quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
LOL. You know that the so called whites in Wiercinski, were phenotypically like East Africans, not like European whites.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind. In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.
Below are the racial types identified by Wiercinski:
Equatorial Type
Dongolan Type
Sub-Pacific and Bushmanoid-Armenoid
Anatolian
.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.
The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
Secondly, Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian propulations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.
The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.
Wiercinski on the otherhand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African sample. This comparison avoided the use of skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade.
A. von Wuthenau (1980), and Wiercinski (1972b) highlight the numerous art pieces depicting the African or Black variety which made up the Olmec people. This re-anlysis of the Olmec skeletal meterial from Tlatilco and Cerro, which correctly identifies Armenoid, Dongolan and Loponoid as euphmisms for "Negro" make it clear that a substantial number of the Olmecs were Blacks support the art evidence and writing which point to an African origin for Olmec civilization.
In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages.
The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago.They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people.
Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).
The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population. These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ]LOL. You know that the so called whites in Wiercinski, were phenotypically like East Africans, not like European whites.
You just pulled that one out of you A--. For that matter, how do you know that Wierciski's "blacks" look like West Africans? Weircinski's ,in case you did not know or forgot, involve disaggregating mixed races to the pure component
quote:Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind. In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
Again you are showing your ignorance of the methodology used by Wiercinski. The only "pure" European type recorded by Woercinski is the Ainuid. There is no pure black recorded at Tlatilco. Here is a primer on the method. A number "pure" races were described. These could then be combined to make other races The pure races involved where are: White Nordic (A) Cromagnonoid (Y) Ainuid (P) Berberic (B) Mediterranean (E)
Black Negroid (N) Pigmic (O) Sudanese (X) Australoid (T)
So, for example, Alpine (HL) is a mix of two yellow races- 50% Armenoid and 50% Laponoid. To get the numbers you quote repeatedly you take all the "race types" found at a site and divide mixed races to get to the "pure" type and add them up. This is you get 13.5 "Black" at Tlatilco.
Armenoid-Bushmanoid(HN) ½ 1.95 Dongolian(PX) ½ 9.9 Laponoid-Equatorial (LX) 1.9 TOTAL = 13.5 Using the same methodology We find the following European "white" presence:
White Tlatilco Alban cerro Teoti Maya 19.2% 14.20% 13.65% 12.5% 4.05
Black 13.5% 4.2% 4.55% 0.00 1.35%
Wiercinski finds more European skeletons in every site than Africans.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
What we are talking about here are WNA's i.e. hybrids between these "whites" and Native Americans--WNA's are brown. This is exactly how mestizos are made--brown. The problem, as I have decried before, is the total ad hoc nature of the term "black"-- on the one hand, 1% African blood make you "black" on the other so called "Black Native Americans" are called "black" although they too are brown.
Europeans in 1000 BC got to Tlatilco on the same magic carpet that brought the Mande to Tlatilco.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
What we are talking about here are WNA's i.e. hybrids between these "whites" and Native Americans--WNA's are brown. This is exactly how mestizos are made--brown. The problem, as I have decried before, is the total ad hoc nature of the term "black"-- on the one hand, 1% African blood make you "black" on the other so called "Black Native Americans" are called "black" although they too are brown.
Europeans in 1000 BC got to Tlatilco on the same magic carpet that brought the Mande to Tlatilco.
LOL. You're funny. Wiercinski provides examples of the races he claims the Olmec belonged too in his paper and none of them fit the profile for white Europeans.
Below are the racial types identified by Wiercinski:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%? If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans. White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
What we are talking about here are WNA's i.e. hybrids between these "whites" and Native Americans--WNA's are brown. This is exactly how mestizos are made--brown. The problem, as I have decried before, is the total ad hoc nature of the term "black"-- on the one hand, 1% African blood make you "black" on the other so called "Black Native Americans" are called "black" although they too are brown.
Europeans in 1000 BC got to Tlatilco on the same magic carpet that brought the Mande to Tlatilco.
LOL. You're funny. Wiercinski provides examples of the races he claims the Olmec belonged too in his paper and none of them fit the profile for white Europeans.
Below are the racial types identified by Wiercinski:
Equatorial Type
Dongolan Type
Sub-Pacific and Bushmanoid-Armenoid
Anatolian
.
Al that this demonstrates is that you still don't know how Wiercinski's methodology and nomenclature works. None of the images yyou post are examples of what Wiercinski would call pure white. again: Here is a primer on the method. A number "pure" races were described. These could then be combined to make other races The pure races involved where are: White Nordic (A) Cromagnonoid (Y) Ainuid (P) Berberic (B) Mediterranean (E)
Black Negroid (N) Pigmic (O) Sudanese (X) Australoid (T)
So, for example, Alpine (HL) is a mix of two yellow races- 50% Armenoid and 50% Laponoid. To get the numbers you quote repeatedly you take all the "race types" found at a site and divide mixed races to get to the "pure" type and add them up. This is you get 13.5 "Black" at Tlatilco.
Here Fig. 8 is Dongolan (HX] a mixture of black and yellow; Fig 9 is (HN) another mixture of black and yellow; Figs 16 and 17 are a mix of two kinds of yellow. You don't show an example of Ainuid- the only "pure white" at Tlatilco.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's simple, Amenians mated with pygmies and then traveled over to Mexico in canoes
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic