The document analyzes the book 'The New Trinity: Blood-Fetishism, Blood-Catharsis, Blood-Donation,' discussing its impact and limitations in presenting the history of Mesoamerica from 2000 BCE to 1521 CE without integrating recent archaeological findings. It raises critical questions about cultural and demographic migrations between South and North America, the origins of agricultural practices, and the movement of languages and cultural elements across regions, particularly in relation to the cultivation of cacao and maize. The author emphasizes the need for a broader exploration of historical contexts, linguistic diversity, and the influence of migration on the development of civilizations.

2. The New Trinity:
Blood-Fetishism – Blood-
Catharsis – Blood-Donation
This book which was republished seven times between 1962 and 2013, and got its eighth
edition in 2018, must satisfy a need in its market to be that successful. It is a book that targets
various audiences. Not the extremely competent specialized researchers on the subject, but the
wide public – though educated probably at college level, and then the more specialized people who
are more than just interested, like people in the tourist industry, or ^people who want to travel to
Mexico, though less involved than in deep research on the topic.
I will look at this book from this educated and deeply interested point of view of an audience
with at least two years of college education in history and archaeology/anthropology, but not too
much in linguistics. The 2013 edition I am working on, of course, does not consider what has been
brought to light in the last ten years. These recent discoveries bring up new questions. Most of the
time, these questions are kept on the side of the main discourse as a footnote or a comment that is
not developed. I will give some examples. The original author, and then the second author-editor
want to be factual, descriptive, and explanatory enough for the readers to follow what is a timeline
from ca. 2000 BCE to precisely AD 1521, the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards.
The timeline is explicit about the sequential positions of the different people. Olmecs first,
then the Zapotecs, the Toltecs, the Mixtecs, the Huastecs, the Tarascans, and the Aztecs; Some, if
not all, overlap over the previous one or the next one. The Mayas are mentioned but marginally.
That’s probably an element that, in a way, warps the presentation. Michael Coe is thinking
phylogenetically, and he is trying to find the various stages of this evolution in Mexico, but he only
covers a very precise period, from 2000 BCE to the Conquest in 1521. But there is no phylogeny
that does not consider what was before the starting point, and what the context is, hence the wider
geographical area that contains Mexico but goes somewhat beyond in two essential directions,
south and north. First South, to South America, and that is less than we may think, or from South
America north, and here the real situation is vastly underrepresented in this book. Second from
North America south, and it is mostly little, except from Southwest North America, and to North
America, and this time the cultural and demographic circulation in that direction has not been
explored the way it should be, and it is too often reduced to the Southwest region of this North
America. When I ask these questions, I consider a vast movement from South America to North
America, from South to North, has to be stated and explored, and Mexico is, in fact, the meeting
point, or meeting territory between the movement from South to North and the movement from
North to South, and the first one is a lot more important than the second. This movement is
confirmed by agriculture that started in Bolivian Amazonia 6,000 years before the period
considered in this book in Mexico:
“Southwest Amazonia has been confirmed as one of the earliest centers of plant
domestication in the world. From their arrival 10,000 years ago, human inhabitants in what
is now Llanos de Moxos in northern Bolivia created thousands of artificial forest islands as
they tamed wild plants to produce food […]. They began growing manioc and squash, a
development the researchers suggest is as significant as the cultivation of rice in China,
grains and pulses in the Middle East, maize, beans and squash in Mesoamerica, and
potatoes and quinoa in the Andes. The international team undertook a large-scale analysis

3. of 61 archaeological sites identified by remote sensing, retrieving samples from 30 forest
islands and carrying out archaeological excavations in four of them.”
(“Amazonian crops domesticated 10,000 years ago,” Cosmos Magazine, 9 April
2020, https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/amazonian-crops-domesticated-10000-years-
ago/, Original, Lombardo, U., Iriarte, J., Hilbert, L. et al. “Early Holocene crop cultivation and
landscape modification in Amazonia,” Nature 581, 190–193 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2162-7 )
But let’s go back to Mexico. The “archaic” farming and hunting-gathering period have no
origin. One, where did these people come from? Two, what heritage did they bring along for both
hunting-gathering and farming? Three, what languages did they speak, and what was the historical
phylogeny of these languages, of these people’s linguistic practice before they arrived in Mexico,
and you have to start from Black Africa? One thing is sure – but not in the book – these people did
not come from Mexico. They probably left Black Africa something like between 150,000 and
120,000 years ago with the second migration out of Black Africa, maybe for some of them around
70,000-50,000 years ago with the third and last migration out of Black Africa. What was their route
and how did they end up in the Americas? Where did these populations in Mexico that mostly
came from the south, arrive in South America, in Peru and Bolivia, particularly the upper Amazonia
and the Andes, not to mention Chile? This question has been crucial since the San Lorenzo
Olmecs, the first “civilization” considered here cultivating “Kakwa” ( cacao to produce chocolate).
“KaKaWa, Chocolhaa, Xocolatl, Cacao…It All tastes Like Chocolate!”
By Edith Bermudez|12 February 2018
https://www.iaf.gov/content/story/kakawa-chocolhaa-xocolatl-cacaoit-all-tastes-like-
chocolate/#:~:text=The%20Maya%20loved%20cacao%2C%20and,the%20people%20after
%20human%20creation
“Native to the deep tropical regions of Central and South America, cacao was a
special product even before Europeans arrived on the continent. The Maya loved cacao,
and the word itself comes from the Mayan word “KaKaWa.” According to Mayan tradition,
their god Kukulkan (“Feathered Serpent”), one of the most important gods in Mesoamerica,
provided cacao to the people after human creation. The Aztecs have a similar story, but
their god Quetzalcoatl came from the sky to give them cacao.”
ka-ka-wa (kakaw) (T25.25:738c:130) > noun "cacao," "chocolate." John
Montgomery
Dictionary of Maya Hieroglyphs,
http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/dictionary/montgomery/index.html
.
This chocolate was used for rituals and elite consumption. We are only 1350 BCE or so.
Where did the cacao tree come from? Local or imported, and if imported, from where? But the
Mayas had chocolate several centuries earlier, around 1500 BCE. We know the cacao tree of the
Mayas was a local cacao tree that the Mayas had domesticated. But we discovered recently that
chocolate was archaeologically present among the Bolivian Amazonians around 3500-3000 BCE,
and that the Indians there used a local cacao tree to produce their chocolate. They domesticated
this tree, but apparently, did not export it, certainly not to the Mayas. What about the Olmecs and
other Mexican Indians? And it is not only the plant, but it is the know-how to cultivate, not to
mention domesticate, the plant, harvest the beans, process the beans and produce the chocolate
in the end. Cultural elements do not travel alone, and in those days, there were no means of
communication like radio, television, or the Internet, and there was no writing, hence, no
“Chocolate almanac.” So, there must have been some movement of population to transport the
know-how and the cultural value of the plant and the beverage, not to mention the use of the beans
as some kind of currency confirmed in a side remark by Coe in Mexico, vastly used by the Mayas,
and nowadays studied by academics, and probably – for me at least – used as currency among
the Amazonians.

4. Culture does not travel backward in time, and it does not travel all by itself. We are
speaking here of a cultural demographic migration enabling the circulation and spreading of such
cultural practices. But asking the question about the Olmecs is leading to the next question: where
did the Bolivian Amazonians come from and what were their language(s) and cultural heritage(s)
when they arrived in Amazonia (Think of Monte Verde in the extreme south of Chile,
archaeologically dated at the level of the second layer of the site, with one third deeper layer to go,
as going back to 25,000 BCE: What happened to them and where were they coming from?)? The
idea that they came from Alaska meets with an important obstacle: the oldest archaeological
evidence of the presence of migrating Indians in Alaska, this time definitely from Siberia, is dated
25,000 BCE. From Alaska to Monte Verde in ZERO year sounds difficult. No serious exploration of
a route from Southeast Asia where a vast migration in the South Pacific developed long before (the
Aboriginals of Australia are archaeologically proved as being established there around 50,000 BCE
among others), a route to Chile has ever been studied. Such studies stopped in Australia with the
Aboriginals, and all studies in New Zealand are blocked by a political decision because the
remnants of archaic humans are not in phase with the official approach that does not go beyond
the Māoris. Beyond it is a no man’s land entirely forbidden, and after Easter island or Hawaii, the
objection is: How can they go on to Chile? Did anyone really ask the question of how the
Aborigines managed to reach Madagascar where the basic language is not an African language,
but a language connected to that of the Aboriginals? Just back to cacao for a minute. We can
assume the Bolivian Amazonians developed the domesticating and the cultivating of the plant, the
processing of the beans, and the producing of chocolate, the beverage, by their own means from
scratch, based on previous domestications, cultivations, and processing like with pumpkins, beans,
and potatoes. I will not raise the question of tobacco. That must have taken time. How long? So,
when did they start if chocolate was available around 3500-3000 BCE? They started probably soon
after arriving here in Amazonia. So, when did they arrive to have enough time to be able to
produce chocolate by 3500 BCE?

5. But that leads us to the case of maize which is one hundred times more complicated since
the maize we are speaking of is NOT a wild plant, but a plant that was derived by various “genetic”
manipulations from the wild plants (there are several different species in Mexico). How did the
Mesoamerican Indians do it? How long did it take? With all our genetic engineering, we cannot
reproduce this “mutation” (in fact a whole set of mutations). And then there is the cooking of it with
ashes to make this maize edible. How did they find that out? True enough, the same problem
exists with manioc, but manioc was domesticated in Bolivia again. Not speaking of this case
enables Coe not to speak of the status of the Maize God who is central among the Mayas. What or
who is he in Mexico? The book mentions him a couple of times, but it does not develop the subject.
But it is important to mention another line of research, this time in mythology that will bring
us back to Southeast Asia. Julien d’Huy has just published an article on the fundamental question
we are dealing with here. The article is “At the Origin of Flood Mythologies: Synthesis of Three
papers,” published in The Retrospective Methods Network (RMN) Newsletter, in 2020-2021. He
notes that some elements (we could call mythemes) are absent in North America and present in
South America, and that is in phase with, in the first case, these Indians in North America coming
from Siberia where the same mythemes are absent, but, in the second case, in South America, the
specific elements in question can only be found in a route that starts in Southeast Asia and then
moves east in the Southern Pacific. But this migration stops in Polynesia, and we have an
unaccounted-for big jump to South America. Cultural elements and among them mythological
elements do not travel alone. They must be carried by human beings, and by the way, in specific
languages. To explain the presence of these elements in South America and their absence in
North America, Julien d’Huy suggests that the population concerned in Southeast Asia moved a
little bit – that looks like a big bit to me, with quite a few varied populations along the way, some
that would probably be hostile – to the north to be able to cross into the Americas from Siberia to
Alaska and then they would have gone on moving to South America, apparently leaving nothing
behind them among their fellow migrants from Siberia. We have to consider there must have been
a way for that big jump to Chile to be possible, even if the currents – alone – could not be used.
But let me shift to another point. The pyramids or pyramidal buildings and the special urban
layout of the cities in Mexico started with the Olmecs in Mexico. Pyramids are very present and
spectacular among the Mayas, but Coe does not speak of them, or hardly. But he does not speak
either, and this time not at all, of the presence of pyramids in Amazonia, under the jungle
vegetation discovered by satellite pictures. We are speaking of several dozen, if not one hundred
or more, structures of this type and they are a lot older than those in Mexico. But even older
pyramids are present in Peru in the valleys of the rivers running down from the Andes. The case of
Caral with a vast complex of pyramids that are 100 years older than the Egyptian pyramids, a
civilization based on the cultivation of cotton, the production of fishing nets they sold to the
fishermen along the coast for fish, and then they exchanged some of that fish and their cotton
wares and other products with the population up in the Andes. Once again, we see here an older
cultural product moving from the south to the north. After the Andes, we have Amazonia, and then
those pyramids, know-how, culture, and urban planning moved north to Mesoamerica. Once again,
the cultural movement had to be carried by men and women, by migrating people – or merchants.
“This Little-Known Peruvian Civilization Built Pyramids as Old as Ancient Egypt's,”
The Sacred City of Caral-Supe, in central coastal Peru, boasts an impressive
complex of ancient monumental architecture constructed around 2600 B.C., roughly the
same time as the earliest Egyptian pyramid. Archaeologists consider Caral one of the
largest and most complex urban centers built by the oldest known civilization in the Western
Hemisphere.
The 1,500-acre site, situated 125 miles north of Lima and 14 miles from the Pacific
coast, features six ancient pyramids, sunken circular plazas and giant staircases, all sitting
on a windswept desert terrace overlooking the green floodplains of the winding Supe River.
Its largest pyramid, also known as Pirámide Mayor, stands nearly 100 feet tall, with a base
that covers an area spanning roughly four football fields. Radiocarbon dating on organic
matter throughout the site has revealed it to be roughly between 4,000 to 5,000 years old,

6. making its architecture as old—if not older—than the Step Pyramid of Saqqara, the oldest
known pyramid in ancient Egypt.”
Ratha Tep, a frequent contributor to The New York Times, in History, August
6, 2021, https://www.history.com/news/caral-peru-norte-chico-oldest-civilization-western-
hemisphere
That’s what is missing in this approach to Mexico, its deeper roots in South America, and
beyond, to Asia, in my hypothesis Southeast Asia.
But as a linguist, I am mort frustrated by the reduced space given to the languages of these
peoples and their writing systems. I would have preferred an approach to communication among
these various peoples who spoke different languages. What are these languages, and what are
their characteristics (not now but then)? What is the proportion of ergative languages, because
ergativeness is fundamental within religion in general and the sacrificial religious practices these
peoples had? I am all the more surprised because Michael Coe is highly competent in the fields, at
least with Maya. I heard Marcus Maia, President of the International Society for Applied Linguistics,
wondering in a colloquium if we knew what the fact that most or at least many languages in
Amazonia are ergative languages, would mean for the readiness and even will to intervene in a
world that is crushing them since their languages state that the potential actors, agents of the
actions, are second behind the element that is submitted to this action, thus rejecting the potential
agents in a submissive and contemplative psychogenetic behavior. Michael Coe spends a lot of
time on the sacrificial practices, listing them more than describing them, and this makes them
sound and look less cruel – and this word is a modern anachronistic moral condemnation: a word
like ”physical,” or “ demanding,” maybe “exacting” would be more in line with the reality at the time
– than they are. Imagine the flaying of a live person, the flaying from top to toe I mean. And this
skin will be worn by a priest for twenty days or more to satisfy the need for human blood of a god of
any sort. The book forgets to say the flaying starts with a live specimen. And Coe does not insist
on self-sacrifice, self-bloodletting, one individual shedding his or her own blood from his penis, their
ears, her tongue (most often for women), or other parts of their bodies, with various instruments
like the stinger of a stingray or some jade knife. The self-sacrificer-sacrificees collect their blood on
pieces of paper and then they burn these blood-imbibed papers to the god for whom the self-
sacrifice has been performed, and very few documents state these self-sacrifices have to be
performed in public, with a small or big audience.

7. But even so, the main point for me is that any ritual uses ritualistic language and the
languages of the peoples concerned are then seriously at stake. And that’s my point here. In all the
numerous studies I have read on Maya and other languages, the question of the relation between
the speaker and the actions he describes is not studied from the simple following perspective:
when a speaker states that he is doing, he has to do, he wants to do some action like this ritualistic
blood-letting, does he states his agency, his absolute control of the actions concerned, or does he
expresses in a way or another that he accepts to experience this action that is both his fate, the
result of the decision of his god, the result of a set of rules and rituals he has to respect, and “like it
or not” is not even a possible option; He has to do it. Coe mentions the seven obligations of the
lord who is going to sacrifice a war prisoner of his. He has to provide the prisoner with the best
food, the best drinks, the best women, the best clothing, the best of everything, and what has to go
along with these seven bests, and it is only then that the sacrifice can happen. Dennis Tedlock
published, in 2003, the translation of a Maya play on exactly this subject, Rabinal Achi, A Maya
Drama of War and Sacrifice. The play is of course a very old play that was kept in the memory of
some Maya communities, and it is being revived in modern Maya as close as what it was before
the conquest. We feel this play, this topic, is utterly frightening, but the ritualistic language used in
such a situation, the ritualistic obligations towards the future sacrificee, and the symmetrical
obligations of the future sacrificee towards his sacrificer he has to thank for the honor he does him
by providing these seven best luxurious goods, all that may explain why war prisoners would
accept to get into a ball game in which they are bound to lose anyway, and they will then be
submitted to all sorts of tortures to bring the losing players to death. The sacrificed war prisoners
are honored as courageous since they complied with their destiny: they did not cry, they did not
yell, and they did not rebel.
With the Aztecs, we seem to have reached a blood cult, and this word is the only one that
fits the situation. It is an honor to provide your god or the god of the king who defeated you with the
blood he, the god of course who might be a goddess, needs to receive to be able to keep the
cosmos running, hence to keep life going and to provide the people concerned with what they need
to go on living, provided they in their turn offer their blood-self-sacrifice to boost the concerned god
in his benevolence, to boost the satisfaction of the cosmos that needs these satisfied gods to go on
running.
But the point is that we do not see it is true in all societies, including ours, even if in our
societies it is mostly – and at times massively with the cinema, television, and the Internet –
cathartic. We all need our share of blood catharsis every day, and our pound of raw, uncooked,
uncured flesh every morning at breakfast. But bring this extremely strong belief that god requires
this blood into an ergative language, and the power of the ritual belief becomes irreversible,
irresistible, and irrepressible. The speaker is living in a language where he is denied all agency
since it is his/her/our/ your/their objectified passivity that supports the verbal action. The agent is
not the self-sacrificee who sheds his blood. It is not even the concerned god who is only the force
that takes the self-sacrificee along. It is the blood itself that becomes the central actor that dictates
to the self-sacrificee what he/she/we/you/they has/have to do, dictates from so deep in
his/her/our/your/their flesh, so deep in his/her/our/your/their mind(s) that he/she/we/you/they
is/are carried into doing it by some trance-like impulse. By yielding to this impulse, the self-
sacrificee becomes the fuel of life, but it is the very object of this sacrifice, the blood, which
becomes the real manipulator, the real agent, the master of the ceremony. In Maya writing, you
find very often in many glyphs a small string of three round beads attached to any part of the
concerned glyph. This a symbol that designates bleeding, self-bleeding, the offering of
his/her/our/your/their blood to the higher forces that make him/her/us/you/them experience the
impulse to liberate his/her/our/your/their blood that takes over the mastering of the situation.
What I say here is fundamental. An ergative language is the tool of such a submission, and
any ritualistic language of any religion – including Buddhism when it is wrongly understood –
creates that ergative submissive catharsis that may even for some become hypnosis. And we
have to understand it is perfectly true with agentive languages like English. Our agentive language
becomes our ergative destiny by the reference to a law, to commandments, to tantras we repeat
along with the prayer mill that turns in our heads. If god in his or her wisdom tells me to accept to

8. suffer this or that or to accept to do this or that on such and such a person, or animal, or whatever
is alive, I just follow the commandment.
But – and I won’t develop – that god or goddess can perfectly well be a political party of any
color or affiliation, even perfectly democratic parties; a philosopher like Marcel Gauchet or Karl
Marx (Proletarians of all countries unite! And that’s an order, a prescription that is valid for all
times, and all human beings since we are all proletarians, except those who own the means of
production and will be eliminated soon by the proletarian revolution); a seer or prophet of any sort,
why nor a poet; an atheistic layman of any secular institution; one member of your family; one
player in your football team; or absolutely anyone you “want,” if then you can call that “to want”
since you become a submissive pawn on the chessboard of this person. Deep in our minds, we all
have a Big Brother, or a Little Father of the Peoples, or a Make America Great Again, even if this
“emblematic figure” is the one evoked by your own son or daughter who will sell you to the closest
Police of the Mind for a simple badge to be worn on his or her lapel. We could conclude that this is
mental fetishism, what the Buddha called “tanha” or “excessive attachment” to anything or anyone,
in this case, “blood tanha/fetichism” and the only solution is to counter it with some “blood
catharsis.” Is there a third term in this bipolar dual pair? Maybe “blood donation.”
A beautiful book with pretty illustrations, and if you try to delve into these cultures, you
might finally understand that ergative war wants to make us believe it is inevitable, hence the
ergative object of the future. Let us ask the book to give us the final ergative poem we need for the
road.

9. With flowers You paint,
O giver of life!
With songs You give color,
with songs You shade
those who will live on the earth.
Later You will destroy eagles and jaguars:
we live only in Your painting
here, on the earth.
With black ink You will blot out
all that was friendship,
brotherhood, nobility.
You give shading
to those who will live on the earth.
We live only in Your book of paintings,
here on the earth.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

11. VERSION FRANÇAISE COURTE
LA NOUVELLE TRINITÉ :
FÉTICHISME DE SANG - CATHARSIS
DE SANG - DONATION DE SANG.
Ce livre qui a été réédité sept fois entre 1962 et 2013, et a atteint sa huitième édition en
2018, doit répondre à un besoin sur son marché pour avoir un tel succès. C'est un livre qui
s'adresse à différents publics. Pas les chercheurs spécialisés extrêmement compétents sur le
sujet, mais le grand public - bien qu'éduqué probablement à niveau universitaire, et puis les
personnes plus spécialisées qui sont plus qu'intéressées, comme les gens de l'industrie
touristique, ou les personnes qui veulent voyager au Mexique, bien que moins impliquées que
dans une recherche approfondie sur le sujet.
Je vais considérer ce livre de ce point de vue éduqué et profondément intéressé d'un public
ayant au moins deux ans d'études universitaires en histoire et en archéologie/anthropologie, mais
pas trop en linguistique. L'édition 2013 sur laquelle je travaille ne tient, bien sûr, pas compte de ce
qui a été mis en lumière au cours des dix dernières années. Ces découvertes récentes soulèvent
de nouvelles questions. La plupart du temps, ces questions, quand elles apparaissent, restent à
l'écart du discours principal, comme des notes de bas de page ou un commentaire marginal qui
n'est pas développé. Je vais donner quelques exemples. L'auteur original, puis le second auteur-
rédacteur veulent être suffisamment factuels, descriptifs et explicatifs pour que les lecteurs
puissent suivre ce qui est une ligne du temps allant d'environ 2000 avant JC à précisément 1521
après JC, date de la conquête du Mexique par les Espagnols.
La chronologie est explicite quant aux positions séquentielles des différents peuples. Les
Olmecs d'abord, puis les Zapotecs, les Toltecs, les Mixtecs, les Huastecs, les Tarascans et les
Aztecs ; certains, sinon tous, chevauchent le précédent ou le suivant. Les Mayas sont mentionnés
mais de façon marginale. C'est probablement un élément qui, d'une certaine manière, fausse la
présentation. Michael Coe raisonne de manière phylogénétique, et il essaie de retrouver les
différentes étapes de cette évolution au Mexique, mais il ne couvre qu'une période très précise, de
2000 avant notre ère à la Conquête en 1521. Mais il n'y a pas de phylogénie qui ne tienne pas
compte de ce qui était avant le point de départ, et du contexte, donc de la zone géographique plus
large qui contient le Mexique mais qui va un peu au-delà dans deux directions essentielles, le sud
et le nord. D'abord le sud, vers l'Amérique du Sud, et c'est moins que ce que l'on peut penser, ou
depuis l'Amérique du Sud vers le nord, et ici la situation réelle est largement sous-représentée
dans ce livre. Ensuite, de l'Amérique du Nord vers le sud, et c'est très peu, sauf du sud-ouest de
l'Amérique du Nord, et vers l'Amérique du Nord, et cette fois la circulation culturelle et
démographique dans cette direction n'a pas été explorée comme elle aurait dû l'être, et elle est
trop souvent réduite à la région sud-ouest de cette Amérique du Nord. Quand je pose ces
questions, je considère qu'un vaste mouvement de l'Amérique du Sud vers l'Amérique du Nord, du
Sud vers le Nord, doit être énoncé et exploré, et le Mexique est, en fait, le point de rencontre, ou le
territoire de rencontre entre le mouvement du Sud vers le Nord et le mouvement du Nord vers le
Sud, et le premier est beaucoup plus important que le second. Ce mouvement est confirmé par
l'agriculture qui a commencé en Amazonie bolivienne 6 000 ans avant la période considérée dans
ce livre au Mexique :

12. "Le sud-ouest de l'Amazonie a été confirmé comme l'un des premiers centres de
domestication des plantes au monde. Dès leur arrivée, il y a 10 000 ans, les habitants
humains de ce qui est aujourd'hui les Llanos de Moxos, dans le nord de la Bolivie, ont créé
des milliers d'îlots forestiers artificiels tout en apprivoisant les plantes sauvages pour
produire de la nourriture [...]. Ils ont commencé à cultiver du manioc et des courges, une
évolution qui, selon les chercheurs, est aussi importante que la culture du riz en Chine, des
céréales et des légumineuses au Moyen-Orient, du maïs, des haricots et des courges en
Méso-Amérique, et des pommes de terre et du quinoa dans les Andes. L'équipe
internationale a entrepris une analyse à grande échelle de 61 sites archéologiques
identifiés par télédétection, en prélevant des échantillons dans 30 îlots forestiers et en
effectuant des fouilles archéologiques dans quatre d'entre eux."
("Amazonian crops domesticated 10,000 years ago ", Cosmos Magazine, 9 avril 2020,
https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/amazonian-crops-domesticated-10000-years-ago/,
Article original, Lombardo, U., Iriarte, J., Hilbert, L. et al. " Early Holocene crop cultivation
and landscape modification in Amazonia ", Nature 581, 190-193 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2162-7).
[...]
Un beau livre avec de nombreuses illustrations, et si vous essayez de vous plonger dans
ces cultures, vous pourriez enfin comprendre que la guerre ergative veut nous faire croire qu'elle
est inévitable, et donc l'objet ergatif du futur. Demandons au livre de nous donner le dernier poème
ergatif dont nous avons besoin pour la route et dans le quel nous, les sujets et agents de nos vies,
ne sommes plus que des illustrations dans le livre d’images du cosmos que le principe fondateur
de ce cosmos que certains diront créateur comme si nous étions les personnages d’un jeu
électronique entre les mains d’extraterrestres d’une cinquième ou sixième dimension.
Avec des fleurs Tu peins
O Donneur de vie !
Avec des chansons Tu donnes de la couleur,
Avec des chansons Tu ombres
ceux qui veulent vivre sur la terre.
Plus tard, Tu détruiras les aigles et les jaguars :
nous ne vivons que dans Ton tableau
ici, sur la terre.
Avec de l'encre noire, Tu effaceras
tout ce qui n’était qu’amitié,
fraternité, noblesse.
Tu donnes de l'ombre
à ceux qui veulent vivre sur la terre.
Nous ne vivons que dans Ton livre d‘esquisses,
ici sur la terre.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU