Pokotia Monolith

[Beagle]

Not having given the monolith any more study than we have, I still wonder if enough facts are on the table that Pokotia should be given publication in mainstream scientific journals.

They've published less credible things than this.

[Beagle]

http://www.geocities.com/webatlantis/fuentemagna.htm

Warning: Atlantis web site. I don't consider this credible but it has some relevant information toward the bottom.

[marduk]

from your link

In Mesopotamia, the early Sumerians are said to have arrived by sea

this idea was dropped around 1920

Oannes was a "fish god" and said to be the bringer of civilisation. Another of their deities was ENKI, like Poseidon, the god of the sea

Oannes was invented by the Babylonian priest Berossus in his book of mesopotamian history the babyloniaca
he was loosely based on the wise Babylonian fisherman Uan who was in turn based on the Sumerian wise fisherman Adapa
even Hancock gets this bit wrong in "fingerpaints"
he does correct this error in "Underworld"
Enki was not god of the sea but actually was God of the Earth "EN - Lord/ Ki - earth"
Nammu was the god of the sea

yet there was no copper or any other metals in the region, so the river was used to import metals from overseas

the Sumerians being around so early on predate the existence of any other culture to trade with overseas
they in fact obtained all their copper from Anatolia

It is clear that civilisation in ancient South America is much older and more extensive than has been previously recognised

Caral dating to 3000bce was discovered in 1948 by Paul Kosok


Jim Allen is a pseudoscientist
he distorts the truth to add weight to his assertion that Atlantis was in the andes
it wasn't

[Beagle]

I have no earthly idea why you felt you needed to write a long post to say what I did in one sentence.

[marduk]

so why post a link that isn't credible

the real problem with the Fuente magna is that even if it came with a certficiate saying it was made in a workshop in mesopotamia there is still no way to say at what point in time it arrived in South America.

[Beagle]

I don't believe that it came from Mesopotamia. I think it's Bolivian (ancient)

But it wasn't found by archaeologists. That's why I'm focusing on the monolith.

This thing is too incredible to be dealing with the fact that a little hold man found something in a field.

[Beagle]

I'm taking a hard break as they say. I'm still in favor of deconstructing this thread tomorrow morning.

Majority rules.

[Minimalist]

Majority rules.

Not even here....Bush thinks he's the Decider.

[marduk]

well the script is said to be semitic akkaadian but it looks far more like Ugaritic to me
Ugaritic Akkadian Cuneiform

Ugaritic is syrian very easy to understand and has biblical implications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_language

[Forum Monk]

iirc there is some time difference between the two cultures.

Maybe I missed it...what are these Bolivian artifacts dated to?

[Beagle]

The archaeologists who excavated the Pokotia stone dated it to 1900BC, by way of the strata it was in,etc. But the proto-sumerian, semitic writing dates it to 3000-3500BC.

That's not conflicting, as it would suggest that after the inscriptions were put on it, it didn't fall over and become covered for 1500+ yrs.

[Forum Monk]

Ugarit is probably very old but it did not seem to play any major role in history until arounf the 20th century bce when it began to spread out and challenge Hittite and Babylonian authority.

Akkadian influence flourished around the 24rd century. While Sumeria seems to predate them all, flourishing from the 40th through 30th centuries.

It seems significant to me that the dating of these artifacts should somehow coincide with the cultures which alledgedly originated them.

[marduk]

But the proto-sumerian, semitic writing dates it to 3000-3500BC

there is no proto sumerian semitic writing on the pokotia monolith
you need to go back and read Dr Winters e mail again
he used Proto sumerian as a decipherment key using the vai language of west africa as a basis for translation
this is only going to work if both the pokotia monolith and also the sumerians were originally from west africa
iirc Dr Winters is the only person I know of who believes this is the homeland of the Sumerians

every other Sumerologist on earth not only has evidence that contradicts this but also has evidence that proves they came from somewhere else
in addition no african dna has ever been found in pre columbian south american indian remains

imo it is far more likely to be a transition language between Olmec and Mayan
Epi Olmec

Pokotia monolith

Sumerian proto cuneiform symbols on left

as you can see the proto cuneiform symbols bear no resemblance to the script on the pokotia monolith

[Beagle]

Additional Comments by Dr. C. A. Winters
First of all the Sumerian language is not Semitic. Cuneiform was not just used to write Semitic languages, it was also used to write Hurrian, Hittite (Indo-European langauges), Sumerian and Elamite, languages which were not Semitic.
As a result, I hold the belief that the authors of the Fuente Bowl and Pokotia monument spoke a Sumerian language because of the appearance of both cuneiform and Proto-Sumerian symbols on these figures.
Given this visual identification of two writing systems on these artifacts we have to look at Mesopotamian history and see who used both Proto-Sumerian writing and who used cuneiform writing at the same time? The answer is: the Sumerians.
Once I arrived at this hypothesis, I had to test the Sumerian hypothesis. To test this hypothesis I had to attempt to decipher the writing by interpreting the signs using the Sumerian language.
Before I could read the text on these monuments I had to explore the origins of the Sumerian speaking people. Following the lead of Rawlinson, I compared the Sumerian language to the Dravidian and Mande languages. The languages show affinity in grammar and vocabulary. This made it clear that the speakers of this language probably came from the same original homeland.
Using archaeological and historical evidence I soon discovered that the Sumerians, Proto-Mande and Proto-Dravidians probably lived in the highland regions of Africa. I also found that through out the former homeland of the speakers of the language there were a number of symbols used by these people called Libyco-Berber writing.
During the research of these symbols I discovered that Libyco-Berber writing could not be read using the Taurag, Berbers, and Punic languages. This made it clear that the language of this writing had to be different from the speakers of these langauges.
Research indicated that the Mande speaking people formerly lived in the Sahara and ancient Libya, and that they were pushed southward as a result of the Sahara becoming a desert. Eventually I discovered the evidence that the Vai maintained that their writing was very ancient. Given the fact that the Vai syllabary had phonectic values suggested that I could use the phonectic values of the Vai writing to read the ancient Libyco-Berber writing. I tested this hypothesis, and learned that whereas the writing could not be read using Taurag and Punic, they could be read in Mande.

Here are Winters' comments on the language. To date, he is the sole translator, as he was the person chosen by the Bolivian archaeological team. Several sources that I have read over the last week state that there are only a handful of people who can translate and read Sumerian text. I don't know - not my thing.

The translation, posted here several times, makes perfectly good sense for an oracle. So it rings true for me. However, if a more extensive investigation were launched by international scientists, that would help authenticate this artifact.

There will be many questions - my goal, however unrealistic, is to promote the existence of these objects to the public. This forum has many readers. This will help in a small way. So it should be lively - but orderly.

[marduk]

the original homeland of the Sumerians was not the same as the original homeland of the dravidian and mande unless you go back about 100,000 years
genetics and skeletal studies have proved this
a long time ago

the Mande language has its origins in west Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manding_languages
the Dravidian language is native to India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_ ... es#History
and the sumerian language is an agglutinative isolate with credibility given to inclusion of Sumerian in proposed super-families like Nostratic or Dene-Sino-Caucasian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_l ... sification

Clyde knows this and is on his own with his assertions
still
hes a really nice bloke


its all well and good wanting to publicise something Beagle
but to publicise it badly would do more harm than good