<transmag.htm>                                                                                                                                                                                                                          <Archeology>                            <Index>
|   The Fuente Magna of Pokotia Bolivia [Also see:  Bernardo Biados]     
                   The Fuente Magna bowl
  was found accidentally by a worker from the CHUA Hacienda, property of the
  Manjon family located near Lake Titicaca about 75-80 km from the city of La
  Paz, Bolivia (see Photo). The site
  where it was found had not been studied for artifacts previously. The Fuente
  Magna is beautifully engraved in earthen-brown both inside and out and bears
  zoological motifs and anthropomorphic characters within (Please see  Bernardo
  Biados for further detail).              The
  Bolivian archeologist, don Max Portugal-Zamora, learned of the Fuente Magna’s
  existence around 1958-1960 from his friend Pastor Manjon.  Both gave the site the name it bears today,
  "Fuente Magna" (see Spanish
  account)             A
  controversy arose about the cuneiform script on the Fuente Magna. Dr. Alberto
  Marini, translated it and reported that it was Sumerian..  After a careful examination of the Fuente
  Magna, linear script Dr. Clyde A. Winters determined that it was probably
  Proto-Sumerian, which is found on many artifacts from  in Mesopotamia. An identical script was
  used by the Elamites called Proto-Elamite.             Dr.
  Winters believed that researchers had been unable to read the writing because
  they refused to compare Proto-Elamite and Proto-Sumerian writing with other
  writing systems used in 3000-2000 BC. He compared the writing to the
  Libyco-Berber writing used in the Sahara 5000 years ago. This writing was
  used by the Proto-Dravidians (of the Indus Valley), Proto-Mande ,
  Proto-Elamites and Proto-Sumerians.              These
  people formerly lived in Middle Africa, until the extensive desertification
  of the Sahara began after 3500 BC. A Mr. Rawlinson, was sure that the
  Sumerians had formerly lived in Africa, and he used Semitic and African
  languages spoken in Ethiopia to decipher the cuneiform writing. Rawlins
  called the early dwellers of Mesopotamia: Kushites, because he believed that
  the ancestors of these people were the Western Kushites of Classical
  literature.             Winters
  noted that the Libyco-Berber script couldn’t be read using the Berber
  language, because the Berbers only entered Africa around the time the Vandals
  conquered much of North Africa. Although the Libyco-Berber script cannot be
  read using the Berber language, it can be read using the Mande language. This
  is because the Proto-Mande formerly lived in Libya, until they migrated from
  this area into the Niger valley of West Africa.             The Vai
  script has signs similar to the Libyco-Berber, Indus valley, Linear A of
  Crete, Proto-Elamite and Proto-Sumerian signs. The Vai people spoke a Mande
  language.            
  Using the phonetic values of the Vai script, Dr. Winters has been able
  to decipher the Indus Valley and Linear A writing.  The Sumerian language is closely related to the Dravidian and
  Mande languages, and the Proto-Sumerian , Libyco-Berber and Vai scripts are
  similar.  Thus, it is possible to read
  the script on the Fuente Magna by using the phonetic values of the Vai
  script. Once Winters had transliterated the Fuente Magna signs, he was able
  to translate the inscription using the Sumerian language.             By
  comparing the Fuente Magna scripts and symbols with the Vai writing, Winters
  found many matches. Then after referring to several published works on the
  Sumerian language and writing system, e.g., C.S. Ball, Chinese and Sumerian
  (London, 1913), and John A. Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon, ( http://www.sumerian.org/sumer/ex.htm ), he was able to decipher the Fuente Magna writing.             He found
  that the Fuente Magna inscriptions are in the Proto-Sumerian script, and the
  symbols have several Proto-Sumerian signs joined together to represent words
  and sentences.  He presented two
  figures that separate the Fuente Magna signs into their constituent parts so
  they could be interpreted using the phonetic values of the Vai writing he
  showed the separation of the Fuente Magna signs into their separate parts.              Following
  is a transliteration of the inscriptions on the right side of the Fuente Magna, reading from top to bottom and
  right to left.   1.  Pa ge gi 2.  Mi lu du  3.  I mi ki 4.  me su du 5.  Nia po 6.  Pa 7.  Mash 8.  Nia mi 9.  Du lu gi 10 . Ka me lu 11 . Zi  12 . Nan na pa-I            
  Winters then
  gave the following translation:   "(1)
  Girls take an oath to act justly (this) place. (2) (This is) a favorable oracle of the people. (3) Send forth a just divine decree. (4) The charm (the Fuente Magna) (is) full of Good. (5) The (Goddess) Nia is pure. (6) Take an oath (to her). (7) The Diviner. (8) The divine decree of Nia (is) , (9) to surround the people with Goodness/Gladness. (10) Value the people's oracle. (11) The soul (to), (12) appear as a witness to the [Good that comes from
  faith in the Goddess Nia before] all mankind."             Then the transliteration of the
  inscriptions on the left side
  of the Fuente Magna is as follows: .     1.  Tu ki a
  mash pa 2a . Lu me lu ki mi 2b. 
  Pa be ge 3.  Zi 4.  lu na 5 . ge 6.  du po 7.  I tu po 8. 
  lu mi du             This section was translated as follows
  (please see Figure 3)   " (1)
  Make a libation (this) place for water (seminal fluid?) and seek virtue. (2a) (This is) a great amulet/charm, (2b) (this) place of the people is a phenomenal area of
  the deity [Nia's] power. (3)
  The soul (or breath of life). (4)
  Much incense, (5) to justly,
  (6) make the
  pure libation. (7) Capture
  the pure libation (/or Appear (here) as a witness to the pure libation). (8) Divine good in this phenomenal proximity of the deity's
  power."             This
  decipherment of the inscriptions on the Fuente Magna indicates that it was
  used to make libations to the Goddess Nia to request fertility, and to offer
  thanks to the bountiful fauna and flora in the area that made it possible for
  these Sumerian explorers to support themselves in Bolivia.             Of
  particular interest is that the people of the Fuente Magna, referred to the
  Goddess as Nia. Nia, is the Linear-A term for Neith. Neith is the Greek name
  for the Egyptian Goddess Nt or Neit, Semitic Anat. This goddess was very
  popular among the ancient people of Libya and other parts of Middle Africa,
  before these people left the region to settle Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley
  and Minoan Crete.              Dr.
  Winters noted that his translation of the Fuente Magna inscriptions supports
  the hypothesis of Awen Dawn that the Fuente was used in celebration of the
  Goddess religion of the ancient people of Bolivia. Awen Dawn recognized that
  the figure on the Fuente Magna was in a Goddess pose, with open arms and legs
  spread, which supports Winters’ translation..  In addition, the identification of symbols on the bowl by Awen
  that relate to European signs for the Mother Goddess, probably reflects the
  early influence of the Goddess Neith on the mainland of Greece and Crete.             It is
  believed that the Fuente Magna was probably crafted by Sumerian people who
  settled in Bolivia sometime after 2500 BC. The Sumerians used seaworthy ships
  that were known to sail to the distant Indian Subcontinent.  Some Sumerian ships most likely made their
  way around South Africa and entered one of the currents in the area that lead
  from Africa across the Atlantic to South America and thence to the Pacific
  Ocean.  They would have then searched
  for areas on the high plateau of Bolivia where food was being produced by the
  local inhabitants.  They held the bowl
  in high esteem and were fastidious about its transport around the area (see Transportaciόn) It should be noted that
  there was one challenge to the authenticity of the Fuente Magna by skeptics
  who suggested that it was a fabrication by archeologists to gain
  international attention.  The
  overwhelming support from the major portion of the academic community should
  discredit this criticism, as it has in times past when challenges arose to
  the existence of any writing at all in the Americas (e.g., that of the Olmec
  and Maya).   |