...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » AE links to civilizations in the Americas? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: AE links to civilizations in the Americas?
XicanConnection
Junior Member
Member # 4806

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for XicanConnection     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This carving of an elephant was found among Olmec artifacts. Where would an Olmec have knowledge of an Elephant from??

So what you are implying is that the Amerindians did not hunt the American Mastodons who have been proven that before their extinction also roamed central Mexico??


Posts: 6 | From: Mesquite,Nevada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 5 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
XicanConnection, can you explain how the Ancient Americans came to know about elephants that they have never seen. Explain how, various letters of Olmec script closely ressemble those found on the Proto-Saharan artifacts!

If you convincingly answer all this, then you may be onto something. If however, you come to the conclusion that they must have got their ideas from Asians, then it follows that it is possible some Africans found their way to America. Some of the photos of Olmec sculptures I have used as reference on this thread earlier, show people with Afro hair. Do present decendants have Afro style hair? You also have to look at some sculptures with marks on their faces, do modern day decendants of Olmecs have those facial markings? But hey, we cannot simply jump to conclusions with such sculptures. Try and answer the first two questions about Olmec sculpture, and from there we will be getting somewhere.

I mentioned this in a previous post, because it is something people tend to overlook. So here goes again!

Here is what I found on the web:

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

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

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

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
So what you are implying is that the Amerindians did not hunt the American Mastodons who have been proven that before their extinction also roamed central Mexico??

Here's a picture representing early American's hunting Mastadons: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543877_761555928_-1_1/Mastodon_Hunt.html

Of course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.

If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?



Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Here's a picture representing early American's hunting Mastadons: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543877_761555928_-1_1/Mastodon_Hunt.html

Of course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.

If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?


Good observation rasol!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
XicanConnection
Junior Member
Member # 4806

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for XicanConnection     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Explain how, various letters of Olmec script closely ressemble those found on the Proto-Saharan artifacts!

The linguistic arguments seems to be mixing up two different claims. On the other hand, the argument of numerous correspondences of words is an argument for a genetic relationship between Olmecs and Mande. However, as I'll quote below, random correspondences- no matter how many-- are not probative of genetic relationships. The usual methods used by linguists are either or both 1) a systematic comparison of standard 100 or 200 word lists of words that tend to last a long time compiled by Swadesh; 2) a comparison of similar grammatical structures (systems of pronouns, agglutination, subject -verb orders, declensions, etc..

The followig from a standard textbook on historical linguistics

R. L. Trask. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.

p. 219-222. [Problems in identifying genetic resemblances-- borrowing]
[Urdu, Swahili, Turkish, Arabic similarities-- due to prestige of Arabic] In this case, the borrowing took place in historical times, and it is trivial matter to identify these numerous loan words and to exclude them from consideration. But loan words are not always so easy to identify. There is no reason to doubt that the borrowing of words has been going on for as long as human beings have had two different languages to speak. Hence, some loan words have been present in the borrowing languages so long that they are almost indistinguishable from native words. Identifying such ancient loans is thus a crucial issue: if we inadvertently accept several dozen ancient loans as native words, we may be fatally misled into seeing a genetic link where none exists.

p. 220. The best way of coping with this problem, when searching for possible genetic links, is to confine ourselves to what I called basic vocabulary in Chapter 2: pronouns, grammatical words, body-part names, the lower numerals, and other high frequency items which are not often borrowed, while words like ‘news’, ‘book’, and ‘service’ are far more likely to be borrowed. Hence, if we can’t find any evidence of a genetic link when comparing the basic vocabularies of two candidate languages, we should be rather suspicious if we then stumble across apparent ‘cognates’ with meanings like ‘chariot’, ‘caterpillar’, ‘stocking’, or ‘bronze’: they might very well be ancient loans.
There is another potential pitfall, which looks innocuous at first glance. But which has in practice often produced monumental confusion among linguists who were not sufficiently aware. ... Table 8.13

Hawaiian.....ancient Greek


  1. aeto ‘eagle’..... aetos ‘eagle’
  2. noonoo ‘ thought’..... nous ‘ thought’
  3. manao ‘think’..... manthano ‘learn’
  4. mele ‘sing’..... melos ‘ melody’
  5. lahui ‘people’..... laos ‘ people’
  6. meli ‘honey’..... meli ‘honey’
  7. kau ‘summer’..... kauma ‘heat’
  8. mahina ‘month’..... men ‘moon’
  9. kia ‘pillar’..... kion ‘pillar’
  10. hiki ‘come’..... hikano ‘arrive’

...
The explanation is this: we are looking at a bunch of pure coincidences. Entirely by chance, Hawaiian and Greek happen to have settled on some words which are very similar in form and meaning. That’s all there is to it: no Greeks in the Pacific, no Hawaiian migrations from Greece, nothing interesting at all- just pure chance. It is possible that you find this very hard to believe. Many people with little experience in comparative linguistics are incredulous when they are told that such impressive-looking lists are the result of sheer coincidence; they protest indignantly, ‘But this just can’t be coincidence. Look at the words for “honey” they are absolutely identical! There must be another explanation.’ ....

Well, sorry, but they are wrong. Every language has thousands of meanings to provide forms for , and only a small number of speech-sounds to construct these forms, and hence, by the ordinary laws of probability, any arbitrary languages will always exhibit a number of such coincidences-- maybe only eight or ten, maybe dozens, depending chiefly on how similar their phonologies are and how willing you are to accept some pair of words as similar.
...
There are two things you can do. First, we can insist on systematic correspondences and deny the value of mere resemblances. This is what most historical linguists do: aware that mere resemblances can always be the result of chance, they assign full weight only to systematic correspondences, which (once loan words have been excluded) can result only from a genetic relationship. Second, we can apply statistical tests to our data.. To see whether we have anything more than we would expect by chance alone. Both of these are good policies. But, whatever we do, we must not allow ourselves to be persuaded that a mere list of arbitrary and unsystematic resemblances, however long, by itself constitutes persuasive evidence of anything. It is sad to report that a number of linguists have failed to grasp this elementary point and have as a result squandered their careers in collecting lists of resemblances among whichever languages have caught their eye (always with success, or course). They have proudly announced their ‘findings’ and declared them to be evidence of an ancient link between the languages they are looking at, and they are baffled and hurt when no one pays attention.


Posts: 6 | From: Mesquite,Nevada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
XicanConnection
Junior Member
Member # 4806

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for XicanConnection     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.

If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?


Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The mammoths and mastodons that remained in North America would eventually perish as the immigrant humans hunted them to extinction. In Mesoamerica, these humans would be classified as Texpapan Man, who settled into the region by 10,000 B.P. Mastodons would not become extinct until 8,000 B.P. - nearly four thousand years after their extinction north of Mesoamerica.

So, yes the possibility of the memory of elephants beign past down generation to generation does excist.


Posts: 6 | From: Mesquite,Nevada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The mammoths and mastodons that remained in North America would eventually perish as the immigrant humans hunted them to extinction. In Mesoamerica, these humans would be classified as Texpapan Man, who settled into the region by 10,000 B.P. Mastodons would not become extinct until 8,000 B.P. - nearly four thousand years after their extinction north of Mesoamerica.

So, yes the possibility of the memory of elephants beign past down generation to generation does excist.


You didn't account for the fact that artifacts and artwork of these didn't exist in the many thousand years preceding the Olmec civilization.Did they forget to represent these creatures in their artifacts right before the Olmec culture?
Why did elephant depictions just start to appear with the advent of that civilization?


Besides, If the elephants could travel to Africa and people hunted for them during era you described, why are they still in Africa and Asia. Surely some elephants would have still existed in parts of America! Native Americans had hunted bisons daily for food and other stuff, but bisons are still present in America. At any rate, if the ancestors of Olmecs were aware of such animal, they would have been represented in the artwork in the years preceeding the Olmec culture! Evidence of such artwork hasn't been found.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rasoul,many modern African archaeologist have overturned centuries of Eurocentric infringement upon legitmate African civlization. Nobody honestly sees Swahili states nor Timbuktu as Arab colonies. Recent archaeological findings also refute the notion that iron metalurgy flowed from Meroe or Carthage to Western Africa. Please keep up to date on recent archaeological findings.

Our time should be more focused on these claims instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.


Let me also point out in the case of China those finding of Tocharin mummies in the desert does not prove caucasians founded Chinese civlization. All it really proves is cultural interaction was before what was expected. You have people making presumptions without consulting evidence for their claims.

Know I think that Xian connection should also jump on eurocentrics who claim Kennewick man was caucasian. There is no grounds to this theory since Kennwick man has been found to be related to the Aniu people in Japan.

I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.



Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
[B] Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa.

You are probably confusing the elephant with the horse. The ancestors of the horse are indigenous to the Western Hemisphere.

The Elephant, including the common descedent of the Mammoth and Mastodon (paleomastodon) evolved in Africa and spread to Asia and the Americas from there: http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html


I'm not sure how many archeologists would argue for the viability of the theory that the Mastadon is somehow "remembered" thousands of years after it is extinct, when there is no record to support such "memory".


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You are probably confusing the elephant with the horse. The ancestors of the horse are indigenous to the Western Hemisphere.

The Elephant, including the common descedent of the Mammoth and Mastodon (paleomastodon) evolved in Africa and spread to Asia and the Americas from there: http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html


I'm not sure how many archeologists would argue for the viability of the theory that the Mastadon is somehow "remembered" thousands of years after it is extinct, when there is no record to support such "memory".


Notice how Xicanconnection carefully dodged your question regarding the preceeding years unaccounted for the lack of elephant artwork? Instead he simply moves onto the statement that one generation would have passed on the information to the succeeding generation.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
[B]Rasoul,many modern African archaeologist have overturned centuries of Eurocentric infringement upon legitmate African civlization.

Of course, to do so means challenging the boundaries placed upon African civilization.

You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.

quote:
Nobody honestly sees Swahili states nor Timbuktu as Arab colonies.

I don't know. Some say you can make a better argument for Islamic African civilizations being Arabic/Semitic/Meditteranian than you can for Ancient Kemet. While others say that virtually all arguments to the effect that Timbuktu, Swahili or Kemet are anything other than Black African, are equally disingenuous and tactically identical.

quote:
Recent archaeological findings also refute the notion that iron metalurgy flowed from Meroe or Carthage to Western Africa. Please keep up to date on recent archaeological findings.

lol. I know that.

Recent archeological findings also demonstrate that early and predyanastic Kemetian populations were Black Africans who migrated from the South to the North, and from Kush to Kemet. But that does not stop so called "historians" from continuing to falsify the record.

quote:
Our time should be more focused on these claims

??? Which claims. The ones you say have already been disproven?

quote:
instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.

Why do you think the idea that early Africans and early Americans had contact with each other, is an "imposition".
More to the point, either Africans had contact with Meso-Americans or not.

You are not arguing that they did or did not, as a fact of history.

You are offering an ideological objection, that is every bit as bad as Eurocentric historians who ideologically object to the notion of the Kemmau being Black, and the country being African.

quote:
I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.

Perhaps that is the case, or perhaps not. But we can't learn the truth by refusing to examine the facts because we are politically opposed to what we might find out. DENIAL, is not a form of science.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar:
[B]Rasoul,many modern African archaeologist have overturned centuries of Eurocentric infringement upon legitmate African civlization.

Of course, to do so means challenging the boundaries placed upon African civilization.

You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.

quote:
Nobody honestly sees Swahili states nor Timbuktu as Arab colonies.

I don't know. Some say you can make a better argument for Islamic African civilizations being Arabic/Semitic/Meditteranian than you can for Ancient Kemet. While others say that virtually all arguments to the effect that Timbuktu, Swahili or Kemet are anything other than Black African, are equally disingenuous and tactically identical.

quote:
Recent archaeological findings also refute the notion that iron metalurgy flowed from Meroe or Carthage to Western Africa. Please keep up to date on recent archaeological findings.

lol. I know that.

Recent archeological findings also demonstrate that early and predyanastic Kemetian populations were Black Africans who migrated from the South to the North, and from Kush to Kemet. But that does not stop so called "historians" from continuing to falsify the record.

quote:
Our time should be more focused on these claims

??? Which claims. The ones you say have already been disproven?

quote:
instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.

Why do you think the idea that early Africans and early Americans had contact with each other, is an "imposition".
More to the point, either Africans had contact with Meso-Americans or not.

You are not arguing that they did or did not, as a fact of history.

You are offering an ideological objection, that is every bit as bad as Eurocentric historians who ideologically object to the notion of the Kemmau being Black, and the country being African.

quote:
I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.

Perhaps that is the case, or perhaps not. But we can't learn the truth by refusing to examine the facts because we are politically opposed to what we might find out. DENIAL, is not a form of science.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, you've hit the nail on the head!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
homeylu
Member
Member # 4430

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for homeylu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rasol
You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.

Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery. They are quite comfortable theorizing any "negroid" skulls found outside of Africa as belonging to slaves, or finding other ways to minimize their importance. Thank god for people like you
who can check them on this


Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[q]My friend, mammoths had long gone before the time era we are talking about. The sculpture you are talking about doesn't have any representation of fur either. I have never seen any civilization use "mice" as symbolic sculptures. I have already mentioned various elephant sculptures of the Ancient Americans. I have also stated the symbolic nature of these sculptures. I have yet to hear anyone give an explanation for these sculptures created by people who have never seen such an animal![/q]

1) Who says all mammoths and mastodons had fur? And some more surreal statutes of undoubtably furry animals like bears aren't sculpted with fur. Do a Yahoo! image search.

2) Who says mastodons and mammoths were already extinct at the time?

EDIT: Says here that elephants were probably going extinct in the Americas rather recently, up to around 1 CE (that Mayan Codex showing the elephant was probably a piece of paleoart, identical to pictures depicting mammoths today):
http://www.jrmooneyham.com/pamer2ref.html#section24

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

2) Who says mastodons and mammoths were already extinct at the time?

They died out 10,000 years ago according to the fossil record, along with a number of either large ice age mammals. http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/Tour/First/IceAge/ice4.html http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2000backeast/ENatHist/Members/SchullerL/Default.htm


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those of you who believe that the "elephant" art proves an African connection:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/sf068b07.htm

Note that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery.

Ausar is very knowledgeable and a good guy.

I just think he underestimates the degree to which the root premise of all historical discourse has been poisoned by the underlying supremacist ideology of Europe.

It is only natural to absorb such ideas to the point where you assume that it is "out of place" for an African to view himself as an explorer, a migrant, and agent of history having mutual relationships with other non European peoples in which Europe is simply...irrelavent.

And there is also a natural tendency to be cowed by the expectant Eurocentric backlash and so submit to them by way of compromise.

We all, as African people, inherit the baggage of mental bondage to European imperialism, and freeing yourself of it, takes constant effort.


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
[q]My friend, mammoths had long gone before the time era we are talking about. The sculpture you are talking about doesn't have any representation of fur either. I have never seen any civilization use "mice" as symbolic sculptures. I have already mentioned various elephant sculptures of the Ancient Americans. I have also stated the symbolic nature of these sculptures. I have yet to hear anyone give an explanation for these sculptures created by people who have never seen such an animal![/q]

1) Who says all mammoths and mastodons had fur? And some more surreal statutes of undoubtably furry animals like bears aren't sculpted with fur. Do a Yahoo! image search.


Have you seen any record of mammoths without fur. In the environment which they lived, they had to have fur. If you have any historical and scientifically backed reference of a furless mammoth, you are certainly welcome to share it with us!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, the woolly mammoths (the kind we know to have fur thanks to frozen bodies and cave paintings) are just ONE kind of mammoths. Who says that other American pachyderms did not shed their fur or have any at all?

Anyway, as the links I provided show, the commonly-believed idea that elephants became extinct 10,000 BCE is probably outdated. I'm particularly interested in the anecdote about Thomas Jefferson learning of elephants roaming the Midwest from Native Americans.

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
For those of you who believe that the "elephant" art proves an African connection:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/sf068b07.htm

Note that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.


Good link, and food for thought at least.

But careful not to jump at anything you see, by way of: MASTODON FOUND IN FLORIDA, CROCODILES IN NY SUBWAY, and so on.

For instance:

The well known story of the mastodon killed in Ecuador 1500 BC, is considered to be mere folklore by many, if not all naturalists.

Supposedly it was found in the 1920's at the bottom of a landslide, and no one was sure of the date, which still keeps changing.

But paleontologists have continued to claim that the Mastodon died out 10,000 years ago, so they were obviously not impressed.

And of course, this has nothing to do directly with the Olmec. It's just natural history.

Perhaps it will eventually be documented that the Mastodon was a living part of Olmec culture. But that does not seem to be the case at this time.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2004).]


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 5 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
For those of you who believe that the "elephant" art proves an African connection:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/sf068b07.htm

Note that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.


The picture I saw, depicts an elephant with an ear the size almost that of a human. What kind of an elephant is that supposed to be? Don't take every detail of the drawing too seriously as the real representation of the animal. I know that even the Mastodons don't have ears that small!

This reference page you provided, still doesn't answer the question Rasol put forward, as to why elephant artwork hasn't been found dating back to several thousand years before the Olmec civilization. If the Ancient Americans spread folklore about elephants from one generation to another, then surely the artwork would depict this in a progression leading to the Olmec time era!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Actually, the woolly mammoths (the kind we know to have fur thanks to frozen bodies and cave paintings) are just ONE kind of mammoths. Who says that other American pachyderms did not shed their fur or have any at all?
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]

I like to base history on facts, rather than assumptions. Until I get scientific evidence of a furless mammoth, I'll not view them as such.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
This reference page you provided, still doesn't answer the question Rasol put forward, as to why elephant artwork hasn't been found dating back to several thousand years before the Olmec civilization. If the Ancient Americans spread folklore about elephants from one generation to another, then surely the artwork would depict this in a progression leading to the Olmec time era!

The comment about the lack of artifacts depicting elephants before the Olmecs implies a rather recent revolution in Olmec art rather than knowledge about elephants. rasol's statement implies that artwork depicting mammoths has not been found in Mesoamerica, yet we know they hunted mammoths during the Paleolithic days.

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know. Some say you can make a better argument for Islamic African civilizations being Arabic/Semitic/Meditteranian than you can for Ancient Kemet. While others say that virtually all arguments to the effect that Timbuktu, Swahili or Kemet are anything other than Black African, are equally disingenuous and tactically identical.

The trading communities in the Swahili already existed prior to contact with Arabs. The region was known as Rhapta which was noted for the sewn plank vessels also mentioned in Greco-Roman text Periplus of the Eretreyan Sea. The people who founded these trading networkd were migrating Bantu. The sewn plank vessels according to archaeologist Mark Horton look noting like dhows. The house architecture of the Swahili people probabaly came from coral architecture used by Cushic people from Eastern Africa.

Not to mention Swahili is mostly Bantu with some Arabic and Persian loan words.

An Eastern African archaeologist named Felix Chami has overturned myths that Arabs created Swahili civlization. What little Arabs came in adapted to the culture and became Swahili.


See the following:


The Swahili people have been viewed as of Persian/Arabic or Cushitic speaking origin. Scholars have used historical and archaeological data to support this hypothesis. However, linguistic and recent archaeological data suggest the Swahili culture had its origins in the early first centuries A.D. it was the early farming people who settled on the coast in the last centuries B.C. who first adopted iron technology and sailing techniques and founded the coastal settlements. the culture of iron-using people spread to the rest of the coast of East Africa, its center changing fom one place to another. Involvements in transoceanic trade from the early centuries A.D. contributed to the prosperity of the coastal communities as evidenced by coastal monuments. More than 1500 years of cultural continuity was offset by the arrival of European and Arab colonizers in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries A.D.

African Archaeological Review

16 (3): 199-218, September 1998

Felix Chami

Wednesday, 17 April, 2002, 17:27 GMT 18:27 UK
Tanzanian dig unearths ancient secret
[Skeleton found on Juani island]
The remains hold clues about Africa's ancient history
[test hello] [test]
Tira Shubart
Off Mafia Island, Tanzania
[line]

A discovery which a Tanzanian archaeologist believes will change how East African history is regarded has been made on tiny Juani Island, off the Tanzanian coast.


These discoveries show the people here were interacting with other civilisations - and long before the Islamic era

Prof. Felix Chami
Felix Chami, professor of archaeology at the University of Dar es Salaam has uncovered a major site on Juani, near Mafia Island, which he believes will substantially increase the evidence that East Africa was part of a wider Indian Ocean community.

Previous to Dr Chami's other discoveries on the Tanzanian coast, scholars had never considered East Africa as part of the ancient world.

The professor had been alerted to the existence of the cave by two local men who informed Peter Byrne, owner of a small lodge on Mafia Island and supporter of efforts to discover the intriguing history of these small islands - which are now entirely dependent on fishing.

Cave spirits

We sailed on a dhow from Mafia Island to a beach on nearby Juani Island which Dr Chami believes may have been an ancient port since the Iron Age.

Juani island has lush vegetation
Unlike the other islands, Juani has fresh water and soil suitable for agriculture.

The two local men, whose curiosity had overcome beliefs that the caves are inhabited by spirits, led us more than a kilometre along jungle tracks.

The men hacked a path through the luxuriant growth with pangas which revealed a collapsed coral cave around 20 metres in diameter.

With the help of hanging vines we climbed down into the cave.

Major site

Scattered throughout the seven to 10-metre-high overhanging cave were shards of pottery, human bones and three skulls.

Dr Chami examined the skulls but said only carbon dating would establish their age.

He was most excited by the large habitable area of soft loose soil, at least 50 square metres.

"There could be three metres of layers here to establish a cultural chronology," he says.

"This is a marvel. I believe this was a major Iron Age site. I can assure you this will change the archaeology of East Africa."

Felix Chami will return to the site with his team after the rainy season to start a full excavation.

In the past five years Dr Chami has overturned the belief that Swahili civilisation was simply the result of Indian Ocean trade networks.

Trade secrets

"It was thought that Swahili settlements were founded by foreigners, particularly by Islamic traders," he says. "But these discoveries show the people here were interacting with other civilisations - and long before the Islamic era."

Dr Chami believes the coastal communities may have been trading animal goods, such as ivory as well as iron.

[Professor Felix Chami]
Professor Chami got inspiration from Ptolemy
Dr. Chami utilised the writings of Greek geographer Ptolemy (c.87-150 AD) who described settlements in East Africa as "metropolis" and also referred to "cave dwellers".

Ptolemy even specified a latitude eight degrees south on a large river -the location of the Rufiji river.

It was there on the hills above the river that Dr Chami found the remains of settlements with ancient trading goods and evidence of agriculture.

Directly opposite the Rufiji delta are Mafia & Juani Islands.

Dr Chami's excavations uncovered cultural artefacts which have been carbon dated to 600 BC.

They included Greco-Roman pottery, Syrian glass vessels, Sassanian pottery from Persia and glass beads.

But Felix Chami believes the new site on Juani Island may well be the most significant yet.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1924318.stm

In Timbuktu many of texts might be written in Arabic,but most of the scholars were black African people. We also have texts in Timbuktu in native indigenous languages of the people who lived there. Timbuktu was originally founded by Tuareg nomads but Kankan Musa around the 1300's developed Timbuktu into the intellectual center it was. The students at Timbuktu were so good that many were installed at Al-Ahzar and other Northern African unverities.

quote:
Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery. They are quite comfortable theorizing any "negroid" skulls found outside of Africa as belonging to slaves, or finding other ways to minimize their importance. Thank god for people like you
who can check them on this

I have never denied there is an African pressence outside of Africa before slavery. However,Africans in Meso-America is pluasible,and I think I mentioned Abu Bakari II Mansa Musa's brother who was supposed to have made it to the Americas.


If you don't know it's documented that the 25th dyansty Nubians invaded all the way to Spain. We also have accounts of Western African during the middle ages traveling to cities like Jerusalem or other regions within the Middle East. We definatley know that Ethiopians from Aksum ruled over large portions of Yemen. Nobody is saying that Africans never left Africa.




Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 4 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
1) You are so wrong about that elephant motif I wonder if you are lying. The animal's ear EXCEEDS that of a human being by many times.

If anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you. Even for an actual elephant, that ear is way too small! Do you even know what an elephant looks like? And I must warn you about your name calling policy.

You might want to look up the rules posted for this forum.

If you want to refute me, fine. But don't start calling people names, because you can't come up with a logical way of refuting their claims!

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
duplicate...deleted!

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you. Even for an actual elephant, that ear is way too small! Do you even know what an elephant looks like? And I must warn you about your name calling policy.

You might want to look up the rules posted for this forum.

If you want to refute me, fine. But don't start calling people names, because you can't come up with a logical way of refuting their claims!


My mistake, I misunderstood you. The reason I said "lying" was because I thought you were saying that the elephant's ear was as big as a human being, even though it wasn't, and I thought that one would have to lie to say it was. I didn't really mean to call you names (and the "if anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you" comment, BTW, IS name-calling).

Also, this is an elephant species only known thanks to fossilized bones. Who is to say its ears are too small? This is an extinct species we're talking about.


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Also, this is an elephant species only known thanks to fossilized bones. Who is to say its ears are too small? This is an extinct species we're talking about.


I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.

If these elephants have been extinct, once again, why is it that the Olmec people had them in their artwork, but their ancestors didn't bother depicting the elephants in their artwork? The ancestors were supposed to have passed on information of these animals onto the Olmecs.
That the Olmecs were able to depict these animals, while their ancestors didn't, may be because their ancestors weren't familiar with such animal. This would make sense expecially, if we hold true that the elephants were extinct for 10,000 years. That being the case, then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that the Olmecs may have got their ideas of elephants from another culture! Until someone can explain why there were no artwork of elephants leading in progression to the Olmec depictions, there is no reason to rule out the fore-mentioned possibility.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.

If these elephants have been extinct, once again, why is it that the Olmec people had them in their artwork, but their ancestors didn't bother depicting the elephants in their artwork? The ancestors were supposed to have passed on information of these animals onto the Olmecs.
That the Olmecs were able to depict these animals, while their ancestors didn't, may be because their ancestors weren't familiar with such animal. This would make sense expecially, if we hold true that the elephants were extinct for 10,000 years. That being the case, then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that the Olmecs may have got their ideas of elephants from another culture! Until someone can explain why there were no artwork of elephants leading in progression to the Olmec depictions, there is no reason to rule out the fore-mentioned possibility.


I already responded to that point, but I'll point it out again, since you missed my last phrasing of it: we know that Mesoamericans hunted mammoths and mastodons, or at least co-existed with them (along with saber-toothed cats and the like), and yet, as rasol and you say, they left no artwork depicting these animals prior the Olmec period. Perhaps it is possible that the Olmec culture's more artistic aspects came rather late?


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
I already responded to that point, but I'll point it out again, since you missed my last phrasing of it: we know that Mesoamericans hunted mammoths and mastodons, or at least co-existed with them (along with saber-toothed cats and the like), and yet, as rasol and you say, they left no artwork depicting these animals prior the Olmec period. Perhaps it is possible that the Olmec culture's more artistic aspects came rather late?


How can you claim to have answered our question, when you haven't given a definitive answer. We are looking for facts, not assumptions. Until this happens, the question will continue to come up!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.

Again, this is most likely an extinct species we're talking about. You never saw this particular species of elephant (since they're most likely all extinct), why must you make assumptions about its ear size based on that of modern day elephants from different species?


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Again, this is most likely an extinct species we're talking about. You never saw this particular species of elephant (since they're most likely all extinct), why must you make assumptions about its ear size based on that of modern day elephants from different species?

I hope you understand that scientists have developed methods to see how the animal looked from skeletal or fossil remains. They obviously came up with animals that didn't look that much different from their African and Asian cousines. Perhaps you should pose your question to them. But again, I will not hold the view of elephants with extremely small ears as truth, unless I get scientific evidence.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
How can you claim to have answered our question, when you haven't given a definitive answer. We are looking for facts, not assumptions. Until this happens, the question will continue to come up!


Admittedly it's not a complete debunking, but I was not going for that. I was trying to provide an alternative way at interpreting the evidence. You are also making your own assumptions: you're ASSUMING that elephants in Mesoamerican artwork = proof of African/Mesoamerican contact prior to Columbus. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
I hope you understand that scientists have developed methods to see how the animal looked from skeletal or fossil remains. They obviously came up with animals that didn't look that much different from their African and Asian cousines. Perhaps you should pose your question to them. But again, I will not hold the view of elephants with extremely small ears as truth, unless I get scientific evidence.

But an ear is made out of cartilage. Cartilage does not fossilize. So we can't really prove any one depiction wrong or right unless it's contradicted by fossil evidence. Therefore, be careful before saying that "elephants don't have ears that small" when the elephant in the picture coild be an extinct American species.

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trexmaster
Member
Member # 4812

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for trexmaster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DOUBLE POST DELETED

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]


Posts: 37 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:

Admittedly it's not a complete debunking, but I was not going for that. I was trying to provide an alternative way at interpreting the evidence. You are also making your own assumptions: you're ASSUMING that elephants in Mesoamerican artwork = proof of African/Mesoamerican contact prior to Columbus. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.

My so-called assumption is really based on the fact of the availability of artwork. And you are wrong, about me assuming that the elephant artwork means connection with Africans. After all, elephants dwell in Africa and Asia. It could be the contribution of people from either area. One would have to examine the sulptures thoroughly to come to a solid conclusion. Trust me, it takes more than elephant artwork, to convince me that Africans found their way to America. Some of the Olmec heads have Africoid features; there is even one Olmec sculpture of a head exhibiting an Afro-like hair. Then, there are Olmec scripts that have similar elements to that found in Proto-Saharan script.
You make assumptions based on the availability of nothing. Where is the evidence that shows that the several generations preceeding the Olmec civilization knew about elephants? Even if, they weren't as artistic a culture as the Olmecs, they still would have some depiction of animals they hunted or had come into contact with. Now you say that they must have passed on the elephant information to the Olmecs by folklore, but then, their artwork would still show this! Obviously the elephants were symbolic in the Olmec culture. As such, thei r ancestors, if they indeed passed on elephant folklore to the Olmecs, would see the symbolic nature of elephants. They would express this symbolism in their artwork, even if they were supposedly less artistic a culture compared to the Olmecs. The Olmec civilization must have been the product of a less complex civilization, and that simple civilization should exhibit some traditions found in the Olmec civilization. Civilizations are products of progressive development of societies, and don't just spontaneously rise!

I would like to make one thing clear: I am not claiming the Olmec civilization. All I am saying is that Africans found their way over there, that is all. We have enough powerful Ancient African civilizations already in place, to be too concerned about some Ancient American civilization.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 20 July 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
supercar
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
But an ear is made out of cartilage. Cartilage does not fossilize. So we can't really prove any one depiction wrong or right unless it's contradicted by fossil evidence. Therefore, be careful before saying that "elephants don't have ears that small" when the elephant in the picture coild be an extinct American species.

[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]


Why should I be careful, when it is the scientists who came to that conclusion using scientific studies. Like I said, if you have any objections as to how scientists show these elephants, you have to pose the question to them!!!

I am just one individual who is asking for scientific evidence showing elephants with small ears such as you described or described in the link you provided.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html

Comments?


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ausar: Good info on Timbucktu and the Swahilli.


* I once spoke to a British Rhodesian who claimed that the Shona could never have built Great Zimbabwe because she'd been in their homes, and they were a mess! lol.


Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[* I once spoke to a British Rhodesian who claimed that the Shona could never have built Great Zimbabwe because she'd been in their homes, and they were a mess! lol.]

Of course this means nothing since the common Mayan and Incan lived in crude mud dwellings but their monumental architecture was stone. Just like the ancient Kemetians who lived in mud dwellings but also built in stone. Besides,we have stone monuments predtating that of Great Zimbabwee that show nothing changed over the course of years.

A British archaeologist named Randall-MacIver put the final nail in the coffin for outside influces for Great Zimbabwee. This is why I reject the notion of Lemba Jews[which some modern day racialist try to use to uproot claims of indigenous development].



Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3