posted
Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/olwrit.htm.htm
Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters. A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD. Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation; 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing; 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages; 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations; and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
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).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
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. Table 1.Olmec Races Racial Type Tlatilco Norm Percent Cerro de Mesas Norm Percent Subpacific Dongolan Subainuid Pacific Armenoid Armenoid-Bushman Anatolian Alpine Ainuid Ainuid-Arctic Laponoid-Equatorial Pacific-Equatorial
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.
Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.
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.
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.
This makes it clear that we can not ignore the evidence. I have tried to keep up with the literature in this field over the past 30 years and I would appreciate someone reproducing on this forum citations of the articles which have conclusively disconfirmed the skeletal evidence of Wiercinski.
The fact remains African skeletons were found in Mesoamerica. This archaeological evidence supports the view that the Olmec were predominately African when we examine the anthropological language used to describe the Olmec skeletons analyzed by Wiercinski. See: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
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). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
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 Cuevas (2004) 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.
In a discussion of the Mexican 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.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
•
References Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.
M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.
Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137.
Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press.
Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces.
Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131.
Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544.
MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122.
Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980.
Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.
Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.
Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.
• ...
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type
Many southern Asians, Melanesians, MicroNesians, Polynesians and Australians resemble Africans - and they are closer geographically and genetically to South Americans than *any* African group.
Can you tell us why these peoples 'could not' be among the forebearers of the Olmec .... yet somehow West Africans are a better candidate?
Also, your bibliographic citations are misleading as usual - as many of them, including Keita and Ehret do not subscribe to your theory.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Winters seems to be refusing to acknowledge that features are due to human adaptation to the environment. Therefore, people in the "subtropical belt" around the world have the same features. Look at a map of the earth, identify the subtropical belt and you will find people with similar features around the globe. This has NOTHING to do with direct, recent migration from Africa.
I wish I could get this old picture book from the seventies or eighties showing color photographs of various tribes in the Amazon. They looked EXACTLY like the Olmec heads, had dark skin, BIG lips, BIG noses and werent the LEAST bit African. They were much closer than the images of modern Amazonians in this thread. In fact, I have had a hard time finding such photos on the net.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, he chooses to acknowledge anachronistic studies by people with flawed methodologies.
If Wiercinski was sooooo accurate (he tried dividing everyon into three races, and his methodology was outdated even in his day), why isn't anyone paying attention to his claims on Egypt?
After all, Wiercinski stated that the Indigenous (but not Olmec) remains were 14% Afrocoid, and he also stated, using the same flawed methodology that Egyptians were 75% Caucasoid.
You can't have it both ways Clyde. Either the methodology was seriously flawed (everyone raise their hands), or Olmecs had some Africans and Egyptians had a ton of Middle Easterners or whatever other group people called 'caucasian' in all these stupid racial studies.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
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.
...................
...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.
In a discussion of the Mexican 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.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
..........
...
Ok am I to believe that most people in this room think that this information is based off Afrocentric idealisms?
Secondly, if the West Africans showed Columbus how to arrive to the America's in his 51 day voyage then why is it so hard to believe that the Africans made homes in the Americas? Secondly, Columbus nephew saw African in Central America which acknowledges the fact that their were Africans here.
Now were they Olmecs? I don't know yet the art of the Olmecs favor that of West Africans.
Were their other groups of people capable of finding the Americas? Of course~ Could the Olmecs be a different set of people? Of Course~ but y do we X out the possiblity of African Olmecs being that it can be historically proven that the West Africans have been traveling to the Americas long before a Columbus; possibly thousands of years prior?
I'm not a Afrocentric nor Eurocentric but I do believe in the absolute truth without bias. With this being said:
Can it be proven factually that the Olmecs were not *edited* Africans given that a high percent of Mexicans do carry African genes?
In conclusion, it seems as though we have become bias in assessing information when it comes from one who proclaims himself/herself Afrocentric when it fact some of the information may have positive outcomes... never the less I am currently doing research on this subject as well... I'm still learning
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rureligious quote: __________________________________________________________________ Can it be proven factually that the Olmecs were not black given that a high percent of Mexicans do carry African genes? _______________________________________________________________________
The skeletal evidence makes it clear that many of the Olmec were West Africans. The comparison of Olmec and Mayan artifacts make it clear that they did not look alike. Conclusion, many Mexicans mixed with Africans, but many Olmecs were already West African in origin when they first settled America.
Ancient Mayan and Olmec people did not look alike.
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
Racism will not stop the Afrikans from uncovering our history, so all those children of Hitler who are trying to distort the truth you are only wasting your time.
Christopher Columbus made it clear that Afrikans were already here.
Doug M can you explain why broad features reflect environmental adaptation and not Ancestral lineage?
Doug M are you implying that if a someone of the European ancestral lineage relocates to a Equatorial region then they will develop broad features,dark skin and wooly hair?
Doug M are you telling me that the statues of an Elephant found amongst the Olmec artifacts means the native Americans were dreaming up animals that are NOT native to South America?
How did the Olmecs know of the Elephant?
Olmecs were Afrikans this should not be a problem to anyone except if you are are RACIST NAZI who subscribes to the LIES and Racist myth that Afrikans didn't contribute to Humanity, then if you are a RACIST NAZI who supports ignorant LIARS then you have a problem because Olmecs were not Aryans. Olmecs were black people who worked together with native Americans to build a great civilization which was later destroyed by you know who.
Only a racist would have a problem associating the Afrikan contribution to a predominantly native American Culture located in South America, This debate should never have occured because the Afrikan evidence is well documented. No one is claiming a culture that was predominantly native American though we cannot ignore the Afrikan contribution either.
posted
Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American? Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
altakruri __________________________________________________________________ Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American? http://www.ngo.grida.no/ngo/nomijour/projects/caju/jaguarpaint.jpg _______________________________________________________ This personage looks more Polynesian than African.
But it is not surprising that many Brazilians look African. James L. Guthrie,in Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
discussed the fact that many Brazilians have West African genes.
......
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American?
Look at that straight red hair too, and lack of prognathism in the jaw. Pure Medit Kaukazoid if you ask me. Definitely related to Kenniwick man.
ps - race typologies are dead, some just don't know it yet.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M are you implying that if a someone of the European ancestral lineage relocates to a Equatorial region then they will develop broad features,dark skin and wooly hair?
This is exactly your problem, you use Europeans as a benchmark for everything in most of your argument,(you are giving them to much credit) kinda seems as if they are your ultimate point, I could almost mistake you of worshiping them.
quote:Olmecs were Afrikans this should not be a problem to anyone except if you are are RACIST NAZI who subscribes to the LIES and Racist myth that Afrikans didn't contribute to Humanity , then if you are a RACIST NAZI who supports ignorant LIARS then you have a problem because Olmecs were not Aryans
This is the worse case of inferiority complex
"olmecs were not Aryans" duh! Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
But it is not surprising that many Brazilians look African. James L. Guthrie,in Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
discussed the fact that many Brazilians have West African genes. [/b]
......
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
Doug M are you claiming this study is wrong?
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. G Hotep --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read the actual study?
I have.
Winters is misleading you ---> A G A I N.
When are you going to learn, Hotep?
I could post from the study but I won't.
I think you need to research for yourself the difference between what these studies actually say...and Winters distortions of them.
Only then will you stop falling for his nonsense - or maybe not, but either way - it's up to you. _____________________________________________________________________
Lance D. Green,1,* James N. Derr,2 and Alec Knight1, mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico
Of 24 non Native American samples, 10 were identified as African haplotypes (table 4). Six samples (C66, D47, N18, P1, N16, and O2S) had the HpaI site present at np 3592. Three of those samples (P1, N16, and N18) had an A at np 16390 and belong to haplogroup L2, thus suggesting that other samples (C66 and D47) are part of haplogroup L1. Of the 87 samples sequenced, only P1, N16, and N18 had an A at np 16390. Sequence data for sample O2S were not obtained. Samples identified here as haplogroup L1 or haplogroup L2 shared HV1-sequence polymorphisms with many African samples belonging to cluster L1 and cluster L2, respectively, reported by Watson et al. (1997).
posted
altakruri quote: __________________________________________________________________ Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
posted
Yes I see that his A*31 list has some rainforest folk in it. But don't ask me for Xingu mtDNA studies, you're the one who champions Mande lineage in south of the border Indians. I just want to know if you have any genetic support for lineages not antigens.
I singled out peoples along the Xingu because that's where I recall seeing lowest miscegenated natives who have dark brown skin, broad noses with prominent nostrils, and thick lips who in my opinion resemble some of the "African" people in Olmec artwork.
However, the Olmec art isn't monotypic and neither are Xingu peoples.
quote:A*31 (13.8%). A*31 is a subtype of A*19 that is present in at least 28 of 32 American samples, at frequencies of up to 65%, with the highest levels coming from Brazil. For some reason, distributions of A*19 were mapped but not tabulated by CS. A*31 values for the Atacama and Araucano are shown as “blanks” but may be determined from levels indicated on the A*19 map combined with the missing values for A*31 needed to raise the HLA-A total to 100%. In America, A*31 appears to be absent only from the Bari and the Greenland Eskimos. Frequencies for the Eskimo in general average only 2% (no data from Canadian Eskimos) and for North American Amerinds only 7 ± 3%. World frequencies are generally low outside of South America and parts of northern Africa. A*31 probably marks remnants of an ancient Eurasian population whose legacy still is significantly displayed among the Basques, the Ainu, and North Africans. However, the surprisingly high frequencies in the Mande, Tigre, and Tuareg samples could be the result of early intercourse between Brazil and Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: altakruri quote: __________________________________________________________________ Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
Thanks for nothing and too little to late, as the link is as broken as is the logic of citing it in support of African Olmec.
Unfortunately, the link below works, so discussants can read the full study for themselves: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n3/990202/990202.web.pdf ^ Rightly or wrongly - this study attributes all African agency in Mexico to 16th century Spanish slavery - a singular hypothesis Lance Greene hammers home at every opportunity - and exactly the opposite of what Winters intends.
THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a way Dr. Winters unwittingly subscribes to Oceanics being Olmec far forebearers. See below where he admits prehistoric Oceanics first became American indigenees and way before there were any Mande. Only thing is he mislabels the prehistoric first settlers, calling them African.
Logically if the Luiza folk were there first then they have to be the "Native Americans." It's illogical to label later crossers over Beringia as the Native Americans if they haven't even set foot in the Americas yet at all.
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Winters:
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that [. . . .] the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type
Many southern Asians, Melanesians, MicroNesians, Polynesians and Australians resemble Africans - and they are closer geographically and genetically to South Americans than *any* African group.
Can you tell us why these peoples 'could not' be among the forebearers of the Olmec .... yet somehow West Africans are a better candidate?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
altakruri quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Logically if the Luiza folk were there first then they have to be "Native Americans." It's illogical to label later crossers over Beringia as the Native Americans if they haven't even set foot in the Americas yet at all. __________________________________________________________________________
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
posted
All of this has nothing to do with Egypt and/or Egyptology. Why even go here. Nevertheless...
It is my understanding that the University of Mexico, and quite possibly other institutions of higher learning in Mexico, is/are examining the quite plausable evidence of Africans in the early period of Mexican history. It is something that is taken quite seriously. Does anyone have any more information on this?
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: In a way Dr. Winters unwittingly subscribes to Oceanics being Olmec far forebearers. See below where he admits prehistoric Oceanics first became American indigenees and way before there were any Mande.
posted
myra quote: _________________________________________________________________ quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
Reference:
Morphological Affinities of the Earliest Known American ___________________________________________________________________________
Thanks.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was by the first three canonical variates. But overall they reported
quote: In these several comparisons, multivariate statistical analyses have demonstrated a strong morphological similarity between the oldest Americans and modern Australians and only a slightly weaker morphological similarity to modern Africans.
. . . .
...the first Australians and the first Americans shared a common ancestral population in mainland Asia. This ancestral population could well be represented by hominids similar to the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave people (Kamminga and Wright, 1988; Wright, 1995; Neves and Pucciarelli, 1998) and its ultimate origin can be traced back to Africa. ... If our inferences are correct, the Americas could ultimately be seen as part of the first expansion of anatomically modern humans out of Africa, which started during the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. Recent acceptance of Late Pleistocene dates for the occupation of the site of Monte Verde, Chile (Meltzer et al., 1997), now suggests that populations colonizing the New World may have crossed the Bering Strait earlier than previously thought. This makes our suggestion still more plausible.
In either case it's not exclusively African, nor is it post protoholocene, nor is it across the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't have a problem with West African contacts with early America. What I don't believe is that: 1). Africans comprised the indiginees 2). the Olmecs were solely African or majority African.
Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population.
To determine time of origin of African "junk" DNA in Mexican samples one has to know the sources of the Africans who were enslaved there and if Mande were among those shipped there.
If those sources were other than from where enslaved Mande were sold or stolen it strengthens the pre-Columbian case for permanent settlement or colonization if we find Mande related haplogroups. But if Mande were transported to Mexico with any regularity it becomes very complicated to establish genetic evidence to support pre-Columbian settlement or miscegenation between merchant traders and their female clientele.
If no one else does it I will compose and post on positive African identified cultural items in the pre-Columbian Americas. Others have already shown the Conquistadore eye witness accounts of Africans conducting trade with IA's and living in their own seperated settlements.
I realize this is all off topic and has many readers scratching their heads but I didn't start it. I wish there was a way to pressure the phpbb folk to fix theNileValley forum where we had neat folders for many Africana type topics related Egyptology. Egypt is a subset of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
posted
altakruri quote: ____________________________________________________________________ Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population. ______________________________________________________________________
This is pure speculation. Please present evidence supporting this claim. The Olmec art of the earliest period and skeletal remains show the Olmecs were the earliest civilization was dominated by Africans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thanks for nothing and too little to late, as the link is as broken as is the logic of citing it in support of African Olmec.
Unfortunately, the link below works, so discussants can read the full study for themselves: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n3/990202/990202.web.pdf ^ Rightly or wrongly - this study attributes all African agency in Mexico to 16th century Spanish slavery - a singular hypothesis Lance Greene hammers home at every opportunity - and exactly the opposite of what Winters intends.
THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
First rasol claims to have read the report, then claims the report doesn’t agree with Clyde Winters position as if we asked if the reports agreed with Clyde Winters position. Then rasol starts the “recent Afrikan ancestry” mumbo jumbo LOL. Why don’t you eurocentrics rename the continent of Africa while you’re at it, how about calling Europe Africa and switching the name of Africa to Europe. Then you can say Africans didn’t have any associations with Olmecs and Europeans are the Olmecs. How about that idea for a “Spin” Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
To all those who claim the Olmecs came from some where in the Pacific please tell me where exactly in the Pacific did the Olmecs come from?
DNA MANIPULATION IS REAL
This is the controversial findings that LIARS are trying to cover up
quote: The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
Only a psychopath would try to associate all the Afrikan specific haplotypes to the Afrikan Holocaust. When Christopher Columbus made it clear that Afrikans were here when he arrived.
These DNA geneticist are going to destroy their field because of the falsehood that they are trying to pass off as truth, MARK MY WORDS. Afrocentrics will destroy the lies being spread by Eurocentrics LIARS and if the field of Genetics chooses to side with LIARS then Genetics will be destroyed in the process of removing the lies told against the AFRIKANS,MARK MY WORDS.
web pagehttp://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==#Anchor-55-33053
For the moment many geneticists choose to simplify the confusion by talking about four Amerindian haplogroups--A, B, C, and D. (A haplogroup is composed of those descent lines that share the major characteristics in their mtDNA sequences.) Yet a significant "other" category remains beyond the accepted A-to-D set. A miscellany of odd mtDNA haplotypes have been dumped into this vague category, often because their presence in America is suspected to be due to the intrusion of European or black slave genes among American Indians in the last few generations . But that assumption may be wrong. From the "other" rubric a fifth haplogroup has now been extracted, called X. Haplogroup X has been found in the DNA of certain North American groups such as the Ojibwa of eastern Canada as well as in some very early American skeletons on this continent.
See all along these RACIST geneticist new that the Afrikan presence was already in South America yet they tried to cover it up, I AM NOT SURPRISED because liars will always be LIARS no matter what platform they stand on, LIES will always be told by LIARS.
rasol wrote:
quote: THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
Intelligent people understand facts, while ignorant people don't,no need to imagine because the facts are SELF EVIDENT. I'm laughing at you Eurocentrics because you are fighting so desperately to cover up the TRUTH.
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
We've touched on this before. A claim was made on how this may well be the product of knowledge past on from generation to generation, since elephant-like creatures such as the 'mastodons' and the 'mammoth' once wandered in the region.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
We've all read it. The question was - had you read it before referencing it? You didn't answer. You still haven't. Why is that?
quote: then claims the report doesn’t agree with Clyde Winters position
It doesn't. He knows it and now you know it too. Sorry.
quote: Then rasol starts the “recent Afrikan ancestry” mumbo jumbo LOL.
Lol indeed, since "recent African American" ancestry comes from the citation in the report, that you cited, which constrasts between 'recent african american', and 16th century African slaves, yet you ridicule the verbiage in your own citation as "mumbo jumbo."
Odd, and too ironic that whenever you are pressed over matters of fact, that contradict ill conceived MIS-citations, you fall back on ridicule rhetoric.
Mumbo jumbo is actually a European racist ridicule of African spiritual beliefs.
It is pitiably ironic, and yet somehow fitting that you resort to same in defense of Winters' pseudo scholarship.
Sloppy scholardhip is the root of all evil in this case, add the source of its own demise.
quote:Why don’t you eurocentrics rename the continent of Africa while you’re at it, how about calling Europe Africa and switching the name of Africa to Europe.
Instead, why don't you stop whining, read the studies before citing them, and [then] address the study in question?
quote:Hotep asks: are you saying [Lance Greene's study] is wrong?
Answer: No, we are saying the study makes NO MENTION of Olmecs, attributes all African precense to slavery [mentioned a dozen time in the study], and you DIDN'T KNOW because you didn't read the study, you simply cite Winters on blind faith.
You fail to answer the above, and so now try to change the subject.......
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
We've touched on this before. A claim was made on how this may well be the product of knowledge past on from generation to generation, since elephant-like creatures such as the 'mastodons' and the 'mammoth' once wandered in the region.
Correct, there is evidence that early Central Americans hunted the Mastodon, and worked their bones for art and or weapons.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a socio-cultural perspective, Mexico is know to have African roots in the south (Vera Cruz) along with Pilipino intermixture. These Africans, like the highland Indians preferred to stay isolated in the presence of Europeans becaue they knew they would have lost their souls. It seems that groups more prone to association (with the foreigner) gave up that isolation to be the man's whipping boy. The beginning of mestizaje.
The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation!
Northern Mexico of 1700 (now western and SW USA) was Indian and mestizo, and present Northern Mexico was inhospitable so their present location of Afro-Mexicans would mimic their roots on the African motherland.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Caribs of St. Vincent and the Afro Caribs of Belize are one and the same. The ancestral land of the Afro Caribs [Garifunas]in Belize is St. Vincent.
They had 2 Carib wars with England. They were finally defeated after the death of their leader Paramount Chief, Chatoyer. They were then exile by the British from their homeland of St. Vincent to Central America.
Again, the Afro Caribs in Belize are the Garifunas from St. Vincent.
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
I agree that all Blacks in the Americas are not descendant of slaves [which is where i disagree with the Lance Greene study you cited].
It only needs to be added that all Blacks in the America's are not descendant from West Africa either.
As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African.
Not true at all. In fact, many look Asiatic, hence the Chinese people being as foolish in their claims as you are.
quote:At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/olwrit.htm.htm Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters.
quote:A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
A cursory examination of multiple populations in North America will show a large variation in phenotypes. I guess migration patterns aren't something you considered at all.
I'm sure you can reference in which collection each picture is. Muhammad Ali? I guess the Irish made it to Africa along with the Africans to make his look. You are fetching. I showed plenty of faces in Native American populations that match those statues. At best you can say, SOme Native Americans have similar features to some Africans. Suprise, its called humanity.
quote:Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
You have yet to show any sound evidence in artifacts, language, etc that they hads contact. So mere resemblance is wishful thinking.
quote: Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
I'm sure you can reference this claim as well, as all I have ever read shows Epi-Olmec evolved locally.
quote: Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
Nice try. Two errors in your judgment. One, the first people here were Spanish. Two they called people left and right 'moros' and called their temples 'mesquitas.' This is not a description of color. The later English called all people darker than them Black at various times. Finally, there are darker skinned populations of Natives that are not Black or African.
quote: The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD.
Not really.
quote: Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation;
A claim that no other serious linguist has verified
quote: 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing;
See above
quote: 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages;
Translation: Some images look similar. Yeah, So do Dragons and Serpents all over the world.
quote: 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations;
Again a claim no serious scholar has backed you on.
quote: and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Your claims based on Wiercinski and his flawed anachronistic evidence? And of skeletons that aren't even Olmec? No Olmec crania have been found to this day. The skulls examined by Wiercinski were Classic period (AD 300-900) skulls found at Cerro de las Mesas, a post-Olmec site to the west of the Olmec zone.
quote: Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
No they do not. They show that people with affinities to Australian Aborigines, etc made it here first. They are as related to Africans as the whole rest of the world.
quote: Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
Go look up germ warfare. Another reason why Olmecs could not be African. No indication of mass extinctions through disease. And no immunity to diseases that have existed in Africa since early times. No evidence of Sickle cell anemia, etc, etc, etc.
quote: There is skeletal evidence of Africans in Olmecland. The evidence of Wiercinski craniometrics have not been dissected and disputed.
Dissected, disputed and ridiculed. But like I said, if you want to claim Olmecs as 14% African and Egyptians as 75% Caucasian (Same flawed methodology) then so be it.
quote:http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/content.html 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).
Since you think Wiercinski knows his stuff :
[/quote]Several series of Pre-dynastic skulls and the pre-dynastic of first dynasties were investigated in Upper and Lower Egypt. It seems that all belong to the Caucasoid group and show a great similarity with the series of India. Nevertheless, certain amount of Negroid mixture was detected and Mongoloid but this does not exceed 25%.
Badarian population was of mixed origin, which is demonstrated by the simultaneous occurrence of gracile and very robust skulls.
These opinions about the heterogeneity of the Badarians had to be checked by the individual analysis of the material. This was attempted for the second Badarian series by A. Wiercinski,19 applying his own and Michalski's typological method. He found the Europoid (Caucasoid) element in 76 per cent, the Mongoloid element in 19.4 per cent and the Negroid element in 4.6 per cent. The assumed high share of the Mongoloid element, which is not easy to distinguish from the Negroid one in the skeletal material, is rather strange, and I could not find it during my own re-examination of the same material. Neither geographical nor historical circumstances suggest the presence of a strong Mongoloid admixture in the oldest settled population of Egypt and Middle East. Wierciniski's analysis, nevertheless, shows that about one quarter of the Badarian series was found to be of non-Europoid character.
19. A. Wiercinski, The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians [/quote]
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is Wiercinski has been critisized for his methodolgy even in his own lifetime.
quote:Wiercinski’s basic methodology is fundamentally flawed and grossly outdated. It was out dated years before he used it in the 1970’s and the passage of thirty years has not improved it. He wrote a long article in 1962 (years before his Olmec work) explaining this methodology:
Andrzej Wiercinski.1962. “The Racial Analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. Together with article by Tadeusz Bielicki. “Some Possibilities for Estimating Inter Population Relationship on the Basis of Continuous Traits”
*Current Anthropology* sends articles to a number of authorities internationally for review and publishes their comments. None of the commenters supported Wiercinski’s paper. The thrust of many comments was that Poland had been isolated from the rest of the world as a consequence of WWII and was using concepts and methodologies that had long been abandoned by the rest of the world’s physical anthropologists.
Tlatilco is not strictly an Olmec site. There are NO skeletons of any kind in the central Olmec sites of San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes. Wiercinski whom Afrocentrics love to cite never said that *African skeletons* were found in Tlatilco.
Wiercinski (1972) loaded the dice by forcing the crania he studied into the procrustean bed of being either White, Black, or Yellow, according to the Polish School of Anthropology-- there was no other choice. The Mesoamerican series fell into an intermediate position but overlapped at the extremes with his Mongolian series, his Polish series, or his Ugandan series. Wiercinski classified any overlaps as belonging to one of the 3 “big” races. He further subdivided the skulls into racial types. He found that the 52 skulls at Tlatilco belonged to 12 different “races.” Of the 52 skulls 13.5% were “negroid,” 19.8% were “caucasian,” and 38.5% were “asiatic.” Very importantly Wiercinski (1971: 138; 1972: 238) states that these “racial designations” are purely morphological types and not genetic classifications, that means that just because a skull is labeled “black” it does not mean that the person is from Africa. Wiercinski (1971: 142) claims that the Olmecs were influenced by Shang Chinese and Mediterranean Whites as well as by Africans.
quote: 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...."
No he did not. Even in his flawed analysis, he claimed that the morphology fit the basic type (black white or yellow) of Black/Negroid, but he did not classify them as African.
quote: 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).
One, as stated before, Wierciski's methodology is flawed, two, he never examined any Olmec skeletons, and three Skull deformations exist all over the Americas. Including the Paracas culture in Peru for example.
quote: Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones. [quote]
Please quote him directly as saying any of the skeletons were African.
[quote] Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Repeating yourself Ad nauseum will not change the facts already addressed.
quote: 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.
LOL Typical, you claim he misrepresented one group, but was dead on in the other. How about a more recent anthropometric study.
quote: The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
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). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
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 Cuevas (2004) 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.
In a discussion of the Mexican 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.
Already addressed in the genetic studies I have linked. No MtDNA to support this theory. And none of the geneticists you quote support your claim either. As for Veracruz, it is the landing place for Slaves, it is Where Loiusianna Creoles settled in the Jim Crow period and even Black Seminoled migrated to that region. I would hoe admixture would be high in the region.
quote: Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
The contemporary groups compared to are not only the Quiche Mayans, but the Tzotzil, Yamana, among others. And the Quiche are but one subpopulation of the Mayans. Easily could have been a people that were leftovers of a prior population when the main population of mayans moved in.
quote: Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
So basically you claim Mayans didn't look like Olmecs but came after Olmecs, but had African admixture and gods, but they don't look like the Quiche. LOL The convoluted webs you try to weave.
quote: African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
THse claims must be from people who are clueless about migration patterns and escape rates of slaves since the very beginning of the slave trade. Nor do they claim MtDna in these populations, indicating male only migrations.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
Not all Blacks came from Slaves, Some came from Blacks in Spanish boats. There were freemen you know. Even Black conquistadors
As for the Carib claim
An old picture of a Carib
They still exist in Guyana
397 in Suriname villages (1980 census). Population total all countries 750. Alternate names: OAYANA, WAJANA, UAIANA, OYANA, OIANA, ALUKUYANA, UPURUI, ROUCOUYENNE. Classification: Carib, Northern, East-West Guiana, Wayana-Trio
Carib or Island Carib is the name of a people of the Lesser Antilles islands, after whom the Caribbean Sea was named; their name for themselves was Kalinago for men and Kallipuna for women. They are an Amerindian people whose origins lie in the southern West Indies and the northern coast of South America. They spoke Kalhíphona, a Maipurean language (Arawakan), although the men either spoke a Carib language or a pidgin. In the southern Caribbean they co-existed with a related Cariban-speaking group, the Galibi who lived in separate villages in Grenada and Tobago and are believed to have been mainland Caribs. Carib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galibi Caribs
Modern Galibi Caribs
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
There have been claims about the indicators of west African presence in the region, but these all post-date the Olmec culture, mainly in the middle period era. For instance, there is talk of "guanin", which is supposed to have west African connections. Among such claims, aside from Van Sertima's, here is one example...
Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21,1492 CE while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque on top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Quranic verses have been discovered in Cuba,Mexico,Texas and Nevada. (8)
During his second voyage, Columbus was told by the indians of ESPANOLA (Haiti), that black people had been to the island before his arrival. For proof, they presented Columbus with the spears of these African muslims. These weapons were tipped with a yellow metal that the indians called GUANIN, a word of West African derivation meaning 'gold alloy'. Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic word 'GHINAA' which means 'WEALTH'. Columbus brought some GUANINES back to Spain and had them tested. He learned that the metal was 18 parts gold (56.25%), 6 parts silver (18.75%) and 8 parts copper (25%), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metalshops of Guinea. (14)”
- Dr. Youssef Mroueh; PRECOLUMBIAN MUSLIMS IN THE AMERICASPosts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THse claims must be from people who are clueless about migration patterns and escape rates of slaves since the very beginning of the slave trade. Nor do they claim MtDna in these populations, indicating male only migrations. ______________________________________________________________ The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: ____________________________________________________________ So basically you claim Mayans didn't look like Olmecs but came after Olmecs, but had African admixture and gods, but they don't look like the Quiche. LOL The convoluted webs you try to weave. __________________________________________________________________
I said the ancient Maya do not look like Africans, which is obvious when you compare art from the two groups as I did above. The genetic evidence makes it clear that overtime the two groups began to mate and many African genes were passed on to the Maya. This is supported by the fact that Mayan history makes it clear that they obtained much of their civilization from the Olmec, which is called the "Mother Culture" of Mexico. The Olmec language, which was a variety of Malinke-Bambara is a substratum of the Mayan (including Quiche)languages and the Mixe languages. See the site below:
posted
sidirom quote: ______________________________________________________________ Already addressed in the genetic studies I have linked. No MtDNA to support this theory. And none of the geneticists you quote support your claim either. As for Veracruz, it is the landing place for Slaves, it is Where Loiusianna Creoles settled in the Jim Crow period and even Black Seminoled migrated to that region. I would hoe admixture would be high in the region. ______________________________________________________________________
The genetic studies I mentioned show the admixture of Mexicans and Africans in Mexico. Enough said.
The genetic evidence of Africans in the region would also be high in the because this was the center of Olmec civilization.
....
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best evidence of the African influence among the Mayan people, especially in relation to writing is the bilingual Mande-Mayan text discovered in Mexico.
........
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The best evidence of the African influence among the Mayan people, especially in relation to writing is the bilingual Mande-Mayan text discovered in Mexico.
How old is the Mayan text said to be, and how old is that of Mande said to be?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, Clyde Winters, the man who deciphered the writing of the Fuente Magna.
What has peer review of this deciphering resulted in?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A 14th century West African voyage of exploration is left on Arabic record from within one generation of its event. Other voyages of trade occured but escape the Arabic written record but not the Luso-Hispanic one.
Reposting from posted 05 January 2005 06:16 PM ___________________________________________________________
quote: While cognizant that there were voyages, whether intentional or accidental across the Atlantic to the Americas by various Old World peoples, I remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Claims that tend to detract and serve to undermine verifed and verifiable accomplishments of African peoples their cultures, civilization, and history, particularly the West African empires of Mali and Songhai whose outlying provinces where the ones involved in trans-Atlantic ventures.
I consider supposed explorations of the Americas ordered by Mansa Musa as spurious, lacking any documentation. Without doubt it was Bubakari II who was interested in trans-Atlantic exploration. He himself sailed toward the Americas but we lack any report of his findings because he was never heard of again or the government of the extensive Mali empire decided to keep silence on the matter, something not unusual where trade is involved.
The failure of the early 14th century emperor to return home is what led to Mansa Gonga Musa assuming leadership. This is his account of those events as he related in Cairo while on hajj to Mecca
quote:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Says ibn Amir Hajib “I asked the Sultan Musa how it was that power came into his hands. ‘We are from a house that transmits power by heritage,’ he told me. ‘The ruler who preceded me would not believe that it was impossible to discover the limits of the neighbouring sea. He wanted to find out and persisted in his plans. He had 200 ships equipped and filled them with men, and the same number of ships filled with gold, water and supplies in sufficient quantities to last for years. He told those who commanded them: return only when you have reached the extremity of the ocean or when you have exhausted your food and water. They went away; their absence was long before any of them returned. Finally, a sole ship reappeared. We asked the captain about their adventure. Prince, he replied, we sailed for a long time when we encountered in mid-ocean something like a river with violent current. My ship was last. The others sailed on, gradually each entered this place, they disappeared and did not come back. As for me, I returned to where I was and did not enter that current.
But the emperor did not want to believe him. He equipped 2,000 more vessels and conferred power on me and left with his companion on the ocean. This was the last time I saw him and the others, and I remained absolute master of the empire”.
Shihab al-Din ibn Fadi al-Umari Gaudefroy-Demombynes (trans Masilik el Absar Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Guenther, 1927 pp. 74-5
There‘s evidence of nongovernmental directed trade between West Africa and the Caribbean region, it‘s historic, linguistic, and metallurgical. The word for a gold alloy sold in Hispaniola was the same as that in Guinea.
quote::
"...he [Columbus] thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Espanola (Haiti) who said that there had come to Espanola from the south and south-east a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call 'guanin' of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts 18 were of gold 6 of silver and 8 of copper." J. Batalha Reis Supposed Discovery of South America before 1488 and the Critical Methods of the Historians of Geographical Discovery Geographical Journal, Royal Geographical Society 9.2 1897 p 205 quoting from Raccolta de Documenti e Studi, Parte I, Vol. I, Scritti de Colombo p. 96
This guanin is precisely the same word kanine in Kono, a language spoken in Guinea. Variations of kanine pervade Mande languages and ultimately derives from Ghana the West African empire that was world reknowned for its gold trade. This gold alloy that included silver and copper was recorded by William Bosman in A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea London, 1705, pp 73, 74.
Columbus' mention of the black traders in guanin accompanies an intent to prove a notion by a king Dom Jaoa II of Portugal who was certain there was land southwest of Cabo Verde because of merchandise laden Guinean shippers seen heading in that direction in the 1480‘s, well before Columbus ever ventured to the Americas. When Columbus first applied to Portugal in 1484 its ruler told him that lands over 1500 miles west of Cape Verde were already claimed by Portugal. The Andrea Biancho map of 1448 shows that land writing an "authentic island is distant 1500 miles to the west." It looks like northeastern Brazil which is actually more like 2300 miles southwest of Cape Verde.
Another trade item intimately tied into African and Middle American economics was strips of cloth woven from the seeds of the silk cotton tree. Columbus wrote of this almaizar cloth
quote::
"... handerchiefs of cotton, very symmetrically woven and worked in colors like those brought from Guinea, from the rivers of Sierra Leone, and of no difference."
Like guanin, almaizar was of economic importance being used as currency in West Africa and in Middle America. The siik cotton tree was grown in Middle America and the Americans wove almaizar of their own. Was this a botanical and technological transplant following the wake of pre Luso-Hispanic trans-Atlantic West African trade set up by Mandinka settlers? Philological ethnonymic and historic anthropology evidence shows that several names of towns and ethnies in Middle America were of West African derivation. These things are well documented and of certain surety unlike stray single mentions of elephants in Arizona or minaretted masjids in Mexico, Texas, and Nevada, which I rule out until referenced by primary citations with quotes.
Trade involves goods from at least two terminals. What made it worth the West Africans efforts to trade with Middle Americans? I mean what went from the Americas to West Africa? This is an area for students and scholars of Africana studies to look into. It will further bolster the already existant evidence of pre Luso-Hispanic trans-Atlantic West African/Middle American trade.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Can anyone produce Mande art from Mauritania/Mali of this same time period, 1200 BCE - 200 CE, that's of the same worksmanship and representative style resembling either the Colosal Cabezos, ceramic, or jade art pieces of humans of the Xi era? Did the pre CE Mande play ball?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: altakruri quote: ____________________________________________________________________ Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population. ______________________________________________________________________
This is pure speculation. Please present evidence supporting this claim. The Olmec art of the earliest period and skeletal remains show the Olmecs were the earliest civilization was dominated by Africans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Olmec 
Mayan 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic