Timbuktu Manuscripts Not As Burned As Reported | Hacker News Reader

Timbuktu Manuscripts Not As Burned As Reported

tombouctoumanuscripts.org

40 pointsdmoney21 comments

Ironically,

during the period of French colonial domination of Timbuktu (1894–1959), many manuscripts were seized and burned by the colonialists, and as a result, many families there still refuse access to researchers for fear of a new era of pillaging.

http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php?option=com_con...

All but 3 of the aztec's books were burnt by the Spanish after they conquered Mexico.

Semi relevant, but Aztecs did not use books in quite the same way we do. They were mostly illustrations or symbolic glyphs and the real information was passed on orally[1].

I've never heard anything about burning of such books though. Do you have a source you could share?

[1] http://www.plu.edu/~tother/essays/ethnohistory-how.html

It was the Mayan books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices

It's difficult to find conclusive information on this by just a little googling.

On one hand: 'Spanish missionaries deliberately destroyed the few written court and legal records that existed because they were considered to be heretical. Other legal manuscripts were burned by Spanish troops for fuel' [1]

On the other hand, the 4th Aztec emperor seems to have burned Aztec history books as a political move: 'According to the Florentine Codex, Itzcoatl ordered the burning of all historical codices because it was "not wise that all the people should know the paintings". Among other purposes, this allowed the Aztec state to develop a state-sanctioned history and mythos that venerated Huitzilopochtli.' [2]

[1] http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_legal.htm...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzcoatl

You may actually be referring to Mayan books instead:

There were many such books in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest of Yucatán in the 16th century, but they were destroyed in bulk by the Conquistadors and priests soon after. In particular, all those in Yucatán were ordered destroyed by Bishop Diego de Landa in July of 1562. De Landa wrote: "We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction." Such codices were primary written records of Maya civilization, together with the many inscriptions on stone monuments and stelae that survived. [1]

As for the Aztecs, interestingly, many of their books were burned prior to the Spanish invasion:

Two of the primary architects of the Aztec empire were the half-brothers Tlacaelel and Montezuma I, nephews of Itzcoatl. Moctezuma I succeeded Itzcoatl as Hueyi Tlatoani in 1440. Although he was also offered the opportunity to be tlatoani, Tlacaelel preferred to operate as the power behind the throne. Tlacaelel reformed the Aztec state and religion. According to some sources, he ordered the burning of most of the extant Aztec books claiming that they contained lies. He thereupon rewrote the history of the Aztec people, thus creating a common awareness of history for the Aztecs. [2]

In any case, there are more than 3 Aztec codices in existence now. [3]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices#Background

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Rise_of_the_Triple_Allian...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices

You may actually be referring to Mayan books instead:…

Oh you're right, that's the one. I knew it was that area & time.

I wonder if they would be opposed to allowing Google or some other big book digitizing company to scan the manuscripts to preserve electronic copies in case of disaster?

It would do wonders as far as allowing the world to take a peek at the ancient texts, keep at least some trace of them safe in case the originals were lost, and it would be good PR if Google or somebody like that "saved" them digitally.

from what I read they actually ARE scanning the manuscripts. But the problem is those books are really old and you can't just use any average book scanner.

The manuscripts are already being digitised by the Timbouctou Manuscripts Project (the source of this article), hosted at the University of Cape Town and funded by the Ford Foundation. Those already digitised are available in their database [0], sometimes with accompanying translations.

This is part of South Africa's assistance to Mali, dating from 2001, to preserve and study the manuscripts by funding and building the new Ahmed Baba Institute building (the one damaged by rebels) with the equipment to prevent further degradation of the manuscripts and digitise them, giving Malian conservationists further training at the National Archives in Pretoria and setting up research projects.

Aside from something as drastic as the possibility of another civil war, the manuscripts are the safest they've been in years.

[0]http://www.tombouctoumanuscripts.org/db/

Its amazing there's entire groups of people who are so anti-knowledge. I don't see how you can do some introspection and not realize its a backwards stance.

Please don't be so gullible as to take the Western media's narrative without a grain of salt; The only reason for burning the manuscripts is as a provocation, that is, because they are highly valued. Not to mention the fact that it now seems (As the article reveals), that the provocation (the "hoax") was mostly made by the other side.

I don't mean in just this instance, I'm talking the suppression of knowledge and learning throughout many areas of the globe. It would seem doubtful that the rebels are planning on revitalizing the role that Timbuktu had in learning during the Mali empire.

Idolatry, or fear there of, is another very real reason for burning old manuscripts. You don't have look further than Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to see modern examples of cultural artifacts being destroyed and justified by religious arguments.

The OP makes it clear that the manuscripts were not destroyed only because of the good work that was done to hide them before and during the Ansar Dine occupation and because most had not yet been moved to the new building. Some manuscripts did not survive and were destroyed, the good news is that more were not.

Nor is Ansar Dine too noble for such destruction, as they have destroyed UNESCO World Heritage sites on religious grounds before[0] and have plainly stated that they'll destroy anything they believe to be idolatrous in their narrow religious definitions.

The Western media has many, many faults but be very careful of falling into the trap of believing that it is always correct to take the 'other' side or believe that those being portrayed as bad are being unfairly treated.

Whether you read Western news sources, alternative sources like Al-Jazeera and Russian news or (better yet) local Malian and regional African news, the clear image that emerges of Ansar Dine is that of a ruthless and cruel extremist religious group. That villages, towns and cities were welcoming French troops in with cheers should tell you all you need to know about how much Ansar Dine were hated.

The situation with the MLNA is a little more complex however, so it's more than I can get into in this post.

[0]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-mali-crisis-idU...

A little bit of history on book burning/banning http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/182074/Some_History_on...

It took me a good two paragraphs to realize I was not reading about any sort of software library by the name of "Timbuktu".

So it was western propaganda?

From the article, it appears to have been started by the mayor of Timbuktu --who apparently resided in a town 800 miles away. So it may have been someone's propaganda (but apparently not western in origin) or could have been misinformation (i.e. misconstrued information) or it could refer to a missing ten percent of the texts whose location is unknown.

Isn't "burned" a superlative?

Since you asked, insofar as the participle "burned" is functioning as an adjective here, it is in positive degree. The comparative degree would be "more burned," and the superlative degree would be "most burned."

This classification of adjectives by degree comes, of course, from Latin,

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin2/grammar/ch34-degofadj.htm

and English doesn't operate completely in the straitjacket of Latin grammar, but has its own very intricate grammatical rules.

http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Grammar-English-Language/dp/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com