Archaeologica.org

All of history is interesting but I'm not grasping the significance of that particular citation to the issue.

Minimalist wrote:All of history is interesting but I'm not grasping the significance of that particular citation to the issue.

Min,

I believe he's hinting around that

...After about 3250 BC, another people migrated from its homeland, located probably northeast of Mesopotamia, and began to intermarry with the native population. The newcomers, who became known as Sumerians, spoke an agglutinative language unrelated apparently to any other known language.

means that these "newcomer" people might have come from Bolivia.

My question would be, why didn't they stop in Africa? Why go all the way around, or all the way to the end of the Med. when sailing from Bolivia? Why would anyone that could travel like that end up in Sumeria, and only in Sumeria?

The opposite is also true. By that I mean, if these Sumerians were world travelers, why don't we find evidence of them along the East (or North)African coast, or in Italy, France, Spain, etc.? Trips to these places would have easily been at least as profitable as a trip to Bolivia.

And, how does a Sumerian boat get to S. America anyway? The theory makes it sound like sailing the Cape of Good Hope is a piece of cake. It ain't. The other way, through Gibraltar, would be easier. But the question still arises, why? And how without leaving any traces? Just set out one day and don't stop until you exit a sea that you had no way of knowing was almost completely enclosed? No settlements anlong the way? No stopover camps?

It's all a pipe dream. Those glyphs resemble ogham as much as they do cuneiform. You can imagine anything you like, but it's a gigantic stretch to claim that this indicates a Bolivian origin for Sumerians or the converse, that Sumerians visited S. America.

Harte

Whoa everybody - hold it. I've already said what I believe to be true, don't put any words in my mouth.

I believe that Clyde Winters correctly translated inscriptions that he calls a proto-sumerian language. That's all.

located probably northeast of Mesopotamia

There is no way in hell that Bolivia can be construed as north east of Mesopotamia. North East of Chile? Yes.

Beagle wrote:Whoa everybody - hold it. I've already said what I believe to be true, don't put any words in my mouth.

I believe that Clyde Winters correctly translated inscriptions that he calls a proto-sumerian language. That's all.

Well, Beagle. Okay then, what is "...the significance of that particular citation to the issue," as Min put it?

I just chimed in with my take on what I thought you were trying to say. You're welcome to clarify whenever. In fact, I wonder why you didn't, since you posted since then already.

Harte

There is no way in hell that Bolivia can be construed as north east of Mesopotamia. North East of Chile? Yes.

According to most high school students Bolivia is somewhere in Africa.

True....I forgot about that.

From the "fuente"
THis looks like random filling in of rectangles to me, not any kind of writing. There's no pattern of repetition. No consistency.
In fact it looks like beginner's artwork.

As for the "cuneiform" passages....I think marduk probably presented
relevant comparisons...I know little about these things.

Is there a picture of the inscription on the monolithic sculpture?

stan wrote:From the "fuente"
THis looks like random filling in of rectangles to me, not any kind of writing. There's no pattern of repetition. No consistency.
In fact it looks like beginner's artwork.

I referenced this panel in an earlier post. Several articles have been published which imply the panel could have been a type of star-map showing an outburst of the eta carina variable star around 1000CE. This is thought because there seems to a "southern cross" symbol and a star to the upper right of the cross which is the approximate orientation of eta carina to the constellation Crux. Nevertheless, IMO, nothing else on the panel seems to resemble the star field or constellations surrounding this area.

As for the "cuneiform" passages....I think marduk probably presented
relevant comparisons...I know little about these things.

Marduk has been unusually quiet..I wonder if he was banned.

Winters claims he can read it and translate it.

There is no way in hell that Bolivia can be construed as north east of Mesopotamia. North East of Chile? Yes.

They have to be referring to Texas! Charlie you found any sumer writing on those rocks?

Quote:
During the 5th millennium BC a people known as the Ubaidians established settlements in the region known later as Sumer; these settlements gradually developed into the chief Sumerian cities, namely Adab, Eridu, Isin, Kish, Kullab, Lagash, Larsa, Nippur, and Ur. Several centuries later, as the Ubaidian settlers prospered, Semites from Syrian and Arabian deserts began to infiltrate, both as peaceful immigrants and as raiders in quest of booty. After about 3250 BC, another people migrated from its homeland, located probably northeast of Mesopotamia, and began to intermarry with the native population. The newcomers, who became known as Sumerians, spoke an agglutinative language unrelated apparently to any other known language.

Reference to other people from the north before 3250, probaly the Vincas or Vikings, who we know had sailing capabilities, suggesting a migration from the east coast of north america.

Did Marduk give a translation of the Pokotia Stone?

Well, Beagle. Okay then, what is "...the significance of that particular citation to the issue," as Min put it?

Nothing too terribly dire Harte. Just being open minded and providing a little balance to the equation.

The facts of the Pokotia stone are incredulous enough without running too far afield. I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject-I know you've got an opinion on it.

Beagle wrote: ...The facts of the Pokotia stone are incredulous enough without running too far afield. I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject-I know you've got an opinion on it.

I believe I already gave it, in the post where I chimed in on what I thought you meant by the "particular citation," as Min put it.

You know, pipe dream and all that.

Harte

Ok, thanks for that . I can see why anyone would choose to think that.
I'll take that as a vote against any further investigation by international scientists.

If I'm wrong - my apologies.

OK, I've skimmed through the thread. Fact is, the Fuente Magna bowl, and the Pokatia Monolith are old news to me. These were big topics when I owed a 'private' internet discussion forum that included members such as Clyde, Bernardo Biados, Gary "Buck" Buchanan, and Doug Weller.

It's no secret that Clyde is afrocentric. IMHO Bernado should have stayed away from World Mysteries dot com.

People sometimes forget that these artifacts come from a (now) Third World Country. Monies to properly investigate the archaeological treasures of the area are most difficult to come by. Not only that, but the political climate of counties like Bolivia are historically so volatile, that those dedicated to investigating the likes of the Pokatia Monolith are scared practically to death that the next rogue government will seize the treasures. For some time, Bernado and I exchanged emails on a 2-3 time a week basis. He ended up fleeing Boliva, literally in fear for his life when the current government was approaching another coup. Bernado had been Vice President (and director of several top posts) of Bolivia. I have his CV on file.

Marduk -- surely you mean Vai, or Mande Vai? (not vrai)