Decipherment of the Short Side Mojarra Stela
By
Clyde A. Winters
The newly discovered column of this text published in July 1997. The new side text column on the Mojarra stela provides interesting information about the Olmec people. This column of Epi-Olmec text was published by J.. Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, "A newly discovered column in the Hieroglyphic text on La Mojarra stela 1: A test of the epi-Olmec Decipherment", Science, 277 (11 July 1997) pp.207-210. In this article Justeson and Kaufman, claim that decipherment of this text proves their decipherment of epi-Olmec using Mije-Sokean. This claim is false. This text was written in the Olmec language, which is a variety of the Mande group of languages.
They claim that the text reads as follows:
" Behold, there/he was for 12 years a [title]
And then a garment got folded
He [uttered]
--the stones thathe set in order were thus symbols,?kingly ones
What I chopped has been planted and harvested well
(A) shape-shifter(s) appeared divinely in his body(p.208)".
There are three problems with the Justenson and Kaufman's decipherments of
Epi-Olmec: 1) there is no clear evidence of Zoque speakers in Olmec areas
3200 years ago, 2) there is no such thing as a "pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean
language, 3)there is an absence of a Zoque substratum in the Mayan languages.
First of all ,Justenson and Kaufman in their 1997 article claim that they
read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using "pre-Proto-Zoquean".
This is impossible ,a "Pre-Proto" language refers to the internal reconstruction of vowel
patterns, not entire words. Linguists can reconstruct a pre-proto language ,
but this language is only related to internal developments within the target
language. Secondly, Justenson and Kaufman base their claim of a Zoque origin
for the Olmec language on the presence of a few Zoque speakers around mount
Tuxtla, this is a false principle. Justeson and Kaufman manitain that the
Olmec people spoke a Otomanguean language.
The Otomanguean family include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi to name a few. The
hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by
the contemporary spatial distribution of the languages spoken in the
Tabasco/Veracruz area.
Thomas Lee in R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmecs, New
York: Cambridge University Press noted that "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca
languages arespoken in numerous villages in a mixed manner having little or no apparent
semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption made by the
few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern
linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an Old homogeneous
language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders....(p.223)."
If this linguistic evidence is correct, many of the languages in the Otomanguean
family are spoken by people who may have only recently settled in the Olmec
heartland, and may not reflect the people that invented the culture we call
Olmecs today. This makes it very unlikely that Mixe was spoken on the Gulf
3200 years ago.
Finally, the Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis is not supported by the evidence for the
origin of the Mayan term for writing. The Mayan term for writing is not related to Zoque. Mayan
tradition make it clear that they got writing from another Meso-American group. Landa noted that
the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from
Nonoulco . Xiu is not the name for the Zoque.
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from
the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is
probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the
Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque
language.
Mayan tradition make it clear that they got writing from another
Meso-American group. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got
writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco . Xiu is not the name for the
Zoque.
Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and
Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably derived from
Manding *Se'be which is analogous to *c'ib'.
1. Mayan Terms for Writing
Figure 1. Mayan Terms for Writing |
Yucatec c'i:b' Chorti c'ihb'a Mam c'i:b'at |
Lacandon c'ib' Chol c'hb'an Teco c'i:b'a |
Itza c'ib' Chontal c'ib' Ixil c'ib' |
Mopan c'ib' Tzeltalan c'ib' |
Proto-Term for write *c'ib' |
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/
sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for
writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among
the Maya until 600 B.C. This was 1500 years after the break up of the
Proto-Maya .
The Olmecs probably spoke an Manding language (Winters, 1979, 1997). This
view is supported by the Manding substratum in the Otomi (Winters, 1979), and
Mayan languages (Wiener, Africa and the Discovery of America, 1920-22 ).
The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below
are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for
writing.
Manding Term for Writing |
Malinke se'be Serere safe |
Bambara se'be Susu se'be |
Dioula se'we' Samo se'be |
Sarakole safa W. Malinke safa |
Proto-Term for writing *se'be , *safâ |
The fact that there is no evidence that 1)the Zoque were in ancient Olmec
land 3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in Mayan, and 3)
there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" falsifies Justenson and Kaufman
hypothesis. What evidence supports a Mande origin for the Olmec writing.
First, the name for writing in Maya is analogous to the writing used by Mande
speaking people in the Sahara and West Africa as first noted by Leo Wiener,
in Africa and the discovery of America (volume 3, pp.269-271), in his
discussion of the Tuxtla statuette. Secondly, the LaVenta celts from
offering #4 are inscribed with Olmec characters.These inscriptions come from
an archaeological excavation. The fact that they are analogous to some of the
inscriptions on the Tuxtla statuette and also agree with the Vai syllabary
(see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html) is furthersupport for the Mande origin of Olmec script. Finally, there is a
Malinke-Bambara substratum in the Mayan languages, and also Otomi, which is a
member of the Otomangue family of languages which includes Zoque ( see my web
page on this subject at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919).Moreover, the Mayan term for writing has affinity to the Malinke-Bambara term
for writing. This is significant, because if writing had been passed on from
the Maya to the Olmec by strangers and the word for writing is analogous to
the Mande term for writing writing probably was taught the Maya, by the Mande
speaking people.
The fact that there is no evidence that 1)the Zoque were in the
ancient Olmec land 3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in
Mayan, and 3) there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" falsifies Justenson
and Kaufman hypothesis.
To summarize this section ,we note that the absence of any evidence for Zoque being spoken
in Olmecland 3200 years ago, and the impossibility of a Pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean language
falsifies the Justenson and Kaufman decipherment of Epi-Olmec. The fact that the Mayans claim
that they obtained writing from strangers, and the presence of Mayan terms for writing that are
analogous to the Malinke-Bambara term for writing support a Mande origin for
the Olmec writing. This along with identical writing systems used among the
Olmec and the Mande speaking people, along with engraved artifacts from Olmec
sites depicting these scripts all support and African origin for the Olmec
writing. It should not be forgotten that whereas Zoque lacks a substrata in
the Mayan languages, Malinke-Bambara is a substratum in Quiche and Yucatec
two Mayan languages which were written in Mayan inscriptions. Also, Malinke
is a substratum language in Otomi, which is a member of the Otomanguean
Family of languages to which Zoque belongs. This linguistic evidence suggest
that Malinke-Bambara was probably spoken in Olmecland, and the Mayan and
Otomanguean speakers lexicalized some Malinke-Bambara terms during a period
of extensive bilingualism in ancient times.
These new inscriptions come from a badly weathered and eroded hieroglyphic column. They were found in November 1995 on the side of Stela 1 from La Mojarra a riverine site in southern Veracruz.
The personages recorded in the Mojarra and Tuxtla statuette are not the same. A Governor Tutu
is recorded in the Tuxtla statuette. The text of the Mojarra Stela is about a King Yo Pe.
This is a picture of King Yo Pe form the Mojarra Stela
The Mojarra inscriptions are compound Olmec signs. Compound Olmec signs are signs which are made up of more than one syllabic sign.
We read the signs in this text from top to bottom, outside inside. For example, the first Olmec sign reading the Mojarra short side text from top to bottom is made up of three signs(The Mojarra Side Inscription). The box figure means Po, the three vertical lines inside the box equal tò or se , and the line separating the three vertical lines is the Olmec pronoun i. Thus this sign can be read either as Po i tò "Thou Righteous King " ; or " Po i se " You have realized purity".
In these inscriptions I have translated the word kyu 'hemiphere drum' as hemispheric tomb. I have translated kyu/tyu as hemisphere tomb, because although this term means hemisphere drum today I believe that in Proto-Manding times this term was used to describe the hemispheric tombs built to entomb Olmec kings. This view is supported by the fact that in many Olmec inscriptions Olmec words for habitation are often associated with the use of kyu (see lines 13 and 14).
Below is a transliteration of the the 30 "signs" in the Short Side or B side of the Mojarra stela.
1. Po i tò
Thou (art a) righteous King.
2. I po su ba su
Thou (art) pure. Offer libations to this unique Ba
3. Se gyo
(of) the Se gyo.
4. Po tu Po/ Po da tu Po
The pure grand refuge is smooth
5. ???????
6. Po ku tu
Pure cleansing this refuge
Po gbe tu tu
The santified King and his refuge
7. Po ni tu fa
The pure principal of life is in possession of this abode
8. Ba su
The Ba is vigorous
9. Pe kyu
Prodigious tomb
10. ??????
11. Yo Pe
King Yo Pe
12. Po i tu
Pure (is) thine refuge
13. Se ni gyo tè to nde
[Yo Pe's] Principal of life to realize no vice
(in this) good abode/habitation on terrain near the water
14. Pe kyu
The prodigious tomb
15. Ni tu la
The soul of the King sleeps
or
Ni gyu la
The soul, and spiritual tranquility (is) established
16. Yo be
The vital spirit (has ) been put to bed
17. Po
(In) Purity
18. Yo ngbe Bi
The soul is pure righteousness of the great ancestor
19. Yo Pe
20. Po su
The pure libation
21. Lu kyu lu kyu
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
Hold upright this hemispheric tomb.
22. Be ta gyu
[It] exist in a unique state of spiritual tranquility
23. Po i tu
Pure is thine refuge
24. Yo Pe
25. Po tu
Righteous King
26. Po i ku tu
Thou head the government is pure
27. Ta ki ku gyo ta kye ba gba da
Ta Ki "[This] sacre raising of a star [Yo Pe]
Ku gyo "[is] the summit of righteousness
Ta kye ba "This man [is] great
gba da "[he] glows at this moment
" [Yo Pe] is a raising star. [He is] the summit
of righteousness. This man [Yo Pe] is great. [He]
glows [like a shinning star] at this moment."
28. Da
At this moment
29. Po yo ta fa ta
The pure image of the race and mystic order is full of propriety"
30. Yo Pe Po yo ta fa ta Yo Pe
"The pure image of the race and mystic order, full of
propriety [is] Yo Pe."
In summary, Justeson and Kaufman's translation of this text using Mije-Sokean (Zoquean) fails
to convey the richness of Olmec prose and the deep love and respect that the Olmec gave their
kings. Whereas these scholars translate the new inscriptions as follows:
" Behold, there/he was for 12 years a [title]
And then a garment got folded
He [uttered]
-the stones that he set in order were thus symbols,?kingly ones
What I chopped has been planted and harvested well
(A) shape-shifter(s) appeared divinely in his body(p.208)".
This decipherment by Justeson and Kaufman does not prove that the Mojarra stela is written in Zoquean. The authors translating this inscription admit they still can not read the entire document using pre-proto-Sokean to interpret the alleged epi-Olmec logograms. This translation constrast sharply with my decipherment of the new Mojarra text.
Justeson and Kaufman believe that this long inscription is about "folded garments" , and a dignitary chopping crops while a "shapeshifter" appears in "his body". My decipherment, on the otherhand, based on the authentic language of the Olmecs indicates that the Mojarra Stela was a funerary text, acknowledging the potent mystical power of the Olmec King Yo Pe.