The Olmec people and other members of ancient Mexico did not look like modern day Mexican Indians. The Olmec were Blacks from Africa. They spoke the Mande language.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Full blooded Indians and Africans do not look alike
Maya and Olmec do not look alike.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Most Mexicans are Mestizos--mixed bloods.Maybe as many as 75% of Mexicans have African admixture.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Africans founded many of the earliest civilizations in the New World. We do not know when these Blacks arrived in the Americas. Scientists theorize that over 5000 years ago a group of African settlers sailing along the West African coast, in their papyrus trading vessels were caught in a storm and drifted aimlessly out to sea. In the Atlantic ocean they were captured by the South Equatorial current and carried across the Atlantic towards the Americas.
We can assume that due to the ability of these explorers to navigate by the stars they were probably able to make a return trip to West Africa. Much of West Africa 5000 years ago was unoccupied. This means that the populations that later moved into West Africa were living in Middle Africa,and the Sahara. These people due to a different climate in the Sahara at this time traveled from community to community by sea. It seems logical to assume that one of these Paleo-African groups travelled down the long extinct rivers of Middle Africa and sailed out into the Atlantic Ocean and was carried to the Americas by the powerful currents found in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The African voyagers to the New World came here in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Africans came in when they sailed to the Americas. These boats were carried across the Atlantic ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast. It is interesting to note that papyrus boats are still being built in West Africa today.
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
Cherla Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They spoke the Mande language.
yes, this is correct if mock linguistics are employed
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Olmec people and other members of ancient Mexico did not look like modern day Mexican Indians. The Olmec were Blacks from Africa.
Clyde this same picture below you used but altered the title of disproves what you are saying. Below are modern day Mexicans. They look like the Olmecs. Could you have more thoroughly debunked yourself?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Modern Mexicans look like Olmecs and other Blacks because they have mixed with Africans since Slavery. The original Mexicans as represented by the Maya do not look like Olmec people.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Clyde, you are full of self-contradiction. But what is worse is that you are not even aware of the depths to which your self-hate has taken you. Now, you are slinging - Olmec statues are the product of an indigenous population. First it was foreign, of African origin, now indigenous, mix population.
You are very disturbed, dude. VERY DISTURBED.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Clyde where are some colossal heads in Africa? Put up some African art to show the connection. See if you can find a smaller 25 ton one.
Damn, Mike wants to be native European and you want to me native American two peas in a pod
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Clyde, you are full of self-contradiction. But what is worse is that you are not even aware of the depths to which your self-hate has taken you. Now, you are slinging - Olmec statues are the product of an indigenous population. First it was foreign, of African origin, now indigenous, mix population.
You are very disturbed, dude. VERY DISTURBED.
Very well summed up. Clyde also thinks Atlantis was in Mexico. The guy is a nutbag. I also highly doubt he has a PhD.
You can find Clyde's pseudo-historical works on Lulu.com, which is basically a site for people who fail to find a publisher and so they print the work for you but take a cut of the sale.
Afronuts of course can never find publishers, as no genuine scholars are interested in their lies and distortion.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^what about your nutty British Israelism?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
'The legendary Salsassin went on a fact finding mission to investigate Mr. Clyde's academic credentials and to his surprise, Mr. Clydes has not been at all honest, especially with his fellow Afronutters.'
==========
Photo of Clyde (second from right) -
Pretty much sums up Confirming Truth's comment about Clyde being a self-hating black, its no suprise to find one of the only photos of him on the net around white woman.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^HAHA!!! He loves him some Blondes RFLOL!! It all makes sense now. Get rid of White men and he will have all the white poontang to himself!
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Bottom left.
I do wonder if Clyde spouts his views about white people to white people in the real world? Its all done for him behind the keyboard.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^Awwww, shut your fvck, you dirty roach!
You are a retard, junior, and everyone here has fvked you atleast three times.
Even Lionese the class Duncey, fvcks you like a whore anytime she/he feel like it.
Junior the retard! Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
I do wonder if Clyde spouts his views about white people to white people in the real world? Its all done for him behind the keyboard.
Of course I have made many presentations on the Olmecs at Anthrpological Conferences in which Europeans attend
I have made presentation at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/pfri.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/psat.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg98/Prelimp5.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg97/final.htm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages
.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Clyde, tell us honestly, do you believe you have Olmec ancestry?
Posted by blaccentric bull (Member # 19596) on :
^He may or may not have Olmec ancestry, but hot damn! he sure as hell got an Olmec shape head!!!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Clyde, tell us honestly, do you believe you have Olmec ancestry?
My ancestors came from West Africa--who knows.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
What a joke. Obviously the Olmecs were Negroid according to the Euronuts but naturally they just conveniently ignore Negroid features whenever it doesn't fit their motives to subjugate the minds of Blacks.
God Damn if this isn't the best example of their hypocrisy.
How much more Negroid does one have to be to be classified a Negro? But of course if there is something civilized and highly advance about them then they have to be regulated to something entirely different.
I am not claiming they were Mande or even Black Africans. I just find it intriguing how obviously negroid they appear but the Euronuts, how they like to divide people up by phenotype suddenly, can't make sense of these features.
Why doesn't Castrated post his list of Negroid features and then lets compare to the Olmecs???
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Here are some more Negroid Olmecs:
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Lioness all the above does not nullify this^ this still needs explanation if people truly believe in phenotypical "races" and Osirion is on the money in this case, for if they are shown to be grass skirt wearing primitives then all is good letem be "Negroid" but if they are shown as leaders in one of the oldest civilizations in meso-America then they need qualification..they are just what they seems to be..broad featured black people that's it !! non made a fuss over the type that seemed they came form East Asia.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
that's nice but if you look at the multiple pictures above entitled "Olmecs Product of Indigenous Popualtions" you see straight haired Mexican people some of whom look like the colossal heads. A couple of people have dark skins and you will find this in Central America. Are they therefore Negroid or "Blacks"? Clyde provided the context of this thread he thinks they are Africans who sailed over to Mexico and are significantly differnt from other Mexican populations. Look at the other Olmec masks. They don't look as much like Africans. Are these therfore the un-Negroid non-black other Olmecs? The colossal heads do look somewhat like Africans although they imply a stouter build. As we now features may crossover populations. Given that the colossal heads look somewhat African and some of the masks do but other don't what is the conclusion? That some Olmecs were African immigrants and they came to rule over other Olmecs who were indigenous? Look again at the photos there are indigenous Mexicans who look similar. Are the heads stylized? How many separate individuals do these colossal heads represent? It could be very few or even one person, I don't know. Are there similar colossal heads in Africa? No. The reconsturuction you put up is considered Austrailoid by the way. This is feel good-ism. Instead of vibing on the past I recommend people get college degrees and try to do something impressive in the present, become an engineer or architect.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Lioness
quote:The reconsturuction you put up is considered Austrailoid by the way. This is feel good-ism. Instead of vibing on the past I recommend people get college degrees and try to do something impressive in the present, become an engineer or architect.
well we could use alot more engineers,architects and what not, but for the purpose of this page is mostly about the past,and I for one feel neither,good or bad about a phenotype as my own family runs the whole gamut..but being selective about one particular phenotype and jumping through hoops to explain it away when non has done the same for the other types smacks of hypocrisy and by the way Austrailoid is just one of the possibilities the other that you are afraid to mention coming from the person that did that very reconstruction is... AFRICAN but be that as it may I cared not! that fact is people are afraid of that phenotype be it in Africa,Asia,Europe and the Americas especially when etched in stone as powerful figures.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I don't think Mexicans would apprecitate it
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
The Olmec represent an archaeological culture situated on the Gulf Coast in the heartland of Olman. They introduced an art style and material culture characterized by monumental works of art, figurines and giant heads.
The Olmec were Africans who spoke a Mande language. The Olmec lived along the Gulf coast: San Lorenzo,LaVenta, Tres Zapotes. These Africans spread their culture through trade and association. The Olmec have a distinct and separate culture characterized by the Negro heads and related artifacts.
The Olmec culture was adopted by people of diverse ethnicities as they expanded their trade throughout Mexico. These ‘foreign’ ethnicities took Olmec representations and practices and made them their ‘own’ cultural practices. As a result, many non-Olmec people shared the Olmec culture and politicoreligious institutions. Yet a cursory comparison of the people reflected in the art outside the Olmec heartland clearly indicates that their phenotype differed from the African Negroes of the Olmec heartland.
The people who were not Olmec, but practiced the Olmec culture are recognized as ‘Colonial Olmec’ by archaeologists. The art of these people is usually dated between 900-600 BC. This was 300 years after the Mande speaking Olmec had been established in Mexico.
Generally the depiction of non-Olmec personages is associated with the Mexican states of Tabasco, Puebla and Guerrero. Most of the pesronages depicted in the mask appear to be Classical mongoloid people (i.e., small sized Asian people presently living in Indonesia and Southeast Asia). This suggest to me an early settlement of Mexico by classical mongoloid people.
The Xi or Mande speaking people founded the Xia dynasty of China, and the Olmec civilization of Mexico. The classical mongoloids founded the Anyang-Shang Dynasty which was conquered by the Hua Chinese of the Zhou dynasty. Given the fact the Xi of the Xia dynasty and Xi of the Gulf Coast of Mexico were Mande speakers there was probably communication between the Xi of China and Mexico. These people may have been in communication as suggested by the cocaine mummies . The classical mongoloids probably followed the Xi people of China and Southeast Asia to Mexico where they adopted the Olmec culture.
The Olmec art from Puebla seems to indicate that this was a multi-racial center given the works of art depicting negroes and classical mongoloids.
Puebla Figurines
In summary you are correct the mask represent non-Olmecs.
.
These people were colonial ‘Olmec people’ who adopted the Olmec culture.
.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
I for one find Clydes hypothesis to be a compelling one.
* I will state time and time again that I have no credentials nor do I have anything more than a layman's knowledge of such things. I do however have excellent critical thinking skills and a healthy dose skepticism *
I will admit my knee jerk reaction was to say "nut job" but that stems more from the numerous racists with agenda's that troll these forums than from any preconceived notions I might have. Those guys really ruin any credibility you may have and I do wish you would help police them but I digress...
The only issues that I can come up with at the moment are as follows:
1)Trade is listed as one of the reasons African's would be traversing to South America. I find this unlikely for a couple of reasons. A) The ships depicted, while probably being sophisticated enough to make the journey to South America by using the equatorial currents seem to be lacking the technology required to sail against the wind (tacking) which would be necessary for the return trip. (didn't someone try this experiment not long ago and fail miserably?) B) I am unaware of exotics (like coca or tomatoes) or indigenous artifacts of South America ever being written about, pictured, or found in Africa.
* I am sure there may other reasons African's would make a blind one way sail to South America but can not come up with any myself*
2) Are you taking variations in phenotype of the indigenous populations into consideration? I see all the time on these boards that if someone uses for example "a narrow nose" as a basis for European ancestry they get lambasted and are reminded that Africans have several variations. Are you extending that same logic to other races?
Other than that I can definitely see this as being a possibility.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption: I for one find Clyde’s hypothesis to be a compelling one.
The only issues that I can come up with at the moment are as follows:
1)Trade is listed as one of the reasons African's would be traversing to South America. I find this unlikely for a couple of reasons. A) The ships depicted, while probably being sophisticated enough to make the journey to South America by using the equatorial currents seem to be lacking the technology required to sail against the wind (tacking) which would be necessary for the return trip. (didn't someone try this experiment not long ago and fail miserably?) B) I am unaware of exotics (like coca or tomatoes) or indigenous artifacts of South America ever being written about, pictured, or found in Africa.
A. At Izapa we see some of the boats used by the Olmecs.
The boats used by the Olmec would have included rows.
B. Research indicates that Tobacco was already in use in West Africa before the Europeans arrived in the region.
Leo Wiener makes it clear that the major tobacco merchants were Africans in Africa and the Discovery of America.
You may enjoy my film on the African traders and the Maya.
• We also have evidence that Maize was in Africa before Europeans. See • Maize and the Mande Myth Maize, by M. D. W. Jeffreys Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jun., 1971), pp. 291-320
We also have evidence that Egyptian mummies was found to contain cocaine. See:
Balababova, S., F. Parsche, and W. Pirsig. 1992. First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies. Naturwissenschaften 79:358.
The recent findings of cocaine, nicotine, and hashish in Egyptian mummies by Balabanova et. al. have been criticized on grounds that: contamination of the mummies may have occurred, improper techniques may have been used, chemical decomposition may have produced the compounds in question, recent mummies of drug users were mistakenly evaluated, that no similar cases are known of such compounds in long-dead bodies, and especially that pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages are highly speculative. These criticisms are each discussed in turn. Balabanova et. al. are shown to have used and confirmed their findings with accepted methods. The possibility of the compounds being byproducts of decomposition is shown to be without precedent and highly unlikely. The possibility that the researchers made evaluations from faked mummies of recent drug users is shown to be highly unlikely in almost all cases. Several additional cases of identified American drugs in mummies are discussed. Additionally, it is shown that significant evidence exists for contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times. It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms. [Please refer also to <Edlin>]
: In summary there is considerable evidence for American cultigens existing in Africa before Europeans arrived on the scene.
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption:
* I am sure there may other reasons African's would make a blind one way sail to South America but can not come up with any myself*
2) Are you taking variations in phenotype of the indigenous populations into consideration? I see all the time on these boards that if someone uses for example "a narrow nose" as a basis for European ancestry they get lambasted and are reminded that Africans have several variations. Are you extending that same logic to other races?
Other than that I can definitely see this as being a possibility.
I am not using phenotype to identify the African origin of the Olmecs. The Olmecs illustrate a Mande origin based on their history, culture and writing.
In relation to the classical mongoloids I am basing this theory on the iconographic evidence of the phenotype for some populations from Guerrero, Puebla and Tobasco.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Now hold it. We have a definition of Negroid from Castrated and other Euronuts. Now just apply that definition to the Olmec people and you come out with Negroes.
Again, I am not saying they were Black people at all. I am saying that if you use Euronut logic you should come out with Negroid. Euronuts can claim that you can have Black skin and Frizzy hair and still be Caucasoid. So I don't see a problem with people having light skin and straight hair and yet be Negroid.
Come on people - get it together.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Now hold it. We have a definition of Negroid from Castrated and other Euronuts. Now just apply that definition to the Olmec people and you come out with Negroes.
There is more criteria to race than nose and lip proportions. Some Mongoloids have flat noses and thick lips like Negroids. In fact a video a while back on youtube was posted up showing how certian Amerindian groups has those exact features (and they have no Negroid blood).
You really need to study physical anthropology, no one classifies races solely based on their nose and lip sizes.
quote: Euronuts can claim that you can have Black skin and Frizzy hair and still be Caucasoid.
Clear straw man.
No one claims Caucasoids have black skin and frizzy hair. Those are non-Caucasoid traits.
quote:So I don't see a problem with people having light skin and straight hair and yet be Negroid.
Because you are a self-hating black and crave white features.
Lol @ light skinned straight haired negroids. You need to take your medication.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
The boats used by the Olmec would have included rows.
While I know it's possible for people to row from Africa to South America (they do it all the time). I am almost positive that rowing the other way would require herculean strength and endurance. That's probably why it's unheard of even today with current advancements in hull design. Understand that from the best launch points it still takes the best rowers 50-80 days to row the 2500 miles or so to make the trip. That's going with the current in low drag, stream lined hulls.
Going the other way with multiple occupants, the food and water necessary for those occupants, and cargo accumulated from trade would require more energy than human rowers could provide.
This is not to say that the Olmecs didn't find a way to return and trade with Africa. A more likely scenario would be to follow the coastline of South America and catch the Equatorial Counter Current back. This however would require one or more resting stops before crossing the Atlantic and this drops you off in what is commonly referred to as some of the most dangerous waters in the world.
Do we know of any places that show Olmec influence further south say in Guyana or Cayenne?
Anyways this all seems very plausible but if I am spotting holes it would seem some things still need to be worked out.
Great food for thought that's for sure.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
The problem is Osirion is the stupid OIDS,Ids and TIDS.. and why we should not use them but look at Bio-anthropology and Culture to determine who is whom!!
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
I am not using phenotype to identify the African origin of the Olmecs. The Olmecs illustrate a Mande origin based on their history, culture and writing. In relation to the classical mongoloids I am basing this theory on the iconographic evidence of the phenotype for some populations from Guerrero, Puebla and Tobasco.
Ok Im confused on this statement. Your using anthropological evidence to show Mande origins but your using the phenotype from the big heads to show.....?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
For those who are ____ I will point out Mexican people above with straight hair who resemble the colossal heads in
top row numbers A-E up and down 1-7
4E
2E
5B
5D
7A
7C
7E
Clyde tries to divide the Olmecs trying to say some are true Olmecs and others are "colonized Olmecs".
There are 17 Colossal Heads.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption: The boats used by the Olmec would have included rows.
While I know it's possible for people to row from Africa to South America (they do it all the time). I am almost positive that rowing the other way would require herculean strength and endurance. That's probably why it's unheard of even today with current advancements in hull design. Understand that from the best launch points it still takes the best rowers 50-80 days to row the 2500 miles or so to make the trip. That's going with the current in low drag, stream lined hulls.
Going the other way with multiple occupants, the food and water necessary for those occupants, and cargo accumulated from trade would require more energy than human rowers could provide.
This is not to say that the Olmecs didn't find a way to return and trade with Africa. A more likely scenario would be to follow the coastline of South America and catch the Equatorial Counter Current back. This however would require one or more resting stops before crossing the Atlantic and this drops you off in what is commonly referred to as some of the most dangerous waters in the world.
Do we know of any places that show Olmec influence further south say in Guyana or Cayenne?
Anyways this all seems very plausible but if I am spotting holes it would seem some things still need to be worked out.
Great food for thought that's for sure.
There is no evidence of Olmec influence further south. The boat issue does nothing to deny an African presence in the Americas or put a hole in this reality. Your speculation on the ability of the rowers lacks any foundtion.
Abubakari when he made is expedition to the Americas had a 1000 ships to carry the passengers and a 1000 ships loaded with food. Their ships had rowers and they left a significant influence in the Americas.
Here is what's wrong with trying to use modern population to identify with ancient ones through ancient artifacts, one assumes that the moderns did not have more recent contacts with other populations from the so-called old world so those types may very well represent a much older phenotype or a connection with post Colombian contact,one can never tell unless a DNA test is done and even then it's still iffy..well some may say that the phenotype shown in more... for lack of a better term primitive society and so negates old world genetic influence is in fact a fallacy, for those are the type of societies that escaped post Colombian Africans would be attracted to,So I am not impressed with the collage..if one wanted I can go into Maroon societies in Mexico and other areas north and south of the Rio Grande if needs be.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption: I am not using phenotype to identify the African origin of the Olmecs. The Olmecs illustrate a Mande origin based on their history, culture and writing. In relation to the classical mongoloids I am basing this theory on the iconographic evidence of the phenotype for some populations from Guerrero, Puebla and Tobasco.
Ok Im confused on this statement. Your using anthropological evidence to show Mande origins but your using the phenotype from the big heads to show.....?
LOL. You can't read. I said phenotype for the "Colonial Olmec" classical Mongoloid type--not Olmec.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.
M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs:America’s first civilization (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25).
Pool (17-18), in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”.
Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and [b] argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).”
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Olmec came from Saharan Africa. They spoke a Mande language. Evidence of this connection comes from the fact:
1) both groups used jade to make their tools.
2) both groups made large stone heads. Here is an African head dating back to the same period.
3) The Mande came to Mexico in boats from the Sahara down the ancient Niger River that formerly emptied in the Sahara or they could have made their way to the Atlantic Ocean down the Senegal River.
4) The Olmec writing points back to a Mande origin in Africa.
.
5) Olmec skeletons that are African.
6) Similar white, and red-and-black pottery.
7) Introduction of the 13 month 20 day calendar.
8) Mayan adoption of the Mande term for writing.
9)Mande religious and culture terms adopted by Mayan people.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Olmec religion or cult associations provide the best example of Mande: Malinke-Bambara cultural influences among the Olmecs. The best source of information on the Malinke-Bambara religion is G. Dieterlen (1957) Essai sur le religion Bambara . Dieterlen makes it clear that the Mande culture was transmitted within the Komow : traditional secret society of the Mande.
The two main deities of the Mande were Bemba and Faro. Bemba was the invisible Creator of mankind. Faro, was the visible god who was recognized as androgynous (male-female). The symbol of faro was twins. As a result, in traditional Malinke-Bambara society twins represented the two fold nature of Faro
We learn from the Dieterlen that the first Bambara-Malinke ancestors transformed into Birds and hyenas (Felines). This tradition led to the origin of the two major Mande cult associations Kuno (Bird) and Nama (Feline), gyo/jo ‘cult associations
The Nama (feline) initiatory society was organized to maintain order within society. The members of this jo were to insure ceremonial unity and defeat sorcery The leader of the Nama Jo , wear mask which combine totems of komo, horns and the mask represented immense spiritual power according to Zahan Dominique (1974), The Bambara .
The Komo was administered by sculptor-smiths. Their role was to guard society from people committing antisocial acts and protect people from malevolent spirits.
The leader of the Jo cult association was the Komo-tigi ‘chief of the komo’ . The Komo, teaches initiates ‘leadership’, self-sufficiency, military prowess and scientific knowledge.
The komo acculturated the Mande children. Thusly the children in the komo were called tigi-denw: ‘children of the tigi’ . The children often served as tigi-tuguw “carriers of the torches’.
The children belonged to the ntomo or n’domo . The ntomo association was charged with making the initiates “noble”.
And understanding of the traditional, pre-Islamic religion of the Malinke-Bambara allows us an intimate understanding of the Olmec religion.
The principal Olmec cult associations was that of the bird and the feline. This religious tradition of the Olmec, passed on to the Maya, are mentioned in the Book of Chumayel, which maintains that the three main cult associations that are suppose to have existed in ancient times were (1) the stone (cutters) cult, (2) the jaguar cult and (3) the bird cult. In lines 4-6 of the Book of Chumayel , we read that "Those with their sign in the bird, those with their sign in the stone, flat worked stone, those with their sign in the Jaguar-three emblems-".(Brotherston 1979).
The Olmec left testimony to this religious tradition in their art. These documents in sto ne indicate that the Olmec had to cult associations that of the Bird Mask and that of the Feline Mask. The Book of Chumayel, corresponds to the gylphs depicted on Monument 13 at La Venta .
. On Monument 13, at La Venta a personage in profile, he has a headress on his head and wears a breechcloth, jewels and sandals, along with four glyphs listed one above the other. The glyphs included the stone, the jaguar, and the bird emblems. Monument 13, at La Venta also has a fourth sign to the left of the personage a foot gylphs. This monument has been described as an altar or a low column.
The foot in Olmec is called "se", this symbols means to "lead or advance toward knowledge, or success". The "se" (foot) sign of the komow (cults) represent the beginning of the Olmec initiates pursuit of knowledge.
The meaning of Monument 13, reading from top to bottom, are a circle kulu/ kaba (the stone), nama (jaguar) and the kuno (bird). The interpretation of this column reading from left to right is "The advance toward success--power--for the initiate is obedience to the stone cutters cult, jaguar cult and the bird cult". The Jaguar mask association dominated the Olmec Gulf region.
In the central and southern Olmec regions we find the bird mask association predominate as typified by the Xoc bas relief of Chiapas, and the Bas Relief No.2, of Chalcatzingo. Another bird mask cult association was located in the state of Guerrero as evidenced by the humano-bird figure of the Stelae from San Miguel Amuco.
The religious orders spoken of in this stela are the Bird and Jaguar cults. These Olmec cults were Nama or the Humano-Jaguar cult; and Kuno or Bird cult. The leader of the Nama cult was called the Nama-tigi (see Nama chief Illustration 7 Stela No.5 Izapa) , or Amatigi (head of the faith). The leader of the Kuno cult was the Kuno-tigi (Kuno chief see Illustration 6 Stela No.5). These cult leaders initiated the Olmec into the mysteries of the cult.
Among the Olmecs this flame signified the luminous character of knowledge. The Kuno priest wears a conical hat(see Illustration No.6). The evidence of the conical hat on the Kuno priest is important evidence of the Manding in ancient America. The conical hat in Meso-America is associated with Amerindian priesthood and as a symbol of political and religious authority . Leo Wiener (1922, v.II: p.321) wrote that: "That the kingly and priestly cap of the Magi should have been preserved in America in the identical form, with the identical decoration,and should, besides, have kept the name current for it among the Mandingo [Malinke-Bambara/Manding] people , makes it impossible to admit any other solution than the one that the Mandingoes established the royal offices in Mexico".
Acculturation of children was an important part duty of the Olmec priesthood. As a result we find many examples of children being provided knowledge by the priest.
The Olmec child is very evident in Olmec art. To the Olmec childhood represent the primitive state of mankind, when man was pure and ignorant of nature. Thus the child in Olmec art represents the human being when he left his creator’s hands: uncircumcised and androgynous.
Adults respected children very much. This view is supported by the motifs on Altar No.5 of LaVenta. On this monument we see a personage emerging from the stone altar with the glyph po gbe ‘Pure Righteousness’ on his headdress. He is carrying a babe in his arms resting on his lap.
On the other side of the monument we see two personages, each with a different helmet style. These scenes suggest that the Olmec child was to learn wisdom, this is illustrated by the animated conversation between the child and the priest.
On the right-hand side we see a priest and a child again. This time the priest has a snake on his helmet. Instead of carrying the child on his lap in this scene, the child is carried on the personage’s side and wearing a jaguar mask. This indicates that once the child completed the initiation he was recognized a individual to be respected capable of giving advise to adults.
These examples from Olmec iconography make it clear that the Olmec religion is exactly the same as the pre-Islamic religion of the Malinke Bambara.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I don't think so
note: first post with actual African sculpture included
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
No one claims Caucasoids have black skin and frizzy hair. Those are non-Caucasoid traits.
You posted a map showing Caucasoid people which included people that have dark skin and frizzy hair.
You have also claimed that Nubians were Caucasoid especially after it has been shown that Egyptians are more closely related to them than to other peoples.
Your definition of Caucasoid is strictly based on facial features from the thread you provided on racial traits. Olmecs are more Negroid than most Negroes based on any definition I know of for Negroid.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
Ok like any good monkey I decided to do some real research into this topic.
My original idea was to examine the "trade issue" I had looked at earlier.
It is quite obvious that Clyde's work is based on Van Sertima's, but altered to fit the timeline better. Of course all the other glaring issues are still there.
My favorite quotes are
GERALD EARLY African and Afro-American Studies, Campus Box 1109, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. 63130-4899, U.S.A. 11 XI 96
Haslip-Viera et al. assert that Afrocentrism "in all its complexity emerged from the cultural nationalism of the 1960s and 1970s." Yet the complexity of Afrocentrism is that it is more than the result or supercession of the cultural nationalism or Black Aesthetic movements that themselves arose from the civil rights movement. Afrocentrism is the result of a much older preoccupation of black Americans (and some of their white sympathizers) to provide a usable black past which would incorporate Egypt as a central image and place of origin. This has been called contributionist historiography; that is to say, blacks have insisted on a history that recognized their contribution to world history and American culture. Its first political moment was antebellum slavery and the defense of the black against the charge of being semi-inhuman and worthy of being little more than a slave in the world. Its next major moment was from 1890 to 1930, after the failure of Reconstruction, which saw the development of Pan Africanism from the first Pan African Conference in 1900 to the imprisonment of Marcus Garvey. The next major moment would come with the emergence of Malcolm X and the black student sit-in movement, both of which occurred between 1959 and 1960, at the same moment that African independence really seized the black American imagination. That the idea of what constitutes contributionist history should expand or become more and more politicized is not surprising. Most of the ideas of the Afrocentrists had been espoused by black nationalists for some time, at least as far back as the Harlem Renaissance. One could hear talk of a black Egypt or that the Olmec heads were set up in honor of blacks from the local street-corner nationalist in the barbershop. No one ever thought then that the day would come when these ideas would be taught in some white schools.
The widespread acceptance of some of the more crackpot assertions of contributionist history has also been made possible by postmodernism - the idea that truth is relative, that European dominance must be de-centered, that all history is fiction, that knowledge is power. This movement helped to grant Afrocentrism, as a more intense version of contributionist history, some authenticity as a counter-white-hegemonic force. The multiculturalist movement, an outgrowth of affirmative action, postmodernism, and European Romanticism, was also a strong factor in Afrocentrism's gaining currency.
The authors are right in suggesting that Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in blackface. One of the serious problems that oppressed people like African-Americans face is dealing with the sometimes destructive tendency to create parallel institutions that copy white ones almost entirely. In this case, here is an attempt at institutionalized history with all the racist prerogatives of European imperialist history. Afrocentrism is not only a historiography of decline, as Wilson J. Moses suggested, a history of defeat, but a historiography of resentment and jealousy of European history. Now, with the help of Van Sertima, we blacks have our Captain Cook myth. Indeed, it even goes the Cook myth one better, as the natives here not only worshipped the blacks as gods but never deigned to eat them.
Of course, Afrocentrism must be understood as a political expression or even a kind of mental or emotional expression - therapy or "proper" history as the cure for false consciousness. It is impossible to say whether black people truly profit from this in the way of self-esteem. They have certainly profited insofar as many are willing to defend a great deal of misinformation. (But many Americans, not just blacks, suffer from this disease, especially right-wing ones who, like Afrocentrists, see history as the revelation of a set of God-ordained, unchanging, and unchallengeable values.) I have always advised my students to read Nieztsche's excellent essay on the uses and abuses of history. I particularly urge black students to do so.
and
MICHAEL D. COE Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 05611-8161, U.S.A. 22 I 97
The claim by Van Sertima and others that Africans created the Olmec culture of Mesoamerica belongs in the same historical dustbin as previous claims that the high cultures of the New World resulted from the migration of white peoples from Europe (i.e., the Welsh who were supposed to have left the mounds of the U.S. Middle West) or the Near East (i.e., the Mormon belief that the Maya cities were really made by white "Nephites"). Only recently have we been assured in press articles that the Olmec came from China!
As someone who has worked many decades with the Preclassic or Formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons excavating the great Olmec center of San Lorenzo, I would like to state unequivocally that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that looks African, Chinese, European, or Near Eastern. The Olmec culture was created and maintained by American Indian peoples with a completely Mesoamerican way of life centered on the cultivation of maize and other New World cultigens. Their pottery, figurines, and other artifacts show a strong heritage from even earlier Preclassic cultures on the Pacific coast of Chiapas and Guatemala, an unlikely region for a putative African landfall.
Van Sertima and his associates have committed the fallacy of taking a style of art as racial fact. If this kind of reasoning were valid, then we should assume that all Hellenistic Greeks looked like Alexander the Great and that the women of Paris in the 1930s had three eyes and two noses. The colossal heads really are portraits of Olmec rulers, but the physiognomies of those rulers were altered to fit the prevailing Olmec canons of monumental art. Olmec jade carvers had somewhat different canons, producing slightly "Oriental"-looking figurines. Neither the great heads nor the figurines are to be taken as phenotypical fact.
The authors of this article are to be congratulated for challenging Van Sertima on his own ground, examining and refuting each one of his assertions in exemplary fashion. Their arguments are completely convincing.
I find two aspects of Van Sertima's Afrocentric thesis extremely disturbing. First, it demeans and trivializes the genuine cultural achievements of native Americans. The creation of Mesoamerica's first civilization, the Olmec, was a mighty achievement, and to attempt to take this away from the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica on the flimsiest basis is an unworthy exercise. Secondly, it disturbs me as an American citizen to see this kind of wishful thinking imposed on our education system; it is only too similar to the attempt by creationists to force their own unscientific beliefs on biology classes.
I will admit that there are many things still to be learned about the Olmec, but they will only be learned through serious archaeological excavation.
***I especially like this one because of my art background***
What is really scary is I can link all this to the real crazies C.S. Gladwin and James Churchward.
That crazy azz Muurish Empire Washita crap...eeegad
BTW this was supposed to happen today
On the triple date of 11-11-11 a sacred Golden Sun Disc will be actived in Arkansas, in the Washitaw Mountains. This will transmit new DNA codes all around the World. These codes are the Divine blueprint for the planet. Arkansas, the land of the Washitaw Muurs, is now the most important portal vortex in mankind’s return to Eden and to Unity Consciousness.
I'M Koo Koo for Coco Puffs!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the colossal Olmec heads are very wide and chunky
their head shape looks more similar to Samoans than to Africans
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption: Ok like any good monkey I decided to do some real research into this topic.
My original idea was to examine the "trade issue" I had looked at earlier.
It is quite obvious that Clyde's work is based on Van Sertima's, but altered to fit the timeline better. Of course all the other glaring issues are still there.
My favorite quotes are
GERALD EARLY African and Afro-American Studies, Campus Box 1109, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. 63130-4899, U.S.A. 11 XI 96
Haslip-Viera et al. assert that Afrocentrism "in all its complexity emerged from the cultural nationalism of the 1960s and 1970s." Yet the complexity of Afrocentrism is that it is more than the result or supercession of the cultural nationalism or Black Aesthetic movements that themselves arose from the civil rights movement. Afrocentrism is the result of a much older preoccupation of black Americans (and some of their white sympathizers) to provide a usable black past which would incorporate Egypt as a central image and place of origin. This has been called contributionist historiography; that is to say, blacks have insisted on a history that recognized their contribution to world history and American culture. Its first political moment was antebellum slavery and the defense of the black against the charge of being semi-inhuman and worthy of being little more than a slave in the world. Its next major moment was from 1890 to 1930, after the failure of Reconstruction, which saw the development of Pan Africanism from the first Pan African Conference in 1900 to the imprisonment of Marcus Garvey. The next major moment would come with the emergence of Malcolm X and the black student sit-in movement, both of which occurred between 1959 and 1960, at the same moment that African independence really seized the black American imagination. That the idea of what constitutes contributionist history should expand or become more and more politicized is not surprising. Most of the ideas of the Afrocentrists had been espoused by black nationalists for some time, at least as far back as the Harlem Renaissance. One could hear talk of a black Egypt or that the Olmec heads were set up in honor of blacks from the local street-corner nationalist in the barbershop. No one ever thought then that the day would come when these ideas would be taught in some white schools.
The widespread acceptance of some of the more crackpot assertions of contributionist history has also been made possible by postmodernism - the idea that truth is relative, that European dominance must be de-centered, that all history is fiction, that knowledge is power. This movement helped to grant Afrocentrism, as a more intense version of contributionist history, some authenticity as a counter-white-hegemonic force. The multiculturalist movement, an outgrowth of affirmative action, postmodernism, and European Romanticism, was also a strong factor in Afrocentrism's gaining currency.
The authors are right in suggesting that Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in blackface. One of the serious problems that oppressed people like African-Americans face is dealing with the sometimes destructive tendency to create parallel institutions that copy white ones almost entirely. In this case, here is an attempt at institutionalized history with all the racist prerogatives of European imperialist history. Afrocentrism is not only a historiography of decline, as Wilson J. Moses suggested, a history of defeat, but a historiography of resentment and jealousy of European history. Now, with the help of Van Sertima, we blacks have our Captain Cook myth. Indeed, it even goes the Cook myth one better, as the natives here not only worshipped the blacks as gods but never deigned to eat them.
Of course, Afrocentrism must be understood as a political expression or even a kind of mental or emotional expression - therapy or "proper" history as the cure for false consciousness. It is impossible to say whether black people truly profit from this in the way of self-esteem. They have certainly profited insofar as many are willing to defend a great deal of misinformation. (But many Americans, not just blacks, suffer from this disease, especially right-wing ones who, like Afrocentrists, see history as the revelation of a set of God-ordained, unchanging, and unchallengeable values.) I have always advised my students to read Nieztsche's excellent essay on the uses and abuses of history. I particularly urge black students to do so.
and
MICHAEL D. COE Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 05611-8161, U.S.A. 22 I 97
The claim by Van Sertima and others that Africans created the Olmec culture of Mesoamerica belongs in the same historical dustbin as previous claims that the high cultures of the New World resulted from the migration of white peoples from Europe (i.e., the Welsh who were supposed to have left the mounds of the U.S. Middle West) or the Near East (i.e., the Mormon belief that the Maya cities were really made by white "Nephites"). Only recently have we been assured in press articles that the Olmec came from China!
As someone who has worked many decades with the Preclassic or Formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons excavating the great Olmec center of San Lorenzo, I would like to state unequivocally that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that looks African, Chinese, European, or Near Eastern. The Olmec culture was created and maintained by American Indian peoples with a completely Mesoamerican way of life centered on the cultivation of maize and other New World cultigens. Their pottery, figurines, and other artifacts show a strong heritage from even earlier Preclassic cultures on the Pacific coast of Chiapas and Guatemala, an unlikely region for a putative African landfall.
Van Sertima and his associates have committed the fallacy of taking a style of art as racial fact. If this kind of reasoning were valid, then we should assume that all Hellenistic Greeks looked like Alexander the Great and that the women of Paris in the 1930s had three eyes and two noses. The colossal heads really are portraits of Olmec rulers, but the physiognomies of those rulers were altered to fit the prevailing Olmec canons of monumental art. Olmec jade carvers had somewhat different canons, producing slightly "Oriental"-looking figurines. Neither the great heads nor the figurines are to be taken as phenotypical fact.
The authors of this article are to be congratulated for challenging Van Sertima on his own ground, examining and refuting each one of his assertions in exemplary fashion. Their arguments are completely convincing.
I find two aspects of Van Sertima's Afrocentric thesis extremely disturbing. First, it demeans and trivializes the genuine cultural achievements of native Americans. The creation of Mesoamerica's first civilization, the Olmec, was a mighty achievement, and to attempt to take this away from the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica on the flimsiest basis is an unworthy exercise. Secondly, it disturbs me as an American citizen to see this kind of wishful thinking imposed on our education system; it is only too similar to the attempt by creationists to force their own unscientific beliefs on biology classes.
I will admit that there are many things still to be learned about the Olmec, but they will only be learned through serious archaeological excavation.
***I especially like this one because of my art background***
What is really scary is I can link all this to the real crazies C.S. Gladwin and James Churchward.
That crazy azz Muurish Empire Washita crap...eeegad
BTW this was supposed to happen today
On the triple date of 11-11-11 a sacred Golden Sun Disc will be actived in Arkansas, in the Washitaw Mountains. This will transmit new DNA codes all around the World. These codes are the Divine blueprint for the planet. Arkansas, the land of the Washitaw Muurs, is now the most important portal vortex in mankind’s return to Eden and to Unity Consciousness.
I'M Koo Koo for Coco Puffs!
Van Sertima's theory has nothing to do with my work. I base my work on concrete evidence of a mande origin of the Olmecs.
The Olmec came from Saharan Africa. They spoke a Mande language. Evidence of this connection comes from the fact:
1) both groups used jade to make their tools.
2) both groups made large stone heads. Here is an African head dating back to the same period.
3) The Mande came to Mexico in boats from the Sahara down the ancient Niger River that formerly emptied in the Sahara or they could have made their way to the Atlantic Ocean down the Senegal River.
4) The Olmec writing points back to a Mande origin in Africa.
.
5) Olmec skeletons that are African.
6) Similar white, and red-and-black pottery.
7) Introduction of the 13 month 20 day calendar.
8) The Olmec religion is the same as the Mande traditional religion
9) The Olmec and Mande people called themselves Xi (Si/Shi)
10) Mayan adoption of the Mande term for writing.
11) Mande religious and culture terms adopted by Mayan people.
Please post the research disputing this evidence.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption: Ok like any good monkey I decided to do some real research into this topic.
My original idea was to examine the "trade issue" I had looked at earlier.
It is quite obvious that Clyde's work is based on Van Sertima's, but altered to fit the timeline better. Of course all the other glaring issues are still there.
My research has no relationship to that of Ivan Van Sertima.Ivan is not an Afrocentric researcher. Ivan made that clear in all of his work. Below is my response to Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) .
quote:
Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) have argued that Olmec civilization was not influenced by Africans and therefore Afrocentrism should have no standing in higher education, but in fact it can be illustrated that the facial types as sociated with the Olmec people and Meroitic people are identical; and that Olmec figurines such as the Tuxtla statuette excavation are inscribed with African writing used by the Mande people of West Africa (Wiener, 1922; Winters, 1979 ) of Manding writing provide the "absolute proof " recovered by archaeologists from "controlled excavations in the New World" demanded by Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 419) to "proof"/confirm Olmec and African contact. The failure of Haslip- Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) to realize an African presence in PreColumbian America, is the result of their ignorance of the normal science of ancient Afrocentric studies (Winters, 1996). Haslip-Viera, Ortiz d e Montellano and Barbour (1997: 419) assume that ancient Afrocentric research is the result of the "cultural nationalism of the 1960's and 1970's. This view is false.
The ancient Afrocentric studies research tradition was developed before the 1960's (Wint ers, 1994, 1996). The ancient Afrocentric studies research tradition reflects almost two hundred years of original research in the area of ancient Afrocentric studies ( Winters, 1994, 1996). Contrary to the views of Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) ancient Afrocentric historical research makes ancient Afrocentric area studies a valid field of research (Winters, 1994). Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) criticized the view held by many Afrocentrist that the Olmec peo ple were Africans, due to the research of Ivan van Sertima. Use of van Sertima (1976) by Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 419) to denigrate Afrocentrism is unfair, because this researcher has made it clear since the publication of his book They came before Columbus in 1976, that he is not an Afrocentrist. Although Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 431) acknowledge this truth in there rebuttal of van Sertima, the authors refer to Afrocentrist as purveyors of "racism", interested only in denying the authentic role of Native Americans in the rise of American civilizations…….. Read More here :
It is quite obvious that Clyde's work is based on Van Sertima's, but altered to fit the timeline better. Of course all the other glaring issues are still there.
My favorite quotes are
GERALD EARLY African and Afro-American Studies, Campus Box 1109, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. 63130-4899, U.S.A. 11 XI 96
Haslip-Viera et al. assert that Afrocentrism "in all its complexity emerged from the cultural nationalism of the 1960s and 1970s." Yet the complexity of Afrocentrism is that it is more than the result or supercession of the cultural nationalism or Black Aesthetic movements that themselves arose from the civil rights movement. Afrocentrism is the result of a much older preoccupation of black Americans (and some of their white sympathizers) to provide a usable black past which would incorporate Egypt as a central image and place of origin. This has been called contributionist historiography; that is to say, blacks have insisted on a history that recognized their contribution to world history and American culture. Its first political moment was antebellum slavery and the defense of the black against the charge of being semi-inhuman and worthy of being little more than a slave in the world. Its next major moment was from 1890 to 1930, after the failure of Reconstruction, which saw the development of Pan Africanism from the first Pan African Conference in 1900 to the imprisonment of Marcus Garvey. The next major moment would come with the emergence of Malcolm X and the black student sit-in movement, both of which occurred between 1959 and 1960, at the same moment that African independence really seized the black American imagination. That the idea of what constitutes contributionist history should expand or become more and more politicized is not surprising. Most of the ideas of the Afrocentrists had been espoused by black nationalists for some time, at least as far back as the Harlem Renaissance. One could hear talk of a black Egypt or that the Olmec heads were set up in honor of blacks from the local street-corner nationalist in the barbershop. No one ever thought then that the day would come when these ideas would be taught in some white schools.
The widespread acceptance of some of the more crackpot assertions of contributionist history has also been made possible by postmodernism - the idea that truth is relative, that European dominance must be de-centered, that all history is fiction, that knowledge is power. This movement helped to grant Afrocentrism, as a more intense version of contributionist history, some authenticity as a counter-white-hegemonic force. The multiculturalist movement, an outgrowth of affirmative action, postmodernism, and European Romanticism, was also a strong factor in Afrocentrism's gaining currency.
The authors are right in suggesting that Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in blackface. One of the serious problems that oppressed people like African-Americans face is dealing with the sometimes destructive tendency to create parallel institutions that copy white ones almost entirely. In this case, here is an attempt at institutionalized history with all the racist prerogatives of European imperialist history. Afrocentrism is not only a historiography of decline, as Wilson J. Moses suggested, a history of defeat, but a historiography of resentment and jealousy of European history. Now, with the help of Van Sertima, we blacks have our Captain Cook myth. Indeed, it even goes the Cook myth one better, as the natives here not only worshipped the blacks as gods but never deigned to eat them.
Of course, Afrocentrism must be understood as a political expression or even a kind of mental or emotional expression - therapy or "proper" history as the cure for false consciousness. It is impossible to say whether black people truly profit from this in the way of self-esteem. They have certainly profited insofar as many are willing to defend a great deal of misinformation. (But many Americans, not just blacks, suffer from this disease, especially right-wing ones who, like Afrocentrists, see history as the revelation of a set of God-ordained, unchanging, and unchallengeable values.) I have always advised my students to read Nieztsche's excellent essay on the uses and abuses of history. I particularly urge black students to do so.
I'M Koo Koo for Coco Puffs!
This is hogwash. The writing of history has always been political. Writing history is not a neutral profession.
Blacks writing ancient history have always been discouraged. They tell African people to write about slavery and the African kingdoms, everything else should be written by Europeans.
African researchers should not limit themselves to these periods of history writing. We must write about ancient history because this situates a people in time and culture.In the U.S. , there are constant demands for Universities to return to teaching the Classics from Greece and Rome. Yet many Black people at University do not even study their history because they feel that all they need is to be credentialed in some field so they can get a job.
Knowing your history will reinvigorate your mind and spirit. Amos Wilson in The Falsification of Afrikan consciousness: Eurocentric history, psychiatry and the politics of white supremacy believes that the African spirit and mind can be healed through the advancement of African centered historiagraphic, social and natural sciences. Wilson wrote"Apparently the rewriting , the distortion and the stealing of our history must serve vital economic, political and social functions for the Europeans or else he would not bother and try so hard to keep our history away from us, and to distort it in our own minds" (p.15).
To Wilson we should see history as psychohistory, since the aim of writing Black people out of history is to destroy any sense of intellectual or social self-esteem for African people. Wilson noted that" In the final analysis, European history's principal function is to first separate us from ourselves and separate us from the reality of the world; to separate us from the reality of our history and to separate us from its ramifications"(p.24).
Wilson maintains that we must study Afrocentric History, because Europeans use history as a way of maintaining white supremacy; and the study of history by Blacks is a threat to the status quo. Some Black people belief that the writing of history is neutral. Writing history is not neutral.
Michael Parenti, in History as Mystery (1999), believes that history is not neutral. In his opinion history is written by the ruling class to solidify their position. He observed that "much written history is an ideologically safe commodity. It might best be called "mainstream history", "orthodox history", "conventional history" and even "ruling-class history" because it presents the dominant perspective of the affluent people who preside over the major institutions of society" (Perenti, p.xi).
Parenti, supports Wilsons' view on the impact of Eurocentrism on education when he noted that "many history and political science programs offered in middle and higher education rest on a Eurocentric bias" (p.xiv). As a result, Parenti argues that we learned a "disinformational history" which represents the views of the ruling class rather than real history (p.10). As a result, Parenti claims that we have "consensus history textbooks" that teaches history from a distorted base.
The comments of Wilson and Parenti make it clear that history is not written from a neutral perspective, it is written by historians who define what history is or is not. This means that due to dozal, the personality and preconceptions of the historians determine how he writes history. As a result, we find that "establishment" historians usually write history which supports the dominant view of the ruling class, which primarily support institutions of higher learning through well funded endowments. The allegiance of a particular historian to a class or "association" means that when the historian identifies, selects and interprets facts, and the framework used to appraise the facts will be guided by the truths accepted by the "association" or social class. This is why Jacques Berlinerblau, in Heresy in the University: The Black Athena controversy and the responsibilities of American intellectuals (1999), observed that "How can a social-scientist, a historian, a literary criticism etc., claim that his or her conclusion are in any way true when it is so abundantly clear that these conclusions are inextricably bound with the social and political contexts in which he or she works and lives?"(p.192).
Since history is written from the perspective of the person writing history, an Afrocentric scholar's work should be respect just as much as the writing of a Eurocentric or "establishment" historian, but this is not the case.
This is why both Eurocentric and so-called Liberal historians will usually agree that Blacks lack any type of ancient history, or association with Egyptian history. They agree, because both groups do not believe that Blacks have a ancient history due to their absorption of "consensus history", that deny any role of blacks in ancient history except as "Ethiopian" or "Nubian" slaves among the Creeks, Romans and Egyptians.
We assume that any article or book written by an establishment member of the academe is best on valid historical truths, erudite scholarship and impeccable research. Although insiders and outsiders alike, sociological research indicates that there are unconscious cognitive structures within each individual hold this view idealistic view of members of the academe that determine how they perceive "reality". These structures are called doxa. Commenting on these schema Berlinerblau (1999) noted that "These types of theories share the assumption that human beings know things that they do not even know that they know; that they "possess" knowledge about the world which exists in some sort of cognitive substrate, beyond the realm of discourse" (p.106).Wacquant (1995) says that doxa is " a realm of implicit and unstated beliefs".
Given the research suggesting that doxa exist, support the view that some researchers allow their hatred of multiculturalism to define their discourse on teaching and writing by Afrocentrists and multiculturalists. Moreover, it suggests that when topics such as Afrocentrism are attacked by members of the academe, these academics are supported by the "establishment" without any reservation or test of the validity of their claims. In fact, it appears that doxic assumptions relating to the invalidity of Afrocentrism obviates critique of the academics that disparage Afrocentrist research. This research is attacked by these scholars without the scholars presenting any counter evidence to falsify the Afrocentric position.
People in Afrocentric studies are serious scholars. They use the same methods that other scientists use, the only difference is that they look at issues from an africalogical perspective. There is nothing wrong in taking such a perspective since all history is written from the personal perspective of the historian writing that history. If your frame of reference for Afrocentric study is based solely on the views of outsiders: Liberals and Eurocentrists you will spend the rest of your life trying to prove that Black people have a history, when Eurocentric and liberal European researchers already know that WE HAVE A HISTORY.
Afrocentrism, is a mature social science that was founded by Afro-Americans almost 200 years ago.
These men and women provided scholarship based on contemporary archaeological and historical research the African/Black origination of civilization throughout the world. These Afro-American scholars, mostly trained at Harvard University (one of the few Universities that admitted Blacks in the 19th Century) provide the scientific basis the global role played by African people in civilizing the world.
Afrocentrism and the africalogical study of ancient Black civilizations was began by Afro-Americans.
Edward Blyden
The foundation of any mature science is its articulation in an authoritive text (Kuhn, 1996, 136). The africalogical textbooks published by Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) provided the vocabulary themes for further afrocentric social science research.
The pedagogy for ancient africalogical research was well established by the end of the 19th century by African American researchers well versed in the classical languages and knowledge of Greek and Latin. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) in the Freedom Journal, were the first African Americans to discuss and explain the "Ancient Model" of history.
These afrocentric social scientists used the classics to prove that the Blacks founded civilization in Egypt, Ethiopia, Babylon and Ninevah. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) made it clear that archaeological research supported the classical, or "Ancient Model" of history.
Edward Blyden (1869) also used classical sources to discuss the ancient history of African people. In his work he not only discussed the evidence for Blacks in West Asia and Egypt, he also discussed the role of Blacks in ancient America (Blyden, 1869, 78).
By 1883, africalogical researchers began to publish book on African American history. G.W. Williams (1883) wrote the first textbook on African American history. In the History of the Negro Race in America, Dr. Williams provided the schema for all future africalogical history text.
Dr. Williams (1883) confirmed the classical traditions for Blacks founding civilization in both Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia) and West Asia. In addition, to confirming the "Ancient Model" of history, Dr. Williams (1883) also mentioned the presence of Blacks in Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. Dr. Williams was trained at Howard.
A decade later R.L. Perry (1893) also presented evidence to confirm the classical traditions of Blacks founding Egypt, Greece and the Mesopotamian civilization. He also provided empirical evidence for the role of Blacks in Phoenicia, thus increasing the scope of the ASAH paradigms.
Pauline E. Hopkins (1905) added further articulation of the ASAH paradigms of the application of these paradigms in understanding the role of Blacks in West Asia and Africa. Hopkins (1905) provided further confirmation of the role of Blacks in Southeast Asia, and expanded the scope of africalogical research to China (1905).
This review of the 19th century africalogical social scientific research indicate confirmation of the "Ancient Model" for the early history of Blacks. We also see a movement away from self-published africalogical research, and publication of research, and the publication of research articles on afrocentric themes, to the publication of textbooks.
It was in these books that the paradigms associated with the "Ancient Model" and ASAH were confirmed, and given reliability by empirical research. It was these texts which provided the pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of the africalogical normal social science.
The afrocentric textbooks of Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) proved the reliability and validity of the ASAH paradigms. The discussion in these text of contemporary scientific research findings proving the existence of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Nubia-Sudan (Kush), Mesopotamia, Palestine and North Africa lent congruency to the classical literature which pointed to the existence of these civilizations and these African origins ( i.e., the children of Ham= Khem =Kush?).
The authors of the africalogical textbooks reported the latest archaeological and anthropological findings. The archaeological findings reported in these textbooks added precision to their analysis of the classical and Old Testament literature. This along with the discovery of artifacts on the ancient sites depicting Black\African people proved that the classical and Old Testament literature, as opposed to the "Aryan Model", objectively identified the Black\African role in ancient history. And finally, these textbooks confirmed that any examination of references in the classical literature to Blacks in Egypt, Kush, Mesopotamia and Greece\Crete exhibited constancy to the evidence recovered from archaeological excavations in the Middle East and the Aegean. They in turn disconfirmed the "Aryan Model", which proved to be a falsification of the authentic history of Blacks in early times.
The creation of africalogical textbooks provided us with a number of facts revealing the nature of the afrocentric ancient history paradigms. They include a discussion of:
1) the artifacts depicting Blacks found at ancient sites
recovered through archaeological excavation;
2) the confirmation of the validity of the classical and Old
Testament references to Blacks as founders of civilization in Africa and Asia;
3) the presence of isolated pockets of Blacks existing outside Africa; and
4) that the contemporary Arab people in modern Egypt are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
The early africalogical textbooks also outlined the africalogical themes research should endeavor to study. A result, of the data collected by the africalogical ancient history research pioneers led to the development of three facts by the end of the 19th century, which needed to be solved by the afrocentric paradigms: (1) What is the exact relationship of ancient Egypt, to Blacks in other parts of Africa;
(2) How and when did Blacks settle America, Asia and Europe;
(3) What are the contributions of the Blacks to the rise, and cultural expression ancient Black\African civilizations;
(4) Did Africans settle parts of America in ancient times.
As you can see the structure of Afrocentrism were made long before Boas and the beginning of the 20th Century.In fact , I would not be surprised if Boas learned what he talked about from the early Afrocentric researchers discussed in this post.
As you can see Afro-Americans have be writing about the Global history of ancient Black civilizations for almost 200 years. It was Afro-Americans who first mentioned the African civilizations of West Africa and the Black roots of Egypt. These Afro-Americans made Africa a historical part of the world.
Afro-American scholars not only highlighted African history they also discussed the African/Black civilizations developed by African people outside Africa over a hundred years before Bernal and Boas.
Your history of what you call "negrocentric" or Black Studies is all wrong. It was DuBois who founded Black/Negro Studies, especially Afro-American studies given his work on the slave trade and sociological and historical studies of Afro-Americans. He mentions in the World and Africa about the Jews and other Europeans who were attempting to take over the field. Hansberry There is no one who can deny the fact that Leo Hansberry founded African studies in the U.S., not the Jews.Hansberry was a professor at Howard University.
Moreover, Bernal did not initiate any second wave of "negro/Blackcentric" study for ancient Egyptian civilization. Credit for this social science push is none other than Chiek Diop, who makes it clear that he was influenced by DuBois.
DuBois
These scholars recognized that the people of ancient Greece, Southeast Asia and Indo-China were dark skined, some darker than African and Afro-American people. But when they discussed Blacks in Asia they were talking about people of African descent.
REFERENCES
Anselin, A. (1982). Le mythe d' Europe. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Bernal, M. (1996, Spring). The Afrocentric interpretation of history: Bernal replies to Lefkowitz. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 86-95.
Bernal,M. (1987). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 1.
________. (1991). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 2.
Blyden, E.W. ( January, 1869). The Negro in ancient history.
Methodist Quarterly Review, 71-93.
Blyden, E.W. (1887). Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
_____________. (1890). The African Problem and the method for
its solution. Washington, D.C.: Gibson Brothers.
_______________.(1905). West Africa before Europe. London:
C.M. Phillips.
Clegg, L.H. (1975). Who were the first Americans? The Black
Scholar, 7(1), 32-41.
Coleman, B.E. (1971). A history of Swahili, The Black Scholar,
2 (6), 13-25.
Cornish, S. & Russwurm, J.B. (1827). European colonies in America, Freedom Journal, 1.
Carruthers, J. (1977). Writing for Eternity, black book bulletin,
5 (2), 32-35.
Carruthers, J. (1980). Reflections on the history of afrocentric
worldview, black book bulletin, 7(1), 4-13, 25.
Delany, M.R. (1978). The origin of races and color. Baltimore, M.D.: Black Classic Press.
Diop,C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. (ed. & Trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company.
_________.(1977). Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et
des Languaes Negro-Africaines. Dakar: IFAN ,Les Nouvelles
Editions Africaines.
__________.(1978) The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press.
__________. (1981). A Methodology for the study of migration.
UNESCO (Ed.), African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, (pp.87-110).
Paris: UNESCO.
___________.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya
Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73.
____________.(1987). Precolonial Black Africa. (trans. ) by
Harold Salemson, Westport: Lawrence Hill & Company.
____________.(1988). Nouvelles recherches sur l'Egyptien ancient
et les langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Presence
Africaine.
_____________(1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology. (trans.) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed.) by
H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company.
Douglas, F. (1966). The claims of the Negro ethnologically considered. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political
thought (pp. 226-244). New York: Basic Books, Inc., Pub.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1924). The Gift of Black Folks. Boston.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1970). The Negro. New York: Oxford University
Press.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1965). The world and Africa. New York :
International Publishers Co., Inc.
Ferris, W.H. (1913). The African abroad. 2 vols. New Haven,CT
:Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor.
Garvey, M. (1966). Who and What is a Negro. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political thought (pp. 560-562).New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.
Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths. Middlesex:Peguin Books
Ltd. 2 volumes.
Hansberry, L.H. (1981). Africa and Africans: As seen by classical
writers (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press.
Hopkins, P.E. (1905). A Primer of Facts pertaining to the early greatness of the african race and the possibility of restoration by its descendants-with epilogue. Cambridge: P.E. Hopkins & Com.
Hume, D. (1875). Essays: Moral political and literary. T.H. Green
and T.H. Grose. 2 Vols. London.
Jackson, J. (1974). Introduction to African civilization.
Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press.
James, G.M. (1954). Stolen legacy. New York: Philosophical Library.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacouperie, Terrien de. (1891). The black heads of Babylonia and ancient China, The Babylonian and Oriental Record, 5 (11), 233-246.
Lawrence, H.G. (1962). African explorers of the New World,
The Crisis, 321-332.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory aand social structure.
Glencoe, Ill. : The Free Press.
Moitt,B. (1989). "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African Diaspora:
Historical Continuity and Socio-Cultural Symbolism".
Presence Africaine, no. 149-150:347-360.
Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization
".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344.
___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.:
Black Classic Press.
Perry, R.L. (1893). The Cushite. Brooklyn: The Literary Union.
Rawlinson, George. (1928).The History of Herodutus. New York
: Tudor.
Schomburg, A.A. (March, 1925).The Negro digs up his past.
Thompson, Jr. A.A. (1975). Pre-Columbian [African] presence
in the Western Hemisphere,Negro History Bulletin, 38 (7), 452-456.
Williams, G.W. (1869). History of the Negro Race in America. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Wimby, D. (1980). The Greco-Roman Tradition concerning Ethiopia and Egypt, black books bulletin, 7(1), 14-19, 25.
Winters, C.A. (1977). The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie B, no. 2 (1977), pp.941-967.
Winters, C.A. (1979). Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilizations, l(1), 80-97.
Winters,C.A. (December 1981/ January 1982). Mexico's Black Heritage. The Black Collegian, 76-84.
Winters, C.A. (1983a). "The Ancient Manding Script". In Blacks
in Science:Ancient and Modern. (ed.) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pp.208-215.
__________. (1983b). "Les Fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete". Afrique Histoire (Dakar), no.8:13-18.
_________. (1983c) "Famous Black Greeks Important in the development of Greek Culture". Return to the Source,2(1):8.
________.(1983d). "Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1, The Founders
of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13.
________. (1984a). "Blacks in Europe before the Europeans".
Return to the Source, 3(1):26-33.
Winters, C.A. (1984b). Blacks in Ancient America, Colorlines, 3(2), 27-28.
Winters, C.A. (1984c). Africans found first American Civilization , African Monitor, l , pp.16-18.
_________.(1985a). "The Indus Valley Writing and related
Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC". India Past and
Present, 2(1):13-19.
__________. (1985b). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians,
Manding and Sumerians". Tamil Civilization,3(1):1-9.
__________. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils",
Journal of Tamil Studies , no.27, pp.65-92.
__________.(1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande.
The Mankind Quarterly,27 (1), 77-96.
_________.(1986b). Dravidian Settlements in Ancient Polynesia.
India Past and Present, 3 (2), 225-241.
__________. (1988). "Common African and Dravidian Place Name
Elements". South Asian Anthropologist, 9(1):33-36.
__________. (1989a). "Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the Genetic
Model". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18(1):98-127.
__________. (1989b). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpola's 'The Coming of the Aryans'",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18(2):98-127.
__________. (1990). "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34(1/2):120-144.
___________. (1991). "The Proto-Sahara". The Dravidian Encyclopaedia, (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume l.
----------.(1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
________.2007. Afrocentrism Myth or Science.www.lulu.com Here
Woodson, C.G. & Wesley, C.H. (1972). The Negro in Our History. Washington, D.C. Associated Publisher.
Get up off your knees and learn from the Afro-American scholars who began the study of Blacks in ancient history.
In conclusion, Afrocentrism is a mature social science. A social science firmly rooted in the scholarship of Afro-American researchers lasting almost 200 years. Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago. All we are doing is confirming research by DuBois and others, that has not been disconfirmed over the past 200 years.
Aluta continua.....The struggle continues.....
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
@ClydeWinters
After seeing you exalt Mike111 for his absolutely inflammatory and racist ideas on HRE Emperors, I am highly suspect of you and your work as there is NOTHING scientific about his work and for you to praise it speaks to absurdity and a complete lack of regard for the scientific methodology.
I am sorry to say there doesn't seem to be much science going on in your work either.
In almost all of your work concerning Olmecs you almost exclusively quote yourself or Leo Wiener's work, which is almost 100 yrs old now and certainly lacked a lot of evidence discovered in recent years.
Even in a rebuttal above there is no one but you backing you up. That's like me saying I made it to the moon in a blimp because I said so in 1970 and I said so in 1984.
In one post you told me : "There is no evidence of Olmec influence further south. The boat issue does nothing to deny an African presence in the Americas or put a hole in this reality. Your speculation on the ability of the rowers lacks any foundation."
This Afrocentric point of view regarding the Olmecs is not a reality nor is it fact. Real science would require independent verification using accepted scientific procedures to come to the same conclusion. As this has NOT happened, your claims are still relegated to the hypothetical.
*As you've just thrown a ton of information at me that I am unfamiliar with as a rationalization for Afrocentrism, I ask that you give me time to familiarize myself and seek other points of view concerning Afrocentrism.*
In the mean time I can only continue offering healthy skepticism and travel on ground that I am familiar with/have knowledge of.
I do not believe that the supposition of rowing (actually paddling would be a better term here) in a boat like this
against the very strong north equatorial current, being well above normal human endurance to sustain realistic progress towards African shores from Mesoamerica lacking in merit.
If it could be done, people would be doing it all the time. I challenge you to find any instances of this trip being made under similar circumstances.
I proposed they might have caught the NECC (North Equatorial Counter Current) back to Africa. There are issues with this as well though. The NECC is not always a surface current, and tends to meander greatly to other cross currents.
Now if we took Heyerdahl's two voyages as a meter (not very scientific but best I got)
Were looking at about 1-2 months travel time from Africa to Mesoamerica.
Imagine the time necessary to go against Gulf currents just to reach the NECC (around 6°N) Mind you these are not vessels designed for deep ocean voyages nor can they sail into the wind easily.(not at all in heavy winds) Tacking is near impossible for this design of ship leaving only "wearing" as a possible manuever
Thus my thought for at least one (if not more) points needed to resupply for the trip back across the Atlantic. This surely would leave some amount of archeological evidence behind, especially if they were trading. (Implies frequent travel over many years)
As you stated there is no known Olmec influence further south.
Why no Olmec influence in any the Caribbean Islands?
So lets continue on the "trade" issue lets start on the other side in Africa.
You say the Mende came from the Green Sahara (I'm guessing from the Sudan Region as stated in their own verbal traditions) and sailed down the ancient Niger or maybe even the Senegalese.
Now there are a host logistical issues to resolve when traversing either river.
First this is a 1000+ mile journey either way you look at it.
With that in mind there is going to be a need to have places dredged, places for repair and resupply, and places just to get people off and on the boat.(You take a trip down a river where land is always in sight and see if people don't stop frequently)
And that's just going down the river. What about trade coming up? What about elevation difference's?(Rapids, waterfalls, etc?) All this would lead to numerous Olmec/Mende outposts and settlements dotting the waterways. Where is the archeological evidence to show this?
I'll have more questions for you later.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmec came from Saharan Africa. They spoke a Mande language. Evidence of this connection comes from the fact:
1) both groups used jade to make their tools.
Um.... don't all people use material for tools that is readily available? If they had to have it imported I'd be impressed. Plus jade is fairly simple to work with.
quote: 2) both groups made large stone heads. Here is an African head dating back to the same period.
other than the fact that these two are heads......they have NOTHING else in common.
The style is worlds apart. I mean one has some serious craftsmanship going on..... the other looks like a 4 yr old hit it with a hammer. (okay that was mean but you get the point)
I find that interesting since they are from the same period and supposedly share the same culture.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 5) Olmec skeletons that are African.
This interesting link says otherwise....and I have to admit, very compelling.
But mister Winters is already aware of this one...just chooses to ignore it.
you'll never convince Clyde on any point, his whole identity and career are invested in this and he wants to believe it. It's a form of religion
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
Well its not so much convincing him as it is learning, which if nothing else I have learned tons in the past few days.
Its also to make sure that's there is enough counter-argument information out there that's easily found.
Otherwise a lot of the absurdity I see/hear would be able to take on an air of credibility, which it's dangerously close to doing anyway.
Well off to see if the Mende and Olmecs every showed differences in fudamental technology. i.e. the wheel, metallurgy, etc...
You would think they would bring that kind of knowledge with them to the new world.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the colossal Olmec heads are very wide and chunky
their head shape looks more similar to Samoans than to Africans
Agreed - however, Samoans are Negroid. If we are going to go by Euronut racial types we are still laking about Negroid peoples. The Samoans, Melanesian, and Australoid people all cluster with Negroid groups. The oid classification isn't a system of genetic relatedness but rather of trait relatedness. The more traits you have in common you will cluster into pools of oids.
So still Negroid.
My point being that oids don't work. Just tells you climate and diet adaptation.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Clyde has well proven that there was contact. He proved it with a picture that clearly shows a Black African, probably from Ife, making contact.
However, it wasn't just Black Africans accidentally showing up on the New World shores.
Posted by RandomInterruption (Member # 19678) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Clyde has well proven that there was contact. He proved it with a picture that clearly shows a Black African, probably from Ife, making contact.
However, it wasn't just Black Africans accidentally showing up on the New World shores.
meh?...please show.....and I hope you mean a painting/relief not a photograph, lol
And from what I understand, still NOT one artifact proven to be from Africa has been found from a controlled archaeological excavation linking pre-colombian mesoamerica to Africa.
Anywho, plz don't assume that all I wish to do is disprove him or that I have a vested interest in disproving Afrocentrism or something, because I don't. I just like good science. Once you've eliminated everything that's impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true. I live by that credo, good science is good skepticism.
Personally if I had a vested interest in this hypothesis I would do everything I could to iron out every piece of it. Could you imagine the the turmoil the academic world would be in if this were proven....hell if it just got to scientific theory status.
Anyway I think Im gonna take a break for a bit....my brain hurts.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Olmec people and other members of ancient Mexico did not look like modern day Mexican Indians. The Olmec were Blacks from Africa. They spoke the Mande language.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Full blooded Indians and Africans do not look alike
Maya and Olmec do not look alike.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 5) Olmec skeletons that are African.
This interesting link says otherwise....and I have to admit, very compelling.
But mister Winters is already aware of this one...just chooses to ignore it.
Rossum (1996) has criticized the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
Secondly, Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian populations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Clyde has well proven that there was contact. He proved it with a picture that clearly shows a Black African, probably from Ife, making contact.
However, it wasn't just Black Africans accidentally showing up on the New World shores.
meh?...please show.....and I hope you mean a painting/relief not a photograph, lol
And from what I understand, still NOT one artifact proven to be from Africa has been found from a controlled archaeological excavation linking pre-colombian mesoamerica to Africa.
The best evidence of Mande influence among the Olmecs from archaeological excavation is the Mande writing found on many Olmec artifacts. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The best example of African writing from an excavation are the La Venta Celts.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Modern Mexicans look like Olmecs and other Blacks because they have mixed with Africans since Slavery. The original Mexicans as represented by the Maya do not look like Olmec people.
.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by RandomInterruption:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Clyde has well proven that there was contact. He proved it with a picture that clearly shows a Black African, probably from Ife, making contact.
However, it wasn't just Black Africans accidentally showing up on the New World shores.
meh?...please show.....and I hope you mean a painting/relief not a photograph, lol
And from what I understand, still NOT one artifact proven to be from Africa has been found from a controlled archaeological excavation linking pre-colombian mesoamerica to Africa.
Anywho, plz don't assume that all I wish to do is disprove him or that I have a vested interest in disproving Afrocentrism or something, because I don't. I just like good science. Once you've eliminated everything that's impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true. I live by that credo, good science is good skepticism.
Personally if I had a vested interest in this hypothesis I would do everything I could to iron out every piece of it. Could you imagine the the turmoil the academic world would be in if this were proven....hell if it just got to scientific theory status.
Anyway I think Im gonna take a break for a bit....my brain hurts.
Well I don't believe Clyde is correct in terms of Olmec civilization having a West African origin. I think contact was made with Black West Africans and actually was of little consequence. In fact the contact I am referring to should have resulted in the spread of metallurgy to the new world but there is no evidence that this cultural technology made it across the Atlantic. There is indication in reliefs showing an African bearing a copper headed spear wearing traditional West African attire but we don't see evidence of this technology being adopted.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^ You have a right to your opinion. I wish you had data to support this conclusion. Until you can support your claim you may want to check out my recent paper on the Olmecs:
of the 17 Colossal Olmec heads, Clyde always uses this particular one to make a point. why is that?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ because it is clearly Negroid.
Posted by madness ensues (Member # 15917) on :
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ because it is clearly Negroid.
Either some Olmecs indigenous to Mexico had Negroid features or they were migrants from Africa. That is what is at issue not whether or not a particulr Olmec head looks "Negoid" No one debates that. Clyde is saying it's impossible for a person purely indigenous to the Americas to have Negroid features.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
would you eat a burrito that had shrimp in it?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ because it is clearly Negroid.
Either some Olmecs indigenous to Mexico had Negroid features or they were migrants from Africa. That is what is at issue not whether or not a particulr Olmec head looks "Negoid" No one debates that. Clyde is saying it's impossible for a person purely indigenous to the Americas to have Negroid features.
Like most Europeans talking about ancient history, you're a liar. I never said there were no indigenous Negroes in Mexico before the Olmecs.
There were already Black African people in Mexico before the Olmec arrived in 1200 BC.
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
Cherla
.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ because it is clearly Negroid.
Either some Olmecs indigenous to Mexico had Negroid features or they were migrants from Africa. That is what is at issue not whether or not a particular Olmec head looks "Negoid" No one debates that. Clyde is saying it's impossible for a person purely indigenous to the Americas to have Negroid features.
Like most Europeans talking about ancient history, you're a liar. I never said there were no indigenous Negroes in Mexico before the Olmecs. There were already Black African people in Mexico before the Olmec arrived in 1200 BC.
Clyde before you call me a liar I didn't say you said there were no indigenous Negroes in Mexico. I said right there in the above quote:
"Clyde is saying it's impossible for a person purely indigenous to the Americas to have Negroid features."
Now you are talking about Mokaya but you are not calling them indigenous you are calling them "Black African people in Mexico".
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago.
How were they African if they were in Mexico? How do know there weren't indigenous Mexicans of different types and one type happened to look African but in fact were not African. We see this type of crossing over of features all over the world. An example I pointed out earlier Samoans also look similar to Olmec heads, they have similar features and they have those very wide chunky heads. Another example, Andaman Islanders, Papua New Guinians, Austrailians. If you say a stone sculpture of an Austrailian you couldn't assume that they were Africans just because they had wide noses and big lips (in some cases) You couldn't assume they hadn't been residing in Austrailia for 60,000 years. Some of these people might get classified as "Negroid" but it doesn't mean they are African.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
Cherla
. [/QB]
you are assuming any person with a wide nose and big lips are African. That is proof enough for you. Then you that you simply ice the cake with coincidental details. Think of two differnent cultures with no connection at all. I bet if you worked hard enough you could find a few things similar. That doesn't mean they did not come up with similar things independantly. Also you look at some photos of mexicans and determine just by looking that some are mixed with Africans. How do you know they aren't mixed with another tribe of Indigenous Mexicans that looked relatively more similar to Africans but weren't African.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^ You have a right to your opinion. I wish you had data to support this conclusion. Until you can support your claim you may want to check out my recent paper on the Olmecs:
The problem I have is that West Africans were already using copper by the time of the Olmecs. It shouldn't have needed to be re-introduced later by what appears to be a Black African from Ife.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^ You have a right to your opinion. I wish you had data to support this conclusion. Until you can support your claim you may want to check out my recent paper on the Olmecs:
The problem I have is that West Africans were already using copper by the time of the Olmecs. It shouldn't have needed to be re-introduced later by what appears to be a Black African from Ife.
I never heard that people from Ife settled ancient America please elaborate.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ I think the above relief is indisputable evidence of Black African contact with Mayans. Clearly the Black African is carrying a staff with a copper head. The Black African is also dressed in apparel very similar to common Ife attire:
Do you have any more information about the relief? The site where I found it is really about nonsense mormonism stuff.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Elongated heads were popular in ancient Africa.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Why is it that Mayans and Olmecs don't look anything alike?
It seems to me that the Olmecs were overrun by an Asian people, the Clover culture.
One reason may be that the Mayan people probably originated in the American Southwest and only recently arrived in Mexico. Years ago I believe I read that the Olmec had spread their influence into North America--but I can't remember the source.
Clearly during Pre-Classic times there were Blacks already in Mexico. These Blacks like the Ocos probably date back to the original settlers.
It is interesting to note that the earliest colonial Olmec people dating after 900 BC looked Polynesian.
This suggest to me that Polynesian or Classical mongoloid people early settled America--even before the Amerindian type.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Why is it that Mayans and Olmecs don't look anything alike?
It seems to me that the Olmecs were overrun by an Asian people, the Clover culture.
One reason may be that the Mayan people probably originated in the American Southwest and only recently arrived in Mexico. Years ago I believe I read that the Olmec had spread their influence into North America--but I can't remember the source.
Clearly during Pre-Classic times there were Blacks already in Mexico. These Blacks like the Ocos probably date back to the original settlers.
It is interesting to note that the earliest colonial Olmec people dating after 900 BC looked Polynesian.
This suggest to me that Polynesian or Classical mongoloid people early settled America--even before the Amerindian type.
Clyde you are contradicting yourself. First you say that blacks were the original settlers, then you turn right around and claim that classical mongoloids were the original settlers. Which one is it?
And keep in mind that the earliest skeletons from South America have been identified and their features match with Africans and Australian aboriginal types.....
So much for your "expert" analysis. The problem is you are using superficial methods of analysis based on outdated "racial" classifications that don't apply in prehistory. All human features the farther you go back in history converge on the African type. Now why is that Clyde? And the sooner you understand that, the better off you will be.
The point being that there are black aboriginal populations with babies that look just like those Olmec sculptures all over Asia and the Pacific and in Australia. So? The first people of the America were of an Aboriginal Asian type which included features again converging on the African type....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Doug I know it takes awhile for you to understand things. There is no contradition in claiming that classical mongoloid arrived in the Americas.
You are ignorant of Olmec archaeology and as a result, you don't seem to understand that Olmec art is organized into periods. The Olmec founded civilization along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC. By 900 BC we see other groups in Mexico adopting olmec culture and civilization. These people are referred to in the archaeological literature as 'Colonial Olmec', because they did not live in the Olmec heartland.
Yes I eyeball groups based on the iconographic evidence to determine their origin, and next look at the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that the Pre-Classic Mexicans were Blacks.
These Blacks were reinforced by Mande speaking people who arrived along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC and founded the Olmec civilization.
The archaeology indicates that between 900-600 BC we see the introduction of classical mongoloids in Mexico who adopt Olmec culture.
. .
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ I see your point. Okay, let me look into this a bit more.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug I know it takes awhile for you to understand things. There is no contradition in claiming that classical mongoloid arrived in the Americas.
You are ignorant of Olmec archaeology and as a result, you don't seem to understand that Olmec art is organized into periods. The Olmec founded civilization along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC. By 900 BC we see other groups in Mexico adopting olmec culture and civilization. These people are referred to in the archaeological literature as 'Colonial Olmec', because they did not live in the Olmec heartland.
Yes I eyeball groups based on the iconographic evidence to determine their origin, and next look at the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that the Pre-Classic Mexicans were Blacks.
These Blacks were reinforced by Mande speaking people who arrived along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC and founded the Olmec civilization.
The archaeology indicates that between 900-600 BC we see the introduction of classical mongoloids in Mexico who adopt Olmec culture.
. .
Clyde we have discussed this many times before. Current scholarship supports the idea of multiple waves of migration to the Americas with the first waves being more African/Asian Aboriginal (black) and the later groups more "Amerindian/Asian" or as you call it more Mongoloid.
The problem with your arguments is that they aren't based on any sort of anthropology but eyeballing statues which is not enough to support such an argument. The point is that modern native Americans descended primarily from Asian migrants, who were extremely diverse, from aboriginal types to pacific islander types and other sorts of Asian types. There is nothing new about this and I really don't see how your theorizing based on statues is really clarifying anything, as the features on those statues are found on populations all over South America, the pacific and into Asia and are not categorized as "mongoloid".
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug I know it takes awhile for you to understand things. There is no contradition in claiming that classical mongoloid arrived in the Americas.
You are ignorant of Olmec archaeology and as a result, you don't seem to understand that Olmec art is organized into periods. The Olmec founded civilization along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC. By 900 BC we see other groups in Mexico adopting olmec culture and civilization. These people are referred to in the archaeological literature as 'Colonial Olmec', because they did not live in the Olmec heartland.
Yes I eyeball groups based on the iconographic evidence to determine their origin, and next look at the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that the Pre-Classic Mexicans were Blacks.
These Blacks were reinforced by Mande speaking people who arrived along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC and founded the Olmec civilization.
The archaeology indicates that between 900-600 BC we see the introduction of classical mongoloids in Mexico who adopt Olmec culture.
. .
Clyde we have discussed this many times before. Current scholarship supports the idea of multiple waves of migration to the Americas with the first waves being more African/Asian Aboriginal (black) and the later groups more "Amerindian/Asian" or as you call it more Mongoloid.
The problem with your arguments is that they aren't based on any sort of anthropology but eyeballing statues which is not enough to support such an argument. The point is that modern native Americans descended primarily from Asian migrants, who were extremely diverse, from aboriginal types to pacific islander types and other sorts of Asian types. There is nothing new about this and I really don't see how your theorizing based on statues is really clarifying anything, as the features on those statues are found on populations all over South America, the pacific and into Asia and are not categorized as "mongoloid".
Doug your reasoning is unsound. Eyeball this statue. Can you tell what nationality he belongs too:
The Answer is simple it is a statue of Martin Luther King who is a "Negro". This is clear by the facial features of Martin. I am sure tha if we examine his skull we would fins it represents the negro type.
Doug you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can look at the physiognomy related to a statue or sculpture and identify the racial type associated with the person represented by that statue or sculpture. The facial features associated with a statue usually corresponds to living populations because it was based on a specific human being.
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.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. This helped him identify a group of people he called Laponoid that corresponds to Pacific Islanders.The Laponoid group represents Pacific Islanders, not the Mongolian type.
This finding makes it clear ‘eyeballing’ scultures can compare favorably to the crania.
References:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug I know it takes awhile for you to understand things. There is no contradition in claiming that classical mongoloid arrived in the Americas.
You are ignorant of Olmec archaeology and as a result, you don't seem to understand that Olmec art is organized into periods. The Olmec founded civilization along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC. By 900 BC we see other groups in Mexico adopting olmec culture and civilization. These people are referred to in the archaeological literature as 'Colonial Olmec', because they did not live in the Olmec heartland.
Yes I eyeball groups based on the iconographic evidence to determine their origin, and next look at the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that the Pre-Classic Mexicans were Blacks.
These Blacks were reinforced by Mande speaking people who arrived along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC and founded the Olmec civilization.
The archaeology indicates that between 900-600 BC we see the introduction of classical mongoloids in Mexico who adopt Olmec culture.
. .
Clyde we have discussed this many times before. Current scholarship supports the idea of multiple waves of migration to the Americas with the first waves being more African/Asian Aboriginal (black) and the later groups more "Amerindian/Asian" or as you call it more Mongoloid.
The problem with your arguments is that they aren't based on any sort of anthropology but eyeballing statues which is not enough to support such an argument. The point is that modern native Americans descended primarily from Asian migrants, who were extremely diverse, from aboriginal types to pacific islander types and other sorts of Asian types. There is nothing new about this and I really don't see how your theorizing based on statues is really clarifying anything, as the features on those statues are found on populations all over South America, the pacific and into Asia and are not categorized as "mongoloid".
Doug your reasoning is unsound. Eyeball this statue. Can you tell what nationality he belongs too:
The Answer is simple it is a statue of Martin Luther King who is a "Negro". This is clear by the facial features of Martin. I am sure tha if we examine his skull we would fins it represents the negro type.
Doug you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can look at the physiognomy related to a statue or sculpture and identify the racial type associated with the person represented by that statue or sculpture. The facial features associated with a statue usually corresponds to living populations because it was based on a specific human being.
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.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. This helped him identify a group of people he called Laponoid that corresponds to Pacific Islanders.The Laponoid group represents Pacific Islanders, not the Mongolian type.
This finding makes it clear ‘eyeballing’ scultures can compare favorably to the crania.
References:
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.
Clyde, you sound absolutely ridiculous. Eyeballing statues is not anthropology. Labels like Negroid and Mongoloid are not terms of anthropology because there are too many variations and distinctions of human features even just in Africa that cannot be put into neat simplistic categories. For example, by eyeballing that statue and calling it Negroid, does it tell you where the individual came from? What if you didn't know it was a statue of MLK from the USA how would you pinpoint the region of origin of the individual? And say if you did tie those features to Africa, what part of Africa? Are there any matches there? What about matches to people in other parts of the world with similar features? How would you distinguish origins without doing detailed cranial analysis of an actual skull of the individual and comparing to other skulls around the world? That is why eyeballing doesn't. Sure, calling features mongoloid and negroid works for 4 year old kids who need things made stupid simple for comprehension, but that is not what you would expect from someone that is supposedly a scholar and scientist......
In fact, even knowing it is MLK doesn't tell you anything about his "roots" in Africa. Now that is for someone we know about in the modern day, let alone for ancient populations in pre-history. But again, your simplifications don't really serve to clarify anything scientifically at all, other than to confuse the issue of who the first people in America were and where they came from. The key being if there were any direct travels to America from Africa as part of this settlement, which you have not yet proven.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Doug, Clyde has invested his whole career in this. If he was to change his opinon to the current amthropology he would lose his uniqineness as the new Van Sertima and place in the afrocentric tradition. Clyde needs something he can call his own. You know his work. maybe there is some other branch of it that is open yet not as problematic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] Clyde, you sound absolutely ridiculous. Eyeballing statues is not anthropology. Labels like Negroid and Mongoloid are not terms of anthropology because there are too many variations and distinctions of human features even just in Africa that cannot be put into neat simplistic categories. For example, by eyeballing that statue and calling it Negroid, does it tell you where the individual came from? What if you didn't know it was a statue of MLK from the USA how would you pinpoint the region of origin of the individual? And say if you did tie those features to Africa, what part of Africa? Are there any matches there? What about matches to people in other parts of the world with similar features? How would you distinguish origins without doing detailed cranial analysis of an actual skull of the individual and comparing to other skulls around the world? That is why eyeballing doesn't. Sure, calling features mongoloid and negroid works for 4 year old kids who need things made stupid simple for comprehension, but that is not what you would expect from someone that is supposedly a scholar and scientist......
LOL. You're funny Doug. You are a misguided layman who knows nothing about what scientists do. If you did you would know that scientist still use racial terms such as negro and caucasoid to identify populations.
quote:
European Journal of Human Genetics 19, 1276-1280 (December 2011) | doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.114 The potential influence of KIR cluster profiles on disease patterns of Canadian Aboriginals and other indigenous peoples of the Americas
Julia D Rempel, Kim Hawkins, Erin Lande and Peter Nickerson
Abstract
Genetic differences in immune regulators influence disease resistance and susceptibility patterns. There are major health discrepancies in immune-mediated diseases between Caucasians and Canadian Aboriginal people, as well as with other indigenous people of the Americas. Environmental factors offer a limited explanation as Aboriginal people also demonstrate a rare resistance to chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) are known modulators of viral responses and autoimmune diseases. The possibility that variation in KIR cluster profiles contribute to the health outcomes of Aboriginal people was evaluated with Canadian Caucasian (n=93, population controls) and Aboriginal (n=86) individuals. Relative to Caucasians, the Aboriginal KIR cluster displayed a greater immune activating phenotype associated with genes of the B haplotype situated within the telomeric region. In conjunction, there was a decrease in the genes of the B haplotype from the centromeric region. Caucasian and Aboriginal cohorts further demonstrated distinct genotype and haplotype relationships enforcing the disconnect between the B haplotype centromeric and telomeric regions within the Aboriginal population. Moreover, Caucasian KIR cluster patterns reflected studies of Caucasians globally, as well as Asians. In contrast, the unique pattern of the Canadian Aboriginal cohort mirrored the phenotype of other indigenous peoples of the Americas, but not that of Caucasians or Asians. Taken together, these data suggest that historically indigenous peoples of the Americas were subject to immune selection processes that could be influencing the current disease resistance and susceptibility patterns of their descendents.
As you can see Doug the author of this study uses the term caucasoid, he is much older than a 4 year old. LOL
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Doug, Clyde has invested his whole career in this. If he was to change his opinon to the current amthropology he would lose his uniqineness as the new Van Sertima and place in the afrocentric tradition. Clyde needs something he can call his own. You know his work. maybe there is some other branch of it that is open yet not as problematic.
You liar. Ivan van Sertima never claimed to be an Afrocentric researcher.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug I know it takes awhile for you to understand things. There is no contradition in claiming that classical mongoloid arrived in the Americas.
You are ignorant of Olmec archaeology and as a result, you don't seem to understand that Olmec art is organized into periods. The Olmec founded civilization along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC. By 900 BC we see other groups in Mexico adopting olmec culture and civilization. These people are referred to in the archaeological literature as 'Colonial Olmec', because they did not live in the Olmec heartland.
Yes I eyeball groups based on the iconographic evidence to determine their origin, and next look at the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that the Pre-Classic Mexicans were Blacks.
These Blacks were reinforced by Mande speaking people who arrived along the Gulf coast in 1200 BC and founded the Olmec civilization.
The archaeology indicates that between 900-600 BC we see the introduction of classical mongoloids in Mexico who adopt Olmec culture.
. .
I am not going to go wih the term "founded" Olmec culture. But I agree that there were waves of migrations that also means different adaptation types that appear recorded in the art work of the Olmec.
Clearly this is not a Mongoloid:
Where as many of the Olmec works show Mongoloid traits. Seems that the traits change too quickly for this to be explained simply by in situ evolution.
Time to stop eye balling. Need to decipher this better.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Doug, Clyde has invested his whole career in this. If he was to change his opinon to the current amthropology he would lose his uniqineness as the new Van Sertima and place in the afrocentric tradition. Clyde needs something he can call his own. You know his work. maybe there is some other branch of it that is open yet not as problematic.
Current anthropology said that the Kennewick man was Caucasoid. Please, there's very few people here who will buy into the so called Mainstream.
We know that the first people in the new world were Black people. Not the Clover people. This has been clearly proven over and over again and the so called Mainstream has been wiping egg off of their pink faces for years.
Posted by MANGO (Member # 19731) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Doug, Clyde has invested his whole career in this. If he was to change his opinon to the current amthropology he would lose his uniqineness as the new Van Sertima and place in the afrocentric tradition. Clyde needs something he can call his own. You know his work. maybe there is some other branch of it that is open yet not as problematic.
Current anthropology said that the Kennewick man was Caucasoid. Please, there's very few people here who will buy into the so called Mainstream.
We know that the first people in the new world were Black people. Not the Clover people. This has been clearly proven over and over again and the so called Mainstream has been wiping egg off of their pink faces for years.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Doug, Clyde has invested his whole career in this. If he was to change his opinon to the current amthropology he would lose his uniqineness as the new Van Sertima and place in the afrocentric tradition. Clyde needs something he can call his own. You know his work. maybe there is some other branch of it that is open yet not as problematic.
You liar. Ivan van Sertima never claimed to be an Afrocentric researcher.
.
Clyde you're getting hostile lately and I have an intelligence report saying you are having trouble at home. I hope it clears up. I said you wanted to be the new Van Sertima AND in addition you wanted a place in the afrocentric tradition. I didn't say van Sertima claimed HE was an afrocentric researcher.
But are you saying Van Sertima never claimed he was an afrocentric. Is he one or not?
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
LOL. Still going with this garbage? So glad I have a real life. Let Clyde spout all his craziness. It lets him feel better about himself and his job at his community college. I saw his wee little office and his house in the ghetto. (Oh sorry the Uthman Dan Fodio Institute).
One thing I realized that was the most powerful. All these arguments are circular, and you guys, pro or con, spend your whole lives on the internet arguing this. It isn't going to change your lives outside the internet. It is why I deleted my youtube account. Not because I was afraid to debate. It is because I enjoyed it too much and lived on the computer much like you do. (Some more than others as there were some on this messageboard that outposted me 5 to 1. They really had no life). See that statue of MLK? I moved to DC and get to enjoy it at least once a week. I don't go wondering if he is an Olmec (LMAO). But I do wonder if he looks down upon us Boondocks style. I wonder what he was thinking when he wrote his, I have a dream speech. If he remembered the German girlfriend he had to let go of, so he could be accepted by his future flock, in his fight for civil rights. Clyde can have his pseudoscientific articles. They only impress his internet followers and have not improved his life outside much. Me, I get to enjoy life out there a lot more now, and think I am living closer to MLK's dream than Clyde ever will. He is a prisoner of his own racism. Thanks for the laughs and old memories. Ciao.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Move it up.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Most Mexicans are Mestizos--mixed bloods.Maybe as many as 75% of Mexicans have African admixture.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Yanomami, also spelled Yąnomamö or Yanomama, are a group of approximately 35,000 indigenous people who live in some 200–250 villages in the Amazon rainforest on the border between Venezuela and Brazil.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Its all done for him behind the keyboard. 
