quote:Originally posted by Truth_Doctor: No one reads stuff that is utter "rubbish". One needs to be selective and not waste his time of people who are of such low caliber.
quote: Van Sertima's work has been criticized by academics who consider his claims to be ill-founded and Afrocentric. A 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article criticized in detail many elements of They Came Before Columbus.[8] The book had not earlier received a thorough professional academic review. The review stated that in claiming African origins for prehistoric Olmec culture (in present-day Mexico), Van Sertima had ignored the work of Central American researchers. The review also stated no evidence of a prehistoric African influence or presence had been found in controlled archaeological excavations in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that Olmec stone heads only superficially appear to be African and did not resemble the Nubian populations which Van Sertima claimed as their originators. They ruled as "fallacious" his claims for the diffusion of pyramid building and mummification. Additionally they accused Van Sertima's cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Van Sertima wrote a response to be included in the article (as is standard practice) but withdrew it because of the journal's policy that reprints must include the entire article and would have had to include a response (written but not published) to his response. Instead Van Sertima replied to his critics in another publication.[9][10]
In a New York Times 1977 review of Van Sertima's works, archaeologist Glyn Daniel labeled Van Sertima's work as "ignorant rubbish", concluding that the writings of Van Sertima, and Barry Fell, whom he was also reviewing, "give us badly argued theories based on fantasies".[11] Dean R. Snow, a professor of anthropology, in 1981 wrote that Van Sertima "uses the now familiar technique of stringing together bits of carefully selected evidence, each surgically removed from the context that would give it a rational explanation". Snow continued, "The findings of professional archaeologists and physical anthropologists are misrepresented so that they seem to support the [Van Sertima] hypothesis".
No real African reads the stuff you just mentioned. Anyone who would claim that the stone's heads found with broad flat noses and flaring nostrils wearing corn rows on and next to Central Amerira's earlest pyramids show no resemblance to "Nubians" or their traits is not worth listening to.
And Van Sertima never said Olmec civilization was built by blacks. He claimed their was influence their from the Nile. If the dimensions of the pyramids were not so strikingly similar to ones in the Nile Valley area, if there were no obviously "negro" and "hamitic" skeletons and crania found in certain of these ruins, if there were not so many rituals associated with the Olmec upper classes that were obviously Pharaonic maybe such people would have a case. But frankly - they don't and the fact the people you mentioned are white with Ph.D.s doesn't lend any more credence to their hopes and wishes about what happened there.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]No real African reads the stuff you just mentioned. Anyone who would claim that the stone's heads found with broad flat noses and flaring nostrils wearing corn rows on and next to Central Amerira's earlest pyramids show no resemblance to "Nubians" or their traits is not worth listening to.
And Van Sertima never said Olmec civilization was built by blacks. He claimed their was influence their from the Nile. If the dimensions of the pyramids were not so strikingly similar to ones in the Nile Valley area, if there were no obviously "negro" and "hamitic" skeletons and crania found in certain of these ruins, if there were not so many rituals associated with the Olmec upper classes that were obviously Pharaonic maybe such people would have a case. But frankly - they don't and the fact the people you mentioned are white with Ph.D.s doesn't lend any more credence to their hopes and wishes about what happened there. [/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by Truth_Doctor: No one reads stuff that is utter "rubbish". One needs to be selective and not waste his time of people who are of such low caliber.
quote: Van Sertima's work has been criticized by academics who consider his claims to be ill-founded and Afrocentric. A 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article criticized in detail many elements of They Came Before Columbus.[8] The book had not earlier received a thorough professional academic review. The review stated that in claiming African origins for prehistoric Olmec culture (in present-day Mexico), Van Sertima had ignored the work of Central American researchers. The review also stated no evidence of a prehistoric African influence or presence had been found in controlled archaeological excavations in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that Olmec stone heads only superficially appear to be African and did not resemble the Nubian populations which Van Sertima claimed as their originators. They ruled as "fallacious" his claims for the diffusion of pyramid building and mummification. Additionally they accused Van Sertima's cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Van Sertima wrote a response to be included in the article (as is standard practice) but withdrew it because of the journal's policy that reprints must include the entire article and would have had to include a response (written but not published) to his response. Instead Van Sertima replied to his critics in another publication.[9][10]
In a New York Times 1977 review of Van Sertima's works, archaeologist Glyn Daniel labeled Van Sertima's work as "ignorant rubbish", concluding that the writings of Van Sertima, and Barry Fell, whom he was also reviewing, "give us badly argued theories based on fantasies".[11] Dean R. Snow, a professor of anthropology, in 1981 wrote that Van Sertima "uses the now familiar technique of stringing together bits of carefully selected evidence, each surgically removed from the context that would give it a rational explanation". Snow continued, "The findings of professional archaeologists and physical anthropologists are misrepresented so that they seem to support the [Van Sertima] hypothesis".
Yea, what does this have to do with Egypt Revisited and why are you quoting from old wikipedia articles (that have since been reedited due to lack of neutrality) written by laymen editors with the same agenda as you? This shows a definite amateur disposition towards correct scholarship. Not to veer off topic, but I've been critical of Van Sertima as well and am working on a long winded analysis of many of his claims in a thread on ESR. Many arguments against him are fallacious while many justified. One thing he's never been though, is ignorant. I definitely wouldn't accept that from a random nobody on a web forum who doesn't even know how to cite reliable sources. .................
@ANIAN.. You can read a good chunk of the book (Egypt Revisited) here.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic