posted 08 July 2004 03:57 PM            

Maya weren't contemporaries of the Kemetans, but the Olmecs (& their predecessors) were...

There are the Olmec pyramids, the famed Olmec heads, etc., plus the fact that there's evidence of "new world" plants being consumed in AE (e.g. coca). Some even suggest that the pyramids in China may have links to AE...

posted 08 July 2004 04:10 PM            

So no comment just links,

Here is a positive review: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html

Here is a negative review: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/AFAM/VSertima.htm

Dr. Van Sertima's rebuttal: http://www.africawithin.com/vansertima/reply_critics.htm

posted 08 July 2004 04:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunstorm2004:
Do you guys think that AE had links to civilizations in the Americas? I spotted a pic of a Mayan scribe & I was struck by how closely it resembled images of AE scribes...

Maya weren't contemporaries of the Kemetans, but the Olmecs (& their predecessors) were...

There are the Olmec pyramids, the famed Olmec heads, etc., plus the fact that there's evidence of "new world" plants being consumed in AE (e.g. coca). Some even suggest that the pyramids in China may have links to AE...

What do you all think of this?...

---

Now there you go! Sounds like a topic with a potential of generating interest.

Of course, AE civilization has had impact all over the world, and not just the nations with which they have colonized or traded with. This is one reason for the tug- of-war in claiming this civilization. Their innovative ways of mathematical application in building structures and other stuff can be seen today around the globe. There is a pyramid in Greece, which is hardly talked about by Greeks ( I hope I don't have to elaborate), that was no doubt influenced by the Egyptians(ref; Richard Poe, Black Spark, White Fire). I wouldn't doubt the same is true with Chinese pyramids. After all, the Egyptians did almost go that far. Remember the Cholchians, who were part of what is now Georgia. In fact there is evidence of some black people having lived in parts of China. This is no coincidence. A lot of people fail to see that the world was completely different place in the Ancient times. People tend to look at the Ancient period from modern perspective, which is a serious mistake. Let's also take monotheism: This is now a common practice in many parts of the world, including America. The origins of this can also be traced back to AE. Papyrus, is the earliest form of paper. The concept has been developed over time, to generate what we now call paper(made from pulp). There are many more AE innovations, that modern day Americans and others across the globe are definitely taking advantage of.

I suggest you take a look at Wally's thread dealing with AE inventions. He provides a list of AE innovations, some of which can arguably be traced back to AE.

posted 08 July 2004 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima's "They Came before Columbus", be warned, the subject of your thread is defacto "ethnic", nothing intelligible may be said about this issue that evades ethnicity.

So no comment just links,

Here is a positive review: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html

Here is a negative review: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/AFAM/VSertima.htm

Dr. Van Sertima's rebuttal: http://www.africawithin.com/vansertima/reply_critics.htm

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 July 2004).]

---

posted 09 July 2004 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
The subject of contact between the Ancient Egyptians and the New World is indeed very interesting. Rasol, thanks for posting those three sites--they are, indeed, thought-provoking. It's quite clear that some influence is apparent, but how it occurred is impossible to say. To just completely shut your eyes to such compelling argument is to totally ignore what has to be true. But again, how did it happen? Let's rule out alien transportation and exploring expeditions by Egypt. It had to be accidental in some way--a more logical vessel that had lost its way on a journey from Egypt (the really didn't do much exploring) or perhaps some brave trader going from the coast of So. America. We will probably never know for sure. But again, it is a very interesting subject.

---

If you dig deep enough in history, you'll be surprised at the number of "expeditions" carried out by Ancient Egyptians, who wanted to get a feel for the world around them. This is yet another side of the Ancient Egyptians, that is often overlooked. Not only the Egyptians, but other Africans had carried out similar journeys. In most cases, they knew exactly what they were doing.

posted 09 July 2004 05:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Taking the devil's advocate approach, I find it interesting that if the contact between the Olmec's and the Kem/Kushites were as extensive as some interpretations suggest. It would mean that Kemet arguably had more of a (Material) lasting impact on American Civilization than it did in much of Africa, or in say...Indian Asia. And....that is one heck of a trip to be making in 1200 BC!

Thoughts?

---

posted 09 July 2004 05:55 PM            

I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. Let me suggest that the Meso-American pyramids are entirely different from the AE model. For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.

posted 09 July 2004 06:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Sometimes people want to play super-diffusionist much like early racist Egyptologist like Sir Grafton Smith did with his theories of ancient Egyptianc civilizing people from the British Isles down to the Americas. I feel people spend much more precious time trying to find AE in other people's culture instead of appreciating AE for who they were.

I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. Let me suggest that the Meso-American pyramids are entirely different from the AE model. For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.

---

Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.

quote:

---

posted by ausur:
For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.

---

Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence. AE pyramids pre-date these pyramids. Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians. There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered. These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from? While pyramids are relatively easy to build, scientists have noticed a certain precision with which the Egyptian pyramid complex had been built. In those days, coming up with a pyramid wasn't just a straight forward idea. Then comes, the pyramid presence in Greece. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that got there!

posted 09 July 2004 07:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
When you say "Material" lasting impact, what do you mean by that? Do you mean the stuctures the left there?

---

posted 09 July 2004 07:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
For the sake of argument, yes.

---

Thanx. Don't mean to be a pest; just clarifying statements!
In case anyone is harboring an idea that Egyptians or Nubians found their way to America, think again. Take a look at Ausur's statement, and see what can be concluded from it. I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!

posted 09 July 2004 08:28 PM            

>>I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. <<

But don't you think there might have been direct or indirect trade, given the evidence of New World plants making their way to AE, and Egyptian maceheads finding their way to China?

---

An aside: I watched a television show (long time ago) which presented (as part of the evidence of New World contact), that Ancient Egyptians might have used the coca plant for medicinal or "recreational" purposes. In passing, I think the show also mentioned marijuana.

posted 09 July 2004 08:36 PM            

quote:

---

Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.

---

The problem h ere is we fin[d no traces of monumental stone being carved in Western or Central Africa around the time of the Olmecs. The First Olmecs is roughly contemporary with the 19th dyansty in ancient Egypt.

Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.

The earliest Americans were Melanesian types that had very much the profile of an African but was genetically different from an African.

Maybe the Olmecs come from these early Melanesian types or the current native population living in the area have the same features. Show how African contact is plausible around this period?

quote:

---

Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence

---

Like I mentioned the pyramid shape is a unversial shape that is relativly easy to build. The Chinese pyramid look more like mounds than pyramids.

quote:

---

. AE pyramids pre-date these pyramids. Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians.

---

There are pyramids in Mongolia that predate the ones on the Giza plateau. The concept and shape of the pyramid in AE had developments from the theological belief associated with the mound of creation or the rays of the sun.

The first pyramids evovled from pit tombs in pre-dyanstic Egypt going to mastabas to what we see on the Giza plataeu.

quote:

---

There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered

---

You mean little negrito people that are amung the first to migrate to Asia. Negrito types inhabited Southern China to Japan untill many were exterminted or driven out.

quote:

---

These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from?

---

They came out of Africa probabaly 40,000 years ago and either merged or where gradually replaced by Austric and Mongolid types.

quote:

---

While pyramids are relatively easy to build, scientists have noticed a certain precision with which the Egyptian pyramid complex had been built. In those days, coming up with a pyramid wasn't just a straight forward idea

---

The shape was relativly universal. AE architecture was connected to their believes in creation myths and symbology within the myths. Can you show me a parallel within the other architecture that corresponds to AE?

quote:

---

Then comes, the pyramid presence in Greece. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that got there!

---

You can't use pyramids to prove cultural migration but perhaps you can show some borrowed concepts in other cultures. I seen the pyramids in Greece and most are very small and don't look like the type of pyramids built during the 12th dyansty.

.

quote:

---

I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!

---

The possible explanation is that some might have came from the expedition of the Mali empire by Mana Musa's brother Abu Bakari II.

posted 09 July 2004 08:52 PM            

quote:

---

But don't you think there might have been direct or indirect trade, given the evidence of New World plants making their way to AE, and Egyptian maceheads finding their way to China?

---

Very possible considering that it's very possible the Phonecian people might have made it to the new world. However,I have yet to see definite proof any American crop was found in AE tombs. If so-called regular trips back and forth to the new world was possible then pollen traces of crops from American origin would be found in AE. Besides the ''Cocaine mummy'' not much has been found to prove this directly.

quote:

---

An aside: I watched a television show (long time ago) which presented (as part of the evidence of New World contact), that Ancient Egyptians might have used the coca plant for medicinal or "recreational" purposes. In passing, I think the show also mentioned marijuana.

---

Be very careful with what you watch on television. My suggestion would be to turn off the television to reserch the subject throughly. Hemp has been found in AE but marijuana has not.

quote:

---

Did the Ancient Egyptians use recreational drugs? Is there evidence of this in the literature, or are researchers just going on forensics?

---

The lotus flower was used as a stimulant which also explains why the ''cocaine mummy'' can show traces of Lotus since it gives off a similar narcotic effect.

posted 09 July 2004 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

Posted by ausur:
The shape was relativly universal. AE architecture was connected to their believes in creation myths and symbology within the myths. Can you show me a parallel within the other architecture that corresponds to AE?

---

Okay let us go back to my original quote:

“Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence…”

Now, bear in mind that from the above quote, it is clear that I didn’t give Egyptians the credit for building the Chinese pyramids. But I did imply that they had to be influenced by people of another culture. This is where I did not rule out the possibility of that foreign group being Africans, or perhaps Egyptians or Nubians. It is known that Chinese were nomads. C. A. Winters talked about this and I quote: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Southchina1.htm

“As in the African aqualithic, an extensive mound culture existed in China, an area strectching from i ts plateau in the west to the Western coast of the Pacific ocean, it includes the Huang-Huai(the Yellow River and the Huai River) plain of North China and the plain of the lower valley of the Yangtze River of central China, these mounds lie in the Ancient line of the Austronesian habitation. In accordance with oral tradi tion and Chinese proto-history mounds were in existence during the time of Huangti, and Fu-Hsi as reflected in the legendary narrative of the burial of Tai-Hao at Wan Chiul - chiu.

The mound culture began around 3,000 BC in China 7,000 years after a similar cul ture had developed in central and North Africa, which moved step by step to the lower valley of the Yangtze River, starting originally from the lower valley of the Yellow River. By about 1200 BC, the people practiced agriculture and ate aquatic animals.At the Kiangsu Province mound site called the Hu Shu culture,the mounds were man-made knolls called 'terraced sites '. The mounds are flat on the top, here the people placed their dwellings. These mounds served three purposes i) burial mounds, ii) religious places (i.e.,high ground) and iii) habitation. The mounds are believed to have been introduced by the people to China from the Euphrates-Tigris valley who are believed to have introduced the arts .”

This may explain the beginnings of the mounds you pointed out earlier. In your own words:
Like I mentioned the pyramid shape is a unversial shape that is relativly easy to build. The Chinese pyramid look more like mounds than pyramids.

Now let us dissect another section from my original comment:

“Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians. There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered. These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from? ”

I think the above quote speaks for itself. I never said it was the Egyptians who built or influenced the Chinese to build their pyramids, although I didn’t rule out that possibility!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausur:
Originally posted by supercar:
Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.

The problem h ere is we fin[d no traces of monumental stone being carved in Western or Central Africa around the time of the Olmecs. The First Olmecs is roughly contemporary with the 19th dyansty in ancient Egypt.
Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.
The earliest Americans were Melanesian types that had very much the profile of an African but was genetically different from an African.
Maybe the Olmecs come from these early Melanesian types or the current native population living in the area have the same features. Show how African contact is plausible around this period?

---

Here is a quote from Dr. Clyde A Winters about how the Africans found their way to America: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm

“The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people.
Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).
The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population. These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.”

posted 10 July 2004 12:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Here is a quote from Dr. Clyde A Winters about how the Africans found their way to America: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm

“The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people.
Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).
The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population. These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.”

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]

---

posted 10 July 2004 12:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I don't know if Clyde Winters is a reliable source one would like to depend on.

---

posted 10 July 2004 08:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Whether he is considered reliable or not, I am welcoming anyone who can refute his comments with solid references or evidence!

---

posted 10 July 2004 09:57 AM            

This carving of an elephant was found among Olmec artifacts. Where would an Olmec have knowledge of an Elephant from??

Questions were asked about the elephant artifact and what it was indicative of so it was promptly removed from the exhibit......of course you don't have to guess why it was removed

We don't know if the African presence in Ancient america had KMetian links, but without question there were africans in ancient america.

Throughout there history, there is a boat load of evidence to support this.

posted 10 July 2004 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
According to Clyde Winters Greeks were originally black, there were Black Shang, and the Olmecs were black. he is charlatan, ditto Runoko Rashidi.

---

That's really a strawman form of argument though. Meaning:

* smith asserts proposition x

* smith is alleged to believe in y

* jones argues that proposition y is patently absurd.

* we are to accept that proposition x has been refuted by jones, when in fact, he has merely avoided it.

posted 10 July 2004 11:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
According to Clyde Winters Greeks were originally black, there were Black Shang, and the Olmecs were black. he is charlatan, ditto Runoko Rashidi.

---

Like I said, someone needs to refute his comments here. What he said about Greeks, has nothing to do with what he is saying about the Olmecs. In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand. Just refute his comments about Olmecs, and enlighten me. Now, I think that would be fair!

Show me some strong evidence that Africans were not in Ancient America, as Dr. Winters pointed out!!!

posted 10 July 2004 12:06 PM            

quote:

---

Posted by ausur:
Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.

---

This is a somewhat weak argument. Were African plants found in the Chinese region, where the early Africans had settled? Dr. Winters makes a better argument by connecting the dots with writings found in Olmec, early Shang and Xia dynasties. He shows the relationship between the writings found on Olmec monuments, those found in China, and the early Saharan inhabitants, with particular reference to the Manding writings. That Sahara is the same African region, where the Kemetians and Nubians came from.

quote:

---

Posted by ausur:

Quote by supercar:

I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!

The possible explanation is that some might have came from the expedition of the Mali empire by Mana Musa's brother Abu Bakari II.

---

I know that in the later periods some Africans reached America, but the Olmec head stones, artifacts, and potteries with Olmec inscriptions, pre-date the Mansa Musa Mali empire. We have already mentioned the relationship between the Olmec inscriptions and those of Proto-Sahara. Apparently Africans reached the American shores much earlier than that.

posted 10 July 2004 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Like I said, someone needs to refute his comments here. What he said about Greeks, has nothing to do with what he is saying about the Olmecs. In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand. Just refute his comments about Olmecs, and enlighten me. Now, I think that would be fair!

Show me some strong evidence that Africans were not in Ancient America, as Dr. Winters pointed out!!!

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]

---

See for yourself
http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.html

posted 10 July 2004 12:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

See for yourself
http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.html

---

S.Mohammad you are continuing to dodge my requests. Whether Clyde Winters assessment of Greeks is correct or not, that is not the issue here. We are talking about the Olmecs. Prove to me that Dr. Winters is wrong about the African connection to the early Olmec civilization. Whether Dr. Winters has been wrong in the past is irrelevant to me. I just want someone to prove him wrong here. So if Dr. Winters said that Greeks were in Ancient Egypt at one point, should we then dismiss it, because he was supposedly wrong at some point in time? I hope we won't have to take such route in discrediting people all the time. Prove to me that you know better than Dr. Winters about the early Olmecs, and how they didn't have a relationship with Africans in the Ancient times!

By the way, this brings me back to my original comment:

"In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand."

posted 13 July 2004 09:58 PM            

This American Indian Mask called "Mongoloid" eyes

Those "mongoloid" eyes again. (see what I mean you can always find African traits in all races)

Here is another good link http://www.theperspective.org/olmecs.html

posted 13 July 2004 10:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Hey supercar, that was a great link, I've saved it to my favorites! I've read a great deal about the tribal marks on the Olmec heads, and thought about Africans as well. Here is a photo of a Nubian woman with tribal marks. The first time I saw this photo, what came to my mind, is that if this woman was several shades lighter, she could easily past for Oriental. so obviously the slanted eyes of the Ohlmecs is another African trait.

This American Indian Mask called "Mongoloid" eyes

Those "mongoloid" eyes again. (see what I mean you can always find African traits in all races)

[img]

Here is another good link http://www.theperspective.org/olmecs.html

---

posted 18 July 2004 05:01 PM            

“In 1976, Ivan Van Sertima proposed that New World civilizations
were strongly influenced by diffusion from Africa. The first and
most important contact, he argued, was between Nubians and Olmecs
in 700 B.C., and it was followed by other contacts from Mali in
A.D. 1300. This theory has spread widely in the African-American
community, both lay and scholarly, but it has never been
evaluated at length by Mesoamericanists. This article shows the
proposal to be devoid of any foundation. First, no genuine
African artifact has ever been found in a controlled
archaeological excavation in the New World. The presence of
African-origin plants such as the bottle gourd (Lagenaria
siceraria) or of African genes in New World cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum) shows that there was contact between Old World and the
New, but this contact occurred too long ago to have involved any
human agency and is irrelevant to Egyptian-Olmec contact. The
colossal Olmec heads, which resemble a stereotypical “Negroid,”
were carved hundreds of years before the arrival of the presumed
models. Additionally, Nubians, who come from a desert environment
and have long, high noses, do not resemble their supposed
“portraits.” Claims for the diffusion of pyramid building and
mummification are also fallacious.”---Gabriel Haslip-Viera,
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour

Olmecs were indigenous. They weren't Africans, Asians, nor Caucasians!

"Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" by Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Benard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour.

David L. Browman (from the Department of Anthropology, Washington University) on the Olmecs

Michael D. Coe (from the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University) on the Olmecs

Ann Cyphers (from the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) on the Olmecs

Gerald Early (African and Afro-American Studies, Washington University) on the Olmecs

Peter T. Furst (from the University of Pennsylvania of Archaeology and Anthropology) on the Olmecs

Rebecca B. Gonzalez Lauck (from Centro INAH Tabasco)

Jaime Litvak (from the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) on the Olmecs

More from Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip, and Warren Barbour

THIS REFUTES THAT THE OLMECS WERE AFRICANS!

Ivan Van Sertima, an Afrocentric, didn't participate in the public forum of Anthropologists because he didn't want his arguments countered.

Exposing all the other Afrocentrics, such as Clyde Williams, who follow the footsteps of Van Sertima.

We see that the strategy of black and white people is to fool us Mexicans to believe the Olmecs were black by making assertions based upon uncertainties that are subject to interpretation.

Black people are trying to say that the Mayans and Olmecs were originally black by the fact that African people are in the regions were the Olmec and Mayan artifacts are to be found. This is simply deception! We all know that the Africans in the Olmec and Mayan regions are descendants of black slaves that were brought by the Spaniards. Now you have black people claiming that the Africans there are not descendants of slaves but are descendats of the Olmecs and Mayans. They are not descendants of the original Olmecas and Mayans but of descendants of African slaves brought by the Spaniards!

Black people are trying to decieve us by placing African pictures next to an Olmec head implying that they look the same therefore black people are Olmecs. We can use this same trick and place any picture of any other race with a flat nose and enlarged lips and imply that they were Olmecs. This is deception and trickery! If we place an Indigenous picture next to the Olmec head we without a doubt can prove that we look the same as the Olmecs and therefore indigenous people are Olmec.

`Naturally African people don't look indigenous! You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people. You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous. Even white women are trying to look indigenous! Look at the commercials of white women selling products to get tans trying to look brown like us! White women are dying their hair black to look like us as well! Its funny that black and white people don't want to give us credit for our civilization that we built independant of them yet they want to be us and look like us! They even like eating our food and sleeping with Malinches yet they call us "Wetbacks!"
www.geocities.com/conscious_mexicas

EXTRA INFO

1."Van Sertima's expedition allegedly sailed or drifted westward to the Gulf of Mexico where it came in contact with inferior Olmecs. These individuals created Olmec civilization." - De Montellano, Barbour and Haslip-Viera YEAH RIGHT.

2. None of the early Egyptians and Nubians looked like Negroes. "They have long, narrow noses..." "Short, flat noses are confined to the West African ancestors of African-Americans." Again, "there is no evidence that ancient Nubians ever braided their hair.This style comes from colonial and modern Ethiopia."

3.Modern Egyptians look exactly as they did thousands of years ago. The composition of the Egyptian has not changed over the last 5000 years. Invasions by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Romans left them looking the same today as in the dawn of history(A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko ).

4.OLMEC HEADS: (a) They are "spitting images of the natives;" (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the "Negro-looking" heads, {Side note we cannot unequivocally date the heads.}......
Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olemcs," Current Anthropology Volume 38 #3, June 1997.

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip-Viera, and Warren Barbour, "They were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s," Ethnohistory 44:2 (Spring 1997).

This essay responds to a theory that has been aggressively promoted as fact by an influential group of Afrocentrists in recent years -- that New World civilizations were created or were influenced by African visitors at key points in the centuries that preceded the European discovery of the Americas. As discussed in this essay, the theory is shown to have no support in the evidence that has been analyzed by specialists in various fields. The essay focuses on the methodological approaches employed by the Afrocentrists in their study of linguistics, terracotta figurines, technological development, and monumental sculpture. A concluding section briefly discusses the repercussions of this theory on ethnic relations in schools, on college campuses, and in North American society as a whole.

posted 18 July 2004 05:21 PM            

Excerpts from his rebuttal to Barbour, et al:

LIE ONE: - "Van Sertima's expedition allegedly sailed or drifted westward to the Gulf of Mexico where it came in contact with inferior Olmecs. These individuals created Olmec civilization." - De Montellano, Barbour and Haslip-Viera.

THE TRUTH: As far back as 1976, I made my position on this matter very clear. I never said that Africans created or founded American civilization. I said they made contact and all significant contact between two peoples lead to influences. "I think it is necessary to make it clear - since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship seems to be the order of the day - that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality, the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"-p. 147 of "They Came Before Columbus." See also Journal of African Civilizations, Vol 8, No. 2, 1986 "I cannot subscribe to the notion that civilization suddenly dropped onto the American earth from the Egyptian heaven."

LIE TWO: None of the early Egyptians and Nubians looked like Negroes. "They have long, narrow noses..." "Short, flat noses are confined to the West African ancestors of African-Americans." Again, "there is no evidence that ancient Nubians ever braided their hair. This style comes from colonial and modern Ethiopia."

THE TRUTH: Narrow noses have been found among millions of pure-blooded Africans. We can see this among the Elongated and Nilotic types. My critics know nothing about the variants of Africa, ancient or modern. All the six main variants of the African have been found in the Egyptian and Nubian graves. For examples of ancient braided Nubian hair, see Frank Snowden's "Before Color Prejudice," As for Egypto-Nubians only having narrow noses, see Egyptian pharaohs in Vol 10 and 12 of the JAC and major Nubian pharaohs in Peggy Bertram's essay (JAC, Vol.12) -Ushanaru, Plate 8, p 173; Taharka as the god Amun from Kawa Temples, Plate 9, p. 173; Shabaka, Plate 12, p. 176. Tanwetamani, Plate 16, p. 180. To say that these are narrow noses is to exhibit a colossal ignorance of African types in ancient Egypt and Nubia. The agenda behind this is to bolster their case that they could not have been models for any of the Olmec stone heads.

LIE THREE; Modern Egyptians look exactly as they did thousands of years ago. The composition of the Egyptian has not changed over the last 5000 years. Invasions by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Romans left them looking the same today as in the dawn of history.

THE TRUTH: This is a hasty misreading of the work of scholars like A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko who point out that there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity in this area for 5000 years. What a superficial reading of this fails to note is that the period ends with the close of the native dynasties BEFORE the invasions of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab foreigners

LIE FOUR: Faced with the startlingly Negroid features of some of the Olmec stone heads, my critics try 4 ways out: (a) They are "spitting images of the native;" (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the "Negro-looking" heads. Having said all that, they then claim that "races are not linked to specific physiognomic traits."

THE TRUTH: No need to shoot them down on this. They turned the gun on themselves.

LIE FIVE: Nothing African has been found in any archeological excavation in the New World.

THE TRUTH: In the drier centers of the Olmec world - at Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban - the Polish craniologist, Andrez Wiercinski, found indisputable evidence of an African presence. The many traits analyzed in these Olmec sites indicated individuals with Negroid traits predominating but with an admixture of other racial traits. This is what I have said. The work of A. Vargas Guadarrama is an important reinforcement of Wiercinski's study. He found that the skulls he examined at Tlatilco, which Wiercinski had classified as Negroid, were "radically different" from other skulls on the site, bearing indisputable similarities to skulls in West Africa and Egypt.

LIE SIX: Van Sertima presents no evidence that a New World cotton (gossypium hirsutum var. punctatum) was transferred from Guinea to the Cape Verde in 1462 by the Portuguese and there is no hard proof that West Africans made a round trip to America before Columbus.

THE TRUTH: I cited evidence in 12 categories to establish Mandingo voyages to the New World circa1310/1311 A.D. This included eyewitness reports from nearly a dozen Europeans, even Columbus himself, metallurgical, linguistic, botanical, navigational, oceanographic, skeletal, epigraphic, cartographic, oral, documented and iconographic evidence. With regard to New World cotton in Africa before 1462, Stephens spoke in two tongues to pacify isolationist colleagues.

LIE SEVEN: My critics claim that I said the bottle gourd came in with Old World voyagers.

THE TRUTH: I was at pains to point out that this is ONE PLANT THAT COULD DRIFT TO AMERICA WITHOUT THE LOSS OF SEED VIABILITY. "Bottle gourds got caught in the pull of currents from the African coast and drifted to America across the Atlantic. Thomas Whitaker and G.F. Carter showed that these gourds are capable of floating in seawater for 7 months without loss of seed viability" - "They Came Before Columbus," 204. They indulge in an even more vicious dishonesty with regard to cotton, claiming that I said "Old World cottons came into America with a fleet of Nubians circa 700 B.C." I never linked cotton transfer to Nubian contact.

LIE EIGHT: My critics admit "we cannot unequivocally date the heads" but they single out one which they say Ann Cyphers confidently dated about 1011 B.C. Note the date! This is 200 years AFTER the Egyptian contact period c. 1200 B.C. Yet they claim that the dating of this one head proves "Negro-looking heads" were being carved, mutilated, and buried prior to 1200 B.C.

THE TRUTH: The stone heads could not have been buried before they were carved.

LIE NINE: Egyptians stopped building pyramids "thousands of years" before 1200 B.C. No relationship whatever exists between Old World/New World pyramids.

THE TRUTH: Enormous obelisks, calling for the same complex engineering skills of the pyramid age were built at Karnak as late as 1295 B.C. A pyramid was also built as Dashur circa 1700 B.C. Bart Jordan, the mathematical child prodigy, to whom Einstein granted special audience, established startling coincidences between Old World and New World pyramids. He agrees with me that "The overwhelming incidence of coincidence argues overwhelmingly against a mere coincidence."

LIE TEN: My critics claim that I have trampled upon the self-respect and self-esteem of native Americans and they have come forward to champion their cause.

THE TRUTH: My people (for I am part Macusi and part African) would be horrified to have, as champions of our cause, De Montellano, Barbour, and Haslip-Viera, who disgrace us with the charge that "native Americans would have sacrificed and eaten the Africans if they came."

thoughts?

posted 18 July 2004 05:31 PM            

In general, those who have insisted that the Olmec Heads have
"negroid" features have not taken the time to look at the area's
Native Americans and how their features correlate with the features
shown on these sculptures; neither have they given much thought
to the idea that the natives could have produced these artworks
themselves.

Even worse, such theories suggest superiority. To suggest that
someone traveled to the New World and created these monuments is to
imply that the natives themselves were not capable of making great
artworks -- that someone had to "make it for them," or at the very
least, "show them how to make it." This is inherently, if not
openly, racist.

This type of theory is directly comparable to racist theories of the
nineteenth century that suggested, for example, that the beautiful Ife
bronze sculptures of Nigeria must have been produced by Greeks visiting
the area (or that Greeks must have shown them how to make them),
because these were so beautifully naturalistic, so different from
the African art found in other areas, and so similar to naturalistic
Greek sculpture. (Archaeological evidence, of course, has proven beyond
a doubt that this was a wholely native Nigerian artform.) This is as
preposterous as suggesting that the European Renaissance artists must
have been SHOWN HOW to paint naturalistically -- that they couldn't
have figured out how to do it themselves, because there wasn't any
evidence of them having done it before.

Some have argued that, since the Olmec Colossal Heads look so very
different from the physiology of Mayan sculptures, the people who
carved them must have been of a different race. Even setting aside the
fact that many "Mayan features" shown on sculptures involved the active
deformation of physiology, this is not a tenable argument; the ancient
peoples of the Gulf Coast were not Mayans -- the Olmec have been shown
to be Mixe-Zoquean, a completely different native group, and there is
no reason to expect them to have Mayan features. Further, the features
represented in the Olmec sculptures -- flat, wide noses and thick,
fleshy lips -- are common to many different Native American cultures,
from the Inuit to the Andeans.

A look at the Native Americans who presently live in the Gulf Coast
area, in fact, reveals striking similarities between these peoples and
the Olmec Heads. There is no reason to believe, from a physiological
standpoint, that the Olmec Heads were not created by these people's
ancestors.

Taking a closer look at these peoples, it is obvious that proponents of
African origin theories have also ignored that the naturalistic Olmec
sculptures show other features that do not exist at all in black African
physiology, but that are common to Native Americans (who trace their
ancestry back to Asians). Most notably, the sculptures have epicanthic
("asian") folds over the eyes, and those that are not shaven have very
straight hair.

Ignoring that these features (fleshy lips, wide noses, epicanthic folds,
and straight hair) are common among many different Native societies
throughout the Americas, some have claimed that this combination of
features indicates a racial mixing of Native Americans with Africans.
Modern-type DNA analysis, however, has so far not shown ANY African
haplotypes among the various Pre-Columbian Amerindian populations
studied.

Finally, there is no concrete archaeological evidence of African
cultures in the New World in Pre-Columbian times -- no imported
animals or plants, no imported artifacts, no imported techniques,
not even any imported materials from which native objects may have
been made. In fact, there is no known black African culture that
produced colossal, naturalistic stone sculptures like the Olmec
Heads.

There is, however, overwhelming archaeological evidence that the
Olmec Colossal Heads were made by and for Native Americans.

In short, those who have claimed the Olmec Colossal Heads to be
of foreign origin have only noticed some superficial physical
similarities with groups of people on the other side of the ocean,
and without any concrete evidence for support, they have given
the credit for these works to far-away foreign cultures. This is
both academically irresponsible and unfair to the cultures that
truly produced them.

Billie Follensbee

The following post was originally written in response to comments made on
the newsgroup sci.archaeology.mesoamerican concerning the Olmecs.
Assertions had been made that the Olmecs were the "First Americans" and
were descended from Africans. The evidence for these assertions included
"negroid" facial features and curly hair on the Olmec colossal heads...
-----------------------

I don't want to spend a lot of time dealing with the same debate that has
dominated this newsgroup for so long, but a few "facts" must be corrected.

1) The first americans were Asians, not Africans. They arrived via the
land bridge between North America and Asia at a point in time that is
justifiably under debate right now. Such phenotypic traits as the
epicanthic folds depicted in Olmec colossal heads seem to substantiate the
fact that the Olmec people were descendants of those earlier cultures that
crossed from Asia. There is also growing archaeological evidence tracing
the evolution of Olmec material culture from their cultural antecedents
during the Archaic period to their florescence in the Formative Period.
What we are debating when we discuss the rise of the Olmecs is not the
peopling of the Americas, but the rise of complex society (something beyond
an egalitarian hamlet) in Mesoamerica.

2) Describing the Olmec colossal heads as "negroid", as many scholars have,
is a subjective statement. The fact is that without the artistic
interpretation of the collosal heads, there is no evidence of contact
between Africans and Mesoamericans in the formative period (or any other
period up until the conquest, but that is beyond the scope of this
discussion). And yes, there are Native Americans with facial features like
the Olmec heads. Plate 1 of "Mexico South: the Isthmus of Tehuantepec" by
Miguel Covarrubias includes a picture of a person indigenous to the Gulf
Coast next to a picture of a colossal head. These features are seen among
many local populations, as has been stated by those who work there.

3) Some participants on this newsgroup have made a good point about the
dangers of equating an archaeological culture with a race. But note that
when Follensbee mentioned that there was ample evidence that the carvings
were made by Native Americans and for Native Americans, she was absolutely
correct. The ceramic evidence may not tell us what language a population
spoke, or whether they were racially different than any other. But the
ceramic evidence, stratigraphic evidence, and even the interpretation of
their symbols and art, have proven that the people who carved the colossal
heads were the same people who had been living in or near the region for
centuries.

4) I would agree with some participants in this discussion that the
argument concerning straight or curly hair on the colossal heads is
ridiculous, but for different reasons. I simply believe establishing a
culture's race based on the appearance of their hair in a sculpture is as
tenuous as basing it on the appearance of their nose, lips or eyes. The
archaeological data has much more to say on this issue than any one trait
on a sculpture.

5) Some scholars used to think that the Olmec were the "Mother Culture" of
Mesoamerica because the art styles of later cultures such as the Maya seem
to have had their roots in the Early Formative/Preclassic period. This
concept has undergone radical change recently. In 1989 the top Olmec
specialists got together and published "Regional Perspectives on the Olmec"
(Sharer and Grove, Cambridge University Press). This volume represented a
change in ideology concerning the "mother culture". It discussed how MANY
areas of Mesoamerica developed simultaneously, with different regions
making different technological and social innovations. Lime plaster was
earliest in Oaxaca (it would eventually revolutionize Mesoamerican
architecture), temple mounds may be earliest on the Pacific Coast (see
Gareth Lowe's work at the site of Paso de Amada), and the Gulf Coast (the
only area which should be given the term "Olmec") can boast its grand
monolithic carvings. No one culture can any longer be called a "mother
culture" in Mesoamerica. Some scholars will still use the term "mother
culture" when describing the Olmec, but they will generally be refering to
the impact of the horizon-style of "Olmec" art. Traces of this art style
can be found from highland central Mexico to Honduras and El Salvador
during the Early and Middle Formative/Preclassic periods.

I would encourage everyone interested in this debate to first read up on
the current status of Olmec archaeology before coming up with theories on
their own. The Sharer and Grove volume is invaluable in this respect.
Flannery and Marcus's concluding chapter of "Early Formative Pottery from
the Valley of Oaxaca" is also short, easy to read and very up-to-date.
These and other bibliographic references are listed below. When reading
the earlier works, simply keep in mind that the archaeological record
concerning the Olmecs has grown considerably within the past few years.
With Rebecca Gonzalez Lauck's work at La Venta, and Ann Cyphers' work at
San Lorenzo, we can look forward to much more revealing volumes on the
current state of Olmec research in the near future.

David R. Hixson
Dept. of Anthropology
Public Service Archaeology Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
dhixson@staff.uiuc.edu

Benson, Elizabeth P. (ed.)
1968 Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.
1981 The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in memory of Matthew W.
Stirling. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

Bernal, Ignacio
1969 The Olmec World. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Coe, Michael D.
1968 America's First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. American
Heritage Publishing Co., New York.

Coe, Michael D. and Richard A. Diehl
1980 In the Land of the Olmec. University of Texas Press (2 vols.), Austin.

Covarrubias, Miguel
1957 Indian art of Mexico and Central America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus
1994 Early Formative Pottery from the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs of the
Museum of Anthropology no. 27, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Grove, David C.
1997 "Olmec Archaeology: A Half-Century of Research and its
Accomplishments."
Journal of World Archaeology 11 (1). (March 1997)
1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1984 Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. Thames and
Hudson, New York and London.

Piña Chan, Roman
1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. Rizzoli, New York.

Sharer, Robert and David C. Grove (eds.)
1989 Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Wicke, Charles R.
1971 Olmec: An Early Art Style in Precolumbian Mexico. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.

Various Authors
1995 Los Olmecas (Spanish version), Arqueología Mexicana, vol. II, núm.
12, March-April. Editorial Raíces, México.
1996 Olmecs (English version), Arqueología Mexicana, Special Edition.
Editorial Raíces, México.

posted 18 July 2004 08:26 PM            

* Peter Underhill's claim that Maya have pre Columbian African Y chromosome?

* the Africoid skeletons (including unusual features such as prognothesism) found among the Olmec by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski?

* Leo Wiener's and others claims that the Olmec language and writing system is closely related to Mande NW African?

posted 18 July 2004 08:32 PM            

Black people are trying to decieve us.... This is deception and trickery!

Regarding the Olmec heads, black people (those who even care) are involved in speculation, based on the peculiar features of the heads... "Deception and trickery" are strong words. Even your post quotes "This theory has spread widely in the African-American community..."

Whether Van Sertima is on target or off base is no reflection on black people. To consider it such suggests the motives behind your arguments to be something other than getting at the truth...

If we place an Indigenous picture next to the Olmec head we without a doubt can prove that we look the same as the Olmecs and therefore indigenous people are Olmec.

It would be interesting to see such a picture. Could you link to some?

You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people.

Black men have been shaving their heads since time immemorial. African tribesmen shaved their heads, many Kemetans shaved their heads, people in other cultures shaved their heads (including some guys you know). Modern africans shave their heads. ...To fit in with who??

(...and "wearing hats"? )

It's "racist" to think you know others so well as to be so sure of their motives like that (unless you've heard a helluva lot of black guys state that this is the reason they shave their heads??)

(...and wear hats... )

What's more, bad guesses as to someone's motives are more often a clue to the values of the person *judging* rather than the one in the spotlight...

You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous.

Sure, even the ones in Africa! (They must've seen pictures of indigenous people... )

--

In fact, there is no known black African culture that produced colossal, naturalistic stone sculptures like the Olmec
Heads.

That's a whole other argument. (Jeesh!)

--

Even worse, such theories suggest superiority. To suggest that
someone traveled to the New World and created these monuments is to
imply that the natives themselves were not capable of making great
artworks -- that someone had to "make it for them," or at the very
least, "show them how to make it." This is inherently, if not
openly, racist.

...Yet you aren't troubled by the fact that everyone thinks there had to have been a "land bridge" to get you to the americas,(an idea now in controversy, I think) -- while other folks had the brains & will to come by sea?

---

By the way, good posts, Rasol. I can't say whether I believe that there was contact or not, but I do know it's an interesting topic...

I try to keep an open mind, which is why I'd definitely be interested in seeing those pictures, XicanConnection...

(...and while you're at it, tell me what's a "malinche" & I'll tell you if I've ever slept with one... )

posted 18 July 2004 09:06 PM            

Here's a photo of those indigenuos Aztec type that you can barely distinguish from the Ohlmec Heads. I mean the flat nose and thich everted lips is the dead give away don't cha think?

Yep these are the people, Van Sertima is trying to trick to looking like Africans alright, flat noses, everted lips and all.

posted 18 July 2004 10:55 PM            

Reference to Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.

"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."

We've already talked about the elephant sculpture found in the museum, where other Olmec artifacts are kept.

Here is a question for you. How do you suppose people who haven't been to Africa, have come to know about an elephant; something they weren't supposed to be familiar with given the time era involved?
It is not as if in the ancient times, they had access to library books and cameras to know about these animals. Is it not possible that Africans indeed made their way to Americas, and merged with people who were already there? And it seems that not only Africans reached there, but people from Southeast Asia as well. That explains some of the "flat" faces of Olmec heads, while others show a more rounded face with so-called Negroid features.

I figure if the Africans went there and intermingled or lived with populations over there, they may have all played a role in bringing about the unique Olmec culture. Indeed a case has been made that, Olmec scripts have elements similar to that found on the Proto-Saharan monuments and pots. Hieroglyphics of Kemet and the Manding scripts, have also been linked to the Proto-Saharan scripts. This doesn't necessarily mean that Africans reached the Americas and started the civilization there, but it does suggest that they were present there when the civilization was being born.

Did the people already living in America have their own traditions before the advent of African travelers? I am sure they did. But it was perhaps the amalgamation of different cultures or traditions that gave rise to the unique Olmec civilization, incorporating elements from Native American Indians, Africans, and Southeast Asians. As such, their traditions are going to be different from Africans and Asians. That would explain the lack of Olmec heads in Africa. But as you go south of Africa, in modern day Zimbabwe, you'll find Sculptured stone heads of similar size as that of the Olmec heads!

posted 18 July 2004 11:46 PM            

quote:

---

`Naturally African people don't look indigenous! You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people. You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous. Even white women are trying to look indigenous! Look at the commercials of white women selling products to get tans trying to look brown like us! White women are dying their hair black to look like us as well! Its funny that black and white people don't want to give us credit for our civilization that we built independant of them yet they want to be us and look like us! They even like eating our food and sleeping with Malinches yet they call us "Wetbacks!"

---

No offense dude, but I know hispanics from South America that get mad if you associate them with Mexicans. Your own people don't want to "look like you" in this sense. I used to be ignorant and call all hispanic people Mexican, until a girl from Venezuela, showed me how distinctively different Mexicans looks from other hispanics. In my opinion, Mexicans looks more pure Indian, while the others look more Spaniard. But you won't find THIS African American, wearing any sombrero hats and cowboy boots or dreadful ruffled dresses 'trying to look Mexican'. Do they even reach over 5'9, the men that is? I've personally never seen one.

And please look up indigenous, you obviously don't know the definition!!

posted 18 July 2004 11:54 PM            

Any person who studies artwork will tell you that it's hard to make out phenotypes in colossal art work. Can you name a Western African culture contemporary with the Olmecs? The oldest culture in Western Africa I know is Kintampo. The oldest sculpture in western Africa is done by the Nok people.

Remeber the Sahara did not completely dry untill about 4,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern western Africas were living in the Central and Southern Sahara. Later when dried they moved southward which places like Djenne and kintampo were established.

posted 19 July 2004 12:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own. I honestly have not seen any definite proof that Olmecs were Africans. You know that Melanesian types were also found in Pre-Colomubia America so maybe these mixture with other types account for the phenotype of the Olmec heads.

Any person who studies artwork will tell you that it's hard to make out phenotypes in colossal art work. Can you name a Western African culture contemporary with the Olmecs? The oldest culture in Western Africa I know is Kintampo. The oldest sculpture in western Africa is done by the Nok people.

Remeber the Sahara did not completely dry untill about 4,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern western Africas were living in the Central and Southern Sahara. Later when dried they moved southward which places like Djenne and kintampo were established.

---

Have you read my post, just before Homeylu's post. I could care less about the Olmec civilization, because frankly it doesn't connect to me. All I am saying is that Africans must have found their way there. Just because I say this, doesn't mean that I want to claim Olmec civilization. It is simply from archeological findings I mentioned earlier, that have brought me to the conclusion that Africans must have found their way to Americas. I have posted my explanation as to why Olmec heads aren't found in West Africa, but yet you keeping asking the same question over and over again. For once, can someone answer (instead of dodging it)why elephants, not found in the Americas, found their way to ancient American and Olmec sculptures! Can someone also disprove the connection between elements of Olmec scripts and those found in Proto-Saharan region? Like I said time and again, Africans may have found their way to Americas and joined populations that were already there. There may even have been a rudimentary civilization already there, but a blend of people of various cultures may have given rise to the civilization that came to be known as Olmec civilization. Civilizations don't just sprout from nowhere! Why didn't the Olmec civilization occur much earlier? But it seems to me the blending of cultures (Native Indian, African and Southeast Asian), as I stated earlier, must have given rise to the Olmec civilization. Whether Africans had anything to do with the Olmec civilization is debatable, but why should that mean that they never made their way over there? The Europeans made their way to Kemet, but that doesn't mean that Kemet is European produced civilization. The same can be said of Africans in the Americans; making their way to America doesn't imply that they started the civilization there. But naturally, if they blended into the society there, they would have contributed to the cultural "richness" of that society.

posted 19 July 2004 04:43 AM            

Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.

Keep in mind though, Africans aren't the only ones "guilty" of this (speculating about early contact with early civilizations).

A few years ago I watched a slick show (on Discovery Channel I think) which suggested, based on the finding of a single skull with "European" features in central america, that the earliest inhabitants of mesoamerica were caucasians (who, of course, came by sea). These caucasians were then displaced by the indian types.

Another show suggested, based on the finding of a mummy with red hair in China, that early caucasians help found Chinese civilization!

...And these are well-funded, widely distributed shows getting those ideas out there. If blacks did the same, imagine the uproar!

---

I think it's important to keep an open mind & hear out ideas like those Van Sertima propose, if only because so many lies have been told for so long about africans having done nothing & been nowhere. If we can entertain those old ideas, we can certainly entertain ideas that refute them.

I think it's important not to jump to conclusions based on scant evidence, but if there's intriguing evidence at all, it's important to look further...

posted 19 July 2004 05:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by trexmaster:
About the elephant vase...maybe it's supposed to be a mammoth or mastodon (they WERE around ancient Mesoamerica)? Or perhaps a mouse?

---

My friend, mammoths had long gone before the time era we are talking about. The sculpture you are talking about doesn't have any representation of fur either. I have never seen any civilization use "mice" as symbolic sculptures. I have already mentioned various elephant sculptures of the Ancient Americans. I have also stated the symbolic nature of these sculptures. I have yet to hear anyone give an explanation for these sculptures created by people who have never seen such an animal!

posted 19 July 2004 06:26 AM            

Prof Alexander von Wuthenau, the German-born art historian, author of Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, and chairman of the Pre-Columbian Art History of the University of the Americas, has also made an impressive collection of pre-Columbian terra cotta sculptures of African chiefs, priests, dancers and drummers.

Indeed at one point, after stating his conviction of the trans Atlantic voyage of the Africans, Prof Wuthenau was advised by his colleague, Dr Erwin Palm, thus: “Wuthenau, never say Negro, always say Negroid because then it would mean that the black specimens in pre-Columbian art are derived from Melanesian Negritos and not from African Negroes.”

Wuthenau subsequently explained that his colleague meant well and “probably intended to help me maintain my respectability in academic circles; because orthodox scientists are beginning to admit the possibility of Melanesian migration to America but are deadly opposed to that of contacts from Africa across the Atlantic."

This is why you always have to be suspicious and form your own opinion. This perception of Black Africans is out and some Professionals will do what they need to to hide what the truth may be:

“Wuthenau, never say Negro, always say Negroid because then it would mean that the black specimens in pre-Columbian art are derived from Melanesian Negritos and not from African Negroes.” .......orthodox scientists are beginning to admit the possibility of Melanesian migration to America but are deadly opposed to that of contacts from Africa across the Atlantic."

What is this all about? Is this Objective??

To me this is the "anything but Black African" kind of thinking we have observed for theories regarding KMT, Great Zimababwe and Timbuktu to name but a few.

I am not claiming the Olmec culture......just that they were there in some capacity obviously as friends not invaders. The collection of evidence is indisputable. Much of the research is not done by Blacks, what reason would Whites have to say that Africans were present here.

The Africoid skeletons are not being disputed because they can't be....just ignored or explained away as something other than Black African of course.

How much more evidence is needed....the cultural elements point to Africa....not melanasia....u guys can wait for the mexican Gov't to admit that, just like u can wait for the Egyptian Govt' to admit
that Ancient KMTians were black.

None of those two statements from those Govt's are going to be forthcoming anytime soon....u guys need that kind of Validation go ahead and keep waiting, pack a lunch while u are at it because it's going to be a while.

posted 19 July 2004 07:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.

---

The question is tautological. It assumes one shares your definition of African history.

Remember, by some Eurocentric standards Africa has no history.

Egypt is but an extention of Mesopotamia; Ethiopia an extention of Egypt.

West African kingdoms are either Arab colonies, or Berber migrations. Swahilli Zanj and South African Zimbabwe are ancient semitic states. What history?

posted 19 July 2004 07:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by trexmaster:
About the elephant vase...maybe it's supposed to be a mammoth or mastodon (they WERE around ancient Mesoamerica)? Or perhaps a mouse?

---

posted 19 July 2004 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

Posted by ausur:
Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.

---

I hate being repetitive, but I have to stress that Africans have enough civilizations to be concerned about bolstering their image by claiming other civilizations. That is besides the point! The point is that archeological findings, such as elephant sculptures and scripts with elements similar to the Proto-Saharan script, have been brought to light.

I find it weird that people can actually believe Melanesians who are much further away from Americas than Africans, can travel all that distance, overcoming oceans and land mases (Africa and Europe) and finally find their way to America and settle there. The same people who have no hard time making such claims, also never bring up the subject of Melanesians having Olmec head type of sculptures in their Asian homeland. But when it comes to black Africans, somehow all possibilities are thrown out of the window. Africans are much closer to the Americas, only being seperated by water bodies. If Melanesians can travel from as far as Southeast Asia just to get to America, why can't Africans who are much closer to America, be able to do the same?
There is no sign of Olmec heads in Melanesia or their Asian homeland, but that question constantly comes up when dealing with Africans, that somehow Olmec heads have to be found in Africa to prove the connection.

posted 19 July 2004 09:10 AM            

FIG. 10. Woman from Olmec area. (Photo Donald Corddry, reprinted from Bernal [1968].)


FIG. 11. Tzotzil from Chiapas. (Photo B Reyes, reprinted from Morley [1947].)

Van Sertima (1992b, 1995) places great emphasis on Tres Zapotes head 2 (also known as the Nestepe or Tuxtla head) because it has seven braids dangling from the back, which he claims (1992c:57; 1994:296, fig. 1c), citing no supporting evidence, to be a characteristically Ethiopian hairstyle. He also asserts that the braids are "probably the best hidden secret in Mesoamerican archaeology" (1992b:37), that the "head was never published outside of Mexico" (1992a:7), and that "this photograph was kept in the dark (and I think the blackout was deliberate)" (1992b:38; 1995:74). To support his claim (1992c:37; 1995:74) he quotes the Mexican Olmec scholar Beatriz de la Fuente, who states, "If at any time, one could imagine that there were Negroes in Mesoamerica, it would be after seeing Head 2 of Tres Zapotes, the one that is most removed from the physiognomy of our Indian ancestors" (de la Fuente 1971:58,). However, he overlooks her comment on the next page that "certainly the colossal heads do not represent individuals of the Negro or Ethiopian race as José Melgar, the first Westerner to see one more than a hundred years ago, supposed. We have to agree that in them are recorded, on a heroic scale, the ethnic characteristics of the ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica, characteristics that are still preserved in some contemporaneous natives" (de la Fuente 1971:59, our translation).

P.S. Homeylu,The Mejica(Aztecs) are not direct decendants of the Olmecs.