[Why our area has its unique political and religious attitudes.]
We are continuing to pursue the first people in our area from pre-historic time. Archaeologists have developed a significant record from artifacts. The history of these Original Americans is just now being written.
What does a pig trough have to do with the Original Americans?
The Fuente Magna large bowl, of apparent stone, with pictographs and a cuneiform type writing, lived high in the Andes near Lake Titicaca until the late 1950s. Not unlike the Rosetta stone, the artifact allows comparison of proto-Sumerian (early Sumerian) and the Pukara language of the local proto-Tiahuanaco people.
Proto-Sumerian is similar to proto-Elamite, Indus valley (Dravidian), Crete (Linear A), Vai (Mande), and North Africa (Libyco-Berber) languages. In other words, it is the languages of the ancient world.
Dating for the bowl, a vestige of ancient civilization, is circa 5000 years ago.
The relic discovery was by a farmer working on the estate of a Pastor Manjon, who named the area Fuente Magna. Manjon and the government recognized the significance. In exchange for land near La Paz, the family transferred the bowl to the Museo de los Metales Preciosos (Museum of Precious Metals).
After 40 years in storage, two Bolivian archeologists tracked down a 92-year-old local, Maximiliano. He recognized the photos and informed the researchers that he used the bowl to feed his pigs.
How thin is the line for preservation of antiquity?
Dr. Clyde Ahmed Winters, a well-recognized ancient language authority, used the Vai and Sumerian languages to translate the bowl engravings. Dr. Winters and others deciphered the cuneiform. The translation indicates the bowl was for libations to the goddess Nia for fertility and as thanks for the plentiful wildlife and plants.
Who is Nia? She was the goddess of fertility, a popular goddess across the Mediterranean region. Nia is the Crete/Minoan form. Neith is the Greek. Nt/Neit is the Egyptian form. Anat is Semitic.
Other researchers understand the predominant sign as the goddess pose with open arms and legs spread. Other symbols relate to the European version of the Mother Goddess. The symbols are not unlike figurines uncovered at Poverty Point. Areas use available material to record their history.
In every archaeological research, two sides arise, one that supports the hypotheses and one that rejects the premise. Unfortunately, expectation bias rears its head when tradition becomes challenged.
In the case of the Fuente Magna bowl, the contrarian view seems to have three arguments: lack of provenance; although similar, there are multiple translations; the bowl is a hoax, since there is no supporting evidence of a community.
Having repeatedly addressed comparable issues within the legal setting of failure analysis and research, those are largely ëmud on the wallí to see what sticks.
The “provenance demands” presume the entire earth has undergone excavation by professional archaeologists and all the data is available. In our growing-up years and later doing research along the ancient shore-lines, venerable artifacts were frequently found, uniquely without any other items and without digging. How many people over 60 years have found arrowheads? Those illustrations are examples of an age-old artifact without provenance and without a community of evidence.
Provenance is highly desirable, since the researcher has a track record and does not have to authenticate the item. Even with provenance, contrarians still dismiss the hypothesis.
As far as language translation, that is almost specious. The proffered languages are related, not unlike Latin and Spanish. When reading old language, variations occur and value of words transition over time. The proposed translations are similar. The contrarian views cannot even agree on the meaning of the clearly Spanish name of Fuente Magna. The denigration will continue.
Nevertheless, the bowl in now in a museum, where protected and further research can come through adequate funding. The ancient-language analysts’ research and credentials has made the bowl now a largely accepted artifact.
Not dissimilar artifacts abounded at Spiro Mounds on the bank of the Arkansas River in eastern Oklahoma. The problem with excavations is the architecture undergoes destruction and any overlying cultures are lost, since these are seldom meticulously recorded. Consequently, we have entered a preservation society where excavation is largely restricted, so any revelations remain buried and hidden.
Like Watson Brake and the Inga Stone, the Magna Fuente bowl links original settlement of the Americas directly to the eastern Mediterranean and a Sumerian descendent culture. We have multiple records of their ventures. There is more to come.
How we address this incredible new data largely depends on the worldview of history. The premise that society evolved from ignorant cavemen appears erroneous. The better hypothesis is that society devolved from early civilization.
History suffers a precarious position. After school, few people read or study the topic. New revelations do not make the evening news. Writers seldom release books, since novels sell much better. Articles are the most common vehicle to reach a wide audience.
Think about 4000-3000 BCE: How many artifacts exist? How many have been identified? How many disappeared unknowingly?