR SNIP OF SAME OLD THING

> The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
> comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
> the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
> and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
> my hypothesis.
>
> As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.
>
>
> C.A. Winters
>

Apparently Winters feels that constant repetition of the same point and
incantatory use of linguistic terminology constitutes proof of something.
What Miguel and I have done is what real comparative linguists do, i.e. we
took a standard list Swadesh 100 words and showed that there is no match
at all not only with Winters' Yucatec Maya (which is not the appropriate
language to use if one is claiming contact with the Olmec in Classical
Maya sites such as Palenque) but with the appropriate Maya languages--
Chorti, Chol, and Chontal. Miguel threw in Cakchikel Maya for free. That
is the immutable bottom line. readers of the ng or anyone else has the
evidence available through dejanews.

And we haven't even begun to question all the other erroneus arguments
about the Olmecs being Mande. For example, exactly (precisely-- not just
hand waving about canoes) how did the Mande come over to the New World in
or about 1200 BC? What did they row across in since there were no sails in
West Africa at the time. Exactly where did they embark from? What exactly
was the route taken? How did they know that there was anything "over
there" (1-800 psychic?). If it was an accident, why would they have packed
water and food for a month or more in the canoe? Exactly how big were
these canoes? Is there any evidence (not coulda-woulda) that canoes of
this size existed in 1200 B.C., etc.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <bortiz-1802...@ip109.birmingham4.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,

bor...@earthlink.net (Bernard Ortiz de Montellano) wrote:

> In article <6cepde$74b$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu
> (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
>
> >MAJOR SNIP OF SAME OLD THING
>

> > The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
> > comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
> > the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
> > and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
> > my hypothesis.
> >
> > As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.
> >
> >
> > C.A. Winters
> >

> Apparently Winters feels that constant repetition of the same point and
> incantatory use of linguistic terminology constitutes proof of something.
> What Miguel and I have done is what real comparative linguists do, i.e. we
> took a standard list Swadesh 100 words and showed that there is no match
> at all not only with Winters' Yucatec Maya (which is not the appropriate
> language to use if one is claiming contact with the Olmec in Classical
> Maya sites such as Palenque) but with the appropriate Maya languages--
> Chorti, Chol, and Chontal. Miguel threw in Cakchikel Maya for free. That
> is the immutable bottom line. readers of the ng or anyone else has the
> evidence available through dejanews.

SNIP

I notice that, magically, in Winters' sad rerun of his old discredited
post the Maya attribution included Quiche. As usual no attribution
information on the source of the words was listed, nor were we told which
words were claimed to be Yucatec and which Quiche. No matter, Quiche is a
singularly inappropriate language to use and claim Olmec contact. Readers
of the ng should look in the standard textbook, Michael Coe, *The Maya*
NY:Thames and Hudson, 5th ed. 1993m p. 25 gives a map of the distribution
of Maya languages and p. 27 a classification and time depth of Maya
languages. The reason Coe and I have been arguing that the appropriate
comparisons, if one is to make any, between Olmec and Maya should be to
the languages in the Cholan group (Chorti, Chol, and Chontal) is that
these are the languages spoken in the area near to the Gulf region of the
Olmecs (near Palenque) and that Cholan has the proper time depth. Yucatec
is spoken in the Yucatan Peninsula and, even worse, Quiche is spoken in
the Guatemalan Highlands-- But perhaps Winters like Whittett does not know
where the Tuxtla Mountains are. If you look at the classification tree,
you will see that Quiche is as far removed from Yucatec as you can get and
still be called Maya. Both Quiche and Yucatec are much more recent with a
time depth of about AD 1000-- i.e. the PostClassic era rather than the
depth needed for any kind of effective Olmec contact-- the early Classic
when Palenque was a viable entity.

In any case, just to nail down the coffin. I ran the Swadesh 100 word list
for Mande/Quiche-- and as expected there are no matches. Another strike
out :-(.

Swadesh's original 100-list, as quoted in T. Bynon, "Historical
Linguistics, CUP 1977, as quoted in C. Renfrew "Archaeology and
Language", 1987. Data from John M. Dienhart. 1989. *The Mayan Languages a
Comparative Vocabulary* Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press and
*Diccionario Maya Cordemex* 1980. Merida: Cordemex. Delafosse, Maurice.
1929. *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*.
Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue).Paris: Librarie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner

Mande Quiche
ALL byE ronojee
ASH bugu-ri-gbE chaaj
BARK fara iij
BELLY furu paa
BIG bon nim
BIRD kono chıicin
BITE ki pushij
BLACK jE qıeq
BLOOD gyOli cicı
BONE kolo baaq
BREASTS si tuı
BURN gyeni cıaat
CLAW wasa ishcıaq
CLOUD kabasen suutzı
muntan
COLD su-ma joron
COME se peet
DIE sa cam
DOG wulu tzıiı
DRINK mi qum
DRY tele chaqiıj
EAR tulo shcin
EARTH dugu uleew
EAT dun waı
EGG bye moıl
EYE nye boqıoch
FEATHER si rismaal
FIRE ta qıaıq
FISH yegE car
FLESH soro
FLY pa rapap
FOOT sen aquan
FULL fa-la nojinaq
GIVE di yaı
GOOD sobE utz
GREASE tolo
GREEN bulalama rash
HAIR kunsigi wiı
HAND tege, bolo qıab
HEAD kun joloom
HEAR ye ta
HEART so
HORN bye ucıaaı
HOT gba-na
I ne riıin
KILL fara camisaaj
KNEE kumbere chıeec
KNOW dOn eetaıaam
LEAF fira shaaq
LIE la cotzıolic
LIVER gyusu saseeb
LONG jan nim raqan
LOUSE gara-gba saqucı
MAN chE ashih, winaq
MANY mu-mba cıi
MOON kalo iicı
MOUNTAIN kulu (ba) juyib
MOUTH da chiiı
NAME jamu biı
NECK ka qul
NEW kura cıaacı
NIGHT su aqıab
NOSE nun tzaım
NOT taj
ONE kelen juun
PATH sira
PERSON morO
RAIN san, sanji jab
RED bilen caq
ROOT lili cıaımaal
ROUND kiri-ma bolobic
SAND kenye sanyeeb
SAY fO biıij
SEE ye il
SEED foli ijaı
SIT sigi cuılic
SKIN gbOlo
SLEEP si-nOrO war
SMALL dogo chıutiın
SMOKE sisi sib
STAND wuli tacıalic
STAR lolo chıumiil
STONE kaba abaj
SUN tele qıiij
SWIM no moshon
TAIL ku jeeı
THAT o, ni laı
THIS o, ni waı
TONGUE nE aaqı
TOOTH nyi ware
TREE jiri cheeı
TWO fila ceeb
WALK tara-ma biin
WATER ji yaaı
WE an oj
WHAT mu, gyo jaıch
WHITE gbE, kuru saq
WHO jOn chinoq
WOMAN muso ishoq
YELLOW kibiriki qıan
YOU aw riıat

Bernard Ortiz de MOntellano

[Akan Ifriqiya]

hbo...@earthlink.net says...

>
>(Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
>
>>MAJOR SNIP OF SAME OLD THING
>

>> The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
>> comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
>> the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
>> and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
>> my hypothesis.
>>
>> As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.
>>
>>
>> C.A. Winters
>>

>Apparently Winters feels that constant repetition of the same point and
>incantatory use of linguistic terminology constitutes proof of something.
>What Miguel and I have done is what real comparative linguists do, i.e. we
>took a standard list Swadesh 100 words and showed that there is no match
>at all not only with Winters' Yucatec Maya (which is not the appropriate
>language to use if one is claiming contact with the Olmec in Classical
>Maya sites such as Palenque) but with the appropriate Maya languages--
>Chorti, Chol, and Chontal. Miguel threw in Cakchikel Maya for free. That
>is the immutable bottom line. readers of the ng or anyone else has the
>evidence available through dejanews.
>

>And we haven't even begun to question all the other erroneus arguments
>about the Olmecs being Mande. For example, exactly (precisely-- not just
>hand waving about canoes) how did the Mande come over to the New World in
>or about 1200 BC? What did they row across in since there were no sails in
>West Africa at the time. Exactly where did they embark from? What exactly
>was the route taken? How did they know that there was anything "over
>there" (1-800 psychic?). If it was an accident, why would they have packed
>water and food for a month or more in the canoe? Exactly how big were
>these canoes? Is there any evidence (not coulda-woulda) that canoes of
>this size existed in 1200 B.C., etc.
>Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

Bernard:

I would add that I am unaware, and this could be a defect of my own
background, of any literature (Winters excluded) which would be able to say
where the proto-Mande where in this very early time period.

They will be doing great things, as we have discussed elsewhere, in about
1000 years with Ghana, but faut des sources I don't know anyone can say what
it going on in West Africa in 1200 B.C.

This of course, also poses the question of the linguistic comparision. I am
unaware also of a reconstruction of a proto-Mande by historical linguists
which would be appropriate to compare to Olmec languages.

This is all an excise in very silly behaviour and I wish we could get on to
discussing something substantive like the mysterious Nok culture.

Ramira Naka

[Brian M. Scott]

On 18 Feb 1998 13:58:06 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

The first two times that Mr. Winters posted essentially this article,
its conclusions were decisively refuted. Now he has posted it a third
time, complete with the most thorough refutation and the comment that
he has confirmed his hypothesis. Fascinating.

Brian M. Scott

[JoatSimeon]

>(Brian M. Scott)

> Now he has posted it a third<BR>
>time, complete with the most thorough refutation and the comment that<BR>
>he has confirmed his hypothesis. Fascinating.<BR>

-- almost Whittet-esque!

BTW, Steve's at it again -- violating conservation of energy, this time.

Could you sum up the reasons why, to lift blocks of stone via a canal system,
you have to put in a greater mass of water at the top than the weight of the
stone to be lifted?
-- S.M. Stirling

[Jonathan Stone]

Er, um, in point of fact, no. *ALL* of this barge-the-rocks-uphill
nonsense has violated conservation of energy, right from the first one
I jumped on.

[Clyde A. Winters]

Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote:
: On 18 Feb 1998 13:58:06 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
: Winters) wrote:

: The first two times that Mr. Winters posted essentially this article,

: its conclusions were decisively refuted. Now he has posted it a third
: time, complete with the most thorough refutation and the comment that
: he has confirmed his hypothesis. Fascinating.

: Brian M. Scott

Yes it is facinating because I have proven a Mayan and Mande
relationship. Tthere are numerous sources for Quiche , Yucatec and
other Mayan languages that have Mayan terms from the colonial period,
there has not been a refutation of my list. No one has ever proven that
the words I presented in my examples were not of Quiche, Yucatec and
Mande origin. The failure to prove the non-existence of my word lists
makes my claim valid today, and forever.

C. A. Winters

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <6cgajh$797$2...@kali.ziplink.net>, Ak...@pizlink.net (Akan
Ifriqiya) wrote:

> hbo...@earthlink.net says...
SNIP

> >
> >And we haven't even begun to question all the other erroneus arguments
> >about the Olmecs being Mande. For example, exactly (precisely-- not just
> >hand waving about canoes) how did the Mande come over to the New World in
> >or about 1200 BC? What did they row across in since there were no sails in
> >West Africa at the time. Exactly where did they embark from? What exactly
> >was the route taken? How did they know that there was anything "over
> >there" (1-800 psychic?). If it was an accident, why would they have packed
> >water and food for a month or more in the canoe? Exactly how big were
> >these canoes? Is there any evidence (not coulda-woulda) that canoes of
> >this size existed in 1200 B.C., etc.
> >Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
>
>
> Bernard:
>
> I would add that I am unaware, and this could be a defect of my own
> background, of any literature (Winters excluded) which would be able to say
> where the proto-Mande where in this very early time period.
>
> They will be doing great things, as we have discussed elsewhere, in about
> 1000 years with Ghana, but faut des sources I don't know anyone can say what
> it going on in West Africa in 1200 B.C.
>
> This of course, also poses the question of the linguistic comparision. I am
> unaware also of a reconstruction of a proto-Mande by historical linguists
> which would be appropriate to compare to Olmec languages.
>
> This is all an excise in very silly behaviour and I wish we could get on to
> discussing something substantive like the mysterious Nok culture.
>
> Ramira Naka

Absolutely agree.

These were some of the next questions one would raise about this silly
hypothesis. It is only slightly more ridiculous than the idea that the
Egypto/Nubians came over and taught the Olmecs everything. However, we
have seen that because professional archaeologists dismissed it as silly,
Van Sertima's hypothesis has become an article of faith all over the
African-American community. It is taught in schools, it is prominently
featured in Afrocentric textbooks, and one cannot go into any Museum of
African American history without being confronted with Olmec heads
"proving" that such contact occurred. This is why, finally, my colleagues
and I published two long articles in prestigious professional journals
demolishing Van Sertima's arguments. If we ever get a sufficiently
coherent and detailed exposition of the Mande/Olmec conection it might be
worthwhile to also demolish it in writing. At present, the exposition is
so fragmentary and utterly dependent on pseudo-linguistics that it does
not merit a full rebuttal. Winters would have to deal with precisely the
type of questions you and I raised to even elevate this to the level of a
hypothesis.
Bernard Ortiz de MOntellano

[Brian M. Scott]

On 19 Feb 1998 12:53:26 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

> No one has ever proven that
>the words I presented in my examples were not of Quiche, Yucatec and
>Mande origin.

Proven? Perhaps not, though very good evidence was presented that
they are not, at least with the meanings given by you. But this is
irrelevant: you're the one with the improbable thesis, and the burden
of proof is on you. Did you prove that the words belonged to the
languages to which they were attributed? No. Did your documentation
support your claims? No, quite the reverse.

> The failure to prove the non-existence of my word lists
>makes my claim valid today, and forever.

Oh, your word lists exist, right enough; they're just worthless as
evidence of any connection between Africa and Mesoamerica.

Brian M. Scott

[Steve Whittet]

In article <6ch2un$q4t$4...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jona...@Kowhai.Stanford.EDU
says...

>
>In article <19980219080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) writes:
>|> >(Brian M. Scott)
>|>

>|> > Now he has posted it a third<BR>

>|> >time, complete with the most thorough refutation and the comment

that<BR>
>|> >he has confirmed his hypothesis. Fascinating.<BR>
>|>
>|> -- almost Whittet-esque!
>|>
>|> BTW, Steve's at it again -- violating conservation of energy,
>|> this time.
>|>
>|> Could you sum up the reasons why, to lift blocks of stone
>|> via a canal system, you have to put in a greater mass of
>|> water at the top than the weight of the
>|> stone to be lifted?

Though you appear to wish to associate the above sentence
with me it is no more what I said than was your previous
comment about siphons.

In the future if you wish to cite me please use quotes
or at least proper attributions. Please also be careful
with your assumptions. If I didn't specifically say
something please don't presume to put your words
in my mouth.

If you use a canal system to move blocks horizontally
along a relatively level existing water course it is
simply nonsense to talk about putting water in at the top

If you lift blocks via a series of locks but you have
a water supply at the top of the plateau to fill the locks
it is considerably less work than building a ramp and
dragging the blocks up it.

>Er, um, in point of fact, no. *ALL* of this barge-the-rocks-uphill
>nonsense has violated conservation of energy, right from the first one
>I jumped on.

There is no issue of conservation of energy in the case of
running water from a stream into locks downhill of it.

steve

[Loren Petrich]

In article <bortiz-1802...@ip253.birmingham4.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bor...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In any case, just to nail down the coffin. I ran the Swadesh 100 word list
>for Mande/Quiche-- and as expected there are no matches. Another strike
>out :-(.

I'll do the Indo-European versions where I can find them; note
how little resemblance between these three and IE.

> Mande Quiche
>ALL byE ronojee

*sol- "whole"

>BIG bon nim
*meg-

>BLOOD gyOli cicą
*eser-

>BONE kolo baaq
*ost-

>CLOUD kabasen suutzą
> muntan
*nebh-

>COLD su-ma joron
*kel-, *gel-

>COME se peet
*gwem-

>DIE sa cam
*mer-

>DOG wulu tząią
*kwon-

>DRINK mi qum
*po:-

>DRY tele chaqiąj
*saus-, *ters-

>EAR tulo shcin
*aus-

>EARTH dugu uleew
*dhghem-

>EAT dun waą
*ed-

>EGG bye moąl
*o:wo-

>EYE nye boqąoch
*okw-

>FEATHER si rismaal
*per-

>FIRE ta qąaąq
*pu:r, *egnis

>FISH yegE car
*peisk-

>FLESH soro
*me:mso-

>FLY pa rapap
*pet-

>FOOT sen aquan
*ped-

>FULL fa-la nojinaq
*pel@-

>GIVE di yaą
*do:-

>GOOD sobE utz
*su-

>HAND tege, bolo qąab
*ghesr-

>HEAD kun joloom
*kaput

>HEAR ye ta
*kleu-

>HEART so
*kerd-

>HORN bye ucąaaą
*ker-

>HOT gba-na
*gwher-

>I ne riąin
*egom, *me-

>KNEE kumbere chąeec
*genu-

>KNOW dOn eetaąaam
*gno:-

>LEAF fira shaaq
*bhel-

>LIE la cotząolic
*legh-

>LIVER gyusu saseeb
*yekwr, -n-

>LONG jan nim raqan
*del-

>LOUSE gara-gba saqucą
*lu:s-

>MAN chE ashih, winaq
*wi:ros, *ner-

>MOON kalo iicą
*me:nes-

>MOUTH da chiią
*o:s-

>NAME jamu bią
*no:mn

>NEW kura cąaacą
*newo-

>NIGHT su aqąab
*nekwt-

>NOSE nun tzaąm
*nas-

>NOT taj
*ne

>ONE kelen juun
*oinos, *sem-

>RED bilen caq
*reudh-

>ROOT lili cąaąmaal
*wra:d-

>SAY fO biąij
*wekw-, *sekw-

>SEE ye il
*weid-

>SEED foli ijaą
*se:-

>SIT sigi cuąlic
*sed-

>SLEEP si-nOrO war
*swep-

>SMOKE sisi sib
*dhu:mo-

>STAND wuli tacąalic
*sta:-

>STAR lolo chąumiil
*ster-

>SUN tele qąiij
*sa:wel-

>SWIM no moshon
*sna:-

>THAT o, ni laą
>THIS o, ni waą
*to-, *no-

>TONGUE nE aaqą
*dnghu:-

>TOOTH nyi ware
*dent-, *gembh-

>TREE jiri cheeą
*deru-

>TWO fila ceeb
*dwo:

>WATER ji yaaą
*wed-, *akwa:

>WE an oj
*no:s, *we-, *-me-

>WHAT mu, gyo jaąch
*kwo-

>WHITE gbE, kuru saq
*albho-, *kweit-

>WHO jOn chinoq
*kwo-

>WOMAN muso ishoq
*gwen-

>YOU aw riąat
[sg.] *tu:, *te-
[pl.] *wo:s, *yu:-, *-te-
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

[JoatSimeon]

>: whi...@shore.net (

>There is no issue of conservation of energy in the case of running water from
>a stream into locks downhill of it.steve

-- that isn't what you said, Steve. You had magic siphons first, to lift the
blocks to the top of the pyramid. Then you had a few guys with buckets, until
it was pointed out that the mass of water to be moved would be greater than the
pyramid. Now you're fudging, as usual.

Incidentally, the Egyptians didn't have canals with locks. 'tis a medieval
technology, unknown in the Bronze Age, as any reference work will point out.
-- S.M. Stirling

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

On 18 Feb 1998 13:58:06 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

[... claims to understand Comparative Linguistics ...]

Bernard's exercise in comparing the Swadesh lists of Bambara with
several Mayan languages has been very interesting, and shows without a
shadow of a doubt that the Mayan languages are unrelated to Mande.

However, I should add that I had indeed briefly looked at Bambara and
Mayan basic vocabulary *before* Bernard requested the information.
I had already noticed the lack of similarities, but had decided not
post that information then. Why? Because I had overestimated Clyde
Winters' linguistic insights, low as my opinion of them is.

The point is that Mayan was *not* the language of the Olmecs. It is
characteristic that Winters, in this attempt to defend the "contents
of his Web pages", doesn't even address this fact. There are, of
course, the usual pompous explanations about the comparative method,
and the difference between cognates and borrowings, but it is evident
that this has just been copied, without comprehension, from some
linguistics textbook. Winters' pathetic defense accepts without
question the premise of cognation between Mande and Mayan. Winters
apparently can't even make his mind up about what he's claiming: first
the so-called "Mande-like" words in Mayan were borrowings from Olmec.
Now, the Mande and Mayan words are "cognate", Winters claims.
Winters doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the Swadesh list is
precisely meant to *filter out* borrowings. Swadesh explicitly picked
the 100 (200) words that were least likely to ever be borrowed. If we
*had* found many matches between Mayan and Mande in the Swadesh list
(we don't, of course), that would *prove* that the Mayas *did not
borrow* these words from Mande or Olmec, Winters' original claim.

So, despite the fact that finding "Mande" words in Mayan basic
vocabulary doesn't do his basic thesis any good, Winters still defends
the following Swadesh list etymologies (rearranged for better
understanding):

>bark pach fara
Only the first consonant matches (p ~ f). So does English "bark" (p ~
b).

>belly pu:m furu
Only the first consonant matches (p ~ f). So does English "belly" (p
~ b).

>bird ch'ich' kono
>bite chi>'ic ki
Winters thinks that Mayan ch and ch' are interchangeable. Note that
we can also get a match with English by the "sound law" Engish /b/ =>
Mayan <ch> (or <ch'>, who cares).

>earth cab (?) ka
The Bambara word is <dugu>. -ka, as has been established, is an
adjectival suffix. It doesn't mean "earth". Chontal "earth" is caam.

>head xolo:m ku
The Bambara word is kun, pronounced /ku~/, with a nasal vowel.
Winters doesn't understand phonetics and thinks the nasalization sign
~ can simply be discarded.

>I n'en, in ne, ni

Or Hausa <ni>, or Basque <ni>, etc.

>to kill kim ki
The Bambara word is fara. Mayan has chamse, etc.

>man ta' tye
>man achi kye

>male ton,'male sexual organ' tye, khon

Winters doesn't understand phonetics, so doesn't realize that <tye>
and <kye> (and <che> and <ce>) are different spellings of the same
word (IPA /ce/). Winters doesn't understand the comparative method,
so doesn't realize that it is absolutely not done to compare one word
in one language with three *different* words in other languages.

>neck ca<al ka
>neck qul ka

Incompetence again: one Mande word compared with two different Mayan
ones.

>nose ni nu
The Mande word is nun (nu~). A better match with Mayan is French
/ne/.

>not ma:n ma
Mande "not" is /tE/ in the present or /ma/ in the perfect. Compare
also Indo-European <me:>.

>rain xab sa

>rain ka:x sa, ka

>rain cha'ac sa, san, sanji

Gross incompetence again.

>seed ixa? (?) si
>smoke sib sisi
Match on initial consonant. Like English "smoke" or "seed" (who cares
whether ixa? has /x/ or /S/?).

>stone chhix (?) kaba
Do these words resemble each other?

>sun k'in k'le
Bambara /tele/.

>water bak (?) ba
>water ha a
>water ja ji
Gross incompetence: Mayan <ha> and <ja> are the same word (IPA /xa/),
but it is compared with both <a> and <ji> (IPA /dZi/).

>you a (?) a
>you ech e
Bambara <e> or <i>. Mayan <tech> (Yuc). I have no <a> (in Mayan or
Bamabara).

As to Winters' supposed "sound laws", suffice it to say that even in
this small sample, Bambara <k> "matches" Mayan k, k', ch, ch', x, q.
These are not sound laws, just fantasies.

Clyde Winters is right about one thing: there is no reason to change
any of his web pages. They are beyond repair and can simply be
discarded.

==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||

========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

[Steve Whittet]

In article <19980219185...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.comĢ says...

>
>>: whi...@shore.net (
>
>>There is no issue of conservation of energy in the case
>>of running water from a stream into locks downhill of it.steve
>
>-- that isn't what you said, Steve. You had magic siphons first,
>to lift the blocks to the top of the pyramid.

That isn't even close to anything I said joat. if you want
to be properly scornful of someones supposed errors, it helps
to begin by putting a statement in quotes, in context and to
get the attributions straight. When one person makes an incorrect
assumption about what someone else said and someone else then sets
that up as a strawman to argue against, its simply makes all involved
look foolish.

>Then you had a few guys with buckets,

I believe we are talking a workforce of 100,000 men for whom
providing drinking water on a daily basis amounts to more water
than what gets bailed after the shadufs and siphons are finished.

>until it was pointed out that the mass of water to be moved
>would be greater than the pyramid.

I told you when you first made that stupid estimate that
you were neglecting most of the important operative facts:

1.)a naturally flowing stream supplies water for the first
200 feet of lift,
2.)that on the pyramid itself you would only go up to about
265 feet
3.)after which the space available to work in is reduced to
an acre,
4.)that the pyramid decreases in area as it goes up
5.)that compared to the alternative of building a stone
(not sand) ramp ten times the size of the original pyramid
in order to bring the stones up, the amount of work involved
in moving water is negligible.

Now you're fudging, as usual.

I never fudge joat. You are a teacher. Sometimes its necessary
to patiently repeat and rephrase things already said in a way
the slower members of the class can manage to comprehend them.

>
>Incidentally, the Egyptians didn't have canals with locks.
>'tis a medieval technology, unknown in the Bronze Age, as
>any reference work will point out

As to locks, any farmer letting his alloted amount of water
into his irrigation ditch and then shutting it off with a board
knows how to make an end to the flow of water.

The Egyptians hydraulic engineering is of ancient ancestry,
as is their knowledge of the maritime arts.
Herodotus:

"The priests said it was Men' who was the first king of Egypt,
and that it was he who raised the dyke which protects Memphis
from the innundations of the Nile...by banking up the river
at the bend...laid the ancient channel dry while he dug a new
course for the stream...after which he further excavated a lake
outside of town communicating with the river...Nitocris...
suceeeded her brother, he had been king of Egypt and was put
to death by his subjects,...constructed a spacious underground
chamber...inviting to a banquet those of the Egyptians whom she
knew to have the chief share in the murder of her brother, she
suddenly as they were feasting , *let the river in upon them by
means of a secret duct of large size*."

"...Seostris. He the priest said first of all proceeded in a fleet
of ships of war from the Arabian Gulf along the shores of the
Erythrian Sea, subduing the nations as he went until he finally
reached a sea which could not be navigated by reason of the shoals,"

"Hence he returned to Egypt where they told me he collected a vast
armament and made a progress by land across the continent conquering
ebvery people which fell in his way....in this way he traversed the
whole continent of Asia, whence he passed on into Europe and made
himself master of Scythia and Thrace, beyond which countries I do
notthink that his army extended its march...he proceeded to make
use of the multitudes whom he had brought with him from the conquered
countries...partly to dig the numerous canals with which the whole
of Egypt is intersected...though a flat country throughout its whole
extentit is now unfit for horse or carriage being cut up by canals w
hich are extremely numerous and run in all directions."

"...It has no subteranean apartments nor any canal from the Nile
to supply it with water as the other pyramid has."

"excepting the entrance the whole forms an island...two artifical
channels from the Nileone on either side of the temple encompass
the building leaving only a narrow passage by which it is approached
These channels are each a hundred feet wide and are thickly shaded
with trees. The gateway is sixty feet in height and is ornamented
with figures cut upon the stone."

"The water of the lake does not come out of the ground
but is introduced by a canal from the Nile."

"The natives told me there was a subterranean passage from
this lake to the Libian Syrtis running into the interior
by the hills above "Memphis."

"This prince was thefirst to attempt the construction
of the canal to the Red Sea."

"These last were built in the Arabian Gulf where the *dry docks*
in which they were built are still visible"

>-- S.M. Stirling

steve

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <6cihfv$b...@fridge.shore.net>, whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
|> In article <19980219185...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
|> joats...@aol.comĚ says...

|> >
|> >>: whi...@shore.net (
|> >
|> >>There is no issue of conservation of energy in the case
|> >>of running water from a stream into locks downhill of it.steve
|> >
|> >-- that isn't what you said, Steve. You had magic siphons first,
|> >to lift the blocks to the top of the pyramid.
|>
|> That isn't even close to anything I said joat.

This turns out not to be the case.

Steve Whittet plainly and unmistakably said his hypothesis used
siphons to move water uphill. He said that repeatedly.

The literal words ``use magig siphons to lift the blocks to the top of
the pyramid'' did not apppear, but Steve clearly and unmistakably
proposed using siphons to move water uphill, from one lock to another,
thus raising barges of stone uphill in a _perpetuum mobile_.

`Magic siphon' is an accurate description of Steve's post.

Whether Steve realised that's what he was saying at the time is beside
the point: it's clearly what he said. It's been quoted here repeatedly

I dont know what to call a denial of that fact other than a lie.

|>if you want
|> to be properly scornful of someones supposed errors, it helps
|> to begin by putting a statement in quotes, in context and to
|> get the attributions straight.

Ahah. So you affirm that my scathing follow-up, quoting your text, in
context, with my own ASCII-art showing where the siphons cease to
work, is (I quote) ``properly scornful?''.

|> When one person makes an incorrect
|> assumption about what someone else said and someone else then sets
|> that up as a strawman to argue against, its simply makes all involved
|> look foolish.

[rest snipped]

Steve, *you* are the one who drew a series of locks moving uphill
beside the Pyramid, and said that barges could be locked up to the top
using siphons. In what way is that a `strawman?'

[JoatSimeon]

>whi...@shore.net

snipsnipsnip of usual dishonest, muddled Whittet fudging.

>As to locks, any farmer letting his alloted amount of water <BR>
>into his irrigation ditch and then shutting it off with a board<BR>

>knows how to make an end to the flow of water.

-- Steve, that is not a lock; it's not anything like a lock. You know, mitre
gates, that sort of stuff?
-- S.M. Stirling

[Jacques Guy]

Brian M. Scott wrote:

> The first two times that Mr. Winters posted essentially this article,

> its conclusions were decisively refuted. Now he has posted it a third

> time, complete with the most thorough refutation and the comment that

> he has confirmed his hypothesis. Fascinating.

Yes, it is amazing. Paraphrasing Catullus, I'd say: non est sanus puer,
sed solide est imaginosus.

A bit like Fischer and his copulating birds (BTW, that article of mine
which was rejected by the Journal of the Polynesian Society has
found a good home, a very good home, far more prestigious than
the JPS. And another on the same topic has found a good home too,
near the very antipodes of the JPS)

This whole Maya-Mande thing is preposterous beyond what I have
ever seen in delusion, beyond Newbold's decipherment of the
Voynich manuscript, beyond Kircher's affabulations around
the Egyptian hieroglyphs, beyond... the mind boggles.

[Alan M Dunsmuir]

In article <6cihfv$b...@fridge.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
<whi...@shore.net> writes

>I believe we are talking a workforce of 100,000 men for whom
>providing drinking water on a daily basis amounts to more water
>than what gets bailed after the shadufs and siphons are finished.
>

Ah! That's how it was done. You supplied the work-force with drinking
water at the base of the pyramid, then had them walk up to the top lock
and piss into it!
--
Alan M Dunsmuir

[JoatSimeon]

One thing the Egyptians really -were- very good at was ropes, by the way; when
the Persians built their bridge of boats across the Bosphorus, they used
Egyptian flax cables. Great big ones.

Steve seems to have some aversion to the thought of a block simply being
dragged along a prepared road/ramp-way by lots of guys with ropes. (Possibly
on a sledge or in a cradle, as the stones for Stonehenge were moved.)

It ain't fast and it ain't elegant, but it works. If you've got limitless
supplies of cheap labor, it's a perfectly workable way to do it.

Experiments have shown that large stone blocks can be moved across country this
way; "British Archaeology" has a number of pictures on file, if anyone wants to
go look.
-- S.M. Stirling

[Clyde A. Winters]

You are nothing but a con man. Because you a frequent contributor to
almost every
discussion on the ng you believe that you can fool the readers by
feeding them a lot of
misinformation while you support the status quo. You have two levels of
reasoning 1)
attempts to present the facts based on your training (as a loud mouth
ass) in what ever field
you might claim you studied; 2) you use deception and deceit whenever
it serves you
purpose to deny the confirmation of any hypothesis for a linguistic
relationship that you
disagree with.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote:
: On 18 Feb 1998 13:58:06 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
: Winters) wrote:

: >stone chhix (?) kaba

Firstly, I never claimed the Olmecs spoke a Mayan language. I said the
Olmec people
probably spoke a language similar to the Malinke-Bambara language
spoken in West
Africa.

The archaeological evidence is clear: the Olmec were the first to
settle most of the Mayan
urban centers. This means that the Mayan people throughout Meso-America
lived in
intimate contact with the Mande speaking Olmecs. As a result, the Mayan
speakers
probably copied many Mande/Olmec terms as they became acculturated to
Olmec society.
As the Proto-Mayans became accustomed to the urbane society of the
African Olmecs they
would have adopted many Olmec customs, and the terms associated with
them, much the
same as the Anglo Saxons, after they were conquered by the Normans.

In learning comparative linguistics most students are taught
comparative methods by Indo-
Europeanist. As a result you learn many theories associated with the
relationship between
Indo-European languages. Many of the terms compared in I-E have very
little resemblance,
yet we parrot what we learn, because the establishment says that it is
so.

As a result you will accept certain comparisons made in I-E, but you
would refuse to
accept comparisons made in a similar vain in this discussion. These
comparisons of
Quiche and Mande terms are just, if not more reliable as the
comparisons made every day
in I-E linguistics. For example, in Gothic we have Atta and Old German
Fader, these
words only share the t~d. We also see in I-E the comparison of Latin
'biberaticu(m)' and
English 'beverage'
, here also we see only a shared /b/ between the words. What is the
difference between
illustrating a p~f relationship among Mayan and Mande.
Using Miguel's reasoning that all related words must show exact
copying we would
never accept the alleged relationship between the Tocharian (Toch.) and
Balto-Slavic
languages. I-E linguists accept the logic that Toch. yats is analogous
to Lith. oda 'skin,hide',
these words only share d~t. The same feature holds true for Tocharian
yal 'gazzelle' and
Lith. elnis 'deer', which share only the /l/. Another set of I-E
cognates include Toch. yuk
and Latin equus 'horse', again these words don't sound alike, and we
only note a k~q
association.
Gothic and German are recognized as related languages. As a result
there is a
relationship between German zehan and Gothic taihun 'ten'. These words
do not sound
alike and they only illustrate z~t relationship but they are recognized
as cognates. But if we
compare Gothic 'taihun' and German zehan 'ten'; along with German zwei
and Gothic twai
'two' we find that there is a regular pattern of cognation in Gothic
that note a /t/ agreeing with the German /z/.

: Do these words resemble each other?

: >sun k'in k'le
: Bambara /tele/.

Does Latin filius and Spanish hijo 'son' resemble each other.

: >water bak (?) ba

: >water ha a
: >water ja ji
: Gross incompetence: Mayan <ha> and <ja> are the same word (IPA /xa/),
: but it is compared with both <a> and <ji> (IPA /dZi/).

: >you a (?) a
: >you ech e
: Bambara <e> or <i>. Mayan <tech> (Yuc). I have no <a> (in Mayan or
: Bamabara).

: As to Winters' supposed "sound laws", suffice it to say that even in
: this small sample, Bambara <k> "matches" Mayan k, k', ch, ch', x, q.
: These are not sound laws, just fantasies.

What's so strange about this, I have illustrated that alledgely Gothic
/t/ corresponds to German /z/, /t/ and /d/.

: Clyde Winters is right about one thing: there is no reason to change

: any of his web pages. They are beyond repair and can simply be
: discarded.

: ==
: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
: Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
: m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||

: ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

As a result Miguel you are attempting to deceive the readers of this
ng. In the case of IE
you will accept many relationships that simple eyeballing of a word may
denote a lack of
relationship, but when examined in terms of regular phonetic
correspondence a relationship
exist. Yes, you accept sound laws when they agree with your personal
views and reject the
same laws when you disagree with a particular theoretical
construct-this is hypocrisy.
You are an arrogant ass, who thinks he knows everything and will do
anything to win an
argument. Your problems is, You can't
HANdle the truth: the Mande and Mayan languages are related.

C.A. Winters

[Loren Petrich]

In article <6ck39i$rhk$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>,

Clyde A. Winters <cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote:

>: >nose ni nu
>: The Mande word is nun (nu~). A better match with Mayan is French
>: /ne/.

Indo-European has *nas-; this suggests some distant relationship
("Proto-World"). However, this is only one example, and could easily be
coincidence.

Many of the terms compared in I-E have very >little resemblance, >yet we
parrot what we learn, because the establishment says that it is >so.

Examples, please?

For example, in Gothic we have Atta and Old German
>Fader, these
>words only share the t~d.

However, the German word looks like English "father", and is
cognate with many other Indo-European words for the male parent, for
which we reconstruct *p@ter-

The Gothic word is a baby-talk one, comparable to English "dad".

We also see in I-E the comparison of Latin
>'biberaticu(m)' and
>English 'beverage'
>, here also we see only a shared /b/ between the words.

That's a BORROWING. The English word is derived from Old French
"bevrage", which is derived from "beivre" "to drink" and the suffix "-age"
These are, in turn derived from Latin "bibere" and "-a:ticum"

/bib-/ > /bev-/
b -> v here; rather similar phonetically

/-atiku-/ > /-adgu/ > /-adZ/

The consonants get voiced, and g -> dZ (the English "j" sound) Imagine
pronouncing "gy" very fast -- eventually it will sound like /dZ/

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

Now is the discontent of our Winters
Made glorious summer by this Olmec sun...
[with thanks to RF]

(1) Clyde Winters doesn't know what he's claiming:

>Firstly, I never claimed the Olmecs spoke a Mayan language.
>I said the Olmec people probably spoke a language similar to
>the Malinke-Bambara language spoken in West Africa.

Yes, that's what you appear to be claiming.

>The archaeological evidence is clear: the Olmec were the first to
>settle most of the Mayan urban centers. This means that the Mayan people
>throughout Meso-America lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking
>Olmecs.

So you agree that the Mayan people were *in contact* with the Olmecs.

>As a result, the Mayan speakers probably copied many Mande/Olmec
>terms as they became acculturated to Olmec society.

And the Mayan speakers *borrowed* Olmec terms...

>As the Proto-Mayans became accustomed to the urbane society of the
>African Olmecs they would have adopted many Olmec customs, and the terms
>associated with them, much the same as the Anglo Saxons, after they were
>conquered by the Normans.

...like the Anglo-Saxons *borrowed* French Norman words.

So we are agreed that:
1) the Mayan people themselves were not Olmecs,
2) that they merely borrowed Olmec words, and that therefore
3) Mayan and Olmec ("Mande") are not related?

>Your problems is, You can't
>HANdle the truth: the Mande and Mayan languages are related.

I think you haver bigger problems....

(2) Clyde Winters doesn't understand Indo-European comparative
linguistics:

>For example, in Gothic we have Atta and Old German
>Fader, these words only share the t~d.

And they are completely unrelated. German Vater is derived from PIE
*p@ter, Gothic atta- is a nursery word, no relation to Vater.

(3) Clyde Winters doesn't understand borrowings:

>We also see in I-E the comparison of Latin 'biberaticu(m)' and
>English 'beverage', here also we see only a shared /b/ between the words.

And this is a French borrowing in English.

(4) Clyde Winters doesn't understand sound laws:

>What is the difference between illustrating a p~f relationship among Mayan
>and Mande.

I was not complaining about p~f, I was complaining about the rest of
those words not showing any kind of similarity or regular
correspondence.

>: Do these words resemble each other?

>: >sun k'in k'le
>: Bambara /tele/.

>Does Latin filius and Spanish hijo 'son' resemble each other.

For starters, I was referring to the pair:
>stone chhix (?) kaba

Secondly, <filius> and <hijo> do not resemble each other, but we can
show them to be related by showing which sound laws were at work.

The development was:
filiu > fiLo > fiZo > hiZo > hiSo > iSo > ixo

- /l/ + /j/ became palatal /L/
- /L/ becamne /Z/
- /f/ became /h/
- /h/ was lost
- /Z/ became /S/
- /S/ became /x/

All these sound laws are supported by numerous examples from other
words, evidence from other Romance languages, documents explaining the
old pronunciation, etc.

So how did /kaba/ become /tSix/? What supporting evidence do you have
for such an unlikely turn of events?

>: As to Winters' supposed "sound laws", suffice it to say that even in

>: this small sample, Bambara <k> "matches" Mayan k, k', ch, ch', x, q.
>: These are not sound laws, just fantasies.

>What's so strange about this, I have illustrated that alledgely Gothic

>/t/ corresponds to German /z/, /t/ and /d/.

All you've shown is your ignorance of Gothic and German. Gothic /t/
corresponds with:

German <z> /ts/ Germ OHG PGmc
- initially zam zam *tam
- after a consonant Herz herza *herta
- when geminate Schatz scaz *skatt

German <ss> /s/
- between vowels essen ezzan *etan

German <t> /t/
- before r Trost tro:st *traust

Those are sound laws.

Maybe you should read an elementary textbook on comparative
linguistics. And try to understand what you're reading this time.

[tkavanag]

People, people, pulease:

Just because someone invoked Steve W's name on this thread, that is no
reason to continue a discussion of Egyptian pyramids and stuff under a
Mande/Maya/Olmec heading. I mean, its like the explosion out of the
studio at the end of Blazing Saddles: it's like, y'know, anachronistic
-- not to mention somewhat pustular.

Hyeh, hyeh.

tk

[Edwin P. Menes]

At the risk of the appearance of academic arrogance, I must say that Clyde
Winters posts from a student account. I have no idea who he is, but he is
not a member of the faculty. I say this in case the reputation of an
institution whose faculty I have been a member of for 35 years is in any
way at stake.

As for M. Carrasquer V., I suspect he has forgotten more linguistics than
I have ever learned, even though I have to be a comparative grammarian one
semester out of every 6 or 8. I have learned a great deal from him and
have the greatest respect for his patience in maintaining a dialogue until
a dialogue becomes impossible.

Ed Menes

[cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu]

In article <bortiz-1902...@ip12.birmingham4.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,

bor...@earthlink.net (Bernard Ortiz de Montellano) wrote:
>

The Olmec were a cosmopolitan people of African origin. As a result we find
many other
nationalities living in the Olmec cities in addition to Africans, from many
parts of the Old
World. Alexander von Wuthenau in has recorded the iconographic evidence for
the
European and Chinese people that traded with the Olmec people.

When the Mande/Olmec arrived in Mexico the local people continued to practice
their
culture. TheOlmec people did not attempt to conquer the local people they
built their sites
in protected area. As time went on the local people would have become engaged
in trade
with the Mande and other time adopt many elements of their culture. This would
explain
the Mayan adoption of the Mande term for writing.

African related artifacts have been discovered at archaeological sites; this
artifactual
evidence include Mande inscriptions and red and black pottery. African writing
on Olmec
artifacts is the most obvious African artifact found by arcaheologist. Drucker
in 1955 found
two inscribed celts at LaVenta in offering #4. These celts written in African
writing, found
in a controlled excavation talk about Pe, a leading sprititual leader that was
buried at
LaVenta offering #4.

The red and black ware used by the Proto Mande in the Saharan Highlands was
also
used by the Olmec. Examples of this pottery style include the so called
Blackware red
pigment of Las Bocas and Tlatilco. Many of these vessels are inscribed with
Olmec
writing.

Moreover B. Stross in "Maya Hieroglyphic writing and Mixe Zoquean",
Anthropological
Linguistics 24 (1) (1973, pp.73 134), mentions the Mayan tradition for a
foriegn origin of
Mayan writing. This point is also supported by C.H. Brown in "Hieroglyphic
literacy in
ancient Mayaland: Inferences from the linguistic data", Current Anthropology
32 (4) (1991,
pp.489 495), who claimed that writing did not exist among the Proto Maya.

My comparison of Quiche and Yucatec to the Mande languages is a valid way to
illustrate
the ancient relationship between the Pre-Classic Maya and Mande speaking
Olmec. Archaeologist and epigraphers no longer believe that the Classic
Maya inscriptions were only written in Cholan Maya. Now scholars
recognize that many Mayan inscriptions written during the Classic
period were written in Yucatec and probably the language spoken in the area
where the
Mayan inscriptions are found. See:

1. R. J. Sharer," Diversity and Continuity in Maya
civilization: Quirigua as a case study", in (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert,
Classic Maya Political History,( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996)
p. 187.

2. N. Hammond, "Inside the black box:defining Maya polity".
In (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History,
( New York:Cambridge University Press, 1996) p.254

3. J.S. Justeson, W. M. Norman, L. Campbell, & T.S. Kaufman, The
Foreign impact on Lowland Mayan languages ans Script. Middle American
Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University, 1985.

This would also explain why the Maya, according to Landa had Universities
where elites
learned writing and other subjects. He noted that the Ahkin May or Ahuacan May
(High
Priest) "...and his disciples appointed the priests for the towns, examining
them in their
sciences and ceremonies...he provided their books and sent them forth. They in
turn
attended to the service of the temples, teaching their sciences and writing
books upon them"
(see: Friar Diego de Landa, Yucatan before and After the Conquest, (trs.) by
William
Gates, Dover Publications ,New York, 1978).

There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of
writing among the
Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people probably gave writing to the
Maya.
Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991) found that the Proto Maya term for
"write" is *c'ihb'
or *c'ib'. Since the Olmec people probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan
term for
writing would probably correspond to the Mande term for writing. A comparison
of these
terms confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for writing *c'ib' or *c'ihb'
is derived
from the Olmec/Manding term for writing *se'be'. The ancient Mayans wrote
their
inscriptions in Chol, Yucatec and probably Quiche.

The Proto Olmec or Manding people formerly lived in North Africa in the
Saharan
Highlands : and Fezzan.(see C. A. Winters, "The Migration routes of the Proto
Mande",
The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.77 98) . Here the ancestors of the
Olmecs left
their oldest inscription written in the Manding script (which some people call
Libyco
Berber, eventhough they can not be readin Berber) : was found at Oued
Mertoutek and
dated by Wulsin in , Papers of the peabody Museum of American Arcaheology and
Ethnology (Vol.19(1), 1940), to 3000 B.C. This indicates that the Manding hand
writing
2000 years before they settled the Gulf of Mexico.

These Proto-Olmec people lived in the Highlands of the Sahara. Here we
find numerous
depictions of boats engraved in the rock formations that these people used to
navigate the
Sahara before it became a desert.

The Olmec, another Central American culture and probably the first
Americans to
develop a number and math system, influenced their Mayan neighbors. Mayans
borrowed
much of their art and architecture from the Olmecs, including the pyramid
structures that the
Mayans are so famous for. The first of these great Mayan structures appeared
between 400
B.C. and 150 A.D.

The Olmec settled many early sites in the lands occupied by the Mayan
speaking people.
As a result the Mayan speaking people adopted many Olmec/Mande terms. As a
result we
find numerous Mande words copied into the Yucatec and Quiche Mayan languages.
Below we compare the Quiche and Malinke-Bambara languages. The terms compared
in
this study come from the following sources:

Delafosse, Maurice.(1929). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke,
Bambara,
Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais Mandingue).Paris:
Librarie.
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner

Campbell,Lyle.(1977). Quichean linguistic prehistory .Berkeley : University
of California
Press.University of California publications in linguistics. v. 81

Tedlock,Dennis.(1996). Popol Vuh. New York: A Touchstone Book.

The Mayan languages are spoken in an area from Yucatan and E Chiapas in
Mexico, into
much of Guatemala and Belize, and W Honduras. The Quiche language is a member
of the
Mayan family, spoken in the western highlands of Guatemala. It is most
closely related to
the Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Sacapultee, and Sipacapa languages of central
Guatemala and
more distantly related to Pocomam, PocomchÝ, KekchÝ, and other languages of
the
Eastern Mayan group .

I have also illustrated sound regularity in relation to Mayan
and Mande lexical items. In my post I noted that:
In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon
high,and sky'. In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan
means ' serpent and heaven'. The fact that both languages share
the same homophonic words , point to a formerly intimate contact
between the speakers of Mayan and Mande languages in ancient
times.
Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/ , appear as

/c/ ,/x/ or /k/ 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'. In Quiche we have ka:x 'sky' which
corresponds
to Mande sa / ka 'sky'. In Quiche many words beginning with /ch/ correspond
to Mande
words possessing an initial /k/, e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
ch'ich' bird kono
achi man kye
chi>ic bite ki
chhix rock kaba
It is also interesting to note that many Quiche words beginning with /x/ which
is
pronounced 'sh', correspond to Malinke-Bamabara words with an initial /s/
e.g.,
Quiche Malinke-Bambara
xab' rain sa
ixa? seed si
uxe root sulu, suru
Other Quiche and Mande cognates include:

Quiche Malinke-Bambara
saq'e daytime,sunlight sa 'heaven, sky'
k'i many kika
ja lineage, family ga, gba
ja water ji
q'aq fire ga-ndi
palo lake, sea ba, b'la
k'oto to carve, cut ka
k':um squash kula, kura
Ba father fa
Ba lord Ba 'great' (Person)
ka 'land,earth' ka 'suffix joined to
names of lands,etc.
ich eye n'ya
le the, that, this le
ma no ma
naal parent, mother na
ni point, at the point na
cah earth, land ka (see above)
balam jaguar/tiger balan 'leopard worship'
sib' smoke sisi
xolo:m head ku
xuku? boat, canoe kulu
ca<al neck ka
qul neck ka
k'u?sh chest kesu
k'o:x mask ku
pu:m stomach furu
pach bark fara

The Quiche and Malinke-Bambara cognates show the following patterns

a------->a c------->s
o------->u c------->k
u------->a z------->s
x s k------->k
x k p------->f
q------->k ch------>k

These words are from the basic vocabulary. They support the hypothesis that
in ancient
times Mayan speakers lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking Olmec
people.
Moreover this is further confirmation of Leo Wiener's theory in Africa and
the Discovery
of America that the religion and culture of the Meso-Americans was influenced
by Mande
speaking people from West Africa.
For more information on the ancient Manding writing see:

M. Delafosse, "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L' Anthropologie
10, (1899).

C. A. Winters, "Manding writing in the New World Part 1", Journal of African
Civilization, 1 (1),
(1979) pp.81 97.

C.A. Winters, "Appendix B: The Jade Celts from La Venta". In Unexpected Faces
in
Ancient America, by A. von Wuthenau (pp.235 237). 2nd Edition, Mexico, 1980.

K. Hau, "Pre Islamic writing in West Africa", Bulletin de l'Institut
Fondamental Afrique
Noire (IFAN), t.35, Ser. B no. 1, (1973) pp.1 45.

K. Hau, "African Writing in the New World", Bull. de l'IFAN,t.40 ser.B no.1,
(1978)
pp.28 48.

C.A. Winters, "The influence of the Mande scripts on American ancient writing
systems",Bull. de l'IFAN, t.39, Ser.B no.2, (1977) pp.405 431.

C.A. Winters, "The Ancient manding Script". In , Blacks in Science Ancient and
Modern
(ed) by Ivan Van Sertima (pp.208 214), New Brunswick, Transaction Books, 1983.

C.A. Winters

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

It is clear that the Olmec had contact and influenced the pre-Classic
Maya, as they did Central Mexico and the Oaxaca highlands. This is quite
different from arguing that the Olmec settled łmost of the Mayan urban
centers˛. The statement is ridiculous on its face to anyone who knows how
many Maya centers there were and where they were located. An interesting
visual exercise is to compare the map of Olmec settlements in Diehl and
Coe p. 10 and that of Maya settlements in Sharer 21 and see the large
differences. The crucial Olmec influence on the Maya would have taken
place in the middle pre-Classic about 700-500 B.C. As expected, Palenque
which is near the Gulf Olmec region is the key site here (and the reason
why I have been urging that, if Olmec/Mande language influenced Maya, the
appropriate languages are Chorti, Chol, and Chontal-- a course resolutely
avoided by Winters). The other area of Olmec influence on Maya
civilization was the Eastern Pacific coast of Guatemala (the Soconusco
Region) (Sharer:pp. 74-75; Diehl and Coe: 24). In this region we see Olmec
influenced settlements at Izapa, Abaj Takalik and Chalchuapa. This
influence was transmitted to Kaminaljuyu an early site in the Guatemalan
highlands. Notice that we are speaking of contact and influence-- not of
Olmec settlers mixed with Maya locals.

On the other hand, there much of the development of early Maya
civilization took place in areas with little contact with the Mixe/Xoque
speaking Olmecs. For example, the Swazey complex and the Cerros site in
Belize or Nakbe, which foreshadowed the important early center of El
Mirador in the Peten lowlands of Guatemala. Wintersą archaeological
knowledge is a shallow as his comparative linguistics.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Wayne State University

[Clyde A. Winters]

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote:

: Now is the discontent of our Winters

: Made glorious summer by this Olmec sun...
: [with thanks to RF]

: (1) Clyde Winters doesn't know what he's claiming:

: >Firstly, I never claimed the Olmecs spoke a Mayan language.

: >I said the Olmec people probably spoke a language similar to

: >the Malinke-Bambara language spoken in West Africa.

: Yes, that's what you appear to be claiming.

: >The archaeological evidence is clear: the Olmec were the first to
: >settle most of the Mayan urban centers. This means that the Mayan people

: >throughout Meso-America lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking
: >Olmecs.

: So you agree that the Mayan people were *in contact* with the Olmecs.

: >As a result, the Mayan speakers probably copied many Mande/Olmec
: >terms as they became acculturated to Olmec society.

: And the Mayan speakers *borrowed* Olmec terms...

: >As the Proto-Mayans became accustomed to the urbane society of the
: >African Olmecs they would have adopted many Olmec customs, and the terms
: >associated with them, much the same as the Anglo Saxons, after they were
: >conquered by the Normans.

: ...like the Anglo-Saxons *borrowed* French Norman words.

: So we are agreed that:
: 1) the Mayan people themselves were not Olmecs,
: 2) that they merely borrowed Olmec words, and that therefore

: 3) Mayan and Olmec ("Mande") are not related?

Yes Mayan and Olmec/Mande is related.

: >Your problems is, You can't

: >HANdle the truth: the Mande and Mayan languages are related.

: I think you haver bigger problems....

: (2) Clyde Winters doesn't understand Indo-European comparative
: linguistics:

: >For example, in Gothic we have Atta and Old German
: >Fader, these words only share the t~d.

: And they are completely unrelated. German Vater is derived from PIE
: *p@ter, Gothic atta- is a nursery word, no relation to Vater.

: (3) Clyde Winters doesn't understand borrowings:

: >We also see in I-E the comparison of Latin 'biberaticu(m)' and
: >English 'beverage', here also we see only a shared /b/ between the words.

: And this is a French borrowing in English.

: (4) Clyde Winters doesn't understand sound laws:

: >What is the difference between illustrating a p~f relationship among Mayan
: >and Mande.

: I was not complaining about p~f, I was complaining about the rest of
: those words not showing any kind of similarity or regular
: correspondence.

: >: Do these words resemble each other?

: >: >sun k'in k'le
: >: Bambara /tele/.

: >Does Latin filius and Spanish hijo 'son' resemble each other.

: For starters, I was referring to the pair:
: >stone chhix (?) kaba

: Secondly, <filius> and <hijo> do not resemble each other, but we can
: show them to be related by showing which sound laws were at work.

: The development was:
: filiu > fiLo > fiZo > hiZo > hiSo > iSo > ixo

: - /l/ + /j/ became palatal /L/
: - /L/ becamne /Z/
: - /f/ became /h/
: - /h/ was lost
: - /Z/ became /S/
: - /S/ became /x/

: All these sound laws are supported by numerous examples from other
: words, evidence from other Romance languages, documents explaining the
: old pronunciation, etc.

: So how did /kaba/ become /tSix/? What supporting evidence do you have
: for such an unlikely turn of events?

: >: As to Winters' supposed "sound laws", suffice it to say that even in

: >: this small sample, Bambara <k> "matches" Mayan k, k', ch, ch', x, q.
: >: These are not sound laws, just fantasies.

: >What's so strange about this, I have illustrated that alledgely Gothic

: >/t/ corresponds to German /z/, /t/ and /d/.

: All you've shown is your ignorance of Gothic and German. Gothic /t/
: corresponds with:

: German <z> /ts/ Germ OHG PGmc
: - initially zam zam *tam
: - after a consonant Herz herza *herta
: - when geminate Schatz scaz *skatt

: German <ss> /s/
: - between vowels essen ezzan *etan

: German <t> /t/
: - before r Trost tro:st *traust

: Those are sound laws.

: Maybe you should read an elementary textbook on comparative
: linguistics. And try to understand what you're reading this time.

: ==

: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
: Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
: m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||

: ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Just as I said before you accept the fact that these words were copied,
but you attempt to deny my evidence of Quiche copying of Olmec/Mande
lexical items. You are nothing but a hypocrite and a fraud. Your
ability to use one set of rules to study IE languages and another set
of rules when stdying the relationship between other languages is
turely regrettable and deny you any pretense of scientific objectivity.

C.A. Winters

[Clyde A. Winters]

The Olmec were a cosmopolitan people of African origin. As a result we
find many other
nationalities living in the Olmec cities in addition to Africans, from
many parts of the Old
World. Alexander von Wuthenau in has recorded the iconographic evidence
for the
European and Chinese people that traded with the Olmec people.

When the Mande/Olmec arrived in Mexico the local people continued to
practice their
culture. TheOlmec people did not attempt to conquer the local people
they built their sites
in protected area. As time went on the local people would have become
engaged in trade
with the Mande and other time adopt many elements of their culture.
This would explain
the Mayan adoption of the Mande term for writing.

African related artifacts have been discovered at archaeological sites;
this artifactual

evidence include Mande inscriptions and redandblack pottery. African

writing on Olmec
artifacts is the most obvious African artifact found by arcaheologist.
Drucker in 1955 found
two inscribed celts at LaVenta in offering #4. These celts written in
African writing, found
in a controlled excavation talk about Pe, a leading sprititual leader
that was buried at
LaVenta offering #4.

The redandblack ware used by the ProtoMande in the Saharan Highlands

was also
used by the Olmec. Examples of this pottery style include the socalled
Blackware red
pigment of Las Bocas and Tlatilco. Many of these vessels are inscribed
with Olmec
writing.

Moreover B. Stross in "Maya Hieroglyphic writing and MixeZoquean",

Anthropological
Linguistics 24 (1) (1973, pp.73 134), mentions the Mayan tradition for
a foriegn origin of
Mayan writing. This point is also supported by C.H. Brown in
"Hieroglyphic literacy in
ancient Mayaland: Inferences from the linguistic data", Current
Anthropology 32 (4) (1991,

pp.489495), who claimed that writing did not exist among the ProtoMaya.

The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.7798) . Here the ancestors of

times Mayan speakers lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking

Olmec people.
Moreover this is further confirmation of Leo Wiener's theory in Africa
and the Discovery
of America that the religion and culture of the Meso-Americans was
influenced by Mande
speaking people from West Africa.
For more information on the ancient Manding writing see:

M. Delafosse, "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'
Anthropologie 10, (1899).

C. A. Winters, "Manding writing in the New World Part 1", Journal of
African
Civilization, 1 (1),
(1979) pp.81 97.

C.A. Winters, "Appendix B: The Jade Celts from La Venta". In Unexpected
Faces in
Ancient America, by A. von Wuthenau (pp.235 237). 2nd Edition, Mexico,
1980.

K. Hau, "PreIslamic writing in West Africa", Bulletin de l'Institut

Fondamental Afrique
Noire (IFAN), t.35, Ser. B no. 1, (1973) pp.145.

K. Hau, "African Writing in the New World", Bull. de l'IFAN,t.40 ser.B

no.1, (1978) pp.28-48.

C.A. Winters, "The influence of the Mande scripts on American ancient
writing systems",Bull. de l'IFAN, t.39, Ser.B no.2, (1977) pp.405 431.

C.A. Winters, "The Ancient manding Script". In , Blacks in Science

Ancient and Modern (ed) by Ivan Van Sertima (pp.208-214), New
Brunswick, Transaction Books, 1983.

You have not refuted my hypothesis. The Mande and Quiche cognates exist
and they show regular correspondence. They prove the ancient
relationship of the Mande and Maya.

C.A. Winters

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <bortiz-1802...@ip109.birmingham4.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,

: bor...@earthlink.net (Bernard Ortiz de Montellano) wrote:

: > In article <6cepde$74b$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu
: > (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
: >
: > >MAJOR SNIP OF SAME OLD THING

: >
: > > The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
: > > comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
: > > the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
: > > and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
: > > my hypothesis.

: > >
: > > As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.

: > >
: > >
: > > C.A. Winters
: > >
: > Apparently Winters feels that constant repetition of the same point and
: > incantatory use of linguistic terminology constitutes proof of something.

: > What Miguel and I have done is what real comparative linguists do, i.e. we

: > took a standard list Swadesh 100 words and showed that there is no match
: > at all not only with Winters' Yucatec Maya (which is not the appropriate
: > language to use if one is claiming contact with the Olmec in Classical
: > Maya sites such as Palenque) but with the appropriate Maya languages--
: > Chorti, Chol, and Chontal. Miguel threw in Cakchikel Maya for free. That
: > is the immutable bottom line. readers of the ng or anyone else has the
: > evidence available through dejanews.

: SNIP

: I notice that, magically, in Winters' sad rerun of his old discredited
: post the Maya attribution included Quiche. As usual no attribution
: information on the source of the words was listed, nor were we told which
: words were claimed to be Yucatec and which Quiche. No matter, Quiche is a
: singularly inappropriate language to use and claim Olmec contact. Readers
: of the ng should look in the standard textbook, Michael Coe, *The Maya*
: NY:Thames and Hudson, 5th ed. 1993m p. 25 gives a map of the distribution
: of Maya languages and p. 27 a classification and time depth of Maya
: languages. The reason Coe and I have been arguing that the appropriate
: comparisons, if one is to make any, between Olmec and Maya should be to
: the languages in the Cholan group (Chorti, Chol, and Chontal) is that
: these are the languages spoken in the area near to the Gulf region of the
: Olmecs (near Palenque) and that Cholan has the proper time depth. Yucatec
: is spoken in the Yucatan Peninsula and, even worse, Quiche is spoken in
: the Guatemalan Highlands-- But perhaps Winters like Whittett does not know
: where the Tuxtla Mountains are. If you look at the classification tree,
: you will see that Quiche is as far removed from Yucatec as you can get and
: still be called Maya. Both Quiche and Yucatec are much more recent with a
: time depth of about AD 1000-- i.e. the PostClassic era rather than the
: depth needed for any kind of effective Olmec contact-- the early Classic
: when Palenque was a viable entity.

: In any case, just to nail down the coffin. I ran the Swadesh 100 word list

: for Mande/Quiche-- and as expected there are no matches. Another strike
: out :-(.

: Swadesh's original 100-list, as quoted in T. Bynon, "Historical
: Linguistics, CUP 1977, as quoted in C. Renfrew "Archaeology and
: Language", 1987. Data from John M. Dienhart. 1989. *The Mayan Languages a
: Comparative Vocabulary* Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press and
: *Diccionario Maya Cordemex* 1980. Merida: Cordemex. Delafosse, Maurice.
: 1929. *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*.
: Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue).Paris: Librarie
: Orientaliste Paul Geuthner
:
: Mande Quiche
: ALL byE ronojee
: ASH bugu-ri-gbE chaaj
: BARK fara iij
: BELLY furu paa
: BIG bon nim
: BIRD kono chąicin
: BITE ki pushij
: BLACK jE qąeq
: BLOOD gyOli cicą
: BONE kolo baaq
: BREASTS si tuą
: BURN gyeni cąaat
: CLAW wasa ishcąaq
: CLOUD kabasen suutzą
: muntan
: COLD su-ma joron
: COME se peet
: DIE sa cam
: DOG wulu tząią
: DRINK mi qum
: DRY tele chaqiąj
: EAR tulo shcin
: EARTH dugu uleew
: EAT dun waą
: EGG bye moąl
: EYE nye boqąoch
: FEATHER si rismaal
: FIRE ta qąaąq
: FISH yegE car
: FLESH soro
: FLY pa rapap
: FOOT sen aquan
: FULL fa-la nojinaq
: GIVE di yaą
: GOOD sobE utz
: GREASE tolo
: GREEN bulalama rash
: HAIR kunsigi wią
: HAND tege, bolo qąab
: HEAD kun joloom
: HEAR ye ta
: HEART so
: HORN bye ucąaaą
: HOT gba-na
: I ne riąin
: KILL fara camisaaj
: KNEE kumbere chąeec
: KNOW dOn eetaąaam
: LEAF fira shaaq
: LIE la cotząolic
: LIVER gyusu saseeb
: LONG jan nim raqan
: LOUSE gara-gba saqucą
: MAN chE ashih, winaq
: MANY mu-mba cąi
: MOON kalo iicą
: MOUNTAIN kulu (ba) juyib
: MOUTH da chiią
: NAME jamu bią
: NECK ka qul
: NEW kura cąaacą
: NIGHT su aqąab
: NOSE nun tzaąm
: NOT taj
: ONE kelen juun
: PATH sira
: PERSON morO
: RAIN san, sanji jab
: RED bilen caq
: ROOT lili cąaąmaal
: ROUND kiri-ma bolobic
: SAND kenye sanyeeb
: SAY fO biąij
: SEE ye il
: SEED foli ijaą
: SIT sigi cuąlic
: SKIN gbOlo
: SLEEP si-nOrO war
: SMALL dogo chąutiąn
: SMOKE sisi sib
: STAND wuli tacąalic
: STAR lolo chąumiil
: STONE kaba abaj
: SUN tele qąiij
: SWIM no moshon
: TAIL ku jeeą
: THAT o, ni laą
: THIS o, ni waą
: TONGUE nE aaqą
: TOOTH nyi ware
: TREE jiri cheeą
: TWO fila ceeb
: WALK tara-ma biin
: WATER ji yaaą
: WE an oj
: WHAT mu, gyo jaąch
: WHITE gbE, kuru saq
: WHO jOn chinoq
: WOMAN muso ishoq
: YELLOW kibiriki qąan
: YOU aw riąat

: Bernard Ortiz de MOntellano

[cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu]

In article <6cgajh$797$2...@kali.ziplink.net>,
Ak...@pizlink.net (Akan Ifriqiya) wrote:
>
> hbo...@earthlink.net says...
> >

> >(Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
> >
> >>MAJOR SNIP OF SAME OLD THING
> >
> >> The above linguistic data meet the criteria for a well founded
> >> comparative study. It also met the two principal hypothesis related to
> >> the comparative method. As a result, I have confirmed that the Mande
> >> and Maya were in contact in ancient time. You have failed to disconfirm
> >> my hypothesis.
> >>
> >> As a result there is no need to change any of my Web pages.
> >>
> >>
> >> C.A. Winters
> >>
> >Apparently Winters feels that constant repetition of the same point and
> >incantatory use of linguistic terminology constitutes proof of something.
> >What Miguel and I have done is what real comparative linguists do, i.e. we
> >took a standard list Swadesh 100 words and showed that there is no match
> >at all not only with Winters' Yucatec Maya (which is not the appropriate
> >language to use if one is claiming contact with the Olmec in Classical
> >Maya sites such as Palenque) but with the appropriate Maya languages--
> >Chorti, Chol, and Chontal. Miguel threw in Cakchikel Maya for free. That
> >is the immutable bottom line. readers of the ng or anyone else has the
> >evidence available through dejanews.
> >

> >And we haven't even begun to question all the other erroneus arguments
> >about the Olmecs being Mande. For example, exactly (precisely-- not just
> >hand waving about canoes) how did the Mande come over to the New World in
> >or about 1200 BC? What did they row across in since there were no sails in
> >West Africa at the time. Exactly where did they embark from? What exactly
> >was the route taken? How did they know that there was anything "over
> >there" (1-800 psychic?). If it was an accident, why would they have packed
> >water and food for a month or more in the canoe? Exactly how big were
> >these canoes? Is there any evidence (not coulda-woulda) that canoes of
> >this size existed in 1200 B.C., etc.
> >Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
>
> Bernard:
>
> I would add that I am unaware, and this could be a defect of my own
> background, of any literature (Winters excluded) which would be able to say
> where the proto-Mande where in this very early time period.
>
> They will be doing great things, as we have discussed elsewhere, in about
> 1000 years with Ghana, but faut des sources I don't know anyone can say what
> it going on in West Africa in 1200 B.C.
>
> This of course, also poses the question of the linguistic comparision. I am
> unaware also of a reconstruction of a proto-Mande by historical linguists
> which would be appropriate to compare to Olmec languages.
>
> This is all an excise in very silly behaviour and I wish we could get on to
> discussing something substantive like the mysterious Nok culture.
>
> Ramira Naka
>

> ANCIENT NIGERIAN CULTURES
In West Africa we find many culture traits and oral
traditions which show an Egyptian or West Asian origin for the
present inhabitants of the area. This is especially true of the
Ashanti, Aros ,Ibibio and Yoruba people.
Although the Mande speakers entered West Africa from the
North by way of North Africa and the Sahara, other Africans came
from the East. At the time these people arrived in the area it
was settled by the Anu or Twa/ Mbuti people. Man had been in
Nigeria for at least 70,000 years.
A north African origin for many West African groups is
supported by the Tassili frescoes, which show stiltdancers, like
those found in the Niger delta today. In Ashanti we find many
terms similar to Hebrew words such as toro 'law', and Torah for
the law giver of Israel. There are funerary masks from Ashanti
which recall the Mycenean masks.
The Ibibios of Nigeria have statuettes which are identical to
Minoan snake-god statuettes. Moreover , the Greeks mentioned the
names of many tribes which phonetically have affinities to modern
ethnic groups now living in West Africa, such as Iarba and the
Yoruba, Philaeni and the Fulani, and Ausees and the Hausa. The
Iarba, are mentioned by Vergil in his Aenid.

The oldest culture in Nigeria was the Nok culture. This
culture was located in the Zaria Province of Nigeria. The Nok
culture began in the middle of 2nd millennium B.C.
The people of Nok made fine terracotta statues and pottery.
These figurines were made between 900 B.C. to A.D. 700.
The people of Nok were the first to use iron in West Africa.
By 300 B.C., they had fully developed iron technology.
The Nokians wore lip, ear and nose plugs and beads. They were
sedentary farmers. they lived in wattle and daub houses. The iron
age lasted in Nok up until A.D. 700.
Other Nigerian cultures include Ife, Old Oyo and Ilesha. The
people of Ife were skilled iron smiths. They also made decorated
pottery and glass. The Ife people were also fine bronze casters.
Ife is best known for its naturalistic sculpture of
terracotta figures, usually elaborately dressed, with bracelets
and crowns on their heads. The sculptures of Ife are about two-
thirds life size.
There is evidence that a hieroglyphic form of writing existed
in ancient Nigeria. (Hau 1967) Mrs. K. Hau (1967) has found Bini
artifacts, ivory tusks from the Kingdom of Benin, which show
figures of men holding a "board with hands". These 'writing
boards' were used in ancient Egypt and Meroe to record the
obituaries of dead celebrities. Today they are used by the
Yoruba, Mande and Hausa Muslims to record their school lessons.
In addition to the Bini hieroglyphics on the tusk, Hau (1967)
has found evidence that Oberi Okaime, a script also used in
Nigeria may not be of recent origin. To prove this point Hau
(1967) illustrated that most of the Oberi Okaime symbols are
"identical with or apparently derived from the Linear A of Minoan
Crete" writing.
Hau (1967) believes that the appearance of Linear A signs in
Oberi Okaime, may be the result of the invasion of the Peoples of
the Sea,who attacked Egypt from Cyrenaica in 1200 B.C., and may
have been pushed southward after their defeat and intermarried
with the inhabitants of Nigeria.
This theory is fine, except for the fact that the Sea people
had no writing. Most importantly, it should be remember that the
Linear A writing is derived from the Proto-Saharan script. This
suggest that the Oberi Okaime script's origin may be the result
of the settlement of descendants of the former inhabitants of the
Fertile African Crescent in Nigeria. This view is supported by
the numerous chariot routes coming from the Fezzan region of
Libya, via the Hoggar and Adrar des Iforas in the north, to Gao
on the Niger river.

Hau, K , "The ancient Writing of Southern Nigeria", Bulletin de l'IFAN
29, no1-2
(1967), pages 150-185.

[cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu]

During the neolithic period the western Sahara had many
rivers. Today what we call the Niger river was divided into two
rivers in c.5000 B.C. One was called the Upper Niger and the
other the Lower Niger. The Upper Niger rose in the mountains on
the border of Sierra Leone and flowed northeastward into a closed
basin in the Sahara; downstream the river there were many wide
marshes and several large lakes. The Lower Niger rose in the
Hoggar mountains of the Saharan zone. It was fed by streams from
the Adrar massif. Winds from the Atlantic ocean took rains into
North and West Africa which supported much vegetation in
neolithic times.
In the Tichitt region of Mauritania, an area which is now
desert there was a river now dried up which flowed into the
Senegal river. Lake Chad was then much larger with a river from
the Hoggar called the Tafassasset emptying in it. Rivers also
flowed from the Moroccan Atlas mountains into the western Sahara.
It would appear that the people who most influenced the
history of North and West Africa after 4000 B.C. originally lived
in the Fezzan region of Libya.
The history of West Africa is no secret all you have to do is research it.
Archaeology allows us to gain keen insight into the origin of the Mande
speaking
people and there migration to Mexico in ancient times.

Agricultural revolutions and the resulting increased food production has
been
the principal catalyst for the wide spread dispersal of populations speaking
similar languages. Using linguistic and archaeological data Peter Bellwood
(1991)
and Colin Renfrew (1988) have shown the role agriculture played in the
dispersal
of the Austronesian and Indo-European speakers in prehistoric times.

Recent archaeological research in Africa suggest that although agriculture
played a
role in the spread of some African linguistic groups such as the Bantu and
Cushitic
speakers, cattle domestication led to the spread of other African groups
across
enormous parts of West Africa. This hypothesis suits the evidence we have
regarding
the spread of the Proto-Mande from the Saharan highlands in the east, to the
shores
of the Atlantic ocean in the west. (Winters 1986b)
Archaeological research from North Africa clearly illustrate the movement
of semi-
sedentary cattle herders from the Magreb and Saharan sites into West Africa.
This
agropastoral sedentary economy resulted in a growth in populations great
enough to
make it possible for the Mande speakers to expand across much of

Northwest and West Africa between 5000 and 3000 years before the
present (BP).
Archaeological evidence has increased in relation to prehistoric Africa
in the past
ten years. Linguistic material will be used to compliment the macrobotanical
remains
and evidence of material culture uncovered during archaeological excavation,
so we
can see clearly the subsistence and settlement
patterns of the Proto-Mande.
The Mande speakers are often associated with the Niger-Congo
family /superset of languages. Wm. Welmers (1971) has postulated an original
home
land for the Niger-Congo Superset in the general vicinity of the Upper Nile.
Ehret and
Posnansky (1982) has suggested that the Mande diverged from the Kwa around
5000-
4000 B.C. Dr. Welmers (1971) has hypothesized that around 3000 B.C. the Mande
languages separated into Northern and Southeastern branches.
The Niger-Congo speakers probably inhabited the plateau and mountain
regions of
the Sahara: Air, Ennedi, Tibesti and Hoggar.
These highland areas eight thousand years ago formed the "Saharan
Fertile Crescent". The linguistic evidence suggest that the Nilo-
Saharan, Chadic, Egyptian and other supersets and subsets of languages also
lived in
this highland paradise.
Greenberg (1970) believes that during the neolithic the Niger-Congo
speakers had
domesticated ovicaprids (sheep/goats).
Winters (1986b) has illustrated that the Niger-Congo people utilized selected
plant
food including millet and rice .
Much of this discussion of the Proto-Mande migrations will involve
discussion of
the Mandekan or Manding languages of the Mande group of languages. (Platiel
1978;
Galtier 1980) Mann and Dalby (1987) give Mande a peripheral status in the
Niger-
Congo superset.
The Manding languages include the Malinke-Bambara subset of the
Northwestern
Mande subgroup of languages. The original Manding lived in the southern
Saharan
highlands. (Winters 1986b)
Now the Mande are dispersed from the Sahara to the Atlantic Ocean in the
so-called
fragmentation belt of Africa.
The Manding languages have a high frequency of disyllabic roots of the
CVCV,CV
and CVV kind. Monosyllabic roots of the CV kind often reflect the proto-form
for many
Manding words. (Winters 1986b)
The Manding languages are genetically related to the Dravidian and
Sumerian
languages. (Winters 1983a,1985,1989) It also has affinity to Japanese (Winters
1983b-
), Coptic ,and Magyar (Winters 1987; Zoltan 1985). Recently Winters (1988) has
shown
that the Manding languages may be the substratum language of Tokharian. In
addition,
Manding shares many topological features with Amerind languages, including
SOV/SVO
sentence pattern, monosyllabic roots and agglutination.(Welmers 1970)
Controversy surrounds the classification of the Mande language family.
Greenberg
(1963) popularized the idea that the
Mande subset was a member of the Niger-Congo Superset of African
languages. The position of Mande in the Niger-Congo Superset has long been
precari
ous and today it is given a peripheral status to the Niger-Congo Superset.
(Bennett &
Sterk 1977; Dalby 1988)
Murkarovsky (1966) believes that the Mande group of languages do not belong in
the
Niger-Congo Superset, while Welmers (1971) has advanced the idea that Mande
was
the first group to break away from Niger-Congo.
The Mande languages are also closely related to Songhay ( Mukarovsky
1976/77;
Zima 1989), Nilo-Saharan ( Boyd 1978; Creissels 1981; Bender 1981) and the
Chadic
group. Zima (1989) compared 25 Songhay and Mandekan terms from the cultural
vocabulary to highlight the correspondence between these two language groups.
Zima (1989:110) made it clear that "the lexical affinities between the Songhay
and
Mande languages are evident".
Mukarovsky (1987) has presented hundreds of analogous Mande and Cushitic
terms.
Due to the similarities between the Mande and Cushitic language families
Mukarovsky
(1987) would place Mande into the Afro-Asiatic Superset of languages.
The traditional view of the dispersal of the Proto-Mande
would place their original home in the woodland savanna zone of West Africa,
in the
area of the Niger Basin. (Ehret and Posnansky 1982:242) Bimson (1980) has pro
posed that the Mande migration waves originated from the Inland niger Delta
around
2000 BC.
This is a most attractive theory but it does not conform with the
archaeological data
collected over the past decade in Africa,
that illustrates that until the second millennium B.C. the Inland Niger Delta
was spars-
ely populated.(McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986)
The original homeland of the Proto-Mande was probably the Saharan
highlands.
(Winters 1986b) The archaeological data suggest that the Proto-Mande migrated
first
north (westward), and then southward to their present centers of habitation.
(Winters
1981b:81)
By the late stone age (LAS) black Africans were well established in the
Sahara.(Winters 1985b) These blacks were members of the Saharo-Sudanese tradi
tion. (Camps 1974) These blacks lived in the highlands. The early Fezzanese
and
Sudanese were sedentary pastoralist.
We call these blacks Proto-Saharans. (Winters 1985b) Most of the
Proto-Saharan-
s lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Paleo-Africans lived on the
plains
which featured lakes and marshes. During much of the neolithic/epipaleolithic
period
the Sahara resembled the Mediterranean region in climate and ecology.
Ceramics spread from the Central and Eastern Sahara into North Africa.
These
ceramics were of Sudanese inspiration and date back to the 7th millennium
B.C. This
pottery was used from the Ennedi to Hoggar. The makers of this pottery were
from the
Sudan. (Andah 1981)
In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c.
7500-
4400 B.C.), which led to the formation of large lakes and marshes in
Mauritania, the
Niger massifs and Chad. The Inland Niger Delta was unoccupied. In other parts
of
the Niger area the wet phase existed in the eight/seventh and fourth/third
millennia
B.C. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1986:417)
There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet
phase.
McIntosh and McIntosh (1986) have illustrated that the only human occupation
of the
Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis. By the 8th
millen
nium B.C.
Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air. (Roset 1983) Ceramics of this
style
have also been found at sites in the Hoggar. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983b:230)
Dotted
wavy-line pottery
has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara. (Barich 1985)
During the late pleistocene clay pottery or baskets were probably used by
hunter/f-
isher/gather groups to collect grain, as evidenced by numerous millstones
found on
early Saharan sites..
Although the Paleo-Africans may have had seasonal migration patterns
their ce
ramic traditions and intensive exploitation of plant foods show a continuity
of the tech
nological and structural tradition in the Libyan Sahara, and in our opinion do
not reflect
a true nomadic herder tradition characterized by historic nomadic
societies.(Winters
1986b) It is interesting to note that while cattle predominate the pictorial
scenes in the
Libyan Sahara, the faunal remains from Uan Muhuggiag and El Kaduda for
example,
indicate that most Paleo-Africans kept domesticated goat/sheep.
(Obenga 1988; Barich 1985; Winters 1985a,1986b) Moreover the earliest animal
engravings in the Fezzan were of rams and goats/
sheep. (Quellec 1985:367)
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundheaded blacks .(Jelinek 1985:273)
The
cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture
items and
people of Nubia.( Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985) The C-Group people occupied the
Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 B.C. (Close 1988)
These early Paleo-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu
by the Egyptians.(Behrens 1984:30) Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical
features of black African people. (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72)
These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of
the
Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that
the
Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they
settled South
India. A common origin for black Africans and Dravidians would explain the
analogous
cultural and linguistic features of these
two groups. (Anselin 1982; Winters 1980,1981,1981b,1985a, 1985c)
The Proto-Mande speakers in the Saharan highlands were probably one of
the
numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area. If we accept this hypothesis the
C-Group
people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the
Supersets
we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the Niger-Congo speakers
Greenberg
(1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Mande among
the
sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data
indicating an
early Mande domestication of cattle.
In the Sahara pastoralism was the first form of food production.
Augustin Holl
(1989) a specialist on western Africa believes that pastoralism was the first
form of
food production developed by post-paleolithic groups in the Sahara.
In the eastern Sahara it would appear that ovicaprid husbandry preceded
cattle
domestication because cattle were maladaptive to rocky lands. This is in sharp
con
trast to the western Sahara where cattle was the mainstay domesticate for
sedentary
pastoral economies.
Much of the evidence relating to this pastoral way of life comes from the
discovery
of cattle bones at excavated sites in the Sahara dated between 7000-2000 BC,
and
the rock drawings of cattle. (McIntosh &McIntosh 1981) In the western Sahara,
sites
such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest
to
cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 BP. The ovicaprid husbandry on the
other
hand began in this area between 5000 to 3000 BP. Cattle pastoral people began
to
settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarichinkat between 5000 to 3500 BP.
The hypothesis that the ancestral homeland of the Proto-Mande was in the
Saha
ran highlands best explains their migration routes into the Niger Basin,
northwest and
west Africa in general. (Winters 1986b.) This hypothetical migratory route for
the
Mande is supported by the diffusion of Saharan pottery styles dating from
2000-500
B.C., from the southern Sahara to the
Inland Niger Delta. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1979:246,1983)
The archaeological and linguistic evidence suggest that changes in the
Mande
subsistence economy resulted from a combination of factors including
demographic
stress and ecological change. It was ecological change which led to the
Proto-Mande
domestication of goats/sheep and cattle.
The Mande cultural lexicon makes it clear that animal husbandry, and not
agricul
ture played a dominant role in the
expansion of the Proto-Mande. The deep internal divisions for names for
cultivated
crops reflect the limited role of agriculture in the Mande dispersals.
The linguistic evidence suggest that the Malinke-Bambara early adopted
agricul
ture after they migrated westward from the Fezzan and Hoggar regions.(Winters
1986b) The Soninke and South Eastern Mande speakers , on the other hand re-

mained primarily pastoralist. As a result they adopted the names of cultivated
plants
used by the Malinke-Bambara or of agriculturalists they met in their travels.
Migration to America
These Proto-Saharans came to Mexico in papyrus boats. A stone
stela from
Izapa,Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Proto-Saharans used to
sail
to America. The voyagers manning these boats probably sailed down streams and
rivers which led from the Atlantic coast up into the Sahara zone. These
rivers, long
dried up, once emptied into the Atlantic. Once in the Atlantic Ocean to Mexico
and
Brazil, by the North Equatorial Current which meets the Canaries Current off
the
Senegambian coast.
There are oral traditions and documentary evidence which support the
early
migration of the Proto-Saharans to Mexico, called the Olmecs by the
Amerindians.
Friar Diego de Landa, in "Yucatan before and After the Conquest", wrote that
"some
old men of Yucatan say that they heard from their ancestors that this country
was
peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by
opening
for them twelve roads through the sea".
This oral tradition of the Maya is supported by Stela 5, of Izapa. In
Stela No. 5, we
view a group of men on a boat riding the waves of an Ocean.At the right hand
side of
the boat we see a personage under a ceremonial umbrella.This umbrella was a
sym
bol of princely status.Above his head is a jaguar glyph which according to Dr.
Alexan
der von Wuthenau indicates that he was an Olmec. This personage has an African
hairdo and a writing stylus in his left hand. This Olmec scribe proves that
the Olmec
had writing which was deciphered by Clyde Ahmad Winters in 1978.(Winters
1979;Wu-

thenau 1981)
In the center of the boat we find a large tree. This tree has seven
branches and
twelve roots. The seven branches probably indicates the seven major clans that
form
ed the Olmec nation. The twelve roots of the tree which extend into the waves
of the
ocean from the boat, probably signifies the "twelve roads through the sea"
mentioned
by Friar Diego de Landa.
Stela No.5, also illustrates the two principal Olmec cults. On the right
hand side of
the stela, we see the Jaguar Prince instructing a youth in the mysteries of
the Jaguar
cult. On the left hand side we see a number of birds.Here we also find a
priest wear
ing a conical hat,also instructing a youth in the mysteries of the bird cult.
It is clear
that Stela No.5 from Izapa not only indicates the tree of life, it speaks to
the origin of
the Olmec from a nation across the sea. And that the Olmec people came to the
New
World during twelve migrations, as recorded by Friar de Landa.
In the Popol Vuh, the famous Mayan historian Ixtlixochtl, the Olmecs came
to
Mexico in "ships of barks"( probably a reference to papyrus boats or dug-out
canoes
used by the Proto-Saharans) and landed in Potonchan,which they commenced to
populate.Mexican traditions claim that these migrates from the east were led
by Amox-

aque or Bookmen. The term Amoxaque, is similar to the Manding 'a ma
n'kye':"he (is)
a teacher". These Blacks are frequently seen in Mayan writings as gods or
mer-

chants.
The Olmec civilization lasted from 1500 to 100 B.C. These Olmecs spoke an
aspect of the Manding language.
It appears that some of the Olmec that later settled in Mexico may have
come
from Tichitt in southern Mauritania or the Arawan. At Tichitt there was a
fairly large
population of Mande speakers before desiccation forced these Proto-Manding
people
to modify their economy or move southward to better watered country. This
Tichitt
valley is also an area where the western line of rock engravings depicting the
horse-
drawn vehicles of pre-cameline times are located. The Proto-Manding
established
chariot routes from Libya down to the Niger Valley. It is intersecting to note
that the
Manding term for maize is "Ka", this agrees with the Mayan term for maize Kan.

The appearance of Proto-Saharans in Mexico 3800 years ago resulted from
paleoc-

limate changes in West Africa after 2000 B.P. This view is supported by
climatic
studies of the Dar(Dhar) Tichitt region which show increasing trends towards
desertifi-

cation. The trend towards more severe dry seasons made much of West Africa
unsuit
able for permanent human settlement.(Holl 1985:88) Competition for decreasing
arable land probably stimulated African migration to new lands across the
Atlantic and
West Africa.
Due to the preoccupation of the Proto-Mande with rainmaking during this
period of
climate change, led to the importance of the rain maker in African society,
and the
snake who gave man the secrets to harness nature.This hypothesis is supported
by
the fact that in the Manding and Olmec languages sa means both rain and snake.
Commenting on the association of the snake and rain making in Proto-Mande
culture Augustin Holl (l985:108) wrote that:
"In this regard the development of a symbolic mediator
of stress in the
form of rainmaking and its correlated snake cult seem a reasonable
possibil
ity. The general distribution of these features in Africa is
strongly
correlated with the distribution of the climatic pattern of
two contrasting
seasons"[ one long and dry the other short and wet]."
Mexican traditions recorded by Sahagun, claim that these Proto-Saharans
landed in Mexico at Panotha, on the Mexican Gulf. Here they remained for a
time until they moved "south in search of mountains". This traditions
corresponds to the expansion of the Olmecs from the Gulf of Mexico to
Chalcatzingo, in the Mexican Highlands.
The Olmec empire was spread from Yucatan in the East, to Guerrero and the
Pacific coast on the west, through Guatemala, Salvador and Costa Rica on the
South west. Here the Olmecs continued to use the Proto-Saharan script, which
was later adopted by the Maya civilization.

I will post the Bibliography in a separate post.

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <6cngii$rqo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu wrote:

MAJOR SNIP (to be dealt with later following a trip to the library)

Winters keeps shifting and altering his proposals, he now acknowledges
that the Maya inscriptions were in Chol as well as Yucatec and Quiche. I
have shown using the Swadesh 100 word list than these languages have
nothing in common with Mande. Miguel has shown that Wintersą claims of
being łcognate˛ or łborrowing˛ terms are also incorrect. A new random
group of suposedly Quiche/Mande corresponding words has been added. Given
the suspicious nature of the Quiche łsources˛ I will wager that, again.
Both the Quiche and the Mande will have been cited erroneously.

Some citations from legitimate sources have finally been introduced, and,
again, I will wager than upon checking they will not support the claims
made.

As an example, because I have Landa at hand-- Winters said:

>This would also explain why the Maya, according to Landa had Universities
>where elites learned writing and other subjects. He noted that the Ahkin
May >or Ahuacan May (High Priest) "...and his disciples appointed the
priests for >the towns, examining them in their sciences and
ceremonies...he provided >their books and sent them forth. They in turn
attended to the service of the >temples, teaching their sciences and
writing books upon them"
>(see: Friar Diego de Landa, Yucatan before and After the Conquest, (trs.) by
>William Gates, Dover Publications ,New York, 1978).

Landa says absolutely *nothing* about universities. The Maya, like the
Aztecs, had schools (like all other state level societies) and as in other
early societies children of the elite went to them. The exact quote (from
a much better translation than Gates, and which I checked personally from
the Spanish edition is

ł.. they had a high priestwhom they called *Ah Kin* Mai and by another
name *Ahau Can* Mai, which means the priest Mai, or the High Priest
Mai.... In him was the key of their learning and it was to these matters
that they dedicated themselves mostly.... They provided priests for the
towns when they were needed, examined them in the sciences and ceremonies,
and committed to them the duties of their office, and the good example to
people and provided them with books and sent them forth. And they employed
themselves in the duties of he temples and in teaching their sciences as
well as writing books about them˛ (Diego de Landa. 1941. *Landaąs Relacion
de las Cosas de Yucatan* trans .A. M. Tozzer.p. 27. Cambridge: Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology Harvard.;Diego de Landa.1973. *Relacion de
las Cosas de Yucatan* ed. A. M. Garibay.p. 14. Mexico:Porrua.).

Notice not a word about universities. It is also misleading to leave the
word łsciences˛ without qualification because in reality it refers to
calendrical, ritual, astronomic and astrological calculations tied to
religion. Here, I should point out that the Maya used a base 20 number
system and used zero in its full sense in positional notation. Something
the Egyptians never knew, much less any so-called łproto-Mande.˛ The
calendar was an integral part of Olmec and Maya writing, one more piece of
evidence shredding Wintersą claims.

łThe sciences which they taught were the computation of the years, months,
and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of the
sacraments, the fateful days and seasons, their methods of divination, and
their prophecies, events and the cures for their diseases, and their
antiquities and how to reasd and write with the letters and characters,
with which they wrote, and drawings which illustrate the meaning of their
writings.˛ (Tozzer, pp. 27-28; Landa, p. 15)˛

Winters also said:

> There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of
>writing among the Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people
probably >gave writing to the Maya. Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991)
found that the >Proto Maya term for "write" is *c'ihb' or *c'ib'. Since
the Olmec people >probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan term for
writing would probably >correspond to the Mande term for writing. A
comparison of these
>terms confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for writing *c'ib' or
>*c'ihb'is derived from the Olmec/Manding term for writing *se'be'. The
>ancient Mayans wrote their inscriptions in Chol, Yucatec and probably
Quiche.

[C.H. Brown in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from
the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991, pp.489 495)--my
*Current Anthropology* is in boxes in the attic so that Iąll have to get
to library to check unless one of you does]

1) There is nothing new or controversial in the idea that writing began
before the Maya or that the Olmec contributed. However, the latest
research shows that the calendar and probably writing developed earliest
in the Zapotec region (perhaps they too spoke Mande :-). See J. Marcus,
"First Dates," *Natural History *(March), 26-29 (1991).

2) Very interesting that Winterąs now wants to use a proto-Maya term,
because previously he has persistently insisted in using Maya languages
with little historical depth (Yucatec and Quiche) rather than the Cholan
group (Chol, Chorti, and Chontal) for his comparisons with Mande. This
shows a completely ad-hoc approach to the question rather than a
systematic scholarly approach. Given Wintersą linguistic naivete there is
an urgent need to verify exactly what Brown (1991) said phonetically
because the colonial/current Maya languages differ. Remember that in Maya
łc˛ has the sound of /k/ not /s/ so that sEbE would not be the same.
Second, to be fair we should compare the Proto-Mande word for writing
circa 500 B.C. Not sEbE which is a 1890 Mande word. Would Winters please
provide us with the 500 B.C. Proto-Mande word for writing, or admit
neither he nor anyone else knows what it was, that is assuming they had
writing in 500 B.C. which is also not proven.

3) Notice the inadvertent (or deliberate) confusing notation. The Bambara
word for writing (*ecrire* De La Fosse 1929: 442) is sEbE (using the
notation I have been using to show accents) seąbeą in this context is
confusing because the same notation is used in Maya for glottal stops
(which Winters has been repeatedly told by numerous people are
*CONSONANTS* and cannot be ignored or dismissed). The following comes from
*Diccionario Cordemex 1980 or John M. Dienhart. 1989. *The Mayan
Languages. A Comparative Vocabulary*
to write-- Mande sEbE
Yucatec tsąib <Ś> glottal stop. /ts/ is not a phoneme found in Mande
Quiche tsiibaa
Chol tsiba
Chontal te-tsib

As Miguel keeps asking, perhaps Winters can show us documented steps by
which sEBe can transform into these Maya phonemes. Or for that matter to
protoMaya
/k/ą(glottal stop)ibą (glottal stop) or /ch/ą(glottal stop)ibą(glottal
stop) [I donąt believe Wintersą transcription of cąihbą]

[JoatSimeon]

Winters:

>The Olmec were a cosmopolitan people of African origin. As a result we

>find<BR>
>many other<BR>

>nationalities living in the Olmec cities in addition to Africans, from

>many<BR>
>parts of the Old<BR>
>World.

-- a hypothesis for which you have presented not one iota of evidence of any
sort whatsoever.
-- S.M. Stirling

[JoatSimeon]

>win...@orion.it.luc.edu<BR>

>Mande inscriptions and red and black pottery. African writing<BR>
>on Olmec<BR>
>artifacts

-- in 1200 BC, the only writing in the whole continent of Africa was Egyptian.
Subsaharan Africa was barely neolithic in its most advanced areas.
-- S.M. Stirling

[JoatSimeon]

Winters has yet to explain why, if there was sustained contact between West
Africa and Mexico in the 1200's BC, there was no transport of maize and cassava
to West Africa.

Rather odd, considering the explosive impact they had on African subsistence
patterns when they _were_ introduced by the Portugese.
-- S.M. Stirling

[Frank Gubicza]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
>

--Snip--

> This is why, finally, my colleagues
> and I published two long articles in prestigious professional journals
> demolishing Van Sertima's arguments.

Has Van Sertima responded to your articles?

FG

[Clyde A. Winters]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

: It is clear that the Olmec had contact and influenced the pre-Classic

: Maya, as they did Central Mexico and the Oaxaca highlands. This is quite

: different from arguing that the Olmec settled ³most of the Mayan urban
: centers². The statement is ridiculous on its face to anyone who knows how

: many Maya centers there were and where they were located. An interesting
: visual exercise is to compare the map of Olmec settlements in Diehl and
: Coe p. 10 and that of Maya settlements in Sharer 21 and see the large
: differences. The crucial Olmec influence on the Maya would have taken
: place in the middle pre-Classic about 700-500 B.C. As expected, Palenque
: which is near the Gulf Olmec region is the key site here (and the reason
: why I have been urging that, if Olmec/Mande language influenced Maya, the
: appropriate languages are Chorti, Chol, and Chontal-- a course resolutely
: avoided by Winters). The other area of Olmec influence on Maya
: civilization was the Eastern Pacific coast of Guatemala (the Soconusco
: Region) (Sharer:pp. 74-75; Diehl and Coe: 24). In this region we see Olmec
: influenced settlements at Izapa, Abaj Takalik and Chalchuapa. This
: influence was transmitted to Kaminaljuyu an early site in the Guatemalan
: highlands. Notice that we are speaking of contact and influence-- not of
: Olmec settlers mixed with Maya locals.

: On the other hand, there much of the development of early Maya
: civilization took place in areas with little contact with the Mixe/Xoque
: speaking Olmecs. For example, the Swazey complex and the Cerros site in
: Belize or Nakbe, which foreshadowed the important early center of El

: Mirador in the Peten lowlands of Guatemala. Winters¹ archaeological

: knowledge is a shallow as his comparative linguistics.

: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

: --
: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
: Wayne State University

You are wrong, the lower level pyramids at Cerros were of Olmec origin
and style. These sites were also first settled by the Mande speaking
Olmecs.

C.A. Winters

[Clyde A. Winters]

cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu wrote:
: During the neolithic period the western Sahara had many

: C.A. Winters

Below is a Bibliography of recent sources on African Prehistory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andah, B Wai, "West Africa before the Seventh Century", In
General History
of Africa, Vol 2, Paris:UNESCO, 1981.
Anselin, Alain, "Zeus, Ethiopien Minos Tamoul", Carbet Revue
Martinique de
Sciences Humaines 2, (1984) pages 31-50.
Anselin,Alain, "Le Lecon Dravidienne ", Carbet Revue Martinique
de Sciences
Humaines 9, pages 7-58.
Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between
Dravidians and
Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10, (1976)pages 23-27.
Aravanan, K P , Dravidians and Africans , Madras, 1979.
Asante, M K ,Kemit,Afrocentricity, and Knowledge, Trenton,N J :
Africa World
Press,1990.
Asante,M K ,"The Afrocentric idea in Education", Journal of Negro
Education 60,
no2 (1991), pages 170-180.
Barich,B E , "Fieldwork in Tadrart Acacus and the "Neolithic" of
the Sahara",
Current Anthropology 25, no5 (1984), pages 683- 686.
Barker, G W, "From Classification to Interpretation:Libyan
Prehistory,1969-
1989", Libyan Studies 20, (1989) pages 31- 43.
Bernal,M. Black Athena, New York , Vol.1,1987.
Bernal,M, Black Athena, New York, Vol.2, 1991.
Berra, Manuel, Geographia las Lenguas y carte Entnografia Mexico.
Bradley, M , The Black Discovery of America, Toronto:Personal
Library, 1981.
Caldwell,R, A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages ,
Delhi:Oriental Book Reprint Corporation,1974.
Camps,G , Amekni, Neolithique Ancien du Hoggar, Paris:Arts et
Metieres
Graphiques, 1967.
Camps, G , Le Cheval et la Char dans la Prehsitoriques de
l'Afrique nord et
du Sahara , Paris:Doin ,1974.
Cauvet, J , Les Berberes en Amerique, Alger, 1930.
Caneva, I , "Early Neolithic settlement and the later cemetery at
Geili (Central Sudan)", In L Krzyzaniak and M Kobusiewicz
(eds),Origins
and early Development of Food Producing Cultures in
North-Eastern Africa,
(Poznan : Polish Academy of Sciences, 1984) 353-360.
Clark, J D , "The Origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth
Panafrican Con
gress of Prehistory and Quarternary Studies, Nairobi, 1977.
Cornelius, J T , "The Dravidian Question", Tamil Culture 3,
no2 (1954), pages 92-102.
Cornelius, J T, "Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians",
Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South
India, (1956/1957) ppages 91-94.
David, H S , "Some contacts and affinities between the Egypto-
Minoan and the Indo(-Dravido) Sumerian Culture",Tamil
Culture 4, no2 (1955), pages 169-175.
Delafosse, M "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture",
L'Anthropologie
10, (1899).
Delafosse, M , La Langue Mandigue et ses dislectes, Paris:
Geuthner, 1929.
Desplanges, L , "Notes sur les origines des populations
Nigerienne", L'Anthropologie 17, (1906) pages 525-527.
Desplanges, L , Le Plateau Central Nigerien , Paris, 1907.
Diop,C A, The African Origin of Civilization, (ed & trans) by
Mercer Cook,
Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company,1974.
Diop, C A , Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique at des
languages
Negro-Africaines, Dakar:IFAN, Les Nouvelles Editions
Africaines, 1977.
Diop,C A , The Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Chicago:Third
World Press,
1978.
Diop, C A , "Formation of the Berber Branch", In Libya Antiqua,
(ed) by UNESC-
O,(Paris:UNESCO 1986) pages 69-73.
Diop, C A , Nouvelles recherches sur l'Egyptien ancient et les
langues Negro-Africaines Modernes, Paris: Presence
Africaine, 1988.
Diop,C A ,Civilization of Barbarism:An Authentic Anthropology,
(trans ) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed) by H. J.
Salemson and
Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence Hill and Company,1991.
Doresse, A J , "Decouvertes en Ethiopie et decouverte de
l'Ethiopie", Bibliotheca Orientalis 14, (1957) pages 64-
Doresse, A J , Ethiopia, 1971.
Drewes, A J , Inscriptions de Ethiope Antique , Leiden:Brill,
1973.
Duarte, F R , Diccionario de Mexicanismo, Mexico, 1895.
Ehret, C , "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia",
Journal of African
History 20, (1979) pages 161-.
Ehret, C , "Language change and the material correlates of
language and
ethnic shift", Antiquity 62, (1988) pages 564- 573.
Ehret, C & Posnansky, M , The Archaeological and Linguistic
Reconstruction
of African History, Berkeley, 1982.
Farid., El-Yahky, "The Sahara and Predynastic Egyptian Overview",The
Journal for the
Society for the Study Egyptian Antiquities 7, no1-2 (1985), pages
58-65.
Farid ,El-Yahky, "The Origin and Development of sanctuaries in
Predynastic
Egypt", Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
14, no3 (198
4), pages 70-73.
Fox, J A , "Kingship terminology and social process:Two Mayan
etymologies",
International Journal of American Linguistics 51, (1985) pages
405-407.
Gadd, C J,A Sumerian Reading Book, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1924.
Galassi, . Tehenu, Rome, 1942.
Gimbutas, M A , The Civilization of the Goddess the world of Old
Europe , San
Francisco:Harper, 1991.
Graves, Robert, The Greek Myths, Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd,
1980, 2 vols.
Greenberg, J H , The Languages of Africa, Bloomington:University of
Indiana,19-70.
Greenberg, J H , Language in the Americas. Standford: Standford
University
Press,1987.

Hau, K , "The ancient Writing of Southern Nigeria", Bulletin de
l'IFAN 29, no1-2
(1967), pages 150-185.

Hau, K, "Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa", Bulletin de
l'IFAN , series B, no1 (1973).
Hern, Gerhard , The Phoenicians , New York: William Morrow &
Company,
1975.
Hilson, S W , "Human biological variation in the Nile Valley, in
relation to environ
mental factors, Unpublished Ph D Dissertation,
University of London.
Hochfield, S , & Riesfstahl, E , (eds) Africa in Antiquity: The
The Arts of Nubia and
the Sudan , New York: Brooklyn Museum
1978. 2 vols.
Holl, Agustin, "Background to the Ghana Empire:Archaeological
investigation
on the transition to statehood in the Dar Tichitt region
(Mauritania)", Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 4,(1985) pages 73-115.
Holl, Agustin, "Social issues in Saharan Prehistory", Journal
Anthropological
Archaeology 8, (1989) pages 313-354.
Hood, M S F ,"The Tartaria Tablets", Scientific America 218,
(1968) pages 30-37.
Hopper, R J , The Early Greeks, New York:Harper & Row Publishers
,1976.
Jelinek, J , "Tillizahren, the Key Site of the Fezzanese Rock
Art", Anthropolog
ie (Brno) 23, no3 (1985),pages 223-275.
Lahovary, N , Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman
,1957.
Lal,B, "From Megalithic to Harappan:Tracing the graffiti on
pottery", Ancient
India, 16(1960).
Lal, B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by
an Indian Mis
sion at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20
April 1963.
Langdon, S , "The Indus Script", In Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus
Civilization, by John Marshall, London, 1931.
Lawrence, H G , African Explorers to the New World, Los Angeles:
Aquarian
Spiritual Center, 1962.
Legge,J , The Life and Works of Mencius, London ,1875.
Lefkowitz, M , "Not out of Africa",The New Republic ,(10 February
1992) pages 29-36.
Kanakasabhai, V , The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, Madras,
1966.
Knightly, D N , (ed) The Origins of Chinese Civilization ,
Berkeley: University
of California Press,1983.
Keita, S O Y , "Studies of ancient Crania from Northern
Africa",American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 83, pages 35-48.
Ki-Zerbo, J , "General Introduction", General History of Africa:
Methodology and African Prehistory , (Los Angeles:
Heinemann-UNESCO ,1981) pages
Kohl, R L, "The blance of trade in Southwest Asia in the mid-
third millennium B.C.", Current Anthropology 19, pages 463
-492.
Maglangbayan, S & Moore, C , "BBB Interviews Dr. Cheik Anta Diop"
Black Books Bulletin 4, no4 (1976), pages 30-37.
Macqueen, J G , The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia
Minor , 1986.
Mann, M D , & Dalby, D , A Thesaurus of African Languages,
London: K G
Saur, 1987.
Marcus, J , "The Origins of Meso-American Writing", Annual Review
of Anthropol
ogy 5, (1976) pages 35-67.
Mauny, R , Tableau Geographique , Dakar:IFAN, 1960.
McAlpin, D W , Proto-Elamo Dravidian:The Evidence and Its
Implication,
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71, Part
3, Philadelphia,
1981.
McIntosh,S K & McIntosh , R J, "Initial perspective on
prehistoric subsis
tence in the Inland Niger Delta (Mali)", World Archaeology 2,
no2 (1979), pages
240-.
McIntosh, S K & McIntosh, R J, "West African Prehistory",
American Scien
tist 69, (1981) pages 602-613.
McIntosh, S K & McIntosh, R J, "Archaeological Research and date
from West
Africa", Journal of African History 27, (1986) pages 413-442.
McIntosh, S K & McIntosh, R J, "From Sciecles obscurs to
revolutionary
centuries on the Middle Niger", World Archaeology 20,
no1 (1988), pages
141-165.
Meggars, B T , "The Transpacific origin of Meso-American
Civilization ",
American Anthropologist 77, (1975) pages 10- 11.
Moitt, R , "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African Diaspora:Historical
Continuity and
Socio-Cultural Symbolism", Presence Africaine ,
no149-150 (1989), pages
347-360.
Munson, P, "Archaeological data on the origins of cultivation in
the southwestern
Sahara and their implications for West africa", In Origins
of African Plant
Domestication, (ed) by J R Harlan ,Paris, 1976.
Muttarayan, K L , "Sumerian, Tamil of the First Cankam", Journal
of Tamil Stud
ies, no7 (1975), pages 41-61.
Murphy, E , History of African Civilization, New York, 1972.
Murkarovsky,Hans G , Mande-Chadic Common Stock A Study of
Phono
logical Lexical Evidence. Wien:Afro Publisher,1987.
Muzzolini, A , "L'Art rupestre prehistorique des Massifs centraux
sahariens".
British Archaeological Reports Cambridge Monograph African
Archaeology
16, BAR International, 318, Oxford, 1986.
Muzzolini, A , "Proposals for Updating the Rock-Drawing Sequences
of the Acac
us (Libya)", Libyan Studies 22, (1991) pages 7- 30.
N'Diaye, C T, Vers une theorie du Sino-Africaine , Dakar,
1972. Mimeo.
Nayar, T B , The Problem of Dravidian Origins, Linguistic,
Anthropological
Approach , Madras: Madras University Press, 1977.
Navarrete, C , "The Olmec rock carvings at Pijijipan, Chiapas,
Mexico and other
Olmec Pieces, from Chiapas and Guatemala",New World
Archaeological
Foundation, no35, Provo,Utah: Brigham Young University
Press,1976.
Obenga, Th , L'Afrique dans l"Antiquite, Paris:Presence Africaine
1973/4.
Obenga, "The genetic linguistic relationship between Egyptian
(ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern Negro-African
languages", In The Peopling of ancient Egypt and the
deciphering of Meroitic Script , Paris:UNESCO ,1978
Obenga,Th , "Esquisse d'une histoire cultrelle de l'Afrique par
la lexicologie",
Presence Africaine, (1988) pages 1-25.
Obenga, Th., "Le "Chamito-semitique" n'existe pas", Ankh , no1
(1992), pages 151-59.
Oliver, R & Fagan, B M , Africa in the Iron Age , London,1975.
Petrie, F , The Making of Egypt, London:The Sheldon Press.
Pesee, A , "Prehistoric rock carvings of the Jebel Bzema in southern
Cyrenai-
ca", Libya Antiqua 5, (1968) pages 99-103.
Petite-Marie, N, & Riser, J. (eds), Sahara du Sahel? Quaternaire
Recent du Bassin de Toudenni (Mali), Marsille, 1983
Petite-Marie, N, & Riser, J. (eds), Sahara du Sahel? Quaternaire
Recent du
Bassin de Toudenni (Mali), Marsille, 1983
Parker,G W , "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization",
Journal of Negro
History 2, no3 (1917), pages 334-344.
Parker, G , The Children of the Sun, Baltimore,Md:
Black Classic Press,1981.
Petrie, W M F , Corps of Prehistoric Pottery , London 1921.
Rafinesque, C S , "American philology vocabulary of the Yarura
language",
Atlantic Journal , no.3 (1832) .
Rafinesque, C S , "Second letter to Mr. Champollion on the
Graphic system
of America and the glyphs of Otolum or Palenque in Central
America--ele
ments of the glyphs", Atlantic Journal 1, no2 (1832), pages
44-45.
Ramsey, S R , The Languages of China, Princeton:Princeton
University
Press, 1987.
Raphael, . Prehistoric Pottery, New York, 1947.
Rawlinson, C B , "Notes on the Early History of Babylonia",
Journal Royal
Asiatic Society 15, no1, pages 215-259.
Rawson, P , The Arts of Southeast Asia, New York: F A Praeger
Publishers, 1967.
Rensberger, B , "Black Kings of ancient America", Science Digest
, (September
1988) pages 74-77 and 122.
Renfrew, C, Archaeology and Language, London: Johnathan
Cape,1987.
Rivet, P , Sumerien et Oceanien, Collection Linguistique, La
Societe de
Linguistique de Paris, 24 , Paris, 1929.
Roset, J P , "Les plus vielles ceramiques du Sahara", Archaeologie,
(1981) pages 43-50.
Roset, J P, "Nouvelles donnes sur le probleme de la Neolithisation du
Sahara
meridional:Air et Tenere au Niger", Cahiers ORSTOM 13, no2
(1983), pages
119-142.
Rouse, I , Migrations in Prehistory , New Haven:Yale University
Press, 1986.
Schmidt, P, & Avery, D H , "Complex Iron Smelting and Prehistoric
culture in
Tanzania", Science 201, (22 September 1978).
Shaw, T , Nigeria:Its Archaeology and Early History,
London:Thames &
Hudson ,1978.
Sjoberg, A W , The Sumerian Dictionary, Philadelphia:The
University
Museum, 1984.
Simoons, F S , "Some Questions on the Economic Prehistory of
Ethiopia", In
Papers in African Prehistory, (ed) by J D Fage & R A Oliver
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,1970) pages 117-129.
Smith, A B , "Preliminary report on excavation at Karkarchinkat,
Mali ,1972",
West African Journal of Archaeology 4, (1974)pages
53-55.
Snowden, Frank, "Ethiopians and the Greco-Roman World", In The
African
Diaspora, Washington: Howard University Press, 1976.
Snowden,Frank, "Blacks as seen by ancient Egyptians,Greek and
Roman
Artists",(Lecture , March 4,1992) Chicago:Oriental Institute,
University of Chi
cago.
Swadash, M , The Language of the Archaeological Huastecs,
Carnegie
Institutions Notes on Middle American Archaeology and
Ethnology, no114, Washington, D C, 1953.
Trigger, B G , Nubia Under the Pharoahs, Boulder,Colorado:
Westview
Press, 1980.
Trigger, B G ,"Egypt: A Fledgling Nation", The Journal of the
Society for the
Study Egyptian Antiquities 12, nos1-2 (1987) pages 58-65.
Trigger, B G , "Brown Athena: A Post Processual Goddess",
Current Anthropology 33, no1 (1992), pages 121-123.
Vadier,J , Manuel d'archaeologie Egyptienne, Paris, 1952.
Vamos-Toth Bator, Tamana , Honolulu, 1983.
Sertima, Ivan van , They Came Before Columbus, New York, 1976.
Welmers, Wm , African Language Structure, Berkeley: University
of California
Press, 1973.
Welmers, Wm , "Niger-Congo Mande", Current Trends in
Linguistics" 7,
(1971) pages 113-140.
Wendorf, F , "Use of Barley in the Egyptian late Paleolithic",
Science 205, (28
September), pages 1341-1347.
Wiener, Leo , Africa and the Discovery of America, Philadelphia:
Innes and Son,1
920-22, 3 vols.
Williams, B The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L,
Chicago:Oriental Institute University of Chicago, 1987.
Winkler, H A , Rock Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt, London,
1938, 2 vols.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The influence of the Mande scripts on
ancient Ameri
can Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2,
(1977), pages 941-
967.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Islam in Early North and South America",
Al-Ittihad, (November 1977a) .
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Trade between East Africa and China",
Afrikan
Mwalimu, (January 1979) pages 25-31.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal
of African
Civilization 1, no1 (1979a), pages 61-97.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad,"The genetic unity of Dravidian and African
languages and
culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian
Studies (PIISA-
S) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service,1980a.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations
in Africa, Indo-
China, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong :Asian Research
Service,1980b.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Unity of African and Indian
Agriculture",
Journal of African Civilization 3, no1 (1981a),page 103.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second
ISAS,1980,(
Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1981b) pages 789- 807.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian
Connec-
tion",Dravidian Language Association News 5, no9 (1981c)
pages 1-4.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black
Colle-
gian,(December 1981/January 1982) pages 76-84.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan script Deciphered:Proto-
Dravidian
Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS, 1981,(Hong
Kong:Asian Research
Service, 1982b) pages 925- 936.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in
Science:Ancient and
Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction
Books
,1983a) pages 208-214.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Les fondateurs de la Grece venaient
d'Afrique en
passant par la Crete", Afrique Histoire, no8 (1983b), pages
13-18.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders
of Xia and
Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1,no2 (1983c).
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Possible Relationship between the Manding
and Japa
nese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, (1983d) pages 151-158.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters, "Magyar and Proto-Saharan
Relationship",Fighter
(Hungarian language Newspaper) Cleveland ,Ohio (January 1984).
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing is Proto-
Dravidian",Journal
of Tamil Studies , no 25 (June 1984a), pp.50-64.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic
Newslet-
ter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques, No23 (Juin 1984b) ,
pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil"
,International
Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2 (June 1984c) pages
347-353.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic
Seals", Tamil
Civilization 2, no1 (March 1984d), pages 1-8.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan Writing of the Copper
Tablets",
Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3 (1984), pages 1-5.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians
,Manding and
Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no1 (March 1985a) ,pages 1-9.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing and related
Scripts of the 3rd
Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no1 ( 1985b), pages
13-19.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils",
Journal of
Tamil Studies , no27 (June 1985c), pages 65-92.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian
,Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", P Sixth ISAS ,1984,
(Hong Kong:-
Asian Research Service,1985d) pages 1413-1425.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande",
The Mankind
Quarterly 27, no1 (1986a), pages 77-96.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3,
no.2 (1986b), pages 26-27.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian Settlements in ancient
Polynesia", India
Past and Present 3, no2 (1986c)pages 225- 241.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters ,"The Dravidian Origin of the
Mountain and
Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9,
no2 (1986d),
pages 144-148.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian and Magyar/Hungarian",
International
Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 15, no2 (1986e).
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Rise of Islam in the Western Sahara"
,Topaz 2, no1 (1986f), pages 5-15.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in
Tokharian",-
Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos1-2,(1988)pages 131-141.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic
Model",Int-
ernational Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18,(1989) nol.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de
l'ecriture
meroitique",Cabet:Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de
Litterature 8,
(1989b) pages 149-152.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming
of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics 18, no2
(1989) , pages 98-127.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of
Central Asia",
Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2 (1990), pages 120-144.
Wendorf,F , Close, A E, & Schild, R, "Prehistoric Settlements in the
Nubia Desert",
American Scientist 73, (1985) pages 132-141.
White, J P, & Allen, J, "Melanesian Prehistory:Some Recent
Advances", Science 207, pages 728-734.
Wulsin,F R , The Prehistoric Archaeology of Northwest Africa,
Papers of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol 19,
1941.
Yurco, F, "Were the ancient Egyptians Black?", Biblical
Archaeological
Review 15, no5 (1989), pages 24-29,58.
Zahn, D , The Bambara, Leiden, 1974.
Zarattinni, A , "Hypothesis of the Saharan-Sudanese Unity",
Origini, no1
(1983), pages 252-258.

C.A. Winters

[Scott MacEachern]

cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:

> The redandblack ware used by the ProtoMande in the Saharan Highlands
>was also used by the Olmec.

There are red and black wares used all over Africa -- not surprising,
given that red ochre slips and firing in a reducing atmosphere are two
of the most common ways of colouring pots. I have red and black wares
on sites in the Lake Chad Basin. If you've got common ceramic
typologies from the Central Sahara and Mesoamerica, that would be much
more interesting. Do you?

> The Proto Olmec or Manding people formerly lived in North Africa in
>the Saharan Highlands : and Fezzan.(see C. A. Winters, "The Migration routes of the
>Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.7798) .

It would be really interesting to see some actual proof of that... and
one of the most ironic things about Mr. Winters' claims is that he
found it necessary to publish an Afrocentric article in a journal like
_Mankind Quarterly_, which does publish a lot of kooky articles but is
most often the playground of racists who don't believe that Africans
are capable of _any_ cultural advance.

Scott

_______________________________________

Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu

L'obstination et ardeur d'opinion est la plus sure preuve de betise. Est-il rien certain, resolu,
dedaigneux, contemplatif, grave, serieux, comme l'ane? Montaigne

[Brian M. Scott]

On 22 Feb 1998 15:27:08 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

>Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

>: On the other hand, there much of the development of early Maya
>: civilization took place in areas with little contact with the Mixe/Xoque
>: speaking Olmecs. For example, the Swazey complex and the Cerros site in
>: Belize or Nakbe, which foreshadowed the important early center of El
>: Mirador in the Peten lowlands of Guatemala. Winters¹ archaeological
>: knowledge is a shallow as his comparative linguistics.

>You are wrong, the lower level pyramids at Cerros were of Olmec origin

>and style. These sites were also first settled by the Mande speaking
>Olmecs.

Sharer (_The Ancient Maya_, 5th ed., p.118) says that Cerros 'began
life as a Preclassic village'. (No pyramids yet.) '[B]eginning about
50 B.C. the small original settlement was buried under a series of
monumental platforms and buildings.' That's rather late for Olmec
origin, I believe.

Brian M. Scott

[Brian M. Scott]

On 21 Feb 1998 20:51:56 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote:

>: (1) Clyde Winters doesn't know what he's claiming:

>: >Firstly, I never claimed the Olmecs spoke a Mayan language.
>: >I said the Olmec people probably spoke a language similar to
>: >the Malinke-Bambara language spoken in West Africa.

>: >The archaeological evidence is clear: the Olmec were the first to
>: >settle most of the Mayan urban centers.

To the best of my knowledge this is false. Sharer (_The Ancient
Maya_, 5th ed., pp.73-4) mentions a close long-distance trading
relationship between the Olmec and the people of the southern Maya
area during the Middle Preclassic, but that's an altogether different
statement.

>: > This means that the Mayan people

>: >throughout Meso-America lived in intimate contact with the Mande speaking
>: >Olmecs.

>: So you agree that the Mayan people were *in contact* with the Olmecs.

>: >As a result, the Mayan speakers probably copied many Mande/Olmec
>: >terms as they became acculturated to Olmec society.

>: And the Mayan speakers *borrowed* Olmec terms...

>: >As the Proto-Mayans became accustomed to the urbane society of the
>: >African Olmecs they would have adopted many Olmec customs, and the terms
>: >associated with them, much the same as the Anglo Saxons, after they were
>: >conquered by the Normans.

>: ...like the Anglo-Saxons *borrowed* French Norman words.

>: So we are agreed that:
>: 1) the Mayan people themselves were not Olmecs,
>: 2) that they merely borrowed Olmec words, and that therefore

>: 3) Mayan and Olmec ("Mande") are not related?

>Yes Mayan and Olmec/Mande is related.

He still doesn't see the (3) is a necessary consequence of (1) and
(2). Or perhaps he also suffers from Steve Whittet's inability to
distinguish cognates from borrowings.

>Just as I said before you accept the fact that these words were copied,
>but you attempt to deny my evidence of Quiche copying of Olmec/Mande
>lexical items. You are nothing but a hypocrite and a fraud. Your
>ability to use one set of rules to study IE languages and another set
>of rules when stdying the relationship between other languages is
>turely regrettable and deny you any pretense of scientific objectivity.

Your attempt to force ideas that you don't understand to serve an
ideological purpose is truly regrettable (and quite without scientific
objectivity). I'm fascinated by the consistency with which net.kooks
indulge in self-referential finger-pointing.

Brian M. Scott

[Brian M. Scott]

On 21 Feb 1998 20:38:13 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

> Campbell,Lyle.(1977). Quichean linguistic prehistory .Berkeley :
>University of California
>Press.University of California publications in linguistics. v. 81

>It is also interesting to note that many Quiche words beginning with

>/x/ which is
>pronounced 'sh',

One need only compare Bernard's transcriptions of Quiche words with
Campbell's (as reported by Mr. Winters) to see that Campbell did NOT
use <x> represent /S/, the sound of English <sh>. Campbell clearly
used an IPA-style transcription, writing <x> for /x/ (instead of
Bernard's Spanish-style <j>) and <o:> for /o:/ instead of Bernard's
<oo>. If Mr Winters had any real understanding of linguistics, he'd
have noticed this at once. (Of course, he'd also have paid enough
attention to his source to know what conventions Campbell was using.)

I've deleted the long word-lists. They show (yet again) that:

(1) Mr. Winters is willing to consider two words phonologically
similar on the flimsiest of grounds;
(2) Mr. Winters has no idea of what constitutes a regular phonetic
correspondence;
(3) Mr. Winters still doesn't believe that the glottal stop is a
consonant like any other;
(4) Mr. Winters either hasn't drawn his Mande data from the source
that he cites or has mangled the data in the process; and
(5) Mr. Winters isn't above misrepresenting his sources (as in the
matter of the Mande suffix <-ka>).

Brian M. Scott

[Jeffrey L Baker]

On 22 Feb 1998, Clyde A. Winters wrote:

> You are wrong, the lower level pyramids at Cerros were of Olmec origin
> and style. These sites were also first settled by the Mande speaking
> Olmecs.
>

> C.A. Winters

This is blatantly false. Olmec "pyramids" are notoriously rare. The one at
La Venta is oval (or circular). The lower level of the pyramids at Cerros
are clearly Maya. The earliest pyramid at Cerros also postdates the
Olmec.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any finds of Olmec artifacts in
Middle Preclassic deposits in northern Belize.

Jeff Baker

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <34f057d1....@news.bowdoin.edu>,
smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu (Scott MacEachern) wrote:

> cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:

SNIP

> >Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.7798) .
>

> It would be really interesting to see some actual proof of that... and
> one of the most ironic things about Mr. Winters' claims is that he
> found it necessary to publish an Afrocentric article in a journal like
> _Mankind Quarterly_, which does publish a lot of kooky articles but is
> most often the playground of racists who don't believe that Africans
> are capable of _any_ cultural advance.
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Scott MacEachern
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bowdoin College
> Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu

I've been restraining myself from pointing that out. The reliability of
that journal is on a level with the caliber of his other venues.

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

That is an interesting story itself. We chose to publish our main article
in *Current Anthropology* on purpose because what they do is to
simultaneously publish an article together with a number of comments and a
reply to the comments by the authors. The editors invited Van Sertima and
several other well-known Afrocentrists and proponents of Van Sertima's
thesis to write comment to be published with our article. None of the
invited Afrocentrists submitted a comment. Van Sertima delayed for a long
time and asked for more pages than usually allotted. He submitted a
comment giving us a week before the absolute deadline to prepare our
reply. We, indeed, prepared what we thought was a thorough reply only to
be told that Van Sertima had withdrawn his comment two days before
deadline and that we had to write a completely different piece dealing
with the comments of the other 7 commentators. As you can see, from an
editorial note in the issue of *Current Anthropology* Van Sertima had
asked to be allowed to reprint his comment alone without our original
article, the other comments, or our reply to his comment. The editor
denied him permission because the whole set is an unit and editorial
policy is that it all has to be reprinted together. Upon being denied, Van
Sertima withrew his contribution. My ungenerous though unverifiable
opinion is that Van Sertima wanted to be able claim to have published in a
prestigious *refereed* international journal-- which he, like Winters, has
never done without the inconvenience of also publishing the shredding of
his thesis and his comment.

ROBBING NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURES: VAN SERTIMA AND THE OLMECS.
Current Anthropology (with Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren Barbour),
38(#3): 419-441 (1997).

THEY WERE NOT HERE BEFORE COLUMBUS: AFROCENTRIC DIFFUSIONISM IN THE
1990酬. Ethnohistory 44 (#2) 1997(with Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren
Barbour): 199-234.
Bernard Ortiz de MOntellano

[Clyde A. Winters]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

: In article <6cngii$rqo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu wrote:

: MAJOR SNIP (to be dealt with later following a trip to the library)

: Winters keeps shifting and altering his proposals, he now acknowledges
: that the Maya inscriptions were in Chol as well as Yucatec and Quiche. I
: have shown using the Swadesh 100 word list than these languages have
: nothing in common with Mande. Miguel has shown that Wintersą claims of
: being łcognate˛ or łborrowing˛ terms are also incorrect. A new random
: group of suposedly Quiche/Mande corresponding words has been added. Given
: the suspicious nature of the Quiche łsources˛ I will wager that, again.
: Both the Quiche and the Mande will have been cited erroneously.

: Some citations from legitimate sources have finally been introduced, and,
: again, I will wager than upon checking they will not support the claims
: made.
: As an example, because I have Landa at hand-- Winters said:

: >This would also explain why the Maya, according to Landa had Universities

: >where elites learned writing and other subjects. He noted that the Ahkin
: May >or Ahuacan May (High Priest) "...and his disciples appointed the
: priests for >the towns, examining them in their sciences and
: ceremonies...he provided >their books and sent them forth. They in turn
: attended to the service of the >temples, teaching their sciences and
: writing books upon them"
: >(see: Friar Diego de Landa, Yucatan before and After the Conquest, (trs.) by
: >William Gates, Dover Publications ,New York, 1978).

: Landa says absolutely *nothing* about universities. The Maya, like the

: Aztecs, had schools (like all other state level societies) and as in other
: early societies children of the elite went to them. The exact quote (from
: a much better translation than Gates, and which I checked personally from
: the Spanish edition is

: ł.. they had a high priestwhom they called *Ah Kin* Mai and by another
: name *Ahau Can* Mai, which means the priest Mai, or the High Priest
: Mai.... In him was the key of their learning and it was to these matters
: that they dedicated themselves mostly.... They provided priests for the
: towns when they were needed, examined them in the sciences and ceremonies,
: and committed to them the duties of their office, and the good example to

: people and provided them with books and sent them forth. And they employed

: themselves in the duties of he temples and in teaching their sciences as
: well as writing books about them˛ (Diego de Landa. 1941. *Landaąs Relacion

: de las Cosas de Yucatan* trans .A. M. Tozzer.p. 27. Cambridge: Peabody
: Museum of American Archaeology Harvard.;Diego de Landa.1973. *Relacion de

: las Cosas de Yucatan* ed. A. M. Garibay.p. 14. Mexico:Porrua.).

: Notice not a word about universities. It is also misleading to leave the
: word łsciences˛ without qualification because in reality it refers to
: calendrical, ritual, astronomic and astrological calculations tied to
: religion. Here, I should point out that the Maya used a base 20 number
: system and used zero in its full sense in positional notation. Something
: the Egyptians never knew, much less any so-called łproto-Mande.˛ The
: calendar was an integral part of Olmec and Maya writing, one more piece of
: evidence shredding Wintersą claims.

: łThe sciences which they taught were the computation of the years, months,
: and days, the festivals and ceremonies, the administration of the
: sacraments, the fateful days and seasons, their methods of divination, and
: their prophecies, events and the cures for their diseases, and their
: antiquities and how to reasd and write with the letters and characters,
: with which they wrote, and drawings which illustrate the meaning of their
: writings.˛ (Tozzer, pp. 27-28; Landa, p. 15)˛

: Winters also said:

: > There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of

: >writing among the Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people
: probably >gave writing to the Maya. Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991)
: found that the >Proto Maya term for "write" is *c'ihb' or *c'ib'. Since
: the Olmec people >probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan term for
: writing would probably >correspond to the Mande term for writing. A
: comparison of these
: >terms confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for writing *c'ib' or
: >*c'ihb'is derived from the Olmec/Manding term for writing *se'be'. The
: >ancient Mayans wrote their inscriptions in Chol, Yucatec and probably
: Quiche.

: [C.H. Brown in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from
: the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991, pp.489 495)--my

: --

: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
: Wayne State University

I did not reconstruct this Proto-Mayan term it was done by[C.H. Brown

in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from
: the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991, pp.489

495),Current Anthropology* . If you have a better reconstruction talk
to Brown.

C.A. Winters

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:41:48 -0600, C.A. Winters said:

MASSIVE SNIP
Winters out a lot of assertions concerning African archaeology,
linguistics showing that every language on earth is based on Mande
(Tocharian, Dravidian, Japanese, etc. Why not Basque, and several hundred
New Guinean languages while we are at it?), and New World contacts. As
usual, one would need to write volumes in order to disprove all the
assertions. After a while this becomes onerous.

An approach I recommend to my students and I commend to readers of the
ng-- when numerous claims are made check those which are the easiest to
verify or disprove. If the claims are shown to be erroneous or ridiculous,
then one can safely assume that those claims which by their nature (time
depth, lack of documentation, implausibility, idiosyncratic
interpretations of ancient non western art styles, etc.) are also B.S. If
you are sloppy on the easy things you are certain to be sloppy on the hard
questions. With that in mind, letąs look at just one paragraph in Winters.

> In the Popol Vuh, the famous Mayan historian Ixtlilxochitl, the Olmecs

>came to Mexico in "ships of barks"( probably a reference to papyrus boats
or >dug-out canoes used by the Proto-Saharans) and landed in
Potonchan,which they >commenced to populate.Mexican traditions claim that

these migrates from the >east were led by Amoxaque or Bookmen. The term

Amoxaque, is similar to the >Manding 'a ma n'kye':"he (is) a teacher".

These Blacks are frequently seen >in Mayan writings as gods or merchants.

Total baloney. 1) This shows that Winters knows nothing about Mesoamerica
and the written sources and makes elementary mistakes that I would fail my
students in their first course on Mesoamerica for committing. *Anyone who
knows anything about Mesoamerica would know, at a glance, that
Ixtlilxochitl IS NOT A MAYA NAME BUT A NAME IN NAHUATL. Fernando de Alva
Ixtlilxochitl, a Texcocan 17th century historian (1578-1650) had nothing
whatever to do with the *Popol Vuh* a Guatemalan Quiche mythological work
from an unknown author. So much for Wintersą control of the literature.

2) Just like other Afrocentrists (and łScientific Creationists) one cannot
trust Wintersą quotations or paraphrases of sources. Words are added in
and interpretations made that appear to support the pre-conceived thesis.
In this case Ixtlilxochitl SAYS NOTHING ABOUT łSHIPS OF BARKS˛. The
relevant quote from F. De Alva Ixtlilxochitl. 1975 [1608?] *Obras
Historicas* ed. E. OąGorman, vol. 2: 7-8. Mexico: UNAM. [In a passage
dealing not with history but with the origin myths of the Aztecs, NOTICE
NOT THE MAYAS, including the previous 4 creations and destructions of the
earth]. (BOM translation)

łThose that possessed the new world in this third creation were the Olmecs
and Xicalancas. According to the stories there are they came in ships or
boats from the East to the land of Potonchan. Which they began to people.
And on the shores of the Atoyac river which passes between the city of the
Angels [the colonial city of Puebla] and Cholula [this is near Mexico City
not the Maya area] they met some of the giants who had escaped the
catastrophe and extinction of the second creation of the earth [Aztec
mythology believed that the inhabitants of one of the creations of the
earth had been giants]. These giants being strong and trusting in their
strength and size of body lorded it over the newcomers, in such a fashion
that they oppressed them as if they were slaves [not a great
recommendation for the glory of the Mande/Olmecs]...˛

3) This passage in Ixtlilxochitl says nothing about the *amoxaque* WHICH
IS NOT ANY KIND OF MAYA BUT NAHUATL IS WINTERSą NOW CLAIMING THAT NAHUATL
AND MANDE ARE łCOGNATE˛ LANGUAGES. I can hardly wait. I know a hell of a
lot more Nahuatl than Maya, and a lot more Maya than Winters. This term is
found in Sahagunąs *Florentine Codex*. Winters is aping Van Sertima or
perhaps Wiener with his usual twist. Van Sertima argued that *amoxaque*
really came from Egyptian [funny how pliable and flexible Nahuatl is- it
resembles whatever language the current diffusionist needs (Shang Chinese,
Egyptian, Mande, Phoenician, Latin, Welsh, etc.), whereas Winters says it
is Mande. Both are full of baloney. To begin with 1) neither Van Sertima
nor Winters knows enough to see that the word which they copied from the
Spanish version not the Nahuatl version of the Florentine codex is
misspelled ; 2) Neither Van Sertima nor Winters knows that Nahuatl is an
agglutinative language that elides letters so that the word they want to
derive from either Egyptian or Mande is composed of AMOXTLI (łbooks˛)- HUA
(possessive) QUE (plural form) to form AMOXHUAQUE pronounced /amoshwaque/
which has zero resemblance to Wintersą łso called˛ Mande which would need
to be verified in any case given the track record we have seen already.

Given the level of ignorance and incompetence shown in this easily
verifiable passage why would one accept any of Winters nebulous claims
about Africa, non existent Saharan rivers, idiosyncratic iconography etc.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here we do not see
even ordinary competence.

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

On 23 Feb 1998 03:19:50 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
Winters) wrote:

>I did not reconstruct this Proto-Mayan term it was done by[C.H. Brown
>in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from
>: the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991, pp.489
>495),Current Anthropology* . If you have a better reconstruction talk
>to Brown.

As far as I can tell, *c'ihb'- is fine. The only trouble with it is
that it uses yet another transcription system.

Mayan phonetics really isn't that difficult in itself, it's the
transcriptions that add most of the complexity. The problem is with
the following nine Mayan phonemes (using ASCII-IPA transcription):

/k/ This is English /k/
/ts/ This is the affricate /ts/, as in Russian "tzar"
/tS/ This is the affricate /tS/, English "ch"
/S/ This is English "sh"
/x/ This is a voiceless velar fricative, like Scott. "loch"
/j/ This is a palatal glid, English "y".
/?/ This is a glottal stop, Arabic hamza, Cockney "bottle" /bo?l/

To transcribe these sounds, several transcription systems are in use.
The most common, but linguistically very inconvenient, transcription
style is the Spanish style: the consonants are written as they would
be in Spanish, including the use of <c> or <qu> for /k/ depending on
the vowel that follows, <x> for "sh" and <j> for the sound of Spanish
"jota" ("kh"). Then there is a more English style transcription, with
<k> instead of <c>/<qu> etc. Finally there is a linguistic
transcription, based on IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) but
sometimes using the more convenient Czech spelling conventions for
affricates and "sh" (i.e. <c> for /ts/, and s-hac^ek and c-hac^ek for
"sh" and "ch"). In summary:

IPA Spanish-style English-style IPA/Czech-style
/k/ c, qu k k
/ts/ tz tz c
/tS/ ch ch c^
/S/ x sh s^
/x/ j h, kh x
/j/ y y j
/?/ ' ' ?

So, if we see a <c> in a Mayan word, it can be either /k/ or /ts/.
An <x> could mean /S/ "sh" or /x/ "kh"
A <j> could mean /x/ "kh" or /j/ "y"

Finally, a <'> can mean either a glottal stop, or after /p/, /t/, /k/,
/ts/, /tS/, it means that the consonsant is an ejective.

Brown's reconstructed form stands for *tz'ihb'- using the
English/Spanish-style transcription.

The Bambara word is sčbčn (French style transcription), where the <e>
+ accent grave stands for open /E/ (as in English "pen"), as opposed
to <e> + accent aigu <é> (more or less like English "pain") for close
/e/. Winters' transcription <se'be'> is both wrong and misleading.
Within the limitations of 7-bit ASCII, one should transcribe
<se`be`n>, or use capital E as in ASCII-IPA: <sEbEn>. I realize that
it would be futile to ask Clyde for a consistent transcription scheme,
or at least an indication of the scheme used in the source he's using,
both in Maya and in Mande, as that would require knowledge of Mande
and Mayan phonology and in general knowing what the hell he's talking
about, which is plainly too much to ask.

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:41:48 -0600

C.A. Winters said:

>It is intersecting to note that the Manding term for maize is "Ka", this
>agrees with the Mayan term for maize Kan.

So far, I have ignored this claim because it is so ridiculous. De La
Fosse, Wintersą source for the Mande words is a 19th century source. Maize
was brought to Africa by the Portuguese in the 16th century so that the
product was known for centuries before De La Fosse collected his
vocabulary. The most parsimonious explanation by the use of Ockhamąs Razor
is that the Mande named maize after it was introduced into Africa by the
Portuguese, not that the word and maize were brought to Africa by
returning Mande/Olmecs 1000 B.C or so.
A scholar would first seek to determine how this word came to be. 1) is
not the only name, nor the preferred name for Maize. Maurice De La Fosse.
1929. *La Lingue Mandingue...* Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner, p. 525
(mais) has the following: łma-nyo, mara-nyo, M [Mandingo] maka-nyo;
maka;moso--no-nyo, ka-ba; ka˛ so that <ka> is the last of the series not
the preferred word. A scholar would then look at the names of other grains
to see is maize is different. The general term for <grain> (De La Fosse
1929: 489) is si, kise, mese. The name for wheat (ble) p. 464 is aląkama
[obviously borrowed from Arabic and perhaps <ka> is also borrowed from
Arabic, maybe Ramira can help us here]. The word for sorghum (sorgho) p.
631 is nyo, bi-mbiri, gadya-ba. The word for millet p. 637 is nyo-ni, nyo.
From this I would venture to say that the true Mande word for maize is
maka-nyo in parallel with nyo-ni for millet and nyo alone for sorghum
because that is the usual way languages deal with introduced grains. For
example in Nahuatl the original grain was maize as sorghum was for the
Mande and the root is tlaolli in one case nyo in the other. Wheat in
Nahuatl became castillan tlaolli (Spanish maize) and sorghum became morosh
tlaolli (Moorish maize). Similarly in De La Fosse 1955: p. 484 we find
maka= maiz (maize) and the fact that in Wolof and in Sarakolle maka =
maize so that the word may have been borrowed from those languages. Even
more interesting we also see on that page *Maka or Makka = Mecca so that,
just as was the case elsewhere in Africa maize was introduced to the Mande
after 1492 via the Arabs and the name was borrowed and modified so that
the etymology of maize in Mande maka-nyo is <Arab sorghum> paralleling the
way the Aztecs handled foreign foods. This is the way real linguists work.

Or is Winters claiming that the Mande introduced maize into the New World
and thus their name for it was borrowed by the Maya? The entire weight of
scientific and archaeological evidence demonstrates that maize is a New
World origin plant. That its pollen was found under Mexico City dating
80,000 years ago before any humans were there. (P.C. Mangelsdorf, R. S.
MacNeish and W. C. Galinat, " Domestication of Corn," *Science* 143,
538-545 (1964). Even the latest AMS radiocarbon dates show that corn was
domesticated in Mesoamerica by 3000 B.C. Thousands of years before
Wintersą proposed voyage. Bruce D. Smith. 1997. łThe Initial Domestication
of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 years ago,˛ Science, 276:
932-934. łRecent redating of plant remains of corn, bottle gourd, etc by
AMS radiocarbon dates them as no older than 5000 YBP (3000 BC) which is a
couple of 1000 years younger than thought.˛ In early Olmec sites we find
evidence of cultivated maize years before the presumed Mande voyage. Wm.
F. Rust and B. W. Leyden. 1994. "Evidence of Maize Use at Early and Middle
Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites." In S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf,
eds., *Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World*. 181-201. Boulder:
Westview Press. p. 181. "Deep test pits along the Río Bari on La Venta's
north edge (Figure 12.1) revealed small Zea pollen grains and charred
maize fragments associated with both ceramics and cleared levee
environments by ca. 2250-1750 B.C. (the early Bari Period).

Further, there is no evidence of maize being found anywhere in the Old
World before 1492 as pointed out by the noted authority on corn, Paul
Mangelsdorf.
P.C. Mangelsdorf, Corn. Its Origins, Evolution, and Improvement.
Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1974.p. 206. "To me one of the most
significant facts in corn's history is that actual prehistoric remains of
it, which are abundant in the New World, being found virtually throughout
the range of its culture, including the wet tropics, are completely
lacking in all parts of the Old World. As Edgar Anderson [Corn Before
Columbus. Des Moines: Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn, Co.] has pointed out, corn,
more than any other plant, documents its own history. Some of the tissues
of its cobs are highly indurated and are well designed for conservation
under a variety of conditions. Yet not a single corn cob, unmistakenly
pre-Columbian, has yet been found in any part of the Old World."

As a final point-- the Maya word for maize is NOT *kan*. Dienhart shows
that maize is *ishim* in Yucatec, Itza, Acatec, Aguacatec, Mopan, Chorti,
Chol, Chontal Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolobal, Kanjobal, Chuj, Jacaltec, Mame,
Teco, Ixil, Cakchiquel, Chicomulceltec, Quiche, Kekchi, Lacandon, Mam,
Mopan, Motozintlec, Pocomam, Pocomchi, Teco, Tzutujil, and Uspantec. The
uninimity of the name indicates its antiquity and linguistic depth. It is
clearly the term in proto-Maya for maize and it certainly is *not* kan.

[Doug Weller]

On 20 Feb 1998 14:17:22 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Clyde A. Winters wrote:

>
>You are nothing but a con man.

Amazing. Winters who publishes in Mankind Quarterly, dares call Miguel a conman.

What is Mankind Quarterly? Do a web search. Wonder why Stormfront web pages have
an article from it? (Yes, Stormfront is 'that' sort of organisation). Take a
look at some comments in a review of The Bell Curve:
Steve Rosenthal, "Academic Naziism" (Review of Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell
Curve
http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/steverbc.html

He says:
"
The Mankind Quarterly is a journal founded in the late 1950's by opponents of
the U.S. Civil Rights Movement to publish
articles asserting the inferiority of Blacks. Its authors defended the racial
policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, championed
apartheid in South Africa and opposed independence for African countries. Since
1978 the editor of the journal has been Roger
Pearson, an organizer of neo-Nazi groups both in Europe and the U.S. In 1982
President Reagan wrote a letter to Pearson to
thank him for publishing the works of "scholars" who uphold the "ideals and
principles that we value at home and abroad." (The
letter is reproduced in Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party, by
Russ Bellant.

"HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE"

The Pioneer Fund, as Lane points out in "The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve,"
is a New York foundation established in 1937 with the money of Wycliffe Draper,
a textile magnate who admired Nazi Germany and favored sending U.S. Blacks back
to Africa. The Pioneer Fund is committed to eugenics, that is, policies of
selective breeding for purposes of "race betterment." In the late 1930's the
Pioneer Fund gave financial support to both U.S. and German "scientists" who
advocated and carried out forced sterilization and later outright genocide
against populations deemed to be genetically inferior.

The Pioneer Fund bankrolls the journal The Mankind Quarterly. Even more
importantly, it has provided millions of dollars in research grants to all the
"scholars" in the U.S. since the 1930's who have asserted that there are
inherited racial differences in intelligence and who have called for "eugenics"
policies to decrease the numbers of "inferior" groups and increase the numbers
of "superior" groups. Recent and current recipients of Pioneer Fund grants
include Arthur Jensen and William Shockley who a quarter century ago revived
racist arguments against Black intelligence; Philippe Rushton, South African
born Canadian racist who claims that Blacks have smaller brains and larger
penises than whites in order to breed larger numbers of inferior children;
Thomas Bouchard, U. of Minnesota professor who studies twins in order to claim
that IQ is mainly inherited; Richard Lynn, from Northern Ireland, who asserts
that Africans have lower intelligence than African Americans; Robert Gordon,
Johns Hopkins sociologist who blames low IQ Blacks for crime; and Linda
Gottfredson, U. of Delaware professor who opposes affirmative action for low IQ
Blacks. (For further information on the Pioneer Fund, see Adolph Reed's column
in the Progressive (December, 1994), and Stefan Kuhl's The Nazi Connection. "

Doug

[Anthony West]

Mr. Winters is working on his arguments, for which he
deserves credit. He has moved his jump-off point for the
Proto-Mande Columbuses from the mouth of the Niger to the
Senegal littoral, which allows a shorter and more plausible
journey to Mesoamerica. And he is attempting to look for
systematic sound comparisons between Mande and Maya words.
What problems remain?

For one, it is still 8000 km from Senegal to Veracruz, 5000
to Hispaniola. The chief challenge that Winters' papyrus-
boat sailors would face in a 5-month crossing (@35 km/di) is
their provisions. Figuring 1 lb of food, 2 qts of water per
sailor per day, a vessel would have to carry 6 times the
weight of each sailor to make the crossing - with both the
space, and the means of propulsion. In short, it would need
a hold and sails.

European vessels of 1400-1600 AD had holds and sails that
enabled them to provision ocean voyages, and propel the
weight of those provisions. This ship design had been
evolving slowly thru barbarian, classical and medieval Europe
for over 2000 years. Lacustrine and riverine boating won't
deliver this technology. Mr. Winters needs to park his Proto-
Mande salts on an oceanic littoral for at least a millennium,
practising their seamanship on long journeys up and down the
coast. And that technology is absent from historic W Africa.
Why would it have been forgotten?

In language, I am disturbed by Winters' continuing eagerness
to relate Mande tongues to *everything*. In a recent post, he
tells us that he has identified a Mande substrate or
"affinity," not only in the Mayan languages of the New World,
but also in Tocharian, an IE language in Chinese Turkestan;
in Sumero-Elamo-Dravidian, a S Asian supergroup that is itself
conjectural in the highest order; and in Japanese, which is
probably (but disputably) Altaic.

Lord! Is there nowhere these chatty Mande won't spread to? Now
they've radiated over 16 time zones from their homeland in the
Sahara. This is flatly inconceivable - not just by the
standards of scientific orthodoxy, but of common sense - unless
we assume that everyone else in the world had taken a vow of
silence for eons while the Mande wandered on some frequent-
flyer plan, scattering words everywhere they touched down.

Anybody, given a wordlist of Language A and Language B, can
find matches. That's why scientific linguistics exists: to
discern REAL matches. Amateurs in linguistics (among whose
numbers both Winters and I are counted) must accept that we
can't do all this work by oursleves. Winters needs to present
<A> a reconstruction of Proto-Mande by a recognized Africanist,
<B> a reconstruction of Proto-Maya by a recognized Mayanist,
<C> a reconstruction of Proto-Tocharic by a recognized Indo-
Europeanist, etc. etc., before he can link all these languages
credibly. Any one of these fields can consume a lifetime of
specialized research. Let Winters produce one professional
linguist who backs any of these Mande-X matches.

An unwillingness to rely on the findings of established
scholars in smaller fields, before one ventures into audacious
global speculations that link them, is the signature of a
crackpot. Not because any one thing he says is wrong, but
because it is all megalomaniac. To suggest that one person can
figure out *everything* by himself - languages, statues,
physical anthropology, neolithic subsistence archeology, you
name it - without the aid of specialized teamwork, is not what
believable research is made of.

In short, it is nutty. And nutty ideas won't advance the cause
of Afrocentrism, which is not in itself nutty at all.

-Tony West aaw...@critpath.org
Philadelphia

[Akan Ifriqiya]

I was going to post a comment on Winters' doing a disservice to both my
community and to africanist scholars in general. However this really does
say it all.

Ramira Naka

, dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk says...

[Doug Weller]

On 22 Feb 1998 15:21:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Clyde A. Winters wrote:

Winters, must you repost such a huge chunk of your original? Please learn a
little netiquette.

I see your bibliography includes:

>Rafinesque, C S , "American philology vocabulary of the Yarura
>language",
>Atlantic Journal , no.3 (1832) .
>Rafinesque, C S ,

Others can comment better than I, but should we be taking this seriously at all
if Rafinesque is involved?

Doug

[tkavanag<no spam>]

Doug Weller wrote:
>
> I see your [Winters'] bibliography includes:

>
> >Rafinesque, C S , "American philology vocabulary of the Yarura
> >language",
> >Atlantic Journal , no.3 (1832) .
> >Rafinesque, C S ,

Interestingly, Winters only includes Rafinesque in his "Bibliography";
there is no mention in the body of the text.

FWIW: Here is the totality of the cited Rafinesque paper:

<quote>
16. American Philology. -- Vocabulary of the Yarura Language. -- by C.S.
R.

The Yarura nation of the Oronoco regions (also called Jarura, Jaros,
Warrow, Guarau, &tc.) is one of the darkest and ugliest in South
America, some tribes of it are quite black like negroes and are called
monkeys. They are widely spread from Guayana to Choco. The following 35
words of their language collected by Gili, Hervas and Vater, have
enabled me to trace their origine [sic] to Africa.

*God Conomen Andereh
*Heaven Andeh
Earth Dabu, Dahu
Water Uy, Uvi
River Nicua
*Sun and Day Doh
Moon Goppeh
Plain Chiri
*Bread Tarab, Tambeh
Name Kuen
Give Yero
Come Manatedi
Mayze Pueh
*Man Pumeh
Woman Ibi
Father Aya
Mother Aini
Head Pachu
Eyes Yondeh
*Nose Nappeh
Tongue Topeno
Feet Tao
Evil Chatandra
Being Abecain. Conom
Our Ibba
Will Ea
Power Beh
1 Canameh
2 Noeni
*3 Tarani
Those marked * or 7 out of 34 have some analogy with the English, equal
to 19 per cent.

The language of the Gahunas, negroes of Choco and Popayan has 50 percent
analogy with the Yarura, since out of 8 words to be compared, 4 are
similar

God Conomeh Y Copamo G
Man Pumeh Mehora
One Canameh Amba
two Noeni Numi

While the Ashanty or Fanty, negro lang. [sic] widelsporead in W. Africa
has 40 per cent of affinity with the Yarura or 6 words similar in 15
comparable.

Earth Dabu Y Dade A
Mother Aini Mina
Woman Ibi Bis
Father Aya Aga
Eyes Yondeh Inewah
Water Uy Uyaba

This is the maximum in Africa. But the language of the Papuas of New
Guinea in Polynesia has 50 per cent of analogy or 6 words out of 12,
which is the maximum with the Asiatic and Polynesic negroes.

Man Pumeh Y Amenah P
Mehora G
Woman Ibi Bienih
Mother Aini Nana
Water Uy Uar
Evil Catandra Tarada
One Canameh Amboher
Amba G

It may have happened that the Gahunas came from the Papuas through the
Pacific, but the Yaruras from the Ashantis through the Atlantic: yet
have been once two branches of a single black nation.

</quote>
tk

[Akan Ifriqiya]

In article <6ctp5i$bv2$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org>,
aaw...@netnews.CritPath.Org says...

Thanks Tony:

I appreciate reasoned comments like this. On Winters, his comments on
african writing systems alone are far off-base. The Saharan writing he
refers to is ancestral, demonstrably so, to the Tifinagh of the Taureg and
other berberophones. Given some time I hope to have something of real
rebuttal to this Mr. Winters who does great disservice to afrocentrism and to
african studies.

Ramira Naka

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Bernard has been known to use obsolete sources in the past. He seems slow
to learn to update his sources when their inadequacy has been pointed out
to him. Plenty of evidence exists for maize being in the Old World before
Columbus. Citing Mangelsdorf writing in 1974 simply will not do when more
recent published literature exists.

For more recent information and debates about early maize in Asia,
(especially as concerns the work of Carl Johannessen) check out my webpage
at:

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tmz.htm

Also, plenty of other material (including the photos of carvings of ears
of corn in Indian medieval temples) is available at:

http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/maize.htm

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

...

: Further, there is no evidence of maize being found anywhere in the Old
: World before 1492

Wrong, Bernard.

: as pointed out by the noted authority on corn, Paul

: Mangelsdorf.
: P.C. Mangelsdorf, Corn. Its Origins, Evolution, and Improvement.
: Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1974.p. 206. "To me one of the most
: significant facts in corn's history is that actual prehistoric remains of
: it, which are abundant in the New World, being found virtually throughout
: the range of its culture, including the wet tropics, are completely
: lacking in all parts of the Old World.

He is out of date. Plenty of evidence is available.

: As Edgar Anderson [Corn Before

: Columbus. Des Moines: Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn, Co.] has pointed out, corn,
: more than any other plant, documents its own history. Some of the tissues
: of its cobs are highly indurated and are well designed for conservation
: under a variety of conditions. Yet not a single corn cob, unmistakenly
: pre-Columbian, has yet been found in any part of the Old World."

So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that
there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
dogma-bound?

As far as Paul Mangelsdorf and his corn research, his work has also been
invalidated recently by the latest research on corn by Mary Eubanks at
Duke U. (maize certainly being derived from teocinte). I have that file
too on my webpage.

Here's a quote from a correspondent of mine writing last summer about
this:

[begin quote]

Re: Duke research on maize.

Too bad that old narrow minded Paul Mangelsdorf is not alive to eat his
own corn hypothesis. (If you can read his book CORN you can find that he
says that his earlier hypothesis is wrong - but since his book is written
and ready to go to press, he plans to present his admittedly wrong
hypothesis any way! High grade science - right!)

[end quote]

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
-=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

On 24 Feb 1998 15:46:21 GMT, Ak...@pizlink.net (Akan Ifriqiya) wrote:

>I appreciate reasoned comments like this. On Winters, his comments on
>african writing systems alone are far off-base. The Saharan writing he
>refers to is ancestral, demonstrably so, to the Tifinagh of the Taureg and
>other berberophones. Given some time I hope to have something of real
>rebuttal to this Mr. Winters who does great disservice to afrocentrism and to
>african studies.

The Ancient Berber and Tifinagh alphabets can be seen at:
http://alumni.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/~lorentz/Ancient_Scripts/berber.html

The same site also shows the Phoenician/Punic script. The shape of
Punic and Berber <g>, <h>, <k>, <sh> and <t>, to mention only the most
obvious ones, leaves little doubt about a common origin, as does the
name Tifinagh itself, if -finagh is indeed derived from "Phoenician".

Also at that site are samples of the Mayan and epi-Olmec syllabaries.

[g...@hn.planet.gen.nz]

In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> For more recent information and debates about early maize in Asia,
> (especially as concerns the work of Carl Johannessen) check out my webpage
> at:
>
> http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tmz.htm

Suddenly Yuri is a -source??????

> Also, plenty of other material (including the photos of carvings of ears
> of corn in Indian medieval temples) is available at:
>
> http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/maize.htm

Been refuted here months ago by

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> ...
>

> : Further, there is no evidence of maize being found anywhere in the Old
> : World before 1492
>
> Wrong, Bernard.

Right Bernard. Correct Bernard.
> : as pointed out by the noted authority on corn, Paul

> : Mangelsdorf.
> : P.C. Mangelsdorf, Corn. Its Origins, Evolution, and Improvement.
> : Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1974.p. 206. "To me one of the most
> : significant facts in corn's history is that actual prehistoric remains of
> : it, which are abundant in the New World, being found virtually throughout
> : the range of its culture, including the wet tropics, are completely
> : lacking in all parts of the Old World.
>

> He is out of date. Plenty of evidence is available.
>

> : As Edgar Anderson [Corn Before

> : Columbus. Des Moines: Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn, Co.] has pointed out, corn,
> : more than any other plant, documents its own history. Some of the tissues
> : of its cobs are highly indurated and are well designed for conservation
> : under a variety of conditions. Yet not a single corn cob, unmistakenly
> : pre-Columbian, has yet been found in any part of the Old World."

> So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that
> there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
> indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
> Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
> dogma-bound?

It seems apparent Yuri that you are unaware of the workings of a 'dig' and of
the number of experts in the various fields who are nowadays present at a
'dig'
How, may I ask, would one be able to disguise the presence of maize (corn
cobs) from the numbers who are working on any site.
Really Yuri.

> As far as Paul Mangelsdorf and his corn research, his work has also been
> invalidated recently by the latest research on corn by Mary Eubanks at
> Duke U. (maize certainly being derived from teocinte). I have that file
> too on my webpage.

[Clyde A. Winters]

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote:

: On 23 Feb 1998 03:19:50 GMT, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A.
: Winters) wrote:

: >I did not reconstruct this Proto-Mayan term it was done by[C.H. Brown

: >in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from
: >: the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991, pp.489
: >495),Current Anthropology* . If you have a better reconstruction talk
: >to Brown.

: As far as I can tell, *c'ihb'- is fine. The only trouble with it is

: ==

: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
: Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
: m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||

: ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Brown's article was in a referred Journal. Are you saying that the
scholars who reviewed his article were all ignorant of Mayan
linguistics? Now you make it appear that you know more about Mayan
inscriptions than experts in Mayan linguistics.

C. A. Winters

[Clyde A. Winters]

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: On 22 Feb 1998 15:21:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Clyde A. Winters wrote:

: Winters, must you repost such a huge chunk of your original? Please learn a
: little netiquette.

: I see your bibliography includes:

: >Rafinesque, C S , "American philology vocabulary of the Yarura

: >language",
: >Atlantic Journal , no.3 (1832) .
: >Rafinesque, C S ,

: Others can comment better than I, but should we be taking this seriously at all
: if Rafinesque is involved?

: Doug

Yes you should Maya scholars accept him as an important contributor to
the decipherment of Maya. See Coe's book on the decipherment of the
Mayan language.

C.A. Winters

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Bernard has been known to use obsolete sources in the past. He seems slow
> to learn to update his sources when their inadequacy has been pointed out
> to him. Plenty of evidence exists for maize being in the Old World before
> Columbus. Citing Mangelsdorf writing in 1974 simply will not do when more
> recent published literature exists.
>

> For more recent information and debates about early maize in Asia,
> (especially as concerns the work of Carl Johannessen) check out my webpage
> at:
>
> http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tmz.htm
>

> Also, plenty of other material (including the photos of carvings of ears
> of corn in Indian medieval temples) is available at:
>
> http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/maize.htm

Been there done that. New readers of the ng check out Dejanews. Older
members remember this debate only too well.

>
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> ...
>

> : Further, there is no evidence of maize being found anywhere in the Old
> : World before 1492
>
> Wrong, Bernard.
>
> : as pointed out by the noted authority on corn, Paul

> : Mangelsdorf.
> : P.C. Mangelsdorf, Corn. Its Origins, Evolution, and Improvement.
> : Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1974.p. 206. "To me one of the most
> : significant facts in corn's history is that actual prehistoric remains of
> : it, which are abundant in the New World, being found virtually throughout
> : the range of its culture, including the wet tropics, are completely
> : lacking in all parts of the Old World.
>

> He is out of date. Plenty of evidence is available.
>

> : As Edgar Anderson [Corn Before

> : Columbus. Des Moines: Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn, Co.] has pointed out, corn,
> : more than any other plant, documents its own history. Some of the tissues
> : of its cobs are highly indurated and are well designed for conservation
> : under a variety of conditions. Yet not a single corn cob, unmistakenly
> : pre-Columbian, has yet been found in any part of the Old World."
>

> So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that
> there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
> indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
> Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
> dogma-bound?

This was debated exhaustively before and you could still not produce an
archaeologically dated Asian corncob.

>
> As far as Paul Mangelsdorf and his corn research, his work has also been
> invalidated recently by the latest research on corn by Mary Eubanks at
> Duke U. (maize certainly being derived from teocinte). I have that file
> too on my webpage.

This is a very misleading statement. Eubanks has nothing to do with the
question of Old world corn. This work has to do with the parent species to
modern maize. This is also no big deal. Years ago Beadle proposed that
teosinte was the true ancestor of corn. Mangelsdorf proposed a
hybridization of "pop" and "pod" corn. These were rival scientific
hypothesis and finally as happens in science the evidence has proved
Beadle right. There is no need to vilify Mangelsdorf-- except by people
who know nothing of the scientifi method. However, both Manglesdorf and
Beadle and I wager Eubanks too say that maize is of New World origin and
that it did not travel before Columbus.
This is my last word on this. The original food fight is available on dejaNews.

[GKeyes6988]

Clyde Winters wrote:
<snip Miguel's well researched-post>

.Brown's article was in a referred Journal. Are you saying that the
.scholars who reviewed his article were all ignorant of Mayan
.linguistics? Now you make it appear that you know more about Mayan
.inscriptions than experts in Mayan linguistics.

.C. A. Winters

You know, in each post you only show that you understand even less than we
thought.

1. He took issue, not with Brown's reconstruction but with your complete
incompetence (or complete dishonesty) concerning the relationships between
phonology and orthography. That what you got from his post was that he was
claiming Brown was "wrong" is simply pitiful. He said Brown's reconstruction
looked fine. He said you were wrong, or more to the point, you don't know what
you are talking about. He clarified some issues about orthography, which point
apparently flew right over your head.

2. In your post above, you imply that the question is one of knowledge of
"Mayan"insciptions . Brown's reconstruction (and this whole argument) is based
in comparative linguistics. The reconstruction is not a Mayan "inscription"
nor were the words compared to derive it "inscriptions" save in the sense that
they were "inscribed" by linguists in papers and in lexicons (by a variety of
people) using Roman-base scripts.

3. This from the guy who claimed a while back that Mayan epigraphers like Linda
Schele can't really read the Mayan script because they aren't doing so with the
understanding that it is African. This from the guy who claims we can't really
read the epi-Olmec script (despite it''s recent translation)script because it
really isn't Zoquean, but Mande.

But gosh, you've just set out what you seem to think is reasonable criteria
above, at least when arguing with someone else. Why are you disagreeing with
the experts? And please don't try to set yourself up as one -- your lack of
knowledge of things Mesoamerican is demonstrated more painfully in each post.

-- Greg Keyes

[GKeyes6988]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

<snip where I bust a gut because Yuri, of all people, accuses someone of using
dated sources>

.So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that
.there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
.indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
.Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
.dogma-bound?

Yuri's use of the word "indisputable" here says a lot more about his standards
of evidence than anything else.

His remarks concerning archaeology show that, after all this time, he still
doesn't know how sites are dug, anything about sampling methods, screening,
floats, or botanical analysis. After all this time, I can only assume that he
doesn't want to know. Pretty snappy qualifications for someone who wants to
redefine New World history.

This has been argued here at least twice -- long ago by myself and others, more
recently, I believe, by Bernard. There should be more than enough on Yuri's
webpage, Domingo's archive, and Deja news to satsify anyone interested in what
usenet has to say about the subject. The two sites mentioned are on this
thread, but I'll be happy to e-mail them to anyone who can't get them for some
reason or another.

-- Greg Keyes

[Anthony West]

g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
: In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

[snips]

: > So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that
: > there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
: > indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
: > Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
: > dogma-bound?

: It seems apparent Yuri that you are unaware of the workings of a 'dig' and of
: the number of experts in the various fields who are nowadays present at a
: 'dig'
: How, may I ask, would one be able to disguise the presence of maize (corn
: cobs) from the numbers who are working on any site.
: Really Yuri.

Um, if you're on a dig and you find something extraordinarily
cool (e.g., a corncob on a Maharashtrian site that you are
pretty sure you can date to the 14th c.), you are going to go
NUTS with glee. Because you will Make Your Reputation. Dogma-
bound be damned; you are a happy archeologist.

However, you've really got to get your evidence together
before you present this sort of find, because your anomalous
finding will be fiercely critiqued and your methods will be
raked over with needle-sharp combs. Whereas if you merely
report the expected, your career will roll on more smoothly.

Thus the phrase "probably intrusive" appears in many a
site report. It translates as "For other reasons, I'd really
rather not have to bother arguing that this VCR under this
lava flow is actually associated with the mastodon bones I
found it next to."

I'd be more comfortable dismissing reports of pre-Columbian
Old World corn/maize if I were more confident that researchers
had aggressively gone looking for it and didn't find it.

-Tony West aaw...@critpath.org
Philadelphia

[tkavanag<no spam>]

Clyde A. Winters wrote:

[tkavanag<no spam>]

Coe (1992:91) credits Rafinesque with four correct observations:

1) that the same script was used on both the monuments of Palenque and
the Dresden Codex.
2) that the bar and dots represented numerals.
3) that the language represented in the glyphs was still spoken in
central America.
4) that once the manuscripts can be read, so can the monuments.

However, Coe makes no comment about the meanings assigned by Rafinesque
to the "letters" and "glyphs" of "Otolum".

tk

[Michael Turton]

>
>Um, if you're on a dig and you find something extraordinarily
>cool (e.g., a corncob on a Maharashtrian site that you are
>pretty sure you can date to the 14th c.), you are going to go
>NUTS with glee. Because you will Make Your Reputation. Dogma-
>bound be damned; you are a happy archeologist.
>
>However, you've really got to get your evidence together
>before you present this sort of find, because your anomalous
>finding will be fiercely critiqued and your methods will be
>raked over with needle-sharp combs. Whereas if you merely
>report the expected, your career will roll on more smoothly.
>
>Thus the phrase "probably intrusive" appears in many a
>site report. It translates as "For other reasons, I'd really
>rather not have to bother arguing that this VCR under this
>lava flow is actually associated with the mastodon bones I
>found it next to."
>
>I'd be more comfortable dismissing reports of pre-Columbian
>Old World corn/maize if I were more confident that researchers
>had aggressively gone looking for it and didn't find it.
>
>-Tony West aaw...@critpath.org
>Philadelphia
>

Actually, they have gone looking for it. Chinese archaeologists are big on
demonstrating that whatever it is, they have the oldest, or so it seems ot
me. If corn kernels were out there somewhere in the late Neolithic, they'd
be trumpeting it.

That said, what's the take on the "primitive form of maize" found in Assam
that Needham noted in _Transpacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Again_
(may not have book name right).

Mike

[D Martinez]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote in message ...

>
>Been there done that. New readers of the ng check out Dejanews. Older
>members remember this debate only too well.

Please note that the Usenet archives I set up several months ago contain
many postings that are not in Yuri's pages, including many of his own. Go
figure.

The archive (which include a substantial number of posts on maize) can be
found at:

On Chickens and Maize
A partial archive of discussions on pre-Columbian diffusion in
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
http://www.andes.missouri.edu/personal/dmartinez/diffusion/

Regards,

Domingo.

[D Martinez]

[Domingo Martinez]

g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:

> In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>

> > For more recent information and debates about early maize in Asia,
> > (especially as concerns the work of Carl Johannessen) check out my webpage
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tmz.htm
>

> Suddenly Yuri is a -source??????

Not quite. He has not included in his web site many postings (including several
of his own scholarly essays (sic) and articles, for some reason).

You can find a better view of those discussions at:

On Chickens and Maize
A partial archive of discussions on pre-Columbian diffusion in
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
http://www.andes.missouri.edu/personal/dmartinez/diffusion/

And Dejanews is always there too, as the ultimate source.

Regards,

Domingo.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
: In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: > For more recent information and debates about early maize in Asia,
: > (especially as concerns the work of Carl Johannessen) check out my webpage
: > at:
: >
: > http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tmz.htm

: >
: > Also, plenty of other material (including the photos of carvings of ears

: > of corn in Indian medieval temples) is available at:
: >
: > http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/maize.htm

: Been refuted here months ago by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

What "been refuted", George? I'm not aware of anything that was "refuted",
by Bernard or others. Perhaps you can supply some details?

We had a long discussion, and parts of this discussion can be found on my
webpage, in DejaNews, and on Domingo's page. A variety of views were
expressed. Everybody can make up their own mind on this.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <6cupd1$ho0$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
: Kuchinsky) wrote:

[Bernard:]
: > : As Edgar Anderson [Corn Before : > : Columbus. Des Moines: Pioneer

Hi-Bred Corn, Co.] has pointed out, corn, : > : more than any other plant,
documents its own history. Some of the tissues : > : of its cobs are
highly indurated and are well designed for conservation : > : under a
variety of conditions. Yet not a single corn cob, unmistakenly : > :
pre-Columbian, has yet been found in any part of the Old World."

: > So then this is one more case when archaeologists demonstrated that

: > there's something wrong with the way they do their work. Since
: > indisputable evidence from other sources demonstrates that corn existed in
: > Asia precolumbus, why couldn't archaeologists find these cobs? Too
: > dogma-bound?
:

: This was debated exhaustively before

Correct, Bernard.

: and you could still not produce an
: archaeologically dated Asian corncob.

Yes. But this is the argument from the absence of evidence. Absence of
evidence does not constitute the evidence of absence.

: > As far as Paul Mangelsdorf and his corn research, his work has also been

: > invalidated recently by the latest research on corn by Mary Eubanks at
: > Duke U. (maize certainly being derived from teocinte). I have that file
: > too on my webpage.
:
: This is a very misleading statement.

I don't think so, Bernard.

: Eubanks has nothing to do with the

: question of Old world corn.

Correct. And I didn't say she has anything to do with it.

: This work has to do with the parent species to
: modern maize.

Correct.

: This is also no big deal. Years ago Beadle proposed that

: teosinte was the true ancestor of corn. Mangelsdorf proposed a
: hybridization of "pop" and "pod" corn. These were rival scientific
: hypothesis and finally as happens in science the evidence has proved
: Beadle right.

Yes.

: There is no need to vilify Mangelsdorf

And I didn't. I simply pointed out how he was wrong on this question.

: -- except by people

: who know nothing of the scientifi method. However, both Manglesdorf and
: Beadle and I wager Eubanks too say that maize is of New World origin

Agreed on all hands.

: and

: that it did not travel before Columbus.

Sure they say so. But I don't take their words as gospel truth.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

So much additional evidence argues in favor of trans-Pacific
diffusion on a very intellectual level at this point, perhaps
around the time of Christ, perhaps around the time of the
founding of Teotihuacan -=O=- Michael D. Coe (1981)

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Anthony West (aaw...@netnews.CritPath.Org) wrote:

: Um, if you're on a dig and you find something extraordinarily

: cool (e.g., a corncob on a Maharashtrian site that you are
: pretty sure you can date to the 14th c.), you are going to go
: NUTS with glee. Because you will Make Your Reputation. Dogma-
: bound be damned; you are a happy archeologist.
:
: However, you've really got to get your evidence together
: before you present this sort of find, because your anomalous
: finding will be fiercely critiqued and your methods will be
: raked over with needle-sharp combs. Whereas if you merely
: report the expected, your career will roll on more smoothly.

This is precisely so, Tony.

: Thus the phrase "probably intrusive" appears in many a

: site report. It translates as "For other reasons, I'd really
: rather not have to bother arguing that this VCR under this
: lava flow is actually associated with the mastodon bones I
: found it next to."
:
: I'd be more comfortable dismissing reports of pre-Columbian
: Old World corn/maize if I were more confident that researchers
: had aggressively gone looking for it and didn't find it.

I can only agree with you. I have no evidence that someone went out
looking for those corncobs in specific sites of that era.

"Dirt archaeologists" would like everyboy to believe that unless they
confirm a theory by their archaeological evidence, this theory remains
invalid. But this is hardly reasonable. Since plenty of non-archaeological
evidence for corn in Asia precolumbus exists, this theory should be seen
as strong enough already.

And don't forget that the evidence from these temple statues is already
archaeological evidence.

Best,

Yuri.
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- my webpage is at http://www.io.org/~yuku ---

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Michael Turton (mtu...@ms.showtower.com.tw) wrote:

[Tony:]

: >I'd be more comfortable dismissing reports of pre-Columbian
: >Old World corn/maize if I were more confident that researchers
: >had aggressively gone looking for it and didn't find it.

: Actually, they have gone looking for it. Chinese archaeologists are big on

: demonstrating that whatever it is, they have the oldest, or so it seems ot
: me. If corn kernels were out there somewhere in the late Neolithic, they'd
: be trumpeting it.

Mike,

I believe the Chinese now have a lot of new evidence on American plants in
China before Columbus. Some testing is being done even now, apparently.
This is what my sources are telling me. This evidence will be published in
due time.

But I don't see why the Chinese would be so eager to trumpet the fact that
they may have borrowed something from the New World so early on in order
to enhance their already astounding accomplishments. :)

: That said, what's the take on the "primitive form of maize" found in Assam

: that Needham noted in _Transpacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Again_
: (may not have book name right).

You've got it pretty close:

AUTHOR: Needham, Joseph, 1900-
TITLE: Trans-Pacific echoes and resonances : listening once
again / Joseph Needham and Lu Gwei-Djen. --
PUBLISHED: Singapore ; Philadelphia : World Scientific, c1985.
DESCRIPTION: 97 p., [12] p. of plates : ill. ; 26 cm.
SUBJECTS: Indians--Transpacific influences.
Culture diffusion.
Pacific Area--Civilization.
NOTES: Includes index.
Bibliography: p. [71]-92.
ISBN: 9971950863

This is a great book. It is a general overview of the debate as of that
time. Some summaries of it are available on my webpage. But Needham
doesn't have much about corn in it. A lot of this research just came out
recently. Carl Johannessen at the U. of Oregon is doing a lot in this
area.

My webpage has plenty of material on this "primitive maze", more than you
would find in any average library.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Domingo Martinez (agd...@showme.missouri.edu) wrote:

: Not quite. He has not included in his web site many postings (including

: several of his own scholarly essays (sic) and articles, for some
: reason).

Well, Domingo, I do the best I can...

: You can find a better view of those discussions at:

:
: On Chickens and Maize
: A partial archive of discussions on pre-Columbian diffusion in
: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
: http://www.andes.missouri.edu/personal/dmartinez/diffusion/
:
: And Dejanews is always there too, as the ultimate source.

Thanks for creating your archive. I tried to collect on my webpage only
the most relevant posts. I don't think I missed anything of importance
that I wrote.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
-=- | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
in Toronto | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
----- http://www.io.org/~yuku -----

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <19980225063...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
gkeye...@aol.com (GKeyes6988) wrote:

> Clyde Winters wrote:
> <snip Miguel's well researched-post>
>
> .Brown's article was in a referred Journal. Are you saying that the
> .scholars who reviewed his article were all ignorant of Mayan
> .linguistics? Now you make it appear that you know more about Mayan
> .inscriptions than experts in Mayan linguistics.
>
> .C. A. Winters
>
> You know, in each post you only show that you understand even less than we
> thought.
>
> 1. He took issue, not with Brown's reconstruction but with your complete
> incompetence (or complete dishonesty) concerning the relationships between
> phonology and orthography. That what you got from his post was that he was
> claiming Brown was "wrong" is simply pitiful. He said Brown's reconstruction
> looked fine. He said you were wrong, or more to the point, you don't
know what you are talking about. He clarified some issues about
orthography, which point apparently flew right over your head.
>

Greg,
What is even more fundamentally problematical is the Winters has misquoted
and misinterpreted his sources. Brown did *not* say what Winters is
implying, which makes Winters comment above, even more offensive. More
goodies obtained by verifying the sources quoted by Winters--

Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:22:26 -0600
C.A. Winters said:

>There is a clear prevalence of an African substratum for the origin of
>writing among the Maya. All the experts agree that the Olmec people
>probably gave writing to the Maya. Mayanist agree that the Brown (1991)
>found >that the Proto Maya term for "write" is *c'ihb' or *c'ib'. Since
the Olmec >people probably spoke a Mande language, the Mayan term for
writing would >probably correspond to the Mande term for writing. A
comparison of these terms >confirmed this hypothesis. The Mayan term for
writing *c'ib' or *c'ihb'is >derived from the Olmec/Manding term for
writing *se'be'. The ancient Mayans >wrote their inscriptions in Chol,
Yucatec and probably Quiche.

A key piece of information that Winters omits is that protoMaya was spoken
łat the latest some 42 centuries ago [2200 B.C. well before the rise of
the Olmecs and of the presumed Mande trip] (Brown 1991:490). Brown
specifically says that the protoMaya did NOT have a word for <writing> łIt
is highly unlikely that Proto-Mayan had a word for łwrite,˛ since it is
improbable that any writing system was as early as this in Mesoamerica.
The first evidence comes from around 600 B.C.--at least 1,500 years after
the breakup of Proto-Mayan-- in what is now the Mexican state of Oaxaca
[exactly what I have been saying in this ng]. Thus the proposal of a
Proto-Mayan word for łwrite˛ almost certainly constitutes another example
of overreconstruction for this parent language (Brown 1991:490 491)˛
Winters owes Miguel, the reviewers of *Current Anthropology, and us an
apology (lots of luck getting one). In fact, Brown in this article is
arguing that the great similarity of the words for łwrite˛ in all the Maya
languages indicates that it diffused late because most of these languages
do not have a long time depth. łI have proposed that the widespread Mayan
word for łwrite˛ probably originated in a language spoken by bearers of
Classic Maya culture ortheir immediate descendants and diffused therefrom
to other contiguous Mayan languages Brown 1991: 494).˛ The Classic Period
is A.D. 200-900 the Olmec civilization was over by then.

SNIP

>Moreover B. Stross in "Maya Hieroglyphic writing and MixeZoquean",
>Anthropological Linguistics 24 (1) (1973, pp.73 134), mentions the Mayan
>tradition for a foriegn origin of Mayan writing. This point is also
supported >by C.H. Brown in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland:

Inferences from >the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991,

pp.489 495), who >claimed that writing did not exist among the ProtoMaya.

Again a misdirection of what Brown said. Read the quote above-- at 2200
B.C. no one including the ProtoMaya had writing in Mesoamerica (neither
did the LybicoBerbers who according to Wulsin from my previous postwrote
about 500 B.C.). Brown is NOT saying that the ProtoMaya got writing from
elsewhere which is what Winters would have you believe. Winters is also
paraphrasing Strosser in a misleading way. The entire point of Strossą
article is that Maya writing comes, yes from outside, BUT Stross does not
leave a void to be filled by Mande as Winters would have us believe. The
entire article is an argument that the iconography of Maya hieroglyphic
symbols in the Landa alphabet can be better interpreted phonetically using
Mixe-Zoque. Exactly what is now accepted by all Mesoamerican scholars,
i.e. that the Olmecs spoke Mixe-Zoque and this is what was used to
interpret the Mojarra stela. There is no vacuum to be filled by a mythical
Mande here. łAbstract.-- This essay proposes a hypothesis that Mixe
Zoquean speakers-- more specifically Mixeans-- were involved in the
initial stages and subsequent development of the Maya hieroglyphic writing
system, traces of which we can see in the inscriptions of the Classical
period and in the codices of the Post-Classic and later traditions. The
hypothesis is supported by evidence that the well-known łalphabet˛
provided by Bishop Diego de Landa contains at leastr some symbols that can
be viewed as icons whose phonetic value can be derived more easily from
Mixean languages than from Mayan languages (Stross 1982:73).˛

>My comparison of Quiche and Yucatec to the Mande languages is a valid way to
>illustrate the ancient relationship between the Pre-Classic Maya and
Mande >speaking Olmec. Archaeologist and epigraphers no longer believe
that the >Classic Maya inscriptions were only written in Cholan Maya. Now
scholars >recognize that many Mayan inscriptions written during the
Classic period were >written in Yucatec and probably the language spoken
in the area where the
>Mayan inscriptions are found.

Again Winters is misquoting his sources. No archaeologist or epigrapher
believes that Wintersą new favorite, Quiche, was used to write
inscriptions particularly at any time when remotely an Olmec/Mande might
be around. I defy him to produce a direct quotation to that effect. What
Wintersą source, Stross says is :˛A number of epigraphers are in fact
arriving at the motivated conclusion that Cholan is the major language of
the Classic Maya inscriptions [A.D. 200-900] and Yucatecan (or some direct
descendant thereof) is the language of the three, or possibly four, extant
Maya codices that date approximately to the time of the Conquest, or
perhaps sometime earlier [A.D. 1400-1500] (Stross 1982:73-74).˛
This means, as I have been saying repeatedly to Winters, that if he wants
to argue Olmec/Mande influence on the Maya, he must compare his supposed
Mande words with Chol, Chorti, and Chontal not with Yucatec and absolutely
not with Quiche. Brown (1991:492) says łsince it is now widely recognized
that speakers of languages of the Cholan and Yucatec subgroups of Mayan
are direct descendants of the bearers of Classic Maya civilization.˛ Again
Quiche is excluded, and I continue to maintain that 1) Yucatan is not near
the Olmec Gulf zone and 2) it is too late (Post-Classic A.D. 1000-1500) to
be the direct recipient of Olmec/Mande influence. I have already cited
Michael Coe *The Breaking of the Maya Code* (1992) who flatly says that
the classic Maya inscriptions are in Cholan.

One more example of the unreliability of Winterąs citations to accompany
Wulsin, Ixtlixochitl, and more to follow. Caveat emptor

[g...@hn.planet.gen.nz]

> : Been refuted here months ago by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
>
> What "been refuted", George? I'm not aware of anything that was "refuted",
> by Bernard or others. Perhaps you can supply some details?

As I post from Deja news until my ISP fixes his Newsgroup feed may I suggest
the resources of DEJANEWS

> We had a long discussion, and parts of this discussion can be found on my
> webpage, in DejaNews, and on Domingo's page. A variety of views were
> expressed. Everybody can make up their own mind on this.

I can't speak for any-one else but the evidence is in and has been for a long
time.

Maize is South American in origin

[GKeyes6988]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

..gkeye...@aol.com (GKeyes6988) wrote:

> Clyde Winters wrote:
> <snip Miguel's well researched-post>
>
> .Brown's article was in a referred Journal. Are you saying that the
> .scholars who reviewed his article were all ignorant of Mayan
> .linguistics? Now you make it appear that you know more about Mayan
> .inscriptions than experts in Mayan linguistics.
>
> .C. A. Winters
>
> You know, in each post you only show that you understand even less than we
> thought.
>
> 1. He took issue, not with Brown's reconstruction but with your complete
> incompetence (or complete dishonesty) concerning the relationships between
> phonology and orthography. That what you got from his post was that he was
> claiming Brown was "wrong" is simply pitiful. He said Brown's reconstruction
> looked fine. He said you were wrong, or more to the point, you don't
know what you are talking about. He clarified some issues about
orthography, which point apparently flew right over your head.
>

.Greg,
.What is even more fundamentally problematical is the Winters has misquoted
.and misinterpreted his sources. Brown did *not* say what Winters is
.implying, which makes Winters comment above, even more offensive. More
.goodies obtained by verifying the sources quoted by Winters--

<snip>

Oh, I agree. My response was aimed at the last exchange with Miguel (about the
reconstruction), in which he proved he can't read and interpret English, much
less Maya or Mande.

Nice post.

-- Greg Keyes

[JoatSimeon]

>: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yur

> Since plenty of non-archaeological<BR>
>evidence for corn in Asia precolumbus exists, this theory should be seen<BR>
>as strong enough already. <BR>

-- this translates as "I'm hurt nobody is taking my fantasies seriously".
-- S.M. Stirling

[JoatSimeon]

Note also that when maize _was_ introduced to the Old World in the
post-Columbian period, it spread very rapidly and left abundant, unambiguous
traces.
-- S.M. Stirling

[Akan Ifriqiya]

Once again I am saddened by the great disservice done to true afrocentrism
and to african studies by Mr. Winters. The Central American side of things I
have no expertise in, and shall not comment on. Regarding West African
history, while I am not a specialist in early history, I feel qualified to
point out the misrepresentations by Winters, indeed his flagrant misuse, even
misrepresentation of the texts. I should perhaps thank Winters for giving me
an excuse to rereview materials long laid aside, but I am saddened at this
continued misrepresentation and indeed caricature of africanist scholarship.

A longer response to his extended post laying out his theory of "mande"
expansion will follow, but I thought this might be put forth first. By no
means comprehensive, I hope it lays to rest the chimera which he has brought
forth.

Ramira Naka

In article <6cngii$rqo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu
says...

Winters:
African related artifacts have been discovered at archaeological sites; this
artifactual evidence include Mande inscriptions and red and black pottery.
African writing on Olmec artifacts is the most obvious African artifact found
by archaeologist. Drucker in 1955 found two inscribed celts at LaVenta in
offering #4. These celts written in African writing, found in a controlled
excavation talk about Pe, a leading spiritual leader that was buried at
LaVenta offering #4.

What "mande" inscriptions? I am unaware of any writing systems below the
Sahara in the last millennium B.C. Winters' claim below for Tifinagh is
without support. (Although I wish to note that it seems perfectly reasonable
to call Tifinagh an african development, but it is emphatically note Mande!)

Winters:

Moreover B. Stross in "Maya Hieroglyphic writing and MixeZoquean",
Anthropological Linguistics 24 (1) (1973, pp.73 134), mentions the Mayan

tradition for a foreign origin of Mayan writing. This point is also

supported by C.H. Brown in "Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland:
Inferences from the linguistic data", Current Anthropology 32 (4) (1991,

pp.489495), who claimed that writing did not exist among the ProtoMaya.

I know of no substantiated claims Mande languages were written before the
adoption of Ajami arabic scripts (that is African languages written with
arabic script(s) an important *indigenous* development by mandeka, peul and
later Hausa). Winters cites to Ms. Hau, who argued based on the script which
the Vai people invented in the early 19th century, that there must have been
writing of some sort, possibly ideographic, among the Mande speakers. She,
however does not argue conclusively for such a thing and in any case, bases
her case on sheer speculation on a perceived necessity for script in the
elaboration of the ancient state of Ghana. (K. Hau, "PreIslamic writing in
West Africa", Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental Afrique Noire (IFAN), , Ser.
B vol. 35, no. 1, 1973, p. 17) She rather heatedly –apparently in response
to criticism which I did not bother tracking down— attacks suggestions that
Ghana needed no script to develop empire and attacks comparisons with a
similar Incan development of elaborate social structures without full blown
writing. (p. 16) Her analysis, while striking me as potentially intriguing
in suggesting that Mande symbolic systems had been neglected in study, rests
on the false premise that these were of necessity either writing or
precursors to writing. She admits there is no evidence of scripts "save
those of Tuareg" but suggests, in this case rightly given the present state
of archeology in West Africa, that such evidence could have been lost.
Again, she presents a hypothesis that writing could have been developed from
Mande religious and magical symbols, but we do not have evidence that it was
until the 19th century (see below).

Historical linguists can best evaluate her claims of connections between the
Vai script of the Vai of Liberia - Sierre Leone and "Thamudic scripts" of
north arabia, which she states were used between the 7th century B.C. and 4th
century A.D. However, the question of time depth alone makes this
proposition seem problematic from a historical point of view.

The Vai script was invented between 1814 and 1849 by a Vai (a Mande people of
Liberia and Sierra Leone) by the name of Duala Bukele. Bukele claimed that
this script was revealed to him in a dream by a white man but that he forgot
upon awakening some of the symbols so he and six cohorts redevised some
symbols. (I would note the possible parallel to Muslim importation of
writing from Arabs as an explanation for the "white man" iconography) It was
first reported by a British naval officer in 1849 and described in 1854 by a
German scholar, Kaella (S.W. Kaella "Outlines of a grammar for the Vei
language" London: Church Missionary House 1854. Reprint Gregg International
1968) immediately after the script's "discovery" was announced. (Scribner,
Sylvia and Michael Cole "The Psychology of Literacy" Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1981. See esp p. 264 f, also see "The Standard Vai Script"
Monrovia: university of Liberia, 1962 .)

Scribner's account of the Vai script strikes me as less tendentious than that
of Hau, but they agree on all substantiated historical data so I do not see a
conflict there. Scribner notes that Vai traditions verify the Dula Bukele
story, who was in fact personally interviewed by the naval officer and
Koella. Various traditions suggest, according to Scribner that the script
may have been independently developed in several different locations.
Scribner noted "[t]he Vai script…can not simply be dismissed as a borrowed
innovation. Since foreign scripts in use were alphabets and the Vai script
is a syllabary, we know that whatever external influences were active in
creating pressure for an indigenous writing system, the form and articulation
of that system represented an original production." (p. 265) As Scribner
noted, it does not detract from the invention to realize that the Vai society
had been in contact for hundreds of years with both arabic script (writing in
both arabic and ajami) and latin script carried used by afro-portuguese
traders. Scribner suggests the development was pushed by impinging of Vai
life of both Latin and arabic traditions in the 1820s when Christians began
to push into their region and the Vai began to accept Islam in numbers as
Muslim Mandeka marabout-traders became established in the sizable towns.

A final note: Winters glosses over (if we are charitable) major differences
between Ms. Hau's theory, which while unorthodox, at least is posed as a
hypothesis in large part, and his own. Ms. Hau suggested that an ideographic
script was possible and further wrote: "it is unwise, considering our lack
of knowledge of Vai, Mende, Toma and Guerze to laugh off suggestions made by
some of these people that their leading secret society [the Poro] had
[ideographic] writing [at an early date]." (Hau 1973, p. 41) There is
something to be said for not dismissing the possibility of a secret religious
script analogous to the Ogham script (I hope those familiar with Celtic early
history will correct me if this is a poor analogy) but do note that Ms. Hau,
who I believe forces her arguments rather too far, is still not saying what
Winters would have her say. In regards to her suggestion, Scribner's
analysis notes the Vai writing roots in Mande graphic symbols as well as the
Bambara's own use of a secret set of 259 ideographic symbols available only
to those at high levels of secret societies. She cites Dalby ("A Survey of
indigenous scripts of Liberia and Sierra Leone: Via, Mende, Loma, Kpelle and
Bassa." African Language Studies (Univ. of London) 1967 v. 8, p. 1-51; "The
Indigenous Scripts of West Africa and Surinam: their inspiration and design"
[ibid] 1968 v. 9, p. 156-197 and "The historical problems of the indigenous
scripts of West Africa and Surinam" in Dalby ed. Language and History in West
Africa. New York: Africana, 1979 and Delafosse "Vai leur langue et leur
systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie 10, 1899),

Scribner further writes: "Early travelers, writing before the invention of
any of the known West African scripts, commented on the widespread use of
graphic symbols in ritual and ceremony in this region." (Scribner, p. 266)
But again, without archeological evidence, we can not postulate an early
date for the development of an actual writing system. (For writing, I have
been directed to but have not read: P.F. de Moraes Farias "The oldest extant
writing of West Africa: medieval epigraphs from Essuk, Saney and
Egef-n-Tawaqqast (Mali)' Journal des africanistes LX 1990 65-113.) Nor can
we exclude one. It is not, however, good scholarship to write as Winters has
done. Puzzingly, he cites only Delafosse, who questioned how widespread the
Vai script even was.

I am also puzzled by his citation to Ms. Hau's "African Writing in the New
World", Bulletin de l'IFAN, ser.B vol 40 no.1, (1978) p. 28-48. Ms. Hau is
not making his argument regarding a "mande" writing system founding native
american writing, but arguing that certain painted rock or rock carvings in
Brazil suggest that African slaves continued to use their own writing or
ideographic systems while in the New World. I am not trained in the
evaluation of such evidence and so can not comment other than to say that
while her interpretations struck me as forced in re the cited artifacts, they
did not seem inherently implausible. I am not familiar enough with Brazilian
literature nor the relevant archeology to comment further.

[Snipped Central American arguments]

Winters:
The Proto Olmec or Manding people formerly lived in North Africa in the
Saharan Highlands : and Fezzan.(see C. A. Winters, "The Migration routes of
the Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27(1), (1986) pp.7798) . Here the
ancestors of the Olmecs left their oldest inscription written in the Manding
script (which some people call Libyco Berber, even though they can not be
read in Berber) : was found at Oued Mertoutek and dated by Wulsin in , Papers
of the peabody Museum of American Arcaheology and Ethnology (Vol.19(1),
1940), to 3000 B.C. This indicates that the Manding hand writing 2000 years
before they settled the Gulf of Mexico.

This is absolutely a false claim. The Lybico-Berber script inscriptions in
the Sahara have been attributed to Berberophones. The inscriptions are tied
by all scholarship I have ever read to the extant Tifinagh script preserved
among the Taureg and other related groups. Scholars have been unable to
apply *modern* berber languages to the inscriptions, but their association
with berber sites is strong. Other than Winters I have never seen a claim
for Mande speakers for the Libico writing. Indeed, his claims to have
placed the Mande or proto-Mande in North Africa run counter to all
established scholarship. He appears to be unilaterally transforming the
berbers into mandeka. Winters' wonderfully vague "Saharan Highlands" is of
no use in otherwise evaluating his claims, although I will note that all
standard sources (e.g. Mauny, Raymond "Trans-Saharan Contacts and the Iron
Age in West Africa" in Fage ed. The Cambridge History of Africa, c. 500 B.C.
- 1050 A.D. v. 2 , Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 1978; Scribner op cite
p. 265; Phillipson, David African Archeology, 2nd ed. Cambrige: University of
Cambridge 1994; Levtzion, Nehemia Ancient Ghana - Mali New York, 1980 p.
6, 12-13 et passim. Also for recent archeological work see Insoll, Timothy
"Iron Age Gao: An Archeological Contribution" Journal of African History v.
38 1997 p. 1-30) Even his Ms. Hau (1973, p. 14) placed the Mande or
proto-Mande in the Niger valley.

Winters:
These Proto-Olmec people lived in the Highlands of the Sahara. Here we find
numerous
depictions of boats engraved in the rock formations that these people used to
navigate the
Sahara before it became a desert.

I have no idea how even to approach this. "[N]avigate the Sahara" I assume
refers to navigating rivers extant in the Sahara? The use of pirogues of
various sorts does not really bear on the question of trans-oceanic voyages.
Nor does this match with any Mande traditions which I have read of. All
Mande migration traditions place them in the Sahel in the Niger valley or the
highlands of Upper Guinea and Senegal as noted above. I would add that
while I intend to reply in detial to Winters' long falsification of West
African history, a quick read over the McIntosh articles he cites in re
climate change indicates he has either fundamentally misread them or
deliberately misquoted. The McIntoshes do not refer to "West Africa"
becoming uninhabitable, as Winters states, but the Sahara proper. This type
of distortion leads me to conclude that Winters' scholarship all around is,
at best, highly defective, if not outright dishonest.

A final note: the linguists of the group may find Derek Nurse's contribution
in the prestigious JAH a useful oreintation for a current sense of actual
africanist work in linguistics. Nurse, Derek "The Contribution of
Linguistics to the study of history in Africa" Journal of African History v.
38 1997 p. 359-391)

Winters:
For more information on the ancient Manding writing see:

M. Delafosse, "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie
10, (1899).

C. A. Winters, "Manding writing in the New World Part 1", Journal of African
Civilization, 1 (1), (1979) p.81 97.

C.A. Winters, "Appendix B: The Jade Celts from La Venta". In Unexpected Faces
in Ancient America, by A. von Wuthenau (pp.235 237). 2nd Edition, Mexico,
1980.

K. Hau, "PreIslamic writing in West Africa", Bulletin de l'Institut
Fondamental Afrique Noire (IFAN), t.35, Ser. B no. 1, (1973) pp.145.

K. Hau, "African Writing in the New World", Bull. de l'IFAN,t.40 ser.B no.1,
(1978) pp.28-48.

C.A. Winters, "The influence of the Mande scripts on American ancient writing
systems",Bull. de l'IFAN, t.39, Ser.B no.2, (1977) pp.405 431.

[Naka: Note Winters here claims that Mande were behind the Cherokee script]

C.A. Winters, "The Ancient manding Script". In , Blacks in Science Ancient
and Modern (ed) by Ivan Van Sertima (pp.208-214), New Brunswick, Transaction
Books, 1983.

[Akan Ifriqiya]

Yuri's contentions re Maize certainly are not accepted among the Africanist
scholars. See Phillipson African Archaeology Cambridge 1994.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yur

Presumably your great assurance that you're right rests on a thorough
review of the evidence.

Yeah, right...

Or else on complete ignorance of what this thing is all about...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:

: I can't speak for any-one else but the evidence is in and has been for a long

: time.
:
: Maize is South American in origin

And I heartily agree.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

So much additional evidence argues in favor of trans-Pacific

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: Note also that when maize _was_ introduced to the Old World in the

: post-Columbian period, it spread very rapidly and left abundant, unambiguous
: traces.

Or else it was there already for centuries and the gullible creatures like
you confirmed their own bias by concluding that "it spread very rapidly".

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Akan Ifriqiya (Ak...@pizlink.net) wrote:

: Yuri's contentions re Maize certainly are not accepted among the Africanist

: scholars. See Phillipson African Archaeology Cambridge 1994.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Akan. Which of my contentions
are not accepted by Africanists?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill -=O=- R. Clopton

[Hu McCulloch]

The photos of maize ears in the hands of 13th century sculptures
from Somnathpur Temple, in southern India, on Yuri's site
http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/wmzpix.htm (2 pages)
are great, but being B&W copies of journal-reproduced photos,
are not as spectacular or convincing as the original color photos
available on Carl Johannessen's site:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~carljohann

On my page,
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
I provide links to CJ's photos, along with some pertinent
subsequent references, and even the full text of a recent paper
by Kumar & Sachan arguing on genetic grounds that
maize must have been in Asia before Columbus -- certain
Himalyan strains are related to obscure
Peruvian strains, and even to teosinte itself, in a way
that precludes derivation from the Caribbean strains that
the Spaniards brought to Europe.

Tom Burglin, who actually knows a lot about genetics, has
looked at this paper by K&S and a more technical background
paper. His primary criticism is that their methods are not
state-of-the-art, but he didn't see anything obviously wrong with their
claims. Tom or someone like him should duplicate (or refute)
their resultswith the newer methods.

-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

[Hu McCulloch]

>g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>: I can't speak for any-one else but the evidence is in and has
>: been for a long time.
>: Maize is South American in origin
>And I heartily agree.
>Yuri.

It's my understanding it comes from Mexico,
where it was domesticated from wild teosinte
maybe 6,000 years ago, not from So. America.
Either way, its presence in Asia, as evidenced both
by Johannessen's sculpture photos and Kumar
and Sachan's genetic evidence, demonstrates
that someone besides the neolithic pre-Beringians
had sailboats that could cross the oceans before Columbus.

-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

(qv for links to Johannessen's photos and the K&S
article)

[Gisele]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

> In fact, Brown in this article is
> arguing that the great similarity of the words for łwrite˛ in all the Maya
> languages indicates that it diffused late because most of these languages
> do not have a long time depth.

Do the other linguists agree with this concept? It's always been my impression
that similarity was evidence of antiquity and not the opposite.

Gisele

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <34F59794...@elcocomp.com>, Gisele <gis...@elcocomp.com> wrote:

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
>

> > In fact, Brown in this article is
> > arguing that the great similarity of the words for łwrite˛ in all the Maya
> > languages indicates that it diffused late because most of these languages
> > do not have a long time depth.
>

> Do the other linguists agree with this concept? It's always been my
impression
> that similarity was evidence of antiquity and not the opposite.
>
> Gisele

What Brown and the other linguists he cites pointed out was that many of
the Maya languages in question only differentiated in the last 1000 years.

[Garry Williams]

yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

>Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

<snip>

>: This was debated exhaustively before
>
>Correct, Bernard.
>
>: and you could still not produce an
>: archaeologically dated Asian corncob.
>
>Yes. But this is the argument from the absence of evidence. Absence of
>evidence does not constitute the evidence of absence.

And wishing does not make it so. Please put up or shut up, since we've
all already heard your wishing on numerous other occasions. Anyone
that wants to read Yuri's old arguments again can take a trip to
DejaNews.

<snip to end>

--
Garry Williams
gdw...@earthlink.net or
gdw...@william.salzo.cary.nc.us

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Garry Williams (gdw...@earthlink.net) wrote on Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:47:51 GMT:
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: >Yes. But this is the argument from the absence of evidence. Absence of

: >evidence does not constitute the evidence of absence.

: And wishing does not make it so. Please put up or shut up, since we've
: all already heard your wishing on numerous other occasions. Anyone
: that wants to read Yuri's old arguments again can take a trip to
: DejaNews.

I see. Garry's loosing it. Sure sign he's feeling threatened by these
findings.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:25:56 -0700, Gisele <gis...@elcocomp.com>
wrote:

>Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
>
>> In fact, Brown in this article is
>> arguing that the great similarity of the words for łwrite˛ in all the Maya
>> languages indicates that it diffused late because most of these languages
>> do not have a long time depth.
>

>Do the other linguists agree with this concept? It's always been my impression
>that similarity was evidence of antiquity and not the opposite.

Bernard is right. Similarity, unless the languages are closely
related, is a sure sign that a word is a recent borrowing.

In grid form:

word very word somewhat word not
similar similar similar

lgs. closely ? ? ?
related

lgs. distantly recent old
related borrowing cognate [1] ?

lgs. not recent old borrowing OR
related borrowing coincidence [2] ?

[?] doesn't prove anything.
[1] or old borrowing/coincidence, depending on the kind of similarity.
[2] coincidence can never be excluded, but is statistically most
significant in this category.

==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||

========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

[JoatSimeon]

>maize in Asia before Columbus (was: Re: Mande and Maya connections<BR>
>From:

>Either way, its presence in Asia, as evidenced both <BR>
>by Johannessen's sculpture photos and Kumar <BR>
>and Sachan's genetic evidence, demonstrates <BR>

-- demonstrates precisely nothing.
-- S.M. Stirling

[JoatSimeon]

> yu...@mail.trends.ca (

>Or else it was there already for centuries

-- without leaving any traces, unfortuantely for cranks.
-- S.M. Stirling

[JoatSimeon]

>: yu...@mail.trends.ca

>Presumably your great assurance that you're right rests on a thorough
review>of the evidence.

-- yes; also on the fact that the scholarly community agrees with the strictly
post-Columbian distribution of New World cultivars to the rest of the planet.

-- S.M. Stirling

[g...@hn.planet.gen.nz]

In article <6d41s3$ohu$2...@news.trends.ca>,

yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>
> : I can't speak for any-one else but the evidence is in and has been for a
long
> : time.
> :
> : Maize is South American in origin
>
> And I heartily agree.
>
> Yuri.

Good.
Now the next bit is:
There was no evidence of maize outside the Americas prior to the arrival of
Columbus.
It doesn't get much easier.

[Jeffrey L Baker]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 g...@hn.planet.gen.nz wrote:

>
>
> > : Been refuted here months ago by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> >
> > What "been refuted", George? I'm not aware of anything that was "refuted",
> > by Bernard or others. Perhaps you can supply some details?
>
> As I post from Deja news until my ISP fixes his Newsgroup feed may I suggest
> the resources of DEJANEWS
>
>
> > We had a long discussion, and parts of this discussion can be found on my
> > webpage, in DejaNews, and on Domingo's page. A variety of views were
> > expressed. Everybody can make up their own mind on this.
>

> I can't speak for any-one else but the evidence is in and has been for a long
> time.
>
> Maize is South American in origin

Maize in all likely-hood, originated in what is now Mexico. Genetic
studies suggest that the teosinte that is genetically closest to maize
is present in the middle reaches of the Balsas River Valley in the modern
day state of Michoacan. This is actually North America.

Jeff Baker

[Jacques Guy]

Gisele wrote:

> Do the other linguists agree with this concept? It's always been my impression
> that similarity was evidence of antiquity and not the opposite.

You must distinguish between two sorts of similarities: similarities by
borrowing, similarities by inheritance. The two are *usually*
distinguishable
on diachronic phonological grounds. Knowing no Maya, I'll take an
example
from a language family I know: the Austronesian languages of Vanuatu.

Sakao po"s, Tolomako pesi "dog" (o" = o-umlaut)
Sakao gaple, Tolomako gapuleve "rifle"

They are similar, aren't they? Yes, but, when you compare other
similar-looking words, you eventually extract patterns which,
applied to those two, do not work. You find that Tolomako
pesi must have come from an older *kwesi and that kwesi, in Sakao,
gives ve, not po"s. That Tolomako gapuleve did not change from
the earlier stage (when Tolomako and Sakao were a single language),
but that it would have given in Sakao evle, not agaple. Yet,
po"s and agaple can be regularly derived from Tolomako, but using
a different set of sound changes. These sound changes are a subset
of the "regular" ones. Conclusion: the sound changes missing in
this subset are missing because they occurred *earlier*. So,
the similarities between "dog" and "rifle" in Sakao and Tolomako
are recent, not ancient, and date from after the time when those
two languages were only one.