quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmecs came from Africa. There is no evidence that the Olmec existed in Mexico before 1200-1100 BC.
The archaeological evidence suggest that the Olmec "miraculously appear on American soil".
Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs:America’s first civilization (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25).
Pool (17-18), in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”.
Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).”
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
T .
Boring spam.
In the future I will show many more examples of Winters’s techniques of misquoting, partial quoting, and paraphrasing instead of accurate quoting to misrepresent the facts and make it seem as if he has established scholars agreeing with his version of events.
The Olmecs DID NOT arise suddenly in 1200 BC.
See the following:
Tate, C. E. 1995 “Art in Olmec Culture,” pp. 47-67 In [u] The Olmec world [/u]Princeton: the Art Museum, Princeton University
quote:p. 47 “ For the purpose of this discussion, Formative period objects embodying the themes, formats, subjects and formal qualities associated with the dominant form of shamanic kingship, not only from the Gulf Coast but also from other areas of Mesoamerica, will be called “Olmec.” Most of the object in this exposition probably date to the Middle Formative and are part of a widespread ceremonial complex, as discussed by F. Kent Reilly, III, in this volume.” . . . p. 65 Far more than merely a style, however, Olmec art objects codified and communicated a shamanic reality whose fundamental truths were shared by disparate peoples across Mesoamerica... Taken together, the subjects of Olmec art must present a nearly complete view of the ideological concerns of America’s first civilization.. . Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have had no antecedents, no material models remain for its monumental constructions an sculpture and the ritual acts captured in small objects.
Winters continues to cite the underlined Tate statement in support of his “sudden origin” omitting the paragraph on p. 46 or the prior qualification on p. 67. When we asked Dr. Tate about these lines, she pointed out that she was speaking about all of Mesoamerica not just the Gulf Olmec.
quote:From: "Tate, Carolyn" <CAROLYN.TATE@ttu.edu> To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Hello Professor Tate, is this still your interpretation?
It depends on how we define "Olmec." in that statement I used the term at its broadest, to refer to any culture of the Initial Formative Period in Mesoamerica. I did not mean to refer to the GULF COAST Olmec exclusively. antecedents to Gulf Coast Olmec art and ritual include
Nixtamalization--Oaxaca earliest Mounds-- pacific coast earliest ball court -- Geo Shih or Paso de la Amada earliest evidence of social stratification -- Paso de la Amada Earliest use of jade axes in a ritual deposit -- El Manati
The following is a series of Winters’ statements that are incorrect or misleading by selective quotations.
quote:Winters Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J. E. Clark and M.E. Pye, makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become like the Olmecs” (p. 234).
BOM (as usual Winters can’t cite accurately) The full cite is
Clark, J.E. and M.E. Pye 2000 “The Pacific Coast and the Olmec,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [u]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica[/u] pp. 217-251 Washington: National Academy of Art
completely misrepresents what Clark and Pye say— Mokaya and the Olmec area (Olman) interacted for a thousand years. The cite Winters uses refers to the LAST phase interaction.
quote:p. 243-244. At the beginning of the Early Formative [BOM Barra Phase 1700-1500 BC]-, the Mokaya at the Soconusco were clearly independent of other peoples of Mesoamerica, Early forms of rank society, or simple chiefdoms, evolved in the Pacific Coast region, and these institutions were quickly adopted by neighboring peoples including those living in Olman [what is usually called the Olmec heartland] (see Clark 1994a; Clark and Blake 1994). There is clear archaeological evidence of early contact between the peoples of the Pacific Coast and those of Olman in pre-Olmec times, most apparent in ceramic assemblages and the types of obsidian imported into each region. The Mokaya’s impact on the first villagers of Olman remains to be determined, but we think it was significant [see Clark 1990; Clark and Blake 1989). Some contact was maintained between the two groups throughout the Formative period, but after the initial close contact at the beginning of the Early Formative the peoples in the Soconusco and Olman developed along separate paths. The people of Olman created the cultural patterns and representational systems that we now call “Olmec”, and the Mokaya of the Soconusco continued much as before. About 1200 B.C. the Olmecs of Olman and the Mokaya of the Mazatan regions once again begin to interact with greater frequency.
[
quote:Winters: Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries.
[BOM] Pye does NOT say that “it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose..” AND Winters omits the rest of the paragraph that contradicts his claims
quote:PP. 245-246 Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries. (This much quoted by Winters)
BUT WINTERS DOES NOT CITE THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH
Creation of this first stratified society involved the forging and crystallization of social, political, and religious institutions that became the hallmarks of Mesoamerica itself. As with all historical entities and cultural configurations, this was not creation ex nihilo but from preexistent matter. The Olmecs clearly were influenced by their predecessors and neighbors, such as the Mokaya, in significant ways. . .
. Pye, M. E. and Clark, J.E. 2000 “Introducing Olmec Archaeology,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [U]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica [/U]pp. 9-17 Washington: National Academy of Art
Another quote from Pye and Clark:
quote:p. 9-10 This definition begs the question, of course, of just what is meant by “Mesoamerican practices”; these include traits such as the cultivation of chocolate, manufacture of paper, the rubber-ball game, human sacrifice, complex ritual calendar, beliefs in corn deities and others [see Kirchhoff 1943].. . Textbooks perpetuate the fallacy of Mesoamerica as a fixed geographical territory. The original distinction remains valuable, however, because there was time, about 1500 B.C., when these cultural practices had not yet been established or disseminated. Along with the “where” of Mesoamerica, we need to consider the “when.” How was the Mesoamerican way of life established? How did it evolve? And how did it spread over time? . . . . p. 12 We suggest, instead, that the term [Olmec] be used to describe peoples who followed a particular suite of cultural practices that included certain forms of visual representations (see Clark and Pye this volume).. . . We also believe that the archaeological record already demonstrates convincingly that there were several contemporaneous Olmec polities or entities for most time periods, so we have opted for the plural to convey the idea of plurality rather than a single monolithic entity.
BOM here are more quotes on the topic by other Olmec Scholars
David C. Grove. 1993. “Olmec” Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution?” In Don S. Rice, ed. [u]Latin American Horizons[/u]. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
quote:p.85 The “origins” of Olmec culture have been speculative at times. Because the early La Venta explorations were confined to a mound-plaza complex (Complex A) now known to be relatively late in Olmec prehistory, no antecedents to the artifacts recovered there were readily apparent, and thus a notion began that perhaps Olmec culture was intrusive and that it had not originated on the Gulf Coast (see below also). However, the stratigraphic data later retrieved by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl from San Lorenzo clearly demonstrate that Olmec culture is indeed indigenous to the Gulf Coast (Coe 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980; Grove 1981a: 376-378). ******** The argument for the origin of Olmec style coming from coastal Guatemala is made by John Graham, “Olmec Diffusion: A Cultural View from Pacific Guatemala,” pp. 227-246. This book has chapter by practically all the key archaeologists involved in Olmec research. Now, having published a number of books, I can tell you that these chapters were written up to 2 years before publication. Furthermore, ideas are published as papers in professional journals before they get into books. These ideas are at least 10 years old.
As I pointed out previously, the Olmec *did not* arise suddenly. In the Gulf Area, there is evidence of continual and gradually increasing in complexity occupation of the San Lorenzo site dating to 1500 B.C. (Coe and Diehl 1980) and in the La Venta site occupation of the Rio Bari as far back as 1800 B.C. (Rust and Leyden 1994). A recent summary of the origin of the Olmecs is the quote from Clark (1991):
“The Mesoamerican tradition was first clearly in place by Olmec times. Here (in Guatemala BOM) its beginnings are traced back five centuries before the Olmecs to the Mokaya of the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. It is argued here that the first complex cities in Middle America arose in this littoral shore and had profound and widespread civilizing influence on the area that would soon become the nucleus of Mesoamerica. Recent research in the Mazatan region of Coastal Chiapas suggests that simple chiefdom societies were in place by at least 1650 B.C.”
Clark, J. F. 1991. “The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative.” in [u]The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica[/u]. edited by Wm. R. Fowler. 13-26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Coe, M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl. 1980. [u]In the Land of the Olmecs: Archeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan[/u]. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rust, W.F. and B. W. Leyden. 1994. “Evidence of Maize use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites,” in S. Johannessen and C. H. Hostoy, eds. [u]Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World[/u] pp. 181-201.Boulder: Westview Press. %%%%%%%
Properly cited Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u] The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
quote:Winters says:
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs: America’s first civilization (2005) wrote “The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.” (p. 25)
BOM a couple of points 1) Diehl poses ONLY 2 possibilities- Mokaya or indigenous development nothing else—so this DOES NOT allow the possibility of an African intervention. Also see that San Lorenzo has been pushed back to 1600 BC and that the pottery from that period is identical to pottery from Mokaya, El Manati, and Chiapas supporting Clark and Pye that there were several contacts between San Lorenzo and Mokaya. The first one— Mokaya was more advanced and influenced San Lorenzo and LATER comes the contact used by Winters where San Lorenzo came back and influenced Mokaya. It would be useful to show that pottery of the Ojochi period was very different from African Mande pottery (they may have still been pastoralists and not making pottery- also compare Chicharras pottery)
Also, as usual Winters’ quotes selectively Immediately before what Winters quotes —the paragraph says:
quote:Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. BOM denies Winters’ claim that the Mande arrived 1200 BC During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshippers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art.
p. 27 “ Excavations at San Lorenzo have revealed three phases of occupation prior to its emergence as a full-blown city at 1200 BC: Ojochi (1550-1350 BC), Bajio (1350-1250 BC) and Chicharras (1250-1150 BC). Remains of these occupations lie deeply buried under later debris but even so, recent excavations suggest that San Lorenzo covered at least 20 ha (49 acres) by 1250 BC. Surveys in the 400-sq. km (155-sq. mile) region around San Lorenzo identified more than 1000 Bajio and Chicharras-phase sites that formed a complex three-tiered settlement hierarchy with the village of San Lorenzo at its apex. The subsidiary communities included nine small villages and scores of small hamlets and farmsteads. Most settlements were located on high ground that did not flood, but yet provided access to fresh water and fluvial transport. San Lorenzo was the largest village in the region and seems to have dominated the entire zone even at this early time, perhaps receiving food and other tribute from its subordinates. Ojochi-phase [BOM 1600-1500 BC] pottery includes utilitarian wares used in daily life as well as finely made vessels suitable for ceremonial feasting. Vessel forms included bowls, thin-walled tecomates (restricted mouth-jars that resemble gourds), and jars with out-flaring necks. Red slips and a variety of surface modifications such as gadrooning, grooving , punctuation, and contrasting polished and roughened areas all added to the attractiveness of the vessels. Ojochi-phase pottery is virtually identical to Manati-A-phase ceramics, as well as more distant Pellicer-phase materials in Tabasco, and Barra-phase pottery found in coastal Chiapas across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
Winters says:
quote:“Pool (17-18) in Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (2007), argues that continuity exist [sic] between Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico”[even] though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin of Olmec culture (Diehl& Coe 1995: 150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo [u]rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32: Coe and Diehl 1980a: 150.”
And “Pool admits (p. 95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo who reported dramatic change in ceramic types and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p. 150).”
[BOM] Again a thin reed. Notice that even his own cite contradicts his 1200 BC scenario by 250 years Just because Winters’ never changes his positions even when they have been proved to be wrong for years does not mean that REAL scholars do not change their views when new or contrary evidence comes to light. Coe’s and Diehl’s opinion of 30-40 year ago is no longer valid because there have been a lot of excavation in the intervening period.
First, the latest opinion of Coe and Diehl. (Pool has a typo in his Diehl and Coe 1995 cite)
Diehl, R. A. and M. D. Coe 1995 “ Olmec Archaeology,” in [u]The Olmec world Ritual and Rulership[/u] Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University.
quote:p. 11-12 “Biologically, the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait land bridge. This may come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalist claims that the Olmecs were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover at least one Old world artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none has appeared and it is unlikely any will.” . . . The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Olmec heartland is found on the natural levees of the Rio Bari, an old, silted-in stream near la Venta, Tabasco, where farmers settled as early as 2200 B.C. similar villages occurred along all the river valleys of the Olmec heartland in the following centuries. Although they appear to lack the monumental art and architecture, social hierarchies, and complex institutions that characterize Olmec culture, these villages clearly provided the local population base for the later Olmec expansion. By the end of the pre-Olmec period, San Lorenzo and La Venta were growing faster than other communities and fragments of basalt monuments in some of the deepest levels at San Lorenzo suggest that the Olmec sculptural tradition existed prior to 1200 B.C.”[QUOTE]
Now Diehl Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u]The Olmecs America’s first Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
[QUOTE]pp. 13-14 “The origins of Olmec culture have intrigued scholars and lay people alike since Tres Zapotes Colossal head 1, a gigantic stone human head with vaguely Negroid features was discovered in Veracruz 140 years ago. Since that time, Olmec culture and art have been attributed to seafaring Africans, Egyptians, Nubians, Phoenicians, Atlanteans, Japanese, Chinese, and other ancient wanderers. As often happens, the truth is infinitely more logical, if less romantic: the Olmecs were Native Americans who created a unique culture in southeastern Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Archaeologists now trace Olmec origins back to pre-Olmec cultures in the region and there is no credible evidence for major intrusions from the outside. Furthermore, not a single bona fide artifact of Old world origin has ever appeared in an Olmec archaeological site, or for that matter anywhere else in Mesoamerica.
p. 28 “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
%%%%
Finally another expert on Olmec art
Karl A. Taube. 2004. [u]Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks /Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks[/u]
quote:p.1 To this day, the Olmec continue to be traced to such distant regions as Africa and China (Van Sertima 1976; Thomson 1989; Gonzalez Calderon 1991; Xu 1996). [NOTE 1. Quite frequently, arguments for Old world contacts are based on superficial visual resemblances. A particularly egregious example appeared in U.S. News & World Report (Fenyvesi 1996). According to Shang scholar, Han Ping Chen. One of the miniature jade stelae from La Venta Offering 4 contains a readable Chinese text (ibid.) it has been known for some time, however, that these miniature stelae derive from halves of incised celts cut along the central long axis. Two of the incised Offering 4 “stelae” are parts of the same incised celt, which portrayed a flying figure holding a knuckle-duster and maize ear fetish (see Cervantes 1969; fig. 11). As for the purported incised Shang text, it constitutes half of a frontally facing depiction of the Olmec Maize god. For a reconstruction of the entire figure, see Reilly n.d.; fig 4.51]. The archaeological evidence argues for an entirely indigenous development, however, and many Olmec traits are traceable to earlier cultures of Early Formative Mesoamerica. There is simply no material evidence of any pre-Hispanic contact between the Old world and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century.
p. 5-7. Although the Olmec were extremely early, they by no means appeared ex nihilo, like some wondrous mushroom, out of the swampy Gulf coast lowlands. Many of the more fundamental Olmec traits, such as social hierarchy, ceramics, food production, monumental architecture, craft specialization, ball game, dedicatory offerings, and the restricted use of jade and other rare, exotic goods already were present among earlier Formative peoples. Although similar and contemporaneous developments were surely occurring in the Olmec heartland, the incipient Formative period is best documented for the nearby coastal piedmont region of southern Chiapas and neighboring Guatemala, often referred to as the Soconusco (Blake 1991; Blake et al. 1995; Ceja Tenorio 1985; Clark 1991, 1994; John Clark and Michael Blake 1989, 1994; Coe 1961; Green and Lowe 1967; Love 1975). Clark and Blake (1989) aptly term the Early Formative people of this region Mokaya, a Mixe-Zoque word for “the people of the corn.”
%%%%%%%%%%
These comments do not dispute anything that I wrote. The authors are all making hypotheses but they present no valid archaeological evidence in support of an Olmec presence in the Gulf before 1200BC.
For example you quote Coe as follows:
quote: “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
Coe makes it clear he is making a hypothesis. The obvious appearence of black and white pottery shows the arrival of a new population, and contradicts Coe reinterpretation of the artifacts.
You are trying to make your own interpretation of what these authors wrote.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem with Winters is finding a journal to publish in-- I don't do the kind of unreviewed journals Winters does. Van Sertima had achieved some influence in schools and thus serious journals considered it worthwhile to publish an article critiquing his work. I would have trouble convincing peer reviewed journals that Clyde's work is worth some of their limited space.
This is just a cop out.Online Journals have unlimited space because they are published on-line.
My on-line articles were peer reviewed and you know it. You are upset because I can write and publish research articles for linguistic and scientific journals. You are a good writer of narrative style descriptive anthropological articles and books, but you are not a scientific research writer.
You just have to follow the methodology for research articles required by the journal, to get your paper published. Your problem is that you don't know how to write scientific and linguistics research papers.
If you had scientific evidence to support your propositions you could get your article published.In addition to not knowing how to write research articles, You just don't want to pay $2-3000 to have your paper published in the "Open Access" journals, e.g., PLoS, you support.
We have been debating these issues since 1996. During this period I have published and written three books on the ancient Olmecs and a major article. I have confirmed the research of Leo Wiener, on the Mande influence on the Mayan Calendar, Olmec writing and the reality that the Mayan language have many Mande loanwords.
.
I have also published books supporting my research:
After our on-line debates in 1996, I starting making presentations at Conferences.
I made many presentations on the Olmecs at Anthrpological Conferences in which members of the Academe attended. I made these presentations because back in the 1990's, you, laymen and other detractors attacked my work and acussed me of not presenting my work before the academic community.
I have made presentation at international and national anthropological meetings, before my "peers" including AAA. For example Linda Schele attended my 1997 Olmec presentation.
Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/pfri.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/psat.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg98/Prelimp5.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg97/final.htm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages
You can see my 1997 Lecture on the Decipherment of the Olmec script, Linda Schele attended on Youtube:
At that time I believe you were still teaching. I met many members of the establishment at these Conferences and I presented papers on panels along with other experts.
You have not published anything in response to my presentations at Conferences, articles and books.You confront my research at ES, in the hope that you can use the bandwagon effect (hate of the word :Afrocentrism) to garner support, but you fail because whereas you have no support for your propositions I bring forth evidence destroying all your false claims.
You have not published anything because you are a fool, but you are not foolish. Once you publish such an article I get the opportunity to respond and I will continue to show how you don't know what you're talking about. In a research journal I will show your peers what a liar you are.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem with Winters is finding a journal to publish in-- I don't do the kind of unreviewed journals Winters does. Van Sertima had achieved some influence in schools and thus serious journals considered it worthwhile to publish an article critiquing his work. I would have trouble convincing peer reviewed journals that Clyde's work is worth some of their limited space.
This is just a cop out.Online Journals have unlimited space because they are published on-line.
My on-line articles were peer reviewed and you know it. You are upset because I can write and publish research articles for linguistic and scientific journals. You are a good writer of narrative style descriptive anthropological articles and books, but you are not a scientific research writer.
You just have to follow the methodology for research articles required by the journal, to get your paper published. Your problem is that you don't know how to write scientific and linguistics research papers.
If you had scientific evidence to support your propositions you could get your article published.In addition to not knowing how to write research articles, You just don't want to pay $2-3000 to have your paper published in the "Open Access" journals, e.g., PLoS, you support.
At that time I believe you were still teaching. I met many members of the establishment at these Conferences and I presented papers on panels along with other experts.
You have not published anything in response to my presentations at Conferences, articles and books.You confront my research at ES, in the hope that you can use the bandwagon effect (hate of the word :Afrocentrism) to garner support, but you fail because whereas you have no support for your propositions I bring forth evidence destroying all your false claims.
You have not published anything because you are a fool, but you are not foolish. Once you publish such an article I get the opportunity to respond and I will continue to show how you don't know what you're talking about. In a research journal I will show your peers what a liar you are.
The problem with Winters is finding a journal to publish in-- I don't do the kind of unreviewed journals Winters does. Van Sertima had achieved some influence in schools and thus serious journals considered it worthwhile to publish an article critiquing his work. I would have trouble convincing peer reviewed journals that Clyde's work is worth some of their limited space.
This is just a cop out.Online Journals have unlimited space because they are published on-line.
My on-line articles were peer reviewed and you know it. You are upset because I can write and publish research articles for linguistic and scientific journals. You are a good writer of narrative style descriptive anthropological articles and books, but you are not a scientific research writer.
You just have to follow the methodology for research articles required by the journal, to get your paper published. Your problem is that you don't know how to write scientific and linguistics research papers.
If you had scientific evidence to support your propositions you could get your article published.In addition to not knowing how to write research articles, You just don't want to pay $2-3000 to have your paper published in the "Open Access" journals, e.g., PLoS, you support.
At that time I believe you were still teaching. I met many members of the establishment at these Conferences and I presented papers on panels along with other experts.
You have not published anything in response to my presentations at Conferences, articles and books.You confront my research at ES, in the hope that you can use the bandwagon effect (hate of the word :Afrocentrism) to garner support, but you fail because whereas you have no support for your propositions I bring forth evidence destroying all your false claims.
You have not published anything because you are a fool, but you are not foolish. Once you publish such an article I get the opportunity to respond and I will continue to show how you don't know what you're talking about. In a research journal I will show your peers what a liar you are.
A lot of the usual spam. Winters’s immediate recourse to ad hominem just demonstrates that he is running out of valid arguments or evidence—not worth dealing with. However, a little demonstration is in order
The Following are 5 papers I published with their impact factors. The impact factor is a measure of the quality and influence of a journal measured by the average number of citations of papers published in it by other articles and journals.
Ortiz de Montellano, B. R. 1975 “Empirical Aztec Medicine,” [u]Science[/u], 188, 215 -cover article; REPRINTED in the following: [u]Katunob,[/u] 1976 9 #3 (N. Klein, Ed., 1979[u] Culture Curers and Contagion[/u] (San Francisco: Chandler Sharp, 1979.
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1978 “Aztec Cannibalism; An Ecological Necessity?” [u]Science,[/u] 200, 611
Impact factor [u]Science[/u] = 33.611
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. and Davidson, J. 1983 “ The Antibacterial Properties of a Aztec Wound Remedy,”, [u]J. of Ethnopharmacology[/u], 8: 149
Impact factor =2.998
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1988 “A Methodology for Cross-Cultural Ethnomedical Research,”, with A. Rubel and C. Browner [u]Current Anthropology,[/u] 29, 681-702
Impact factor= 2.846
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1998 “Ethnopharmacology of Mexican Asteracea Compositae,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 38 :539-565 with E. Rodríguez, M. Heinrich., M. Robles, J. West.
I may not be the first author listed on the last two.
On the other hand- One of Winters longer efforts:
Winters, C. 2011 “Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages,” [u]Current Research Journal of Social Sciences[/u] 3(3): 152-179, 2011
Impact factor= not available in Google search
However, even the Islamic Azad University in Iran has problems with this publisher
quote:Black List Journals PUBLICATION CENTERS: • ANSINET WORK 37 • KNOWLEDGIA SCIENTIFIC 16 • SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS 28 • MEDWELL JOURNALS 35 • AMERICAN EURASIAN NETWORK AENSI 15 • IDOSI JOURNALS 83 • MAXWELL 14 • SCIENCE ALERT COMPANIES 120 • ACADEMIC JOURNALS 10 • FRIENDS SCIENCE PUBLISHERS 2 • INDIAN JOURNALS WHICH IMITATE FROM IJEST JOURNAL 4 • INSIPUB PUBLISHERS 1 • OTHERS 6 or more.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Herewith 466 Journals are presented, all of which normally publish the received manuscripts with no peer reviewing, just in front of money and as a fruitful business far from scientific approach. The mentioned Journals have been discovered as supported by serious efforts and experiences; however, there must be more Journals to be added up. Therefore, further journals will be gradually added to the current inventory in order to boost the knowledge and capabilities of graduate students as well as faculties. Finally, you are advised to consult with IAU Research Deputy Office or the compiler -IJEST Journal- when choosing between the due Journals.
quote:MAXWELL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION 14 Journals • Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences • Asian Journal of Business Management • Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology • Asian Journal of Medical Sciences • British Journal of Dairy Sciences • British Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology • Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences • Current Research Journal of Economic Theory • Current Research Journal of Social Sciences • International Journal of Animal and veterinary Advances • Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology • Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences • Research Journal of Information Technology • Research Journal of Mathematics and Statistic
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmecs came from Africa. There is no evidence that the Olmec existed in Mexico before 1200-1100 BC.
The archaeological evidence suggest that the Olmec "miraculously appear on American soil".
Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs:America’s first civilization (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25).
Pool (17-18), in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”.
Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).”
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
T .
Boring spam.
In the future I will show many more examples of Winters’s techniques of misquoting, partial quoting, and paraphrasing instead of accurate quoting to misrepresent the facts and make it seem as if he has established scholars agreeing with his version of events.
The Olmecs DID NOT arise suddenly in 1200 BC.
See the following:
Tate, C. E. 1995 “Art in Olmec Culture,” pp. 47-67 In [u] The Olmec world [/u]Princeton: the Art Museum, Princeton University
quote:p. 47 “ For the purpose of this discussion, Formative period objects embodying the themes, formats, subjects and formal qualities associated with the dominant form of shamanic kingship, not only from the Gulf Coast but also from other areas of Mesoamerica, will be called “Olmec.” Most of the object in this exposition probably date to the Middle Formative and are part of a widespread ceremonial complex, as discussed by F. Kent Reilly, III, in this volume.” . . . p. 65 Far more than merely a style, however, Olmec art objects codified and communicated a shamanic reality whose fundamental truths were shared by disparate peoples across Mesoamerica... Taken together, the subjects of Olmec art must present a nearly complete view of the ideological concerns of America’s first civilization.. . Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have had no antecedents, no material models remain for its monumental constructions an sculpture and the ritual acts captured in small objects.
Winters continues to cite the underlined Tate statement in support of his “sudden origin” omitting the paragraph on p. 46 or the prior qualification on p. 67. When we asked Dr. Tate about these lines, she pointed out that she was speaking about all of Mesoamerica not just the Gulf Olmec.
quote:From: "Tate, Carolyn" <CAROLYN.TATE@ttu.edu> To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Hello Professor Tate, is this still your interpretation?
It depends on how we define "Olmec." in that statement I used the term at its broadest, to refer to any culture of the Initial Formative Period in Mesoamerica. I did not mean to refer to the GULF COAST Olmec exclusively. antecedents to Gulf Coast Olmec art and ritual include
Nixtamalization--Oaxaca earliest Mounds-- pacific coast earliest ball court -- Geo Shih or Paso de la Amada earliest evidence of social stratification -- Paso de la Amada Earliest use of jade axes in a ritual deposit -- El Manati
The following is a series of Winters’ statements that are incorrect or misleading by selective quotations.
quote:Winters Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J. E. Clark and M.E. Pye, makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become like the Olmecs” (p. 234).
BOM (as usual Winters can’t cite accurately) The full cite is
Clark, J.E. and M.E. Pye 2000 “The Pacific Coast and the Olmec,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [u]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica[/u] pp. 217-251 Washington: National Academy of Art
completely misrepresents what Clark and Pye say— Mokaya and the Olmec area (Olman) interacted for a thousand years. The cite Winters uses refers to the LAST phase interaction.
quote:p. 243-244. At the beginning of the Early Formative [BOM Barra Phase 1700-1500 BC]-, the Mokaya at the Soconusco were clearly independent of other peoples of Mesoamerica, Early forms of rank society, or simple chiefdoms, evolved in the Pacific Coast region, and these institutions were quickly adopted by neighboring peoples including those living in Olman [what is usually called the Olmec heartland] (see Clark 1994a; Clark and Blake 1994). There is clear archaeological evidence of early contact between the peoples of the Pacific Coast and those of Olman in pre-Olmec times, most apparent in ceramic assemblages and the types of obsidian imported into each region. The Mokaya’s impact on the first villagers of Olman remains to be determined, but we think it was significant [see Clark 1990; Clark and Blake 1989). Some contact was maintained between the two groups throughout the Formative period, but after the initial close contact at the beginning of the Early Formative the peoples in the Soconusco and Olman developed along separate paths. The people of Olman created the cultural patterns and representational systems that we now call “Olmec”, and the Mokaya of the Soconusco continued much as before. About 1200 B.C. the Olmecs of Olman and the Mokaya of the Mazatan regions once again begin to interact with greater frequency.
[
quote:Winters: Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries.
[BOM] Pye does NOT say that “it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose..” AND Winters omits the rest of the paragraph that contradicts his claims
quote:PP. 245-246 Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries. (This much quoted by Winters)
BUT WINTERS DOES NOT CITE THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH
Creation of this first stratified society involved the forging and crystallization of social, political, and religious institutions that became the hallmarks of Mesoamerica itself. As with all historical entities and cultural configurations, this was not creation ex nihilo but from preexistent matter. The Olmecs clearly were influenced by their predecessors and neighbors, such as the Mokaya, in significant ways. . .
. Pye, M. E. and Clark, J.E. 2000 “Introducing Olmec Archaeology,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [U]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica [/U]pp. 9-17 Washington: National Academy of Art
Another quote from Pye and Clark:
quote:p. 9-10 This definition begs the question, of course, of just what is meant by “Mesoamerican practices”; these include traits such as the cultivation of chocolate, manufacture of paper, the rubber-ball game, human sacrifice, complex ritual calendar, beliefs in corn deities and others [see Kirchhoff 1943].. . Textbooks perpetuate the fallacy of Mesoamerica as a fixed geographical territory. The original distinction remains valuable, however, because there was time, about 1500 B.C., when these cultural practices had not yet been established or disseminated. Along with the “where” of Mesoamerica, we need to consider the “when.” How was the Mesoamerican way of life established? How did it evolve? And how did it spread over time? . . . . p. 12 We suggest, instead, that the term [Olmec] be used to describe peoples who followed a particular suite of cultural practices that included certain forms of visual representations (see Clark and Pye this volume).. . . We also believe that the archaeological record already demonstrates convincingly that there were several contemporaneous Olmec polities or entities for most time periods, so we have opted for the plural to convey the idea of plurality rather than a single monolithic entity.
BOM here are more quotes on the topic by other Olmec Scholars
David C. Grove. 1993. “Olmec” Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution?” In Don S. Rice, ed. [u]Latin American Horizons[/u]. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
quote:p.85 The “origins” of Olmec culture have been speculative at times. Because the early La Venta explorations were confined to a mound-plaza complex (Complex A) now known to be relatively late in Olmec prehistory, no antecedents to the artifacts recovered there were readily apparent, and thus a notion began that perhaps Olmec culture was intrusive and that it had not originated on the Gulf Coast (see below also). However, the stratigraphic data later retrieved by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl from San Lorenzo clearly demonstrate that Olmec culture is indeed indigenous to the Gulf Coast (Coe 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980; Grove 1981a: 376-378). ******** The argument for the origin of Olmec style coming from coastal Guatemala is made by John Graham, “Olmec Diffusion: A Cultural View from Pacific Guatemala,” pp. 227-246. This book has chapter by practically all the key archaeologists involved in Olmec research. Now, having published a number of books, I can tell you that these chapters were written up to 2 years before publication. Furthermore, ideas are published as papers in professional journals before they get into books. These ideas are at least 10 years old.
As I pointed out previously, the Olmec *did not* arise suddenly. In the Gulf Area, there is evidence of continual and gradually increasing in complexity occupation of the San Lorenzo site dating to 1500 B.C. (Coe and Diehl 1980) and in the La Venta site occupation of the Rio Bari as far back as 1800 B.C. (Rust and Leyden 1994). A recent summary of the origin of the Olmecs is the quote from Clark (1991):
“The Mesoamerican tradition was first clearly in place by Olmec times. Here (in Guatemala BOM) its beginnings are traced back five centuries before the Olmecs to the Mokaya of the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. It is argued here that the first complex cities in Middle America arose in this littoral shore and had profound and widespread civilizing influence on the area that would soon become the nucleus of Mesoamerica. Recent research in the Mazatan region of Coastal Chiapas suggests that simple chiefdom societies were in place by at least 1650 B.C.”
Clark, J. F. 1991. “The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative.” in [u]The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica[/u]. edited by Wm. R. Fowler. 13-26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Coe, M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl. 1980. [u]In the Land of the Olmecs: Archeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan[/u]. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rust, W.F. and B. W. Leyden. 1994. “Evidence of Maize use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites,” in S. Johannessen and C. H. Hostoy, eds. [u]Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World[/u] pp. 181-201.Boulder: Westview Press. %%%%%%%
Properly cited Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u] The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
quote:Winters says:
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs: America’s first civilization (2005) wrote “The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.” (p. 25)
BOM a couple of points 1) Diehl poses ONLY 2 possibilities- Mokaya or indigenous development nothing else—so this DOES NOT allow the possibility of an African intervention. Also see that San Lorenzo has been pushed back to 1600 BC and that the pottery from that period is identical to pottery from Mokaya, El Manati, and Chiapas supporting Clark and Pye that there were several contacts between San Lorenzo and Mokaya. The first one— Mokaya was more advanced and influenced San Lorenzo and LATER comes the contact used by Winters where San Lorenzo came back and influenced Mokaya. It would be useful to show that pottery of the Ojochi period was very different from African Mande pottery (they may have still been pastoralists and not making pottery- also compare Chicharras pottery)
Also, as usual Winters’ quotes selectively Immediately before what Winters quotes —the paragraph says:
quote:Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. BOM denies Winters’ claim that the Mande arrived 1200 BC During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshippers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art.
p. 27 “ Excavations at San Lorenzo have revealed three phases of occupation prior to its emergence as a full-blown city at 1200 BC: Ojochi (1550-1350 BC), Bajio (1350-1250 BC) and Chicharras (1250-1150 BC). Remains of these occupations lie deeply buried under later debris but even so, recent excavations suggest that San Lorenzo covered at least 20 ha (49 acres) by 1250 BC. Surveys in the 400-sq. km (155-sq. mile) region around San Lorenzo identified more than 1000 Bajio and Chicharras-phase sites that formed a complex three-tiered settlement hierarchy with the village of San Lorenzo at its apex. The subsidiary communities included nine small villages and scores of small hamlets and farmsteads. Most settlements were located on high ground that did not flood, but yet provided access to fresh water and fluvial transport. San Lorenzo was the largest village in the region and seems to have dominated the entire zone even at this early time, perhaps receiving food and other tribute from its subordinates. Ojochi-phase [BOM 1600-1500 BC] pottery includes utilitarian wares used in daily life as well as finely made vessels suitable for ceremonial feasting. Vessel forms included bowls, thin-walled tecomates (restricted mouth-jars that resemble gourds), and jars with out-flaring necks. Red slips and a variety of surface modifications such as gadrooning, grooving , punctuation, and contrasting polished and roughened areas all added to the attractiveness of the vessels. Ojochi-phase pottery is virtually identical to Manati-A-phase ceramics, as well as more distant Pellicer-phase materials in Tabasco, and Barra-phase pottery found in coastal Chiapas across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
Winters says:
quote:“Pool (17-18) in Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (2007), argues that continuity exist [sic] between Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico”[even] though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin of Olmec culture (Diehl& Coe 1995: 150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo [u]rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32: Coe and Diehl 1980a: 150.”
And “Pool admits (p. 95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo who reported dramatic change in ceramic types and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p. 150).”
[BOM] Again a thin reed. Notice that even his own cite contradicts his 1200 BC scenario by 250 years Just because Winters’ never changes his positions even when they have been proved to be wrong for years does not mean that REAL scholars do not change their views when new or contrary evidence comes to light. Coe’s and Diehl’s opinion of 30-40 year ago is no longer valid because there have been a lot of excavation in the intervening period.
First, the latest opinion of Coe and Diehl. (Pool has a typo in his Diehl and Coe 1995 cite)
Diehl, R. A. and M. D. Coe 1995 “ Olmec Archaeology,” in [u]The Olmec world Ritual and Rulership[/u] Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University.
quote:p. 11-12 “Biologically, the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait land bridge. This may come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalist claims that the Olmecs were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover at least one Old world artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none has appeared and it is unlikely any will.” . . . The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Olmec heartland is found on the natural levees of the Rio Bari, an old, silted-in stream near la Venta, Tabasco, where farmers settled as early as 2200 B.C. similar villages occurred along all the river valleys of the Olmec heartland in the following centuries. Although they appear to lack the monumental art and architecture, social hierarchies, and complex institutions that characterize Olmec culture, these villages clearly provided the local population base for the later Olmec expansion. By the end of the pre-Olmec period, San Lorenzo and La Venta were growing faster than other communities and fragments of basalt monuments in some of the deepest levels at San Lorenzo suggest that the Olmec sculptural tradition existed prior to 1200 B.C.”[QUOTE]
Now Diehl Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u]The Olmecs America’s first Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
[QUOTE]pp. 13-14 “The origins of Olmec culture have intrigued scholars and lay people alike since Tres Zapotes Colossal head 1, a gigantic stone human head with vaguely Negroid features was discovered in Veracruz 140 years ago. Since that time, Olmec culture and art have been attributed to seafaring Africans, Egyptians, Nubians, Phoenicians, Atlanteans, Japanese, Chinese, and other ancient wanderers. As often happens, the truth is infinitely more logical, if less romantic: the Olmecs were Native Americans who created a unique culture in southeastern Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Archaeologists now trace Olmec origins back to pre-Olmec cultures in the region and there is no credible evidence for major intrusions from the outside. Furthermore, not a single bona fide artifact of Old world origin has ever appeared in an Olmec archaeological site, or for that matter anywhere else in Mesoamerica.
p. 28 “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
%%%%
Finally another expert on Olmec art
Karl A. Taube. 2004. [u]Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks /Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks[/u]
quote:p.1 To this day, the Olmec continue to be traced to such distant regions as Africa and China (Van Sertima 1976; Thomson 1989; Gonzalez Calderon 1991; Xu 1996). [NOTE 1. Quite frequently, arguments for Old world contacts are based on superficial visual resemblances. A particularly egregious example appeared in U.S. News & World Report (Fenyvesi 1996). According to Shang scholar, Han Ping Chen. One of the miniature jade stelae from La Venta Offering 4 contains a readable Chinese text (ibid.) it has been known for some time, however, that these miniature stelae derive from halves of incised celts cut along the central long axis. Two of the incised Offering 4 “stelae” are parts of the same incised celt, which portrayed a flying figure holding a knuckle-duster and maize ear fetish (see Cervantes 1969; fig. 11). As for the purported incised Shang text, it constitutes half of a frontally facing depiction of the Olmec Maize god. For a reconstruction of the entire figure, see Reilly n.d.; fig 4.51]. The archaeological evidence argues for an entirely indigenous development, however, and many Olmec traits are traceable to earlier cultures of Early Formative Mesoamerica. There is simply no material evidence of any pre-Hispanic contact between the Old world and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century.
p. 5-7. Although the Olmec were extremely early, they by no means appeared ex nihilo, like some wondrous mushroom, out of the swampy Gulf coast lowlands. Many of the more fundamental Olmec traits, such as social hierarchy, ceramics, food production, monumental architecture, craft specialization, ball game, dedicatory offerings, and the restricted use of jade and other rare, exotic goods already were present among earlier Formative peoples. Although similar and contemporaneous developments were surely occurring in the Olmec heartland, the incipient Formative period is best documented for the nearby coastal piedmont region of southern Chiapas and neighboring Guatemala, often referred to as the Soconusco (Blake 1991; Blake et al. 1995; Ceja Tenorio 1985; Clark 1991, 1994; John Clark and Michael Blake 1989, 1994; Coe 1961; Green and Lowe 1967; Love 1975). Clark and Blake (1989) aptly term the Early Formative people of this region Mokaya, a Mixe-Zoque word for “the people of the corn.”
%%%%%%%%%%
These comments do not dispute anything that I wrote. The authors are all making hypotheses but they present no valid archaeological evidence in support of an Olmec presence in the Gulf before 1200BC.
For example you quote Coe as follows:
quote: “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
Coe makes it clear he is making a hypothesis. The obvious appearence of black and white pottery shows the arrival of a new population, and contradicts Coe reinterpretation of the artifacts.
You are trying to make your own interpretation of what these authors wrote.
Contrary to you-who never acknowledges error or abandons discredited ideas- true scientists like Mike Coe continue to learn and to alter his views in light of new evidence. That is what Science is- not the usual balderdash you preach. What s more characteristic of your technique is to ignore the voluminous quotes from scholars clearly contradicting your "sudden appearance 1200 BC.", and picking some small statement to parse the words as if this negated all the that was produced.
LOL You can spin, you can dodge, you can whirl iike a dervish, BUT I am quoting all the scholars extensively with no sleight of hand misquoting as I've here that you do. All my quotations are properly referenced so that any one who doubts them an easily check. On the other hand, the one who is twisting and misinterpreting ,partially quoting and omitting--as I have shown above- those sentence in the paragraph that refute the interpretation you are pushing. Readers can see for themselves who is really a rogue scholar . In the future I'll post some of these dodgy practices in other areas and caught by other people in this forum.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmecs came from Africa. There is no evidence that the Olmec existed in Mexico before 1200-1100 BC.
The archaeological evidence suggest that the Olmec "miraculously appear on American soil".
Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs:America’s first civilization (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25).
Pool (17-18), in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”.
Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).”
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
T .
Boring spam.
In the future I will show many more examples of Winters’s techniques of misquoting, partial quoting, and paraphrasing instead of accurate quoting to misrepresent the facts and make it seem as if he has established scholars agreeing with his version of events.
The Olmecs DID NOT arise suddenly in 1200 BC.
See the following:
Tate, C. E. 1995 “Art in Olmec Culture,” pp. 47-67 In [u] The Olmec world [/u]Princeton: the Art Museum, Princeton University
quote:p. 47 “ For the purpose of this discussion, Formative period objects embodying the themes, formats, subjects and formal qualities associated with the dominant form of shamanic kingship, not only from the Gulf Coast but also from other areas of Mesoamerica, will be called “Olmec.” Most of the object in this exposition probably date to the Middle Formative and are part of a widespread ceremonial complex, as discussed by F. Kent Reilly, III, in this volume.” . . . p. 65 Far more than merely a style, however, Olmec art objects codified and communicated a shamanic reality whose fundamental truths were shared by disparate peoples across Mesoamerica... Taken together, the subjects of Olmec art must present a nearly complete view of the ideological concerns of America’s first civilization.. . Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have had no antecedents, no material models remain for its monumental constructions an sculpture and the ritual acts captured in small objects.
Winters continues to cite the underlined Tate statement in support of his “sudden origin” omitting the paragraph on p. 46 or the prior qualification on p. 67. When we asked Dr. Tate about these lines, she pointed out that she was speaking about all of Mesoamerica not just the Gulf Olmec.
quote:From: "Tate, Carolyn" <CAROLYN.TATE@ttu.edu> To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Hello Professor Tate, is this still your interpretation?
It depends on how we define "Olmec." in that statement I used the term at its broadest, to refer to any culture of the Initial Formative Period in Mesoamerica. I did not mean to refer to the GULF COAST Olmec exclusively. antecedents to Gulf Coast Olmec art and ritual include
Nixtamalization--Oaxaca earliest Mounds-- pacific coast earliest ball court -- Geo Shih or Paso de la Amada earliest evidence of social stratification -- Paso de la Amada Earliest use of jade axes in a ritual deposit -- El Manati
The following is a series of Winters’ statements that are incorrect or misleading by selective quotations.
quote:Winters Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J. E. Clark and M.E. Pye, makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become like the Olmecs” (p. 234).
BOM (as usual Winters can’t cite accurately) The full cite is
Clark, J.E. and M.E. Pye 2000 “The Pacific Coast and the Olmec,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [u]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica[/u] pp. 217-251 Washington: National Academy of Art
completely misrepresents what Clark and Pye say— Mokaya and the Olmec area (Olman) interacted for a thousand years. The cite Winters uses refers to the LAST phase interaction.
quote:p. 243-244. At the beginning of the Early Formative [BOM Barra Phase 1700-1500 BC]-, the Mokaya at the Soconusco were clearly independent of other peoples of Mesoamerica, Early forms of rank society, or simple chiefdoms, evolved in the Pacific Coast region, and these institutions were quickly adopted by neighboring peoples including those living in Olman [what is usually called the Olmec heartland] (see Clark 1994a; Clark and Blake 1994). There is clear archaeological evidence of early contact between the peoples of the Pacific Coast and those of Olman in pre-Olmec times, most apparent in ceramic assemblages and the types of obsidian imported into each region. The Mokaya’s impact on the first villagers of Olman remains to be determined, but we think it was significant [see Clark 1990; Clark and Blake 1989). Some contact was maintained between the two groups throughout the Formative period, but after the initial close contact at the beginning of the Early Formative the peoples in the Soconusco and Olman developed along separate paths. The people of Olman created the cultural patterns and representational systems that we now call “Olmec”, and the Mokaya of the Soconusco continued much as before. About 1200 B.C. the Olmecs of Olman and the Mokaya of the Mazatan regions once again begin to interact with greater frequency.
[
quote:Winters: Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries.
[BOM] Pye does NOT say that “it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose..” AND Winters omits the rest of the paragraph that contradicts his claims
quote:PP. 245-246 Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries. (This much quoted by Winters)
BUT WINTERS DOES NOT CITE THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH
Creation of this first stratified society involved the forging and crystallization of social, political, and religious institutions that became the hallmarks of Mesoamerica itself. As with all historical entities and cultural configurations, this was not creation ex nihilo but from preexistent matter. The Olmecs clearly were influenced by their predecessors and neighbors, such as the Mokaya, in significant ways. . .
. Pye, M. E. and Clark, J.E. 2000 “Introducing Olmec Archaeology,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [U]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica [/U]pp. 9-17 Washington: National Academy of Art
Another quote from Pye and Clark:
quote:p. 9-10 This definition begs the question, of course, of just what is meant by “Mesoamerican practices”; these include traits such as the cultivation of chocolate, manufacture of paper, the rubber-ball game, human sacrifice, complex ritual calendar, beliefs in corn deities and others [see Kirchhoff 1943].. . Textbooks perpetuate the fallacy of Mesoamerica as a fixed geographical territory. The original distinction remains valuable, however, because there was time, about 1500 B.C., when these cultural practices had not yet been established or disseminated. Along with the “where” of Mesoamerica, we need to consider the “when.” How was the Mesoamerican way of life established? How did it evolve? And how did it spread over time? . . . . p. 12 We suggest, instead, that the term [Olmec] be used to describe peoples who followed a particular suite of cultural practices that included certain forms of visual representations (see Clark and Pye this volume).. . . We also believe that the archaeological record already demonstrates convincingly that there were several contemporaneous Olmec polities or entities for most time periods, so we have opted for the plural to convey the idea of plurality rather than a single monolithic entity.
BOM here are more quotes on the topic by other Olmec Scholars
David C. Grove. 1993. “Olmec” Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution?” In Don S. Rice, ed. [u]Latin American Horizons[/u]. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
quote:p.85 The “origins” of Olmec culture have been speculative at times. Because the early La Venta explorations were confined to a mound-plaza complex (Complex A) now known to be relatively late in Olmec prehistory, no antecedents to the artifacts recovered there were readily apparent, and thus a notion began that perhaps Olmec culture was intrusive and that it had not originated on the Gulf Coast (see below also). However, the stratigraphic data later retrieved by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl from San Lorenzo clearly demonstrate that Olmec culture is indeed indigenous to the Gulf Coast (Coe 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980; Grove 1981a: 376-378). ******** The argument for the origin of Olmec style coming from coastal Guatemala is made by John Graham, “Olmec Diffusion: A Cultural View from Pacific Guatemala,” pp. 227-246. This book has chapter by practically all the key archaeologists involved in Olmec research. Now, having published a number of books, I can tell you that these chapters were written up to 2 years before publication. Furthermore, ideas are published as papers in professional journals before they get into books. These ideas are at least 10 years old.
As I pointed out previously, the Olmec *did not* arise suddenly. In the Gulf Area, there is evidence of continual and gradually increasing in complexity occupation of the San Lorenzo site dating to 1500 B.C. (Coe and Diehl 1980) and in the La Venta site occupation of the Rio Bari as far back as 1800 B.C. (Rust and Leyden 1994). A recent summary of the origin of the Olmecs is the quote from Clark (1991):
“The Mesoamerican tradition was first clearly in place by Olmec times. Here (in Guatemala BOM) its beginnings are traced back five centuries before the Olmecs to the Mokaya of the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. It is argued here that the first complex cities in Middle America arose in this littoral shore and had profound and widespread civilizing influence on the area that would soon become the nucleus of Mesoamerica. Recent research in the Mazatan region of Coastal Chiapas suggests that simple chiefdom societies were in place by at least 1650 B.C.”
Clark, J. F. 1991. “The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative.” in [u]The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica[/u]. edited by Wm. R. Fowler. 13-26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Coe, M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl. 1980. [u]In the Land of the Olmecs: Archeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan[/u]. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rust, W.F. and B. W. Leyden. 1994. “Evidence of Maize use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites,” in S. Johannessen and C. H. Hostoy, eds. [u]Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World[/u] pp. 181-201.Boulder: Westview Press. %%%%%%%
Properly cited Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u] The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
quote:Winters says:
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs: America’s first civilization (2005) wrote “The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.” (p. 25)
BOM a couple of points 1) Diehl poses ONLY 2 possibilities- Mokaya or indigenous development nothing else—so this DOES NOT allow the possibility of an African intervention. Also see that San Lorenzo has been pushed back to 1600 BC and that the pottery from that period is identical to pottery from Mokaya, El Manati, and Chiapas supporting Clark and Pye that there were several contacts between San Lorenzo and Mokaya. The first one— Mokaya was more advanced and influenced San Lorenzo and LATER comes the contact used by Winters where San Lorenzo came back and influenced Mokaya. It would be useful to show that pottery of the Ojochi period was very different from African Mande pottery (they may have still been pastoralists and not making pottery- also compare Chicharras pottery)
Also, as usual Winters’ quotes selectively Immediately before what Winters quotes —the paragraph says:
quote:Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. BOM denies Winters’ claim that the Mande arrived 1200 BC During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshippers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art.
p. 27 “ Excavations at San Lorenzo have revealed three phases of occupation prior to its emergence as a full-blown city at 1200 BC: Ojochi (1550-1350 BC), Bajio (1350-1250 BC) and Chicharras (1250-1150 BC). Remains of these occupations lie deeply buried under later debris but even so, recent excavations suggest that San Lorenzo covered at least 20 ha (49 acres) by 1250 BC. Surveys in the 400-sq. km (155-sq. mile) region around San Lorenzo identified more than 1000 Bajio and Chicharras-phase sites that formed a complex three-tiered settlement hierarchy with the village of San Lorenzo at its apex. The subsidiary communities included nine small villages and scores of small hamlets and farmsteads. Most settlements were located on high ground that did not flood, but yet provided access to fresh water and fluvial transport. San Lorenzo was the largest village in the region and seems to have dominated the entire zone even at this early time, perhaps receiving food and other tribute from its subordinates. Ojochi-phase [BOM 1600-1500 BC] pottery includes utilitarian wares used in daily life as well as finely made vessels suitable for ceremonial feasting. Vessel forms included bowls, thin-walled tecomates (restricted mouth-jars that resemble gourds), and jars with out-flaring necks. Red slips and a variety of surface modifications such as gadrooning, grooving , punctuation, and contrasting polished and roughened areas all added to the attractiveness of the vessels. Ojochi-phase pottery is virtually identical to Manati-A-phase ceramics, as well as more distant Pellicer-phase materials in Tabasco, and Barra-phase pottery found in coastal Chiapas across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
Winters says:
quote:“Pool (17-18) in Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (2007), argues that continuity exist [sic] between Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico”[even] though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin of Olmec culture (Diehl& Coe 1995: 150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo [u]rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32: Coe and Diehl 1980a: 150.”
And “Pool admits (p. 95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo who reported dramatic change in ceramic types and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p. 150).”
[BOM] Again a thin reed. Notice that even his own cite contradicts his 1200 BC scenario by 250 years Just because Winters’ never changes his positions even when they have been proved to be wrong for years does not mean that REAL scholars do not change their views when new or contrary evidence comes to light. Coe’s and Diehl’s opinion of 30-40 year ago is no longer valid because there have been a lot of excavation in the intervening period.
First, the latest opinion of Coe and Diehl. (Pool has a typo in his Diehl and Coe 1995 cite)
Diehl, R. A. and M. D. Coe 1995 “ Olmec Archaeology,” in [u]The Olmec world Ritual and Rulership[/u] Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University.
quote:p. 11-12 “Biologically, the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait land bridge. This may come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalist claims that the Olmecs were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover at least one Old world artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none has appeared and it is unlikely any will.” . . . The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Olmec heartland is found on the natural levees of the Rio Bari, an old, silted-in stream near la Venta, Tabasco, where farmers settled as early as 2200 B.C. similar villages occurred along all the river valleys of the Olmec heartland in the following centuries. Although they appear to lack the monumental art and architecture, social hierarchies, and complex institutions that characterize Olmec culture, these villages clearly provided the local population base for the later Olmec expansion. By the end of the pre-Olmec period, San Lorenzo and La Venta were growing faster than other communities and fragments of basalt monuments in some of the deepest levels at San Lorenzo suggest that the Olmec sculptural tradition existed prior to 1200 B.C.”[QUOTE]
Now Diehl Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u]The Olmecs America’s first Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson
[QUOTE]pp. 13-14 “The origins of Olmec culture have intrigued scholars and lay people alike since Tres Zapotes Colossal head 1, a gigantic stone human head with vaguely Negroid features was discovered in Veracruz 140 years ago. Since that time, Olmec culture and art have been attributed to seafaring Africans, Egyptians, Nubians, Phoenicians, Atlanteans, Japanese, Chinese, and other ancient wanderers. As often happens, the truth is infinitely more logical, if less romantic: the Olmecs were Native Americans who created a unique culture in southeastern Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Archaeologists now trace Olmec origins back to pre-Olmec cultures in the region and there is no credible evidence for major intrusions from the outside. Furthermore, not a single bona fide artifact of Old world origin has ever appeared in an Olmec archaeological site, or for that matter anywhere else in Mesoamerica.
p. 28 “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
%%%%
Finally another expert on Olmec art
Karl A. Taube. 2004. [u]Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks /Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks[/u]
quote:p.1 To this day, the Olmec continue to be traced to such distant regions as Africa and China (Van Sertima 1976; Thomson 1989; Gonzalez Calderon 1991; Xu 1996). [NOTE 1. Quite frequently, arguments for Old world contacts are based on superficial visual resemblances. A particularly egregious example appeared in U.S. News & World Report (Fenyvesi 1996). According to Shang scholar, Han Ping Chen. One of the miniature jade stelae from La Venta Offering 4 contains a readable Chinese text (ibid.) it has been known for some time, however, that these miniature stelae derive from halves of incised celts cut along the central long axis. Two of the incised Offering 4 “stelae” are parts of the same incised celt, which portrayed a flying figure holding a knuckle-duster and maize ear fetish (see Cervantes 1969; fig. 11). As for the purported incised Shang text, it constitutes half of a frontally facing depiction of the Olmec Maize god. For a reconstruction of the entire figure, see Reilly n.d.; fig 4.51]. The archaeological evidence argues for an entirely indigenous development, however, and many Olmec traits are traceable to earlier cultures of Early Formative Mesoamerica. There is simply no material evidence of any pre-Hispanic contact between the Old world and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century.
p. 5-7. Although the Olmec were extremely early, they by no means appeared ex nihilo, like some wondrous mushroom, out of the swampy Gulf coast lowlands. Many of the more fundamental Olmec traits, such as social hierarchy, ceramics, food production, monumental architecture, craft specialization, ball game, dedicatory offerings, and the restricted use of jade and other rare, exotic goods already were present among earlier Formative peoples. Although similar and contemporaneous developments were surely occurring in the Olmec heartland, the incipient Formative period is best documented for the nearby coastal piedmont region of southern Chiapas and neighboring Guatemala, often referred to as the Soconusco (Blake 1991; Blake et al. 1995; Ceja Tenorio 1985; Clark 1991, 1994; John Clark and Michael Blake 1989, 1994; Coe 1961; Green and Lowe 1967; Love 1975). Clark and Blake (1989) aptly term the Early Formative people of this region Mokaya, a Mixe-Zoque word for “the people of the corn.”
%%%%%%%%%%
These comments do not dispute anything that I wrote. The authors are all making hypotheses but they present no valid archaeological evidence in support of an Olmec presence in the Gulf before 1200BC.
For example you quote Coe as follows:
quote: “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.
Coe makes it clear he is making a hypothesis. The obvious appearence of black and white pottery shows the arrival of a new population, and contradicts Coe reinterpretation of the artifacts.
You are trying to make your own interpretation of what these authors wrote.
Contrary to you-who never acknowledges error or abandons discredited ideas- true scientists like Mike Coe continue to learn and to alter his views in light of new evidence. That is what Science is- not the usual balderdash you preach. What s more characteristic of your technique is to ignore the voluminous quotes from scholars clearly contradicting your "sudden appearance 1200 BC.", and picking some small statement to parse the words as if this negated all the that was produced.
LOL You can spin, you can dodge, you can whirl iike a dervish, BUT I am quoting all the scholars extensively with no sleight of hand misquoting as I've here that you do. All my quotations are properly referenced so that any one who doubts them an easily check. On the other hand, the one who is twisting and misinterpreting ,partially quoting and omitting--as I have shown above- those sentence in the paragraph that refute the interpretation you are pushing. Readers can see for themselves who is really a rogue scholar . In the future I'll post some of these dodgy practices in other areas and caught by other people in this forum.
There is nothing I should abandon.Correct , readers can see for themselves you have presented nothing contradicting my post. The Olmec do not appear in Mexico until 1200 BC.
Oh you great Liar, You.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem with Winters is finding a journal to publish in-- I don't do the kind of unreviewed journals Winters does. Van Sertima had achieved some influence in schools and thus serious journals considered it worthwhile to publish an article critiquing his work. I would have trouble convincing peer reviewed journals that Clyde's work is worth some of their limited space.
This is just a cop out.Online Journals have unlimited space because they are published on-line.
My on-line articles were peer reviewed and you know it. You are upset because I can write and publish research articles for linguistic and scientific journals. You are a good writer of narrative style descriptive anthropological articles and books, but you are not a scientific research writer.
You just have to follow the methodology for research articles required by the journal, to get your paper published. Your problem is that you don't know how to write scientific and linguistics research papers.
If you had scientific evidence to support your propositions you could get your article published.In addition to not knowing how to write research articles, You just don't want to pay $2-3000 to have your paper published in the "Open Access" journals, e.g., PLoS, you support.
At that time I believe you were still teaching. I met many members of the establishment at these Conferences and I presented papers on panels along with other experts.
You have not published anything in response to my presentations at Conferences, articles and books.You confront my research at ES, in the hope that you can use the bandwagon effect (hate of the word :Afrocentrism) to garner support, but you fail because whereas you have no support for your propositions I bring forth evidence destroying all your false claims.
You have not published anything because you are a fool, but you are not foolish. Once you publish such an article I get the opportunity to respond and I will continue to show how you don't know what you're talking about. In a research journal I will show your peers what a liar you are.
A lot of the usual spam. Winters’s immediate recourse to ad hominem just demonstrates that he is running out of valid arguments or evidence—not worth dealing with. However, a little demonstration is in order
The Following are 5 papers I published with their impact factors. The impact factor is a measure of the quality and influence of a journal measured by the average number of citations of papers published in it by other articles and journals.
Ortiz de Montellano, B. R. 1975 “Empirical Aztec Medicine,” [u]Science[/u], 188, 215 -cover article; REPRINTED in the following: [u]Katunob,[/u] 1976 9 #3 (N. Klein, Ed., 1979[u] Culture Curers and Contagion[/u] (San Francisco: Chandler Sharp, 1979.
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1978 “Aztec Cannibalism; An Ecological Necessity?” [u]Science,[/u] 200, 611
Impact factor [u]Science[/u] = 33.611
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. and Davidson, J. 1983 “ The Antibacterial Properties of a Aztec Wound Remedy,”, [u]J. of Ethnopharmacology[/u], 8: 149
Impact factor =2.998
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1988 “A Methodology for Cross-Cultural Ethnomedical Research,”, with A. Rubel and C. Browner [u]Current Anthropology,[/u] 29, 681-702
Impact factor= 2.846
Ortiz de Montellano, B.R. 1998 “Ethnopharmacology of Mexican Asteracea Compositae,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 38 :539-565 with E. Rodríguez, M. Heinrich., M. Robles, J. West.
I may not be the first author listed on the last two.
On the other hand- One of Winters longer efforts:
Winters, C. 2011 “Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages,” [u]Current Research Journal of Social Sciences[/u] 3(3): 152-179, 2011
Impact factor= not available in Google search
However, even the Islamic Azad University in Iran has problems with this publisher
quote:Black List Journals PUBLICATION CENTERS: • ANSINET WORK 37 • KNOWLEDGIA SCIENTIFIC 16 • SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS 28 • MEDWELL JOURNALS 35 • AMERICAN EURASIAN NETWORK AENSI 15 • IDOSI JOURNALS 83 • MAXWELL 14 • SCIENCE ALERT COMPANIES 120 • ACADEMIC JOURNALS 10 • FRIENDS SCIENCE PUBLISHERS 2 • INDIAN JOURNALS WHICH IMITATE FROM IJEST JOURNAL 4 • INSIPUB PUBLISHERS 1 • OTHERS 6 or more.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Herewith 466 Journals are presented, all of which normally publish the received manuscripts with no peer reviewing, just in front of money and as a fruitful business far from scientific approach. The mentioned Journals have been discovered as supported by serious efforts and experiences; however, there must be more Journals to be added up. Therefore, further journals will be gradually added to the current inventory in order to boost the knowledge and capabilities of graduate students as well as faculties. Finally, you are advised to consult with IAU Research Deputy Office or the compiler -IJEST Journal- when choosing between the due Journals.
quote:MAXWELL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION 14 Journals • Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences • Asian Journal of Business Management • Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology • Asian Journal of Medical Sciences • British Journal of Dairy Sciences • British Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology • Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences • Current Research Journal of Economic Theory • Current Research Journal of Social Sciences • International Journal of Animal and veterinary Advances • Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology • Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences • Research Journal of Information Technology • Research Journal of Mathematics and Statistic
LOL.It is strange that only journals published by Non-Western European publishers are in this list. It appears to be biased.
As I said before we have been debating these issues since 1996, and support for my research continues to grow while you fail to dispute any of my points concerning the Mande origin of the Olmec: calendar, writing and religion. If you really believed you had the ammunition to falsify my research you would publish it.
It is obvious that since 1996 Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano or Quetzalcoatl has spent his time attacking my research on-line. During this time I have illustrated that his attacks lack any foundation.
I have shown that Wiener was right about the Mande substratum in the Mayan language, and the Mande origin of Olmec writing (via Tuxtla statuette) and Mayan calendar. This means that Bernardo has to be attacking my research for some other reason. That reason must be racism and jelousy.
It is no secret that Mestizos like Bernardo, are attacking Blacks in cities where they form a majority, i.e., Los Angeles. Like Bernardo, they claim Afro-Americans are trying to steal their heritage as "Native Americans". This is a lie, Mestizos like Bernardo carry some Africans genes, but they are basically "white" as evident in Bernardo's picture.
I believe that it is the white ancestry of Bernardo and the Mestizo cohort that leads them to attack Afro-Americans. They are happy to accept the fruits of looking like other whites, but they are jealous of Afro-Americans who continue to present the Negro phenotype associated with Native Americans from the paleoamericans up to the Olmecs.
Bernardo is jealous that his color, genetics and phenotype deny any heritage from the Native Americans, and thus any relationship to Native Americans.
This jealousy has caused Bernardo , and other Mestizos to hate Afro-Americans who prove there were Black or African founders of Pre-Columbian American Civilizations. That is why Bernardo attempts to use the bandwagon effect to find support for his spurious comments. Sadly, the Mestizos hate of Blacks is not a new phenomena. Mongoloid Indians have also been jealous of the civilization and creativity of Afro-Mexicans and etc. You can learn more about this attempt to erase Blacks from the history of the Americas, in my video:What happened to the Black Mexicans:
Or more simply, refusal to believe in something that has not been openly sanctioned by the White academic carthedral.
Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them, until it is sanctioned by their 'superiors'.
Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Ckyde, Is it jealousy and racism ??
Or more simply, refusal to believe in something that has not been openly sanctioned by the White academic carthedral.
Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them, until it is sanctioned by their 'superiors'.
That could be part of it , but even Bernardo admits that there is no interest on the part of the Establishment to publish his anti-Afrocentrism work. If the Academe is not concerned with this phenomena, according to Bernardo why does he continue to attack the Mande origin of the Olmec when he doesn't have any evidence to back up his claim. If the experts felt they could demolish the idea, I am sure they would publish articles falsifying the research of Wiener and myself. But up until today the "experts" don't comment.
The absence of interest by experts in attacking Afrocentrism, makes me have to believe that jealousy motivates the Mestizo attacks on Afro-Americans and the history of ancient Afro-Americans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is obvious that since 1996 Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano or Quetzalcoatl has spent his time attacking my research on-line. During this time I have illustrated that his attacks lack any foundation.
I have shown that Wiener was right about the Mande substratum in the Mayan language, and the Mande origin of Olmec writing (via Tuxtla statuette) and Mayan calendar. This means that Bernardo has to be attacking my research for some other reason. That reason must be racism and jelousy.
It is no secret that Mestizos like Bernardo, are attacking Blacks in cities where they form a majority, i.e., Los Angeles. Like Bernardo, they claim Afro-Americans are trying to steal their heritage as "Native Americans". This is a lie, Mestizos like Bernardo carry some Africans genes, but they are basically "white" as evident in Bernardo's picture.
I believe that it is the white ancestry of Bernardo and the Mestizo cohort that leads them to attack Afro-Americans. They are happy to accept the fruits of looking like other whites, but they are jealous of Afro-Americans who continue to present the Negro phenotype associated with Native Americans from the paleoamericans up to the Olmecs.
Bernardo is jealous that his color, genetics and phenotype deny any heritage from the Native Americans, and thus any relationship to Native Americans.
This jealousy has caused Bernardo , and other Mestizos to hate Afro-Americans who prove there were Black or African founders of Pre-Columbian American Civilizations. That is why Bernardo attempts to use the bandwagon effect to find support for his spurious comments. Sadly, the Mestizos hate of Blacks is not a new phenomena. Mongoloid Indians have also been jealous of the civilization and creativity of Afro-Mexicans and etc. You can learn more about this attempt to erase Blacks from the history of the Americas, in my video:What happened to the Black Mexicans:
In an attempt to distract from the substance, the immediate response is an appeal to ad hominem and accusations of racism. FYI mestizo is an mixture of white and Native American-no black genes.
1) What I am doing is defending Mesoamerican Indians and their heritage. According to Van Sertima and/or Winters, Native Americans were too stupid and inferior to develop writing, a calendar, or religion without some African coming over and teaching them how- thus kick starting their civilization. Almost by definition this racism. So Who is the racist one?
2) Interesting to see how Winters repeatedly quotes "the Establishment" i.e. Coe, Diehl, Pool, Pye, etc., when he they sen to support him. But, when the same people are quoted as clearly and directly stating that the Olmecs did not just arrive in 1200BC all of a sudden their views are just "opinions", racist, or a conspiracy by albinos to deny the Mande their rightful place in history.
Now that You have hijacked the thread- let's return to what you have dodging:
please show step-by-step how Tutul Xiu reads “Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande
In Maya "x" is /sh/ in Mande "s' is /s/ and
Delafosse 1929: 175) says that to pluralize add /u/ to a noun ending in a nasal vowel and to certain pronouns. [si] is not a nasal vowel. Further on page 176-177 “Generally it is not necessary to use the plural suffix, unless it is needed to clarify the phrase. And one never uses it when it deals with a name or word that explicitly indicate that it concerns several people or things. One omits the suffix when it follows words that convey a collective meaning .—example of not use “the Europeans do not eat dog meat”. Si as a people is a collective meaning.
Therefore your reading Si-u is not correct Mande
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is obvious that since 1996 Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano or Quetzalcoatl has spent his time attacking my research on-line. During this time I have illustrated that his attacks lack any foundation.
I have shown that Wiener was right about the Mande substratum in the Mayan language, and the Mande origin of Olmec writing (via Tuxtla statuette) and Mayan calendar. This means that Bernardo has to be attacking my research for some other reason. That reason must be racism and jelousy.
It is no secret that Mestizos like Bernardo, are attacking Blacks in cities where they form a majority, i.e., Los Angeles. Like Bernardo, they claim Afro-Americans are trying to steal their heritage as "Native Americans". This is a lie, Mestizos like Bernardo carry some Africans genes, but they are basically "white" as evident in Bernardo's picture.
I believe that it is the white ancestry of Bernardo and the Mestizo cohort that leads them to attack Afro-Americans. They are happy to accept the fruits of looking like other whites, but they are jealous of Afro-Americans who continue to present the Negro phenotype associated with Native Americans from the paleoamericans up to the Olmecs.
Bernardo is jealous that his color, genetics and phenotype deny any heritage from the Native Americans, and thus any relationship to Native Americans.
This jealousy has caused Bernardo , and other Mestizos to hate Afro-Americans who prove there were Black or African founders of Pre-Columbian American Civilizations. That is why Bernardo attempts to use the bandwagon effect to find support for his spurious comments. Sadly, the Mestizos hate of Blacks is not a new phenomena. Mongoloid Indians have also been jealous of the civilization and creativity of Afro-Mexicans and etc. You can learn more about this attempt to erase Blacks from the history of the Americas, in my video:What happened to the Black Mexicans:
In an attempt to distract from the substance, the immediate response is an appeal to ad hominem and accusations of racism. FYI mestizo is an mixture of white and Native American-no black genes.
1) What I am doing is defending Mesoamerican Indians and their heritage. According to Van Sertima and/or Winters, Native Americans were too stupid and inferior to develop writing, a calendar, or religion without some African coming over and teaching them how- thus kick starting their civilization. Almost by definition this racism. So Who is the racist one?
2) Interesting to see how Winters repeatedly quotes "the Establishment" i.e. Coe, Diehl, Pool, Pye, etc., when he they sen to support him. But, when the same people are quoted as clearly and directly stating that the Olmecs did not just arrive in 1200BC all of a sudden their views are just "opinions", racist, or a conspiracy by albinos to deny the Mande their rightful place in history.
Now that You have hijacked the thread- let's return to what you have dodging:
please show step-by-step how Tutul Xiu reads “Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande
In Maya "x" is /sh/ in Mande "s' is /s/ and
Delafosse 1929: 175) says that to pluralize add /u/ to a noun ending in a nasal vowel and to certain pronouns. [si] is not a nasal vowel. Further on page 176-177 “Generally it is not necessary to use the plural suffix, unless it is needed to clarify the phrase. And one never uses it when it deals with a name or word that explicitly indicate that it concerns several people or things. One omits the suffix when it follows words that convey a collective meaning .—example of not use “the Europeans do not eat dog meat”. Si as a people is a collective meaning.
Therefore your reading Si-u is not correct Mande
You are not defending American Indians. No one is saying mongoloid Native Americans can not accomplish anything we are just stating a Truth. You try to make it appear that Sertima and I are radicals but Black historians have always recognized that Blacks were in America before Columbus beginning with DuBois.
Stop lying about the meaning of Si. Below Delafosse Malinke-Bambara 'si' = collective meanings family, race, descendants etc .
You are a liar and Deciever. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas in African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (3). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population (4).
The mtDNA haplogroup A, common to Mexicans is also found among the Mande speaking people and some East Africans (4-6). Haplogroup A is found among Mixe and Mixtecs (4).The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans (6). In addition to the Mande speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A (5).
In a discussion of the Mestizo and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: " mestizo is an mixture of white and Native American-no black genes."
I think you may be right Clyde about Quezts.....
also, didnt you demonstare that Mexicans had "Black genes" ....
There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% . The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .
References:
1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.
3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Xiaohe people carried a wide variety of maternal lineages, including West Eurasian lineages H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, East Eurasian lineages B, C4, C5, D, G2a and Indian lineage M5."
Conclusion (see illustrations)
Our results indicate that the people of the Tarim Basin had a diverse maternal ancestry, with origins in Europe, central/eastern Siberia and southern/western Asia. These findings, together with information on the cultural context of the Xiaohe cemetery, can be used to test contrasting hypotheses of route of settlement into the Tarim Basin.
The Tarim Basin in the Xinjiang region of China is situated on the Silk Road, the collection of ancient trade routes that for several millennia linked China to the Mediterranean (Fig. 1). The present-day inhabitants of the Tarim Basin are highly diverse both culturally and biologically as a result of extensive movements of peoples and cultural exchanges between east and west Eurasia [1]–[3]. Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin [4]–[12]. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the Tarim region experienced at least two population influxes from the Russo-Kazakh steppe. The earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300–2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture derived from the Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian region and distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin (Fig. 1) [9], [12]–[15]. This view is based on the numerous similarities between the material culture, burial rituals and skeletal traits of the Afanasievo culture and the earliest Bronze Age sites in the Tarim Basin, such as Gumugou (ca. 3800 BP), one of the oldest sites with human burials in Xinjiang [8], [9], [11], [12], [16]. These first settlers were followed by people of the Late Bronze Age Andronovo cultural complex (ca. 2100–900 B.C.), another pastoralist culture derived from the Yamna culture, primarily distributed in the Pamirs, the Ferghana Valley, Kazakhstan, and the Minusinsk/Altai region (Fig. 1) [8], [9], [11], [12], [15], [16]. This is signaled by the introduction of new material culture, clothing styles and burial customs around 1200 B.C. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, also postulates a two-step settlement of the Tarim Basin in the Bronze Age, but maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (or BMAC, also known as the Oxus civilization) (ca. 2200–1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan (north Bactria), Afghanistan (south Bactria), and Turkmenistan [17], followed later by the Andronovo people from the northwest (Fig. 1) [5], [7]. This model emphasises the environmental similarities between the Xinjiang and Central Asian desert basins, and suggests that certain features, including the irrigation systems, wheat remains, woolen textiles, bones of sheep and goats, and traces of the medicinal plant Ephedra found in Xinjiang could be evidence of links with the Oxus civilization [5], [7], [16]. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Previous genetic evidence on the origin of the earliest settlers was based on the analysis of mtDNA from burials at the Gumugou cemetery in the eastern edge of the Tarim Basin. In that study, researchers sequenced the first mtDNA hypervariable region (HVRI), but the results were inconclusive [18]. The discovery of another Bronze Age site of a similar age to Gumugou, with many well-preserved mummies, including individuals with European facial features, provided a unique opportunity to obtain genetic evidence about the first settlers of the Tarim Basin [19]–[21].
thumbnailFig. 1. Map of Eurasia showing the location of the Xiaohe cemetery, the Tarim Basin, the ancient Silk Road routes and the areas occupied by cultures associated with the settlement of the Tarim Basin. This figure is drawn according to literatures
"Xiaohe people carried a wide variety of maternal lineages, including West Eurasian lineages H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, East Eurasian lineages B, C4, C5, D, G2a and Indian lineage M5."
Conclusion (see illustrations)
Our results indicate that the people of the Tarim Basin had a diverse maternal ancestry, with origins in Europe, central/eastern Siberia and southern/western Asia. These findings, together with information on the cultural context of the Xiaohe cemetery, can be used to test contrasting hypotheses of route of settlement into the Tarim Basin.
The Tarim Basin in the Xinjiang region of China is situated on the Silk Road, the collection of ancient trade routes that for several millennia linked China to the Mediterranean (Fig. 1). The present-day inhabitants of the Tarim Basin are highly diverse both culturally and biologically as a result of extensive movements of peoples and cultural exchanges between east and west Eurasia [1]–[3]. Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin [4]–[12]. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the Tarim region experienced at least two population influxes from the Russo-Kazakh steppe. The earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300–2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture derived from the Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian region and distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin (Fig. 1) [9], [12]–[15]. This view is based on the numerous similarities between the material culture, burial rituals and skeletal traits of the Afanasievo culture and the earliest Bronze Age sites in the Tarim Basin, such as Gumugou (ca. 3800 BP), one of the oldest sites with human burials in Xinjiang [8], [9], [11], [12], [16]. These first settlers were followed by people of the Late Bronze Age Andronovo cultural complex (ca. 2100–900 B.C.), another pastoralist culture derived from the Yamna culture, primarily distributed in the Pamirs, the Ferghana Valley, Kazakhstan, and the Minusinsk/Altai region (Fig. 1) [8], [9], [11], [12], [15], [16]. This is signaled by the introduction of new material culture, clothing styles and burial customs around 1200 B.C. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, also postulates a two-step settlement of the Tarim Basin in the Bronze Age, but maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (or BMAC, also known as the Oxus civilization) (ca. 2200–1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan (north Bactria), Afghanistan (south Bactria), and Turkmenistan [17], followed later by the Andronovo people from the northwest (Fig. 1) [5], [7]. This model emphasises the environmental similarities between the Xinjiang and Central Asian desert basins, and suggests that certain features, including the irrigation systems, wheat remains, woolen textiles, bones of sheep and goats, and traces of the medicinal plant Ephedra found in Xinjiang could be evidence of links with the Oxus civilization [5], [7], [16]. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Previous genetic evidence on the origin of the earliest settlers was based on the analysis of mtDNA from burials at the Gumugou cemetery in the eastern edge of the Tarim Basin. In that study, researchers sequenced the first mtDNA hypervariable region (HVRI), but the results were inconclusive [18]. The discovery of another Bronze Age site of a similar age to Gumugou, with many well-preserved mummies, including individuals with European facial features, provided a unique opportunity to obtain genetic evidence about the first settlers of the Tarim Basin [19]–[21].
thumbnailFig. 1. Map of Eurasia showing the location of the Xiaohe cemetery, the Tarim Basin, the ancient Silk Road routes and the areas occupied by cultures associated with the settlement of the Tarim Basin. This figure is drawn according to literatures
I link elephant's trunk/trumpet[Numango] to Siberian chum, a big tipi with entry via stepladder thru sky-eye = smokehole ie mammoths trunk.
The Chum was originally a conical tent of tilting rigid poles covered by a mammoth's hide, while a tipi was from a bison/buffalo hide, a lavu (Sapmi) from reindeer skins stitched, a sandhu (SanDhwe) from kudu skins or grass thatching.
What are these in Mandinka: house, round hut, basket, roundshield ? couldn't find them in dict.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Self-name or your designation? Did they write their tribe/nation as Xiu or Olmec or are we uncertain of their name?
"The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”"
Xilaan ?
Chinese name for Helenic Greece: Xila
"shield" translated: (woven roundshield) magal (Basque) macan (Malay) pacal (Maya) magen (Hebrew)= Mogen David = Starshield of David
all derived from Congo pygmy mbonguolu/woven dome
The Mayans say they got writing from the Xi.The Mayan writing was invented by the Olmec. As a result, the Olmec were named Xi.
It is obvious that since 1996 Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano or Quetzalcoatl has spent his time attacking my research on-line. During this time I have illustrated that his attacks lack any foundation.
I have shown that Wiener was right about the Mande substratum in the Mayan language, and the Mande origin of Olmec writing (via Tuxtla statuette) and Mayan calendar. This means that Bernardo has to be attacking my research for some other reason. That reason must be racism and jelousy.
It is no secret that Mestizos like Bernardo, are attacking Blacks in cities where they form a majority, i.e., Los Angeles. Like Bernardo, they claim Afro-Americans are trying to steal their heritage as "Native Americans". This is a lie, Mestizos like Bernardo carry some Africans genes, but they are basically "white" as evident in Bernardo's picture.
I believe that it is the white ancestry of Bernardo and the Mestizo cohort that leads them to attack Afro-Americans. They are happy to accept the fruits of looking like other whites, but they are jealous of Afro-Americans who continue to present the Negro phenotype associated with Native Americans from the paleoamericans up to the Olmecs.
Bernardo is jealous that his color, genetics and phenotype deny any heritage from the Native Americans, and thus any relationship to Native Americans.
This jealousy has caused Bernardo , and other Mestizos to hate Afro-Americans who prove there were Black or African founders of Pre-Columbian American Civilizations. That is why Bernardo attempts to use the bandwagon effect to find support for his spurious comments. Sadly, the Mestizos hate of Blacks is not a new phenomena. Mongoloid Indians have also been jealous of the civilization and creativity of Afro-Mexicans and etc. You can learn more about this attempt to erase Blacks from the history of the Americas, in my video:What happened to the Black Mexicans:
In an attempt to distract from the substance, the immediate response is an appeal to ad hominem and accusations of racism. FYI mestizo is an mixture of white and Native American-no black genes.
1) What I am doing is defending Mesoamerican Indians and their heritage. According to Van Sertima and/or Winters, Native Americans were too stupid and inferior to develop writing, a calendar, or religion without some African coming over and teaching them how- thus kick starting their civilization. Almost by definition this racism. So Who is the racist one?
2) Interesting to see how Winters repeatedly quotes "the Establishment" i.e. Coe, Diehl, Pool, Pye, etc., when he they sen to support him. But, when the same people are quoted as clearly and directly stating that the Olmecs did not just arrive in 1200BC all of a sudden their views are just "opinions", racist, or a conspiracy by albinos to deny the Mande their rightful place in history.
Now that You have hijacked the thread- let's return to what you have dodging:
please show step-by-step how Tutul Xiu reads “Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande
In Maya "x" is /sh/ in Mande "s' is /s/ and
Delafosse 1929: 175) says that to pluralize add /u/ to a noun ending in a nasal vowel and to certain pronouns. [si] is not a nasal vowel. Further on page 176-177 “Generally it is not necessary to use the plural suffix, unless it is needed to clarify the phrase. And one never uses it when it deals with a name or word that explicitly indicate that it concerns several people or things. One omits the suffix when it follows words that convey a collective meaning .—example of not use “the Europeans do not eat dog meat”. Si as a people is a collective meaning.
Therefore your reading Si-u is not correct Mande
You are not defending American Indians. No one is saying mongoloid Native Americans can not accomplish anything we are just stating a Truth. You try to make it appear that Sertima and I are radicals but Black historians have always recognized that Blacks were in America before Columbus beginning with DuBois.
Stop lying about the meaning of Si. Below Delafosse Malinke-Bambara 'si' = collective meanings family, race, descendants etc .
You are a liar and Deciever. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face.
Spam! please show step-by-step how Tutul Xiu reads “Very good subjects of the Order" in Mande
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
In a discussion of the Mestizo and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen. .
How many examples of Winters’ misquoting and partially quoting to pretend that there is establishment support for his allegations are needed to get some critical views of his flat out declarative statements?
Current example, Lisker. Winters writes twice to emphasize that
quote: In a discussion of the Mestizo and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Tilt! Winters did not show the rest of table in Lisker
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.
Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).
Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;
group black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20
In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
In a discussion of the Mestizo and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen. .
How many examples of Winters’ misquoting and partially quoting to pretend that there is establishment support for his allegations are needed to get some critical views of his flat out declarative statements?
Current example, Lisker. Winters writes twice to emphasize that
quote: In a discussion of the Mestizo and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Tilt! Winters did not show the rest of table in Lisker
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.
Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).
Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;
group black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20
In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.
I have given you the web address for the Suarez-Diaz paper so you can read it yourself. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indigenous Indian DNA is admixed with African DNA. The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). Haplogroup A is found among Mixe and Mixtecs ( Bonilla et al,2005).This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
The mtDNA A haplogroup common to Mexicans is also found among the Mande speaking people and some East Africans (Salas et al, 2002).The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans (Jackson et al, 2005). In addition to the Mande speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A ( Salas et al, 2002).
African y-chromosome are associated with YAP+ and 9bp. The YAP+; associated with A + G transition at DYS271 is found among Native Americans. The YAP+ individuals include Mixe speakers (32-33). YAP+ is often present in haplogroups (hg) y-chromosome C and D.
The American haplogroups A and B are part of the haplogroup N macrohaplogroup.
Ch’ol and Chontal at Campeche carry R-M173, E1b1b, K and T.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic